The Heights Historic District Guidelines & Ordinances

[BBLLC]

... because everyone knows that the alternative to HAHC is the demolition of the majority of the historic housing stock in the Heights in exchange for a mish mash of patio homes, town homes, mcvics, moderns and new build suburban homes straight out of Pearland.  So, people do not take on the real issue and instead throw stones at the people on the commission because it sounds much better to say that there are bad people on the commission than to say that you are ok with the Heights being turned into some architectural Frankenstein and losing all of its history. 

 

 

I think you have hit on some key points.  As an owner in the West HD, the ordinance was sold to prevent demolition of the bungalows NOT to micromanage the community.  I think there are other ways to "save the bungalows" than the current incarnation of this ordinance.

 

The way the ordinance is being interpreted and applied is creating architectural Frankensteins.  Within the West HD the following architectural styles are represented: Prairie, Classic Revival, Colonial Revival, Foursquare, Dutch Colonial, Craftsman, Queen Anne, and Folk Victorian.  Yet when presenting a particular architectural style for a new construction project, the dimensions of nine different styles of houses are forced on you, thus creating a Frankenstein new style I call "The Parker."  Why can't a Queen Anne 2 story with a 10/12 pitch roof at 36' ridge height exist next to a one story bungalow?  Well they can and they do in this district.  Why is there an attempt with this ordinance to create uniformity in the housing stock?

Edited October 1, 2014 by BBLLC

[s3mh]

I think you have hit on some key points.  As an owner in the West HD, the ordinance was sold to prevent demolition of the bungalows NOT to micromanage the community.  I think there are other ways to "save the bungalows" than the current incarnation of this ordinance.

 

The way the ordinance is being interpreted and applied is creating architectural Frankensteins.  Within the West HD the following architectural styles are represented: Prairie, Classic Revival, Colonial Revival, Foursquare, Dutch Colonial, Craftsman, Queen Anne, and Folk Victorian.  Yet when presenting a particular architectural style for a new construction project, the dimensions of nine different styles of houses are forced on you, thus creating a Frankenstein new style I call "The Parker."  Why can't a Queen Anne 2 story with a 10/12 pitch roof at 36' ridge height exist next to a one story bungalow?  Well they can and they do in this district.  Why is there an attempt with this ordinance to create uniformity in the housing stock?

 

The amendments to the ordinance were not "sold" as being solely to prevent demolition.  The scale and character of new construction was a major issue.  The fight over the town homes on 15th and Rutland was not just over lot line construction. 

 

Scale is not an issue of what two houses look like next to each other.  Scale is measured by the entire neighborhood.  If new construction is allowed to have dimensions that are at the outer limits (and beyond) of the existing historic architecture, the scale of the neighborhood is gradually lost.  Thus, in order to preserve scale, new construction needs to be closer to the average scale and should not be at the outer limits.  This does not create uniformity at all.  There are very few houses in the WD with the 33' ridge height that HAHC wants for your design.  Most of the original two story houses have a ridge height of 28-32'.  30-31' is probably the median for two story houses.  And given that your design would be the widest house in the district by 3' (@12-15' wider than the median 2 story), the concern over ridge height has nothing to do with uniformity. 

 

[Marksmu]

The amendments to the ordinance were not "sold" as being solely to prevent demolition.  The scale and character of new construction was a major issue.  The fight over the town homes on 15th and Rutland was not just over lot line construction. 

 

Scale is not an issue of what two houses look like next to each other.  Scale is measured by the entire neighborhood.  If new construction is allowed to have dimensions that are at the outer limits (and beyond) of the existing historic architecture, the scale of the neighborhood is gradually lost.  Thus, in order to preserve scale, new construction needs to be closer to the average scale and should not be at the outer limits.  This does not create uniformity at all.  There are very few houses in the WD with the 33' ridge height that HAHC wants for your design.  Most of the original two story houses have a ridge height of 28-32'.  30-31' is probably the median for two story houses.  And given that your design would be the widest house in the district by 3' (@12-15' wider than the median 2 story), the concern over ridge height has nothing to do with uniformity. 

 

 

Translation....its bigger than mine, and yours cant be bigger than mine because I dont like houses to be bigger than mine.

 

Secondary Interpretation - it may look fine and good b/c NOBODY IN THE WORLD can tell the difference between a 33' ridge height and a 32' ridge height without a freaking measuring tape - but Its not about just YOUR property...if EVERYONE else added a whole foot of rise, just think of the horrors that would befall the poor folks in one story homes....endless night as the towering behemoth next door wipes out all sources of natural light...Grass that slowly decays and eventually dies a painful death due to lack of sun...flowers/plants wilting away, breezes cut off by monstrous construction making their once glorious porches too hot/miserable to even be able to enjoy...endless death until all that is left is a small old house that the owner paid $225,000 to purchase is reduced to a $500,000 lot.  This painful and heart wrenching scenario will play out over and over again until all that is left is beautiful new construction full of happy homeowners who don't interject themselves into everyone else's business continually.   THE HORROR!

[BBLLC]

The amendments to the ordinance were not "sold" as being solely to prevent demolition.  The scale and character of new construction was a major issue.  The fight over the town homes on 15th and Rutland was not just over lot line construction. 

 

....  And given that your design would be the widest house in the district by 3' (@12-15' wider than the median 2 story), the concern over ridge height has nothing to do with uniformity. 

 

 

We will not agree on how the amendment was sold.  All of the yard signs, street walkers, flyers, etc that I encountered never talked about scale or character.  And you should know that the houses on 15th and Rutland are not town homes.  You may not like the density, but they are not town homes.

 

There are 6 queen anne style two story houses in the West HD.  I had two plans that were rejected with all dimensions falling smack dab in the middle of ALL of their criteria when comparing to the same architectural style.  Sec. 33-242. Same—New construction in historic district. explicitly says "Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed to require or impose a single architectural style in any historic district."  By holding a queen anne style home to the dimensions of a foursquare, they are, in fact, imposing an architectural style.

 

As far as the corner lot is concerned, it is the 4th largest lot in the entire district.  We will disagree on this house.  It is not what I wanted to build but it used to exist in THIS district.

Edited October 2, 2014 by BBLLC

[s3mh]

We will not agree on how the amendment was sold.  All of the yard signs, street walkers, flyers, etc that I encountered never talked about scale or character.  And you should know that the houses on 15th and Rutland are not town homes.  You may not like the density, but they are not town homes.

 

There are 6 queen anne style two story houses in the West HD.  I had two plans that were rejected with all dimensions falling smack dab in the middle of ALL of their criteria when comparing to the same architectural style.  Sec. 33-242. Same—New construction in historic district. explicitly says "Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed to require or impose a single architectural style in any historic district."  By holding a queen anne style home to the dimensions of a foursquare, they are, in fact, imposing an architectural style.

 

As far as the corner lot is concerned, it is the 4th largest lot in the entire district.  We will disagree on this house.  It is not what I wanted to build but it used to exist in THIS district.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=120371857975554&set=a.120371854642221.19765.112856885393718&type=1&theater

 

Did you actually live in the WD or just own a lot?  If you lived in the WD (or anywhere else in the Heights), you would have seen plenty of the signs in the facebook link.  The houses on 15th and Rutland replaced an empty lot.  The issue was 100% about new construction because the builders just waited 90 days and did whatever they wanted.  

 

The ridge height for the 6 queen Annes in the WD are as follows:  33, 36, 28, 35, 33, & 31.  Average height is 32.6.  HAHC wanted a ridge height of 33'.  HAHC was not holding you to the dimensions of a foursquare.  In fact, HAHC was willing to let you build a house that was wider than any other Queen Anne in the neighborhood.  

 

And no, this house did not used to exist in this district.  No one built Queen Annes that had the main house connected with the garage.  And even if this was an exact replica of prior architecture, there were certainly not three Queen Annes in a row with ridge heights of 36.5, 35.5 and 35.5.  

[BBLLC]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=120371857975554&set=a.120371854642221.19765.112856885393718&type=1&theater

 

Did you actually live in the WD or just own a lot?  If you lived in the WD (or anywhere else in the Heights), you would have seen plenty of the signs in the facebook link.  The houses on 15th and Rutland replaced an empty lot.  The issue was 100% about new construction because the builders just waited 90 days and did whatever they wanted.  

 

The ridge height for the 6 queen Annes in the WD are as follows:  33, 36, 28, 35, 33, & 31.  Average height is 32.6.  HAHC wanted a ridge height of 33'.  HAHC was not holding you to the dimensions of a foursquare.  In fact, HAHC was willing to let you build a house that was wider than any other Queen Anne in the neighborhood.  

 

And no, this house did not used to exist in this district.  No one built Queen Annes that had the main house connected with the garage.  And even if this was an exact replica of prior architecture, there were certainly not three Queen Annes in a row with ridge heights of 36.5, 35.5 and 35.5.  

 

I can't open your link so I can't comment on that.  I lived in the WD moved and recently moved back.  I have owned property in the Heights continuously for 23 years.  You conflate the issue that you saw and what was presented to the "voters".  I actually am OK with legally binding deed restrictions that set minimum lot size (on a replat), setbacks, and maximum heights.  I would be OK if there was a mechanism for homeowners to easily designate their bungalow as a historic structure that could not be demolished.  I am not OK with the Parkerization of all new construction in the HD's.  

 

Why are you performing an arithmetic average?  The ordinance says nothing about that.  In fact, it says NOTHING about ridge height.  The fact that the ridge heights of the proposed structures fit in the range of the SAME architectural style is what is typical.

 

OK, the attached garage AT THE REAR of the lot with alley access was not on the original structure.   Details that were on the original house were removed at the demand of the HAHC staff because they said these details didn't exist.  Yet when shown the picture of the house this one was modeled after, there was no response.  

 

BTW, the staff moved us away from the original idea which incorporated 3 different architectural styles.  

Edited October 2, 2014 by BBLLC

[Ross]

 

And no, this house did not used to exist in this district.  No one built Queen Annes that had the main house connected with the garage.  And even if this was an exact replica of prior architecture, there were certainly not three Queen Annes in a row with ridge heights of 36.5, 35.5 and 35.5.  

 

Who cares what the ridge height is. Anyone with a modicum of design sense knows that ridge height is irrelevant, and that the newer houses are far better looking than the old crappy bungalows, most of which are actually pretty pedestrian.

[BullMan008]

Who cares what the ridge height is. Anyone with a modicum of design sense knows that ridge height is irrelevant, and that the newer houses are far better looking than the old crappy bungalows, most of which are actually pretty pedestrian.

Uhm....yeah.

[s3mh]

I can't open your link so I can't comment on that.  

Edited October 3, 2014 by s3mh

[s3mh]

I can't open your link so I can't comment on that.  I lived in the WD moved and recently moved back.  I have owned property in the Heights continuously for 23 years.  You conflate the issue that you saw and what was presented to the "voters".  I actually am OK with legally binding deed restrictions that set minimum lot size (on a replat), setbacks, and maximum heights.  I would be OK if there was a mechanism for homeowners to easily designate their bungalow as a historic structure that could not be demolished.  I am not OK with the Parkerization of all new construction in the HD's.  

 

Why are you performing an arithmetic average?  The ordinance says nothing about that.  In fact, it says NOTHING about ridge height.  The fact that the ridge heights of the proposed structures fit in the range of the SAME architectural style is what is typical.

 

OK, the attached garage AT THE REAR of the lot with alley access was not on the original structure.   Details that were on the original house were removed at the demand of the HAHC staff because they said these details didn't exist.  Yet when shown the picture of the house this one was modeled after, there was no response.  

 

BTW, the staff moved us away from the original idea which incorporated 3 different architectural styles.  

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. 

 

 

I calculated the average to show that you were actually allowed to build above the average and were not held to the median.  There are only two Queen Annes with a ridge height over 33'.  One is 35 and another is 36.  The other four of the six 33' and less.  If "typical" is interpreted to mean the tallest/largest existing, every builder will come into the historic district and build to the tallest/largest/widest dimensions of the outlier of the original architecture.  There are probably at least 40-50 lots in the WD alone that have non-contributing structures or empty lots that could be demoed for new construction.  If everyone gets to build to the outer limits of the original scale, then the original scale is lost.  

[s3mh]

Who cares what the ridge height is. Anyone with a modicum of design sense knows that ridge height is irrelevant, and that the newer houses are far better looking than the old crappy bungalows, most of which are actually pretty pedestrian.

Compare:

 

 

and

 

 

with

 

 

 

and 

 

[BBLLC]

 

.....

 (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; 

...

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

architectural style in any historic district. 

 

 

I calculated the average to show that you were actually allowed to build above the average and were not held to the median.  There are only two Queen Annes with a ridge height over 33'.  One is 35 and another is 36.  The other four of the six 33' and less.  If "typical" is interpreted to mean the tallest/largest existing, every builder will come into the historic district and build to the tallest/largest/widest dimensions of the outlier of the original architecture.  There are probably at least 40-50 lots in the WD alone that have non-contributing structures or empty lots that could be demoed for new construction.  If everyone gets to build to the outer limits of the original scale, then the original scale is lost.  

 

 

Note that the ordinance says proportions not height or scale.  A correctly proportioned building in a particular style should be allowed with the restrictions on height that are in the deed restrictions AND using appropriate setbacks that are defined in the ordinance.  Typical has been interpreted by the purists as average.  My personal interpretation (I know that holds zero water) is that if it exists or existed in the area then it would be typical.  If you buy a hundred bags of M&M's and there is one blue M&M, then it is typical to a bag of M&M's.

 

I haven't looked at the number of lots in the west HD that are non-contributing.  But I would bet that the far majority already have new homes on them that were built prior to the ordinance change.  There are very few empty lots.  But once again scale isn't mentioned in the criteria for new construction.

[BBLLC]

 

I can't open your link so I can't comment on that.  

 

 

I never saw this poster on someones yard or in any literature that was distributed to my house in the West HD.  But it does perpetuate untruths.

 

1.  Side set backs as shown would be in violation of deed restrictions.

2.  Total height would be in violation of deed restrictions.

 

Front loaded garages would be easy to restrict without the current ordinance.

[Marksmu]

I've got a 6600 sq ft lot that is a non-contributing rental property in the WD that has a house that I keep looking nice, even though the house itself is literally worth less than the new air conditioner I put on it last year.  The original home on this property burned down sometime in the 60's and a modular home was built in its place, its not historic in any way, heck, it has vinyl siding....I would get a non-contributing designation with ease...(I should probably do that now before vinyl becomes hisotric)  I keep it b/c its property value continues to climb with the popularity of the Heights....I bought it years ago, when I was thinking about a custom build in the Heights, as opposed to an existing structure...changed my mind b/c schools suck -  but I can say with 100% certainty that the Ordinance hurts my chances of getting maximum value for this property...Nobody wants to jump through the hoops to build a smaller new house, on a big lot, when that lot cost is over $400,000 now...People who can afford a $400,000 lot want a $1,000,000 house, and its going to have to be SUPER fancy to get there with a 2500sqft structure thanks to the stupid ordinance.

[s3mh]

I never saw this poster on someones yard or in any literature that was distributed to my house in the West HD.  But it does perpetuate untruths.

 

1.  Side set backs as shown would be in violation of deed restrictions.

2.  Total height would be in violation of deed restrictions.

 

Front loaded garages would be easy to restrict without the current ordinance.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/friendsofhoustonheightshistoricdistricts

 

You obviously were not living in the WD when this all happened.  There was even a protest at the site on W15th and Rutland that was on the news.  

 

And you do realize that the designs in the sign are the actual designs from W15th and Rutland?  Sure, they are not shown to scale with the bungalow example between them, but that was not the point.  The houses in the poster were built.  They did not violate any existing deed restrictions.  They were not approved by HAHC, but all they had to do was wait 90 days and start building.  Your claim that regulating new construction was not part of the movement to amend the ordinance flies in the face of what actually was happening at the time.  

[BBLLC]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/friendsofhoustonheightshistoricdistricts

 

You obviously were not living in the WD when this all happened.  There was even a protest at the site on W15th and Rutland that was on the news.  

 

And you do realize that the designs in the sign are the actual designs from W15th and Rutland?  Sure, they are not shown to scale with the bungalow example between them, but that was not the point.  The houses in the poster were built.  They did not violate any existing deed restrictions.  They were not approved by HAHC, but all they had to do was wait 90 days and start building.  Your claim that regulating new construction was not part of the movement to amend the ordinance flies in the face of what actually was happening at the time.  

 I have remained civil and engaging in this discussion.  Inferring that I am lying is not called for.  I did live in the Heights WD then AND have recently moved back (just out of the WD).  I avoided the protests and did not watch the news that night.  What you are failing to recognize or admit is that the talking points that were widely used formed an impression or perception that this ordinances was to "save the bungalows".  It may well be that the inner circle and those allied with those pushing this ordinance had other motives but these were NOT what was widely advertised.  I have emails from over 100 residents from the West HD that have expressed support for the chicken factory project (also sent to the HAHC and staff).  The far majority cannot understand the reasoning for the rejection AND have expressed the opinion that they thought the ordinance was to "save the bungalows".

 

Your statement, “Sure, they are not shown to scale with the bungalow example between them, but that was not the point."  would not hold in the court of public opinion.  That was shown that way to illustrate a situation that was conjectural and could be dealt with existing regulations.

 

As far as the Rutland side of my little project is concerned, I think we have a buyer who will play nice with the HAHC.  So I can promise you that I will never be a bother to any HD in Houston.  My future involvement will be supporting political candidates who see through the charade of this application of the ordinance.  Ardent supporters of the ordinance should recognize that complete intransigence over minor issues will eventually sink this ordinance.  Already there is one very proud individual with a lot of money who wants to litigate their rejections by the HAHC.

[s3mh]

 I have remained civil and engaging in this discussion.  Inferring that I am lying is not called for.  I did live in the Heights WD then AND have recently moved back (just out of the WD).  I avoided the protests and did not watch the news that night.  What you are failing to recognize or admit is that the talking points that were widely used formed an impression or perception that this ordinances was to "save the bungalows".  It may well be that the inner circle and those allied with those pushing this ordinance had other motives but these were NOT what was widely advertised.  I have emails from over 100 residents from the West HD that have expressed support for the chicken factory project (also sent to the HAHC and staff).  The far majority cannot understand the reasoning for the rejection AND have expressed the opinion that they thought the ordinance was to "save the bungalows".

 

Your statement, “Sure, they are not shown to scale with the bungalow example between them, but that was not the point."  would not hold in the court of public opinion.  That was shown that way to illustrate a situation that was conjectural and could be dealt with existing regulations.

 

As far as the Rutland side of my little project is concerned, I think we have a buyer who will play nice with the HAHC.  So I can promise you that I will never be a bother to any HD in Houston.  My future involvement will be supporting political candidates who see through the charade of this application of the ordinance.  Ardent supporters of the ordinance should recognize that complete intransigence over minor issues will eventually sink this ordinance.  Already there is one very proud individual with a lot of money who wants to litigate their rejections by the HAHC.

I am not saying that you are lying about what you remember.  I am saying that what you remember is not an accurate representation of what were the motivations and goals of the amendments.  The folks behind the Friends of Houston Heights Historic Districts were the ones that pushed the amendments to the ordinance.  (They were the ones behind the signs, which really were out there--just do google street view for 1319 Tulane).  Mayor Parker and Sue Lovell did not drive up to the Heights and get upset about demolitions and new construction that was not compatible with the existing architecture.  People from the neighborhood went to the City and got the City moving on the issue.  Regulation of new construction has always been part of the historic ordinance.  The amendment just made it enforceable.  I have pointed to substantial evidence that this was a goal of those pushing the amendments.  I have seen no evidence from you supporting your claim that the effort to amend the ordinance was solely targeted at stopping demolitions.  I even remember much debate about one flier that showed the row townhomes on 8th St.  Opponents jumped on the flier to push their view that minimum lot size was all that was needed.  

 

The objection to the homes on 15th and Rutland were not solely about set back, front loading garages and height.  The main issue was that they were a bunch of New Orleans style buildings in a neighborhood that is full of Craftsman and Victorian architecture.  That is why the sign shows the buildings next to a craftsman bungalow.  

[Barkley]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/friendsofhoustonheightshistoricdistricts

You obviously were not living in the WD when this all happened. There was even a protest at the site on W15th and Rutland that was on the news.

And you do realize that the designs in the sign are the actual designs from W15th and Rutland? Sure, they are not shown to scale with the bungalow example between them, but that was not the point. The houses in the poster were built. They did not violate any existing deed restrictions. They were not approved by HAHC, but all they had to do was wait 90 days and start building. Your claim that regulating new construction was not part of the movement to amend the ordinance flies in the face of what actually was happening at the time.

[Barkley]

I have not submitted anything to HAHC.  I do live in the WD.  I have watched a lot of video of HAHC and read transcripts.  I also have a lot of experience before other government tribunals, including zoning boards, our own planning commission, State Office of Administrative Hearings, TCEQ, OCCC and a bunch of other state agencies and municipal bodies, as well as state and federal court from JP to Fed 5th Circuit.  HAHC is pretty average in terms of how they conduct themselves.  I have seen much, much worse from courts and other government agencies.  But your complaint about the personalities of the HAHC is the same thing I hear from just about anyone who goes before a decision maker and does not get what they want.  And instead of having a constructive discussion about the process and substance of the decision, people just launch into name calling ("bush league power hungry nobodies") and ad hominem attacks.  And that is usually because everyone knows that the alternative to HAHC is the demolition of the majority of the historic housing stock in the Heights in exchange for a mish mash of patio homes, town homes, mcvics, moderns and new build suburban homes straight out of Pearland.  So, people do not take on the real issue and instead throw stones at the people on the commission because it sounds much better to say that there are bad people on the commission than to say that you are ok with the Heights being turned into some architectural Frankenstein and losing all of its history.

[Barkley]

I have not submitted anything to HAHC.  I do live in the WD.  I have watched a lot of video of HAHC and read transcripts.  I also have a lot of experience before other government tribunals, including zoning boards, our own planning commission, State Office of Administrative Hearings, TCEQ, OCCC and a bunch of other state agencies and municipal bodies, as well as state and federal court from JP to Fed 5th Circuit.  HAHC is pretty average in terms of how they conduct themselves.  I have seen much, much worse from courts and other government agencies.  But your complaint about the personalities of the HAHC is the same thing I hear from just about anyone who goes before a decision maker and does not get what they want.  And instead of having a constructive discussion about the process and substance of the decision, people just launch into name calling ("bush league power hungry nobodies") and ad hominem attacks.  And that is usually because everyone knows that the alternative to HAHC is the demolition of the majority of the historic housing stock in the Heights in exchange for a mish mash of patio homes, town homes, mcvics, moderns and new build suburban homes straight out of Pearland.  So, people do not take on the real issue and instead throw stones at the people on the commission because it sounds much better to say that there are bad people on the commission than to say that you are ok with the Heights being turned into some architectural Frankenstein and losing all of its history. 

 

 

[Barkley]

I have not submitted anything to HAHC.  I do live in the WD.  I have watched a lot of video of HAHC and read transcripts.  I also have a lot of experience before other government tribunals, including zoning boards, our own planning commission, State Office of Administrative Hearings, TCEQ, OCCC and a bunch of other state agencies and municipal bodies, as well as state and federal court from JP to Fed 5th Circuit.  HAHC is pretty average in terms of how they conduct themselves.  I have seen much, much worse from courts and other government agencies.  But your complaint about the personalities of the HAHC is the same thing I hear from just about anyone who goes before a decision maker and does not get what they want.  And instead of having a constructive discussion about the process and substance of the decision, people just launch into name calling ("bush league power hungry nobodies") and ad hominem attacks.  And that is usually because everyone knows that the alternative to HAHC is the demolition of the majority of the historic housing stock in the Heights in exchange for a mish mash of patio homes, town homes, mcvics, moderns and new build suburban homes straight out of Pearland.  So, people do not take on the real issue and instead throw stones at the people on the commission because it sounds much better to say that there are bad people on the commission than to say that you are ok with the Heights being turned into some architectural Frankenstein and losing all of its history.

[Barkley]

Wow – lots of assumptions being made here on your part. Please excuse my ad himmy hommy attack. You know what – I’m frustrated. My wife and I recently built a home for the first time. We were not experts in the historic ordinance, so we worked closely with staff, fully recognizing there are things one must be willing to sacrifice living in an HD. We got staff’s recommendation for approval, but got completely blind-sided by the HAHC in what appeared to be a very whimsical decision that was hi-jacked by one of the activist members. You said, “instead of having a constructive discussion about the process and substance of the decision, people just launch into name calling”. I agree that’s not ideal – but outside of my 5 minutes to address the panel – exactly when would I be able to do this? In a letter? Anyone can write a letter, including you. But, I have more at stake than you, period (factually speaking of course). In another recent post you said, “Completely wrong and bordering on libel. I said that those who worked for the ordinance would remember those who tried to oppose it by a dishonest fear campaign”, which I believe was the same day you defended a snapshot YOU posted by saying, “sure, they are not shown to scale with the bungalow example between them, but that was not the point”. I will tell you the point – it was to deliberately and intentionally MISLEAD residents and create fear of what would happen without the ordinance in place. You also mentioned, “I only pointed out that HAHC was an adjudicative body to explain why they would not give out advisory opinions” – yet you also said you’ve watched a lot of videos of HAHC. If true, you would realize they DO give out advisory opinions. Oh yes, and finally, you said, “I also have a lot of experience before other government tribunals, including zoning boards, our own planning commission, State Office of Administrative Hearings, TCEQ, OCCC and a bunch of other state agencies and municipal bodies, as well as state and federal court from JP to Fed 5th Circuit”. This one simply needs no comment. So while you have lost all credibility with me personally, I’d ask that you please keep posting. The entertainment value is freaking rich!

[mollusk]

I don't live in this particular district, which has its own fairly unique set of issues, but I have participated in the formation of other districts.

 

I'm not going to say that someone does or does not have an accurate memory.  I will say, though, that an experienced lawyer who has a litigation oriented practice with some transactional work folded in would have a resume similar to what Barkley finds unbelievable.  Other than a bit of divergence about what particular boards and agencies are involved, my history is pretty close to s3mh's.

[s3mh]

Wow – lots of assumptions being made here on your part. Please excuse my ad himmy hommy attack. You know what – I’m frustrated. My wife and I recently built a home for the first time. We were not experts in the historic ordinance, so we worked closely with staff, fully recognizing there are things one must be willing to sacrifice living in an HD. We got staff’s recommendation for approval, but got completely blind-sided by the HAHC in what appeared to be a very whimsical decision that was hi-jacked by one of the activist members. You said, “instead of having a constructive discussion about the process and substance of the decision, people just launch into name calling”. I agree that’s not ideal – but outside of my 5 minutes to address the panel – exactly when would I be able to do this? In a letter? Anyone can write a letter, including you. But, I have more at stake than you, period (factually speaking of course). In another recent post you said, “Completely wrong and bordering on libel. I said that those who worked for the ordinance would remember those who tried to oppose it by a dishonest fear campaign”, which I believe was the same day you defended a snapshot YOU posted by saying, “sure, they are not shown to scale with the bungalow example between them, but that was not the point”. I will tell you the point – it was to deliberately and intentionally MISLEAD residents and create fear of what would happen without the ordinance in place. You also mentioned, “I only pointed out that HAHC was an adjudicative body to explain why they would not give out advisory opinions” – yet you also said you’ve watched a lot of videos of HAHC. If true, you would realize they DO give out advisory opinions. Oh yes, and finally, you said, “I also have a lot of experience before other government tribunals, including zoning boards, our own planning commission, State Office of Administrative Hearings, TCEQ, OCCC and a bunch of other state agencies and municipal bodies, as well as state and federal court from JP to Fed 5th Circuit”. This one simply needs no comment. So while you have lost all credibility with me personally, I’d ask that you please keep posting. The entertainment value is freaking rich!

You are just proving my point about critics of HAHC.  You just belittle the decision as being "whimsical" without discussing the substance of the decision.  Of course, I am not going to defend the issue of staff and HAHC being on a different page with approvals.  That needs to change and work is already underway to make sure that both staff and HAHC align their interpretation of the ordinance.  But that is the constructive approach that looks at the problem and finds a solution.  Ranting at HAHC because you had an adverse ruling is your First Amendment right, but it does not mean that you are right and they are wrong.  My point is simply that calling HAHC names is frequently the method opponents use to avoid any real dialogue about the issues.  That is because any substantive discussion of the issues either reveals very practical and doable solutions to problems or that those who oppose the ordinance simply do not care about the historic architecture and want to see it all lost to new construction.

As for your claim that you have more at stake than I do, you are flatly wrong.  I live in the WD.  I specifically bought in the WD because it was protected.  I am surrounded on both sides by properties that would be demolished but for the ordinance.  I am going to renovate and add on in a few years and will go before HAHC.  I have as much at stake as anyone else. 

The yard sign actually shows what might be a best case scenario without the ordinance.  The trend more and more in the Heights was to build three stories and to build giant modern monstrosities.  The poster used actual designs that were built.  And the scale in the poster is really not that far off, if at all.  Many original homes are built @6-8' from the property line on one side.  If the neighbor builds to 3' (as they did on Rutland), they would be that close together.  Sure, deed restrictions may take care off lot line and minimum lot size, but ask the folks living on Morrison how it went when they tried to do that.

 

[BBLLC]

You are just proving my point about critics of HAHC. .....  That needs to change and work is already underway to make sure that both staff and HAHC align their interpretation of the ordinance.  ........  That is because any substantive discussion of the issues either reveals very practical and doable solutions to problems or that those who oppose the ordinance simply do not care about the historic architecture and want to see it all lost to new construction.

.....  Sure, deed restrictions may take care off lot line and minimum lot size, but ask the folks living on Morrison how it went when they tried to do that.

 

I am a critic of the HAHC.  But I do care about historic architecture.  I have put my money and a good portion of my adult life renovating old houses.  Based on attending 20+ meetings, I question qualifications and intents of the HAHC.  The staff and HAHC shouldn't have to "interpret" the ordinance.  There may always be gray areas but not the capricious, "I don't like the optics" or "most brick stairs are just ugly" comments I have received from two commissioners.

 

Let's discuss two issues with the ordinance and the way the staff has handled it.  Twenty one months ago the Historic Preservation Website under the Planning Department of the City of Houston, I downloaded a copy of "A Design Guide for The Houston Heights Historic Districts".  I made an investment based on documents from the official website.  A group of peers would agree that a reasonable person would assume that these were the guidelines.  Being occasionally reasonable, I assumed that was the case and made a significant investment BASED on these guidelines.  My bad AND the COH.  What is the redress for this?  How should this mistake by the COH be handled?

 

You made a comment earlier about there not being 3 Queen Anne's in a row.  Is a prohibition on 3 Queen Anne's in a row in the ordinance?  My reading of the ordinance says that "nothing in the foregoing shall be construed to require or impose a single architectural style in any historic district".  Your comment is legally moot.

 

Can you explain why a house with a 36' ridge height on a hip roof of a house that is set back from the property line at 20 - 25' and from the side property lines of 8 - 10' cannot exist harmoniously with bungalows with ridge heights of 18'?  This exact situation exists in the WD with contributing structures.  Why can't new construction on formally commercial space do the same?  BTW, the poster you posted is not to scale and even if that exact situation happened, people don't see in 2D.  Articulation and depth change the visual perception dramatically.

 

You are not allowing substantive discussion about this ordinance when you dismiss a solution to the major issues by saying it didn't work once before.  Why didn't it work?  

Edited October 8, 2014 by BBLLC

[s3mh]

I am a critic of the HAHC.  But I do care about historic architecture.  I have put my money and a good portion of my adult life renovating old houses.  Based on attending 20+ meetings, I question qualifications and intents of the HAHC.  The staff and HAHC shouldn't have to "interpret" the ordinance.  There may always be gray areas but not the capricious, "I don't like the optics" or "most brick stairs are just ugly" comments I have received from two commissioners.

 

Let's discuss two issues with the ordinance and the way the staff has handled it.  Twenty one months ago the Historic Preservation Website under the Planning Department of the City of Houston, I downloaded a copy of "A Design Guide for The Houston Heights Historic Districts".  I made an investment based on documents from the official website.  A group of peers would agree that a reasonable person would assume that these were the guidelines.  Being occasionally reasonable, I assumed that was the case and made a significant investment BASED on these guidelines.  My bad AND the COH.  What is the redress for this?  How should this mistake by the COH be handled?

 

You made a comment earlier about there not being 3 Queen Anne's in a row.  Is a prohibition on 3 Queen Anne's in a row in the ordinance?  My reading of the ordinance says that "nothing in the foregoing shall be construed to require or impose a single architectural style in any historic district".  Your comment is legally moot.

 

Can you explain why a house with a 36' ridge height on a hip roof of a house that is set back from the property line at 20 - 25' and from the side property lines of 8 - 10' cannot exist harmoniously with bungalows with ridge heights of 18'?  This exact situation exists in the WD with contributing structures.  Why can't new construction on formally commercial space do the same?  BTW, the poster you posted is not to scale and even if that exact situation happened, people don't see in 2D.  Articulation and depth change the visual perception dramatically.

 

You are not allowing substantive discussion about this ordinance when you dismiss a solution to the major issues by saying it didn't work once before.  Why didn't it work?  

 

There was nothing in the design guide that said HAHC would allow you to build the tallest and widest house in the district.  There was nothing in the design guide that said HAHC would not enforce any restrictions on scale.  All the old design guide had were a bunch of drawings of new construction styles.  And it was just a "guide".  It was more than clear that anything anyone was going to do would have to get approval.  Nothing in the guide stated that HAHC MUST approve if you do X, Y, or Z.  Your argument about the design guide is a red herring.  If you made your investment based on something you saw on the internet and your assumptions about the legal import of those documents, then you are responsible for that decision. 

 

There is no prohibition on 3 queen annes in a row.  My point is that without any regulation of scale, builders will pick out the largest conforming design in the neighborhood and build it over and over again as big as they can.  Next thing you know there will be 50+ 2 story Queen Annes in the WD with ridge heights of 36 ft.  A house whose scale was previously the exception for the WD would then become the norm and the scale of the WD would be lost. 

 

A Queen Anne with a 36 ridge height can exist next to a bungalow.  That is not the issue.  The issue is whether permitting multiple houses with a ridge height that is at the outer limits of the original architecture of the district will adversely affect the scale of the architecture in the district.  Once you let everyone build at 36', the bungalows eventually start to look like the exception instead of the norm.

 

I will make sure that next time any graphics are used by anyone in support of historic preservation will be a 3D hologram.  I am sure lots of people were tricked by the inability to see depth in a yard sign and erroneously supported the ordinance.  After all, no one wanted to regulate new construction in the historic districts. 

 

Deed restrictions do not work.  They do nothing to address architecture.  You can do away with front loading garages and get nice roomy setback, but that does not mean that people will stop building "creole" mish mash things with a fine assortment of ionic and Corinthian columns, some minimalist cement block or something from the DR Horton catalogue for Pearland.  And setbacks and lot size do nothing to stop demolitions.

 

[BBLLC]

There was nothing in the design guide that said HAHC would allow you to build the tallest and widest house in the district.  There was nothing in the design guide that said HAHC would not enforce any restrictions on scale.  All the old design guide had were a bunch of drawings of new construction styles.  And it was just a "guide".  It was more than clear that anything anyone was going to do would have to get approval.  Nothing in the guide stated that HAHC MUST approve if you do X, Y, or Z.  Your argument about the design guide is a red herring.  If you made your investment based on something you saw on the internet and your assumptions about the legal import of those documents, then you are responsible for that decision. 

 

There is no prohibition on 3 queen annes in a row.  My point is that without any regulation of scale, builders will pick out the largest conforming design in the neighborhood and build it over and over again as big as they can.  Next thing you know there will be 50+ 2 story Queen Annes in the WD with ridge heights of 36 ft.  A house whose scale was previously the exception for the WD would then become the norm and the scale of the WD would be lost. 

 

A Queen Anne with a 36 ridge height can exist next to a bungalow.  That is not the issue.  The issue is whether permitting multiple houses with a ridge height that is at the outer limits of the original architecture of the district will adversely affect the scale of the architecture in the district.  Once you let everyone build at 36', the bungalows eventually start to look like the exception instead of the norm.

 

I will make sure that next time any graphics are used by anyone in support of historic preservation will be a 3D hologram.  I am sure lots of people were tricked by the inability to see depth in a yard sign and erroneously supported the ordinance.  After all, no one wanted to regulate new construction in the historic districts. 

 

Deed restrictions do not work.  They do nothing to address architecture.  You can do away with front loading garages and get nice roomy setback, but that does not mean that people will stop building "creole" mish mash things with a fine assortment of ionic and Corinthian columns, some minimalist cement block or something from the DR Horton catalogue for Pearland.  And setbacks and lot size do nothing to stop demolitions.

 

Nothing in the ordinance dictates scale.  The red herring is that there is a plethora of lots for new construction in the WD that will result in the swallowing of bungalows.  The ordinance FORBIDS addressing architecture.  It is specifically OFF limits.  Only eave heights and proportionality are addressed in the guidelines for new construction.  It is clear from your snark that you don't want substantive conversation as you accused another poster.  I hope you are willing to provide free legal advice when the lawsuits start hitting.  

[Barkley]

S3MH -

Let me once again repeat my stance regarding you having zero credibility. After all you were the one who really did threatened to get revenge on those who opposed the ordinance when if first went in to effect. You know more than anyone that this does not in fact border on libel. Let me remind you that this is an INTERNET MESSAGE FORUM. It's where folks can express opinions, vent frustrations, etc, freely. My very few postings to date have been exactly that - venting about how incompetent 70% of the HAHC commissioners are. What I find odd is that in every post you write, you are trying to convince everyone how much of a qualified expert you are as to how they SHOULD be thinking. You are obviously the smartest guy in the room, in your mind. It's the reason you selectively IGNORE the challenging questions in which you are asked. Similar to our city government, you have become a pretty great deflection artist. I disagree with your ideology - but that doesn't make me dislike you as a person. But your attitude does - to be specific it's the attitude of "regardless of who's right, I'm going to try to convince everyone else that I'm the expert, and they should heed the advice that is about to roll down the mountain"

[poyea]

If you are working on any additions and renovations in the historic districts and plan to apply for the 15-year tax abatement, I suggest you listen to this City Council meeting and plan accordingly.

 

http://houstontx.swagit.com/play/12122017-1881/50/

 

Click on the dropdown and choose: "Consideration of Matters Removed From Consent Agenda"

 

Slide forward to ~ Minute 17...it carries on for 10-15 minutes before the voting begins.

 

They have a long debate on the merits of the tax savings for the homeowners and the benefit (or lack of) to the community.  Some council members outright refused to approve any of the submissions even though the rules in place were followed by the homeowners.  I was one of the submittals, and luckily it passed with 5 members voting against it.

 

So, just a word of warning if you're in the process.

 

 

[s3mh]

The city gave developers $15k per unit tax abatement to build luxury apartments and condos downtown and now they are all flustered about giving a few pennies back to people who do historic renovations.