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, January 14, 2016

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:32 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
Norman Fincher
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield (left at 6:56 p.m.)
Jared Pulver   
 
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
John Adam, Principal Planner
John Huttl, Deputy City Attorney
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Carla Paladino, Planner IV
Praline McCormack, Planner II
Desmond McGeough, Planner III
Tracy Carter, Planner II
 
Commissioner Absent
Mark McKechnie, Excused Absence  
 
10.       Roll Call
 
20.       Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1 LDP-15-138 / E-137 Final Orders for a 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).
 
20.2 CUP-14-128 Incorporation of revised elevations into the approved Conditional Use Permit for City of Medford Fire Station 4 located on a 3.54 acre parcel on the south side of Berrydale Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of Table Rock Road and west of the Railroad Park, within the MFR-20 (Multiple-Family Residential – 20 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. City of Medford, Greg McKown, Applicant (ORW Architecture, Agent)
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar.
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield              Seconded by: Vice Chair Miranda
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8–0
.
30.       Minutes
30.1.    The minutes for December 10, 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 – New Business
50.1 CP-13-076 / CP-13-077 Consideration of a Class A legislative amendment to revise the Transportation System Plan, the Environmental Element, and the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and incorporate and adopt by reference the 2013 Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport Master Plan.   (City of Medford, Applicant)
 
Carla Paladino, Planner IV, reviewed the proposal, read criteria 10.184 (1), presented background information and gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
Chair McFadden congratulated Mr. Bern Case for reaching a new service high.
 
a. Bern Case, Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, 1000 Terminal Loop Parkway, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Case reported that it has been a tremendous year.  Mr. Case reported that master plans are very important to an airport.  Mr. Case expressed his appreciation for the work that City staff has done.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: Based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are either satisfied or not applicable, the Planning Commission forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of CP-13-076 and CP-13-077 to the City Council per the staff report dated January 7, 2016, including Exhibits A through F.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                      Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
 
50.2 ZC-13-079 / DCA-13-080 An ordinance amending the Medford Zoning Map to update the Airport Approach boundary, add the airport fence line, and create a new Overlay District called the Airport Area of Concern. (City of Medford, Applicant)
 
Praline McCormack, Planner II, reviewed the proposal, history, read the approval criteria reviewed the findings and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Fincher asked why is the the Area of Concern overlay such a large area?  Ms. McCormack replied that is what the airport has created.  Their concern would be with tall structures within the overlay.
 
Commissioner Fincher asked what are some of the things the airport is looking for in the review process?  Ms. McCormack stated that it mainly has to do with height of structures, glass or other reflective surfaces.  They will not request changes in the structure but require a noise or avigation easement or some kind of mitigation such as red lights on the structure where airplanes can see the structure.
 
Chair McFadden asked does staff feel that the City is protected from structures within the properties that may affect properties outside the airport?   Is it strictly building and structure, signage and lights or noise?  Ms. McCormack replied that it is building structures that would normally go through Site Plan and Architectural review.  They usually do not have landscaping or parking requirements inside the fence line.  It is a limited review.
         
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bern Case, Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, 1000 Terminal Loop Parkway, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Case reported that there were concerns regarding the tower with signage a few years back.  They do not look at this as a way to bypass the signage ordinance.  He would not object to tweaking a word here or there if the Planning Commission wanted to do that.  Very few buildings of consequence go inside the fence.  There are some that are usually equipment buildings.  The new Fire Station will probably be in between the two runways.  The tower is inside the fence.  The impact area is very big.  The airport gets concerned with cell towers, glare and things that can create glare.  They are more interested in areas at the end of the runways.  They take a closer look if a structure is tall they like the ability to be able to refer them to the FAA to ask questions and usually it is to add a beacon unless there is something really out of place.
 
Mr. Huttl stated that he was not sure he understood Chair McFadden’s question earlier regarding the review of buildings by the Site Plan and Architectural Commission within the airport overlay.
 
Chair McFadden reported that Mr. Case saw where he was going with the question such as what happens if a building gets a large sign or the height of a structure inside the security fence.  It is amazing how many items can be looked at sometimes have to be mitigated in terms of their effects on surrounding areas.  If there was something on the airport property that affects something off the airport property, unless the airport brings it before the City there would be no other way to handle it.
   
Mr. Huttl asked staff if these changes to the airport overlay intend to relieve all airport construction from Site Plan and Architectural review?  Ms. McCormack reported that on pages 129 and 130 of the January 5, 2016, staff report Section 10.031 Exemptions from the Development Permit Requirement item (11) language has been added that addresses this issue.

Mr. Huttl asked what policy this is carrying out for the City?  Ms. McCormack reported that the structures that will be exempt from site plan review are structures not intended for public use, they do not include landscaping, circulation, or streets.  It is staff’s opinion that they do not require a review.  Mr. Huttl asked if they would be viewable by the public?  Ms. McCormack stated they will not be used by the public.  They are basic  standard buildings.  They will still have to get building permits.
        
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the amendments and recommends approval to the City Council per the staff report dated January 5, 2016, including Exhibits A through D.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                      Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
 
50.3 ZC-15-147 Consideration of a request for a change of zone from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per existing lot) to SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre) on approximately 0.25 acres located on the north side of Orchard Home Court approximately 275-feet east of Orchard Home Drive. (Susan M. Campbell, Applicant/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.
 
Tracy Carter, Planner II, read the zone change criteria and gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
  
a. Susan Campbell Calzaretta, 1840 Orchard Home Court, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Calzaretta reported that she is in agreement with the staff report.
 
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-15-147 per the staff report dated January 7, 2016, including Exhibits A through E.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                      Seconded by: Commissioner Fincher
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
 
50.4 CUP-15-145 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for office building expansion, a new maintenance and equipment storage building and other minor improvements to the Living Opportunities Headquarters, located on the west side of Valley View drive at the intersection of Ridge Way (857 Valley View Drive) on a 2.95 acre parcel located within a SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (Living Opportunities Inc., Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Craig Stone, 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, read the conditional use permit criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Chair McFadden asked if there were any police reports associated with this facility?  Mr. McGeough stated that he did not research if there were any police reports associated with this facility.  The applicant may be able to address the question.
  
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Craig Stone, CSA Planning, Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Stone reported that he was present tonight representing the applicant, Living Opportunities, Inc.  Living Opportunities, Inc. has been in existence since 1969 and on this site since 1974.  They deal with people that are intellectually and developmentally disabled in various ways.  This is the headquarters.  There are other facilities in Medford and Central Point that accommodate different functions the Living Opportunities oversees.  When there are meetings this is where they take place.  That is why there is more parking than the resident employee loads might suggest.  It is an adequate facility. There are 48 parking places and the applicant is hoping to increase that to 62.  There are presently 33 full time employees that would increase on this site by 5.  They have excellent relations with all of the neighboring property owners.  The applicant is asking for: 1) The site plan shows building envelopes.  The envelopes are for the purpose that within them the buildings might change a little between now and when they obtain building permits.  If they do there is not a necessity for the applicant to come back before the Planning Commission and make a request to make some building modifications; 2) The southerly portion is not intended to be used.  It represents approximately 1 acre in this overall 3 acre site.  The Land Development Code does not require that a frontage improvement be done across the entire property frontage.  The applicant requests that the improvement be limited in the way shown on the site plan where just the northerly portion of the property intended for development and expansion now would be fully improved but the frontage improvement in front of the southerly portion would be postponed.  They have discussed this with Public Works and they are on-board with the request.  There should be a memorandum of record that supplements the Public Works staff report that verifies their agreement with this approach.   Mr. Stone cannot tell the Planning Commission there have or not been police reports.  He would expect probably not.
        
b. Rachel Rawlins, 1940 Lawnridge Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Rawlins is an employee of Living Opportunities, Inc. and she lives three houses down from the Headquarters.  Living Opportunities, Inc. Headquarters are great neighbors.  The other neighbors show support for the project.  The grass area serves as an area where people come to play with their dogs and children.
   
c. Karri Sundberg, 870 Valley View Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Sundberg echoes what Ms. Rawlins testified.  She and her parents live across the street and have lived there for many years.  There have been no problems.  There have been no police issues.  They have had positive feedback.
 
Mr. McGeough stated that the Public Works Department was not represented tonight but the revised memorandum is to show support of the sidewalk improvements as shown on the applicant’s site plan and Public Works made a revision to their report reflecting that.
 
Chair McFadden asked if the Building Department was fine with further review not being necessary if slight modifications were made to the buildings?  Mr. McGeough reported that he believed so.  In terms of the building envelopes planning staff has no issues with that particular issue.  Sometimes that is to be expected.
    
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the applicant’s findings as presented for Criterion 1 and adopts the Final Order for approval per the Planning Commission report dated January 14, 2016, including Exhibits A through F and replacing Exhibit C with Exhibit C-1.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                      Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.5 LDS-15-121 Consideration of a tentative plat for a 21-lot residential subdivision on a 3.4 acre parcel located at the eastern terminus of Hondeleau Lane (200 feet east of the intersection of Springbrook Road and Hondeleau Lane), within the SFR-6 zoning district. (Hondeleau LLC, Applicant; Steven Swartsley, 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.
 
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, read the land division criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked how was it determined that it was passive agriculture and not being farmed?  Ms. Akin stated that there were two things.  The applicant provided an Agricultural Impact Analysis that is in the record and he also provided an email from the property owner that is also in the record.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Steven Swartsley,174 Littrell Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Swartsley reported that he is the agent for the applicant in this matter.
  
Chair McFadden asked as part of the application it states that the applicant will be building the fence along the urban growth boundary and the City will be maintain the fence after it is initially built.  Has the Building Department or Public Works informed the applicant of the standards to build the fence?  Mr. Swartsley stated that is something they will have to work out.  He does not see any issue with it.
     
Ms. Akin reported that the code requires the property owners to maintain the fence.  As part of the deed restriction that will be part of the language.  Staff did include that as a condition on page 232 of the January 14, 2015, Planning Commission agenda packet.  It is Code Condition 2. Fencing along the easterly project boundary shall be maintained by the purchasers of the individual lots in conformance with MLDC Section 10.801(D)(2)(c).
 
Chair McFadden stated that on page 229 of the January 14, 2015, Planning Commission agenda packet it states: “According to the AIA, the applicant proposes a six-foot fence at the easterly property line to be installed by the purchasers of the individual lots and to be maintained by the City.”  Is that an error?  Ms. Akin replied yes and the last line in that same paragraph states: “The City will not accept responsibility for the maintenance of the fencing”.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of LDS-15-121 per the staff report dated January 7, 2016, including Exhibits A through K.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Miranda                      Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
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 18, 2015.  The Site Plan and Architectural Commission approved a 5500 square foot Orthodontist office on McAndrews and Corona.  The exception was to allow parking to encroach into the required landscaping buffer which is in accordance with properties on either side.  They also approved revisions to the Fire Station elevations.  They are meeting tomorrow to hear Phase 2 of the Northgate project.
    
60.2     Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee. None.
 
60.3     Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that Aaron Harris left the Planning Department.  He went to the City of Corvallis.  The Planning Department has a new employee Liz Conner.  She was last with a private firm but has spent time with Klamath County as a planner.
 
The Planning Commission’s next study session is scheduled for Monday, January 25, 2016.  Discussion will be on a text amendment regarding building height and setback calculations.
 
The Planning Commission has business scheduled through February.  Meeting dates are Thursday, January 28, 2016, Thursday, February 11, 2016 and Thursday, February 25, 2016.
 
Last week the City Council approved a vacation that the Planning Commission heard on Holly and Garfield.  They also approved the Limited Service Overlay that the Planning Commission had recommended to them.  They initiated another alley vacation between Park and Oakdale north of Dakota.  It is in the south Oakdale Historic District.
 
The Planning Department does not have any business for the City Council next week.
 
The Urban Growth Boundary has not been back before the City Council.  It is scheduled for a City Council study session on February 25, 2016.  The record is still open.
 
Mr. Huttl is leaving the City of Medford.  This will be his last meeting with the Planning Commission.  Ms. Akin thanked Mr. Huttl for his service.
   
70.       Messages and Papers from the Chair.
70.1     Chair McFadden reminded the Planning Commissioners that the Boards and Commissions Luncheon, is scheduled for Friday, January 29, 2016.
 
The Commissioners may have received the first notice of the APA Conference being held in Phoenix, Arizona in April 2016.
 
80.       Remarks from the City Attorney.
80.1     Mr. Huttl reported that he has accepted a job with Curry County as Curry County Counsel.  He will be starting there on Monday, January 25, 2016.  The Curry County Counsel had been with them for 30 plus years and with the State changing PERS they put out procurement in December and Mr. Huttl applied.  He interviewed, they offered him the job and he accepted it.  Mr. Huttl has owned property in Curry County for 10 years and got married on the property.  It is a place he has wanted to go for a while.  He will miss the City of Medford.  It has been an amazing place to work.  The Planning Commission does great work.  The City has great staff, great administration and excellent volunteers and support from the community.  They are to be commended.  Some of the people Mr. Huttl had known longer than others but they do a great job.  Mr. Huttl thanked them as a citizen for their service.
        
90.       Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
 
100.     Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 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: January 28, 2016

 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top