SCDesign

Observation: Sec 33-22.1 Application for designation of historic district: (a) Applicaiton for designation of an historic district shall be initiated by either: (1) one or more owners or property in the proposed district, subject to the requirement of subsection © of this section that at least 67% of the owners of tracts int he proposed districts who return cards pursuant to the subsection © to the department indicates support of the application. (2)The HAHC upon instructing hte Planning official to prepare an application for designation (.b.) application for the designation of a historic district shall be filed ... (procedure and criteria, read it) © The department shall review an application submitted by one or more property owners for completeness...(this goes on to explain the procedure for mailing out the ballot and the timeline for notification) What this section does is require a mailed out ballot only if the application is innitiated by one or more property owners. Subsection © specifically states that this is only required in that instance, applications by the HAHC do not require a mail out ballot. This section is what gives the HAHC the power to name districts without property owner approval. PLEASE READ THE ORDINANCE!

Observation: Sec 33-227 Amandment; changes in boundary Amendment of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archeological site and any change in the boundary of any historic district or archeological site shall require action by the city council and shall follow to procedures for applicaiton, notice, public hearing and recommendation by HAHC and the commission used for the original designation of the landmark, historic district or archeological site. This is where is specifically states in the ordinance that the MUST re-petition the exact same way that the original petition was done. This sections is still in the ordinance so how can they ignore it? Sec 33-22.1 gives them the ability to do a mailout with 67% approval, but that is only for new districts as I read it, it does not remove Sac 33-227 from the Ordinance or retroactively take away the requirement.

Observation: Sec 33-203 Enforcement and Penalties (d) If a landmark ... located in an historic district is demolished without a certificate of appropriateness required by this article or, in the case of a landmark only, a 90 waiver certificate issued persuant to section... This section excludes landmarked outside of historic districts from the revocation of the 90 day waiver. You are welcome River Oaks.

Observation: SEC 33-241 (.b.) Notwithstanding the preceding subsections (a), the planning official is authorized to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the following types of alteration ... So, the planning official (?) can issue a Certificate of Appropriateness without going before the Committee under certain circumstances that are outlined in the following sections (look them up). They are very broad and open to interpretation as is the rest of the ordinance. This provision is an open invitation to graft and favoritism and the public would be hard pressed to find out because the application would never appear on the HAHC agenda.

There is already a way to do this through Chapter 42. If a block wants to preserve the lot size and building line of the block all they have to do is circulate the applicationa and get 50% of the property owners to agree. At that point the City will determine the Prevailing (average) building line and lot size and from that point on no builder can violate that rule. It is very easy and most blocks in the Heights already have it. This is a very efficiant way of keeping the builders who want to build townhouses off of your block. For the last questions: No. The existing Ordinance already states that any changes to the Ordinance have to be approved by the people it applies to, but they are throwing that out the window because it's inconvienent. They are doing it now so they will most likely find a way to do it no matter what safeguards are put in.

The fact that all of the specifics are not worked out is a MAJOR issue. At the meeting on Tuesday when they laid out the timeline for getting this passed by City Council by September 29, they mentioned that things needed to be worked out. They want this passed now and to be allowed to finalize everything later. Why do they need to push this through before they have all of that worked out? Slow down and give us a completed ordinance with EVERYTHING specfied. They don't want to do that becuase it's going to take a long time for them to get specific, but they want us to trust that they are going to be fair. I don't think they have earned that trust.

Of course money is an issue. Isn't it for you if you own a house? Increasing and preserving the value of the houses in these neighborhoods is in the best interest of EVERYONE. I don't know one homeowner that would say "I would be happy if my houses value stays the same or falls" A house is the biggest investment most people ever make and they rely on the value increasing. Who has driven the value of homes in the Heights? The builders, that's who. Who have been marketing the neighborhood and working to change it's image into a place people want to live? The realtors, that's who. Who is going to know the impact of things like this more than the people whos job it is to know? Who invest their time and money in knowing and improving these areas? In all honesty this Historic Distric probably won't be a horrible thing for me personally, but I'm still against it. I'm one of the few designers that have real experience with doing plans for the HAHC and designing plans that will have a high likelihood of being accepted without significant redesign. I'm also one of the few builders who have real experience with restoring old homes in a way the will make the HAHC, and homeowner, happy. I'm against it because it isn't fair to homeowners to impose these regulations when they agreed to something totally different. If they put this change to a vote and it passes than I will support it because it really is what people want. They don't want to do that because it's not what they want, and the games they are playing to put their agenda through without the consent of the people most affected is what I am against. Just a questions: Does anyone know if Sue Lovell, Anise Parker, Marlene Gafrick, Randy Pace or any of the other Counil Members or City Employees pushing this so hard live in Historic Districts? I believe Sue Lovell may own property in one of them but I don't believe she lives in one. Does anyone know?

Krol, Nobody is trying to hide who is affiliated with the group. Realtors, Architects and Builders are the logical people to inform everyone about what this ordinance means. There is a group of people who are pushing to have Historic Districts established and they have, in my opinion and the opinion of MANY of the people who were talked into signing the original petition, mislead the residents about what they were agreeing to. Architects, Builder and Realtors are experts on area markets and City Ordinances and they are the logical ones to tell people what this Ordinance really means. If you have a disease you ask a doctor. If you want a bridge built you talk to an engineer, and if you want to build a house you talk to a an Architect, Realtor and Builder. We are also the people that have invested our lives in these neighborhoods. Most of us live in them and are affected just like everyone else by this. All of us have invested money and years of our lives to making these areas everything that they are today; places that people are passionate about and want to live in.

Porchman, HUH? I want to take offense but I honestly can't figure out what that post was about. I appreciate you posting a picture of one of my favorite houses but I don't see the relevance to my post. I'm particularly proud of that one because it was on a half lot on a corner 1 block from Shepard that had been sitting vacant for years. Nobody wanted to touch it but I was able to put up something that a family lives and people enjoy looking at. I've had more complimants from that house than pretty much any other I've built. Why don't you post some of the others? There are 3 in there that were nominated for Improvement awards by the Heights Association. My point was that The landmarked houses in River Oaks are not subject to this ordinance. They can still be altered and demolished at the owners whim, where the little bungalows in the Heights are protected. Isn't that hypocritical? How is a bunglaow more worthy of protection than a one of a kind, truly architecturally and historically significant, landmark? Why? Because if the City tried to apply this kind of regulation on the property owners in River Oaks it would never fly. They, the Powers that be, understand that this is unpopular and unfiar to the homeowner so they went out of their way to exclude the people that have real power and money from being included. As a tax payer I am outraged that classism is guiding our public policy so blantantly. They are usually much more subtle about screwing the plebes.

I have an interesting find buried in this ordinance that was just pointed out to me, and those of you who think there are not serious political games being played think about this one: structures designated as Histoiric Landmarks that are outside of Historic Districts will STILL BE ELIGABLE FOR THE 90 DAY WAIVER!! Why is this significant you ask? What neighborhood in Houston has the largest concentration of truely architecturally significant houses? I mean, when you think of Historic houses by major architects in this City, where would they be located? RIVER OAKS, right? There are more historic landmarks there than in any neighborhood in the City, so wouldn't it make sense to name it as a Historic District if you REALLY wanted to preserve Houston's history? What do YOU think would happen if River Oaks was named a Historic District under this ordinance? How long would it take for every politician in the City to feel how unhappy the residents of that neighborhood are about the restrictions this Ordinance imposes? Well, now they don't need to worry about it because that neighborhood can point to all of the Historic Landmarks they are preserving and have a pretty good argument as to why the SHOUDLN'T be a Historic District. But wait! If they want to tear a Historic Landmark all they have to do is make application and WAIT 90 DAY AFTER TEHY ARE DENIED AND THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT! Wnat to tear down a John Staub 1938 Historic Landmark in River Oaks? That's okay, HAHC won't stand in the way. Want to tear down a 1,200 sq.ft. Sear Bungalow in the Heights? NO WAY, it's too Historically Significant to the neighborhood. If they ram this through we need to DEMAND that River Oak be named a Historic District!

James, You can do an addition to the side of your house, and to the back as well, but it will have to be considered appropriate and approved. The HAHC will not generally allow you to do additions to the side that can be seen from the street. The number that is generally thrown around it "40 feet from the front edge of the structure" as far enough back to not affect the look from the street. You can do it closer if you are doing something that could have originally been done on the house, like a small bay window or nook. Since most bungalows in the Heights are about 40' deep you are basically forced to add to the back of the house. There was a really nice plan submitted by Brickmoon Architects for a house in the 1800 block of Cortland that was rejected not because of the addition to the back but because of the dormered bay with a covered porch that they wanted to add to the dining area (if you have a bungalow you know where that is, about 15 feet from the front corner). It was a shame because the house would have been beautiful the way it was. I don't know if they found a way to work around it but I didn't see how they could have made it work with that space. It was rejected late last year and they haven't started work yet so they may not have been able to. NOTE: I don't know the people at Brickmoon and do not know their position on this ordinance. I think they are very talented and like a lot of the things that they design but I know very little about them. I'm stating an example of something that I witnessed at an HAHC meeting.

I designed and built the house on the 1800 block of Arlington so I'm glad you used that as an example. You CAN get plans approved for additions and expansions in the Historic Districts. I've done it a dozen times. The problem is that everytime I do it there is a laundry list of "suggestions" that they make in order for staff to recommend the plan for approval by the committee. Changes that are significant and costly and usually force substantial redesign and compromise by the owner. On this house they wanted the cantilever on the south side removed because "they didn't do cantilevers on the original structure". Without that cantilever I could not have a bedroom there, which would have forced me to remove one of the other bedrooms or redesign the whole thing. With this house I was fortunate enough to have a beautiful tree that I was trying to save and I was able to threaten to cut down the tree in order to force a compromise. On a number of other plans the only chip that I had to play was "you can let me do this and I'll do most of the other things that you want, or I'll wait 90 day and do what I want. Care to deal?" WIth this ordinance we lose that barganing position, even the ability to threaten cutting down a tree since they can control your whole lot, and the HAHC will have no reason to ever be reasonable or compromise. As for your 80% number, if you include all of the applications for changing windows, porch rails, and all the little things that you are forced to ask permission to do now, than yeah, 80% is about right. Also, consider that the staff will discourage you from letting a submittal get to the committee unless that are going to recommend it for approval or you are submitting a plan knowing it will be rejected and are just starting the 90 day clocsk. Most plans get stopped well before they get to the committee.

I'll volunteer to do the plans and make all of the submittals, at my expense, for anyone who would like to take it on. I have 200+ plans that I've drawn over the last 10 years, specifically for the Heights, so that's not problem. Most of them have already been built so there would be pictures to show the end product, and a couple have been nominated for Community Improvement Awards by the Heights Association. I don't have the land though so I can't be the principle. How would it look to have an award nominated plan submitted and rejected? I did a very nice Italinate Victorian on the corner of 13th and Columbia that was built 2 years ago that would be a perfect plan to start with: not too big, hugely Victorian and exactly what people think of when they think of the Heights.

James, as of now you don't need a CoA so if you are planning on doing it in the next year you should go ahead and get a permit. If you have a permit they can't take it back or stop you doing the work. A permit is good for a year, and you can get an extension for another 6 months with no problem. That's not the point, I know, but... After this passes you'll probably have a better chance of removing the door and patching the hole than doing a balcony or porta cochere.

I have a very good friend who is a Real Estate attorney and he said this might just make him go into litigation. He kind of drooled as he said "class action"

For those of you that didn't go to the meeting last night, which is probably everyone, here is what happened: First and most important: there were only about 300 people there in an auditorium that probably seats 2,000. Of those 300 probably 250 were against this ordinance. The pictures are going to show a mostly empty venue that will be perfect proof that the public really isn't all that worked up about this issue. If people are against this they need to turn out to these meeting! This meeting was just about what is being proposed but they did not want to talk about specific areas. They will talk about specific areas when they hold the area meetings. They did take written questions and are supposed to post teh questions and answers in the City website this week. Of course they downplay the impact of the Ordinance but they did everything they could to NOT be specific about what it actually will do. Highlights: 1) The idea of getting your signature off of the petition, and stopping the designation, is dead. Marleen said that the Planning Committee meeting for the Distric submittal was last week and it was approved by them and sent with support to the City Council. They will not withdraw support or request its removal from the Agenda, so next week it will be named a Historic District 2) They will not do a re-petition. Period. They MAY do a mailed out ballot to remove Historic Designations from districts if it is clear that there is significant oppositions, which will be determined in an as yet undetermined manner. Since they do not believe there was any fraud in the petition process they do not believe there will be fraud in a ballot process, so they are sure that the ballots will be an honest process and there will be no reason for extrordinay measures to insure the it is fair. 3) Preserving the DISTRICT is paramount so everythng in the district will require HAHC inspection. Any work requiring a permit must get a CoA before the permit is issued, on all strucutures whether contributing or not. If your new house burns down you will not be allowed to rebuild the same structure if it is deemed not compatible, you will have to design a new compatible structure, regardless of the number of non contributing structures on your block. REALLY SCARY! Marleen said, when people protested that this change was not what they agreed to when they signed the petition, that Preservation is a process that must be taken in steps and that the signers should have realized that what they were signing was just the beginning. Each change is a step toward their ultimate goal of preserviing Houston and this is just another step. If this is just another step WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? Ending the meeting Sue restated that this is something she supports and will fight for, but she does want to hear what everyone wants to say. When someone shouted "THIS IS ZONING, IT NEEDS A REFORENDUM!" She shouted back "NOT IT IS NOT AND THERE WILL BE NO REFORENDUM!" If anyone else was there please add anything that I forgot, and correct me if you find anything that I am wrong about. One last thing: the turnout was pathetic! If people are really against this there need to be a hell of a lot more showing up. I don't think even 1,000 per meeting will be enough to make them do a new ballot. It's going to take THOUSANDS who are vocal, intelligent and serious to get their attention. Oh, and I'm sure everyone will be happy to note that the rep from the City Attorney's Office said, basically, "we can't stop people from suing over this, and we expect it, but we do not feel it will be overturned so we are prepared to fight (with your money)"

I was at a meeting where it was said, as were a number of other people (about 20, 12 of which worked for the City). It is not on the record anywhere that I know of but it is well know in many circles. Nobody has to believe me just look at the ordinance and the power it gives and the Historic Districts that have been added in just the last year. Heck, just since June 1. If you have any doubt that the City is playing games with this just look at how they have moved on this to date: 1) The Request for Action to put the temporary suspension of the 90 day waiver was submitted on the Friday afternoon before Memorial Day to go on the Council schedule for the following Wednesday 2) The dates of the public meetings to debate the changes were released 4 days before the biggest meeting was scheduled 3) The mailed notice only included the meeting for the specific area af the addressee and the largest, and probbaly most important meeting, was not inculded 4) The push by the Mayor NOT to repetition to enact these changes when they are completely different than what people had originally agreed to. Does the City have a track record of openness and honesty? Or does it have a record of reaching, grabbing and taking regardless of what the citizens want or agree to? One of the biggest arguments people make against making the Heights a Preserved District is that it is too late, it should have been done 30 years ago. If the Heights is Protected wouldn't you expect that development will move to those areas that are not protected? If those areas are now going to be in the position the Heights was in 30 years ago doesn't it make sense for them to step in now to preserve them so they don't make the same "mistake" that was made in the Heights? You MUST look at the "Worst Possible Scenerio" when you give the City this kind of power, and worst case is that EVERYTHING INSIDE OF THE BELTWAY WILL QUALIFY AS HISTORIC WITHIN THE NEXT 10 YEAR! Think about that.

LOOKHERE & Porchman: What everyone who is not in a current Historic District needs to realize is that the ultimate objective of the HAHC is to make ALL OF THE INNER LOOP A HISTORIC DISTRICT. If they get this ordinance passed they have stated, publically, that they will immediately extent the Heights East District to the north limit of the Heights proper, which is 22nd Street. They will also name Sunset Heights, Oak Forest, Garden Oaks and Timbergrove Manor as Historic within the year. I'm not making that up, it has been stated publically and if you read the ordinance you can see that they have included the language that they need to make it as easy as possible to do it. If you think because you are outside of the Historic District this is going to be good for you, you need to wake up becuase you are going to find one day soon, without any prior notice, that you are subject to these regulations. For everyone who thinks that what is proposed is just a negotiation start point please look at the history of the Historic Distric debates from the time they were first enacted 8 years ago. It started with a 30 day wait period, then a 90 & 90 period, now they want "no means no". It started with only contributing and partially contributing structures having to comply to the Guidlines, then it went to new construction on non contributing lots having to comply, now with no means no it will mean everything must comply, even changes to non contributing existing structures. The City has a history of taking what they want bite by bite, little by little. If they back off of something in the proposed ordinance now you can be SURE they will TAKE it later, and that will be at a time when they feel there will be little or no opposition. They will take your property rights bite by bite unless you stop it NOW!

Sorry, it's not really offensive. It jst says "Yes to Preservation, No to (something)" and gives a list of why it's bad. It's something though, and if we can get a number of them up and down a street we may have an impact. BTW, the South Heights District does not appear to be on the Council Adgenda for this week so if enough people go to the meetings and protest there may still be a chance to keep it from being adopted right away. I don't know what good it does to delay it but I guess that as long as it isn't officially voted as a District there is always the chance of stopping it from happening.

I like hte idea of making them get a warrant. I wonder if that would work with HCAD appraisers. You can only really get into trouble if they catch you building without a permit, once it is finished they would have a pretty hard time proving that it wasn't there before. As for a neighbor building something without a permit there are certian things you can build without one and an outbuilding or storage shed that wasn't living space, under, I believe it's 140 sq.ft, wouldn't need one. I heard that the City will actually pay a reward if you turn someone in that is working without a permit but that could very well be a rumor. You do't typically need a permit to paint your house but in the Historic Distric under the new ordinance you would. I think there will be a thriving business in weekend painting and contracting in the future.

In the district you have to have a CoA to get a permit issued by the City. Working without a permit in the City can result in a fine of $2,000 per day. The enforcement would be through Planning Department Inspection Division which has about 20 inspectors whose sole job is to find unpermitted work. Normally they will put up a "Stop Work" order on your property and give you the chance to get a permit. If you continue working without a permit the fines will start to add up. Eventually it will result in a lien on the property for the amount of fine which will be collected when the structure is sold.

You can get one at Boulivard Realty on Heights Blvd, or Susan Anderson at 11th. I'll see if I can get a scanned one to post. Also, if you want a sign you can get on at Boulivard Realty, there are a couple of hundred that we are trying to get out.

If you are in the one of the Historic Districts and signed the petition but are against these changes please sign the signature recision form. Also, show up at one of these meetings and SPEAK becuase unless there is a HUGE outcry in opposition this will go through without any kind of re-petition. At this point they say they will do a mailed ballot if there is enough opposition. The catch is going to be that they will only count the ballots that are returned so there must be a huge outcry in opposition to get the ballot and there must be an even larger response via ballot. Read the ordinance! Everyone seems to think that this onle affects future work and older homes, but if you own a recently constructed home you will have to submit plans for Certificates of Appropriateness to change the paint color of your home, build a new fence and even repair your house after a storm! This ordinance makes everything visible from the street subject to oversight from the HAHC regardless of whether the house is considered historic or not.

The Mayor released the proposed new guidelines for the Historic Districts. The key points are: 1) The petition process will be eliminated. Now property owners can fill out a card if they support becoming a Historic District. The Historic Commission reserves the right to name historic districts. 2) Changes to the definitions of what falls under the Commissions approval requirements including material 3) New construction must comply with compatibility guidlines 4)Expand the reasons for applying for a certificate of appropriateness. 5) Eliminate the 90 waiver for demo and new construciton I'll try to get the pdf online so that those interested can read the actual text.

Update: If you watched the vote you will know that there were a lot of questions left unanswered. According to the Buider's Groups reading of what was voted on we may have been misled about an important issue. We were told that if you had started the process to get a CoA, and had spent money, you would be able to qualify for a "grandfather" on the 90 waiver for both demolition AND New construction. What passed yesterday SEEMS to say that you you can get the "grandfather" waiver for demolition but that you WILL NOT be able to get a waiver for iIncompatible new construction. So apparently you can tear down your house but you will not be able to build anything new unless it conforms to the Historic Guidlines, regardless of what we were told earlier this week. We may be wrong about this, it may be that you can still get a 90 waiver on incompatible new construction, but since the Council will not give us the ordinance that was passed we can't tell exactly what it says. This ordinance was introduced RIGHT before the Council Meeting so nobody, not even the Council Members, were able to read it before the vote.