The Heights Historic Districts

[s3mh]

Sec. 33-241 - requires any exterior modification or addition to use the same material...unless they change the wording, hardi plank is forbidden, it was not invented until well after the original homes were constructed.

"The 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"

I am not trying to being dishonest, or sell misinformation in an effort to defeat this...its all in the ordinance....the worst part of the whole ordinance is the only part of your home they cannot control, by the open and vague wording they intentionally used is the interior. Everything else, even the landscaping can easily fall within the wording of the ordinance.

It says "compatible with" not "identical to". The term "compatible" assumes that you have two things that are not identical. Of course, left to the subjective determination of the HAHC, hardi-plank may be determined to not be compatible with wood siding (beveled, 117 or otherwise). Thus, I think it is a fair criticism that there is substantial ambiguity, which, in turn, gives HAHC too much discretion. But, that could be remedied by establishing clear guidelines. I am just afraid that legitimate criticism is loosing way to arguments that push the language of the ordinances beyond their logical limits.

[chester77008]

If you have been ignoring this subject you had better wake up...here is a quote from a pro-preservation ordinance website.

"IN THE WORKS!

Areas currently preparing Historic Designation applications to be submitted after the deadline expires are: Independence Heights, Brook Smith, Germantown and Lower Heights. If you are interested in securing Historic Designation for your area, click here. "

I don't even know what "Lower Heights" is but apparently it is historic.

[SCDesign]

I have an interesting find buried in this ordinance that was just pointed out to me, and those of you who think there are not serious political games being played think about this one: structures designated as Histoiric Landmarks that are outside of Historic Districts will STILL BE ELIGABLE FOR THE 90 DAY WAIVER!! Why is this significant you ask? What neighborhood in Houston has the largest concentration of truely architecturally significant houses? I mean, when you think of Historic houses by major architects in this City, where would they be located? RIVER OAKS, right? There are more historic landmarks there than in any neighborhood in the City, so wouldn't it make sense to name it as a Historic District if you REALLY wanted to preserve Houston's history?

What do YOU think would happen if River Oaks was named a Historic District under this ordinance? How long would it take for every politician in the City to feel how unhappy the residents of that neighborhood are about the restrictions this Ordinance imposes? Well, now they don't need to worry about it because that neighborhood can point to all of the Historic Landmarks they are preserving and have a pretty good argument as to why the SHOUDLN'T be a Historic District. But wait! If they want to tear a Historic Landmark all they have to do is make application and WAIT 90 DAY AFTER TEHY ARE DENIED AND THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT! Wnat to tear down a John Staub 1938 Historic Landmark in River Oaks? That's okay, HAHC won't stand in the way. Want to tear down a 1,200 sq.ft. Sear Bungalow in the Heights? NO WAY, it's too Historically Significant to the neighborhood.

If they ram this through we need to DEMAND that River Oak be named a Historic District!

[Krol]

James,

Indeed. Information is the key. We've heard of people who went to the Tuesday night meeting who went home and quickly removed the signs they had from that realtor group that is trying to derail the Heights South application. It seems someone has obtained the list of the members of that group. It's all realtors from the big realty firms (yep, all the names you would think of) and builders, including Tricon. Wonder if that list will go public...

For those worried about expanding their houses in a historic district, have a look at the design guide for the Historic Heights:

http://www.houstontx...sign_guide.html

Before I read that I was definitely worried, but it clears up a LOT of misinformation that's been posted here. For example, you CAN add on to the side of your house, not just the back.

Cheers

James

[chester77008]

James,

Indeed. Information is the key. We've heard of people who went to the Tuesday night meeting who went home and quickly removed the signs they had from that realtor group that is trying to derail the Heights South application. It seems someone has obtained the list of the members of that group. It's all realtors from the big realty firms (yep, all the names you would think of) and builders, including Tricon. Wonder if that list will go public...

Krol,

The "list" is public information. Go ask for it, call the City Secretary, it's just a google away, it will be ready for pick-up in about 4 days and it costs $57.

The Planning Department is currently scanning the question cards that are being collected at the evening public meetings in order to maintain transparency on the issue. They will be posted on the City of Houston website soon, so then you will have two sources of accurate information on the subject. This is an open process, the homeowners put their names on these cards.

Go pull the records and you can see who signed the petitions and who is now against. You will be surprised at what you see, this is not about old v. new, this is about homeowner rights. For example, 21% of those who signed the south heights district petitions live in new homes. This is very significant when you keep in mind that only 51% of the vote was required. That means a swing of 8 houses can make or break a district, which it did. There were almost 100 new homes that signed in the south district alone.

There are also MANY homeowners in restored homes that signed before and are now against.

Both sides love old houses. The issue here is the new ordinance. The current proposed ordinance goes from one extreme to the other. From "90 day waiver" to "no means no".

[Marksmu]

James,

Indeed. Information is the key. We've heard of people who went to the Tuesday night meeting who went home and quickly removed the signs they had from that realtor group that is trying to derail the Heights South application. It seems someone has obtained the list of the members of that group. It's all realtors from the big realty firms (yep, all the names you would think of) and builders, including Tricon. Wonder if that list will go public...

Krol,

Your post is nothing but propoganda and scare tactics. I posted a list of MANY of the problems with the ordinance, I quoted from the ordinance word for word so you would not even have to go look it up, and your response is .....(crickets chirping)...oh thats right, you did not respond to it in any way. Instead you think you will gain support by saying that its evil Realtors and builders who are against this and everyone else has just been mislead....its not. Im neither a Realtor nor a builder... I am an ordinary person who will be negatively impacted by this power grab. This ordinance is terrible....People are tired of empty promises coming from talking heads - they want the truth. The truth is written in the ordinance for anyone who is not too lazy to download it and read it.

You go dropping evil names like Tricon, thinking you will pick up all the support of those who hate Tricon, while you are trying to hide the real facts of the ordinance, such as these FACTS

1. The ordinance CAN dictate color of your house, despite what is said in the meeting. It is WRITTEN in the ordinance.

2. The ordinance CAN dictate materials used in repairs/maintenance/new builds, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

3. The ordinance CAN dictate what type of light fixtures you put on the outside of the house, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

4. The ordinance CAN dictate whether or not you can expand your home, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

5. The ordinance CAN dictate what plants you put in your front yard, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

6. The ordinance CAN dictate what color, what type, where you put a fence, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

The ordinance as it is written can dictate absolutely everything about your house that can be seen from the road. The only thing the ordinance SPECIFICALLY exempts from control is the inside of the house. EVERYTHING else can be controlled by the intentionally vague wording used by the ordinance.

My posts are FACTS, they are not propaganda, they are not misinformation, they are not scary names like Tricon or George Bush, they can be VERIFIED by simply reading the ordinance.

You are doing nothing more than trying to scare people into passing your agenda. People who are against the ordinance are against it because they want to protect their investments and private property rights. People who support the ordinance are either misled, or believe that they should be able to control every aspect of every persons lives, including what color their house is painted.

lets see you rebut something with facts this time. We are all waiting....

[jamesw]

Mark,

I agree that the ordinance is very broad. However the things you are citing are already in the ordinance NOW. It's just that people whose designs are not compatible can wait 90 days and do it anyways.

I'll make it easy for the lazy readers:

Read Section 33-236 and read Section 33-240

The underlined text is new in the ordinance and the strikethrough text will be removed.

After living in the Heights for 12 years now, I can definitely see both sides of this issue. I have lived in Proctor Plaza, Pinelawn, and now Historic Heights.

One the PRO side, I want more families in the Heights so that the schools improve (more). That means people will need houses bigger than a 2-1 bungalow.

But on the other hand, I don't want to see any more bungalows torn down and replaced with giant New Orleans Revival style homes that stretch from lot line to lot line and rise like a giant white wall from the sidewalk :-/

It seems like that is the INTENT of the ordinance, but as it is written right now, it IS very prescriptive and could potentially be very broad reaching. As it is written, almost EVERYTHING about the fate of my house would be in the hands of the HAHC board. :-(

One suggestion I would have is for section 33-240 to refer to a design guide similar to the existing guide, but with MUCH more details about what is acceptable for not just the shape of the house, but for details, etc.

Cheers

James

[s3mh]

1. The ordinance CAN dictate color of your house, despite what is said in the meeting. It is WRITTEN in the ordinance.

2. The ordinance CAN dictate materials used in repairs/maintenance/new builds, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

3. The ordinance CAN dictate what type of light fixtures you put on the outside of the house, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

4. The ordinance CAN dictate whether or not you can expand your home, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

5. The ordinance CAN dictate what plants you put in your front yard, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

6. The ordinance CAN dictate what color, what type, where you put a fence, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

I am in agreement that the historic preservation ordinance is problematic and needs to be better defined to give people better notice of what will fly and what will be rejected in order to make the HAHC's job more mechanical and less political. I think this point in and of itself is more than enough to get City leaders to listen up and make some needed revisions. But I do not understand why we need to push arguments to the limit of credibility and possibly beyond. The HAHC has the power to approve or disapprove. They have no authority to require anyone to do anything. Sure, I guess if you have the choice between material A and material B, and the commission disapproves A, they have dictated that you have to use material B. But those instances will be very rare. The real problem is that people should have better notice of what will get approval and what won't. Maybe have a guide with certain pre-approved fixtures, materials, designs, etc. which would allow people to forgo HAHC if they use something that is pre-approved.

[Marksmu]

Mark,

I agree that the ordinance is very broad. However the things you are citing are already in the ordinance NOW. It's just that people whose designs are not compatible can wait 90 days and do it anyways.

I'll make it easy for the lazy readers:

Read Section 33-236 and read Section 33-240

The underlined text is new in the ordinance and the strikethrough text will be removed.

After living in the Heights for 12 years now, I can definitely see both sides of this issue. I have lived in Proctor Plaza, Pinelawn, and now Historic Heights.

One the PRO side, I want more families in the Heights so that the schools improve (more). That means people will need houses bigger than a 2-1 bungalow.

But on the other hand, I don't want to see any more bungalows torn down and replaced with giant New Orleans Revival style homes that stretch from lot line to lot line and rise like a giant white wall from the sidewalk :-/

It seems like that is the INTENT of the ordinance, but as it is written right now, it IS very prescriptive and could potentially be very broad reaching. As it is written, almost EVERYTHING about the fate of my house would be in the hands of the HAHC board. :-(

One suggestion I would have is for section 33-240 to refer to a design guide similar to the existing guide, but with MUCH more details about what is acceptable for not just the shape of the house, but for details, etc.

Cheers

James

I have lived in the area for 3 years now....I see both sides of the issue as well. Many nice bungalows are beautifully restored because that is what the owners wanted. They look great and the patchwork of them makes the whole area look better. But the newer big homes that are done in the New Orleans or Victorian styles also look great. Even next to smaller older homes.. Here is a good example. The old home is next to a new smaller one, which is next to, a newer big home. Nothing in this picture appears out of place or strange. Nothing about the larger home detracts from the smaller ones

I understand peoples desire for things not to change and to not want a big house next door, but at the same time it is not their right to have what they want at the expense of the owner of the property not getting what they want. If they wanted an area of town where they could control every aspect of every house, they should have bought into a neighborhood that already had deed restrictions. The heights does not have deed restrictions...the fact that it does not have them, makes the area MUCH more valuable to people who want to build a house of their dreams in a nice part of town. Many peoples dream homes don't fit the deed restrictions of suburban areas, and still others, cant afford the lot in River Oaks to put their dream home. So they are left with two areas of town West U, which is also very expensive, and the Heights...which is less expensive.

This imposition of back door deed restriction through an ordinance, is nothing short of one group of people getting their way at the expense of another group.

The HAHC would have way too much power if this ordinance passes. It will single handedly get to control every aspect of everything about the exterior of your home. Everything you would do would have to be approved. Everything.

I do not want the hassle of having to ask for permission to do everything. Its stupid. Its absurd. Its my house, not the HAHC, not my neighbors, not the city, not the state...its MINE.

Whats next? The ordinance has no limit whatsoever. They could potentially prohibit political yard signs that dont support their particular party! There is no perceivable end to the control.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Marksmu

[SCDesign]

Porchman,

HUH? I want to take offense but I honestly can't figure out what that post was about. I appreciate you posting a picture of one of my favorite houses but I don't see the relevance to my post. I'm particularly proud of that one because it was on a half lot on a corner 1 block from Shepard that had been sitting vacant for years. Nobody wanted to touch it but I was able to put up something that a family lives and people enjoy looking at. I've had more complimants from that house than pretty much any other I've built. Why don't you post some of the others? There are 3 in there that were nominated for Improvement awards by the Heights Association.

My point was that The landmarked houses in River Oaks are not subject to this ordinance. They can still be altered and demolished at the owners whim, where the little bungalows in the Heights are protected. Isn't that hypocritical? How is a bunglaow more worthy of protection than a one of a kind, truly architecturally and historically significant, landmark? Why? Because if the City tried to apply this kind of regulation on the property owners in River Oaks it would never fly. They, the Powers that be, understand that this is unpopular and unfiar to the homeowner so they went out of their way to exclude the people that have real power and money from being included.

As a tax payer I am outraged that classism is guiding our public policy so blantantly. They are usually much more subtle about screwing the plebes.

Edited July 30, 2010 by SCDesign

[SCDesign]

James,

Indeed. Information is the key. We've heard of people who went to the Tuesday night meeting who went home and quickly removed the signs they had from that realtor group that is trying to derail the Heights South application. It seems someone has obtained the list of the members of that group. It's all realtors from the big realty firms (yep, all the names you would think of) and builders, including Tricon. Wonder if that list will go public...

Krol,

Nobody is trying to hide who is affiliated with the group. Realtors, Architects and Builders are the logical people to inform everyone about what this ordinance means. There is a group of people who are pushing to have Historic Districts established and they have, in my opinion and the opinion of MANY of the people who were talked into signing the original petition, mislead the residents about what they were agreeing to. Architects, Builder and Realtors are experts on area markets and City Ordinances and they are the logical ones to tell people what this Ordinance really means. If you have a disease you ask a doctor. If you want a bridge built you talk to an engineer, and if you want to build a house you talk to a an Architect, Realtor and Builder. We are also the people that have invested our lives in these neighborhoods. Most of us live in them and are affected just like everyone else by this. All of us have invested money and years of our lives to making these areas everything that they are today; places that people are passionate about and want to live in.

[Porchman]

Porchman,

HUH? I want to take offense but I honestly can't figure out what that post was about. I appreciate you posting a picture of one of my favorite houses but I don't see the relevance to my post. I'm particularly proud of that one because it was on a half lot on a corner 1 block from Shepard that had been sitting vacant for years. Nobody wanted to touch it but I was able to put up something that a family lives and people enjoy looking at. I've had more complimants from that house than pretty much any other I've built. Why don't you post some of the others? There are 3 in there that were nominated for Improvement awards by the Heights Association.

My point was that The landmarked houses in River Oaks are not subject to this ordinance. They can still be altered and demolished at the owners whim, where the little bungalows in the Heights are protected. Isn't that hypocritical? How is a bunglaow more worthy of protection than a one of a kind, truly architecturally and historically significant, landmark? Why? Because if the City tried to apply this kind of regulation on the property owners in River Oaks it would never fly. They, the Powers that be, understand that this is unpopular and unfiar to the homeowner so they went out of their way to exclude the people that have real power and money from being included.

As a tax payer I am outraged that classism is guiding our public policy so blantantly. They are usually much more subtle about screwing the plebes.

SC, I did miss your point on this post, partially because it seems incongruent with your “everything inside the loop” and “everything inside the Beltway” rants. I don’t think it’s an issue of classism, tough. It’s largely a matter of where residents have been more active.

As far as the house is concerned, it’s not bad…for Memorial. In that, it may constructively define the issue of “compatibility”, and what the ordinance may be seeking to address. Where I believe the draft ordinance fails is its lack of setting forth that definition.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Porchman

[s3mh]

Krol,

Nobody is trying to hide who is affiliated with the group. Realtors, Architects and Builders are the logical people to inform everyone about what this ordinance means. There is a group of people who are pushing to have Historic Districts established and they have, in my opinion and the opinion of MANY of the people who were talked into signing the original petition, mislead the residents about what they were agreeing to. Architects, Builder and Realtors are experts on area markets and City Ordinances and they are the logical ones to tell people what this Ordinance really means. If you have a disease you ask a doctor. If you want a bridge built you talk to an engineer, and if you want to build a house you talk to a an Architect, Realtor and Builder. We are also the people that have invested our lives in these neighborhoods. Most of us live in them and are affected just like everyone else by this. All of us have invested money and years of our lives to making these areas everything that they are today; places that people are passionate about and want to live in.

Architects, Builders and Realtors certainly have a right to have a voice in the debate, especially those who also reside in the area. However, they also have financial interests that are not necessarily in line with what is best for the development of historic districts. Architects are afraid that people will just ask them to modify designs that have passed muster with HAHC, which will diminish the amount they can make on additions and new construction. Realtors want the largest possible commission (as that is about all they are good at, collecting their commission). Thus, they want to see as many sq ft as can fit on every lot. Builders want to do what they have always done. Use the cheapest materials and construction methods in order to make the most money. (yes, yes, I know that not all builders are that way, but builders in Houston do not have a good history).

So, architects, builders and realtors can certainly speak out and should be heard. But, we need to put their comments into proper context.

[Marksmu]

I am in agreement that the historic preservation ordinance is problematic and needs to be better defined to give people better notice of what will fly and what will be rejected in order to make the HAHC's job more mechanical and less political. I think this point in and of itself is more than enough to get City leaders to listen up and make some needed revisions. But I do not understand why we need to push arguments to the limit of credibility and possibly beyond. The HAHC has the power to approve or disapprove. They have no authority to require anyone to do anything. Sure, I guess if you have the choice between material A and material B, and the commission disapproves A, they have dictated that you have to use material B. But those instances will be very rare. The real problem is that people should have better notice of what will get approval and what won't. Maybe have a guide with certain pre-approved fixtures, materials, designs, etc. which would allow people to forgo HAHC if they use something that is pre-approved.

The ordinance specifically states that they can require you to perform a mandatory repair. It also requires that you go in front of the HAHC to get approval before doing the mandatory repair. So they can force you to do something their way. All they have to do is determine that it is a mandatory repair.

I do agree with you though that the ordinance needs specificity. Any time you have a vague rule that can be applied differently to different people you will have an unequal application of the law. When there is unequal application there is abuse, there is fraud, there are back room deals. It is everything that everyone is very sick of at this point. Not only does it need specificity, but those whose homes are affected by it should have a vote on whether or not they really want it at all. The way this has all come about has been very back room deal / dishonest. The powers that are being granted to a very partisan HAHC board are not at all what the people who casually signed the petition thought they were getting. This a vast expansion of what was promised to them.

This needs to be a very upfront, very honest, what is allowed, what is not, discussion that is then voted on by those who own the property that is being regulated...I think a super majority (66%+) will vote down the regulations.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Marksmu

[SCDesign]

Architects, Builders and Realtors certainly have a right to have a voice in the debate, especially those who also reside in the area. However, they also have financial interests that are not necessarily in line with what is best for the development of historic districts. Architects are afraid that people will just ask them to modify designs that have passed muster with HAHC, which will diminish the amount they can make on additions and new construction. Realtors want the largest possible commission (as that is about all they are good at, collecting their commission). Thus, they want to see as many sq ft as can fit on every lot. Builders want to do what they have always done. Use the cheapest materials and construction methods in order to make the most money. (yes, yes, I know that not all builders are that way, but builders in Houston do not have a good history).

So, architects, builders and realtors can certainly speak out and should be heard. But, we need to put their comments into proper context.

Of course money is an issue. Isn't it for you if you own a house? Increasing and preserving the value of the houses in these neighborhoods is in the best interest of EVERYONE. I don't know one homeowner that would say "I would be happy if my houses value stays the same or falls" A house is the biggest investment most people ever make and they rely on the value increasing. Who has driven the value of homes in the Heights? The builders, that's who. Who have been marketing the neighborhood and working to change it's image into a place people want to live? The realtors, that's who. Who is going to know the impact of things like this more than the people whos job it is to know? Who invest their time and money in knowing and improving these areas?

In all honesty this Historic Distric probably won't be a horrible thing for me personally, but I'm still against it. I'm one of the few designers that have real experience with doing plans for the HAHC and designing plans that will have a high likelihood of being accepted without significant redesign. I'm also one of the few builders who have real experience with restoring old homes in a way the will make the HAHC, and homeowner, happy. I'm against it because it isn't fair to homeowners to impose these regulations when they agreed to something totally different. If they put this change to a vote and it passes than I will support it because it really is what people want. They don't want to do that because it's not what they want, and the games they are playing to put their agenda through without the consent of the people most affected is what I am against.

Just a questions: Does anyone know if Sue Lovell, Anise Parker, Marlene Gafrick, Randy Pace or any of the other Counil Members or City Employees pushing this so hard live in Historic Districts? I believe Sue Lovell may own property in one of them but I don't believe she lives in one. Does anyone know?

[SCDesign]

The ordinance specifically states that they can require you to perform a mandatory repair. It also requires that you go in front of the HAHC to get approval before doing the mandatory repair. So they can force you to do something their way. All they have to do is determine that it is a mandatory repair.

I do agree with you though that the ordinance needs specificity. Any time you have a vague rule that can be applied differently to different people you will have an unequal application of the law. When there is unequal application there is abuse, there is fraud, there are back room deals. It is everything that everyone is very sick of at this point. Not only does it need specificity, but those whose homes are affected by it should have a vote on whether or not they really want it at all. The way this has all come about has been very back room deal / dishonest. The powers that are being granted to a very partisan HAHC board are not at all what the people who casually signed the petition thought they were getting. This a vast expansion of what was promised to them.

This needs to be a very upfront, very honest, what is allowed, what is not, discussion that is then voted on by those who own the property that is being regulated...I think a super majority (66%+) will vote down the regulations.

The fact that all of the specifics are not worked out is a MAJOR issue. At the meeting on Tuesday when they laid out the timeline for getting this passed by City Council by September 29, they mentioned that things needed to be worked out. They want this passed now and to be allowed to finalize everything later. Why do they need to push this through before they have all of that worked out? Slow down and give us a completed ordinance with EVERYTHING specfied. They don't want to do that becuase it's going to take a long time for them to get specific, but they want us to trust that they are going to be fair. I don't think they have earned that trust.

[Krol]

Mayor Parker lives in the Westmoreland Historic District and owns property in the OSW. She has designated her house in Westmoreland as a protected landmark. Sue Lovell stated Tuesday night that she owns property in one of the historic districts. Randy Pace resides in Houston Heights East district.

Of course money is an issue. Isn't it for you if you own a house? Increasing and preserving the value of the houses in these neighborhoods is in the best interest of EVERYONE. I don't know one homeowner that would say "I would be happy if my houses value stays the same or falls" A house is the biggest investment most people ever make and they rely on the value increasing. Who has driven the value of homes in the Heights? The builders, that's who. Who have been marketing the neighborhood and working to change it's image into a place people want to live? The realtors, that's who. Who is going to know the impact of things like this more than the people whos job it is to know? Who invest their time and money in knowing and improving these areas?

In all honesty this Historic Distric probably won't be a horrible thing for me personally, but I'm still against it. I'm one of the few designers that have real experience with doing plans for the HAHC and designing plans that will have a high likelihood of being accepted without significant redesign. I'm also one of the few builders who have real experience with restoring old homes in a way the will make the HAHC, and homeowner, happy. I'm against it because it isn't fair to homeowners to impose these regulations when they agreed to something totally different. If they put this change to a vote and it passes than I will support it because it really is what people want. They don't want to do that because it's not what they want, and the games they are playing to put their agenda through without the consent of the people most affected is what I am against.

Just a questions: Does anyone know if Sue Lovell, Anise Parker, Marlene Gafrick, Randy Pace or any of the other Counil Members or City Employees pushing this so hard live in Historic Districts? I believe Sue Lovell may own property in one of them but I don't believe she lives in one. Does anyone know?

[chester77008]

The lack of ability to do additions to a home is really starting to worry me after continued conversations with the HAHC.

For example, you would not be able to do something like the attached picture. You can add to the back of your bungalow, but not the middle as the attached photo.

Before I get slammed...I am making no comment on the looks of this house, I am just pointing out that you cant add to the middle of a bungalow.

[Krol]

The lack of ability to do additions to a home is really starting to worry me after continued conversations with the HAHC.

For example, you would not be able to do something like the attached picture. You can add to the back of your bungalow, but not the middle as the attached photo.

Before I get slammed...I am making no comment on the looks of this house, I am just pointing out that you cant add to the middle of a bungalow.

Maybe this will help. It's from the Houston Heights Historic District Guidelines that are available on the city's website. There are all kinds of ways to add on appropriately.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/Design_Guide_Heights_District/Historic_Districts_Design_Guide_5NewAdd.pdf

[chester77008]

Maybe this will help. It's from the Houston Heights Historic District Guidelines that are available on the city's website. There are all kinds of ways to add on appropriately.

http://www.houstontx...ide_5NewAdd.pdf

Krol,

Thanks but non of those fit my situation. I don't want to add to the back of my bungalow, I want to go back about 20' from the front door and then add to the width.

[Marksmu]

Mayor Parker lives in the Westmoreland Historic District and owns property in the OSW. She has designated her house in Westmoreland as a protected landmark. Sue Lovell stated Tuesday night that she owns property in one of the historic districts. Randy Pace resides in Houston Heights East district.

Every post you have made in support of this topic has failed to rebut any of the SERIOUS issues that us homeowners have with the proposed ordinance. I don't care if some 2-bit politician also owns property in the area that is under consideration. As the ordinance is proposed there can be vastly different outcomes for different people. The ordinance is entirely subjective. For all we know these politicians already have expanded their homes, or have back room deals with the HAHC to give them a free pass.

I posted a long list of facts, that are serious problems with this ordinance. Please refute them and provide facts proving me wrong. Until then, all you have done is post emotional fluff....We have to do this to stop Tricon...I posted facts that will impact every single person in these districts. Please tell me where I have posted misinformation, and if I have correct it with a cite for your information so that people actually know what is being discussed, NOT what you want, or what a politician wants, or what you think it will be or how it is supposed to work.

If there is going to be a massive rule change in the middle of the game, the rule needs to be spelled out exactly how it will be applied, people in the game need to be given a vote, and the law needs to not be written so vaguely as to allow the HAHC to do anything they want.

[jamesw]

I've thought about this a lot over the last week. Here's my take on the ordinance, and the sides for and against the proposal:

(1) Preservationists want everything in the neighborhood to stay the same as it is now - no matter what the cost or hardship to current property owners.

(2) Developers want a very loose or no ordinance so that they can keep buying lots w/ 2+1 bungalows for $250,000 building big houses from lot line to lot line, and selling them for $650,000

(3) Current homeowners are split as they don't want either of the above, and the ordinance as it is currently written favors (1)

Right now my personal position is that I know I do NOT want 1 because I want families to keep moving to the heights (so the schools keep getting better, etc) and not be scared off by the ordinance. But I don't really want 2 either as about 2/3 of the time I'm pleased with the new-builds and how they look and "improve" the neighborhood - but the other 1/3 of the time I see a realtor/builder/developer buy up a 6,600 sf heights lot and splitting it down the middle and cramming two hideous McVic town-homes onto it.

Cheers

James

PS: does anyone else see the irony of the city "allowing" a giant wall-mart 3 blocks outside the Heights, while at the same time trying to ram-rod through these changes to the HAHC ordinance??? Hello Houston?????!!!!!

[SCDesign]

Why can't there be a middle ground with lot size limits, setback limits, etc. Tangible, objective characteristics so that there is no need for a weighted 13-member panel to decide what we can and can't do with OUR properties.

People, all I know is that if you don't want this, you had better show up on the 10th and speak out and demand a new vote once the rules are set.

Also, is there a way to lock down this ordinance so that no changes can be made in the future without another vote (serious question)?

There is already a way to do this through Chapter 42. If a block wants to preserve the lot size and building line of the block all they have to do is circulate the applicationa and get 50% of the property owners to agree. At that point the City will determine the Prevailing (average) building line and lot size and from that point on no builder can violate that rule. It is very easy and most blocks in the Heights already have it. This is a very efficiant way of keeping the builders who want to build townhouses off of your block.

For the last questions: No. The existing Ordinance already states that any changes to the Ordinance have to be approved by the people it applies to, but they are throwing that out the window because it's inconvienent. They are doing it now so they will most likely find a way to do it no matter what safeguards are put in.

[TAPHouston]

Why can't there be a middle ground with lot size limits, setback limits, etc. Tangible, objective characteristics so that there is no need for a weighted 13-member panel to decide what we can and can't do with OUR properties.

People, all I know is that if you don't want this, you had better show up on the 10th and speak out and demand a new vote once the rules are set.

Also, is there a way to lock down this ordinance so that no changes can be made in the future without another vote (serious question)?

I live in North Norhill and there are objective guidelines already in place--the deed restrictions. They include set backs from the front, rear, and side lot lines, and we have a prevailing lot size to prevent the division of the lots. The historical ordinance is meant to do one thing: prevent a property owner from making any changes to the exterior of the property he owns. It has nothing to do with making sure one property use does not infringe on another's property. Those proscriptions are already in place.

[s3mh]

I have a lot of concerns with the revised ordinance. However, after talking to many neighbors, the perception is that realtors and builders are using the proposed revisions as an opportunity to undo what many fought so hard to get--protection for historic districts. Many of my neighbors were very upset when the 90 day waiver made it in to the original ordinance and are very glad to see it go.

I will need to do an addition and do a lot of exterior repairs on my 1920 bungalow. I am wary of the HAHC. However, I am afraid that the current tea party-esque "you can't tell me what to do with my land" arguments and the realtor/builder scare tactics ("they can tell you what paint to use"--they can't, "They can force you to make repairs"--City has always had that power, and look at how much it is enforced) are alienating many who would support a better version of what has been proposed. It is now an all or nothing debate. Looking at the current make up of City council, all will win the day, even with vocal opposition.

People want protection in their historic districts. What kind of protection and how it is enforced should be up for debate. But, it won't be because people are trying to make this a re-referendum on whether we should have historic districts at all. I am seeing yellow signs popping up on my street in greater numbers than the blue signs. I think the opposition has overplayed their hand with all the scare mongering and hyper-libertarianism.

[Marksmu]

I have a lot of concerns with the revised ordinance. However, after talking to many neighbors, the perception is that realtors and builders are using the proposed revisions as an opportunity to undo what many fought so hard to get--protection for historic districts. Many of my neighbors were very upset when the 90 day waiver made it in to the original ordinance and are very glad to see it go.

I will need to do an addition and do a lot of exterior repairs on my 1920 bungalow. I am wary of the HAHC. However, I am afraid that the current tea party-esque "you can't tell me what to do with my land" arguments and the realtor/builder scare tactics ("they can tell you what paint to use"--they can't, "They can force you to make repairs"--City has always had that power, and look at how much it is enforced) are alienating many who would support a better version of what has been proposed. It is now an all or nothing debate. Looking at the current make up of City council, all will win the day, even with vocal opposition.

People want protection in their historic districts. What kind of protection and how it is enforced should be up for debate. But, it won't be because people are trying to make this a re-referendum on whether we should have historic districts at all. I am seeing yellow signs popping up on my street in greater numbers than the blue signs. I think the opposition has overplayed their hand with all the scare mongering and hyper-libertarianism.

That is the problem with the back room way that this ordinance is being done. They got people to support one thing, then they perverted it. You will most likely not be able to repair or upgrade your bungalow later, or it will cost you significantly more than it would cost you to do it today. That is not intended to be a scare tactic, its the truth.

As to the scare tactics - have you ever seen people get fired up, excited and mad and show up over something that had a marginal impact on their life? No - People only get excited and stand up when something is absolutely terrible. If it were just an inconvenience nobody would be opposing it. It is not an inconvenience, its a huge change to the property itself.....The city has introduced an extremely harsh extremely restrictive ordinance....if you want to end up in the middle with something that everyone is happy with the opposition has to be extremely to the other side. Otherwise we will end up with something that is extremely to the city side.

I agree with the James - if you limit or restrict construction, the improvements that have fundamentally changed the heights from an old run down neighborhood into a nice place that people actually want to live will dry up. I am in support of preventing the subdivision of lots to cram lots of houses onto a small lot....I dont want to see large brownstones completely change what the heights is...but at the same time, I also agree that at least 2/3 of the new homes are nice, aesthetically pleasing, two story homes that are adding to the neighborhood, not detracting. The value of the lots are too high to prevent two story homes from being built next door to small bungalows - that is an economic reality. Most, if not all new builds are going to be two story homes.

I think the majority of people would support an ordinance that prevented sub diving lots, that supported prevailing lot lines, and set backs, but did not limit what the house could look like, what materials it could be made from, and what color it would be.

The problem with the ordinance is it has gone way too far - much farther than anyone ever intended it to go. I think the majority of people have no idea what it is that is being rammed through. They get an email that says come get your yellow sign, and stop big townhomes from being built next door...stop new construction. What they dont know is the negatives....they are not being told, because there has been no media attention, mailers, or flyers. They are most likely seriously misinformed. Very few people actually know how bad the ordinance actually is....that is the truth, that is the reality...we live in an uninformed, apathetic society now....You may be informed, but your neighbor sporting the yellow sign most likely is not, or is misinformed.

You seem to be relatively well informed, but even in this post you stated that the HAHC would not be able to control the color of your house. The precise wording of the ordinance actually does allow them to control the color of your home. I know you don't support that aspect of it, and you think I am just fear mongering, but I am not. The wording of the ordinance allows the HAHC to determine the color of your home until they remove it from the ordinance, if passed it will become reality. Will it be enforced? I dont know - I seriously doubt it, but its better to not have ordinances and laws that are in force just not be applied. It does not make sense to pass something that will not be enforced unless someone complains...When a law or ordinance is only enforced on a case by case basis it gives rise to serious questions of fairness and equal application.

I close with my libertarian beliefs....Just remember, that once the government has the power to control this aspect of your life, they will not give it back....they never downsize and return rights to people...its just a constantly expanding black hole of bureaucracy.

[SCDesign]

Observation:

SEC 33-241 (.b.) Notwithstanding the preceding subsections (a), the planning official is authorized to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the following types of alteration ...

So, the planning official (?) can issue a Certificate of Appropriateness without going before the Committee under certain circumstances that are outlined in the following sections (look them up). They are very broad and open to interpretation as is the rest of the ordinance. This provision is an open invitation to graft and favoritism and the public would be hard pressed to find out because the application would never appear on the HAHC agenda.

Edited August 3, 2010 by SCDesign

[SCDesign]

Observation:

Sec 33-203 Enforcement and Penalties

(d) If a landmark ... located in an historic district is demolished without a certificate of appropriateness required by this article or, in the case of a landmark only, a 90 waiver certificate issued persuant to section...

This section excludes landmarked outside of historic districts from the revocation of the 90 day waiver. You are welcome River Oaks.

[SCDesign]

Observation:

Sec 33-227 Amandment; changes in boundary

Amendment of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archeological site and any change in the boundary of any historic district or archeological site shall require action by the city council and shall follow to procedures for applicaiton, notice, public hearing and recommendation by HAHC and the commission used for the original designation of the landmark, historic district or archeological site.

This is where is specifically states in the ordinance that the MUST re-petition the exact same way that the original petition was done. This sections is still in the ordinance so how can they ignore it? Sec 33-22.1 gives them the ability to do a mailout with 67% approval, but that is only for new districts as I read it, it does not remove Sac 33-227 from the Ordinance or retroactively take away the requirement.

[SCDesign]

Observation:

Sec 33-22.1 Application for designation of historic district:

(a) Applicaiton for designation of an historic district shall be initiated by either:

(1) one or more owners or property in the proposed district, subject to the requirement of subsection © of this section that at least 67% of the owners of tracts int he proposed districts who return cards pursuant to the subsection © to the department indicates support of the application.

(2)The HAHC upon instructing hte Planning official to prepare an application for designation

(.b.) application for the designation of a historic district shall be filed ... (procedure and criteria, read it)

© The department shall review an application submitted by one or more property owners for completeness...(this goes on to explain the procedure for mailing out the ballot and the timeline for notification)

What this section does is require a mailed out ballot only if the application is innitiated by one or more property owners. Subsection © specifically states that this is only required in that instance, applications by the HAHC do not require a mail out ballot. This section is what gives the HAHC the power to name districts without property owner approval.

PLEASE READ THE ORDINANCE!