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 Agenda and Minutes
Thursday, July 27, 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:
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
Alex Poythress, Excused Absence
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
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
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Kyle Kearns, Planner II
10. Roll Call
20. Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1 ZC-17-017 / LDP-17-027 Final Orders of a request for a change of zone from MFR-20 (Multiple-Family, 20 dwelling units per gross acre) to MFR-30 (Multiple-Family, 30 dwelling units per gross acre) and a partition to create two lots on approximately 4.5 acres located at 2180 Poplar Drive (371W18C TL 1362); (Weatherly Inn Medford, LLC, Applicant; RJ Development, LLC., Agent; Dustin Servers, Planner III). The applicant has requested this item be continued to the August 10, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.
20.2 ZC-17-034 Final Order 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; Dustin Severs, Planner III)
Motion: The Planning Commission continued ZC-17-017 and LDP-17-027, per the applicant’s request to the August 10, 2017, Planning Commission meeting and they adopted agenda item 20.2 ZC-17-034 as submitted.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7–0.
30.1. The minutes for July 13, 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 Requests
50.1 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; Sarah Sousa, Planner IV). Staff requests this item be continued to the August 24, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion: The Planning Commission continued SV-17-039, per staff’s request, to the Thursday, August 24, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield Seconded by: Vice Chair McFadden
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
50.2 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 the General Industrial (I-G) zoning district (372W14 TL 1400). (Fjarli Merlin, Applicant; Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., Agent; Dustin Severs, Planner III). The applicant has requested this item be continued to the August 10, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion: The Planning Commission continued LDS-17-050, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, August 10, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield Seconded by: Vice Chair McFadden
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
50.3 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; Dustin Severs, Planner III).
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
Dustin Severs, Planner III, stated that the planned unit development criteria can be found in the Medford Land Develop Code Section 10.235(D). 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.
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is staff agreeable to the applicant setting aside the 20/80% rule on uses? Mr. Severs reported that staff is agreeable that they can encompass all the uses that are allowed in all commercial zones.
Vice Chair McFadden stated that typically the properties specify which uses are within the area. Mr. Severs stated that normally with PUD’s, the applicant knows precisely what they want to do and sometimes they do not. Staff feels the applicant can include all the commercial uses since the commercial GLUP allows those uses.
Mr. Severs continued with his staff report.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the way he understands Mr. Severs presentation is that if the applicant leaves the I-L zone and develops it or if they get a zone change to commercial and develop, the uses they want to put on the property would fit in either one of those zones. Is that correct? Mr. Severs replied that is correct.
Commissioner McKechnie asked, if the applicant develops a building would, it be relatively the same footprint? Mr. Severs reported it is conceptual at this stage. If they do any significant changes they would have to revise the PUD.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the plan for the southerly parcel looks like there are two entrances on the old frontage road on Crater Lake Avenue. One on Coker Butte and one on the new Crater Lake Avenue. They actually have four not three. There are two entrances to the building that faces Crater Lake Highway. Mr. Severs stated that initially staff was not sure frontage road would be considered lower order. He consulted with Public Works it is classified as a lower order street since it is City owned and maintained.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that however many entrances or exits they have on that road are irrelevant. Since they have access on that roadway would that preclude them from having another entrance on the other two streets? Mr. Severs stated that if the applicant was not doing this as a PUD they would have to get an exception to have additional driveways.
Commissioner McKechnie stated they have three buildings with drive-thru. Would a fast food restaurant be permitted? Mr. Severs reported that the light industrial zone allows restaurants but limited to the size.
The Public Hearing was opened.
a. Craig Stone, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Stone reported that he is present tonight on behalf of the two entities the own the parcels involved in this application. They are Coker Butte Properties LLD and Table Rock Holdings LLC. In the audience this evening are Mike Montero. Also a representative of the property owner, Raul Woerner from CSA Planning Ltd., who has worked on this application and Kimberly Parducci from Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering.
This PUD represents a bit of a redevelopment project. Most of the development on the property now is removable dumpsters with a permanent building used for maintenance. The vision is to have light industrial uses occupying individual buildings with all their activities conducted within the enclosed building. There will be no outdoor storage. Each of the buildings will be subject to Site Plan and Architectural Commission review. The total amount of building square footage is approximately 93,000 square feet. It is really less now because they made provisions for cross access easement that reduced the size of several buildings. It is approximately 90,000 square feet. There are 409 parking spaces.
In the initial phases of this project all maintenance of the common elements would be handled by the present owners. Later when the project is converted to unit ownership either as a condominium or a pad lot the maintenance would be turned over to an association of owners at that time.
The properties are in three quadrants. The quadrant located on the east side of Crater Lake Avenue has been denoted as reserve acreage mostly because the applicant is not sure what to put there. Initially it was stated in the application the applicant’s intention was to move the dumpster repair facility out to its transfer station in White City. Mid-stream there was a change of mind that they have reserve acreage that has been used for dumpster storage and maintenance in the past and leave them there until they are ready to develop as part of the PUD. They will be required to come forward with an additional preliminary PUD plan to exactly show what they intend to do with the reserve acreage.
As for the projected tenants, the applicant is hoping to handle offices and light fabrication. The kind of businesses that would like a store front with a rollup door on the side or back for shipping and receiving. Businesses that can operate in an enclosed without outdoor storage. Perhaps along the frontage of Highway 62 there would be supporting kind of uses that would be accommodate with the 20% deviation.
Mr. Stone touched on the Highway 62 issue. Where this property fronts on Highway 62 is presently a State highway. It is designated as an expressway which means access to it is all but prohibited. That designation is going to change because the expressway will be moved to the old Medco Haul Road. When they do that (expected next year) this section of Highway 62 will become a City street (an arterial) where access is permitted on. City staff or ODOT staff have raised any objections to the right-in/right-out access. It will have to wait until the jurisdictional transfer takes place and the applicant agrees to stipulate that there will be no access until that time.
An objection Mr. Stone raised is that on page 132 of the agenda packet a memorandum from the Medford Water Commission states until it is part of the PUD they cannot have water service to the reserve acreage. Mr. Stone discussed that with Rodney Grehn with the Medford Water Commission. Mr. Grehn ultimately agreed with Mr. Stone and told him to transmit that to Mr. Severs for verification. The reserve acreage is in the City, zoned properly and a historic use. If in the future they want to have water service they ought to be able to have it without restriction by reason of this PUD. The applicant would like to have that condition either stricken or reworked to accommodate if the applicant needs water on the reserve acreage before they come back with a PUD plan for it.
Chair McFadden asked, does the Medford Water Commission not want to provide water service to the reserve acreage? Mr. Stone reported that initially that is what they stated. He thinks they were supporting the planning application and features of this where there is a plan for one part and not a plan for the other part so they cannot have water until there is a plan.
Chair McFadden stated that the Planning Commission does not have jurisdiction of what the Medford Water Commission will or will not allow. Mr. Stone agreed. He stated that he does not think the Medford Water Commission ought to withhold water to a use that has existed for a long time that is on land properly zoned for that use. Ultimately, Mr. Grehn agreed with Mr. Stone. Whether he communicated that agreement to Mr. Severs or not the Planning Commission will have to ask Mr. Severs. Mr. Stone’s testimony is that they reached an agreement on that and Mr. Grehn withdrew his concern.
The second objection Mr. Stone raised is that the applicant has made various promises in the way of stipulations and he has summarized those on pages 107 and 108 of the agenda packet.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that he is troubled that there is a GLUP designation that is commercial and a zoning that is industrial that the applicant wants to keep. A few years ago this property was rezoned form one industrial to another. Recently the GLUP was changed to commercial from industrial. Why not change the zoning to commercial? Mr. Stone stated that the applicant believes the market is much stronger for light industrial uses and the property is better situated to accommodate them than it would be for most or many commercial uses.
Commissioner McKechnie asked, why not change the GLUP back to industrial? Mr. Stone reported that the applicant did not ask for it to be changed in the first place. The City changed the designation on 800 acres of property. This 15 aces was among it. It is not something they asked for. It caught the applicant midstream in their planning on this. Mr. Stone was aware of the Baker case and thought this really does not create much of a problem because under Baker they believe they are able to do this. He is not going to go into a more detailed explanation of that case than what was given to the Planning Commission in Mr. Severs presentation unless Commissioner McKechnie wants him to. Mr. Stone thinks it allows it. Go back to Commissioner McKechnie’s question it is really a market proposition. Most everyone has become aware of how internet shopping is affecting local retail trade. Shopping centers and shopping areas are closing across the country. The applicant does not think this makes a good retail site.
b. Raul Woerner, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Woerner reported that this project was planned before they received notice that the City was considering this property for an UP-GLUP to commercial. There is a lot of transportation planning coordination going on with ODOT and with the City. To change it over to a zone change application there are significant constraints on traffic. At some time it will be appropriate to convert it to commercial zoning. They felt the GLUP to commercial further supported the type of PUD that is being requested which is asking for 20% commercial which is there anyway. As the urban growth boundary expands which is phase 2 there will be more land that develops that will become “riper” for the timing of the zoning to support commercial. All the buildings being planned are adaptable to full commercial retail. The PUD with the mixed commercial industrial uses provides a good temporal transition plan for this property.
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is the plan presented for the building layout a draft? It does not seem to match with the front door/back door description. Mr. Stone stated that it does. Not all of the buildings have a loading facility but some do. It is either a side or back loading with a dock.
Mr. Stone reserved rebuttal time.
Chair Miranda asked Mr. Severs to discuss Mr. Stone’s reference to page 132, item number 5, the “Reserve Acreage” from the Medford Water Commission. Mr. Severs reported that he was contacted by Rodney Grehn from the Medford Water Commission. He did say he spoke with Mr. Stone and was fine with the proposed changes. If the Planning Commission requests a revised memorandum from the Medford Water Commission Mr. Grehn would be happy to provide one.
Chair Miranda stated that if there is going to be change the Planning Commission should see a revision.
c. Mike Montero, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Montero gave history of the property stating that the City of Medford in 2006 made application to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for funding to build the intersection at Coker Butte Road. They discovered during a period of commodity escalation the Oregon Department of Transportation came to Mr. Montero stating they were under funded. There was rumor the Lithia Auto Mall was concerned about public safety because this was being developed as a T-intersection. They had customers that would go north bound on Highway 62 to the end of the median, make a U-turn and come back to the mall. Lithia was willing to pay for a signal. Under ODOT rules private developers that do that have to meet a warranted analysis. In this case the private developer could not meet it. They were willing to contribute funds for the signal so Mr. Montero asked if he would be willing to contribute those funds as part of the State highway project. He was willing if it gets him the same thing. They then went to the subject property owners stating this would benefit their property and entitle them to receive funds for the right-of-way. Were they willing to donate them without compensation? They agreed and what was born of that was a public/private partnership between ODOT, City of Medford, Jackson County, Lithia Properties and the applicant. The result is what you see today.
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, corrected the Public Works Staff Report adding a paragraph that reads: “There is an existing trip cap, per ZC-07-272 on tax lots 1000, 1002, and 1100 of 2,480 average daily trips (ADT) or 248 peak hour trips, which shall remain in place until a Traffic Impact Analysis is submitted studying the full trip generation potential of the site. Tax lots 1001 and 1003 are unrestricted and estimated to generate 300 ADT per acre under light industrial (I-L) zoning. Considering both the trip cap and the I-L zoning, the PUD is shown to generate 4,145 ADT or 415 peak hour trips. Public Works recommends that the PUD be conditioned to a trip cap with a maximum of 415 peak hour trips. The applicant shall submit trip accountings with each individual building permit showing that the proposed new buildings will not cause the trip generation to exceed 415 peak hour trips.” A revised Public Works Staff Report will be entered into the record.
Vice Chair McFadden questioned a trip restriction that does not need to be there or that it will create a problem on the property. He did not know if the traffic engineer was going to speak to that.
Mr. Georgevitch reported that this condition was stipulated between the applicant and the City of Medford, Traffic Engineer, Karl MacNair. The site already has a trip cap on it. Two of the parcels do not have a trip cap. They have a trip generation rate that is anticipated to be 300 trips per acre. Engineering and the applicant negotiated this language and both are content.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the modified findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of PUD-17-023 per the staff report dated July 20, 2017, including Exhibits A through Y, eliminate condition 1 on Exhibit A-1 regarding condominiums; approving this under CUP Condition 1; a revised memorandum from the Medford Water Commission satisfying the concern of “Reserve Acreage” on page 132 of the agenda packet; approving exception if there are zero lot line walls against the property that fences can go between those and serve as the buffering wall between agricultural zonings; and a revised Public Works Staff Report accepting the agreement of the trip cap.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
50.4 DCA-15-088 / CP-17-063 Consideration of a Land Development Code Amendment to reorganize Article II (Sections 10.100 – 10.297). (City of Medford, Applicant; Kyle Kearns, Planner II)
Kyle Kearns, Planner II, reviewed the background, major changes to Article II and reviewed the approval criteria. The development code and comprehensive plan amendment approval criteria are found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184. The applicable criteria was included in the staff report and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.
The Public Hearing was opened and there being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
Motion: The Planning Commission, 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-15-088 and CP-17-063 to the City Council per the staff report dated July 20, 2017, including Exhibits A through I.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
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.
Chair Miranda reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee met on Wednesday, July 26, 2017. They discussed surrounding the development of a Citizens Advisory Committee as well as a Tactical Advisory Committee. The Citizens Advisory Committee will consist of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee members, community members and businesses. They are looking for a forum of 25 members.
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director, reported that the memorandum being distributed was distributed to the City Council at their last regular meeting and yesterday to the Joint Transportation Subcommittee. The second half of the memorandum talks about the composition of the Citizens Advisory Committee to provide broader representation of the Medford community. There is a citizen from each Ward in addition to the at large members who are on the Joint Transportation Subcommittee, representation from the business community, development community, key stakeholders like the hospitals, etc.
Chair Miranda stated they also discussed House Bill 2017.
Mr. Brinkley reported that House Bill 2017 is the Transportation Bill of $5.3 billion over the next 10 years. Significant funding coming into this region which is important in part for public transportation and seismic retrofitting. The project for the viaduct Mr. Georgevitch could have spoken on whether or not they are concluding the initial planning part of that project. That will move forward expeditiously now that there is additional money identified for the retrofitting. They will either just retrofit it or retrofit and add additional lanes one either side so emergency vehicles will be able to access the viaduct without having to shut down one entire direction of traffic. There is additional money coming in the form of surface transportation block grant. That will go to entitlement cities like Medford every year for the span of the appropriation.
Chair Miranda stated they also heard from RVTD for the ridership. They show a slight reduction in ridership over the month of June. They attributed that to school being out. They have instituted a new program that is a ridership card. It is a pass card they can use instead of carrying cash. There is also a phone application that has a QC reader that they can code their trips on. The problem is the do not actually have that built. Their systems are not compatible so they do not have the data built into their actual trips. Even though they are seeing a reduction in some of their trip counts there is a large percentage that are being captured by the new system that is not being transferred into their respective categories. Little bit of a reduction but overall balanced.
There was also discussion on a City of Medford Transportation Survey. There is an online survey that everyone should be aware of. That ends on July 31. On August 1 a paper version of the survey that is more focused will be available through mid-September.
Mr. Brinkley reported that they plan to be done with the Transportation System Plan by the end of the year. In the memorandum that was distributed it gives dates for open house and survey, public hearings, meetings. They anticipate having a study session with each body individually. They hope to have a project list by September 14 or soon after.
Chair Miranda stated that their quarterly meeting would be in October but the Subcommittee decided that was too much time span so they moved the October meeting to September 27, 2017.
60.3 Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that she sent an email regarding a training opportunity in Central Point on October 7, 2017. Chair Miranda has responded. If anyone else is interested please notify Carol Wedman in order to get registered.
There is business for the Planning Commission on Thursday, August 10, 2017 and Thursday, August 24, 2017.
70. Messages and Papers from the Chair. None.
80. Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
90. Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
Terri L. Rozzana
Planning Commission Chair
Approved: August 10, 2017