HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-70CB EAST AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN 5 OF 6CITY OF CHIC
REPORT
TO: PLANNING
COMMI`SSTON 'DATE:
FROM: `ZONING &
DE C`;Eh1 i3 P i
,R 3 ► 985
PERMITS
SUBJECT: REZONE #356
COMMTTxCL F (3 5:6)
FILE' A-UN-3
GENERAL INFORMATION
LajLcant
John D. Drake, P O. Bo ;1h4
Ow-`:
Same:
' Reque fed Action;
Rezo:na
Pur ose:
To r��.Zone from R-1
to P1) Single )'amit y Res.
/R- 'tanned
Dev.ct
Family I`esidentia opment-S`ng74
Loc-; awn
On the south side of Tlanzanta Ave, to the east
of Ceanothus Avenue
Existing Zoning;,
R-1 Single Family Residential
As essor's Parcel Nn.
77
48-4b-37
Size:
-`_
10.12 3c,
Exist'n Land Use:
Vacant _
Surrounding Land
N ?residential/Iiigh schoot
S T,a nd' Channel
E Residentanl
[J Lindo Channel./Res idential
General Plan Desi nation:;
Low.Densty
Residentlat
Environmental Review:
Negative Declaration
1.
��,�,.
i t . A-1 sy+'. 1 PMS, ti'- y %lwli, > +•
' •f{��! of m"�':"t'� y.r ® ,,,r�F v,:....•�,�t,.yvPa'�� ������ 1. :y
le-
r�,l� i ,, ; �t�V� ,r1,7>�F . �►' vat.
•� 6,Fr. xrrtji.i +' •i /.,,+'ter ®��,...•��,,,! _ �h�� � �� � ..1�'/�1� ,�.
� 14.�' a �.:;� a... jJi y 1 _,tt�rri „_ :•„ :aj�®1 �,.�• p � �l>t ��
-ti,
t
.._ • • . P� - .. Y ,. t .:! ,. - _ �. _... - .. yr , .; - _ '.. ' -. -::� l "F. '. '.. a ., s..Fi .. _. e. .�. �. �. .. .. ._+., .. ..... ... ,-, .. .n „a ., - 't-.. . '.,<.
AL
r RQUTiNG
MY 014 CHICO
`i�,-�R PAVAORANDVA;
ACT'0N DESIRED
to
WT, -oer.•wntviINITIALS
TO; DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS
POLICE DEPT
FIRE-C{iIEF
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIRFCTOR,d-"
PARK DIREC'T'OR
„« r
RE.- .n.�' # AAg,� 2�
Attached i' the plat and report for the above-noted
aPP Kation. P1 ease rev1ew and Comment
1 menupon, same
at your early convenience.
This matter. vii 1.1, be on the Pl anni ng Commission agenda
of • /'
Thank you,.
Review (CommentIf
doompriote) and return
soe Call mo' , !hit
Investigate and report
Act ay (nditated
Plbase Protets
For your info./filo
Your signature'regaired
Return to sender
Per y, our reqst,ub
Circulate to Dept.
Em lc tes
Fail , Bu'.efln Boards on Dept,
I
rue
TICKLER.:
City Manager
beP, City Mgr.
Ctty Cierk
city Ally,
ACM/CDC
ACM/Po- : _
Adm. Tech( ):.
rinnnce O,ificor _
Firo Chief
Pa.k Supt,
Planning ,Director
Polite Chief
Public Works Dir,
.Hews Melia
From (slanotvro)�
C1it -Sellers, Director
De rtmont,
p�
1 l •II.; 121-79.'- $ONS
r
l
CITY OF CHIC0
'P RT
T0: PLANNING COMMISSION 'DATE: NOVEMBER S, 1985
FROM:: ZONING & PERMITS
"
COMMITTEE FILE:; A—ZON-3 (353
SUBJECT' R'EZON�E 353
GWRAL. INFORMATION
Applicant:
Bill Stone, 574 Mainzaxiita #3, Chico
Owner:
Kendrick C. Bt0pejj Sr.
P. 0. Box 5861
Requested Actions
Garden Grove; CA. 92645
REZONE
Pur ose:
To rezone from R-1 Single Family
Residential to RS -20 Suburban
Residential
Location:
1367 'East Avenue
EX18ting' ioninn :
9-1 Single Family Residential
Assessor's Parcel No,
48-201-32
Size:
29 acres
Exis ing.°Land Use:'
Residential
Surtouh'dj
Ing Land Use:
N - Res; dential
E.' Reside'ntie!.
S Residential
lJ Church
General Plan Designaflon:'
Low Density' Residential
nvil^onmenta1 Review;
Negative Declaration
r .i{• Mh a •6isi.. .w..r rM tf hMM M! •MM M Ni .yM vi. vn ~�-�J .'4^'�S�..
'Jti s`
Xti•:I
:
:SS•}$:•Si;v:
:A
•::4F:�fIF$F4i� i:L:`
S{s.
r
'rr i
r.
F..
r
J
J
{ 4
l'.
.h.
l ++ y
h'
r {'
h �1
s r.
l
r..
sr y
h
J•ti { :
4w
a
:
{i
I
rS
r
h
,
• 4 •i .,. ..j:. r,y: r.
— �
�h• l:..r
cas � CITYAVE.
h jrr 7 . 1
O
Proposed
v Rezone --1-*-i-
To .R -S(20)
hr `•J^' x„ 48'-21'32
a
r ` U)
r r.. �..
r• (R ? k i a , i
t p
N. REZONE #`353
Lw �- Applicant: B1.1..1 Stone
574
Manzanta
Ch;icn, CA
�"=,, "�� �p•. Q;wner: Kendr;rol. C. Brownell, Sr:
IGC NbION sCAL[A P... -- (? X7
Gard0n Gr6,ve, CA. 92645
o•000•o ASSESSORS BARGEE NfJM6ER Ei e,q u e s t: To rev -ono r o m A-1 to R S— 2 0
i'2a STREET ADDRESS(Re s
k1enL1,jrj%SUb u r b a n
CI TY ZONING
c'oUNTrzbNlNc Property Lorat ai,: 13�ii Eosr. Ar�0nuc�
COUNTYPROPERTY
CITY ;OF CHIC -0 PLANNING, OFFICE
DRAW M ' Y CNECK[0 P.
111,AT TG ACCOMPANY RP,%ONE #353 bATIt
' -' AFPROVEO ifY
Clrr. PLANNER
CITY OF CHICO
REPORT
T01 PLANNING COMMISSSION:
DATE NOVE WER 13, 1986
FROM ; ZONING & PERMITS
COMMITTEE FILE _ A-ZON-3
SUBJECT:. PREZONE #104 (BRIGGS)
GENERAL INFORMATION
ARp icant :
David Briggs, P. 0,: Box 1518, OI►;l.co'
Owner:
Community Church of God, 1095 Bost Avenue, Chico
Requested Action:
Prezone
Purpose:
To prezone to R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
Location:
West side of. Ceres` Ave., south of East Avenue
(Behind 1095 _East Ave.)
Existing' Zoning.
County S -R (Suburban Residential)
Assessor; Is Parcel No .`:
48-0871-103
Size:
Existin. -Land Uses
Vacant
Surroundriq Land 'Use :'
N Church
S S'inglo family residential,
E 1►acant;
W Multiple Fami lyResidential
General Plan- Designation:
_ Low Density Res�dentaal
Environmental Review:'
Negative beclaratio' n
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPHf
+ (To be completed by Planning Director)
Yes
�iri5sible �J°_�
I„ LACK GROUND
r
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface water runoff?
X
Ron Coleman
APP tants tame rouect
escr pt oii�'n'i° +"3°'"' tioo
--..,
C. Alterations o the course or flow of
P. Oi Box 4447 souti, side of Fast ,Ave., cast of Floral
Chico CA. 95927 n
flood Waters?
Applicant's Address ro ectLocat
on
d. Changes in the amount of surface water
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: This is a vacant 3.77 acre parcel located in a primarily
in any water ,body?
X
gin8 Y e, a
isyailabla Avenu
ma.or th
i orobghfare
e. Discharge into surface waters, or alteration
of surface water quality, including but not
wikhlsotnemmiredeuseshtiAllaul-ilieieseare
_
limited to tem eratures
p dissolved oxygen;
or turbidity?
..�.�
X
11I,ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Yes
Possible No
fa Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground Waters?
X'
1, Earth. Will the proposal result in;
g. Change in the quantitY of ground waters,
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in
either through direct additions or with'
geologic substructures?
,�
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer b tuts
q Y or excavations?
X
b IDisru tion. dis lacement, Compaction or
p
overcovering ofthesoil?
X
h Substantial reduction in the amount of Water
c.: Changes in topography or ground surface
otherwise available for public water -,supplies?'
-_-
>i
relief features? -
g
is Exposure of people or property to water
d,. Oestuni aenering or, modification of
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
Y 0.geologic or hysical features?
X
e. Increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
4. Plant Lite.. Will the proposal result inc
either on or off the site?
X
—
f, Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
a,
in
ersity. of or numbers
of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs,
which may modify the channel of a river orr
stream, or bed of'a lake2
gresssdrops,emicvoflora andaquatic
q plants?
X'
g. Exposure of people or ',)'' ty to geological
X
Reduction of the huibers Of any unique, rare,
or endangered pecies of plant ?
X
hazards .,g as earthquakes, landslides,
_
mudslides, ground failure, or"stmilar
t. Introduction of new species of plants into
hazards?
X
an area, or barriers to the normal replenish -
Ment cif existing species?
X'
2. Air „'Will the proposal result in:
Reduction in acreage of any agricuitura'1
a, Substantial air emissions or deteriora-
crop?
tion of ambient ar quality!
A
� X
5. Animal Llfe: Will"• the proposal result in,
b, Generation of objectionable odors?
X
a. Changes in the diversity of apecies, or numbers;
c. Alteration ofoair"movement,.moistore or
of any species of Arhimals (birds, land Wmats;,
thcludi;ng reptiles, fish'a'nd shellfish. bonthit
temperature, orin any significant change
in climate, oither locally or regionally?X
organisms, insects or microfauria?
X
3: Water, Wit.l the propnsai restiit in:
b. Reduction of the numbers of ainy unique, "rare
or endatgercd species of animal
-s?
X
a. Cpanges in current, courses ordirection
e.- tntrgductidn of neW spgcjos Of' animal's into
^f •,,*�� ��,.�m��f t f'rnGF u„+�r�h
M1
an pram or result in a bai•rieM• to the migrate
i
Pg. 4 - Evaluation of En. ronmental T
Pg. 3.w
Evaluatfiorrof En.,ronmental Impact
Yes . Po.__------
Flo
Yes
possible No
d_ Alterations to present patter of
d, beterioration to eXisting fish or wildlife
X
circulation or movement of pons
ogle
X
and/or goods? .___.------
A.
Lo te, Will the proposal result in
e. Alterations to rail or air ti:affic?
X
a. Substantial increases in existing noise
-- X
f, Substantial increaso in traffic hazards X
to bicyclists or pedestrians?
lwelsl _
motor vehicles,
b Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
X
14, Public Services. Will the proposal have an
lect upon, or result in a need: for new or
7.
Li ht and flare. Will the' roposal roduce
p P
X
altered governmental services in any of. he
ght or g,are?
.�
following areas:
8.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Fire Protection: X
a. Substantial alteration of the present or
b, Police Protection?_
planned land use of an area?
---
�_
C. 5ch�ots?
b; A conflict with ekistfing xcnin9?
�_
facilities?
d. Parka or other recreational '•-
-�--
9,
hatural Resources. Will the proposal result int
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
a
a Increase in the rate of use of any natural_
including roads? X.
'-
resources?
-
f, Other governments' services? X ,
b. Sut°tantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources?
----- _X
15, Utilities, Will the proposal result in a need`
Tor new systems or substantial alterations to
1p.
proposalinvolvea
the fallowing 'utilities?
risk °f an eYplos�on orethe
X
hazt,rdous substances (includfingi but not
a. Power or nature, gas?
limited to;, nil, pesticides, chemicals; or
X
radiation) n the event of an accident or
the
x
b. Communications systems? -
upset conditions?
_
X
11.
Population, Will .,the proposal alter the
C, Water?
'tanks? a
location, distribution, density or growth
d, Sewer or leptic - ---_—
„
rate of the human population of an area?—
-
Storm water. dra"inage?
X
12.
N__ou��sinyy... Will the proposal afrect existing
P.
housing, or create a deman8 far additional
p ? +----- —
..._-.--
housing?�
15. RnerSolidWill�thenproposalaresult in: `�
gy.
13,
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result an:
_
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel br,
X
A. Generation of substantial additional
energys _
vehicular movements
- --
b. Substantial increase io demand upon -
ex sting sources or energy. or require
b; Eff ects an existing parking facilities;,
the development of new sources of energy?
X
or 'demand for new parking?-
� _
17. Numan tlealth, Will 04 proposal result in
c. Substantial impact upon existing tr+ns-
portation systems?'
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential`
( ?
'he alth hazard axrlatiinl1 raflntal hepiti�)
{°g. 6 - Evaluation of Envi,mental Impact
roomental
Evaluation of En% Impact1115sIbre
Yes,:.— .....
Iia ..
Yes r Possible tto
V, MANDATORY YINDiNGs OF SIGfiIF1CANCE
b, Exposure of eo le to potenti x
hazards? p P ai health
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
ln. Aesthetics,. Will the proposal result in the
reduce, the habitat of a fish or Wildlife
obstruc on of any scenic vista or, view open
species, cause a fish 014 Wildlife population
to the public, or will the proposal result in,
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
the creation of an aesthetically offensive
al co
to eliminate a plant or animmmunity,
----
site open a public view? x
reduce the number, or restrict the range of,.
endangered plant or animal, or.
rare oliminat
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
.ee important examples of the major•
a e
X
mpact upon the quality or quantity of exist-
periods of California history or prehistory? _._ ._- ---- ----
Ing recreational opportunities? �_ __
2, Does the have the potential to degrade
20. Arch aeolo"ical/Historical+ Will the proposal
6nmepl'ojnc
the in the long run; but not in the
%"
resu t n an alteration of a significant
t rurorment
short run? =-----`-'
archaeological or historical site,>structure, X-
object or building? -
3. Does the project have impacts Which are
individually limited, but cumulatively c06-
IV. GISCU55ItlN OF Ei1VIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
siderable7 (A project may impact on two or
I.(b) and 3.(b) CbhtME11T i _
more separate resources; where the impact on
each resource ;s relatively small; but where
OvetcovorinR of the sail and a resulting increase in the amount of surface watar
a single farm y
the effect of the total of those impacts an
is s ----
k
runoff will occur when the site, is developed with a cul-de-sac and
the envdgnificant.)�---
ironment
lot: subdivision of 20 lots.
4, Does the project have e.nvirormenta effects
q pec City of Chico
MiT1GA I'iON: None required. A storm drainage system will be to U red
which will cause substantial adverse effects
directly or indirectly?
y
ol;andords:
on human beings, either
I3.(f)1 Or rrrN{`
s, Does the project have the potential to adversely
in listed
Traffic liaAar,dtt ori East Avenue will increase due to the proposed cul-de-sac prov;ding
effect: the environment a manner not
in the above. four findings? ----------
X
access onto lottll; Avenue COT 20 additional single family jrasidencea,
V1. DETERMINATION
FtITiCA'I'.IfIN:
The City Council is currently discussing means to provide future Of -site street
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
imprevemeufin necessary to ollovinto cumulative traffic impacts coustd by 'deveirrpment.
Xx We find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect On
the
14 (u bi e,f,) anc+ I5(d) COMMPIti
environment, and a NEGATIVE UCLARATION will be peepareo,;
At the time of annexation, the provision of gryerhmentai services will become the
We find that although the proposed pprojort could'ha+re a significant
in this case
effect
respuns bility n£ the City o£ Cfico rather than ,Butte County:
on the environment, there will not be a significant :� cyt
atta,.�Po sheet have been
_MITIGATION'
if the mitigation measures described on an
added to the ,project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL H rEi'AREO.
Nana requlrod. 5ervicas arc available without any major modifications,
j— j We find the proposed pN6jOct MAY have a significant e"Ettt ori the environ-
IROI is reg r`rirew,
ment, and an ENV, (MEti,1'AL IMPACT R) PORT
r S gnat3r; t',
pnr't Planning Director
Date: May 2'10 1`r1%
,1
Chico Planning Commission
1\djournad Re c6ular Meeting of May ),8,, 1987
1Wng Comm
r1 (� 19Or
Associate Planner Hayes reviewed staff report d1ttt0d May 12, 198?,.
describing the subject property
UV 1 v
(
of •4 acres be lfry devele ed •.pith a
fourplex, triplex and single fam!'y residence and naLing
.Ji�•1119, COMIA
Char the total
bedrooms are 32 (not 33 as ind'uated in staff report), !te listed the
surrounding land uses and
zoning and, suggested that khtzy aIle compatible
with proposed use, and llso mentioned the
on -4.11,4 parking for l8
vehicles developed in 1983 in conformance with City Code provisions
that timo,
at
Public hearing opened.
)
Ben Wassman, Delta Chi Fraternity,' stated.
Delta Chi wasthat the Chico chapter of
founded' on April 17 158
_
5 and noted that the fraternity it
active in community service at least twice a
year, naming Easter Sams
as an example. He listed some of advantages of khe house, is, having
room for 32
members, good location and fivo-minute walk e, campus, H4
said that the fraternity is
very cor;cerned about the community,, and
explained; rules of no noise after 10
Pim.; notify neighbors two days
prix: :o any function; functions are limited to Weekends, they are
co
to
end i 1 a.t>t. and the yard is to be cleaned the following morning,, He
further explained that they concerned
are about Mindscape maintenance
and keeping the residence clean and orderly,
7
A discussion regarding landscaping followed:
m
Q
Steve Depa, 641 Nord Ave:, Ste, A - owner of subject Property, spoke. in'.
favor of the applicant, stating that he found
them to be truthful and;
unlike others he has encountered, quick to develop their plans. He
noted that he has
required forms to be signed by parents accepting
responsibility for any damage occurring at. the site,
and that :he has
spoken to previous landlords, who have spoken well of the fraternity:
He said he feels
that the site, Which has plenty o> room (ie, concrete
for volleyball; et c.)i is
appropriate for this use, and that he is
Willing to take a chance With them, and hopes
(
that the City will also, "
1
1[
Bernie R chtoei Rays
T,iquor Store on Walnut street, mentioned a fraternity located near hits
2nd
on $treat and said he finds them
extremely responsible and Very good neighbors, tie said the
fraternity
has been helpful in limiting and preventing vandalism and he thought the
proposed location to be
appropriate, He stated that he heattily :
Supports the fraternity locating here and hoped the
approve: Commission would
Public hearing closed,
COMMISSIONER DAVIS MOVED TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO, 1899 5UB:7ECT TO
RECOMMENDED CONbIMN OF
"STAFF. THE M02'10N
MCGWAS SECONDED BY COMMTSS ONER
INNTS AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLy`.
BUSINESS FROM THE !FLOOR
CORRESp_ONOVNCE'
8: Lotter dated. May /, 1987 from Mark Gregoire, SU h Realty; reques'king
Commission discussion of
a proposed Gen4ral "Plan amendment to
designate approximately 18 acres located ;on the:
north ,silo of :'East
Avenue between Ceanothus and Mariposa Avenues as commerical.
Planning Dir4ctar'Sellers reviewed staff report dated May 13, 1987,
explaining that Commission previously
discussed the feasitaility of the
propwere, t general pi,ari amendment And noted copy of that MOeting's minutes
were
akkaohaa to staff re ort.
P rte Curther rioted concerns" that were
discussed previously .included traffic
impacts-,< storm 'drainage, Suitary
sewer aPd 1Rth'd use compatibility, and that: khe' consensus
of the
Ccmrtiission at that time was that, Although t;ommercial ttse in the
might be area
,
appt.opridte in the future, such action would be premature at
this: time, tie said that
Commission ir; not boing asked to 'take formal
aoti,on konight.
A discussiah ensuod regarding drainnge and possible mitigations" of
problem,
y
Chico :planning Commission
60 Adjourned Regular Meeting at May 18, 1987
6. Rezone No. 384 '(Enloe Hospital) - To tone a praa3mainlf 30 Aeras
located at the northeast corner of the future inte'rsewt;.on of ,Notre
Dame Blvd, and E. 20th Street from 41-1 Single Family Rosilontlal`to
P -Q Public/Quasi-publia land use district;
Planning Director Sellers reviewed staff report dated May 13, 1087 ,
noting applcantisintended use of the 30 'acres as a hospital
development Of 16 beds acute care and 42 beds skilled nursing, He noted
the location is within the generally defined East Side Study Area of :the
General Pian adjacent to proposed arterial roadways or Cast 20th Street
and Notre Dame Blvd'. and explained that the 30 naro7 to part of 240
acres ovhad,by Enloe, for which they have not indicatud tiny other plans
for development. He further noted that any use with a,P-Q Public -Quasi
Public ,Land use district must come before the Commisn;ion For approval.
A short discussion followed,;egarding previous requottto of convalescent
hospitals and adequate parking.
Public hearing opened.
Cy Weagle, ;Associate Administrator of Enloe. HosplLol, stated that
activity at Enloe Hospital has grown recently, Anil recounted that
several years ago, the Board of Trustees decided the present site at The
Esplanade and Nefit Fifth Avenue could not meet the goods of the 24st
Century and took into consideration four criteria for the selection of
an expansion site: He explained: further that vehicular access, adequate
sewer and use compatibility Were the prime considerations in the final
decision of selecting an expansion site and that the Proposed 30 acre
site met the requirements, tie said that the R-1 zoning designation was
discussed with City representatives and consensus Was that the alternate
use/zoning Was compatibile, He noted that further development will be a
slow and gradual ,process. He mentioned the pressure to obtain
additional facilities and that the recent additions, le,. the Conference-
Center; have only brought partial relief, He asked Commission to giant,
approval of the rezone as it appears to be consistent with the Forest
Avenue Development and said that the 240 acres is split into four
parcels, development being proposed for only a, portion of one at the_,
present time and commission will be informed as plans become more
definitive for the remaining parcels,
CSD Lando commented that he d1sogroed that the City represented the
property Was zoned anything other than Single family Residential
dasignation:;
Jinn SWeeney, Executive Diredtor of Enloe Hospital, explained sole of the
history and plans o'f the hospital at 5th and (lain $treat and reason for,,
purchasing additional property is thQ curront overload, of patients. He
further explainod that the new facility Would handle patients recovering
from illnesses that no longer need the critical care facilities provided
at Enloe hospital. He noted that the smallhospital Will require
minimal laboratory, X-ray, emergency find pharmacy services .and will
providit a public dining :room, patient library and study room, beauty
shop barber shop, jacuzi, sauna, and possibly a theater for Patients
and 'their families. He ::acid that the level of care will be lower than
that of acute care but higher than needod Cor a skilled nursing care
facility, and mentioned that hopefully it will quality`tior the sub -acute
epee rating (a now Medi-?ia1 regulation becoming effeotiva January 1.
1,984)' fol; the McB -cal spohootecl'Patiehk&
public heatog closed.
planning Director Sellers responded to gtidotions and edvingd Commission
that; approval Would mean endorsement thnt a hospital be built, but not
approval of -the development itself,
A MOTION WAS MADE}3Y CDMP115R1ciNER, HAYrS TO APPROVE RE7.ON1 NO. 384,
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCGTNNIS'AND PASSED UNANIMOUS Y.
7.i Use permit No. 1899 (,(pelta Chi F%Lornity) - To allow a :fraternity
in an '9-3 High Density Residential land 4,00 district at 306 Cedar;
]005-1423 W. ;3rd Street.
There being no fuLLfi neys'tl mecking 0 j'odrned at 9:3 pro,
Plunn ncj, DSl`octOl,'
ft.
tlilkeajy��Better
I
. L,,L�s Homes
and tiGttit�nk.�
880 Rio Linda Avenue, Suite 3, Cldao, Calitotnia 0926'rdcphone (016)891!•1644
DIhy 7, 1987
Planning Commission
City of Chico
Page 2
Upon the expiration of our contractual agreements With the
Individual property owner's, it may prove ecchomica,lly unfeasible
Re-Northeast corner of East Avenue and Mariposa Avenue,;
to assemble the parcels, in the future. Several of the individual
property owners have indicated they would four-parcel or subdivide
sae attached Assessor's Parcel Map:
their Lhdividual part:els, creating humexous driveways on East Avonue,
Once again, the emphasis is on neighbgrhood center and immediate
area draw, rather than a regional draw.
Dear Commissioners:
Attached you Will find a letter of intent from Fleming Companies,
It has been our understanding the above referenced parcels Were
Inc" signed by ,Mr. Rennoth Dewhirst Director of Stone development.
Their intention is develop a 30,000 to IJOan square soot
under contractprevious developer ford the ccnstruckion of
nue enue,
market at the Northeast corner of East Avenue and Mariposa Avenue.
ea
g ppinq center, We uersfor
neighborhood shah i further that the
City of G?=co expressed some interest in gra'n'ting approval for
lJy partners and !i would like to meet. with the commission, for an
the commercial rezone,,
informal discussion concerning our intent; -and receive a preliminary
My partners and I' currari ly have the subject property under contract
tonponse from the City Planning commission regarding the ieas,ibi.lity
.. +subsequentcommercial rezone. Please
and We would like to pursue the clevel.opment of a neighborhood
feel freerto contact�iitematt801-1644, hank youforyour consideration,:
shopping center. We feel the timingand location is right for
reasons outlined in the Ifoliowin ata ra hs`;
The: site is centrally located within the area bounded by: North
Sincerely,
Avenue to the wast, Linda Channel to the south, Foothill Park P1Jl)
! `
to the north and the proposed Rancho Jlrroyb PUD to the east,'
Leith the majors developments to the North and East, the ,typo of,
Mark Gregoire, Vital
shopping center we envision still create a ne ghbcthood draw, thus-
DcVeleper
rolie-ving the day to clay, traffic burdens on the intersections
around the North Valieylaza hall
It is aur belios that the demographic studios I have prepared for
Flo4ing Companies, inc. o indicate a 'current need for the ahove-
mentioned:tyba oC shopping center. Jlbwever, once the commercial
placesZoning i's in. vrL11 take ave r a year of planning before
construct, may begin
to
At present;.we have been Able to assemble several yidually-
owned parcels ihto a singlot laxgor parcel. We believe it Would
'for
be prudent the Plann',ing Commission to Consider ;'the benefits of
Working with ono 'party and one 'parcel in order to m tigate-traffic
pro
a
rh 1 ems' 7 traffic-;signal, loft-born lane, eosarioted ingrc9.4
egrossi.r,,,
1, AtitlitionaIly, a project of tel "type would make
off-site rests mana'goobIa
Cq MLS
GENERAL JHFORMATTbN
CITY OF CHICO
CITY UQUNCIL 11E110ItAN)U,Il
TO. CITY COUNCIL oro, 5/6/86) DATE; APRIL 28, 1:956
FAM PLANNING CO,�4IISSION : FILE: 01 AGENDA/PRESS/
A-ZON-3 (9 0/cp 1
SUBJECT; PREZONE NO. 91 - NOMI VALLEY PLAZA, MALL PRE7.0NP
�IFSS,ICE
BACKGROUND
In January 1985, the City of Chico Planning Commissipn.iniciated the prebhe of the
North valley Plaza Mall and certain adjacent proportias fram Bud a .County'C-C,
Community Commercial land use designntion to City of Chico 0-1 Restricted Cnmmotcial
land use designation, The properties i.ntlude those bounded by Fist Avenue, Cohnsset,
Road and Pillsbury Road, the theaters at 2255 'Pillsbury Road; the bank at 2025
Pillsbury Road and the vacant properties southwesterly of the m41L ($ee attachedplrt
The total area of the prezone is alproximatel`y 55 acres',
The City of Chico and County of Butte General Plans both designp'te the subjcet lands
for commercial use. The proposed City zoning of C -I Restricted Commercial district
is consistent with the zoning applied to other cpmmercial iands in the argn which
are already within the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL''REVIEW
An Environmental, Impact Report ,Nis prepared fot,,.this,project; asrell�s°the anrtexatir
and developmgat_agreameht.-.The Fioa2 Env. ire Sn�ntal Impact Report has been previously
di�trfbiited to the City Council and other agencies, The attached Council ordihti'i:ce
ncludSs findings reeul ml by the California Environmental Quality Act',
'P1:ANN.iC0hC1TSSI0N ACTION
The City of Chico PlannngComm 3's`sidrt`cGnsidered-this-prezone aridy th'F3na'" 1 =�
Environmental Impact R^port Otr its meeting of April 28 and recommen s City Council
approval.
ATTACHMENTS
T. Plat to Accompany Prerene a91.
2. City Council Ordinance approving Prezone:p914 ""
Respectfully. submitted,
Cf1TC0 PLANNING COMM 9SMj
Mike.McCi.nnis, Cb,iir
cci lialp, 1loon ar+ NVr NY,,.
CSO/City Attbrnay,' Martin Nichola/ Gulf �1l,LrH, 1'lclihTtl ttg Uircrto'r
bttya Kircher. Mi Turpin/Bob Logan
Applicant:
Planning Commission
Owner:
Various
Requested Action:
Prezone
PurpdW
To prezone from County C -C to City C-1,
r
Restricted Commercial
Location:
North Valley Plaza Mall and three adjacent parcels
Ekisting Zoning:
CountyC-C, Community Commercial
Assessor's Parcel No,;
Various
Size:
60 acres -
Existing Land Use:
Commercial
Surrounding Land Use:
N; Commercial
S Commertinl
E Commercial
W,Resided ial
General plan Oe?aigRatioli:
Limited Commercial
Environmental ReVieW.
Environment4l Impact Report
p P
CITY OF CHICO
CITY UQUNCIL 11E110ItAN)U,Il
TO. CITY COUNCIL oro, 5/6/86) DATE; APRIL 28, 1:956
FAM PLANNING CO,�4IISSION : FILE: 01 AGENDA/PRESS/
A-ZON-3 (9 0/cp 1
SUBJECT; PREZONE NO. 91 - NOMI VALLEY PLAZA, MALL PRE7.0NP
�IFSS,ICE
BACKGROUND
In January 1985, the City of Chico Planning Commissipn.iniciated the prebhe of the
North valley Plaza Mall and certain adjacent proportias fram Bud a .County'C-C,
Community Commercial land use designntion to City of Chico 0-1 Restricted Cnmmotcial
land use designation, The properties i.ntlude those bounded by Fist Avenue, Cohnsset,
Road and Pillsbury Road, the theaters at 2255 'Pillsbury Road; the bank at 2025
Pillsbury Road and the vacant properties southwesterly of the m41L ($ee attachedplrt
The total area of the prezone is alproximatel`y 55 acres',
The City of Chico and County of Butte General Plans both designp'te the subjcet lands
for commercial use. The proposed City zoning of C -I Restricted Commercial district
is consistent with the zoning applied to other cpmmercial iands in the argn which
are already within the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL''REVIEW
An Environmental, Impact Report ,Nis prepared fot,,.this,project; asrell�s°the anrtexatir
and developmgat_agreameht.-.The Fioa2 Env. ire Sn�ntal Impact Report has been previously
di�trfbiited to the City Council and other agencies, The attached Council ordihti'i:ce
ncludSs findings reeul ml by the California Environmental Quality Act',
'P1:ANN.iC0hC1TSSI0N ACTION
The City of Chico PlannngComm 3's`sidrt`cGnsidered-this-prezone aridy th'F3na'" 1 =�
Environmental Impact R^port Otr its meeting of April 28 and recommen s City Council
approval.
ATTACHMENTS
T. Plat to Accompany Prerene a91.
2. City Council Ordinance approving Prezone:p914 ""
Respectfully. submitted,
Cf1TC0 PLANNING COMM 9SMj
Mike.McCi.nnis, Cb,iir
cci lialp, 1loon ar+ NVr NY,,.
CSO/City Attbrnay,' Martin Nichola/ Gulf �1l,LrH, 1'lclihTtl ttg Uircrto'r
bttya Kircher. Mi Turpin/Bob Logan
`V
Os- 2
•t
,_. C
?
u
C-2
_
R-3
C.11
R
C-1
�
17
AREA TO BE PREZONED
PREZONE
91
"" ""
CITY (IM1T5
ADPL ICANT:
, GN I CC PLANNING COMMIS5I0N
C -!
CITY ZONING
REOOLST:
To Prezone from County CSC.;
PROPOSED PREZONES
(Communit Commertia' ) to'
Y -
is -l)
EXISTING COUNTY ZONING
City C-1 (Restricted Cammor-4a 1 )
LOCATION:
North Valley Plaza M11 and
surrounding pro"pewti',es.
OWNER:
a REVISED
V mous
CITY OF CHtCCj
7/16%85,2/27/ 6
_
PLANNING OFFICE:
FLAT Tp
:
ACCOMPANY PREZONE # 91;
DpAWN bY.- cHtcl(ICD 0Y C'��--.�-
DAT[ -2 'HS -'
'"bM" "'"
APh110YC0
�9e4La`�ilC.__,_CJA
dY iriC...- PaY
la�ww
Iii _ �.1�K.WY"�i •.laa{q S"Laid.tiWi�r +.w''itik.�3l1+:�.,Ya �•l�Gidi:j� Y ._W_:73C.•..... is i, s
IN
cc: Clif Sellers, Planning Director
i`-
CITY 0 CHICO
REPORT.,
TO* PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE March 26 t 'a6
(Mtg. 1l/7/86)
FILE'
FROM ZONING AND PERMIT'S
COMMITTEE A -ION -6 (3G )
SUBJECT: P,EZONE/PREZONE #366'
GENERAL INFORMATION'
-
Brian DesRoches, H,.S.A. WoOt
Appiioant
1230 Nit. 10th Place, #204
Bellevue, WA 1$005
Wayne Bird.. 1742 Tabby L,,,jno t Durr iam, CA 959`3$
Owner:
r "
Fritz Gos ilve.z, 11472LaXe Shore So„ Auburn, CA
Neighborhood Church, 27110 grater Lane, Chico
Requested ;Action :
13PkOP, e/Pre,zone
'
To e one from M-1 and R-1 to P=Q Public Quasi
r
putDose
---- ---
P:iblic and from RS -20 to R-1 , and to prezone
from County Unclassified to P-0 and 11-1..
Located at the end of Comanche Court,, on both
LOcati ori,i
------
sides of Comanche Creek.
M-1 Lim ited Manufacturing} RS -20 Suburban
Existing Zoning:
Residential, R-1 Single 1~amily:Residential
and County UhC1a6sifiQj
Assessor's Parcel. leo.:
110-03-43� and, part of 40-03-2,:56,57, & 3$
Site:
S,5 acre'
Existing Land' Use:'
Single' fana.ly residence and vacant property
Surrounding Land Use :
N Industa�:a1
S Church
E Vacant
W Freewaj
Gene al Plan. DeSi , at on : industrial, Low, Density Residential, Rural
--
Aesidential
Environmental ReVew:
Negative Declaration CNV85-56' .
0,
CHAPTER; V. continu.ed
LAND USE SUMMARY
*ACR&AGE DENSITY
TOTAL` S
C3�' 'IYAL
TGTAL DWELZZNG'
UNITS
TYPE OF UNITS/ACRE _
ACE
USE
3
.
758
10.1
226
Estate :iesidential ER
7.4
2.48
Single Family SF 4.5
55.5
10.8
u
485
Single Family SF 6
81.2_
10.7
598
Single 'Family SF 7.5
80.0
�.J,
737
Multi Family MF 16'
46.2. .
44.9
6
898
Multi Family MF 20;
52A
7:0
1255,
Multi Family MF 24
12.4
1..7
148
mixed Use MCT (12)
459 5
448.4tAc.
59 .9
i SUBTOTAL
i�
5.6
07
CcMercial Recreation
5.9
Natural. GreenwaY/-Pe1 Space
44.0
Planned Greenways. and/or
147.6
19.7
future Golf Course Site
1.7
13.0'
District Park
1.4
p.2
Fire Station
10.0
1.3
ElementaiY School
3.0
22.5'
Jr. High School
26.9
3.6
Tight Industrial
0.6
Neighborhood Commertial
4.6
3.4
major Road (right-of-way)**
25.1
300.7'
40.1
SUBTOTAL:,-
749.1Ac.
100.0
4555
TOTAL
indicate
a yield
of :six(6)
c�esi anon of for exai�le,
*The density gn
acre of land.
r oss
res idential units gx
Valle Vista
right--of-ways.
*Wildwood,. Rancho Arroyo, Arroyo Grande and
� 5 •
' .T. -•....c r. • • , A .. ,..• . r , • .' •.:.7 •.. ..i[::•. S•. :V .. ,.. �. _. '. � ` � . i"ir>rt � n'::',Iq., :r+� 1 a
FIGURE 13
a
AREAWIDE ND USE AND.
.... ..:...- �.. , .: .• `; .•.. , f ::. 4: 1; ; •-},
TRANSPORTATION
: 4 . . , � � f �. S , 1` �` . , �' •'ri = - . tt +1`%= r i...y • i � k f i -
PROPOSED
' . . 1'., i • , • �•• ...... � •• r 0 -# Y, � 1 I�, • i .. r +"+, 1, •_ � �`+' a { � r.'f '{
:. ,'• ,'"i y,;, .. � � } Y,i"` •�'^,• •' ,~••x••(•':12•' '. +t s4:v.:: •_::•+_ . •!,t� '';� I. - .. '
r' 'L Nth,. .,.+rvwµ�` ��,i y 'p:�:',p['z`.>^,,1's, i++•,++•' • _�, i. `'%. ✓ : ND USE:
i ff
r,`'w `, -,-:�,;.. +',.it "•�; ,;,+ :2e,. ` 4 RESIDENTIAL,
v ,1 + .{vh„/. ,J,•n ,.R �:, r,•. .. ,�� . ir' rrt •,,fi y + ,�yi,+=,,r f. [ . :} 1 ..I. d.,µ.• _...
i
• ,�:. ,%->�1,-,i , -fit INr i + ,_•+ / ,i••=1.�! •i.7 1 i• F.N ,�.. r�/AVE':AC.
,: w...: .. ,•,� gal •. J•. ct._, r �., �i a �..`w
... ,�,. lit , 'f t .'. ++ : : 1 • : +.. . 11 F'"� _
,
ESTATE 3
. ° ' .:: ..�. +� � •.+ _� � J µ'ms,• , +'tc.v , : ..t .(�.1 r r • 1 ; .. �• i ♦ h. �11 ; i
�, •
•.. K. ,, ,, n .: s •J . a : , , , • 4X/AVE AC
-- ,� .y`•.., y:T '. �'ti: .. �4 µ 4'ri .. �:. ..:, :, r ,.,. r, •.,_ t ,..i'1,:. •.}.. .; i «� 1: •t::•r
E FAMILY ( )
`SINGE
:•y\: ,. +. \. ^^.. � � �,,y , `�`. :. r(J^.. :: •i:.a ,' t ,_: = ft+•r •. •:_• t':• •\:t M a,
MEDIUM DENSITY
�• , ^ ,.�. \. +. �4.•y.-, - 1 /+,q h •+�,!;/•,1�1_y•`�L'�, •,• , i •':t 4• '� • "J, jl : � � +. i I Ly � L'r' '.',1.11.
�, ,. •, ti\ti > . ._ . ' ,„ 1,%,�,-•N. i•S"J••1:•T: •"•"1 +-+ + i• t< ' 'L• •�• ^"'•'� ,,. / `,�: ` • Y �1 , y . �.. + �y
I V AC
/AVE QC
`V"�,x i+ _ _ .,. r y v., i ,.li �_•. •''++ , .tµ 1 ; 1+. " r:: 1 .', Y
�..< ,. •: '•.� ;., .:� ,;,: t, :, � '. MULTIFAMILY (IS.
'� ♦ �•k + r! 4.: i!`; .,7•'. t •,••I•. • 1 +;=p; `Jt r 1 .t:. '{ \ s •1J r
MIXED USE:
♦ :. ,.:•
.,•A .� ,:.�-•.�.a: ,., ,.. � •, NEIGHBORHOOD _ ,N M1,+ ,•' •�•: .ice a .:•J•i �+�+• � •rµ.• '.. .=S:•i •. r: i
_
,
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL. RECREATION
^�`
'
'• is
COMM UNITYWAY
j
_
GREEN
':i r`�:+. •..�• fi ••<;; `' `,•, _/ l:.rh FACILITIES
,. �
jS ��, t fry•'�'-
i
•
T �COMMUNITY
, DISTRICT
_ QP PARK
NP
'> �; � �;;,, •� , •;; t ;': _ + � ' `+' _,'� �.�'. 1+• ;Y,. _ ,� r �,� • ;,,.� NEIGHBORHOOD PARK:
-� �,, , „•s• r �+ • r i+ =r 1 Jr• ' t ,+i ;_ •. r=µ'�y — +�i S.
1 y ,
•
` ` by �:p�'� •y� >,. 1+ +`i11 .. . . i'•' ' , `•�i+` J )', 'iit'R I,I , ' ' ' F•.,,,-"� +.
>, ES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
: ,• .. �+
' \ �fi,ti\ � �i :,. •+ : --•. t ' p +� _i Ill
:
'R'''' :` +�� ail ` _ :},,,:,�,:j'y , ,.�.;+ i :,,., `�„ :; .;,-•``;, ,, JHS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
y ` , _. T- •< "..•I.= :y `� , , .`.,r �,, F FIRE STATION
EATp ' �•
:
A .. ��. 4:v+�},,,'�,''. +�. ,•~•••�'J,�t•{rw=ih � + � f.• r% ,�y`i;J w
•
'!//•,.. �_ : \ �. prr i,%`" }� �a+ : �� 7 �'yr�r itt•+ i•��`�'1 + ,�; t= rT:' ' i
,. �, ti•_X '�t•1d.: .:,� SNI L: +y J+2 -( i =� ••,i � _: >•` •`,lv� i i. j. y ,.• i _ :
\ 1 .w� �•�O,'�, •�- 3. vet= ''1 1,+ 1 �w'k' 1y� � ; r•.^
."51IN
.•r=•�� 'j+j�•�� w 4+K..:�i +iJ�%� rt.
A ft
: T
♦ ..,- �♦3 i'. +. , 1r Y•
i : , 4 �` ••,.,: li=., ' JY. 1 t •.y = a•,+ ri, � ,' r 1�,. ,/'�'�x •4.+. �. �
R tr; ri. is+S•
,r, r
-.. - `{ : . . • i ` \,: �i r� t ,t«� a+J ;f` '. 1 • .+prµ
,. � �`• �,+i,�. ;� �' _` ```'�
S -CIFIC PLA
I FOR
CHO ARnQY0,
. x.�: CHIC, CALIFORNIA[ , r
VA
VUr-,IS'LgFF gib B tACiY
BPo ML�1'ANO eiVM�1�NTAl' PUV�NG I
a Rancho Arroyo 3 5/6/82
Specific Plan Draft
Wa staff and Brad
g Y
V. General Land
Use and Transportation Policies--4
Table 5
LAND USE SUMMARY
Acreage
Total
Percent
Total
Density
Gross
of total
Dwelling
ype of Use
(Units/Acre)
Acreage
Acreage
Units
Estate
Residential,
3.5
106
13:6
371
Single Family
Residential
6,.0
358`
46.0
2,148
Medium Density
Residential
118
15.2
I , I$9
Multifamily'
Residential
15.0
33
4,2
,660
Mixed Use
Residential and Neigh-
borhood Commercial
15.0
20
2.6
300'
Subtotal--Residential
635
81.6
4,'668
Neighborhood Commercial
1
0.
Commercial Recreation
3
0.4
Community Greenway
Drainage channel
25
3.2 .
Other greenways;
26
3.3
Other Community Facilities'
Fire house
f
13
0,
1.7
District park
Neighborhood:: park 14
Q.5
Primary school (K-6) and. ,
neighborhood park 2
8 (6/2)
1.0
Junior'h,igh school (679)
and neighborhood park 3
12 (9/3)'
I.5 .`
Major road r.-o-w
50 6.4
Public Open Space Subtotal:
9.4
(channels)greenways, parks)*
73
Community Facilities; Subtotal
139
17..9
'fOTALS
77$
100.0
4 668
*Ekcludes private open space "provisions
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JULY 1$, 1988
FROM: PLANNING OLFICE' FILE: ,A--ZON-4 (2006)
SUBJECT: USE PERMIT
NO. 2006 (FONG)
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANTS
Howard Fong Jr., 11 Santos Way, Chir,, CA. 95926
OWNERS
Same
REQUESTED ACTIO
Use Permit
PURPOSE:.
To allow Lan 18 Ll nitr multiple family residential;
development (13.7 units_/acre)
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of Mariposa and hianzanita Avenues'
1298 Tianzani to Avenue
EXISTING ZONING:
R -P Residential-Professional/Business Office
ASSESSOR'S 'PARCEL NQ.:
4$-193-025
SIZE:
1.31 Acres
EXISTING LAND USE:
Single 1afiily risidence and vacant land'
SURROUNDING' LAND USE:
N Single famil'y,;residential
S Lindo Channel
E Mtr Itiplel family residential
W Single Family residential
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MediumDensity Residential
ENVIRO ME m
NTAL REVIEW:
Negative Declaration
3%87
.:....
_ .W..._ ..,,..,..
,,.
... � . w, ,. t ,
:;ate
_
M
i
�� '�Ui-'�lS
Dynf� n
�D
n
CL
tD
p p C)
c W o.
m
ri
I(D
vi
r w
-t
nom
C+d''nn
:;ate
O_
rte- fir-
:;ate
City of Chico
REIP"'013
TQ: PLANNING' COMMISSION
DATE: MAY 2, 195
PLANNING OFFICE
FILE: A-ZOI-4 (13)
FROM•
SUBJECT: USE PERMIT NO. 1993
_
GENERAL, INFORMATION_
APPLICANT,ado,
John. R. Clark, 1,601 );splan Chic
O�JNER :'_
Same
REOU-ST_ED ACTION:
Use -'Permit (Pre -annexation)
PURPOSE:
To allow a 32 bed elder care fAtility
LOCATION:
2307 Mariposa Avenue
County S -R Suburban Residential.
EXISTING ZONING:
Prezone City R-3 High Density Residential (wi h
conditions) � •�......,�..
.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
048=17-O-OS3
SIZE;,
1.9 acres
EXISTING LAND USE:
Single family residence and 1(iwi vineycar,d
SURROUNDING LAND,USE4 N
Single family :e0idPntial
S
Siin'gle family residential
E
Single family residential
W
Multiple family residential.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential ,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW::
Previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
3187
a
1?