HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090689.tiffMINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, in the
Hearing Room of the Department of Planning Services, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting
was called to order by Chair Bruce Fitzgerald at 11:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Erich Ehrlich
Anita Owens
Bruce Fitzgerald
Benjamin Hansford
William Hansen
Bill Hall
Jerry Neff
Bryant Gimlin
Anita Owens moved to approve the minutes of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Board of
Adjustment held on January 6, 2009, seconded by Benjamin Hansford. Motion carried.
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Weld County Department of Planning; Bruce Barker, County Attorney (via
phone); and Kristine Ranslem, Secretary.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER:
PLANNER:
APPLICANT:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
BOA -1053
Chris Gathman
Centennial Ag Supply Co.
Part NE4 of Section 19, T5N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Variance application for a variance from the required minimum setback (20 feet)for
a freestanding sign in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. The sign is proposed to be
setback 15 -feet from the edge of State Highway 34 right-of-way.
South of and adjacent to State Highway 34 and east of CR 49.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that the applicants are requesting a 15 foot setback
from the edge of right-of-way of State Highway 34. The setback requirement in the Ag Zone District is 20 feet.
This same case was brought before the Board of Adjustment on January 6, 2009 in which there were two
other items discussed regarding the size of the sign and then also a taller sign. Both of those requests were
approved by the Board of Adjustment. The request today is to deal with specifically the setback of the sign.
This is an existing business and there was a Special Use Permit (USR-517) which was approved on the
property in 1982. When USR-517 was approved the applicants did not indicate specific sign locations. There
was a development standard in place which states "The necessary structures or buildings which are required
to facilitate the uses pointed out above can be permitted within the Use by Special Review's site. Any such
structure or building shall comply with the requirements of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance."
The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of this variance as according to Section 23-6-
40.C.2 the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the appellant of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Chapter. Mr. Gathman added
that there are other signs for agricultural businesses in the agricultural zone district that do meet the 20 foot
setback.
In addition according to Section 23-6-40.C.3 — The special conditions and circumstances do not result solely
from the actions of the appellant. The action of the appellant, to install a sign, is the reason a variance is
being requested.
1
Ctj;•IZ>2ZCt�21
2009-0689
Mr. Gathman indicated that Linda Hulse with Centennial Ag has an exhibit to show where the sign would be
located. If the variance is not approved, Ms. Hulse indicated that they would look at shifting the sign further to
the west of the proposed site. With the proposed location at the 20 foot setback the sign would be partially
obscured by the existing building on the site.
Mr. Gathman commented that there are four (4) conditions of approval attached if this application is approved.
The conditions of approval deal with the sign as far as getting the proper building permits in which the
applicant is in the process of obtaining.
The variance would apply solely to this sign so that any future sign that goes in on the site would need to meet
the County Code in terms of setbacks.
This sign would not be an internally illuminated sign because the County Code does not allow internally
illuminated signs.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what is allowed in other zones with regard to setbacks. Mr. Gathman commented that
in the Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts it is a little stricter with 25 feet. There are some provisions in
the Mixed Use District which allows some different setbacks. This is located in one particular location in the
County. The standard in the Agricultural Zone District is 20 feet.
Mr. Ftizgerald asked if these setbacks are based on any CDOT requirements. Mr. Gathman replied that he is
not aware of any but added that CDOT did comment that they had no concerns as long as the sign is not
overlapping the right-of-way for Highway 34, which it would not be. Mr. Gathman asked the board members to
keep in mind that on the site there is a fence that parallels the edge of the property and the sign would be set
within that fence.
Erich Ehrlich asked Mr. Gathman to further clarify Section 23-6-40.C.2. which talks about the literal
interpretation of the provision of the chapter. He asked if what is being referenced in that paragraph is just the
commercial district or the corridor. Mr. Gathman said that he is referring to the agricultural district in general.
In this area there is a trucking operation to the west where their sign is closer to the highway than this
proposed sign. However, the trucking company has been annexed into the Town of Kersey and is not in the
county jurisdiction. As far as any particular signs in that specific area that are in the county, unfortunately he
can't give an example. He can only look at it generally that the county has several signs for ag businesses
and commercial business that meet the 20 foot setback.
Linda Hulse, Centennial Ag Supply, PO Box 557, Kersey, CO. Ms. Hulse stated that in the original application
they requested the 15 foot setback and it wasn't covered in the previous hearing.
Ms. Hulse handed out an exhibit which shows the sign positioned at both the 15 and 20 foot setbacks. They
would like to keep it closer to the actual entrance of their facility so that the trucks coming and going are closer
to the entrance when they see the sign. It marks the entrance a little better.
They are finding that with the 15 foot setback it gives them a lot more visibility. The building on the east is a
two-story building along with two large evergreen trees. If they would place the sign an additional 5 feet back it
cuts out the visibility from the east.
Ms. Hulse said that if they have to place it at the 20 foot setback then they will have to move it to the west
which moves it away from the entrance.
Bryant Gimlin clarified if the sign will be on the inside of the fence. Ms. Hulse said that the fence is located on
the right-of-way and the sign will be located 15 feet from the inside of the fence.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the four (4) Conditions of Approval as presented by
2
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
staff and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Mr. Gimlin commented that given the area and what is around it a 15 foot setback looks to be adequate,
particularly when the sign would be on the inside of their fence.
Mr. Ehrlich referred back to the January 6, 2009 meeting and felt that this case was more of an issue of safety
in terms of the traffic flow. With the sign out front it would help trucks coming and going to the property to see
the entrance of the property a little better.
Mr. Fitzgerald agreed with the previous comments and felt that the additional 5 feet will add the visibility to the
east.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case BOA -1053 be approved along with the Conditions of Approval, seconded by
Erich Ehrlich.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Bill Hall,
absent; William Hansen, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Benjamin Hansford, yes; Jerry Neff, absent; Anita Owens,
no; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 11:19 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
3
Hello