Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/12/1984ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 12, 1984 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 12, 1984 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Boardmembers: Murphy, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson, Thede, Szopinski, Walker. Staff Members Present: Fernan, Zeigler, Frazier Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 14, 1984 were approved The minutes of the June 14, 1984 regular meeting were unanimously approved by the members of the board. Appeal #1550. Section 118-43(B), 118-43(C) by Larry Michaud, Housing Rehab, 512 N. Grant - Approved There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 4900 square feet and the required lot width from 60 feet to 35 feet for a single family home in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The existing house on the lot is very small and extremely rundown. Housing Rehab would like to demolish the structure and move another house onto the lot. The lot was platted with only 35 feet of width and 4900 square feet of area and there is no additional land available to buy. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Larry Michaud of Housing Rehab told the Board of the deteriorated condition of the existing house. He pointed out all of the benefits to the neighbor- hood and the family by granting this variance. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hard- ship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Murphy, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson, Szopinski. Nays: None. -2- July 12, 1984 Appeal #1551. Section 118-81(D)(2)(b)(1) by Phil Keller, Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity, 705 S. Shields - Granted with conditions There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would eliminate the 6 foot high solid fence to screen auto headlights from adjacent residential property for a parking area on both the north and south sides in the RH zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The property just south is also a parking lot therefore headlights will shine into another parking lot. The prop- erty to the north is currently vacant therefore auto headlights will not constitute a nuisance. --- Staff recommendation: Approval to eliminate the fence on the south side since a parking area is in existance there. Denial to eliminate the fence on the north. Although the lot is currently vacant and is being used as a horse pasture, it is zoned residential and could be developed. Further the screen is not only to block headlights but to screen the autos and pavement from adjacent property." Jim Bowlin spoke representing Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity. Mr. Bowl in reiterated the hardship. He told the Board that a park is being planned for the lot to the south and he didn't think that headlights shining into a park would bother anyone. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to grant the elimination of the fence on the south side but to deny eliminating the fence on the north. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Murphy, Lieser, Dodder, John- son, Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1552. Section 118-81(E)(1) by Dana Lockwood, 212 W. Mulberry - Granted with condition There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would eliminate the requirement to provide a loading zone for a small office building which is proposed in the BG zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The professional services provided will promote no large scale delivery traffic. Deliveries such as parcel and postal being short term and requiring no large trucks may be accommodated by supplementary parking spaces on site. --- Staff recommendation: Approval since there is no need for a 500 square foot loading area." -3- Petitioner's Letter: June 29, 1984 RE: Electrical Systems Consultants, Inc. Office Building 212 West Mulberry Street Dear Mr. Barnes: July 12, 1984 The City of Fort Collins Zoning Appeal Board is requested to grant a variance to the required off-street loading zone as described in Article VIII - Regulations, applicable to all districts, subsection E of the Subdivision of Land and Zoning Code for Fort Collins, Colorado. This variance will allow the elimination of the required loading zone for this office building project. We request the variance at the time of the next scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, July 12, 1984. Unique to a downtown development district, this project, housing offices for professional electrical engineers will feature a state-of-the-art photovoltaic electrical system, complimenting the City of Fort Collins' progressive energy conscious image. The professional services provided by Electrical Systems, Inc. will promote no large scale delivery traffic. Deliveries such as parcel and postal (being very short term and requiring no large trucks) may be accomo- dated by supplementary parking spaces on site. Granting the variance to the required off-street loading zone will allow for the proper provision of parking and site. improvements, as well as allowing the project to continue a trend of quality which has begun in this area in landscape design. Respectfully submitted, Dana W. Lockwood, A.I.A. Project Mnanager dwl/pbw " Jim Cox with Architecture Plus represented the consulting engineering firm that is asking for the variance. He explained that the reason for asking for the variance is that they simply don't need a loading zone because of the nature of their business. The only deliveries they might have are of the UPS nature and with 12 parking spaces along the side and back, deliv- eries should not be a problem. �' -4- July 12, 1984 Boardmember Murphy said that he was concerned that if there was a use change for the building that a loading zone would be needed. Jim Cox stated that their business would not have a lot of traffic in and out. Mostly the engineers would be going to sites or buildings for their con- sulting. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the appeal with the condition that the variance is good only if the use doesn't change. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Murphy, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson, Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1553. Section 118-81(D)(2)(b)(1) Baptist Church, 1725 W. Dick Anderson for Immanual rry - Granted "--- The variance would eliminate the requirement to provide a 6 foot high solid fence to screen a parking lot from a residential use in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioner and the owners wish to keep the openness that currently exists between the adjacent property and the church site. Constructing the fence would confine both the church site and the adjacent owner's property. --- Staff recommendation: Denial. The solid wall is required to block headlights and to screen autos and the pavement from adjacent proper- ty. Should the current owner of the adjacent property sell it, the parking lot could be a nuisance to the new owners." There were 2 letters received and no notices. "Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator Office of Bldg. Inspector 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO RE: Variance of Code 118-81(D)(2)(b)(1) Dick Anderson for Immanual Baptist Church - Appeal #1553 As adjacent property owner at 1804 West Mulberry I definitely oppose this variance. Helen H. Cleveland" -5- July 12, 1984 "July 8, 1984 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator: Sir, in regards to the appeal No. 1553: We have lived on Homer Drive for 12 years and hardly have a great view as it is and now the church wants to block our view with a solid 6 foot high fence. We believe this would deter from our property value because no one would like to look at a solid fence from their picture window and 6 feet high at that. We hope this fence will not be built. Mr. and Mrs. Hugh Knaus 1801 Homer Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80521" Zoning Inspector Anne Fernan explained to the Board that with the new church addition they are only required to screen the new parking area, not the existing parking lot. This area consists of 8 spaces that would need to be screened. Petitioner Dick Anderson said they are trying to work with the property owners next door and these people do not want the fence. He said that the fence will only be screening about 30 feet of asphalt. R.K. Yoder spoke in favor of the variance. He is the contractor of the church and a member of the church. He said they are trying to please the neighbors by deleting the fence. Mrs. Woodward, 1801 W. Mulberry, spoke in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Garcia, 1824 Homer Dr., said that as a neighbor he has caught many people commiting vandalism to the church. He said. that the area around the church is so open that it is easy to keep an eye on it but a fence could give the vandals screening which would be a problem. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hard- ship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Murphy. Yeas: Mrurphy, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson, Szopinski. Nays: None. Other Business. Section 118-11 definitions -Adult Amusement or Entertain- ment by Tom Metcalf for the Electric Stampede, 242 Linden "July 11, 1984 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals Municipal Building Fort Collins, CO 80521 July 12, 1984 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised that this office represents Richard White and The Linden Street. Exchange, Inc., d/b/a The Electric Stampede. We have encountered some problems with the definitions set forth in Section 118-11 of the Fort Collins Code. The Code purports to describe adult amusement or entertainment. There are four areas of the Code which we would like clarified by the Zoning Board of Appeals: 1. The first area is what constitutes "topless dancers"? For instance, does this apply to members of both sexes? If a man is modeling swim wear or appears in a dance situation without a shirt, is this a "topless dancer" which violates the Code? 2. Exotic dancers are defined as adult amusement. We are concerned as to what constitutes an "exotic dancer". Is it the definition given by Web- ster's dictionary? If so, this would appear to prevent even a display of ballroom dancing by people of extraordinary skill. Is this what is in- tended by the Zoning Ordinance? 3. What constitutes "strippers"? If someone comes out in a three piece suit and removes portions of that suit to the point that they are less attired than when they started, are they "strippers"? How much attire has to be removed to constitute being a "stripper"? 4. What is categorized as "similar entertainment"? Our clients are concerned with the possibility of having a male review and would like clarification of the matters defined in the ordinance in order to decide how far they can go in having such a review, if at all. They do not desire to run afoul of the Zoning Regulations and therefore are asking for clarification of the same prior to putting on such a show. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Thomas W. Metcalf Attorney at Law TWM/ab" Zoning Inspector Anne Fernan told the Board that Tom Metcalf, the City Attorney, and herself had met to discuss adult entertainment in a commer- cial zone. The ordinance states that there shall be no adult entertainment -7- July 12, 1984 in a commercial zone. Zoning staff's interpretation has been that a "male review" or "beefcake review" is adult entertainemmnt. Brian McMahill, attorney for Richard White, owner of the Electric Stampede, asked for a determination by the Board regarding a "beefcake review" being adult entertainemnt. Mr. McMahill said that the terms in the ordinance are very very vague. There is no guidance within the ordinance itself. Mr. White is trying to determine what kind of activity or contact is permitted. Mr. McMahill asked the Board for a written statement in terms of what they feel the terms and specifically what "exotic dancers", "strippers", or the term "similar entertainment" are. He stated that Mr. White does not wish to violate any of the ordinances or zoning regulations but he is having a hard time determining what the ordinance says. Mr. McMahill described the male review to the Board. He said that in talking with the City Attorney's office they have gotten conflicting statemnts on definitions. The definition for stripper has even been termed as a person who is in a fashion show and takes off any article of clothing. Mr. McMahill didn't think the ordinance was designed to prohibit that kind of activity. Mr. McMahill said that he understood that some of the terms of the ordinance were taken from Webster's dictionary. In Webster's dictionary the defini- tion of "exotic dancer" is, any dancing out of the ordinary. Mr. McMahill thinks that is unconstitutional 1ly broad if it's applied to that great of a degree. Several of the Boardmembers felt this type of duty did not fall under the powers of this board. City Attorney Ken Frazier said that the Board was being asked to render a preliminary judgment or at least to provide guid- ance or direction to the applicant in a preliminary fashion ,so that in the event that Mr. White holds the event, he will have some idea of what is permissible and what is not. They do not want to be sited for a zoning violation. Attorney Frazier said that a court of law would not offer advisory opinions unless a dispute exists. After discussion, the Board felt they needed more time to answer Mr. McMahill and Mr. White's questions. They felt that the only question to put to them at this time is to determine whether a "beefcake review" or "male review" is adult entertainment. They will consider this at a work session and get back to Mr. McMahill and Mr. White. Boardmember Johnson asked that the City buy copies of a Zoning Book that he had gotten. He felt it would help everyone on the Board to under- stand things much better. It was agreed upon and the vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned. rman Secretary