wendyps Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 just received on the WoodlandHeigts mailing list...Anybody want to go to tomorrow's planning meeting to speak about the horrific impact of the condo loophole?If you have not heard...A developer has found what we call the "condo loophole." It is a doozey!In brief - neighborhoods covered by prevailing lots size means that lots cannot be subdivided into tiny parcels for townhomes. In Sunset Heights, a developer is attempting an end run by putting in four condos as opposed to townhomes.Since a condo owner does not own the land, the property is not subdivided. And that is legal. Sleazy, too. the Planning Commission has this item on their agenda for tomorrow. Planning staff says they will recommend approval because it is legal.We must make a big issue of this and get the city to understand the loophole MUST be closed. If it can happen on 24th St., it can happen next door to you, too. All council members have been contacted and Controller Anise Parker, who helped create the ordinance when she was on council, has written the City Attorney assuring him it was not their intent and asking for an explanation.There has been no response.Please come if you can. If you can't, write/ call the Mayor. And spread the word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 You are right, wendy. I do love it...figuratively, of course. Not to rehash the lot line debate in its entirety, this is another example of this ordinance not addressing the "problem" it was intended to cure. However, I have always loved those brick fourplexes on W. Dallas and W. Gray. If the developer put condos similar to those next door to me, I would not be offended, just as the rowhouses do not offend me. Of course, I live next door to a metal warehouse that was converted to a loft and artist space. Clearly, not much would offend me. What does annoy me, and I am sure others, is the carting off of bungalows to make room for the McVictorians. Since my last post on the subject 2 months ago, 6 more houses have been moved within 3 blocks of me, for a total of 12 in the last 9 months. The prevailing lot line ordinance is not preserving the character of the Heights. A better approach is to educate buyers, sellers and developers to the value of preserving Heights character, and therefore home and lot values. As a lawyer, I have to admire the person who found the loophole, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscarbor Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 You are right, wendy. I do love it...figuratively, of course. Not to rehash the lot line debate in its entirety, this is another example of this ordinance not addressing the "problem" it was intended to cure. However, I have always loved those brick fourplexes on W. Dallas and W. Gray. If the developer put condos similar to those next door to me, I would not be offended, just as the rowhouses do not offend me. Of course, I live next door to a metal warehouse that was converted to a loft and artist space. Clearly, not much would offend me. What does annoy me, and I am sure others, is the carting off of bungalows to make room for the McVictorians. Since my last post on the subject 2 months ago, 6 more houses have been moved within 3 blocks of me, for a total of 12 in the last 9 months. The prevailing lot line ordinance is not preserving the character of the Heights. A better approach is to educate buyers, sellers and developers to the value of preserving Heights character, and therefore home and lot values. As a lawyer, I have to admire the person who found the loophole, though. What 4 plexes are you talking about? The ones on Crocker? I for one love the fact that the builders were able to annoy the bungalo people. Kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyps Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 I just wish there was a way to keep the Heights from becoming another rice military, while preserving owners rights and still maintaining the same neighborhood feel.I guess the main difference in these instances is it is the "developers" that are changin, I wouldn't feel half so adament about it if it were the people who were going to live on the lot making the changes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Wendy?Are we talking Prevailing lot LINE or lot SIZE? My personal preference is to maintain prevailing lot LINES [tends to save more trees/allows for more open vistas and streets.] I have no problem with someone subdividing lots as long as lot lines are preserved. Now as for someone placing condos on a size restricted lot, I have no problem if it is done well-and it CAN be done well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 I guess the main difference in these instances is it is the "developers" that are changin, I wouldn't feel half so adament about it if it were the people who were going to live on the lot making the changes...What's the difference? When you get right down to it, developers are just speculative contractors, working for an unidentified future client. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Looks like the good folks in Sunset Heights lost.http://blogs.chron.com/heights/2006/11/con..._heights_1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyps Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 Too bad, I posted about this here as wellhaif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyps Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 Wendy?Are we talking Prevailing lot LINE or lot SIZE? My personal preference is to maintain prevailing lot LINES [tends to save more trees/allows for more open vistas and streets.] I have no problem with someone subdividing lots as long as lot lines are preserved. Now as for someone placing condos on a size restricted lot, I have no problem if it is done well-and it CAN be done well.I didn't realize lot LINE was an option. I would feel better with that as well.Niche, the difference is care. A developer doesn't care about the neighborhood. They care about the profit that will be made. An individual owner, who may come in a tear down, will more than likely care about their neighboors and the feel of the hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Actually, I think the term nmainguy is looking for is "setback", the distance from the property line that a building must be. A "lot line" is the perimeter of the lot. A "lot size" is merely the area within the perimeter. The Previling Lot Line Ordinance prevents subdividing lots.I agree with nmain, in that preserving setbacks will do more to preserve Heights character than lot line restrictions. Obviously, architectural detailing is important, but almost impossible to dictate by ordinance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danax Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Merged topics.That's a shocking trend going on around you, Red.I don't think there will ever be any ordinance passed here that prevent people from moving or demolishing their homes against their will. If the City feels that there is value in having well-preserved historic nabes then it should add real tax breaks for preserving the original structures in historic districts, which still won't offset the potential to tear down and build 2 $450K condos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Maybe this helps clear up the differences.This is from http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Developm...vailLotBldg.htmWhat is a prevailing lot size?Sometimes referred to as the minimum lot size, a prevailing lot size is the most frequently occurring lot size on the block face or faces. By establishing this standard, lots cannot be subdivided below the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Merged topics.That's a shocking trend going on around you, Red.I don't think there will ever be any ordinance passed here that prevent people from moving or demolishing their homes against their will. If the City feels that there is value in having well-preserved historic nabes then it should add real tax breaks for preserving the original structures in historic districts, which still won't offset the potential to tear down and build 2 $450K condos.You are right. There is only so much that the City can or should do. And, while the City (or developers) usually get the blame for these moves, it is in fact, US that are to blame. Not too long ago, homes were purchased to live in. Neighborhoods were appreciated. A trend began to treat homes as one would their stock portfolio, and the home became just another place to invest, especially when the stock bubble burst in 2000. It is the buyer that dictates what the developer builds. And, the fact is, the buyers want huge homes, or more affordable rowhouses and condos. What the Heights Association and Save the Bungalows are fighting is not the City and developers, but their future neighbors.On my street, I have mentioned the number of bungalows that have been replaced with 3,500 sf and larger homes. What I did not say, but inferred, is that only ONE has been renovated since I moved here 2 and a half years ago, two, if you include my piecemeal effort...and, this is on a street that has a prevailing lot line restriction.There IS value in these old homes, but it is not necessarily a monetary value. But, as long as we as a society place the monetary value so much higher than these other values, I do not believe the trend will...or can be...stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Looks like the good folks in Sunset Heights lost.http://blogs.chron.com/heights/2006/11/con..._heights_1.htmlI see they quoted Sheila from here in the article. the prevailing lot size ordinance was meant to minimize the problem, not to prevent it. deed restrictions are the optimal way to prevent what is happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 New to the board...and wanted to add my .02Actually the above possibility was stumbled upon a while back in the area that I live. A developer came in, bought two lots and applied for a replat. I believe the person he used to submit the app did it incorrectly by just asking to combine the lots instead of specifying/applying for a subdivide of the lot. The residents gathered enough signatures for the prevailing lots appl and submitted it, albeit late and after the fact. But the relevant point is that their application was still placed in the queue behind the developer's. Once the developer realized the mistake and wanted to change the replat request, he was told he had to reapply, which would of course then place his application at the back of the line, behind that of the residents. In the end, the developer settled on making them condos instead of townhomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.