Loading...
02/01/2022 MinutesSPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CITY OF PARIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF PARIS - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM PARIS, TEXAS TUESDAY FEBRUARY 1 2022 12:00 O'CLOCK P.M. 1. The Board ofAdjustment meeting was called to order by RuthAnn Alsobrook, Chairperson, at 12: 00 p. m. The following members were present: RuthAnn Alsobrook, Larry Walker, William Sanders, Jerry Harting and Sequoia Bruce. Also present were Andrew Mack, Stephanie Harris, Mayor Paula Portugal, Mayor Pro Tem Reginald Hughes and concerned citizens. 2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting. (January 4, 2022) Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Sequoia Bruce to approve minutes for the January 4th, 2022 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Continue public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Charles Edwards, on behalf of Emma Young regarding lot size & width variances from the City of Paris Zoning Ordinance Sections 9-102 and 9-201 of the Area Regulations, on Lot 2, Block 4, of the Harlan Heights Addition being located at 1071 NE 17`h Street. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct a house as part of the HOME Program at 1071 NE 17th Street. This property does not meet the schedule minimum lot area of 7,500 SF or width of 60'. The applicant is requesting a variance of 923.52 SF to allow the construction of a house on a 6,576.47 SF lot and a 10.37' to allow the construction of a house on a 49.63' wide lot. Ms. Alsobrook announced that the Board would now continue the public hearing opened on February 1St, 2022. Andrew Mack, Director of Planning & Zoning, presented the case to the board. Mr. Mack mentioned that revisions are being made to the ordinance to avoid unnecessary variances on sub- standard lots in the City and that those changes will be presented to the planning and zoning board at their February meeting. Lastly, Mr. Mack recommended approval to the board based on the staff s findings of fact. Ms. Alsobrook declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Sanders asked whether the proposed home and setbacks will be accommodated with the lot's dimensions, and Mr. Mack confirmed that the setbacks will still be met. Mr. Mack also stated that once the ordinance is revised, variances like this will not have to be brought to the board, thus avoid delaying builders by the Board of Adjustment process. Motion was made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Sanders to approve the variances to Sections 9-102 and 9-201 of the Area Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Such approvals will allow the re -construction of a home on a 6,576.47SF lot vs. the required 7,500SF lot area and 49.63' wide lot vs. the required 60' width based on 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 and 9-102 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 size, and the proposed single-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 Luke Wright, on behalf of RentOne LLC, regarding a variance to the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the City of Paris Zoning Ordinance Section 10-103, on Lot 4, City Block 298, being located at 1315 NW Loop 286. The applicant is requesting an 11' variance for the proposed construction of a mini -warehouse, self -storage facility without the required 12' off-street parking and loading zone. Motion was made by Jerry Haning, seconded by Sequoia Bruce, to allow Larry Walker to recuse himself from discussion and deliberation on this item. Motion carried 4-0. Ms. Alsobrook declared the public hearing open. Mr. Mack presented the case to the board. Mr. Mack stated that while reviewing the civil site plan the City was able to determine the dimensions between structures was 26' and the minimum fire lane is 24' therefore if the fire lane is centered between the structures there would be 1' on either side which does not meet the required 12' parking and loading area as required by ordinance. He continued that upon further examination the ordinance had not been enforced on the first phase of this project or other similar projects in the City. Mr. Mack continued that if the variance is approved, there will be a 20' fire lane turning radius requirement that cannot be deviated from. A diagram has been presented as a potential option for the client to provide a safe turning movement for emergency access on both sides of the structures. The 24' width still allows for two- way traffic and would provide standard width requirement for 90 degree parking. Mr. Mack mentioned that there will still be locations available for parking between buildings and that most of the parking will be short term for loading and unloading. Lastly, Mr. Mack recommended approval to the board with no conditions based on the staff findings of fact. Mr. Sanders stated that this project is not very old, so he did not understand how the codes allowed the development to be built as it is to begin with. Mr. Mack replied that both the developers engineer and the City staff did not initially identify this requirement and for that apologies have been extended to the developer. He also noted that the first phase was built before he and the current engineer were on staff. Mr. Mack assured the board the moving forward the City is now aware of the requirement and will enforce it consistently. Ms. Alsobrook asked if there will have to be additional construction to accommodate the turning radius. Mr. Mack explained that this addition is in the beginning phases of development and this radius along with any other minor changes can still be revised on the plat if needed since it has not yet been recorded. There are also other turning radius options that have been provided by the civil engineer currently in review. This variance will help with the finalization of the civil site plan and help the developers move forward with the building permit process. Ms. Bruce clarified that the variance in question is for parking spaces. Mr. Mack confirmed that it is and continued by explaining that currently the parking is proposed to be in between buildings. This area is provided by the larger spacing between the buildings to avoid the firewall or sprinkler requirements. Otherwise, the fire lane would be temporarily obstructed while customers are loading and unloading. Ms. Bruce asks if two cars will be able to fit between the buildings. Mr. Mack replied that the space between the buildings is big enough for two cars to pass or turn around. In addition, fire trucks would have two possible routes in case of emergency. Ms. Alsobrook asked where the fire hydrants would go. Mr. Mack confirmed that the minimum distance requirements have already been discussed and will be met. Mr. Sanders asked if it is the City's opinion that there will be minimum safety issues. Mr. Mack replied that this is a fair statement. Stephanie Harris, City Attorney, reminded the Board that the issue before of the Board is whether to grant the variance presented and not to address other development. Larry Walker, 100 SE 201h Street, civil engineer for the project, informed the Board that he had been in touch with the City engineer, Chris Donnan, to address the turning radius that will meet the City requirements. He continued that the parking will be in the area between the buildings that is at least 24' and will fit two cars. Mr. Walker also stated that the developers are also considering further spacing between buildings to accommodate more parking. Lastly, Mr. Walker confirmed that there will be two fire hydrants added for this project to comply with the spacing requirement. Ms. Bruce asked if the proposed radius will also be a solution to parking. Mr. Walker clarified that the circle radius is just a diagram given as an option, but that he had drawn up another solution that will meet the turning radius requirement without the "bump outs," and he is currently reviewing that with the City engineer. Lastly, Mr. Walker informed the Board that none of the construction had been started yet and the existing development will not be altered. Mr. Mack reiterated to the board that the turning radius is not what was before the Board for consideration. He noted that all the board should be considering is the 11' variance for the parking and loading requirement along the length of the development in addition to the fire lane. Luke Wright, applicant, of 1301 NW Loop 286, voiced complaints regarding the development process with respect to the City's late discovery of this development requirement. Ms. Alsobrook declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Bruce, stated that even though the example radius is not a part of the parking and loading area she believed it would be beneficial to use the circle radius with the "bump outs" to provide more parking. Motion was made by Mr. Sanders, seconded by Mr. Haning to approve the 11' variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 10-103 of the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations to waive the 12' parking and loading zone requirement based on the following staff recommended findings of fact. Motion carried 4-0. Staff Recommended Findin s of Fact 1. Although there are no unique conditions or features of the property which is not generally common to other properties within the city, it is the intent of the city to pursue enforcing the ordinance for 36 ft. of pavement width on all new mini -storage projects moving forward and while making such variance requirements unnecessary in the future. There is justification for confusion on the construction requirement since the last part of the first phase was just completed in 2021 at the narrower pavement width next to the mini -storage doors. 2. The literal compliance with Section 10-103 of the Zoning Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship given the fact that this requirement for an adjacent 12 ft. parking & unloading area has not been enforced since the ordinance was updated in 2008. The requirement was just identified at the end of 2021 following approval of the previous phase at the narrower dimension. 3. The granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or the intent of this article given the past allowance for such improvements 4. The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance did not result from the property owner's own actions, but rather in a lack of past enforcement of the ordinance standard by the City. 5. The variance by the applicant is not solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property. It is rather a new point of marking for future enforcement of this standard elsewhere in the community. 6. The proposed use of a mini -storage self-service business is a permitted use in the LI Zoning District. 5. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Laura Caffey, on behalf of Bradley Blair regarding variances from the City of Paris Zoning Ordinance, on Lot 4, City Block 67, being located at 349 Fitzhugh Avenue. The Ordinances sought to be varied are of Exhibit B- Zoning Ordinance Sections: • 17-100(a) • 9-102(1) • 9-301(1) • 9-401(1) • 9-701(1) • 9-501(1) • 13-101(a) • 13-101(c) The applicant is requesting the above, after -the -fact variances to permit the completion of a 300SF carport that was constructed without a permit. The lot is not platted and does not meet the minimum size or depth requirements. The completion of the construction of the carport would also exceed the allotted 35% lot coverage. Lastly, the front yard, rear yard and accessory structure setbacks would not be met. Motion was made by Mr. Haning, seconded by Mr. Sanders to allow Mr. Walker to rejoin the meeting in order to deliberate and to act on this item. Motion carried 4-0. Ms. Alsobrook declared the public hearing open. Mr. Mack presented the case to the board. Mr. Make stated that this application is an after -the - fact request for variances. The owner had previously been in contact with the building department and was initially made aware of the City's concerns and requirements to obtain a permit. He then started construction of the carport without a permit and continued even after a stop work order had been issued. The owner's actions are the subject of a pending a case in municipal court depending on the outcome of the eight variances. Mr. Mack continued that all eight variances would have to be granted in order for a permit to be issued. Mr. Mack also mentioned that the property is currently not platted so the property lines and setbacks are estimated based on measurements of surrounding lots and structures; since this lot is on a corner it has two front yards and front yard setbacks required. Lastly, Andrew states that the City recommends denial of all eight variances based on the staff findings of facts. Ms. Bruce asked what it meant that the lot was not to be platted. Mr. Mack explained that City has not approved a subdivision plat to be recorded at the Lamar County Clerk's office. Ms. Bruce then asked why the person was cited. Mr. Mack clarified that it was for not obtaining a permit before beginning to build the structure. Ms. Alsobrook asked if a permit was issued for the concrete. Mr. Mack explained that that a permit was pulled for the concrete driveway, but not for the carport itself. Mr. Mack clarified that the owner came in beforehand and attempted to obtain a permit, but was told he could not because these requirements could not be met. When the owner went ahead with building the carport anyway without permit approval, he was cited to stop work. Ms. Bruce states that she does not agree with the property owner being given a citation since there are several people who come in for variances after -the fact. Paige Unger, City staff member, clarified that the "citation" that was previously mentioned began as a stop work order which does not have any fees associated with it. The property owner did in fact come in and request a permit and after being told he could not meet the requirements to acquire one he began building the structure anyway, so the stop work order was issued. When the owner continued to build after the stop work order was issued the case was then passed over to the Code Enforcement department to initiate the process of correcting the matter. The owner was given the option to apply for all eight of these variances and potentially obtain a permit with full compliance, but if not all of variances passed Code Enforcement would then proceed with their due process. Ms. Alsobrook asked if the variances were denied if the property owner would have to remove the structure. Mr. Mack Andrew replied that depending on the denial or approval of the variances with conditions, the owner could have options. Mr. Mack continued that if the board were to approve any of the variances they would have to state their own findings of fact since they would not follow the City's findings of fact. Mr. Mack was not certain that the carport would have to be removed. The owner is currently under the order to stop work until either the variances are passed or he is taken to court. Mr. Walker asked if when obtaining the permit for the concrete driveway the owner was not made aware that he could not put anything over it. Ms. Unger informed the Board that typically a permit is not required for pouring concrete driveways unless there is an alteration to the approach. Mr. Mack told the Board that the dilapidated driveway was replaced to provide access to the existing garage, but regardless of whether or not the driveway was permitted, the carport was not. Laura Caffey, of 1116 Lamar Avenue, informed the Board that she was contacted by the owner for her architectural services. Ms. Caffey explained that when he had come to her he was under the impression from the Building Official at the time that the only issue with building the structure was that it needed to be designed to meet the required wind loads. She continues that when she started working on the site plan for the project, the placement of the carport triggered the variances. Ms. Caffey said she was unaware of how the situation started, but she was hired to assist him with this carport he thought he could build and had made herself available to help him as she can. Lastly, Ms. Caffey explained that with this being an older, corner lot the owner is at a disadvantage since it is already non -conforming as it is. Mr. Walker asked Ms. Caffey if the structure was built to her design to which she responded that she was not involved yet when he put that carport up. The owner had contacted her after receiving the stop work order. Ms. Alsobrook asked Ms. Caffey if she believes the structure that the owner built is safe, and Ms. Caffey replied that she did not believe it is as it exists currently. If the owner were able to move forward with obtaining a permit she would assist him in making it more structurally sound. Mr. Walker stated that the subject lot is an older, sub -standard lot that is not platted like several others in the City of Paris. He went on to say that there have been other lots that have come to the board for variances on things like width, depth, and size, but not plats, so he was concerned about denying the variances because the lot is not platted when there are other properties without plats that have built accessory structures. Mr. Mack then explained that this lot is only 4,500SF, which is at the cusp of the smallest sized lots that will be considered in the new ordinance. Since it is so small it is more difficult to ensure that the minimum setbacks and requirements are met to maintain proper distances between other homes and lots. Mr. Sanders asked for clarification as to whether if even one of the variances was not approved then no building permit could be issued. Mr. Mack confirmed that fact and stated again that if the Board were to approve any of the variances, it would have to provide its own findings of fact to support its decisions. Mr. Sanders asked what the property owner's options would be if all of the variances were denied. Mr. Mack deferred to the City attorney. Ms. Harris stated that what is before the board is the decision of whether or not it is appropriate to approve all eight variances and she does not believe it is material to their decision of what happens after that. Having said that, she stated that she would have to look further into the issue to know whether the structure would have to be removed. Ms. Bruce stated that she disagreed and that she believed it should be material to their decision since it could cause economic hardship to the property owner to have to remove the structure Ms. Harris reminded the Board that economic hardship was not a proper basis for a variance. Mr. Walker stated that the Board could potentially approve the variances with conditions to meet the appropriate building requirements and make the carport structurally sound and code compliant along with the City's recommendation. Mr. Haning stated that there would be no easy way for the property owner to meet all of the required conditions since the lot is small and overbuilt to begin with. Ms. Alsobrook closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Mr. Sanders to deny all eight variances based on the staff recommended findings of fact. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion was made by Ms. Bruce, seconded by Mr. Harting, to approve the variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 17-100(a) of the Creation of a Building Site to allow the accessory structure to be built without a plat. The vote on the motion was 3 yeas to 2 nays, with Mr. Walker and Ms. Alsobrook as the dissenting votes; the motion failed because there were not 4 affirmative votes for approval as required by the zoning ordinance and state law. Motion was made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Ms. Bruce, to approve the variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-102(1) of the Area Regulations based on the Board's findings of fact below. The existing lot is only 4,500SF vs. the required 6,000SF minimum lot area. Motion carried 5-0. Board's Findings of Fact: This is an existing, substandard lot and there is no way for the property owner to meet the lot area requirement. Motion was made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Ms. Bruce, to approve the variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-301(1) of the Area Regulations based on the Board's findings of fact below. The existing lot is only 75' deep vs. the minimum required 100' depth. Motion carried 5- 0. Board's Findings of Fact: 1. This is an existing, substandard lot and there is no way for the property owner to meet the lot depth requirement. Motion was made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Ms. Bruce to approve the variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-401(1) of the Area Regulations based on the Board's findings of fact below. The existing lot will have 38.84% lot coverage once the carport is constructed vs. the allotted maximum of 35% lot coverage. Motion carried 5-0. Board's Findings of Fact: 1. The overage in lot coverage is very minimal. Motion was made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Ms. Bruce, to approve the variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-701(1) of the Area Regulations to allow the carport to be constructed 8' away from the rear property line vs. the required minimum 10' setback. The variance was based on the Board's findings of fact below. Motion carried 4-1 with William Sanders as the dissenting vote. Board's Findings of Fact: 1. This is an existing, substandard lot and the variance is minimal. Motion was made by Mr. Haning, seconded by Mr. Sanders, to approve the variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 5-501(1) of the Area Regulations to grant the 25' variance to the minimum required, front yard setback of 25', allowing the carport to be built up to the property line. Motion was made by Mr. Sanders, seconded by Mr. Walker to amend to original motion to approve variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 5-501(1) of the Area Regulations to grant the 25' variance to the minimum required, front yard setback of 25', allowing the carport to be built up to the property line. The amendment was made to include the Board's findings of fact and conditions below. Motion carried 5-0 Board's Findings of Fact and Conditions: 1. The property lines are yet to be determined since there is not a plat on record. The Board's condition is that the property line will be determined. Motion was made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Ms. Bruce. to approve the variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 13-101(a) of the Area Regulations to allow the carport, an accessory structure, to remain in an area defined as the front yard. The vote on the motion was 3 yeas to 2 nays, with Mr. Sanders and Ms. Alsobrook as the dissenting votes; the motion failed because there were not 4 affirmative votes for approval as required by the zoning ordinance and state law. Motion was made by Mr. Sanders to deny the variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 13- 101(c) of the Area Regulations to allow the carport, an accessory structure, to be built 4' off of the main structure vs. the required minimum of 15' based on the staff findings of fact. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion was made by Ms., seconded by Mr. Haning, to approve the variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 13-101(c) of the Area Regulations to allow the carport, an accessory structure, to be built 4' off of the main structure vs. the required minimum of 15'. The vote on the motion was 3 yeas to 2 nays, with Mr. Sanders and Ms. Alsobrook as the dissenting votes; the motion failed because there were not 4 affirmative votes for approval as required by the zoning ordinance and state law. 6. Adjournment. APPROVED THE 1sT DAY OF MARCH, 2022. ,, _.. �,-- aip.. er, ii)