The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBBA2001-0005April 10, 2001 Daniel M. and Lisa M. Goodwin 1704 Jenson Road Ft. Worth, Texas 76112 RE: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #BBA01-05 2412 LOS ROBLES DRIVE Dear Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin, On April 9, 2001, the Building Board of Appeals approved BBA01-05, for 2412 Los Robles Drive, platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Rockbridge Addition. The request was from the Grapevine Code of Ordinances as follows: Section 7-127, Fences, front yard requirements prohibits fences in the required or established front yard from exceeding three feet in height. The Board voted to allow fences in the required and established front yard to exceed three feet in height, and in some cases, to have less than 50% through vision, with the elimination of the words "or equivalent" as shown on the plot plan. A copy of the 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 Gerrie Anderson at 817-410-3158. Thank you, Scott Williams Development Services Assistant Director/Building Official SW/ga 0:1BBA10105-5 N | !/ omxwew/unnwE _____----_-----_- ----`� upRIwG*uumvp ---------' - �--- --l— ---- -7� ------- ' ' '' | ! �—'- - --- -----�------7-----�F-- . '. . . . , | | | -- __ . / -- / u^��u�� | __�� PLANK FENCE 8mum, PLANK 'E"'.7i RC*ECtff TERRACE ES TI < 227,242 SQUARE FEET 5.217 ACRES 12' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT VOL - 6617. PG- 635 F ALLOWABLE 6' BLACK CHAIN LINK FENCE WROUGHT 12' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT PROPOSED 6 PCXNTOF POINT OF VOL. 6817, PG 635 IRON RLACK CHAIN LJXX D.R.T.C.T EQUIVALENT OR 12' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT VOL. 6617. .� | BENCHMARK: CG-27W-2 CHISELED SQUAK NORTH SIDE OF TIMBERLINE DRIVE 220 DRIVE AND HERITAGE AVENUE. BY: DANIEL & LU FORT WOML (817)42 SPRINGHILL DRIVE - -- - - -- - - - - _ SPRINGHILL DMVE - -- — - -- - -- - - - - jis ' PERMITTED B' - HARDY PLANK FENCE 8' HARDY PLANK FENCE- - (BBA REQUEST) ROSECLIFF TERRACE ' — -� - - " V r. 55 54 _ _ I _ nr -F .ti ti. �•.va � I z o Z v, Q j� 4 ALLOWABLE 6' BLACK—.. CHAIN LINK FENCE `I PROPOSED G' FROUCHT IRON, BLACK CHAIN LINT[ OR EQUIVALENT I{I O'er - '�..� W ' E 2.396.9 nq �•-y - IL ti .T NCHMARK� RE NNOORTTH SDE COF TIMBERLIE�DRIECHISEDm220' DRIVEAND HERITAGE AVENUE. S ®WaM/D�e.®IM BY: ��DANML & US. AIAA 1704 DIENS(. FORT WORTH, (817) 4Z S" )�336 O/- bS CITY OF GRAPEVINE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICANT NAME: JDA t-�- L0r c� � �r s � wt - ��004 ADDRESS: / Z a 4 5v I Iz-v) - F*- _ olo I I-(- r T-;c• 76 I1 -e PHONE NO: HOME t ? -VS7" q ct Z�-3 OFFICE PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: G ADDRESS: PHONE NO: HOME OFFICE ADDRESS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH APPEAL IS REQUESTED: :,// Las 20L(L—s a / r_�• r 7 �Cr'o_% r ��iJG�lJs-�� I CI"�c-�� SPECIFIC NATURE OF APPEAL: l r 7 ��fi1/_ � � lip g G•l"�--�-c..� f v� ��r�� , t��-�rl�ur�, i�i4.•�� 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). APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTED TO ATTEND MEETING �,'4ald-- L 4, 6c,)0-w ,�j APPLICANT (Print or Type) OWNER (Print or Type) l7Dc7l2w e "4) APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE OWNER'S SIGNATURE MEMORANDUM MEMO TO FROM BUILDING INSPECTIONS BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIAL (� SUBJECT BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #BBA01-05 DANIEL M. & LISA M. GOODWIN 2412 LOS ROBLES DRIVE MEETING DATE: APRIL 9, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Building Board of Appeals deny the request to City of Grapevine Code of Ordinances, Chapter 7, Article IV, Section 7-127 for property addressed as 2412 Los Robles Drive, platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Rockbridge Addition, Grapevine, Texas as follows: Section 7-127, Fences, front yard requirements prohibits fences in the required or established front yard from exceeding three feet in height. This section also requires fences in the required or established front yard to have at least 50% through vision. The request is to allow fences in the required and established front yard to exceed three feet in height, and in some cases, to have less than 50% through vision, as shown on the plot plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: An application was submitted to the Department of Development Services by Matt Goodwin, the property owner. Mr. Goodwin wishes to construct his own single family residence on the property. BBA/0105-4 �eee.e—eiw.e� � 4 a i /� e t ■ ° i � 1 e 4 a j+I j` 4 a f °E a 0• ■ 7 �w a C 44 ■ +• s t7 1 a ,= - is I 3 I i 3 4 i =.. Rl+y }F tt t■ I 4 U 11 I K I 0 tf u 111 a r a a 7• b i a ■■ s{ a 4 pia 4 a a I I ` I 7 a / tr is .0 1 • a a f /141i ■ 3 a ■ u u u u 11 � ,a ...... JI .. 75 s a a r o n y I GU Z9 -m :-:::::: ,w,w ................ .........................••_-•.- MUM 93 r� 1 Q , Pr't' N A00 14 GNURPN M� ,474r , a ■ Z a ,af■ 4 Mars ° rr1 f BBA01-05 1 " = 200' DANIEL M. & LISA M. GOOD IN 2412 LOS ROBLES DRIVE Sec. 7-127. 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 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 50 percent 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 50 percent 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 to 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. (Ord. No. 72-7, § 8, 2-15-72; Ord. No. 88-84, § 1, 12-6-88 G®®DWINZ CIVIL ENGINEERS — PLANNERS — SURVEYORS ?l T Al][ S H[AAL L= March 12, 2001 City of Grapevine Building Board of Appeals c/o Mr. Scott Williams City of Grapevine P.O. Box 95104 Grapevine, Texas 76099 RE: Variance from Section 127-b, Grapevine Code Lot 1, Block 1 of the Rockbridge Addition, Grapevine, Texas (2412 Los Robles) Honorable Members of the City of Grapevine Building Board of Appeals: I would like to officially request a variance from the City of Grapevine Code Section 127-b as relates to fence and vegetative materials within the "front yard" of a lot. Attached is a plan of the proposed lot. As is evident, the lot is far from typical and consists of a fill in piece of property west of existing Los Robles Estates and south of Heatherwilde. To the south of the property is a large tract owned by Memorial Baptist Church which is planned for ball fields. I would like to stress that I intend on constructing a single residential dwelling to be occupied by my family on the lot in question. I am requesting the following fence variances for the lot: 1) 8' Hardi-Plank fence adjacent to a portion of Heatherwilde Addition - The majority of the proposed wall has been permitted. However, the easternmost section was not issued a permit due to staff interpretation of the front yard. This section of the proposed wall is adjacent to the rear lot lines of the development to the north. These lots maintain a variety of screening materials varying from old cedar to wrought iron to railroad retaining walls with no fence at all. The adjacent lots maintain gates which are currently used to access my lot. I have witnessed people passing from the north on to my lot on numerous occasions. The requested wall is essential to the ability to maintain safety for both my family as well as the public. 2) 6' Wrought Iron or Black Chain Link fence adjacent to the east property line - This fence is intended for future construction and shall only be built if determined to be necessary. 3) Split Rail and Brick Column Fence at Entry - As can be seen on the enclosed display, there is an extreme drop off adjacent to the entry drive. The proposed fence is intended to guide vehicular traffic into the lot and across the proposed bridge (which has been approved by public works and the fire department) safely, particularly at night. 6001 BRIDGE STREET, SUITE 100 / FORT WORTH, TExas 761 12 / 817-429-4373 (METRO) / 817-446-31 16 (Fax) Building Board of Adjustments March 12, 2001 Page 2 of 2 4) 6' Wrought Iron or Black Chain Link Fence South of Entry - This fence is to be tied into the allowable fence adjacent to the south property line. The owner of the land adjacent to the south property line intends on constructing a park to include several ball fields, etc. The proposed fence is necessary to insure that the public does not enter the subject property from the public use area. 5) Entry Gate - The residential dwelling is intended to be situated several hundred feet from the end of Los Robles Drive. There is no visibility to the proposed residential dwelling from the public street. Uncontrolled entry would allow for possible crime and vandalism, particularly when the dwelling is unoccupied. The only access is through a long private driveway. Securing the entry via a controlled gate access would prohibit the general public from assuming that the driveway is a continuation of Los Robles Drive, thereby providing for the safety of the general public as well as my family. The controlled access gate has been coordinated with public works and the fire department. In addition, I request the ability to plant various forms of trees and shrubs in excess of 36 inches in all areas adjacent to the proposed fence exceptions. I believe that the variances requested are essential to the ability to utilize the subject property. Without the variances the public will be able to access the property at will from all sides, leading to a danger to the public as well as my family. Every day I encounter the general public on -site. People have been witnessed entering the property from all of the locations as discussed. Finally, without the granted appeal I would not be able to allow my dog to run free on the majority of my property. The liability issues relative to him jumping a three foot fence and having access to neighborhood children would be unacceptable. If the appeal is not granted, I believe it is impossible to utilize the subject tract for a single family dwelling. I look forward to discussing these items with you on April 9. Sincerely, y� c /moo ;" D. Matthew Goodwin, P.E. DMG/j c U) F- Z d J 0 V w d �J U) 1a Q J Lr) v �r m Q N N r` (n LD m N m m Nro +IORIZONTAL TRIM 2xb CAT' 1xb Wk7REZONT.4L TRINE — 2x& CAP - - S' OR 10' WIDE VERTICALS s (5TAINED WARD) -PLANK OR EQUAL) I 2x4 TREATED tllL RAILS I I } • I I '� . i 1 I SUTT44 lNDUs-MA" APP,710*4 X -- METAL POST r I I• � I ry Ixb "ORIZONTA- TRIM I I I I I Ili — I III 11 ICI II 11 I i � l I I I i I n �* •i I �, I I Ixb WORIZCNTAL T•RiM I II II II II II If II II II II II II I I LJ CONCRETE FOOTING, I I E I LJ L-J METAL MOST -- I I per. ,ti j� • ~ ' 41�.%^ _�` .w. `0 e•* rt IJi 1 I it 1 �11jjjj� I i 111 y� Milt -..1. = ! 1 I 4 i l .�.11I....^. ,1r1. I i •___i t �_-:-� 1 t_�-1 i I--i k 1=--1 f �_..:� I I'===1 . h ro.P m N m n rn I -"nMo A a2lrMT7-, tiv -a�lr��a! dzw►xa �v ol.'•s1.s�7a I ill � I I OQnL rvJI ot:2;Z ..--- i ' Gii3x71J ro'ai'�i,•W� � I i � �- 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, April 9, 2001, at 6:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas with the following members present: Joe Lipscomb Chairman Dennis Roberts Member Charles Bloomberg Member Dan Banse Member Dennis Nivens Member constituting a quorum with Members Art Gordon and Russell Kidd absent. Also present were City Council Representative Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Building Official Gerrie Anderson Development Services Assistant CALL TO ORDER Chairman Joe Lipscomb called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. NEW BUSINESS BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE BBA01-05, 2412 LOS ROBLES DRIVE. DANIEL M. AND LISA M. GOODWIN The first item of business was for the Building Board of Appeals to consider Building Board of Appeals Cases BBA01-05, submitted by Daniel M. and Lisa M. Goodwin for property located at 2412 Los Robles Drive, and platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Rockbridge Addition. The following request was to Grapevine Code of Ordinances, Chapter 7, Article IV: Section 7-127, Fences, front yard requirements prohibits fences in the required or established front yard from exceeding three feet in height. This section also requires fences in the required or established front yard to have at least 50% through vision. Mr. Williams explained that the request was to allow fences in the required and established front yard to exceed three feet in height, and in some cases, to have less than 50% through vision, as shown on the plot plan. Building Board of Appeals April 9, 2001 Mr. Williams explained that Staff recommended denial of the request. Matt Goodwin, applicant, explained that his property was surrounded by Heatherwilde to the north and Memorial Baptist Church to the south. He explained the location of the fence around the property. Mr. Bloomberg asked if the request would be prohibited due to the floodway limitation in relation to the creek. Mr. Williams said the request was taken to Public Works and they would be required to sign off before the issuance of a fence permit. Chairman Lipscomb was concerned about the wording on the site plan that stated `proposed 6' wrought iron, black chain link, or equivalent'. Mr. Lipscomb asked Mr. Goodwin what he proposed to construct. Mr. Goodwin explained that he would probably use wrought iron on the north and chain link on south but he thought he could remove the words 'or equivalent'. With no one else to speak regarding the request, Dan Banse made a motion to close the public hearing. Charles Bloomberg seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Lipscomb, Roberts, Nays: None Absent: Gordon, Kidd Bloomberg, Banse, Nivens Dan Banse then made a motion to approve the request to Section 7-127, allowing fences in the required and established front yard to exceed three feet in height, and in some cases, to have less than 50% through vision, as shown on the plot plan and to eliminate the words 'or equivalent' regarding the type of fence to be used. Charles Bloomberg seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Lipscomb, Roberts, Bloomberg, Banse, Nivens Nays: None Absent: Gordon, Kidd STAFF REPORTS Mr. Williams informed the Board that the City had issued almost as many commercial/industrial/office/warehouse permits as were issued all last year. He also informed the Board of Opryland's progress. 2 Building Board of Appeals April 9, 2001 MINUTES Next the Building Board of Appeals considered the minutes of the March 12, 2001, meeting. Dan Banse made a motion to approve the minutes, of the March 12, 2001, meeting. Charles Bloomberg seconded the motion, which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Roberts, Bloomberg, Banse, Nivens Nays: None Abstain: Lipscomb Absent: Gordon, Kidd ADJOURNMENT With no further discussion, Dennis Roberts made a motion to adjourn. Charles Bloomberg seconded the motion, which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Lipscomb, Roberts, Bloomberg, Banse, Nivens Nays: None Absent: Gordon, Kidd The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 P.M. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BUILDINU BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THE =.''2 DAY OF 2001. {II SiE"R'lETARY APPROVED- CHAIRMA 3