COVID-19: City Hall and Lausmann Annex are closed November 18 through December 2.
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, April 12, 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
Jared Pulver
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 10.          Roll Call
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1        ZC-17-168 Final Order 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).
20.2        ZC-18-008 Final Order 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).
20.3        LDS-17-113 / ZC-17-112 Consideration of request for the approval for a minor modification to add an additional lot to the approved tentative plat for a 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. (Crystal Springs Development Group, Applicant; Neathamer Surveying, Inc., Agent; Liz Conner, Planner).
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 9–0.
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for March 22, 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 – New Business
50.1 ZC-18-018 Consideration of a request for a zone change of a 0.88-acre parcel located at 2131 W Main Street from Community Commercial (C-C) to Heavy Commercial (C-H) (372W26DA TL 400). (Marigold Enterprises, LLC, Applicant; Rogue Planning & Development Services, Agent; Dustin Severs, 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.
Dustin Severs, 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. Severs gave a staff report.
Vice Chair McFadden referenced page 72 of the agenda packet in the applicant’s findings.  He does not find a reference to the compliance of residential properties from the back fence line.  Would staff want them to rewrite their findings?  Mr. Severs reported that he cited something different in that section.  He is asking the Planning Commission to adopt staff’s findings.
The Public Hearing was opened.
a. Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services, 33 N. Central Avenue, Suite 213, Medford, Oregon 97501.  Ms. Gunter reported that the proposal complies with all the criteria from the Medford Land Development Code.  It does not create any nonconforming structures or lot layout situations.  The uses of the adjacent properties are consistent with heavy commercial.
The findings talk about at least 50% of the subject property’s boundaries abut zones that at expressly allowed under the criteria in (1) (c) or (1) (d) on page 72 of the agenda packet.
Vice Chair McFadden asked, the applicant is not concerned with the interaction over the fence lines between residential properties and this property as far as security.  Ms. Gunter stated that a significant portion of the buffer yard criteria is a wall along the back property line.  It is evidenced on the landscape plan.  Currently the property is fenced.  With the fencing and concrete wall there is not a concern about trespassing any more than what is already happening on the property.  
Ms. Gunter reserved rebuttal time.
Commissioner McManus asked, when the zone changes to Heavy Commercial does it allow marijuana processing and production? Mr. Severs reported that Heavy Commercial has the potential that allows more marijuana uses.  It allows wholesale, processing and production.  It is not allowed in Community Commercial.  
The Public Hearing was closed.
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of ZC-18-018 per the staff report dated April 5, 2018, including Exhibits A through G.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Commissioner McKechnie will vote against the motion.  He is not a fan of spot zoning.  This is a poor use of a change of zone.  This is an older narrower lot.  It is right for redevelopment.  It is appropriate to be zoned commercial.  The only other two Heavy Commercial properties in the area are the Hispanic grocery store across the street and around the corner JB Steel Construction yard.  When this area gets redeveloped there will be a piece of Heavy Commercial zoning that they will have to redo.  He does not see a public benefit.  It is a problem creating a nonconforming intersection with the apartments behind it.   
Vice Chair McFadden asked, does Mr. Mitton agreed with that analysis?  Mr. Mitton stated that it is more of a policy consideration.  In terms of how the Code reads there are facts for approval consistent with the Code.  Whether or not to do it is a discretionary determination of the Planning Commission.  It is legally defensible either way.
Mr. Mitton reviewed when that criteria are satisfied and the Planning Commission “shall” grant it or “may” grant it.  If it is “may” grant it the Planning Commission can vote no because they believe it is a bad situation.  If it states “shall” grant if the elements are met it would be arguably legal error to vote no.  The Code reads: “…the approving authority “shall” approve a quasi – judicial zone change.”  To make a legally defensible no vote there needs to be argument that one of the criteria is not satisfied.    
Commissioner Poythress has concerns with the proximity to the neighborhood behind it. It would be an arguably criteria point but could nullify the requirement to approve the application.  He does not think a barrier with a fence and planters will soften the impact to the community behind it. 
Commissioner Pulver believes the criteria is met.  He appreciates Commissioner McKechnie’s and Commissioner Poythress’ comments.  He will vote yes because the criteria has been met. 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 6-3, with Commissioner McKechnie, Commissioner Poythress and Vice Chair McFadden voting no.
50.2 LDP-18-015 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval of a proposed three-lot partition on a 0.45-acre parcel located at 403 North Ross Lane within the SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential – 4 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W26AA 3900). (Craig Horton, Applicant; Richard Stevens & Associates, 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 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. 
Commissioner Foley asked, is the setback from the road the issue or is it the easement that goes through the porch?  Mr. Roennfeldt stated that the porch would be on the easement.    
Commissioner McKechnie asked, for parcel 3 where is the driveway going to be located?  Mr. Roennfeldt deferred the question to the applicant.
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what is the reason for the jog on parcel 2?  Mr. Roennfeldt stated it is to meet the minimum outside requirement of 6,000 square feet for a duplex.
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the applicant putting a duplex on parcel 1 and another duplex on parcel 2?  Mr. Roennfeldt reported that it is a shared duplex, half on parcel 1 and half on parcel 2.   
Commissioner Pulver asked, does access get approved at partition or does the Planning Director approve it later?  Mr. Roennfeldt stated that it gets determined at the time of building permit. 
The Public Hearing was opened.
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon 97501-0168.  Mr. Stevens reported that the property is located at the northwest corner of North Ross Lane and West McAndrews Road.  The applicant is agreeable to the side yard setbacks along North Ross Lane.
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the existing driveway going to be mostly in parcel 2 or will it be moved?  Mr. Stevens stated that it will be moved to the western boundary of parcel 3.  
Commissioner Pulver stated that the existing residence driveway is on the west side of parcel 3.  Where will the duplex will be serviced?  Mr. Stevens reported along the common boundary between parcels 1 and 2.   
Mr. Stevens reserved rebuttal time.
Commissioner Pulver wanted clarification that McAndrews Road is a standard residential street after it passes Ross.  Mr. Roennfeldt stated, that is correct.  On page 104 of the agenda packet it reads: “West McAndrews Road shall be improved to Standard Residential street standards, along the frontage of the development…”
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-18-015 per the staff report dated April 3, 2018, including Exhibits A through N.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 9-0.
50.3 DCA-16-072 / CP-17-114 / ZC-17-115 The proposal is a four part project that includes the following land use applications:  1) A General Land Use Plan Map Amendment to update the Comprehensive Plan Map by converting existing parks from their current GLUP designation to the Parks and Schools GLUP designation and make corrections to two other properties that are privately owned located on Merriman Road and Dillon Way; 2) A Major Zoning Map Amendment to create a new Public Parks (P-1) zoning district and convert existing publicly owned park properties from their current zoning designation of residential, commercial, or industrial to the new zoning designation; 3) A Land Development Code Amendment to amend various sections of Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code to add regulations, uses, and procedures associated with the new Public Parks (P-1) zoning district; and 4) A Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update two elements of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the new Public Parks (P-1) zoning district.
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.
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner, stated that the code amendments and major zoning map amendments criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184 (2) & (3).  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. Paladino gave a staff report.
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the properties that are State and County owned look like they have been committed for long term buildable lots.  He assumes the State or County will not sell them leaving a vacant area in the middle of everything else.  Ms. Paladino reported that staff received information from the County that they had no issues with the rezone.  The County properties are along the Greenway so there is no change.  Staff received comments back regarding the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) properties in the exhibits provided today.  They are not in favor of changing the ten properties.  Those properties should not be noted as tax lots and should be noted as right-of-way.  Staff submitted that information to the County yesterday.  The County came back today and stated they have updated their assessor maps to show that.  Staff’s recommendation is to take those ten properties that are ODOT owned out.   
Ms. Paladino continued with her staff report.
Exhibits M through R were emailed to the Planning Commission earlier today.
•             Exhibit M: Parks Department email from Haley Cox
•             Exhibit N: Parks Department suggested revisions to code amendments
•             Exhibit O: Revised code language with Park Department edits and changes discussed with Parks Staff
•             Exhibit P: Jackson County email
•             Exhibit Q, Q-1, Q-2: Oregon Department of Transportation email and attachments
•             Exhibit R – Engineering Department email comments
Commissioner Foley asked, what is the approving process today versus with the new zone?  Ms. Paladino reported that the criteria will be different.  It would be specific to Parks, consistent with the Leisure Services Plan, mitigation, etc.  It mirrors the Conditional Use Permit process.  Staff did not think it appropriate for a zone that calls out what the use is that an applicant would have to request special approval conditionally to get that use.
Commissioner McKechnie asked, are schools put in with Parks?  Ms. Paladino stated that staff wanted to create a broad public district that would include government facilities, parks, schools, utilities and that was too much.  The Planning Commission at the time noted that the proposal needed to be slimmed down.  The focus now is just on parks.  The zoning will not change for school designations that have the parks and school General Land Use Plan designation.
Commissioner McKechnie asked, if a building or school is in a park does that come to the Planning Commission or to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission for review?  Ms. Paladino stated that the permitted use table identifies where it would go.  Schools would go to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission for review.  A park building would go before the Planning Commission.    
Commissioner Mansfield stated the Ms. Paladino mentioned restaurants being a use in a park.  He does not understand that.  Why allow restaurants to be built in parks?  Ms. Paladino stated there are those types of uses in other parks.
Chair Miranda did not understand police stations and fire departments on parkland.  Ms. Paladino stated that Fire Station #3 is on parkland.  Staff did not want to make anything nonconforming.   
Vice Chair McFadden stated that on page 146 of the agenda packet he does not know the definition of a linear park.  Ms. Paladino reported the example noted in the Leisure Services Plan of a linear park is the trail along Biddle Road.
Vice Chair McFadden had concerns that under permitted uses does the City see any need to specify renting out a park or provide sole use of a park other than the normal permit process?  On the sports court and noise the 50 feet is too small. Under caretaker provision with a caretaker residence within the park, what are the setbacks?  He was surprised that signs and lighted signs were included in parks.         
Commissioner Pulver requested clarification of Exhibit O versus Exhibit E.  Ms. Paladino clarified the revised code language beginning on page 5 of the new exhibits distributed earlier today.    
Commissioner Pulver does Medford have a lot of City owned facilities leased to private parties such as an aquatic facility with a café.  It is not the primary use of the building it would be part of the aquatic center.  Ms. Paladino reported that is correct.  It would be an accessory.  A lot of the permitted uses could potentially be accessory.  Police station or fire department would be a primary use.  
Commissioner Pulver also is confused on schools.  The intent is just for parks but for approved uses the schools are listed.  Ms. Paladino gave an example why.  The West Howard Park that is in the County may potentially become part of the City.  There is a charter school approved on that site.  
The Public Hearing was opened.
a.  Raul Woerner, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Woerner shared his thoughts.  He has done a lot of work in jurisdictions throughout the states and many that have special protection, school and park zones.  At times it complicates projects that may have been easy like a property line adjustment, land exchange or sale of excess property.  Is there an alternative to approach the objective by taking the special permitting and making it clear that parks can be allowed as a permitted specialty use in all the zones they previously were rather than creating a zoning district?  If you need to know where parks are put a note on the map.  There are long term consequences requiring it to be in a zoning district.  Streamline the permitting standard for parks.  Zone changes always come with the issue of what to do with traffic.  There are properties that are already commercially designated.  How many of those have pipeline trips or trips credited in the transportation model that assume they are commercial because they are going to be down zoned?  He suggested to bank those trips and get credits when dealing with ODOT in the future on facility projects.  Maybe put it up for auction.  He has a lot of other issues.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  If you have something for public parks have something for private parks.   
Ms. Paladino followed up stating that staff talked to the Public Works Department about the issue of zone changes and whether or not to add it to the locational criteria.  Mr. Woerner is correct about the ITE manual that talks about trips per uses would be less than residential or commercial.  Their thought was since there is a lesser traffic impact there would not be any requirement for locational standards for the zone change. 
In terms of allowance for parks on other zones staff is not changing that part of the permitted use table.  For publically owned land staff would like to match parks and schools GLUP map designation and match that with the appropriate park zone.  Staff is not going to rezone properties that are potentially private.   
Commissioner McKechnie asked, when two parcels next to each other that are differently zoned and the zone runs on the property line, if a property line adjustment is done, does the zone automatically move with it?  Ms. Paladino reported that the criteria for property line adjustment does not allow it to be a split zone.  It would not move.  There would have to be a zone change.   
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, initiates the amendment, and forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of DCA-16-072, CP-17-114, to the City Council, and the Planning Commission approves ZC-17-115 without forwarding it to the City Council (see note below), including Exhibits M through R with the following changes:
Modify header on report
Modify number of properties from 144 to 132 & update table
Remove 10 ODOT properties from proposal
Use Exhibit O in place of Exhibit E
Move criteria language in 10.295 (A) (5) to more suitable location
NOTE: The proposed zone change is a Major Zone Change (Class A procedure) which provides for a Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval.  The Planning Commission does not have final approval authority on Class A applications.  The ZC-17-115 application will be forwarded to City Council for approval. 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
Commissioner Pulver commented that reading the minutes from previous study sessions he echoes some of Mr. Woerner’s comments.  He is not sure this is necessary or appropriate and has reservations as to the why.  He appreciates staff’s work.  As far as permitted uses he struggles with some of the items on the list.  He thinks they are too broad.   
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-1, with Commissioner Pulver voting no.
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met Friday, April 6, 2018.  They heard and approved a proposal for the construction of an approximately 21,000 square foot, two-story, general office building on 1.39 acres in the Navigators Landing Planned Unit Development located west of the Medford International Airport on the corner of O’Hare Parkway and National Drive.  They also heard and approved construction of a 20,423 square foot freight terminal on one parcel totaling 8.6 acres located northwest of the intersection of Bierson Way and Bateman Drive.         
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee. 
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee had a study session the last week of March.  Discussion was an update on the Transportation System Plan.  They also met Wednesday, March 28, 2018. The Planning Commission and the City Council has a joint study session on Thursday, March 29, 2018.  He believes the Planning Commission is up to date of the discussion regarding the project list, budget, and what projects to incorporate as being financially constrained. 
A local cycle group presented a publication that discussed the stress of riding a bicycle on the roads and different solutions.  A question put before the group was, is this something to include in the Transportation System Plan update?  That will be discussed at the next meeting.  It is difficult to create a situation where bicycles and cars can coexist on a road with the speed and amount of traffic.  How do you solve it?  Possibly off road paths.
Chair Miranda added that was the same group that spoke to the Planning Commission in January under Oral Communication.  They were put on the agenda for the Joint Transportation Subcommittee for March.                  
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that Carla Paladino, Principal Planner, had sent an email regarding the Housing Advisory Committee.  Commissioner Culbertson volunteered to be on that Committee.  If anyone else is interested please let Carla know tomorrow.  It is a two to three month obligation.  
Ms. Paladino stated that she does not have the specific dates or times.  She just sent the Request for Qualification.  They want to get the consultant hired by the end of May.  She is estimating starting the middle of June.  Chair Miranda tentatively volunteered depending on date and time. 
The next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, April 23, 2018.  Discussion will be on Transitional Housing and Warming and Cooling Shelters. 
The Planning Commission has business scheduled for Thursday, April 26, 2018, Thursday, May 10, 2018, Thursday, May 24, 2018 and Thursday June 14, 2018.
The City Council did not have a quorum at their last meeting. 
At their next meeting the City Council will hear items carried over and new items on housing. 
May is National Historic Preservation month.  There will be a proclamation and block grant update to the community action plan for CBDG. 
Commissioner Culbertson mentioned Old Dominion Freight development not far from the airport.  This is a big expansion.  The site is approximately 8 acres and has 40 loading bay doors.  Heartland Express picked up where Gordon Trucking was on Sage and adding a building.  Gordon Trucking submitted an application to construct a new facility at the intersection of Table Rock and Biddle.             
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair. 
70.1 Chair Miranda commented that it was nice to see all Planning Commissioners present. It adds a lot to the discussion. 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. 
90.1 Commissioner Pulver stated that buffer yards between commercial and residential might be an item for discussion.  It is a valid point.
90.2 Commissioner Culbertson commented about the joint City Council and Planning Commission study session stating that it was semi productive because it was hard to start.  They did not have any specific topic.  Having a quarterly or some sort of joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission with limited time, specific topic and only discuss the topic bears a lot of merit. It gets both on the same page.  The Planning Commission approves items complying with the Code and the City Council passes policy items.  If they are in conjunction the City Council would not over rule or remand an item for an irrelevant reason and the Planning Commission would not be passing an item that will be denied by the City Council.    
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 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 26, 2018

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


Share This Page

Back to Top