posted 01-19-2007 04:17 PM            

GRASS VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2006

1.0 CALL TO ORDER

Commissioner Kenitzer called the Public Hearing to order at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 17, 2006.

The regular meeting of the Grass Valley Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman White at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 17, 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 for the Public Hearing on the Development Code session included: Commissioners Eleanor Kenitzer, Gloria Hyde and Ralph Silberstein. Staff present included Community Development Director Joe Heckel, Planning Director Tom Last, and Administrative Clerk Barb Carman.

Members present for the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. were Chairman Dale White, Commissioners Gloria Hyde, Eleanor Kenitzer, and Commissioner Ralph Silberstein. Staff present was Community Development Director Joe Heckel, Planning Director Tom Last, Associate Planner Dan Chance, GIS Analyst Joshua Dorris , Senior Civil Engineer Trisha Tillotson and Administrative Clerk Barb Carman.

Commissioner Emanuel was absent for the entire meeting.

4.0 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Silberstein moved to request that a decision not be made at the early session and that any decisions should allow for input from the public hearing.

Motion dies for lack of a second

Motion by: Commissioner Hyde to approve the agenda, minutes will be held until the 7:00 session.
Seconded by: Commissioner Silberstein
Vote 3-0

Approval of minutes moved to the 7:00 meeting

5.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 19, 2006

Motion by: Commissioner Hyde moved to approve the minutes at the reconvened meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Seconded by: Commissioner Kenitzer
Vote 4-0

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.

Nothing at this time

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

8.0 HEARINGS (Note: Item 8.1 will be heard between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.)

8.1 Comprehensive update to the Grass Valley Development Code: The project includes the comprehensive revision of the City’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and amendments to portions of the zoning map. The adoption of the zoning map will have the effect of rezoning certain areas within the City of Grass Valley where new form-based zoning would be applied. The updated Development Code includes regulations that identify the procedures and requirements for filing, reviewing, processing, approving, and implementing development applications, consistent with the goals, policies, strategies, and implementation measures of the 1999 General Plan.

Commissioner Kenitzer called for the item at 4:10 p.m.

Tom Last, Planning Director provided the initial presentation via Power Point.
He stated that the Draft Development Code is a compilation of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and the Environmental Guidelines all in one packet. This project has been a goal and objective of the City Council since 2004-05

The intent of the Code is to acknowledge and incorporate the historical character and protect the integrity of the neighborhood. It is anticipated that this will provide infill opportunities and will promote new urbanism. This process will also allow for the streamlining and simplification of the Development Review Process.

He noted that the City of Grass Valley hired a consulting firm to prepare the document and that to date there have been three public workshops for review of the document. He also acknowledged the members of the committee that worked on it.

He introduced Bruce Jacobsen and Dan Parolek who are working with the lead consulting firm of Crawford, Multari and Clark.

Bruce Jacobsen provided an overview and noted that many of the revisions are required in order to implement the General Plan. This new code will allow the City to comply with State law and local development issues. He noted that the draft code is organized into ten articles.

There are many new code provisions which were not previously in code such as Density Bonus, sloping lots, and telecommunications systems. Some of the procedural refinements include minor use permits and such that can be done at staff levels.

Dan Parolek, Opticos
They are responsible for the form-based code portion which was primarily based on the character of the town. The current Zoning Code is structured primarily on use and density and the new Development Code will use “form” which possess unique elements and connects to existing uses. They completed extensive analysis of existing conditions and obtained the overall content which has been delineated to different levels:

1) Existing neighborhoods
2) Corridors-where and how people travel about
3) Districts-
a. health and vitality
b. heavy industrial designated to specific areas and uses

4) Unique characteristics

All these items can range from general down to microscale details.
These items were considered in the review to create the base code:
1. street standards
2. lot and block patterns
3. building types database
4. frontage type standards

The City will be applying the new standards as a regulating code.
There will be build to lines instead of setbacks, and parking location as well as number of spaces required will be discussed.

Questions of staff:

Commissioner Silberstein stated he would like notations provided for any changes that were made.

Tom Last, Planning Director advised him that noted pages and changes will be provided for review.

Commissioner Silberstein asked if the term “N/A” should still be included.

Tom Last, Planning Director indicated that they could be deleted.

Commissioner Kenitzer opened the Public Hearing at 5:10 p.m.

Rick Sanger 132 Conaway Ave, representing Wolf Creek Alliance
He stated that in the chapter discussing the Riparian Habitat and would like a definition of creek be noted in it. He noted that many of the local creeks including Matson, Peabody, and Slide Ravine are not noted on the map that was referenced. Wolf Creek Alliance would like the water courses that perennial or ephemeral not just blue line. They also requested that the set back from the creek be revised to 100 feet instead of bank height or 30 feet. They questioned the EIR for the General Plan which was referenced in this environmental study. They feel it would be a significant impact in the riparian zones.

Charles Frank, 140 and 142 Hughes Rd
He is concerned about changing to the NC Flex designation. The current zoning allows for a four-story building, but he feels that the change would limit his ability for future occupancy. He feels it would limit his rent and devalue the property. He also noted that he has to share parking area with other buildings.

John Brust
He provided a letter to the Commissioners about the workshop. In the Town Core (TC) zone he feels he would not be allowed to have offices on the ground floor. He is against accepting that form of zoning. He would like a comparison of the current C2-H zoning and the proposed zoning. He strongly objects and would like more time.

Dan Rausch, 780 South Auburn St.
He feels if it is a non conforming use, it would restrict the tenant usage. He would like it to remain as it is. He would like a re-evaluation of the southern end of South Auburn Street where the majority are industrial businesses. He does not have a problem with the design standards.

Harry Stewart, 220 Nihell St. Nevada City
He is a property owner on East Main Street and feel that the historic uses in that area have been done away with. He would like clarification on the regulations and rules:
1. What is 2 ½ stories in height
2. Do the new driveway widths comply with the Fire Department regulations.
3. The code requires secure bike parking, but not how much needs to be provided.
4. He questioned if the health and fitness businesses need minor use permit why other businesses do not
5. For the combination of live/ work space, he cannot sell it without a Minor Use Permit
6. With the proposed roof lines and lot sizes, he is being limited as to his uses.

Jonathon Keehn, Wolf Creek Community Alliance
He provided a letter from SYRCL (South Yuba River Citizens League)
He was glad that the City of Grass Valley assumed the leadership role. He referenced letter commending the City for protecting water resources and adopting changes requested by the WCCA (Wolf Creek Community Alliance). He also provided a letter from Friends of Deer Creek.

Howard Levine, Executive Director Grass Valley Downtown Association
The Grass Valley Downtown Association board is in favor of designating the first floor for retail. It enhances the vitality of the town, especially the downtown area.

Denise Silberstein
She would like to be invited to the table to discuss the issues. She questioned the compliance with CEQA in terms of deferring to the General Plan EIR. She feels that
Chapter 17.5 should be set aside until issues on the environmental portion are adequately addressed.

Dave Wilsbeck, 306 Kidder Ave.
He appreciated the meetings and workshops and is in favor of the Development Code and would like to see everyone work together.

Donna Stewart, Nihell Street, Nevada City
She questioned why mansard roofs are not allowed.

Ryan Condon, 401 Mill St.
He is in favor of ground floor business because stairs become issues. He questioned if there is residential on first floor if the noise would be increased for the lots of noise. He has a situation where the second floor is below street level. He was concerned that the creek setbacks are also a concern and many lots would not be usable to build houses on with a 100 foot setback.

Cindy Cara, 159 South Auburn, 167 and 217 W. Main
She is concerned about offices not being allowed on the main floor. She asked about the change in tenancy or ownership of business. The City should allow the market to determine the uses.

There being no further comment Commissioner Kenitzer closed the Public Hearing at 5:40 p.m.

Questions of staff:
Questions will be addressed by the consultant.

Tom Last, Planning Director noted some of the issues had been addressed and will need to be added.

Dan Parolek responded that the ½ story would consist of attic area with a dormer. He noted that a cap could be set.

Tom Last, Planning Director noted the concern regarding offices located on the downtown floor in the Town Core District which would be applied to a limited area. He also noted 100 foot setback from the creek could create significant constraints on properties in the older part of town but may be more appropriate in the areas that have not been developed such as in the sphere of influence.

Commissioner Hyde is concerned about including ephemeral creeks. She does not think it would be a good idea to include it.
Commissioner Silberstein stated maybe wording could be reworked.

Dan Parolek stated that he would like to discuss this more because all the development may not be rural.

Tom Last, Planning Director stated that there has been some concern about the NC Flex being applied to C-3 properties in which heavy commercial uses are already in place. The long term intent is to reverse the development pattern and place buildings closer to the street to create a more pedestrian oriented atmosphere. It would also create a better entry way into the community.

Dan Parolek stated that the intent along East Main Street is evolving into historic patterns and uses. Recognized corridors do become more attractive at the entry ways.

The driveway widths will need a clarification from the Fire Department.

Mr. Parolek responded to the mansard roof which is not considered appropriate for the character of Grass Valley. The ½ story clouds the definition of usable space.

Question from audience regarding the driveway width for delivery trucks.

Motion by: Commissioner Silberstein moved to continue the hearing and item with questions to staff until 7:00
Seconded by: Commissioner Hyde
Vote 3-0

Meeting temporarily adjourned at 6:00 by Commissioner Kenitzer

Chairman White reconvened the meeting at 7:00p.m.

The regular meeting of the Grass Valley Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman White at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Grass Valley, California

Members present for the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. were Chairman Dale White, Commissioners Gloria Hyde, Eleanor Kenitzer, and Commissioner Ralph Silberstein. Staff present was Community Development Director Joe Heckel, Planning Director Tom Last, Associate Planner Dan Chance, GIS Analyst Joshua Dorris , Senior Civil Engineer Trisha Tillotson and Administrative Clerk Barb Carman.

Commissioner Emanuel was absent for the entire meeting.

5.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 19, 2006

Motion by: Commissioner Hyde moved to approve the minutes at the reconvened meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Seconded by: Commissioner Kenitzer
Vote 4-0

Chairman White reopened the Public Hearing at 7:03 p.m., there being no further comment he closed the Public Hearing on the Development Code

Commissioner Hyde had no comments except that the Committee had done a great job.

Commissioner Kenitzer feels the Development Code is far less intimidating and much more user friendly.

Commissioner Silberstein feels the work is wonderful.
He then reviewed several items in the various articles and chapters.

Rules of Interpretation 1-5
A) Due process – He is concerned about the Director having too much authority

Bruce Jacobsen noted that any determination or interpretation can be appealed to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council.

Article 2-49 Residential Density
He wondered why the level was being set so high

Tom Last, Planning Director noted that the Committee felt it was too high and so the recommendation of committee was for 8 units per acre.

Article 3-22 Affordable housing density bonuses-
He questioned if this was double dipping.

Bruce Jacobsen stated that there are very specific requirements which references state law. This explains how it would be processed within the City. Each table indicates an increase of up to 35%

Commissioner Silberstein would like to add a condition to have public and transparent accounting of the project for audits.

Bruce Jacobsen noted that the sharing of information is built in, but they can add an audit process if so requested.

Article 3-25 Continued Availability
Section, A-2
He feels the time limit of 10 years is too short for moderate income levels with low income levels being at 30 yrs.

Bruce Jacobsen feels that the City Council can adopt a policy to allow longer time.

Article 3-35 paving
Commissioner Silberstein noted that there was no mention of using semi-permeable paving as an alternative to strictly impervious surfaces.

Tom Last stated that the parking section (17.36.090.H) provides for this opportunity.

Article3-67 Sign Ordinance
Concerning item #24 prohibiting signs held by humans
He is concerned that it might violate freedom of speech.

Bruce Jacobsen noted that it is for commercial signs only and is not meant to inhibit free speech but to halt excessive advertising.
Commissioner Silberstein would like it to note except political or social signs (non-commercial)

Article 3-81 Non-conforming signs
He questioned :
a) Changed to another non-conforming sign
and
B-1 exceptions-regarding the master sign program

Tom Last, Planning Director provided clarification that if there was a sign previously approved for a master sign program for a shopping center in either the City or County, they will not make future tenants change.

Article 4-27
Section C-1
He feels that the wording for adult businesses should be “adult oriented businesses”

Articles 4-45 and 46
He noted that there appears to be numbering problem with D and E

Commissioner Silberstein questioned the accessibility of the warehouse retail by pedestrians or bikes.

Commissioner Hyde is concerned that if they get too specific regarding the access for pedestrians or bikes they may create problems.

Joe Heckel, Community Development Director noted that it is addressed in Article 4-46,
Item D.

Commissioner Silberstein wants no retail business in this section that is not accessible by foot or bicycle

Joe Heckel, Community Development Director noted that it should be referred to City Attorney.

Article 7-10
Commissioner Silberstein questioned Certificate of Occupancy and whether item “B” should be changed from altered or erected, to occupied only.

Article 7-28
He asked about the allowable Minor Variances and questioned how the numbers were arrived at and if they are acceptable.

Commissioner Hyde noted that there is a caveat if a neighbor contested the Minor Variance then it would go to the Planning Commission for review but would initially be reviewed and handled at the staff level.

Commissioner Silberstein is not opposed to a particular one but felt it was significant and wanted to discuss it.

Tom Last, Planning Director noted that it will be publicly noticed and if requested by a property owners the City would hold a Public Hearing.

Commissioner Hyde stated that the intent was that it would be handled by the staff.

Commissioner Silberstein wants to know how the Planning Commission would be notified.

Tom Last, Planning Director noted that it would be a policy issues instead of an item in the ordinance for notification of the Planning Commissioners.

Commissioner Kenitzer is comfortable with the minor variances and how they would be handled.

Chairman White is also comfortable with the way it would be handled by the staff.

Commissioner Hyde noted that there are very specific conditions which have to be met in order to grant a minor variance.

Article 8-4 Subdivision Ordinance
Item B
Commissioner Silberstein asked about the director’s sole authority for Lot Line Adjustments.

Chairman White feels it eliminates the volume for minor types of items.

Tom Last, Planning Director noted the Subdivision Map Act requires that a Lot Line Adjustment must be approved if it meets the zoning and building requirements.

Commissioner Hyde stated that Commissioner Silberstein brought up some good points and suggests that at the next meeting staff have a list of items that need to be changed and/or revised.

Joe Heckel, Community Development Director noted there would be additional changes to the map and some fine tuning of the code.

Motion by: Commissioner Hyde moved to continue the item to November 21, 2006 meeting and have modifications and re-wording provided from the consultant.
Seconded by: Commissioner Kenitzer
Vote 4-0

Commissioner Emanuel absent

8.2 Continued Public Hearing on Tentative Map Application (06PLN-16) and Planned Unit Development (06PLN-17) for Ridge Road Associates for the creation of 49 single family homes located at 2521 Ridge Road and 161 Upper Slate Creek Road (APN's 08-090-35 & 47) in the R-1 (Single Family) Zoning District. Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration.

Chairman White called for the item at 7:55

Presented by Dan Chance, Associate Planner
Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 2006.
He reviewed the issues and concerns noted from the previous meeting. He also noted that the City Council adopted new public residential road standards at its meeting on September 20, 2006, which would be applied to the development.

Trisha Tillotson, Senior Civil Engineer noted that the requirements include minor residential streets with no parking or parking on one side, She also noted the minimum paved width can be reduced to 20 feet in conjunction with utilities.

Dan Chance noted that both projects developed a joint plan and traffic analysis for the Ridge Road area. They propose providing a turning lane from Hughes Road to past Slate Creek Road and also widening the road. The City Engineer is in support of revision #21 as noted.

Issue #3 dealt with the drainage swale which has been replaced with a detention basin in the northwest corner of the property. This would be encased with a three-foot high concrete wall with an additional fence inside.

Issue #4 is regarding the size of homes on specific lots. The architect has reduced the footprints and some of the building square footages.

Questions of staff;

Commissioner Silberstein asked if there would be sidewalk crossing on Ridge Road.

Trisha Tillotson, Senior Civil Engineer noted that not at this time as the Engineering Department is concerned about installing a crosswalk with no capacity to slow the traffic.

Andy Cassano, Nevada City Engineering representing the applicant
Tony Rosas, Architect
Andy Cassano thanked Bill Green, Civil Engineer as well as the City Engineering staff of Tim Kiser and Trisha Tillotson.

Mr. Cassano thinks making the streets public is a good idea. He also noted that the revision to the storm water plan relocating it with one of the houses and bringing it inward provides a building continuity along Ridge Road. The relocation also allows it to be completely underground. There will be a solid board fence for security and safety which would match the neighborhood and would provide maintenance access. He noted that they did receive the revised engineering conditions and other than a few minor clarifications that need to be discussed, they are in agreement with them. They are also acceptable to the previous conditions noted.

Tony Rosas, Architect.
He stated that the block wall for the storm water retention area would not be seen if they are not able to switch. He completed the redesign of the “B” unit creating a two-story unit and reducing the footprint by 100 square feet creating more yard area.

Questions of applicant:

Commissioner Silberstein wants the footprint to be the equivalent of a 1,500 square foot house. He also questioned the size of the “C” unit at 2,800 square foot.

Tony Rosas noted that Unit “C” actually has a footprint of 1,335 square feet.

Commissioner Silberstein is not happy with the traffic report and is concerned about the safety of the people in the area.

Andy Cassano noted that they had tried to bring the traffic concerns into reality. His client feels that a center left turn lane will reduce the site distance requirements would provide better safety since traffic would only cross one lane at a time.

Commissioner Kenitzer questioned the detention facility.

Andy Cassano noted that it would be similar to a concrete pond which would be protected and would be below grade and then there would be six foot high fencing around the basin.

Chairman White questioned the safety levels for the detention basin.
Andy Cassano noted that it would be similar to pool safety requirements for fencing.

Chairman White opened public comment at 8:30 p.m.

Steve Enos , Grass Valley Neighbors
He requested that the item be continued until further information and study can be conducted.
He does not feel the public has had sufficient opportunity to review the revisions. He feels the turn lane should be a separate project and that the houses needed to be smaller and more affordable. He stated that the City Council has adopted vertical curbs and sidewalks to be installed on both sides. He feels this project is not complete. He stated that the Hughes Road corridor is a huge item and was not discussed in the staff report. He feels that the applicant can provide environmental and biological drainage facilities instead of creating a bunker like enclosure. He wants to see changes and feels these are too last minute and that the homes should be smaller such as 980 to 1,180 square foot houses.

Lisa Weaver, Robin Lane
She presented a petition from some children that who felt that Ridge Road is unsafe. She also does not feel that the holding tank would be safe. Ridge Road is a high speed zone and accident prone area She feels that a stop light is needed and that kids are in danger from road safety. She feels congestion is a serious problem and would like to see that the children come first . She would also like to see police patrols added.

Jim McIntire, Property owner on Upper Slate Creek
He stated that there are septic systems and percolation problems in the area and is in support of the project. He would like to be able to connect to the City sewer in an affordable process. He has a deed restriction that cannot repair his failing septic system and he needs to connect to the sewer.

Robert Sauers, business owner, Upper Slate Creek Road
He is concerned about the traffic on Ridge Road and being able to access it from Upper Slate Creek Road.

Jaqueline Lee
Supports the project and she understands that there is a traffic problem but feels the project is wonderful and that the developer has made concessions. She feels they would offer nice homes to many people and would improve the neighborhood and that it is the best project available.

There being no further comment, Chairman White closed the public comment at 8:45 p.m.

Mr. Cassano noted that the swapped detention facility is the only item that was done at the last minute. The revised plans were available for review for a couple of weeks. The density level needed to be higher so that the homes pencil out.

Commissioner Hyde had no comment

Commissioner Silberstein asked if the Engineering Department had time to review the detention facility.

Trisha Tillotson, Senior Civil Engineer stated that they have not completed a review or commented on it.

Commissioner Silberstein feels that there needs to be a chance to evaluate the detention basin and also that they are still reviewing the memo. He also feels that traffic is still a primary concern. He wants to see different entry points and safer crossings for Ridge Road.

Mr. Cassano noted that the project is close to a store, school, and park and has a bus stop and an existing bike lanes.

Commissioner Kenitzer felt the discussion on size had to do with the lack of yard area. She understands the need for balance for economic purposes but is still concerned about the detention facility.

Chairman White feels that the applicant has been responsive to the concerns expressed by the public and the Commission. He also feels that some of the information was late and he was not able to review it completely. He does think the lot sizes are compatible with what is planned. He feels inclined toward a continuance due to the lack of time for review. The details were not sufficient in a timely manner to provide a complete review. He does not feel that the traffic issues may have been sufficiently addressed.

Motion by: Commissioner Hyde moves for a continuance to November 21, 2006 in order to complete a review of the information presented. They also request detailed information from the Engineering Department regarding the proposed turn lane, The footprints be shown on the lots that were requested previously as well as the aesthetics on the street for the turn lane.
Seconded by: Commissioner Kenitzer
Vote 4-0

Concerns noted by the Planning Commission
• Concerns were raised over the size and location of the drainage facility at the northwest corner of the site. The plans should be revised to reduce the size of the detention facility, and potentially locate a smaller enclosed facility underground. The applicant should meet with the City Engineering and Community Development Departments to evaluate alternative designs for stormwater detention facilities. These alternatives may include a series of stormwater detention facilities on the site that work together to provide adequate stormwater detention.

• Concerns were raised over the center turning lane along Ridge Road. The Commission recommended meeting with the City Engineering Department to discuss any issues with the development of the center turning lane. The Commissioners recommended the applicant evaluate the potential for enhancing the aesthetics associated with the roadway improvements. Those enhancements may include the location of landscaping in the center turning lane and sides of Ridge Road.

8.3 Development Review Application (06DRC-26) for an exception to the sign ordinance for Nella Oil Company for the removal of an existing pole sign and the installation of a 65 square foot monument sign located at 2001 Nevada City Highway (APN 35-400-21) in the C-2 (Central Business) Zoning District.

Chairman White called for the item at 9:00 p.m.

Joshua Dorris, GIS Analyst presented the item noting that the property was annexed in July 2006. The Development Review Committee requested that the sign be reduced to eight (8) feet high. They also recommended a stone façade and architectural elements at the top. Monument signs in the C-2 Zoning require Planning Commission approval. Signage is being reduced by 19 square feet and the proposed sign is closer to the current sign standards.

Questions of staff:
None at this time

Aaron Hoerber, Mchale Sign Company
He noted that they are in agreement with the staff recommendations and he feels the proposed sign is an improvement. The difference showing the price for cash or credit needs to be reflected on the sign.

No questions of applicant

Chairman White opened the Public Hearing at 9:10 p.m.

Steve Enos,
He noted examples that are within the size compliance and wants this sign to comply with the rules. He feels it should be 6 feet high and that it does not need to be larger for traffic to be able to see it. He wants it to be externally illuminated and be consistent. He does not feel that one business should be given an advantage over another. Also it does not relate to the main structure.

There being no further comment, Chairman White closed the Public Hearing at 9:15p.m.

Commissioner Hyde noted process had gone through Development Review Committee.

Commissioner Kenitzer stated that they only get one chance to require the applicant to comply with the rules.

Motion by: Commissioner Hyde moved to approve the monument sign with a maximum of 8 feet with a cap on top and stone on bottom being externally illuminated with the address displayed on the side.
Seconded by: Commissioner Silberstein
Vote 4-0

Conditions of Approval for Development Review Application 06DRC-26

1. All signs shall be constructed in accordance with the signs approved by the Planning Commission for Development Review Application 06DRC-26 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 signs, 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 Community Development Department, a revised signage plan with specifications showing an externally illuminated, eight (8) foot high, 57± sq. ft. monument sign with a stone or brick façade base.
4. Prior to issuance of a Sign Permit, all banners / advertisements on the exterior of the building shall be removed. No additional outdoor banners / advertisements shall be placed on the building without approval of a temporary sign / banner permit by the Community Development Department.
5. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, an Encroachment Permit shall be secured from the Engineering Department prior to commencing project construction in the public right-of-way.
6. The applicant or landowner shall maintain the building, signage and landscaping in good condition. Once a deterioration of the quality of the building, signs or landscaping is noted and documented by the City, the Planning Commission approval of this project may be brought before the Planning Commission for enforcement action.
7. 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.

9. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

10.0 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION OR SEPARATE ACTION

None

11.0 OTHER BUSINESS
11.1 Status Report on following items of interest to Planning Commission:
A. Construction progress of Hills Flat Lumber Project (04DRC-70)

Chairman White called for the item at 9:20 p.m.
Tom Last, Planning Director presented the update noting that the project is underway with blasting completed and the framing of the building starting. He asked the Planning Commission for its direction regarding the rocks sitting along the top of the wall. He also noted that on the hillside they simulated several mine shafts which allows the pocket planting of trees. He advised the Planning Commission that the applicant is adhering to the conditions of approval previously set forth and that the grading plan generally matches what was approved as well. The power point slide showed the proposed parking lot lights. He also advised the Commission that the signage plan will still need to return for approval.

Questions of staff:

Commissioner Hyde asked if the rock barriers were level with the parking lot.

Jeff Pardini, Hills Flat Lumber
He stated yes and that they were concerned about people driving over the edge. They are trying to use natural items but they will have a rail behind it to prevent pedestrians from getting close to it on the parking lot side. There will be irrigation in between the rock wall and the railing.

Commissioner Silberstein is glad they are in conformance but he feels it appears like an imposing fortification. He asked about the possibility of having planters along the stacked wall to allow plants to grow up the rock hillside.

Commissioner Kenitzer likes it and feels it looks just like a mine.

Chairman White stated that it is not necessarily beautiful, but does resemble aspects of the Empire Mine.

Jeff Pardini noted that the building itself will draw attention away from all the rock on the hillside.

Jeff Pardini discussed the lighting for the parking lot noting that the cost of the antique looking light is extremely high and it appears that they are not as efficient and allow the light to spill over off the parking lot.

Commissioner Hyde does not want light spilling and feels that the standard lighting would be acceptable.

Commissioner Silberstein feels that there might be other alternatives.

Mr. Pardini feels that they are trying to be as energy efficient as possible.

Commissioner Kenitzer does not like Weavers and does not want this to resemble it.

Commissioner Hyde is in favor of it.

Mr. Pardini noted that it would require additional lighting standards to be installed if they were to use the antique type lights.

Commissioner Silberstein would like the rocks and stones on top to be softened with vines to create a less of a fortification type view. If the rocks were placed more randomly that would provide a better appearance as well.

Commissioner Hyde is not opposed to using the proposed lights.

Commissioner Silberstein feels it is the wrong style of light

Commissioner Kenitzer not opposed.

Mr. Pardini will see if there are some additional modifications that could be added to the standard lighting system in order to have more of an antique approach.

11.2 Update on projects reviewed by the City located in the Sphere of Influence
No projects for review

11.3 Correspondence
Joe Heckel, Community Development Director noted that the staff reports for the City Council had been forwarded to the Planning Commissioners for review.

11.4 Review of City Council Items
Joe Heckel, Community Development Director noted that the Habitat for Humanity appeal was upheld with a reduction in the number of houses for the plan. Meetings were held with the neighborhood and support for the project was received . He also noted that the City Council had approved the Iron Horse II project.

The City Council approved Tony Rosas as the City Architect with Brent Daggett and Bruce Boyd as alternates.
11.5 Future Meetings, Hearings and Study Sessions
City Council is planning to have two meetings to discuss the current SDA applications for Southill Village on November 9th and Loma Rica Ranch on November 13th.
They will discuss possibly allowing the review process to start and providing direction

11.6 Status of Special Development Areas (SDA’s)
See Above

12.0 Brief Announcements/Reports by Planning Commission Members
Commissioner Silberstein stated that has been on the Commission for one year.

13.0 Community Development Director Report
Joe Heckel, Community Development Director noted that the hotel project is moving along but the opening has been pushed back beyond the holidays. The exterior elements are starting to be added. The signage plan will need to return to the Planning Commission and the City Council.

He advised the Commissioners that there will be an update on the Weaver project provided at the November 21st meeting. The applicant has met the conditions and the landscaping plan has been completed. The review will include discussion on the signal at Idaho Maryland Road.

14.0 ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn at 10:00 p.m. to Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Motion by: Commissioner Kenitzer
Seconded by: Commissioner Silberstein
Vote: 4-0

This meeting is adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21,2006 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