View
6
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Walkable Places
Planning and Development DepartmentCity of Houston
Walkable Places Committee January 10, 2018
PHASE I
Background
Information &
Best Practices
PHASE III
Ordinance
Amendment &
Public
Outreach
PHASE IV
City Council
Adoptions
Jan Feb Mar May Jun Aug Nov Dec Jan May Jun Oct Jan
Project Schedule
2018
PHASE II
Framework/
Decision
Making
2017 2019
Agenda
● Recap District Application Process & Rule Applicability
● Ordinance Amendments to Promote City-wide Walkability
● Homework
● Public Comment
Proposed Walkable Place District Application Process
SubmittalPublic
EngagementReview/
ModificationAction
Rule Applicability in Walkable Place District-- within private properties
Require coordination between Public Works & Planning Department on:
o Sidewalk permits
o Driveway permits
o Creation of on-street parking
Rule Applicability in Walkable Place District-- within public rights-of-way
Discussion
Agenda
● Recap District Application Process & Rule Applicability
● Proposed Ordinance Amendments to Promote City-wide Walkability
● Homework
● Public Comment
Houston Land Regulation Timeline
1982
•Chapter 42
1989
•Off-street parking ordinance
1999-present
• 1999, MTF reduced B.L. performance standards
• 2009, TCO
• 2013, TC parking amendments
Current OrdinancesRelated toCity-wideWalkability
• Optional performance standards
o Transit Corridors and Type A streets
o Major Thoroughfares 80’ or less
Transit Corridors
ExistingTransit Corridor Performance Standards
ExistingTransit Corridor Performance Standards
ExistingTransit Corridor Performance Standards
ExistingTransit Corridor Performance Standards
ExistingTransit Corridor Performance Standards
ExistingTransit Corridor Performance Standards
ExistingTransit Corridor Performance Standards
Min 20’
ExistingTransit Corridor Performance Standards
ExistingTransit Corridor Performance Standards
• Benefits
o Have more buildable areas by right
o Allow 20% parking reduction
Transit Corridor Performance Standards
• Challenges
o 83% of developments do not opt in
o Do not effectively promote walkable development
▪ Min 15’ pedestrian realm may not be sufficient
▪ Lack of guidance for utility equipment location within the
pedestrian realm
▪ Insufficient guidance for driveway location and dimension
Transit Corridor Performance Standards
• Approacho Require compliance for properties within close proximity of
transit stations, request variances if needed
Proposed Amendments for Transit Corridor Planning Standards
• Approacho Require compliance for properties within close proximity of
transit stations, request variances if needed
Proposed Amendments for Transit Corridor Planning Standards
• Approacho Optional performance standards along:
▪ Transit corridors
▪ Type A streets
▪ Adjacent public streets
Proposed Amendments for Transit Corridor Planning Standards
Proposed Amendments for Transit Corridor Planning Standards
Proposed Amendments for Transit Corridor Planning Standards
Proposed Amendments for Transit Corridor Planning Standards
Proposed Amendments for Transit Corridor Planning Standards
Discussion
Major Thoroughfares 80’ or Less
YA
LE
LEY
PARKER
34TH
PINEMONT
AIR
LIN
E
POLK
HARWIN
CU
LL
EN
MAIN
HAMMERLY
20TH
WIR
T
JE
NS
EN
GRAY
SC
OT
T
HIR
SC
H
75T
H
HOLMES
LONG
WESTHEIMER
TIDWELL
KIR
BY
LYONS
SH
EP
HE
RD
BR
ITT
MO
OR
E
CROSSTIMBERS
11TH
WASHINGTON
ELGIN
REED
AN
TO
INE
WH
EA
TL
EY
IRV
ING
TO
N
MO
NTG
OM
ERY
MACGREGOR
FU
LT
ON
43RD
WALLISVILLE
DO
WLIN
G
LONG POINT
CH
IMN
EY
RO
CK
LAWNDALE
BLODGETT
YO
RK
CLINTON
MC
CA
RT
Y
BRAESWOOD
GULFTON
TE
LE
PH
ON
E
MY
KA
WA
ALLE
N G
EN
OA
SAN FELIPE
GR
EE
NB
RIA
R
WA
YS
IDE
FO
UN
TA
IN V
IEW
DU
RH
AM
WE
SL
AY
ANWESTPARK
SA
GE
BISSONNET
HO
US
TO
N
HO
WARD
CA
LH
OU
N
PO
ST
OA
K
PARK PLACE
BE
NT
LE
Y
LIBERTY
MEMORIAL
KELLER
GA
RL
AN
D
BU
FF
AL
O S
PE
ED
WA
Y
69TH
EL
LA
ALT
OO
NA
HO
LL
IST
ER
LO
CK
WO
OD
RE
NW
ICK
BR
ITT
MO
OR
E
LO
CK
WO
OD
TIDWELL
DU
RH
AM
PARKER
HIR
SC
H
TIDWELL
REED
FU
LTO
N
AIR
LIN
E
HIR
SC
H
Optional Performance Standards for Major Thoroughfares 80’ or Less
• Reduced Building Line Performance Standards for Major
Thoroughfares less than 80’
o 15’ Reduced Building Line
o 5’ Reduced Building Line for retail commercial centers
o 0’ Reduced Building Line for retail commercial centers
Height ≤ 75’
Existing 15’ BL Performance Standards
Development Opting in 15’ B.L. Performance Standards
Existing 5’ BL Performance Standards2-way Driveway(Side & rear parking)
Development opting in 5’ B.L. Performance Standards
Existing 5’ BL Performance Standards2-way Driveway (Rear parking)
Existing 5’ BL Performance Standards1-way Driveway (Rear parking)
Existing 0’ BL Performance Standards2-way Driveway (Side & rear parking) Min 6’ wide
arcade/colonnade
Existing 0’ BL Performance Standards2-way Driveway (Rear parking) Min 6’ wide
arcade/colonnade
Existing 0’ BL Performance Standards1-way Driveway (Rear parking) Min 6’ wide
arcade/colonnade
Development Opting in 0’ B.L. Performance Standards
ExistingPerformance Standards for Major Thoroughfares 80’ or Less
• Additional Requirements for 0’ & 5’ Reduced Building Line
Retail
Commercial
Center
(90% gross
floor area)
Retail
ExistingPerformance Standards for Major Thoroughfares 80’ or Less
• Challenges
o Current optional approach is under utilized
o Some of the current requirements are too restrictive/undesirable
▪ Retail commercial center requires at least 2 different uses
▪ Min 6’ wide arcades/ colonnades at property line
▪ Min 90% GFA along the reduced building line
▪ Max 75’ height within 15’ next to the building line
o Ineffectively integrate development with the adjacent urban
corridors
▪ Lack of building design requirements
▪ Insufficient pedestrian realm requirements
o Create inconsistent streetscape along urban corridors
• Potential Next step – 4 options
o No changes at all
o Eliminate the performance standards
o Make minor amendments
▪ Eliminate the retail commercial center requirements
▪ Eliminate the min 6' wide arcade/colonnade requirements
▪ Eliminate the Max 75' height requirement
o Change the approach
▪ Designate a set of urban corridors & apply special rules?
▪ Create mandatory instead of optional standards?
Performance Standards for Major Thoroughfares 80’ or Less
Discussion
Agenda
● Recap District Application Process & Rule Applicability
● Proposed Ordinance Amendments to Promote City-wide Walkability
● Homework
● Public Comment
• Think through the reduced building line performance
standards
• Provide thoughts/feedback for next step
• Email Muxian Fang by the end of Jan 19th, 2018
Muxian.Fang@houstontx.gov
Homework
Agenda
● Recap District Application Process & Rule Applicability
● Proposed Ordinance Amendments to Promote City-wide Walkability
● Homework
● Public Comment
Recommended