TIME’S UP! Yesterday at 5 pm was the deadline for opponents of 14 of the city’s 16 designated historic districts (there’s no going back for the Old Sixth Ward or Main St./Market Square) to submit petitions calling for their oldish neighborhoods to return to the good ol’ days of unrestricted demolition and less-restrictive development. The threshold to trigger actual balloting in any of the districts is pretty low: All they need are the signatures of owners representing 10 percent or more of a district’s total tracts. So who’s in — er, heading for an out? [previously on Swamplot] Update: We’ve got the answer!
Sign up for the Newsletter
Historic Districts
Over the weekend, city officials posted the simple petitions that owners of properties in designated historic districts will need to sign if they want to un-designate their neighborhoods. Which means the 30-day clock for the one-time-only opportunity for districts to free themselves of the burdens of history (and the newly revised historic-district regulations) has already begun ticking. Really, though, the bar’s been set pretty low. What neighborhoods (besides the Old Sixth Ward and Main St./Market Square, which are both excluded from the process) won’t be able to rustle up the signatures of the owners of a measly 10 percent of tracts in their districts who want out? (That’s the threshold designated by the new law for triggering a re-vote.) The petitions describe the process as “reconsideration”; if that term doesn’t mean anything to you, you might find yourself halfway through the petition before you get a real sense of what it is you’re being asked to sign.
One stumbling block property owners in historic districts might come across in deciding whether to sign the petition: The text of the newly revised preservation ordinance doesn’t seem to be posted anywhere. The petition’s very brief second page includes a link to a city web page about the new ordinance “and proposed amendments,” but as of this morning, you won’t find the new rules — already approved by a vote of city council last week — there. We’ve sent messages to a few city officials asking when they’ll be posted; we’ll let you know when we hear back.
Update, 11 am: Public-affairs manager Suzy Hartgrove tells Swamplot the planning department hopes to have the revised ordinance (including the new “transition” ordinance) posted today, after a legal-department review.
Later Update, 10/20: As of 7:30 this morning, the new ordinances — and a summary (PDF) — have been posted.
A small flurry of last-minute amendments — some of them apparently pushed at the request of builder and Realtor groups — means it may take a little time for everyone to sort out all the details of those changes to the preservation ordinance city council passed earlier today. But here are a few highlights, as we’ve pieced them together: Creating a new historic district will now require the approval of owners of 67 percent of all tracts in the district. Also, decisions by the archaeological and historical commission (the HAHC) will now have more teeth: Property owners whose plans for renovations, new construction, or demolition have been rejected will no longer be able simply to wait 90 days and proceed anyway. However, HAHC rulings can now be appealed to the planning commission, and if that doesn’t work, to city council as well.
But the ordinance’s most exciting feature is the one-time opportunity for all existing historic districts — except for the Old Sixth Ward and Main St./Market Square — to remove the shackles of . . . uh, history. All it’ll take to start the repeal process in one of those districts is signatures of owners of 10 percent of the tracts. (And once the city posts the new petitions, districts will have 30 days to gather them.) For each district where that threshold is reached, there’ll be public meetings and a vote — by mail-in ballot. If owners of 51 percent of the tracts in a district vote for repeal, the planning director will recommend to city council that that district’s historic designation be removed — or that the boundaries be shrunk and redrawn to maintain 67 percent support. For each district, city council will make a final decision.
- Previously on Swamplot: Preservation Ordinance Passes
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE PASSES Houston’s City Council has just voted to approve a new — amended — historic preservation ordinance. We’ll have more details shortly. “We know there are none of you out there that are absolutely happy,” said council member Sue Lovell after the vote. “That means we have a good ordinance.”
HISTORIC DISTRICTS VOTE: NEXT WEEK Yesterday’s scheduled city council vote on the latest version of revisions to Houston’s preservation ordinance was postponed for a week — but not before 7 council members offered their own separate amendments. Among them: a proposal by mayor pro tem Anne Clutterbuck that would allow historic districts to keep their current rules — or submit an application to be governed by the new stronger protections. But Mayor Parker doesn’t want a tiered system: “The mayor argued that leaving the ordinance unchanged would allow districts to be weakened ‘one house at a time,’ such as when owners legally could proceed with demolition even after their request to do so was denied. ‘We may lose some of the footprint of existing historic districts, but we’ll have an ordinance that actually protects them,’ she said.” [Houston Chronicle]
Note: Planning and development weighs in. See update below.
Tonight’s 6:30 meeting at the George R. Brown is the only public meeting scheduled to discuss the latest round of proposed changes to Houston’s preservation ordinance, dubbed the “final draft” in some documents. The planning department came out with this revised set of proposed amendments last week, but figuring out what’s in them isn’t so easy. The department hasn’t created any summaries of the new proposal — thought it did for the last round — and it hasn’t specified what’s different from the earlier proposed amendments either. Even more fun: The new amendments have only been released as image scans, making text searching — and what should be the simple task of comparing one set of amendments to the other — a not-so-simple task.
So what’s in the latest round of proposed changes? Swamplot outlined the new proposed method for existing historic districts to “reconsider” — and possibly shed — their historic designation last week. But since then, the department has only released a presentation given by the planning director. Working from that, here’s the best summary of the rest of the provisions we can piece together:
The planning and development department is out with a revised version of proposed changes to the city’s historic preservation ordinance, meant to respond to criticisms. Among the changes: The new draft spells out a process by which existing and recently designated historic districts (except for the Old Sixth Ward) can jettison their historic designations entirely — if enough residents don’t like the strictures of the new ordinance, and if city council approves.
But there’s a time limit: Applications for kicking off those oppressive preservation shackles must be submitted within 15 days of the passage of the ordinance, and must include the signatures of enough property owners to account for 25 percent of the tracts in a district. Once a district gets past that hurdle, there’d be a neighborhood meeting and a poll of property owners by mail-in ballot. There’s no defined threshold that would trigger a repeal, though: After the votes are tallied, it would be up to the planning director to make a recommendation and city council to make a decision — if a district wants to opt out. And it appears to be an an all-or-nothing process: Districts would either fall under the “no means no” provisions of the new ordinance or lose their historic designation entirely — having the old 90-day waiting period, meant to deter unapproved renovations and new construction without prohibiting it, would no longer be an option.
A few neighbors actually picketed this home on the corner of Decatur and Silver streets for months after it was built. In 2001 Cite magazine labeled it “probably the most scrutinized — and criticized — private home in recent Houston history.” What was all the fuss about? It was a brand-new home built on a long-vacant lot around the turn of this century in a recently designated historic district: the Old Sixth Ward.
The protest signs have been down for years, but a for-sale sign went up in the yard last fall. After a failed closing, the house came back on the market this summer. Then a second buyer couldn’t come up with financing. The sellers cut the asking price $20K, to $539,999, just last week.
The 3 bedroom, 2 full- and 2 half-bath house was designed and constructed by Houston’s MC² Architects. A picketer-free photo tour is below:
COMMENT OF THE DAY: A REVOTE FOR THE HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICTS? “As everyone pretty much expected the [Preservation Ordinance] meeting [last night] was different than the others. It looked like about 500 showed up and the opponents of the new ordinance were dominant. At the end Sue Lovell had a hand vote by District “For†and “Against†having a revote on the Historic District application. The vote broke down this way: Heights South: For – 65 / Against – 40 Heights West: For – 38 / Against – 25 Heights East: For – 49 / Against – 31 Because there was a clear majority in favor of a revote Sue said that there would be one (I recorded the meeting). . . .” [SCD, commenting on Proposed Historic District Changes: No Will Mean No, 67 Percent Will Mean Yes]
A VAGUE OPT-OUT PROVISION FOR HOUSTON’S 16 HISTORIC DISTRICTS Will each existing historic district get to vote on whether it wants to be governed by new, toothier preservation regulations than the ones they signed up for? Maybe: “City officials will hold public meetings from the end of July to mid-August to gauge public reaction to the proposal. If it appears a majority of residents who live in one of the city’s 16 historical districts oppose the ordinance, officials will allow them to vote on whether to remain a historic district, said Councilwoman Sue Lovell, chair of the council committee dealing with preservation issues.” [Houston Chronicle; previously on Swamplot]
A TEMPORARY HOLD ON THAT TEMPORARY HOLD City council yesterday postponed for a week a vote on some temporary changes to the city’s historic-preservation ordinance — but not before supporters added an amendment that would exempt neighborhoods already in the process of applying for historic-district status from a proposed 7-month ban on the creation of new districts. As Swamplot reported last week, the changes would temporarily prohibit historic-district homeowners whose demolition, renovation, or new construction projects are rejected by the city’s historic commission from simply waiting 90 days and proceeding with their plans anyway. Mayor Parker wants the ban on 90-day waivers to allow a “breathing period” — during which more permanent changes to the historic-preservation ordinance could be crafted. [HTV]
HISTORIC DISTRICT HOLDUP Just one more thing about that temporary change to the historic-district ordinance Houston’s city council is considering today. Apparently there’s more to it than just a 7-month shutting of the wait-90-days “loophole” that allows property owners to demolish, build, or renovate historic-district properties as they wish, even if their plans have been rejected by the city historical commission. The proposal also includes a temporary ban on the designation of new historic districts. If it passes, that’ll give builders working in neighborhoods that have been working toward historic-district status — such as Woodland Heights and Glenbrook Valley — a clear 7-month window to clean out the riffraff. [Swamplot inbox; item 25 on the agenda]
Some major changes to the implementation of Houston’s long-ridiculed historic preservation ordinance may be coming very soon, if a proposal supported by Mayor Annise Parker passes a city council vote that could occur as early as next Wednesday, Swamplot has learned. Under the current ordinance (for all designated historic districts except for the Old Sixth Ward, now a designated “protected” historic district), owners of historic-district properties whose plans for demolition, new construction, or remodeling have been rejected by the city’s Archaeological and Historical Commission have been able to proceed with their plans anyway — simply by waiting 90 days.
But in an email to Swamplot, a spokesperson indicates the Mayor wants the commission to “temporarily discontinue” the issuing of such 90-day waivers for the remainder of this calendar year — or until amendments to the preservation ordinance are hashed out and approved by city council (whichever comes first). Under some revisions to the ordinance likely to be considered in that 7-month period, 90-day waivers could be eliminated entirely.
Swamplot was alerted to the potential changes by a builder, who became alarmed that “anyone, property owner or builder, who does not already have a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition or new construction as of next Wednesday will not be able to get one until next year.” The changes the Mayor is proposing aren’t quite that drastic, however. Parker communications director Janice Evans indicates that the Houston Archeological and Historic Commission will still issue “certificates of appropriateness” while any moratorium on 90-day waivers is in place; anyone whose request for a certificate has been rejected will be able to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission.
What permanent changes to the preservation ordinance are being considered? A committee led by council member Sue Lovell — including fellow council member Ed Gonzalez as well as representatives of the historical and planning commissions — has been charged with reviewing it. All changes, notes Evans, “will be considered by the HAHC, the planning commission and City Council, providing numerous opportunities for dialogue and public input.” In the meantime, the mayor “supports the temporary discontinuance because it will allow for a pause in activity while discussions regarding increased protections occur with various stakeholders,” Evans tells Swamplot.
Want more details about the mayor’s proposal? Here’s the text of our Q-and-A with her communications director:
COMMENT OF THE DAY: THE “TRICKLE-DOWN” THEORY OF HOUSTON REDEVELOPMENT “. . . Historic Districts suck and deed restriction, too. They pit neighbor against neighbor, creating the distraction that will keep residents from organizing across the city and taking aim at the real predators. Meanwhile, the money behind the bulldozers is laughing till they pee their pants.” [finness, commenting on Daily Demolition Report: Foundations of Wayne]
Houston’s 15 “please wait 90 days before demolishing” historic districts — plus that special one that’s a little more strict — now have their own special page on HAR.com. And it comes with maps! It’s now easy to stake out the boundaries of each one, if you’re into that sort of thing. And each map shows properties for sale within the district.
But the information doesn’t appear to be flowing in the reverse direction. Listings for properties located in historic districts still include no indication what district they’re in — or even that they’re in one at all. Unless, of course, the agent is forthcoming enough to mention it in the main text of the listing itself.
The Greater Houston Preservation Alliance also reports that “if a designated landmark is located within a historic district, the designation will appear on the site.” Anyone wanna show us some examples?
- Houston Historic Districts [HAR]
- Greater Houston Preservation Alliance [Facebook, via Swamplot inbox]
Image showing map of Houston Heights West Historic District: HAR
