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 Agenda and Minutes
Thursday, April 28, 2016
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:35 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
David McFadden, Vice Chair
Jim Huber, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Brian Fish, Fire Chief
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Carla Paladino, Planner IV
Tracy Carter, Planner II
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV
Patrick Miranda, Chair, Excused Absence
David Culbertson, Excused Absence
Mark McKechnie, Excused Absence
10. Roll Call
10.1 Vice Chair McFadden reported that due to the absences of some of the Planning Commissioners the appointment to the Joint Transportation Subcommittee will take place at the next Planning Commission public hearing.
20. Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1 LDS-16-004 Final Order for a request of tentative plat approval for Rancho McMillan Subdivision, a four lot residential subdivision on a 0.95 acre parcel located on the north side of Lone Pine Road, approximately 1,100 feet west of North Foothill Road, within the SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (Michael McMillan, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent)
20.2 CUP-16-007 Final Order for a request of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the further development of a parking lot, playground, picnic shelter, internal path system, path lighting, a multi-use field, a site drainage system, landscaping, irrigation, other park amenities and two new tax lots for Kennedy Park, situated on five parcels totaling approximately 8.49 acres located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Delta Waters Road and Springbrook Road, within a SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning district. (City of Medford, Parks and Recreation Department, Pete Young, Applicant/Agent)
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5–0.
30.1. The minutes for April 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 – Old Business
50.1 DCA-16-019 Consideration of a Class “A” legislative code amendment to amend Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code revising the site development standards (i.e. front and side yards, lot coverage, and exceptions to yard requirements) for single family residences and duplexes. (City of Medford, Applicant)
Carla Paladino, Planner IV, reviewed the proposal, read the legislative code amendment approval criteria found in Code Section 10.184(2), reviewed the project history and gave a staff report. Ms. Paladino thanked the working group, Fire and Building Departments and Planning staff for their input of the proposal.
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked with the conversations with the Fire Department was there any consideration given to mechanical equipment placement in the setback for two and three story windows for access? Ms. Paladino stated that the group did not talk about the equipment location specifically. They talked to the Building Department to make sure the building code would cover clearances.
Commissioner Foley asked if the proposal presented tonight was option four? Ms. Paladino replied yes.
Commissioner Pulver asked with new subdivisions are the property lines on the front of the house? Ms. Paladino reported that if streets are in then typically the property line is behind the street improvement. Knowing where the property pins are located is the key. Commissioner Pulver has concerns with the front yard setbacks on garages and driveways. Ms. Paladino stated that a property owner is responsible for identifying the property line and showing the appropriate setback of a building. The Building Department helps enforcing that by going out and the property owner is responsible for identifying the property line.
Greg Kleinberg, City of Medford, Fire Marshal, reported that when they first reviewed the proposal to significantly reduce setbacks for one and two family dwellings they were concerned with how this would affect occupants and firefighter safety. The initial proposed reduction in setbacks is detrimental to fire rescue operations and increase house to house ignition. After reviewing the requirements for safe ladder rescue operations they came up with a compromise to the initial proposal. The Building Code emergency escape/rescue windows required in bedrooms are a minimum 20-inch width required to place a ladder within the window opening and to admit firefighter with full rescue equipment, and a minimum 24-inch height required to admit firefighter with full rescue equipment. The closer the houses the greater chance of igniting the next house. Modes of ignition are direct flame contact; convective heat, radiant heat and embers. Hillside side-yard setbacks are a dilemma. From the front they look like a single story house but in the back it could be two or three stories. This has insufficient room to conduct a rescue operation to put a ladder up. This is a part in the Code that needs to be fixed.
Commissioner Pulver asked if the Fire Department was agreeable with what was being proposed tonight. Fire Marshal Kleinberg reported that it is acceptable as long as in the future they need to work on the hillsides.
The public hearing was opened.
a. Brad Bennington, Southern Oregon Home Builders Association, 1006 E. Jackson Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Bennington reported that this represents a lot of consensus and work that has been done coordinating what they need on the builders side and what they need on the safety side and the demands of the public. In 2014 and 2015 Oregon was the most moved to state in the entire union. We do not have the luxury of large lots like in the past. The land that we have has to be used wisely and carefully with reduced setbacks. It needs to be done in a uniform manner so that people have a reasonable expectation that things are going to be done in a certain way. The concerns of Fire Marshal Kleinberg need to be put in a contemporary context. Every three years the building code gets revised.
b. Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Harland reported that this is an improvement to the regulatory setbacks. Mr. Harland was on the working group along with John Chmelir, Eric Peterson and Jeff Mayfield. Mr. Harland expressed some concerns with the setbacks of buildings from 23 to 26 feet high. Those are usually 2-story dwellings. It is his understanding that most of the siding that is going on homes is fire resistant and the Fire Department is good with that along with the prohibition of combustible gutters and attic vents. That would be a reasonable balance to allow a 6 foot setback. The State building code states that local jurisdictions are not allowed to adopt local provisions that are more restrictive than what the building code requires.
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he is not clear if Mr. Harland agrees with the compromise or not. Mr. Harland reported that from a Planning perspective he would prefer a 6 foot setback for buildings less than 26 feet in height. Commissioner Mansfield asked if Mr. Harland was joining the compromise or is he opposed to it? Mr. Harland stated that he is good with most of the compromise but that specific subset from 23 feet to 26 feet to do a 6 foot setback in that particular area makes a big difference and it is a reasonable trade-off. He would like to see that change.
Brian Fish, City of Medford, Fire Chief, stated that with the codes and changes there is less fire starts because of that. Fires normally start with “stuff”. People let overgrown things happen or change their yards and now the setback is not what it used to be that can spread the fire. He does not disagree with the codes and changes. The space is important to the Fire Department for rescue situations.
The public hearing was closed.
Motion: Based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are either met or not applicable, the Planning Commission initiates the amendment and forwards a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-16-019 to the City Council per the staff report dated April 21, 2016, including Exhibits A through F.
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
50.2 LDP-16-012 / E-16-034 Consideration of a request to create three lots on a 0.74 acre parcel, and an exception request for the elimination of sidewalk, curb, gutter and street paving improvements. The parcel is located south of the intersection of East Main Street, Fair Oaks Drive and White Oak Drive, within the SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (Adderson Builders Inc., Applicant; Polaris Land Surveying, LLC, Agent)
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner Mansfield reported that he drove out to the area and did not see anything different than what he has seen in the last 50 years. He presumes just looking at the area is not a conflict. Commissioner Pulver stated that he received a call from one of the concerned citizens that submitted Exhibit BB and the nature of the conversation was how to submit something for consumption.
Vice 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 land division and exception criteria and 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 reported that the project site has 561 feet of street frontage. There are no storm drain facilities on the surrounding streets of the project other than curb and gutter on Fair Oaks. The applicant is requesting an exception because it would be hard to tie into the existing storm drain system. The conceptual drainage and utility plan shows it draining off to the southwest corner of the project site. There is a sliver of road right-of-way on Fair Oaks that does not meet the applicant’s lot until approximately 20 feet up from the southeast corner. Even though it shows the utility lines running along the south line they would be relocated a little further where it comes out of the right-of-way so they would not have to get an easement unless the landowner was willing to allow it. The road right-of-way is an unusual shape. The code requires the applicant to do a half street plus 12 feet improvements. To do that would affect the neighbors and landscaping. The main issue is the cost of doing the improvements. Mr. Kampmann summarized that the applicant wants to keep in harmony with the neighborhood and the entire reconstruction of White Oak because the road is not currently in the right-of-way. The applicant is willing to do a deed restriction that if there is a Land Improvement District that the owner will participate and does not have to pay 125% bond.
Commissioner D’Alessandro stated that he did not hear much about the improvements on the Fair Oaks side of the property. Mr. Kampmann reported that the applicant has agreed to make those improvements.
b. Harry Baker, 278 White Oak Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Baker is concerned with the narrowness of the curve with all the trees on the lot. It is a safety issue. He is also concerned with property values, water drainage from the park and the driveway on the subject property.
c. Jane Fisher, 1 White Oak Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Fisher is against the project.
d. Loren Fisher, 1 White Oak Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Fisher is interested in preserving the neighborhood.
e. Bob Hart, 5126 W. Evans Creek Road, Rogue River, Oregon, 97537. Mr. Hart is a land use consultant practicing in southern Oregon for over thirty five years. Mr. Hart represents the Moore’s that live directly adjacent to the south of the subject property. They requested Mr. Hart to speak to several issues that he has presented in his written evidence. Mr. Hart sees that the applicant wants to move into beautiful neighborhood, change the character by adding more lots but not have any responsibility toward the impacts. The applicant has asked to use the code to grant the exception but there is nothing in the code that allows one to just sign and record an agreement and waive the financial responsibility. The other issue is the frontage on Fair Oaks of the sliver that is not shown on the tentative plan. It is a 24 foot strip that goes up between the subject property and the public right-of-way. That diminishes the frontage dimension and it may reduce that property to where it does not meet the lot width requirement of the code. The proposed drainage that comes down from Lot 1 through Lot 3 and comes out at Lot 2 there is no grade that would allow gravity flow out through a hole in the curb. With the 24 foot strip they would have to move it further to the north and he does not feel there is a practical solution for this application.
Commissioner Pulver asked where does Mr. Hart see that this application does not meet the criteria for the partition? Mr. Hart stated that it is his opinion that Lot 2 does not meet lot width now with that 24 foot strip that was not included in the initial application and the drawings submitted.
f. Joanna Shoemaker, 2404 Hillcrest Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Shoemaker has three concerns. She is concerned about the precedence that is set for further development in that area. The character of the neighborhood would be disrupted by other development. It is concerning that the developer said there is not a lot of room to work with. Her last concern is her own property value, the traffic, density and the additional people in the area. She is not in favor of the lot being divided.
g. Dean TerBest, 133 White Oak Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. TerBest is concerned with drainage from the subject property. He lives two doors down from the subject property and it puts his property in a direct shot for any drainage coming off that property. The proposal does not show where the driveway will be on the subject property. He is against the entire project.
h. Rebecca Ackley, 73 Fair Oaks Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Ackley is worried that eventually this will set a precedence that people can start building 2016 and 2017 homes in “Old East Medford”. It is her opinion that one will not be able to say with pride that they are protecting the one jewel of Medford.
i. Rose Mary Newell, 129 Black Oak Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Newell believes it is disharmonious to wedge two houses on the subject lot. It is not in harmony with the neighborhood.
j. Betsy Wilson, 135 White Oak Road, Medford, Oregon 97504. Ms. Wilson believes the map that shows the lots is deceptive on the irregularity of it. It makes it look like there is more room than there actually is. Her biggest concern is with Parcel 3 that will affect her lot. When those properties are developed there will be a lot of hard-scape including the building itself and the driveway that is now soft-scape. The drainage problem will be huge. Safety is huge for her. She is a walker and that side of the street is already un-walkable. She has issues backing out of her driveway. She wants less density.
k. Kathy Bryan, 229 Valley View Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Bryan confirmed that water drainage will be a problem because she walks White Oak and noticed the water issues during the winter. The traffic situation is really bad. It is her opinion that this being an undue cost to the owner to require them to make it a better situation for the neighborhood is an issue of speculation on the part of the owner.
l. Kimberly London, 2426 East Main Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. London is opposed to the project.
m. Jerry Wagar, 186 White Oak Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Wagar has provided written documentation that was entered into the record. Mr. Wagar reinforced what he is hearing from other members of the community. The conveyance method is inadequate as far as what is currently required. There is a direct nexus to this project and an impact to the neighbors at the bottom of water run-off. Development has to pay its fair share. There needs to be consideration of the preservation of the oak trees.
n. Ryan Costanti, 60 Fair Oaks Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Costanti owns 364 White Oak Circle but currently resides at 60 Fair Oaks Drive. Mr. Costanti expressed current drainage concerns on Fair Oaks Drive. If this is approved he wants to make sure no exemptions are granted. If one is granted on White Oak Drive the financial burden should still be paid. One does not pay it because of convenience. Fair Oaks Drive should have a curb inlet. There is way too much water run-off. Site distance on White Oak Drive should have a traffic study done.
o. Marilyn Costamagna, 2401 Acorn Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Costamagna wanted clarification of the owner’s financial liability in lieu of that was presented in the staff report. Ms. Costamagna read the “The criterion in MLDC Chapter 10.432(4) for the cost associated with improving this block between East Main Street and Acorn Way should be fairly and proportionately shared between the City and other landowners on this block…In lieu of posting a 125% bond, the landowner proposes to sign a perpetual agreement with the City in favor to form an Local Improvement District (LID) in the future, to be duly recorded with the Jackson County Clerk that will run with the land as a Condition of Approval to this exception request.” What does run with the land mean? When selling their property and at time of disclosure how much do they have to disclose? This could be an undue hardship when they try to sell.
p. Rachelle Schaaf, 89 Fair Oaks Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Schaaf resides about eleven o’clock in the cul-de-sac where the drainage is. She has a concern regarding the drainage during heavy rains. Her driveway is lower than it used to be because of paving and on occasion water has come down the grade and stands in her driveway. It will be a greater impact with the additional development. She is concerned about the visibility safety coming out of Fair Oaks Drive either onto East Main Street or White Oak Road. She is also concerned with the nature and the character of the neighborhood.
q. Roger Scott, 2421 Acorn Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Scott objects to the project.
r. Sue White 11 Valley View Drive. Ms. White is concerned of the size for Parcel 2. She does not see Parcel 2 fitting in with anything in that area.
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, addressed the density of the number of parcels that are proposed on the property. The minimum density on this property is three units and the maximum is four units. On page 92 of the agenda packet is the density calculation form. Calculating density is the gross area which includes right-of-way to the centerline of the street in addition to the net area of the property. There is relief in the Code for properties that are less than one gross acre and this one is not.
Parcel 2 as shown does not meet the lot frontage requirement of 60 feet. It is substandard as shown.
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the applicant would have to redesign their plan by moving that property line to the northwest and that would meet the requirement. They would still have the property areas as required. Ms. Akin replied that is correct and that is one solution. Ms. Akin asked the Commission if that was something that they would want to condition or is that something where they take it on its face as what was presented to the Commission?
Commissioner Foley asked if the overall size of Parcel 2 met the requirements? Ms. Akin stated that it does meet the lot area requirement. The minimum lot area for the SFR-4 zone is what is shown of 6,500 square feet. It is a minimum of 60 feet wide, a minimum of 90 feet deep and a minimum of 6,500 square feet are the required lot dimensions.
Mr. McConnell asked what are the applicable approval criteria for the land division? Ms. Akin reported that for the partition the Code has six applicable approval criteria that Mr. Carter reviewed for the Planning Commission. The first two apply and the other four do not apply in this case. Two of them have to do with new streets, has to do with naming which partitions are not named and the last one has to do with adjacent zoning which is not apply.
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, reported that the City does not have a storm drain system in this area. Natural flow of the land is what is going to allow water to run south and southeast. This development is conditioned to water quality and detention on site. Theoretically, a ten year storm will not have any additional water running off this site than what would be currently if the site was empty. There should be no further impacts. There was one citing of the Code which suggested there should be a 12-inch storm drain at the south end of the cul-de-sac on Fair Oaks Drive. That is the current standard but this subdivision was built under previous standards along with the unimproved roads. Today, when a development comes in staff is compelled to ask for what is in the Code which includes frontage improvements. If there was a storm drain system nearby, Public Works would require them to connect into that facility.
Vice Chair McFadden asked if the homeowners on Fair Oaks Drive wanted to change that pipe or improve the drainage in that area would that be up to them, the City or a combination of both? Mr. Georgevitch reported it would be a combination of both. A facility like this typically is the development’s responsibility to install. He does not know the status of the storm drain pipe at the south end of Fair Oaks but he is assuming it is a public line. If there is a problem Public Works will determine if it is public. If it is public and is plugging they would make sure to improve that and potentially if it is undersized they could put it on a project list and eventually improve that or maintenance may make that a project as well. Two separate divisions of Public Works would deal with it.
Mr. Georgevitch reported that there were questions about traffic and traffic safety. This development would not trigger a Traffic Analysis under Code Section 10.461. It would have to be generating more than 250 trips. For the safety concerns Mr. Georgevitch recommended that the community contact Public Works at 541-774-2100 and ask for traffic. They will go out and investigate. If there are shrubs that are overgrown and in the site distance triangle they can work with property owners to help improve that.
Mr. Georgevitch addressed the Local Improvement District issue. If a Local Improvement District is formed in the neighborhood it means that over half the neighborhood is agreeing to improve the street. These streets are the requirement of the property owners. The City of Medford does not participate in the development. Maintenance is the responsibility of the City. Improving this area with curb, gutters and sidewalks would be the neighborhood initiated or the City could initiate it by going out to the property owners and asking if they are willing to participate. There is a public hearing and 51% of the property owners would have to agree that the City, on their behalf, build the road, charging the property owners based on their frontage. If the exception is approved and the property owners decided to sign an agreement those property owners or any future property owners would be required to honor that agreement. That is the intent of running with the land. It is only with these three parcels. If someone tried to form a Local Improvement District these three parcels would have to vote yes. If everyone else votes no, there would be no Local Improvement District formed. There would be no impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Mansfield stated that someone was concerned that this would not be disclosed but it is recorded so any person that purchases the property is aware by virtue of the title report.
Vice Chair McFadden requested Mr. Georgevitch to explain the Deferred Improvement Agreement. Mr. Georgevitch stated that the Code was changed several years back. In the past a development could request a Deferred Improvement Agreement meaning that the development will improve the frontage streets at a future date either when a Local Improvement District is formed or when improvements are brought up to the development. It was a very difficult process for the City Council to deal with. The Code changed to require a 125% deposit. This is a deposit. Additional costs associated with the improvement would be assessed to the property owners. It is a way of assuring the City has the funds available if there is a need to make those improvements.
The Code gives two options. The Code compels Public Works to request the frontage improvements and, under limited circumstances as Mr. Kampmann pointed out, there is a Code provision that allows for the Public Works Director to determine that this could also fall under a Deferred Improvement Agreement. If there are not going to be improvements then the next condition would be to require the Deferred Improvement Agreement. The applicant has requested an exception to both. Public Works still has to ask for one or the other.
Earlier in the exception discussion by the applicant’s agent there was a discussion of a Dolan argument not an exception requirement. Mr. Georgevitch is compelled to bring up the fact that Public Works has made an argument and findings in the staff report that they find there is a legitimate nexus to meet the Nollan requirements. The Dolan requirements, that he does not agree with the mathematics that Mr. Kampmann has put forward, Public Works still finds it roughly proportional under staff’s recommendation. It is the Planning Commission’s responsibility to define what is roughly proportional. To argue that this is not self-imposed, Mr. Georgevitch disagrees.
The Planning Department suggested that the Public Works Director had the ability to defer improvements under Code Section 10.432 and therefore the exception criteria are met. Mr. Georgevitch disagrees. That is for the exception criteria not for building the road. It is two separate processes.
Mr. McConnell stated that this application has a little bit of everything. The Planning Commission heard from Mr. Carter and Ms. Akin that there are six approval criteria in 10.270 and the first two apply. If the Planning Commission decides that they can make the findings of the first two criteria in 10.270 they can approve the land division application. The more problematic issues are the exceptions. Section 10.253 specifically states they should be sparingly exercised. This burden falls on the applicant not on staff or the Planning Commission to make the findings for them. The applicant is asking for an exception for elimination of standard street improvements on White Oak Drive and Fair Oaks Drive. He is also asking for relief from 10.432 the bonding requirements. The applicant referred to Dolan and it needs to be made sure of that he is actually making an unconstitutional taking argument. If the applicant is making an unconstitutional taking argument is this an exaction, which it looks like in Mr. McConnell’s opinion, in exchange for the approval of this application. There are three questions that need to be asked that is the City’s burden.
Commissioner D’Alessandro stated that on the exceptions that the applicant agreed to not ask for the exception on Fair Oaks Drive.
Commissioner D’Alessandro stated that given the testimony the hard pan is there and claiming drainage issues with sheet water run-off. The applicant is required to do storm water detention on-site. Would this actually be an improvement if built to proper standards? Would the drainage problems on the entire lot be mitigated? Mr. Georgevitch stated that in the design process there should be no more water leaving the site than there is today and potentially less. They should be designing a detention system for all three parcels which includes the existing developed parcel that has a lot of impervious area.
Mr. Georgevitch commented to Mr. McConnell’s discussion of Dolan. He does not see this as a fee it is an exaction for improvement. He thought that Kountz dealt with fees in lieu of improvements on their site but it was an off-site development. This is an exaction for public improvements not related to the City’s SDC’s.
Mr. McConnell asked what can the applicant do to satisfy the requirement? Mr. Georgevitch replied that the applicant can build the road to public standards.
Mr. McConnell asked if lieu of that what can the applicant do? Mr. Georgevitch reported that the applicant can put up a security deposit that eventually when it is built they will either be reimbursed any additional money collected than what was needed. If there are additional charges beyond what was collected Public Works would charge them the difference.
Mr. McConnell asked how much money were they talking about? Mr. Georgevitch stated that the applicant mentioned approximately $400,000. Mr. Georgevitch does not see it as that much. His guess is that it will be in the few hundred thousand dollar range. He does not understand the storm drain issue. Public Works would build a holistic storm drain system not a single parcel storm drain so it would be significantly less.
Mr. McConnell requested that the applicant could clarify this argument.
Mr. Georgevitch reported that it is important that Public Works is not exacting funds. Their first requirement is for improvements.
Commissioner Pulver asked if the Planning Commission approved the partition and denied the exception the developer’s options would be to improve the half street or the do the Deferred Improvement Agreement? Mr. Georgevitch stated yes but if the applicant chooses to build they will build half street plus twelve. If the applicant chooses to do a Deferred Improvement Agreement they would only be providing security for half of the street.
Commissioner Pulver asked if Public Work’s preference was to do the Deferred Improvement Agreement as opposed to the actual improvements? Mr. Georgevitch reported that he is uneasy to answer what Public Works preferences are. They are asking for what the Code requires. The applicant has brought up an interesting issue. The exception that Public Works would like to see is for the curves to go away somehow, keep the alignment that is there and reduce the curve Code requirements.
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked if the cost of the improvements were $300,000 would the applicant have to put up the entire amount or is it a surety bond they are posting at a reduced cost? Mr. Georgevitch stated that he believes it is a cash requirement because it is a long term hold and the bond is short term. He would have to refer to the Code and he does not have that information readily available.
Mr. McConnell read Code Section 10.432(2) “When street improvements are deferred, the developer shall deposit with the City of Medford a financial deposit acceptable to the City in the amount of 125 percent of the City Engineer’s estimate of the costs for the deferred street improvement, in lieu of the developer constructing the street improvements. This financial deposit shall be deposited with the City prior to the recordation of the Final Plat for land partitions, or prior to submittal of building permit applications for other approved projects.”
Mr. Kampmann stated that on Parcel 2 it was a slight oversight because of the wedge on the plan. They can pivot the line and get the same square footage to correct the frontage. He requested that the Planning Commission make that a condition of approval.
Commenting on the deposit that Mr. Georgevitch just discussed. It falls into the criteria of undue hardship that exceptions allow. A cash deposit of that size is indefinite. It is for the purpose of improving the streets but there is no requirement that the City is ever going to improve it.
Regarding all the testimony from the neighbors it is nice to see a neighborhood that has such strong feelings. The applicant is not trying to disturb the neighborhood. Basically this is one of two lots in the original subdivision that have never been divided. What they are doing is per the City’s zoning. He understands that the neighbors do not want to see high density development that he does not believe this is but it is what the Code allows. The applicant is creating only one lot on White Oak Drive and one lot on Fair Oaks Drive.
He does know that there are draining issues up Hillcrest and beyond that drains down to Barnett. It is a regional issue. The applicant will mitigate drainage as best as he can through design. The applicant has not submitted a design application at this point. It is his opinion that through Engineering they can mitigate a lot of the drainage problems without having to spend $90,000 for an on-site detention system for three lots. He sympathizes with the neighborhood but he believes the development will be done nicely.
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 LDP-16-012 and E-16-034 per the staff report dated April 21, 2016, including Exhibits A through HH, including the condition that the applicant corrects the frontage distance to 60 feet, include the recordation of an improvement agreement not to object to a Local Improvement District initiated by the property owners and further finding that the Nollan and Dolan requirements are met that there is no unconstitutional exaction involved in this case and granting the exception of improvements for White Oak Drive.
Commissioner Mansfield stated that the reason for that is he understands that the neighbors do not want the streets to be improved at this time.
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield Seconded by: Vice Chair McFadden
The Planning Commission took a five minute recess. The Planning Commission resumed at 8:38 p.m.
Vice Chair McFadden requested Mr. Georgevitch to explain the difference between a Local Improvement District and a Deferred Improvement Agreement. Mr. Georgevitch stated that the Local Improvement District is when at least half of the community agrees to make an improvement. Over half of the community agrees to participate in the Local Improvement District that forces the entire community to participate. Public Works designs and builds the road, totals the cost and charges the abutting property owners, based on their frontage, their share of the road. A Deferred Improvement Agreement typically is someone’s agreement that they will participate in a Local Improvement District but it does not always have to be. The Code requires 125% of the Engineer’s estimate for the Deferred Agreement to be acceptable. The applicant is asking for an exception but the Code requires 125% if they choose to go the Deferred Improvement Agreement method. In this case with the different streets around it where other development may occur leading up to this and there could be a Deferred Improvement Agreement on only this property. There is a chance that for some reason on the east side of White Oak there was some development and someone made improvements, someone south of here made improvements but there was never a time where the City was forming a Local Improvement District that this frontage could be the last of those improvements. At that point Public Works could call the Deferred Improvement Agreement on the two property owners and either use those funds to build themselves or have the two property owners build them along White Oak Drive or possibly all three depending where the improvements are located. The Deferred Improvement Agreement is an agreement that one will participate in the construction of the roadway through a Local Improvement District or through the request of the City. In order to get that approved a 125% of the Engineer’s estimate is required by the Code.
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the reason he asked that was because Commissioner Mansfield in his motion stated Local Improvement District and maybe meant the Deferred Improvement Agreement.
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he was in error that he did not realize that there is no option of avoiding the 125% deposit. To that extent he withdraws that from his motion.
Vice Chair McFadden asked if Commissioner Mansfield wanted to change his motion from Local Improvement District to Deferred Improvement Agreement? Commissioner Mansfield stated that is what he believes he has to do.
Mr. Georgevitch stated that the way he understands the application is that the applicant is asking for an exception to both the improvements and essentially they are willing to sign a Deferred Improvement Agreement without the 125% deposit. The Code requires the 125%.
Mr. McConnell repeated Code Section 10.432(2) “When street improvements are deferred, the developer shall deposit with the City of Medford a financial deposit acceptable to the City in the amount of 125 percent of the City Engineer’s estimate of the costs for the deferred street improvement,,” It says “shall” not “may”. He agrees with Commissioner Mansfield that it is mandatory.
Ms. Akin reported that exceptions can be applied for anything in Articles 4 and 5. There are some development standards contained in Article 3. Code Section 10.432(2) is located in Article 4. It is an exception one can apply for.
Mr. McConnell stated with the caveat that the applicant would have to meet the four criteria in 10.253. The Code requires that the Planning Commission can grant an exception if the applicant has convinced the Planning Commission either in his testimony or application he meets all four criteria.
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he is satisfied with that as long as it can be done legally he will Include in his motion and someone may amend that motion.
Commissioner Pulver asked Commissioner Mansfield if his motion is for the applicant to sign and record a Deferred Improvement Agreement but waive the requirement of the 125%. Commissioner Mansfield replied that is what he is proposing at the moment subject to whatever amendment might be made.
Commissioner Pulver, Commissioner Foley, Vice Chair McFadden and Commissioner D’Alessandro thanked the neighbors for coming to defend their neighborhood and stated that they agree with approving the partition but denying the exception.
Commissioner Mansfield stated that high density is a concept that has sound policy. The Planning Commission is required by law of the State of Oregon to advance high density. If high density is not applied for this application then they are making a decision whether or not it is applicable to all the neighborhoods in the City that might want to do subdividing. He does not think the Planning Commission has the right to determine that. He understands the arguments of the neighbors and thanks them for coming this evening.
Commissioner Foley asked if it would be appropriate to make this into two separate votes?
Commissioner Mansfield stated that with the approval of the second he withdraws his original motion and makes a one part type motion.
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the original motion is dead.
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of LDP-16-012 per the staff report dated April 21, 2016, including Exhibits A through HH, including the condition that the applicant corrects the frontage distance to 60 feet.
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
Motion: The Planning Commission denies E-16-034 based on the applicant’s inability to adequately meet the requirements of the exception as stated in Code Section 10.253 and require the applicant to comply with the Public Works staff report and the Planning Department’s staff report dated April 21, 2016, including Exhibits A through HH with criteria 1 and 3 not being adequately met.
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 4-1 with Commissioner Mansfield voting no.
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
50.4 PUD-00-116 / CUP-04-109 / LDS-16-045 Consideration of a request for a revision to Stonegate Estates Planned Unit Development to 1) amend the exterior boundary of the PUD, 2) revise the Conditional Use Permit to allow riparian encroachments for a multi-use path, street, bridge, public storm water facilities, and utilities and 3) tentative plat review of Phases 2B, 2C, and 2D. The project is located on the east side of North Phoenix Road, north of Coal Mine Road. (Louie & Charles Mahar, Applicants; Richard Stevens & Associates, Clark Stevens, Agent)
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the Mr. Stevens, the agent for this application, has requested to continue this item to the May 12, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion: Continue PUD-00-116 / CUP-04-109 / LDS-16-045, per the applicant’s request to the May 12, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
50.3 PUD-05-025 Consideration of a request for a revision to Bella Vista Planned Unit Development to allow a six-foot cedar fence to be located adjacent to East McAndrews Road along Lots 11-17 of Phase 2, located between Palermo Street and East McAndrews Road. (Pahlisch Homes, Inc., Applicant/Agent)
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV, read the planned unit development revision criteria and gave a staff report. Ms. Sousa stated that staff received a letter this evening and was placed at the Planning Commissioner’s places. It will be entered into the record as Exhibit N.
Commissioner Pulver asked if the revision that was approved in 2006 was that the applicant changed what they were going to do on the south side of McAndrews and they also changed what they were going to do on the north side which was just the large evergreen trees? Ms. Sousa replied yes.
Commissioner Pulver stated that arguably they could say they met the arterial street separation feature by the trees that are there and then it becomes more of providing a satisfactory separation for the eventual residents of those lots. Is the fence that is there on the right-of-way? Ms. Sousa replied that to her knowledge it is on private property.
Commissioner Pulver asked if the fence was not permitted per the Planned Unit Development? Ms. Sousa replied that is correct. If the fence would have been located on the other side of the trees this revision would not been before the Commission this evening.
Commissioner Foley asked if the fence was on the property owner’s side or on the public utility side? Ms. Sousa stated she believes the fence is in the public utility easement. The public utility easement is private property.
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked if permission given to the builder by the City to erect the fence? Ms. Sousa deferred the question to the applicant. She has heard that is the case.
Mr. McConnell stated that if the Commission requests that the fence be taken down that does not mean the Commission would have to figure out for the applicant where the fence should go. If the fence does not meet the requirements then it would be in violation of the Code. Technically the fence is in violation of the Code at this time. They could be fined daily for violation of any provision in Chapter 10. It is up to the applicant if they want to be fined every day or do they want to take it down and do something else.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Sousa apologized that the applicant was not present this evening.
a. Dana Henderson, 429 W. Veneto Circle, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Henderson submitted photographs at this evenings meeting. Mr. Henderson submitted written proposal of ideas last week. Mr. Henderson’s concern is that to put a wooden fence on the edge of a sidewalk, who is going to maintain it and how long is it going to last? This application is in violation of the Code. Mr. Henderson’s submitted proposed idea is putting a 2 foot retaining wall made out of pressured treated wood behind the trees. The easiest time to move the fence is while the developer still owns the lots.
The public hearing was closed.
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts staff’s findings option #1 and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for denial of the revision to PUD-05-025 per the staff report dated April 21, 2016.
Moved by: Commissioner Foley Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
Commissioner Pulver asked if the applicant is not complying with the requirements of the Planned Unit Development is that in line with what Counsel was saying but if the trees provided in the landscape were approved in the Planned Unit Development revision of 2006 is not being provided, what happens? What does the City do? Ms. Sousa reported that on the south side they did everything they were supposed to do. On the north side further north the developer did the proposed landscaping.
Mr. McConnell stated that the City would have the ability to seek appropriate relief in the Jackson County Circuit Court.
Ms. Sousa asked for direction regarding the fence.
Commissioner Pulver stated that his opinion is that there is an approved arterial street frontage plan that the applicant should comply with.
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
60.1 Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner D’Alessandro deferred the report to Kelly Akin, Principal Planner.
Ms. Akin reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, April 15, 2016. They heard consideration of an 18.83 acre master site plan for the Northgate Office Park and final site plan for an 8.5 acre portion of the Northgate Office Park consisting of 58,243 square feet of commercial and office building. Subject site is bounded between Highway 99 to the northeast, North Central Avenue on the northwest and Highway 238 on the south. This item was continued to the May 6, 2016, Site Plan and Architectural Commission meeting.
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
60.3 Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, stated that the next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, May 9, 2016. There is no business at this time but will keep the Commissioner’s posted.
There is business scheduled for the next three Planning Commission meetings that are on Thursday, May 12, 2016, Thursday, May 26, 2016, and Thursday, June 9, 2016.
The City Council at their last meeting approved the right-of-way vacation on Front Street and the Railroad tracks that the Planning Commission recommended.
Today, there was a study session with the City Council and Jeff Condit, who the City has retained to help work through the findings for the Urban Growth Boundary project. Mr. Condit reviewed the work that has already been done and was very complimentary of the work that the Planning Commission and staff has done. He will help Planning staff refine the findings for City Council’s final decision scheduled for Thursday, May 19, 2016.
On Thursday, May 5, 2016, the City Council will hear a proclamation for May being Historic Preservation month. They will also hear a related Certified Local Government grant.
The James A. Redden Court House, (Federal Court House) is having a Centennial Celebration on Thursday, May 5, 2016. The building is 100 years old. The Celebration is from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. They will have tours beginning at 12:30 p.m.
Mr. McConnell stated that you will have to go online and RSVP in order to get in.
70. Messages and Papers from the Chair.
80. Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
90. Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
60.2 Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee met yesterday, April 27, 2016, and nothing beyond that to report.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:59p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
Terri L. Rozzana
Planning Commission Vice Chair
Approved: May 12, 2016