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, July 09, 2015

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:33 PM in the Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
David McFadden, Chair
Patrick Miranda, Vice Chair
Tim D’Alessandro
Norman Fincher
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
Jared Pulver
 
Commissioners Absent
None
 
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Jennifer Jones, Planner II
Desmond McGeough, Planner II
 
10.          Roll Call
10.1        Commissioner D’Alessandro volunteered to be on the Site Plan and Architectural Commission for 2015.
 
Commissioner Pulver volunteered to be on the Joint Transportation Subcommittee for 2015.
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1 CUP-15-054 Final Order for a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of two multi- use trail ramp connections, portions of which lie within the Bear Creek Riparian Corridor. Subject trail connections will connect Bear Creek Greenway to the Highway 62/Interstate 5 interchange, located on the southwest and northwest corners of the interchange within the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) and C-R (Regional Commercial) zone districts. (Jackson County, James Philp, Applicant/Agent)
 
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar.
 
Moved by: Chair McFadden                                                        Seconded by: There was no second
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7–0-1, with Commissioner Mansfield abstaining.
 
30.         Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for June 25, 2015, 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—New business
50.1 LDP-15-061 Request to create two parcels on a 1.01 acre lot located on the south side of Barnett Road between Black Oak Road and Murphy Road, within a C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district. (John Batzer, Applicant; Polaris Land Surveying, LLC, Agent)
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner McKechnie stated that he is involved in the project and recused himself.  Commissioner Pulver stated that he has a potential conflict and recused himself.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Jennifer Jones, Planner II, read the land division criteria.  Ms. Jones stated that there is an additional exhibit that was provided to the Planning Commission and will be submitted into the record as Exhibit I.  Ms. Jones gave a staff report. 
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Shawn Kampmann, Polaris Land Surveying, LLC, P. O. Box 459, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  Mr. Kampmann stated this is a simple partition and was available if the Commission had any questions.
 
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-15-061 per the staff report dated July 2, 2015, including Exhibits A through I.
 
Moved by: Commissioner D’Alessandro                                Seconded by: Vice Chair Miranda
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6–0-2, with Commissioner McKechnie and Commissioner Pulver recused.
 
50.2 LDS-15-067 Silky Oaks Subdivision Phase 4, creating six residential lots on 1.07 acres located on the north side of Maple Park Drive between Ross Lane and Silky Oaks Lane within the SFR-10 (single-family residential 10-dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (Ron Horton, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent)
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner McKechnie stated that the agent for this application is his neighbor but it would not affect his views on the project.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Jennifer Jones, Planner II, stated that she read the land division criteria with the previous application and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if Lot 28 had a shared access agreement with Lots 29 and 30?  Ms. Jones replied there is an access easement. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if there was an agreement for maintenance and the details on how it is managed among the three lots?  Ms. Jones replied that staff is not aware of specific details and deferred the question to the applicant’s agent.
 
Chair McFadden asked if this qualifies as a minimum access street?  Ms. Jones replied that it does.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner stated that he is the agent for the applicant.  Mr. Sinner reported that Lot 28 owns the flag going down lots 29 and 30.  It is created as a minimum access easement and the language on the final plat covers the maintenance.   
 
Chair McFadden asked if there were drainage issues on this phase?  Mr. Sinner replied no.  Phase 3 was engineered to accommodate Phase 4. 
 
b. Joan Bowen, 771 Silky Oaks Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97501-6657.  Ms. Bowen’s concern is the access and egress of all the properties in this phase.  Has the police and fire agencies signed off on this project?  She would like to have a written answer to what they said and when wants to know what the said about how they are going to get in.  She would like to see the remarks that both those agencies made as to how they are going to face an accident or an emergency as the subdivision grows.
 
Chair McFadden stated that the report would be available through the Planning Department.  The minimum access street is only for lots 28, 29 and 30.  It will not impact traffic flow in the rest of the subdivision.
 
Ms. Jones stated that the Planning Department has on record the Fire Department comments on this project.
 
Ms. Bowen is in favor of this project but she is really worried about the traffic.
               
Mr. Sinner reminded the Commission that this is Silky Oaks Phase 4.  This is the final six lots in this area that will be developed by this applicant.  Silky Oaks Phases 1, 2, and 3 have been approved, developed and under construction.  He will pass on to the applicant to try and minimize the impact of construction.  Phases 1, 2 and 3 were set up for incremental development.  There are street stubs planned that will eventually connect.  The Fire Department has commented on Silky Oaks Phase 4 and this application meets their current standards and codes.
   
Chair McFadden asked if there was consideration of designing this phase with a partial street down the west property line allowing for half street development down to Maple Park in the configuration of the homes on the other side of the fence so that there would be two streets creating a second access?  Mr. Sinner reported that the applicant looked at various design potential.  There are two houses on this development that the applicant is retaining.  Lots 28 and 32 had a significant impact in how this project was planned.  The applicant submitted a circulation plan that was reviewed for Silky Oaks Phases 3 and 4 with this application.
    
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: Adopt the findings as recommended by staff and direct staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of LDS-15-067 per the staff report dated July 2, 2015 including Exhibits A through H.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                   Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
 
50.3 CUP-15-066 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an electronic message sign at a location within 150 feet of a residential zone district on a property zoned C-S/P (Service Commercial and Professional Office) located on the south side of Barnett Road, approximated 400 feet west of Ellendale Drive. (Oregon Retina Center, Applicant; Steve Morgan, Designer Signs, Agent)
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Desmond McGeough, Planner II, read the conditional use permit criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the sign moves back 5 feet what is the building setback from the property line?  Mr. McGeough reported that the building setback is 10 feet.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked what was the width of the sign?  Mr. McGeough deferred the question to the applicant’s agent.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if is possible for the applicant to move the sign someplace so that it is outside the 150 foot requirement?  Mr. McGeough reported that would be challenging.  They might be able to move it 20 feet to the east.
      
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Steve Morgan, Designer Signs, 842 S. Front Street, Central Point, Oregon, 97502.  The sign cannot be placed closer to the driveway because of visibility issues.  The reason they are asking it to be placed 5 feet forward you get zero setback.  The Oregon Department of Transportation had owned that area for widening Barnett Road then they turned it over to Public Works.  Instead of a normal setback on the back of the sidewalk there is an extra 10 feet to the property line then another 10 feet to the building.  By the time the sign is installed it is a 20 foot setback from the road.
    
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked if consideration was given to flag mounting the sign and elevating the sign to take care of visual issues with the traffic?  Mr. Morgan stated that a sign cannot be over 9 feet tall in a C-S zone.
 
b. Leslie Morgan, Designer Signs, 842 S. Front Street, Central Point, Oregon, 97502.  The reasoning for the desire to have the zero setbacks because of being pushed back from the Oregon Department of Transportation easement is for traffic.  People that are approaching the eye center will be able to see the signage.  It is going to be set deep because of the current conditions.  If any of the Commissioners have any creative thoughts about how the applicant can approach that issue they would appreciate knowing them now.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked if the exhibit in the agenda packet depict the zero setbacks or a 5 foot setback?  Commissioner Miranda stated it depicts the zero setbacks.
     
Commissioner McKechnie suggested eliminating the electronic reader board part of the signage and moves the sign further to the west.  There would be plenty of visibility in both directions.  The applicant would not have the issue with the conditional use permit.  Ms. Morgan stated that she does not know if that would solve the visibility issues.  There is a lot of vegetation that would create issues.
     
c. Yujen Wang, 2859 State Street, Suite 103, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Dr. Wang stated that most of his patients are low vision and visibility is very important.  A lot of them are not from this area.  If they keep recessing the sign back they could totally miss the eye center.
    
Chair McFadden stated that it sounds like property is being held by the City or the Oregon Department of Transportation that there is no use for.  Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, stated that there is additional right-of-way that was purchased by the Oregon Department of Transportation for the utilities both overhead and underground.  If there is a desire to remove potential additional public right-of-way they would have to go through a vacation process.  It may have complications because the right-of-way may have been purchased with federal funds therefore may require the fund to be repaid.
   
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  Deny the conditional use permit. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: There was no second
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that it does not satisfy Criteria 1 because it is a severe impact and it does not satisfy Criteria 2.  There are other options for full visibility.
 
Commissioner Mansfield agreed with Commission McKechnie.  He proposed that the motion should be made in a positive.  If there is a tie vote it fails.  If you put it in negative terms then there are obstacles to get around.
  
Motion: Adopt the findings as recommended by staff and direct staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of CUP-15-066 per the staff report dated July 2, 2015, including Exhibits A through J.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he intended to vote no for the same reason Commissioner McKechnie intends to vote no.
      
Mr. McConnell stated that there is a motion and a second for the sign as presented in the staff report.  If the Commission wants to consider amending the motion it should be done as amending the motion on the table.
 
Commissioner Pulver recommended that at a future date staff discuss unique circumstances on conditional use permits.
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5–3, with Commissioner Fincher, Commissioner Mansfield and Commissioner McKechnie voting no.
 
50.4 CUP-15-075 Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow establishment and operation of a three-grade middle school, within an approximate 6,000 square foot building located on the west side of Riverside, approximately 60 feet south of Walnut Street, within a C-C (Community Commercial) zone district. (Valley School of Southern Oregon, Applicant; Maize & Associates, Inc., Agent)
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed. 
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Desmond McGeough, Planner II, stated the conditional use permit criteria was read in the previous application and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Fincher asked if a school zone would be placed on Riverside in that area?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that there would not be a school zone placed on Riverside in that area.  The applicant could request one through a standard procedure through a citizen request form.  Currently the speed limit is 30 mph on a one-way street.  It could be as little as 20 mph, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on school days.
 
Mr. Georgevitch stated that originally the applicant submitted a site plan with a drop-off zone.  Public Works had requested a traffic analysis.  The applicant made changes to remove the drop-off zone that Public Works is fine with.  If there becomes a problem with traffic backing up on Riverside that a traffic analysis would be required to make the conditional use permit valid.  Public Works wants that to be a condition of approval.  All of this information is in the Public Works staff report.
        
Commissioner Fincher asked if staff knew the capacity of the school?  Mr. Georgevitch deferred the question to the applicant.
 
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked if the nearest signal light crossing was Manzanita?  Mr. Georgevitch replied yes.  Walnut would technically be a crossing under state law.  If it is a school zone Public Works would encourage and paint a crosswalk if requested if there was a crossing guard or some other type of positive control to cross at Walnut. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if there was one exit onto Riverside and two entrances off of Riverside?  Mr. McGeough deferred the question to the applicant.
 
Commissioner Fincher asked what is the number of parking spaces associated with this area?  Mr. McGeough replied that there are 116 parking spaces.  Some of those will be used for the play area.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jim Maize, Maize and Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 628, Medford, OR  97501-0042.  Mr. Maize stated that he was present tonight representing the applicant The Valley School of Southern Oregon.  Mr. Maize reported that Amy Mankonen, who is present tonight, is the founder of the Valley School of Southern Oregon and she will be the site administrator.  Ms. Mankonen will discuss the school and how it works.  She will address the Commissioner’s questions.
   
b. Amy Mankonen, 2120 Oakwood Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504-7635.  Ms. Mankonen stated that there will be 75 students in the first year with 5 teachers.  They have formed a parent committee for transportation. They have a parent that is highly involved with running RVTD.  There is an opportunity for them to tap into one of their car pooling resources.  They have also started discussing with Medford School District 549C the opportunity to have a bus.  They are not an open campus.  They have a kitchen where lunches will be provided.  They are not proposing a request for a dropped school zone.  Kids Unlimited is down the street and they do not have a dropped school zone.
   
Commissioner Pulver asked if there are any parameters for re-approval.  Ms. Mankonen stated that they have a three year approval.  They have submitted the application to enroll up to 75 students the first year and up to 100 for years 2 and 3. 
   
Mr. Maize recognized school board members and interested parents from The Valley School of Southern Oregon in the audience this evening.
 
Mr. Maize stated that in the findings that were submitted both sets of criteria were addressed.  The Charter school is not going to create any adverse impacts on the surrounding area above those that would be created from uses that are permitted in the Community Commercial zone.  The applicant has addressed those issues.  The second criteria in case the Planning Commission feels that there are some adverse impacts that could be addressed and they have included conditions of that approval to mitigate those conditions.  In that case the Code states that Criteria 2 must be addressed.  That is the reason for both sets of criteria included in their findings.
 
There are two southern ingresses and one egress.
 
Mr. Georgevitch mentioned in the original application included a drop-off plan.  If stacking occurred jeopardizing the ingress people could flow back out to the south and park or circle around and try again.  Public Works was concerned about that and how it would operate and asked for a traffic study.  Because time is of the essence in this situation and they are looking to open the first part of September it precluded going through a traffic analysis so the applicant chose to eliminate a formal designated drop-off and pick-up area. The site offers three side streets that have low volumes of traffic.  The school will keep an eye on the impact of Riverside.
                
Chair McFadden asked how many businesses are in this development?  Mr. Maize stated that he believes there are twenty businesses with about 60% occupancy.
    
Vice Chair Miranda asked if there were going to be any designated parking spaces for staff or is it open parking?  Staff will be utilizing ten spaces in the furthest parking spaces away from the other commercial businesses in the southern parking lot.
 
Vice Chair Miranda asked if the most southern portion of the development was going to be a recreational area for the students?  Mr. Maize reported that part of it would be an exercise area.
 
Mr. Georgevitch pointed out that at one point Public Works was supportive of using Niantic as a drop-off area without a traffic study.  If the applicant determines that a designated drop-off area is needed and they choose to use that area Public Works would not require any further analysis.
     
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: Adopt the applicant’s findings for Criterion 2 and adopt the Final Order for approval of CUP-15-075 per the staff report dated July 2, 2015, including Exhibits A through J.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                   Seconded by: Commissioner Fincher
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1        Site Plan and Architectural Commission. None.
 
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee. None.
 
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that the next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, July 27, 2015.  The study session will be a follow-up on the Thursday, July 9, 2015, joint study session with the City Council.  Staff’s plan is to draft some language regarding time, manner and place restrictions on marijuana facilities.
 
Chair McFadden asked if staff would appreciate the Planning Commissions comments from the Thursday, July 9, 2015, joint study session before the Monday, July 27, 2015 study session?  Ms. Akin replied that anything that the Planning Commission would like to give, staff is happy to take.  It would be helpful.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission through August.
 
Last week the City Council heard the 2015 Spring Cleaning amendments that were before the Planning Commission on June 11, 2015.  The temporary storage container proposal to lift the sunset clause came into effect June 30, 2015.  It went before the City Council on July 2, 2015, so it already sunset.  The Planning Commission will see it again on Thursday, August 13, 2015.  The City Council approved the Lozier Lane Transportation Facility improvement that the Planning Commission heard in June.
 
The City Council at their next meeting will hear the airport general land use plan map amendment that the Planning Commission heard at their June 25, 2015 meeting.
     
60.          Messages and Papers from the Chair. None.
 
70.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
 
80.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
90.          Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
 
Submitted by:
 
Terri L. Rozzana                                                                
Recording Secretary
 
David McFadden
Planning Commission Chair
                                                                               
Approved: July 23, 2015

 
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top