Zoning Board of Adjustment

Members Geraldo Arzate, Chairman Tim Harry, Member Kirk Strahan, Member Kyle Newton, Member Kaylie Banda, Member Paul Anthony Rios, Member Craig Stoker, Alternate Member Priscilla Contreras, Alternate Member ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY HALL, 411 W. 8TH ST. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – FIFTH FLOOR October 18, 2023 8:30 A.M. OPENING ITEMS I. Call to Order II. Invocation CONSENT ITEMS III. Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning meeting minutes for September 06, 2023. PUBLIC HEARING The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold public hearings on the following items: IV. CASE NO. 2023-07 V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of David A Gutierrez and Jazmin Diaz, owner, for a variance from Sections 14-7-5 of the City of Odesa zoning ordinances to allow a structure (carport) to be built a ten feet (10’) front yard setback instead of the required twenty-five feet (25’) front yard building setback in a Single Family three (SF-3) Zoning District, Lot 36, Block 7, Beckwood Terrace. (2669 San Carlos Terrace). V. Adjourn.  Members Gerardo Arzate, Chairman Tim Harry, Vice Chairman Kyle Newton, Member Kirk Strahan, Member Kaylie Banda, Member Paul Anthony Rios, Member Mark Windham, Member Craig Stoker, Member (Alternate) Pricilla Contreras, Member (Alternate) Zoning Board of Adjustments, Minutes City Hall, 411 W 8th St. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – FIFTH FLOOR September 6, 2023 8:30 A.M. OPENING ITEMS 1. Call to Order Invocation CONSENT ITEMS 2. Motion to approve the Zoning Board of Adjustments minutes for September 6, 2023. 3. CASE FILE NO. 2023-05-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of Filiberto Ayala, owner, for a variance from Section 14-7-5 of the City of Odessa zoning Ordinance to allow a structure (carport) to be built ten feet (10’) instead of the required twenty-five feet (25’) front yard building setback in a Single Family- three (SF-3) Zoning District, Lot 8, Block 18, Burnett Heights Addition, 3rd Filing. (1504 Woodlawn Dr.) 4. CASE FILE NO. 2023-06-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of REBD Trucking, LLC, owner, for a variance from Section 14-7-6 (k) (1) of the City of Odessa zoning ordinance to allow a structure to be built at zero feet (0’) front yard setback instead of the required twenty-five feet (25’) front yard building setback and from Section 14-7-9(2) to allow said structure to be located at zero feet (0’) rear yard setback instead of the required ten feet (10’) rear yard setback in a Light Commercial (LC) Zoning District, Lot 1, Block 1, College Addition, 2nd Filing. (1215 N Lee Ave.)  5. CASE FILE NO. 2023-07-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of David A Gutierrez and Jazmin Diaz, owner, for a variance from Sections 14-7-5 of the City of Odesa zoning ordinances to allow a structure (carport) to be built a ten feet (10’) front yard setback instead of the required twenty-five feet (25’) front yard building setback in a Single Family three (SF-3) Zoning District, Lot 36, Block 7, Beckwood Terrace. (2669 San Carlos Terrace). 6. ADJOURN Be it said and remembered that at 8:30 a.m. on the 6th day of September 2023, there came on and was held a Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting in the Council Chambers, 5th Floor, 411 W. 8th St., Odessa, Texas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerardo Arzate, Chairman Tim Harry, Vice Chairman Kyle Newton Kirk Strahan Kaylie Banda MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Windham Paul Anthony Rios Pricilla Contreras Craig Stoker OTHERS PRESENT: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager; James Reber, Planner; Cheynna Torres, Planning Tech, Gracie Rodriguez, Planning Tech, Joe Tucker, Director City Engineer; Dan Jones, City Attorney The minutes of the August 16, 2023, Zoning Board of Adjustments Commission meet were approved, motion for approval being made by Commissioner Tim Harry, seconded by Kyle Newton, with the vote being a unanimous “aye”. Be it said and remembered that at 8:30 a.m. on the 16th day of August 2023, there came on and was held a Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting in the Council Chamber, 5th Floor, 411 W. 8t St., Odessa, Texas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kirk Strahan Brooke Harper Tim Harry Kyle Newton MEMBERS ABSENT: Anthony Rios Craig Stoker (Alternate) Pricilla Contreras (Alternate) OTHERS PRESENT: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager; James Reber, Planner; Cheynna Torres and Gracie Rodriguez, Planning Tech. DOCKET NO. 2023-05-V(approved) Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of Filiberto Ayala, owner, for a variance from Section 14-7-5 of the City of Odessa zoning Ordinance to allow a structure (carport) to be built ten feet (10’) instead of the required twenty-five feet (25’) front yard building setback in a Single Family- three (SF-3) Zoning District, Lot 8, Block 18, Burnett Heights Addition, 3rd Filing. (1504 Woodlawn Dr.) Ms. Prieto gave the following presentation: 29 sent notices, 0 approve 0 protest. The property involved in this request is located at 1504 Woodlawn Dr. This site is currently zoned Single Family-Three (SF-3) and is occupied by a single-family residence. The property is surrounded by residential development to the north, east, south, and west. The applicant is Filiberto Ayala, owner, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a structure (carport) to be built ten feet (10’) front yard setback instead of the required twenty-five feet (25’) front yard setback to allow the structure forward. The applicants are requesting a variance from Section 14-7-5 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance, which states: Sec. 14-7-5 Front Yard In the following zoning district, the minimum required front yard shall be in accordance with the following schedule and no building or structure shall hereinafter be located, erected, or altered so as to have a smaller front yard than hereinafter required, and no front yard existing at the time of passage of this ordinance shall be reduced below the minimum set forth in the following schedule except hereinafter provided: Schedule Minimum Required Front Yard Single Family-Three (SF-3) 25 ft. (See Page 14 Attachment 5) The following criteria as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance requests. The burden of proof in meeting each of these criteria is upon the applicant. (a) The variance request is not contrary to the public interest. (b) Special conditions exist for the applicant that do not generally exist for others. (c) A literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. (d) The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice is done. Staff analysis of this request is the applicant’s request to reduce the front yard to ten feet (10’) instead of the required twenty-five feet (25’) front yard setback will not create any hazards or hardships to surrounding properties to light, air, or open space. Should the Board choose to approve this request, the Planning staff would recommend adoption of the following conditions: 1. No structure or additions may be placed within the 25 ft. front yard setback. 2. The carport shall not be enclosed in the future. Chairman, Gerardo Arzate, asked for questions or motion from commissioners, then close this portion and opens a public hearing. Do we have the owner or someone from public. F. Ayala, Tell me why he is presenting this case. He says in Spanish “trying to protect his vehicle from damage that comes from the Hail,” as Ms. Prieto translates for him. Chairman closes Public Hearing and ask for Motion. Tim Harry approves with recommends from the city, Kaylie Banda seconds with the recommendations from Planning, with the vote being a unanimous “aye.” DOCKET NO. 2023-06-V(approved) Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of REBD Trucking, LLC, owner, for a variance from Section 14-7-6 (k) (1) of the City of Odessa zoning ordinance to allow a structure to be built at zero feet (0’) front yard setback instead of the required twenty-five feet (25’) front yard building setback and from Section 14-7-9(2) to allow said structure to be located at zero feet (0’) rear yard setback instead of the required ten feet (10’) rear yard setback in a  Light Commercial (LC) Zoning District, Lot 1, Block 1, College Addition, 2nd Filing. (1215 N Lee Ave.) Ms. Prieto gave the following presentation: The property involved in this request is located at 1215 N Lee Ave. This site is currently zoned Light Commercial (LC) and is occupied by vacant land. The property is surrounded by residential development to the north, and west, and commercial development to the east and south. The applicant is Romeo Trevino, owner, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a combined office/storage building to be built with zero feet (0’) front yard setback instead of the required twenty-five (25’) feet front yard setback and zero feet (0’) rear yard setback instead of the ten feet (10’) rear yard setback. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 14-7-6 (k) (1) and 14-7-9 (2) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance, which states: Sec. 14-7-6 (k) (1) Special Front Yard Regulations In the MC, R, R-1, LC, HC, CB-2, LI, and HI Districts a minimum 25 ft front yard is required for all nonresidential uses except where provision is made for adequate site design, by addressing traffic circulation, parking, visual clearance, and surrounding development on an adopted site plan. Schedule minimum required front yards Light Commercial (LC) 25 ft. (See Plat Exhibit) Sec. 14-7-9(2) Rear Yard In the P,O, MC, NS, R, R-1, CB-1, CB-2, LC, HC, LI, and HI districts, no rear yard is specified for non-residential uses except where retail, commercial or industrial uses back upon a common district line, whether separated by an alley or not, diving the district from any of the residential districts listed herein, a minimum rear yard of ten(0’) feet shall be provided. The following criteria as outline in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance requests. The burden of proof in meeting each of these criteria is upon the applicant. A. The variance request is not contrary to the public interest. B. Special conditions exist for the applicant that do not generally exist for others. C. A literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. D. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice is done. Staff analysis of this request is that there are no special conditions associated with the property that do not exist for others in the area. The applicant’s request to reduce the front yard to zero feet (0’) instead of the required twenty-five feet (25’) front yard setback will create issues related to light, air, or open space. Property is located in an intersection, and which might hinder visibility of traffic and is in close proximity to a single-family residence towards the rear of the property. Planning staff recommends reducing the size of the building to allow a more readable front yar and rear yard setback. Chairman, Gerardo Arzate, turned to commission for questions or motion. K. Strahan ask if this was a replated area. To which Ms. Prieto replied “It was currently a lot for residential, however, it was sold by metes and bounds. Through prior direction, management, and director the owners had planned to replat, and this year we went ahead and processed to replat that area. Is a light commercial zoning district, per requirements for subdivision ordinances you must meet the requirements for that zoning district. Business in Light Commercial Zoning district does require a twenty-five (25’) front setback, ten feet (10’) in rear and because it is on a corner lot, the side would be met by ten (10’) feet side street setback. They do meet the side yard setback, we recommended they minimize the building to meet setback requirements. K. Banda then asked what is this property meant to be used for? To which M. Prieto replied with “office space for Trucking business, the business is in front of this shop.” They had an office there but wanted to move the office to this location instead. Is this going to be used as a repair shop, or something like it. Asked by Vice chairman Tim Harry. Maria Prieto replied as to they only indicated an office space and storage space, nothing about repairing or parking vehicles there. I did notice, they have some ongoing work in that site, where are we in the process, asked by Member, Kyle Newton. The permit was submitted but we have recently put a pause on it due to bringing it here. Kyle Newton asked has it gone through the department and what was their suggestion or comments. MGO, Software is where the permits are submitted, for online permitting. All departments can view the request and Building Inspections and Planning has not reviewed it due to requesting all other departments review and comment. Chairman noted in the last part of the case; Property is located in an intersection, and which might hinder visibility of traffic and is in close proximity to a single-family residence towards the rear of the property. As to which Ms. Prieto replied they were wanting to place it in the front of the lot, as I mentioned in an intersection on North Lee and 13th Street. They do have their parking space towards the north of the property, and they do want this building to sit right on the property line which they are required parking spaces. The size of the building, we recommend reducing the size to meet the standards, but they did not want to reduce. K. Newton asked what that would be like if we were to reduce the size of the building, right now it is a 40x60. Ms. Prieto recommends by reducing the building to 20x40 perhaps. K. Newton notes I see vehicles as 8, 9, 10, 11, assuming, within the building footprint, looks like they are trying to utilize the building as office space. Ms. Prieto indicated they had initially indicated one vehicle but not sure why they have added others. Tim Harry asks, “I see an existing driveway, is that set directly on property line, are they trying to set it closer to the side yard setback as well”? Ms. Prieto states the side yard in a Light Commercia district because its LC and there is another building, commercial building, next to it. LC does not require a setback, on the inner side yard setback as a zero-side yard, however on the street yard it requires (10’) ten feet. “Would it be a hardship if the entire building was shifted to setback, looks like they will not have much of a back yard” asked by Tim Harry? Looks like that whole building can shift back states T. Harry. To which Ms. Prieto replies with They could move it back however there is a residence in that lot in the back, we are trying to minimize to which the emergency scenario that require ambulances or fire. Tim Harry then asked Ms. Prieto is that closer to LC or to the residence district? Is that closer to thirteenth street, as to which is it closer to the property next door? Ms. Prieto indicated it is closer to the rear of this property. Mr. G. Arzate opens a public hearing. Good morning, Board members, my name is Alberto Britto, I am representing my client, as I am with N3 Brito. I want to give a little history on this lot, and this has been sold by metes and bounds, sold several times, with my client the one who owns the back of this lot which he uses to own the whole lot. Back when they first approached me and asked me to build a residential, to which they were told they could not do anything due to the side of the lot. We were required to replat to get it to size and went through the residential plans and approved through all the departments, planning made us come to get it replated is where we were halted. Owner said OKAY I’ll go ahead and replat it, so he approached me to get it replated and while that process happened, we had to go in through engineering and get plans approved for water and sewer. Then owner turned around and told me no I don’t want to get the lines, went ahead, and sold it off. Then came down to my client, who then came to me (REBD), we initially told him the problems it came with and already a valid lot with metes and bounds. The city already has given it an address, got the building plans for the permit. We reopened the sewer lines and extended it and crossed the water over to lot, went through the building process. Again, came upon it and was told to get it replated, then requirement was to do the whole area which was a burden. Planning agreed at the time to do his lot only, 5000 sqft which did leave that residential lot in the back. We met all the requirements on the replat, got it through the process, and submitted the building plans. Got through that and thought we will get the permit; the client already got the building and has had the building sitting on the other lot and met all other requirements, the lot coverage does not meet fifty percent of the lot, so we thought we were going good. Planning on one of their deals, even the back lot has an address (as well they are aware of not being able to do anything to existing) as separate address. We are in a LC as stated, and we do back up on a residential district to the west of this property and the front does not. 211 West thirteen does back up to this and separated to an alley. The plat did not have any cutbacks, setbacks, as we are aware of the city ordinances, and the of the originally plans as we recorded and if you could pass it around. Like I said we have the Sewer and water line, as we were required to place a manhole as the owner pays all those fees, not the city. The sewer was placed in the ROW, water is coming up to N Lee, Northeast corner. Designing this out, placing the building on this property, as per ordinance 14-7-6(K) special front yard regulations, In the MC, R, R-1, LC, HC, CB- 2, LI as we are in the LC Zoning District and HI Districts a minimum 25 ft front yard is required for all nonresidential uses (as this is a non-residential structure) except where provision is made for adequate site design, by addressing traffic circulation, parking, visual clearance, and surrounding development on an adopted site plan. Which is what we are precenting here, we are not creating any adversity site to any air, circulation, or traffic. This site is already established so we are not moving the curb or backing it any way or form. On the North side, back of the curb we are already (let me find my dimensions) to our property line, 7ft back of curb to property line additionally, since we have parking on that side, 18ft and back of curb to 20ft. on the east side of the equation back of curb we were 20ft, and as we are requesting zero we are already doing 5 ft, and in the site design we are not impairing to the intersection on that curb. The existing driveway was already there, and the curb cut was already there. We are not creating a curb cut as we are not creating diverse. Option one (1) is to allow the variance to place our building on the site as the building is already built and cannot be cut. Would create a hardship since they would have to change the plans as which they have already came up with the money for all the requirements made for this office space. It sits on a site already to be erected. Option two (2) we could move the building to the back, as stated by the member earlier, as the setback is zero, and they are setting it up as ten-foot setback in the rear. Per your ordinances, they are requesting ten but, in the ordinances, it is zero, and they are requesting the ten because if you do back up to a residential district, then you do have to have that ten-foot setback. But we are totally engulfed in a Light Commercial Zoning district, so there is no rear setback. With option number two, we can bring the building back but what that does it creates the hardship for my client because then we have to provide an additional twenty-five foot worth of driveway to get to this garage part of the building. The building as stated before for office use, and he uses a property not far from here. As stated earlier, 8 lot 9 and 10, he wanted to store his RV for bad weather days. The northeast corner is where the offices are located, and I have a floor plan here if you would like to see. Reason for the additional parking spaces, was when we were going through the permitting process, we were questioned for parking spaces and the requirement we needed to meet was four. Parking calculation total was four and they were using the total sqft of the building, and since then we were like if you are using the 2400 sqft of the total building sqft then we are going to use its worth. Office use in reality is six hundred sqft and the handicap space. Went through fire, building services, and planning is the only one who stopped the process requiring the replat and then now the setbacks. Ms. Prieto as well stated “Mr. Brito brought up a point, the section 14-7-6 k 1 development adopted site plan, as we do not have an adopted site plan. As made from the comment, Mr. Brito indicated that the adopted site plan is indicated because we were already given an address. In your ordinances we were already given existing parts of the city, the city or to my understanding typically likes to maintain what’s there for the overall site, if you look at the site plan of the building right of us is rotting up there and the two building right next to that building are right up there on its property line. The reason we are wanting to place our property on our property line is so we can maintain that line of site, and not pushed back twenty-five feet, to maintain the site. Next to that, they did LC building, building were torn down and placed residential and they were required to push the building back twenty-five (25’). Which is understandable as per ordinances states they must maintain a twenty-five (25’) setback, per your ordinances that’s your other reason is why they have the Except on it. Non-Residential, if we can approve this site plan not off of visual or additional traffic. We will have the ability to place a commercial building up to the front and not require the twenty-five (25’) setback, and this is what we are asking for. Elizabeth Shaughnessy approaches the podium and addressing clarification on the parcel, from where to where it is indicated. This part is not part of the parcel, and has not met the fifty percent (50%), but this does include anything that is covered such as asphalt. Anywhere water can sink through, therefore it is exceeding fifty percent (50%) of the property. Mr. Brito ask, so technically asphalt is previable, it does let the water go through it. Even your interstate traffic water doesn’t hold the water going through. Ms. Shaughnessy states in addition to the fifty percent for the buildings as some are coming to the lots, that is why. Mr. Brito states yes, I understand this is why it is fifty residential and fifty commercials, which why we know why the residential must be twenty-five back. Ms. Shaughnessy states when you separate the build from one to another you are supposed to be separated from the eave. You would push it back to the property line, ten feet, which would leave fifteen feet from the neighboring. Mr. Brito asked so based on that, construction, we can push the building all the way to the south property line and be adjected to the other property line but then we would need to provide a four hour wall per fire recommendations between structures. If we have to push the property all the way to the rear setback line and get the zero setback line then we could provide a four hour firewall back there. If my client has to pay for he will if he has to but there is no need for that. Vice-Chairman then ask what percentage does easements have in those lines, property itself, what percentage is the building take up. It is obviously more than fifty percent, and I’m asking on the actual property itself, from where we are at here, property line to property line, is it definitely more than fifty percent. To which Ms. Shaughnessy replies with yes. Mr. Brito adds our building is 40x60 and our lot is 5000 sqft, so 40x60 is 2400. To which Ms. Shaughnessy replies, I would have to verify which sections is paved and I’m not sure the measurements of those areas, and not sure if he plans to pave the back of this area as well. So yes they are exceeding the fifty percent. Vice chairman Tim Harry asks if drainage an issue in this area? I know a lot of the central area, such as downtown, drainage can be a very big problem. I understand your statement with asphalt and technically its previable, you’re talking to a chemical guy. Mr. Brito comments see you see that and we are not in a flood zone, no drainage issue. Mr. Harry comments his biggest concern is the run on with asphalt is going to absorb some but not much, it is intended to flow as to which it is designed to do. Could you speak to us about this for a second? As City Assistant Engineering, Joe Tucker, Approaches the podium “on this lot we do not see any issue with drainages, as the streets are equipped to handle that.” Mr. Brito comments as such as landscape ordinance which is a requirement, for new development which we had to introduce trees, grass, and all of that. We are as well meeting those additional requirements, so the only hold up is the twenty-five- foot setback. All the other departments like I said signed off on it, we are just awaiting this for the construction to start. Chairman G. Arzate ask so as you stated moving it to the back creates a hardship, what kind of hardship does this create, besides the firewall? Mr. Brito notes firewall, per engineering ROW, they would be interested back of curb. Right of way would require to build to the driveway, but building services are going to make us build additional driveway to the overhead driveway which in the east side. That is going to be an additional be twenty-five feet so the argument is past fifty feet, we are going to be required to build more of a hard service to be able to access that driveway which is going to add on to the existing driveway. Ms. Shaughnessy states it technically does not need to be the full width of a building it just needs to be a walkway to a house and there is other material they can place like slabs. As well they don’t have to move the building all the way to the back, which they are choosing too. Mr. Brito notes to board, if you look at the dimensions, our building is 40x60, there is no way we would be able to. If you’re asking for 25 ft in the front side, and we will only have five in the back side. We would need that extra to drive into the building. Chairman ask, so RBD has already purchased this building? Mr. Brito notes yes, he has had it since the site fir started the replat process, which took a little while since it took eight months, due to them requiring cutback and some changes. Chairman Arzate mentions the building being purchased before the completion of this lot and not knowing without permits or anything. Mr. Brito replies with “no he has submitted the plans and approved with the intention to build in, then to which we were hit with this replat portion to which owner interrupts with no we purchased the building to which we purchased to place a Manhole, which cost me twenty-five thousand dollars that I paid for and to now not being the owner of it, it belongs to the City of Odessa. I have been waiting for eighteen months, we already had the permits for the water lines, why I purchased the building. To which this lady asked us to replat and we have done it and paid for everything. Mr. Brito replies with yes, he is correct, we got the approval with the water lines and sewer lines we got the approval for. Then we thought we could get the lines and continue with the building, then we met with their office. As construction is we met with other requirements to which he complied with everything for it. To which we were asked to ask for a variance because in your ordinance states for something like this to be done, it must apply for a variance. We were told to go to a variance board. To the owner replies we were told to pay $200, which, she waved the fee for me. Ms. Prieto told board, he was aware of this and then he came to Mr. Trevino, and then they spoke with the mayor. They were told they could get approved but they have to comply with requirements. Mr. Arzate asked who they spoke and got the message from. Ms. Shaughnessy replies the mayor. As said from Mr. Brito I never spoke to the mayor about this topic my client may have but I don’t like to more up the chain of command like that. But since we are on this topic, from what was told about Mr. Brinlee, Ms. Prieto told us we needed to get the whole block. The whole block is in shamble and they were never required to replat the whole block. Mr. Brinlee notes it was overdue for you all and you would not be able to get payment for it all, just do your portion where you would like to build. Then the establishment with this new client they pushed for the issue on getting this replated. The lot on the back does not meet your requirement s but he understands to which he does not want to deal with the replat. The individuals to the right, are still in shambles since they were sold by metes and bounds. Mr. Strahan ask so how do you get the building push back on the lot. To which Mr. Brito replied from option number two, if planning will back off on the ten- foot setback, that has to happen. “On rear of the property” Mr. Strahan asked. To which Mr. Brito replies yes, they are holding that ten foot. Per ordinance, there is not one even though we show but we did it just so we are not away from that line to close. Mr. Harry ask is that residential or commercial. Mr. Brito comments no that is light commercial. Ms. Shaughnessy says our zoning allows light industrial to have residential. That is what helps these circumstances is we help ensure to protect the residence around us. They have a five-foot setback that would leave us with ten. Mr. Banda states the comment you said earlier noted the other commercial is not complying with the setbacks. Mr. Brito answers yes, both of the property near me are all on the front line, to which I could get us all upline and would be an overall site. They are not setback 25 setback. Ms. Banda states I understand on the residential. Ms. Shaughnessy states but on the map, and Mr. Brito notes they are not the correct plans that you have. We would understand if we place a residence there, we would definitely meet your 25-foot setback lines as indicated. Since the ordinance allows us to the front, that’s why we would like to place to the front. Ms. Shaughnessy mentions we are backing with what you guys got, this is for you all as a board to decide. What you feel would be positive for him and us. Mr. Brito mentions we wouldn’t like to push back but if you as a board require us to, we would like to leave the building to where its at. Deemed necessary we could have the building; we wouldn’t want to but to order a new building. What was there before asked by Chairman. Mr. Brito answers a house and they had a tree there to which we removed. Mr. Newton, Member, asked So, there was a commercial building there before and to which was moved back to which you’re proposing there is no way it could be but I see an existing driveway. I’ve heard a lot of information thrown at us, to which I heard adopted site plan but all I see is a there isn’t an adopted site plan. And to which you answered to you cannot move it backwards but they had an existing building pushed back with a setback. To me that exception is yes you could do it, and if you can answer an adoption site plan. Mr. Brito mentions this plan was done in the fifty’s sixties. To which newton notes yes but back then they even had plans drawn up for these existing building to be built. Mr. Harry states I am looking at the google maps and looking where it is. The setback is at least ten feet to which Mr. Newton replies with at least fifteen feet setback line, give or take. To which would put this building right along that ten ft yard setback, on the rear. Tim Harry which replies I don’t have a problem with that at all, ten yard setback sounds like a good option. I’m concerned about the traffic around you, look at where this tree is at or was indicated. Where the asphalt for this building, that would indicate it in the past how it was done. Mr. Brito comments not to sure where it was in the past but the concrete has already been removed, but the existing drive came further up. The building to the south had a drive to the south of it. Existing concrete foundation was here (shown on projector) went along here as you can see back here and the building did this. They were using where the tree is at and part of this as their yard. The reason the drive went in, you had to be fully into your parking drive which is eighteen feet but it ended up structing the view of windows. Tim Harry notes so if you don’t set this back now you are going to up struct the windows now, correct. Mr. Brito replies with we are going to up struct anyways because we can go all the way to that wall with building a fire wall, then those windows would be void. Mr. Harry then replies to with then you would block in grass over that building for a possible fire. Mr. Brito answers to which not our building. Because it’s on our lot. Mr. Harry states you are blocking theirs to which could be a safety issue. Per building service, we can build a wall next to theirs Mr. Brito answers, to which would help with our hardship. South of that building, they have access to the back, but we are not even proposing to the zero-lot line, we are leaving two to three feet. We had a bigger setback but the issue we ran across there we ran into parking spaces and to not use city ROW, to catch the eighteen feet to the minimum. To the lot size, which we met and we did not reduce the lot size. Mr. Newton to which you take in we are preferable to the coverage and which we met. Ms. Banda asked to which the other residence (commercial and housing) met the lot coverage percentage. Ms. Shaughnessy notes you have to understand codes change and I’m not entirely sure if they met the percentage prior to build. We must continue the code requirements with what is being built with what’s there. K. Newton we are not here to approve a site plan, what part of this does a site plan go through review and approved. Ms. Shaughnessy stated this starts with you, the approval as he said he has two options to the front of the property line, and two for the ten-foot pushing it to the back. Mr. Brito we are requesting the zero but we are not setting it to the front of the property line, we are still five ft back then leaves our site plan as presented, so we can get permit as constructed. As the owner interrupts with I did the retainer walls all around on east side so I could build my building, I have been waiting. Mr. Brito noted there cannot be a ten-foot setback on the back as in the setback indicated zero in the light commercial allowance. Then we move the building all the way and give your front side and kills the back yard, we are not impeding site or circulation or air or visional. We are not creating hardship or a special condition on structures that are already there, we are not in contrast with other buildings as which they are all set that way. Ms. Shaughnessy indicated as to which was implied, he wanted to park his RV there so there is that. Is why he is trying to extend. Mr. Brito notes we are not extending for the RV to be parked there at all times, it is going to be placed inside, we are just indicating for the RV to be parked when needed. We are asking for additional space for an idea of parking his RV, just the reason this is my office and good idea to park his RV for it not to be exposed to the outside. Mr. Brito noted his personal but as well used for the business as it travels around to which he runs a trucking company and days he needs to be out late since the business is not in this area. How does the staff feel about the rear setback as asked from Mr. Strahan. Ms. Shaughnessy replies correct me if I am wrong but I believe they would like to enter through the back. Mr. Brito answers with they don’t necessarily need to enter we can change how to enter but we did leave an overhead door but that was just so we could have access to the outside. It’s a business, and we are going to have a lunch in. you would like have other business in and to do catering to them, and have the access for others to join you. Ms. Shaughnessy states by pushing to the back, gives a good space to the back to gather and other space for what they need. Not too sure where they are getting  the dimensions at Mr. Brito comments. Ms. Shaughnessy points out fifteen feet there to which he replies no that is the fifteen ft setback from the north side line, sorry. Its twenty-five ft and one inch, twenty-five minus the ten, does not meet requirements as indicated. Mr. Arzate notes that is twenty, by doing this math. Ms. Banda notes Mr. Trevino has done all that was asked of him and deserves an answer and fair a just. Mr. Newton and MR. Arzate this is what we are trying to do. Mr. Arzate, Chairman at this time closed the public portion of this meeting. Mr. Harry states we are noting all the homes and the one with the back and we may not be able to do anything with that lot as we know of this. As we need to pay more attention to the front as the other are set. Mr. Strahan mentions I notice the setback driving down the street and something that is brought up to me. Ms. Banda notes but we are unable to meet that twenty-five, as we all have established this. Mr. Harry comments yes but this is what that board is about, making those adjustments and concerning with other properties in the area. If we can meet that twenty-five- foot setback, even if its that firewall. Mr. Arzate ask if that is a motion or discussion. Mr. Newton answers I believe a discussion as we cannot support that. Mr. Strahan notes I believe and the way it comes before us that would be a no. Mr. Harry ask if it’s to the property line or a ten-setback line. Mr. Arzate answers if we put twenty- five in front setback. Ms. Shaughnessy answers that would only be five feet to which Mr. Arzate ask what about twenty, to Ms. Shaughnessy’s answer is ten feet. Mr. Arzate ask if this would be okay with the city. No, my job is supporting my ordinance, then I have to go with that, and if you guys’ rule with the ten rule or five rule, I have to go by code. To which Mr. Brito replies from the audience. Mr. Arzate ask commission for vote to reopen this meeting, Ms. Banda and Mr. Strahan vote with anonymous Aye. Mr. Brito approaches the stadium stating his name and asking if we can work this out and adjust, we are not able to meet the setback in front can we meet the one in the back and go to the fifteen. You are correct, it is fifteen ft I measured it. We will be able to meet in the existing drive and all we have to do is move building back to make it due able for client and city. So, we don’t have to create a fire wall, and will not have to be against wall. Ms. Banda states its fair. Mr. Arzate ask if any additional questions and to which all replied no, and to which Mr. Arzate ask for motion. Ms. Banda approves this motion with a condition of fifteen front yard setback, which will be indicated (with help and comment from maria (must indicated both front and rear)) a fifteen ft from the rear. Second from Mr. Strahan, with vote from all “aye.” DOCKET NO. 2023-07-V(Tabled) Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of David A Gutierrez and Jazmin Diaz, owner, for a variance from Sections 14-7-5 of the City of Odesa zoning ordinances to allow a structure (carport) to be built a ten feet (10’) front yard setback instead of the required twenty-five feet (25’) front yard building setback in a Single  Family three (SF-3) Zoning District, Lot 36, Block 7, Beckwood Terrace. (2669 San Carlos Terrace). Chairman Mr. Arzate asked Ms. Prieto if the owner is present to which she replied not and he stated as before, if they are not present, we have to table until a representative appears in these meetings. Chairman Turns to commission for Motion for tabling this case for lack of appearance from owner. Mr. Tim Harry approves, and Mr. Strahan seconds the motion with an anonymous “aye.” There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:41 a.m. Cheynna Torres, Planning Tech, placed the minutes in the Minute Book on September 06, 2023. _____________________________________ Gerardo Arzate, Vice Chairman  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 2023-07-V APPLICANT: David Gutierrez & Jazmin Diaz, Owners REQUEST: Variance from Section 14-7-5 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance PROPERTY INVOLVED: Lot 36, Block 7, Beckwood Terrace (2669 San Carlos Terrace.) The property involved in this request is located at 2669 San Carlos Terrace. This site is currently zoned Singly Family-Three (SF-3) and is occupied by a single-family residence. The property is surrounded by residential development to the east, south and west, and a church to the north. The applicants are David Gutierrez & Jazmin Diaz, owners, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a structure (carport) to be built ten feet (10’) instead of the required twenty-five feet (25’) front yard building setback. In order to allow the structure fifteen (15’) forward on the twenty-five (25’) front yard setback the applicants are requesting a variance from Section 14-7-5 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance, which states: Sec. 14-7-5 Front Yard In the following zoning districts, the minimum required front yard shall be in accordance with the following schedule and no building or structure shall hereinafter be located, erected or altered so as to have a smaller front yard than hereinafter required, and no front yard existing at the time of passage of this ordinance shall be reduced below the minimum set forth in the following schedule except hereinafter provided: Schedule minimum required front yard Single Family-Three (SF-3) 25 ft. (See Page 14 Attachment 5) The following criteria as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance requests. The burden of proof in meeting each of these criteria is upon the applicant. A. The variance request is not contrary to the public interest. B. Special conditions exist for the applicant that do not generally exist for others. C. A literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. D. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice is done. The carport has been built without a permit and there is no documentation or inspections that provide proof of being built to building standards. Staff analysis of this request is the applicant’s request to reduce the front yard setback to ten feet (10’) instead of the required twenty five feet (25’) front yard setback will not create any hazards or hardships to surrounding properties to light, air, or open space. Should the Board choose to approve this request, the Planning staff would recommend adoption with the following conditions: 1. The carport shall be enclosed in the future. 2. No other structures or additions may be placed within the 25’ front yard setback. 3. No other structures or additions shall be placed on the property without first contacting the Building Inspections Dept. and obtaining a building permit. Information in order of inclusion: --Area of notification map --Copy of site plan  ZONING 14 Attachment 5 Minimum Required Front Yards DISTRICTS TYPE USE FD SF-E SF-1 SF-2 SF-3 SF-4 SPD 2F-1 2F-2 GR 4-F MF-1 MF-2 MHE MH MU U P O MC NS R R-1 CB-1 CB-2 LC HC LI HI PD Minimum Required Front 25' 15' Yard Except as Herein-After 35' 35' 25' 25' 25' 20' 25' 25' 20' 25' 25' 25' 15' ** 25' 15' 20' †† 20' †† - * † Provided * See section 14-7-6(i) † See section 14-7-6(g) - See section 14-7-6(h) ** See section 14-2-5 †† See section 14-7-6(k) 14 Attachment 5:1 Publication, Dec 2022