1989-07580-Minutes for Meeting March 29,1989 Recorded 4/4/1989so 0005 0407
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DENIAL OF VAR r 10141 4. 0
BY VON ALEXANDER
Pa 'CLun
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS C1-u ij 5. `
9:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 29, 1989
Hearings Room, Deschutes County Administration Building
Before the Board was continuation of a public hearing on an appeal
by Von Alexander of the Hearings officer's denial of variance.
Board members in attendance were Lois Bristow Prante, Dick Maudlin,
and Tom Throop. Also present were Craig Smith, Planning Director;
Paul Blikstad, Planner; Rick Isham, Legal Counsel.
Chair Prante opened the continued public hearing at 9:05 a.m. Dave
Jaqua, 1655 W Highland, Redmond, stated that he was the attorney
for the applicants. He said that Mr. O'Sullivan, an attorney
representing three property owners in the area, told him they were
not withdrawing their concerns from the record, but they would not
be testifying at the public hearing.
Mr. Jaqua presented a history of the setback requirements for the
subdivision, pointing out that under the requirements at the time
the subdivision was developed, the garage in question would not
have been a violation. Under the current requirements, over 50%
of the lot would be unbuildable. He felt they were not in
violation of the set back because the building would be 32-33 feet
from the edge of the pavement. He submitted a new plot map showing
the existing framed garage and the proposed new location.
Mike Tennant,230 SE 3rd, Bend, 97702, said he didn't like the
original proposed location and appreciated the Alexander's
willingness to move it. His main concern was that a precedent not
be set in the neighborhood.
Ted Walters, 21102 High Metal Circle, indicated that he had no
objection after seeing the proposed change in location.
May Alexander stated that she had made an effort to speak with
everyone in the surrounding area about the proposed change, and she
submitted documentation of their responses.
Dave Jaqua pointed out that some of the concerns raised at the
Hearings Officer's meeting had been resolved, i.e., the building
would not overshadow the road, the redesign would only have one
street access not two as previously proposed, and that the design
would be consistent with the house. He also mentioned that when
the Alexanders originally checked with the Planning Department,
they were told the location was alright, and that it was not until
they had $9,000 into the foundation and framing that the issue was
brought up.
ALEXANDER VARIANCE APPEAL - PAGE 1: 3/29/89
aq