The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-01-15AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JANUARY 15, 1996 AT 6:30 P.M. 307 WEST DALLAS ROAD, ROOM #205 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS II. OATH OF OFFICE III. OATH OF TRUTH e 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. I DING 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, January 15, 1996, at 6:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers, Room #205, 307 West Dallas Road, Grapevine, Texas with the following members present: Joe Lipscomb Art Gordon Greg Czapanskiy Russell Kidd Chairman Member Member 1 st Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present were Councilman Gil Traverse and the following City Staff: Sten-'- \ Vilo ams 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 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: 4 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- Frost submitted photogrranhs to the Roard 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 motioned 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 oAbba\min-ian Il HAIRMAN