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, June 23, 2016

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:36 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
Tim D’Alessandro
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
Jared Pulver
 
Commissioners Absent
Joe Foley, Excused Absence
               
Staff Present
Jim Huber, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Tanner Fairrington, Fire Inspector
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner II
Desmond McGeough, Planner III
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 LDP-16-015 Final Order for a request to create three lots on a 1.04 acre parcel located on the west side of the intersection of Cedar Links Drive and N Foothill Road, within the SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (C.A. Galpin, Applicant; Jim Zundel, Agent)
 
20.2 PUD-16-037 Final Order for a revision to the approved Preliminary PUD Plan for Stewart Meadows Village, including the incorporation of additional property into the PUD boundary which will result in an overall PUD area of approximately 77 acres. The subject site is generally bounded by Stewart Avenue, South Pacific Highway, Garfield Avenue and Myers Lane and zoned SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per gross acre), SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, 10 dwelling units per gross acre), C-C (Community Commercial), I-L (Light Industrial) and I-G (General Industrial) with the PD (Planned Unit Development) overlay. (KOGAP Enterprises, Inc., Applicant; Maize & Associates, Inc., Agent)
 
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for June 9, 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 LDP-16-055 Consideration of a request to create two lots on a 19.83 acre parcel located northeast of the intersection of Biddle Road and East Jackson Street, within a C-R (Regional Commercial) zoning district. (LBG Medford LLC, Applicant; Neathamer Surveying, Inc., Agent).  The applicant requests a continuance of this application to the Thursday, August 25, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Chair Miranda reported that if there are members in the audience that have come to testify on this agenda item and cannot attend the Thursday, August 25, 2016, Planning Commission hearing, please come forward and the Planning Commission will hear their testimony at this time.  Please keep in mind that it is possible that their questions may be answered when staff presents their staff report on Thursday, August 25, 2016.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
The public hearing was opened and there being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission accepts the applicant’s request to continue LDP-16-055 to the Thursday, August 25, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
 
50.2 LDS-16-053 Consideration of a tentative plat for Westridge Village at Vista Pointe Phase 7, a 12-lot residential subdivision on approximately 6.18 acres located on the westerly side of East McAndrews Road at Chablis Terrace within the SFR-4/PD (Single Family Residential, 4 dwelling units per gross acre/Planned Development Overlay) zoning district (Tax Lot 371W22AD291). (Michael T. Mahar Retirement Plan & Trust, 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 land division criteria and gave a staff report.  Ms. Akin reported that the Public Works Department submitted a revised staff report and it would be entered into the record replacing Exhibit E as Exhibit E-1.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the only difference between this and the original approval is that small section of lot 66 that extended and everything else is the same as before?  Ms. Akin replied that is the only distinction between the two.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that it is his understanding that Merlot Court will connect to another street.  Ms. Akin reported that Merlot will connect to Hemlock to the south.  There is a long understanding condition to make that connection between the two streets.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the wait was due to getting a bridge over Lazy Creek.  Ms. Akin replied no.  Again, there is a long understanding.  There was an agreement and an appeal from the 2003 decision that resulted in a four party agreement that included the City, property owner and adjoiners. The crossing was to be constructed with the commercial development.
  
Vice Chair McFadden stated that Ms. Akin made a comment about two lots.  Could she elaborate more?  Ms. Akin stated that there are two lots that have frontage on Hemlock through the Grayson Heights Subdivision.  Tract K incorporates the two lots.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked if the wetlands in that area were covered and that those lots are not being considered as part of the Planned Unit Development?  Ms. Akin reported that they are part of the reserved acreage tract so it is still part of the preliminary plan.  At any point in time there could be a partition or a subdivision to create those two lots but that is not on the table this evening.
   
Commissioner Pulver asked what is the distinction between private drive versus other various classifications of public streets?  Ms. Akin stated that the distinction between a private street and a varying classification of public streets are that a private street is owned and maintained by the property owners.  They are constructed to a City approved section that goes through a plan review process and designed to a City standard.  They are not dedicated right-of-way and the City has no maintenance responsibility for private streets.  That is why they are distinguished on the plat as private.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that the applicant would be required to build a certain level of standards for streets and sidewalks.  What is the benefit?  Ms. Akin replied that the right-of-way is 30 feet wide that serves at least 20 lots. In the Code, the smallest public street, a residential lane, is 33 foot right-of-way that can only serve a maximum of 8 units.  The private street is a narrower street that does not meet City standards.
        
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, Inc., 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer reported that Ms. Akin did a good job with the staff report and presentation.  He does not have anything to add and made himself available for questions.
 
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-16-053 per the staff report dated June 16, 2016, including Exhibits A through N and replacing Exhibit E with Exhibit E-1. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
 
50.3 LDS-16-051 / E-16-052 Consideration of Silky Oaks Phase 5, a 14-lot residential subdivision along with an Exception requesting relief from the width requirement for the creation of a flag lot on approximately 2.26 gross acres located along the north side of Maple Park Drive and 353 feet east of Ross Lane N within the SFR-00 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per existing lot) zoning district (372W23DD TL 600 & 601) (Horton Homes, LLC., Applicant; 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 reported that Mr. Sinner 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, stated that the land division criteria were read in the previous application and read the exception criteria into the record.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.  Mr. Severs stated that omitted from the staff report was the exception request being contingent on another exception request.  That request is to be granted relief from meeting the minimum flag lot (pole) width for the proposed flag lot.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner reported that he thought he heard in Mr. Sever’s presentation that Katie Mae Drive terminated at the end of the developed portion of Silky Oaks.  Currently the applicant has final plat on Silky Oaks Phase 3.  It is extended to the property line of the subject property.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked if the applicant moved the street to the west does the applicant have enough lot depth to have houses on both sides of a new street and does that value and the increased value of that property layout exceed the value that would be lost removing the house that has been there for a long time?  Mr. Sinner stated that the applicant did not have all of the properties at one time.  Now they do and Phases 3 and 4 are built.  They would have has significant problems with the approval criteria for the land division.  He does not know how the properties west of theirs would develop with access.  They looked at a lot of options.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the interior lot on Phase 4 was one big lot?  Mr. Sinner replied yes.
 
Tanner Fairrington, Fire Inspector, commented that the length of Lot 41 is approximately 170 feet with a reduced length of 13.5 feet.  The Fire Code requires a minimum width of 20 feet.  13.5 feet is the absolute minimum for firefighting access.  If the dwelling is not 150 feet from the right-of-way there may be a requirement for a home sprinkler system.
     
Mr. Sinner stated that he was aware of Mr. Fairrington’s comment.  The minimum access for Silky Oaks Phase 4 is across the fence.  There is access.  There is a fence between Phases 4 and 5.  The applicant is supporting the condition that was just mentioned.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked what is the exception process?  It seems to him that there were alternative ways this project could be designed that an exception would not have been required.  Mr. Severs replied that he based his evaluation on the plat that the applicant submitted.  He feels the exception was warranted based on the plat provided.
 
Mr. Sinner reported that when they develop a property like this they work closely with staff of the Planning Department and Public Works to come up with all kinds of solutions.  They had at least six meetings of what they could do.  On infill properties, which this is, they are dealing with historic development. 
     
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings with the proposed modifications as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare Final Orders for approval of LDS-16-051 and E-16-052 per the staff report dated June 16, 2016, including Exhibits A through K.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Commissioner McKechnie reported that he was going to vote against the exception.  He is continually disturbed about the lots that are tucked back inside the middle of the blocks.  He agrees with Vice Chair McFadden that it is not the Planning Commission’s responsibility to redesign the subdivision.  It looks like there are other ways to make this work without doing an exception.  It is needless and there are other alternatives that they do not have to accept this.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked if the exception is not approved how does the subdivision get approved? Mr. McConnell reported that the Planning Commission could approve the subdivision and not approve the exception unless staff has another opinion.
  
Ms. Akin stated that the subdivision layout relies on the exception.  If the Planning Commission is not able to make positive findings for the four exception criteria then the land division would also have to fail.
 
When looking at designing a project, which staff does not do, we are obliged to look at connectivity which is one of the approval criteria for land divisions that includes the creation of streets that do not prevent the development of adjacent land.  Staff is also obliged to look at block length.  There is more to design than the looks of a project.
 
Commissioner McKechnie is basing his comments on not that he does not like the subdivision but he does not believe it meets criteria one or four.  It is injurious to the health, safety and general welfare of the public.  It is an unusual design problem that requires an unusual design solution.  The design solution the applicant selected is not the best that is available.
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-2, with Commissioner Pulver and Commissioner McKechnie voting no.
 
50.4 PUD-16-024 Consideration of a request for a revision to the Cedar Landing Planned Unit Development (PUD) (see list below). The request for PUD Revision primarily applies to the portion of Cedar Landing located on the NORTH side of Cedar Links Drive. There is one PUD Modification request that is applicable to the entire development.
 
Proposed PUD revision applicable to the NORTH & SOUTH SIDES of the development: 
 
1.            Allow a 55% lot coverage maximum for single-family residential units under 25 feet in height; units more than 25 feet in height will remain subject to zoning provision maximum lot coverage of 40%.
 
Proposed PUD revisions applicable to only the NORTH side of the development:
 
2.            Reconfiguration of the Multi-Family, Commercial, Congregate Care and Open Space land uses to a mixture of Single Family, Multi-Family, Commercial and Open Space.
3.            Allow for optional land use for a scaled-down congregate Care Facility or single-family cottage units.
4.            Serve a portion of the property with a private street.
5.            Increased maximum building height for multi-family structures within “The Village” sub-area to provide more architecturally appealing rooflines on three story units.
6.            Allow a 10-foot front yard setback exclusive of garages for ““The Cottages”” sub-area.
7.            Allow a 75-foot lot depth and minimum lot size of 3,800 square feet within ““The Cottages”” sub-area.
8.            Allow up to 75% lot coverage for single family units under 25 feet in height within the ““The Cottages”” sub area.
9.            Permit a minimum lot size of 5,800 square feet for lots within “Sky Lakes at The Village, Phases I & II”. (Cedar Investment Group LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Craig Stone, Agent)
 
LDS-16-025 Consideration of a request for a revision to the Cedar Landing tentative plat for “Cascade Terrace at Cedar Landing Phases 1 through 5”). The site is located in the north portion of the Cedar Links development project, north of Cedar Links Drive and west of Wilkshire Drive within a SFR-4/PUD (Single Family Residential 4 units per gross acre with Planned Unit Development Overlay). Applicant is requesting approval for a 98-lot residential subdivision tentative plat revision for the purpose of modifying phase boundaries and renaming the two tentative plats to Cascade Terrace at Cedar Landing, Phase 1 through 5. The subject request pertains only to project phasing and proposed name change. Lot configurations, open space, streets and infrastructure remain identical to the previously approved tentative plats (LDS-14-137, LDS-14-138). (Cedar Investment Group LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Craig Stone, Agent)
 
LDS-16-026 Consideration of a request to authorize a replat of Lots 91 and 94 of the “Sky Lakes Village at Cedar Landing Phase 7A – A Planned Community”. (Cedar Investment Group LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Craig Stone, Agent)
 
LDS-16-027 Consideration of a request for approval of  the tentative plat for “Sky Lakes at Cedar Landing Phases 1 through 4”, “The Village at Cedar Landing”, and ““The Cottages” at Cedar Landing” within an area previously identified as “The Village at Cedar Landing Phases 2 and 3”, consisting of 54 lots on approximately 34.24 acres. (Cedar Investment Group LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Craig Stone, 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.
 
Desmond McGeough, Planner III, stated that the land division criteria were read in the previous application and read the Planned Unit Development and Planned Unit Development revision criteria into the record.  Mr. McGeough gave a staff report.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked if “The Cottages” were single story or mini four-plex rentals?  Mr. McGeough reported that he could not speak to whether they were rentals versus owner occupied.  They are individual single family lots that each unit will be divided by a lot line.  There will be one and two story units.  The applicant has not submitted architectural renderings.  They would be required for a final Planned Unit Development.
 
Mr. McGeough continued with his staff report.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked how much commercial was planned south of Cedar Links?  Mr. McGeough deferred the question to the applicant but he guessed around 24,000 square feet of commercial.
 
Mr. McGeough continued with the applicant’s requested modifications.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the Medford Land Development Code speaks to but does not allow shared parking.  If there are two uses it has to provide 100% for each of the uses.  The 1.4 versus the 1.5 parking spaces per unit is unusual because the Medford Land Development Code only speaks to apartments and not bedrooms.  Most land development codes that he is familiar with around the country usually ties parking spaces to the number of bedrooms in a unit.  It is his opinion that in this case it would be better to tie the number of parking spaces to the number of bedrooms.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that some of the modifications presented tonight are new.  He did not see them in the staff report.  He requested to go through each one.  Mr. McGeough reported that some of the modifications were discussed after the Land Division meeting.  There were design issues that required the applicant to relook at the site plan and with that, some additional modifications, came from that process.
 
Commissioner McKechnie understands why the applicant does not want to do the multi-use commercial buildings with apartments above and commercial below.  With small units it is hard to do and expensive.
 
Commissioner McKechnie can see that it makes more sense to construct “The Cottages” versus the congregate care facility because there are a lot of those in town.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the streets in the cottage area intended to be City public streets or private?  Mr. McGeough stated that those are private streets.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked depending on the height of the building is there a 4 foot side yard setback, a 10 foot rear setback and a 15 or 20 depending on the area?  Mr. McGeough replied that is correct.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Mike Savage, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Savage reported that he provided materials to staff earlier today and had them distributed to the Planning Commissioners this evening.  The material covers some of the topics that the Commission had questions about.  He does not know if the Planning Commissioners would like to review that before his presentation.
 
The Planning Commission took a 15-minute recess and reconvened at 7:43 p.m.
 
Mr. Savage will highlight the reasons for the overall revision and concerns and questions that staff had.  The original Planned Unit Development was 120 acres in size.  It is 116 acres now.  Five and a half acres went to the City Parks Department for park purposes.  In total the project is providing 26 acres of open space.  The open space is intermixed with park area, trails and paths.  This is a unique property for the City of Medford.
 
The next element of the project that has been discussed is the commercial component.  This is a neighborhood environment.  The demand for commercial in a neighborhood environment where the nearest other commercial is 3 to 5 miles away is difficult to ascertain.  The original plan called for 48,000 square feet of commercial.  The applicant has tried to correlate the likely demand for commercial and provide that in a condensed area within the central portion of the project, in a manner that is more amenable to the surrounding neighborhood, yet still has the most viable options of being successful.
 
Implementing the option between “The Cottages” plan and the congregate care facility is that if “The Cottages” plan moves forward the applicant will plat that the same as any subdivision.  If there is a demand for the congregate care facility in the next couple of years the applicant would like to do that.  It is within its own phase and they would not carry out the subdivision phase for “The Cottages”.  This is not the only step in the process.  Right now the applicant is at the preliminary Planned Unit Development step.  The City’s Code requires the applicant to file a final Planned Unit Development plan.  Uses for congregate care facilities, multi-family and commercial are required to go through Site Plan and Architectural review.  At this stage the applicant is asking for a little flexibility so they can respond to market demand without having to come back before the Planning Commission.
 
The Public Works Department requested the applicant to build the private road providing primary access to “The Cottages” and the multi-family area to City commercial standard. This road does not meet the public roads standard because of the parking requirements.  Staff stated they would support an exception to allow this road to be a commercial road as shown in the applicant’s designs which would require a subsequent application.  The applicant would come back requesting that the private road be converted to a public commercial public right-of-way.
 
Back to “The Cottages” versus the congregate care facility the applicant does prefer “The Cottages”.  The smaller lots are a unique opportunity.  There are regional policies and City wide policies to increase density throughout the City.  This is an excellent opportunity where they can go out their back door and have access to twenty-plus acres of open space and trails.
 
Staff supports the applicant’s position to not require an access way off the cul-de-sac between Farmington and Callaway.
 
Staff is in support of the applicant’s request to vary the building height from 35 feet to 40 feet for the multi-family improvements within “The Village”.  The reason is subjective.  It is the applicant’s opinion that providing a slightly steeper roof pitch is more attractive and appealing.  The technical reasons were outlined in the supplemental material provided this evening.  It is basically to hide the HVAC systems and provide shade with the overhang.
 
For the building square footage and parking ratio instead of the 1.5 to 1.4 reduction the applicant is requesting a 5% reduction in parking, if they need it.  The odds are they will not need it.  The odds are the 199 spaces are going to be sufficient to accommodate 100 units and 10,500 square feet of commercial.  The question of shared parking came up and the Code does allow utilizing shared parking.  It does not state what percentage can or cannot be shared.  It does say you can share parking if you demonstrate the two types of uses do not overlap.  Section 10.744 Shared Parking. “The off-street parking requirements of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking or loading space used jointly to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators of the uses, structures, or parcels that their operations and parking needs do not overlap in point of time…”.  In the alternative if this is something the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the applicant can meet the additional 10 parking spaces by eliminating the 10 foot vegetative buffer strip and provide 10 to 12 parallel parking spaces.
                                        
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the plan the Planning Commission was looking at this evening is different than the one submitted in the agenda packet in regards to the private street?  Mr. Savage reported that he was unsure of the plan that they were provided but since their original submittal that have gone through 3 or 4 reiterations due to some excellent ideas and concerns from staff have dictated some design changes.  One was the parking strip.  The one showing on the ELMO is the correct plan.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if there were any plans if the applicant does not get any interest in the commercial to convert to multi-family residential or hold fast having 10,000 square feet of commercial?  Mr. Savage stated that technical request is to allow down to 8,000 square feet of commercial.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the request of the 40 feet in height opposed to the 35 feet in height is predicated on doing three story buildings?  Mr. Savage replied yes.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the shared parking was hypothetical at this point.  The applicant does not know how many commercial spaces they are going to do and even if they did they do not know the use is.  They are not able to provide the parking until they have the use.  That is an argument more appropriate for the Site Plan and Architectural Commission level.
       
Mr. Savage addressed Vice Chair McFadden’s question that within “The Cottages” what type of development would occur?  He is assured the applicant would not be doing duplex units with zero lot lines.  They will be single family units.
 
b. Tom Michaels, 1070 Callaway, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Michaels is the former chair person for the Northeast Medford Neighborhood Coalition which fought the original Planned Unit Development for some time.  He disagrees with Mr. McGeough calling the congregate care facility three story of the original Planned Unit Development.  It was originally a four story building.   Mr. Michael objects to the height.  He is asking to keep the restriction of 35 square feet height.
  
c. James Greathouse, 2868 Wilkshire Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Greathouse has a number of issues he would like to address.  The first issue is whether or not the Planning Commission, City Council and City staff can effectively deal with a proposal that is either/or.  Particularly with the either/or in this case cottages versus congregate care facility, are presented without site plans, blueprints, elevations, any supporting documentation that would allow the Planning staff, Planning Commission and the neighbors to make an intelligent decision as to whether or not this should go a or b. If those documents have been received today, which none of the public has seen or the Commission time to review, any decision should be put off until such time as the Commission can review them, presented to staff and neighbors have the opportunity to review the concepts with specificity as opposed to a or b and a concept.  Mr. Greathouse requested that if there were any new proposals put forth today that they have not had an opportunity to review he would like the opportunity to submit a written response.
               
d. Deanna Copeland, 1070 St. Francis Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Copeland and neighbors are pro congregate care facility.  The congregate care facility was approved with the original Planned Unit Development. A lot of the concepts of “The Cottages” are not worked out.
   
e. Mark Gustafson, 3111 Westminster Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Gustafson is concerned with the traffic patterns.  With the apartment change there will be more people and traffic.  It looks like the traffic will access on Cedar Links Drive.
  
Vice Chair McFadden in addressing Ms. Copeland’s testimony stated that he thinks a larger congregate care facility stands out more than lower cottages.  Ms. Copeland stated these are not lower cottages. It is zoned for 35 feet high and right up to the street.  Calling them cottages makes it sound small and cozy.  The congregate care facility is farther back with landscaping around it.
   
Ms. Akin addressed Commissioner McKechnie’s statement about calculating parking using bedrooms versus the number of units which is how the Code is structured.  The Planned Unit Development ordinance gives the Planning Commission the authority to modify the parking.  The Code states: “Limitations restrictions, and design standards pertaining to off-street vehicle and bicycle parking and loading, and standards related to pedestrian access.”  What it does not say is that you can use a different calculation method.  Moving away from units is far from how the Code is structured.  Staff would not be supportive of that concept at this point.
         
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the apartment concept was in the original Planned Unit Development or is it new?  Ms. Akin reported that is new.  The original Planned Unit Development had units over the commercial in that area.  Apartments were not part of the original Planned Unit Development.  There were some townhouses on the south side.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if it was a fair statement that traffic would be less generated coming from an apartment complex versus the same amount of commercial?  Ms. Akin deferred the question to the City Engineer. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked what classification is Cedar Links Drive?  Ms. Akin stated that it is a major collector.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked what is the process of a Planned Unit Development?  Ms. Akin replied that a Planned Unit Development is a two-step process.  The Code states that a preliminary Planned Unit Development plan is valid for three years.  A final Planned Unit Development plan has to be filed within that time.  Phased Planned Unit Developments have five years between the final Planned Unit Development plans.  This application is not in jeopardy of expiring.
      
Commissioner Mansfield asked if staff had the power to change from the congregate care facility to “The Cottages” or vice-a-versa?  Ms. Akin replied that depends on the Planning Commission’s decision on this application.  Mr. Savage had indicated their preference is for “The Cottages”.  If that was the Planning Commission’s decision then the congregate care facility is off the table and there would be no follow up Site Plan and Architectural Commission application.  In order for that to happen they would have to come back and revise the Planned Unit Development.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked if the Planning Commission had the power to make the decision at this point to say it is flexible that staff could go either way?  Ms. Akin stated that there is a certain amount of certainty with either.  It is either 22 cottages or a congregate care facility.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked if it was a fair statement for the Planning Commission to specify what they intend to be built.  Ms. Akin replied that was a fair statement.
         
Commissioner McKechnie stated that one of the modifications the applicant requested was to allow 8,000 to 10,000 square feet for commercial.  Is it fixed where they cannot have any more than 10,000 square feet of commercial?  Ms. Akin reported that her understanding is that the applicant requested the ability to double the area to two floors.  Some range from 8,000 up to 21,000 square feet of commercial area with the option of office or storage.  Commissioner McKechnie stated that maybe Mr. McGeough can talk about if there is a mechanism to do that or not.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that several of the items that the applicant is requesting are already approved by the Code and he is not sure why the Planning Commission would need to do that.  One of those is for the commercial area to allow a driveway onto Cedar Links Drive.  Would not they be allowed to do that unless Public Works came up with something that would not allow a driveway on a major collector?  Ms. Akin deferred the question to Public Works.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if there was a reason that the Planning Commission needs to provide the flexibility to allow for a mix of covered and uncovered parking for the multi-family units?  Ms. Akin stated that the Code does not require covered parking for multi-family uses.  Staff has managed other Planned Unit Developments that have come in behind the Planning Commission decision and allowed carports or garages over approved parking as long as the number of parking spaces did not change.  It has been done administratively.
        
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the tree relief over the Medford Water Commission water line has flexibility?  Ms. Akin reported that the landscape ordinance speaks to that there is legislative flexibility.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked about the driveway onto Cedar Links Drive.  Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, reported that the Public Works staff report was silent on the issue.  He believes the applicant is trying to have that guaranteed with their Planned Unit Development.  Public Works likes to see the design of the driveway and the uses before they would want to support it.  Public Works was silent because Cedar Links Drive is a major collector that is a mix between higher order streets, arterials and local streets as far as access.  Public Works wants to provide mobility with a mix of access even to the point where there could be direct residential access.  The applicant is asking for a driveway that will serve an area of commercial and residential.  That would be an acceptable access looking at the spacing standards from the Code Section 10.550 table 3.  It shows that on a 35 mile per hour facility the driveway spacing should be a minimum of 250 feet and at 40 miles per hour a minimum of 315 feet.  Without a scale the driveway appears to be approximately 300 feet center to center.  Generally speaking Public Works would not have an issue.  They met with the applicant about this and had the same comment with them.  Public Works does not have an issue because it meets the standards.  Later, if there are problems with the access Public Works would have to put a median to control the access at that location for safety.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked in this case if Public Works would have the applicant put the median in?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that Public Works would want a traffic analysis.  If this came before the Site Plan and Architectural Commission and they wanted full movement depending on the use, Public Works would request a localized traffic analysis, to see what the traffic would look like at that location.  Depending on the outcome Public Works would condition the applicant to either put in a median or not put in a median.
   
Mr. Georgevitch addressed the trip generation between commercial and apartments stating that apartments per unit are one of the lowest trip generations in the residential category.  Commercial has a broad range.
  
Mr. Michaels again testified that earlier he requested that to keep the buildings two story.  Now he is suggesting a two story apartment complex.
 
Mr. Savage reported that there were concerns regarding the initial application and the large congregate care facility that was originally approved and is on the current plan.  The applicant’s primary reason for this revision is to move impacting uses towards the interior portion of the project.  Their design serves to do that.
 
In regard to the height of 40 feet is well within the interior of this project further removed from the congregate care facility.
 
The issue of whether or not the applicant has provided any design drawings, architectural graphics and illustrations is something they struggled with.  The applicant has had a wide variety of illustrations and designs that they are considering.  Mr. Savage has seen it backfire where a situation the applicant has provided the material at the preliminary Planned Unit Development stage.  The problem is that there is no guarantee that the applicant would be doing that.  He would hate to show particular illustrations or drawings when ultimately that decision is before the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  The applicant would be happy to meet again with the neighbors and go over different concepts.
 
The linear waterway open space between “The Cottages” and residences will be enhanced with full vegetation that will provide additional buffering.
 
Mr. Savage reiterated that the second story residential of the commercial building has been taken off the table.  The applicant is no longer requesting that.  They have provided a stipulation that the second story of the commercial, if a second story of finished space is provided, that it would be limited to office or storage.
 
Vice Chair McFadden had asked about the Medford Water Commission easement line that extends further up Farmington and based on Mr. Savage’s discussion with the Medford Water Commission they are not completely eliminating trees within this wide easement.  They have specified 5 feet maybe 10 feet from the centerline of where this easement is located they are precluding vegetation from.  It does not conflict with the street tree requirements.
 
Mr. Savage agreed with Commissioner McKechnie about the covered parking as a modification is not actually a modification.
 
The applicant’s request for 5 to 7 foot meandering sidewalks follows along with the approved 7 foot meandering sidewalks on the north side of the Planned Unit Development.
 
Mr. Savage turned over several questions to Jay Harland.
                    
Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Harland suggested that the shared parking and dealing with the flexibility issue in respect to the process of the final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan and Architectural Commission getting more specificity about the uses.
 
Mr. Harland addressed the height of “The Cottages” stating that it would be hard pressed to get a 35 foot height with the lot dimensions.
     
Vice Chair McFadden asked what was the square feet of “The Cottages”?  Mr. Savage stated that he did not have that information.  The lots vary but most of them are a little larger than 3,800 square feet with 75% lot coverage.  The applicant has not requested modifications of the setbacks.  As the building gets taller they have to get further setbacks.
       
The public hearing was closed.
 
Ms. Akin reported that she thought she heard Mr. Greathouse request the record remain opened.
 
Chair Miranda asked Mr. Greathouse to approach the podium in order to get clarification.
 
Ms. Akin stated that Chair Miranda closed the public hearing.  She does not know if the Planning Commission needs to vote to reopen the public hearing to hear from Mr. Greathouse or if this is just a procedural question.
 
Mr. McConnell reported that it was procedural to get clarification.
    
Chair Miranda asked Mr. Greathouse whether or not he was requesting that the record remain open on this item for further consideration.  Mr. Greathouse replied he was based on the basis that there had been no site design, elevations or planning presented to the Planning Commission, staff or the neighbors which lead him into his second concern.  At the required neighborhood meeting the applicant presented the plan that he wished to have the apartment complex and “The Cottages”.  There was no mention at that time or a presentation to the neighbors of a congregate care facility.
 
Jim Huber, Planning Director, stated that if the Planning Commission was going to do this they needed to open the public hearing again.  Other people may have comments in response to Mr. Greathouse’s comments.
 
Mr. McConnell reported that ORS 197.763(6) states that “…any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding the application.”  Is that what Mr. Greathouse is requesting or that there is insufficient information for this Commission to render a decision tonight?
 
Mr. Greathouse stated that he was requesting the opportunity to respond to what was stated, but has not seen, was presented to the Planning Commission tonight as to the modifications that are being requested.  To the best of his knowledge the modifications requested have never been accompanied by site plans, elevations, etc. that would allow everybody make an intelligent decision as to what alternative to take.  He also thinks he made reference that at the neighborhood hearing the concept was presented in terms of what modifications were going to be sought was the apartment complex, which has not before been on the table, and the small cottage development in the back which also has not been on the table.  There was no mention at that time of the inclusion of a second option i.e. the congregate care facility.  If that is going to be on the table and the Planning Commission is going to make a decision on that then he believes they should have an opportunity to respond in writing.
 
Mr. McConnell asked if Mr. Greathouse was asking to come back and give oral testimony or would he rather have the opportunity to give written testimony argument or submit evidence?
 
Mr. Greathouse responded that he would prefer to give a written response to all of the documentation and information presented to the Planning Commission which he, staff or the Planning Commission has not seen with regard to all of these issues.
 
Mr. McConnell clarified that what Mr. Greathouse was requesting was the opportunity to present written evidence testimony and argument.  Mr. Greathouse confirmed.
               
Commissioner Pulver appreciated what Mr. Greathouse is asking to do but he does not think the materials that Mr. Greathouse is requesting will be provided or has to be provided.
 
Vice Chair McFadden agreed with Commissioner Pulver and stated that he opened a Pandora’s box that was not there by his comments regarding plans.  The Commission has no plans on any of the homes in this entire development.  Therefore, “The Cottages” as homes also do not require plans to be brought to the Planning Commission for review.  He was in error of that.  Also, in his comments he made an error in terms of not realizing ahead of time that the congregate care facility, multi-family residences and commercial places all go before the Site Plan and Architectural Commission review.  That will be a separate hearing.  He apologizes because he should not have mentioned that.
   
Ms. Akin stated that there was additional evidence that was placed at the Commissioner's places this evening that the public has not had the opportunity to review.  It was not published with the staff report.
 
Mr. McConnell reported that Mr. Greathouse requested to present evidence, arguments, or testimony in written form.  The appropriate mechanism under ORS 197.763 is to leave the record open.  Mr. Greathouse made the request before the public hearing was closed.  The Planning Commission would have to reopen the public hearing and leave it open to allow that to happen.  Mr. Greathouse and interested parties would have at least 7 days to present additional written evidence from today’s date.  The Planning Commission needs to ask the applicant if he agrees to the extension.  If the applicant does not agree it would be subject to the 120 day rule.
    
Mr. Savage stated that his understanding of the statute is that if someone requests the record remain open at the initial hearing it has to be granted.  It is not left up to whether or not the applicant wants to do it.
 
Mr. McConnell stated that if the applicant agrees to leave the record open the 120 day rule would not apply.  If they do not agree then they are still subject to that rule.
 
Mr. Savage reported that he does not have a position on that matter at this time.
 
Mr. McConnell stated that for the record it appears that the applicant’s agent does not agree to the extension. It will still happen because it was requested by Mr. Greathouse.
       
Motion: Re-open the public hearing for a period of 7 days for additional written testimony.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked does this issue automatically continue to the next Planning Commission meeting for a decision?
  
Ms. Akin reported that she understood that the record was to remain open and not the hearing.  Those are two different things.  Her understanding of the statute is that someone can request that the record remain opened for no less than 7 days.  The applicant has equal time to respond (7 days).  By law staff is required to publish an agenda 7 days before the hearing.  That pushes out two meetings.  That Planning Commission meeting date is Thursday, July 28, 2016.
 
Mr. McConnell reported that what he is reading when he read the statute that if the Planning Commission leaves the record open for additional written evidence, arguments or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least 7 days.  Any participant may file a written request with the local government for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open.  If such a request is filed, the Planning Commission shall reopen the record.
 
Ms. Akin asked if the record was opened or is the public hearing opened?  They are not the same thing.  When the record is open that is only written evidence.
 
 Chair Miranda closed the public hearing and left the record open for 7 days.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked what does that do to the 120 day rule of this application.  Mr. Huber reported that when the record is kept opened it does not put time back on the clock as does when the applicant voluntarily requests a continuance.  Ms. Akin reported that the 120th day is September 1, 2016. 
         
Motion for PUD-16-024: The Planning Commission continued PUD-16-024 to the July 28, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
 
Motion for LDS-16-025: The Planning Commission adopts the modified findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of LDS-16-025 per the staff report dated June 16, 2016, including Exhibits A through M.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Ms. Akin stated that these items are all tied together.  She is not certain how the Planning Commission can decide the three land divisions without the planned unit development.
 
Mr. McConnell reported that the crux of the matter is what is considered an application.  Is this agenda item one application or is it divided into several applications?
 
Ms. Akin replied that they are four separate applications.  The land divisions are closely tied to the planned unit development.
 
Mr. McConnell stated that the relevant ORS 197.763(6)(a) states: “Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding the application…”.  What is an application?  If these are separate application the Planning Commission can go on if not then they are done.
 
Chair Miranda asked for validation that these are considered separate application.  Ms. Akin replied they are separate applications. LDS-16-027 addresses “The Village” area that relies on the planned unit development application.
 
Chair Miranda asked does that mean the Planning Commission can vote on LDS-16-025 and LDS-16-026 but PUD-16-024 and LDS-16-027 needs to be continued?  Ms. Akin stated that from her perspective that it would be best to keep all the applications as a package.  They were presented as a package.  These are four separate application numbers but staff did a single presentation for the overall.
 
Chair Miranda asked the Commissioner’s if anyone had an objection to keeping these four applications as a package.  There were no objections.
        
The Planning Commission took a 5-minute recess and reconvened at 9:29.
 
Motion: Delete the previous motion and continue this application with all four phases to the Thursday, July 14, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Commissioner Mansfield commented that the Planning Commission needed to listen to Ms. Akin who indicated that it would be tidier to do it the way the motion reads.
 
Friendly amendment made by Commissioner Pulver: To continue the agenda item 50.4 not the application because there are four separate applications.
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner D’Alessandro reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, June 17, 2016.  They approved a place called Boingos a 9,990 square foot building to be used as children’s recreational facility and adult athletic center on the north side of Parsons Drive.  They also approved a 5,287 square foot ambulatory surgery center located on the north side of Bennett Avenue.  They heard another application for JDT Trucking a 3,750 square foot addition to an existing metal industrial building that was continued based on disagreements about right-of-way and dedication improvements.
            
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee is still updating the Transportation System Plan.  There is a draft document that is a work in progress.  They discussed cross street sections that will be continued to their next meeting.  They are at a cross-road regarding decisions to continue to have complete streets that service well and follow where the traffic volumes are or whether they try to influence change by the size of the streets and force people to use other means of transportation.  He asked the Planning Commission that if they had any thoughts that Commissioner D’Alessandro and himself would like to hear them.  They are meeting monthly, the fourth Wednesday of the month at 3:30 p.m.
 
Chair Miranda stated that they are still one member down for the Joint Transportation Subcommittee and asked for a volunteer.  There were no volunteers.  Chair Miranda appointed himself as the third member to the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
 
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that the Planning Commission’s study session scheduled for Monday, June 27, 2016, has been cancelled.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, July 14, 2016 and Thursday, July 28, 2016.
 
There was no Planning business before the City Council last week.
 
The Planning Department received the appeal on the Planning Commission’s decision on the exception for the 2 White Oak partition.  That goes before the City Council on Thursday, July 7, 2016.
 
Today, staff received the findings back from the attorney on the Urban Growth Boundary expansion.
Commissioner Pulver asked if there was still an open seat on the Planning Commission?  Ms. Akin replied yes but she has not heard anything from the City Manager’s office on a new appointment.
     
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney.  None.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.
90.1        Commissioner McFadden asked Mr. Huber, Ms. Akin and Ms. Rozzana to relay the Commission’s thanks to Mr. McGeough for his excellent presentation dealing with the last topic.  The depth of his knowledge was outstanding and he really helped the Planning Commission through it by his presentation and ability to answer questions.
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 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: July 14, 2016
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top