Historic-design panel denies new two-story house at 120 Callahan after debate over height, massing and driveway

The Historic Design Review Commission on April 16 declined to approve a proposed two‑story single‑family house at 120 Callahan in the Lavaca Historic District, voting to adopt staff recommendations after more than an hour of testimony and commissioner debate.

Staff recommended denial based on a long list of findings (a through w) and requested the applicant address setbacks, height, porch design, siding and fenestration, eliminate a front‑loading garage, retain the existing driveway location, and submit a detailed landscaping plan before returning for approval. The applicant, Daniel Cruz of Design Coop, presented revised plans and told commissioners he had moved the primary façade back and replaced a large stucco wall with a more traditional porch and vertical siding. Cruz said the project remains a contemporary interpretation of historic forms and that he had reduced some window sizes and would use a galvalume standing‑seam metal roof per the guidelines.

Commissioners focused on scale and siting. Several members said the house’s combination of a full 9‑foot plate on both floors, a front‑facing garage and a shallow lot made the design out of scale for the immediate block face. Commissioner Grupp (calling for restraint on massing) and Commissioner Sabino (on setting back the structure further) both said the height and placement together created an overly prominent presence when viewed from the street. Commissioner Sabino said the accumulation of “outlier features” made the design unlikely to conform to the district. Commissioner Castillo and others also said the lot’s shallow depth and neighboring building lines constrained the applicant’s options.

The property owner, Corey Neal, spoke in favor of the design and described his desire to live downtown with a floor plan that accommodates his family and business schedule. Neal said he and the design team had tried to balance program needs and historic context and added, “I want to create a lifestyle that we can enjoy, walk and and and do that.” The commission repeatedly discussed whether modest reductions in plate height or an increased front setback would sufficiently address visual massing; staff noted that the guidelines allow a two‑story structure only if it does not exceed adjacent heights by more than 50 percent and recommended the applicant supply measured heights of nearby structures.

Two motions reached the floor. An initial motion to approve the design as submitted failed on roll call. A subsequent motion “as recommended by staff” (which, per staff recommendation, resulted in no approval being granted) carried on roll call, effectively denying the COA for the current submission and listing the staff findings as items the applicant must address before returning. The final roll call on the staff‑recommended action recorded eight yes votes and two no votes.

The commission and staff said the decision does not prevent the applicant from returning with revised plans that respond to the list of required changes. Staff also confirmed the city’s unified development code process allows the applicant to request postponements, but absent such a request the commission must take action at the hearing. The applicant acknowledged he could revise plans and return and that additional documentation (surveyed setbacks, measured adjacent building heights and a finalized site plan showing driveway and walkway details) would help the commission evaluate future submittals.

Clarifying details captured at the hearing include that the applicant reported 9‑foot floor plates for both the first and second floors and a total proposed building height of about 27 feet 9 inches (chimney excluded); staff asked the applicant to provide measured heights of adjacent structures. Staff’s list of design items to address before a future approval included at minimum: increased setback relative to adjacent historic structures, revised porch/porch roof consistent with district examples, vertical siding made up of individual boards (not panels), window sizing and separation to match adjacent historic patterns, elimination of front‑loading garage or design that places parking in the rear or side yard, a concrete walkway centered on the front door, a front yard fence not exceeding 4 feet, and a detailed landscaping plan submitted to the commission.

Outcome and next steps: the commission carried a motion to follow staff recommendations (denial of the current application). The applicant may return with revised drawings that specifically address the staff findings and the commissioner concerns about scale and massing.