COVID-19: City Hall and Lausmann Annex are closed until further notice.
Please note: Municipal Court is conducting business by phone. Please call 541-774-2040.
Click here for more information.


Agenda & Minutes

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

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

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes

Thursday, March 22, 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
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
Commissioners Absent
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Karl MacNair, Transportation Manager
Debbie Strigle, Recording Secretary
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
10.          Roll Call
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1        LDS-17-170 Final Order of a request for tentative plat approval for PDK Village Subdivision, a 15-lot residential subdivision on approximately 1.61 acres located southeast of the intersection of Lozier Lane and Lozier Court within an SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (PDK Properties; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent; Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner).
20.2        LDS-15-141 / E-15-142 Consideration of request for a one-year time extension of the approval of Panther Landing Subdivision, a seven lot residential subdivision with an Exception to reduce the street dedication requirement for Columbus Avenue and an Exception to the number of units allowed to take access off of a minimum access easement for an 0.86 acre parcel located on the east side of S Columbus Avenue, approximately 120 feet north of Garfield Street, within the SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (1579 S. Columbus Avenue – 372W36CA2200). (Tom Malot Construction Company, Inc., Applicant; Farber Surveying, Agent; Sarah Sousa, Planner).
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for March 8, 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 applicant has requested to continue this item to the Thursday, June 14, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion: The Planning Commission continued CUP-17-116, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, June 14, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0.
New Business
50.2 ZC-17-168 Consideration of a zone change from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential – one dwelling unit per existing lot) to C-C (Community Commercial) on an 8.00 acre lot located northeast of the intersection of North Phoenix Road and East Barnett Road in southeast Medford (371W27 1605) The application also includes a request to modify a condition of approval in the matter of File No. ZC-15-041 limiting traffic generation for 955 North Phoenix Road (371W34 501). (North Phoenix Enterprises LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning, Agent; Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner).
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner McKechnie reported that his name and his company’s name are on the exhibits.  He recused himself.    
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 zone change criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.227.  The applicable criteria were addressed 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.  The Commission received Exhibit A-1 that included a condition that requires a deed restriction per the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.227 (2)(c) for conditional zone change.  Additionally, staff added exhibits into the record to help explain staff’s position on driveway H.  Those are as follows:
Exhibit K - Tentative plat for Summerfield Phases 23-29
Exhibit L - Mahar Homes Urban Growth Boundary Concept Layout Plan
Exhibit M – Excerpt from Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Map, adopted August 18, 2016
Exhibit N – Excerpt from Regional Plan Element of Comprehensive Plan for MD-5 
Karl MacNair, Transportation Manager, reported that they do not agree with the conclusions drawn in the Traffic Impact Analysis regarding driveway H.  The Public Works Report explains the reasons in Exhibit C.  There is a housekeeping item in the Public Works report that needs to be removed under III Transportation System.  The second paragraph reads “According to the TIA, the transportation system cannot accept the potential trip generation from the proposed zone change without mitigating the significant impact of the development traffic.”  The word “significant” needs to be removed.
Driveway H is approximately 195 feet east of North Phoenix Road.  The Traffic Impact Analysis shows the westbound left from Barnett Road onto southbound North Phoenix Road is shown as 75 feet and the maximum turning into the development at driveway H is shown as 25 feet.  That leaves 100 feet of the 195 feet available to the driveway.  It leaves 95 feet for two left turn lanes for the deceleration area.  Fifty feet is an absolute minimum.  With the continued development anticipated to the east, Public Works has concerns over the driveway functioning, and the deceleration area overlapping the safety of that operation.  The traffic analysis shows that the westbound through move to be approximately 200 feet that would block the driveway in some cases preventing the left turns.  This is under studied conditions and Public Works expects it to worsen.
Public Work’s recommendation is to not allow driveway H.  If the Planning Commission allows driveway H Public Works recommends the applicant be required to enter into a deferred improvement agreement building a median to restrict the north side access to right-in/right-out and the condition to remove the driveway in the future.  Public Works would like that tied to the development of the intersection at Stanford and Barnett.
Commissioner Foley asked, currently Public Works is not proposing that the applicant restrict access to right-in/right-out.  If the traffic gets worse the applicant would need to do something about that. Mr. MacNair stated that staff’s opinion is that the driveway not be put in.  If the Planning Commission decides to let it go in Public Works would like to remove the driveway in the future at the time of the development of the intersection at Stanford and Barnett.                  
The Public Hearing was opened.
a. Raul Woerner, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Woerner reported that he was present on behalf of Rogue Federal Credit Union with regard to the modification of their previous zone change, and North Phoenix Properties.  This is a zone change with additional requirements specific to the Southeast Plan area that normally does not get addressed at time of zone change.
There are two Category “A” facility systems that have deficiencies that would need to be mitigated in order to build out the master plan development on the site.  Those are sewage and the street system.  Sewage can be mitigated by replacing approximately 190 feet of pipe downstream near Golf View.  The project is in the City’s sewer capital improvement plan that was never completed.  Before vertical construction this needs to be done and the applicant has stipulated to make that happen. 
The zone change related traffic improvements for the system wide capacity issues are to cap the trips enough to accommodate the full build out of this development.  On examination from the traffic engineer, Jim Hanks, who is present this evening, there were concerns that there would be two left turn lanes heading northbound from the eastbound traffic coming off Barnett with the movement trying to turn into the shopping center that could create some issues plus the deceleration requirement was not conducive to the pedestrian oriented theme of the Southeast Plan. 
The Southeast Plan is laid out in sectors.  The driveway is essential for the first phase of the project to get built out.  The applicant is agreeable that if the driveway is allowed to be built with design recommendations that Jim Hanks will explain and if the level of traffic starts to create the problems that Mr. MacNair explained, there will be a trip level to trigger that through an agreement, then the driveway would be closed down. 
b. James Hanks, 3672 Riverpoint Drive, Eugene, Oregon, 97408.  Mr. Hanks reported that the left turn movement into the site from east Barnett northbound will operate at Level of Service “A”.  The average delay is six seconds per entering vehicle.
The initial plan that Mr. Hanks thought would be workable is a continuous two-way left turn lane.  Mr. MacNair has expressed a concern that there might be head-on collisions.  Mr. Hanks showed two design suggestions.  One is a back-to-back left turn pocket and the other is side-by-side left turn.  
The applicant has agreed with the City that a provision to close off the driveway when there is an issue.  The issue the applicant has with that is that there is no relationship between the construction of the intersection at Stanford and east Barnett Road.  The applicant proposes the trigger for closing off the driveway would be traffic volumes westbound on east Barnett Road approaching access H of 230 vehicles per hour. 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, does this analysis include buses; how buses would impact the area for the turning lane.  Mr. Hanks reported that buses were not included in the analysis.  The layout that he set up would not be impactful on the capacity of the roadway.
Vice Chair McFadden asked, do roundabouts in this location with the traffic flow and intersection lengths make it harder for the continuous traffic to cross through the intersections compared to a standard intersection?  Mr. Hanks stated that it can.  The roundabout has another feature that makes it less of a problem.  The roundabout is at one end that slows traffic down and there is a signal at the other end that slows traffic down. 
Commissioner McManus asked for clarification on the 500 vehicles going east.  Mr. Hanks reported that they did the traffic analysis using the trips that are attributed to the area.  They used the number of 500 vehicles of traffic for residential and 300 vehicles for commercial. 
Mr. Woerner reserved rebuttal time.
Mr. MacNair addressed that Code Section 10.550 on driveways states that no driveway shall be allowed to arterials when access is available from a lower order street.  In this case on the north side of the development is Michael Park Drive that is a local street.  Public Works has agreed with the applicant there is a benefit to the system. Code Section 10.550 allows alternate access spacing and location when it shows there is a benefit to the transportation system.  Having a driveway on Barnett provides a benefit.  Primarily removing potential left turns out of the North Phoenix/Barnett intersection that would otherwise be required.  Allowing two is what Public Works has an issue with primarily the one close to the intersection.
Mr. MacNair reported that Mr. Hanks mentioned they studied a lot of traffic that is not existing today in the form of pipeline trips.  Pipeline trips come from approved zone changes, things that are zoned but have not yet built out the development making the trips non-existing on the system.  The code does not require any analysis of some of the items submitted in the agenda packet.  The additional areas have not yet been zoned that will be putting more traffic through the subject area.
The options that Mr. Hanks showed for the turn lanes is not a decision for zone change.  That is for Public Works to review further down the road. 
Public Works is concerned that the trip level trigger analysis is a model.  It is not reality.  It is showing there are potential problems with the ninety five percentile queue blocking the driveway.  Long term, this is a poor location for a driveway.
Commissioner Mansfield reviewed what he thought Mr. MacNair reported.  The City does not like driveway H but then he thought he heard Mr. MacNair say that if the Planning Commission allows the driveway then Public Works wants it to be removable.  Mr. Hanks has reported they agree but only upon triggering it for 230 vehicles.  Mr. MacNair just recently indicated that if there is another access it is not allowed at all.  Is it possible that Mr. MacNair is agreeing it might be allowed but not permitted by the code?  Mr. MacNair reported that the code does not allow either of the driveways without being supported by a traffic analysis. 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, why does the City halfway agree allowing it to come in subject to being removed later? Mr. MacNair stated that Public Works condition is written to deny driveway H.  He was trying to be proactive if the Planning Commission chose not to follow Public Works recommendation of denial so they wanted conditions on it.
Mr. Mitton reported that the Planning Commission addressing the issues before them is triggered by the language in Code Section 10.550 (c) (4) states: “At an applicant’s request, the approving authority will evaluate alternative access spacing and location on a project basis in conjunction with procedural Class C plan authorization.” A zone change is a Class C plan.  It is not normally done at zone change because there is not enough known of what is going in to make an educated decision.  This is an unusual situation that there is an idea of what is going in.
Mr. Hanks reported that there are a few things in the code that directly apply.  Code Section 10.550 reads: “… Where such plans are adopted, any conflict between the special area plan access and location standards and the standards in Section 10.550 (3) (a) and/or (b) above shall be resolved in favor of the special area plan provisions.” The driveway is in the special area plan. 
Mr. Mitton reported that there is language underneath the wording that states that there are driveways shown but it still needs approval.
Mr. Hanks stated that the language requires a traffic impact analysis evaluating that access.  There is also language that if the traffic engineer supports it, it can be done.  If the Public Works Department disagrees with it then the approving authority decides.  This is a decision for the Planning Commission.
Mr. Woerner reported that at the proceedings with the City Council, Public Works was concerned about the final analysis of the driveways.  Driveways were reviewed from the aspect of how it delivered trips into the roundabout.  This traffic study was initiated on the basis that the driveways be reviewed as part of the zone change because of the language in Chapter 4 of the Plan. 
In Code Section 10.550 the applicant believes they fall under Subsection (3) for special area plans and not Subsection (4).  The master plan that has been adopted and referenced as part of the development code states if there is a conflict the Plan supersedes.  The only stipulation is that they have to have a traffic study to support the driveways on Barnett and the access points on North Phoenix. 
Commissioner Mansfield rose to a point of order that it seems that Mr. Woerner has made good arguments and the Planning Commission has given them more time than they are entitled to.  Mr. Woerner is not doing his rebuttal he is doing his original argument.  He believes the Planning Commission has given him a decent hearing.
Mr. Mitton weighed in on what the caption means.  There was a statement on page 59 of the agenda packet that reads: “For this map in this master plan, any depicted access onto North Phoenix Road and Barnett Road shall not be approved until justified by a traffic impact analysis.” Does this mean when a traffic engineer states it is good then automatically they get those driveways or does it mean when the Planning Commission finds that the case has been made that it has been justified then the Planning Commission can approve it?  Mr. Mitton’s reading is the latter.                      
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-17-168 and amending Discretionary Condition 1 of Exhibit A of ZC-15-041, per the staff report dated March 13, 2018, including Exhibits A-1 through N, and:
1. Remove the word “significant” from the second line of the second paragraph of section (III Transportation System) “…without mitigating the [significant] impact of the development traffic.”

2. To find that driveway H has been justified and supported by the caption on page 59 and by the evidence presented.  Allow driveway H with the condition that the developer enter into a deferred improvement agreement to remove driveway H when the traffic volume westbound at driveway H regularly exceeds 230 P. M. peak hour trips.  The developer shall provide, as part of the required Transportation Demand Management Program reporting, an accounting of the westbound traffic volume until the driveway is removed or the reporting is determined to no longer be necessary by the City’s Traffic Engineer.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
Commissioner Mansfield reported this is a good project.  The only issue is whether driveway H is allowed or not.  He is going to vote against it for that reason. 
Chair Miranda is inclined to vote no against driveway H because he lives on Poplar Drive.  Turning off Highway 62 onto Poplar Drive there is the first driveway that goes into the parking lot of Fred Meyer behind Taco Bell.  Down approximately 100 feet is a controlled intersection.  This intersection close to the other intersection seems to be a congestion point.
Vice Chair McFadden is for the project because of the stipulation that driveway H can be removed.
Commissioner Culbertson is in support of the motion because the applicant has allowed and stipulated to a modification to remove driveway H if it fails.   
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 4-3, with Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner McManus, Chair Miranda voting no and Commissioner McKechnie recusing himself.
50.3 ZC-18-008 Consideration of a zone change on 1.06 acre parcel located south of East Barnett Road, approximately 530 feet east of Ellendale Drive from MFR-20 (Multi Family Residential – 15 to 20 dwelling units per gross acre) to MFR-30 (Multi-Family Residential – 20 to 30 dwelling units per gross acre) (371W32AB500). (Stylus Development LLC, Applicant; ORW Architecture, 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 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.  Mr. Roennfeldt gave a staff report. 
The Public Hearing was opened.
a. Andrew Owen, ORW Architecture, 2950 East Barnett Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Owen made himself available for questions if the Planning Commission has any.      
Mr. Owen reserved rebuttal time.
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-18-008, per the staff report dated March 13, 2018, including Exhibits A through I.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0.
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met Friday, March 16, 2018.  They heard and approved a proposal for the development of a single 1.7 acre lot consisting of the construction of a 4,485 square foot restaurant to be located at 1383 Center Drive.  They also heard and approved construction of a 4-unit multiple-family complex on one parcel totaling 0.22 acres located southwest of the intersection of E. 10th Street and Portland Avenue.         
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee. 
Chair Miranda reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee met Wednesday, February 28, 2018.  They focused on evaluations of the projects.  There are approximately 250 projects divided into Tier 1 and Tier 2 categories.  There is $75.4 million available for the projects.  The projects are being split into 3 categories.  The near category is 2018-2022 with $37.7 million allocated.  The mid category is 2023-2027 with $11 million allocated.  Long term category is 2028-2038 with $24.6 million allocated.  These are based on current dollars.           
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that the next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, March 26, 2018.  Discussion will be on the Transportation System Plan list prioritization. 
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 at 6:00 p.m.  Dinner will be served at 5:30 p.m.  Discussion will be on the Transportation System Plan.  Commissioner Foley will not be able to attend.
The Planning Commission has business scheduled for Thursday, April 12, 2018, and Thursday, April 26, 2018.
At the Thursday, March 15, 2018, public hearing, the City Council heard and approved the Springbrook roundabout application.   They also heard and approved just the west portion of 25 feet of Evergreen street vacation between Third and Fourth Streets.  It will go to a second reading next week.
Next week the City Council will hear the GLUP amendment on Airport Road. 
The City was awarded a Technical Assistant grant to help the work on the housing amendments.      
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 7:30 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: April 12, 2018

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


Share This Page

Back to Top