HomeMy WebLinkAbout982699.tiff Q
. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
I PHONE (970) 353-6100,,EXT.3540
FAX (970) 352-6312 Y NISTRATIVE OFFICES
C. WELD COUN GREEILIE1400 N.Y COLORADOHVENU
0631.
COLORADO .
December 18, 1998
Lee Maxwell - -
Eaton Grove Nursery
35901 WCR 31
Eaton, Colorado 80615
RE: USR-675
Dear Mr. Maxwell:
Thank you for your letter dated December 16, 1998. I have discussed this matter with Roger
Vigil and Dave Sprague of the Building Inspection Department and it has been determined that
building permits are required for the re-construction of the two greenhouses which you are
currently building. As was discussed in our phone conversation yesterday, you need to come in
to apply and pay for building permits for these structures. Please do so by Thursday, December
31st as the office will be closed on Friday, January 1st.
•
It is apparent that previous staff indicated to you that the relocation of these greenhouses would
not be considered a substantial change to the operation permitted by USR-675. Please be
aware that any further construction which is not delineated on the approved USR-675.plat will
require an amendment to USR-675.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
1tr
ott Ballstadt
Planner II •
cc: USR-675 file
PL
f
•
• DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
WIlD PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970)352-6312
Y INISTRATIVE C. WELD COUN GREEILE1400 N. 17TH Y, COLORADO 80631CES
COLORADO
December 18, 1998
•
Andy & Julie Sauter
35815 WCR 31
Eaton, Colorado 80615
RE: USR-675 Eaton Grove Nursery
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sauter:
Thank you for your letter dated December 16, 1998. I followed up our conversation by
contacting Mr. Maxwell to determine why there were no building permits or letters pertaining to
the two greenhouses being constructed. He informed me that the greenhouses are actually
structures which are being re-located from another location on the site. He also indicated that
he had spoken with the Building Inspection Department and a former planner and was informed
that it would not be a substantial change to USR-675 as the buildings were being re-located. A
sketch included in the USR-675 file verified that the new position for the two buildings had been
reviewed by the Department.
I have discussed this matter with Roger Vigil and Dave Sprague of the Building Inspection
Department and it has•been determined that building permits are required for the re-construction
of the two greenhouses. However, it appears that previous staff did not consider this to be a
substantial change to USR-675.
•
Mr. Maxwell has been informed that any further construction which is not delineated on the
approved USR-675 plat will require an amendment to USR-675. If the Department receives
such a request for amendment, all surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the site would
receive notice by mail and a sign will be posted at least ten days prior to public hearings.
Please call me if you hava any questions.
'merely,
•
Scott Ballstadt
Planner II
cc: USR-675 file
Andy and Julie Sauter
35815 WCR 31
Eaton, CO 80615 Weld County Planning Dept.
(970) 454-2778
DEC 1. 7 1998
December 16, 1998
Ms. Sharyn Frazer
` ECEIVED
Zoning Compliance Officer
Department of Planning Services •
1400 North 17th Avenue
Greeley Colorado 80631
RE: Eaton Grove Nursery
USR-675
Dear Ms. Frazer:
Six years ago Eaton Grove Nursery, our neighbor to the immediate north and west, began
construction of two.greenhouses approximately five feet'from oar north boundary withoiif first
obtaining a building permit'Shortly alter we made some inquiries at the Planning Department
We were approaehed.by the owners of the nursery. They offerea.io plant five Austrian pine
trees along our north and west boundaries to help disguise the new greenhouses and the
dumpster and trash cans if we would not raise any objections to those two new greenhouses
that by then bad already been built without a permit. We understood that our acquiescence or
resistance would be a factor in your office's determination of whether the new construction
would be considered a significant change to Eaton Grove's special use plan. While we believed
that the greenhouses were entirely different than the shade houses that had previously been
there, we promised not to object as long as there would be no further construction either along
•
our north boundary or anywhere to the west of our property. Our discussions and agreement
were memorialized in the letters sent to your office in January 1993.
On or about November 20, 1998, Eaton Grove began building two greenhouses, this time to
the west of our property, again without first obtaining a building permit. These greenhouses
are two to three times as large as the 1992 greenhouses and, unlike those greenhouses, are not
replacing any existing structures. In our view these greenhouses constitute a'major change to
Eaton Grove's special use plan: "Our concerti i3 that Eaton Grove has?deniotistrated'a contempt
for the rules that the rest of us that live by and that if their building practices continue
unchecked, their special use pemutwill become meaningless.
a_
Sharyn Frazer
page 2
Please consider this as an objection to the construction of the two new greenhouses and a
request that Eaton Grove be required to operate within the parameters of their special use
permit.
We would like to be kept apprised of all developments in this matter. Feel free to call us with
any questions.
Very truly yours,
r‘k(/(6/____
=4 O D
•
Weld County Planning Dept.
December 16, 1998 DEC 17 1998
Weld County Department of Planning Services RECEIVED
Attn. Scott Ballstadt
Per our conversation of this afternoon I will try to "respond"to the letter dated December
16, 1998 written by the Andy and Julie Sauter and addressed to Ms. Sharyn Frazer.
Some of the items of the letter are indeed true. We did plant five large pine trees (costing
about $2000) onto the north boundary of the Sauter property. However these trees were
not planted for the purpose of "disguise" for the two structures mentioned in their letter,
or the Dumpster. These buildings as well as the Dumpster had previously been properly
and fully shielded from the view of the Sauter property by trees and shrubs. The five
trees filled in a gap of the tree row further west of the shade house area where the
buildings were put.
In the meeting that we had with the Sauters after they had moved in as neighbors was to
dispel some of their apparent objections. We not only agreed to plant the trees
mentioned,but to eliminate an old equipment("junk")pile some 500 feet to the west of
their property. We told the Sauters that it was not our intention to build any structure
immediately and next to their west boundary, which could not be properly shielded by
trees,bushes etc. We have complied in total with all of the agreements made at that
meeting. We also contributed in equal shares to a fence along their north boundary that
they requested.
In no manner did we agree to discontinue building to the west or north of their property.
Our entire nursery is to the west or north of their property. To have agreed to any thing
as they suggest would have been contrary to the items noted on our original special use
plan and would have placed unreasonable restrictions on the conduct and previously
planned growth of our business.
We have and will continue to operate within the guidelines stated in our original special
use plan.
As I have explained, last March I came to the Department of Planning Services to obtain
permits to reconstruct two structures,which had been dismantled to make room for an
addition to my washing machine storage facility. The Weld County Planning staff
informed me that no permit was required since the structures were to be moved from one
location to another. I was required to show the location of the reconstructed structures.
The sketch I provided has been in your files since March. We have been working, as
scheduling permits, on the reconstruction of the two structures for over 4 months now
and they are almost completed. The two structures, each 30' x 96'were moved from the
north of the row of our growing greenhouses to an area on our original site plan marked
for"cold frames". The intended use of these relocated structures remains as a storage
facility. They will be used for as a temporary holding area for the conditioning of newly
received or newly potted plant materials. They are not"benched", and are only
minimally heated and cooled. Their use is primarily for the conditioning of plant
materials and they are located in the"cold frame" area clearly identified on the original
use by special permit drawings.
I fmd no pleasure in having to respond to half-truths and indeed untruths. We have given
the Sauters on more occasions than I can remember our hand to be good and responsible
neighbors. We live closer than they to the environment of the nursery. We want it to be
a good one for us, for our customers and for our neighbors. Any one who has been to
Eaton Grove will attest to its good appearance and country friendly atmosphere. We take
pride in our operation. We will continue to hold out our hand in hopes their concerns are
noticed and we can be, if not the best of friends, at least good neighbors.
T
nadifi
Lee Maxwell
Eaton Grove Nursery
<{S4- 3qS‘)
Scott Ballstadt Page 2
Hello