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, July 13, 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
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
Jared Pulver
 
Commissioner Absent
Patrick Miranda, Chair, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Seth Adams, Planner III
               
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 CUP-17-053 Final Order 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)
 
20.2 LDS-17-051 / E-17-052 Final Orders 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)
 
20.3 LDS-16-004 Request to revise the approved sidewalk alignment for Rancho McMillan, a four lot residential subdivision on a 0.95 acre parcel located on the north side of Lone Pine Road, approximately 1,100 feet west of North Foothill Road, within the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (Michael McMillan, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent)
 
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                               Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7–0-1 with Commissioner McKechnie abstaining.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for June 22, 2017, were approved as submitted.
 
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None.
 
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings – Continuance Request
50.1 PUD-17-023 Consideration of a Preliminary PUD Plan for Coker Butte Business Park, a proposed development consisting of office and light industrial uses to be located on a 14.5-acre site composed of five contiguous lots bounded generally by Crater Lake Highway 62, Coker Butte Road, and Crater Lake Avenue, within the Light Industrial (I-L) zoning district. (371W05 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, and 1100). (Coker Butte Properties, LLC and Table Rock Holdings LLC, Applicants; CSA Planning Ltd., Agent).  The applicant has requested to continue this item to the July 27, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked staff if they had additional information to present.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner III, reported that the applicant’s agent explained that there have been new developments that have occurred that they want to add to the Findings.
 
Motion:  The Planning continued PUD-17-023, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, July 27, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0.
 
New Business
50.2 SV-17-039 Consideration of a request to vacate a portion of Belknap Road, located south of the intersection of Garfield Street and Center Drive.  (C.A. Galpin, Applicant/Agent)
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner Pulver disclosed that his office represents one of the adjoining properties and recused himself from this application.
               
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV, stated that the street vacation criteria can be found in the Medford Land Develop Code Section 10.202.  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.  Ms. Sousa gave a staff report.  Ms. Sousa reported that staff received a letter at 4:00 p.m. today from Stuart Foster, Attorney at Law, representing Michael and Jennifer Kolln, owners of Tax Lot 200 of Jackson County Assessor’s Map 37-1W-32C.  Staff has not had time to review the letter. A copy of the letter was placed at the Commissioners seats and will be entered into the record as Exhibit K.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, how wide is the narrow part of the existing Belknap Road right-of-way that the applicant is requesting to vacate? It is clear that Center Drive would feed into Belknap Road as a public right-of-way.  If that were to be improved to City standards would they require more right-of-way from either of the other two properties to make that an approved street?   Ms. Sousa deferred the question to Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer. 
 
Mr. Georgevitch reported that the most westerly side and the narrowest point appears to have a line that states L8.  The table states 25.94 (approximately 26 feet) in width.  The normal section east is approximately 50 feet wide.   
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is Garfield at this location, a City street?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that it is a State facility. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated the chances of them providing additional access to the end is slim to none.  Does Mr. Georgevitch agree?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that if he understands correctly he believes there is access control purchased along there from the State so he does not believe there will be any access.  If there was no access control they would not be providing access because this connects to a signalized location that both the City and State have participated in its design and construction cost to build.  If this section was built to be a public lower order commercial street being 63 feet in width it would need an additional 13 feet of width.  The issue is on the westerly side.  There would have to be some type of turnaround, a knuckle cul-de-sac or a 100 foot radius to head south if there was development along the easterly boundary where the substation exists.    
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what would be the potential of having a right-in along Garfield that would go east with no access coming out?  Mr. Georgevitch replied that if he were to gamble on that he would put zero dollars on that bet.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked does the County own in fee some portion of this that staff has no idea what it is but they get it back if it is vacated?  Does the rest of the property on the south get half and half to the north?  Ms. Sousa reported not necessarily.  She deferred the question to the applicant.  The County Assessor determines who it goes back to.  It is generally who the land originated from.  She had heard that maybe the southerly 10 feet belongs to the south property but that is not in staff’s review.  Staff does not know until the County Assessor is finished after it is vacated.  It is not necessarily split in half.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he has a different understanding of what happens to the land that is vacated.                  
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Cris Galpin, 744 Cardley Avenue #100, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Galpin stated that the remaining part of Belknap will also be vacated.  The reason it was not included in this application is because in his meetings with Public Works designing an interchange best served this property instead of a dead end road.  They purposely aligned that and left a portion of Belknap so that interchange could be built as a usable piece of property. 
 
Addressing Commissioner Mansfield comment, the land goes back to the properties from which it came.        
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, does Mr. Galpin know where the County sections are?  Mr. Galpin stated that he did not.  He just found out about that today.
 
b. Stuart Foster, P. O. Box 1667, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Foster is the attorney for the Kollns.  They are the owners of what has been described as Tax Lot 200, Assessor’s Map Number 371W32C.   They have the majority of the frontage on Belknap Road proposed to be vacated.  It is his opinion that there is absolutely no way to get access off Garfield from this strip of land.  Nobody ever talked to his clients.  There are plans that shows some roads on his client’s property that nobody has talked about or the interchange that was talked about.  The area to be vacated is a significant portion of frontage on the north side of his client’s property.  Now, it is a public road which is a benefit to them.  If this is vacated they will get some of their property back, maybe half.  They do not know.  Nobody knows who gets what and what the County has.  How can a decision be made and determine that there is no damage?  There is a real defect in the Planning Commission’s ability to make the determinations they are asked to under the statute.  His client has more than 50% of the frontage.  They object to this vacation.  It may be appropriate in the future but they think it is more appropriate to consider after everybody has an idea how this property is going to be developed.  It is premature.  They request that the Planning Commission deny the vacation.  The damage to his client’s property will be substantial and the City will be liable.                  
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, what is Mr. Foster not contesting?  Mr. Foster stated that the access on the strip of land.  If it is ultimately developed into a public street, which would benefit the northern side of his client’s property substantially, has to be off Center Drive.  There is no way that the City or State would approve access off Garfield Street on the west end.  It appears on the map that Belknap Road extends to the west and adjacent to Garfield Street.    
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, does Mr. Foster have any information regarding the State purchasing access rites?  Mr. Foster replied no.  It would be on record.  
 
Mr. McConnell reported that the Planning Commission cannot recommend approval of the vacation if more than 50% of the owners to the affected area object.  Mr. Foster has made that allegation.  His client owns more than 50% of the affected property. 
 
Code Section 271.080 (2) “…The real property affected thereby shall be deemed to be the land lying on either side of the street or portion thereof proposed to be vacated and extending laterally to the next street that serves as a parallel street, but in any case not exceed 200 feet, and the land for a like lateral distance on either side of the street for 400 feet along its course beyond each terminus of the part proposed to be vacated.  Where a street is proposed to be vacated to its termini, the land embraced in an extension of the street for a distance of 400 feet beyond each terminus shall also be counted…”
 
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that staff has not had the opportunity to do that kind of analysis.  Staff would be pleased if the Planning Commission continued SV-17-039 to the next Planning Commission meeting.   
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission continued SV-17-039 to the July 27, 2017, Planning Commission meeting and requested that staff present further information on the question of whether more than half the property is opposed to this proposition.  
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-1, with Commissioner Pulver recusing himself.
 
50.3 ZC-17-034 Consideration of a request to rezone the westerly 2.20 acres of an existing 7.7 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Hillcrest Road and N. Phoenix Road, plus 0.94 acres of adjacent right-of-way, from MFR-20 (Multiple-Family, 20 dwelling units per gross acre) to C-C (Community Commercial) (371W28A TL 3300). (Cogswell Limited Partnership, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Agent)
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner Mansfield disclosed that he did not have a conflict of interest but many years ago he owned the property across the street. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner III, reported that staff received an email recently from Public Works concerning the sanitary sewer study that was submitted by the applicant.  Public Works has determined that their comments about the Sanitary Sewer Facilities as noted in their Staff Report dated April 29, 2017, remain unchanged, including that the applicant can stipulate to only develop so the total sewer flows do not exceed current zoning limitations.  The applicant agreed to that stipulation on page 12 of their Findings.  The email will be submitted into the record as Exhibit W.  The zone change approval criteria are found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.227.  The applicable criteria was included in the staff report, property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Raul Woerner, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Woerner reported that this property is part of the orchard originally.  The Urban Growth Boundary amendment re-designated the tip of this property as Commercial.  It was previously designated multifamily residential.  The zone change is to match it with the rest of the property.  There are no development plans at this time.  It meets the locational criteria for C-C zoning.
 
Generally, based on the assumptions and calculations of the adopted City Facilities Master Plan, commercial generates less, on average, than multifamily.  There is adequate capacity. 
 
Several times in the presentation Hillcrest was referred to as the major arterial.  It is North Phoenix Road that is the major arterial.  Based on the draft Transportation System Plan it may possibly be designated as a regional arterial.  Hillcrest is a major collector.
 
Mr. Woerner received communication from the Hillcrest Orchard Park operators and owners regarding their concern that early in the process of the realignment of North Phoenix Road there were conceptual drawings of a well-connected pedestrian friendly development that may occur in this area in the future.  There is a development to the south, Signature Court.  There is an access directly across the street.  It is across from the portion that is zoned commercial.  Someday it might be appropriate to have limited access from North Phoenix Road directly across from that.  Code Section 10.550 has subsections that allows consideration if a traffic study is provided and gets approved by the City and shown to provide a public benefit that is equal or better than the normal standards.  Mr. Woerner requested that standard still be available so they can coordinate with the adjacent property owner to possibly take a look at it.  There are no plans by his client right now to use that.  They object to the discretionary condition being imposed that does not allow consideration.  The stipulation for the trip cap is being changed to the 2.2 acres rather than the entire property.  The part already zoned commercial is not subject to a trip cap.                  
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, was the study that CEC did regarding the sewer for the acreage that is being rezoned or was it for the entire parcel?  Mr. Woerner reported that it was for the 2.2 acres.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is Mr. Woerner requesting the stipulation to just apply to the western third of the parcel and not to the parcel that is already zoned C-C?  Mr. Woerner stated that is a stipulation. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is Mr. Woerner talking about the pedestrian access across the arterial?  Mr. Woerner reported that there will always be pedestrian access from one street to another.  He was talking about vehicular driveway accesses or potentially a City street.  It may get locked up when the Transportation System Plan gets adopted.  Their point is that the Code already has a standard that generally prohibits access to arterials.  They do not see the necessity imposing a discretionary condition at the time of the zone change without a development proposal before the Planning Commission.  
 
b. Randy Jones, Mahar Homes, 815 Alder Creek, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Jones stated that they worked with Cogswell Limited group many years ago on how to take this relatively rectangular piece of SFR-4 land and run a major arterial through it in a serpentine fashion.  He did not bring with him tonight drawings on how a circulation plan, zoning and development might work.  The result is the Hillcrest Office Park. 
 
Mr. Jones noted in an earlier study by the Transportation Department that they considered using the entry off Hillcrest Road as the major entry into the commercial site.  They did an access easement years ago that states: “1. The use of the easement shall be limited to ingress and egress for light vehicles over the paved portions of the property described in Exhibit “A”.  This easement does not grant any right to park on the easement or on any other portion of the property described in Exhibit “A”. 2. All use of the easement shall be conducted in a manner as to avoid material interference with the operation of the property described in Exhibit “A”.”  This is simply a cross access easement for the commercial development that is going to the west of Hillcrest Office Park which they are highly in support of.  Mr. Jones emphasized that the entry off Hillcrest Road will not accommodate large delivery trucks or anything like that.
 
Mr. Georgevitch apologized to the applicant as Mr. Woerner pointed out on page 155 of the agenda packet, Public Works stated that the access is a condition of approval when it should be an informational item.  Typically, Public Works does not address access for a zone change.  It is not part of the criteria.  They are trying to do a better job of informing applicants what future conditions may look like so that it is not a surprise down the road.       
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is Mr. Georgevitch planning on resubmitting a revision of the Public Works report?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that it will be revised and included in the Planning Commission Report. 
 
Mr. Georgevitch pointed out that Public Works is still asking for a stipulation to the sewer. The applicant has done a sewer study that appears that a fifth of the flow comes from MFR-20.  The Code states zone changes are required to look at the potential of development.  The potential development under all commercial is MFR-30.  It is an increase that they could turn into an MFR-30 development under commercial.  He does not think that is the intent and Public Work’s Sanitary Sewer Master Plan did not include that as the intent covered under CEC’s memo.  He believes the applicant and utility engineer have that worked out.               
 
Commissioner Pulver asked Mr. Georgevitch for an update on the sewer study as well as long term planning allowing development on some of the lands as well as how intersections get addressed.  He does not need to discuss these now.  Mr. Georgevitch gave a quick answer.  They are anticipating a draft of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan in August and a final document for staff review in September.  Hopefully, to the City Council by the end of the year depending if they have study sessions or not.  The completion of the Transportation System Plan will be most likely the end of the year.  Depending on the City Council by the first quarter of next year.    
 
Mr. Woerner reported that he appreciated Mr. Georgevitch’s response and clarification.  He was not sure regarding the trip caps if it was on the 2.2 acres or the 7.7 acres.  It was noted it is on the 2.2 acres. 
  
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 ZC-17-034 per the staff report dated July 6, 2017, including Exhibits A through W.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.4 LDS-17-050 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval for Jam Industrial Park, a proposed 9- lot industrial Pad Lot Development on a 17.13 acre lot located at 301 Ehrman Way, In a General Industrial (I-G) zoning district (372W14 TL 1400). (Fjarli Merlin, Applicant; Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., Agent)
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner Pulver disclosed that his company does business with the Fjarli Family from time to time but he does not believe that impairs his independence on this matter.  Vice Chair McFadden disclosed that he does the same.  He has business relations but believes it will not affect his issues on this proposal.  
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner III, reported 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.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that it sounds like the owner had two options. One is to create nine lots that meet the standard subdivision ordinance and redo the streets to meet public street requirements.  Or leave it as a private street and do a pad lot development.  Mr. Severs reported that is correct.  Ehrman Way and Ehrman Circle is considered a driveway developed as a pad lot.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the land to the west in the Urban Growth Boundary?  Mr. Severs stated it is outside the Urban Growth Boundary.  The property to the west is also owned by the applicant.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the potential for expansion minimal?  Mr. Severs replied that is correct.     
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Joe Slaughter, Richard Stevens & Associates, P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501-0168.  Mr. Slaughter reported that he was present tonight representing the applicant Fjarli Merlin for a tentative plat approval for JAM Industrial Park.  Mr. Slaughter further addressed Commissioner McKechnie’s question regarding potential development to the west stating that the property is not in the Urban Growth Boundary and it is not in the Urban Reserve.  It was intentionally left out of the Urban Reserve because it is prime agricultural land.  It has very little potential in the short and long term for development.
 
 Mr. Severs had pointed out that this application and proposed plat look substantially like the subdivision application that was denied in the past.  There is one large difference between the two applications and that is dealing with existing private streets or driveways.  The reason the subdivision application was denied was because of the streets.  The City did not want to accept the dedication of those streets because the City was not sure if they met City standards for a public street.  This application keeps the streets as common area for this pad lot development.  It is no longer putting the responsibility for maintenance of those streets on the City.  That is a major difference in the two applications.  It is a large concession on the applicant because these streets are representing a large financial investment initially.  Instead of dedicating them and no longer being the responsibility of this property owner and future property owners they now will be the sole responsibility of this development to maintain.   
 
This application will allow for the individual sale of buildings and the proposed layout will keep existing operations running without disruption.
 
Code Section 10.703 B. (1) All lot-lines created within the common area shall be located along a common or exterior building wall, or within four (4) feet of an exterior building wall, unless the approving authority (Planning Commission) allows a greater distance for special purposes.  There are special purposes involved that justifies the Planning Commission using the authority in granting the request as submitted. 
 
The applicant requests approving the pad lot subdivision as proposed, remove discretionary condition 1, and allow pad lots that are in excess of 4 feet from the external walls for the special purposes for the loading docks (both existing and future), secure, fenced areas (both existing and future), access to roll-up doors, developed to be compatible with large trucks (maneuvering and access), building eaves extend 10 feet from all building walls and maintain existing operations without disruption.         
 
Mr. McConnell added assistance to the Planning Commission in regards to the special purposes issue.  The Planning Commission could allow for just a greater distance or a justifiable need.  He is trying to give some meaning to the Planning Commission. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, is it the intention of the applicant to fence all the properties on the property lines?  Mr. Slaughter stated no. These are leasable buildings that are built to the needs of the tenant.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, with no fences, what keeps one person in one building from parking in front of the other building?  Mr. Slaughter reported the lease agreements.  They have control over certain portions of the property around the building.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, does it really matter where the property lines exist?  Mr. Slaughter replied yes.  Common area could be created between the buildings and not allow enough space to access another building for a particular user.  There could be language drafted that states the common area is not necessarily for common use.  That it is actually for the use of the adjacent building.  It seems to overcomplicate the situation when a property line can be drawn that delineates the extent of one person’s property and the extent of another person’s property instead of an agreement stating this is common area that can only be used by a particular building.           
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is the applicant creating CC&R’s?  Mr. Slaughter stated CC&R’s are going to have to be created no matter what because there are common spaces created through this application.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is that the mechanism to avoid Commissioner Culbertson’s issue?  Mr. Slaughter reported it is complicated and convoluted.     
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, does Mr. Fjarli still own the properties that front Rossanley? Are those individually platted parcels?  Mr. Slaughter replied yes.
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that if he were to park on one side and walk to another building he basically invaded one person by parking there and patronizing the neighbor.  No one has ever told him no.  Mr. Slaughter reported that with a commercial development recorded cross access easements are a common practice.  These are industrial uses.  They are not retail establishments.  There should not be foot traffic and daily customers coming to these sites.  These are employees coming to do business, suppliers, deliveries and trucks taking the finished product away.               
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that there are no fences primarily because it is one platted lot and it has a number of buildings.  Those buildings do not really work unless the space between the two buildings is opened.  He is concerned if the applicant creates individual lots and somebody installs a fence in between the two buildings where a property line exists that the space between the buildings will become unworkable.  Having a property line four feet away from the building with an eave that is 10 feet away from the building poses unusual problems.  The plan being proposed is unworkable.
 
Mr. Slaughter stated there is adequate space between the buildings that if split in half there is access to both buildings.  On average there is 40 to 80 feet between buildings.      
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the Planning Commission has been presented tonight with two versions.  It is his opinion the applicant prefers his view versus staff’s presentation.  Is staff asking the Planning Commission to choose between those two and those two only?  Mr. Severs replied no.  His presentation went by the strict standards of the Code of what a pad lot would look like if those standards were followed exactly.  Somewhere in the high middle would be acceptable.
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that it is his opinion that the primary obligation of the Planning Commission is to evaluate the proposal based on what has been presented to the Planning Commission by the applicant and not by the City.  He does not know whether that makes a difference in terms of the City’s recommendation on the proposal and he is not sure whether or not the other Commissioners agree with his interpretation of that.  Mr. Severs stated that the conditions state that the applicant could exceed the 4 foot limitation on the side of the loading dock.  However, he has to comply with the code for the other side.  It would look a little different if he were to follow what Mr. Severs presented.     
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that they are creating a problem for the building code because there is a piece of the building that extends over the property line with the 10 foot eave.  There are four or five buildings that do not have loading docks where that would be an issue. 
 
Ms. Akin stated that property line adjustments is an administrative decision.
 
Ms. Akin explained staff’s position on this application.  Staff’s job as they review projects is to tell the Planning Commission what the code states and evaluate the project based on the code.  That is what they did in their staff report.  They heard additional testimony this evening from Mr. Slaughter that talked more about the Planning Commission’s ability to expand the property lines.  Each of the lots have frontage along the private street.  They were designed to meet the standards as if it were to be dedicated.  If this were a straight subdivision and they built those buildings could the buildings be constructed in their current configuration and still function?  Would the applicant do that?  It is her opinion they would not design a plat over existing buildings in a way that would render them not functional for their designed use.  Based on the information and evidence that Mr. Slaughter presented, the Planning Commission has a really strong basis to approve what is before them.       
 
Mr. Slaughter reported that under the current configuration, the lease of each of these buildings require that before a fence is placed in between buildings, both property leasees agree to the placement of the fence, and that it will not interfere with access to each of the buildings.  There will be recorded reciprocal cross access easements along the property lines to help combat Commissioner McKechnie’s concern about a property line fence.  It will likely be 20 feet wide.
 
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-17-050 per the staff report dated July 6, 2017, including Exhibits A through P. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that anytime there is common area there is an issue of enforceability.  There is quite a bit of private drive with Ehrman Way and Ehrman Circle in addition there will be a lot of common driveways within this development that need to be protected and maintained.  There is a solution from a pad lot scenario.  He does not think staff’s recommendation is perfect.  He is not sure the applicant’s is either.  Addressing the 10 foot eaves would be a bare minimum to adjust.  The common area would not only address Ehrman Way/Ehrman Circle but also show the cross access easements between the properties and maybe around them depending on what the applicant’s intent and the needs of the tenants.  He also thought the applicant highlighted a number of variations between buildings and while that may be reason to support the applicant’s case it does not seem to be in the spirit of a pad lot development.  It is his opinion they run a risk if they approve this that anything could be a pad lot development because it is the same as a subdivision.  He thinks there is a compromise.  As it stands he would probably not approve the motion on the table. 
 
Commissioner Foley agrees with Commissioner Pulver.  The applicant made good points and he appreciates his input because it was good information.  His main premise was its very complicated to make all the CC&R issues and yet they are going to add those to the leases anyway.  It is back and forth between the two.  As the motion stands now he cannot support it.  He thinks there is a solution that makes sense works for everyone.  He does not know what that is.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie agrees that the last thing they want do is redesign a project.  It does not serve the applicant or the City well.  Commissioner Pulver mentioned a good point that if the Planning Commission accepts this as a pad lot then what are they never not going to accept as a pad lot.  He is uncomfortable approving something that states they are going to redo something.  He would rather see them come back with something the Planning Commission can approve that shows exactly what they are proposing to do with these pad lots.     
 
Ms. Akin reported that the applicant requests that the item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on July 27, 2017. 
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission continued LDS-17-050 per the applicant’s request to the July 27, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission has not met since their last meeting.   
      
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
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, introduced and welcomed Seth Adams.  Mr. Adams joins the Planning Department from the City of Redwood City in the Bay area.  He is a Planner III and the Planning Commission will see him from time to time.  He will do current and long range planning.     
 
A project will be coming that may be controversial.  Ms. Akin reminded the Planning Commission of ex-parte communications.  Earlier this year Ms. Akin sent out an email regarding a newspaper article that had been published.  The content of the email consisted of when people approach the Planning Commission to discuss a project that will come before the Planning Commission, politely disengage and tell them you cannot discuss it.  Encourage them to attend the meeting and participate in the public process.  Send them to staff.  If the Planning Commission does have ex-parte communications, remember to disclose that at the hearing.  If the Planning Commission receives emails please do not read them.  If the Planning Commission reads them it will have to be disclosed and the content.  This is so that everyone has the same information.
 
The Planning Commission’s next study session is scheduled for Monday, July 24, 2017.  There is no business scheduled at this time but staff will keep the Planning Commission informed. 
 
The Planning Commission has business scheduled for Thursday, July 27, 2017.  Currently, there is no business scheduled for Thursday, August 10, 2017.  Based on what happens at the next meeting there will probably be business scheduled. 
 
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director, reported that at the City Council Foothills Transportation Facility hearing there was a request to keep the record open for seven days.  That was granted.  It will go before the City Council again in August.   
 
Ms. Akin reported that there is a training in Central Point in October.  Ms. Akin will send the email to the Planning Commission.  If they are interested please let staff know so they can get registered.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that earlier he brought up constraints regarding sanitary sewer to Mr. Georgevitch who mentioned the study and timelines of when that will be completed.  That is one part of the issue but he does not know how functionally that will work.  If there are a lot of projects that have constraints on them and the study finds there is additional capacity, is it a free for all for the additional capacity?  Beyond that, there are additional lands being brought in over the next 25 or 50 years.  He is curious how that is going to be addressed and funded given that the Planning Commission approves those types of projects with or without constraints.  Ms. Akin stated that it should show up on the title report.  The code requires a deed restriction where there is a conditional zone change.  There is an administrative designation of a restrictive zone overlay to inform staff that they need to pay attention to those properties.
 
The traffic study seemed to highlight Hillcrest and Pierce Road, Hillcrest and Valley View Drive and North Phoenix and Barnett.  If this 2.2 acres of commercial land makes those failing intersections he thinks there would be a few things on the east side that might make those things fail.  Two of the three would be expensive to deal with.  While the new Transportation System Plan may eventually get approved, funding is always an issue.  He wants to understand that.  Ms. Akin reported that doing these studies is for the City to develop its own Capital Improvement Program.  It is not just identifying and putting it on the developer. 
 
Commissioner Foley asked, when the sewer capacity opens up how does it get allocated?  Ms. Akin stated that she is not sure how it is allocated.  She assumes what has been restricted has been tracked and know they will be lifted.  In traffic they call it pipeline trip.  She assumes they would consider the same for sewer.  She does not know that for certain.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, are those restrictions deeded?  Ms. Akin replied yes they are.  The Planning Director has the authority to lift those restrictions.         
 
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.  
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.
90.1        Commissioner Pulver stated that some issues are less contentious than others but he struggles with the procedure in terms of close the public hearing, make a motion,  seconded, and at times there is discussion sometimes not, then the vote.  He believes there are nine members in order to hear their perspectives.  He is not advocating for a change in the format but he does advocate for members of the Planning Commission to share their thoughts on an issue that may have differing opinions.  That is valuable input to all the Commissioners in order to make a decision. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that Commissioner Pulver has a good point.  It is also a good reason to come to study sessions where they can talk to each other.  They can come to a consensus of what they think Medford should look like.        
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 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 27, 2017
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top