The Heights Historic Districts

[fwki]

Sub (3), the condo loophole, is what I am talking about. There are a lot of old garden style multifamilies and warehouses in the Heights that can be demoed and built into Morrison-esque mid rises even with the MLS....

 

Now you see his overreach, now he wants a MAXIMUM lot size too.....that way the nasty vermin-infested fire trap garden-style multi-families will never get converted to new multi-family.  But it shows his duplicity.  It just kills these freaks that they don't have a time machine to actualy set back the Heights to the first 1000 all white families, just skip over the post-war era multi-family 50+ year-old stuff and all the racial/ethnic integration that went with it.  These hateful elitists would love to have the original Deed Restrictions back too with the "Coloreds must reside in the Servant's Quarters and only work in the front house" clause. 

[SilverJK]

Sub (3), the condo loophole, is what I am talking about. There are a lot of old garden style multifamilies and warehouses in the Heights that can be demoed and built into Morrison-esque mid rises even with the MLS.

I meant Rutland instead of Allston. But there are townhomes planned for Allston too.

 

Mutlifamily or townhomes would be every bit as consistant with the neighborhood as 4,000 sq. ft. HAHC approved mc mansions. 

[jamesw]

Just as a general comment - I think that builders ARE agressively buying lots in the HDs.  In fact, they are even buying 2-1 bungalows on spec in hopes that they will get their "camelback" addition approved.   Sure it's a lot harder and takes a lot longer to get something "sellable" but they are still doing it and there is little to no inventory in the Heights right now.

 

The house next to mine was just sold to a developer in fact.  She must be pretty savy about the process because what she has done is bought the house, and gotten a 6-month lease w/ a renter.  This will provide income while she gets the addition design through the CoA process.

 

In my mind what the ordinance has effectively done is kept developers from buying lots w/ old bungalows on them and tearing down the bungalow to build a 5,000 sf lotline to lotline house - and I'm OK with that.

 

I'm not saying there isn't a problem w/ the process because there is - the board needs to follow their own rules and enforce them consistently EVERY time.  What a "market" hates is uncertainty.

 

Cheers
James

[s3mh]

Now you see his overreach, now he wants a MAXIMUM lot size too.....that way the nasty vermin-infested fire trap garden-style multi-families will never get converted to new multi-family.  But it shows his duplicity.  It just kills these freaks that they don't have a time machine to actualy set back the Heights to the first 1000 all white families, just skip over the post-war era multi-family 50+ year-old stuff and all the racial/ethnic integration that went with it.  These hateful elitists would love to have the original Deed Restrictions back too with the "Coloreds must reside in the Servant's Quarters and only work in the front house" clause. 

Wow. This is totally coo coo for cocoa puffs crazy. If you want a diversity killer, put in a mid rise multifamily with rent starting at $1,500 for a 600 sq ft one bedroom apartment. The old multifamily apartments are way more accessible to the low and middle income earners. But in all candor, with or without the ordinance, the Heights will gentrify in a big way and will become much less diverse regardless of whether it is lot line 4500 sq ft creole new construction and 5-6 story multifamily or well preserved bungalows and the conversion of old garden style multifamily into single family lots. But, when you equate an architectural committee with the Nazis without blinking, drawing comparisons to the Klan is actually an improvement.

[SilverJK]

Just as a general comment - I think that builders ARE agressively buying lots in the HDs.  In fact, they are even buying 2-1 bungalows on spec in hopes that they will get their "camelback" addition approved.   Sure it's a lot harder and takes a lot longer to get something "sellable" but they are still doing it and there is little to no inventory in the Heights right now.

 

The house next to mine was just sold to a developer in fact.  She must be pretty savy about the process because what she has done is bought the house, and gotten a 6-month lease w/ a renter.  This will provide income while she gets the addition design through the CoA process.

 

In my mind what the ordinance has effectively done is kept developers from buying lots w/ old bungalows on them and tearing down the bungalow to build a 5,000 sf lotline to lotline house - and I'm OK with that.

 

I'm not saying there isn't a problem w/ the process because there is - the board needs to follow their own rules and enforce them consistently EVERY time.  What a "market" hates is uncertainty.

 

Cheers

James

 

 

I think that the HD market is kinda on ice right now.  (meaning on hold).  As you metioned, the lady rented out her house while they get the CoA process going.  I know a handfull of people that own properties in HDs and many of them have moved out and leased their houses instead of selling because they feel they will not get as much money right  now.  Almost every house I know of in this situation is a livable 2/1 or 3/1s that need renovation but are in decent shape.  Outside of the HD these houses sell like hotcakes.  I'm on the verge of listing my house which would fit in that category.  Summer is also a typical low inventory time of year, and with the high turnover of listed properties within the heights I think that exaggerates the issue here.  I think August/September are going to be a wild time for lower end homes outside of the HDs, while HD homes will continue to be more valuable to lease and will hold out until something changes.  (removal of HD, or value rises enough to make worth selling).   I would be interested in seeing the change in rental vs. owner occupied homes in HDs since inception and over the next few years.

[fwki]

.....But, when you equate an architectural committee with the Nazis without blinking, drawing comparisons to the Klan is actually an improvement.

 

Hey Walter, your over-active ego is skipping beats again, but when you falsely accuse a man of German Jewish heritage of making light of Nazis you show your elitist WASP colors.  But I forgive you because you really believe all the crap in your head, including the falsity you spewed just now and all the lies you pack into your posts.  I really feel sorry for you.  With your grandiosity always on display, it is evident you suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder that forced a connection between those posts made about Nazis and the HAHC and the latest poster to call you out, who happens to be a direct descedant of German Jews.  And your reference to the Klan fits right in with your desires for a perfect world, wholly populated by............you.

[s3mh]

I think that the HD market is kinda on ice right now.  (meaning on hold).  As you metioned, the lady rented out her house while they get the CoA process going.  I know a handfull of people that own properties in HDs and many of them have moved out and leased their houses instead of selling because they feel they will not get as much money right  now.  Almost every house I know of in this situation is a livable 2/1 or 3/1s that need renovation but are in decent shape.  Outside of the HD these houses sell like hotcakes.  I'm on the verge of listing my house which would fit in that category.  Summer is also a typical low inventory time of year, and with the high turnover of listed properties within the heights I think that exaggerates the issue here.  I think August/September are going to be a wild time for lower end homes outside of the HDs, while HD homes will continue to be more valuable to lease and will hold out until something changes.  (removal of HD, or value rises enough to make worth selling).   I would be interested in seeing the change in rental vs. owner occupied homes in HDs since inception and over the next few years.

I think you are completely wrong. The only thing you are right about is that people are leasing. But that is because it is a great investment if you are selling and can buy another house without needing the proceeds of the sale of the previous house. Sales inside the HDs are only being tempered by the unmitigated greed of some realtors who tell their clients that they can get off the charts prices for their homes instead of just getting them a semi-obscene markup from where prices were just a year ago. On my side of the HDs on Tulane St. alone, three fixer upper (as in needing to be gutted and completely redone) properties got bought up and one vacant lot was purchased in a split of an old odd rental property. New construction just finished on the 1300 block of Tulane and a big addition is going up on the 1400 block. The warehouse on 1305 Ashland got demoed and has two approved plans for the first of four planned homes. There is also a huge addition underway in the 1300 block of Ashland and new construction of a monster house almost finished on the 1400 block. Up the street, in the 1500 block, two new construction homes are going in where they demo-ed that weird old mult-ifamily thing. A 2-1 in need of a total redo in the 1500 block also just sold in a flash after listing at $315k (I heard it was a bid up AS IS sale). And there is a big addition going in on W 15 and a smaller redo/addition on W 13th. If this is on ice, I would hate to see what on fire looks like.

[SilverJK]

I think you are completely wrong. The only thing you are right about is that people are leasing. But that is because it is a great investment if you are selling and can buy another house without needing the proceeds of the sale of the previous house. Sales inside the HDs are only being tempered by the unmitigated greed of some realtors who tell their clients that they can get off the charts prices for their homes instead of just getting them a semi-obscene markup from where prices were just a year ago. On my side of the HDs on Tulane St. alone, three fixer upper (as in needing to be gutted and completely redone) properties got bought up and one vacant lot was purchased in a split of an old odd rental property. New construction just finished on the 1300 block of Tulane and a big addition is going up on the 1400 block. The warehouse on 1305 Ashland got demoed and has two approved plans for the first of four planned homes. There is also a huge addition underway in the 1300 block of Ashland and new construction of a monster house almost finished on the 1400 block. Up the street, in the 1500 block, two new construction homes are going in where they demo-ed that weird old mult-ifamily thing. A 2-1 in need of a total redo in the 1500 block also just sold in a flash after listing at $315k (I heard it was a bid up AS IS sale). And there is a big addition going in on W 15 and a smaller redo/addition on W 13th. If this is on ice, I would hate to see what on fire looks like.

 

uhm, that really isn't that much movement you speak of.  8 houses in the 20 closest to me have underwent rennovations in the past 2 years outside of HDs.  Big whoop. 

 

I'm definitely not completely wrong...  lets just say I'm directly impacted by the sales of some of these properties.  Increase in rental is common indication of holding pattern BTW.  Oh and a 2/1 in need of total redo near me just sold for 345k on a smallish lot (5500),   so the 2-1 you speak of sounds like it was hurt by being in the HD. 

 

Also, the example you give doesn't change what I said any... or even counter argue it.  People are holding on to their property of small bungalows within HDs right now.  Big rennovations are going to happen, new construction will happen on empty lots or commercial lots that have likely long been owned by investors, the sale of entry level bungalows though has stalled out, as people don't want to take a loss while their outside of HD comparables are making huge profits.  ( I know someone who is going to clear a 50% profit in their 2/1.5 that they haven't even lived in for 4 years yet outside of an HD)  That scenario does not exist (or at least I haven't seen a single example) within the HDs.

Edited June 26, 2013 by SilverJK

[Marksmu]

Since I am moving out of the Heights, I would sell my rental in the Heights if the market in the district was as good as the market out.  I also firmly believe that people are getting more and more frustrated with the ordinance and that it will eventually be repealed.  Since the rental is leased, and has been very easy to lease, I will leave it as a rental and just roll the dice on whether or not the ordinance gets repealed.

 

I generally do not like to own rentals more than a couple miles from where I live unless its on my way to work, since the Heights will soon no longer fit that bill, I would prefer to sell - but I firmly believe my value has been impacted and thus Im going to hold out and hope for repeal.

[SilverJK]

Oh look, an example of EXACTLY what I said was happening.  (this isn't one I was referencing either if anyone was wondering)

[s3mh]

uhm, that really isn't that much movement you speak of.  8 houses in the 20 closest to me have underwent rennovations in the past 2 years outside of HDs.  Big whoop. 

 

I'm definitely not completely wrong...  lets just say I'm directly impacted by the sales of some of these properties.  Increase in rental is common indication of holding pattern BTW.  Oh and a 2/1 in need of total redo near me just sold for 345k on a smallish lot (5500),   so the 2-1 you speak of sounds like it was hurt by being in the HD. 

 

Also, the example you give doesn't change what I said any... or even counter argue it.  People are holding on to their property of small bungalows within HDs right now.  Big rennovations are going to happen, new construction will happen on empty lots or commercial lots that have likely long been owned by investors, the sale of entry level bungalows though has stalled out, as people don't want to take a loss while their outside of HD comparables are making huge profits.  ( I know someone who is going to clear a 50% profit in their 2/1.5 that they haven't even lived in for 4 years yet outside of an HD)  That scenario does not exist (or at least I haven't seen a single example) within the HDs.

Except you are just making up this bit about everyone holding properties in the HDs and sales of comparables outside of HDs making big profits by comparison. Here is a real world example of the opposite. The new construction on Tulane in the HD was @2900 sq ft on a 4300 sq ft lot. After a bidding war, it sold for 729k long before it was finished. The same builder listed virtually the same design outside of the HD for 725k. No sale. List price has already been dropped to $719k. http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cfm?mlnum=60497740&v=s

Virtually identical house and identical lot size. If there were all these people who were flooding the non-HD areas because the thought of the HAHC made them physically ill, why isn't this housing selling as well as the virtually identical house did inside an HD (the first pic on the har.com listing is the completed house on Tulane)?

[august948]

Except you are just making up this bit about everyone holding properties in the HDs and sales of comparables outside of HDs making big profits by comparison. Here is a real world example of the opposite. The new construction on Tulane in the HD was @2900 sq ft on a 4300 sq ft lot. After a bidding war, it sold for 729k long before it was finished. The same builder listed virtually the same design outside of the HD for 725k. No sale. List price has already been dropped to $719k. http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cfm?mlnum=60497740&v=s

Virtually identical house and identical lot size. If there were all these people who were flooding the non-HD areas because the thought of the HAHC made them physically ill, why isn't this housing selling as well as the virtually identical house did inside an HD (the first pic on the har.com listing is the completed house on Tulane)?

That example isn't terribly relevant. The owner of a brand new house in the HD isn't going to be worried about HD restrictions since he's already got new windows (and everything else). It's the older homes that need to be renovated that are the issue.

[SilverJK]

Except you are just making up this bit about everyone holding properties in the HDs and sales of comparables outside of HDs making big profits by comparison. Here is a real world example of the opposite. The new construction on Tulane in the HD was @2900 sq ft on a 4300 sq ft lot. After a bidding war, it sold for 729k long before it was finished. The same builder listed virtually the same design outside of the HD for 725k. No sale. List price has already been dropped to $719k. http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cfm?mlnum=60497740&v=s

Virtually identical house and identical lot size. If there were all these people who were flooding the non-HD areas because the thought of the HAHC made them physically ill, why isn't this housing selling as well as the virtually identical house did inside an HD (the first pic on the har.com listing is the completed house on Tulane)?

 

we are talking about entry level houses, why are you referencing 700+k houses?

 

 

That is a diffent market by over 100%...  how many deviations outside of scope is that? 

 

If it sells at even 709k, we are talking a 20k difference...  that is less than a 3% difference...  the freaking paint choices can make that much of a difference.  Nice try though.  Our other example of 315 and 345 is a 30k difference but that is a 11.5% difference...  

 

 

BTW you can successfully use the HD as a tool to help decrease your taxable value in tax hearings if you show the comps are from outside of the district... 

[Angostura]

There is very little risk to the owner in buying a new-build non-contributing house in the HD.  The bigger risk is buying a 1200 s.f. 2/1 and rolling the dice on being allowed to convert it into the 2600 s.f. 3/2.5 you really want.  Many people don't realize this yet, but there have now been multiple cases of individual homeowners (not developers) having their renovation plans rejected by the HAHC without clear guidelines; simply concern over "scale".

 

This kind of regulatory uncertainty does have an effect on some buyers. Not all, but some.  At some point, all economics is micro-economics, and enough individual decisions can add up to affect an overall market.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an appeal.  The more likely outcome is that the HAHC issues some clear design guidelines and removes some of the capriciousness from the permitting process, thus giving potential buyers reasonable expectation that, after they buy a property, they'll be able to renovate .

[RedScare]

The developers are not getting burned by the HD ordinance. They know how to play the game. Additionally, they are not attached to the house. If the HAHC says change something, they have no problem doing so. They are just going to sell the house, not live in it. The problems arise with individuals who are invested in redoing their home to suit their tastes and needs. When HAHC tells these individuals to change something, it can be a huge deal. Of course, to those people who are architecturally ignorant, HAHC telling them to change something is no problem. I suppose that is why some people are not offended by HAHC's capriciousness. 

[Ross]

I am offended by the waste of taxpayer money the HAHC represents, especially when applicants appeal to teh Planning Commission to reverse an egregiously stupid decision.

[jamesw]

As a counterpoint to Mark's post (holding his bungalow in the HD for a better price) my neighbor just sold her 2-1 bungalow on Harvard and it was on the market for less than a day.  She got exactly what I would have expected for it (mid 300's) both in and out of the HD's)   It was bought specifically by someone wanting to do an addition.

 

I think the market in the Heights (both in and out of the HD's) is comparable.  I think the best person to talk to about his would be a realtor, as they see a large sample set - unlike us who see one or two. 

I think the ordinance is a PITA.  I also think the dry district in the middle of the Heights is a PITA.  But on the other hand, I'm glad nobody can build and run a bar next to my house.  Nor can anyone build a 6 story solid brick wall next to my house (see 12th st).  I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Cheers
James

[Marksmu]

As a counterpoint to Mark's post (holding his bungalow in the HD for a better price) my neighbor just sold her 2-1 bungalow on Harvard and it was on the market for less than a day.  She got exactly what I would have expected for it (mid 300's) both in and out of the HD's)   It was bought specifically by someone wanting to do an addition.

 

I think the market in the Heights (both in and out of the HD's) is comparable.  I think the best person to talk to about his would be a realtor, as they see a large sample set - unlike us who see one or two. 

I think the ordinance is a PITA.  I also think the dry district in the middle of the Heights is a PITA.  But on the other hand, I'm glad nobody can build and run a bar next to my house.  Nor can anyone build a 6 story solid brick wall next to my house (see 12th st).  I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Cheers

James

 

I am a realtor, I have been tracking every single sale that closes b/c I was selling my house outside of the west HD and my rental is inside the West HD. Lots both inside and outside of the district are moving rapidly.  Lots that have non-contributing houses on the East side of Heights are selling for the most money and the fastest.  Newer construction on the east side is getting the absolute best price, followed by new construction on the West side.  After that its bungalows that are remodeled, regardless of location.  The west side is the real place you can see the difference.  Bungalows that in reality should be torn down are moving faster outside of the district than inside...Prices are higher outside of the HD than inside if the particular block is developed.  If the block is relatively undeveloped its builders making the investment.  It seem individuals are not quite as keen on taking the risk of the block not developing as a developer is.

[jamesw]

Thanks for the feedback Mark.  I have a non-contributing structure (Built by Gomburg ~1998) just East of Heights so I'm pretty stoked :-)

 

Cheers
James

[briekelman]

Hi everyone,

 

The appeal for 1811 Harvard is this Thursday at 2:30 pm. Fiwki noticed that the appeal wasn't on the Planning Commission agenda, and when the owners started asking, they were told that they didn't originally fill out all the appeal paperwork right. After significal discussion / clarification that I won't bore you with, they were put on the agenda, thankfully.

 

The documentation for their COA (attached) clearly shows that they satisfy all 11 criteria for new additions. However, at the bottom of the first page, you can see that it says:

 

HAHC ACTION:                   Denial

BASIS FOR ISSUANCE:    --

 

Blank - that's right: the basis for their denial is literally blank.

 

There are countless other similar projects approved all the time, including the same meeting, which is why Commissioner Hellyer made a motion to approve the COA that ultimately got voted down.

 

The Starr's don't know a lot of people in the Heights area, so I told them that I would help get people to write email support letters. It doesn't have to be long.

 

Can you please send an email to show your support? I have drafted something simple below if you want to copy/paste. I put the Starr's emails in the cc line, so they can make sure to keep the Preservation staff honest that they counted/included all of the support letters. It sounds good if the staff presents it saying: "We have recieved X number of support letters from the neighborhood included in your packet" when they present to the Commission.

 

To: Diana - PD" Diana.DuCroz@houstontx.gov

cc: Jason Starr <jason.starr@mattressfirm.com>,Tera Starr <tera.starr@mattressfirm.com>

 

Subject: Support letter for 1811 Harvard COA

 

Body:

 

I am writing to show my support of the Starr's renovation project at 1811 Harvard and encourage you to grant them a Certificate of Appropriateness. I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting in-person to show my support; therefore, this letter must suffice.

 

As a neighbor, I am disappointed that a young family is having so much trouble restoring a dilapidated structure. Their project will be a great improvement to the Heights. I am also disappointed that they were originally denied a COA when they met all 11 criteria for new additions, and especially that no basis was provided for their denial on the documentation.

Again, I support the COA for 1811 Harvard; the renovation will be good for the neighborhood.

Please respond to confirm that you will include this letter in the packet you provide the Planning Commission.

 

Thank you,
Name

Historic Height Neighborhood (e.g. Historic Heights East, Norhill, etc....)

Or just put "The Heights" if you aren't specifically in a Historic district, or wherever you live if you are outside of the Heights, or blank if you are not comfortable sharing

1811 harvard coa denial.pdf

[jetober]

Hello,

 

I just wanted to let those who are interested in preserving the character of our historic districts that an appeal for 1811 Harvard (proposed addition and alterations to the existing structure) is this Thursday at the Planning Commission at 2:30 p.m., City Hall Annex, 900 Bagby St.

 

The staff’s report for the Certificate of Appropriateness (attached to the previous post) clearly shows they do not meet all the criteria:

 

Criteria 1 “proposed activity must retain and preserve the historical character of the property.” The proposed addition, which encroaches on a large portion of the existing structure, increases the mass by almost 250%, clearly not preserving the historical character of this contributing structure.

 

Criteria 4 “proposed activity must preserve the distinguishing qualities of character of the building, structure, object, or site and its environment.” The proposed addition is unlike any contributing structure in the district, it significantly minimizes the existing historic house and negatively impacts the character of the building and its environment. The incompatible alteration to the existing south side fenestration, which can clearly be seen from the public right-of-way, is creating an appearance that does not exist in the district.

 

Criteria 9 “proposed design for any exterior alterations or addition must not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and must be compatible with the size, scale, material and character of the property and the area in which it is located.” There is a significant amount of historic materials being removed with both the addition and changes to the south side elevation and clearly this addition is NOT compatible with the size and scale of any contributing structures in this district.

 

The HAHC and the Planning Commission needs to hear from residents within the district who no longer want incompatible, inappropriate and overbearing homes such as this. There are countless other projects that were approved by the HAHC that are fantastic examples of compatible and livable additions that add value to both the neighborhood and the historic district.

 

If you are unable to attend the meeting, please consider sending an email to the Planning Commission voicing your opposition? I have drafted a letter that you are more than welcome to copy, I think short and to the point is the best approach. I have no doubt that the Preservation staff is honest enough to count and include all letters, both for and against, with their packet to the Planning Commission.

 

Please send emails to Diana DuCroz at Diana.DuCroz@houston tx.gov

 

 

 

Dear Commission Members,

 

I am writing to voice my opposition of the proposed addition and alterations to 1811 Harvard within the Houston Heights Historic District East.

 

As a resident within the district, I feel this addition does not meet the criteria as outlined in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The mass and scale are grossly out of proportion, the removal of important historic material and the very visible incompatible alteration of the south side fenestration do not satisfy Criteria 1, 4 or 9.

 

This proposed addition and alterations are not in keeping with the historic character of our district and I strongly urge you NOT to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness.

 

Thank you for your time and service.

 

Name,

Houston Heights Historic District East

[august948]

Is "historic material" another way of saying old rotted wood?

[briekelman]

Hi everyone,

 

 If you haven't had a chance to send in a support letter, can you please do it? (assuming that you support the Starr's)

 

They have received ~7 emails so far, but I think we can get more than that.

 

Thanks in advance for your help!

[briekelman]

Hi Jetober,

 

I posted my last post before I read the your new post. I'm sorry that you don't think that this project satisfies the 11 criteria for new additions like the Preservation Staff did. I realize that as a former Historic Commissioner, you ARE more qualified than most of us.

 

Do you think that the attached photo of a recent project on the 1600 block of Cortland is better? It was clearly approved by the HAHC and (in my opinion) just looks weird - not like Historic Preservation at all.

 

Also, I have been wanting to ask you this but haven't had the guts...did you write this incorrect email below about me and send it around to some neighbors? To be clear, I am NOT accusing you, but asking. I don't think it is right to accuse anyone of anything if you don't know for certain if it's true. For the record, whoever sent this really hurt my feelings, and he/she clearly does not know me (seeing that he/she doesn't even know my name..."Bree" is a common/understandable misspelling, but "Kelner"?).  

 

I think we have a lot more in common than you realize and hope that your incorrect perception of me can be ratified if we actually were to talk. You were very nice to me originally when we talked when I was going through my own project. Not sure what changed? I spend my weekends trolling through local antique and architectural salvage shops to find 1920's doors, hardware, etc. My current house is a 2/2, 1300 sqft from 1920 with painted-shut, original windows that I think are beautiful. As a mom with a young baby, you know that it will be tough to have another kid in a house that small, let alone have grandparents who live in New Zealand and Kansas City come visit their grandkids. I reached out to Kent Marsh after he spoke at the last HAHC meeting about how he and several neighbors who care about the neighborhood get together to talk about the recent projects to see if I could volunteer to help. For the record, I care about our neighborhood too and preserving it. At the same time, I also care about consistent enforcement of legal documents - not more and not less.  

 

I assume that I will see you at the appeal tomorrow? You are always very well-spoken. I hope that you and I could talk sometime. To be clear, I do not work for Creole. I hired him to design my project originally b/c I see his signs around the neighborhood and he has lived here since the mid-70's. He lives in a 1915 home with an original stove and sink! I chose him over another designer b/c he charged a fixed fee, where the other guy only charged by the hour b/c the historic process was so unknown. Since restoring an old home is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than new construction, I was very uncomfortable with an unknown hourly fee if I could have it fixed.

 

TIME SENSITIVE!!

 

Please call and email CM Ellen Cohen today and let her know you support Bart Truxillo as a replacement for Doug Elliott on the HAHC. I understand CM Cohen is nominating an individual who does not support the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Cm Cohen’s nomination may be as soon as next week’s council meeting.

 

Bart is copied on this email and is agreeable to serving on the HAHC.

 

As some of you may know, Doug Elliott is resigning from the HAHC. This is a loss for preservationists who have appreciated Doug’s continued support of the amended Preservation Ordinance.

 

Doug holds a Citizen Representative position which is a position that can be filled by Councilman nomination. We understand that CM Cohen intends to nominate Bree Kelner which, in my opinion, is a blow to preservationist. Bree works closely with Creole Design who habitually proposes non compatible additions and new construction and has successfully appealed HAHC denied designs to the Planning Commission.

 

CM Cohen must hear from her constituents that we do not support Bree Kelner and that we do nominate and support Bart Truxillo.

 

PS: I may have mis spelled Bree’s name. If someone knows the correct spelling, please reply to all.

 

CM Ellen Cohen Email: districtc@houstontx.gov

                              Phone: 832.393.3004

[Angostura]

Odd that "successfully appeal[ing] HAHC denied designs to the Planning Commission" is a reason AGAINST nominating someone. 

[briekelman]

Thank you angosta! I completely agree. I followed the ordinance the entire time, including when I chose to appeal (to be clear, when I chose - not when my architect chose - it was 100% my decision). If someone likes the ordinance, then they should be happy that families like mine followed it.

[jetober]

Brie

I am sorry you felt it necessary to respond to my post in such a manner. I was simply posting to help those in the neighborhood who don't necessarily feel this is good preservation practice, which is what I thought this forum was for.

I am disappointed that you have chosen a public forum to make false and slanderous accusations and assumptions about me.

For the record, I have not served on the HAHC but was an employee at the City of Houston for three years. I did NOT send this email, in fact this is the first time I have seen or heard of it.

I would appreciate it if in the future you gathered the correct facts before posting anything online. If there are any issues you wish to discuss privately, you already have my email and are more than welcome to send me a message any time.

[RedScare]

jetober,

 

The manner in which you posted that email makes it look entirely like you were the author. Therefore, you deserve every bit of accusation and assumption delivered by Ms. Kelman. In fact, hiding behind the email of someone else is even worse, in my opinion, than if you were the author of the email yourself. If you have a problem with Ms. Kelman or her use of the appeal process, then let's hear it. That's what this forum is for, and clearly, by posting that email on a public forum, you have no problem with SOME THINGS being made public.

 

And, if you'd like to send ME a message, you are more than welcome to use the private message function. I'd be happy to tell you a bit more of what my opinion of your tactics on this forum are.

[briekelman]

sorry! I thought I was clear that I was NOT accusing anyone of anything...i was asking. That's why I typed these lines and used "he/she" vs "you":

 

"To be clear, I am NOT accusing you, but asking. I don't think it is right to accuse anyone of anything if you don't know for certain if it's true. For the record, whoever sent this really hurt my feelings, and he/she clearly does not know me"

[s3mh]

Do you think that the attached photo of a recent project on the 1600 block of Cortland is better? It was clearly approved by the HAHC and (in my opinion) just looks weird - not like Historic Preservation at all.

 

So, is your goal to reform the HAHC so that all bad projects can get approved?  I know you do not like it that people wrote CM Cohen to let her know that they did not support you getting nominated to HAHC.  But the reason people are concerned is that no one has any idea what you actually want to do or what you stand for when it comes to the historic districts. 

 

What we do know is that you wrote a letter to the Leader stating that you are friends with your builder.  You hired an architect who has been an opponent of the historic ordinance.  You are out advocating for an appeal of a denial of a COA from a project that was designed by the same architect's firm.  You mounted a very public campaign against the HAHC to try to get your plans approved on appeal with the Planning Commission.  These are all things that suggest that you do not support the historic ordinance.

 

On the other hand, you have told us that you like historic homes; own and are renovating one, and go to antique stores.  That is all great, but some of the most vocal opponents of the historic ordinance have said and done the same thing.

 

So, in all fairness, this is you chance to let us know where you really stand.

 

1.  Would you support a repeal of the Historic Ordinance?

2.  Do you think the Historic Ordinance should be strengthened to prevent the projects like the one on 1600 Cortland?  Or should it be weakened to just set a few objective standards for height, size, preservation of original structure, etc. and have no say in the subjective elements?  Or something in between?

3.  What specifically would you do if selected to serve on the HAHC to try to reform the process (specifics, not "I would be fair and consistent, yada yada")?

4.  If you could make amendments to the ordinance, what would you change?