The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20162134.tiffINVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Applicant William Enyart (Wonder Dog Properties, LLC) Case Number USR16-0011 Submitted or Prepared Prior to Hearing At Hearing PC Exhibits 1 Letter and Attachments from Angela and Vincent Carrasco dated 5/2/2016 X 2 Letter and Attachments from William Enyart dated 6/6/2016 X I hereby certify that the 2 items identified herein was submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commissioners hearing. Chris Gathman Planner Submit by Email Weld County Referral April 07, 2016 The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant: Wonder Dog Properties, LLC, do Forge and Case Number: USR16-0011 Fabrication Please Reply By: May 5, 2016 Planner: Chris Gathman Project: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or industrial zone districts (metal fabrication shop and blacksmithing shop), provided that the property is not a Lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots pads of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions. Location: East of and adjacent to County Road 23 and approximately 650 -feet south of County Road 6. Parcel Number: 146925200023-R8940575 Legal: PART NW4 SECTION 25, T1 N, R67W LOT A REC EXEMPT RECX14-0046 of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. • If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. U We have reviewed the request and find that it does / does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan because: We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. See attached letter. Signature Angela Carrasco Date 5/2/2016 Agency EXHIBIT I Weld County Planning Dept 1555 N 17th Ave, Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 353-6100 ext 3540 (970) 304-6498 fax unreasonable, and understood this is his source of income. But, after reviewing his proposal, the business that was described to us is far more complex and will have a countless impacts. Per the proposal the business hours will be seven days a week, from 7am — 7pm. That means we'll never be given the opportunity to enjoy our property without consistent activity occurring. He plans to have a total of 12 employees, which is an additional 12 vehicles, plus customers, and delivery trucks to travel down a dirt road that is already a problem during inclement weather (see attachment ,IA„ ). Another major issue that is of concern to us is the fact we share a water well. He plans to use a 2,000 gallon cistern that will be filled from the well that is also being used by our family. Pumping water out of the ground faster than it is replenished over the long-term, causes depletion. In addition, the Soil Report #15-635 dated Sept. 3, 2015 states that a 3,800 sq. ft. building is planned, not 5,000-8,000 sq. ft. as proposed. What we find most problematic as evidenced by the email from Lori Fontyn, Realtor for Coldwell Banker (see attachment "B") is the fact that our property value will decrease tremendously if this business is approved. As stated before, we understand that this business is his source of income but we believe he chose an inappropriate location to conduct his business. He selected a location in an agriculture zone area, claiming that his metal fabrication can provide parts and repair to farmers and residents of Weld County, which would support the agricultural industry of the county. After reviewing his website at https://enyartforgeandfabrication.com we are of the opinion the Mr. Enyart's type of work will not support the agricultural industry as he suggests. Mr. Enyart also claims that nearby properties have been converted for similar uses. However, as of today the only business between CR 13 (Colorado Blvd) and Hwy 85 is a dog boarding facility. This is not an area where an industrial business would be supported and welcomed. The building he plans to build is directly in -line with a beautiful open view from our kitchen window (see attachment "C"). In accordance with Sec. 23-1-40 — "Purpose and Intent" it is our expectation and hope that upon a thorough review of case #USR16-0011 a determination will be made that it is inappropriate to approve Mr. Enyarts proposal to erect a 5,000 — 8,000 sq. ft. building for the sole purpose of operating a fabrication/blacksmith/forging company. We trust that you will help protect our property to remain the home of our dreams. Sincerely, Co --4....--- gilt C7 ------- Angela and Vincent Carrasaco 2 Attachment "B" Re: Letter to Weld County Lori Fontyn, Realtor Extraordinaire Fri 4/29/2016 8:09 AM T-angcar?012 c@hotmaii corn <angcar2012@hotmail corn>; Hi Angie, The letter is awesome - you're amazing. I do think that this change in zoning right next door would negatively affect the value of your residential home, as well as interfere with your quiet enjoyment of the home you've purchased. Lori Fontyn, Realtor, CRS Co!dwell Banker Residential Brokerage Team Fontyn, Realtors Extraordinaire 303.369-9937 mobile 303-223-3373 fax Loroo@aol.com Lorootcomcast net www DenverMetroHorneGt ide.corn ---Original Message — From: Angie Carrasco <angcar2012@hotmail.com> To: Loroo <Loroo©aol.com> Cc: vine carrasco <k9trainergsck gmall.com> Serd: Tue, Apr 26, 2016 4:47 pm Subject Letter to Weld County Hi Lorli Vince let me know that he talked with you in regards to our neighbor, and that you're willing to help out. We appreciate that so much!! I attached the letter that I wrote, please review and let me know what input your able to provide. Thank you, Angie June 6, 2016 William Enyart Enyart Forge and Fabrication 1790 CR 23 Fort Lupton, 80621 Planning and Building Department Attn: Chris Gathman 1555 N 17th Ave. Greeley, Co 80631 Re: Case #USR16-0011 - Response to Carrasco letter To the Weld County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners: I have reviewed the letter presented by Angela and Vincent Carrasco to the Weld County Department of Planning Services that outlines their concerns regarding my proposed use of the property at 1790 CR 23, Fort Lupton, Co 80621. I appreciate this opportunity to address these concerns. I would first like to say that before purchasing the property, I notified the surrounding property owners of my intent to run an architectural ironwork company on the property. Specifically, I spoke with Angela and let her know my plans in case there was any objection. I told her that I currently operated a small business (Enyart Forge and Fabrication) with only one employee, but my business was expanding and I needed a new home from which to base my operations. I was clear about my intentions (To erect a 5,000 square foot building, allowing my business to grow) and she had the opportunity to ask any questions she had at that time. She discussed the matter with her husband, Vince, and they informed me that they were small business owners themselves and had no objection to me running my business on the property other than the fact that they were worried about the additional traffic on the shared driveway. I offered to build an additional access point at the north end of the property (at an additional expense of approximately $28,000) as well as build a privacy fence separating the two properties (at an additional expense of approximately $5,000). In addition, I told them that I would grant them sole use of the shared driveway. They agreed that this would be an amenable solution to their concern, and would not object to my project if I took care of these items. I consider this a legally binding verbal agreement, and have invested substantial resources towards this project with the understanding that we were in agreement on those terms. While I have yet to erect a privacy fence, I have worked with both the county and Brighton Ditch Company to secure an additional access point on the North side of the property. Since then, I've spoken with Vince several times and given him updates on the project's progress. I've informed him that I was able to gain an additional access point through a special variance with the county, and further discussed the privacy fence. Several months ago, my steel building was delivered to the property, where it now waits to be erected. At no point did he voice any objection to this project, making the Carrasco's recent objection letter as surprising at it is distressing. As I stated before, I am a small business owner. I have grown my business over the past three years through determination, blood, sweat, and tears. Every small success has been the result of hard work, and nothing has come easily. About a year and half ago, when it became clear that I would soon outgrow the small shop that I currently rent in Denver, I began saving money to use as a down payment towards a new shop. I secured an SBA 504 loan, and through their approval process detailed how I intended to spend the money. Specifically, I would purchase a piece of property (1790 CR 23) and erect a 5,000 s.f. building, which would allow me to hire additional personnel and continue to grow my business. To ensure that I would be able to comply with my SBA 504 loan business plan, before purchasing the property, I notified surrounding property owners of my intentions, and also arranged a pre - application meeting with the Weld County Planning Commission. When there were no objections from surrounding property owners, and the planning commission saw no immediate reason why the application should be denied, I went ahead with the execution of the loan agreement and the purchase of the land. I was so careful with my property selection because I have all of my savings invested in this project. I can't count the amount of time I've invested. I am paying mortgage on the property in Fort Lupton, as well as rent at my shop in Denver. I also pay insurance on both shops. Meanwhile, I can only do so much work out of my shop in Denver. Should the application regarding my proposed use be denied, I would not be able to afford to find another property and start fresh. It would put me out of business to have to try to do so, and I would have to default on my loan. That being said, I will also attempt to outline and address each of the Carrasco's concerns below. I. Environmental Impact • "Lubricants, coolants, corrosion inhibitors, cleaners, coatings, fluxes, and other chemicals are used.... certainly some of these are hazardous an must be disposed of, however contamination can still occur due to accidental spillages and leaks of solvents and oils" All of these substances will be used in a responsible fashion and will be disposed of as required by law. ➢ In the event of accidental spillage, there are procedures in place. Should the spill happen in the shop on the concrete, an absorbent will be used to soak up the spill. It will then be swept up and disposed of. Should the spill happen outside (such as a leaking vehicle), the earth will be dug up and removed to the nearest waste disposal site. Fresh earth will replace what has been lost. This accidental spill mitigation plan has been filed with the county as part of the application required in filing for a special use review. • "Wastewater containing acidic or alkaline wastes, waste oils, and solid wastes, such as metals and solvents, will be disposed of in the new septic tank" ➢ We will not use the septic system to dispose of anything other than human wastewater. To do so would be irresponsible, unethical, and detrimental to the function of the system. • "Equipment and processes used in a metal fabrication/forging shop (e.g. grinding, hammering steel, guillotining, cutting metal, pressing, and disposal of scrap metal) can produce harmful levels of noise... Noise can produce psychological health...species that depend on mating calls to reproduce are unable to hear these calls due to excessive man made noise. As a result they are unable to reproduce and can cause declining populations." ➢ All persons in the shop will be encouraged to wear proper safety equipment. This includes protective ear wear. Noise that strays out of the property lines will certainly not be of a decibel level that would cause harm to people or animals. It will certainly not be more than the aggregate quarries (Owned by Asphalt Paving Company) which have already been approved directly to the east and the south of the Carrascos property. ➢ Furthermore, I feel that it should be noted that while the Carrascos cite excessive noise as a primary concern, the activities they participate in on their own property would suggest that this is hugely hypocritical. The Carrascos run a dog business in Denver training home/self defense dogs. At their house, they have several dogs that are allowed to have the run of their property during the day. These dogs are trained to protect the property, and bark constantly at anything they see on or around the property. When I am at my property, they frequently bark at me all day long. The Carrascos enjoy riding ATV's, as evidenced by the track they have in their field. In addition to these activities, they often shoot guns and play loud music. I have no objection to any of this beyond the fact that they are attempting to hold me to a different set of standards than they hold themselves to. Please see attached video of barking dogs (Exhibit "C"), and view of their ATV track (Exhibit "B"). II. Property Value • "We found the perfect place, yet that is now being jeopardized by the possibility of an industrial business operating directly next to our dream home" ➢ When the Carrascos purchased their property, the property that I purchased was also for sale. With the only structure on the property being a steel building, it would be logical to assume that a business owner rather than a homeowner would purchase the parcel. If they wanted to avoid this possibility, they could have purchased the land to avoid having it developed, or purchased a property that was zoned for solely residential use. Furthermore, if this was a concern to them, they should have voiced it when I spoke to them regarding the matter before I purchased the land. Instead, when we spoke they voiced their concerns about excessive traffic on the shared driveway, and folks being able to see into their property when they drove past. As previously stated, I offered to mitigate these concerns by installing a new access point on the north end of the property as well as a privacy fence on the south end of the property. They agreed that this would be an amenable solution, and would not object to my project if I agreed to these terms. • The building he plans to build is directly in -line with a beautiful open view from our kitchen window (see attachment C) ➢ If you look at the Carrascos attachment "C", the only part of the view that my building would obstruct is directly behind the gantry crane to the right of my existing building. Please see the attached Google Sketchup images, Exhibits "A" and "B". Greater than 50/0 of the view that they have is of their own property. Beyond that is the land owned by Asphalt Paving. The building that I propose, in addition to being attractive, and fitting in with the look of other structures in the county, takes up very little of their view. ➢ Furthermore, I do not feel that I have any sort of obligation to preserve the Carrascos view. If they proposed additional construction on their property, I don't feel that I would have the right to object to that in order to preserve my own view, and would not do so. I feel like it was a generous gesture to offer to install a privacy fence, and that to move the location of my building or cancel by plans to build at all is unreasonable. • "Our property value will decrease tremendously if this business is approved" ➢ Again, I must refer to the fact that we had a verbal agreement that they would not object to my proposed use of the property if I installed a privacy fence and a new access, and that this was in place before I even purchased the property. ➢ While I cannot speak as to the effect of this project on their property value, I cannot think that it would do more damage to their property value than the aggregate quarries that are going to be dug by Asphalt Paving Company in the large fields to the east and the south of their property. ➢ The building that I propose to erect fits in well with the design of other buildings in the area. There would be nothing to distinguish it from other farm buildings in the area, and therefore is an appropriate structure. III. Business Plan • "Hours will be seven days a week, from 7am-7pm. That means we'll never be given the opportunity to enjoy our property without constant activity occurring. ➢ I feel that the hours of operation that I outlined in my application are reasonable. At this time, I have not proposed any night shifts for the sole reason that I have been working to respect the wishes of my next-door neighbors to have a "secluded life in the country". In addition to restricting my hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., the new privacy fence would block their view of the activity on my property and the new access point would direct traffic as far away from their residence as possible. The claim that the Carrascos will never be able to enjoy their property without constant activity occurring is unfounded; in fact, Vince has commented multiple times to me in person that this would be a good arrangement because they aren't home during the day and I typically don't work at night. • He plans to have a total of 12 employees, which is an additional 12 vehicles, plus customers, and delivery trucks to travel down a dirt road that is already a problem during inclement weather (see attachment A) ➢ It is my understanding that the impact to the road has been reviewed by the county, and by having proper tracking control in place (150' of recycled asphalt leading up to the access point) impact my proposed use will have on the road will be successfully mitigated. • "Mr. Enyart also claims that nearby properties have been converted for similar uses. However, as of today the only business between CR 13 (Colorado Blvd) and Hwy 85 is a dog boarding facility. This is not an area where an industrial business would be supported and welcomed. ➢ The claim that there are no business other than a dog kennel between CR 13 and Hwy 85 is incorrect. In addition to the dog kennel, there is at least one business operating out of a steel building similar to the one I'm proposing in Wattenburg. Further to the east, before Hwy 85, there are several businesses that quarry and supply aggregate as well as accepting inert fill material. Industry is moving west, as the properties directly to the east and south of the Carrascos property are owned by Asphalt Paving company and will be quarried as well. IV. Resources and Zoning • "...We share a water well. He plans to use a 2000 gallon cistern that will be filled from the well that is also being used by our family. Pumping water out of the ground faster than it is being replenished" ➢ The shared water well will still only service the existing building. For the new construction, water will come from a new well (and be drawn from the Laramie Fox -Hills aquifer, a different aquifer than the water from the shared well) • "He selected a location in an agricultural zone area, claiming that his metal fabrication can provide parts and repair to farmers and residents of Weld County, which would support the agricultural industry of the county" After reviewing his website at www.forgeandfabrication.com we are of the opinion that Mr. Enyart's type of work will not support the agricultural industry as he suggests. ➢ While my business does primarily work on architectural projects, it is still a metal fabrication shop. I have a Code Welding Degree from Austin Community College, and this allows me to take on a variety of different projects. I've worked on trailers, trucks, and bridges and am certified to make technical welds on a multitude of materials. While most of our work involves architectural ironwork installations on residential and commercial properties, (of which there are quite a few of in Weld County), I never hesitate to take on other projects. There is the potential to supply parts and services to the oil and gas fields, as well as to farmers who may need parts or welding done on equipment. ➢ One of our largest projects has been on a private residence in Weld County. We supplied stairs, exterior railing, interior railing, window bars, and copper accents on this build. ➢ Also, several of our biggest suppliers are located in Weld County. Any purchase that we make with these suppliers directly stimulates the local economy. ➢ The Carrascos also selected a location in an agriculturally zoned area for their residence. It could be argued that my metal fabrication shop will do more to contribute to the agricultural community than their residential use currently does. I appreciate you taking the time to review this response to the Carrasco's letter. If there are any further concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me for further discussion. Thank you, William Enyart Founder, Enyart Forge and Fabrication President, Wonder Dog Properties 281-635-6168 Billy@forgeandfabrication.com • Exhibit A Graphic representation of the view from the Carrascos kitchen window after construction. • ___ • a.. ' Exhibit B Graphic representation that shows both that the Carrasco's view will not be significantly affected, and the ATV track that the Carrascos have on their property. Exhibit C Video of Carrasco's barking dogs Please Exhibit "C" as an email attachment. Hello