Loading...
06 - Boards & Commissions - MinutesItem No. 6 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CITY OF PARIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF PARIS - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM PARIS, TEXAS TUESDAY JUNE 4 2019 12:00 O'CLOCK P.M. 1. The Board o, f ' Adjustment meeting was called to order by David Hamilton, Charman at 12:10 p. m. The following members were present: David Hamilton, Brady Fisher and Louise Hagood Also present was Carla Easton, John Ankrum and concerned citizens. 2. Chairman, David Hamilton, announced an insufficient quorum to conduct business. 3. Meeting adjourned at 12:11 p.m. APPROVED THE 181h DAY OF JLINF, 2019. v ,V r. Cha "man SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CITY OF PARIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF PARIS - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMB............. S...C..._........�...Wv.�. ..w. ER QNFERENCE ROOM PARIS. TEXAS TUESDAY. JANUARY 8, 2019 12:00 O'CLOCK P.M. 1. The Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order by David Hamilton, Chairman at 12:05 p. m. The following members were present: David Hamilton., Brady Fisher, A.W. Clem, Louise Hagood and Benny Plata. Also present was Carla Easton, John Ankrum, Stephanie Harris, John Godwin and concerned citizens. 2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting. (September 4, 2018) Motion was made by Benny Plata, seconded by A.W. Clem to approve minutes for the September 4th, 2018 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Rick Maxwell on Lot S, Block E, of the 1feadow Park addition, being located at 720 SW 42"d Street. The petition requested a variance of Sections 11.5-3 (b) (la -d) of the Fence Ordinance which provides as follows: (b) Fence heights: (1) Front yard fence requirements. a. No fence shall be permitted in the front yard with the following exceptions: i. On lots zoned historic overlay district (HD) and in accordance with the design standards adopted by the historic preservation commission. ii. On lots in excess of two (2) acres in size which are used for single-family residential purposes. iii. On lots which are zoned and used for LI or HI purposes. b. If permitted, ornamental fences .may be permitted in a front yard in residentially zoned areas if not designed or serving as an enclosure. Ornamental fences include such things as split rail, picket, decorated metal, and brick fences, but not such things as chain-link, wire, or other similar fences. c. In residentially zoned areas, no fence over forty-two (42) inches in height above the average grade of the yard shall be permitted from the front building line to the street right-of-way line. d. In residentially zoned areas, all front yard fences shall have a minimum of fifty (50) percent open area for passage of air and light. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a front yard fence at 720 SW 42" d Street. This property is not located. in the historic overlay district; the lot does not exceed two (2) acres and is not zoned for industrial purposes. The proposed fence is not an ornamental fence with a minimum of fifty percent area for passage of air and light. Public hearing was declared open. Carla Easton, the City Engineer, summarizes the sections of which the variances were requested; she then references a photo of a similar fence on the same street, classified as a legal non -conforming fence, that the applicant wishes to mimic. She goes on to inform the board that the non -conforming fence was not permitted or granted a variance, but has been there prior to 2005 and a letter will be sent to the property owner to notify them that if ever removed or damaged the fence could not be permitted as it is without the proper permits and variances. Louise Hagood inquires if the non -conforming fence is the only one on the street and Carla tells her yes. A.W. Clem inquires about why the applicant was proposing the privacy fence on the one side and if there was an issue with the neighbor. Carla informs the board that there was no clear reasoning or hardship. David Hamilton also clarifies that there was no clear hardship indicated on the application. A.W. Clem also asks if there were rules or regulations required by the neighborhood to which Carla replies that she is not aware of that and that the city does not enforce restricted governments on private property, only our Fence Regulations and our ordinances. Benny Plata inquires about why ornamental fences are the only fence types allowed and why there has to be the open air concept. Carla then explains that typically in a residential neighborhood there is uniformity looking down the block and when not in a historical district or industrial area people want to see similar front yards. She also explains when one drives down the street it is expected and desired to see consistency in front yards and have the open feel. Carla also states that since front yard fences are typically reserved for the Historical District, ornamental fences such as a picket fence or cast iron are more appropriate than a privacy fence that would create a barrier, obstruct the view of the structure, not visually pleasing and potentially a safety hazard. A.W. Clem and David Hamilton agree that it could potentially dangerous and that it would not be visually pleasing. Mr. Clem also states that a privacy fence is appropriate for a back yard, but not for a front yard. Rick Maxwell, the property owner, spoke in favor of the petition. He explains that the fence would be for privacy from the neighbors and since the proposed fence will stop thirteen feet from the curb and tapers down it would not obstruct the view of the home in a potential hazardous situation. Benny Plata asks where the six-foot fence would end and Mr. Maxwell indicates that the taper would begin at the front corner of the home as advised by the builder. A.W. Clem asks if he has looked into how the fence would affect the value of the home and Mr. Maxwell believes that it would increase it because the builder had mentioned that privacy fences are an investment. David Hamilton asks if the allowable privacy fence in the rear and up to the side yard would be between on the side of the neighbors he is wanting privacy from and Mr. Maxwell says that is correct. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Public hearing was declared closed, David Hamilton then asks the board if they would like to decide on the items individually or collectively; the board decides that they will vote on the items collectively unless or until an item needs to be specified and extracted to be considered individually. A.W. Clem states to the board that he drove down the street of the proposed fence and that if it were to be constructed that it would be a glaring change to the nice neighborhood and that the existing fence should not be there in the first place. He also states that the fence would not only affect the value of the property owner's home, but the value of the surrounding homes as well no matter how tall or short it is. Benny Plata then states that he assumes the neighboring home is a rent home and could understand why Mr. Maxwell would want additional privacy from potential difficult people constantly moving in and out. Mr. Clem then asks Mr. Maxwell if it is a rental property; Mr. Maxwell is unsure, but he did say that people frequently move in and out. David Hamilton then states that though he may understand the problem that he does not believe that City should be providing a remedy to conflicting neighbors by allowing people to build a fence in violation to multiple ordinances. Motion was made by David Hamilton, seconded by Louise Hagood to deny all variances of Section 11.5-3 (b) (la -d). Motion carried 3:2, with Benny Plata and Brady Fisher as the dissenting votes. 6. Meeting adjourned at 12:3 Op. m. APPROVED THE 18th DAY OF JUNE, 2019. Chairman Paris Public Library Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 15, 2019 Opening: The regular meeting of the Paris Public Library Advisory Board was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chairwoman Carol James. Present: Board members present were Carol James, Christina Schock, Ashley Lassiter, Marilyn Threadgill, Rebecca Umphrey, Connie Dodd and Denise Kornegay. Director Priscilla McAnally was also present. • Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the April 17, 2019 meeting were unanimously approved. • New Business: Priscilla presented a suggestion to change the meeting time. Discussion was held, but it was decided to keep the time the same. • Old Business: None • Presentations: • Budget Report was presented for review with no comments. • Statistical Report was presented with no comments. • Friends of the Library: No report • Director's Remarks: Director reported that the Clerk 1 position had been filled. The next meeting will be June 19, 2019 at 4:OOpm. Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Submitted by Ashley Lassiter, Secretary HOUSING, AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PARIS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 100 GEORGE WRIGHT HOMES MINUTES OF May 21, 2019 Present at the Meeting: Gary Savage —Chairman of the Board of Commissioners Dewayne Dangerfield —Commissioner of the Board of Commissioners Deanna Nickerson — Commissioner of the Board of Commissioners T K Haynes — Vice Chairman of the Board of Commissioners Sally Ruthart — Executive Director Kim Snow — Inspector Patricia Pridemore — Operations Manager 1. Meeting Called to order at 12:30 pm on Thursday, May 21, 2019 by Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, Gary Savage. 2. Having four Board Members present, a quorum, Mr. Savage thanked and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 3. Citizens' Forum Opened and closed with no one present to speak. 4. Minutes from the March 14, 2019 Meeting Minutes were approved with a motion made by Ms. Deanna Nickerson and seconded by Mr. Dewayne Dangerfield. Passed 4-0. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. Occupancy Report — Waiting lists for PH and Section 8, Demographic Reports, and Vacancy Reports were a]I presented to the Board. B. Financial Report — presented bank statements, monthly statements, and graphs for PH and Section 8 Programs. C. Ms. Ruthart reported to the board the PHAS score of 77 for FYE 6/30/2018 D. Audit report was given to the Board. Audit reported no findings or materials weaknesses; however, there was a note regarding no annual inspections done in 2018 but have been done in 2019. E. Ms. Ruthart gave out the Board Member applications to all Commissioners to hand out to potential candidates. 7. RESOLUTIONS: 2018-006 Retention Schedule Policy Motion made by Mr. Haynes and seconded by Mr. Savage. Motion passed 4-0. 2018-007 Budget Revision for FYE 06/30/2019 Motion made by Mr. Savage and seconded by Mr. Haynes. Motion passed 4-0. 2018-008 Budget for FYE 06/30/2020 Motion made by Ms. Nickerson and seconded by Mr. Dangerfield. Motion passed 4-0. 2018-009 Income Limits Motion made by Mr. Savage and seconded by Ms. Nickerson. Motion passed 4-0. 2018-010 Procurement Policy Motion made by Ms. Nickerson and seconded by Mr. Savage. Motion passed 4-0. 8. No further business or questions, a motion for adjournment was made by Mr. Haynes and seconded by Ms. Nickerson. Motion passed 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1:14 pm. APPROVED THIS day of 2019. Gary ,, av e, Ch 'man .. .......� S Ily Ru l sit, Secretary 2 Minutes Traffic Commission City of Paris The Traffic Commission met on Tuesday March 05, 2019 at 5:15 P.M. in the Municipal Courtroom with the following members present: 1. Charles Richards 2. Sally Boswell 3. John Eyler 4. Bill Sanders 5. Wendell Moore The city staff was represented by Asst. Chief Randy Tuttle and City Engineer Carla Easton. Chairperson john Eyler called the meeting to order all 5:15pm. A quorum was established with five members present. Mr. Eyler then moved to item 42 regarding approval of minutes from November 06, 2018 meeting. Mr. Sanders made a motion to approve the minutes and it was second by Mr. Moore. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Eyler then moved to item #3 regarding discussion and possible action concerning traffic issues on 34tt' NE and Clement Road. This item was requested to be placed on the agenda by Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sanders stated lie made the request due to the increased amount of traffic that uses 36th NE, Clement Road and 34th NE to access Loop 286. Mr. Sanders said overtime the increased traffic has created an issue of safety and a need for street repairs. Mr. Sanders asked if the city could do a traffic study to determine if anything could be or needed to be done to address this. Ms. Easton stated that she could do a study and return at a later date to discuss it. Ms. Easton did say that due to workload it could take several weeks to get this done. After further discussion with members the consensus was to allow the City Engineer to move forward with the study. Mr. Eyler then moved to item #4 regarding discussion concerning the traffic crossover in 3100 block NE Loop 286. Mr. Sanders stated he also requested this item due to recent request by TXDOT asking for input concerning the traffic issues on NE Loop 286 and -'thought it should be brought before members of the Traffic Commission. Ms. Easton advised members that TXDO'I"had recently hired an Engineer to conduct a study of Loop 286 to include the issues on NE Loop 286. Ms. Easton stated she recently attended meetings with TXDOT where preliminary plans were discussed to address Loop traffic. Mr. Sanders said that a new crossover near 34th NE & Loop 286 would help eliminate some of the traffic at the crossover in question as well as Collegiate & Loop 286. Ms. Easton said that TXDOT is continuing to work on this issue and will conduct public meetings in April 2019 for public input. She encouraged all members to attend the public meeting. Mr. Eyler then moved to item #5 concerning any old business. Mr. Richards asked if the parking issue at 2"d NE & Price had been resolved. Mr. Tuttle said the Traffic Department had completed the No Parking areas that extended 30 feet from the traffic control device which seems to have helped. Mr. Eyler then moved to item #6 regarding request for future agenda items. There was none. At 5:37pm Mr. Moore made a motion to adjourn the meeting. A second was made by Mr. Richards and motion carried 5-0. Chairperson:_ Date: , z 2,01