Quote:
Originally Posted by ATXboom
So the net is we have buildings 20 feet from the lake and no trail. Had this been approved we would have 150 feet clearance from the lake, a trail... and a 2nd 200 foot tower. ?????!
I don't think there is a "presendence" issue either... there was more win than loose in this situation. It does not mean other variance requests would/should pass.
|
I agree this was a win by setting a precedent on the 200 foot rule. 200 feet isn't much and there is a lot of Lake front yet to be developed.
Check the history of the development. The developer has been very brash and is now attempting to make it appear as though they were willing to provide something and the savetownlake organization has screwed it up. The developer originally wanted to pile a mass of hi-rise 80 feet from the water front and played some dirty tricks to try to make it a go. 80 feet is 3 suburban lengths end to end. I don't think a hi-rise would look so great butted up against Town Lake. They would have essentially formed a wall along the lake. The developer continued on with other crap. If they were truly good hearted, they could work a solution by the trail. Don't forget, the waterway is part of the park land. If you take a look over there, there are shadows cast on the lake everyday when the sun hits 3:00 or so. The ducks and turtles all scram from the shadows when this happens. Overall, I think the rebuilding of the apartments will look better than 3 hi-rises crammed along the shoreline. I quit keeping up with what they wanted to do next, but I think it was to build even higher with a 150 primary setback, but they probably wanted to encroach closer than 150 with secondary setbacks knowing the developers history. Anyway, research it yourself and you can see the b.s. that has gone on.