hindesky Posted December 21, 2023 Author Share Posted December 21, 2023 COH Plan Review permit. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 Variance sign has been posted on site. Will be heard at the Feb. 8th, '24 Planning Commission meeting. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted February 20 Author Share Posted February 20 This variance request wasn't on the Feb. 8th planning commission meeting nor is it on the Feb. 22nd meeting. I wonder why? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted March 6 Author Share Posted March 6 The date for the Planning Commission to discuss this has been moved to March, 21st. Â 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted March 11 Author Share Posted March 11 Proposed plat. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Just to be clear, the old building isn't coming down correct, this is just an addition to the building? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted March 12 Author Share Posted March 12 The church is staying but not sure about the buildings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post j.33 Posted March 18 Popular Post Share Posted March 18 Here are some more renderings from the Planning Commission Agenda:Â 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosFeliz Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 Whoa. I had no idea it was a small tower. Great for that location. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 The Planning Commission deferred this to get more information on the dimensions of the building and public sidewalks right of way. 3 people spoke against it including a person associated with 1500 Gray proposed development and two who claimed to live close by. The one person who spoke for it said that IH45 Pierce Elevated was coming down and the building doesn't encroach the existing alley. He mentioned that the Midtown Development District would acquire the property under IH45 when it is demolish to build a park.   7 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted April 4 Author Share Posted April 4 The Planning Commission deferred this a second time. One person spoke against it but in my opinion he has a vested interest in opposing it. He was representing the developer of 1500 Gray which is an apartment project that may be built and this would affect his ability to fill apartment units in that building if and when they do build it. TXDOT had no objections to the proposal. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post j.33 Posted April 10 Popular Post Share Posted April 10 Homeless project near Beyoncé-backed complex sparks debate (houstonchronicle.com) Article in the Chronicle. Provides a good overview of the project: "13 floors of housing for the formerly homeless. To do so, the nonprofit is asking Houston for permission to build closer than 25 feet from the property line." Each studio unit would be around 340 square feet. The article then brings up the people opposed: "But lawyers representing the owners of a block of land nearby have protested that the variance would make the area less pedestrian-friendly, which is the purpose of the city rule limiting how close buildings can be to property lines. The permission could also curb the possibilities for any potential park that could take the place of the bordering Pierce Elevated, which is slated to be removed as part of the Interstate 45 expansion, they said." Personally, from the renderings above, I dont really see how it would be negative for the pedestrian experience. This actually would provide more eyes on the street and I think it would actually make that area of Midtown feel safer because there will be a development with windows and lights and not an empty grass patch near an underpass. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
004n063 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 3 hours ago, j.33 said: The article then brings up the people opposed: "But lawyers representing the owners of a block of land nearby have protested that the variance would make the area less pedestrian-friendly, which is the purpose of the city rule limiting how close buildings can be to property lines. The permission could also curb the possibilities for any potential park that could take the place of the bordering Pierce Elevated, which is slated to be removed as part of the Interstate 45 expansion, they said." Personally, from the renderings above, I dont really see how it would be negative for the pedestrian experience. This actually would provide more eyes on the street and I think it would actually make that area of Midtown feel safer because there will be a development with windows and lights and not an empty grass patch near an underpass. They're getting creative, but the impetus for opposition is obviously concerns about having too many formerly homeless people around. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 The Planning Commission approved the variance request. Multiple people spoke for it including Council Women Carolyn Evans Shabazz from District D. The one and only person speaking against it was a representative of the proposed project at 1500 Gray who has a vested interest in opposing it. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__nevii Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 (edited) Wait, I thought that the whole area of Midtown along/north of McGowen St was always part of the city's traditional CBD (i.e. present even before the 2019 expansions into much of Midtown, and EaDo). Traditional or expanded, CBD standard for Houston does not call for any minimum building line requirements to begin with. Therefore, I am confused about this recent news, regarding why a variance request/fight for such was needed to begin with?  The map below shows what I mean: red = traditional CBD blue = 2019 expansions into EaDo green = 2019 expansion into Midtown Edited April 19 by __nevii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted April 19 Author Share Posted April 19 21 minutes ago, __nevii said: Â I am confused about this recent news, regarding why a variance request/fight for such was needed to begin with? Â It was only because of the IH 45 Pierce Elevated, which is coming down. Chaad Whitmire might try to stop it, he hates making things nicer in Houston, but he has zero authority over TXDOT taking it down. Dude thinks he is able to get whatever he wants after being a minority wrench in the GQP ruled Texas Legislature for decades. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted April 19 Author Share Posted April 19 Rasmus is a respected pastor in Houston with a long-standing reputation for completing apartments in the low-income neighborhood with city and state support. So Rasmus said he was surprised to read a recent Houston Chronicle story that described how the law firm Hoover Slovacek had raised concerns over Rasmus asking the city's Planning Commission for permission to build the Crawford closer than 25 feet from the property line. The attorneys representing a real estate developer, which specialize in upscale apartment complexes, said the Crawford's request for a variance goes against Houston's Walkable Places ordinance promoting wide sidewalks, and that the request could interfere with ambitions to remove the Pierce Elevated as part of I-45 expansion and build a park resembling the popular High Line in New York City. The city's Planning Commission is expected to vote on the variance this Thursday. "We didn't know we had a NIMBY case," Rasmus said this week, referring to the acronym meaning "not in my back yard" that's often attached to vocal residents who object to unwelcome or undesirable elements entering their neighborhoods. "This is the first time we have ever gotten any pushback from our neighbors." https://www.chron.com/culture/religion/article/texas-pastor-battle-developers-19405832.php  Note: The pastor is one of many that spoke in favor of the proposed project. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__nevii Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 13 hours ago, hindesky said: Rasmus is a respected pastor in Houston with a long-standing reputation for completing apartments in the low-income neighborhood with city and state support. So Rasmus said he was surprised to read a recent Houston Chronicle story that described how the law firm Hoover Slovacek had raised concerns over Rasmus asking the city's Planning Commission for permission to build the Crawford closer than 25 feet from the property line. The attorneys representing a real estate developer, which specialize in upscale apartment complexes, said the Crawford's request for a variance goes against Houston's Walkable Places ordinance promoting wide sidewalks, and that the request could interfere with ambitions to remove the Pierce Elevated as part of I-45 expansion and build a park resembling the popular High Line in New York City. Strange. The argument against Rasmus's attempts was "going against Walkable Places ordinance". But 25ft minimum setback is always talked about on these boards as detrimental to the pedestrian experience. Based on reactions I've seen on this thread, and elsewhere (i.e. Twitter), I assume it's just the NIMBY getting "creative"? Although ... I still don't know if there is a 25ft minimum setback in that swath of Midtown to begin with (as mentioned in previous post, I thought it was already defined as "CBD" with no building line requirements")? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip_white Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 20 hours ago, hindesky said: The Planning Commission approved the variance request. Multiple people spoke for it including Council Women Carolyn Evans Shabazz from District D. The one and only person speaking against it was a representative of the proposed project at 1500 Gray who has a vested interest in opposing it. Good to know that the developers of 1500 Gray are still alive after all this time. I might actually feel sorry for them if they had already built the highrise that was initially proposed. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.