[I. Call to Order]
[00:00:04]
RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ONE, TWO. THREE. FOUR. FIVE. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. IT IS 133, AND WE CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. OKAY, EVERYBODY, STAND FOR THE 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 THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE INDIVISIBLE. ALL RIGHT.
[III. CONSENT ITEMS]
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO GO OVER MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 5TH? DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED MOTION. THERE'S A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OBJECTION. SAME SIGN.MOTION CARRIES. NOW WE HAVE CONSENT ITEMS. CASE NUMBER 2020 5-117P AND CASE FILE NUMBER 2020 6-05P. IS THERE A MOTION? MOVE FOR APPROVAL. SECOND, THERE'S A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OBJECTION? MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE CASE FILE NUMBER 2026. DASH 01V,
[IV. PUBLIC HEARING]
OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY CARLOS QUEZADA, OWNER OF AN S.W. HOW APPLICANT FROM A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14 DASH SEVEN THREE OF THE CITY OF ODESSA ZONING ORDINANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WITH TO A 48.78FT FROM THE REQUIRED 50FT IN A MOBILE HOME. MH DISTRICT 4088 GOLDER AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. SO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS REQUEST IS LOCATED AT 4008 A GOLDER AVENUE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED MOBILE HOME ZONING DISTRICT AND IS OCCUPIED BY A MOBILE HOME AND CARPORT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY AND SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY MOBILE HOME AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED LOT WIDTH FROM 50FT TO 48.6FT, TO CREATE FOUR MOBILE HOME LOTS. LET'S SEE HERE. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS MINOR. THE REQUEST IS FOR LESS THAN 18IN. THE REQUESTED LOT SIZE STILL EXCEEDS THE 4800 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED. THE PROPOSED WIDTH IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH OTHER MOBILE HOMES, LOTS OR SPACES WITHIN THIS MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY, THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO FIT A WIDE VARIETY OF MOBILE HOMES ON THE NEW LOTS. STAFF FINDS THAT THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE LOT IS LANDLOCKED WITHIN AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY. HOWEVER, ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CODE WOULD NOT KEEP THE APPLICANT FROM SUBMITTING A PLAT WITH THREE OR FEWER LOTS INSTEAD OF THE PROPOSED FOUR. STAFF DOES NOT FIND SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST ON THIS SITE, NOR DOES STAFF FIND THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD OFFER ANY HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT. STAFF DOES FIND THAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS COMPLIANT WITH THE EXISTING CODE, 48.68FT IN WIDTH VERSUS THE 50 IS REQUIRED, AND WOULD MEET ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ZONING CODE. APPROVAL, IF GRANTED, WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF THAT OF THIS REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL. HOWEVER, IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CHOOSES TO APPROVE THE REQUEST, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THAT IT SHALL ADHERE TO ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE MOBILE HOME DISTRICT. THAT THE EXISTING MOBILE HOME SHALL BE MOVED ON TO ONE OF THE NEW LOTS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS FOR ANY OTHER LOTS THAT ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT CROSS THE NEW LOT LINES OR VIOLATE SETBACKS FOR THE MOBILE HOME ZONING DISTRICT MUST BE MOVED OR DEMOLISHED. WITH THAT, I'M HERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SO WHY DO YOU REALLY WANT TO DENY THEM? WELL, SO WE HAVE TO DENY THEM BASED ON THE CODE RIGHT NOW THAT THE CODE LISTS FOUR CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED RIGHT NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO DENY. IT JUST MEANS THAT STAFF IS. SO USUALLY THIS WOULD BE A ZBA WOULD GO THROUGH ZBA. BUT SINCE THE LAW CHANGED, THEY HAVE TO GO TO PLANNING AND ZONING. YES. SO IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, RESIDENTIAL PLATS THAT REQUIRE A VARIANCE NOW HAVE TO GO TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ALONG WITH THE PLAT RATHER THAN GOING TO ZBA FIRST. THIS IS UNDER STATE LAW. YOU GUYS. THIS IS, I BELIEVE, THE FIRST INSTANCE OF THIS HAPPENING. ACTUALLY, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN RIGHT AFTER THIS AS WELL UNDER ZBA. SINCE IT'S THE ORDINANCE WRITTEN AS IS, IT HAS TO BE A DENIAL. OKAY, NORMALLY Y'ALL WOULD APPROVE THIS. SO YES, I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING Y'ALL
[00:05:01]
WOULD APPROVE. YEAH, SOMETHING THAT WOULD GO TO ZBA. BUT FOR SOME REASON, WELL CHANGE LAWS.IT HAS TO COME THROUGH PNC. SO DO THEY ALSO HAVE TO HAVE A HARDSHIP OF WHY THEY WANT TO.
THAT IS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE ORDINANCE AS FAR AS EVALUATING THE VARIANCE REQUEST. AGAIN, IT GIVES FOUR CRITERIA THAT ARE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE. AND SO WHICH I BELIEVE DO WE HAVE THOSE ON ME. YES. OKAY. CAN YOU GO TO THAT SLIDE. OH NO I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FOUR CRITERIA. DO YOU HAVE THAT. OH NO. OKAY. WELL THE FOUR CRITERIA IN THE CODE IS THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST FOR THE APPLICANT THAT DO NOT GENERALLY EXIST FOR OTHERS.
LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, AND THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE. SO IN THE MEMO, WE HAD FOUND THAT A AND D ARE MET AND THEN B AND C WERE NOT. OKAY. SO BUT AGAIN THESE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS. THAT'S UP TO YOU GUYS IN THE END TO MAKE THE DECISION. THE OTHER I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO OPEN IT. DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING GARY. OR. OH OKAY. SO AT THIS IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. NOT AT THIS POINT. YEAH. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THIS PART OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC. ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST PLEASE STEP FORWARD. CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? MY NAME IS JOSEPH DONNELLY AND I WORK FOR S.W. HOWARD, REPRESENTING THE CLIENT, MR. MR. QUEZADA AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS. NO, IT WOULDN'T CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR HIM FOR YOU TO GRANT THIS, BUT I HAD A COUPLE EXHIBITS TO SHOW THAT SUBDIVISIONS RIGHT NEXT TO THIS SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST OF THIS, THIS TRACT HAVE LOTS THAT ARE LESS THAN 50FT, THAT HAVE MOBILE HOMES ON THEM. THE TRACT TO THE NORTH ALSO. OKAY. SO YEAH, THIS IS THIS IS THE SUBDIVISION DIRECTLY SOUTH. AND THERE ARE LOTS THAT ARE 47, 45FT. I'VE CIRCLED SOME OF THEM DISTANCES THERE. TIM. HOW DO I GET TO THE GIS. AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT EVEN THOUGH THE TRACT NORTH OF US THIS IS THIS IS SOUTHWEST, AND THESE ARE ALL 42.5FT WIDE. THE TRACK NORTH OF US IS A MOBILE HOME PARK, NOT NOT ACTUALLY SUBDIVIDED INTO MOBILE HOME LOTS, BUT THERE ARE FOUR AND A HALF MOBILE HOMES ON THE LOT NORTH OF US IN THE SAME WIDTH OF DISTANCE. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT TO THAT. YOU KNOW, IT'S THERE ARE LOTS IN THE AREA THAT ARE THAT ARE ACTUALLY SHALLOWER AND NARROWER AND, BUT THEY'RE NOT AS DEEP AND THEY DON'T HAVE AS MANY SQUARE FEET. SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY ABOUT THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST IT? PLEASE STEP FORWARD. DID WE SEND OUT TO A RADIUS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? YES, ACTUALLY, I CAN GIVE YOU A NUMBER REAL QUICK. DID WE GET ANY BACK FOR OR AGAINST? THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION TO BRING. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING PERFECT. YOU DON'T GOT TO TELL US HOW MANY YOU SENT OUT. WE DON'T CARE.
YEAH, WE CARE, BUT I MEAN I MEAN, WE DO CARE. I MEAN, AS LONG AS WE DIDN'T GET ANY BACK, THAT'S WHAT WE CARE ABOUT. THAT'S WHAT WE CARE ABOUT. I MEAN, WE DO CARE, BUT WE WE KNOW YOU DID. WE LOVE YOU. WE KNOW, WE KNOW YOU DID. YOUR JOB IS WHAT I'M AT. WE CARE IF WE DO GET IT BACK. SO. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST IT? NO. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THIS SECTION OF THE MEETING. COMMISSIONERS. I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE THERE'S A MOTION. AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. NO OBJECTION. MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. CASE FILE NUMBER 2026 £0.10. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. CONDITIONS OF QUESADA ORCHARD BEING A REPLAT OF LOT FOUR, BLOCK 28, ORCHARD SUBDIVISION, UNIT 2816. IN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ODESSA, ECTOR COUNTY, TEXAS 4008 A GOLDER AVENUE COUNCIL, DISTRICT THREE. I THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. SO THIS IS FOR THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE THAT YOU JUST APPROVED. THE APPLICANT, S.W. HOWELL INC. AND CARLOS QUESADA, OWNER, ARE SEEKING APPROVAL OF A PLAT TO CREATE FOUR LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF QUESADA ORCHARD SUBJECT TO CONDITION A, THE LOT WIDTHS ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR MOBILE HOME ZONING. DISTRICT VARIANCE MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE PLAT, WHICH YOU JUST DID, AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. NO QUESTIONS OKAY.
AND THIS ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT. OPEN OPEN THIS SECTION OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC. ANYBODY WILL SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST. PLEASE STEP FORWARD. IF THERE'S NOBODY ELSE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE IT. COMMISSIONERS MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
I'LL SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION. ANY OBJECTIONS? MOTION CARRIES. CASE FILE NUMBER 2026. DASH 02V, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
[00:10:07]
APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY STEVEN MICHAEL RYBARCZYK AND CAMELIA NICOLE RYBARCZYK, OWNERS OF LCA AND LCA APPLICANT FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14 DASH SEVEN TWO OF THE CITY OF ODESSA ZONING ORDINANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA TO 0.91 ACRES FROM THE REQUIRED ONE ACRE IN A SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE. SF DISTRICT 2330 LADUE LANE COUNCIL, DISTRICT TWO.THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS REQUEST IS LOCATED AT 2330 LADUE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE AND IS OCCUPIED BY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA TO 0.91 ACRES FROM THE REQUIRED ACRE IN A SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE DISTRICT. LET'S SEE. LET'S SEE HERE. STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THIS REQUEST WILL CONSOLIDATE THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY INTO ONE LOT RATHER THAN THE LOT, AND THE PORTION OF THE LOT THAT IT CURRENTLY IS. THE VARIANCE REQUEST WILL BRING THE LAND CLOSER TO CONFORMING TO THE CODE AS IT WAS PLATTED IN 1975 PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE ZONING DISTRICT BY THE CITY OF ODESSA IN 1978, AND IS CURRENTLY LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING STAFF FINDS THAT THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST FOR THE APPLICANT THAT DO NOT GENERALLY EXIST FOR OTHERS.
ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW AS IS, WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PURCHASE LAND FROM ADJACENT LANDOWNERS IN ORDER TO MEET THE ONE ACRE REQUIREMENT FOR THE LOT. UNDER THE CODE, STAFF FINDS THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, AND AS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN INCREASED LOT SIZE THAT IS CLOSER TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE THAN THE EXISTING CONDITION, STAFF FINDS THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF THIS REQUEST RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. WHAT IS THE LOGIC, I GUESS, BEHIND BEING UNDER THE ORDINANCE SIZE? SO WHAT? I GUESS THE ISSUE ON THIS ONE IS THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD PRIOR TO THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ZONING DISTRICT IN OUR ZONING CODE, SO IT WAS PLATTED BEFORE THE STANDARDS EXISTED, AND THEN IT WAS SOLD AS A PORTION OF ONE LOT AND THEN A FULL OTHER LOT. SO THEY'RE BRINGING IT CLOSER TO CODE BY COMBINING THESE ALL INTO ONE LOT, BUT THEY STILL CAN'T GET TO THE FULL ACRE WITHOUT BUYING LAND FROM A NEIGHBOR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY, SO JUST HAPPENS TO BE A LITTLE BIT UNDER RIGHT WHEN THEY COMBINE THE TWO. OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. AND IT'S A VERY COMMON THAT WE OUTDATE OUTDATE THE, THE ORDINANCE THAT ALREADY HAVE. SO GOTCHA. OKAY. WAS THERE ANY.
APPROVALS DENIALS STAFF RECOMMENDS. OH SORRY. DID WE RECEIVE ANY. WAS IT A DENIAL? WE RECEIVED AN APPROVAL OKAY OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOT AT THIS MOMENT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THAT? DO YOU WANT TO SEE THE. I HAVE TWO CARDS IN HERE. YEAH, SURE, SURE. CREW. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO ANY MORE QUESTIONS TO STAFF, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE SECTION PORTION OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC. ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. IF NOBODY'S HERE. GREAT. ALL RIGHT. NOBODY'S HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE SECTION OF THE MEETING TO FROM THE PUBLIC COMMISSIONERS MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. MOTION. AND THERE'S A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OBJECTION? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. CASE FILE NUMBER 2026. DASH ZERO TWO. P OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF STAFF. RECOMMENDATION. CONDITIONS OF THE COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES EDITION 16 FILING BEING A .91 ACRE PLOT OF THE LOT 17 EXCEPT THE SOUTH TEN FEET AND ALL OF THE EIGHT LOT OF AND ALL OF LOT 18 BLOCK 18 COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES EDITION NINE FILING LOCATED IN SECTION 20, BLOCK 41, T, DASH TWO, DASH S, T AND P RY.
COMPANY SURVEY, CITY OF ODESSA, ECTOR COUNTY, TEXAS 2330 LADUE LANE, COUNCIL, DISTRICT TWO.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO THE OWNERS, STEVEN, MICHAEL AND CAMELIA NICOLE AND
[00:15:05]
CONSULTANT LCA ARE SEEKING APPROVAL OF A PLAT WITH ONE LOT FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES EDITION 16TH FILING. SUBJECT TO CONDITION A THAT LOT SIZE DOES NOT MEET MINIMUMS FOR SF ZONING. AN APPROVED VARIANCE WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FILING THE PLAT. AGAIN, YOU GUYS JUST APPROVED THAT I'M HERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS? NONE. THERE'S NO QUESTION FOR STAFF. WE'LL OPEN THIS SECTION OF THE MEETING PORTION OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC. ANYBODY SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST? PLEASE STEP FORWARD. IF NOBODY'S TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, I'LL CLOSE THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING, COMMISSIONERS, AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. SECOND, THERE'S A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OBJECTION? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. NEXT CASE. CASE FILE NUMBER 2026. DASH £0.11. MOTION TO APPROVE[V. MISCELLANEOUS]
WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. CONDITIONS. THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PARKSVILLE RANCH NORTH FILING BEING A 14.16 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 46, BLOCK 40 1T-1S TMP RAILROAD COMPANY SURVEY, CITY OF ODESSA, MIDLAND, TEXAS COUNTY, TEXAS, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH CORNER OF EAST YUKON ROAD AND P BAR RANCH ROAD. COUNTY DISTRICT TWO. THANK YOU. SO THE APPLICANT, PARK HILL AND BRIAN BELL, OWNER, ARE SEEKING APPROVAL OF A PLAT TO CREATE TWO LOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PARKSVILLE RANCH NORTH NINTH FILING, SUBJECT TO CONDITION. A WATER PAVING AND DRAINAGE PLANS NEED TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS. AGREEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED.WITH THAT, I AM HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. WE HAVE NO QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE. THERE'S A MOTION ON TABLE SECOND. THERE'S A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OBJECTION? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. CASE FILE NUMBER 2020 606. DASH P ETJ. MOTION TO APPROVE WITH SEVERAL ACCOMMODATIONS CONDITIONS, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WESTOVER HORIZON ADDITION BEING A REPLAT OF 8.84 ACRES, LOCATED IN SECTION 23, BLOCK 40 THREE T, DASH 2-S TMP RY. COUNTY SURVEY SAME BEEN ALL OF TRACK EIGHT, BLOCK 13 WEST WESTOVER ACRES. SECOND FINDING LESS AND EXPECTED THE SOUTH 252.1FT OF THE EAST 200FT THEREOF. ECTOR COUNTY, TEXAS, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF WEST 16TH STREET AND NORTH SOONER AVENUE.
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT. CYR LAND SURVEYING AND HORIZON CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUND, LLC OWNER, ARE SEEKING APPROVAL OF A PLAT TO CREATE SIX LOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WESTOVER HORIZON ADDITION, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS A AND B, WHICH ALL LOTS ARE UNDER, OR ALL LOTS UNDER AN ACRE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE WATER AND SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION VERIFYING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY BY THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE PLATTING OF THE PROPERTY. WITH THAT, I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. THERE'S NO QUESTIONS. DO THERE'S A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. THERE'S A MOTION A SECOND, SECOND, THERE'S A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AN OBJECTION. SAME SIGN.
MOTION CARRIES CASE FILE NUMBER 2026 £0.12 MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
CONDITIONS. DORADO CENTER 10TH FILING BEING A REPLAT OF LOT ONE, BLOCK THREE, DORADO CENTER FIRST FILING AND LOT ONE, BLOCK THREE TO CENTER EIGHT FILING. CITY OF ODESSA, MIDLAND COUNTY, TEXAS GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTH CORNER OF DOCTOR EMMETT HADLEY ROAD AND SAN ANTONIO STREET. COUNCIL CITY DISTRICT TWO. I THANK YOU SO THE APPLICANT, MAVERICK ENGINEERING AND CINERGY ENTERTAINMENT ODESSA, INC. OWNER, ARE SEEKING APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF DORADO CENTER 10TH FILING AS PRESENTED.
QUESTIONS. THERE'S NO QUESTIONS. IS THERE APPROVAL? I'LL SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. INJECTION. SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. CASE FILE NUMBER 2020 607. DASH PETG
[00:20:05]
MOTION TO APPROVE WITH SEVERAL CONDITIONS. CONDITIONS. OCOTILLO PARK SUBDIVISION SIX VALLEY BEING A REPLAT OF PORTION OF LOT ONE AND ALL OF LOT TWO, BLOCK 33, OCOTILLO PARK SUBDIVISION, FIFTH FILING, ECTOR COUNTY, TEXAS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST 16TH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 150FT EAST OF CONTRA DRIVE. EXTRATERRESTRIAL JURISDICTION.THANK YOU. SO THE APPLICANT, MAVERICK ENGINEERING AND AURORA MUNOZ GUTIERREZ AND JUAN GUTIERREZ, OWNERS, ARE SEEKING APPROVAL OF A PLAT TO CREATE THREE LOTS FOR OWNERSHIP PURPOSES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF PARK SUBDIVISION SIX FILING AS PRESENTED. HERE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ARE THESE MOBILE HOME PARKS? DO? I AM ACTUALLY NOT SURE IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM MEMBER. WE DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ONE. THEY'RE THEY'RE PRETTY THEY'RE PRETTY NARROW. SO I DON'T KNOW SIT THERE OTHER THAN THE MODEL. AND IT DOES SAY THAT THE LOT WIDTH DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM WIDTH FOR ECTOR COUNTY STANDARDS. SO THEY HAVE SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE COUNTY THAT NO VARIANCE WILL BE REQUIRED. OKAY. SO THE COUNTY AND SO ON THESE ON THESE PROPERTIES. SO WITH THAT NEW LAW, SO THEY THEY CAN ONLY BE REPLACED TWICE. RIGHT. SO THE ON THESE MOBILE HOMES. SO IF THEY REPLACE THEM THEY CAN ONLY REPLACE MOBILE HOME TWICE. WELL THIS IS IN THE COUNTY. SO WE'RE NOT IN THE CITY. IN THE COUNTY. WELL THE COUNTY THAT'S THAT'S A COUNTY RULE. SO YEAH. SO I GUESS THAT'S A THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE THROUGH THE COUNTY. THEY ALREADY HAVE IT.
THEY ALREADY HAVE IT OKAY OKAY OKAY OKAY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS. IS THERE A MOTION. MOTION ON THE TABLE I'LL SECOND THERE'S A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. OBJECTION. SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES CASE FILE NUMBER 2026. DASH EIGHT, DASH P ETJ. MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
CONDITIONS WITH CASEY ADDITION. FOURTH FILING BEING A 23.06 REPLAT OF LOT ONE AND LOTS FOUR THROUGH 22, BLOCK ONE AND LOT 13, BLOCK FIVE OF OKC ADDITION FIRST FILING LOCATED IN SECTION 34, BLOCK 40 THREE T, DASH TWO, DASH S, T AND P RAILROAD COMPANY SURVEY, ECTOR COUNTY, TEXAS. GENERAL. LOCATED ON SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST THIRD STREET AND SOUTH TRIPP AVENUE.
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. THANK YOU. SO THE APPLICANT, LCA AND LAMB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC OWNER, ARE SEEKING APPROVAL OF A PLAT TO CREATE 21 LOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CASEY ADDITION FOURTH FILING SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS A THROUGH B, THE LOTS ARE NO LONGER ONE ACRE. PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF A VARIANCE, INCREASED LOT SIZE, OR PROVIDE WATER TO ALL LOTS AND B THIRD STREET DEDICATION DOES NOT MEET ECTOR COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY STANDARDS, SO WE DO HAVE THOSE IN THERE. THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE COUNTY TO DEDICATE THIRD STREET. SO THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT. BUT WE JUST NEED THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT. OKAY, I HAD A QUESTION. IT SAYS THE LOTS ARE NO LONGER ONE ACRE. WHAT WILL BE GOING IN THERE. WELL, THESE ARE ALL THIS PLOT ALREADY EXISTED. ALL THESE LOTS WERE PLATTED AT AN ACRE. I BELIEVE IT'S FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. BUT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE THERE YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT REALLY THIN STRIP. THE COUNTY IS DEDICATING THIRD STREET RIGHT OF WAY, JUST FROM THE VERY BACK OF THE LOT. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S CHANGING. YES, I SEE, YES. OKAY. THOSE ARE TOWNHOUSES, I THINK. WELL, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE. THEY'RE OUT IN THE COUNTY AS WELL ON THIS ONE, BUT I BELIEVE THEY ARE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AS THEY'RE ALL OWNED BY INDIVIDUALS. GRACIE HAD TO GET EVERY ONE OF THE LOT OWNERS TO SIGN OFF ON THE MYLAR, SO IT'S LIKE FIVE PAGES LONG. ARE THOSE TOWNHOUSES, GRACIE? NO MAJORITY OF THEM ALREADY HAVE MOBILE HOMES ESTABLISHED. OH, THEY'RE MOBILE HOME LOTS. OKAY. AND THEY'RE SKINNY. SO I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE AND THERE'S OH THERE IS WATER TO A LOT. ALL LOTS. OKAY. YOU KNOW, MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE OUT WEST OF TOWN HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THAT, ABOUT THAT RULE. THEY REPLACE THAT ONE MOBILE HOME. THEY CAN ONLY REPLACE IT ONCE. HALF THOSE PEOPLE AT WEST OF TOWN HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THAT RULE ABOUT THAT WALL. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS A RULE IN THE COUNTY EITHER. IT'S A RULE. DID YOU HAVE ANY MORE? SORRY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR. NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO OPEN TO PUBLIC. WELL, NO, WE WERE JUST COMMENTING ON THAT IF YOU WANT. YEAH. IF HE'S SO PLEASE, CHAIR GRACIE RODRIGUEZ, LCA 521 NORTH TEXAS ON BEHALF OF OKC EDITION. SO THIS THE CLIENT ACTUALLY IS IN FACT ECTOR COUNTY. AN EMAIL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR ECTOR COUNTY. HE DIDN'T
[00:25:05]
SPECIFICALLY PUT THE VERBIAGE IN THERE SAYING THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRING A VARIANCE FOR TO BE ABLE TO MEET LESS THAN BEING A ONE ACRE LOT, ALTHOUGH WE WILL NEED TO ADD THE ICHUD.WHAT IS IT CALLED? CERTIFICATE. THE CERTIFICATE? YES, FOR WATER AVAILABILITY FOR THAT AREA. SO THAT'S PENDING AT THE MOMENT. I DO WANT TO LET IT BE KNOWN THAT YES, IT'S A VARIANCE IS NOT BEING REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY. THEY ARE NOT FOR THESE. YEAH OKAY OKAY. WHAT DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. NOPE. OKAY. SO IS THERE A MOTION COMMISSIONERS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OBJECTION? MOTION CARRIES. CASE FILE NUMBER 2026. DASH 09-P ETJ.
MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF WEST RIDGE SUBDIVISION. START FILING.
BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 20, BLOCK NINE WEST OVER ACRES. FIRST FILING LOCATED IN SECTION 16, BLOCK 40 THREE, T, DASH TWO, S, T AND P RAILROAD COMPANY SURVEY, ECTOR COUNTY, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ENUMA AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 450FT SOUTH OF WEST WEST RIDGE DRIVE.
EXTRATERRESTRIAL JURISDICTION. I THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. SO THE APPLICANT, LUCIANI AND MERTZ AND VICTOR MORALES SANCHEZ AND DANIELLA MARTINEZ, OWNERS, ARE SEEKING APPROVAL OF A PLAT TO CREATE ONE LOT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF WEST RIDGE SUBDIVISION THIRD FILING, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS A AND B, THAT THE LOT AND BLOCK NUMBER NEED TO BE SHOWN ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT, AND THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN ECTOR COUNTY IS 100FT ALONG AN EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY. DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT A VARIANCE WAS GRANTED OR IS NOT NECESSARY NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING THE PLAT, AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DO NOT. THERE'S NO QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONERS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. A MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? THERE'S A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OBJECTION? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS AT HAND. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION TO ADJOURN MOTION. THERE'S A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.