LandArch

The personal contempt for one person-Mosely seems a little short sided and closed minded when we are talking about variances and land use . Ask the young man yesterday who spoke at the Planning Commission meeting who just bought on 5th three weeks ago. So does he not have rights because he lives 3 doors down from Mosely? He doesn't know Mosely. Can we get back on track to the real issue?

Marksmu: This development only has one entrance and one exit. It does not abut a warehouse. You might be referring to the old plat which has two points of access that in near a warehouse.

Not sure where there's a link, it can be viewed in person at city planning office. With only 35' available to access, there isn't room for a sidewalk on the bridge. One of the three variances is asking the bridge to be a PRIVATE extension of a PUBLIC street. Changing to private will eliminate the requirement for pedestrian sidewalks. If Innerloop chooses to enter their property on East 5th Street, they have only 35' of which to do so. City Planning requires a minimum of 28' of paving strip (14' on each side in/out for automobiles) The paving will be 28' and each side of the 100' span bridge will be 3.5' The plan in city planning department showed no sidewalk and Marlene Gafrick acknowledged such. Innerloop can get around this if the variance is granted for a private street. SEMANTICS! Innerloop bought the property knowing fully that they did not own the 70' r.o.w. required on 5th. They bought exactly half the amount, 35' and asked Gary Mosely repeatedly to strike a deal selling him this additional required 35'. He declined. Once again, This is 84 units with inadequate access for an inappropriate development. Scale it down. This isn't appropriate with such limited access. No doubt the developer has every right to build on his land. APPROPRIATELY

You are correct. Best I keep personal emotions out of it. Thank you for good advice. We asked Innerloop to scale down the project eight years ago when they originally asked for variances to build 62 units. They said financially that wasn't possible, afterall they are a multi-family developer. After finding that required variances proved difficult, they withdrew their application and sought access from Frasier and Granberry Streets. This new plat required no variances and was approved. Innerloop did not build within the time allowed, the approved Frasier and Granberry plat expired. Innerloop sought the same route again and found a well prepared group of neighbors in strong opposition. Next, Innerloop withdraws that access and tries again for 5th. So do they go to the side of least resistance? Seems so. East 5th has only 6 homes. The solution for everyone here is to scale down. Neither point of access can handle 84 units safely. Local developers passed on this land multiple times because of difficult access. Why cram 84 units in a flood prone 1.3 acres with limited access? East 5th only has 35'. Why won't they build a cul-de sac you ask? Because it won't fit with this number of units. We have Chapter 42 for a reason. Lets live by our rules of our city. Would I ask Innerloop to build 6 single family homes? Yes. Thats a great solution on this piece of property. Are we truly a world class city? Grant variances where they make good common sense and thats a start.

reply to fwki: I can understand your point with Mr. Mosely. Before joining the Innerloop camp I ask you consider the following two points: #1 My nephew lives on East 5th across from Mr. Mosely. He requires a wheelchair. Living on this dead end is ideal. This doesn't necessarily mean the street stays undeveloped because of a boy that requires ADA compliance, that's ludicrous. However wouldn't it be great for a city to enforce its own city planning regulations? This developer is asking for variances out of the normal rules. There will be a 28' bridge with NO SIDEWALKS? East 5th is 18' wide. A fire truck is 12' wide. The Fire Marshall says the chauffers of the ladder trucks need 15' The issue here is why does this developer deserve variance from Chapter 42, not Gary Mosely. #2 There will be new residents in this 9 story condo with 84 units. Do these new residents really understand they are buying a building that asked the city for a variance for no cul-de sac for a fire truck to turn around in? Do these new residents understand they are parking in a flood plain? Do these new residents know that the Fire Marshall prefers two points of access and this development only has one? Gary Mosely is only sensationalism of the media. The real story that doesn't make the news is just how inadequate the access is to such an inappropriate development. I'm not camping with Innerloop, they're scum.

Response to KyleJack: While I'll address neither as "evil" comparisons may find one more inappropriate. Camden: Built without Variances from Chapter 42 of the City Planning Commission 2 Full cul-de sac's with required 60' turning radius for emergency vehicles Contiguous sidewalks and ADA access Parking outside of a flood plain Full requirement of frontage for a commercial project 4 stories tall Access off Interstate 10 Innerloop: 3 Variances required because they dont meet standards of Chapter 42 of the City Planning Commission No cul-de sac for emergency entrance and egress No sidewalk leading to property No wheelchair access over a 100' span bridge. Wheelchairs use street same as cars Parking in a flood plain No required 60' of frontage for a commercial property (They have 35') 9 stories tall Access off an 18' paved street with 6 homes adjoining a historical district. OK, not evil, just inappropriate. Insufficient access to an inappropriate development.

The stuff between 4th and 5th? The faux Tuscan is like adding another themed joyride to the funpark. I suppose it is a great precursor as you drive up to the obtuse new red brick orphanage as you head toward White Oak. The complete remodel on the corner of 5th and Heights is an admirable job of historic renewal of what may well have been a big teardown. They have spent untold thousands remodeling. They also appeared to go to great lengths to save the trees. Could the new owners of "Table in The Heights" restaurant that tore down the historical Ashland House just listen to what the neighborhood wants? They want to preserve their history, not start new from ground up.

We all love SMART development. I'm afraid this isn't it. This development needs to address the limited vehicular access off of 5th Street. There is a proposed bridge or fill in of ravine with culvert. Do we all remember Allison? This tiny street can't handle this traffic, drainage. How do fire trucks get in? Urban Density is great, ON THE RIGHT PROPERTY. This developer is using our lack of zoning to its best fiscal advantage, not in regards to the quality of life of the neighbors. Regarding: (Land for the third project -- ViewPoint at the Heights -- went under contract this week. Before moving forward, innerLoopCondos must complete due diligence on the 1.5-acre tract near East 5th Street and Oxford in the Heights. The wooded land is located along White Oak Bayou, just off Interstate 10 and Studemont. Preliminary plans call for 70 units 1,000 square feet to 2,000 square feet in size, priced from the $130,000s to the $300,000s. ViewPoint's design will differ from the other two midrises because it will reflect the architecture style that's present in the Heights, Conrad says)