Agenda & Minutes

When available, the full agenda packet may be viewed as a PDF file by clicking the "Attachments" button and selecting the file you want to view.

Agendas are posted until the meeting date takes place.  Minutes are posted once they have been approved.

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, June 11, 2015

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:40 PM in the Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
David McFadden, Chair
Tim D’Alessandro
Norman Fincher
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
Jared Pulver
 
Commissioners Absent
Patrick Miranda, Vice Chair, Excused Absence
Alec Schwimmer, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Jim Huber, Planning Director
Bianca Petrou, Assistant Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
John Adam, Senior Planner
Donna Holtz, Office Administrator
John Huttl, Deputy City Attorney
Doug Burroughs, Dev. Services Manager
Craig Howe, Engineering Technician III
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Joe Slaughter, Planner IV
Carla Paladino, Planner III
Aaron Harris, Planner II
Praline McCormack, Planner II
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV
Jennifer Jones, Planner II
Desmond McGeough, Planner II
               
10.          Roll Call
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the Planning Commission was able to pull an item from the consent calendar to discuss or ask questions regarding that item?  Mr. Huttl stated that the Planning Commission can deliberate but as far as facts, the record is closed.
 
Commissioner McKechnie pulled items 20.1 and 20.2 for discussion.
 
20.     Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1  PUD-15-043 / LDS-15-044 Final Orders of a request for a revision to the Cedar Landing Planned Unit Development (PUD) and for approval of the tentative plat for High Cedars Subdivision Phases 1 through 5. The PUD revision request applies only to the portion south of Cedar Links Drive and consists of: 1) reconfiguring the entire area into the High Cedars subarea, phases 1 through 5; 2) changing all commercial, multi-family, and condominium uses to single family detached residential; 3) removing the below grade pedestrian crossing at Cedar Links Drive; 4) creating a single access point to Foothill Road at Normil Terrace and eliminating the second access point at Tree Top Drive; and 5) relocating pedestrian paths. The project is located on approximately 114 acres on the north and south sides of Cedar Links Drive, west of Foothill Road within an SFR-4/PD (Single-Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre / Planned Development) zoning district.  Cedar Investment Group LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Agent.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the diagram on page 33 of the agenda packet regarding the retaining wall does not look like the diagram the Planning Commission agreed to at their last meeting.  He thought the Commission made adjustments specifically about the 5 foot high wooden fence.  Kelly Akin, Principal Planner reported that was included in the Commission Report.  The decision specifies metal railing.  Commissioner McKechnie stated that it would be helpful to have the correct diagram so that everyone knew what the Commission approved.  Ms. Akin stated that staff would make a note on the diagram.
 
Motion: Adopt item 20.1 of the consent calendar.
 
Moved by: Chair McFadden                                        Seconded by: There was no second.
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6–0.
 
20.2  CP-14-114 The City of Medford is proposing to amend the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the purpose of providing a twenty-year land supply based on the City’s projected need for residential and employment land. The proposed changes include: amending (expanding) the Urban Growth Boundary, assigning General Land Use Plan (GLUP) map designations to the areas added to the UGB; amending the Medford Street Functional Classification Plan of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the expansion areas; and amending some portions of the Urbanization and GLUP Elements of the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the UGB amendment.  City of Medford, Applicant.
 
Commissioner McKechnie thought that staff was going to work on something and he expected it to come back to the Planning Commission for more deliberation.  He was surprised to see it on the consent calendar. He has no problem that they represented what the Planning Commission discussed.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that on page 37 of the agenda packet he would like to see the yellow and pink (low-density residential and office commercial) areas eliminated from MD-4, leaving only the commercial in the southwest corner. Chair McFadden reported that his concern is eliminating land if they do not have to. Chair McFadden understood that the Planning Commission’s recommendation was to move forward on this project.
     
Motion: Adopt 20.2 of the consent calendar.
 
Moved by: Chair McFadden                                        Seconded by: There was no second.
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for May 28, 2015, were approved with the correction on page 11 of 15 under agenda item 50.2 PUD-15-043 / LDS-15-044, the Cedar Landing Planned Unit Development.  The minutes called for adopting a motion that ends by saying “…and the vertical separation wall recommendation of it being rail to the standard of a minimum of 42 inches.”  It should read “…along Foothill Road the vertical separation wall will be a metal rail with the height a minimum of 42 inches.”
 
40.     Oral and Written Requests and Communications None.
 
John Huttl, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.     Public Hearings—New Business
50.1  TF-15-056 Consideration of plans to build street improvements to extend Lozier Lane from Kime Drive to Cunningham Avenue, including additional improvements along the west side of Orchard Home Drive to just south of Westwood Drive. Lozier Lane and Orchard Home Drive are classified as Major Collector streets and will be built to the standard cross-section, which includes two 11-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot center turn lane, five-foot sidewalk, ten-foot planter strip, and five-foot bike lanes on each side. Cunningham Avenue is classified as a Minor Arterial and will include a stop-controlled intersection with Lozier Lane to the north and Orchard Home Drive to the south. The improvements on Cunningham Avenue include a dedicated right- and left-turn lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter strip. City of Medford Public Works Department is the applicant.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts.
   
Danya Haptonstall, 1615 Thomas Road, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Haptonstall asked if the thoroughfare (Cunningham Avenue) is going all the way down to Thomas Road and is it included in the consideration of the plans of TF-15-056?  Chair McFadden replied that to his understanding the answer is no.  It could be a future possibility.  It is probably something that is being planned but it would be at some future undetermined date.
 
Carla Paladino, Planner III, read the transportation facility criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked if consideration was given to landscape the planter strips on Lozier Lane and Stewart Avenue. Ms. Paladino replied no there are no plans.
   
Chair McFadden hoped that the City would include that as a requirement for future development around the project site.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that in the recommendations one was to use an LED street lights and the other one was painting the bike lane green.  Are those viewed as requirements for this project or just recommendations?  Ms. Paladino stated that they are recommendations to be evaluated as part of the design process.
 
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
 
a.  Chris Miller, 1802 Orchard Home Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Miller stated it is her observation that the planter strips work well in cul-de-sacs and those kinds of situations.  She often finds along collector and arterial streets, unless they are maintained by the City, they are left un-kept and are an eyesore.
                
The public hearing was closed.
 
Commissioner D’Alessandro stated that at some time in the future he would like to have a discussion regarding the concerns of the landscape or non-landscape planter strips being unsightly.
 
Doug Burroughs, Development Services Manager, reported that planter strips are not just beautification items.  They are also a separation from traffic on the road and pedestrian traffic.  It is a way to keep them away from each other for protection of the pedestrian.  That is also why they are important on higher-order streets where speeds are generally greater.
 
Chair McFadden asked how are speeds determined?  Mr. Burroughs stated that he is not sure how speeds are determined.  Some of the speed control issues could be an enforcement issue.  There is also a traffic coordinating committee that considers requests for speed changes, stop signs, or other special requests.
 
Chair McFadden asked if the public could request changing the effective classification of a road.  Mr. Burroughs stated that he is not sure that can be done through the traffic coordinating committee.   Public Works is currently working on the Transportation System Plan, where streets are classified.  He asked the Commission to consider that the classifications are not just for now—they are for the future and planning for future connectivity and traffic volume.  What may not seem like a good fit now may twenty years from now be very well appropriate.
    
Motion: The Planning Commission finds the approval criteria have been met and forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council for TF-15-056, per the Staff Report dated June 4, 2015, including Exhibits A through V.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6–0.
 
50.2  DCA-15-052 Five amendments to Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code: to allow brewpubs in commercial districts; to allow small-scale metal fabrication in the Heavy Commercial district; to permit administrative changes to agency referral list; to accept securities from any bank in the state; and to remove the sunset clause from outdoor portable storage containers.  City of Medford is the applicant.
Mr. Harris reviewed the five amendments. He read the approval criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Mr. Huttl stated that additional wording for the security for public improvements should include “where a letter of credit is on a bank outside of the city limits such bank shall allow facsimile, e-mail or other electronic submission of letter of credit.”
   
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
                         
a.  Raul Woerner, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Woerner talked about the brewery–public house stating that he recommends allowing the brew pubs in the neighborhood commercial as a conditional use rather than not allowing it at all. These facilities should also be able to produce wine and cider.
   
Commissioner McKechnie asked if wineries were on the list of acceptable SIC codes or is it not associated with this?  Mr. Harris replied that the license that would be required to obtain for a brewery also allows for wine and cider.  Staff can change the proposal to include the additional uses.
 
Chair McFadden asked if staff had reviewed allowing them in residential zones.  Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that the Exclusive Agricultural Overlay has some provisions for wine tasting and other items associated with wineries.
 
Ms. Akin addressed Mr. Woerner’s recommendation of using conditional use permits in the Neighborhood Commercial zone.  The manufacturing part of a brew house seems inappropriate in a neighborhood and mitigation may not help.  Bars are already allowed.  Also, the C-N zone has a maximum building size of 2,500 square feet which may not be big enough for the use.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked Commissioner McKechnie that in his suggestion did it include the sale of ciders and wine or the manufacture of both as part of the use that is being added?  Commissioner McKechnie reported to produce the wine.  Part of that would be a limitation on where it is located and how much wine they are producing.
 
Mr. Harris stated that there are limitations on the number of gallons being produced.  There is also a manufacturing limitation selling to another licensee.
      
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission initiates the amendment, adopts the findings as recommended by staff, and directs staff to prepare a Commission Report based on the Staff Report dated June 1, 2015, including Exhibits A through C.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6–0.
 
50.3  ZC-15-058 Consideration of a request for a change of zone from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per existing lot) to MFR-20 (Multiple-Family Residential, 20 dwelling units per gross acre) of 0.22 acres located on the east side of Lozier Lane, south of West Main Street. David & Cathie Johnson, Applicant.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Praline McCormack, Planner II, read the zone change criteria and gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
 
a.  David Johnson, 1785 2nd Avenue, Gold Hill, Oregon, 97525.  Mr. Johnson stated that with all the development around his property the only thing he can do is try to get it so that he can build on it and reasonably come out ahead.
              
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of ZC-15-058, per the Staff Report dated June 2, 2015, including Exhibits A through G.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.4  ZC-15-041  Consideration of a request for a change of zone from MFR-20 (Multi-Family Residential – 20 dwelling units per gross acre) to C-C (Community Commercial) on one parcel at 955 North Phoenix Road (371W34 TL501), consisting of approximately 2.14 acres located at the southeast corner of East Barnett Road and North Phoenix Road. Rogue Federal Credit Union, Applicant; CSA Planning, Ltd., Agent.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Pulver and Commissioner McKechnie declared potential conflict of interest and recused themselves.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV, stated that the zone change criteria and been read previously but read zone change criteria in a commercial zone.  Ms. Sousa gave a staff report.
 
Chair McFadden reported that this parcel is part of the Southeast Plan Commercial Area.  Is it important that community commercial is across the street?  Ms. Sousa stated that it is not important.  The plan would supersede it.  If there was not three acres in size this is part of a plan that would require the community commercial zoning for this parcel.
 
Chair McFadden asked if it was a requirement of the Southeast Plan Commercial Center development that they all change zoning at the same time?  Do the zoning districts match?  Ms. Sousa reported that the zoning districts match.
 
Ms. Akin replied just like any other area of the City, staff will look at the underlying plans to make sure that the proposed zoning is consistent with those plans.  There is nothing in the Southeast Plan that requires the entire commercial core to be zoned at the same time.  What the Southeast Plan requires was that a master plan be adopted prior to any zone changes.  That master plan was adopted last year by the City Council.
        
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
 
a.  Raul Woerner, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Woerner stated that he was present tonight on behalf of his client Rogue Credit Union (formerly Rogue Federal Credit Union).  They own the property on the southeast corner of North Phoenix Road and East Barnett.  This parcel is in the Southeast Plan.  There is a provision in the zone change ordinance where a general land use plan allows for only one zoning district then that is enough to meet the locational criteria.  This parcel can only be zoned community commercial by virtue of the Southeast Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Land Development Code.  The Rogue Credit Union is working with the other property owners to do a full traffic analysis to comprehensively look at a traffic solution for the entire core area.  They made sure the other property owners had no concerns with Rogue Credit Union moving forward with a stipulated zone change that is based on the existing externality that the existing MFR zoning already produces by virtue of the number of apartments that could be built under the existing zoning.  It would be appropriate for them to rezone under a stipulation recognizing that a small property like this cannot fix the transportation issues to do a fully unrestricted zone change.
            
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked what was the estimated traffic impact on trips?  Mr. Woerner reported that the City of Medford has adopted a 1500 average daily trip per acre for commercial zones of this type.  Based on that math on page 258 of the agenda packet there is the traffic engineers report.  Unrestricted zone change in this area would generate 3,210 ADT or produce a net increase of 2,858 to the transportation system.
                
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the Applicant’s Findings and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of ZC-15-041, per the Staff Report dated June 4, 2015, including Exhibits A through Q.
 
Moved by: Commissioner D’Alessandro          Seconded by: Commissioner Fincher
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 4-0, with Commissioner Pulver and Commissioner McKechnie recusing themselves.
 
50.5  CUP-15-050 Request for a revision to a Conditional Use Permit for Jackson Elementary School located at 713 Summit Avenue (372W24CD TL6400), to allow for the construction of a 1,792 square foot modular classroom for full day kindergarten classes. The 6.16 acre school site is located on the northwest corner of Summit Avenue and West Jackson Street within a SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. Medford School District 549C, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked if there was a methodology whereby these similar proceedings could be joined together in the interest of saving time?
 
Mr. Huttl reported yes. The Commission could get a consolidated staff report on all the conditional use permit applications.  Make sure there is a separate motion and that the application be identified for testimony at the public hearing.  Open and close the public hearing and have a separate vote on each application.
 
Ms. Sousa stated that staff had separate presentations prepared for each application.
    
Commissioner McKechnie reported that the applicant’s agent in this case is his neighbor.  It will not affect his decision.
  
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV, stated that she will be pointing out common points for all four schools.  There will be four separate presentations and hearings that will cover the sites more specifically.   Ms. Sousa read the conditional use permit criteria that will apply to all four applications and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the building was going to be put on a ball field?  Ms. Sousa reported that it is not. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked if the conditional use permit could be taken away at any point?  Ms. Sousa stated that she is not aware of a conditional use being taken away unless there is a violation.  The use runs with the land.
     
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner stated that he is the agent for the applicant, Medford School District 549C.  He agrees with the staff report.
 
Mr. Sinner addressed Commissioner McKechnie’s question stating that at one time this was a ball field but it is not used for that anymore.  It has been used for other recreation activities.  The small footprint leaves plenty of recreation opportunities. 

Mr. Sinner addressed Commissioner Pulver’s question stating that it is a permanent structure.  All of the units being discussed this evening are permanent structures.  They are new construction built off-site.  They will be pit set.
 
Commissioner Fincher asked with all the upgrades that have been done to the school and how much time, energy and tax dollars spent on the quality of the structure why would they be coming back and putting in a modular unit?  Why would they not try to match it with the rest of the upgrades?  Mr. Sinner reported that they are attempting to comply within a short time frame.  They do not have the time frame to build two classrooms.  Funding is also a big concern.  This is the solution the school board brought forward.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated this application has an odd amount of fencing.  The fencing for the new modular looks like it is going to cut off the emergency exit from the health center into a yard that one cannot get out of. 
 
Steve Ennis, Project Architect, 1108 East Jackson Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Ennis reported that the health center has a rear exit.  The applicant is installing a new fence along the property line that will have a gate if there is an issue for the health center to egress.
 
Commissioner McKechnie called the buildings grim.  These are fairly large rooms with tiny windows with a lot of children in them.  From the public view there is a wall with nothing on it but lap siding.  It is his opinion that the school board could afford adding a few more windows to this building.  It should also have a second door per classroom.
 
Mr. Ennis reported that the size of these rooms is such that only one egress door is required.  There is a door between the two classrooms inside.  It is also a security issue for the District to only have the children come out into the front fenced area.

Commissioner McKechnie asked what about adding more windows or making the two that they have larger?  There is not weather protection over the doors.  Mr. Ennis reported that the District is planning on building a 13 foot wide by 10 foot deep roofed area and a canopy over the front entrance.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the applicant could install bigger windows or windows in the back or end?  Mr. Ennis deferred the question to the applicant.
    
Ron Havniear, Facility Manager, reported that the primary reason they did not go with more windows is that they had more interest in saving the wall space for the teaching environment inside.  They have had several incidents of break-ins and criminal activity at that site.
 
Mr. Huttl stated that the Planning Commission is allowed to impose conditions on conditional uses.  The Commission is technically not examining the identical criteria of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  They are examining the criteria in Section 10.248.
 
Chair McFadden asked if Mr. Huttl was recommending that the Planning Commission refer this application to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission?  Mr. Huttl stated no he was not recommending that.  The Planning Commission’s ability to impose conditions is if they find it is in the public interest and that it would cause adverse impacts.
  
Commissioner Fincher asked how would the children get out in case of an emergency taking place in front of the doors?  Mr. Sinner stated that in a lock down it would be advantageous to have the entrances close together.  There is fire access right to the building and 400 feet from a fire hydrant.
            
The public hearing was closed.
 
1st Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the Final Order for approval of CUP-15-050, per the Staff Report dated June 4, 2015, including Exhibits A through N.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
2nd Motion: That the existing four windows on the building be revised to 6 foot wide by 4 foot in height and that one additional 6’ x 4’ window be added on each of the ends of this building.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie                    Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Commissioner Mansfield urged the opposition to this amendment.  He believes that the scope of the inquiry as to whether or not this project will create unreasonable injury to the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties.  He does not believe the Commission is reviewing this as an architectural review board. It is inappropriate for the Commission to direct the School District the architectural features of their project.  
 
Mr. Huttl reiterated that the Planning Commission has the option of recommending any conditional use permit to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission but not to add Site Plan and Architectural Commission terms.  The Planning Commission has two criteria that they can approve this under Section 10.238: “1) The development proposal will cause no significant adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate  development of abutting property, or the surrounding area when compared to the impacts of permitted development that is not classified as conditional; 2) The development proposal is in the public interest, and although the development proposal may cause some adverse impacts, conditions have been imposed by the approving authority (Planning Commission) to produce a balance between the conflicting interests.”  Whenever the smaller windows are impacting the livability of the surrounding area is within the discretion of the Planning Commission.  If that is what the decision is based on then the Planning Commission can impose conditions to address that such as changing the window size.
   
Commissioner Mansfield supplemented his argument that it is his opinion that it is not in their scope to be sitting as an architectural review commission as he previously argued.  Even if they do it is not good policy for the Planning Commission to do so.  He urges the rejection of the amendment respectfully.
 
Mr. Huttl reported that the Planning Commission’s two choices are: 1) Find that he project as presented would have those adverse impacts on the value and livability of the surrounding properties.  Commission McKechnie has identified his identification of that.  Then the Commission can impose conditions, which the window adjustment is; or 2) The Planning Commission does not have the authority to do the Site Plan Architectural Commission review but they do have the authority to refer them to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  Commissioner Mansfield is arguing the opposite of the interpretation that Commissioner McKechnie is forwarding. It is the choice of the Commission as a whole when they vote on the proposed amendment to the motion to make that determination as a collective.
    
Commissioner Fincher’s concern is that the Commission should send this to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  That is what they are there for.  Whenever the community has spent a great amount of resources on a project and then come back and put this unit in there without Site Plan and Architectural Commission review is a disservice, not only to the community but the taxpayers and what the Planning Commission does.  He encourages the other Commissioners to send this to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
 
Roll Call Vote: 2nd motion failed, 2-4, with Commissioner Fincher, Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner Pulver and Commissioner D’Alessandro voting no.
 
The Planning Commission took a 10 minute recess at 8:00 p.m.  They reconvened at 8:10 p.m.
 
Chair McFadden opened the public hearing again to hear more information from the applicant’s agent.
The applicant did not speak but there was further discussion amongst the Commissioners regarding what criteria the recommended action was based on.
 
3rd Motion:  To end further discussion.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                             Seconded by: Chair McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-1, with Commissioner Fincher voting no.
 
Roll Call Vote: 1st motion failed: 3-3, with Commissioner McKechnie, Commissioner Fincher and Chair McFadden voting no. 
 
4th Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the Final Order for approval of CUP-15-050, per the Staff Report dated June 4, 2015, including Exhibits A through N, under Section 10.238 (1) and nothing requires modifications or mitigation.
  
Moved by: Chair McFadden                                        Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
It is Commissioner Fincher’s opinion that there are adverse effects not only on this project as it has been structured in the past but also on the neighborhood itself whether it is the adjoining park or the neighborhoods.  It is something that needs additional review.  He cannot see himself approving this under Section 10.238 (1).
 
There was further discussion of approving the application under Section 10.238 (1).  There was also discussion referring this application to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission for review.
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion failed, 2-4, with Commissioner Pulver, Commissioner D’Alessandro, Commissioner McKechnie and Commissioner Fincher voting no.
 
5th Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the Final Order for approval of CUP-15-050, per the Staff Report dated June 4, 2015, including Exhibits A through N.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-1, with Commissioner Fincher voting no.
 
6th Motion: Refer the architectural features of this building to the Planning Director for determination.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Chair McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion failed, 3-3, with Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner Pulver, and Chair McFadden voting no.
 
7th Motion: Refer this matter to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission with the same desires of the last recommendation that just failed.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Fincher            Seconded by: There was no second
 
Jim Huber, Planning Director informed the Planning Commission that they were finished with this hearing because the motion to refer it to the Planning Director failed and the motion to send it to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission did not get a second.
 
Mr. Huttl reported that the original motion prevailed.
 
Commissioner Mansfield suggested continuing agenda items 50.6, 50.7 and 50.8 to the next Planning Commission meeting.
 
Chair McFadden asked Mr. Sinner if his applicant would be willing to offer a continuance of the other three applications to the next Planning Commission.
 
Mr. Sinner stated that a continuance is a significant hardship on meeting the schedules.  The other three public hearings are going to go faster. The applicant is going to 5’ x 4’ windows on the application that the Planning Commission just approved and will stipulate on the other applications.  They would like to continue on with the public hearings this evening.
 
Commissioner Mansfield withdrew his suggestion of continuing agenda items 50.6, 50.7 and 50.8.  Mr. Sinner has convinced him that the Planning Commission needs to hear the other three public hearings.
 
50.6  CUP-15-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to revise an existing permit currently in effect for Hoover Elementary School, to allow for the construction of a 64’ X 28’ (1,792 sq. ft.) modular classroom for full day kindergarten classes. The 7.2 acre school site is located on the north side of Siskiyou Boulevard approximately 235 feet east of Modoc Avenue within a SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district.  Medford School District 549C, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Jennifer Jones, Planner II, gave a staff report.  Ms. Jones reported that three letters were received and would be submitted into the record as Exhibits K, L and M.
 
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner stated that the applicant stipulated increasing the size of the windows on the front for the last application.  They will do the same for this application.  Mr. Sinner spoke to Ms. Hill who submitted a letter regarding her property right behind the modular building.  They had a good conversation.  Her primary concerns were noise associated with the HVAC unit and the proximity to her property.  There is approximately 26 feet between the HVAC and her property line. The HVAC units are part of the energy management system for the entire District.  They will be controlled to school hours.  Mr. Sinner clarified that these modular units are not for a fixed duration at this time.  They are a mid-range structure.  The District has plans in ten to fifteen years of creating another middle school.  In creating another middle school these modular will not be necessary.  They could be moved out at that point.  There were also letters regarding the effect of the peak hours of pick-up and drop-off times.  They are not adding students.  They are concentrating students at the pick-up and drop-off.  All the students at Hoover School are released at the same time.  One of the letters in particular was the adjacent property owner immediately to the east of the building.  Both sides of her driveway are painted yellow which is a no parking area.  The principal is fully intent on reminding the parents that all traffic enforcement should be respected and it will be enforced.
      
Chair McFadden asked if there was a reason that the applicant did not push the unit towards the playground?  Mr. Sinner reported that there are sidewalks there right now and a ramp all the way to the end.
 
Ron Havniear, Facility Manager, stated that they located the modular at that location because that is where the principal requested that it be for functionality.
 
b. Pat Villaescusa, 2411 Siskiyou Boulevard, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Villaescusa is the property owner whose home abuts Hoover School.  The parking has been a nightmare.  Fifteen months ago she sent a letter to the City Attorney and a police officer contacted her stating they would have patrols swing back and forth but the cars continued to park in the no parking areas.  She requested red cones be put on the north side of Siskiyou Boulevard between the two no parking signs.
      
c. Theresa Gallager Hill,  2414 Dellwood Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504-8104.  Ms. Hill stated that she lives directly behind where the modular is going to be installed.  She fully supports the remodel.  There is a big difference listening to children singing and laughing on the playground than hearing an HVAC system.  She is also concerned about the sound barrier or the mitigating efforts and the adverse impacts of any HVAC system.
 
Mr. Sinner reported that since receiving the letter regarding the HVAC they have had contact on the design team, manufacturer and distributor regarding the equipment and the modular.  They are looking at all options they can possibly do.  One promising thing is a compressor blanket that will reduce decibels.
               
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of CUP-15-051, per the Staff Report dated June 4, 2015, including Exhibits A through M, including larger windows.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-1, with Commissioner Fincher voting no.
 
50.7  CUP-15-049  Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to revise the existing permit for Lone Pine Elementary School currently in effect to allow for the construction of two 64’ X 28’ (3,584 total sq. ft.) modular classrooms for full day kindergarten classes. The 9.26 acre school site is located at the southeast corner of Lone Pine Road and Brookdale Avenue within the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) and SFR-00 (Single Family Residential – 1 dwelling unit per existing parcel) zoning districts. Medford School District 549C, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Desmond McGeough, Planner II, gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked what is the distance from the back of the building to the east property line?  Mr. McGeough stated that it is approximately 30 feet from the property line.
 
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner stated that the applicant agrees with the staff report.  They have the same stipulation on these buildings that they would use two 5’x 4’ windows on each classroom.  Hoover, Wilson and Lone Pine are sprinkled for automatic fire protection.
  
Commissioner Fincher asked if there would be two additional staff members for the all-day kindergarten classes?  Mr. Sinner replied yes.
 
Commissioner D’Alessandro if the trees showing on the east were existing or proposed?  Mr. Sinner stated they were existing.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of CUP-15-049, per the Staff Report dated June 4, 2015, including Exhibits A through L, including the larger windows.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.8  CUP-15-048 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to revise the existing permit for Wilson Elementary School currently in effect to allow for the construction of a 64’ X 42’ (2,688 sq. ft.) modular classroom for full day kindergarten classes and a 907 square foot cafeteria expansion. The 11.84 acre school site is located at the southwest corner of Johnson Street and Corona Avenue within a SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. Medford School District 549C, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Desmond McGeough, Planner II, gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner stated that in addition to the architect for the modular project, David Richardson, is present if there are any questions on the cafeteria expansion.  The cafeteria expansion is bringing the existing building out 907 square feet.  The classrooms are different from the previous classrooms.  The other modular were two classrooms and this one is three classrooms.  There are two 4’ x 4’ windows per classroom.  The applicant stipulated to 5’ x 4’ windows on the previous applications but it may be a problem on this modular.  The applicant will do whatever the Planning Commission directs in their motion.
       
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the cafeteria was conventional construction?
 
David Richardson, 518 Washington Street, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  Mr. Richardson stated that the cafeteria was conventional framing.  It is actually concrete block.  They are adding a door along with a ramp for code requirements.
  
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of CUP-15-048, per the Staff Report dated June 4, 2015, including Exhibits A through M with no stipulations for the increased window size.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                                              Seconded by: Chair McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-1, with Commissioner Fincher voting no.
 
60.          Reports
60.1  Site Plan and Architectural Commission
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, June 5, 2015.  They approved two projects.  They approved a new Starbucks on Barnett Road and Medical Center Drive.  They also approved a new 35,000 square feet neuroscience building on the southwest corner of Barnett Road and State Street.
     
60.2 Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.  None. 
 
60.3 Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that the Planning Commission’s next study session is scheduled for Monday, June 22, 2015.  Discussion will be regarding an update on the Medford School District Master Plan.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission through July.
 
Jim Huber, Planning Director, stated that while the Planning Commission met this evening the City Council met in a study session discussing time, place and manner restrictions for medical and recreation marijuana uses.  Staff is going to develop regulations of the time manner and place that will be land use restrictions.  The City Council would like to enlist the help of the Planning Commission.  A joint study session between the Planning Commission and the City Council will be scheduled soon.
 
60.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.
 
70.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
 
80.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
 
90.          Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
 
Submitted by:
 
 
Terri L. Rozzana                                                                
Recording Secretary
 
David McFadden
Planning Commission Chair
                                                                               
Approved: June 25, 2015
 



 
 

© 2019 City Of Medford  •  Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top