Historic Preservation Appeals Board Meeting – July 14, 2025

The Historic Preservation Appeals Board (HPAB) convened on Monday, July 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. at the City Hall Annex, 900 Bagby, Houston, Texas. The meeting was called to order by Chair J.D. Bartell. The board heard a single appeal regarding a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) denial for a proposed two-story addition at 247 West 16th Street in the Houston Heights West Subdivision. After deliberation, the board voted unanimously to uphold the denial. A discussion also occurred on process improvements, particularly defining "detached garage" and ensuring clarity in future staff reports.

Consent Calendar

• The prior meeting minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Alia Deonda (representing the property owner, Tracy Bulware): Argued that the garage should be considered detached because there is an outdoor breezeway between the garage and the main house. She stated that no definition of "detached garage" exists in the city guidelines, and that if the garage is considered detached, the project complies with all floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. She presented drawings showing the breezeway and the proposed addition entirely on the rear of the historic house.
• Tracy Bulware (property owner): Explained that the property was purchased via a 1031 exchange and that the deed was recorded after the COA application was filed, but she asserted this is not an issue as the owner at the time of the application was a joint venture partner. She argued that for real estate disclosure purposes, a detached garage is defined as one requiring you to walk outside to enter the house, even if connected by a breezeway and shared roof. She stated that marketing a garage as attached when it is legally detached could be considered fraud. She also cited three prior projects (2023 and earlier) with similar designs—including living space over the garage—that were approved, and she expressed frustration that these were not included in the staff report.
• Staff Member Terrence Jackson (Historic Preservation Office): Opposed the appeal, asserting that the garage is attached based on the continuous building mass and second-floor connection, and that the project exceeds FAR if the garage is counted as attached. He noted that the applicant originally submitted two separate applications (one for the house addition and one for the garage), which staff interpreted as indicating the applicant initially considered the garage detached, but staff treated it as one attached project. He stated that the HHC recommended denial at the June 5, 2025 meeting.
• Chair J.D. Bartell (as a board member): Read a statement from the U.S. Department of Interior and the Code of Federal Regulations regarding new additions needing to be subordinate to the historic building, and argued that the proposed addition (with a second story over the garage) would overpower the original bungalow.
• Commissioner Douglas Elliott: Expressed disappointment that the calculations in the staff report were unclear (e.g., confusing FAR and lot coverage), and requested that future reports show all work step by step.

Discussion Items

• Definition of Detached vs. Attached Garage: The board debated whether a garage connected by a breezeway, with living space above, should be considered attached for the purposes of historic preservation. Staff argued it is attached; the applicant argued it is detached based on real estate disclosure standards and the need to go outdoors to enter the house. The board noted that no formal definition exists in the city ordinance or guidelines.
• Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Lot Coverage Calculations: The staff report indicated a total square footage of 3,483 (including 501 square feet from the attached garage), which exceeded the exempt FAR. The applicant presented calculations showing compliance if the garage is considered detached (and thus exempt from FAR). There was confusion about whether covered porches and breezeway space were included correctly.
• Precedent Projects: The applicant pointed to three prior approved projects (2023, 305 East Fifth Street, and one from 2020) that they said had similar designs and were approved. Staff countered that those projects were not identical and that the board evaluates each case on its own merits; also, one of the 2020 projects prompted a policy change regarding oversized rear porches.
• Procedural Issues: The board discussed whether staff should include applicant-submitted evidence (like prior COAs) in the staff report. Staff noted that under legal instructions, reports are finalized before the meeting and cannot be altered. It was suggested that a deadline for submitting documents be clarified and that the board confer with legal counsel (Kim Mickelson) for future guidance.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Uphold HHC Decision: Commissioner Truman Edminster moved to uphold the HHC's denial of the COA. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously (4–0, with Vice Chair Libby Vieira Bland absent).
• Directive to Staff: Chair Bartell asked staff to develop a clear, written definition of "detached garage" for the city's website to avoid future ambiguity. Commissioner Elliott requested that future staff reports present FAR and lot coverage calculations in a step-by-step manner. The board also agreed to ask legal counsel for guidance on including applicant-provided documents in future reports.
• Next Steps: The denial of the COA is final for this appeal. Staff will work on clarifying procedures and definitions before the next meeting.