HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051676.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Thursday, April 28, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Thursday, April 28, 2005, in the
Hearing Room of the Department of Planning Services,918 10th Street, Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair Joseph Bodine.
Roll Call:
Tony Evans
William Hansen
Mary O'Neal
Eric Whitwood
Joseph Bodine
Anita Owens
Chad Auer Absent
Doug Ochsner Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Bryant Gimlin
Also Present:, Michelle Martin, Chris Gathman,Weld County Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison,
County Attorney; and Voneen Macklin, Secretary.
William Hansen motioned to approve and waive reading of the minutes of the last regular meeting of the Weld
County Board of Adjustment held on, April 14, 2005. Eric Whitwood seconded the motion. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: BOA-1034
APPLICANT: Kauffman Land & Development Inc.
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A Re-1921; Pt SE4 of Section 9, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado
REQUEST: Appeal of an administrative decision regarding the use of the property
(Section 23-3-280) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 22 and West of and adjacent to CR 19
Michelle Martin presented Case Board of Adjustment-1034. The department of planning services received an
application from Kauffman Land and Development, LLC on Feb. 17, 2005 for the appeal an administrative
decision as set forth in Section 23-6-20 of the Weld County Code. The parcel of land under consideration is
described as Lot A of RE-1921; being part of the SE4 of Section 9,T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado. The site is located north of and adjacent to County Road 22 and west of and adjacent to County
Road 19 and consists of 5 acres.
On December 6, 2004 Kim Hutchins attorney for Kauffman Land and Development LLC sent a letter to the
Department of Planning Services wishing to place a permanent helipad on the property hoping that it would
not constitute a substantial change to 2" AmUSR-894. The Department of Planning Services responded to
Mr. Hutchins in a letter dated December 17, 2004. The letter stated a helicopter landing facility does not
comply with the original approved 2n°AmUSR-894. 2nd AmUSR-894 was approved by the Board of County
Commissioner on September 10, 1997 for a Site Specific Development Plan for an existing oil and gas
support and service operation.
Section 23-2-280 states, "Any approved Special Review Permit shall be limited to the items shown on the
Special Review plan map and governed by the Development Standards. Major changes from the approved
Special Review Plan Map or Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall require the review of
an amendment to the permit by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of County
Commissioners before such changes from the plan map or Development Standards are permitted. The
• 1
66 aros
2005-1676
Department of Planning Services is responsible for determining whether a major change exists. Any other
changes shall be filed with the Department of Planning Services with the approved Special Review Permit."
The applicants' application that the Board of County Commissioners, referral agencies, and surrounding
property owners reviewed in 1997 does not include the use of a helipad. In addition, the plat for 2nd AmUSR-
894, recorded on June 1, 1999, does not delineate or reserve an area to be used as a helipad. Therefore,the
Department of Planning Services finds the addition of the helipad to be a major change to the original
application.
The Department of Public Health and Environment in their referral dated March 30,2005 stated that they have
the following concerns: noise, disposal method for the wash bay, and the septic system. The Department of
Public Health and Environment has concerns that the 206B Jet Bell Ranger helicopter might exceed the
allowed db(s)as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Development Standard number 7 on 2nd
AmUSR-894 recorded plat which states "The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the light
industrial limit of 70 db(A), as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statues."
The Department of Health and Environment conducted a noise measurement on April 4,2005 and found the
noise level to be at 94.1 db(s). This is above the approved 70 db(s). Given this information if the BOA
determines the helipad is not a substantial change from the original application, the applicant is not
compliance with the approved development standards and should submit a site specific nose study to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services and Department of Public Health and Environment for further
review in order to determine the necessary actions.
The Department of Planning Services has received one letter from a surrounding property owner objecting to a
helipad. The objections referenced the following: the applicant can operate out of existing airfields, noise
pollution, spooked livestock, hovering to close to homes and power lines, hindering the sale of homes in his
proposed subdivision.
The Department of Planning Services finds the addition of a 25'X 25' helipad for the use of a 206B Jet Bell
Ranger helicopter to be a significant change to the original application, 2nd AmUSR-894 and therefore
recommends the applicant apply for a third amendment to 2n°AmUSR-894
In response to Mr.Whitwood question regarding the location of the pad, Ms. Martin indicated the location of
the pad on a map provided by Department of Planning Services.
Eric Whitwood asked the location of the neighbor who wrote the opposition letter. Ms. Martin indicated the
neighbors' property (Mr. Owens) is located to the north and east of this site.
Mary O Neal asked where the estate lots are located that have been approved. Ms. Martin indicated the
location on the map and stated the applicant is at the change of zone stage in his application. Mr. Fitzgerald
asked if there were turkeys being raised in the area. Ms. Martin stated she does not remember seeing any
turkeys.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Davis about noise levels and what compares to the 70 decibels(dbs)that is currently
approved. Ms. Davis indicated the residential noise level is 50 decibels, this would be light auto traffic at 100
feet, 60 dbs is considered commercial and consists of air conditioning or a clothes dryer, 70 dbs is light
industrial and it consists of freeway traffic or business office, 80 dbs is industrial and consist of an annoying
alarm clock, 90 dbs is considered very annoying and consists of heavy traffic and motorcycles. Mr. Gimlin
asked where on the property noise levels are measured. Ms. Davis stated the levels are measured at 25 feet
from the property line.
Joseph Bodine asked how the maximum level of noise of 94.1 decibels was detected when there was no
range. Phil Brewer,Weld County Department of Health and Environment, indicated that was the maximum
that was recorded at the time the helicopter flew directly over. Mr. Brewer added he was approximately 100
feet from the helicopter.
2
Kim Hutchins,attorney for KP Kaufman, provided additional information on the proposal. This change should
not be considered a major change to the approved use. Mr. Hutchins indicated that without the helicopter the
lines are monitored by ground vehicles. The helipad would be used to transport personal and inspect pipeline.
This is not a major change just a substitution for the vehicles that travel around the County for the use of the
helicopter. It is our understanding that the initial letter from the Department of Planning Services was without
a site visit or complaints or anything. The pad sits on the ground but is not stuck to the ground. The FAA has
their application and the applicant is awaiting approval. It is our opinion that the noise stipulation does not
apply to this application. Mr. Hutchins indicated the State statue includes information that indicates it is not
intended to apply to the operation of aircraft or to other activities which are subject to federal laws with respect
to noise controls. The lighting at the pad will be for take off and landing and there are anticipated to be a
maximum of two flights a day with fuel stored on site. The issue of septic and wash bays is of no concern,the
issue before us today is this proposal considered a major change. The applicant does not consider this to be
a major change.
Joseph Bodine asked about the fuel for the helicopter stored on site. Mr. Hutchins stated it was aviation fuel
for the helicopter but Mr. Allot will address the fuel in more detail.
Gordon Allot, Executive Vice President for KP Kauffman, provided clarification on the proposal. Mr. Allot
provided a presentation containing information on the operation of KP Kauffman. According to Mr. allot the
turkey farm to the east is vacant at this time but during the fall there will be animals on site. The applicant
feels this is not a major change. The helipad has been in use for approximately one year and there have been
no complaints. The complaint from Mr. Owens is the first the applicant has heard of. The presentation
provided evidence that the proposal should be approved and included information that the pad is not
permanent but can still be moved. A helicopter can land on the ground but the helipad was placed on site for
safety reasons and the FAA has allowed them to temporarily operate this pad. The applicant has an
application pending with FAA for final approval of the pad site and is currently not in any violation with the FAA.
The approach of the helicopter for landing can be changed to help mitigate neighbors concerns but those
approaches and take-offs are governed by the FAA. Mr.Allot added there is no time frame for development in
this area. Mr. Allot addressed some noise issues as to what was allowed in the original permit. He also
addressed the need for the helicopter for the inspection of the existing oil &gas lines the company currently
operates. There is presently technology that detects methane gas from the pipelines hence the reason for the
helicopter to be able to inspect the lines. Mr.Allot provided information as to the safety of the environment by
use of the helicopter. The presentation provided an in depth review of the companies operation. The
applicant has chosen the helicopter as a method of supervising the operation of the oil and gas lines in the
surrounding area. Mr. Allot explained the technology developed for detection of methane utilizing the
helicopter. He added the entire flight is video taped and the pad is moveable and built to FAA regulations.
The wires in the area have balls on them for visual reference. The helicopter is proposed to be substituted for
a pick up truck.
Tony Evans asked about the methane monitoring and do feedlots affect the reading. Mr. Allot indicated
feedlots do affect the readings thereby the reason for video tape. Mr. Allot added jet fuel is used for the
helicopter; diesel fuel could be used but would require more maintenance.
Tony Evans asked about the number of trucks that will be reduced by the use of the helicopter. Mr. Allot
indicated there are several trucks on site including pumpers that go to wells every day and trucks that take
crews to rigs. The applicant is attempting to reduce the number of employees driving around the County for
maintenance purposes. They are also trying to reduce the number of employees needed to supervise the field
personal. The helicopter allows them to review the pipelines for safety.
Erick Whitwood asked where the individuals who supervise the field personnel offices are located. Mr.Allot
stated the offices are in Denver and those individuals are mostly engineers who spend their time making maps
and looking at logs. The maintenance operation needs to have people in the field to find out what is occurring
with the wells. Mr. Whitwood asked that if the supervisory employees and Mr. Kauffman need to assess the
possible damages in an expedited manner why do they not begin the flight in Denver where all the offices are
located. Mr.Allot stated there are also field people that need to be picked up at the site. Mr.Allot added the
3
helicopter can avoid possible safety problems and assess the maintenance at a quicker rate.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Donald Jones, property manager for the Parker Trust, which is the property south of the subject site. Mr.
Jones believes the Department of Planning Services has reached the correct conclusion. There are
development options being reviewed for their property and there are noise and safety concerns with the
proposed helipad. Mr. Jones believes there needs to be buffer zones to address those safety and noise
concerns. The helicopter makes noisy landings and takeoffs. This specific type of activity may distract drivers
at the intersection of CR 22 and CR 19. The view from that intersection is very poor. There are turkeys on the
adjacent sites during specific times of the year. There have been two helicopters on site which could result in
50-60 landings and take offs per month. The Parker property is down wind from the take off and landing
corridor for the helicopter. The denial of the application does not preclude the applicant from using a
helicopter for the operation just from taking off from this site, there are other locations intended for that use.
The use of a helicopter was not the intended use that was originally approved in 2AmUSR-894.
Ed Pruss, representative for the Owens property located to the north and west of this proposal, indicated their
concerns. Mr. Pruss provided information with regards to the pad, its location and the limited buffer zone
between the pad and proposed homes. He added the helicopter corridor will go over the Owens property for
take offs and landings. Additional information was provided by Mr. Pruss with regards to the approved
landscape plan for the approved Gloroloma Estates subdivision on the Owens property. The location of the
trees will cause an issue with approaches for the helicopter and there are flight hazards due to the approved
landscaping trees for Gloroloma Estates. There are several lots to the north and a large lot to the west of the
pad and any operation would fly directly over planned residences. Ms. O'Neal asked about the oil wells. Mr.
Pruss indicated the Owens have surface use agreements with Encana Oil and Patina Oil & Gas and the
locations of the wells are on the approved plat for Gloroloma Estates. The flight patterns take the helicopter
directly over the Owens property and this is a hazard to their existing business operation. Mr. Pruss presented
a tape of opposition from the Owens and some of their clients. Mr. Pruss indicated this is not a good mix for
the area and there are other locations that Kauffman owns that would be more suitable for the utilization of the
helicopter pad. Mr. Pruss provided information with FM regulations for buffers. While Mr. Pruss agrees there
is a need to inspect the pipelines he also states that this is not a compatible use due to the approved
residences. The noise levels need to be determined at the site. Mr. Pruss indicated the approaches and take
offs for the helicopter will go directly over property that contain residences or proposed residences. Mr. Pruss
added there are no emergency services or equipment located on site should there be a problem or emergency
with the helicopters. The Owens have a legitimate concern for safety should the helicopter lose power.
Bryant Gimlin asked about annexations. Mr. Pruss stated there is an annexation agreement by Gloroloma
Estates that when sewer is provided the property will be annexed into the Town of Firestone.
Michelle Martin clarified the number of flights per day would be two with a maximum of five as indicated in the
application material.
Gordon Allot, responded with information indicating the number of airports in Weld County with some of them
being helicopter pad sites. He added that there is a heliport in the Town of Firestone on the west side of the
municipal boundaries. Mr.Allot added the helicopter take off and approach can be altered so the surrounding
property owners will not be affected. The determining factor would be the prevailing winds in the area. Mr.
Allot stated this is the first complaint that the applicant is aware of and they have been utilizing the site for six
to eight months prior to today's hearing. KP Kauffman wants to protect the surrounding property owners and
will do what it takes to protect them.
Kim Hutchins, attorney, stated he has called the Town of Firestone and has left message as to what the
applicant was doing and if there were concerns. There has been no response from them. Mr. Hutchins has
also written a letter with no response received. He added the video tape provided by Mr. Pruss addressed
safety of the animals and people but also noted that no one has been injured. Mr. Hutchins added the only
concern is rather this is a major change in use for the originally approved operation. He added that the
4
objective of the Zoning ordinance is to lessen the congestion on the streets. The applicant would like the
Board of Adjustment to grant the appeal and reverse the decision of Department of Planning Services.
Donald Jones,asked the Board of Adjustment to look at the list of airports in Weld County and see how many
are five acres or less. He added that if there are that many locations for this type of use in Weld County what
is the need for this specific site?
Ed Pruss, added that he commends the use of the helicopter but not at this location.
Gordon Allot, indicated the existing helipads in Weld County are private or they are to far away for any use.
He added the applicant does own property down by CR 19 and Hwy 52. That site contains the same concerns
with not being able to arrive or take off from the site without flying over adjacent property owners. If the Board
of Adjustment does not approve this request for variance the use of helicopters in Weld County will be limited.
Mr.Allot added that the first complaint regarding this use was presented the day of the previous hearing. He
added the applicant is willing set up flight patterns that will not cross the properties.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the FM permit is done. Mr.Allot indicated it was pending but the FAA has granted a
temporary permit to operate for one year and at end of one year the FAA will evaluate to see if the standards
are met for approval. Mr. Gimlin asked when the pad was installed was it thought to be an approved use. Mr.
Allot indicated they did not feel it was a major change and was an approved substituted use.
Chair closed the public comment.
Lee Morrison indicated two things with one being"the issue is whether under provision of zoning this can be
allowed as not a substantial change for existing permit."The other factors provided need to be determined
whether they are relevant to that consideration under the zoning ordinance. The decision of health and safety
and visibility need to be referenced as to the issue of a substantial change not whether the Board of
Adjustment members believe this is a good proposal or not. Mr. Morrison added the stated motion needs to
be in the form to overturn staff decision. Mr. Bodine indicated that if this is denied it does not preclude the
applicant from asking for an amended USR permit. Mr. Morrison stated if the amended USR process was
selected they would need to apply for such or they could go to court and attest the Board of Adjustment
decision.
Mary O'Neal wanted clarification on what she would be allowed to consider.Mr.Morrison stated that her duties
as a Board of Adjustment member are limited to determining if the existing permit, under the language in the
ordinance, whether having the helipad is not a major change to the existing permit. Mr. Morrison added the
evidence of a substantial change must be determined with what has been presented by both staff and the
applicant. Mr. Morrison added that the health and safety of the citizens must be reviewed but not considered
the primary focus. The Planning Commission has a broader ability if the applicant should chose to re-apply.
Michelle Martin quoted Section 23-2-280 from the Weld County code and the section indicates, "Any
approved Special Review Permit shall be limited to the items shown on the Special Review plan map and
governed by the DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Major changes from the approved Special Review Plan
Map or DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the Special Review Permit shall require the review of an
amendment to the permit by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of County
Commissioners before such changes from the plan map or DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS are permitted.
The Department of Planning Services is responsible for determining whether a major change exists. Any
other changes shall be filed with the Department of Planning Services with the approved Special Review
Permit." (Weld County Codification Ordinance 2000-1)
Bruce Fitzgerald asked when 2AmUSR-894 was approved. Ms. Martin stated the original application was
recorded in June 1, 1999. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there was any part that allowed for aircraft on site. Ms.
Martin stated there was not from the Department of Planning Services standpoint.
Bryant Gimlin stated a big part of the application is based on the justification of the helicopter. He added it is
5
relevant that they are presently using it but the justification needs to be done with regards to the business
itself. When the original USR was approved then amended a consideration would have been on the impact of
the surrounding property as well as the health, safety and welfare of them. The approved USR is for an Oil&
Gas Support and those activities are intense anyway. The use of the helicopter fits into the daily activity and it
might mitigate some of the traffic in and out of the facility. Mr. Gimlin added that if this site were compared to
other facilities of this type some of the same noise standards would apply; the difference is the helicopter is
infrequent. The use of the helicopter is not a major impact and the livestock will get accustomed to this. Mr.
Gimlin does not believe this is a substantial change based on the fact this is an oil and gas support service
facility and this is the type of activity associated with the facility.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented a helicopter adds an element that was not planned and it is a substantial. Mr.
Gimlin added that every change cannot be anticipated. The concern is that when technology is involved the
applicant should not have to come back and re-apply for something they could not have anticipated.
Tony Evans agrees that the use of helicopter is substantial but this site began as a land based operation and
is being converted into a land and air based operation. He added this location is not the most proper location
for this intense of a use and he recommends amending the USR.
Mary O'Neal commented that there are health and safety issues on both sides. When this was applied for the
Planning Commission looked at the impacts on area and this is an added component. Ms. O'Neal is not
against the proposal but it is a major change that needs to be reviewed again by Planning Commission.
Chris Gathman added that Gloroloma Estates has been approved for conceptual change of zone and it will
need to go back before Board of County Commissioners for final plat approval.
Eric Whitwood commented that having a business that can evolve is a good thing but the concern is this is a
gray area. He feels the change must be evaluated by Planning Commission.
Bryant Gimlin moved to grant the appeal which would overturn staff decision. William Hansen seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Joseph
Bodine, no; Mary O'Neal, no; Tony Evans, no; Eric Whitwood, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, no,
William Hansen, yes. Motion failed
CASE NUMBER: BOA-1035
APPLICANT: Hajek Chevrolet-Olds, Inc.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 8-12, Block 4 of the Corrected Plat, Vista Commercial Center Filing
1; Pt of the N2 of Section 8, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for a variance to allow a sign that is 35 feet in height
(26.2.90.E of the Weld County Code requires signs not to exceed 25 feet
above adjoining ground elevation) and has a 225 square foot sign face
(Section 23.4.100.C.2 of the Weld County Code requires a maximum
sign face area of 150 square feet)
LOCATION: Approximately 95 feet south of Hwy 119 and 1/4 mile west of CR 3 1/2.
Chris Gathman presented Case Board of Adjustment-1035. the Department of Planning Services is
recommending denial of the application. Hajek Chevrolet-Olds, Inc. has applied for a variance to allow a
35-foot high pole sign with a 225 square foot sign face(two sides). Section 23-4-100.C2 of the Weld
County Code states that identification signs not exceed 150 square feet per sign face. Section 26-2-90.e
of the Weld County Code states that the total of any monument or pole sign shall not exceed twenty-five
(25) feet above the adjoining ground elevation. The proposed sign will exceed the required height by 10-
feet and the required sign area per face by 75-square feet. The property is located within the Mixed Use
Development Area. The applicants are proposing to move their existing sign at their Longmont location to
6
this site.
The parcel of land under consideration is described as Lots 8-12; Block 4 of the Corrected Plat, Vista
Commercial Center; located in part of the N2 of Section 8, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado. The parcel is located south of State Highway 119 and east of County Road 3 in the Vista
Commercial Subdivision. The main access to the site will be off of Vista View Drive in the interior of the
Vista Commercial Subdivision. The sign is proposed to be located on Lot 12 at the western end of the site
at a distance of approx. 127-feet from the County Road 3 and Highway 119 intersection. The traffic signal
and main entrance to Vista Commercial Subdivision is located at County Road 3.5.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has determined that the submitted materials are in
compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-6-40.A of the Weld County Code but recommends
that this request be denied 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.
There are not special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to this lot, building or structure. The site
is located 95-feet south of State Highway 119 and the applicants are planning to install the sign approximately
105-feet from the right-of-way for State Highway 119. There are several interior lots within the Vista
Commercial Center that do not have the opportunity to install signs that have an unimpeded view from
Highway 119. In addition, a car dealership to the east of this site(Saturn)has installed pole signs that meet
the sign height and sign size requirements delineated in the Weld County Code. There will also be wall signs
on the building. Wall signs can be installed on a building provided that they do not exceed eight percent(8%)
of the building wall that they are installed upon per Section 23-4-100.D.1 of the Weld County Code.
(According to the Bldg. Permit File) The applicant is proposing to install signs on the north side of the building
totaling 140 square feet, on the east side of the building totaling 85 square feet, and on the south side of the
building totaling 215 square feet. A Chevrolet emblem is also proposed to be installed on the west side of the
building.
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. Literal
interpretation of this chapter would not deprive the appellant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in
the same zoning district. The Department of Planning Services has found no records of variances being
granted to allow a sign taller than 25-feet and containing a sign face larger than 150-square feet within the
Vista Commercial Center.
Section 23-6-40.C.3 The special conditions and circumstances do not result solely from the actions of the
appellant. Based on staff review, there are no special conditions related to this parcel. The applicant has
clearly created the need for this action. The proposed sign is for a car dealership that the applicants are in the
process of constructing.
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. No information was submitted with the application to justify granting this request. The variance is
not necessary for the reasonable use of the lot building or structure. The Weld County Code allows for signs
that are of sufficient size and height to be visible from State Highway 119.
The desire to retain and relocate an existing sign is clearly not supported by this ordinance as a reason to
grant a variance
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the sign height and size regulation is County wide or in the MUD area. Mr.Gathman
indicated the sign code has two sections. The sign face requirement is under the zoning chapter and there is
not a specific criteria for sign face size pole signs in the MUD. Staff uses the 150 square foot requirement in
the zoning section of the County code. There is a Section 26-2-90.E that deals with heights of pole signs in
the MUD area.
7
Tony Evans asked if the MUD Del Camino fall into this because they have taller signs that are larger. Mr.
Gathman stated there are several signs that are pre-existing signs and do not meet the code. Mr. Gathman
added that if the signs are removed they would need to meet current regulations when constructed. Mr. Evans
asked if the City of Longmont was sent a referral. Mr. Gathman indicated they were and they responded with
no conflict.
William Hansen asked if this was an existing sign. Mr. Gathman stated it was and it is located on the present
lot in the City of Longmont.
Joseph Bodine asked if the legals were sent. Mr. Gathman indicated legal publications had been done and he
could provide copies of those also they could be added to further packets.
Sara Hajek,applicant, provided clarification on the proposal.The applicants want to move the current sign to
this new location. The sign will be 105 feet from Hwy 119 and there are other lots that already have signs that
are closer. There is an outlot that separates the property from Hwy 119 which makes them further away. The
elevations of the lots are 5-6 feet lower than Hwy 119. All five lots will be used by one business which means
if the lots were sold to five different businesses there could be five different signs. This applicant needs a sign
that will service the entire area. The size and number of trees that are being required by the County will bar
the sign from being seen. This sign is the normal sign for General Motors dealership. This denial would
deprive them of rights from other properties because other properties are closer to the road and more visible.
The applicant feels that special conditions do not result solely from the applicants actions. The County has
required them to do the landscaping which will limit the visibility from the road. There will be trees grouped
around the location of the sign, it would be better if the sign were visible. The trees that are required will
obscure the signs on the building and the frontage. There is a need to see the sign, it will be detrimental not
to. The applicants do not believe it is entirely their fault a larger sign is needed. There were no objections
from any of the government agencies. There will be a cost to the business if have to get a new sign. The sign
in Longmont had to be revamped to conform to the new Chevy requirements and they would like to use that
sign in the new location. There are Conditions if the sign is approved. There will be a berm required along
with the landscape. The applicant is happy to comply with the requirements. Ms. Hajek indicated there was
additional money spent on the location of the lots she purchased for the advertising affect.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the sign in Longmont is in compliance with Longmont's code. Robert Hajek,
applicant, indicated the sign in Longmont is grandfathered and was remodeled with no comment.
Tony Evans asked if there was a picture of the sign with the dimensions. Mr. Hajek indicated the approximate
size of the sign is 35 feet tall and 225 square feet on the face(apx. 12 x 14). Mr. Hajek provided clarification
with regards to the sign on a plat. Mr. Evans asked about the trees. Ms. Hajek stated the trees do not begin
very tall but will grow to cover the face of the sign at maturity. Ms. Hajek stated it is not unreasonable for this
variance on the one sign.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr.Gathman if this area is close to the City limits of Longmont or in their growth area.
Mr. Gathman indicated there is no pending annexation proposed at this time.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Gathman about Condition 1 about the sign height and sign size being limited to the
exiting sign, what would prevent them from having five signs on five lots. Mr. Gathman indicated there that
Section 23-3-90 defines lots which would limit the number of signs. The development area includes one
building.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the design of the landscaping and the fact that the trees be in front of the sign.
Mr. Gathman stated a SPR does not require trees to be in front of the signs. There are standard sizes
required for different trees. The standard is 2.5 inch caliper for deciduous trees and 6 feet high for conifers.
8
The applicant determines the trees, the County determines that they be grouped to be used for screening.
The standard requirement is a 50 foot landscape setback from Hwy 119 and in the setback there would be a 6
foot berm then landscaping on the berm. Staff did not require them to put in a 6 foot berm due to the site
being away from Hwy 119. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated the landscaping will be in the way visually from the
vehicles that are trying to be sold. Mr. Gathman stated there are regulations that must be dealt with and staff
tried to allow for openings in the groupings of trees so that the signs and cars were visible.
Tony Evans asked if all the lots sit off Hwy 119 a good distance with an impact more than anyone else. Mr.
Gathman stated there is a buffer for Vista Commercial. Mr. Evans asked if the Centennial Bank sign is larger
and higher. Mr. Gathman stated that a variance was done and improved in 1999.
Joseph Bodine asked about the outlot and what it was. Mr.Gathman stated it was open space for a drainage
area but not a buildable site. Mr. Evans addressed the drainage issues since he has historical knowledge of
the area. Mr. Bodine asked about the lower elevation from the Hwy to the site which is said to be 5-6 feet and
how does this reflect on the other lots in area. Mr.Gathman stated he did no notice a change between Saturn
and Hajek lots.
Sara Hajek added that the Saturn site was raised before it was built upon. Ms. Hajek described the
landscaping requirements on a site plan on an overhead. The signs are located where they need to be along
with the tree locations according to the site plan that has been approved.
Discussion ensued on whether there would be two variances separating the height from the size of the sign.
Ms. Hajek added that in the C-3 zone district the maximum height allowed is 45 feet adjacent to interstate
interchanges but not in the MUD area.
Lee Morrison stated a general County ordinance and the MUD have different requirements. The question is to
have both the requests together. There needs to be a motion for both variances.
Chris Gathman indicated the variances are for a sign size of 225 square feet per sign face, which would
exceed the Code by 75 square feet. The second variance is to have a 35 foot high where Code requires a 25
feet sign.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to allow the variance of the additional 10 feet in height and 75 feet in sign face.
Bryant Gimlin seconded.
Tony Evans asked if granting the variances would still set a precedent. Mr. Morrison stated it does not create
a precedent as each case is reviewed separately.
Mary O'Neal commented the difference is the site location so this would make sense for the variance of sign
height but the sign face is difficult. Mr. Bodine stated the application contains both. Mr. Morrison stated this
was the request of the applicant.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Board of Adjustment for their decision. Joseph
Bodine,yes; Mary O'Neal,yes;Tony Evans,yes; Eric Whitwood,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;William Hansen,yes.
Motion approved.
Meeting adjourned at.7:00 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
9
Hello