The Heights Historic Districts

[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 .

[poyea]

As much as I hate to get this banter started again when it's finally quieted down, I saw this today and realized, we are not the only knuckleheaded neighborhood in the country....

 

http://www.today.com/money/neighbors-want-architects-dream-home-torn-down-its-devastating-2D79606820

 

Last quote from the article.

"I don't think it's appropriate to exert your tastes on other people's property rights''

[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.

 

 

[Marksmu]

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.

 

You dont have to agree with me....The pro historic people overwhelmingly want to limit the increases in their property values.  The new homes were driving that cost up so fast that they needed to assemble to stop it.  The HHA assembled to stop the demolitions so they could slow/stop the drastic increase in property values that has occurred.  They can't come right out and say that or they would have no method to achieve their goal of controlling development.  Their only option was usign the city to impose a historic ordinance b/c the majority of property owners were against them when they tried to go lot by lot block by block to get their deed restrictions imposed...most owners said no, so they had to use the city and then lie to property owners to get their ordinance passed. 

 

Whether you agree with me or not, does not change the facts.  There are people who legitamtely love the history of their own homes, unfortunately they make up the vast minority of people.  Most just want to prevent an $800,000-$1,000,000 house from making their little bungalow economically obsolete and reducing their bungalow to a lot value tear down.

[SilverJK]

I disagree Mark.  That isn't their intention, even if that is the consequence.  They think they are making a "difference" for the betterment of all.   It isn't about the economics, it is about living out their distorted ideal utopia while they think everyone else either just doesn't know better/isn't enligtened or is an evil destroyer of history.

 

 

[mollusk]

Sorry, how foolish of me to think that I might know about what my neighbors have talked about for the last 30 years.  It's only been a major topic of discussion at my voluntary HOA that worked its patootie off reinstating and renewing and modifying deed restrictions, and signing up for minimum lot size and prevailing setbacks, and yes, even put in historic designation in a couple corners of the neighborhood (all of which require super majorities to be put in place), beginning in the mid 1980s.  You might even be surprised to learn that among the reasons for doing all those things was to enhance our property values.

 

Just because some of y'all think that some brand new giant McMansion with glue on stone and fiberglass bathtubs and a really big price tag are the be all and end all, doesn't mean that everybody does, or even a majority of any group other than you and your cronies.  

 

For the record, I'm not too nuts about how the commission deals with things, either.  I'd rather have clear regulations, fairly and consistently applied.

 

Let's make a deal.  I won't try to tell you what you're thinking, if you allow the rest of us the same courtesy.

[SamHouston]

If they were trying to keep property values down/affordable when they started the Historic Districts, I can't really say it's been working. Lot value alone is up 25% in the last two years. Partially due to the overall Houston climate, but the fact is, that due to the HAHC decisions, the inventory of lots in the Heights is quite limited.

Edited August 9, 2014 by SamHouston

[Marksmu]

If they were trying to keep property values down/affordable when they started the Historic Districts, I can't really say it's been working. Lot value alone is up 25% in the last two years. Partially due to the overall Houston climate, but the fact is, that due to the HAHC decisions, the inventory of lots in the Heights is quite limited.

 

Inventory of lots in the Heights was non-existent even before the HAHC.  It became nearly impossible to buy lots in 2009, when just about every possible property south of 20th and north of 6th became gold.

 

Property values are increasing inspite of the HAHC, not because of them. 

 

And for the record, I support minimum lot size designations reasonable setbacks, and other common sense restrictions on the lots that ensure the nice residential nature of the area is protected.  I do not support requiring approval to build/remodel a house.  I certainly do not support requirements that period details be preserved, or required either. 

 

I do not personally like the 3000sqft houses on the 2800 sqft lots any more than the bungalow owners...we just have completely opposite views on how to control those things.  The problem could have been resolved easily with minimal disruption0, and the city chose to use a sledge hammer to force their views on everyone.

 

And there was never even a majoirty of support for the districts.  EVER.  That is an outright lie that is well documented.  The city and the HHA used the most dishonest process ever to achieve their results.  They, at most, had 40% support at any time, FAR less than a super majority.

[mollusk]

And there was never even a majoirty of support for the districts.  EVER.  That is an outright lie that is well documented.  The city and the HHA used the most dishonest process ever to achieve their results.  They, at most, had 40% support at any time, FAR less than a super majority.

 

The two districts that I have personal knowledge about did have well over 50% participation (actually, 67% was the minimum threshold), so, majority rules and all that.  

 

The remedy for an arbitrary process is to revise the process, not necessarily to eliminate it.  Besides, the historic districts make up a tiny fraction of even the area inside the loop.

 

(note to self - stop feeding trolls.) 

[Ross]

Super majority or not, it was never fair to change the rules on existing property owners.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Ross

[SilverJK]

mollusk,

 

I'm assuming you live in Norhill.  I thought Norhill was a true example of why the historic districts weren't needed.  That community got together, came up with their own deed restrictions and got the majority to go along with it.  That is not what happened in the East/West/South Heights districts.

[mollusk]

I do not live in a designated historic district, though I am close to several and was up close and personal with the formation of one.  I also served in a land use management capacity for my voluntary HOA until the Director of Domestic Bliss informed me that I would no longer do so.  

 

The problem with deed restrictions in older neighborhoods is that you have to have someone to enforce them.  In theory, the city attorney's office can; however, my personal experience is that unless it's something truly out there like opening up a rave club in your garage, they just don't have the resources, and in those instances where they will take the case, they are very, very slow.  Even newer areas with mandatory HOAs often have to hire an outside entity to do the job, and that's before hiring the attorneys to bring the lawsuit.

 

67% is 67%.  These are all just different ways to get to a similar goal.  The thing is, there are some people who are going to insist that nobody, nowhere, is gonna tell them what to do with their very own property, and they really don't care if they are the only person on the block that wants to have the ability to install an industrial smelter.  

 

And as I've said before, I'm not to jazzed about how the commission works, either.  But the way to address that is through the political process instead of calling for dismantling it.

[SilverJK]

I find it odd that the answer to the city's lack of involvement/enforcement, is more city involvement/things to enforce...  

 

Instead of dismantling the curent process, why not create a new (neighborhood supported) process and phase out the rediculous one for the new?   This is what the "preservationist" should be working towards.  The biggest thing needed would be any changes would need to be voted on, and require a majority.  That is the part that really pisses people off, the radical changes that took place without proper input from the stakeholders (property owners).  The ole bait and switch.

[Marksmu]

I do not live in a designated historic district, though I am close to several and was up close and personal with the formation of one.  I also served in a land use management capacity for my voluntary HOA until the Director of Domestic Bliss informed me that I would no longer do so.  

 

The problem with deed restrictions in older neighborhoods is that you have to have someone to enforce them.  In theory, the city attorney's office can; however, my personal experience is that unless it's something truly out there like opening up a rave club in your garage, they just don't have the resources, and in those instances where they will take the case, they are very, very slow.  Even newer areas with mandatory HOAs often have to hire an outside entity to do the job, and that's before hiring the attorneys to bring the lawsuit.

 

67% is 67%.  These are all just different ways to get to a similar goal.  The thing is, there are some people who are going to insist that nobody, nowhere, is gonna tell them what to do with their very own property, and they really don't care if they are the only person on the block that wants to have the ability to install an industrial smelter.  

 

And as I've said before, I'm not to jazzed about how the commission works, either.  But the way to address that is through the political process instead of calling for dismantling it.

 

You may not recall, or you may and you are just intellectually dishonest - the only way they got to 67% was by 1) utilzing city owned property in the vote, 2) preventing landowners with more than one property in the area from voting twice...Thus creating the scenario where a person could own an entire city block of rental properties save the exception of three invidivduals and the three individiduals could bind that owner as a "majority" of the votes supported restrictions.

 

The process was dishonest....so many people who supported the HHA which got the signature for the peititons, wanted to withdraw their support after the restrictions were announced, and there was no way to do so....you say the ballot allowed that, right?  Well - the ballot was an unmarked envelope from the city, mailed over Christmas, due around new Years, where you had to OPT OUT...YES, OUT....Not mailing the ballot meant you supported the historic district.....Its the only "Vote" in hisotry, where not voting, meant you supported something.

 

Can you imagine what would happen if not voting meant you actually voted FOR something.....I could pass anything I could ever think of...Heck I could get half this city to vote for giving me their houses for free if not mailing in the ballot was a  honest means of voting for something.

 

I support everyones right to organize and  if there really was overwhelming support for this, I would back down, but  there is not.  This was a dishonest bait/switch, and the city and the organizers knew it, and resorted to lieing, cheating, and eventually stealing to win.  It was dishonest.  Period.  There is no debate about that point.

[mollusk]

You may not recall, or you may and you are just intellectually dishonest

 

Starting a post with a gratuitous insult is rarely a good debate tactic.  

 

I've already said more than once that I was NOT commenting on Heights proper, because I did not participate in that process; instead, I was discussing other districts where I do have personal knowledge of the hows and whys of their creation.

 

If I choose not to respond to a future post of yours, please don't take that as agreement.  More likely, it will be a desire to not engage with someone apparently unwilling to acknowledge any viewpoint other than their own.

 

-- 30 --

[SilverJK]

Well maybe it did make more sense for your district... but i seem to remember people even in Norhill (who had the strictist deed restrictions already in place) that were apprehensive to the change. 

 

I'm more concerned about the process and how it went down for the whole thing vs. any specific district.