Zoning Board of Adjustment

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 December 20, 2023 8:30 A.M. OPENING ITEMS 1. Invocation CONSENT ITEMS 1. Motion to approve the Zoning Board of Adjustments minutes for September 6, 2023. 2. CASE FILE NO. 2023-08-V Consider approval of the request by Steve Berkson, owner, for a variance from Section 14-10-1(2)(7) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow an Institutional Identification Sign (Wall Sign) with a Maximum area of 72 square feet instead of the required maximum area of 32 square feet in an SF-3, Single- Family Residence District-three, Lots 1-3-Block 25, Hollywood Manor (1600 and 2400 Palomar Drive) 3. ADJOURN Be it said and remembered that at 8:35 a.m. on the 20th day of December 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 Pricilla Contreras Paul Anthony Rios MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Windham Kirk Strahan Kaylie Banda Craig Stoker OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Fisher, Planning Manager; James Reber, Planner; Cheynna Torres, Planning Tech, Gracie Rodriguez, Planning Tech; Dan Jones, City Attorney; Joe Tucker, Director of Public Works The minutes of the November 1, 2023, Zoning Board of Adjustments Commission meet were approved, motion for approval being made by Commissioner Tim Harry, seconded by Pricilla Contreras, with the vote being a unanimous “aye”. DOCKET NO. 2023-09-V (Approved) Consider approval of the request by Steve Berkson, owner, for a variance from Section 14-10-1 (2) (7) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow an Institutional Identification sign (wall sign) with a maximum area of 72 square feet instead of the required maximum area of 32 square feet in an SF-3, Single- Family Residence District-3, Lot 1-3, Block 25, Hollywood Manor (1600 and 2400 Palomar Drive) James Reber presents; The property involved in this request is located at 1600 and 2400 Palomar Ln. This site is currently zoned SF-3, Single-Family Residence District-3, and is occupied by a religious institution. The application Steve Berkson, owner, for a variance from Section 14-10-1 (2) (7) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow an Institutional Identification sign (wall sign) with a maximum area of 72 square feet instead of the required maximum area of 32 square feet in an SF-3, Single-Family  Residence District-3, Lot 1-3, Block 25, Hollywood Manor. (1600 and 2400 Palomar Drive) Sec. 14-10-01 (2) (7) Institutional Identification Sign Maximum Area: 32 square feet Zone permitted: Permitted in all districts where institutions are allowed. Specific Standards: One per street frontage (see 14-19-1 (d)(20)). Sign permit is required. The Following criteria as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluation 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 the applicant’s request for an exception from the 32 sq. ft. sign maximum for implementation of a 72 sq. ft. sign is contrary to the public interest. Institutional uses such as churches and schools are generally lower intensity uses with smaller size allowances for signage and commercial businesses. The surround area is entirely residential, zones SF-3, Single Family Dwelling District-3, and there are no commercial uses in the immediate area. The applicant is encouraged to erect two smaller wall signs per frontage per staff recommendation below, and/or consider making some of the signage information instead of for identification. Information may include information about the program or serves offered. The sign ordinance allows 2 square feet of this type of signage for every 15 feet of lineal frontage, a total of 23 sq. ft for this property. Staff recommendations is to deny the request as submitted. However, should the ZBA approve the request, Staff recommendations the following conditions: 1. That a maximum of 36 sq ft of institutional identification wall signage is allowed on each street frontage, W 16th Street and Palomar Ln. Vice Chairman questions staff by saying “Looking at this picture, looks like they had an existing sign on the building that was pretty much in the exact location, as well looks bigger than what is presented”. Mr. Reber, comments, I do believe so as the existing was another church’s’ sign, from previous owners. May have been erected from previous owners to what is said in the current code ordinances. Mr. Harry states, in the spirit of this ordinance main concern is safety, correct. Mr. Reber replies “yes”. Mr. Harry continues “so how exactly does a sign on a side of a church effect the safety of the traffic”? As to which Mr. Jeff Fisher approaches the podium to help clear any questions the members may have. Announces his name and title and continues with the states such as “From a safety standpoint, probably not a hazard per say however in zoning ordinance, in an institutional use generally states for the sign use to be smaller use if the church was established in a commercial use, they may be able to have a larger use. Church allowance is able to be places any zoning, as a local use. The sign is not a hazard use as so much as presented if we allow this to go twice as big, then we may have other establishments come forward wanting to increase their size. As well they do have an existing freestanding sign out there already, as we are not sure however the sign may already have been a non-conforming sign. May be legal, as we are unsure how long they may be there, as the sign is 18 sq ft as they may continue to use as is. Mr. Harry, Vice Chair, ask Mr. Fisher additional questions. “As I drove by this one, as I do for all the cases as I am on the ZBA board, pictures are great however you do not get that quality. So, you have a good size church across the street, next to that church is a fire station, as our signage from the city is significantly bigger than what is proposed here. As we are talking about a lot of residential in the area but is not as much residential as I question the SF-3 designation on the zoning side of this, as the zoning is not appropriate for the area. We may have more of an issue here with what you have around, not as residential as we are saying here. Surrounding area is more institutional than residential, in my opinion”. Mr. Fisher replies, you have a good point as we understand that as this is placed in a corner lot and if this was zoned differently this would not be an issue. On a commercial site you can go several hundred square feet but since this is a SF-3, Single Family Three Zoning District. The only signage allowed is an institutional use such as churches and schools. As our hands are tied to staff because of our ordinance is telling us 32 square feet. We try to be flexible as per frontage, as we recommended one on each side, we can do it however having one large on one frontage is larger. Mr. Tim Harry ask, If they happen to want another on the other side and paint this on the side of the building as this turns into a mural, Correct? Mr. Fisher replies, no as long as this is advertised the sign itself, would still be considered a sign. If they were to paint a religious mural, states may vary as this may be a Legal question. As we are careful with us being continent neutral, as they were placing a religious message but not advertising the church itself, I believe they could do that. May also be a legal discussion for our attorney. Once they are saying X, Y, Z Church, placing name and logo that would be considered a sign, whether its painted or not. Mr. Rios ask staff, “so the sign that is there, as we are saying is bigger as, Mr. Harry chimes in to correct Mr. Rios by stating the sign was removed, but if it was already there and bigger isn’t this grandfathered in for whatever reason change codes or whatever it is now. The C/O is not changing, as this is going from a church to a church, so why wouldn’t the sign stay as and grandfathered in”? Mr. Fisher replies with “That is a good question, staff was unable to find any other information on the existing sign as far as we know, this was either legal non-conforming; meaning was there before the code was enforced, or a special type of approval, as a lot of our staff are new and trying to find the history was a challenge. Going forward, removal of existing sign and placing a new one must meet code as in the code says 32 as if you divide into two would give you 36 square feet, as we would give the flexibility as we would not come to meeting for minor sq ft measurements. In the previous council, stated must be exact as we were not sure why the measurements were required as those are the way they were written, and staff must follow what is given”. Mr. Harry Comments as this sign contrasts with the zoning ordinance for sure, as I do not see this would be a contrast to our public at all. As Mr. Fisher speaks to help better understanding with “unfortunately a sign must be met in all 4 tests, as I would agree with you, as contrariety to the ordinance, as in your eyes do you feel like they have met all four tests, that would be okay. This is just our recommendation and where we are at”. Chairman at this time as for any additional questions for Staff, hearing no other questions, opens a Public Hearing at this time. Leasing owner of establishment, Gabriel Gonzalez approaches the podium to state his point of view. States his name and address, by saying “I just wanted to say as you all stated previously the sign being smaller than what was previously there. If we go any smaller with the information on what is wanted to place on the sign, as this would slow down traffic with everyone trying to read it. With what is on the sign, and lettering as would be easier read on a larger sign. We are wanting to cover the residue from the other lettering and everything left behind and tried our best to get rid of existing. As we had to fix the whole building with what was left, we had a lot of work and long process’. Mr. Tim Harry comments, compared to the previous pictures this looks really good. Mr. Gonzalez states we have been working on it, as we are trying to clean it up better and continue to improve the facility. In the future we are going to place a fence around and we do not plan to be as big as the other church prior, which they had quite a big of vehicles there. For us we tend to be a smaller group and just for people to get educated in the new and Old Testament. Mr. Harry questions Mr. Gonzalez. Will you be placing additional sign in the frame as well on the side of the building? Mr. Gonzalez answers “in the future we hope to place some, but that would display more of the hours of the congregation as we are in Spanish and English”. At this time Chairman, Gerardo Arzate asks the audience or owners for any other questions, as no one came forward he closes the public portion, as if any other discussions were needed. Mr. Tim Harry states as I can see how this is somewhat an issue with zoning and in the technique issue of what the zoning side of that is. What in my main test is in that is safety in my opinion, as this is the reason for having the zoning codes for. As I do not see much of the aesthetics as so much for the safety side, as we are looking at a pretty busy street in front of it is West Sixteen St., as there is other business in front of it. All around the church is another church and the city has a bigger sign than the church does in a fire station, as I do not see this is contrary to public safety. I do not necessarily agree with the zoning for this request in an SF-3, Single Family- 3, as I see this area to be more of a commercial property area. I know originally, we cannot question zoning, because this is up to zoning department. Whole other board is just with what I see here and what is placed as we cover what was on the building by making it look better. Mr. Arzate comments agreeing with Mr. Harry. As Mr. Tim Harry turns to his fellow members and ask for thoughts and opinions, to which Ms. Pricilla Contreras, member, agrees. Mr. Arzate ask members for a motion, Tim Harry approves this motion as is with going against staff recommendations, Pricilla Contreras Seconds the motion with an anonymous “aye”. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:48 a.m. Cheynna Torres, Planning Tech, placed the minutes in the Minute Book on December 20, 2023. _____________________________________ Gerardo Arzate, Vice Chairman  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 2023-10-V APPLICANT: Jose Natividad, Owner REQUEST: Variance from Section 14-7-5 and 14-7-8 (h) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance PROPERTY INVOLVED: Lot 10, Block 11, Patterson Addition, 4th Filing. (200 Fitch Ave.) The property involved in this request is located at 200 Fitch Ave. This site is currently zoned General Residence (GR) and is occupied by a single-family residence. The property is surrounded by residential development to the east, south and west and industrial development to the north. The applicants is Jose Natividad, owner, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a detached structure (enclosed garage) to be built with a zero-foot (0’) front yard setback instead of the required twenty foot (20’) front yard setback, and to allow a zero- foot (0’) side yard setback instead of the required six-foot (6’) side yard setback. The relevant sections of the Odessa Zoning Ordinance are as follows: 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. Required front yard General Residence 20 ft. (See Exhibit A) Sec. 14-7-8 (h) Special Side Yard Regulations A minimum side yard of six (6) feet shall be provided for any mobile/HUD-code manufactured home located as a fixed dwelling and any structure attached to a mobile/HUD-code manufactured home. The minimum side yard space provided for a mobile/HUD-code manufactured home located in a mobile/HUD-code manufactured home park shall comply with the side yard space shown on the approved site plan for the mobile/HUD-code manufactured home park. 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 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 setback to zero feet (0’) instead of the required twenty feet (20’) and reduce the side yard setback to zero feet (0’) instead of the required six feet (6’) will create issues related to light, air, or open space. The property is located at an intersection, which might hinder visibility of traffic and is in close proximity to a single-family residence towards the south elevation of the property. The attached photos show the garage already under construction. Staff recommends DENIAL of this request for not satisfying the above variance criteria outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Alternatively, Planning staff recommends placing the structure (enclosed garage) to the rear yard of the property as indicated in Section 14-7-13 (a) Code of Ordinances (Exhibit C), which would not require a variance. However, should the Board choose to approve this request, Planning staff would recommend adoption of the following conditions: 1. No other structures or additions may be placed within the 20-foot front yard setback. 2. No other structures or additions may be placed within the 6-foot side yard setback. Information in order of inclusion: --Area of notification map --Copy of site plan --Exhibits A thru C Consider a request for a variance from Section 14-7-6 (3) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure (Carport) to be built at a (0') zero- foot front yard setback instead of the required (20') twenty-foot front yard setback and from Section 14-7-8 (4) to allow said structure to be built at a (0') zero-foot side yard setback instead of the required (5') five-foot side yard setback in a general Residence, (GR) Zoning District, Lot 10, Block 11, Patterson Addition 4th Filing (200 Fitch Ave) Consider a request for a variance from Section 14-7-6 (3) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure (carport) to be built at a (0') zero-foot front yard setback instead of the required (20') twenty-foot front yard setback and from Section 14-7-8 (4) to allow said structure to be built at a (0') zero-foot side yard setback instead of the required (5') five-foot side yard setback in a General Residence, (GR) Zoning District, Lot 10, Block 11, Patterson Addition 4th Filing. (200 Fitch Ave.) Consider a request for a variance from Section 14-7-6 (3) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure (carport) to be built at a (0') zero-foot front yard setback instead of the required (20') twenty-foot front yard setback and from Section 14-7-8 (4) to allow said structure to be built at a (0') zero-foot side yard setback instead of the required (5') five-foot side yard setback in a General Residence, (GR) Zoning District, Lot 10, Block 11, Patterson Addition 4th Filing. (200 Fitch Ave.)