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, February 08, 2018

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
Joe Foley, Acting Chair
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
 
Commissioners Absent
Patrick Miranda, Chair, Excused Absence             
David McFadden, Vice Chair, Excused Absence 
David Culbertson, Excused Absence       
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
               
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Seth Adams, Planner III
Liz Conner, Planner II
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1        LDS-16-004 Consideration of an extension of time for Rancho McMillan Subdivision, 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 McMillian, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent; Kelly Akin, Planner).
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                      Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1        The minutes for January 25, 2018, 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 this item be continued to the Thursday, March 22, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission continued CUP-17-116, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, March 22, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 5-0.
 
New Business
50.2 TF-17-142 The City proposes a transportation facility project to construct street improvements on Springbrook Road between Pheasant Lane Road to Cedar Links Drive to major collector standards including:  north and south travel lanes, a center turn lane, bike lanes, side-walks, street lighting, planter strips with landscaping, and a roundabout at the intersection of Cedar Links Drive and Springbrook Road. (City of Medford Public Works Department, Applicant; Seth Adams, Planner).
 
Acting Chair Foley inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Poythress reported that he lives at Springbrook and Ford.  He does not believe it will be a conflict of interest for him.    
               
Acting Chair Foley inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Seth Adams, Planner III, stated that the transportation facility criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.207.  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. Adams gave a staff report.  Staff received public comments on the project since the publication of the agenda packet.  The comments will be submitted into the record.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is a property owner losing their shop building and another property owner’s driveway being relocated?  Mr. Adams reported that is correct.  There is a shop building at 2401 Springbrook that will need to be relocated.  The details of the driveway was deferred to Public Works.  
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, reported that the box culvert south of the project and the driveway impacted will be relocated because of the proximity to the roundabout.  All the final details will be worked out during final design.  The roundabout will have a median island that would block southbound access.  If the driveway is relocated further south it would allow entrance and backing out for the home owner.
 
There is a center turn lane on both sides of the roundabout and Cedar Links. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he has heard from Public Works staff in prior years that the history of the roundabout has reduced the number of accidents.  Is that generally true in roundabouts and is that part of Public Works motivation?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that he does not know if accidents at Siskiyou Boulevard and Highland have been reduced.  There are aspects of modern roundabouts that provide for reduction in the severity and reduction of accidents which is significant to the Public Works Department.  They deal with slower moving traffic and it is pedestrian friendly. 
 
The reason for the new location is the overall performance.  The long term operational analysis showed that the roundabout would operate at a higher level of service over a twenty year period than a traffic signal.      
 
Commissioner McManus asked, does the roundabout have to be in the center of the intersection?  The alignment has to be optimal due to the limitations with the property or other environmental limits.  If that is correct, because of the creek and surrounding properties, the placement of the roundabout is in the ideal location.  Mr. Georgevitch reported there is a balance of placing the roundabout and dealing with entrance speeds and angles.  The entire concept of a modern roundabout is lowering the entrance speed for cars to flow smoothly through the intersection without stopping.  As they shift around it changes the entrance angles adding additional curvature to slow vehicles down.  In this location, Public Works is balancing a combination of impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and environmental constraints to the south.  They have more flexibility since they purchased the property west of Cedar Links several years ago.      
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, stated that he was present to answer questions. 
 
Mr. Georgevitch reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Lynn Campbell , 2560 Springbrook Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Campbell feels this project will be an improvement but she has concerns.  She has the longest lot that will be cut.  If 10-foot planter strips are put in and taking peoples land away, what is the point, function and purpose?  She likes the turn lane.  Her yard slopes down into the street.  Are there going to be retaining walls?  Who maintains the planter strip?  Ms. Campbell cannot live with an 18-foot wide driveway because of their trailer.         
 
c. Sid Lumpkin, 2570 Springbrook Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Lumpkin stated that 27 feet off the front of his lot will significantly reduce the curb appeal if he sells.  Is the proposed 5-foot sidewalk, 10-foot planter strip consistent with the recently completed addition at the other end of Springbrook where it interfaces with Delta Waters?    
 
d. Questa Knight, 2407 Bell Court, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Knight’s concern is that from her house to the fence is approximately 25-feet.  She is concerned with 10 more feet coming off her property.  She is hoping to sell her house in the next year or two.  She wants to see what is going to be cutoff her property and discuss it.       
 
e. John Kuklenski, 2800 Springbrook Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Kuklenski reported that 37 years ago the City went to him asking if he would like to donate part of his property.  He is glad to see this project happening.  He has a rental on Springbrook that will be impacted by the project.  He will have only 27 feet from the house to the street.  Currently there is mature foliage that buffers the traffic noise.  This will be taken out with the project.  Will there be something else put there or can he put something there to help buffer the traffic noise?  There are overhead electrical lines in front of the older homes on Springbrook.  Will those lines be put underground and get rid of the telephone poles?  He feels there will be more congestion with the roundabout because Tahitian is not far off of Springbrook.  People going north turn right at Springbrook and go up Tahitian to get to Delta Waters.  If there was a three-way stop light it would work well.         
 
f. Sue McKenna, 2401 Springbrook Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. The shop building mentioned earlier is a 24 foot by 44 foot shop they built for personal use.  If the roundabout goes in, the back sidewalk of the project, will come about one-third of the way into the shop. They have been working with the Planning Department to relocate the shop a different direction so they can continue to have it in that location.  
 
g. Anne Farmer, 2398 Springbrook Road, #1, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Farmer asked, what affect would the roundabout have on Cedar Links?  Just down the road is a signal.  Will that backup each other?  How is that going to work?  
 
Mr. Georgevitch addressed the questions of the planter strip, retaining walls, who maintains the planter strips and driveway width.  The question of the planter strip being consistent with what was built to the north, Pheasant to Delta Waters is consistent and with the City code to have a 10-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk.  Right now they do not have final design to determine when they will need retaining walls and when they will not.  There are some locations they already know that they will need them.  The impacts to private property are negotiated through right-of-way acquisitions.  That includes any damages to property value, moving the road closer to the front door, any additional right-of-way they will need they will be paying for at assessed value.  They will begin appraisals as needed.  That is a future discussion when they have a full understanding of the impacts to each property. 
 
There was a question of a larger driveway than 18-feet.  The standard is 18-feet.  They can go to 24-feet depending on the needs.  That would be a case-by-case basis when dealing with right-of-way negotiations. 
 
There was a comment about taking 27-feet from the lot being too much.  Once again, through negotiations or through City Council direction that Public Works reduce the impacts.  Staff is required to request code required design when they can.  There are locations along the project site that cannot meet that because of environmental impacts or existing structures.  The testimony and the Planning Commissions direction will be passed to the City Council for the final decision of how much right-of-way Public Works will need. 
 
Questions of steep banks will be addressed in final design and any impacts. 
 
A question of natural foliage being replaced.  If a property owner wants to start planning in advance they can.  Public Works will be compensating for impacts to landscaping.  That is a common practice for Public Works through their right-of-way negotiations.  They have met with property owners in the past on other projects where they want to know approximate location of where the project will be so they can begin planting early before Public Works begins the project.  He encouraged property owners to contact Public Works in order to get the location so they can plant early. 
 
Public Works will not be undergrounding power.  Pacific Power may choose to do so.  Mr. Georgevitch recommended the property owners check with Pacific Power.  Public Works requests Pacific Power to relocate and they provide the location.  What Pacific Power does with that location, whether they put it underground or stays above ground, is strictly up to Pacific Power and the property owner.
 
There was a concern of more congestion in close proximity to Tahitian.  That distance is the same distance.  There is no center turn lane and a free movement.  This will be an improvement because Public Works is providing a refuge for one to two cars.  It will provide some refuge for people to get out of the through movement of traffic to turn north onto Tahitian and lower exit speeds for people coming off the roundabout.
 
There was a comment about traffic backing up at the roundabout and how it operates with the traffic signal.  Signals, when too closely spaced to a roundabout, can definitely have negative impacts.  The distance from the signal to this roundabout should be sufficient to not have any backups or adverse impacts from platooning traffic. 
 
Mr. Georgevitch is hesitate to answer the question of the functions of the planter strips.  They have several functions specifically on higher order streets for pedestrians.  They separate the pedestrian from the moving traffic and provides a comfortable location for pedestrians.  They can also provide beautification.  Public Works will be planting trees and will work with the Parks Department to find what works best in the area prior to the City Council’s final decision. 
 
The Parks Department will maintain the planter strips on higher order streets.                                  
 
Commissioner McKechnie commented that it seems that the improvements are to the sides of the road.  The roadway bed is going to be in the same spot.  Is that a fair assessment?  Mr. Georgevitch replied, generally, that is a fair assessment.  The funding for this project is from Safe Routes to School.  There was a bond passed several years ago by the citizens of Medford and this project was identified as a high need area due to no shoulders and deep roadside ditches.  It is not a safe place for students to be walking.  There are two different schools in proximity.  Pedestrian activity has the potential to be high.  There is an added benefit adding the center turn lane.  It will allow smooth traffic to occur in the through lanes and the left turn having refuge onto or off the facility.       
 
Commissioner McManus asked, could the exception request for the planter strips be stretched to go with the improvements?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that what is in the agenda packet is staff’s recommendation.  It is up to the Planning Commission to determine the best decision for the community weighing all the testimony.  If the recommendation is to reduce down, Public Works can do that.  He recommended checking with the Parks Department if there is any negative impacts to having a long section of narrow park strips for the success and viability of the trees that are planted.       
 
The Public Hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for TF-17-142, per the staff report, dated January 25, 2018, including Exhibits A through P.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Poythress
 
Commissioner Mansfield provided input regarding damages in a taking.  The law in Oregon provides not only for the value of the parcel taken but also the reduction in damages market value to the remaining properties.  Several of the property owners testified about that and it is called the taking and residual damages, that are allowed.  That is the rule of law.      
 
Commissioner McManus is in favor of the motion.  All comments made were appropriate.  In regards to the exceptions that have been noted through Public Works, there should be consistency to the planter strips, especially if there are property owners that have noted reasoning to have it reduced.   
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 5-0.
 
50.3 LDP-17-094 Proposed tentative plat for Wilkshire Terrace, Phases 1-3, a, 3-lot reserve acreage partition on a 9.72 acre parcel, generally located southwest of the Wilkshire Drive terminus, east of the Roberts Road terminus, west of the Voss Drive terminus and east of the Canyon Avenue terminus, within a SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acreage) zoning district. (William Barchet, Applicant/Agent; Liz Conner, Planner).
 
Acting Chair Foley inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner McKechnie reported that Mr. Sinner is his neighbor but it would not affect his opinion on this application.  
               
Acting Chair Foley 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 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.
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner reported that this application is three parcels of reserved acreage. They have an underlying approval on this application.  The request is to create the three parcels that match the phase lines and financing for the applicant.  There are no changes to the subdivision or conditions of approval.  Comments in the staff report from the agencies recognize that.  One condition of approval is new from the Medford Irrigation District.  Their comment was to remove the irrigation rights from the property prior to approval of the final plat.   
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. John Larkin, 2860 Shanteal Place, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Larkin stated that it seems there is a lot of wetlands near the subject property.  How is that going to be addressed?  Will it be recognized or plow everything under the ground?  
 
Mr. Sinner reported that the wetlands was addressed in the original subdivision approval.  The applicant will comply with all conditions and meet the requirements of that approval.     
 
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 LDP-17-094 per the staff report dated February 1, 2018, including Exhibits A through I.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 5-0.
 
50.4 LDP-17-131 Consideration of a request for the creation of a three-lot partition involving six existing lots totaling 9.1-acres, located at the intersection of Garfield Street and Center Drive in the C-R (Regional Commercial) zoning district (371W32B TL 4802, 4708, 3604, 4800, 4801, & 3605).  Galpin Gang LLC, Applicant/Agent; Dustin Severs, Planner).
 
Acting Chair Foley inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.  
               
Acting Chair Foley 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 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.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
The applicant or agent was not present.
 
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 LDP-17-131 per the staff report dated February 1, 2018, including Exhibits A through H.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Poythress
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 5-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission. None.
 
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.  None. 
 
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission did not meet last week.  The Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met since the last Planning Commission meeting  
 
The Boards and Commissions luncheon is scheduled for Friday, February 9, 2018, at the Inn at the Commons at noon. 
 
The next Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, February 12, 2018, has been cancelled.  On Monday, February 26, 2018, Kelly Madding, Deputy City Manager, will discuss the Medford Urban Renewal Agency (MURA) substantial amendment process.  Carla Paladino, Principal Planner, will give the annual Citizen Involvement report.
 
Thursday, March 29, 2018, there will be a joint study session with the City Council and Planning Commission to be held in the Prescott Room at the Police Department.  Discussion will be on the Transportation System Plan.    
 
The Planning Commission has business scheduled for Thursday, February 22, 2018, March 8, 2018, and March 22, 2018.
 
Last week the City Council continued the annexation on Vilas Road near Table Rock Road to the Thursday, March 15, 2018.   There was an issue with the publication.  The City Council will hear the Evergreen Street vacation and the Housing Advisory Committee resolution and construction excise tax ordinance.
 
The Housing Advisory Committee came up with thirty-eight recommendations and staff is starting to work on them.  There are four teams of staff working on four different topics such as density, design standards, regulatory barrier procedures and various housing types.  Staff will be bringing the work to the Commission.   
 
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.          
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None.
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 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
 
Planning Commission Acting Chair                                                                           
 
Approved: February 22, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top