BBLLC

6 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

What do you mean by they're taking everything out?

The redevelopment is moving forward. Smoosh made an official announcement yesterday on Facebook     followed by a picture of Lowell Street Market:

 

 

The demo contractor told me a week ago that they were razing the entire site because it had been resold and the new owner had different plans.  Since that conversation it looks like that was BS because they have kept the red iron frames that are consistent with the original plans.   

My office is across the street.  The demo contractor told me the site was resold and they are taking EVERYTHING out.  Anybody have insight as to the validity of this?

I"ll apologize up front for being snarky and critical. If it were up to me, HPD would never respond to an alarm of any type. The vast majority, over 99+% are false alarms, which waste police resources, and my tax dollars. I recommend dropping the alarm, but keep the sign. If you want an immediate response from HPD, call 911.

I know this thread is old but I just had an unpleasant experience with this situation.  We PAID our annual alarm permit fee.  We had the paid permit posted in the window of our office.  The alarm went off in the middle of the day and the police told the monitoring service that they WOULD NOT be responding since we had an expired permit which was WRONG.  Our vehicles had been broken into and three other businesses near us had been burglarized in the past 3 weeks.  Calling 911 is NOT always an option.  My wife is alone in the office occasionally.  If she has the alarm set to stay and someone comes in with a gun she can't call 911. 

If you have false alarms pay the fine.  Getting police out of the substations to drive around the neighborhoods is NOT a waste of tax payer money.  

I picked through some HCAD values for my side of the Heights and the best apples to apples I could find was 817 Ashland (2500 sq ft on 3300 lot, built 2013, HCAD $650k) and 1213 Ashland (2500 sq ft on 6600 lot, built 2002, HCAD $743k).  If 1213 was 2013 construction, it would be valued a good bit higher due to the original sale data which you cannot argue against at a tax protest. 

 

The valuation of smaller lots is a bit too aggressive and the valuation of larger lots is a bit too lax.  But that is why we have protests.  The basic premise that small lots are worth more than big ones is very sound.  And the recent trend has shown that town homes and lot line new construction on small lots will appreciate along with the rest of the market.  Ten and fifteen years ago, anyone buying a town home was basically buying a depreciating asset because there was so much new construction.  But with everything filling in and opportunities for new construction dwindling inside the loop and more neighborhoods getting minimum lot size (like Lindale park), a small lot is really worth more than a full size lot or oversized.

Your statement "The valuation of smaller lots is a bit too aggressive and the valuation of larger lots is a bit too lax."  is what my question is all about.  Protesting land value in the inner city is a losing battle with HCAD.  I have never won in dozens of cases that went past the ARB to a judge.  Their answer is always "that's the way we do it".  I am just looking for the logic behind what appears to be extreme inequity of valuations.  Using your example of the two houses on Ashland.  Their respective appraised value for their land is $247,500 for 3300 sqft and $330,000 for double that.  The market value of the larger lot and house will always be significantly higher than the smaller lot.

You said "The basic premise that small lots are worth more than big ones is very sound."  Please, I am not trying to be snarky..  I just cannot see how that should ever be the case,unless there are limitations imposed on the land.  Can you explain it to me?  In my experience in selling my own renovations and construction, houses on larger lots are ALWAYS valued higher.   In my opinion, from a market analysis, if a large lot can be subdivided there is higher market value because you can put more improvements on it than something that has already been subdivided.  But once it is divided, the increased value is NOT in the land it is in the improvement.  The land should not have a multiple of the average $/sqft for tax purposes.

Larger lots have more value TOTAL. They do not have higher values per square foot, generally.  A house on two lots is not being valued as one lot with  house and one lot vacant.  It is valued as one oversized lot.

 

Go to the following address.  It shows HCADs land sales for last year with dates, size, and price/sf.  If you look for sales close to one another in both location and date with different sizes, you will see that in general smaller lots sell for more per square foot.

 

http://www.hcad.org/HearingEvidence/2014/SalesMAPS/p5359.pdf

I am questioning WHY a smaller subdivided lot should have a HIGHER assesed tax value per square foot than a house on a larger lot.  How does having two houses on 25 foot lots suddenly make the value for the lot higher when compared with one house on both lots?  Using the example of 1802 Harvard, it is in fact a vacant lot next to a lot with a house on it.  The market value of that land is much higher than assessing it at 50%.  I have personally been involved with over 300 real estate transactions and understand the numbers for creating and capturing value.  When a lot is subdivided, the total value is increased and optimized.  However, all things being equal a 2200 sqft house on a 3300 sqft house should not be appraised the same as a 2200 sqft house on a 6600 sqft house.  THAT IS what HCAD is doing.

The logic is that the land value is based upon X price per square foot.  Not all larger lots can be subdivided, usually because of deed restrictions or a prevailing lot size ordinance.

Sorry but that is NOT what happens.  I'll use 1802 Harvard as an example.  This house sits on two 55x132 platted lots for a total square footage of 14,520 sqft.  The first 6600 sqft is assessed a $50/sqft value for a total of $330,000.  The "extra" 7920 sqft is assessed at $25/sqft for $198,000.  The market value of that lot is somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 and could be split out with NO subdivision.  

1719 Ashland is a townhome that is assessed a land value of $78.60/sqft.  The fact is the $/sqft land value is adjusted in the exact opposite direction that it should be.  Larger lots have more value than smaller lots.

I have dozens of examples just like this.  

Do you know why developers buy large lots and subdivide them to build denser housing on them?  Its because it maximizes the value of the land that they purchased.

That doesn't explain the logic of taxing smaller and smaller increments of land at multiples to larger lots.  In fact, you are arguing that the opposite should happen.  Larger lots have more value per sqft because they can be subdivided.

Can anyone explain the logic (I know I'm stretching here) behind appraising land differently?  HCAD stipulates an "average" lot size for an area and assesses a $/sqft value.  If your lot is larger than the average, the amount in excess is typically assessed at 50%.  If your lot is smaller than the average they apply a multiplier that has no root in reality to increase the assessed value.  For example if you take two 25 ft lots at 3300 sqft each and build two shotgun houses on them the value of the land suddenly quadruples.  How is that fair and equitable?

Foreign Correspondents will not be located with Hunky Dory.   A seafood restaurant called Bernadine's will replace the Thai portion of the two restaurants in one building concept on 18th street.

... Anyone who got a grade of D+ or higher in 8th grade civics would have understood that agreeing to be governed by the historic preservation ordinance did not mean that the regulation would be beyond the normal democratic process of City government and should have understood that the ordinance could be made to be more strict, as was the case with the 2010 amendments, or be made less restrictive, as is the goal of the current amendment process.  That is not bait and switch.  That is how our government works.

You must not have children.  They stopped teaching civics decades ago.  Additionally, United States Civics are not taught outside of the country as standard curriculum.

... the majority of home owners in your area of the Heights voted in favor of the historic designation, and there was no shadow conspiracy on the part of City Hall...

 

s3mh posted the above from the Leader and was a response given by Amy Lawson:

THAT is a blatant lie or convenient retelling of the truth.  

First, each property should have been given a vote instead of each homeowner.  I had more to lose than one owner in one house.  The CoH should NOT have had a vote.

Second, the ballets were mailed in the middle of December and had to be returned right before New Year.  A non-response was taken as a yes vote.  So NO a majority of property owners did NOT vote for this hysteric designation.  AND yes the CoH played fast and loose with HONEST voting and therefore could be considered a "shadow conspiracy.

There was nothing in the design guide that said HAHC would allow you to build the tallest and widest house in the district.  There was nothing in the design guide that said HAHC would not enforce any restrictions on scale.  All the old design guide had were a bunch of drawings of new construction styles.  And it was just a "guide".  It was more than clear that anything anyone was going to do would have to get approval.  Nothing in the guide stated that HAHC MUST approve if you do X, Y, or Z.  Your argument about the design guide is a red herring.  If you made your investment based on something you saw on the internet and your assumptions about the legal import of those documents, then you are responsible for that decision. 

 

There is no prohibition on 3 queen annes in a row.  My point is that without any regulation of scale, builders will pick out the largest conforming design in the neighborhood and build it over and over again as big as they can.  Next thing you know there will be 50+ 2 story Queen Annes in the WD with ridge heights of 36 ft.  A house whose scale was previously the exception for the WD would then become the norm and the scale of the WD would be lost. 

 

A Queen Anne with a 36 ridge height can exist next to a bungalow.  That is not the issue.  The issue is whether permitting multiple houses with a ridge height that is at the outer limits of the original architecture of the district will adversely affect the scale of the architecture in the district.  Once you let everyone build at 36', the bungalows eventually start to look like the exception instead of the norm.

 

I will make sure that next time any graphics are used by anyone in support of historic preservation will be a 3D hologram.  I am sure lots of people were tricked by the inability to see depth in a yard sign and erroneously supported the ordinance.  After all, no one wanted to regulate new construction in the historic districts. 

 

Deed restrictions do not work.  They do nothing to address architecture.  You can do away with front loading garages and get nice roomy setback, but that does not mean that people will stop building "creole" mish mash things with a fine assortment of ionic and Corinthian columns, some minimalist cement block or something from the DR Horton catalogue for Pearland.  And setbacks and lot size do nothing to stop demolitions.

 

Nothing in the ordinance dictates scale.  The red herring is that there is a plethora of lots for new construction in the WD that will result in the swallowing of bungalows.  The ordinance FORBIDS addressing architecture.  It is specifically OFF limits.  Only eave heights and proportionality are addressed in the guidelines for new construction.  It is clear from your snark that you don't want substantive conversation as you accused another poster.  I hope you are willing to provide free legal advice when the lawsuits start hitting.  

You are just proving my point about critics of HAHC. .....  That needs to change and work is already underway to make sure that both staff and HAHC align their interpretation of the ordinance.  ........  That is because any substantive discussion of the issues either reveals very practical and doable solutions to problems or that those who oppose the ordinance simply do not care about the historic architecture and want to see it all lost to new construction.

.....  Sure, deed restrictions may take care off lot line and minimum lot size, but ask the folks living on Morrison how it went when they tried to do that.

I am a critic of the HAHC.  But I do care about historic architecture.  I have put my money and a good portion of my adult life renovating old houses.  Based on attending 20+ meetings, I question qualifications and intents of the HAHC.  The staff and HAHC shouldn't have to "interpret" the ordinance.  There may always be gray areas but not the capricious, "I don't like the optics" or "most brick stairs are just ugly" comments I have received from two commissioners.

Let's discuss two issues with the ordinance and the way the staff has handled it.  Twenty one months ago the Historic Preservation Website under the Planning Department of the City of Houston, I downloaded a copy of "A Design Guide for The Houston Heights Historic Districts".  I made an investment based on documents from the official website.  A group of peers would agree that a reasonable person would assume that these were the guidelines.  Being occasionally reasonable, I assumed that was the case and made a significant investment BASED on these guidelines.  My bad AND the COH.  What is the redress for this?  How should this mistake by the COH be handled?

You made a comment earlier about there not being 3 Queen Anne's in a row.  Is a prohibition on 3 Queen Anne's in a row in the ordinance?  My reading of the ordinance says that "nothing in the foregoing shall be construed to require or impose a single architectural style in any historic district".  Your comment is legally moot.

Can you explain why a house with a 36' ridge height on a hip roof of a house that is set back from the property line at 20 - 25' and from the side property lines of 8 - 10' cannot exist harmoniously with bungalows with ridge heights of 18'?  This exact situation exists in the WD with contributing structures.  Why can't new construction on formally commercial space do the same?  BTW, the poster you posted is not to scale and even if that exact situation happened, people don't see in 2D.  Articulation and depth change the visual perception dramatically.

You are not allowing substantive discussion about this ordinance when you dismiss a solution to the major issues by saying it didn't work once before.  Why didn't it work?  

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/friendsofhoustonheightshistoricdistricts

 

You obviously were not living in the WD when this all happened.  There was even a protest at the site on W15th and Rutland that was on the news.  

 

And you do realize that the designs in the sign are the actual designs from W15th and Rutland?  Sure, they are not shown to scale with the bungalow example between them, but that was not the point.  The houses in the poster were built.  They did not violate any existing deed restrictions.  They were not approved by HAHC, but all they had to do was wait 90 days and start building.  Your claim that regulating new construction was not part of the movement to amend the ordinance flies in the face of what actually was happening at the time.  

 I have remained civil and engaging in this discussion.  Inferring that I am lying is not called for.  I did live in the Heights WD then AND have recently moved back (just out of the WD).  I avoided the protests and did not watch the news that night.  What you are failing to recognize or admit is that the talking points that were widely used formed an impression or perception that this ordinances was to "save the bungalows".  It may well be that the inner circle and those allied with those pushing this ordinance had other motives but these were NOT what was widely advertised.  I have emails from over 100 residents from the West HD that have expressed support for the chicken factory project (also sent to the HAHC and staff).  The far majority cannot understand the reasoning for the rejection AND have expressed the opinion that they thought the ordinance was to "save the bungalows".

Your statement, “Sure, they are not shown to scale with the bungalow example between them, but that was not the point."  would not hold in the court of public opinion.  That was shown that way to illustrate a situation that was conjectural and could be dealt with existing regulations.

As far as the Rutland side of my little project is concerned, I think we have a buyer who will play nice with the HAHC.  So I can promise you that I will never be a bother to any HD in Houston.  My future involvement will be supporting political candidates who see through the charade of this application of the ordinance.  Ardent supporters of the ordinance should recognize that complete intransigence over minor issues will eventually sink this ordinance.  Already there is one very proud individual with a lot of money who wants to litigate their rejections by the HAHC.

 

I can't open your link so I can't comment on that.  

 

I never saw this poster on someones yard or in any literature that was distributed to my house in the West HD.  But it does perpetuate untruths.

1.  Side set backs as shown would be in violation of deed restrictions.

2.  Total height would be in violation of deed restrictions.

Front loaded garages would be easy to restrict without the current ordinance.

 

.....

 (3) The proportions of the new construction, including width and roofline, must 

be compatible with the typical proportions of existing contributing 

structures and objects in the historic district; 

...

Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed to require or impose a single 

architectural style in any historic district. 

 

 

I calculated the average to show that you were actually allowed to build above the average and were not held to the median.  There are only two Queen Annes with a ridge height over 33'.  One is 35 and another is 36.  The other four of the six 33' and less.  If "typical" is interpreted to mean the tallest/largest existing, every builder will come into the historic district and build to the tallest/largest/widest dimensions of the outlier of the original architecture.  There are probably at least 40-50 lots in the WD alone that have non-contributing structures or empty lots that could be demoed for new construction.  If everyone gets to build to the outer limits of the original scale, then the original scale is lost.  

 

Note that the ordinance says proportions not height or scale.  A correctly proportioned building in a particular style should be allowed with the restrictions on height that are in the deed restrictions AND using appropriate setbacks that are defined in the ordinance.  Typical has been interpreted by the purists as average.  My personal interpretation (I know that holds zero water) is that if it exists or existed in the area then it would be typical.  If you buy a hundred bags of M&M's and there is one blue M&M, then it is typical to a bag of M&M's.

I haven't looked at the number of lots in the west HD that are non-contributing.  But I would bet that the far majority already have new homes on them that were built prior to the ordinance change.  There are very few empty lots.  But once again scale isn't mentioned in the criteria for new construction.

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

 

Did you actually live in the WD or just own a lot?  If you lived in the WD (or anywhere else in the Heights), you would have seen plenty of the signs in the facebook link.  The houses on 15th and Rutland replaced an empty lot.  The issue was 100% about new construction because the builders just waited 90 days and did whatever they wanted.  

 

The ridge height for the 6 queen Annes in the WD are as follows:  33, 36, 28, 35, 33, & 31.  Average height is 32.6.  HAHC wanted a ridge height of 33'.  HAHC was not holding you to the dimensions of a foursquare.  In fact, HAHC was willing to let you build a house that was wider than any other Queen Anne in the neighborhood.  

 

And no, this house did not used to exist in this district.  No one built Queen Annes that had the main house connected with the garage.  And even if this was an exact replica of prior architecture, there were certainly not three Queen Annes in a row with ridge heights of 36.5, 35.5 and 35.5.  

I can't open your link so I can't comment on that.  I lived in the WD moved and recently moved back.  I have owned property in the Heights continuously for 23 years.  You conflate the issue that you saw and what was presented to the "voters".  I actually am OK with legally binding deed restrictions that set minimum lot size (on a replat), setbacks, and maximum heights.  I would be OK if there was a mechanism for homeowners to easily designate their bungalow as a historic structure that could not be demolished.  I am not OK with the Parkerization of all new construction in the HD's.  

Why are you performing an arithmetic average?  The ordinance says nothing about that.  In fact, it says NOTHING about ridge height.  The fact that the ridge heights of the proposed structures fit in the range of the SAME architectural style is what is typical.

OK, the attached garage AT THE REAR of the lot with alley access was not on the original structure.   Details that were on the original house were removed at the demand of the HAHC staff because they said these details didn't exist.  Yet when shown the picture of the house this one was modeled after, there was no response.  

BTW, the staff moved us away from the original idea which incorporated 3 different architectural styles.  

The amendments to the ordinance were not "sold" as being solely to prevent demolition.  The scale and character of new construction was a major issue.  The fight over the town homes on 15th and Rutland was not just over lot line construction. 

 

....  And given that your design would be the widest house in the district by 3' (@12-15' wider than the median 2 story), the concern over ridge height has nothing to do with uniformity. 

 

We will not agree on how the amendment was sold.  All of the yard signs, street walkers, flyers, etc that I encountered never talked about scale or character.  And you should know that the houses on 15th and Rutland are not town homes.  You may not like the density, but they are not town homes.

There are 6 queen anne style two story houses in the West HD.  I had two plans that were rejected with all dimensions falling smack dab in the middle of ALL of their criteria when comparing to the same architectural style.  Sec. 33-242. Same—New construction in historic district. explicitly says "Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed to require or impose a single architectural style in any historic district."  By holding a queen anne style home to the dimensions of a foursquare, they are, in fact, imposing an architectural style.

As far as the corner lot is concerned, it is the 4th largest lot in the entire district.  We will disagree on this house.  It is not what I wanted to build but it used to exist in THIS district.

... because everyone knows that the alternative to HAHC is the demolition of the majority of the historic housing stock in the Heights in exchange for a mish mash of patio homes, town homes, mcvics, moderns and new build suburban homes straight out of Pearland.  So, people do not take on the real issue and instead throw stones at the people on the commission because it sounds much better to say that there are bad people on the commission than to say that you are ok with the Heights being turned into some architectural Frankenstein and losing all of its history. 

 

I think you have hit on some key points.  As an owner in the West HD, the ordinance was sold to prevent demolition of the bungalows NOT to micromanage the community.  I think there are other ways to "save the bungalows" than the current incarnation of this ordinance.

The way the ordinance is being interpreted and applied is creating architectural Frankensteins.  Within the West HD the following architectural styles are represented: Prairie, Classic Revival, Colonial Revival, Foursquare, Dutch Colonial, Craftsman, Queen Anne, and Folk Victorian.  Yet when presenting a particular architectural style for a new construction project, the dimensions of nine different styles of houses are forced on you, thus creating a Frankenstein new style I call "The Parker."  Why can't a Queen Anne 2 story with a 10/12 pitch roof at 36' ridge height exist next to a one story bungalow?  Well they can and they do in this district.  Why is there an attempt with this ordinance to create uniformity in the housing stock?

I attended the Committee meeting to review the Historic Preservation Ordinance last night.  My take away is that they are mostly trying to tweak administrative problems rather than deal with the bigger problems that I have seen at HAHC meetings.  However, I left with a glimmer of hope not the usually sick feeling I have after an HAHC caning.

No you do not understand the ex parte rule.  HAHC is an adjudicative committee.  Their job is to make a ruling on whether something meets the standards of the historic ordinance in order to receive a certificate of appropriateness.  They do not have the authority to make an advisory opinion.  That is why they gave you "blank stares" (I was not there, but would assume that it was more accurately "silence while biting their tongues out of respect for the limits of their authority" rather than "blank stares").  The preservation staff is there to provide guidance.  If you still do not understand, try walking into Judge Hittner's courtroom and ask him if he will give you general guidance on important constitutional issues.

 

And, community comments are actually received by the preservation staff and included in their review.  However, HAHC is an adjudicative body and cannot be lobbied.  The committee that is preparing amendments to the historic ordinance is acting in a legislative capacity and can be lobbied.  Despite claims to the contrary, the last time the ordinance was amended, the committee working on the amendments made lots of changes based on input from the community. 

I am an engineer and a builder, not an attorney.  So I will have to defer to your knowledge on the nature of the HAHC.  However, the preservation staff SUGGESTED I present both development scenarios to the HAHC and ask for their input.  So I may have mistakenly thought they would offer an advisory opinion.

You are correct that community comments are received by the staff and tallied.  In the 20+ HAHC meetings I have personally attended, the staff has never indicated that public comments were influential in their deliberations.

There is no prohibition on communicating with committee members.  They are acting in a legislative capacity for the Mayor.  There is a prohibition on communicating with HAHC members as they sit in an adjudicative body.  Such communications are considered to be ex parte just in the same way you would not be able to ask for a meeting with a district court judge to try to influence her opinion on important legal issues.

 

Committee members may not be very accessible because there are people in the community who think they are ignorant morons and just want to berate them rather than offering any thoughtful critique of the current process and suggestions for reform.  But I will say after seeing how the sausage is made that email comments from the community are taken seriously and are probably a better way to influence the process than trying to make a brilliant two minute speech or get an appointment with a committee member.

Have you ever submitted something to the tribunal?  While I understand the ex parte reasoning when a specific submittal is before them, they have refused attempts to communicate with them for general guidance.  I even tried to get input from them at a formal tribunal meeting by showing two concepts and begging for their input.  I got nothing but blank stares.  As far as community comments are concerned, see my response to mollusk above.  

..... Will a polite, well reasoned letter describing a particular problem and proposed workable solution would be discarded out of hand?  I doubt it, unless it's just without merit.  Does it mean that the commission would completely disregard an organized group lobbying for something or another?  No - even TxDOT will occasionally change course, for Pete's sake.

I had one submission to the tribunal that had over 50 letters of support from the immediate and surrounding neighbors.  Not all were well reasoned, but on the first go they were polite.  The letters were ignored and we were denied.  The ONLY organized group that the tribunal will listen to is the City Council.

I strongly suspect that City Council has to vote on amending this ordinance, just like any other.  

 

If you are interested, there is a way to participate in the process - attending meetings, engaging with members of the study committee with particular concerns, and engaging with council members.

If by participate in the process by attending meetings to hear it live, then I agree.  There is exactly ZERO possibility of the unwashed public masses "engaging" members of the study committee.  You are considered an ignorant moron by these people.  You can engage council members as there is a means of doing so.  You are NOT allowed to talk to the HAHC members.

"The amendments will..."

Do Amendments need to be voted on for a city ordinance?