11-20-2000 (Zoning Board of Adjustment) Minutes MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
City Council Work Session Conference Room
Wylie Municipal Complex
2000 Highway 78 North, Wylie, Texas 75098
November 20, 2000
7:00 p.m.
Notice was posted in time and manner required by law, and a quorum was present.
Commission Members Present: Staff Members Present:
Gerald Clark, Chairman Claude Thompson, Planner
Weldon Bullock
Derek Green
Marilyn Herrera
Jeff McCoy
Present But Not Participating or Voting:
Mike Phillips, Alternate
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Gerald Clark called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consider and act upon approval of the Minutes of the November 250 2000
Meeting.
A motion to approve was made by Jeff McCoy, second by Derek Green. Motion
carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. ZBA No. 2000-06: A public hearing to consider and act upon a request by Larry
G. Taylor for a variance to Section 11.3(c) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the
required rear yard set back from 25 feet to 17.9 feet, in order to allow
construction of an addition to a private residence within the rear yard; this
property being located at 201 South Third Street, being Lot 10, Block 29 of the
Railroad Addition.
Larry Taylor, Applicant, 201 South Third Street, Wylie, Texas appeared
requesting a reduction of the required back yard building line from 25 feet to 17.9
feet in order to construct an addition to the existing house. The applicant will
reside in the expanded residence with the parents who currently live there. He
testified that plans for the addition had been approved by the City of Wylie
Building Inspection Department and a permit to begin construction had been
issued by the City. Foundation forms and plumbing have been completed, but
that construction was stopped by City Inspectors when the Form Survey
indicated that the construction extended into the rear yard set back. He said that
he had earlier checked yard requirements with the Building Inspection staff and
the plans had been stamped "approved".
Chairman Clark asked if the applicant knew of the required set back of 25 feet
and thought that staff had approved the variant dimension. Mr. Taylor responded
that he thought that the plans and initial construction was in compliance.
Mr. Thompson, Planner, reported that one Comment Form has been received,
and that it was in favor of approval of the variance. He stated that initial plan
review by staff had failed to see the dimension which clearly indicated that the
construction would not meet the rear yard requirements, but that the plans had
been stamped "approved for construction subject to field inspection and code
compliance". He said that the applicant is responsible for knowing the code
requirements and building accordingly. It is his understanding that prior to
submittal of plans the applicant asked staff about the side yard requirement and
was provided that information, but that he had not asked about other
requirements and staff assumed that such was known by the applicant and would
be in compliance.
Mr. McCoy asked if the Board review was not an attempt to avoid admitting a
mistake by the City staff, and if the error could be corrected or approved in some
manner other than Board action. Mr. Thompson responded that the applicant is
responsible for being aware and complying with all code requirements and that
such information is readily available in printed form. In this case, staff answered
the limited questions of the applicant correctly, but these courtesy discussions
can not address all of the many code requirements. Compliance with set back
requirements is normally verified by review of Form Surveys rather than initial
plans, as it was in this case. Staff does not have authority to approve plans or
work which is in error, and only the Board of Adjustment can approve such
variances. However, because staff felt the applicant had acted in good faith, the
fee for Board review had been waived.
A motion to approve was made by Marilyn Herrera, seconded by Jeff McCoy.
Motion carried 5-0.
2. ZBA No. 2000-07: A public hearing to consider and act upon a request by
Gregory and Michelle Morrical for a variance to the requirements of Planned
Development District 93-29 restricting garages which face or open to the street,
in order to construct a detached garage to replace the attached garage converted
to a residential room, this property being located at 300 South W. A. Allen
Boulevard, being Lot 1, Block G of the Stone Grove Phase 1 Addition.
Lonnie Townsend, 6309 Joel Court, Rowlett, Texas, represented the applicant,
explaining that the applicants wish to enclose the attached garage in order to
provide a room for a homebound parent. They desire to construct a new
detached garage to the west of the residence. The front yard circular drive and
wide side yard drive accommodates most vehicles to the residence. City staff
stopped construction to convert the existing garage and disapproved plans for
the proposed side yard garage. The applicant submitted plans which indicate a
garage in the rear yard in order to continue conversion of the attached garage,
and that plan was approved. However, the applicants still want to locate the
detached garage in the side yard because the rear location is less accessible
and more costly, and in order to save existing trees and improvements and open
space within the back yard. He provided photographs of the proposed side-yard
location, and reported that there are other front-loaded garages within the
subdivision.
Mr. Thompson circulated photographs of the subject property, and responded
that there was a change in grade between the side yard and rear yard where the
approved plans indicate location of the garage. He said that the street-facing
restriction was not a City-wide requirement but rather specific to the Planned
Development District by the developer, and that staff had observed no other
front-loaded garages within the PD. Section 32.2(5) requires a concurring vote of
75 percent of the members present in order to reverse decisions by the Building
Inspection Department.
A motion to approve was made by Derek Green, seconded by Marilyn Herrera.
The vote failed 2-3, Board members Clark, Bullock and McCoy voting no.
The applicant requested specific reasons for the denial. In summarizing the
Board's discussion, Chairman Clark stated that the City-approved plan satisfies
the PD and eliminates a need for a variance, that the requested variance would
confer a right on the applicant which is not available to other lots within the PD,
and that the reason for the variance is self-imposed and not the result of a
hardship imposed by the property as demonstrated by the approved plan and the
testimony of the applicant.
There was no further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion to adjourn was made by Derek Green, seconded by Jeff McCoy. Motioned
carried 5-0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
P,q /
Gerald Clark, Chairman Claude Thompson, Plan er