Development Restrictions

Development Restrictions
09/23/10 4:56pm

This Draft of Changes to the Preservation Ordinance Is Different, Somehow

by
Historic Districts, Historic Preservation
68 Comments

Note: Planning and development weighs in. See update below.

Tonight’s 6:30 meeting at the George R. Brown is the only public meeting scheduled to discuss the latest round of proposed changes to Houston’s preservation ordinance, dubbed the “final draft” in some documents. The planning department came out with this revised set of proposed amendments last week, but figuring out what’s in them isn’t so easy. The department hasn’t created any summaries of the new proposal — thought it did for the last round — and it hasn’t specified what’s different from the earlier proposed amendments either. Even more fun: The new amendments have only been released as image scans, making text searching — and what should be the simple task of comparing one set of amendments to the other — a not-so-simple task.

So what’s in the latest round of proposed changes? Swamplot outlined the new proposed method for existing historic districts to “reconsider” — and possibly shed — their historic designation last week. But since then, the department has only released a presentation given by the planning director. Working from that, here’s the best summary of the rest of the provisions we can piece together:

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , , , ,
Buying and Selling
09/10/10 4:04pm

Comment of the Day: Minimum Lot Size Ordinance Exit Strategy

by
Comments, Development Restrictions, Quicklink, Real Estate Investing
1 Comment

COMMENT OF THE DAY: MINIMUM LOT SIZE ORDINANCE EXIT STRATEGY “. . . The future of the minimum ordinances will depend on the individual blocks when the ordinances themselves expire. A few of my neighbors are planning for their retirement as soon as their ordinances expire with several options: duplexing their house with a garage apartment for rental income or selling out to condo builders as a last laugh for the looming McMansions next to them. If I don’t think my block will re-up our ordinances, I’ll be sure to sell out before the vultures start circling.” [Studes Second, commenting on Where Houston’s Lot-Size Restrictions Went, Year by Year]

, , ,
Development Restrictions
09/09/10 8:25am

Where Houston’s Lot-Size Restrictions Went, Year by Year

by
Houston Data, Houston History
22 Comments

Using data from Houston’s planning department, University of Maryland grad student Chris Dorney has put together a series of diagrams showing which blockfaces in the Inner Loop have restricted lot sizes — and when they’ve done it. His maps start in 2002, when the predecessor to the city’s current Minimum Lot Size ordinance first went into effect. The ordinance allows residents of a single side of a single block to restrict homeowners in that block from subdividing lots below a certain size; its cousin, the Minimum Building Line ordinance, does the same for front setbacks. Dorney explains:

Each [diagram] shows the Inner Loop and indicates blockfaces with special minimum lot size restrictions already in place (red dots) and new for the given year (blue dots) (i.e. blue dots turn red the following year). There are clear spatial patterns to the adoption of these ordinances which it would be interesting to know more about. Perhaps most interesting to people from zoned cities is why every block has not decided to enact such restrictions…a zoning ordinance would likely cover every block uniformly.

And here they are:

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, ,
Buying and Selling
09/08/10 8:16am

Papers, Please?

by
Development Restrictions, Quicklink, Tomball
50 Comments

PAPERS, PLEASE? A Tomball city council member’s attempt to prohibit anyone unable to cough up government-issued documentation of citizenship or residence from owning any sort of property or business, or from renting a home within city limits was defeated last night by a vote of the entire council — along with a few other proposals intended to get area residents riled up about illegal immigration: “All of the controversial measures, which drew both strong support and heated opposition from citizens and activists Tuesday night, were proposed by first-term Tomball City Councilman Derek Townsend Sr. His move to place the items on Tuesday’s agenda was seconded by Councilman Mark Stoll, who said he did not support the proposals but wanted to give Townsend a venue for discussion. . . . Townsend told the audience his proposals were not about racism, but about standing up for the U.S. Constitution.” [Houston Chronicle]

, , ,
Development Restrictions
08/16/10 12:48pm

Must See This: Billboard Bunny Pushes Back New Montrose Office Tower

by
Mixed Use, Montrose, Office Buildings, Proposed Developments, Streets
12 Comments

The art-gallery building at 4411 Montrose, just north of the bridge over the Southwest Freeway, stands only a few feet back from the front sidewalk. But just one block south, the Midway Companies is planning to plant its new 13-story office tower (which, like 4411 Montrose, will feature a restaurant space on the ground floor and gallery spaces upstairs) a full 25 feet back from the Montrose Blvd. property line. But that’s not because Midway is shy about getting any variances necessary to get around mandated city setbacks.

No, Midway director Shon Link tells Swamplot the M Fifty-Nine building must stand clear of the bright yellow Clear Channel billboard that pokes out from the southwest corner of the property. Restrictions require the billboard to have a clear view of oncoming traffic driving south on Montrose. Currently peeking out from the bottom part of the billboard: The Nesquick Bunny.

Behind Montrose, M Fifty-Nine won’t be so shy with the streets:

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , , , , , ,
Development Restrictions
07/20/10 1:17pm

Proposed Historic District Changes: No Will Mean No, 67 Percent Will Mean Yes

by
Historic Preservation
204 Comments

The mayor’s office is out with a “public comment draft” of proposed changes to Houston’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The biggest (and most expected) change: There’ll be no more 90-day “compliance waivers” issued for historic-district properties. Under the previous ordinance, owners of contributing properties in historic districts whose plans for new construction, demolition, or renovation had been rejected by the city’s historic commission could proceed with those plans anyway after simply waiting 90 days. Under these changes, the Old Sixth Ward — labeled a “protected” historic district because the waivers weren’t allowed there — will now be the model for all others.

But the changes also include a completely revised process for neighborhoods to vote on historic-district status. Previously, for a neighborhood to file an historic-preservation application, it needed to submit a petition signed by owners representing more than 51 percent of its tracts. But the new system puts power into the hands of owners who are willing to express an opinion and takes it away from those who can’t be bothered or found. It allows an application to be filed if 67 percent of the property owners in a district who send in special cards distributed for that purpose indicate on those cards that they’re in favor of the designation.

There’s more. Here’s the city’s official summary of the changes:

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , , ,
Development Restrictions
06/25/10 11:23am

Making the Title Insurance Pay

by
Development Strategies, Lawsuits, Quicklink, Retail, Sugar Land
12 Comments

MAKING THE TITLE INSURANCE PAY A Harris County district court has ordered Stewart Title Guaranty to pay $2.8 million to a Sugar Land developer after the title company failed to pay out on a title policy. Back in 2007, Ponderosa Land Development was hoping to build a Chase Bank branch at the corner of Settlers Way and Highway 6. AmeriPoint Title, the title company for the transaction, had obtained title insurance from Stewart Title to cover its work. But AmeriPoint’s title search failed to uncover a deed restriction on the property that specifically prohibited banks from being built on that site: “Stewart Title only offered to pay $200,000 of the $1.83 million title policy, arguing that the land was not worth that much. [Ponderosa’s James] Chang says the purchase price was dictated by the value of the property with the ground lease to JP Morgan and planned sale of the bank to an investor upon completion. Ponderosa is now free to sell the vacant property. Houston Suds has had a contract to buy the site for $953,000 since November 2008, but could not close the transaction and build a car wash until the legal matter was resolved.” [Houston Business Journal; previously on Swamplot]

, , , , , , ,
Development Restrictions
06/10/10 3:45pm

Houston’s Historic Hold

by
Historic Preservation, Quicklink
9 Comments

HOUSTON’S HISTORIC HOLD As expected, city council approved yesterday what Mayor Parker called a “pause in the action” that would prevent until the end of the year all historic-district demolitions and new construction not specifically approved by the city historical commission. Previously, the city’s sharp-gummed preservation ordinance allowed property owners whose plans for historic-district properties had been rejected by the commission simply to wait 90 days before proceeding with their projects anyway. Mayor Parker says she hopes a revised permanent ordinance can be crafted and voted on by September. An amendment also passed by council provides a special exemption for property owners who have already spent money on new construction. The approved temporary changes will also prevent new applications for historic districts from being filed. But the timing worked out for Glenbrook Valley, the Woodland Heights, and Houston Heights South districts anyway — all three neighborhoods got their applications in under the wire. [HTV]

, , , ,
Development Restrictions
06/09/10 9:53am

The Next New Historic District: First Montrose Commons

by
First Montrose Commons, Historic Preservation, Montrose
23 Comments

There’s more historic-district action on today’s city council agenda than the proposed temporary ban on gonna-do-it-anyway waivers: Council members are expected to approve First Montrose Commons as Houston’s 16th historic district. The planning commission approved the new district more than a month ago. If the council also votes today to put in place a temporary moratorium on the designation of new historic districts, First Montrose Commons will have gotten in just under the wire.

When last we left the east Montrose hood — bounded roughly by West Alabama, Richmond, Montrose Blvd. and the Downtown spur — its quest for historic-district status had been stumped by HSPVA, which counts for a large chunk of the proposed district. HISD’s decision on the petition, wrote neighborhood-association president Jason Ginsburg at the time, would either “make or break” the district. So what happened?

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , , , , ,
Development Restrictions
06/07/10 6:16pm

Why You Might Want To Sign That Construction Contract by Wednesday

by
Historic Preservation, New Construction, Quicklink
No Comments

WHY YOU MIGHT WANT TO SIGN THAT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BY WEDNESDAY Still trying to decide if you should go ahead with that historic district new-construction project you’ve been considering? Here’s some info that might help you decide to get on with it: If you sign and at least partially pay for a contract with an architect or builder before the proposed temporary ban on historic-district end-arounds passes city council (which might happen as early as Wednesday), you’ll still be able to qualify for Houston’s famous okay-go-ahead-anyway “90-day waiver” if your plans are rejected by the historical commission. The proposed ordinance makes no similar provision for demolitions, says planning department spokesperson Suzy Hartgrove. [Previously on Swamplot]

, , , ,
Development Restrictions
06/03/10 10:57am

A Temporary Hold on That Temporary Hold

by
Historic Districts, Historic Preservation, Quicklink
18 Comments

A TEMPORARY HOLD ON THAT TEMPORARY HOLD City council yesterday postponed for a week a vote on some temporary changes to the city’s historic-preservation ordinance — but not before supporters added an amendment that would exempt neighborhoods already in the process of applying for historic-district status from a proposed 7-month ban on the creation of new districts. As Swamplot reported last week, the changes would temporarily prohibit historic-district homeowners whose demolition, renovation, or new construction projects are rejected by the city’s historic commission from simply waiting 90 days and proceeding with their plans anyway. Mayor Parker wants the ban on 90-day waivers to allow a “breathing period” — during which more permanent changes to the historic-preservation ordinance could be crafted. [HTV]

, , , ,
Development Restrictions
06/02/10 2:03pm

Historic District Holdup

by
Glenbrook Valley, Historic Districts, Historic Preservation, Quicklink, Woodland Heights
9 Comments

HISTORIC DISTRICT HOLDUP Just one more thing about that temporary change to the historic-district ordinance Houston’s city council is considering today. Apparently there’s more to it than just a 7-month shutting of the wait-90-days “loophole” that allows property owners to demolish, build, or renovate historic-district properties as they wish, even if their plans have been rejected by the city historical commission. The proposal also includes a temporary ban on the designation of new historic districts. If it passes, that’ll give builders working in neighborhoods that have been working toward historic-district status — such as Woodland Heights and Glenbrook Valley — a clear 7-month window to clean out the riffraff. [Swamplot inbox; item 25 on the agenda]

, , , , , , , ,
Buying and Selling
05/10/10 10:53am

Stuck in Those Neighborhood Sand Traps

by
Clear Lake City, Development Restrictions, Homeowners' Associations, Inwood Forest, Missouri Cit, Quail Valley, Quicklink
6 Comments

STUCK IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD SAND TRAPS The Ohio investor who bought up 3 Houston community golf courses over the last decade, then sold the one in Quail Valley to Missouri City a couple of years ago, is running into a few obstacles in his attempts to sell the other 2 to developers: “The latest roadblock came with a jury verdict late last year that would prohibit the use of the land that once served as the Inwood Forest Country Club for any purpose other than a golf course. . . . The Harris County jury found that the Inwood Forest golf property contained an ‘implied reciprocal negative easement,’ [Inwood Forest homeowners association member Julie] Grothues said. In plain English, that means that an owner of the course is bound to keep it as a course even though the original deed has no such restrictive covenant. The lawyer for the homeowners association argued that the course was an essential component of the neighborhood, and that allowing it to be cut up for development would irrevocably change the character of the community and the value of the homes.” Is Mark Voltmann’s game going any better at the shuttered Clear Lake Golf Club? “The deed for the Clear Lake property contains a restriction preventing owners from using it for anything but a golf course or recreational facility until 2021. Voltmann has filed suit to try to bust the deed restrictions. In theory, success could translate into a big payday, as a portion of the property has good commercial potential. But the Inwood verdict is looming. If it stands up, homeowners could use the same argument to stymie him again.” [Houston Chronicle; listing]

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Development Restrictions
04/16/10 11:17am

When All Those Corners Were Itching for Banks

by
Development Strategies, Lawsuits, Quicklink, Retail, Sugar Land
4 Comments

WHEN ALL THOSE CORNERS WERE ITCHING FOR BANKS Coming soon to a courthouse near you: Ponderosa Land Development Co. and the bank corner that got away: “Ponderosa bought nearly an acre in Sugar Land three years ago from Gateway Financial for a price of $1.8 million. The land at the corner of State Highway 6 and Settlers Way was purchased for development of a JP Morgan Chase Bank branch. Over the past five years, Ponderosa has built about 50 bank branches in Texas for Chase Bank. [Ponderosa’s James] Chang says Ponderosa had already secured a long-term ground lease with the bank, and an investor was lined up to buy the property once the building was complete. Shortly after the land acquisition closed in April 2007, Ponderosa demolished a gas station that was operating on the site to prepare for construction of the bank branch. In the process, Ponderosa learned that the Sugar Land site carries a deed restriction prohibiting construction of a financial institution. The alleged oversight on the part of AmeriPoint [Title] in conducting a title search put the brakes on development. ‘Missing the restriction was kind of an important miss,’ says Chang. Stewart Title wrote a title insurance policy based on AmeriPoint’s work. . . . Ponderosa filed suit in July 2008 to recover the $1.8 million land purchase price. The firm is also seeking $1.6 million for three years of lost profits. Ponderosa tried to collect on the firm’s $1.8 million title insurance policy, but Chang says Stewart Title claims the diminished value of the land is $200,000.” [Houston Business Journal]

, , , , , ,
Comments
02/24/10 1:29pm

Comment of the Day: The “Trickle-Down” Theory of Houston Redevelopment

by
Demolitions, Development Restrictions, Historic Districts, Quicklink, Redevelopment
1 Comment

COMMENT OF THE DAY: THE “TRICKLE-DOWN” THEORY OF HOUSTON REDEVELOPMENT “. . . Historic Districts suck and deed restriction, too. They pit neighbor against neighbor, creating the distraction that will keep residents from organizing across the city and taking aim at the real predators. Meanwhile, the money behind the bulldozers is laughing till they pee their pants.” [finness, commenting on Daily Demolition Report: Foundations of Wayne]

, , , , ,
« Previous Page Next Page »