Tag: Development Restrictions

Historic Districts, Historic Preservation

28 Comments

Some major changes to the implementation of Houston’s long-ridiculed historic preservation ordinance may be coming very soon, if a proposal supported by Mayor Annise Parker passes a city council vote that could occur as early as next Wednesday, Swamplot has learned. Under the current ordinance (for all designated historic districts except for the Old Sixth Ward, now a designated “protected” historic district), owners of historic-district properties whose plans for demolition, new construction, or remodeling have been rejected by the city’s Archaeological and Historical Commission have been able to proceed with their plans anyway — simply by waiting 90 days.

But in an email to Swamplot, a spokesperson indicates the Mayor wants the commission to “temporarily discontinue” the issuing of such 90-day waivers for the remainder of this calendar year — or until amendments to the preservation ordinance are hashed out and approved by city council (whichever comes first). Under some revisions to the ordinance likely to be considered in that 7-month period, 90-day waivers could be eliminated entirely.

Swamplot was alerted to the potential changes by a builder, who became alarmed that “anyone, property owner or builder, who does not already have a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition or new construction as of next Wednesday will not be able to get one until next year.” The changes the Mayor is proposing aren’t quite that drastic, however. Parker communications director Janice Evans indicates that the Houston Archeological and Historic Commission will still issue “certificates of appropriateness” while any moratorium on 90-day waivers is in place; anyone whose request for a certificate has been rejected will be able to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission.

What permanent changes to the preservation ordinance are being considered? A committee led by council member Sue Lovell — including fellow council member Ed Gonzalez as well as representatives of the historical and planning commissions — has been charged with reviewing it. All changes, notes Evans, “will be considered by the HAHC, the planning commission and City Council, providing numerous opportunities for dialogue and public input.” In the meantime, the mayor “supports the temporary discontinuance because it will allow for a pause in activity while discussions regarding increased protections occur with various stakeholders,” Evans tells Swamplot.

Want more details about the mayor’s proposal? Here’s the text of our Q-and-A with her communications director:

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

City Council, Development Restrictions, Historic Districts, Historic Preservation, Mayor Parker

Buying and Selling

05/10/10 10:53am

Stuck in Those Neighborhood Sand Traps

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.â€ 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]

77058, 77088, Buying and Selling, Clear Lake, Deed Restrictions, Development Restrictions, Eminent Domain, Golf Courses, Homeowners' Associations, Inwood Forest, Missouri City, Quail Valley

04/16/10 11:17am

When All Those Corners Were Itching for Banks

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 AmeriPointâ€™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 firmâ€™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]

77479, Banks, Developers, Development Restrictions, Development Strategies, Lawsuits, Sugar-Land

02/24/10 1:29pm

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

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]

Comments, Deed Restrictions, Demolitions, Development Restrictions, Historic Districts, Redevelopment

02/11/10 3:21pm

Ashby Highrise Lawsuit: It’s On!

Highrises, Neighborhood Disputes, Proposed Developments, Quicklink, Southampton

29 Comments

ASHBY HIGHRISE LAWSUIT: IT’S ON! Gee, who’da thunk it would come to this? “The developers of the Ashby high-rise sued the city of Houston today seeking more than $40 million in compensation after repeated denials of their permit application. ‘The city must learn that it cannot misapply the law to please a select few or to achieve de facto zoning regulations that our community has consistently rejected,’ said Kevin Kirton, the chief executive of Buckhead Investment Partners Inc., the company that sought to build the 23-story tower at 1717 Bissonnet near Rice University.” [Houston Chronicle; previously on Swamplot]

77005, Ashby Highrise, Development Restrictions, Highrises, Lawsuits, Neighborhood Disputes, Proposed Developments, Southampton

77003

02/11/10 12:12pm

Boxing Out Dynamo Stadium

Attractions, Bellaire, Development Restrictions, East Downtown, Proposed Developments, Westpark

7 Comments

Will the Houston Dynamo get to build their stadium in East Downtown — or off Westpark, near the Galleria? So far, the odds are . . . neither. The final go-ahead for building a soccer stadium on the EaDo site will require county commissioners to formally join the new East Downtown TIRZ (boundaries shown outlined above). But they can’t vote on that proposal until commissioner El Franco Lee puts that decision on the agenda. So far he hasn’t done that — and he apparently won’t talk to the press or constituents about his intentions.

Meanwhile, over in Bellaire, city officials are rushing to put in some “stop-gap” zoning changes to the Research and Development District at the northern edge of the city. Most of the site of Midway Companies’ proposed Dynamo Stadium development there lies within Houston city limits, but a small portion on the east side is apparently in Bellaire’s RDD.

What sort of zoning changes are being discussed? Instant News Bellaire‘s Angela Grant explains:

The new Comprehensive Plan envisions the RDD as a mixed-used urban area that includes residential, retail and offices, along with METROâ€™s future light-rail station. But as the zoning codes are currently written, developers could construct car lots, warehouses or other things that conflict with the â€œurban villageâ€ idea. . . .

The main change would be that developers wishing to construct residential, commercial or mixed-use buildings would need to go before the city in a planned development process to have their ideas approved before moving forward. The city would get a chance to review the plans, consider whether they conformed with the Comprehensive Plan, and reject any developments that did not.

East Enders appeal to El Franco [Off the Kuff]
Residents: County Commissioner stalling Dynamo stadium construction [KHOU.com]
City Moving To Protect RDD From Undesirable Developments [Instant News Bellaire]
Bellaire mayor challenges Dynamo stadium plan; others on board [Bellaire Examiner]

Map showing outline of TIRZ 15: Gensler (PDF)

77056, Attractions, Bellaire, Development Restrictions, Dynamo Stadium, East Downtown, Harris County Government, Mixed Use, Proposed Developments, TIRZs, Westpark, Zoning

02/02/10 3:25pm

Comment of the Day: Lots Cleared by Unforced Error

Demolitions, Development Restrictions, Quicklink

1 Comment

COMMENT OF THE DAY: LOTS CLEARED BY UNFORCED ERROR “In my neighborhood there is one empty lot where a developer purchased a really lovely old home, deemed it a â€œteardown,â€ and THEN found out that deed restrictions prohibited subdividing the [really] large lot. . . . On the other hand, if the potential buyers of the land in my neighborhood had done their due diligence at the beginning (when the estate was being probated the buyers were lining up, it was nuts), perhaps the old ranch house would have been renovated, or a new single home would have gone up, appropriate for the neighborhood. Now the land is empty save the old citrus trees and tumbled down brick wall at the egdes of the yard. And the owners get to pay property taxes based on their inflated valuation of the land, and keep it mowed, too. Maybe the present day lending restraints will prohibit such magical thinking by developers in our old neighborhoods. Meanwhile there are plenty of undeveloped lots laying around because the original plan didnâ€™t quite work out the way the buyer intended.” [Karen, commenting on A Sunset Heights Lot Size Turf War]

Comments, Deed Restrictions, Demolitions, Development Restrictions

Boulevard Oaks

10/21/09 11:21am

Ashby Highrise Developers Want Their Original Baby Back

Development Restrictions, Development Strategies, Highrises, Neighborhood Disputes, Proposed Developments, Southampton

55 Comments

Thursday is a big day for the Ashby Highrise:

Developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton, of Buckhead Investment Partners, will appear Thursday before the General Appeals Board, a city panel that hears appeals of permit denials. They will ask for approval of a 23-story building at 1717 Bissonnet with more than 200 apartments, a restaurant, a spa, retail space and offices, which the city repeatedly said would worsen traffic congestion to unacceptable levels.

In August, the city approved modified plans that stripped out all of the commercial uses except the restaurant. The developers have not picked up the permit, however, and said Tuesday that they still want to build the original project.

What’s the difference between the plan approved by the city and the original design Buckhead is still pushing for?

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

77005, Ashby Highrise, Boulevard-Oaks, Development Restrictions, Development Strategies, Highrises, Neighborhood Disputes, Proposed Developments, Southampton

10/19/09 4:02pm

Not on the Ballot

Quicklink

8 Comments

NOT ON THE BALLOT The Chronicle sneaks a general question about “land-use restrictions” into its Zogby-run poll of likely voters for the city’s November elections. “Out of 601 people surveyed between Oct. 12 and 15, 71 percent said they strongly or somewhat agree that ‘Houston should enact tougher land use restrictions.’” [Houston Chronicle; details]

Development Restrictions, Polls, Zoning

07/16/09 4:52pm

Comment of the Day: The Midtown CVS Domino Effect

Development Regulations, Midtown, Mixed Use, Quicklink, Retail, Streets

43 Comments

COMMENT OF THE DAY: THE MIDTOWN CVS DOMINO EFFECT “. . . CVS didnâ€™t follow Post Midtownâ€™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 didnâ€™t play ball simply because they didnâ€™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, thatâ€™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; Midtownâ€™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: Houstonâ€™s Ban on New Street Grids]

77002, Comments, Development Restrictions, Midtown, Mixed Use, Retail, Streetscapes, Walkability

07/15/09 11:54am

Treemont Homes: Bad Karma or Just Bad Spelling?

Midtown, Proposed Developments, Townhomes

26 Comments

A reader writes:

A new development sign went up recently in Midtown.Â It’s a variance notice regarding a lot bounded by Chenevert, Anita, and Hamilton streets adjacent to Baldwin Park.Â The developers name on the variance notice (#53 on the July 9th variance meeting) published at Houston P&D is “Treemont Homes”.Â Interestingly, no such builder seems to exist either in the business directory or with an online presence. Tremont Homes, however, does exist and, I believe, was involved in the Tremont Tower fiasco a few years back in Montrose.Â I am currently trying to determine who “Treemont Homes” is and who the principals are and if this could be another mortgage fraud/shoddy building/screw the people type of project.

Any help you could offer is appreciated.

The variance request is for a 5-ft. setback along Hamilton St., the 59 feeder road — which typically requires 25 ft. Hamilton Court would consist of 20 single-family lots on an L-shaped 0.78-acre property. The item was deferred until the July 23rd planning commission meeting, on the request of the planning staff.

Previously in Swamplot: Tremont Tower coverage, The Lemon Lady Goes to Washington

Photo of sign at Chenevert and Anita: Swamplot inbox

77004, Development Restrictions, Midtown, Proposed Developments, Townhomes, Variances

07/09/09 10:49am

Smaller Signs in Houston’s Future

Quicklink, Signage

56 Comments

SMALLER SIGNS IN HOUSTON’S FUTURE Approved by City Council yesterday: Big changes to the city’s sign ordinance. “The ordinance, which applies only to signs on the premises of area businesses that go up after Sept. 1, diminishes the maximum allowable height and square footage of signs by nearly half in certain cases, eliminates roof signs and regulates electronic displays, among other more specific rules that will apply to shopping centers or other multi-tenant locations.” [Houston Chronicle]

Development Restrictions, Shopping Centers, Signage, Signs

Camp Logan

07/07/09 12:04pm

Spec’s Developments on Washington: The Full Court Press

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

Development Restrictions, Leasing, Neighborhood Disputes, Retail, Schools

20 Comments

More action in the ongoing battle over the Washington Ave. Spec’s: Responding in kind to the lawsuit filed against his company by the Harris County District Attorney in March, the owner of Spec’s has filed his own complaint against the city of Houston and Harris County.

The new countersuit claims that by granting the store permits, the city had agreed to allow the Spec’s at the Washington and Westcott roundabout to sell alcohol — even though the property was less than 1000 ft. from Memorial Elementary School. According to a city ordinance, only establishments earning more than half their revenue from food sales are allowed to sell alcohol within 1000 ft. of a school.

Spec’s owner John Rydman says the city agreed to issue the permits to sell alcohol at the store

even though the proximity to the school was noted on the application. He said he renovated a building and entered into a five-year lease at a cost of $2 million based on the assumption that the permits were valid. . . .

In a previous interview, Rydman said he knew of the potential problem and would not commit to build out the property or to sign a lease unless the city agreed to a variance. When the permits were granted, he said he thought all obstacles had been cleared.

The Harris County Attorneyâ€™s office contends that the granting of the permit was a simple error â€” and Specâ€™s officials knew it.

Meanwhile, a Swamplot reader writes in with a few pointed questions about the roles of the building’s owner and leasing agent in the dispute:

77007, Camp Logan, Development Restrictions, Leasing, Neighborhood Disputes, Retail, Schools, Washington Ave.

07/02/09 4:26pm

Comment of the Day: The Supermarket Standstill in Timbergrove