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


Agenda & Minutes

When available, the full agenda packet may be viewed as a PDF file by clicking the "Attachments" button and selecting the file you want to view.

Agendas are posted until the meeting date takes place.  Minutes are posted once they have been approved.

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes

Thursday, June 22, 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
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
Jared Pulver
Commissioners Absent
Mark McKechnie, Excused Absence       
David Culbertson, Excused Absence
Staff Present
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
John Wilcox, Engineering Tech III
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Praline McCormack, Planner II
Liz Conner, Planner II
10.          Roll Call
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 LDS-16-090 / E-16-091 Consideration of request to allow a five year expiration period for Delta Estates Subdivision Phases 2 – 5, a 93-lot residential subdivision on 22.34 acres and the associated Exception requests seeking relief to planter strip requirements and street spacing.  The subject site is located east of the terminus of Owen Drive and north of the terminus of Cheltenham Way. (Hayden Homes LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd/Jay Harland, 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 June 8, 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 CUP-17-053 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a new 10-12 foot wide pedestrian/bike path known as Larson Creek Trail Segment II between Black Oak Drive and Ellendale Drive within the Larson Creek Riparian Corridor. Project to include two pedestrian bridges, fence relocation and improvements spanning approximately 7.32 acres zoned SFR-4, SFR-6, MFR-20 and C-C (Single-Family Residential, 4 dwelling units per gross acre, 6 dwelling units per gross acre, Multi-Family Residential, 20 dwelling units per gross acre and Community Commercial) (371W32AA, portions of Tax Lots 200, 300, 400 and 500 and 371W32AB, portions of Tax Lots 3100, 1100 and 3000). (Medford Public Works, Applicant; Richard Stevens & Associates, Agent)
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner McManus disclosed that his spouse’s employer, Pacific Retirement Services, has property in the subject area of Larson Creek Corridor.  He does not think he has a potential conflict so he thinks he could still do his role in participating in discussions and make an impartial decision and vote.
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
Praline McCormack, Planner II, read the conditional use permit approval criteria and gave a staff report.  Ms. McCormack reviewed Medford Land Development Code Section 10.920 Purpose of Riparian Corridors.
Commissioner Pulver asked, when discussing path width, is that the paved portion and the gravel on the exterior is not included?  Ms. McCormack stated that is correct.
The Public Hearing was opened.
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501-0168.  Mr. Stevens reported that he was present tonight representing the applicant on this application for a conditional use permit which is the Medford Public Works Department. It is for a portion of the Larson Creek Trail identified as Segment 2.  Segment 1 has been completed west of Ellendale to Highland Avenue.  This proposal is in the public interest and what the Planning Commission is here tonight is to balance between the two conflicting uses of the pathway within the Riparian Corridor and what mitigation measures are to be mitigated for that.  This is a public facility for a need of a pathway and bike lane from Ellendale to Black Oak Drive.  Staff has determined that this proposal complies with Criterion 2.  It is also compliant with the Environmental Element, Transportation Element and the Parks and Recreation Leisure Plan.  These are all plans that are in the Comprehensive Plan of Medford which is the guiding document to propose these types of projects and also the land development ordinance.  Staff has also determined that this application meets all three purpose statements within Section 10.249 of Medford Land Development Code.  They did delineation and identified wetlands that will have to be mitigated.  They will be part of the plan once they get under construction.  Part of the proposal with Segment 2 is how the applicant is going to enhance and restore the creek with native grasses with density that will filter some of the runoff water into the creek.  There is five year maintenance for the new plantings to ensure they get established.  This is in the public interest for creating an additional avenue to safely get from Ellendale to Black Oak Drive without having to use Barnett Road.         
Commissioner Pulver stated that it does not sound like there is anything being proposed for residential buffering.  Mr. Stevens deferred the statement to the applicant.
Mr. Stevens reserved rebuttal time. 
Alex Georgevitch, Public Works, responded to Commissioner Pulver’s statement stating that they have not currently put any plans in place for any type of treatment for adjoining properties.  They will do that through project negotiations for any easements, etc.  There are some properties that they have to negotiate with.  The apartments closest to Ellendale have concerns that they will be negotiating easements of some form with them and most likely some form of mitigation for the trail being next to them.  They are not proposing anything at this time.      
Commissioner Pulver asked, is lighting common on sections of the greenway like this?  Mr. Georgevitch deferred the question to the Parks and Recreation Department but there was no representation but generally speaking they have not seen those and they are not proposing any.  They did not install lighting on Segment 1 and he is not sure if there is any lighting along the Bear Creek Greenway.  Public Works is building the facility and the Parks and Recreation Department will be taking it over for operations and maintenance.  If there is a desire or requirement of the Leisure Services Plan (which he does not think there is) then they would work with the Parks and Recreation Department to provide that.  He does not think there has been any discussion with homeowners. 
Commissioner Pulver asked, are there hours on the paths like a typical park and is the paths monitored by the Medford Police Department or like body?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that he would have to defer the question to the Parks and Recreation Department on the operations of the facility.          
b. Larry Irwin, 1531 Stardust Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Irwin reported that he is a member of the Knights of Columbus.  They own 350 feet of the parkway.  They have been in their location since 1962.  They have used the facility for meetings and for family gatherings.  The Knights of Columbus agreed to the pathway approximately ten years ago.  They have not yet had anyone come back and speak to them about what is going to happen to their property.  They have concerns that they need to try and resolve.  One is the detailed path plan.  They will be losing approximately 350 feet of creek frontage.  They need to know what perimeter the path will take because some of their property is almost 30 feet wide full of Himalayan fruit trees.  The second concern is parking.  They have a partial paved parking lot and the other part of the walkway across from them.  They are worried they will lose part of their parking.  The other concern is that the parking lot is right next to the trail.  Will trail headers all of a sudden find that it is there and start parking?  The third concern is fencing.  They currently have a patio area in back next to the creek.  It is fenced to keep their children in and others out.  They would like to keep this area to be re-fenced with an 8-foot chain-linked fence replacing their current fence approximately 150 feet.  He does not know what their liability will be.  What additional restrictions will be placed on the property and building?  There have been issues with transients using their property.  They fear the pathway will increase the incidents.  They are behind the project.  They currently clean the creek parkway from the ball park to roughly the Black Bear Diner approximately a mile and a quarter.  They would love to have someone come talk to them.           
c. Judy Kimmons, 756 Hilldale Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Kimmons stated that she is a Board member of Hilldale Estates.  Hilldale Estates is a 55 and older community.  Ms. Kimmons has four main concerns regarding the proposed path: 1) Property values, 2) Safety, 3) Security and privacy, and 4) Wet area.  Unit 740 on the west side of the development has had to put a sump pump under their home because of water in the crawl space.  This sump pump runs pretty much all the time.  This would impact the integrity of the path and cause icy areas in the winter.  If the path has to be built, they would like it narrowed to 10 feet, which is consistent with other paths.  To keep them safe, they would need to have the path moved further away from their homes and some kind of a barrier or hedge put between the path and their back doors.
d. Roger Sayre, 740 Hilldale Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sayre is concerned that the proposed trail is too close to their homes for the comfort of either the residents or trail users.  He believes that the trail as proposed will have significantly adverse impact on the livability and value of the homes in Hilldale Estates.  The Hilldale Estates Homeowners requested: 1) To reduce the trail width from 12 feet to 10 feet; 2) Provide 10 feet minimum rear yard width between rear wall of residences and proposed trail; and 3) Provide visual screening between residences and the trail.   
e. Jon Jalai, 744 Hilldale Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Jalai suggested making the trail 10 feet instead of the 12 feet.  He would like a barrier so that people cannot look right into his living room. 
f. Mark Knox, 485 West Nevada Street, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  Mr. Knox is a land use planner and an occasional bike rider.  He uses the Bear Creek Greenway for recreational use and he supports the Public Works application to extend the Larson Creek Trail between Black Oak and Ellendale.  He is also a Bear Creek Greenway Foundation member.  It is his opinion that the applicant has provided findings of fact including multiple exhibits from the natural resource professionals and civil engineers that explain and illustrate how the proposed path meets the conditional use permit criteria.   
g. Karol Mak, 755 Hilldale Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504 and Joan Kennedy, 757 Hilldale Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Mak reported that they have had multiple calls to the police for incidents of camping in the wetlands area.  They have worked with St. Mary’s to help them patrol the area and keep it clean.  She is not against the path but they want it to be safe.  She does not know if there will be a group that will work with the property owners on some of their issues.  She has not heard much about the buffering for the residences.  She has more questions than answers. 
Chair Miranda reported that the purpose of the meeting tonight is to bring those questions to the Planning Commission and staff.  It is not necessarily to address those questions tonight.  The Planning Commission is not in a position to do that.
Ms. Mak requested that there be some sort of forum working with the residents on what is going to be possible.  Not just implemented without some input from them.  She has concerns with fires in that area and transients.  She suggested a double fence.  Fencing protecting St. Mary’s property from camping and a fence that protects her property from accessibility.         
h. David Jordan, 1166 Todd Circle, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Jordan stated that he is an east Medford resident and a Bear Creek Greenway Foundation board member.  He focused his comments as a private citizen and a regular bike commuter to work.  He works in the Larson Creek shopping center off Barnett and North Phoenix Road.  Currently, any type of east/west travel that he does down to the Bear Creek Greenway requires him to go west on Juanipero.  At some point he has to cross and navigate Barnett Avenue to Siskiyou and has another challenge getting around the roundabout.  The second phase of the Larson Creek trail would get them closer to North Phoenix Road and would allow direct access to Bear Greek Greenway.  Also, it increases the safety component to his commute.      
i. Lee Mills, 5629 Fallbrook Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Mills supports the path.  It is a good thing for the City of Medford.  It would be a huge benefit to the public approving this application.  As a taxpayer he would appreciate it if the grant was not lost.  These are not easy to get.  In the future they may be harder to get.  The elimination of the blackberry bushes will help safety.  The more people using the pathway legitimately makes for a much safer environment.  It is a huge issue for public health for people wanting to get out and walk or cycle.     
j. Fred Smith, 750 Hilldale Avenue, Medford Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Smith is the President of the Hilldale Estates Homeowners Association.  He thinks the trail is a beautiful thing.  He bikes and it would be beneficial to them because they would be right next door to it.  However, the path is right in their backyard.  They have no room to move back there.  That is wrong.  There has to be some kind of compromise on the 10 foot trail and the 10 foot easement.  The problem they have is their property line.  When the properties were built they were put right on the property line going north.  They are constricted because of the golf course.   
Mr.  Georgevitch reported that the Larson Creek Trail has been around prior to 2003.  That was the adoption of the Transportation System Plan when it became a Public Works facility as opposed to a multi-use path.  There was already a phase built east of here off Creek View just west of North Phoenix Road well before that.
There have been a lot of concerns of the proximity of this path to the property owners of Hilldale Estates.  It is a very challenging situation.  The homeowners have a lot of concerns. 
The City Council dealt with this issue several years ago.  There is an easement that has been in place for years.  It was obtained through the Rogue Valley Manor.  When this issue came to light when they were doing work on the overall master plan the City Council heard from members of Hilldale Estates and weighed in on how to deal with this.  They gave Public Works clear direction to work with the Manor.  Public Works obtained an additional 5 to 7 foot easement to move south which unfortunately puts it where they see in the photos presented this evening.  That was the limits Public Works was given and the Manor is not willing to give Public Works any additional land and the City Council was not willing to condemn.  They have an easement and condemnation process would be difficult because they already have an easement in place. 
There was a request wanting a forum to discuss impacts.  Public Works had multiple open houses on this.  It has been a while and obviously homeowners come and go through neighborhoods but Public Works had the outreach.  They can still work with neighbors anytime they have situations where Public Works is going to be obtaining right-of-way.  It will be a negotiation process.  The Knights of Columbus mentioned that Public Works had not been out there to speak to them.  Public Works wants to start their discussions as early as possible.  They did participate in the open house along with the Manor and several residents years ago.  They will begin their final plans and negotiations once they get through the approval process and any conditions.  They want to work with the community members because they are employed for their benefit.
There have been several issues of wanting to discuss the reduction of the path down to 10 feet.  The grant currently states that Public Works will build this to a 12 foot width.  If this can be approved tonight knowing Public Works will work with Oregon Department of Transportation with their grant to see if they can reduce the width in certain areas down to 10 feet.  Public Works is not opposed to it.  They are trying to build to the standards that are required under the Oregon Bike and Pedestrian Plan and the AASHTO Bike and Pedestrian Guidelines.  Right now they are locked it at 12 feet.  He believes they will be able to reduce the width where there are environmental concerns.  He also thinks the Hilldale Estates has a compelling argument to at least reduce it.  He does not think they will be able to meet the 10 foot setback and make this work.  Public Works can work with them with fencing and other screening. 
There was a request to lower below grade.  Public Works does not have final design.  Right now there is no way to get water out of there with the current grade.  They have already lowered it between 1 and 2 feet.  The current preliminary design has it between 1 and 2 feet.  This is from surveyed grade data.  Public Works is comfortable with that number. It is going to be a challenge to get storm drain water to flow east or west. 
There was discussion on what type of restrictions there would be on use and building by the Knights of Columbus representation.  There would be no impacts that he is aware of.  He would also want planning staff to discuss this but it is his understanding that if this puts it into a nonconforming use it would still be permitted and they would be able to maintain whatever they have there.  He is not aware of any setbacks to the bike paths.
The Knights of Columbus representation mentioned their fencing.  If Public Works moves any fencing along the entire project they would replace or pay for damages and let the property owner replace the fence in kind or however they see fit. 
There were concerns of safety.  Unfortunately they are broad reaching.  It is not part of the criteria for a conditional use permit in a Riparian corridor in his opinion.  He understands they are real concerns by the neighbors.  As stated by some testimonies in support of the project there is a good chance safety could be increased because they are going to clean out blackberry bushes and other types of plants that are not native that provide shelter.  They will be planting a significant amount of new native plantings in certain areas along St. Mary’s and potentially on the north side of the creek along Superior.  They will work with property owners to replant along the creek.  They plan on working with the Parks and Recreation Department because the will be operating and maintaining the area for five years as required by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Public Works will pay a consultant to be hired by the Parks and Recreation Department to create a plan that will be satisfactory to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.                       
Commissioner McManus asked, when referring to the Parks and Recreation Department being responsible for a maintenance program, would that be an appropriate forum if some of the neighbors wanted to address somehow integrating issues in that maintenance program?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that he does not want to make any promises for the Parks and Recreation Department.  Public Works will be working with the Parks and Recreation Department to hire a consultant.  They could do an outreach and provide an opportunity for the neighborhood to comment on any restoration plan in the area.  They are limiting those because of access to the restoration area because this is a long linear path of 3,500 feet.  They are not planning on doing restoration the entire way.  About a third of the area is not inside the Riparian area.  Two-thirds that is in the Riparian area there will be some form of mitigation and they will cluster the mitigation around St. Mary’s.           
Vice Chair McFadden stated that money has been secured or looks like money will be secured.  He is surprised that the project does not seem to have moved over the years.  It seems to him there is a plan but it is kind of nebulous and there is a lot of room for flexibility once it is funded and goes through other hoops.  He has a tendency to feel often things get locked in as soon as paper and pencil are put together saying this is what you are getting.  He gets nervous about changes to the plan.  Is he reacting to this too negatively?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that Public Works secured funding years ago.  They are a year behind on this project due to the work they have been doing over the last year and half or two years.  They have been doing environmental work and preliminary layouts.  They realized early on they would need to cross the creek with structures up to three.  Eventually they got it reduced to two because of the work they had done with some property owners off Ellendale.  They had a floodplain issue through the area.  Bridges cannot be designed until they get their 100 year floodplain established.  There has been a tremendous amount of work.  They will be over budget because the work is extensive and expensive.  Through all that they have had a preliminary design.  A path is not like a roadway system.  It does not require the same approval process.  There is a lot that is locked in on the plan they see today.  They could be turned into construction plans quickly.  They recognize they are at the mercy of the Planning Commission for the future conditions. Public Works will always try to minimize impacts to the surrounding community.           
Chair Miranda asked, how far into the Riparian Corridor are they now in relation to the residents at Hilldale?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that the apartments east of Ellendale are close to the 50 foot setback which pushes them to the 25 foot setback in some areas.  There is a portion of this that falls outside the Riparian setbacks.  There is no creek along Hilldale.  Public Works has approximately 60% of the path in the Riparian setback that can be as little as a foot all the up to fully encroaching into the 25 foot setback. There are some areas that are very tight east of Superior.  There is a 10 foot easement from the Manor.  The dilemma is the Manor installed a fence on the easement line not on their property line.  This created a false understanding where that property line is for Hilldale Estates.  Their property line is approximately a foot off several of their rear porches.  Public Works easement starts from there and goes to the fence.  The City Council negotiated with the Manor and came up with the final decision to move it a certain distance south.  He does not know the exact number.          
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that one of the speakers brought up Section 10.712 which is the development standards for townhouse units.  It does require a 10 foot setback for the buildings but not for the pathway.  There is not a setback requirement for the path. 
Mr. Georgevitch brought up a question about nonconformities and whether or not this project would render properties nonconforming.  When in a nonconforming status it means that one was legally established and then something happened.  In this case if they took required parking then that property would become nonconforming.  It does not mean the use has to stop.  It just means it no longer meets the standard of the code because the City changed something.
Ms. Akin stated that there were several speakers that showed items on the ELMO.  Staff needs to capture those for the record and would they please deliver those or she would pick them up.            
The Public Hearing was closed.
Vice Chair McFadden stated that from what he has heard tonight he feels comfortable with the plan the way it is.  Does the Planning Commission start with a general motion and amend it as various members feel appropriate?  What is the best way to handle this?  Mr. McConnell reported that he tries to stay away from getting too technical on Robert’s Rules and how to do things.  Usually a motion is made and seconded it becomes the body’s motion.  Any changes would be voted on by the Commission as an amendment instead of a friendly amendment.  Technically, friendly amendments have to come before a second.  As long as the Commission understands what they are doing is fine.  He leaves it to the Planning Commission to come up with a motion and decide this issue properly.     
Commissioner Foley stated that he would like the Planning Commission to request that there be mitigation in place for fencing or vegetation between the path and property line. 
Commissioner Mansfield suggested that a flat motion be made and then various Commissioners want as much mitigation as they can get by making amendments to the motion. 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the Findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of CUP-17-053, per the Staff Report dated June 13, 2017, including Exhibits A through W. 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
Amended Motion:  The Planning Commission recommends that the City through the City Council and Public Works Department try to enhance and protect the privacy of the homeowners along the route by a mutual agreeable solution during the project.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
Commissioner Pulver stated that if the Planning Commission is going to approve this based on Criterion 2 either they are saying the City or applicant has taken sufficient steps to mitigate the impacts to the neighboring properties or the Planning Commission needs to do that.  He believes that is what they are being tasked to do.
Commissioner Pulver has discomfort with a lack of commentary from the Parks and Recreation Department given that they are going to manage this facility.  His impression of the Greenway is far removed from residential.  Not nearly as close as this particular facility is to some residents.  Some of the Greenway’s problem with vagrants, safety, etc. have been well publicized.  He thinks those are valid concerns with these residents.  It is important to understand how the Parks and Recreation Department either directly or through the use of the Medford Police Department are going to maintain the safety and usability of this path both for the people using the path as well and the neighboring property owners.
Commissioner Mansfield stated that those concerns can be done procedurally by the various amendments he thinks some of the Commissioners are going to propose.  He suggested voting on Vice Chair McFadden’s amendment and he presumes the floor will be open again for other amendments.
Mr. McConnell addressed Commissioner Pulver’s concerns stating this body has the ability to impose conditions on the conditional use permit per Code Section 10.248.  If he wants to impose conditions to minimize adverse impacts that can be done then this body can clearly do so.
Commissioner Foley requested to hear the amendment again. 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the gist of it is that the Planning Commission is directing staff to do what they can and maybe whatever it takes to ensure privacy for the homeowners most concerned of their privacy.  He hopes that the City contact the people who spoke tonight addressing their concerns.
Commissioner Mansfield summarized Vice Chair McFadden’s amendment if enacted is to require staff to do all they can in terms of privacy.
Commissioner Pulver has discomfort with the amendment.  Not the spirit of it but it is important that some boundaries be put on it.  He finds it difficult to be concrete that the City do whatever it takes to ensure privacy.
Mr. McConnell reported that his understanding of Oregon land use law is that may be deemed aspirational.  When you have a good faith type condition of approval it may not be enforceable if someone attempted to have it enforced on appeal. 
Commissioner Mansfield urged the Planning Commission to vote in favor of the motion and do it soon.
Commissioner Foley asked, is aspirational good or bad from the Planning Commission perspective?  Mr. McConnell stated he considers it good.  It may not be an enforceable condition.                      
Roll Call Vote on the Amended Motion: Motion passed, 6-1, with Commissioner Pulver voting no. 
Second Amended Motion:  Direct staff to take as much steps as they are able to from a standpoint of being directed by the State as to the width of the path reducing it to 10 feet where possible.   
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Vice Chair McFadden
Roll Call Vote on the Second Amended Motion: Motion passed, 6-1, with Commissioner Pulver voting no.
Roll Call Vote on the Main Motion:  Motion passed, 7-0.   
50.2 LDS-17-051 / E-17-052 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval for Summerfield at Southeast Park Phases 16 through 21, a 138-lot residential subdivision on approximately 96 acres located south of Cherry Lane and east of Lone Oak Drive within an SFR-4/SE (Single Family Residential-4 units per acre/Southeast Overlay) zoning district. The request includes an Exception to the standards for the permitted length of a residential lane. (Crystal Springs Development Group, Applicant; Neathamer Surveying, Inc., Agent)
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner Poythress disclosed that one of his companies is doing some marketing consulting for Neathamer Surveying, Inc. He does not believe that imposes conflict of interest.
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 under the conditions of approval, page 143 of the agenda packet, condition 12 has dates that are wrong; 12a should be the Public Works Department Report was received on June 12, 2017, 12b should be the Medford Water Commission report was received June 8, 2017 and the Medford Fire Department report was received May 31, 2017.  The exhibits have them listed as the correct date they were received.  The land division approval criteria are found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.270.  The exception approval criteria are found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.253.  The applicable criteria were included in the staff report, property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report.
The Public Hearing was opened.
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, Inc., 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer reported that Mr. Randy Jones from Crystal Springs Development Group was in the audience that would be able to answer questions that he may not be able to.
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is there parking on the lane, one side parking or no parking?  Mr. Neathamer reported that design allows parking on one side.  The idea is to park on the same side as the sidewalk which will be along the greenway side. 
Mr. Neathamer requested rebuttal time if necessary. 
b. Michael Vernier, 3955 Calle Vista Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Vernier testified that he believes there is an assumption in the neighborhood circulation plan for which there is no reason to believe it will be satisfied on any particular specific time frame.  That situation may present a potential public safety issue.  The assumption is contemplated as Shamrock Drive would provide direct access from North Phoenix Road to the portion of the proposal currently under review tonight.  That is the southern and eastern portion of the proposed plat as well as the southern end of the development currently underway south of Sun Leaf which is not on the agenda tonight.  Shamrock Drive from North Phoenix Road is not a developed street.  It consists of what is effectively a driveway that terminates.  Shamrock Drive continues as has been built out and into the subdivision but there is a barrier that prevents people from going through Shamrock Drive.  Direct access is not available from North Phoenix Road.  He thinks this is first and foremost a public safety issue for emergency vehicle access and resident access and egress in an event of an emergency; fire, flood i.e. brush fire of significance and of course it is a matter of convenience for the residents.  He does not think it would be prudent for the plat to be approved without specifically considering the negative effects of the lack of additional direct access to those elements of the subdivision that will be farthest from the Calle Vista Drive entrance.  For example he does not know if there have been but he would be interested in knowing if there are studies as to the amount of emergency vehicle time it would take in excess of what it would have taken had Shamrock Drive been opened.  Because of that he does not either oppose or approve the particular proposal.  He thinks it should be conditioned on this Commission consideration of the public safety issue that might be presented by this.            
c. Randy Jones, Crystal Springs Development Group/Mahar Homes, 815 Alder Creek Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Jones reported that they are the developers of all the phases of Summerfield to date.  The portion of Shamrock Drive to the west to North Phoenix Road is not land or right-of-way that they control.  There are three property owners along there that do and have no intention at this time to develop their properties.  There will be a no-through barricade that will be put up at the full completion of Phase 9.  They have no control as far as using Shamrock Drive because of a circulation plan is not in the near future.  Lone Oak that goes north/south that goes to Cherry Lane is a major collector street.  The section of Cherry Lane that it attaches to they have improved to North Phoenix Road.  They paid for the signal at that intersection and before Public Works required it.  They took the old Cherry Lane away and made the new Cherry Lane safer.  Even though they have no control of Shamrock Drive to the west there is Calle Vista Drive which is heavily traveled.  It has been signed that heavier trucks do not use.  Lone Oak to Cherry Lane, Cherry Lane to North Phoenix Road is the safety route.  A fire truck coming from the East Barnett Fire Station in an emergency can and would use Calle Vista Drive even though it is a heavier truck.
The Planning Commission will see before them in the near future a phasing tentative plan in the area that intersects Shamrock Drive, Lone Oak south to East Barnett.  In that plan, even though they do not control all the land, west to North Phoenix Road will be an emergency lane and all weather road.  As they develop south they will fully improve everything and hopefully by then the people west of them that they do not control will be ready for development work.                    
Mr. Neathamer reported that the application that was submitted and the recommendations from staff that the applicant has met all the approval criteria for this particular development.  As it was approved before, keeping in mind there are several new access routes that as this is developed will have secondary routes for residents to take.  He respectfully requests that the Planning Commission approve the application this evening.  
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-17-051 and E-17-052, per the Staff Report dated June 15, 2017, including Exhibits A through Z with the corrections of dates in the conditions of approval. 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Ms. Akin reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, June 16, 2017.  They considered a proposal to construct a 52,000 square foot mini-storage facility on 2.5 acres located between Nansen Drive and Bullock Road at 2884 Nansen Drive.  They also considered an eight unit apartment complex on a 0.32 acre parcel approximately 150 feet east of the intersection of Table Rock Road, Merriman Road and Swing Lane at 766 Swing Lane.  They approved both applications.
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.
Chair Miranda commented that agenda item 50.1 that they heard tonight sounded like the Parks and Recreation Department had a certain level of vestment in the project.  It disturbs him that there was not a Parks and Recreation Department representative at the meeting tonight.  Maybe that can be avoided in the future.  Ms. Akin replied that they will try.
Vice Chair McFadden stated that it does not seem the problem has been solved of getting clear maps into the system.  He could barely read them on his iPad.  Ms. Akin reported that separate 11 x 17’s will be provided to the Commissioners to download to their iPad.   
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver, reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met since their last meeting. 
60.3        Planning Department
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director reported that the Urban Growth Boundary amendment was approved by the Jackson County Board of Commissioner’s yesterday, Wednesday, June 21, 2017.  This is not the end of the process.  Now it goes to LCDC.  Staff is hoping to get on their November agenda.  The meeting will be in Florence, Oregon.
It was a good meeting with a lot of public testimony between the two public hearings in front of the County Board of Commissioners.  The Commissioners reached an agreeable consensus on the most important issues.  They had some of the same concerns.  They were supportive of the application.  Staff would like to send this type of message to LCDC.    
Commissioner Pulver asked, what was the nature of the testimony in opposition?  Mr. Brinkley stated that the opposition primarily from what he saw at the Planning Commission and the County Board of Commissioners was specific to certain neighborhoods that abutted the urban reserve where there was going to be any kind of density and commercial development. A lot of the people that came to testify were not familiar with Regional Problem Solving (RPS).  They did not understand that the entire region had gone through this ten plus year process to identify land that would be most beneficial least costly to urbanize.
Vice Chair McFadden asked, are there any other cities that have been approved on their plans?  Mr. Brinkley reported not in a significant way.  Central Point has done one minor UGB amendment to address one of their logistic companies.  They are preparing to do a significant UGB amendment to add a lot of residential land.  They are working on their housing needs assessment.  They plan on filing the application relatively soon.   The City of Phoenix was on track to get their UGB amendment done but they have had staff turnover the past six months that has delayed them a little bit.  Talent is also interested not just doing a UGB amendment but potentially amending the Regional Plan.
The GIS Specialist has created a web app so that one can enter their own observations about the current state of the Transportation System Plan.    
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.  
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 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                                                                      
David McFadden
Planning Commission Acting Chair
Approved: July 13, 2017

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


Share This Page

Back to Top