HomeMy WebLinkAbout992859.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING,
�15ursdajj,dbtoW28,1999
A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Thurscjay October 28, 1999, in Room
210 of the Planning/Public Health Building, 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colbrado. The meeting was called
to order by John Windsor.
John Windsor Present Arthur Partridge Present
Clayton Gage Present Don Beierbach Present
Timothy Losh Present Anita Owens Present
Gary Stewart Present Jack Davis Present
Norman Nash Present Joseph Bodine Present
MaryAnn DePinto Present Michael Willits Absent
Also Present: Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner, Julie Chester, Planner, Monica Daniels-Mika,
Director, Wendi Inloes, Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Trisha
Swanson, Secretary.
Minutes from meetings on September 9, 1999 and October 14, 1999, were approved.
CASE NUMBER: BOA-1000
APPLICANT: Young Electric Sign Company
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1,Western Dairymen's Cooperative, Inc. Located in Section 10,
T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: Appeal to an Administrative Decision for a sign in the Mixed Use Development area
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; east of and adjacent to WCR 7.5; north of and
adjacent to North Stagecoach Road.
Anne Best Johnson, Department of Planning Services, presented Case BOA-1000. Anne read the case into
the record, stating that this is not a variance, but an appeal of an administrative decision made by the
Department of Planning Services. Anne stated the reasons for the denial by the Planning Department, citing
section 42.4.1.1 in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and section 2.8.2 (5c) of the Weld County Mixed Use
Development plan. The Department of Planning Services feels that the sign in question is designed to compel
attention, which they interpret the aforementioned sections to prohibit.
Joseph Bodine asked what decision was being appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Joseph asked if the key
interpretation is whether this sign is designed simply to compel attention. Anne agreed that the purpose of
this meeting was to discern whether the wording of the ordinance concerned the sign or if the sign was legal.
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, stated the Board of Adjustment was to decide if the Director of the
Planning Department made the correct decision regarding the above-mentioned sections.
Tim Losh asked what is against the rules, if it was just the lights, the movement of the lights, or the messages
presented on the sign. Anne stated that the Planning Department felt the movement of the lights was not in
accordance with the MUD Ordinance in Section 2.8.2 (5c).
Tony Delponto, Applicant from Young Electric Signs, stated a time line for the permitting process, and stated
that the permit had already been approved, but was stopped on July 12, 1999, by the Planning Department.
He stated that the sign is used for bank advertisements, community advertisements, and in welcome. He says
that the plans given to the Planning and Building Departments were up-front about what kind of sign it was.
Anita Owens mentioned that the plans don't say a thing about the sign moving. The applicant stated that there
is nothing in the Zoning ordinance about animation, but that this sign does not involve an appurtenance. Jack
Davis asked if the applicant thought the Planning Department knew the sign would move. Lee Morrison stated
0m 01244G-- Ji -cq- qCT 992859
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
October 28, 1999
Page 2
that the Building Department issues permits, but that the permit must be in compliance with the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance and mentioned that the issue is not with the Planning Department's process in the
permitting process, but that the Board is there to decide if the Planning Department's definition of the two
ordinance's meaning were the correct definition or if the sign was within the Zoning and MUD Ordinances.
John Windsor stated that the reason for the rules in the ordinance was for safety, when looking at the other
parts of the same section in the MUD. Mary Ann DePinto asked how the messages appeared on the sign,
if they blinked or flashed on. The applicant said that the sign's message can be changed to fit anything the
owner chose, from slow to fast, fading in to moving quickly, and the bank owners would follow guidelines if
needed.
Discussion followed concerning whether or not it was the appurtenance part of the Ordinance that was the
problem or if it was concerning the entire sign in conduction with the ordinance. Joseph Bodine mentioned
that the whole point of this meeting was to decide whether or not this sign fits within the MUD and Weld
County Zoning Ordinances and that any other issues would have to be dealt with at another place. Lee stated
that the Board of Adjustment is to read and interpret the section of the ordinance in question. Lee said that
if the Board feels the Planning Department made procedural errors, but made the correct interpretation, you
should find against the appellant, but if the board feels an incorrect interpretation was made they should find
for the appellant.
Don Beierbach questioned if the sign moved slowly, would this sign still be an issue. Anne mentioned that
was not how the sign was submitted. Anne stated the intention of the Zoning Ordinance and the MUD was
concerns with traffic and sign congestion as well. Weld County consistently does not allow signs of this nature
where something moves across the screen. Don asked if any moving sign would be denied. Anne stated that
this is decided on a case by case basis, but consistently, these signs have not been allowed. Don mentioned
that the plan they received from the applicant stated that this was a moving sign. Anne stated that plan was
not received by the Planning Department with the Site Plan Application, this was received with the building
permit application, and therefore not approved with the Site Plan Application.
John Windsor mentioned that perhaps they should define that attention attracting devices that compel
attention or if this sign was just a sing with lights, unlike a beacon (which is a steady flashing light). John also
asked how far from the road was this sign to be placed. Applicant stated that it was about 50 feet from the
road. John asked Anne if section 42.4.1.1 in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and section 2.8.2 (5c) in the
Weld County MUD Ordinance were the reasons for denial. Anne agreed that this was correct. Anita Owens
pointed out that the section says"including", which shows the types listed there as examples, not as the only
specific types.
Kirk Brimley, with the Young Electric Sign Company and a special consultant to the International Sign
Association, stated that he has worked on these issues in the past, and that this sign does not involve a safety
issue. Kirk states that in 1980 the International Sign Association dealt with whether this type of sign is
considered a mechanical or flashing sign, of which it is neither.
Bill Farr, President of Centennial Bank of the West, stated that he had chosen this sign to beautify an
expensive building, that this sign would not be an eyesore. He also commented that an almost identical sign
in Greeley has received no complaints.
Lee Morrison discussed the possible repercussions of granting this appeal, from changing the ordinance to
include or exclude this sign to leaving the wording the same. Lee stated that the Board just had to decide on
this case for the merits presented, that the Board of County Commissioners would be the ones to look at
longer reaching effects of this case.
Board members discussed if they were ruling on the following words: appurtenance, compel, or attention
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
October 28, 1999
Page 3
getting. Timothy Losh wanted to say that the wording in both ordinances is very vague and the ordinance
needs to be re-written and put into today's technological terms. He feels that the two different people could
interpret this differently.
Jack Davis moved to grant the appellant's appeal. Gary Stewart seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the committee. Clayton Gage, no; John Windsor,
yes; Don Beierbach, yes; Norman Nash, yes; Timothy Losh, yes; Anita Owens, no; Jack Davis, yes; Gary
Stewart, yes; Art Partridge, yes. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
Hello