ASHBY HIGHRISE DEVELOPERS DROP NAMES, MOVE TO DISTRICT COURT 
What do the Fairmont Museum District, La Maison on Revere, Millennium Greenway, and 2121 Mid Lane apartments, the Medical Clinic of Houston, and the trigger-happy Sonoma development in the Rice Village have in common? They all make cameo appearances in the latest version of Buckhead Investment Partners’ lawsuit against the city of Houston. The claim: that none of those projects were subjected to the same traffic restrictions as Buckhead’s proposed 23-story tower on the corner of Bissonnet and Ashby, next to Southampton: “The Ashby high-rise developers re-filed their lawsuit April 7 in state district court, where it will focus more heavily on claims the project was denied permits for its original design because it was subjected to ‘capricious and unreasonable’ standards.
Court documents submitted by attorneys for the Buckhead Development Partners, show the suit against Houston continues to center on the city’s application of the driveway ordinance as a basis to refuse a final building permit.
The city has said it is correct in its application of the ordinance and the inclusion of ‘trip-count’ standards to guarantee safety and ensure streets in the neighborhood remain passable.” [River Oaks Examiner; previously on Swamplot] Rendering: Buckhead Investment Partners
Sign up for the Newsletter
Tag: Development Regulations
Intrepid River Oaks Examiner reporter Michael Reed tries to get answers to that nagging question on the mind of every person who’s walked or driven by the vacant site of the former Wilshire Village Apartments on Dunlavy near West Alabama in the last month: What’s the deal with that little square of land in the back of the site that’s been taped off with a handwritten address sign?
Since the yellow tape was not in the shape of a fallen body, our first guess was the little cordoned-off area had something to do with some “truly odd†city code. . . . Perhaps it involved an obscure extremely minimum lot size ordinance, an idea we soon discarded because it almost made sense.
Carefully attuned to Wilshire Village’s well-documented vortex of absurdity, and being careful — professional journalist that he is — not to trespass on the site, Reed takes a photo of the city green tag on the sign while standing on the public sidewalk. Then, all David Hemmings-like, takes it home to enlarge it and read what it says:
THE 3 PEOPLE YOU MEET IN PARKING MEETINGS, PLUS A LITTLE NIGHTTIME ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN EADO How’d that first public meeting about changing the city’s off-street parking requirements go? Andrew Burleson reports: “The crowd at the meeting was overwhelmingly comprised of three types of people.
- 1. People who were mad that strangers were parking on the street in front of their homes and then walking to nearby businesses.
- 2. People who were upset that strangers were parking on the street in front of their homes and then walking to other homes or townhomes on the street.
- 3. People who were worried that the METRO light-rail on Richmond Ave. was going to create a parking shortage.
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.
- Planning Commission Seeks Public Input on Off-Street Parking [Planning & Development]
- City to review off-street parking rules [Houston Politics]
- Parking review coming [Off the Kuff]
Graphic: Planning & Development
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]
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]
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]
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.
- The Street Vendor Blues [Eating Our Words]
- Mobile Food Units [Food Inspection & Safety]
Photo of taco trailer, for sale: Haute Texan Tacos
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?
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!]
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]
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]
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:
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.
- La Carafe’s Planned Beer Garden Stymied By City Hall Snags [Hair Balls]
- The Building [La Carafe Wine Bar]
Photo: Flickr user Richart
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]