chester77008

I do not live in any of the current historic districts but I have been following this discussion

with keen interest. I suspect that my little neighborhood is on miz mayor's list for future nominations.

When the matter of returning these cards in order to vote first came up here, my initial thought was "who will do the counting?"

I know my opinion doesn't count in this but I believe SCD is right, there should be someone to protect your interests or maybe even a completely neutral third party should be counting the votes. At this point I would not be inclined to trust anyone at city level who is connected to the historic districts.

frau petite,

You don't need to worry about your little neighborhood turning historic at the moment, the new ordinance requires 67% consent which is not likely to happen. When Parker is elected for a second term she will find a new crusader to replace the end of term for Lovell, and once again change the ordinance, at which point it will be 51% again. You are looking at about 2 years before you need to fight the fight.

I looked at this property a few years back and there is a large drainage easement running through the lot. There is a massive storm drain running under the lot that starts further north at that old power station and heads south to the bayou. The lot directly to the north has a large gully that is part of this old drainage issue, it looks like an old creek, and its pretty deep, maybe 12 feet deep and 20 feet wide. My guess is the old warehouse was built over this gully, thus the hole.

At any rate the easement will make the property a tough sell, it eats up quite a bit of the square footage.

I know this is short notice but it's I got as well.

There is a meeting Thursday September 30th at 6:30 PM at Anderson Properties, 741 E 11th.

Members of the neighborhood are going to discuss how to amend the proposed ordinance, sign re-vote petitions, and get organized.

We only have another week to lobby City Council Members for changes to the current draft.

Please show up if you care to affect this issue!!

FYI...

The Chronicle printed a correction in regards to the article mentioned above....

"A story on Page B1 Saturday incorrectly characterized how existing historic districts will be affected by the changes to the city’s historic preservation ordinance. The districts will keep their historic designation unless 25 percent of property owners within the boundaries petition the city for reconsideration"

We need to start getting signatures now for the Heights districts to force a re-vote. I personally doubt the ordinance will pass with the current 15 day BS and/or the lack of a threshold for returned cards but we need to start preparing just in case. It is my understanding that ResponsibleHistoricPreservation.org will have the needed petition forms very soon. A meeting hosted by the same group is tentatively scheduled for September 30th at 6:30 PM at the United Way on Waugh to get signatures to enable the re-vote, and to discuss further ordinance changes.

The Mayor and Lovell have made some good changes to the ordinance, but many feel it is still very restrictive for new construction and renovations. We need to be prepared to opt-out if they prove unwilling to compromise further.

Do you know how the two Boulevard properties owned by the Heights Association were listed ??-

712 Heights Blvd.

1800 Heights Blvd.

Per their website, "At its June 21 meeting, the Board of the Houston Heights Association voted to take no position at this time on the temporary discontinuance or any of the changes that have been informally proposed"

They were counted as "yes" votes by prior HHA staff. Once again, it is irrelevant, planning can slice those yes votes off if contested, and simply redraw the district. We can play this game for months.

City owned Esplanades counted towards this percentage they needed?

Really?

Really?

Your joking right.

Not joking...sad to say.

In all fairness to the HAHC, they did remove the city owned property prior to the vote, but only when challenged. The planning department is comfortable with their legal departments opinion that they have precedence to allow them to redraw districts to make the numbers work. To me this affirms the fact that property owners should be given the right to opt in or opt out.

Is a list of all of the supporting homeowners that signed the list for Heights South available for public record? I would be interested in viewing that approval list but haven't seen such a list online. Is anyone knowledgeable of its location or how I can have access to the list?

If you would like the list of signers in the Heights South district or any other district contact Suzy Hartgrove in the Planning Department. You can send her a written request. I did it, the list, the application, and all signed petitions cost about $70.00. It is an interesting analysis, and they did not have 51% of the vote. The petitions were very stale, many were invalid. They included the City owned esplanades along Heights Blvd, etc. In the end it did not matter, when challenged they simply re-drew the boundaries of the district to make the numbers work, they also knocked on the doors of some of the invalid petitions the night before the hearing to correct properties that had new owners.

It is also interesting to note that about 22% of those who signed in favor of the historic heights south district live in new homes, not just non-contributing but NEW HOMES. Almost 50% if the vote! Those in favor of the new ordinance that want to disallow new home owners a vote are severely misinformed of the facts. What a surprise.

You can also try contacting the opposition website online, I sent the data to them as well, and I am sure they would pass it along. responsiblehistoricpreservation. org.

s3mh,

I have said this before, you CAN deed restrict your own property. I realize that this does not protect your entire block, but it does protect your home and any of your neighbors homes who share your belief and want to preserve what they have. These restrictions last for 20 years, and only YOU can "bust" them. You can customize them anyway you chose.

I understand that you want block by block protection, but that is not the spirit of the Heights, that is not what made this neighborhood so appealing to such a diverse group of people.

I remember seeing a yard sign in the Heights about 4 years ago, and I only ever saw one, it was in the 600 block of Oxford. It said, "I moved to the Heights to AVOID restrictions".

Don't forget that this is part of the fabric of the Heights, you may not like it, but it is not going away.

Just look at 15th and Rutland. Four houses on a lot meant for two. If minimum setback and minimum lot size restrictions were so wonderful, how did this happen? Deed restrictions can be bought out. Historic ordinances cannot.

They don't tell you how to hang your toilet paper now, but it is just a matter of time before they do. Nothing in the ordinance says they can't, and some lady said HAHC was going to get more strict every year. By 2015, they will mandate mowing lawns in a north/south fashion. East/west mowing will be subject to a fine. Nothing in the ordinance says that can't.

The lot at 15th and Rutland did not have minimum lot size, that is why they were able to build the high-density mess on that corner. Minimum lot size restrictions require a majority of the owners of a block to sign and apply for the restriction. Why was this not done on that block? Most people in the Heights support minimum lot size, I have never had anyone knock on my door to sign for it. I would sign for it, I will not sign for the proposed protected district ordinance, I plan on adding on the side and mid section of my bungalow. Stop blaming those you don't like, the Heights is made up of intelligent people, not people who blindly follow the lead of Realtors. Put your money where your mouth is and come up with an ordinance that everyone will sign.

Deed restrictions cannot be "bought out", you can deed restrict your own property, those restrictions remain in force for 20 years, at which time they can be secured again. There is no legal mechanism to make them go away, or buy them out.

The residents on Rutland are very well aware of how to secure minimum lot size restrictions. My guess is that they were unable to convince a majority of the property owners to do so, just as they can't convince a majority of the Heights to approve protected district status. Stop blaming and start writing, create an ordinance that will actually have majority support.

Hey, maybe they'll force half the bars and restaurants on White Oak to shut down and become gas stations and auto shops again.

I have seen signs opposed to the ordinance at Onion Creek, Dry Creek, Cedar Creek, and the soon to open desert place on White Oak, so I can only assume all of those folks have had past experiences with the HAHC. I can guarantee you that the Glass Wall and the place across the street from it are opposed to the new ordinance, they had to demo older homes to build those places. There is also a sign opposed to the issue at the local hardware store.

S3mh,

Your comment that the additions on your block are mostly bungalows where they saved the front half of the house is to the point.

The new ordinance does not allow this to happen anymore. This is why I personally oppose the changes. You will be required to add on to the rear of the bungalow only. I have applied and been denied on an addition like this. I asked how many feet of the original bungalow I would be required to keep before adding the new addition, the answer was all of it. The new ordinance requires one to keep the original structure intact, and all additions must be at the rear of the home so that they can be removed at a later date and return the bungalow to its original size and shape.

This is nuts in my opinion, there are plenty of ways to demolish 1/2 of a bungalow and have a great looking finished product.

Maybe this will help. It's from the Houston Heights Historic District Guidelines that are available on the city's website. There are all kinds of ways to add on appropriately.

http://www.houstontx...ide_5NewAdd.pdf

Krol,

Thanks but non of those fit my situation. I don't want to add to the back of my bungalow, I want to go back about 20' from the front door and then add to the width.

The lack of ability to do additions to a home is really starting to worry me after continued conversations with the HAHC.

For example, you would not be able to do something like the attached picture. You can add to the back of your bungalow, but not the middle as the attached photo.

Before I get slammed...I am making no comment on the looks of this house, I am just pointing out that you cant add to the middle of a bungalow.

James,

Indeed. Information is the key. We've heard of people who went to the Tuesday night meeting who went home and quickly removed the signs they had from that realtor group that is trying to derail the Heights South application. It seems someone has obtained the list of the members of that group. It's all realtors from the big realty firms (yep, all the names you would think of) and builders, including Tricon. Wonder if that list will go public...

Krol,

The "list" is public information. Go ask for it, call the City Secretary, it's just a google away, it will be ready for pick-up in about 4 days and it costs $57.

The Planning Department is currently scanning the question cards that are being collected at the evening public meetings in order to maintain transparency on the issue. They will be posted on the City of Houston website soon, so then you will have two sources of accurate information on the subject. This is an open process, the homeowners put their names on these cards.

Go pull the records and you can see who signed the petitions and who is now against. You will be surprised at what you see, this is not about old v. new, this is about homeowner rights. For example, 21% of those who signed the south heights district petitions live in new homes. This is very significant when you keep in mind that only 51% of the vote was required. That means a swing of 8 houses can make or break a district, which it did. There were almost 100 new homes that signed in the south district alone.

There are also MANY homeowners in restored homes that signed before and are now against.

Both sides love old houses. The issue here is the new ordinance. The current proposed ordinance goes from one extreme to the other. From "90 day waiver" to "no means no".

If you have been ignoring this subject you had better wake up...here is a quote from a pro-preservation ordinance website.

"IN THE WORKS!

Areas currently preparing Historic Designation applications to be submitted after the deadline expires are: Independence Heights, Brook Smith, Germantown and Lower Heights. If you are interested in securing Historic Designation for your area, click here. "

I don't even know what "Lower Heights" is but apparently it is historic.

You CAN add to the side if the HAHC decides to allow you. That guideline takes your neighbors home into account before allowing you to do additions. If your addition would be larger than the neighbors or the blocks, then you will get rejected. The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic.

A reading of that guideline with the ordinance, makes one believe that if your house is currently historic, and has hardi plank siding you recently replaced, but you wish to make an addition, then the whole house would have to be resided with wood siding which is what is approved by the HAHC. Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance.

You should still be worried, we still have a very subjective HAHC deciding who gets to do what additions on a case by case basis, with no real avenue of appeal. You are no longer in control of your own property - a board of people who are obsessed with arbitrary control now gets to decide for you.

The question of adding to the side of your house is a very important one that is being ignored by planning, they have yet to answer the question. The ordinance requires that any addition be able to be removed at a later date to return the bungalow to its original state. Therefore, if you add to the side and modify the roof line of the bungalow the HAHC will not approve. If you add to the width of the bungalow at the rear, they will approve. They want additions to be obvious additions, thus leaving the bungalow in its original state.

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

Krol,

I did not buy into an historic district. It is being imposed upon me. It is my right to disagree.

Your facts are extremely vague. Since you seem to be in the know...can you please explain exactly how I would be allowed to add on to the size of my bungalow? I would assume I need plans, which cost money. Am I allowed to increase the width of a bungalow? If so, by how much?

I am pleased that the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance finally chimed in on the discussion here on HAIF.

The GHPA is currently sponsoring a class at Rice to determine how to make the following neighborhoods historic districts.

- Westmoreland

- Garden Oaks and Oak Forrest

- Broadacres, Shadow Lawn and Shadyside

- Independence Heights and Magnolia Park

- Country Club Place and Idylwood

- Courtlandt Place

Have fun if you live in these neighborhoods!

Check out their advertisement on swamplot if you think this is misinformation.

I wouldn't call myself a preservationist, certainly not by your definition. However, houses like this were here when we bought our house and are part of what we like about the Heights. It will be a sad day when the old or eclectic residents that made the Heights desirable for the rest of us are gone.

Everyone agrees that we like the old homes. The issue is how do we move forward with protecting them. The proposed ordinance aims to halt new construction and SERIOUSLY limit what can be done to remodel a bungalow. The HAHC desires that all additions to bungalows be done to the rear of the home, and that the addition be able to be removed at some point in order to return the home to its original state.

This means that you will not be allowed to do tasteful additions to your home even though they may be attractive and in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. You will not be allowed to widen the home, add to the front porch, or add to the height. I see a lot of additions going on that look great, the HAHC has a different agenda.

My partner and I discussed this and we feel the City is starting at the extreme end because they know there will be opposition and this gives them wiggle room for negotiating. I know many die hard preservationists and the thing that most of them want to see is an end to the 90 day rule and adoption of a "No Means No" for tear downs. I don't think anyone who supports preservation really want to control their neighbors' paint color but they also want to save buildings like Ashland Tea House and the historic homes on Heights Boulevard that were torn down in the last few years. We do not think this will go forward as proposed and that the current proposition is as much a smoke screen as anything.

Don't kid yourself. The City is in a perfect position to pass this thing. They managed to do it in the Old 6th Ward and the Heights is next.

They are using the public meetings as another subjective measure of support. City Council can and will pass this if there is not enough opposition.

There is now a website posted by a group opposed to the new ordinance. They have a good Q&A section regarding the changes.

www.responsiblehistoricpreservation.org

If you previously signed the petition and do not agree with the proposed changes please sign the petition-retraction form.

There are also yard signs available to help generate debate.

Yes, since the self-anointed arbiters of taste and history have decided that the process of actually getting their neighbors to agree that a neighborhood should be designated historic is too much work, they are changing the rule to ONE PERSON living in the neighborhood may start the application process. No collective wish of the neighbors, no sense of community...one person starts it, and the rest get a postcard.

You make a valid point. Not only can one person start it, the HAHC can also start it. In my mind thats the same as 0 (zero) home owners starting it.

I am still curious as to why home owners in support of the historic district designation dont organize Minimum Lot Size for their block, and or create deed restrictions for their own homes. I believe a home owner in the Heights can very easily record their own deed restriction on their individual property, I have seen these recorded in the past and I believe it is a very simple process. Granted they are only valid for 20 years but that is long enough in my book.

Given that only 53% of the Heights is considered historic according to the HAHC, if this same 53% individualy filed deed restrictions on their own properties the problem would be solved. Those properties could not be demolished, turned into McMansions, or whatever else they want to write into their own restriction.

Problem solved, no money spent by the tax payers and no headaches.

You thought wrong. And what does the mayor have to do with Walmart?

Yankee,

I was referring to your previous post on the subject of the new Heights Historic District South Application and the new moratorium passed by the Mayor and City Council regarding demolitions and new construction in Houstons Historic Districts (the HPO, or Historic Preservation Ordinance)...A different thread here on HAIF, where you expressed your opinion.

You stated that you supported the regulation of property rights in Houston historic districts yet you are bashing corporate America for limiting home size of their employees (sounds like a stretch but anyway...)

Is there any way you can walk both sides of that fence? If so, please explain how.

The mayor, City Council, and the HAHC now have the power to dictate property use, home size, and new construction in the Heights and other historic districts in Houston. On the same hand you are quoted as blaming a corporation for regulating what their employees can buy and or build.

I honestly don't see the difference.

Oh, so it's a chip on your shoulder that makes you act like this. Makes more sense now.

Whether or not it was inevitable doesn't invalidate my feelings about it.

And I don't believe it was inevitable as the only other Walmart in Western Ma is in Pittesfield, population roughly 100,000, and many of the other clusters of small towns around there which have kept Walmart out continue to thrive. Even now that they have opened the largest contemporary art museum in the country in an old factory, the town can't recover and many locals will point to Walmarts destruction of the local economy as part of it.

And, again, I also dislike Walmart as a company due to their employment policies which keep thousands of people on their "payroll" below the poverty line. They use sweatshop labor. They discriminate against women in their power structure. They even dictate the size of home their corp staff can purchase (i.e. regardless of the size of his family, an inhouse lawyer for Walmart was told that he could not buy anything larger than a 3/2- in Arkansas, mind you- because they didn't want it too look like they pay their lawyers too much). I don't like them as a company and I don't have to support or be happy about them moving so close to me (maybe, this is all just rumor at this point no matter how much HeyHatch hears it's a done deal). And I don't have to change my mind just because you are excited about the prospect of having cheap, Chinese made products made so much more accessible to you...

See, you miss the point. This is, for many people, an emotional issue. We like or dislike Walmart for our own personal reasons, e.g. corp policies, sweatshop labor, discrimination, aesthetics, parking lot safety, etc. So no one really cares that you have anointed yourself the supreme expert on what we should all want. Your education and hodge podge of professional backgrounds isn't going to make HeyHatch feel safe in a Walmart parking lot at night and it's not going to make me go back and say "yeah, I'm sure glad there's a Walmart scarring the face of my quaint New England hometown." Frankly, we don't have to want it and, like you said, this is Houston. It's not like Walmart is the only option and we'd be silly for turning it away. If not Walmart, there are a lot of other ways that land could be developed that would benefit the area as much, if not more, than a Walmart. I'm sure you're aware that there are more options but you pull so hard for this one because it benefits you. Fine. That is your emotional reaction as well, but don't play it off as if everyone else is stupid for having a differing opinion.

I said earlier in the conversation that I don't believe Walmart will close the locally owned businesses in the Heights and surrounding neighborhoods. C&D survives with Home Depot and Lowe's a 5 minute drive away. People who are buying baby gifts at Tulips & Tutus aren't going to switch to Walmart. People who want handcrafted items aren't going to stop going to The Artful COrner and 18 Hands Gallery b/c Wallyworld moved below I10.

And here is a great tip for you: there are also 2 Fiestas, the nice one on Studewood and the giant Fiesta on Shepherd, where you can get all the inexpensive food you want, probably cheaper than Walmart will be anyway.

Yankee,

I thought you were a strong supporter of dictating home sizes. What's the problem? The Mayor is now telling us what we can buy and build...all is right in the Heights.