1661 Tanglewood: Condominium High-Rise At 1661 Tanglewood Blvd.

[Urbannizer]

https://protecttanglewood.com/updates/

Location

The Watermark Tanglewood (1661 Tanglewood Blvd.)

Watermark Retirement Communities recently mailed a selective announcement to property owners in the area of a proposed 20 story, 62-year and older luxury community along with a marketing survey and invitation to a focus group study. The proposed site is owned by WMJK Ltd. The THA Board is still trying to gather information and understand if any alternative options might be available, such as potentially raising capital for private purchase of the property and converting it to a green space. It appears Watermark is currently in the due diligence and marketing phase for this development. Further communication will be forwarded as facts are obtained. Anyone interested in attending the Planning Seminar/Focus Group on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 may call the market survey company ProMatura at 800-201-1483.

[Highrise Tower]

Current structure, housing the Tanglewood corporation.

 

 

[htownbro]

Let them build it.

[EllenOlenska]

62 year or older or the wait I can't rent this? 

[Urbannizer]

https://protecttanglewoodcom.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/watermark-development-opposition-letter.pdf

[thatguysly]

Boohoo NIMBYs

 

"There are plenty of commercial sites not within an existing prestigious neighborhood and street that would be more accommodating / have adequate parking, etc. for this massive high rise retirement residence."

 

Go eff yourself

Edited May 13, 2019 by thatguysly

[BeerNut]

10 minutes ago, thatguysly said:

Boohoo NIMBYs

 

"There are plenty of commercial sites not within an existing prestigious neighborhood and street that would be more accommodating / have adequate parking, etc. for this massive high rise retirement residence."

 

Go eff yourself

That is some serious elitist bs

[Luminare]

31 minutes ago, thatguysly said:

Boohoo NIMBYs

 

"There are plenty of commercial sites not within an existing prestigious neighborhood and street that would be more accommodating / have adequate parking, etc. for this massive high rise retirement residence."

 

Go eff yourself

 

Come on dude. I don't exactly care for NIMBY's either, but this just sounds childish

 

21 minutes ago, BeerNut said:

That is some serious elitist bs

 

Honestly both the letter and @thatguysly remarks are equally elitist, but just on different ends of the spectrum.

 

Pretty much all the points made in that letter can be thoroughly debunked with precedent, and cold hard facts and not playground insults.

[thatguysly]

9 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

Come on dude. I don't exactly care for NIMBY's either, but this just sounds childish

 

 

Honestly both the letter and @thatguysly remarks are equally elitist, but just on different ends of the spectrum.

 

Pretty much all the points made in that letter can be thoroughly debunked with precedent, and cold hard facts and not playground insults.

 

I get I went too far but NIMBY stuff just wears thin on me. I can't stand those with the haves pushing things on the have nots just because they can afford to lawyer up. They are basically saying the development is fine as long as it isn't in my prestigious neighborhood. If someone was to say hey this development isn't warranted anywhere period, that is one thing. But when it's not here but over there is okay even though it affects that area as much as it would affect us, that is where I have a problem.

[jgriff]

3 minutes ago, thatguysly said:

 

I get I went too far but NIMBY stuff just wears thin on me.

I think you went the right amount of far.

[Luminare]

So I currently have a project that is in THA (Tanglewood Home Association), so as part of our due diligence phase in our project we have all the documents including deed restrictions. From looking into it thus far its pretty expressly clear that the only that the only thing for this plat is single family residence. There two possibilities at play that this even happens. The most likely possibility is the same situation that faced RD for his condo tower on Westheimer where the lot RD is building on was once slated for single family residence and then there was a release of that property at some point to be a business therefore voiding the deed restrictions. I say this because in the reading of the deed restrictions its clear this lot is part of "Tanglewood", but what is currently on the lot is not a single family residence, and is instead of place of business. At some point this lot was released from "Tanglewood" making the restrictions void. The only other option would be that the new property owners are going to try to bargain with "Tanglewood" to 'release' the property from the deed restrictions by trying to come with some kind of middle ground (aka lots of money + green space buffer).

Edited May 13, 2019 by Luminare

[Urbannizer]

Lawsuit already filed, rough rendering at the link as well

 

https://protecttanglewoodcom.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/tha-vs.-wmjk-ltd.-.pdf

 

[thatguysly]

I would like if they just took the old trees and relocated them like The Post Oak development did. 

[Luminare]

This is rich. The residents association is suing the company who built and subdivided the neighborhood in the first place (its successor company), for wanting to convert their own property into what it wants. Basically they are saying that the company which helped create the deed restrictions in the first place is now trying to break their own deed restrictions. This has no chance. The company which holds this property can do whatever they want with it especially if its the one that created the neighborhood in the first place. THA is a non-profit that doesn't hold any property and instead only has power because those that live in tanglewood vest power in the association to help safe guard the communities deed restrictions, but in this instance the company which both created this entire development in the first place, and owns the property in question will in fact be able to develop here. Now I'm not a lawyer. If anyone is, please chime in. Maybe I'm basing this on my own assumptions, but from previous cases such as this, and the fact that a non-profit is trying to tell the actual owners of the property who built the original neighborhood in the first place what to do is a bit ridiculous.

 

EDIT: I don't necessarily fault THA for suing here. If one were to look at this through the lens of geopolitics then this was absolutely necessary to continue to maintain its reputation as safeguarders of the deed restrictions. If they simply let this happen then they would have surrendered that presupposed authority. This has no chance, but they also had no choice. Even if they lose they can at least say that they did their best to try and "defend" the neighborhood and its deed restrictions.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Luminare

[mollusk]

I haven't drilled down to read the entire thing, however, as a general rule all the property owners in a development have to abide by the deed restrictions unless either:  1) they've expired by their own terms, 2) the violation has been waived by non conforming use existing without objection for an extended time,* or 3) the restrictions are amended (using either the mechanism in the restrictions or a supermajority of property owners under statute) to allow the non conforming use.  Being the original developer (or its corporate successor) is irrelevant, unless there's a specific provision in the restrictions exempting the developer.  This is why many subdivisions have one or more "unrestricted reserves" (typically on the perimeter).  The reserves allow uses that don't comply with the general scheme within the boundaries of the reserves. 

 

*Example:  My sister once lived in a late 70s development that required all the houses to be painted in "earth tones."  The HOA eventually decided that if the color could be found on Earth then it was an earth tone, effectively knocking that provision out, and people could add blues and greens to their palettes without fear. 

[Luminare]

3 minutes ago, mollusk said:

I haven't drilled down to read the entire thing, however, as a general rule all the property owners in a development have to abide by the deed restrictions unless either:  1) they've expired by their own terms, 2) the violation has been waived by non conforming use existing without objection for an extended time,* or 3) the restrictions are amended (using either the mechanism in the restrictions or a supermajority of property owners under statute) to allow the non conforming use.  Being the original developer (or its corporate successor) is irrelevant, unless there's a specific provision in the restrictions exempting the developer.  This is why many subdivisions have one or more "unrestricted reserves" (typically on the perimeter).  The reserves allow uses that don't comply with the general scheme within the boundaries of the reserves. 

 

*Example:  My sister once lived in a late 70s development that required all the houses to be painted in "earth tones."  The HOA eventually decided that if the color could be found on Earth then it was an earth tone, effectively knocking that provision out, and people could add blues and greens to their palettes without fear. 

 

Much appreciated. I'm guessing that all these apply to this situation which is why they are even considering a large development here. Again at this point the suit is merely a gesture or posturing by THA. Your example though was quite amusing to read haha.

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

This is rich. The residents association is suing the company who built and subdivided the neighborhood in the first place (its successor company), for wanting to convert their own property into what it wants. Basically they are saying that the company which helped create the deed restrictions in the first place is now trying to break their own deed restrictions. This has no chance. The company which holds this property can do whatever they want with it especially if its the one that created the neighborhood in the first place. THA is a non-profit that doesn't hold any property and instead only has power because those that live in tanglewood vest power in the association to help safe guard the communities deed restrictions, but in this instance the company which both created this entire development in the first place, and owns the property in question will in fact be able to develop here. Now I'm not a lawyer. If anyone is, please chime in. Maybe I'm basing this on my own assumptions, but from previous cases such as this, and the fact that a non-profit is trying to tell the actual owners of the property who built the original neighborhood in the first place what to do is a bit ridiculous.

 

EDIT: I don't necessarily fault THA for suing here. If one were to look at this through the lens of geopolitics then this was absolutely necessary to continue to maintain its reputation as safeguarders of the deed restrictions. If they simply let this happen then they would have surrendered that presupposed authority. This has no chance, but they also had no choice. Even if they lose they can at least say that they did their best to try and "defend" the neighborhood and its deed restrictions.

 

Why would you think the deed restrictions do not apply to this property?  Your emphasis on the fact that this company is the successor to the company that developed Tanglewood is misplaced. That does not give them any extra rights.  Further, I don't see any reason to think this is just posturing or a gesture on the part of the THA. I'd be surprised if they don't win.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Houston19514

[thatguysly]

I would have to think the company was smart enough to know what they could develop before going this far ahead with design but then again it is amazing at what gets ignored or looked over in development.

[mollusk]

3 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

Much appreciated. I'm guessing that all these apply to this situation which is why they are even considering a large development here. Again at this point the suit is merely a gesture or posturing by THA. Your example though was quite amusing to read haha.

 

OK, challenge accepted - I've now read the petition at the link Urb posted earlier today in this thread.  I haven't dug up the restrictions themselves, nor do I intend to; however, it's a Really Bad Idea to misrepresent the contents of recorded documents in a lawsuit filing so I'm going to accept the quotes and representations about them in the petition at face value.

 

I think the suit has merit.  IDK about being able to exclude all "commercial use" since the lot in question has been used as a business office (albeit for the developer) for decades, but the architectural control and lot division provisions (with which the Tanglewood office appears to comply) probably still govern; hence, no 20 story building or condo.

 

Edit:  Two other reasons to have a lawsuit such as this one.  First, deed restrictions are a "use it or lose it" tool, so the HOA kinda has to file suit to maintain its pattern of enforcement (which is substantially more than just posturing).  Second, if the restrictions are ambiguous, this type of suit ought to clear up the ambiguity (which is one of the things this suit asks for).

Edited May 20, 2019 by mollusk

[Urbannizer]

Looks like they've acknowledge The Hawthrone is too far along in the development phase so they're putting all their resources into trying to stop this one. Updated home page now says 22-stories - anyone know if bats actually live on the property?

 

 

[KinkaidAlum]

I was born on Candlewood right off of Tanglewood Blvd. I didn't read the deed restrictions as a kid but I'd be very surprised if the deed restrictions haven't been ignored over the years. I remember people being pissed when the first two story house was built but now the monster mcmansions are everywhere and there are very identifiable third stories "hiding" as gables or pitched roofs. I get that this will be much taller and multi-family but just saying. Today's Tanglewood looks NOTHING like the original version.

[Houston19514]

4 hours ago, Urbannizer said:

Looks like they've acknowledge The Hawthrone is too far along in the development phase so they're putting all their resources into trying to stop this one. Updated home page now says 22-stories - anyone know if bats actually live on the property?

 

2

 

Do you really think they just weren't paying attention and The Hawthorne slipped under radar?  🤣    There is little doubt that the site of The Hawthorne is not covered by the Tanglewood deed restrictions.

[EllenOlenska]

4 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

I was born on Candlewood right off of Tanglewood Blvd. I didn't read the deed restrictions as a kid but I'd be very surprised if the deed restrictions haven't been ignored over the years. I remember people being pissed when the first two story house was built but now the monster mcmansions are everywhere and there are very identifiable third stories "hiding" as gables or pitched roofs. I get that this will be much taller and multi-family but just saying. Today's Tanglewood looks NOTHING like the original version.

Kindkaid with the historicizing! 

[SMU1213]

You would think the neighboring properties would be able to kill this by refusing to sign a crane swing easement or a tie back agreement if they really wanted to. 

 

Having said that, that letter is a joke and will do nothing to sway the developer from constructing on this site if the deal makes sense financially/legally. 

Edited May 21, 2019 by SMU1213

[mollusk]

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Do you really think they just weren't paying attention and The Hawthorne slipped under radar?  🤣    There is little doubt that the site of The Hawthorne is not covered by the Tanglewood deed restrictions.

 

The Hawthorne isn't in Tanglewood - it's in a reserve of Briarcroft according to HCAD.

Edited May 21, 2019 by mollusk

[mollusk]

34 minutes ago, SMU1213 said:

You would think the neighboring properties would be able to kill this by refusing to sign a crane swing easement or a tie back agreement if they really wanted to. 

 

Having said that, that letter is a joke and will do nothing to sway the developer from constructing on this site if the deal makes sense financially/legally. 

 

I've seen more persuasive letters.  The lawsuit does a much better job of laying out the issues that matter.

[Houston19514]

4 hours ago, SMU1213 said:

You would think the neighboring properties would be able to kill this by refusing to sign a crane swing easement or a tie back agreement if they really wanted to. 

 

Having said that, that letter is a joke and will do nothing to sway the developer from constructing on this site if the deal makes sense financially/legally. 

 

Yeah, the letter was pretty lame and not worth our attention (and of course no one is relying on the letter to sway the developer; they have the lawsuit to do that).  What is the source of that letter anyway?  It looks like it was written by an individual resident.

9 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

I was born on Candlewood right off of Tanglewood Blvd. I didn't read the deed restrictions as a kid but I'd be very surprised if the deed restrictions haven't been ignored over the years. I remember people being pissed when the first two story house was built but now the monster mcmansions are everywhere and there are very identifiable third stories "hiding" as gables or pitched roofs. I get that this will be much taller and multi-family but just saying. Today's Tanglewood looks NOTHING like the original version.

 

The deed restrictions do not require Tanglewood look like the original version.  Tanglewood has been pretty vigorous in enforcing their deed restrictions. They have certainly not been widely ignored.

[KinkaidAlum]

I don't know, the original deed restrictions had this rule "no part of the property should be conveyed to, owned by, or leased to, used or occupied by any person other than of the White or Caucasian race, except that owner's servants..."

 

That was amended in 2002. TWO THOUSAND AND TWO. So, luckily, changes can happen.

 

 

[Urbannizer]

https://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Canyon-Ranch-and-Hines-associated-with-proposed-13935645.php#item-85307-tbla-5

 

A proposed high-rise that sparked a lawsuit last month from homeowners in the Tanglewood neighborhood would be a luxury tower for residents aged 62 and up and include amenities associated with Canyon Ranch, the well-known health and wellness resort with properties in Arizona, Massachusetts and Las Vegas.

 

Tuscon-based Watermark Retirement Communities is planning the development, according to a letter included with the survey, but it also appears that Houston-based Hines is involved. The letter, which is signed by Watermark Chairman David Freshwater and the Canyon Ranch Chief Executive Susan Docherty, is also signed by Ryan Pritchard, a director with the Hines real estate firm.

 

Houston-based Hines declined to comment, and a Watermark spokesperson said the company didn't have information to share "at this early stage." Fort Worth-based Canyon Ranch could not be reached immediately. Officials with the company have discussed plans to enter the senior living industry.

 

The plan for the tower includes 230 one- and two-bedroom apartments for independent and assisted living, as well as memory care suites, according to the survey.

 

The apartments would range from 850 to 1,550 square feet, and monthly fees would be between $6,000 to $10,500, including rent, utilities, maintenance, dining, housekeeping, events and the use of all Canyon Ranch amenities.

 

Tanglewood Homes Association Inc. sued the owners of 1661 Tanglewood Blvd., the property it says will house the tower, asking the court to prohibit a high-rise from being developed on the site based on restrictive covenants.

 

The owners of the property — descendants of Tanglewood's original developer — are planning to sell their land or partner with a developer to build the project at the northeast corner of San Felipe and Tanglewood Boulevard, according to the lawsuit filed in May in state District Court.

[Urbannizer]

An update will likely be provided here.