HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100590.tiff Memorandum
a
TO: Kim Ogle, Interim Director
FROM: Brad Mueller
WIID€
Department of Planning Services
DATE: September 8, 2009
RE: Possible non-compliance USR (USR-1445)
COLORADO
CC: File No. USR-1445
This memo is to follow up to a possible non-compliant USR permit at the High Ball Erectors LLC
site, located at the northeast corner of CR 6 and 11. The Special Use Permit, USR-1445, was
approved and recorded on 4/15/2005 at Reception No. 3278016.
I inspected the site on September 3, 2009, to review the overall site and the items identified by
Phillip Brewer in an e-mail to Bethany Salzman on September 2, 2009. Field check notes and
photos are attached.
Storage on the site was generally orderly, and it is all located within the limits of the "outdoor
equipment storage area" as identified on the plat. It is unclear to me whether the department
would consider the types of items stored as out of compliance or not. The approved plan
indicates that "storage items are limited to concrete products, empty commercial trash bins,
commercial vehicles, construction materials, and two personal recreation vehicles." I observed
pipe racks, some tanks, construction vehicles, personal trucks and cars, and possibly three RVs
(one appeared to be more of a camper top attached to a personal truck). In addition, there was
a fairly large collection of modular construction trailers. It is unclear to me whether or not
construction trailers meet the intent of either"commercial vehicles" or"construction materials"
as listed in the USR Development Standards. The final item, as listed in Philip Brewer's report,
included a pile of lumber, etc. This may meet the definition of"construction materials."
Other than storage, some other conditions exist on the site. A "used steel for sale" sign is not
on the approved plan. Much of the fencing indicated on the approved plan is either not in place
(north and east boundaries), or it is not of the type specified (open metal versus "privacy" and
"wood" on much of the west and south sides). Most of the landscaping is not in place.
A deposit of$5000 in trust remains as collateral for the property, deposited in March 2005 for
fencing. I was unable to find any documentation as to whether the fencing, as built, was
considered acceptable or not.
Please advise me how you would like for the department to proceed.
2010-0590
/7/ yo 7
FIELD CHECK Inspection Date: 113 (°1
Applicant: N'&(t DAcc_ Erzec-rc)cs Lc,c, Case #: (ASiC - IcjNS
Request: (roLce ,.) up PoSs/6u° h °' - conirciAar USK
Legal: Section: 2 'a T: r N R: (o(5 W
Location: C/2- U C 2 r
Parcel ID #: Iv r a - z y - acce Acres: 17
Zoning I Land Use
N N Fge vi°J3L-4/ Vc/tTeb ! ac v
E
S A S CrCLr_.) getioeNce: RY S?orzAQ, C
W A W O PE fl uz2
Comments:
NIceTN - EAST fe1JC1n'S get it.k- ALL-tt) t/JeST Fgtc e )S opal )
S0�-TN F&tic oget3 (hIcr WE/-17 ) h)e- eXTeh\c Etat"I (ZC E . L t'J6-rt
No ST0YZA6E Gil WEST (sip ude.s KULLL Ir4g (JCT go �S�T
• STOIC/ G& Set-/1/4-k ri c,i-vt. (z/t( c -77144)<!-.; srere„AGC / i RV-
• SitrtpGe SEu -3 Fkotan L=,AS"C : ewe of Lt/ ' Eft Gei3cilcucl)o1J MtcTEW iAL-5',
ETG. ; Z IZ,\/. ' i /Z - I4-( MCpcLA ceNS-rrcvcri0tJ 'rrAic_e -S VAg)eL'�
ftetc UP 1r(UCfCS Se me c, )4V2 Ce-NSrfVCr tor) )1(E.(-he e
• OPAOVC- (NeTA❑') 'FbOCE ?o L (.60(5T-4 /NJ F2oe)T 0p- SToa(&tj TRAsLc(ZS
NctJ Or tie- ArrCe \/6.D LaNaSC,4PIfd6 7S hl PL-A(,6
Signature 3/2,y., M1 o 6 a-L6/Z
❑ House(s) n Derelict Vehicles
❑ Outbuilding(s) E Non-commercial junkyard (list components)
❑ Access to Property ❑ Irrigation Sprinkler
❑ Crop Productions ❑ Crops
❑ Site Distance o Wetlands
Ei Mobile Home(s) o Oil & Gas Structures
o Other Animals On-Site ❑ Wildlife
• Water Bodies ❑ Utilities On-Site (transmission lines)
o Ditch c Topography
Note any commercial business/commercial vehicles that are operating from the site.
•Vinktow fa?
Kim Ogle 'l
From: Bethany Salzman 1 p tt4 lC• ak^
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:24 PM g. E t ee' TIA‘Vriecw
To: Kim Ogle
Subject: FW: Possible Code Violations
96 : t
Sorry - this is USR-1445 - thanks
Original Message
From: Bethany Salzman
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:23 PM
To: Phillip Brewer
Cc: Kim Ogle
Subject: FW: Possible Code Violations
Thank-you Good Sir Phillip
When we receive a complaint that a USR is not in compliance, a Planner is assigned the case
for follow-up and potentially probable cause/show cause. I am forwarding this complaint to
Kim Ogle, who assigns them accordingly. Thank-you
Original Message
From: Phillip Brewer
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:17 AM
To: Bethany Salzman
Subject: Possible Code Violations
Queen Beth
Realm: South Weld
Beth: An interesting series of events yesterday has resulted in this note to you.
A "Cliff" of "High Ball Erectors", NE Corner of WCR 6 and WCR 11, called yesterday to obtain
an Open Burning Permit for a pile of crap. Laurie Exby denied the permit and notified me. I
went to the property and inspected the pile that has all sorts of painted stuff, preserved
stuff, and plywood stuff in the matrix of the pile---so I also denied the permit, about which
I verbally informed "Cliff" on the phone.
Laurie mentioned to me that "open burning" may be "forbidden" by the USR. We looked on the
USR and discovered that no such restriction is included in the USR (# 1445) .
But, I noticed in the USR that there are some well-defined "Storage items" in the Site
Specific Development Plant. What I saw yesterday are items stored on the site that may not
be in compliance with the USR. Reflecting back, there are some mobile office buildings and
other sorts of things stored on this property that may be "at odds" with the USR.
Is this sort of thing of interest to you, a code compliance officer for the county?
Sir, Phil
i
Hello