PALMER LAKE, COLORADO
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8/15/01

DRAFT
AUGUST 15, 2001

The Palmer Lake Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Bristol at 7:15 p.m., August 15, 2001.

Attendees:

Commissioner:
Cressman
Hammond
Harris
Leasure
Sercel
Trombley

Attorney: Kin

Audience: Approximately 175+

Item #2: Public Input - none.

Item #3: Request for a minor change to a PUD
- Loren Burlage, 500 Highway 105
71090-00-081
Addition of a Garage\Storage Shed

Mr. Burlage asked for permission to build a garage\storage shed on property located at 500 Highway 105. The building will be within the required setbacks.

COMMISSIONER CRESSMAN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A PUD FOR A GARAGE\STORAGE SHED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SERCEL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Item #4: Request for a Conditional Use in a M-1 Zone for a batch plant
County Line Road
Located behind 701 County Line Road
Bob Brewster representing Transit Mix

Chairperson Bristol stated a request for extension of the second meeting with the Planning Commission to a yet undetermined date had been received from Robert Brewster representing Transit Mix Concrete.

Attorney Kin explained this request was only for the hearing currently being held. The Commission could either honor the request and adjourn the meeting or disallow the request and continue with this hearing as scheduled.

Chairperson Bristol asked if either Mr. Brewster or a representative from Transit Mix was present. No representative was present.

Commissioner Leasure asked if there was any reason given for the request for an extension?

Chairperson Bristol stated there was no reason given in the written request.

COMMISSIONER HARRIS MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE CONTINUANCE OF THIS HEARING, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAMMOND. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairperson Bristol asked if anyone would like to speak on behalf of Transit Mix or in favor of Transit Mix. There being no response, Chairperson Bristol began the input from the persons on the sign-up sheet. A timelimit of five (5) minutes has been placed on the speakers:

Judy Martin 515 Wall Street, Palmer Lake
Don Riddle 101 Highland Rd, Palmer Lake
Geoff McHarg 65 Pie Corner, Palmer Lake
John Finch 860 County Line Road, Douglas County
Jason Phillips 520 Columbine Road, Palmer Lake
James Smith 90 Aurelia St, Palmer Lake
John Heiser 17160 Colonial Park Dr., Woodmoor
Janet Riddle 101 Highland Road, Palmer Lake
Mary Loots 152 Greeley Blvd., Palmer Lake
Joe Koeger 20430 Indi Dr., El Paso County
Bob Witte 21060 Cappella Dr., El Paso County
Louise Ehrich 2495 County Line Road, El Paso County
George Barnes 2480 Bricker Road, El Paso County
Bill Ehrich 2495 County Line Road, El Paso County
Ed Stevens 2595 County Line Road, El Paso County
      Presented a written statement on behalf of Stephen Gruber, Palmer Lake
Paul Olivier 626 Forest View Way, Palmer Lake
Duane Jones 695 Highway 105, D11, Palmer Lake
John LaBorde 615 El Paso Road, Palmer Lake
Becky Albright 341 Landsdown, Palmer Lake
William Collier 349 Crescent, Palmer Lake
Judy Barnes 2480 Bricker Rd., El Paso County
Loren Burlage 500 Highway 105, Palmer Lake
Shawn Demarest 500 Academy Road, Palmer Lake
Jennifer Forsyth 540 Academy Road, Palmer Lake
Carol Coopman 592 Academy Road, Palmer Lake
Michelle Bell 513 Romoca Lane, Palmer Lake
Gary Coleman 411 S. Highway 105, Palmer Lake
Mary Veatch 20255 Indi Dr., El Paso County
Tony Ander 117 Oakdale Dr., Palmer Lake
Larry Dyer 701 County Line Road, Palmer Lake

Below is a composite of questions asked and information submitted by the above. A complete copy of any written documentation is available upon request.

• What is the operating hours? Will night and weekend operations be allowed?
• How often will dust control measures be taken? Who will make the determination as to when?
• Site will be paved with compacted gravel, inhibiting the sweeping of the area to reduce dust.
• Will the town have any contractual authority to monitor and enforce dust control at the batch plant site and adjacent roads?
• Is there a maximum annual volume (cubic yards) restriction?
• If Transit Mix exceeds stated volumes, will the Town have the right to increase fees to recover the costs of the additional impact on the community and Town services?
• Will spare parts, trucks with salvageable parts and\or equipment that is not needed for batching operations be allowed to be stored on site?
• How many tons or cubic yards of returned concrete will be stored at the site?
• How often will it be removed from the site?
• Will crushing or recycling of waste concrete be allowed?
• Will Transit Mix hold harmless and indemnify the Town against any legal actions for accidents, chemical spills, contamination and environmental pollution caused by the activities of their operation and\or their employees?
• Has the council compared the terms of the agreement against similar agreements in other communities. If so, which ones?
• Will Transit Mix take possession of the property in an as is condition and hold the town harmless in perpetuity for any unknown or unidentified conditions?
• What course of action will the town take in the case of any violation of the terms of the permit?
• Will the costs of any possible legal or regulatory action be fully recoverable from Transit Mix should any decision or findings be for the Town of Palmer Lake?
• Has Council considered a short term, revocable lease?
• What revenue will the Town receive should volumes fall significantly, or if the plant is 'moth-balled'?
• The revenue from operations could be to '0' if Transit Mix wishes it to. The visual impact will remain for as long as Transit Mix wishes.
• Has the Town considered a flat annual minimum fee with a per cubic yard fee above that?
• Current offering of $.75 and $1.00 per cubic yard is to low.
• Has the Town considered an annual community improvement contribution from Transit Mix?
• The following items are considered to be not addressed in the proposal:
  • Material Safety Data Sheets for all hazardous materials that would be stored and used.
  • Examples of hazardous materials which might be found on a batch plant site, but not included in the proposal include:
    • Fuel oil
    • Hydraulic fluid
    • Various oils and lubricants
    • Detard
    • Polar set
    • Various acid washes
    • Setting agents
    • Fiber mesh
  • EPA Community Right to Know regulations mandate full disclosure for the purpose of emergency response planning, equipping, training and funding.
  • Details concerning storage of hazardous materials:
    • Types of primary containers
    • Quantities (volumes) to be stored
    • Isolation methods for incompatible materials
    • Structures that will house the materials
    • Engineering methods intended for secondary containment in the event of leaks or spills from primary containers
    • Procedures\employee training related to storage, handling, transfer and use.
  • Details concerning secondary containment for bulk fuel, oil or liquefied petroleum gas storage tanks, in the event of leak or spill, to include oversizing to hold the anticipated volume of liquid release combined with the works case volume of rainwater.
  • Professional engineering data concerning separation distances from combustible materials and the adjacent forest, electrical grounding and bonding of the tank and its transfer devices, methods for prevention of static discharge into combustible vapors during storage and transfers, lightning protection features, automatic fire suppression systems, facilities and training for manual fire fighting and periodic inspection and maintenance procedures established for prevention of mishaps.
  • Details of hazardous waste accumulation, primary container types, quantities, labeling , period temporary storage of waste, isolation methods for incompatible wastes, engineering methods intended for secondary containment of leaks and spills, details of structures to house wastes, fire prevention and protection provisions for combustible and flammable wastes, procedure\employee training concerning handling and disposal, hazardous waste permitting and DOT manifesting at the proposed batch plant site.
  • Adequate detail to evaluate prevention of blow-out during cement transfer, or emergency response and timing in the event of a release of cement dust into the air, ground or water during transfers.
  • Does not provide a copy of Transit Mix emergency response engineering methods and procedures for prevention of spill or release of other hazardous materials into the air, ground and water and for amelioration and immediate clean up of release when they occur.
  • Comprehensive details regarding:
    • Nature of motor vehicle accidents
    • Descriptions of vehicle related injuries and fatalities
    • Descriptions of vehicle related property damage
    • Hazardous materials releases from vehicles
    • Citations and fines related to motor vehicle accidents
    • Traffic safety violations not related to accidents
    • Related medical cost, property damage cost and cost of settlements of lawsuit.
    • Inspections, citations and fines associated with enforcement by the Department of Transportation concerning motor vehicle operations.
    • Findings of regulatory compliance inspections or enforcement actions on or against operations in the State of Colorado, by Federal, State or Local government Occupational Safety and Health or Environmental Protection agencies.
  • Comprehensive details on the sources of acoustic noise on site:
    • Each item of machinery and each vehicle
    • Plant public address speakers
    • Safety klaxons which sound before conveyors and other automated equipment starts up
    • Back-up beepers on loaders and trucks
    • Truck engines and mixers
  • Questions regarding the number of trips to and from the plant, including the number of aggregate trucks.
  • Lack of a detailed landscaping plan.
  • Lack of a detailed drainage plan showing anticipated volumes of runoff water and evidence of contaminants and storm water would be contained on the property.
  • Questions regarding water usage being estimated at 32 gallons per cubic yard not including any water carried separately on the trucks or water needed to clean the trucks.
  • Calculated water usage to be based on 80 to 90 cubic yards produced per hour for 10 hours per day would be 36,000 (800 cy per day at 45 gallons per cy) and 67,500 gallons (900 cy per day at 75 gallons per cy. ) for a total usage of 720,000 to 1.4 million gallons per a 20-day month. (Data is very similar to projections of water usage for the proposed Monument plant).
• Proposal asks for three (3) 3" taps (including the taps for the anticipated partners for drilling the proposed well) Calculation of proposed taps: 2.5 x $86,000 x 3 = $258,000 - the cost a larger tap is negotiable.
• Regulatory requirements or restrictions:
  • EPA does not have oversight of compliance with their regulations. EPA has an agreement with the State of Colorado to provide oversight.
  • Carla Lenkey, State Water Quality Compliance stated the state has no record of a state water permit for the Mark Sheffell site and the permit for Costillo site expired and became inactive in 1993.
  • John James, County Air Quality Compliance Division reported no record of a pollution emissions permit for the Mark Sheffell site.
  • Nathan Moore reported on record of a permit pertaining to storm water runoff.
  • Appears governmental entities have no way of knowing whether permits are in place other than voluntary compliance or input from interested parties. If the EPA, state and county cannot provide appropriate oversight, how can Palmer Lake hopes to do so?
  • Are permits for these activities current. If so, what are the permit numbers and when did they become active?
  • Transit Mix is requesting 4.71 acres. It has been reported that property under 5 acres would not be subject to State and County permits.
• Claims of sensitivity to environmental concerns. Reference was made to a 1988 violation of the Clean Water Act in which waste water containing calcium hydroxide, a corrosive agent, was illegally disposed into Shooks Run.
• Request for Conditional Use under Number 5 and\or 9 of the M-1 Zone of the Palmer Lake Municipal Code. Number 5 - Heavy Manufacturing and Number 9 - Other such uses as listed and permitted which are not more detrimental, as determined by Planning Commission and Town Council.
  
  According to research of Colorado Springs Codes, a concrete batch plant could not be considered under Palmer Lake's Heavy Manufacturing Conditional Use category.
  
  
• Number 9 cannot be considered due to the following detrimental aspects:
  • Public Safety
  • Public Heatlh
  • Noise Pollution
  • Air Pollution
  • Aesthetically
  • Town Economy
  • Surrounding and nearby Residential and Commercial property values.
  • Wildlife, Existing Vegetation and Lake Restoration
• Conflict of interest (although a previous discussion indicated no conflict of interest)
  • The Town, as owner, has not provided a letter of agreement granting permission to allow the applicant to submit an applicant.
  • If there is no letter of agreement, does it make the application invalid?
  • If such a document has been submitted, that document, because this application is for a Conditional Use on Town owned property would then already provide the Town Trustees' position on the project and would render those Trustees' vote invalid.
• Questions of safety by both cement trucks and aggregate trucks on County Line Roads, more specifically at Indi Drive.
• Adverse effect on adjoining Town owned land and possibility of making the remainder of Town land unusable
• Effect on Ben Lomand if purchased for open space:
  • Proposed donation of $30,000 towards the purchase of Ben Lomand appears to be small compared to the size of the company.
• How was the proposed purchase price assessed.

Recess: 9:15 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

• Commissioner Leasure stated the first thing to be considered was Town Council had voted to remove Heavy Manufacturing from the zoning. At this point, it was his understanding that there is nothing that is a vested right by Transit Mix, if they were to take the next step and deny the it on the basis of the current zoning. Commissioner Leasure indicated there are many other things, but this should be the first step in addressing it.
• Commissioner Sercel complimented everyone on the many hours of hard work. One of the side benefits of this, is that it has brought the community closer. Commissioner Sercel did not feel the proposal was compatible with the current businesses in the M-1 Zone. To many things needed to try to make the proposal fit.
• Commissioner Harris thanked Jess Smith for the use of the Pinecrest Event Center.
  
  Commissioner Harris stated the proposal in front of the commission was a statistical address of many of the issues brought forward. However it failed to address the effects of noise, along with various other impacts.
  
  The proposal presents three sentences pertaining to drainage. The proposal has way to many unanswered questions to be recommended to Town Council. Commissioner Harris expressed his disappointment.
  
  
• Commissioner Cressman expressed disappointment with the last minute request of continuance for this meeting. Commissioner Cressman further indicated he was not impressed with the presentation. This is not an appropriate land use.
• Chairperson Bristol stated the commission had approached the proposal with an open mind. Chairperson Bristol indicated the proposal was without merit in the areas of economic, esthetics and complete incompatibility with current land use and with the vision of Palmer Lake. It is her opinion the proposal has holes in the information and that the proposal cannot be fixed.
• Commissioner Hammond agreed the statements made by previous Commissioners and stated the Town must, to quote, "bring in new business with more positives than negatives". After reviewing the proposal, Commissioner Hammond stated she could not find any positives.
• Commissioner Trombley also agreed with the previous statements and stated the proposal was not a compatible use. Commissioner Trombley stated the Town should not sell it heritage or its soul at a price.

COMMISSIONER HARRIS MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO TOWN COUNCIL THAT THEY DO NOT APPROVE THE TRANSIT MIX PROPOSAL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TROMBLEY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairperson Bristol asked Mayor McDonald to speak regarding the Rubber Duckie Races.

Mayor McDonald stated Fall in Palmer Lake and the Palmer Lake Volunteer Fire Department Open House will be held from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Saturday, August 25, 2001 at the El Paso County Park.

The Rubber Duckie Race, a fundraiser for the fire truck, will take place on the lake. Depending on the amount of ducks sold, there may be two races held.

The Town has 102 Rubber Duckies. Cost of a duck is $5.00. Interactive demonstrations with the fire department, Flight for Life and possibly the Smoke Trailer.

COMMISSIONER HAMMOND MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:40 P.M., SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SERCEL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Approved as written or amended this      day of September, 2001.

Jan Bristol, Chairperson
Della Gins, Substitute Secretary

Return to Palmer Lake Planning Commission page