Development Regulations

Development Regulations
04/05/10 12:22pm

Your Chance To Fiddle with Houston’s Off-Street Parking Requirements

by
Parking
No Comments

The Planning and Development Dept. is kicking off a reexamination of city off-street parking requirements for new and existing developments with a series of 3 public meetings beginning this Wednesday night. Up for discussion:

shared parking, parking management areas, types of occupancy and intensity of use (i.e. bars, types of restaurants, etc.), parking incentives for development along transit corridors or for restoration of historic buildings, lifts and valet parking just to name a few.

Graphic: Planning & Development

,
Development Regulations
03/29/10 3:39pm

Houston Zoning Paperwork Request

by
Quicklink
9 Comments

HOUSTON ZONING PAPERWORK REQUEST An out-of-towner with “an (admittedly) strange fascination with Houston land development” is trying to locate a copy of the zoning ordinance that Houston voters rejected 17 years ago. “A classmate and I are trying to do a little stats project comparing the 1993 proposed ordinance to the land development that actually happened since then. We’d like to see how actual development patterns differed from what the planners envisioned (for better or worse). Of course, we’d be willing to share any interesting findings.” [Swamplot inbox]

, ,
Comments
03/22/10 2:00pm

Comment of the Day: Lost in the Nozone

by
Development Regulations, Midtown, Quicklink, Washington Corridor
3 Comments

COMMENT OF THE DAY: LOST IN THE NOZONE “It always strikes me as odd that most major developers who operate in Houston also operate in cities with strict zoning, determined planning, and even architectural review boards with much success, but some Houstonians continue to think that they will abandon this city if we enact any of the same. They are clueless. Post Properties wrote Houston off in part because of the lack of stricter planning guidelines – which resulted in their Midtown project becoming an island of urban living surrounded by parking lots and suburban style development. (CVS, are you listening) . . . Midtown has become a mishmash of disjointed development with the opportunity for creating the city’s best urban environment lost for decades. The same debacle is happening right now in the Washington Corridor. Area groups have fought for years to get the city to enact and enforce very basic planning guidelines for Washington Ave like wider walkable sidewalks of 6′-8′ instead of 3′, and guidelines to bring storefronts to the streetfront instead of parking lots. A couple of developers have instituted these features on their own, but most have not, so once again we have an area that looks very disjointed, is confusing to navigate, and very unfriendly to the many people who would like to park once and walk between the many new businesses. . . .” [John, commenting on Extending Metro’s Main St. Rail Line to Fort Bend County]

, , , ,
Development Regulations
03/08/10 9:49am

Completing Those West U Final Inspections

by
Homebuilders, Quicklink, Trees, West University
1 Comment

COMPLETING THOSE WEST U FINAL INSPECTIONS Covington Builders will get to keep its license to build in West University after all. Ten homes the homebuilder had constructed since 2000 had never received occupancy permits from the city, but they’ve got ’em now. At issue on 7 of those homes: tree inspections. “‘They went to them and were able to determine what trees were there, measured the inches. I gave him some credit for some of the growth inches that were there, over time,’ [Chief Building Official John] Brown said. ‘He paid the tree trust the balance of money that was owed, which closed out his cases.’ Covington paid about $8,250 to the tree fund for the 82.5 tree inches that were missing on the seven outstanding properties. Before completing all the inspections, the city had estimated that Covington owed $10,300 to the tree fund.” [Instant News West U; previously on Swamplot]

, , , , ,
Development Regulations
02/24/10 10:14am

Why There Isn’t More Street Food in Houston

by
Public Safety, Restaurants
7 Comments

Sure, Houston has about 1,000 licensed mobile food vendors. (Yes, most of them are taco trucks.) Why aren’t there more? Ruthie Johnson explains a few of the regulations — and other roadblocks:

Most of the standards are a welcome way to ensure food safety, but some are annoying — or downright ironic. Street vendors, for example, must be at least 100 feet from any seating area, yet must have notarized proof of a usable restroom within 500 feet. The tiniest of carts must have a massive vent hood. And vendors are never allowed to be on a sidewalk. Jason Jones of Haute Texan Tacos says that actually “the biggest problem is that there aren’t really any decent pedestrian areas for street vendors in Houston.” Jones, who recently put his truck up for sale, goes on to explain that a fire code which prevents propane-powered businesses from selling anywhere downtown or in the Medical Center takes away a street vendor’s two largest pedestrian areas.

Other obstacles? Powerful restaurateurs don’t want the competition from street vendors, consumers don’t appreciate them, and city officials make it difficult to get questions answered and inspections scheduled. Sean Carroll of Melange Creperie says that “Anyone looking to start a mobile food service business in Houston should expect to be on the sidelines for six months at the very least.

Photo of taco trailer, for sale: Haute Texan Tacos

, , , ,
Development Regulations
02/23/10 2:56pm

West U Catches Up with Its Builders

by
Homebuilders, Public Safety, West University
19 Comments

Things have slowed down a bit in the West University Place building department: Only 20 new homes were permitted in the city last year. What to do with all the free time? Chief building official John Brown used some of it to pore over city records . . . and make a small discovery: Out of a grand total of 938 new homes built in West U this decade, 39 of them never received certificates of occupancy.

Instant News West U‘s Angela Grant reports that’s not so much of a problem yet for 5 of those homes — they were built in 2008 and haven’t sold. But what about the others?

Of the 34 homes that should legally have certificates, 14 homes — 41 percent — were constructed in 2000. Twenty-seven homes, or 79 percent, were constructed before 2005, when the city says the building department began professionalizing operations with the addition of key staff members.

How’d all this come up?

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , , , ,
Comments
02/12/10 1:06pm

Comment of the Day: Ashby Highrise Game On

by
Development Regulations, Highrises, Neighborhood Disputes, Proposed Developments, Quicklink, Southampton
9 Comments

COMMENT OF THE DAY: ASHBY HIGHRISE GAME ON “Ultimately, the developers used the intricacies of the city code to try to slip this by the neighborhood. Then they complained when the neighborhood used the intricacies of the city code to block it. Boo effin’ hoo.” [Fatt Fistery, commenting on Ashby Highrise Lawsuit: It’s On!]

, , , , , ,
Development Regulations
01/20/10 1:47pm

Stuck on Chapter 42

by
Quicklink
No Comments

STUCK ON CHAPTER 42 The bundle of proposed changes to Houston’s development ordinance promoted by the Planning Dept. under Mayor White — which included an extension of the city’s “urban area” from the 610 Loop all the way to Beltway 8 — is mostly stalled for now, notes Mike Snyder: “Five months later, with a new administration in office, the amendments have yet to appear on the City Council agenda. White ‘thought it best to leave the other Chapter 42 amendments to the new administration,’ Suzy Hartgrove, a spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Planning and Development, said in an email message. Mayor Annise Parker’s administration has authorized the department to bring forward one element of the changes, involving notification requirements for public hearings and plat variances. For the remaining changes, ‘we still have a few issues to resolve and will be meeting with city departments and any others if needed to make that happen,’ Hartgrove said. Don’t look for the amendments to appear on the council agenda any time soon.” [Houston Politics; previously on Swamplot]

Development Regulations
12/21/09 11:17am

Light Rail Construction and the Gorillas’ Last Stand

by
New Construction, Quicklink, Retail, Signage, Transportation
21 Comments

LIGHT RAIL CONSTRUCTION AND THE GORILLAS’ LAST STAND The latest idea from Metro: Create official signs, flags, and banners for businesses along light-rail construction routes, to show they’re still in business, and to guide cars into open parking areas. Only problem? “Some of the proposed flags would flutter afoul of the city’s newly tightened sign ordinance, which bans certain types of ‘attention-getting devices.’ City Council may have to approve a small change in the city’s sign law to allow temporary banners to stay up for longer than the allotted seven out of 30 days, according to city public works official Andy Icken. . . . The city’s new sign ordinance kicks in on Jan. 1. It bans the giant inflatable balloon animals and other eye-catching gizmos that you often see on Houston’s highways and roads. So enjoy the giant ‘For Sale’ gorillas while you can. Also, the dancing wind socks along the side of the road, the silver and blue streamers at car dealerships, and the other pennants, pinwheels and puppets meant to pull your gaze from the road to the roadside.” [Houston Chronicle; previously on Swamplot]

, , , , , , ,
Boulevard Oaks
12/10/09 12:08pm

Ashby Highrise Developers: We Were Only Kidding!

by
Development Regulations, Development Strategies, Highrises, Neighborhood Disputes, Proposed Developments, Southampton
15 Comments

Hey, good one! Remember all those revisions Buckhead Investment Partners finally made to the Ashby High Rise plans — cutting out a bunch of the ground-floor retail space, enlarging the restaurant, and putting that big driveway loop on Bissonnet — so that the city might finally approve the Southampton-side tower? Yesterday the developers told the Chronicle‘s Mike Snyder they were really just part of an elaborate fake-out maneuver:

Between July 2007 and August of this year, city officials rejected applications for the project 11 times on grounds that traffic it generated would increase congestion on nearby streets to unacceptable levels.

In August, the city approved a 12th application after [Buckhead’s Matthew] Morgan and [Kevin] Kirton removed all the commercial uses except the restaurant and reduced the number of residential units. The developers said Wednesday that they changed their plans to test whether the city would approve their project under any circumstances, but never intended to build anything other than the project they designed in 2007.

Aw, c’mon: If you actually did go ahead and build the approved plans, that would be a great stunt too! But how did these fun-loving developers happen upon such a wacky strategy? Snyder provides some insight into their inspiration:

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Development Regulations
12/09/09 10:14am

La Carafe Having Trouble Spilling Over into the Lot Next Door

by
Downtown, Houston History, Nightlife
14 Comments

Owner Carolyn Wenglar reports she is having a few problems getting a permit for the planned expansion of La Carafe across from Market Square Downtown. Wenglar recently purchased the adjacent vacant lot on the corner of Travis and Congress, and had plans to turn it into a beer and wine garden for long-storied bar she’s owned for more than 20 years. John Nova Lomax reports:

. . . she has been told that patrons would not be allowed to carry drinks from the bar to the tables on the lot. Wenglar told Hair Balls that the narrow space between the two properties is a city-owned alley, and to cross that alley with booze in hand would . . . be in violation of Texas liquor laws, and thus have held up her permit.

The La Carafe building, which began its life in 1847 as a bakery — and at one point served as a Pony Express station — is just 15 ft. wide. The alley runs along its east side.

Photo: Flickr user Richart

, , , , ,
Comments
10/23/09 1:17pm

Comment of the Day: How We Beat the Zoning Boards

by
Crime, Development Regulations, Development Strategies, Quicklink
18 Comments

COMMENT OF THE DAY: HOW WE BEAT THE ZONING BOARDS “. . . I’ll have to plead the 5th as to how I came to understand this, but let it be known that city councils and P&Z boards can be bought over quite easily. All it takes is for a developer to contract the consulting services of a well-connected ex-councilmember at some ludicrious price and send him to town with a five-figure entertainment budget (which sounds like a lot, but isn’t in the scope of a $50 mil. project); meanwhile, the developer ensures that their first renderings contain a few blatantly offensive architectural features that the targeted politicians can criticize. The developer makes the changes requested (which they would’ve made anyway) so as that the targeted politicians can save face with their constituents. And the really dangerous part of all this is that once a politician is clearly in your pocket, it’s hard for them to say no to just about anything else in the future so long as the developer provides them with a mechanism to save face. . . .” [TheNiche, commenting on Ashby Highrise Loses Appeal]

, , , , ,
Boulevard Oaks
10/22/09 10:58pm

Ashby Highrise Loses Appeal

by
Development Regulations, Highrises, Neighborhood Disputes, Proposed Developments, Quicklink, Southampton
38 Comments

ASHBY HIGHRISE LOSES APPEAL The city’s General Appeals Board today rejected a request by the developers of the Ashby Highrise to gain permit approvals for the 23-story project’s original version — which includes a larger number of residences and more commercial space than the plans that finally received permits from the city. “Matthew Morgan, one of the two principals with Buckhead Investment Partners, said the next step would likely be to appeal to the Houston City Council. . . . Ironically, the prolonged battle that has been played out not only in the city bureaucracy but with yard signs, bumper stickers and vocal, packed protests did not draw any other media or public attention Thursday at this key city hearing.” [West University Examiner; previously on Swamplot]

, , , , , , , ,
Comments
08/28/09 7:39pm

Comment of the Day: What’s the Plan?

by
Development Regulations, Development Strategies, Quicklink
9 Comments

COMMENT OF THE DAY: WHAT’S THE PLAN? “. . . It would be nice if someone would come up with a ‘master plan’ for these areas of unrestricted land and at least ask the developers to work within that plan. I suspect if some had been a little nicer the developers of 1717 Bissonnet might have been nicer as well. They did buy the land in good faith as they say. They were not legally obligated, nor are they, to get anyone’s permission to build whatever they wanted to build beyond meeting the requirements of city code. There was also no indication on the part of the city or anyone else what was “desired” for that area. As it stands, it’s a hodgepodge of multi-family and commercial. Neither of which fits the definition of ‘single-family’ which seems attached to every argument made against 1717 Bissonnet. I’m not sure you can have a perfect plan but someone needs to at least attempt some sort of plan for future development in Midtown and the Museum District and Montrose and the Heights and of course Galleria which at this point is at critical mass in terms of traffic. . . . We don’t have zoning but we do have unrestricted land. Which is the same thing when you think about it. No one thought about possibly restricting the unrestricted land until the plan for 1717 Bissonnet was announced. . . . The problem here should have been addressed a long time ago. As for urban planning, it should have happened yesterday. Hopefully tomorrow the next mayor will make some sort of ‘master plan’ a priority for these unrestricted areas and we will have something developers and neighborhoods can work with. . . .” [Matt, commenting on Comment of the Day: Missing That High-Density High Density]

, , , , ,
Apartments
08/24/09 7:52pm

Comment of the Day: After the Ashby Highrise

by
Boulevard Oaks, Comments, Condos, Development Regulations, Highrises, Neighborhood Disputes, New Construction, Proposed Developments, Quicklink, Southampton, Traffic
19 Comments

COMMENT OF THE DAY: AFTER THE ASHBY HIGHRISE “. . . My take on it is that this building MIGHT NOT be too bad, once the teeth-on-edge construction period is finished. (And I seem to be the only person who thinks the construction hassles should even matter to anyone. Big crane delivery and setup on Bissonnet, anyone?) But since there seems to be no legal way to stop this one, you can be sure that there will be some serious efforts to put rules in place to prevent any more. My own tongue-in-cheek explanation for why the neighborhood was so taken by surprise is that no-one ever thought for a minute that it made any kind of sense to build a high-rise on Bissonnet, for goodness sake.” [marmer, commenting on City to Ashby Highrise: Yes You Can!]

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Previous Page Next Page »