After the zoning changes to the West U Town Center were put on hold, InstantNewsWestU contacted Town Center Ad Hoc Committee Chair Bruce Frankel for comment.
“I’m disappointed,” he said.
Council was expected to vote on the second reading of the town center zoning ordinance Monday night, but Mayor Bob Fry asked City Manager Michael Ross to remove it from the agenda.
The decision to postpone a vote on the proposal came after the city council received more than 200 petition letters through a new website called “StopWestUGalleria.com.”
Council is now going to consider the proposal as part of a non-residential zoning study of all the city’s commercial areas later this year.
The city plans to hire a consultant who will be given the Town Center Ad Hoc Committee’s report.
The consultant will work with the Zoning and Planning Commission to bring recommendations to council sometime in 2012. Revisions to the city’s zoning ordinance will require public hearings.
“I have no doubt that the ordinance will get passed,” Frankel said. “It must be passed because the future success of the town center depends on it. I know that the mayor and council understand that.”
The decision to postpone came nearly a year after the ad hoc committee first presented its Town Center report to council. The ZPC worked on drafting proposals for zoning amendments to Edloe Street after getting the go ahead from council last year.
The zoning changes will create a new zoning district designation for the tracts of land located south of Rice Boulevard, north of University, east of Edloe and west of Poor Farm Ditch.
The proposed changes are recommended because in the event of a catastrophic loss, the buildings would lose prior non-conforming status. The current code allows 50 percent of the existing floor space to be reconstructed, which could lead to an economically blighted area.
The amendments enable the retail area of the town center to be reconstructed or redeveloped through private investment.
If a developer is “disappointed,” then mayor and council must know they have done the right thing. In my book, no developer should have any business in our city of homes and neighbors.
Well said Money!
Excuse me but the members of the committee do have homes here and are our neighbors and no one on the committee makes a dime if the Town Center becomes better at some point in the future (other than along with all of the resident’s property values going up). Please don’t be just another naive resident that gulps down the Kool-Aid without knowing the facts.
No developer should have business in our city. Having business and living are to different things. If you want a developer planning your neighboring properties, there are other places to live. The existing zoning has worked for the area for longer than most of us have lived in West U. When all the buildings burn down after a category 5 hurricane blows through and clogs up the restrictor, we can talk about rebuilding the block or two that is adjacent to our children’s school. Until then, any attempt at rezoning the area will only force out the existing tenants. Kol-Aide comes in many flavors. I like mine strong.
For the facts visit the website listed in the article.
Also refer to Mr. Ross’ letter that provides the city’s view of a few points that may have been erroneously included on that website. I’m not endorsing any views (here), just adding to Mr. Tyger’s posting to help readers who want to make up their own minds.
The site mostly copies sections of the Ad Hoc Report and Proposed Zoning Ordinance. It also has an email Frankle sent stating “this should help our argument for going to Council with a proposed plan for 3 stories as well as an incentive for the City to participate in the cost of the garage”.
The site also has links to the documents which after about 2 hours readers can make up their own minds.
Mr Tyger, you remind me of someone trying to recreate the past. West U is NOT the village it was when my wife & I first lived here [now in our third residency]. Your fighting [well managed] change is retro and will, in the final judgement, be defeated. You act as if all of those citizens working on the zoning changes are either incompetent or have personal gain involved.
We aren’t the largest city around and probably don’t have all of the resources necessary to properly analyze the town center redevelopment opportunity, but any reasonable person looking at the biographies of the people on the ad hoc committee would come to the conclusion that the committee was chosen based on a very narrow vision of what needed to be accomplished. The former Ciity Council could have done a much better job of balancing out who was on the commission (I am not suggesting that anyone on the commission did a bad job — there was just too much risk of group-think considering the very similar profiles of the representatives).
To be more clear, there was an extraordinarily high representation of people engaged in the real estate industry on the committee and very little representation from people who would be users of the space (merchants, consumers, service providers). As a result, we got something that the supply side (builders, Realtors, developers, etc.) thought was excellent while the demand side is finding it less so it seems. Only now are is the demand side having its voice heard, but not under ideal conditions.
I think that Mr. Tyger’s anti-commission stance is appropriate, though not as he implies because those people stand to gain (they could gain, as could many other people who set up shop in the new center or who live a block or two away, etc.), but because the commission was not well conceived to start with.
For the record, we did attempt to join the commission (I’m not on the “supply side” of the equation), but were not accepted by City Council.
Mr Ross’ letter is very misleading.
Hello pot, this is kettle.
Redevelopment in the event of a catastrophic loss is one thing, but the proposals would have allowed for much more: more than doubling of existing square footage, much taller structures, parking garage. All of that could be undertaken without a catastrophic event once passed. That would have driven up the property value assessments almost immediately, and would (in my opinion) lead to redelopment (leveling the exsiting structures and building new) with a larger structures and a much changed streetscape in fairly short order.
Nice job West U…Keep Disappointin’em! Our city thanks you.
@Shuttem down, no idea what you’re talking about.
Agreed with Edward — the proposals clearly make it much more attractive to redevelop this area. Let’s not stand in the way of progress that adds to the value of our city. Change CAN be good or bad. Let’s extract the best possible outcome from the proposal instead of treating all change as bad or by pretending that the block from University to Rice is actually attractive and functional. In my view, this block is like our neighborhood. Bungalows are slowly being replaced by larger homes, but there are still many bungalows and 70s/80s style homes still around and they are still in demand. Let’s allow *some* improvement in the town center. It doesn’t have to be grand and sweeping, but in matching the complexion of our town, some amount of upgrade would be reasonable in my view.
Mr Frankel, support you and your committee 100%. Tyger’s mentality is of West U when it was a ‘village’.
Are you serious Jenine? You’ve got a developer directing your zoning and you don’t think he’s got a vested interest? Koolaide indeed. The argument that because Bruce lives in WU he won’t do something “harmful” is akin to the notion that because the CEO of a bank works for the bank, he won’t do seething that would ruin the bank. We heard that one during the mortgage crisis. People do stupid thinks in the name of self enrichment all the time.
This delay has no other purpose than to wait till the fervor has died down before floating the same thing all over again.
Which is why we need to keep the fervor alive and well. Council needs to feel uncomfortable changing zoning in West U. I will keep on saying this until I am blue in the face: we are a city of homes, not (and should never be) a city of business or commerce. We live in West University because it is a safe haven from shopping centers and developers around Houston. You want a dentist office next door to you? How about a Burger King across from the school? A parking lot on your block? I speak of extremes, because every inch a developer is given, he will look for five more. Lyle is right, this will get passed when no one is looking. If we care about our city’s identity, we will keep the politician’s and developer’s feet on the fire.
A few reasonable questions I’d like to see answered as part of the consideration process:
1. What is the downside, for the public interest, in waiting to address the issue, as is customary in most locales when dealing with non-conforming, grandfathered property, until such time that there is indeed a “catastrophic loss”?
2. Has a study been done forecasting the expected immediate increase in property appraisal values for tax purposes from the proposed change from “non-conforming” to “conforming” status?
3. If so, where are those figures, and are they availalbe for public view?
4. If not, is this being considered before final action is taken, and if not, why not?
5. What input, if any, was requested and gathered from the current lessees and businesses occuying the property who, many being under “net” leases, may be required to pay the increase in property taxes as part of their monthly leases payments?
6. If this was not done, why should it not be an appropriate action to consider prior to a final decision?
Thanks in advance for your studied, and acrimony free, responses …
Retro looks like it has some appeal. In the Houston Business Journal Dec. 9, 2011 “West University Place, the tiny suburb near Rice University that’s home to many Houston business leaders, ranks No. 1 in a study of the best quality of life in the United States.
The strong educational background of the area — some 85 percent of adults have a bachelor’s degree, and 46 percent have advanced degrees — is just one of the many factors that pushed West U to the top of the heap and make it such a desirable place to live, according to an analysis of data released this week by The Business Journals’ On Numbers.
On Numbers used a 20-part formula to analyze 3,764 cities, towns, villages and other municipalities in the U.S. with populations of 10,000 or more as of 2009. Some aspects used to determine rankings included whether the region had a healthy economy, light traffic, moderate costs of living, impressive housing stocks and strong educational systems.”
Why is council so concerned about what if a catastrophic loss was to happen to the existing buildings. The property is subject to zoning and the property owners should abide by the zoning requirements. If my house burns down do I get to do anything I want with my property?
Frankel is disappointed cause his whole plan to make a buck off West U was exposed and he was exposed for the fraud that he is.
ThiS is a very idiotic idea. Leave west u as it is……the small town feel within a large city is very appealing to anyone in their right mind. If I want shopping there is plenty nearby, why bring it to our small city? Oh I know, so developers can make money.
You all should go in together and purchase the properties. Then you can ensure that nothing ever happens in the Town Center.