Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Height Exceptions topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies height exception for San Carlo home; variance not approved

5322166 · July 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Applicant Jared Phillips sought a height exception from 15 to 23 feet for a single-family home at 21601 San Carlo Avenue. The board heard neighborhood comments and voted such that the requested variance was not approved.

The Lago Vista Board of Adjustment considered a request to increase the allowable building height for a single-family house at 21601 San Carlo Avenue from 15 feet to 23 feet. The applicant, Jared Phillips, asked for the exception to accommodate the home design; neighbors raised concerns about privacy and consistency with the 15-foot limit.

City staff introduced the case (project 23-2788-SP-1) and said the property is zoned R-2 and that the application and plans were available in the packet. The applicant said he was trying to preserve “custom home” values in the neighborhood and that multifamily zoning across the street allows heights up to 35 feet. “I could build a different design,” Phillips said when asked whether alternative designs could meet the 15-foot limit.

The city mailed notice to nearby property owners and staff reported seven mailed responses: four in favor and three opposed. Opponents who submitted comments cited the requested height as violating existing code and as an intrusion on privacy. A board member who visited the site said the proposed home looked taller than surrounding houses and that the applicant had purchased the lot in 2023 and therefore had time to design within the 15-foot standard.

Board member Jean Harris made a motion to deny the requested variance, citing the applicant’s admission that a conforming design was feasible and concerns that financial motives were driving the request. The motion carried by voice vote; the chair and staff noted that a 75% concurrence is required to approve some variances under the applicable rules, and that threshold was not met. The board recorded that the variance request therefore failed to be approved.

Staff also noted that a separate project (project 232785 SPE) was withdrawn from the agenda because it had not been properly noticed and will be rescheduled.