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, May 11, 2017

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 (departed at 8:30 p.m.)
E.J. McManus (arrived at 5:45 p.m.)
Alex Poythress
Jared Pulver
 
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Kyle Kearns, Planner II
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV
Liz Conner, Planner II
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 LDS-17-028 Final Order of a tentative plat for a 17-lot residential subdivision on 3.17 acres located on the south side of Hondeleau Lane approximately 430 feet east of Springbrook Drive and zoned SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per gross acre). (371W08BD TL 100) (Dan Mahar, Applicant; Neathamer Surveying, Inc., Agent)
 
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for April 13, 2017, were approved as submitted.
30.2.      The minutes for April 27, 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 – New Business
50.1 DCA-17-007 Consideration of a code amendment to revise the size standards for mobile food vendors and to consider other impacts of the code on vendors when appropriate. (City of Medford, Applicant/Agent)
 
Kyle Kearns, Planner II, reviewed the purpose, background, proposal and criteria compliance.  The applicable criteria are found in Medford Municipal Code Section 10.184(2) and is included in the staff report.  Hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, would a drive-in garage scenario fall under the same code requirements?  Mr. Kearns stated that staff had received a request for a food cart center.  These would fall under the commercial regulations and would not be considered a food truck.  The outcome would probably be the same.  If the food truck is mobile and moves then it would fall under the food truck standards.
 
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 approval criteria are either met or not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-17-007 to the City Council per the staff report dated May 4, 2017, including Exhibits A through J. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that it seems to him that the seating and tables for accommodating guests is superfluous. 
 
Chair Miranda replied that the only reason he would see the validity of including the seating and tables to ensure they do not take over an area or block a right-of-way.
 
Commissioner Foley commented that he believes that is currently in the Code.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that if changing the measurement to an area for food production but allowing additional area for food production in the outdoor equipment concept does not make sense to him.
 
Commissioner McKechnie recommended taking out the seating and tables.      
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he has previously explained why he is going to vote no and he will briefly explain again.  To permit food trucks like this involves unfair competition to those in the food vending business who use brick and mortar building and pays expenses upon such activity.  In some instances the City lets these vendors use the property for little or no cost that seems to be an unfair competition to him.  There are also some safety and traffic issues that have been described by the Police Department.  He is aware there is an economic development goal in the goals for land use planning but he does not consider it to be the function of the Planning Department to subsidize business.  That is to be done by other aspects of government.  For those reasons he plans to vote no.  He is opposed to the existing ordinances and will oppose any extension of it.  
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-2, with Commissioner Mansfield and Commissioner Pulver voting no.
 
50.2 TF-17-012 The City proposes a transportation facility project to construct street improvements on Foothill Road between Hillcrest Road and East McAndrews Road to modified major arterial standards including: an increase in travel lanes, buffered bike lanes, multi-use path, sidewalks, medians, planter strips, street lights, and traffic signals.  (City of Medford, Applicant/Agent)
 
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV, stated that the transportation facility development criteria are found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.207.  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. Sousa gave a staff report.  Ms. Sousa mentioned that the owner of 1570 Foothill Road brought up concerns about the driveway relocation.  They are in attendance this evening to testify.  Ms. Sousa recognized a letter received this evening from Emily Mostue who is also in the audience to testify.  Staff has not had a chance to review the letter but the Commissioners have a copy of the letter before them. 
 
There are representatives from the Public Works Department to answer any questions that Ms. Sousa cannot answer. 
 
Commissioner Foley asked, on the east side, is the multi-use path replacing the sidewalk?  That is Ms. Sousa’s understanding.  Commissioner Foley, asked will meld into the sidewalk at some point?  That is Ms. Sousa’s understanding.  
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, stated that the multi-use path will meld into a sidewalk.
 
Chair Miranda asked, are the materials used for the multi-use path and sidewalk different?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that has not been determined at this point.  Typically the multi-use path is made out of asphalt but they could use concrete.  Sidewalks will be concrete.    
 
Commissioner Foley asked, is the buffering on the bike lanes space and will there something on the surface to alert they are over the line?  Mr. Georgevitch replied there will not be anything on the surface, only striping.  With the available right-of-way, environmental impacts and with the available dollars, it was determined to be the best solution in order to sweep the bike lane.  If it was raised it could not be swept.       
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that the material that the Commissioner’s received indicates there is apparently a substantial amount of right-of-way acquisition and consequential damages.  Is Mr. Georgevitch in discussions on those matters?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that they have had meetings with some of the property owners discussing impacts.  They have not started any right-of-way negotiations.  That will occur after the City Council gives approval.  Public Works will be dealing with any adverse impacts to the properties.  They will be paying for any damage to the property.  These are all negotiated through the process after the Transportation Facility hearing.  This is determining what they have to negotiate for.  After approval from the City Council they start the process of finalizing the design and seeking right-of-way.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is there only one access in the middle off each side of this transportation facility forever or will there be other roadways allowed as the two parcels develop?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that this is the current public access that Public Works is planning.  There will eventually be an east/west street that will serve Hillcrest Orchard side to the east as well as the property owned to the north by the Carpenter family.  There will eventually be a street to the west coming through the Carpenter family property that could tie into the internal study area that was part of the urban growth boundary expansion process.  Public Works envisioned Spring Street coming through the property and eventually tie into this location as well.  This is envisioned to be the single signalized location along there.  Ideally, Foothill Road will be a highly accessed managed facility that will move high volume of vehicles.  He cannot tell what future access will be because it will depend on development patterns.  They will be building needed infrastructure on each side of the street that will be able to tie into the east/west street.  He cannot guarantee that at this time.   
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is there any reason the driveway cannot stay at the signalized intersection at the access ramp to McAndrews?  It looks like the driveway relocation will only have a right in/right out where now they have full movement.  They would definitely have full movement if signalized.  Mr. Georgevitch reported that is correct.  The standard is not to use a single drive approach for single family residents across from a signalized intersection.  It is unconventional.  If Public Works is directed to do that, it can be done but it would not be advised by Engineering.  They will try to work with all impacted property owners.  Public Works is looking at U-turn locations if they can fit them in.     
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the Planning Commission offering suggestions to change this or requiring changes be made if they think changes should be done or accept this blindly and hope they fix something that looks like it is wrong?  Chair Miranda reported that it is the Planning Commissions purview and responsibility to look at it realistically and make a recommendation. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie suggested that in this particular space that Public Works consider doing a shortened street on the other side that they could tie into.  There are some other houses there and there may be some in the future that would benefit from a stub of a street.  
 
Mr. Georgevitch responded that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council.  If that is a recommendation, please make sure it is the motion.  Public Works is going to do what is required of them after the City Council hearing.  Tonight, the recommendation moves it forward to the City Council.  How the City Council deals with it he cannot say.  Public Works puts together their best recommendation and now they are waiting to hear the feedback from the public, Planning Commission and eventually to see how the City Council weighs in on all the information.
 
Chair Miranda asked, are the concerns basically from the intersection signalization?  Mr. Georgevitch replied, that is correct.     
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what is the logic of putting the multi-use path on the east side of the southern part of this project (Sections D, E and F area)?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that trees are historic in nature that goes with the Hillcrest Orchard property.  Those trees are just as important as the buildings that are part of that property so they had to do everything they could to avoid them.  If they end up having to take out the trees it will probably delay the project one to two years.  They started looking for alternatives.  They started working with State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and property owners to find a way to satisfy the needs of the road and still minimize impacts to the historic property.  Between working with the property owners and the other agencies, this is what they came up with as the most reasonable approach.  It allows for the bike movements if they want to stay on this facility opposed to a sidewalk because it is wider than normal along this portion.  It preserves the trees.  They are working with the property owner to install some kind of buffer between the path and the existing building on cross section F.  They feel they have come to a reasonable compromise for all parties involved and believes this can be approved by SHPO primarily.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that he does not have a problem with the location but on this side of the roadway for Sections D, E and F there are two bike paths transitioning into a sidewalk in Sections A, B and C.  Having a bike path is fine but why another one in the street?  Mr. Georgevitch stated the reason they did this is that there are different types of cyclists and they are trying to accommodate a broader portion of the public that wants to ride their bikes.  There is the fearless cyclists that will stay on Foothill Road.  The people that want to ride on the sidewalk as a pedestrian there is no way to transition them off the sidewalk.  Further north there will be a planter strip and the sidewalk goes back to the 5 foot standard which exists throughout the community.  Public Works originally was considering a multi-use path only and realized there was no way to transition down.       
 
Commissioner McManus asked, is Jackson County asking to transfer the jurisdiction outside of the project section?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that their agreement is to whenever a road is improved to City standards they will take it into City jurisdiction.  This will be the section from Hillcrest to McAndrews.  
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the right-of-way is going through the trees.  They have a life span.  It will raise the question in the future who takes care of the trees and what happens to the trees when and if the inevitable happens.  He suggested increasing the road right-of-way width to the backside of the path so that the City takes jurisdiction of the trees for maintenance.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, do the three houses at the south McAndrews off ramp take access from that one access point?  Mr. Georgevitch replied that there are three, maybe four properties that will be taking access there.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, how is that done?  Is it still undecided?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that Public Works will design and reconstruct the driveway and obtain any easements required to allow cross access if that is approved by the City Council.  At this point, Public Works is leaning towards moving the driveway south and then creating an internal roadway for all four properties to use. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, how does Public Works foresee the access to the Carpenter home on the hill, come back into the new intersection?  Mr. Georgevitch replied that the house on the hill will have its own driveway near the irrigation canal.  It will be right in/right out.  The Carpenters are fine with that.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, has Mr. Georgevitch had a chance to read the letters submitted at this evening meeting?  Mr. Georgevitch replied yes. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, will the City replace the fencing that will be removed during construction?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that all that will be negotiated through right-of-way process.  If Public Works impact they will either pay or reconstruct.  Typically, on fencing Public Works wants to pay and let the property owner reconstruct.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that he is sure the City will not have a problem with maintaining access to farming equipment during construction of this project.  Mr. Georgevitch stated that there will be a few times where that may be challenging but they will work as closely as they possibly can.  These projects always have impact to the surrounding community.  This community is a farming community.  Public Work always strives to do what they can.  When they are paving they need to consider the fact that vehicles cannot cross.  Public Works has discussed this with the family and they understand there will be times this may be difficult.  Public Works will do what they can to give advance notification.  One of the concerns is when hay needs to be cut there is no exact date.  When it needs to be cut it needs to be dried and picked up quickly.  Public Works will do their best to work with the family and contractor to work around any type of impact.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked about the discrepancy in the right-of-way and the issue of possibly giving back part of a right-of-way that has not been utilized.  Will that take place during negotiation?  Mr. Georgevitch reported with that one he is not exactly sure.  Public Works met with the family and asked them to be as specific as they can of their concerns.  It helps the Planning Commission make clear direction.  When they go to the City Council, Mr. Georgevitch anticipates the same type of clear specific request they are making.  If there is any excess right-of-way it would go through a vacation process.  It would be a separate process through the City Council.  Public Works will look into making sure they understand that prior to the City Council meeting.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, are there other areas affected by a permanent easement outside the right-of-way for tree plantings?  Mr. Georgevitch stated there are concerns about the trees being an additional impact beyond the right-of way that could impact some of the farming operations.  Again, if the City Council directs Public Works they will purchase that as right-of-way.  If the best decision is to leave it as an easement then Public Works will purchase it as a permanent easement.  If it goes way it would have to go through a quit claim. 
 
Mr. Georgevitch pointed out that he was acting as the applicant.  He feels he has taken his applicant time.             
 
Commissioner McManus stated, regarding the driveway impact discussion Mr. Georgevitch mentioned the three new homes on the east side.  That is not the same driveway at 1570 Foothill, correct?  That is not being asked to be moved, correct?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that the property at 1570 Foothill Road Public Works is proposing to relocate the driveway to the south and not have it cross the signal.  The three houses have frontage and access further north.    
 
Commissioner Poythress stated that Mr. Georgevitch strongly discouraged signal access to a single residence driveway but it looks like there are three residences in that same path.  Can he speak to that?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that the four parcels north that can take access off of Foothill Road, not across from the signal.  They would be between the two ramped terminals.  The 1570 Foothill Road driveway lies directly east of the off ramp.  It would be unorthodox to signal that for a single family. 
Commissioner Poythress reported that if three residences are already sharing one access at what point can it be made a residential road even if it is only 20 feet long.  If three families continue to share that same access point, then it is no longer a single residence.  Vice Chair McFadden stated what they are not seeing is an overall picture of all the properties.  This is just showing the one access that is the only one across from the intersection.  The rest come in differently which he thinks is confusing.  There is less of an issue as far as the other properties than it is for the 1570 Foothill Road property.   
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, will the issues in the letters received this evening from Ms. Allan and Ms. Mostue be addressed in the right-of-way acquisitions?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that was a fair assessment. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked Ms. Sousa if she had an opportunity to read the letters from Ms. Allan and Ms. Mostue?  Ms. Sousa replied, no.
 
It is Commissioner Pulver’s opinion that it is important that Planning staff acknowledges they received and reviewed the letters and if they have any impact on staff’s recommendation.  It seems to him to be appropriate before the Planning Commission voted.  Commissioner McKechnie stated that can be done by adding the letters to the exhibits.  Commissioner Pulver reported that he is concerned that without Planning staff weighing in on the letters would they affect their recommendation to the Planning Commission.           
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Rick Pies, 1618 N. Foothill Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Pies testified that he did not get information regarding the project.  His neighbors told him about the project and the hearing this evening.  If he had known about the project he probably would not have bought the property back in September or he would have negotiated a lower price.  He thinks he is going to lose money on his property.  He has lived near signaled intersections and stop signs.  At lights, there is a tremendous amount of noise.  He does not know why there is going to be a signal at each end.  The busiest times he has noticed is at 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.  He will only have a right turn out from his property.  He pulls a travel trailer a lot of the time.  He does not know how he is going to get in and out of his driveway. A U-turn with a 25 foot trailer is not fun.  Currently he has access either way.     
 
b. Lacy Reen, P. O. Box 186, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Reen stated that she lives in the middle of the Foothill Road expansion project. Her concerns are water, increased noise and decreased property value from the signalization and the relocation of her driveway (inability to cross Foothill to access driveway).  She needs City water.  An Analysis and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise Study is needed to determine how to mitigate the increase noise.  She needs easy access to her driveway.    
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, does Mr. Georgevitch know the proximity of City water supply to the residences?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that currently there is a Medford Water Commission line on the east side of the road.  If they are in the County they cannot connect to City water but when they annex into the City they can connect to that line.
 
c. William Reen, 1570 N. Foothill Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Reen stated that he does not want or can afford to annex into the City.  His property taxes would greatly increase that would be a hardship on him.  He continued with their concerns of parking area, driveway and garage and view, privacy and functionality.  They need City sewer and water.  They have a straight easy access driving from Foothill to their garage.  If moved 240 feet south there would be a huge grade level change and hazardous S-Curve to get into their garage.  The value of their home is their view and usability.  Relocating the driveway would significantly destroy views and bulldozing their trees to widen Foothill Road destroys their privacy.    
 
d. Gwyn Reen, 1570 N. Foothill Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Reen referenced Medford Land Development Code 10.207 stating: “Projects should not prevent development of the remainder of the property under the same ownership”.  Moving her driveway to the opposite side, making her entire front a road greatly reduces her property.  She cannot subdivide it.  It is hugely impacting how the property currently is used.  When the City makes plans for a signal they should determine how it affects adjoining homes.  Twenty years ago the City wanted to move their driveway.  They were given a map to mark their preference and guaranteed they would have input to the new location.  Their driveway was installed without their input and access to their parking was severed.  Ms. Reen referenced an apology letter from the City of Medford that she displayed on ELMO.  They were assured a light post would not be placed directly in front of their house, however, it was.  Again, Ms. Reen referenced an apology letter form the City of Medford dated August 29, 2000.  When the City finished the project leaving a dangerous 100-15 foot drop off above their yard, they were awarded a guardrail that the City never installed.  Ms. Reen referenced a City of Medford letter dated October 10, 2000.  These letters that were referenced in Ms. Reen’s testimony were not submitted into the record that evening.         
 
Chair Miranda stated, regarding the challenging of the criteria, an answer needs to be provided from staff or Engineering.  Mr. Georgevitch reported that they are questioning if their property is developable.  They have frontage to a public street that is a requirement.  They are currently outside the City limits.  They would have to annex and get zoning.  Through the zoning process the City would determine if there are adequate Category “A” facilities.  They are currently at their maximum use of a single family dwelling unit under County zoning as he understands it.  He does not believe their parcel is large enough to develop any further in the County.  In either case they could still develop but they may not be able to maintain the current residence depending on how that is situated on the property compared to where their lot lines would need to be.  There are still several other criteria that he could not name off right now to determine if there would be adequate development rights.  He believes their development rights are secure that they have access to the frontage.  Beyond that, the rest is a burden on the applicant when they make their zoning application.  They would have to determine adequate Category “A” facilities which includes streets, storm drain water and sewer. 
 
e. Karen Allan, 2895 Hillcrest Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Allen testified that she is one of the members of the Rocky Knoll LLC which owns property on the west side of Foothill Road from Hillcrest to McAndrews and on the east side a 30 acre parcel in the middle going south to north.  Ms. Allan has submitted a memo into the record.  They have met with the City Engineer and other staff that have been very cooperative and willing to meet with them.  The items that she is going to talk about tonight and in the memo are particular concerns that have to do with the negotiation part of compensation for things.  They were encouraged to raise issues of concern.  The issues of concern are access both during and after construction.  They are farming both sides of the road so they have to get across Foothill Road.  They are going to lose a couple of access points.  The best way to replace them is an internal road along their property on the west side of Foothill Road that will not need to go all the way south but would need to go to the north end of the property.  They have a rough road there now but it is not accessible when there is irrigation or rain.  They will need an all-weather road.   Mr. Georgevitch made reference to hay and getting across Foothill Road at various times.  City staff has negotiated those issues with them.  They are interested in getting arranged are the opposite of access protection from public access because this will encourage bicycles and pedestrians.  There will be the intersection designed for future development which will potentially encourage cars to go onto the farming property.  They need fences and gates to deal with those issues.          
 
Commissioner Mansfield commented that it is enlightening to know that the City has a cooperative group of people that they can work with. 
 
f. Emily Mostue, 612 Pierce Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Mostue stated that since the Commission has her memo she is not sure she needs to go through all the elements.  She would like to underscore from what Ms. Allan stated was the frontage road is really important for a variety of reasons.  On the north side of the hill is a pasture.  That pasture has access from two gates from Foothill Road so that they can drive into that pasture.  This will take away that access 100%.  They will have no way getting into that pasture if they do not have a frontage road.  There is a gate that comes into that pasture from Brookdale Meadows on the far west side of the property.  There is a slough that goes through the middle so they cannot get from that side in the pasture all the way to Foothill Road.  There is an easement and a sewer line that runs through that pasture that belongs to the City.  The City will have no access to that easement and sewer line if there is not a frontage road through there.  It is an expensive item but it is key to them.  The permanent easement is something they will have to deal with in negotiation.  They were surprised to see all the trees were on the permanent easement and not on the right-of-way.   
 
g. Laurence and Lisa Rubenstein, 801 N. Foothill Road, Medford, OR  97504.  Mr. Rubenstein testified that they are in general supportive of the Foothill Road improvement project.  However, they have some concerns about how the project will affect their driveway and their residence (which is a historically significant structure as evaluated by ODOT, located atop Rocky Knoll).  Their driveway cannot realistically be re-situated.  The City has taken account of this by identifying an exit onto Foothill Road from their driveway in the plans.  They will only have a right in/right out.  If an opportunity arises to develop a left-turn entry to their driveway, they would be grateful for the City’s assistance in making a shorter route possible.  They will need to maintain a safe entrance onto Foothill Road.  A small on-ramp of some kind would be important, given the fact their driveway exit is at the top of the small hill between McAndrews Road and Hillcrest. Their utilities are situated near the expansion.  Their large mailbox will need to be replaced.  When the irrigation ditch is piped, as shown in the plans, they will need a different system for pumping and ditch access.   
 
h. Mike Montero, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 202, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Montero is present tonight representing Cogswell Limited Partnership otherwise known as the Hillcrest property.  They want to offer commendations to the City particularly to the Public Works staff.  They have worked with them for approximately two years to coordinate the development of this project.  His clients recognize the regional import of this project.  This is not simply a Medford project.  It has incredible need across the Valley.  For that reason his client supports the project.  What the Commission has heard in regard to specific concerns, his client has some too, but they want to couch it by saying the following.  It is difficult to demand the kind of specificity they need when working from a 30% designed project.  Public Works has worked with his clients particularly with regard to the Foothills frontage along the west side on the south end of the project.  The Hillcrest family treasures the historic structures.  The trees are part of the historic register.  Navigating through this process with SHPO and ODOT are to be commended for the level of cooperation they made.  The family wants to retain ownership of the trees, manage and maintain those as part of their historic structure.  The area on the south side near the historic structures they have requested that the City of Medford work with their landscape architect, which they have agreed to do, on security fencing.  The family will continue to own and utilize those structures; and to have a landscape buffer.  They ask the Planning Commission acknowledge the commitment that City staff has made too allow them to submit the more specific landscape plans when they are available. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked Mr. Montero if protecting the trees in a permanent easement on the property is suitable to the people he represents?  Mr. Montero replied that it is.               
 
i. Judson Parsons, 124 Stark Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Parsons is a shareholder of Hillcrest Corporation and Cogswell.  He is only representing himself.  He strongly supports what Mr. Montero testified about the historic structures and maintaining the trees through an easement.  He pointed out that the power line is directly over the trees.  This presents a problem.  Any future trees should be shorter in height.  Eventually the trees will die.  At that time they will need to be replaced.  He strongly supports the relocation of the Medford Irrigation District canal as long as Rocky Knoll owners agree.  This will save water and maintenance for the Medford Irrigation District.  He pointed out that there is a driveway north of the present crossing of the canal at Foothill Road and McAndrews that they use to haul fruit out of the orchards in August and September.  Some arrangement will be needed to access that with their trucks.      
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked about Mr. Parsons’ concern about the access from the Hillcrest Orchards property onto Foothill Road.  Is that a similar situation on the east side of the road as the west?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that it would be a similar situation.  That section has a raised median.  All that will be negotiated as part of the right-of-way acquisition process.  They have been working with the property owners to ensure they will be able to minimize any impact to their property.  They also need to include farming operations as part of those impacts.  When they widen the road to the east and create a large fill section they need to make sure that there is room for farming vehicles to pass going north/south.  Public Works will work with the property owners on any access issues they have.  Anything above and beyond what is being proposed tonight, which there are none at this time, would have to be negotiated prior to the City Council meeting with the exception of farming access.  If it is only farming access, for a limited duration, the City creates a modified curb to drive over.  
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the mid access point planned for future roadways drops off in neighboring properties.  Could they block off that access point?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that he anticipates they will want to block off both sides, but have the ability to gate it in order to access as they need, but to protect their resources.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, does most of the section at the Hilltop property have a 6 foot wide median?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that it is a wall.  They will not be able to cross it. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, would it be possible to widen from the south the roadway approach and create an island for a left turn lane at that location?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that anything is possible.  The dilemma there is that the City would push out impacts further to the east and it would not be only the south.  They would have to make sure the receiving side on the north side tapers down or tapers for the midpoint access.  It is approximately 1000 feet.  It would be the same if the allowed a left in or full movement.    
 
Chair Miranda asked, what is the reasoning for the wall? Is it to stop the ingress and egress from those areas?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that they never want to stop ingress and egress.  It will limit the ingress and egress.  It has to do with the volume and regional significance of this roadway.  More importantly, the Transportation System Plan envisions major arterials have a raised median limiting access especially for residential.  There will be significant impacts to the orchards to the east as well as overall cost of the project.  It could be accommodated.     
 
Commissioner Pulver asked Vice Chair McFadden, is the turn lane and the median in relation to the designed access in the middle or is this a separate part?  Vice Chair McFadden stated that the width of the center turn lane is adequate for the proposed intersection.  He is thinking in terms for the house that the 6 foot wide section could be opened enough to give it a left turn lane.  The same is true for the 1570 Foothill Road property.  It would be nice to have extra room to swing trailers etc.  It seems to him that the impacts would warrant some type of flexibility in the design.  He does not think a left turn lane going north to the house on the hill takes 500 feet of slow down area requires that much distance.          
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the City accommodating the driveway for the Carpenter house or do they have to go to the new intersection being proposed?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that they will be accommodated.  It will be right in/right out.  All the driveways are shown on the plans.     
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the north pasture going to have access off of Foothill Road?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that is something over the next month before they go before the City Council they will discuss with them.  They are in a field section with a steep embankment.  He is not sure how they are currently using that.  Public Works will have to go out and evaluate it.  They will be working with the property owner to find a solution at that location.      
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that the median seems to be causing a lot of turmoil.  Is there a way to not build a wall and allow breaks for the different residences?  It is affecting five accesses for the Hillcrest Orchard and five homes.  Mr. Georgevitch reported that it is the City’s proposal based on safety and following the Code.  The Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council and how the City Council chooses to deal with that is a wait and see.  The dilemma is that the median currently takes up 6 feet.  Going to a raised median is 14 feet.  When reviewing the area instead of putting in a 14 foot median, if there is no access, they can reduce it to 6 feet.  They are trying to limit access onto a regionally significant facility that serves from Phoenix to Eagle Point.  The County has plans to take Foothill Road across Highway 140 at Atlantic with a roundabout at Highway 140 in White City.  This is a unique facility.           
 
Commissioner McManus stated that Mr. Georgevitch made a comment earlier that it is not orthodox to serve one residence at the signal.  If there was an option that the signal served the properties north of it by a parallel road to offer those lots a left out; would that be more reasonable to consider having not moving the driveway of the directly impacted lot?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that if there was a public facility on the opposite side of the signal that would be much more reasonable even if serving a small number of homes.  The dilemma is that the property at 1570 Foothill Road is directly impacted.  The properties to the north are not connected with the roadway and there are no easements that he is aware of that go across them.  The difficulty with creating an easement if they brought in a public right-of-way for a certain distance ends in a cul-de-sac or some other form of termination of a roadway.  There is no real way without being a significant impact.  He is not sure what a good balance is when they deal with single homes like this.  
 
Mr. Georgevitch addressed questions that were brought up earlier.  It was asked why Public Works is installing a traffic signal.  There was a traffic study done when Bella Vista to the east of this project off McAndrews was developed.  It showed both the ramp terminals were failing.  They were supposed to build the two signals.  They deposited money with Public Works and it is now up to the City to following through in building those.  There have been several other traffic analyses that have looked at these two intersections and have shown they are failing as well.  Through the Transportation System Plan they also are shown to be failing.  This is a typical higher order street to a higher order street connection.  This is a little unique because they are using the interchange. 
 
There was a concern about noise.  ODOT is their environmental consultant on this project.  They are doing a noise analysis.  If there is anything that comes out of that analysis they will have to mitigate that.  This is a full federalized project.  They are following all the environmental requirements that comes with a federal project.
 
There were several comments about access.  It is not an easy job the Planning Commission has.  Public Works struggles with making these decisions all the time.  They recognize they are impacting but they have to balance the needs of currently approximately 11,000 vehicles a day on Foothill Road.  They anticipate it to go to 18,000 in the near future.  In their recommendation they have to balance that over the needs of the individual driveways. 
 
There was a question about the Rubenstein’s driveway that they were going to make sure they used the terminal ramp but they were concerned about site distance.  Whenever Public Works puts in a driveway they will make sure it meets adequate site distance.  They will make sure there are adequate turning movements.          
 
Chair Miranda asked, will Foothill Road maintain the 45 miles per hour speed limit through the project area?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that speed limits are set by the State Speed Control Board.  When Public Works designs a facility they do 10 miles per hour over for their design parameters.  They are designing if for 55 miles per hour to maintain a 45 mile per hour speed zone.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is the median wall something he would see somewhere else in the community?  He is having a hard time visualizing the wall.  The concept baffles him.  Mr. Georgevitch reported that a typical location is approaching bridges on the right side of the road, not in the middle of the road.  One typically see these types of treatments on freeways with narrow medians and expressways.  Chair McFadden reported there is one on Highway 62 in front of Hubbard’s.     
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that the 6 foot median requires the wall.  The 14 foot does not.  Is that correct?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that there will be a standard 6 inch curb along the section that is needed.  Through design it could be as little as 2 feet on the left side of the driver as they are in a left turn lane or it could go up to 10 feet wide with 2 foot of shy distance on each side.
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that Cross Section “A” impacts the majority of the houses; all five of them.  One of the property owners is not here this evening.  There is representation for the cluster of three as well as 1570.  That section has a 14 foot median lane.  Why wouldn’t it be allowed to have a left/right across that median for those property owners that are clustered?  Commissioner McKechnie made a great comment about giving the one home a signal on the other side for any impending development.  It has to come before the Planning Commission for tentative plat and they could direct them to use that side of the signal.  Mr. Georgevitch reported that the median is not shown on Cross Section “A”.  There will be a 2 foot median on the left side of the driver widening out to 10 feet as they transition out of a left turn pocket south to go down to the concrete barrier.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, how long is that left turn lane going to be needed?  There is a long distance between the last driveway and going under the bridge getting to where they turn left.  Mr. Georgevitch stated there is a raised median through there.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, why can’t there be a break in the raised median?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that it comes down to strictly safety.  Making a left turn on a high speed, high volume facility on a new design Public Works would not promote that.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, is there any way around that?  They are currently going across the road now.  It is a county road.  By the City adopting it into the City we are not cutting off access but we are severely limiting access.  Mr. Georgevitch recommended that the Planning Commission make that recommendation to the City Council.  They are the deciding body this.  For the sake of the audience, he reminded everyone that tonight they are doing a recommendation to the City Council.  There will be another public hearing at Council and he wanted to make sure everyone understands that the Planning Commission does a great job of putting together a recommendation but individual concerns, even though City staff will be passing them on, it is important that everyone consider showing up again if they have strong concerns they want to share.                      
 
The Public Hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission finds the approval criteria is met and forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council with the exception of creating a cross intersection at the south McAndrews ramp light for TF-17-012, per the staff report dated May 4, 2017, including all conditions and exhibits. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie                    Seconded by: Vice Chair McFadden
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that they have heard Engineering’s presentation.  The Planning Commission can agree with it or they can try to change and approve it.  Whether or not the City Council will hear any of their recommendations will be up to staff unless a Commissioner goes and to the City Council hearing and testifies as a concerned citizen.  Commissioner McKechnie stated there needs to be some consideration for the property at 1570 Foothill Road. 
 
Friendly Amendment made by Vice Chair McFadden: The City install access points and/or internal roadways to maintain internal property accesses for properties on both sides of the road.  The City tires to find a way to widen the right-of-way to allow a turn lane into the home on the hill.  Leave the trees along the roadway on private property and in permanent easements as much as possible and not brought into the City right-of-way.  Minimize curbs and/or barricades beneath the McAndrews overpass to allow access to the homes on the east side.  That the blocking of the accesses at midpoint onto adjoining properties or properties across the street are accessible possible within the City.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he does not agree with Vice Chair McFadden.  It is his opinion that he had several that dealt with allowing left turns.  Does he understand that correctly?  Chair Miranda replied that is correct. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield reported that he disagrees with that and it should be voted on.  He would like to understand Commissioner McKechnie’s motion.  If he could explain that a little better so that he can understand it.  Does it also involve allowing some more left hand turns?  
 
Chair Miranda asked Commissioner McKechnie if he accepts Vice Chair McFadden’s friendly amendment.  Commissioner McKechnie replied no.
 
Commissioner McKechnie answered Commissioner Mansfield’s question stating that he is not convinced moving the driveway 90 to 120 feet south solves any kind of problem.  It is his opinion that it creates a problem for the current homeowners.  If they do a bulb-out like they have further down that bisects the two properties that allows access for 1570 Foothill Road and the other couple of homes so they can have one-way in and out.  It is signaled controlled.  It helps the homeowners for sure and the City as well.  That is already a highly traveled road and adding two more lanes it is going to be a very busy roadway.  It gives the rest of us some safety that they do not have someone pulling out with a 25 foot trailer.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that Commissioner McKechnie indicated that it is not going to harm the entire plan to change the access on the east side as requested by several citizens.  Before he can vote on it he would like to hear the Engineering staff argue for or against it.  Can they give the Planning Commission a presentation that would help him understand it a little better?  If it be true as Commissioner McKechnie concludes that it will not hurt their plan, he is all for it, for helping the people.  He understands that it is all tied up in safety.  He is not sure everyone is on board with the safety issue.  At least he respectfully disagrees with him.
 
Mr. Georgevitch reported that there might be ways to create a reasonable access across from the signal.  He does not know how much impact that will do to the property that slopes up the hill quickly.  Unfortunately for tonight’s recommendation moving forward he cannot do a design analysis but prior to the City Council hearing he definitely can do some design analysis to determine if it could safely be built and something that is palatable to the neighbors.  Keep in mind that whatever Public Works does has a potential to impact those properties and will become right-of-way and therefore setbacks, landscape buffers or public utilities are all built off right-of-way.  That is one of the benefits of using easements as opposed to right-of-way.  Without having time to be able to look at that and determine what a minimum safe stacking distance is and what it would take to operate a signal at the leg of it to make it work, he would need to do some analysis that he cannot do off the top of his head tonight.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that his point is if Engineering does not know at this point, he is not demeaning Engineering for not knowing it, he is simply being careful, then how can the Planning Commission possibly decide that from here?  They are not even experts.  It is his opinion that it is premature.  Commissioner McKechnie reported they are making a recommendation. Commissioner Mansfield does not think they have a sound foundation on which to make a recommendation and therefore, they should not be undercutting staff at this point.
 
Commissioner Foley asked Commissioner McKechnie is his recommendation specific or general that the City Council look at it as a potential?  He thinks that is something the Planning Commission could support without saying you should do this?  Commissioner McKechnie replied they are recommending.  The Planning Commission is not dictating they do that.  The Planning Commission is passing a recommendation to the City Council that it is important enough to be considered.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, is it in the form that the City Council take a look at it?  Chair Miranda replied yes.  It is a recommendation for the City Council to review this and Engineering review this as a potential solution.  Commissioner Mansfield stated that if it is worded that way, it is acceptable.
 
Chair Miranda stated they are flushing out issues so that the City Council can make an informed decision when it comes before them. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that roadways are not designed forever.  They adjust.  Since this project is getting federally funded through ODOT, how much of the curb lines, barricades, etc. are required by them and how much is the City’s addition?  That road does get a lot of traffic but there are times when there is not a lot of traffic. To pull in a trailer, cross the road into a driveway and roll over a curb to go into a field is still possible.  In the future they may change but that is the future and something they do not have current insight to.  Those conditions in the future may dictate that but he is not so sure they do now.
 
Mr. Georgevitch commented that federal requirements are not going to delve and tax. They will be more a City decision.  Through this entire process there is an exception process that allows taking exception to design standards if needed.  He does not say that is something the Planning Commission should use as a criteria to hold them back from making a recommendation.       
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that when he interviewed for the Planning Commission one of the questions he asked was how do they see the relationship between the City Council and Planning Commission? One of the Council members answered they do not have a relationship but then went further to say “nor should we”.  We should be independent bodies working independently.  He respects and understands that.  The sense that he gets is that there is some concern depending on what the forward on or regardless of what they forward Council is going to do what Council wants to do.  That is his personal opinion.  He recommends to the body that if there is a consensus that there are issues that the Planning Commission specifically wants them to look at, whether they make them, include them, or whatever or not, they are going to make that decision.  The Planning Commission should call those out.  He thinks Commissioner McKechnie was trying to do that at least with the one item he added to the recommendation.  They are working on a 30% plan now.  There are a lot of negotiations still to done between neighboring property owners.  There has to be some trust in that process.  If there are things the Planning Commission heard that they would like to accommodate or at least ask Public Works to take a further look at so they can specifically address those to Council, those should be sent to the City Council. 
 
Commissioner McManus commented that he agrees.  The City Council obviously serves the Planning Commission also as residents of Medford.  He hopes their informed decision is based off of recommending bodies.  Clarification of trying to iron out the issues would hopefully put weight on the decisions.  Is Commissioner McKechnie’s motion for staff’s request asking for the other option to be considered as the Planning Commission is not in favor their proposed move of the driveway?  Commissioner McKechnie stated yes, he thinks what he has offered is a better solution for that particular section of the roadway. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that Commissioner Pulver makes some good points.  All these options should go to the City Council.  The City Council is going to do what they want to do.  If the Planning Commission could have it set one way the City Council could strip down whatever the Planning Commission wants to have.  It is their latitude.  Commissioner Mansfield should reconsider Commissioner McFadden’s recommendations.  They are simply recommendations.  Commissioner Pulver brings it to light.  The City Council needs to know the Planning Commission had these discussions, it needs to be on record and they need to consider them.  Commissioner Mansfield respects Commissioner Culbertson’s right to have his view.  He simply does not agree with it.  He believes that minority views should be expressed so that the City Council knows that is in the package; it is part of the menu.  That is why he does not agree to go along with the majority.  He likes to be an opponent. 
 
Chair Miranda stated that the friendly amendment was rejected since there was no second. 
 
Mr. McConnell reported that there was a motion, second and then a friendly amendment.  Once a motion is seconded, whatever they are calling the friendly amendment, friendly or not, the body would vote on the proposed amendment.
 
Chair Miranda clarified that the Planning Commission would vote on the friendly amendment made by Commissioner McFadden and then the main motion made by Commissioner McKechnie.
 
Mr. McConnell stated that technically a friendly amendment is made before a second.  Once a second is made it becomes the body’s motion so the body decides.  It is really a motion to amend.
 
Chair Miranda asked Vice Chair McFadden to repeat his friendly amendment so that the Commission understands what they are voting on.
 
Friendly Amendment made by Vice Chair McFadden: The City install access points and/or internal roadways to maintain internal property accesses for properties on both sides of the road.  The City tries to find a way to widen the right-of-way to allow a turn lane into the home on the hill.  Leave the trees along the roadway on private property and in permanent easements as much as possible and not brought into the City right-of-way.  Minimize curbs and/or barricades beneath the McAndrews overpass to allow access to the homes on the east side.  That the blocking of the accesses at midpoint onto adjoining properties or properties across the street are accessible possible within the City.        
                                      
Roll Call Vote on the friendly amendment: Motion failed, 3-6, with Commissioner Foley, Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner McKechnie, Commissioner McManus, Commissioner Poythress and Commissioner Pulver voting no.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that he voted no because of the specificity.  It is a bit of give and take. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that his friendly amendment is a recommendation.  It is just saying the City should consider it.  The engineers can figure it out if they get told to do it. 
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that he thinks the people that purchased the Carpenter house specifically requested consideration of a left turn going north.  The byproduct of that may be the right-of-way be expanded then it may impact the Hillcrest Orchard property or the Rocky Knoll people.  One thing changes other things so it is a give and take.  He would be more supportive of something that says the Planning Commission forwards a favorable recommendation with specific property owners being able to request additional accesses and allowing Public Works to consider them and outline the effects of those in front of the City Council so that the City Council could have a more complete picture when making a final decision.  The Planning Commission has heard from a lot of people that would like additional or different accesses.  He fully appreciates that.  He thinks Public Works may not have known about some of them; specifically the pastureland.
 
Chair Miranda stated that the Planning Commission can vote on the main motion and then make an amendment to that motion if they feel it necessary.
 
Commissioner Mansfield responded to Commissioner Pulver’s comment stating that is always available.  They do not have to put it in a motion.  It is simply true that anyone can apply for another access and the City can grant it if they see fit. 
 
Commissioner Pulver’s concerns is that there is some sympathy in the Planning Commission to some of the concerns raised by the private citizens in regards to access.  Hopefully the audience will come back and testify at the City Council hearing.  If the City Council was provided with a more complete picture they would be able to make a better decision.  He does not think the Planning Commission has a complete picture to make a good decision and frankly he does not know Public Works does either in some of the specific requests. 
 
Commissioner Foley echoed Commissioner Pulver’s comments.  His issue is with the specificity.  The Planning Commission wants to raise concerns that the citizens brought tonight and make sure that City Council looks at all the alternative accesses.
 
The main motion is: The Planning Commission finds the approval criteria is met and forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council with the exception of creating a cross intersection at the south McAndrews ramp stop light for TF-17-012, per the staff report dated May 4, 2017, including all conditions and exhibits.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that motion does not satisfy him.  He thought it was a “look see” but he did not hear that in the motion.  It is a requirement that he objects to.
 
Commissioner McKechnie reported that it is a recommendation.
 
Commissioner Mansfield is satisfied with the recommendation.   
 
Roll Call Vote for the main motion:   Motion passed, 8-1, with Commissioner Culbertson voting no. 
 
Amend the main motion: To include additional recommendation that the City Council consider additional access points for neighboring residences and the impact to the overall plan. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Commissioner Mansfield understands the motion and argues against it.  As he has mentioned before that permission already exists.  The City has eminent power to do that.  He believes the plan that the engineers have put together is designed to create the greatest amount of safety.  He is sorry there is some inconvenience to property owners but that is part of the risks of life.  He would rather save the lives of the people that are going to be saved from left turns than suffer the somewhat serious inconveniences to these people.  He feels sorry that is going to be happening.  In the age of automobiles that is part of the cost of an automobile society.     
 
Commissioner McManus wanted clarification that the amendment Commissioner Pulver is asking is basically to reconsider the motion that passed with his amendment.  Commissioner Pulver stated it is the intent of an addition.
 
Chair Miranda reported it is a modification of the friendly amendment that failed. 
 
Commissioner Foley stated that it is asking for additional consideration of other potential accesses.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated to Commissioner Pulver that Commissioner Mansfield feels that this was a left turn issue.  He did not hear that in Commissioner Pulver’s motion.  He thought he was looking at just access points.  Commissioner Pulver reported that getting everything on the table is the reality of it.  Commissioner Mansfield’s concerns are legitimate.  In the case of the home on the hill that has a right in/right out access.  If they want to pursue an additional access like the left turn from the north that would be a left turn across traffic. 
 
 Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-1, with Commissioner Mansfield voting no.
 
Commissioner Poythress stated that he wants the record to show that he does not consider where a citizen is forced to reengineer their entire property is simply an inconvenience mandated from the City Council as they consider this recommendation.  His strongest recommendation is that the City finds an alternative than force the Reen family to restructure their entire property.                    
 
The Planning Commission took a ten minute recess.  They reconvened at 8:34 p.m.
 
Commissioner McKechnie left the meeting during the recess.
 
50.3 LDS-16-152 / ZC-17-037 Consideration of Lilybrook, a 14 lot residential subdivision on a 1.64 acre parcel located on the northeast corner of Agate Street and Hart Avenue within the SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district, and a zone change from SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, 10 dwelling units per gross acre) to SFR-00 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per existing lot) on a 1,334 square foot strip of land located on the north side of Agate Street approximately 200 feet east of Hart Avenue (Tax Lots 382W01AB 700 & 800). (Clyde Akins, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd./Mike Savage, 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, reported that the project originally included a zone change.  However, they discovered there was a mapping error.  The zone of the adjacent property was rezoned in 2007 to SFR-10.  Therefore, the zone change is not necessary for the property line adjustment that the staff report spoke to.  This presentation will only address the land division.   Ms. Conner stated that the land division approval criteria are found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.270.  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. 
 
The property owner at 808 Agate Street submitted a letter to the Planning Department late last night.  This will be entered into the record as Exhibit W.  The letter was emailed to the Planning Commissioners.  The property owner approves the subdivision as long as the contract agreement between the two property owners are upheld.  Ms. Conner deferred further comments of the agreement to the applicant’s agent.
 
The agent for CSA Planning Ltd., Mike Savage, submitted additional information including the withdrawal of the zone change application.  The information revises the tentative plat boundary description.  Ms. Conner deferred further comments of that information to the applicant’s agent.  The information will be entered into the record as Exhibit X.  The information was emailed to the Commissioners.
 
Ms. Conner gave a staff report.
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Mike Savage, CSA Planning, Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Savage reported that initially they were relying of the City’s zoning map that had an error that reflected the property to the east as being SFR-00.  In order to overcome obstacles related to storm drainage the clients worked out an agreement with the neighbor to the east in exchange for an easement to allow storm drainage to go through their property.  They agreed to do a property line adjustment.  After the fact they realized the development code stated that one cannot do a property line adjustment across different zones.  The solution was to propose a zone change of a portion of the applicant’s property to match the SFR-00.  They realize now it is SFR-10. That is the reason for the withdrawal of the zone change.
 
Staff mentioned there was a letter submitted to the record by the owner of the adjacent property for which they have an agreement for a property line adjustment.  There is a legitimate misunderstanding between both parties.  The neighbor believed he was getting a little more land than initially thought.  Mr. Savage went back and reviewed the contract and he was correct.  They have updated the property line adjustment plan to reflect the additional acreage that he originally believed to be getting.  That had the effect of doing some minor changes to the subdivision plat.
 
Mr. Savage spoke with neighbors to the west of Hart Avenue.  There are people in the audience that built a shop unknowingly close to the right-of-way line.  The applicant is obligated to improve Hart Street half plus twelve.  They will not be interfering with the existing shop that would put the applicant 3 feet off the shop.  The Code allows half plus eight under certain circumstances.  The applicant requests they build half plus eight to give them some buffer room behind the shop.  He understands the Planning Commission is not obligated to do so but it would be neighborly to do until such time they are ready to do whatever they are going to do with their property.         
                                 
Mr. Savage reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Jed Remy, 2091 S. Peach Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Remy reported he is the property owner that the property line expansion appears to go to the back of the shop.  He has had the property three years.  Had the building permitted and built with all the inspections and approvals.  The existing fence line and property line were there since 1975.  Any consideration in giving him a little buffer would be appreciated.  They currently have approximately 10 to 11 feet behind the shop to the existing fence.  
 
Mr. Georgevitch reported that he is not sure how much of an impact the request for half plus eight would be.  It is something they may be able to accommodate through the engineering drawing process.  There will be transitions on both sides.  He does not know how much it would be impacted.  Without taking a good analysis of it he cannot say they are supportive or not.  It is allowed in the Code under certain circumstances but that is typically when right-of-way is restricted not when there is adequate right-of-way.  He is not for or against it.  
 
Commissioner Pulver asked Mr. Georgevitch, are there other alternatives.  It just seems like an unfortunate circumstance where there is newly constructed improvements that may or may not be in the right place.  The road will eventually go somewhere.  Mr. Georgevitch reported that it will serve the new development.  An important question to ask is how the Fire Department would respond to this as well because it may be a primary access point.  He recommends that they include the Fire Department in this.  He is not sure, if he understood the applicant correctly it is not in the right-of-way.  It is just close to the right-of-way.  He wants to make sure it does not cause any issues for the traveling public between 8 and 12.  If it is 8 entirely it would be one response.  It if it is 12 it would be an entirely different response. Wanting it across the frontage of the shed is a different response.  It is a response that he cannot respond to looking at the aerial quickly.    
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is the half street twenty?  Mr. Georgevitch stated it is half plus eight.  If doing eight, there will be no parking on the east side if the west side is 8 feet.  If it is half plus twelve, there is parking on the east side and the west side allows a travel lane.    
               
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal, reported that there were requirements for some of the streets of no parking on one side.  The fire code requires 20 feet.  If that is reduced there has to be parking restrictions. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, would Mr. Kleinberg be agreeable to just doing the restriction only at the shop? In the Fire Department staff report it states: “Parking shall be posted as prohibited along both sides of Hart Avenue until the street is fully improved.  Parking shall be posted as prohibited along one side of Lilybrook Lane.  Parking shall be posted as prohibited along the narrow part of the minimum access driveway for lot #6.”       
 
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-16-152 per the staff report dated May 4, 2017, including Exhibits A through X, and striking the first paragraph of the applicant’s findings under Criterion 1 on page 113 of the agenda packet and allowing for a half street plus eight development the length of Hart Street. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, May 5, 2017.  The meeting was approximately 7 minutes.  They had one item that was a continuance.   
           
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver, reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met since the last meeting.
                                   
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, welcomed the new Planning Commissioner, Alex Poythress. 
 
The next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, May 22, 2017.  There is no business at this time but staff will keep the Commissioner’s informed. 
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, May 25, 2017 Thursday, June 8, 2017, and Thursday, June 22, 2017. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, when will the Planning Commission see larger projects?  Ms. Akin replied, shortly.  There is one land division.  It is approximately 150 to 180 units.  The Commission should see that in approximately six to eight weeks.  There are several Planned Unit Development revisions.
 
At the next City Council meeting they will be deciding on allowing marijuana production in the heavy commercial zoning district. 
 
Several weeks back Ms. Akin reported that the Urban Growth Boundary hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, May 17, 2017.  Staff has requested a continuance because one of the County Commissioners is unable to attend that meeting.  Staff wants to make sure all three are in attendance.  It will probably be heard in June.
 
There is an OAP Conference in Eugene next Thursday.  It is geared for Planning Commissioners.  If anyone is interested please let staff know.       
                      
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair. 
70.1        Chair Miranda stated that he will not be in attendance at the Thursday, June 8, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.  He will follow-up with an email.
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None.
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
 
Submitted by:
  
Terri L. Rozzana                                                                                 a
Recording Secretary                                                                      
 
Patrick Miranda
Planning Commission Chair
 
Approved: May 25, 2017
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top