COVID-19: City Hall and Lausmann Annex are closed November 18 through December 2.
Please note: Municipal Court is conducting business by phone. Please call 541-774-2040.
Click here for more information.


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

Thursday, January 28, 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
Tim D’Alessandro
David Culbertson
Norman Fincher
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield (departed at 6:30 p.m.)
Mark McKechnie
Jared Pulver      
Staff Present
Jim Huber, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Liz Conner, Planner I
Desmond McGeough, Planner III
Commissioner Absent  
Patrick Miranda, Vice Chair, Excused Absence   
10.          Roll Call
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1 LDS-15-121 Final Order for 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)
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar.
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Fincher
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for January 14, 2016, 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 LDS-15-118 / E-16-001 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) zoning district, with the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning Overlay, and associated exception application requesting reduced right-of-way dedication and reduced landscape planter strip for the north side of Lozier Court. Subject tentative plat consists of 5 Single-family lots, 5 duplex lots, 2 commercial lots and 3 multi-family lots; 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, 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, read the land division and exception criteria and gave a staff report.
Chair McFadden requested that Mr. McGeough explain the connection issues to the north.  Mr. McGeough reported that Vick Lane may terminate into 8th Street or unless the City purchases property it could terminate at West Main Street.  Currently the City does not do Local Improvement Districts for the purchase of local roads. The block standard from the intersection of West Main Street and Lozier down to West Meadows then up to Vick Lane would exceed the block length requirements.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that Mr. McGeough reported that Lozier Court would be a minor residential street at 33 feet.  How much of the 33 feet is constructed with this project and how much would be constructed if the property to the south was developed?  Mr. McGeough reported that the normal cross-section for minor residential street is 55 feet.  The centerline is being proposed 8 ˝ feet north of the current southern boundary of Lozier Court right-of-way.  The north side would have 35 feet of improvement.  However, the applicant is requesting for a reduction of the planter strip to bring it to 31 ˝ feet.
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the property to the south was developed would their portion of the street be 19 ˝ feet or would the City want to make up the extra 4 feet.  Mr. McGeough stated that the property to the south would just need to construct the standard section to the centerline.  They would need less right-of-way on the south portion because the right of way has moved to the north.  Mr. McGeough deferred the question to Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that he can see why the applicant was looking to make this smaller because the house on the corner of Lozier Court and Lozier Lane encroaches on what would be right-of-way.  There is no mechanism to either purchase the additional to make it go through or just have to live with it until that property develops.  Is that correct?  Mr. McGeough reported that is a correct statement.  In the meantime there would be a sidewalk in front of those lots that front Lozier Court.  There would probably be a blockade at the end of it.  The asphalt will match.
Commissioner McKechnie asked if there was a subdivision or plat on file for the property to the south of this project or to the north of the On Track property?  Mr. McGeough stated that there was no site plan for the property to the north.  There is interest from the property owner to the south but have not received any submittals.
The public hearing was opened.
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501-0168.  Mr. Stevens reported that he was present tonight representing the applicant, Dr. David Young for the applications of a subdivision and an exception request for a planter strip on Lozier Court.  The staff report is thorough even with the changes staff has done an excellent job addressing the updates to the plans for the Commission’s review this evening.  A lot of these changes were based on comments during the Land Development meeting that was held in October.  What the Commission is seeing tonight are changes in numbers as far as lot numbers, phasing and a slight movement of Moody Lane.
The applicant has received approval from the Parks Department to put the centerline of Vick Lane on the property line with the Park property to build out their half street improvement plus additional right-of-way towards the Park side.  The applicant is providing a parking area adjacent to the Park with a curb and gutter so that people cannot drive onto the Park lands and destroy the Park.
The relocation of Moody Lane could address some of the concerns to the property owners to the south.  Lozier Court will be extended further east before heading north.  The property owners will have more frontage on Lozier Court.  The Lozier Court centerline was 8 feet south of the current property line.  The applicant proposes the centerline be 8 to 8 ˝ feet north of the property line so that they can install their facilities and required pavement to provide sufficient access and development to the site.
All the duplexes previously on the east side are now relocated to the south.  It is the same number of dwelling units.  It is in conformance with the underlying Planned Unit Development.
There was a comment about whether or not there was an approved plan.  The Lozier Court Subdivision, Phase I development plan has expired but is the plan that the applicant originally based their plan on as far as the location of Lozier Court being south of the property line and the future Moody Lane heading back towards the north.  Now the centerline is north of the property line for the applicant to develop.
The Lozier Court exception will not have any significant impacts. Public Works has requested that the applicant’s proposal be from 4 ˝ feet to 4 feet so that there is sufficient room for monumentation.  The applicant is in full agreement.  They are trying to do the minimum necessary for the exception.  The applicant is in agreement with all the conditions and revised conditions by Public Works and the Water Commission. 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the reason for the exception is because there was a problem meeting the lot depths.  Mr. Stevens replied lot depth and width.
b. Cy Carrigan, 317 Lozier Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Carriagan testified that he does not believe he has seen the plan that was being presented this evening.  The information that he is about to give may be outdated.  What he is basing his comments on is what he has seen.  His concern is that the plan proposes a private drive at the end of Lozier Court.  This private drive will be the main access for a future lot located on his property and potentially for the house that he currently resides.  He does not know if he will be responsible for the future maintenance of the private drive.  He is hesitant to approve a vacation of the current public right-of-way that is the only access to his resident in favor of a road which must pay to maintain and which may limit the future development of his property.  He has a lot that he would like to partition in the future but with the limited access points of the private drive he may not be able to partition the land.  He has been verbally notified that under this proposal he will be granted access to the lot he wants to partition.  He has not received any assurances in writing.  In the previous and current plan it is proposed that a knuckle for public improvements at Lozier Court and Moody Lane meet is shown to be partially located on his property.  It is his understanding that this knuckle will be required by the City to facilitate fire truck access to the proposed development.  The developer has not approached Mr. Carrigan about dedicating any land for this public right-of-way.  He does not believe he will be required to provide any land for this knuckle because he is not proposing any development at this time.  He has concerns with the screening and placement of mechanical equipment.  In earlier drawings it is shown to be located adjacent to his residence.  He does not believe his concerns have been addressed due to a lack of communication with the developer.  Mr. Carrigan thanked City staff for being helpful in answering his questions and providing him with information and materials.
Chair McFadden asked Mr. Carrigan when did he talk with City staff?  Mr. Carrigan reported that when he talked to City staff the proposal was that the applicant was going to abandon Lozier Court and he would have not access to his residence.  That was approximately 1 to 1 ˝ months ago.  His biggest concern is the lack of communication with the developer.
Mr. Stevens reported that Mr. Carrigan’s lots will have public street frontage.  There is no longer a private road it is a minimum access easement to provide the frontage.  There is potential for three homes to access.  There was never at any point access to be denied.  It would have been off the minimum access easement.
Mr. Stevens addressed the comments about communication.  The applicant had and invitation to all family members to a meeting in December about some of this proposal.  It was held at the applicant’s realtor’s office.  He is not sure who was present since he was not a party to that meeting.  What the applicant is proposing will answer all of Mr. Carrigan’s questions.  The applicant is not dependent on any of Mr. Carrigan’s properties for infrastructure.
c. Gordon Carrigan, 1447 Flower Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Carrigan stated that he is 50% owner of the property to the south of the proposed subdivision.  When he went to the meeting that the applicant’s realtor sponsored the realtor mentioned that the applicant was not going to do the half street and install all the utilities there.  Mr. Carrigan’s concern is when they do Lozier Court that all the utilities and the pavement is installed so that when he develops his property he will continue it to Lozier Lane.  Perhaps Mr. Stevens could comment to his concern.  Mr. Carrigan also stated that at the realtor’s meeting it was stated that the applicant was going to wait to develop Lozier Court until the end of the development rather than at the beginning.  Mr. Carrigan feels that in order for him to develop the applicant would have to do Lozier Court first.
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer if there were any concerns with the traffic generated from the development onto Lozier?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that the original Planned Unit Development approved all this.  There is no evaluation at this time.  There are no concerns.  
Mr. Stevens stated that staff, Public Works and his presentation of the tentative plat demonstrates that with the centerline moved north on Lozier Court that the applicant will be constructing the half plus 8 feet when they develop that portion of those phases.  Yes, they will be constructing the majority of that street.  All of the duplexes will be facing Lozier Court and they will extend all utilities.
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-15-118 and E-16-001 per the staff report dated January 21, 2016, including Exhibits A through Q, replacing Exhibit B with Exhibit B-1, Exhibit H with Exhibit H-1, Exhibit I with Exhibit I-1 and adding Exhibit R.
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
Voice 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, January 15, 2016.  The Site Plan and Architectural Commission approved a 30,570 square foot expansion of the Delta Center Phase II.  It is north of Sportsman’s Warehouse and Buffalo Wild Wings.  There was concern regarding the access on Excel Drive.  At the last Planning Commission meeting the Commissioner’s forwarded a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding exempting the airport from Site Plan and Architectural Commission review.  Several members of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission had issues about not having input of reviewing potential buildings.  It was discovered that there are some public use of some of the buildings.
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission will have more discussion on this at their next meeting.  The Comprehensive Plan amendment portion of that application will be heard by the City Council on Thursday, February 4, 2016.  The code amendment portion has been delayed until March.  If necessary, it will be brought back to the Planning Commission.      
Chair McFadden asked if Commissioner D’Alessandro would be interested in remaining on the Site Plan and Architectural Commission as the Planning Commission Liaison.  Commissioner D’Alessandro replied that he would like to remain the Planning Commission Liaison on the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee met on Wednesday, January 27, 2016.  The City Engineering Department has contracted a consultant to update the Transportation System Plan (TSP).  They want the Joint Transportation Subcommittee to provide guidance on some of the goals of what the City’s vision is for that plan.  Commissioner Pulver is sort of struggling with the vastness of the project and how to provide constructive feedback.  They reviewed the existing goals and policies and agreed to study it more to see if there needs to be items added, removed or modified.  The Subcommittee requested more brainstorming to see what staff is asking from them.  They have decided to start meeting monthly.
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that the next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, February 8, 2016.  Discussion will be on multiple family design standards.
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission through March.
The election of officers and appointments/reappointments for Site Plan and Architectural Commission and the Joint Transportation Subcommittee will be on Thursday, February 11, 2016.  Commissioner D’Alessandro is the Planning Commission liaison for the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  He is also on the Joint Transportation Subcommittee along with Commissioner Fincher and Commissioner Pulver.
The Planning Department did not have any business for the City Council meeting on Thursday, January 21, 2016.
On Thursday, February 4, 2016, the City Council will hear the Airport Master Plan but not the related text amendments.  They will also consider the Medford School District 549C Long Range Facility Plan Update.  City Council will have a study session on February 25, 2016, regarding the Urban Growth Boundary project.
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.
70.1 Chair McFadden reminded the Planning Commission that the Boards and Commissions luncheon is scheduled for tomorrow, Friday, January 29, 2016.
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney.
80.1 Mr. McConnell reported that City Attorney, John Huttl has left the employment of the City of Medford.  He has moved to Curry County as their County Counsel.  Mr. Huttl served as the City of Medford, Attorney for almost 15 years.  He had changes in his life and decided to move on.  Mr. Huttl attended countless Site Plan and Architectural Commission, Planning Commission and City Council meetings over the years.  He was instrumental in resolving the Cherry Creek development issues.  He was also one of the lead Attorney’s in the Walmart versus Siporen case.  It was one of the most important land use cases in the last 15 years.  It is beneficial to municipalities.  The Court of Appeals reversed the Land Use Boards of Appeals (LUBA) decision, holding that the City’s interpretation of the relevant Medford Land Development Code provisions was plausible and that LUBA and the Court of Appeals therefore were required to accept that interpretation for purposes of review.  Mr. Huttl was a good City employee and the best attorney that Mr. McConnell had an opportunity to come across.
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 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: February 11, 2016

© 2020 City Of Medford  •  Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A


Share This Page

Back to Top