Planning Commission approves In Motion Fitness solar structures, expands off‑site employee parking

The Chico Planning Commission on May 15 adopted Resolution 25‑07, approving architectural review 25‑02 and modification 25‑01 to Use Permit 11‑20 for In Motion Fitness at 1293 East First Avenue. The commission voted 7‑0 to allow three new solar structures, associated sitework and expanded off‑site employee parking, subject to the project conditions as amended during the meeting.

Staff said the project is designed to achieve a net‑zero electric demand for the facility and meets the municipal code solar development standards in Title 19. Associate Planner Tina Wilson described the site as neighborhood commercial (CN) surrounded by residences and explained the project in three phases: a porte‑cochere/entry structure, a west‑side expansion with outdoor exercise areas, and a corner pavilion. Wilson told the commission staff recommended approval and noted a clerical correction to Condition 3: the required number of off‑street spaces was updated to 78.

Applicant representative Matt Galloway said the design evolved to avoid large, steel carport solar canopies often visible from streets. He said the project will place roughly “close to a megawatt” of solar across nearly 2,000 panels, and that not all energy can fit on the existing roof so two structures are integrated with the building and a third freestanding pavilion is proposed. Galloway said the west expansion responds to demand for outdoor exercise space developed during COVID, and that roughly 13 parking stalls were removed to accommodate new outdoor amenities; the design relies on two overflow lots—principally for employees—to meet parking needs.

Commissioners asked about scale, neighborhood impact and site operations. Commissioner Wolf said the corner structure will be visible and asked how the design maintains a pedestrian scale; Galloway said demising elements, a secondary balcony motif and pulling the tower off the corner help reduce perceived mass. Commissioner Wall asked about neighborhood outreach; Galloway said three to four neighbors attended a community meeting and noted one concern about panel origin and another about whether a separate nearby IT project was related. Commissioners also asked about bicycle parking (Galloway: covered and provided) and about a fence at the rear of the site; the applicant said the proposal included an architecturally treated fence to improve security and that the current condition did not meet the eight‑foot standard.

At the commission’s request the motion adopted the staff resolution with two changes made on the record: Condition 3 was updated from the older value (46) to 78 required off‑street spaces, and the commission removed Condition 1 under the architectural review conditions (the commission accepted the applicant’s proposed design in place of requiring the change referenced in that condition). The motion was made by Commissioner Wall and seconded by Vice Chair Scarpa. Roll call: Commissioner Wolf Aye; Commissioner Wall Yes; Commissioner Sharp Aye; Commissioner Laffins Aye; Commissioner Kauffman Aye; Vice Chair Scarpa Aye; Chair Scott Aye. The motion passed 7‑0.

The project will proceed under the Planning Commission’s approved resolution and the conditions as amended on the record.