This document summarizes a request for significance review of a structure located at 217 E. Oakview in order to demolish the existing main and accessory structures. The 2,484 square foot home was built in 1953 and has a lot coverage of 30% and floor area ratio of 27%. On October 16, 2018, the Architectural Review Board considered the request and declared the main structure as not significant, recommending approval of the demolition. Notifications were sent to property owners within 200 feet, and no support, neutral, or opposition responses were received.

1. Case No. 726F
Significance Review
217 E. Oakview
Presented By: Ken Roberts, Interim Director
Community Development Services
City Council Meeting
Agenda Item # 4
November 13, 2018

2.  Request of Marquis (Alex) and Emily
Whittington, owners, for the significance
review of the existing main structure
located at 217 E. Oakview under
Demolition Review Ordinance No. 1860
in order to demolish 100% of the existing
main structure and accessory structure.

3. 3
BACKGROUND
 Zoned SF-A
 North side of E. Oakview between
Vanderhoeven & N. New Braunfels.

4. 4

5. 5
POLICY ANALYSIS
 Existing 2,484 sq. ft. home was built in 1953
and has an existing Lot Coverage of 30%
with FAR of 27%.
 On October 16, 2018, the ARB considered
the request for demolition. They declared
the existing main structure as not significant
and recommended approval of the
demolition as requested.

6. 6

7. 7EXISTING SITE PLAN

8. 8PROPOSED SITE PLAN

9. 9
• Per Section 5-138 of the City’s Building Code,
the lot shall be completed cleaned, filled, and
graded to prevent any retention of water and
promote proper drainage. All utilities must be
disconnected and/or capped and approaches
removed. In addition, silt fences shall be
provided for all projects approved under
demolition review and shall be provided prior to
beginning the proposed demolition of the
structure.

10. 10
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
 Postcards were mailed to property owners
within a 200-foot radius of the property,
appropriate notice was posted on the City
website and a sign was posted on the
property.
 Responses received:
 Support: (0) Neutral: (0)
 Oppose: (0)

11. QUESTIONS?