When available, the full agenda packet may be viewed as a PDF file by clicking the "Attachments" button and selecting the file you want to view.
Agendas are posted until the meeting date takes place. Minutes are posted once they have been approved.
Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes
Thursday, July 28, 2016
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:35 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
Jim Huber, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner II
Desmond McGeough, Planner III
10. Roll Call
20. Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1 PUD-16-024 Final Order 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 SIDE of the development:
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%.
Proposed PUD revisions applicable to the NORTH portion of the development:
1) 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
2) Allow for optional land use for a scaled-down congregate Care Facility in lieu of single-family cottage units;
3) Serve a portion of the property with a private street;
4) Increased maximum building height for multi-family structures within “The Village” sub-area to provide more architecturally appealing rooflines on three story units;
5) Allow a 10-foot front yard setback exclusive of garages for “The Cottages” sub-area;
6) Allow a 75-foot lot depth and minimum lot size of 3,800 square feet within “The Cottages” sub-area;
7) Allow up to 75% lot coverage for single family units under 25 feet in height within the “The Cottages” sub area;
8) Permit a minimum lot size of 5,800 square feet for lots within “Sky Lakes at The Village, Phase I & II”.
9) Allow a minimum of 1.4 parking spaces for multi-family units rather than 1.5
10) Allow flexibility between multi-family unit counts and commercial square footages in a manner commensurate with the total parking provided on site.
11) Allow option of mixed residential and comical within the commercial buildings subject of final design review, as required by the MLDC.
12) Allow meandering sidewalk design
13) Eliminated requirement for public pedestrian access from Cul-De-Sac to Callaway Drive.
14) Permit driveway access from Cedar Links Drive to Commercial area of the “Villages”
15) Allow mix of uncovered and covered parking for multi-family units.
16) Allow street tree landscaping requirement relief in location affected by the MWC water line easement. (Cedar Investment Group LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Agent)
LDS-16-025 Final Order 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., Agent)
LDS-16-026 Final Order 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., Agent)
LDS-16-027 Final Order 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., Agent)
20.2 ZC-16-067 Final Order 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)
20.3 CUP-16-059 Final Order 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)
Commissioner Foley stated that he noted a condition that needed to be considered but it has already been addressed. The final order to be signed this evening is correct.
Chair Miranda stated that he checked with the Recording Secretary and it has been addressed.
Commissioner Pulver had concerns with #12 allowing meandering sidewalk design. He is not sure of the language. The Planning Commission wanted a 7 foot meandering sidewalk and a 5 foot straight sidewalk. If it was a multi-use path is had to be according to AASHTO standards.
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that for #9 staff added “(deferred to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission)”. Staff did not add any language to #12. The Planning Commission approved the meandering design and the details are within the Commission Report.
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
30.1. The minutes for July 14, 2016, were approved as submitted.
40. Oral and Written Requests and Communications. None.
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
50. Public Hearings – Old Business
50.1 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)
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner McKechnie disclosed that Mr. Sinner is his neighbor but it would not affect his decision.
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
Dustin Severs, Planner II, read the Planned Unit Development, Planned Unit Development Revision criteria and gave a staff report.
Mr. McConnell stated that he did review Exhibit N and the intent of Code Section 10.157 was to give 3 weeks of posted notice. It looks like from Exhibit N that has been done, so counsel has no further issues.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the U-Haul dealership is on the property that abuts Rossanley, there is a driveway behind that that goes to the front gate, which is off the main street of the residential area. He understands the reasons for the other two accesses because of fire and other emergency services. Is it possible to limit it to exit only? Mr. Servers reported that was the intention of the applicant. The most suggestions received were to eliminate the two driveways with all access coming off the front entrance. Mr. Severs noted that both the Willow Oak Drive and the private drive were part of the final Planned Unit Development and final plat that were approved. The applicant is not proposing creating any new drives. These are existing drives that were previously approved.
Commissioner McKechnie asked if there were comments received about buffers between the RV storage and residential? Mr. Severs replied no. He believes there is buffering that exists at the northwestern part of the subject property as part of the original Planned Unit Development. Mr. Severs deferred the question to Mr. Sinner.
Commissioner Pulver asked if the temporary RV storage could be there indefinitely? Mr. Severs stated that is correct.
Commissioner Culbertson stated that at the last hearing the manager of the facility had indicated that 80% to 90% of the approximate 34 RV’s that are currently in the storage area are from residents of the Candlewood Subdivision. The benefit of having in and out would definitely be there. Is that correct? Mr. Severs replied that is correct.
Commissioner Culbertson stated that they are going down to 22 from 32 to 34 RV’s. Mr. Severs reported that once it is built out and they go to the permanent location there will be less intense use and less number of Recreational Vehicles which has been going on the property for some years now.
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. He is not entirely clear if this is just a brand new public hearing adding new evidence. He does not have a lot of evidence. He has reviewed the revised staff report with the applicant and they are in agreement with the conditions. Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time if necessary.
The public hearing was closed.
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the modified findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of PUD-16-060 per the revised staff report dated July 18, 2016, including Exhibits A-1 through N.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the Planning Commission was comfortable with the gravel only for the RV storage? The majority of the Commissioner’s nodded in affirmation.
Commissioner Pulver stated that his issue is with the temporary portion. He thinks the applicant’s intent and desire is to build out the mini storage as soon as possible presuming economic conditions support it. He does not know a large area of temporary RV storage is consistent with the approved Planned Unit Development.
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-1, with Commissioner Pulver voting no.
50.2 PUD-16-065 Consideration of a PUD Revision to the Delta Center Planned Unit Development to allow for the reallocation of unutilized commercial use square footage permitted and located within Phase 1 of the currently approved PUD Plan. Applicant proposes that commercial square footage permitted for the development be allowed to be sited anywhere within the boundary of the PUD as needed. Proposed PUD Revision also summarizes previously approved de minimus revisions made to the PUD project. Delta Center PUD currently consists of 22.33 net acres, generally located west and north of the intersection of Crater Lake Highway (OR 62) and Delta Waters Road, and located within an I-L/PUD (Light Industrial/Planned Unit Development Overlay) zoning district. (Nash LLC., Applicant; Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., Agent)
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner Foley disclosed that his company operates a retail business adjacent to this Planned Unit Development and he does not have any problems dealing with this in an impartial manner on the merits of this case. Commissioner Pulver disclosed that two of his business partners have retirement plan ownership in neighboring properties but it does not affect his ability to remain impartial in this matter.
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 Planned Unit Development, Planned Unit Development Revision criteria was read for the first application. Mr. McGeough gave a staff report.
Commissioner D’Alessandro asked how is the roundabout going to benefit this project with it not being directly aligned with the main arterial? If it was moved a little to the east would it not make more sense in connecting the two primary arterials? Mr. McGeough deferred the question to the applicant.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the original masterplan for this was approved with a certain limit of square footage for Phase 1 and Phase 2. The applicant did not use all the square footage they were allocated in Phase 1 so they would like to move the remaining to Phase 2. He is assuming it would go to Phase 2B because Phase 2A has already been identified. They want to reshuffle that however it is appropriate to do based on the market and limitations of parking. Overall they are “reshuffling the pieces of bread in a loaf but not changing the loaf.” Mr. McGeough reported that was a very good analogy.
Vice Chair McFadden asked what was the date this approved by the Planning Commission? Mr. McGeough replied that he is not sure it was approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant filed an appeal to the court system and the judge determined that it was a negotiated agreement between the City Attorney at that time and the applicant. The City was required to accept the negotiated agreement at that time.
Commissioner Pulver stated that he thinks the crux of the issue is the reallocation of approved commercial square footage. How is that administered? Mr. McGeough stated that they have been keeping an inventory that is in the record on pages 109 and 110 as part of the applicant’s findings. In the future if some businesses shut their doors it might increase the possibility of moving the square footage someplace else. That is why the applicant has asked that commercial square footage permitted for the development be allowed to be sited anywhere within the boundary of the Planned Unit Development as needed. Staff is not overly concerned about where specifically commercial inventory goes. The applicant has better knowledge of where it would function the best in the development.
The public hearing was opened.
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501-0168. Mr. Stevens reported that he was present this evening representing the applicant, Crater Lake Ventures, LLC for the Delta Center Planned Unit Development revision application. Staff has presented a very complete presentation to the Planning Commission. The main purpose of the revision is to reallocate the commercial retail uses, uses not otherwise allowed within the I-L district, to be distributed throughout the project. The applicant would like to make one modification to the site plan that was negotiated this evening. They would like to stipulate to the site plan presented this evening and submit it into the record as evidence to the applicant’s stipulation.
Vice Chair McFadden asked if the new site presented this evening eliminates the roundabout and the diagonal road replaces it. Mr. Stevens stated that is correct. They want to eliminate the roundabout on the site plan. It is in the applicant’s Phase 2B proposal. They can maintain their primary access from Excel Drive all the way to the main access that comes off Delta Waters.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that with the original Planned Unit Development Phase 1 and Phase 2 was to have a certain amount of square footage allowed. It was designated as commercial square footage not subdivided into office or retail. Mr. Stevens commented that it was a calculation for uses not otherwise allowed in the I-L district which typically would be commercial retail type use.
b. Curtis Burrill, 2069 Black Hawk Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Burrill testified that he was present tonight representing the ownership of the property to the north of the subject property. Several points to the access presented to the Planning Commission this evening is that in 2004 this Planned Unit Development was denied by the Planning Commission for transportation and traffic problems. Because of a timing issue it was approved by Writ of Mandamus. In 2009 they worked with the City to extend Excel Drive and give the right-of-way necessary for Excel Drive to come into the north end of the property. At that time they expressed their concerns and desire to make sure that the Excel Drive extension became a part of the Delta Center. Early this year the Site Plan and Architectural Commission application still showed the ninety-degree curves that were questioned. He testified at that time it did not work for them. It was not the agreement they had. He was assured they would have the opportunity to work on an alignment that worked. That came about around 5:30 p.m. this evening. He is in support of the revised drawing that was submitted by the applicant and their stipulation to that. He asked that a few things be added to that stipulation: 1) This driveway gets built at the time that Phase 2A is built; and 2) There is pedestrian connectivity built into that as well. He believes that Public Works is in agreement. Mr. Burrill requested rebuttal time in case any questions came up regarding his testimony.
c. Stuart Foster, 3521 East Barnett Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Foster reported that he has an ownership interest in a parcel of property and that his firm’s 401K Plan has ownership interest with that parcel as well as two parcels of property to the north of the subject property. He concurs with everything that Mr. Burrill testified. This road configuration is absolutely critical to their support of this proposal. He is here this evening to support this proposal provided that the road configuration on the newly submitted exhibit is a condition of approval and it is further conditioned that at the time that Phase 2A is developed that this road be constructed. He wants it in concrete, literally. He reserves the right of rebuttal of the issue.
Mr. McGeough noted that in Exhibit A there are some incorrect references of exhibits to various staff reports provided by other departments that will be addressed in the Commission Report. The changes are as follows: Condition (a) should read Exhibit H not Exhibit I; Condition (b) should read Exhibit I not Exhibit J; Condition (c) should read Exhibit J not Exhibit K; and Condition (d) should read Exhibit K not Exhibit L.
Commissioner Mansfield stated that in the interest of speeding this up, it seems like they are taking more time than necessary, he is unaware of anyone being in disagreement. Is any of staff in disagreement with the request made by Mr. Foster and Mr. Burill? Staff has stated they favor the request. So what are we taking all this time about? Chair Miranda stated that the Planning Commission has not yet heard from Public Works or the applicant on his rebuttal.
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, stated that Public Works does not have any issues with the revisions that are being proposed but Public Works wants to add a condition. Originally when they worked with the applicant on Excel Drive it was extended to the north boundary of this property or south of Mr. Foster’s and Mr. Burill’s properties. That ends the public right-of-way. The road continues as a private road. Public Works wanted a termination of that public right-of-way. He recommends as a condition of approval this evening that the Commission add that a minimum of a 6 foot concrete valley gutter be built at the north edge of the property line for the Delta Center Planned Unit Development. This will give Public Works the ability to terminate their maintenance at that north edge of that concrete. Everything south of that becomes the maintenance of the Planned Unit Development. The valley gutter can be completely flat. It does not have to dip down. It can be as narrow as 3 feet. Just provide Public Works a concrete edge that delineates the difference between public and private right-of-way. He will leave that open to the applicant’s engineers as they design it. He does not want to give specifics now but he wants to make sure if it is a valley that it is wide enough that it does not slow traffic down. If it is not a valley then it is just wide enough they can pave up against it and edge grind. Mr. Georgevitch echoed the concerns of making sure they get good pedestrian movement through the project.
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the extension of Excel Drive through the neighboring property was done with a negotiated agreement between the City and the property owners. The agreement must have been that instead of the City paying for the development of the street that they negotiated the responsibility would fall to the developer of the Delta Center. Is that correct? Mr. Georgevitch asked if Vice Chair McFadden was referring to the section that was built on the adjoining property to the north? Vice Chair McFadden confirmed. Vice Chair McFadden asked who is building that section. Mr. Georgevitch stated it is built. It has been complete since 2009. It is curb, gutters and sidewalks. There are driveways negotiated with the property owners. At the time it was negotiated to the Writ of Mandamus the applicant provided the City with funds to build this, acquire the right-of-way and install the traffic signal at Delta Waters and Delta Waters and Lear.
Commissioner Pulver asked if the extension of Excel Drive is a commercial grade street? Mr. Georgevitch replied yes. It is 36 feet curb to curb.
Commissioner Pulver stated that in the applicant’s findings there was a traffic analysis provided. It references all the Phase 1 uses and uses the office park description. With a couple of exceptions was the development an office park to begin with? Was that approved with the Writ of Mandamus or is he reading it wrong? Mr. Georgevitch reported that the applicant provided a trip accounting. It is a requirement that at every phase they provide Public Works with a trip accounting making sure they do not exceed 6,382 average daily trips coming off the site. The site originally had 8,000 trips available but when they came in with their original site plan it generated 6,382 trips assuming that it was calculated as an office park which was a mixture of commercial and office uses. All of Phase 2 was originally going to be office. There was a large amount of office that helped lower that trip rate. When you look at the accounting that has been done it is accounting for the overall build out. Not the individual uses now.
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the storm drainage from this property originally went into detention ponds west of Sportsman’s Warehouse. His understanding is those are being changed with the Highway 62 Bypass project. Is the State taking over the proper storm drainage from the owner or is there any retention required that is being changed because of the Highway 62 Bypass project? Mr. Georgevitch stated that it is his understanding that Oregon Department of Transportation purchased the land and purchased the requirements to deal with the storm water. They will treat it and store it someplace else as part of their bigger project. They purchased the ponds so they will take over that responsibility.
Mr. Stevens is in full agreement with Mr. Burrill and Mr. Foster in that the applicant will build this access way with Phase 2A development. Sidewalks will be provided along with the construction of that drive lane. Also, with Mr. Georgevitch’s condition for the valley gutter, the applicant is in agreement.
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 PUD-16-065 per the staff report dated July 21, 2016, including Exhibits A through N and including into the record the submitted revised circulation plan as Exhibit O, corrections to the Exhibit references in Exhibit A, applicant will build access way with Phase 2A development, and Public Works condition of a concrete valley gutter.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
Commissioner Pulver asked if the Planning Commission was comfortable with the improvement to be made? The Planning Commissioners were comfortable with curb, gutters and sidewalks.
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-1, with Vice Chair McFadden abstaining.
60.1 Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner D’Alessandro reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, July 15, 2016. They approved the Final Order for JDT Trucking project.
60.2 Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee met on Wednesday, July 27, 2016. They are continuing with the update. They discussed cross-sections. The ongoing issue is going to be standards for Greenfield development. Challenges lie within the existing Urban Growth Boundary. They continue to move forward.
60.3 Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that at the Planning Commission’s study session on Monday, July 25, 2016, they learned that Bianca Petrou, Assistant Planning Director is retiring. She started 31 years ago in August as a Code Enforcement Officer that was located within the Planning Department at that time. She has done community development grant program management for the City. She was a current planner and a long range planner. In 2006 she was promoted to the Assistant Planning Director overseeing current planning. She is fearless, thoughtful and trusting. Ms. Akin appreciates her support through this time. Congratulations to Bianca.
The next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, August 8, 2016. Discussion will be on the urbanization plan process.
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, August 11 and Thursday, August 25, 2016.
Last week the City Council adopted a resolution upholding the Planning Commission’s decision on the exception appeal for the 2 White Oak partition.
This afternoon City Council had a study session with Jeff Condit, the contracted attorney for the UGB. It is on the City Council’s agenda for consideration on Thursday, August 18, 2016. Planning staff also brought forward some proposed changes to Article IV which is the public improvement standard section of the Code. It somewhat goes along with the Joint Transportation Subcommittee work.
Planning staff has no business to present to the City Council on Thursday, August 4, 2016.
Vice Chair McFadden asked if the City was paying the Planning Commission’s way to a conference at the end of October in the Portland area for planning. Ms. Akin will find out more information about the Columbia Connection and get back to the Planning Commissioners.
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 Mansfield stated that he already gave a little lecture on speed. He was premature in his comments on item 50.2. On item 50.1 they really did not need a 15 or 20 minute discussion and representation of the standards and discussion. They all remember it from 2 weeks ago. They also did not need to put it in the record. It was already in the record. Just a thought to staff, he knows they need to be thorough and he certainly thinks the other Commissioners are very thorough and he compliments them for that. Time is valuable and that is one consideration that needs to be taken into account. He is suggesting giving some thought to making this efficient as possible.
Commissioner D’Alessandro stated that as a point of order previously when someone had made a motion and it was seconded and discussion it went straight to a vote. Now the Chair is rereading the motion which had not been done previously.
Mr. McConnell stated that technically under Robert’s Rules of Order the Chair does repeat the motion. He would have to get his Robert’s Rules of Order book out and research it. He believes that the Chair does not have to repeat the motion. The Chair repeats the motion so that everyone is clear on what is being proposed. If everyone is clear, this is a small body, he does not think it is necessary.
Chair Miranda reported he does remember several years back that previous Chair persons restated the motion again. It was to make sure everybody was clear on exactly what was being voted on.
Commissioner D’Alessandro stated that in the event that motion was complex and a lot of changes were made and a lot of challenges to the motion he could see repeating the motion. For the straight forward motions if it is not necessary he thinks it goes to Commissioner Mansfield’s point of efficiency.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
Terri L. Rozzana
Planning Commission Chair
Approved: August 11, 2016