HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020881.tiff I Donna Bechler- 03-14-02 minutes wpd Page 1
III
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Thursday, March 14, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Thursday, March 14, 2002,
in Room 210 of the Planning/Public Health Building, 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The
meeting was called to order by Chair Gary Stewart.
Roll Call:
Eric Whitwood Larry Wilson •
Don Beierbach Tony Evans
Syl Manlove Anita Owens
John Donley Gary Stewart
Mary O'Neal Michael Willits-AbsentII
Randy Peterson Joseph Bodine
•
Also Present: Lee Morrison, County Attorney; Monica Mika, Planner; Sherri Vogt, Planner; Donita
May, Secretary.
The chair asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of the last regular meeting of the Weld
County Board of Adjustment held on December 6, 2001. John Donley pointed out that the motion for
approval of BOA-1012 did not pass unanimously because Joseph Bodine voted no. Minutes should
read that the motion passed 6-1. Don Beierbach also asked that the minutes be corrected to indicate
that the yes votes were under protest,due to the fact that the sign was built prior to County approval.
1. CASE NUMBER: BOA-1013
PLANNER: Sherri Vogt
APPLICANT: Fay&Mary Shultz
REQUEST: Variance of Sign Requirements in the A ( Agricultural) Zone !'i.k.'::::'
District from 16 square feet to 50.25 square feet(includes upright).
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2822; being part of the W2 of Section 21, T5N, II
R67W of the 6'h P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. III
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 54; approximately 1/4 mile
east of WCR 17; approximately 1 mile south of Greeley.
Sherri Vogt, Department of Planning Services, presented BOA-1013. Ms. Vogt asked the record
show that the correct legal for the case was Lot A of RE-2822, being part of the W2 of Section 21,
T5N, R67W of the 6'h P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. Based upon the submitted application materials
and other relevant information regarding this request, the Department of Planning Services is
recommending denial. The denial is based on the determination that the proposed sign is not in
compliance with Chapter 23, Section 23-4-90 B. The allowable sign requirement in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District is sixteen (16) square feet. The Applicant has requested a sign that is
approximately fifty(50)square feet.
Should the Board wish to approve this request of a,: ,,poeal for Variance, the Department of
Planning Services recommends the applicant's approval shall be conditional upon the following:
sI
BI
I.
II
•
. .n.:r. ............. .. .. ..
Lens.4 y i 2002-0881
9- 8-0
Donna Bechler 03-14-02 minutes_wpd ...- Page 2
1. A Weld County Building Permit is required for any proposed structure.
2. The sign shall meet all setback and offset requirements as required in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District and outlined in the Department of Public Works referral
response received 2/26/02.Weld County Road 54 has 60 feet of right of way. A total
of 40 feet from the centerline of Weld County Road 54 shall be delineated on the plat
and utilized when calculating the setback requirements.
3. The applicant shall meet all of the Conditions of Approval associated with the Use by
Special Review(USR-1296).
Mr. Shultz, the applicant, stated he did not fully understand the Use by Special Review (USR)
application process at the time he submitted it, admitted his error, and asked that the Board grant his
application for the variance so that he may put his sign up. Mr. Shultz also presented examples of
similar signs, placed in similar locales,that the Board has allowed to be placed.
The Chair asked the Board if they had any questions for the applicant. Tony Evans inquired as to
whether the property is located in the commercial zone? Staff asserted that the property is zoned
agricultural. Board members Larry Wilson and Mary O'Neal indicated that they had visited the site,
as had several other members. Mr. Donley asked the applicant for clarification of the sign size and
the setback from the road. Mr. Shultz stated the sign was approximately 3 feet by 10 feet and the
setback was between 60 to 70 feet from the road. Eric Whitwood asked if the sign had already been
purchased? Applicant replied that it had been purchased. At the time he applied for the building
permit, the sign had already been purchased. The applicant stated that had he known before hand •
about size requirements, he would not have purchased such a large sign.
The Chair asked if any members of the public would like to address the Board. No one came
forward. Public portion of the discussion was closed.
Mr. Beierbach stated that in his opinion the sign was not big enough to cause a traffic problem. Ms. •
Owens reminded the room that the applicant's pictures were evidence of other signs the Board had
approved. Ms. O'Neal expressed concern about continuing to allow all of these big signs, and when
do we begin to say no?
Mr. Evans stated that he believes commercial zones should have commercial signs, and agricultural
zones should have agricultural signs, and asked if we give variances for everyone that requests
one?Mr. Evans also suggested that maybe the rules need to be changed. Planning staff replied that
they are always willing to accept suggestions for change and that there is a process in place for that.
Mr. Donley, stating that he respected the staff report, said he had drawn the conclusion that there
were special features or circumstances in this case. Mr. Donley emphasized that the USR should
have caught the change in use. Mr. Donley said that it is a business now and should be accorded
the amenities of a business. Mr. Donley also felt, after visiting the site, that the sign size as it is,
disappears at average highway speeds. Mr. Donley stated that the setbacks had been met by the
applicant. Mr. Donley also voiced strong objection to Gary Wiedeman's objection to the sign, on
property he, Mr.Wiedeman, had owned and then sold to the applicant, Mr. Shultz.
Ms. Manlove asked if there were any other commercial businesses in the area? Ms. Vogt replied F;
that there were not.
The Chair asked for a motion.
Donna Bechler 03 14 02 minutes wpd Page 3'.
Y.
of
The Board of Adjustment reviewed the criteria found in Section 23-6-40 of the Weld County Code
and found compliance for the following reasons:
1. Section 23-6-40 Cl. — 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.
2. Section 23-6-40 C2.-- 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.
3. Section 23-6-40 C3. -- The special conditions and circumstances do not result solely
from the actions of the appellant.
John Donley motioned to approve the applicant's request for a variance of the sign requirements
from 16 square feet to 50 square feet in the agricultural zone district. Larry Wilson seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment: Eric Whitwood, yes;
Larry Wilson, yes; Don Beierbach, yes; Tony Evans, yes; Syl Manlove, yes; Anita Owens, no; John •
Donley, yes; Gary Stewart, yes; Mary O'Neal, yes. Motion passed with an 8-1 margin.
Lee Morrison, County Attorney, recommended the Board address the conditions Planning Services
has attached to the case.
John Donley amended his previous motion that Case BOA 1013 be approved along with the
Conditions of Approval as proposed: •
1. A Weld County Building Permit is required for any proposed structure.
2. The sign shall meet all setback and offset requirements as required in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District and outlined in the Department of Public Works referral
response received 2/26/02. Weld County Road 54 has 80 feet of right of way. A total
of 40 feet from the centerline of Weld County Road 54 shall be delineated on the plat
and utilized when calculating the setback requirements.
3. The applicant shall meet all of the Conditions of Approval associated with the Use by
Special Review(USR-1296).
Eric Whitwood seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of : Eric Whitwood, yes; Larry
Wilson,yes; Don Beierbach, yes; Tony Evans,yes; Syl Manlove, yes;Anita Owens, no; John Donley,
yes; Gary Stewart, yes; Mary O'Neal, yes. Motion passed with an 8-1 margin.
Meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Bechler 03-14-02 mmutes.wpd . .,..._.... .. .. Page 4!,
Donita May
Secretary
•
Members present: eric, larry, don, tony, syl, anita, gary, john, mary, randy, joe. Michael willits •
absent.
Corrections to minutes of the last meeting
Don said yes votes were under protest because sign was built prior to County approval. Vote was
not unanimous.
Donna Bechler 03-14-02 minutes wpd Page 5
John Donley had some corrections
Sherry Vogt BOA-1013
•
proposed sign adjacent WCR 54
state for record correct legal is lot A
applicant had opportunity to apply through usr and did not,therefore they are before this board
appl req 50 sq foot sign rather than the 16 sq feet allowed
•
criteria not met by applicant therefore plan sery is requesting denial if application not in compliance
referrals from 5 agencies 1 rec approval 3 w no conflict 1 said does comply with their comp plan
gary wiedeman neighbor opposes large sign
•
•
plan sery has conditons for approval if board approves
Tony-commercial or ag use? Eligible corn zone
Applicant did not apply for change zone instead want special use appli •
applicant spoke said he did not fully understan special use permit req thought he was following the
rules and regulations as to parking, etc. Land ag so sign is too big for business. Brought examples
of signage under similiar circumstances sign will meet all right of way req and setback from road if •
and when it is installed and aks he be allowed to place the sign
john visitrd site Sunday
appli sign body pole to pole is 50 sq feet sign sits closer to 70 feet from road presently 55 feet from
north edge of road
eric- is sign already to go?
Appl yes when seeking building permit found sign was too large-had know better he would not have
purchsed it didn't realize he was ending up with an ag sign at time of perm appl. Built it as if he
could put up a commercial sign not in place as yet-sitting at greenhouse
gary asked for any other questions
public address meeting no
board discussion entertain a motion
mary expressed concern about continuing to allow all of these big signs- need to re-think and how
many do we allow?
Tony- commercial sign you should be commercial zoned ag zone then ag sign rules in place for
those-do we give a variance every time? Maybe rules need some variance.
Donna Bechler 03-14-02 minutes wpd Page 6
Motion?
Monica rec motion cite variance sections to show that if its contrary to plan staff you have something
to tie your motions to.
Lee motion needs to be in favor of granting variance- need 6 votes to grant.
Further board discussion-gary asked for motion
John moved that the variance request by the applicant be granted
larry seconded
passed 8-1 anita owen voting no
•
•
john
new motion to grant with conditions, issueance to variance heretofore approved: in staff comments •
after recommendation
1. Building permit req
2.. Setbacks •
3. Usr conditions of approval on the plat
eric seconded
passed 8-1 anita against
Hello