HomeMy WebLinkAbout20150694.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2015-17
RE: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT,
USR14-0074, FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, ACCESSORY USE,
OR USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE
DISTRICT (EMPLOYEE AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING AND
MACHINERY/TOOL STORAGE) PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN
AN APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR PART OF A MAP OR PLAN
FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING
SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - ENRIQUE AND
MYRNA CARRILLO
A public hearing was conducted on March 18, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair
Commissioner Mike Freeman, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner Julie A. Cozad
Commissioner Steve Moreno
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Tisa Juanicorena
Assistant County Attorney, Brad Yatabe
Planning Services Department representative, Steve Elkins
Planning Services Engineer representative, Jennifer Petrik
Health Department representative, Lauren Light
The following business was transacted:
O I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated February 12, 2015, and duly published
February 18, 2015, in the Greeley Tribune, a public hearing was conducted to consider the
request of Enrique and Myrna Carrillo, for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special
Review Permit, USR14-0074, for any Use permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use
by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (employee and commercial
vehicle parking and machinery/tool storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an
approved or recorded subdivision plat or part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any
regulations controlling subdivisions in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Brad Yatabe, Assistant
County Attorney, made this a matter of record.
Steve Elkins, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the
proposal, stated that 16 referrals were sent out and 12 resulted in no response or no concerns,
and that adjacent properties are currently used for single family dwellings, storage, and a
natural gas facility. He stated the site is currently in violation (ZCV14-00037), due to the
operation of a commercial business without the necessary zoning permits and if this case is
approved and a plat is recorded, it will correct the violation; however, if denied, the applicant has
30 days to remove the commercial operation, storage, and parking of vehicles, and return the
property to current zoning compliance or the violation will proceed to court. Planning services
received multiple calls, letters, and pictures from surrounding property owners objecting to this
CC:CA,1POw; 1+L `1/17
2015-0694
PL2325
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENRIQUE AND MYRNA CARRILLO (USR14-0074)
PAGE 2
use, several of which were present at the Planning Commission hearing when the Planning
Commission voted to unanimously deny this application. Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards will assist with mitigating the impacts. The City of Evans has granted a
restricted access and closed off the informal dirt entrance due to location and further stated in
the referral response: "significant concerns with compatibility of land use in the area and the
significant impacts this property will bring." Mr. Elkins displayed photos of the location and
surrounding uses and answered questions the board had in regard to the photos.
f- Jennifer Petrik, Department of Public Works, provided a brief overview of the
transportation plans and requirements including the details surrounding the change of access
per the City of Evans. The traffic information provided by the applicant stated there are 15
company trucks being parked at the locaiton and employees arrive and pick up company trucks
and leave personal vehicles, later to return commercial trucks and retrieve personal vehicles.
This site is not in a geohazard area or floodplain, seems to be adequate in size, and is in a MS4
area. Ms. Petrik reviewed the applicant requirements, Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards, and stated staff would add Condition of Approval #1.E.7 requiring the applicant to
show and label standard tracking control on public maintained roadways. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Mr. Elkins responded that the City of Evans did not include traffic
counts in their referrals.
Lauren Light, Department of Public Health and Environment, reviewed the water and
sewer provisions stating the house is served by the City of Greeley Water and Evans Sewer,
portable toilets will be provided for the drivers on-site for two (2) hours or less, water would be
used for dust abatement, and there is a trash receptacle on-site for waste handling. The
applicant stated there will not be any vehicle repairs or washing, or painting on-site, it is only for
parking of vehicles and storage of equipment related to the business. There was a complaint
received regarding painting with no evidence upon inspection.
• Jon Burtard, Attorney, explained the application is primarily for the parking of vehicles and
storage of equipment. He stated the applicant would no longer be parking semis on the property
due to the closure of the prior point of access by the City of Evans. He summarized the main
concerns presented at Planning Commission as: traffic increase, unsightliness, and
incompatibility. He stated regarding compatibility, there are other industrial uses in the area; the
traffic concern has been alleviated by limiting the access; the unsightliness can be alleviated by
fencing. In response to Commissioner Conway regarding the unanimous denial at Planning
Commission, Mr. Burtard replied the advice was to get along better with neighbors which the
applicants have begun taking steps to address the concerns by removing the semis and storage
of some of the tools; however, there were no meetings with neighbors. In response to
Commissioner Cozad, Mr. Burtard stated the type of fence proposed, and that the applicant is
willing to limit the number of vehicles, employees, tools, storage, and hours of operation to
attain approval. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Burtard clarified the applicant has been on
the property for one year and described the buildings on the property.
• Yadira Carrillo, cousin and realtor to the family, stated she visits frequently and noticed
there were conflicts with neighbors as soon as they moved in and she would attempt to assist
with language barriers. She communicated there are other special uses in the area and the
2015-0694
PL2325
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENRIQUE AND MYRNA CARRILLO (USR14-0074)
PAGE 3
applicant is willing to accommodate concerns. She suggested a carpool idea. In response to
Chair Kirkmeyer, she clarified the out buildings on the property.
0 Jana Reagan Price, neighbor, stated the issue is zoning and the use of the land, gave
testimony regarding the washing of vehicles, and expressed her displeasure with the current
state of the walking path in relation to the applicants use of the adjacent property. Chair
Kirkmeyer clarified the walking path was not created by Weld County.
▪ Doug Mitich, neighbor to the west, stated in regard to the current land use that the
applicant has ignored all zoning laws, torn down the notice, the fence is down between the
property and the bike path, and the path is cluttered with their equipment. He further stated he
was never contacted and because the rules are ignored and have been broken since day one,
fears they will not abide by new stipulations if this use should be approved.
O Chair Kirkmeyer asked Mr. Elkins to clarify the provisions for the current zoning designation
and explained if the USR is denied there can be no additional Conditions of Approval or
Development Standards put in place, and further explained the reason for the USR is to set
parameters. Commissioner Cozad conveyed if there is a Use by Special Review there is the
process of violation to ensure accountability and if it is approved there are more rules in place.
IR Mr. Mitich responded with the request that if it is approved the applicant be required to:
replace the fence and clean up the property away from the bike path, restrict the painting,
welding and washing of equipment, and spilling of oil and grease. In response to Commissioner
Conway, he has observed the painting and welding of equipment taking place on the lot.
▪ Butch Hanes, closest neighbor at 70 feet away, stated there are 15 commercial pickups,
dump trucks and semis coming and going from the property, welding and painting that was
reported to the Fire Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, and they have been
in violation for a year. The EPA stopped them from painting. Mr. Hanes stated his concerns and
frustration having lived there for 35 years. In response to Commissioner Conway, he stated
there is no mitigation or provisions that can make this acceptable. In response to Commissioner
Cozad, Mr. Hanes clarified the size of his property and the number of vehicles showing up
everyday.
O Carole Appleguard, neighbor, expressed her concerns regarding the safety issues
surrounding the new access, the dangerous driving of the subject employees, and the traffic
concerns because of the location and the new school.
O Marlin Ogden, resident located one mile from applicant, stated there has been nothing done
to show good faith to neighbors in relation to poor business practices and dangerous driving.
He further stated his frustration with being denied a USR to park one semi and this USR is
being considered on a smaller parcel for multiple commercial vehicles.
a Debra Porter, neighbor, asked why they have been able to do this for a whole year, to
which Chair Kirkmeyer explained the due process and stated the applicant is currently under
2015-0694
PL2325
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENRIQUE AND MYRNA CARRILLO (USR14-0074)
PAGE 4
violation. Ms. Porter responded that the situation is causing duress for the long time residents
who in the past have been able to resolve issues with each other, until this last year referencing
the Carrillos. She stated many of those present are self employed and losing income battling
this process that feels unnecessary because they are in violation. She concurred with many of
the frustrations already stated by prior residents and stated the applicant's lawyer is minimizing
the violations. She listed there are two moving vans, trucks, back hoes, commercial trucks, and
other equipment on the property and she does not feel safe walking on the trail any longer
because the fence has been torn down and the applicant's dog chased her.
a---' Lowell Porter, neighbor and husband to Debra Porter, asked for the definition of a
commercial vehicle. Chair Kirkmeyer responded with what is allowed on a lot that is less than 80
acres and defined a commercial vehicle. Mr. Lowell responded that this restricts them
considerably. Ms. Porter stated that she has seen the application submitted and clarified the
erroneous information therein.
Ei Bobbie Cox, representing her mother who is 92 and unable to attend (neighbors directly to
the south), stated they sold the easement to the City of Evans for the walkway and clarified the
property fences were up before the pathway was constructed. She requested that if the permit is
granted, there be a certified survey completed to put the fences back up because directly south
are high pressure gas lines. She reported the applicant took the fences down from their property
to move heavy equipment and were driving on the walkway which she reported to the Planning
Commission and the City of Evans. They are not opposed to their presence as long as they
follow the rules.
CI Connie Nelson, neighbor, stated her concerns regarding the dangerous access and traffic
concerns. She gave examples of poor driving habits of subject employees. Ms. Nelson testified
to poor neighbor relations.
Venetta Mitich, neighbor and wife to Doug Mitich, asked what happens if granted and what
happens if it is denied. Chair Kirkmeyer, explained if it is granted they would be allowed to get a
USR Permit with all the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards used to mitigate
negative impacts and attempt to make the property compatible. If it is denied, Frank Haug,
Assistant County Attorney, responded the applicant is currently in the process of moving
forward with a stipulation hearing, set for April 6, 2015, and will have 30 days from today to
remove anything not allowed in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Mr. Hanes returned to the podium to state his confusion regarding commercial vehicles.
Chair Kirkmeyer, with the assistance of Mr. Elkins, explained the definitions regarding vehicles
in the A (Agricultural) Zone. Mr. Hanes asked if it is permissible to attend the April 6th hearing
and if they need to procure an attorney. Mr. Haug clarified the hearings are open to the public
but speaking before the court is decided by the Judge. Chair Kirkmeyer stated it is customary
for applicants to have legal representation for the USR process.
la Mr. Burtard stated the applicant understands they will no longer be able to have semis at
the location because of the limited access, therefore the request has been scaled down to
accommodate a small number of vehicles to be parked for the business. Furthermore, the
2015-0694
PL2325
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENRIQUE AND MYRNA CARRILLO (USR14-0074)
PAGE 5
applicant agrees to replace the fence, and in regard to the concern related to the traffic, the
times of arrival and departure for the business will offset the school hours. In response to
Commissioner Moreno, he stated it was a simple fence that was taken down and their intent is
to replace it with a nicer fence.
El Commissioner Cozad stated this site is a very small lot and regardless of other land uses in
the area, it is not a compatible use for the area. The issues surrounding traffic, intersection
location, and access limitations would require further Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards if it were approved. She conveyed disappointment that the City of Evans did not meet
the referral time limit and that staff had to contact them multiple times. She further stated her
concerns with neighbor relations and the lengthy violation process that causes strain and the
responsibility lies with the applicant to make an effort to mend those relationships.
Commissioner Conway stated it is rare for the Planning Commission to give a unanimous
denial. He expressed his appreciation for the neighbors setting aside time and income to attend
the hearings and stated that it appears 90% of the issues are related to poor communication.
Commissioner Conway revisited the term used by Mr. Burtard, "tactically decided" referring to
refusing to communicate with neighbors, and communicated this is contrary to how the Board
attempts to mitigate. He compromised that perhaps the realtor did not communicate proper use,
but clarified that nothing has been done to demonstrate good faith and as a Board, they can
only rely on past actions to determine future outcomes.
12 Commissioner Freeman conveyed his agreement with the other Commissioners, and
recognized the applicant's attempt to cooperate by scaling down the request. He further stated
he thinks this use would be compatible but based on the poor neighbor relations it would be
impossible to mitigate the situation.
el Commissioner Moreno expressed his appreciation with hearing both sides, and agreed
with the comments of the other Commissioners regarding communication issues and that it had
been stated many times that approving this would be setting it up for failure.
la Chair Kirkmeyer, stated the reason for so many questions regarding the case is because
the proposal set before them is to approve the Use or find regulatory reasons related to the
provisions of the Weld County Code to deny the Use. She further stated it does not seem
possible to mitigate the neighbor's concerns; further, she thanked everyone for coming and
unfortunantely agreed that the residents are not able to get along and approving it would
exasperate the situation. Chair Kirkmeyer stated the proposal is not consitent with Chapter 22 of
the code; is not consistent with the intent of the A (Agricutural) Zone District; the Use, if
permitted, is not compatible with surrounding land uses or future development; it would
exasperate traffic, has a poor access, and entry in and out is unsafe. For these reasons, Chair
Kirkmeyer stated she would not be supporting the proposal.
Commissioner Cozad moved to deny the request of Enrique and Myrna Carrillo for a Site
Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, USR14-0074, for any Use
permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or
Industrial Zone District (employee and commercial vehicle parking and machinery/tool storage)
2015-0694
PL2325
HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENRIQUE AND MYRNA CARRILLO (USR14-0074)
PAGE 6
provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or part of a
map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the
A (Agricultural) Zone District, for the following reasons: it is not consistent with Chapter 22 of the
Weld County Code, is not consistent with the surrounding land use, future development or the
intent of the A (Agricultural) Zone District. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Conway,
and it carried unanimously.
la Chair Kirkmeyer extended her appreciation to the neighbors for coming and participating
in the process. She reminded the applicant that the denial means they have a court hearing on
April 6th, have 30 days to get the property into compliance, and encouraged the applicant to
work with the neighbors.
la Commissioner Conway again expressed appreciation to the other residents for coming
today and hopefully they feel treated fairly. Between now and April 6th, it would be best for the
applicant to communicate with the neighbors and to operate on the good neighbor policy. He
noted the applicant does have rights, and it may be beneficial to engage in dialogue.
04 Chair Kirkmeyer clarified regarding the fencing, the City of Evans is responsible.
0 Commissioner Conway stated that as elected officials, the Board will be following up with
the City of Evans, regarding the importance of referrals and their responsibility to provide
feedback. There being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 11:48 a.m.
This Certification was approved on the 23rd day of March, 2015.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: CL •
Cam(�/ � t.� i
f/.6�+w1/ tiara Kirkmeyer, hair
Weld County Clerk to the Board rml,P
• Mike Freeman, Pro-Tem
BY . . i. ' .a I s it .. !_h.. %
De' if Clerk tO t le Board#a.
trea. an P Con `y �'\l
I 1161 es I4V
r w+ r ie A�Cozaad
; ��
Steve Moreno
2015-0694
PL2325
4 eisT ,...v j.„ 6
Z."
, , ^ 0 ca 1
E `'' V C 1 0
v ' . s
ti �J 0 1 t
v , k, > •c � v
N 44'c)Q. (ID Oc-4 K7 6i C, cf , \k .'-'Oj
, -,-. -7- -3-• ----.
Q
1) \ _ �, L
S—
in
-I , r, olz e'et, ____,,‘\? TOv \)
{�1" < cam, cli
a ;p �_ d c c rN .� v
z,r
W
I- W fki
H
Q e.? .7) (1;e3 '4 4-- Z
J
� i 47.1 Cr1-
t
u `
ci
'. --' "..., (r) __#_s- 5 -. L. „6
5
03
li ---‹ ,.. - 4'''' c--.,.-- * i _...1) --6 .'-'------- c--7---
F.4 via a 4' > > �
` l C: i
_ij.,
' - � r 3
__Ew
Hello