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 Agenda and Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, October 13, 2016

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:34 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
Tim D’Alessandro
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Jared Pulver
 
Commissioners Absent
David Culbertson, Excused Absence       
Mark McKechnie, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Interim Planning Director
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Desmond McGeough, Planner III
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 E-16-087 Final Order for exception relief to allow a public commercial street to vary from the development code standard for a commercial street. The subject street lies between Farmington Avenue and Yamsay Drive, approximately 575 feet north of Cedar Links Drive, within the Cedar Landing Planned Area Development. (Cedar Investment Group LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Agent)
 
20.2 LDS-16-079 Final Order for Summerfield at Southeast Park Phase 9, a proposed 56 lot residential subdivision on 10.7 gross acres located directly south of Sunleaf Avenue and 1,175 feet east of N. Phoenix Road, in the SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (Mahar Homes, Inc., Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd./Jay Harland, Agent)
 
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for September 22, 2016, were approved as submitted.
 
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications. None.
 
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings – Old Business
50.1 LDP-16-055 Consideration of a request to create two lots on a 19.83 acre parcel located northeast of the intersection of Biddle Road and East Jackson Street, within a C-R (Regional Commercial) zoning district. (LBG Medford, LLC, Applicant; Neathamer Surveying, Inc., Agent). The applicant has withdrawn this application.
 
New Business
50.2 LDP-16-096 Consideration for a proposed tentative plat to create three lots on a 0.47 acre parcel located on the northwest corner of the intersection of De Barr Avenue and Seneca Avenue, within an SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential – 6 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (Elizabeth Carlton Investments, LLC, Applicant; Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc., Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda 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 III, read the land division criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked if there was a map showing the easements.  Mr. McGeough reported that the easement is identified as a five foot easement on the backside of parcel one and along the west edge of parcel three.  The easement was established approximately in 1994.  That is the reason for requesting it on the final plat.
 
Chair McFadden asked where the irrigation easement was located.  Mr. McGeough stated he does not see an irrigation easement.  He sees a five foot private sewer easement located along the west edge of parcel two.  It did appear there was a small ditch located along the north property line.  He does not see any easement being represented on the plat.
   
Commissioner Mansfield asked if these were recorded easements.  Mr. McGeough replied yes.  Commissioner Mansfield stated that if these are recorded instruments they stay in perpetuity whether they are mentioned or not.  Mr. McGeough agreed.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that parcel three does not appear that it has off-street parking.  How does that get addressed?  Mr. McGeough reported that the applicant is rehabilitating the existing structure on parcel 3 and the Planning Commission could require that improvement be done.  He does not know if there is a code standard that would require that.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Scott Sinner reported that David Minneci of Hoffbuhr and Associates had a conflict this evening and asked Mr. Sinner to stand in.  He and the owner, who is in the audience this evening, have reviewed the staff report and the Public Works report.  They agree with all the terms and conditions and believe that the application meets all of the approval criteria.

The questions this evening have been regarding the easements.  The access easement is noted on the west side of parcels one and three.  The Rogue River Valley Irrigation District easement is along the north boundary line and will be maintained.  If it cannot be maintained, it will be relocated to their standards prior to final plat.  The applicant stipulates to that.
             
Mr. Sinner reserved time for rebuttal.  
 
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 LDP-16-096 per the staff report dated October 6, 2016, including Exhibits A through L.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Friendly amendment made by Commissioner Pulver: Add a requirement in order to receive final plat approval they address off-street parking issues on parcel three.
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.3 LDS-16-100 Consideration of a proposed tentative plat for Wilkshire Terrace, Phases 1-3, a, 35-lot single family residential subdivision on a 9.72 acre parcel, generally located southwest of the Wilkshire Drive terminus, east of the Roberts Road terminus, west of the Voss Drive terminus and east of the Canyon Avenue terminus, within a SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acreage) zoning district. (William Barchet ET AL; Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda 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 III, stated that the land division criteria had been read with the previous application and gave a staff report.  Mr. McGeough made a minor correction that Voss Street in the Public Works report has been requested to be a standard residential street because of a geometric configuration issue with a 63-foot right-of-way.  The Planning staff report indicated that it was a minor residential street which is not correct.  Also, staff sent the Commissioners a Department of State Lands form which they replied back indicating that it is a wetland.  Late this afternoon staff received information from a nearby resident concerned about the possible removal of the flood control facility that is on the backside of this development.  They requested that the current proposal be modified to allow for a wider buffer of the creek.  Staff noted that it is just a flood control diversion channel.  It is not an identified creek on the map.  The wetland area does need to be contended with and mitigated if used. 
   
Vice Chair McFadden asked if this property was one that the City considered increasing the density because of transportation issues?  Mr. McGeough replied that this was one of the internal study areas that were examined in terms of up GLUPing to higher density residential.  There was a strong turnout from the adjoining neighborhood and it was determined to leave it in the Urban Residential designation.
       
Commissioner Pulver asked what the process for evaluating flag lots is.  Mr. McGeough reported that it has to meet lot width and depth standards, criteria and it is permitted by code.
     
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner reported that he is the agent for William Barchet who is in the audience this evening.  This project has existing right-of-ways coming in from all different directions.  It is encumbered with easements. Flag lots and minimum access easements are essential for infill development.  That is the key tool they have for meeting density and lot design standards.  There is not a creek on the property.  There is a storm drainage facility on the northeast corner of parcel three.
            
Commissioner Mansfield has concerns that the density is not enough.  Mr. Sinner reported that it is an existing SFR-4 zoning district.  It is very important to the applicant that this fits in nicely with the vicinity.

Commissioner Mansfield stated there was discussion earlier from staff regarding the neighborhood wanting to keep it low density.  Does Mr. Sinner know anything about that?  Mr. Sinner replied that he does not know anything about the neighborhood wanting to keep it low density.  He was not involved in the eternal review process of this project.
      
Vice Chair McFadden asked if the storm drainage will drain down Roberts Road or will it drain to the west side easement area and then down to the detention area?  Mr. Sinner reported that the storm drainage is from high to low.
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
       
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 LDS-16-100 per the staff report dated October 6, 2016, including Exhibits A through O.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                               Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Commissioner Mansfield commented that he is still concerned about density.  He is going to vote for the application because he heard from the agent that everyone wants it that way.  He believes as the Planning Commission they need to be sensitive to the needs of the public and neighbors.  On the other hand the Planning Commission has a duty to be leaders in the area of density.
 
Commissioner Pulver reported that he is going to vote no for opposite reasons of Commission Mansfield.  It is important to have less dense areas in the City.  It adds character and preserves the character of some of the older parts of the area.  He has concerns with flag lots.  It is his opinion that the two flag lots on this project will be trapped behind fences and will not create desirable living situations.  He does not feel they are appropriate.  He is not opposed to the project in general.
 
Chair Miranda asked if staff was still working towards the 6.6 density measurement or is that part of the Urban Growth Boundary amendment that is before the County at this point.  Mr. McGeough reported that it is part of the Urban Growth Boundary amendment.  Although, the intent of the MD areas that staff is seeking to be brought in is to increase density in those areas.  In this circumstance it is meeting the zoning standards for the SFR-4 zoning district.
     
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-1, with Commissioner Pulver voting no.
 
50.4 ZC-16-089 / LDS-16-090 / E-16-091 Consideration of a request for a consolidated application, consisting of a Zone Change from SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, 10 dwelling units per gross acre) to SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per gross acre) on 22.34 acres, a tentative plat for a 93 lot residential subdivision, and an associated Exception requests seeking relief to planter strip requirement fronting particular lots within the subdivision and relief to street spacing standard for an intersection within the development. The subject site is located east of the terminus of Owen Drive and north of the terminus of Cheltenham Way, within corporate limits of the City of Medford. (Hayden Homes LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning, Ltd.,/Jay Harland, Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda 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 III, stated that the land division criteria had been read with the first application.  Mr. McGeough read the zone change and exception criteria and gave a staff report.  Staff received a letter that the Commission has not received, from CSA Planning, asking for consideration to the extension of Owen Drive.  Jay Harland of CSA Planning Ltd. will address the documents just submitted.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked if there was a specific code section that speaks to the requirements to fencing on a higher order street.  Mr. McGeough stated that this component of Owen Drive is a major collector.  There are standards for arterial roads for fences.  It states that where there is reverse frontage on an arterial road that the backyard be separated by an 8-foot vertical separation.  It states fence or wall.  It does not specify a material.
 
Mr. McConnell asked if Mr. Harland’s letter was in response to the comment made about the fence.  Mr. McGeough replied no. 
 
Mr. McConnell requested copies of the letter that Mr. Harland provided.  Mr. McConnell distributed the copies to the Commission. 
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, CSA Planning, Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Harland reported that this is a standard SFR-6 development with the exception of Owen Drive extension.
 
Mr. Harland addressed the vertical separation stating that it does not apply to collector roads only arterial roads.  The curvature of the road lay out according to the engineering standards.
 
The main issue between the applicant and staff is the extension of Owen Drive and who pays for the extension.  That is a preexisting subdivision.  The infrastructure was not extended to the property line as is customarily done.  There is right-of-way but no road to connect to.  The original traffic study routed traffic out that direction as part of the analysis for the zone change of the entire 65 acres.  Public Works can only do the percent credit which is approximately a third ($2,000) per house.  Lancaster Engineering looked at having the west bound distributed trips gone out Ford Drive rather than out Owen Drive.  That is what the memo speaks to.  Public Works will need to review that so the applicant will have to come back in two weeks to hopefully deal with just that issue.  The applicant is not objectionable to that.
 
Mr. Harland would like to take this opportunity to work through any other questions or issues the Commission may have on the balance of the project. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden reiterated that the memorandum distributed this evening does not affect the Planning Commission.  Mr. Harland agreed.  It does not affect the design of the development.  It affects whether or not the construction of Owen Drive is required to approve this development.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that at some point the Planning Commission approves the application as presented no matter the financial agreement between the City and the developer it will developed built as drawn.  Mr. Harland stated yes the project will get developed as drawn.
 
Commissioner Foley stated that he is confused on what the Planning Commission will rule on as it relates to Owen Drive.  Mr. Harland reported that tonight will probably result in a continuance.  Public Works is going to have to review what the applicant submitted this evening. 
 
Mr. McConnell asked Mr. Harland if he was requesting to continue this application to the next Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 27, 2016.  Mr. Harland replied yes.
 
b. Jef Tucker, 3384 Wellington Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Tucker expressed concerns of the extension of Owen Drive into the new subdivision that is being discussed this evening.  Mr. Tucker read a letter that all of the impacted homeowners in that area have signed and will be entered into the record.  The letter reads: “As neighbors impacted by the extension of Owen Drive, we have serious concerns regarding the construction of Owen Drive east of Springbrook Road.  We believe the existing block wall west of Springbrook Road needs to be continued east of Springbrook Road when Owen Drive is continued east.  Some of our houses are very close to the right-of-way.  The block wall will not only provide a much needed sound barrier, but a safety barrier as well from a roadway that will become very busy in the future.  Some of our patios and outdoor living spaces are just feet from the right-of-way and we have serious concerns of a car leaving the roadway and coming through a wooden fence.”
    
Vice Chair McFadden stated that this Commission does not have decisional criteria on the wall.  That will be an issue between the developer and the City.  He suspects this will go to the City Council depending on how it is funded.
    
c. Robert Williams, 3340 Sharman Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.   Mr. Williams asked if the development will go two or three houses past Owen Drive.  Mr. McGeough answered his question showing him on the computer but no one was able to hear the discussion.
 
Mr. Williams asked is Sharman going to be a cul-de-sac or a through street going to Owen Drive.  Mr. Harland showed a map on ELMO and Mr. Williams stated that sites 68 and 69 will be feed into Sharman.  Mr. Harland confirmed the statement.
 
Mr. Williams stated that last November on Black Friday around 2:00 a.m. a young lady trying to out race the police entered Owen Drive taking out 80 feet of fence and poles.  Thirty feet of that fence was his.  He could not find out who owned the fence.  Nothing was done for approximately two months so he took it upon himself to clean the area. If there is a road there is the potential for accidents.
 
Mr. Williams reported that Commissioner Mansfield in a previous remark made the statement that an easement if recorded goes on into perpetuity.  Can that ever be removed?  Mr. Mansfield replied yes if the owner of the property conveys it back and records it.
  
Mr. Williams stated that on the backside of his property there was an easement from the Rogue Valley Irrigation District.  They have relinquished that easement because the irrigation canal has been moved and installed underground.  He is in the process of replacing his fence to his property line. The City should notify those property owners that the easement has been taken out. It took him through April to find out it had been removed.
                
Mr. Harland stated that he would have to discuss with the applicant regarding the block wall request. 
It sounds like one of the issues Mr. Williams is having trouble of where to build the portion of his fence.  Mr. Harland will talk with him that if they have a survey crew in that area they will install the flags for him.
           
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission continued ZC-16-089, LDS-16-090 and E-16-091 per the applicant’s request to the Thursday, October 27, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                               Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Commissioner Foley asked if Public Works could educate them on the status of the section of Owen Drive that is nonexistent?  Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer reported that the section east if Springbrook to this subdivision was dedicated in a previous subdivision but not built at the time.  His understanding that there was an agreement with the City Council that Owen Drive would not continue east as an arterial.  He believes there was some public involvement at the time of that development that rose to City Council direction.  He does not know why it was not constructed at that time.  Some of the time it is better not to build a facility if there is not going to be any traffic on it for a long period of time because it will fall apart.
 
Commissioner Foley asked as this development gets built is it the City’s plan to build that section?  Mr. Georgevitch replied that currently it is a condition of approval of this development that they build it to the west.  The applicant has provided information that Public Works will take some time to review and determine if it is satisfactory to not require it and redirect traffic to another location.
    
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked what the anticipated maximum speed is if it was developed on Owen Drive.  Mr. Georgevitch stated that speed is difficult for him to judge because it is based on the State’s Speed Control Board on higher order facilities with the exception if it is deemed residential.  Typically, they request a 30 mph speed limit on collectors.
   
Vice Chair McFadden asked if there was an agreement with the previous developer who was not required at the time to develop Owen Drive stating that now he is obligated.  Mr. Georgevitch stated that was difficult for him to answer that question.  Unfortunately the institution acknowledge has left and he does not believe there is anything in the record.  Chances are because it is a higher order street it is SDC creditable.  If Public Works did not require them to build it there was probably no condition for them to do it.  That would be today’s answer.  He cannot speak for twenty years ago on how they would have responded to this or what a developer may have agreed to have done.
      
Commissioner Pulver asked is it the intent for Coker Butte to be an arterial to the east?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that Coker Butte in the Transportation System Plan is a major arterial.  This facility had an agreement with the City Council that has required Public Works to make it only a collector.  With the Urban Growth Boundary expansion to the east and Foothill corridor becoming a primary route on the east side of Medford there is a desire to see facilities that will tie into it and move traffic east/west to Highway 62.  They are not far enough along in the Transportation System Plan to make that determination.
      
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.5 CUP-16-094 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application to allow a new wireless communications facility, consisting of a 114-foot support structure and associated equipment cabinets used for communication systems. The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Hillcrest Road and Fairview Drive at the northeast property corner of tax lot 371W28B5900. (Verizon Wireless LLC, Applicant; Paul Slotemaker, Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Kelly Akin, Interim Planning Director, read the conditional use permit criteria and gave a staff report.  Ms. Akin reported that staff received an email from a concerned citizen that was emailed to the Commission and will be entered into the record as Exhibit J.
 
Chair Miranda asked is there going to be some type of apparatus put on the light so that it could only be viewed from a certain height.  Ms. Akin replied that it would be a shield below the light.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked is staff in agreement that the neighboring cell tower is at its capacity? Ms. Akin reported that the applicant’s findings state that the available slot on the existing cell tower is only 50 feet and they needed a height of 100 feet.
 
Chair Miranda asked is this an additional cell tower or the replacement of the shorter cell tower?  Ms. Akin reported that the existing tower is a different service provider.  This cell tower will be an additional cell tower not a replacement.
    
Mr. McConnell requested that Ms. Akin share the email that was received from the concerned citizen.  The email is from Barbara Barnes, 207 Florence Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  The email reads: “Dear Planning Commission, I cannot make the meeting tonight but I want to urge denial of the Verizon Conditional Use Permit application.  I do not live near the area but believe this is unfair to homeowners who live nearby.  These towers are very unsightly and the City should at the very least require clear demonstration of public good being served rather than profit margins or convenience of the applicant.”
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Paul Slotemaker, Technology Associates EC, Inc., 7117 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101, Tigard, Oregon, 97223.  Mr. Slotemaker reported that this is a new wireless facility for Verizon Wireless.  It is needed to keep up with the increasing demand for wireless communication on Medford.  This is specifically designed for the next generation for LTE technology.  This is one of several they are working on in Medford.  Several of them were collocating or attaching to rooftops or other towers.  In this area they explored those opportunities and it is predominately residentially developed.  There are not a lot of tall structures.  The existing wireless facility is an older “monopine”.  The “monopine” they are proposing will have a thicker branch structure.  There are two wireless providers on the existing tower.  It is a 90 foot tower with US Cellular on top then AT&T just below that.  The only available height on that wireless facility drops to 50 feet above the ground.  Verizon Wireless needs 100 feet to provide coverage to the coverage area. They designed the “monopine” to go next to the existing tall trees to help the “monopine” blend in.
     
Commissioner Pulver asked, does the pole Verizon Wireless is proposing, have the ability to accommodate other wireless carriers in the future?  Mr. Slotemaker reported yes.  It is designed to accommodate at least two additional wireless carriers.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, as far as Mr. Slotemaker knows, are there any detrimental health impacts to neighboring property owners or people in close proximity to the wireless facility?  Mr. Slotemaker stated that the Commission cannot make decisions based on health effects.  It is an FCC issue.  The short answer is no.  Verizon Wireless has a license regulated by the FCC; rate of frequency signals, broadcast television, radio stations.   The FCC regulates Verizon’s spectrums.  They have a license to operate in their particular spectrum to avoid other wireless carrier.  The FCC also has regulations on the power output of wireless communication facilities.  The applicant included a report in their application that demonstrates they are at a fraction of the allowable limit.  They are well below the FCC standards for wireless communication signal strength.  The FCC is continually soliciting reports from outside agencies both domestic and international on the latest rate of frequency research.  They have a current understanding of wireless communications and any possible health effects and what the limits should be.  So far they have not seen any need to adjust those limits.
        
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he presumes the FCC standards are based partly on the health considerations to neighbors.  Is that correct?  Mr. Slotemaker replied yes.
 
Chair Miranda stated that the other cell tower is 90 feet. The application requests a 114-foot cell tower.  Why does it have to be so tall?  Mr. Slotemaker stated that they provided radio frequency maps that help show the coverage area of the facility. The antennas need to be at 100 feet in order have a clear line of sight to the coverage area.  As it goes lower it loses the clear line of sight to the coverage area.  The 14 feet is for the tapered look of a tree; basically for aesthetics.
      
Mr. Slotemaker reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Matt Corrigan 53 Fairway Circle, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Corrigan does not object to the project.  He objects to the sight and its proximity to the residential area.  Mr. Corrigan referenced the Association of Realtors and Zillow that has research showing that it does affect property values.  Surely there are commercial sites elsewhere for this facility.
     
Commissioner Mansfield stated that Mr. Corrigan referenced research regarding the diminution in market values caused by these projects.  Would Mr. Corrigan provide that material?  Mr. Corrigan stated that he would be happy to.
 
c. Frank Brown, 2901 Fairview Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Brown is concerned with property values and radiation.  He has the survey by realtors indicating the impact of cell phone towers in residential areas.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that Mr. Brown made reference to health considerations.  Does he have scientific data to provide to the Planning Commission to help make decisions on this?  Mr. Brown reported that the internet is full of information.  Could he provide the information for those who do not access the internet?
 
Chair Miranda stated that they are receiving new information this evening that the Planning Commission has not had an opportunity to review or consider.  He is not sure where to take that at this point.  Ms. Akin reported there are two ways to go about this.  She did not hear anyone ask to keep the record open.  That is an option when additional information is submitted.  If the applicant wants to continue the item, this can be done if the Planning Commission authorizes the continuance.  Commissioner Mansfield asked Mr. Corrigan to submit information which can be done and passed on to the Commission for information but she does not believe it would be part of the record because it was not presented at the meeting this evening.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he had hoped to continue this matter until the next regular Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 27, 2016.  Can they get the applicant to graciously agree to give the Planning Commission the additional time to receive the requested information?  Or if the rest of the Planning Commissioners do not consider it to be important then perhaps they want to proceed ahead.   He considers it to be important and would like to receive the requested information. 
Chair Miranda concurred with Commissioner Mansfield.
        
Vice Chair McFadden stated that he does not believe it is important.  The Planning Commission has approved many of these in the City already.  North Medford has at least eight on top of their school.  It is an interesting topic and open for debate.  In his opinion people can review and judge this proposal without feeling there is something more that maybe they have not run into in their normal life.  He does not have an issue with making a decision this evening.
      
Mr. McConnell stated that the Planning Commission cannot make the applicant agree to a continuance.  He read an excerpt from the Quasi-Judicial Hearing Statement:  “…Before the hearing is closed, anyone who needs more time to present evidence must ask for more time.  If you ask, the hearing will be continued or the record will be kept open; and you will have at least seven days to present additional written evidence.”  This evening the Planning Commission heard from speakers and they did not ask for more time.  The public hearing is still open.  It would be hard to address the public’s concerns without the evidence before the Commission.
   
Ms. Akin pointed out that at the beginning of this hearing she read the approval criteria.  There are two criteria for conditional use permits.  The applicant’s burden is to satisfy one of the criteria and not both.  The first one speaks to adverse impacts on the livability, value, or appropriate development of abutting property.  The second one acknowledges that there may be some adverse impacts but those impacts may be mitigated through conditions of approval.  There is the lengthy list of eleven different items that she showed at the end of her presentation.  It is an either or. In this application type the applicant is not required to satisfy both criteria.  It is one or the other.
  
Commissioner Mansfield responded to these points stating that both objectors have stated that there are real property impairment problems and their possible health problems.  Neither one has supported that with data.  He is not making any findings personally one way or the other.  He would like to see the data before he makes some findings.  On the other hand Vice Chair McFadden feels he is satisfied. Is it appropriate for him to make a motion to continue this application? Mr. McConnell stated that it is not appropriate at this time but a speaker may exercise their rights.
  
Mr. Corrigan asked for a continuance at this time based on the grounds that he requested and have agreed to provide the information to Commissioner Mansfield and Chair Miranda.
 
Chair Miranda asked Mr. Corrigan is seven days adequate time for him to submit his data?  Mr. Corrigan replied yes.
  
Chair Miranda asked Ms. Akin if the applicant has seven days to respond to the data submitted taking it out to fourteen days.  Ms. Akin reported that it depends on how the Planning Commission manages the request.  It is the Commission’s option to close the public hearing and leave the record open.  If that is the case then whoever wants to submit has seven days.  The applicant has equal amount of time to respond.  By law staff is required to publish an agenda seven days before the public hearing.  The other option would be to continue the hearing which the record is open and anyone can participate until the Planning Commission makes their decision.  Staff’s preference is to keep the hearing open rather than the record.  The agenda will be published by the end of the day on Thursday, October 20, 2016, for the Thursday, October 27, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that Mr. Brown raised the point of the aesthetics of the cell towers over time.  Would that be a Code Enforcement issue?  Ms. Akin replied yes.
  
Mr. Slotemaker stated that regarding the condition of approval that the language for the flush mounting was removed.
 
Mr. Slotemaker thanked the neighbors exercising their right to comment.  Their input is valuable.
 
Addressing the health effects is regulated by the FCC.  The decision of the facility cannot be based on health affects because that is the FCC’s jurisdiction.
 
Addressing property values is not an uncommon question.  The application submitted demonstrates they meet the code criteria that they have mitigated the impacts of the facility.  That is the purpose of the stealth “monopine” design they are proposing.  He has his own studies that he will submit into the record.  He has talked to county assessors and he has never seen one of them be able to say a wireless facility does impact property value.  It is not a measureable impact.
 
Wireless facilities provide a beneficial impact to the area with reliable wireless service.  Forty seven percent of homes have cut off their land lines.  They are expecting that to increase beyond fifty percent.  The importance of the wireless facility is communicating with 911.  Reliable wireless service is expected from people these days.  This wireless facility is part of that, to ensure there is reliable wireless service.  The wireless facility does need to be located in the area that the service is provided.  Increasingly they get closer to residential.  They have made an effort to avoid being in the neighborhood.  That is why they looked to the golf course.  The service area includes the residential area.
 
Mr. Slotemaker presented a visual of typical radio frequency exposure.  The FCC public standard at 700 MHz (100%) graphed out at 467.  For a 40 foot “monopole” it is only 1% of the allowed limit.
 
The maintenance of the wireless facility will be a condition of approval.  Overtime it will be maintained to look as it is designed and was approved as a tree.
                    
Mr. McConnell asked if Mr. Slotemaker had the FCC federal regulations that Verizon is relying on that the Planning Commission cannot impose conditions of approval regarding health effects.  Mr. Slotemaker stated that is in the 1996 Tele Com Act.  He does not have that language with him.
     
Chair Miranda asked if it has been considered to augment or build up on the existing cell tower.  Mr. Slotemaker reported that they did approach US Cellular.  In order to increase the height of the tower it would require a complete change out of that tower.  The code would look at that as a new tower.  Also, US Cellular would reserve the right to the top because they own the tower. 
          
Motion:  The Planning Commission continued CUP-16-094 to the Thursday, October 27, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                        Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-1, with Vice Chair McFadden voting no.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner D’Alessandro reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, October 7, 2016.  They considered plans for the construction of a 3,777 square foot two story multiple-family building consisting of five dwelling units on 0.28 gross acres located at 105 Tripp Street within the MFR-20 zoning district.  They approved the application.
  
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met.
          
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Interim Planning Director, reported that there are two ballot measures regarding marijuana retailing.  Whether the City will or will not ban marijuana retailers and if the public does not want the City to ban marijuana retailers whether there will be a local 3% tax on the marijuana retailers.  The text amendment had the retail line on the use chart.  Staff will not bring it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.  Staff will forward their prior recommendation which was to make that use conditional in the C-C, C-R and C-H zoning districts.  Staff will move it forward to the City Council in order to expedite it.  It is scheduled for the December 1, 2016, City Council meeting.
 
The next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, October 24, 2016.  Discussion will be on craft distilleries and the a-frame signs downtown.
 
There is business for the next Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 27, 2016.  There are also hearings scheduled for Thursday, November 10, 2016 and Thursday December 8, 2016.  Thursday, November 24, 2016, is Thanksgiving.  The Thursday December 22, 2016 meeting will more than likely be cancelled.
 
Last Thursday at the City Council meeting the Mayor read a proclamation proclaiming October National Community Planning month.  Today, the Planners were at Hawthorne Park at the Farmer’s Market meeting and greeting the public.
 
The next City Council meeting Planning has an initiation of a right-of-way vacation related to Cedar Landing that will come before the Planning Commission soon.
 
There have been changes in planning staff.  Mr. Huber retired.  Mr. Adam resigned and moved to Manhattan, Kansas.  Donna Holtz moved to the City Manager’s office.  Ms. Akin is the Interim Planning Director and Carla Paladino has taken over John Adam’s duties managing the long range division.  Desmond McGeough is helping Ms. Akin manage the current planning division.  Cheryl Adams is helping until an Office Administrator replacement is hired.  There were 119 applicants for the Office Administrator position.
 
A while back there was a request from one of the Planning Commissioners to attend the Columbia Connection Conference, October 26, 27 and 28, 2016, in Portland.  If a Commissioner is interested please let staff know as soon as possible.
 
Commissioner Foley stated that assuming the ballot measures pass and there are marijuana retailers in the City.  If he recalls correctly there was a “kerfuffle” where the Commission had discussed a conditional use then decided not but then when it went to City Council it was there.  It seemed messy to him.  Ms. Akin showed a visual of the table that was adopted and retail is not permitted at this point.  The Planning Commission had recommended conditional uses and the City Council adopted the ordinance as they are permitted.  There are special operating conditions.  Staff will continue to bring forward the Planning Commission’s recommendation.  Staff’s recommendation was not the same.  They recommended that the uses be permitted outright.
  
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney.  None.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
 
 100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 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
 
Patrick Miranda
Planning Commission Chair                                                                         
 
Approved: October 27, 2016
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top