HomeMy WebLinkAboutVander Zander Appeal TestimonyPage 1 of 2
Cynthia Smidt
From: Bill Valentine [bvalentine@everhigher.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 8:28 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: RE: Hearing Regarding Vander Zanden Cabinet Shop
Please submit. I realize I got the details a little screwed up, but I think my suggestion re:
adopting the Hearing Officer's decision with limitations for one year is still valid.
Bill Valentine
7203 SW McVey Ave.
Redmond 97756
From: Cynthia Smidt [mailto:Cynthia_Smidt@co.deschutes.or.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:28 PM
To: Bill Valentine
Subject: RE: Hearing Regarding Vander Zanden Cabinet Shop
:I: ello.
Would you like me to submit this comment into the record?
For clarification, the Vander Zanden proposed the home business. A Hearings Officer (an attorney on
contact with the County) issued a decision approving the proposal. However, the Hearings Officer
approved the decision with limitations. The applicant (Vander Zanden) appealed the decision to the next
level of decision making, the Board of County Commissioners (Board), in this case. The Board held a
public hearing on November 10 but they have not issue a decision on the appeal as of yet. The decision
from the Board will not be issued until mid-December. You can submit any comments regarding the
proposal and I will pass them on to the Board. Also, when you submit comments please send me your
snail mail address so we can send you the final decision when it is issued. Let me know if you have any
questions.
Cynthia
From: Bill Valentine [mailto:bvalentine@everhigher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:19 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt; Doug Schulz'
Subject: RE: Hearing Regarding Vander Zanden Cabinet Shop
Cynthia:
Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the Vander Zanden request.
Our understanding is that the Vander Zanden's original request for a conditional use permit
was conditionally granted after modification by the commissioners, and that that ruling is being
appealed. Our feeling is that the final ruling should retain the commissioners' modified
guidelines, with the proviso that at the end of 12 months the commissioners review the
operating realties of the woodworking business i.e. actual traffic and noise measurements and
neighbor comments and/or complaints, and then reconsider any appeal that might be
requested.
My wife and I are the nearest neighbors to the Vander Zandens and, it would seem, will be the
most aware of and affected by their business. At this time, we are willing to give them the
1 1 /13/2008
11/ /1 3/2008
Page 2 of 2
benefit of the doubt until we see actual result data.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bill and Penelope Valentine
From: Cynthia Smidt [mailto:Cynthia_Smidt@co.deschutes.or.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:18 AM
To: Doug Schulz
Cc: bvalentine@everhigher.com
Subject: RE: Hearing Regarding Vander Zanden Cabinet Shop
Doug and Bill,
Yes, the Valentine's can submit a comment into the record by the end of the business day (5pm) on
Monday, November 17.
Thanks.
Cynthia
11/13000R
Page 1 of 1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Mark Corbet [mcorbet@web4mix.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 6:57 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: VanderZanden CU hearing
Attachments: mtg result Itr to Co Comm.11.16.08.doc
Cynthia,
Please forward the attached letter to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
My signed letter will be mailed to their offices.
Thank you.
Mark Corbet
1111 I1LVVU
Mark and Peggy Corbet
7376 SW McVey Avenue
Redmond, OR 97756
541-548-6601
mcorbet(a web4mix.com
November 16, 2008
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Dennis Luke, Chair
Tammy Baney, Vice -Chair
Michael Daley, Commissioner
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Bruce and Peggy VanderZanden Type 3 conditional use permit
File #CU -08-11
Today I met with Bruce and Peggy VanderZanden regarding the access and maintenance
issues of their driveway entrance from McVey Avenue which crosses a portion of our
property. While a final document of understanding remains to be drafted, signed and
recorded, our meeting resulted in several positive options toward resolution of this
matter.
The VanderZandens and I discussed the possibility of a limited easement, their
responsibilities regarding maintenance resulting from the business use of the entry, and
ways to improve the fire and rescue equipment approach. We hope to move forward with
a formal agreement in the near future.
Yours very sincerely,
Mark R. Corbet
Dc: Bruce and Peggy VanderZanden
Page 1 of 1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Clara Butler [Clara.Butler@ci.redmond.or.us]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 3:19 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Cc: HAROLDSCCI@aol.com
Subject: 7236 McVey Ave; CU 08-11
Attachments: CU 08-11 Revised, Vanderzanden, Cabinet Manufacturing, 161202C000700.doc
I have attached an updated set of comments on the above project.
Thank you,
Clara Butler
Deputy Fire Marshal
Redmond Fire & Rescue
www.redmondfireandrescue.org
541-504-5016
11%1772UWS
Redmond Fire & Rescue comments for application
Date: November 17, 2008
Location: 161202C000700, 7236 SW McVey Ave
Subject: CU 08-11 Revised, Vanderzanden, Cabinet Manufacturing
From: Clara Butler, Deputy Fire Marshal
If there are questions regarding Fire Code issues, please contact the Redmond Fire and Rescue
Deputy Fire Marshal at 541-504-5016 or email at clarab@ci.redmond.or.us.
WATER:
Area without Fire Hydrants:
Water flow requirements shall be met or an approved sprinkler system shall be installed.
• NFPA 1142 Requirements
o If the structure is being built in an area outside a public water supply system, then the
water flow requirements will come from NFPA 1142.
Fire flow is 47,289 gallons.
• Structures with Automatic Sprinkler systems — 2001 NFPA 1142 Chapter 7
o The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to waive the water supply
required by this standard when a structure is protected by an automatic sprinkler
system that fully meets the requirements of NFPA 13.
• Fire Safety during Construction — 2007 OFC Chapter 14
o Approved fire department access roads, required water supply, and safety precautions
shall be made available as soon as combustible material arrives on site.
• Fire Sprinkler Systems shall be installed per NFPA 13.
o If there are greater than 20 sprinkler heads, the system is required to have a fire alarm
monitoring system.
o 2007 OFC 903.3.7 Fire Department Connections: The location of fire department
connections shall be approved by the fire department. The FDC/PIV shall not be
under any combustible projections or overhangs.
o NOTE — If the Building is sprinklered, the sprinkler system will need to be designed
to the specific use that will be occurring in the building. If the sprinkler system is not
designed appropriately it will limit the types of businesses that can occupy the space.
ACCESS:
• Premises Identification — 2007 OFC 505.1
o Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in
such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the
property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and visible at night.
Number/letter shall be a minimum of 4" high and a 0.5" stroke width.
11/17/2008 1
• Fire Apparatus Access Roads — 2007 OFC Section 503 & Appendix D
o Fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 ft of all portions of the
building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building.
The above requirement has been met.
o Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet
and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches.
The above requirement has not been met.
o Fire apparatus roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
70,000 lbs and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Unknown if the above requirement has been met.
o The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be 30 feet inside
and 50 feet outside.
The above requirement has been met.
o The grade of the fire apparatus access roads shall be within the limits established by
the fire code official (10%).
The above requirement has been met.
• Fire Lanes — 2007 OFC 503.3 & Appendix D
o Approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided for fire apparatus access
roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. Such signs or notices
shall be kept in legible conditions at all times. The stroke shall be 1 inch with letters 6
inches high and read "No Parking Fire Lane". Spacing for signage shall be every 50
feet.
• Recommended to also (in addition to Fire lane signs) paint fire lane curbs in
bright red paint with white letters.
o Appendix D Section D103.6.1 Roads 20-26 Ft. Wide: Shall have Fire Lane signs
posted on both sides of a fire lane.
o Appendix D Section 103.6.2 Roads more than 26 Ft. Wide: Roads 26-32 ft wide
shall have a Fire Lane signs posted on one side of the road as a fire lane.
• Dead -Ends — 2007 OFC Section 503.2.5
o Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided
with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Contact Redmond Fire &
Rescue for requirements.
The above requirement has not been met.
• Emergency Access Road Gates — 2007 OFC Appendix D 103.5
o Minimum 20 feet wide.
o Gates shall be swinging or sliding type.
o Shall be able to be manually operated by one person.
o Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening by emergency personnel &
approved by fire official.
o Locking devices shall be fire department padlocks purchased from A-1 Lock, Safe
Co. or Vance Lock & Alarm or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for order form.
o Section 503.3: Install a sign on the gate "Emergency Access"
11/17/2008 2
• Key Boxes — 2007 OFC Section 506.1
o An approved key box shall be installed on all structures equipped with a fire alarm
system and /or sprinkler system. Approved key boxes can only be purchased at A-1
Lock Safe Co. or Vance Lock & Alarm.
11/17/2008 3
BRYANT
EMERSON
8c FITCH, LLP
Attorneys at Law
November 17, 2008
Deschutes County Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Ave
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Bruce and Peggy Vanderzanden
CU -08-11
Greetings:
Ronald L. Bryant *
Craig P. Emerson
Edward P. Fitch
Steven D. Bryant
Michael R. McLane
Lisa D.T. Klemp
Alison M. Emerson
Tony F. De Alicante *
Gary T. Bruce
* Also admitted in Washington
NOV 1 7 2008
Enclosed please find the letter form Mark Corbet regarding the negotiation of an access
easement for the Vanderzandens. Although we believe that the Vanderzandens would have legal
access if the issue was litigated, and that the Corbet's deed addressing road access for
neighboring properties also covers the Vanderzandens' use, the parties are working toward
formalizing the access easement and recording the appropriate documents to resolve this matter.
The applicants have submitted herewith a Landscape Management Plan A and B. Plan A
suggests that no changes be made because the shop was designed to appear as an agricultural
building and to blend with the existing structures. It addresses the fact that very little activity
will occur outside of the building, and that there is very little view from the north, and the shop is
adequately screened from the north. Plan B provides the County with a proposal to plant two
juniper or evergreen trees on the north property line. This addresses the sixty foot gap between
the existing trees. Finally, this plan also includes the concern raised by their neighbor to the
southeast of the twenty acre parcel, and the consideration of blocking his views of the Cascades.
The applicants propose that the County may require a condition of approval to comply
with Plan A or B, and to address the screening of the southeast neighbor if deemed necessary.
Finally, the applicants want to summarize a few comments made at the hearing. The
applicants are currently working with the Redmond Fire Department to address any access and
safety issues as required in the original Decision. To date they are addressing the curve radius of
the drive, the access width, and trimming trees to the height required by the City of Redmond
Fire Department. In addition, the applicants are currently working with the Fire Depai lucent
regarding the NFPA sprinkling and gallons per minute requirements for fire protection of this
property.
The closest residence from the accessory structure at issue is over 400 feet away. This
neighbor is to the south, and does not object to the home occupation use proposed. In fact, he
has submitted a letter attached to the appeal statement that he also opposes the planting of
additional trees on the southern boundary of the property.
G:\Clients\LDK\VanderZanden, Bruce & Peggy\Vanderzanden, Bruce & Peggy LU\Deschutes County Community Development.ltr 11.17.08.wpd
888 S.W. Evergreen Ave. P.O. Box 457 Redmond, OR 97756-0103
(541) 548-2151 Fax (541) 548-1895 E-mail bef@redmond-lawyers.com
BRYANT
EMERSON
& FITCH, LLP
Attorneys at Law
Deschutes County Community Development Department
November 17, 2008
Page 2 of 3
The applicants have proposed the hours of operation as Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., and this activity would take place inside of the ICF (insulated concrete form)
structure, which has an estimated 50 decibel level reduction of noise to the outside (opposite side
of the wall).
The applicants have requested up to five employees, as permitted by the Code, and
submit that the criteria for up to five employees has been satisfied. This would create up to ten
vehicle trips per day to the property if all five employees were to leave for lunch. In addition,
one delivery by UPS for accessories can be expected daily. There is no expectation for
customers to visit the property on a regular basis, and only once a week would deliveries of wood
be made which would require an additional vehicle trip to the property on that day, and some
minimal outside activity to unload the wood. The total vehicle trips would be well below the
twenty vehicle trips allowed by the Code.
The structure in which the home occupation would take place is approved by the County,
and has gone through the site design process, and is screened by other structures and vegetation
on the property. The closest neighbor opposing the home occupation is 750 to 900 feet away.
The Oregon Administrative Rules for the Department of Environmental Quality addresses how to
measure noise emissions, and indicates that the measurement should be taken twenty-five feet
from the source of the noise, or the nearest lot line, whichever is further. OAR 340-035-0035.
This is what has been proven to be an acceptable measurement for noise emissions, and
applicants propose as the standard to be used for measuring noise emissions from the home
occupation so that there is some consistency in the measurements taken.
As indicated in the record, the DEQ regulations classify the emissions for the proposed
use of HAPS chemicals as an exclusion or an exception to the air contaminant discharge permit
requirements. Therefore, there are no air contaminant permits required for the HAPS chemicals.
In addition, there is a filtration system in the shop for chemical and dust collection.
The noise study requirement in the condition of approval number 12 has the ability to be
abused by the neighbors through the complaint process at the sole expense of the applicants. The
applicants appeal that condition requesting that parameters be set on the complaint process
because the costs to the applicants could be extremely onerous. There are only two companies
that are known to provide this service, and both are located in the Portland area. The Company
of Daily and Stanley estimate that $1000 to $2500 can be expected to be charged each time they
are requested to take measurements at the property. The applicants submitted into the record
information on personal sound level meters and suggest that maybe even the Sheriffs Department
or Code Enforcement might have meters that the County could use to take measurements. This
may be a more reasonable approach to addressing any complaints, rather than having the
applicants hire an engineer from Portland each time.
In sum, the applicants appreciate the concern by the neighbors regarding sound, and went
G:\Clients\LDK\VanderZanden, Bruce & Peggy\Vanderzanden, Bruce & Peggy LU\Deschutes County Community Development.ltr 11.17.08.wpd
BRYANT
EMERSON
& FITCH, LLP
Attorneys at Law
Deschutes County Community Development Department
November 17, 2008
Page 3 of 3
to the extent to build an ICF structure to address sound reduction, taking the steps available to
address these concerns up front. They have also tried to design a building that would be
consistent with the agricultural area and designed a building that the County considered to meet
that requirement. They are agreeable to planting additional trees to help screen, as long as they
do not impose safety concerns.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and the applicants respectfully request that
you approve the application with the modifications requested in the appeal.
/pbj
Enclosures
cc: clients
Sincerely,
T, EMERSON & FITCH, LLP
LIS
D.T. KLEM
G:\Clients\LDK\VanderZanden, Bruce & Peggy\Vanderzanden, Bruce & Peggy LU\Deschutes County Comtnunity Development.ltr 11.17.08.wpd
Mark and Peggy Corbet
7376 SW McVey Avenue
Redmond, OR 97756
541-548-6601
mcorbetnweb4mix.com
November 16, 2008
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Dennis Luke, Chair
Tammy Baney, Vice -Chair
Michael Daley, Commissioner
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Bruce and Peggy VanderZanden Type 3 .conditional use permit
File #CU -08-11
Today I met with Bruce and Peggy VanderZanden regarding the access and maintenance
issues of their driveway entrance from McVey Avenue which crosses a portion of our
property. While a final document of understanding remains to be drafted, signed and
recorded, our meeting resulted in several positive options toward resolution of this
matter.
The VanderZandens and I discussed the possibility of a limited easement, their
responsibilities regarding maintenance resulting from the business use of the entry, and
ways to improve the fire and rescue equipment approach. We hope to move forward with
a formal agreement in the near future.
Yours very sincerely,
1
Mark R. Corbet
Dc: Bruce and Peggy VanderZanden
LANDSCAPING SUGGESTIONS
FOR
VANDERZANDEN RESIDENCE
CU -08-11
HERE ARE THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTIONS FOR LANDCAPE SCREENING AT
VANDERZANDEN RESIDENCE, 7236 SW McVEY AVE, REDMOND, OR:
PLAN A: MAKE NO CHANGES — THE SHOP IS DESIGNED TO APPEAR AS AN AGRICULTURAL
BUILDING AND TO BLEND WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. VERY LITTLE
ACTIVITY WILL OCCUR OUTSIDE THE BUILDING. AS MR SCHULTZ POINTED OUT,
THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH, HAVE THE ONE UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW OF
THE SHOP. YET THEY HAVE NEVER OBJECTED TO THE SHOP NOR REQUESTED
FURTHER SCREENING. WE MAINTAIN THAT THE SHOP IS ADEQUATELY
SCREENED.
PLAN B: SEE PAGES 2 & 2A
PLANT 2 JUNIPER or EVERGREEN TREES ON THE NORTH PROPERTY
LINE. THERE IS A 60' GAP BETWEEN EXISTING TREES. 2 TREES WOULD BE PLANTEI
IN THIS GAP. THIS WOULD PROVIDE SOME SCREENING, BUT NOT TOTALLY HIDE
THE RESIDENCE AND SHOP. THE SHOP AND TURN AROUND AREA WOULD STILL BE
VISIBLE TO DETER POSSIBLE THEFT PROBLEMS.
CONCERNING TREE PLANTING ON THE VANDERZANDEN'S EASTERN PROPERTY LINE,
ANY PLANTING OF TREES IN THE GAP OF THE EXISTING JUNIPERS WOULD CAUSE THE
WESTWARD VIEWS FROM THE SWEET'S RESIDENCE TO BE BLOCKED AS THE TREES GREW &
MATURED. SEE PAGE 3.
. 0
. r
6
(See x157 --,Aka z../;46
EXHIBIT
111
B_
19.giAL ph)
EAST ,o.1.7.
51:9
1....... —,
-9,5,1)
NEW DETACHED BUILDING FOR
M. BRUCE VANDERZANDEN
7.73a 5s.4. HC.I.S!
rnq11'56
;541) 290-0,5ii,
The CAD() Station
LYLE I.H,W.4.11ED
2...51 KB MOC.N.Je.,7 7,R.
BENZ% OR- ,1-110:
3E5 -2.5:q
z
�i
0i
G
1
5
w
Zt
Pan ra.412
1
1t
Sir
r
T
t.
r�..1
e
'thad r-
1 - ` t
i }...
T
5
I a
_ .'t P
i
T
CS
A
ta
s F
'y•f4�xA.y ...�4• r.ff
+ . r•. � hr Rte'Q,AJF,•*:•;;ry�•r Md••
• • 1"u . ' .X44 '\%Sr\•t, •J.`:..,ti} t'!
:••.•,h•: e:31:4
rt kyr: rriyr�,AAr ii Zyy))��yyYY` v..,
�i iW JAA�!� 'O' Yr IJJJrJYf.Y fr.- • :.".
MYr� Wt�VYi- .Z5%. W,��1• J. }ll�
'•� v •"✓1'� f� h Va" " 'Y • AAAtttt�
W.".Y/r•�V�,�•ti%%rriY�y^.f.f'1j�{f.
(11/17/2008) Patsy Jones - SWEET'S VIEW 11.15.08 001.jpg Page 1 I
(11/17/2008) Patsy Jones - SWEET'S VIEW 11.15.08 002.jpg Page 1
(11/17/2008) Patsy Jones - SWEETS VIEW 11.15.N 003.jpg
Page 1'1
(11/17/2008) Patsy Jones - SWEET'S VIEW 11.15.08 004.jpg
Page 1
(11/17/2008) Patsy Jones SWEET'S VIEW 11.15.08 005.jpg
Page 1
(11/17/2008) Patsy Jones - SWEET'S VIEW 11.15.08 006.jpg
Page 1
(11/17/2008) Patsy Jones SWEET'S VIEW 11.15.08 007.jpg Page 1 1
(11/17/2008) Patsy Jones= SWEET'S VIEW 11.15.08 008.jpg
Page ,1
(11/17/2008) Patsy Jones - SWEET'S VIEW 11.15.08 009.jpg
Page 1
(11/17/2008) Patsy Jones - SWEET'S VIEW 11.15.08 010.jpg
Page 1 :�
(11/17/2008) Patsy Jones - SWEET'S VIEW 11.15.08 011.jpg Page 1