Houston Planning on Walkable Places

[Houston19514]

I think the thinking is that the ordinance will encourage more dense development (that is, after all, pretty much the point of the ordinance), which very likely means more parking garages.  Further, when there is an ordinance being proposed for treatment of particular areas, that is the best opportunity to get some much-needed restrictions added. In Houston it can be difficult to get restrictions added for particular areas because of the whole no-zoning thing.

 

The noise reference was not so much with reference to parking garages.  I think it has more to do with the air-handling machinery etc that are required for high-rises.  They can indeed be a little noisy.

[wilcal]

On 5/28/2020 at 2:41 PM, Luminare said:

 

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

 

 

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.

 

From my extremely limited understanding from people very much in the know, city council is not on-board with expanding market-based parking city wide... YET. It's a little much to turn the key on the city as a whole. They expanded it into Midtown, it will be expanded with TOD, and it's written into the (non-binding_ Climate Action Plan to expand it inside 610 by 2030. 

 

This is also the crux of TOD. Director Brown talked about how they are using criteria (from outside the department) to determine if streets should be secondary or primary TOD and that they are met and automatically triggered whenever the transit facilities are built. 

 

I can definitely see the more progressive Harris County easing their restrictions, but good luck with Montgomery County doing something like that up towards 99. 

 

 

On 5/28/2020 at 5:30 PM, HNathoo said:

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. 

 

I was pretty unimpressed by the city councilmember comments. Especially Shabazz. The whole basis of their complaints were that they didn't know what was going on. Well, this is been on the table for a pretty long time, and trying to find out what is even the difference between Walkable Places and TOD should probably have been handled up until this point. Even the guy who was presenting the Museum Park homeowner petition said that they weren't against it, but they feel that they didn't understand how it would affect their community. I'm not sure if it's a boomer vs younger generation thing, but the supporters that live in MP all understood and realize that this increases their property values. One guy even said that he owned a lot on a primary TOD corridor and he would have significantly more flexibility to develop.

 

I do understand the plight of the MP residents who are scared, and the planning department really should have done a better job with outreach. They received the same chastising over the Bagby Spur Park boondoggle. 

 

They are definitely going to have to do some smoothing over with some council members (and some residents) before a supposed vote this summer. 

 

[samagon]

I feel like there's a joke that can be made with a vague reference to Intergalactic Highways and plans being on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.'

[Houston19514]

On 5/29/2020 at 11:54 AM, Texasota said:

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

 

On 5/29/2020 at 1:23 PM, Texasota said:

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?"

 

On 5/29/2020 at 1:55 PM, samagon said:

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.

 

Here's the problem (and it is by no means a straw man).  Without the new ordinance, a developer has to seek a setback variance.  This process gives the city and neighborhood the opportunity to seek other changes (such as parking garage and noise screening).  WITH the new ordinance, no setback variance will be required, so there is no opportunity to seek any other changes in exchange for the variance. 

[Texasota]

Bah. And that's worse than a surface lot up the property line (as can be built now without a variance) how exactly?

 

Look, I get wanting additional screening requirements for parking garages. There are plenty of additional standards I would love to see in the ordinance. But if this gets torpedoed *because* of concerns about garage screening, or garage screening gets used as an excuse, then that would be truly absurd. Not seeing the forest for the trees, cutting off nose to spite face etc. 

[j_cuevas713]

I have a feeling an exemption or change will be made for MP but all other changes will remain the same for other TOD thoroughfares. Either way I don't see this getting thrown out completely. And that's great news that the overall plan by 2030 is no parking minimums.

[HNathoo]

3 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I have a feeling an exemption or change will be made for MP but all other changes will remain the same for other TOD thoroughfares. Either way I don't see this getting thrown out completely. And that's great news that the overall plan by 2030 is no parking minimums.

 

Not 100% certain on how this works, but it seems it would need to be passed again at the planning commission level if something were to be requested to be changed by city council. That would set this thing back a few months.

 

Museum Park just sent this e-mail out today:

 

Walkable Places/Transit Oriented Development ordinances advance to City Council

The Planning Commission met Thursday, May 28, with the consideration of Walkable Places and Transit Oriented Development ordinances at the top of the agenda. TOD streets are determined by proximity to rail stations along with other criteria, and will include nearly half of streets in Museum Park as either primary TOD streets (mandatory) or secondary TOD streets (opt-in). See map here.

Designed to promote denser housing near transit stations, TOD ordinances ease certain developer requirements including parking requirements.  The ordinances also provide reduced setbacks that give developers more buildable area allowing larger buildings closer to the street. Developers will be required to provide among other benefits wider sidewalks, a safety buffer (area between street and sidewalk), and landscaping along the streets. Several MP streets are lined with heritage trees, which give Museum Park its distinctive character and which may well be impacted by the reduced setbacks. For detailed description of TOD, see here. 

Because of the complexity of the ordinances and the difficulty in parsing the impact on Museum Park, several residents, including Museum Park Super Neighborhood President and MPNA President, attended the virtual meeting with specific requests:

• Hold additional public meeting(s) to better assist residents in understanding the complexities of the ordinances.
• The existing buffering ordinances are not part of the WP/TOD ordinances and as currently written do not require noise, light, garage, or wind shielding for residential properties on transit corridors. Prior to enacting WP/TOD these ordinances must be updated and strengthened in collaboration with potentially impacted property owners.
• Recognize the unique qualities of the neighborhood, a destination for 12 million visitors a year to the cultural institutions, museums and Hermann Park.

Additionally, District D CM Carolyn Evans Shabazz, At-large Council Members, David Robinson and Sallie Alcorn spoke at the Planning Commission on behalf of the requests sought by the residents. CM Leticia Plummer provided a letter of support.  

Despite the requests to defer action on Museum Park, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to advance the Transit-Oriented-Development and the Walkable Places ordinances to City Council.

MPNA will continue to work in concert with Museum Park Super Neighborhood to secure additional public engagement with the Planning Department so that all Museum Park neighbors can understand the changes that will impact the neighborhood. At the same time we will continue to seek changes in the buffering ordinances that will protect our neighborhood as development continues.

[j_cuevas713]

So does this sound like it’s going back to the Planning Commission? 

[HNathoo]

On 6/5/2020 at 4:48 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

So does this sound like it’s going back to the Planning Commission? 

 

No, it's passed. What I'm saying is that if there was an amendment done at this point, it would probably have to go back to planning commission.

[j_cuevas713]

7 hours ago, HNathoo said:

 

No, it's passed. What I'm saying is that if there was an amendment done at this point, it would probably have to go back to planning commission.

Oh so this passed thru city council!? 

[HNathoo]

9 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Oh so this passed thru city council!? 

No - just planning commission thus far. City council will be a few months out. 

[Houston19514]

On 6/5/2020 at 11:48 AM, Texasota said:

Bah. And that's worse than a surface lot up the property line (as can be built now without a variance) how exactly?

 

Look, I get wanting additional screening requirements for parking garages. There are plenty of additional standards I would love to see in the ordinance. But if this gets torpedoed *because* of concerns about garage screening, or garage screening gets used as an excuse, then that would be truly absurd. Not seeing the forest for the trees, cutting off nose to spite face etc. 

 

If you don't see how a multi-story unscreened parking garage is worse than a surface lot, I don't know how to explain it to you. But even if they are no worse, so what?  Surface parking lots will also be allowed under the new ordinance. So, again, we end up worse off. Currently we can have surface parking lots to the property line, but have means to fight back against unscreened parking garages. Under the ordinance, we have no means to fight either one.  Someone is indeed missing the forest for the trees and cutting ones nose off.

 

The world does not have to be binary.  It doesn't have to be a question of torpedoing the ordinance altogether or taking it as it is.  There is another alternative; we can take a little extra time and make the ordinance better.

[Texasota]

I have literally lived next door to parking garages. In multiple places. And yes, I prefer that to living next to a surface lot. 

 

Again, I'm all for advocating for your preferences, but I'm also a realist. Better rarely equals perfect. There is always something to criticize; something to fight for in the next round. 

 

*If* this results in a slight delay and the addition of garage screening, great. But I don't remotely trust Museum Park to accept that win and not then turn around and push for something new,.

[samagon]

make up your mind please.

 

21 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

If you don't see how a multi-story unscreened parking garage is worse than a surface lot, I don't know how to explain it to you. But even if they are no worse, so what?  Surface parking lots will also be allowed under the new ordinance. So, again, we end up worse off. Currently we can have surface parking lots to the property line, but have means to fight back against unscreened parking garages. Under the ordinance, we have no means to fight either one.  Someone is indeed missing the forest for the trees and cutting ones nose off.

 

explains how things are binary.

 

21 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

The world does not have to be binary.  It doesn't have to be a question of torpedoing the ordinance altogether or taking it as it is.  There is another alternative; we can take a little extra time and make the ordinance better.

 

then says the world doesn't have to be binary.

[BeerNut]

On 9/30/2019 at 10:56 AM, 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 this on the agenda for the June 11th Midtown SN meeting.

• The Planning Department’s proposed plan to reclassify LOCAL streets to MINOR COLLECTOR streets in Midtown, and add them to the Major Thoroughfare and Freeway Plan (MTFP)

  • Peter Eccles – Houston Planning and Development Department

[wilcal]

1 hour ago, BeerNut said:

 

So this on the agenda for the June 11th Midtown SN meeting.

• The Planning Department’s proposed plan to reclassify LOCAL streets to MINOR COLLECTOR streets in Midtown, and add them to the Major Thoroughfare and Freeway Plan (MTFP)

  • Peter Eccles – Houston Planning and Development Department

 

I saw that. Unfortunately I don't think that I can watch the Midtown SNC on Thursday. Will be interesting to see what they plan to change. There are not currently any minor collectors designated in Midtown, except for Tuam ending at Bagby.

 

Def of Minor Collectors:

 

Quote

Minor Collectors are public streets that accumulate traffic from local streets for distribution into a Major Thoroughfare or a Major Collector. A Minor Collector typically has residential uses, however it may also serve commercial or mixed uses. Minor Collectors typically collect traffic from residential uses or commercial uses and distribute to the Thoroughfare streets. These streets are typically shorter in length, however, may be longer in large single family residential developments. These streets typically serve pedestrian and bicycle routes. Goods movement is limited to local deliveries only. In developed areas, these streets may serve as a main street in mixed use areas

 

I'm not actually sure what changes when the streets are deemed a Minor Collector.

 

Here is the current map:

 

Solid purple: sufficient width transit corridor (lol, close Main St to cars)

 

Red: sufficient width major thoroughfare (lol, we took away one of the lanes of Gray for the bike lane this year, so also too big)

 

Blue: Sufficient width major collector.

 

 

 

 

Full size: https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/transportation/MTFPMap/2019_MTFP_Map.pdf

 

And to read the policy statement about the MTFP system: https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/transportation/docs_pdfs/2015_PolicyStatement.pdf

 

 

[samagon]

26 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

I saw that. Unfortunately I don't think that I can watch the Midtown SNC on Thursday. Will be interesting to see what they plan to change. There are not currently any minor collectors designated in Midtown, except for Tuam ending at Bagby.

 

Def of Minor Collectors:

 

 

I'm not actually sure what changes when the streets are deemed a Minor Collector.

 

Here is the current map:

 

Solid purple: sufficient width transit corridor (lol, close Main St to cars)

 

Red: sufficient width major thoroughfare (lol, we took away one of the lanes of Gray for the bike lane this year, so also too big)

 

Blue: Sufficient width major collector.

 

Full size: https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/transportation/MTFPMap/2019_MTFP_Map.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

the bottom left of the map has a much more detailed version of the midtown grid 👍

 

Crawford and Fannin are the major thoroughfare for midtown N/S orientation

Elgin is a major thoroughfare and McGowen is a major collector for midtown E/W orientation

 

Brazos and Bagby are both listed as major collectors as well.

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by samagon

[HNathoo]

FYI - there will be a call tonight specifically in regards to Museum Park.

 

Follow the links below to join the meeting and pose your questions.
Join Microsoft Teams Meeting
+1 936-755-1521   United States, Huntsville (Toll)
Conference ID: 484 461 248#

[BeerNut]

So generalized comments from the meeting...

• They going to ruin Museum Park and turn it into Midtown
• Where will we park?
• buffering, buffering, buffering
• We're not anti density but we don't want our neighborhood to change

 

[HNathoo]

2 hours ago, BeerNut said:

So generalized comments from the meeting...

• They going to ruin Museum Park and turn it into Midtown
• Where will we park?
• buffering, buffering, buffering
• We're not anti density but we don't want our neighborhood to change

 

It seems like the neighborhood forgets how many high density buildings it already has. Many more than midtown. 

[wilcal]

12 hours ago, BeerNut said:

So generalized comments from the meeting...

• They going to ruin Museum Park and turn it into Midtown
• Where will we park?
• buffering, buffering, buffering
• We're not anti density but we don't want our neighborhood to change

 

 

Did they seem to "get it" at all?

 

Even the guy running their petition said that it wasn't that they were against the changes, it was that they didn't know how it would affect their neighborhood. 

 

"Where will we park?"

 

So disingenuous. They have already put in a special parking application that's some borderline BS. 

[samagon]

2 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

"Where will we park?"

 

So disingenuous. They have already put in a special parking application that's some borderline BS. 

 

this is my favorite.

 

obviously, you should have the same expectations of yourself as you do of others: you should have enough accommodation on your own property to satisfy your own parking needs!

[wilcal]

11 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

this is my favorite.

 

obviously, you should have the same expectations of yourself as you do of others: you should have enough accommodation on your own property to satisfy your own parking needs!

 

*clutches pearls*

[X.R.]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

 

this is my favorite.

 

obviously, you should have the same expectations of yourself as you do of others: you should have enough accommodation on your own property to satisfy your own parking needs!

 

There hasn't really been a parking issue this summer obviously because of COVID and the lack of people going to the park/zoo. Been plenty actually, outside of Lucille's lately (my god they are busy) and the area around Allen Harrison. 

 

The funny thing is that since I've gotten here about 3 years ago, the neighborhood has gotten younger but the level of wealth is greater (just based on cars driven, the fact that it doesn't seem like the kids of the new neighbors go to MacGregor Elementary, the price of the homes bought, etc). And most of the new people are obviously docs/nurses. The Allen Harrison apartments are going to start at near 2k a room for smaller rooms. The point I'm trying to make is that through sheer price of the rent/lease/mortgages alone, they are already not midtown. But with walkable places and the development it could spur, they are uniquely positioned to benefit from giving access to the funner aspects of Midtown/Downtown, while providing homes very close to the Med Center for those people. I mean hell, before Covid started I would see golf carts from the Med Center dropping off/picking people up from their homes since its so close. So much potential here.

[HNathoo]

This is finally going in front of Council on Wednesday. Deadline to register to call is tomorrow at 5 PM. I would encourage everyone that pro urbanism to call in, as the NIMBY's always have an outsized showing:

 

 

To speak remotely at the Walkable Places Hearing on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2020
•    All speakers must register in advance (Tuesday July 21st, 2020 by 5:00 p.m.). The hearing is posted to begin at 9:00 a.m. but may begin a little later.
•    If you did not register in advance, you will not be recognized to speak. 
•    To sign up to speak, please call the City Secretary’s Office at 832-393-1100. 
o    If you need translation services, please notify staff when registering. 
•    You will need to call in prior to the start of the meeting.  The number to call is: (936) 755-1521; Conference ID# 499 723 543#.

Options for watching the meeting:
•    HTV: https://www.houstontx.gov/htv/index.html
•    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pg/HoustonTelevision/videos/
 

[HNathoo]

Just received this message from the Museum Park Folks:

 

The Planning Department is set to present the Walkable Places and Transit Oriented Development ordinances to City Council tomorrow, July 21, 2:00 p.m. (public session).  This hearing will likely be followed by Council’s vote on the ordinances July 29.

MPNA is asking that Museum Park be omitted from the TOD for at least a year to allow our stakeholders to fully understand the impact of the proposed ordinances, while also pursuing possible Walkable Places designation and buffering ordinances to protect our current residents from light/noise pollution.  Buffering is critical to the quality of life our neighbors enjoy. While TOD ordinances are designed to encourage development of dense housing in the neighborhood, we currently have no protections in place to mitigate the impact of light and noise typically associated with high-rise developments.

To review more detailed concerns raised by MPSN and MPNA, see May 22 News Posting located on MPNA website.

You can reach out to the Mayor and Council Members to express your opinion regarding TOD.  Attached you will find a sample letter for that purpose.  Contact information for the Mayor’s Office and Council Members is listed below.

A grass-roots effort spearheaded by Dale Furrow and Barbara McGuffey earlier submitted a petition to the Planning Commission.  You can access that website containing detailed information and a history of efforts by MPSN/MPNA and residents here.
 

Mayor:

Sylvestor.Turner@houstontx.gov

City of Houston Council Members:

District A                      Amy Peck                                        districta@houstontx.gov

District B                     Jerry Davis                                       districtb@houstontx.gov

District C                     Abbie Kamin                                     districtc@houstontx.gov

District D                     Carolyn Evans-Shabazz                   districtd@houstontx.gov

District E                     Dave Martin                                       districte@houstontx.gov

District F                     Tiffany Thomas                                  districtf@houstontx.gov

District G                     Greg Davis                                        districtg@houstontx.gov

District H                     Karla Cisneros                                  districth@houstontx.gov

District I                       Robert Gallegos                                districti@houstontx.gov

District J                      Edward Pollard                                  districtj@houstontx.gov

District K                     Marthat Castex-Tatum                       districtk@houstontx.gov

At Large 1                   Mike Knox                                          atlarge1@houstontx.gov

At Large 2                   David Robinson                                 atlarge2@houstontx.gov

At Large 3                   Michael Kubosh                                 atlarge3@houstontx.gov

At Large 4                   Letitia Plummer                                 atlarge4@houstontx.gov

At Large 5                   Sallie Alcorn                                       atlarge5@houstontx.gov

                       

[X.R.]

It sounds like the museum park people are all reading from the same general thing. Also, whats hilarious is that the people against it are generally old, so they have been having technical difficulties apparently using a conference call system, lmao. I spoke momentarily, but I'll follow up with Shabazz, I was super disappointed with her comments. So bad. Should I include some of the other council members?

 

MPNA does some very good things for the neighborhood, but they really don't talk for all of us. 

 

They cited some things like Light and Noise and Buffering that I have no no idea what they are talking about. The neighborhood is quiet, and honestly kind of too dark at night. I deal with the noise of the Allen Harrison development but their construction manager has a number of us on an email list and has been working with us on things the immediate neighbors would like to see. Great. MPNA comes off as anti-development which is whatever, but it felt like they were are pointing to the Southmore as a buffering problem...bro the Southmore is a great development and to me anchors that part of the neighborhood along with the Asia Society Center. Property values for people people around the Southmore are far most stable than the people near 59 and the intersection of 59/Almeda (trust me, I've been looking at other neighborhood house values for multiple years). The trees and esplanade by them is the best kept one on Caroline outside of the two by the park. Also, there are maybe 15 homes near the Southmore? The Southmore even employs its own constable, which MPNA has been trying to do for the neighborhood but hasn't been able to get the cash together for. Museum District people are lucky, they've gotten some high end development that gives them density other neighborhoods don't have without the negative externalities some may believe comes with such development.  

Edited July 22, 2020 by X.R.

[HouTXRanger]

40 minutes ago, X.R. said:

It sounds like the museum park people are all reading from the same general thing. Also, whats hilarious is that the people against it are generally old, so they have been having technical difficulties apparently using a conference call system, lmao. I spoke momentarily, but I'll follow up with Shabazz, I was super disappointed with her comments. So bad. Should I include some of the other council members?

 

MPNA does some very good things for the neighborhood, but they really don't talk for all of us. 

 

They cited some things like Light and Noise and Buffering that I have no no idea what they are talking about. The neighborhood is quiet, and honestly kind of too dark at night. I deal with the noise of the Allen Harrison development but their construction manager has a number of us on an email list and has been working with us on things the immediate neighbors would like to see. Great. MPNA comes off as anti-development which is whatever, but it felt like they were are pointing to the Southmore as a buffering problem...bro the Southmore is a great development and to me anchors that part of the neighborhood along with the Asia Society Center. Property values for people people around the Southmore are far most stable than the people near 59 and the intersection of 59/Almeda (trust me, I've been looking at other neighborhood house values for multiple years). The trees and esplanade by them is the best kept one on Caroline outside of the two by the park. Also, there are maybe 15 homes near the Southmore? The Southmore even employs its own constable, which MPNA has been trying to do for the neighborhood but hasn't been able to get the cash together for. Museum District people are lucky, they've gotten some high end development that gives them density other neighborhoods don't have without the negative externalities some may believe comes with such development.  

 

Yeah, there was some pretty clear misniformation/misunderstanding for most of the Museum Park people. They act like this is going to cause more development around them, but it really won't, mainly just on the main transit corridor. And most of the neighborhood is exempt from regulations too. I don't get it.

It feels like they were just being obstinate because they weren't getting what they wanted out of wholly separate buffering ordinances. Which this isn't meant to touch, so why are they trying to just stop it in its tracks? Seems silly to me. As always, the anti-prop people are drastically overrepresented. I couldn't speak because I couldn't connect in the city's number, it kept dropping.

On the bright side, it seemed like the Mayor and most of the Councillors were in favor of the proposal. Does anyone know how exactly voting works on the city council? Do they need a simple majority, or super majority? Does the mayor have any powers voting for or against the proposal?

[HNathoo]

I was pleasantly surprised at how many people called in support of the ordinance.

 

It's unfortunate that the MPNA/MPSN can make a claim on how the entire neighborhood feels. Most of the residential neighborhood isn't really even included in the TOD ordinance given that Museum Park really has only one true light rail station. Whatever development that comes with the TOD will only improve the neighborhood (sidewalks, curbs, storefronts, trees) and hopefully help get rid of the big surface parking lots.

 

I applaud the mayor for wanting to push this through without delays. I feel much better about the outcome knowing he's fully on board.

[j_cuevas713]

This is exciting for the city as a whole. I like the idea of making them exempt for a year so they can get their ish together on what's going on. 

On 7/22/2020 at 2:58 PM, HNathoo said:

I was pleasantly surprised at how many people called in support of the ordinance.

 

It's unfortunate that the MPNA/MPSN can make a claim on how the entire neighborhood feels. Most of the residential neighborhood isn't really even included in the TOD ordinance given that Museum Park really has only one true light rail station. Whatever development that comes with the TOD will only improve the neighborhood (sidewalks, curbs, storefronts, trees) and hopefully help get rid of the big surface parking lots.

 

I applaud the mayor for wanting to push this through without delays. I feel much better about the outcome knowing he's fully on board.

People are ready for change. 

Edited July 24, 2020 by j_cuevas713