posted 05-17-2006 08:45 AM           

GRASS VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2006

1.0 CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Grass Valley Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman White at 7:00p.m. on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Grass Valley, California

2.0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Hyde

3.0 ROLL CALL
Members present were Chairman Dale White, Commissioners Gloria Hyde, David Emanuel, Eleanor Kenitzer, and Commissioner Ralph Silberstein. Staff present was Community Development Director Joe Heckel, Planning Director Tom Last, Associate Planner Dan Chance, Associate Civil Engineer Trisha Tillotson, Sandy Jacobson, Park and Recreation Manager and Administrative Clerk Barb Carman.

4.0 APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by: Commissioner Hyde
Seconded by: Commissioner Kenitzer
Commissioner Emanuel requested item 7.1 be moved to item 10.1 as amended
Vote 5-0

5.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

.

Motion by: Commissioner Kenitzer moved to approved minutes with revisions as noted.
Seconded by: Commissioner Emanuel
Vote 5-0

6.0 PUBLIC COMMENT - There is a time limitation of five minutes per person.
Chairman White 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.

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.

7.1 Request for a one year extension of Development Review Application (05DRC-07) and Use Permit (06PLN-06) for Dunmore Homes for the “Whiting Street Development Project”. The extensions are also associated with Tentative Map (06PLN-07) and Planned Unit Development (06PLN-08), which were previously approved on April 13, 2004 by the City Council for the construction of 67 single family residences located at 624 Whiting Street (APN 29-340-01) in the C-2 (Central Business) Zoning District. Environmental Assessment: Previously adopted Negative Declaration

Per motion, moved item 7.1 off consent items to item 10.1

7.2 Lot Line Adjustment (06PLN-05) for Calloway Development, LLC to adjust the property lines of two parcels located at Sierra College Drive (APNs' 35-530-06 and 35-540-01) in the C-1 (Community Business District) and CBP (Corporate Business Park) Zoning Districts. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt

Motion by: Commissioner Hyde to approve item with findings and conditions as noted.
Seconded by: Commissioner Kenitzer
Vote: 5-0

Roll Call vote:
Chairman White- y _x_ n__
Commissioner Hyde y _x_ n__
Commissioner Kenitzer y _x_ n__
Commissioner Emanuel y _x_ n__
Commissioner Silberstein y _x_ n__

8.0 HEARINGS

8.1 Development Review Application (06DRC-02) for Thomas Weaver for an exception to the sign ordinance for two monument signs and signage on the building that exceeds the City’s Zoning Ordinance Standards at 400 Idaho Maryland Road, (APN 09-191-20) in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Environmental Assessment: Previously adopted Negative Declaration

Chairman White called for the item at 7:10 p.m.

Tom Last, Planning Director presented the item noting the exceptions requested. He stated that the pylon sign has been removed from the sign program and that the monument signs are showing to be 8 ft high x 6 ft wide. The Development Review Committee (DRC) recommended that pillar elements be added to the monument signs. One of the conditions of the original project approval was for the Planning Commission to approve the proposed sign program.

No questions of staff at this time.

Tom Weaver, Applicant
He stated that they have removed the General Motors sign and the pylon sign. The signs on the service building are not visible from Idaho Maryland Road. He would like to maintain the two (2) monument signs on each side of the driveways.

Chairman White questioned what the distance between signs would be.

Mr. Weaver stated that it would be about 300 feet

Commissioner Silberstein questioned if the signs were internally illuminated.

Mr. Weaver stated that General Motors does not make external illuminated signs and that the signs that would be leased from General Motors.

Commissioner Emanuel questioned if leasing signs from a parent corporation was unique.

Joe Heckel, Community Development Director stated that it was done quite often.

Chairman White opened the Public Hearing at 7:23 p.m.

Rain, 369 Mill St.
As an artist she feels that the signs are quite commercial looking and suggests using a precast stone fabricator which would have a stone appearance and a more organic feel.

Steve Bender, 239 Mill St.
He is in favor of approval of the signs as noted.

There being no further comment, Chairman White closed the Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m.

Commissioner Hyde stated that the monument sign area is larger than usual and that one large monument sign should be located between the driveways with directional entrance signs at each driveway.

Commissioner Silberstein stated he would like to move away from internally illuminated signs and instead use external illumination. He also prefers a more natural looking type sign.

Commissioner Kenitzer was in favor of two (2) externally illuminated monument signs.

Mr. Weaver stated this is the smallest sign General Motors makes.

Commissioner Emanuel in favor of the program in keeping with the findings and recommendations from the Development Review Committee (DRC)

Chairman White stated that he would like to stay with the Development Review Committee (DRC) recommendations. He thinks there should only be one monument sign.

Motion by: Commissioner Hyde moved to approve the sign program as per the findings and conditions listed in the staff report.
Seconded by: Commissioner Emanuel
Vote 5-0

Conditions for Approval:
1. All signs shall be constructed in accordance with the signs approved by the Planning Commission for Development Review Application 06DRC-02, 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. Prior to installation of the approved sign, a Sign Permit shall be secured from the Building Division.
3. Prior to issuance of a Sign Permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval to the Development Review Committee, a revised sign program incorporating the following:
a) A revised sign plan which shows one, 40 square foot monument sign to be centrally located between the two driveway entrances;
b) Redesign the monument sign to be exterior illuminated;
c) Redesign the monument sign to incorporates a column element on at least one end of the sign to complement the building; and
d) Provide a plan showing the two project entrance signs, one at each driveway, each less than three square feet in size, with exterior illumination.
4. The applicant or landowner shall maintain the signage in good condition. Once a deterioration of the quality of the signs is noted and documented by the City, the Planning Commission approval of this project may be brought before the Planning Commission for enforcement action.
5. 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.

8.2 Review of alternative or substitute traffic mitigation measure (Condition number 39) adopted as part of a Mitigated Negative Declaration on August 17, 2004 for Development Review Application (04DRC-016) for Chatfield Construction (Weaver Automotive) for the construction of a 34,600 square foot automobile dealership at 400 Idaho Maryland Road (APN's 09-191-20 and 03) in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Environmental Assessment: Previously adopted Negative Declaration

Chairman White called for the item at 7:35 p.m.

Tom Last, Planning Director stated that this is a request to modify condition of approval/mitigation measure #39 for Weaver Auto. He provided an update on the status of the project.
He noted that by approving the modification to Condition 39 it would allow Mr. Weaver to avoid employee related traffic during the peak p.m. hours. This would eliminate the need to monitor the current site at East Main Street. He reviewed the effectiveness of the alternative. Mr. Last stated that a redevelopment effort would be needed in order for a business to go into the existing site on East Main Street to create more than 58 pm peak hour trips.

Chairman White clarified that there are two separate issues, one which requires vote.

Commissioner Hyde questioned alternative #2 which deals with disabling service bays at 400 Idaho Maryland Road, if a business with high volume traffic goes into the 520 E. Main St. location. She feels that if we don’t address it clearly now, there will not be a second chance to correct or mitigate.

Commissioner Silberstein questioned the number of employees at the Idaho Maryland Road location and if this included any new employees.

Tom Last, Planning Director stated that there would be a total of 46 employees.

Tom Last, Planning Director noted that no employees would depart from the dealership between the hours of 4-6p.m.

Matt Weaver, applicant
Stated that he feels they have come up with an enforceable mitigation measure.
He met with CCAT representative, Grant Cattaneo and believes that they can still meet the customer needs. He stated that they are only planning to hire possibly six (6) new people and that staffing requirements are not always a standard eight (8) hour shift.

Commissioners had no further questions of the applicant.

Chairman White opened the Public Hearing at 7:52 p.m.

Steve Enos, resident
Stated that he felt the measures had previously been revised. He would like the Planning Commission to review the original measures. He agrees with Commissioner Hyde regarding Alternative #2 and implementing it now. He stated that CEQA states that the mitigation monitoring plan is required. He wants to make sure this is an enforceable measure and wants to know how it is going to be monitored.

Grant Cattaneo , CCAT
He offered a public apology regarding an error stated at the previous meeting. He stated that he was disappointed that they could not have the exit hour at 3:15 instead of 3:30 p.m. He stated that they had gone out and monitored traffic at the intersection and noted that the intersection is crowded prior to 3:30. They had done this with a professional traffic engineer.

Ron Cherry, Nevada City, Roamin Angels
He stated that the Roamin Angels are in favor of the solution that has been brought forward. He feel that the Weavers have tried to follow the rules regarding start and finish times and he feels this will be helping reduce traffic on Hwy 49 for people to shop locally. He feels 4:00-6:00 p.m. are the worst times and this is reasonable solution.

There being no further comment, Chairman White closed the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m.

Tom Last, Planning Director noted that the monitoring process for the proposed change is very comprehensive and clearly stated.

Commissioner Hyde would like to have alternatives #1 and #2 combined.

Commissioner Silberstein says he feels that the City would have to be the monitor and there is no repercussion if the condition is not adhered to. He wants the applicant to be motivated to meet the requirements. He feels the applicant should put a deposit in place so if there is an infraction, it can be levied against deposit. He does not want the City to be an enforcer.

Commissioner Kenitzer asked Tom Last, Planning Director to clarify what changes took place in this mitigation measure.

Tom Last, Planning Director stated that the City entered into an agreement with the applicant. The purpose was due to issues working with Caltrans and with the change of ownership of the existing site. The change relates to the timing of submitting information. He also stated that the fundamental impact does not occur until the project opens. The intent of the mitigation still remained and additional items were required to make sure conditions would be met.

Commissioner Kenitzer believes in small town America. By asking Mr. Weaver to adhere to specific time frame, she believes he will be a man of his word. She does not have a problem with Alternative #1.

Commissioner Emanuel stated that it is the City’s responsibility to be sure laws are enforced. He would like to see a condition added that if a shift in the limitations does not reduce the number of trips, then there would need to be a further reduction in the number of repair bays.

Chairman White is in agreement with Commissioner Kenitzer regarding trust in the applicant but he feels that the amendment is reasonable and prudent. The enforcement elements are sufficient and he is comfortable with staff recommendations.

Mr. Weaver wants to be able to discuss issues with staff if a problem does occur.

Commissioner Emanuel stated that he wants to include a statement that the applicant will reduce trips to an acceptable level.

Motion by: Commissioner Kenitzer moved to approve the alternative to Condition #39 using Option #1 subject to findings and conditions as noted.
Seconded by: Commissioner Hyde
Vote 4-1

Commissioner Silberstein against.

Commissioner Silberstein wants to establish additional policies that do not require staff to police issues.

Chairman White called for Discussion on Condition # 41

Tom Last, Planning Director noted this discussion is in reference to the installation of the traffic signal at Idaho Maryland Road and the freeway offramp. The applicant’s engineershows the completion date to be in October 2006. Currently the signal has to be installed prior to the occupancy of the building. It appears that the completion of the signal pole is presenting a problem since the building will be completed before the signal.

Matt Weaver stated that the pole will not be ready in time for the installation to be complete prior to occupancy of the building.

Public comment continued.

Steve Enos,
Stated that he does not feel the Weavers are meeting the established time horizons. He feels this is an issue of life safety and will cause the traffic to back up into the weave on Highway 49. The stop light will improve the flow of traffic. This issue needs to be aggressively reviewed and a timeline needs to be maintained.

Mike Walsh, Property owner across the street from the new Weaver site.
He feels it is not the Weaver’s fault and does not feel it will be detrimental to deal with the signal as a separate issue.

Ron Cherry, Nevada City
He feels it is not a case of not complying, but cannot get the parts needed. He does not feel this is a critical life safety issue. He would also like to see a solution provided to assist in finding a pole.

There being no further comment, Chairman White noted that the public participation was completed.

Commissioner Hyde stated that she feels he is doing the best he can and questioned putting in a three way stop sign as a temporary measure.

Tim Kiser, City Engineer stated that traffic could back up onto Idaho Maryland Road, but he would need to hire an expert in the field.

Commissioner Kenitzer questioned the feasibility of the rental of a temporary signal.

Tim Kiser stated that is a possibility, but Caltrans owns two legs of the signal.

Commissioner Emanuel questioned the estimated length of time for completion of the pole and wondered why it was taking so long to construct.

Mr. Weaver stated that Idaho Maryland Road will be widened with curb, gutter and sidewalk which should improve the traffic movement. Mr. Weaver also noted the problems with obtaining the signal material was the primary delay.

Commissioner Hyde asked Tim Kiser to help Mr. Weaver find temporary alternatives that might be available to allow the business to open prior to installation of the pole.

Mr. Weaver also stated that they needed 3 weeks of dry weather to complete the compaction and paving process for on site improvements.

Chairman White questioned if Weaver Auto could continue at the East Main Street site until occupancy could be granted?

Mr. Weaver stated that two rents would be outrageous.

Chairman White would like to see options to provide temporary stop gap measures exploring every reasonable avenue and have them available for the next Planning Commission meeting.

Motion by: Commissioner Hyde moves to require that the applicant along with the concurrence of the City Engineer determine and establish the progress of the signal and any viable options for scheduling in relation to the occupancy of the Idaho Maryland Site and provide a monthly report to be presented at the next meeting.

Discussion: Commissioner Silberstein stated that Mr. Weaver needs to push harder to obtain the pole and that he needs to find an alternative measure.

Seconded by: Commissioner Emanuel
Vote 4-0-1
Commissioner Silberstein abstained.

8.3 Consideration of the “Wolf Creek Parkway Alignment Study and Conceptual Master Plan” as prepared by the City of Grass Valley and development of a recommendation to the City Council. The Conceptual Master Plan involves a trail plan for a 2.2-mile length of Wolf Creek through the City of Grass Valley, beginning at the Sutton Way and Idaho Maryland Road intersection and extending to the Glen Jones Park/Pelton Wheel Museum, southerly of State Highway 20. The purpose of the Plan is to provide the City, property/business owners and the community with a vision and tools for establishing a multi-use/nonmotorized trail along Wolf Creek within the Study Area. Some of the key components of the Master Plan include: 1) conceptual design guidelines; 2) preferred and alternative trail alignments; 3) planning phases and implementation plan; and 4) recommendations for probable costs for construction, operation and maintenance of trails.

Chairman White called for the item at 8:45 p.m.

Sandy Jacobson, Park and Recreation Manager and Facility Manager presented the item. She noted that the trail is proposed to start at Glen Jones Park on Allison Ranch Road and continue along Wolf Creek to Idaho Maryland Road at Sutton Way which would be around a 2.2 mile stretch. She stated that there had been meetings with the neighbors and that they had held workshops to understand any concerns that the neighbors might have.
This is a conceptual master plan which provides connectivity for parks and neighborhoods. She stated that they have wanted to obtain grant funding and are addressing the CEQA process. This project will provide cultural and resource protections while improving the community’s health, She reviewed the proposal and location of the proposed trail.

The project is intended to protect the private property owner’s rights, provide environmental sensitivity, while creating minimum widths for pedestrian and bike use. The
environmental studies need to be completed once the actual route is selected.

Chairman White opened the Public Hearing at 9:05 p.m.

Mitch Edenoff, Grass Valley
He walks and bikes and shared examples of other cities. He stated that the Town of Truckee and City of Reno provide cultural benefits with their trails along waterways. Trails
encourage people to get out of cars and walk. It will also be a positive method for people staying at the new Holiday Inn to get into the community. By considering these alignments now within future developments the costs will be driven down.

Jenele Black
She supports the project and being a cyclist she is also a member of the Alliance for Alternative Transportation and reminded the Commission of Friday Night Markets and that the City should be creating a Plaza feeling.

Steve Enos, Grass Valley Neighbors
Quoted the General Plan vision and stated that other cities that have followed through with their visions are wonderful. He is in favor of the project and feels that grant money might be more available with this plan in place. He also wants to be sure that any new projects that are forwarded to the City Council require an offer of dedication.

Bill Hare, Trail Coordinator Nevada County Land Trust
He stated that the Litton Trail is good example and by building trails along Wolf Creek and South of the proposal it will serve as a backbone for a non- motorized trail system and is in favor of the project.

Burt Spengler 451 Mill Street
He suffered flooding of his property from Wolf Creek recently and feels if spending this much money they will only be subjecting the trail to flooding and inconveniencing the property owners along the way. He feels that even across the creek on the Caltrans right of way, there will still be issues. He feels that the trail will destroy foliage which reduces the freeway noise and will disturb the wildlife and environment. This project would require a great deal of fencing. He noted that when the sewer line was installed across the creek it required blasting into solid rock. He is concerned that there might be construction problems. Currently there is nothing on the Mill Street side of the creek and he would like it to stay that way. He does not want people walking along his backyard and feels it would bring social problems creating places for gangs to hang out. He was also concerned about litter, lighting, curfews, and police enforcement. He would like to postpone approval on any concept concerning the Mill Street section.

Katrina Smolen, Hydrologist
She stated that hydrological restoration is in process along Peabody Creek in Condon Park and feels it would be an enhancement of not only the creek but the community. By adopting a master plan it allows for streamlining of the project and better consideration for grant applications. She is also a member of the Fish and Wildlife Commission and is in favor of the project.

Donna Reynolds, 303 E Main St.
Did not receive a notice of the meeting and did not feel the public was given access to any meetings. She had many concerns which she had compiled into a letter. Her house is located across from Murphy St. and currently there is no wheelchair access even along the street. She feels that the crime element plague will be moved to the trail area. She is concerned that any type of snow removal would be directed toward the creek.

Rick Sanger, grass valley
He voiced his appreciation for Sandy Jacobson and noted that there will be difficulties and problems that will need to be addressed but feels that the creek can transform a community. He is very excited and completely in favor of the project. He feels many people want to incorporate recreation and fitness into their lifestyles and this would allow that approach. He would like to embrace Wolf Creek as a valuable asset.

Sally Barkindale
She is a member of the steering committee and feels that the parkway makes sense and will help the town look better and be more viable. She stated that the parkway will be ADA compliant to the street and the sidewalks. The roads are unsafe for bikes and this will provide social availability as well as an awareness of value to the community. She believes that parents would not have to drive kids everywhere. She stated that they should implement the parkway in stages and requests approval and endorsement by the Planning Commission. This would allow connection to other trails in the area.

Mark Navo, 815 Idaho Maryland Rd.
He was not opposed to the trail but does have concerns. He owns property on both sides of creek and is concerned regarding flooding and an influx of transients.

Alma Conley 335 Mill St
She agreed with Mr. Spengler. She has already been inconvenienced by the Mill St revisions. She feels Wolf Creek is ugly. She also noted that Caltrans has left a mess and that any construction of a trail or parkway should have been addressed prior to the construction of the highway.

Brian Bisnett, South Nevada County
He discussed reclamation of creeks and noted that Boulder, Colorado has created a wonderful community and neighborhoods which started with just a vision. He feels it is important to get a master plan in place in order to start the slow process of implementing it. He noted that there will be challenges and the property owners concerns must be addressed but feels that this will provide a resource which will transform the town.

Gordon Baker, Wolf Creek near Idaho Maryland
He supports the vision and feels the time frame is long term and multi generational. It is the first step for future generations. He would like to see a positive recommendation.

David Bronstein,
Agrees with Mr. Baker and feels it is a good time to start. He stated that there is a lack of quality of life in the bay area is due to the lack of open space. He feels this would bring the community together and supports the project.

Rain, Mill St.
She feels that the project is enormously great, but it needs to be done properly. She urged the Commission to be careful regarding the maintenance and safety. She is concerned about loitering, garbage, and insurance. She also feels that the noise level in her backyard should be addressed.

Gerry Stout
He walks a great deal in town and sees this creek as an incredible resource. He believes it provides a great deal of potential for residents, visitors, and schools.

Chairman White stated that the Planning Commission will only be making a recommendation to the City Council which will be reviewing and making a decision.
He feels this project includes visionary thinking.

There being no further public comment, Chairman White closed the Public Hearing at 9:50 p.m.

Commissioner Emanuel is a member of the subcommittee and noted that this is not a simple document but is a vision.

Commissioner Kenitzer stated that she has been in other towns that have completed similar projects and noted how it appeared to have improved the community. She likes the vision but feels it is critical to protect the private owner’s rights.

Commissioner Silberstein questioned if the document includes public safety, policing policies, and such. He stated that this is not an approval to construct, only a vision. He feels it is a positive step forward and a fantastic opportunity to get lines drawn and move forward.
Ms. Jacobson responded that public safety is the number one issue for the public, although it is not definitive in this document currently, although it will be added.

Commissioner Hyde said that Idaho Maryland Mine’s opening statement which included the date in the plan is unrealistic. She questioned the term environmental justice.

Ms. Jacobson stated that Caltrans had defined environmental justice which is to create a more equal opportunity for use of the environment.

Commissioner Hyde stated that this is a huge vision and agrees with it, but does not feel she can support adopting the master plan.

Chairman White stated that they are not adopting the plan, only endorsing the document to the City Council supporting the vision.

Ms. Jacobson stated that they are only asking for support of the conceptual plan.

Commissioner Hyde did not feel she could support the adoption of the conceptual plan, but would support the visionary concept.

Motion by: Commissioner Silberstein moved to recommend this document to the City Council for approval with the amended map and comments as noted.
Dies for lack of second

Motion by: Commissioner Silberstein moves that the Planning Commission recommends that the study be forwarded on to City Council for its consideration and the Planning Commission supports the implementation of the planning goals and principals contained within this study.
Seconded by: Commissioner Emmanuel
Vote 4-0-1
Commissioner Hyde abstained

Chairman White called for 5 minute break 10:20p.m.

Meeting resumed 10:25p.m.

Due to the lateness of the hour, Chairman White asked to continue item 11.1 to the April 18th meeting
Motion by: Commissioner Hyde moved to continue item 11.1 to the meeting of April 18, 2006
Seconded by: Commissioner Kenitzer
Vote: 5-0

8.4 Continued Public Hearing on Development Review Application (04DRC-54 previously DR02-18) “Village of South Auburn” for Steve Elder to allow exterior design modifications to a previously approved mixed-use project. The design changes affect 23 apartments, commercial buildings, and 2 duplexes on a 10.8 acre lot. The project is located at Adams Lane and South Auburn Street (APN’s 29-260-04,29-270-06, 29-270-10, 29-280-05, 29-280-06, 29-280-14, and 29-350-15) in the R-2PD (Two Family Residence/ Planned Unit Development) Zoning District. Environmental Assessment: Previously adopted Negative Declaration.

Chairman White called for the item at 10:25p.m.

Tom Last, Planning Director presented the item and noted that this is for design modifications only which include the orientation of the gables, trellis elements, and an incorporation of bay windows. He noted that Development Review Committee supported the revisions but there was not consensus on the column design.

Brian Bisnett, Site Planner
He stated that they had intended to break ground this year. He noted that they wanted to provide more articulation for the design of the buildings and to move away from a barn/monolithic structures. He stated that the balconies frame the commercial and provide more of an enhancement to the residential. The gables will be facing the street.

Chairman White questioned if the balcony serves a single unit and if all three buildings would have balconies.

Mr. Bisnett stated that there will not be balconies on building #3.

Commissioner Silberstein asked what was being approved.

Joe Heckel, Community Development Director stated just revisions to the exterior.

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

Commissioner Hyde stated that the Development Review Committee’s concerns were regarding the posts that they did not reflect the style of the area.

Commissioner Emanuel accepted the revisions.

Commissioner Silberstein noted that it was a different theme, but still the plan was still attractive.

Commissioner Kenitzer liked the original design.

Chairman White was agreeable to the revisions.

Motion by: Commissioner Kenitzer moved to approve the modifications subject to findings of conditions as noted in the staff report.
Seconded by: Commissioner Emanuel
Vote 5-0

Findings:
1. The application for a design modification was received January 31, 2006.
2. The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the proposal for the design modifications at its meetings of February 14, and March 14, 2006. The DRC, at its meeting of March 14, 2006, provided a formal recommendation of approval for design modifications of Development Review (DR02-18) Application to the Planning Commission.
3. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal for the design modifications at its meeting of March 21, 2006.

Conditions:

1. All plans shall be constructed in accordance with the plans and description provided by the applicant and approved by the Grass Valley Development Review Committee and Planning Commission on March 21, 2006 for the design modifications Development Review Application DR02-18, unless changes are approved by the Planning 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.

9. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

10.0 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION OR SEPARATE ACTION

Previously listed as item 7.1

Chairman White called for the item at 10:50 p.m.

Joe Heckel, Community Development Director presented the item noting that there had bee a previous approval but the project has been purchased by new owners and all previous conditions remain intact.

Craig Hoffman, Project Manager, Dunmore properties
He stated that Dunmore Properties have submitted improvement plans to the City Engineer and comments have been received including on site as well as the Whiting Street improvements. They are planning for construction to start in September 2006 but it has been complicated due to the status of the wetland and the completion of survey and preparation of plans.

He noted that the property was purchased in December 2004 and that they changed engineers as well as the consultants.

Commissioner Emanuel asked about a letter that was received from the property owner next door who was concerned about traffic. It stated that they were interested in the proposed phasing of the project and if items were required prior to occupancy or issuance of building permits for the widening of Whiting St.

Mr. Hoffman stated that currently there is no phasing element in place and that on site improvements will be done at one time and about ten structures will be completed at a time.

Opened for public comment

Jim Conley 536 Whiting St.
He stated that he was concerned about removal of the native trees and that it appeared all the trees were to be removed except those in the Caltrans right of way. He stated that during the past weeks the storm drain had overflowed onto his property and wanted to know if anything will be done to handle it. He also wanted to know how the waste pile tailings from the mine were proposed to be handled. He was very concerned about the removal of all the trees.

Alma Conley, 536 Whiting St.

She was not told that her area was considered a wetland. She was concerned that water from the hillside is draining onto her property. She wanted the Commission to consider the level of the population density. She stated that the current levels of traffic are bad and that widening the road would not be sufficient for future construction.

Chairman White stated that provisions had been made in the original application.

Motion by: Commissioner Hyde moved to approve the extension with findings and conditions as noted.
Seconded by: Commissioner Emanuel
Vote 5-0

Findings of Fact:
1. The applicant submitted a request for a one year extension on February 23, 2006 for the second extension.

2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on April 13, 2004. The adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate, and no new environmental issues have been identified since the time of adoption by the lead agency’s, and is consistent with CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act).

3. The project is in compliance with the Grass Valley Zoning Ordinance and consistent with the Grass Valley General Plan.

4. The Whiting Street Development, DR03-19, for 67 single family residential units on 8.52 acre site was approved by the City Council on April 13, 2004. The application for this development is valid and eligible for a one year extension or until April 13, 2007.

11.0 OTHER BUSINESS

11.1 Review of Ridge Village Project - Status of Revisions and Density Bonus Request
A. Study Session on revisions made to Tentative Map Application (04PLN-09) and Planned Unit Development (04PLN-35) for the Ridge Village Project to subdivide the 10.63 acre parcel into fifty (50) lots for development of forty-nine (49) homes located at 2418 Ridge Road and 1039 Slate Creek Road (APN’s 08-060-16 & 31 and 08-050-05) in the (R-1) Single Family Residential Zoning District. (No action required)
B. Recommendation to City Council on applying the provisions of the State Density Bonus to allow 7 additional residential units while designating a certain percentage of the housing units as affordable. (Motion required)

11.2 Correspondence
11.3 Review of City Council Items
Joe Heckel, Community Development Director noted that the DeMartini Project had been approved by the City Council and that the Kilborn Variance has been appealed and was due to be heard by the City Council at the March 28th meeting.

11.5 Future Meetings, Hearings and Study Sessions
A. Study Session requested by Stamas Corporation to review preliminary proposal for 100-unit senior apartment project at 11936 Town Talk Road.

B. Set site visits for Idaho-Maryland Mine and Hills Flat Lumber projects.

Mr. Heckel also noted that the Habitat for Humanity project on Alta Street will be coming forward for review. The revised project on Berryman Street and South Auburn will also be back for review.
Dates for the site visits were discussed.
May 2, 2006 was set aside for a site visit to Hills Flat Lumber project. Time to be determined.
Study sessions will be started earlier on the next meeting on April 18, 2006

11.6 Status of Special Development Areas (SDA’s)

Responses to comments will be forth coming.

12.0 Brief Announcements/Reports by Planning Commission Members
None

13.0 Community Development Director Report
Joe Heckel, Community Development Director noted that there will be a discussion regarding the bonus density limitations at the next meeting.

14.0 ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Motion by: Commissioner Kenitzer to adjourn at 11:20 p.m.
Seconded by: Commissioner Emanuel
Vote 5-0

This meeting is adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 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 , 2006.

________________________________________
Dale White, Chairman

Reviewed by _________________________________________
Joe C. Heckel, Community Development Director