Loading...
1996-02-15 3:00 PM TOWN OF TRUCKEE SPECIAL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING February 15, 1996, 3:00 PM TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT BOARD ROOM 11570 DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE, CA MINUTES CALL TO ORDER. Mayor McCormack called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. ROLL CALL. Council Members Carpenter, Cross, Drake, Eagan, and Mayor Cross. Also present were Town Attorney Crabb, Community Development Director Lashbrook, Town Planner Eddins, Associate Planner Hall, and Administrative Secretary Holm. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Led by Mr. Hank Schwarz. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. PUBLIC HEARING. 5.1 The purpose of this public hearing was to accept public input on the Planning Commission recommendations to the Final General Plan. Community Development Director Tony Lashbrook briefly reviewed the Planning Commission deliberation outline addressing PC-2, PC-3, the Alderson/Hollinger/Northrup/et. al. properties, Open Space Issues, Southern Pacific Right of Way, School District, Housing Element, Land Use Compatibility, Deerfield Bypass, General Comments and the Mclver Dairy. Town Planner Elizabeth Eddins presented Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution 96- 01 recommending modifications to the Draft Final General Plan. Lashbrook discussed the Planning Commission's focus on Land Use Policy 5.4 relative to the timing of development. He explained the Specific Plan process required the same level of hearings as the General Plan and was subject to referendum. He stated the Planning Commission decided the time to get specific about design issues was in the Specific Plan process. The Planning Commission reworded Land Use Policy 5.4 to express the significance of downtown to the community and the desire to maintain downtown as the heart of the community, and to state that projects Downtown have some priority over projects in other areas. He pointed out that developers fund and the Town oversees that the Planning Commission recommended preparation of an economic analysis for PC-1, PCo2 and PC-3 identifies the effect of planned community developments on other business districts. MINUTES - Special Town Council Meeting February 15, 1996 Page 2 Council Member Cross stated he supported focusing on developing Downtown, however, he expressed he wouldn't want to lock the entire community's resources by only focusing on Downtown development when significant issues throughout the Town need prioritizing. Lashbrook stated the General Plan provides direction for the preparation of all specific plans and phasing in the Downtown plan could occur depending on traffic, transportation, bypass, railroads, and site contamination. Eddins pointed out those phasing issues in the Downtown Specific Plan would only affect development in the Downtown Study Area and the Downtown Specific Plan wouldn't set phasing policies for PC-l, PC-2 or PC-3. Lashbrook acknowledged the written input received from MAPF, Gary Elster, Derrick Adamache, the State Department of Housing and Community Development, and Teichert Land Company. Mayor McCormack explained the rules for public input and stated the input should be directed to comments only on the changes recommended by the Planning Commission. He opened the public hearing at 3:33 PM. Craig Sandberg, representing Teichert Land Comnanv for Planned Community 1 (PC-D discussed Land Use Policy 5.4. He expressed Teichert's concern regarding the delay of development in all Planned Community areas pending the development of the Downtown Specific Plan. He stated they understand the desire of the Town to create a downtown according to the vision statement and they believe the General Plan provides significant economic incentive to foster that goal. However, Teichert disagrees with imposing a restrictive measure that would chill the Town's economic growth and fiscal health. Sandberg presented alternate language for Land Use Policy 5.4 which Teichert believes accomplishes the Town's goal of ensuring the commemial uses approved outside the Downtown Study area do not preclude development. He stated they are searching for a way to clarify competing commercial uses and determine definitive allowable uses in PC-1. Teichert believes an economic analysis is subject to several interpretations whereas allowed uses disturbing Downtown development would be discovered through a market analysis. Stephanie Orozco expressed concern with Land Use Policy 5.4. She stated how the General Plan shapes the future of Truckee is very important. She believes PC-2 is the one major flaw in the General Plan. Poor management of the community has scarred Truckee's landscape and development is a matter of supply and demand. She stated phasing of two years is not enough time to let the Downtown get started up. She pointed out it will be hard to attract investors to redevelop the Downtown area and she suggested forcing development into PC-1 and the Downtown areas first before allowing development in PC-2 and PC-3. She added we need to be more visionary by repairing the damage done and focus directly on the Downtown Study Plan. Allowing development on the fringe areas will engulf MINUTES - Special Town Council Meeting February 15, 1996 Page 3 development dollars and stated that PC-2 and PC-3 should be held off even beyond this 20 year General Plan until Downtown and PC-1 are finished. Meg Co~eland of Mountain Area Preservation Foundation (MAPF) stated that she wanted to make sure the Town Council had the opportunity to read the letter MAPF submitted. Jim Porter. representing various ~ropertv owners discussed the Alderson property, Boca and Southern Pacific properties, and Land Use Policy 5.4. He stated that Land Use Policy 2.4 is acceptable to Steve and Peggy Downing (Boca Brewery). He urged Council to adopt the OSR designation for the Alderson property. He added that OSR provides for 90% open space and infrastructure can be provided at no cost to the Town. He pointed out Land Use Policy 5.4 was one of the pro-downtown policies adopted during the General Plan process and the Hopkins Family oppose any more changes to this policy by making properties more difficult to development. Porter believed it wasn't appropriate to halt all development outside of Downtown with the hope Downtown expands or to artificially inflate the areas proposed for expansion Downtown. He pointed out that this would prevent monies from being generated from other development areas for the enhancement of downtown and would preclude hotels and other needed development. Porter stated that the PC-2 representatives met with Prosser Dam Road residents and MAPF on several occasions proposing scaled down projects and other concessions with no response from MAPF. He stated the issues raised by MAPF are Specific Plan issues to be addressed in the Specific Plan process. Porter stated that contrary to recent comments to the press, the General Plan is governed by an approximate 3% annual growth rate and, historically, Truckee's growth rate has ranged between 6% and 10%. He pointed out when the General Plan process was started, the adoption of the General Plan guideline that accelerated growth in Truckee or stopped growth was not chosen. Instead the decision was to regulate and plan for growth. He pointed out the General Plan has hundreds of mechanisms to ensure Truckee remains a great place to live and the General Plan provides for substantially less development in Truckee than the current zoning allows. Porter finally commented that this General Plan is supported by dozens of independent studies, all of the associated planners and all of the public bodies that have worked on it as well as many speakers. He expressed that the issues raised at this hour are political issues and are favoring certain neighbors and interests, not necessarily in the benefit of the Town. Contrary to one recent letter, he mentioned PC-2 has been downsized by approximately 50%. He stated this is a good General Plan and urged Council to adopt it. Council Member Eagan asked MAPF to clarify their definition of commercial uses. Josh MINUTES - Special Town Council Meeting February 15, 1996 Page 4 Susman, MAPF President, stated their defmition of commercial uses was mainly retail. He stated that other non-residential uses and hotels with no retail uses would be acceptable. Mayor McCormack closed the public hearing at 3:58 PM. The Town Council deliberated on the Planning Commission recommendations. The items discussed were: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Land Use Policy 2.4 Deerfield Bypass Housing Element Reducing Developed Parkland Downtown Study Area Policies 11 and 13 Land Use Policy 4.3 Tahoe Donner Policy 3 Conservation and Open Space Policies 4.7, 8.1 and 9.6 Safety Policy 2.6 Land Use designation for Alderson/Hollinger/Northrup properties Land Use Policy 5.4 Lashbrook discussed Land Use Policy 2.4 and explained staff recommended that Southem Pacific land adjacent to commercial land should be treated like other commercial land. He pointed out that some areas of the Southern Pacific Right of Way are surrounded by open space and commercial or industrial uses may not be appropriate uses in an open space area. Lashbrook stated language was added to define Deerfield Bypass as a future parallel route to Donner Pass Road instead of as a Bypass. Also language was added emphasizing the need to identify the route to avoid a future extension of Deerfield Drive through the residential area to the west and connect with the Coldstream area. Council decided to identify the Deerfield Bypass as the Deerfield Connector. Town Attorney Crabb mentioned that Council Member Cross could not participate in the Housing Element changes. Mayor McCormack pointed out the State Department of Housing suggestions have already been discussed and incorporated in the General Plan. Lashbrook stated that no public input was received on the changes to the Housing Element and that the Planning Commission recommendation was to make the changes to gain certification of the housing element. Lashbrook pointed out that developed park land per 1,000 people was reduced from 9 acres to 5 acres because of State concern regarding housing affordability issues associated with financing 9 acres per 1,000 people using impact fees. MINUTES - Special Town Council Meeting February 15, 1996 Page 5 Lashbrook pointed out the Planning Commission clarified Downtown Study Area Policy 11 by indicating development Downtown having the upper hand on development elsewhere. He mentioned Downtown Study Area Policy 13 was added to address environmental site contamination. Cross identified this revision as an example of the public process working to make the General Plan a better plan. This change was a result of Bob Johnston clearly identifying the importance of environmental characterization of sites. Eagan stated her interest was focusing on Downtown development. She stated she was a strong proponent of priority permit processing as an incentive and if the project developed according to this plan which is the desire of the community, the developers get priority permit processing at no cost to the community. She was less inclined to support tax incentives and fee reductions and expressed concern that an unequal playing field was being created. She pointed out as the Downtown Specific Plan comes closer to a clear plan and the implementation constraints and opportunities are identified, we will see the development possibilities. Lashbrook stated that the last sentence in Land Use Policy 4.3 was modified by removing the work limited. No comments were made by Council. Lashbrook stated Tahoe Donner Policy 3 was added in response to neighborhood commercial use concerns. He stated that uses should be targeted in Tahoe Donner on the existing commercially zoned land to reduce the need for trips down to Town. Council Member Carpenter asked how an applicant would demonstrate the ability to provide goods and services, particularly if they are developing a project who's use may change over time. Lashbrook replied that the concept is what is the original proposal, the mix of uses and how would that relate to the Tahoe Donner Community. Carpenter asked if this would be defined in the Development Code and Lashbrook confirmed. McCormack asked if applications for new development would address commercial development. Lashbrook confirmed. Eagan asked if the word would instead ofcouMis more appropriate. Lashbrook stated that would infer that there would be a mandatory traffic study and we may not want to require this. Cross suggested adjusting the floor area ratio as an incentive. Lashbrook stated the floor area ratio is not a maximum development threshold and that the Zoning Ordinance will create maximum development allotments implementing the floor area ratio. He mentioned adding language to require more intensive commercial development uses that meet that criteria, but the floor area ratio doesn't need to be adjusted. Cross questioned if the Development Code and Zoning Ordinance deal with this issue, should Council be providing direction at this stage. McCormack asked if zoning restrictions in Tahoe Donner get reconsidered in the course of normal events. Lashbrook replied that it would be very difficult because all other properties in Tahoe Dormer are regulated for residential development through their private CC&R's. He mentioned that the Town could MINUTES - Special Town Council Meeting February 15~ 1996 Page 6 ignore those, but in all practicality, we may not be creating any additional commercial land. Lashbrook stated that the word encourage provides direction and we should be looking for mechanisms to do that. Lashbrook stated language in Conservation and Open Space Policy 4.7 was modified to clearly find a revenue source in creating this open space over the long term. The language added to Conservation and Open Space Policy 8.1 identifies the need to coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions on our trails plan. He pointed out that in order to create a successful trails plan, the Town needs to work with both Nevada and Placer Counties. The language added to Conservation and Open Space Policy 9.6 was a result of the Land Trust's comment that pan of their mission is to increase oppommities for public recreation and provide public access to historical sites and they should be included. Lashbrook stated the Planning Commission discussion was to understand the meaning and intent of Safety Policy 2.6 on discretionary development. Mitigation measures or conditions imposed would not allow an increased rate of runoff at any time. He stated the Planning Commission decided the implementation of this policy would be significant in affecting the cost of development and, therefore, the standards need to be reviewed before they are applied. McCormack commented that rather than no net increase in offsite runoff, the words "rate of offsite runoff' should be added to clarify Safety Policy 2.6. Lashbrook discussed the land use designation for the Alderson/Hollinger/Northrup properties. He stated the Planning Commission decided the OSR designation provided adequate safeguards to deal with the visual issues and didn't create a precedence elsewhere. This property was different enough from other RC/OS properties based upon the Truck Inspection Station in the middle of the frontage and existing RA-5 zoning versus open space properties across the freeway. Council Member Drake made the motion to approve the Planning Commission recommended modification Item 1 in Exhibit A to Planning Commission Resolution 96-01 changing the land use designation of the properties shown in Exhibit B of RC/OS to OSR. Council Member Eagan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor McCormack commented that this decision is based on further review and consideration and the OSR appears to the be proper land use and meets the requirements of the General Plan. At the same time it meets the needs of the owners and the changes in the land use designation over the planning process speaks to the special complications of this group of parcels. He noted that future subdivision and development of these properties will continue to be significantly constrained with the viewshed, 90% open space, biological and deer migration requirements, and infrastructure requirements for the ultimate subdivision approval. Lashbrook mentioned that the OSR definition was modified to maintain internal MINUTES - Special Town Council Meeting February 15, 1996 Page 7 consistency in the General Plan. Lashbrook discussed the effects of regulating development in certain areas of Town directing it to happen in others. He stated that land in Placer County is available with infrastructure somewhat closer than PC-2 and could support development not allowed in the Town of Truckee. He explained the Highway 267 phasing policy basically puts a moratorium on development south of the Truckee River on the 267 Corridor except in Glenshire, until the bypass or other significant transportation improvements are in place. He pointed out that Placer County is currently processing two development projects in that corridor; one a 5,000 square foot office and the other a 43,000 square foot office complex. He stated the concern is if we constrain commercial development within the Town, commercial development will respond to the market demand. If Downtown Truckee is not an acceptable place, the next likely spot is Placer County since they are not constrained by the traffic problem. Placer County would probably enjoy the increase in sales tax associated with retail development. In fact, the traffic study for the larger office project in Placer County showed 90% of the trips coming from and going to Truckee from that office project. Lashbrook offered this issue as part of Council's discussion on Land Use Policy 5.4. Carpenter asked for clarification on the economic analysis requirements. Eddins pointed out that each specific plan would have their own economic analysis. Carpenter suggested adding language to require an economic analysis prior to approval of each specific plan. McCormack asked if Teichert's suggested language of economic market analysis added anything. Eagan suggested that staff review the language. Cross asked if staff reviewed Teichert's wording of Land Use Policy 5.4 and Lashbrook replied he reviewed and understood the first wording change, but not the second paragraph. Council directed staff to review Teichert's suggestions for consideration. 10 minute recess taken. Council reconvened at 4:50 PM. Teichert's proposed language for Land Use Policy 5.4 was extensively discussed. McCormack asked if Council was satisfied with all aspects of the Planning Commission recommendation for this policy. Cross stated that he had questions regarding the prioritization of expenditures and the capital improvement funds. Carpenter stated whenever a road improvement project is considered, the needs of improvements Downtown would also be considered, and not that Downtown is ahead of everything else. Eagan stated Downtown parking is an issue as discussed in the Downtown Specific Plan and her concern was this language implied that the general taxpayer is going to pay for all of that as opposed to some type of involvement by the downtown community. She stated the community's concern that all development downtown needs to get its own parking and pay this parking in terms of land and snow removal, yet the impression created in this policy is not the case for downtown. She stated we need to think creatively about how to maintain and MINUTES - Special Town Council Meeting February 15, 1996 Page 8 enhance the Downtown heart of Truckee, but not to the absolute exclusion of everyone else in Town. Eagan asked what kind of language could be used in this policy that doesn't create that false impression. Lashbrook stated the two issues raised are: the meaning of prioritize and spending all general fund dollars for capital improvements downtown. He explained that the Downtown Specific Plan will identify projects downtown appropriate for general fund or financed town-wide, others would be financed by a subset of property owners downtown or through redevelopment. What Land Use Policy 5.4 intended is projects identified as being appropriate for general fund dollars ought to have some priority on that expenditure downtown to make that Downtown Plan go. The word prioritize was used because there are so many unknowns and we don't know how much money it will take and what some of the Town's other needs are. Council agreed with the wording change to read: The expenditure of capital improvement funds on projects that will enhance appropriate uses downtown and facilitate new development implementing the Downtown Specific Plan will receive some priority. Also, allocation of staff resources to implement the Downtown Specific Plan will receive some priority. McCormack asked for clarification on the wording in the 5th paragraph which states until the above strategies are in place. Lashbrook stated the direction he received from the Plarming Commission was to put the Downtown on an equal footing with the mst of the community to compete for developers. He did not receive direction on stopping all competing development until the downtown develops in accordance with our plan. This issue was deferred until there is more information available through the economic analysis. Carpenter stated that the policy language reminded him of the industrial component in PC-l, something where there is likely not going to be much of an industrial component in Downtown and this is a site we purposefully chose to place some of our industrial view or impacts on town roads and such. His interpretation of the suggested language is that would allow development for that type of use to proceed and not wait two years. Lashbrook confirmed. He stated the direction received for the vision Downtown was the community was not interested in large scale grocery stores Downtown, therefore, that use would occur elsewhere and not compete with Downtown. McCormack inquired if Lashbrook anticipated the Downtown Specific Plan will identify specific activities that should be downtown and would clarify the scope of studies. Lashbrook stated that the downtown plan would clarify what types of land uses we are trying to accommodate and how other areas would become a basis for the consideration for the economic studies. MINUTES - Special Town Council Meeting February 15, 1996 Page 9 Eagan stated the other issue is phasing and not competing with downtown and there is no basis for picking 8 years, 10 years, 20 years versus a 2 year construction delay because the information is not available. Her concern was that we run risks of producing a worse result for the Town by having commercial development somewhere else not subject to the policies we have in the planned communities, especially in PC-2. With the Specific Plan comes the option of phasing once more information is out, when we have the understanding of what is feasible downtown and what the planned community projects are. She added that we have all the safeguards in the PC-2 process with the ability to phase once we understand what the Downtown Plan is and what any of the planned community projects are; to do it now is premature. She stated all the mechanisms are in the General Plan for planned, logical, non- competing uses with downtown, and maybe the answer is to put more language in to help people realize that will occur. McCormack suggested language to the effect the Downtown Specific Plan will identify those specific commemial activities which as a priority should be located downtown and the time frame for this prioritization. Lashbrook stated that we cannot use the downtown plan to effect the timing of development elsewhere. We have to use the General Plan to do that and the future considerations of the other planned communities. He stated that we could add at the time of consideration of the specific plans for the planned communities development phasing shall he implemented to avoid competition with planned land uses downtown. Drake stated that policy statement would be too specific on downtown because downtown doesn't know what development will happen downtown due to the contamination and investment issues. He stated he didn't have a problem with the intent of the time a specific plan comes in it is compared against what's happening downtown. McCormack pointed out that you still have the comment on time limitation of 2 years or until downtown is not feasible which takes care of proposed development never happening. Carpenter pointed out that language is more limiting than what is already in the recommended language. Lashbrook suggested that we keep the language but add language to define the purpose of this economic analysis relative to the downtown. His recommendation was to defer that discussion until later. Town Attorney Dennis Crabb added that driving things from the standpoint of competition, the implication is that the Town will be determining the market place and allocating economic resources shouldn't be the intent of this policy and he suggested that staff work through the wording of the language. Drake pointed out that this proposed Land Use Policy 5.4 language is saying this Town is interested in Downtown and the way it is written is pretty clear and shows intent of the Council to say downtown is critical. Drake stated he was satisfied with the language the way it is. McCormack stated that it would all rely on the terms until above strategies are in place which encompasses the downtown study and what the study would say in the economic analysis. Lashbrook stated that we still have the MINUTES - Special Town Council Meeting February 15, 1996 Page 10 economic analysis to measure against the primary goal. Eddins stated that this Land Use Policy is simply saying that those phasing decisions will be made when better information is available. Eagan stated we are better offhaving better information. Once the project is designed and all of the policies have been included in that project, the discussion in the community may be entirely different. At least we will have the two being compared against each other which we currently don't have. McCormack continued the discussion on Land Use Policy 5.4 to the Town Council Regular Meeting beginning at 6:00 PM. 6. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stephen L. W~'~ght, Town M~ger TOWN OF TRUCKEE ATTEST: K~Administrativ~ Secretary Approved the 2nd day of May, 1996; Town of Truckee. c:\wpdocs\towncncl\021596tc.min