HomeMy WebLinkAboutBBA1996-0005N o. 9
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GRAPEVINE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
LOT 14 k�L - i I ACZ'.'!C;WNE kl&ATER
ON THIS DATE
ISSUED TO OE-�'N%"WR f',EA""T'll
OWNER OR AGENT 13RAPEVINE/1'ATI7 TV
ACTION AUTHORIZED AT bibdri,', 114. W
ACTION AUTHORIZED !ART 12 7 f A,*) 7 , /,A- iV, FENCES' GF_C,7
ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE
TOTAL FEE $
RE ;12R )7 7 *t' �r v"
AYT N
`i12
ullhl'i11�1113; TFl If 10
WORK MUST CONFORM
TO ALL APPLICABLE CODES
NAME (PRINTED)
COMPANY NAME
24 HOUR INSPECTION NUMBER
METRO (817) 481-0366
CUT-OFF TIMES:
7:30 A.M. - A.M. INSPECTION
12:30 P.M. P.M. INSPECTION
A Future With A Past
GRAPEVINE
May 15, 1996
David Watson
Cencor Realty Services
3102 Maple Ave. Suite 500
Dallas TX 75201
RE: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #BBA96-05
1419 WEST STATE HIGHWAY 114, GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
Dear Mr. Watson:
On May 13, 1996, the Building Board of Appeals approved variance request BBA96-
05 from the Grapevine Code of Ordinances as follows:
1'. Section 7-127(a), FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS.
(a) CORNER LOTS:
It shall be unlawful to erect a fence in the required front yard building
setback area or the established front yard area, whichever area is
greater in depth, on any corner lot, except along the interior lot line in
accordance with subsection (b).
(b) Interior Lots:
(1) It shall be unlawful to erect a fence, hedge or vines over thirty-six
(36) inches in height in the required front yard area or the
established front yard area, whichever area is greater in depth, on
any interior lot.
(2) It shall be unlawful to erect a fence, hedge or vines in the
required front yard area or the established front yard area,
whichever area is greater in depth, on any interior lot that does
not have at least fifty (50) per cent through vision.
THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P.O. Box 95104 Grapevine, Texas 76099 Phone Metro 817/481-0377
FAX #817/424-0545
L`
(3) It shall be unlawful to maintain a fence, hedge, or vines in the
required front yard area or an established front yard area,
whichever area is greater in depth, of an interior lot in a manner
that does not permit at least fifty (50) per cent through vision.
(4) For the purpose of this section, "established front yard area" shall
mean an open, unoccupied space on a. lot facing a street and
extending across the front of a lot between the side yard lines
and extending from the abutting street a principal building or
structure. The phrase "required front yard" shall have the
meaning ascribed to it in the Grapevine Zoning Ordinance No. 82-
73.
The approved variance allows a 6'4" high wrought iron and masonry column fence
in the required and established front yard as shown on the site plan. The fence
would have fifty (50) per cent through vision.
A copy of the approved minutes will be available after they have been approved at
the next regular Building Board of Appeals meeting. If you need a copy for your
records, please contact Kelly Prater at 817-481-0363.
T ank ou,
i
S �ott Williams
uilding Official
Department of Development Services
SWIkp
0.1BBA196-05.5
—ems
ND SIGN.
#5) -01
PATIO _ PATIO
1,272 S.F. Z298 S.F.
_ I
PADC�
RET IL
8,000 .F. (PEA E IV)
TRANSFORMER PAD H.G.
UTILITY LOGATIO��
TENANT TENANT H.G. DUMPST,ERS H/
5,000 S.F. 3,000 S.F. SCREEN HALL
V.A.
\ I fJ
H.G. H.G.
I
r
r
------------
01 SITE PLAN (PAD "C77)
SGALE: I "=40'-O"
F:\DWGS\95164\95164V-1 03/28/96 18:04
PROJECT: PROJECT NO.
GRAPEVINE TOWNE HODGES & ASSOCIATES 95164
CENTER
architecture planning ing DATE:
G APEM 1 TfT� 13642 OMEGA DAUAS, TEXAS 75244-4514 04/01,96
MR
SHEET This document, whether in hard copy or machine readable'
format, is copyrighted and an instrument of Services in VARIANCE FOR PATIO FENCE HEIGHT INCREAE
respect Lo the project for which Et was preVared.
This document is not intended or authorized for reuse
by any parry on extensions of such project or any other
p—ject..ci- Any reuse, ecific ng copying and/or modifying LOT 9 (RETAIL PAD C )
the document, without written permission from Hodges & �% �%
Associate£ for the specific purpose intended is a violation
SITE PLAN of federal copyright law. Uand/o rizri use of this
material may result in civil cad/or criminal penalties-
OUTSIDE DISPLAY REOUIREMENTS:
1. No crated material allowed.
2. Maximum number of covered spas allowed two (2) each. All spa display structures
must include a spa.
3. Maximum number of displays:
(7) each spas, total is inclusive of covered spas.
(10) each barbeque grills
4. Outdoor patio furniture shall be displayed in a fashion similiar to a residential patio
and will not exceed a density level providing reasonable access throughout the
patio. OI/V-3
5. Merchandise to not be stacked, heaped or piled.
43'-5" f" 10'-7" 01-1"
Ir-lQ.
\,-O„/ \'-o
5\
20'—q"
in i - /.�
O
i
r
L
08
F \➢WGS\95164\95164V-2 04/08/96 1540
„1 \�- 2;
-o 111 a„
rJ'
OUTSIDE
off' j
\ -O PATIO
1 DISPLAY I I A/-3
I % SLOPE
y
N—
a,
^„ 51—Olt
2 -oil
PATIO PLAN
SCALE: 3/32"=1'-O"
o AREA
N 2R PATIO AREA: 1,2712 S.F.
r— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7
i F-
1
CONCRETE PATIO SLAB
TO BE 5" W/ #3 BARS
AT 18" O.G.E.W. ON SAND
CUSHION (TYP.)
PROJECT: PROJECT NO.: SHEET
GRAPEV]NEE TOWNE HODGES & ASSOCIATES 9264 v_2
CENTER architecture planning DATE:
C7)APEVESE, TEXAS M42 OMEGA DAM&% TEXAS 75244-4514 04/01/96 PATIO PLAN
OUTSIDE
PATIO
DISPLAY
AREA
0 6 8 II
-O
\-011
i
STOREFRONT DOORS BY
TENANT (N.I.G.), O.G. TO
VERIFY LOCATION WITH
OWNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION -
TAPER SLAB AT DOORS TO FINISH
FLOOR ELEVATION (TYP. ALL DOORS)
26-11"
12'-II"
WI
O
r
CONCRETE PATIO SLAB
TO BE 5" A/ #3 BARS
AT 15" O.G.E.W. ON SAND
CUSHION (T-rP.)
o�
PATIO AREA: 2,2cii5 S.F.
— — — — — — — — — — —
F-A -1
RETAIL "C"
This docament, whether in hard copy or machine readable
format, is copyrighted and an instrument of Services in
respect to the project for which it was prepo red.
This document is not intended or authorized far reuse
by any party on extensions of such project or any other
prcject- Any reuse, including copying and/or rnadifying
the document, without written permission Tram Hodges &
Associat- for the specie¢ purpose intended is a violation
of federal copyright law. Unauthorized use of this
material may result in civil and/or criminal penalties.
LATE TO BE SELF GLOSI N6
AND SELF LATGHIN6 N/
LATCH AT 4'-0" A.F.F.
(1 OF 3 TYP.)
VARIANCE FOR PATIO FENCE HEIGHT INCREA%
LOT 9 (RETAIL PAD "C")
I"xI" STL. TUBE,
TOP � BOTTOM, W/
5/8"x5/8" STL. TUBE
VERTICALLY @ 4" O.G, (MAX.)
F-13
GMU COLUMN
A -I
GAST STONE
GAP (TYP.)
11I1111ICI IIIl 11Il1(
iI'.'IJIII
\,
T1�1�_
-' -- -
: .. . - --- ---,
r\ I
11A PATIO FENCE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/2°=1'-0° TYPICAL AT COLUMN
STL. RAILING
(RE: I IA)
E
EDGE OF
SLAB
" y GAST STONE
1-0�" GAP (TYP.)
0.
1 ..
GONG.
PATIO
1IA
11B PATIO FENCE PLAN
SCALE: I/2"= I'-O" TYPICAL AT COLUMN
n
SPECIAL FENCE NOTATIONS:
I. CRIMP TOP OF PICKET TO MAKE HATER TIGHT.
2. GRIND ALL ROUGH EDGES SMOOTH.
3. FENGE 15 TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY AND STATE
ORDINANCES AND RESTRICTIONS CONGERNING
FENCE ENCLOSURES OF POOLS AND SPAS.
EXTERIOR SCHEDULE
MATERIAL INDEX
AO INDIGATE5 5PLIT FACE GMU
OB INDICATES SMOOTH FACE GMU
OG INDICATES SPLIT FACE GMU, THREE (5) SCORED
OD INDIGATE5 PYRAMID STYLE GLAZED GMU
INDICATES EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH (E.I.F.S.)
INDICATES STANDING SEAM MTL. ROOF, GALV. MTL.
GOPING GAP, STL. FENCE RAILING, ALUM. GRILLE, AND/OR
STL. GRILLE
O INDICATES GANVA5 AWNING
INDICATES ANOD. ALUM. STOREFRONT
COLOR INDEX
0 INTEGRAL COLOR GMU:
(FEATHERL I TE "LIMESTONE")
O2 BURGUNDY ACCENT COLOR, PAINT TO MATCH:
(BENJAMIN MOORE "#1267")
O3 BEIGE ACCENT COLOR, PAINT TO MATCH:
(SHERHIN HILLIAMS "FAUX MARBLE #2015")
4O FIELD COLOR, PAINT TO MATCH:
(5HERHIN HILLIAMS "MAISON BLANCHE #2067")
TEAL AGGENT COLOR, PAINT TO MATCH:
(SHERHIN HILLIAMS "OVERSEAS #23G8")
0 PYRAMID STYLE GLAZED 8xbx8 GMU, GOLOR TO MATCH:
(ASTRA-GLAZE "SOFT BEIGE")
O DARK NAVY BLUE CANVAS AHNING COLOR TO MATCH:
(SUNBRELLA "#5626 ")
8O TEAL CANVAS AWNING COLOR TO MATCH:
(SUNBRELLA "45706 ")
PURPLE CANVAS AHNING COLOR TO MATCH:
(SUNBRELLA "#863G ")
10 BURGUNDY CANVAS AHNING COLOR TO MATCH:
(SUNBRELLA "46155 ")
II PEACH CANVAS AWNING COLOR TO MATCH:
(D I GK50N ELBERT50N "#6417 ")
12 GOLD CANVAS AWNING COLOR TO MATCH:
(DICKSON ELBERT50N "#00349
13 DARK BRONZE COLOR, PAINT TO MATCH
(SHERHIN HILLIAMS CHIGKORI' #2035)
EXAMPLE: (= INDICATES A MATERIAL "E" (E.I.F.S.) HITH
COLOR "2" (BURGUNDY).
P\DWGS\95:64\95164V-3 03/29/96 12,29
PROJECT
GRAPEVINE TOWNE
PROJECT V0.
HODGES &ASSOCIATES
SHEET
\ /— ^
This document, whether in hard copy or machine read' ble
Tarmac. is ent is hted me an instrument of services n
respect to the project for which it was prepared.
This document is not intended or authorized for reuse
VARIANCE FOR PATIO FENCE HEIGHT INCREA�
CENTER
6
VT
architecture plan ni�ng
GATE:
,�$ 'J$zQ4-Qj14
V Vl
pr any party m extensions of such protect r any other
project. Any reuse, including copying and/or modifying
from Hodges o
the document, without written permission seintended
Associates for the specific purpose intended Is violation
n
LOT 9 (RETAIL PAD C )
GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
]�¢2 Qjt�,q ]�ATI AC,
04/01/1%
DETAM
of federal copyright :aw. Unauthorized use of this
material may result in civil and/or criminal penalties.
O
n o 0
I�IIIII t ifi�i
ai�----- IIIiiiii iii iiiii i�iii 111 iii11111111 i
01 PAD "C" - WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1 /8"=1'—O I"
FADWGS\95164\95164V-4 03/28/96 18;30
PROJECT: PROJECT NO.
GRAPEVINE TOWNE xoDGEs & Assoc�TEs
SHEET
A
Tnis document, whether in hard copy or machine readable +
Format, is copyrighted and cn instrument of Sewices in I
respect to the s nott for which it was izefor
_by document is not intended or authorized far reuse
+
VARIANCE FOR PATIO FENCE EIGHT INCREAE-
CENTECENTER
R t,A
f/K►�1C���
7J1V7-�
architecture planning
DATE:
'TEXAS
by any party on extensions of such project or any other
project. Any reuse, including copying and/or endges
the document, without written permission from Hodges &
Associates for the specific purpose intended is a violation
LOT 9 (RETAIL PAD �C�)
�Q �M+
13642 OMEGA DALLAS, 75244-4514
wom
ELEVATION
of federal copyright law. Unauthorized use of this
■i
material may result in civil and/or criminal pernities.
0 0 OA
O
04 PAD "C" - SOUTH ELEVATION
F\DWGS\95164\95164V-5 03/28/96 18:01
PROJECT: PROJECT NO
GRAPEVINE TOWNE HODGES & ASSOCIATES 9264
CE�1�17rrt,+D architecture plc`1i1ning DATE:
G ll+il S 13642 OMEGA DALLAS, TEXAS 75244-4514 04/01,96
//,
II II
II II
IN
"K..
I �
f
NX
SHEET Tnis document, whether in hard copy or machine readably
format, is copyrighted and an instrument of or resin VARIANCE FOR PATIO FENCE HEIGHT INCREA�
spec' to the project for which it was prepared.
f
This document is not intended or authorized for reuse
V—� by any arty on extensiors of such project or any other
project. Any reuse, including copying antl/or modifying LOT 9 (RETAIL PAD �C�)
the doc men', without written permission from Hodges &
Associates '.or the specific purpose intended is a violation
ELEVATION of federal copyright low. Unauthorized use of leis
material may result in civil and/or criminal penalties.
1
�I
'MEMORANDUM
MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIAL /V'-'
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #BBA96-05
CENCOR REALTY SERVICES, SUBMITTED BY DAVID WATSON
MONDAY, MAY 13, 1996
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Building Board of Appeals consider the request to City Code
of Ordinances, Chapter 7, Article IV, Fences, for Lot 9, Block 1, Towne Center
Addition 11 and addressed as 1417 West State Highway 114, Grapevine, Texas as
follows:
1. Section 7-127(a), FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS.
(a) CORNER LOTS:
It shall be unlawful to erect a fence in the required front yard building
setback area or the established front yard area, whichever area is greater
in depth, on any corner lot, except along the interior lot line in
accordance with subsection (b).
(b) Interior Lots:
(1) It shall be unlawful to erect a fence, hedge or vines over thirty-six
(36) inches in height in the required front yard area or the
established front yard area, whichever area is greater in depth, on
any interior lot.
(2) It shall be unlawful to erect a fence, hedge or vines in the required
front yard area or the established front yard area, whichever area
is greater in depth, on any interior lot that does not have at least
fifty (50) per cent through vision.
(3) It shall be unlawful to maintain a fence, hedge, or vines in the
required front yard area or an established front yard area,
whichever area is greater in depth, of an interior lot in a manner
that does not permit at least fifty (50) per cent through vision.
(4) For the purpose of this section, "established front yard area" shall
mean an open, unoccupied space on a lot facing a street and
extending across the front of a lot between the side yard lines and
extending from the abutting street a principal building or structure.
The phrase "required front yard" shall have the meaning ascribed
to it in the Grapevine Zoning Ordinance No. 82-73.
The proposed variance
masonry column fence i
shown on the site plan.
through vision.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
would allow a 6'4" high wrought iron and
n the required and established front yard as
The fence would have fifty (50) per cent
An application was submitted to the Department of Development Services by Mr.
David Watson representing Cencor Realty Services. The site plan was approved at
the April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning/Council Meeting contingent upon the approval
of the fence variance.
0ABBA196-05.4
-------- 571
4 . `.. ?8
`Q IOLLAErE 8
,3 Sr
-t,
L OR
soli
- 23 "cr 14, —J.
RAPEaVINE P4 I i 1 z
0-FORD DA ..9l-03
C-6AR4Z87to 0.
2_0
PICD
-
ER
i-: i �-
SU89-02
cuag-07
C 4 U9 -30
CU9 5 -04
S 95- 1 041 EATO.
R
1z:
U92- 6 _VD i3
Z87-0 jmr
8 AC.
4 -01
2
C J#
a--3s
---------- �=-
17
{RA E. WOODS AVE.
CUAL is
cuss-3$
3-o5 c
Ic
I BBA 96-05
95 89 CENCOR REALTY SERVICES !x
7
CU92-23
Z9�_09 13 2
CC
po
CU94-31
Y CU956
89 1AV CU94-39
,a
CU95-16
Cug -03
c I at. kF
cc cJJJ
011k CU91 -1 Z87-it 01
3 23
CII-07 VR c
CU94-31 S 22
i m CU95-02 —2.
-22
J � F05ircY y� zs.� a �/ i V 5 p� 3 , ,s , „ =�� m
CU92-23 93-9
CC 71 A G
89 T i 88
1�.
qyt9 Sr
y
L K I
7 cues- 10
CU93-o2
9ppyC\C Z83-0
CA0
CU95-15 cug 08 CU-93-10 47�1,--rej
c
GF Ix
1 3
A2
9.0
CU92-16 _`66 I c cuag-lo CU87-07 31 1 5 1 1 J{
cug 1 CU95 HC
HC
Po
puR n
CU92-01 180
e-3 CU94-1 5 - - —
C
CU94 -02 U93-14
CU93 CU94-36 CU92-2 -09 CU94-0HC
CU94-11 CU92:::""��
egg
GU cc
94
Z89-11 CU94-26
SO
7600 t AC. \4 CU94-10
Z92-04
CU94-25
CU95-18
IDF
U�4-12 �CU94-2
CU94_12
AGENDA
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, JANUARY 15, 1996 AT 6:30 P.M.
307 WEST DALLAS ROAD, ROOM #205
GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. OATH OF OFFICE
III. OATH OF TRUTH
t
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC
HEARING RELATIVE TO BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE
95-05, SUBMITTED BY GEORGE FROST AND CONSIDERATION
OF THE SAME
V. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSION
VI. MINUTES
A. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS TO CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF
THE NOVEMBER 13, 1995 MEETING
V. ADJOURNMENT
IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THIS PUBLIC MEETING AND YOU HAVE A DISABILITY
THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS AT THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFFICES AT 817/481-0363 OR 817/481-0377.
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS WILL BE MADE TO ASSIST YOUR NEEDS.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551.001 ET SEQ.
ACTS OF THE 1993 TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 12TH DAY OF
JANUARY, 1996 AT 5:00 P.M.
UI,�DING OFFICIAL
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OFTARRANT
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
The Building Board of Appeals for the City of Grapevine, Texas, met in regular
session, Monday, January 15, 1996, at 6:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers, Room
#205, 307 West Dallas Road, Grapevine, Texas with the hollowing members present:
Joe Lipscomb
Chairman
Art Gordon
Member
Greg Czapanskiy
Member
Russell Kidd
1 st Alternate
constituting a quorum. Also present were Councilman Gil Traverse and the following
City Staff:
Scott !^!illiams Building Official
Kelly Doughty Building Inspection Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Joe Lipscomb called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.
NEW BUSINESS
BBA95-05 - GEORGE FROST
The first item for the Building Board of Appeals to consider was BBA95-05 submitted
by Mr. George Frost who requested a variance for the property located at Lot 2, Block
4; J.J. Daniel Addition and addressed as 1100 South Main Street. The request is to
the City of Grapevine Code of Ordinances as follows:
Section 7-127(B)(1), FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS.
(b) Interior Lots:
(1) It shall be unlawful to erect a fence, hedge or vines over thirty-six (36)
in in height in the required front yard area or the established front
yard area, whichever area is greater in depth, on any interior lot.
The variance request is to allow a fence exceeding thirty-six (36) inches
in height to encroach the thirty (30) foot required front yard as shown
on the plot plan, and if approved, would allow a six (6) foot high wood
fence with a zero (0) foot setback from the front property line.
BBA MINUTES
1 /15/96
(2) It shall be unlawful to erect a fence, hedge or vines in the required front
yard area or the established front yard area, whichever area is greater in
depth, on any interior lot that does not have at least fifty (50) per cent
through vision.
The variance request is to allow a fence to be erected with less than fifty
(50) per cent through vision in the required thirty (30) foot front yard as
shown on the plot plan.
An application was submitted to the Department of Development Services by Mr.
George M. Frost representing T.U. Electric for the structure located at 1100 South
Main Street. The location of the fence will allow additional protected off street
parking for T.U. Electric.
Scott Williams, Building Official, explained the details of the request. George Frost
was present to speak for the request.
Mr. Frnst submitted photographs to the Board and explained his case to the Board.
He requested extension of the existing wooden fence out to the edge of the property.
The chainlink fence would be moved out to the property line along Airline Drive. This
would provide additional parking for T.U. Electric and their vehicles that would relieve
pressure along the front of the property for the other tenants.
The board was concerned about sight visibility with the requested wooden fence.
Mr. Frost replied that the fence extension did not necessarily have to be wood. If the
board preferred, he could use chainlink in that area.
Mr. Williams noted that to the north of the subject property there is an apartment
complex, to the south is a single family residence. Mr. Williams indicated a concern
for visibility, as the residence had a driveway immediately adjacent to the property line
where the fence will be extended.
Mr. Frost replied that tenants of the apartment complex generally park to the rear of
the property, .accessing from Daniel Street, so there should be no visibility problem
with the apartments. Potentially, it could create problems with the single family
residence. Mr. Frost stated he had spoke with Mr. Thompson, owner of the single
family residence and he was not against the request.
Sonny Rhodes, Manager of T.U. Electric, was also present to speak regarding the
case. Mr. Rhodes indicated that the fence was required for security. There is
2
BBA MINUTES
1/15/96
currently marked parking that is not fenced for security. The fence was built originally
in 1981 and upgraded about three years ago.
Board members asked Mr. Rhodes if he felt the chain link fence would provide
adequate security.
Mr. Rhodes replied there is a guard at the top of the existing fence for security.
Although chainlink does.not block total visiblity, he does not have a problem with it.
A board member noted that chainlink with three strands of barbed wire would offer
better security than a wood fence.
Mr. Williams clarified that in order for any type of barbed wire or razor wire- to be
placed on the new fence, a separate variance would be required.
Mr. Rhodes responded that it is necessary that they have the barbed wire due to
the serious security problem.
Gil Traverse asked Mr. Williams if the request should be tabled or partially granted.
Mr. Williams answered that there is no fee for the request and there would no problem
with getting on the agenda for the next meeting, provided the current request was
granted.
With no one else to speak for or against the request, Greg Czpanskiy motioned to
close. Russell Kidd seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Lipscomb, Czapanskiy, Gordon, and Kidd
Nays: None
Absent: Long, Roberts, and Smith
After discussion, Greg Czapanskiy moved, with a second by Art Gordon, to grant the
variance to the City of Grapevine Code of Ordinances, Chapter 7, Article IV for Lot
2, Block 4, J.J. Daniels Addition and addressed as 1100 South Main Street allowing
a chain link fence exceeding thirty six (36) inches in height to encroach the thirty (30)
foot required front yard setback as shown on the plot plan. The second request was
denied to decrease the fifty (50) percent through vision.
Ayes: Lipscomb, Czapanskiy, Gordon, and Kidd
Nays: None
Absent: Long, Roberts, and Smith
3
BBA MINUTES
1 /15/96
MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSION
The car wash located at 214 West Northwest Highway was demolished by the City.
MINUTES
The .Building Board of Appeals considered the minutes of the November 13, 1995
meeting.. Art Gordon.mo.tioned to approve the minutes of the November 13, 1995
meeting. Greg Czapanskiy seconded the motion which prevailed by the following
vote:
Ayes: Lipscomb, Czapanskiy, Gordon, and Kidd
Nays: None
Absent: Roberts, Long, and Smith
ADJOURNMENT
With no further discussion, Art Gordon made a motion to adjourn. Russell Kidd
seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Lipscomb, Czapanskiy, Gordon, and Kidd
Nays: None
Absent: Roberts, Long, and Smith
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF
GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 1996
SECRETARY
wlbbalmin jan
N
APPROVED:
r Zl r
HRMAN
AGENDA
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MONDAY EVENING, MAY 13, .1996, AT 6:30 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM, #204
307 WEST DALLAS ROAD
GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
1. CALL TO ORDER
if. OATH OF TRUTH
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC
HEARING RELATIVE TO BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE
96-05, FOR CENCOR REALTY SERVICES, SUBMITTED BY DAVID
WATSON AND CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME.
B. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC
HEARING RELATIVE TO BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE
96-06, FOR COUNTER DEVELOPMENT CORP, SUBMITTED BY
CHARLES JOWELL AND CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSION
V. MINUTES
A. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS TO CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF
THE APRIL 8, 1996 MEETING
VI. ADJOURNMENT
IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THIS PUBLIC MEETING AND YOU HAVE A DISABILITY
THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS AT THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFFICES AT 817/481-0363 OR 817/481-0377.
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS WILL BE MADE TO ASSIST YOUR NEEDS.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551.001 ET SEQ.
ACTS OF THE 1993 TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 10TH DAY OF
MAY, 1996 AT 5:00 P.M.
BUILD( 3 OFFICIAL
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TARRANT
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
The Building Board of Appeals for the City of Grapevine, Texas, met in regular
session, Monday, May 13, at 6:30 P.M., in the Conference Room, Room #204, 307
West Dallas Road, Grapevine, Texas with the following members present:
Dennis Roberts Acting -Chairman
Greg Czapanskiy Member
Catherine Cotter Smith Member
Russell Kidd 1 st Alternate
constituting a quorum with council representative Roy Stewart. Also present was the
following City Staff:
Scott Williams Building Official
Kelly Prater Building Inspection Secretary
Acting -Chairman Dennis Roberts called the meeting to order at 6:35 P.M.
The first item for the Building Board of Appeals to consider was BBA96-05 submitted
by Mr. David Watson representing Cencor Realty Services who requested a variance
for the property located at Lot 9, Block 1, Towne Center Addition II and addressed
as 1419 West State Highway 114. The request was to the City of Grapevine Code
of Ordinances as follows:
Section 7-127(a), FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS.
(a) CORNER LOTS:
It shall be unlawful to erect a fence in the required front yard building setback
area or the established front yard area, whichever area is greater in depth, on
any corner lot, except along the interior lot line in accordance with subsection
(b).
(b) Interior Lots:
(1) It shall be unlawful to erect a fence, hedge or vines over thirty-six (36)
inches in height in the required front yard area or the established front
BBA MINUTES
5/13/96
yard area, whichever area is greater in depth, on any interior lot.
(2) It shall be unlawful to erect a fence, hedge or vines in the required front
yard area or the established front yard area, whichever area is greater
in depth, on any interior lot that does not have at least fifty (50) per
cent through vision.
(3) It shall be unlawful to maintain a fence, hedge, or vines in the required
front yard area or an established front yard area, whichever area is
greater in depth, of an interior lot in a manner that does not permit at
least fifty (50) per cent through vision.
(4) For the purpose of this section, "established front yard area" shall mean
an open, unoccupied space on a lot facing a street and extending across
the front of a lot between the side yard lines and extending from the
abutting street a principal building or structure. The phrase "required
front yard" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in the Grapevine Zoning
Ordinance No. 82-73.
The proposed variance would allow a 6'4" high wrought iron and masonry column
fence in the required and established front yard as shown on the site plan. The fence
would have fifty (50) per cent through vision.
Scott Williams, Building Official, explained the details of the request and added the
fence is basically intended to enclose a display area for barbeques and spas. The site
plan, including the fence, has been approved by City Council pending approval of this
variance. The applicant, David Watson, was in the audience to speak for the request.
Mr. Watson explained that due to the demographic profile of Grapevine, there has
been a surge in the interest of more specialty type retailers. The new buildings are
going to be nicer and more intricate in design to attract specialty type retailers to this
shopping center. Two specialty retailers, Barbecues Galore and Coleman Garden
Rooms, will be occupying pad "c." Barbecues Galore will sell everything associated
with cooking out. Coleman Garden Rooms will sell indoor/outdoor furniture as well
as spas. Although Spas generally produce a negative connotation, these spas are
very high quality with prices starting at $5,000. In order for retailers to display their
inventory, some security must be provided. Mr. Watson added that a lot of time and
effort was spent in designing an attractive fence to match the architectural integrity
of the building. The split -faced block is the pilaster support of the fence. The fence
is scalloped at the top consistent with the scalloped awnings on top of the building.
2
BBA MINUTES
5/13/96
The slats comply with the code so children can not slip between them and are pointed
at the top to discourage people from going over them. Mr. Watson showed a
rendering of the proposed building and fence.
With no one else to speak for or against the request, Russell Kidd motioned to close
the public hearing. Greg Czapanskiy seconded the motion which prevailed by the
following vote:
Ayes: Roberts, Czapanskiy, Smith, and Kidd
Nays: None
Absent: Lipscomb, Gordon, and Long
After discussion, Greg Czapanskiy moved, with a second by Catherine Smith, to grant
the variance to the City of Grapevine Code of Ordinances, Chapter 7, Article IV for
Lot 9, Block 1, Towne Center Addition II and addressed as 1419 West State Highway
114 allowing a 6'4" high wrought iron and masonry column fence in the required and
established front yard as shown on the site plan. The motion prevailed by the
following vote:
Ayes: Roberts; Czapanskiy, Smith, and Kidd
Nays: None
Absent: Lipscomb, Gordon, and Long
The next item for the Building Board of Appeals to consider was BBA96-06 submitted
by Mr. Charles Jowell representing Counter Development Corporation who requested
a variance for the property located at Lot 12, Block 1, Wood Creek Estates Addition
and addressed as 1406 Rio Bend Court. The request was to the City of Grapevine
Code of Ordinances as follows:
Section 7-127(a), FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS.
(a) CORNER LOTS:
It shall be unlawful to erect a fence in the required front yard building setback
area or the established front yard area, whichever area is greater in depth, on
any corner lot, except along the interior lot line in accordance with subsection
(b).
(b) Interior Lots:
3
BBA MINUTES
5/13/96
(1) It shall be unlawful to erect a fence, hedge or vines over thirty-six (36)
inches in height in the required front yard area or the established front
yard area, whichever area is greater in depth, on any interior lot.
(2) It shall be unlawful to erect a fence, hedge or vines in the required front
yard area or the established front yard area, whichever area is greater
in depth, on any interior lot that does not have at least fifty (50) per
cent through vision.
(3) It shall be unlawful to maintain a fence, hedge, or vines in the required
front yard area or an established front yard area, whichever area is
greater in depth, of an interior lot in a manner that does not permit at
least fifty (50) per cent through vision.
(4) For the purpose of this section, "established front yard area" shall mean
an open, unoccupied space on a lot facing a street and extending across
the front of a lot between the side yard lines and extending from the
abutting street a principal building or structure. The phrase "required
front yard" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in the Grapevine Zoning
Ordinance No. 82-73.
The proposed variance would allow a masonry fence 6'6" tall with 7'6" high columns
and less than 50% through vision to be erected in the required and established front
yard as shown on the site plan.
Mr. Williams explained the details of the request and added the variance request is
for a "subdivision screening wall," which is very similar to several requests the Board
has approved in the past. Staff is working on modifying the fence ordinance so that
variances will not be required for these types of screening walls in the future. The
City of Grapevine Public Works Department reviewed the plans and determined that
this fence will not pose a visibility problem to traffic. Mr. Jowell was present to
speak for the request.
Charles Jowell explained the request and added the exact fence design had been
placed in compliance with the code on the south side. The purpose of the variance
was to balance the entrance to the subdivision. He also noted he would answer any
other questions relative to the request.
Mr. Williams noted to the Board that the Fence on the south side did not require a
variance because it was placed entirely in the side yard. The subject fence is in the
In
BBA MINUTES
5/13/96
front yard.
With no one else to speak for or against the request, Greg Czapanskiy motioned to
close the public hearing. Russell Kidd seconded the motion which prevailed by the
following vote:
Ayes: Roberts, Czapanskiy, Smith, and Kidd
Nays: None
Absent: Lipscomb, Gordon, and Long
After discussion, Catherine Smith moved, with a second by Russell Kidd, to grant the
variance to the City of Grapevine Code of Ordinances, Chapter 7, Article IV for Lot
12, Block 1, Wood Creek Estates and addressed as 1406 Rio Bend Court allowing a
masonry fence 6'6" tall with 7'6" high columns and less than 50% through vision to
be erected in the required and established front yard as shown on the site plan.
Ayes: Roberts, Czapanskiy,, Smith, and Kidd
Nays: None
Absent: Lipscomb, Gordon, and Long
Mr. Williams introduced Roy Stewart, newly elected Councilman, to the Building
Board of Appeals. Mr. Stewart joined City Council last meeting.
The Building Board of Appeals considered the minutes of the April 8, 1996 meeting.
Russell Kidd motioned to approve the minutes of the April 8, 1996 meeting.
Catherine Smith seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Roberts, Czapanskiy, Smith, and Kidd
Nays: None
Absent: Lipscomb, Gordon, and Long
With no further discussion, Greg Czapanskiy made a motion to adjourn. Catherine
Smith seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Roberts, Czapanskiy, Smith, and Kidd
5
BBA MINUTES
5/13/96
Nays: None
Absent: Lipscomb, Gordon, and Long
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 P.M.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF
GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 1996
APPROVED:
ZHA I R M�A
S CRET
03-25-1996 10:43AM FROM Grapevine Comm.Dev. TO 92149601129 P.02
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICANT
NAME: Cencor Realty Services, Attention: David Watson
ADDRESS: 3102 Maple Ave., #500, Dallas, Texas 75201
PHONE NO: HOME OFFICE 214/954-0300
PROPERTY OWNERIS)
NAME: Grapevine/Tate Joint Venture; c/o Cencor Realty Services
ADDRESS:
3102 Maple Avenue,
Suite 500,
Dallas, Texas 75201
PHONE NO:
HOME
n/a
OFFICE 214/45Lc-ninn
ADDRESS. AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH APPEAL IS REQUESTED;
1117 State Highway 114 West, Lot 9, Block 1, Towne Center Addition No. 2
SPECIFIC NATURE OF APPEAL:
Variance to section 7-127. 0)) _ 11 i of Lhf2 and i nan ro al l n- fan— 1,a4,3lit of 4,1—/,11
STATE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE APPEAL AND EXPLAIN HOW A HARDSHIP WOULD BE CREATED IF
THE APPEAL IS NOT GRANTED. EXPLAIN HOW YOUR SITUATION IS PECULIAR TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES CONTEMPLATED BY THE ORDINANCE AND ATTACH DRAWINGS NECESSARY TO
HELP EXPLAIN THE CASE TO THE BOARD. (YOU DO NOT NEED TO ATTACH THE SAME DRAWINGS
AS ATTACHED TO YOUR APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WILL
PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH THOSE RECORDS).
The tenants to occupy the patio, Barbeques Galore and Coleman Bright Ideas
for Your Home, are concerned about product security and vandalism to their
products by having a low fence on the front yard of the property.
David Watson
int ype)
APPLICAN 'S SIGNATURE,
Grapevine Tate Joint Venture
O NER (Print or Type)
OWNED' GNATURE
xrtnn 1)r- - or, eV.0W) t o d4 COMMUNICATION No :48 PAGE-2