Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZBA Members Gerardo Arzate, Chairman Tim Harry, Vice Chairman Kyle Newton, Member Kirk Strahan, Member Priscilla Contreras, Member Paul Anthony Rios, Member Norberto Brito, Member (Alternate) ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY HALL, 411 W. 8TH ST. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – FIFTH FLOOR June 07, 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 March 15, 2024. III. PUBLIC HEARING The Zoning Board of Adjustments board will hold a public hearing on the following items: 3. CASE FILE NO. 2024-05-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of The Kent Companies, owner, Prince Signs, contractor for a variance from Section 14-10-1(d) (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow 260 sq. ft. of Wall Identification signage instead of the maximum 122 sq. ft. allowed for wall signage in a Light Commercial (LC) Zoning District, Lot 1 Block 1, Yukon Ridge Commercial, 1st Filing.  4. CASE FILE NO. 2024-06-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of The Kent Companies, owner, Prince Signs, contractor for a variance from Section 14-10-1(d) ( 1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow approximately 607 sq. ft. of Freestanding Identification signage instead of the maximum 200 sq. ft. allowed in a Light Commercial (LC) Zoning District, Lot 2, Block 1, Yukon Ridge Commercial, 1st Filing. (3700 E Yukon Road) 5. CASE FILE NO. 2024-09-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of Frank Russo, owner, for a variance from Section 14-7-13 (a) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow a detached structure (storage-garage) to be built in the area defined as the front instead of the area defined as rear yard and from Section 14-7-7 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing residence to maintain a zero foot (O') side yard setback instead of the required five feet (5') side yard setback in a Planned Development-Single Family (PD-SF) Zoning District, Lot 7, Block 36, North Park Addition, 13th Filing, Phase II. (828 E 97th Ct.) IV. Adjourn Be it said and remembered that at 8:31 a.m. on the 7 th day of June 2O24, 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 Priscilla Contreras Anthony Paul Rios Kyle Newton Norberto Brito III MEMBERS ABSENT: Kirk Strahan OTHERS PRESENT: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager; James Reber, Senior Planner; Cheynna Torres, Planning Tech The minutes of the March 15, 2O24, Zoning Board of Adjustments Commission meet were approved, motion for approval being made by Vice-Chairman, Tim Harry, seconded by member, Priscilla Contreras, with the vote being a unanimous "aye".  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 2024-05-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of The Kent Companies, owner, Prince Signs, contractor for a variance from Section 14-10-1(d) (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow 2An sq. ft. of Wall Identification signage instead of the maximum 122 sq. ft. allowed for wall signage in a Light Commercial (LC) Zoning District, Lot 1 Block 1, Yukon Ridge Commercial, 1st Filing. Maria Prieto Presents: 0 Protest, 2 Sent and 2 Approved The property involved in this request is located 3490 E Yukon Rd. This site is currently zoned Light Commercial (LC) and is currently under construction for medical clinic. The property has a total lot area of approximately .81 acres. Land use in the area consist of a football stadium to the north and vacant land to the south, east and west. The Applicant is Leeco Energy and Investments, Inc., owner, Prince Signs, LLC agent, and the purpose of the request is to allow 260 sq. ft. of Wall Identification signs instead of the maximum 122 sq. ft. allowed. The Proposed overall wall signs will be approximately 138 sq. ft. more than the 122 sq. ft. maximum allowed. The applicants are proposing the location of the following sign. If you see below that you would have the left and right column. The left (right on agenda) column approved wall and freestanding signs have already been permitted and the left column are proposed signs that are requesting additional signage. The following Criteria as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance request. 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 condition exists 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 spirit of the zoning ordinance and substantial justice is done. Therefore, the planning staff recommends denial of the sign request of prevent proliferation of sign usage. Staff believes the additional 138 sq. ft. of signage is contrary to the public interest. The additional 1389 sq. ft. of wall signage might create a distraction to motorists on Yukon Rd. particularly at night when they are illuminated. In addition, they may also affect adjoining properties that have not yet been developed. Staff believes the wall signs can be reduced in size and still provide sufficient advertising for the urgent care facility. There are no unique conditions for the applicant. The topography is relatively flat and there are no view obstructions that would impede the view of the signs. The Freestanding sign (which complies with the sign ordinance), and front signs facing Yukon would provide sufficient advertising to the property. Reducing the size of all Urgent Care signs to 30 sq. ft. and eliminating the rear signs (E and F) which are not visible form Yukon would bring the overall signs area down and avoid the need for a variance. Staff sees no unnecessary hardship that would warrant a variance for the additional signage. Reducing the size of the signs would still allow the business to be while complying with the sing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. Reducing the size of the signs would be keeping within the spirit of the Ordinance. Allowing the excess signage would create a negative precedent, allowing other businesses to also seek variances and circumvent the ordinance requirements. Should the Zoning Board of Adjustment approve the sign variance request, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. That a maximum wall signage of 157 sq. ft. is reasonable, this is a 25% increase to the allowable wall signage. Staff is here for any questions. Anthony P. Rios ask for the total number of signs for the location, making it 10, correct? Maria Prieto replies, yes 10 total. As she recounts, changes her answer to 8 signs. Mr. Rios comments 8 signs on building with the one facing the front to which Ms. Prieto indicates yes, all building and one facing Yukon Rd. Chairman, Gerardo Arzate, ask members for any additional questions for Ms. Prieto, Planning Manager. Mr. Rios ask if the monument sign up front meets code. To which Ms. Prieto replies yes, the freestanding. Mr. Brito III, member, ask for signage sq. ft. this would be calculated all around not one particular sign as Ms. Prieto states the calculation of signage proposed and approved is all around their building. Mr. Britto III, member, ask total around the building we have a certain number allowance, and they are adding facing to the other sides of the building. Ms. Prieto states the allowable frontage times 1.75 sq. ft. as how the Ordinance calculates the signage. When the permit was approved the signs were within the maximum sign allowance, as additional signs such as C, B and D are excess of the sign ordinance. Mr. Rios comments “Signs looks to be getting bigger”. Chairman Gerardo Arzate ask members once again for any additional questions for staff, begins to open public hearing. Asked audience if anyone would like to speak on the matters of this variance case, asking to state the name. Mr. Kevin Fryer, 5500 Newcastle in Midland, Tx on behalf of The Kent Companies as if you see the other site on Faudree, this location has the same sign package as what we are trying to present here. As trying to keep our brand all the same with a total eight (8) locations to keep the signages all the same as an example of McDonalds. This is an urgent care facility as motorist drive by this is something we would like for them to see. The additional signs are not advertising West Texas Urgent Care as just listed Urgent Care to indicate service of property. If you open the Diagram of signage, sign D which is on the rear of the building, we are willing to get rid of that one. The Kent Companies would like to push for Sign C, which is on which is facing Yukon that states Urgent Care. As of Sign B, keeping this location and sign will help establish drivers coming through that intersection on Grandview and Yukon Rd. Mr. Rios, Member, ask Mr. Kevin Fryer, The Kent companies representative which sign are they willing to remove? Mr. Fryer replies with the letter D with the location of the sign facing the Gas Station. Mr. Rios, member, ask Planning Manager, Maria Prieto if Sign D is to be removed would this give us the allowance of total or would this still be over. Mr. Prieto states the signs would still be excessive number of that one sign is a total of removed is 36 sq. ft. Mr. Rios ask Mr. Fryer about the signs of Billy Hext and East Ridge package, is exactly like this or is this a variance that was required. As this area is newly developed and as the existing location, we were able to accommodate since the Billy Hext Location was established. As this one we noticed the vacant land which could consist or residentials as this would impact them. Mr. Tim Harry, Vice Chairman, ask Ms., Prieto as stated in her presentation of sending out of cards. What was returned, approved, and denied? Ms. Prieto states in the area is owned by only two people at the moment, as they were in the 200 ft surround property owners. Returned were two approvals which is what the two property owners were in the area. IF we were to eliminate D, we would still have to signs over which are Sign C and B. Mr. Tim Harry stated the drive through the area as noticed the signs already on the location. Have we already placed signs up? Mr. Fryer stated the Prince Signs had initially placed the signs that were already approved and permitted. Ms. Prieto, Planning Manager, indicated the signs on the building is what was permitted and within the Max Sign allowance. As Mr. Tim Harry, Vice-Chairman, states we are down to two signs to which are still over the maximum sign allowance. Which they are not advertising the brand as which advertising the Service of the establishment. Mr. Arzate, Chairman, States the logo already advertises Urgent care. To Which Mr. Kevin Fryer, The Kent companies’ representative states the name being tucked up underneath the brand, as this may be a failure in our part is in the logo as if you are driving by you could detect the service from the road. Mr. Arzate ask if any other additional question for Mr. Kevin Fryer, The Kent companies’ representative. Mr. Tim Harry ask the rest of the road going down Yukon is that commercial or residential going down towards the airport. Is this going to create an issue as we are talking about height wise? What is this going to do with us going forward as far as setting precedence? If the properties to the west are zoned Commercial there is a certain max sign allowance as each property could place one Freestanding per property however if they were to want additional signage, we would have to look at those very closely, Ms. Prieto states. As once we know what type of development towards the south once again, we would have to look at those very closely as well to verify no additional impact towards residential. Mr. Harry states as we drive down Yukon Rd. heading west, is this already established Light Commercial (LC)? As Ms. Prieto states this request for this new establishment has not been in request yet. Mr. Arzate, Chairman ask for any additional question for either Ms. Prieto or Mr. Fryer. As Mr. Arzate Closes the public portion of the meeting to members for discussion or motion. Ms. Priscilla Contreras, member, mentions the side noting being an issue since this is not facing direct motorist view. Mr. Harry states the understanding of having Urgent Care on the side of Yukon Rd., as not necessarily see the reason towards the gas station as this could potentially cover that sign up. As the members states the side of Grandview does give a clear view of the Urgent Care East side of building. Mr. Arzate states going with the signage you have and the logo which is a representation of your brand. Using a variance for a failed logo of what this represents and not knowing what our future is, moving forward on a failed logo for this variance just because, in my opinion. Mr. Tim Harry, Vice-Chairman, ask if we could change the size of the signs to help accomplish the goal and help with the spirit of the Ordinance as he Reads Condition No. 1. Ms. Prieto states you are able to approve with conditions as you see fit. As 157 is the total additional from what was already approved as this made it 25% increase. Mr. Rios clarifies the removal of Sign D, would remove 36 sq. ft. from that total, correct? Ms. Prieto, Planning Manager, replies correct. As Mr. Arzate, Chairman, state as they gave a proposed wall signage and approved. Ms. Prieto states as they came in, they indicated from the agenda, Left is approved wall and Freestanding Signs, and the Colum on the Right are the Proposed additional wall signs. If Sign D were to be removed, 35.81 as indicated 36 sq. ft. the request is still for signs C & B which are 48.73 sq. ft. each. Mr. Harry states, Sign D being 35.81 sq. ft. on the wall sign, which is also Urgent Care, would it be acceptable to use Sign B size for the other two which also helps up get closer to the allowance amount. Ms. Prieto ask of Mr. Fryer, The Kent Companies representative, if this could be an option for them? As Mr. Kevin Fryer stands up, Mr. Arzate Chairman opens the Public Portion of the meeting for comments or questions. Mr. Fryer, 5500 Newcastle in Midland, states the issue with decreasing the size of the sign would be if you decrease Urgent smaller you would have to be closer to view that sign as this is illuminated as members were concerned. As the proposing with Mr. Harry Statement from 100 ft down to 70 ft. As Mr. Fryer and Ms. Prieto goes over the numbers proposed and with the members proposed numbers. Mr. Fryer mentions keeping Sign C (Yukon Rd. Side) as the proposed size and reduce B (Grandview/Yukon Rd. Intersection Side) to the D Size? As Mr. Rios, Member, and mentions removing D along with those other corrections. Mr. Fryer give a node in compliance with those changes. As the members all come to agreement with Ms. Prieto agreement. As Mr. Arzate Closes the public Portion and turns to members for discussion or motion. Mr. Tim Harry, Vice-Chairman, makes a motion to approve with the following conditions: 1. Allow Sign C (48.73 sq. ft.) to be approved a proposed. 2. Change Sign B (35.81 sq ft size) 3. To Eliminate Sign D (35.81 sq. ft.) which was located in back of building. Priscilla Contreras Seconds the motion with the conditions following, speak in all favor, with vote being unanimously “aye”.  /(*(1' $33529(' $64)7:$//6,*1 )64)7:$//6,*1 (64)7:$//6,*1 *64)7)5((67$1',1* 352326(' &64)7:$//6,*1 %64)7:$//6,*1 '64)7:$//6,*1   *     ˙ ˙ & $ ) ( % ' 352-(&7,1)2 i´·í
í·¯Ò
·í
·Òõ£Òž£ž
õÙ
–£
·ÒíõŠÊÊ£ž
·Ò
Š˜˜Ù鞊Ҙ£
ć·õ´  5(6,=('6,*16' (5(029(')/$*32/( 7-0 õ´£
é£èû·é£Ð£Òõí
Ù­
 ˏ ˏ 

& &/,(17:(67(; $''5(66(<8.215' 1257+*5$1'9,(:$9( 3  $''('6,*1) &5266 7-0 éõ·˜Ê£
ĢĜĜ
Ù­
õ´£
GŠõ·ÙÒŠÊ Ê£˜õ鷘ŠÊ
ٞ£
ŠÒžżÙé
Ùõ´£é 5(*,67(5(' ŠååÊ·˜Š–Ê£
Ê٘ŠÊ
˜Ùž£íŶ  $''('*5281'6,*1),;('$//64)70($685(0(176 7-0 &XQQLQJKDP5G+RXVWRQ7; &,7<67$7(2'(66$7; i´·í
·Ò˜Êûž£í
åéÙå£é
¯éÙûҞ·Ò¯ 92/ 7$03  6,7(3/$1:,7+/(*(1',1&/8'('/(77* 97 ŠÒž
–ÙҞ·Ò¯
Ù­
õ´£
í·¯ÒŶ
 '$7( i´£
Ê٘Šõ·ÙÒ
Ù­
õ´£
ž·í˜ÙÒÒ£˜õ &RPPHUFH'U0LGODQG7;  6$/(675$&<6:,6+(5  íć·õ˜´
Š­õ£é
·ÒíõŠÊʊõ·ÙÒ
í´ŠÊÊ
6(&21'$5</2$'.9$ ˜ÙÐåÊč
ć·õ´
éõ·˜Ê£
ĢĜĜŶĢ
Ƃƃ
Ƃĝƃ LQIR#SULQFHVLJQVFRP '(6,*17-0 Ù­
õ´£
GŠõ·ÙҊÊ
Ê£˜õ鷘ŠÊ
ٞ£Ŷ 3$*( To: Zoning Board of Adjustment Subject: DOCKET NO. 2024-06-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of The Kent Companies, owner, Prince Signs, contractor for a variance from Section 14-10-1(d) (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow approximately 607 sq. ft. of Freestanding Identification Signage instead of the maximum 200 sq. ft. allowed in a Light Commercial (LC) Zoning District, Lot 2, Block 1, Yukon Ridge Commercial, 1st Filing. (3700 E Yukon Rd.) Ms. Prieto Presents: Two (2) Notices sent, zero (0) returned and zero (0) protest. The property involved in this request is located in 3700 E Yukon Rd. This site is currently zoned Light Commercial (LC) and is currently under construction for a gasoline service station. The property has a total lot area of approximately 5.86 acres. Land use in the area consists of a football stadium to the north and vacant land to the south, east and west. The applicant is Leeco Energy and Investments, Inc., owner, Prince Signs, LLC agent, and the purpose of the request is to allow 607 sq. ft. of Freestanding Identification signage instead of the maximum 200 sq. ft. allowed. The proposed overall freestanding signage will be approximately 407 sq. ft. more than the 200 sq. ft. maximum allowed. The applicants are proposing the location of the following signs: Approved signs to the left column and permit has been issued for those and Right column are proposed additional freestanding signs. Additional 199.706 sq. ft. Freestanding and 206.72 sq. ft. Freestanding. 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 Planning Staff recommends denial of the sign request to prevent proliferation of sign usage. Staff analysis of this request is that the additional 407 sq. ft. Freestanding signage is not a reasonable request due to motorist on E. Yukon Rd. and N. Grandview Ave. and may also affect adjoining properties that have not yet been developed. Several of the new signs added to the existing freestanding sign are not advertising the main business and creating much of the excess signage. For instance, the Kwik Eats and food items signage are in addition to the existing Kwik sign. Second, the second new freestanding sign already advertises the Kwik car wash so having additional signage saying Car Wash on the other freestanding is redundant and adds to the overall total signage greatly exceeding the sign ordinance allowance. In essence, the applicant is asking for a 303% sign increase which does not meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance to maintain safety and adequate open space. Staff is willing to work with the applicant to find solutions so they can move forward but a significant reduction in signage is necessary to meet the ordinance and best ensure public safety for oncoming motorists. Therefore, the Planning Staff recommends denial of the sign request to prevent proliferation of sign usage. Staff is here for any questions. Mr. Tim Harry, Vice-Chairman, ask if this limit to one side is going to be D which has already been approved? As Ms. Prieto Corrects the Letter being Sign D, and they will be installing Two Same Sign Letter D, and one A. Sign D on Yukon Rd has already been approved as they are asking for an additional Sign D (199.706 sq. ft.) as well as Sign A. The Pylon on with Chevron and Kwik Gas Station and Sign A (206.72 sq. ft.) only Carwash. Reason we have two signs here is sign they are planning to add two same signs on either side of the property and another sign on the same side of Grandview Ave. Mr. Arzate ask Ms. Prieto if the first sign D has been approved, closest to the Urgent Care as to which Ms. Prieto replies yes. As Mr. Arzate ask if the remainder of the letters have been approved as to which Ms. Prieto replies again with Yes as they meet the maximum sign allowance. Mr. Arzate ask if any additional questions from members were to be asked directly to Ms. Prieto, Planning Manager. At this time Chairman, Gerardo Arzate opens the public portion for audience to speak on behalf or against as you may please state your name. At this time Mr. Kevin Fryer, The Kent Companies representative approached the podium stating Kevin Fryer, 5500 New Castle in Midland. As I had brought over a site plan (screen changed over to the Site Plan) and the Site Plan indicated a signage of well over 6 Acre Site (large) with the addition of Urgent Care making a 1000 ft of Street Frontage. Smaller location in Odessa has two price signs, as one for the business and one for the gas advertising. As the Chevron will face the street and we fill in the additional signage with our services and second sign on Grandview. The Carwash sign panel could be removed since we will be having the additional Car Wash sign facing the entrance of the site. The Spirit or how the terminology is stated as another consideration of the size of the site which holds two business on one Parcel (Lot). If this was Quick Serve Restaurant or any type of business to which could contain up to eight business with their own sign. Preserving the Spirit of the ordinance you are ending up with less signage at the site verse other business were to be in this area, which may not be an argument in your eyes however I see this going to be a better outcome. A Usual procedure where a gas station is located on both entrances which are the two price signs. As the car wash sign , if necessary could be changed over to a smaller size in which Midland does currently have. If the concern is height or size, this new proposed one is about eight (8’) feet wide four (4’) feet height. Traffic and visibility is what the purpose of use was as this is a separate business and fueling only without the knowledge of Convenience store or Carwash on location. Mr. Tim Harry, Vice-Chairman, states the knowledge of what is on the plans which has Kwik eats and Kent Kwik sign as not within the smaller version as the others, Drive-thru. Mr. Fryer states the replacement in the pack 15ft would be the replacement. Mr. Kyle Newton, Member, states the difference between what is shown, and the monument proposal is that this is lower to the ground as the size is the same. Mr. Fryer relies yes as not aware of the concern is height or size? Mr. Harry states in the side of Grandview Ave is where the establishment goes into Residential size an create hazard as the development is set to increase. As Mr. Fryer states south of this location is FD, Future Development. As Mr. Rios states the illumination is what worries the members due to the residential being affected. Mr. Fryer states the signs are not spotlight as all signs are Internal LED as if need, I could get Lumin Numbers as needed. Mr. Arzate ask if any additional questions were for Mr. Fryer, The Kent companies Representative? Mr. Norberto Brito III, Member, states the access off Grandview is what the point of the Carwash sign was intended for. As Mr. Fryer states another development on the Larger Parcel, Lot 3. As Lot 3 is going to be a shared access drive that shares for a proposed retail development in that area. As other establishments are going to want a sign, as I am sure as well as the other location(s) coming in. As Mr. Brito III, states to Mr. Fryer for the Car Wash sign to help access Grandview entrance was the whole argument as would you be opposed to move the location of the sign. As Mr. Fryer states if the carwash was to be sold then the sign would be an essential part to the new owners. As Mr. Harry ask Ms. Prieto if the time the new owners would want a sign, could they possibly come back for a variance? As to which Ms. Prieto, Planning Manager replies yes. Mr. Brito ask Mr. Fryer if the entrance of the Car Wash between a separate lot, Correct? Mr. Fryer states the combination of both lots share the entrance, Lot two (Car Wash) and Lot 3. Mr. Harry ask Ms. Prieto how Signage is calculated and if this is based off of linear Road? Ms. Prieto Replies Yes. Mr. Harry Ask, “The approved Sign D, is based off of what is apart of the Sign allowance”? Mr. Prieto Replied “Yes, the largest street frontage is calculated to give the overall sign allowance”. Mr. Brito asked, “Why is the sign allowance based off of one Linear Frontage when the location has two frontages”? As He as well stated off the subject, if the lot requires landscape and sidewalk with the base of both frontages, why not create both linear frontages to do signage? As you go in the zoning ordinance which you only give credit for do you do this for the Landscape portion as well? As Ms. Prieto States this is what is in our Zoning Code and to change the ruling would request of City Council ruling to which have to change the full rule book to which she nor Zoning board may be able to decide. As Mr. Arzate interrupts to stay on subject as these rules for sign are different from those of Landscape or Engineering rules, these questions be open to the public. As Mr. Brito states having those additional frontages and your argument is insistence of the other opening as the entrance in the carwash. The Reason for the request of two sign is because one is for the fueling station and the other as the Car Wash does operate as a standalone as Mr. Fryer indicates. Mr. Brito ask Mr. Fryer “As not to combine the sign on this one, as you agreed to remove sign off the fuel station for the Carwash but move your A Sign (Carwash) over to the radius of the inside radius”? As Mr. Fryer ask Mr. Brito “you say to remove the Standalone Carwash sign”? Mr. Brito stated to keep sign with the condition of moving this over towards the Car Wash Entrance. As leaving Sign D on the northside then car one on the southside same location. As Ms. Prieto and Mr. Harry both state the required separation (75’) and the crowd the location. As Mr. Fryer states the Sign A, could be moved towards the driveway as Mr. Harry States making larger vehicles more difficulty to move freely between gas stations from the Grandview Side. As Mr. Brito Mentions this was a suggestion as understood the concern from Mr. Harry on the crowd of space. As the members speak amount themselves for helping the decision on the Variance Case concerning Carwash Sign and Fueling Station. As members speak about the new proposal of the monument proposal, same sign with the sizing and height changed over. As Mr. Harry states the new proposal would fit a lot better than the original sign as Ms. Priscilla Contreras comments to much signage in the area. As she states keep Sign D’s and Cut out Sign A. As approving this one could set precedent to having owners add more and more signage than allowed. As Mr. Contreras states the new buyer could come to variance for their ruling and as the other two Freestanding already have Car Wash incorporated in them. As Mr. Harry and Mr. Arzate both agree. As Mr. Arzate ask if any questions are to be directed towards Mr. Fryer any longer, to which they all agreed upon “no”. Mr. Fryer interrupts and makes a statement “If you are out on Site and the distance between both are completely separate as I would argue this is needed “. Mr. Arzate Closes the Public Portion of the meeting. As Mr. Brito Makes comment on “Calculate all of the frontage along Yukon Rd and Grandview Ave, could this give them the room to place both signs they are asking for”? Ms. Prieto Approaches the podium and clarifies again “Goes based on one Linear Frontage”. As Mr. Brito replies as the ordinance goes off one frontage but if you were to tie both together, as Mr. Arzate interrupts and states the Ordinance does not allow. As Mr. Brito states this is not that we cannot, we are the Zoning Board of Adjustment as Mr. Arzate states Her Job (Ms. Prieto, Planning Manager) is to keep it prior to Ordinance, as she is not able to change. As Mr. Brito states all owners are required to go off ordinance for the requirements based on all linear frontages for other requirements. Mr. Kyle Newton, Member, States with signs these were in place as a different regulation as I understand the other ideas since other requirements are based solely on Frontage. As Mr. Brito states we can “here” state a variance to give credit for all the frontage because you’re treating all your frontage requirements. Ms. Prieto Interrupts and states “If we were to change this for him, this could change for many other businesses, as this would have to go directly as an amendment to our Zoning Ordinance to which City Council would be involved and ruling”. Mr. Harry ask Ms. Prieto “How many linear Footage is calculated”? As Mr. Brito interrupts the questions of Mr. Harry to ask if “we” (Zoning Board of Adjustment) Could we do something like that. As Ms. Prieto states the Sign ordinance is very direct and acknowledges business with two frontages. As Mr. Brito ask if we could, those signs would be legal? Ms. Prieto replies “No”. As Ms. Prieto stated the first Packet sent in was only for the Letter D. Mr. Arzate ask his fellow members if this is ready for a motion or further discussion. Mr. Tim Harry makes a statement with adjusting the sign as Ms. Priscilla Contreras may have the same idea. Tim Harry, Vice Chairman, makes a motion to approve the Letter D on Grandview side as is and to Remove the Sign Letter A on Grandview Side, Carwash. Member Priscilla Contreras Seconds the motion, with the vote five (5) being approval of and one (1) opposed to the motion.  ¶´   352-(&7,1)2 i´·í
í·¯Ò
·í
·Òõ£Òž£ž
õÙ
–£
·ÒíõŠÊÊ£ž
·Ò
Š˜˜Ù鞊Ҙ£
ć·õ´  &$5:$6+63/,7 5(9 õ´£
é£èû·é£Ð£Òõí
Ù­
&/,(17.(17.:,. $''5(66(<8.215' 3  3(50,7 97 éõ·˜Ê£
ĢĜĜ
Ù­
õ´£
GŠõ·ÙÒŠÊ Ê£˜õ鷘ŠÊ
ٞ£
ŠÒžżÙé
Ùõ´£é 5(*,67(5(' ŠååÊ·˜Š–Ê£
Ê٘ŠÊ
˜Ùž£íŶ  3(50,75(9 97 &,7<67$7(2'(66$7; i´·í
·Ò˜Êûž£í
åéÙå£é
¯éÙûҞ·Ò¯  3(50,7&20%,1('.& ..21/< 97 ŠÒž
–ÙҞ·Ò¯
Ù­
õ´£
í·¯ÒŶ
'$7( i´£
Ê٘Šõ·ÙÒ
Ù­
õ´£
ž·í˜ÙÒÒ£˜õ íć·õ˜´
Š­õ£é
·ÒíõŠÊʊõ·ÙÒ
í´ŠÊÊ
6$/(675$&<6:,6+(5 ˜ÙÐåÊč
ć·õ´
éõ·˜Ê£
ĢĜĜŶĢ
Ƃƃ
Ƃĝƃ 6(&21'$5</2$'.9$ '(6,*19$',07$0$<2 Ù­
õ´£
GŠõ·ÙҊÊ
Ê£˜õ鷘ŠÊ
ٞ£Ŷ 3$*(  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 2024-09-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of Frank Russo, owner, for a variance from Section 14-7-13 (a) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow a detached structure (Storage-Garage) to be built in the area defined as the front instead of the area defined a rear yard and from Section 14-7-7 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing residence to maintain a zero foot (0') side yard setback instead of the required five feet (5') side yard setback in a Planned Development=Single Family (PD-SF) Zoning District, Lot 7, Block 36, North Park Addition, 13th Filing, Phase II. (828 E 97th Ct.) Ms. Maria Prieto Present: 28 Notices Sent, 0 Protest 0 approved The Property involved in this request is located at 828 E 97th Ct. This site is currently zoned for Planned Development-Single Family (PD-SF) and is occupied by a Single- Family residence. The property is surrounded by residential development to the north, south, east, and west. The applicant is Frank Russo, owner, and the purpose of the request is for variance to 1) allow a structure (storage/garage) to be located in the front yard of the property instead of the required rear yard and 2) a zero-foot (0’) side yard setback instead of the required five feet (5’) side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 14-7-13 (a) and Section 14-7-7 from the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance, which states: (Shown below) The following criteria as outline in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance request. 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 variance will be contrary to the if approved for several reasons. First, the storage/garage will cause flow of rainwater to fall onto adjacent property as it would be located immediately on the property line. Second, it will reduce the amount of light, air, or open space for the adjacent property owner and set a negative precedent for other owners to place their structures on side and front yards. Finally, the storage/garage will need to have another paved access if used for parking purposes which could create safety issues for oncoming vehicles. Staff does not see any special conditions that would support a variance. There is adequate space for in the rear yard to place this structure that would comply with the zoning ordinance and not require a variance. As indicated, the applicant could choose to place this structure in rear of the house and therefore, staff does not see a hardship in this case. Allowing the placement of a storage/garage structures beside the home and zero (0’) feet from the side property line contravenes the spirit and the intent of the Zoning ordinance to provide adequate air, light, and separation distance between homes to mitigate visual obstructions and reduce chance of fire or rainwater runoff onto adjacent properties. Staff analysis of this request is to deny the applicant’s request for the structure (storage/garage) to be located in the front yard of the property instead of required rear yard and reduce the five (5’) feet side yard to zero (0’) on the rear of the building. With this in mind, the planning staff recommends that the storage/garage to be placed at the rear of the property and maintain the six (6’) feet separation from residence as indicated in the front yard and maintain the five (5’) setbacks in the side and rear yards of the property. However, should the Board choose to approve this request we recommend the following conditions, which would require shifting the structure closer to 97th Street: 1. Structure shall maintain the minimum required front yard setback of twenty (20’) feet. 2. Structure shall maintain the required six (6’) feet separation from any other structures. 3. Structure shall follow the minimum required five (5) feet side yard setback. 4. That the applicant submits a final plan to the Planning Manager for her approval. As stated, staff is here for any questions. Mr. Rios ask Ms. Prieto if this is a garage as she indicated Mr. Russo owner proposed a storage. Mr. Arzate ask if an existing structure was already place in this area as shown from photos, an empty marking was placed. Mr. Arzate asked if any additional question for Ms. Prieto before moving on? Mr. Brito III, member, ask Ms. Prieto “is this strictly storage or a detached garage”? (Mr. Rios makes comment as agreeing as seen as garage) Ms. Prieto, Planning Manager, stated the application came in as a storage as my assumption was garage as well but to my understanding the owner stated only Storage. Mr. Tim Harry, member, ask Ms. Prieto “Since only a storage no power is to be attached other than lighting” as she responded yes. Mr. Rios comments but have a “GARAGE” Door on it, as shown it is a garage. Mr. Arzate asked members for any additional questions for Ms. Prieto, hearing none, opens the public portion of the meeting and to state your name and address for the record. At this time Frank Russo approaches the podium stating his name and 828 E 97th Ct. being his address. Mr. Russo stated the reason for wanting the Storage to be placed on the side of the home front yard facing is due to the backyard limited space and the shape of the property is shaped oddly. On 97th St., there is access to the yard but not a driveway or room to place a vehicle in the back area. As last year the hailstorm came upon our vehicles and my wife has received a newly vehicle to which is quiet over 80K we would like to protect. Mr. Arzate ask Mr. Russo to help clarify the statements from earlier, this is going to be a “Storage” not “Garage”? Mr. Russo states only storage not garage with the comment from Mr. Rios, member, but to place a vehicle in this “Storage”? Mr. Russo stated if he could keep the 9ftx 8ft Garage door that could be rolled up in case of a similar storm, could prevent same damage. Mr. Rios asked Mr. Russo if he already has a garage? As to which Mr. Russo states, yes, a two-car garage, as we also own two motorcycles. As he mentions his wife comment about removing motorcycles from property or he goes, joke. Mr. Brito III ask Mr. Russo if in this neighborhood, is there any type of HOA or Housing Organization? Mr. Russo responds no, as the color of the storage is to match the house and a gutter on this structure to keep water run off to keep out of neighboring yard. As Mr. Harry states he as well lives in this area as in asking if 96th ST has some substantial amount of traffic and the connecting street, Rainbow Dr. having a deep traffic control. As Mr. Russo stated the gate opens out as no driveway will be provided for this structure. Mr. Rios comments “no need if this is not a garage’. Mr. Arzate ask if any other additional questions for Frank Russo, hearing no one or no other member of the Audience approach the podium he began to close the public portion. Mr. Brito III, member states the question is for Ms. Prieto, With the recommendation of your notes he could meet the setbacks with the size of the building? Ms. Prieto mentions the building size must be reduced to meet those setbacks as the current structure would touch over to the neighbor property. Mr. Arzate ask if this is the correct site plan, as he was referring to Mr. Russo site plan, for Members of Board to turn to last page for the drawing Ms. Prieto did with using approximately 20 inches to a 1 Foot drawing. As indicated in those calculation as this building structure will have the six (6’) foot separation however with the five (5’) foot setback would be right against the neighbor’s property line. As Mr. Brito states based off your drawing, the whole building would be shifted off an angle towards the neighbor as we increase the 20ft front, as Ms. Prieto indicated we are looking at the Five (5’) Foot Right-of-Way. As Ms. Prieto states in her opinion, structure must be reduced to accommodate Separation requirement and Setbacks. As Mr. Tim Harry states this structure would be unprecedented for this neighborhood as well, since if one is done another Thousand more would come our way. Ms. Prieto mentioned that as research is being done, another two houses down that does have similar structure, does not have current permit. As Building Inspection has gone out as they issued a NOV, Notice of Violation. As Mr. Harry stated if we were to permit this one, we would have to permit other similar to this with variance cases. Mr. Arzate ask if this structure would fit in the back yard? As Ms. Prieto indicated smaller structure size would be able to fit the rear yard. (meeting Side yard requirements and separation requirements) As Ms. Prieto states if this structure similar but smaller was to be placed in rear yard, Mr. Russo, owner would be able to speak with Department of Public Works/Engineering on obtaining Curb Cut. As Mr. Tim Harry ask if this something that can be done in this variance case? Ms. Prieto states not here since this is a different manner however this would be required a separate permit. Mr. Rios stating if this is a Storage no need for Curb Cut. Mr. Brito ask if this is a storage then the setback in the rear will not be required. Ms. Prieto states the gathered information from Building Inspections “six (6’) foot separation will certainly be required”. As far as the rear property the structure would more than likely be required to build a firewall as Mr. Harry ask within the structure or his structure. Ms. Prieto responds this structure. Mr. Arzate as if a motion or further discussion is needed. Mr. Anthony Paul Rios makes a motion to deny structure to be placed in front yard, if storage this would be fit in the back yard; Seconded by member Tim Harry, speak all in favor of, with vote being unanimous “aye”. Vote to Deny 6-0. Chairman Arzate ask if any further business as which Ms. Prieto, Planning Manager approaches podium and states There being no further business to come before the Board. Chairman ask motion to Adjourn with member Tim Harry; Second by Member Priscilla Contreras, all unanimously “aye”. Cheynna Torres, Planning Technician, Placed the minutes in the Minute Book on June 8, 2024. ──────────────────────────── Gerardo Arzate, Chairman