houston historic districts community engagement …...toric districts to protect their character and...

November 21, 2016

The CiTy of housTon, Texas

housTon hisToriC DisTriCTsCommuNity ENgagEmENt SummaryFor the Freeland, Norhill, Old 6th Ward, Woodland Heights, and Houston Heights Historic Districts from September 27th to October 27th, 2016

Houston, TX: Historic District Design Guidelines Project 2

introduction The City of Houston is developing design guidelines tailored to seven His-toric Districts to protect their character and preserve the historic resources. These districts are: Houston Heights (E, W, S), Freeland, Norhill, Woodland Heights, and Old 6th Ward. To ensure the project outcome reflects the needs and values of each district, the project includes a series of community work-shops and online engagement. In addition, a number of work sessions with key stakeholders and neighborhood groups are being conducted.

More than 90 community members participated in a workshop on Sep-tember 27, 2016. This featured an informational presentation by design guidelines consultants Winter & Company, followed by more than an hour of interactive exercises for participants. In addition, an online version of the workshop exercises was made available to respond to several issues. Some participants found issues with the material presented as well as with the amount of time needed to respond. To address this, some of the material was revisited for the online survey. In addition, some of the neighborhoods were not well represented at the workshop. The online survey did increase partici-pation in some neighborhoods.

the Workshop objectivesThe objectives of the workshop were: • To introduce draft materials that describe some key characteristics of

each historic district • To gain an understanding of some of the concerns that stakeholders have

in the districts • To test ways in which residents and property owners may comment on

the appropriate design of improvements in the districts • To help frame some questions that will be included in a mailed survey that

will be sent to all property owners in selected historic districts in January, 2017

iN thiS doCumENtIntroduction.................................2

Explanation of Activities..............4

Workshop #1 Results...................8

Workshop #1 and Online Survey Activity #2 Results.....................22

Online Survey #1 Results...........31

NotE: The number of responses from the workshop and online survey represent a small percentage of properties in the historic districts. This information is considered to be a preliminary view of commu-nity opinions.

WorkShop #1 iNtroduCtioN

housTon hisToriC DisTriCTs CommuniTy engagemenT summary


partiCipatiNg hiStoriC diStriCtS• Houston Heights East • Houston Heights West • Houston Heights South • Freeland • Norhill • Woodland Heights • Old 6th Ward

the Workshop agenda1. Introductory Presentation • How To Consider Ways To Define District Character • Potential Design “Tools” That May Promote Compatible Design

2. Participant Activities • Activity #1: Identifying Issues • Activity #2: Considering Residential Typologies • Activity #3: Compatibility of Additions to a Historic Building • Activity #4: Compatibility of New Construction • Activity #5: Visual Survey

3. Report Back

4. Questions and Answers

online Survey ElementsAn online survey offered an alternative way to participate. This was active from October 12th to October 31st, 2016. There were 46 total respondents. Each of the workshop activities was tailored for the internet, but they show similar opinions to those expressed in the hands-on workshop.

document organizationThe following sections within this document include: • An explanation of each activity in the workshop • A summary of the results from participants in the workshop • A summary of the results from participants in the online survey


group activity #1: identifying Current issues in the historic districtobjective: to identify current issues and/or concerns in your historic district

Table groups identified issues related to design in their respective historic districts (for the three Houston Heights Districts, preliminary issues and comments from an earlier workshop were listed on their worksheets as a starting point).

Explanation of the Workshop activitiesEach activity in the community workshop was intended to develop an understanding of how people experience their neighborhoods and the design topics that are most important to them. Activity #1 focused on issues the public has with the current state of their neighborhood. Activity #2 then aimed to define development patterns, or typologies, that currently exist in each neighborhood. This activity identified key design features within each district and al-lowed participants to consider the various conditions that exist throughout their historic district. Activities #3 and #4 displayed several models of additions and new construction that tested the effect of development in different con-texts within the historic districts. Participants commented on the compatibility of each model. Lastly, in Activity #5, participants commented on photographs of new houses from other communities with their view on appropriate and inappropriate development for their neighborhood.


group activity #2: Considering typologies in your historic districtobjective: to consider how different settings within a district may be described, to help when considering the context of a project.

Activity 2.1:First, table groups reviewed a Residential Typology Poster that described an area that may be located in their district. After reviewing the poster, each group commented on the descriptions.

Activity 2.2:Next, table groups reviewed an Aerial Map showing a portion of their District. After reviewing the map, each group then located one (1) block face that best represented each typology provided. (Note: for some districts one or more typologies may be present.)

NotE: The results of Activity #2 are reported after Work-shop Activities #1, #3, #4 and #5.


individual activity #3: historic Building additionsobjective: to gain an initial understanding of how massing of an addition may affect the integrity of a historic house and how it fits with the context

Activity 3.1 & 3.2:First, individuals reviewed a series of alternative designs for an addition to the rear of a historic house. They were then asked to identify one or more images from the list that would be compatible and then those that would be incompatible with the block shown. Space was provided for each attendee to add a note explaining their choice if they wished. In some cases the same model was shown in two different contexts, to gauge how the setting may affect compatibility. (Note that this activity did not test all types of additions, such as those to the side.)

individual activity #4: massing Studies of New Constructionobjective: to gain an initial understanding about the “threshold” of compatibility for new, larger houses in each historic district

Activity 4.1 & 4.2:First, individuals were presented with a series of alternative designs for new homes. They then identified images that would be compatible or incompatible with the block shown. Space was provided for each attendee to add a note explaining their choice if they wished. In some cases the same model was shown in two different contexts, to gauge how the setting may affect compatibility.


individual activity #5: Visual Surveyobjective: to identify features of new buildings that may affect compatibility in the historic districts

Activity 5.1 & 5.2:A series of photographs of houses from other communities was provided at each table. Individuals chose examples that felt would be compatible in their historic district. They also noted some that they felt would be incompatible in their district.


FrEELaNd 3 WorkShop rESpoNdENtS

activity #3: historic Building additions

Neighborhood Character• Maintaincurrentsetbacks.• Maintaincurrentlotsizes.

Treatment of Historic Buildings• Maintenanceconcerns• Concernoverpossibilityof inappropriatefutureadditions

objective: to gain an initial understanding of how massing of an addition may affect the integrity of a historic houseThe most noted compatible and incompatible additions models are shown below.

Compatible:

Incompatible:

activity #1: issues Summary

objective: to identify current issues and/or concerns in your historic district Noted issues are listed below.

Other• On-streetparkingfromnearbybusinessesblocksstreets&alleys.

WorkShop #1 rESuLtS

housTon hisToriC DisTriCT CommuniTy engagemenT summary

a 67% (2 out of 3)

Amodestsecondstoryroof-topaddition,significantlysetbackonaone-storyhistoricbuilding,isclearlyconsideredcompatible.

C 100% (3 out of 3)

Alargetwo-and-a-half-storyrearadditionisclearlyconsideredincompatible.

d 100% (3 out of 3)

Alargetwo-storyrearadditionisclearlyconsideredincompatible.

a 33% (1 out of 3)

Amodestsecondstoryroof-topaddition,significantlysetbackonaone-storyhistoricbuilding,isconsideredincompatibleinonecase.

B 33% (1 out of 3)

Amodesttwo-storyrearadditionisconsideredincompatibleinonecase.

B 67% (2 out of 3)

Amodesttwo-storyrearadditionisclearlyconsideredcompatible.


activity #4: New Construction

activity #5: Visual preference Survey

objective: to gain an initial understanding about the “threshold” of compatibility for new, larger houses in each historic district The most noted compatible and incompatible new infill models are shown below. ACompatible:

Incompatible:

The following list identifies key features that appear to be compatible with the historic district. These were gleaned from the most popular images selected as shown.

objective: to identify features that may affect compatibility of new construction in historic districts

• Front-facinggableroof elements• One-storyelementonfrontelevation• Woodcolumns• Lapsiding

a 67% (2 out of 3)

Anewone-storybuildingcoveringamodestportionof thelotisclearlyconsideredcompatible.

d 67% (2 out of 3)

Anewbuildingwithaone-storymassinfrontandatwo-storymasstotherearisclearlyconsideredcompatible.

B 100% (3 out of 3)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithaone-storyporchandawingthatstepsdowntotherearisclearlyconsideredincompatible.

C 100% (3 out of 3)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithatwo-storyporchandwalloffsetisclearlyconsideredincompatible.

a 33% (1 out of 3)

Anewone-storybuildingcoveringamodestportionof thelotisconsideredincompatibleinonecase.

d 33% (1 out of 3)

Anewbuildingwithaone-storybuildingmassinfrontandatwo-storybuildingmasstotherearisconsideredincompatibleinonecase.

#12 100% (3 out of 3) #9 67% (2 out of 3) #6 67% (2 out of 3)

• Double-hungwindows• Neutralcolorpalettewithwhitetrim• Landscapedfrontyardswithgrasslawns

• Frontwallplaneoffset• Sidewallplaneoffset


NorhiLL 16 WorkShop rESpoNdENtS


Neighborhood Character• Maintaintraditionalsetbacks.• Consistentbungalowstyling• Widersidewalks,curb&gutter• Fenceheights,toregulateornotregulate

Site Design• Parkingissues• Drainageissuesfromnewdevelopments• Lackof sunlightfromnewconstruction• Privacy-effectsof newconstruction

Treatment of Historic Buildings• Raisedbuildings• Maintainoriginaldoorsandwindows.• Allowenergyefficientwindows.

objective: to gain an initial understanding of how massing of an addition may affect the integrity of a historic house. The most noted compatible and incompatible additions models are shown below. ACompatible:

Incompatible:


objective: to identify current issues and/or concerns in your historic districtNoted issues are listed below.

Additions to Historic Buildings• Streetelevationshouldbemaintained;additionstorearof houseonly.

• Shouldnotattachtogarage• Secondstoryokayinrear.• Stylesshouldbesimilartohistoric.• Drainageconcerns• Energyefficient(compatible)windowsshouldbeallowed.

New Infill Buildings• Compatiblewithneighborhood• Maintainprivacyof neighbors.

Review Process• 30daymax.

Other• Financialissuestorehabilitatehistorichomes,thereforeallowmoreflexibility

• Maintainprivacyof neighbors.• Guidelinesshouldnotbetoorestrictive.

a 87% (14 out of 16)


C 75% (12 out of 16)


B 75% (12 out of 16)


d 69% (11 out of 16)





objective: to gain an initial understanding about the “threshold” of compatibility for new, larger houses in each historic district The most noted compatible and incompatible new infill models are shown below.

Compatible:

Incompatible:

• Coveredfrontporches• Front-facinggableorhippedroof elements

• One-storyelementonfrontelevation• Woodcolumns• Reargarages

objective: to identify features that may affect compatibility of new construction in historic districtsThe following list identifies key features that appear to be compatible with the historic district. These were gleaned from the most popular images selected as shown.

• Sideaccessdriveways• Lapsiding• Double-hungwindows• Neutralcolorpalettewithwhitetrim• Landscapedfrontyardswithgrasslawns

a 75% (12 out of 16)


C 81% (13 out of 16)


d 38% (6 out of 16)

Anewbuildingwithaone-storybuildingmassinfrontandatwo-storybuildingmasstotherearissometimesconsideredcompatible.

B 75% (12 out of 16)


d 62% (10 out of 16)

Anewbuildingwithaone-storybuildingmassinfrontandatwo-storybuildingmasstotherearisclearlyconsideredincompatible.


• Additionissetbackfromfrontwall.• Sidewallplaneoffset• Modesttwostorysidewalllength


oLd 6th Ward 8 WorkShop rESpoNdENtS


Neighborhood Character• Maintainhistoricwindows&doors;newversionssimilartoprecedent

• Setbacksareuniform.• Lotsizesareuniform.• Drainageditchesshouldbepreserved.• Scaleof homesshouldbeconsistent.

Site Design• Carportsshouldnotbeattachedtohistorichomes.• Specificminimumrequirementforwindowsonfrontelevation• Lotcoverageisconsistentandshouldbemaintained• Drainageissues(surroundingpropertiesarehigher)

Treatment of Historic Buildings

objective: to gain an initial understanding of how massing of an addition may affect the integrity of a historic house The most noted compatible and incompatible additions models are shown below.

Compatible:

Incompatible:



• Limitraisingof buildings• Demolitionconcerns

Additions to Historic Buildings• LimitincreaseinFAR

F 75% (6 out of 8)


J 63% (5 out of 8)


i 88% (7 out of 8)

Asecondstoryroof-topadditionsetbacksomewhatonaone-storyhistoricbuildingisclearlyconsideredincompatible.

h 88% (7 out of 8)


k 88% (7 out of 8)



activity #4: New Constructionobjective: to gain an initial understanding about the “threshold” of compatibility for new, larger houses in each historic district AThe most noted compatible and incompatible new infill models are shown below. ACompatible:

Incompatible:

E 50% (4 out of 8)

Anewone-storybuildingcoveringamodestportionof thelotisgenerallyconsideredcompatible.

g 50% (4 out of 8)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithatwo-storyporchandwalloffsetisgenerallyconsideredcompatible.

F 38% (3 out of 8)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithaone-storyporchandawingthatstepsdowntotherearissometimesconsideredcompatible.

i 38% (3 out of 8)

Anewone-storybuildingcoveringamodestportionof thelotissometimesconsideredcompatible.

L 63% (5 out of 8)


h 75% (6 out of 8)


k 38% (3 out of 8)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithatwo-storyporchandwalloffsetissometimesconsideredincompatible.

#12 75% (6 out of 8)


• Coveredfrontporchessupportedbywoodcolumns

• Front-facinggableorhippedroof elements

• One-storyelementonfrontelevation• Reargarages


• Sideaccessdriveways• Lapsiding• Double-hungwindows• Neutralcolorpalettewithwhitetrim• Landscapedfrontyardswithgrasslawns

• Frontwallplaneoffset• Sidewallplaneoffset• Modesttwo-storysidewalllength

#8 50% (4 out of 8) #4 50% (4 out of 8)


WoodLaNd hEightS 8 WorkShop rESpoNdENtS


Neighborhood Character• Sidewalksandcurbsneedrepair.• Noguidelinesonlandscaping/fences• Lossof greenspaceinfrontlots

Site Design• Diversityisimportant.• Toomanybuildingsdon’tfollowhistoricstandards.• Drainageissues

Treatment of Historic Buildings• Demolitionprocessshouldbelessrestrictive.• Allowenergyefficientwindows.

Additions to Historic Buildings• Aretoobigandresultinfloodingandlossof neighborhoodcharacter

• Shouldbedependentonpropertyowner’sdesire

objective: to gain an initial understanding of how massing of an addition may affect the integrity of a historic house AThe most noted compatible and incompatible additions models are shown below. ACompatible:

Incompatible:



New Infill Buildings• Shouldbedependentonpropertyowner’sdesire• Scaleisnotcompatiblewithtraditionalbuildings.

Review Process• Asshortaspossible• Notsubjectiveorpoliticallymotivated• Pleasedwithcurrentprocess• Restrictionsaretoofinanciallyonerousforsome,othersthinkpreservationisgood.

• Defaulttodeedrestrictions.• Contractorsaren’theldaccountableforlossof historicfabric.

E 88% (7 out of 8)


F 63% (5 out of 8)


i 50% (4 out of 8)

Amodestsecondstoryroof-topaddition,setbacksomewhatonaone-storyhistoricbuilding,isgenerallyconsideredcompatible.

J 50% (4 out of 8)

Amodesttwo-storyrearadditionisgenerallyconsideredcompatible.

k 63% (5 out of 8)


g 50% (4 out of 8)

Alargetwo-and-a-half-storyrearadditionisgenerallyconsideredincompatible.

L 50% (4 out of 8)

Alargetwo-storyrearadditionisgenerallyconsideredincompatible.




objective: to gain an initial understanding about the “threshold” of compatibility for new, larger houses in each historic districtThe most noted compatible and incompatible new infill models are shown below.

Compatible:

Incompatible:

• Coveredfrontporchessupportedbywoodcolumns


• One-storyelementonfrontelevation

• Lapsiding• Variationinwindowstylebutstilltraditional


#12 100% (8 out of 8)

#8 75% (6 out of 8) #6 63% (5 out of 8)#4 63% (5 out of 8)

E 50% (4 out of 8)


F 38% (3 out of 8)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithaone-storyporchandawingthatstepsdowntotherearissometimesconsideredcompatible.

h 38% (3 out of 8)

Anewbuildingwithaone-storymassinfrontandatwo-storymasstotherearissometimesconsideredcompatible.

L 38% (3 out of 8)

Anewbuildingwithaone-storymassinfrontandatwo-storymasstotherearissometimesconsideredincompatible.

• Neutralcolorpalettewithwhitetrim

• Landscapedfrontyardswithgrasslawns

• Frontwallplaneoffset• Sidewallplaneoffset• Modestsidewalllength


houStoN hEightS - WESt 2 WorkShop rESpoNdENtS


Neighborhood Character• Widersidewalks,curb&gutter

Site Design• Maintainalleyaccess• Drainageandfloodingissues

Treatment of Historic Buildings• Energyefficiencyshouldbeencouraged

Additions to Historic Buildings• Sidesetbacks–buildingstooclose

New Infill Buildings• Setbacksshouldmatchwithtraditionalbuildings• Drainageissuesduetogradingof newconstruction

objective: to gain an initial understanding of how massing of an addition may affect the integrity of a historic house AThe most noted compatible and incompatible additions models are shown below. ACompatible:

Incompatible:


objective: to identify current issues and/or concerns in your historic districtIn addition to the existing issues on the worksheet the following issues were also noted.

Review Process• Processneedstobemoreclear• Lowercostforminoritems

Other• Developmentsotherthansingle-familyshouldbelimitedandundermorestrictreview

a 100% (2 out of 2)


C 100% (2 out of 2)


i 100% (2 out of 2)

Asecondstoryroof-topadditionsetbacksomewhatonaone-storyhistoricbuildingisclearlyconsideredcompatible.

d 100% (2 out of 2)





objective: to gain an initial understanding about the “threshold” of compatibility for new, larger houses in each historic district The most noted compatible and incompatible new infill models are shown below. Compatible:

Incompatible:

• 1&2-storyhomes• Coveredfrontporchessupportedbywoodcolumns


• One-storyelementonfrontelevation• Sideaccessdriveways• Reargarages• Lapsiding• Traditional,double-hung,gangedwindows

• Neutralcolorpalettewithwhitetrim• Landscapedfrontyardswithgrasslawns

• Frontwallplaneoffset


#18 100% (2 out of 2) #34 100% (2 out of 2)

a 100% (2 out of 2)


i 100% (2 out of 2)


J 100% (2 out of 2)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithaone-storyporchandawingthatstepsdowntotherearisclearlyconsideredcompatible.

k 100% (2 out of 2)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithatwo-storyporchandwalloffsetisclearlyconsideredcompatible.

B 100% (2 out of 2)


C 100% (2 out of 2)



houStoN hEightS - South 4 WorkShop rESpoNdENtS


Neighborhood Character• Architecturalstylesareinconsistent• Maintainthestreetscape

Site Design• Maintaindrainageculverts

Treatment of Historic Buildings• Replacehistoricforenergyefficiencywindows

objective: to gain an initial understanding of how massing of an addition may affect the integrity of a historic houseThe most noted compatible and incompatible additions models are shown below.

Compatible:

Incompatible:



New Infill Buildings• Scaleof newhomesistoolarge

Review Process• Painfulwithoutdesignguidelines

E 100% (4 out of 4)


h 75% (3 out of 4)


i 100% (4 out of 4)

Amodestsecondstoryroof-topaddition,setbacksomewhatonaone-storyhistoricbuilding,isclearlyconsideredcompatible.

L 75% (3 out of 4)


J 50% (2 out of 4)

Amodesttwo-storyrearadditionisgenerallyconsideredincompatible.




objective: to gain an initial understanding about the “threshold” of compatibility for new, larger houses in each historic district AThe most noted compatible and incompatible new infill models are shown below.

Compatible:

Incompatible:



• One-storyelementonfrontelevation• Sideaccessdriveways


#12 100% (4 out of 4) #8 75% (3 out of 4)#14 100% (4 out of 4)

E 75% (3 out of 4)


L 75% (3 out of 4)


i 75% (3 out of 4)


h 50% (2 out of 4)

Anewbuildingwithaone-storybuildingmassinfrontandatwo-storybuildingmasstotherearisgenerallyconsideredincompatible.

J 75% (3 out of 4)


k 50% (2 out of 4)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithatwo-storyporchandwalloffsetisgenerallyconsideredincompatible.

• Reargarages• Lapsiding• Traditional,double-hung,gangedwindows

• Neutralcolorpalettewithwhitetrim• Landscapedfrontyardswithgrasslawns

• Frontwallplaneoffset• Sidewallplaneoffset• Modesttwo-storysidewalllength


houStoN hEightS - EaSt 27 WorkShop rESpoNdENtS



Neighborhood Character• Maintainopenditches.• Maintaintraditionalparkinglocations.• Lossof greenspace,maturetreecanopy• Maintainexistingsetbacks.• Maintainthediversityof architecture.• Overallheightconsistentwithcontext

Site Design• Drainageandfloodingissues• Don’tallowsubdivisionof lots.• Maintainalleyaccess.• Mixedopinionsoncoveredvs.openculverts• Parkingonfrontlawnsisbad.• Lossof permeablesurfaceduetobuildingsize

Treatment of Historic Buildings• Allowenergyefficientmethodsof constructionandmaterials.• Changingcharacterandstyleisinappropriate• Allowflexibilitywithlikematerials.• Highcostsassociatedwithhistoricpreservation• Raisedbuildingsareinappropriate.• Allowverticaladditionstosaveyardspace.

objective: to gain an initial understanding of how massing of an addition may affect the integrity of a historic house The most noted compatible and incompatible additions models are shown below. ACompatible:

Incompatible:

Additions to Historic Buildings• Allowdifferentiation,morevariation.• Wantlargersetbacks/Wantsmallersetbacks• Mass&scaleshouldbeproportionalandsubordinatetohistoricbuilding.

• Allow2ndstoryadditionontopof existingstructuretokeepopenspace.

New Infill Buildings• Mass&scaleshouldmatchneighboringbuildings.• Allowdiversityof buildingtypesandstyles.• Buildingstoobiginmass,scale,andlotcoverage• Includeappropriatesizefrontporch.

Review Process• Inconsistentdecisions• Processneedstobemoreclear• Difficult,costly&timeconsuming

Other• Roads&sidewalksshouldbemaintained.• Lossof olderaffordablehomes• Provideeconomicincentivesforownershipof historicproperties.

• Throughtrafficisbothersome


a 59% (16 out of 27)

Amodestsecondstoryroof-topaddition,significantlysetbackonaone-storyhistoricbuilding,isgenerallyconsideredcompatible.

C 52% (14 out of 27)


i 56% (15 out of 27)

Amodestsecondstoryroof-topaddition,setbacksomewhatonaone-storyhistoricbuilding,isgenerallyconsideredcompatible

k 48% (13 out of 27)


J 44% (12 out of 27)


d 41% (11 out of 27)

Alargetwo-storyrearadditionisgenerallyconsideredincompatible.




objective: to gain an initial understanding about the “threshold” of compatibility for new, larger houses in each historic districtThe most noted compatible and incompatible new infill models are shown below. ACompatible:

Incompatible:



• One-storyelementonfrontelevation• Sideaccessdriveways


C 44% (12 out of 27)


k 41% (11 out of 27)


B 37% (10 out of 27)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithaone-storyporchissometimesconsideredincompatible.


i 70% (19 out of 27)


a 59% (16 out of 27)


d 33% (9 out of 27)

Anewbuildingwithaone-storybuildingmassinfrontandatwo-storybuildingmasstotherearissometimesconsideredcompatible.

• Reargarages• Lapsiding• Traditional,double-hung,gangedwindows

• Neutralcolorpalettewithwhitetrim

• Landscapedfrontyardswithgrasslawns• Frontwallplaneoffset• Sidewallplanoffset• Modestsidewallplanelength


activity #2: typologies

objective: to review and identify a typology location within your historic district This summary combines feedback from both the public workshop and the online survey. Participants were asked to review and provide feedback about a “residential typology” that reflects the predominant neighborhood charac-teristics of the historic districts. The typologies were developed from data provided by the city in addition to visual surveying.

A “typology” is a way to classify an area—which may be all or just a part of a historic district—based on how con-sistent or varied the area is, in terms of its design, character, and pattern of development. Some of the variables that help to define a typology include the pattern of streets and alleys, lot size, location and type of parking, building age and size, and some building features. This may be useful when considering the context of a proposed project and in tailoring design guidelines to each historic district.

Respondents corrected some statistical information in their comments. For example, sometimes the dimensions of typical lots in a district were edited. In some other cases, however, they interpreted the data in a way different from what was intended. For example, a range of the predominant building dates for a district was included as part of each typology description. Some respondents were concerned that this omitted some earlier buildings, whereas that was not the intent. Participants also provided narrative comments about features that contribute to the context under consideration.

The tables that follow summarize the data for each of the typologies, organized by historic district. The data has been adjusted to reflect the edits from workshop participants, as appropriate. In other cases, the comments are listed in a “bullet list” that appears adjacent to the data table.

WorkShop & oNLiNE aCtiVity

#2 rESuLtS



typoLogy typE 1B

Neighborhood CharacteristicsStreet Pattern Grid patternStreet Width 20 ft.

Public Realm • NO curb & gutter• Tree lawn between

street and sidewalkConsistency High consistencyAlleyway NoSite CharacteristicsLot Orientation Primarily East / WestLot Depth & Width 50’x100’Lot Size 5,000 sf.-6,000 sf.Lot Coverage 30%-50%Block End Cap 0%Building Setbacks 10 ft.-20 ft.

Parking Side drive leading to rear garage

Building CharacteristicsBuilding Height 1-storyBuilding Size 1,000 Sf.-1.5,000 sf.Floor-Area-Ratio Majority 0.20-0.29Building Age 1920-1940Roof Form Primarily gable and hip

Porch Entry1-story porch connecting to sidewalk

• Commonlotsizeis50x100• Sidewalks• Parkinginthedriveway• Parkingisaccesseddifferentlyonthecorner.

• Amajorityof newbuildingsandadditionsappeartobeinscalewithhistoricbuildings.

• Identifiedablockthatisagoodrepresentationof Norhill(boundedbyTempletonorth,Cottagetosouth,JuliantowestandWatsontoeast)

• Attachedgarageisn’ttypical.• Porchesoversetbackaren’tcommon.

• Garageapartmentshavebeenapartof theneighborhoodformanyyearsandshouldbeencouraged.Theseareconsistentwiththe100yearhistoryof theneighborhood.

• Sideportecochereinsomeareasattachedtohome

• Someyardsarefenced.


FrEELaNd WorkShop & oNLiNE rESpoNSES

• Allstreetsinthedevelopmentarenomorethanoneblocklongandthattwoentrancesexistontoamajorthoroughfare.

• Thehousesareuniformonallstreetswithapproximatelythesamebuildinglinesetbacksandheights.

• Streetsaremorenarrowif youdonotcounttheright-of-way17’-19’.

• Ingeneralthisisaccurate.Howevertheparkingsignsareunclear.

• Treesarecutbackanddeformedduetopowerlines.

• CranberryandFrasierStreetshaveSpecialBuildingLinesetbacksof 19’.

• Typicallyallfrontdoorsfacethestreet.

• Allhomeshavefrontlawnswithnocirculardrives,concretepadsorparkinginthefrontyard.

Freeland has only one typology, which is numbered 1B. The chart summarizes predominant characteristics. The table reflects edits from respondents. The notes document comments received.

1B Workshop & online Notes


typoLogy typE 1a

Neighborhood CharacteristicsStreet Pattern Grid patternStreet Width 25 ft.-30 ft.

Public Realm • Curb & gutter• Tree lawn between

street and sidewalkConsistency High consistencyAlleyway NoSite CharacteristicsLot Orientation Distribution of North /

South and East/West lotsLot Depth & Width 50’x100’Lot Size 5,000 Sf.-6,000 sf.Lot Coverage 30%-50%Block End Cap 0%Building Setbacks 10 ft.-15 ft.


Building CharacteristicsBuilding Height 1-story Building Size 1,000 sf.-1,500 sf.Floor-Area-Ratio Majority 0.20-0.29Building Age 1920-1940Roof Form Primarily gable and hip



NorhiLL WorkShop & oNLiNE rESpoNSES

• Mostbuildingsareone-storyhigh.• Thereappearstobeevendistributionof north-southandeast-westlots.

• One-story,fewgarageapartmentsbuiltpriortoneighborhoodbi-laws

• Housesandgarageseasilytakeupmorethan30-50%of lots.

• Tightsideyards• Backyardsarepostagestamps.• Manyfrontyardsarefenced.• Squarefootagehasincreased--oftentoasmuchas2200-2300.

• FrontdoorsoftenDONOTfacethestreet.Itisaneast/westfrontdooroff thefrontporch.

• Additionsare2story.Andthereareoften2storygarages.

Norhill has only one typology, which is numbered 1A. The chart summarizes predominant characteristics. The table reflects edits from respondents. The notes document comments received.

1a Workshop & online Notes


WoodLaNd WorkShop & oNLiNE rESpoNSES


Neighborhood CharacteristicsStreet Pattern Grid patternStreet Width 25 ft.-30 ft.

Public Realm • Curb & gutter • Tree lawn between

street and sidewalkConsistency Moderate consistencyAlleyway No NoSite Characteristics

Lot OrientationNorth / South

East / West

Lot Depth & Width 100’x50’ 130’x60’

Lot Size 5,000 sf.-6,000 sf.

6,000 sf.-10,000+ sf.

Lot Coverage 30%-50%Block End Cap 0% 78%Building Setbacks 10 ft.-15 ft.


Building CharacteristicsBuilding Height 1 & 2 stories 1 & 2 stories

Building Size1,000 sf.-3,000 sf.

2,000 sf.-3,500+ sf.

Floor-Area-RatioMajority 0.20-0.39 (with some higher)

Building Age 1920-1940Roof Form Primarily gable and hip


typoLogy typE 2a 2B

Woodland has two typologies, which are numbered 2A & 2B. The chart summarizes predominant characteristics. The table reflects edits from respondents. The notes document comments received.

• 1905to1940• Homesrange1000sf.to3600sf.• Lots50x100• Broadrangeof variation• Lots5,000to10,000sf.• Manyhomeswerebuiltin1905.• TherearenooneortwoblocksthataretypicalinWoodlandHeights.Itisverydiverse,withawiderangeof sizesof homes,lotsizesanddifferentstyles.Thereis,however,aminimumlotsize(2500sf.setinthedeedrestrictions),alongwithsinglefamilydwellings.

• Treecanopy• Sidewalksuniversaleast/west;intermittentnorthsouth

• Frontyardsfrequentlyfenced,someopen

• Wraparoundporchiscommon.• 2-storyhouses2500• Houses1910-1940

2a Workshop Notes 2B Workshop Notes

• Notalllarge;somelots5000sf.

• Some1908and1912to1940• Notallnewbuildingsareinscalewithhistoricbuildings.

• Landscapeislighttomedium.• Lotsize5000sf.to7500sf.

• Mostlotsorientednorthsouthin2Aandeastwestin2B.

• Pre-1920homeshavelargerlots.• Post-1920havesmallerlots.• LargerlotsareonEuclidandwesternedge.

• Frontyardsareuniform.• Frontyardsetbacksaretypically10-15ft.

• Frontyardsareopenandinviting.• Iwouldnotagreethat“Newbuildingsandadditionsappeartobeinscalewithhistoricstructures.”They’reveryoutof charactertotheoriginalhomesof thedistrict.

• Significantnumberof homesare1920.

• Someinaccuraciesin2A&2B-i.e.,somestreets2Bshouldextendfurtherwest.

• Some4000sf.plushomes

online Notes


oLd 6th Ward WorkShop & oNLiNE rESpoNSES


typoLogy 2C

Neighborhood CharacteristicsStreet Pattern Grid patternStreet Width 20 ft. (some 30 ft.)

Public Realm

• Mix of curb & gutter and NO curb & gutter

• Both have tree lawn between street and sidewalk

Consistency Moderate ConsistencyAlleyway NoSite CharacteristicsLot Orientation North / SouthLot Depth & Width

100’x50’

Lot Size 5,000 sf.-6,000 sf.Lot Coverage 30%-60%Block End Cap 33%Building Setbacks 10 ft.-15 ft.

Parking Mix of Parking. Side Drive to Rear; Front Garage; On-Street; etc...

Building CharacteristicsBuilding Height 1 & 2 StoriesBuilding Size 1,000 Sf.-1,500 sf.

Floor-Area-RatioMajority 0.20-0.34 (with some higher)

Building Age 1880s-1920Roof Form Primarily Gable and Hip

Porch Entry1 & 2 Story Porch Connecting to Sidewalk

• Amoderatepercentageof newbuildingsandadditionsappeartobeoutof scalewithhistoricbuildings.Thisistrueandwewouldliketostopthistypeof building.

• Narrowrectangular-shapedlots• Noalleys• Mosthousewereplacedonwesternportionof thelotstomaximizeexposuretogulf breezes.

• 1850sto1920• Neighborhoodhadhorseandcarriagebeforecars;notdesignedforcars.

• Setbacksdependon1or2storyhome.• Lotsize2500sf.to6000sf.• ArchitectureispredominatelyVictorian.

• BrickSidewalks

1a Workshop & online Notes

Old 6th Ward has only one typology, which is numbered 2C. The chart summarizes predominant characteristics. The table reflects edits from respondents. The notes document comments received.


houStoN hEightS - WESt WorkShop & oNLiNE rESpoNSES

activity #2: typologiesHouston Heights West has three typologies, which are numbered 3A, 3C and 3D. The chart summarizes predominant characteristics. The table reflects edits from respondents. The notes document comments received.

typoLogy 3a 3C

Neighborhood CharacteristicsStreet Pattern Grid patternStreet Width 20 ft. (E/W) & 35 ft. (N/S)

Public Realm

• NO curb & gutter.

• Tree lawn between street and sidewalk

• 50% curb & gutter.

• 50% NO curb & gutter


Consistency High consistencyModerate consis-tency

Alleyway YesSite CharacteristicsLot Orienta-tion

East / West (Few N/S)

Lot Depth & Width

132’x50’

Lot Size

5,000 sf.-8,000 sf. 5,000 sf.-8,000 sf. (some subdivided into <4,500 sf. lots)

Lot Coverage

30%-50% (with few 51%-60%)

30%-50% (with some 51%-60% and few 20%-29%)

Block End Cap 50%Building Set-backs

20 ft.-25 ft. 20 ft.-25 ft.

Parking

Side drive leading to rear garage

Mix of parking. Side drive to rear; Front garage; alley access; etc...

Building CharacteristicsBuilding Height 1-story 1 & 2 Stories

Building Size1,000 sf.-2,000 sf. 1,000 sf.-2,000 sf.

(with some 2,500 sf.-3,500 sf.)

Floor-Area-Ratio

Majority 0.15-0.29

Majority 0.15-0.29 (with some higher)

Building Age1920-1940 1920-1940 and

1980-2016Roof Form Primarily gable and hip Porch Entry 1-story porch connecting to sidewalk

• Partof HeightsWestismoreaccuratelydescribedin3C.

• Lotsarerelativelylargeexceptthosethathavebeensplitintoendcaps.

• Alleysprovideaccesstomanygarages

• 51%of housesareone-storyinheight-notthemajority.

• 50%of thehousesdatefromtheperiodof significance.

• Grossgeneralization:homesaremodestandrangeform1000sf-2000sf.

• Seemsthetypologyjustdescribesthehistorichousesthatareleftanddoesnotincludetheonesbuiltafter1960.

online Notes

• Streetsaren’talwaysnarrow.• Parkingnoticedmoreinsideyardsnotfrontyards

• Minimumtomoderateamountof blockendcapconditions

• Primaryentrancesdon’talwaysfacethestreet.

• Cortlandcurb&gutter• Somemultifamily&townhouses

• Treecanopy• HeightsBLVD;grandcorridor

• Notalotof blockendcaps• Notalotof alleyaccess• Parkingissuesnearcommercialareas

• Alotof alleyaccessforgaragesandcarports

• Greaterthanamoderateamountof newbuildingshavebeenconstructedsincethe1980s.

• Thisoneisprettygood.• Alleywaysaccessibleforparking/accesstorearfacinggarages

• Primaryentrancesfacethestreet;nothistoricallyaccurate.

• Didnotfindvalueintheexercise

3a Workshop Notes 3C Workshop Notes

• Notallfrontdoorsfacestreet.• Alleysnotalwayspresent/usable• Someof thehouses,especiallyontheBoulevarddateearlier-minewasbuiltin1900.

• Parkingmorevariable• 90%of SingleFamilyhomebuildingsoveralltheyearsremainincharacterregardlessof scale/size.

• Commercial&multi-family

buildingsfromthe1960’sthru1980’sdomatchincharacter,scale,orsize.

• IdoagreethatthenewhousesarelargerbutIalsothinkthatmostareanimprovementandverymuchinkeepingwiththearea.Thatiswhytheyhaveappreciatedsomuchinvalue.


houStoN hEightS - WESt WorkShop & oNLiNE rESpoNSES

activity #2: typologiesHouston Heights West has three typologies, which are numbered 3A, 3C and 3D. The chart summarizes predominant characteristics. The table reflects edits from respondents. The notes document comments received.

typoLogy 3d

Neighborhood CharacteristicsStreet Pattern 20 ft. (E/W) & 35 ft. (N/S)Street Width 20 ft. (E/W) & 35 ft. (N/S)

Public Realm

• Curb & gutter• Tree lawn between

street and sidewalk

Consistency Low consistencyAlleyway YesSite CharacteristicsLot Orientation East / West (Few N/S)Lot Depth & Width

132’x50’

Lot Size 3,500 sf.-8,000+ sf. (with some 10,000+ sf.)

Lot Coverage30%-60% (with few 20%-29%)

Block End Cap 50%Building Set-backs

15 ft.-20 ft.

Parking Mix of parking. Front garage; side drive to rear; alley access; etc...

Building CharacteristicsBuilding Height 1 & 2 storiesBuilding Size 1,000 sf.-3,500 sf.Floor-Area-Ratio

Majority 0.45-0.59 (with some lower)

Building Age 1920-1940 and 1980-2016Roof Form Primarily gable and hip


• Earlierdaterange• Typicallots50x132• Lotsrange6600sf to13,200sf;6600sf typical

• Somelotssmallerthan5000sf toaccommodatetownhouses

• Minimalpercentageof newbuildingsandadditionsappeartobeoutof scalewithhistoricbuildings.

• Notallstreetsarenarroworhavecurbandgutter.

• Alleysarepresentthroughoutforthemostpart.

• Notownhomesisinthistypology.

• Notallblockshavesubdivided/narrowlots.

• Newalmostall2&3stories

3d Workshop Notes

online Notes• Notallfrontdoorsfacestreet.• Alleysnotalwayspresent/usable

• Someof thehouses,especiallyontheBoulevarddateearlier-minewasbuiltin1900

• Parkingmorevariable• 90%of SingleFamilyhomebuildingsoveralltheyearsremainincharacterregardlessof scale/size.

• Commercial&multi-familybuildingsfromthe1960’sthru1980’sdomatchincharacter,scale,orsize.



houStoN hEightS - South oNLiNE rESpoNSES

activity #2: typologiesHouston Heights South has three typologies, which are numbered 3B, 3C and 3D. The chart summarizes predomi-nant characteristics. The table reflects edits from respondents. The notes document comments received.

typoLogy 3B 3C 3d


Public Realm

• NO curb & gutter


• 50% curb & gutter.

• 50% NO curb & gutter


• Curb & gutter



Low consistency

Alleyway YesSite CharacteristicsLot Orientation East / WestLot Depth & Width

135’(140’)x50’

Lot Size 5,000 sf.-8,000 sf. (with few 10,000+ sf.)

5,000 sf.-8,000 sf. (with some 8,000 sf. -9,000 sf.)

5,000 sf.-10,000+ sf.

Lot Coverage

30%-50% (with few 20%-29%)

30%-50% (with some 51%-60% and few 20%-29%)

30%-60% (with few 20%-29%)

Block End Cap 50%Building Setbacks 20 ft.-25 ft. 20 ft.-25 ft. 15 ft.-20 ft.

Parking

Side drive leading to rear garage

Mix of parking. Side drive to rear; front garage; alley access; etc...

Mix of parking. Front garage; side drive to rear; alley ac-cess; etc...

Building CharacteristicsBuilding Height 1 & 2 Stories 1 & 2 Stories 1 & 2 Stories


(with some 2,500 sf.-3,500 sf.)

1,000 sf.-3,500 sf.

Floor-Area-RatioMajority 0.15-0.24 (with few higher)




1980-20161920-1940 and 1980-2016

Roof Form Primarily gable and hipPorch Entry 1-story porch connecting to sidewalk

online Notes

• Thenewdevelopmentincreaseddramaticallyinthemidtolate90’s.Innovativebuildersanddesignershadahugeimpactontheimprovementof theHeightsduringthattime.Mostdesignswereappropriatefortheareaandwereanimprovement.Localsvoluntarilyregisteredforrestrictionsthatpreventedlotsfrombeingdividedcausingincreaseddensity.

• Therehasbeenmucherosionof thealleys.Manypeoplehavetakenoverthatareaforstorage,etc..,tothepointthatIwouldguess33%of alleysarenolongerviable.

• 3Disroughlycorrect.Ican’tspeakfortheotherareasof theHeights.

• CurbsandguttershavebeenagreatimprovementtotheHeights.

• Innovativedesignsappropriatetotheareahavealsobeenabenefit.

• 3Bspecificallyhashadmuchdevelopment.

• Wherealleyshavebeenpreservedandimprovedbytheresidence,theappearanceandefficiencyof parkinghasbeenmuchimproved.

• Allof thenewcondodevelopmentin3B&3Dhaserodedmuchof thisdistinction.


• Asignificantamountof thenewconstructionhastakentheformof amoreNewOrleansstyle(i.e.youraboveimage,bottomleft).


houStoN hEightS - EaSt oNLiNE


typoLogy 3a 3C 3d


Public Realm

• NO curb & gutter


• 50% curb & gutter

• 50% NO curb & gutter.


• Curb & gutter. Tree lawn between street and sidewalk


Low consistency

Alleyway YesSite CharacteristicsLot Orientation East / WestLot Depth & Width

135’x50’

Lot Size 5,000 sf.-8,000 sf. (with few 10,000+ sf.)

5,000 sf.-8,000 sf. (with some 8,000 sf. -9,000 sf.)

5,000 sf.-10,000+ sf.

Lot Coverage

30%-50% (with few 51%-60%)

30%-50% (with some 51%-60% and few 20%-29%)

30%-60% (with few 20%-29%)

Block End Cap 50%Building Setbacks 20 ft.-25 ft. 20 ft.-25 ft. 15 ft.-20 ft.

Parking

Side Drive Lead-ing to Rear Garage

Mix of parking. Side drive to rear; Front garage; alley access; etc...

Mix of parking. Front garage; side drive to rear; alley access; etc...

Building CharacteristicsBuilding Height 1-story 1 & 2 stories 1 & 2 stories


(with some 2,500 sf.-3,500 sf.)

1,000 sf.-3,500 sf.

Floor-Area-RatioMajority 0.15-0.29




1980-20161920-1940 and 1980-2016

Roof Form Primarily gable and hipPorch Entry 1-story porch connecting to sidewalk

=

Houston Heights East has three typologies, which are numbered 3A, 3C and 3D. The chart summarizes predominant characteristics. The table reflects edits from respondents. The notes document comments received.

online Notes

• Developmenthas,historically,beencontinuoussincethecreationof theHeights,anditisinaccuratetosuggestthat“newdevelopmentbeganinthe1980s.

• Mostbuildingsareone-storyhigh.• Thereappearstobeevendistributionof north-southandeast-westlots.

• Somehomeshavefrontyardfencesandsomedonot.

• Idon’tthinkitisaccuratetosuggestthatparkingis“typically”inadetachedgarage.Thereissubstantialvariationthroughouttheneighborhood;somegaragesareattached,somedetached,somehomeshavenogarages.

• Idon’tthinkitisaccuratetosuggestthatgaragesare“visuallysubordinate.”Somearevisuallysubordinateandsomearenot;thatsimplydependsonthecircumstances.

• Itisinaccuratetosuggestthathomesin3Aaretypicallyonestory.Therearesubstantialportionsof 3Awheremanyormosthomesonanindividualblockaremulti-story.

• 1900-1930aretheyears.


FrEELaNd 10 oNLiNE SurVEy partiCipaNtS


Neighborhood Character• Maintaincurrentsetbacks.• Maintaincurrentlotsizes.• Preservemature/historictrees.• Drainageditchesandnocurb&gutterareaccepted.

Treatment of Historic Buildings• Maintenanceconcerns• Avoiddemolitionof historicbuildings.• Windowsreplacementshouldbeallowedif appropriatehistoricfeaturesandproportionsareincorporated.

• Dormersshouldbelimitedornotallowed.Additions to Historic Buildings• Massing–significantstep-backfromhistoricfrontfacade,limitedinheight,subordinatetohistoricbuilding

• Maintainhistoricwindowfeaturesandproportions.

Compatible:



New Infill Buildings• Massingshouldbecompatiblewithcontext.• Donotallowanymulti-familynewdevelopments.

Review Process • Moreconcreteandlesssubjectiverequirements• Flexibleandcontextsensitive• Fasterturn-aroundwithapproval/disapproval

Other• On-streetparkingfromnearbybusinessesblocksstreets&alleys.

oNLiNE SurVEy #1 rESuLtS


a 80% (8 out of 10)


E 60% (6 out of 10) F 70% (7 out of 10) J 70% (7 out of 10)

ModelsEFandJwerecommentedonasbeingcompatibleaswell,buttheydonotreflecttheFreelandTypology.

objective: to gain an initial understanding of how massing of an addition may affect the integrity of a historic houseThe most noted compatible additions models are shown below. A



activity #5: Visual preference Survey (2 parts)part a objective: to identify new buildings that would be compatible with the historic districtThe most noted compatible images are shown.

Compatible:

a 90% (9 out of 10)


L 50% (5 out of 10) E 80% (8 out of 10) i 70% (7 out of 10)

ModelsE,IandLwereidentifiedasbeingcompatible,buttheydonotreflecttheFreelandTypology.

objective: to gain an initial understanding about the “threshold” of compatibility for new, larger houses in each historic districtThe most noted compatible new infill models are shown below. A

part B objective: to identify noteworthy buildings features that should be considered when designing a compatible new buildingThe most frequently mentioned features are:• Roof formandpitch• Windows• Porchdesign• Scaleof building• Wallmaterialssuchassidingandbrick


Very Compatible Somewhat Compatible


NorhiLL 12 oNLiNE SurVEy partiCipaNtS

Neighborhood Character• Setbacksshouldbeuniform.• Consistentbungalowstyling• Widersidewalks,curb&gutteraredesired.

Site Design• Parkingissues• Drainage• Sunlight• Landscapingmaintenance• Privacy-effectsof newconstruction

Treatment of Historic Buildings• Raisedbuildings• Additions,dormers,andimprovementsaregoodbutshouldbesubjecttoreview.

• OriginaldoorsandwindowsAdditions to Historic Buildings• Additionstorearof housearedesired.• Massingshouldbecompatiblewithcontext.• One-storystreetpresenceshouldremainintact.• Architecturestyleshouldmatchneighborhood.• Cottagehouses/garageapartmentsshouldbeallowed.



New Infill Buildings• Massingshouldbecompatiblewithcontext.• Lotcoverageistoolargecomparedtotraditionallots.• Architecturestyleshouldbecompatible.• Maintainprivacy.

Review Process• Inconsistentdecisions• Processneedstobemoreclear.• Difficult,costly&timeconsuming• Havesomesortof pre-approvedprojects


Compatible:

a 75% (9 out of 12)


i 67% (8 out of 12)

B 67% (8 out of 12)


E 67% (8 out of 12)

ModelEandIwereidentifiedasbeingcompatible,buttheydonotreflecttheNorhillTypology.

objective: to gain an initial understanding of how massing of an addition may affect the integrity of a historic house The most noted compatible additions models are shown below. A


#3 100% (12 out of 12) #4 58% (7 out of 12)


activity #5: Visual preference Survey (2 parts)

Compatible:


E 83% (10 out of 12) i 67% (8 out of 12) L 50% (6 out of 12)

a 100% (12 out of 12)


ModelsE,IandLwereidentifiedasbeingcompatible,buttheydonotreflecttheNorhillTypology.

objective: to gain an initial understanding about the “threshold” of compatibility for new, larger houses in each historic districtThe most noted compatible and incompatible new infill models are shown below. A

part a objective: to identify new buildings that would be compatible with the historic district.The most noted compatible images are shown.



oLd 6th Ward 1 oNLiNE SurVEy partiCipaNt

Neighborhood Character• Setbacksareuniform.• Lotsizesshouldbeuniform.• Scaleof homesisconsistent.

Treatment of Historic Buildings• Demolitionconcerns• Maintaintraditionalwindowsanddoors.

Additions to Historic Buildings• LimitFARof additions.

New Infill Buildings• Massingshouldreflecttraditionalscale.• Buildingcoverage&openspaceshouldbecompatiblewithcontext.




Compatible:

Review Process• CityneedstoenforceCertificateof Appropriateness.

E 100% (1 out of 1)

Amodestsecondstoryroof-topaddition,significantlysetbackonaone-storyhistoricbuilding,isclearlyconsideredcompatibleinonecase.

F 100% (1 out of 1)

Amodesttwo-storyrearadditionisclearlyconsideredcompatibleinonecase.

B 100% (1 out of 1)a 100% (1 out of 1)

ModelsAandBwereidentifiedasbeingcompatible,buttheydonotreflecttheOld6thWardTypology.



#3 100% (1 out of 1)



Compatible:

E 100% (1 out of 1)

Anewone-storybuildingcoveringamodestportionof thelotisclearlyconsideredcompatibleinonecase.

i 100% (1 out of 1)

Anewone-storybuildingcoveringamodestportionof thelotisclearlyconsideredcompatibleinonecase.

F 100% (1 out of 1)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithaone-storyporchandstepsdowntotherearisclearlyconsideredcompatibleinonecase.

a 100% (1 out of 1)

ModelAwasidentifiedasbeingcompatible,butitdoesnotreflecttheOld6thWardTypology.


part a objective: to identify new buildings that would be compatible with the historic districtThe most noted compatible image is shown.

part B objective: to identify noteworthy buildings features that should be considered when designing a compatible new building.The most frequently mentioned features are:• Roof formandpitch• Windows• Porchdesign• Scaleof building• Wallmaterialssuchassidingandbrick

Somewhat Compatible


WoodLaNd hEightS 5 oNLiNE SurVEy partiCipaNtS

Neighborhood Character• Preservehistorictrees.• Setbacksshouldbeuniform.• Needstrongguidelinesonlandscaping/fences

Site Design• Diversityisimportant.• Openspaceshouldbeencouraged.• Drainageissues• Buildingcoverageistoohigh.• Parkingshouldnotbeallowedbetweensidewalkandstreet.

Treatment of Historic Buildings• Traditionalarchitecturestylesshouldbepreserved.• Improvinghistoricbuildingwithnewmaterialsshouldbeapprovedaslongasimprovementsreplicatehistoriccharacter.



Compatible:

Additions to Historic Buildings• Shouldbeallowedif blendsappropriatelywithhistoricresidence• Matchscaleandcharacterof historichouse.• Keepgreenspaceandbuildingcoveragetraditionalinsizefordrainageconcerns.

New Infill Buildings• Massingandscalemustbecompatible.• Materialsshouldbesimilartotraditional.

Review Process• Eachprojectshouldbereviewedindividually.• Homeownersshouldhavevoiceinapproval/disapprovalprocess.• Difficult,costly&timeconsuming• Clearandconciseregulationstofollow• FavorthepropertyownersthatlivetheWoodland,andnotownersthataregoingto“flip”theproperty

• Specific“tracks”forownerstofollowprojectslikeaddition,newconstruction,improvement,etc...

• Economicallyviableconsiderationswhenapprovingprojects

E 100% (5 out of 5)


i 80% (4 out of 5)


J 60% (3 out of 5)


a 100% (5 out of 5)

ModelAwasidentifiedasbeingcompatible,butitdoesnotreflecttheWoodlandHeightsTypology.







Compatible:


E 80% (4 out of 5)


a 80% (4 out of 5)

ModelAwasidentifiedasbeingcompatible,butitdoesnotreflecttheWoodlandHeightsTypology.

i 80% (4 out of 5)


F 60% (3 out of 5)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithaone-storyporchandawingthatstepsdowntotherearisconsideredcompatibleinafewcases.


part a objective: to identify new buildings that would be compatible with the historic districtThe most noted compatible images are shown.



houStoN hEightS - WESt 5 oNLiNE SurVEy partiCipaNtS

Neighborhood Character• Sidewalksshouldbeincludedinnewdevelopment.• Landscapingshouldnotbeoverlyregulated.• Setbacksshouldbeuniform.• Openspaceinfrontof homesisbeneficial.

Site Design• Maintainalleyaccessforvehiclesandparking.• Drainageandfloodingissues• Noon-streetparking• Garagesshouldbetotherearof thelot.

Additions to Historic Buildings• Massandscalemustbecompatiblewithhistoriccontext.• Materialsshouldmatchtraditionalmaterials• Additionsmustbesubordinateandblendinwiththehistoricstructure.


New Infill Buildings• Massandscaleshouldmatchneighboringproperties.• Grading–drainageissues• Materialityshouldmatchtraditionalhomes.• Architecturestylesshouldbethesameashistoricbuildingsintheneighborhood.

Review Process• Processshouldbefairbetweencommissionandpropertyowner.• Havestrongguidelinesforhistoricpropertiesthatpreservethecharacterof theneighborhood

• Havelessstrictguidelinesfornon-contributingpropertieswithinthedistrict

Other• Concernfordevelopmentsotherthansingle-family


Compatible:

a 100% (5 out of 5)


E 80% (4 out of 5)

ModelEwasidentifiedasbeingcompatible,butitdoesnotreflecttheHoustonHeights-WestTypology.

J 100% (5 out of 5)


k 100% (5 out of 5)

Alargetwo-and-a-half-storyrearadditionisclearlyconsideredcompatible.






Compatible:

Very Compatible

#3 80% (4 out of 5) #1 60% (3 out of 5)

a 100% (5 out of 5)


k 100% (5 out of 5)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithaone-storyporchisclearlyconsideredcompatible.

J 100% (5 out of 5)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithatwo-storyporchandawingthatstepsdowntothebackisclearlyconsideredcompatible.

E 100% (5 out of 5)

ModelEwasidentifiedasbeingcompatible,butitdoesnotreflecttheHoustonHeights-WestTypology.



part B objective: to identify buildings features that should be considered to achieve compatibilityThe most frequently mentioned features are: • Roof formandpitch• Windows• Porchdesign• Scaleof building• Wallmaterialssuchassidingandbrick

#8 60% (3 out of 5)


houStoN hEightS - South 3 oNLiNE SurVEy partiCipaNtS

Neighborhood Character• Needcurb&gutter• Setbacksshouldbeuniform.• Maturetreesandopenspaceinfluencethecharacter.

Site Design• Drainageissuesmustberesolved.• Curb&gutterwouldmitigatestormrunoff.• Buildingcoverageshouldbesimilarthroughoutpropertiesintheneighborhood.

• Sideyardspacingshouldbeconsistentthroughoutproperties.Treatment of Historic Buildings• Considereconomicfeasibilityof guidelines.• Newmaterialsthatconveyhistoricstyleandmatchhistoricmaterialsshouldbeallowed.

• Allowenergyefficientmaterialsandfeatures.


Additions to Historic Buildings• Buildingontopof historichomesisoksolongasnotwithinthefirst15’of historicfrontfacade.

• Buildingontopisbetterthanextendingrear.• Architecturestyleshouldmatchhistoriccontext.• Dormersshouldbeallowedonacase-by-casebasis.

New Infill Buildings• Massingandscaleshouldreflecttraditionalsize.

Review Process• Processneedstobemoreclear.• Difficult,costly&timeconsuming• Havesomesortof pre-approvedprojects• Processshouldbemoreconsistent.

Other• Landuseshouldremainsinglefamilyresidential.


Compatible:

a 100% (3 out of 3)

ModelAwasidentifiedasbeingcompatible,butitdoesnotreflecttheHoustonHeights-SouthTypology.

J 100% (3 out of 3)


E 100% (3 out of 3)


i 100% (3 out of 3)



objective: to gain an initial understanding of how massing of an addition may affect the integrity of a historic houseThe most noted compatible additions models are shown below. A


#3 100% (3 out of 3)



Compatible:

Very Compatible

#1 100% (3 out of 3) #4 100% (3 out of 3)

Somewhat Compatible

E 100% (3 out of 3)


k 100% (3 out of 3)

Anewtwo-storybuildingwithatwo-storyporchandwalloffsetisclearlyconsideredcompatible.

F 100% (3 out of 3)


J 100% (3 out of 3)




part B objective: to identify buildings features that should be considered to achieve compatibility.The most frequently mentioned features are: • Roof formandpitch• Windows• Porchdesign• Scaleof building• Wallmaterialssuchassidingandbrick


houStoN hEightS - EaSt 6 oNLiNE SurVEy partiCipaNtS


Neighborhood Character• Maintainuniformexistingfrontandsideyardsetbacks.• Mixedopinionsoncurb&cuttervs.ditch• Preservematuretreesandlandscaping.

Site Design• Parkingshouldbeinrearandcurbcutsforsurfaceparkingshouldbediscouraged.

• Subdividinglotsshouldnotbeallowed.Treatment of Historic Buildings• Allowforflexibilityinalterationsandimprovementstohistorichomes.

• Clearandcohesiveguidelines• Energyefficientwindowsshouldbeabletoreplacehistoricwindows.

• Maintenanceof historicpropertyshouldbeenforced.Additions to Historic Buildings• Additionsshouldnothaveabigimpactatthestreetfrontof thehome.

• Additionsshouldbelimitedtoavoid“looming”intoneighbor’sproperty.

• Additionsshouldbeallowedtohavenewmaterialsandbuildingfeaturessolongtheyarecompatiblewiththehistoricstructure.

New Infill Buildings• Mass&scale• Mustfitwithintheentireneighborhoodnotjustadjacentproperties

•Review Process• Processneedstobemoreclearandfair.• Processneedtobeeasilyaccessibleandunderstandable.• Difficult,costly&timeconsuming

Other• Nomulti-familydevelopment• Landuserestrictionsshouldbeflexibleandbenefithistorichomesandlimitnewconstruction.

objective: to identify current issues and/or concerns in your historic district


Compatible:

a 83% (5 out of 6)


k 67% (4 out of 6)

Alargetwo-and-a-half-storyrearadditionisclearlyconsideredcompatible.

E 67% (4 out of 6)

ModelsEandFwereidentifiedasbeingcompatible,buttheydonotreflecttheHoustonHeights-EastTypology.

F 67% (4 out of 6)






Compatible:

Very Compatible

ModelEwasidentifiedasbeingcompatible,butitdoesnotreflecttheHoustonHeights-EastTypology.

E 67% (4 out of 6)

a 83% (5 out of 6)


i 67% (4 out of 6)


L 67% (4 out of 6)

Anewbuildingwithaone-storybuildingmassinfrontandatwo-storybuildingmasstotherearisgenerallyconsideredcompatible.



part B objective: to identify buildings features that should be considered to achieve compatibilityThe most frequently mentioned features are: • Roof formandpitch• Windows• Porchdesign• Scaleof building• Wallmaterialssuchassidingandbrick

houston historic districts community engagement …...toric districts to protect their character and...

Documents