The Heights Historic Districts

[fwki]

.....If this ordinance gets overturned, I fear that David Weekly, Perry, In-town, and Sandcastle will end up buying and doing exactly what neither of us wants. I also realize I am put into the same camp by some. I feel like the war might be lost over some relatively minor battles. Help make this more sensible.

 

Spot on.....this pretentious HAHC has turned the ordinance on itself with an attitude of disdain for traditonal families and businessmen/women alike.  Go see one of these meetings in-person and watch the dandy who fancies himself as overlord of the coterie roll his eyes when property owners are speaking, see hijackers twerk their Ipads in disrespect for the applicants, hear the condescending tone and imperial attitude of the do-nothing, glad-I-got-this-gig filler commissioners.  It all makes for a nauseating introduction to governance by the Parker administration.

 

The relatively minor battle over the Chicken Plant could serve as a turning point that the attracts attention of the uninformed and unaffected Houston voters.  NOBODY wants an apartment/condo/townhome development, but that is exactly what this clueless HAHC could deliver, making Houston's "preservation" effort the laughing stock of the nation once again. 

 

One year ago, with the asinine Kelman Denial, the HAHC changed the debate from the ordinance to the HAHC.  Since that turning point influential members of our community, the local press, the Planning Commision, one member of the HAHC, our two CM's and the mayor herself have gone on record pointing to the problems with this Commission and its foolhardy decisions.  The foremost supporter and architect of this HAHC, former Director of Planning Marlene Gafrick, resigned unexpectedly last fall, literally amid a torrent of letters to the Mayor critical of the HAHC.  And the HAHC continues to fiddle about, prancing around like the Belle of the Ball in a gown of invisible thread.

 

So fiddle away and say goodby to Mr. Bastian.....the ordinance may very well follow.

[BBLLC]

Much (though admittedly not all) of the support for a stronger preservation ordinance was a desire to slow densification and, to a lesser extent, increases in square footage.

 

Inevitably, as land value increases, the economic incentive is to increase the amount of square footage of house per square foot of land, either by subdividing lots, or by replacing 1500 s.f. bungalows with 4000 s.f. houses.  Although I tend to support the rights of property owners, I even kind of understand this concern.  As more and more densification happens on a given block or neighborhood, the value of the existing structure on the last un-subdivided lot can fall to zero even as the average value of homes increases.

 

In other words, when the market in a given neighborhood is entirely large homes on small lots, the market for the 1500 s.f. bungalow on 6600 s.f. of lot ceases to exist, and the house that WAS worth $400k is now pretty much just worth the $250k for the land that it sits on.  Ironically, though , the surest way to make sure the market for smaller bungalows dries up is to make it very risky for people to buy them with the intent of renovating and expanding them.

Thanks for the thoughtful and cordial response. In the particular case of replacing a non-historic commercial development with new construction based on the original designs of the neigborhood, this is not an either or with removing bungalows. Also, in our particular case we are NOT making it more dense we proposed decreased density.

My question is, if a 4000 sqft home is set back like the surrounding homes and is not lot line to lot line, what makes that incompatible with a similarly situated 1500 sqft home. Compatible and typical have not been legally defined and therefore are in the eyes of the beholder.

[fwki]

...

My question is, if a 4000 sqft home is set back like the surrounding homes and is not lot line to lot line, what makes that incompatible with a similarly situated 1500 sqft home. Compatible and typical have not been legally defined and therefore are in the eyes of the beholder.

 

What's incompatible about a 4000 sqft and a similarly situated 1500 sqft home is.the people who live in them, of course, and for the social engineers on the HAHC, this the metric.  Yes, you are cursed with logical thinking, and you did not do your homework on this HAHC which rarely applies or appreciates the logical thinking of real engineers.  This modus operandi is nothing new to the regulars around here.

[s3mh]

My question is, if a 4000 sqft home is set back like the surrounding homes and is not lot line to lot line, what makes that incompatible with a similarly situated 1500 sqft home. Compatible and typical have not been legally defined and therefore are in the eyes of the beholder.

 

"Compatible" and "typical" are not defined because you cannot create a one-size fits all definition for a neighborhood that has different styles on different streets.  Much of Heights Blvd has historically been larger Victorians with smaller craftsman bungalows mixed in.  Parts of Harvard and Cortland also have a number of larger residences.  Most of the WD is craftsman bungalows with a few small Queen Anne (both Victorian and craftsman versions) and a few four squares.  A large Victorian new build would be more compatible with Heights, Harvard or Cortland than it would in the WD because that is where you see that kind of architecture and scale more often than in the WD where that kind of architecture and scale is not present in the historic inventory.  But there are a few spots in the WD where a larger house would be compatible with the scale of new construction that has replaced the historic inventory.  Allowing a subjective interpretation of "compatible" and "typical" gives the commission the flexibility to make determinations based on the peculiar aspects of each block in each district. 

 

Also, the issue isn't pure square footage as much as it is dimensions like eave height, set backs and front elevations.  I always find it interesting when I have friends and family come into town and walk the neighborhood with them.  On streets where new construction has permeated the existing historic architecture, people have a hard time figuring out whether the new construction is a rehab or ground up new build.  But on a street like the 1200 block of Rutland, no one has ever had any trouble picking out the two big new builds on the street.  They tower over the rest of the street.  The front elevations are massive in comparison to the single story bungalows and the handful of two story homes. 

 

Of course, the determination is left to the eyes of the beholder, but as demonstrated by the two new builds on 1200 block of Rutland, it is not a mere guess as to what is compatible and what is not.  The frustration has really been about the fine details of scale and compatibility rather than the commission drawing bright lines purely on the basis of square footage or not allowing a second floor.  But the demands for less subjectivity and more bright lines will lead to those kinds of rules and just have builders lining up for variances instead of complaining about subjectivity.

 

[BBLLC]

"Compatible" and "typical" are not defined because you cannot create a one-size fits all definition for a neighborhood that has different styles on different streets.  Allowing a subjective interpretation of "compatible" and "typical" gives the commission the flexibility to make determinations based on the peculiar aspects of each block in each district. 

 

Also, the issue isn't pure square footage as much as it is dimensions like eave height, set backs and front elevations. But on a street like the 1200 block of Rutland, no one has ever had any trouble picking out the two big new builds on the street.  They tower over the rest of the street.  The front elevations are massive in comparison to the single story bungalows and the handful of two story homes. 

 

Of course, the determination is left to the eyes of the beholder, but as demonstrated by the two new builds on 1200 block of Rutland, it is not a mere guess as to what is compatible and what is not.  The frustration has really been about the fine details of scale and compatibility rather than the commission drawing bright lines purely on the basis of square footage or not allowing a second floor.

Again, I appreciate your comments. We have some common ground but we probably won't ever agree on everything. For instance I don't agree why "compatible" and "typical" can't be defined. The districts were not formed because of a unifying architectural theme, they were formed in a gerrymandered form to get enough votes to be passed. Why is it necessary to define things block by block when districts are formed. What is the goal?

I completely agree with your comments on set backs. But would those houses have been so offensive to you if they were pushed back to the same setbacks as the rest of the street?

NONE of the bungalows on the 1200 block of Rutland could be permitted today. They are all too close to the ground they ALL need to be raised by 8" to 16". How do you factor this into eave and ridge height requirements? There are 5 or 6 of the 31 two story houses in the West District that have eave heights of 24' plus. Why wouldn't that work on Rutland?

Edited January 28, 2014 by BBLLC

[samagon]

Thanks for the thoughtful and cordial response. In the particular case of replacing a non-historic commercial development with new construction based on the original designs of the neigborhood, this is not an either or with removing bungalows. Also, in our particular case we are NOT making it more dense we proposed decreased density.

My question is, if a 4000 sqft home is set back like the surrounding homes and is not lot line to lot line, what makes that incompatible with a similarly situated 1500 sqft home. Compatible and typical have not been legally defined and therefore are in the eyes of the beholder.

 

The wording in the HD ordinance doesn't say anything about SF of the house:

 

 

Sec. 33-242. Same--New construction in historic district. 

 

The HAHC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness for new construction in an 

historic district upon finding that the application satisfies the following criteria: 

 

 (1) The new construction must match the typical setbacks of existing 

contributing structures in the historic district; 

 

 (2) The exterior features of new construction must be compatible with the 

exterior features of existing contributing structures in the historic district; 

 

 (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; 

 

(4) The height of the eaves of a new construction intended for use for 

residential purposes must not be taller than the typical height of the eaves 

of existing contributing structures used for residential purposes in the 

historic district; and 

 

(5) The height of new construction intended for use for commercial purposes 

must not be taller than the typical height of the existing structures used for 

commercial purposes in the historic district. 

 

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

architectural style in any historic district. 

 

 

Criteria 3 seems to be the most fitting that could limit SF. Otherwise the establishment of proportions is fairly vague. A literal person might calculate the average, mean, or other mathematical measurements of homes in the HD they are building to come up with some middle of the road number and build around those numbers, or go no bigger than the biggest example in the HD. As it is vague, it's left to interpretation, and well, argue your case if you can, see how far you get. Leaving it vague works in both directions, you know. Of course, it's a matter of how much time/money you have to invest in the property.

 

Certainly s3mh's interpretation of the vague rules, and neither the interpretation by the HAHC shouldn't be taken as the final word, if you really want to challenge it.

Edited January 28, 2014 by samagon

[BBLLC]

The wording in the HD ordinance doesn't say anything about SF of the house:

 

 

Criteria 3 seems to be the most fitting that could limit SF. Otherwise the establishment of proportions is fairly vague. A literal person might calculate the average, mean, or other mathematical measurements of homes in the HD they are building to come up with some middle of the road number and build around those numbers, or go no bigger than the biggest example in the HD. As it is vague, it's left to interpretation, and well, argue your case if you can, see how far you get. Leaving it vague works in both directions, you know. Of course, it's a matter of how much time/money you have to invest in the property.

 

Certainly s3mh's interpretation of the vague rules, and neither the interpretation by the HAHC shouldn't be taken as the final word, if you really want to challenge it.

Thanks for your comments. I responded to this thread not to try to persuade anybody. I wanted to set straight some misinformation regarding our project and was truly interested in trying to understand the thinking of those opposed to new development of larger than average homes.

Criteria 3 is a major stumbling block. The staff and HAHC interpret "typical" as average. That means a uniformity that NEVER existed in the Heights. If a 4000 sqft contributing structure exists in the district, I personally think that is typical. If you open up 3 bags of M&M's and each bag has 1 or 2 blues and the majority brown and yellow, then blue is typical but not average.

I have been and will continue to work with the staff to work something out. But my patience and pocketbook are both limited. After exhausting appeals to the Planning Commission and an appeal to the City Council, I will sell the property to the developer who is willing to continue. And contrary to some opinions, that person is ready.

Edited January 28, 2014 by BBLLC

[samagon]

Best of luck to you.

[Texasota]

If you open 3 bags of M&Ms and each bag has one blue M&M, then one blue M&M is typical per bag of M&Ms. In a single bag of M&Ms, multiple blue M&Ms would in fact be atypical.

 

That analogy would only make sense if there were multiple "Heights Wests." 

[BBLLC]

If you open 3 bags of M&Ms and each bag has one blue M&M, then one blue M&M is typical per bag of M&Ms. In a single bag of M&Ms, multiple blue M&Ms would in fact be atypical.

 

That analogy would only make sense if there were multiple "Heights Wests."

And this is where we disagree. The existing "districts" were gerrymandered. There ARE multiple "Heights Wests". That is one of the problems with the ordinance and the way the districts were formed.

[JJxvi]

NONE of the bungalows on the 1200 block of Rutland could be permitted today. They are all too close to the ground they ALL need to be raised by 8" to 16". How do you factor this into eave and ridge height requirements?

 

I imagine that the idea of restricting construction to something that cannot legally be built and therefore leaving development in gridlock actually fills him with glee.

[Angostura]

I will actually cite to one of the most rabid anti-ordiance HAIF posters to rebut this argument.  The Niche argued that gentrification in the Heights was actually leading to a net loss in population as the generation that lived in the Heights prior to gentrification tended to have large families and are being replaced by smaller families, empty nesters, and singles (young and old).  Large single family properties that were previously divided into multifamily are being renovated or demolished and replaced with single family (as is the case with a property on Tulane that is just north of one of the Bastian properties by the old chicken plant).  And the multifamily apartments that were full of lower income families are getting gentrified and replaced with singles and couples (like the pair on Ashland).  Of course, the two giant apartment complexes and the big townhome developments will push the population numbers in the opposite direction.  But the gentrification of single family residential homes is not seen as a densification issue, and is actually a reduction in density on a net population basis due to the change in demographics.

 

 

 

Whether or not it's actually an increase in population, it IS an increase in square footage. And there are most definitely people who complain when a 6600 s.f. lot which previously had one 1300 s.f. house is replaced by two 2500 s.f. houses.

 

The point being that if what people really want to prevent is the kind of townhouse-ification that has happened in Montrose and Rice Military, and is happening Shady Acres, or to prevent multi-family construction on largely single-family blocks, there are less intrusive means. 

[mkultra25]

When Craftsman Houses Were Evil:

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304302704579334742423271308?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304302704579334742423271308.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

[JCR]

That's great!

When Craftsman Houses Were Evil:

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304302704579334742423271308?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304302704579334742423271308.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

 

[fwki]

January 16, 2014 HAHC meeting...http://houstontx.swagit.com/play/01222014-1006...Houston Heights HD's had four Additions presented for CoA and all four were denied by the emboldened HAHC knowing that the newly neutered appeals process is no longer a threat to their power.  This meeting alone could make the case to the general public that the Ordinance must go.  Watch the applicants, your friends and neighbors, tell their tales of dealing with the unprepared staff and beg for mercy only to be slapped down by the snickering boobs.  Listen to the political commentary on zoning by the apartment-finder Chairperson Welsh.

 

Common folk had one measure of revenge when the all-powerful commission was forced to retroactively approve a stucco replacement on a project they had Denied CoA but the Planning Commission overturned on appeal (prior to the Gafrick jury-rigging).  Their disdain for the applicant was palpable and the looks on their faces was priceless as they were each forced to bite the turd.  The applicant himself gave me a first-hand description of the disrespect he and the others endured at this meeting, and the video doesn't capture all of it, such as the eye-rolls and other condescending behavior by the HAHC.

 

Mr. Bastian (Chicken Plant Project) ended the meeting getting lectured on how "typical" means "average" and other legal opinions from the all-powerful commission.  They all wished him well in the end, like a cat lifting its paw off the tail of a mouse while licking its chops in anticipation of his next visit.

 

 

 

[fwki]

Placing him clearly in the lead of the “Do as I say, not as I Do” category of elitist pigs, HAHC radical hijacker David Bucek demolishes historic bungalow under “renovation” on the Menil campus. 
From Swamplot:  http://swamplot.com/renovation-of-menil-bungalow-into-menil-cafe-will-be-more-extensive-than-originally-planned/2014-04-07/#comments

It wouldn’t be so bad if he hadn’t bragged about it on the Stern and Bucek website linking here, here   and here.  Well, yeah, it would.   I watched him lie to the Planning Commission in person as he unsuccessfully tried to block an HAHC appeal trying to force a back-wall starting point for a termite-infested dump renovation.  I guess he found a termite or two at Menil….try that excuse when you beg for your CoA  to demo a Heights bungalow….Bucek say no way homey, termites are good source of protein for you peons .

[briekelman]

if anyone wants to see a before/after of my house. anyone who thinks i am not a historic preservationist is crazy!

 

thank you again to everyone who helped me along the way!

 

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10101657054246971.1073741826.17004695&type=1&l=79af547c8b

 

p.s. hopefully the link works? I tried to make the photo album public, but I don't know how to test it for people that i'm not FB "friends with". Can someone let me know?

Edited June 6, 2014 by briekelman

[Avossos]

^^ very beautiful. Did you get involved in any of the specifics? I'm looking to get a rain shower similar to what I saw in one of your pictures. Also, the outside lights look good, I'm trying to find some appropriate looking porch lights - similar to yours

[briekelman]

Thanks! Yes, i designed every inch of everything in the house - from the built-in's to the lighting fixtures to the hardware, plumbing, everything. All of my interior lights are antiques from various antique stores, but the exterior lights are not expensive - $33 each from Home Depot. I noticed later that Coltivare has the same ones outside, but in "Brick Patina" (mine are "brushed nickel").  If you PM me your email address, I'll send you my spreadsheet which has the link / prices to everything.

 

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Hampton-Bay-Brushed-Nickel-1-Light-Outdoor-Cottage-Lantern-BOA1691H-BN/202022740?keyword=BOA1691H-BN

 

Through the process, I found that you can spend a fortune on everything....or NOT! Rehabbing these old houses is so expensive, that when I could save money on selections, I tried to get good quality as inexpensively as possible. The rain shower head is American Standard and cost $65 (now it looks like it's $79), and you need another piece that's $30. Below are the links to those. The plumbers did all the rough-in fixtures, so I'm not sure how much they cost, as it was embedded in the bigger plumbing bill. I did chrome throughout the house, which surprisingly is the cheapest finish these days (very rare that my personal preference is the cheapest option!!!).

 

http://www.homedepot.com/p/American-Standard-Easy-Clean-10-in-Single-Function-Rain-Showerhead-in-Polished-Chrome-1660-610-002/202099436?keyword=1660.610.002

 

http://www.homedepot.com/p/American-Standard-12-in-Ceiling-Mount-Shower-Arm-in-Polished-Chrome-1660-190-002/202099421?keyword=1660.190.002

[briekelman]

Our house was featured in Culture Map

 

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/home-design/06-14-14-defying-recommendation-to-tear-down-eyesore-houston-couple-pulls-off-an-incredible-restoration/?utm_source=sf_facebook

[Luminare]

outstanding!

[Angostura]

The appeal of the denial of a CoA for the 3-story mixed use office/residence at 17th & Yale is Thursday. Details at the end of the current planning commission agenda.

 

(Click on "current agenda" here.)

[Angostura]

[inadvertent double post]

Edited July 8, 2014 by Angostura

[briekelman]

I'm not trying to detract from the recent PC post. However, seeing it made me realize that while I posted the Culture Map article, I forgot to post the Houzz article on our house. It was written by one of the Houzz editors who specializes in Historic Preservation. Enjoy!

 

http://www.houzz.com/ideabooks/28613889/list/Houzz-Tour--From-Shocker-to-Stunner-in-Houston

[heights]

I was searching for information regarding the variance sign posted in front of the new house next to 1236 Heights Blvd (something about the setback I think) and I happened to watch the video of one of the HAHC meetings.  I didn't see anything about said variance, but did watch an interesting segment regarding a COA request for a new sign at the Infinity Title business across the street.  Infinity Title is a business housed in bungalow and apparently they wanted to put a new sign on the building, which would go on the gable.  "Staff" recommended approval of the new sign, but there was some groveling by one of the committee members about how he didn't like it.  When the chair asked for motion to approve the sign, this guy made a motion to deny approval.  What happened next was really telling:

 

The chair said something to the effect of, "Well, if you are moving to deny the COA, could you tell us what grounds you are using for the denial, which sections of the ordinance the sign would violate?  Because we will need to know that in case there is an appeal."

 

The committee member making the motion for denial had to think about it for a bit and then spit out some of the "magic numbers" for denial, cause "I just don't like it" wasn't good enough.  The COA for the new sign was denied, by the way.  I hope they appeal and win.

 

Every time I see that committee at work, it makes me want to puke!

 

 

Edit:  I found the information I was looking for about 1226 Heights Blvd and boy are they in a pickle.  This was new construction and they received a COA.  Halfway through construction, they discovered that due to a mistake by the contractor, they had built the house 2'4" closer to the street than it was supposed to be.  They had apparently measured from the fence instead of the property line (fence was between the property line and the street).  So this made the planned front porch of the house encroach 2'4" into the 25' minimum setback.  "A neighbor" reported that the house appeared to be farther forward than the rest of the houses, so planning went out and found out it was.  They then cancelled the permit and told them to stop work.

 

I think work must have continued because that was sometime in early 2014 and I know they continued to work.  They couldn't just make the porch 2'4" narrower because then it doesn't meet our communist-designated minumum width of 6' for porches on houses in the Heights.  So they applied for the variance to encroach into the 25' setback.  DENIED.

 

So they are screwed.  It looks like the COA has been cancelled, permits have been cancelled.  Red-tagged.  I guess they could move the whole house back.

Edited August 2, 2014 by heights

[DianeTX]

Wonder if this is more ask for forgiveness instead of permission?  They most definately contiuned work and still are.  I drive past it at least 4 times a day.  Seems like such a rookie mistake.  Geez the house and garage take up the whole property seems like the probably knew where the property line was from the start.

[BBLLC]

No builder in his right mind would intentionally ignore setbacks. (I am a builder but don't know the people involved)  The animus directed at his mistake is telling of our current social fabric but could result in significant blow back and unintended consequences.  If the setback is part of the original plat, he may not have many options.  If the setback is part of the application of the Hysterical ordinance, the builder can afford to litigate.  When faced with a mult-million dollar loss, litigation makes business sense.  

 

A more cooperative approach to the intent of the Historic Ordinance would be much more productive for everyone.  The polarization of those for and against the ordinance and its application obscures the fact that there are a vast number of people in the middle.  Those who want to maintain and restore the historic fabric of these neighborhoods while allowing sensible re-development are ignored.

[Marksmu]

A more cooperative approach to the intent of the Historic Ordinance would be much more productive for everyone.  The polarization of those for and against the ordinance and its application obscures the fact that there are a vast number of people in the middle.  Those who want to maintain and restore the historic fabric of these neighborhoods while allowing sensible re-development are ignored.

 

This is so true, but the pro-historic people, dont actually care about the historic nature at all, they are against all new development - they are just trying to not get priced out of their houses...every new deveopment increases their value and their taxes.

 

Yes, they think their bungalows are cute, but this entire ordinance is more about people trying to find ways to control development, and control cost so they dont have to sell their houses.  The house are cute, but there really is nothing "historic" about them at all.

[mollusk]

This is so true, but the pro-historic people, dont actually care about the historic nature at all, they are against all new development - they are just trying to not get priced out of their houses...every new deveopment increases their value and their taxes.

 

Yes, they think their bungalows are cute, but this entire ordinance is more about people trying to find ways to control development, and control cost so they dont have to sell their houses.  The house are cute, but there really is nothing "historic" about them at all.

 

Uh, no.

 

I don't agree with a single thing in that post, other than the idea of trying to somewhat control development.  Including the assumption that I think my bungalow is cute.  Comfortable, yes... cute, no.

 

Controlling development is what deed restrictions are all about, as well as zoning and other land use regulations.  Duh.

[SilverJK]

Bungalows are pretty much known for being cute. 

 

The problem I see with the pro historic people is they think they know better than everyone else.  Yes the anti historic district people are the same... but at least they aren't trying to force you do something you don't want to do.