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