The Heights Historic Districts

[samagon]

"When we crafted the ordinance, there was a great deal of discussion about whether there should be proscriptive design guidelines," said Parker. "And, frankly, a lot of the people who are coming in today asking for those design guidelines were completely and totally opposed to the historic districts, and did not want those guidelines at the time."

Her conclusion: "If some of these individuals had worked with us more in the beginning, we might not be having these problems now." 

 

Her conclusion is BS.

 

If there was a great deal of discussion about whether design guidelines should be included or not, then it should have been done, regardless what other people did or did not do.

 

That is not the fault of people who opposed the ordinance.

 

She knew, they all knew it was a problem, or they wouldn't have discussed it, but they passed it anyway, and are now choosing to blame someone else for something that was ultimately their responsibility. Thank you for pointing this out, S3MH.

[s3mh]

Her conclusion is BS.

 

If there was a great deal of discussion about whether design guidelines should be included or not, then it should have been done, regardless what other people did or did not do.

 

That is not the fault of people who opposed the ordinance.

 

She knew, they all knew it was a problem, or they wouldn't have discussed it, but they passed it anyway, and are now choosing to blame someone else for something that was ultimately their responsibility. Thank you for pointing this out, S3MH.

 

So, the people drafting the ordinance should have been able to guess what would make people opposing the ordinance happy.  And the people who opposed the ordinance and did not participate in the process can now cry injustice because they did not get design guidelines that they never asked for when the ordinance was amended.  Or maybe instead of filling mailboxes with flyers claiming that HVAC placement and paint would be controlled by HAHC and that the Heights would turn into a slum when no one would renovate, the builders should have come to the City and participated in the process to ensure that their voices would be heard.  There is definitely a credibility issue when you complain about the ordinance but refused to participate in the process to draft the ordinance.  But this is all more than likely just pretext to try again to get rid of the ordinance. 

 

[briekelman]

Wait a minute.....

 

I thought the Ordinance was pitched as already having design guidelines? Simply click on the youtube video below, listen to Marlene's words, and look at Marlene's Powerpoint. "Already in place for the Old 6th Ward, Houston Heights, etc...." It is pretty clear to me that Design Guidelines were in place.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWf-f9JRh4g

 

This is also why my Preservation Planning staff contact sent me the Design Guidelines linked on the Houston Preservation website. It wasn't until my appeal that they decided to start calling them "educational material."

 

I have copy/pasted my back and forth with my Preservation Planning Staff contact below (removing her name with XXXX for privacy sake). I even asked if these were the latest DG's since they were dated 2008, when the Ordinance was dated 2010. She said very clearly - yes.

 

This is pretty clear to me, and I'm not sure what changed or why these DG's are not used anymore.

 

Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: 1207 Harvard
To: Brie Kelman

 

No, for the Heights design guidelines 2008 is the most up to date version. They were put together after Heights West and East historic districts were created.  

 

XXXX, City of Houston Planning & Development Department

 

 

From: Brie Kelman
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:48 AM

To: XXXX
Subject: Re: 1207 Harvard

 

Ok - cool - thanks. This is the document I was using originally. I noticed that it's dated 10/13/2010, where the guidelines are dated December 2008. Since you sent them to me, I assume they are correct, but I just wanted to double check that there isn't anything newer than 2008?

 

Thanks again!

 

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:43 AM, XXXX wrote:

No problem. I’ve attached a PDF, the section on Certificates of Appropriateness starts on page 21 and section 33-241 covers additions.

 

XXXX, City of Houston Planning & Development Department

 

 

From: Brie Kelman
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:35 AM
To: XXXX
Subject: Re: 1207 Harvard

 

No problem! I can only imagine how hectic it is over there...it's hectic over here getting ready!

 

Thanks for your email and the guidelines. They are good for me to have as well, but if you could forward the ordinance as well, that would be helpful. 

 

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:31 AM, XXXX wrote:

 

Sorry, I know I just sent you the design guidelines. Did you mean the guidelines or a copy of the Ordinance? Sorry it’s been a bit of a hectic morning.

 

XXXX, City of Houston Planning & Development Department

 

From: XXXX
Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: 1207 Harvard
To: Brie Kelman

 

Hi Brie,

 

At this point I think that it may be best to move forward with the original proposal. Even though staff will be recommending denial, it is just a recommendation the Commission has the final say and they do not always support staff recommendations. I would recommend that you come to the Commission meeting and present all of the reason that you’ve stated below and that we’ve talked about to the Commissioners, by doing this you’ll be providing them with information and the personal reasons behind your proposal. This can make a difference in their decision.

 

If you’re going to send in any other supporting documents they will need to be submitted by Friday morning.

 

Here is a link to the Heights Design Guidelines- http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/houston_heights_design_guide.html

 

Best,

XXXX

 

XXXX, City of Houston Planning & Development Department

 

From: Brie Kelman
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:29 AM

To: XXXX

Subject: Re: 1207 Harvard

 

Hi XXXX,

 

Sorry, I forgot to ask one more thing. Can you please email me a copy of the historic guidelines? I want to make sure we are using the correct document . Thanks!

 

 

Edited January 21, 2014 by briekelman

[BBLLC]

... did not participate in the process can now cry injustice because they did not get design guidelines that they never asked for when the ordinance was amended.  ... There is definitely a credibility issue when you complain about the ordinance but refused to participate in the process to draft the ordinance.  But this is all more than likely just pretext to try again to get rid of the ordinance.

s3mh

There was a document on the Planning Department's preservation website at least through May 2013 titled "A Design Guide for the Houston Heights Historic District's". ANY logical person would assume these were the guidelines discussed in the ordinance.Design Guidelines cover page.pdf

Edited January 21, 2014 by BBLLC

[s3mh]

s3mh

There was a document on the Planning Department's preservation website at least through May 2013 titled "A Design Guide for the Houston Heights Historic District's". ANY logical person would assume these were the guidelines discussed in the ordinance.Design Guidelines cover page.pdf

 

I do remember that document.  If that is what everyone wants, I am fine with that.  However, those "guidelines" would do little to provide certainty and limit the discretion of the commission.  It had a few examples of additions that were considered to be appropriate, but they were mostly additions that resulted in 2000-2500 sq feet.  None of those additions are anything like the giant 3000-3500 sq ft humper house additions that are the subject of controversy before the commission.  I have also seen the draft design guidelines for Germantown.  Those guidelines do little to provide the allegedly desired predictability.  Even though they are over 50 pages, they have requirements like "infill construction must be similar in size to existing homes . . ."; "additions in any location may not visually dominate the original house . . ."; and "New construction that is incompatible with the neighborhood is not allowed . . . ."  An the guide for Montrose has appropriate addition examples that are significantly more restrictive than what is currently being built in the Heights. 

 

But, if you want design guidelines, go for it.  I am all for it.  Just don't run to the Leader when the guidelines turn out to be more restrictive than what is currently being allowed.  And don't expect that there will no longer be any subjective element to the ordinance.  That is simply unavoidable.

[Ross]

No. s3mh, it's not unavoidable. Just get rid of the whole ordinance, which wasn't needed, and is utterly stupid and overbearing. At a minimum, allow anyone to opt out of the district now, and get rid of the clause that requires houses be able to return to the original look. That's an utterly ridiculous requirement. Without that, architects would be able to design additions that blend with the prior work, instead of forcing people to build the horrifically ugly humps.

[fwki]

So Parker admits she has a problem on the HAHC, in effect calling out Elliot, Bucek and perhaps mod as hijackers.  Then she points to some mythical DG ghosts as having caused the problems with the ordinance which is complete revisionist history because the DG problem didn't surface until they removed the Heights DG's after we were beating them over the head with them at the appeals.  Even SM3h knew this because he graciously posted a link to the Heights DG's for me on this site years ago.  Brie's email trail proves above all that the city administration is changing the law as they go along to suit an unknown or at least unstated goal.  Furthermore, Gafrick's lame-duck, career-ending move was to completely hijack the appeals process with new draconian rules like Obama and his executive order pen.  And all this is after the illegal HD ballot in a city that outlaws zoning.  The Leader just stated the obvious to the those who weren't paying attention.

 

Now Sue Lovell is trying to "save the ordinance" by simply adding new DG's.  Sure, right, now I am supposed to trust this bunch?  New DG's may save the builders because frankly, they just want clarity, good or bad.  But not the property owner victims, they are hosed either way.  I'm with Ross.  And it will be much easier as Elliot, Bucek and mod continue to wreak havoc along with the new kangaroo court appeals process.  The victims' screams will be too loud for Council to ignore.

Edited January 22, 2014 by fwki

[samagon]

So, the people drafting the ordinance should have been able to guess what would make people opposing the ordinance happy.  And the people who opposed the ordinance and did not participate in the process can now cry injustice because they did not get design guidelines that they never asked for when the ordinance was amended.  Or maybe instead of filling mailboxes with flyers claiming that HVAC placement and paint would be controlled by HAHC and that the Heights would turn into a slum when no one would renovate, the builders should have come to the City and participated in the process to ensure that their voices would be heard.  There is definitely a credibility issue when you complain about the ordinance but refused to participate in the process to draft the ordinance.  But this is all more than likely just pretext to try again to get rid of the ordinance. 

 

 

I think the people drafting the ordinance knew precisely what would make the opposition happy, not passing the ordinance in the first place, but since the will of the people was not the main order of business, it wasn't meant to be. Furthermore, it's there in black and white, without the help of any outside influence, the city knew that guidelines were needed, but did nothing, maybe because as you pointed out, the design guidelines already existed and were being recommended by the city!

 

Anyway, the opposition did participate, you can go back and read meeting notes, you can read this thread, you can see exactly what they were complaining about, yes, a good number did just say no, but an even better number provided reasons why they were saying no, such as examples of things that the ordinance was unclear about. And not just paint.

 

If you felt they could have done differently at the time, you should have reached out to them, rather than threatening to rat out your neighbors. (ref: http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/23402-historic-districts-in-houston/?p=377604)

 

 

Lastly, don't think that people are going to foregive and forget. We know who was funding the fight against our community. We will remember who you are when it is time to do an addition. We will remember when we sell our homes and buy another. We will remember when we renovate. The Heights is a small town in a big city. We have fought for years to protect our historic neighborhoods and have won. We will remember who was with us and who was against us.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2014 by samagon

[BBLLC]

...  Even though they are over 50 pages, they have requirements like "infill construction must be similar in size to existing homes . . ."; "additions in any location may not visually dominate the original house . . ."; and "New construction that is incompatible with the neighborhood is not allowed . . . ." 

 

But, if you want design guidelines, go for it.  I am all for it.  Just don't run to the Leader when the guidelines turn out to be more restrictive than what is currently being allowed.  And don't expect that there will no longer be any subjective element to the ordinance.  That is simply unavoidable.

1. "Infill construction must be similar in size to existing homes.." WHERE?? on the block or in the district. Who gets to decide?

2. "New construction must be compatible." Where is the definition of compatible outlined? If prevailing setbacks and minimum lot sizes are used why can't a 4000 sqft house be next to a 2000 sqft house? Who gets to decide?

3. Mayor Parker said the same thing. Be careful what you ask.

I however do not accept the premise that objective guidelines couldn't be developed.

[SilverJK]

Someone needs to design a yard sign with a Historic Ordinance monster smashing bungalows with a conformity stick. 

[s3mh]

1. "Infill construction must be similar in size to existing homes.." WHERE?? on the block or in the district. Who gets to decide?

2. "New construction must be compatible." Where is the definition of compatible outlined? If prevailing setbacks and minimum lot sizes are used why can't a 4000 sqft house be next to a 2000 sqft house? Who gets to decide?

3. Mayor Parker said the same thing. Be careful what you ask.

I however do not accept the premise that objective guidelines couldn't be developed.

 

1.  HAHC decides.  Block and district are both relevant for the determination.  

2.  Compatible is a subjective standard and is used to avoid inflexible one size fits all rules that will just send everyone to the planning commission to seek variances.  Every historic district in the United States (and there are hundreds of them) has a commission that is charged with applying a subjective standards.  Those who desire to build and renovate in those districts have to be able to have the ability to adjust their designs to gain approval of the commissions they deal with.  Predictability is a value, but can only go so far when dealing with historic preservation.  

3.  I am all for tighter standards.  I live near several homes that will inevitably renovated within the next decade.  They all have great potential to be stunning examples of craftsman architecture.  Without the ordinance or with a poorly enforced ordinance, they could be destroyed and replaced with more gratuitous square footage to make a quick buck for a builder and realtor, while destroying the character of the neighborhood.

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/HistoricPreservationManual/historic_districts/heights_features.html

 

And there are plenty of objective guidelines and there are guidelines for the Heights.  The above link has Heights specific guidelines.

 

But there will always be the need for subjective review because you cannot put a definition on "scale" and "compatible".  

[BBLLC]

1.  HAHC decides.  Block and district are both relevant for the determination.  

2.  Compatible is a subjective standard and is used to avoid inflexible one size fits all rules that will just send everyone to the planning commission to seek variances.  Every historic district in the United States (and there are hundreds of them) has a commission that is charged with applying a subjective standards.  Those who desire to build and renovate in those districts have to be able to have the ability to adjust their designs to gain approval of the commissions they deal with.  Predictability is a value, but can only go so far when dealing with historic preservation.  

3.  I am all for tighter standards.  I live near several homes that will inevitably renovated within the next decade.  They all have great potential to be stunning examples of craftsman architecture.  Without the ordinance or with a poorly enforced ordinance, they could be destroyed and replaced with more gratuitous square footage to make a quick buck for a builder and realtor, while destroying the character of the neighborhood.

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/HistoricPreservationManual/historic_districts/heights_features.html

 

And there are plenty of objective guidelines and there are guidelines for the Heights.  The above link has Heights specific guidelines.

 

But there will always be the need for subjective review because you cannot put a definition on "scale" and "compatible".

First, thanks for the pensive reply. I made a mistake purchasing the chicken ranch. I am now trying to make the best of a bad financial decision. In my opinion, when I sell this property to some commercial developer that has connections I don't and has the staying power to wait this out, the neighborhood will end up worse for it.

You are absolutely correct that the HAHC gets to decide. Yet the ordinance reads differently than it is being applied. I do however disagree that subjectivity is needed or that it is good.

The ordinance states that guidelines will be developed and voted on by the city council within 6 months of the ordinance's passage. That hasn't happened. The "manual" you have referenced contain the opinions of the staff of the Planning and Development committee. These have not been voted on by the City Council.

Not all bungalows are craftsman. There are plenty of queen anne style bungalows. I renovated one at 1029 Tulane a few years back that had been completely obfuscated.

What defines "gratuitous square footage"? As a renovator/builder in the Heights for the past 21 years, I have personally saved several dozen structures through renovation. I have removed 4 large commercial structures and built what I think are compatible structures to the overall look and feel of the entire Heights area, not an arbitrarily gerrymandered district. I am in business to make money but I am also passionate about what I do. I think you paint with two broad of a brush.

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.

[JJxvi]

I suggest passing the hat around for donations in order to turn the lot into the "StopClose the Heights Wal*Mart Protest Sculpture"

[Angostura]

What defines "gratuitous square footage"? 

 

 

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.  

[s3mh]

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.  

 

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.

 

Also, the idea that the market for 1500 sf bungalows cease to exist when there is uncertainty regarding renovation or expansion is rebutted by the current market.  Despite the constant drumbeat of anti-ordinance stories in the Leader, there are still piles of people racing to open houses and bidding on bungalows in the historic districts.  The real issue is that most of the low hanging fruit in the historic districts has been flipped and there are very few bungalows coming on the market.  As a result, the prices for bungalows in the HDs have been crazy high even with all the alleged uncertainty regarding HAHC.  The problems HAHC, if anything, will just shift the purchasing power away from investors and back to people who are looking for homes as it is just about impossible for a buyer to win a bidding war with builders/investor. 

[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

[poyea]

Another head scratcher is the recently approved 5,500 sq ft house in the 1500 block of Allston...approved in 4th quarter of 2013 sometime. Slightly larger lot at ~8,000', but take a drive down the street and see if you think it is "compatable". And this went through HAHC and with a heated protest before the committee.

[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