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, May 22, 2014

The regular meeting of the Medford Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present                                    Staff
Michael Zarosinski, Chair                                  Suzanne Myers, Principal Planner
Robert Tull, Vice Chair                                       Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
Bill Christie                                                        Lori Cooper, Deputy City Attorney
Norman Fincher                                                 Alex Georgevitch, Transportation Manager
Bill Mansfield                                                     Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
David McFadden                                                Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Paul Shoemaker                                                John Adam, Planner IV
                                                                         Desmond McGeough, Planner II
Commissioners Absent                                     Sarah Sousa, Planner IV
Alec Schwimmer, Excused Absence             
Patrick Miranda, Excused Absence


10.          Roll Call
               
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1        LDS-14-022 Final Order of tentative plat review for a four lot subdivision on .76 acres located at the northwest corner of Dakota Avenue and Colinwood Court within a SFR-6 (Single family residential – 6 units per acre) zoning district. (American Building Company, Inc., Applicant; Farber Surveying, Agent).
               
                Motion: Adopt the consent calendar.
               
                Moved by: Commissioner McFadden          Seconded by: Commissioner Tull
               
                Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
               
30.          Minutes. 
30.1        The minutes for May 8, 2014, were approved as submitted.
               
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None. 
               
                Lori Cooper, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
               
50.          Public Hearing. 
                New Business
50.1        CP-14-032 General Land-Use Plan (GLUP) Map amendment from Urban Residential (UR) to Service Commercial (SC) for a 5.28-acre portion of a lot at the southeast corner of East McAndrews Road and Springbrook Road. (Wyndhaven Properties, LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning/Jay Harland, Agent).
               
                John Adam, Planner IV, read the General Land-Use Plan Map criteria, reviewed the results of the proposal, rationale for support and staff’s recommendation.
               
                Commissioner Mansfield stated that he thought that one of the primary functions of planning was to encourage higher density development in the City rather than striving for lower density.  It is confusing to him.  Is lower density a part of the Commissions process?  If it is, he is at odds with that.  Would Mr. Adam clear up his confusion on that?  Mr. Adam reported that out of the total residential land need, the largest part of it is for low density residential.  Commissioner Mansfield asked why.  Mr. Adam stated that it takes more land per unit and the Housing Element did a projection of what the housing need would be.  Through that projection it stated that the City needed a certain number of units that are at low density and there are a few things that fall into that category.  Attached single family residential, duplexes and detached single family housing can fall into that category.  The overall percentage in terms of units is 65/35.  Sixty-five percent of the projected residential unit need is for the low density type and thirty-five percent is for the higher density type.  The sixty-five percent requires more land per unit which is a larger percentage land wise of the approximate thousand acres that the City needs for the next twenty years.         
               
                Commissioner Mansfield asked what does the term “employment land” mean?  Mr. Adam reported that “employment land” is generally a term used for anything that falls into the category of industrial, retail or office.  It is any land that is dedicated to where people work.    
               
                The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given. 
               
a.             Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Harland stated that he is the agent of record for the subject application.  Staff did a good job of presenting the request and he requests that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation for amending this GLUP map amendment at the corner of Springbrook and McAndrews to Service Commercial.  It is a high visibility location and the findings they provided in their submittal talks about that and talks about not all sites are suitable for that higher intensity GLUP map designation.  This site is flatter to the north and the further south it tends to be steeper which is part of the reason they have not requested the entire property be included and to provide some buffer to the residential properties to the south along Garden Drive.  One specific issue is that they agree that the recommendation should not be solely based on a stated intention to construct a specific use but the staff report goes a little too far in taking the position that the Planning Commission cannot consider any specific uses.  In this particular instance there are market forces and contracts in place that the most likely future use for this property is a congregate living facility.  That is what the applicant wants to construct.  
               
                Commissioner McFadden stated that he is less worried about the 5.28 acres that the applicant is changing.  What is the remaining acreage?  Mr. Harland replied that it is 3.28 acres.  It is approximately 9.4 total acres.  It does leave developable land.    
               
                Mr. Harland reported that at the beginning of the meeting it was mentioned that this agenda item was a legislative hearing.  It is a Class B quasi-judicial proceeding. 
               
                Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were declared.
               
                Chair Zarosinski inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts.  None were disclosed.
               
b.             Steven F. McNeal, 4 East Clark, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. McNeal read a letter submitted to Mr. Adam earlier today.  Mr. McNeal stated that he is retired, a former owner of several Medford businesses and a Medford resident for 50 years.  Mr. McNeal lives in the central east side near Springbrook and McAndrews.  He supports this GLUP map amendment from UR (SFR-6) to SC (Service Commercial) for the 5.28 acre portion to allow the construction of a retirement home by Bonaventure.  It is his opinion, this would probably have the lowest impact on the neighborhood and be the best use of this property for the citizens of Medford by the addition of employment and economic improvements.  There appears to be no negative environmental, energy, economic or social consequences associated with a retirement home.  He asked the Commission to please restrict this approval based only on the future approval of a retirement home to be submitted by Bonaventure.  As witnessed during the recent ISA study by the oral and written testimony and the 125 signatures on the petitions submitted on February 12, 2014, this neighborhood does not want UM, UH or other uses that may not be compatible.  In the past, there have been zone changes made for PUD’s that were used for other purposes after that PUD was abandoned and inactive.  In speaking with Mr. Adam later this afternoon Mr. Adam had stated that he was informed by the City’s Legal Department that there is a technical problem with this.  However, he was told that this has been done before.  For instance, the Northgate Center where Trader Joe’s is located.  Other cities frequently have the option of development plan, zone change and GLUP amendment all in one consolidated review.  Apparently the Planning Department does not condone this but is allowed by the Code.    
               
                Chair Zarosinski asked if this item was legislative or quasi-judicial, is the Planning Commission making a recommendation or a decision?  Mr. Adam reported that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation but the Code defines this as a minor comprehensive plan amendment that falls definitional as quasi-judicial even though the decision is ultimately made by the City Council. 
               
                Chair Zarosinski asked Mr. Adam to speak to the conditional approval that was requested by the previous speaker.  Is that something that the Planning Commission can consider?  Mr. Adam reported that staff would not suggest that the Planning Commission consider the request.  Mr. Harland and Mr. Adam have a philosophical slight difference.  From his perspective it does make sense to take into account the market forces that make this an ideal site.  From staffs perspective, they see it as, is it a good place for service commercial because they cannot predict the future?  They cannot guarantee what development would go there.  It has to fall on its own merits. 
               
                Ms. Cooper echoed what Mr. Adam reported.  She does not think the Planning Commission has the power to require an applicant to restrict the use in their zone.  The example of the Northgate Center is that the applicant came to the City with a master plan that showed what they wanted to do with the land.  The Planning Commission cannot do what Mr. McNeal has asked the Planning Commission to do.    
               
                The public hearing was closed.
               
                Motion: Based on the findings and conclusion that all of the approval criteria are met or are not applicable, forward a recommendation for approval of CP-14-032 to the City Council per the staff report dated May 14, 2014, including Exhibits A through C. 
               
                Moved by: Commissioner McFadden      Seconded by: Commissioner Christie
               
                Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
               
               
50.2        SV-14-031 Consideration of a request for the vacation of 8,640 square feet of surplus street right-of-way located at the southeast corner of the intersection of West McAndrews Road and North Ross Lane within a C-C/RZ (Community Commercial/Restricted Zoning) zone district. (City of Medford, Applicant; Larry Beskow, City Engineer, Agent).
               
                Desmond McGeough, Planner II, read the street vacation criteria and gave a staff report.
               
                Commissioner McFadden asked if Mr. McGeough had an overlay showing the effect of this vacation on the approved development?  Mr. McGeough replied that he did not have with him this evening the site plan that was approved.  Commissioner McFadden asked if the conditions of the approved development took this action into account when it was developed or will that action have to come back to the City to be implemented because of the extra property?  Mr. McGeough replied that the right-of-way that was needed in that application has already been dedicated.  Commissioner McFadden asked if this area was taken into consideration for their plans?  Mr. McGeough replied yes.  It was part of their planning effort.    
               
                The public hearing was opened and there being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
               
                Motion: Forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for SV-14-031 per the Staff Report dated May 15, 2014, including Exhibits A through E. 
               
                Moved by: Commissioner McFadden      Seconded by: Commissioner Christie
               
                Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
               
50.3        LDP-14-018 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval of a 3-lot partition on 1.24 acres located on the west side of Highcrest Drive approximately 230 feet north of Hillcrest Road within the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 units per acre) zoning district.  (EDRU Properties Inc., Applicant; Ogun Arslan, Agent).
               
                Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were declared.
               
                Chair Zarosinski 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, read the land division criteria and gave a staff report.
               
                Chair Zarosinski asked if the applicant was doing an exception or anything special for lot 2 because of the easement?  Ms. Sousa replied that the Code has a built in exception. 
               
                The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
               
a.             Ogun Arslan, 4631 Hathaway Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Arslan reported that he is the owner of EDRU Properties and an architect.  He believes our community needs small compact well-made and efficient housing.  When he saw this property his instinct told him that maybe there is a potential to divide the property into three lots and possible for him to construct small compact well-made housing.  His application is consistent with the criteria and will comply with all the requirements.       
               
               
b.             Susan Marshall, 4443 Hillcrest Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Marshall stated that she is confused at the partition process.  Is a partition usually done before homes are built?  Commissioner McFadden replied yes.  Ms. Marshall stated that on parcel one and she did not know if it was parcel two or parcel three, homes are already being built.  Currently, there is a home being built on parcel three.  Does the applicant want to build another home on parcel two?  Chair Zarosinski replied that the Planning Commission is to make sure the three lots are in accordance with the land division criteria with the assumption they are going to meet setbacks and building codes.  Ms. Marshall stated that it is a valley back there and really noisy.  There is a hill for any vehicles to go up.  There Is a lot of wildlife up there.  It is really small to have three homes being built there.  In this partition is any of her land going to be taken?  Chair Zarosinski replied that for the criteria to be approved by the Planning Commission it would have to be land that the applicant owns or controls.         
               
                Mr. Arslan stated that they are already building two homes that are consistent with the existing lots and have planned accordingly that if this application is approved it will be in compliance with a three lot partition.  They are not taking any land.  They are giving the City more easements and as the staff report states some portion of Highcrest Drive.  They are going to comply with all requirements. 
               
                The public hearing was closed.
               
                Motion: Adopt the Findings as recommended by staff and direct staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of LDP-14-018 per the Staff Report dated May 15, 2014, including Exhibits A through M. 
               
                Moved by: Commissioner McFadden      Seconded by: Commissioner Christie
               
                Commissioner Fincher asked if the applicant is required to provide room for a fire truck access up in that area?  Chair Zarosinski replied that in the staff report there is a report from the Fire Department.  He believes the access is wider that what is required.    
               
                Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
               
50.4        CUP-14-026 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a crematorium in an existing building and a new sign within the 25.77 acre Siskiyou Memorial site located on the east side of Highland Drive between Siskiyou Boulevard and Greenwood Street within a SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 units per acre) zoning district. Leavitt Oregon Inc., Applicant; Bret Benzley, Agent).
               
                Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Shoemaker recused himself from this application.
               
                Chair Zarosinski 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, read the conditional use permit criteria and gave a staff report.  Ms. Sousa mentioned that the Commissioners received an email earlier today including the email placed at their places from a neighboring property owner labeled Exhibit P. 
               
                Commissioner McFadden stated that he was surprised he did not see a letter from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).  Did the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality submit any comments?  Ms. Sousa replied that she did not know if the Department of Environmental Quality was sent a notification of the project.  She could find out and report back to Commissioner McFadden.  She did not receive anything from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.     
               
                Chair Zarosinski asked if the buffering for the apartments to the south is on someone else’s property?  Ms. Sousa replied both.  The cemetery property has the mature landscaping as well as the apartment complex. 
               
                The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
               
a.             Steve Morgan, 842 S. Front Street, Central Point, Oregon, 97502.  Mr. Morgan stated that he is from Designer Signs.  He is the agent for the applicant’s signage.  Mr. Morgan addressed the buffering issue.  The distance from the sign to the sidewalk is two hundred thirty-five feet.  The signs are dimmable so that in the later hours when the sign would affect the apartments, they dim.  There is foliage on both properties.    
               
                Vice Chair Tull asked, is the sign planned to convey any information beyond that about Perl’s cemetery?  Vice Chair Tull asks this question because the Planning Commission recently approved an electronic sign on the corner of Barnett and Highland.  His expectation was that it provides information regarding the bank and its operation.  It has now become a community advertising site, advertising all sorts of businesses and providing some rather delightful motion pictures which were not a part of his understanding as the Commission approved it.  He is curious as to what the applicant’s intentions are in having this sign and what the City can expect to see on the sign.  Bret Benzley, 2100 Siskiyou Boulevard, Medford, Oregon, 97504, stated that he is the manager of Perl Funeral Home.  There will not be any messaging or advertising for the community on the sign.  Since he took over the funeral home he has been trying to change things that would have adverse effects on the neighbors.  One was the sign that has been removed.  They want to create a new sign at a new location that would not have the type of impact the removed sign had.  The new sign would promote the services of a deceased person, free of charge.            
               
                Commissioner McFadden asked why didn’t Mr. Benzley decide to put the sign closer to the intersection of Highland and Siskiyou Boulevard?  Mr. Benzley stated that the sign would go wherever on that road.  Commissioner McFadden has no objection where Mr. Benzley is planning to install the sign.  It just seemed to him that there is more traffic at that corner.  Mr. Benzley reported that is why they wanted to stay away from the around-a-about because he did not want people trying to go around a corner and read a sign.        
               
                Mr. Benzley reported on the crematorium.  He stated that when he took over Perl Funeral Home the equipment was sitting out in the back field, not in a shop.  He built a shop behind the mausoleum.  He wanted to put in a new crematorium at that time but was not aware of the process.  The unit he is currently using is not efficient.  His goal is to get another unit of the same type so that they are running two very efficient units.         
               
                Vice Chair Tull stated that he appreciates the landscaping that Mr. Benzley has developed along the south boundary.  Mr. Benzley addressed the tree removal.  The trees in the cemetery are designated.  If one of those trees die Mr. Benzley has to replace that tree in the same spot.  
               
                Vice Chair Tull asked if Mr. Benzley saw the possibility in his planning of improving the edge of Greenwood Drive along the south boundary.  Mr. Benzely replied yes and also Windsor.  
               
b.             Debbie Crouse, 718 Williams Court, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Crouse has several concerns.  When the shop went in place there was a location on the east side of the cemetery where designated sidewalks would be installed.  When Windsor Estates was constructed they got sidewalks but nothing ever happened at the other end where the shed got moved to Highland.  If the crematorium is to go in the equipment building where is the equipment going to go?  Her concern is that corner where there is a special light for pedestrian crossing.  There is a “wow” turn that one has to pull out to see if vehicles are coming.  It is a very busy dangerous intersection of Highland and Greenwood that needs a traffic signal.  Her concern is where is the equipment going and decommission the old unit.            
               
c.             Michael Chesney, 2125 Duncan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Chesney reported that his property abuts the cemetery.  The applicant has benefited the community.  Since his tender here it has increased their property values.  The applicant has made improvements to the landscaping and benefited the neighboring lots.  The business is now being run in a manner which benefits all properties involved by placing an emphasis on improvements to the business as opposed to pulling money out of the business and the property falling into disrepair as it has done in the past.          
               
                Mr. Benzley reported that he built a three bay shop for the equipment in the beginning realizing that one of those bays would be for the crematorium only.  The building structure that has been required for the plans is to do all the fire safety for the crematorium.  It will be in its own bay.  The equipment is in the far bay and the middle bay is their working area.  There will be no equipment stored back out on the grounds.  At this point the old crematory must remain running and have a backup.  He cannot alleviate that machine until they get another new one after that.           
               
                The public hearing was closed.
               
                Motion: Direct staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of CUP-14-026 per the Staff Report dated May 15, 2014, including Exhibits A through O and adding Exhibit P. 
               
                Moved by: Commissioner McFadden      Seconded by: Commissioner Christie
               
                Chair Zarosinski stated that he was concerned about an electronic sign in that location but with the additional information regarding the landscaping to be maintained as well as the distance to the existing residences he is comfortable with that.
               
                Commissioner Christie stated that he is too.  The dimming part is good.  
               
                Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0, with Commissioner Shoemaker recusing himself.
               
50.5        LDS-14-037 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval for Warren Park Subdivision Phases 1 & 2, an 11-lot residential subdivision on a 2.43 acre parcel located on the west side of Warren Way and the western terminus of Diamond Street within a SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential – 6 units per acre) zoning district.  (Suncrest Homes LLC, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent).
               
                Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  Chair Zarosinski reported that the former company he had did some drainage design.  He has no financial interest or is bias.  
               
                Chair Zarosinski 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, reported that she had previously read the land division criteria and gave a staff report. Ms. Sousa mentioned the revised Public Works report labeled Exhibit G-1 and an email labeled Exhibit Q that were emailed earlier today to the Commissioners and placed at their seats before the meeting.
               
                Vice Chair Tull stated that he is unclear as to whether staff’s recommendation is for a single phase development or for acceptance of the developer’s proposed two phases.  Ms. Sousa replied that Planning staff’s recommendation is for approval of a phased project.  Ms. Sousa stated that Vice Chair Tull may want to ask that question to the Public Works representative that is present tonight.  
               
                Commissioner Fincher asked if Ms. Sousa would go back through the street improvements and phasing.  He did not completely understand it.  Ms. Sousa deferred the question to the Public Works Department.  Alex Georgevitch, City of Medford Transportation Manager, reported that the Disposition and Development Agreement is a separate document that he does not have with him this evening.  The purpose of the Disposition and Development Agreement is to allow the project to be in two phases but in phase one there is going to be a minimum required twenty-two foot road built that will loop around Diamond Street and connect Diamond Street from Warren Way to Sandstone Drive and also extend Sandstone Drive to Diamond Street.  The twenty-two feet meets the requirements of Public Works and the Fire Department.  Then, an additional three lots as part of phase two of this subdivision, the developer will be building the remainder of their half street improvements plus an additional extension of Diamond Street to the westerly property line.  A portion of Diamond Street would need additional right-of-way from the property to the south that they do not control but they are just trying to control time of building through this process.               
               
                Commissioner Fincher stated that his concern is whether or not this would create another situation where the developer came back for the future phase and reported that it was no longer economically feasible to finish because of the requirements for the additional phasing.  Would the City be better off requiring that in phase one as opposed to pushing it off to a later date?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that they have had that concern but the purpose of the Disposition and Development Agreement between the developer and the City is to ensure that does not happen in the future.  Public Works is hoping the Planning Commission approves the development as per the staff report that would allow for it to be a two phased development with the approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement by Council as a future action and if that Disposition and Development Agreement is not completed then it would be changed to a single phase development and all of the improvements on Diamond Street would have to be built at this time as part of phase one.
               
                Ms. Cooper asked is the reason for the Disposition and Development Agreement a timing issue?  Why do they need a Disposition and Development Agreement?  Wouldn’t normally an applicant have to do all this work up front?  Why is this special?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that it is special because initially when the developer came in, Public Works had the same concerns as Commissioner Fincher.  How do they allow this to be a two phased development but also ensure that long term they do not get the improvements that they need and also a mechanism to control when the SDC fees will be available.  Diamond Street is a higher order street and is eligible for SDC fees for both right-of-way and construction and the developer wanted to control timing of the SDC fees that were acceptable with the Public Works department.  So they entered the development of the Disposition and Development Agreement.  That is what is being proposed to Council now.  The applicant may also want to comment on this.           
               
                The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
               
a.             Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner stated that he is the agent for Charlie Hamilton of Suncrest Homes LLC who is present and in the audience this evening.  Mr. Sinner reported that the reason for the Disposition and Development Agreement is that this is an eleven lot subdivision with the improvements of three street sections, Warren Way, Sandstone and Diamond.  Diamond is the higher order street.  Eleven lots is a big project for today’s economy.  That is one of the primary reasons why Suncrest Homes LLC wanted to develop this in two phases.  This has been a collaborated effort between the applicant and City staff to work on the Disposition and Development Agreement.  A phased subdivision is an outright permitted use and permitted process in the City.  The Public Works Department was concerned about making the Sandstone to Diamond connection and ensuring that it is in place.  It is a significant investment for both the developer and the City.  It is a reimbursable expense.  The process of the applicant stipulating to make that connection, there had to be a process.  It would be a non-standard street section to do it in the smaller configuration that they have proposed with the Disposition and Development Agreement.  The only way to do that is to make the connection in the smaller footprint and it is less intrusive for the neighbors.  They will have full circulation.  They will have appropriate dedications as lined out.  They are asking tonight for tentative plat approval with the conditional approval of the City Council’s approval of the Disposition and Development Agreement.  They are the approving authority for the Disposition and Development Agreement. They are asking the Planning Commission for a recommendation of approval to accept the Disposition and Development Agreement.  City Council expressed frustrations with seeing a Disposition and Development Agreement before the Planning Commission did in the recent past.  In collaborating with staff, it was determined to bring the Disposition and Development Agreement forward in context where the Planning Commission would be able to review it and make a recommendation in context of the tentative plat back to City Council.                
               
                Commissioner Fincher asked what percentage of the actual improvements to the roadway is done in the three lot phase versus the six lot?  Why are they doing the minimum amount in the final phase with the maximum road exposure which would make it the least profitable portion of the improvement, making it less necessary to follow through and advance to the second phase because there is not much profit in it?  Mr. Sinner stated that what has gone on with the section is that they have brought forward a standard paved section that can be utilized in the future phase.  They are creating a section that will be engineered to be the section that remains in place.  They are not putting in a temporary structure and then removing it.  They are doing an incremental street improvement.       
               
                Charlie Hamilton, Suncrest Homes LLC, 151 Max Loop, Talent, Oregon, 97540-8700.  Mr. Hamilton reported that when he looked at this project, to bring it back to life again, they were looking to do one hundred percent of all the improvements for the first eight lots on Warren.  When he went to Public Works that was their very first question; you do not want to do the improvements on Diamond, what are the odds you will come back and do them?  Mr. Hamilton told them that is not how he does business.  They worked out an agreement with Public Works that they connect and pave all the way down Diamond to Sandstone.  This is a section that is improved and will not have any more work done to it.  It is exactly to the standards.  That is along three lots that they will not be able to develop.  They are doing one hundred percent of what is required for their eight lots and improving along phase two ahead of time.  They have also agreed not to take any of the money for reimbursement on Diamond.  There are two different kinds of money, one for right-of-way dedication and one for improvements of a collector.  He told the City to keep the money for phase two.  When he comes back and completes it then he will get those improvements.  He is putting money up, doing improvements that they have no frontage on and he purposely told the City to keep the money.  The three lots and the improvements that are remaining, plus all the improvements for the remaining dedication and all the improvements for the improvement parts, the reimbursement for that, are more than going to offset and make that profitable.  Money for development is hard to find.  It is hard to take a bigger project down.  That is why he has to break it into two phases; so that he can have the funding to do the first phase then he can pay the loans down and get loans for the second phase.    
               
                Mr. Sinner reported that they had a neighborhood meeting last week and had a good turn-out.  The neighborhood concerns were the concerns that the Planning Commission saw in the email that was emailed to them earlier today and placed at their places tonight.  It is about parking and they like the dead end cul-de-sac street.  Sandstone is not a dead end cul-de-sac.  It is a street waiting to be connected.  The southwest circulation plan requires that connection and circulation connectivity.  Parking looks to be an enforcement issue.      
               
                Chair Zarosinski stated that phasing is permitted.  What in the Code determines discretion of the phasing and what has to be included in phasing?    Mr. Georgevitch stated that may be a question for the Planning Department but Public Works would make discretionary recommendations either for or against phasing depending on the situation.  In this case, the applicant came in and worked with staff.  It is important to understand that Diamond Street is a collector, it is SDC creditable, it is a street that will either be built by the City eventually or the money that they collect to build those roads will be given to whoever builds that street.  They do have a mechanism that if this development does not complete phase two, the City has a funding source.  Kelly Akin, Principal Planner reported that the Code does not specifically talk about phasing and what is required.  It does talk about the allowance that the Commission has to extend the approval period.  Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission authorize the entire five-year approval period that is allowed for phased projects. 
               
                The public hearing was closed.
               
                Motion: Adopt the Findings as recommended by staff and direct staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of LDS-14-037 per the Staff Report dated May 15, 2014, including Exhibits A through P and replacing Exhibit G with Exhibit G-1 and adding Exhibit Q.
               
                Moved by: Commissioner McFadden      Seconded by: Commissioner Christie
               
                Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
               
60.          Report of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  None.
               
70.          Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
70.1        Commissioner Christie reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee met Monday.  They met with Joe Bessman and Julia Coon from Kittelson and Associates.  The purpose of the meeting was to begin the Medford Transportation System Plan Update and Urban Growth Boundary amendment process.  They also went over their goals and objectives for the next few months.   
               
80.          Report of the Planning Department.  
80.1        Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met last Friday and they approved a furniture store project on Court, Riverside and Highways 62 and 99, by the Verizon building.
 
Ms. Akin stated that the Commissioners had at their places blue cards that are parking passes.  She encouraged the Commissioners to use them especially for study sessions because the City is going to enforce the two-hour time limit.  The passes are good through normal business hours.
 
Monday, May 26, 2014, is Memorial Day.  There will not be a Planning Commission study session. 
 
There are several topics scheduled for the Monday, June 9, 2014, Planning Commission study session.
 
There is business items scheduled for the Planning Commission public hearings through July.
 
Last week the City Council heard three text amendments, accepted a grant for the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission and approved an alley vacation.
 
The Planning Department does not have any business before the City Council until June 19, 2014.  The application that the Planning Commission heard tonight, CP-14-032, is scheduled for that time.
 
Suzanne Myers, Principal Planner, is retiring.  This was her last meeting and she left before staff could say nice things about her.  Ms. Myers has been with the Planning Department for a little over twenty-two years.  Some of her most famous projects she has worked on are the Southeast Plan, RPS, she did some wetland work for the department and she has been overseeing the long range division for approximately eight years.  Every Comprehensive Plan amendment, every Code amendment that the Commission has seen in that time has run through her desk.  She will be missed tremendously.  She has so much knowledge and a fantastic memory.   John Adam is her replacement and will be taking over as Senior Planner in the long range division on June 1, 2014.
               
90.          Messages and Papers from Chair of Planning Commission. 
90.1        Chair Zarosinski stated that the Commission offers their best wishes to Ms. Myers in her future endeavors. 
               
100.        Remarks from the City Attorney.  None.
               
110.        Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.     
110.1      Commissioner Tull recommended a resolution of appreciation from the Planning Commission.  Ms. Myers has taught us a lot.  She has provided excellent technical assistance to the Commission.  She has followed through on long term projects and kept them alive.  She has done an extraordinarily professional job with the Commission.  He for one, very much appreciates the leadership and professionalism and would recommend that the Commission adopt a resolution of appreciation and congratulations on her retirement.  Commissioner McFadden seconded that.  Chair Zarosinski stated that that seems appropriate.  Staff will help the Commission get that done.       
               
120.        Adjournment. 
                The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder's office.       
 
 
 
Submitted by:      
 
_______________________________
Terri L. Rozzana 
________________________________
Michael Zarosinski
Recording Secretary           Planning Commission Chair
               
Approved:  June 12, 2014
 
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top