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 Meeting Agenda and Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, December 14, 2017

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
 
Commissioner Absent
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
Liz Conner, Planner II
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 GF-17-149 Consideration of a citizen initiated request to amend the Land Development Code to allow residential care facilities with more than 15 residents in all of the Multi-Family Residential (MFR) zoning districts. (John Chmelir, P.E., Cameo Care Management, Applicant; Carla Paladino, Planner).
 
20.2 LDS-15-118 / E-16-001 Consideration of request to authorize the maximum five year approval period for West Meadows Village, a 15 lot subdivision on 9.14 acres within the SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, 10 dwelling units per gross acre) and MFR-20 (Multiple-Family Residential, 20 dwelling units per gross acre) zone districts, with the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning Overlay, and associated exception application requesting reduced right-of-way dedication and reduced landscape planter strip for the north side of Lozier Court.  Subject plat consists of 5 single-family lots, 5 duplex lots, 2 commercial lots and 3 multi-family lots; generally located on the east side of Lozier Lane, on the north and south sides of Meadows Lane. (Young Family Trust; David F. Young, Trustee, Applicant; Richard Stevens and Associates, Inc., Agent; Kelly Akin, Planner).
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                             Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7–0-1, with Commissioner McKechnie abstaining.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for November 9, 2017, were approved as submitted.
 
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None.
 
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings – Continuance Request
50.1        CUP-17-116 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a proposed Bed & Breakfast to be located at 15 Geneva Street in the SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential – 6 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district, and within the Historic Preservation Overlay District (371W30AB TL 16400). (Gloria Thomas & Cecil de Hass, Applicants; Julie Krason, Agent; Dustin Severs, Planner).  The applicants have requested to continue this item to the Thursday, January 11, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission continued CUP-17-116, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, January 11, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0.
 
Old Business
50.2 CUP-17-101 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to develop a new 5.42 acre neighborhood park located on the north side of Cedar Links Drive approximately 140 feet east of Rosewood Street within the SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential, 4 dwelling units per gross acre) (371W16BC Tax Lot 300) zoning district. (Medford Parks and Recreation Department, Applicant; CSA Planning, Ltd., Agent; Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner).  
 
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.
 
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III, stated that the conditional use permit criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Sections 10.248 and 10.249.  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.  Mr. Roennfeldt gave a staff report.  Mr. Roennfeldt reported that there is a change to the Public Works staff report; striking the second item under section 2. Public Improvements subsection (e) Access to Public Street System on page 174 and under the Summary Conditions of Approval on page 179 of the agenda packet.
 
Mr. Mitton requested that since the correction was mentioned would Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, clarity the stricken condition.
 
Mr. Georgevitch clarified that after discussing the matter with staff the ADA ramp is not a purview of the Planning Commission.  It is a Federal law and Public Works’ responsibility to deal with.  Public Works has worked with Parks and Recreation and came to an understanding.  It is not necessary to be in the Public Works staff report at this time. 
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Harland reported that this application is a typical park with typical amenities.  The plan is self-explanatory.  Mr. Harland distributed a memo of minor requests from the Parks and Recreation Department with respect to technical and implementation related matters.  The memo will be entered into the record as Exhibit T.  Mr. Harland read through them and gave the reason for the requests.  The requests are as follows:
•             All references to required easements in the conditions of approval shall be in the form of “springing easements” or other legal structure acceptable to the City Attorney’s office, to create and easement at such future time as the property is transferred to an entity other than the City of Medford.
Mr. Mitton briefly weighed in.  Typically when an easement is called for but there is the same property ownership the City records a covenant so if one of the properties are sold in the future then easement is established at the time.  It is common practice.
 
Mr. Harland continued with the request:   
•             All references to required security deposits in the conditions of approval shall be limited to 100% of the budgeted amount of those items for the project.
•             All reference to conditions of approval that are required prior to the first building permit shall be modified to apply prior to the first building permit for vertical construction.
•             Please amend the condition that the Public Works Department is requiring the Parks and Recreation Department to bring the illumination along Cedar Links Drive up to meet Major Collector Street illumination standards.
•             Please strike the three foot high cedar fence reference on page 31 of the agenda packet.
 
Mr. Harland reserved rebuttal time.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked Mr. Mitton, does he have any problems with the submitted request memo?  Mr. Mitton reported that the City sees the first request often.  If it is not explicitly spelled out the City works with the developer to make it happen.  If the Planning Commission wants to make it explicit there is no harm in doing so.  He does not have concerns with the 100% of the budgeted amount.  He has no comments on the phasing issue, lighting or the fence. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, where did the cedar fence come from?  Would Mr. Roennfeldt speak to the approval required prior to the first building permit for vertical construction?  Is there something that would impact them doing it that way? Mr. Roennfeldt reported that regarding the cedar fence could have been in the previous findings.  It was not in the current findings.  He does not have any issues with the vertical construction. 
 
The Public Hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopted the findings as recommended by staff and directed staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of CUP-17-101 per the staff report dated December 6, 2017, including Exhibits A through T and striking on the Public Works staff report the second item under section 2. Public Improvements subsection (e) Access to Public Street System on page 174 and under the Summary Conditions of Approval on page 179 of the agenda packet.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0.
 
New Business
50.3 SV-17-084 Consideration of a request for the vacation of a portion of an existing 35-foot wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) located at 1528 Biddle Road, and contained within a three-lot land partition plat, reducing the PUE bordering the property’s northerly boundary along Progress Drive from 15 feet to 10 feet. (ORW Architecture, Applicant/Agent; Dustin Severs, Planner).
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Vice Chair McFadden disclosed that he works for a utility company and is involved with the Public Utility Easement (PUE) with this project but it will not affect his decision. 
               
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, reported a typographical error in the staff report under project description.  It states that the subject PUE is 35-feet wide, that is not accurate.  In the submitted exhibit map the width of the PUE is 138 feet.  The street vacation criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202.  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.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Andrew Owen, ORW Architecture, 2950 East Barnett Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Owen reported that since staff did an excellent presentation he had nothing to add.
 
Mr. Owen reserved rebuttal time.
 
The Public Hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are met or are not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of SV-17-084 per the staff report dated December 7, 2017, including Exhibits A through J.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.4 ZC-17-128 Consideration of a zone change from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential – one dwelling unit per existing lot) to SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – ten dwelling units per gross acre) on a 1.61 acre lot located on the corner of Lozier Lane and Lozier Court in southwest Medford (372W26DD Tax Lot 1100). (PDK Properties LLC, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Agent; Liz Conner, Planner).
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner McKechnie disclosed that Scott Sinner is his neighbor but it would not affect his review of this case.
               
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, stated that the zone change criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.227.  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.  Ms. Conner stated that an email was received late today from an adjacent property owner stating their concern with Lozier Court not meeting the minimum standards for higher density development.  They do not want to form and improvement district.  The email will be entered into the record as Exhibit I.
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon.  Mr. Sinner reported that the applicant agrees with the staff report.  They meet all the locational standards adjacent to the SFR-10 zoning district.  They have demonstrated the Category “A” facilities are available.  He has reviewed the email from the neighbor and it is a valid concern at the time of the land division and will address it at that time.  Mr. Sinner had a correction to disclose.  In the applicant’s findings the acreage is 1.61 acres in one place and has a typographical error of 1.31 in the below paragraph that should be 1.61 on page 224 of the agenda packet.  The application is consistent with the Transportation System Plan and the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, since Mr. Sinner mentioned the next door neighbor, does he know, he is assuming they are on the north side of Lozier Court, which one of the two parcels?  Mr. Sinner reported they are on the south side of Lozier Court.  
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, does the developer have other properties in the neighborhood?  Mr. Sinner replied, yes.  They own property on the north side fronting Lozier Court. 
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. David Watson, 315 Lozier Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Watson stated that Lozier Court is not a street.  It is less than 18 feet wide.  In this proposal how are they going to access the dwellings?  Are there going to be improvements on Lozier Court or will they be entering from Lozier Lane?  The last meeting he attended the City was going to construct a new street from Meadows Lane to Lozier Court, wrap around his property back to Lozier Lane.  His concern is the distance between property lines to Lozier Court to the new access of the dwellings or will they be coming off Lozier Lane?
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the Planning Commission is reviewing the zone change request.  They have not been presented details of the rest of the development.  Until that comes before the Planning Commission they cannot answer Mr. Watson’s questions.  He recommended that Mr. Watson keep in contact with Mr. Sinner that may be able to give him updates on the progress of the project.  Mr. Watson will received notification when the developer is ready to come forward to the City with the plans of the development.
 
Mr. Watson stated that with the purchase of the property from the prior owner there was something in the past with acreage to the north and east of his property.  Whoever was to purchase and develop the land would have to increase the rights to Lozier Court.  He does not know if that was in the purchase of the 1.61 acres south of his property.  He has heard conflicting views.  He does not know if this is the appropriate time to bring that up.  He is expressing his concerns.  
 
Vice Chair McFadden assumed the owner of the property has done a title search and aware of restrictions that may have been imposed prior.  It does not sound like something the City normally would get into.  Mr. Watson has brought the topic up.  The applicant’s agent will review that and make sure they comply with any restrictions.  It is outside of the Planning Commission’s recommendation tonight.
 
Ms. Conner pointed out that the staff report and the Final Order that is before the Planning Commission references the parcel as 1.61 acres. 
 
Mr. Sinner reported this is a zone change and further development will address dedication requirements and street improvements.  He would be happy to meet with Mr. Watson and discuss his concerns.    
 
The Public Hearing was closed. 
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of ZC-17-128, per the Planning Commission report dated December 14, 2017, including Exhibits A through I. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.5 ZC-17-112 / LDS-17-113 Consideration of a zone change and tentative plat for Phases 23-29 plus Reserve Acreage, totaling 168 residential lots on approximately 42 acres in the Southeast Overlay with a combination of SFR-4, SFR-10 and MFR-20 zoning districts, located between E Barnett Road and Cherry Lane at the terminus of Shamrock Drive.  (371W27 TL 1000, 1001, 1200, 1202). (Crystal Springs Development Group, Applicant; Neathamer Surveying, Inc., Agent; Liz Conner, Planner).
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Poythress disclosed that on a number of occasions in the past he has disclosed that one of his companies does business with Neathamer Surveying, Inc. as a marketing consultant.  He does not believe this will create a 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, stated the zone change criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.227.  The land division criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.270.  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.  A last minute submittal was received of a revised tentative plat.  It addressed Exhibit G in the staff report where the original tentative plat did not show an extension of Starset Street east but Exhibit G did so the applicant combined the two and included a new tentative plat.  The new tentative plat will replace Exhibit B with Exhibit B-1.      
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, Inc., 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer reported that based on the submitted application, the prepared staff report, submittals and staff’s presentation they believe they have met the requirements for criteria of approval for the zone change and subdivision.  They request the Planning Commission to approve both applications.
 
Mr. Neathamer reserved rebuttal time.    
 
The Public Hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Orders for approval of ZC-17-112 and LDS-17-113, per the Planning Commission Report dated December 14, 2017, including Exhibits A through HH and replacing Exhibit B with Exhibit B-1.  
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Poythress
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.6 LDP-17-121 / E-17-120 Consideration of a request for a one-lot partition to legalize the existing lot and a request for an Exception to lot standard requirements regarding lot frontage on a public street on a 1.34 acre parcel located at East McAndrews Road approximately 340 feet southwest of the intersection of E McAndrews Road and Springbrook Road within the SFR-4 zoning district (371W20BD TL 800). (Medford Parks and Recreation Foundation, Applicant; Dan O’Connor, Agent; Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner).
 
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.
 
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III, stated that the land division criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.270.  The exception criteria can be 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.  Mr. Roennfeldt gave a staff report. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the 25 foot parcel part of this property?  Was it there prior to the creation of this lot?  Mr. Roennfeldt stated no.  It is public unimproved right-of-way and was there prior to the creation of the lot.  
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Dan O’Connor, 823 Alder Creek Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. O’Connor gave a quick history stating last year the owner wanted to donate the property to Medford Parks for additional park land at Donahue Frohnmeyer Park.  They had a timing issue of the conveyance prior to year end.  An attorney representing the other side was under the impression based on research done years ago that it was a legal parcel.  It turns out it was not a legal parcel and there is a statute that states if one conveys an unlawful parcel the party receiving the parcel has claims against them for conveying an unlawful parcel.  To accommodate the donation they conveyed the land to the Parks Foundation waiving any claims against the donor based on that statue.  The conveyance occurred prior to year end last year.      
 
Mr. Roennfeldt had a change to the recommended action from his presentation.  It stated to direct staff to prepare the Final Orders.  The correction is for the Planning Commission to adopt Final Orders.
 
The Public Hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Orders for approval LDP-17-121 and E-17-120, per the staff report dated December 1, 2017, including Exhibits A through Q.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.7 PUD-17-082 / LDS-17-088 Consideration of a request for a revision to the Mountain Top Village area of the Vista Pointe Planned Unit Development (PUD) and for a tentative plat to create 41 single family residential lots, 39 multi-family residential lots and common areas on approximately 25.05 acres zoned SFR-4/PD (Single Family Residential/Planned Development Overlay). The PUD revision includes changing the approved 132 condominium units to 132 townhouse style units and adding a clubhouse and pool. Mountain Top Village is generally located north of Vista Pointe Drive, northeast of Park Ridge Drive and west of Bordeaux Avenue at the termini of Whitney Terrace, Evening Ridge Terrace and Deer Ridge Drive. (Ron DeLuca Revocable Trust, Applicant; Mark McKechnie, Oregon Architecture, Agent; Kelly Akin, Planner).
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner McKechnie recused himself since he is the agent for this application.
               
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, stated that there were several new submittals.  Staff sent four to the Planning Commission today.  Staff received a revised Fire Department Report that will be entered into the record as Exhibit QQ-1.  Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal, added a note stating: “The developer has proposed to reduce access road grades to less than or equal to ten percent to remove the alternate method of protection construction standard requirement.  The requirement shown in the report remains in effect until a completed civil plan is submitted and reviewed showing the design access road slopes to justify otherwise.”  Staff also received letters from Michael Crennen entered into the record as Exhibit WW and Mr. and Mrs. Gress entered into the record as Exhibit XX; they are neighbors.  Staff received a letter from Mark Bartholomew from Hornecker Cowling LLP, representing the applicant entered into the record as Exhibit YY.  At the Planning Commission’s seats is a letter from John Schleining that will be entered into the record as Exhibit ZZ.  The revision or termination of a planned unit development criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.245(A)(3).  The preliminary planned unit development criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.235(D).    The land division criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.270.  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. Akin gave a staff report. 
 
Mr. Mitton concurs with Ms. Akin’s comments regarding Senate Bill 1051.  In the past there would be more specific findings on needed housing.  The language as it stands and the evidence in the record is what is needed to establish the needed housing.    
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc. P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Stevens reported that his presentation will address the land use components of this application.  Oregon Architecture is present to discuss and demonstrate compliance with the design and architecture of the project.  Mr. Stevens pointed out the locations of the single family residential dwellings and the townhouses.  The project will be in phases.  Each phase will build a trail system.
 
Mr. Stevens commented on the discretionary condition in Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval on page 435 of the agenda packet that states: “The community building and pool shall be constructed before no more than 50% of the multifamily units have been constructed as authorized in MLDC 10.230(E)”.  The applicant requests at least 75% as the standard for the multifamily units.  The purpose is that they want to build phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 first.  This will provide street connectivity from Vista Pointe to Bordeaux. 
 
No traffic study was prepared for the original Vista Pointe Planned Unit Development.  This was agreed upon between the City and the developers at the time that if they build and construct McAndrews Road from Foothills to Tamarack Drive they will create more capacity than Vista Pointe would ever use.  That construction of that arterial roadway also relieved pressure at North Phoenix Road and Hillcrest where it was at a failing situation.
 
The original developer also had the intent in 2003 that the project was to provide an alternative style of housing.  Condominiums and townhouses provides that different style where one does not have maintenance of their yard.  It is done by a homeowners association or some other alternative.  The multifamily housing provided large lots in different locations on the property.  Forest Ridge and Innsbruck Ridge benefited from it plus it provided additional open space.      
 
Commissioner McManus stated that on the proposed trail revisions Mr. Stevens mentioned connectivity.  On the south side of Mountain Top Village the trail on the previous version went on the exterior to Deer Ridge.  Also, in the previous plan it looked like it had more connectivity. Why the change? Mr. Stevens reported there are a couple of reasons; elevations and two corridor aisle ways.
 
Mr. Stevens reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Daniel Joseph, 4857 Bordeaux Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Joseph requested that all letters submitted be available.  When the original meeting was held for the community body by Mr. McKechnie it was a surprise.  A lot of this information is difficult to access on the City website.  They want to make sure what is being developed enhances the community at large.  Most of their concerns have been addressed.     
 
c. John Schleining, 3140 Juanipero Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Schleining submitted his comments into the record so that there would be a copy of what he said at the meeting.   
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that Mr. Schleining indicated that the prices were going to be higher.  What is going to be the price range for the purchase of these homes?  Mr. Schleining said he does not know.  He knows the cost of construction is higher.  In Innsbruck Ridge he just sold three homes for over $1Million.   
 
d. Doug Fine, 4335 Vineyard Terrace, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Fine’s concern is the traffic with Vista Pointe Drive being the main access.  He requested that the Planning Commission only accept this project for single family homes in character with the rest of the neighborhood.  He heard that the notifications only went out to a fairly small percentage of the Vista Pointe residents.  He questions that and wonders if that is legal.    
 
e. Chris Miller, 4342 Vista Pointe, Medford, Oregon 97504.  Mr. Miller is concerned with the traffic as well.  It appears that the population of the neighborhood will be doubling.  The neighborhood only has three access points to McAndrews.  Vista Pointe being the main strip is going to become quickly overwhelmed.  They already have issues with getting out in the mornings.    
 
f. Jacob McGowan, 4840 Bordeaux Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  It is his opinion that it would put a lot of the neighbors at ease if there were data from a traffic study based on traffic impact of the area. 
 
They have allocated parking based on garage space.  There is no way of ensuring individuals will use their garage for their cars.  The overflow will be pushed out into the neighborhood.  How do they enforce not parking around the entrances which will happen since it is the closest local to where they live?
 
Mr. McGowan liked Commissioner Mansfield’s question earlier and the answer was comparing them to Innsbruck Ridge.  That is like comparing apples to grapes.      
 
Ms. Akin responded to some of the questions during testimony.  One was the school district and whether or not staff noticed the school district and staff did.  Staff sent the same kind of notice the property owners received to referral agencies and the school district was on the list. 
 
Staff sent 297 property owner notices for this public hearing.  It was more than just a few residents.  Staff noticed what the Code requires.
 
Mr. McGowan spoke about requiring and analysis for comfort.  There are requirements in the Land Development Code that guides staff when they can request for those kinds of analyses.  This one did not meet that threshold.     
 
Commissioner McManus stated that with the attached garages, it is two per unit, which is an increase from the 1.5.  If that additional parking space is a variable, because they are enforcing it through the CC&Rs.  How does that become valid if it is not fixed?  Ms. Akin responded that it is fixed.  The Code requires the provision and continued provision for parking.  It could become a Code Enforcement issue if it comes to that.   
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, does Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal see code provisions proposed to change anything for this type of development to better respond to wild land fires?  Mr. Kleinberg reported that after the Oakland Hills fire there was a code provision for more than thirty homes with one access road the developer had to provide another access road.  That was one provision set in place by a wild fire disaster.  Their biggest and most important thing is to have twenty feet unobstructed access at this point and to have enough access points into a development.  If they have twenty-eight foot wide streets with parking on both sides the emergency vehicles get squeezed sometimes.  The intention of the twenty feet is so that one fire truck can pass another to set up and deal with something or respond to another emergency.  As far as new code provisions being introduced he cannot predict that based on the current wild fires.  The most important thing is to have access to maintain the twenty feet.  The applicant is proposing to reduce some of the entrance points to below ten percent.  That is the Fire Department’s threshold where they require sprinklers.  If they can do that the requirement will be dropped.   It is based on what they do.    
 
Mr. Stevens reported that Vista Pointe was a conference of planned projects with gridded streets and connectivity tying into McAndrews and existing roads.  Mr. Stevens was available for questions.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is there a block length issue with this development?  Ms. Akin replied no.  She did not address that in the staff report.  Ms. Akin talked about the trail system that works in conjunction with the street system.  The trail system justifies the breakup in the block length which is permissible under the code.  If the block length exceeds, which she is not convinced that it does, by up to twenty percent then one has to provide other pedestrian access points.  
 
The Public Hearing was closed.
 
Vice Chair McFadden has some concerns about this project.  He does not like flat roofs.  The flat roof will cut the vertical looks of the building and going from three stories is good.  He also likes the size of the lots and coverage.  Having open area is valuable.  He has come full circle that this is a better plan that was presented before.  
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Orders for approval of PUD-17-082 and LDS-17-088, per the staff report dated December 7, 2017, including Exhibits A through VV, replacing Exhibit QQ with Exhibit QQ-1 and adding Exhibits WW through AAA, allowing to require the pool at 75%. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Commissioner Foley likes this development.  He likes the changes.  He likes the concept of the townhomes.  He would like to see more of this going forward in different areas.   
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that there is a lot of power in the CC&R’s.    
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-1, with Commissioner McKechnie recusing himself.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission has not met since the Planning Commission last met.  Their next meeting is tomorrow, Friday, December 15, 2017.
 
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Chair Miranda reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee, also known as the Super Citizen Advisory Committee met on Wednesday November 29, 2017.  Chair Miranda reported that there was a lot of good information presented at the meeting.  The information presented was concise.  They discussed the public outreach program, surveys and the feedback.  They discussed the levels of traffic stress.  Depending on what mode of travel people are using ensuring traffic stress is mitigated and acceptable for the City to absorb while maintaining safety.  There was discussion regarding revised transportation rules, goals and objectives.
 
60.3        Planning Department
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director, reported that urban renewal is exploring a substantial amendment to the urban renewal district.  That discussion began this evening with the consultant Elaine Howard who is the consultant for the entire State.  That plan will come to the Planning Commission. 
 
The Urban Growth Boundary amendment record is close to being completed for submittal to DLCD.  That will be submitted at the time the conclusion of the Housing Advisory Committee regional housing study.  They will have an idea how they are going to implement commitments made in the Urban Growth Boundary amendment to provide a range of housing.  This was done on a very accelerated pace. Commissioner Foley has been a participant and witnessed how quickly they have brought a diverse group of stakeholders together to reach a consensus.
 
The Super Citizen Advisory Committee continued to iron out the details on the visions, goals and objectives.  They have had a series of study sessions with the City Council to discuss the big issues in the Transportation System Plan such as level of service and concurrency.  They have received over one thousand responses from the public outreach surveys.  They will have four ward meetings beginning in January.  In those meetings they will be discussing the proposed projects that are specific to each ward.        
 
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that the Planning Commission’s next study session is scheduled for Monday, January 8, 2018.  Discussion will be on the Transportation System Plan.  
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, December 28, 2017 and Thursday, January 11, 2018.
 
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.  
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.
90.1 Vice Chair McFadden reported that he attended the last Planning Commission study session because the discussion was on the Transportation System Plan.  He enjoyed the meeting.  Carla Paladino, Principal Planner, did an excellent job.  They had a great discussion.  He urged the Planning Commissioners to attend the study sessions if possible.
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
 
 
Submitted by:
 
 
Terri L. Rozzana                                                                
Recording Secretary                                                                      
 
Patrick Miranda
Planning Commission Chair
 
Approved: December 28, 2017
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top