Lost_In_Translatio

Yes Fortune. In what used to be the old Saturn lot.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Variance Requests are part of the guidelines... There is no logical reason to block this development. Mosley is one of the 8 people who will be minorly inconveinenced. I'm sure that if this development required NO variance, he would still be complaining. The fact that he even has traffic as an issue on his silly pink laminiated posters plastered all over onion creek, shows how much of a nimby hippocrite he truly is. Onion Creek is my spot too, I go there pretty much EVERY Friday, but his actions recently have made me want to find an alternative place. (he fired his best two bartenders for rediculous reasons, and the scene is much more d-bag centric than the previous eccentrics and hipster neighborhood bar).

Doesn't he also own Cedar Creek, the Shady Acres traffic nightmare that a handful of the neighbors hate?

There is no logical reason to block this development, other than the reasons required in the variance requests (assuring adequate ingress/egress, emergency vehicle access, etc). In any case, if it passes, its the city's call and the courts can decide any lawsuit. The company should not complain if the city denies its request, but Mosely probably doesn't have much of a case if they approve it. In any case, it doesn't affect me, so I guess why should I care.

They are not trying to violate ordinances. They are trying to get a variance. There is a difference.

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

If you look at the plat map he is not squatting it...he owns it somehow...most likely b/c the city did not foresee its need to maintain 70' with nothing behind it...but your right...the city should use its power of imminent domain and widen the road for the public so that the road can be safe...as it is now a firetruck would have to BACK UP...no chance it could even turn around there...think of the danger! Somebody please think of the children!

The upside to increasing the safety and building a culvis sack is that no more variance is needed....everyone wins! The kids no longer have to fear that a fire truck wont be able to access their house and as a bonus the developer no longer needs a variance for a fire truck turnaround!

Of course the city would have to pay for that piece of land and endure outrage from Mr. Mosley. Depends on what sort of headache they want for choosing a developer over a land owner. It would solve the variance issue. Anyway, whatever the decision, it really needs to be a fair application of the rules and not preferential to one party over another.

Lost_in_T, look at the aerial in the agenda and look at HCAD map of the RoR. If they took the entire 70 feet, Mosely would have a fire hydrant on his porch.

On HCAD, the city shows its 70' ROW ending before 615-0015. I'll grant you they could condemn his front yard and go through, but right now they don't show themselves to be in possession of that parcel.

If we were asking the city to require you to bulldoze 8 houses I would have a problem....but were not asking that...were asking the city to allow the development to forego a freaking culve sac at the end of a dead end street....

The 8 houses ONLY impact will be more traffic. The city is free to add/widen streets as they see fit...there is no reason that 200 cars a day cant pass by that intersection...its more traffic for 8 people, but there is no physical intrusion.

The rules are guidelines - NOT hard and fast actual rules....A variance was created for the SOLE purpose of granting exceptions to properties the rules should not apply to in the first place....Its not about the number of people affected, its about whether or not the rule makes sense.

In this case the rule does not make sense to enforce against the property developer. The developer can mitigate the effect of the variance in the property itself....The only reason people are fighting this is because they dont want it in their back yard...I understand that, I would not want it in my back yard either - but just b/c you dont want something there is no reason that someone cant put something there.

So can the developer meet the intent of the ordinances or not. Not pertaining to the economics of it, but can he physically achieve compliance? If not, I can see you point and can understand the variance, but if the point is that he bought the land knowing he would need a variance to make the project economically feasible, it sounds like it was a poor decision on his part and the city is not responsible for bailing him out. Now if they decide its for the benefit of the city that they utilize their condemnation powers to make the variance, well the courts can take that up between the city and property owners. I just think that the city makes a whole bunch of rules and then decides (apparently quite frequently) to void them when big money starts showing up, while pounding the individual property owners into the ground just because they don't have the same economic sway.

The north side property owners are squatting on City RoR.

Are they now? Do you have a link showing how they are doing this?

Ya - I just read the city Draft/Agenda that was posted....it now affects fewer people....just the 8 homes that are on 5th to the East of Oxford....The traffic argument is actually improved with that layout....rather than come in off 6th and down Fraiser or Granberry, they just use a normal street in a grid pattern. One half of a normal block will have more traffic - the rest of the traffic will span out down any of the other streets in a grid pattern. Its a very minimal traffic problem....even less than before- unless you are one of the 8 owners east of Oxford this is a good thing.

Only affects 8 people. So things are cool because only 8 people (none of whom are city councilers) are affected. Obviously 8 is an insignificant number and should be ignored on the basis of "OMG, more tax money". Now if their own "guidelines" indicated that the impact would be minimal in all cases, sure, why not, but this company is asking them to set aside their rules and "oh, only 8 people will have to deal with the consequences". Yeah, but those are 8 individuals who are playing by the rules of the city. Why does the city get to shove them and their concerns aside and violate its own rules just to convenience this corporate entity?

City ordinances are general guidelines....variances are granted ALL of the time...every day. There is no possible way of making a single set of rules that apply without exception to everyone, regardless of cost. That is the entire point of a variance....every property is unique.

I'll let you know the next time the city comes to my house and tells me I'm in violation of a "guideline". They sure come down hard on individuals whose work impacts even fewer people. I don't see why the city council should make rules and then break them all they want when someone with alot of money shows up. Tax base is a red herring because you can't guarantee the success of a project just based on giving them what they want. The city should take a neutral stance and follow the rules it sets or get rid of the rules. The way you describe it, you seem in favor of corporate socialism, allowing them to capitalize their gains and socialize any losses. Let the playing field be even rather than putting "tax base" as your founding mantra.

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

I imagine Mosley knows city code better than most people which is why he owns that other 35' of ROW, but then the developer should have known the code too when they bought the land. Mosley made a strategic decision to try and stop development he didn't like on that land and the developer is hoping the city can change its rules to accomodate them. In this case, I see no reason to change things for the developer. They should have know the difficulties and bought a different parcel. I don't understand all of this sympathy to the canadian developer that screwed up...?

A few thoughts here:

1. 84 units is at most 200-300 cars total. Is that an enormous increase in traffic over your current situation that sees 20-30 cars? Yes it is...However, it is not too many vehicles for a street with two exits. The quantity of traffic argument is silly - it will be MORE traffic than you currently have, but it will not be unbearable, or even high quantities of traffic...just more...its a non-argument.

2. The floodplain argument should not matter at all...84 units, 2 parking spots per unit =164 + whatever guest parking is required. That means that they are going to have a parking garage - period. No other way on 1.3 acres to handle that quantity of vehicles....parking garages go UP...way up out of flood plains. I doubt residents will be terribly inconvenienced by moving their car up another level in a garage. That argument for you is a non-starter...it does not impact you - just the residents.

3. Its a great spot for a mid rise building. Its in an area with extremely high growth area and will have a permanently unobstructed view of downtown. People pay big dollars for that. 6 houses is a good return for a small investor....for a big firm...its not even worth the PR time to permit. To be viable for this company, and based on what they likely paid they need at least 20 units....The cost for 20 vs the cost for 84 through permitting is pretty similar...you copy paste the engineering onto another floor its very cheap...so they go big to make more money. Pretty common sense really from a business perspective.

4. Fire control - also not that important....New high/mid rise units will have individual unit fire suppression....furthermore, its not like single family homes...the shell is non-flammable...just the build out portions are flammable....fire is fought from the inside vs the outside...the only purpose a fire truck really serves here is to evacuate people from balconies and to transport firefighters...the fire otherwise would be fought floor by floor by the department from the multitude of hose hangers....do you really think that Houston has ladder trucks that reach 100 stories? Yet it is still safe b/c the building shell does not burn.

What you are doing is looking for legal reasons not to build something you dont want in your backyard....I understand not wanting a high rise in your backyard BUT at the same time I think its a great place to build one. I think this will be just like the ASHBY but with WAY less opposition...realistically its a TINY number of people who are impacted by this building...its 20 or so houses...of which, only a couple of them will have to deal with ANY inconvenience other than traffic.

This thing will get built...the reasons not to build it are not really good reasons to anyone other than the 20 or so people who will be mildly inconvenienced by it.

Why make excuses for people trying to violate city ordinances? Is that any better than the people making excuses to try and stop legal development?

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.

I agree that there is no compelling reason to provide a variance to this developer. Now, if suddenly he was able to comply with all of Chapter 42 requirements, then the project can go ahead. But the city is not required to make this project economic for this developer.

two new bldgs on wickchester.

*shudder* don't remind me. traffic gets even worse in my neighborhood.

I-10? You mean BW8 and Briar Forest?

i could, but usually that means I'm spending alot of time outside or elsewhere in general (coffee houses, restaurants, bars, etc). Living in a hut in an adverse environment in the middle of nowhere sounds like punishment. Ideally I'd live in a vibrant city with a small, private residence with a private courtyard. Efficiently laid out, I could probably be very happy in 1000 sq-ft house with 500 sqft yard.

You'll want Spring Branch over Sharpstown. I don't know your definition of a decent house, but there's plenty of serviceable houses for less than 150k in North and west Spring Branch. Where's your business located

So what does a no vote mean?

You think Chevron will occupy this building when it is completed?

Highly doubtful, probably more service companies. There's no tenants, so he's hoping some will just happen to come along.

They started excavation two weeks ago. Also, I normally don't have any inside info, but I'm kinda close to the Haiks and this thing IS a done deal.

Mr Haik also has plans for "Energy Tower IV." It'll be very close to III, but a certain piece of land he owns that's being used for another business is taking up space... Should be starting around the beginning of next year.

More shade for my neighborhood and more traffic misery for everyone on Kirkwood. I wish Mr. Haik would cut a road through to Wickchester.