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, April 13, 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
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
E. J. McManus
 
Commissioner Absent
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
               
Staff Present
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Debbie Strigle, Recording Secretary
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Dustin Severs, Planner II
               
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 LDS-16-156 Final Order 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)
 
20.2 PUD-17-003 / ZC-17-004 Final Order 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. (KOGAP Enterprises, Inc., Applicant; Maize & Associates, Inc., Agent)
 
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for March 23, 2017, 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 LDS-16-152 Consideration of Lilybrook, a 14 lot residential subdivision on a 1.64 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Agate Street and Hart Avenue, within an SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per acre) zoning district (382W01AB700). (Clyde Akins, Applicant; CSA Planning, Ltd., Mike Savage, Agent).  The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the May 11, 2017, 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, May 11, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, please come forward and the Planning Commission will hear your testimony at this time.  Please keep in mind that it is possible that your questions may be answered when staff presents their staff report on Thursday, May 11, 2017.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
The Public Hearing was opened and there being no testimony the Public Hearing was closed.
  
Motion:  The Planning Commission continued LDS-16-152, as per the applicant’s request to the May 11, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.
  
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
 
New Business
50.2 DCA-17-014 A code amendment to revise the permitted use table in Section 10.337 to permit marijuana production and other related businesses in the Heavy Commercial (C-H) zoning district. (City of Medford, Applicant)
 
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner, reported that the approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184 (2).  There are five criteria that have been addressed in the staff report in detail.   They are found to be either satisfied or not applicable.  There are copies of the criteria on the entrance table in Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Paladino reviewed the history, the citizen initiated request, the proposed changes and compliance with the criteria.
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Trina Helfrich, 853 S. Riverside Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Helfrich reported that she is present this evening in support of the recommendation of the City Planning Department for the code amendment change on the permitted uses in the heavy commercial zone. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he has already expressed his view about marijuana; he opposes it.  For that reason he doubts his ability to make a proper vote in terms of good planning on this matter.  He expects to not vote on this matter.  He commented on Ms. Paladino’s comment that the goals include commercial benefit but he does not consider commercial benefit to be a legitimate consideration in determining whether or not good planning exists. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield reported that Commissioner Pulver contacted him a few days ago indicating what he considers a principal argument against granting this matter.  Commissioner Mansfield is not expressing any opinion because he is not capable of doing that because of his biases.  Commissioner Mansfield indicated to Commissioner Pulver that he would move to postpone consideration of this matter. 
 
Motion: Postpone consideration of this matter until the Thursday, May 11, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                                       Seconded by: Vice Chair McFadden
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked if Commissioner Mansfield was stating that in his opinion this is a significant argument which the Planning Commission is taking on faith they have not heard yet.  Commissioner Mansfield stated that he is not taking any position on whether Commissioner Pulver’s position is whether he agrees or not.  He does not have an opinion.  He is simply making a motion to postpone on his behalf so that he can present that position.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, was Commissioner Pulver at the study session?  Commissioner Foley reported that Commissioner Pulver was not at the study session.
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that he was sorry Commissioner Pulver was not at that study session to be able to voice his opinions or here tonight to voice his opinions.
 
Commissioner Foley asked, assuming that the Planning Commission moves this forward, will it go to the City Council to adopt this matter or not?  Chair Miranda stated that is correct. 
 
Commissioner Foley stated that the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting where the concerns were raised but not specified would be part of the record. 
 
Chair Miranda reported that if Commissioner Pulver wanted his concerns heard he could attend that City Council meeting and voice his concerns. 
 
Commissioner McManus commented that if it was necessary to consider it now, Commissioner Pulver could have submitted it in written form if he was unable to attend this meeting.
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that having a secondary opportunity for Commissioner Pulver to speak on this issue at the City Council meeting is more than ample time for him to voice his concerns.  This body should move this issue forward.   
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion failed, 1-5-1, with Commissioner Culbertson, Commissioner Foley, Commissioner McKechnie, Commissioner McManus and Chair Miranda voting no and Vice Chair McFadden abstaining.
 
Second motion:  The Planning Commission recommends adopting the proposed amendment based on the analyses, findings, and conclusions in the Commission Report dated April 6, 2017, including Exhibits A through F.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Culbertson                                     Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Commissioner Foley asked, has the Planning Commission sufficiently recorded Commissioner Pulver’s concerns?  Chair Miranda replied, yes.  It has been recorded that Commissioner Pulver has a concern.  The specifics are unknown.  Commissioner Pulver can submit his concern in writing or he can attend the City Council meeting and speak to it as a citizen, not as a member of the Planning Commission.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that the reason he is not expressing Commissioner Pulver’s view is because he could not express it properly. 
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 4-2-1, with Commissioner Foley and Vice Chair McFadden voting no and Commissioner Mansfield abstaining.
 
50.3 ZC-17-017 / LDP-17-027 Consideration of a request for a change of zone from MFR-20 (Multiple-Family, 20 dwelling units per gross acre) to MFR-30 (Multiple-Family, 30 dwelling units per gross acre) and a partition to create two lots on approximately 4.5 acres located at 2180 Poplar Drive (371W18C TL 1362); (Weatherly Inn Medford LLC, Applicant; RJ Development LLC, 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 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.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the applicant requesting the entire parcel to be rezoned to MFR-30?  Mr. Severs stated that is correct.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is each separate parcel going to be in compliance so it is not creating a noncompliant building?  Mr. Severs stated that it will not be creating a nonconforming parcel.  Staff evaluated that when they did the review.  Both properties will be in compliance.  The new property meets all the additional requirements. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, who is evaluating the density?  Also, the parking looks like they will be deeded to the other parcel.  Will there be enough parking left over for this particular site to meet its current requirements?  Mr. Severs stated that it will be a shared parking. 
 
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that there are two uses.  One is the memory care facility which is a congregate care that is a permitted use outright.  There is not a density requirement that goes along with congregate care facilities.  For the assisted living each assisted living unit is calculated at .7 for density consideration.  Staff did review the overall density and it is fine.  Mr. Severs has been paying particular attention to the parking.  They have seen several revisions to the site plan to make sure there is sufficient parking.  There is no place to overflow on a classified street.  Staff is satisfied the proposal meets the requirements of the code.
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that the cross section is currently 50 feet wide on the current dedication and the applicant is required to have another 12 feet to be dedicated for the City’s right-of-way.  Is that intended to improve the center drive lane?  Why does transportation want that?  Mr. Severs deferred the question to Public Works. 
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, stated that the classification of the road is a major collector which is a three lane facility.  One lane each direction with a center turn lane.  There are 5 foot bike lanes each direction, a 10 foot planter strip and a 5 foot sidewalk.  Currently this road is built without all those amenities.  At time of partition is when Public Works requires the right-of-way.  There will be no additional improvements asked of this development.  Anything in the future will be a City project.
 
Commissioner Culberson stated that looking at the apartment complex to the north it pretty much sits on the property line.  Is there ample room to get 72 feet for right-of-way on the north property?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that he has not analyzed that section.  The curb to curb on a major collector is 44 feet.  At a minimum Public Works would need 7 foot sidewalks on each side calculating to 58 feet they would need.  He does not know if there is an additional 4 feet near the apartments.  Staff has no option but to ask for what the code requires.  He has no knowledge of the applicant requesting an exception.  The applicant is paid for the property since it is a high order street.  They will receive SDC credits.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, did Public Works ask for the 12 feet with the new building on the northeast corner of Poplar and Morrow?   Mr. Georgevitch reported that he cannot speak to past applications.  He does not recall.  They could have asked for an exception.  The minimum Public Works would require on an acceptable major collector and meet the roadway standards would be 58 feet.  This area has a high volume of traffic.     
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Caleb Perkins, 401 Central Street SE, Olympia, Washington, 98501.  Mr. Perkins reported that he was present tonight on behalf of RJ Development.  Dustin Fields is present tonight.  He is the owner/operator of the Weatherly Inn Medford; the applicant.  RJ Development develops senior housing throughout the country.  There is a need for senior living in Medford.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, how many units does the existing Weatherly Inn Medford have?  Is it all senior living?  Mr.  Perkins stated that the existing Weatherly Inn Medford is independent living.  Less care is provided than assisted or memory care facilities.  There are 89 units in that building.  The reason they chose the property line where it is to give 3 acres to the Weatherly Inn and then 1 ˝ acres to the proposed Weatherly Court was so they could remain in compliance density wise and setback wise for the buildings between the property line.  They needed the extra lot coverage under the MFR-30 zone.  They wanted to rezone the entire parcel so they could fit within lot coverage on the north but they still needed that on the south for density purposes. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, how many memory care units?  Mr. Perkins reported that Weatherly Court will have 30 memory care units all on the first floor and 48 assisted living on the second and third floors.  The third floor does not wrap the building.  The north part of the building on the north property line will just be up to the second floor.  
 
Chair Miranda asked, how is the first floor utilized?  Mr. Perkins stated that those units are dedicated to memory care.  Memory care is care driven.  Residents will call the facility home.  Other portions of the first floor will have a commercial kitchen serving the memory care and assisted living residents.  There will be administrative offices.
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that at the Site Plan and Architectural Commission meeting last week they were discussing an avigation easement.  He saw an informal email in the agenda packet asking for that easement.  Is the Planning Commission going to handle it the same as the Site Plan and Architectural Commission or are they two different issues?  Ms. Akin stated it is the same.  It is not included as a condition of approval but staff acknowledged the comment.  It is on page 96 of the agenda packet.  Staff acknowledged they received the comment and explained they did not receive any Nolan or Dolan analysis required by a 2010 LUBA case.  Staff did not recommend a condition.                 
 
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 LDP-17-027 and ZC-17-017 per the staff report dated April 6, 2017, including Exhibits A through Q and striking #4.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, April 7, 2017.  They considered a proposal for the construction of two four-plex multiple family buildings on a 0.37 acre lot located at 2212 Crater Lake Avenue within the MFR-20 zoning district.  The application was approved.
            
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Chair Miranda reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met since the Planning Commission’s last meeting.
                                   
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that the UGB amendment will be presented to the Jackson County Board of Commissioners on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.
 
The Planning Commission’s next study session is scheduled for Monday, April 24, 2017.  The discussion will be on the revised mobile food vendor regulations. 
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, April 27, 2017 and Thursday, May 11, 2017.  
 
At the last City Council meeting staff had an appeal of a Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission decision for downtown signage.  They approved the signage but they disallowed lighting behind it.  The City Council overturned their decision on the lighting.  It will be halo lighting.  It is lighting behind metal letters.  There is a soft glow around the edges.  City Council also heard and approved the Foothill Road Transportation System Plan amendment and the sidewalk infill project that the Planning Commission heard in February. 
 
Next week the City Council will consider adopting the Parks Leisure Services Plan into the Comprehensive Plan.
 
Tonight, the City Council is interviewing for the Planning Commission’s ninth member.  There are five or six applicants
                    
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None.
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 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: May 11, 2017
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top