HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 3-25-2020Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 1 of 12
OFFICIAL MINUTES
MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION
Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645
Meeting will be held via Zoom Conferencing and call -in.
Public welcome to join meeting using the following methods:
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:
https://zoom.us/i/2702037865
Phone:
• 651372 8299 us
• 301 715 8592 us
Meeting Id: 270 203 7865
Wednesday, March 25, 2020
Work Session - 5:30 PM (Cancelled)
Regular Session - 6:30 PM
CHAIR - Lynn Teach
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Jeff Armistead
Lauren Dickie
Burke Harrington
Christopher Manning
Jena Skinner
Work Session - 5:30pm - Cancelled
1. No Work Session Items
Regular Session - 6:30pm
1. Call to Order
Lynn T. called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
• Roll Call
When addressing the Commission, please state your name and your address for the record prior to providing your
comments. Please address the Commission as a whole through the Chair. All supporting documents are available for
public review in the Town Offices - located at 302 Pine Street, Minturn CO 81645 - during regular business hours
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 2 of 12
Those present at roll call: Lynn T., Burke H., Chris M., Jeff A., Jena S., and Lauren D.
Staff Members Present: Town Planner Scot Hunn and Economic Development
Coordinator Cindy Krieg.
• Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approval of Agenda
• Items to be Pulled or Added
Lynn T. - Approval of minutes from March 11, 2020 to be tabled to the April 8th
meeting. Need to make some edits to the minutes.
Scot H. - Will also be removing 232 Main St. (Blood worth addition) from the
agenda. They will be withdrawing their application, so no need to table.
Motion by Jena S., second by Jeff A., to approve the agenda as amended.
Motion passed 5-0.
3. Approval of Minutes
• March 11, 2020
Motion by Jeff A., second by Jena S., to table approval of the March 11th, 2020 meeting
minutes to the April 8th meeting. Motion passed 5-0.
4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (5 min time limit per
person)
Cindy Krieg
Economic Development, Town of Minturn:
Town Announcements:
• Reminder about the upcoming April 7th election. Encouraging all residents to
apply for an absentee ballot and vote that way. To apply for an absentee ballot,
please contact Jay Brunvand. More detailed information available on the Town
website.
• Town Hall closure has been extended through April 1ot11, however Council
Chambers will be open on election day -April 7th, from 7am- 7pm. All ballots
must be received by 7pm on election day.
• COVID-19 Eagle County Funding
o Opportunities available to apply for assistance. Link available within the
COVID-19 alert section of the Mintum.org website.
• SBDC hosting a resource and recovery call for businesses and community leaders
on Friday March 27th. Information was shared via email today. If you need this
information, please contact Cindy Krieg (events@mintum.org).
Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 3 of 12
5. Planning Commission Comments
No Planning Commission Comments.
6. 232 Main Street - Bloodworth Addition Final Review (Tabled from December 11th,
January 8th and January 22nd, 2020 Meetings; To be Tabled (to a date certain).
Application is being withdrawn.
7. 201 Main Street Unit Suite 2A-Futurian Systems Sign Permit Application
Review of proposed exterior sign to be mounted on the Iron Works Building facing
Toledo Ave. This is a replacement sign for one that was stolen.
Recommendation: Approval, with conditions.
Excerpts from staff report dated March 25, 2020:
The Applicant, Futurian Systems, requests review of a sign permit for an existing
office
located at 201 Main Street, Suite 2A in the Iron Works Building. This is a
replacement of a previously approved sign in the same location that was recently
stolen.
The proposed three (3) square foot sign is proposed to be a double sided, internally
lit
sign that will hang perpendicularly from an existing metal bracket on the north side
of the Iron Works Building. The previous sign was not lit. The metal bracket is
mounted to the building on the second st01y.
The sign permit application is complete, the proposed sign complies ·with the
requirements of the Minturn Municipal Code, and staff is recommending approval
of
the request, with the condition that Pursuant to Section 16 -19-110, Minturn
Municipal Code, the sign may be lit no later than 11:00 p.m. or until the close of
business, whichever is later.
The staff report also noted a condition that the Applicant obtain an electrical permit for
any new electrical work being performed in order to illuminate the sign. But Staff later
learned that no new electrical work will be required for the sign, so this condition is not
needed.
Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 4 of 12
Planning Commission Comments:
Lynn T. - Asked about the condition of not having the sign light after 11pm, "or close of
business - whichever is later". Do we need to include "whichever is later" since the
business is not operating at night?
Scot H. - Asked for input from the Planning Commission. How do they feel about signs
being lit at night and what are the current or existing conditions in town; are signs at
restaurants and bars normally lit past 11pm?
Jeff A. -Noted other examples. Minturn Anglers sign is lit past 11, but it's neon (not
bright white) and is in the commercial zone (not around residences). Magustos and some
other businesses have signs lit until close, but bars / restaurants are of course open later.
This particular business has several residences near it.
Jena S. - Wondering why they've requested a lit sign this time (since it's a replacement
sign)? Also asked if it's possible to decrease the white space (glow/ glare)? We could
possibly suggest doing the outer trim around the logo in blue or even reversing the color
so the background is dark and the lettering is white.
Jeff A. - Feels that the lit sign is just to be more of a high-tech sign to align with the type
of business that they are (they are a technology company). Feels the 11pm cutoff for the
lighting makes sense. Recommends an auto-timer.
It's also not a very large sign (Overall: 9"x30", Visual Size: 6" tall x 27" wide)
Lynn T. -Also likes the suggestion of blue or other color around the perimeter vs. all
white. Feels 11pm is a reasonable time to request the lighting be turned off.
Chris M. - Agrees with the 11pm cutoff.
Burke H. - Also agrees with the 11pm cutoff.
Jena S. -Noted that it's a more modem sign than others in town (where othe rs are more
artistic in design). She has done work with this sign company in the past, and they do
high quality work.
Motion by Jeff A., second by Burke H., to approve the sign pe1mit application for 201
Main St. Unit 2A (Futurian Systems), with the follo wing conditions and
recommendations.
• Pursuant to Section 16-19-110, Minturn Municipal Code, the sign may be lit no
later than 11:00 p.m.
• Recommend consideration of the logo blue or other soft color for the outside
perimeter of the lit sign, vs. using a bright white.
Motion Passed 5-0.
Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 5 of 12
8. Project Updates
• Three Mile Plan
At a bit of a standstill. Scot H. has all of the Planning Commission comments and has
presented to Town Council.
Scot H. recently heard from Dominic Mauriello, representative for the new owner of the
Palmateer Property (now "Grindstone Minturn, LLC"). Mr. Mauriello requested a draft
of the Three Mile Plan, to look at language within the Three Mile Plan relating to this
parcel (what was recommended for future land use of this parcel). It was included in the
2009 Three Mile Plan (unincorporated Eagle County) and is also included within the
2020 updated plan.
Scot H. - There is currently mention of future land use of that parcel having to do with
potential for a base area development and ski lift access to Vail Mountain (up Game
Creek drainage).
Scot H. - There was also a 1993 Resolution referencing Joint Master Planning with the
Town and Vail Associates (to work with Vail Associ ates and the Forest Service). The
2009 Plan also references a 2003 Memo of Understanding (MOU) between the Town and
Vail Resorts, however staff is not able to locate any copy of the MOU and is not ce1iain
of what was agreed to in the MOU.
Scot H. - However, there has been no discussion since that time between the Town and
Vail Resorts regarding any potential ski lift access off that site. Also does not believe
that such use (ski lift access and base area development) would be encouraged or desired
by the Town at this time.
Scot H. - asked the Planning Commission if they were aware of any previous plans for a
lift coming down from Game Creek, landing at the old Palmateer Property.
Lynn T. - Not aware of any specific plan, but is aware of discussions that there was land
available
Burke H. -Asked about the specific prope1iy that Scot is referring to (Oren's old house)?
Wondering what the approach was of the owner's representative. Curious what their
questions were.
Scot H. - noted that the y just wanted to be included in the discussion. This property
continues to be referenced in the Three Mile Plan due to its proximity to Town and the
fact that it could be appropriate for annexation into the Town at some point.
Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 6 of 12
Burke H. - That property was for sale for 7 - 8 years (feels that if Vail Resorts had any
inkling of wanting to put something in, they had ample oppo1iunity to buy it). He has also
heard that if there is any thought of a lift, it would more likely be located in the Two Elk
drainage (not Game Creek).
Jeff A. - Is that prope1iy annexed into Town currently? Are the owners interested in
annexation? And what are the rough boundaries?
Scot H. -No, it is not c urrently annexed. Have not heard from the owner's
representative that they are specifically interested in annexation, but it is possible.
Annexation may become part of the conversation.
The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the characteristics of the parcel.
Scot H. - It' s a square-ish property surrounding a single-family house, Game Creek flows
right through the middle of it. Some wetlands, riparian areas along Game Creek, and
some steep hillside.
Jeff A. - This property has had some improvements ((landscaping, etc) done recently.
The prope1iy also sold just a few years ago.
Jeff A. - What kind of language do the owners want to see in the plan?
Scot H. -Not sure but hoping to speak with Mr. Mauriello soon.
Also looking to speak with the Pierson prope1iy owners (south side of town) as well, and
the language that affects their property.
Lynn T. -Noted that Mr. Mauriello was previously involved in the Ginn project when
that was in the works.
Jena S. - Regarding the MOU from 1993, if things have changed hands without any
updates to the MOU, it doesn't carry any legal weight.
Scot H. - After speaking with the owners of affected prope1iies, will be cleaning up the
document and starting the public process to get the pl an adopted.
Scot H. then also brought up the public process for things like the updated Chapter 16 ,
Three Mile Plan, projects like this (Master Plans)- asked for Planning Commission input
on how to handle these types of projects during this time. Should w e wait for the dust to
settle so we can have in-person public meetings? Or keep moving forward with these
items with the online meetings?
Lynn T. - Prefers to have in-person public meetings for master planning projects. Not so
much concerned about the Planning Commission but wants to make sure it's easy for the
public and doesn't want to exclude anyone. Feels that we may have less public involvement
while we’re doing online meetings.
Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 7 of 12
Jena S. - Suggested that if we have to move forward with online options for these items,
with the public, we should consider a different platfo1m that can be controlled better with
several people in the meeting. (More webinar style meetings).
Could also have the public submit questions ahead of time.
Jeff A. Doesn't want to come to a grinding halt. Need to keep working, so need to find
options that work. Perhaps people can submit questions, comments, letters in advance
that can be written into the record.
Lauren D. - Agreed that we need to keep moving forward and could use other
technological tools to make the process effective.
Scot H. - Agreed. We need to keep moving fo1ward and need to find a public meeting
solution. Willing to explore other platforms.
• Housing Ordinance
Scot H. - Is still working on a draft Housing Ordinance to memorialize the goals and
policies adopted in the 2019 Minturn Housing Action Plan.
Scot H. - Working on Article 2 of Chapter 16 - Definitions, especially those which are
specific to housing. Building a new Article 26 within Chapter 16 (Housing Standards and
Guidelines), and the regulations of how these will be applied.
Scot H. - Feels that he is walking a fine line between getting something on the books that
reflects the goals and what we said we wanted to see regarding percentage requirements,
but not take the next two months to figure out exactly how this will work. Would like to
get something adopted quickly, so that we have guidelines in place when projects come
through the door.
Scot H. - Would like to get a draft ordinance in front of the commission in April.
• Chapter 16 Project
As discussed with the housing ordinance, Scot H. is currently working on Article 2 -
Definitions.
Scot H. - Shared some documents with Jena S. (Jena had offered to assist with
definitions). These documents include some work that Madison had previously done
(definitions from other municipalities).
Scot has also received some feedback from Town Attorney Richard Peterson Cremer,
regarding definitions.
Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 8 of 12
Some primary areas that need to be looked at are: Definition of Natural Grade and
Building Height Calculation.
Scot H. - Previously focused on Zone Districts, dimensional and designs standards for
zone districts, new mapping, flow and organization of chapter 16. Now need to focus on
definitions.
Scot H. - has been working on this since 2018, with the Planning Commission on
reviewing Chapter 16 since September.
There is a push to get this finalized and adopted, to help with issues regarding unclear areas
of the code.
Scot H. - Would like to get the definitions to the commission in April. Could hopefully
start the public review process in May for Chapter 16.
Jena S. - Would like to compare our neighboring jurisdictions as well, wit hin the Valley.
Will also assist with definitions.
• Minturn Crossing PUD Preliminary Plan
Scot H. - We have received preliminary plans. Not reviewed yet by Scot or Jeff Spanel
(Town Engineer). First step is to check for completion and identify any missing pieces.
Also need to address the moratorium on water taps (for any projects over 3 units).
Scot H. explained that last week at the Town Council work session, there was a
conversation to consider a draft ordinance that would place a moratorium on any new
water taps for developments over 3 units (or 3 single family equivalents). This has to do
with the Town's work that they've done over the last couple of years with regard to
capital improvements planning for the water system, and all the components that the
Town has laid out previously needing to be upgraded ($17 - $18M in improvements that
need to be made - storage tanks, water lines, leak detection system, etc).
Scot H. - Since the proposed interconnect and the deal with the D istrict was rejected by
the Council, the Town has shifted its focus on addressing the existing water system and
prioritizing upgrades, starting with leak detection and repair as the most likely means to
gain (back) more water.
Scot H. - The Town's water engineer and water attorney went through several studies and
have come up with estimates of how many taps we probably have available (prior to
system improvements), and what we will need to consider for reasonable future growth to
help pay for these improvements.
Scot H. - It is estimated that (on the bottom end) that we have about 70 taps that we can
rely on over the next 2 - 3 years, until we can st art making improvements. On the high
end, the figure (not counting the 120 taps that have already bee n agreed to with the
Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 9 of 12
school district), is about 330 additional units (if all of the improvements are made, leaks
are fixed, etc).
Scot H. - That said, the Minturn Crossing PUD applicant has asked the Town to
guarantee them enough taps to at least build the first phase of the project. The Town has
not done this as we only had a conceptual plan and no prelimin ary plans. Now that we've
received the preliminary plan, the Town is now in a position to work with the applicant
through the review process and understand better how phasing and timing of
improvements to the water system will permit development of a first phase, if approved
by the Town.
Scot H. - This does not preclude a property owner who has existing taps on their prope1iy
from proposing a re-development and re-using those taps. It also does not preclude a
developer from coming to the table that could bring water rights (someone who
potentially has a separate deal with the water district), or from applying for land use
approval (a PUD or subdivision with more than three SFEs) with the caveat that their
development, if approved, may not be served with water until such time that additional
water taps are made available.
Lynn T. - At this time, the applicant has not been guaranteed the 70 taps?
Scot H. - No, not guaranteed
Jena S. - Asked about the status of the moratorium.
Scot H. - It was a work session, so it will still need to go through the ordinance first and
second reading process.
Jeff A. - Asked about vested rights. When do you actually get approval for taps (in
relation to the application status)? Do you have to get through approval of the preliminary
PUD first (by P&Z and Council)?
Scot H. - The vested rights are for the land use and density of the project. Right now, the
way the ordinance reads, it does recognize the application submission and that the
applicant is intending to secure the 70 taps. If for whatever reason they don't get
approval, that reservation of taps would be void and taps w ould theoretically be available
for other projects (in cue).
Jeff A. - Is there a time restriction to avoid someone tying up water reservations for an
unlimited period?
Scot H. - Technically, no, the Code provides limits on vesting and approvals. There are
time limits on continuing files as well.
Scot H. - The Minturn Crossing PUD developer is currently pledging to pay for water
taps up front (which would be approximately $1.5M). So, there is benefit/incentive to the
Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 10 of 12
Town in reserving what on paper appears to be our last remaining taps, in that we would
receive much-needed cash in return to start making some of these improvements. Those
improvements will likely lead to more available water for other projects.
Scot H. - Also discussed the timing of the Minturn Crossing PUD project. The developer
has several months of review ahead before any prope1iy is final platted (assuming
Preliminary Plan approval and the negotiation of a subdivision improvement agreement).
The developer is also not proposing any ve1iical construction but will be working
(potentially as soon as spring/summer of 2021) on horizontal construction of
infrastructure. Therefore, it is also likely that if they had sold lots in the first phase by
2021, and a lot purchaser needed to then go through DRB and building permit
application, no homes will likely be built until 2022 at the earliest.
Scot H. - So when someone comes to pull the first tap, it's a year and a half out. And in
the meantime, we'll likely have already made some improvements, found some
efficiencies and possibly some additional water taps.
Jeff A. - Mentioned that he's had public questions regarding legal options for someone
wanting to develop something larger than 3 units, but taps aren't available - could they
drill a well?
Scot H. - From the standpoint of sanitary sewer and wastewater - if you are within a
certain distance of a municipality and a wastewater treatment system, you typically are
required to tie into that system. Not sure if the same applies to a well.
Jena S. -Agreed with Scot's comments, unless the municipality/ wastewater system is
unable to serve you. For example, the ideas has been kicked around locally (within the
valley) of using a well (non-potable water) for irrigation and landscaping for properties
that may be within a municipal water service district, but not wanting to use potable
water for irrigation. When that happens, however, there is a potential to threaten other/
senior water rights.
Jena S. - That said, there is nothing in Colorado law that says you have to be on a public
system, as long as you're not interfering with other water rights. It depends on how many
units you're proposing. In this valley, we try to keep everything on a public system, but
in the front range for example this scenario happens all the time. Working through the
process of gaining approval or getting an exemption to drill a well within an area served
by municipal water would likely be a very expensive and time -consuming endeavor. If
it's a small (5 units for example) project, perhaps they could supplement with a water
tank. However, feels that it would be cost prohibitive and also a very lengthy process.
Burke H. - Has definite concerns about tying up all 70 taps.
Chris M. -Asked about single taps available for smaller projects. Would those still be
doable if the 70 taps were tied up?
Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 11 ofl2
Scot H. - Yes, there is a specific provision in the moratorium for projects that are 3 or
fewer units (single family, duplex, townhome, ADU). Also included in the draft
ordinance the ability for someone proposing a project larger than 3 units to apply (with
the caveat that there is no guarantee that they would have water to serve their project), so
that if they were willing to go through a multi -month or multi-year project, they could
still begin the process.
Lynn T. -Asked if someone applies for a tap for a smaller (less than 3 units) project,
would that number come out of the 70?
Scot H. - Yes, it would, but reminded the group that 70 is an estimated numb er and
projected to be on the low end (in a very bad/dry year). We could very well have more
water available in normal years and particularly following the installation of leak
detection infrastructure improvements and actual repair of leaks and loss.
Jena S. -Asked if the Town is willing to support an extension of vested rights? Typically,
a preliminary plan you get two years, and final plat could be anywhere from 1 – 5 years.
Would the Town be willing to extend in order to tie in with water availabilit y?
Scot H. - Can't answer that definitively right now but can't imagine that the Town
wouldn't support that. Believes that it's cu rrently two years but can be evaluated by
Town Council and/or negotiated on case -by-case basis for PUDs.
Jena S. - Feels it's important to establish that, because it allows business to continue and
good projects to come in and be evaluated.
9. Planning Director Report & Minor DRB Approvals by Director
• None
10. Future Meetings
• April 8, 2020
• April 29, 2020 (Rescheduled from April 22nd)
11. Adjournment
Motion by Jeff A., second by Chris M., to adjourn the meeting of March 25, 2020 at
7:36pm. Motion passed 5-0.
Minturn Planning Commission
March 25, 2020
Page 12 of 12
ATTEST:
Scot Hunn, Planning Director