Houston Planning on Walkable Places

[wilcal]

Was reading through the Downtown District's board meeting report from August, and it mentioned that the city is still planning on passing a walkable place ordinance this fall. 

 

This came up because Downtown District/Midtown Redevelopment Authority did a "Major Thoroughfare & Freeway Plan" in 2014, and MRA didn't like the plan because it would have put restrictions on setbacks (min 25') on "thoroughfare and major collector streets". Downtown is exempted from those setbacks via city ordinance already. 

 

They are now revisiting this because they were looking at designating new MTFP amendments, but they're going to wait because Midtown would get frozen out on setback restrictions. 

 

If you want to read the full comments, it's on page 85 here: http://www.downtowndistrict.org/static/media/uploads/Board Books/8-8-19_hdmd_board_book.pdf

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, wilcal said:

Was reading through the Downtown District's board meeting report from August, and it mentioned that the city is still planning on passing a walkable place ordinance this fall. 

 

This came up because Downtown District/Midtown Redevelopment Authority did a "Major Thoroughfare & Freeway Plan" in 2014, and MRA didn't like the plan because it would have put restrictions on setbacks (min 25') on "thoroughfare and major collector streets". Downtown is exempted from those setbacks via city ordinance already. 

 

They are now revisiting this because they were looking at designating new MTFP amendments, but they're going to wait because Midtown would get frozen out on setback restrictions. 

 

If you want to read the full comments, it's on page 85 here: http://www.downtowndistrict.org/static/media/uploads/Board Books/8-8-19_hdmd_board_book.pdf

So does this mean there are still minimum parking requirements for Midtown and East End or is this not related?

[wilcal]

3 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

So does this mean there are still minimum parking requirements for Midtown and East End or is this not related?

 

That has already been passed as a separate ordinance. 

 

It took affect in July. 

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, wilcal said:

 

That has already been passed as a separate ordinance. 

 

It took affect in July. 

Oh ok cool. Thank you

[wilcal]

Committee is presenting their two ordinance recommendations to the Planning Commission on 12/19

 

Just got an email:

 

Quote

Dear Residents,

 

A few weeks ago, the City of Houston Planning & Development Department held six Walkable Places and Transit-Oriented Development community meetings to introduce two proposed programs and collect public feedback. Based on the feedback we received at the meetings, we are finalizing ordinance language and a Users’ Guide for both programs. 

 

We presented a preliminary project timeline at the community meetings and announced that a project presentation would be made to the Planning Commission on December 5, 2019. However, drafting the ordinance language is taking longer than expected, therefore, we are moving the December 5^th presentation to the December 19 Planning Commission meeting. 

 

Here is the updated project timeline:

 

Presentation to Planning Commission

Thursday, December 19, 2019, 2:30PM

City Hall Annex Council Chamber

900 Bagby St., Houston, TX 77002

 

 

Public Hearing

Thursday, January 23, 2020, 2:30PM

City Hall Annex Council Chamber

900 Bagby St., Houston, TX 77002

 

 

You are welcome to attend the Planning Commission meeting(s) to hear the project discussion and share your thoughts with the Planning Commissioners. For project details, please click here. If you have any questions, please feel free to call 832-393-6600.

 

[j_cuevas713]

On 12/4/2019 at 6:56 PM, wilcal said:

Committee is presenting their two ordinance recommendations to the Planning Commission on 12/19

 

Just got an email:

 

 

So what are the changes? 

[wilcal]

16 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

So what are the changes? 

 

I wish I knew!

 

Also, they bumped back the presentation

 

Quote

We presented a preliminary project timeline at the community meetings and announced that a project presentation would be made to the Planning Commission on December 5, 2019. However, drafting the ordinance language is taking longer than expected, therefore, we are moving the December 5^th Planning Commission presentation to Thursday, January 9, 2020. 

 

Here is the updated project timeline:

 

Planning Commission Presentation

Thursday, January 9, 2020, 2:30 PM

City Hall Annex Council Chamber

900 Bagby St., Houston, TX 77002

 

 

Planning Commission Public Hearing

Thursday, February 20, 2020, 2:30 PM

City Hall Annex Council Chamber

900 Bagby St., Houston, TX 77002

 

 

[Luminare]

22 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

I wish I knew!

 

Also, they bumped back the presentation

 

 

 

 

Just read both proposed ordinance frameworks and I think, in general, its a step in the right direction. I think a great balance going forward is keeping our No Zoning spirit, but making sure we actually have necessary minimums and standards.

 

My one grip is the 4' "safety barrier" strip. I wish they would denote what is acceptable to go in that safety zone. Completely outlawing sod would be great, and instead allow that zone to either be for widening the pedestrian realm with stone pavers, and gravel, or for flora that is regional and can help with rain runoff.

[HNathoo]

Surprise surprise 

 

look who doesn’t want to play ball...

 

Museum Park Super Neighborhood TOD Letter to Planning    
     The City of Houston Planning Department hosted a November 6 meeting at Covenant Church to introduce the proposed Transit Oriented Development Ordinance and the Walkable Places Ordinance, both of which will impact future development in Museum Park.  Additional details can be found at 
 https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Commissions/committee_walkable-places.html
     Based on the goals of the Museum Park Livable Centers Study and the concerns expressed at the meeting, the MPSN Council unanimously approved a letter to the Planning Department requesting that Museum Park not initially be included in the ordinances.
     Museum Park Super Neighborhood Council members from the Museum District Assn., Hermann Park Conservancy, the High Rises, and MPNA followed up at the January 9 Planning Commission meeting (II).  Focusing on the goals of the Livable Centers Study to realize multi-modal, transit oriented development as demonstrated by the Caroline Promenade Design, the speakers referenced several concerns including a reduction of green space, a lack of residential buffering, the impact of reduced parking in a destination district, and the goal of fulfilling the state-designated cultural district that encompasses Museum Park as a design district attracting 9-12 million visitors a year. 

[trymahjong]

Someone sent me this:

interesting

http://communityimpact.moosend.com/tracking/lc/68c6a75d-0458-4fc5-a256-03214d7c5f50/c3a999ab-8a8c-4b78-99bf-9ce405733da1/ef5d13cf-6968-4698-a11e-a245420ae9f9/

[DrLan34]

On 1/17/2020 at 12:30 AM, HNathoo said:

Surprise surprise 

 

look who doesn’t want to play ball...

 

Museum Park Super Neighborhood TOD Letter to Planning    
     The City of Houston Planning Department hosted a November 6 meeting at Covenant Church to introduce the proposed Transit Oriented Development Ordinance and the Walkable Places Ordinance, both of which will impact future development in Museum Park.  Additional details can be found at 
 https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Commissions/committee_walkable-places.html
     Based on the goals of the Museum Park Livable Centers Study and the concerns expressed at the meeting, the MPSN Council unanimously approved a letter to the Planning Department requesting that Museum Park not initially be included in the ordinances.
     Museum Park Super Neighborhood Council members from the Museum District Assn., Hermann Park Conservancy, the High Rises, and MPNA followed up at the January 9 Planning Commission meeting (II).  Focusing on the goals of the Livable Centers Study to realize multi-modal, transit oriented development as demonstrated by the Caroline Promenade Design, the speakers referenced several concerns including a reduction of green space, a lack of residential buffering, the impact of reduced parking in a destination district, and the goal of fulfilling the state-designated cultural district that encompasses Museum Park as a design district attracting 9-12 million visitors a year. 

 

-

Edited January 18, 2020 by DrLan34

[Houston19514]

I think saying the Museum District doesn't want to play ball is a bit of a mischaracterization. At the January neighborhood meeting, we were told that the Super Neighborhood was asking the City not to include the Museum District FOR NOW.  Note that the quoted letter says  "requesting that Museum Park not initially  be included in the ordinances." There are a number of concerns they want clarified and addressed before being included.  As the post above mentions, those concerns included residential buffering and some concerns about parking because of the huge numbers of visitors to the Museums and Hermann Park.

[HNathoo]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

I think saying the Museum District doesn't want to play ball is a bit of a mischaracterization. At the January neighborhood meeting, we were told that the Super Neighborhood was asking the City not to include the Museum District FOR NOW.  Note that the quoted letter says  "requesting that Museum Park not initially  be included in the ordinances." There are a number of concerns they want clarified and addressed before being included.  As the post above mentions, those concerns included residential buffering and some concerns about parking because of the huge numbers of visitors to the Museums and Hermann Park.

Those are all just excuses for them to limit high density development. Residential buffering is zoning - it’s not going to ever fly in a non deed restricted neighborhood. With that being said, there is already a city-wide ordinance that prevents open garages of a certain height shining lights into residential neighbors. 
 

Market parking has never been an issue in this neighborhood- tons of paid lots that generally remain pretty empty. The issue is free street parking that everyone feels entitled to. 
 

The head of the MPSN is Kathleen O’Reilly. She lives next door to the Southmore high rise. There is plenty of info about her on the web that shows her real character. 

 

[X.R.]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

I think saying the Museum District doesn't want to play ball is a bit of a mischaracterization. At the January neighborhood meeting, we were told that the Super Neighborhood was asking the City not to include the Museum District FOR NOW.  Note that the quoted letter says  "requesting that Museum Park not initially  be included in the ordinances." There are a number of concerns they want clarified and addressed before being included.  As the post above mentions, those concerns included residential buffering and some concerns about parking because of the huge numbers of visitors to the Museums and Hermann Park.

 

Yeah I went to the November meeting and do live and own a place in the neighborhood and it is a bit of a mischaracterization . MPNA really, really wants to execute this Caroline Pedestrian-friendly Promenade vision of theirs (basically making Caroline this pedestrian-biking-running friendly street from the park to 59), which I think is a good thing but they are a bit narrow-viewed when it comes to that since I think in their mind this should solve the needs for bike lanes and other things the city wants to do in the area. I do understand why the Museums feel that way about the parking situation, the wait and see, but to be honest, its not like the areas around the train are being utilized now anyway. Everyday I go home and I'm like, can we get rid of the empty parking lots and build a multi-story garage with GFR plsssssss.

 

I don't really understand the residential buffering thing, but I am a lot younger than my neighbors. Its almost like they're scared of something, when they should in fact embrace that this pocket of residential area could become some of the densest in the city if they just let it (its well on its way now with the apartments by the park, Southmore, boone manor, the new condos, and potentially the X if it gets built). And they just got their parking ordinance passed (got the letter in the mail) so I thought that has been solved? I always thought they wanted to be like old heights, but its more and more like they want to be west U. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by X.R.

[wilcal]

Proposed amendments are up, but I don't have time to dig through them right now: https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/docs_pdfs/Proposed_Walkable_Places_and_TOD_Ordinance_Amendments_Planning_Commission_Public_Comment_Draft.pdf

 

Public comment open on their site

[august948]

On 1/17/2020 at 11:29 AM, X.R. said:

 

Yeah I went to the November meeting and do live and own a place in the neighborhood and it is a bit of a mischaracterization . MPNA really, really wants to execute this Caroline Pedestrian-friendly Promenade vision of theirs (basically making Caroline this pedestrian-biking-running friendly street from the park to 59), which I think is a good thing but they are a bit narrow-viewed when it comes to that since I think in their mind this should solve the needs for bike lanes and other things the city wants to do in the area. I do understand why the Museums feel that way about the parking situation, the wait and see, but to be honest, its not like the areas around the train are being utilized now anyway. Everyday I go home and I'm like, can we get rid of the empty parking lots and build a multi-story garage with GFR plsssssss.

 

I don't really understand the residential buffering thing, but I am a lot younger than my neighbors. Its almost like they're scared of something, when they should in fact embrace that this pocket of residential area could become some of the densest in the city if they just let it (its well on its way now with the apartments by the park, Southmore, boone manor, the new condos, and potentially the X if it gets built). And they just got their parking ordinance passed (got the letter in the mail) so I thought that has been solved? I always thought they wanted to be like old heights, but its more and more like they want to be west U. 

 

Investors buy in for what it might become.  Normal people typically buy a place they like as it is when they buy it.  So when it starts changing, there is always some unhappiness.  Believe it or not, not everyone prefers density.  Some like single family home neighborhoods and don't see a reason to embrace more people packed into the same area.

[wilcal]

Changes/non changes released based on public comments:

 

https://houstontx.gov/planning/docs_pdfs/walkable_places/draft_public_commment_matrix_02282020.pdf

[HNathoo]

This is going to planning commission vote tomorrow. Any supports for this would be helpful.

 

The virtual meeting will start at 2:30pm. The TOD Ordinance will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting. 

WEB: https://bit.ly/3cmQvEO 

OR CALL +1 936-755-1521 (CONFERENCE ID: 285 411 221#)

 

There is a neighborhood group from the Museum Park that is trying to fight this, so the ordinance definitely needs support.

 

http://stopmuseumparktod.org/detailhistory.html

[BeerNut]

Who should be contacting in support of this?

[HNathoo]

3 hours ago, BeerNut said:

Who should be contacting in support of this?

Just log in to the call at 2:30pm. The TOD ordinance is the first thing on the agenda, but expect a lot of negative public comments from the museum park neighborhood. They’ll probably bring out every Karen in the world to speak. 

[samagon]

21 hours ago, HNathoo said:

This is going to planning commission vote tomorrow. Any supports for this would be helpful.

 

The virtual meeting will start at 2:30pm. The TOD Ordinance will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting. 

WEB: https://bit.ly/3cmQvEO 

OR CALL +1 936-755-1521 (CONFERENCE ID: 285 411 221#)

 

There is a neighborhood group from the Museum Park that is trying to fight this, so the ordinance definitely needs support.

 

http://stopmuseumparktod.org/detailhistory.html

 

the worst kind of people. 

 

they complain that they are going to lose their own parking options. are they suggesting that passing this ordinance will compel them to make smaller driveways, or are they suggesting that their own private residences were designed and built without adequate parking to satisfy the use demands of the owners?

 

if it is the latter of the two, maybe they should be taxed at a rate that takes into consideration their reliance on street parking to overcome the design of their parking situation that didn't allow enough on premise parking?

 

and complaining about access to sunlight? really?

 

they say that this will increase traffic? where are their studies?

 

They did have a very helpful page that included some email addresses of people who will be voting, I sent the following to each:

 

Quote

 

The City Planning Commission is voting on May 28 to approve Transit-Oriented-Development (TOD) ordinances.

I have reviewed and support the ordinance, it looks like it will be a great addition to help make our great city even more accessible to all.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by samagon

[Luminare]

On 3/2/2020 at 2:15 PM, wilcal said:

Changes/non changes released based on public comments:

 

https://houstontx.gov/planning/docs_pdfs/walkable_places/draft_public_commment_matrix_02282020.pdf

 

I don't really agree with their logic for not getting rid of parking minimums city wide. They expressly state:

 

Quote

The WP Street designation is eligible citywide; therefore, an automatic reduction in off-street parking may not be appropriate for certain streets. The current proposal allows for a streamlined Special Parking Area designation (beginning P3, Line 141) to occur simultaneously with the WP designation; thereby allowing a context sensitive approach for off-street parking requirements

 

if they are worried about context sensitive approaches and saying that there isn't a one size fits all solution with WP Streets, then the same could be said about having a blanket minimum that doesn't appreciate each street per its context. They are using a logical fallacy to try and cement their argument to not get rid of the minimum. The minimum doesn't allow property owners and developers to design per context. Instead it has to design per the minimum, and some places that minimum doesn't make any sense, and in some cases the minimum doesn't even get close to what parking is needed. Market based parking works because its parking based on the situation, context, and time at hand. It would be one thing if we had specific parking minimums for each city district or each neighborhood, but we don't necessarily. Instead the entire city except for the exemptions is under one city-wide minimum, and the territory the city covers is so vast that there is no way you are going to be able to account for everything with blanket minimums for general situations.

 

This still needs to be fixed. I would even be satisfied with a compromise where lets say the parking minimums as they are now stand for anything between 99 to SH8, a 50% reduction anything SH8 to 610, and a 75% reduction to anything inside 610 with nuances for if a property is near a WP Street or Corridor, or even a major business center. A compromise like that would at least be more flexible. They could still keep this new upcoming "opt in" style parking policy where people create these Special Parking Area's.

[HNathoo]

This passed planning commission. The next stop will be city Council.  Some council members joined the call - they’ve been barraged by their constituents (mainly museum park) to try to delay this. I expect a lot more push back at the next round, but I believe the mayor fully supports this. 

[august948]

5 hours ago, samagon said:

 

and complaining about access to sunlight? really?

 

 

I can see the concern about losing sunlight through windows and in the yard/garden, but more importantly they are concerned about losing access to air...

 

Quote

Removal of current setback requirements and related variance process to reset with new setback requirements encouraging buildings to encroach upon streets and walkways that affect your access to light and air, as well as limiting space to retain large, mature shade trees that are the key to walkable places in Houston and our much-valued “park-like” neighborhood essence.   http://stopmuseumparktod.org/detailhistory.html

 

I'm sympathetic to homeowners not wanting their neighborhood to change, but losing access to air is sillier than the "Bridge of Death" argument against the Heights Walmart.

 

[j_cuevas713]

Parking minimums will continue to plague this city. I don’t understand the need to hold on to those old ideals so tightly. It’s like we’re afraid. I see this passing through City Council though. It’s ridiculous to exclude their Museum Park neighborhood. When is the next vote? 

[Houston19514]

I think one of the Museum District's biggest concerns is the failure to provide any requirements for screening of light and noise from parking garages etc.  A very legitimate concern.

[Texasota]

That's a pretty serious strawman. If that's their concern, then that's already an issue. 

[Houston19514]

27 minutes ago, Texasota said:

That's a pretty serious strawman. If that's their concern, then that's already an issue. 

 

Huh?

[Texasota]

Parking garages already exist and will continue to be built. Decreasing the setback requirements for those garages isn't going to make *that* much of a difference to how visible/audible they are to neighbors. 

 

And honestly, at least in my experience, parking garages are generally pretty quiet neighbors. And tend *not* to be over-lit. This just screams "we've already decided we dont like this; what excuses can we think up to object with?"

[samagon]

exactly, with or without this updated ordinance, businesses can and will still install lighting.

 

further, it isn't going to suddenly make businesses go out and install even more lighting than they already have.

 

and even if they do choose to install more lighting that will help improve pedestrian activity, with LED lighting these days you can target pretty well where the light goes, so it isn't like businesses will be targeting spotlights into people's bedrooms.

Edited May 29, 2020 by samagon