Loading...
1996-06-17 6:30 PM Town of Truckee SPECIAL JOINT MEETING TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1996 6:30 P.M. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board Room 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, California MINUTES CALL TO ORDER. The meeting was called to order at 6:32 pm. ROLL CALL. Council Members Carpenter, Cross, Drake, Eagan and Mayor McCormack were all present; Planning Commissioners Tryggvi, Estabrook, Palmer, and Chair Schwarz were also present. Planning Commissioner Williams was excused. Town Manager Wright, Town Engineer Lander, Community Development Director Lashbrook, Town Planner Eddins, Assistant Planner Ball, and Administrative Secretary Holm were present. Consultants: Paul Crawford, R/chard Pflugrath and Brace Jacobsen were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Led by Margaret Urke. PUBLIC COM/VIENTS. None. WORKSHOP. 5.1 Development Code Kickoff Workshop Community Development Director Lashbrook stated that the purpose oft/tis meeting was to define what the Development Code is and to describe the process of creating and adopting this document. He explained that the Development Code is a comprehensive set of rules regulating development and that this process will be a comprehensive revision of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance as well as the design review guidelines. Lashbrook stated that the Development Code must be revised since the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is inconsistent with the recently adopted General Plan. The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance currently deals with the entire County of Nevada and is not specific to Truckee. This document is hard to use and interpret and the Town desires a Development Code that is easy to read and understand. He explained that the General Plan is the guide for preparing the Development Code and the General Plan Policy Implemen,tation Matrix drives the direction of the Development Code. Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Minutes, June 17, 1996, Page 2 Overview of the Development Code Process and Schedule Lashbrook introduced the consultants fi.om Crawford, Multari & Starr. Crawford explained the three components of the Development Code: 1) 2) 3) Zoning Districts and Allowable Land Uses Development Standards and Guidelines Procedures for Permits and Subdivisions He reviewed the work program, described the steps, and discussed the time line for each component. Presentation and Discussion of Issues to be Addressed in the Development Code Lashbrook presented and discussed single-family residential, multi-family residential, and commercially zoned development standards. He reviewed the existing development standards regarding density, building areas, building heights, setbacks, street frontage, parking and uses. Pflugrath pointed out that Donner Lake contains many large homes on small lots, which presents a similar problem to view blockage. Other issues in this particular area needing consideration are setbacks, snow storage, community character, and tree preserv,. Q: Tryggvi asked how many districts will apply to the SFR land use designations in Truckee? A: Lashbrook replied that the districts haven't been counted. He added that land use establishes average densities and the zoning will be more specific. Eagan asked if the following issues will be addressed in the Development Code: 1) Costs associated with avalanche and excessive snow zones precluding future development in those areas 2) Aircraft overflight 3) Pedestrian and Bikepaths triggering improvements 4) Clustering 5) Gated communities 6) Screening, landscaping, maintenance, and enfomement of multifamily standards 7) Subdivision tracking system and development incentives Lashbrook stated that most of the avalanche and excessive snow zones are in the Tahoe Donner and Donner Lake areas. Safety and noise studies are part of the Airport Land Use Plan and should already be implemented through creating these safety and height limit Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Minutes, lune 17, 1996, Page 3 zones. He added that noise standards will be in the Development Code. Crawford stated the Development Code is a good place to def'me and discuss clustering, screening and gated communities. However, private versus public roads is not solved as part of the Development Code. Pflugmth confmued that incentives for development will be incorporated in this document as well. Q: Eagan also asked about performance bonds and how does the Town get what was permitted when construction is stopped and started? A: Crawford stated that flexibility and evaluation of each project case by case to keep resources available is necessary. Language could be incorporated in the Development Code describing the Town's authority regarding performance bonds. Q: Tryggvi asked if Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) would be addressed in the Development Code? A: Lashbrook replied that TDRs would not be addressed in the Development Code but would be developed as a separate project. Q: Tryggvi asked if maintenance of property would be addressed here? A: Lashbrook replied clear standards and legal authority would be incorporated, but code enforcement and staffing are current budget issues. Tryggvi stated the Town should have an amortization schedule established for signs. Lashbrook pointed out that State law assigns a 15-year life for signs and, unless the Town does a study, compliance cannot be forced. Pflugrath stated this type of study is costly and in redevelopment areas the 15-year life of signs can be less. Carpenter stated easement right of way abandonment approval level should be min/sterial for better streamlining of procedures and stafffime. He added that river protection and access are high priorities in the General Plan and need to be addressed in the Development Code. Q: Drake asked where each Homeowner Association's CC& R's fit in? A: Lashbrook replied the CC&R's are implemented by the individual homeowners associations and are not enforced by the Town. Lashbrook discussed the administration process for zoning and subdivision approvals. Presentation and Discussion of Format and Style Options for the Development Code Crawford discussed the format and style options for the Development Code. He stated the writing would be clear with visual components such as illustrations and charts. The subjects would be grouped topically in chapter format, in a loose leaf binder with tabs for easy reference. The design guidelines may be integrated into the Development Code, but that hasn't been decided. Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Minutes, June 17, 1996, Page 4 Summary of Information Gathered during the Afternoon Workshop Lashbrook discussed the suggestions from the previous workshop for incorporation in the Development Code: I) Very specific codes including pictures and streetscapes 2) Link Downtown design with design for entire community 3) Pedestrian-oriented 4) Stronger code enforcement community-wide 5) Bridge heights should be addressed and limited 6) Building height measurements 7) Definition of regional serving, local serving and freeway-oriented commercia! uses and how development code will address these issues 8) Visibility; ridge line development and view blockage 9) Re-draft standards to promote stepping of buildings on sloped parcels I0) Temporary sign standards 11) More flexible monument sign criteria, but enforce consistent design theme and maintenance 12) Snow storage requirements 13) Commercial Parking 14) Affordable housing mandate 15) Covered parking for residential General Questions and Comments Q: Schwarz asked if the Development Code is limited to the development of private property or are public properties subject to these same zoning standards? A: Lashbrook replied that Federal and State properties are not subject to these zoning standards, but local agencies are. The public right of way is regulated by another set of codes. Q: McCormack asked if Land Use Policy 2.2 of the General Plan Implementation Matrix is a generalized approach and will there be oppommities for public involvement? A: Lashbrook stated that public participation is the most important way to get public input. He explained that community workshops will be held before the zoning map stage. After tonight, there will be another policy workshop, a public review draft, and a public review final. Eagan suggested contacting people with interest from a neighborhood outreach survey. Q: Eagan asked what the public involvement was at today's workshop. A: Lashbrook replied that 100 invitations were mailed targeted to people directly involved in development, and only 3 members of the public were in attendance. Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Minutes, June 17, 1996, Page 5 Eagan suggested personal follow ups. Q: Tryggvi asked if the land use designations in the General Plan would become the zoning districts providing a one map system? A: Lashbrook stated that the Zoning Map will look different fi.om the General Plan Land Use Map. Q', TrTggvi asked if street standards will be set in the Development Code? Lashbrook stated that the Town needs to complete the street standards along with the Development Code, but it will not address the mechanics of the street standards in the Development Code. Q: Schwarz inquired about the ministerial review replacement process. A: Lashbrook stated that State taw requires project reviews of General Plan and Zoning Amendments by the Town Council. Q: Cross asked if Town staff will interpret the design standards and, if so, couldn't the Planning Commission fulfill this review level instead of I-[PAC? A: Lashbrook replied that the goal is higher level standards at lower levels of review for approval. Q: Cross suggested restricting the size of second units and making housing more affordable. A: Lashbrook replied that criteria for non-conforming uses for the existing use can be built and McCormack added that may create non-conforming uses. Q: Casler asked about Land Use Policy 3.5 prohibiting discretionary development on Highway 267 and lifting the moratorium? A: Lashbrook stated what constitutes an actual commitment to the construction of the bypass and how development on Highway 267 may be allowed has not been discussed yet. Q: Margaret Urke of CABPRO, asked about fire marshal codes and how the Development Code would deal · th this impact on development? A: Lashbrook stated the Fire District is a separate district and they have the anthority regarding sprinklers, driveways, water availability and flow. Q~ Wright asked how the development code relates to the specific plans? Lashbrook identified two options. Specific Plans use the zones in the Development Code and these zoning districts are applied within each Specific Plan or the Specific Plans set up their own specific standards. Q: Don Casler asked about CC&R mechanisms. A: Lashbrook stated we don't have the roll in enforcement of private CC&R's and he Special Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Minutes, June 17, 1996, Page 6 suggested that private wad maintenance and snow removal requirements be addressed in each Homeowner Association's CC&R's. Tryggvi inquired about clustering density credit for undevelopable properties in the first place and she suggested requiring multifamily developments to plan for tot lots or open space areas. Casler suggested discouraging estate type development (Land Use Policy 2.2) and discussed Land Use Policy 3.4 regarding sewer for 5 or more parcels. Visual impacts, snow removal and infrastructure are costly for this type of development. Lashbrook stated there should be some form c '~ :lustering in tl~ ~ aew development areas. Lashbrook pointed out that large scale development in unse~a area will not be allowed. 6. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 pm. Respectfully submitted, S~'p'I~ WtZigh~, Town Cler"k~ ~ ,,M~ra~ S~t[w~4~lal~ng Commiss~2hair Attest: Kelly Holm,~ch~, '~tmfive Secretary Approved the ]~q~day of .~. 1996 (Town Council) Approved the [/4~ dayof~1996(PlarmingComm/ssion) c:\wpdocs~zoning\06176jt, agn