The Heights Historic Districts

[RedScare]

In short, it means that WE WON!

The long version is that City Council voted not to accept the recommendation of Planning to accept the Heights East & West historic districts as they already are. The matter is returned to Planning to look at areas of support and opposition, and submit a new proposal. That proposal could mean dissolve the districts, redraw them, or some other proposal. In reality, the only thing accomplished is that Council said it was not impressed with how this went down. It is a HUGE loss for the Mayor. It is also a big loss for Ed Gonzales, who backed the mayor completely. He is now on the losing side of this measure, and on the wrong side of the 65% of Heights residents opposed to this measure.

The other historic districts, including Norhill, passed. Heights South, Woodland Heights, and Glenbrook Valley have not been voted on, and are still pending districts. A no vote on them would end the historic district question in those neighborhoods.

Final result: Despite being told by the Mayor and s3mh, it was not over. WE WON!

[OutfieldDan]

In short, it means that WE WON!

The long version is that City Council voted not to accept the recommendation of Planning to accept the Heights East & West historic districts as they already are.

How did the vote break down? I assume Gonzalez was on the Mayor's side?

[RedScare]

How did the vote break down? I assume Gonzalez was on the Mayor's side?

Yes, he was. He argued for it. Brenda Stardig and Wanda Adams voted against it, along with Jo Jones and Bradford. I'm sure Clutterbuck was against, as well. Not sure about the rest, I'll get that later.

[Heights Homeowner]

How did the vote break down? I assume Gonzalez was on the Mayor's side?

The 8 to 7 vote was:

In Favor:

Parker

Lovell

Noriega

Huang

Rodriguez

Costello and of course

Gonzalez

Opposed:

Jones

Bradford

Sullivan

Johnson

Adams

Clutterbuck

Pennington

Stardig

Everyone needs to write our 8 supporters and THANK THEM for some sanity and reason. They vote for this where the community seems to support it and didn't where they KNOW the community does not! We need to let them know how much we appreciate their support and will remember them in November and with our campaign contributions. We also need to tell the seven who voted against PROPERTY RIGHTS that we won't forget in November!! We especially need to go after Costell and Noriega who are At-Large and everyone of us gets to vote against them. And of course, there is Gonzalez, who is toast!

I will make a list of council member addresses and post a little later so you can all email them to let them know you will have their back because they had ours!

[Marksmu]

The 8 to 7 vote was:

In Favor:

Parker

Lovell

Noriega

Huang

Rodriguez

Costello and of course

Gonzalez

I am surprised to see that Huang voted in favor of the ordinance; he seemed to have realized that there were major flaws with it in previous council meetings.

I am however very relieved to see that council is at the very least paying attention to the people! What comes now is going to be interesting....I do not know what the planning department is going to do with it? The planning folks do not want to change it, they have already recommended adopting it in its entirety. Hopefully a real yes/no vote can actually be had that is all I really want.

I would absolutely love to see the real support for this ordinance. I would gladly walk away saying I have been outvoted if they can prove to me that they have 66% of the property without including the city owned properties in their support. They do not have it...they do not even have 51% as originally required. So what comes next is sure to be more partisan politics.

A win for the anti-ordinance crowd for sure. Where it goes from here I anxiously await.

[MOpens]

Does anyone know the thinking behind use of the term "potentially contributing structure" in the ordinance? Unless I am missing something, the only place I see it used is in the definition of "contributing structure," which is defined to include any structure deemed potentially contributing in an historic district designated as such before October 13, 2010. Using Heights East as a sample, a quick count shows 769 total lots, with 196 (25.5%) contributing, 484 (62.9%) potentially contributing, and 89 (11.6%) non-contributing or vacant. Under the terms of the ordinance, one could claim that 88.4% of the structures in Heights East "contribute to the historic significance of the district" since Heights East was designated an historic district before October 13, 2010. But if those same percentages were applied to the proposed Heights South District, only 25.5% would contribute to the historic significance of the district.

This ordinance, and the city's "attempt" to comply with ordinance, is flawed in so many ways. Hard to argue with that regardless of the color of your yard sign, IMHO. This is another example. You could have the same structure in two different districts, and in one it could be contributing and in the other it could be non-contributing.

[Krol]

Does anyone know the thinking behind use of the term "potentially contributing structure" in the ordinance? Unless I am missing something, the only place I see it used is in the definition of "contributing structure," which is defined to include any structure deemed potentially contributing in an historic district designated as such before October 13, 2010. Using Heights East as a sample, a quick count shows 769 total lots, with 196 (25.5%) contributing, 484 (62.9%) potentially contributing, and 89 (11.6%) non-contributing or vacant. Under the terms of the ordinance, one could claim that 88.4% of the structures in Heights East "contribute to the historic significance of the district" since Heights East was designated an historic district before October 13, 2010. But if those same percentages were applied to the proposed Heights South District, only 25.5% would contribute to the historic significance of the district.

This ordinance, and the city's "attempt" to comply with ordinance, is flawed in so many ways. Hard to argue with that regardless of the color of your yard sign, IMHO. This is another example. You could have the same structure in two different districts, and in one it could be contributing and in the other it could be non-contributing.

Under the old ordinance there were two classifications: contributing and potentially contributing. Contributing structures were pretty much as they were built. Potentially contributing structures may have undergone some changes. They may have dormers, a different porch railing, an enclosed porch or different windows. These are just some examples of the changes that might have resulted in a PC classification. There are many others.

Having two different classifications was confusing and not consistent with federal criteria used by the NRHP. To achieve consistency and eliminate the confusion, the new ordinance contains just the one classification of contributing. No matter whether PC or C under the old ordinance, they are all now considered Cs and are important to the inventory and maintaining the historic integrity of the district.

[OutfieldDan]

And of course, there is Gonzalez, who is toast!

Just speculating here.... Because the city is redistricting, maybe Gonzalez will not be representing the Heights after redistricting. He may have already made a deal with MAP to remove him from the oppositon and anger that he has created by his support for the ordinance. Maybe district H will become a district with mostly Hispanic residents and one that is not designated historic.

If this is true, we really do not have any representation on Council except for the at-large seats. Gonzalez may be voting for Parker's plan with impunity.

[MOpens]

No matter whether PC or C under the old ordinance, they are all now considered Cs and are important to the inventory and maintaining the historic integrity of the district.

I disagree with your conclusion that PCs are now all considered Cs. That is true only for a district created before October 13, 2010. For any district formed after that, they are considered NCs. And therefore, by definition (under the ordinance) they do not "maintain the historic integrity of the district." Once again, if the percentages from Heights East were applied to a post-October 13, 2010 district, almost 75% of the lots would be occupied by non-contributing structures. (I am ignoring for right the now the handful of vacant lots).

Is anyone aware of any other municipality that attempts to impose these types of requirements on all property in an area where only a relatively small number of structures are "contributing"? All of the other historic districts that I have seen are more narrowly focused to cover a high percentage of "contributing" structures.

If the City wants PCs to be Cs going forward, they need to revise the ordinance. But the cynic in me knows that will not happen, because once the door is open for that amendment, it would also be open for amendments that would give us a real vote.

[Krol]

I disagree with your conclusion that PCs are now all considered Cs. That is true only for a district created before October 13, 2010. For any district formed after that, they are considered NCs. And therefore, by definition (under the ordinance) they do not "maintain the historic integrity of the district." Once again, if the percentages from Heights East were applied to a post-October 13, 2010 district, almost 75% of the lots would be occupied by non-contributing structures. (I am ignoring for right the now the handful of vacant lots).

Is anyone aware of any other municipality that attempts to impose these types of requirements on all property in an area where only a relatively small number of structures are "contributing"? All of the other historic districts that I have seen are more narrowly focused to cover a high percentage of "contributing" structures.

If the City wants PCs to be Cs going forward, they need to revise the ordinance. But the cynic in me knows that will not happen, because once the door is open for that amendment, it would also be open for amendments that would give us a real vote.

No. That is not correct. PC simply doesn't exist anymore. That does not mean they become NC in any new districts. A property that has undergone some changes can still contribute to the district. The HAHC is monthly approving changes that do not endanger the integrity of structures or their classifications. Check out a;; that is getting approved.

[ISMDAVID]

Are there any updates on the Heights South status?

[RedScare]

The South Heights district is currently in 'pending" status, awaiting to be brought before City Council for a vote. With the budget and Redistricting issues occupying all of Council's time, it is not expected to come up for a vote until likely May.

[Heights Homeowner]

Just speculating here.... Because the city is redistricting, maybe Gonzalez will not be representing the Heights after redistricting. He may have already made a deal with MAP to remove him from the oppositon and anger that he has created by his support for the ordinance. Maybe district H will become a district with mostly Hispanic residents and one that is not designated historic.

If this is true, we really do not have any representation on Council except for the at-large seats. Gonzalez may be voting for Parker's plan with impunity.

Gonzalez has known for months that he likely will not have the Heights in his district. It was even brought up at a council meeting. They know he isn't representing his constituents which contributed to why they were willing to vote against the report. They normally try to support one another. If you watched the vote, sevearl went after him for his defense of the process. They are more than aware of the deals he cut with MAP and they don't like it.

Between Wal-mart and the HPO issue, he knew he would't have to face any political consequences, or so he thought. He can run, but he can't hide. He will face a serious challenger. A Hispanic will step up to run against him and if they court the Hispanic groups, he won't get re-elected. People in the Heights will support his opposition whether he has the Heights in his district or not. People think he is a nice guy with no backbone and just a pawn of Parker.

The map comes out today.

[RedScare]

The map comes out today.

This should be VERY interesting.

[ISMDAVID]

What then is the current status of the Heights South?

On an empty piece of land that I own currently, am I able to get a permit for construction without getting any type of historical commission approval? same with repairs to existing homes?

The South Heights district is currently in 'pending" status, awaiting to be brought before City Council for a vote. With the budget and Redistricting issues occupying all of Council's time, it is not expected to come up for a vote until likely May.

[Heights Homeowner]

What then is the current status of the Heights South?

On an empty piece of land that I own currently, am I able to get a permit for construction without getting any type of historical commission approval? same with repairs to existing homes?

Nope! You have to get permission from the HAHC for everything. Once the application is filed, the city says you are in a pending districts and all rules apply. The city council needs to vote on the South district and the mayor doesn't want to put it on the agenda because she knows that there aren't the votes for them to pass. She may think she can hold out until she has a new city council in January of 2012.

[ISMDAVID]

Why thank you for such a quick response.

I went back and read the ordinance related to pending districts to learn if they can go on indefinitely. There is some language written in their that relates to termination of the pending status. Item 4 caught my eye and I wonder if this applies to Heights South in the current situation?

( The protected status provided in subsection (a) above ends on the earliest

of the following dates:

4. In the case of an application for designation of an historic district initiated

by property owners, the 181st day after the director determines the

application is initially complete

;

Nope! You have to get permission from the HAHC for everything. Once the application is filed, the city says you are in a pending districts and all rules apply. The city council needs to vote on the South district and the mayor doesn't want to put it on the agenda because she knows that there aren't the votes for them to pass. She may think she can hold out until she has a new city council in January of 2012.

[kylejack]

Germantown Historic District designation just passed Council 11-5.

[ISMDAVID]

The demo that occurred yesterday in the 900 block of Columbia, where literally 3/4 of the "historic" home was allowed to be removed, showcases to me how much of a hollywood idea this ordinance represents. Take a drive by and see how silly this looks in an attempt to appease the preservation mentality. If this is how one defines preservation, whereby the facade is preserved and the rest is new, i continue to find fault with the overall intent of the ordinance. Laughable implementation.

[RedScare]

What is a bit amusing about that house is that very little of it was "original". The owner built the house, but then continually added onto it as his family grew to 8 or 9 people. The new owners had photos that showed all of the add-ons over the years, so the HAHC allowed demo of all of the add-ons. Only about the front 13 feet of the house is left. The new owners are really nice people, though, and will do a good job with the remodel. They are a welcome addition to the block. We certainly could have done much worse...say, like having some preservationists move in.

I wish them luck in navigating the City minefield.

[ISMDAVID]

They will need all of your luck to navigate the minefields. Im sure everyone in favor of the ordinance will be comforted knowing that they are living in a Historic Home-(all 500 square feet of it)

[Marksmu]

They will need all of your luck to navigate the minefields. Im sure everyone in favor of the ordinance will be comforted knowing that they are living in a Historic Home-(all 500 square feet of it)

Wow - what a waste of time/effort. It would cost 50% less to just start from scratch, turn out 50% better, 90% more efficient, and look just as historic. But by god we must save the OLD to prevent real progress! Cant somebody please think of the children!!!

[fwki]

I imagine that without the pictures they would have been stuck with the old patchwork construction that comprises most of the old homes. Or perhaps one would have to hire forensic architects to defend your property rights before the stewards of history. After watching them torch the poor guy trying to add a column to his porch, you'd better have a good case with hard evidence. All I have is hearsay, but I'm going in with just the mailbox.

[RedScare]

I just spent lunch and part of the afternoon with an architect who does a lot of work at HAHC. You wouldn't believe his stories. No one with a substantial remodel gets through the HAHC on the first try, even with professionals who know the statue. And, pity the fool who goes by himself. There are far too many people on the board who know nothing about architecture or historic homes. They are still obsessed with the idea that renovations should be done in a manner that future homeowners might tear them down to go back to the original house,,,as if someone would buy a house for $500,000, then tear down the 1,500 square foot addition, turning a $200 per square foot house into a $500 per square foot house. Pure delusion.

Yet, there are a few people who actually agree with them. Not a majority by any stretch, but a few nonetheless. Unfortunately, one of them is mayor...for a few more years.

[photolitherland]

I seriously cant believe all you people are against preservation. You want The Heights to turn into Montrose. I moved to The Heights because large parts of it are now preserved. If you dont like preservation, than move to Kingwood or Bellaire.

[RedScare]

I seriously cant believe all you people are against preservation. You want The Heights to turn into Montrose. I moved to The Heights because large parts of it are now preserved. If you dont like preservation, than move to Kingwood or Bellaire.

I was here before you "preservationists". It is because of people like me that you thought the Heights was worth moving to. If I were to tell you to go f yourself, would you find that offensive? Because moving into my hood and telling me to leave certainly is.

[ISMDAVID]

If you dont like preservation, than move to Kingwood or Bellaire.

You have stepped in an anthill with that comment...and on Christmas Eve no less. Ill refrain from my true feelings and let you enjoy the holidays with your holier than thou friends and family.

[photolitherland]

How can you seriously be against preservation? Do you want all of the Heights to be eventually torn down and replaced with giant faux historic McMansions?

[ISMDAVID]

You must be new to these historic discussions. Now i see two steps in that anthill that had gone months without being disturbed.

[JJxvi]

How can you seriously be against preservation? Do you want all of the Heights to be eventually torn down and replaced with giant faux historic McMansions?

Yes.