Loading...
1996-08-12 TOWN OF TRUCKEE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING TOWN COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1996, 6:00 P.M. TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT BOARD ROOM 11570 DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE, CA CALL TO ORDER. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. ROLL CALL. Town Council Members Carpenter, Cross, Drake, Eagan, and Mayor McCormack, Planning Commission Members Estabmok, Palmer, Tryggvi, and Williams were all present. Planning Commission Chair Schwarz was excused. Also present were Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Members Krakowski, Olivieri, Stevens, Watson, Zirbel, and Grubbs. Town Manager Wright, Community Development Director Lashbmok, Town Planner Eddins, Associate Planner Hall, Assistant Planner Ball, and Administrative Secretary Holm were present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Led by Ron Florian. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS. 5.1 Downtown Study Area Update: Land Use and Traffic Circulation Recommendations. Town Planner Eddins explained the purpose of this workshop was to discuss the Downtown Citizens Advisory Committees (DCAC) Recommendations on the Land Use and Circulation Network for the Downtown Study Area. She introduced the DCAC Members. She pointed out that no formal action was being requested and this workshop was an opportunity for the Town Council, Planning Commission, DCAC and the community to share opinions and ideas on the proposed Land Use and Circulation Network Downtown. The DCAC Recommendations to the Planning Commission and Town Council are to: 1) Accept the Vision Plan Conceptual Land Use Map for further study with proposed modifications 2) Accept the Proposed Circulation Improvements to serve 20~year projected growth. Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Meeting, August 12, 1996, Page 2 Edclins stated the goal for preparing the Downtown Specific Plan is to implement the Truckee General Plan direction for the Downtown Study Area. These goals are to: 1) Focus on infill growth while protecting the historic mountain character of the community 2) Address parking and traffic problems 3) Improve pedestrian experience and river access 4) Develop an implementation and financing program for the Downtown improvements Eddius mentioned the issues the DCAC has been working on are the Land Use Map and Circulation Network for the Downtown Study Area in addition to the more detailed components such as streetseape designs, pedestrian and bicycle networks, conceptual parks designs, parking, historic and environmental protection, financing and implementation programs and regulatory programs. Eddins reviewed the stages and time lines of the Downtown Specific Plan process. The next steps in the Specific Plan process are: I) Planning Commission and Town Council hearings on acceptance of land use and circulation network in August and September 1996. 2) Adoption of an Interim Development Policy in September 1996. 3) Preparation of Public Review Draft of the Downtown Specific Plan from July through November 1996. 4) Public Review and Heatings on the Draft Downtown Specific Plan in January 1997. Mayor McCormack pointed out that the Planning Commission will begin a review of the recommendations of the DCAC Wednesday, August 14, 1996 and will receive public input at that meeting. Eddins reviewed the Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee's (DCAC) proposed modifications to the draft Vision Plan Conceptual Land Use Map and Circulation Improvements which are: ~onceptual Land Use Map Pronosed Modifications I) Bright Development Property (31 AC) on S. Side of the River - Change from multi-family to Single-Family Planned Development (approx 3040 single-family units), clustered to protect sensitive areas and river corridor. 2) West River Street Park Area - Add commercial uses which incorporate access to the riverfront, such as a restaurant. 3) Easterly portion of East River Street - change undeveloped lots from single-family Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Meeting, August 12, 1996, Page 3 to multi-family. Since the development area on the south side of East River Street is highly constrained, the higher density designation will allow clustering of units to protect the river corridor and sensitive environmental conditions. 4) Property on the southwest comer of Hwy 267 / 1-80 - Change from Commercial to Public to accommodate a regional Visitor Center. 5) Hall's property south of Glenshire Drive - (This parcel was added to the DSA after the Conceptual Land Use Map was dratted). Add an industrial land use designation to this parcel to accommodate industrial uses with strict design guidelines and no outdoor storage. Proposed Circulation Improvements These circulation improvements are proposed in order to maintain Level of Service (LOS) E or better at Downtown intersections with the projected 20-year buildout of the Downtown Specific Plan. 1) Construct westerly undercrossing of the Railroad as shown on draft Union Pacific/Town Design. A traffic circle is the preferred means of traffic control at the intersection of the undercrossing with Donner Pass Road. 2) No four-lane road segments (including turning lanes) are required within the DSA. 3) Signalization of West River Street / East River Street / Bridge Street Intersection, and the Commercial Row / Bridge Street Intersection will be required within the 20-year timeframe. Alternatives to signalization of the Commercial Row intersection (i.e. possible traffic circle) are being more fully evaluated by engineers. No historic buildings shall be removed to accommodate intersection improvements. 4) Closure of the Bridge Street at-grade crossing is not necessary as a mitigation for traffic impacts, and was determined to have unacceptable impacts on community character and historic eireuiation patterns. 5) Church Street does not need to be signalized to mitigate traffic impacts, however it may be desirable to signalize to provide safe pedestrian crossing fi'om Church Street to the Mill Site since Church Street is proposed as the main pedestrian circulation route from the Downtown core to the Mill Site. 6) An Easterly undercrossing of the railroad is necessary to provide an additional separated grade crossing of the railroad in order to mitigate long-term traffic impacts. This undercrossing would need to be provided when the Mill Site is developed. The most acceptable alignment of this undercrossing was determined Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Meeting, August 12, 1996, Page 4 to be East of the balloon track. A longer term improvement which has been identified is the need for an easterly river crossing. Although this crossing is not critical to accommodate traffic within the 20-year timeframe, it is prudent to anticipate alignment for future implementation. Eddins reviewed the Guiding Principles for Development of the Downtown Study Area Land Use Policies and Roadway Network. Quidine Policies for the Land Use 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Accommodate projected development in the Downtown Study Area in a manner that preserves and enhances the Historic Mountain Character of the area. Encourage a mix of residential, office, and commemial uses to enhance the pedestrian orientation of Downtown, reduce traffic, and provide an environment that fosters street level activity and social interaction. Enhance the desirability of Downtown as a destination attraction for tourists and locals by creating a variety of reasons for people to come and stay. Phase out industrial land uses located along the Truckee River corridor, and ensure that new riverfxont development protects the scenic and environmental quality of the River. Accommodate continuation of existing industrial uses along the north side of West River Street west of the proposed new parking areas. Establish requirements to eliminate outdoor storage and upgrade the appearance of industrial areas within the Downtown Study Area. Accommodate additional residential development, including affordable housing in the Downtown Study Area~ Provide open space to accommodate a Town Square, outdoor ice skating rink, public access to the Truckee River, and protection of the historic Hilltop Ski Hill. Provide an integrated pedestrian and bicycle network that links these open spaces and other destination points within the Downtown Study Area. Create functional linkages which encourage people to walk between activity centers such as Commercial Row and the Mill Site Area Guiding Principles for the Roadway Network 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Downtown roadway improvements should provide for adequate circulation and traffic safety while preserving the historic and scenic qualities of the area. Disperse traffic rather than concentrate traffic in order to reduce the magnitude of necessary roadway improvements. "Through traffic" on Downtown roadways should be minimized and directed towards the Highway 267 bypass. Four-lane roadways including turning lanes in the Downtown Study Area should be avoided. Double left mm lanes in the Downtown Study Area should be avoided. As required by the Town General Plan, maintain a standard of LOS E at peak hour Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Meeting, August 12, 1996, Page 5 for ail intersections within the Downtown Study Area. 7) Traffic circles should be used where they are a feasible and safe aiternative to signaiization. Eddins pointed out that 8 aitematives were evaluated in the Downtown Traffic Study. She stated that the issue the DCAC has been discussing is the Eastern Underpass connecting to the Mill Site to East River Street. She pointed out that ail 8 roadway network aiternatives all assume construction of the Highway 267 Bypass. She reviewed and discussed the alignment findings as well as the pros and cons of these aiignments. She explained that the purpose of the eastern undercrossing is the need for an additional railroad crossing should the railroad merger occur. She pointed out that the most easterly aiignment has the least impacts on East River Street residents. The following are questions and comments made during the workshop discussion of the roadway network and land use in the DSA: Circulation Is the topography of the East-east undercrossing feasible? Was the pedestrian mall crossing proposed at Spring Street before the merger issue and westem undercrossing? Union Pacific is open to the idea of considering the creation ora pedestrian crossing which creates linkage to a pedestrian mall. Is the Eastern nndercrossing cost effective without partnerships? This is a component of the Downtown Specific Plan and will be reviewed in the fiscai analysis section. The roadway network was based on General Plan growth projections. What was the DCAC discussion related to the negative impacts of the undercrossing to the East River Street residentiai corridor? The further west the location of the undemrossing proved a more difficult connection to Highway 267 and the further east the location, would impact a larger segment of residents along East River Street. What are the impacts of the eastem nndercrossing on East River Street? It will increase traffic flow through this residential corridor and with a river crossing constructed concurrently, this impact will be minimized. Will the separated grade crossing require closure of the Bridge Street at grade crossing due to fiscal restrictions? The DCAC has recommended that there be no at grade closure of Bridge Street. Most of the property it serves is railroad owned. Cost implications and prioritizing of improvements will be reviewed in the Fiscai Analysis of the Downtown Specific Plan. Have we considered the option of constructing an undercrossing at the Bridge Street railroad crossing? This option would take out historic structures on Bridge Street. Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Meeting, August 12, 1996, Page 6 Have the impacts of no eastern undercrossing been considered? Not at this time. Is the development on the Old Mill Site worth closing the Bridge Street at grade crossing? Should the Eastern undemrossing become infeasible, it would limit the development of the Mill Site. Currently the DCAC is sticking with the maximum development of the Mill site as outlined in the draf~ Vision Plan. The committee doesn't want to limit development at this time. The fiscal analysis of the Specific Plan will relate to all proposed projections, but first we need a plan to analyze. When will the fiscal component of the Specific Plan occur? Once the roadway cimulation and land use is decided as well as parking and streetscape costs, staffwill be able to project the financing plan. These figures will be provided to the analyst in September. Should we get feedback fi.om the railroad regarding our projections on development before continuing this process? Union Pacific will not discuss plans before the railroad merger is eon_timed. There still will be funneling of traffic to the Bridge Street river crossing even with the construction of both a western and eastern undemrossing. This impact will be alleviated by the 267 bypass. How could a light be installed at Bridge Street and West River Street with the railroad component? This signal could be electronically coordinated with the railroad. What fraction of traffic will use the west undercrossing? 75%. More than two-thirds of the traffic travel through Downtown. How does the railroad feel about pedestrian at-grade crossings? Union Pacific expressed that they were open to the idea. Since Caltrans previously rejected the signal at the Glenshire/267 intersection, what has changed between the State and the Town? The Town will have control of this intersection. Traffic flow will be different with construction of the 267 Bypass. What does the "Master Plan Area" designation mean as indicated on the land use map in the Mill site and Hilltop areas? Specific development plans for these areas have not yet been determined. These master plan designated areas can be compared to PC1 and PC2 in the General Plan where a range of policies and land uses have been defined. The development specifics will be further developed in a Master Plan Phase. Shouldn't the Town restore the Railroad heritage on East River Street? Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Meeting, August 12, 1996, Page 7 How will multi-family development on East River Street be coordinated? All multi-family development will be subject to development applications and public heatings. The open space strip along the south side of the multi-family area is designed to protect the 100 year flood plain and provide public access to the river corridor. Is open space appropriate as a buffer north of East River Street south of the railroad tracks? Have garages been considered for the multifamily development since buildings can block noise? How will traffic be regulated at the western undemrossing/West River Street intersection. Is a signal necessary? There will be a channel[zed fight mm lane to avoid the need for a signal.. A 10 minute recess was taken and the workshop reconvened at 8:40. Eddins presented the DCAC recommendations for land use subareas: 1) 10 acres on West River Street 2) River Street Residential Area (Bright Development property) 3) South East River Street 4) East River Street 5) Mill Site 6) Area East of Mill Site (Hall's property) 7) Highway 267 Intersection with Interstate-80 8) Keiser Avenue/Jibboom Street (Caltrans property) 9) Commercial Core Area 10) North of Jibboom/High Street The following questions and comments were made: What density defines multi-family residential? Six to twelve units per acre. The Town is getting closer to an agreement with Bright Development on the number of single- family units. What is the impact of design guidelines on existing warehouses in the Downtown Study Area? The guidelines may provide economic incentives for property owners to update or change their current use. Can the Circulation Network handle traffic produced by the development of the Mill Site? Yes. How does the Town Council establish criteria for development in the Downtown Study Area? Identify the issues with the land use and circulation network right now and by November the Land Use Chapter in the Downtown Specific Plan will address the development cfiteria~ The bulk of development is on the west side, and if the Mill site doesn't go, has thought been given to what happens to the rest of the improvements? Improvements will occur in the Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Meeting, August 12, 1996, Page Downtown Commercial core regardless of the Mill Site development. Why is so much effort being spent on the Mill Site area when the Downtown is in need of improvements now? The Specific Plan concentrates more on specifics of improvements to the Downtown Commercial Core than to the Mill Site, which will be analyzed further through a Master Plan process. Is the parking Downtown going to be paid for by the businesses Downtown or by the public? What are the alternatives if the Mill Site development doesn't occur and will we still need parking downtown? The Town needs to identify what will make the Mill Site work and what will make the Downtown Area work and to track those results. The financing and streetscape chapters of the Downtown Specific Plan will focus on those issues. The Town must take into consideration that redevelopment generates revenue. Approximately 80% improved value within the Mill site will not carry the Downtown area. The Town must take this into consideration. There is a strong community desire for infill development and development downtown. It is the charge of the commtmity where the development is to take place. Would the Committee consider no unscreened outdoor storage versus no outdoor storage altogether? Can the last clause be changed to reflect the language "no unscreened outdoor storage"? The Committee felt strongly about no outdoor storage. This is a policy which will be reviewed more closely. The DCAC is concerned about allowing any outdoor storage in industrial areas in the Downtown Study Area. The Committee's concern is with the design and setting precedents on a parcel by parcel basis. Guidelines will be developed for the industrial areas in the Downtown Study Area. Regarding the Jensen property located on the north side of Glenshire Drive to the east of the Downtown Study Area, there is a residential structure approved for this property. The property is a unique property, bounded by public lands on all sides. The parcel is presently zoned RA allowing no real development potential. The Highway 267/I-80 interchange site is controversial. The question of whether the site should be public versus commercial depends on a timely fiscal analysis. This would be a good area for additional commercial if the Mill Site has limitations. The owner's feel that a financing program for acquisition must accompany the public land use designation in order to sustain the value of the property. The committee recommends designating the property public for additional land for the cemetery and a regional visitor's center. No new highway-oriented commercial use was identified in the General Plan for the north side of the intemhange but the south side was let~ to decide through the Downtown Plan process. Considering this is the first gateway into the state, there may be great opportunity for financial partners in developing a regional, state and local visitor center. Representative Larry Hoffinan had strenuous objections to the change of land from private to public. He stated the property is being downzoned and the Town is attaching a stigma to this parcel. As a result, monetary damages will occur and if money is available to acquire this property, the Town should make an offer to the property owner. Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Meeting, August 12, 1996, Page 9 Hoffman stated the two alternatives are: 1) 2) Acquisition with public dollars Opportunity for good public/private partnership opportunity for gateway project with some return on investment. DCAC Member Sharon Arnold stated that the Cemetery Board opposes any development at this site since graves would have to be exhumed. Also the cemetery cannot expand currently although they would like to expand. Hoffman stated that the applicant offered to dedicate 1.5 acres of land to the Cemetery District in the previously proposed project. Arnold indicated to her knowledge that offer was not made. DCAC Member Tracy Gmbbs stated this is the last undeveloped interchange in Truckee and it is important not to put commercial development against the freeway. DCAC Member Dennis Zirbel asked Hoffman if the 15,000 square foot commercial development previously proposed in the Vision Plan is also unacceptable to the current property owner? Hoffman confirmed. Lashbrook stated that the Town would need to obtain financing to acquire this property. This property is not an integral part of Downtown so why is the Town was pursuing this site? This is a significant gateway area to our community and should be viewed as an oppommity. Cross stated that the Town should prioritize dollars and determine what can and do they want to pay for. McCormack pointed out that 15,000 sf of commemial is what the original draft Vision Plan addresses. The development doesn't need to detract from the gateway. The real gateway to Truckee is the view of the Downtown area. Lashbrook pointed out that there is nothing at this westbound Interstate 80 intersection to make travelers stop in Truckee and the site provides an opportunity to do so. Carla Stokes stated that plenty of cars are in Town already and the Town should keep this comer non-commercial. Grubbs stated this intersection is the perfect place to get ski industry involved in a visitor center and to keep the land designated public. Williams mentioned that a regional visitor center takes time to develop and the Town should make a decision quickly or the property owners will suffer. A new issue was raised in a letter from Susan Diane regarding the Bluehouse area being appropriate for mixed use development which would be a viable option for those properties. Cross expressed concern about the parking problem and drainage issues in this area. The concern is whether Trout Creek can accommodate the water when Tahoe Donner builds out. The possibility of expanding underneath Highway 267 would also affect what is developable. The Historical Society has concern about the proposed parking structure in the commercial core area. Dot's and a two-story building would need to be removed. If these buildings are moved, the history of Jibboom Street would be destroyed. View blockage associated with a 3-story structure is also an issue which needs addressing. How will the parking structure be paid for? The proposed parking structure on Jibboom Street should not remove any historic buildings. There will be an update of the Historic Index before that is proposed. Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Meeting, August 12, 1996, Page 10 In the Downtown Commercial Core area, would the land be rezoned other than public if the churches decided to move? Public includes qna~i-public and institutional. Perhaps this is not the correct land use desi~m~ation. The committee will revisit this issue. 6. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM. ATTEST: Kelly-Holm, ~nini~trative Secretary Respectfully submitted, TOWN OF TRUCKEE PLANNING COMMISSION Approved the 7th day of November, 1996 (Town Council) Approved the 11th day of September, 1996 (Planning Commission)