Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZBA Members Gerardo Arzate, Chairman Tim Harry, Vice Chairman Kyle Newton, Member Kirk Strahan, Member Paul Anthony Rios, Member Pricilla Contreras, Member (Alternate) Craig Stoker, Member (Alternate) ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY HALL, 411 W. 8TH ST. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – FIFTH FLOOR February 14, 2024 8:30 A.M. I. OPENING ITEMS 1. Invocation II. CONSENT ITEMS 2. Motion to approve the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting minutes for January 03, 2024. III. PUBLIC HEARING The Zoning Board of Adjustments board will hold a public hearing on the following items: 3. CASE FILE NO. 2024-01-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of Cruz Reynozo, owner, for a variance from Section 14-7-9 (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow a residence to be built with a two and a half feet (2’6”) rear yard setback instead of the required five feet (5’) rear yard setback in a Special Dwelling (SPD) Zoning District, Lots-85, Block 6, Correction Plat Enclave At Villa Rosa. (8630 Luz Dr.)  4. CASE FILE NO. 2024-02-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of Reynozo Cruz, owner, for a variance from Section 14-7-9 (a) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow a residence to be built with a 1 foot (1’) rear yard setback instead of the required five feet (5’) rear yard setback in a Special Dwelling (SPD) Zoning District, Lot 86, Block 6, Correction Plat Enclave At Villa Rosa (8632 Luz Dr.) IV. Adjourn Be it said and remembered that at 8:33 a.m. on the 14th day of February 2024, 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 Priscilla Contreras Paul Anthony Rios Kirk Strahan MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Stoker (Alternative) OTHERS PRESENT: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager; Cheynna Torres, Planning Tech, Gracie Rodriguez, Planning Tech; Gary Owens, Building Official; Steve Purcella, Assistant Building Official; Marlaina Muniz, Program Analyst Development The minutes of the February 7, 2024, Zoning Board of Adjustments Commission meet were approved, motion for approval being made by Vice Chairman, Tim Harry, seconded by board member, Kirk Strahan, with the vote being a unanimous “aye”.  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 2024-01-V APPLICANT: Cruz Reynozo Owner REQUEST: Variance from Section 14-7-9 (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance PROPERTY INVOLVED: Lot 85, Block 6, Correction Plat, Enclave at Villa Rosa. (8630 Luz Dr.) The property involved in this request is located at 8630 Luz Dr. This site is currently zoned Special Dwelling District (SPD) and is occupied by a single-family residence currently under construction. The property is surrounded by single-family homes to the north, and vacant land to the east, south and west. The applicants are Cruz Reynozo, owner, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a single-family detached dwelling to have a (2 1/2)two-and-a-half-foot rear yard setback instead of the required (5) five-foot feet rear yard setback. Section 14-7-9 (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance states: Sec. 14-7-9 Rear Yard There shall be a five (5) feet rear setback line for main or accessory buildings unless no an alley exists or an easement with a minimum twenty (20) feet width abuts the rear property line. No single-family or two-family residential building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall cover more than seventy (70) percent of the overall lot. For accessory building standards see Section 14-7-13. • Section 14-7-13 (c) - Rear yard - There need be no rear yard for accessory buildings or structures except that, if no alley exists, the rear yard shall not be less than five (5) feet as measured from the rear lot line. 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 subject property has a total lot area of 5,000 sq. ft. with a 2,711 sq. ft. residential home currently under construction. The applicants are requesting a two and a half (2 ½ ) feet rear yard setback to legalize the house that is being built at 2 ½ feet instead of the required 5-foot rear yard. 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 submitted a building permit showing a rear setback less than the required five (5), and the permit was issued in error triggering the need for this variance. Since the error was not the fault of the applicant, Staff supports the variance request and believes it meets all criteria for a variance. A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship as the applicant would have to remove a portion of their home already under construction. The proposed house complies with all other standards of the Zoning Ordinance, maintaining the spirit of the Ordinance. The Planning Division recommends APPROVAL of the variance request subject to two (2) conditions of approval: 1. No other structures or additions may be placed within the 5 ft. year yard setback. 2. A firewall is required on the wall of the house facing the shared rear property line to the satisfaction of Permits and Inspections. Information in order of inclusion: --Area of notification map --Copy of site plan --Exhibits A thru C Ms. Prieto Presents: The property involved in this request is located at 8630 Luz Dr. This site is currently zoned Special Dwelling District (SPD) and is occupied by a single-family residence currently under construction. The property is surrounded by single-family homes to the north, and vacant land to the east, south and west.  The applicants are Cruz Reynozo, owner, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a single-family detached dwelling to have a (2 1/2) two- and-a-half-foot rear yard setback instead of the required (5) five-foot feet rear yard setback. Section 14-7-9 (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance. (Does not read ordinance) The subject property has a total lot area of 5,000 sq. ft. with a 2,711 sq. ft. residential home currently under construction. The applicants are requesting a two and a half (2 ½ ) feet rear yard setback to legalize the house that is being built at 2 ½ feet instead of the required 5-foot rear yard. 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 submitted a building permit showing a rear setback less than the required five (5), and the permit was issued in error triggering the need for this variance. Since the error was not the fault of the applicant, Staff supports the variance request and believes it meets all criteria for a variance. A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship as the applicant would have to remove a portion of their home already under construction. The proposed house complies with all other standards of the Zoning Ordinance, maintaining the spirit of the Ordinance. The Planning Division recommends APPROVAL of the variance request subject to two (2) conditions of approval: Board Member, Anthony Rios (is part of a contractor company) ask, Is this the area where no alley exist? As Ms. Prieto (staff) replies no alley, yards will be facing face to face in rear. Board member Mr. Kirk Strahan (contractor) ask If this is a current stage of construction. As Mr. Owens approaches the podium to help clarify some information. Mr. Owens (Building Official) states the construction already has brick surrounding home. Which would be 2 foot off the neighbors. Mr. Anthony Rios ask Mr.Owens regarding firewall protocol as Mr. Ownes states one hour per residential requirement, stating the separation between the two home as not like restaurant use. Mr Rios asking ahead for the next case if we are going to discuss them together or separate. Ms. Prieto indicates they are separated and need to be discussed individually. Board member, Kirk Strahan ask if this establishment sets president for other future homes.  Ms. Prieto states the incident pertaining to the permit and how the process was continued. (slipped through several areas of the city, as continued throughout the departments and received permits from Building Inspections). Indicated for setback to be placed as a five (5) yard setback was indicated on the notes. Mr. Harry ask if this is the residence or additional structure? Ms. Prieto and Mr. Owens (staff) responded with residence. As Mr. Owens argues this permit should not have been completed as the Plans Examiner indicated the setbacks on the Site plan, still as we should not have pushed this permit through. As my inspector did not catch any while in project as when we came upon this it was to late for the first house. As we are making changes for this to not happen again. Mr. Strahan ask if the home builder is licensed? As Mr. Rios comments such as new kind of license require less now a days. Mr. Strahan if he is responsible for ensuring the homes are up to code? Mr. Rios ask if the other case is the house next door we are speaking about? Mr. Owens indicates yes, and Mr. Rios ask if the drawings indicated the setbacks. Mr. Owens states the arrows facing the back where a number was given for the setbacks. As you are aware how we receive your plans, place red lines and send them back to you with the adjustments. Well, the Examiner place those lines and loaded them to the permit as should of rejected this instead. As my inspector should of noted that when he did the footing inspection. As shown on the photo, Mr. Harry ask, if that is the property line? Mr. Owens corrects as the fence already being set up and yes that is the property line. As this is going to be real close, as we cannot correct the lot lines as the neighboring companies are more than one. Mr. Tim Harry ask about the reaction to the first responders as if something was to happen to this home. How would they be able to get back there for the safety of these owners. Mr. Owens states there is no alley, this would be the same conclusion as first responders are only allowed to enter through the front. Mr. Rios states the number correlates where they place the dividing fence. As they may place an 8 ft fence or maybe idea as they will loose the fence. As Mr. Arzate ask if they will be required to place a center block fence instead? As Mr. Owens states they do not need to build a Center block fence. Mr. Rios corrects Mr. Arzate as showing the whole center block fence, the block would surpass the property line. Combine within both property lines where this would set a smaller distance between the home and fence as a wood fence you would not have that problem. Mr. Owens speaks about having to look at the eaves and drainage of the homes, which this would setback other items. As this eave would have to ensure not to go over property line or drain into another yard. As Mr. Rios ask if the other structure has another roof line? (As Cheynna Torres, Planning Tech moves forward in the presentation) As Mr. Rios states the eave on that roof line and if its one foot or two for this one? Mr. Owens states this case is two feet and the other house (next door) is one foot. As Mr. Rios notes the overhang does take into that setback. Mr. Owens states the overhang, and the firewall would need to be address if this case is to be approved, firewall, overhang and drainage. As you cannot overhang into another property line or drain into another property. As we could approach the property line with a one (1) hour firewall.  Mr. Rios ask if the second property has brick and sheet rock inside the property? Gary Owens answers I believe so as I have not stepped into the property personally. Mr. Tim Harry comments “Major concerns with this one”! Mr. Arzate (Chairman) ask board if they have any additional comments for staff? Asking outside of the box, Mr. Harry ask if the surrounding properties have been sold already? Asking to see if we could be accrued more for this property? Mr. Owens states the surrounding locations have other developers and unaware if they have been sold. Board member, Kyle Newton (engineer) now asks if the lot will now be compliant as engineered them being 5000 square feet each, so, if you move that lot line the other lot would be smaller. What is to be done by the other homes, as you are going to have other homes on the opposite end of this lot as we will require them to have additional setback? ask Tim Harry. As Council and Building Official will indicate five (5) Feet. Mr. Owens states anything inside of that five (5) foot requires a firewall. Mr. Owens indicates the mistake came from within his department and would take blame. Mr. Rios states the blame is to be fifty (50) Percent. If it is on the drawings, then you build according to the drawing. Mr. Arzate ask how many inspections we did before we built this and Mr. Owens states three as a plumber and electrician as they do not see home. Chairman, Gerardo Arzate ask board for any additional questions for staff, hearing none, begins to open to a public hearing for anyone outside of staff or board. Hearing no one, closed the public portion of the meeting. Asking Board members, as Anthony Rios comments “it’s a tough one but is already done”. Mr. Arzate clarifies this is a tough case however the city should of never allowed it and the builder sees the drawings. And if we were to approve it this would have to come with conditions. As no other structure is to be built in the five-yard setback and a firewall will be required. To satisfy permits and inspections. Board Member, Mr. Strahan replies with once this is built out it is not going to be an eyesore for anyone, rather than tear the back end of the home. Mr. Arzate interrupts and asking Kirk Strahan if this is a motion. Mr. Strahan replies “yes, I make a motion to approve with the condition of recommendation from the building inspector”. Anthony Rios Seconds the motion, speak in all in favor, with the vote being a unanimous "aye”.  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 2024-02-V APPLICANT: Reynozo Cruz, Owner REQUEST: Variance from Section 14-7-9 (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance PROPERTY INVOLVED: Lot 86, Block 6 , Correction Plat Enclave at Villa Rosa. (8632 Luz Dr.) The property involved in this request is located at 8632 Luz Dr. This site is currently zoned Special Dwelling District (SPD) and is occupied by a single-family residence currently under construction. The property is surrounded by residential single-family homes to the north, and vacant land to the east, south and west. The applicants are Reynozo Cruz and Reynaldo Esquivel Vargas??, owners, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a single-family detached dwelling to have a (1) one-foot rear yard setback instead of the required (5) five-foot feet rear yard setback. Section 14-7-9 (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance states: Sec. 14-7-9 Rear Yard There shall be a five (5) feet rear setback line for main or accessory buildings unless no an alley exists or an easement with a minimum twenty (20) feet width abuts the rear property line. No single-family or two-family residential building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall cover more than seventy (70) percent of the overall lot. For accessory building standards see Section 14-7-13. • Section 14-7-13 (c) - Rear yard - There need be no rear yard for accessory buildings or structures except that, if no alley exists, the rear yard shall not be less than five (5) feet as measured from the rear lot line. 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 subject property has a total lot area of 5,183 sq. ft. with a 2,726 sq. ft. residential home currently under construction. The applicants are requesting a (1) one-foot rear yard setback to legalize the house that is being built at one-foot instead of the required 5-foot rear yard. The applicant submitted a building permit showing a rear setback less than the required five (5), and the permit was issued in error triggering the need for this variance. Since the error was not the fault of the applicant, Staff supports the variance request and believes it meets all criteria for a variance. A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship as the applicant would have to remove a portion of their home already under construction. The proposed house complies with all other standards of the Zoning Ordinance, maintaining the spirit of the Ordinance. The Planning Division recommends APPROVAL of the variance request subject to two (2) conditions of approval: 1. No other structures or additions may be placed within the 5 ft. year yard setback. 2. A firewall is required on the wall of the house facing the shared rear property line to the satisfaction of Permits and Inspections. Information in order of inclusion: --Area of notification map --Copy of site plan --Exhibits A thru C Ms. Maria Prieto Presents: The property involved in this request is located at 8632 Luz Dr. This site is currently zoned Special Dwelling District (SPD) and is occupied by a single-family residence currently under construction. The property is surrounded by residential single-family homes to the north, and vacant land to the east, south and west.  The applicants are Reynozo Cruz and Reynaldo Esquivel Vargas, owners, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a single-family detached dwelling to have a (1) one-foot rear yard setback instead of the required (5) five-foot feet rear yard setback. Section 14-7-9 (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance states: Chairman asked if we could correct this paragraph. The applicants are Reynozo Cruz, owners, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a single-family detached dwelling to have a (1) one-foot rear yard setback instead of the required (5) five-foot feet rear yard setback. Section 14-7-9 (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance. The subject property has a total lot area of 5,183 sq. ft. with a 2,726 sq. ft. residential home currently under construction. The applicants are requesting a (1) one-foot rear yard setback to legalize the house that is being built at one-foot instead of the required 5-foot rear yard. The applicant submitted a building permit showing a rear setback less than the required five (5), and the permit was issued in error triggering the need for this variance. Since the error was not the fault of the applicant, Staff supports the variance request and believes it meets all criteria for a variance. A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship as the applicant would have to remove a portion of their home already under construction. The proposed house complies with all other standards of the Zoning Ordinance, maintaining the spirit of the Ordinance. The Planning Division recommends APPROVAL of the variance request subject to two (2) conditions of approval: Mr. Rios ask, “so this one is a foot”? This house was built first since this is already bricked and they missed it there and when the other one was built missed it there. Mr. Owens ask if you could help provide verbiage to help clarify as the roof hangs over. Those roads curve and as you know Anthony its hard to determine where the lines lay. As you could not drain into other property line.  Mr. Rios continues to ask if the project was caught in the second project. Mr. Owens replies “they were just about completed when we caught this”. Mr. Tim Harry, Vice chairman, ask if the need to table since we do not know if the property lines are passed. If we issue a variance and the overhang goes into another property lines. Mr. Owens makes a suggestion, we are just needing some verbiage for the home to ensure. the project does not go over and to set presentient. Mr. Arzate, Chairman, states about giving these conditions as they are not new builders. He should know how to do this, and how many has he built already, Mr. Priscilla Contreras ask. Mr. Owens replies quite a few. Mr. Owens explains that a few people should have caught this, there are even architects who should have caught this. Mr. Arzate, Chairman, states he is a newer builder of 5 years, and he knows he cannot go that back. The thing is he is a new builder, its part of the city he made a mistake and city did as well. If we approve this with a fire wall, he has to go back in an adjust the overhang as well. Only fair for both city and builder as he is not a new builder. Mr. Owens states the blame is on both ends of the party as blaming does not help. We do need him to complete the drainage as it may drain into another property from the slope that the home is hanging off at, Mr. Harry states. As Board members ask for the photo showing the back of the home. Planning Technician replay the ending of the homes. Board makes quotation on placing gutters. Mr. Kirk Strahan ask building official, Gary Owens if this is required or this something they have to dictated if they approve the project. Ms. Prieto directs board as this may need to be a condition if you approve. Mr. Strahan ask if the rear on this home one (1) foot or two (2) foot is. Ms. Prieto notes the back is one foot as a mistake on our end is made for this photo. As Mr. Rios mentions there is nothing straight in that area. No 90’s out there (referring to degrees). Mr. Owens clarifies one home is a little over two foot and this house is one foot. As the street curves and no square out there. Mr. Strahan ask the building official; you are thinking of having him shave the back and gutter it. As the board all agree with the comment from Mr. Strahan. Mr. Tim Harry makes a concern for the slope and the drain coming off that house into the rear property. As yes you are going to place a gutter but is the gutter going to be enough for the house to shield from any home coming off those homes. Mr. Arzate states you are going to shave some of that off, as the wall will not come down however you will have that come down. Mr. Arzate ask board if you have any other questions for staff, and at this time Kyle Newton, Board member ask “what would be satisfactory to ensure the eave and gutter cross over the property line, as what is the correct procedure”. Mr. Owens, Building Official, states involvement in current inspections as the builders are not there or nor can they continue until. If you board were to approve it, I and the other assistant building official Steve Purcella will keep a close eye on it. Mr. Kyle Newton asks if we have the contractor here or the builder? As board replies yes. Mr. Arzate ask if any additional questions for the city are at this time. Hearing none other, then he begins to open the public portion for any other questions or comments. Hearing no one, he begins to close the public portion for audience or owners to come forward. Mr. Arzate then states the conditions for the shave off of property and gutters for the concern of the drainage. As Mr. Tim Harry ask if we need to imply gutter or drainage in the conditions. Mr. Strahan indicated that a gutter may not be beneficial, as the process to ensure the water does not stay there. Mr. Owens, building official, reapproaches the podium with the drainage question. We cannot train into another property, as the slope of the house could be issued to the front of the house. Main concern is to ensure the drainage into another property as you are all aware of. Mr. Strahan ask your main worry is draining away from the other property. Mr. Owens mentioned that with a gutter system we can redirect water to the front of the house. Paul Anthony Rios, board member, Approves the motion for all instants of what city is requiring; Gutter, Firewall, fixing the overhang and drainage. Mr. Arzate quotes conditions such as. 1. No Additional may be placed withing a five-foot rear setback. 2. A One Hour Firewall is required for wall facing rear to rear. 3. Property drainage 4. Overhang to not pass the property line. Mr. Owens speaks to board; help add state if we place that gutter. That too would push into another property line. Stating the gutter should not cross property lines as well Fourth Conditions. 4 Gutter to not cross property lines. As the builder would have to address and I building official would not have to cross as the fourth conditions. Kirk Strahan Seconds the Motion, speak in all in favor, with the vote being a unanimous "aye”. Asking if any further motion hearing none, motion to adjourn by Priscilla Contreras and seconded by Gerardo Arzate, with the vote being a unanimous "aye”.