Homes That Can’t Be Built in Little Forest Hills
You may have heard the rumblings as far north as Preston and LBJ: the battle for a conservation district in Little Forest Hills. Come November, the City Plan Commission will scrutinize the plan, which goes to the City Council for a vote in December. Very hot issue. If the plan passes as proposed, here is a list of homes that can’t be built in Little Forest Hills including one we shot for our newest issue of D Home.
31 Comments to “Homes That Can’t Be Built in Little Forest Hills”
Leave a Reply
Home |
Masthead |
News from D |
About Us |
Contact Us |
Subscribe |
Advertise |
Privacy Policy |
Customer Service |
Awards | Archives | Reprints | Custom Publishing | Jobs | Advertiser's Index
Awards | Archives | Reprints | Custom Publishing | Jobs | Advertiser's Index
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.
When we bought our house the ONLY amenity that mattered was that it was in LFH.
Indoor plumbing was considered a plus but lack therof would not have been considered a deal breaker.
What makes LFH funky is not the houses but the cast of characters who live in those houses.
And the builders seem to have no interest in building house for those sort of characters.
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.
Well Robert is partially correct, there was a group that met MANY times to try and come up with a consensus, but there were still major differences! Then it was brought up, what are we conserving! Conservation Districts were not meant to be put in place to conserve that “funky feeling”! They are meant to Conserve a type of Architecture, ie Hollywood Heights- Tudors, Vickery Place and “M Streets”- Craftsman and Prairie homes, etc., what are they looking to conserve in LFH? Minimal Traditional (”small”) homes?
With the City and DISD looking for every dollar they can get, do we really want to restrict over 900 lots with an IRREVERSIBLE ordinance? Each new homes is adding about $250k to the tax base! For every 12-13 homes DISD can hire back one of those teachers we just had to let go!
Why are the leaders of the CD group some of those that already have homes in the area that do not meet their own proposed ordinance? One of them is the self proclaimed “broker of LFH” and he has a home that exceeds the proposed roof height, has an accesory building over the height limit and is on a double lot (all of which are not allowed in the proposed ordinance)! Even City staff has said that this area “DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR A CONSERVATION DISTRICT”!
Take a look around this neighborhood, you will see homes that are falling down, along side beautiful new homes being built to many different styles and sizes!
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.
I was just looking at the post above this one with a link to D’s 10 houses with the most curb appeal.
Any street in LFH has more curb appeal than those hopuse that they have pictured. Even on bulky trash weekend.
I love this neighbohood.
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.
Robert,
As a builder who participated in the referenced meetings, but more importantly as a resident of Little Forest Hills, it is very clear to me throughout this process that the folks not willing to comprimise has been your group. That is why this ordinance is going to be defeated.
The movers and shakers on the conservation committee, many of whom are recent residents have one concern only and that is keeping taxes low. Additionally, funky is not referenced in the conservation ordinance of Dallas, and you are not clear when you say architectural style isn’t the only thing defining a conservation ordinance.
The homes in the flyer that our group has posted here are the homes that the conservation committee used to sell the idea of this district to the residents. Don’t you think it’s ironic that you can’t build the homes you were using as “Poster Symbols” of funkiness.
The fact that conservation committee has been unwilling to compromise will be the reason for it’s pending defeat.
Alan Hoffmann
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.
One final point that I would like to make illustrating a scare tactic employed & highlighted in your flyer:
“We are voting on whether we want a very powerful Home Owners Association.” ??
This is way off base and is both false and misleading. The Conservation Committee was completely removed and independent from the $15.00 dollar a year, totally voluntary, Little Forest Hills Home Owners Association for years now. That same small group of anti-conservation folks, I believe that you were part of that Alan, insisted on that sometime ago. To bring it up now as part of this last minute effort to scuttle the CD by misleading people who might not realize that fact is irresponsible.
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.
I stand corrected, it is a Neighborhood Association. Do we even have a Homeowners Association? Then why bring it up?
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.
Well, Robert it appears that you know everyone’s opinion about the proposed CD and I guess you have read it well? Then why do we have restrictions against building our beloved garage studios? Is it because those leaders of the CD that want them already built them? Why is there ANY architectural restrictions (front eave height) if we want creative architecture? Is it that we are not trying to just protect our trees and size of homes? Why have garage restrictions? We need to get the cars off of the front lawns and our streets! I agree that we need to have some restrictions against “McMansions”, but heck, nobody can build a modern two-story home at 26′ high! It was shown at numerous meetings, but someone has looked at 4/12 pitch roofs with 8′ ceiling heights and put their personal preference on this one! In speaking with the builders, yeah they were not willing to compromise on certain things, but why try to restrict them to a maximum of around 2200 sf a/c on a one story when that is what we want them to build! How ridiculous is that! We talked about the one-story plans that were recently built in the neighborhood and how we like most of them (with the exception of some elevations, but then someone (the “Committee”) gives the City a max. s/f number that would prohibit building most, if not all of these! This has definitely been going on too long and has been run by a few looking to impose their “preferences” on the mass!
Look out for what you ask for!
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.
LFH Property,
It just occured to me that it may be significant that you id yourself as a property owner and not a resident and member of the LFH community.
Hmmm. Could it be that you are not a resident but a builder?
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.
Where is the location and time for tonight’s vote? I am a new leasee in the neighborhood and the owner of the house is “for” conservation, but he didn’t submit his vote via mail ontime. But I’d still like to attend the meeting as a member of the audience.
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.
About the “snubbing”, I see it and really it only shows a lack of character, a lack of courtsy for others by those “snobs”. Psychos
Hipocracy is rampant amoung those who are behind this Conservation District Ordinance. They held evening meetings at my neighbors 2 story which is 35ft tall and has eaves initiating above 12ft; the ordinance will not allow a new home to be built like his. I saw our Commissioner meeting there to creatively help their persuit; after he talked about having to be unbiased because he would be voting on the issue.
When I was first approached by the Pro-Conservation District Ordinance folks, I was told that if I didn’t sign on with the movement, that I would be victim to hugh homes, up to 60 ft tall. I was also told my want for other owners to provide street side parking, would be included in the survey which all property owners would create.
I was told the survey results would become the ordinance. I and other property owners were decieved, and disenfranchised. After the survey results, Development was restricted to small group meetings at the Meadows Foundation. The rules were changed.
I actually attended at 3 of the Meadows Foundation meetings, where the ordinance was discussed and I was the only one there, who wasn’t either a builder or “For” the Conservation District Ordinance. I did make suggestions, but these were rejected.
The only choice now is to vote for or vote against, an ordinance which reflects an agenda of folks who don’t live with kids or plan on caring for their parents at home. They believe they are right and frankly don’t care about other peoples’ opinions.
The suggested height of 60′, is now to be 26 ft. That’s losing a big percentage of our current property rights. This is typical of the restrictive effects the ordinance has.
If some day I do sell my property, with half of the rights that I bought it with, what growth in value can I expect? Will the value stay the same after half of the property rights are yielded -permanently?
I don’t expect to be selling any time soon, yet we each need to plan for our future. I need space for the care of my parents. My small home is not large enough.
Since I was first approached back when, I have walked our neighborhood and left flyers with my opinions & questions about this ordinance several times. My name is also Robert, yet I have serious objections to what will likely soon be, a permanent set of restrictions for every property owner in LFH.
I don’t know how many of those people who voted for the ordinance, have actually even read the ordinance or realize the permanent extent of the ordinance. I’m not sure if the two “Chairpeople” behind the ordinance, actually each own property here in Little Forest Hills.
We’re going to lose a lot of the ‘funky’ styles of homes which make up Little Forest Hills. Like the mini Victorian types, and the ‘Lake Homes’ w/ the balcony roof over the garage. No more front eaves over 12ft.
I understand that parties on each side of this issue are doing what they feel is best. We each think that we are right. When this is over, we will all still live here. I don’t know if it is possible to stop the private agenda driving this Conservation District Ordinance.
When information from the City of Dallas was first handed out about this, there was explained a procedure to follow which wasn’t followed.
I agree, it would be nice if we each could be respectful of each others opinions, and maybe not be deceptive or intimidating when talking about this ordinance. If you need a copy of the draft, or of survey results: call me: 214 324 0680 Robert
God Bless Us All.
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”.
Just in case any one reads this page:
Here is what Wikipedia says about the term “McMansion”:
McMansion is a slang architectural term which first came into use in the United States during the 1980s as a pejorative description. It describes a particular style of housing that, as its name suggests, is large like a mansion, but is cheaply and hastily built, often in large neighborhoods at a time with almost no difference between individual structures, similar to the producing of food at McDonald’s fast food restaurants.
I am sorry but the new homes being built in this neighorhood are far from a McMansion.
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?
Robert Klug – I noticed your comment about not wanting people to dictate what you can do with your house. You should read the proposed ordinance. Once you do, you will join the fight against this absurdity.
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.
Dear LFH is almost perfect -
You should read state law. A conservation district is not about what you want. It’s about what the City thinks about the architectural and cultural aspects of an area that are significant and important enough to be worth preserving. What exactly is it about the architecture in LFH that is being preserved by the proposed ordinance? to me, your comments only make a judge’s life easier to invalidate this entire mess.
In response to New Homeowner in LFH and the reference to old mattresses, junky cars, etc – understand those are code compliance issues.
These restrictions are already in place and I invite you to call 311 to report any and all violations listed on the city website: http://www.dallascityhall.com/code_compliance/Common_Code_Violations.html
The correlation between conservation supporters and junky cars in the front lawn and drug houses is unnecessary and untrue. The quality of life in LFH is important to everyone who lives here and we all need to work together with the code compliance officer assigned to our neighborhood, regardless of what size house we live in.
Caring for our neighbors and neighborhood is what this neighborhood is all about.
Good point I heart LFH. Wouldn’t caring for your neighbors also include not imposing your personal desires on their home property rights?
I completely agree with you “I heat LFH”. I love this neighborhood as well. That is why we chose to build in this neighborhood.
My point is that I chose this neighborhood probably for the same reasons that you chose this neighborhood. After the vote at city council today, we need to come together and make a distinct movement as to why this neighborhood is so unique from every other neighborhood in Dallas. I want this to be the “Greenest (if there is such a word), funkiest neighborhood” in all of Dallas, or the U.S. for that matter!
I did not bring up the drug references in my earlier post, but if you want to go there: 5 Home in LFH were seized by U.S. Drug Marshals in 2004. Not to mention there were several other drug dealers in the neighborhood that were brought down as well. These were RENTERS! NOT HOMEOWNERS!
This is a fact and if you want me to provide the websites, or data, I will be more than happy to do so.
I am tired of being snubbed in this neighborhood because I am against the conservation district. I love all of the older homes in this neighborhood, just like you do. However, if you choose to let your property run into complete “disrepair” then it is better for someone to come in and remove it and build another home in its place so that someone else can enjoy this neighborhood and make your experience living here a more enjoyable one. I love ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS, regardless of what side they are on. In fact, most of them have older homes, and they love the fact that the “newer” homes have brought in a new group of people into this neighborhood.
You know, we could have chosen to live in Highland Park or other areas of Dallas, but I want to raise my child with a better understanding of the “real world” . I hope and pray that we can all come together and see that this world is changing each and every single day. We can only make our experience in this life better by the people that we have around us, and I hope that my child will get to know YOU one day so that we can all be neighbors in the “bigger picture” of things.
New LFH Homeowner, I know the majority of us CAN work together to arrive at the best solution that protects our fabulous trees and scale of the neighborhood.
I think you proved your own point about the drug houses. There are houses that are owned by slumlords who were completely opposed to conservation. The example on Channel 8 news of the pink house next to a new build and some of the recently cleaned up drug houses in 2008 are owned by the same non-resident owners who do not keep up their properties.
Mattresses and trash out front usually indicates yet another renter who was kicked out by a homeowner landlord, not a lazy resident owner. We have a group that helps the elderly and infirm with their houses and cleanup, so they are taken care of. At the same time, I have to mention there are fabulous renters here who do care and some even eventually buy here. There are non-resident owners who do a great job of upkeep. But there are many others who do not.
Maybe you and I should walk side by side down any street, you point out an undesirable house and we’ll see if it’s a rental. Many supporters live in fabulously remodeled homes or have not ruled out plans to grow their own older homes in a respectable scale.
When you take the votes received at City Hall and divvy up the votes between LFH resident owners and non resident property owners, 70% voted for conservation. This means those of us who LIVE here and care for our homes and know our neighbors, we really want to keep what makes our neighborhood the BEST IN DALLAS.
I look forward to learning more about what we CAN do. NSO’s do not protect trees nor have a replacement requirement. In order to be truely green and environmentally conscious, as well as protect our canopy, don’t you think we should have that? So we learn more about this PD option and see what it can do for us.
Looking forward to working together. SAVE LFH!
After a Couple of nights rest I am ready to comment in a series of bullet points:
* I did not serve on the conservation committee. The only meeting I attened were the public ones.
* I am seriously disappointed that the CD did not pass. My yard reflects that sadness and will for about a week.
* I was disappointed that people on all sides of the issue were treated rudely. I hope I never treated Anna and Amy rudely. We share a street. If I did please tell me and I will apologize.
* I am on record as saying that when I moved here the only amenity that mattered was the neighborhood. The house itself was largely irrelevent. The experince of being a part of LFH is worth the hassle of dealing with a 1948 size closet. I wouldn’t want to live any where elase in Dallas.
* I hope that the oppoenets who have not been involved in LFHNA will do so now. There’s the garden tour, the parade, fix-it folks, love of the lake, crime watch, the park and lots of other stuff.
* One of my frustrations in the whole process was that we always talked past each other. It was like we were speaking different languages.
* I will admit that I don’t understand the opponents of the CD.
* This conversation at it’s heart was never about economics or property rights. I wish those topics had never become a part of the discussion much less dominate it.
* What this conversation was about was how to build and preserve a healthy tight knit community. The issue was whether or not a CD would help or hinder that process. But we never got to have that conversation.
* I supported the CD becuase I thought it would help sustain our community. Actually I wanted a more restictive one than what we actually voted on. It would mean that the people chose to live here in spite of the fact or maybe even becuase of the fact they could not have spa bath or a walk in closet.
* I’m not going anywhere. I anticipate I’ll be in LFH unitl I go to the cemetary or a nursing home. And I’m only 51.
Dear Little Forest Hills was and maybe still is Almost Perfect,
Thank you for being honest in your response. And no, you have never been rude to Anna or myself;) In fact, we were talking the other day about how we loved trick or treating in the neighborhood with all of our kids. How fun to sit out in your front yard and watch all the little ghosts and goblins go by!
We also love your yard and I love the fact that it changes with all of the holidays. It always gives me something new to show our daughter when we walk by your home. We love it! I would never be able to find this kind of “yard art” in Plano, Frisco or Richardson.
To “I heart LFH”:
Thank you for being polite in your repsonse. After reading both blogs I hate to see all of the hateful bickering and name calling that goes back and forth.
I agree that hopefully we can find some happy middle ground that will bring everyone together as neighbors.