Agenda & Minutes

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

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

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, December 10, 2015

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the City Hall 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
David Culbertson (left at 8:14 p.m.)
Norman Fincher
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
Jared Pulver
 
Staff Present
Bianca Petrou, Assistant Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
John Adam, Principal Planner
John Huttl, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Desmond McGeough, Planner III
Praline McCormack, Planner II
Jennifer Jones, Planner III
Aaron Harris, Planner II
Tracy Carter, Planner II
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1 ZC-15-117 Final Order for a zone change from SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – 10 dwelling units per gross acre) to C-S/P (Service Commercial and Professional Office) on three lots on East Jackson Street between Mae Street and Marie Street with addresses of 300 Mae Street, 1027 E. Jackson Street, and 1029 E. Jackson Street. Ryan Cantor, Mike Malepsy and James Kell, Applicants (Ryan Kantor, Agent).
 
20.2 ZC-15-127 Final Order for a zone change from SFR-6 (Single Family Residential – 6 dwelling units per gross acre) to MFR-20 (Multi-Family Residential – 20 dwelling units per gross acre) on two parcels on the west side of Orchard Home Drive approximately 400 feet north of Westwood Drive (372W35DA Tax Lots 1300 & 1400).  Housing Authority of Jackson County, Applicant (Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent).
 
20.3 ZC-15-119 Final Order for a request for a change of zone from SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre) to MFR-20 (Multiple-Family Residential, 20 dwelling units per gross acre) on approximately 1.12 acres generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Howard Avenue and Berrydale Avenue. Michael & Carolyn Mabry, Applicant (Richard Stevens & Associates, Agent).
 
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar.
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                   Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 9–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for November 12, 2015, were approved as submitted.
   
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications. None.
 
John Huttl, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings – Continuance Request
50.1 LDS-15-118 Consideration of a tentative plat application for a mixed-use development to be known as West Meadows Village, consisting of a total of 15 lots on 9.14 acres within a SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential – 10 dwelling units per gross acre) and MFR-20 (Multiple-Family Residential – 20 dwelling units per gross acre) with PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning Overlay. Subject tentative plat consists of 5 Single-family lots, 5 duplex lots, 2 commercial lots and 3 multi-family lots. The site is generally located on the east side of Lozier Lane on the north and south sides of Meadows Lane.  (David & Elahe Young Family Trust, Applicant; Richard Stevens & Associates, Agent)
 
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, stated that the applicant is requesting additional time to perfect the proposed street alignments.  They have requested to continue the item to the January 28, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Chair McFadden stated that if there was anyone in the audience that would not be able to make the January 28, 2016, Planning Commission meeting could testify at tonight’s meeting.  No one came forward.
 
Motion: Continue LDS-15-118, as per the applicant’s request, to the January 28, 2016, Planning Commission meeting, to allow time to perfect the proposed street alignments.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                   Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 9–0.
 
New Business
50.2 CP-11-007 / CP-11-008 Consideration of Class “B” minor quasi-judicial amendments to the General Land Use Plan Element, the Public Facilities Element and the General Land Use Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan to remove the Limited Service Area Overlay from 50 parcels totaling approximately 36 acres in the Lone Pine/Foothill area. (City of Medford, Applicant).
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Praline McCormack, Planner II, reviewed the history, the criteria for the review and amendment section of the Comprehensive Plan and amendments to Goals, Policies and General Land Use Plan Map designations and highlighted the findings.
 
The public hearing was opened and there being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: Based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are met or are not applicable, the Planning Commission initiates this amendment and forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of CP-11-007 and CP-11-008 to the City Council per the Staff Report dated December 3, 2015, including Exhibits A through D.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                   Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9–0.
 
50.3 SV-15-114 Request for the vacation of 10,379 square feet of public street right-of-way at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Holly Street and Garfield Street. (City of Medford Public Works Department, Applicant)
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed. 
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Jennifer Jones, Planner III, reviewed the proposal, read the street vacation criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Chair McFadden asked if the property would be given to the adjoining property owners?  Ms. Jones replied that will be determined by the County.  It is her understanding from the Public Works Department conversations with the County that the property will be given to the adjacent property owners.
 
The public hearing was opened.
  
a. Nancy Hemstreet, 1646 Dove Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Hemstreet’s property, that is not mentioned, is adjacent to part of the street vacation that is going to be given to the adjacent property owners.  She wanted to make it part of the public record that she is interested in obtaining it.  Garfield and South Holly are mentioned in the staff report but Dove Lane and Holly Street is not mentioned.  She is in favor of the project.
 
Mr. Huttl stated that the Planning Commission would not decide who the property goes to.  There is a State law that governs the disposition of vacated property.
 
b. Ester Clemence, 215 Garfield, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Clemence is the other property owner adjacent to the street vacation.  She also would like to apply for this property.  Her concern is that she had a driveway that was her private driveway.  If the property line went straight out the beginning of her driveway would be on the adjacent property.  She wants a private driveway like she had before.  She does not want to share her driveway.  Her driveway is on Holly Street and her house faces Garfield Street.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer clarified that through the realignment of Holly Street Public Works pushed the road to the east and realigned the driveway.  Through this vacation process they are purposing a perpetual easement on the property that would be vacated to the south for that driveway.   
Commissioner McKechnie asked that once this land is agreed to be abandoned by the City, does the City pay for the partitioning etc. or is it the responsibility of the homeowners?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that there will be no partitioning.  It is a vacation so the underlying easement of right-of-way goes back to the adjoining property owners that the land originally came from.  In this case, south of Dove Lane the easterly right-of-way line of Holly Street was outside the urban growth boundary.  All this property should be going to the properties on the west.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the Public Works Department has prepared the easement and will be filed?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that is correct.  It is not the responsibility of the homeowner.
       
Mr. Huttl asked that the City has already filed an easement and if the City vacates the right-of-way the easement survives or is the City vacating the right-of-way subject to easement for existing “this that and other”?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that the City is vacating the right-of-way subject to easements for utilities as well as perpetual driveway.   Currently it is public right-of-way and the City cannot have an easement on top of that.  Once it is vacated, Public Works has all the easements in place so it will be a combined recording of both.
                
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of SV-15-114 per the Staff Report dated December 3, 2015, including Exhibits A through E.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                   Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9–0.
 
50.4 ZC-15-126 Consideration of a request for a zone change from SFR-4 (Single Family Residential, four dwelling units per acre) to C-C (Community Commercial) on a 2.5 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of East McAndrews Road and Springbrook Road. (Thomas Fox Properties, LLC, Applicant; Ian Foster, Agent)
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner Pulver stated that he has involvement with this application and recused himself.  Commissioner McKechnie stated the same goes for him and he 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.
 
Aaron Harris, Planner II, read the zone change criteria and gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Ian Foster, 2435 Lyman Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Foster reported that the applicant requests a slight modification or amendment to the stipulation regarding sewer outflows.  The current condition as it is worded states that future development on the site shall not exceed the output of what is currently allowed under the SFR-4 Zoning District until the developer makes improvements to the downstream sanitary sewer system to alleviate the existing capacity constraints.  The applicant requests that instead of it requiring the developer make the improvements to the downstream sanitary sewer system it should simply say “until the necessary improvements are made to the downstream sanitary sewer system to alleviate the existing capacity constraints.”  They feel that the stipulation as is does not meet the proportionality test having a developer for this site make the sewer improvements several miles downstream is a balanced approach to alleviating the problem. It would be more of a collaborative effort among more than one stakeholder in the City.  The number they were given to fix the sewer problem was approximately $600,000 which is more than twice the value of the property they are discussing this evening.
      
b. Joan Baer, 2543 E. McAndrews, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Baer stated that her concern is that this has been a residential area all this time.  Supposedly a retirement home is being built across the street and now a commercial on the other corner.  Her concern is that it would devalue her home.  She is also concerned with flooding of her backyard field.
 
Mr. Georgevitch addressed the drainage issue stating that Public Works does not do a detailed drainage analysis at time of zone change.  They verify there is adequate capacity.  When a specific development plan comes in they will require hydrology analysis to determine that they will not be impacting any adjoining property owners and making sure it naturally flows through the site is adequately handled through this development.
 
Mr. Georgevitch commented on the Public Works staff report stating that item I. Sanitary Sewer Facilities states “…or the Developer make improvements to the downstream sanitary sewer system to alleviate the capacity constraints”.  Public works has no problem striking “Developer” and adding “when there are adequate facilities to the downstream sanitary sewer system to alleviate the capacity constraints”, which is their normal process. It would be up to the applicant to be able to prove that and go through Section 10.228 of the Code to have that removed through the Planning Director.
 
Chair McFadden asked Mr. Foster if he wanted to exercise his rebuttal time.  Mr. Foster indicated that he did not need any rebuttal time. 
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of ZC-15-126 per the staff report dated December 3, 2015, including Exhibits A through J and changing the wording on the Public Works staff report, page 95, Item I. Sanitary Sewer Facilities, by striking the word “Developer” and adding “when there are adequate facilities to the downstream sanitary sewer system to alleviate the capacity constraints”.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                   Seconded by: Commissioner Fincher
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7–0-2, with Commissioner Pulver and Commissioner McKechnie recusing themselves.
 
50.5 ZC-15-143 Consideration of a request for a change of zone from SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) to MFR-20 (Multiple-Family Residential, 20 dwelling units per gross acre) on approximately 6.36 acres located on the west side of North Ross Lane approximately 400’ south of West McAndrews Road. (Housing Authority of Jackson County, 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 disclosed that Mr. Sinner is his neighbor but it would not affect his decision on this application.
 
Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Tracy Carter, Planner II, stated that the zone change criteria was read in the previous application and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that over the past several months the Planning Commission has seen a lot, especially in west Medford,  of long narrow lots come in for high density development. In some SFR-6 and SFR-10 they end up with oddball streets that are meandering through all these properties that have only one way out to some obscure side road.  Are there any plans to make this area look more urban with multiple ways around, a grid system?  Mr. Carter deferred the question to Mr. Georgevitch.
 
Mr. Georgevitch reported that currently there is no plan in place.  The area is also known as the West Main TOD area.  They have been working on trying to get an adoption of that but have not been successful on getting a circulation plan which was part of that TOD adoption.  Since they have been unsuccessful of the TOD they have adopted a block length ordinance to help alleviate some of the problems with having long narrow lots and making sure they eventually get adequate connectivity in that area.
   
Commissioner Fincher asked at what point is a traffic impact analysis required for something like this application?  Ms. Akin replied that when no more than 250 new trips are generated over the existing zoning.  The new density would not generate no more than 250 new trips than the current density would allow. 
 
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked what calculation would be used to determine the trips based on 6 acres and in an MFR-20 zoning district?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that generally speaking when they are looking at trip generations, they look at the underlying zoning.  In this case, it is SFR-10 that would be generating approximately 63 dwelling units at 9.57 trips per dwelling unit.  Using 10, one would get 630 adt and then 20 dwelling units times 6 equals 120 to 130 apartments at 6.65 trips per unit.  Multiply that number and subtract the underlying zoning.  If it is less than 250 trips, then no traffic study is required per Section 10.461 of the Code.
  
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner reported that the zone change is dealing with the capacities in the Code.  They believe they have met all the criteria.  They have met the capacities for sanitary, storm, streets and water.  All service facilities are available.  With respect to the traffic study one of the required submittals is to have a traffic impact form signed by the Public Works Department.  That form was submitted and signed.  It was below the 250 trip threshold of the Code, so no traffic impact analysis was required.  Further development will come through.  There are schematic discussions going on now but whatever it is, it will meet the current Code including block length.
 
Mr. Sinner had a minor change on the staff report.  On page 108 under Recommended Action, it states “…per the staff report dated November 5, 2015…”, it should read “…per the staff report dated December 3, 2015…”.
 
The public hearing was closed. 
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of ZC-15-143 per the staff report dated December 3, 2015, including Exhibits A through H and the date correction on page 108 under Recommended Action, it states “…per the staff report dated November 5, 2015…”, it should read “…per the staff report dated December 3, 2015…”.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                   Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9–0.
 
50.6 LDP-15-136 Consideration of a request for a partition to create three parcels from an 89.1 acre lot located at the southern terminus of Industry Drive (300 feet south of the intersection of Industry Drive and Enterprise Drive), within the I-G (General Industrial) zoning district. (Airport One LLC, Applicant; Farber Surveying, 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.
 
Aaron Harris, Planner II, read the land division criteria and gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Herb Farber, Farber Surveying, 431 Oak Street, Central Point, Oregon, 97502.  Mr. Farber reported that they have reviewed the staff report and have no objections to it and accept all conditions of approval.
 
The public hearing was closed. 
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of LDP-15-136 per the Planning Commission Report dated December 10, 2015, including Exhibits A through K.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                   Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9–0.
 
50.7 LDP-15-138 / E-15-137 Consideration of tentative plat for a 2-lot partition of a 0.70 acre property, and associated exception request of elimination of sidewalk, curb, gutter and street paving improvements for the portion of Keene Way Drive fronting the site and elimination of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on Woodlawn Drive.   The subject site is located between Keene Way Drive and Woodlawn Drive, approximately 170 feet east of Lynnwood Avenue, within an SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. Joseph Hoppe et al, Applicant (Stephen Terry, Land Use Planning 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 III, stated that the land division criteria were read for the previous application.  Mr. McGeough read the exception criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if it was correct that on Keene Way Drive that as a condition of approval the applicant is being required to put in curb, gutter and sidewalk?  Mr. McGeough replied that is correct. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if there would be additional asphalt right-of-way pavement?  Mr. McGeough reported that the Public Works staff report indicates that pavement is also needed to extend from the center line to the curb.  There would be additional pavement.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked that since Woodlawn is not paved there, if the applicant was required to pave half the street and add curb, gutter and sidewalk on Woodlawn?  Mr. McGeough stated that is what the Code requires.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that on Woodlawn one side is gravel and the other side is not passable.  Would that remain unimproved until the person on either side was required to make the improvements?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that the requirements that are in the staff report state they need a paved access from the extension of existing Woodlawn to their frontage and then build half street plus twelve that the Code requires.  The applicant is asking for an exception from that.  The applicant has some language that they would like to present to see if they can convince the Planning Commission of something different than what Public Works is requesting per the Code.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if there was an option where they could provide a bond in lieu of providing the improvements?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that if a Deferred Improvement Agreement is entered into it is 125% of the cost that they put up in some form of security.  It is typically cash or some other form that would be immediately available to the City.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that none of the blocks in that area have curb, gutter, sidewalks and apparently wide enough street sections to meet current standards.  Does the City have any future plans, twenty or thirty years out, to improve the streets in this area?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that he cannot speak for twenty to thirty years out.  The Transportation System Plan does not envision working on low order streets.  It is the property owner’s responsibility.  There are several streets throughout the community that are similar to this and potentially can never be improved.  In this particular neighborhood there are several streets.  There are concerns if this meets reasonable tests; essentially Dolan.  That is something staff does not judge.  An analysis is put in the Public Works staff report per the Code and it is up to the Planning Commission to decide if it is reasonable to levy the conditions or if there are some other modifications to that condition.
           
Commissioner Pulver asked if the intersection of Highland, Keene Way Drive and Barneburg will be improved?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that Highland and Barneburg are listed in the Transportation System Plan as a project to be looked at for improvements.  Barneburg as well as Highland are high order streets.  Public Works would be looking at some day improving them with curb, gutter and sidewalk and potentially fully reconstructing the road bed that is there today.  They are higher order streets and Public Works is able to spend system development charges on those roads.  All the surrounding roads in this area would not be eligible and Public Works would not be looking to do any improvements unless the neighborhood wanted to support a Local Improvement District (LID) and then Public Works would participate with the neighborhood to get a facility built.
      
Commissioner Pulver stated that he thought in Mr. McGeough’s presentation that to meet the tentative plat approval criteria, specifically Criterion 1, it required that the exception be approved.  Is that correct?  Mr. McGeough reported that as the applicant submitted the application with the exception it would require an approval of the exception in order to say they meet Criterion 1.  Staff’s recommendation feels that it has not fully met the criteria in the exception criteria that the subdivision be approved based on the standard improvements as required in the Public Works report and approve the development with those standards would meet Criterion 1.
  
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Stephen Terry, Land Use Planning Consultant Inc., P. O. Box 8083, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Terry walked the Planning Commission through the project.  Mr. Terry noted that the majority of the lots in this area were created in the 1950’s by deed.  The City did not have a partition ordinance until 1980. Mr. Terry also described the ages of the surrounding dwellings, noting that only one of the properties on the block could be further divided. In 2003 the accessory dwelling unit was administratively approved as part of the subject property, so the subject property is fully developed.
 
In 1997 a lot down the street was divided and the City Engineer requested improvement to Woodlawn Drive across the property frontage to the City’s specifications including curb, gutter, street lighting and a 5 foot wide sidewalk.  That was superseded and a revised report stated that prior to final plat the developer shall pave a 20 foot wide driveway from the existing driveway on Parcel 2 to Groveland Avenue, and that the City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of Woodlawn Drive until improved to full City standards.  Mr. Terry speculates that there are several street development patterns that were developed in the County.  One of them required a local access street to be maintained by the property owners.  The report from the City Engineer was possibly a discovery that maintenance was the responsibility of the abutting properties. 
 
Mr. Terry filed the Exception application in anticipation of the Code required public improvements.  The Public Works Staff Report requests sidewalk, curb, gutter, dedication for public right-of-way and a street light on Keene Way Drive.  It requires a short paved section from the terminus of paving on Woodlawn and a City approved section of sidewalk, curb, gutter, half-street with a street light as well.  The development exists on site and vertical construction is complete.  The dwelling has been there since 1946.  The applicant believes this does not meet Dolan because it does not meet the rough proportionality test.  Mr. Terry presented a possible solution and resolution to the public facilities requirements as required in the Code.  Mr. Terry presented the “proposed conditions” in lieu of the conditions identified in the Public Works Department report regarding LDP-15-138 / E-15-137 identified as Exhibit “G” dated November 18, 2015.
                  
Mr. Huttl stated that earlier Mr. Terry showed a partition on a different property.  The conditions imposed by the Planning Commission at that time also had what Mr. Terry is proposing in his “proposed conditions” item 1.  It does not have the maintenance agreement that the older one had.  Would Mr. Terry agree to add the condition that the City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of Woodlawn Drive until improved to full City standards?  Mr. Terry stipulated to that.
 
b. Richard Jurgens, 1996 Woodlawn Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Jurgens has lived there since 1986.  We have all been here before doing the same thing.  The Planning Commission approved it and nothing happened because the applicant did not want to do what he was supposed to do.  Why is that?  Why are we doing this again?  We are dealing with a 605 Keene Way Drive address.  It was supposed to be an ADU on the property that by Code is 900 square feet.  This one is 1050 over a garage that is framed in to probably be another living unit.  It does not look anything like the other house; nothing similar except for the roof.  He does not think it should be partitioned or anything.  If it is approved and the applicant paves it, there should be grading, storm drains and curbs.
 
c. Brad Youngs, 2000 Woodlawn Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Youngs is the guy who eighteen years ago split a lot that was shown and discussed earlier.  Mr. Youngs was required to pave the road to the end of the property. It was basically about dust abatement.  In 1966 Woodlawn was platted as either a 64 or 80 foot easement.  If there were curbs, gutters and sidewalks they would be so far from what is now the road.  There are no sidewalks for at least a mile in either direction.  The idea that Woodlawn will ever go through is the scariest thing because as it has already been pointed out, there is a terrible intersection on Keene Way Drive and Barneburg.  If one is on the other half of Woodlawn and come to Barneburg it is very dangerous because you cannot see either direction.  He has no problem with the partitioning of the subject property.  He does agree that it would be smart to continue the pavement for dust abatement.
 
The Planning Commissioners took a 10 minute recess.   The meeting reconvened at 7:48 p.m.
 
Mr. Georgevitch reported that Mr. Terry provided him with the “proposed conditions”. Public Works has to make their staff report based on the requirements of the Code.  They do a Dolan analysis for the Planning Commission to decide if it is acceptable or not.  Mr. Georgevitch asked that if Mr. Terry’s “proposed conditions” is substituted into the Public Works report that it only applies to B1 public streets and the lighting portion of B2, not the signage portion.  It would not supersede the entire Public Works report.
 
Vice Chair Miranda asked if Mr. Terry’s “proposed conditions” be inserted into Exhibit G or would it be Exhibit H?  Mr. Huttl stated that if it goes in as Exhibit H it would have the language that Exhibit H technically substitutes Exhibit G conditions B1 for the streets and B2 for the lighting but not for the signage.  The other point is that there is not a second meeting this month and Final Orders were prepared for tonight, otherwise, the Final Order will not be approved until January. 
Commissioner McKechnie requested clarification that he understands the street improvements and lighting but he does not see in the Public Works report regarding signage.  Mr. Georgevitch apologized that there is nothing on signage.
     
Vice Chair Miranda stated that he has heard comments regarding Keene Way Drive and Keene Drive.  Would staff please validate which one is accurate for this project?  Mr. Terry replied that it is what appears on the Assessor’s plat.  It is Keene Way Drive.
      
Commissioner Mansfield asked what changes for the applicant?  There are two houses on this property that are being occupied as houses.  Assuming this partition was granted, what changes?  Commissioner McKechnie stated that with the houses one is owner occupied and the other is a rental.  If they get the partition then they both can be sold.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked regarding the constitutional issues, what were Mr. Huttl’s views on this application?  Mr. Huttl reported that the constitutional standards have been set out.  There has to be a nexus between the government and what they are asking of the development.  Then there has to be rough proportionality between what the government is asking and what the impacts of the development are.  The Planning Commission heard the nexus where they will have connectivity, safe multi-modal access, etc.  It is roughly proportional.  Staff is asking for the frontage improvements on this particular development.  The applicant made a couple of arguments on what will be the impacts.  The one slight nuance is that on the Woodlawn Drive side he understands that it is just an ADU not and SFR.  The Code would technically allow a brand new SFR there as well.  The counter to that by the applicant was connectivity, sidewalks and multi-modals.  The Planning Commission heard that the Transportation System Plan allows low order streets to be improved when there is development. There are not opportunities for a lot of redevelopment in that area to continue that.  They have made some counter arguments.  To get everything that the Public Works report asks would be legally hard to support on the record that they have.  Imposing something to address some of the impacts from what will happen makes sense.
       
Mr. Terry clarified that the ADU on the subject property is 900 square feet.
 
Mr. Huttl asked if Mr. Terry’s “proposed conditions” that he presented during his presentation substitutes the exception?  Mr. Terry replied yes.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Chair McFadden asked whether there was enough time to adopt the final order at the January 14 meeting. Ms. Akin stated no, there was not sufficient time left on the 120-day clock for appeals. Mr. Terry waived the 120 day rule from the gallery.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and the “proposed conditions” as presented by the applicant and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of LDP-15-138 per the Staff Report dated December 3, 2015, including Exhibits A through L and the “proposed conditions” from the applicant as Exhibit M.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Commissioner Fincher asked with the “proposed conditions” why this could not have been resolved prior to this meeting?  Mr. Huttl reported that the Code requires the Public Works Department to impose the public improvements and develop findings to support those conditions.  The options get presented to the Planning Commission because they are the decision makers.
   
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-1, with Commissioner Fincher voting no.
 
Commissioner Culbertson left the meeting at 8:14 p.m.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission denies the Exception E-15-137.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Vice Chair Miranda
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.8 LDS-14-072 Consideration of a request for revision to a Tentative Plat condition of approval for Annapolis Drive Estates (LDS-14-072), pertaining to pavement improvement width required for Normil Terrace.  The subject site is located at the western terminus of Annapolis Drive, and the northeast side of Normil Terrace, approximately 700 feet east of Foothill Road, within an SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (Buntin Construction LLC, 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 III, stated that the land division criteria had been previously read and gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jim Maize, Maize and Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 628, Medford, Oregon, 97501-0042.  Mr. Maize stated that he was present tonight representing Buntin Construction LLC for the Annapolis Drive Estates revision.  This is sort of the poster child for what the Hillside Ordinance was intended to do.  The slopes in the subject area are 25% and 50%.  The applicant is eliminating the parking strip on the uphill side of Normil Terrace.  When they were ready to do the construction drawings they realized in order to do the half +12 it was going to push them out over the edge of the existing paving on the south side.  In order to protect that edge of the pavement with a couple feet of shoulder the applicant met with Planning and Public Works staff and they recommended Option 2.  They would end up with 26 feet of paving, more than what is there now.  There will be no parking on the uphill side. All access is on the upper side of the development.
   
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as submitted, and adopts the Final Order of approval for allowing the revision to LDS-14-072, finding that Criterion 1 has been fully addressed by Option 2, per the Staff Report dated December 3, 2015, including Exhibit A.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                   Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner D’Alessandro reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, December 4, 2015.  The Commission heard three applications that were all approved.  They heard Americas Tire on Industry Drive, a 46 unit apartment project on Stewart Avenue and Orchard Home Drive and Northgate Phase II, 179,000 square feet of commercial buildings on approximately 18 acres between Highway 238, McAndrews and Central Avenue.
 
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee. None.
 
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that the Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, December 14, 2015, has been cancelled. 
The Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 24, 2015, will be cancelled due to the holiday.

The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 14, 2016. 
On November 19, 2015, the City Council heard the vacation that the Planning Commission heard.  They approved some housekeeping amendments.  They also heard the appeal of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission decision that they did not have jurisdiction on a project.  The City Council upheld the Site Plan and Architectural Commission’s decision and denied the appeal. 

Last week the City Council continued work on the Urban Growth Boundary project.  They continued it yet again.  The record has been left opened until December 17, 2015.  Property owners in MD-2, 3, 4 and 5 met on November 30, 2015, and came back to the City Council and requested they leave the record opened until December 17, 2015.
 
Ms. Akin wished all the Planning Commissioners a safe and happy holiday.
  
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair. None.
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.

100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.

110. Photographs for January Luncheon.
Photographs for the January Luncheon were taken.
 
 
Submitted by:
 
Terri L. Rozzana                                                                
Recording Secretary
 
David McFadden
Planning Commission Chair
 
Approved: January 14, 2016

 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top