Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRED 97-02_PLANNING IN 1111 IN� 11111111111111111111111111111111 SEPARATORSHEET APN olo -- i5V -0Z7 PROJECT rvUmea PREP 1 / '07 — Jnr •, ROBERTSON AND DOMINICK Civil Engineers & Surveyors P.O. Box 1216 410 Pine Street May 20, 1996 Red Bluff, CA 96080 (916) 529-3560 Butte County Planning Dept. FAX 529-0953 7 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 870 Manzanita Ct. Attn: Steve Hackney Suite D Re: Tentative Subdivision and PUD Rezone Chico, CA 95926 for Robert Hennigan, Et. Al. (916) 894-3500 FAX 894-8955 pear Steve, As per you request during our telephone conversation of last week this transmits 6 blue line copies of the above referencedproject along with a check for$250.00 for the application fee for a PUD pre-application conference. Please schedule the conference as soon as possible. Mr. Hennigan is leaving the area soon and will be gone for about a month so we'd like to have the meeting before the end of next week if possible. That is before " May 31, 1996. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further please don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Eric L. Robertson, P.E. Civil Engineer/Partner Hennigan PUD mtg. Joe Dominick Land Surveyor Eric Robertson Civil Engineer Pre-application meeting - Esquon Orchards, 7/16/96: discussions with various members of the Planning Department, from Craig Sanders to Steve Hackney, in a meeting in March with Barry Hogan and others decided that the best use of that property, should we want to divide it, would be to come up with some sort of cluster development, whereby we would retain the majority of the property in much larger, economically viable agricultural lots. After much discussion with the clients and planners, this is the configuration they came up with. We have submitted this pre-application, this map for review to get their comments prior to going to the trouble of submitting the rezone, the fees, etc. there is no development on this property at this time other than the agriculture? right, just the orchard. asked about a piece of property, does it have a residence on it? yes, as does this piece of property and is not a part of the project. Stu, this is 20 acres of almonds. said the consensus out of talking to staff in March was that than trying to come forward with six 10 acre parcels, which he did not think anyone really wanted, to come forward with this plan. Stu, the west side is one acre lots? yes, it is everything from one acre to smaller than that, old land divisions. There are many dozens of small parcels in the area. Stu, is this flood irrigated or sprinklers? sprinklers. Stu said it was all in the floodplain. He said when the new FEMA maps come out, it will be deeper by about one foot. The new map assumes no levy and makes an assumption that you can take something 120 feet wide and 14 feet deep, and instantly have it 4 ft. deep and 15,000 ft. wide. I still have a problem with that. i the only reason it would flood is that the levy breaks. Bill F, thinkingof putting in a policy in the u coming general Ian, we don't have it now, p 9 � p Y � P 99 p with respect to floodplain areas that staff might offer up, that we might seek to avoid creating additional parcels in the floodplain altogether. I ,r why! public safety, t to require that when new lands are divided that the Bill F, pub y, ry q Y look building sites entirely outside of the floodplain. think we have taken a two chair look at that though'in looking at unprotected flood plains and flood plains that are there and protected and I would think come up with some different standards based on those two criteria and this would be a floodplain that is protected. of course development in the floodway has always been restricted, but I wholeheartedly disagree with not allowing someone to develop a piece of property in the floodplain, if they can prove they can have the floor elevations above the high water mark, what is the problem? Bill, do you think it good to keep putting new development in the floodplain? Stu said this floodplain goes from the railroad tracks to the dirt, goes straight south and follows Butte Creek. cn \-K1u\ � so you want to take 20 % of the County out of development? Bill, no, but I don't think that putting new development in a floodplain is good planning, do you? do not see anything wrong with it. If once in 100 years it will have water all around the house, but not in the house. The building code says you have to have mechanical and electrical above the high water mark. For instance, all development in the City of Chico or any city, the storm drain facilities are designed for the 25 year storm, your going to have the same situation in downtown Chico, water covering peoples property. you can not build in the foothills, so where are you going to build. Bill, there are lots and lots of places to build. Stu said while you found on this floodplain you are going to have to establish flood elevations, set building pads, usually by contours, across the property. I don't know if Planning and Ag. Commission is going to restrict development to certain areas, may restrict it to the easterly side so that the prime farming area could be still farmed. On Lot 6 and Lot 3 it might be something to consider. does the County have any covenants they put about creating any lots like this for recognizing the Could not understand what he was saying. (Side 1 about 1/5 into the tape) Stu said there is a think in the code that says you have to record an ag. acknowledgment that says dust, noise, all over the county. It does not spell out the complaints and doesn't do a whole lot of good. we had that discussion in our March meeting with Steve and Barry and because we are proposing a rezone to a planned use and the zoning restrictions will be somewhat custom for this development, we acknowledge that there is going to have to be a buffer, maybe a substantial buffer, where no spraying at all would be allowed and we call that organic or whatever, of course it would be a restriction we would record with the map and we've talked about it as a group and we know that is . Stu said CC&Rs are unenforceable by the County, but he thought the Ag Commissioner under the spraying rules would have more stringent restrictions as the years go along. those rules usually apply to the person that is involved in crops and it does not work the other way, so we end up putting a lot of conditions on the farmer and nothing on the people who are next door who are the originators of the problems. Stu, you have an opportunity here to put restrictions on the little lots that would help the farmer or something to say no building in a certain spot because of the spraying. You can put this in the CC&Rs, but the County can not enforce it. If they put it in the deed that they have to build within 50 feet of the road, and someone comes in with a permit a 100 ft., we don't care, they can build. All the neighbors could sue. you have to understand from an agricultural view, that the Ag. Commissioner's office doesn't like to see large parcels of land being divided up. We are categorically against it. There is a cascade effect that seems to happen that once, this involves a rezone, we don't like to see agricultural land rezoned, it makes it all the more easier for building to take place. Stu, this is a special rezone. if you split this property up into six 10, it would be destroyed from any agricultural use. This is the only proposal that saves the property from an agricultural standpoint. Stu said the PUD rezone is very restrictive and what they apply for is all they can get. so the lots that are developed there, Stu, they can not do anything further without rezoning the whole thing and going through the whole rezone process again. but in the end you have one acre lots and we look at these flag shape lots, and sees a line that can be drawn from here to here and creating two more lots, etc. and down the road a piece of land is isolated aid a farmer can come in and say I can't do anything with it. It can be used as a foundation for an argument to completely divide up that piece of land and we don't want to see that happen. You have a lot of agricultural people in this area, it is all agricultural land and so categorically we are against seeing agricultural land divided. If I could re-arrange those lots, wouldn't arrange them in that situation. Would like to see them clustered a whole lot better. what if he just took this one and stuck it over here and gave this one an easement up here. I like that better. anything is possible, we are just trying to come up with something that works as opposed to splitting the land up into six 10s. but I don't know that that would necessarily be approved either. You are zoned that way, but that does not entitle you or give you any guarantees that can be achieved in every instance and we just went through a similar request, west of Chico to create ten 10 acre parcels out of 100 acres and the DRC denied that and the Board upheld that denial on an appeal. On the basis that it was impacting the agricultural viability of that parcel. also we have to find it conforms to the general plan and general plan policies, making those findings in the D2N policies. there are number of policies that would support keeping this in a large parcel and not approving any land divisions. When we originally looked at this, and looked at the possibility of six 10 acre parcels or clustered development, we would prefer to see the PUD and open space. The Ag. Commissioner's Office would prefer to have it remain as it is at this time. Stu, or to keep as much in farming as possible. Craig Sanders, and design it, if lots are to be allowed for residential uses, to carefully look at the shape, location, configuration of those lots, and to make them as compatible as possible with the existing agricultural operation. when we see lots like that, 5 - 10 years down the road, somebody my move in there that doesn't have a clue about agricultural and then you are dealing with complaints, he sprayed my laundry, he sprayed my kids toys, and we have to go out there and on the average we spend about 25 man hours dealing with those complaints. we would like to eliminate those problems. Mr. Sanders, that's one of the policies in the Ag. Element, to try to keep the number of residential uses in the ag. areas as low as possible and that residential uses, even for the property owner, as stated in the plan, are secondary to the purpose of providing agricultural ground and that the residence is suppose to be there to support agricultural operations. Mr. Farrel, you know, to backup, when we work in this agricultural element with the committee of farmers, staff's recommendation had originally been that all the agricultural areas of the County in regards to 160 acre minimums and the ag. committee did not like that, and thought 40 acre minimums would be sufficient to preserve agricultural production. When it finally got to the Board of Supervisors there was a lot of concern that there are a number of areas in the County that are still zoned A-5 and A-10. The Board said they were going to leave all existing zones in place, but the Board also adopted policies that we have to find that land for development are not inconsistent with the border objective of the ag. zone of preserving agricultural. The conflict is the A-5 zoning and Ag. Element policies. It seems like what we have now is a situation where we have some viable larger parcels, but if they are divided that may conflict with the to preserve agricultural. The Planning Division would suggest that the property should not be divided into fewer large parcels, but if it is divided it would be better in clusters. there are two lots today. incentive to move the line? it is actually to clean up an ownership situation that exist today. Realizing that this is tentative, in that when we got out there in the field to determine where that line was and turned an angle down a row, we would certainly do that, put it down the middle of a row (road????). Bill said just in terms of the broad policies and the compliance with the Ag. Element. Certainly have the right to decide to go ahead and pursue this kind of application and if you do that, I think what everyone would like to do is to help you come up with something that is the best clustered design that we can. He said we do not have a lot of experience in agricultural clusters, do we? It is provided for in the zoning ordinance, but there isn't much in the way of standards. i that's why we are hear. That's why we are going through the pre- application process as a preliminary step and not putting it before public review. Craig said a design like this is different from any other PUD design that the County has ever processed. Normally in a PUD like this, we would have 60 acres and to get the same density it would allow for 6 residential lots, we would have say 6 one acre parcels and a Th parcel remainder that would be held in a common ownership. I don't know if this would be beneficial in the agricultural sense, then you have 6 people having part ownership of an orchard. I think the design is still something we would like to see, 6 smaller parcels and one large holding. But then there is a restriction that it can not be developed. Five small parcels and one large parcel. Restrictions on further development. that's an important point. Five smaller ones and then the remaining land, but the remaining large parcel does have the right to build a house and we would designate where that site is. Craig said the job then becomes how do we place restrictions on that land so it can not be further divided and we are assured of that. don't know how you stop future government actions from changing this government's action. Stu, state no further divisions on the map. Bill discussed easements being followed. (hard time understanding him) Bill asked Rob if he had any ideas about the layout as far as the clustered layout. Rob said the best scenario we would like to see would be to have that line disappear, like that from there, and have cluster on this side, these two. Probably talking about a difference in acreage, if the line came over a little bit. The rest of this parcel remained one large orchard. this could be accomplished with that line gone, and that being the designated homesite for the larger parcel. Five and one large parcel. Owner, my wife wants 2/3 of the property. She wants her property to be separate. Anything you suggest, we will go along as long as she can clear ownership separate from the other parties. That is my humble request. Craig Erickson, a couple of issues that we look at are ground water and perc levels. And has soil that peres and doesn't have soil that fills up with water. My advice would be to put some ground water monitoring out there in the smaller acreage and where you would anticipate a common leachfield area and measure over winter time. That would be one of the initial bunches of information we would require as well as soil test and perc test. Talking to our folks, five feet below grade is the cut off we have and there has been water found right through that area. I recall years ago on a sight where they were building a swimming pool and water was coming in right at 5 5-1/2 feet. (drifts off, talks low, and not very clear) For Health Department requirements, we require the 90% of average rainfall over the winter time. We would like to see that, there is a provision however where a hydrologist can become involved. If the project shows that the ground water is above the 5 ft. level for an extended period of time there is a possibility of going with a common leachfield area with some sort of alternative systems which is being done more these days. The State becomes involves, may or may not have discharge requirements, would require some sort of a government entity to operate and maintain. no one in the County to do this (CSA) Craig Erickson, no. It depends on the project and how they are getting rid of their waste as to whether they are approved by the State. we created a CSA on a project in Tehama County. I had not been involved in one in Butte County, but I know that there have been some alternative systems and I assumed it was also done in Butte County. what he is saying is that if we find the high ground water we not dead, its just more money. its more money, its more hoops, there is more cost involved that needs to be worked out. If we find ground water within a foot or so, you may be looking at almonds. water supply, thinking about individual wells? right. Stu, you want sprinklers and , do you want a fire protection system. Ted, no, $200 a lot water tender fee and individual sprinkler systems inside the house. And something about access to each house. (Real hard to hear him) Stu we will probably be looking at improving Esquon Road 1/2 street plus 12 ft. to the RS-2A standard. On the frontage. RS-2A - paved road, 20 feet to face of curb with curb, gutter, and sidewalk and under the Planning development criteria, anything under three acres requires curb, gutter, and sidewalk. If you leave one big lot, we would not have to require them on that parcel. Still require some road construction because the road is in pretty bad shape, but would drop off the curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Bill, unless the Board grants relief. Stu, the Board can grant relief to anything we ask. Bill, what would be wrong with going with smaller parcels for the 5 parcels? I don't have a good answer, it just seemed to be that this fits. Bill, I expect people what a'shady, rural environment so they want a little bit of land, on the other hand in some kind of cluster development it like'the tighter the cluster and the closer together the residences the more land there is to preserve for the agricultural part, so its just a question. Craig Sanders, just as an alternative, you could come off with a little cul-de-sac across from this road and then have some half acre parcel and do a short cul-de-sac of 5 -6 lots, your improvements might be less. we have talked a great deal about this configuration, all these comments will be cause for us to go back and take another look at this, if I might impose on the planners, we might do some faxes and re-faxes on different ideas. Stu, if you are looking to split 2/3 into 1/3, the little one acre lots usually end up being a whole lot more than your big 15 - 20 acre lots, value wise, so you might end up with more one acre lots worth more than the whole area. Craig Sanders, is that the overall goal, to try and come up with a split value wise. if it was that simple, we would do a boundary line modification. we would be happy (ag. comm??) with whatever preserved the largest continuous chunk of land that does not have an urban boundary, so someone with 60 acres of almonds can not do anything with his orchard because he can not spray. Stu, might be better to come off Taby and Black's Lane (????) and go west with the road. You already have the urban development there. Craig Erickson, recommendation, if you are going to develop it and may not submit some sort of an application until later on, I would suggest going through and doing the ground water monitoring through our department. If your don't do it with an official application you can go through our little preliminary application review. , realizing that the Health Department is going to condition us with ground water monitoring, the process should be first lets come up with a configuration that we can all live with and accept. Then go out for ground water monitoring. what is the requirement, what kind of a strip do we have to maintain to keep one of these from being considered land locked. Stu, 60 ft. wide easement, where is the 100 ft. elevation, 100 year flood. don't know. Stu probably 3 ft. deep. your well has to be 3 ft. above the 100 year flood mark. irrigation wells will have to be 3 ft., other 1 ft. (not sure what they are talking about) Craig Sanders asked if the new FEMA map new, A-E instead of A zones? Owner talking about 31 acres and what he needs to do. discussed 5 and 1 verses a more favorable 4 and 2 parcels. Craig Sanders said a BLM would probably be approved to give separate ownership. Stephen Hackney, there are planning issues involved here too, given an idea of what the other departments would like to see, it does not mean for you to leave here thinking that there is a recommendation of approval already in place. I don't want to leave that impression. There are planning issues involved, as Bill Farrel pointed out, an ag. PUD has not been done before. I accept your disclaimer. but with that would there ever be a configuration that would get staff recommendation for approval. Stephen, I don't know. Craig Sanders, well, given certain parcels, there certainly;may be. Stephen, and like Craig pointed out earlier in discussion and its a good point that, it certainly is preferable that something like a PUD where you get want you want, a certain amount of smaller lots and that a certain amount of p acreage larger is reserved 9 9 for ag purposes, would serve the ag. element and the direction from the Board, a lot better than 6 ten acre parcels. what I don't understand is why you can't put a right to farm clause in the deed, that you the owner of this parcel, restricted in to complain about farming. 'i Stephen, might work for the first person that buys that parcel, but 5 years later, the next buyer does not know about this. Stu, there is a disclaimer in all ag zoning. Inn , discussed restrictive covenants on property in the deed and they can be enforced. County should look at something like this. i. jj - ---- `, ZL � - � J �t i I _ — — _j I � e: IIS CISEPTSOH AND 5-7-7785 AFAXFrom: ROBERTSON and DOMINICK Civil Engineers & Surveyors 870 Manzanita Ct, Ste. D Chico, CA 95926 Phone: (916) 894-3500 Fax: 894-8955 To: Barry Hagan From: Eric Robertson Fax: 538-7785 Pages to Follow: 2 Phone: Date: 05/06J96 Re: PUD for Hennigan and Hussain CC: 13 Urgent 13 Please Comment x Please Reply 0 Original to Follow By Mail 0 Comments: Barry, My partner, Joe Dominick, and I met with you and Steve Hackney in your office on March 131" regarding this project (as shown in plat #1 to follow). The owners would like to change the Configuration to that shown on plat #2 and I've got a Couple of questions for you. Would you please call me on 894-3500 at you earliest convenience. Thanks, IN L i c' LOT 6 IN 0I Q d 36.90 ACRE5 fry OI I"'of g J A.P-A40-15-?7 EAST 1 51E S '� 315.00' LOT f _ I I n� ZO@ O i I,46 ACRE5 -4r�j X) EAST I r- 315.00, l �' D 41 3 5177 00, 1 I " 7 v 1 to I J LOT 2 1.34 ACRES lav I c. ci' ry CC) NOT A PART C" ? Li o I 3 d ' S 88'4347'E M d O 170141' J^ cr I 7v iTi JS IOp�---------------- Idol KOYO _LANE----- lL O �a 88'47b0"W I°O ----- A.P.04o-F5-mo -OI ,_, 3'15.59' OI rn LOX 3 F�+ml -loW LOT 5 O Op 46 ACRE5 M I CQ I- I i i RA6 ACRES p _ N 68'47 Mr L-4-41 Gf a - f 37600' I �I I LOT 4 IQ d) La La 11.29 ACRES I0tn f 376.00' `�tj 2 N 88'47'OO" E r�J p I I 46752' 890$3 -_---_-1 I N 88'47'00"E I 131635' I I I III uD chf I I f I f I i, NOTE-517E IS GENERALLY LEVEL M I c, a A From: RD ROBERTSON and DONIIN1CK Civil Engineers & Surveyors 870 Manzanita Ct, Ste. D Chico, CA 95926 Phone: (916) 894-3500 Ac"'Ey Fax: 894-8955 From: Eric Robertson Fax: 538-7185 .Pages to Follow: 2 Phone: Date: 05/06/96 Re: PUD for Hennigan and Hussain CC: © Urgent D Please Comment x Please Reply O Original to Follow By Mail • Comments: Barry, My partner, Joe Dominick, and I mat with you and Steve Hackney in your office on March 13'h regarding this project (as shown in plat #1 to follow). The owners would tike to change the configuration to that shown on plat 92 and I've got a couple of questions for you. Would you please call me on 894-3500 at you earliest convenience. Thanks, 'A--)I N I Wi�Q CCU NOSia3g0a 9S:8 96/2T/S0 ! I I ! cl 10' Jn M T8�7rOp� I' 35' X11 dU I I ..L, 35''� T �TSpa v I I I • I 1 1 I i ID 1 I LIQ a LOT ro i of 2912 ACERS I OI O 1 o IN o1 o • I � l of ca i w AP.s4U-:9-21 I 41, m ' U EAST 1n1 375.Oo' 1- I LI 1 m p l-OT 1 "' 1 Zpm 4 E46 ACRES 100-I Z. _L u% EAST 578-32, E �' LOT 2 11 11 I U 240 N 7 g78p�jr ?641 -----J----- NOT A PAQT I I I I Cn l26Z62r I I i.I ! ! Lq li 1 O I ] 4- I NI i u C- I o°I__R^OY(1 _LANE LP A.P.04045-W S 86*41'00'w I of rO.59 At lQES LOT 5 315.. 1 C4I ———— WArb-ACNW-5 v LOT 3 I'"m I ,� o If.46 acr2Es`�p W r j o NIBe'411od'E LOT 4 r 0 1.29 ACRES 10 1 Q � 376A0' I I89093' 1 I --I----- 46T52' ----- —_— 85'41'00'E I 13e335' I I III I I I 1 I I r I T1 ------------ C� I I N01E:511E 6 GENERALLY LEVEL j C �7 I i - n a . / Inter-Departed ita!"-Memorandum To: Stephen Hackney, Planning FROM' Ted Crawford, Fire Department SUBJECT: Pre--Development meeting, Esquon Orchards DATE: JUly 9, 1996 The following is the Butte County Fire Departments response to the request for a pre-application meeting on the 16th of July. The proposed project includes creating 4 one acre parcels and 2 parcels of 39 and 19 acres each, all from two parcels totalling approximately 60 acres. 1. Payment into the Battalion 3 water tender fund of $200.00 per lot created: 2. Unless the parcels can be connected to a pressurized community water system, all new habitable buildings shall have an automatic sprinkler system installed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 13D) standards for single family dwellings, 3. Provide an all weather access to all structures, .which is designed to carry a 40,000 pound fire apparatus at least 10 feet wide and with a 15 foot vertical. clearance. These requirements are, preliminary based on the current Information at this time and may change as new information becomes available. If there are any questions, please contact me at 538-7994. ESQUON ORCHARD - PUD REZONE The Durham-Dayton area has been under increased development pressure. The goals, programs and policies of the Ag Element are to be applied evenly to all development applications where division of/or impact to agricultural land is an issue, in order to miti- gate the loss of agricultural land to urban development. Aa Element: Goal #1 - Program 1.9 Apply the policies of the Ag- Element to the Durham- Dayton, Nelson area plan. Rezoning of ag land to higher residential density within the orchard and field crop boundary would set a precendent that could be used in support of arguments for further rezoning. Ag Element: Goal #1 Maintain parcel size that ensures long term preservation; conservation, continuity of. . . .orchard and field crop land. The preposed establishment and location of the four, one acre parcels compromises the remaining orchard by forming irregular Flagg lots. That could lead to further lot formations along Esquon Road that will isolate the larger parcels. The arrange- ment predisposes the area to urban/ageconflicts and sets the foundation for a potential cascade of ag. land subdivision. Further division of this land does little to preserve and con- serve the agricultural resource of the area. Conserving the larger parcel size would prevent the cascade of subdivision which will follow if steps are not taken now to prevent it. Conserving the large parcel size would ensure long-term agricultural use. Recommend denial. ROBERT C. HILL I1 , CACHERYDESQVON.REZ P.IUJOpIBO °AIIIAOJ® 5 1 inr uoisinia Buiuuvtd BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: AG CoRmission FROM: Bill Farrel,Development Services Director RE: Request for Comments on a Pre-Application for a Tentative Subdivision and PUD Rezone for ESQUON ORCHARDS DATE: May 28,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney We have received a pre-application Map for consideration of a Tentative Subdivision and PUD Rezone for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the Map for completeness and appropriateness in an area with an Orchard & Field Crop general plan designation and A-10 zone; and , if complete, for possible conditions of approval. Comments from your department/division/agency regarding completeness ane appropriateness of thepre-application map and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. We would like your responses in the next 14 days,prior to a pre- application meeting with Staff which is required by Code for PUDs. Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given,or ifyou have any questions,please do not hesitate to give us a call at 538-7601. Thank you'in advance for your time and efforts. This is a pre-application Map for Esquon Orchards on property zoned A-10 (Agricultural- 10 acre minimum)located on Esquon Road north of Durham Dayton Highway,out of and northeast of&-e Durham Urban Area,but in the Durham- Dayton-Nelson Area Plan ,identified as APN 040-150-027,and 110. The proposed project includes creating_4 one acre parcels and 2 parcels of 39 acres and 19 acres, all from two parcels totalling approximately 60 acres. It is within Supervisorial District No. 4 . YOUR COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN June 12, 1996. IFNOT COMMENTS OR COMMUNICA TIONARERECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE. I COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): i I I I I By: b �� �Gy�'GtrJ! f OZs-� Date: j:\forms\comment.mer 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 rju lol!T J `e1lln010 96% 5 I 1 n r uo!s!n!4 6uluuek! r Y tiI �Sl/ "s BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: FROM: Bill Farrel,Development Services Director RE: Request for Comments on a Pre-Application for a Tentative Subdivision and PUD Rezone for ESQUON ORCHARDS DATE: May 28,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney We have received a pre-application Map for consideration of a Tentative Sutdivision and PUD Rezone for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the Map for completeness and appropriateness in an area with an Orchard& Field Crop general plan designation and A-10 zone; and , if complete, for possible conditions of approval. Comments from your department/division/agency regarding completeness and appropriateness of thepre-application map and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. We would like your responses in the next 14 days,prior to a pre- application meeting with Staff which is required by Code for PUDs. Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given,or ifyou have any questions,please do not hesitate to give us a call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is a pre-application Map for Esquon Orchards on property zoned A-10 (Agricultural- 10 acre minimum)located on Esquon Road,north of Durham Dayton Highway,out of and northeast of the Durham Urban Area,but in the Durham- Dayton-Nelson Area Plan ,identified as APN 040-150-027,and 110. The proposed project includes creating 4 one acre parcels and 2 parcels of 39 acres and 19 acres, all from two parcels totalling approximately 60 acres. It is within Supervisorial District No. 4 . YOUR COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN June 12, 1996. IF NOT COMMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): — .� `7-9--9� PlanninclDivision J UI 1 1 1996 Ommilay dafifo-ma-2 By: Date. j:\forms\comment.mer 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 1. Inter-Depart .e:ntaV6em®randum c - TO: Stephen hackney, Planning FROM: Ted Crawford., Fire Department SUBJECT: Pre-Development meeting, Esquon Orchards DATE: July. 9., 1996 The following is the Butte County Fire Department's response, to the request for a pre-application meeting on the 16th of July. The proposed project includes creating 4 one acre parcels and .2 parcels of 39 and 19 ages each., all from two parcels totalling approximately 60 acres. 1. Payment .into: the -Battalion 3 :water tender fund of $200.00 per lot created. 2. Unless the parcels can be connected to a pressurized community water .system, all .new habitable :buildings shall :have, . an automatic sprinkler system installed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 13D) standards for single family dwellings, 3. Provide an all weather access to all structures, which is designed to carry a 40,004 pound fire .apparatus at least 10 feet wide and with a 15 foot vertical. clearance. These requirements are.. preliminary based on the current information .at this time and may change as new information becomes available. If there are any questions, please contact me at 538-7994. .,. . ti•- .. .. .. � •��• � • .. � i, y •tom��i - .. �. � ... v � .� �� . � ._. .. • _ `5 r It.. ' ., ... � ,1 t .- .vw�.. l.t . r ' "_� �._� 1 COAUKENT DISTRIBUTION LIST APPLICATION: Esquon Orchards ( Robert Hennigan, et. al. DATE: July 11, 1996 County Offices and Cities: / Chief Administrative Officer _X_ Develop.Services Directory X_ Public Works Director X_ Environmental Health Dirednta — Building Manager 4�- --shy ALUC _)_ — APCD — Butte Co.Farm Bureau Biggs — Gridley _ Chico Oroville _ Paradise _ Chico Airport Commission — X Agricultural Commission Irrigation District: Butte Water — Biggs/W.Gridley Water — Durham Irrigation OWID — Paradise Irrigation _ Richvale Irrigation Table Mountain Irrigation _ Thermalito Irrigation — Other Domestic Water Butte Water District _ California Water Service Co. _ Del Oro Water Co. OWID — Thermalito Irrigation District — Other Sewer Butte Water District — Themalito Irrigation — Sterling City Sewer Main Skansen Subdivision(CSA 21) — LO.A.PUD Fire Protection / _X_ California Department of ForestryY EI Medio Fire Protection District Recreation Districts Chico Area Recreation — Durham Area Recreation — Feather River Rec.&Park Paradise Recreation&Park Richvale Recreation &Parks Utilities _ PG&E North-Chico _ Chambers Cable TVPacific Bell PG&E South-Oroville Viacom Cable_TV State Agencies CalTrans _ Dept of Water Resources — Dept of Fish and Game Forestry(Attn:Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. — Highway Patrol Central Reg.Water Quality Control Department of Conservation _ Of£of Mining Reclamation — Of E of Governmental&Env.Relations Federal Agencies US Forest Service — US Bureau of Land Management Other Districts,Agencies,Committees,etc. Lime Saddle Dist — Community Association — Mosq.Abatement.OrovilleButte Co Drainage — Butte Env.l Council — Paradise Pines Com. Reclamation — Cal Native Plant Society — Butte Co.Mining Committee — — k i / 77, fin' . ..i-'"""'�� -- � - --. _--- - - -- I -- - �I � - .- ._ I I I _. I -- I � - f �� � � � � � �� _ � � `� l State of Callfornia—health and Welfare Agency Medl-Cal Program RIGHTS OF PERSONS I, am applying for Met Department (on behalf of listed on this form in order to be found eligible for Medi-Cal and to HAVE THE RIGHT TO ask for an interpreter to help me the English language. HAVE THE RIGHT TO be treated fairly and equally rec beliefs. HAVE THE RIGHT TO apply for Medi-Cal and to be told county representative tells me during this interview that it app I HAVE THE RIGHT TO apply as a disabled person if I think I HAVE THE RIGHT TO review manuals containing the rule on which my eligibility is approved or denied. 1 HAVE THE RIGHT TO have all information that I give to tt I HAVE THE RICHT TO be told about the CHILD HEALTH in receiving services under that program. 1 HAVE THE RIGHT TO be told about the rules for retroacti I HAVE THE RIGHT TO qualify for Medi-Cal by reducing my month, including the month of applicat' - 1 may s V without receiving adequate consideration in rn. MY SPOUSE AND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO divide our coon shares of separate property. BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION 1 TO: ' FROM: Bill Farrel,Development Services Director RE: Request for Comments on a Pre-Application for a Tentative Subdivision and PUD Rezone for ESQUON ORCHARDS - DATE: May 28,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney We have received a pre-application Map for consideration of a Tentative Subdivision and PUD Rezone for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the Map for completeness and appropriateness in an area with an Orchard & Field Crop general plan designation and A-10 zone; and , if complete, for possible conditioris of approval. Comments from your department/division/agency regarding completeness and appropriateness o thepr application map and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. We would like your responses in the next 1 ays,prior to a pre- application meeting with Staff which is required by Code for PUDs. Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given,or if you have any questions,please do not hesitate to give us a call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is a pre-application Map for Esguon Orchards on property zoned A-10 (Agricultural- 10 acre minimum)located on Esquon Road,north of Durham Dayton Highway,out of and northeast of the Durham Urban Area,but in the Durham- Dayton-Nelson Area Plan ,identified as APN 040-150-027_and 110. The proposed project includes creating_4 one acre parcels and 2 parcels of 39 acres and 19 acres, all from two parcels total€ing_approximately 60 acres. It is within Supervisorial District No. 4 . YOUR COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN June 12. 1996. IF NOT COMMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): _ A �onc.. sin a.e c WA e-042ecZ A& /V c4gqg4 ft/ 7 ✓6 7P.Gt Gail 76w Ceryl/// — a �a _"'d LJIvIslon 5 n 6 Cb F . By: Date: j:\forms\comment.mer 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 RECEIVE® MAY 2 8 1996 COUNTY Of BUTTE LAND DEVELOPMENT DIV. BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: FROM: Bill Farrel,Development Services Director RE: Request for Comments on a Pre-Application for a Tentative Subdivision and PUD Rezone for ESQUON ORCHARDS DATE: May 28,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney We have received a pre-application Map for consideration of a Tentative Stf3division and PUD Rezone for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the Map for completeness and appropriateness in an area with an Orchard &Field Crop general plan designation and A-10 zone; and , if complete,for possible conditiods of approval. Comments from your department/division/agency regarding completeness and appropriateness of thepre-application map and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. We would like your responses in the next 14 days,prior to a pre- application meeting with Staff which is required by Code for PUDs. Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given,or if you have any questions,please do not hesitate to give us a call at 53E-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is a pre-application Map for Esquon Orchards on property zoned A-10 (Agricultural- 10 acre minimum)located on Esquon Road,north of Durham Dayton Highway,out of and northeast of the Durham Urban Area,but in the Durham- Davton-Nelson Area Plan ,identified as APN 040-150-027,and 110. The proposed project includes creating 4 one acre parcels and 2 parcels of 39 acres and 19 acres, all from two parcels totalling annroximately 60 acres. It is within Supervisorial District No. 4 . YOUR COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN June 12. 1996. IF NOT COMMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE NONE. II COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): By: Data j:\forms\corriment.mer 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 DATE RECEIPT• TOTAL PUBLIC LAFCO USE VARIANCE. PUBLIC M ZONING ENV OTHER APPLICANT RECEIVED FROM NO. RECEIVED WORKS PERMITS DOCUMENTS HEALTH RECEIPT 15424 OFFICIAL RECEIPT COUNTY OF BUTTE a STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING ISSUED V I -7 ^� 107 ESQUON ORCHARD LLC PO BOX 9 BUTTE CIN, CA 95920 1111_35 ] DATE ` [ �(0 1210 TO THE40,10 PAY A I �y -7 ORDER OF ]SII CQ L) v fV 1 $ !-54 / �llP/ b0 LLA RSB m l71 Bank of America Chico Main Branch 0006 400 Broadway Q Chico.CA 95928 (918) 899-2120 r / r FOR 606" D /U!StOAJ APP L/M•C-A ---- _--------` 111000 10 711' : L 2 1000 3 581: 0006 2111 1,4134 511' Li 1 br L DATE RECEIPT TOTAL PUBLIC LAFCO UBE VARIANCES PUBLIC ZONING ENv orNeR APPLICANT ECEIV ED FROM NO. RECEIVED WORI(S PERMITS no NEALTN 1 RECEIPT 15424 OFFICIAL RECEIPT COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING ISSUED V 1. 05/20096 15:48' ROBERTSON AND DOM I N I CK y 5367785 NO. 647 Doi i From: r ROB II ' E ON ;and DOMINTICK Civil Engineers & Surveyors 870 Manzanita Ct, Ste. D Chico, CA 95926 Phone, (9161, 894-3500 ( Fax: 894-8955 To:. Steve Hackney From: Eric Robertson i Fa m 538-7785 Pages to Follow: I Phone: bate: 5/20/96 r ` f Re., Hennigan/Hussain 0 Urgent 0 Please Comment Ll Please Reply ❑ Original to Follow By Mail I o Comments: Steve, This and all items it references went out in todays mail. l thought I'd +give'you � a head start on the scheduling task by faxing you a copy of the cover letter. Thanks, i B s Planning OsPartment MAY 2 1 1996 Oral%, y i ,r WV,k S 1 2 t ti�tluilJC�(}�i23i¢R.iIGU{ +4 , fy , *s ussq %C14 cru IPO 2cpagnitua 6p2K pA.tsx!ua Aran s coaA of a js cons ,ll;;;st• ` 1p!2 OUq sj{ I;GW:D !t IRIGLgUCGO MSUt onj iu $OgsAs ulsz;• r;ponSNt J,q ajAq,Aan C Ya ;' a Cl CO'ItltUC3tf�; • nuaGuf .p'b1Osas COWWOU4 0 blrOOG Usb&A 100413!UVI CO IzOlMA.14 GA Y991i DIMS: 21=89 W62 40 1:0110m: 4 .LCI- 2$OAd CJWCIMrA bLOUJ: ELIC 90POLMpM bPOUG: (m) sat-mo CFrco' CY 64W 840 JAIW�Xulufs Ct' Pfr,` D 4. L t x 05;�/95 15:49 ROBERTSON AND DOM I N I CK y 538??615 NO, 647 902 ROBERI"SON AND D"OMINICK Civil Engineers & Surveyo+Y„ r_ P.U. 13va 1216 { 410 Pine Street May 20, 1996 L-A haw i Red Bluff, CA 96080 (916) 529-3560 Butte County Planning Dept. i FAX 529-0953 7 County Center Dr. r49 Oroville, CA 95955 870 Manzanira Ct. Attn: Steve Hackney Suite D Re: Tentative Subdivision and PUD Rezone cicicn, CA 95926 for Robert Hennigan� Et. Al. , (916) 894-3500 f FAX 894.8955 Dear Steve, ' As per you request during our telephone conversation of last week this transmits 6 blue line copies of the above referenced project along with a check for$250.00 for the application fee for a PUD pre-application conference. Please schedule the conference as soon as possible. Mr. Hennigan is j leaving the area soon and will be gone.for about a month so we'd like to ; have the meeting before the end of next week if possible. That is before May 31, 1996. If you have any questions or would like to r=iscuss this further please don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Eric L. Robertson, P.E. Civil Engineer/Partner Henntgan PUD mtg. y Nanning DsPartmont MAY 2 1 1996 Joe Dominick Oroville Cala fornix , Land Surveyor or- Eric Robertson Civil Engineer DURHAM ST, �E_ LAND SETTLEMENT T 2/ N R2E M.D. B . B M. 40715 'DU2NFx*.N. o C - 15p0j ' E row. ��• �• 1 SiA-C4 FP /.00AG i 436 36 ww r ' s 53 �? 5 54 !- 3t y I =400 0 6 S5 ' NOTE:This map Is for assessment purposes only TABBY LAN N 1°M4 4 i 59 w and may n p /7265 S-ggi_ PM 4 1 AC, 20 79! y of constitute legal parcels. 2p I 62' O,e3 P 590.92 SSt 24/g 29 28 / Z c s 57 1.0x*_ 58 3 3 O to 638 58 646.71 I N n 13 , AIC I.OIAC - N 1.02 AC o, / 4 N. F - - - - - - - - T BLACKS LN PMfB3-6e3 N q p //4 //7 O PM/07-46 �� I � s, ,.� M 171.80 /54.58 ,.� S.Z,gc 5.00Ac 1 J PM48-511 133.35 180 1 219.93 r l2 AC 2 461.68 /1*QHS C: M� / ao 32 PM/29-38/40 1 a 0 I IO m lAC 4 /A 2 Q 3 04.31 58 � !l � �' 4 Ie1.o N AC M 31,9TAC. "L WL _ 522Ac - 1 5.02Ac W) riPMl05- '� O XOYO 638.58 LANE O 64671 1A / C NPM97-1 AUBRY COURT PM705-34 - -MO.-F3- - 71 , fez . _ _ _ !87.74 /39 43 ® r Lot V o �� e 1.01 2AC b 9.5Ac o A/ q v 1 T6 ' !AC' ' ty 213.99 1.04 A , _ % U�. 704.2 O /O: SIC 29 BRINSON LANE �7` Zs �1 71 �30�� , - 307.51 07.51 7.52 t3t.3 �4 335.6 2 $ 213 1 7 j NL72AC /4 ' •' a • _ -BaR3aIN.9S4O-N SUB•95 1.04 1.06- - - - a I , 38AC. DELR/TA LANE- PM �.4- !2 13 ti r2 107-61 6 1.1 Ilaz 1.03 Ar. PM -55z 1 1 6 x - LO/Ar- f.93 .93 7dr 77 78 ; ALMOND VIEW CT. 1 !; 2r 34 i 2i i 23 .19 Ac 34.35 Ae L1sAe • 1eAo 1.1eAr 1.18 2 I PM 82 67 4 1.16Ae 3 54AG ^ '� 1 PI1153-951 PM 82-10 76-9= 990 /dI0.3 1z _ 461.44 ° 5I�.2 Y f DU N M O/,TOV/ - - Assessor's Ma No. 40- /5 Q _ _ P County of Butte Calif.C Y BRINSON SUB., 104 M.O.R. 67/68, 2-4-1987 REVISED: 7-93 DURHAM STATE LAND SETTLEMENT, 8 M.O.R.23 i NO O ca 'E