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, April 26, 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
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
 
Commissioners Absent
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
Liz Conner, Planner II
 
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1        ZC-18-018 Final Order for 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).
 
20.2        LDP-18-015 Final Order for 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).
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6–1, with Commissioner McKechnie opposing.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1      The minutes for April 12, 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 LDP-18-023 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval of a proposed three-lot partition on a 42.4-acre parcel located at 3202 Cheltenham Way within the SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre) and the SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) zoning districts (371W081101); Applicant, Delta Waters Properties, LLC, Agent; CSA Planning Ltd.; Planner, Dustin Severs.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Poythress reported that he lives on Cascara Street that runs in through the middle of the development.  He does not have a conflict or agenda on this item and opened himself up for questioning.    
               
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 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. Severs reported that staff received a revised tentative plat earlier today and was emailed to the Commissioners.  The revised tentative plat will be entered into the record as Exhibit B-1.  The boundary between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 is being modified.  Exterior boundaries on the sides will not be altered.  The applicant also submitted a letter giving an explanation why they are proposing the revision.  The letter will be entered into the record as Exhibit P.  They also included a map illustrating more detail of the proposed area where the boundary is being modified.  The map will be entered into the record as Exhibit Q.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, does putting the parcels in reserve acreage delay making a decision on density and the density issue will be dealt with when it goes into active service?  Mr. Servers replied yes. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, if the parcels are already zoned SFR-6 and SFR-10 and has been approved, does the partition change the zones?  Mr. Severs reported no.  The tentative plat for Phases 4 and 5 are still in effect.  It is the applicant’s intent to submit final plat soon.     
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, would it not make more sense to revise the tentative plat to create the reserve acreage since there is already tentative plat approval for Phases 4 and 5 that matches Lot 1?  Mr. Severs stated that the advantage is to establish a border what has tentatively been approved.  He deferred the question to the applicant.  
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon 97504-9173.  Mr. Harland addressed Commissioner McKechnie’s question stating that a lot of the times a developer owns the land.  The developer for this project does not own the land and the owner is a long time holder of the land.  The problem with not being able to create the lots in advance the conditions of approval that apply to Phases 4 and 5 will apply to Parcel 2 requires all the infrastructure.  There is a timing/financing issue.
 
In the future it would be nice to have standards for this type of circumstance.  
 
Mr. Harland reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Barbara Mahon, 3244 Cheltenham Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Mahon’s property backs up to what they were told was a bird sanctuary.  There is no green space provided.  She would like to know if it would be allowed to have that area as a green space and retain the bird sanctuary.  She is concerned that when Owen is opened Cheltenham will become a thorough way.  There are a lot of children that play on Cheltenham Way and Cascara Street.  Ms. Mahon asked if someone could answer her question.
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that the property has been designated to be in the City of Medford.  When it came that the property could be developed, the same concerns that Ms. Mahon has, were discussed.  Until it is built there is no final answer. The answer is solely up to the property owner which is the people that Mr. Harland is representing.          
 
c. Jerry Wilkerson, 3232 Cheltenham Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Wilkerson stated that the salesperson of Hayden Homes stated that the lot next to him would never be built on and it would be like a reserve park area. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that lot is part of Phase 4 or Phase 5 it is tentatively approved but not being built on.  It could change.  Vice Chair McFadden suggested Mr. Wilkerson contact Hayden Homes and inquire if that is still their intention.  He also suggested contacting the Planning Department or Mr. Harland.       
 
Mr. Harland stated that Vice Chair McFadden addressed the concerns adequately.  As far as green space in the area the property owner is concerned about those things.  There is a natural area towards the back of the property behind the school.   
 
Ms. Mahon reported that the back area is quite a ways and not accessible to the neighborhood.  There is a sanctuary that is a precious thing.  Vice Chair McFadden reported that a sanctuary does not exist.  It may function as one.      
 
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 LDP-18-023 per the staff report dated April 19, 2018, including Exhibits A through Q and replacing Exhibit B with Exhibit B-1.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 7-0.
 
50.2 LDP-17-165 / E-17-164 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval for a proposed three lot partition with an Exception to standard street improvements on 1.73 acres located at the southeasterly corner of South Riverside Avenue and Earhart Street within the C-H (Heavy Commercial) zoning district (371W30DB TL 8800). Applicant, Hamlin Properties, LLC, Agent; Polaris Land Surveying, LLC; Planner, Liz Conner.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner McKechnie reported that he does not have a conflict of interest but he does have extensive business dealings with Polaris Land Surveying, LLC, but has nothing to do with this parcel.  Commissioner Mansfield stated that he has been personal friends with some of the Hamlins.  He does not know which ones own this property but it would not affect his vote on this matter.       
               
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 staff received an amended staff report from Public Works that was emailed to the Planning Commission.  The amended staff report from Public Works will be entered into the record as Exhibit F-1.  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 addressed 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.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the 2-foot dedication only on the portion of the previous access easement?  Ms. Conner stated yes. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, are they putting in a 15-foot public utility easement instead of a 10-foot public utility easement?  Ms. Conner stated yes. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what is the current right-of-way width on Riverside and what it is supposed to be?  Ms. Conner reported it is supposed to be 100 feet, 50 feet from the center line.  Ms. Conner deferred the question to the Public Works Department. 
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, reported that there is an issue in the Transportation System Plan where Riverside, Central, Eighth and Main are one-way streets but are identified as major arterials that have a 100 foot right-of-way.  Typically a major arterial is a two-way street.  They have a unique situation.  The right-of-way Public Works is requesting currently is enough to allow for the standard 5-foot sidewalk and 10-foot planter but no additional right-of-way for the roadway.  Public Works is currently working on changing that in the new Transportation System Plan. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what does that mean for this property?  Is there going to be a planter strip then moving the sidewalk or narrowing the street in order to have a sidewalk and planter strip or leaving it like it is?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that Public Works needs to ask for the right-of-way.  Because the improvements are already in, per the code, they are not asking for additional improvements.  Nothing will change now.     
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, assuming the City decides to redevelop this roadway would they leave the roadway, pull up the sidewalk, put in a planter strip and move the sidewalk back 15 feet?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that would be determined at the time of development.  When the City develops they have to go through a Transportation Facility hearing.     
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Shawn Kampmann, Polaris Land Surveying, LLC, P. O. Box 459, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  Mr. Kampmann reported that the right-of-way is 30 feet on the westerly side from the center line and 32 feet currently along the frontage of the property on the northeasterly side.  There is a 2 foot strip that was a remnant when the road was widened 32 feet from the subject parcel towards Earhart Drive.  Towards the back of the parcel there is a section that had a property line adjustment done years ago.  Property line adjustments typically are not required to do street improvements or right-of-way dedications.  On Commercial Court to the south, that property was recently subdivided and at the time the required width was 32 feet.  The applicant is willing to dedicate the 2-foot strip to conform to the rest of the street frontage.  At the same time there was a 10 foot PUE along a portion of that and the applicant is recommending to widen that to 15 feet to match the existing 15 foot PUE along the frontage. It would conform to the rest of the street frontage along that parcel.
 
The applicant is asking for the Exception because he was concerned about the full street dedication because it would push the dedicated right-of-way and the PUE almost to the face of the building in the center and the one on the corner.  Currently, the center parcel building has diagonal parking and a handicap space.  The main access to Spectrum/Charter has a lot of drive up traffic.  With the dedication it would remove that area if future development were done; it would block off the front of the building and the through access through the site.  The applicant is willing to provide a reciprocal access easement across the three parcels and the adjoining subdivision lots to the south to keep the access opened to all the buildings.      
 
Mr. Kampmann reserved rebuttal time.
 
The Public Hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Orders for approval of LDP-17-165 and E-17-164 per the staff report dated April 19, 2018, including Exhibits A through J and replacing Exhibit F with Exhibit F-1.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 7-0.
 
50.3 CUP-18-026 Consideration for a revision of an existing CUP to allow for a firewood ministry accessory use of Westminster Presbyterian Church located at 2000 Oakwood Drive on the southeast corner of Oakwood Drive and South Barneburg Drive within a SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – four dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (371W29BD TL 3700). Applicant, Westminster Presbyterian Church, Barnabas Sprinkle; Planner, Liz Conner.
 
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 had correspondence with staff about this application and drove by the site to look at it which he does not usually do. He told staff he would be happy to announce that.  He is well aware of the property and the Boy Scouts was actually on the property many times and this church is very good to working the community which deserves support.    
               
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 Planning Commission received emails that included exhibits K, L, M and O.  Those were received after the agenda packet was published.  The Conditional Use Permit criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.248.  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.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Poythress asked, the church provided documentation that they retained an exterminator; was that before or after the complaint on rodents?  Ms. Conner stated the church provided the documentation after the complaint.   
 
Commissioner McKechnie is confused about staff’s recommendation.  Is staff recommending that the Conditional Use Permit be approved with mitigation conditions for the screen fence inside and limiting the height of the wood piles?  Ms. Conner reported that staff has been working with Code Enforcement to decide what is the best way to enforce the conditions.  The fence does limit the expansion of the wood pile.  It is sight obscuring.  Limiting the height of wood stacked is mitigating the aesthetics for the neighborhood.  Staff is recommending approving the Conditional Use Permit with those conditions.  They are enforceable by Code Enforcement.
 
Commissioner McKechnie does not see the conditions in the documentation presented.  Ms. Conner stated the conditions are referenced in Exhibit A, page 97 of the agenda packet.     
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Barnabas Sprinkle, Westminster Presbyterian Church, 2000 Oakwood Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sprinkle stated they have been running this ministry for 38 years and they assumed it was part of their permits that they already have.  After the complaint the City told them they needed a separate permit.
 
The process is that they receive donated trees.  Eight to twelve volunteers run the ministry, chop the trees and stack the wood so it is seasoned.  The next year they donate the wood based on the people calling and drive the wood to their location.  They have done 192 truckloads this year.  It represents over 100 families.
 
They have been working with City staff to make it work.  They have had rodent service for years. 
 
They planted a hedge.  They are happy to limit the height and area.  It will cost approximately $10 to 12 thousand for a fence that they cannot afford.  It would go behind the hedge that is already there.  They suggested installing a wooden gate across the open gate.         
 
Mr. Sprinkle reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Philip Yates, 126 North 1st Street, Talent, Oregon, 97540.  Mr. Yates works for Access and they recommended approximately 115 households to the Project Warm program because their only form of major heat was wood heat.  The need continues.  This is a gift to the community. 
 
c. Ralph Henney, 1918 Oregon Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Henney is one of the volunteers at the wood lot.  There are neighbors that walk their pets through the wood lot.  If the area is closed off with a fence they will not be able to enjoy the lot.  The hedge is doing what it is supposed to.  
 
d. Catherine Dauterman, 2101 Oakwood Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Dauterman lives across the street from the church.  She has lived there 13 years and has never seen a rodent.  They are great neighbors.  
 
e. Dan Mapes, P. O. Box 1224, Shady Cove, Oregon, 97539.  Mr. Mapes is part of the wood program and has been for 20 years.  He has never had a complaint from anyone in the community or the surrounding neighborhoods about the wood operation. 
 
f. Ken Newcomb, 777 Mendolia Way, Central Point, Oregon, 97502.  Mr. Newcomb is an occasional volunteer with Project Warm.  This project is needed in the community.  Staff raised noise control.  The volunteers are only active Tuesday and Thursday mornings.  Rodents are a community wide issue.  
 
g. Susan Lee, 34 Glen Oak Court, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Lee is before the Commission to request they deny the application.  City Code Section 10.314 prohibits this type of activity in the neighborhood.  While it allows schools, churches and government facilities it references exclusion to storage, repair yards or warehouses.  In Code Section 10.012 exterior storage is defined as outdoor storage of fuel, raw materials, products and equipment.  In the case of lumberyards, exterior storage includes all impervious materials stored outdoors.  In the case of truck terminals, exterior storage includes all trucks, truck beds, and truck trailers stored outdoors. 
 
Staff has indicated on page 91 of the agenda packet that processing wood products is not a permissible use in any residential zone.  However, staff found this ministry to be akin to a food bank which is commonly associated with religious institutions.
 
If the Commission approves this they are setting a precedent that every church in the community could have this or similar activities outdoors.
 
There have been a lot of comments regarding these issues.  There are other issues she submitted written testimony with regards to that.  She encouraged the Commission to read it. 
 
She has had an increase in rodent population in her neighborhood.       
 
h. Peter Noyes, 20 S. Barneburg Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Noyes has donated his services for physical examinations for the Boy Scouts and have helped them in their Fall Festival for the community.  This church is doing a wonderful thing.  It makes him upset to hear someone say what a horrible thing they are doing. 
 
Mr. Mitton addressed Code Section 10.314 stating the respectfully he believes Ms. Lee is misreading that provision.  One cannot have a property in an SFR-4 zone owned by a church where its primary use was exterior storage.  As an accessory use to their predominant use that is subordinate to their predominate use that is different.  Code Section 10.314(6) excludes warehouses.  If it was read that any sort of warehouse use no matter how subordinate to a church is prohibited in a church that would mean that no church can have a single room set aside for holding food to distribute to the needy.  He does not think the Code was ever meant to do.  He does not think a church could build a warehouse on its own lot in a residential zone and have it as a food distribution center.  It is legally proper to approve this as part of the Conditional Use Permit that the church already has.  It is subordinate to the overall church operation. 
 
In terms of visual screening, the most important thing is that there be a clear record of what is considered a sufficient screen and what is not.  Code Enforcement needs guidance as to how much of a screen meets the standard of a Conditional Use Permit modification and how much is insufficient.  Right now the record states there are gaps in the Photinia.  Mr. Mitton recommended making specific findings if the Photinia is to be the approved screen, such as gaps up to 24 inches are acceptable or Photinia in the current density as shown in the presented photographs.  The Commission has heard discussion of both fence screening on the outside of the parcel and encircling the wood lot.  It would be important to clarify whether the fence needs to completely encircle or on the exterior is sufficient to meet the conditions.  All these are discretionary conditions.            
 
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, requested Mr. Mitton address precedence.  Mr. Mitton stated that there was a concern raised about setting precedent.  Precedent is an issue that weighs in on court proceedings.  When a statute has been interpreted one way a court cannot go against that unless a higher court states that is not what the statute means.  A board like this is not bound by this.  These are case by case determinations.  If there is a decision this evening that this particular wood pile is permissible that is driven by the facts of this application, it does not mean this Commission has to approve every Conditional Use Permit for every church going forward.    
 
Mr. Noyes asked, is there a law or order on the books in Medford, that a wood pile has to have a fence around it or has to be obscured from view?  Mr. Mitton reported there is not rule that every single wood pile has to have a fence.  When there is a situation that is outside traditional SFR-4 usage this Commission has a broad discretion what conditions may mitigate those impacts in visual mitigation.  
 
Mr. Sprinkle agrees with everything that Mr. Mitton has spoken about.  The hedge will take a while to grow and fill in the gaps.  They are 90% there now.  There are two large gaps that has the plants but will probably take two years to fill in.  He wants it to look good but not cost thousands of dollars.   
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what is the language that states that a Site Plan Architectural Commission review requirement is that the landscaping needs to be 85% grown out within three years?  Ms. Akin reported that the landscape code requires that living plants cover 80% of the planted area within 8 years.  That includes ground cover and everything.     
 
Commissioner Foley asked, is there verbiage the Commission can create for Code Enforcement to work with besides the 8/80 rule?  Ms. Akin stated that the 8/80 rule does not have anything to do with being view obscuring.  It has to do with covering an area.  There is nothing in the Code that would provide guidance.  She likes the idea of gap measurement because it is specific.  When writing the conditions staff proposed the fence because plants die.  This included a height of 6 feet for fencing and that the height of the wood stacking should not exceed the height of the screening.  Photinias get big.  If the Commission does not want to require the fence they may want to contemplate a stack height limit for the wood, something measurable so that the volunteers at the church and Code Enforcement knows. 
 
Commissioner Foley asked, how do they build into the motion that the wood stack cannot get any bigger than what it is now?  Mr. Mitton reported there is a broad discretion in terms if part of it was setting either a certain number of square footage or a certain hashed out area.  He does not know if the current hashed out area is realistic or not.  That is a potential condition that can be imposed.  They cannot cover the entire lot.  It has to be within a certain area.  That could be accomplished with a square foot measurement or a map.     
 
Chair Miranda stated that it is his opinion that the photographs that were presented would be a good snapshot in time to freeze it at.
 
Chair Miranda asked, what is the church’s average wood height?  Mr. Sprinkle replied that it is currently at 6 feet. 
 
Commissioner McManus asked, does Mr. Sprinkle consider reducing the firewood area?  Mr. Sprinkle replied that he is happy to keep it the way it is now.  He does not want to encroach into the field that the youth and neighborhood uses or their fire pit area.   
 
i. Tom Venables, City of Medford Police, Supervising Code Enforcement.  Mr. Venables encourage the Planning Commission to set specific parameters for Code Enforcement.  
 
The Public Hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as modified by staff, finds that the proposal meets the criterion at MLDC 10.248(2) and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of CUP-18-026 per the staff report dated April 19, 2018, including Exhibits A through O.
 
1. Require a fence along the north side of the wood lot and that the gate into the wood lot be a solid gate. 
2. The Photinia hedge on the frontage along Barneburg be kept at a height less than 8-feet at full growth. 
3. The height of the stack wood shall not exceed 6-feet. 
4. Maintain professional exterminator and in his opinion traps.  The church to fill in the gaps as the Photinia develops.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Mr. Mitton restated the motion for the record as:
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as modified by staff, finds that the proposal meets the criterion at MLDC 10.248(2) and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of CUP-18-026 per the staff report dated April 19, 2018, including Exhibits A through O.
 
1. A fence would be required only along the north side and the gate to the wood lot would be a solid gate. 
2. The Photinia hedge along would be used along Barneburg and the height would be kept at a height less that 8-feet when full grown.  There was not minimum height specified.  The church would use their best efforts to fill in gaps.
3. The height of the stacked wood shall not exceed 6-feet. 
4. The church shall maintain a professional exterminator.  The comment about traps was part of a discussion not a part of the motion and no condition as to the square footage of it.
5. There was no mention of the noise ordinance.  That was not part of the motion. 
 
Motion to Amend: Remove the requirement for the fence and gate.    
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Vice Chair McFadden does not have a problem with the amended motion, however, he thinks they would want to add a section stating that the planting of the Photinia hedge should be an on-going process when there are gaps.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie added language that would help.  That there be no gaps greater than 24 inches in the hedge within 24 months of the approval of the conditional use permit.  Commissioner Mansfield will include that in his motion to amend.
 
Commissioner Mansfield clarified that the Planning Commission on the motion to amend will be deciding whether they want to require a fence and gate or not.  If they do not require a fence and gate there will not be permitted any gaps greater than 24 inches.
 
Commissioner Foley stated that Commissioner McKechnie had a two-year limit.  Should there also be something in the motion if part of the hedge dies and there is a gap?  How do they deal with that?  Mr. Mitton replied that as it was stated he heard no gaps greater than 24 inches within 24 months.  That requirement would still exist 36 months from now.  It is in perpetuity.
 
Mr. Mitton encouraged the Planning Commission to review “best efforts”.  If there was a single provision that would be hardest for Code Enforcement officers to decide would be whether there was “best efforts” involved.  He recommended that they look at objective criteria.  As part of an amendment if they have the 24 inches within 24 months they could remove “best efforts” because there is a measurement that the applicant has to meet.
 
Chair Miranda’s thoughts regarding the fence is that he does disagree with putting the fence in but agrees with putting the gate in.
 
Commissioner Mansfield replied that could be a separate motion if the amended motion fails.
 
Commissioner McKechnie does not know what a solid gate is going to do without a solid fence to go with it.  That is pointless.  A solid fence draws more attention than the Photinia hedge.  It looks more residential. 
 
Chair Miranda commented that the area of coverage is approximately one-third of an acre.  It should be stipulate that the wood stack should not be allowed to grow beyond that. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he believed the entire Commission agrees with that.  The difference right now is whether or not to keep the fence and gate or eliminate the fence and gate.
 
Mr. Mitton reported that the current issue is the amendment on whether to remove the fencing requirement from the main motion.
 
Commissioner Foley stated there were two parts of that amendment.
 
Chair Miranda replied that the motion was to remove the fencing requirement and gate from the amendment and add the language no gaps greater than 24 inches in the hedge within 24 months.            
 
Roll Call Vote for the Amendment:  Motion passed, 7-0.
 
Commissioner McKechnie does not think the Planning Commission needs to be that controlling regarding the exterminator.  He commends removing that condition. 
 
Chair Miranda does not disagree with Commissioner McKechnie but by the admission of those responsible they are going to maintain that anyway. 
 
Friendly Amendment to the Main Motion made by Commissioner McKechnie: Remove the rodent control requirement.  Vice Chair McFadden agreed to the friendly amendment.
 
Friendly Amendment to the Main Motion made by Commissioner McKechnie: A minimum height of 6-feet for the Photinia hedge.  Vice Chair McFadden agrees with the friendly amendment. 
 
Mr. Mitton restated the conditions of motion:
 
The discretionary criteria are vegetation screen no less than 6 feet, no more than 8 feet and no gaps greater than 24 inches within 24 months from the approval of the conditional use permit.
 
The height of the stacked wood will not exceed 6 feet.
 
Remove of the professional exterminator through a friendly amendment.
 
There is no condition as to the square footage.  That was decided not to add that.
 
There is still the “best efforts” provision as an administration matter.  That was part of the 24 inches within 24 months.
 
Ms. Akin stated the notes she has are as follows:
 
Delete the first condition that requires the fence. 
 
The second condition was intended to maintain in good condition the vegetation as long as the project is active.  That answers the question if the hedge fails.
 
The height of the Photinia is limited to 6 to 8 feet in height. 
 
The wood was limited to 6 feet.
 
The fourth condition regarding the pest control was removed. 
 
Mr. Mitton responded that the fifth condition was never a part of it to begin with.  Ms. Akin replied it is a code requirement. 
 
Commissioner McKecknie wanted to make to make it clear that the Planning Commission is not giving a thumbs up or thumbs down on the wood industry.  It has been there for 38 years.  His suspicion is the church has volunteers with splitting wood and has gone beyond anyone’s expectations.  He urged the church to reevaluate that on an annual basis that maybe this has gotten way beyond what is appropriate for an in town neighborhood.  Realizing that they have 5 acres and have plenty of room to do this but they are busting up around the edges.  Maybe this would work just as well if it was out in a spot in the County that does all this kind of stuff.  If the ministry is the same and doing the same delivery to everybody it does not happen to be around the church. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield believes that Susan Lee’s comments have some value.  One of the main functions of a City and the reason he lives in one is to be free of things like chickens and marijuana and all those kinds of things that are objectionable to him.  He respects her position but in this case he has to balance the gravity of the harm versus the utility of the use and the utility of the use is extremely strong in his mind.  He is required to vote yes on this matter.        
 
Commissioner McKechnie is in agreement with Commissioner Mansfield.  He thinks the concerns of the other neighbors are heard by this body but given the overall good works the Commission has done something that will lessen the negative impacts. 
 
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion:  Motion passed, 7-0.  
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Ms. Akin reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met Friday, April 20, 2018.  They heard and approved a proposal for the construction of a 13-unit, multiple-family complex on approximately 0.51 acres, along with an Exception request for a cross-access easement and pedestrian connectivity. The property is located east of South Peach Street, approximately 130 feet south of Stewart Avenue within the C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district.         
 
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee
Chair Miranda reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee met Wednesday, April 25, 2018.  There were three items of discussion. The first item was a summary/discussion/presentation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC).  A lot of good information that talked in depth about level of service and bike facilities. 
 
The second item was to provide direction regarding the NATO recommendation for all ability and ages documentation incorporating that into the Transportation System Plan.  There was a lot of good discussion.
 
The third discussion was an open forum regarding the project prioritization.  They went over previous discussions.                    
 
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, thanked the Planning Commission for their work on the last agenda item.  It was not an easy decision.  She appreciates all their thoughts and words.  It is helpful. 
 
The next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, May 14, 2018.  Discussion will be on SB1051 which is a housing bill. 
 
City Council is hearing SB1051 this evening.  Also on their agenda for this evening is last year the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council on revisions to Article II which is a procedural section of the Medford Land Development Code.  The City Council set it aside.  There was not a lot of substantive changes that were proposed.  A lot of it was changed around. That is back before the City Council.  It is how staff functions working through the new UGB code amendments.
 
Last week the City Council had cleanup work from the meeting they did not have.  They approved the GLUP map amendment for Airport Road that the Planning Commission recommended.  They approved the street vacation for Evergreen.  They vacated the westerly half of Evergreen between Third and Fourth.  It was 25-feet for pedestrian facilities.  They also had Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Grants.  They City is partnering with Habitat for Humanity on three different properties.  The City will purchase repossessed homes and rehabilitate them and put them back in the community. 
 
Coming up in May for the City Council May is National Historic Preservation month so the Mayor will read a proclamation.  Also, there is a substantial amendment to the Community Development Block Grant action plan.              
 
The Planning Commission has business scheduled for Thursday, May 10, 2018, Thursday, May 24, 2018 and Thursday June 14, 2018.
 
Staff send an email last week regarding the Southern Oregon Planners Network meeting.  Chair Miranda has RSVP’d. It is May 9th and 10th.  Ms. Akin encouraged the Commission to attend especially the evening session on Wednesday regarding Land Use 101.  If any Commissioners are interested please let staff know so that they can be registered. 
 
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair. 
70.1 Chair Miranda reiterated what Ms. Akin stated earlier about tonight’s last public hearing.  He appreciates the guidance and input from the Commission.  It goes a long way in helping them make intellectual decisions and what works for the City and its people.    
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney.
80.1 Mr. Mitton added that it was a difficult discussion.  He appreciates all the discussion and commentary.  Planning staff has worked hard on that public hearing and put in a lot of time meeting with both sides of the issue trying to come up with proposals.  After all that work there was serious scrutiny and discussion to make a good decision based on a good record.  He thanked the Commission and Planning staff for everything they have done.    
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 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: May 10, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top