Norhill Historic District

Share Norhill Historic District on Facebook Share Norhill Historic District on Twitter Share Norhill Historic District on Linkedin Email Norhill Historic District link

Design Guidelines: Project Scope

As required by the City of Houston code of ordinances, the Houston Office of Preservation initiated a process to develop design guidelines for the Norhill Historic District.

The Norhill Historic District Design Guidelines are being created to:

  • preserve the historic character
  • maintain the traditional building scale in front
  • maintain the traditional lot coverage
  • develop context sensitive design
  • clarify the existing historic preservation ordinance
  • provide a user-friendly design guidelines document



Draft Norhill Historic District Design Guidelines

Please review the draft guidelines and let us know what you think. You may submit feedback and questions in the comment sections below.


Process and timeline

The Houston Office of Preservation (HOP) began working with the Norhill neighborhood in 2016 to develop a set of guidelines that would provide predictability to property owners and the community. Workshops and meetings were held to discuss the purpose, scope and details of proposed guidelines. The process was put on hold during the Covid pandemic. Last summer, the Norhill Neighborhood Association (NNA) asked the HOP to resume the process and submitted a revised draft that included measurable standards. The NNA hosted meetings to engage property owners in reviewing the draft restrictions.

The HOP is hosting meetings to review the latest draft and get comments from property owners in the district. When a significant number of property owners agree on the draft guidelines, the HOP will present them to the Houston Archeological and Historical Commission. The HAHC will consider the draft recommendations and vote request City Council approval or ask the HOP and the neighborhood to refine the guidelines.


NEXT MEETING:

December 18th, 2024 - Montie Beach Community Center


Design Guidelines: Project Scope

As required by the City of Houston code of ordinances, the Houston Office of Preservation initiated a process to develop design guidelines for the Norhill Historic District.

The Norhill Historic District Design Guidelines are being created to:

  • preserve the historic character
  • maintain the traditional building scale in front
  • maintain the traditional lot coverage
  • develop context sensitive design
  • clarify the existing historic preservation ordinance
  • provide a user-friendly design guidelines document



Draft Norhill Historic District Design Guidelines

Please review the draft guidelines and let us know what you think. You may submit feedback and questions in the comment sections below.


Process and timeline

The Houston Office of Preservation (HOP) began working with the Norhill neighborhood in 2016 to develop a set of guidelines that would provide predictability to property owners and the community. Workshops and meetings were held to discuss the purpose, scope and details of proposed guidelines. The process was put on hold during the Covid pandemic. Last summer, the Norhill Neighborhood Association (NNA) asked the HOP to resume the process and submitted a revised draft that included measurable standards. The NNA hosted meetings to engage property owners in reviewing the draft restrictions.

The HOP is hosting meetings to review the latest draft and get comments from property owners in the district. When a significant number of property owners agree on the draft guidelines, the HOP will present them to the Houston Archeological and Historical Commission. The HAHC will consider the draft recommendations and vote request City Council approval or ask the HOP and the neighborhood to refine the guidelines.


NEXT MEETING:

December 18th, 2024 - Montie Beach Community Center


Please comment on the draft design guidelines in the space below.

loader image
Forgot password?
Didn't receive confirmation?
Register Now
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.
  • Share What is scheduled time for the meeting? on Facebook Share What is scheduled time for the meeting? on Twitter Share What is scheduled time for the meeting? on Linkedin Email What is scheduled time for the meeting? link

    What is scheduled time for the meeting?

    Trey P. asked 7 days ago

    The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 pm. However, we will allow time for you all to start showing up before we begin.

  • Share Thank you for the response. So to clarify, there is no historical preservation rationale to limit the height on garages, but this is a deed restriction conversation? on Facebook Share Thank you for the response. So to clarify, there is no historical preservation rationale to limit the height on garages, but this is a deed restriction conversation? on Twitter Share Thank you for the response. So to clarify, there is no historical preservation rationale to limit the height on garages, but this is a deed restriction conversation? on Linkedin Email Thank you for the response. So to clarify, there is no historical preservation rationale to limit the height on garages, but this is a deed restriction conversation? link

    Thank you for the response. So to clarify, there is no historical preservation rationale to limit the height on garages, but this is a deed restriction conversation?

    Gddunton asked 16 days ago

    If I am not mistaken, there is a requirement that a 1 story garage ridge height is not to exceed 17 feet. But I think that is about it. The deed restrictions cover garages more than the guidelines do.

  • Share I am ok with the total allowable square footage (section 2.2a) as drafted by the City. I think the minimum rear setback requirements should be more like 3 to 5 feet versus 10 feet. Overall, I think these new requirements regarding maintaining, repairing and making necessary replacements to one's home, including worn out or broken items like broken doors, windows, etc. are excessive and will be overly expensive, time consuming, burdensome, and difficult on homeowners in this wonderful, modest neighborhood. Homeowners in Norhill do not generally have financial means comparable to homeowners in a Courtlandt Place or Houston Heights with larger lots and homes, for example. I think these requirements could potentially backfire on their intent and be detrimental to the appearance and values in the neighborhood with some owners choosing to defer repairs and improvements to delay or avoid the expense in time and money. - but that is just my opinion. Many of the numerous landlord owners of homes in the neighborhood already fail to keep their rental homes in good repair and maintenance; it is doubtful they would go to the extra expense and time imposed with these requirements; so, the condition and appearance of these rental homes can be expected to continue to decline. I hope I am wrong. Thank you for sharing the poll results and providing your draft for review. on Facebook Share I am ok with the total allowable square footage (section 2.2a) as drafted by the City. I think the minimum rear setback requirements should be more like 3 to 5 feet versus 10 feet. Overall, I think these new requirements regarding maintaining, repairing and making necessary replacements to one's home, including worn out or broken items like broken doors, windows, etc. are excessive and will be overly expensive, time consuming, burdensome, and difficult on homeowners in this wonderful, modest neighborhood. Homeowners in Norhill do not generally have financial means comparable to homeowners in a Courtlandt Place or Houston Heights with larger lots and homes, for example. I think these requirements could potentially backfire on their intent and be detrimental to the appearance and values in the neighborhood with some owners choosing to defer repairs and improvements to delay or avoid the expense in time and money. - but that is just my opinion. Many of the numerous landlord owners of homes in the neighborhood already fail to keep their rental homes in good repair and maintenance; it is doubtful they would go to the extra expense and time imposed with these requirements; so, the condition and appearance of these rental homes can be expected to continue to decline. I hope I am wrong. Thank you for sharing the poll results and providing your draft for review. on Twitter Share I am ok with the total allowable square footage (section 2.2a) as drafted by the City. I think the minimum rear setback requirements should be more like 3 to 5 feet versus 10 feet. Overall, I think these new requirements regarding maintaining, repairing and making necessary replacements to one's home, including worn out or broken items like broken doors, windows, etc. are excessive and will be overly expensive, time consuming, burdensome, and difficult on homeowners in this wonderful, modest neighborhood. Homeowners in Norhill do not generally have financial means comparable to homeowners in a Courtlandt Place or Houston Heights with larger lots and homes, for example. I think these requirements could potentially backfire on their intent and be detrimental to the appearance and values in the neighborhood with some owners choosing to defer repairs and improvements to delay or avoid the expense in time and money. - but that is just my opinion. Many of the numerous landlord owners of homes in the neighborhood already fail to keep their rental homes in good repair and maintenance; it is doubtful they would go to the extra expense and time imposed with these requirements; so, the condition and appearance of these rental homes can be expected to continue to decline. I hope I am wrong. Thank you for sharing the poll results and providing your draft for review. on Linkedin Email I am ok with the total allowable square footage (section 2.2a) as drafted by the City. I think the minimum rear setback requirements should be more like 3 to 5 feet versus 10 feet. Overall, I think these new requirements regarding maintaining, repairing and making necessary replacements to one's home, including worn out or broken items like broken doors, windows, etc. are excessive and will be overly expensive, time consuming, burdensome, and difficult on homeowners in this wonderful, modest neighborhood. Homeowners in Norhill do not generally have financial means comparable to homeowners in a Courtlandt Place or Houston Heights with larger lots and homes, for example. I think these requirements could potentially backfire on their intent and be detrimental to the appearance and values in the neighborhood with some owners choosing to defer repairs and improvements to delay or avoid the expense in time and money. - but that is just my opinion. Many of the numerous landlord owners of homes in the neighborhood already fail to keep their rental homes in good repair and maintenance; it is doubtful they would go to the extra expense and time imposed with these requirements; so, the condition and appearance of these rental homes can be expected to continue to decline. I hope I am wrong. Thank you for sharing the poll results and providing your draft for review. link

    I am ok with the total allowable square footage (section 2.2a) as drafted by the City. I think the minimum rear setback requirements should be more like 3 to 5 feet versus 10 feet. Overall, I think these new requirements regarding maintaining, repairing and making necessary replacements to one's home, including worn out or broken items like broken doors, windows, etc. are excessive and will be overly expensive, time consuming, burdensome, and difficult on homeowners in this wonderful, modest neighborhood. Homeowners in Norhill do not generally have financial means comparable to homeowners in a Courtlandt Place or Houston Heights with larger lots and homes, for example. I think these requirements could potentially backfire on their intent and be detrimental to the appearance and values in the neighborhood with some owners choosing to defer repairs and improvements to delay or avoid the expense in time and money. - but that is just my opinion. Many of the numerous landlord owners of homes in the neighborhood already fail to keep their rental homes in good repair and maintenance; it is doubtful they would go to the extra expense and time imposed with these requirements; so, the condition and appearance of these rental homes can be expected to continue to decline. I hope I am wrong. Thank you for sharing the poll results and providing your draft for review.

    Marian Livingston asked 22 days ago

    Hello and thank you for your comments.

    I understand your stance regarding maintaining and repairing your home(s). However, I want to make sure that we point out, that these are typical preservation practices. Meaning, these practices are utilized across the country in preservation and conservation districts. Unfortunately, it may be time consuming and burdensome and we cannot say that it will not, that is determined by the owner and/or agent that is having that type of experience. But we can tell you that this team is working very hard to try and make sure that every experience with this office is a good one.

    Again, no problem. We are making sure we are trying to be as transparent as we can. There will be a meeting to discuss the draft guidelines. Please plan to attend.

  • Share Will the "guidelines" be merely a list of requests that our Civic Organization will ask of any potential proposed remodeling to adhere to? w How & who will be responsible for enforcing these guidelines. Will the guidelines be incorporated into our deed restrictions, so they are enforceable? on Facebook Share Will the "guidelines" be merely a list of requests that our Civic Organization will ask of any potential proposed remodeling to adhere to? w How & who will be responsible for enforcing these guidelines. Will the guidelines be incorporated into our deed restrictions, so they are enforceable? on Twitter Share Will the "guidelines" be merely a list of requests that our Civic Organization will ask of any potential proposed remodeling to adhere to? w How & who will be responsible for enforcing these guidelines. Will the guidelines be incorporated into our deed restrictions, so they are enforceable? on Linkedin Email Will the "guidelines" be merely a list of requests that our Civic Organization will ask of any potential proposed remodeling to adhere to? w How & who will be responsible for enforcing these guidelines. Will the guidelines be incorporated into our deed restrictions, so they are enforceable? link

    Will the "guidelines" be merely a list of requests that our Civic Organization will ask of any potential proposed remodeling to adhere to? w How & who will be responsible for enforcing these guidelines. Will the guidelines be incorporated into our deed restrictions, so they are enforceable?

    Terry Heroy asked about 1 month ago

    The guidelines are seperate from your deed restrictions and civic club, this is a city of Houston document. The guidelines will be enforced by the city of Houston. They will not be considered a list of requests but will be a list of guidelines that residents, architects, and contractors shall follow when it comes to remodeling the structures in the neighborhood.

    They will not be incorporated into your deed restrictions.

  • Share Please stop using the picture on page 31. It is inaccurate. Watson is a full wide street from 14th to Fugate. The non conforming lot DOES NOT EXIST. We wish it was left a lot like originally designed. Our home at 812 Fugate is the only home in entire Norhill where a major feeder road is pointed straight up our driveway. A car crashed through our gate this year by driving too fast down Watson. We have to explain our unfortunate location compared to other lots every time we protest taxes. Please get rid of this picture City of Houston or correct it. It has been like it is well before the dates on this document. Better yet shut down Watson and feed the lot back to Norhill where it was always meant to be. on Facebook Share Please stop using the picture on page 31. It is inaccurate. Watson is a full wide street from 14th to Fugate. The non conforming lot DOES NOT EXIST. We wish it was left a lot like originally designed. Our home at 812 Fugate is the only home in entire Norhill where a major feeder road is pointed straight up our driveway. A car crashed through our gate this year by driving too fast down Watson. We have to explain our unfortunate location compared to other lots every time we protest taxes. Please get rid of this picture City of Houston or correct it. It has been like it is well before the dates on this document. Better yet shut down Watson and feed the lot back to Norhill where it was always meant to be. on Twitter Share Please stop using the picture on page 31. It is inaccurate. Watson is a full wide street from 14th to Fugate. The non conforming lot DOES NOT EXIST. We wish it was left a lot like originally designed. Our home at 812 Fugate is the only home in entire Norhill where a major feeder road is pointed straight up our driveway. A car crashed through our gate this year by driving too fast down Watson. We have to explain our unfortunate location compared to other lots every time we protest taxes. Please get rid of this picture City of Houston or correct it. It has been like it is well before the dates on this document. Better yet shut down Watson and feed the lot back to Norhill where it was always meant to be. on Linkedin Email Please stop using the picture on page 31. It is inaccurate. Watson is a full wide street from 14th to Fugate. The non conforming lot DOES NOT EXIST. We wish it was left a lot like originally designed. Our home at 812 Fugate is the only home in entire Norhill where a major feeder road is pointed straight up our driveway. A car crashed through our gate this year by driving too fast down Watson. We have to explain our unfortunate location compared to other lots every time we protest taxes. Please get rid of this picture City of Houston or correct it. It has been like it is well before the dates on this document. Better yet shut down Watson and feed the lot back to Norhill where it was always meant to be. link

    Please stop using the picture on page 31. It is inaccurate. Watson is a full wide street from 14th to Fugate. The non conforming lot DOES NOT EXIST. We wish it was left a lot like originally designed. Our home at 812 Fugate is the only home in entire Norhill where a major feeder road is pointed straight up our driveway. A car crashed through our gate this year by driving too fast down Watson. We have to explain our unfortunate location compared to other lots every time we protest taxes. Please get rid of this picture City of Houston or correct it. It has been like it is well before the dates on this document. Better yet shut down Watson and feed the lot back to Norhill where it was always meant to be.

    Earl asked about 1 month ago

    This is the map that was approved by city council.

    I am sorry for the damage caused to your home, but this is a legal document which shows the approved boundaries of the historic district.

  • Share Thank you for your previous response, but I am still unclear on what the basis is for the the 17' garage ridge height. This would appear to be the most restrictive design guideline published in Houston with most (including the Heights) at 26'. on Facebook Share Thank you for your previous response, but I am still unclear on what the basis is for the the 17' garage ridge height. This would appear to be the most restrictive design guideline published in Houston with most (including the Heights) at 26'. on Twitter Share Thank you for your previous response, but I am still unclear on what the basis is for the the 17' garage ridge height. This would appear to be the most restrictive design guideline published in Houston with most (including the Heights) at 26'. on Linkedin Email Thank you for your previous response, but I am still unclear on what the basis is for the the 17' garage ridge height. This would appear to be the most restrictive design guideline published in Houston with most (including the Heights) at 26'. link

    Thank you for your previous response, but I am still unclear on what the basis is for the the 17' garage ridge height. This would appear to be the most restrictive design guideline published in Houston with most (including the Heights) at 26'.

    gddunton asked about 1 month ago

    Per your deed restrictions, you all are not allowed to build a 2 story garage. The 26 ft, you reference from the Heights, is from the Heights, which does not have a deed restriction that prevents them from building 2 story garages. Therefore, the 17 ft ridge height is for the one-story garages. Those whom have existing two story garage, I believe the NNA would allow them to build back what was once existing.

    If you have an issue with garages, the Historic Preservation Office recommends that you all get with your NNA and have a discussion between them and the residents. Unfortunately, garages are not something we can resolve with your deed restrictions that must be done by the residents.

  • Share I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but still don't quite track the plans for garages. These guidelines effectively ban second stories on garages by limiting the max ridge height to 17'. What is the basis for this restriction and how many current garages exceed this level? The deed restrictions clearly don't allow APARTMENTS, but has nothing to say about second stories. The Black's Law dictionary defines an apartment as "A part of a house occupied by a person, while the rest is occupied by another, or others. As to the meaning of this term, see 7 Man. & G. 95; 6 Mod. 214 ; McMillan v. Solomon, 42 Ala. 356, 94 Am. Dec. 654; Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 293; McLellan v. Dalton, 10 Mass. 190; People v. St. Clair, 38 Cal. 137." on Facebook Share I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but still don't quite track the plans for garages. These guidelines effectively ban second stories on garages by limiting the max ridge height to 17'. What is the basis for this restriction and how many current garages exceed this level? The deed restrictions clearly don't allow APARTMENTS, but has nothing to say about second stories. The Black's Law dictionary defines an apartment as "A part of a house occupied by a person, while the rest is occupied by another, or others. As to the meaning of this term, see 7 Man. & G. 95; 6 Mod. 214 ; McMillan v. Solomon, 42 Ala. 356, 94 Am. Dec. 654; Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 293; McLellan v. Dalton, 10 Mass. 190; People v. St. Clair, 38 Cal. 137." on Twitter Share I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but still don't quite track the plans for garages. These guidelines effectively ban second stories on garages by limiting the max ridge height to 17'. What is the basis for this restriction and how many current garages exceed this level? The deed restrictions clearly don't allow APARTMENTS, but has nothing to say about second stories. The Black's Law dictionary defines an apartment as "A part of a house occupied by a person, while the rest is occupied by another, or others. As to the meaning of this term, see 7 Man. & G. 95; 6 Mod. 214 ; McMillan v. Solomon, 42 Ala. 356, 94 Am. Dec. 654; Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 293; McLellan v. Dalton, 10 Mass. 190; People v. St. Clair, 38 Cal. 137." on Linkedin Email I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but still don't quite track the plans for garages. These guidelines effectively ban second stories on garages by limiting the max ridge height to 17'. What is the basis for this restriction and how many current garages exceed this level? The deed restrictions clearly don't allow APARTMENTS, but has nothing to say about second stories. The Black's Law dictionary defines an apartment as "A part of a house occupied by a person, while the rest is occupied by another, or others. As to the meaning of this term, see 7 Man. & G. 95; 6 Mod. 214 ; McMillan v. Solomon, 42 Ala. 356, 94 Am. Dec. 654; Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 293; McLellan v. Dalton, 10 Mass. 190; People v. St. Clair, 38 Cal. 137." link

    I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but still don't quite track the plans for garages. These guidelines effectively ban second stories on garages by limiting the max ridge height to 17'. What is the basis for this restriction and how many current garages exceed this level? The deed restrictions clearly don't allow APARTMENTS, but has nothing to say about second stories. The Black's Law dictionary defines an apartment as "A part of a house occupied by a person, while the rest is occupied by another, or others. As to the meaning of this term, see 7 Man. & G. 95; 6 Mod. 214 ; McMillan v. Solomon, 42 Ala. 356, 94 Am. Dec. 654; Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 293; McLellan v. Dalton, 10 Mass. 190; People v. St. Clair, 38 Cal. 137."

    gddunton asked about 1 month ago

    Thank you for your comments.

    As mentioned, the city of Houston historic preservation office has chose to remain out of the disagreement between residents and the deed restrictions. Due to the fact that our office cannot regulate deed restrictions, we have decided to take a back seat until the "two story" and/or "garage apartment" debate. If and when the residents and the neighborhood association come to an agreement, we would be happy to amend the guidelines (or add garages to the guidelines, should it be done prior to city council approval).

    The guideline for a 17' maximum ridge height s for new garages.

    Thanks Again

  • Share The polling supports a Living Area Ratio of .45 for all lots. Almost 30% of respondents voted to allow homes greater than 2,400 sq ft on 5,000 sq ft lots. Conservatively estimating that these respondents would want 2,500 sq ft (which they could have wanted even larger homes), the weighted average comes to 2,261 sq ft. I see no reason to make the homes smaller than the weighted average. Even assuming that the +2,400 group only wanted 2,400 sq ft, the weighted average would be 2,233 sq ft which is still closer to the .45 ratio than the .43 ratio. Even though the City would like to use a weighted average, it should keep in mind that 53% of responders voted for homes at least 2,300 sf with the largest pool voting for homes larger than 2,400 sf. For these reasons, the City should allow a ratio of .45 instead of .43 on all lots. Single-story garages should not be included in Living Area. There is no reason that putting air-conditioning in my detached garage should affect my ability to build a larger home. I’m fine with including a second story of garage in the Living Area calculation, but it should not include the first floor garage. Whether or not my garage has air conditioning has no effect on the look of the neighborhood, historic character of the house, stormwater runoff, or privacy of my next-door neighbor (all the cited concerns with larger homes). However, putting air conditioning in garages allows us to efficiently use the space in our small homes. Houston is very hot and we cannot work in the garage without air-conditioning during certain parts of the year. I suggest changing this definition to explicitly exclude single-story garages under the 585 sf limit. The height restrictions in Section 2.4 are incredibly limiting. 8 foot ceilings are the bare minimum for a livable space, so it is concerning that these are also the absolute maximum for a second-story addition and many first-floor additions. As anyone with a child knows, in an 8-ft room, you cannot lift your child above your head without fear of smacking their head on the ceiling. Ceiling fans are also very uncomfortable in rooms with 8 foot ceilings for similar reasons. There is no reason not to allow 10 ft ceilings or at the very least a compromise of 9ft ceilings. I understand we do not want incredibly tall buildings, but 8 ft is really low and allows no wiggle room in construction. I suggest allowing first and second-floor new construction to be 9 feet. This is a very reasonable compromise, and balances the desire to minimize scale while allowing some flexibility for homeowners. Overall there are too many restrictions on the building of garages. How many garages currently built in the neighborhood would conform to these restrictions? My guess is that most of the current garages would not conform. The guidelines are already very restrictive, so we should allow people flexibility to try to fit a garage on their properties. The comments from the polls suggest people are largely in favor of allowing garages. I suggest removing all but the front (60ft) , rear (3ft) , and side- setbacks (3-ft). People should be allowed to connect the garage to their homes. Why do we want the garages to be 5 ft from the homes? That is an inefficient use of space. Especially considering how far back garages have to be, how close they are to the home has only a minor (if at all) impact on neighborhood aesthetics. Agree with the other comments. The deed restrictions do NOT disallow second story garages, only second-story garage apartments. As confirmed by the poll results, the people in the neighborhood would like to allow second-story garage apartments. Again, this makes sense because when people read their deed restrictions prior to buying the homes, they see there are no prohibitions on the building of second-story garages. on Facebook Share The polling supports a Living Area Ratio of .45 for all lots. Almost 30% of respondents voted to allow homes greater than 2,400 sq ft on 5,000 sq ft lots. Conservatively estimating that these respondents would want 2,500 sq ft (which they could have wanted even larger homes), the weighted average comes to 2,261 sq ft. I see no reason to make the homes smaller than the weighted average. Even assuming that the +2,400 group only wanted 2,400 sq ft, the weighted average would be 2,233 sq ft which is still closer to the .45 ratio than the .43 ratio. Even though the City would like to use a weighted average, it should keep in mind that 53% of responders voted for homes at least 2,300 sf with the largest pool voting for homes larger than 2,400 sf. For these reasons, the City should allow a ratio of .45 instead of .43 on all lots. Single-story garages should not be included in Living Area. There is no reason that putting air-conditioning in my detached garage should affect my ability to build a larger home. I’m fine with including a second story of garage in the Living Area calculation, but it should not include the first floor garage. Whether or not my garage has air conditioning has no effect on the look of the neighborhood, historic character of the house, stormwater runoff, or privacy of my next-door neighbor (all the cited concerns with larger homes). However, putting air conditioning in garages allows us to efficiently use the space in our small homes. Houston is very hot and we cannot work in the garage without air-conditioning during certain parts of the year. I suggest changing this definition to explicitly exclude single-story garages under the 585 sf limit. The height restrictions in Section 2.4 are incredibly limiting. 8 foot ceilings are the bare minimum for a livable space, so it is concerning that these are also the absolute maximum for a second-story addition and many first-floor additions. As anyone with a child knows, in an 8-ft room, you cannot lift your child above your head without fear of smacking their head on the ceiling. Ceiling fans are also very uncomfortable in rooms with 8 foot ceilings for similar reasons. There is no reason not to allow 10 ft ceilings or at the very least a compromise of 9ft ceilings. I understand we do not want incredibly tall buildings, but 8 ft is really low and allows no wiggle room in construction. I suggest allowing first and second-floor new construction to be 9 feet. This is a very reasonable compromise, and balances the desire to minimize scale while allowing some flexibility for homeowners. Overall there are too many restrictions on the building of garages. How many garages currently built in the neighborhood would conform to these restrictions? My guess is that most of the current garages would not conform. The guidelines are already very restrictive, so we should allow people flexibility to try to fit a garage on their properties. The comments from the polls suggest people are largely in favor of allowing garages. I suggest removing all but the front (60ft) , rear (3ft) , and side- setbacks (3-ft). People should be allowed to connect the garage to their homes. Why do we want the garages to be 5 ft from the homes? That is an inefficient use of space. Especially considering how far back garages have to be, how close they are to the home has only a minor (if at all) impact on neighborhood aesthetics. Agree with the other comments. The deed restrictions do NOT disallow second story garages, only second-story garage apartments. As confirmed by the poll results, the people in the neighborhood would like to allow second-story garage apartments. Again, this makes sense because when people read their deed restrictions prior to buying the homes, they see there are no prohibitions on the building of second-story garages. on Twitter Share The polling supports a Living Area Ratio of .45 for all lots. Almost 30% of respondents voted to allow homes greater than 2,400 sq ft on 5,000 sq ft lots. Conservatively estimating that these respondents would want 2,500 sq ft (which they could have wanted even larger homes), the weighted average comes to 2,261 sq ft. I see no reason to make the homes smaller than the weighted average. Even assuming that the +2,400 group only wanted 2,400 sq ft, the weighted average would be 2,233 sq ft which is still closer to the .45 ratio than the .43 ratio. Even though the City would like to use a weighted average, it should keep in mind that 53% of responders voted for homes at least 2,300 sf with the largest pool voting for homes larger than 2,400 sf. For these reasons, the City should allow a ratio of .45 instead of .43 on all lots. Single-story garages should not be included in Living Area. There is no reason that putting air-conditioning in my detached garage should affect my ability to build a larger home. I’m fine with including a second story of garage in the Living Area calculation, but it should not include the first floor garage. Whether or not my garage has air conditioning has no effect on the look of the neighborhood, historic character of the house, stormwater runoff, or privacy of my next-door neighbor (all the cited concerns with larger homes). However, putting air conditioning in garages allows us to efficiently use the space in our small homes. Houston is very hot and we cannot work in the garage without air-conditioning during certain parts of the year. I suggest changing this definition to explicitly exclude single-story garages under the 585 sf limit. The height restrictions in Section 2.4 are incredibly limiting. 8 foot ceilings are the bare minimum for a livable space, so it is concerning that these are also the absolute maximum for a second-story addition and many first-floor additions. As anyone with a child knows, in an 8-ft room, you cannot lift your child above your head without fear of smacking their head on the ceiling. Ceiling fans are also very uncomfortable in rooms with 8 foot ceilings for similar reasons. There is no reason not to allow 10 ft ceilings or at the very least a compromise of 9ft ceilings. I understand we do not want incredibly tall buildings, but 8 ft is really low and allows no wiggle room in construction. I suggest allowing first and second-floor new construction to be 9 feet. This is a very reasonable compromise, and balances the desire to minimize scale while allowing some flexibility for homeowners. Overall there are too many restrictions on the building of garages. How many garages currently built in the neighborhood would conform to these restrictions? My guess is that most of the current garages would not conform. The guidelines are already very restrictive, so we should allow people flexibility to try to fit a garage on their properties. The comments from the polls suggest people are largely in favor of allowing garages. I suggest removing all but the front (60ft) , rear (3ft) , and side- setbacks (3-ft). People should be allowed to connect the garage to their homes. Why do we want the garages to be 5 ft from the homes? That is an inefficient use of space. Especially considering how far back garages have to be, how close they are to the home has only a minor (if at all) impact on neighborhood aesthetics. Agree with the other comments. The deed restrictions do NOT disallow second story garages, only second-story garage apartments. As confirmed by the poll results, the people in the neighborhood would like to allow second-story garage apartments. Again, this makes sense because when people read their deed restrictions prior to buying the homes, they see there are no prohibitions on the building of second-story garages. on Linkedin Email The polling supports a Living Area Ratio of .45 for all lots. Almost 30% of respondents voted to allow homes greater than 2,400 sq ft on 5,000 sq ft lots. Conservatively estimating that these respondents would want 2,500 sq ft (which they could have wanted even larger homes), the weighted average comes to 2,261 sq ft. I see no reason to make the homes smaller than the weighted average. Even assuming that the +2,400 group only wanted 2,400 sq ft, the weighted average would be 2,233 sq ft which is still closer to the .45 ratio than the .43 ratio. Even though the City would like to use a weighted average, it should keep in mind that 53% of responders voted for homes at least 2,300 sf with the largest pool voting for homes larger than 2,400 sf. For these reasons, the City should allow a ratio of .45 instead of .43 on all lots. Single-story garages should not be included in Living Area. There is no reason that putting air-conditioning in my detached garage should affect my ability to build a larger home. I’m fine with including a second story of garage in the Living Area calculation, but it should not include the first floor garage. Whether or not my garage has air conditioning has no effect on the look of the neighborhood, historic character of the house, stormwater runoff, or privacy of my next-door neighbor (all the cited concerns with larger homes). However, putting air conditioning in garages allows us to efficiently use the space in our small homes. Houston is very hot and we cannot work in the garage without air-conditioning during certain parts of the year. I suggest changing this definition to explicitly exclude single-story garages under the 585 sf limit. The height restrictions in Section 2.4 are incredibly limiting. 8 foot ceilings are the bare minimum for a livable space, so it is concerning that these are also the absolute maximum for a second-story addition and many first-floor additions. As anyone with a child knows, in an 8-ft room, you cannot lift your child above your head without fear of smacking their head on the ceiling. Ceiling fans are also very uncomfortable in rooms with 8 foot ceilings for similar reasons. There is no reason not to allow 10 ft ceilings or at the very least a compromise of 9ft ceilings. I understand we do not want incredibly tall buildings, but 8 ft is really low and allows no wiggle room in construction. I suggest allowing first and second-floor new construction to be 9 feet. This is a very reasonable compromise, and balances the desire to minimize scale while allowing some flexibility for homeowners. Overall there are too many restrictions on the building of garages. How many garages currently built in the neighborhood would conform to these restrictions? My guess is that most of the current garages would not conform. The guidelines are already very restrictive, so we should allow people flexibility to try to fit a garage on their properties. The comments from the polls suggest people are largely in favor of allowing garages. I suggest removing all but the front (60ft) , rear (3ft) , and side- setbacks (3-ft). People should be allowed to connect the garage to their homes. Why do we want the garages to be 5 ft from the homes? That is an inefficient use of space. Especially considering how far back garages have to be, how close they are to the home has only a minor (if at all) impact on neighborhood aesthetics. Agree with the other comments. The deed restrictions do NOT disallow second story garages, only second-story garage apartments. As confirmed by the poll results, the people in the neighborhood would like to allow second-story garage apartments. Again, this makes sense because when people read their deed restrictions prior to buying the homes, they see there are no prohibitions on the building of second-story garages. link

    The polling supports a Living Area Ratio of .45 for all lots. Almost 30% of respondents voted to allow homes greater than 2,400 sq ft on 5,000 sq ft lots. Conservatively estimating that these respondents would want 2,500 sq ft (which they could have wanted even larger homes), the weighted average comes to 2,261 sq ft. I see no reason to make the homes smaller than the weighted average. Even assuming that the +2,400 group only wanted 2,400 sq ft, the weighted average would be 2,233 sq ft which is still closer to the .45 ratio than the .43 ratio. Even though the City would like to use a weighted average, it should keep in mind that 53% of responders voted for homes at least 2,300 sf with the largest pool voting for homes larger than 2,400 sf. For these reasons, the City should allow a ratio of .45 instead of .43 on all lots. Single-story garages should not be included in Living Area. There is no reason that putting air-conditioning in my detached garage should affect my ability to build a larger home. I’m fine with including a second story of garage in the Living Area calculation, but it should not include the first floor garage. Whether or not my garage has air conditioning has no effect on the look of the neighborhood, historic character of the house, stormwater runoff, or privacy of my next-door neighbor (all the cited concerns with larger homes). However, putting air conditioning in garages allows us to efficiently use the space in our small homes. Houston is very hot and we cannot work in the garage without air-conditioning during certain parts of the year. I suggest changing this definition to explicitly exclude single-story garages under the 585 sf limit. The height restrictions in Section 2.4 are incredibly limiting. 8 foot ceilings are the bare minimum for a livable space, so it is concerning that these are also the absolute maximum for a second-story addition and many first-floor additions. As anyone with a child knows, in an 8-ft room, you cannot lift your child above your head without fear of smacking their head on the ceiling. Ceiling fans are also very uncomfortable in rooms with 8 foot ceilings for similar reasons. There is no reason not to allow 10 ft ceilings or at the very least a compromise of 9ft ceilings. I understand we do not want incredibly tall buildings, but 8 ft is really low and allows no wiggle room in construction. I suggest allowing first and second-floor new construction to be 9 feet. This is a very reasonable compromise, and balances the desire to minimize scale while allowing some flexibility for homeowners. Overall there are too many restrictions on the building of garages. How many garages currently built in the neighborhood would conform to these restrictions? My guess is that most of the current garages would not conform. The guidelines are already very restrictive, so we should allow people flexibility to try to fit a garage on their properties. The comments from the polls suggest people are largely in favor of allowing garages. I suggest removing all but the front (60ft) , rear (3ft) , and side- setbacks (3-ft). People should be allowed to connect the garage to their homes. Why do we want the garages to be 5 ft from the homes? That is an inefficient use of space. Especially considering how far back garages have to be, how close they are to the home has only a minor (if at all) impact on neighborhood aesthetics. Agree with the other comments. The deed restrictions do NOT disallow second story garages, only second-story garage apartments. As confirmed by the poll results, the people in the neighborhood would like to allow second-story garage apartments. Again, this makes sense because when people read their deed restrictions prior to buying the homes, they see there are no prohibitions on the building of second-story garages.

    MG asked about 1 month ago

    Thank you for your comments and suggestions. we will make sure we take a look at them and compare them to the other comments we receive.

    Also, I would like to point out that the survey was not to be considered a vote. It was a poll  for the city to get a sense of what the residents were feeling. The square footages are an improvement from what was originally proposed.

  • Share This is a great, simplified update to the design guidelines. Good work Terrance and team. I do have a few comments: 1- 2 story garages. There are NO restrictions to two story garages in the deed restrictions of either neighborhood in Norhill. There ARE restrictions on garage apartments. These are not one in the same. The data from the survey of nearly 200 residents of Norhill shows that 75% of respondents are in favor of building over the garage. With 20% against them, and 5% neutral. The data is clear in support of these. So I would like to remove the restriction on garage height in the guidelines, or redo them in 2.4.d. I would argue a second story over the garage is more historic than over the main house, in context and in history. 2- I like the idea of controlling massing alongside 2nd story garages in lieu of preventing them. Total square footage of a/c space could be limited to 2200 sq ft. Or alternatively, maximizing the "open air" space to provide both privacy and prevent over-massing. Great work so far. on Facebook Share This is a great, simplified update to the design guidelines. Good work Terrance and team. I do have a few comments: 1- 2 story garages. There are NO restrictions to two story garages in the deed restrictions of either neighborhood in Norhill. There ARE restrictions on garage apartments. These are not one in the same. The data from the survey of nearly 200 residents of Norhill shows that 75% of respondents are in favor of building over the garage. With 20% against them, and 5% neutral. The data is clear in support of these. So I would like to remove the restriction on garage height in the guidelines, or redo them in 2.4.d. I would argue a second story over the garage is more historic than over the main house, in context and in history. 2- I like the idea of controlling massing alongside 2nd story garages in lieu of preventing them. Total square footage of a/c space could be limited to 2200 sq ft. Or alternatively, maximizing the "open air" space to provide both privacy and prevent over-massing. Great work so far. on Twitter Share This is a great, simplified update to the design guidelines. Good work Terrance and team. I do have a few comments: 1- 2 story garages. There are NO restrictions to two story garages in the deed restrictions of either neighborhood in Norhill. There ARE restrictions on garage apartments. These are not one in the same. The data from the survey of nearly 200 residents of Norhill shows that 75% of respondents are in favor of building over the garage. With 20% against them, and 5% neutral. The data is clear in support of these. So I would like to remove the restriction on garage height in the guidelines, or redo them in 2.4.d. I would argue a second story over the garage is more historic than over the main house, in context and in history. 2- I like the idea of controlling massing alongside 2nd story garages in lieu of preventing them. Total square footage of a/c space could be limited to 2200 sq ft. Or alternatively, maximizing the "open air" space to provide both privacy and prevent over-massing. Great work so far. on Linkedin Email This is a great, simplified update to the design guidelines. Good work Terrance and team. I do have a few comments: 1- 2 story garages. There are NO restrictions to two story garages in the deed restrictions of either neighborhood in Norhill. There ARE restrictions on garage apartments. These are not one in the same. The data from the survey of nearly 200 residents of Norhill shows that 75% of respondents are in favor of building over the garage. With 20% against them, and 5% neutral. The data is clear in support of these. So I would like to remove the restriction on garage height in the guidelines, or redo them in 2.4.d. I would argue a second story over the garage is more historic than over the main house, in context and in history. 2- I like the idea of controlling massing alongside 2nd story garages in lieu of preventing them. Total square footage of a/c space could be limited to 2200 sq ft. Or alternatively, maximizing the "open air" space to provide both privacy and prevent over-massing. Great work so far. link

    This is a great, simplified update to the design guidelines. Good work Terrance and team. I do have a few comments: 1- 2 story garages. There are NO restrictions to two story garages in the deed restrictions of either neighborhood in Norhill. There ARE restrictions on garage apartments. These are not one in the same. The data from the survey of nearly 200 residents of Norhill shows that 75% of respondents are in favor of building over the garage. With 20% against them, and 5% neutral. The data is clear in support of these. So I would like to remove the restriction on garage height in the guidelines, or redo them in 2.4.d. I would argue a second story over the garage is more historic than over the main house, in context and in history. 2- I like the idea of controlling massing alongside 2nd story garages in lieu of preventing them. Total square footage of a/c space could be limited to 2200 sq ft. Or alternatively, maximizing the "open air" space to provide both privacy and prevent over-massing. Great work so far.

    RBurns asked about 2 months ago

    Thank you for your comments and the Historic Preservation staff appreciates your recognition. The team has worked very hard to provide a nice concise document for you all.

    Unfortunately, the preservation office has elected to NOT include 2nd story or garage apartments in the guidelines, do to the fact that there is a constant debate between the residents and the deed restrictions. Due to the fact that we cannot regulate deed restrictions, it seems clear to the team that this is something that needs to be revisited by the two parties. Once things have been resolved, we would be more than willing to add the garage decision to these guidelines. 

    We appreciate your willingness to participate and contribute to this process.

  • Share Chosen FAR’s do not align with the public poll. The guidelines show for 5000-5200 sq ft lot sizes homes are limited to a 0.43 FAR or 2,150-2,236 sq ft. 52% of respondents want 2,300 sq ft homes to be allowed on normal sized lots. Therefore, the FAR should be amended to be 0.45 for ALL lot sizes. The corner lot rear setback of 20ft is higher than the interior lot setback of 18ft, the corner lot size should be changed to be 18ft. The garage should be allowed to be attached to the house, this was overwhelmingly supported by the comments from poll participants. The 5 ft setback between the garage and house should be eliminated. 2nd story garage additions are not addressed in the guidelines. Previously they were addressed by saying they would not be allowed. Now, they are being indirectly banned by not being addressed in the guidelines. Poll respondents were clear that 2nd story garage additions should be allowed. How can residents accomplish this if it is not addressed in the guidelines? These guidelines should be a compromise of what homeowners want. The NNA should NOT have more influence than homeowners. They have less members than the amount of people that responded to the poll and DO NOT speak for the neighborhood, which is why their membership is so low! on Facebook Share Chosen FAR’s do not align with the public poll. The guidelines show for 5000-5200 sq ft lot sizes homes are limited to a 0.43 FAR or 2,150-2,236 sq ft. 52% of respondents want 2,300 sq ft homes to be allowed on normal sized lots. Therefore, the FAR should be amended to be 0.45 for ALL lot sizes. The corner lot rear setback of 20ft is higher than the interior lot setback of 18ft, the corner lot size should be changed to be 18ft. The garage should be allowed to be attached to the house, this was overwhelmingly supported by the comments from poll participants. The 5 ft setback between the garage and house should be eliminated. 2nd story garage additions are not addressed in the guidelines. Previously they were addressed by saying they would not be allowed. Now, they are being indirectly banned by not being addressed in the guidelines. Poll respondents were clear that 2nd story garage additions should be allowed. How can residents accomplish this if it is not addressed in the guidelines? These guidelines should be a compromise of what homeowners want. The NNA should NOT have more influence than homeowners. They have less members than the amount of people that responded to the poll and DO NOT speak for the neighborhood, which is why their membership is so low! on Twitter Share Chosen FAR’s do not align with the public poll. The guidelines show for 5000-5200 sq ft lot sizes homes are limited to a 0.43 FAR or 2,150-2,236 sq ft. 52% of respondents want 2,300 sq ft homes to be allowed on normal sized lots. Therefore, the FAR should be amended to be 0.45 for ALL lot sizes. The corner lot rear setback of 20ft is higher than the interior lot setback of 18ft, the corner lot size should be changed to be 18ft. The garage should be allowed to be attached to the house, this was overwhelmingly supported by the comments from poll participants. The 5 ft setback between the garage and house should be eliminated. 2nd story garage additions are not addressed in the guidelines. Previously they were addressed by saying they would not be allowed. Now, they are being indirectly banned by not being addressed in the guidelines. Poll respondents were clear that 2nd story garage additions should be allowed. How can residents accomplish this if it is not addressed in the guidelines? These guidelines should be a compromise of what homeowners want. The NNA should NOT have more influence than homeowners. They have less members than the amount of people that responded to the poll and DO NOT speak for the neighborhood, which is why their membership is so low! on Linkedin Email Chosen FAR’s do not align with the public poll. The guidelines show for 5000-5200 sq ft lot sizes homes are limited to a 0.43 FAR or 2,150-2,236 sq ft. 52% of respondents want 2,300 sq ft homes to be allowed on normal sized lots. Therefore, the FAR should be amended to be 0.45 for ALL lot sizes. The corner lot rear setback of 20ft is higher than the interior lot setback of 18ft, the corner lot size should be changed to be 18ft. The garage should be allowed to be attached to the house, this was overwhelmingly supported by the comments from poll participants. The 5 ft setback between the garage and house should be eliminated. 2nd story garage additions are not addressed in the guidelines. Previously they were addressed by saying they would not be allowed. Now, they are being indirectly banned by not being addressed in the guidelines. Poll respondents were clear that 2nd story garage additions should be allowed. How can residents accomplish this if it is not addressed in the guidelines? These guidelines should be a compromise of what homeowners want. The NNA should NOT have more influence than homeowners. They have less members than the amount of people that responded to the poll and DO NOT speak for the neighborhood, which is why their membership is so low! link

    Chosen FAR’s do not align with the public poll. The guidelines show for 5000-5200 sq ft lot sizes homes are limited to a 0.43 FAR or 2,150-2,236 sq ft. 52% of respondents want 2,300 sq ft homes to be allowed on normal sized lots. Therefore, the FAR should be amended to be 0.45 for ALL lot sizes. The corner lot rear setback of 20ft is higher than the interior lot setback of 18ft, the corner lot size should be changed to be 18ft. The garage should be allowed to be attached to the house, this was overwhelmingly supported by the comments from poll participants. The 5 ft setback between the garage and house should be eliminated. 2nd story garage additions are not addressed in the guidelines. Previously they were addressed by saying they would not be allowed. Now, they are being indirectly banned by not being addressed in the guidelines. Poll respondents were clear that 2nd story garage additions should be allowed. How can residents accomplish this if it is not addressed in the guidelines? These guidelines should be a compromise of what homeowners want. The NNA should NOT have more influence than homeowners. They have less members than the amount of people that responded to the poll and DO NOT speak for the neighborhood, which is why their membership is so low!

    kb asked about 1 month ago

    Hello,

    Thank you for your comments. As stated the survey was a poll and not to be considered a vote. The math used was to apply weighted averages to all the square footages and setbacks to include everyone single poll participant. 

    Also, the city of Houston preservation office cannot have a deed restriction discussion because, we cannot regulate or enforce them. We have not changed our response to that and the questions about garages were asked to inform the NNA of the thoughts and feelings of the residents. It was stated in the beginning that the preservation office would be removing items that we cannot legally regulate. If the residents would like to change what the deed restrictions say, we strongly suggest that you all attend the NNA meetings to have them edited. 

    Once again, we thank you for your comments and for taking the time to review the draft guidelines.

Page last updated: 05 Dec 2024, 10:38 AM