HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-17 GRIDLEY LAND USE REVIEW 2 OF 2I
Inter-Depart efflerandum
Tbp
Planning Commission
PROM.:
Planning. ,Department
suBjECT:
City''oia Gridley's Proposed General Plan
DATE:
December, 1.2, 1.983
Introduction
Presented : for your consideration, and comments is elle City of
GT!dley's proposed General Plan. Gridley City council has held
hearings on the plan, but to date has not ad;optod, it.
Staff has reviewed the plan identifying several areas of con lilict
including.
Pxlent of ,lands proposed. :;for urban/rural development.
Z. Zncons,lstency between, 'Proposed and existijig General
Plan designations and density.
3,' A proposed primary sphere smaller than what exists.
A summary of the main objectives of Gxidlcy's, hand Use Plan
include : -
1.Compact development not to exceed a Popo"laton growth
rate a£ 1.3,% annually.
2-. Maintenance of commercial agr:i.cultuval atti ritios as
the economic basis.,
S.,, 1?xesexv*ation> ofagxiculturl lards , th,xo'ug1i large lot'
zc,na..n
n g «
4. _ Minmu7,�S acme parcel size surrouncling ;city limits,
'out'ly:ing
10 and 40 acre , parcel:, for area►
S « beireloper :Fees to f, inance :neco,ssary pura-
V06 ifiparoventettt's.
To date, those areas w th 5 �1t (Suburban Resid'ent.a a1)'
(SLlbitrban Re5,id.eritial.,. acre parcels) and Alt-M1-1-1 (A�riculttvA
Resid'entaal-Mobile 116nie, 1 acre.'parcel.$) zoning and Agricultural
Residential Genera] Plan designations are in `c6h' f ict Faith: the
city's agr1.r,.ultural polis les .
r-
1t
Sl zf"f re-commends that this cotntnent be incl uded i n sect 1 pit 6. U`2 as
part o"f 'th"e di scis5"i o�tt of the 'Gri dl ey�-Bi _Ws, p1 ar�tt�`i ng �►rc��� { page
Comment: 'Che Gt�i dl ey- Col usa Mi ghway s4oul d be cl trssi f"i ed as
rural. artcri al and not as a mi nor col 1 e;ctor, as t,l asci fi ed in
Figure A. 'Che same i.lp'graded e1 assn f cacti e►n` should occur in
Fi nure F. "Che hi ghwajr connects two i mport:artt Farm communi ties.
Res}7onsp: The two major cr4 teri a For cl assi f i n.g (;he
C�ridl eyCo;l us�z Fli;ghway are 9.) ,how its full(,Il:i d lt�I on anl ity rel rate
to the qua i i t��ti v decri pti ons of rur�) road and highway
c{ asci cati t>n fo,und i n Ta1)1 e 5 (page _4) ar7d the MI�;)h ray's
historical and anticipated tra'Ffic' valiimes (see_T�kl)l+-, % - Traffic
Vo'I umes - Rural County Roads; page 52) Rec,;ardi ng t-he 'Highway's
qualitative, °assessment; its soul d he con si 8erered either a triad or
or mi n.or roral col 1 ector from the descri pti"ons -i ll T&W e 5.
However, the traf f'i c data i n Table 7" i ndi cited very l ow traPf, i c
vofumes occur between Uri dl ey and Cal usa. The i.07s AADT for the'
highway at the Col usa Coun"(:y 1 i ne was only 270 whi 1 / the 1981
A�iC1f was only 55U�, A number of other Sacramento Valley farm.
roads with onl y 'si i ghtl y hi ghzr traf�Fi c vol umes hav : also been
classified as rural mi nor col 1 ectors. Raising the proposed
cl assi fi cation of the Gri"dl ey-Co1" rsa Hi ghw�y wo,ul d therc�,fnre be
i noon i ste1)t wi t the proposed rural cl assT f I cIti on` systein,
C0u11
Staf F recavi ends that the Gri dl eye-Col usa Iii ghway be shown as n
mi for rui O collector i n Figure A and as a col lector west of
Block Roadi n Fgure F, as proposed, i n the adopted F1 event.
(;otnment; 1'he City now p,r oposes that the Spruce Street exterisi on
to the Uri dl ey -Col usa Mi s(hway be el i mi nate:d and the present;
al j,gnnic'nt be r e t a 1 ned.
Staff rr�ramtnends 1) that the tipruce Street extension be deleted from
F 14ure r, l) trait S�?r�u"ce Street be c7 zssi f ed as �i col l eci or and
�) that the` .(ori dl ey-Co l as Hr`ghw - Sycamot^e 8t eet scjciment f rotrl
81 bck Ro6d to State Route 99 be c1 ass i Fi erJ, s art urban jrii non
arterial This chi"n�ge will corse eon! to the' City I's pro"posal.
Comm en4: Che Ci by i s not proposi ng a r�ew stref~ t between f{i r(hi ay
99' and .the 'des°t ai ggs -Uri dl ey� Ra�i�l" poral l cel to` l�he S�,ltter-8Utte
CG;na1 Pather, Ord Rauch Road" i sproposed to extend weasterl y to
th°h [31acl, .Road rxtertsi ons
pe�s eon e; Land use `p1 a-nR t o� the" art north thc� Utter
do 110W iIE{1 Gats tie t1CF'TJ fol" Vin: urbatl Cly"1 1 x:{tui" "c"�5 f a
north °�s Ur'd hon h {road 5tf^f"f f{�,�1s that a 01)cl�l;or ;sttxeet
p r 11 e'I th�c Ca;ttal wool d bre i I. orb 12:0 rf: caal 1 ac ti 011
9
, t«
Planning Comma.ssion
Review
Gridley Land 'U.se
page
November 20
-Res idential
•t Residential and Agricultti�tal
designated Law Density in these areas that the
ilt was the ,toiling future
`s Plan.
iri the County objected 'to citing concerns over ordexly
originally rovding adequate services.,
in
City ricul.tural
expansion of, the CitY pro lic area's a
sion dermin�ng o� t
facil. , etc :..::and the un
eCOT10MY lromw�l11�'1)e
P
Element differs in several respects
the CoAlMissiL
The Circulation However, since
for t}e County.
'Circulation El ement these sties
proposed
holding hearings ' on the draft;
discussed at that time.
can be
RECOMMENDATxON
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uepwth the Cityhat
Continue the dialog
Gridley Stan In Comtlittee ortant outstanding
objective 0f'. resolyin' ' the rmp`
r with the
GL ,'idley
Uetween the parties.
issues
CW : ,
Attachments:
City o£ GridIeY
Draft Land Use Plan1Map P1ani iilg Area on County P1a Plan Map
Gi
GTI (11 ' ty
- Comparison Map 1
Couhty Land [Jseesx gna`�-fans on
Com ari son Map -
P
I
N
5
I
IIII i.
II�
I
A � •y i � � , M 1 � i.
"''�. ' �: