HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071302.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday,May 15,2007,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.
Roll Call:
Tony Evans-Absent
William Hansen
Eric Whitwood-Absent
Anita Owens
Bruce Fitzgerald
Bryant Gimlin
Chad Auer-Absent
Thomas Honn
Also Present: Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning; Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, Bruce Barker,
County Attorney, (via telephone);and Kris Ranslem,Secretary.
Bryant Gimlin motioned to approve and waive reading of the minutes of the last regular meeting of the Weld County
Board of Adjustment held on, May 1, 2007. William Hansen seconded the motion. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: BOA-1047
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
APPLICANT: Frederick&Diane Weis
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 2 Sekich Business Park, being part of the SW4 of Section 23,T3N,
R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile east of 1-25 and approximately 1/4 mile north of Highway
66. For a more precise location, see legal.
REQUEST: Variance for the encroachment of a parking area into the twenty(20)foot
landscape setback(26-2-50.D.2.g.)in the C-3 and 1-3 Zone District located in the
Mixed Use Development(MUD)area.
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services,stated that Frederick and Diane Weis have requested a Variance for
the encroachment of a parking area into the 20 foot landscape setback(26-2-50.D.2.g)in the C-3 and 1-3 Zone District
located in the Mixed Use Development(MUD)area.
The property is located within the Sekich Business Park located approximately 1/4 mile east of 1-25 and approximately Y
mile north of Highway 66
The site was originally approved under Site Plan Review 74 on June 12, 1986 showing a 15 foot setback. When the
applicant applied to Amend Site Plan Review 74 it was noted that the site was not in compliance with the 20 foot
landscape setback(26-2-50.D.2.g)required in the C-3 and I-3 Zone District when located in the Mixed Use Development
(MUD) area. The MUD regulations were effective on February 11, 1997. Since the applicant has applied for an
Amended Site Plan Review the site will be required to comply with current regulations. The applicant is asking for a 5
foot variance from the west property line.
Eight referral agencies reviewed this case,three referral agencies responded including conditions or comments that have
been addressed through conditions of approval. The other five referral agencies have no concems with the variance. No
correspondence has been received from surrounding property owners.
The Department of Planning Services has determined that the submitted materials are in compliance with the application
requirements of Section 23-6-40 of the Weld County Code and recommends that this request be approved for the
following reasons:
Section 23-6-40.C.1 - Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the lot, structure or building
involved and which are not applicable to other lots, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Section 26-2-
50.D.2.g of the Weld County Code states that there shall be a minimum twenty foot wide landscape setback measured
from the existing or planned future right-of-way to any parking lot, fencing, storage area or structure. The existing
structure on site was built in 1986 surrounded by the parking lot that encroaches 5 feet into the 20 foot landscape
env
5/e3 07
65t2eiel7—/Seal-
setback area along the west property line. The Mixed Use Development regulations were effective on February 11,1997
after the development of this site. The parking location will have little if any negative impact on the surrounding
properties. The applicant is proposing to landscape the 15 foot area between the existing parking lot and the edge of
right-of-way.
Section 23-6-40.C.2 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. The literal
interpretation of the Weld County Code is intended to protect the health,safety and welfare of the public. Granting this
variance to the setback will not have a detrimental impact on the health,safety or welfare of the public.
Based upon the submitted application materials and other relevant information regarding this request,the Department of
Planning Services'recommendation is for approval.
If the Board approves the 5'variance from the west.the Department of Planning Services'recommends that the following
item be listed as a condition of the approval:
1. The variance for the offset is solely for the parking lot in relation to the west property line. Any other use or
structure associated with this parcel must comply with all setback and offset requirements.
Bryant Gimlin asked how this affects other properties in the same area or if they have the same problem. Ms. Hatch
replied that they do and further commented that the Town of Mead has annexed the property to the south.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the applicant considered reconfiguration of the parking lot into diagonal parking rather than
straight. Don Carroll,Department of Public Works,stated that going with diagonal parking you may gain a foot or so but
you wouldn't reach the 5 feet.
Tom Honn commented that this is really a case of a pre-existing condition and what the applicant is doing to this property
is really no physical change to have an affect on that setback. It's an issue of a code that was amended sometime
subsequent to the project that was built under the terms of what the regulations were at the time which was a 15'setback.
Mr. Honn further summarized that we are dealing with the fact that a code came into affect after the site was physically
built and now because they want to make a change to their site,but not actually affect anything with the setback,they are
being forced to go through the variance to ask for the amendment. Ms. Hatch stated that was correct and added that if
anyone would do any changes on site or propose a new use they would have to bring the site up to current regulations
and codes.
The Chair stated that the applicant is not present today for the hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak.
Anita Owens stated that she feels she would agree with this proposal since it was a pre-existing condition.
Bryant Gimlin noted that the Mountain View Fire Department asked that this be approved for fear that changes in the
parking configuration could hamper access for the emergency services.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case BOA-1047,be approved along with the amended Conditions of Approval as proposed.
Anita Owens seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. William Hansen,yes;
Anita Owens,yes;Tom Honn, yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:18 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello