HomeMy WebLinkAbout20161985.tiffMINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, June 7, 2015, in the
Hearing Room of the Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting
was called to order by Vice -Chair Michael Wailes at 10:00 a.m.
Roll Call.
Present: Benjamin Hansford, Gary Cyr, Michael Wailes, William Hedberg.
Absent: Jason Maxey, Jim Rohn, Jordan Jemiola.
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Department of Planning; Bob Choate, County Attorney; and Kristine
Ranslem, Secretary.
Vice Chair Wailes asked if there are any nominations for Chair or Vice Chair.
William Hedberg nominated Michael Wailes as Chair, seconded by Gary Cyr.
Benjamin Hansford nominated Jordan Jemiola as Vice Chair, seconded by William Hedberg.
Michael Wailes declined the nomination of Chair. Michael Wailes nominated Jason Maxey as Chair,
seconded by Benjamin Hansford. Motion carried unanimously.
Secretary Ranslem noted that Jordan Jemiola is an Associate Member and therefore is unable to hold an
Officer position. Bob Choate, County Attorney, agreed and added that only a Regular Member can hold an
Officer position.
William Hedberg nominated Benjamin Hansford as Vice Chair, seconded by Michael Wailes. Benjamin
Hansford accepted the nomination.
CASE NUMBER: BOA16-0001
APPLICANT: CJL INVESTMENT INC
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN THE C-3
(BUSINESS COMMERCIAL) ZONE DISTRICT. REQUEST TO
CONSTRUCTA TWO-STORY BUILDING ADDITION 5 -FEET INTO THE
REQUIRED 10 -FOOT OFFSET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE (NORTH
PROPERTY LINE).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PART NE4 SECTION 10, T2N, R68W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO TURNER BOULEVARD AND
APPROXIMATELY 425 FEET SOUTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 119.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented BOA16-0001 reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that the existing motel unit is located five (5) feet from the north property
line. The proposed building addition is proposed to be located five (5) feet from the north property line as
well and will be two stories in height.
Mr. Gathman provided an overview of the proposed building addition and parking spaces on the site plan
submitted by the applicant.
The Department of Planning Services recommends denial of this application.
Benjamin Hansford asked what is located on the adjoining properties. Mr. Gathman said that there is an
open lot with some utilities and a sign on the property located to the north of the subject property. This site
is owned by the mobile home park, which is also located west of and adjacent to the subject property. Mr.
2016-1985
6-002.02040
Hansford asked if he anticipates any construction or development on the open lot. Mr. Gathman said that
he doesn't anticipate anything at this time.
Mr. Hansford asked if the building was to comply with existing setback requirements, would the parking lot
aisle width still be in compliance as well. Mr. Gathman said that they would still have adequate room to
provide parking and meet the 24 foot aisle width.
William Hedberg asked if there was a variance granted for the five (5) foot encroachment in 1971 when the
existing building was constructed or did it meet the code at that time. Mr. Gathman said that there isn't a
previous variance for this site and added that he would need to research the old codes to see if it met the
setback requirements at that time.
Mr. Hedberg noted that he saw semi -trucks parked there previously and asked if the parking lot could
accommodate that. Mr. Gathman said that the site would have some parking restraints for these trucks but
they may be able to provide it.
Michael Wailes asked what the basis is for the 10 foot offset. Mr. Gathman said that the setbacks are from
the roadway and are typically more like 20 to 25 feet. He said that the issue with the offset is that there is
less room and buildings will be a lot closer to the property line than with a setback requirement. Mr.
Hansford said that he understands that the issue dealt mainly with health, safety and welfare and added
that if there was a fire that the fire department couldn't have access to, it could be an issue. Mr. Gathman
noted that unfortunately the Fire District did not provide a referral in this case.
Mansu Ahn stated that he represents the applicant. Mr. Ahn said that the owner wants to make the
proposed addition consistent with the existing building as well as provide more units for clients demand.
Gary Cyr asked if there is an additional construction cost if the variance is not granted. Mr. Ahn said that it
wouldn't be an additional construction cost; however the owner would like to make the proposed building
addition consistent with the existing building.
Mr. Wailes asked if the applicant plans to remodel the existing units into a two-story building as well. Mr.
Ahn said that the owner intends to remodel the existing units.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Bob Choate reminded the Board of Adjustment members that the five (5) criteria to grant a variance is listed
under Section 23-6-40.C.
Mr. Wailes said that he didn't realize the existing building was already located five (5) foot into the offset.
He referred to the aerial photo and said that although it's not a structure, the applicant is still utilizing that
space for parking currently. He said that he is inclined to think that as long as it doesn't create an additional
encroachment into the setback then he is in favor of it. He asked if when they do remodeling on the existing
units in the future if would it be better to get everything set right by building this addition where it needs to
be to comply with the code and then the future units start aligning to the new structure.
Mr. Hansford said that he feels they can build the addition to comply with the County Code and reconstruct
the existing units to the correct offset requirements. He added that with not knowing what may happen to
the lot adjacent to it he feels that for safety reasons it should be built at the required offset.
Mr. Hedberg asked staff if they received any comments from adjacent property owners. Mr. Gathman said
that they were noticed; however he received no comments from any surrounding property owners. Mr.
Hedberg said he understands Mr. Hansford's concerns and added that the surrounding property rights
should be considered in this process.
2
Mr. Cyr said that he is disappointed that no referrals were received from the surrounding towns and fire
district. He emphasized concern with the entrance of the parking lot but it appears that it still meets the
required aisle width.
Mr. Wailes said that after reviewing the five (5) criteria, he feels that this variance fits into these points. He
added that the applicant isn't responsible for the existing building being located in the required offset and it
is minimizing the use. Additionally, he feels that it is in harmony with the county code.
Mr. Choate reminded the Board of Adjustment that a vote of "yes" shall be a vote in favor of the Appellant's
position; a vote of "no" shall be a vote opposed to the Appellant's position.
Vote: (summary: Yes = 1, No = 3).
Yes: Michael Wailes.
No: Gary Cyr, Benjamin Hansford, William Hedberg.
Mr. Wailes stated that the variance was not granted.
Meeting adjourned at 10:36 am.
Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
--Date: 2016.06.14 07:30:38 -06'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
3
Hello