HomeMy Public PortalAboutAppeal of the Zoning Administrator's Action on Application no. 95-108/TPM TOWN OF
TRVC-IE
y > 000
I.
nreea ;• roc.t
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Memo Prepared - April 24, 1996
Hearing Date - May 2, 1996
TO: onorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FRO ony Lashbrook, Community Development Director
RE: Public Hearing to Consider an.Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Action on
Application No. 95-108/TPM (Marsh Tentative Parcel Map). Applicant: Brian
and Cindy Marsh. Appellant: Pacific Property Acres, Inc.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVED BY:
Stephen L. Wright, Town Manager
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's
action and direct staff to prepare a resolution of action with findings.
BACKGROUND
The Zoning Administrator considered the tentative parcel,map application at public hearings
held on January 24th and March 27th. The applicants propose to divide an approximately 25
acreparcel into one parcel of ten (10) acres and a remainder of approximately 15 acres. The
Zoning Administrator approved the application With several conditions including requiring an
easement and offer of dedication through the subject property. An appeal to.the Town Council
has been filed on the application by the adjacent property owner, Pacific Property Acre Inc.
V, t
Memo to Town Council re: 95-108 Appeal,5/2/96
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Zoning Administrator Action: The Zoning Administrator as a condition of approval required
that a 60' access easement be offered for dedication from the site's northern encroachment
onto State Highway 89 to the western property line of the site. The easement partially follows
the existing alignment of Sha-Neva Road but veers off northeast towards the northern highway
encroachment while Sha-Neva Road continues eastwards to a different highway encroachment.
CalTrans has previously stated that this southern highway encroachment does not meet their
standards for separation from the Interstate 80 on-ramp and will require that this encroachment
be closed off when additional traffic is placed onto Sha-Neva Road. The Zoning
Administrator required the access easement to the northern highway encroachment in order to
provide legal and sufficient access to Highway 89 for future commercial development on
Parcel 1 and for future industrial development on the appellant's parcels. In his review, the
Zoning Administrator analyzed the easement alignment for General Plan consistency and to
ensure it would not adversely effect the residential area of the Coachland Mobile Home Park
or the existing access to the Sha-Neva industrial operation. The Zoning Administrator
concluded the approved easement was the best alignment for the road to serve Parcel 1 and the
industrial parcels located to the west. Road improvements were not required for the project as
road improvements can be determined and required at the time of commercial development on
Parcel 1 or the remainder.
Background on Highway 89 Encroachments: In 1980 the California Transportation
Commission designated this portion of Highway 89 as a controlled access highway which
limits the number and location of encroachments which can be made onto the highway. As
part of that action, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the CTC approved a new
public road connection at the northeastern corner of the project site where the existing
encroachment to the Coachland Mobile Home Park is located. The southern highway
encroachment (Sha-Neva Road) is eventually to be closed with all parcels in the area,
including the Sha-Neva industrial area, accessing the northern highway encroachment.
CalTrans in the interim is allowing Sha-Neva Road and the southern encroachment to remain
open as long as no additional traffic not previously considered by CalTrans is placed on the
road.
Appellant's Appeal and Arguments: The appellant's appeal focuses on the access easement
and offer of dedication required through the project site. It is staff's perception that the
appellant's main objection is to the alignment of the easement and its connection with Sha-
Neva Road. With this alignment, the southern highway encroachment will eventually be
closed and all traffic from the project site will access Sha-Neva Road and the northern
highway encroachment. The appellant provided input at the Zoning Administrator meeting
that the Zoning Administrator should consider an easement alignment along the northern
property line to serve the remainder, Parcel A, and future development in the industrial area to
the west while the existing Sha-Nevada industrial operation could continue utilizing Sha-Neva
1,
Memo to Town Council re: 95-108 Appeal,5/2/96
Page 3
Road and the southern highway encroachment. The appellant provides three arguments to the
appeal:
1. General Plan Inconsistency;
2. Failure to Require Easement Holder Consent to Offer of Dedication.
3. Failure to Require Reimbursement.
General Plan Consistency: The appellant states the project conflicts with Circulation Policy
1.1, Circulation Policy 1.8, and Noise Policy 1.4 of the General Plan. These policies are:
Circulation 1.1 - Plan, design, and regulate roadways in accordance with the functional
classification system described in this element and shown on the Circulation Plan.
Develop and adopt roadway standards as part of the Development Code.
Circulation 1.8 - Require the preparation of traffic impact analyses to identify impacts
and mitigation measures for projects which may result in significant traffic impacts.
Level of Service shall be computed according to planning methodology as documented
in Circular 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, Transportation Research
Board, January 1980. Cumulative impacts shall be modeled assuming full build-out of
the General Plan.
Noise 1.4 - Establish truck routes outside residential areas.
In response to the appellant's statements, the Zoning Administrator identified the proposed
road alignment as the best circulation route and design to serve the 125 acre commercial and
industrial area. Residential traffic from the Coachland Mobile Home Park will intersect with
the proposed road approximately 100 feet west of Highway 89. Residential traffic will mix
with commercial and industrial traffic on the new road alignment for only this 100 feet portion
and the intersection will be designed and improved to ensure proper sight distance and traffic
safety through the development application approval process upon future development of the
project site. The project conditions require that the road design be prepared by the applicant
and approved by the Town Engineer before the easement is formalized by recordation of the
parcel map. There is no evidence that this interaction of traffic at the intersection will result in
conflicting uses or noise impacts on the residences. Furthermore, a northern road alignment
will serve Parcel 1 and substantial vacant industrial acreage to the west. This road will run
parallel to Coachland Drive and will be approximately 100 feet from the residences on
Coachland Drive. Assuming that development occurs in accordance with the General Plan,
this road alignment would have commercial and industrial traffic in amounts exceeding current
traffic levels on Sha-Neva Road. Also, a northern road alignment would require any
commercial development on Parcel 1 to be oriented towards the north and Coachland Mobile
Home Park. The proposed road alignment approved by the Zoning Administrator would allow
commercial development on Parcel 1 to be oriented towards the south which would eliminate
or reduce land use compatibility conflicts with the mobile home park. In staff's opinion the
•
I.
Memo to Town Council re: 95-108 Appeal,5/2/96
Page 4
approved road alignment would result in less land use compatibility conflicts, including noise,
between the commercial/ industrial area and Coachland Mobile Home Park than any other
road alignment including the northern alignment and is not inconsistent with the General Plan
policies identified in the appeal.
The purpose of the road alignment is to serve the approximately 125 acres of land in this area
designated commercial or industrial. It is not intended to serve as a connector road; the Tahoe
Donner secondary road will connect with Highway 89 north of Coachland Mobile Home Park.
Traffic studies were not required for the subdivision because of the limited scope of the
project. However, the road alignment was reviewed by Community Development Department
staff and the Town Engineer to determine the best road alignment to serve Parcel 1 and the
area to the west. Any road to serve new development must access the northern highway
encroachment, and the question is "What is the best location of the road to serve Parcel 1 and
the area to the west?". As discussed above, a northern road alignment would be located close
to Coachland Mobile Home Park and would have greater impacts on the residents of the
mobile home park. The proposed road alignment connects with and utilizes the existing Sha-
Neva Road alignment as much as possible and orients commercial and industrial development
away from the mobile home park. The approved road alignment will necessitate the eventual
closing of the southern highway encroachment, however the alignment and offer of dedication
will accommodate existing and future development on the appellant's property and will give
the appellant legal access through the subject property to the northern highway encroachment
upon acceptance of the offer for public access (but not for maintenance). The proposed
easement also connects with the existing easement located on the Pacific Property Acres
parcels which has been previously offered for dedication. Road improvements necessary to
serve existing and future traffic levels and vehicle types will be required for any future
commercial or industrial project in the area.
As a side note,.the.southern highway encroachment does not meet CalTrans standards for
separation between encroachments and the westbound on-ramp for Interstate 80. This is the
primary impetus for closing the southern highway encroachment and constructing a new public
road connection at the northern encroachment location. Circulation Policy 1.23 states "Work
with CalTrans to address existing deficiencies with State Highway facilities, such as low
overpasses and the narrow State Route 89 South railroad underpass." The approved road
alignment and Zoning Administrator's action supports this General Plan policy.
Failure to Require Easement Holder Consent to Offer of Dedication: The appellant states
the approved road alignment will significantly burden their non-exclusive easement across the
subject property and the consent of the appellant should be required for any offer of dedication
on the subject property. The appellant does not provide any reasons or discussion of how the
alignment will burden their easement or legal references requiring their consent to the offer of
dedication on the subject property. As discussed above, the mixing of existing industrial
traffic and Coachland residential traffic on an adequately designed and improved road is not
incompatible and does not pose a traffic hazard. The Town Attorney stated this argument, to
•
Memo to Town Council re: 95-108 Appeal,5/2/96
Page 5
require an easement holder to consent to offer of dedication on another party's property, has
no legal basis.
Failure to Require Reimbursement: The appellant's third argument refers to a previous
agreement between the appellant, the property owner of the subject property, and the owner of
Coachland Mobile Home Park for the construction of the northern highway encroachment.
The appellant states the road alignment destroys their benefit under this previous agreement
and the value of their existing southern highway encroachment access because the purpose of
the northern highway encroachment was to segregate the existing industrial traffic on Sha-
Neva Road from the residential traffic of Coachland Mobile Home Park. The purpose of the
new public road connection (the northern highway encroachment) was to provide a new
highway encroachment to serve this area and provide for the eventual closing of the existing
southern highway encroachment which does not meet CalTrans standards. The Zoning
Administrator's action will result in a road alignment which utilizes the existing Sha-Neva
Road alignment as much as possible and provides legal access to Parcel 1 and the industrial
area to the west including the appellant's property and industrial operation. The road
improvements from Sha-Neva Road to the northern highway encroachment will be required for
the first new commercial or industrial project which will utilize the new road alignment. Any
private agreements between the property owners regarding road improvements is between the
property owners, and the Town is not a party nor should be involved in rectifying any disputes
of these agreements. The Town Attorney stated this argument, to require the applicant to
reimburse the appellant of road costs and detriments, has no legal basis
Conclusion: The Zoning Administrator and staff made a substantial effort to facilitate an
acceptable solution that would address the concerns of all parties. However, it was
exceedingly difficult to understand the concerns being expressed by the various parties and
how they might be addressed within the context of the Town's review of a parcel map.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
This public hearing was noticed in the Sierra Sun, and public hearing notices were mailed to
affected property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. This item was considered by
the Zoning Administrator in a similarly noticed public hearing.
Attachments
1. Appellant's appeal form
2. Approved Tentative Parcel Map
3. Zoning Administrator Approval Letter
4. Zoning Administrator Minutes
5. Zoning Administrator Staff Report and Correspondence
RECEIVED
APPEAL REQUEST 95-108/TPM APR 08 1996
Case Name/Number of Project being Appealed:
Type of Project: (i.e. use permit, parcel map, area variance, zoning change, !t!!J N OF TRUCKEE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Tentative Parcel Map
Project Description: Division of 25 acre parcel into 10 . 4 acres and a
15 acre remainder
I/we hereby appeal the action taken on this project as follows:
Project Description:
1. Detail what is being appealed and what action or changes you seek. Specifically address
the findings, mitigation measures, conditions and/or policies with which you disagree.
Attach additional pages if necessary.
See Attachment
2. State why you are appealing - be specific. Reference any errors or omissions. Attach any
supporting documentation. See Attachment
3. Please provide a summation of your arguments in favor of the appeal.
See Attachement
4. State the changes or action requested of the hearing body.
Denial of tentative map as proposed
I/we certify that I/we are the:
/, Legal owner(s) Authorized Legal Agent(s) XX Other Interested Persons
"
/ /�00r Name: Pacific Property Acres , Inc.
Signat 'e!yAppellant(s)
/70 .-)
!, Address: c/o Tamietti Law Offices
Date: /7 / 10020 Church St. , Suite 1
666 1-- k-\ Truckee, CA 96161
Date Accepted by Town: � 8�% Telephone: 587-8700
FORMS14 APPEAL
Community Development Department 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, California 96161-4947
Pacific Property Acres, Inc.
Appeal of 3/28/96 Decision of ZA
Re.: 95-108/TPM
Appellant, Pacific Property Acres, Inc., is an adjoining landowner of the property
immediately to the west of the Applicant's property, and the holder of a non-exclusive
easement across the property of Applicant and the remainder parcel.
Pacific Property Acres, Inc., brings this appeal on three grounds: (1) General Plan .
inconsistency; (2) Failure to require consent of Pacific Property Acres, Inc., as easement
holder, to the required offer of dedication that burdens its easement; and (3) Failure to
require Applicant to reimburse Pacific Property Acres for improvements previously
required.
Summary of Arguments:
General Plan Inconsistency.
The project, as accepted by the Zoning Administrator ("ZA"), conflicts with
General Plan Policies Circ. 1.1, and 1.8, and Noise 1.4.
First, the accepted road alignment, coupled with the comments from the Town
Engineer regarding his interest in closure of the existing southern access encroachment
(Sha-Neva Road), will mandate the interaction of heavy industrial trucks with private
personal vehicles at an intersection that serves as a commercial access and a residential
driveway. This contradicts the general policy of discouraging conflicting uses, and the
more specific Noise. 1.4 policy relating to truck routes. This proposed road alignment
also reintroduces a serious public health and safety issue that was previously resolved
through the separation of the Coachland residential access from the industrial uses existing
and contemplated for the existing southern encroachment at the intersection of Sha-Neva
Road and Highway 89N.
Second, the requirement in section 4 of the ZA ruling of the offer of dedication of
the 60ft easement to the western edge of the Applicant's property infers that the Town is
considering this road as a possible connector secondary road, or as the feeder for all
contemplated uses in the properties west of the Applicant's property. This ad hoc
decision, made without the requisite traffic studies, and without the General Plan policies
in the circulation element requesting such dedicated access, and without the eventual
requisite functional classification of this proposed road (Circ. 1.1), would set precedent
for those intentions ad hoc, in contradiction of Circ. 1.1, 1.8, and Noise 1.4.
1
Failure To Require Easement Holder Consent To Offer Of Dedication.
This proposed road alignment will significantly burden the non-exclusive easement of
Pacific Property Acres over the property of the Applicant and the remainder parcel.
Coupled with the implications from the offer of dedication discussed above, and the
comments from the Town Engineer regarding his intention to encourage closure of the
existing southern encroachment also discussed above, this road alignment would de facto
mandate the routing of through residential an commercial traffic through existing industrial
uses. Respectfully to the ZA, that use is patently incompatible, and an unnecessary burden
of Pacific Property Acres. For those reasons, the ZA should have required the consent of
Pacific Property Acres to the offer of dedication required in Section 4 of the March 28,
1996 decision.
Failure To Require Reimbursement.
Appellant, adjoining owner Coachland, and the owner of the remainder parcel each
contributed more than one hundred thousand of dollars to construct a second access
encroachment at the northern edge of the remainder parcel. That second access
encroachment had the salutary purpose of segregating the traffic generated from existing
and proposed residential uses and the contemplated commercial uses, from heavy truck
traffic generated from existing and contemplated industrial uses on property designated for
that purpose in the General Plan. The proposed road alignment, coupled with the
comments of the Town Engineer regarding his apparent interest in seeing the southern
encroachment closed, de facto mandates the reconsolidation of these two generally
incompatible traffic uses.
This arrangement destroys the benefit of the prior bargain under which Pacific
Property Acres contributed $26,053 for construction of the northern encroachment that it
was not otherwise obligated to contribute, and further destroys the value to Pacific
Property Acres of the remaining vitality and use of the existing southern access
encroachment to Highway 89N for industrial uses. The ZA should have required the
Applicant to reimburse Pacific Property Acres for these costs and detriments associated
with the project, as proposed.
2
iwit .
•
xA gP TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 95-108 III!16-110-04
sJ _. , 1
tem 9
il
' I ewcxuxe uowu xwe•NM -Cr-
LEGEND LPN iawFm — / / Ie7V9lSP"'°••r v�„�'L
D ..�..:.. _ /' %u'"13"`cif a
e0Caaiwr` .. A .......:.. =�� -/ P
��/'
i, /11EAWaEe OF A SI'e
f_--Tji!✓ �\// CONTIGUOUS LAMS . ..ea •m.r..m
NOTES .i,r � \//'/ 4.'El" DX 10-no-oe
........... APN 10-400-11 ,.P` 0.1.4.4•4.� \' M.•,LmfTnm..
" --
cruna IN ... r Mee 113 . . —Mitre r:Til i
samosa a ex in rat nottarto•ism.tut to••••tau ,r rr, ___•••• t-swift I,
. ......._.� `7tn ' : eaarvsa..fPARCEL I n
......:.o_.,......... ...... . r I OA AtliL.
unnucerwrtet
au tem s•inn on
s•••••
--•••, APN 19-420.70 g0
le
.......,....,.. _ LOT 4 : 1 r`
,...,,. .s wi' ..
... SIN
.m`...': If P.M. 100 . . ' ! 0
1.' =r
&teas / —.v v\-- ----.5---!...- B
\ _ 43 '
on 16��10
�... v_ = •.—.—._ �= `/A 11 1 tx �tunic tmsncs arou 00 xwn�.cerunrrmTem •P11 t•m-o1 F16m ..:.t..��.� muI
lam a- ♦♦MELTE rwuc rw.xn 1
PI
aallooNG NI TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP r•m
x w[IN.um cm u nn TOM OF M CKE c.UFafN _Sun 1
TOWN OF
Planning Division Building &Safety Division
(916) 582-7876 (916) 582-7820
FAX(916) 582-7710 • f °> FAX (916) 582-7889
;•• mg--
March 28, 1996
Brian and Cindy Marsh
P.O. Box 248
T ack�c, CA xis jet/to
V i t C4 o/ ,/e/s/
RE: Application No. 95-108/TPM (89/80 Properties Tentative Parcel Map)
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Marsh,
At the March 27, 1996 meeting, the Town of Truckee Zoning Administrator considered your
tentative parcel map application to divide an approximately 25 acre parcel into one (1) parcel of
10.4 acres and a remainder of approximately 15 acres. The Zoning Administrator acted to
approve your tentative parcel map application subject to the following conditions:
1. The tentative parcel map is approved for the division of APNs 19-410-07/19-420-
02 into one (1) parcel of approximately 10.4 acres and a remainder of
approximately 15 acres as shown on the approved tentative parcel map and as
modified by these conditions of approval. The applicant shall submit parcel map
check prints, all required information, and applicable fees to the Planning
Division for the review and approval of the parcel map. The parcel map shall be
prepared by a licensed land surveyor or engineer in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act and Town Subdivision Ordinance. The parcel map shall be
recorded within 24 months of the date of approval, otherwise the approval of the
tentative parcel map shall become null and void unless an extension of time is
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance. The
applicant is responsible for complying with all conditions of approval and
providing evidence to the Planning Division of such compliance with the
conditions.
2. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall pay a recreation
mitigation fee in the amount of$750 ($750 per newly created parcel). Proof of
payment of this mitigation fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division.
3. Any fees due to the Town of Truckee for processing this project shall be paid to
the Town within thirty (30) calendar days of final action by the approval
authority. Failure to pay such outstanding fees within the time specified shall
invalidate any approval or conditional approval granted by this action. The parcel
Community Development Department, 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, California 96161
Letter to Marsh,#95-108/TPM 3/28/96
Page 2
map shall not be recorded until all outstanding fees are paid to the Town.
4. The applicant shall offer for dedication a 60-foot right-of-way for road and utility
purposes as shown on the modified tentative parcel map submitted on March 22,
1996. The right-of-way shall extend from the eastern property line of Parcel 1 to
the northernmost driveway encroachment onto State Highway 89 within the
remainder. The applicant shall also offer for dedication a 60-foot right-of-way for
road and utility purposes along Sha Neva Road within Parcel 1. The offers of
dedication shall be made in accordance with the requirements of the Town
Engineer. The Town Engineer may require improvement plans and other
information from the applicant to ensure a Town-standard commercial road may
be constructed within the alignment and width of the right-of-way.
5. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall provide the Nevada
County Department of Environmental Health with "proof of service" from the
appropriate public agencies for public water and sewer. The applicant shall be
responsible for providing the Planning Division with documentation from the
Department of Environmental Health stating that this condition has been met.
Please be advised that the action of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning
Commission within 10 days of the Zoning Administrator's action. The Zoning Administrator's
approval shall not become final until such appeal period ends. Enclosed for your information is
an application appeal form.
In order for the Town Engineer to consider the filing of your parcel map, all conditions of
approval must be met. In addition, a check print of the parcel map, other required information,
and application deposit fee of$500 must be submitted to this office. If you have any questions
regarding the Zoning Administrator's action, compliance with conditions of approval, or
submitting your parcel map for review, please do not hesitate to contact me.
The Town of Truckee application fees for processing your application are $854.95. You will
receive a refund check in the amount of$1,645.05 from the Town Finance office in
approximately two (2) weeks. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Planning Refund
Request form.
Sincerely,
Duane Hall
Associate Planner
CC: Jim Porter, Porter Simon Law Offices
Robert Tamietti
Janet Mann, Nevada County Department of Environmental Health
Jon Lander, Public Works Director
Town Council
Community Development Department, 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, California 96161
Town of Truckee
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING
March 27, 1996
2:00 P.M.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Front Conference Room
11570 Dormer Pass Road,Truckee, California
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 2:00 PM.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
3.1 March 13, 1996 - Regular Meeting - approved as written.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
4.1 95-079/AV; (Hatfield Area Variance); Verle Elaine Hatfield, owner/applicant.
Mrs. Hatfield stated that she read and agreed with the staff report. Ball mentioned
that one comment was received from adjacent property owner, Irwin Major, in
agreement with the accuracy of the site plan and the modifications in the proposal.
Zoning Administrator Lashbrook approved the applicant's request based upon the
conditions and findings stated in the staff report.
4.2 95-114/TPM; (Vizino-Martis Valley Bluffs Tentative Parcel Map); Walt and
Jane Vizino, applicants were both present. The applicants stated they reviewed the
staff report. Hall stated that there was no input received and that there were no
changes to the staff report. The applicants inquired about the driveway encroachment
on Cheyney Drive and requested the elimination of the last two sentences of
Condition 3B.
The applicant also asked for clarification on the encroachment permit as well as the
open space easement with respect to the view line. Lashbrook explained the
requirements of the encroachment permit and the purpose of the site line for the open
space easement.
The applicants inquired about bonding the road work. Lashbrook explained the
requirements and procedures for bonding the road in addition to the procedures for
final map submission.
Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes
March 27, 1996 Page 2
Lashbrook approved the Tentative Parcel Map with the one change to Condition 3B
of the staff report by striking the last two sentences.
43 95-119/CUP-AV; (The Swedish House Bed and Breakfast); Robert Showen,
applicant and Peter Gerdin, the applicant's representative were both present. Hall
stated that no comments were received on this project. Gerdin discussed Condition
15 regarding traffic control or signage which discouraged public use of the parking
lot. Hall discussed the purpose of the applicant's request for variance to the
Downtown district requirements.
The applicant stated that he supported a trial condition and expressed concern that
the residents may complain. Lashbrook explained that the intent of the Downtown
district was to ensure that there be enough public parking added to the Downtown to
compensate for new demand.
Lashbrook approved the Conditional Use Permit with the addition to Condition 15
to read: Upon operation of the hotel, the Town Planner may review the parking
situation to ensure the condition is not unduly restricting use of the parking lot by
patrons of the hotel. If so, the Town Planner may approve signs or traffic control
devices which reserve parking spaces for use by the hotel.
4.4 95-108/TPM; (89/80 Properties Tentative Parcel Map); Brian and Cindy Marsh,
applicant, Jim Porter, applicant's representative, John Black of Vail Engineering,
Bob Tamietti, representative for the Shanes, and the Shanes were all present. Hall
presented a brief update and stated that the applicants have been exploring
alternatives to their parcel from State Route 89. Hall explained that, in response to
the questions and comments raised at the January 24th hearing, the applicant
submitted a modified tentative parcel map proposing that the new easement be
created. He stated that staff supported the alignment since there was no substantial
adverse affect on Coachland or the Forest Service parcel regarding future traffic. He
also discussed the comments received from MAPF and Coachland Mobile Home
Park.
Hall also discussed the General Plan land use for this property as well as to the
property to the west and that the Sha Neva industrial area had room for development
which would require future onsite and offsite use potential.
Jim Porter, the applicant's representative, mentioned that the alignment ties into Sha
Neva Road that had a non-exclusive easement. He pointed out that John Black from
Vail Engineering was present to answer any questions regarding the road design.
Porter presented a letter from Mr. Bergin advising that the 89/80 properties had no
objection to the road along the northern property line or the southerly alignment.
Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes
March 27, 1996 Page 3
Lashbrook explained that Mr. Bergin must sign the map in order for the proposed
alignment to go forward.
Porter requested that the applicant not be required to make an offer of dedication.
Lashbrook discussed the offer of dedication in the staff report and explained that
relative to General Plan consistency,his opinion was that significant growth potential
planned to the west of Parcel 1 presented the need for future public access. He added
that he was inclined to require an offer of dedication throughout the subdivision as
part of the condition of this map. Lashbrook added that the Town must make the
finding of General Plan consistency and that he didn't want to landlock the property
to the west as a function of this map.
Bob Tamietti, representing the adjoining property owners, stated his concerns with
the alignment. His biggest concern was safety and that segregating heavy industrial
truck traffic from non-industrial traffic by funneling industrial traffic to the southern
road and the non-industrial traffic to the other road would be the preferred alignment.
Lashbrook discussed with Tamietti the latest correspondence received from Caltrans
and explained that the County's Road Impact Fee applied only to regionally
significant roads.
Lashbrook disclosed that he received a phone call from Mrs. Gales regarding
engineers from Sylvester Engineering who mentioned the pursuit of a road along
their property line as part of the Marsh project. He stated that he faxed a copy of the
current tentative map with the new"S"alignment. Mr. Gales responded with a letter
supporting the tentative map and opposing a road on the northern alignment.
Lashbrook believed the problem with the southerly encroachment was that it didn't
meet the Caltrans safety standards for separation from freeway on-ramps. Tamietti
stated that the issues were: freeway proximity, the increment of burden on that
access point attributable to Coachland traffic, and the safety issues associated with
mixing industrial with non-industrial traffic. Kelly Shane pointed out that traffic
problems in past from sharing the current access road with Coachland.
Porter stated they have an agreement with property owners on the location of the road
and felt that having two access roads separating road traffic was not the best design.
John Black of Vail Engineering stated that this new proposed alignment was clearly
the preferred alternative from a safety standpoint. He viewed the current Sha Neva
approach onto the Highway as something that would become obsolete given the
amount of potential developable real estate in that area. Brian Marsh pointed out that
the new left turn lane was brought about due to the desire of Coachland to expand.
Lashbrook closed the public hearing and briefly discussed the project review criteria.
Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes
March 27, 1996 Page 4
He then asked Town Engineer Lander for his comments regarding the proposed road
design and its safety. Lander provided his input regarding Caltrans and the
alignment of the road. He stated that the best solution would be to connect to the
existing route crossing the southern property to provide for future access for western
properties. Lander stated that the safety issue associated with the residential street
intersecting with a mixed-traffic road was no different than other Town roads and
could be addressed by having a realistic design and storage space for the Coachland
residents and highway traffic. Lashbrook stated that he wanted to ensure the
condition was worded adequately before that easement was committed to record and
that there be an adequate design. Lashbrook asked if it was Lander's experience
generally with controlled access expressways that Caltrans position was strong on
limiting the number of encroachments that occur on those roadways and Lander
confirmed.
Lashbrook approved the tentative map as presented with a change in Condition 4
indicating that a preliminary design of the proposed improvements be provided
before the map is recorded to ensure, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, that
the proposed easement is in the proper location and adequate in width. In addition,
he added the requirement to extend the offer of dedication to the west through Parcel
1 to accommodate future growth. This was necessary to provide General Plan
consistency. He explained that this action was subject to appeal to Town Council
with a 10-day appeal period.
Lashbrook closed the public hearing.
5. OTHER BUSINESS. None.
6. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 PM to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on April 10, 1996.
Respectfully subm'. -
T.- . : •ok, Community Development Director
• , OFTRUCKEE
A11lST:
Kelly Holm dministrative Secretary
Approved the 10th day of April 1996; Town of Truckee Zoning Administrator.
c:\wpdocs\zoning1032796zamin
Town of Truckee
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING
January 24, 1996
2:00 P.M.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board Room
11570 Donner Pass Road,Truckee, California
MINUTES -
1. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting was called to order at 2:06 P.M.
Community Development Director Tony Lashbrook stated that the purpose of the Zoning
Administrator is to provide a hearing officer for projects that are relatively small in scope and
usually non-controversial that do require public hearings.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
3.1 January 10, 1996 - Regular Meeting minutes approved as written.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
4.1 95-108/TPM; (89/80 Properties Tentative Parcel Map); Brian and Cindy Marsh,
applicant.
Lashbrook stated that 2 letters were received expressing concern of future industrial
use on the property; one from Arno and Lisa Pappe and one from Robbie Dackler.
He stated that staff has already discussed this concern with these citizens.
Planner Hall stated that the applicant is requesting a tentative parcel map to divide
an approximately 25 acre parcel into one (1) parcel of 10.4 acres (Parcel 1) and a
remainder of approximately 15 acres identified as the Remainder. The project is
located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Interstate 80 and State Highway
89 North directly south of the Coachland Mobile Home Park (10640 Sha Neva
Road). The zoning is Highway-Commercial with design and scenic corridor
overlays. Hall stressed that the project is only for the subdivision of the property into
a parcel and a remainder and doesn't involve any commercial development. He
pointed out that any commercial development in the future will have to comply with
the Truckee Zoning Ordinance and the Highway-Commercial zoning district and
receive Town approvals. Any project greater than 10,000 square feet in size would
require a public hearing and approval by the Planning Commission. If the project is
not consistent with Highway-Commercial zoning, the property owner's would have
to get zoning amendments approved by the Town Council in order to proceed with
Zoning Administrator Meeting Page 2
January 24, 1996
the project. The main issue for this subdivision involves access which has frontage
along State Highway 89. The access to Parcel 1 is an existing encroachment used by
the Sha Neva Complex which is a private two-lane paved road west of the project
site. The applicant is proposing access to Parcel 1 from Sha Neva Road and the
southernmost encroachment onto State Highway 89 North. CalTrans has submitted
comments on this application stating that CalTrans may not allow traffic generated
by future commercial development on this site to access this southernmost
encroachment. Future commercial traffic on this site and the adjacent Sha Neva site
may be required to utilize the encroachment which also serves the Coachland Mobile
Home Park.
Hall stated that staff recommends that a 60-foot access easement for Parcel 1 be
required from Parcel 1 to the northernmost highway encroachment, the easement to
run along the existing Sha Neva Road and the eastern property line of the remainder.
He added that staffs recommendation is to find that the project is exempt from
environmental review and to approve the tentative parcel map based on the findings
and subject to the conditions stated in the staff report.
Hall stated that two residents of the Coachland Mobile Home Park sent letters
expressing concern regarding the industrial development on the properties,but that
there were no objections to the subdivision of the land.
Lashbrook asked Hall if the rationale behind creating the easement on the remainder.
The division of the property, clearly Parcel 1, will be separated from in different
ownership than the remainder and the goal is to ensure an adequate easement that
would allow development of Parcel 1. Hall confirmed.
Lashbrook opened the public hearing at 2:12 P.M.
Jim Porter, representative for Brian and Cindy Marsh, 89/80 properties, stated that
one of the conditions is the requirement that the access be offered a 60-foot right of
way and asked if there is a legal requirement. Hall stated that he checked through
the subdivision ordinance and didn't find a section which specifically requires an
offer of dedication for the easement. He pointed out that here is a section within the
subdivision ordinance which states that there be access between each parcel and a
town street or state highway, but in that defmition of access, it does not indicate
anything regarding an offer of dedication. It states that the subdivider shall provide
proof of adequate offsite right of way which is defined as the legal right of the
developer and its assignees use of a road that would allow for the necessary road
improvements.
•
Zoning Administrator Meeting Page 3
January 24, 1996
Lashbrook asked Hall if this is an offsite access. Hall stated that this could be
considered offsite access for Parcel 1. He added that since access is going through
the remainder, there are no specific sections on properties with frontage along a
Town Road which create parcels that do not have access; he stated that he is using
that section to indicate there has to be approved access to each of the parcels to the
Town road or State highway.
Lashbrook asked Porter what kind of access the 89/80 properties is proposing to
serve Parcel 1. Porter stated that 89/80 has the right to use the Sha Neva Road
easement exits and expressed concern as to what CalTrans will require to access Sha
Neva Road. Lashbrook stated that the offsite standard would apply, therefore, a
change to the condition could be appropriate. Porter stated that this may be the only
time the Town accepts this offer of dedication to link the two areas. Porter stated the
applicant would like to keep Mr. Shane happy and didn't care whether or not there
is an offer of dedication.
Bob Tamietti, representative for the Sha-Neva property owner, stated that the
question is access. Their concern is that, even though this is a non-exclusive
easement to the extent the proposed uses burden the easement, CalTrans threatens to
close the access and they feel now is the time to address this issue. They are
concerned because the proposed frontage road creates some problem with access for
their vehicles. Tamietti presented three suggestions: 1) a non-exclusive 60-foot-
wide easement at a location agreed by all parties;2) a written road improvement and
maintenance agreement; and 3) if there is an offer of dedication of an easement road
they own,they should be a party to that. He stated that they are not in opposition to
the Marsh's application, but are asking for additional conditions.
Lashbrook clarified that Mr. Tamietti's request was that there be an offer of
dedication for the frontage road on that new easement that would connect the
Coachland entrance to the existing Sha Neva Road, along with agreement on the
location as well as a construction and maintenance agreement.
Porter interjected that he believed the offer of dedication point is mute now, but
pointed out that Mr. Tamietti is suggesting that Sha Neva was asking for an entirely
new road that parallels the existing road adjacent to the boundary of Coachland, and
not a frontage road. Lashbrook asked Tamietti for clarification. Tamietti stated that
their preference would be not to have a frontage road. Porter added that the 89/80
properties and Pacific Property Acres already have an agreement in writing that
address the bridge work and the frontage road in addition to providing for
maintenance at a location agreed by both parties. Tamietti stated that it is not an
ownership issue. He stated that an easement can't be created for someone across
your property and then take action that destroys that easement. He stated that even
Zoning Administrator Meeting Page 4
January 24, 1996
if there are non-exclusive easements, the law requires people to respect each others
uses of the property and not to take action which will destroy the usefulness of the
easement. His concern is the concern expressed by CalTrans which is too much
traffic in the intersection so close in proximity to the on-ramp that CalTrans would
have to close the intersection. Lashbrook clarified that Mr. Tamietti's comment isn't
that he has some exclusive interest in the proposed easement, but that he didn't want
this future project to negatively affect their use of that easement. Tamietti stated that
he doesn't want the easement to create conditions which trigger CalTrans interest in
the intersection. Lashbrook stated that he understands that CalTrans doesn't care
about the division of land, but have made it clear that future development is likely
to trigger a need to require the new entry way and close the old entry way.
Lashbrook stated that his concern is the design of the subdivision which includes
where easements are proposed to go and the purpose of a tentative map is to review
the proposed design of the subdivision and make decisions about the appropriateness
of the design. He stated that the design is relative to this easement location and he
would like to know that design before acting on the subdivision request. Porter
stated that the agreement entered into provides for any adjustment necessary to
connect the existing road to the entry required by the County. Lashbrook stated if
the property isdivided without solving the access issue, then a new property owner
is added into the mix making it more complicated to exercise the agreement. He
stated he would like to see it resolved and the resolution reflected on this map
because conditions are setting that easement location. Porter added that the owners
of the property want to use the road as it is designed to be used. He stated that Mr.
Shane doesn't want this road blocked at the end and the 89/80 property owners don't
want to place the easement along the Coachland Mobile Home Park because of
residents and power lines. He added that having two 60-foot-wide easements is a
poor use of the property.
Lashbrook clarified that the applicant is comfortable with the requirement to create
an easement that comes off the Coachland access road down the easterly edge of the
remainder as it fronts Highway 89 connecting to the existing Sha Neva access road
as well as the easement on the Sha Neva access road pursuant to whatever the
requirements are of the Town. He stated that the other interested party is not
comfortable with that design. Tamietti mentioned that Mr. Shane pointed out that
there was a question as to whether there is 60 feet of property between the highway
right of way and the Forest Service parking lot. Mr. Shane stated that he measured
the forest service right of way and the property line doesn't measure to 60 feet.
Lashbrook asked Hall if he had any idea if there is sufficient room there. Hall stated
that he scaled the measurement from the tentative parcel map which measures 60 feet
between the Forest Service and the property line of the remainder. Lashbrook
clarified that this easement wasn't shown on this tentative map. Porter stated that
Zoning Administrator Meeting Page 5
January 24, 1996
would be a problem for all parties if that was the case. Lashbrook pointed out that
may not be a viable location and it would be prudent to know that measurement as
part of this tentative map review. He stated that he would like to know the design of
the subdivision prior to approval because a very significant element is added with
this easement. If the easement runs along the northern property boundary, there are
some neighborhood issues that will be significant and he truly believes that
Coachland would have a significant problem with a major road running along the
northern property line. Tamietti stated that if CalTrans closes the current access
point,they aren't necessarily married to the current direction of the road and that is
really the thrust of their observation to deal with that problem in the context of
approving this proposal so the problem is solved now.
Lashbrook commented that he would like to get some additional information
regarding this easement location and continued the hearing until February 14, 1996,
to give the concerned parties an opportunity to converse to a greater degree on this
issue and to give staff the ability to work with Vail Engineering to make sure there
is enough room for a 60-foot easement in the proposed location. Lashbrook's
primary goal is to clearly know the feasibility and if there is an agreement. He stated
he would allow additional public comment on this issue from all interested parties
and then he would act.
Porter asked if it was a given that it was a 60-foot easement. Lashbrook replied that
the future development would merit an easement of future planned development
through the General Plan and existing zoning. Based upon the type of road, a 60-
foot-wide easement would accommodate a major collector or above. Porter asked
if there was any flexibility in the size of the easement. Lashbrook stated he thinks
there is some flexibility inherently in the process,but without knowing construction
standards,his goal would be to maintain a minimum width easement. He commented
that he thinks the proposed road alignment would have more success relative to
future development of that property than one that would run on top of the existing
access road which serves as a residential street to the Coachland Mobile Home Park.
He added that from a land use compatibility perspective, that type of road could be
problematic.
Lashbrook continued the hearing until the next Zoning Administrator meeting on
February 14, 1996 at 2:00 PM to discuss if there is enough room to fit that 60-foot-
wide easement and if the design and location of the easement makes sense to serve
our future needs. Additional public testimony would be accepted at that time on this
road issue. He stated that in his opinion,the public comment received is not related
to this subdivision and staff has already conveyed to these two parties that this is
simply a subdivision of land. He pointed out that any development that occurs on the
property would have to be in accordance with the land use rules that affected the
Zoning Administrator Meeting Page 6
January 24, 1996
property at the time it was considered.
5. OTHER BUSINESS. None.
6. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 2:41 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony - brook, Community Development Director
et OF TRUCKEE
ATTEST:
Kelly Holm, ministrative Secretary
Approved the 14th day of February 1996; Town of Truckee Zoning Administrator.
c:\wpdocs\mning\012496ramin
TOWN OF
T' cnr
-A aQ48.7 ••'• `U --n celv'.n
�
MEMORANDUM
ADDENDUM TO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT
DATE: Memo Prepared-March 27, 1996
Hearing Date - March 27, 1996
TO: Town of Truckee Zoning Administrator
FROM: Duane Hall,Associate Planner
RE: Application No. 95-108/TPM (89/80 Properties Tentative Parcel Map);Brian
and Cindy Marsh, applicant
Agenda No.: Approved by: / /
Eli eth Eddins, Town Hanna.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator take the following actions on this application:
1. Find that the project is exempt from environmental review,pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
2. Approve the tentative parcel map based on the findings (Attachment 1) and conditions
(Attachment 2).contained within the staff report with the modifications stated in this
memo.
DISCUSSION:
In response to questions and comments regarding access from Parcel 1 to State Highway 89, the
applicant has revised the tentative parcel map and proposes a 60' easement from Parcel 1 to the
Staff Report 95-105/TPM,3/27/96
Page 2
northernmost encroachment onto Highway 89. The easement follows the existing Sha Neva
Road easement but would begin splitting off from Sha Neva Road approximately 600 feet west
of Highway 89. The easement alignment travels northeasterly along the western property line of
the United States Forest Service (USFS)parcel before connecting with the Coachland Mobile
Home Park access road and highway encroachment. It is staffs opinion that the proposed
easement alignment will not have significant adverse effects on the USFS parcel or Coachland
Mobile Home Park and road design issues (e.g. intersection of Coachland Drive with the
easement road) can be adequately addressed through the site plan review process for any
commercial development which may utilize the easement. The easement alignment is consistent
with previous plans and CalTrans requirement that future development on this parcel will
eventually be required to access Highway 89 from the northernmost encroachment. Staff
recommends the following modifications to Condition No. 4 to reflect the proposed easement
alignment:
4. The applicant shall offer for dedication the 60-foot right-of-way for road and
utility purposes as shown on the modified tentative parcel map submitted on
March 22, 1996. The right-of-way shall extend from the eastern property line of
Parcel 1 to the northernmost driveway encroachment onto State Highway 89
within the remainder. The offer of dedication shall be made in accordance with
the requirements of the Town Engineer.
Since the last meeting, the Zoning Administrator has received the attached comments from the
Mountain Area Preservation Foundation•(MAPF). In response to MAPF's comments, the project
is a subdivision of the parcel into one (1) parcel and a remainder, and no development including
road construction is proposed as part of the project. Any future development on the parcel and
remainder will have to comply with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and be approved by
the Town through the site plan review or conditional use permit process. The subdivision itself
will not increase or change the potential land uses designated for this site. Furthermore, the
subdivision is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and there are no
substantial grounds to deny the tentative parcel map based on the findings for denial set forth in
Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Also attached are comments from Bob Gales, the owner/manager of the Coachland Mobile Home
Park, who objects to any easement or road along the northern property line of the subject
property. ,
Attachments
•
03/27/1997 16:20 9165373^ 8 SIERRA MTRS PAGE 01
MOUNTAIN AREA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION
P.O. BOX 25 TRUCKEE, CA 95734
March 26, 1996
Zoning Administrator
Town of Truckee
Truckee, CA
MAPF submits this letter with regards to 3/27/96, Agenda item 4.4, 89/80 Properties
Tentative Parcel Map.
As Truckee's adopted General Plan is barely six weeks old, Iv1APF's opinion is that
discussion of a parcel split at this location is "Premature". In spite of the General Plan's
adoption on February 15, 1996, land use controversy remains as to the future development of
89 North and 267 adjacent to I-80. Throughout the General Plan process, defensible
arguments have been raised that the future development potential of this area has been
overstated and adequate "phasing" of future development not sufficiently addressed. It is
imperative that changes to increase land use in this area be delayed until all factors can he
addressed. Decisions for land use changes must consider the cumulative impacts, including
the yet to be approved Downtown Study Area, continuing controversy over PC 2, and the
adoption of Truckee's zoning ordinances. These issues must be resolved before this and
other land use changes in this area should be considered.
Furthermore, MAPF regrets that the scheduled time of this meeting, 2:00 pm, precludes td a-z •
significant degree, the ability of MAPF and many members of the community to be
represented. At the very least, MAPF would request that this agenda item be deferred to the
Planning Commission or Town Council to insure public awareness and input as to guarantee
effective due process.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
MOUNTAIN AREA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION
�Gr-Ayuc�„�
Josh Sunman, President
Robert T. Gales
Coachland RV and Mobilehome Park
March 23, 1996
Truckee Planning Commission; C/O Tony Lashbrook
11570 Donner Pass Road
Truckee, California 96161
Subject: Comments on 89/80 Properties Tentative Parcel Map (Appl. # 95-108/TPM)
Dear Planning Commissioners,
In January Brian and Cindy Marsh discussed the lot split and their plans to develop the
Westerly 10.4 acre parcel with Coachland's residents at a homeowners' association meeting.
The Marsh's provided the attached master plan as a part of their presentation, and represented
that access would be provided using the existing Sha-Neva Road, as shown in the master plan
along the southerly property line of the 10.4 acre parcel. Based on that presentation, and with
open space and trees provided in the northerly portion of the site adjacent to Coachland, our
homeowners were largely in support of the lot split and their master plan.
Now, however, I understand that other alternatives for access to the 10.4 acre site, as well as
the Shane's property to the south-west of Coachland are being considered. I understand that
one of those alternatives calls for the access road to parallel Coachland Drive, with only a 27
foot wide separation. Please be advised that a roadway alignment alongside Coachland Drive
is opposed by Coachland's residents and the park owner!
In conversations that I have had over the past several months with the Marsh's, Linda Shane,
and the Shane's attorney, Robert Tamietti, I have repeatedly stated that a road adjacent to
Coachland's residences providing access to commercial and/or industrial uses is unacceptable.
I am writing you to make you aware that Coachland's residents, as well as myself; are only in
support of the lot split and attached master plan as it was presented to us. We are opposed to
any road adjacent to our residences. If there are to be any significant changes to the master
plan for development of the 10.4 acres parcel, or any change in the alignment of the access
road, we would like the opportunity to review the revised plan and provide comments.
I request that the Planning Commission only approve the 89/80 lot split request on the
condition that the specific alignment of the access road be determined, and that the alignment
of such road not adversely impact Coachland's residents.
Very truly yours,
Bob Gales; Coachland Owner/Manager
10500 Highway 89 North (Park Office) • Truckee, CA. 96161 • (916) 587-8980 • (916) 587-6976 fax
it ._ . .... _. .
,
.s
ev // • a
L.07' IS
4 . •
..' SAW OF CALIFORNIA
7
y ', 1
A. •.,._
Mks-TEES / -
MC Ho. 91-022846
:
M4 0J 1:5:t
C....,....,,.....N.C.1% .t..
4'ATANGLEWOOD 0 R 1 V E vravAiv
(77
8 X I S 74 i N G. AA /1/8 I L E HOMES ir
-tee
esT".
k. ..c...,
COACJ4LAND sareregt 1 D 12 I V E revArs .05.59*
greci, I —==___1— r _ _ __--.
ce -1/2C2 /
_ ,..,.>- . ‘ .A?:;iFkT;!!1" :' ,, ••' •• 1113SASaat .:: :1ZIT.•.,,S4•g'..:i4•.1.: •1.-.#4::::::•:::rnt.: izt1/2 -.;, i
rt ao/
/ -- -
ITES /
ES Amestinisien" . ii
fi .
/
/
ta
7
/ 3-tif‘ u
kil
PI 39 Ff
.-a0 PROPEfiPS
/ \t‘ii# ifil NC lia 94-034128
...
."I ill
---"'•-•:-.
.............................j -
--...
.........
V rig _a_
Sr I 4 lig W Al r
TOWN OF
TIZ9C1E
feet/+� r - la 993
MEMORANDUM
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT
DATE: Memo Prepared - January 15, 1996
Hearing Date -January 24, 1996
TO: Town of Truckee Zoning Administrator
FROM: Duane Hall, Associate Planner
RE: Application No. 95-108/TPM (89/80 Properties Tentative Parcel Map); Brian
and Cindy Marsh, applicant
Agenda No.: Approved by: /_ / / �i
',.beth Eddins, Town Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator take the following actions on this application:
1. Find that the project is exempt from environmental review,pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
2. Approve the tentative parcel map based on the findings stated in Attachment 1 and
subject to the conditions stated in Attachment 2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative parcel map to divide an approximately 25 acre
parcel into one (1)parcel of 10.4 acres (Parcel 1) and a remainder of approximately 15 acres
(Remainder).
Staff Report 95-108/TPM, 1/24/96
Page 2
LOCATION:
The project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Interstate 80 and State
Highway 89 North directly south of the Coachland Mobile Home Park (10640 Sha Neva Road,
APNs 19-410-07/19-420-02).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff has determined the project is exempt from further environmental review in accordance with
Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Because of the
limited scope of the project, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental
impacts.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Project Description -The applicant proposes to divide the 25 acre parcel into a parcel of
approximately 10.4 acres and a remainder of 15 acres. The terrain of the site is gentle (slopes
<15%). Drainage on the site flows to the south, but there are no significant drainage courses on
the site. The project site has frontage along State Highway 89 North with highway
encroachments at the northern and southern ends of the remainder. Access to Parcel 1 is
provided by Sha Neva Road which is a private, two-lane paved road which provides access to the
Sha-Neva complex west of the project site. There are no structures on the site. A United States
Forest Service ranger station is located on a separate parcel entirely encompassed by the
remainder. Water service for future development on the property will be provided by the
Truckee Dormer Public Utility District with sewer service being provided by the Truckee
Sanitary District.
General Plan and Zoning Consistency- The project site is classified on the Town of Truckee
General Plan Draft Land Use Plan as "Commercial (Cr. This land use classification allows the
full range of commercial uses, including retail, offices, hotels, and services. Density and
intensity for this land use classification is based on average floor area ratios with no established
minimum parcel size. Minimum parcel size for parcels in commercial zones will be substantially
less than the parcel sizes established by this subdivision. The subdivision will not alter or affect
future commercial development on the property. It is staff's opinion the subdivision will be
consistent with the proposed General Plan and there is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the General Plan if the subdivision is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan.
Remainder- A 15 acre remainder is proposed as part of this subdivision. A remainder is that
portion of the parcel which is not divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing. However, a
remainder can subsequently be built upon or sold. For these reasons, staff has reviewed the
remainder for compliance with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance
regulations to verify that the remainder is a parcel which can be built upon. The Subdivision
Staff Report 95-108/TPM, 1/24/96
Page 3
Map Act limits the ability of the Town from requiring improvements for the remainder as a
condition of recordation of the parcel map. In addition, the Town may require a certificate of
compliance or conditional certificate of compliance for the remainder prior to the issuance of any
development permits. Because the Subdivision Ordinance does not contain any requirements or
standards for certificates of compliance for remainders, staff is not recommending a certificate of
compliance for the remainder. Any and all improvements necessary to serve the remainder will
be addressed by the Town at the site plan application stage for development on the remainder.
Access -The Subdivision Ordinance requires access easements from each parcel to a Town street
or State Highway. The width of the required easement is dependent on the road improvements
required for the subdivision. The applicant is proposing access to Parcel 1 from Sha Neva Road
and the southernmost encroachment onto State Highway 89 North. CalTrans has submitted
comments on this application stating that CalTrans may not allow traffic generated by future
commercial development on this site to access this southernmost encroachment. Future
commercial traffic on this site and the adjacent Sha Neva site may be required to utilize the
northernmost highway encroachment which also serves the Coachland Mobile Home Park. To
ensure that Parcel 1 has legal access to this northernmost encroachment, staff recommends that a
60-foot access easement for Parcel I be required from Parcel 1 to the northernmost highway
encroachment, the easement to run along the existing Sha Neva Road and the eastern property
line of the remainder to the encroachment. Staff is not recommending any road improvements
for this subdivision since there is an existing road which provides access to Parcel 1 from
Highway 89 and road improvements will be required at the site plan application stage for
development on Parcel 1 and the remainder.
Sewage Disposal, Water, and Fire Protection - Special district requirements for future
development on these parcels will be addressed at the site plan application stage. The Districts
did not have any objections to the subdivision.
School District-The Tahoe Truckee Unified School District is requesting school development
impact fees in addition to the State-imposed limit of$1.72 per square foot for residential uses.
This request is based on existing impacts on school district facilities and the insufficiency of
the $1.72/sq ft fee to pay all school facility costs associated with new residential development.
However, the Town does not have the legal authority to impose school impact fees above the
$1.72/sq ft established by State law for administrative/quasi-judicial permit applications such
as tentative parcel maps. Because the Town does not have the authority to impose additional
fees, staff does not recommend that the Zoning Administrator take any action on the School
District's request.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Recommended Findings
Attachment 2 - Recommended Conditions of Approval
Attachment 3 - Tentative Parcel Map
Staff Report 95-108/TPM,1/24/96
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 1
FINDINGS
These findings relate to the approval of Application No. 95-108/TPM for the division of APNs
19-410-07/19-420-02:
1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements,
is consistent with the Town of Truckee Subdivision Ordinance. The conditions of
approval are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
•
2. Adequate public services are available in the area to serve the property. Payment of all
fees as described in the Conditions of Approval are in compliance with Town and State
Codes. Utility connection, School District, and public agency fees will allow for
development of the property without adversely affecting currently limited community
services.
3. No finding is made pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 which requires project
denial.
4. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed by this project will
be consistent with the General Plan proposal being studied and considered by the Town
of Truckee. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan. This finding is supported by the information and discussion
contained in the staff report.
5. These findings are supported by the information and discussion contained in the Zoning
Administrator staff report prepared for this application.
Staff Report 95-108/TPM, 1/24/96
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following conditions of approval are for Town of Truckee Application No. 95-108/TPM
(89/80 Properties Tentative Parcel Map):
1. The tentative parcel map is approved for the division of APNs 19-410-07/19-420-02 into
one (1) parcel of approximately 10.4 acres and a remainder of approximately 15 acres as
shown on the approved tentative parcel map and as modified by these conditions of
approval. The applicant shall submit parcel map check prints, all required information,
and applicable fees to the Planning Division for the review and approval of the parcel
map. The parcel map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or engineer in
accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Town Subdivision Ordinance. The parcel
map shall be recorded within 24 months of the date of approval, otherwise the approval of
the tentative parcel map shall become null and void unless an extension of time is granted
by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant is
responsible for complying with all conditions of approval and providing evidence to the
Planning Division of such compliance with the conditions.
2. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall pay a recreation mitigation fee
in the amount of$750 ($750 per newly created parcel). Proof of payment of this
mitigation fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division.
3. Any fees due to the Town of Truckee for processing this project shall be paid to the Town
within thirty (30) calendar days of final action by the approval authority. Failure to pay
such outstanding fees within the time specified shall invalidate any approval or
conditional approval granted by this action. The parcel map shall not be recorded until all
outstanding fees are paid to the Town.
4. The applicant shall offer for dedication a 60-foot right-of-way along Sha Neva Road from
the eastern property line of Parcel 1 to the eastern property line of the remainder and
along the eastern property line of the remainder from Sha Neva Road to the northernmost
driveway encroachment onto State Highway 89 within the remainder. The offer of
dedication shall be made in accordance with the requirements of the Town Engineer.
NEVADA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
5. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall provide the Nevada County
Department of Environmental Health with "proof of service" from the appropriate public
agencies for public water and sewer. The applicant shall be responsible for providing the
Planning Division with documentation from the Department of Environmental Health
stating that this condition has been met.
.
IL
0 °T 0� -- --
�t
" nul 1111 11111111111
;I''I1IIIW( t /tabM MEyS/ �G.- L___ _' M �II� Iil;I: IIII:II I� I ��'hllil
/ _
/ .
esign0 Tahoe
•
V- :` •. __.
Land.
• _� LANDSCAPE
-er:fini:frigil
LT1�. . .. MAS6HLP3E N S. (916)!63-2350
.111111111111.0•--
/ AS-LA.\ i: / POWER LINES , 4
RA
,\ , I `� V / PO636
96144
v`42AVok mAre,tt,t-ktit-ZPiaegail2 /2A9rA 7 N 4 ' / / \-___, t.
}6.
l'injel ,ver/�LCAALdAtiiji�„UsO.6L���''"'- (/ _ o / FUTURE I _ 2 -•�`Y' UUU '/ -``` /,• MINI STORAGE(120) 7a / ,
—f -! / j as7L , iI Ilrr' rrii ilk=pdy — I fL,
' �. IJwl ' T/ MASONRY MATERIALS '_� n040 SO 160 NORTH r IL/
/ "—➢ /' y� I (/1�1 a /� I � / , KJ�-..I -17 COVERED BINS AND MATERIAALL S 7r6Z /�b I P (/ (/
\� •lam ` �
RENTALS
`, r /�� /".+� �O�R I ARDAGARDEN /a \\\ 1
(�/�/�`'/' (Y ` ' I
rY/ (-- \\\\
assat_espai..:- /
\ ..•
...: • ` ..: BINS
1,1-'' G• C A, 1,A. L r i i l I ' 1. '-a,•4, r Y4'
;,
o �. /^{ SNAG -;\,`\\`,. RETAIL SALES ie. .c.272.3)
\- ') + __ TRUCK MAINTAINANCE I�
i 4 fet :).1A-117 44
• ' - ....
EXISTING TREFSTr I �'I TS;SPACES
"�11: cS✓ „..Le_ /pf2`(_W
} •ctin
/ , �. Tti / $� �6 I I I I I I I I + OFFICE ABOVE (.!
/ // sit - / t -9- 4- 4
D
I ---ry ®"4-.. NSI7I
DEMOATION GARDEN •
. t47(//le /
/' BXIS11N0 ROAD O tEn - -
HIGHWAY
The
•
BO
.3t4...,"
�+ 4 A)R. b
�U a c��e 6t_ / J eta to a
MARSH PROPERTY .
• sy6-76-DO MASTER PLAN
. .
._.. ,.. 11195'
V
_ 1'
.s,; M� TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. „„10.410.„4
1
CT
9$ - -
i.n« COACILLA„o MOBILO NOM PAN[ / /
LEO@D AM 10-+10-03 e_ /
pT�s" -, •
LOLAri IW A ......m.... - , / A-
ss usAC
s.w..wn Z ' LPN 10-410-11
REMAN]ER OF ANDS ^.^`
4y.`Ilry� 4 "As CONiNH1LM19lAlU9 ... 2.,.227,
NOTES pd.''. Qs' 4\ • '\,s
'- uM 10410-011
APR 10-4110-II .4 .•)•"
.......................:71""" Lsr 10 / 11 f�.`r�=•l —.
Ouse ns 1 ,.4_` d li'' y
/ I
.....:..e,m�:.".:v.�...,....m..,... auto!
AF." - i' PARCEL 1_ s \ APWWIfim/ .
'/i r ii-;•"-• �� saga....
2222. 1 " I -<-
',9
w..a APR 10-470-70
4000000 "
.,..�...,..2222 .a. LOT 4 /6 '• _ '. :i _.FPS1PBO
le /
2222.•2222,.,.,.T tl P.M. LOB I o- .. � >+" R+>�
`"r 4# .-\ \ _....../ i w
( i
Z \ \
\ ' 'PN j0.4
1
• ,LIL xnmLas.rLWUIRS•Niv[YCRS m.'.MIRMVO,H AMo-4]003 S4 O? m�—
mu I
,.®. .. — wmWC . „mi.cm_,., TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP r•Av
OHv --v
—
....ft
>v>,o.......vu,..a CII'.C.',Hy• 1CMI OF IH13AE CMS-0MA ..–r....
ROBERT L. TAMIETTI
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
January 24, 1996
The Honorable Tony Lashbrook
Town Planner/Zoning Administrator
Town of Truckee
11570 Donner Pass Road
Truckee, California 96161
Re: Application No. 95-108TPM
Dear Mr. Lashbrook:
This office represents Pacific Property Acres, Inc. , a
landowner with a parcel adjacent to the parcel subject to
the above-referenced application. Pacific Property Acres
submits for your consideration the following comments to the
application:
Access: Pacific Property Acres owns an easement for access
across the property at issue. The easement provides access
to the Sha-Neva properties that are West of the parcel at
issue. The easement has been improved into the now paved
Sha-Neva Road. This application contemplates use of the
Sha-Neva Road easement as access for this parcel from
Highway 89 . The proximity of the access point from Highway
89 to Sha-Neva Road poses a potential problem that should be
addressed at this stage of the approval process.
As staff recognized on page 3 of their report, the
anticipated volume of additional traffic generated by this
project will likely be too great for the existing easement,
given the proximity of the Sha-Neva Road/Highway 89
intersection to the on ramp for Interstate 80 Westbound.
CalTrans has expressed its concern and has threatened to
curtail use of the Sha-Neva Road/Highway 89 intersection,
should the traffic at that intersection grow to an
unacceptable level. Therefore, in order to assure adequate ,
access for this project and for future anticipated
development of adjacent properties, Pacific Property Acres
suggests that it would be imprudent to approve this
application without adding to following conditions for
approval:
With Offices in
Truekee's Historic a. A requirement that the applicant create and offer
Old Englehart House
(Circa 1889) for dedication a non-exclusive 60ft easement
10020 CHURCH STREET adjacent to the boundary of the applicant's
SUITE 1
TRUCKEE.CALIFORNIA
96161 L001 ELT
(916)587-8700
property with the Coachland property, which
easement would connect to the existing Sha-Neva
Road at an intersection agreed by the parties and
approved by the Town Engineer; and
b. A requirement that the applicant submit with its
application a road maintenance and improvement
agreement executed by all of the adjacent and
affected property owners for this newly created
easement (PPA, the applicant, 89/80 Partnership
and Coachland) , to avoid future disagreements
regarding the use of this new easement and
regarding the proportionate costs for improving
and maintaining the northernmost access point and
the new easement.
Pacific Property Acres respectfully disagrees with
staff's analysis that this issue of adequate access should
be left unresolved until the site plan application stage.
We suggest that it is most appropriate to resolve this issue
now, and to thereby ensure that the existing access point
will not be overburdened and rendered useless by threatened
adverse action from CalTrans.
Offer of Dedication: Pacific Property Acres is the owner
of the easement that is now Sha-Neva Road. It has not been
consulted by the applicant regarding the proposed offer of
dedication of its easement that is condition 4 of the Staff
Report. Consequently, Pacific Property Acres suggests that
condition four should be amended to include a requirement
that the applicant obtain and submit the written agreement
from the owner of the easement to any offer of dedication.
We thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Respec fully,
fl "Tt Tamietti
cc: Pacific Property Acres, Inc.
L001 ELT
1-24.-1996 11 :21AM FROM PLACER 911 CENTER. 916 581 6387 P. 1
f- AX I. 5 - I O i9 '110- ui/ / - cit
(Gry, . £)e v . T,apt
j v /-h e -re, t-v, ✓ o r u c.k e e- � /
Z br, n Carr, m ;; $ ion — Z�lti1Q V n2 /-rc7 1
We purchased our Mobile Home Unit #3 at Coachland Mobile Home Park in the summer
of 1995. At the time we questioned the ownership of the park regarding possible future
development of this property. We were told that the property was being considered for
development by Wal-Mart. The location of the power lines would assure a sufficient
easement to place keep the store at a discrete distance from the homes and would
undoubtedly require privacy fencing. Our home is located immediately adjacent to the this
property (Mobile Home #3) on Coachland Drive. We would never have made this
purchase if we had know that this type of rezoning was being considered. We now
understand that not only is the rezoning a possibility, but that if rezoned will be Cal-Trans
will require the use of one of the two exisiting roadway be used as an entrance to the
property. If it should be Coachlands.Roadways effected, this will case the passage of
heavy equipment directly in front of my home. This is were are children play, another
reason for purchasing in this private community.
After attending a Town Council Meeting, it quickly became clear to other of the Park
_ ..: residents and me that the main thrust of the Counsel is to increase the amount of business,
commercial and industrial development, there by increasing the Town Funds. 1 personally
find this extremely distressing. I understand that becoming a City often sounds wonderful
but can be an expensive proposition. There is much to be considered in the development
of a small community that has for many years been just that. My spouse and I relocated to
the area from a small town outside of Santa Barbara. Our relocation was founded on this
idea. I can think of no better example of over/rapid development growth of a community
with limited access than that of Santa Ynez. Although growth has its positive side, with it
comes changes that can negetively alter the community, destroying the very reasons many
of us chose to raise our families here.
The rezoning of this property to industrial with the intent of relocating the TNT yard, and
placing it next to a residential area is unfathomable. The chemicals and dust created by VirrtMesretankrar;a-
typetype of development will undoubtedly create health concerns for many of the homeowners
in the park. The noise, traffic, and changes to the environment will have a tremendous
impact on over 50 homeowners in residence. I realize that certain decisions must be made
during the growth of a community that will not also make us all happy. I do not
understand the Town accepting these conditions when they will so radically effect so
many. You can see this happening from town to town, where industrial sites are allowed
to develop this close to residential sites, the impact is almost immediate. Turning what was
meant to be a model addition to the community into an undesireable protery, an eye sore.
Many of us have received the impression that regardless of the fact that we had until today
to submit our concerns, that you and the zoning commission have already made your
decision to rezone the property. I find this extremely concerning.If the mechanism of the
Counsel is based on making your own decision and then pacifying the community
members by allowing them to submit their concern, it goes against the basic principles of
the Constitution.
I will look forward to hearing from you on this matter.
(cic t, ? f 5i {3 l Ib
JPN-24-1996 08: 10 FROM TRUCKEE RIVER HPNK TO 95827710 P.02
. January 23 , 1996
To : Town of Truckee Zoning Administrator
Community Development Department
Re : APNs 19-410-07/19-420-02
Application by Rrian and Cindy Marsh No. 95-108/TPM
We purchased a home located in the Coachland Mobile Home Park in
t he spring of 1995; this residential area is located next to the
proposed site of zoning chance . At the time of looking at this
area we were aware that the property next to Coachland Mobile Home
Park was zoned for Commercial-This was accepted by us as it may be
beneficial to our community. If in fact this site was Industrial
Zoned when we looked at this residental area-we would not have
invested in a Home here at all .
This proposed zoning change will only have a Negative outcome for
all surroundings . Property value will decrease-Homes will decrease
in value-this will effect what exsits now and what is to come in
the future . Increased traffic would mean an increase in the Danger
factor. Human Health will be effected in many ways if this is an
industrial zoned area. Chemicals such as Lime & Calcium, and also
Fiberglass are not items to have in a residential area-any & all
�. __ -•• • other chemicals is not safe in this type of Residential Community.
Surrounding vegitation, including many trees, will also be effected
in a Negative way. The increase in noise caused from such a change
will not be beneficial to those surrounding the area . There is
only Negative to come if this proposed change happens.
We have invested in our Future with the purchase of a Home in
Coachland-we did not intend to invest our Future next to an
Industrial Zoned area.
Sincerely,
Arno & Pappe