TOWN OF BERTHOUD PLANNING COMMISSION TOWN HALL 807 Mountain Avenue THURSDAY, March 23, :30 P.M.

Transcription

1 Town of Berthoud 807 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO TOWN OF BERTHOUD PLANNING COMMISSION TOWN HALL 807 Mountain Avenue THURSDAY, March 23, :30 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call Scott Banzhaf, Chair Jennifer Baker, Vice Chair William Gilmore Kelly Dunkelberger Christine Celentano, Secretary Richard Shepard Tim Hardy All matters listed under Item 3, Consent Agenda, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted with a single vote. If discussion is deemed necessary on an item, that item should be removed from the consent Agenda and considered separately. 3. Consent Agenda: a. Minutes from the meeting of March 9th, Justus Bebo, agent for L and M Enterprises, sign variance request from Section G. 6. (a) to allow an additional commercial sign; from Section G. 6. (c) for a sign height variance of 6 feet; from Section G. 6. (e) to allow a sign in the right-ofway, and from Section to allow a flashing, moving, blinking, chasing or other animation effects on a sign. 5. Reports. 6. Adjourn. If you require a special accommodation, please contact the Town Clerk 24 hours in advance at (970)

2 MINUTES FROM LAST PC MEETING MARCH 9th

3 TOWN OF BERTHOUD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 25, 2016 PAGE 1 OF 3 The Planning Commission of the Town of Berthoud convened a regular meeting on March 9, Chairman Banzhaf called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Scott Banzhaf, Chairman Dick Shepard Jen Baker Kelly Dunkelberger Christine Celentano Tim Hardy Bill Gilmore Staff/Town: Curt Freese, Community Director Patti Swiger, Building and Planning Clerk CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda consisted of the meeting minutes from the meeting of February 23, Shepard moved to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. Second by Baker. All members voted YES with Dunkelberger and Celentano abstaining. HAMMOND PRELIMINARY PLAT Freese introduced the third filing of the preliminary Plat for the Hammond development. The Applicant, which is The Birdsall Group, agent for The Landuis Company, had submitted a Preliminary Plat for the second filing and a Rezoning in January of this year. It was approved by the Planning Commission and will be heard by the Town Board on March 14 th, The first filing was approved in This proposed preliminary plat consists of 72 single family lots, with acres of parks and open space and one acre lot reserved for future use/development, with a proposed temporary detention pond. This is a preliminary plat and they will have to come back with a final plat before they can create those lots. Freese said that The Towns Preferred Land Use Map designates the area as high density residential and Employment, which is partially consistent with the density and uses proposed in this Preliminary Plat request. Drainage flows to the southeast corner of the property, and that area is best suited for the park/openspace and drainage area. The Applicant will require a common 6 high privacy style fence along Highway 287 to provide a buffer and to mitigate any issues with safety, aesthetics and noise. Also there is a 25 wide out-lot along the ridge between Hwy 287 and the rear yards of the single family homes to the west. This will provide additional buffering. The homes will be more than 200 from the actual roadway of Hwy 287. The application is consistent with the approved concept plan and incorporates the Town s recommendations and any conditions of approval in that the overall density and uses are consistent with the single family nature of the approved Concept Plan and rezoning and are also compliant with the original ODP.

4 TOWN OF BERTHOUD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 25, 2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 The lower density single family is partially within conformance of the Preferred Land Use Plan, which calls for high density residential on this area of the Hammond development but Freese said was planned for primarily Single Family. The preliminary plat is in conformance with the Zoning code and all other Development Code standards. The utility and transportation design is adequate, given existing and planned capacities of those systems. He continued with stating the negative impacts on adjacent land uses include, but not limited to: solar access, heat, dust glare, traffic and noise. These have been identified and satisfactorily mitigated with additional buffering and landscaping between Hwy 287 and the homes. Freese concluded with saying that there is a need or desirability within the community for the applicant s development and the development will help achieve a balance of land use and housing types within Berthoud even though Berthoud lags behind in terms of housing diversity. 83 % of Berthoud s housing stock is single-family detached, while the State s percentage is 63%. This project does provide a single family home at a desired lot and home size for some young families. The multi-family and mixed use portion which would provide greater balance to the community has been moved to the South. Freese said that Staff finds that the Planning Commission should recommend that the Town Board approve the Hammond Third Filing Preliminary Plat as it is consistent with Section C. Jeff Mark, Landhuis Company They are the applicant and are bringing forth this Preliminary Plat. Spoke of bringing in commercial portion and an area with townhouses. Banzhaf asked about fencing. Mark said they are going with a 6 vinyl privacy fence. Banzhaf spoke of articulating fence line. Mark said it could be looked at. Discussed that an offset of the fence could look better. Kristen Turner, The Birdsall Group Spoke of landscaping and the buffer area. The specifics would come with the final plat. Baker asked about area between Lot A and Lot 7. Jeff Mark said this was an open space area. There is some required drainage in that area. Banzhaf opened up the public hearing portion of the meeting. With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Commission asked that a fencing detail be brought in with the final plat. Landscape detail is done administratively. Mr. Mark said he would see that it is ed to Freese in advance. Shepard made the motion to recommend that the Town Board approve the Hammond Third Filing Preliminary Plat, with the findings that it is consistent with Section C (found on pages 2-3 of this Staff Report. Second by Dunkelberger. ALL were in favor.

5 TOWN OF BERTHOUD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 25, 2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 REPORTS Freese said that the Brookside Garden Sign issue on Highway 56 will be on the agenda for March 23. It appears they are having a survey done. The Planning Commission will be able to see if conditions have been met at the March 23, 2017 meeting. The Development Code meeting was well attended. A new code enforcement officer is in training. Next meeting is March 23, Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Christine Celentano, Secretary Patti Swiger, Building Dept.

6 MINUTES FROM FEB 23 rd PLANNING COMMISSION (WHEN ITEM WAS FIRST HEARD)

7 TOWN OF BERTHOUD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2017 Page 1 of 4 The Planning Commission convened a regular meeting on February 23, Chairman Banzhaf called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Staff/Town: Scott Banzhaf, Chairman Dick Shepard Bill Gilmore Tim Hardy Christine Celentano Jenn Baker Kelly Dunkelberger Curt Freese, Community Development Director Sue Bowles, Planning & Building Technician CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda consists of the minutes of the meeting of February 9, Shepard moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. Second by Gilmore. All members voted YES. BROOKSIDE GARDENS SIGN VARIANCE Freese explained that the applicant erected a new sign on their property in December of 2016 without a permit and in violation of the sign code. The sign erected is a pole sign 18 high, and 12 wide, with a 6 8 x 2 9 LED message board underneath. The sign was placed on the property in addition to the existing Brookside Garden pole sign. Moreover, according to the Site Plan submitted with this application, the sign is more than 9 into the State ROW on HWY 56. A stop work order was issued, and the applicant has submitted the variance application. The unpermitted sign requires four variances from the Berthoud Sign code, which include: 1) Section G. 6. (a), which allows one monument or pole sign per property in the C-1 zoning district. The variance would allow an additional pole/monument sign on this property, in addition to the existing pole sign (a picture is in this packet). 2) Section G. 6. (c) allows for a 12 high pole or monument sign. The unpermitted sign is 18 in height, which would result in a sign height variance of 6 feet. 3) Section G. 6. (e) requires that signs be out of the ROW. As aforementioned this sign is more than 9 into the State ROW, and no encroachment has been provided. Therefore a variance from this section would allow a sign in the right-of-way, however an encroachment permit from the State would still be needed. 4) Section prohibits flashing, moving, blinking and chasing signs. Thus, the LED message board installed with this sign, requires a variance from this section. Freese went through the variance criteria that must be considered for a variance. The Planning Commission under Section has the authority to authorize variances from the terms of Chapter 30-2, Design Standards, Chapter 30-3, Zoning; and Chapter 30-7 Signs, where the strict enforcement of

8 TOWN OF BERTHOUD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2017 Page 2 of 4 this title would create a situation which would result in unreasonable application of these standards, considering whether (with Staff analysis regarding each point below): a.such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the neighborhood or the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of this code, and; b. Provided that there are exceptional circumstances applying to the specific piece of property which do not generally apply to the remaining property in the same zoning area or neighborhood, and; c. That the requested variance shall not authorize any permanent use not permitted in the zoning district, and; d. If the hardship on which the request for variance is based, in whole or in part, is self-inflicted, that will be a highly significant fact which is a material element bearing on the issue, and will weigh heavily against the owner or applicant seeking the variance, or; e. In circumstances where the property owners affected most directly, e.g. neighbors, concur in writing with the variance that fact shall be given significant (but not conclusive) weight in favor of the request Freese noted that in order to approve the variance, it takes a majority vote of the Board of Adjustment. Justus Bebo spoke on behalf of L & M Enterprises and Brookside Gardens noting that they are not requesting an additional sign. The older sign will be removed. Justus apologized that the sign had been installed without a permit. He was not aware that one was needed since they were intending to remove one sign and replace it with another. Bebo explained that the reason they installed a taller sign was for visibility. With the speed of travel on at 55 m.p.h. on Hwy 56, the previous sign was not visible until the last second, and visitors were slamming on their brakes when they say the sign. Bebo further noted that although the site plan he submitted shows the sign in the right of way, he simply drew it in the wrong place. The fence is at the border of the right of way, and the sign is behind the fence. Bebo also explained that the announcement portion of the sign will be static, and will not be animated or rotating. Chairman Banzhaf opened the public hearing for comment: Paul 421 Colorado Ave. agreed that it was difficult to see the sign with the trees and the speed of traffic, noting that even though he s been there before, he has still slammed on his brakes a few times. It is a possible safety issue. Theresa Stritzky noted that she passes this property eight times a day and agree it is very important to be able to see the sign when you re traveling at 55 miles an hour. Banzhaf noted that with Ace Hardware being open in town 7 days a week, they get a lot of people coming in and asking where Brookside is located. The scale of the previous signage and the visibility did make it difficult to see. Now with it has been opened up with removal of the trees and with this larger sign, it s much more visible. Banzhaf further noted this property is much larger scale than most commercial businesses in Berthoud. The variances we ve seen in the past are because of the size of the properties and our sign code didn t adapt to that,

9 TOWN OF BERTHOUD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2017 Page 3 of 4 does not have flexibility or recognition for businesses in areas with higher speed limits. Our sign code needs to address this. There was some discussion of whether or not the sign was in the ROW. CDOT does have a template agreement allowing signs in the ROW as long as the property owner agrees that if work is to be done in the ROW, the owner must remove the sign at their expense. Bebo agreed that they would certainly agree to that. There was a general consensus among the Board of Adjustments that the process should have been followed: the variance application, and then the sign. Celentano moved to grant a variance to Section G.6.(c) allowing an increase of 6 ft. to the sign height, finding that it meets criteria b., due to the visibility hardship for visibility on a major thoroughfare and the safety factor for the public to see and to stop appropriately; with the following conditions to be completed within 30 days: 1. The old signage is removed. 2. That staff receives a current survey showing the sign is outside CDOT right of way. 3. The message board is removed. 4. The applicant obtains a building permit. Second by Gilmore. All members voted yes. This item will be added to the agenda for March 23, 2017 to confirm that the conditions have been met. PRAIRIESTAR AMEND FINAL PLAT FILING 3 The Applicant is proposing two amendments to the approved Filing No. 3 Final Plat: 1) Amendment A consisting of a replat of Block 14, eliminating one lot, to instead provide a new access drive named Buckskin Road to access the proposed Equestrian center at the Northeast of the PrairieStar Development; 2) Amendment B consists of a replat of Blocks 11 and 13 from 60 and 70 wide lots, down to 50 lots resulting in an increase of four lots; the net result of these amendments will be an increase of three (3) lots in this phase of Prairiestar. The request was made, due to a desire to offer a smaller lot plan from one of the builders in the development. Scott Sarbaugh, one of the owners of the development addressed the Commission noting that the reason for the request is to allow Richfield Homes to build a second model line geared toward affordable units without basements. Chairman Banzhaf opened the public meeting. There being no one wishing to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter was brought back to the Commission. Shepard move for approval of the amended Prairie Star Filing No. 3 Final Plat finding that: 1. The Final Plat is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Plat; 2. Complies with the Code, Comprehensive Plan, and PORT Plan.

10 TOWN OF BERTHOUD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Second by Gilmore. All members voted YES. BERTHOUD COMMON COMMERCIAL REZONE Freese reported that the applicant is requesting to rezone Berthoud Common Commercial from the existing PUD which allows a variety of commercial and auto-related commercial uses, to the General Commercial (C-2) district. The property has already been subdivided into 7 lots with an out-lot for drainage. One of the lots was developed as a car wash, while infrastructure was installed on the remaining lots, so they are largely shovel ready. The result of this rezoning will be that any new development within the acre property would have to be approved as a Site Plan under the current Dev. Code instead of approving a PDP and then a FDP with specific development requirements, for each request. The end result of the rezoning should make for a more efficient, open, and straightforward process, without changing any of the permitted uses, parking, landscaping or design requirements. Mark Richter, the property owner spoke to the Commission noting that he is looking forward to working with the town and developing this property. He has been working with Staff and is looking to possibly expand into other properties in Berthoud. Chairman Banzhaf opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the matter was brought back to the Commission. Commissioners agreed that this is great news and is going to be exciting for the Town to see something happening on this property. Shepard moved to recommend approval of the request to rezone acres from PUD to the General Commercial C-2 District, finding that it: 1. Satisfies the applicable zoning amendment criteria of Section B of the Town s Development Code as found on pages 2-3 of this Staff Report; and 2. Is consistent with the Town of Berthoud s Comprehensive Plan and Preferred Land Use Map. All members voted YES. REPORTS Freese reported that the first meeting of the Development Code update committee will be held on Thursday at 3:00. There will also be a Planning Commission meeting on March 9 th. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Sue Bowles, Planning and Building Technician Christine Celentano, Secretary

11 March 17, 2017 Subject: Bebo Sign Variance To: Planning Commission From: Curt Freese, Community Development Director To recap the Feb. 23 rd meeting, the sign height variance of 6 was approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1) The applicant must remove the older existing sign within 30 days; 2) The applicant must remove the message board within 30 days; 3) The applicant must provide an accurate survey, showing the sign is out of the ROW within 30 days. 4) The applicant must come back to the March 23rd meeting, to verify all of these conditions have been satisfied. As of today, the Applicant has sent over a new survey (found in this packet), and also confirmed they have removed the message board and old sign (pictures of their removal are within the packet) as per the conditions of the Feb. 23rd PC meeting. Therefore, conditions #1 and #2 have been met. Unfortunately for the Applicant, the survey does show that the sign is encroaching into the ROW, and thus condition #3 has not been satisfied. In light of Condition #3 not being satisfied, Staff finds that there are two options for the Commission to consider: 1) Approve a variance for a sign in the ROW, on the condition that an encroachment permit and any other agreements required by the State to place a permanent structure in the ROW are obtained within a reasonable time frame ( days would be Staff s recommendation); 2) Deny the variance to allow a sign in the ROW, and require the Applicant to move the sign out of the ROW within a reasonable time frame (30 days). Staff cannot recommend a variance for any structure within the ROW, and thus recommends the second option. Sincerely, Curt Freese, AICP Community Development Director

12 DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2017 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Justus Bebo, applicant for L & M Enterprises Site Location: 619 E HWY 56 Applicant's Request: Sign Variance Request Current Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Variance Consider a sign variance request from Section G. 6. (a) to allow an additional commercial sign; from Section G. 6. (c) for a sign height variance of 6 feet; from Section G. 6. (e) to allow a sign in the right-of-way, and from Section to allow a flashing, moving, blinking, chasing or other animation effects on a sign. ZONING DISTRICT INFORMATION Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Min. Lot Size Floor Area Ratio of 2 to 1 Min. Lot Width 25 Front Setback 0 Side Setback 0 ; or 20 differing zoning district boundary (does not apply) Rear Setback 0 ; or 20 from centerline of alley Building Height: 40 SURROUNDING ZONING, LAND USE AND REQUIRED BUFFERS Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Land Uses North: County/ AG Farm/House South: PUD (empty field), Empty field/cropland O Malley Glen PUD East: PUD/County Parcel L and M, Little Thompson Water District West: PUD/M-2/County Brothers Door Supply, House ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Site Plan 3. Sign Details 4. Picture of existing sign

13 BACKGROUND The applicant erected a new sign on their property in December of 2016 without a permit and in violation of the sign code. The sign erected is a pole sign 18 high, and 12 wide, with a 6 8 x 2 9 LED message board underneath. The sign was placed on the property in addition to the existing Brookside Garden pole sign. Moreover, according to the Site Plan submitted with this application, the sign is more than 9 into the State ROW on HWY 56. The Community Development Director noticed the sign after it had been installed, researched the ordinance, and then issued a Stop Work Order that day (December 6) through the Larimer County Sheriff s office (said Stop Work Order is in this packet). Soon after being served with notice, the Applicant came in, and submitted the Variance Application. The Applicant contends they were unaware they needed a sign permit. Moreover, the Applicant informed Staff that the message board was removed from the L and M building, (granted a variance on appeal by the Town Board, after being denied by the PC in 2008). The variance application process stays any pending enforcement action. Should this variance be denied, the enforcement action will continue. Variances Required: This unpermitted sign requires four variances from the Berthoud Sign code, which include: 1) Section G. 6. (a), which allows one monument or pole sign per property in the C-1 zoning district. The variance would allow an additional pole/monument sign on this property, in addition to the existing pole sign (a picture is in this packet). 2) Section G. 6. (c) allows for a 12 high pole or monument sign. The unpermitted sign is 18 in height, which would result in a sign height variance of 6 feet. 3) Section G. 6. (e) requires that signs be out of the ROW. As aforementioned this sign is more than 9 into the State ROW, and no encroachment has been provided. Therefore a variance from this section would allow a sign in the right-of-way, however an encroachment permit from the State would still be needed. 4) Section prohibits flashing, moving, blinking and chasing signs. Thus, the LED message board installed with this sign, requires a variance from this section. VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS: The Planning Commission under Section has the authority to authorize variances from the terms of Chapter 30-2, Design Standards, Chapter 30-3, Zoning; and Chapter 30-7 Signs, where the strict enforcement

14 of this title would create a situation which would result in unreasonable application of these standards, considering whether (with Staff analysis regarding each point below): a. Such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the neighborhood or the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of this code, and; x. Allowing an additional unpermitted sign that is close to 300 sq. ft. in size and fails to satisfy a number of the basic requirements of the sign ordinance, subverts the purpose of the sign code and substantially impairs the intent and purposes of this code. x. In addition, the variance allows the applicant to enjoy more than double (the sign being 6 higher than allowed as well) the signage allowed for every other business and property in Town, and the opportunity to use scrolling, blinking, and animated signage. x. Approving a sign in the ROW is a dangerous precedent without an encroachment permit from the State. Should the State widen the road, the sign would have to be removed, and Staff has concerns allowing such a sign may have legal implications should the State need to widen the road. x. Moreover, the variance would contribute to increased sign clutter along a major corridor, which is one of the primary intents of the sign ordinance. b. Provided that there are exceptional circumstances applying to the specific piece of property which do not generally apply to the remaining property in the same zoning area or neighborhood, and; x. This is the only commercially zoned land within the general area. However, that should not entitle the business to double the signage allowed to any other Town business, nor allow the flashing and digital sign that is also prohibited for the rest of the commercial businesses. c. That the requested variance shall not authorize any permanent use not permitted in the zoning district, and; x. Not applicable. d. If the hardship on which the request for variance is based, in whole or in part, is self-inflicted, that will be a highly significant fact which is a material element bearing on the issue, and will weigh heavily against the owner or applicant seeking the variance, or; x. The hardship was created by the Applicant who erected the sign in violation of multiple sections of the sign code, and without a permit from the Town. e. In circumstances where the property owners affected most directly, e.g. neighbors, concur in writing with the variance that fact shall be given significant (but not conclusive) weight in favor of the request x. No neighbors or letters from neighbors have been provided in support.

15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Move for denial of the sign variance request from Section G. 6. (a) to allow an additional commercial sign; from Section G. 6. (c) for a sign height variance of 6 feet; from Section G. 6. (e) to allow a sign in the right-of-way; and from Section to allow a flashing, moving, blinking, chasing or other animation effects on a sign, finding that the requests do not satisfy the conditions laid out in Section (1) of the Development Code: 1. The Applicant has not satisfied any of the applicable conditions of Section (1) of the Development Code, as found on page 3 of the Staff Report, and 2. The Applicant has specifically not met Section (1) (d), in which the variance requested was self-inflicted, in that the Applicant erected the sign in violation of the code and without a permit, and this weighs heavily against the applicant or owner seeking a variance. Reminder: When making a motion for or against, please provide clear findings in support of the proposed motion utilizing the findings in support of the Criteria necessary for approving or denying a Variance (found on pages 3).

16 SIGN SPECS

17

18 SITE PLAN

19

20 PICTURES

21

22

23 MAP VIEW BEFORE SIGN

24

25 PICTURES (CURRENT) WITH OLD SIGN REMOVED AND MESSAGE BOARD REMOVED

26

27

28 CURRENT SURVEY SHOWING SIGN IN ROW

29

30

31

32

33