COVID-19: City Hall and Lausmann Annex are closed November 18 through December 2.
Please note: Municipal Court is conducting business by phone. Please call 541-774-2040.
Click here for more information.


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

Thursday, November 10, 2016

 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
Tim D’Alessandro
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
Jared Pulver
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Interim Planning Director
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Kyle Kearns, Planner II
Carla Paladino, Planner IV
Praline McCormack, Planner II
10.          Roll Call
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 PUD-02-178 / LDP-14-111 Consideration of request for a one-year time extension of the approval of a two-lot partition of a 1.62 acre parcel within Creekstone Village Planned Unit Development Phase Two, located on the south side of Crestbrook Drive, 730 feet east of Ellendale Drive, within a SFR-10/PD (Single Family Residential – 10 dwelling units per gross acre/Planned Development) zoning district. (McAndrews Properties LLC, Applicant; Farber Surveying, Agent)
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for October 27, 2016, were approved as submitted.
30.2.      Commissioner Mansfield reported that the minutes for the Planning Commission study session on October 24, 2016, has a correction.  On page four of six, second to the last paragraph, it reads: “Commissioner Mansfield stated that is called easement engross opposed to easement of pertinent.”  It should read: “…called easement in gross opposed to easement of appurtenant.”
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 ZC-16-089 / LDS-16-090 I E-16-091 Consideration of a request for a consolidated application, consisting of a Zone Change from SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, 10 dwelling units per gross acre) to SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per gross acre) on 22.34 acres, a tentative plat for a 93 lot residential subdivision, and an associated Exception requests seeking relief to planter strip requirement fronting particular  lots  within  the  subdivision  and  relief  to  street  spacing standard  for an intersection within the development. The subject site is located east of the terminus of Owen Drive and north of the terminus of Cheltenham Way, within corporate limits of the City of Medford. (Hayden Homes LLC, 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.
Kelly Akin, Interim Planning Director, stated that this item was originally heard at the Thursday, October 13, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Before the meeting the applicant submitted a traffic study that provided evidence adjusting the stipulation to improve Owen Drive offsite between Springbrook Road and the subject site to the west. Public Works reviewed the report and this afternoon Ms. Akin received a memorandum from the Associate Traffic Engineer accepting the study and  stating no additional mitigation was required. The section of Owen Drive between Springbrook and the subject site would not be required to be improved at this time. The memorandum will be submitted into the record as Exhibit M. Also, at that meeting staff handed out a revised Public Works report and identified it as Exhibit D-1. Ms. Akin inadvertently added Exhibit D to the packet. Exhibit D-1 will be submitted into the record. Ms. Akin abbreviated the zone change, land division and exception approval criteria since it was read into the record at the Thursday, October 13, 2016, Planning Commission meeting and gave a staff report.
Commissioner Mansfield stated that Ms. Akin made it clear that there was a decrease in density but he did not hear how she justified that. Ms. Akin reported that the UR designation allows for a variety of densities. There are locational criteria that do not apply. In this case the SFR-6 zone is permitted.
Commissioner Mansfield asked if LCDC would come down on this? Ms. Akin replied no. She does not know why they would.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that by looking at the plat he is assuming there is no residential access onto Owen Drive. Ms. Akin replied that is correct. Owen Drive is a classified street.
Commissioner McKechnie asked if lot 73 was the benefit of the extra 8 feet at the intersection of Torrent Street and Durst Street?  Ms. Akin replied yes.
Commissioner McKechnie stated there was a letter from neighbors opposing Owen Drive. Did that have to do with the improvements on Springbrook? Ms. Akin replied yes.
Ms. Akin reported that at the Thursday, October 13, 2016, Planning Commission meeting there was a question of how the section of Owen Drive was dedicated but not constructed. In staffs research they found the staff report from 1992 and the answer was that it was not required. It was noted it would be a City obligation in the future.
The public hearing was opened.
a. CSA Planning, Ltd., Jay Harland, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon,97504-9173. Mr. Harland reported that at the previous hearing they discussed and answered questions regarding the design and layout of the project. The traffic study issue remained for Ford Drive. That has been worked out.
Commissioner McKechnie asked what was the rationale of decreasing the density from SFR-10 to SFR-6? Mr. Harland stated that there are two answers; regulatory and market. The SFR-6 is a base zone that applies in the urban residential areas.
Commissioner McKechnie asked if Phase 4 would be SFR-6? Mr. Harland stated that he could not speak to that because his client and owner have an agreement on only the subject portion.
Commissioner Pulver asked if the applicant has a preference on the exception options? Mr. Harland reported that the applicant would prefer the 190 feet of trimming the planter strips.
Mr. Harland reserved rebuttal time.
Commissioner Pulver asked Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, how does Owen Drive get improved? Mr. Georgevitch reported that the project will eventually be added to their capital improvement program and put into their budget. Currently, it is not in the budget or in their five year forecasting. It was anticipated to be a developer driven project.
Vice Chair McFadden asked that if the developer or anyone in the neighborhood needs to ensure proper drainage and other utilities, that the property remain a right-of-way and those facilities could be buried. Mr. Georgevitch stated that the applicant has placed storm drains from their development west. It is their responsibility to adequately keep drainage from entering the area and ponding.
The public hearing was closed.
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Orders for approval of ZC-16-089, LDS-16-090 and E-16-091 per the second revised staff report dated November 3, 2016,including Exhibits A through L and all conditions therein, and including revised Public Works Report as Exhibit D-1 and the Public Works memo as Exhibit M.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner D'Alessandro
Commissioner Mansfield commented that he would be voting yes.
Commissioner Pulver stated that it is his opinion the applicant could improve Owen Drive in a more cost effective manner than the City. It could be done now and ensure alignment is done the correct way. The City could reimburse the applicant with SOC credits if he understands that correctly.  He suggested exploring that to be an option for the City in circumstances like this.
Commissioner Foley stated that the credits were discussed in the documents and they would not be adequate enough for them to complete the street. They would need additional funding from the City. He agrees with Commissioner Pulver that it would have been good for the City to have done but he is not sure of their ability. It makes more sense to do it now. It would be the most cost effective way for the City to get it done.
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
New Business
50.2 DCA-16-028 A code amendment within Articles I, III, and V to allow brewery-public houses, micro distilleries, and small wineries in commercial zoning districts under the umbrella term of "craft alcohol production." (City of Medford)
Kyle Kearns, Planner II, reviewed the purpose of the amendment, read the approval criteria 10.184(2) and reviewed the proposal.
Commissioner Pulver asked, does the full on-premises sales license relate to having a certain amount of food?   Mr. Kearns replied yes.  There has to be at least five menu items served for a minimum of three hours a day.
Commissioner Pulver asked, does the proposed size limitation for the production area only apply to the Central Business District? Mr. Kearns reported as it reads now that is correct.
Commissioner Pulver asked, is a small winery a current use and allowed in the proposed zoning areas?  Mr. Kearns replied that is correct.
Commissioner Pulver asked, does the special use regulation apply to all uses under craft alcohol production term?  Mr. Kearns replied yes.
Commissioner Pulver stated that grain silos can have signage. He is not sure how it is measured and not in lieu of building signage. Is that correct? Mr. Kearns stated that currently if there are two street frontages then two signs are allowed and permitted to have it on the grain silo. The silo would have to fall into the height restrictions that the zoning district allows.
Commissioner Pulver stated that in Exhibit C the questionnaire that Immortal Spirits filled out mentions having odor issues . Is there a jurisdiction restriction on that issue? Mr. Kearns stated that in terms of odor, the code only addresses marijuana.
Commissioner Foley reported that when the participants of the tour had a discussion with the gentleman from Immortal Spirits he left Commissioner Foley with the impression that the issue was more a persnickety neighbor more than a general sense in the area.   Mr. Kearns confirmed the statement.
Commissioner McKechnie addressed Commissioner Pulver's question regarding signage. It is his opinion the signage credited is based on the frontage rather than the bulk of the building.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that in Section 10.337 breweries and public houses are allowed in the light industrial zone. He remembers Mr. Kearns stating that was redundant. Where else does craft alcohol production appear that would allow it in the industrial zone? Is it in another category? Mr. Kearns replied yes. It would be SIC Code 208 Beverage Production.
Commissioner McKechnie asked how would he know that? It is his opinion that instead of having an X where craft alcohol production is not allowed that NA would be more appropriate. Mr. Kearns reported that he has not seen that anywhere else in the code.
Chair Miranda stated there could also be a footnote cross referencing SIC Code 208.
The public hearing was opened and there being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are either met or not applicable, initiates the amendment, and forwards a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-16-028 to the City Council per the staff report dated November 3,2016,including Exhibits A through C.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
Commissioner Pulver stated the production restriction of 5,000 square feet should be in all the zoning districts, not just the central business district. He has a concern about the three uses being similar and fitting them into one. He is not clear on the signage. He is in favor of the silos having signage. He does not know if it is clear as to the limitations of having signs on both, the amount of square footage allowed based on the size of the building frontage or based on the size of the silo. It is his opinion there is interpretation yet to be made on where exactly silo signage fits in the code. The smell issue was glossed over. He does not know how big of an issue smell is or is not. It is his opinion that this warrants more discussion and clarity.
Commissioner Mansfield asked Commissioner Pulver if he was suggesting postponing this decision and continuing it to another meeting, or to vote no, and would he care to make a motion? Commissioner Pulver replied that he would be agreeable continuing it until he gets clarity on some of the issues. There is already a motion on the table.
Mr. McConnell stated that he would not tell the Commission how they should conduct their business, but another option is to add that to the recommendation as to figure out an answer to Commissioner Pulver's question. They can address that at the City Council level and Have staff ready to address that.
Friendly Amendment made by Commissioner Pulver: The production area is limited to 5,000 square feet in all zoning districts proposed and that staff provide clarity of the signage issue to City Council.
Commissioner McKechnie as seconder of the motion is not in favor of the friendly amendment.
Commissioner Foley asked what is the reason for restricting the size only in the central business overlay?
Commissioner Pulver commented that if the Planning Commission is going to approve the use in commercial zones, there are offices, medical offices, etc., that a 10,000 square foot brewery with a small tasting room and nachos served would not be acceptable for office type uses.
Commissioner McKechnie reported that it is one thing to be in the industrial area as a full on production. What is being discussed is intended to be in the commercial areas to be more of a boutique operation.  In the study session it was discovered that 10,000 square feet would be closer to full on production. The 5,000 square foot limitation for production in commercial zones seemed to be appropriate for a boutique operation.
Commissioner Foley commented that the 5,000 square foot limitation is only for the Central Business overlay.  The 5,000 square foot limitation goes away outside of the Central Business overlay. The question is why staff feels the central business overlay is the right restriction? Mr. Kearns reported that the thinking behind that was that it would fit the characteristics of the downtown. There are not a lot of 10,000 square foot buildings in the downtown.
Commissioner Foley responded that the goal is to allow craft breweries, microdistillers and small wineries to exist, which the Planning Commission is in favor of. If they are allowed in commercial zones, to keep them in the craft world, is why they are restricted to 5,000 square feet for production. He is struggling with why restricting it only to the Central Business overlay and not applying it to all zoning districts.
Commissioner McKechnie wanted to make sure that a footnote cross referencing SIC Code 208 on industrial zones is included in the text amendment.
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
50.3 DCA-16-121 A Municipal Code amendment to revise the provisions of portable signs in the Central Business overlay district. (City of Medford)
Carla Paladino, Planner IV, reviewed the proposal, approval criteria 10.184(2), purpose, code history and proposed changes.
Commissioner Pulver asked if tables and chairs require approval or is it at the businesses discretion? Ms. Paladino reported that it does require approval. The Planning Department has a sidewalk cafe permit.
Vice Chair McFadden asked if there was a limit to the number of signs one could display. Ms. Paladino stated that the code states one per business entrance.
Vice Chair McFadden asked, could an upstairs business put an a-frame sign next to a ground floor business sign if they get a permit? What would stop one not getting a permit for advertising an event? Ms. Paladino stated that if it was complaint driven they would be taken down. Addressing the second floor issue is that it states one per entrance. If the Commission feels that staff needs to address the business entrance before going to the City Council she would like to hear that.
Commissioner Pulver and Commissioner McKechnie commented it is fine the way it is written.
The public hearing was opened and there being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are either met or not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-16-121 to the City Council per the staff report dated November 3, 2016, including Exhibits A through D.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner D'Alessandro
Voice Vote: Motion passed,7-1,with Commissioner Mansfield voting no.
50.4 CUP-16-109 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to install an electronic message sign along the Black Oak Drive frontage, build new on-site stormwater detention ponds and bioswales to direct water to a new outflow pipe into Larson Creek, and to revise the master plan to include a multi-phase project on the 23.4 acre parcel located on the west side of Black Oak Drive, approximately 700 feet south of Barnett Road, within a SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential - 4 units per acre) zoning district. Phase I proposes the reconfiguration of the existing front parking lot and drop-off area and the creation of a new student parking lot adjacent to the northern end of the track and football field.  Phase 2 proposes the construction of a new two-story, 17,452 square foot dormitory building for international students. Phase 3 proposes the construction of a new two-story, 24,564 square foot Common Building and Plaza which will require the demolition of four older buildings. Phase 4 comprises the construction of a new 4,400 square foot Administration Building to be located between the Commons Plaza and the school  drop-off  area. A future  phase comprises the completion of a loop  road surrounding the built portion of the campus. (St. Mary's School of Medford Inc., 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.  Vice Chair McFadden declared he does not have a conflict but his son attended St. Mary's and has a warm spot in his heart for the school. Commissioner Foley disclosed that his daughter went to St. Mary's and he has no conflict.
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
Praline McCormack, Planner II, read the conditional use permit criteria and gave a staff report.
Commissioner McKechnie reported that staff stated the parking count exceeds the maximum by eight. Was that based on 550 students and however many faculty they have?  Ms. McCormack replied yes.
Commissioner McKechnie asked if they had one, a couple of staff people or an extra student or two, they would be within the maximums.  Ms. McCormack replied yes.
Vice Chair McFadden asked if the sign was one or two sided? Ms. McCormack reported that it is two sided but only one side is counted as the total square footage.
Vice Chair McFadden asked if the electronic sign was like a television screen? Ms. McCormack deferred the specifics of the sign to the applicant. She was told it was an electronic message sign.
Commissioner Pulver asked if staff comes across multiple phasing frequently? Ms. McCormack reported not with conditional use permits but this is a different kind of conditional use permit. It is sort of a quasi-site plan and architectural commission application that tends to have phases.
The public hearing was opened.
a. CSA Planning, Ltd., Craig Stone, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173. Mr. Stone stated that in the audience there were a number of people that have worked on this project including the president of the school Frank Phillips, his right hand person, Chris Johnson, Tom Hall working through S & B James as the design build contractor, S & B James Architect, David Thurston, Civil Engineer Tom Sisul, Tom Madera, Landscape Architect and Beverly Thurston that works with Mr. Stone.

This project has four facets. Those are a change in a conditional use permit for the school in the arrangement of the buildings which is the primary part of the application. Secondarily, it requires conditional use authorization for an electronic message sign. Third, the Medford Code requires a conditional use permit to cross the riparian area for, in this case, a storm drainage outflow pipe that goes from a detention pond to the creek.
The first phase will be the parking access area to the front of the school along Black Oak Drive. The second and third phases, before the Planning Commission now, are several buildings. First the Commons Building is food services and passive uses on the ground floor. The second floor is classroom activities. The applicant has submitted detailed elevations as well as perspective drawings. The drawings indicate various materials. Mr. Stone just found out that the siding on the Commons Building has changed to a less expensive panel system that would be the same as proposed for the dormitory. It is different than the plans that the Planning Commission has before them. The final building which would be an Administration Building will be for a latter phase. The applicant will undergo a Site Plan and Architectural Review as a stipulated matter.
Regarding the off-street parking, they have eight more parking stalls than would otherwise be allowed by the Code. It provides more than the maximum number of parking if the applicant can provide a detailed explanation of why the need. Their detailed explanation focused on neighborhood impacts. The students mostly drive or their parents drop them off. They do not want to have a shortage of parking. There is no parking on Black Oak Drive and if there is an overflow it will go into the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
When the applicant submitted the application they had proposed to accommodate the City's pedestrian path through the property and to accommodate their own storm water detention needs. After filing their plans the City approached the applicant stating they would like to put the path in a different location. That location happened to be right over the top of their planned detention pond. They now have a plan that accommodates the path and the location that the applicant and the City have agreed to, along with the detention facilities that the applicant has to provide.
The wall panel graphics are viewed as a sign and the applicant takes issue with that. They think it is not a sign. The reason why is the definitions section in the sign section of the Code.  It defines the term "Signs...This definition is not to include architectural facades, or lighting features. " This is an architectural facade. These are graphic Images that would be affixed permanently to the building in place of siding. They are not signs in the sense of advertising. They are inspirational messages. The graphic images that the applicant has shown the Planning Commission may not be the final ones but they will be of that nature. The school may want to decide later what those graphic images might look like. If the Planning Commission would like to see them the applicant will send them back in or have them viewed and approved by the Planning Department; whatever the Planning Commission's pleasure might be on that subject. The applicant does not believe it is a sign, but if it is a sign, It is an exempt sign. The second part of the Code that deals with that states "those placed and located so as not to be viewed from the street." This is not intended to be viewed from the street.  In order to see it from the street one would have to look through street trees, more trees in the parking lot, trees within the courtyard and through fencing to this building.  It would be some obscure image. If one wants to say this is a sign it is probably exempt. It is not a sign.
Commissioner D'Alessandro asked, is the school expecting to employee more people in this process? Mr. Stone replied he thinks so. There will be at a minimum a couple of resident managers within the dormitory. There will be food preparation staff. Possibly half a dozen or so additional jobs created.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that it looks like there is a one way ring road around the campus. If one is not dropping people off, one would come in through the north entrance, turn right, around the campus and out by the chapel. Is that correct? Mr. Stone stated that is correct.
Commissioner McKechnie asked Mr. Stone to point out on the plan where the panel that is not a sign, is located. Mr. Stone pointed to the location on the plan that was on the ELMO.
Chair Miranda asked if the Planning Commission had an actual representation or picture of what the sign is intended to be? Mr. Stone replied yes, but there again, the graphics that they are showing are representative. The graphic images might change.
Chair Miranda asked Mr. Stone to show the Planning Commission what it looks like. Mr. Stone showed several renderings stating the one in question is the one on the east elevation. The way staff is viewing the ordinance states that is the only one that is visible from the street and therefore the only one they are concerned with. In making these arguments about whether it is a sign or not Mr. Stone emphasized this is not a huge deal. If you say it is a sign and it has to be regular siding because it could offend someone's sensibility, the applicant will live with that.
Commissioner D'Alessandro asked, what is the approximate distance from the front of the building to the sidewalk? Mr. Stone replied 240 feet.
Mr. Stone reserved rebuttal time.
b. Marie Chesnut, 2525 Freedom Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Chesnut is concerned with the dormitory and the 50 students living on campus. The students that will be living on campus do not pay property taxes nor do their parents. Who is going to monitor this? Where are the kids going to go? These are a lot of people in a dense area living on that campus. She disagrees that the development will cause no impact on livability, value or appropriate development of abutting property.
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is the Planning Commission technically approving any part of the application that is architectural? Can the Planning Commission defer the entire application to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission? Ms. McCormack reported that the applicant is asking the Planning Commission to approve the dormitory and the Commons Building.
Chair Miranda asked if there was a functional definition of an architectural facade? What defines it? What represents it? Ms. McCormack replied none that she knew of. The description of it being a permanent fixture of the building would make it more of an architectural facade rather than a sign that can be removed. Mr. Stone stated it was going to be more like a siding.
Mr. McConnell asked, is it the Planning Department's interpretation that staff agrees with Mr. Stone's interpretation that this is an architectural facade and not a sign under 10.100(0) of the Code? Ms. McCormack replied that is correct. Staff has no issue with it being considered an architectural feature. It is quite a bit of distance from Black Oak Drive.
Mr. McConnell stated that is a plausible interpretation that the Planning Commission can accept.
Mr. Stone reported that the dormitory has its own outdoor area that is located off the front door that will allow the students a place to congregate. St. Mary's holds their students to a higher level of conduct than public schools. The students are not allowed to misbehave when they attend St. Mary's.
Regarding the approval of Site Plan and Architectural Commission, the Code is clear about conditional use permits. It states that the applicant, also, does not file for a Site Plan and Architectural Commission review. The applicant has followed the Code that requires the Planning Commission to make an architectural decision.
Commissioner Pulver asked if the architectural facade material was in the interior of the building. Mr. Stone reported that the graphic images are permanently affixed to the exterior of the building.
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the football field and basketball courts have lighting. Mr. Stone replied no.
Commissioner D'Alessandro stated that the renderings that are proposed need to have more detail. It would have mitigated some of the conversation. Mr. Stone submitted two renderings of the Commons Building to the Planning Commission for their review.
Vice Chair McFadden stated that Rogue Federal Credit Union on the corner of McAndrews and Poplar has exterior viewed panels. Are those considered the same type of panels being discussed this evening and are they inside or outside of the building? Ms. Akin stated that she believes the panels are interior but she is not positive. The Code does not regulate signs on the interior of the building, only on the exterior.
Ms. Akin addressed the issue of delegating to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission stating that the Code states that the Planning Commission can do two things. They can approve the application or they can delegate specific matters to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission. The Planning Commission would make a decision on the land use application giving the Site Plan and Architectural Commission authority approving in the Planning Commission's name the architecture and site design. The Code states that sending applications to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission there is no call for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the criteria. There is nothing for the Site Plan and Architectural Commission to judge the application against. On a complex application the Planning Director has the authority to send those to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission first then give a recommendation on the architecture to the Planning Commission.
Mr. McConnell asked if the Planning Director did not do that this time because this was a relatively minor issue? Ms. Akin reported that staff believed the buildings were well designed and did not feel the need to exercise that authority.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that he is irritated that last time the Planning Commission came across one of these applications they were told they had to ignore what was submitted as a Site Plan and Architectural review. If that is still the case, there is 42,000 square feet of building that someone needs to review architecturally. If the Planning Commission is going to do this on a regular basis then they should be receiving the information that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission does. There is no site plan and landscape plan. They have reductions of buildings that are black and white. The renderings that Mr. Stone provided are better than what was in the agenda packet. The plans in the packet looked horrible. He does not necessarily care about the 120 day rule. It is his opinion that the buildings being discussed this evening need to be sent to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission giving them some criteria or continue this application requesting that the applicant submit Site Plan and Architecture Commission plans so that the Planning Commission can review until the next meeting.
Ms. Akin reported that the approval criteria that the Planning Commission works under with a conditional use permit do not address the same things that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission criteria address. The Site Plan and Architectural Commission have two criteria; one is compatibility and the other is that it complies with the requirements of the Code.
Mr. Stone reported that the applicant is on a tight time frame on the project. The applicant submitted everything that would be required of a Site Plan and Architectural Commission application. The Planning Commission is vested with decision making on that. He is not at liberty to grant any continuances to the time frame. He does not know if there is time to present this to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission. If there is, the applicant will do that, but they filed their materials in anticipation of a decision from the Planning Commission pursuant to the language in the Code for conditional use permits.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner McKechnie asked what takes place in the 120 days? Ms. Akin reported that the 12oth day is January 21, 2017. The 64th day is November 26, 2016, when a Final Order from the Planning Commission is required in order to reserve time for an appeal if any are filed. If an appeal is filed and the Planning Commission is unable to render a decision then the applicant has the ability to file a Writ of Mandamus filed in the circuit court. It removes the decision authority from the City.
Mr. McConnell stated that the circuit court judge can make the decision for the City or he could direct the City to make the decision under its code.
 Commissioner Pulver asked if the Planning Commission could approve the conditional use permit with the stipulation that the Site Plan and Architecture Commission review the buildings in some capacity and that would satisfy the 120 day rule. Mr. McConnell reported that under Section 10.247(a)(l) the Planning Commission can delegate all or some of its authority to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission. There was also a chance for the Planning Department to do that beforehand but chose not to exercise that authority. Commissioner Pulver asked that if some review authority was delegated to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission would it come back before the Planning Commission. Ms. Akin replied no. It remains in the Planning Commission's name. If the Planning Commission opts to refer the architecture to the Site Plan and Architecture Commission, it is limited.
Ms. Akin requested a short recess. The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:12 p.m.
Ms. Akin showed on ELMO the colored renderings that staff received from the applicant. The renderings were at the bottom of a plan sheet. She also stated that staff received colored elevations. The Planning Commission does not receive electronic versions of the plans. Site Plan and Architecture Commission is consistent in receiving electronic versions. Staff did not ask in this case. Staff reviews the plans submitted and makes comments. The Site Plan and Architecture Commission rarely comments on architecture. They do site function.
Commissioner D'Alessandro stated that Ms. Akin's comment is correct regarding that the Site Plan and Architecture Commission rarely comments on the architecture. Their comments are on the site plan.
Ms. Akin reported that staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission makes the call on the architecture. Staff did not find any particular design concerns with this application. It is well located on the site. Access, circulation and parking are improved. The question before the Planning Commission is the use and design.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the renderings are for the Commons Building. Did staff get renderings for the dormitory? Ms. Akin showed  on ELMO the dormitory renderings that staff received.
Commissioner McKechnie suggested making three separate motions.
Commissioner Pulver stated that he is struggling with the timelines. Phases one, two and three would have approval with the only time frame of substantially completing the parking lot within one year. Does the approval on phase two and three just hang out there indefinitely? Ms. Akin reported that the master plan would not expire. At staff level they will manage future Site Plan and Architectural Commission applications against the master plan.
MOTION  #1:  The Planning Commission approves the conditional use permit for  the electronic sign near the entrance of the school.
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                                       Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
Commissioner Pulver and Commissioner Foley wanted to set hour limitations on the electronic sign.
Commissioner Mansfield is opposed to electronic signs.
Ms. Akin reported that there are eleven different conditions that the Planning Commission can apply. In authorizing a conditional use permit the Planning Commission may impose any of the eleven conditions. Number (7): "Limit or otherwise designate the number, size, location, height, or lighting of signs."
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: The electronic portion of the sign is required to be off during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
Voice Vote for the AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Motion passed,6-2, with Vice Chair McFadden and Chair Miranda voting no.
Voice  Vote  to  MOTION #1: Motion passed, 6·2, with Commissioner Mansfield  and Commissioner McKechnie voting no.
MOTION #2: The Planning Commission approves the conditional use permit for the new drainage facility within the Larson Creek riparian corridor.
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie                    Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
MOTION #3: The Planning Commission approves the conditional use permit for the revised master plan to include the multi-phase project on a 23.4 acre parcel located on the west side of Black Oak Drive comprising of five phases.
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie                    Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-1,with Commissioner McKechnie voting no.
60. Reports
60.1  Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner D'Alessandro reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, November 4, 2016.  They considered Orchard Glen Estates Phase 3, a proposed 57-unit multi-family development composed of five three story buildings, along with an Exception requesting a right-of-way reduction, on 2.02 gross acres located at 2686 West Main in the C-H zoning district. They also heard consideration of plans for the development of a 37,721 square foot, single-story, 40-unit memory care facility located on a 7.9 acre property west of the terminus of Misty Lane, west of the terminus of Honor Drive, and north and east of the intersection of Village Center Drive and Meadow View Drive, within the Rogue Valley Manor. The subject site is located in a SFR-4 with a Planned Unit Development Overlay zoning district. That application was continued.
60.2  Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met.
60.3  Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Interim  Planning Director, congratulated Commissioner D'Alessandro for winning his election ward to the City Council.
There are now three vacancies on the Planning Commission. Chair Miranda reapplied. The City Council has extended the application time to December 1,2016. Commissioner Fincher's seat has been vacant for some time and Commissioner D'Alessandro's vacancy. The Planning Commission, on the first meeting in February, elects the Chair and Vice Chair along with appointments to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission and Joint Transportation Subcommittee. Commissioner D'Alessandro was the Planning Commission liaison to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission and the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
The Planning Commission study sessions scheduled for Monday, November 14, 2016, and Monday, November 28, 2016,have been cancelled.
Thursday, November 24, 2016, is Thanksgiving so that meeting will be cancelled. December 8, 2016, is not as busy as anticipated. The second meeting in December is scheduled for Thursday, December 22,2016. It is hard to get a quorum for that meeting and staff generally cancels that meeting but will keep the Planning Commission informed.
Last week City Council heard temporary food vendors and legislative history. A constituent came and requested the City Council to consider changing the size of mobile food units. It is a maximum of 170 feet outside of the downtown area. Increasing the size will come before the Planning Commission in a study session probably in December.
At the City Council meeting next week, Thursday, November 17, 2016 there is no Planning business. The Hope Village contract between the City and Rogue Retreat will be during the evening session hearing.
Commissioner McKechnie asked if there were any Planning Commission study sessions in December. Ms. Akin replied there will be a study session on Monday, December 12, 2016.
Chair Miranda stated that he would not be able to attend the Planning Commission study session on Monday, December 12, 2016.
Commissioner Pulver stated there was discomfort over the lack of Site Plan and Architectural Commission review on buildings with a conditional use permit application.  It is apparent there is a flaw in the system. If planning staff is willing to address that at some point the Planning Commission would appreciate that. Ms. Akin reported that at the staff level they have discussed removing conditional use permits from the Planning Commission's authority and giving them to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission. Generally speaking, the Site Plan and Architectural Commission are mitigation experts. They review site design and mitigation.
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 D'Alessandro stated that he has enjoyed his time on the Planning Commission, his education on land use and Medford's Land Development Codes. The Planning Commission is a great group of people to work with. It has been an honor to serve with the members on the Planning Commission. Staff has been professional and helpful and looks forward to continue working with staff.
100.    Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 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: December 8, 2016

© 2020 City Of Medford  •  Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A


Share This Page

Back to Top