Jump to content

EMES Place- Inner Loop Condos Development On Frasier St.


Heightsite

Recommended Posts

Screw Mosley. 10 years ago HE was the developer that the City chose over the landowners...more than likely the same people now sticking up for him. As far as fair application of the rules goes, those rules do not allow the City to prohibit a landowner to develop his property. If the City were to refuse the variance, it would find itself in a lawsuit, or more likely, going back to the Frazier Street entrance.

Those rules do prohibit landowners from developing their property, or have you not seen those Priuses handing out tags. The city doesn't take violating their rules lightly, so why argue that they should lightly waive their rules whenever someone asks them to? If I wanted to build a foot closer than required to my neighbor, imagine how far my variance request would go. I don't generate tax revenue, so they'd laugh my request right into the trash bin. But throw potential revenue their way and inconveniencing citizens becomes a very acceptable loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it does end at his actual 615-0015 line but he is squatting onto the 70' RoR shown on HCAD. So in practice his lawn goes well into the RoR. He bought the parcel to the east of his front lawn blocking the City RoR from being naturally extended and protecting his squatters rights in front of the actual 615-0015 and blocking another's real property rights.

So everyone that owns land behind a dead end is "squatting"? Why didn't they plat out a ROW then? Probably because they didn't see a need for it. Don't blame landowners for city lack of foresightedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats the compelling reason to grant it? Property taxes? Is that enough to justify? Is that always enough to justify it?

Because the United States and Texas Constitutions protect a landowner's rights to develop his property. I understand that some people do not put much faith in the Constitution, but it has served us well. There must be a valid legal reason to infringe upon those rights, and adding 100 cars to a deserted PUBLIC street is not enough. If hypocrite Mosley owned the road, he might have an argument. He doesn't, so he doesn't. And, if he did, the City would be required to then grant access to the property from Frazier Street.

Pick your poison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the United States and Texas Constitutions protect a landowner's rights to develop his property. I understand that some people do not put much faith in the Constitution, but it has served us well. There must be a valid legal reason to infringe upon those rights, and adding 100 cars to a deserted PUBLIC street is not enough. If hypocrite Mosley owned the road, he might have an argument. He doesn't, so he doesn't. And, if he did, the City would be required to then grant access to the property from Frazier Street.

Pick your poison.

If they can meet the code requirements by utilizing Frazier St., that seems to be the obvious choice. And hypocrite Mosley owns enough of the edge of the dead end that means the city has to choose between meeting the code by eminent domaining his property, granting a variance that may cause problems with access, or denying the permit for the work. It sounds like the developer has other options (that while they're meeting more citizen opposition, they have a better case for the Frazier st. option) so I imagine this will continue to ping pong back and forth. The city should just follow the guidelines they created and have developer plan accordingly. I think the best solution to this wold be for the developer to utilize both roads for entry points and thus reduce the impact on traffic to either direction, but I imagine they don't want to put up with that cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So everyone that owns land behind a dead end is "squatting"? Why didn't they plat out a ROW then? Probably because they didn't see a need for it. Don't blame landowners for city lack of foresightedness.

Not at all. 5th Street is 18' wide we are told, but the city owns 70'. That leaves 52' of city land that the city can uses to expand the street, sidewalks and utlities. Until it is used by the city, squatters use the land at their own risk. This development will require the city (or a contractor on its behalf) to use much of that right of way as it was intended by expanding the street and adding sidewalks. Bye bye squatters and your free land. Mosely no doubt wants to keep his free land owned by the city in front of his house....stopping the development from using 5th street will accomplish that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. 5th Street is 18' wide we are told, but the city owns 70'. That leaves 52' of city land that the city can uses to expand the street, sidewalks and utlities. Until it is used by the city, squatters use the land at their own risk. This development will require the city (or a contractor on its behalf) to use much of that right of way as it was intended by expanding the street and adding sidewalks. Bye bye squatters and your free land. Mosely no doubt wants to keep his free land owned by the city in front of his house....stopping the development from using 5th street will accomplish that.

You're confusing the issue. I'm not debating the existing easment. I'm saying the city didn't call for an easement past the dead-end in the plat (see HCAD). There is no indication that the city plans to extend 5th street beyond (otherwise the easment would exist). So its not squatting nor is it free land. If they widened the road to 70 feet, they would still not have the easement beyond the dead end without emininent domaining the land. You make it sound like we're all just sitting on city land and should expect to be bulldozed if we're anywhere near a potential road pathway. No, the city has to use certain steps to acquire the land before they can just come and do what they want with my land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. 5th Street is 18' wide we are told, but the city owns 70'. That leaves 52' of city land that the city can uses to expand the street, sidewalks and utlities. Until it is used by the city, squatters use the land at their own risk. This development will require the city (or a contractor on its behalf) to use much of that right of way as it was intended by expanding the street and adding sidewalks. Bye bye squatters and your free land. Mosely no doubt wants to keep his free land owned by the city in front of his house....stopping the development from using 5th street will accomplish that.

Mosely is not squatting the land...he owns it. The ROW ends before his property, its shown on the plat map....I agree with you that most people believe they own their front yards in the Heights, but few realize that the ROW owns everything up to the sidewalks. If the city expanded my street I would lose 60% of my green space - which is my yard in the right of way. But Mosely does not appear to be squatting - he owns it.

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?

Of course he has rights - but he does not have a right to dictate what gets built on property he does not own. Nor does he have the right to expect that a street he bought on will not have increased traffic, or different traffic patterns. If the City wanted to make 5th street 4 lanes wide and use their whole 70' ROW he would NOT have a right to object to that. He can complain about it - but just because he owns property that is going to have an increase (however negligible) in traffic, does not mean that he has the right to stop the traffic from coming.

If TXDOT wants to reroute the feeder down OXFORD for 3 years they can do that too and he cant stop it.....so I guess the real answer is that the young man who spoke yesterday does NOT have any rights at all when it comes to the traffic and what is built around him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Tell the moron who bought on 5th Street three weeks ago to call me so that I can explain that this issue has been going on for months, and ask why he was so stupid. I'd also like to ask him how this affects him. An extra 100 cars a day on his street? So what. I have close to 1000 on mine. Can I ban you and he from driving on my street? Seriously, we are talking about increasing traffic in front of his house from one car per hour to 5 cars per hour. Oh the humanity!

Look, pissy little complaints do not rise to the level of allowing government to deny a property owner use of his property. I am continually stunned that people believe that their pissy complaints entitle them to condemn the use of land by others. The landowner is not proposing a landfill. He is proposing a condo that shares a property line with a large apartment complex. All the variance request concerns is placing a private driveway at the end of a deadend street.

The narcissism of some of my neighbors astounds me.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell the moron who bought on 5th Street three weeks ago to call me so that I can explain that this issue has been going on for months, and ask why he was so stupid. I'd also like to ask him how this affects him. An extra 100 cars a day on his street? So what. I have close to 1000 on mine. Can I ban you and he from driving on my street? Seriously, we are talking about increasing traffic in front of his house from one car per hour to 5 cars per hour. Oh the humanity!

Look, pissy little complaints do not rise to the level of allowing government to deny a property owner use of his property. I am continually stunned that people believe that their pissy complaints entitle them to condemn the use of land by others. The landowner is not proposing a landfill. He is proposing a condo that shares a property line with a large apartment complex. All the variance request concerns is placing a private driveway at the end of a deadend street.

The narcissism of some of my neighbors astounds me.

Very astutely stated!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mosely is not squatting the land...he owns it. The ROW ends before his property, its shown on the plat map....I agree with you that most people believe they own their front yards in the Heights, but few realize that the ROW owns everything up to the sidewalks. If the city expanded my street I would lose 60% of my green space - which is my yard in the right of way. But Mosely does not appear to be squatting - he owns it.

Yes we all have about 10 feet of city RoW, but I just drove on 5th and the amount of City-owned land between these houses and after the 18' street is much more. You cannot tell where his house sits on the plat map, but my guess is no more than ten feet from his front property line....almost porch to porch across the street for the full 70' so this could get real ugly.

Of course he has rights - but he does not have a right to dictate what gets built on property he does not own. Nor does he have the right to expect that a street he bought on will not have increased traffic, or different traffic patterns. If the City wanted to make 5th street 4 lanes wide and use their whole 70' ROW he would NOT have a right to object to that.

EXACTLY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're confusing the issue. I'm not debating the existing easment. I'm saying the city didn't call for an easement past the dead-end in the plat (see HCAD). There is no indication that the city plans to extend 5th street beyond (otherwise the easment would exist). So its not squatting nor is it free land. If they widened the road to 70 feet, they would still not have the easement beyond the dead end without emininent domaining the land. You make it sound like we're all just sitting on city land and should expect to be bulldozed if we're anywhere near a potential road pathway. No, the city has to use certain steps to acquire the land before they can just come and do what they want with my land.

Yes, we are talking cross-purposes. I agree they can't extend 5th street to the east and he owns that land. But your front yards are almost entirely on City land. I am estimating that from porch to porch across 5th street may be about 80 feet of which the city owns 70. Check it out, maybe my eyes are fooling me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And rerouting and adding another crossing to the bike trail. I agree with you, though.

Actually, I believe Planning did not want to allow an entrance acroos the bike trail, necessitating asking for the variance on 5th. This is really a fight between competing NIMBYs...the ones on Frazier and the ones on 5th. The City...and the NIMBYs...cannot prevent access to the property, so one of the variances muct be granted. It is simply a matter of which NIMBYs will lose.

I kinda enjoy watching this. We'll see who has more NIMBY power!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we are talking cross-purposes. I agree they can't extend 5th street to the east and he owns that land. But your front yards are almost entirely on City land. I am estimating that from porch to porch across 5th street may be about 80 feet of which the city owns 70. Check it out, maybe my eyes are fooling me.

No doubt, but the land that really matters is the 32 feet of frontage beyond the dead end. The real solution would be a fair price to mosely for it, but of course he doesn't want the development at all, so its unlikely to happen. The alternate solution is for the developer to scale back his development so he can accomodate the require code requirements within his property or find another entrance. He doesn't want to do that, so we're at an impasse of two groups attempting to get the city to give them each their way. I have very little sympathy for Mosley not wanting this development at all, but also I don't have any for the developer that simply wants the city to give him the variances simply because he doesn't want to accomodate the code. That's about all I have left to say. They're both right and they're both wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I believe Planning did not want to allow an entrance acroos the bike trail, necessitating asking for the variance on 5th. This is really a fight between competing NIMBYs...the ones on Frazier and the ones on 5th. The City...and the NIMBYs...cannot prevent access to the property, so one of the variances muct be granted. It is simply a matter of which NIMBYs will lose.

I kinda enjoy watching this. We'll see who has more NIMBY power!

Don't forget that the developer could accomodate the code if his plans were scaled back, so its a battle between two NIMBY's and a stubborn developer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that the developer could accomodate the code if his plans were scaled back, so its a battle between two NIMBY's and a stubborn developer.

I think its more a story of two NIMBYS and a developer attempting to make the highest and best use of his property....

It really is a good location for a project like this....It is hard to fathom a more appropriate location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that the developer could accomodate the code if his plans were scaled back, so its a battle between two NIMBY's and a stubborn developer.

Yes, he could scale back and fit a cul-de-sac on his land and perhaps profit enough to move ahead, but the devloper has represented that it is not about economics, it is go or no-go with this minimum scale. And that one dude from Woodland Heights at the meeting blew it when he gave the "history" saying that no other developer could make it work economically which supports what the current developer is saying: 84 units or nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I believe Planning did not want to allow an entrance acroos the bike trail, necessitating asking for the variance on 5th. This is really a fight between competing NIMBYs...the ones on Frazier and the ones on 5th. The City...and the NIMBYs...cannot prevent access to the property, so one of the variances muct be granted. It is simply a matter of which NIMBYs will lose.

I kinda enjoy watching this. We'll see who has more NIMBY power!

I wish they would do access from both 5th, and Frazier just so both NIMBYs would lose. = ]

Apparently Mayor Parker was heard saying this was a bad site for this project... I bet that was just to make the residents think that she is on there side though, because nobody could ever look at this and honestly say it was a bad site (unless their views are heavily distorted with their own personal wants)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish they would do access from both 5th, and Frazier just so both NIMBYs would lose. = ]

Apparently Mayor Parker was heard saying this was a bad site for this project... I bet that was just to make the residents think that she is on there side though, because nobody could ever look at this and honestly say it was a bad site (unless their views are heavily distorted with their own personal wants)

Actually, a one way street that runs from 5th to Frazier would be perfect. Then they could put in a sidewalk for s3mh's cripples that he is always talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they aren't. Please do not misuse 'literally'.

Yes they are. There are nine single family homes on Wroxton that will have the Ashby Highrise built right on the property line in their back yard. Not across the street. Only in Houston would people think this was an acceptable land use decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they are. There are nine single family homes on Wroxton that will have the Ashby Highrise built right on the property line in their back yard. Not across the street. Only in Houston would people think this was an acceptable land use decision.

The property line signifies the end of their yard. Everything beyond the property line is not their yard. That's someone else's yard/lot/parcel.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they are. There are nine single family homes on Wroxton that will have the Ashby Highrise built right on the property line in their back yard. Not across the street. Only in Houston would people think this was an acceptable land use decision.

Your property rights and yard don't extend passed the property line... despite how much you want them too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they are. There are nine single family homes on Wroxton that will have the Ashby Highrise built right on the property line in their back yard. Not across the street. Only in Houston would people think this was an acceptable land use decision.

For your reference: -

literally

   [lit-er-uh-lee]

adverb

1. in the literal or strict sense:

2. in a literal manner;

3. actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy:

4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, pissy little complaints do not rise to the level of allowing government to deny a property owner use of his property. I am continually stunned that people believe that their pissy complaints entitle them to condemn the use of land by others. The landowner is not proposing a landfill. He is proposing a condo that shares a property line with a large apartment complex. All the variance request concerns is placing a private driveway at the end of a deadend street.

The narcissism of some of my neighbors astounds me.

What would be wrong about building a landfill on the site? A landfill would eventually provide a nice distinction for abutting properties. There aren't too many hills in Houston. It could be turned into a green park and called Mount Houston once its usefulness as a landfill expired, providing great 360 degree views of the CBD, Uptown, Heights, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be wrong about building a landfill on the site? A landfill would eventually provide a nice distinction for abutting properties. There aren't too many hills in Houston. It could be turned into a green park and called Mount Houston once its usefulness as a landfill expired, providing great 360 degree views of the CBD, Uptown, Heights, etc.

As long as they provided sidewalks for those in wheelchairs, and the only refuse was organic, non-GMO foods and recycleable cardboard from Apple purchases, I don't suppose that a landfill would offend anyone in the Heights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be wrong about building a landfill on the site? A landfill would eventually provide a nice distinction for abutting properties. There aren't too many hills in Houston. It could be turned into a green park and called Mount Houston once its usefulness as a landfill expired, providing great 360 degree views of the CBD, Uptown, Heights, etc.

It's a shame the name Mount Trashmore is already in use out in Virginia Beach for their landfill reuse project, maybe they won't mind Houston using Mount Trashmore 2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes we all have about 10 feet of city RoW, but I just drove on 5th and the amount of City-owned land between these houses and after the 18' street is much more. You cannot tell where his house sits on the plat map, but my guess is no more than ten feet from his front property line....almost porch to porch across the street for the full 70' so this could get real ugly.

Looking at street view, I'm guessing the easement goes up to the line where the fences are on either side of the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at street view, I'm guessing the easement goes up to the line where the fences are on either side of the street.

I don't know...LandArch says the street is 18', so three-streets width is only 54' and on streetview it looks no more than 3 streets width between fences, to me anyway.

Edited by fwki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

If they ain't afraid of your stick, you better use the carrot.

Exactly.....want to force them into a cul-de-sac? Now they get to pay for it by adding five floors, each unit with 3 vehicles, with residents on shift work 24/7 who will need the ENTIRE 5th street RoW to commute.....hope you like the new fire hydrant on your porch. When will people learn it is far better to play ball with these guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll file this under "Lessons Not Learned From The Walmart Fiasco".

Its comical how Responsible Urban Development is even mentioned as opposition, as if that mattered at all. RUDE is nothing more than a hack group of NIMBY anti-Walmart nobodies….They carry about as much clout in Houston as stray cats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planning kicked the can down the road (pun intended). The City still has concerns about the road access, but isn't making an issue out of it in the plat. I guess which ever department that permits roads and makes sure there is enough room for fire trucks will be the one to deal with that issue. I am not sure how they got around the 60' ROW requirement that they previously sought a variance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

just called them. This is going to be single family homes accessible from E 5th street. 10 lots, some of which will be larger because they will count some of the flood land that cant be built on as yards.

 

A completely different development. the Condo is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to EMES Place- Inner Loop Condos Development On Frasier St.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...