HomeMy Public PortalAbout2001-11-29TRUCKEE TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
MclVER HILL SUMMARY PLAN
NOVEMBER 29, 2001, 6:00 PM.
TOWN HALL
10183 TRUCKEE AIRPORT ROAD
TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor McCormack called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
2o
PRESENT: Councilmembers Florian, Owens, Schneider and Susman
Planning Commissioners Jensen, Richards, Tryggvi, Zabell & Chair Threshie.
ALSO PRESENT: Stephen L. Wright, Town Manager; Tony Lashbrook, Community Development
Director; Duane Hall, Town Planner; Daniel P. Wilkins, Public Works Director/Town Engineer; and Jim
Smith, Staff Assistant.
PUBLIC COMMENT - None
STAFF REPORT
3.1 Public Review of Mclver Hill Summary Plan. Mayor McCormack presented a brief recap of the
meetings and site tour conducted to date. The main discussion items tonight were to accept public
input and approve comments to the applicant for consideration in the EIR documents.
Duane Hall, Town Planner, reviewed an outline for the evening's workshop which would
conclude the early public input phase. Being a Special Study Area, this project would receive
considerable review due to the size of the proposed mixed use project, one of the largest ever
considered within the Town. Proposed uses included hotel, retail, office, public space, public
meeting facilities and a college campus area. Mr. Hall stated the project exceeded the General Plan
guidelines of 50 residential units and 87,000 sqft of commercial/institutional space.
Tom Parillo, Project Representative, welcomed public comment and concerns on this project and
he looked forward to working with the Town. He reviewed the project plan and highlighted requests
for amendments to thc General Plan, such as level of service on Donner Pass Road and visibility
concerns. TND (traditional neighborhood design) would include tree-lined streets, varied housing
patterns, and shopping. The project was designed to implement the General Plan vision with
friendly neighborhood design and high quality, an infill development, western anchor for
downtown, walk-able to downtown with potential future trolley service.
He said concerns raised previously included: timing of other major master plan sites; General Plan
does not plan for ultimate development; project sets development standards and tools to meet Town
goals; General Plan read as a whole to create coherent neighborhoods. He said the project would
include a college campus, workforce housing, sites for civic uses, mixed uses, open space values
were integrated into the plan.
Town Council/Planning Commission Workshop Minutes
November 29, 2001
Page 1
Ruth Frishman, Sierra College Representative and Attorney for the Developer, said the
College had been searching for a permanent location for the last eight years, and that Town
representatives served on an ad hoc committee in assisting Sierra College for a permanent location.
She said that due to current space limitations, night classes are held around town in various
locations with no feel of a "college campus". She said the students graduating from high school
don't want to attend Sierra College because it is like an extension of high school. Ms. Frishman said
that she had been active in the past with the Contractors Association looking at the problems in
getting an educated workforce and more vocational training which the College would provide. She
said the College officials are dedicated to creating a permanent campus in the Truckee area.
Restrictions applied such as no schools within a two-mile radius from the airport, which eliminated
other desirable sites, building construction standards dictated by the Mills Act Standards (seismic
safety standards, etc.) and related costs.
She said College officials were currently negotiating an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) for
10,000 sqft with some options for extending that into a possible purchase. The College currently has
approximately 1-2,000 students in the Truckee area with about 40% being night attendees. She
further explained that the College had experience building satellite campuses such as Grass Valley
and the main campus in Rocklin.
She explained the College offered classes from 7:00 AM until 10:00 PM generating a regular cycle
of traffic in this pedestrian oriented neighborhood, and it also would tie into downtown. Ms.
Frishman said College officials would not commit to the project if access to the site was not
available from the east end, stating the College officials were emphatic about having eastern access
tying it to downtown. She said if access was limited to the west side, the college would not happen
on that location. She stated that visibility was also a big issue for the College as they felt the campus
needed to be visible in order to draw and attract students and to be a focus point of the community.
She explained that the site chosen on the project site had good visibility from the freeway and it
would also be within walking distance to downtown. She said all these points combined that this
was an ideal location for Sierra College who ',vas dedicated and committed to building a campus In
this community.
John Anderson added that there was State bond funding available for shared community/college
library facilities and that was also under consideration.
Mr. Parillo said other beneficial components included integration of housing levels (normal
housing for normal people). 40% of the project site was set aside as open space.
John Anderson, Project Representative, discussed visibility and previous public comments about
that issue. He said that computer visualizations were being prepared to help alleviate the
community's concerns on a variety of issues. Eastern and western access proposals were reviewed,
along with constraints on both ends of the project area. He summed up by saying the development
team was following the general theme of public input.
Mr. Parillo said the developers agreed to some categories of stafFs recommendations: General Plan
amendment: agreed; Intensity of Phasing, disagree partially on # l, ok on #2; Visibility: agreed with
#1; #2 parking and structures 100' from 1-80 right of way, they felt topography would rectify this
concern; #3 disagreed; Access: agreed. Affordable Housing: questioned affordable housing
recommendations; Community Benefit: agreeable.
Town Council/Planning Commission Workshop Minutes
November 29, 2001
Page 2
Mr. Hall reviewed staff recommendations in detail to better inform the audience following Mr.
Parillo' s presentation.
General Plan recommendation: applicant allowed to submit a specific plan application and General
Plan amendment--no position by To~vn Council or the Planning Commission; applicant proceeding
at its own risk.
Intensity/phasing recommendation: economic analysis needed prior to submittal of application;
alternatives to be analyzed
Visibility recommendation: EIR expanded to include visual impacts of Mclver Crossing bridge and
from Foxmead Lane; redesign project to be consistent with General Plan or request amendment.
Office building in northwest comer be removed.
Access recommendation: preliminary designs to be submitted for western access alternative
connecting Deerfield Drive with a proposed roundabout. Prior to specific plan submittal, applicant
would need a 30% preliminary design of eastern access with pedestrian element to be submitted to
and reviewed by the Town Engineer.
Affordable housing recommendation: economic analysis estimate number of employees and their
wage scales; minimum 15% housing units restricted to lower income households or seniors;
additional affordable units may be required to accommodate employees generated by the project.
Community Benefits recommendations: need detailed provisions; what was proposed, when built,
who will operate, and what happens if not built.
Discussion held that the economic analysis and EIR should be done simultaneously. Mr. Anderson
said that significant changes to the plan should be expected because they were seriously considering
public input to date on this project, primarily lodge location.
Discussion Items: General Plan Amendment; signage; architecture; staffrecommendations being
enforceable; northwest office comer; 100' setback; traffic.
PUBLIC COMMENT/CONCERNS:
Sharon Arnold: Asked whether the college would be a 2- or 4-year college; where the students
would reside; and, expressed her concerns about light pollution.
John Eaton: Suggested looking at alternative sites for the hotel and college.
Jody Sweet: Thought that remnants of a Chinese cemetery might be in the area near the 1-80 off'-
ramp. Also, if found, would it be preserved on site or remains removed and interred elsewhere? He
urged the Town to contact the Chinese Historical Society in San Francisco for further information.
Breeze Cross: Concerned about a 15% affordable housing recommendation, in that the General
Plan requested a 20% recommendation; confused about community benefits proposed by the
developer; workforce housing a major problem in the area and needed to be strengthened rather than
decreased.
Town Council/Planning Commission Workshop Minutes
November 29, 2001
Page 3
Allison Shelling: Suggested other options being available than trading intensity development--ask
the developer to build the connections to downtown.
COUNCIL/COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: Councilmember Owens wanted to reflect on density issues.
Mr. Lashbrook addressed the density issues but also reviewed Nevada County zoning,
environmental constraints, and noise related issues. He felt the density was to balance the
development in light of those constraints, but it would be a significant amendment to accommodate
the proposed development intensity. He further said that no letter of intent had been received by
Sierra College. Mayor McCormack had major concerns with proceeding with the General Plan
amendment. Councilmember Schneider felt the General Plan number was not set in concrete on this
Special Study Area. Chair Threshie was concerned about quality versus quantity issues. Mayor
McCormack felt staff's recommendations were correct.
INTENSITY AND PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Hall suggested the economic plan and
EIR should be done together. Councilmember Owens felt the risk was solely on the developer.
Mayor McCormack stated the recommendation did not really address phasing concerns. Mr. Hall
said the phasing plan needed to indicate when development would occur, where and how much.
Councilmember Susman addressed housing intensity and felt this would be an appropriate point in
time to designate other areas in Town. Commissioner Richards questioned whether the project
would be laid out in detail at the end of the EIR process and whether a development agreement
would be required. Mayor McCormack affirmed that a development agreement would be required
before any approval would be issued. Mr. Hall added that development potential on the project site
would be satisfied with a western only access, and that an emergency access from McIver Crossing
was constructed when the roundabout was built.
VISIBILITY: Mayor McCormack said that Foxmead Lane residents were very concerned about the
appearance of the railroad bridge when it was proposed. Councilmember Susman said he was
concerned about scenic corridors, visibility, and he cautioned the developer on visibility issues and
construction within the 100' setback, architectural design, and Sierra College "needing visibility".
Councilmember Owens added concerns about light pollution. Councilmember Flonan was
concerned about the eastern visibility being exempted from the Downtown Specific Plan.
Councilmember Schneider felt if this was a "connection to downtown", it would need to be visible.
Was the east end going to have a "gateway" entrance and, if so, Mayor McCormack felt the current
design did not tie in. The developers confirmed that signage would be a gateway design. Mr.
Lashbrook reminded the Council and Commission that this property ;vas permitted for highway
commercial use. Ch00air Threshie was concerned about massive tree loss on various visible
locations on the property to accommodate development. He felt there were also major concerns
about architectural visibility and how the buildings adapted to the topography.
ACCESS: Mayor McCormack said that access was mentioned a year and a half ago and he did not
see any improvement to date. CounciImember Susman was concerned about pedestrian access with
the "ovalabout" design. He was also concerned about traffic exiting on to 89 and not being able to
make a left turn. Commissioners Zabell and Richards felt there were no big issues preventing a tie-
in with Deerfield Drive and felt more problems would be created if the right-turn only exit was
approved. Mr. Lashbrook said the fourth leg from the Deerfield Drive intersection raised objections
from environmental concerns within the community about adding another bridge crossing, plus the
Toxvn Council/Planning Comrmssion Workshop Minutes
November 29, 2001
Page 4
need for stream rehabilitation on Donner Creek. Traffic analysis would be needed on the
"ovalabout" as well as a fourth leg to the roundabout, snow removal/storage, pedestrian access on
the eastern entrance were major concerns.
Councilmember Schneider said that if the downtown core ``vas to remain the prime historic core, she
felt the architectural tie-in and an attractive pedestrian access were critical. Mayor McCormack felt
it would be very difficult to get people to walk from downtown to this site as the same problem ,,vas
encountered with getting people to walk to the mill site and that was a lot closer. He felt the
walkability to downtown was seriously questionable without having some transportation system.
Chair Threshie questioned the viability of pedestrians crossing traffic on Donner Pass Road.
General feeling was to halt further review of this project until a 30% design was received and input
from Caltrans concerning the "ovalabout" concept was received. Town Engineer Wilkins said
Caltrans would not definitively comment on the project without an EIR, so it was the chicken and
the egg scenario.
Five minute recess taken from 8:55 to 9:00 pm.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Councilmember Schneider addressed the percentages involved for
affordable housing and she felt strongly that at least a 20% number should be addressed, along with
the number of employees. Deed restrictions and other mechanisms to lock in permanent affordable
housing could be required. She suggested a review of formulas for workforce housing (FTEs),
affordable housing, as well as ownership possibilities. If the college campus expanded in the future,
those housing needs should be included.
Mr. Anderson addressed the idea of dormitory housing and said that it was included in a portion of
the project, along with loft housing.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS: Councilmember Susman complimented the developer on bringing
forth new planning ideas that Truckee had not seen to date, i.e. community benefits. Conference
center, hotel, spa, meeting rooms who would build and maintain them? A large portion of the
community buy-in were those benefits and a strong discussion of funding mechanisms needed to
take place. Commissioner Richards was concerned about having a college campus in the plans, but
only a 10,000 sqfbuilding did not comprise a campus. Mayor McCormack shared those concerns,
but the massive size of this project was being sold to the community based on the community
benefits that the public specified. Those benefits might be available, but who foots the bill and he
was concerned about economic viability, as well as the success of a performing arts center. Many
implied promises were made by the developers. Another question raised was what if the campus
needed more than 10,000 sqft, would space be available. Chair Threshie said this project could help
or hinder the success and survival of the historic downtown, especially with the impacts from the
bypass.
ARCHITECTURE: Commissioner Richards addressed her concerns that the style did not belong
in Truckee, especially the college building. She encouraged use of the adopted design guidelines for
mountain environments. Chair Threshie concurred; but he felt this site was not a historic site and
should not imitate the existing historic downtown. He felt this site should meld designs from various
parts of town and create its own neighborhood. Council consensus was that with the existing design
guidelines and codes in place, this project would develop a complimentary architectural style for the
site.
Town Council/Plaiming Commission Workshop Minutes
November 29, 2001
Page 5
Mr. Anderson said that building architecture was considered along with the topography of the site,
and the existing codes but he recognized that different styles of architecture can be complimentary.
Homogenization of architecture along with creativity can be accommodated, said Chair Threshie.
Commissioner Richards felt the current design of the project was too urban, and not a mountain
style design.
SETBACK: Mayor McCormack stated that this property was very noisy due to the freeway on one
side and the railroad on the other. Mr. Hall said the 100' setback would be addressed thoroughly in
the EIR. Councilmember Susman was concerned about visibility from 1-80.
Mr. Parillo thanked the Town for hosting this workshop. He felt that an eastern access to the do~vntown ~vas
still a concern.
ADJOURN. Mayor McCormack adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled
meeting of the Truckee To~vn Council, December 6, 2001, 6:00 p.m., Town Hall, 10183 Truckee
Airport Road, Truckee, CA.
Respectfully submitted,
PATT OSBORNE, Town Clerk
APPROVED BY:
DON McCORMACK, MAYOR
Town Council/Planning ComiWnssion Workshop Minutes
November 29, 200l
Page 6
FLIPCHART NOTES
MclVER HILL SUMMARY PLAN MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2001, 6:00 PM
ISSUES:
Signage
Traffic Info - applicants are looking for preliminary results; Study expected to be
completed soon.
College square footage 10,000 sqft. initially with expansion.
Meeting hall would provide initial performing arts facility.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Sharon Arnold: Junior college could attract out of area students and where would they
be housed? Also concerned about night sky and light pollution.
John Eaton: Is raw survey data available, and what alternatives?
Jody Sweet: Could be Chinese cemetery in the vicinity of roundabout/freeway ramp.
Research should be conducted, contact Chinese Historical Society in San
Francisco.
Breeze Cross: 15% or 20% affordable housing?
Community benefit facilities--how accomplished and when.
Housing affordability is critical, should look at 20%.
Allison Shelling: Instead of TDR, look at off-site pedestrian connection to downtown.
DISCUSSION POINTS/CONCERNS:
General Plan Amendment--special study area, unique.
Qualitative issues more locked in than quantitative issues.
Economic Analysis can proceed so long as meshed with EIR.
Town Council/Planning Comrmssion Workshop Minutes
November 29, 2001
Page 7
Phasing Plan need additional details. Will there be detail for later phases? Could be
locked in with Development Agreement. What about western access only?
Housin~may be good site to consider additional housing density but should consider
TDR for added commercial.
Visibilit~West River Street view should be considered.
General Plan dialogue on scenic corridors and visibility was a big deal. Caution to
applicant.
Sierra College Visibility--why and from where?
Visual Signs & analysis in EIR important.
Light Pollution.
View from Downtown--what is criteria, linkage to downtown important.
West Side Building--proceed at risk.
Forest character on hillside important. Current design may not pay enough
attention to this.
Building siting and design a critical factor in evaluating visibility.
Didn't survey show that visibility from downtown was less important than from
80 & 89?
Access--Surprised more information isn't available.
Will "ovalabout" provide pedestrian access to downtown.
Will ~/4 west intersection create traffic problems due to traffic wanting to go south.
Eastern access design should consider snow storage and pedestrian access--
critical to success of eastern portion of project.
Pedestrian draw in both directions by use/design, etc. may be important to have
visual link.
Will people really walk from site to Commercial Row--may need transit
connection.
Town Council/Planning Commission Workshop Minutes
November 29, 2001
Page 8
Pedestrian crossing of Donner Pass Road could be an issue and should be
considered.
Council doesn't want to review traffic prior to EIR, but wants staffto carefully
consider.
Let's only look at one project proposal and be flexible.
Affordable Housing At least 20% should be pursued.
Need clear employee count out of economic analysis, including PT/FT employees.
Where in the phasing will affordable housing occur.
Price control on affordable units.
Should provide housing for workforce.
Create homes for purchase.
Should contribute to housing solutions beyond just serving on-site demand.
Amount of subsidy to meet affordability standards should be considered.
Student housing.
Community Benefits Compare proposal to what was presented at design charette.
How, who, when, will "carrots" be constructed.
Community buy-in based upon these things.
Should prescribe other allowable uses in "special" use buildings.
Is Sierra College and campus language confusing to public?
TND (traditional neighborhood design), infill, small residential units are potential
benefits.
Meeting hall, library, college, performing arts theater could all be provided
elsewhere.
What happens if meeting hall is not commercially viable, concern about implied
promises.
Project must be carefully considered relative to supporting historic core.
Town Council/Planning Cornrmssion Workshop Minutes
November 29,2001
Page 9
Architecture Concern that some of the buildings don't support our mountain
environment.
Opportunity to look at its own character while complimenting downtown, kind of
a mix of downtown and other architecture.
Balance of process should address design issues.
Standards should allow some design flexibility, don't over-strangulate.
Design appears to be too urban.
100' Setback--visibility from 1-80 and quality of design/precedent.
Town Council/Planning ConUmssion Workshop Minutes
November 29, 2001
Page 10