Marksmu

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.

Most likely that all the buyers will be coming from the suburbs. Cite/proof? Nah - we will just assume its people fleeing Pearland or Katy.

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.

You do realize there are apartments literally all over the Heights dont you? Literally everywhere...multifamily mixed seamlessly with single family. I dont like most of the apartments, but this developer is not doing something that has not already been done over and over and over again all over the area. As a developer I think I would be calling all the nay-sayers hypocrites. 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. So why should we grant a variance here for a developer? That easy. This a project with a miniscule impact on an absolutely miniscule number of people...Lets lay this out...84 units - just for arguments sake that sell for $300,000/yr. Taxes for the city @2.86% = .0286*300,000*84 = $720,720.00....taxes from the 20 or so people effected = 20*.0286*300000=$171,600. Cost to the city to increase its tax base from $171,600 to $892,320? ZERO. Seems like a really good plan to me....The city can increase its tax base $549,120 by negligibly inconveniencing 20 people. Seems like a no-brainer to me.... This is not like sticking a highrise midblock like Ashby - this is a street with TWO entrances/exits, across a bayou, abutting a wharehouse, up against an apartment complex....its a perfect location for something like this...if the 20 or so people hate it - then they have the unmitigated right to fight/complain/move - whatever they want, but location wise its fantastic - it inconveniences very few, and is placing a midrise building in an area that is NOT smack in the middle of single family homes. Its a good location for something like this.

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.

I work in Pearland where construction on HWY 35 has been NON-STOP for the last 3.5 years. There are 2 bridges that had to be demolished and replaced....both bridges were similar to the one over the bayou at Yale....This may come as an enormous surprise to an anti-walmart person - but TXDOT was able to demolish only 1/2 of the bridge at a time. 35, which, just like Yale was 4 lanes wide...now has new bridges complete in 2 locations, and the never closed 35! How did they do it? They reduced the lanes to 1 each direction for about 2 weeks while they demolished 1/2 of the bridge, braced the remaining half and poured new piers for the new bridge....then they rebuilt that half...Then (and this will blow you walmart haters minds) they transferred traffic to the NEW half, and demolished it. Total amount of time the bridge was under construction? About 8 weeks....Total amount of time the bridge was closed. Zero. While 35 is still being rebuilt traffic now flows effortlessly across the new bridge. As an aside - I survived yet ANOTHER illegal crossing of the bridge this morning...this time with both kids in the car!!! Im such an irresponsible and wreckless parent.

It is quite Ironic that someone would complain about something that he created and continues to profit from....the ultimate NIMBY.

Yup - they are making out like bandits on that place...Those townhomes there are selling pretty well too though....if they are not already sold out. All that despite being located next to one of the most dilapidated apartments in the area. Just shows you how hot the area is though. Its a good time to own property in the Heights. All we have to do now is keep the government from screwing it all up in one way or another.

He was not walking his bike on the sidewalk. He was riding it...He walked it through the grass to get to the sidewalk.

Like it or not only about 20% of the people on bicycles even think about stopping, or for that matter slowing, at a stop sign on the hike and bike trail...if you think Im going to just barrel across the trail even though I have the right of way and dont have a stop - you are wrong. Too many idiots riding means I have to slow down to be sure you are going to stop before I pass through....If that means that my slowing is going to force you to follow the law and actually stop your bike at a freaking stop sign - Im really sorry (sarcasm). I shed no tear for you. This morning I was driving, listening to hate radio, drinking coffee, and taking pictures of the biker on Yale...alas it was too dark and none of them were usable...he was a grade A piece of work though. Drove on Yale in the right lane in traffic in the dark (like he is supposed to) slowing everyone to below a crawl as they tried to get around him....until the light at I-10 where it was red....he sat in line for about eight seconds then walked his bike up the sidewalk so he did not have to sit in traffic at the stop light - went around the traffic - crossed at the red light, then got back in front of the cars (who literally just passed his slowing moving rear-end) who were in line at the red light and proceeded back in the roadway b/c there was no sidewalk at the bridge of death. (which I luckily crossed again without killing everyone) Its people like that who annoy us drivers....he was biking slowly, obstructing normal traffic, then when you finally get around him, he breaks the law cuts around traffic, just to re-obstruct the same people he already obstructed once. He made it successfully past the Walmart though where I lost sight of him.

Wow is all I have to say...that place is a dump and $700 seems like a lot for a dump. I guess all that matters to some folks is location....I guess its like leasing a BMW...it does not matter that you leased the cheapest one they have...you can tell all your buddies you got a Beamer!

I could go on for days about bad driving habits of people in cars - there are literally millions - but this one is about bikes. They still need to stop at the stop sign/stop light....I dont care if a bike speeds, I dont care if a bike rider does not wear a helmet, I dont care if he does not signal a turn (unless he cuts you off) but by golly he needs to stop at the traffic signals if he wants to use the road with all the same rights as a car.

I can't explain that one....I don't speed down Heights b/c its a nice street - but I do speed on the freeway....though not by some Houston standards...I try to stay around 70 most of the time.... Im not sure why not stopping irritates me more than anything else (except not slowing in school zone) its illogical but speeding to me seems like less of an issue than ignoring stop lights & stop signs...perhaps because speeding is far more common? Possibly because I view people who ignore stop signs/stop lights as arrogant...but speeding is just something people do. Ive always been annoyed at people who pretend that traffic signals don't apply to them - as if they were special or something....its like the guy who runs the shoulder in a merge to get further ahead....him thinking he is special just causes more traffic for everyone else. It may be irrational, but it still annoys me.

You want to ride a bike on a public road, you obey its rules...I dont really care how inconvenient it is....I use far more fuel stopping at red lights and its annoying as you say, but I still have to do it b/c its the law....I can see quite clearly that there is no traffic coming, but I still have to stop. My stopping for no oncoming traffic serves no safety purpose either but I still have to do it. Obey the rules or stop riding on public roads. As to last week - the blvd was full of cars at about 6:00 when I went by and most homeowners/businesses had already placed their cans in the right of way. The bike I was behind stayed in the vehicle lane from around 6th all the way to 11th because of the cans. Like I said, Im not a militant driver, but it necessitated a grumpy old man post. I am going to continue snapping pics of bike riders breaking laws...its really easy to do on Heights - NONE of the riders follow any of the laws.

Im predicting plenty of anarchy in the near future...sometime around November 6th give or take a day....but in the mean time I will still just be that grumpy old man who resents bike riders who want to use the road but not abide by its rules. As to the reason the cars stop without a stop sign when the bike is coming from a direction with a stop sign - its because we know from watching these yahoos that most times they wont stop, and the pain in the butt of dealing with an accident and possibly hurting someone is not worth the 1 second saved by slowing down to be sure the biker was actually going to stop. Some of us may get a tiny bit of enjoyment from ensuring that the bike rider has to follow the rules and actually stop....anarchy? Ya, I enjoy it sometimes...but recently Im too tired from fighting with a 2 year old to bother doing anything else....

I think the trash cans are set back against the curb by the truck once emptied...Last week nearly every can was in the bike lane...this week there were only 2 out, but I was home much earlier yesterday than last week. As for the bike riders - its just annoying that they want cars to cater to them and realize they have a legal right to be on the road when they ignore all the laws themselves...if you want to ride on the road - do so legally, and obey the same rules the cars do...I dont get to just buzz haphazardly through a stoplight...they dont either. I was under the impression cracks were only illegal if they obscured your view or were intersecting....I did a google search and came up with this: http://www.khou.com/community/blogs/beat-the-traffic/Beat-the-Traffic-Tickets-issued-for-cracked-windshield-104485374.html We emailed the City of Southside Place for an explanation. Police Chief Lonnie Bernhardt sent us this emailed response: "Windshields are not an item for inspection according to the Texas Department of Public Safety. Therefore it is not a violation of the Texas Transportation Code." Chief Bernhardt also explained that officers can still write a ticket, if they feel there's a safety issue.

Im out and about every day - and if not for my truck you would think by the way that I drive that I should be in a prius with a bike rack on top and a huge Obama/Biden 2012 sticker on back...but thats just b/c I'm courteous of all road users, even the annoying ones on bikes. Despite your inability to do so - I can compartmentalize anger/rage without acting on it. Just so you know, I also do not shake crying babies, or beat my wife when we get into fights. I know I know, its crazy that someone is able to be angry at people who are inconsiderate jerk offs without acting out at them in some way, but indeed I am capable of doing so. In fact I took a bike ride Sunday as well down the hike/bike trail....We may need a thread on peoples dogs and those long retractable leashes getting in bike riders way....What is it with people who think their dog need a 20' leash in order to go for a walk? (this is sarcasm by the way) Oh in your response to no trash cans from last week (which I forgot about until yesterday) here you go. A trash can blocking heights yesterday....no bike riders around it though...I had to wait for 6th st to run into the two bike riders completely ignoring the red light for the zillionth time. This may be best suited for another thread - but Im seriously considering a bike shaming wall...I will take photos of bike riders breaking laws....

excellent decision! Truly in keeping with your historic meme, I fully expect you to downgrade back to an old dial modem as well...I believe there may be one provider left still offering dial up service...somewhere....Ahhh to hear the squeals of an old modem again - reminiscent of days gone by...

Would love to see this complex and the one at Ashland destroyed - but alas, I have to agree with S3MH - multifamily = more money...though its going to have to be VERY significant improvement for any kind of a desirable tenant base to want to move in. Both complexes are total complete dumps.

I successfully traversed the bridge of death again this morning...whew...I waved to the flatbed tow truck that was stopped waiting on the light as I crossed...he had a tahoe loaded on back, and was towing an expolorer. We both thought we were about to die, but alas, it was not my day.

I dont care if the city takes a picture....last I heard they ruled out traffic tickets based on photographs...Maybe I should get a window sticker that depicts the bridge of death on the back window of my truck - at least that way IF it fails while Im on it, I will get to have an ironic death and make an easy news story.

Get your camera out b/c I use the bridge no less than 2x day, I exceed 6000lbs, and I will not stop using the bridge.

State reduced the load limit to prohibit SUV's & Trucks, but its not done for safety reasons? What other reason could there possibly be for reducing the load limits on the bridge if not for safety? Is this the very first bridge in the history of the State of Texas to be politically sensitive to low mileage vehicles? Seriously? What other justification could there be? http://www.click2houston.com/news/State-reduces-Yale-Street-bridge-load-limit/-/1735978/16770686/-/velult/-/index.html

The first bike down the trail can solve the problem for everyone and either move them or kick them over. Problem solved and you would probably feel pretty good about it...

Certainly not in this City and my gut says not in the US either, but I dont know that to be true.