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, July 14, 2016

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Tim D’Alessandro
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Jared Pulver
 
Commissioners Absent
Patrick Miranda, Chair, Excused Absence
Mark McKechnie, 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
Debbie Strigle, Recording Secretary
Kristina Heredia, Planner II
Desmond McGeough, Planner III
Dustin Severs, Planner II
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 LDS-16-053 Final Order for 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)
 
20.2 LDS-16-051 / E-16-052 Final Order for 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)
 
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Commissioner D’Alessandro                Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for June 23, 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-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)
 
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.
 
Desmond McGeough, Planner III, read the Planned Unit Development, Planned Unit Development Revision and the land division criteria into the record.  Mr. McGeough gave a brief project overview.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that Mr. McGeough mentioned a smaller congregate care facility.  What was the approved square footage of the initial approval?  Mr. McGeough reported that the initial approval was a maximum of 35 feet in height and 64,000 square feet.  If the applicant moves forward with a congregate care facility at that location it will be a single-story of 24,000 square feet. 
  
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Mike Savage, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Savage stated that staff did a thorough presentation.  At the last hearing the reason for the extension was so that a couple of the neighbors could review some of the materials that were provided that day.  Staff pointed out that the neighbors did have a chance to review those with the applicant and have come to full support of the project.
 
Staff and the applicant are on the same page for 99% of this project.  They differ just a little bit on the parking ratios and commercial square footage.  This project as a whole provides 20 acres of open space.  Counting the 5 acres that the City now owns for park purposes that is 26 acres of park intermingled with trails and pedestrian paths.  This is a situation where the applicant has taken the more impacting commercial and multi-family and put it into a compact form within the particular portion of the property they are calling The Village.  The portion of commercial will ultimately accommodate the immediate neighborhood vicinity.  The multi-family is immediately adjacent to the commercial.  The applicant thinks that a significant portion of the clientele will generate from the multi-family and surrounding neighborhood.  They will use walkways and paths.  It is their opinion that it is a reasonable request for a 5% reduction in parking because people will probably walk and ride their bikes to the commercial operations.  Farmington Avenue will make for an easy mechanism for neighborhoods beyond to make quick stops at the commercial area.  It is very unlikely that the surrounding neighborhood would need that parking for single family residents.  In the alternative the applicant has an area on the west side that they can take out the green space and put in additional parking.  It is not something they want to do.  They want to stay with the theme and provide open space with nice vegetation.    Staff came up with an alternative to defer the 5% reduction in parking to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  The applicant requests that the Planning Commission under their authority modify the standards.  The Code has some allowances for reduced parking.  It is different than the modification to the parking standards.

Regarding the commercial square footage the original Planned Unit Development had approximately close to 50,000 square feet.  The applicant has reduced it down to 10,500 square feet.  That is the target square footage marketable for this particular area.  However, if the market actually requires a little more demand the applicant would like to accommodate that.  From a design perspective the buildings will still be in the same identified building footprint.  It is just a matter whether they are two or single story finished space.
 
The access way and the cul-de-sac the applicant requests that the Planning Commission recognizes that the cul-de-sac is necessary in order for that block to develop. 
 
There was a question at the first hearing regarding lot coverage.  Lot coverage is 50% on the south side plus the northeast and east side of the project.  The southwest portion was already approved for different lot coverage than the standard. The Cottages will have 75% lot coverage for single story limited 25 feet.
 
In staff’s most recent report requested that the Planning Commission provide a minimum percentage for covered parking.  The applicant had requested in their application that they allow for covered parking which the Code allows.  The applicant thinks it is odd that staff would request a minimum percentage for something that is not required of the Code. The applicant would like doing covered parking but there are no guarantees they will.
 
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, with regard to the parking the Planning Commission does have the authority to modify the parking standards.  Staff’s recommendation is two-fold.  First, there are a lot of questions as far as what is going to happen.  It is known that there is a certain amount of square footage that is proposed.  What the applicant has asked for is the flexibility in balancing the commercial area with the apartments and having a number there then reducing it.  There are a lot of questions.  Staff feels it should be deferred to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission once they know exactly what is going to be constructed.  Generally, staff likes the idea of reduced parking.  It works great in areas where there is transit.  There is no mass transit that serves this area.  As far as removing the landscaping along the west side of the apartments and single family residences the Code does not specifically require buffer yards.  It is a zone to zone requirement and this is not a differing zone but the uses are different.  Staff feels that the buffer is important as far as the livability of the single family residences. 
 
Commissioner Foley wanted to understand the issues they are having as a debate between staff and the applicant to make sure when the Commission gets to making a motion they know what they are talking about.  They discussed the parking spaces.  There was the question on the square footage of the commercial whether it should be 35% or the 50% that the applicant had requested.  The covered parking and the path size was a question.  Did he list all the differences that are currently built into the recommendations and the requests from the applicant?
 
Mr. McGeough stated that the initial proposal was in the range of 8,000 and 21,000 square feet.  Shown on the preliminary planned unit development plan is 10,500 square feet of office/commercial development.  The applicant initially indicated they wanted to double that footprint.  Staff felt that was too much.  In the June 23, 2016 memorandum that was submitted to the Planning Commission the applicant indicated they would be amenable to a 50% increase to the square footage from the 10,500 square feet.  Staff recommended 35% which would be equivalent to 14,175 square feet.
 
Staff thought they had identified the covered parking as an issue at the first hearing.  They did not receive a response from the applicant or have it identified as an issue by the Planning Commission.
 
The initial Public Works staff report indicated that a pathway was required from the street to the east into the cul-de-sac.  That block is small in nature and easily meets block length requirements.  The applicant is requesting that it not be required.
 
Commissioner D’Alessandro stated that Ms. Akin reported that staff does not recommend removing the buffer in lieu of parking.  Was there any type of alternate to the applicant’s recommendation for meeting the parking requirements?  Mr. McGeough reported that staff has indicated that it is important that the buffer remains.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, reported that the access way under Code Section 10.464 allows flexibility.  If paths are multi-use they should be built to AASHTO standards.  If they are not going to be multi-use paths opened to the public then it is no longer an issue of Public Works.  That is a decision the applicant has to decide if it is opened to the public or a private facility only within the homeowners association.  Public Works did not see that clearly depicted so Public Works is recommending that they be built to AASHTO standards.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that he did not think any of the walkways that are being proposed provide direct access into neighboring already developed properties.  Is that true?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that he believes that is correct.  They are only shown internally.  He believes the applicant has been working with the Parks Department to see about making them parks facilities.  If they are going to build them as park facilities then they should be built as Public Works recommendation as multi-use paths of 10 feet wide.  If there are exceptions in the AASHTO guidelines then Public Works would be acceptable to those.
 
Mr. Savage reported that throughout the project intermingled with the development improvements the applicant has requested that be 5 to 7 feet meandering sidewalks.  Within the larger block open space areas the applicant would like those to be multi-use paths.  The Planning Commission found that the 5 to 7 feet was sufficient on the south side and the applicant requests that is what the Planning Commission approves here. He does not believe that the AASHTO standards have been adopted into the City of Medford Code.  However, if the City wants to rely on the AASHTO standard and there is a flexibility to go down to 8 feet with the multi-use paths area that is something the applicant would be amenable to. 
 
With regards to the buffer strip on the west side of the parking it is roughly 11 feet.  If they provide parallel parking that would only take up 7 to 8 feet.  It would leave a 3 or 4 foot buffer that they could fully vegetate.
 
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked how many parking spaces the applicant would get with parallel parking.  Mr. Savage reported they could fit 10 parking spaces in that area.
                            
The public hearing was closed.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that it is his opinion that this body has never really discussed the Planning Commission’s position on the 16 various modifications to the Planned Unit Development that is being proposed.  He prefers to tackle more difficult one first and he would be an advocate trying to go through these modifications one by one and get a sense what the body feels like doing before crafting a motion.

Commissioner Mansfield agreed with that procedure.
 
Commissioner Mansfield started off with two of the main issues that one was the height of the building whether it was 35 or 40 feet and the other one was whether or not the Planning Commission allows The Cottages or the Congregate Care Facility.
 
Motion: Limit the building height to 35 feet.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                                                       Seconded by:
 
Commissioner Mansfield listened carefully at the last meeting to Mr. Michaels’ and Mr. Greathouse’s comments.  They were shocked at the entire project and the only thing they got out of it was the limit of the building height to 35 feet.  Commissioner Mansfield agrees with that.  He is not opposed to the project but he is sure it was a shock to the neighboring residents.
 
Commissioner Foley pointed out the letter that Mr. Michaels and Mr. Greathouse submitted stating that when the neighborhood group met with them they agreed to the 40 foot building height.   That is the same group opposing to it in the letter the Commission received as Exhibit K.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that if everyone affected agrees to the 40 feet then he will withdraw his motion.
 
Mr. McConnell stated that he does not want to get into parliamentary procedures.  The Planning Commission can get a consensus one by one then they can take a break and someone can craft a motion with all the consensuses.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that with The Cottages and/or the congregate care facility it was one or the other not both.  If the market shows it can support a congregate care facility the applicant may go with a smaller size or at the time of development economically The Cottages may be better.
 
Ms. Akin reported that there is sufficient information in the proposal to know what would happen.  It would either be the 22 units or the congregate care facility.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that in his mind approving the Planned Unit Development with apartment buildings within the Code and the applicant goes to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission requesting an exception that allows the public to testify at that point.  His preference is not permit the 40 feet at this time, be silent on it stating in accordance with the Code, then if the applicant wants to propose a 40 foot apartment building to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission at that time they can request an exception.
 
Commissioner Mansfield concurred with Commissioner Pulver. If the Commission is silent on it then it remains at 35 feet.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated to specifically mention in the motion that it should be reviewed by the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked if an applicant could ask for an exception at the Site Plan and Architectural Commission review for building height.  Ms. Akin reported they could.  The Planning Commission is familiar with the four exception criteria.  They would have to meet all four of the exception criteria.  It is his opinion that the applicant would have a difficult time meeting the exception criteria.  He is fine with the 40 feet.
 
The Planning Commission agreed with either The Cottages or the congregate care facility.
 
The options for the parking ratio are to remain at the 1.4, staff’s recommendation of 1.5 or go to the 5%.

Commissioner D’Alessandro asked if the 10 parking spaces that Mr. Savage talked about brought it to Code compliance.  Ms. Akin replied yes based on what was shown on the plan.
 
The Planning Commission deferred the decision to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission once additional information regarding uses, square footage, and total number of units was determined.  The Planning Commission also authorized the Site Plan and Architectural Commission to determine the buffer yard width between the single family homes and the apartment complex at time of site plan review.
 
Regarding the commercial square footage staff recommended 35% which would be equivalent to 14,175 square feet.  The applicant requested 15% with logical rationale.  The Planning Commissioner’s agreed with staff’s recommendation.
 
The Planning Commission agreed with Public Works recommendation that the meandering sidewalks remain at 5 to 7 feet as shown.  The multi-use paths should be built as Public Works recommendation of 10 feet wide.
 
The Cottages lot coverage would be 75% and single story.
 
Leave the covered parking open.
 
1)            Allow a 55% lot coverage maximum for single-family residential units under 25 feet; units more than 25 feet in height will remain subject to zoning provision maximum lot coverage of 40%.  The Planning Commission agreed.
 
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.  The Planning Commission agreed.
 
3)            Allow for optional land use for a scaled-down congregate care facility in lieu of single-family cottage units.  The Planning Commission agreed.
 
4)            Serve a portion of the property with a private street.  The Planning Commission agreed.
 
5)            Increased maximum building height for multi-family structures within “The Village” sub-area to provide more architecturally appealing rooflines on three story units.  The Planning Commission agreed subject to compliance with the multi-family development standards provided in the Kistler, White and Small design narrative, dated July 6, 2016.
 
6)            Allow a 10-foot front yard setback exclusive of garages for “The Cottages” sub-area.  The Planning Commission agreed.
 
7)            Allow a 75-foot lot depth and minimum lot size of 3,800 square feet within “The Cottages” sub-area.  The Planning Commission agreed.
 
8)            Allow up to 75% lot coverage for single family units under 25 feet in height within the “Cottages: sub area.  The Planning Commission agreed.
 
9)            Permit a minimum lot size of 5,800 square feet for lots within “Sky Lakes at The Village, Phase I & II.  The Planning Commission agreed.
 
10)          Allow a minimum of 1.4 parking spaces for multi-family units rather than 1.5. Discussed this earlier.
 
11)          Allow flexibility between multi-family unit counts and commercial square footages in a manner commensurate with the total parking provided on site. Discussed earlier.
 
12)          Allow option of mixed residential and commercial within the commercial buildings subject of final design review, as required by MLDC.  Discussed earlier.
 
13)          Allow meandering sidewalk design.  Discussed earlier.
 
14)          Eliminate requirement for public pedestrian access from cue-de-sac to Callaway Drive.  Discussed earlier.
 
15)          Permit driveway access from Cedar Links Drive to Commercial area of “The Villages”.  Discussed earlier.
 
16)          Allow mix of uncovered and covered parking for multi-family units.  Discussed earlier.
 
17)          Allow street tree landscaping requirement relief in location affected by the MWC water line easement.  Discussed earlier. 
                                
Motion:  The Planning Commission directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of PUD-16-024 per the revised staff report dated July 7, 2016, covering modifications 1-17 listed above and including Exhibits A-1 through L.
 
Mr. McConnell stated that as long as the Planning Commission understands what has been done the motion maker could state that he adopts the motion of his own made my Vice Chair McFadden.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
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: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
Motion for LDS-16-026: 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 Mansfield
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
Motion for LDS-16-027: 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: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
New Business
50.2 ZC-16-067 Consideration of a request for a zone change from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per existing lot) to SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre) on approximately 0.70 acres located on the east side of Cherry Street, approximately 370 feet north of Key Drive. (Joseph & Carole Eselin, Applicant/Agent)
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Vice Chair McFadden disclosed that Mr. Eselin does secondary work for his corporation but it would not affect his decision.
 
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.
 
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, read the zone change criteria into the record and gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Gary Whittle, 1588 Upland Place, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Whittle reported that Ms. Akin did a good job on the staff report and reserved rebuttal time if necessary.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of ZC-16-067 per the staff report dated July 7, 2016, including Exhibits A through M.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.3 CUP-16-059 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a park on two parcels totaling approximately 3.08 acres located at the southwest corner of Lone Oak Drive and Shamrock Drive, within the MFR-20/SE (Multiple-Family Residential – 20 dwelling units per gross acre/Southeast Overlay) zoning district. (Mahar Homes, Inc., Applicant; Galbraith & Associates, 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.
 
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, read the conditional use permit criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that there was mention of landscape materials that were high water use not in compliance with the requirements.  Does that have to do with the grass and the slope?  Ms. Akin replied yes.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that there was mention that the park does not tie into the greenway.  He was thrown by that.  Ms. Akin stated it accommodates the greenway trail.  The Southeast Plan in this area has the greenway separated from the trail.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that Ms. Akin reported that the detention area would fill first and if it overflowed it would flow back into the play area.  Is that correct?  Ms. Akin reported that is her understanding of how it functions.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. John Galbraith, Galbraith & Associates, 318 South Grape Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Galbraith reported that staff did a really nice presentation.  The greenway trail will start at Chrissy Park and end at Village Center.  The restrooms will move up.  There will be drinking fountains.  The park will be built to state of the art.  Mr. Galbraith reserved rebuttal time if necessary.
 
b. Ann Fraser, 503 Windsong Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Fraser has been anticipating this park.  It is a walking neighborhood.  Michael Park Drive is apparently going to be extended to the west from Lone Oak.  Will that be finished at the same time as the park?  Ms. Akin stated that she saw a no from the agent.  Ms. Fraser is concerned that the parking for the cottages across the street.  It could become a congested area if people other than the neighbors walk and park in that area.  She is curious where the 11 parking spaces will be.  She is also concerned with the retention pond.
 
c. Randy Jones, Mahar Homes, 815 Alder Creek Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Jones reported that the extended detention area to the west will be wet all the time.  On the north side of the turf area there is a 42-inch drain pipe underground well below the level of the detention area.  There will not be any water flowing into the turf play area.
 
There will be parking on Shamrock Drive and the extension of Shamrock to the west.  There will be no housing on the south side.  The housing on the north side will have parking in front of them.  It will take a major event to clog the neighborhood.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked if the slope down into the detention area would be mow-able.  Mr. Jones replied yes.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked if the detention area was fenced.  Mr. Jones stated there will be a 4-foot wrought iron fence with gates around it.
    
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 CUP-16-059 per the staff report dated July 7, 2016, including Exhibits A through R.
 
Moved by: Commissioner D’Alessandro                                Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.4 PUD-16-060 Consideration of plans for a revision of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan to add both temporary and permanent recreational vehicle (RV) storage to the existing mini storage facility on 6.7 acres located at 2012 Kingswood Drive within the SFR-6 (6 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W23AC6000, 372W23AC6001, 372W14D8000, 372WAB14601, 372WAB14600) (Climate Control Mini Storage, LLC., Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 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.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner II, stated that staff has received four new exhibits that will be added to the record as Exhibits I-L.  Electronic copies of the exhibits were forwarded to the Planning Commission earlier today.  Exhibits I, J and K consist of emails from neighbors in opposition to the proposal.  Exhibit L is an email from the applicant’s agent agreeing to a stipulation to specify the vehicle types to be used on the site. 
 
The writing on the public hearing signs faded completely off.  Mr. Severs is taking full responsibility that apparently the marker he used was not permanent or it was defective.  Mr. Severs was contact by the applicant’s agent explaining the situation and redo the signs.   Mr. Severs did do that.   Mr. Severs apologized to the neighbors for the mishap.
 
Mr. Severs gave a staff report.  The Planned Unit Development criteria were read with the first application this evening.
 
Commissioner D’Alessandro stated that it looks like the applicant is already using the site for the requested purpose.  Mr. Severs replied it appears so in the aerial views.  He did not see any enforcement actions were taken against the applicant in the past.  It is apparent looking at past years of aerial views it has been consistently used for RV storage.
  
Commissioner D’Alessandro stated that also in the aerial views provided he sees a couple of RV’s in the entire neighborhood which leads him to believe there is something in the CC&R’s that deals with RV parking in that area.
        
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner reported that Dennis Sullivan is representing management and is in the audience this evening.  Mr. Sinner stated that he heard in the staff report that staff was allowing the applicant to use the graveled areas for the RV storage area.  Also, there was a condition that within there is paved drive aisles.  The applicant is stipulating to the paved drive aisles for the permanent RV storage area.  The applicant was more specific, at staff’s request, to describe exactly what type of RV’s they area storing.  They are motor homes, travel trailers, recreational boats; typical recreational and using scale vehicles.
Commissioner Foley stated that looking at the aerial views there is obviously vehicles being stored there now.  Would he address how many units are being stored there now compared to a permanent basis?  Mr. Sinner reported that the peak storage was 37 units at one time.  Currently they are down to 27 units.  The permanent storage would be 24 at the most.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked of the current RV’s that are in there how many of those are owned by residents in the Candlewood Subdivision?  Mr. Sinner stated that approximately 80% of the RV’s are owned by the residents in the Candlewood Subdivision.
 
Mr. Sinner reserved time for rebuttal if necessary.
 
b. Jackie Green did not provide address on sign-in sheet or before giving her testimony.  Ms. Green is concerned that this change does not meet the criteria of 2b and 2c.  Her concern is that Kingswood Drive is the primary school bus location for children to be picked-up and dropped-off for the entire subdivision.  There are twelve stops in the morning and afternoon.  The children’s safety is her concern. 
Mr. McConnell stated that Ms. Green submitted an email to staff on July 13, 2016 listed as Exhibit K.  She complained that the public notice that was posted was defective.  They were blank.  The pictures provided were taken on June 27, 2016.  Does she happen to know if and/or when that defect was cured for the signs?  Ms. Green stated it was only recently.  Probably within the last 10 days.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked Ms. Green if she received a notice in the mail regarding the public hearing.  Ms. Green replied yes but her neighbors did not.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked Ms. Green if she was withdrawing her claim that the proponent intentionally erased the information on the drawing board or is she continuing to maintain her claim?  Ms. Green stated that she cannot say either way.  All she knows is that the signs went up they initially had writing on them and very shortly after they were posted the information to the public was gone.  Commissioner Mansfield commented that she really did not know, did she? Ms. Green replied she does not.
 
Mr. McConnell reported that if the Planning Commission accepts Exhibit K as it was presented and the notices were blank, that would be a defective notice.  Code Section 10.157 indicates that the notice signs shall be posted no later than 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. It is unclear if that was cured in that amount of time.  He is not saying the Planning Commission cannot move forward if the signs were blank but it would be an issue if someone that may have standing could appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
 
Mr. Severs stated that even though the signs were blank they still have the contact information.
 
Mr. Sinner stated that they have an email trail between Mr. Severs and himself on exactly when the sign issue was noticed and when it was clarified.  The signs were actually posted at the minimum requirement of 21 days.  The applicant was called in advance before the Land Division meeting when the usually receive the signs.  The signs were posted 4 weeks in advance instead of the 21 days.
 
Ms. Green had stated that this application would not enhance the development.  It is clear with the testimony that 80% of the RV’s are owned by residences in the development.  That is an enhancement.  It does meet the criteria for enhancement of the neighborhood.
 
Staff adequately addressed the circulation concerns.
 
Mr. McConnell stated that he does see in Code Section 10.157 that the required sign shall be posted not later than 21 days prior to the first public hearing date not 10 days.  Consequences of failing to post the signs as required, is a violation of the Medford Municipal Code.
 
Vice Chair McFadden commented that it is Mr. McConnell’s call of whether or not this is leaving the City exposed to legal action of any kind and whether or not to postpone this application until those signs can be posted and have another hearing where everyone knows to attend.
 
Mr. McConnell stated that he does not know if this was cured before the 21 days.  Mr. Sinner stated that there is a trail.  Code Section 10.157 (2)(a) states: “Notice signs shall include a description of the proposed land use action, the date of the public hearing, and the City of Medford file number for the proposed land use action”. If the Planning Commission accepts Exhibit K as it is the signs did not meet the provisions of the Code.
 
Mr. Sinner reported that the applicant posted the signs the same day that they received them.  They were posted prior to 21 days.
 
Commissioner Pulver commented that will all due respect to the applicant he recommends that this application be continued to the Planning Commission’s next public hearing.
 
Mr. Sinner stated that the sign was posted in accordance with the Code.  Also, there was a mailing to the 200 foot notice area that also served as notice.  There was also the notice in the Mail Tribune.
 
Mr. Sinner reported that if they posted 28 days in advance and they demonstrate 3 days that the sign was not readable and they were corrected immediately, they have posted more than 21 days.
 
Mr. Sinner stated that the applicant will grant a continuance until Thursday, July 28, 2016 but they are in protest because of the problem with the signage. 
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
The public hearing was reopened.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued PUD-16-060, as per the applicants approval, until the Thursday, July 28, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
  
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that he would like staff to provide the Planning Commission with the correspondence from the applicant of when the signs were corrected prior to the next meeting.
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner D’Alessandro reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, July 1, 2016.  They approved a medical office in the Stewart Meadows development.  Also, there was a continued conversation regarding 3,750 square foot addition off Table Rock Road near Bateman.  The Site Plan and Architectural Commission denied the exception request for the street dedication.  There was a compromise but the Site Plan and Architectural Commission thought it was important to send it to the City Council and let them make the decision. 
 
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met since their last meeting.
 
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, welcomed Kristina Heredia to the Planning Department staff.  She is a Planner II in the current planning division.
 
There is a study session scheduled for Monday, July 25, 2016.  The discussion will be public zoning district amendment. 
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, July 28, 2016, Thursday, August 11 and Thursday, August 25, 2016.
 
Last week the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s decision on the exception for the 2 White Oak partition.
 
City Council has a study session scheduled with Jeff Condit, the contracted attorney for the UGB, on Thursday, July 28, 2016.  It is on the City Council’s agenda for consideration on Thursday, August 18, 2016.
 
Next week City Council will adopt the resolution for the 2 White Oak partition appeal. 
 
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None. 
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney.  None.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 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
                                                                               
David McFadden
Planning Commission Vice Chair
 
Approved: July 28, 2016
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top