Tag: Development Regulations

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!]

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apartments
08/21/09 5:32pm

City to Ashby Highrise: Yes You Can!

by
Boulevard Oaks, Condos, Development Regulations, Highrises, Neighborhood Disputes, Proposed Developments, Southampton
53 Comments

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:

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , , , , , , , , ,
Development Regulations
08/20/09 12:56pm

Taking the “A” Streets: New Rules for Houston’s Rail Transit Corridors

by
Quicklink, Transportation
6 Comments

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]

, ,
First Montrose Commons
07/29/09 5:57pm

High School Rules: HSPVA and First Montrose Commons’s Historic Decision

by
Historic Districts, Schools
29 Comments

Who’s gonna decide whether First Montrose Commons gets its historic designation? HISD. At least that’s what FMC Neighborhood Association president Jason Ginsburg says in a letter he sent out earlier this week to HISD board trustees:

Without HISD’s participation, the resulting shortfall in committed land area would require our Association to gain the consent of a vast majority of the other FMC property owners, which is a practically impossible burden that goes far beyond the original intent of the historic district ordinance. But, with HISD’s participation, our Association will be able to fulfill all of the requirements necessary to achieve a historic district designation. Simply put, HISD’s decision with regard to our Association’s petition will either make or break FMC’s proposed historic district. [Italics in original]

To become eligible for historic designation, a district only needs the signatures of property owners representing 51 percent of its land area. More than 50 percent of First Montrose Commons landowners have already signed on to become a historic district. But the High School for the Performing and Visual Arts (!) takes up a huge chunk of First Montrose Commons, skewing those numbers.

Map of proposed FMC Historic District: First Montrose Commons

, , , , , , ,
Apartments
07/22/09 9:21am

Rejected Again: The Ashby Highrise’s Latest Failing Grade

by
Boulevard Oaks, Condos, Development Regulations, Highrises, Neighborhood Disputes, Proposed Developments, Southampton, Traffic
44 Comments

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

, , , , , , , , , ,
Development Regulations
07/14/09 7:36pm

Cul de Sac City: Houston’s Ban on New Street Grids

by
Master-Planned Communities, Streets
53 Comments

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?

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , ,
Apartments
07/10/09 11:11am

Apartment Inspections in Sugar Land

by
Development Regulations, Quicklink, Sugar Land
No Comments

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]

, , , , , ,
Development Regulations
06/30/09 2:37pm

No Local Sprinkler Controls for Texas

by
Quicklink, West University
4 Comments

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]

, , , ,
Cottage Grove
06/29/09 12:39pm

The New Inner Loop Townhome Poster Child

by
Development Regulations, Quicklink, Redevelopment, Townhomes
22 Comments

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]

, , , ,
Bellaire
06/18/09 5:07pm

Comment of the Day: How a Form-Based Code for Bellaire Might Work

by
Development Regulations, Home Design, Quicklink
No Comments

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]

, , , , , ,
Comments
06/16/09 4:29pm

Comment of the Day: Where Should Those Little Lots Go?

by
Development Regulations, Quicklink
4 Comments

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]

,
Condos
06/15/09 7:51am

Registered Agents for Condos

by
Development Regulations, Inwood Forest, Quicklink
2 Comments

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]

, , , , , , ,
Development Regulations
06/10/09 2:10pm

Chapter 42 of the Houston Development Story: Letting Out That Urban Belt A Notch

by
10 Comments

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.

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

« Previous Page Next Page »