Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 15, 1985BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - July 15, 1985 The meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) was called to order at 1:36 p.m. on July 15, 1985, in the Personnel Training Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Davis.(represented by alternate Lando), Feiler,.Roberts (represented by alternate Hunter), Kenkel (represented by alternate Montgomery), and Behunin (represented by alternate Schrader) Staff: Dave Hironimus, Planne`r;.Susan Sears, Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Schrader asked fora correction on page 6, second paragraph: change "this airport" to "this project." On a motion by Commissioner Schrader, seconded by Commissioner Feiler and unanimously carried, the minutes of the June 10, 1985 meeting were approved as corrected herein. IV. BUSINESS 1. Adopt Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Dave Hironimus explained -that this is a housekeeping item; by adopting the provisions of CERA by reference, the Commission can avoid having* . to include it in individual projects. On a motion.by Commissioner Montgomery., seconded by Commissioner Schrader and unanimously carried, ALUC-Resolution No. 85-01 was adopted. 2. Status Report - Paradise Airport Land Use Plan Since -some of the Commissioners had not had the opportunity to review their draft plans, it was agreed to carry this item over to the August meeting. BUTTE COUNTY AIRP( - LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - July 15, 1985 Page 2 3. Status Report - Ranchaero Airport Land Use Plan Commissioner Montgomery reported that there had been no activity during the past month. 4. Review and Comment - Don Deter Tentative Parcel Map Dave Hironimus described the location of the proposed project in relation to Patrick Airport, adding that the Commission might wish to propose a no -development strip. off the ends of the runway. Don Deter stated that he owns the airport as well as the land proposed to be split. He said he was not concerned about protecting the airport. It is used perhaps once a week at present. Acting Chairman Lando asked if the zoning was A-2; Dave Hironimus said yes; Mr. Deter said it is now "U" per Board of Supervisors' action. Dick Roper, Roper and Associates, who is working with Mr. Deter, noted that there is.a Southern Pacific tank farm at end of the runway. Commissioner Hunter said that the FAA can require approaches and takeoffs from a given end of a runway and indicate this on pilots' maps. It was moved by Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Schrader and unanimously carried, to forward this project to the Advisory Agency with no special requirements or conditions. 5. Review _and _Comment Eukene Rinxel Heliport at Conco Dave Hironimus described the proposed med-evac heliport which.also has the potential to be used by firefighters in the future. Commissioner Hunter asked why a temporary location was being proposed; Dave Hironimus said the applicant wants to use the temporary location until the final location can 'be prepared. Commissioner Schrader said he had problems with the temporary,site: it's too close to residences, and "pilots like a clean approach." Commissioner Hunter said he would favor waiting until the second location is prepared, and then approving that. The Commission basically agreed with the concept, but not with the idea of having -a temporary location. 6. .Oroville Airport Land Use Plan - Public Hearing Dave Hironimus said the Environmental Impact Report may or may not have cleared the State Clearinghouse by the August meeting. BUTTE COUNTY AIBP( LAND USE COMMISSION C f MINUTES - July 15, 1985 Page 3 The hearing was opened to the public. Gerald de Roc o asked for an explanation of the map exhibited on the wall. Dave Hironimus explained that the large circular area drawn outside the Oroville Airport was the planning boundary, which takes in all of the 55 CNEL areas, shows the recommended clear zones and recommended zoning. Mr. de Roco asked for the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan committee's definition of "open space." Commissioner Feiler said it is spelled out in Exhibit 2 of the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. Acting Chairman.Lando said the uses would be primarily agricultural. Commissioner Schrader said that, per Dick Dyer of the FAA, a clear zone takes precedence over other zones; it takes a two-thirds vote of a governing body to supersede it; therefore zoning -doesn't matter. Dave Hironimus pointed out that such an action.would have to include appropriate findings. Acting Chairman Lando wanted to know.if this Commission's actions could commit the City -or County to purchase the land; Dave Hironimus. said County Counsel's answer was "could be." Acting Chairman Lando said he would like to know before he voted on it'. Commissioner Hunter said that the City of Oroville has been forced, via court order, to say they have no interest in purchasing the clear zones, adding that there have been problems with.various appraisals. Commissioner Schrader asked about a $100,000 grant awarded by'the FAA about 5 years ago;,Commissioner Huntersaid it has been rescinded, since the price has escalated beyond the FAA's means. The City of Oroville didn't have the funds -- or the funding mechanism -- and isn't any better off now. In order to re-apply'to the FAA, the price would have to be reasonable. Commissioner Schrader asked, what about binding arbitration? Commissioner Hunter said this wouldn't happen without court action. Robert Wilson says he also owns property in proposed clear -zones, and requested a copy of the EIR. The hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Schrader said perhaps this Commission would have to look 'to the state and/or federal government for answers. Commissioner Hunter said that perhaps the previous court action would have to be overturned. Acting Chairman., Lando said the Commission should invite county staff to the next meeting to tell.what options are available. Commissioner Hunter suggested the City Attorney and County Counsel should also attend. Commissioner Schrader added that perhaps Dick Dyer should be asked to attend, too. BUTTE COUNTY AIRP( - LAND USE COMMISSION "• MINUTES - July 15, 1985 Page 4 7. Discussion - Proposed Butte County "C -A" (Commercial Airport) Zone Dave Hironimus noted that the Planning Commission had denied the Schooler rezone, but that zone might be applicable to other airports in the county. This would apply to public -use airports like Ranchaero or Paradise Skypark,.to allow certain uses without a Use Permit. Acting Chairman Lando suggested continuing this item..to the'next meeting. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS Next meeting August 12, 1985. Due -to Monday holidays, the following meeting schedule was adopted: September 16 October 14 November 18 December 9 The meeting was adjourned at 2:28 p.m. Tom Lando, Acting Chairman AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION /ss BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES -June June 1 0 , 1985 , + The meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission (•ALUC') was called to order at 1:36 p.m. on June 10,, 1985 in the'Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County'Center'Dr•ive, Oroville, . 'California. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, I I . ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Davis ( represented by ,'" alternate Lando), Feiler, Lambert, Roberts (represented by alternate Hunter ),` Cawthra, : and Chairman Behunin ' - 1-Aiz Staff: Dave Hironimus,-'Planner; Susan Sears, Secretary. �. _ III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES }r, sJ On a motion. by Commissioner Fei ler-',' seconded 'by -Commissioner Lambert- and ambert and unanimously carried, I he in'n""es'of the May 13, 1985 meeting were ` -. approved as written. ` a' I V . BUSINESS --- • . . . fir;' 4 'i� • 1 •, .:� - ... f .� w•.,y„ .1- Status' Report - Paradise ;, lr`por' t • Land • Use Plan Commissioner Feiler reported ,'thatw-their plan isnearlycomplete; Dave Hironimus is - having' it typed: s There are some, minor changes .to be madei to the charts, which Tom • Lando•tis ,having done. = ' •_ i� Commissioner.Feiler said that'one-',thing that is as -yet unresolved is the question of whether•'a°clear�zone;`can "bend." • He has been trying to get an answer from CalTrans[`ih Sacramento. Chairman Behunin _;i.s i remarked that he didn't see how a -,clear zone could bend, since 'a pilot .; needs room in case he runs off�`the,end of the -runway. Commissioner Feiler said'•perhaps the departure".path could be changed. Dave Hironimus•said'it would have 1tobe`fol'lowed' up with CalTrans, and there might be some difficulty'`in"that ALUC, as a public agency, in removing any reasonable use f'roin that land off the end of the runway,' would be benefitting a third.part'y,'the owner of the Paradise Airport. BUTTE COUNTY AIRP( LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - June 10, 1985 Page 2 Chairman Behunin said that either airports require clear zones off the runways or they don't. That block of land, then, has to be acquired. Dave Hironimus pointed out that the Public Utilities Code very specifically states that ALUC does not have jurisdiction over existing uses. Chairman Behunin said "We either step up to the task of acquiring that land, or then we've made the decision that the airport is eventually going to be closed down." 2. Status Report - Ranchaero Airport Land Use Plan Commissioner Lambert reported that her committee is also waiting for some revisions to be made, and for the typing of their rough draft. Dave Hironimus said answers are still needed from CalTrans on the density questions. 3. Status Report - Oroville Airport Land Use Plan Dave Hironimus said the draft EIR is just about ready for typing. Chairman Behunin asked if copies of it could be made available by the first of next week (June 17); Dave Hironimus said he hoped so. 4. Cliff Johnsen - permit to allow, a privately -owned, private -use airport consisting of a 1600 -foot grass runway on property located on the south side of.Mar'ybill Ranch Road, approximately 3/4 mile east of The Midway, identified as AP 040-02-0-135-0, south of Chico. Dave Hironimus stated that the previous time this Commission reviewed this project was to determine whether it was compatible with the Chico Airport Environs Plan. Since that time, it has come to our attention through CalTrans that, a private airport, whether the zoning allows it or not, is required to be approved by the City Council of the city it's located in, or the Board of'Supervisors of the county it's located in, or by the Airport Land Use Commission, if there is one. It is subject to the California ;Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and ALUC hears it very much as if it were a Use Permit, but it's strictly an airport permit from the standpoint of protecting the public health, safety and welfare as per the Public Utilities Code (PUC). The hearing was opened to the public. Cliff Johnsen stated that he just wants an airstrip for private, personal use. The mitigation measures originally attached to his project pertain to a commercial strip, so they aren't needed now. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPC LAND USE COMMISSION 1` MINUTES - June 10, 1985 Page 3 Commissioner Lando asked about the recommendation that avigation easements be obtained. Dave Hironimus said the applicant would be required to obtain easements from the neighboring properties regarding height limits for buildings and noise impacts off either end of the runway. Mr. Johnsen said this is the first he'd heard about it. Commissioner Lando said that, per County Counsel, it might be impossible to obtain these easements. Mr. Johnsen said, "Nobody asked me for an easement before spraying their properties." Commissioner Hunter observed that there's court precedent wherein property owners have tried to gain relief from spraying, also from overflights, if the farm was there before the airport. Mr. Johnsen asked what an avigation easement is; Dave Hironimus replied that it limits the height of buildings to 35 feet from the property owners immediately to the north and south of the proposed runway, to include at least that property within 1000 feet of the end of the runway and within 125 feet of the extended centerline of the runway. Mr. Johnsen said he thought the Use Permit was going to prevent this; Chairman Behunin pointed out that this is to protect him, and them, and that he should obtain the easements. Mr. Johnsen remarked that it clouds the title on your property, and people don't want to do it without compensation. Commissioner Lando asked if there was a height limit in A-2 zones; Dave Hironimus said no. Commissioner Lando asked if all of the clear zone is located on Mr. Johnsen's property; Dave Hironimus said no, it goes onto other properties both north and south of Mr. Johnsen's. Commissioner Lando said he would have trouble with asking that conditions be imposed upon the applicant without helping him to meet them. Commissioner Hunter suggested that this Commission could recommend, not require the conditions. Commissioner Lambert asked if County Counsel had said that avigation easements were voluntary; Dave Hironimus said the offering of avigation easements is a way to mitigate potential impacts. Commissioner Lambert asked about the riparian habitat with trees at the north end of the clear zone and the removal of 4 acres of orchard at the south end. Dave Hironimus said this wouldn't be required now, with a private airport. Commissioner Lambert asked if this could ever be anything but a private airport; Mr. Johnsen said it would be impossible to get a commercial permit there and still have a house on it. BUTTE COUNTY AIRP( LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - June 10, 1785 Page 4 A discussion ensued relative to avigation,easements. Mr. Johnsen said he felt it shouldn't be a requirement of the permit. Commissioner Cawthra said the easements should be obtained. Chairman Behunin wondered what leverage you'd have without them. Commissioner Hunter remarked that this Comrrlission had done its best to make it clear that easements are a good idea, so "let the buyer beware." Commissioner Lando said the same things could be accomplished without having avigation easements. There could be a height overlay zone; also required notice on adjoining properties so it'd show up on title reports. Commissioner Lambert wondered about the location of Marybill Road, with a 60' right of way, relative to the possibility of future development. Mr. Johnsen stated that the 60' road "is my road, and the part that crosses the clear zone is a dead end." The hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Lando said he felt uncomfortable approving it without the avigation easements, and made a motion to approve the project, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, with the condition that avigation easements be obtained. Commissioner Lambert stated that she would want avigation easements as a condition but has reservations about an airstrip in that area, knowing its development potential. Commissioner Feiler used the analogy of driving a car for your own personal use versus driving it for hire, and wondered if it's right to require the easements. Commissioner Lambert pointed out that if Mr. Johnsen had planes for hire, that would make his airport a commercial airport. Commissioner Hunter stated that this Commission can't take into account "ifs" and "maybes" and that later on, when something is built on -the adjoining lands, "then we may see it again." The motion was withdrawn. It was moved by Commissioner Cawthra, and seconded by Commissioner Hunter, as follows: A. Find that the requirements of CEQA have been completed and considered in making this decision, and adopt a Negative Declaration; and B. Find that the proposed airport does not conflict with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan; and C. Grant an airport permit to allow a privately -owned, private -use airport on AP 40-02-135 (Cliff Johnsen) as shown on the site plan included in the file, subject to the following conditions: BUTTE COUNTY .PORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - June 10,.1985 Page 5 1. All flights to be conducted in such a manner that aircraft do not pass within a minimum of 500 feet (measured horizontally) of the Little League park property. 2. Applicant to comply with all applicable state, federal and local statutes, ordinances and regulations. D. It is recommended that the applicant obtain an avigation easement limiting the height of buildings to 35 feet from the property owners immediately to the north and south of the proposed runway. Avigation easement is to -include at least that property within 1000 feet of the end of the runway and within 125 feet of the extended centerline of the runway. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Feiler, Hunter, Cawthra, and Chairman Behunin NOES: Commissioners Lando and Lambert ABSENT: Commissioner Kenkel NOT VOTING: None 5. Melinda Self, Celeste and Virginia Wolf - application„for a Tentative Parcel Map on the south side of Sacramento Avenue, approximately 250 feet west of its intersection with Westmount_ Drive, identified as AP 42-15-08, Chico area. Dave Hironimus noted that this applicant's parcel map is just outside the approach zone of Ranchaero Airport but within the overflight area and adjacent to.two other proposed projects being considered by this Commission today. Commissioner Lando asked what this Commission is being,requested to do; Dave Hironimus said that since there are no Airport Land Use Plans adopted as yet, this Commission must 'determine if these projects would be compatible with operations at.Ranchaero Airport. Chairman Behunin asked what the density of the proposed development. is; Dave Hironimus said there'sone parcel of slightly over half an acre and one that's just over an acre. Commissioner Hunter asked if the County required property owners to have avigation easements, as this is under the Map Act and the County has some very specific capabilities. Chairman Behunin observed that this project is not under the approach zone. Dave Hironimus said this Commission could determine that this project would or would not have an effect on the operations of the airport. Commissioner Hunter asked if it were within the 55 CNEL zone, in which case the County would require avigation easements. Commissioner Lando said he thought that would BUTTE COUNTY AIRPL` LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - June 10, 1985 Page 6 only apply to a public airport, not a private airport. Dave Hironimus said this wouldn't have gotten to ALUC if there were an adopted Airport Land Use Plan for Ranchaero Airport. It was moved by Commissioner Lando, seconded by Commissioner Hunter and unanimously carried, to find that this project would not have a significant effect on the operations of the Ranchaero Airport. 6. Silver Tree Tentative Subdivision Map dividing 7.78 acres to create 27 lots on the south.side of Sacramento Avenue, approximately 1400 ft. east of its intersection with Glenwood Avenue, identified as AP 42-15-21, Chico area. Dave Hironimus stated that this Commission had looked at this proposal last month, and,the proponents wanted to propose some solutions based on better information. The hearing was opened to the public. Gree Webb, developer -builder of the proposed project, stated that he has no objection to granting avigation easements. The proposed density of the project is 3.4 dwelling units/acre. Dave Hironimus distributed copies of the Guidebook of Airport Land Use Planning from CalTrans. He noted that at 3.4 dwelling units/acre, and 2.3 persons to a household, this would be considered well under the 100 to 150 persons per acre permitted. Commissioner Lando stated that there's been a long-standing agreement to develop this property,.and if Webb wanted to enter into an avigation easement there should be no problems. A standard avigation easement could -be used, such as that used by the City of Chico. Chairman Behunin wanted to know where this project is in relation to the 55 CNEL contour; Dave Hironimus.said it's outside of that-. Chairman Behunin observed that avigation easements also take into account noise levels of 45 dB inside homes; Dave Hironimus stated that can be added as a mitigation measure. Chairman Behunin said that easements address height, noise, smoke, reflection, etc., Dave Hironimus pointed out that these are in the Butte County Noise Element. Commissioner Feller asked if an avigation easement specified that subsequent owners waive their right to complain; Commissioner Lando said that they are giving the airport an easement "to create noise, vibration, fumes, dust, fuel particles and all other effects that may be caused by the operation of aircraft landing or taking off...' and a warning to potential buyers would show up on title reports. BUTTE COUNTY AIRP( LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - June 10, 1985 Page 7 Mr..Webb wanted to know if the easement would restrict Ranchaero Airport from expanding to the south. Commissioner Feiler suggested language like, "This easement is based on the current size of the airport." Chairman Behunin pointed out that once those homes are there, if Ranchaero wanted to expand, that question would have to be addressed then. Dave Hironimus said it would take Use Permits, which would require further avigation easements. Commissioner Lando said that he would like to change what he was saying slightly, so that if, in the County's opinion, this Commission can require an avigation easement as part of a condition on a map, - that we do so. If not, at least this Commission should require some sort of public disclosure as a part of the recording of the property, indicating that the operations of Ranchaero are close by, and indicating that there may be some disturbance due to noise, etc. Chairman Behunin proposed a motion that this project be approved with the mitigation measure that an avigation easement be effected between the proponents and the Ranchaero Airport, to include all of the provisions for flight, noise, dust, electronic, etc. Commissioner Lando suggested including the next item on the agenda in'this motion, Chairman Behunin agreed to this, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Lando and unanimously passed. 7. Park Place - Tentative Subdivision Map dividing 5.0 acres to create 13 parcels at 0.3 acre ¢/- located approximately 500 ft. west of the intersection of Westmount Drive and Sacramento Avenue, on the south side of Sacramento Avenue, identified as AP 42-15-07, Chico area. This proposed project was covered by the motion on the prior item on this agenda (Silver Tree). 8. Gerry DeRoco - Tentative Industrial Subdivision Map via Parcel Map (14 lots) located at the northwest corner of Highway 162 (Oro Dam Boulevard) and 22nd Street, identified as AP 30-23-135, Oroville. Dave Hironimus commented that this proposed project is located in the clear zone off the end of Runway 19 of Oroville Airport. Commissioner Lando asked what.the General Plan designation,is; Commissioner Hunter replied M-2. Commissioner Lambert wondered whether it made a difference whether it was residential or commercial. Commissioner Lando asked what the City of Oroville's position is; Commissioner Hunter said there had been an inverse condemnation suit and he would have to defer comment to the City Attorney. Dave Hironimus observed that this proposal does not appear to conform to the draft Airport Land Use Plan. BUTTE COUNTY AIRP( LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - June 10, 1985 Page 8 The hearing was opened to the public. Ron Graves, representing the applicant, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Lando wanted to know what the role of this Commission is: Are we in a position to say "you can't do it"? Commissioner Feiler asked what kind of application had been made; Commissioner Hunter said it is a- Tentative Subdivision Map by.•parcel map before the City of Oroville Planning Commission. He added that - the court had ordered the City to prepare a document that stated that they had no interest in purchasing the property; the City had no choice but to sign it. _ Commissioner Lando said he would prefer -to not see the proposed area developed. Commissioner. Hunter said the original land use designation - with an open space overlay was struck from the zoning. Commissioner Lambert asked if the draft Airport Land Use Plan can be used as a basis for making a decision. Chairman Behunin proposed that this be done, adding that, by definition, a clear zone must be c ear. Commissioner Cawthra added, "We could lose our best runway." On a motion by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner'Feiler and unanimously carried, the proposed project was disapproved'on the basis that the proposed subdivision, in an airport clear zone, is in. conflict with the definition of clear zones as contained in the draft Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. Commissioner Feiler observed that there are a lot of uses that land could be put to, as referred to in the-Oroville Airport Land Use Plan.- Phil lan:Phil Rauch, Afterbay Estates, requested time to speak and his request - was granted. He claimed that his project, to the south of the Oroville Airport had been held up 5 years. Chairman Behunin made the observation that part of Mr. Rauch's property is in the clear zone; the County and the City have got to take a position, because "If we don't have these clear zones,.we don't have an airport." Commissioner Hunter said the City of Oroville has always said they could tolerate subdividing to 2-1/2 acres, with limitations of residences within the approach zones and building restrictions in clear zones, adding that this information is sent to any interested property owners who request it. As for getting the City, County and ALUC to wrap up the paperwork, this is outside the City's jurisdiction. The actual action rests with ALUC and the County. FAA has the same problem: they can't stop you from building, but they can close the airport. BUTTE COUNTY AIRP4 LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - June 10, 1985 Page 9 Commissioner Feiler asked when Mr..Rauch's subdivision was approved, had the airport been mentioned to him? Mr. Rauch replied that the land was subdivided before the turn of the century! Commissioner Hunter said that requests to subdivide 10 -acre parcels started coming in to the County;,now anyone can build out -there, and if they do their own EIR, they could perhaps subdivide even further. The property owner has that full right, so there's no delay caused by governmental agencies in.Mr. Rauch's case. There is no obligation on the part of the County to write, or.pay f.or, an EIR. However, this body is going to do an-EIR, and both the property owners and the airport will benefit from it. Mr. Rauch requested that his proposed project be placed on the July - agenda for consideration. Commissioner Lambert commented regarding a handout the Commissioners received at this meeting regarding the proposed CA Zone, saying she wants this Commission to study it. Chairman Behunin suggested putting, this on the agenda for the July meeting also. The meeting was adjourned at 3:46 p.m. Otto Behun n, Chairman AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION By: Tom Lando, Acting Vice Chairman /ss October 3, 1986 Mary Ann Imbiorski Planning Technician CITY OF OROVILLE 1675 Montgomery Street Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Tentative Subdivision Map for Gerald de Roco on•AP 30-23.-135 Dear Ms. Imbiorski: The Butte County.Airport Land Use Commission at its meeting of October 1, 1986, found that the -above project does not: conform to the policies.of the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. Should you have any questions with regard to this action, please contact our office between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Sincerely, B.A. KIRCHER Executive Officer BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION David R. Hironimus Associate Planner DRH/sjs L A N D O F N A T U R A L W E A L T H A N D B E A U T Y PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965.3397 PHONE: 534-4601 Mary Ann Imbiorski Planning Technician CITY OF OROVILLE 1675 Montgomery Street Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Tentative Subdivision Map for Gerald de Roco on•AP 30-23.-135 Dear Ms. Imbiorski: The Butte County.Airport Land Use Commission at its meeting of October 1, 1986, found that the -above project does not: conform to the policies.of the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. Should you have any questions with regard to this action, please contact our office between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Sincerely, B.A. KIRCHER Executive Officer BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION David R. Hironimus Associate Planner DRH/sjs nufte Co. Planning CkmM SEP 1 b 100 Oroville, catitorlia DATE: September 15, 1986 T0: Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Mary Ann Imbiorski, Planning Technician RE: Gerald de Roco, Tentative Subdivision Via Parcel Map, AP No. 30-23-0-135 The attached map was submitted for review to the Oroville Planning Commission in May 1985.. No action was taken by the Commission because the Airport Land Use Commission had not adopted the Airport Land Use Plan. Mr, de Roco wishes to`proceed with this project, therefore, we are submitting the map for your review and comment. The -parcel in question is zoned'M-2 (Industrial). A copy of City Zoning Ordinance requirements for the M-2 District is attached. Also attached are copies of the requirements for ..the N -C, C-1, C72 and C -1-M Districts. The uses described in .these districts would only be allowed in an M-2 District under the provisions of a use.permit. cc: Chuck Prince Will Randolph Ron Graves & Associates Gerald de Roco Attachment . � 1 &A rem --- a Mf THERMALITO FOREBAY SOUT M I I I i II I f I I - r I i � � / I �"zoK �` � G,/TY• G.P. (NON -P4xrs 16, It [i-i� i , I I / i DE Rc>mi I \ � • svg � N � 0 \ / 14, 40M WEST / \i 4 CITY OF OROVILLE I OROVILLE / AIRPORT 15 2 22 ,, . \ 2 PT — -- — - — 3 — — �'cA�� �..-ion• I J . fes_ P6 6V/Citi/TY "I P aWA EWIAP/P, IC4A/ N Ts ,ao. f30x i3/� n�nvic�6, ew gsvc�� WO TER SEWE/I s :,/N/9/Vll414 ZIJN/Ne-,- • a-2: AAAI°i : ,3C� Z3• i . TZ IV T/ vE /2411.1'EL 5 ii/(:7• .:.Cil' //✓ �%1�: C%�.t'� / %`Cis , T//t :c :�vi/i� ; 7;� j . ��'. �Y>.. i; ;•- %yr CITY TY CSF rll� l//LLE, /N • _ , r lURVEYING .....:..:. :.,..... PARCEL NAPS �S5 PUBLIC REPORTS'a-, V V�O�r I a eS `, P. 0.;. Oroville Ca...95965 Ph. 19161593-9col ;.8,3- 9 �.Iy r f �'cA�� �..-ion• I J . fes_ P6 6V/Citi/TY "I P aWA EWIAP/P, IC4A/ N Ts ,ao. f30x i3/� n�nvic�6, ew gsvc�� WO TER SEWE/I s :,/N/9/Vll414 ZIJN/Ne-,- • a-2: AAAI°i : ,3C� Z3• i . TZ IV T/ vE /2411.1'EL 5 ii/(:7• .:.Cil' //✓ �%1�: C%�.t'� / %`Cis , T//t :c :�vi/i� ; 7;� j . ��'. �Y>.. i; ;•- %yr CITY TY CSF rll� l//LLE, /N • _ , r lURVEYING .....:..:. :.,..... PARCEL NAPS �S5 PUBLIC REPORTS'a-, V V�O�r I a eS `, P. 0.;. Oroville Ca...95965 Ph. 19161593-9col ;.8,3- 9 7 i — Ala9°49'.7"E 580./5' �a r 29.0.8; c ez•� 0 � I_ 29n.n�' _"' ,c• ZOT 7 Ze97.8 i n.C,C. Ac. 4079 0 n. e P. ci. E. C .•� 90.0 .. .o c ZOT .3' . rae ��T/Z c c �•� a�.og' 90.0 '—s� a LnT2. � � LnT/3 � a ry n.B? f1C. ♦ n.B3 A�. � � 290.08' LCAT /IP l� n.89 AC. n 93 .QC Q 26-68 Page 72 26-68 INDUSTRIAL = M-.2 . The provisions of. Section 26-42 through 26.,55 of this Chapter are made applicable to all M-2 Districts, 'subject to the specific provisions of this section. a: Intent. To provide working areas within the City for the manu- facture, assembly, repair and fabrication of goods and products; to, protect areas"appropriate for industrial uses from intrusion of inharmonious.uses and to provide the opportunity for certain type uses to locate in mutually beneficial locations. b. Use Regulations. In.the M-2 District, no building or land shall be used and no building shall be erected or structurally altered, unless otherwise provide herein, except for one or more of the following uses. c. Uses Permitted. .1. All uses listed under manufacturing in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 2. All uses listed under Transportation and Public Utilities in the Standar] Indtst7ial ClasFificaticn Manual. 3.- All uses listed under Wholesale Trade in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 4. All uses listed under Construction in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 5. Accessory buildings and uses subordinate and incidental to the principal use of the premises. Conditional Uses Requiring a Use'Permit. 1. Dwelling units. 2. Hotels, motels. .3. Alcoholic beverage sales. 4. Bars, cafes and restaurants. 5. Public buildings, public utility buildings,and substations 7. Banks. 8. Uses allowed in the C -L -M District. 9 Any other use -of land not otherwise specifically set forth in this section that is compatible with the intent bf.this section. Development Standards,. 1. Lot Area. There -shall be no minimum lot area. 2. Lot Width.' There shall be no minimum lot width. 3. Height Regulations. a. The maximum height of any main building or structure shall not exceed sixty-five (65).feet'." b. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. d. e. .1. All uses listed under manufacturing in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 2. All uses listed under Transportation and Public Utilities in the Standar] Indtst7ial ClasFificaticn Manual. 3.- All uses listed under Wholesale Trade in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 4. All uses listed under Construction in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 5. Accessory buildings and uses subordinate and incidental to the principal use of the premises. Conditional Uses Requiring a Use'Permit. 1. Dwelling units. 2. Hotels, motels. .3. Alcoholic beverage sales. 4. Bars, cafes and restaurants. 5. Public buildings, public utility buildings,and substations 7. Banks. 8. Uses allowed in the C -L -M District. 9 Any other use -of land not otherwise specifically set forth in this section that is compatible with the intent bf.this section. Development Standards,. 1. Lot Area. There -shall be no minimum lot area. 2. Lot Width.' There shall be no minimum lot width. 3. Height Regulations. a. The maximum height of any main building or structure shall not exceed sixty-five (65).feet'." b. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. e. .1. All uses listed under manufacturing in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 2. All uses listed under Transportation and Public Utilities in the Standar] Indtst7ial ClasFificaticn Manual. 3.- All uses listed under Wholesale Trade in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 4. All uses listed under Construction in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 5. Accessory buildings and uses subordinate and incidental to the principal use of the premises. Conditional Uses Requiring a Use'Permit. 1. Dwelling units. 2. Hotels, motels. .3. Alcoholic beverage sales. 4. Bars, cafes and restaurants. 5. Public buildings, public utility buildings,and substations 7. Banks. 8. Uses allowed in the C -L -M District. 9 Any other use -of land not otherwise specifically set forth in this section that is compatible with the intent bf.this section. Development Standards,. 1. Lot Area. There -shall be no minimum lot area. 2. Lot Width.' There shall be no minimum lot width. 3. Height Regulations. a. The maximum height of any main building or structure shall not exceed sixty-five (65).feet'." b. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 26-68 Page 73 i C. Additional height may be permitted if,a use permit is secured in each case. 4: Yards. a. 'Front Yard. No minimum except where the.frontage in a block is partially in a residential district, in which case, the front yard shall be the same as required in such residen- tial:district or as may be indicated on the Official Master Street and Highway Plan or other City ordinances. b. Side Yard.'.No minimum except where the side of a M-2 use abuts a residential district, in which case, a side yard of ten .(10) feet is required.. C. Rear Yard. There shall be no minimum.rear yard unless the rear of a lot abuts a residential district, in which case, a rear yard of twenty (20) feet shall be required. 5. Lot Coverage. There shall be no.minimum lot coverage. f. Parking. See Section 26-49. g. Fences and Hedges. See Section 26-48. h. Si ns. See Ordinance No. 1239. i. General Regulations. 1. All uses in which open storage -is required shall conduct such open storage behind a.solid six (6) foot wall, either of masonry or wood structure design so that none of the outside storage is visible from either the street -frontage or from adjacent properties. 2. Uses, operations or products within this district shall be permitted within this district unless such uses are or may become obno::.ious or offensive by reason of the emission of odor, dust,. smoke, no.ise, gas, fumes, cinders, vibration, glare, refuse matter or water -carried waste. j. Loading Areas. Private off-street loading space for the handling of all goods, materials, and equipment shall be provided with the location and design of each off-street loading space being nb less than ten feet x twenty-five feet (10' x 25') with a minimum fourteen (14) foot clearance. The loading area shall not be a part of the required off-stree't.parking space. The number, location; and design'of off- street loading space shall be approved in advance by the Development. Review Board. k. Performance Standards. All uses permitted in the M-•2 District shall be subject to the following regulations and such regulations shall. be conditions of all. permitted uses in this section. 1. Noise .or vibration created by or resulting from and industrial machinery or process shall not be discernible without instruments at the lot boundaries where it abuts residential uses; and odors, glare or heat'created by or resutling directly or indirectly from any use shall -not be perceptible at any point beyond lot boundaries. 2. Discharge into the atmosphere of air contaminants including, but not.limited to, sulfur compounds, smoke, charrred paper, dust, 2.6-68 Page 74 soot; grime, carbon,'noxious,acids, fumes, gases,.mist,.odors or particulate matter or any combination thereof, from any single 1. source or, emiss ion' whatsoever shall be permitted which exceeds the -legally-permissible discharge limits, if any, established by State or local code and enforced by the Air Pollution Control District of.the County. 3. Industrial activities shall be of such nature as not to cause damage or substantial jeopardy to the health.and safety..of persons, animals.,.vegetation or.other forms of `property. 4. Water supply, drainage, .rubbish and waste disposal systems and practices shall reflect conformance with all applicable codes and standards relating_to public safety; health and sanitation and public works of Oroville.: 1. Site Plan and Development'Review.' All new construction in an M-2' District shall be subject to to the approval of site plan and develop- ment review by the Development Review Board. Procedure for such. submittal and approval is found under Sections 26-83 through 26-95. I 26-63': Page 59 26-63 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL - N -C The provisions of Sections 26-42 through 26-55 of this Chapter are made applicable to all•N-C'Distri.cts, subject to the specific provisions of _ this section. a. Intent. To provide basic everyday convenient shopping needs and, services to neighborhood residential districts, but not to permit the development -of a commercial center of such scope and varietv as to attract substantial volumes of .traffic from outside. the neighborhood. b. Use Regulations: In the N -C District, no building or land shall be used and no building shall be erected or structurally altered, unless otherwise provided herein,.except for one or more of the following uses. c. Uses Permitted. 1. Retail Sales. a. Neighborhood grocery and drug stores, retail dairy stores and bakeries. b. Other retail businesses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are similar to the foregoing and within.the intent stated above. 2. Retail Services. a. Laundry and cleaning establishments. b. Barber shops and beauty parlors. C. Bars, cafes and restaurants. J -d. Such other retail services which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are similar to the foregoing and within the intent stated above. 3. Accessory buildings and uses on the same lot which are necessary for the operation of the permitted use. d. Conditional Uses Requiring a Use Permit. 1. Gasoline service stations. 2. Churches,.public buildings, public -utility buildings, substations and mortuaries. 3. Residential uses where compatible with surrounding commercial uses, provided there is a ground level commercial use or building in front of or below the residential use. 4. Mini warehouses. e. Development Standards. 1. Lot Area. a. Each interior.lot shall have a minimum area of six thousand (6,000) square feet. b. Each corner lot shall have a minimum area of seven thousand (7,000) square feet. 26-63 Page 60 2. Lot Width. 'a. Each interior lot shall.have a minimum width.of sixty (60) feet. b. Each corner lot shall have a mihimum width of seventy' (70) feet. 3. Height Regulations. a. The maximum height of any main building or structure shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. b. Accessory buildings shall not.exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 4. •Yards . a. Front,Yard. Minimum required setback twenty (20) feet, except as may be shown otherwise on officially adopted Master Street and Highway Plan or other City ordinances. b. Side Yards. No minimum side yard required on interior lots, except where lot abuts residential district, a minimum sid"r!. yard of =en (10) feet shall be raqu__ed; on corner lots a.minimum side yard of twenty.(20) feet shall be required. c. Rear Yard. Minimum of ten (10) -feet unless the rear of a lot abuts a residential district, in which case, a.rear yard of twenty (20) feet shall be required. 5. Lot Coverage. The maximum allowable aggregate building coverage for all buildings, accessory buildings, and structures shall be seventy-five (75) percent of the lot area. f. Parking. See Section 26-49.: g. Fences and Hedges. See Section 26-48. h. Signs. See Ordinance No. 1239. i. Site Plan and Development Review. All new construction in an -C District shall be subject to the approval of site plan and development review by the Development Review Board. Procedure for such submittal and approval is found under Sections 26-83 through 26-95. . 26-64 Page 61 26-64 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL - C-1 The provisions of Sections 26-42 through 26755 of this Chapter are made applicable to all C-1 Districts, subject to the specific provisions i of this section. a. Intent. To ,provide commercial areas within the City wherein the normal nonautomotive oriented retail sales and service activities of the community may be accommodated. b. Use Regulations. In the.0-1 District, no building or land shall be erected or structurally altered, unless otherwise provided herein, except for one or more of the following uses. C. Uses Permitted. 1. All uses permitted in the N -C District. 2. Retail Sales: a. ,Bookstores, rental libraries, stationery stores and newstands. b. Art, antique and pawn shops. c. Variety, department, hardware and clothing stores. d. Furniture dealers. 3.. Retail and Professional Services. a. Business/professional offices, clinics and related services. b. Public utility offices., c. Blueprinting shops. d. Dancing, music, art and photographic studios. e, Repair shops.for shoes, radios, televisions and small appliances. f. Banks, financial, insurance and real estate offices. g. Catering shops. 4. Accessory buildings and uses on the same lot which are necessary for the operation of any permitted use. 5. Retail sales, services and professional services which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are similar in nature and operation to the above. d. 'Conditional Uses Requiring a Use`Permit. 1.. Residential uses .here compatible with surrounding commercial uses, provided there is a ground level commercial use or building in front of or below the residential use. 2. Gasoline service stations. 3. Churches, public buildings, public utility buildings and utility substations. 4. Pet shops. 26-64 ' Page 62 5. Mortuaries. -6' -Theaters, auditoriums, movie theaters. _. 7. Hotels, motels. 8. Lodge halls, social clubs. 9. Cleaning and dyeing establishments. . 10. Business colleges. 11. Other uses may be permitted which are similar in nature and operation to the above, if approved by the Planning Commission -as to location and development. e. Development Standards. 1. Lot Area. For each main building, a minimum of two thousand (2,000) square feet shall be provided. 2. Lot Width. No minimum lot width. 3. Height Regulations. ' a. The°maximum height for any main building or structure shall be fifty (50) feet. b. Accessory buildings shall not'exceed.fifteen (15) feet . in height. c. Additional height may be permitted if a use permit is secured in each case.- ase.4. 4.Yards. .a. Front Yard. No minimum except where the frontage is' partially in.a residential district in which case the front yard shall be the same as required in such residential district or as may be indicated on the official Master Street and Highway„Plan or other City,ordinances. b.. Side Yard. No minimum except where the side of a lot , abuts a residential district, in which.case, the side yard shall not be less than ten (10) feet. c. Rear Yard. There shall be no minimum rear yard unless the rear of .a .•lot abuts a.residential district; in which case, a rear yard of twenty (20) feet shall be required. 5. Lot Coverage. There shall be no maximum lot coverage. f. Parking. See Section 26-49. g. Fences and Hedges. See Section 26-48. h. Sins. S?e Ordinance No. 1.239. i. General Regulations. 1. All permitted uses shall be conducted wholly within a build- ing except that the Planning Commission may grant exceptions for those uses. customarily conducted in the open under the.conditions of a use permit. • Page 63 • 2. Products made incidental to a permitted.use shall be sold . only at retail on premises arid.fidt more than five (5) persons may -be employed in the preparation of products permitted therein. 3. There,shall be no permanent display of goods outside of the structure except as permitted under a use permit. Temporary outdoor'displays may be approved by the Development Review Board subject to criteria established by the.Planning Commission. 4. Residential. uses where compatible with surrounding commercial uses, provided there is a ground level commercial use or building in front of or below the residential use,' 'shall be permitted on the premises. Such uses shall require a use permit and the yard requirements, density and other matters relative to yard and area shall be'subject to the Planning Commission's approval. . 5. Where required, the front yard setback, the side yards, and rear yards shall be landscaped by an area of not less than five (5) feet in width along the property lines and along street frontages, except for entrances and.exit driveways. Said land- scaped areas.shall be planted and maintained in good condition. j. Site Plan and Development Review. .AU new. construction in a C-1 District shall,be'subject to approval of site plan and development review by the Development Review Board. Procedure for such submittal and approval is found under Sections 26-83 through 26-95. ,1 . 26-65 • •. Page 64 26-65 HEAVY COMMERCIAL - C-2 The provisions of Sections 26-42 through 26-55 of this Chapter are made applicable to,all C-2 Districts subject to the: specific provisions of this -section.. a. Intent. To `provide for commercial establishments dealing in large, low volume items and major repair services. Since such uses usually have extensive display.and storage areas, they are not suited in normal retail centers. .b. Use Regulations. 'In the C-2 District, no building or land shall be used and no building shall be erected or structurally altered, unless otheridse provided herein, except for one or more of the following uses. c. Uses Permitted. .1. All uses permitted in the N-C.and C-1 Districts. 2. Cleaning and dyeing establishments. 3. Automobile.sales and repair. 4. Discount centers. 5. Lumber and building supply establishments. 6. Wholesale establishments. 7. .Commercial printing and newspapers. 8. Major appliance repair shops. 9. Parking lots. 10.-. Boat sales and repairs. I 11. Farm machinery and service, garden supplies." 12. Accessory buildings and uses on -the same lot which are necessary for the operation of the permitted use. 13. Other uses which in the opinion -of the Planning Commission are similar to the above uses. d. Conditional Uses Requiring a Use'Permit. 1:. Residential uses limited to caretaker or owner of commercial use.. 2. Gasoline service stations.* 3. Churches, public buildings, public utility buildings'and substations. 4. Pet shops. 5. Animal hospitals and veterinaries. 6. Mortuaries. - 7.' Motels, hotels. 8.- Overnight parking facilities for recreational vehicles. 9.. Mobile home sales. __ 10. Bus depots: 26-65 ... Page 65 11. Lumber yards. 12. Open air theaters, bowling alleys, and other.' amusement and recreational facilities.. 13. Cabinet and woodworking shops. 14. Used car lots. 15. Mini -Warehouses. 16. Other uses may be permitted which are similar in nature or operation to the above, if approved by the Planning Commission as.to. location and development. e. Development Standards. 1. Lot Area. For each main building, a minimum of two thousand (2,000) square feet shall be provided. 2.. Lot Width. There shall be no minimum lot width. 3'. Height Regulations. a. The maximum height for any main building or structure shall not exceed fifty (50) feet. b. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. C. Additional height may be permitted if.a use permit is secured in each case. 4. Yards. a. Front Yard. No minimum, except where the frontage in a block is partially in a residential district in which case the front yard shall be the same as required in such residen- tial district or as. may be indicated on the Official Master Street and Highway Plan or other City ordinances. b. Side Yards. No minimum except where the side of a lot . � .,abuts a residential district in which case the side yard. shall not be less than ten (10) feet. C. Rear Yard. There shall be no minimum rear yard unless the rear of the lot abuts a residential district in which case a rear yard of twenty (20) feet shall be required: f. Parking.. See Section 26-49. g•. Fences and Hedges. See Section 26-48: h. Signs. See Ordinance No. 1239. i. General Regulations. 1. All uses, shops, stores, or businesses permitted in this district shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building, except that automobile sales and repair, lumber and building supply establishments, parking lots, boat sales and service, farm machinery and supplies may be conducted in the open sub ject.to the approval of the Planning Commi.ssion,under the provisions of a use permit. 26-67 Page 69 26-67. COMMERCIALLIGHT MANUFACTURING - C -L -M The provisions of Sections 26-42 through 26-55 of this Chapter are made applicable to all C -L -M Districts, subject to the specific provisions of this section.' a. Intent.. To provide areas within the City for manufacture, assembly, fabrication, storage, and processing of materials that for the most part are already in processed form which do not,. in their manufacture, create objectionable influences upon surrounding uses. This is intended to be a district which incorporates both the heavy commercial type uses as well as the light industrial uses necessary for the overall welfare of the community. b. Use Regulations. In the C -L -M District,,no building or land shall be used and no building shall be erected or structurally altered, unless otherwise provided herein, except for one or more of the following uses. c.. Uses Permitted. 1...Any use permitted in the N -C, C-1 and C-2 Districts pursuant to the same regulations therein. ..2. Commercial laundry and dry cleaning works. 3. Beverage manufacturing, including bottling plants. 4. General contractors' yards. 5. Bakery plants. 6. Truck repair and maintenance. 7. Warehousing. 8. Carpet -cleaning plants. 9. Production of dairy products. 10. Fuel and ice dealers. 11. Ceramic manufacture. 12. Cabinet shops. 13. Parcel delivery sales and service. 14. Handicraft manufacture. -15. Food lockers. 16. Boat sales.and service. 17.. Truck sales and service.' 18. Institutes and laboratories. ` 19. Sheet metal shops. 20. Auto painting shops. 21. Awning manufacture. 22. Administrative Offices. 23. Any other use, which in the opinion of the Planning Commission, is similar in nature to the aforementioned uses. 26-67 Page 70 • d.'' Conditional Uses"Requiring a Use Permit. 1. ,Residential uses limited to lessee,• caretaker or owner of w = commercial use. 2. Public, buildings, public utility buildings and substations. e. Development Standards. 1. Lot Area. There shall be no minimum lot area. " 2. Lot•Width. There shall be no -minimum lot width. 3. Height Regulations. a. The maximum height for any main building or structure shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet. b. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen'(15) feet in height. C. Additional height may be permitted if a use permit is secured in. each case. �7 4. Yards. a. Front Yard. No minimum except where the frontage in a block is partially in a residential district, in which case, the front yard shall be the same as required in such residen- tial district or may be indicated on the Official Master Street and Highway Plan or other City ordinances. b. Side Yards. No minimum except where the side of a C -L -M use abuts a residential district, in which case, a side yard of "ten (10) feet is required. " c. Rear Yard. There'shall be no minimum rear yard unless " the rear yard abuts a residential district, in which case, a rear yard of twenty (20) feet shall be required. f. Parking.' See Section 26-49. g. Fences and Hedges. See Section 26-48. h. Signs. See Ordinance No. 1239. i. General Regulations. 1. All uses in which open storage is required shall conduct such, open storage behind a solid six (6) foot wall either of masonry or wood structure design so that none of the outside storage is visible from either the street frontages or from adjacent properties. 2. Residential uses are limited to the lessee, caretaker or owner of the building or use and shall be permitted on the premises. Such uses require a use permit and the yard requirements, density, and other.matters relative to the yard and area shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. 3. Uses, operations or products within this district shall be permitted within this district unless such uses are, or may become, obnoxious or offensive by reason of the emission of odor, dust, smoke, noise, gas, fumes, cinders, vibration, glare, refuse matter or water -carried waste. 26-67 Page 71 j. Loading Areas. Private off-street loading space for the handling of all goods, materials, and equipment shall be provided with the location -and design of each off-street loading space no less than ten feet'by twenty-five feet (10' x 25'.) with a minimum fourteen (14) foot height clearance.. The loading area shall not -be a part of the required off-street parking space. The number, location and design of off-street loading space shall be approved in advance by the Development Review Board. k. Site Plan and Development Review, All new construction in a C -L -M District shall be subj.ect to the approval of site plan and development "review by -the -Development Review Board. Procedure for such submittal and approval'is found under Sections 26-83 through 26-95. s, BUTTE -COUNTY A RT LAND USE COMMISSION • MINUTES - June , 1985 Page 7 Mr. Webb wanted to know if the easement would restrict Ranchaero Airport from expanding to the south. Commissioner Feiler suggested language like, "This easement is based on the current size of the airport." Chairman Behunin pointed out that once those homes are there, if Ranchaero wanted to expand, that question would have to be addressed then. Dave Hironimus said it would take Use Permits, which would require further avigation easements. Commissioner Lando said that he would like to change 'what he was saying slightly, so that if, in the County's opinion, this Commission can require an avigation easement as part of a condition on a map, that we do so. If not, at least this Commission should require some sort of public disclosure as a part of the recording of the property, indicating that the operations of Ranchaero are close by, and indicating that there may be some disturbance due to noise, etc'. Chairman Behunin proposed a motion that this project be approved with the mitigation measure that an avigation easement be effected between the proponents and the Ranchaero Airport, to include all of the provisions for flight, noise, dust, electronic, etc. Commissioner Lando suggested including the next item on the agenda in this motion, Chairman Behunin agreed to this, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner"Lando and unanimously passed. 7. Park Place - Tentative Subdivision Map dividing 5.0 acres to create 13 parcels at 0.3 acre +/- located approximately 500 ft. west of the intersection of Westmount Drive and Sacramento Avenue, on the south side of Sacramento'Avenue, identified as AP 42-15-07,Chico area. This proposed project was.covered by the motion on the prior item on this agenda ( Silver Tree) . DeRoco.iTentative Industrial Subdivision Map via Parcel Map (14 lots) located at the northwest corner of Highway 162 (.Oro Dam Boulevard) and 22nd Street, identified as AP 30-23-135, Oroville. Dave Hiro.nimus commented that this proposed project is located in the clear zone off the end of Runway 19 of Oroville Airport. Commissioner Lando asked what the General Plan designation is; Commissioner Huriter.replied M-2. Commissioner Lambert wondered whether it made a difference whether it was residential or commercial. Commissioner Lando asked what the City of Oroville's position is; Commissioner Hunter said there had been an inverse condemnation suit and he would have to defer comment to the City Attorney. Dave Hironimus observed that this proposal does not appear to conform to the draft Airport Land Use Plan. ' BUTTE COUNTY A ORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - June, , 1985 Page 8 The hearing was opened to the public. Ron Graves, representing the applicant, was present -to answer questions. Commissioner Lando wanted to know what the role of this Commission is: Are we in a'position to say "you can't do it"? Commissioner Feiler asked what kind of application had been made; Commissioner Hunter said it is a Tentative Subdivision Map by parcel map before the City of Oroville,Planning Commissions He added that the Court had ordered the City to prepare a document that stated that they had no interest in purchasing the property; the City had no choice but to sign it. Commissioner Lando said -he would prefer to not see the proposed area developed. Commissioner Hunter said -the original land use designation with an open space overlay was struck from the zoning. Commissioner Lambert asked if the draft Airport Land Use Plan can be used as a basis for making a decision. Chairman Behunin proposed that this be done, adding that, by definition, a clear zone must be clear. Commissioner Cawthra added, "We could lose our best runway." On a motion by Commissioner Lambert, seconded -by Commissioner Feiler and unanimously carried, the proposed project was disapproved on the basis•that'the proposed subdivision, in an airport clear zone, is in conflict with -the definition of clear zones as contained in the draft Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. Commissioner Feiler observed that there are a lot of uses that land could be put to, as referred to in the..Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. * * .* * * * *. * * Phil Rauch., Afterbay Estates, requested time to speak and his request was granted. He claimed that his project, to the south of the Oroville Airport had been held up 5 years. Chairman Behunin made the observation that part of Mr. Rauch's property is in.the clear zone; the County and the City have got to take.a position, because "If we don't -have these clear zones, we don't have an airport." Commissioner Hunter said.the City of Oroville.has always said they could tolerate subdividing to 2-1/2 acres, with limitations -of residences within the approach zones and building restrictions in clear zones, adding that this information is sent to any interested property owners, who request it. As for getting .the City, County and ALUC to.wrap'up the paperwork, this is outside the City's jurisdiction.The actual action rests with ALUC and the County.. FAA has the same problem: they can't stop you from building, but they can close the airport. *EQUEST.FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT CITY OF OROVILLE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET, OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 (916) 533-9551 TO: DATE: May 20, 1985 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Industrial Subdivision Map via Parcel Map (14 lots) LOCATION: Northwest corner of Highway 162 (Oro Dam Boulevard) and 22nd Street. Buffe Co. Planning Comm. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S): .30-23-135 Oroville, California STREET ADDRESS(ES): N/A APPLICANT: Gerry DeRoco APPLICATION DATE: May -20,1985 PLEASE RETURN COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY: May 31, 1985 COMMENTS AND PROBLEMS: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS, CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: REVIEWED BY: