Lone Star Poultry At 1205 Rutland St.

[s3mh]

I am hearing that the chicken plant on Rutland and 12th has closed and will be demoed.  They already sold off their parking lots, which are being developed into three single family homes by Bastian Builders. 

[Orang Bodoh]

I live near there and always wondered what went on inside...was it a slaughterhouse?

[s3mh]

I live near there and always wondered what went on inside...was it a slaughterhouse?

 

I do not think that live birds ever went in there.  I never saw any.  My guess is that the birds are slaughtered offsite and trucked over in a refrigerator truck to be cleaned, cut up and packaged.  But just a guess.

 

I drove by this morning and there was one guy working there, but a sign on the door said "closed".  

[Orang Bodoh]

Here is the HAHC report on their plans.

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Commissions/docs_pdfs/hahc/draft_reports/III_1205_1215_Rutland_New_Const_CONCEPT_DRAFT.pdf 

 

As of yesterday, still no demolition / construction.

[Orang Bodoh]

Here is a link that works.  

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Commissions/docs_pdfs/hahc/draft_reports/III_1205_1215_Rutland_New_Const_CONCEPT_DRAFT.pdf

[Angostura]

Seems like they want those houses smaller than proposed. At the very least, less tall.

 

This is the work that WASN'T done prior to the approvals for the very large new houses at 13th and Ashland.

 

If the HAHC begins enforcing the the ordinance in such a way as to require smaller houses on these large lots, the calculus around the value of the land beneath these old industrial properties will change.

 

 

In this case, the land is currently platted as five separate 33 x 132ft lots.  Since they wouldn't need to further sub-divide the lots to do it, the developer could probably more easily get their plan-B (5 x 2600 s.f. houses) approved, as houses of that size are more likely to be compatible with existing contributing structures.

 

[BBLLC]

The Lone Star Poultry Plant is closed. Phase I Environmental has been performed, Asbestos survey completed and abatement notification filed, HVAC evacuated by a licensed and registered technician, and TCEQ underground storage tank removal verified. A demolition permit cannot be issued until the asbestos abatement is finished and signed off by a registered third party consultant.

Our original plan was to take the 8 lots that were part of the plant, 5 - 33 1/3' x 132' on Rutland, 2 - 33 1/3' x 132' on Tulane, and 1 - 43' x 100' on 12th and replat them to 5. We wanted to build one house on Tulane, one on 12th, and 3 on Rutland. We wanted to use George Barbers plans to model these houses. My naive assumption was that the "Design Guilde for the Houston Heights Historic District" on the Planning Commissions website was the guidelines for new construction. I was further used bad logic when we thought an original Barber house on 17th and Rutland (5 blocks away) would pass muster with anybody. When we met with Marlene Gafrick and her staff we quickly learned that the Guide was not guidelines and in fact there were none. When we talked about the Barber house we were told "you can't recreate history" and it was too big for the neighborhood.

After that meeting, I knew I had made a huge mistake and altered our plan to include 2 houses on Tulane and 1 on 12th so that we could at least get started while hemorrhaging money waiting on approvals for the Rutland side. We went to the HAHC last Thursday with hat in hand asking for direction on what they wanted. We got nothing from them.

We have been active renovating and building over 130 homes in the Heights area since 1993. We performed the first remodel in the newly formed Norhill historic district for Kelly Thomason-Frater, a former HAHC member. We supported what we thought was a historic ordinance to “save the bungalows”. It was sold as such, however it was sold under false pretenses. This ordinance is not about history. It is being applied to preserve the existing stock as is with little consideration given to improvements.

In the ordinance the words “compatible” and “typical” are interpreted as “average” by the Planning commission staff that make recommendations to the HAHC to either grant approval or not. These weren’t defined in the ordinance and are therefore applied with a great deal of subjectivity. Additionally, the data they collected using unpaid interns to determine what “average” is, contains unacceptable errors and bad assumptions.

In order for this ordinance to survive, guidelines and definitions need to be developed by ALL stakeholders, not just city appointees.

I would be happy to provide any and all information regarding this project to anyone who wants it. Email me at info@bastianbuilders.com

Michael Bastian

[Ross]

What is the address for the Barber house you mention?

[BBLLC]

What is the address for the Barber house you mention?

The Rose Lawn Home in the 200 block of 17th between yale and Rutland. It was demolished some time ago. The idea for using Barber's plans came from Rice professor Stephen Fox.

http://community.rice.edu/focusresources/reference/foxslides/14.html

[fwki]

Barber's works are listed in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Franklin_Barber_works#cite_ref-Texas_79-29) and the exterior along with floor plans of the Rutland house were published in Barber's The Cottage Souvenir No. 2, design no. 2 on page 16: http://books.google.com/books?id=JYDnAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false .

 

The new kids on the HAHC planning staff would have no idea wtf Barber is or architectural historian Stephen Fox, author of several guides to Houston architecture.  His lecture dated December 1998 included the slide show linked by Michael Bastian above (many thanks for that gem, even has the old Kaplan's photo asked for in another thread).  The lecture is here: http://community.rice.edu/focusresources/reference/fox.html and ends with this....

 

"The Heights is home to some very provocative new architecture. Many examples, like this house on Bayland Avenue by Thompson-Frater Associates, architects, pay homage to the historic house types of the Heights. Others, like this house in Woodland Heights by the architect Peter Waldman, or this house in Norhill by the architects Pia Wortham and Joan Callis, are bold departures from existing types but carefully adjusted in terms of scale and siting so as not to disrespect their neighborhood settings. What these examples suggest is the vibrancy and excitement that the Heights continues to generate after more than a century as Houston's first new town."

 

Back in 1998 we had architectural vibrancy and excitement, now we have the ordinance and its clueless future.

 

 

 

[SilverJK]

That pretty much encompases why I hate the HAHC.  Thanks for sharing.

[JJxvi]

I blame the people who were against the ordinance for any failures of the ordinance. -s3mh/Anise Parker/et al

[Ross]

The Rose Lawn Home in the 200 block of 17th between yale and Rutland. It was demolished some time ago. The idea for using Barber's plans came from Rice professor Stephen Fox.

http://community.rice.edu/focusresources/reference/foxslides/14.html

 

Darn, I was hoping I might have a picture of it, but I don't. My great grandparents, and my grandfather, lived at 231 W 17th from around 1911 to 1919/20, but the only pictures I have are of the porch of 227, and a small section of 231's front. I can't believe they wanted to show the people in the pictures, and not the houses.

[BBLLC]

My great grandparents, and my grandfather, lived at 231 W 17th from around 1911 to 1919/20, but the only pictures I have are of the porch of 227, and a small section of 231's front.

Small world! I renovated 231 in 1997!! Was the second story porch with the shingle surround (I don't know what to call it) original? We hand stripped the balustrade of the 3000 coats of paint down to some beautiful heart pine. I had 6" heart pine milled in New Orleans to match the existing floor. Also had cypress bevel siding made to match the existing pine. Pulled all the windows apart, reglazed them, fixed all the pulleys and placed PVC tubes to run the counterweights in so we could foam the dead air space. We kept the original door with the original center mounted ringer style doorbell. I pulled that thing apart and reworked it. The brass had a patina that was outstanding. That was a labor of love that I lost my backside on.

[s3mh]

Barber designed a handful of the original "showpiece" homes in the Heights.  These homes are few and far between.  The vast majority of the homes in the Heights are craftsman era bungalows, not the large showpiece Victorians.  Just because you are copying the design of one of the original architects does not mean that the design is automatically the appropriate scale for the neighborhood and compatible with the existing historic architecture.   

[BBLLC]

does not mean that the design is automatically the appropriate scale for the neighborhood and compatible with the existing historic architecture.

Where in the ordinance is "appropriate scale" and "compatible" defined? I am not trying to be snarky, only trying to understand why a 4000 sqft with front set backs the same as the rest of the block can't be compatible with a 2000 sqft? Using our notional plan as an example, we are starting with a larger house on the corner and steppping down the size and height to a story and a half which will be adjacent to another story and a half. What, in your opinion, makes this out of scale or incompatible?

From your perspective, would you rather two 2500 sqft homes built on 33.33' x 132' lots or one 4000 sqft home built on a 66.67' x 132' lot?

[SilverJK]

So because some of the more unique architecturally interesting buildings were few and far between and have since been demo'd, we shouldn't build any houses like them any more?   I thought you wanted to preserve architecture???

[JJxvi]

The neighborhood is a mish mash of size, style, age, and even use (ie chicken plants).  Neither history, nor architectural aesthetic is the goal, but actually an attempt to freeze the neighborhood at some arbitrarily "great" point in time like 1999 or 2004 (or whenever they bought their home).

[s3mh]

So because some of the more unique architecturally interesting buildings were few and far between and have since been demo'd, we shouldn't build any houses like them any more?   I thought you wanted to preserve architecture???

Yes.  That is exactly what I said.  We should never build any more houses in the style of the original showcase houses.  In fact, I think that the commission should order the immediate demolition of the remaining two original showcase homes because they do not match the predominant bungalow architecture.  That is clearly my point and in no way am I arguing that the original showcase homes were few and far between in the Heights (mostly on the occasional street corner or along the main boulevards) and should not be replicated en masse on a single block, much like the McVics that prompted the historic ordinance and the amendments in the first place.  I am certainly not arguing that building three very large homes in the style of the original showcase homes all in a row on a block that is predominantly much smaller craftsman homes is out of scale and character of the neighborhood.  That is because it is impossible to look at three giant houses on a street that is otherwise full of bungalows and think that they are out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood (unless you cherry pick the odd pre-ordinance non-conforming new construction and use it as an example of the proper scale for the neighborhood--and I am certainly not arguing that the beginning reference point for scale should be the historic archictecture).  And there certainly is no history of people in the western HD being concerned about scale and compatibility of new construction.  It is not like people in my neighborhood made yard signs because they were upset about these issues and a development on the corner of 15th and Rutland.   

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=120371857975554&set=a.120371854642221.19765.112856885393718&type=1&theater

 

We just all want to make sure that the demolition of the original showcase homes is a fait accompli.  In fact, I am going to oppose the demolition of the chicken plant.  It is a great example of 1970s commercial architecture that has been a great benefit to the character of the Heights.  

 

Or, if it is difficult to discern my sarcasm from what I am really arguing, you could actually read my posts and respond to the argument that I am actually making instead of in classic HAIF fashion assigning an argument to me that I never made.  In fact, just to make sure that this silliness ends, I will spell it out for you:

 

ONE LARGE NEW CONSTRUCTION HOME IN THE STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL SHOWCASE HOMES CAN BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING SCALE AND COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING ARCHITECTURE WHEN PLACED IN THE HEIGHTS IN A SIMILAR MANNER AS THE ORIGINAL SHOWCASE HOMES.  PUTTING THREE IN A ROW ON A STREET THAT IS MAJORITY SMALLER BUNGALOW ARCHITECTURE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SCALE AND NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURE.  

[BBLLC]

ONE LARGE NEW CONSTRUCTION HOME IN THE STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL SHOWCASE HOMES CAN BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING SCALE AND COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING ARCHITECTURE WHEN PLACED IN THE HEIGHTS IN A SIMILAR MANNER AS THE ORIGINAL SHOWCASE HOMES.  PUTTING THREE IN A ROW ON A STREET THAT IS MAJORITY SMALLER BUNGALOW ARCHITECTURE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SCALE AND NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURE.

Just to be clear, if you are referring to our plans for the chicken factory you have some of your facts wrong.

1. The end house on the large corner is on an 8800 sqft lot and that would be a showcase home.

2. The second house on a 6600 sqft house is a folk victorian that exists in this district and all over the heights.

3. The last house is a story and a half. The next house in line is a story and a half. The maximum ridge height is so far back on this plan that from the same perspective view from the street, it will appear to be the same height as the next door neighbor. Overlaying 2D drawings is a poor method of perspective as the planning staff did.

4. The 1200 block of Rutland is NOT majority smaller bungalows. This can readily be seen on google earth. Two of the 8 smaller homes on that block will be added onto within the year. How do you incorporate that into what is typical?

What would you choose? These are the only 3 choices and one WILL happen. That I can guarantee.

1. 3 houses on 3 larger lots like the schematic you have seen.

2. 5 two story houses on 33.33' lots

3. an apartment/condo development

There are no other scenarios. I did not buy this property to donate it.

[fwki]

I vote #1 for big families on big lots.  Traditional families are the best long-term defense against the soulless elitists.

[poyea]

ONE LARGE NEW CONSTRUCTION HOME IN THE STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL SHOWCASE HOMES CAN BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING SCALE AND COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING ARCHITECTURE WHEN PLACED IN THE HEIGHTS IN A SIMILAR MANNER AS THE ORIGINAL SHOWCASE HOMES. PUTTING THREE IN A ROW ON A STREET THAT IS MAJORITY SMALLER BUNGALOW ARCHITECTURE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SCALE AND NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURE.

Just to be clear, if you are referring to our plans for the chicken factory you have some of your facts wrong.

1. The end house on the large corner is on an 8800 sqft lot and that would be a showcase home.

2. The second house on a 6600 sqft house is a folk victorian that exists in this district and all over the heights.

3. The last house is a story and a half. The next house in line is a story and a half. The maximum ridge height is so far back on this plan that from the same perspective view from the street, it will appear to be the same height as the next door neighbor. Overlaying 2D drawings is a poor method of perspective as the planning staff did.

4. The 1200 block of Rutland is NOT majority smaller bungalows. This can readily be seen on google earth. Two of the 8 smaller homes on that block will be added onto within the year. How do you incorporate that into what is typical?

What would you choose? These are the only 3 choices and one WILL happen. That I can guarantee.

1. 3 houses on 3 larger lots like the schematic you have seen.

2. 5 two story houses on 33.33' lots

3. an apartment/condo development

There are no other scenarios. I did not buy this property to donate it.

[poyea]

#1 all the way. My guess is the neighborhood will rally to your defense if the HAHC gives you any "grief". I think it is universal that just about everyone hates the townhome look of smaller homes on smaller lots. Too much like Rice Military.

Best luck to you. The sane ones are pulling for you. (Please don't put in condos!!!)

[BBLLC]

#1 all the way. My guess is the neighborhood will rally to your defense if the HAHC gives you any "grief". I think it is universal that just about everyone hates the townhome look of smaller homes on smaller lots. Too much like Rice Military.

Best luck to you. The sane ones are pulling for you. (Please don't put in condos!!!)

I can promise you I won't put in condos. However, my problem is without an economically viable project, I will sell the property and then all bets are off. Since it is currently designated commercial, there are other option besides lower density residential. If you are inclined, please contact the mayor and city council.

[9075]

I also vote for scenario #1.

[Ross]

Small world! I renovated 231 in 1997!! Was the second story porch with the shingle surround (I don't know what to call it) original? We hand stripped the balustrade of the 3000 coats of paint down to some beautiful heart pine. I had 6" heart pine milled in New Orleans to match the existing floor. Also had cypress bevel siding made to match the existing pine. Pulled all the windows apart, reglazed them, fixed all the pulleys and placed PVC tubes to run the counterweights in so we could foam the dead air space. We kept the original door with the original center mounted ringer style doorbell. I pulled that thing apart and reworked it. The brass had a patina that was outstanding. That was a labor of love that I lost my backside on.

 

I'll get pictures up some day, but no, the shingles aren't original. My granddad wrote a description of the house in his late 80's, which was still applicable when I visited an open house the last time that property was for sale.

[Marksmu]

Yes.  That is exactly what I said.  We should never build any more houses in the style of the original showcase houses.  In fact, I think that the commission should order the immediate demolition of the remaining two original showcase homes because they do not match the predominant bungalow architecture.  That is clearly my point and in no way am I arguing that the original showcase homes were few and far between in the Heights (mostly on the occasional street corner or along the main boulevards) and should not be replicated en masse on a single block, much like the McVics that prompted the historic ordinance and the amendments in the first place.  I am certainly not arguing that building three very large homes in the style of the original showcase homes all in a row on a block that is predominantly much smaller craftsman homes is out of scale and character of the neighborhood.  That is because it is impossible to look at three giant houses on a street that is otherwise full of bungalows and think that they are out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood (unless you cherry pick the odd pre-ordinance non-conforming new construction and use it as an example of the proper scale for the neighborhood--and I am certainly not arguing that the beginning reference point for scale should be the historic archictecture).  And there certainly is no history of people in the western HD being concerned about scale and compatibility of new construction.  It is not like people in my neighborhood made yard signs because they were upset about these issues and a development on the corner of 15th and Rutland.   

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=120371857975554&set=a.120371854642221.19765.112856885393718&type=1&theater

 

We just all want to make sure that the demolition of the original showcase homes is a fait accompli.  In fact, I am going to oppose the demolition of the chicken plant.  It is a great example of 1970s commercial architecture that has been a great benefit to the character of the Heights.  

 

Or, if it is difficult to discern my sarcasm from what I am really arguing, you could actually read my posts and respond to the argument that I am actually making instead of in classic HAIF fashion assigning an argument to me that I never made.  In fact, just to make sure that this silliness ends, I will spell it out for you:

 

ONE LARGE NEW CONSTRUCTION HOME IN THE STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL SHOWCASE HOMES CAN BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING SCALE AND COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING ARCHITECTURE WHEN PLACED IN THE HEIGHTS IN A SIMILAR MANNER AS THE ORIGINAL SHOWCASE HOMES.  PUTTING THREE IN A ROW ON A STREET THAT IS MAJORITY SMALLER BUNGALOW ARCHITECTURE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SCALE AND NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURE.  

 

I reject your entire summary here.  You don't like it, a few other people dont like it.  Support for this position is inconsistent with the ultra majority of the Heights.  I sincerely wish you would move away, and bless your heart, I really mean that in as polite as a way as I can.  I do not dislike you, I just honestly believe you are terrible for the Heights, and very un-neighborly.

[Angostura]

What would you choose? These are the only 3 choices and one WILL happen. That I can guarantee.

1. 3 houses on 3 larger lots like the schematic you have seen.

2. 5 two story houses on 33.33' lots

3. an apartment/condo development

There are no other scenarios. I did not buy this property to donate it.

 

 

Just out of curiosity (and if you're unable to comment, I understand), has the HAHC indicated that option #2 would have an easier time getting approved than option #1?

 

Looking at the HCAD maps, it seems like the property is already platted as 5 33.33' lots. Presumably the total square footage would be similar for either option.

 

However, if the objection is with the height of the structures rather than the square footage, would building on narrower frontage resolve the issue? It seems to me that if the homes are built with the current typical crawlspace height and ceiling heights typical of newer construction, the height issue doesn't go away under scenario #2.

 

With respect to selling the property for multi-family development, the rules for issuing a CoA for residential construction (33-242, 1-4) don't appear to differentiate between single- and multi-family, and I don't think there is a precedent for the HAHC issuing a CoA for multi-family development, at least not in this district.  

 

With respect to commercial development, the restriction is that the height not exceed what it "typical" for existing commercial structures in the district.  In this case, there are very few such structures (single-digits, I'd bet), and most appear to be single-story.  Also, I'd guess that any commercial use of this space will require about half land area be used for parking, which I'm sure the neighbors would be thrilled about.

[s3mh]

What would you choose? These are the only 3 choices and one WILL happen. That I can guarantee.

1. 3 houses on 3 larger lots like the schematic you have seen.

2. 5 two story houses on 33.33' lots

3. an apartment/condo development

There are no other scenarios. I did not buy this property to donate it.

 

This presumes that there are no other options other than what one builder is willing to do and an assumption that a hypothetical subsequent buyer/investor would do a condo/apartment complex (i.e. we are supposed to believe that the problems one builder has with HAHC will just result in another builder making an even larger investment with no guaranty that the problems with HAHC will have been abated).  It also comes across as a bit of a threat.  Either we support one builder's side in a dispute with HAHC or else we will get something worse.  I am more than willing to call that bluff. 

 

[JJxvi]

Well, we did already know that you know a threat when you see one.