THREE NEW HISTORIC DISTRICTS APPROVED Glenbrook Valley, Heights South, and the Woodland Heights are the city’s newest historic districts, after city council voted to approve their long-lingering applications this morning. The votes were 9-5 for Woodland Heights and Heights South, and 10-4 for Glenbrook Valley. [Previously on Swamplot]
Sign up for the Newsletter
Historic Districts
SINGING IT TO THE COUNCIL 
In advance of tomorrow’s scheduled vote on the fates of historic districts in Heights South, Glenbrook Valley, and Woodland Heights, supporters and opponents of historic designation in those neighborhoods have been pulling out all the stops at today’s city hall public comment hearing. [Justin Concepcion, via Twitter] Photo: Daniel
INSIDE THE HISTORIC BATTLE FOR GLENBROOK VALLEY 
The color-coded maps, the front-yard tombstones, the shivering naked women, the Ranches and MCMs, the prayer nooks, the free tacos, the threatening drive-by waves . . . it all comes out (well, some of it anyway) in Steve Jansen’s Glenbrook Valley exposé. [Houston Press; previously on Swamplot]
Yesterday’s city council vote makes the status of 4 more historic districts much clearer. Avondale West, Norhill, Boulevard Oaks, and First Montrose Commons will now officially join 10 other existing districts under the protection of new preservation restrictions that don’t allow owners to do whatever they want if they just wait 90 days. The new preservation ordinance described a multi-step “reconsideration” process that might have led to the dissolution of any of the districts or redrawn their boundaries. But that didn’t happen here: These 14 districts will stay the same — well, almost. There is one property that got away.
It’s this 1929 building, home to Salon Stefano and an adjacent parking lot, at 3802 Roseland St. Last year, the property was included in the new First Montrose Commons Historic District. And now it’s out, scot-free. How did it manage to escape?
FOUR BRAND NEW OLD HISTORIC DISTRICTS APPROVED; HEIGHTS EAST AND HEIGHTS WEST BATTED BACK FOR MORE STUDY Votes by city council this morning mean Norhill, Avondale West, and Boulevard Oaks will remain historic districts with their existing boundaries governed by the city’s new preservation ordinance. First Montrose Commons — minus a single property removed by the recommendation of the planning director — will remain a historic district as well. But by a 7-to-8 vote, the council rejected the planning director’s recommendations for Heights West and Heights East. They’re still governed by the ordinance, but the reports have been sent back to the planning department for “further review.” Still to come up for votes: Heights South, Glenbrook Valley, and Woodland Heights. [Previously on Swamplot]
Planning director Marlene Gafrick is recommending that city council shrink the boundaries of the proposed Houston Heights South and Woodland Heights historic districts before approving them — but only slightly. In this morning’s meeting, Gafrick presented a map of Houston Heights South with “squared off boundaries” in the southeast corner and western edges of the district, and that excludes a number of residences on Oxford St. For Woodland Heights, her map cuts out some properties on Omar St. She proposed making no changes to the proposed boundaries of the Glenbrook Valley district. The actual designation and boundaries of the districts will be up to city council.
- Historic Districts coverage [Swamplot]
Photo from 800 block of Columbia St.: Swamplot inbox
Planning director Marlene Gafrick’s recommendation that only one property be excised from just one of the 6 existing historic districts up for reconsideration (a 7th, Heights South, is going through the same process even though it hasn’t officially been approved yet) is just that — only a recommendation. Houston’s city council can still decide to alter the boundaries of any of those districts. And you can bet the maps provided by the planning department that show the repeal-survey responses and where they came from will be a major focus of attention as council members discuss the issue. Plus, hey — isn’t it fun to be able to see how your historic-district neighbors came down on the issue? Here’s the map for Heights East:
Swamplot will have more details later, but here’s the news all you historic-district junkies and haters have been waiting for, just out this morning: The official tallies and maps of the repeal surveys from historic districts that went through the process, plus planning director Marlene Gafrick’s recommendations to city council for changing their boundaries. The gist? As reported earlier, none of the existing districts were able to muster owners of 51 percent of their tracts to send in repeal slips, which would have dissolved the districts. For Norhill, Avondale West, Boulevard Oaks, Heights West, and Heights East, Gafrick notes that “surveys requesting repeal . . . were dispersed throughout the district,” and is recommending that the districts maintain their current boundaries. For First Montrose Commons, Gafrick is recommending “changing the boundary to exclude a tract of land where the owner is the sole tract in the blockface on the edge of the district. The community has stated that they never intended for this tract to be included within the district.” That’s it. What happened to Heights South, the 7th district facing possible dissolution? That’s a “pending” district, planning department spokesperson Suzy Hartgrove tells Swamplot, and its status will be addressed at another date. Mayor Parker is presenting the recommendations to city council at today’s meeting.
- Historic Districts coverage [Swamplot]
WE’LL STILL HAVE THE NORHILL HISTORIC DISTRICT TO KICK AROUND The planning department has tallied all the surveys from property owners in the Norhill Historic District — the last of 7 historic districts subject to the one-time “reconsideration” provisions of the revised preservation ordinance city council passed last year. Department spokesperson Suzy Hartgrove says the number of surveys returned was below the 51 percent threshold that would have dissolved the district, but she hasn’t provided the actual percentage. Planning director Marlene Gafrick “has been meeting with council members whose districts are affected” by the reconsideration process, Hartgrove tells Swamplot. “We should have maps ready when this goes to council which may be as early as next week. The Planning Director is still working on her recommendations.” [Previously on Swamplot]
City officials have informed the president of the First Montrose Commons neighborhood association that the recent historic-district reconsideration survey of residents has fallen “well short” of the 51 percent needed to dissolve the district. Under the terms of the recently revised preservation ordinance, city council could still vote to shrink the size of the district — which fits between Richmond and West Alabama just west of Spur 527 in Montrose — in order to exclude some properties whose owners favored repeal. But association president Jason Ginsburg considers that unlikely: “A brief review of the repeal surveys that were returned shows that most of the dissenting property owners are sprinkled throughout our historic district, as opposed to being clustered in one particular area,” he wrote in a post on the FMC website last night. First Montrose Commons became the 16th historic district just last year.
- FMC Historic District Saved! [First Montrose Commons Neighborhood Association]
- Previously on Swamplot: How Houston’s Historic Districts Could Still Shrink, The Next New Historic District: First Montrose Commons, High School Rules: HSPVA and First Montrose Commons’s Historic Decision
COMMENT OF THE DAY: WITHOUT ALL THAT DEMOLITION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE HEIGHTS WOULDN’T BE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IT IS TODAY “What do you think was driving the value of the property in the Heights up? It was the builders, and their extensive work improving the area! It certainly was not the pleasant atmosphere the preservationist[s] created in the neighborhood. The average homeowner has no interest in the headaches of an expansive remodel. The builders took the risks and improved the area…all of a sudden the area became safer, and the preservationist[s] roll in, now – everyone gets to play under their new rules becuase someone else did all the hard work and took all the risks.” [Marksmu, commenting on Houston’s Historic Districts Will Remain as They Are]
Yesterday Swamplot reported that planning director Marlene Gafrick had signaled to city council that 5 of the 7 historic districts being “reconsidered” had not met the threshold that would have triggered dissolving them (the return of surveys representing owners of 51 percent of the properties in a district). The survey processes in the 2 remaining districts, Norhill and First Montrose Commons, are a little behind the others: Neighborhood meetings required by the revised preservation ordinance have been scheduled, but owners there haven’t received their survey forms yet.
But even if those last 2 districts don’t make the 51 percent cut either, the process spelled out by the new ordinance won’t come to an immediate halt. Once the votes have been tallied for all 7 districts, Gafrick will be required to send a report to city council recommending one of 3 options for each of them. For Heights East, Heights West, Heights South, Boulevard Oaks, and Avondale West, the first option — dissolving the district entirely — is out. But Gafrick can still recommend adjusting the boundaries of a district — even if the returned surveys didn’t reach the 51 percent threshold. (Her third option: recommend city council do nothing — and keep the district as it is.)
Update, 1/5: Unless, of course, city council decides to shrink a few of them anyway.
The results are in, and it looks like the great campaign to dissolve Houston’s historic districts has been a bit of a bust. Houston planning director Marlene Gafrick reports that the “survey period” for Heights East, Heights West, Heights South, Boulevard Oaks, and Avondale West historic districts has closed and that the planning department has determined that “none of the districts achieved the 51% threshold that requires the Planning Director to recommend repeal of the designation or, in the case of Heights South, recommend denying the designation.” Neighborhood meetings and subsequent “surveys” for 2 more districts — Norhill and First Montrose Commons — haven’t taken place yet (the meetings are scheduled for January 8th and 18th, respectively). That’s it for the 7 districts where petitions from owners triggered the “reconsideration” provisions of the preservation ordinance changes city council approved last fall. According to the new ordinance, if owners of 51 percent of the lots in any of the districts had returned notices sent to them by the city, the districts might have been dissolved — or, more likely, had their boundaries adjusted.
Opponents of the preservation-ordinance changes had focused their dissolution campaign on the Heights historic districts. But if the 51 percent threshold wasn’t attainable in those districts, it seems less likely their efforts will succeed in Norhill and First Montrose Commons. Meanwhile, the city’s planning commission and archeological and historic commission have both recommended that city council approve 2 additional pending historic districts, in Woodland Heights and Glenbrook Valley.
COMMENT OF THE DAY: WILL NO ONE RID ME OF THIS TROUBLESOME BUNGALOW? “Can we tear down during ‘Reconsideration’? Please? Please!” [tcp IV, commenting on 8 out of 16 Houston Historic Districts Are Now Up for “Reconsiderationâ€]
8 OUT OF 16 HOUSTON HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE NOW UP FOR “RECONSIDERATION” Planning department spokesperson Suzy Hartgrove tells Swamplot the city has received petitions from 8 of the city’s designated historic districts: Avondale West, Boulevard Oaks, First Montrose Commons, Houston Heights East, Houston Heights South, Houston Heights West, Norhill, and Westmoreland. The department is currently verifying them. Do they all meet the 10-percent threshold that’ll trigger balloting and possible dissolution? “Our initial glance tells us that they probably do but we must conduct a thorough check,” writes Hartgrove. Okay, who’s left? Audubon Place, Avondale East, Broadacres, Courtlandt Place, Freeland, Shadow Lawn, and West Eleventh Place, carry on: You may continue to live in the past. [previously on Swamplot]