EMES Place- Inner Loop Condos Development On Frasier St.

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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.

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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.

[RedScare]

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.

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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.

[fwki]

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.

[LandArch]

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?

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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.

[Marksmu]

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.

[RedScare]

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.

[Marksmu]

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!

[fwki]

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

[kylejack]

All the variance request concerns is placing a private driveway at the end of a deadend street.

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

[fwki]

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.

[Marksmu]

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

With the 5th st variance request there is no longer another hike & bike crossing....That was only for the fraiser entrance.

[RedScare]

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!

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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.

[Lost_In_Translatio]

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.

[Marksmu]

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.

[fwki]

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.

[SilverJK]

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)

[RedScare]

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.

[s3mh]

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.

[kylejack]

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.

[SilverJK]

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...

[Marksmu]

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.

[barracuda]

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.

[RedScare]

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.

[samagon]

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?

[Angostura]

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.

Actually, I don't think this is true. Any commercial development needs more minimum frontage than this parcel has.

[Angostura]

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.