The Heights Historic Districts

[Marksmu]

Yes, I read the same article.

Regardless, preserving the human scale house in front - be it shotgun or bungalow - makes for a more attractive streetscape, and is certainly preferable to rows of gaping garage doors (cameltoes?).

The only thing uglier than a terribly done addition is a dilapidated house....the majority, and I do mean majority of new construction in the heights has been extremely nice. I dont particularly care for the homes with the garages as the defining front feature, but I will take those every day of the week over that house pictured in the post before this, with the awful camelback.

Most new construction has alley access, or they create it. If the city would back off their hatred of utilizing the existing alleys, we could start getting more attractive homes again. I've said it time and time again....if you preserve lot size, and stop subdividing lots, I think 85% of the people would be happy with what gets constructed. The 15% of the people (the noted minority) would be the ones who oppose all new construction period, and think we should keep things like they were in the 1920s for some reason.

The existing ordinance just goes way too far. The petitions got signed because people wanted to stop 2 homes from being built on one lot, ....it was the people who tried to get you to sign the petitions number one argument in favor of signing. The other scare factor used to get signatures was apartments and high density town homes. Few of which have been built without the ordinance.

Edit - My percentages were fabricated from the posterior of my anus, so don't ask for a source because none exists and none is currently available either.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Marksmu

[Angostura]

The only thing uglier than a terribly done addition is a dilapidated house....the majority, and I do mean majority of new construction in the heights has been extremely nice. I dont particularly care for the homes with the garages as the defining front feature, but I will take those every day of the week over that house pictured in the post before this, with the awful camelback.

Most new construction has alley access, or they create it. If the city would back off their hatred of utilizing the existing alleys, we could start getting more attractive homes again. I've said it time and time again....if you preserve lot size, and stop subdividing lots, I think 85% of the people would be happy with what gets constructed. The 15% of the people (the noted minority) would be the ones who oppose all new construction period, and think we should keep things like they were in the 1920s for some reason.

The existing ordinance just goes way too far. The petitions got signed because people wanted to stop 2 homes from being built on one lot, ....it was the people who tried to get you to sign the petitions number one argument in favor of signing. The other scare factor used to get signatures was apartments and high density town homes. Few of which have been built without the ordinance.

Edit - My percentages were fabricated from the posterior of my anus, so don't ask for a source because none exists and none is currently available either.

+1

What's so galling is that there is already a mechanism to do exactly this. You can petition the city for minimum lot size and minimum building line restrictions on a block by block basis, and all you need is 51% of your neighbors' consent. Something like 160 MLS applications have already been approved.

[dbigtex56]

The only thing uglier than a terribly done addition is a dilapidated house....the majority, and I do mean majority of new construction in the heights has been extremely nice. I dont particularly care for the homes with the garages as the defining front feature, but I will take those every day of the week over that house pictured in the post before this, with the awful camelback.

Most new construction has alley access, or they create it. If the city would back off their hatred of utilizing the existing alleys, we could start getting more attractive homes again. I've said it time and time again....if you preserve lot size, and stop subdividing lots, I think 85% of the people would be happy with what gets constructed. The 15% of the people (the noted minority) would be the ones who oppose all new construction period, and think we should keep things like they were in the 1920s for some reason.

The existing ordinance just goes way too far. The petitions got signed because people wanted to stop 2 homes from being built on one lot, ....it was the people who tried to get you to sign the petitions number one argument in favor of signing. The other scare factor used to get signatures was apartments and high density town homes. Few of which have been built without the ordinance.

Edit - My percentages were fabricated from the posterior of my anus, so don't ask for a source because none exists and none is currently available either.

You make some very reasonable points.

I agree that the example of a New Orleans with the camelback addition in a previous post is unattractive - I believe that was the poster's intention. I've also seen some camelback adaptations which are unobtrusive and sympathetic to the existing structure; forgive me, I don't have a digital camera, or I'd post examples. My hope is that the ordinance would lead to more of the latter and fewer of the former. They should not be tarred with the same brush.

I was unaware that the city has obstructed efforts to re-open the alleys. The homeowners who have appropriated alleys for their own private use have not a leg to stand on. We agree.

For at least 20 years I've heard people express concern that the Heights would "become another Montrose", where once attractive, tree-lined streets now more closely resemble a self-storage facility. A street lined with garage doors just ain't attractive. That this form of development isn't as widespread in the Heights is fortunate, and I hope that it can be curtailed.

Frankly, I haven't made up my mind about the ordinance. I'd like to see some protection; the proposed restrictions may, indeed, go too far. I just believe that some of the more belligerent opponents' opinions expressed in this forum should be challenged. This post of yours is much more persuasive.

[RedScare]

The City has not obstructed the reopening of alleys. In fact, the City jealously guards its right of way. However, to protect itself from substandard rehab of the alleys by homeowners, the City requires repaving to approach the level of an actual street. Some have interpereted this requirement to be obstructionism. It is not. It is simply the City setting standards higher than the level some homeowners wish to use.

[dbigtex56]

Some have interpereted this requirement to be obstructionism. It is not. It is simply the City setting standards higher than the level some homeowners wish to use.

Much like the historic ordinance, eh?

[RedScare]

Much like the historic ordinance, eh?

If the City owned my property, sure.

[OutfieldDan]

For at least 20 years I've heard people express concern that the Heights would "become another Montrose", where once attractive, tree-lined streets now more closely resemble a self-storage facility. A street lined with garage doors just ain't attractive. That this form of development isn't as widespread in the Heights is fortunate, and I hope that it can be curtailed.

Frankly, I haven't made up my mind about the ordinance. I'd like to see some protection; the proposed restrictions may, indeed, go too far. I just believe that some of the more belligerent opponents' opinions expressed in this forum should be challenged. This post of yours is much more persuasive.

The fact that the Heights has not become overrun with unconstrained overdevelopment speaks for itself. The neighborhood has certainly evolved, but it has not changed its basic historic character and new development is sympathetic to that character. Sure, there are exceptions, but most of the these have also enhanced the neighborhood. I know you disagree, but I mention again the modern Victorian on Harvard that my neighbors appreciate despite a lack of historical conformity. In fact one can argue that the new modern home is more historic than what was torn down; being that it represents uniqueness in art and creativity.

Because of economics, cheap land is what the developer wants and cheap land is scarce in the Heights. The only candidates are properties with homes that need to be torn down and replaced. A typical Heights bungalow home on a 50x132 lot costs upward of $300,000, unless the home is so unlivable that it detracts from the property value. Consequently, most new development and virtually all cheap development has been bypassing the Heights. The cost of land is much too high compared to other areas, such as North of I-10 and West of TC Jester. There's lots of new construction there, including higher density stuff. Simply put, property values are high enough to prevent the rampant development that is so feared by the proponents of the new ordinance. Property values have been high for a while and that's why the neighborhood has not lost its character over the 100 years of its existence.

We simply don't need this new law. The neighborhood speaks for itself and defends itself by attracting neighbors that cherish the existing character and who can afford to remodel their older home to enhance and preserve it.

I think the ordinance we have now is about right. The 90 day cooling off period does influence people to consider alternatives, and it's enough penalty to achieve real effect. The HAHC might actually have a better idea of designs that work and the current law provides those perspectives to the remodeling/rebuilding homeowners to consider. The best outcome of all this would be for city council to simply vote down the change to the existing ordinance and let us go back to where we were before Memorial Day.

This battle has already hurt us too much by pitting neighbor against neighbor, sign against sign. I want my neighborhood back.

[JCR]

What's so galling is that there is already a mechanism to do exactly this. You can petition the city for minimum lot size and minimum building line restrictions on a block by block basis, and all you need is 51% of your neighbors' consent. Something like 160 MLS applications have already been approved.

This was done on my street on 15 1/2 & Dian in Shady Acres Annex. Feel free to come in and buy and bulldoze a home, just don't think you can put more than one home on a lot. If I had the cash I'd bulldoze my house and start over.

[LegacyTree]

I came across an interesting presentation the other day about historical preservation in Europe and the USA.

The idea was essentially that b/c of the way the preservation works, a brand new building or even a building not even built yet can be considered for historic preservation. They took the flipside approach and declared that there needed to be an ordinance for the destruction (not preservation) of junk (not historical buildings). This may be what Houston really needs instead of preservation.

See image below:

Pt. 1

Pt. 2

Pt. 3

Edited September 13, 2010 by LegacyTree

[OutfieldDan]

Any news about the revised proposal? I thought the final version that is to be considered by the City Council was due out today.

[sonic0boom]

There's probably a 90 day "cool off" period before they release it.

[sevfiv]

To: Houston City Council

Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance

Date: 9/15/10

Please find attached the final draft of the proposed amendments to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance

and a specified process for transitioning the existing historic districts to the stronger protections offered by the

proposed amendments. As currently proposed, the transition process will begin two weeks after City Council

passage of the amended ordinance. There is a clear mechanism for each historic district to request

reconsideration of its status.

I appreciate the engagement of City Council and other stakeholders. The new draft incorporates the concerns I

heard from you, as well as the many suggestions offered at the series of town hall meetings during the last two

months. It is a good compromise that reflects the needs of the preservation community while still protecting

private property rights.

There will be time for additional public comment as the document is discussed and shared with various groups

over the next three weeks. The schedule moving forward will be as follows:

September 20, 2010 – Consideration by City Council’s Development and Regulatory Affairs Committee

September 23, 2010 – Public hearing before the Houston Planning Commission

October 6, 2010 – Consideration by the full City Council

Achieving real historic preservation for Houston has been a priority of mine for more than a decade. I want to

personally thank CM Lovell for her leadership in moving this priority closer to reality. Her negotiation and

consensus building skills are the reason we are at this point.

I look forward to your vote in support of the ordinance in October. In the meantime, if you have questions or

need additional information, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Annise Parker

Mayor

HPOordinance.pdf

[sevfiv]

Also, the transition provisions:

HPO_TransitionDraft.pdf

[OutfieldDan]

I have read the new proposed ordinance and despite the cover letter language from Anise Parker, there are no provisions for removing a historic district from historic district status in the future. However there is a temporary provision for the current "Transition."

The proposed "Transition Provisions" allow for reconsiderations that require formal requests including 25% tract owner signatures within 15 days after passage of the new ordinance. Two weeks? Ten business days? This is certainly disingenuous. The formal request must be given to the Director of the Panning and Development Department who must mail out a first class letter to all property owners notifying them of a public meeting and that includes a card for yes or no support to historic district designation. Apparently the Director can do what he wants with the vote. He just has to "consider" the current level of support in making a recommendation to city council. In other words, there is no threshold of support that must be exceeded - nothing about 50%, 60% or 67%. The Director may recommend no action, repeal of historic district, or change of the HD boundary.

The new ordinance is essentially the same as the previous one except for specific exemptions of landscaping, paint, fences, and light fixtures from application for certificates of appropriateness. The term "roof" is also included as an exemption, but in other parts of the ordinance there are specific roof limitations and requirements to be considered in granting of CA's. So, that's unclear. If your home is "non-contributing" and it's destroyed by a "natural disaster", (whatever that means) you can reconstruct it like it was. Is arson a natural disaster? Is an accidental fire a natural disaster?

Pretty much all the rest is the same. You can't alter the original structure of your home; you can't add on unless you construct a camelback, you can't do anything to change the front exterior. To do anything to an old bungalow you're going to need a certificate of appropriateness from the HAHC. Have fun with the red tape. It appears that you cannot add-on by replacing the back of your home unless you include the old exterior inside the addition - "proposed additions or alterations must be done in a manner that, if removed in the future, would leave unimpaired the essential form and integrity of the building."

"New materials to be used for any exterior feature...must be visually compatible with, but not necessarily the same as, the materials being replaced in form, design, texture, dimension and scale" Notable is that the language does not say you have your choice - "but not necessarily the same as" means that it might be required to be the same. It's up to the HAHC. So far the HAHC has denied the use of aluminum frame insulated windows and hardiplank. There is no provision in the new ordinance that relief must be granted for these materials. I guess you'll have to scavenge for old windows if they need to be replaced.

Basically, all contributing structures will be museum pieces that you cannot remodel the way it's been done so successfully in the Heights up to now. Your home will be straitjacketed. Isn't that wonderful?

Edited September 16, 2010 by OutfieldDan

[OutfieldDan]

Arguably, the worst language in the new ordinance is on the bottom of p.13 where applications for historic district status immediately invoke historic district rules until the application is declared a failure by the director of the HAHC.

To declare a failure, the full procedure must occur including:

1. Notice of public meeting to property owners within 15 days

2. Notice of public meeting in newspaper

3. Public meeting no sooner than 30 days thereafter

4. Cards mailed to property owners to vote yes or no after the public hearing

5. Thirty days required for receiving cards from property owners

6. HAHC decides to either modify the boundary to achieve 60% within or declares failure of the application.

Therefore, the earliest the application can be declared a failure is approximately 90 days; probably it will 180 days given the HAHC meeting schedule, etc.

A year later it's permitted to do this again.

The bottom line is that if you live in a neighborhood in Houston with at least 10% activist preservationists, they can invoke historic district rules on you every year and you will be under those rules for approximately 6 months until the application is declared a failure one way or another.

[RedScare]

The bottom line is that if you live in a neighborhood in Houston with at least 10% activist preservationists, they can invoke historic district rules on you every year and you will be under those rules for approximately 6 months until the application is declared a failure one way or another.

Yet, there is only one opportunity to reject or rescind Historic District status, and that requires 25% of residents to petition within 15 days of passage by City Council. It only takes 10% of my neighbors to restrict my rights...and they have unlimited time to do so...but it takes 25% of neighbors and only one 15 day period to get them back.

[poyea]

I have read the new proposed ordinance and despite the cover letter language from Anise Parker, there are no provisions for removing a historic district from historic district status in the future. However there is a temporary provision for the current "Transition."

The proposed "Transition Provisions" allow for reconsiderations that require formal requests including 25% tract owner signatures within 15 days after passage of the new ordinance. Two weeks? Ten business days? This is certainly disingenuous. The formal request must be given to the Director of the Panning and Development Department who must mail out a first class letter to all property owners notifying them of a public meeting and that includes a card for yes or no support to historic district designation. Apparently the Director can do what he wants with the vote. He just has to "consider" the current level of support in making a recommendation to city council. In other words, there is no threshold of support that must be exceeded - nothing about 50%, 60% or 67%. The Director may recommend no action, repeal of historic district, or change of the HD boundary.

So, to be clear, they are not mailing out cards for a re-vote (I'm in Heights West), unless we gather 25% of the owners' signatures requesting a re-vote? If so, they just lied to our faces at all of those meetings, especially the last one where we all "voted" to have a re-vote. To say I'm p_ssed off if such an understatement. And we've already done all of our remodel work! Friggin' politicians. They ALL need to go. Vote them all out and let them go find real jobs with accountability. So ticked off.....

[20thStDad]

I read it but it was late and I was dozing off - does it say whether the designation of contributing vs non-contributing is something that is done as a district is getting historical-ized, or does it only get deemed one or the other if a matter is put before the HAHC? My place is clearly non-contributing, but I'm certain that applies to the existing structures only and not if I decide to do a new structure.

[ISMDAVID]

Sad days indeed ahead as we watch with seemingly little recourse political wheels steamrolling ahead. The Heights stands to lose many homeowners with vested interests that have brought the Heights from its intrepid depths that it reached at its low ebb. Stagnant property values and slow redevelopment certainly lie ahead. I will be looking to take my own investments in Houston elsewhere when the Heights South becomes officially Historic. We are good people who simply dont share a common opinion regarding government involvement with my personal property.I'm certain that my investments will be welcomed elsewhere - Good riddance Heights, Good riddance Houston.... it was a pleasure knowing you.....

[RedScare]

Sad days indeed ahead as we watch with seemingly little recourse political wheels steamrolling ahead. The Heights stands to lose many homeowners with vested interests that have brought the Heights from its intrepid depths that it reached at its low ebb. Stagnant property values and slow redevelopment certainly lie ahead. I will be looking to take my own investments in Houston elsewhere when the Heights South becomes officially Historic. We are good people who simply dont share a common opinion regarding government involvement with my personal property.I'm certain that my investments will be welcomed elsewhere - Good riddance Heights, Good riddance Houston.... it was a pleasure knowing you.....

It's not a done deal yet. For one, more than 20% percent of the tract owners who initially signed on 4 years ago have rescinded their approval, making the current percentage of supporters around 40%. City Council may not even pass this thing. If they do, we have 15 days to get 191 signatures to force a re-vote. Is that BS? Yes. Is it a blatant attempt to subvert the will of the neighborhood? Of course. Is it possible to garner 191 signatures in 15 days? Absolutely. There are 42 blocks in the proposed district.As few as 10 people could canvas one block per day in 4 days. Hell, there may be more than 190 opposition signs in South Heights yards right now!

I've already committed, along with 3 neighbors, to collect signatures. It can be done. I won't give these people control of my house without a fight. They've already shown themselves to be misleading, deceitful, and outright liars. It does not bode well for the treatment we will receive once under their thumbs.

Edited September 18, 2010 by RedScare

[ISMDAVID]

It's not a done deal yet. For one, more than 20% percent of the tract owners who initially signed on 4 years ago have rescinded their approval, making the current percentage of supporters around 40%. City Council may not even pass this thing. If they do, we have 15 days to get 191 signatures to force a re-vote. Is that BS? Yes. Is it a blatant attempt to subvert the will of the neighborhood? Of course. Is it possible to garner 191 signatures in 15 days? Absolutely. There are 42 blocks in the proposed district.As few as 10 people could canvas one block per day in 4 days. Hell, there may be more than 190 opposition signs in South Heights yards right now!

I've already committed, along with 3 neighbors, to collect signatures. It can be done. I won't give these people control of my house without a fight. They've already shown themselves to be misleading, deceitful, and outright liars. It does not bode well for the treatment we will receive once under their thumbs.

Do you think it too early to begin the signature collection process? We could learn where we stand and get a jump on the 15 day BS.

[RedScare]

Do you think it too early to begin the signature collection process? We could learn where we stand and get a jump on the 15 day BS.

Perhaps not. An education campaign could begin early, with a list of willing signers made. That way, when the time comes, we'd know which houses to go to and which to avoid.

[RedScare]

Article on the new ordinance. This is not how I read the thing, but if it requires South Heights (and others with only tepid support for a more restrictive ordinance) to re-vote, then I might could live with it. I do not relish having to walk the neighborhood in order to be left alone, but if it keeps the City from becoming my interior designer, I'll do it.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7206511.html

Looking at the Transition Ordinance, I don't think the Chronicle article is entirely correct. The pending districts are specifically mentioned, and have 15 days to appeal.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/docs_pdfs/HPO_TransitionDraft.pdf

See bottom of page 2.

Edited September 18, 2010 by RedScare

[OutfieldDan]

Article on the new ordinance. This is not how I read the thing, but if it requires South Heights (and others with only tepid support for a more restrictive ordinance) to re-vote, then I might could live with it. I do not relish having to walk the neighborhood in order to be left alone, but if it keeps the City from becoming my interior designer, I'll do it.

http://www.chron.com...an/7206511.html

Looking at the Transition Ordinance, I don't think the Chronicle article is entirely correct. The pending districts are specifically mentioned, and have 15 days to appeal.

http://www.houstontx...sitionDraft.pdf

See bottom of page 2.

The Chronicle article is misinformation. Here is the pertinent language and the burden is on the neighborhood to officially request redesignation:

"The owners of property in an historic district previously designated by the City Council who desire the City Council to repeal the designation may submit a request for reconsideration of the designation of the district. The request must be submitted in writing...not later than 15 days following the date of the passage and approval of this Ordinance. The request must be signed by the owners of at least 25 percent of the tracts within the historic district or proposed historic district."

Edited September 18, 2010 by OutfieldDan

[ISMDAVID]

Perhaps not. An education campaign could begin early, with a list of willing signers made. That way, when the time comes, we'd know which houses to go to and which to avoid.

In a communication I had this morning with the folks at http://www.responsiblehistoricpreservation.org/ they met yesterday as a small group to do determine a path forward to collect additional signatures on the proper paperwork that the city will require. They think that early next week they will have that paperwork and hopefully can disseminate information regarding a sign up process.

Are there any business owners out there who would act as sign up location without fear of alienating clients who think differently? Would the neutral Heights Association allow use of Marmion Park as a sign up location that could be marketed for a specific time/date? 15 days wont be a lot of time

[RedScare]

The Chronicle article is misinformation. Here is the pertinent language and the burden is on the neighborhood to officially request redesignation:

"The owners of property in an historic district previously designated by the City Council who desire the City Council to repeal the designation may submit a request for reconsideration of the designation of the district. The request must be submitted in writing...not later than 15 days following the date of the passage and approval of this Ordinance. The request must be signed by the owners of at least 25 percent of the tracts within the historic district or proposed historic district."

Agreed. The section containing the 15 day provision is specific to the 3 pending historic districts, including South Heights. I have sent an email to CM Gonzalez asking that he push for a longer...and preferably permanent...opt-out provision, but I am not hopeful. He appears to be attempting to curry favor with the small number of preservationists pushing for government control of our homes. Still, reminding him of the 60% opposition can't hurt.

Regardless what the time limit is, I believe that we can blanket the neighborhood quickly. The overwhelming number of anti-ordinance signs in South Heights suggests that we will be well received.

[OutfieldDan]

Agreed. The section containing the 15 day provision is specific to the 3 pending historic districts, including South Heights. I have sent an email to CM Gonzalez asking that he push for a longer...and preferably permanent...opt-out provision, but I am not hopeful. He appears to be attempting to curry favor with the small number of preservationists pushing for government control of our homes. Still, reminding him of the 60% opposition can't hurt.

Regardless what the time limit is, I believe that we can blanket the neighborhood quickly. The overwhelming number of anti-ordinance signs in South Heights suggests that we will be well received.

What's worse is the language (see p.13 at bottom) that an application for a historic district can be made with only 10% of lot owner signatures, and poof! the applied for district is immediately and completely restricted as if it were already approved. It will take about 6 months for the process to occur that may return the neighborhood to normal. This can be repeated a year later!

Do I believe that this will happen? Yes, absolutely. I currently do not live in a historic district, but I’m very close and there is an active minority that wants my neighborhood to be one. It’s almost a certainty that they will apply for historic district status if this new ordinance is passed by city council.

Edited September 18, 2010 by OutfieldDan

[SCDesign]

I have a recording of Sue Lovell at the Heights meeting where she SPECIFICALLY says that the Heights WILL have a re-survey.

Quote, after the hand vote, (time stamp 1:34:45 on my recording) "Pretty much as we thought, we will be doing a re-survey in the Heights. We will be sending you your ballots and we will be getting the correct information to you." Nothing ambiguuous about that statement to me.

We need to get that out. Nothing is better than her lying to us in her own words. If anyone wants the recording of that meeting I'm happy to send it to you.

[poyea]

I have a recording of Sue Lovell at the Heights meeting where she SPECIFICALLY says that the Heights WILL have a re-survey.

Quote, after the hand vote, (time stamp 1:34:45 on my recording) "Pretty much as we thought, we will be doing a re-survey in the Heights. We will be sending you your ballots and we will be getting the correct information to you." Nothing ambiguuous about that statement to me.

We need to get that out. Nothing is better than her lying to us in her own words. If anyone wants the recording of that meeting I'm happy to send it to you.

I recorded the same thing but unfortunately, I deleted mine off of my phone. I say you call the Chronicle and the news stations, and email the mayor and council members (and specifically CM Gonzalez). I agree that this is absolute BS. And in the end, if they stick to this draft, I would be willing to sacrifice a day to at least hit the houses with the "blue signs" for signatures for the 25% limit.

[Marksmu]

Agreed. The section containing the 15 day provision is specific to the 3 pending historic districts, including South Heights. I have sent an email to CM Gonzalez asking that he push for a longer...and preferably permanent...opt-out provision, but I am not hopeful. He appears to be attempting to curry favor with the small number of preservationists pushing for government control of our homes. Still, reminding him of the 60% opposition can't hurt.

Regardless what the time limit is, I believe that we can blanket the neighborhood quickly. The overwhelming number of anti-ordinance signs in South Heights suggests that we will be well received.

If help is needed in getting out and getting signatures, I am volunteering my time. Send a message to me on HAIF and I will go garner signatures. This whole ordeal is a joke.