posted 03-23-2005 03:39 PM           

GRASS VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 2005

1.0 CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Grass Valley Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hyde at 6:35 p.m. on Tuesday, January 5, 2005 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Grass Valley, California

1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner White

2.0 ROLL CALL
Members present were Chairman Gloria Hyde, Commissioners Dale White, Jim Bair, and Commissioner Paul Aguilar. Staff present was Community Development Director Joe Heckel, Planning Director Tom Last, Associate Planner Dan Chance, Assistant Planner Joshua Dorris and Administrative Clerk Barb Carman.

3.0 APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by: Commissioner White
Seconded by: Commissioner Bair
Vote 4-0

4.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 16, 2004 MEETING

Motion to approve minutes.

Motion by: Commissioner White
Seconded by: Commissioner Aguilar
Vote 3-0

5.0 PUBLIC COMMENT - There is a time limitation of five minutes per person.
Chairman Hyde noted that an opportunity is provided for persons in the audience to make a brief statement on issues not covered by the agenda and which are relevant to the Commission’s responsibilities.

No comment at this time

6.0 STUDY SESSION - Grass Valley Corridor Improvement Project (GVCIP). The Planning Commission will conduct a study session on the proposed GVCIP relative to its purpose, design, sequencing, timing and funding. Dan Landon, Executive Director of Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC), will provide an overview of the GVCIP. The City will take no action during the study session as this item is informational.

Presentation by NCTC regarding the Grass Valley Corridor Improvement Project (GVCIP)
A Power Point presentation was provided by Dan Landon, Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC), Grant Johnson, Prism Engineering and Greg Bickett, Bickett Engineering.

Mr. Landon noted that the weave will be eliminated and the frontage roads will be utilized in rerouting traffic. The intersection at South Auburn St. and Colfax Ave. will be reconfigured. The Level of Service should be increased at all locations. The Transportation Commission and City Staff have been directed by the Grass Valley City Council to move forward on this project. Construction could start in late 2006 with completion planned in 2007. They are currently working on a funding solution.

Commissioner Bair questioned what the impact on Wolf Creek would be.
Mr. Landon noted that there will not be any impact to slope and roadway causing any problems with the creek.
Mr. Landon offered that all questions on the GVCIP can be directed the NCTC.

7.0 CONSENT ITEMS - (roll call vote) All matters listed under consent calendar are to be considered routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless, before Planning Commission votes on the motion to adopt, members of the Commission, staff or the public request specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion and action.

None

Commissioner Aguilar recused himself.

8.0 HEARINGS

8.1 Continued Public Hearing on Development Review Application (04DRC-32), General Plan Amendment (04PLN-19), and Rezoning Application (04PLN-20) for Jeff Gold for the construction of a 20,000 square foot retail center located within the Litton Business Park at the corner of Sierra College Drive and Litton Drive (APN’s 35-530-06 and 35-540-01) in the CBP (Corporate Business Park) Zoning District.

Chairman Hyde called for the item at 7:10

Presentation by Dan Chance, Associate Planner
He noted and reviewed all the comments received from agencies and the public. He also noted that a traffic study had been prepared by LSC and that a Peer Review of the traffic report was conducted by Fehr and Peers on 1/4/05.
The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee on 7/27/04 and 9/28/04. Mr. Chance noted that there were concerns regarding the loss of trees and recommended using trellises on the south side of the building.

Questions of staff:

Commissioner Bair questioned the number of vehicle trips (113) being used, the diversion and reduction process allowed in the traffic study.

Commissioner Bair also questioned when Briar Patch was proposed to be in Olympia Plaza, and what the traffic volumes had the study indicated would be generated.

Jason Pack, Fehr and Peers reviewed and explained how the Peer Review report was prepared and evaluated the traffic report prepared for the applicant.

Applicant and Representatives:

Jeff Gold, Architect, Litton Retail Center Project Representative
Greg Francis, Representing Litton Family
Jo McProud, Landscape Architect
Kevin Nelson, Nelson Engineering
Scott Ritchie, Traffic Engineer Roundabouts and Traffic Engineering (via phone)

Jeff Gold noted that there is a proposed 20,000 square foot center, with Briar Patch being considered the anchor tenant occupying 16,000 sq ft (80%). He also noted that a Geotechnical report had been completed and shows that the site can support this project.
He also noted that the Litton family has contributed funds for this project and that Briar Patch is locally owned and has been in existence for 30 years. He feels the project is in compliance with the General Plan and that this mixed use will relieve the congestion of the traffic in the area. He stated that this project would only take 4% of the business park area.
Mr. Gold stated that the traffic analysis does not exceed threshold established by the City for the LOS. He stated that it is not the intent of Litton Business Park to create a massive retail development.

Mr. Gold also clarified that the residential plan is not part of this project and had only been a conceptual idea to Development Review Committee two years ago.

The project was designed with the idea of compatibility, setting building forward closer to the street. The buildings are low profile, single story and will be very energy efficient. The developers and owners are concerned about the quality of life in the area and wish to maintain it.

Jeff Gold presented Scott Ritchie’s traffic study.
He stated that the concern over a retail center versus neighborhood center was the major issue and the numbers used are quite different. This is considered a neighborhood center by size and ITE definition.
Mr. Gold stated that a traffic study was done at the existing Briar Patch without using any type of reduction. He also noted that the City of Grass Valley requires 87 parking spaces, and there are 97 provided.

Questions of Applicant:

Commissioner Bair questioned the previously proposed housing request and how that might be included if this is rezoned.

He also questioned the exterior lighting plan, and if it would be shielded and how much light pollution would be generated and what was planned for shade requirements.

Josephine McProud, Landscape Architect noted that the project meets or exceeds 50% shade requirement using cedars and redwoods.

No further questions of applicant.

Chairman Hyde opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.

Grant Cattaneo, Morgan Ranch

He handed out a copy of his findings and presented them using an overhead and stated that he requested the Planning Commission deny the project.
He stated there were errors, omissions and inconsistencies in the Traffic Analysis including:

# 1. There is a discrepancy in the traffic report and the application’s proposal is stating the square footage and the number of trips generated for the project.
#2 A comparison of the previous traffic report on same applicant was omitted
#3 An incorrect business classification was used within City’s improvement standards to determine pass by reductions.
#4 Used regional vs. neighborhood and used national data, which is not comparable.
#5 Peer review report regarding the pass-by reduction and product lines.
#6 Shopping center designation was inappropriate
#7 The traffic study should be updated if more intense land uses like deli/restaurant are to be included.
#8 An Issue was raised that it would have been preferable to survey existing Briar Patch.
#9 The traffic report showed reductions for diverted link trips with no data available.
#10 There was no analysis of traffic associated with the vacated property after project is complete.
#11 There was no analysis/addition of traffic data on approved but not yet built projects in the surrounding area. He also noted that a summary had been prepared.

Roger Burger, Cypress Hill
He is in favor of the project and feels there is no problem with the proposed parking.
The current business (building) is over crowded and feels people will be encouraged to walk from nearby neighborhoods.

Paul Harten, Manager Briar Patch
He stated that Briar Patch was founded in 1976, has moved several times and is now on Joerschke Drive. The Litton site meets their needs and the business wants to continue to be a part of the community. He feels that this location is near the neighborhoods and customers would utilize walking and biking to the store. He stated it is also on the bus line.

Leo Chaiko, Grass Valley
Complimented Jeff Gold on a nice design
He is against the project feeling that this is not the right place for a grocery store.
He stated that the roundabout will become a “merry go round” and feels that the General Plan that is in place is working well in that area.

Ron Lutty, Grass Valley
Stated that parking is a major concern and feels that the parking spaces that should be required would be 117 and should be increased to 122 with all the other areas that will be developed within the retail project.

David Fisher, LaBarr Meadows.
He was concerned about traffic. Does not feel anyone will walk or ride a bike in the area.
Feels trucks and especially fire trucks cannot get around the roundabout.
Since Chapa De was denied because of traffic, he does not feel it would have any where near the impact that the shopping center will generate. This is not a place for a grocery store. He is in favor of the Briar Patch, but not in this location.

Patty Kirby, Co-op Member
She is in favor of the project.
She stated that Morgan Ranch creates the largest impact of traffic in the area. She feels this is a unique opportunity for a market instead of convenience store that would sell cigarettes and beer. She noted that this business attracts non-member shoppers which contribute to local area. She was pleased that they use some local agriculturally grown products.

Mark Hall, 15152 Liberty Circle
He is in favor of project and feels it is an appropriate land use.
He likes the idea of shopping near where you live and noted that the Brunswick Basin is not geared for pedestrians or bicycles. He feels there would be less traffic, since patrons would not have to drive as far. He was concerned about Morgan Ranch traffic when that project came in many years ago.

Denita Rising, Morgan Ranch
She is in support of the project.

Julia Caroll, 99 Leahy Rd.
She is in favor of the project.
Since the store is not large enough to carry all items many people need, she contributes to the traffic congestion all over the area by having to travel to many stores to get what she needs. She was pleased that Briar Patch supports local farmers

Caroline Burnside, Big Oak Valley
She is in favor of the project and has a very long drive and consolidates trips into town.
Mitigation measures would be valid, since many are not just one trip to get to store.

Reann Lovett 17195
She was opposed to the project and does not want the zoning to be changed which will then allow other changes to be approved. She feels it sets the wrong precedent and is not the right place. She is not against Briar Patch, but feels the City should adhere to the current zoning.

Ingrid Cattaneo
She is against the project and does not feel it meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). She referenced the California Environmental Quality Act and believes that the circulation impacts need to be addressed. She stated that the Negative Declaration failed to take into proper consideration the increased enrollment in Sierra College, the impact of Kenny Ranch, increase in use of recreation trails and areas, and eventual usage by the Chapa De Medical Clinic. She questioned the description of the project being complete. The project has been segmented and is in violation of CEQA and she does not feel that it was given due consideration
She requested that the project be denied based on these issues.

Terry Lampier
He questioned the total square footage of the project. Although rezoning would be for just the 2.76 acres he feels Briar Patch is being used by the developer to further future changes. He is also concerned about the CEQA violations and questioned what would happen if Briar Patch were to leave the site after the project was built. He feels the City is putting the cart before horse and need to fix the traffic problems before allowing any more development.

Susan Snyder, Nevada City
She is in favor of the project and is also a co-op member. She wants a full service store and feels that the store needs more space which would reduce the number of traffic trips to other stores.

Max McCann, Grass Valley
Opposes the zoning change and is in favor of the current general plan classification. He feels it could be a domino effect if it becomes a retail setting, as there might not be any other proposals now, but could set precedence for the future if other similar businesses apply. Once the zoning is changed, it will be gone forever.

Dr. Neva Mongatti Lake, 300 Sierra College Dr.
She opposes the project. She located her medical practice specifically in this location because of the Corporate Business Park (CBP) zoning which did not allow retail. This is not about the Briar Patch, but about the rezone and allowing retail in the Corporate Business Park.

Jeanne Toffanelli,
She is in favor of the rezoning. She would like each project reviewed on its own merits.
She feels this is a desirable area and provides good access and convenience is important to people.

Lee Rathsteder, 18
She stated she was 18 years old and is in favor of the project.

Esther Burnside,
She is a student at Sierra College and commutes on bike to work at the current Briar Patch.
She feels this would benefit both Sierra College and Nevada Union High School.

Elizabeth Martin, Honey Drive
She is in favor of the project and wants the negative declaration adopted. She feels this proposal is in compliance with the City’s General Plan. Since there is going to be development in this area, she feels this particular proposal would create less traffic and less impact on the neighborhood.

Lori Dart, Greenhorn Rd.
She is in favor of the project and feels there will be a gas shortage and this project is creating infill and will be more supportive of community needs.

Marshall Goldberg
Board of Directors. Briar Patch
He was previously a Planning Commissioner for Nevada County.
He is familiar with the General Plan and the City’s General Plan and feels that there can be appropriate zoning changes for different areas. He feels that we should be planning for growth in the Sierra College area and this is promoting infill and is an appropriate mix of uses. He finds the rezone to be consistent with the City’s General Plan.

There being no further comment, Chairman Hyde Closed the Public Hearing at 9:30

Comments from Commissioners:

Commissioner Bair stated that he is a member of the co-op and noted that this is not about the Briar Patch. He feels these are important issues to be considered regarding being compliance with state law, (CEQA).
He stated that if there was a less than significant impact, we must have a traffic study to substantiate this fact. He does not feel this is a neighborhood convenience center and that the City needs to be sensible about traffic. There are many parcels owned by the same developer and other parcels will be factored into the rezoning. The traffic report did not mention the increasing enrollment for Sierra College.
He would like a determination/clarification on the CEQA law. He suggests a continuance of this application with traffic being the focused issue.

Commissioner White feels there would be an impact of the overall community. He feels the Briar Patch is important but this location is not necessarily appropriate for commercial/ retail. The infill element is not clear, but this is the type of project that can impact other businesses. Briar Patch is an excellent facility. He feels the roundabout is hazardous and would cause further problems with increased traffic.

Chairman Hyde agrees with both Commissioner Bair and Commissioner White, and still has respect for the Briar Patch. She feels the project is in conflict with the General Plan and creates a spot zoning change. She does not feel this is consistent with the General Plan or the zoning ordinance. She does not consider this project as infill and is not mixed use. She feels the traffic would be impacted and that it would require an EIR.

Motion: Commissioner Bair moves that a continuance of the proposal be granted for the purpose of requiring the applicant to update the traffic analysis, and revise the environmental assessment.
Motion fails due lack of second
Motion: Commissioner White moves that project be denied based on the conflict with the City’s 2020 General Plan and that the findings to support this denial be adopted.
Seconded: Chairman Hyde
Discussion: Commissioner Bair called for discussion. He questioned if the project can be appealed to the City Council. He feels his alternative would provide measures to have additional review.
Commissioner White feels that it would be unfair to put a further burden on the developer.
Vote: 2-1 on motion by Commissioner White
Chairman Hyde and Commissioner White are in favor of denial. (See Findings Below)
Commissioner Bair opposed.

Findings for Denial of Applications Development Review 04DRC-32, General Plan Amendment 04PLN-19 & Rezoning 04PLN-20 For the
Litton Hill Retail Center

1. Development Review 04DRC-32, General Plan Amendment 04PLN-19, and Rezoning Applications 04PLN-20 were received by the City on May 14, 2004. Additional information required to complete the applications was subsequently submitted, and the applications were deemed complete by the City on June 10, 2004.

2. On June 30, 2004, the City circulated Development Review 04DRC-32, General Plan Amendment 04PLN-19, and Rezoning Applications 04PLN-20, to appropriate agencies and departments for review and comment.

3. The 2020/General Plan for the City designates the project site as Business Park land use designation. The project includes a General Plan Amendment to Commercial land use designation. The Commercial land use designation is not consistent with the goals and policies of the 2020/General Plan for the City. The proposed use and construction of the project are not consistent with the General Plan designation and the Corporate Business Park Zoning District. The Planning Commission decision is based on the proposed change to the General Plan will not reflect the development patterns for the City as defined in the General Plan and the goal of the General Plan to encourage light industrial and research and development companies in the Business Park land use designation.

4. The zoning of the property is CBP (Corporate Business Park) District. The project includes rezoning the property to C-1; Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District The project is not consistent with the City’s C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and all other applicable sections and development standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The use of a retail shopping center at the site is not in conformance with uses allowed in the Corporate Business Park Zoning District.

Called for a 5 minute break at 10:00
Reconvened at 10:05

Commissioner Aguilar returned to the Dais.

8.2 Continued Public Hearing on Tentative Map Application (04PLN-30) of Charles Stevens for the division of an existing parcel into four (4) parcels located at 160 Ventana Sierra Drive (APN 35-140-18) in the R-1 (Single Family) Zoning District.

Chairman Hyde called for the item at 10:05 p.m.

The project was presented by Joshua Dorris, Assistant Planner, noting that the project has been reduced from 4 parcels to 3 parcels. He noted that specific CC & R’s have been proposed. Project is compatible to the neighborhood relative to density, setbacks and building envelopes.

The Commissioners had no questions of staff.

John O’Dell, Engineer and Representative
He stated that the applicant did try to comply with the requests of the neighborhood.
He noted that there is currently a two-story residence next to the project. The building envelopes of Ventana Sierra are very small. He noted that after the homes were built out, the C C & R’s would be enforced and would mirror Ventana Sierra’s. He also noted that no driveway will be constructed on the front parcel and that garages would be at the rear of the parcels.
Access to the sites will come in at street level. A neighborhood meeting was held on December 20, 2004.

Commissioner White did not have any questions of the applicant.

Commissioner Aguilar questioned a letter received regarding a common fence.

Commissioner Bair did not have any questions at this time.

Chairman Hyde opened Public Hearing at 10:20 p.m.

Neil Dorfman, Neighbor
He questioned if the CC&R’s could be conditioned for filing of the final map.
He appreciated the applicant for working in good faith. He does feel that there is a CEQA issue although the staff report states that the project is exempt as an infill development. He does not agree with the infill definition or with the criteria that were used to define it. This is not an urbanized area and should not be considered an infill project. He opposes the approval of project since he does not feel it qualifies as an infill.

Debbie Sitzberger,
She stated that the project does not qualify as infill under the General Plan. She stated that there are approximately 32 vacant lots existing within Morgan Ranch and Ventana Sierra so this should not be looked at as infill. She discussed setbacks, and is concerned with the proposed fence, landscaping and buffer zone.

There being no further comment, Chairman Hyde closed the Public Hearing at 10:31p.m.

Commissioner Bair requested clarification on the CEQA question raised during the Public Hearing.

Tom Last, Planning Director, stated that the project meets the City’s General Plan infill definition requirements with the surrounding church, parking lot, and homes. He noted that staff conducted and reviewed the environmental issues and believed that the project qualifies for this exemption.

Motion: Commissioner Aguilar moved to approve the proposed project with findings and conditions as noted in the staff report.
Seconded: Commissioner White
Vote 4-0

Tentative Parcel Map Application 04PLN-30 Conditions of Approval

1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City in any action or proceeding brought against the City to void or annul this discretionary land use approval.
2. Prior to recording the Final Map, the following Public Works/City Engineer’s Conditions shall be satisfied:
a. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval, an improvement plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; shall obtain an Encroachment Permit; and shall pay all appropriate fees for plan check and inspection at the time of permit issuance. The grading and improvements plan shall include roadway slopes and elevations, curb, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, striping and signing, paving, water and sewer pipelines, storm drains, and necessary easements, in accordance with City’s Standards.
b. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City Engineer to complete the public improvements; and shall post sufficient security guaranteeing the construction of the improvements. Security may be made in the form of a lien on the parcels, and coordinated from completion of construction prior to issuance of a building permit on any of the four parcels.
c. Subdivider shall dedicate land, or pay a fee in-lieu of dedication, for park and recreation purposes in accordance with the City=s Subdivision Ordinance.
d. If any of the improvements which the applicant is required to construct or install is to be constructed or installed upon land in which the applicant does not have a title or interest sufficient for such purposes, the applicant shall do all of the following at least 60 days prior to the filing of the final or parcel map for approval pursuant to Government Code Section 66457:
1. Notify the City of Grass Valley in writing that the applicant wishes the City to acquire an interest in the land which is sufficient for such purposes as provided in Government Code Section 66462.5;
2. Supply the City with (i) a legal description of the interest to be acquired, (ii) a map or diagram of the interest to be acquired sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (e) of Section 1250.310 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (iii) a current appraisal report prepared by an appraiser approved by the City which expresses an opinion as to the current fair market value of the interest to be acquired, and (iv) a current Litigation Guarantee Report;
3. Enter into an agreement with the City, guaranteed by such cash deposits or other security as the City may require, pursuant to which the applicant will pay all of the City’s cost (including, without limitation, attorney’s fees and overhead expenses) of acquiring such an interest in the land.
e. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a Parcel Map prepared by a Licensed Surveyor, or Registered Civil Engineer licensed to survey in the State of California, in accordance with the California Subdivision Map Act; and shall pay all appropriate fees for map check and recording.
f. The applicant shall offer to dedicate to the City for public use, all the public streets right-of-way or easements necessary to install, maintain, and re-install all public improvements described on the Improvement Plans.
g. The proposed Covenants Conditions & Restrictions shall be submitted for final review and approval by City Staff and shall include the provisions provided by the applicant.
3. During construction, the following conditions shall apply:
a. That prior to any work being conducted within State, County or City right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the appropriate agency.
b. If any hazardous waste is encountered during construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Nevada County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies.
c. If grading is to take place between October 15 and April 15, both temporary and permanent erosion control plans shall be submitted for review and approval along with the grading plan. Permanent erosion control measures shall include hydro seeding of all graded slopes within 60 days of completion of grading. Erosion control measures shall be installed prior to October 15
4. Prior to acceptance of public improvements and exoneration of bonds, or other forms of security, the following conditions shall be satisfied:
a. Sufficient surety (Maintenance Bond) guaranteeing the public improvements for a period of one year shall be provided.
b. If substantial changes in the size, alignment, grades, etc. during construction, original “as-built” plans on the standard size will be certified by the Civil Engineer and returned to the City Engineer’s office.
5. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the following conditions shall be satisfied:
a. For any individual lot where earthwork shall exceed 50 cubic yards (cut and fill), the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval, a grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; shall obtain a Grading Permit; and shall pay all appropriate fees for plan check and inspection at the time of permit issuance. The grading plans shall detail all driveways, building foundation and footprint, graded slopes and elevations, drainage facilities, paving, and necessary easements, in accordance with the City’s Standards.
6. Other special conditions:
STREET
a. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing street frontage improvements for Ventana Court. Street improvements shall be constructed per City Standard. Frontage improvements shall include sidewalk on the southeast side of Ventana Court and intersection cut back area at the southwest corner of Ventana Sierra Drive and Ventana Sierra Court.
b. All driveways shall be per City standards for residential developments.
c. Install street light standard and luminaries of the design, spacing, and locations approved by the City Engineer.
WATER
a. The applicant shall submit fire flow calculations for all onsite facilities to the City Fire Department to ensure that adequate flows will be provided for the project.
7. This Tentative Parcel Map 04PLN-30 shall expire and become null and void in three years from this date, or January 5, 2008, or unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission.

8.3 Development Review Application (04DRC-66) for Bruce Ivy for an addition of 1,890 square feet of office space and 1,240 square feet of warehouse to an existing building located at 1005 Idaho Maryland Road (APN 09-680-20) in the SP1-B (Whispering Pines Specific Plan) Zoning District.

Chairman Hyde called for the item at 10:38 p.m.

Staff report was presented by Tom Last, Planning Director
He noted that it is supported by the Development Review Committee and that minor changes had been made pursuant to their request.

There were no questions of staff.

Bruce Ivy, Representative, 143 “A” Springhill Dr., Grass Valley noted that he was available for questions.

Chairman Hyde opened the Public Hearing at 10:45 p.m., there being no comment, she closed the Public Hearing.

Motion: Commissioner Aguilar moved to approve the project with the conditions and findings as noted.
Seconded: Commissioner Bair
Vote 4-0

Final Conditions of Approval for 04DRC-66
Approved by the Planning Commission on January 5, 2005:

1. All plans shall be implemented in accordance with the plans provided by the applicant and approved by the Grass Valley Planning Commission for Development Review Application 04DRC-66, unless changes are approved by the Commission prior to commencing such changes. Minor changes may be approved by the Community Development Department as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director.

2. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City in any action or proceeding brought against the City to void or annul this discretionary land use approval.

3. If needed during site construction, the applicant shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent dust emissions, including the regular application of water or other dust suppressants to keep visible dust emissions from crossing the property boundary and causing a public nuisance.

4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan. The final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning. The landscape plan shall include the hydro seed mix to be used on the cut and fill slopes. Landscape design shall comply with all provisions of Article 16C of the Grass Valley Zoning Ordinance regarding water efficiency. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans.

5. The following items shall be submitted as part of the Building Permit Application package and be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department:
a. Building and appurtenant structure exterior colors and materials. Paint chips of the proposed color scheme shall be included.
b. Final landscape and Irrigation Plans.
c. Utility meter, transformer, irrigation control unit location and screening.

All of the aforementioned plans shall incorporate all of the design specifications and criteria as shown on the site plan approved and modified by the Planning Commission on January 5, 2005, unless otherwise modified as specified by condition # 1.

6. Prior to issuance of a certificate of final occupancy, pursuant to sections 16C-06 through 16C-09 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant shall provide the following:

a. A letter signed by a licensed landscape architect that the landscaping and irrigation have been installed in accordance with the approved plans.
b. Provide a copy of the landscape maintenance contract, or the bond or cash security guaranteeing the maintenance of the landscaping and irrigation for one year.
c. Upon completion of the grading operations, and prior to the hydro seeding of the cut and fill slopes, a licensed landscape architect shall submit a letter to the City stating whether the proposed hydro seed mix is appropriate or if a change is necessary to ensure the cut and fill slopes will be appropriately covered with vegetation.

7. The applicant or landowner shall maintain the landscaping, signage, buildings, and grounds of the property in good condition. Once a deterioration of the quality of such items is noted and documented by the City, the Development Review approval (04DRC-66) on this project may be brought before the Planning Commission for enforcement action.

8. If construction of the project has not commenced within one (1) year from the date of approval, or by January 5, 2006, the Development Review application approval shall become null and void. For the purposes of this condition, the term "commencement" means the obtaining of a City Building Permit and the initiation of construction activity on the site.

9. If grading or other construction operations unearth archeological or historical artifacts or resources, construction activities shall cease. The Planning Department shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note of this requirement shall be clearly delineated on the grading and building plans of the project.

10. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Nevada County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies.

11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall irrevocably offer to dedicate additional right of way to the City for the realignment of the private road to intersect Idaho-Maryland Road at 90 degrees, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a request to the City Engineer for a street name designation for the private road.

13. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall confirm, with approval of the City Engineer, the stability of the cut slope within the 50 foot slope easement along the southern property line.

14. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the City Engineer shall approve plans for a sand/oil separator to be installed at the drainage inlet.

15. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, dedication documents that petition the City Council to vacate the existing Open Space Easement and to rededicate this area as an Open Space and Trail Easement. The new Open Space and Trail Easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the addition.

8.4 Application for Variance (04PLN-0039) for Daniel and Nancy Mana for the construction of a single car garage within the side and rear yard setbacks facing South School Street on an existing non-conforming lot located at 338 S. Church St. (APN 08-403-08)in the R-1 (Single Family) Zoning District.

Chairman Hyde called for item at 10:46 p.m.

The staff report was presented by Dan Chance, Associate Planner

There were no questions of staff.

Nancy Mana, applicant

Chairman Hyde called for Public Hearing at 10:50

Lisa Swarthout, private citizen,
She is in favor of the project especially since it borders her property and will continue with an existing development pattern in the neighborhood. The previous structure was an eyesore and she looks forward to the new structure.

There being no further comment, Chairman Hyde closed the Public Hearing at 10:53 p.m.

Motion: Commissioner Bair moved to approve the project with findings and conditions as noted in the staff report.
Seconded: Commissioner White
Vote 4-0

Conditions of Approval:

1. All plans shall be constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission for Variance Application 04PLN-39, unless changes are approved by the Commission prior to commencing such changes. Minor design changes may be approved by the Community Development Department as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director.
2. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City in any action or proceeding brought against the City to void or annul this discretionary land use approval.

3. The final building plans for the detached garage shall identify a one-hour fire wall and no openings along the northeast side of the building.

8.5 Tentative Map Application (04PLN-0045) for William Wales for the creation of two parcels from a parcel recently created by PM02-04 located at 496 Charlene Way (35-270-05) in the R-1 (Single Family) Zoning District

Chairman Hyde called for the item at 10:54 p.m.

The staff report was resented by Tom Last, Planning Director noting that it complies with the density and development standards designated for the area.

There were no questions of staff.

Richard Ecobacci, Civil Engineer
William Wales, Applicant.

The paving of only a twenty foot area of Charlene Way was questioned.

Tom Last, Planning Director noted that this condition was required by the City and is a fire safety issue.

William Wales questioned how it would make an impact in the area since it would go over the NID ditch.

Chairman Hyde opened the Public Hearing at 11:00p.m.

Dan Graham, Charlene Lane
He noted that the tentative map says that 25 feet should be paved but the condition notes that paving would only be required for 20 ft.

Tom Last noted that paving is an improvement and would be required by other the new parcel owner when developed.

Winn Roger, 640 Charlene
Stated that the road is in terrible condition and very hazardous.

June Jamerson, 570 Charlene
Currently owns three, one-acre parcels. She noted that there is a dedicated 25 foot right of way that had previously been dedicated to the County. She stated that they will also dedicate 25 feet to current right of way if they pave the road.

There being no further comment, Chairman Hyde closed the Public Hearing at 11:05 p.m.

Motion: Commissioner White moved to approve the project with findings and conditions as noted
Seconded: Commissioner Aguilar
Vote 4-0

Final Conditions of Approval for 04PLN-45
Approved by the Planning Commission on January 5, 2005:

1. Tentative Parcel Map 04PLN-45 shall expire and become null and void in three years from this date, or January 5, 2008, or unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission.

2. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City in any action or proceeding brought against the City to void or annul this discretionary land use approval.

3. The subdivider shall prepare a final map, in accordance with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Ord. No. 180 N.S.)

4. Prior to recording the final map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, or pay a fee in-lieu of dedication, for park and recreation purposes in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.

5. Prior to recording the final map, subdivider shall obtain a will-serve commitment from Nevada Irrigation District (NID) for water service to the parcels, or secure water service for the parcels, including easements if necessary.

6. The subdivider shall submit for approval and designate on the Parcel Map a name for the extension of Charlene Lane abutting Parcels A and B.

7. Prior to recording the final map, the subdivider shall demonstrate adequate driveway access with less than a 20% slope (per City of Grass Valley Standard Drawing 3-5) to Parcel A, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

8. Prior to recording the final map, the subdivider shall design and construct sanitary sewer improvements in the extension of Charlene (from the existing sewer in Charlene Lane, near the southeast corner of Parcel B, north to a point near the center of the partial cul-de-sac). Sewer laterals should be extended to serve Parcels A and B. The home on Parcel A as well as any future improvements requiring sewer on either Parcel A or B shall be connected to the sewer line.

9. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit road improvement plans to be approved by the City Engineer, and shall widen the existing pavement on Charlene Lane to 20 feet along the parcel frontage, and provide pavement, 20 feet wide, for the length of cul-de-sac road frontage. The pavement improvements shall be completed to meet City standards. The road design and improvements shall include a turn around for fire vehicles, to be approved by the Fire Department, at the end of the cul-de-sac.

10. The final map shall include a note that requires Parcel “B” to use the existing driveway off of Charlene Lane as its access and prohibits any new driveways from Charlene Lane or the cul-de-sac.

9. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

None

10.0 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION OR SEPARATE ACTION

None

11.0 OTHER BUSINESS

12.1 Correspondence
Joe Heckel, Community Development Director advised the Commissioners to call if they had any questions.
12.2 Action items by City Council
Joe Heckel, Community Development Director noted that the new council had been seated and a new Mayor and Vice Mayor selected. Gerard Tassone is Mayor and Mark Johnson is Vice Mayor.
He also noted that on January 11, 2005 the Council will consider a report on the appointment process for Planning Commissioners.
12.3 Future meetings, study sessions and workshops
Joe Heckel, Community Development Director noted that the Commission needs to appoint a Planning Commissioner to serve on South Auburn Street Master Plan Subcommittee.
Chairman Hyde appointed Commissioner Bair
An alternate also needed to be selected to serve on the Development Code Update Committee
Chairman Hyde appointed Commissioner Aguilar
12.4 Status of Special Development Areas (SDA=s)
In view of the late hour, the report on the SDA’s was deferred to the regular meeting of January 18, 2005.
13.0 Brief Announcements/Reports by Planning Commission Members
None
14.0 Community Development Director Report
Deferred to the meeting on January 18th
15.0 ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Tuesday, January 18, 2005 at 11:10p.m.

Motion by: Commissioner White
Seconded by: Chairman Hyde
Vote4-0

This meeting is adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Grass Valley, California.

Respectfully Submitted

Barbara J. Carman
Administrative Clerk to the Planning Commission

Approved this Day of , 2005.

________________________________________
Gloria S. Hyde, Chairman

Reviewed by _________________________________________
Joe C. Heckel, Community Development Director