Note: Story updated below.
The 11th time’s the charm! According to Abc13 reporter Miya Shay, the city today gave the developers of the Ashby Highrise the final approval they needed to begin construction of the 23-story residential tower at the corner of Ashby and Bissonnet, next to Southampton.
Okay now everybody, show us your cards!
Update, 5:49 p.m.: Some details about why the most recent plans were approved, from a city news release via the River Oaks Examiner:
TAKING THE “A” STREETS: NEW RULES FOR HOUSTON’S RAIL TRANSIT CORRIDORS Does your street intersect one of the new light-rail lines within a quarter-mile of a proposed station? If so, it’s now called an “A” Street, and the Urban Corridors Ordinance, which City Council approved yesterday, has some new development restrictions and exemptions that affect it, effective immediately: “The ordinance will mandate six-foot sidewalks near stations while increasing the citywide sidewalk standard from four feet to five feet. The ordinance creates an incentive program to entice developers to build more livable, walkable, and urban places. In return, the developers will be exempted from the 25-foot setback required in the rest of the city, allowing them to build on a greater percentage of land.” [Houston Tomorrow]
Wondering what’s been going on with the Ashby Highrise? Developer Matthew Morgan tells the River Oaks Examiner that Buckhead Development intends to respond to “the city’s attempts to reach an agreement” with a new submission for the proposed 23-story residential tower on Bissonnet, next to Southampton.
But the city rejected the highrise’s plans again yesterday . . . for the 10th time. The city said its own analysis showed the project as currently proposed would result in an “F” level of traffic at the corner of Shepherd and Bissonnet:
However, “A significant reduction in peak-hour trips, including appropriate trip offsets, could have a potential to address heightened concerns,†a city engineer, Mark L. Loethen, wrote in his comments.
Computing traffic level involves a formula that rates intersection flow from “A†(no traffic) to “F†(very slow).
The rejected plans were submitted April 7, making the three months until they were returned to the developers unusually long.
Rendering of proposed Ashby Highrise, 1717 Bissonnet: Buckhead Investment Partners
COMMENT OF THE DAY: THE MIDTOWN CVS DOMINO EFFECT “. . . CVS didn’t follow Post Midtown’s urban scale approach even though its lot was right across the street and the collective wisdom at the time was that Gray and Bagby would be built out with mid-rise, mixed-use developments right up to Main and the new rail line. It seemed so obvious and for those who longed for true urban living in this town, it was a dream coming true. CVS didn’t play ball simply because they didn’t have to. No code required them to build in any way, shape, or form that might have benefited the collective vision of Midtown. So be it, that’s Houston. However, after CVS bucked the urban trend, so did most every developer after them. So instead of all or most of Midtown being walkable, populated with street life like just the 3 blocks developed by Post ultimately became; Midtown’s blocks are populated with suburban style apartments complexes with no street life whatsoever, just block after block of gates and fences. If Houston had had the guts to enact urban design strategies then, Midtown would be the success that similar areas have become in Dallas, Atlanta and other cities. Houston punked out and we are all the losers for decades to come. Ironically the very same developers who fought urban guidelines in Midtown were building successful urban properties in all those other cities at the same time. . . .” [John, commenting on Cul de Sac City: Houston’s Ban on New Street Grids]
Working from a remote and undisclosed location, the now-expatriate Houston engineer known as Keep Houston Houston puts together a rough diagram identifying the city’s “traditional” walkable neighborhoods, and comments:
Houston has no shortage of gridded, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. Thing is, they’re all kind of squished together. And with a couple of exceptions, they were all platted out before 1935. What’s there is there. We’re not adding to it.
Why?
Developer conservatism plays a role, but is ethereal, subject to evaporate as soon as *someone* steps up and proves that suburban [Traditional Neighborhood Development] is sufficiently profitable. But several city standards and rules are standing in the way.
Are Houston’s development rules really the obstacle?
Keep Houston Houston scans through the city’s development ordinance, then throws together a quick design for a residential neighborhood following the basic requirements. What does that end up looking like?
APARTMENT INSPECTIONS IN SUGAR LAND Sugar Land requires single-family rental units to be inspected each year. And the city council has just voted to require the same for multifamily apartments: “The multifamily ordinance must be approved on second reading at a future meeting to become law. If approved, the measure will require apartment owners to pay an annual fee of $8 per rental unit. Sugar Land Community and Environmental Director Mike Goodrum told City Council members on Tuesday that the fee would equate to an annual cost of about $2,000 to $2,400 for the typical apartment complex in the city. Most of those complexes, he said, are owned by Gables Residential of Atlanta, Ga., which was consulted during creation of the new proposed policy. . . . Since apartment complexes typically have somewhat rapid tenant turnover, city inspectors would annually inspect those units that are vacant on the day the inspector schedules a visit, Goodrum indicated.” [Fort Bend Now]
NO LOCAL SPRINKLER CONTROLS FOR TEXAS That ordinance passed by West University’s city council that would have required sprinklers in all new West U homes won’t go into effect — despite the lobbying efforts of local fire chiefs. Earlier this month Governor Perry went ahead and signed a bill that takes away the right of local municipalities to create sprinkler requirements. An amendment to the bill was added shortly after West U’s ordinance passed, but is retroactive to the first of the year. [Off the Kuff; previously on Swamplot]
THE NEW INNER LOOP TOWNHOME POSTER CHILD “Density hasn’t been kind to Cottage Grove, a small neighborhood with narrow streets, few sidewalks, poor drainage and scarce parking for the owners of its many new homes and their guests. Like many neighborhoods inside Loop 610, Cottage Grove in recent years has experienced a flurry of construction of large townhomes that loom over 80-year-old cottages next door. Two or three dwellings crowd sites where one house stood previously. Streets are cluttered with vehicles parked every which way. Water stands in the streets after heavy rains. ‘It was shocking to see this jewel of a neighborhood in this condition,’ said former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy, a senior fellow with the nonprofit Urban Land Institute who toured Cottage Grove two years ago. ‘It was about the ugliest thing I’d ever seen, to be honest with you.’†[Houston Chronicle]
COMMENT OF THE DAY: HOW A FORM-BASED CODE FOR BELLAIRE MIGHT WORK “In the interests of improving the community as a whole do you think it would be possible for the City of Bellaire to call a moratorium on the building of faux Tuscan McMansions? Or perhaps a number of turrets per home limit?” [Jimbo, commenting on Crossing That Thin Baby Blue Line]
COMMENT OF THE DAY: WHERE SHOULD THOSE LITTLE LOTS GO? “Allowing reduction of the minimum lot width to 15 feet, if an average lot width of 18 feet is maintained within the subdivision may be reasonable and desirable in terms of providing a diversity of residential style and price in large-scale developments, where an aesthetic mix can be achieved, and where infrastructure and amenities are incorporated into the plan for the benefit of the residents. But, think about how this reduced lot size might work and what the cumulative impact would be of applying this one-size-fits-all regulation with 15 and 18 foot wide lots to multiple, small, infill “subdivisions†in neighborhoods where infrastructure and amenities are already less than adequate. . . . If your neighborhood has no deed restrictions, and your block has not petitioned for and received minimum lot size and set-back protection, this would be the time to put that process in motion.” [TxTom12, commenting on Chapter 42 of the Houston Development Story: Letting Out That Urban Belt A Notch]
REGISTERED AGENTS FOR CONDOS A bill recently passed by the Texas Legislature — inspired by problems encountered in contacting the 150 separate owners of Candlelight Trails in northwest Houston — would make it a whole lot easier for the city to demolish decrepit condo complexes. “The bill by Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, applies only to Houston. It requires every condo development to maintain a registered agent to accept service of legal papers; if any development fails to do so, the Texas secretary of state automatically becomes the agent. The law will take effect Sept. 1 if Gov. Rick Perry signs it or allows it to become law without his signature. Perry will review the measure carefully before deciding, spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said. Current law requires each owner to be served either in person or through a legal notice in a newspaper. Defendants served through publication have two years to file a motion for a new trial. ‘It is extremely time-consuming, expensive and allows the substandard and often dangerous conditions to continue while the city struggles to obtain personal service on each owner,’ Ann Travis, Mayor Bill White’s governmental affairs director, said in a background document explaining the bill.” [Houston Chronicle]
Of all the changes the Planning Dept. has in mind for Chapter 42 — the ordinance that governs development in the city — perhaps the most dramatic is the one that moves the city’s “urban” boundary. Chapter 42 currently labels the area inside the 610 Loop as “urban,” and the area outside of it “suburban.” The latest proposed draft would expand the “urban” zone all the way to Beltway 8. You’ll have to get past that to reach the burbs.
What do the urban and suburban designations mean? A lot of little things. And, perhaps, a lot of little lots: In certain circumstances, the proposed amendments would allow developers to subdivide “urban area” land into lots of less than 1400 sq. ft. and as narrow as 15 ft. wide.
Oh, but there’s a whole lot more to it than that.
WEST U’S SHORT-LIVED SPRINKLER REQUIREMENT Late last month the West University City Council passed an ordinance requiring all new homes built in the city to have fire-protection sprinklers. This apparently did not sit well with Texas Rep. John Otto, who represents Dayton, a small town in Liberty County more than 40 miles to the northeast. An amendment to a bill sponsored by Otto, which was originally meant to address the licensing of plumbers, takes away the right of a municipality to require sprinklers — retroactive to the first of this year. The bill passed the legislature shortly after the West U ordinance: “The bill, not yet signed by Gov. Rick Perry, was created at the urging of the Texas Association of Builders, citing potentially increased home costs. Monday, [West U Fire Chief Steve] Ralls was flanked by fire chiefs from Austin and Dallas, along with city of Houston Assistant Chief Karen Dupont, at an event one block away from the Governor’s Mansion, which was devastated by fire one year ago. ‘We’ll do whatever it takes to make our ordinance stick,’ said Ralls. [West University Examiner; more at Texas Politics]
COMMENT OF THE DAY: INNER LOOP TOWNHOME SHARED DRIVEWAY BUILDING LINE SPECIAL “To detail what Red said, this means that if the units share a driveway, the building can go to the lot line provided there is a fire wall. This is why it is so important people know that they can file for minimum setbacks and minimum lot size, one side of a block at a time (or more). This is avaialbe to EVERYONE in the loop and has been for about two years.” [finness, commenting on A Setback for Jackson Hill]
The proprietor of the Heights’ Beer Island writes in, breathlessly and at length, to report on difficulties he’s encountered getting a beer-and-wine license for the Trail Mix Café, a second establishment he’s trying to establish just a few blocks west:
I am opening a new cafe on White Oak Drive by the new trail and was given a permit from City of Houston for the approval of address to be able to serve beer and wine. After i picked up legal document from permitting office i went to receive stamp from state comptrollers office, than went to city of secretary, received stamp, went to county secretary, clerk placed notification in paper, pd fee, picked up application after 2 weeks had gone by, than took to TABC and they reviewed application, was given window notification sign, I placed in window, 3 weeks go by, checked w/ TABC to make sure no problem, no one called me but thank goodness I called, found out a hold on license, went to TABC to meet w/2 representatives from TABC, they informed me that City of Houston had reversed their approval on location . . .
. . . because the café was in a “dry area.”
So . . . the owner of the new establishment at 3202 White Oak, next door to the Montrose Skate Shop, wants to know: Where, exactly, does it say that the Heights is dry?
