HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 4-8-2020Minturn Planning Commission
April 8, 2020
Page 2 of 10
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/j/770680281
Phone:
• 651 372 8299 us
• 301 715 8592 us
Meeting ID: 770 680 281
Wednesday, April 8, 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.
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
April 8, 2020
Page 2 of 10
• Roll Call
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
Motion by Chris M., second by Jena S., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion
passed 5-0.
3. Approval of Minutes
• March 11, 2020 Minutes
Lynn T. made some editing corrections.
Motion by Jena S., second by Chris M, to approve the minutes of March 11,
2020 as amended.
Motion passed 5-0
• March 25, 2020 Minutes
Lynn T. made some minor editing corrections, and also asked for clarification
from Scot H. regarding 2 areas (update provided).
Also discussed the meeting on April 29th. This was rescheduled from April 22nd
originally due to school spring break / planned vacations. Even though that's no
longer in play, it was decided to keep the next meeting on April 29th (vs. the
22nd) to allow more time to prepare the updated Chapter 16 draft for review.
Motion by Jeff A., second by Jena S, to approve the minutes of March 25, 2020
as amended.
Motion passed 5-0.
4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (5 min time limit
per person)
Minturn Planning Commission
April 8, 2020
Page 3 of 10
Cindy Krieg, Town Announcements:
Announced election results:
Name of Office Name of Candidate or
Question/Proposition
Number
of Votes Number of Votes in Words
Mayor John K. Widerman* 146 ONE HUNDRED FORTY SIX
Gordon "Hawkeye" Flaherty 91 NINETY ONE
Council
Member
DARIN TUCHOLKE
114
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEEN
ERIC GOTTHELF *2yr 140 ONEHUNDREDFOURTY
SPENCE NEUBAUER 45 FORTY FIVE
GEORGE BRODIN *4yr 165 ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE
TERRY ARMISTEAD *4yr 176 ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX
GUSTY KANAKIS *4yr 189 ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE
FLOYD DURAN 1 ONE (WRITE IN CANDIDATE)
Cindy K. also discussed updated Town Hall Closure dates (updated to April 30h1 ), based
on the updated public health order. This is subject to change based on direction from the
state and county.
5. Planning Commission Comments
Jeff A. congratulated the election winners.
No DRB Applications
6. Food Truck Guidelines - DRAFT
Scot H. introduced the draft guidelines. The Town has received some recent inquiries
Minturn Planning Commission
April 8, 2020
Page 4 of 10
regarding the ability to have food trucks in town, so the planning department, along with
the economic development department and Town Clerk, have been researching what
other municipalities are doing, and have developed some draft guidelines for discussion.
Burke H. - 100 block area (where the market is).
(How) would this interfere with the Market?
Cindy K. - We do allow food trucks within the market (must apply through the market).
Food trucks near the market could be complimentary to the market if they bring more
people in. Maintaining and getting new food vendors for the market has been a struggle,
so this could really help offset that and offer a food draw.
Burke H. - Asked about the reasoning of the 4 -hour restriction?
How do we control them just moving down the street?
Scot H. - Doesn't want this to become a code issue. Feels that 4 hours is sufficient, but if
they are parked in an approved location and having a minimal impact to s urrounding
neighbors and traffic, that is the intent. The 4 -hour guideline was included as we saw thi s
used in other municipalities. But it could be adjusted.
Burke H. - Sanitation/ Board of health regulations - How is that controlled/ monitored?
Cindy K. - Vendors would need to apply and become licensed with the County Board of
Health. So any food safety / health regulation would be handled by the County Board of
Health (they typically do some random inspections for the market, so this would likely be
done with food trucks as well).
Other enforcement (code items), such as hours, location, etc. could be enforced by the
Town.
Jena S. - Several vendors in the area might be interested (and possibly even some
restaurants that are struggling during this time that might want downgrade to a mobile
food truck vs. brick and mortar). Thinks the 4-hour restriction seems limiting (some
might want to do breakfast only, some might be lunch only, but some might be both - if
offering breakfast and lunch, that could be up to a 16 hour window). Also, there may be
less than an hour (or other sho1i-term window) could be allowed at construction sites.
Jena S. -Also would like to see clarification included in the document that explains how
special events are treated (handled separately). Also, for recreation. (For example, if the
bike park project goes through down the road, it may be feasible to have a food truck
there).
Jeff A. - Agrees re. hours of operation. Does not want to give too much leeway to
neighbors to say no, but perhaps we should incorporate some sort of approval process
with neighbors to ensure it does not become an issue after the fact.
Minturn Planning Commission
April 8, 2020
Page 5 of 10
Jeff A. - Regarding non private property- what about Little Beach Park as a location for
multiple food trucks? This could be a great spot for food trucks.
Chris M. - Wondered how the market would be affected. Would like to see more food at
or near the market, so perhaps this could be complimentary?
Lauren D. - Also has concerns about the 4-hour restriction. Thinks it should be longer.
Lynn T. - Under the current circumstances, has concerns about introducing food trucks
that might compete with existing brick and mortar restaurants (and could create parking
issues). Feels that it's important to suppo1i our brick and m01iar businesses during this
difficult time. Feels we could have food trucks, and would encourage them at the market
and possibly across from / in the nearby vicinity of the market.
Lynn T. also asked about electricity and the need to anticipate hook-ups/logistics.
Jeff A. - Most have generators and/or adapters to deal with varying logistics. In other
areas (cities), trucks pull up into public areas. Logistics question - if we are only
allowing on private property, where do customers pull up and where do they stand to
order, where do they sit to eat, etc? (is that an option)? Getting off the beaten path (such
as Little Beach Park) might be the best option from a logistics and safety standpoint.
Jeff A. - Agrees that we do need to be sensitive with regard to our existing restaurants.
Other locations discussed (in addition to Little Beach Park) include the Railroad lot (by
the Turntable), the Municipal Lot, or possibly in Pope's old lot (MR Minturn space at the
corner of Main and Nelson).
Jena S. - also brought up the concern of micromanaging the free market/ competition of
restaurants / businesses in town. This could be a great opportunity, and some of these
could become brick and mortar down the road.
Burke H. - Going back to the time limit, not sure why that is there. Asked for more
explanation.
Scot H. -The 4-hour time limit was included in this draft simply because we saw it used
in other municipalities (but those were larger, more urban areas so possibly necessary).
May not be necessary in our environment. It could be removed or adjusted as needed.
Burke H. - Regarding protection for businesses already in town - believes that more
creates more. If we make Minturn a food destination, more people will come. If you have
a thriving community, everyone can be successful. Looking back to how some
restaurants perfo1med here in the past, when a few were doing well they were all doing
well.
Burke H. - also mentioned the "commercial zoning." If someone is living in a
Minturn Plaru1ing Commission
April 8, 2020
Page 6 of 10
commercial zone, they will ce1iainly have an impact from businesses. This is pa rt of
living in a commercial zone.
Jena S. - Regarding property/ land-owner approval - What if someone gets an approval
from CDOT to be on Highway 24? How would we address this? (CDOT as a prope rty
owner, could do this).
Jena S. - Regarding concern of neighbors -perhaps we have something in writing
regarding complaints. (A ce1iain number of complaints, we reserve the right to revoke
the permit). This could be on the application form (agree to/ acknowledge from the
beginning). This might also encourage t he food truck owner to approach and discuss
with neighbors to be sure they are OK with it.
Jena S. - The property owner approval form- Suggest re-fo1matting, larger font, adding
notes re. the above (nuisance/ complaint clause). May also need to create an actual
complaint form (and process).
Next Steps- Scot H. (and Cindy and Jay) to work on a revised draft.
7. Housing Ordinance - DRAFT
Scot H. noted that the housing action plan was initially adopted in August of last year.
The Planning Commission had another work session to take a deeper dive on some of the
goals, specifically:
• 25% inclusionary housing (price-capped) - deed restricted at a price point
• 20% of overall housing stock would have to be deed -restricted for resident occupancy
only.
Planning Commission had some concerns with this, feeling that these percentages might
be high for some projects (of certain size).
Recommendation was that 20% of "new" projects be deed restricted for resident
occupancy. And that as people build one-off projects (single family homes, ADUs, etc)
they could voluntarily deed-restrict, and the Town can get to that overall 20% number
(locals only) by 2030.
Scot H. (based on direction from the commission) suggested that any new project of
substantial size (5 or more units), the requirement for the deed -restricted price capped
(anything up to 200% AMI) would be 10%.
Direction previously from the planning commission was that 25% price -capped deed
restriction was too high (10% was a more realistic number), 20% deed-restricted for local
was still a good number.
Minturn Planning Commission
April 8, 2020
Page 7 of 10
The previous discussion also led to questions about why we are targeting 80 - 140% area
median income, when a lot of the homes (even if price capped), still dealing with people
earning 200% that still can't buy into our market.
Scot H. has since extended this up to (added a cap of) 200%.
Scot H. - Terming this "Community Housing" versus affordable housing or locals
housi ng. It can be called whatever the planning commission feels is appropriate. The first
section is targeting short te1m rental regulations.
Scot H. - Feels that it's appropriate that we have restrictions in the code that does not
allow someone to short term rent, who has a deed restricted unit. (Chapter 6, Article 7).
Jena S. - Was on the workforce housing committee. Feels these numbers are adequate.
Has had some discussions with Eagle County, regarding what they have and have not
accomplished. Some input from the County is to get rid of the term "deed restricted" and
use more modern language (different variation). Suggests using a buyer or seller
restriction, or local resident housing nuance of some sort . Deed restriction te1m has a
negative connotation.
Jena S. - Noted that she does find sh01i te1m rentals concerning. We've already lost a lot
of locals/ long-te1m rental prope1iies to short term rentals.
Jena S. - Also brought up the encouragement of ADUs (such as waiving water taps or
other incentives), to help create these smaller, economical units.
Scot H.- Noted some suggested incentives that are in the document. There was previously
no support (from the planning commission, housing task force, council) for waiving of
fees as an incentive (whether it be tap fees, construction use tax, etc). This was primarily
due to the significant costs that the Town is facing for the water improvements.
Scot H. - Suggested revisiting this, since we aren't t alking about a lot of units that would
get their fees waived all at once - would likely only be talking about a few small projects
a year (would not have a huge impact). Also discussed a density bonus in the work
sessions, and site design flexibility , and a tax rebate or reduction (vs. a waiver). Could be
a tax rebate over a certain number of years.
Jena S. - Would also like to group in retirees (not just people who are actively working).
Retirees on limited incomes still need housing. Would rec ommend that allowance
(adding that language regarding eligibility).
Burke H. - Very strong supporter of restriction with deed restricted units not being able
to short term rent. Regarding ADUs and whether to offer benefits/ what benefits to offer
- If waiving the tap fees doesn't work, we could move on to rebates . Feels there is a
benefit to having a lock-off in your home, period. Doesn't feel we have to roll out the red
carpet for it. Thinks that people who can afford to put these in see the benefit already.
Many are doing this without incentives. It's a benefit to the prope rty owner as well as the
Town.
Minturn Planning Commission
April 8, 2020
Page 8 of 10
Chris M. - Liked Jena's comments regarding including retirees. Also agrees on short
term rental restrictions. Incentives: he likes the idea of allowing more lot coverage. This
would be an easy incentive.
Lauren D. -Torn on tap fees. Would like f urther discussion on this topic.
Jeff A. - Feels like maybe we're confusing the issue. He never looked a t incentives as
one-offs? (Where one person putting in an ADU gets a financial incentive). His
interpretation was that those incentives were for larger projects. (Minimum number of
units). Percentages kick in at ce1iain tiers. This would allow a larger pro ject to deliver at
a more affordable price.
Lynn T. -Does not agree with the tax rebate/ reduction (does not like using the word
" waive", might be open to reductions in price vs. waivers. Does not see waiving tap fees
with the costs that we have coming u p with our water improvements. Would prefer to
look at other items such as the construction use tax (discount), or other options.
Scot H. lost connection - 5-minute recess called.
Jena S. - Brought up that Colorado is a use tax state, therefore if you have a rental in
your home that is considered an income-generating property and you are legally required
to pay commercial taxes (vs. residential). So, although an ADU may help the property
owner cover their mortgage, etc, it falls under commercial taxes. So it is not as equitable
as one might think, therefore some incentives may still need to be considered. It was
discussed that many prope1iy owners with rentals may not be following the tax
guidelines.
Also, for an older home, to a dd on to create an ADU can be logistically problematic or
cost prohibitive. We don't want to turn down/ de -incentivize an extra unit due to a
logistical issue. We want to look at the bigger picture/ greater good and be sure we are
working toward our housing goals.
Scot H. - Brought up Peter Cranston's ADU project. He will be bringing f orth a revised
plan soon. He was getting dinged (with tap fees) for the full square footage even though
the entire structure was not designed to be rented. He believes the to wn wants to ensure
the time and process are set up for success. And we don't want to discourage
development of units that meet our needs for locals housing.
Lynn T. - Asked Jena S. about the tax question that was brought up earlier. She inquired
why sho1i term rentals would not pay commercial tax if prope1iy own ers that rent out
long-te1m would be required to?
General Discussion - Short term rentals pay sales and lodging tax, but might require
further discussion about the requirements of both .
Minturn Planning Commission
April 8, 2020
Page 9 of 10
Scot H. - Asked if the commission is comfortable with price caps?
Jena S. - W01Tied that this may just create non-conformity of the regulations (someone
may just charge whatever they want and not report). Also, hard to enforce.
General Discussion - The planning commission expressed concerns that this might be an
area that we should not wade into.
Jeff A. - Questioned the inclusion of price caps but also noted or sought to clarify that
this clause (requirement for price appreciation or rent price caps) only relates to the units
that are triggered by the applied definition?
Scot H. -Direction/ Next Steps
• Look at different verbiage for deed restriction
• Scot H. to take a closer look at the language in some of the definitions discussed
• Need further discussion regarding maximum rental price
• Adding retirees as a qualified buyer
• Further discussion regarding acceptable incentives
• Clarify administration of the program (County)? That will require a new
ordinance that deals just with the administration.
8. Other Project Updates
Jeff A. - Inquired whether there has been any additional discussion regarding the
moratorium?
Scot H. - Stated that Town Council will be having another work session on this prior to
a first reading for adoption consideration.
Jeff A. - We are a recommending body. Do we have a say in this? Or should we just
offer input during public comment?
Scot H. - Speaking as a citizen during public comment is likely the best route. The
proposed moratorium is not related to any amendments to Chapter 16, so that's why this
goes straight to council vs. going through the planning commission.
9. Planning Director Report & Minor DRB Approvals by Director
• None
10. Future Meetings
• April 29, 2020
Minturn Planning Commission
April 8, 2020
Page 10 of 10
• May 13, 2020
11. Adjournment
Motion by Jena S., second by Chris M., to adjourn the meeting of April 8, 2020 at 8:38pm.
Motion passed 5-0.
ATTEST:
Scot Hunn, Planning Director