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 Meeting Agenda and Minutes

Thursday, June 14, 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 (left at 6:59 p.m.)
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Kyle Kearns, Planner II
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
10.          Roll Call
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1        LDS-16-025 Consideration of request for an extension of time for the approval of Cascade Terrace at Cedar Landing Phases 1 through 5, a 93-lot residential subdivision located on the north side of Cedar Links Drive at the northerly terminus of Wilkshire Drive within the SFR-4/PD (Single-Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre/Planned Development) zoning district. Applicant: CA Galpin; Planner: Kelly Akin.
20.2 LDS-16-027 Consideration of request for an extension of time for the approval of Sky Lakes Village at Cedar Landing Phases 1 through 4, a tentative plat to create 23 standard residential lots, 22 cottage unit residential lots and an open space tract for the development of cottage units located on the north side of Cedar Links Drive at the northerly terminus of Wilkshire Drive within the SFR-4/PD (Single-Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre/Planned Development) zoning district. Applicant: CA Galpin; Planner: Kelly Akin
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 May 24, 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). Applicants: Gloria Thomas & Cecil de Hass; Agent: Julie Krason; Planner: Dustin Severs.  The applicants have requested to continue this item to the Thursday, July 26, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion: The Planning Commission continued CUP-17-116 per the applicant’s request to the Thursday, July 26, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 9-0.
Old Business
50.2 PUD-18-031 / ZC-18-036 / LDS-18-044 Consideration of a Preliminary PUD Plan for Springbrook Park Planned Unit Development, including a request for tentative plat approval for a 51-lot residential subdivision, and a request for a change of zone from SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre) to MFR-15 (Multiple Family Residential, fifteen dwelling units per gross acre) on an approximate 9.51-acre portion of the property; on a 19.66-acre tract of land located at the corner of Springbrook Road and  Hondeleau lane within the SFR-6 zoning district (371W08BD500). Applicant: Springbrook Park, LLC; Agent: Steven Swartsley; Planner: Dustin Severs. 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Culbertson disclosed that he had an interest in the property and 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.
Dustin Severs, Planner III, stated that the Planned Unit Development approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.235(D).  The Zone Change approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.227.  The Land Division approval 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 gave a staff report.
Commissioner McKechnie asked, would additional units be allowed off the Kingsbury cul-de-sac?  If it is reserve acreage is there a reason?  Mr. Severs reported that there is not a reason the applicant could not add additional units.
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the public trail a required amenity or did the applicant offer to put it in?  Mr. Severs stated that the Parks Department is requiring the public trail as part of their Leisure Services Plan.  It is up to the applicant whether it is a public easement or public right-of-way.  Commissioner McKechnie is concerned about that.  This is a long public trail that goes nowhere at the other end.  It is individual lots down the way.  It either needs to be taken out or it needs to connect to the street in Phase 5.  It has to have an end or it is going to be a security nightmare.  It is an issue that the Planning Commission needs to address.     
Commissioner McFadden stated that phasing and development is not locked into the numbers.  This project seems to fit where it will be.  Is there something locking in Phases 1 and 2 before anything else is done?  Mr. Severs reported that the first 15 lots compose Phases 1 and 2.    
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, clarified what Mr. Severs pointed out for Phases 1 and 2.  Today, he met with the applicant to discuss the first 15 lots going in as a single phase.  There is nothing that says the applicant cannot build multiple phases at once.  The applicant has the opportunity to generate funds and SDC credits that will come from dedicating Springbrook.  Then use those funds to help offset the impacts of building a structure to cross the creek at the south end and extend Springbrook to the north.  Public Works agreed somewhere between 10 and 15 lots that breaks up to Phases 1 and 2 as a single application.         
Commissioner McKechnie asked, should the condition be rewritten to be clearer that the extension should be constructed after the first 15 lots are developed?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that there are several phases that could move forward with independent utility.  There are no roads leading to Phase 4.  The first application for development should be up to 15 lots.  Commissioner McKechnie suggested that Mr. Georgevitch and Mr. Severs spend a few minutes to make clear on how that condition should be written.  Mr. Georgevitch stated that after the developer has the opportunity to speak and whatever the final outcome is, staff will clarify it in the Commission Report.                 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, are all the City utilities going north and south or east and west?  Mr. Georgevitch deferred the question to the applicant.  It will eventually flow south and west.       
Chair Miranda reported that at the May 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Donald Chambers testified under the opened public hearing where the record remained opened.
a. Steven Swartsley, 174 Littrell Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Swartsley addressed one item that had just arisen and the other is the connectivity of Springbrook Road.
Mr. Georgevitch and Mr. Swartsley reached a consensus this morning that the applicant can complete the first 15 lots (Phase 1 and 2) as shown on the plat.  At that time the applicant must commence construction of the Springbrook Road connectivity.  There would be no more final plat approval of any lots until the connectivity is completed and accepted by the City.  That is a compromise on both the City and the applicant.  Mr. Swartsley urged the Planning Commission to accept that compromise.
Springbrook Road is a main arterial and this connectivity is extremely important for north/south traffic.  It is going to be expensive for the applicant to make that connectivity across the wetlands.  That was basically the reason to allow the applicant to get some sales to help alleviate some of their cash flow needs. 
The pathway to nowhere is exactly what it is.  This is a result of Mr. Swartsley’s meeting with the Parks Department.  They wanted a pathway.  Their goal is a pathway that runs and encircles the City to Foothill south on Foothill to somewhere on the southern portion of the City limits then back to the Greenway.  That is a long ways off.  Mr. Swartsley is willing to spend the money to build a pathway but by the time the pathway gets used it is probably not going to be in very good shape.  The properties to the east are owned by Steve Skinner and Dunbar/Carpenter.  Portions of those properties are being brought in under the new Urban Growth Boundary expansion.  If the applicant extends the pathway to their property and they extend it across their property it is still a pathway that does not go anywhere.  The applicant cannot solve the problem to the west.  He does not own or have access to that property.  He would prefer not to build the pathway.  He will give the easement for it for future construction.                         
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is there going to be a homeowners association connected to any of this development, either the multifamily or single family?  Mr. Swartsley stated that there will probably be a homeowners association with the multifamily development.  It is not his intent to be the developer of that. In all likelihood he will sell that property sometime in the future.  If staff thinks it is necessary Mr. Swartsley is willing to do it. 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that as long as there will be some sort of organization either managing or a homeowners association for the multifamily development, maybe Mr. Swartsley could provide funds in that development that is reserved to fund the cost of putting in that portion of the pathway.        
Vice Chair McFadden stated maybe an agreement that the Parks Department is satisfied that funding is or can be made available at the time they deem necessary.  The only answer for the west side of the lane is through the City at some point purchase property and extend that to the street.   
Commissioner Mansfield asked, did he understand Mr. Swartsley stating he is willing to reserve for the pathway but does not feel it should be constructed at this point?  Mr. Swartsley reported that he is willing to construct the pathway but he does not know what happens to it.  Commissioner Mansfield asked, is Mr. Swartsley willing to dedicate an easement for that purpose and asking the Planning Commission not to require him to construct it?  Mr. Swartsley stated it seems like a waste to construct it.  He will certainly dedicate the easement, whatever staff requires.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the only issue looking from Mr. Swartsley’s end is that if the Parks Department agrees, they will estimate with an additional 25% and want Mr. Swartsley to put money into their account to pay for the pathway at some point.  If Mr. Swartsley stipulated it would be funded in the homeowners association it would be less money.  Mr. Swartsley responded that he can stipulate to that.  He does not have an issue with that.            
Mr. Swartsley reserved rebuttal time.
Mr. Severs clarified that the pedestrian easement will not be required until the future multifamily phase is developed. 
Commissioner Foley asked, does the pathway go outside the multifamily development?  Mr. Severs stated that the pathway is completely in the reserve acreage portion.   
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that on page 106 of the agenda packet is the Parks and Recreation report.  The third item talks about how the path can be transferred.  There can be a public easement across it.  It can be dedicated or the land could be transferred to the Parks Department.  It is a challenge to give away something that is in the City’s Comprehensive Plan under the Leisure Services Plan.  Staff recommends that the Parks memo remain intact because there are three options for the path to be held.  The pathway needs to be constructed.  It is weird that it is starting in the middle although it will connect to Springbrook.  Since it is in the City’s Leisure Services Plan that the Parks Department will be able to obtain funding and acquire rights to the west so that it could complete the connection.     
Commissioner Mansfield asked, does Ms. Akin agree with Mr. Swartsley’s comment that it does not go anywhere or do anything?  Ms. Akin replied that it does not at this point but neither does Springbrook.  Connections do happen.  It takes time.  She suggests that the pathway be constructed and dedicated.  Commissioner Mansfield asked, when does Ms. Akin think it will be of use? Ms. Akin responded that even a short path has value.  It is a natural area and how pleasant would it be to meander through a natural area even though it cannot be like a transportation pathway.  It can still be a leisure pathway even if it is not connected at this point in time.  Based on the Leisure Services Plan it will be connected.   
b. Kathy Fennell, 1738 Dragon Tail Place, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Fennel highlighted a few concerns from the letter she submitted that was published in the agenda packet.  She is concerned with the way the development is happening in that section of Medford.  She would like to see more park land and green space.     
Vice Chair McFadden asked, was Ms. Fennell invited to a Planned Unit Development neighborhood meeting?  Ms. Fennell went to that meeting.  
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he is interested in her comment that nobody wants an apartment building next to their property.  Is she advocating no multifamily buildings be built in the City of Medford?  Ms. Fennell reported no.  What she is saying is that it can be done in an interesting way.  There does not need to be all houses in one place then tall buildings in another place because then it is segregating areas.  It needs to be mixed throughout.  
c. Ann Hackett, 1750 Hondeleau Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Hackett stated that the volume of construction is causing a major safety hazard.  There are dual dump trucks backing around corners where there is a school bus stop.  Children are in danger as well as pedestrians.  She supports the 51 single residential dwellings.  She does not support the high density multifamily dwelling.  She is concerned with the security of the foot path that dead ends.  They already have a homeless camp that gets chased from Hondeleau back around to Orchard.  Having a dead end pathway would probably contribute to that.  They have a heroine dealer on Hondeleau Lane.  She is not wanting to invite further crime issues in her neighborhood.  
Vice Chair McFadden reported that the City of Medford has a code compliance department that will take issues and investigate them.  There is also a traffic committee that can request and recommend signage in needed areas. 
d. Laurie Tanita, 1702 Pearl Eye Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Tanita stated the children play in the empty lots now.  When there are no more vacant lots they will have no place to play. With the addition of more traffic it makes it more unsafe for the children.  There should be some green space in the neighborhood.  A local park for the children to play.  She is not in favor of putting any kind of apartment buildings in the lot.  She is not opposed to townhouses, duplexes or anything like that.  Apartments are notorious for having inadequate parking so the overflow parking goes on the street.  The street becomes completely full with cars.  Increased traffic is a danger to pedestrians and children.  She proposed that the Springbrook connection be made before any construction of the lots.  The streets are narrow and not made for the construction trucks.      
e. Robert Williams, 3340 Sharman Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Williams stated that the people on the other side of Springbrook do not want to see the construction trucks coming through their property either.  His concern is about the placing of the multifamily unit.  There are areas where a multifamily unit could be inter-disbursed as opposed to one single area.  His concern with the pathway to nowhere is the homeless aspect.  They are already seeing it in that area.  He is bothered by rentals where people do not care about the property the way single homeowners do.       
Vice Chair McFadden asked Mr. Severs to explain the conditions put on reserve acreage for further development to the audience.  Mr. Severs reported that it allows it to not be counted towards density.  It also allows delay of public improvements.  As far as the multifamily phase they are proposing will have to go through the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  Mr. Severs expects that to be dramatically revised from what they are seeing tonight.  Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission delegate authority to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission for their review of the multifamily unit which is typical for Planned Unit Developments.             
Mr. Swartsley addressed the irrigation canal stating that at the request of the Rogue Valley Irrigation District the applicant is relocating the canal and covering it up for them. 
The pedestrian access way is solely on the applicant’s property.  The reason for that is that the applicant does not have a right to have the pedestrian access way on the Rogue Valley Irrigation District’s property. 
The applicant is required to have multifamily. The City Council reduced the size of the multifamily area years ago at the request of the neighbors.  He would be just as happy if it was all zoned SFR-6.
The applicant has over 3 ¼ acres of green space on the wetland area.       
Vice Chair McFadden commented that the covered canal makes the neighborhood safer.
Commissioner McKechnie stated that there are 51 single family dwellings versus 52 minimum single family dwellings.  He did not see anything that justified why there was one less than the minimum.  Mr. Severs reported that with residential density for a Planned Unit Development staff looks at the total.  They are only concerned with the total multifamily units as long as it is in that range.   
Ms. Akin talked about the language for the condition stating that “Prior to approval of the Final Plat for the 16th lot, the applicant shall construct and improve the full extension of Springbrook Road, connecting its two existing termini.  The Final Plat (s) for a maximum of 15 lots may be approved prior to the construction of Springbrook Road.  The reserve acreage lot does not count as part of the 15 lots.”  This language will replace Condition #1.    
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 PUD-18-031, ZC-18-036 and LDS-18-044 per the staff report dated June 7, 2018, including Exhibits A through X, modifying Exhibit A, condition #1, dealing with the bridge and finishing up Springbrook Road using Ms. Akin’s verbiage to handle the development.  They also acknowledge the block length questions and issues are satisfactory.  The multifamily property be developed as one piece of property that will require Site Plan and Architectural Commission review.  If divided into further lots it will come back before the Planning Commission.  Approve a five year extension of the development time period.  Treat the pathway condition as per Parks report and Leisure Services Plan with the various options included in Exhibit Q.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
Motion to Amend: Eliminate the requirement that the construction be made now but include the requirement that the easement be reserved. 
Commissioner Mansfield is troubled that Ms. Akin believes it should be done and Mr. Swartsley has convinced him it is a waste of money in this case.  Some of the neighbors have testified there is some danger of it being a homeowner’s haven.
Commissioner Foley stated that the entire pathway is in the reserved acreage.  Nothing is getting built right now.  Nothing will get built until something happens with the reserved acreage.  It would come up in the future as part of the requirement that exists when someone does something with the reserved acreage.
Commissioner Mansfield considered withdrawing his motion to amend.
Commissioner McKechnie is not sure that is the case because it is on the SFR-6 side and not part of the multifamily which is going to be looked at again in review.  Chair Miranda responded that it is part of the reserved acreage.  It is going to be part of the common space from the entire development but developed at the stage of the multifamily. 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, without his motion to amend does it include the developer not being required to do present construction?
Mr. Mitton reviewed the Parks memo.
Mr. Severs reported that the Planning Commission could delegate that authority to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission since it is going to come before them when the SFR-4 phase develops. 
Mr. Mitton asked, is staff comfortable that the entire path as it is shown is in the reserve MFR section and none of it is in single family?  Mr. Severs reported that is the opposite.  It is all in the multiple family.         
The Commission took a five minute recess in order for Mr. Mitton to review the Parks memo.  The Commission reconvened at 7:02 p.m.
Mr. Mitton reported that reading through the Parks Department memo it is requiring the establishment of the easement or right-of-way at this time with the single family.  In paragraph three it talks about construction with the concurrent area of the multifamily.  The path does not need to be construction until the multifamily phase is developed.
Commissioner Mansfield withdrew his motion to amend the main motion.
Commissioner McManus stated that the Planning Commission has dwelt with situations before where there is not enough staff support or attendance at the meeting.  If the Parks Department is meeting with the applicant or there is a situation where the Planning Commission needs to have further clarification it would be in the best interest if they are in attendance.
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 7-0-2, with Commissioner Culbertson recusing himself.  Commissioner Pulver left the meeting at 6:59 p.m.
New Business
50.3 DCA-17-062 Consideration of a land development code amendment to portions of Chapter 10 to allow for the new land use, cooling and warming shelters. Cooling and warming shelters provide homeless individuals temporary relief from the elements and are intended to be temporary and accessory in land use. Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Kyle Kearns. 
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.
Kyle Kearns, Planner II, stated that the name has changed from cooling and warming shelters to temporary shelters. 
The Land Development Code amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Kearns gave a staff report. 
Commissioner Poythress asked, does the parking spot per employee requirement for 1 to 20 beds at the largest shift include volunteers?  Mr. Kearns reported that would be worked out in the operations plan but it is not considered.
Mr. Kearns continued with the staff report.
The Public Hearing was opened.
a. Heather Hassett, Rogue Retreat, 468 W. Pine Street, Central Point, Oregon, 97502.  Ms. Hassett reported that this was a good process to get feedback.  She is in support of the final product.  
b. Joe Vollmar, 941 Parkdale Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Vollmar is the Housing Director for Access and is present tonight to speak on their behalf.  Access supports the code amendment as presented.    
c. Chad McComas, 1743 Alcan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. McComas stated that temporary shelters are for 30 to 90 days and that is what they are looking at.  In the future they will be back regarding a transitional shelter.  This is a good start.    
d. Mary Ferrell, 500 Monroe Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Ferrell is the Executive Director of Maslow Project.  They work with a slightly different population of homeless individuals specifically families and children experiencing housing transition.  Their Board of Directors has approved for the agency to move forward looking into opening up a temporary shelter for the transitioned aged youth that would be 18 to 24.  They are hoping to get a Conditional Use Permit in their existing facility where the kids are already comfortable.  They would like the opportunity to provide written comment on this content that they only received recently.  She has several concerns with some of the language that creates barriers with the population they deal with specifically the search requirement.  She would like to work with the City to refine some of the language.  If there will be a second study session they would like to be a part of that.  They were not included in the first study session. 
e. Jamie Hazlett, 15 Crater Lake Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Hazlett is the President for Maslow Project Board this year.  They would like to develop a warming shelter for this coming winter season.  They do not want the City to take a one size fits all approach that would exclude their kids.  A waiver could create an obstacle for some of the kids.  The same goes with the search.  They look forward to being a part of another study session.    
f. Karen Phillips, 500 Monroe Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Phillips expanded on what Ms. Ferrell and Ms. Hazlett stated.  A lot of what they do at Maslow is work to get upstream of chronic homelessness. There are specific ways one works with youths that one does not necessarily work with the adult population.      
Mr. Mitton clarified that the search issue is not searching backpacks or inside pockets.  It is a search of the shelter such as fire personnel going in making sure it is not over crowded or electrical concerns.  Ms. Ferrell reported that is why they would like to have some conversation.  Had they been at the study session or provided comment they probably would have gotten that clarity and may not have had the search concern.  Mr. Mitton’s clarification alleviated her concerns.        
Mr. Kearns read the search language to see where the confusion may have come in.  “Each user of a temporary shelter shall be required to sign a waiver and give consent to searches from the Medford Police and Fire and Rescue Departments for reasons deemed necessary to ensure safety operations of temporary shelters.  This shall be a part of the operation plan and may differ from shelter to shelter.”  Mr. Mitton stated he had been reading in conjunction with Subsections (a) and (b) where it is talking about inspections and searches of the shelter itself.  There may be ways to clarify that language.      
Vice Chair McFadden asked, does this go to the City Council next?  Mr. Kearns clarified the timeline.  The City Council has requested that after tonight staff takes it back to a study session scheduled for Thursday, August 9, 2018 and the hearing Thursday, August 16, 2018.  It may be pushed back several more weeks taking into consideration vacations.      
The Public Hearing was closed.       
Motion: The Planning Commission based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are either met or not applicable, initiates the amendment, and forwards a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-17-062 to the City Council per the staff report dated June 7, 2018, including Exhibits A through L, staff’s changes discussed at the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission study session and per Exhibit L, and incorporation of public input from local homeless services providers.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he appreciates the people that have come in favor of the amendment.  The Planning Commission is only a recommendatory body on this issue.  He is hoping the concerned citizens follow City Councils study session and public hearing.  After all that is done this only authorizes a Conditional Use Permit.  He recommended the people in favor attend the Conditional Use Permit hearings.  
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0.
50.4 LDS-18-037 Consideration of a tentative plat for a replat of Lot 4 & Tract “A” for Stowe Industrial Park on approximately 2.25 acres located 175 feet south of the intersection of Stowe Avenue and Parsons Drive within the Light Industrial (I-L) zoning district. (372W23DA 127 & 170) Applicant: Kevin Miles & Jeremy Richmond; Agent: Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt. 
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 approval 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 McKechnie asked, does Lot 3 remain a building pad?  Mr. Roennfeldt replied yes.
Chair Miranda asked, does Lot 4 dissolve?  Mr. Roennfeldt replied yes.      
The Public Hearing was opened.
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon 97501-0168.  Mr. Stevens reported that the applicant believes that the replat of pad Lot 4 into two smaller units will be a reduction in traffic and impacts to the neighborhood. 
Mr. Stevens 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 LDS-18-037 per the staff report dated June 5, 2018, including Exhibits A through N.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
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, June 1, 2018.  They had no business items.  It was a ten minute meeting.    
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Chair Miranda reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 23, 2018 was canceled.  
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that last Friday was the appeal deadline for the Urban Growth Boundary amendment.  No appeals were filed. The decision is final and adopted.
City Council has had their first look in a study session of the Draft Transportation System Plan.  Their second review is scheduled in June and hopefully the final review in August.  Then it will move forward through the hearing process.  The Planning Commission will make a recommendation.  
There will be language moving forward for adoption of the Urbanization Plan.  There are a lot of items that need to be codified and procedures put into place before accepting annexations.  Creating urbanization plans that represent the land uses for comprehensive plan designations is important. 
Wetland regulations need to be adopted, various housing strategies and removing regulatory barriers.
There was nothing on the schedule for the Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, June 25, 2018 but staff will keep the Commission informed. 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, June 28, 2018 and Thursday, July 12, 2018. 
Last week the City Council adopted the Parks zoning designation amendment.  The chicken ordinance was approved. 
Next week the City Council will hear housing information related to the Community Development Block Program. There are some membership changes to their Housing Advisory Committee.  The reorganization of Medford Land Development Code Article II.  It proposes to make partitions an administrative review process.  The Planning Commission would be an appeal body for the director’s decision. 
City Council will hear outdoor marijuana grows and what outdoors means.           
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 8:03 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
Submitted by:
Terri L. Richards                                                               
Recording Secretary                                                                      
Patrick Miranda
Planning Commission Chair                                                         
Approved: June 28, 2018


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


Share This Page

Back to Top