Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

meeting with invocation Kirk. Dear Lord, we just thank you for this day and we thank you for the time that we get to come together, Lord. And we just ask your blessing on this uh board as we um listen to our citizens of the city, Lord. And we just ask your guidance, Lord. And it is your name we pray. Amen. Amen. Amen. All right, we stand for our pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor flag. I aliance to thee Texas. One state under God. One and indivisible. All right, we'll move to our consent item. Has everybody had a chance to look over the uh meetings from May 21st? If so, do I have a motion? Make a motion to accept. Motion on the table. Do I have a second? I second the motion. There's a second. All in favor say I. I. Any objections? Motion carries. All right, we go to our first case. Case file number 2025-04-V open a public hearing to consider the approval of the request of Christopher Tetley owner variance from section 14-7-7 of the city of Odessa's zoning ordinance to allow a structure carport to be built at a zero ft side yard setback instead of the required 15 ft

sideyard setback in a single family 3 SF3 zoning district lot 56 block 7 north park edition 95 filing 16 East 95th Street. Good morning. How are you guys? Um I wanted to first off uh say thank you for our two uh new members that came on board. We do appreciate your time that you are dedicating to this board and we're very excited to have you here today. And for our members that are here, what I'm going to be doing, I'm going to be presenting the case first and then we're going to open it up to our public. And if you guys then want to come and talk on behalf of your case, you will be allowed to come at that time. Okay. So, um for uh this case, we have a request for 376 square ft, which will be 14x 24 carpet that they're requesting for a variance. Um, and this is against our code which is section 14-7-7 and uh because it's encroaching onto our setback uh we are recommending um denial in regards to that. So um the the first reducing of the sideyard setback is to sorry you can see here that it goes down to uh zero ft. Um and then uh when it's supposed to the sideyard setback should be uh five feet. Um, and they do have uh an AC unit and I'll let the applicant uh uh talk in regards to that because it does reduce it at one

point from going um from the 15 ft that they have between the wall of the house to the fence. It goes from 11 ft. So, they still have that obstacle in there. Um, this is a neighborhood that does have an alley. Um, I guess, uh, we do have alleys, so there would be an opportunity to maybe take it through the alley and go there and try to putting the the carport through the back. Um, but I think it's that they just it's easier, more convenient for them to go through the front. They will be adding a slab right next to the where they originally have the slab so it would be an easier transition for them to go into that area. They have talked to um uh engineering and they have requested for a curb cut for them to be able to have an easier access onto uh from the street into that area as well. However, like I mentioned, because it goes against our code, we are recommending denial. However, if you choose to uh move forward with this carport, we do recommend that you approve with condition 1 through 4. Now, open for any questions. Do we have any questions for city staff? Did did the uh structure actually change? Because the last time we saw this case, it was a carport. This is looking in this elevation. I guess this is belongs to it. Looking more like a garage now. Enclosed and not a carport or what's what's going on there? That's what the customer dropped off this morning. Oh, that I have not seen that

one. Sorry. I I will have to defer to the applicant when uh they come up. Do we know how many? It looks like there's a gap there and that's probably to avoid conflict with the AC unit. Do we know how far it is from the house to this new structure? So from the AC I don't know if this drawing helps you. Well, so in the drawing it looks like it's more like a carport like what Tito was saying, but this seems more like an enclosed. Yes. And like I said, I had not seen this came to this morning according to Shaya and I had not seen that drawing. Yeah, it looks like they have solid walls. I was under the impression it's a carport, not enclosed. Any more questions for staff? What is the build in this area? How much property can you cover? Uh what percentage and are we over that adding this garage? No, he's he's within his ability to be able to add more too. We're not we have not exceeded the lot coverage. Okay. Anybody else? All right. Thank you, Elizabeth. At this moment, we're going to open this section of the meeting to the public. Anybody that wants to speak for or against this uh variance, please step forward. Please state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes or less. Chris Tedley, 610 East 95th Street. It's not enclosed. It's just brick pillars and it's designed I can't talk in public. Sorry. It's designed to match the rest of the house. Okay.

But it's not not enclosed. There's no door on it. No. on this. Will you be entering through the front of the property or are you going to put a gate on the back? Through the front. And what's the width between the two houses driving back there? I have 15 ft. So does the neighbor. So there's 30 ft between the two houses. Yes. Okay. I think it was brought to the attention at the last ca uh when we heard it the last time is would you consider moving your AC unit to where you probably wouldn't even need the variance because you would have the distance the five foot setback if you got rid of the AC unit and you'd still have your the width that you need for the carport you know has that been I think that's the reason we tabled it the last time it was tabled for the curb cut right but we also tabled bit forward to see if there was consideration to move that AC unit, condenser unit to another either further back or to the other side of the house. I don't think that was addressed, but I mean it's a possibility. Okay, because I think that that that would give you your distance. Your 5 foot setback would still be there and you'd still be able to get the carport right up next to the house. But I mean, yeah, I mean, I'm open to options, you know. I'm just trying to protect my vehicle. Also, have you considered putting a gate in the alleyway so you don't have to do a cur? I want to put a shop back there in the future and then I have that concrete slab that I can't drive down the side of the house. The patio slab. Okay. Anybody else? So, so the so the curb cut was allowed. Is that being allowed as well? Yes, sir. He said it would be fine.

Okay. And then so from the street all the way up to I don't know how to address this. Is this a carport or garage? It's a car. It's not closed. It's just designed to look nice. So So the concrete will go up to and then into the carport. Yes, sir. From the front of the house, it would go back 27. It's a big truck. Can you put that the drawing the that one? I can adjust the um Yeah, we did discuss it. He's allowed to uh have a a residential standard is 30 foot grow with a three 4 foot transition. It would have to start a foot off of this property line and then a 4 foot transition. So his actual lay down for the curve could be 5t from the property line. Okay. Anybody else? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Close this section of the meeting. Board commissioners discussion. We go back to the move the AC unit. You got plenty of room for your carpet on the side. You can do your curve cut, your driveway, and you still meet the setback without the variance. You could even actually attach that. It's no longer be a carport. You could attach and extend the house over that way if if you wanted to because you would still be within the setbacks on the structure.

So, do I have a motion to more discussion? Anybody have suggestions? And I'll make a motion that we deny this case due to the fact that there's plenty of room if you just do a different option, different design, move a couple things around that you get what you want. Is that a motion? That's a motion. I second. There's a motion on the table and there's a second before we vote on it. Um should we table it once more just for options because if we deny it? That'll work. I I'll I'll retract my motion to deny and I'll I'll motion to table it because there for for further review and further design because there are options for him that he can get what he wants if he just does a couple different things. Okay. And the reason the reason there's a table is that if we deny then he's locked for a year. He can't do anything else for a year. Okay. So there's a motion to table. Do I have a second? Second. There's a second. All in favor say I. I. Any objections? Motion carries. We're going to table. All right. Case file number 2025-06-V. open the public hearing to consider the the approval of request of Gilbert v. Vasquez, owner of variance from section 14-7-7 of the city of Odessa zoning ordinance to allow a carboard to be built with a 5t yard setback instead of the required 10 ft sideyard setback of the two two family one 2F-1 zoning district lot 6 through 8 block 93 college edition 1521 Gold Avenue. Uh before we start this case, I wanted to announce that uh Mr. um sorry Henry

Henry um Enriquez is going to uh not be participating on voting for this case. Um also I wanted to let you guys know that uh Mr. Vasquez was not able to make it to this vid to this meeting. However, he does h sent a representative in his name and he let us know ahead of time. So, for the record, uh Henry, do you abstain from I'm going to excuse myself in this case. Okay. So, move. Okay. Thank you. So, the applicant, uh, Mr. Vasquez, owner of this property, is requesting to obtain a variance to allow the construction of a 450 square foot, which would be an 18x 25 car port, to be built within a 5-ft side uh setback instead of the required 10-ft yard setback. Uh the applicant is requesting the variance from section 14-7-7 of the city of Adessa's zoning ordinance. again because this goes against our zoning ordinance. Staff is recommending uh denial. Uh this is since this is a corner lot, it makes it a little bit more challenging for us and where in a different area it would have a different setback. Right? Usually we would tend to see uh side yard setback that is five. But because it's a corner lot because of the uh because it's an SF what was it? Uh SF1 it goes into the category in where it's supposed to be a 10-ft uh side setback instead of the usually of the 5-ft setback. Um and because of that he's not meeting the criteras of

conforming within our uh required setbacks. So um he did provide some exhibits of how it would be looking and if we are recommending denial. However, if you do uh decide to move forward, staff is recommending that you approve it with the uh conditions 1 through 4. All right. Do we have any questions for staff? Uh I just want to clarify something. In the in the packet, it says staff analysis of this request is to approve the applicant's request. I hear you're saying denial. We recommend denial. Okay. Just one other thing. Yes. We can't go again. We can't go towards It's always going to be a denial. It's always going to be a denial from us. A quick question. Uh, is this property located in the overlay zone? It's not located. It's adjacent to it. It's literally the line, the the street is what separates it. And that's why it's he thought that it was and he could and I said the only way that you can is coming through the CPA port. So this is on the side street not on Golder. Correct. Correct. Okay. All right. Any other questions for No. No. All right. If anybody wants to speak for against this variant, please step forward. No, they they came on his behalf. Oh, they came on his behalf. Okay, we close this motion of the meeting. Commissioners

discussion, thoughts. One question I have. It almost looks like in the picture the concrete only goes a third of the way. Go back to Okay. So, it will have concrete completely underneath it. Yes. Yes. Okay. It's a driveway that has So, Oh, I see. So, this is a drawing here. I'm getting it now. Yes. A little slow, but I see. So, there's nothing there now. No, he's trying to uh from what we heard, he's trying to make it match the house and so he's just trying to put a carport by his garage. And it's on a side street. Okay. All right. Okay. Do we have a motion? Do we have I'd like to make a motion to approve. There's a motion on the table. Do I have a second? There's a second. All in favor say I. I. I. Any objection? Motion carries. Case file number 2025-07-V. open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of the Kint Company's owner Prince Science Contractor from a variance from section 14-10-1 D3 of the city of Odessa's owning ordinance to allow approximately 433 square feet of freestanding identification signings instead of the 400 square ft allowed per case in a Retail zoning district law 2 block one Yukon Ridge commercial first filing 3700 East Yukon road. So, this property is located um 3700

East Yukon Road and it's currently a gas station. Um we did see this case I want to say close to a year ago. I don't know if some of you guys might remember this. They came wanting uh three different signs. Um however, you guys approved two of the signs for them. So now they're coming back for that third one in order to try to get it approved. So um they're asking for additional uh 32.33 square ft uh freestanding sign for their car wash. Um so I'm going to sorry I think I'm going to go to this one. This one identifies. So, the one that's in the green is showing you guys what was approved um 6724 and the one that is the red would be the new proposal that they're asking. They did make some modifications on the new sign. Uh it was a lot higher, so they did come down on the height for it. Uh however um it is exceeding the allowable um I guess signage for the area. One of the biggest challenges that they have is that it it's it's all one parcel. Even though they might have multiple businesses in here, because it's all one parcel, they're only allowed to have a certain amount based on the parcel size. Um, and again, because it's going against our code, we're recommending denial. However, if you do decide to move forward, we recommend that we move to a master sign plan approval process. This would mean that they can have as many

signs as they want, as much as they want to do, but instead of coming to your board, it would go straight to city council. And all they would have to do is create, they already have the design and everything. We just bring it up to city council exactly how they have it and it's up to council to uh allow the master sign plan. And it should be a lot. It I don't see an issue with it. It's just we're exceeding the code, but you're allowed through a master sign plan in order to be able to exceed that. And we're still conf uh you know being within our code. Now open to any questions that you guys may have. Any questions? Is there a picture of the sign? I'm sorry. I think you had it there. So it's a big sign. Yes. Like the other Exactly. Like I said, it's it'll be the same size as what's already there. They did reduce the sign from the previous one, but they already have the advertisement for their uh car wash on the other two. So, they already have signage for car wash on two signs and they're wanting a third one. Correct. So, they could also drop it 30 square feet and it could be approved without us. Uh, yes. If they Yes. Just as a refresher, uh the signage square footage is based off of the linear the linear lot frontage. The linear or the 500 the max is 500 square f feet. Okay. I think we had that discussion before cuz they have frontage on I know two roads and it's what hurts that it's all one property. If it was parcelled out, like if the car wash would have been parcled

out, they would have no issue. But because it's all one law, that's the dilemma. They still is not is not governing totally. It's the 500 max square feet that governs what what's allowable on one parcel. They cannot exceed that. And we're already at 513. So, um, that's why they can still accomplish what they want, but they would have to go through a master sign process. Any other questions? No. All right. We open this portion of the meeting to the public. Anybody wants to speak for or against, please step forward. Please state your name and address for the record. 3 minutes or less. Yeah. Good morning. Uh, Kevin. Sorry. Oh, no worries. Kevin Frier, uh 5500 Newcastle, Midland, Texas. Uh here on behalf of the Kent Companies, I work in our planning and development office and I was here just about a year ago in front of this body. Um the last time we're here, just to clear up a few of the things I heard there, um we had a mistake on our original application. This sign was uh calculated at like 200 square ft or something. So when the city recommended denial last time for and I believe the term you use was egregious you know overreach of the sign I agree it was but that it was not right. We've gone back we've corrected it you unfortunately we couldn't correct it in real time that time so we had to go back go through the process again. Uh to answer the question about the existing signs those existing signs are 30 ft tall. So this is not as big as the existing signs. This is, you know, I think it's overall height of 15t 3 in. Uh much smaller square footage from a face standpoint. And it's about 130 ft from that sign on Grand View you see there. And you see the way the the driveway, you know, biseects the the frontage there. So, it it really is kind

of like its own lot, even though, as previously stated, it is one parcel. Um, again, that's part of the reason we're here today asking for this variance is, you know, it's a unique or uniquely large site. It's almost six acres. Um, to put it in perspective, the national average for a retail property is about8 acres. So, if that was the case, you know, there could be up to 11 businesses on the same size parcel, all with their own, you know, allowable signage. So to address the city's concern of proliferation of signage, we we've got two businesses operating on where 11 businesses could be. So I think if you look at that expanse there and look at this the two existing signs and the proposed sign, there's a lot of room there. Um I know it doesn't necessarily factor in, but this is the variance board, so it does a little bit. Um we've got with the sea store and the car wash uh just under,00 ft of frontage on uh Yukon and Grand View. Uh we actually control two additional lots there for a total of almost 1,400 ft of road uh frontage. Um therefore I would argue that this is not an overreach uh and and frankly is necessary. Um, I'm open to any questions you have. Obviously, the Kent Companies has been a community partner for a long time uh in this area. You know, this is not a perfect picture, but you can see, you know, we do a lot of beautifification. There's a lot of uh landscaping there um to break up our, you know, general brown and dusty landscape. So, uh appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today and would like to answer any questions you might have. So, is the car wash entrance going to be the same entrance

as it is to pull in to what would be, I guess, the south side? Yeah, you would you would enter if you wanted to go to the car wash directly, you'd enter off of Grand View, uh, right there at the bottom right of your screen where the other sign is. Yeah. Yes, sir. The the the sign advertising mainly advertising the Chevron station, you know, would be on the north side of that driveway. The car wash standalone would be on the south side. Any other questions? And just to address, I know it was mentioned that, you know, possibly there could be a master sign and whatever. That was kind of a new development just this morning as I walked in. I don't know enough to know what all the ramifications are of doing that. um not only in extension of time period to get the additional signage but also for the future. I don't know what that would mean for the property to have a master signage. Is that limited in any way you know for potential future development or you know another owner at some point in time? Uh so I would actually you know prefer not to go that route. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners discussion. Elizabeth, how far is that proposed signage from residential? I did not measure that. It's a long way. Yeah. Right now it's a long way. Right now it's a long way. Yeah. Well, I think um and he could probably answer this, but I would I think the property even to the um would be the south is also commercial commercial like retail retail. So there's no housing is going to be more in

towards the center towards the back of the shopping. Okay. My take on this is that this is basically based on a technicality because it was bought as an entire lot where it was originally could be divided into parcels but the square footage allows the signage you know it's just a technical deal and it's been held up to a certain point or the square footage doesn't the linear doesn't that's why there's a max there's a caps to it so I I just if there's any way to just go ahead and continue on. I don't have a problem with it. I don't see, you know, this is, you know, why would we have to go to a master plan? Shouldn't have that have been proposed and bypass us? It did. It was proposed. So, I have a question. So, if they were to replplot this, then this would not be an issue. Correct. If they were to just replplot the They can replplot. They can do a master plan. So, but I think replotting it, you're putting a burden on them that really doesn't have to happen. And I argued this before and the last time they have so much linear frontage that they're having to deal with that, you know, there should be an allowance for additional signage and that's why we have a a master sign plan. Yeah. That's why we Exactly. For that we have a master sign plan. That's the lounge. That's the way of how you can get more signage in here for it. But I think even from the previous time they revisited that sign cuz that sign was way bigger the first time we saw it. They've reduced it. They they've done the effort put forth the effort to to accommodate the city. Uh, so I mean my

take is is like a technicality right now. Instead of having overdue burden placed on them to have to go to a master plan and go to council or do other things, we have the ability right here to allow them to do their sign and and and move forward with it. It's not negatively affecting the area. And they've actually done a lot of nice work there with all the landscape on that corner and adjust the corner on on two major fronts. you know, Grand View is a major front and Yukon is definitely a major front right there. Uh, and so so they've been doing their their part to to accommodate the city in my opinion. If this was a McDonald's, there wouldn't be an issue with the signage. Right. It always will be an issue. It It's not the business. It's This was separate a separate property from the other property. Oh, right. If it's this was not a car wash, it would be no problem. If it would be a different parcel, a separate lot separate parcel definitely. Yeah. And I don't think we should say yes, make it a separate parcel. Yes. Send it to the city council. They came back with a smaller sign. Was the sign actually reduced or Yes, it was in the application. It was I think it was like 200 or so square feet. No, they reduced it. It Okay. Yes. Yeah. All right, commissioners. I'd like to make a motion to go ahead and get it approved. Due to the height adjustment and the size of the sign that it was done, I believe everything that Beth just addressed. And I'll I'll second it. There's a motion on the table and a second. All in favor say I. I. The objection. Motion carries. Next case, case file number 2025-08-V.

open a public hearing to consider the approval of the request of Kenya Favlla owner contractor of variance from section 14-7-84 of the city of Odessa's zoning ordinance to allow structure mobile home to be placed with an 8 foot sideyard setback instead of the 10 sideyard setback in a GR general resident zoning lot 12 block 14 Patterson edition 2011 Fitch Avenue. Thank you again. So, this uh property is located at 2011 Fitch Avenue and the applicant uh applied for um a permit to be able to place their um mobile home and they ended up placing their home and then they didn't call for inspections right away. They took a little while and then when we went to go check the uh placement of it, they were off by a little. They were off by almost 3 feet. Instead of them being uh 10 ft, they're at 7.10 in. Um and because they're not conforming to the that you know um they uh have to come here to ZBA in order to be able to get a um approval to be able to continue to being there. They have been there. He's been fixing his property. But again, because it goes against my code, I have to recommend denial. Um however um if you do choose to um move forward with this and let them continue on being on this where they're at because it would create in this case it would create a hardship for him in order to be able to just get that 2

point what is it 2 feet 2 in um moved. Um we do recommend that you if you do approve it that you approve it uh with condition one and two. One of the problems I have with it if we ask if they finance the mobile home FHA and we ask them to move it they will lose their FHA financing because a mobile home once it is placed if it is moved it can never go FHA again. Any questions for a city? Any other questions? What's the normal? This on the corner lot is it's just a 10T. It's just a 10, not a 15. No, this one's a 10. In the front is the front is the 20. Uh, this one in the front was back up to that picture one more time, please. I can't remember what the front was, but we did check the front. They were clear. Do you remember, Gary, what the front was? But we checked them all and he was fine. The only one that he was off was that corner. So he he did not intentionally do this. Whoever placed the mobile home placed the mobile home in the correct location. Correct. Okay. So it would have been caught if they would have called for inspections right away. Right away. Yes. But they took a little while to call us and by the time we got there, they had already left. And any other questions? All right. Thank you, Elizabeth. At this moment, we'll open this section. It doesn't say 20. It's that 20. This moment we open this section of the meeting to the public. Anybody who wants to speak for or against this variance, uh, please step forward. They're here. Come on. Can you please step forward?

Please state your name and address for the record. 3 minutes or less. There we go. My name is uh Pedro Bonia and I'm the husband of Kenya Favlla. Uh yeah, we had a pretty small big hiccup with this. Um, currently we live in 503 Drury Lane. Um, in a mobile home also and it's a single wide and of course, you know, who doesn't want to have their family in a place that's bigger and this is like a brand new house, you know, it's a great neighborhoods in a corner lot. And uh whenever we got this permit in 2019 that I asked for it, the law stated that it was a six-foot setback uh instead of 10T that it now is. Anyway, you know, sometimes we all have some issues uh family problems, work related, and I couldn't continue. So, like she said, Elizabeth said, you know, um I stopped for a while moneywise. I I couldn't keep going. You know, I I had family first. first I had to take care of when I come back now the law says it's 10T so instead of the 6T whenever they set the mobile home I told them to go back two more feet so it's almost setting at 8T you know just to be on the safe side I said in case something changes well it did change but it changed to 10th not to 8 and that's the only little hiccup we have and if you know if it doesn't go through uh we have to split that thing. We have to open it. Um I kind of exaggerated on setting this home. We dug up 2 foot on the ground. Dug up 2T by 2 ft by 2 ft and we poured concrete on it and then set the blocks on it. So even to put it more sturdier. So now that's all going to

be well trash, you know, and everything's money, you know. I mean, um, city at the time, I don't know for what odd reason, they told me we had to pour the sidewalks before the mobile home could come in. And I told them, I'm a truck driver. You know, it's going to break the concrete. Well, you have to. Well, right when it went in, it broke it. So, there goes $10,000 to the trash. So, then here, just um few months ago, here's a permit to pour concrete again. We poured it again and now if we have to move it, well, there's another 10,000 to the trash. So, I just, you know, anyway I could keep on going and going, I just hopefully y'all y'all consider our situation and I just if you see it's a nice mobile home, you know, I I go and water it with the jug. I put live oaks on there and I I want to make it look nice, you know, for my kids to to grow there, you know, make it look nice. So, that's that's about all I could say. Hopefully you considered what our situation. Thank you. So, thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wants to speak for or against the variance? Okay, we close this uh section of the meeting to the public. Commissioners, can we ask Elizabeth other questions? Elizabeth, is that correct? At the time that he originally applied, it was six feet. No, it's always been 10. It's always been 10. Mhm. Is it also correct that you make them lay the sidewalks prior to That's not me. So, I don't know. Joe, can you answer that? Don't blame me. Yeah, I can't speak to this particular case, but typically sidewalks would be the last thing you do.

That would have you would have to have sidewalks and driveway to get your final permit. Yes. Okay. To get the CO, you would have to have sidewalks in because if someone's saying that needs to be laid before the mobile homes placed, that should be changed. No, that's that's not the case. It's not a requirement. Okay. That's the last thing that's done. That's what I would think. Thank you. So going back questions for So I was looking at this picture here and I see the house that's next door and I guess looking at this picture. Keep going there if you can. One more. Keep going. Nope. Bye. Can you go one more? One more. Okay, two more. Yeah, this one. Okay, another one more. I guess what I'm I'm looking at is if you look down this and maybe it's the angle, it looks like the next door house sticks out two or three feet. Oh, there's he he's brought that up the a lot of and I'm not picking on the other neighbor, but is it the same setbacks on the other? They're all the same setbacks, but we have to go with what's in front of us, right? what other people do and if they did it legally and what the time that they did it. It's we have to look at what's in front of us unfortunately. So he's basically 2 feet off. Is it a safety issue with where it's at? You can't see around the corner. That's a a a Joe question. Sorry Joe. I don't Okay. And it is set back from the one next to it. Yeah. Correct. More than where you your visibility wouldn't be obstructed. I wouldn't think. I think the visibility I mean it is a little

tight to see around the house, but moving at 2 feet, I don't know. That's drastic improvement. I agree. Considering it's on Pearl, you know, that's very limited traffic as it is. Just that road itself. I don't see that being in position to, you know, the public as well. I think if we were to deny it, it would create a a bigger hardship than keeping it as a two feet. I agree. So, do I have a motion? I'll make a motion. Do you want Okay. So, that's you. Do you want to make a motion with the uh recommendations from the city? The two recommendations from the city. I'll make a motion with the two recommendations from the city to move forward to approve the variance. Yes. To approve the variance. So there's a motion to approve the ransom with the two recommendations. Do I have a second? Second. There's a second. All in favor? I. Any objection? Motion carries. Case file number 20. Can we continue? All right. Case file number 2025-9-E open a public hearing consider approval of the request of Robin L. Miller, owner of a special exception for city of Odessa ordinance section 14-15-1 D2C to permit a mobile or HUD manufacturer home on a lot with an existing single family resident in a SF3 single family three zone district being lot 31 block 2 hillside edition 3801 Buouie Avenue. Uh thank you again. And I do want to make a clarification that on the report uh we did put the wrong address. We accidentally put 2011 Fitch Avenue. Uh I just wanted to make sure that you guys knew that that's not the address for it.

So what's the address? The correct address. It's 3801 Buoy. Yeah. 3801 Buoy Avenue. That's it's correct. It's they're correct on the in the middle. In the middle. Okay. So what you state is correct. is correct. Well, you said it is correct, but on the report it's not. That's why. All right. So, it makes a difference. Uh the site is currently zone SF3, single family district. And as you guys may have remember with our uh when we were talking about the mobile and manufacturer homes um modular homes are allowed in an SF3 not um mobile homes. Uh so because of that so the difference is um a modular home is a prefab that is built and certified and it's built like a built like a regular home in a factory and it's come in pieces or it sometimes can already come like prefabbed and it's just placed. Um it usually has a foundation and everything. Uh the HUD or mobile homes usually have your red tag that's going to say that it's a um a HUD home and it's certified by HUD. Um and they're they're great homes, too, but they're they're not allowed in an SF3 zoning. So, one of the biggest issues that we have with this one is that this uh law is supposed to be for an SF3 single family home. We're introducing uh another h house typology which is the mobile home. So, we're putting two different types of houses here. Um and one is not allowed. Um, so this would be

a manufactured home, which would be 15 ft 2 in by 28 ft. Um, and in um going against our code, which is 14-151D 2 C of our city uh zoning ordinance. Um so they are trying to put the the property towards the back of the uh property. Uh she already has um two additional buildings there. She is uh stating that one of the buildings she would be removing regardless. She's um if you look at the lot, let's take away the whole aspect that it's two houses, right, that we're putting in there. When it comes to the law coverage, she would be okay in that aspect. But it's again, it's the whole aspect of the two the two homes being in there. So, when we're looking at lot area for a single family dwelling unit, the requirement is that you have to have 5,000 square ft. Then it for a mobile home means that you would have to have 4,800 square ft. So if we're having both, we would be at 9,800 uh square ft, which um her lot is only 7,370 square ft. So she's short by 2,430 ft. So that's one. Uh the other one is that because she's adding an accessory dwelling uh she would be required to have two additional parking that and that cannot be off street parking. It has to be on

your lot. So uh that is not being provided and again um it is not allowed in um this zoning except 3. In addition to that, we did send out uh eight 13 um letters to the community within the 200 buffer and we did get uh seven objection letters from them. So the commission so staff is recommending denial. However, if you do decide to approve this uh variance, we're recommending that you approve it with condition one through four. I'm now open to any questions that you may have. Any questions for city staff? So, there's no mobile homes around that area. No. Or manufactured homes. They're not supposed to be any. No. So, so is this is this uh a possibility of this being for the intent of purpose of being like a rental like having two homes for two different residences within one lot. So, our code does not allow for uh rental properties. So, um the only way based on our code that you would be able to do something like that is if you do like a duplex, then you would be able to. As of right now, you can't. This would be considered like mother-in-law quarters. Correct. So, you could add like an accessory dwelling unit, but it has to be attached to your home. It cannot stand alone. So, if that was the case, would it be allowed with the same square footage? She would she would be able to do that. She attaches it to her home, but it it

cannot be a manufactured home. She would have to build it out. So if they did a stick built home or built home, they could do that if it was attached to the property. Yes. But not a mobile home. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? All right. This moment will open the section of the meeting to the public. Anybody wants to speak for or against, please step forward. Please state your name and address for the record. three minutes or less. Good morning, board. My name is Robin Miller. I would do wish to correct the the name on there. It is listed as Robert Miller. Both are misspelled. So, um this purpose is is not for a rental. Our daughter is a new firefighter with Odessa Fire and Rescue. She is fully certified um and being sworn in on Friday as a firefighter EMT. Um and we are just looking for affordable housing for her to give her her independence. She's 19 years old and entry level housing in this area is very expensive. So this would be a um a way to give her affordable affordable housing. And it's not what you think of when you have in your mental mind a mobile home. It's a tiny home. Um, and you can see the the pictures there. It's it's very very small. It's 425 square ft. Oh, you did ask about parking. We have plenty of space in our driveway

currently for the amount of vehicles that we have because my husband and I share a vehicle. So, there is plenty of space for off- streetet parking in the existing lot. So, any other questions? Quick question for you. So, when you bought this town uh tiny house, um what is it classified as when you bought it? We have not purchased it yet. Okay. We thought that the right thing to do would be to get the approval before we purchased it. I do have Sean Fuller here. He is has been in the industry for many many years. He is better suited to answer that question when when his time is here. Any other questions? All right. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else want to speak for against the variance? Please state your name and address for the record, three minutes or less. Good morning. Thank you. My name is Sean Fuller. I uh have been in affordable housing for the last three decades. And I would like to address uh the issue of the difference between a modular home, which is allowed in that area, and a manufactured home. Thank you. It's okay. The financing is much different. Just like you adequately correctly talked about FHA financing, a a a financing a modular home. You can't get what's referred to as a chatt loan. In this particular case, we need a chatt loan. That's what they're approved for. That's how we could do this. The home itself is built in the exact same factory, the exact same manufacturer from a mod to a HUD. There are very, very minute differences

between the two. Uh there are some code issues, but as far as health, safety, welfare, there's no difference between the two, but there's about a 25%,000 difference between a HUD and a MOD. And this rolls back to it being affordable housing. I'd also like for the board to consider the fact that the main holder of the land is actually the city of Odessa to the north. If you go back, if we scroll back to the to the map, if they've got that, I don't think they see it's it's a lot larger. If you look to the north, it's a huge field. And they've actually moved the placement. There's the field I'm talking about. They've actually moved the placement of the home on that side. So the impact to anybody in that 200t area would be greatly minimized. As a matter of fact, the only way you're going to be able to see that is if you look down the alley or drive down the alley. When we talk about lot size, this is only 425 ft. It's extremely small. It's the smallest unit that we can actually be able to meet all the conditions that HUD requires. Uh parking also won't be uh an issue because if you notice they've got all that parking there and as she adequately spoke uh there they only have one vehicle for them for the family and one for her. I think the biggest thing uh is that when you look at the the neighbors, there are five letters that I have here and and one also from from Paul Miller who owns several properties in that area. And all five of these letters so support uh for this uh for this action. Um I would ask that you approve this. Um, it it kind of goes back to property rights and I understand that health, safety, welfare are all things that we have to keep in

mind. Won't be an impact on traffic, won't be an infrastructure impact. And like I said earlier, the vacant property to the north that the city owns is is where it'll be impacted the most. It'd be happy to answer any questions. So, I'm going to ask the same question that I asked Miss Miller a while ago. What What is this structure classified as? is classified and built as a HUD code manufactured home. If you looked at it, if I took you today and I showed you and I walked you in and I said, "This is structure A and I walked you into structure B," you would not be able to tell the difference. The only way that you could tell the difference is the tag on the back of the house. That's it. But it's still classified as a home as a home. The reason I reason I asked this question is because there are some tiny homes out there that are not classified as homes. They're classified as RVs. That is correct. That's anode. And I can walk you into anode unit and walk you into a HUD code unit and you can't tell the difference. As a matter of fact, from a sales perspective, I'll have two sitting side by side, and the mod is way better built, but my consumers will buy the tiny house simply because it has the term tiny house on it. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anybody else wants to speak for against the variance? No. We close this section of the meeting off to the public commissioners. So, that's going to lead me to my question to you, Elizabeth. What What are the regulations on on putting an RV on this structure on this property? Uh, an RV is not allowed. RVs only are allowed in RV parks. You can park like let's say you have an RV and you're like loading stuff and unloading. You can park your RV while you're doing something like that as long as it's on

the concrete in your driveway. Okay. So, so and again a like he mentioned it's a HUD classified HUD is not a modular home which modular is what is allowed in an SE 3. So with this modular home this is not a modular this is a HUD. Okay. HUD home with this HUD home addition to the property is it going to actually increase the value of the property as well? I would actually let maybe an expert on that answer that mobile homes do not hold their value very well. Uh so increasing the value I don't know but this wouldn't be considered a mobile home though would it it is it is it is a mobile home. It is that's the difference. A modular home is what is not a mobile home. So going with utility infrastructure, are they going to have to have another water tap, sewer tap? Are they going to tap in from They have to tap into what is existing, we can only give one sewer tap, one water tap, and one irrigation tap per lot. So they're also saying right now they have ample parking, but they decide to sell in a few years to a family in the front and a single person in the back. So then again, we're going to run into that problem, not enough parking. Correct. Correct. and and based on this you still have to provide two additional park parking and and um the uh off streetet parking is not considered parking. It has to be on your property and the driveway is also not considered the parking. Also, the comments that came back that were against it, did they say why or is it just a box they checked were against? No, they couldn't. Okay. Also to uh to consider if we were to

approve this, we're going to set a precedence for the rest. That's what I'm concerned about. Just take that consideration. If you want to pass him when you're done, pass him this way. So the rest of Commissioner, you want me to share? Please. I'm sorry, sir. Mhm. Agree. There you go. What about that one? Okay. Are those letters that we're getting, Elizabeth? It says neighbor and their address. Miss Shaughnessy. Quick question. Are these within the 200 foot radius? I don't know because she just provided these. So I don't I wouldn't know. We Shaina would have to go and check to see um I was told that if you guys were to move forward with the condition, they're willing to if you guys put it as a condition that if they were to sell this property that they would have to remove the um mobile home. And that's exactly why they don't add value to real property because they're because they're personal property, not real property. And they can leave when the seller leaves. Exactly. Right. Right. This is Can I

write on this? Yes. Go ahead. On these. So if there's a check mark there, they are within the 200. Uh it is. So we have two approved and three pro testing. Seven. This is No, this one doesn't have anything. This one owner 3724. Oh, okay. This guy probably has 500 rentals. It has a lot of rentals. 500 across the city. 381. I believe this is a This is a planning. This This does not This is not minor properties does not go into consideration. This is a landlord. I'm sorry. We can't prove that. And it's not in writing. That's what I would say. Would you say we Yeah, it has to be in writing. Has to be in writing. Sorry. Commissioners Shane, this is or let me just pass it around. This these are the ones that that were sent. How many check marks do we have over there? Uh one, two, three, three, three approvals and seven seven objections. Do we have any codes around the tiny house stuff?

So tiny homes is a lingo because they're like Mr. Rita was saying, they're classified as mobile homes or RVs. That's when you go. That's that's what it comes down to. Got it. Thank you. All right, commissioners. We have an approval. Do we have denial? Do we have a table? You guys recommendations? Wow, this is a hard one. This one is a hard one. is, you know, because to me, I see it as like a way around a contractor, the expense and and a reliable contractor at that, you know, um for for the intent and purposes, I I get it. It's mother-in-law quarters. If it was to be sold, if if there was a way to where it remained permanent, I would be okay with it more so. But with it being an option to where they can uproot it at any given point, you know, that's that and then that's where it causes an additional disruption. If it is a true mobile home, um you can make it real property. It's a personal property which you surrender the title to the state of Texas so it becomes real property. That can be done. and we go back to SF3 does allow modular homes. There's an option to say, you know what, I'm looking at this one tiny home that's classified as a mobile home, an RV, or whatever the classification is. But maybe there's a tiny home out there that is a modular classification that could be set in the same size be be done here. So, but if it's a moder home, they still be denied because of the lot

size, the parking spots, and it has to be attached to the main structure. Mhm. But not necessarily work. I don't know if they might. Have you guys looked into modular units? So the major issue with that is there's no way to obtain financing to make that happen. That's the hiccup. And the difference between the product is very expensive. It takes the affordability part out of it. Uh but the difference in what you get code is very minimal. And Gary can actually talk in code because he's our building official and there is a big there is a difference in code if you guys have questions. The two main things we have mobile homes are not allowed in the area. Correct. And it's a single family lot. Correct. And we're way over our lot coverage. Our lot coverage once you're looking because they're considered two two homes. Okay. Correct. Okay. All right. Commissioners, I make a motion to deny. There's a motion on the table to deny for a denial. Do I have a second? I'll second. There's a second. All in favor? I I Any objections? Motion's denied. Our next case is case file number 2025-10-V. open a public hearing to consider the approval of the request of Robert Deborto, owner of a variance from section 14-7-5 of the city of Odessa zoning ordinance to allow a carport to be built within 13 ft front yard setback instead of the required 25 ft front yard setback in a two family 2F-1 zoning district lot 32 block 14 Harrisdale

edition fifth filing replat lots 26 to 30 and 23 block 14 2916 Catalina drive. So, uh this one is at 2916 Catalina Drive as you mentioned and it's in uh SF1 zoning district. Um and it's for um single family residents. Uh the applicant is proposing to obtain a variance to allow the construction of 460 square foot which would be a 20 by um 23 carport to be built on uh 13t front yard setback instead of the required 25 ft yard setback. So it's basically encroaching um 8 ft. Uh again, we're recommending denial because it is going against our city ordinance which is 14-7-5. However, if you do decide to move forward with this variance, we do recommend that you approve it with condition one through four. Now, open for any questions. Can you back up one picture? Sure. Two. Two, please. Three. for the front. Okay. So, the reason they need a carport is they have built in their garage. Correct. Correct. They Yeah, they converted the garage. Is it over in the overlay zone? Uh, no. That's why we're here. Any other questions for city? No. All right. Anybody wants to speak at this moment? We're going to open section of meeting to the public. Anybody speak for or against this variance, be step forward, state your name and address for the record in 3 minutes or less. Okay. Good morning. My

my name is Robert Deportal, 2916 Catalina. So, I basically just want to build a carport uh to protect my vehicles. Uh we did close in the garage. We just needed a bigger master bedroom. Those uh the square footage in those houses originally weren't big enough. So that's the only reason we did we did utilize the garage in the past, but we needed the living space, so we reencclosed it. So I'm really just asking, you know, if I could build this carport and uh just to protect my vehicles from the weather and the birds and a hell in a hell. That's all I have. All right. Any questions? No. No questions. your your dimension of your carport. The the depth is you're asking for 28 ft. Yeah, I believe I think it was 20. Looks like a 23. I saw 23 on one and then I see a 28 up on the roof side. 23. It's 23. 23. Okay. Okay. Now, still is still going to leave it far enough from the road that I don't think it's going to make a difference either way. 13 ft. Yeah. 13 ft from the and what's allowable? Uh the thing is that his setback is supposed to be 25 foot set back. So he's encroaching 8 ft. 8 ft. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Doral. Thank you, commissioners. Y'all are quiet today. Well, 8 feet is a lot. That's a lot to think about. And there's neighbors on the side. It's not a corner lot. There's not any busy streets. It's in the middle of the

street. No, but it is in a little bit of a curve. I don't think it's high speeding. Chuck, can he Joe Joe Tucker? Sorry. That wouldn't it wouldn't create any uh hazard if it's in made of a street and stuff like that, right? Yeah. I was just looking at that curve. Um what are we what is our distance from the street? 13. No, it would be from the street. Yeah. Also, do we have pictures what it's going to look like? I mean, is it just basically pipe carport or do we have huge columns that could cause back to the dimensions? I think it's be 13t from 13 plus the five. Yeah, I think I don't see an issue with that. There would be no hazardous building. Okay. Thank you, Joe. So, Elizabeth and all the notices were sent out to neighbors also. Did we get anything back? No. Okay. All right. 14 hours commissioners. So one came back as an approval as a deny. Oh, date. One date coming to the deny. Pass it. Looks good.

I know it is cold. We can't control it. It's an approval. This is an approval. Oh, it's an approval. Denial. It's an approval. Denial. No. Well, it says credit cards are needed or approval. The corporates are needed to protect. So, she probably get a denial, but she's approving it. Yeah, that's what she did. I'm confused. So going back to commissioners commissioners it is uh 8 foot encroaching 8 foot according to our city there's no hazardous um visibility that would create a hard hazard for people driving. What are your thoughts recommendations? Any uh motions? There's no denials from this from the community. Denial approval. a denial rule. Makes sense. Mixed emotions, right? Can you go to the picture of the And will the carport be attached to the dwelling? Yes. Yes, it is. Okay. All right. Commissioners, I don't have a problem with it. You know, this was brought up a while back where carports could be used for storage of miscellaneous items, but with the owner coming here with his very intent purpose for his vehicles, um, I don't have a problem. I I don't have a problem with it. So, is that a motion? I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve. Do you want to include the recommendations from the city? The four recommendations. Yeah. Not being closed for the future. I agree. to approve the the conditions. So, there's a motion uh from the commissioners with to approve with the

conditions one through four. Is that what you said? Yes. Yes. There's a motion on the floor. Do I hear a second? I second that motion. There's a second. All in favor? I I. Any objections? Motion carries. All right. Case last one. Case file number 2025-11-V open a public hearing to consider the approval of the request of Steven Garcia owner from a variance from section 1407-5 of the city of Odessa zoning ordinance to allow structure carport to be built at least five feet front yard setback instead of the 15t front yard setback from section 14-7-8D to allow structure at zero sideyard setback instead of the 10t sideyard setback in LC like commercial zoning District 7 block 2 Jones subdivision first filing replant of block 77 original town 400 Jefferson Avenue. Thank you again. So this one is like you mentioned 400 Jefferson Avenue and it's an LC like commercial district but in as you know in like commercial district you can still have residential. So that's why we have a residential home in here. This one was a little bit uh challenging for us because um there's as you can tell there's an easement rightway easement there. But unfortunately when we have to look at this based on our our our codes and based on the law, it does not comply with the requirements based on the law and our zoning our ordinance. So, in that case, the he's asking for a variance for a 312 uh square foot carport to be placed within a 5-ft yard setback instead of the required 15t yard setback and allow

for the carport to be placed on a zero street yard setback instead of the 10. Like I mentioned, um as you can tell, uh there's an easement in there. So, um, technically he does have a little bit more, but because of when we're analyzing this, we have to go with what is like on our plot our our parcel. So, based on that, he's not um complying with our ordinance. So, we are recommending denial. However, if you do decide to move forward with this approval, we recommend that you approve with the um conditions one through four. Now, open for any questions. And you can go back to that picture where Elizabeth where they're showing to attach it or where you're saying to attach it. Does it just have two corners touching? Is that It's not attaching at all to to He's giving I believe it's a six foot. Um But you want it attached? No. No, no, no. I'm sorry. Okay, I see you. What are you calling the easement? I don't see Is that the right? So, yes, the R the one that says R O W. That's the rightway. So, that's where he's trying to go to the zero. So, what I'm saying is like a hazard. Yes. Okay. Those easements are funny, man. So, the easement is in case we ever widen that street. Correct. I will defer to my experts.

Correct. There's additional right away if we ever need it or right away. Okay. I don't see that happening on Jefferson. Never know. We're growing. We're growing. Right. So, he has a 18 foot on right away on Fourth Street and at 19 on Jefferson. Mhm. I don't see a problem. Now, is he still proposing to stay the five foot back on the fourth street side and then the zero on the Jefferson? Yes. Correct. Correct. Would that create any hardship? Mhm. Uh visibility because it is a corner lot. I don't see it especially because he's not enclosing it and with the easements in place. Yeah, there's long as it is not enclosed. Correct. You caught my attention earlier at the beginning where you was mentioning that it was not in compliance with state law the ordinance. No, it's not in compliance with our ordinance. Sorry if I said state. Is this in the overlay? So he so based on my ordinance, he has to have um I think it's a 10 and a 15 uh setback. Okay. But in this case, he's go he's asking to be right at zero on one on the Jefferson on Jefferson. And then instead of giving me 10 on the frontage, he's giving me five five to to the easement line to the to my property line. Gotcha. So like let's say take away the eastment but maybe that's how we would analyze it, right? And that's why we're here. But you also see but in this case it's very unique, right? Yes. Because he does have those easements there.

So if there was no easement, this would not be an issue. No. If there was no easements there, this would be an issue. But because there is an easement, it's easier for you guys. Yeah. But I don't have the authority to say this is under special conditions. Yes. Yes. Is there any way that he can adjust the site of where he wants to build it? Right there. No secret. You're saying move it forward. Forward. Move it forward. Mhm. So we're okay. That helps one. So you would be okay on one side. You'd be okay if you move it forward. You'd be okay on what? Fourth. Yes. On Fourth Street. Yeah. Uh-huh. Which is actually where your easement is, right? No, your easement. Oh, your ement's on Jeff Jefferson. Okay. So, should we But it's not in the, you know, the traffic coming down full street. Yeah. The easement gives you 18 ft on one side, 19 foot on the other side. So, there's not a So, it wouldn't really it's not a visibility hardship. So, should we any more questions for the city staff? No. No. Okay. At this moment, we'll open our section of meeting to the public. Anybody wants to speak for or against? Please step forward. I want to speak. Okay. Please state your name and address for the record. 3 minutes or less. Yes, sir. Steven Garcia. I live in 400 Jefferson. I bought this place uh 20 years ago. It was a smaller. Anyway, make it short. Dropped a little house. That's why that man slap was there. Ped house. Threw that one away. They messed it all up. So, I wound up with this trailer house. the seam the slab of this slab on the driveway where I want to build my car porch. It's been there for how long? I don't know. So anyway, that's why I wanted to build it cuz if I put it together with a house, it's going to make it look like one big long building, right? And that's not going to look right. And plus the cement slap in the two entrance that I got, they've been there. So it just makes sense to put it

right there. You know what I mean? I mean, it's there for a reason. And the two I actually got three entrance right there where you see that blue truck. That's another entrance there because the house was moved. That little bitty house was moved back further down to the alley side and they had a little carport. So the picture we're looking at where you're proposing the carport on the front of it, does that concrete wrap all the way around back to the street? So like a circle drive? Yes. Yes, that's exactly what it was. Yeah, exactly. But where right here where I right there where I was going to build, I threw some of that SEMA in away, but as soon as I get some money, I'm going to patch it up and throw it and put a new one there. But that's the reason I want that carport there cuz it's already there. The entrance, all that. I mean, it just makes sense to me. I can drive in, okay, it's going to be open, same, simple, and plain and nice looking the way I got it plan to make it. And it's going to be made out of two inch pipe, two and 78 the structure. Back up one picture. The aerial again picture. Yeah. What does that say? How far is the corner of it from the mobile home? 14. 14. And how far are we off on fourth street? 18. Yeah. I'm a two foot up ahead. Y'all, I measure it. I went out there and measured two or three times. You got n 19 on fourth, which is y'alls. And then on 400 Jefferson, it's uh 18. And I got I think three foot left, but it's mine. But I don't know if it's yours or what, but let me just

This one's five, right? Yeah. So, he has 23. Okay. Any other questions? So, what was the reason you mentioned you had moved the mobile home back already for compliance? What was that again? Was it for compliance? The reason that you had moved the the the home? No, I I threw the small little house. It was a small little house. I was trying to build a house, but everything went the other way around. I mean, I got ripped all here and there. Threw $10,000 away. put another 10,000 in seaman's lab and lost my job. When you see that red truck, the house where that driveway is the entrance where that blue truck is, there was a car porch there and the little bitty house would have one room, one living room, one kitchen, one little bathroom and one bedroom, real little so you know and my family was going. I said we can't, you know, how we going to fail? You know, everybody needs some privacy. Okay. Okay. So, I dropped the house and everything fell back. But this cement slab been there since I off this the property. You can you can How long ago? I don't know. Thank you, Mr. uh Steven. Yes, sir. Appreciate you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else wants to speak for or against variance? All right. We close this section of the meeting. Commissioners, were there any uh protests? Elizabeth, any protests or against? We're not sure if there's a cut back there. And Shaya's trying to pull the plat. What do you mean a cutback at the intersection? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. My question was if there's a cut back on that then it would encroach it. They were encroaching.

So you're saying to put the 45 on the end. Is that the cut back? Yeah. So it's your fault. Is it always cold in here? Yeah. Keeps everybody awake. You going to tell us a joke while we wait or so that infringement if that is an issue what is the impact? What is the significance here? Would not be allowed. Typically when the rightways are that big there's not a touch back. It's the old pl was platted 90° corner and that's why that rideway is so big. 18. Most of the right away you're going to see in the city somewhere between five and 10 foot. But when you see them this big, it's because there's no cut back. But she's going to verify it. We usually don't have that. No cut back. All right. Commissioners, no cut back and no protest letters sent back in for or against? None. This is light commercial, right? I'm okay with it. I don't see a problem with that. Okay. All right. Do I have a motion? I make a motion that we approve the variance with the staff recommendations. There's a motion on the table. Do I hear a second? Second. There's a second. All in favor say I. I. Any objection? Same

sign. Motion carries. All right. That it. That's it. All right. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? I'll make a motion. There's a motion to adjurnn. Second that motion. There's a second. All in favor? I. Motion carries. Oh. All in favor? I say I right. Yeah, you said it. You did it. Carries. All right, everybody.