A potential 33-lot subdivision residential unit might come to the GV neighborhood | TheUnion.com

A potential 33-lot subdivision residential unit might come to the GV neighborhood

Potential site for a 33-lot residential subdivision in Grass Valley.
Laura Mahaffy/lauramahaffy@theunion.com | The Union

A project has been proposed to build a 33-lot residential subdivision on land in a Grass Valley neighborhood owned by former Nevada County Supervisor and retired building contractor Todd J. Juvinall.

The applicant, listed as 530 Capital Partners L.P. in the project application, submitted the project for conceptual review during an Oct. 27 Grass Valley Development Review Committee meeting.

Grass Valley Community Development Director Thomas Last said the review is a way to provide direction to applicants before a formal application. No action was taken by the committee at the meeting.

Juvinall said by phone he retains a neutral view over the potential neighborhood development but declined to further comment on it.

“I’m just the owner of the property; this is not my project,” Juvinall said, “I really have nothing else to say.”

The 8.96-acre property contains 3 acres of wetland and riparian areas. It’s bordered by Glenwood Road to the north and Woodland Way to the west. Sierra College is only one parcel away from the site. Also in the area are Nevada Union High School and the senior living facility Eskaton Village Grass Valley.

The neighborhood was designated as Urban Low Density under the General Plan, which means there are between 1.01 and 4.0 residential units per gross acre. Staff estimates the site would accommodate around 36 units.

“The existing infill property has some density allocated per the existing zoning and also has some environmental constraints,” said Martin Wood, a principal of SCO Planning and Engineering, Inc, the organization that provided the map and design for the project.

“The Conceptual Review was intended at this stage as a first step to determine infrastructure needs, layout considerations and potential processing requirements if our clients decide to move forward,” Wood added in an email message.

One of the staff’s layout considerations was the management and ownership of the wetlands.

According to a report conducted by city staff, “the majority of the project site has been set aside for riparian/wetlands areas.” In the same report, staff questioned the ownership of the wetlands once the land is developed, adding, “will a Homeowner’s Association be created to own and maintain these areas? How would the areas be secured?”

Last said that in a formal review, the applicant needed to “decide what the boundary (of the wetlands) is and if they want to take it (the wetlands) out completely, or regulate parts of it.”

Staff also suggested the applicant addressed the “accessibility, circulation and connection” of the property to the neighborhood. Last said an example of this would be the city’s recommendation that the applicant add a connection from West Olympia Drive going back to East Main Street.

In addition, the city advised “a full street section” should be added for the extension of West Olympia Drive to the southern property line, creating a second emergency exist to the site and improve circulation of the area, according to city documents.

The applicant proposed developing parts of the property for student housing, a plan which city staff considered “more controversial.”

The project would involve higher density units and a higher variety of mixture types than what is already in the neighborhood.

Due to the impact on the neighborhood, staff recommends that the applicant hold a neighborhood conference to address the concerns of the residents.

Wood said his client is undergoing review of the project, but declined an interview with The Union, citing the preliminary status of the subdivision development.

“Our clients are evaluating the information we received at the Conceptual Design Review meeting, determining if a viable project exists and if so, what specific design elements they may want to include and propose in a future formal application,” Wood wrote in an email.

Last said he hasn’t heard anything from the applicant since the Oct. 27 meeting, but added that the revision to the plan “could take a few months.”

“The ball is now in the applicant’s court,” Last said.

To contact Staff Writer Teresa Yinmeng Liu, email tliu@theunion.com or call 530-477-4236.

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Grass Valley and Nevada County make The Union’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User