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, September 22, 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
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
               
Staff Present
Jim Huber, Planning Director
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Desmond McGeough, Planner III
Dustin Severs, Planner II
 
Commissioners Absent
Tim D’Alessandro, Excused Absence      
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.  
20.1 ZC-16-077 Final Order of a request for change of zone from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential – one dwelling unit per existing lot) to C-R (Regional Commercial) on 6.56 acres generally located at the east corner of the intersection of Garfield Street and Center Drive. (Cris A. Galpin, Applicant; Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., Agent)
 
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for September 8, 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 – Continuance Request
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 has requested a continuance to the Thursday, October 13, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Chair Miranda stated that if there are members in the audience that have come to testify on this agenda item and cannot attend the Thursday, October 13, 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, October 13, 2016.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
The public hearing was opened and their being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission continued LDP-16-055, as per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, October 13, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
New Business
50.2 E-16-087 Consideration for exception relief to allow a public commercial street to vary from the development code standard for a commercial street. The subject street lies between Farmington Avenue and Yamsay Drive, approximately 575 feet north of Cedar Links Drive, within the Cedar Landing Planned Area Development. (Cedar Investment Group LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., 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, read the exception criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if bike lanes had been omitted as part of the standard commercial streets?  He thought they were required.  Mr. McGeough reported that bike lanes are only required on higher order streets.  Commercial streets are not considered higher order streets.  Higher order streets are minor collector, major collector, minor arterial and major arterial.
    
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the street in The Cottages were private?  Mr. McGeough stated they are not private streets.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that at this point it is just zoning.  Are there any building permits pulled for the subject site?  Mr. McGeough reported that he is not aware of any grading or such permits pulled for the subject site.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that Mr. McGeough indicated that the pathway on the south side of the street is outside of the public right-of-way.  At this point, there is the public meandering sidewalk on the north side.  The applicant has indicated they will install the meandering pathway on the south side but there is no requirement.  Should the Planning Commission make a condition of approval to ensure it gets installed as part of the building permit?
 
Chair Miranda reported that the text indicates that the pathway is already present.  Mr. McGeough stated that the apartment complex is not yet constructed.
 
Mr. McGeough reported that the Planning Commission could condition the pathway from Yamsay Drive to Farmington Avenue with the construction of the apartment complex.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the developer has proposed to install a 20 foot green space with a meandering sidewalk but Public Works recommended 13 feet.  Why did they recommend the 13 feet and is the recommendation from staff for 13 feet or 20 feet?  Mr. McGeough stated that per the Public Works report it would be a 13 foot right-of-way north of the curb.  It would be a 39-foot right-of-way for the entire street.  Public Works position is that they prefer the north side remain consistent with the standard cross-section.
          
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Mike Savage, CSA Planning Ltd,. 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Savage addressed some of the questions stating that the streets in The Cottages were approved as private streets.
 
The applicant is currently working on the final engineering and civil plans for the project.
 
There was a question about pathways and how the Planning Commission could assure they get built.  Through this process the applicant has a preliminary Planned Unit Development plan approval.  Ultimately they will have a final Planned Unit Development plan approval.  The final Planned Unit Development plan has to be consistent with the preliminary.  Whatever is on those plans has to be built.  Those are carried out as conditions of approval.  Most of them have to be done prior to final plat.
 
The Homeowner’s Association intends to provide all of the maintenance of the landscaped areas and sidewalks within and outside of the right-of-way.  There was a question of whether or not they can identify where the right-of-way ends for maintenance.  That gets resolved by the Homeowner’s Association providing the maintenance.
 
Mr. Savage provided a small packet of information prior to the hearing.  The last page was an eleven by seventeen showing the subject site with labels to illustrate what the different curve radius looks like.  Public Works requested the standard 8-foot park strip and a standard 5-foot sidewalk.  The applicant’s intent is to provide a pathway that promotes leisure and recreation throughout the area.  The applicant feels that the 20-foot landscaped strip with the meandering sidewalk is more aesthetically pleasing.  The applicant asked Public Works the reasoning behind their recommendation of a straight sidewalk.  One was the maintenance and delineation of where the right-of-way ends.  The other reason was complaint driven.  The Planning Commission has approved meandering sidewalks throughout the Planned Unit Development.  The applicant requests that the Planning Commission approve the request as proposed and not impose a condition restricting to straight sidewalks or a 200 foot radius.
 
Regarding Public Works recommendation for the sidewalk on the south side, the applicant feels, it is a redundant facility.  The explanation from Public Works was that if the sidewalk is in the right-of-way and someone complains, they can go to the property owner and force them to maintain or repair it.  That is not an issue because in the CC&Rs there is an agreement to repair and maintain those facilities.
 
There is an east/west sidewalk facility plan along the north end of the apartment complex on the south side of the parking area.  There is a 5-foot landscaped strip proposed between the parking area and the street.
 
Mr. Savage also provided several illustrations of meandering sidewalks that are City facilities.  One is at the Santo Center and the other is in Alba Park.
                         
Commissioner McKechnie asked how large is the landscape strip on Cedar Links Drive with the meandering sidewalk?  Mr. Savage stated it is approximately 30 feet.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the applicant had any objections to the Planning Commission requiring the 5-foot private sidewalk be installed when the apartment complex develops.  Mr. Savage stated no objections.  It is intended to be included in that particular phase.
 
Mr. Savage reserved rebuttal time.
  
Mr. McGeough reported that Commissioner McKechnie was correct in what is going to be required with the conversion from private to public street.  There is a 10-foot setback from any public street for buildings.  It also applies to parking lot areas.  The only things that can encroach into those 10-foot setbacks are ingress and egress driveways.  Otherwise, they are intended to be landscaped.  If this does become a public street there would have to be a rectification of that situation.
      
Mr. Savage reported that he agreed with staff that the applicant did not request a modification of the code to reduce the 10-foot setback.  The applicant can make the design work to accommodate the setback.
 
 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 E-16-087 per the staff report dated September 15, 2016, including Exhibits A through G and all Conditions of Approval contained therein with the two exceptions.  One that the right-of-way is 43-feet with a 20-foot landscape strip as originally proposed by the developer.  Two, that the private pathway on the south side of the street from Yamsay Drive to Farmington Avenue be installed with the development of the apartment complex.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.3 LDS-16-079 Consideration of Summerfield at Southeast Park Phase 9, a proposed 56 lot residential subdivision on 10.7 gross acres located directly south of Sunleaf Avenue and 1,175 feet east of N. Phoenix Road, in the SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (Mahar Homes, Inc., Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd./Jay Harland, Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner II, read the land division criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked if the alley way would be accessible from the property to the west?  Mr. Severs replied no but deferred the question to the applicant.
   
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd,. 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Harland reported that the project is consistent with the final Planned Unit Development that was approved for the site and meets all the applicable standards in the Southeast Plan.
 
Addressing Vice Chair McFadden’s question, Mr. Harland stated that it is not designed to allow access.  If there are no grade changes and someone came in for a future land division, they could use it as an alley. 
  

The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of LDS-16-079 per the staff report dated September 15, 2016, including Exhibits A through P.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                               Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission. None.
 
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Chair Miranda reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met.
         
60.3        Planning Department
Jim Huber, Planning Director, reported that staff is working on several text amendments; A-frame temporary signs, micro-distillery, transitional housing, and allow recreational marijuana sales.
 
The Urban Growth Boundary amendment is at the County.  In the meantime staff is working on the urbanization plan.
 
On October 6, 2016, the Mayor is going to read a proclamation to proclaim National Community Planning month.  Staff has a booth at the Grower’s Market plus several other activities planned.
   
On Thursday, October 13, 2016, there are four business items for the Planning Commission.
 
John Adam, Principal Planner, for the long range division resigned.  His last day will be Friday, September 30, 2016.  That is also Mr. Huber’s last day.  Mr. Huber invited the Planning Commission to a reception from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Friday, September 30, 2016, in the Lausmann Annex Room 151.
 
Mr. Huber thanked the Planning Commission for the work they do as volunteers.  Staff is appreciative of their time and work.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked where was Mr. Adam going?  Mr. Huber reported to Manhattan, Kansas. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the Planning Commission appreciates the steadiness that Mr. Huber and Mr. Adam have presented to the Planning Department and the City over the years that they have been with the City.  He wished Mr. Huber the best.
    
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney.  None.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.
90.1        Vice Chair McFadden reported that it was unfortunate that the other Commissioners besides himself were not able to attend the Commissioner training in Ashland last week.  He thinks they would have found it interesting.  Sydney Dryer and her partner gave a good rendition of things that need to be thought of by all Commissioners.  They had great ideas for meetings.
        
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 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: October 13, 2016
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top