EMES Place- Inner Loop Condos Development On Frasier St.

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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...?

[s3mh]

You should have thought of this when you were complaining about historic districts, 6 story condos on Studewood, and the Ashby highrise...oh, and the complex on W. 5th that is the subject of this thread. You cannot complain about not enough apartments on Yale while complaining about condos on 5th...without sounding like a complete and utter hypocrite.

The Yale St. properties were perfect for multifamily development. Huge lots fronting major thoroughfares. The 5th st. condo/apartment compex wants to put 84 units/9 floors at the end of a street that is 18' wide by building a 28' driveway with no sidewalks in and out of the development. They do not have the required frontage and knew that when they bought the property. Ashby is putting a 20+ story highrise literally in people's backyards. Not talking about across the street or alley. The building takes up half the block with single family residences on the south half of the block. The condos on studewood go right up to the property line of a single family residence. None of those issues would have existed for multifamily built on any of the Yale St. properties. Now that nearly 40 acres of land in the Ainbinder/Orr/Yale St. Market development have only yeilded 280 units, developers are going to look to cram multi family developments in any spot they can find in the Heights, like at the dead end of an 18' wide street. The Yale St. properties could have easily yeilded another 1000-1500 units, taken the sting out of the recent inflation in rental prices and given the City a much higher return on property taxes. But, instead, the brilliant markets put in strip malls and send multi-family development into single family neighborhoods.

[RedScare]

The Yale St. properties were perfect for multifamily development. Huge lots fronting major thoroughfares. The 5th st. condo/apartment compex wants to put 84 units/9 floors at the end of a street that is 18' wide by building a 28' driveway with no sidewalks in and out of the development. They do not have the required frontage and knew that when they bought the property. Ashby is putting a 20+ story highrise literally in people's backyards. Not talking about across the street or alley. The building takes up half the block with single family residences on the south half of the block. The condos on studewood go right up to the property line of a single family residence. None of those issues would have existed for multifamily built on any of the Yale St. properties. Now that nearly 40 acres of land in the Ainbinder/Orr/Yale St. Market development have only yeilded 280 units, developers are going to look to cram multi family developments in any spot they can find in the Heights, like at the dead end of an 18' wide street. The Yale St. properties could have easily yeilded another 1000-1500 units, taken the sting out of the recent inflation in rental prices and given the City a much higher return on property taxes. But, instead, the brilliant markets put in strip malls and send multi-family development into single family neighborhoods.

Your logic skills are horrible. These are 3 different parcels in 3 different neighborhoods owned by 3 different parties. Each party is building what he wishes to build on each parcel. The City...and more importantly, you...do not get to dictate what gets built according to your fantasy. You succeeded in ruining the Heights by telling us what we can and cannot do. Why do you insist on ruining everyone else's properties as well? Face it, you are not good at this.

[Angostura]

Link to the planning commission agenda, including drawings: http://ataps1.pd.ci.houston.tx.us/drc/PC+Meeting+Calendar.nsf/WebDocumentOpen/C292F6E55A57C9F68625797C00544EC3/$FILE/Draft+Agenda.pdf

Starts on pg 83.

[kylejack]

Ashby is putting a 20+ story highrise literally in people's backyards.

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

[Marksmu]

The Yale St. properties were perfect for multifamily development. Huge lots fronting major thoroughfares. The 5th st. condo/apartment compex wants to put 84 units/9 floors at the end of a street that is 18' wide by building a 28' driveway with no sidewalks in and out of the development. They do not have the required frontage and knew that when they bought the property. Ashby is putting a 20+ story highrise literally in people's backyards. Not talking about across the street or alley. The building takes up half the block with single family residences on the south half of the block. The condos on studewood go right up to the property line of a single family residence. None of those issues would have existed for multifamily built on any of the Yale St. properties. Now that nearly 40 acres of land in the Ainbinder/Orr/Yale St. Market development have only yeilded 280 units, developers are going to look to cram multi family developments in any spot they can find in the Heights, like at the dead end of an 18' wide street. The Yale St. properties could have easily yeilded another 1000-1500 units, taken the sting out of the recent inflation in rental prices and given the City a much higher return on property taxes. But, instead, the brilliant markets put in strip malls and send multi-family development into single family neighborhoods.

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.

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?

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.

[kylejack]

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....

All the buyers will be coming from out of town, then?

[LandArch]

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.

[Marksmu]

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.

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.

[Marksmu]

All the buyers will be coming from out of town, then?

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.

[RedScare]

All the buyers will be coming from out of town, then?

Why does it matter? Even if the buyers come from down the street, the home that they are leaving does not get destroyed. Taxes will still be owed. Do you have some alternate theory of what happens to homes once people move from them?

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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.

[fwki]

Just read the Agenda and it explains everything....5th street is 18' wide sitting on a 70' City right-of-way extending to the north. The north side property owners are squatting on City RoR. No wonder Mosely took the risk of going public and looking likie a hypocrite. The developer is going to widen the street to standard, add side walks and a few caliper inches and there goes 30 feet of free land. Fifteen hundred square feet at 40$ each is a $60,000 subsidy from the rest of us. I hope the city condems his 35' project-blocking tract for the cul-de-sac and then everyone can rest easy that the city didn't give a variance. That really is the logical solution since he likely bought the land soley to restrict his neighbors property rights. Talk about outsmarting yourself.....and that explains all the fancy laminated trash blowing around...I bet the Creek even has a petition sign up sheet.

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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?

[Lost_In_Translatio]

The north side property owners are squatting on City RoR.

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

[Marksmu]

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?

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.

[fwki]

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.

[fwki]

....The only reason people are fighting this is because they dont want it in their back yard...

It is the front yards of property owners squatting in the City's backyard.

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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.

[Marksmu]

Just read the Agenda and it explains everything....5th street is 18' wide sitting on a 70' City right-of-way extending to the north. The north side property owners are squatting on City RoR. No wonder Mosely took the risk of going public and looking likie a hypocrite. The developer is going to widen the street to standard, add side walks and a few caliper inches and there goes 30 feet of free land. Fifteen hundred square feet at 40$ each is a $60,000 subsidy from the rest of us. I hope the city condems his 35' project-blocking tract for the cul-de-sac and then everyone can rest easy that the city didn't give a variance. That really is the logical solution since he likely bought the land soley to restrict his neighbors property rights. Talk about outsmarting yourself.....and that explains all the fancy laminated trash blowing around...I bet the Creek even has a petition sign up sheet.

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!

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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.

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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.

[Marksmu]

I bet Mr. Mosely would oppose a light rail or a train re-utilizing its old right of way too...Its a hike and bike trail now and probably forever, but there is no guarantee that it will always be a hike & bike trail...the city owns it...it used to be a rail road track...it could easily be converted to a monorail and we could all bask in the glory of elevated rail that actually moves seamlessly through traffic - all while still having a glorious trail!

Thats obviously a stretch - but its entirely possible and he would probably oppose that even more than he opposes this...the point being that just b/c you live next to something does not mean you can dictate what that something is.

I am for the even application of rules but in a city the size of Houston its impossible to have....big money should not get big give aways, but big money does pay back big money to the city...all the things the people use on a day to day basis are paid for primarily by businesses.

[s3mh]

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.

To say that the other multifamily properties in the Heights "seemlessly" mix with the neighborhood is almost realtor talk. I can just see the HAR listing "apartment complex right next door means lots of neighbors!" No one wants to live next to an apartment complex. When I was looking for a house in the heights and saw something that had a price that was too good to be true, it was almost always next to an apartment complex. And if the city is willing to throw sec. 42 of the code in the trash whenever someone wants to build a 9 story building in a single family neighborhood, the seems will be torn apart when low and midrise apartment complexes start popping up where older garden style complexes currently exist.

[RedScare]

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.

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.

[fwki]

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.

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.

[SilverJK]

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?

[west20th]

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?

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

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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?

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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.