TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer C. Baptiste - Planning & Zoning Division Manager
FROM: Alannah Hudson, CZO - Planner I
DATE: October 13, 2026
RE:Title
A26-35 Order of Approval - Findings of Fact: A variance request to reduce required setbacks at 514 Quality Rd (0426944091000), owned by Saribet M. Sandoval and Carmelo S. Noyola.
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
District 2 - Councilmember Malik Davis
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal 2: A Responsive City Government Driving Economic Diversity and Sustainability
• Objective 2.1: Expand and diversify the City’s tax base to promote long-term fiscal resilience and economic stability. Relief provided by this variance will allow for a newly constructed home to be occupied and contribute towards the City’s tax base, rather than having to be removed and left vacant.
Goal 4: A Thriving, Livable Community
• Objective 4.5: Support the development of vibrant, well-connected neighborhoods that enrich the quality of life for all residents. The request for variance supports the typical single family residential property use and allows for the use of a newly constructed home, rather than leaving a usable property within a neighborhood vacant.
Executive Summary:
The applicant has submitted a variance (A26-35) from the Unified Development Ordinance to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 3.6 feet, post-construction. The case was initially on the agenda for the August 11th Zoning Commission meeting, and the case was tabled until the September 8th Zoning Commission meeting, where it was seen in a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing. There was one speaker in opposition. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the variance request.
On September 8, 2026, the Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve the Variance in question.
Background:
Owner: Saribet M. Sandoval and Carmelo S. Noyola
Applicant: Saribet M. Sandoval
Requested Action: Reduce setbacks to allow construction on small parcel.
Zoning District: SF-6 (Single Family Residential 6 District)
Property Address: 514 Quality Rd
Size: 0.10 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
o North - SF-6 Single Family vacant land abutting subject property
o South - SF-6 Single Family Residential and Quality Road frontage
o East - SF-6 Single Family Residential abutting subject property
o West - SF-6 Single Family Residential abutting subject property
Issues/Analysis:
Site and Case Context: The Subject Property is ±0.10 acres in a Single Family 6 Residential zoning district. The lot itself is below the minimum square footage for the zoning district, having been subdivided prior to the current iteration of City Ordinance being adopted, which created a nonconforming lot. The lot previously held a single-family residence, which was dilapidated and unoccupied for years. The applicant purchased the property and constructed a new single-family residence on the same footprint as the previous home on this lot. During the permitting process, they were not informed of the need for a variance until they got into the post-construction inspections stage, where they were informed they would not receive a Certificate of Occupancy until they received an approved variance to reduce the side setback to where it was physically constructed.
Applicable Standards: Under the UDO’s dimensional standards for SF-6 Residential zoning districts, side setbacks are to be 10 feet from the property line on all side property boundaries.
Requested Relief: The relief being requested is to vary from the 10-foot side setback, to 3.6 feet, due to the home already having been constructed on the footprint of the previous foundation.
Insufficient Justification for a Variance:
The following do not constitute valid grounds for granting a Variance:
• The existence of conforming or nonconforming uses or structures elsewhere in the same or other zoning districts;
• A request to establish a use that is expressly or implicitly prohibited within the zoning district; or
• Claims of economic hardship or increased profitability that would result from approval of the Variance.
Findings of Fact Statements as reviewed by Planning Staff:
1. There is sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
The parcel is small and narrow, and the applicant utilized the existing building footprint, which they gained full approval for in February of 2025. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements would result in unnecessary hardship due to the fact that they were approved previously and led to believe they were following all requirements, until they got to the post-construction inspection stage.
2. There is sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
The landowner followed all applicable permitting and approval steps, completing all actions required in order to replace the previous home on this parcel. Unique circumstances of the land, being the approved reuse of the previous building footprint on a narrow parcel, are not resulting from the actions of the landowner.
3. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
The request is to reduce one side setback from 10 feet to 3.6 feet, matching the home post-construction. This is the minimum amount of action required to make reasonable use of this property.
4. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
The request maintains neighborhood scale and character, confining relief to a single side setback. This is consistent with the UDO’s purpose and intent to accommodate principally single-family detached residential development at moderate density, designed to respond to environmental and site conditions.
5. There is sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured, and substantial justice has been done, as shown by the following evidence:
The encroachment is solely on one side of the home, along a property boundary where there is already a privacy fence. It poses no impact to public travelways nor does it detract from the character and form of the surrounding neighborhood.
Budget Impact:
Case A26-35 does not create a direct fiscal impact for the City. The only cost is the routine staff time for processing the variance application, public notice, supporting the Zoning Commission hearing, and preparing documentation records.
Options:
1. Approve the drafted Findings of Fact, which match the draft Order to Approve A26-35 and the hearing record.
2. Approve the Findings of Fact with revisions, the Zoning Commission requests, and the hearing record supports.
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of option 1 above.
end
Attachments:
1. Order to Approve A26-35 - Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
2. A26-35 Application
3. A26-35 Site Plan
4. A26-35 Zoning Map
5. A26-35 Future Land Use Map
6. A26-35 Aerial Notification Map
7. A26-35 Subject Property Photos
8. A26-35 Surrounding Property Photos