Loading...
09/07/2021 MinutesSPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CITY OF PARIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF PARIS - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM PARIS TEXAS TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 12:00 O'CLOCK P.M. The Board ofAdjustment meeting was called to order by Ruth Ann Alsobrook at 12: 00 p. m. The following members were present: Ruth Ann Alsobrook, Chris Fitzgerald, Jerry Haning, William Sanders and Larry Walker. Also present were Andrew Mack, via cell phone, Stephanie Harris and concerned citizens. 2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting. (June 1, 2021) Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Jerry Haning to approve minutes for the June 1st, 2021 meeting. Motion carried 4:0. 3. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Charles Edwards, on behalf of Michele and Ricky Hines on Lot 32, Block 84, of the Hines Addition being located at 541 NW 11th Street. The petition requested variances of Section 9-201 Area Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance which provides as follows: (1) 9-201 (1) Schedule minimum lot widths -Residential districts SF -2 Zoning requires a minimum of 60' lot width The applicant is proposing to re -construct a house as part of the HOME Program at 541 NW 11th St. This property does not meet the schedule minimum lot width of 60'. The applicant is requesting a variance of 10' to allow the re -construction of a house on a 50' wide lot. Board Member Chris Fitzgerald arrives at 12:02 PM. Andrew Mack, Director of Planning & Community Development, presents the variance to the board explaining that the existing home will be demolished and rebuilt as part of the Home Program. After doing so, Director Mack reminded the board of previous discussion on amending the Ordinance to accommodate sub -standard lots in Paris. Lastly, Director Mack stated that City Staff recommend the variances be approved with no conditions since the existing lot width is 83% of the required lot width and all of the required setbacks can be met and based on the recommended findings of fact listed in the staff memo. William Sanders, board member, asks if there has been a plan for what is proposed to be re -built there and if it satisfies the requirements. Andrew Mack states that though no site plan or building plans have been submitted yet the applicants are aware of the required setbacks. Chairperson RuthAnn Alsobrook states that in driving by the lot it does look like a narrow lot to build on. City Staff member Paige Unger reassures her and the remaining board members that though the required lot with for this particular zoning is 60' there are other residential zoning districts that allow 50' lot widths and that the proposed home will be appropriate for the zoning district. Andrew Mack makes note of a typo on item 6 of the staff findings listed on the memo; it says the lot is in SF -1 zoning when it should say SF -2. Public hearing was declared open. No one spoke in favor or opposition. Public hearing was declared closed. RuthAnn Alsobrook made note of citizen input forms submitted by mail as follows: Jimmie Wilkerson of 614 NW 11th St, in favor. Stated it would improve the appearance of the street. Terry Hurd of 533 NW 1 lth St, in favor. Michele and Ricky Hines of 541 NE 1 lth St, in favor. Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Jerry Haning to approve the variance to Section 9-210 Area Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the re -construction of a home on a 50' wide lot vs. the required 60' width based upon the following staff recommended findings of fact. Motion carried 5:0. Staff Recommended Findings of Fact 1. Although there are no unique conditions or features of the property which is not generally common to other properties with older platted lots in the city, it is the intent of the city to pursue changing the ordinance to make such variance requirements unnecessary in the future. 2. The literal compliance with Sections 9-201 of the Zoning Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship given the fact that this is an existing lot of record, is substandard in lot width and depth, and the proposed two-family dwelling cannot be constructed without a variance. 3. The granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or the intent of this article. 4. The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance did not result from the property owner's own actions. 5. The variance by the applicant is not solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property. 6. The proposed use of a new single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the SF -2 Zoning District. 4. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Chance Floyd, on Lot 1, Block B, of the Meadows, being located at 4135 Jasmine Street. The applicant requests a variance of Section 9-501 Area Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance which provides as follows: (1) 9-501 Schedule minimum front yards -Residential districts SF -2 Zoning requires a minimum of 25' front yard, unless the plat designates a different setback The applicant has received a permit and constructed a front yard, 6' high privacy fence. Being located on a corner lot a 10' front yard setback is required on the side yard according to the plat. The applicant mistakenly built the fence on the property line instead of at the 10' required setback. The applicant is requesting a 10' variance to leave the fence where it is. Andrew Mack, Director of Planning & Community Development, presents the variance to the board. Andrew states that the fence was measured 10' from the back of the curb, which placed it on the property line versus being measured 10' off the property line. The fence had been permitted and after it was constructed, the city began receiving complaints about it obstructing their view to oncoming traffic on 42nd street. After receiving several complaints the applicant was given the options to remove the fence entirely, move the fence back to the proper setback or apply for the variance to leave it as is. It was also determined that the fence was needed for a pool that had been recently permitted and is in construction. Andrew also made the board aware of similar fences in the area on corner lots that establishes a precedent for the variance. Lastly, Andrew recommends approval to the board with the condition that a portion of the fence be removed to create a diagonal angle along the northeastern corner of the lot to create visibility as proposed in the draft changes to the fence ordinance to address the visibility and safety concerns of the citizens. Chairperson RuthAnn Alsobrook, asks if the City believes that the diagonal will improve visibility for people exiting the alleyway onto 42nd street to which Andrew Mack states that he does though the exact dimensions of the diagonal have not been applied or determined in the field yet. Jerry Haning asks since the variance was applied for if the applicant was not willing to do the diagonal instead of going through this process to which Andrew replied that the diagonal was proposed as an option along with the variance process. William Sanders asked with there being other fences in the area identified as non-compliant are they going to be required to comply with the ordinance if they ever decide to re -construct the fence or if they are subject to the same variance process if they will be denied in the future. Andrew then explains that since they are existing they would be considered legal non -conforming which means that they can have normal maintenance done, but if they are ever removed they would be prohibited from reconstructed unless they were built in compliance with current ordinance of that time. RuthAnn then asks if the legal non -conforming fences maybe existed before the ordinance was put in place to which Stephanie Harris says she believed it was adopted in 2008. Andrew then states that part of the issue with the corner lots is that they should have been platted bigger to prevent things like this because people want to utilize more of their yards and in doing so their fences are closer to the street. Public hearing was declared open. Chance Floyd, property owner, states that when obtaining the permit he was directed to draw where he was wanting to place the fence. After doing so Paige Unger and Roger Colson had reviewed the drawing along with a copy of the plat and directed him measure 10' off of the back of the curb and 6' away from the alleyway for the construction of the fence. Mr. Floyd then states that when constructing the fence he chose to build the fence further in than the 6' away from the alley for visibility and because it is used frequently as a two-way alley when it really is only wide enough to be used as a one-way alley. Chance measured 10.5' away from the alley and about 12 to 11.5' away from the curb and followed the curve on 42nd street to help with the visibility. Mr. Floyd continues to explain the necessity of the fence since he knew he would want a place for his kids to play, privacy, he knew that they were going to be putting in a pool and a safe backyard since 42nd street is a busy street. Lastly, Chance mentions that at the time of inspection the inspector had told him he may have to put in a diagonal setback 15'. Larry Walker and William Sanders clarify with the applicant that the permit was pulled and approved before the fence was built. Larry Walker asks Andrew Mack if applicant has gone through the proper procedures by pulling a permit and it being approved why he was required to request a variance. Andrew Mack states that even though there may have been confusion of the setbacks when the permit was issued that the ordinance still applies and that is why the variance was suggested to correct it. RuthAnn Alsobrook, asks if the fence remains as is if it will be unsafe or how the visibility will be affected. Andrew states that the middle area of the fence does not create an obstruction though the structural mass of the fence is more than usual than desired along the street, but the City does recommend that the diagonal be installed at the alleyway to help with the visibility. Cory Jones of 345 SE 42nd St, spoke in favor of the variance. He stated that over the years they have had neighbors come and go at this address and heard their complaints of there not being a fence in the back yard to utilize it and have privacy. When the Floyds moved in and installed their fence, he was excited for them to be able to use their backyard and have the safety and privacy they deserved. He continues to say that he often drives his truck down the alley and has the visibility he needs considering that the road is curved and does seem to have heavy traffic sometimes. Mr. Jones does not believe that the fence itself is the issue but rather the flow of traffic since 42"d is often used to cut across to Lamar. RuthAnn asks if he believes that a passenger car would have that same visibility to which he responds that no matter the size of the vehicle if you are to pull up past the fence which is set back far enough to keep you out of the line of traffic and take the time the look both ways, you can safely exit the alley. He continues to say that with the road being curved you have to be cautious of the traffic either way and come to a complete stop when exiting the alley. Mr. Jones also says that people have been cutting across the corner of the lot for a long time despite the owner's efforts of putting rocks and reflectors up to deter people from damaging their car and to be more cautious. James Jaggers of 4015 Jasmine St, spoke in opposition of the variance. Mr. Jagger states that he uses the alley very often and it has worked well until the fence was put in place. He states that he cannot see around the fence in his vehicle and that the fence has made it dangerous to exit the alley. He continues to tell the board that he believes the fence was built in violation of the ordinance and should have been built shorter, with 50% visibility and located further back to meet the front yard fence criteria so that there would not be visibility issues like there is now. Mr. Jagger also explains that since all of the homes on that block have rear entry driveways and garages the alley is the only way in and out, so with this being their main exit from the alley it needs to have more visibility to also prevent the alley from getting congested when people try to exit. Lastly, Mr. Jagger states that this issue could potentially decrease the value of his home when he tries to sell it in the future since this issue affects the accessibility of the home. RuthAnn Alsobrook made note of citizen input forms submitted by mail as follows: Larry Cope of 4130 Oleander Ave, in favor. Paul and Marsha Stuart of 355 SE 42"d St, in favor. Stated that Chance followed the correct procedure in obtaining the permit and should be able to leave the fence where it is since that is where he was initially told he could place it even if it was wrong on the city's part. Also, they do not believe the Floyd's should have to move their fence since there are similar constructed fences along 42"d street. Wayne & Betty Clement of 4120 Jasmine St, in opposition. Stated they believe the fence obstructs the view of the oncoming southbound traffic on SE 42"d from motorists entering SE 42"d from Jasmine Street. Murray Jackson of 4110 Jasmine St, in opposition. Stated when pulling out of Jasmine visibility to the north is more blocked than before; southbound traffic on 42"d street cannot be seen until right upon the intersection. Lynn Wells of 365 SE 42"d St, in favor but is concerned the fence was poorly built and a strong wind could blow it over. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Public hearing was declared closed. Jerry Haning asks if Mr. Floyd's recollection of him obtaining the permit and the direction he was given is correct. Staff member Paige Unger says that it was correct and when issuing the permit she had misinterpreted the plat and instead of directing him to set the fence 10' off of the property line she and the Building Official at the time had directed him to set it 10' off the back of the curb. It was later after the fence had been constructed and inspected that the error was discovered once the City started receiving complaints. William Sanders confirms that the fence permit was in fact approved before it was constructed to which staff member Paige Unger confirms it was. RuthAnn states that even though the fence was approved it has now come to the board for a variance and the matter of safety needs to be considered. Larry Walker asks what the variance is for in reference to the fence. RuthAnn clarifies that the variance is to allow the fence to remain as is or the board also has the option to approve it with the conditions presented by the city. Chance Floyd then marked on an aerial view map to help the board visualize what is proposed. While doing so Mr. Floyd explained that if he were to remove part of the fence to create this diagonal, his fence would be about only 10' away from his house and the whole purpose of the fence for his kids to have room to play would be irrelevant. Andrew Mack states that if the board were to approve the variance with the recommended condition that he or someone from the city would go and meet with Mr. Floyd to verify the measurements since they have not been applied in the field yet. Motion was made by Chris Fitzgerald, seconded by Larry Walker to approve the variance to Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-501 of the Area Regulations to allow the fence to remain on the property line. In the Board's approval of the variance request, there were no findings of fact or conditions. Motion carried 4:1, with William Sanders as the dissenting vote. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Audrey Bills, on Lot 10, City Block 74-A, being located at 824 NE 3rd Street. The applicant requests a variance of Section 9-501 Area Regulation of the Zoning Ordinance which provides as follows: 9-501 (1) Schedule minimum front yards- Residential districts. 2F minimum front yard- 25' The applicant is proposing to construct a carport in the side yard in line with the existing home with a 22' front yard setback versus the required 25' setback. The applicant is requesting a 3' variance to allow the proposed carport to be built with a 22' front yard in line with the existing home. Andrew Mack, Director of Planning & Community Development, first notifies the board that the aerial view map included in their packet is not accurate since the two lots should be shown as one with the house being located in the middle. He continues to present the variance to the board and notify them that the construction of the structure had already began before the variance or any permit had been applied for. Lastly, Mr. Mack makes a neutral recommendation to the board to consider both variances for this address. Public hearing was declared open. Audrey Bills, property owner, states that she is wanting to construct the carport to cover her cars from the sap coming from the tree in the yard. Ms. Bills also states that she has maintained the vacant lot located just north of hers since she moved into the house in the 80s. She has tried contacting the owners and has never been able to find anyone to purchase this property. Larry Walker clarifies that the two posts that have already been put in place are on her property line to which she confirms they are. RuthAnn Alsobrook made note of citizen input forms submitted by mail as follows: Audrey Bills of 824 NE 3`a St, in favor to build carport. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Public hearing was declared closed. Motion was made by Jerry Haning, seconded by William Sanders to approve the variance to Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-501 of the Area Regulations to allow the carport to be constructed with a 22' front yard setback in line with the house based upon the following staff recommended findings of fact. Motion carried 5:0. Staff Recommended Findings of Fact 1. Although there are no unique conditions or features of the property, the house is constructed in the middle of the lot making it impossible to construct a two -car attached carport on the north side of the lot without a variance. 2. Substandard building setbacks are prevalent in the surrounding properties of this area. 3. The literal compliance with Sections 9-501 & 9-601 of the Zoning Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship given the fact that dwelling was previously constructed in the middle of the parcel without room for a 2 stall wide carport without a variance. 4. The granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or the intent of this article, but it will allow a structure to be permitted adjacent to the neighboring property line. 5. The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance does result from the property owner's own actions. There is room to construct an accessory carport structure in the rear yard without a variance. 6. The variance by the applicant is not solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property, but physical convenience with the structure in the proposed location would be favorable to the land owner where requested. 7. The proposed use of a new attached carport accessory structure for the single-family dwelling is a permitted addition to the principal residential use of the property in the 2F Zoning District. 6. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Audrey Bills, on Lot 10, City Block 74-A, being located at 824 NE Yd Street. The applicant requests a variance of Section 9-601 Area Regulation of the Zoning Ordinance which provides as follows: 9-601 (1) Schedule minimum side yards -Residential districts 2F Zoning requires a minimum of 5' side yard The applicant is proposing to construct a 20' wide by 22' long carport in the side yard in line with the existing home on the property. The applicant is requesting a 5' variance to allow the proposed carport to be built up to the side property line. Public hearing was declared open. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Public hearing was declared closed. Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Jerry Haning to approve the variance to Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-601 of the Area Regulations to allow the carport to be constructed up to the side property line based upon the following staff recommended findings of fact. Motion carried 5:0. Staff RecommendedFandangs of Fact 1. Although there are no unique conditions or features of the property, the house is constructed in the middle of the lot making it impossible to construct a two -car attached carport on the north side of the lot without a variance. 2. Substandard building setbacks are prevalent in the surrounding properties of this area. 3. The literal compliance with Sections 9-501 & 9-601 of the Zoning Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship given the fact that dwelling was previously constructed in the middle of the parcel without room for a 2 stall wide carport without a variance. 4. The granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or the intent of this article, but it will allow a structure to be permitted adjacent to the neighboring property line. The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance does result from the property owner's own actions. There is room to construct an accessory carport structure in the rear yard without a variance. 6. The variance by the applicant is not solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property, but physical convenience with the structure in the proposed location would be favorable to the land owner where requested. 7. The proposed use of a new attached carport accessory structure for the single-family dwelling is a permitted addition to the principal residential use of the property in the 2F Zoning District. 7. Adjournment. APPROVED THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021. Chairman