poyea

11 hours ago, Angostura said:

There IS a small loophole in the way the exemption is worded.

 

IF you spend more than the appraised value of the structure on restoration, and IF HCAD increases the appraised value of the structure by more than the cost of the restoration, the value of the exemption can also exceed the cost of the restoration.

 

That said, at the current city tax rate (I understand the exemption only applies to CoH, not the county, HISD, HCFCD, etc.) the exemption amounts to about a 6% subsidy to the (mostly upper middle class) people doing the restoration. Historic preservation may be a value to the city, but a discussion about whether a tax subsidy to a subset of the top few percent of taxpayers is the best way to encourage it isn't out of line.

11 hours ago, Angostura said:

True on your first point, but if the appraised value increases by more than the cost of the renovation, the "value of the exemption" is just a fraction of the restoration cost.  As you stated later, the exemption is only on the COH taxes.  I think you understand this, but for those less familiar, I wanted to clarify this point.

The historic district hurdles cost multiples more than the tax savings ever will.  The time (and therefore money) spent with architects, and then with the city (along with the architects, who are on the clock), and then going to the HAHC hearings (again with the architects who are on the clock), all add incremental costs that otherwise wouldn't be there, purely due to the historic district.  Not to mention the cost of financing and dual housing during the process.  Add in the time spent preparing all of the documents and records to support the exemption application.  

11 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

 

If you are working on any additions and renovations in the historic districts and plan to apply for the 15-year tax abatement, I suggest you listen to this City Council meeting and plan accordingly.

http://houstontx.swagit.com/play/12122017-1881/50/

Please continue the discussion in the existing topic below.

http://swamplot.com/apartment-developer-ready-to-buy-landmarked-heights-waterworks-land-wants-to-know-whatcha-think/2016-11-18/

Passing this one along long since it is a huge piece of land and on 19th street (with a second parcel on 20th).  Please let it not be another apt complex.  Note the public meeting slated for next Tuesday at the 12th St fire station. 

I think the largest risk is if you accidentally leave your garage door open and the petty thieves grab your tools or golf clubs.  Maybe a slightly higher risk of a house break-in from the alert just due to less traffic.  Our alley I should shut off which provides an added level of security....anyone coming in would have to back out.  I'm somewhat surprised more people don't put up a permanent fence at the halfway point for this reason. 

There is a meeting this week to discuss the pending updated guidelines....details below. Sounds like a perfect way to get a little up to speed.

Tuesday, February 16

St. Andrew's Episcopal Church

1819 Heights Blvd., Houston 77008

5:30-7:30 p.m.

Www.houstonplanning.com

Meeting to focus on "massing"

Project manager Steph McDougal will provide an update on the project, then lead attendees in a conversation about a topic that many people find confusing: "massing." Members of the public will have the opportunity to share feedback and ask questions. Members of the City's Preservation Planning staff will also be on hand.

Read the second issue of heights forward, the monthly project newsletter, online. Articles include:

Project News and Updates

Explain That Term: Massing

Spotlight on Architectural Styles: Craftsman Bungalow

History of Houston Heights, 1890-1910

Did You Know? Demolition data from 2004-2015

Meet Your Commissioners

Get Involved

Did you miss an earlier meeting? Want to find out what happened or share information? A meeting report and all meeting materials are available online.

I hate to break it to you, but you'll have quite the battle to change up the front of the house. We were in the same spot in 2006 before theHD was in place. We expanded our 1100' bungalow to 2350', all on one story, plus a two-car garage. We're on a 6,600' lot which helped make it possible. We then went back after the HD was in place and got the COA approval and tax benefit. I think you could still get something like this done in this environment. Changing the front is the hard part. Try to go back and widen if you can.

My strong suggestion is to hire an architect that has a ton of experience dealing with the HD. It will save you headaches, and give you the best shot at approvals. The right firm will meet with the HD staff very early in the process with a few design ideas and get their support.

We recently went through the HD process for another home (gluttons!) and were successful on an expansion, but we had the right architect and had staff support which is key. It will likely take you 6 months to get drawings done and HAHC approvals, and that is aggressive. It is not impossible, but you will need to be patient and flexible.

Best of luck.

I wonder if they know what "420" also is commonly known for/as? Easy Google search if you are wondering wth I'm referring it.

On our block, we currently have 11 kids, all between 5-11. We did lose 3 to Garden Oaks about 2 yrs ago for schools, but the others seem to be going the private school route. Somewhat oddly (or not), the four newest adds on the street are empty nesters with grown kids, all moving into larger houses (new build, remodels).

We've been here 10 yrs now, and there are definitely more kids playing in the streets now than when we arrived, which has been great to see. I think with prices increasing so much, the pool of buyers leans towards the older/professionals. We know of a few couples that moved here recently, knowing they were going to start a family. They figured they have a couple years plus 5 before they have to decide on schooling. Enjoy the hood until then versus suburbia now. If those with kids could just link arms and stay, the schools could be great too.

We have two that regularly visit right outside our kitchen window. Usually in a pair. 15th and Allston. Sorry for the poor quality photo....best I could get. Oh, and they're upside down photos too....oh well, it will be a good morning challenge for yall.

I've noticed some survey flags going up on the large lots on 17th street near Yale. The lots are next to the car wash and newly refurbished two-story apartment building. It could probably hold several Sullivan Bros homes, or it is large enough for a mid-rise apt bldg (hoping that isn't the case).

Hoping the HAIF sleuths can figure this one out.

As much as I hate to get this banter started again when it's finally quieted down, I saw this today and realized, we are not the only knuckleheaded neighborhood in the country....

http://www.today.com/money/neighbors-want-architects-dream-home-torn-down-its-devastating-2D79606820

Last quote from the article.

"I don't think it's appropriate to exert your tastes on other people's property rights''

.

I was just coming here to post about the same tree getting removed on a Sunday morning. Another indication it was done without permission. The developer on the same block (~1516 Yale) also recently removed an oak in the easement as well. These people chap my backside. Please let us know if you notified 311 and what feedback you received. No way they should be allowed to remove those trees just so they can erect 8 crappy town homes.

BBLLC...you might want to listen to the HAHC review for the 5,500' house on an ~8,000' lot. Lots of discussion and comps. Just an idea. Best of luck

Another head scratcher is the recently approved 5,500 sq ft house in the 1500 block of Allston...approved in 4th quarter of 2013 sometime. Slightly larger lot at ~8,000', but take a drive down the street and see if you think it is "compatable". And this went through HAHC and with a heated protest before the committee.

http://www.theleadernews.com/?p=15660

I just wanted to post this and inform the community of this story. Make your own opinions but personally, I think it is appalling. For anyone who knows Paul and Mary and the numerous things they have done for the Heights for decades, I think they will agree.

#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!!!)

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.

It is equally idiotic for anyone to care whether they meet s3mh's definition of "preservationist".

Excellent point.

I have already responded to that. Read my posts and keep up with the conversation.

It is simply idiotic to claim to be a preservationist just because you put money into your own house but see no problem with 200+ historic homes getting demoed every year and getting replaced with a cacophony of architectural styles from cheap fake creole boxes to suburban transplants to mission and all the way out to modern minimalism. If you were anywhere else in the US and told people that you were a preservationist but had no problem seeing the wholesale destruction of the historic housing stock, people would laugh in your face. Historic preservation isn't like preserving a 57 Ford Thunderbird. You can't put your house on a flatbed and take it to a big house show in Auburn, Indiana to get an idea of what it would look like in the proper context. Historic residential architecture is dependent on the preservation of the neighborhood, not just a single example in a sea of creole wanna be boxes and other oddities. It is akin to saying that you are for preserving Rhinos because you spend a lot of money traveling to different zoos to see them, but don't think that any government should do anything to stop people from hunting them into extinction in the wild.

I guess I am just a preservationist of things that I own, and choose to not tell other what they can and can't do with their own property. Personally, I think that all cars should have white walls facing out, because that's the way it used to be. And I feel like I should be able to force others to follow these guidelines, no matter the cost and regardless of what they like.

You should just stay out of my business. Do your own thing. But leave me alone. If you want a leaky window, have at it. But don't tell me what I can and can't do with my property. If you want to control it, then BUY it yourself. I'm amazed that you think otherwise honestly.

You're not paying attention again....

You have had three examples in the past two days of people against the ordinance, but who live in and have spent money restoring hundred year old homes (oh, and HAHC has even publicly praised our efforts by including our homes as shining examples of what good additions should look like).

Personally, we're probably $700k into this bungalow. Yes, we could own a larger, newer home, in the Heights even. And we could have just torn down and built new. But we chose to buy, reno, expand, and reno some more because we love this old, breezy, leaky, inefficient home.

So, please explain to me how I am anti-preservation? I already know I am anti-ordinance so I have that half of your equation covered.

I enjoy how s3mh has no problem calling out Brie and putting her on the clock for a response but goes silent when asked to respond to some things, especially when he is so blatantly incorrect. Maybe he thought it was a rhetorical question? It wasn't. So, I'd like to know how someone like me can be anti-ordinance but absolutely for preservation??? Just curious. Silence will be deemed to be in agreement.

You know that and your claim that you can be for preservation but against the ordinance is plainly disingenuous.

You're not paying attention again....

You have had three examples in the past two days of people against the ordinance, but who live in and have spent money restoring hundred year old homes (oh, and HAHC has even publicly praised our efforts by including our homes as shining examples of what good additions should look like).

Personally, we're probably $700k into this bungalow. Yes, we could own a larger, newer home, in the Heights even. And we could have just torn down and built new. But we chose to buy, reno, expand, and reno some more because we love this old, breezy, leaky, inefficient home.

So, please explain to me how I am anti-preservation? I already know I am anti-ordinance so I have that half of your equation covered.

That is interesting Red. And really annoying.

I know there was chatter right after it passed about lawsuits that would revoke it. Does anyone know if that is still going on? Curious. My guess is it will take someone getting pinned by the HAHC and finally running it up the court system, and likely someone who is a lawyer so they could burn sweat equity instead of cash.

Oh, and thanks Brie for letting us know about the Starr's winning today. I was able to fire off a letter this morning.

Absolutely. Ever notice that most of these "preservationists" never tell us what they are doing. They only tell us what we cannot do. The reason is that they do little or nothing.

Mark me down as one of those who has done a major expansion, and we are currently on our 4th project inside, for a 1915 bungalow. We did the expansion before the ordinance, but retroactively applied for and received a COA. In fact, our house is used as an EXAMPLE in the HAHC handbook as an acceptable expansion. And guess what, I hate the HAHC. It was underhanded and is over reaching and I don't understand why anyone would turn over that much power to so few individuals about something worth so much to their new worth. Am I a preservationist? Heck yeah. Love the old house, leaky windows and all. But give me the right to make decisions about my own property.

I recall a couple coming around gathering signatures a few years ago (for the ordinance). I told them as an example, that I didn't like their rims on their car, and they should change them out. Didn't belong on that car, in my opinion. And come to think of it, they were one of the main supporters of the ordinance and within a few months of approval, what did they do....moved out of the area. Thanks for that.

(Off the soap box...next man/woman up).

YAWN!!! Can we just let this thing die already?