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, March 23, 2017

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:
 
Commissioners Present
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Mark McKechnie
E. J. McManus
 
Commissioners Absent
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
Bill Mansfield, Excused Absence
               
Staff Present
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director
Eric Mitton, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Ralph Sartain, Deputy Fire Marshal
Rich Rosenthal, Parks & Recreation Director
Carol Wedman, Office Administrator
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Dustin Severs, Planner II
Liz Conner, Planner II
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 LDS-17-005 Final Order of a tentative plat for a 21 lot residential subdivision on 4.1 acres zoned SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per gross acre) located on the west side of Kings Highway approximately 300 feet north of Halvorsen Street and east of the Aspen Street terminus and south of the Brock Way terminus. (372W36DA TL 5002) (Vision Homes, Applicant; Neathamer Surveying Inc., Agent)
 
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted for item 20.1 LDS-17-005.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6–0.
 
20.2 GF-17-024 A Parks & Recreation Department initiated request to consider a code amendment to create standards related to the construction and implementation of greenway trails.  (City of Medford)
 
Commissioner McManus stated that he read in the study session minutes that there was discussion from staff regarding alternative funding methods for developers to consider through SDC credits and other options that staff could look into.  The minutes did state that the Planning Commission could proceed but the options would still be reviewed.  Is that the general consensus?  Chair Miranda stated that is his understanding.  All the Planning Commission is voting on is either to initiate or not initiate the amendment.
          
Motion: The Planning Commission initiates creating standards for construction and implementation of greenway trails as development occurs.
   
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for March 9, 2017, were approved as submitted.
 
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None.
 
Eric Mitton, Senior Assistant City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings – New Business
50.1 CP-17-013 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate the 2016 Leisure Services Plan into the Public Facilities element and update the Goals, Policies, and Implementation strategies within the Comprehensive Plan. (City of Medford, Applicant)
 
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner, reviewed the proposal, criteria, plan update, overview, public facilities element, proposed parkland acquisition target areas, conclusions, goals, policies, & implementation strategies and compliance with applicable criteria.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, are the future park sites and school sites listed in priority?  Ms. Paladino deferred the question to the Parks & Recreation Department.
 
Rich Rosenthal, Parks & Recreation Director, stated that there is no priority.  Development will depend on the acquisition through either cash acquisitions, trade of land or donations of land. 
 
The Public Hearing was opened and there being no testimony the Public Hearing was closed.   
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission finds that based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are either satisfied or not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of CP-17-013 to the City Council per the staff report dated March 16, 2017, including Exhibits A through D. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.2 LDS-16-156 Consideration of tentative plat approval for Stonegate Estates Phase 5, a 20-lot (and reserve acreage) residential townhome subdivision on an approximate 5.39-acre site located on the east side of North Phoenix Road, within an SFR-10/PD/SE (Single Family Residential – 10 dwelling units per gross acre/Planned Development/Southeast Plan Overlay) zoning district (371W342000). (Dan Mahar, Applicant; Neathamer Surveying, Inc., Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Liz Conner, Planner II, stated that the land division criteria are found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.270.  It was included in the property owner notices, staff report and copies have been provided for the audience located at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is this a better plan than the previous plan?  Should the lots be bigger or changed?  Ms. Conner reported that the use and design is not changing on the lot lines that were originally created.  The common area has been reduced due to creating the lots.  Ms. Conner deferred maintenance to the applicant. 
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, Inc., 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer reported that in order to do this project today, they cannot do the pad lots.  They are not allowed.  The tentative plat was not done at the same time as the original final Planned Unit Development plan.  The tentative plat has to come under the current standards.
 
There is a common use area along the rechanneled stream.  These common areas are close to the structures but accessible to the greenway common area along the creek.
 
This is a phased project.  Mr. Neathamer requested that the Planning Commission approve a 5-year approval rather than the standard 2-year approval.
 
The applicant will construct Phase 5B first.
 
There will be a Home Owner’s Association for maintenance of the common areas. 
The wetland issue is that it is a stream bed.  There is not a wetland on the project site.  There will be a pedestrian path along the stream channel and the pathway to the north will have a crossing so the uses from the other side can access it as well.  The property that used to be Phase 3 is now owned by the Phoenix School District and their intention is to build a school.  Part of the purchase agreement was they would be able to use the creek as part of their curriculum.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the intention of building the roundabout is when the condominiums are built?  Mr. Neathamer stated that the actual timing for the street construction will be after construction of the buildings.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, are the backyards going to be fenced?  Mr. Neathamer reported yes.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is there any thought of adjusting the fence line in the back so that they can be maintained in both directions?  Mr. Neathamer stated that it is not as tight as it appears.  They have approximately 10 to 15 feet of backyard.
          
Mr. Neathamer reserved rebuttal time.
 
The Public Hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of LDS-16-156 per the staff report dated March 16, 2017, including Exhibits A through P and allowing a 5-year approval of development.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.3 PUD-17-003 / ZC-17-004 Consideration of a revision to the approved Preliminary PUD Plan for Stewart Meadows Village Planned Unit Development, including the addition of property, located on a resulting approximate 121-acre site bounded generally by Stewart Avenue, South Pacific Highway, Garfield Avenue, and Myers Lane, within an SFR-6, SFR-10, C-C, I-L and I-G zoning districts, including a request for a change of zone on an approximate 0.62-acre tract from SFR-6 to SFR-10, an approximate 0.62-acre tract from SFR-10 to MFR-30, an approximate 0.26-acre tract from I-G to I-L, an approximate 0.26-acre tract from I-L to I-G, an approximate 9.8-acre tract from C-C to I-L, and an approximate 9.8-acre tract from I-L to C-C. (371W31A TL 2802, 2000, 2190, 2200, 2300, 4000, 3900; 371W31D TL 200, 1001, 2500, 1000, 2501, 2800, 900, 2900, 3000; 371W32C TL 5503, 5400). (KOGAP Enterprises, Inc., Applicant; Maize & Associates, Inc., Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner II, stated that staff received four new exhibits after the staff report was published.  Those include Exhibit CC: Letter received from the applicant showing an updated non-permitted use summary, including a formal request that the submitted Design Guidelines be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.  Exhibit DD: Revised Public Works report (PUD) made at the request of the applicant adding the sentence “The adopted conditions by each of these actions shall remain in full force as originally adopted except as previously amended and/or added to below.” (Found at top of page 2). Exhibit EE: Revised Public Works report (ZC) made at the request of the applicant adding the sentence “The adopted conditions by each of these actions shall remain in full force as originally adopted except as previously amended and/or add to below.” (Last sentence of the first paragraph found on page 2). The report also includes an updated review of the TIA submittal. Exhibit FF: Letter from the City of Medford Traffic Engineer recommending approval of the applicant’s submitted TIA. The applicable criteria was included in the staff report, property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Severs reviewed the project summary, project history, project update and current proposal revisions.
 
Commissioner Foley asked, what is the criteria that will determine if another parking garage is needed or not?  Mr. Servers stated that was not specified.  According to their analysis they have sufficient parking now based on the number of vehicles they expect.  The parking structure has 298 spaces.  That would certainly take care of any deficiencies they have in the commercial area.
 
Commissioner Foley asked, assumed inadequate by who?  Mr. Severs reported that is not specified.  Staff does recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the analysis that was presented.
 
Chair Miranda asked, if the parking structure is deemed not necessary, what will go in its place?  Mr. Severs stated that it would be a vacant lot or a parking structure.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the Harry and David site a separate parcel?  Mr. Servers reported that the Harry and David corporate office is not part of this project.  There is a warehouse owned by Harry and David which is being incorporated into the Planned Unit Development.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated the little parcel that is being added to Stewart Meadows abuts a piece of County property that is zoned Exclusive Farm Use but it is attached to Harry and David’s corporate office.  Is that all one parcel?  Mr. Severs reported that parcel is not part of the Planned Unit Development.  It is part of the Harry and David parcel that has a dual zoning classification.  It is mostly zoned Light-Industrial with the small section of Exclusive Farm Use.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that Mr. Severs referenced a small open parking area.  Where is that?  Mr. Severs deferred the question to the applicant.
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that at one time there was a proposal to have a train station or trolley system.  Mr. Severs stated that he is not familiar with that.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, how many stories is the building that is requesting the extra height?  Mr. Severs stated that was not specified.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that there is other development being planned, proposed and approved at the intersection in question.  Has all that been included in the failure of that intersection in regard to this application?  Mr. Severs reported eventually those improvements that will be required are to be taken on by the development joining that intersection.  The applicant or Public Works might be able to answer that question.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, reported that he did not review the traffic study.  The scoping letter required to look at the development that was approved on the Nash property southeast of Garfield and Center Drive.  They are doing a trip cap.  If they want to exceed that trip cap they can make improvements or they can wait until someone else makes those improvements to exceed the trip cap.  They would be trip capped if approved as submitted this evening.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, does Mr. Georgevitch know if the other development is on the tag for those improvements or improvements that would help this proposal?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that he believes they are trip capped at the same intersection.  He knows they are doing some improvements but he does not know the extent of them.
 
Commissioner McManus stated that with the increase of residential units as well as the mixed-use, pedestrian traffic could increase both on Garfield and Stewart.  Is there concerns or limitations for adequate pedestrian safety?  Mr. Severs stated that the preliminary planned unit development phase is conceptual.  Each individual lot will go through the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  At that time is when a closer look at pedestrian walkways and safety will take place.
        
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Jim Maize, Maize & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 628, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Maize reported that there were two representatives from KOGAP Enterprises, Inc. in the audience this evening that are able to answer questions if he cannot.  This project has been in the works for approximately fifteen years.  This project has mixed-use, increased residential and intensified commercial/retail through the pedestrian mall.  Hanson Creek was put underground years ago.  KOGAP Enterprises, Inc. has restored and rehabilitated Hanson Creek making it an amenity to the project.  It is intensely landscaped and will be a focal point.  There will be an entertainment building.  There are two hotel buildings with a restaurant between them along Highway 99 interface.  Providence Medical building is under construction.  Both sides of the creek have walking paths.  This development is going to be unlike anything that anyone in southern Oregon has ever seen with the availability for pedestrians to walk throughout the site.  A promenade will traverse to Garfield in conjunction with the first phase.  The residential will include several housing types.  There will be apartment buildings along Meyers and Garfield, duplexes, triplexes, multiplexes.  These will be adjacent to the residential and offices.
 
Answering Commissioner McKechnie’s question regarding the Exclusive Farm Use interface Mr. Maize stated that it is a portion that is zoned differently than the building.
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that Mr. Severs noted that the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission review and approve the plans instead of going through the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  Mr. Maize reported yes, that is the design guidelines.  The design guidelines were revised in this application primarily because the applicant is adding the industrial section.  There were no industrial guidelines in the prior iteration of the design guidelines.  There were some other small changes made.  The applicant has increased the minimum caliper size tree to now coincide with the Code minimums of 2 inches.  There were building materials, the pallet, for the industrial uses.  The changes to the design guidelines were minimal.  Each area of buildings will go before the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  They will see the architecture, specific site design, driveways, landscaping, building footprint, elevations, colors; the entire gamut.  The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission adopt the minor changes to the design guidelines.
 
Commissioner Culbertson noted for the Planning Commission that he is the current liaison to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  The previous liaison who may have sat at that is no longer with the Planning Commission so they do not know what was discussed.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated there was discussion of some type of a signage review committee.  Does Mr. Maize see any problem that could be filled by the Site Plan and Architectural Commission instead of a new group?  Mr. Maize stated there will be a committee set up by KOGAP Enterprises, Inc. that will review the signs and all site details for each of the individual buildings.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that Mr. Servers noted that the proposed sign guidelines varied in some cases dramatically from the City Code.  Would Mr. Maize identify what they are going to vary from?  If the Planning Commission approves that for Stewart Meadows, the City sign ordinances do not apply.  Mr. Maize reported that the City’s sign code for free standing or monument signs is based on lots.  It is one sign per lot or two signs for a corner lot with two frontages.  The applicant has not created their final lot plan.  The Code does not make sense to the way the lots are presently established.  With the lots in place some day they will.  The biggest difference as far as signs is that the applicant is requesting project signs.  There are two large signs.  One in the proximity of Stewart Avenue and Highway 99 and the other one on Highway 99 to the south.  There are three smaller project signs placed at intersections.  They are comparable to shopping center signs that the Code allows.  Those would not count against lot signage.  Staff has reviewed some of the signs that are prohibited that the applicant has requested and staff requested that they be removed.  The applicant does not have a problem with that.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that regarding the grocery store, they have a history of difficulties especially with three major competitors in the same area.  Is it likely they will see changes to the general layout and what is the square footage of the grocery store?  Mr. Maize stated this project is on its fourth revision.  Some maybe small some large.  When there is a project of this size and the market fluctuating the market could drive the residential component.  Maybe this will be so popular that the applicant may look at increasing the density further.  It is hard to say at this point in today’s market and when they get ready to develop the grocery store.
 
Chair Miranda stated that one of the proposals is to increase the restaurant space from 6,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet.  Why is the applicant doubling that space?  Mr. Maize reported that is a maximum.  It came to be because in the commercial zone there are no restrictions on restaurant or bank sizes.  This project is mixed-use, light industrial zoning, community commercial zoning in addition to general industrial and residential. In the light industrial zone, they do not know but it could be, that a viable restaurant may need to be more than 6,000 square feet.
 
Chair Miranda asked, on buildings 82 and 83 the applicant is requesting to go from a maximum height of 35 feet to a maximum height of 55 feet.  That is a 20 foot increase.  What is the plan for the extra 20 feet?  Mr. Maize stated that is for a three-story building with ground floor parking.  Brent Hackwell, KOGAP Enterprises, Inc., stated it is ground floor parking with three-story residential on it.  It allows residents the ability to park underneath with a covered parking area.
 
Chair Miranda asked, is the ground floor parking area enclosed or gated?  Mr. Hackwell stated it will be an enclosed area; like a parking garage.  It will be residential parking only.  They have not worked out the in and out access at this point.
                                 
Mr. Maize reserved rebuttal time.
 
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-17-003 and ZC-17-004 per the staff report dated March 16, 2017, including Exhibits A through FF and all revisions to reports from Public Works, etc.
   
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Friendly amendment made by Commissioner McKechnie: That the Site Plan and Architectural Commission review and approve the requests from the applicant of the revised design guidelines and the increase in height to 55-feet for buildings 82 and 83.  The Planning Commission is in favor of these requests from the applicant.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, how are they going to handle the signage?  Chair Miranda stated that after staff’s presentation and Mr. Maize’s explanation of what is going on with the signs, he is comfortable with it.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that as long as it is characterized that the issue has to do with the amount of signs because of lot lines that does not exist but the sign itself is going to be within City criteria, he does not have an issue with that.
 
Commissioner Foley commented that it is addressed in the conditions of approval.
 
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director, stated it is his understanding that in amending the Planned Unit Development that would enable the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  If that is not changed tonight, is he correct that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission and the applicant would be forced into a position to ask for a design exception/variance?   The underlying zoning will not have been changed.  That issue would not have been addressed.  Currently, the height limitation is 35-feet.
 
Chair Miranda asked, will there be an impact to the 120-day rule if the revised design guidelines and the increase to a height of 55-feet is forwarded to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission for their review and approval?  Mr. Brinkley stated, that is not necessarily the issue.  With the maximum building height the applicant would be forced to ask for a design exception/variance which has its own criteria.
 
The Planning Commission took a ten minute recess and reconvened at 8:00 p.m.
 
Modified friendly amendment made by Commissioner McKechnie: The Planning Commission approves the 55-foot height subject to Site Plan and Architectural approval of the building and that they review the design guideline changes.
        
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, March 17, 2017.  They considered plans for the construction of a three-story 41,000 square foot building, on a 2.08 acre lot located at the northwest corner of Garfield Street and Center Drive.  They approved the application.
           
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director, reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee met on Wednesday, March 22, 2017.  They have put to rest the goals and objectives and now they will be working on actions for the Transportation System Plan. The project manager working for Kittelson & Associates, has left and now they are on a new staff person at Kittelson & Associates.  The next meeting will be Monday, April 3, 2017, to work out definitely the new scope of work so it can be done by the end of the year.
                                   
60.3        Planning Department
Mr. Brinkley, reported that the next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, March 27, 2017.  Discussion will be on marijuana production in heavy commercial zones.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, April 13 2017, Thursday, April 27, 2017 and Thursday, May 11, 2017.
 
Thursday, March 16, 2017, the City Council was scheduled to hear the appeal of a Site Plan and Architectural Commission decision regarding the left turn lane for the Center Drive Hotel.  At the last minute the appellant withdrew their appeal.
 
On Thursday, April 6, 2017, the City Council will hear an appeal of a Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission decision on an internally illuminated sign.  They will also hear a minor amendment of the Transportation System Plan that the Planning Commission recommended.  Also, they will hear the Transportation Facility for the sidewalk infill projects that the Planning Commission forwarded to the City Council.
 
The Urban Growth Boundary amendment will go to the Jackson County Board of Commissioners in two months.
                     
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair. 
70.1        Chair Miranda reiterated that there remains one Planning Commissioner vacancy on the Joint Transportation Subcommittee, if anyone is willing and interested.  Currently, they meet once a month but once the Transportation System Plan is amended and approved they will go back to meeting quarterly.
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None.
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 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: April 13, 2017

 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top