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

Thursday, November 13, 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
Michael Zarosinski, Chair      
Robert Tull, Vice Chair          
Bill Mansfield  
Norman Fincher         
Patrick Miranda         
Alec Schwimmer (arrived at 5:55 p.m.)        
Commissioners Absent
Bill Christie, Excused Absence          
David McFadden, Excused Absence
Jim Huber, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, Transportation Manager
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Aaron Harris, Planner II
Carla Paladino, Planner III
Jennifer Jones, Planner II
Desmond McGeough, Planner II
10.       Roll Call
20.       Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1     LDP-14-086 Final Order of tentative plat review for one lot partition of a 5.73 acre site located on the west side of Interstate 5 and north of Barnett Avenue within a Regional Commercial (CR) zoning district.   (Oregon Department of Transportation, Applicant; Stephan L. Barott, Agent).
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar.
Moved by: Vice Chair Tull        Seconded by: Commissioner Miranda
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
30.       Minutes. 
30.1     The minutes for October 23, 2014, were approved as submitted.
40.       Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None. 
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
Chair Zarosinski recused himself from agenda item 50.1 and turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Tull.
50.       Public Hearing. 
            New Business
50.1     DCA-14-083 To amend Municipal Code Sections 10.370–10.385 (Southeast Overlay District) to adopt the Commercial Center Core Area Master Plan and to complete general housekeeping items within these sections. Pursuant to Section 10.374(5), the Master Plan will be incorporated by reference as part of the Municipal Code for the regulation of development in Area 7A in the Southeast Overlay District.  (City of Medford, Applicant).
Aaron Harris, Planner II, gave an overview, approval criteria, and staff’s recommendation.  he thanked the Southeast Committee and Raul Woerner on behalf of the Planning Department for their hard work on this project, recognizing that this project took a great number of years and countless hours to complete.   
Vice Chair Tull asked at what point the City of Medford became the applicant rather than the people that brought the proposal to the City. John Adam, Senior Planner, stated that at some point the City had to take ownership because Planning will be administering the standards. It is the City’s document once it is adopted. 
Vice Chair Tull asked why the City is the applicant for its adoption.  Mr. Adam replied that during the preparation of the materials for the Planning Commission staff made changes that the City could use and implement. That would ultimately make the City responsible. So the Planning decided it was better to take ownership of it at this point.     
Vice Chair Tull reported that the Southeast Plan Advisory Committee spent close to two years working with the applicants and the group that represented them. Then it was brought to the Planning Commission and the City Council in a study session. Through all of that, the City was dealing with the developers, property owners, and their agents. He still considers the Master Plan to be a proposal that needs to be adopted by the City Council. Under ordinary circumstances that would be done via a request from the applicant who has presented a plan for use of this land. He said he did not remember a meeting with the Advisory Committee or in a study session with the City Council or in a meeting with the Planning Commission when the City became the applicant; he is not persuaded that this is in fact an application by the City. He said he is uncomfortable that now the Planning Commission is dealing with the City’s proposal rather than an applicant’s proposal as they ordinarily would. Mr. Adam stated that he is not sure how that changes the action before the Planning Commission tonight.
Vice Chair Tull stated that the fact that there is a commercial core and property does not change the procedure that the Planning Commission uses to adopt plans for land within the City. Beyond the actions of the Planning Commission and the City Council there are other actions that have to take place, such as zoning that has to be established. Would the City then be the applicant for each of those? That is not standard procedure unless it is a property that is owned by the City.  He is not comfortable at this stage in the process as an application from the City. The City does not own that property nor has a partnership in it. The City is waiting for its Planning Commission and its City Council to make decisions regarding the appropriateness of what has been planned and proposed by the land owners and developers.  He does not believe that this matter should be before the Planning Commission under these auspices. Mr. Adam said he feared that no answer he gave would change Mr. Tull’s mind or satisfy him. He added that the entire overlay district is something that has grown out of the City’s obligation under the Regional Transportation Plan to come up with transit-oriented development (TOD) or higher-density, more compact development. The City began establishing those TODs and the City has been partnering with property owners and working towards master plans and more refined plans. The Southeast Core Area master plan is also something City staff will have to administer at some point.             
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney, asked Vice Chair Tull whether he brought this to the attention of the Planning Department staff before this meeting. Vice Chair Tull replied no that it has never been presented to the Planning Commission this way. Mr. McConnell suggested that the Commission finish with the presentation and a motion could be made by the Commission reflecting Vice Chair Tull’s concerns.    
Vice Chair Tull stated that his inclination is not to go forward.
Commissioner Mansfield suggested, subject to the approval of the Deputy City Attorney, would it not be in order for a motion to be made to continue this matter to another time until such time the Planning Commission is satisfied that the appropriate applicant has presented the matter.
Mr. McConnell stated that this has been scheduled for a public hearing and there may be people present to speak tonight. It may be wise to continue with the proceeding and then make a motion after people have had a chance to testify. Some people may have made a special point to be present and heard tonight.
Vice Chair Tull stated that personally he believes the City has made a mistake in letting this develop to this point.   
Vice Chair Tull asked the Planning Commission if they wished to go ahead with a public hearing on this matter.
Commissioner Miranda stated that he concurs with Mr. McConnell in the fact that he believes there are people here tonight that may want to speak to this issue; the Commission should proceed with the hearing. As a Commission, if they have reservations on passing this, they still have the ability throughout the entire process to stall, redirect, or change as they see fit. The Commission should not inconvenience the people in the audience too much further.     
Mr. McConnell reiterated that the Planning Commission can recommend that the City Council not approve this based on Vice Chair Tull’s concerns. Ultimately it is the City Council’s decision.    
Vice Chair Tull asked the Commission whether they should proceed to open the public hearing for testimony? The Commission unanimously agreed to open the public hearing
Mr. Adam added that the criteria are the same criteria regardless of whose name is on the application. If the name was changed the Commission will still judge it by the same criteria.
The public hearing was opened.
a.  Raul Woerner, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Woerner stated that he has worked with the City and the Southeast Committee throughout the process.  They have tried to facilitate movement of master plan adoption under the code for the Southeast Core Area from 2009.  Mr. Woerner addressed the question of how a master plan would get adopted. He said the Code states that the City shall adopt a master plan before any property owner within the 7A overlay would have the right to file an application for a zone change or land development and have it considered—just as is the right of property owners elsewhere in the City—on its merits. He said City Council directed staff to initiate adoption of the master plan with the City as the applicant. He excused himself for a few minutes, saying that he was very upset that such a question could possiblly derail the process.
Mr. McConnell directed the Commission to page 10 of the agenda packet, which Mr. Woerner had referenced. It read “The City Council, at the conclusion of the study session, directed staff to proceed with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Code amendments as recommended by the property owners and Southeast Committee. The City Council further directed staff to proceed with adoption of the Master Plan with a requirement that a Traffic Impact Analysis be completed to demonstrate that a roundabout intersection as proposed in the Master Plan will operate property at that location”.  Mr. McConnell asked staff if that was a correct statement. Mr. Adam replied yes. Mr. McConnell stated that it is a reasonable conclusion that at that time the City Council pegged the City as the applicant.     
Vice Chair Tull stated that he does not understand that conclusion.  Vice Chair Tull interjected one recollection that the Southeast Committee was asked to pay close attention to the proposal that was made by the collection of property owners and Raul Woerner as the agent.  The Committee participated in a study session with the City Council. Unless he recalls in great error, the Southeast Committee recommended to the City Council the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendments and design standards that were a part of the proposal, but the Committee, by unanimous consent, advised the City Council that it did not believe that the Master Plan layout for the use of the property deserved to be made the Master Plan that would direct all development on that property.  Vice Chair Tull said he came to this meeting with the understanding that the Planning Commission had the responsibility and authority to say yes or no that this is an appropriate master plan design for the use of that property.   
Mr. Adam responded that the name of the applicant does not change the Planning Commission’s role, power, or ability to recommend approval or denial to the City Council.
b.  Carl Bartlett, 2829 Kari Circle, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Bartlett stated that he was the Chairman of the Southeast Plan Implementation Advisory Committee almost from the beginning of August 2001.  Mr. Bartlett reported that he had submitted a letter to the Planning Department on November 7, 2014 and that the Planning Commission has it at their places this evening. Mr. Bartlett then read the letter, which said that the Southeast Plan Implementation Advisory Committee did not endorse incorporating the proposed Master Plan for the regulation of development in area (7A) in the Southeast Overlay District.
c.  Patricia Grissom, 3566 Michael Park Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Grissom was concerned about increased traffic, noise, and erosion of the creek. Ms. Grissom suggested a sound barrier wall to help cut the noise down. Ms. Grissom submitted photographs of the area.   
d.  Gene Pelham, 1016 Callaway Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504, stated he works for Rogue Federal Credit Union, which owns a piece of the Commercial Core area. He said RFCU had worked diligently to ensure that their’s is a responsible development because the members will use it, and that they value their investment in the community. He said they have worked diligently to follow the process outlined in this effort. They have at every turn met the requests of various parties that have had multiple ways of addressing this issue. They purchased the property in 2009 and have worked throughout the entire time waiting to provide a branch for their members on that corner.  He implored the Planning Commission to allow the process to work the way they have relied on and come to believe it would work.    
e.  Raul Woerner, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173. Mr. Woerner spoke to the erosion issue of the creek.  The master plan includes specific and special street design for Michael Park that would be mandatory for this development.  It includes a requirement that there be a water quality drainage swale provided along the downgrade on the north side of the street as a park edge treatment and to treat that water. It is consistent with Medford’s adopted Stormwater Quality Management Plan.
Mr. Woerner talked about why the plan is designed the way it is.  Buildings are pulled back from North Phoenix Road to reduce the traffic noise. The Southeast Committee was receptive to making Stanford the main street retail area since it was narrower and not a classified street, which will make it a more intimate street environment where sidewalk cafes could be placed. It is also the entry crossing the creek from the commercial zoned area to the north.  The south is designated for medium-density development. There is also high density nearby.  With the roundabout, which also functions to turn buses around, the property to the north expressed doing a mixed-use development with their urban-medium density.  Over time as the additional residences throughout the area start to build, out connecting from the east, north, and south, more people from that area will be able to bike and walk to the commercial center. The Southeast Village Center is more than just the commercial core, it is the transit-oriented district.             
Vice Chair Tull asked the Commission for permission to allow Mr. Bartlett to speak to the Commission some more. The Commission agreed. 
Mr. Bartlett gave the Commission his background on the Southeast Plan: it started in 1998 and was a City Council project. He said they appointed the Southeast Plan Implementation Advisory Committee in 2001 to implement the Plan. He said the Committee implemented the Plan that the City laid out in Code Section 10.370 through 10.385.  He reported that people from all over the State have come look at this. He believes it is almost a first for the State to have a project like this. Mr. Bartlett named the members of the Southeast Committee: himself, Chairman; Raul Woerner; Robert Tull from the Planning Commission; Randy Jones, developer; Mike Mahar, developer; Jim Bennett, developer; Greg Jones and Dick Gordon from City Council; and David McFadden from Planning Commission.    
The public hearing was closed.
The Commission took a 10-minute recess.  The meeting was reconvened at 7:05
Commissioner Miranda spoke partially to Vice Chair Tull’s concerns.  He said he understood them and in part agrees with them.  He questioned whether the ownership of the application is relevant. He said that based on the testimony he has heard, that action was appropriate; that the City should take ownership and drive this process forward to its conclusion.      
Commissioner Mansfield stated his discussion goes to the merits of the matter.  He believes Carl Bartlett and the Southeast Committee have concerns about the planning of the commercial area and he adopts those concerns. He plans on voting no to the master plan.
Vice Chair Tull asked Commissioner Mansfield if, given Vice Chair Tull’s concerns about who is bringing this to the Commission and who owns it at this point, he is ready to move forward with a decision as to what goes to the City Council?  Commissioner Mansfield replied that he shared Vice Chair Tull’s concerns about who the real party in interest is. He pointed out that counsel does not think it is an issue, but Vice Chair Tull does and so does he. 
Commissioner Schwimmer stated that he does not have an issue with the City as the applicant.  He does think there are items that can be fine-tuned in approving the master plan as presented.           
Mr. McConnell advised that the Planning Commission is a recommending body this evening.  He said the Planning Commission’s job is to determine whether this application has met the approval criteria or not. If the Commission believes it has not met the approval criteria the Commission may want to make specific findings as to why it does not meet the approval criteria. If it does meet the approval criteria, then talk about that a little before moving on.
Vice Chair Tull restated Mr. Bartlett’s suggestion that the Planning Commission consider this as two separate issues: the code amendments and the Core Area Master Plan.    
Motion: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the amendments to the Municipal Code, Sections 10.370–10.385.
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield      Seconded by: Commissioner Fincher
Roll Call Vote: 5–0.  Motion passed.
Motion: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the master plan as proposed by staff.
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield      Seconded by: Commissioner Miranda
Roll Call Vote: 1–4, with Commissioners Fincher, Mansfield, Schwimmer and Tull voting no.  Motion failed.
Commissioner Miranda spoke to his voting yes.  He commends staff for the presentation. As a body or individuals Commission members might disagree with the design, structure, complexity, or aesthetics, yet the proposal in its entirety holds merit. The conditions have been met. He believes they are obligated to proceed forward with the recommendation that the conditions the City has put forth for this application have been agreed upon, met and presented. If the City Council feels there are gaps, items that need to be reinvestigated, that is their power and what they are there for.
Vice Chair Tull responded with his opinion that the design standards and Comprehensive Plan amendments that have been adopted around this entire development were essentially prepared by the agent of the property owners, and the Planning Department has now adopted them as their own. Those standards and designs were developed and proposed to the City in order to make this proposal possible. It is possible to say that this design technically meets those standards because the standards were designed to allow that to happen.  It is his opinion that the City deserves better than this, that more thought should be given to it. With the City Council urging it would allow the City to facilitate the development of this property in ways that have not yet been considered because it was not what was proposed.
Mr. McConnell asked Vice Chair Tull if what he had just stated was that the application technically met all the applicable criteria but it was, in his opinion, just not good enough.  Vice Chair Tull responded that it meets all the applicable criteria because the criteria were written in order to make that possible. The City revised the Comprehensive Plan and the Code in order that this Plan could be approved.   
Commissioner Mansfield stated that in his view the Commissioners are more than automatons that simply determine whether or not the standards are met. He said he believes they have an area of discretion which they have exercised tonight. 
Mr. McConnell asked staff what procedurally happens if the last motion stands and the Planning Commission declines to make a favorable recommendation? Does City Council hear it anyway? Mr. Adam responded that from the construction of Commissioner Mansfield’s motion he heard two recommendations coming from this body.  One motion being a recommendation to approve the amendments 10.370 through 10.385, and the other being a recommendation to not approve the master plan. These would be the recommendations he would take to City Council on December 18, 2014. 
Mr. McConnell stated that he understands Vice Chair Tull’s concerns. He suggested it would have been a better option to contact staff before tonight’s meeting so they would have had a chance to address his concerns. It is hard to do when it is thrown out there during a public hearing while on television. Mr. McConnell made clear that he is not telling him he has to do that. It violates no ethics rule for him to contact staff and make his concerns heard. Having listened to testimony this evening he does not think there is any procedural error here. He believes it is the Commission’s job to determine whether the applicable criteria have been met. He does agree with Commissioner Mansfield that they can certainly voice their opinion on specifics. If the applicable criteria have been met, he recommends that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation. There is nothing stopping the Commission when they make a favorable recommendation to address concerns they have about the Plan. On the subject of who is presenting, he said he does not know who else would be presenting the Plan if not for the City staff. He believes that was helpful to this Commission to have the Planning Department which has a lot of expertise in these matters to compile the evidence to allow the Commission to determine whether this plan has met the applicable criteria. The Commission did hear from other people besides staff. They heard from interested parties. If the Commission believes the master plan has met the applicable criteria he recommends they take another look at the motion they just passed.     
Vice Chair Tull commented that he did not expect that the Commission was dealing with an application made by the City for its purposes.  He thought they were dealing with an application presented to the Commission by a group of property owners acting through Raul Woerner as their agent and seeking the opinion and best judgment of this Commission as to whether what they have proposed should go to the City Council with a recommendation by this Planning Commission that it be adopted as the master plan for this property. 
Motion:  The Planning Commission forwards to the City Council a recommendation that this design for the development of the property not be made the master plan of the City that would control the development of the property. 
Vice Chair Tull stated that his reason for recommending that denial of the request is that the proposal presented to the Planning Commission fails to meet the expectations expressed directly in the Comprehensive Plan section dealing with the Southeast Plan and the development of this property as a central feature for development of the Southeast project. It does not deserve that.  
Moved by: Commissioner Tull      Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
Mr. McConnell asked to make it clear was Vice Chair Tull forwarding an unfavorable recommendation to the City Council regarding the master plan. Vice Chair Tull confirmed this.   
Commissioner Mansfield stated the he thought the Commission has already said it in their earlier motion but he believes Vice Chair Tull has said it more articulately. 
Roll Call Vote: 4–1, with Commissioner Miranda voting no.
Vice Chair Tull turned the meeting back over to Chair Zarosinski.
50.2     DCA-14-107 Consideration of a Class ‘A’ legislative code amendment to: (1) Eliminate SPAC review for duplexes; (2) Change peak-hour factor for TIAs from 0.9 to 1.0 to capture a larger proportion of the peak hour; (3) Allow auto dealerships in I-L zoning district and eliminate the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement; (4) Clarify how much retail is permitted in industrial zoning districts as an accessory use; (5) Eliminate the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement for farmer’s markets in the Central Business (CB) overlay; (6) Fix contradiction in §10.474 about how much bicycle parking is required with expansion of buildings; (7) Update the parking table and provide for vehicle encroachment into landscape and sidewalk areas; (8) Eliminate GLUP boundary referent and instead use zoning district boundary in §10.721 for determining commercial structure height adjacent to residential designations; (9) Eliminate GLUP boundary referent and instead use zoning district boundary to measure setbacks for electronic message signs; (10) Remove conflicts in the Landscape Bufferyard table; (11) Clarify that through-lots are subject to both 20-foot and 10-foot street setbacks; and (12) Eliminate the Building Site Improvement Agreement process. (City of Medford, Applicant).
Carla Paladino, Planner III, presented a brief overview of the code amendments 1 through 12.  Ms. Paladino refered to two sentences on page 127 of the agenda packet that need to be corrected: strike “or GLUP Map designation” in two places. Ms. Paladino read the approval criteria and briefly covered staff’s findings.
Commissioner Miranda asked, regarding Amendment No. 8, if the landscaping area is to be increased by two feet and it is located in the center of a parking lot with parking on both sides, does that mean it needs to be increased by four feet?  Ms. Paladino affirmed.  
Chair Zarosinski said, regarding Amendment No. 7, that he brought up a concern at the study session about the difficulty of bringing an expansion project fully into compliance with bicycle parking requirements. Was that looked at? Ms. Paladino replied that staff did discuss his concern. The current language is contradictory: one sentence requires expansion or new construction to comply fully, the next sentence requires building additions to comply only incrementally.     
The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Motion:  Based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are either met or are not applicable, the Planning Commission initiates the amendment and forwards a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-14-107 to the City Council per the staff report dated November 6, 2014, including Exhibits A through C, and the correction to Amendment No. 10 (page 127 of the agenda packet).
Moved by: Commissioner Miranda      Seconded by: Commissioner Fincher
Roll Call Vote: 6–0.
50.3     LDS-14-102 Consideration of a request to create 15 lots on approximately 2.11 acres located on the southwest corner of Maple Park Drive and North Ross Lane within the SFR-10 (Single Family Residential - 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district.  (NeighborWorks Umpqua, Applicant; Erik Ranger, Agent).
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.  
Chair Zarosinski 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, reminded the Commission that a letter was received late this afternoon from an adjacent property owner.  The letter was placed at the Commissioner’s seats before the meeting and will be submitted into the record as Exhibit M.  Ms. Jones read the land division criteria and gave a staff report.
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given. 
a.  Erik Ranger, IE Engineering, 809 SE Pine Street, Roseburg, Oregon, 97470-3107.  Mr. Ranger stated that he is the agent and the civil engineer for the owner/developer NeighborWorks Umpqua, a non-profit of Roseburg.  Staff covered the general layout of the subdivision well.  This property had a previous tentative plat approval by a previous owner that expired.  The new application mimics the previous tentative plat with the interior roads.  Some of the lot configurations have been changed.  This is an infill development.           
b.  Rosemary Roheabacher, 1480 Honeysuckle Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504-5558.  Ms. Roheabacher stated that she is the office manager for Ed Fleming who owns the property adjacent to the proposal.  Ms. Roheabacher asked what type of housing is proposed.  They have duplexes and single family homes that they have built on 35 lots.  They want to know whether or not they are having duplexes, low income housing, what is the plan?  Chair Zarosinski reported that the Planning Commission hears what her concerns are regarding this application.  The Planning Commission is looking at an SFR-10 development which is 10 units per acre.  They do not get into the details of income levels that will be there or architecture.  Ms. Roheabacher asked if Kaitlin Lane will go straight through?  Chair Zarosinski reported that according to the plat submitted that is a through street.    
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, addressed some of the concerns that the Planning Commission heard.  The density range for this particular property is 15 to 25 units.  The applicant is proposing 15 units.  The zoning allows single family residences to be constructed which would be, as is permitted to the south they can go up to 35 feet in height as long as they meet the setbacks.  The homes could be single or two story.  The income level is something that is not part of this arena.   
Alex Georgevitch, Transportation Manager reported that regarding the concern raised in a letter dealing with the open ditch running through the property that is in a conduit to the south.  There is a desire for that to be piped through this location.  It is outside of the purview of the City of Medford if that can actually occur.  That will have to go through the Army Corps of Engineers for approval.  Because they are showing a road on top of it there is a plan at a minimum to underground it for the majority of the way.  There will be no grading to allow water to run to the south.    
Commissioner Miranda asked whether Heber Lane would be extended in the future?  Mr. Georgevitch replied that as with any streets that are built there is a requirement in the Code to allow for future connectivity and not to prohibit development of adjoining lands.  Heber Lane is being designed to align with the existing Heber Lane south of Dahlia Way and if that property that currently sits between this development and Dahlia Way ever redevelops it would be required to extend Heber Lane to Dahlia Way.  
The public hearing was closed.
Motion:  Adopt the Final Order for approval of LDS-14-102 per the Staff Report dated November 6, 2014, including Exhibits A through M. 
Moved by: Commissioner Miranda      Seconded by: Commissioner Tull
Roll Call Vote: 6-0.
50.4     LDP-14-078/ZC-14-079 Consideration of a request for a consolidated application approval, consisting of Zone Change from SFR-6 (Single Family Residential – 6 dwelling units per gross acre) to C-S/P (Service Commercial/ Professional Office) on a 5.94 acre portion of an 8.87 acre site zoned SFR-6, and a two-lot partition to separate the proposed C-S/P zoning from the existing SFR-6 zoning that will remain. The site is located on the southeast corner of Springbrook Road and E. McAndrews Road.  (Bonaventure Senior Living, Eric Rouse, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Agent)
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.  
Chair Zarosinski 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, reported that the land division criteria had been read in the previous application.  Mr. McGeough read the zone change criteria and gave a staff report.
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 was present tonight representing Bonaventure Senior Living in the application before the Planning Commission this evening.  Staff did a good job presenting the application.  The Commission saw this come before them as part of a plan amendment about six months ago.  This is the follow-up to that which is to do the actual zone change to reflect the plan designation that was recommended by the Planning Commission and ultimately adopted by the City Council.  The partition is simply to get the two different zoning districts on their own parcels.  The applicant agrees with staff’s assessment and asks the Planning Commission to approve the application.     
Mr. Harland continued, stating that Public Works is requesting an easement for sanitary sewer and storm drainage that would serve parcel 2 through parcel 1.  The applicant does not have an issue granting the easement, but the project engineer has looked at it and thinks that parcel 2 could be served out to Springbrook.  If that is the case the applicant has an easement running through the commercial part of the project that is not needed.  He asked Mr. Georgevitch what the process was to remove the easement and he stated that if the easement is not needed when development is approved for parcel 2 the City could quit claim back the easement.  Mr. Harland asked the Commission to follow-up on that and get it on the record because it is important to his client that they do not unnecessarily encumber their property.
b.  Joan Middendorff, 1252 Valley View Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504-5659.  Ms. Middendorff reported that she is in the SFR-4 area.  Bonaventure held a neighborhood meeting in April and invited a great number of people.  Bonaventure explained at that meeting what they would be doing.  There were no objections from anyone at the time.  It is her opinion the development will be a good development.  
Mr. Georgevitch reported that he and Mr. Harland had a discussion on how to deal with a situation if the easement that is being required of them at this time is not needed in the future.   The City would end up quit claiming any easements that are not in use.  That is the only way he is aware of that they could remove them as an encumbrance.  Mr. Georgevitch did caution the Commission that Public Works did not have enough information at this point to not request the easement.     
Mr. McConnell stated that he agrees.  He believes the Planning Commission can impose the condition.  If Public Works determines that the easement on this parcel is not the City would quit claim it back to the owner. 
The public hearing was closed.
Motion:  Adopt the Final Order for approval of LDP-14-078 and ZC-14-079 per the Staff Report dated November 6, 2014, including Exhibits A through F and the recommendation that Mr. McConnell just stated regarding the easement.   
Moved by: Commissioner Miranda     Seconded by: Commissioner Tull
Roll Call Vote: 6-0.
60.       Report of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission. 
60.1     Commissioner Miranda reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, November 7, 2014.  They had a continuance request of an exception to allow for the expansion of a building with a non-conforming setback on a 1.04 acre parcel located at the northern terminus of Crews Road, approximately 760 feet northeast of Table Rock Road.  They also reviewed plans for the construction of a 2,475 square foot Del Taco restaurant located at the southwest corner of E. Stewart Avenue and E Barnett Road.  Also, on the agenda, was consideration of plans for Fern Gardens Phase 3, a 48,446 square foot memory care facility on the north side of Swing Lane, approximately 390 feet east of Table Rock Road within the MFR-20 zoning district.  The last item they considered was a request for approval of the City of Medford police station and parking structure, consisting of a 47,240 square foot, three story public safety building and a four story, 43,131 square foot parking structure, and associated exception to street development standards of MLDC 10.358 to eliminate on street parking on Ivy and Holly Streets and right-of-way encroachment for installation of vehicle barrier seat wall.  All items were approved. 
70.       Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee. 
70.1     Vice Chair Tull reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met.
80.       Report of the Planning Department.  
80.1     Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, congratulated Chair Zarosinski for his election to the City Council.
There are vacancies on the Planning Commission.  There will be Chair Zarosinski’s partial term vacancy.  Commissioner Christie’s, Commissioner Tull’s and Commissioner Mansfield’s terms are expiring.  There are several applicants for this body.  City Council will be interviewing early to mid-December.
The Boards and Commissions luncheon is scheduled for Friday, January 23, 2015.
The Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, November 24, 2014, has been cancelled. 
There will be no business on Thursday, November 27, 2014, due to Thanksgiving.
The Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 11, 2014, has six items scheduled for public hearing. 
On November 6, 2014, City Council heard the electronic message sign code revision and continued it for two more weeks. 
City Council, on December 4, 2014, will hear the first round of the urban growth boundary amendment, formerly ISAs and now PALs. 
On October 28, 2014, the Planning Department hosted an open house on the external areas.  Ms. Akin recognized and congratulated all the long range planners.  It was a great event.  There were between 140 and 150 people that attended.  Vice Chair Tull stated that he has received very positive feedback from people who were there. 
90.       Messages and Papers from Chair of Planning Commission.  None. 
100.     Remarks from the City Attorney.  None.
110.     Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. 
110.1   Vice Chair Tull stated that he was grateful that the Deputy City Attorney was present and helped the Commission think through some issues that he raised. 
120.     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             
Michael Zarosinski
Planning Commission Chair
Approved:  December 11, 2014        

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


Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top