HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070079.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, September 5, 2006, in the
Hearing Room of the Department of Planning Services,918 10th Street, Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Bryant Gimlin.
Roll Call:
Tony Evans Absent
William Hansen
Mary O'Neal
Eric Whitwood Absent
Anita Owens
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Bryant Gimlin
Chad Auer Absent
Mary O'Neal motioned to approve and waive reading of the minutes of the last regular meeting of the Weld
County Board of Adjustment held on, August 1, 2006. Anita Owens seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Also Present: Brad Mueller, Weld County Department of Planning; Cyndy Giauque County Attorney; and
Voneen Macklin, Secretary.
CASE NUMBER: BOA-1042
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
APPLICANT: Elevation Outdoor Advertising
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of Amended RE-1302 & Lot B of RE-4297; both part of the
N2 of Section 32, T6N, R65W
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Highway 85 and east of 7th Ave. For a more
precise location, see legal.
REQUEST: Request for a variance from the freestanding sign setback of 10' in the 1-3
(Industrial)Zone District per Section 23-4-120 of the Weld County Code
Brad Mueller,Department of Planning Services presented Case BOA-1042. This is a request for variance of
an existing violation. This is a self made hardship; there are no existing circumstances that would cause an
additional hardship. Mr. Mueller discussed the following criteria:
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.
Both lots are zoned 1-3(Industrial). There are no unique physical conditions or circumstances that exist for the
two lots. Similar types of uses lie in all directions from the site,and surrounding properties exist east and west
of the site that are zoned 1-3.
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.
Section 23-4-60.A of the Weld County Code indicates that one purpose for sign regulation is"to minimize the
possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent
enforcement of these sign restrictions." Billboards are relatively moveable structures,and enforcement of the
setbacks ensures equal treatment in an industry that is very competitive. Furthermore, while the two
landowners currently enjoy an agreeable relationship with one another,future owners of either property may
object to a signpost located so close to the property line, or, more significantly, to a sign overhanging their
property.
Section 23-6-40.C.3-- The special conditions and circumstances do not result solely from the actions of the
appellant. The appellant did not survey the property line to ensure that the billboard met offset requirements,
creating their own hardship. The Building Inspections Department was only able to determine its location after
requesti
inng an Improvements Location Survey on November 22, 2005.
('�Nn72uL4 s LD>t ty
ac'e'7
2007-0079
Section 23-6-40.C.4 -- The reasons set forth in the application and testimony justify the granting of the
variance, and the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the lot,
building or structure. If granted,the variance would result in a structure located approximately 1'4"inside the
required offset, with a portion of the billboard overhanging the property line by approximately 3' 6".
Section 23-6-40.C.5 -- The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
Chapter, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare. Fundamentally,sign companies and property owners are required to know where their property lines
are located, to ensure compliance with minimum standards.
In conclusion,the Weld County Department of Planning Services recommends that this request be denied for
failing to meet the criteria listed above for a variance. The appellant created a self-imposed hardship by failing
to review and confirm the legal description for the properties. There are no physical circumstances at the site
which would support a variance, and there is room to accommodate a billboard that would meet offset
requirements. A variance would create a situation for future owners of the property that may not be disclosed,
which could subsequently cause problems for re-development or expansion of the site. If granted, the
variance would result in a structure that does not meet offsets and overhangs the property line. The
circumstances are the result of the actions of the appellant, and granting a variance would result in a situation
that does not meet the intent of the Weld County Code
Bryant Gimlin asked if this was granted and the property was sold would the buyer be notified of arrangement.
Mr. Mueller stated the information would be a voluntary disclosure. This variance would not change the plat
but there would be a public record of the variance. This would not be a part of the deed unless the owners
amended the deed. Mr. Gimlin asked if the only setback affected was the side lot lines. Mr. Mueller indicated
those were the only setbacks affected. Ms. O'Neal asked if there would be anything recorded on the title
work. Ms. Giauque added that dealings with property can be recorded and the Board of Adjustment has the
ability to ask for this. Mr. Mueller added this could be added as a Condition of Approval.
Steve Richards, applicant, clarified that the placement of the sign was a mistake and it was placed in the
wrong spot. The sign was permitted and a survey was not done. They are working with both adjacent
property owners to come up with an agreement. If the sign were to be moved it would only move
approximately 15 feet. The only setback affected is the side lot lines. The present location of the sign is not
infringing upon either property owners access or ability to conduct business. The adjacent property owners
have worked together well in the previous year. The owners are presently in negotiation for possible sale of
the property. The applicant will voluntarily record what is necessary. The cost of moving sign is expensive
and Elevation Outdoor is small business.
Mick Todd, adjacent owner to west of Tri State, added he has no problems with the sign. They are in
negotiation for possible sale of a portion of the property to Tri State. They would be willing to record whatever
is asked for. It seems a little ridiculous to move a sign 15 feet. The possible future land owners can be put on
notice.
Greg Schupp,Tri State Commodities,added if the sign were to be moved it would be located in the middle of
the present driveway. The location of the sign was based on incorrect information he provided to the
applicant.
William Hanson added that if the property was purchased this would be a moot point. Mr.Mueller clarified that
the only action that would make this a make moot point would be to vacate and combine the properties into
one. The present circumstance is two properties and one could be sold making this a continuous issue.
Mary O'Neal asked how much it would cost to move the sign. Mr. Richards indicated it would be
approximately$7,500-$10,000.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
William Hanson added he sees no problem with the approving this.
Bryant Gimlin added that from the county standpoint they need to protect potential future buyers. There needs
to be protection for future buyers with something like a note on the plat or something of record.
Mary O'Neal added she agrees that there needs to be something of record. Mr. Mueller added that there will
be no changes to the plat but the following Condition of Approval could be added. "Owners of both properties
shall record with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder evidence of the location of sign as a deed restriction.
These documents shall be reviewed and accepted by the Department of Planning Services staff prior to
recording. Failure to record within 90 days of the Board of Adjustment determination shall result in a zoning
violation being processed."
Mr. Mueller added that the ultimate intent is to have this information show up in the title work. Ms. Giauque
added this could be picked up on the deed. The deeds would need to be modified to indicate this. The
variance could be recorded also providing this information. Ms.O'Neal added that the bottom line is to protect
the future buyer from the possible debt of moving the sign. The future buyer needs to be aware of this and it
needs to be a part of the title policy. Mr. Mueller added that if the variance was granted the violation would go
away. The goal of the proposed language is to produce a document that is acceptable to staff so that it
provides adequate notification for possible future owners.
Mary O'Neal added that there needs to be a Condition of Approval that is general but still states the purpose of
what the Board of Adjustment is trying to accomplish.
Cyndy Giauque addressed the Boards bylaw changes and how it will affect the vote.
Mary O'Neal moved to add a Condition of Approval with the following language "Owners of both properties
shall record with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder evidence of the location of sign as a deed restriction.
These documents shall be reviewed and accepted by the Department of Planning Services staff prior to
recording. Failure to record within 90 days of the Board of Adjustment determination shall result in a zoning
violation being processed. William Hanson seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. William
Hansen, yes; Mary O'Neal, yes; Anita Owens, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mary O'Neal moved that Case BOA- 1042, be approved along with the Conditions of Approval as proposed.
William Hanson seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. William
Hansen, yes; Mary O'Neal, yes; Anita Owens, no; Bryant Gimlin, yes. Motion carried.
Mary O'Neal commented that she was curious as to whether Weld County should require an Improved
Location Certificate when these types of cases are approved. Mr. Mueller added that staff tries to strike a
balance between the landowner and the county processes.
Brad Mueller indicated there was additional business with the resolution from Board of County Commissioners
and whether it was correct. An email was sent advising of the regular members and the associate members.
He just wanted to make sure the information is correct, from this point Board of County Commissioners has
made this determination. Any reason this is wrong or not what was understood. If this be the case staff can
go back to the clerk, Vicki, and correct this. No members indicated any corrections.
Meeting adjourned at 11:50am.
Respectfully submitted,
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello