Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011-340-112Vir-ginia Van Voris proposed Negative ]Dec station with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts and "Van'ance to allow a 2.1 acre parcel to be created in an FR -5 (Foothill Recreation - 5 acre parcels) zone located approximately 1.1 mile south of the r Helltown Road and Centerville Road intersection, identified as AI? 011-340-162 Chico. The Commission waived the reading of the Staff Findings. Second Vice -Chairman ®strowski noted correspondence received from Mr. George, Mi% Woods, Mr. Witcomb, and an anonymous letter. The hearing was opened to the public. Virginia Van Voris asked for approval to solve a financial dilemma. She said she wants to split the property because she is dissolving a partnership. She wants to create three parcels; 1 parcel of 8 acres, 1 parcel of 20 acres, and 1 parcel of 2.1 acres dare to the location of the road, She sad if the Variance is not granted it will only be possible for. 2 parcels to be created, She said she needs to prove square footage space for the Health. Department regarding septic on the 2 acre parcel. She said the Health Department needs documentation to justify the septic system area. Commissioner Lambert noted the Health comments say the project does not meet Department partment Nis. Van ,Voris said written comments from the Health Department are negative, but when she talks to the Department in person, the comments are positive. Commissioner Lynch questioned if the proposed 10 acres being sprit into an 8 acre parcel and 2 acre parcel could be split into 2 five acre parcels to meet the requirements of the zone without a Variance. Ms. Van Voris said this would not be allowed by the Health Department. Staff said the mere fact that the property is bisected by a road, is not a reason to allow a Variance and the parcel to be split. Commissioner Lynch said if they can not make -two 5 acre parcels, there is no other practical way to split this propertf except with a Variance, Staff said if the Commission intends to allow all foothill parcels to be developed that are split b a road, then granting this Variance would be appropriate, P Y that an'V oris said ae aid taxes on two parcels for years, but now it is one parcel. She p pp asked roved. Richard Silvera, Co-owner in the property, said he was surprised at the opposition to thisro'ect. He said the request for a Variance is trying to accommodate what is physically there. He said i 1 Health Department, the 2.1 acre parcel can be made acceptable according to the Environmental ked for approval of the ro'ect. for a septic system. P � 33 11, C�JTJOTY PLANNING' C0MMXS8201Q: MINUT48,.a1 , �Upe 14 1.9 0 , Commissioner Lambert asked, hour close is the grading and development going to be from Butte Creek. Mr. Silvers said the grading would be near Centerville Road and away from the creek. He did not comment on the development. Staff said if the Variance is approved the Health Department conditions on grading should mitigate any environmental problems that may arise. Mr. Silvera said they are proposing a 2.1 acre parcel (this Variance), an 8 acre parcel (middle parcel) and a remainder of 21 acres. He said the proposed 8 acre parcel could be reduced to 5 acres and still meet the requirements of the Health Department, He disagreed with some of the things said by FIs. Van Voris. He said that three parcels could still be created ,without the Variance, but it would leave a 5 acre parcel with a road through it. Commissioner Lynch discussed the building area of the 2,1 acre proposed parcel in proximity to the power lines. Mr. Silvera said the building site is out of the easements and setback, away from the power lines. He said the access is onto Centerville Road. Commissioner Lynch said with the width of the poles and the easement for the power lines there would be a very small building site. He asked what the setback require.aents from the power lines were. Staff said that would be located in the Building Codes f6i the setback requirements from power poles. Fredrick Schwartz said he was in favor of the project. He said the property is subject to deer herd restrictions and that is why there will be a remaining parcel of 21 acres. He said Centerville Road is a busy street and it would be difficult to sell a 5 acre parcels bi-sected by Centerville Road with 2 acres on each side of the road. He said he owns 24 acres oil Center Gap Road near this property. He said Center Gap Road bisects his proper+y He said he is not planning on subdividing his property. He asked for app eoval' of the project, The hearing was closed. Commissioner Lynch asked if the Variance could be conditioned to say "that as long as the FR -5 is in existence in, tile area, the parcel bounded by Centerville Road and Center Gap Road can not be subdivided". Staff questioned the necessity for the condition because with the 5 acre zone and an 8 acre parcel, it would not be able to be divided. Commissioner Lynch said if a variance is allowed for a 2,1 acre parcels, this would set a precedent, three years from now 'there could be another request for a variance :In front of another Commission with other staff members involved. He wanted a handle on future,requests. a Y r ori LAKII; IG cg nx 's oN u d'un� , 4 t; 5 9 0 a o rn ion from Coffin Counsel. Staff said that the fact of a precedent a .said the would want n ty t ff S p y would be very important to the Commission or a subsequent Commission. Staff said the Commission is talking about the integrity of the FR -5 zone. Staff said 'the fact that the parcel would be convenient to develop on that side of the road, is an issue. The Commission has to decide whether or not this is a hardship and if the hardship is enough to make the appropriate findings. Commissioner Lynch said his concern is that if the Variance is granted, he wants a handle on it, then the •y y Commission has maintained the density and -the FR: -5 Gane in .that there would be only one residence per 5 'acres. Staff said that before the Commission talks about conditions on variances that relate to subsequent discretionary action, staff would have to talk to Counsel. Staff said it might be more appropriate to make those statements in the finding section of the motion, rather than a condition. Staff said that on any future proposals for this property, Planning staff would research the history of the parcel for any action by aprevious Commission. Staff noted that the Commission in the past has not limited the ability for subsequent: discretionary actions with conditions. Staff said from the testimony heard today, there is not a need for the variance, but it would be convenient to have the variance granted, Corrimissioner Lynch said he was looping at property divided by a County road.' He said he would be in favor of the variance if the Commission could put a limitation on the splitting of the property so it does not set a precedent, Commissioner Lambert said she has a problem with this request. She said she would not be able io make the findings for approval because 'of the integrity of the zone and setting a precedent for properties Board of other �^ _ er ro erticr, rn the area. She said she would :need a determination from the Supervisors on allowing all parcels in the County, that are bisected by a road, being allowed to be created at lower acreage than the zoning allows. She said this would be zoning by Vari4ace. She said she could not make the findings. Commissioner Lynch said the only way for approval of a Variance is with the condition I as previously suggested, He said be could not make the findings for hardship. The hearing was re -opened to the public. Mr. Silvera said he shares the concerns of the Co, 'Aission regarding the 5 acre zoning. He did not believe his plan would suggest any future increase in density. He said if the center parcel is developed at 5 acres it would result in a problem with access to Center trap Road. The hearing was re -chased.. M N C;OWAISS Cort7 "E �. uxro > ' ;� 777 u FILE NO.: _ A-P 011-340-1.62 BUTTE COUN-T PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - May 30, 199Q APPLICANT:. Vir inia Van Voris ; OWNER: Same, REQUEST: Variance to allow a 2.1 acre parcel to be created in an FR-5 (Foothill Recreation- 5 acre parcels) zone. AP NO.: 011-340-162 .SIZE: 31 + acres LOCATION: Located 1.1 miles south of the Hell'townRoad and Centerville Road intersection, Chico. EXISTING ZONING: FR-5 and FR,-20 ZONING HISTORY Zoned FR-5 .rune 27, 1978 Ord. 1941 Zoned FR-20 June 27, 1978 Ord. 1943 SURROUNDING ZONING: FR-5, FR-20, FR-40 SURR.OiU14MING LAND USE: Single-fancily dwellings at rural densities. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Grazing and Open Land, Agricultural Residential APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Eutte County Code Section 24-49 and Government Code Section 65906, OMME +i"I S RECEIVED: Public)yorks: "Conditions will be placed on Tentative Parcel Map," 1 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS -'May 30, 1990 , Environmental Health: Memo dated 12/12/89: "There is a parcel map currently by this department. Parcel 1 the 2.1 acre p,.rcel may not have adequate area Tor sewage disposal area. Applicant has ;not _provided requested information relating to soil depths, percolation, and usable sewage disposal area. The project does not meet the requirements of this department." Memo 4/16/90: "The applicant has proposed creation of the 2.1 acre parcel easterly of Centerville Road by grading and otherwise providing the required iusable sewage disposal area: Information is not sufficient at this time to determine if this is possible because additional soil tests and a grading plan will be required. Because of the additional expense, the applicant requests proceeding with the variance hearing at this time. If the application is processed and approved, recommended conditions of approval are: 1. Prior to conditional approval of a parcel map, provide evidence that the required usable sewage disposal area will be available. 2. If parcel grading is proposed, provide a grading plan and a Butte County Grading Permit prior to conditional map approval. 3. If grading is necessary, include within the environmentalreview an evaluation of the grading relative to the parcel Location adjacent to Butte Creek considering creels water quality." ANALYSIS: This project is a request to create a 2.1 acre parcel in an FR -5 (Foothill Recreation • 5 acre minimum parcel') zone in the Butte Creek Canyon area east of Chico. The proposed 2.1 acre parcel is located entirely east of Centerville Road and does not front Butte Creek. While other variances to the 5 acre minimum, have been granted to the north of this project, all but one of the parcels have been close to four acres in size. One parcel of 1.84 acres exists approximately 1/4 mile north of the subject property. All of the previously approved variances had proven septic and leachfield area and domestic water supply prior to granting of the variance. Also, none of the other parcels have requiired significant grading or engineered leach%eld systems. This current project has neither proven adequate sewage disposal area or water supply. It appears that a leachfield area may need to be constructed or otherwise engineered in order to make the parcel usable. Othei, constraints affecting the proposed parcel include a 60,000 volt power line traversing the property from the northeasterly corner to the southwesterly corner. Required building setbacks from this power line, as well as property lines, may severely limit buildable area upon the property depending on the design of any sewage disposal area. It should be noted that the tentative parcel map, referred to in the memos from the Environmental Health Department, indicates three parcels. The westerly parcel located west of Center Gap Road consists of 21 acres. The central parcel located' east of Center Gap Road and west of Centerville Road consists of 8 acres, The third parcel is the subject property of this v g p p proposed 2.1 parcel or if this variance variance. B sewage disposal area can not be rovers on the ro osed' is not successful, the 2.1 acres would be attached to the 8 acre parcel located across Centerville Road. While the road would physically divide the property, in rural areas such'a situation is not 2 i r 1 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - May 30, 199Q 1 1 uncommon, particularly where steep slopes, shallow soils, high groundwater, or other limitations i exists. An initial study was preformed for the tentative parcel map that would create the subject parcel. C That document is adequate for consideration of this current project A Negative Declaration with n measures attached is recommended. mitigation . RECOMMENDATIONS: - A. Note that the requirements of CEQA have been completed and considered in making this decision; and B. Find that there are no special circumstances applicable to the ro e p p riy, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, that the strict application of this chapter deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other, property in the vicinity and under n identical zoning classification, because and C. Deny the Variance to create a 2.1 acre parcel on AP 011-340-162 (Virginia Van Voris). If the Planning Commission can make the findings required by County Code Section 24-49 and Government Code Section 65906 then it would be appropriate to: MOTION: ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF MEMO DATED May '30, 1990; MAKE THE FINDINGS LISTED UNDER "A", INCLUDING ALL OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS NUMBERED 1 THROUGH 7 AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL, OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE AS MOVED UNDER "B" AND "C". A. Find that: 1. Aninitial s study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental ntal 2. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act hava been completed and considered in making this decision. 3. The project could have a significant effect on the environment, but will not in this case, because of the adopted mitigation measures attached and incorporated in the initial study. 4. Find that there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, that the strict application of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity 3 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - May 30, 1990 and under identical zoning classification, because _ and r B. Adopt a mitigated Negative Declaration. C. Approve the Variance to create a 2.1 acre parcel on property zoned FR -5 on AP 011- 340-162 (Virginia Van Voris) subject to the following mitigation measure and conditions: 1. Pay the appli ,.abledeer herd mitigation fees at the time of building permits if such fees are adopted by the Board of Supervisors. (m) 2. Prior to conditional approval of a parcel reap, provide evidence that the required usable sewage disposal area will be available. parcel grading is proposed, provide a�grading plan and a Butte County Grading 3, If p ty Permit prior to conditional map approval. 4. If gradingis necessary, include within the environmental review an evaluation of the grading relative to the parcel location adjacent to Butte Creek considering creek water quality. 5. Meet the requirements of PG&E regarding the 60 KV transmission line on Parcel 1. 6. Meet the requirements of the Building Division of the Butte County Department of Public Works. 7. Applicant must`complyvwith all other applicable State and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations. DR.H lr Attachments to Commission and Cities: Initial Study Location Map Site flan 4 br ! �oy°te Glp Bidwell 14 co �,,,. � .. � ,� ,0 ✓• 0 nn °�-'/a��- � � • •, ma. ;� : ,� Kph �,troQ , � i i �� G/• let,o� DoAQv6od iloa feu peo» P� Rd' 't ' + CdA Rd. peo Dark r.• LU J3; LU / J oc ..o Po; r rof� " �o S o Q ) n.t ```� as 7 blulod oe �0b\ey �� ; �) 4 mn�uo� s J (�°" b `''rfl- 7 Q C I ` tel- ., CZ° I > a dy�� Ul l� p W ` r" M a O CIS, JC Q`a A''. 'Pig v�°i �,.� lordary�e� Lteg A ce `' _ cr goad J LW Grade rya \1k1/O° Q66; tryn��"''., l y Road sPy�M M P a• �. 3 y.aal �s� iausd n Per - cra n eoii v 1l?�j_jl IWr ie° Maas CL C- F V 443 Ize °° ,�` ' p peFH N4- e g nna�{s�(N �, ✓'ped ! pngwn/� 1 c° pr" �lapr p� r �a��� .� t � Q pPo _ ! jG, lso 31919 J� ` Z ! Pbt d'd,. S��53 s W a/jr^�a iN a' o f 1900 °teaaa�� a, Pa o ' unn of a bpp t ob I� al/m�-94 Mod� ; 31919 a�� �ys\e o peo�e „1� adetos �7 a:- CWI) U�a=,, oo ooL7 smoPo .. "g 7�-�--• �� r, aalloc�C fihyS 110,11j Om \ µy ., APPUCA710N FOR VAtOANCE BUTTE 'COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Read and follow instructions as set forth on attached sheet. Applicant's Name— Phone No 1° Applicant's Mailing AddressAZ $74) ed - -1 66- 28 a 57f 7-7 Applicant's interest in property (Ownn", lessee, ether) Owner's Name and Address q�, / {♦y��q Contact Person for Project (i¢ other than appilcant) {. 2 as -�fa9 li�f Y IAA Assessor's Parcel Numbers)-4®°mnI�� �" � Present Zoning Location and size of parcel(s)L Street address Directions for travel to property (rural and mountainous areas only) ,�► Type of variance requested: Lot area or building site Mobile home size Lot width Parking requirements Front yard setback Livestock requirements Side or rear yard setback Sign requirements Other (specify) Description of proposed use and reasons for variance because of special circumstances (refer to instruction No, 6 ori attached sheet) 0- � % Urovrl;ar C.,:watas►:aa� Description of exi?ling land use Existing/proposed sewage disposal method: _— Proximity of power and phone lines: Ed 'Nater source: Proximity of water for fire fighting purposes (hydrants, ponds, etc,j Will excavation or grading be necessary? Cubic yards (estimate) List and describe any other related permits and other pu ' approvals required for this project, including those rt1,.,,,, f d by city,'regional, State and Federal agencies:_ y � The following questions portain only to variances to the minimum parcel size required within the zoning district: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES* �i Identify potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the variance. What project design features or speci& conditions of approval (mitigation measures) are propoved to alleviate potential environmental impacts? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING* Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and J animals, and ny c Rural h'storical o scenic aspects. Describe an existing stj tures n t site, and the use of the structu as. ';" 11 ®ems 3' �4 ''� �e' scri urroun ing properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), Intensity of land use (single-family, apartments, shops, depart- ment,stores, etc.), and scale of developmenA(Ight, frontagei setback, rear yard, etc.). Use separate sheet for longer respons1 ,ca Q. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that i have read and understand the: Instructions and that the foregoing statements are true, complete and correct to the bast of my knowledge and belief. / Date da);1* � Applicant's signatureeoLkQ�Y_J ,-,Jt_ Date,K;' 6� �`C `` Property owner's signatuf i Variance number Request: Variance to _ Location and size of parcel(s): loc he ...i VERIFY: t� _ A.P. Numbers) z Zoning and Requirements Ownership I ncatlon Description Proof of Agency (if needed) ���®copies of Piot Plan as.! Date Received $ -Jc_J Receipt Number �2� Application Taken By—��� 11J ( / 1 CD r . ti) , I; INSTRUCTIONS TO VARIANCE APPLICANT 1. If applicant is not the owner, written authorization by the owner or other proof of agency must b- sub- mitted in order for the applicant to legally sign the application. Application shall be considered void if not signed by the owner or legal agent. 2, All stems on application shall be filled in as completely as possible. If an item is not applicable, please indicate by the -term "NA" S. It is iniIportant that the applhtant supply an accurate description of the location of the proposed project, including the ti,yllowing: a:Assessor"r, parcel number(s) (from the tax bilis or Assessor, Maps). b. Street addresses (if available). C. Distances and directions to named streets, bodies of water or r0roads. 4, Twenty (20) copies of a detailed Piot plan of adequate scale to clearly `to.v 'proposed buildings' and improvements, folded to 81/2 x 11 inches, shall accompany and be made part of toe "Application for Vari- ance". The plat Plan shall include the following: information. a. b. A scaled a drawin of the parcels) bou�,,4 ries. P P g a and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements on the property, includ- ing buildings, driveways, parking areas, wells, septic tanks and leach fields. C. Location and name of bordering streets, access roads, nearby crossroads, streams, bodies of water and railroads. d. North arrow and scale of drawing. 5. The "Application for Variance" is subject: to public hearings and; approval by the Planning Commission. Any special conditions of approval shall be made a part of the approved "Variance and shall be binding on the applicant. The procedures for County action on variance applications are stated in Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code, 6. VARIANCES from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only when, because of special - circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict applicaiun of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed y other property lin the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance' granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby auth- orized shall not constitute a grant of special_ privileges inconsistent with )e limitations upon other pro- parties in the vicinity and zone in which such roperty is situated. Any such condition imposed upon ' y property issuance of a variance must be related to the use of thu property for which the variance is requesteii. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property. Application fees as of ,(date) are $ -all Fees maybe paid in cash or by check made payable to "TreasureroS . t�te�CountL",, S. Before submitting a variance application, applicant is 'requested to discuss with staff af1 questions about application requirements, County procedures, zoning provisions and ,special circum.tances". , FINDINGS OF FACT }} Each zoning classification and land use has an 'associated set.of development standards which are specified in the Butte County Code. The Code also estah- fishes a procedure to grant variances from these standards where unique circumstances exist to warrant 'relief from the strict application of thes,;� standards. n A variance can be granted only if specific findings,are made to indicate that unique circumstances do, in :Fact, exist. These special circumstances may include factors such as the size, shape, topography, location and surroundings of a piece of property. The courts have clearly indicated that variances are not intended to rewrite `the County Code and: can only be granted if all the findings listed below are made. Further, the courts have indicated the actual, factual basis for these findings must be stated. NOTE TO APPLICANT Please do NOT apply ;For a variance unless you can provide the necessary factual., basis to grant the requested variance. All necessary application fees are non - :refundable,. FINDINGS I. The following exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions apply to the ,land, building or use in; question which do not apply generally to other land, buildings or uses in the same district. x. The fact that the granting, of the variance is necessary for the preservation' and enjoymdnt~ of substantial property tights is supported by the following: Ad IP2 C, 3. The feet that the grantj,ng of the variance will not adversely affect the neighborhood or be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or ,adversely affect propr-rty or imt rovame its in .he neighborhood is supported by the following: ALL, OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS MUST BE MADE, INCLUIDTNG '(W STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC t!l1L`1'5, TO GPANT A VARIANCE, „ L: 011 340 .147 000 STA -IRIS: J ACTIVE ANDERSEN HAZEL F SS 1.12 DART STREET POST FALLS ID 83854 *L,: 011 520,001 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ', M' -.� WOODS JOHN F & WENDY n.i.Kq n.7.k,�1a4i xw L. s ' A92' 1 �3i� fd3�t X43 Q1' � 35384 CHEVIOT CT .�..w,: . ,.yf � • w 1A'aARNES to)UGLAS p ss m ..,. 11401 3RD AVE SE NEWARK 'CA APT G4 EVERETT WA 94560, 98208 L-Oil520 002 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: Oil 340 162 000 STATUS: ACTIVE, 0 ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT INC 4; CENTERVILLE SILVERA RICHARD ETAL 13386, ROAD VANVORIS VIRGINIA K CHICO CA 95928 13139 CENTERVILLE RD CHICO CA L: 011'520 012 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 3110 158 000 STATUS: ACTIVE 'WHITCOMB CHARLES ETAL JT CUSICK JEROME M`SS �MORROW DIANE 1621 1/2 GOLDFINCH WAY 1687 PARK VISTA DR SUNNYVALE CA 94087 CHICO Co _)r'95926 L- Oil 520 005 �,HILDEBRAND ACTIVE il 340 1500STATUS:ACTIVE L.CUSOTCK LORINO& LORETTATUS: �« 4120 PINE CREST CT JEROME�IhOSS �ROCKLIN 1621 1/2 GOLDFINCH WAY CA 95677 SUNNYVALE CA 94087 L: 01i 520 008 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 0'11 340 157 000 STATUS: ACTIVE .SCHWART,Z FREDRICK A & CORINNE LEX MICHAEL R P 0 ROX6877 13061 CENTERVILLE RD CHICO CA CA 95927-6877 9 959259288 6 L• 011 520 009 OpQJ S A STATUS: ACTIVE163 000 IATUS: ACTIVE T 4 GEORGE MAX & LAURA OSRO OSTROW 13096 CENTERVILLE RD- 00000 CHICO CA 195926 L: 011 340 160 000 T (STATUS: ACTIVE HARRIS RONALD & MARILYN I CP j P 0 BOX 1861 .. KIHEI HI 96753 f .�... ., L:`011 520 012 000r WHITCOMB STATUS: ACTIVE , L Oil 340 161 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CHARLLr•,3 ETAL JT ! HARRIS RONALD & MARILYN'I CP' MORROW DIANE P 0 ROX 1861. 1689' (SARK V,, STA DR CHICO KINE ; HT C') 96753 95728 ... _.»,. L: 011 340 117 000 STATUS • ACTIVE � ' CH`AL ROBB SS F 407 W 9TH 5T` i >_ CHICO CA 95928 ....,. w _ L: 0 t 1 340 027 000 TTATAT US, ACT _... . STATUS,ACTIVE '4 .. N U- S A n� OOOMO wy 35384 Cheviot Court Newark, CA 94560 June 6, 1990 B. A. Kircher, Dir. of Planning County of Butte` Office of Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 5,5965-3397' Dear Sirs; Re. AP# 011-34.0--162, Chico Variance -Virginia Van Voris Due to our being unable to attend the public hearing on June 14, we wish to express our opinion with this letter. We, would like the Planning Commission to consider the following prior making a decision: The canyon is a unique and beautiful place offeringrefuge to both people and wildlife, and preserving this asset for future generations is well worts doing. We are sure that the Planning Commission took this into consideration when the five acre: minimum zoning ordinance was created. In a_ fragile area such; as this, overcrowding can all trio easily destroy that natural beauty, which can never be replaced and it is possible that the approval of 'this variance would set a precedent for further erosion of the zoning minimums throughout the canyon area. The canyon is enjoyed and appreciated by many, and as long as present zoning is maintained this unique place will continue to be enjoyed long into the future. Preserving the canyon area in as near to'i.ts present state as possible for future generations will be an .asset which the county should not lose. Keeping the five acre zoning limit will help to maintain this valuable asset and be a credit to the foresight of 1 -he county Planning Commission. For these reasons, we encourage the Planning Commission to maintain the five acre minimum parcel size and not approve this variance Yours truly, r D w Date �c�. P9a � John & Wendy. Woods JUN 1, 1, 1990 Croville, California t Ft 1Z47L Max and Laura George Ruffe Co. 13096 Centerville Rood JUN 1 ,`,> 1;,91 Chico, Ce June 12, 1990 County of Butte Office of Planning Commission r County center Drive Oroville, California To Whom This May Concern, This letter is Concerning the proposed Yariance on APS' 0 11 340-162. We would like a buffor zona be established of distance and trees to alleviate noise✓ and visual pollution. Our property is adjacent to the property in question. Two years ago we bought it Lased on the adjacent property set up for a horse bairn and corral, and with Richard Silvera and Virginia 'fan Voris's workshop of approximately 1200 square feet located on the other side of Centerville Road. While we don't contest this split, we want, to make it known that theoretically, future builders could build right on our property line. This would be distressful for us. We bought our property on the assumption that neighbors would be separated by a adequate amount of land based on a O acre minirnum, We moved here for the country atmosphere. !f we wanted close neighbors, we would have stayed in Chico. Both of our properties are awkwardly divided. We realize they could have built their house on the 2.1 acreage, out we bought our praperty 2 year ago with their property as it is now and we would feel very impinged upon should the proposed house be on or near our property line: Richard Silvers has discussed this variance with us and he would like to see the house site situated where the horse barn is presently, which would.indeed provide Q buffer zone. We are agreed then, however, we don't a rd 01(tte couniq v 1 r 4°a "� ^~ LAND�OF NATU -RAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY d PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 w • TELEPHONE! (916) 538-7601 May 30, `1990 Virginia Van Voris 1250 Hemlock Street Chico, CA 95928 Re: Variance,' AR 011-340-162 Dear Ms. Van Voris: Enclosed is a copy of the Staff Findings concerning your application for a Variance to allowa ,2.1 acre parcel to be created in an FR -5 zone located approximately 1.1 mile south of the Helltown Road and Centerville road intersection, Chico. A public hearing has been set for June 14, 1990 at '9:00 a.m. This meeting will be held in. the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Croville, California. The Planning Commission reco,nmends that the applicant or their authorized representative be present at the hearing to respond to any quts#ions the Commission may have. In the event that no one will represent ` the applicant, please contact the Planning office prior to the scheduled public hearing) Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office between 10:00 a.m. and 3:0.0 -p.m. Sincerely, B. A. kirclier Director of Planting David R Hironimus Senior Planner DRH:lr Enc cc: Sierra West Surveying i. 40) colunt LANG 0 NATURAL WEALTH AND BE:?,UTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 96965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538.760.1 May 15, 1990 Virginia Van Voris 1250Hemlock Street Chico, CA 95928 RL: AP ;011-340162 Dear Mrs. Vasa Voris: After some searching into your project' I have noticed your application fee of $135.00 was paid on 10-11-89. Then in' January pre - the fees w ere increased for applications sent through this office, Variance , fees were increased to $575.00. Any projects that were still, in Pre -application at that time became subject to the new' fee increase. The amount due was adjusted to the new fee, Theonly thing I care come up with concerning the letter mailed to you on May 3, 1990, was the $245.00 dollar amount was typed in error. The actual amount due at that time was $440.00: Enclosed is a. fee schedule which became effective in January and Pebruazy of this year. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this Office between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. "Sincerely, B. A. I{ircher Director of Planning Larry Painter r Planning Technician LPilr Enc.', V 01 ­77777777-7-T AI e• q M If It, -49. A PL ;HED P I�A if f N J, A.�L j"t T:, f, r EBRUARY'3 '1990 w ppeal/E-IR I E& ARL • Requirement sowor,i ot app fee Appeal/PC Decision 50% or tot f app fee Boundary Una Modification $250.00 =0.0G Determinations (Carl. or comp') $100.00 $100.00 Development Agrint $2100.W+ adual cost $33.00 $115.00 Minimum Minimum over $2200. $M3.00 $1176.00 Development A&rrnt Hvxardous w6stb Deposit, ($1000,00) $33.00 Minimum Minimum $1153.00 $576.50 GMT61 Plan Amend $!100.00+ actual cost Minimum Minimum over $11W. $1100.W $5,50.00 Gbneral Plan Arr,,nd DeposiV "HazardousWas(e - Land Conservation Agratment-linclucions $750,00 $250.00 JLASd Conservation Agreement-Withdray $1000.00 n/a Mining Permit/ Recluskillition Plan 3330.00+ $38.00 $120.00 Minimum Minimum acutal cost 3988.0(l S494.00 over $830. rsrcel map $533.00 M I ;10. per Minim Tm lot $543,00 PI Review-OPA Deposit"• �n/a n/® Publication of Akdol)tlirs Zoning Ord. Deposit"* Deposit-* Publication or Dmiopment Agrmt Deposit"' Re-Application $150.00 (withing I year ,Ir a derfal), $150,00 Rezone' actual co00,00 st $57.90 SO-W Minimum Minimum over $1217.00 $608.50 Rezorje-ljaz Wt.0 Deposit` $5111r.0 Saw Minimum Minimum ($lown) $1117,00 $558,50 lb=one-PUD Deposit" D $57,00 $115,00 Minimum C Minimum (51000.00) u172,00 W.00 Specific Plan Deposit* $38,00 $115.00 I Minimum minimum ($1000,00) $1153.00 VMM Subdivision Map $533.00 + I $110, per :ot $533,00 + $10. per lot Surcharge for Land until Development reek$17, Advisor on all npps $15,00 1), has taken by Planning been received. 7?Z Zone $1100.00 spoioo 51160.00'$580.00 Uea Permits$225,00 $830.00 1 $38.00 $120,00 $988.(ri $494.00 lise Permits -HAurdous Waste $225 .00 DepodlVI ($1000.00)$1158i00 $38.00. $120.601 Minimum Minimum $579,00 Variance $165.00 $460.00 $38,00 $40,00 &558m Wdiver $179.00 $533.00 3533,0(1+ $0i per lot $16. per lot xy Ow�- 4- OV 71111 SCHE DULE APPENDIX T popm (To be completed by Lead Agency) Lot; NO. 89-'10--11-07 AP NO- 011-34-162 I • 7a.Ar_���2���?lvD 1• Name of proponent Virginia Van Voris 2. Address of proponent and representative (if applicable): Sierra West. Survevin� 125,0 Hemloek `Street -437'Black Olive Drive Chico CA., . ; 9592 g- paradise, CA 95969 3• Project description: —, Tentative Parcel Ma -p TT: MANDA7COP'y 1v3:XD:ENC;S - s�ccl����e OR YES MAYBE NO 1. noes the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduces the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlift7, population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a lant or animal community, reduce the num or restrict the range of a rano or endangered plant or animal or eliminate 'imberportant of California history important :temples of major periods or prehistory? 2. Does the 'project have the potential to achieve short-term benefits to the detriment, of long-term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief period of time while long-term impacts will endure into the future4) 3. Does the project have impactts which are individually 1 miL,:d but ci;nulatively r,.onsiderable? (A project aiy impact on two or more separate re:;ources where the impact on each resource. is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on Che environment is significant.) 4. Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial .� adverse effects on human bei:igs, either directly or indirectly? M i - ---._- III. I3'E]RMal evaxD (To be completed by the Lead Agency)„ On the basis of tiluation: r/WE fired the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment vnd a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. \ I/WE find g P P project v significant on he f there lwill�notebe a significanthe�tectin MITIGATION this case beet ION MEASURES described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Will be prepared. ? T/WL field the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and'an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. COUNTY OF BUTTE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: _anuaxy 23 r 1990 A`' �%� By: David R. Hironimus Senior fanner Reviewed by:. �.� _... u_a Leasil e senior Planner, IV. ]F_Nv:EPCeNM3:_Pi_4=A1_ :EMPAC7CS "! (Mtplanations of all "YES" and "MAYBE" answers are required on attached 8heet(s). 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant:_M-,S MAYBE Unstable earth conditions, or changes in geologic substructures? b. 'Disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soi!Y c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. Destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical featur?s7 - e. 'Increase in wind or_Wat•.ar erosion of soils, either on or off site? f. 'Changes in 'deposition or erosion of -beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? :- g. Loss f prime agri.cuiturally productive soils outside designated urban areas? h. 'Exposure of peuple or property to goniogic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,,ground failure or ai.milar hazards2 2. AIR. Will the proposal result. in substantial: a. 'Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? x b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or, fumes? c. Alteration''of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in— climate,, locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount �^ of su±:£ace runoff? c. Need for off-site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channelization or culvert installation? d. Alterations to the course or HOW of flood waters? e. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?• f Discharge into surface waters) or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not 11miL•ed to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? h. Chane in the quantity or quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?' i.Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public wator suppllas? j. Exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? -- 4. PLANS: LU'S. Will the proposal result in substantial; a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)'? ... - -- b. Reduction of the numbars of any wiique, rate or endangered species of. plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing'spacies? d. Reduction'in acreage of any agricultural crop? ..2- ' ' _— ®smw�nrtaa�int9iPlSgIl51 n � 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in, demznd upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new ,sources of energy? 16. UT LMES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the,following: a. Poweror natural gas? C-1 h. Communications systems? C. Water availability?_, . d. Sewer or septic systems? e. Storm water drainage? f.'- Solid 'waste and disposal.?°° . HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential hazard (excluding health)? b. Exposure of people to potential ho—�I"th hazards? 18. AES=- ICS. Will the proposal � o ,x, { '° 4,:x the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the All the proposal result in the creation- 'an o£ aesthetically site open to public view? 19. RECR.E=.TION. Will the pr Wo:+ .g:' result in on impact upon the quality or quant=ty of, existing recreational opportunities? )0,0 20. CULTU-.AL RESOURCES. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?� b,Will. the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects , to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c. Does tYie proposal have the potential to cause a physical change whish would affect unique ethnic cultural values?'� " d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact areal I)aS2^`C3'S;'�Z�,)N t'77E' El�'i7:LR('�_VMENT13.7L :E�7A.LTJi3T��N See attached, -4- DA,, CUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL M ALUATION AP # 011-34-162 lb,c,e,f, 3b,ff. Development of as many of three (3) homesites on the subject property will cause some disruption, displacement, compaction and overcoverin„ of the soil due to construction of buildings, patios, driveways, roads etc. This overcovering will result in an increase of runoff and changes in drainage patterns which may cause increased erosion and subsequent siltation of area streams. Due to the large size of two (2) of the parcels and the requirement of a permanent solution. for drainage on the smaller parcel this should not be a significant impact. 1h. All of Butte County is within a Moderate Earthquakes Intensity Zone VIII. The subject property is located appi,�.,Amately 1/2 mile north of faults associated with the Foothill Shear 'Zone which supported the 1975 Uroville earthquake. Construction of buildings to 'U'niform Building Code Standards for seismically active areas should provide adequate protection to occupants in case of seismic activity. 5d. The subject property is located within the critical winter range of the 'Tehama deer herd. The subject properly is located within an area shown as being heavily impacted by existing development, and therefore will riot have significant additional impact on the deer herds in the immediate area. ":fine project area is subject to deer herd' mitigation fees should they be adopted by t%e Board of Supervisors. Miti ation fees are recommended by the Department of Fish and Game for any parcels less than twenty (20) acres in this area. The parcel located east of the road would be subject to payment of mitigation fees. 8. the westerly portion of the subject prr,Qerty is located within a Timber Mountain general plan designation which requires forty (40) acre minimum parcel for new lots. Parcel 3 as proposed contains twenty-one (21) acres and is partially located within the timber mountain designation. The remaining easterly portion of the property is located within the Agricultural Residential designation which requires one (1) to twenty (20) acres per dwelling unit. The original parcel map creating the subject property showed a building site on the proposed parcel 3. All of the additional parcels being created would contain building sites within the agricultural residential designation which would allow down to as low as one (1) acre per dwelling unit with conditional criteria available. The eight (S) acre parcel as proposed conforms well with surrounding development and can be considered in conforrraty with the general plan. Proposed parcel 1, located east of Centerville Road, consisting of 2.1 acres does not conform to the 'existing zone nor to many of the policies of the general plan. The applicant has applied for a variance to permit the creation of a 2.1 acre parcel in a 5 acre zone. Hhowever, comments rccswed from the Environmental Health Department indicate that this Parcel cannot be approved uncal such time as adequate sewage disposal system and adequate domestic water are provided.' Accordingly, if this map is approved at this time it could only be approved showing two (2) parcels. Those would consist of parcel 3 as shown and parcel 1 and 2 as shown; carnbined into a single parcel. 11,12. Should the 2.1 acre parcel discussed in item 8 above be approved, it could lead to an additional demand for similar size parcels in the area and an increase in densities in the area. 13a,c,f. This project will represent an incremental increase in traffic and traffic hazards and increased demands for maintenance in the area. Max and Laura George 13096 Centerville Rood x,11 , Chico, Ca June 16, 19(-40 County of Butte Office of Planning Commission 111N 7 Coonty Center Drive n�;fa�co4at Oroville, California �roynits, To Whom This hidg Concern, This letteris concerning the variance on APO 011-340-1X62 owned bg Virginirj plan Maris and Richard Silvera, We understand that this variance i arras denied at the,, June 114th meeting of the Planning Commission. Since we are the only neighbors lining next to the property, we sent a letter (ropy attached) expressing our opinion. we are not opposed to this � variance, We ars shocked and dismayed that our letter might have been used to justify this denial. We have talked with Richard Silv'era over the previous few months concerning the split. We are satisfied that Mr, Silvera has attempted to ensure that the privacy between our two properties will be maintained. We ask the Commission members to reconsider their decision and grant the variance. Sincerely yours, Mads and Laura George 13096 Centerville Road Chico, Co ,Juane 124 19 9: 0 County of Butte Co, rafinlog*Amag Office of Planning Commission ,JUN ,21 1991 1 County Center Drive OrOVIIII9, 1�PJTtIr Broville, California To Wham This May Concern, This letter is concerhnng the proposed variance on APS' 011-340-162, We would file a buffers zone be established of distance and trees to alleviate noise and visual pollution. Our property is adjacent to the propertg in question, Two years ago we bought it based on the adjacent property set'up for a horse barn and corral, and �rwithRichard 5t1+sera and �li,rgiriia plan Voris 's s workshpp of approximate]g 1200 square feet located on the other side of Centerville Road, While we grant to make it known that theoretically, future guilders could build right on our property line. Thi1 would-be distressful for us. We bought our propertg on the assumption that neighbors would be separated by a;adequate amount of] and based on a 5 acre minimum. We moved here for the country atmosphere. It we wanted rJose neighbors, we would ha`�e stayer! in Chico. Both of our properties are awkwardly divided. We realize they could have built their house on the 2,1 acreage, but we bought our property 2 years ago with their propertg as it is how and we would feel very impinged upon should the proposed house be an or near our property line. Richard S l.veiapgs di x h sw araa:n it us and he would like to see the house site situated where the horse barn is presentlu, which would J rin doryad-thati, however, we don't Applicant: _ Virginia Van Floris Assessor's Parcel � #11-3A-162 Log x'89-10-11-0'7 DATA SIf1EE' A. Project Description 1. Type of Project: Tentative Parcel Map 2. Brief Description: Dividing 31.25 ' acres into 3 parcels, 1 of 21 acres, I of 8 acres, � and 1 of 24, acres: 3. Location: On both sides of Center Gap Ros.d and Centerville'Rd. approximately 2,500 ft. north of their intersection in the "Butte Creek Canyon area northeast of Chico, 4. Proposed Density of Development: 2 acres per dwell'.ing unit maximum. 5. Amount of Xmpervions Surfacing: Minimal. 6. Access and Nearest publicRoad(s): Property fronts on Centerville Rd. 7. Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septic 'systems. 8. Source of Water Supply: Individual wells. 9. Proximity of Power Lines: To property. 10. Potential for further land divisions and development: Limited under existing zoning ani general plan designations B. Environmental Settina "hysical Er► irenment: 1. Terrain a. General Topographic Character: Generally steep canyonwalls located above the Butte Creek Canyon bottom land. b. Slopes: Generally 20% and greater west'of Centerville Rd. with many areas, in_accest of 50% slopes. Generally 20% slopes east of Centerville Rd. C. Elevatiun: From 520 A.S.L. east of the road to 1,080 ft. at the westerly boundaryline of the property. ,. d. Limiting Factnrs: Areas of steep slopes. ` 20 Soils a. Typestics- Stover soil series and Inks soil series, both generally w ell drained with moderate permeability on soils of 20 to 60 inches deep on the easterly 2/3 of the property. The westerly portion of the property is Toomes soil series, generally well drained with moderate permeability on soils from 4 to 20 inches deep. b. Limiting Factors: Areas of shallow ,soils and moderate permeability. 3. atural )1� rds of the Land a a hquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake` Intensity Zone VIII.: Earthquake, b. ' Erosion Potential: High: : i ENVIRONMENTAL PL EFEitENCE MATERIAL 1P Ma II -1, Earthquake and Fault Activity: Seismic Safety Element, Butte County General . Plan revised 1-77, by CH -Al Hill. 2. Map U-2, Uq uefac,tion'I'otential: Seismic Safety Element, ButteCountyGeneral Plan revised 1-77, by C ,,X Hill. III Subsidence & Landslide Potential: Safety Element, Butte County General Plan 3, Ma P -1, revised 1-77, by CH Al Hill. �, Ma 111-21on Potential: General an revised 1-77, Erosial: Safely Element, Butte County P1by Map Hill. ` 5. Map III -31 Expansive Soils: Safety Element, Butte County General Plan revised 147, by CH2M Hill. 6. Map IV -1, Noise: 'Noise Element, Butte- County General Plan revised 1-771by CHX Hill. 7:' Map V-1, Scenic Highways: Scenic Highway Element, Butte County General Plan revised 1:7'7, by CI3M'Hill, g, ty neral Plan entent Butte Coun Ge Map IU -4, Natural Fire Hazard Masses: Safety EI , - revises" 1-77, by CHX Hill,, 9, n b James P. Manning, for Butte County planning , Archae� �a4tcal Sensitivity. Map y Departmevit, 1983. 10. School District Map, Butte County Planning Department. 11„ Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells, 1983, by Department Chico Nitrate Study Map, State of California. The Resources Agency,encY, of Water Resources, Northwestern District, 12. Agricultural ereserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178, Butte County Board of Supervisors, December 5, 1987. 13. Flood insurance Rate Maps, stational Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1988. 14. USGS Quad Maps; Paradise West, 1980. 15. Soil Map, Chico (1925)/6roville (1925) Area, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico(1925)/Oroville (1926) Area, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 17. Butte County fire Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities ouVial�lannin9 Department. and California Department of Forestry. Butte C ty Department BU COUNTY PLANNING COMMIssIG E �ui4e �o. 6innn�ng �atnart, E 0 E V 7 County Center Drive l'J Oraville, CFti, 95965-3397 WAY�,� 1990 MAY �� 990 E ARTMC T 0' C 1'RY ( 916) 538-7601 cradle, for BUTTE COUNTY TO: County Fire Dept. WkTE: May 3, 1990 RE. PROJECT REVIEW ENVIROWMFNTAL EVALUATION Virginia Van Voris Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning the following project: Virginia Van Voris - VARIANCE to allow a 2.1 acre parcel to be created in a FR -5 (Foothill Recreation, 5 acre par- cel) zone, ''located approx. 1.11 mile south of the Hilltown'Rd. & Centerville Road. intersection, identified As AP## 011-340-162, Chica. We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and will be preparing ,an Ahvironmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures or an Environmental Impact Report ;EIR) P Gase provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation', or opinions you,can offer in yourareaof concern or expertise that relate to either physical, social, or economic impacts that thisprojectmay generate. Please respond within la days of the above -noted -date. If no response is generated by'th.is inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project. We appreciate any assistance you can provide. Sincerely, i Larry Pai` ter Planning Techni'an Comments: Does your agency wish to receive a copy of the environmental document (initial study for Negative Declaration (with or without Mitigation Measures) or EIR for this project) r YES Nor (p A6U NO Elount LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY -.• , „sem ' ''I _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILL.E, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE; (916) 636-7601 May 3, 1990 Virginia Van Vons 1250Hemlock Street Chico, CA 95928 Re: Pre -Application Review AP # 011-340''-162 Dear Ms Van Voris: This is to notify you that we have received sufficient assurances from Butte County Environmental Health and Public Works Departments that your project can meet their requirements. This fulfills the Pre -Application review process. Pursuant to the Butte County Planning Department Project Review Procedure Manual which states, "Upon tentative approval of a land use permit or variance by the Environmental Health Department and Land Development Division of the Department' of Public Works, the applicant must submit a completed formal application,' including any required changes from the original submittal and the balance of the +fees within 6 months of the tentative approval.'' No additional work shall be performed on this project until we have 'received the remainder of the application fee in the amount of $245.00 and, if any, required changes from the original submittal. Please submit the fee along with any required changes from the original submittal to the Butte County Planning. Department no later than August 27 1990, or your application will become void, and in order to continue; the project, you will be required to re -apply. Please make all checks payable to the Butte County Treasurers Enclosed is a field marker for identification of the project. Please secure the ribbon in a conspicuous place on the site, preferably visible from the roadway. i pp Butte coun d'LAhJ� OF �Ir�TIJRAI. "IEA T ti,, r PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 96966»3397 TELEPHONE: P18) 538-7601 October 19 1989 Vi ?:giniaVan Voris 1250 Hemlock Street Chico, CA 95928 RE: Variance, File# 90-1'8 AP# 011-340-162 We received o er pre -application review request for the subject Butte County Public Works and. Environmental Health have received the information you submitted. The Planning Department will consider this application complete only after we have assurances from the above departments_ chat the protect complies with appropriate ordinances and any conditions imposed, can be met It is th% applicants responsibility -to provide any ; additional information needed by, Public 'Works or .Environmental Health to meet their requirements. Public Works may be contacted by telephone at 538-7266 and Environmental Health at 538-=7281 for further information as to their evaluation of the proposal' and their requirements The Planning Department staff will also be reviewing the application'for any special conditions or'modifications that are appropriate. Should you have any questions about the pre -application review, please 'contact this Office. Sincerely; B.A., KIRCHE12' Director of Planning j2dz t� �Tudy Kramer Planning Technician JK : rdm cc: Sierra West Sures~ing, 5437 Black Olive Drive, Paradise CA '95965. Ki.Y 'kc 7 1 rfi" err h �"m2 't e iK r 4 yy«rtiJ fiF aaa'� �S •w rY -1r 4 �' N ^a�'U�t ` '. Ow, %�Irlco Cardiology AssodeatZS r � 181 East 7th Avanur, Chico, California 95926 a (916) 893.4393 YW r9 • May 25, 1990_ Betty A. Kircher nuffeCo. WanningG Butte County Planning , Commission County Administration Center JUN 41990 25 County Center Drive Orovillm, Oalifecr,ie Oroville, CA 959 65 Re: Parcel AP 011-34,0-162, Chico Dear;Ms. Kircher: Thank you for letting me know that a variance on the above-mentioned parcel has been applied 1990. Unfortunately, for and will be reviewed publicity) on ;tune 14th, I I'll be out of Lhe county at thaw t' Y that -Lime, and sq would like to submit area in the my strong opposition to any rezoning ,in this form of this bad letter: Allowing this rezoning would present precedent for the he area, and I,strongly oppose any move in this direction.' :I would be happy to discuss this matter further with you if it would prove useful to you. public hearing in this I am sorry X will not be able to attend the regard. Yours :.truly; Charles Whitcomb, M.D. CW:sgk 5-28-9tl_ Bl= COUNTY Y PLA.NNYNG COMMISSION N TI E OF P'iUT3jjL HEARTNG Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that public hearings will be held on Thursday, June 14, 1990, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item at the following time: ITEMS ON WHICH A NEGAT VE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAS BEEN RECOMMEJ MMD, 9:00 a.m. Virginia Van, Voris - Variance to allow a 2.1 acre parcel to be crewled in a FR-5(Foothill Recreation approximately" 1.1 Hole south 5 acre parcels) zone, on property located of the Helhown Road and Centerville Road intersection, identified as AP# 011-340-162, 'Chico. 9:00 a.m. Ken 'Reimers, etal - Variance to the minimum lot size requirement on property zone A-40 (Agricultural - 40 acre parcels), on property located on the north side of Woolsey Roadapproximately 3,000 feet east of Meridian Road, identified as AP# 047-200-056, 047-200-058, 047-200-059, north of Chico. The above mentioned applications, maps and Negative Declarations with Mitigation Measures are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Comments may be submitted in writing any time prior to the hearing or orally at the meeting listed above or as continued to a later date. If you challenge the above applications in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the planning Commission, at or prior to the public hearing. BUTTE C-Q.UN'l.'Y PLANNING COMMISSION B.A. KIRCHER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING To be published in the Chico ]Enterprise Record on Thursday May 1.0, 1990. -��mrm II n�mmmmmm�mmm�mm _. t - a •. ' S M1k+Y4 .:� Ir 4 �� 'E♦ t BIZ ... .4 N, { 4 y � tt 6 1 �' L S E e � 1, �r �i�N� �' I � 1 hi.,. r �ah'�3r»+_. �; +�y,J �nfa: `� � 1. 4 +w � •� F` F�'1 �^ � �(� •� � �y' 3 in r. C f f �� a� 5° x t tt K 1 ` 1 1✓'i��.l G.�x'WI� �Mi�� �,�#��� ;�;.1 `�.t I. A���t ',5,1 1� 14�� �_ _.�::� _ ���: / 4� � � y •: j r'�S � rti r��. h i�i 1 e� i 1 Y 1 f,� 'Os .. �. t ,i �. a t. .. ., '�I .t irk•' .. c.t,.,.. L ,.....�,.�.. F. s 'S: i. . ,