Scare tactics and misinformation in LFH is being promoted by small group of unimaginative builders who opposite any effort toward conservation. For too many years the LFH community has worked with the city, builders and remodelers to arrive at a plan that would conserve the community while allowing new building and construction to replace derelict buildings.
This small group has stubbornly fought this effort in spite of many of their forward thinking fellow builders and remodelers contributions and endorsement of this plan. While it is well understood that you can not please all the builders all the time, it is a shame that this small group continues to use such tactics in an attempt to scuttle a project that the City Planning Commission, the community of LFH and many builders that have expended so much time and effort in to reach a beneficial compromise.

Builder, Builder, Builder

Did you read my post?

As I said in my 1st post: LFH is almost perfect. The only thing I don’t like about living in LFH is having to deal with folks who don’t “get” LFH.

And you don’t seem to get LFH.

As someone said at one of the neighborhood meetings, “LFH is intersting characters living in modest homes on relativley large lots.”

Maybe you don’t think that is something to conserve but I do.

I consider it a privilege to live in LFH. And I want to preserve the neighborhood that I fell in love with a decade ago so that others can have that same privilege.

I am not on the CD committee but I will vote for the district even though they compromised far too much with you and the rest of the builders.

I would have placed the maximum at 2000 sq ft. If you really want to live in LFH then you would figure out some way to “make do” with 2000 sq ft.

The point is that builders and remodelers have participated in the meetings and offered considerable discussion. However, this small group sat through those same proceeding and offered little or nothing with regard to compromises other then to complain that they could not build less then 3500 sqft or more. The majority moved forward and reached a good clean COMPROMISE. Now when the vote is coming up this group is blitzing the neighborhood with purposely false and misleading flyers in hopes of scuttling the entire process because they can not see the value in smaller, well designed, affordable homes. They are doing themselves, their community, LFH and the city a great disservice because they are unwilling or unable to change their views and it is a shame. Conservation is more then a specific architectual style. Many members of the city planners also had problems with that concept initially, until they stepped back and looked at the big picture and realized that smaller homes with a wide variety of styles can and does work. That is what LFH is attempting to conserve.

Alan,

I have not attended any of the meetings you and Robert mention. However, I have kept up with the process through the years.

Could you give an example or two of how you and the other builders have been willing to compromise? I have seen no evidence of that willingness. But maybe I have missed it since I was not at the meetings.

On the other hand the proposed CD is filled with compromises. When we began this process I would have never dreamed that the CD we will be voting on would:

1. have no provision for preventing the tearing down of homes that are structurally sound

2. not keep the 10/5 side setbacks

3. would allow for the construction of houses that are more than double the size of the typical LFH home.

Robert,

Remember we have a “Neighborhood Association” not a “Homeowners Association.”

As I understand it membership in LFHNA is not limited to homeowners. Renters are welcome to join as well.

As I noted, LFH, you were correct, we do not have a Homeowners Association.
I thought about this and wonder how much of the opposition is based on the fear that a Homeowners Association is in the plans. Let me state that if there was such an effort I would be one of the 1st to fight against it. One on the underlying principles of the Conservation Committee has been to balance the desire to limit balking homes that loom over their neighbors. No one want a two story, wall 5ft from their property line, extending out in front of their neighbors homes, or causing damaging water run off to their property, but that is exactly waht was happening. Remember, these are small lots here and we are cheek to jowl with our neighbors. It was doubly objectable when these big looming houses were being built by speculators who did not or were never intending to live in the neighborhood. Under the present city guideline could continue unabated.
The objective has always been to limit the BULK of new buildings from imposing on their neighbors. The balancing act has been to not restrict the individuality of design by imposing Arch. restrictions. The Arch. restrictions were the point of heated discussions with the City Planner because they could not see “what we were attempting to conserve”. There have been many compromises to this CD and clearly those who wanted only small houses have given considerable ground to those who want larger homes,but that is part of the process.
Originally, Alan was a supporter of the Conservation efforts, sometime ago he backed off and opposed the process. I believe that this occurred before many of the recent compromises were made. I also think that if he would look at the proposal as it stands today he might be more supportive. No one will get everything they want but that is part of the compromise. However, if his fear is that this will lead to a Homeowner Association that is another issue entirely. I don’t want people to tell us how to paint our homes or what design is acceptable. If that were the case, I would be standing right next to him to fight against that.

LFH Property,

I favor garage restrictions.

I like the cars on the street and in driveways. I like the fact that we don’t hide in garages but interact with each other when we are coming and going each day.

That is one of the things that makes LFH so special.

The problem for me continues to be that the builders are building for folks who don’t really want to live in LFH because it’s LFH. They don’t even market the houses as being part of the LFH community.

I really want all the people living in this neighborhood to be people whgo do not want to live anywhere else in Dallas.

If enough property owners are like you and want to see more upscale stuff replace the scruffy funky then we won’t have a conservation district. I will find that sad. But the folks will have worked the process as it was designed and I’ll be ok with it. I’ll be thankful that I had the privilege to live in this place while it was so wonderful.

Dear Mr. Hoffmann,

I have been a working artist for 35 years and have lived in LFH for much of that time. I know artists, and there are many living in LFH.

Artists are creative people and typically seek out quirky, interesting neighborhoods in which to live. Like LFH! They are not interested in upscale neighborhoods or the ones redeveloped with large homes, definitely not McMansions, like you seem to endorse.

Every time a “hip” area in Dallas (favored by artists) becomes discovered by developers, the artists are the ones to be most impacted and ultimately the ones who must leave to nurture their creative spirit.

Artists create work space wherever they are and I would submit that any artist can create very workable space within 2800 square feet up to 3500 square feet as the conservation district proposes.

Some artists work from a simple table or drawing board to space that will accommodate their paintings, jewelry or sculptural works. It doesn’t take a lot of thought or room, just efficient space design. Artists requiring very large work spaces seem to favor warehouse districts, not neighborhoods.

If you truly care about the artists in your neighborhood, I would think you would be able to find creative building solutions and work within any guidelines you are given. Some of the architects and builders in LFH have designed smaller and very thoughtful homes. Why can’t you, too? To not support our conservation district is to give your tacit approval to artists having to find another neighborhood in which to live and create.

LFH is almost perfect-

In response to your:

The problem for me continues to be that the builders are building for folks who don’t really want to live in LFH because it’s LFH. They don’t even market the houses as being part of the LFH community.
I really want all the people living in this neighborhood to be people whgo do not want to live anywhere else in Dallas.

I built a new home in this neighborhood because I fell in love with the huge, mature trees, children playing in the front yards, the unique “funky” artwork, different housing styles and friendly neighbors. I want to be a part of this community. I love walking my dog and baby outside everyday and meeting new neighbors. I don’t want to live in a “cookie cutter” suburban neighborhood like Frisco, Allen, or Plano. I also do not want to live so far outside of Dallas that I am having to waste time sitting in traffic, wasting fuel, destroying the environment, and leaving a huge carbon footprint.

If you truly look at the statistics, there are not that many homes over 2500 square feet in LFH. In fact it is probably less than 5% of the whole neighborhood. I am sorry, I wish I had the exact statistics, but you have to also remember that this is a HUGE neighborhood. Over 900 homes make up this subdivision.

I am a realtor and I looked all over Dallas before deciding on this neighborhood. I agree that I love all of the different styles and sizes of homes, but what many people don’t realize is that these new “restrictive covenants” are VERY RESTRICTIVE. Two story homes will be impossible to build in the future because of the new height restrictions. Our lot has a drainage issue where water runs down the middle of our backyard to a drain in the alleyway behind our house. If we did not build up, our home would almost be sitting on the edge of the street and we would be living in 1100 square feet. Not every lot in LFH is on a flat piece of land.

Also, we did not teardown an original LFH home on our lot. We only had to remove one tree, which was donated to a local furniture builder. We also planted another one in its place.

I “get” living here. We “want” to live in this neighborhood, but since all of this “voting” has started we have been seen as the enemy. I am nice to all of my neighbors regardless of how you are voting, but since the sign went up in my yard, I have never been “snubbed” so much in this neighborhood. It is really sad. It has pitted neighbor against neighbor.

If this passes, I pray a new Ordinance goes in place for what objects people can place in their front yards because they are too lazy to throw them away. I am sorry, but old mattresses, old furniture, junky cars with no tires, overgrown yards and shrubbery, mechanical equipment, are not going to bring any value to your neighborhood when you or your loved ones go to resale your home.

I wish there could be some type of agreement between the builders and the CD, but that is obviously not going to happen.

I don’t understand what is so different about this neighborhood that needs to be saved???? Half of the houses in this neighborhood need to be torn down! If people want to take the time to work on them, that is one thing, but some of the houses in here are ready for the wrecking ball!

The City Council would be COMPLETELY STUPID to pass an ordinance like this in this particular neighborhood. I can understand the “M Streets”, “Kessler Park”, or “Lakewood”, but this neighborhood is made up of a bunch of old lake homes from the residents of Highland Park. It hardly qualifies as a “conservation district”.

Too bad state law doesn’t allow a municipality to impose a conservation district to preserve trees or to keep “interesting people” in a neighborhood. Even worse for the City is that if passed this proposed conservation district will be challenged in court and exposed to the entire city for the sham that it truly is. Is anyone else aware that the sole basis for the qualification is that this area displays characteristics of an area that a WWII G.I. “would likely have returned to after WWII”? Under this standard, what neighborhood in Dallas doesn’t qualify?

Dear Artist in Residence -

Are you certain the proposed conservation district allows houses “within 2800 square feet up to 3500 square feet”? You should re-read the proposed ordinance.