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, May 26, 2016

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:33 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
 
Commissioners Absent
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
Tim D’Alessandro, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Jim Huber, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner II
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 CUP-16-022 / E-16-023 Final Orders for a request of a Conditional Use Permit for the Kids Unlimited Public Charter School Master Campus Plan to allow for the expansion of existing facilities; including but not limited to 18,000 square foot multipurpose building, a two classroom modular building and outdoor athletic field. The Applicant has submitted an associated Exception Application requesting relief from street side setbacks, maximum lot coverage, and reduction of public right-of-way for Edwards Street and Austin Street. The subject site is located west of Riverside Avenue, South of Edward Street, East of Niantic Street and north of Austin Street. The campus is located in the SFR-10 (Single Family Residential -10 units per gross acre), MFR-20 (Multiple-Family Residential – 20 units per gross acre and C-C (Community Commercial) zoning districts and encompasses approximately 2.8 net acres. (Kids Unlimited of Oregon, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent)
 
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for May 12, 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 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)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
  
Chair Miranda 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, planned unit development revision, conditional use permit and the land division criteria and gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501-0168.  Mr. Stevens reported that staff has presented a complete report to the Planning Commission.  The one acre location in the northeast corner of the site the revision allows the applicant to extend the pedestrian/bike path and build a bridge within the middle fork of Larson Creek to Stanford Avenue.  The bridge will be built during Phase 2B and will tie-in to the Eastgate project to the north.
 
The amendment will provide modification to Lot 166 and increase the single family dwelling units by four.  The additional lots are the result of the applicant not needing as big of an area for the storm drainage.  There was sufficient area to meet lot depth and width standards.
 
The improvements include a portion of the greenway along Larson Creek in Phase 2A that will be installed this summer along with the improvements along Phase 5.  The applicant is hoping to do two bridges and the planting all in one swoop as the project develops and completes in Phase 5.
 
The applicant has reviewed the staff report and is in agreement with all of the recommendations and conditions for approval with the exception of the condition made by the Public Works Department regarding the timing of the bridge for Stanford Avenue over Larson Creek where it makes the connection to Coal Mine Road.  Public Works is requesting this bridge be constructed with Phase 2C.  The applicant is requesting that the bridge be constructed with Phase 2D.  Part of the reason is that the applicant would have to tie in utilities that will come from the west to develop Phase 2D and then the applicant can tie in the utilities and the bridge work at the same time.
 
Currently there are two emergency fire accesses one from Coal Mine Road that traverses that ties in to Phase 2A.  Eastgate has an emergency fire access that goes to Harbrooke.
 
As a side note undeveloped land to the east and west are owned by relatives of the applicant and will need the bridge.  The applicant has requested through the Public Works Department a reimbursement district.  It needs to be a condition of approval to ensure that the applicant is responsible for building that bridge.
 
Creek View Drive goes out to North Phoenix Road.  An additional way out is along Ashford Way up to Harbrooke to provide a secondary way out.  Creek View Drive is not the only way out of this project.  Rutherford Drive will connect to Ashford Way.
            
Commissioner McKechnie asked does the applicant agree with the conditions from staff except for the timing of the south bridge construction over Larson Creek?  Mr. Stevens reported that is correct.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if there was 12 acres of land to be dedicated to the public?  Mr. Stevens stated dedicated to the Medford Parks Department.  That is part of the greenway.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked when will that take place or has it already taken place?  Mr. Stevens reported that has not taken place.  The applicant needs to complete all the improvements.  They will have to install the pathway, irrigation system and the plantings along with a long term agreement for maintenance.  The Medford Parks Department will have to do an inspection to make sure it is acceptable for their maintenance program.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that with Phases 2A, 2B and 2C it looks like those residences have exactly one way to get across Larson Creek without the bridge and extension of Stanford down to Coal Mine Road. Is that correct?  Mr. Stevens stated that is not correct.  The applicant is putting in the bridge on Stanford over the middle fork to tie into Eastgate which will also tie back into Creek View Drive.  There will be two bridge crossings over the middle fork of Larson Creek.
       
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, reported that there has been a little back and forth on which phase to construct the bridge.  Originally when Public Works reviewed this they had no issues with Phase 2D being the final phase for constructing the bridge.  As Public Works did their analysis to finalize their staff report they reviewed the original traffic analysis for Stonegate and it showed the original development was planning on splitting the traffic about 50% going down Coal Mine Road and 50% down Creek View Drive.  Public Works requested the applicant construct the bridge as part of Phase 2C.  The applicant worked with Public Works to have Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering review Creek View Drive.  Unfortunately they reviewed Creek View Drive as a whole not at the intersection of Creek View Drive and North Phoenix Road where Public Works had their concerns.  Public Works has safety concerns and unfortunately the applicant has not been able to provide Public Works with additional information to make them recommend anything other than what is in their current staff report to construct the bridge in Phase 2C.
 
Mr. Georgevitch also stated that reimbursement districts are a request to the Public Works Director from the applicant prior to starting construction.  The applicant needs to make sure they make that request to the Public Works Director prior to start of construction.
   
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the plans show a major relocation of Coal Mine Road to tie into a cross intersection of Juanipero Way.  Whose responsibility is the realignment and when will that happen?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that the facility is a higher order street, a collector, so it could be the City’s responsibility over time but there are no plans for the City to do that work right now.  It is primarily developer driven.  Currently approximately a third of it is being realigned with Stonegate Phase 5.  As future development continues the realignment will be completed.  Coal Mine Road goes to North Phoenix Road.  There is connectivity regardless of the realignment.
   
Mr. Stevens reported that the applicant did not look at the intersection of Creek View Drive.  However, they believe Ashford Way can provide an additional way out of the project to Harbrooke Road.  There have been many traffic impact studies on this project when they did the original Planned Unit Development. It is their belief that the safety aspects of that intersection could be mitigated.
  
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings as presented and adopts the Final Orders for approval of PUD-00-116 Revision, CUP-04-109 Revision and LDS-16-045 per the second revised staff report dated May 19, 2016, including Exhibits A-1 through GG and keeping the recommendation from Public Works of the bridge construction during Phase 2C.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Vice Chair McFadden spoke to the motion stating that he basically agrees with the applicant that the bridge construction could wait.  The difficulty is the intersections.
    
Commissioner McKechnie reported that he is sympathetic to the developer but it is important to have a couple of independent ways out of the project.  There is nothing that requires the developer to Phase 2B first and Phase 2C next then Phase 2D.  The developer could essentially do Phase 2D first and move the other direction.  It is reasonable to leave the recommendation.
     
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.2 ZC-16-035 Consideration of a request for a change of zone from SFR-00 (Single-Family Residential, one dwelling unit per existing lot) to SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, 10 dwelling units per gross acre) on approximately 2.26 acres located along the north side of Maple Park Drive approximately 353 feet east of Ross Lane N. (372W23DD Tax lots 600 & 601) (Ron & Christine Horton, Applicants; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner McKechnie disclosed that Scott Sinner, the agent for the applicant, is his neighbor, but that would not affect his decision.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner II, read the zone change criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that Mr. Severs did not indicate there would be a return from Katie May Drive to Maple Park.  Is that to be expected and if not is there a block length that will require that to be done to comply with block length standards?  Mr. Severs stated that the applicant’s intentions during Phase 5 will extend Katie Mae Drive and creating another minor residential street running north and south that will connect to Maple Park.  Mr. Severs deferred the question to the applicant.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner reported that this application meets the requirements of the Transportation System Plan and Oregon Transportation Rule.  It meets the locational standards and the adequate capacity of Category “A” services that have been developed.  There is a connection that meets all of the applicable criteria for the land division in an upcoming application.
      
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 ZC-16-035 per the staff report dated May 19, 2016, including Exhibits A through J.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.3 ZC-16-041 Consideration of a request for a change of zone from SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential-6 dwelling units per acre) to I-L (Light Industrial) on approximately 47.14 net acres located east of Corona Avenue, west of Whittle Avenue, and 195 feet south of Crater Lake Highway 62. (Jackson County, Applicant; Richard Stevens & Associates, Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner II, stated that staff received comments from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon after the agenda packet had been submitted.  It was forwarded to the Planning Commissioners by email.  It will be submitted into the record as Exhibit J.  Mr. Severs also stated that the zone change criteria had been read in the previous application and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that regarding the submitted letter from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon it stated that the staff report relating to this proposal neither mentions nor analyzes the impact of the amendment on the City’s Statewide Planning Goal 10 obligations.  Has staff taken care of that?  Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that Goal 10 is one of the Statewide Planning Goals.  The Statewide Planning Goals are addressed at the time of Comprehensive Plan amendments.  When staff did the General Land Use Plan map amendment last year that is when the analysis was done. It is not a zoning criterion.
  
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the Fair Housing Council of Oregon would be able to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision based on not addressing Goal 10?  Ms. Akin replied they could appeal on that basis since they raised the issue before the Planning Commission but it is not an approval criterion.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if access to this site is from Whittle Avenue to Crater Lake Highway or Corona to McAndrews?  Mr. Severs deferred the question to the applicant.
     
Commissioner Mansfield asked if all of the development is impaired then why is the applicant bringing this application forward?  Mr. Severs reported that there are types of developments that could occur.  In the applicant’s narrative it mentioned possibly having a park on the land or for Public Works Department vehicles.
    
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501-0168.  Mr. Stevens reported that this application is in compliance with Medford Land Development Code Section 10.227 and the Comprehensive Plan General Land Use Plan map designation which is Airport.  They are in compliance with the location standards for the proposed Light Industrial zoning.  They are also in agreement with Public Works conditions for the trip cap stipulation to develop no more than the SFR-6 plus the 249 trips and to develop the sanitary sewer flows consistent with the SFR-6 designation.
 
A question was raised about access to and from the site.  Skypark Drive, Whittle Avenue and Grandview go to Crater Lake Avenue.  Whittle Avenue also goes to Highway 62.  Corona goes to McAndrews.  There are multiple ways in and out.
 
The Airport purchased the property to protect the runway approach.  They did not want homes built on this site due to public safety.  It is part of the FAA requirements.  One of the potential uses is a public park.  Currently there are no agreements or contracts.  It is just in the discussion phase. Another option is a Public Works facility.
             
b. Jim Porter, 2352 Whittle Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Traffic on Whittle Avenue gets bad when there are things going on at Lava Lanes.  If a park is constructed what will they do with the increased traffic?  What will it do to the residents taxes if it is Light Industrial?  He would like for the Airport to keep the residents more informed. 
     
c. Jess Walls, 2473 Corona Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  He lives across the street from the open area and is concerned with his view of Roxy Ann.  There are a lot of geese on the wetlands in that area.
 
d. Courtney Cunningham, 2540 Whittle Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  She is concerned with the impacts of property values and crime.
  
e. Jesse Moore, 2516 Whittle Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  How long has this been zoned single family housing? At one time the project area was going to be a golf course.  Traffic is another concern of his.  Are the changes being done because of the new construction on the road coming off Whittle Avenue and the new road to White City?  He has concerns with the view of Roxy Ann.
            
f. Thomas Burns, 2440 Whittle Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  He concurs with the previous testimonies.  He also has concerns with the traffic and the viaduct.
     
g. Jeanette Gioissi, 2576 Whittle Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504. She is concerned with the impacts of her view, traffic, property values, noise and crime.  A park would be great.
   
h. Judy Cheatum, 2319 Whittle Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  She has concerns with the traffic.
 
i. Chad McComas, 1743 Alcan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  His concern is traffic.  It would be nice to know what the Airport is planning for that area.
  
j. Bern Case, Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, 1000 Terminal Spur Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  He appreciates that comments that have been made.  He agrees with many of them.  The reason they fenced the area was due to safety.  They are anxious to do things that are compatible.  Any development plans have to get reviewed by the City and the County.
   
Vice Chair McFadden asked if Public Works was up-to-date on the Oregon Department of Transportation plans?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that there was a proposal to take Hilton to Corona to Highway 62, potentially head east along the north side of this property.  There were several options but none of those moved forward.  The current by-pass that is under construction today has Whittle turning right in and right out.  That will help reduce some of the traffic.  Hilton Road to the west where it ties into Poplar is a right in and right out that was done under another phase of the Highway 62 project.  Northeast of the subject property Highway 62 will be turning off its current alignment and head north along the old Haul Road alignment to White City.  A significant amount of traffic is intended to use that facility instead of the old Highway 62.  The old Highway 62 will become a Medford facility over time assuming the City Council will accept it through a jurisdictional exchange.
       
Mr. Stevens reported that some of the concerns from the neighbors were in regards to access, traffic generation, wetlands, and creeks that are definitely valid.  One of the misconceptions is that the line next to the wetlands is a creek.  It is Hopkins canal with the Rogue Valley Irrigation District.  There are wetlands on site.  The applicant did a delineation that has expired.  A new one will be required.
 
The area will not be 100% developed to Light Industrial use.  The applicant wants low density and low impact because of the runway approach.  Safety is their utmost concern.
 
The applicant did a traffic study that identified the impacts.  The subject site will not create traffic greater than what is already there under the SFR-6 zone.  It is the existing zoning plus 249 trips which is allowed.
 
It is hard to say what property values will do.  Property value is not a criterion.
        
Commissioner Culbertson stated that the Airport Master Plan had the runway moving to the east.  Is that correct?  Mr. Case stated that the Airport Master Plan calls for a parallel runway that they are proposing to be no more than 6,500 feet non-instrumented. It would be an alternate that would give redundancy if they have a gear up landing, snow removal or construction.  Its impact is less due to its length.
        
Vice Chair McFadden stated that over the years he has heard two or three times this property has been impacted by an airplane that did not reach the end of the runway.  Is that number true?  Mr. Case replied there was a crash landing north of the airport prior to his tenure.  A plane came up short of the runway that landed north of Highway 62 and south of the airport fence.
   
Commissioner Culbertson asked what was the primary purpose of the airport acquiring the property?  Mr. Case reported that it was for runway protection and safety that has been discussed.  It was also for noise.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked why has it changed from then to now?  Mr. Case replied technology.  
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 ZC-16-041 per the staff report dated May 19, 2016, including Exhibits A through J.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Vice Chair McFadden spoke to his motion stating there are always concerns with the location of the property.  The applicant has met the criteria for a zone change.  Crime and traffic needs to be handled by the police.  Talk to your City Council representative about issues.  Future development of this property will have signs and notifications that the neighbors will receive.  Vice Chair McFadden thanked the audience for coming.
    
Commissioner McKechnie spoke to the motion stating that having single family residential right underneath the approach to the airport is a bad idea.  This will most likely be better designed.  He does not think this will impact the view like they think it might.  He would like if there is a potential to access Skypark Drive that it be explored especially if there are industrial users.
   
Commissioner Foley stated that he appreciated and thanked the audience for coming and voicing their concerns.
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.4 E-16-047 Consideration of a request for relief from the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for two properties totaling approximately 0.3 acres located at the southwesterly corner of E McAndrews Road and Court Street within the C-C (Community Commercial) zone district. (1173 and 1165 Court Street, Tax lots 372W24AC 2300 and 2403) (Court Street Properties LLC, Applicant; Neathamer Surveying, Inc., Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda 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 exception criteria and gave a staff report.  Ms. Akin noted a correction that when this application was submitted it was scheduled for the Site Plan and Architectural Commission but they do not have the authority over land configuration.  The findings were not amended to reflect that.  The findings note the Site Plan and Architectural Commission rather than the Planning Commission.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the businesses were individually owned?  Ms. Akin replied they are currently under single ownership.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, Inc., 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer stated that the buildings in question are under a single ownership but have the potential for sale is one of the driving forces for this application.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of E-16-047 per the staff report dated May 19, 2016, including Exhibits A through J and that the findings reflect the Planning Commission and not the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission had no business for their Friday, May 20, 2016, meeting.  The meeting was cancelled. 
           
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee. 
Chair Miranda asked for a volunteer for the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.  There were no volunteers.  The item was tabled.
 
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, stated the next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, June 13, 2016.  There is no business at this time but staff will keep the Planning Commission informed.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, June 9, 2016, and Thursday, June 23, 2016.
 
Last week the City Council adopted the code amendment for residential site development standards of revised setback calculations and lot coverage.  They also updated the Planning Departments fee schedule.
 
June 2, 2016, City Council meeting the Planning Department does not have any business for the City Council.  The Urban Growth Boundary amendment is scheduled for City Council on Thursday, June 16, 2016.
 
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair. 
70.1        Chair Miranda reported that placed and the Commissioner’s places was an information sheet regarding ORS 260.432 Quick Referenced – Restrictions on Political Campaigning for Public Employees.  “A public employee” includes public officials who are not elected, whether they are paid or unpaid (including appointment boards and Commissions).
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney.  None.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None.
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 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                                                                      
 
Patrick Miranda
Planning Commission Chair
 
Approved: June 9, 2016
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top