June 25, 2015

Town of Berthoud
328 Massachusetts Ave.
P.O. Box 1229
Berthoud, CO 80513
970.532.2643
TOWN OF BERTHOUD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN HALL
328 MASSACHUSETTS AVE.
THURSDAY, June 25, 2015
6:30 P.M.
1.
Call to Order
2.
Roll Call
Scott Banzhaf, Chair
William Gilmore
Christine Celentano, Secretary
Tim Hardy
Dick Shepard, Vice Chair
Jan Dowker, Trustee
Suzie White, Trustee
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 of the meeting of June 11, 2015
4.
Grace Place Church Sign Variance
5.
Staff or Commission Reports
6.
Adjourn
Next meeting: July 9, 2015
If you require a special accommodation, please contact the Town Clerk 24 hours in advance
at (970) 532-2643.
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 11, 2015
PAGE 1 OF 2
The Planning Commission of the Town of Berthoud convened a regular meeting on June 11, 2015.
Chairman Banzhaf called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Scott Banzhaf, Chairman
Bill Gilmore
Jan Dowker
Christine Chelentano
Dick Shepard
Suzie White
Members Absent:
Tim Hardy
Staff/Town:
Sherry Albertson-Clark, Planner
CONSENT AGENDA
The consent agenda consisted of the May 28, 2015 meeting minutes. Shepard moved to accept the
Consent Agenda as presented. Gilmore second the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Heron Pointe Rezoning and Concept Plan
Albertson-Clark gave a brief history of the property known as Heron Pointe. Albertson-Clark explained
that when the Town Board approved the annexation, zoning and original Concept Plan the Board
proposed some changes to address concerns presented by citizens in the neighboring development. The
items proposed by the board were to shift the multi-family units from the south away from the Colony
Ridge Subdivision to the north and west, increase the size of lots along the south property line,
connectivity to High Country Road, ensure that the 7% minimum open space requirement is met, provide
recreational opportunities due to the distance from the town and town parks, create more open space for
the multi-family area, and to provide a meaningful buffer along the south property line with Colony Ridge.
The shift in location for the multi-family requires moving the R-1 to R-3 zoning boundary lines and revising
the Concept Plan.
Staff is recommending approval for the Heron Pointe zoning of R1 Single-family, R-3 Multi-family and
Concept Plan.
Representing the applicant was Linda Ripley from Ripley Designs. Ripley presented a new design that
addressed the comments from the Town Board. Some of the differences included moving the multifamily, a mix of 6-plexis and 8-plexes, moving the park to a central location so it can be shared by single
and multi-family, change of lot layout providing a 28 foot buffer, natural areas for detention ponds,
creating 22% of open space for single family and 37% open space for multi-family, and a better buffer
along the south.
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 11, 2015
PAGE 2 OF 2
Shepard added that the only item he did not agree with was in regard to connectivity and having the
connection only for trails with High County Road and Colony Ridge. Shepard feels that there should be
more than one entrance.
The Commission thanked the applicants for working on the issues, concerns and recommendations that
were brought up by the Town Board.
Banzhaf opened the subject to public hearing at 6:48 p.m.
Seeing no one wishing to speak Banzhaf closed the subject to public hearing at 6:49 p.m.
Albertson-Clark noted that the property is covered under Loveland Rural Fire District for fire protection
services.
Shepard moved to approve the Heron Pointe zoning of R-1 Single-family and R-3 Multi-family as shown on
the Heron Pointe Zoning Map, finding that the proposed zones are in compliance with the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan Preferred Land Use Map. Dowker second the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Gilmore moved to approve the Heron Pointe Concept Plan, finding that the proposed plan meets the
Concept Plan Review Criteria and is consistent with the proposed zoning. Shepard seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
REPORTS
Albertson-Clark was presented with a card and a cake showing deep appreciation from the Commission.
Dowker expressed that Albertson-Clark led the town into a new direction and vision for planning. Shepard
mentioned the accomplishments Albertson-Clark provided for the Town. Banzhaf appreciated the high
level of professionalism and confidence that Albertson-Clark provided.
Albertson-Clark appreciated working for the town and working along with staff.
Albertson-Clark reported that the next Planning meeting will be on June 25, 2015 and there will be a
discussion on a sign variance. Albertson-Clark also reported her replacement Curt Freese will be starting
on July 1, 2015.
Banzhaf reported that he attended last Thursday’s community Intergovernmental Association (IGA)
meeting and was able to meet Curt Freese. Banzhaf reported most of the questions they received from
the IGA meeting had to do with the Town’s Growth Management Area (GMA).
Gilmore reported he will not be able to attend the meeting on June 25, 2015.
Banzhaf adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
___________________________________
Christine Celentano, Secretary
_______________________________
Melissa Colucco, Clerk
BERTHOUD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
S T A F F
R E P O R T
Planning Commission as Board of Adjustment, June 25, 2015
SIGN VARIANCE AT
GRACE PLACE
INTRODUCTION
The owners of Grace Place Church are requesting a sign variance to allow two identification signs per
principal use. The property is zoned PUD – Planned Unit Development and is a 19-acre property.
ROLE OF COMMISSION
The Commission’s role on this item is to serve as the Town’s Board of Adjustment to hold a public
hearing and after discussion, move to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the sign variance.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Location/Aerial Map
Variance Petition
Site Plans with Sign Locations
Letters of support
BACKGROUND
The applicant is constructing a new site to relocate the Grace Place Church to 375 Meadowlark Drive.
The site is 19 acres in size and has over 2,000 feet of non-accessible frontage onto the US Highway
287 Bypass. The Church has site plan approval for a 26,650 square foot worship center and a 9,000
square foot children’s building, both of which are currently under construction. Future phases of the
plan show two additional buildings (of unspecified sizes), a pond, a public regional trail connection with
trailhead along Highway 287, recreational amenities and large landscaped areas, all of which will need
additional future site plan approval.
The property is zoned PUD – Planned Unit Development. The surrounding zoning and land uses are:
N: C2: Boat sales; FA1-Farming (Larimer County): Liquor store
E: PUD: Ludlow Farm Overall Development Plan (undeveloped)
S: US Highway 287; PUD: Yeager Farm conservation easement
W: US Highway 287; PUD: Yeager Farm conservation easement
The approved site plan showed the approximate location of two monument signs – one at the driveway
entrance off of Meadowlark Drive and one at the Southeast corner of Highways 56 and 287. However,
no further detail was provided and a note on the plan required that the signs would require permit
approval in the future.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of the Board of Adjustment public hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet, a legal
ad was published and the property was posted with a sign, as required.
STAFF REPORT
PAGE 2
VARIANCE REQUEST AND APPLICANT JUSTIFICATION
Grace Place Church is requesting a total of four signs: two monument signs - one at the driveway
entrance off of Meadowlark Drive and one at the Southeast corner of Highways 56 and 287, and two
wall signs – one on the worship building and one on the children’s building. The property was zoned
PUD in 2003 and therefore, the 1995 Development Code, as amended, sign regulations apply. These
regulations allow one monument sign per street frontage, but stipulate that only one identification sign
is allowed per principal use, provided such sign does not exceed 40 square feet in area per face. Both
monument signs are considered identification signs, and therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance from the sign regulations.
Identification (Monument) Signs
The first monument sign is located at the southeast corner of US Highway 287 Bypass and Highway
56. The sign copy includes the following lines of text: starting at the top with “Cross Creek Commons”,
“Grace Place” in the middle, and “Trailhead Café” at the bottom. This sign is meant to direct motorists
traveling high speeds on the access-restricted Highway 287 Bypass to the location of the church and
café. The sign will notify motorists of the church’s presence so that they may turn onto Highway 56
without passing the site. This sign is composed of two sign faces, each totaling 37 square feet in size.
Other elements of this sign will be in conformance with sign regulations including placement outside of
the site distance triangle and distance from the property line.
The second monument sign is located at the parking lot entrance on Meadowlark Drive. This sign copy
is identical the sign described above, except that it also includes the address “375 Meadowlark Drive”
at the bottom. The intent of this sign is to direct motorists to the parking lot entrance. This sign is
composed of only one sign face and is 30 square feet in size. All other elements of this sign will be in
conformance with all sign regulations.
Overall Signage Allowance Requirements
In addition to the two monument signs, two wall signs are also being proposed. Although the approval
of the wall signs are not contingent on a variance from the 1995 Development Code, an analysis of all
proposed signs was conducted to ensure that the overall signage requirements will be met. The total
square footage of signage allowed is based on the length of the building most nearly parallel to the
frontage, which is the southeast elevation of the Worship Building. This length of building is 145 linear
feet, which allows a total sign allowance of 290 square feet.
The Worship Building is proposed to have one wall sign totaling 42 square feet on the southeast
elevation with the copy: “Worship Center Trailhead Café”. The Children’s Building is proposed to have
one wall sign totaling 18 square feet on the northeast elevation with the copy: “Children’s Building”.
With the two wall signs and two monument signs, the total proposed signage is for the site is 165
square feet, which is well within the overall allowance.
VARIANCE CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS
Variances are considered by the Planning Commission, who serves as the Board of Adjustment in this
capacity to review these types of items. Since this property is zoned PUD the sign provisions of the
1995 Development Code are what the Town must use to review this proposal. The 1995 Code, as
amended, was in effect until adoption of the 2012 Development Code.
Section 30-3-110 A. (2) of the 1995 Development code describes the circumstances under which the
Board of Adjustment may grant a variance (note: these criteria are the same as those found in the 2012
STAFF REPORT
PAGE 3
Development Code). To grant a variance, the Board of Adjustment must find that all of the following
criteria are met:
1.
Will the strict enforcement of the code create a situation that would result in
unreasonable application of these standards? Or have the neighbors most directly
affected concurred in writing?
Yes, strict enforcement of the code creates an unreasonable application of the standards as the
Town’s 1995 sign regulations were created prior to the knowledge that the Town would have a
limited access highway. Limited access highways pose challenging site access and signage
issues that most properties do not have; in order to access a business on a limited access
highway, a motorist would need to turn onto a local street that ultimately connects to the
property’s entrance. Due to its unique configuration, the 19-acre Grace Place Church parcel has
almost 50% of its boundary fronting onto public roads that it cannot gain access from
(approximately 2,400 linear feet of frontage onto US Highway 287 Bypass and 100 feet of
frontage onto Highway 56). Therefore, a motorist will need to be directed to turn onto Highway
56, and then Meadowlark Drive, in order to access the property.
The applicant has contacted the neighbors regarding this request and received written support
from four neighbors. Furthermore, all property owners within a 300’ radius from the site were
notified of this proposal, and to date staff has not received any additional communication from
surrounding property owners.
2.
Can the variance be granted without substantial detriment to the neighborhood or the
public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of this code?
Yes. Due to the size of this development, its regional draw, and potential for public use of
amenities in the future, allowing a second business identification sign would not be a detriment
to the neighborhood or the public good but rather provide for greater site recognition and
direction.
3.
Are there exceptional circumstances applying to this specific piece of property which do
not generally apply to the remaining property in the same zoning area or neighborhood?
Yes. Grace Place Church represents the first non-residential development to be constructed
along the 287 Bypass. In addition, the exceptional length of frontage onto US Highway 287
Bypass for a single land use is unique compared to other non-residential properties in the Town.
The 1995 sign regulations did not provide standards for signage along limited access highways.
4.
Does the variance authorize any use other than the uses permitted in this zoning
district?
No, the proposed variances would not authorize any use that is not permitted in the PUD
district.
5.
Was the condition requiring the variance self-inflicted by property owner? If the
hardship on which the variance is based is self-inflicted, this will be a significant fact that
will have a bearing on the issue and weigh heavily against the applicant seeking the
variance.
STAFF REPORT
PAGE 4
No. The conditions that support the requested variances are primarily related to the physical
condition of the property (size of property, location of entrance, visibility issues), as well as its
location along the bypass and are not self-inflicted.
SUMMARY
The property is bordered by the US Highway 287 Bypass on its west and south side, Highway 56 and
commercial properties on its north side, and Meadowlark on its east side; the only way to access this
property is from Meadowlark Drive. The Grace Place Church is a regional church and as such will
attract visitors from an area greater than the Town limits. In addition, planned future public amenities on
the site (trailhead, pond, recreational amenities) will draw an even broader range of users of the site.
Proper signage, as allowed through this variance, will enhance visibility of this site and aid motorist
direction.
The property has unique and exceptional circumstances (limited access) that do not generally apply to
other zoned property or the neighborhood, in general. The variance would not authorize uses not
permitted in the PUD zoning district and the condition requiring the variances is not a self-inflicted
hardship.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Move approval of the proposed Grace Place Church sign variance finding that:
x
x
x
x
x
Strict enforcement of the Sign Code would create a situation which would result in unreasonable
application of the standards;
Granting the requested variance will not be a detriment to the neighborhood or the public good;
nor will it substantially impair the intent and purposes of the code;
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;
The variances would not authorize any use other than the uses permitted in the zoning district;
and
The condition requiring the variances was not a self-inflicted hardship.
ATTACHMENT 1: Location/Aerial Map
Project Site
ATTACHMENT 2: Variance Petition
ATTACHMENT 3: Site Plan with Sign Locations
ATTACHMENT 4: Letters of Support