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


Agenda & Minutes

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

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

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes

Thursday, June 28, 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
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
Jared Pulver
Commissioner Absent
Bill Mansfield, Unexcused Absence
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Katie Zerkel, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Tanner Fairrington, Deputy Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
Dustin Severs, Planner III
10.          Roll Call
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1        PUD-18-031 / ZC-18-036 / LDS-18-044 Final Orders 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.
20.2 LDS-18-037 Final Order 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.
20.3 LDS-17-079 / E-17-080 Consideration of a minor change for the approval of Cherrybrook Subdivision, a 4-lot residential subdivision located on the northeast side of the Cherry Street & Prune Street intersection within the SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential – 6 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. Applicant: Rick Schiller; Agent: Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
30.          Minutes
30.1        The minutes for June 14, 2018, were approved as corrected.  Vice Chair McFadden stated that he sent a small correction to staff earlier today.  Staff made the correction and submitted for signature.  
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None. 
Katie Zerkel, Senior Assistant City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
50.          Public Hearings – New Business
50.1 CUP-18-053 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the operation of Valley School of Southern Oregon, a public school, within an existing facility on a 2.95 acre parcel located at 857 & 861 Valley View Drive in a Single-Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre (SFR-4) zoning district (371W20DB4500). Keith Arntson/Valley School of Southern Oregon, Applicant; Scott Sinner, 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 Conditional Use Permit approval 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.  Mr. Roennfeldt gave a staff report.
Vice Chair McFadden asked, did this property previously have a Conditional Use Permit against it and did it disappear when the use disappeared?  Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director reported that Conditional Use Permits run with the land.  If another school decided to move in and it was comparable of the number of students and whatever the existing Conditional Use Permit was approved for they would not have to come back to the Planning Commission.  In this case, the use has changed from what Living Opportunities had.  They were different than a school.  This is a revision to the prior Conditional Use Permit. 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that he is assuming that the Planning Commission would modify the existing Conditional Use Permit or they would have two Conditional Use Permits on the property if they run with the land.  Ms. Akin replied that there is only one at a time.  The first one is actually being modified. 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that the aviation comments look unique.  They are stating the applicant is within the area of concern for the aviation electronics.  The applicant is not building new buildings they are simply occupying a property that is already there.  What is the financial impact of the user for applying to the FAA and doing an aeronautical study?  Ms. Akin deferred the question to the applicant’s agent.  The avigation easement request is typically noted but do not require the easement.  This one has the additional information from the FAA notice of construction or alteration.  Some of the Federal regulations have different levels of requirements when there are gathering places like schools.
The Public Hearing was opened.
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner reported that he has not reviewed the avigation easement.  Does it only come in to affect at 76 feet in height? 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that the comment states they are within their area of approach by 76 feet.  If they were on the other side of the street and back of the lot they would not be in the area of approach.  They supplied a letter with a map showing the location of the building within the area of approach.  Mr. Sinner responded that if the City does not enforce the condition then he requests that the applicant not adopt the condition. 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that he does not know if the Planning Commission has the latitude to overrule the Federal Aviation Administration.  They are citing code within their rules. 
Chair Miranda commented that the buildings are not changing.  Where was this code when the buildings were constructed?
Commissioner Culbertson reported that they have a list in their letter of a section of their code with different restrictions. The last one states that filing has been requested by the FAA.  They ask must comply.  That is the way he reads it. 
Mr. Sinner reviewed the criteria and does not think it is an issue for the applicant. 
Commissioner Poythress stated that the final point listed in the FAA’s letter speaks to anything that the Planning Commission may justify, otherwise it states the applicant must file if filing has been requested by the FAA.  He believes it is a non-issue.
Mr. Sinner considers this Conditional Use Permit superseded or a stand-alone Conditional Use Permit that will override anything that was on the school because of use has changed.  The school is currently serving 100 students. It has been authorized to go to 120 students and they anticipate it will go to that number.  It is capped at that level. 
The applicant has addressed the impacts.  They are not doing any construction.  They are using the existing facility as is.  The open space is not in their program so they are not proposing doing anything to that area. 
The applicant did a pre-application to identify traffic concerns.  They have supplied a traffic impact analysis and the entrances and egress will operate at a service Level A.  They will operate from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.  Sporting activities are done off-site.  This school concentrates on Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM).  It is a Montessori style environment. 
Public Works has a condition about putting curbs on the parking and maneuvering area.  Mr. Sinner has had discussions with staff and it is his understanding that condition would apply to new parking and maneuvering areas that are not being proposed. 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that they are talking about a very active age group.  They will not be put in a school for six to eight hours a day without needing some space.  There will be recesses and lunch breaks when the children will be on their own.  He does not see anything that the applicant is fencing off the south property.  Therefore, he is assuming people will be free to wander throughout that area even though there is not a particular program and even though physical education is important for all the children.  There is also the basketball court.  Basketball after 10:00 p.m. should be prohibited.  If it is not part of a program, no one there other than a sign and no lighting he is not sure there is anything anyone can do about it.  Mr. Sinner makes it sound like nothing is going to happen out there.  Mr. Sinner responded that the applicant is not proposing to use the south property as an outdoor space.  The applicant is not restricting access to the south property.  He does not want to be responsible for the school doing a street improvement if someone from the neighborhood wants to use an outdoor recreation space.  They are not proposing any fences. 
Commissioner McManus stated that the applicant’s website refers to athletics and offers an after school athletics program on an interest only basis.  It lists track, cross-country, basketball, etc.  Mr. Sinner stated there is no proposed interest to use the open space even though they offer an athletics program.  Mr. Sinner replied that they offer an athletics program offsite.  They offer it at North Medford.
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, commented on Mr. Sinner’s discussion of the site improvements requiring curb on parking areas.  It is a generic requirement that Public Works put in their staff reports.  In this case for the site that is completely developed and nothing planned Public Works requests they change it in the Commission Report to state that it would be only for new or redeveloped parking areas would have that requirement. 
Chair Miranda asked, is the space between the egress and ingress designated as parent drop offs and pickups that does not constitute a change in purpose for that area?  Mr. Georgevitch stated the applicant will do frontage improvements between the driveways that will be full curb, gutters and sidewalk.  The open space is not required to be improved at this time.  Onsite maneuvering for vehicles does not change. 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is the access to the street sidewalk striped or raised that needs to be created from the school to the street?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that is an onsite issue that he does not get involved with. 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that Mr. Georgevitch mentioned earlier new or redevelopment of certain areas.  If they pulled up the existing asphalt and put a new raised walkway to protect people walking more it might fall under that statement.  Mr. Georgevitch responded that it would only be for new parking spaces or redeveloped parking spaces that would require that. 
Mr. Sinner reported that the applicant is fine with the condition that states in the event they do not use it they will not improve the outdoor recreation space.  It looks like the applicant may be using it sooner than it would take to come back for a modification of their approval.  They request authorization for a curb tight sidewalk at the time of improvement for the southerly section if they use the recreation space.  Eliminate the planter strip because of a slope that will require a substantial back fill for a retaining wall.  The curb tight sidewalk would reduce that.  Development south of this site is highly unlikely.  It is narrow and little development property between the applicant’s site and Capitol.  He does not want to cut trees from Capitol to Hillcrest.
Vice Chair McFadden asked Mr. Georgevitch, does that street plan meet with the City’s Engineering requirements?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that he cannot say that plan is approved as in this plan.  It would be a public improvement plan that they will review like any other pubic improvement plan.  It sounds like a phased approach.  This would be phase 2 in the future.  There is no issue keeping this plan and do whatever it needs to be brought up to current standards if it needs it.  He assumes the applicant will have taken care of a public improvement plan as phase I and then it will extend to the south as necessary for the applicant to be able to utilize that space.  It is within the Planning Commission’s purview to decide where the sidewalk goes if they allow for a curb tight sidewalk. Public Works does not have an issue with that. 
Commissioner Pulver asked, what is the size of a sidewalk and planter strip for a residential street?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that it is an 8 foot planter strip and 5 foot sidewalk. If it is curb tight it can still be a 5 foot sidewalk. 
Mr. Sinner reported that phase 1 and phase 2 may be at the same time.
b. Patricia Ayers, 624 Valley View Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Ayers stated that there is a row of trees in the open area that look like they are going to die.  They should have come out by now.  It needs to be decided what is going to happen with those trees.  It may be a future large expense to have them hauled out or have a tree expert say what kind of life they will have.
Mr. Sinner stated that if there is a maintenance issue that impacts the safety of the children the applicant will take care of it. 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the reason for Mr. Sinner’s request for curb tight sidewalks is that the land slopes down into the property on the south side?  Mr. Sinner replied yes.                                          
The Public Hearing was closed.
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff under Criterion 2 and adopts the Final Order for approval of CUP-18-053 per the Planning Commission Report dated June 28, 2018, including Exhibits A through O.  Also, to include that if the south part of the property is utilized the applicant will work with the City’s Engineering Department to develop a proper layout of curb and sidewalk and include if necessary sidewalk adjacent to the curb and other improvements on the side only necessary as new or redeveloped areas.  If that area is to be utilized there will be no activity past 10:00 p.m.   
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0.
50.2 LDS-18-049 Consideration of tentative plat approval for Hogue Heaven Estates, a proposed 7-lot residential subdivision on a 41,700 square foot parcel located north of Nicholas Lee Drive and east of North Ross Lane in the SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W23DD4400); Applicant, Billy Hogue; Agent, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc.; Planner, Dustin Severs.
The Planning Commission recessed at 6:19 p.m. and reconvened at 6:22 p.m. 
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 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, what is the setback for the lot with the minimum access drive on the side?  Mr. Severs reported it is 10 feet. 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what is the reason that a cul-de-sac was not required on the street end?  Mr. Severs stated the reason is for the potential of the mobile home park to redevelop in the future.  Instead of a cul-de-sac the applicant will stub it allowing it to be ready for connectivity in the future.
Commissioner McKechnie is concerned about the Fire Department access especially with seven lots.  How are they going to get a fire truck in and turned around out again?  Mr. Severs reported that the application was reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.  There is a representative present this evening to answer any questions the Commission may have.
The Public Hearing was opened.
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner reported that this project is infill development.  Mr. Sinner has had at least six separate meetings with staff.  One of the first meetings with staff was that Mr. Sinner spoke with Karl MacNair, Traffic Engineer about constructing an offset cul-de-sac bulb instead of a bulb that would be centered.  Mr. MacNair wanted street circulation because there is a good likely hood that properties can redevelop. 
They have the minimum access easement to use as a public utility easement to collect storm water that will flow from south to north.  This is part of the masterplan to get rid of the water. 
Mr. Sinner met with the Fire Department asking whether they would prefer a cul-de-sac or a stubbed street.  The applicant stipulated to residential fire sprinklers for Lots 5, 6 and 7 to maintain public safety.  The Fire Department requested a radius on the inside corner of the minimum access easement where it connects to the street.  The applicant agrees to the request.         
Mr. Sinner asked staff that if the applicant in some point in the future chose to construct a duplex on Lots 3 and 4 with zero lot line for SFR-10?  Is it something the applicant can do?  Mr. Severs replied yes.  Mr. Sinner reported that is a possibility to address the setback concern.  They adjusted lot width to accommodate for that.     
Mr. Sinner 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 Order for approval of LDS-18-049 per the staff report dated June 21, 2018, including Exhibits A through J.
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0.
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met Friday, June 15, 2018. They had two items.  Gordon Trucking is going to construct a 68,000 square foot warehouse and sales unit across from Costco.  The other item is plans for constructing a 60 bed Memory Care facility on the corner of Oak Grove and West Main Street.        
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee scheduled for Wednesday, June 26, 2018 was canceled.
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that the City Council last week approved Article II reorganization effective July 23, 2018.  The Planning Commission will no longer see Class A, B, C and D, they will see Type I, II, III, and IV.  Procedurally, it is the same.  Partitions will be administrative review.  It will be the Planning Director’s decision.  They will still have the public notice process but no public hearing.
The next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, July 9, 2018.  There was no business on the schedule today but staff will keep the Commissioners informed.
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, July 12, 2018, Thursday, July 26, 2018 and Thursday, August 9, 2018.
Chair Miranda reported that he will be unavailable to attend the Thursday, July 26, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. 
Last week City Council approved Article II reorganization.  They approved Outdoor Marijuana Growing Structures that can be in the house and attached or detached garage structure.  They reorganized some Committees and Commissions.  They approved some Community Development Block Grant action plan changes. 
Tonight the City Council in a study session is reviewing the Transportation System Plan. 
The final study session with the City Council regarding the Transportation System Plan will be in August.
Ms. Akin asked the Planning Commission how they like the recent staff reports.  Mr. Severs is putting more graphics in the staff reports.  Is it helpful and easier to review?  There were several affirmations.  Ms. Akin stated that staff will continue with more graphics in the staff reports.    
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.  
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:46 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: July 12, 2018

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


Share This Page

Back to Top