HomeMy Public PortalAbout1996-08-12 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)