HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06-28-2023Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 1 of 14
Planning Commission Official Minutes
Wednesday June 28, 2023 — 6:30 PM
Minturn Town Hall / Council Chambers
302 Pine St Minturn, CO
The agenda is subject to change, including the addition of items 24 hours in advance or the
deletion of items at any time. The order and times of agenda items listed are approximate. This
agenda and meetings can be viewed at www.mintum.org.
MEETING ACCESS INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This will be an in -person meeting with access for the public to attend in person or via the
Zoom link included. Zoom Link: https:Hus02web.zoom.us/j/89841716881
Zoom Call -In Information: 1 651 372 8299 or 1 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 898 4171 6881
Please note: all virtual participants are muted. In order to be called upon and be unmuted, you
will need to use the "raise hand" feature in the Zoom platform. When it's your turn to speak,
the moderator will unmute your line and you will have five (5) minutes for public comment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: If you are unable to attend, public comments regarding any items on
the agenda can be submitted to Madison Harris, Planner I, prior to the meeting and will be
included as part of the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER — 6:30 PM
Lynn Teach called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those present at roll call: Planning Commission Chair Lynn Teach and Planning
Commission Members Amanda Mire, Michael Boyd, Sage Pierson, and Jeff Armistead.
Staff Members Present: Planning Director Scot Hunn, Town Manager Michelle Metteer,
Town Attorney Richard Peterson-Cremer, Town Engineer Jeff Spanel, and Planner I
Madison Harris.
Note: Tom Priest is excused absent.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.1 June 14, 2023
Motion by Jeff A., second by Michael B., to approve the minutes of June 14, 2023 as
presented. Motion passed 5-0.
Note: Tom P. is excused absent.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Opportunity for amendment or deletions to the agenda.
Motion by Michael B., second by Amanda M., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion
passed 5-0.
Minhun Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 2 of 14
Note: Tom P. is excused absent.
5. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Jeff A. stated that he has a conflict of interest for Agenda Item 8.2 and sub -items 8.2.1, 8.2.2,
and 8.2.3. He will be recusing himself for that agenda item. He is also the Applicant for
agenda item 8.1 and will be recusing himself to speak for that agenda item.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT Citizens are invited to comment on any item not on the regular
Agenda subject to a public hearing. Please limit your comments to five (5) minutes per
person unless arrangements have been made for a presentation with the Town Planner.
Those who are spearing are requested to state their name and address for the record.
No public comment.
7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
8. DESIGN REVIEW AND LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 987 S Main Street — Exterior Modifications to Existing Commercial Buildings
Madison H. introduced the agenda item. The plans show two commercial structures being
joined together into a two -level structure with three residential apartments above a
warehouse area and garage bay. The building height - measured to the midpoint of the
roof from finished grade — is about 22 feet well within the maximum 28-foot allowable
height limit within the South Town Commercial Zone District. Parking is adequate, with
four off-street spaces able to fit in the garage, five spaces proposed in the driveway, and
eleven spaces across the private street. The warehouse requires thirteen spaces, and the
three dwelling units require six. As a reminder, these are all existing uses. Staff believes
that the design and scale of the structure is appropriate for the zone district and character
on nearby parcels. Proposed roof forms and pitches, materials and textures are compatible
and complimentary to the surrounding built and natural environments. The Applicant has
created an interesting facade with changes in materials and windows at regular intervals.
Lynn T. asked if this was ok to have a hearing on prior to the Midtown Village PUD
being heard.
this is a separate process, they can continue in this process.
• Richard P.-C. said that the outcome of the PUD does not change how the code
would apply to this application.
Lynn T. asked if HPC notice had gone out.
• Madison H. confirmed that it had.
Jeff Armistead, 1003 Main Street, Applicant
Showed a slide show of pictures relating to what is there now, renderings of what it will
look like, and the materials being used. Bringing up the interior to code currently, now
focusing on the outside. Would like to put a commercial garage door in the bridge joining
the two buildings. Getting rid of the portion of the building that doesn't have a foundation
under it. Apartments are for SteamMaster employees. Combination metal and asphalt
Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 3 of 14
roofing. Grays with white trim for color palettes.
Public comment opened.
No public comment.
Public comment closed.
Michael B. asked if he needs any additional taps.
• Mr. Armistead said they are good on water. It is sprinkled now. Might need to
increase the main as they come to doing the upper level.
• Michael B. asked if they are going to eliminate the lot line.
• Mr. Armistead said that they are going to address that at the PUD time, not
proposing to address that now.
• Michael B. asked if they need an easement for their current access across Lot 9.
• Richard P.-C, said that the lots are in common ownership so this does not need an
easement.
• Mr. Armistead said that there are easements on the lot that ERWSD is a
beneficiary of that will need to move.
Motion by Michael B., second by Amanda M., to approve 987 S Main Street — exterior
Modifications to Existing Commercial Buildings. Motion passed 4-0.
Note: Tom P, is excused absent and Jeff A. has recused himself.
Note: Jeff A. has unrecused himself.
8.2 Minturn North PUD — Railroad Planned Unit Development Review
8.2.1 Preliminary Plan
8.2.2 Preliminary Plat
8.2.3 Amendment to the Character Area and Zone District Map
Richard P.-C. stated that this is a quasi-judicial hearing. The Planning Commission is
sitting like a judge and reviewing presentations by staff, applicant, and the public. It
is very important that people focus on the application and the standards in the code.
We would like a clean record. One of the common issues is conflicts of interest.
one by one to each Planning Commissioner asking them to disclose any ex parte
contact.
Note: Jeff A. recused himself and left the meeting.
• Amanda M. asked Scot H. questions about his staff report but will ask those
tonight.
• Lynn T. has discussed with staff as she is the Chair. People have approached
her, but she directs them to staff or to come to the meeting.
• Michael B. has not had any ex parte contact except for directing people to
come to the meeting.
• Sage P. said that 2-2.5 years ago that when the project came to fruition it
would be 140 units. She started a petition, and while she does not feel that
way anymore she believes she should recuse herself.
Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 4 of 14
Note; Sage P. recused herself and left the meeting.
Scot H, gave a presentation. A PUD is a master planned/designed community that
allows more flexibility than standard zoning. There are three phases of approval:
conceptual/sketch plan, preliminary plan, and final plan. This particular application
has been in the process for a while. Conceptual was applied for in late 2019, got
approval in early 2020. Preliminary plan was applied for in March 2020. Planning
Commission hearings were held April -August 2021, Council hearings were held in
Spring 2022, Initial review by Planning Commission resulted in recommendation for
denial based on concerns over density and impacts. Applicant revised plans before
presenting Council. Council remanded plans back to the Planning Commission to
address comments in May 2022. We went through two rounds of internal review
starting in December 2022 before sending out the application for referral. The
updated plans are 11 acres instead of 19 acres. This is a 100% residential PUD. 39
single family residential lots and units. One phase being built by the developer. There
is open -space and land dedication to the Town. There are public and private road,
ECO trail, sidewalks, pedestrian improvements and infrastructure. Updated HOA
covenants, PUD Guide, Design Guidelines, impact reports, finalized
agreements/easements with UPRR for access and construction. The purpose of the
PUD Overlay Zone District is to allow flexibility for landowners to creatively plan
for the overall development of their land and to achieve the purpose and objectives of
the Code and the Community Plan. An applicant for a PUD must demonstrate that
departure from existing ordinances is warranted and that the proposed PUD
significantly contributes to: provide for new technology and promote innovative and
efficient land use patterns, permit the integration of land uses and contribute to trails
and pedestrian circulation; preserves valued environments and natural resources and
achieves a more desirable environment; maintains or improves air and water quality;
provides for a wide range of housing opportunities; improves the overall design
character and quality of new development; permits the integration rater than
separation of uses, so that necessary facilities are conveniently located in relation to
each other; establishes land use patterns that promote and expand opportunities for
public transportation and trails and for safe, efficient, compact street and utility
preserves valued environmental, historic or mineral resource lands and avoids
development in natural hazard areas; maintains and enhances surface and ground
water quality and quantity; provides applicants the opportunity to contribute to the
Town's multi -use trail system; to provide and maintain access to public lands and
rivers; establishes incentives for applicants to encourage the provision of long-term
affordable housing; and is consistent with the purposes and goals of the Community
Plan and these Land. Use Regulations.
Amanda M. asked about the applicability of the 2019 Housing Plan.
• Scot H. said that the code specifically requires conformance with the
community plan, but not the 2019 Housing Plan.
Scot H. continued his presentation. Staff believes that the application conforms with
Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 5 of 14
the 2009 Community Plan and the Town's growth management policies. It exhibits
efficient land use patterns and extension of infrastructure informed by existing Town
fabric. It ensures that areas around PUD can be planned harmoniously. It integrates
pedestrian improvements and will contribute to the Town's trail system and
pedestrian infrastructure. It includes single-family, custom designed and built housing
options including voluntary "locals only" housing plan and transfer fee. It maintains
and/or enhances access and parking for public trailheads. It exceeds the minimum
required open space. The scale, mass, and character of the PUD reflects the character
of the Town and the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant is requesting lot and
impervious coverage variations (60-75%). There is additional natural hazards
evaluation needed. Additional stormwater sizing and design details to be finalized
based on Eagle River Watershed Council and Town Engineering comments. There
also needs to be additional revisions to civil engineering and subdivision plat
documents. There are a few minor revisions left for the PUD Guide and Design
Guidelines. We also need an updated consumptive water use analysis. In summary,
the updated Preliminary Plan reflects the Concept Plan and community character
while responding to specific concerns and direction given by the Planning
Commission and Town Council. The Updated Preliminary Plan meets a
preponderance of applicable approval criteria and findings, as conditioned. The
Updated Preliminary Plan is simplified and, therefore, should result in less costly
infrastructure and fewer off -site impacts than previous designs. Outstanding issues
and recommendations by referral agencies can and shall be addressed prior to any
Final Plan/Plat approval. The Zone District Amendment and Preliminary Plat
applications also meet the Town's requirements and approval criteria.
Note: 5 minute recess called at 7: 39 pm.
Rick Hermes, 225 Main St Ste C-101, Edwards, Applicant.
There are improvements going on in the S-curve. Dedicating .9 acres to the Town of
Minturn that could be any number of things. Lots 34-39 are dedicated to deed
restricted for locals only. Lots 1-33 are deed restricted in the sense that if you are not
a permanent resident there will be a 1% transfer fee. Already there is a healthy mix of
being installed along the length of the property with a bridge across Game Creek.
Union Pacific has agreed to allow an easement for the rest of the ECO Trail through
their property. The Applicant will be paying for their portion of the ECO Trail. There
is a 5' sidewalk along 4th Street that connects to the ECO Trail. All of the lots 1-33
access the lots from Miles End Ln. Will be adding parking to the trailhead. Miles End
Ln is a rollover curb and gutter with 24' of drive lane. Will keep some of the trees on
the property. Miles End Lane is between 4-7% grade. The lot configuration is on
average .166 acres which is comparable to the .168 acre average on Taylor.
Requesting a 40' lot width variation.
Michael B. asked about the paved Minturn Rd.
• Mr. Hermes said they are proposing to pave all the way to Dowd Junction
with the possibility of a left hand turn lane on Hwy 24.
Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 6 of 14
Mr. Hermes continued his presentation. 85% of the reservations will be full time
residents. The majority of the house plans are around 3,000 sq. ft. but there are
allowances up to 4,500 sq. ft. Game Creek will be preserved. People will only enter
for maintenance purposes. The 100 Year Floodplain does exist well within the 30'
river setback, but have allowed for a 2' berm. Have gotten rid of the Metro District
and will pay for themselves. By the time building permits are applied for there will be
approximately 5 million given to the Town. Houses designed to the 2021 Building
Codes and have adopted waterwise landscaping standards. Low emission water heads.
Temporary irrigation for the most part. CPW had comments on plants that are more
friendly to wildlife that they have incorporated. Want individuality in the houses. All
homes have a garage and extra storage. Aren't requesting any variations for height.
Taylor will mostly just see one story and the homes sit down on the lot. All homes
have conduit run to the electrical panels so that solar can be added in the future. Light
fixtures are dark sky compliant. There is an HOA review, and then it goes to the
Town for their review.
Public comment opened.
Sidney Harrington, 532 Taylor
Would like to see more details about the S-curve, possibly a plan. Also would like to
know more about how much money the Town has put into the engineering.
• Jeff S. estimated 8,000 dollars.
• Michelle M. said that it is 5' concrete sidewalk. The fence next to the Minturn
Mountain Motel will get moved into their property 5'. There will be
crosswalks and speedbumps.
• Ms. Harrington asked where the 85% of the permanent resident buyers
number came from
• Mr. Hermes said that they are just taking what people say when they make
their reservations.
Trent Schaffler, 105 Lions Lane.
Asked if the sidewalk in the S-curve will connect past the Towne Homes. This
application is -a -lot better -than -the -high- density-- homes. T-he-eorner-outside-of the
Towne Homes (Mintum Rd. and Taylor) has been deemed a dangerous intersection. It
would be nice to see that fixed. Currently it is an uncontrolled intersection. There are
private roads proposed in this application and asked the applicant to explain how that
would work. Asked if there are any restrictions on the roads.
• Mr. Hermes said there was no intention to limit the use of the road.
Rob Gosiewski, 560 Taylor St.
There are a lot of things on both designs that are great and things that are missed
opportunities. Need to be consistent with the design and scale of the area. On the
original plans he asked for setbacks to be consistent. Would ask the Commission to
ask the developer to show what it would look like if the plan adhered to the standards
on Taylor. There are opportunities for pedestrian connections that should be added.
Don't seem to want to blend in with Minturn, and want to have their own regulations.
Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 7 of 14
Does not know how this fits in with the small town. Let's keep the consistency with
the 2009 Community Plan. There used to be snow storage along the sides of Taylor
St, but those have vanished. The Town should get agreements between Taylor and the
property.
Katie Tucholke, 530 Taylor St
The speeders on Taylor are the people who visit the trailhead, not the people who live
there. Ok with the development of 39 homes. The applicant is being considerate
compared to other iterations of the plan. Likes that the houses sit down lower. Likes
the proportion of the lots. Thinks it needs to be more hashed out, but this is
preliminary plan. This beats the 180 cars times 2 that would be going around the S-
curve. Doesn't have a problem with this, and don't need this property/project to be
passed onto other developers that might want a pop-up city. Would like some more
perks for the residents on Taylor for putting up with the building for 5 years.
Paul Gotthelf, 1337 Lake Creek, Edwards.
On behalf of his daughter and her husband. Would like to speak on employee
housing. The Town of Vail has done a great job putting towards employee housing. 6
units being for employees housing isn't enough. The price range for a first time home
buyer is not realistic. It should be $500-600k not the 1.4 million that it could be. We
need more employee housing. Deed restriction is ridiculous and a 1 % transfer fee is
too low and should be increased significantly. We don't want a Singletree in Minturn.
The community is perfect for first time homebuyers.
Nathan LaCross, 322 Taylor St.
Against any construction in front of his house. That being said, a lot of his concerns
have answers for them. Any development will have impact on the residents of Taylor.
Is there a timeline for building?
Jen Babcock, 1106 Crazy Horse, Edwards
Been in the valley since 2005 and looking forward to moving back to Minturn.
Supports the project.
Carrie Keiser, Vail
On the list to purchase a home. A long term local, grew up here in the 70s. Went to
Minturn Middle School and Battle Mountain Highschool. Plan on being in the home
for the rest of her life. Is an artist and plans to bring more things to Minturn. This
development will attract the people that the Town wants. Everyone she has talked to
are mostly younger families, and don't think there is a big chance of a lot of second
homeowners.
Bill Hoblitzell, 262 Taylor St
Kristin Thomas, 262 Taylor pooled time with Bill Hoblitzell.
People are comfortable with the density, but this project is not reflective of the Town.
This project should have been reverted back to Conceptual. There should have been a
charrette. Believes we have violated our own code. People need a lot more time and
Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 8 of 14
the Commission needs to continue the hearing. This is a misuse of the PUD process.
A private POA is not needed. Disagrees with a lot of the covenants. Disagrees with
Scot H.'s representation of Taylor's issues with the former proposal concerning
Taylor St. Within 1-2 overturns of homeowners, this will be majority 2nd homeowner.
Nobody has brought up water even though we are heading into a water crisis. There is
a lot of irrigation. Cul-de-sacs dis-invite people down the street, so while people can
go down it, it isn't inviting. This is more in line with a resort suburb. This is not the
same project. Private governance isn't needed. We should slow down and think about
this. The applicant needs to meet the Town a lot closer to the Town's goals.
David Clapp, 392 Taylor St
With everything in the last couple of years, it is nothing like what we have planned
with the Community Plans. Didn't envision 180 homes. Disagrees with the thought
that 85% will be full time home owners. Would like to allow single family homes
with ADUs and Duplexes.
Andrea Middleton, 382 Taylor St.
Supports this. Thinks people are struggling with the change. This won't be consistent
with Minturn just because this is a whole street of new houses when there are a lot of
old structures in Town. Appreciates that the Planning Commission and the Applicant
has taken into account everyone's comments.
Gretchen Polis, Eagle Vail.
Proposed owner. Prior resident in 1962, Is one of the retired people. Hopes her
children can take over her house as they cannot afford to live here. Change is
inevitable. Hopes this project goes through.
Hany Malek, 498 Taylor St.
Retired civil engineer. Been involved in this project from day 1. Helps organize
Taylor St. Would welcome the new owners as they want to be one community.
Supports this development, however, snow storage along Taylor and parking along
Taylor are still an issue. The previous issues were intersections and road alignment of
m 1 _ i.r_---'----- ,--!- --- -- --'- A!, -1--- ]----_a _.01__1_---
ground pipes. Should go back to the underground drainage system. Before, the snow
storage was about 37,000 sq. ft., now there is less than half. The snow storage
proposed along Taylor isn't there anymore. It comes down to drainage. Need a 5'
easement along Taylor St for snow storage. There were curb and gutters, parking, and
lights. Taylor was supposed to be paved, and now that isn't mentioned. There were
five access points from Taylor to Minturn Rd. now we have 2. A sidewalk that
connects Taylor to Minturn Rd would be appreciated. Has an issue with private roads.
Michael Gottino president of Towne Homes, Jessica cover 492 Taylor, Kim Malek
498 Taylor.
Pooled time to 15 minutes for Mr. Gottino to speak.
A charrette is needed. Is mostly for this, however Bill Hoblitzell brings up a lot of
good points and they should be given the consideration they deserve. A continuance
Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 9 of 14
of this process due to the time is the right choice. Acknowledged Michelle M.'s
efforts with the S-curve. Thanked Mr. Hermes for being here. Liked that the
Applicant dedicated the open space, but it feels like a punt so that they don't have to
deal with it. The Town should employ more firm description of what the space is used
for. Is advocating for a children's park, not affordable housing as that isn't the place
for density. Appreciates the consideration of more integration. Likes that they have
addressed a lot of the dynamics. Would like to highlight the drainage. The Planning
Commission and the developer should give serious consideration to Mr. Malek's
concerns. The Minturn Mile is increasing every year and the mountain bikers have
doubled this year. 20 parking spaces is great, but it will be overparked. Significant
traffic at the trailhead will only increase in that portion of Town. Encouraged at the
progress that has come. Not interested in Singletree and Arrowhead. Change is
inevitable, and the Applicant has an opportunity to shine. This has potential to be a
crown jewel for Minturn. It is the objective of the Town to redevelop the railyard in a
way that is compatible with the Town. There needs to be more open public
discussion, there needs to be a charrette. Encouraged by those people who considered
the possibilities of what can go on this parcel. There is further improvement needed.
Darin Tucholke, 530 Taylor
There is a drainage problem. It is about 15-20 days a year which is pretty heavy.
Leery of the ditches that are proposed. Wants to see the drainage improved. This is a
high -scale development with a low -budget drainage system. There should be an
agreement between the east side of the development and Taylor for snow storage on
the 10-20' east side of the development. This feels like private land, and doesn't want
people to harass his kids. There should be sidewalks across the property so that there
isn't just the one cross down to Minturn Rd. The land dedication should remain a
park, not more buildings. Snow storage should be contemplated on this parcel. We
should be keeping a ledger of what the developer owes us. We need the $5,000,000.
We don't live in an affordable area, so affordable housing should not be in this area.
We should approve this with conditions and not run the developer off.
Kristin Thomas, 262 Taylor, Linda Osterburger
- P-ooled- time -to-5-minutes -for _Ms. Thomas.
1% transfer fee needs to be increased. Has concerns about pedestrian connectivity.
Dan Armistead, 1003 Main St.
Has a PUD in the process. Trying to do 50% deed restricted units, Would hate to see
Planning Commission make a hasty decision and there is due diligence that should be
taken into account. Recommends a continuance. There is a water moratorium and
would like Mr. Hermes to comment on why 39 single family homes need all 70 taps.
There should only be one tap for every house. The Town needs those 31 taps. Stated I
hope P&Z and the Town Council don't make a second mistake here or you might just
get another lawsuit.
Linda Beer, 1010 Main St.
Right now doesn't see Minturn being her forever home, but would like it to be.
Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 10 of 14
Public comment closed.
Note: 5 minute recess called at 9: 20 pm.
Rick Hermes responded to the comments.
Drainage — the original plan had 5 crossings from Taylor to Minturn Rd but it needed
100,000 cubic yards of fill. There was also a lot of density so it had to be taken
underground. Surface drainage is best because there aren't pipes to clog and the
ditches can be used to store snow. The 25' easement along Taylor can certainly have
snow storage added to the uses. Ditches are way better than pipes. There is complex
modeling that starts above Taylor, and that study tells what the depth of the ditch
needs to be.
Small town atmosphere — Grew up in a small town and the atmosphere is generated
by the people. The people with reservations have great intentions. This is a
neighborhood that is a part of the Town. There is a lot of customization allowed to
encourage individual homes.
Covenants — required by the PUD requirements
Timeline — the people that have the 39 lots are very eager to start construction. The
goal is to have foundations laid by next year. It is important that they move forward
from where they are. Continuance is not a good situation and might kill the project.
Some of the homes will go up in 8-9 months, but the construction industry is
unpredictable. Each home will take 9-14 months most likely. From today a realistic
build out is 2-3 years.
Water — The water that is in the PUD came from the Town water attorney, and they
have given the number that is required. There is no plans for 6,000 sq. ft. homes in
discussion, most people want 2,000-3,000 sq. ft. homes. They aren't trying to hang on
to taps, if they don't use taps, they go back to the Town.
Cul-de-sacs — The roadway aligns with the topography just like Taylor Street as
Taylor is also a dead-end street. So this does not make a resort neighborhood, this is
better for fire access and is safer for kids.
Continuance — They have gone above and beyond to address all topics, and have
—addressed -all _r-efer-r-al_comments_that-can _be_addr_essed.
Visibility — There was concern which is why they dedicated that corner to the Town
so that visibility is maintained.
ADUs — this is a matter of water, nothing more.
Bigger footprint — This is due to garages.
Higher transfer tax rate — Typically a 1 % transfer tax is what is required of them and
believes this is a fair amount.
Covenants — Resort Concepts does not prefer to be embedded in the HOA, on Day 1
they will be turning this over to the board. They just need 75% ownership to be
transferred, which has not happened yet.
Engineering for S-curve — This will be included in the $85,000 Resort Concepts
agreed to pay towards improvements.
Scot H. said that the snow storage he believes is adequate. The issue of snow storage
Minturn Planning Conanission
June 28, 2023
Page 11 of 14
on the dedication parcel has been discussed. Concerning the public process, staff has
followed the process laid out in the code. The Town does not have a provision for
Town staff to halt the process for the Applicant to do a charrette.
Mr. Hermes said that this is a lengthy process and they have some to go. He has an
open door policy for any members of the public who might want to come and talk to
him.
Scot H. said that the code requires that the zoning on this parcel be reviewed under a
PUD.
Michael B. clarified that the land dedicated would allow people to walls on it.
• Richard P.-C. said that discussion would happen after approvals and would be
a public conversation.
• Michael B. clarified if the land could be used for snow storage.
• Scot H. said that was a potential use that the Town Council would need to
decide.
Michael B. asked about drainage.
• Jeff S, said that there is nothing wrong with designing an open channel rather
than a pipe. It will help filter out some of the sediment that comes down off
the hillside.
• Michael B. clarified if there was a sidewalk area on Railroad Ave.
• Jeff S. said yes.
Amanda M. asked the Applicant to elaborate on the School District impacts.
• Scot H. said we don't have school land dedications, so anything done is
voluntary.
• Rick H. said they offered $50,000 and the school district accepted and they
will decide how to allocate it.
• Amanda M. clarified if it was based on the kids that would be permanent
residents.
• Mr. Hermes said that it isn't, just an agreed upon number.
Amanda M. asked about what was outstanding with the consumptive use analysis.
• Mr. Hermes said that there is some confusion in what the amount is.
• Richard P.-C. said the calculation for SFE requirements is based on Chapter
13 of the MMC, the definition is tied with our water rights decree.
Outstanding issues; temporary irrigation which can most likely be addressed
in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
• Mr. Hermes said that they will not be irrigating more than 50,000 sq. ft. of
irrigation at a time.
Amanda M. asked if the land that is dedicated to Minturn would taps be dedicated
along with that.
0 Richard P.-C. said that as the use is unknown and they would not be touching
Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 12 of 14
the dirt when it is dedicated to the Town, temporary irrigation might not be
needed and taps won't be dedicated.
Amanda M. asked about the transfer tax.
Mr. Hermes said that it is an arbitrary number.
Richard P.-C. clarified that we already have a 1% transfer tax so this will be
on top of that.
Amanda M. clarified if there was a reason for the locals only housing being in one
location.
• Mr. Hermes said that as that is where the land tapers so the smaller lots fit
better right there. Those lots only pay 1 HOA fee between the six of them and
get 1 vote.
Amanda M. asked about the size of the homes.
• Mr. Hermes said that the smaller lots are limited to 3,000 sq. ft., and while
according to the water limitation the larger lots can go up to 6,000 sq. ft., but
with the dimensional limitations it would be very difficult to get to.
Amanda M. asked Scot H. about the 75' recommended stream setback.
• Scot H. said the Commission can pass along a recommendation if that is their
decision, however it would be a significant departure from other Town
policies where everyone else has the 30' river setback.
• Mr. Hermes said that the lot lines do not go up to the river and people are
supposed to stay out of there.
Amanda M. asked about the 5' width of the sidewalk at the S-curve
Michelle M. said that it is a good average of sidewalk widths in Town.
Jeff S. said that it comes from the Minturn Municipal Code and is ADA
compliant.
Lynn T. asked if this 40' variation is for the smaller locals lots.
yes.
Lynn T, said she is a big believer in as much pervious surface as possible and thinks
that the requested variation might be a little much.
• Mr. Hermes said that they have to look at the worst case scenario, the smallest
lots with the biggest house. Can look into pervious options for patios and
things like that. It was important to put together garages and storage for these
lots as people have a lot of gear up here.
• Lynn T. said that even coming down 5% in impervious coverage would be
appreciated.
Lynn T. said that conversations about the land dedication should be continued.
Motion by Michael B., second by Amanda M., to forward a recommendation of
Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 13 of 14
approval with conditions for the Minturn North Preliminary Development Plan to the
Town Council.
1. The Applicant shall work with the Town Engineer prior to or concurrent with any
Final Plan/Plat application to address referral comments related to further
evaluation of hazards that may impact final design of all civil engineering and/or
subdivision design(s).
2. The Applicant shall work with the Town Engineer prior to or concurrent with any
Final Plan/Plat application to adequately address all remaining technical plat
and/or civil engineering details and suggested revisions outlined in letters from
Intermountain Engineering dated May 22, 2023, and June 20, 2023.
3. The Applicant shall work with the Town to finalize any/all outstanding issues
related to the draft Subdivision Improvements Agreement and associated 100%
construction level plans prior to or concurrent with Final Plan/Plat application
submittal.
4. The Minturn Town Council further evaluate and consider the Lot (Building) and
Impervious Materials Coverage Limits proposed within the Updated Preliminary
Plan for consistency with the Town's goals, policies and regulations, as well as to
further evaluate and consider potential public uses of the Minturn North PUD
Tract C, "Dedication Parcel."
5. The Applicant shall work with the Town's Water Legal Counsel to resolve all
final consumptive use calculations prior to Final Plan/Final Plat applications.
6. The Applicant shall continue dialogue with the Town Engineer about potential
improvements to Taylor Avenue in line with potential capital improvements.
Motion by Michael B., second by Amanda M. to amend the motion on the table with
the added conditions of 5 and 6. Motion passed 3-0.
Note: Jeff A. and Sage P. have r^ecused themselves and left the meeting. Tom P. is
excused absent.
Motion by Michael B., second by Amanda M. to continue the meeting to 11 oclock.
Motion passed 3-0.
Note: Jeff -A and-Sage-P, have rec-used-themselves -and -left-the -meeting. Tom P, is -
excused absent.
Motion by Michael B., second by Amanda M. to forward a recommendation of
approval with conditions for the Minturn North Preliminary Plat to the Town Council.
1. The Applicant shall work with Town staff to update the Updated Preliminary Plat
prior to or concurrent with any Final Plan/Plat application to address any/all
outstanding technical and/or legal requirements as noted in previous staff and
consultant referral comments.
2. The Applicant revise the Updated Preliminary Plat to add language specific to
Tracts B and E, "Open Space," as well as Tract C, "Dedication Parcel," to
reference and provide for snow storage uses.
3. The Applicant revise the Updated Preliminary Plat to add language and/or
easements permitting public access on, over and through Tract D "R-O-W" for
Minturn Planning Commission
June 28, 2023
Page 14 of 14
Miles End Lane, as well as Tract G "Right of Way," and associated "Access,
Utility and Drainage" easement for Silver Star Trail.
Motion by Michael B., second by Amanda M. to amend the motion to include the
three conditions. Motion passed 3-0.
Note: Jeff A. and Sage P. have recused themselves and left the meeting. Tom P. is
excused absent.
Motion by Michael B., second by Amanda M. to forward a recommendation of
approval for the Minturn North Zone District Amendment without conditions to the
Town Council. Motion passed 3-0.
Note: Jeff A. and Sage P. have recused themselves and left the meeting. Tom P. is
excused absent.
9. DISCUSSION / DIRECTION
10. STAFF REPORTS
11. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Lynn T. stated that on July 1 we start our full market, people please come.
12. FUTURE MEETINGS
12.1 July 12, 2023
12.2 July 26, 2023
13. ADJOURN
Motion by Michael B., second by Amanda M., to adjourn the regular meeting of June 28,
2023 at 10:33 p.m. Motion passed 3-0.
Note: Jeff A. and Sage P. have recused themselves and left the meeting. Tom P. is excused
absent.
�—O
Cyt6 Teach, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Scot Hunn, Planning Director
Bill Hoblitzell and Kristin Thomas
262 Taylor Street
970-471-6216
bill hoblitzellCa)-yahoo.com
June 28, 2023
Minturn Planning and Zoning Committee
Minturn Town Council
Minturn Town Staff
Re:Minturn North PUD document review comments for:
Appendix C (PUD Guide), Appendix K (Design Guidelines and DRB powers), Appendix X
(Consumptive Use Analysis), Appendix J (POA Covenants)
Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Committee, Minturn Town Council, and Town Staff,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide both technical and conceptual feedback on the
proposed Minturn North PUD development, which if approved will be the most significant new
development that will occur in the Minturn downtown area in the last few decades and likely also
for decades to come. This parcel comprises over 60% of the land area of the exiting Hollywood
Heights/Taylor Street neighborhood and over 10% of the total town households (reported in the
2020 census at 365).
These comments makes up my partial review and public input of the new Minturn North PUD
project and associated documents. It is not exhaustive, it only covers the subset of documents
that I have had reasonable time to carefully review so far. I hope that P&Z will not rush revie
and appoval/denial votes without providing ample time for all town residents to fully review,
explore, and understand the implications of the proposed development.
This will take more time.
Additional comments may be forthcoming if I am able to review the rest. In general, black text
is copied directly from the PUD documents themselves, and blue text represents my comments
or analysis of issues or concerns in those texts. Italic or yellow highlighted text is formatted by
me for emphasis.
Upon review of the selected PUD documents so far„ I have identified aspects of the
development that remain deeply troubling in terms of requested variances to build what is
essentially large -lot large -home SFR R1 private neighborhood development. Additionally,
internal private governance aspects of this project and its drive to establish its own private
quasi -municipal government that supersedes many aspects of the Town of Minturn's authority
over its residents is deeply troubling in terms of its anti -community and anti -town tendencies.
Additionally, this project seeks to squander the remaining currently -available drinking water to
facilitate development of a few large homes that will likely become non-resident second homes
after a number of years and ownership turnover.
Overarching comments
Town Planning Staff has failed to substantially comply with 16-12-3, which describes the
intent and purposes of the Railroad PUD, as well the types of public processes that
should facilitate its development, in Minturn's existing Municipal Code.
Section 16-12-3- Game Creek PUD Holding Zone
(b) It is an objective of the Town to plan and redevelop the rail yard as a master planned
development that is compatible with the existing Town character. Future development and land
use decisions for this area need to incorporate community input and involve an open public
process [Emphasis added]
The process for Minturn North review has violated both the spirit and likely the letter of
this portion of town code. Since the purchase of the project and transfer to a new
developer, with subsequent substantial changes to the size, character, and goals of the
project effectively creating a new project indistinguishable from the original, Minturn
residents have been completely shut out of community input by the decision of town
planning staff to shield this project under the initial application approvals of the earlier
Minturn North project. No communication with elected town leadership regarding
important aspects of the project have been allowed, and no public review of initial project
concepts prior to the now fairly -complete application design was allowed to occur.
No open public process and no community input has occurred. Examples of open public
processes include the design charette exercises conducted for the 100 block of Main in
Minturn, and the 10-20% design concept public reviews and feedback charrettes that
occur for large proposed developments in other communities, such as the North
Broadway Project in Eagle. Up until the initial P&Z review of the new project occurring
on June 29, no public input has been taken, no public process has occurred, and an
effective public gage order has existed with elected town leadership.
Town residents, P&Z, or Town Staff should direct town's legal staff to make a
determination whether Planning Staff has potentially acted negligently in failing to apply
16-12-3 to the PUD application while simultaneously and unilaterally moving the
application for the new and different project through the approval process for nearly the
last year without public input or feedback.
APPENDIX C: PUD GUIDE
SECTION 2 GENERAL INFORMATION
2.3 Property Owners Association
Property Owners Association(s) ("POA's") or other similar governing organizations and
governing documents including Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CCR's")
may impose additional restrictions and limitations on individual and/or collective land use areas
within the Minturn North PUD.
2.5 Governance
This PUD Guide shall be referred to as the Minturn North PUD ("PUD Guide"). The PUD Guide
is intended to replace and supersede the Minturn Town Code as amended from time to time.
Where the PUD Guide is silent as to regulation, the provisions of the Minturn Town Code shall
apply. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this PUD Guide and the provisions of the
Minturn Town Code or any other ordinances, resolutions or regulations of the Town of Minturn,
the provisions of this PUD Guide shall prevail and govern the development of the PUD.
These two sections (2.3 and 2.5) carve out the POA as an additional quasi -municipal
government that will exercise various land use authorities and governance in lieu of the
existing town government. This is a huge mistake. This development is a single -type
development (R1 SFR) which does not functionally require a PUD vehicle or an ongoing
POA entity to be established after build completion and transfer of parcel and home
ownership to buyers. POAs serve valid and useful purposes in multi -family residential
structure settings with shared assets and maintenance needs such as roofs and
exteriors.
Existing Minturn Town Code is already sufficient to regulate and govern Single Family
Residential (SFR) homeowners on a fair and equitable footing throughout the town.
Establishment of a covenanted neighborhood with a controlling POA that exercises
additional restrictive or controlling authorities over its internal residents is an undercutting
of town governance, unnecessary, and unfair to these home buyers.
This provision is about enforcing the developer's own personal preferences for
neighborhood aesthetics and homeowner behavior within the fiefdom of their private
designer neighborhood. It serves no other functional purpose after buildout, and actually
interferes or prohibits the free exercise of property rights and personal residential
behaviors available to the rest of town residents. It sold on the premise of neighborhood
upkeep but is actually about 'keeping out the Joneses', or at least 'making sure Jonese
live up to my vaguely defined and snobbish personal social standard'. It is a low key way
to enforce internal socioeconomic redlining. Despicable and completely unnecessary
governance structure for a development that is covered by an existing municipal
government. POA entities like this should be banned in Minturn or only allowed under
very specific and tightly controlled circumstances and criteria that are rarely met.
2.10 Vested Rights
The Minturn PUD shall be granted vested rights for a period of ten (10) years following the Town
of Minturn Town Council approval of the PUD Preliminary Development Plan.
Vested rights should be granted for a shorter time period and preferably only after
approval of the Final Plan and Final Plat; this is a sneaky way to lock in their claim and
rights to develop the property even if they have not achieved a final plan that is
agreeable and acceptable to the community. This is VERY IMPORTANT to prevent plans
that are speculative in nature or to prevent developers from bulldozing planning
processes and making an end -run around the community to secure development rights
for an undesirable project on a parcel in town.
SECTION 3 DEFINITIONS
Declarant: Declarant of the Minturn North PUD is Minturn Crossing, LLC, and/or assign.
Declarant reserves all rights, authority and privileges granted by the PUD, including ownership
of remaining or excess SFE's, if any, that have been purchased by Declarant from the Town of
Minturn. [Emphasis added]
Why does the proponent claim ownership on SFEs not being used by completed
houses? And even more troubling, why is this language claiming permanent ownership
of unused water taps buried/hidden in the Definitions section of the PUD guide? Under
the definition of `Declarant', it should only require the simple definition in the first
sentence. Inserting a clause about water ownership here is an awfully sneaky and
disingenuous move. Utterly dishonest strategy.
In the PUD Guide definition of Building Lot Coverage, it declares:
"Additionally, fifty percent (50%) of the total area of second- and third -level decks shall be
counted towards the allowable building lot coverage."
Current Minturn Town Code 16-2-50 Specific lot requirements and dimensional
standards reads as follows: "(j) All cantilevered building elements and areas count
toward maximum building lot coverage and maximum impervious lot coverage."
This seems to be implying that the PUD is seeking tol only be required to count half
(50%) of non -ground supported upper level decks towards total lot coverage and
impervious coverage, whereas the rest of the town has to count the full deck. Essentially,
the PUD is exempting itself from similar building coverage definitions as the rest of the
town so that it can build out to a larger lot coverage.
This is coupled with its claim later in the documents of for a variance to itself to allow
variance to build 60% lot coverage, when the rest of the Game Creek Character Area
(i.e. Taylor St) remains limited to 50% lot coverage. If this interpretation is correct, this is
yet another self-serving carve -out from existing town design standards to facilitate larger
home construction.
Fences: Fences of any kind are specifically prohibited except along the boundary of PA-3.
Fencing, if any, shall conform to the CPW Wildlife Friendly fencing guidelines. Fencing of lots
and/or the property boundary is prohibited.
Fences serve real and valuable functions for full-time residential families, especially
those with children and/or pets. They provide outdoor spaces for pets to restrain them
from entering streets or chasing other animals, and keep young/small kids from
accidentally entering streets during play. There is no conceivable reason residents in this
development should be disallowed from having fences while residents elsewhere in town
and on Taylor Street can. This provision is about enforcing the developer's personal
preferences for clean and minimalistic aesthetics in their designer neighborhood, it
serves no other social purpose and actually interferes or prohibits the very useful social
purposes that fences behind or between houses currently provide to all other town
residents
2.11 Signage and Illumination
Signage identifying the neighborhood is allowed within the privately owned interior roadway
R.O.W. subject to approval by the Minturn North and Town of Minturn Design Review Boards.
This permission for interior neighborhood signage should be removed. Individual
neighborhood signage does not exist elsewhere in Minturn and is not needed here. Such
signage seeks to establish 'communities within the community' and highlight the
separate, eliteness of semi -private neighborhoods. Along with privately run
neighborhoods and privately run streets themselves, this should be avoided in Minturn
as against our community values. Further evidence that this private development has no
desire to integrate naturally and harmoniously with town and existing residences on
Taylor Street; it wishes to highlight itself as set -apart from the rest.
SECTION 4.0: PLANNING AREAS, ALLOWED USES AND ZONING STANDARDS
4.1 B. Development Standards
4. Impervious Surface Area: Max 65%
5. Building Lot Coverage: Max 60%
These standards do not identify themselves as a variance, but they are in fact seeking
major and significant variance from the existing R1 SFR lot and structure standards in
the Game Creek Character Area, which set Max Building Lot Coverage at 40% and Max
Impervious Surface Area Coverage at 50%. The developer is seeking a 20% increase
to Max Building Lot Coverage and a 15% increase to Max Impervious Surface Area
coverage. This serves no community purpose other than to allow for construction of
larger home sizes and bulk than what are currently permitted in the Game Creek
Character Area and elsewhere in town.
The original stated purpose of the Railroad PUD Holding Zone, and the purpose of PUD
development vehicles in general is to allow towns to set aside their standard zoning
codes in order to consider unique components and issues such as increased density for
affordable housing, mixed use zones with commercial interspersed with residential,
difficult site topography, or other conditions. Since this development is proposing single
development type R1 SFR, and is effectively requesting an unofficial downzoning by
requesting large lots and multiple provisions for increased home sizes, the need and
applicability of allowing variances to existing SFR dimensional standards no longer
exists. This development should be subject to exactly the same R1 SFR dimensional
standards applicable to Taylor Street/Game Creek Character Area in existing town code.
These requests represent a (fairly disingenuous) misuse of the PUD process by the
developer, and potentially, town planning staff. Variances should be denied outright for
increases to building footprint and impervious area, large lot sizes, and deny the request
to count elevated cantilevered porch and deck areas at 50% towards lot and impervious
coverage, when regular town code counts them as 100%.
When does the sneakiness and repeated attempts to circumvent existing town codes to
facilitate the building of large resort styles homes end? Enough is enough.
4.4 Town Dedication Parcel
A. Permitted Uses: Dark sky compliant lighting and signage, park and play structures,
greenspace, trails, paths, utilities, active and passive recreation, snow storage, stormwater and
drainage facilities, seating, dog park, refuse containers, single-family, duplex, townhome and
multi -family residential parking and uses determined to be similar by the Town of Minturn
Town Council.
It is completely reprehensible to allow the developer to dispose of duplex, townhome, or
multifamily components in the rest of his large house, privately managed development,
then set aside a portion of the dedicated community open space that is necessary for
significant snow storage and shared public open space uses such as playground for
potential future town staff housing. The dedication of this parcel should specify that it will
remain forever only for open space uses (playground, dogpark, snowstorage, etc) and
multifamily uses be removed from consideration. Why should the community provide a
'by' to this developer to build large lot, large home, second -home non-resident owner
friendly, privately -managed R1 SFR on the parcel previously identified for mixed use
development, then take the remaining publicly -available open space and use it for
apartment housing.
SECTION 5.0: VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION STANDARDS AND
DIMENSIONAL LIMITATIONS
This plan is deficient in town -character neighborhood design and vehicle circulation due
to its insistence on the construction of dead end cul de sac roads with no redundant
connections to either Minturn Road or Taylor Street. Town code in communities like
Crested Butte that are more protective of their small town development character than
apparently Minturn wishes to be disallow/forbid new streets to have less than two
connections to existing roadways.
As proposed, once the east -west pedestrian access parallel to Game Creek (the
formerly proposed 6th street) is removed and unhindered east -west pedestrian access is
no longer available across the undeveloped southern portion of the property, 4th street
will become the primary cross -through thoroughfare for the majority of central and
northern Taylor Street residents and visitors to the Game Creek Trailhead. 4th street will
also be the primary and sole egress for all pedestrian residents of the proposed new
development.
Due to this greatly increased usage, sidewalks should be instituted on both sides of the
street and at least one lane of unrestricted public parking should be included on either
the north or south side of 4th street to facilitate the shared neighborhood burden of
overflow parking necessary to accommodate the ever-increasing usage of Game Creek
trailhead in both summer and winter. Stop skimping on standard neighborhood design
aspects common to small town development including sidewalks and unrestricted public
on -street parking.
In general, Miles End Lane should not be constructed as a deadend cul-de-sac and
should connect through between Taylor St and Minturn Road at the north end, and
connect to either Minturn Rd or Taylor St at the south end. The northern connection will
reduce the prevalence and burden of speeding visitor traffic to the Game Creek trailhead
currently experienced by north Taylor St residents by allowing distributed travel patterns
for vehicles and allowing trailhead users to opt for a direct egress to Minturn Road. It will
also provide for better and safer circulation of both plow and EMS vehicles on the
northern stub of Taylor Street and within the new development. Placing additional Game
Creek trailhead parking at the west end of this connective street (old 6th street) and
construction of a sidewalk will further reduce vehicle traffic directly to the trailhead and
disperse parking overflow burden evenly to Minturn Road and Miles End Lane instead of
saddling only Taylor Street with the visitor use burden.
SECTION 8.0 SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
8.2 Water Quantity Measures
Indoor water fixtures and outdoor irrigation fixtures shall use the latest technologies and be
water use efficient fixtures. Residential fixtures, including but not limited to, toilets, urinals,
shower heads, faucets, 16 irrigation controllers shall be certified by the EPA's Water Sense
program, or have an equivalent rating. Other irrigation devices, such as spray sprinkler bodies
shall be rated for efficiency and low flow. All water using residential appliances, such as
dishwashers, ice machines, and washing machines, shall be certified by the Energy Star
program. This will reduce water needs for the project.
This development proposes to utilize 2 taps (SFEs) for each individual SFR lot,
regardless of whether the structure on the lot exceeds the 3000 sq ft equivalency to
require 2 taps. In the Prelminary Landscaping Plan (Appendix W) it further proposes an
average of 3500 square feet of irrigated outdoor spaces per lot, for a total of 33 * 3500 =
115,000 sq ft = 2 football fields of outdoor irrigation.
Given these unnecessary and egregious squandering of the town's remaining residential
taps and water supply, this section should be understood as nothing more than weak
attempts at `greenwashing' the development. Claims of sustainability and wise/equitable
use of water resources in this resort -style large home development are pure marketing
fantasy and frankly, utter BS
YPICAL LOT LANDSCAPE ESTRJIATED IRRIGATION:
SQUARE FOOTAGE
{LOTS 1-33 TOTAL MAX IRRIGATION OF4.000 SF)
OF IRRIGATION
PERMANENT PO;LJP SPRAY I FI RIGA i ION
1.595 SF
:•
FOR BL-LUEGFIASS-'DOD
f ~�
PERMANENT SPRAY OR DRIP IRRIGATION
11 SF
FOR PERENNALBEDS
PERMANENT DRIP IFU;JGA nON FOR
7 TRES x A.5 SF - 32 SF
+
B&B TREE_
PERMANENT TRIP IRPJGATION FOR 5 GAL
55 SHRUBS x 3 SF - 155 SF
I,t. ..
N.. +
: HRi1BS s GRASSES
PERMANENT SPRAY IRRIGATION FOR
1 7E0 SF
NATNE SEES
TOTAL PERMANENT IP,RIGATiON - 3,E67 SF
(Figure above is screenshot from Appendix W describing irrigation square footage for most lots.)
SECTION 9.0: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Design Guidelines have been provided to govern all properties within the Minturn North PUD.
The
Design Guidelines will supplement and complement this PUD Guide. Where any conflict may
occur, the most restrictive provision shall govern. Provisions of the PUD Guide shall be
administered by the Town of Minturn. Provisions of the Design Guidelines shall be administered
and enforced by the applicable Minturn !`forth Property Owners Association. Design Guidelines
are subject to continued change and refinement by the Minturn North Property Owners
Association Board of Directors. All home construction and renovations are subject to the Minturn
(North Design Review Board and the Town of Minturn Review Board. Approvals of all
construction and renovations must be obtained from the Minturn North Design Review prior to
submittal to the Town of Minturn Design Review Board.
SECTION 12.0: PUD AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS
It is anticipated that modifications to this PUD Guide may be necessary from time to time as the
development of the PUD progresses. An amendment may be filed only with the approval of the
Declarant. The amendment procedures found in the Town of Minturn Code shall govern
amendments to this PUD. Subject to the provisions set forth below, Minor Modifications may be
authorized by Declarant and approved at the discretion, of the Town of Minturn Town Manager,
Town Planning Commission or Town Couincil without requ,iiring an amendment to the PUD,
provided that the changes are similar in nature and, do not impact the listed permitted uses, are
consistent with the intent of boundaries of a given parcel, do not adversely affect
environmentally sensitive areas, or affect Game Creek stream setback requirements.
Minor Modifications shall include, without limitation, the following:
1. Internal road and sidewalk alignment alterations subject to approval by the Town
Engineer;
2. Trails alignment alterations;
3. Technical and engineering considerations first discovered during actual development
which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process, subject to
approval by the Town Engineer;
4. Modifications to development standards, not including building height or perimeter
setbacks or parking requirements approved as part of the PUD, which do not have a
significant material impact upon the overall intent of the PUD and which allow the
improvements to be developed in a safe and efficient manner;
Note that maximum lot building coverages and maximum impervious areas are not
excluded here from Minor Modifications that can be approved at discretion of planning
staff. This likely means that with only staff approval, the allowable building envelope (and
thus allowable home size) can be arbitrarily increased at any point in the future.
Disingenuous. BS.
5. Adjustments to Planning Area boundaries up to 10% where the modification does not change
the overall intent of the PUD nor result in the increase in the overall density
approved within the PUD;
This likely means that Planning Areas such as the snow storage buffer/margin on Taylor
St (PA-5) can be arbitrarily reduced in the future at the discretion of the Minturn North
POA and town planning staff without a public vote. Disingenuous. BS.
This is further evidence of the need for the project proponent to fully and completely
dedicate these public areas to town ownership, not hold them within POA control.
6. Additions of land uses not previously itemized in the PUD Guide but are found to be
similar, consistent, or having similar impacts to or with other uses listed in the PUD Guide;
8. Temporary uses and lay down, if determined by the Town of Minturn Town Manager to
be necessary to ensure appropriate review of the proposed uses; and
9. Any other minor change that has no effect on the overall intent of the PUD.
Note again that the overall intent of the PUD as originally defined in 16-12-30 has
already been summarily changed and/or abandoned by town planning staff, as the
development proposes single use R1 SFR development only, which has no need for
special PUD processes or special post -build governance entities such as POAs.
As a reminder, the intent of the PUD is described in 16-12-30(b) which states:
(b) It is an objective of the Town to plan and redevelop the rail yard as a master planned
development that is compatible with the existing Town character. Future development
and land use decisions for this area need to incorporate community input and involve an
open public process. The PUD Holding Zone and the PUD review process will provide
for the flexibility, innovation and public input necessary to achieve the goals and
objectives of the Community Plan and this Chapter. This area has been identified in the
Community Plan as an area suitable for expansion of Old Town and as a "potential Town
Center" site. Development in this area needs to incorporate appropriate residential and
low -impact land uses along Taylor Avenue to minimize impacts to the existing
neighborhood. The rail corridor should be maintained and improved access to and
across the Eagle River should be incorporated into proposed development plans.
The current proposed development reflects neither the original intent of the PUD Holding
Zone, nor the character of the existing Game Creek Character Area, nor the Old Town
Character Area, nor the 100 block. It in fact does not reflect the character of anywhere in
town, rather it reflects the character of the semi -private large home resort developments
that it seeks to emulate in Edwards, Arrowhead, and elsewhere in the county.
APPENDIX X: CONSUMPTIVE USE ANALYSIS
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND WATER USES
3.1 Residences
There are two types of residences being proposed as part of the Project. There are a total of 39
lots planned for the Development. Of those lots, 33 will be affocated 2 SI`Es, while the
remainder will be allocated 1 SFEs. Also of total 39 lots, 33 will be limited to only 4,000 square
feet of irrigation and 6 lots will be limited to 2,000 square feet of irrigation.
No reasonable explanation has yet been provided for why single home lots are requiring
two water taps. The presumable obvious reason is the two taps are intended to service a
preponderance of very large homes-- homes that are or one day will be well over the
3000 sq ft equivalency threshold for 1 SFE tap. Although in informal conversations, the
developer has insisted that homes start at 1800 sq ft and many prospective buyers have
requested only the smaller models, he has declined to provide any final breakdown of
the actualtally of homes in various square footage categories, and has not provided any
satisfactory explanation of why the homes being proposed under 3000 sq ft still need 2
taps.
This request should be carefully considered in conjunction with assertions and claims
elsewhere in the PUD Guide over full ownership of any remaining, unused taps
previously promised by the town, regardless of whether they are needed for a completed
structure. The presumable reason is that the developer wishes to pre -secure and sit on
the remaining water in order to retain the business option to offer larger rebuild/remodel
options to second -generation home buyers who are purchasing homes that were
previously built under the 3000 sq ft SFE equivalency threshold and now wish to further
expand their home size.
APPENDIX K: MINTURN NORTH DESIGN GUIDELINES
Minturn North PUD
In the event a discrepancy exists between this set of Design Guidelines and the Minturn North
PUD, the Minturn North PUD shall overrule. All homes and improvements shall be approved by
the Town of Minturn Design Review Board after receiving Minturn North Design Review
approval.
The power to supersede the town's existing DRB effectively renders it moot, pointless,
This provision is about enforcing the developer's own personal preferences for
neighborhood aesthetics and homeowner behavior within the fiefdom of their private
designer neighborhood. It serves no other functional purpose after buildout, and actually
interferes or prohibits the free exercise of property rights and personal residential
behaviors available to the rest of town residents.
It sold on the premise of neighborhood upkeep but is actually about 'keeping out the
Joneses', or at least 'making sure Jonese live up to my vaguely defined and snobbish
personal social standard'. It is a low key way to enforce internal socioeconomic redlining.
Despicable and completely unnecessary design governance structure for a development
that is covered by an existing municipal government. POA entities like this internal DRB
for SFR development should be banned in Minturn or only allowed under very specific
and tightly controlled circumstances and criteria that are rarely met.
DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES
The contractually enforceable requirement to utilize Resort Concept staff is littered
throughout nearly all the procedures and functions described in this section
An enforceable Requirement to utilize Resort Concepts staff for all aspects of DRB
procedures during New Construction as well as Renovation effectively contractually
embeds Resort Concepts into all future home decisions of residents in the private
neighborhood. Given that it is a master planned real estate development, it may be
somewhat understandable to require the services of Resort Concepts for initial
architectural work and decisions. However, once the home is completed and the
development is matured, the continued requirement to utilize Resort Concepts Staff for
design preparation, review, and approval is completely reprehensible and represents
little more than a greedy power grab by the project developer and an ongoing business
welfare handout to his own company.
The neighborhood should not be run as a long term revenue generator for the
development proponent's personal businesses. This is further evidence that the town
should completely forbid private management of neighborhoods by requiring full
dedication of public streets, full town dedication of public open spaces, banning internal
DRBs for R1/SFR development, and banning the use of POA's in general for any social
control purposes or other uses beyond necessary shared exterior maintenance
functions.
These provisions are about enforcing the developer's own personal preferences for
neighborhood aesthetics and homeowner behavior within the fiefdom of their private
designer neighborhood, as well as ensuring long term unavoidable revenue generation
for his personal businesses on the backs of local Minturn homeowners. It serves no
other functional purpose after buildout, and actually interferes or prohibits the free
exercise of property rights and personal residential behaviors available to the rest of
town residents. Despicable. DO NOT ALLOW IN MINTURN.
APPENDIX J: POA COVENANTS
Section 15.7 Regulation of Pets.
Subject to applicable law, the Executive Board shall have full and absolute authority to adopt
and enforce rules and regulations related to pets within Minturn North, including, without
limitation, the prohibition of pets by tenants or of pets deemed dangerous, exotic or a threat to
the well-being of people or other animals or otherwise being possessed of a disposition that is
unreasonably annoying to other residents. Habitually barking, howling or yelping dogs shall be
deemed a nuisance and shall be subject to permanent removal from the Community. No dogs,
cats and other customary household animals are allowed to be raised, bred or maintained for
any commercial purpose. Dogs must be leashed at all times. The Executive Board has the right
to determine in its sole discretion whether any animals are being kept for commercial purposes
or are being kept in violation of any of the rules and regulations adopted by the Executive Board
with respect to pets. The Executive Board may take such action or actions as it deems
reasonably necessary to correct any violation, including, after notice and the opportunity for a
hearing as provided in the Responsible Governance Policies of the Association, directing
permanent removal of the animal(s) from the Community and/or the imposition of fines during
any period of violation.
Nuisance or unsafe animals are already provided for in existing town and county
regulations and code. The ability of the private neighborhood government to fine, ban,
permanently remove, or otherwise seize peoples pets is an insane level of intrusion into
personal property and lives.
Section 15.8 Nuisances and Unsightliness. No noxious or offensive activity shall be
carried on within the Community, nor shall anything be done or maintained thereon that may be
or become an annoyance or nuisance to others, endanger the health or safety of other Owners,
violate the law or any other provision of this Declaration or the governing documents of the
Association, or otherwise dletract from, the Community's value as an attractive res4entiaall
community. Subject to applicable law, the Executive Board and the Design Review Board shall
each have full and absolute authority to adopt and enforce rules and regulations related to
nuisances, unsightliness and/or hazardous activities or conditions within Minturn North,
including, without limitation, the regulation or prohibition of storage, trash receptacles, trainers,
and campers, recreational vehicles, sports and playground equipment or improvements, exterior
lighting and fight bulb color, exterior sound devices and other activities or items deemed,
unsightly or a nuisance by the Executive Board. The Executive Board may take such action or
actions as it deems reasonably necessary to correct any violation, including, after notice and the
opportunity for a hearing as provided in the Responsible Governance Policies of the
Association, directing permanent removal of the offending item(s) from the Community and/or
the imposition of fines during any period of violation.
This is not about people's lives and building a great neighborhood in a great small town.
This is not about granting a POA the minimum necessary powers to maintain and run the
physical infrastructure of a neighborhood. This is about Control. Greed. Snobbishness.
This is all about the $$ and the ability to market the real estate.
Section 15.10 Declarant's Exemption. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be
construed to prevent (i) the exercise by Declarant of any special declarant rights (as that term is
defined in the Act); or (ii) the erection or maintenance by Declarant or its duly authorized agents,
of temporary structures, trailers, improvements or signs necessary or convenient to the
development, marketing or sale of property within Minturn North; provided, however, that
Declarant shall comply with all applicable laws in the exercise of the rights in this Section.
Not much more to say here. All of this is an insane intrusion and imposition into personal
property and behavior. It is completely unnecessary for functional neighborhood
operation of streets and landscaping and snow removal, which are just about the only
legitimate functions of a POA. It's about the control and the $$$ and the ability to sell the
neighborhood as a desirable community... 'desirable to who?' we might ask. Not full time
middle class valley residents. Desirable to absentee resort home owners. Resort
Concepts. Says it all. Its about the control and the $$. These covenants are amont the
most clear and direct statements made in the entire PUD package that this is a real
estate development, not a neighborhood. This is anti -town, anti -community-,
anti -neighbor. Anti-Minturn. Enough is enough.
16.4.15 Development Plans. Declarant may at its discretion at any time, and
from time to time without notice, elect for whatever reasons it deems appropriate in its sole and
absolute discretion to (a) notwithstanding any proposed development or site plan for the
Community, change such development plan or, the style, design, size, price, materials,
specifications, number of units, or any other feature or attribute of lots or, residences Dectiarant
owns or may build within the Community or in the vicinity of the Project, (b) change the timing
of its construction of any other residences or decide not to build at all any or all other residences
contemplated by any development plan related to the Community, and/or (c) use any method of
marketing to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any or all of its remaining or future inventory of
lots or residences within the Community, including the use of incentives, concessions, price
reductions, lot sale programs, bulk sales, or other promotions and techniques without any
obligation to offer any comparable benefits to Owner. Declarant cannot be responsible for
fluctuations in the market for the price of homes or: for other market conditions affecting the
Community, and Declarant has the absolute right to respond to market demands_
Applicant definitely appears deeply committed to the greater community, the town, and
his prospective new home buyers and future home owners. Applicant definitely does not
appear to be claiming the contractual right to disown all his promises and statements to
town staff and residents about the characteristics development in order to dump the
property or arbitrarily build even larger homes at his discretion if it is an expedient
financial decision for himself and Resort Concepts.
Closing
Upon review of the selected PUD documents, I have identified aspects of the development that
remain deeply troubling in terms of requested variances to build what is essentially large -lot
large -home SFR R1 private neighborhood development. Additionally, internal private
governance aspects of this project and its drive to establish its own private quasi -municipal
government that supersedes many aspects of the Town of Minturn's authority over its residents
is deeply troubling in terms of its anti -community and anti -town tendencies. Additionally, this
project seeks to squander the remaining currently -available drinking water to facilitate
development of a few large homes that will likely become non-resident second homes after a
number of years and ownership turnover.
Minturn North is clearly and deeply out of alignment with numerous community values and
community governance frameworks. It is recommended that P&Z deny a recommendation to
Town Council for plan approval and final plat in its current state.
Regards,
Bill Hoblitzell
Kristin Thomas
Bill Hoblitzell and Kristin Thomas
262 Taylor Street
Minturn CO 81645
970-471-6216
billhoblitzell(a-).yahoo.com
June 28, 2023
Minturn Planning and Zoning Committee
Minturn Town Council
Minturn Town Staff
Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Committee, Minturn Town Council, and Town Staff,
Please accept these public comments regarding the compliance of the proposed Minturn North
PUD development with existing community plans. Although I have not yet had time to fully
review the PUD proposal in the context of the 2023 Plate Update, I believe it will be found
largely in non-compliance with important aspects of that plan as well.
Based on my review, Minturn North is in substantial non -alignment with over a dozen goals and
strategies of the community plan, including: the Community Vision, CCGI, CS 1.4 CS 1.11,
LUG 1, LUS 1.5, AH G 1, AHS 1.1, AHS 1.2, PFG 1, PFS 1.3, EDG 1, EDS 1.3, and the 2023
Future Land Use Map. I have provided an explanation of why it fails to comply with each goal or
strategy below.
Review of Minturn North compliance with Minturn Community Plan
The 2009 Minturn Community Plan is the currently active comprehensive planning document
until the 2023 Update is adopted by Council resolution. As stated in the plan, it's purpose is to
be:
"used by staff, elected and appointed officials, and the at -large community to help direct
decisions on the timing, location, type and character of growth and development
(physical, economic, and cultural) in the Town of Minturn. The plan provides prioritized
goals and outlines strategies against which future activities within the town will be
reviewed, helping to ensure each individual project contributes in a manner envisioned
by the town to the overall vision of the entire community"
"with a clear understanding of expectations, projects will be reviewed by staff to
determine compliance with the community vision"
"compliance with the plan should be heavily weighted during the approval process"
Development of the plan relied upon a collaborative process of multiple resident -attended
stakeholder meetings in 2008 including numerous Open Houses and Work Sessions, as well
previous community planning efforts. The community plan therefore articulates the
collective values, intents, and goals of the people of Minturn surrounding development
projects.
Regardless of the imminent replacement of the existing plan with the 2023 plan, this plan still
provides a substantial articulation of community voice regarding development that remains
highly relevant to the proposed Minturn North PUD.
Minturn North non-compliance with Community Plan, specific items:
COMMUNITY VISION (p9)
The Community Vision notes "funky, eclectic style", "small lot development, diverse architectural
styles, vibrant colors of buildings" as key parts of the town's essence.
Minturn North is not in character with the community vision for diverse architectural styles and
vibrant colors due to it's required monoculture architecture featuring as the only allowable colors
for roofs: dark gray, black, and gray brown, and the only allowable colors for exterior walls a
'natural primary color in the white or gray to brown scale' (See; Appendix K Minturn North
Design Guidelines, p16).
It is not the application of this style per se that is out of compliance, it is the legally enforceable
requirement that all units in the development must adhere to the same style and are subject to
an internal DRB control separate and more restrictive than that of the town's existing design
requirements.
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
The Community Plan identifies 'Goals' as statements that articulate the future and 'will serve as
the framework for future land use decisions'. It defines 'Strategies' as identification of possible
actions that are needed to accomplish goals' and states that actions are not exhaustive and
may need additions and refinements.
GOAL CCG1 Maintain, Build Upon, and Promote the Town's Image as Unique, Eclectic
Non -Resort Town With a Strong Sense of Community
Minturn North is substantially at odds with and in non-compliance with this goal. Permanently
enforceable monoculture architectural styles shared across nearly 40 houses on a single street
are the opposite of 'Unique' and 'Eclectic' and 'Non -Resort'. In addition, although the first
generation of homeowner's partially inherited from Greg Sparhawk's original locals reservation
list will provide a high proportion of local occupancy, this development contains an
overwhelming preponderance of intrinsic characteristics that will lead to replacement by
absentee second homeowners within one to two generations of ownership turnover.
Large square footage homes and high end finishes will drive costs out of local affordability
ranges, displaying a long term intent not to house a full time town residents at a variety of
socioeconomic levels, but instead, an intent to provide a real estate sales engine for the
developer. Contractual and enforceable requirements to permanently embed the developer's
personal architectural and design services staff at Resort Concepts also support this intent.
POA clauses that do not target actual neighborhood maintenance and upkeep operations but
instead directly target and intentionally restrict resident aesthetic expression and resident social
behaviors serve no purpose other than 'keeping up appearances' to ensure the development is
continually attractive to non -local real estate markets.
This is a resort development through and through, not a small town residential neighborhood.
STRATEGY CS1.2 Consider size limits for residential structures
This strategy remains yet -to -be implemented in town code. However, Minturn North is
substantially out of alignment with this strategy via its clear intent to build large resort -style
homes and create the legal space to rebuild/remodel even larger homes in future iterations of
ownership. It establishes this context via is pursuit of multiple SFE water taps per lot, even for
initial build sizes below the 3000 sqft threshold for 1 SFE, its pursuit of variances to existing R1
Game Creek Character and Old Town Lot standards to allow increased maximum allowable
building coverage (60% vs existing 40% in Game Creek and Old Town Character Areas) and
maximum impervious area coverage (65% vs existing 50% in Game Creek Character Area and
Old Town), and additional language to allow non -ground -supported overhanging upper levi
structures such as second and third story decks to only count towards 50% impervious
coverage, when such structures count towards 100% coverage in existing town standards.
Minturn North is seeking to build large resort -style suburban homes, not home sizes
predominantly in alignment with the majority of other homes in Minturn and in alignment with
Minturn's small town character identified in Goal CCG1.
Strategy CCS 1.4 - Develop and implement methods to maintain the town's eclectic
architecture, scale and vibrant color palette
Minturn North is not in compliance with this strategy via its establishment of an architectural
monoculture and restrictive color rules enforced via a strongly controlling internal POA and
DRB. The very establishment and use of these types of private neighborhood internal
quasi -government entities is in conflict with this strategy and its parent Goal CCG1.
Strategy CCS 1.11 - Allow a variety of lot sizes (small and large lot) as appropriate to
specific areas
Minturn North is not in compliance with this strategy. It seeks to plat a full street of uniform
large -sized lots with additional variances to lot standards to allow large resort style homes. A
small deed -restricted community housing component is included in the PUD plan, but this
portion of the development is disconnected from the main development and intentionally located
near existing higher density multifamily residential development at the south end of Taylor Street
rather than interspersed throughout the development to intentionally build a mixed mosaic of
home sizes and socioeconomic levels among downtown residents.
Goal LUG1 Enhance the Town's Status as a Walkable and Bikeable Community.
While remaining internally walkable to downtown for its own residents, Minturn North is in
substantial non-compliance with this goal due to its intentional street design decision to eschew
connective neighborhood street patterns typical of most well -planned smalltown core
developments (i.e., connective neighborhood blocks) in favor of dead-end cul-de-sacs that
intentionally discourage pedestrian use by members of the community outside of the
development itself. These street patterns further discourage dispersed traffic flows, instead
driving more traffic onto Taylor Street and Minturn Road rather than sharing in the typically
community burden of distributed traffic flow. In addition, this street design allows the
neighborhood to avoid sharing the community burden of overflow parking from community
events like Market Saturdays or the ever-increasing visitation and parking use of North Taylor
Street for the Game Creek Trailhead. By avoiding sharing in the dispersed flow of pedestrian
and vehicle traffic by exclusively utilizing dead end private streets that don't connect redundantly
and thoughtfully to the existing town road structure, Minturn North is actually pushing increased
pedestrian, bike, and vehicle use to Taylor Street in the long term, which will decrease
walkability and safety those existing locations.
The New Minturn North also continues to fail to address pedestrian safety concerns at the
S-turns and Railroad Avenue, instead heaving the financial and engineering burden back to
existing residents and town finances, even though the buildout of the development will be
directly responsible for increased safety and traffic issues at that location.
Strategy LUS1.6 Promote redevelopment areas as mixed -use centers
Minturn North seeks to misuse the PUD process to build large home R1 SFR development.
This is a single use type real estate development that has no functional need of PUD
mechanisms or enforceable internal POA and DRB rules. Existing town code, including lot
standards and design criteria, is sufficient to govern any new R1 SFR street development as -is.
Goal AHG1: Promote Affordable Housing
Minturn North is not in compliance with this goal. It has replaced smaller home styles and lot
sizes contemplated under the original project with large lots and large resort -style homes.
Although it proposes 6 deed restricted units geographically set apart from the main
development, this is purely to meet minimum possible affordable housing requirements
identified by the community. Because Minturn North proposes large, resort -style homes and the
ability to aggressively market those homes to non-resident resort buyers by virtue of its internal
neighborhood covenants that strongly restrict resident expression, Minturn North as proposed is
actually highly likely to result in a net loss of middle class residents over time in town. This,
along with the minimal amount of affordable housing contemplated, is in strong conflict with
Goal AHG1.
Strategy AHS 1.1: Promote the development of housing opportunities for all income
levels throughout all areas of town
Strategy AHS 1.2: Allow a variety of lot sizes (small and large lot) as appropriate to
specific areas
Minturn North is not in compliance with these strategies for similar reasons to CS 1.11 above.
It seeks to plat a full street of monolithic uniform large -sized lots with additional variances to lot
standards to allow large resort style homes. A small deed -restricted community housing
component is included in the PUD plan, but this portion of the development is disconnected
from the main development and intentionally located near existing higher density multifamily
residential development at the south end of Taylor Street rather than interspersed throughout
the development to intentionally build a mixed mosaic of home sizes and socioeconomic
experiences among downtown residents.
Goal PFG1: Ensure that Public Facilities are Planned and Implemented to Support New
Growth and Existing Population Centers
Strategy PFS 1.3: Ensure that impacts from new development on existing infrastructure
are mitigated
Minturn North is substantially in non-compliance with these goals and strategies. Attempts to
implement needed safety improvements to the S-Turns and railroad avenue zone are no longer
contemplated to be funded by the new development as they were by the previous. Instead the
development proposes a one-time buy off gift of paving Minturn Road north of Game Creek
regardless of whether a long term funding structure and O&M plan is in place with the County
and the Railroad to continue paving the road in the future. Any new development of any size,
large or small, will further exacerbate traffic and pedestrian safety issues in the Railroad Ave S
curves zone, as well as the north Taylor Street stub leading to the Game Creek trailhead.
Minturn North does not contemplate substantial funding or street/sidewalk improvements in this
areas.
Minturn North's non -connective deadend cul-de-sac road structure also positions it to avoid
sharing the community parking and dispersed vehicular circulation burden with Taylor Street by
ensuring its private streets with no on -street parking will not be available for event, visitor, or
trailhead parking.
Goal EDG 1: Diversify the Town's Economy
Strategy EDS 1.3: Attract essential services necessary to form a `complete' community
including grocery, pharmacy, hardware, entertainment.
Minturn North has intentionally positioned itself to be attractive to a higher end real estate
clientele and be overtaken as a second home resort community within a few generations of
initial home ownership turnover. (See comments above, noncompliance with Goal CCG1, for
additional support of this assertion). This will further exacerbate the seasonal 'boom -bust'
business cycle in town that is somewhat prevalent in Minturn currently and strongly entrenched
in the nearby resort communities of Vail and Beaver Creek. Rather than establishing a modest
increase in the number of full time year-round residents in the long term that will frequent
downtown restaurants and retail, and essential service businesses in the business park, Minturn
North is likely instead to produce seasonal fluxes of homeowners that further crowd downtown
eating establishment at high season and holiday periods, but continue to leave them empty at
other periods of the year.
Rather than creating a more modest but stable full-time residential base, establishing
resort -style private communities in town will further exacerbate business owner issues with
retaining under-utilitzed staff during 'off seasons' while struggling with insufficient staffing to
meet high season demand. It is economically better and more resilient to encourage modest
growth in a stable full time residential base that will support a smaller number of stable
businesses in town evenly and continuousl thy rouahout the ,year. than it is to have a greater
overall number of businesses that all experience an unpredictable boom/bust seasonal cycle
due to increased second home ownership. Targeting full-time year round residential
development rather than Minturn North's resort style private neighborhood development will
ensure the long term and continued viability of vital community business services such as day
care, auto mechanics,etc; rather than encouraging replacement of local -oriented business types
with boutique retail and other seasonal tourist -oriented business types.
While Minturn North will certainly help shore -up town government's bottom line in the short term
via substantial property tax revenues, any other development will also do this without needing to
implement the unnecessary and highly undesirable private resort -community aspects requested
by Minturn North. In the long term, while shoring up local government revenues, Minturn North
is likely to increase the speed and conversion of Minturn to a'fake town' resort economy, not
increase economic resiliency of existing and new locally -oriented businesses. Ensuring the town
government's bottom line is secure while simultaneously undercutting town character and long
term full time residential occupancy rates is a hollow and self-destructive strategy.
Minturn North as -proposed will not diversify the town's economy, instead, it will ever
more -deeply entrench the town into the resort real-estate economy that dominates other valley
communities.
Town of Minturn Community Plan 2030 Future Land Use Map
Although this future land use vision presented by the plan represents a 'hopeful' or idealized
view of development patterns rather than a current reflection of option (due to such issues as
the railroad continuing to avoid relinquishment of the abandoned switchyard etc), Minturn North
is substantially out of compliance with community visions and goals articulated in this land use
map. Regardless of the actual number and alignment of roads depicted on it, this map clearly
displays an intent and vision by community residents for continued small town residential and
commercial 'block' style street development on the railroad parcel, rather than dead end suburb
cul-de-sacs, with a transitionary zone of Low Density Residential abutting Taylor Street. Multiple
east -west connections are envisioned from Taylor Street through any new neighborhood,
ensuring continued build out patterns in a 'town style' rather than a resort suburb style as
Minturn North contemplates.
This road structure and style facilitates the diffuse and redundant dispersal of both pedestrian
and vehicular traffic circulation throughout the neighborhood, rather than dumping an increasing
number of residents on dead end private streets onto a single existing arterial street, and
allowing new developments to avoid the shared public burden of on -street visitor parking during
community events and from increasing trailhead use.
It remains the community's hope and position that control of the switchyard property and North
Main will one day be transferred from railroad ownership for town uses. Yes, this currently
seems improbable, but remember: no one ever thought the triangle parcel in front of Taylor St
currently slated for Minturn North would ever be sold by UP either. We need to continue to act
and plan for this eventuality as a town. If and when it should occur, rather than a network of
small town blocks extending from new potential commercial development on North Main,
Minturn North's dead-end and disconnective suburban road style will -be permanently inserted
between Taylor Street and North Main, forever an oddity and blight on the smalltown urban and
residential landscape.
ti
•yr >w ter L/ `-
ti Y� _
Town -of Minturn Ca_nn ►_ur�i -ty__F11,,ri
2030 Future Land Use
�rw �4trtT iWMk
�P f�1.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
IS4 Comply with and enforce the Minturn Municipal Code
Approving Minturn North with its asserted claims to variance from lot standards, town street
development patterns, and internal DRB is substantially in non-compliance with this. Minturn
has existing town code governing lot standards and building design on R1 SFR development
types that it has recently spent several years and significant financial resources to create and
implement. Granting express permissions a new development that covers 60% of the remaining
currently developable land in the Hollywood Heights/Taylor Street area and 10% of the total
households in town (39 new households on top of 365 existing households) to operate outside
of existing sufficient town code in order to achieve its internal real estate goals is more than
substantially out of alignment with Strategy IS4.
IS5 Make Consistent Use of the Community Plan
IS9 Ensure that development applications support the applicable goals and objectives of
the Community Plan.
While meeting many other goals and strategies of the community plan, the Minturn North PUD
project nevertheless seeks to substantially avoid or reject significant community values
articulated around housing size, development types, aesthetic freedoms, and creating a
socioeconomic mosaic of lot and home sizes. This haphazard and selective application of Goals
and Strategies is not a consistent use of the Community Plan
It is recommended that P&Z, Council Members, and town residents review some of the raw
feedback below that was contributed by long time residents to help articulate the community
values around development identified in the plan.
Appendix A - raw feedback from 2009 Community Vision Open House
'Minturn is primarily a town of primary residences'
'The Town is a community of 'year-round' lights --someone is always home.'
'We honor and celebrate our unique place in the Valley --small town character, non -resort. We
are not our neighbors'
'Minturn is a safe, walkable community' (private dead end cul-de-sacs streets are not walkable;
they are designed to exclude and discourage use by others)
'We are an affordable, family -oriented community'
'We actively promote Minturn as the unique non -resort mountain town that it is'
'We are a community of active, outdoor minded dog -people' (Bill -forbiddance of fences to create
aesthetically clean development for better sales is anti -pet)
'Town has a laid-back attitude' (Bill - rigorous private POA enforcement of subjective nuisance
provisions in the proposed development's covenants are designed to harass neighbors
regarding supposed 'eyesores' such as rafts, trailers, camps, snowmobiles, etc)
Appendix B - raw feedback from 2009 Goals and Objectives Open House
'Encourage bright colors — people like Pope's bike shop, not the townhomes (too
monochromatic)'
'Good design/eclectic'
'If you want [more] ordinances, move to Vail or Beaver Creek'
'Focus on what we want Minturn to be, not on what we don't want to be'
'Smaller lots for new housing'
'Develop plan for railroad property, create opportunity to develop benefit town'
'Tie in Railyard'
'improved sidewalks'
'Promote the development of housing opportunities for all income levels throughout the town,
not just in isolated locations'
'smaller lots for single family homes of 2-3 bedrooms'
'support establishment of pocket parks, town too long to walk to one location'
'kids dont own cars so they must be able to walk to parks'
'increase/formalize parking at trailheads
Closing
Upon review of the existing community plan (the 2023 plan has not yet been formally adopted
and implemented), Minturn North is an alignment with some Goals and Strategies, but remains
in substantial non-compliance with numerous Goals and Strategies outlining and articulating the
collective community values around new development and town growth.
M-1111MG-OI M-11
Madison Harris
From:
Jason Hutto <jason@biadvisors.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 28, 2023 10:06 AM
To:
Madison Harris
Cc:
Minturn North Land Company, LLC
Subject:
Minturn North
Hi Madison,
I'm emailing now in support of the Minturn North development. It's been our long-term plan to build there and live
there full-time. We hope that soon gets to become a reality! We are out of town so can't come to the meeting tonight
but do hope that our excitement and that of our fellow future neighbors encourages the town of Minturn that we and
the new neighborhood will be a great addition to the community.
Regards,
Jason
C. Jason Hutto, CFA
(617) 448-5920
Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient or recipients named
above. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from
your system.
Madison Harris
From: Kirsten Kunkle <kirstenkl7@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 4:10 PM
To: Madison Harris
Subject: Minturn North Development Plan 569 Taylor Street Concerns
Hellol
In regards to the Minturn North Development proposal, our main concerns with the current plan are as follows:
The change in the current plan regarding both the parking for the Game Creek Trail not being redirected to Minturn
Road and the lack of a planned path through the development for bikers, hikers, and skiers. It is a noise, traffic, and
safety issue for Taylor Street residents.
Another concern is the potential height of the homes and obstruction of our view to Meadow Mountain.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,
Kirsten, Kurt, and Kyle Kunkle
Madison Harris
From: Mike and Gretchen Paules <mtn.high@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 12:15 PM
To: Madison Harris
Cc: Rick Hermes
Subject: Letter of Support
To Town of Minturn Planning Department Officials,
My wife and I support the proposed development for Minturn North as we remain interested in living full time
in the Eagle Valley and desire to be in a community known and cherished for its locals vibe and independence.
My wife's family is one of the original Vail pioneers that started living in Vail in 1962 and she was raised in the
Valley. My wife and I are Colorado residents, have owned a condo in the Valley since 2006, and currently live
part-time in EagleVail. We want to reside in and support a real mountain community that shares many of our
values. We believe living in a new home in Minturn North can be that community.
Minturn North is an opportunity that can benefit all parties involved. We thank the Minturn officials, residents,
referral agencies and ResortConcepts for all of their time, consideration and hard work that went into advancing
this proposed development to ensure that this project balances opposing needs and concerns. Residential use of
this long vacant land is a reasonable and beneficial alternative that should be approved by Minturn officials.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our comments.
Respectfully,
Mike and Gretchen Paules
Madison Harris
From: Contact form at Minturn CO <crosmailer@civicplus.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 10:04 AM
To: Madison Harris
Subject: [Minturn CO] Proposed 16 acre development (Sent by Robert Roschman,
rjr@roschman.com)
Hello mharris,
Robert Roschman (rir@roschman.com) has sent you a message via your contact form
(https://www.minturn.org/user/353/contact) at Minturn CO.
If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at https://www.minturn.org/user/353/edit.
Message:
Madison I have a home at 585 Taylor st and I've been following the progress on the lower density project. I'm in support
of this project. Let me know if's there's anything else you need to help push through this project.
Ty. Robert 9544946384
Madison Harris
From:
Ryan. Schmidt <ryansschmidt@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 27, 2023 6:38 PM
To:
Madison Harris
Cc:
Kara Hasbrouck
Subject:
Minturn North Development
Dear Madison Harris,
I am writing to express our sincere interest in the Minturn North housing development. Coming from a modest hard-
working Midwest upbringing and having spent over ten years in the Vail Valley, the Town of Minturn has long been the
apple of our eye. We've remodeled, twice, and considered opportunities to build a modest single-family home at
several locations throughout the Valley and beyond; but Eagle County is home and we prefer living up -valley. This
opportunity is very exciting for all involved.
No doubt this project has evolved over the last few years in effort to satisfy all stakeholders while maintaining the
fabric that makes Minturn what it is. The current version looks to provide lesser density impacts on the community
while providing valuable and much needed infrastructure improvements, alternative roadways in -and -out of town, a
community park and access to the Eagle County Trail. Not to mention, additional tax revenue.
We are among many hard-working locals intent on investing the next 20 years or more into the historical culture of this
Valley. This emotional investment into the community is what is driving our interest in Minturn. We urge you to
support the Minturn North development and welcome its new members to the communityl
Most respectfully and sincerely,
Ryan & Kara Schmidt
'Life's a journey, live an adventure'