Loading...
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