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, July 12, 2018

 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
Jared Pulver
               
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Eric Mitton Deputy City Attorney
Karl MacNair, Transportation Manager
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Seth Adams, Planner III
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1        LDS-18-049 Final Order 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.
 
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 June 28, 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 LDS-18-058 Consideration of a tentative plat for a 42 lot subdivision on approximately 14.54 gross acres within the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre) and the SFR-2 (Single Family Residential – 2 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning districts, located on the south side of Lone Pine Road approximately 335 feet east of North Phoenix Road (371W21AA TL 100); Applicant, Twin Creeks Development LLC; Agent, Hoffbuhr and Associates; Planner, Liz Conner.  The applicant has requested to continue this item to the Thursday, July 26, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Chair Miranda stated that if there are members in the audience that have come to testify on this agenda item and cannot attend the Thursday, July 26, 2018, Planning Commission hearing, please come forward and the Planning Commission will hear your testimony at this time.  Please keep in mind that it is possible that your questions may be answered when staff presents their staff report on Thursday, July 26, 2018.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
The public hearing was opened and there being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued LDS-18-058, as 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.
 
50.2 DCA-17-111 Code amendment to Article 10.200 of Medford Land Development Code for site plan and architectural review of multi-family residential development projects pursuant to requirements contained in Senate Bill 1051.  The code amendment will include interim design standards for multi-family residential development. Applicant, City of Medford.
 
Seth Adams, Planner III, stated that the Land Development Code Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.218.  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. Adams gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Mansfield requested clarification of the importance for clear and objective standards and Mr. Adams laid out a number of things that appear to be objective but he also talked about the requirement that the development be compatible with uses and development that exist on adjacent land.  That is very subjective.  Then he talked about trying to solve that.  Is that requirement still in it and if it is Commissioner Mansfield submits that it is not objective.  Mr. Adams reported that for multifamily residential projects of three or more attached units, staff believes they have clear and objective standards.  The existing Site Plan and Architectural Commission review compatibility criterion regarding the adjacent land, this code amendment would explicitly state that criterion can only be applied to a commercial or industrial application.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, is subjective only for commercial not for residential?  Mr. Adams stated that is correct.  Or it is subjective if a multifamily applicant affirmatively elects to deviate from the proposed standards then they need to demonstrate to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission that they are providing a project that meets or exceeds what they want as a result.         
 
Commissioner McKechnie is troubled by the appeal of a Site Plan and Architectural Commission decision going immediately to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).  It is going to be an unreasonable expense.  He suggested that if someone wants to take an alternate path, they are offered an extension of 120 days.  That buys them an appeal before the City Council rather than going directly to LUBA.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie is also troubled by the maximum length of a building is 150 feet.  It is his opinion that rather than doing a maximum length of 150 feet it would better serve if anything more than 50 feet needs to have a vertical or horizontal projection or something along those lines.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie is the architectural review for a homeowners association.  The 25% glass area on an elevation for residential would be better defined if it is supposed to go from the ground to the peak of the roof so that a person has an idea of how to calculate it. Twenty five percent of glass on an elevation is hard to achieve.  It also runs up against the energy criteria that is required.  Commissioner McKechnie recommended it should be 12 to 15 percent. He believes the design standards needs more study before he is willing to forward it to the City Council with his approval.   
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, in the state law does five unit multifamily have to comply with the 100 days or is it an option?  Mr. Adams reported that there is nothing to preclude an applicant from waiving the 100 days.  There is nothing that precludes them to extend it to the 120 days or however long they want.      
 
Mr. Mitton reported that reading through Senate Bill 1051 it does not explicitly state that an applicant can waive the 100 days but it is in the same timeframe where it is a right they have to have a speedy decision.  It is his opinion that an applicant could choose to waive it. He does not see any legal problem if there was an additional provision stating if an applicant would prefer City Council appeal they can get a Council appeal if they choose to waive the 100 days.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that it appears that he and Commissioner McKechnie thinks this needs more work.  He proposed that whoever makes the motion make it as a positive motion rather than a negative motion.  It is a better format.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, with Senate Bill 1051 already in effect and an application was submitted wouldn’t staff have to comply?  Mr. Adams reported that is correct.  The 100 days streamline for affordable qualifying projects took effect immediately following the governor’s signature.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, does the design standards apply to all multifamily development whether it qualifies for streamline or not?  Mr. Adams stated that is correct.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, would it take about 12 months to complete the final design standards?  Mr. Adams stated that is a reasonable speculation.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that the idea at the study session was to create interim design standards.  These apply to all multifamily developments that come before the Site Plan and Architectural Commission and other bodies over the course of the next 12 months plus until the final ones are adopted.            
 
Commissioner Foley asked, does the applicant have to request the 100 day rule?  Mr. Mitton stated that the way he sees it is the applicant has to specifically state it is a qualifying affordable housing development.  When they state that they automatically get on the 100 day track.     
 
Commissioner Foley asked, if a developer was building an affordable development that met the criteria but did not specify that is what they were doing, would it be the 120 day rule?  Mr. Mitton reported that they would have to specify in the sense they have to enter into the covenant for 60 years.
 
Commissioner Foley stated that the criteria allows the Site Plan and Architectural Commission to deviate from these rules.  Is that strong enough to alleviate Commissioner McKechnie’s concerns of the building length of in light of the interim design standards in effect for approximately a year or so?  Mr. Adams reported that staff believes the Site Plan and Architectural Commission has the latitude to approve a building longer than the maximum length specified.
 
Commissioner Foley asked, can the Site Plan and Architectural Commission work around the space between the building and street as well?  Mr. Adams stated yes a design could be submitted to deviate from any of the proposed standards.  The applicant would need to plead their case to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission with the understanding that they may disagree.          
 
Commissioner Culbertson reported that page on 34 of the agenda packet under Section C the last sentence states: “The notice also shall state that a person who is mailed written notice of the decision cannot appeal the decision directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals under ORS 197.830.”  If that is a concern for Commissioner McKechnie staff needs to review the law and see if you can’t have that language.  Mr. Mitton reported that language is part of the amendment to ORS 215.416 that governs counties as opposed to one of the rules governing cities.  He is trying to make sure that language does not also appear in a place that applies to cities.  Mr. Adams reported that on page 37 of the agenda packet Section C the last sentence in that paragraph states the same thing.  This section applies to cities.  
 
Commissioner Mansfield suggested that if the majority of the Commission is in favor of it going over for more work then all that can be done at a later time.  If on the other hand the majority of the Commission is in favor of doing it now then he can see that they take time to review.  Chair Miranda responded that he is in favor of moving this item forward.  Commissioner Foley agreed.  Vice Chair McFadden stated that he hopes that the Commission move it forward but at the end of the motion do a series of friendly amendments stating what the Commission wants to include or delete and staff forwards those to the City Council.  
 
The Planning Commission recessed at 6:22 p.m. and reconvened at 6:30 p.m.
 
Mr. Mitton reported that reviewing whether Senate Bill 1050 allows for direct appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals or not for the fast track qualify definitions he would like more time for review.  He proposed that the Commission forwards this to City Council with the provision that the Deputy City Attorney would further research that issue.  If there is a problem with the direct appeal that portion of the code can be excised before it gets to the City Council.  
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is the alternative that the City does the appeal and the Commission is saying right now there is not enough time to an appeal, can it be done as an appeal? Does the Commission have that option?  Mr. Mitton reported that if it is required to do the first level of appeal at the City level it is going to be rough with the 100 day time frame.  Staff would not put something that violates the law.  He is not certain that no direct appeal provision is referring to these particular source of decisions.  That is why he would like to research before it gets to the City Council.
 
The Commission could forward with the recommendation that the glazing of 25% be reduced to 15 or 10%.         
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, if you elect for this you get it but if you don’t it goes the standard including the non-specific criteria?  Mr. Mitton stated that clear and objective standards are for both qualifying and non-qualifying residential development.
 
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, forwards a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-17-111 to the City Council per the staff report dated July 5, 2018, including Exhibits A through E, and direct the Legal Department to determine whether or not direct appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals is acceptable in the interim standards.  If it is leave in if not excise the language. Do not limit the length of the structure of the building.  The Commission encourages some type of pass-through or breezeway.  Change the glazing requirement for walls facing the street to 12%. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Commissioner Pulver is troubled by no vehicular traffic on the street side of the building.  He can see scenarios depending on a building size that make sense.  These criteria are hard to view every possible scenario.   
 
Commissioner Poythress agrees with Commissioner Pulver.  It is restrictive and limiting.  It feels not fully there yet.  He shares Commissioner Pulver’s sentiments about the parking situation about the length and the others as well.  
 
Friendly Amendment made by Commissioner Pulver:  Strike under Special Development Standards for Multifamily Dwellings Section 10.717 (F) (1) … no automobile circulation or parking areas shall be located between buildings and the street. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the Commission talks about flexibility for the Site Plan and Architectural Commission but a lot of times that does not get relayed and it becomes a checklist.  Design criteria are hard.  He understands why they are needed because of Senate Bill 1051.  He is worried it becomes rather than a starting point it becomes a maximum.  It becomes a limiting factor for the look of a city. As this grows and progresses there needs to be a way that it does not end up a design maximum.  Chair Miranda commented that the Planning Commission has a liaison that sits on the Site Plan and Architectural Commission that mimics and speaks to most of the Planning Commissions thoughts.  He is sure that the liaison will get that as well to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.    
 
Commissioner Poythress knows that many times when they have issues come before them they have perimeters for exceptions.  When they talk about whether they are going to grant the exception or enforce the rule there is discussion of what the intent was and are they violating the intent of the rule by granting the exception.  That is his concern that has been well expressed.  It needs to be a baseline but he would not want to see that strictly enforced with no consideration for what may be appropriate given the circumstances. 
 
Chair Miranda commented that when he sat on the Site Plan and Architectural Commission they had many discussions about the applications that came before them.  There was always an aesthetics element.  Senate Bill 1051 takes away that subjective guideline.  He does not care for that condition.  He looks forward to some of these guidelines that gives direction other than aesthetics.    
 
Mr. Mitton spoke to the clear and objective standards to be a baseline and not a limiting factor.  The spirit of the adjustment section is that when someone wants to deviate from the standards there are two questions.  One, is it a least or more attractive than what the clear and objective standards would do, and two, it is at least or more safe.   
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 9-0.
 
50.3 CP-18-054 / ZC-18-055 / CUP-18-056 Request for concurrent consideration of a three-part proposal: a minor General Land Use Plan (GLUP) amendment to reclassify a single 4.36-acre parcel of land located at 555 Airport Road (Tax Lot 500) from General Industrial (GI) to Commercial (CM); a change of zone of the subject parcel and the adjacent 5.85-acre parcel (tax lot 503 currently designated as CM on the GLUP map) from Light Industrial (I-L) to Regional Commercial (C-R); and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow an elementary school use (Grace Christian Elementary School: existing private school currently located at 649 Crater Lake Avenue) to occupy the existing building on the subject Tax Lot 500, and for a 1.3-acre portion of the adjacent/vacant Tax lot 503 to be used as an associated sports/recreation field (372W12A TL 500 & 372W12A TL 503); Applicant, 555 Airport Road, 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 Culbertson disclosed that he had a mutual friend that had children that graduated that asked him approximately four weeks ago when the application would come forward but he did not know.  It would not affect his decision.  Commissioner Pulver recused himself to avoid any potential conflict for the applicant or the City.    
               
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 Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184(1).  The Zone Change approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.227.  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. Severs reported that staff received three new exhibits that will be submitted into the record as Exhibit V, Exhibit W and Exhibit X.  The new exhibits were emailed to the Planning Commissioners earlier today.  Exhibit V is the Public Works staff report for the Conditional Use Permit specifically.  The published Public Works staff report included the Zone Change and the General Land Use Plan amendment.  Exhibit W is a letter of recommendation received from Richard Stevens and Associates, Inc., supporting the request.  Exhibit X is a memo from the City Surveyor requesting that the applicant be required to prove lot legality as a condition of approval.  That has been added to the Conditions of Approval under discretionary condition as #12.  Mr. Severs spoke to the applicant’s agent before the meeting started and he has provided some of that documentation and will be forwarded to the City Surveyor for review.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is there a fourth access for the school?  Mr. Severs reported no.  Vice Chair McFadden believes there is another access way through the north end of the property to the cul-de-sac on Business Park Drive.  It is a created easement.  That is why it shows on all the drawings.  He believes the previous owner gated the entrance.  Mr. Severs deferred the question to the Traffic Manager.  
 
Mr. Severs continued the staff report.  The Public Works Engineering Department added a condition that the approval of the Conditional Use Permit should include a cap of 400 students until the impacts of a larger number of students has been studied.  The Traffic Impact Analysis was based on a projection of 400 students.  For clarity staff added in the Conditions of Approval: “As part of the Conditional Use Permit, the proposed school shall: 11. Be limited to a maximum of 400 students until the applicant has provided and updated traffic analysis studying the impacts of a larger number of students.  Any proposed expansion of the student enrollment beyond 400 students, or any physical expansion of the existing building, will require the approval of a revision to the approved Conditional Use Permit to be heard by the Planning Commission.”  
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, on condition #11 the phrase that states “…any physical expansion of the existing building…” isn’t it true that regardless of this condition, under current City code, if there is a change in the exiting building it has to come back for an approved Conditional Use Permit?  Is this redundant?  If it is already required in the Code then he recommends it gets taken off the conditions of approval.  Mr. Severs agrees.     
 
Vice Chair McFadden did not follow that.  Is Commissioner McKechnie saying they would have to come back with a Conditional Use Permit again? Commissioner McKechnie reported that currently if a school is making a building change they have to come back for a revision of their Conditional Use Permit.  It does not need to be made a condition on this one because it is a baseline for a Conditional Use Permit.  Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that several years ago there was modification language added to the Conditional Use Permit section that give the Planning Director the authority to make amendments to the Conditional Use Permit.  It was added because staff was experiencing conditional uses that wanted to make minor amendments to their structures.  She does not disagree with removing the language because the language would force any minor change to come to the Planning Commission that could otherwise meet the exemptions.  She does not disagree unless there is something in the Public Works report or elsewhere in an agency comment that would require review by the Planning Commission. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, does the Code involve vertical structures?  He can see Tax Lot 503 being included to show that property for playing fields but there is no review for parking or maneuvering areas other than restrictions to paved parking and maneuvering areas.  The rest of the property is not being classified as reserved property.  He is surprised that the remainder of Tax Lot 503 does not have a reserved acreage.  Maybe that would keep it from having driveways and pickup areas.  How does the City regulate how those roads and pickup areas are installed in this situation?  Ms. Akin stated that is part of the review here.  As far as the outdoor area being included on Tax Lot 503 it is necessary as it is part of the school which is a conditional use in the Code in commercial zones.  The balance of Tax Lot 503 will develop as commercial properties.  Reserved acreage is a function of density and residential not a function of commercial properties.
 
Vice Chair McFadden’s concern is increased traffic in that area.  The traffic flow is unsatisfactory.  Ms. Akin deferred Vice Chair McFadden’s concerns to Kimberly Parducci and Karl MacNair.   
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Raul Woerner, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Woerner reported that the purpose of the application is to find a new home for Grace Christian School.  The school now occupies land leased from First Baptist Church that were affiliated with them for a time.  One of the purpose of moving is to make it clear to the parents and community that one does not have to be a member of First Baptist Church to enroll their children.  The other is to locate the school closer to their affiliated high school.
 
In order to get the zone changed to commercial the intervening property needed to be secured.  Grace Christian was able to secure the property.  Part of the property will be developed for profit uses.
 
The traffic calculations are a function of how many trips the uses can generate.  In terms of the 400 students the trip cap stipulations are for the entire track.  Four hundred is a reasonable projection of what the school can accommodate. 
 
The play field is a usable site with the fencing around it.  They can control and keep the premium commercial site available to help pay off their debt for doing all this. 
 
Reid Murphy the property owner is present this evening along with the traffic consultant Kimberly Parducci.       
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that he did not see in anything in the Public Works report or in the County report making recommendation for a signal at Airport.  They indicated it was fine.  He is concerned with traffic flow in that area.  Mr. Woerner understands there needs to be a signal that Costco paid as part of their development. At the time of development of the commercial property the County has requested the applicant to show at the time of Site Plan and Architectural Commission review that they weigh in if there needs to be some proportional contribution for a signal in that area. 
 
b. Kimberly Parducci, Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, 2745 Randolph Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Parducci reviewed concurrency with the zone change and General Land Use Plan map and it showed there was no substantial impact because they are stipulating no net increase in trips.  That is why they are not looking at Airport and Biddle at this time.  They are not showing traffic increase above and beyond what is already zoned.  They will come back at the time of development and address every access location, generate traffic for the entire site and then assess all the impacts.  If they have impacts they will be proposing provided shares.  They will be reviewing Airport and Biddle and the County has asked them review Airport and Table Rock to make sure their new signal is still going to be operating fine with the development of this site.  They are also going to be reviewing Business Park and Biddle.      
 
Commissioner Foley asked, is the drop off area being added now or just the current access from Airport for the parking lot?
 
c. Reid Murphy, 902 Chevy Way #102, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Murphy reported that they are planning on developing at this time with the remodeling of the school is the traffic pattern that goes through and out the back gate. The development to the east at the time of submittal would be a plan on what they are going to do there. 
 
Mr. Woerner stated that his understanding is the drop off lane would be built at the time the sports field is developed.  That would complete the circulation.      
 
Mr. Woerner reserved rebuttal time.
 
Karl MacNair, Transportation Manager, addressed Vice Chair McFadden’s questions stating that the traffic analysis for the school traffic cap, Public Works recommended 400 students.  They have no concerns with building expansion and removing that portion of the condition. 
 
Costco contributed some money as part of their development to a future signal at the Biddle and Airport intersection.  The Airport also contributed some money.  It is on the list but because of the way the trip cap was set for this zone change they are stipulating to the trips already allowed under the existing zoning. 
 
Airport Road is currently a commercial road in the City’s plan but they are updating their Transportation System Plan and it is identified as a collector. 
 
There was no school zone proposed on this street and at this point Mr. MacNair does not believe they will have a school zone unless the school finds it needs it later.  Public Works will do an engineering study at that time to determine the appropriateness.          
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare Final Orders for approval of ZC-18-055 and CUP-18-056 per the Planning Commission Report dated July 12, 2018, including Exhibits A through X; adding conditions #11 and #12; and, based on the findings and conclusions that all the approval criteria are met or not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of CP-18-054.    
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Friendly amendment made by Commissioner McKechnie: Strike the language on condition #11 that reads: “…or any physical expansion of the existing building, will require the approval of a revision to the approved Conditional Use Permit to be heard by the Planning Commission.”   
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0-1, with Commissioner Pulver recusing himself.
 
50.4 LDP-18-068 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval of a proposed two-lot partition on a 0.4-acre parcel located at 1475 Crater Lake Avenue and 1694 Grand Avenue within the SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential – 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (371W19AB5400); Applicant, Travis Colley; Agent, Richard Stevens & Associates; 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.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501-0168.  Mr. Stevens reported that he is present tonight representing the applicant Travis Colley for the two lot partition separating the two existing dwellings on the subject property.  They have reviewed the staff report and conditions of approval.  The applicant is in agreement with those conditions.   
 
Chair Miranda stated that in the presentation there is a driveway access off Crater Lake Avenue that was determined not to be used.  Is that going to be chained, gated or finish the curb and gutter?  How is that going to be addressed?  Mr. Stevens reported that initially it will be an 8 foot fence along the entire back boundary.  The applicant will be securing the corridor along Crater Lake Avenue.  Public Works will have comments of what to do so people do not turn in and park. 
 
Mr. Stevens reserved rebuttal time.
 
Mr. MacNair pointed out that in the Public Works report that one of the conditions is to remove the driveway and replace it with full height curb and gutter on Crater Lake Avenue.  
 
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 LDP-18-068 per the staff report dated July 3, 2018, including Exhibits A through L.    
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 9-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met Friday, July 6, 2018.  He was not at that meeting and deferred the report to Ms. Akin.  Ms. Akin reported there were two items.  There was a 5,700 square foot warehouse for SOS Alarm at Lawnsdale and Biddle.  The other one was Asante adding 4,000 square feet for a second and third floor to the cardio vascular building.          
 
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met since the last Planning Commission meeting.
 
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that City Council has had two study sessions regarding the Transportation System Plan and scheduled for a third in August.  The last one went well.  It is close for a decision from the City Council. 
 
The next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, July 23, 2018.  Discussion will be on small cell facilities and occupational/speech therapist code amendment.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, July 26, 2018, Thursday, August 9, 2018 and Thursday, August 23, 2018.
 
Last week there was no Planning business for the City Council.
 
Next week the City Council will hear corrections for the Park text amendment and Article II.  Staff had to correct section numbers.  The Planning Commission’s decision on Westminster Presbyterian Church wood pile project was appealed.
 
In August the City Council will have study sessions on the Urbanization Plans and Wetlands.
                    
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.  
70.1  Chair Miranda reiterated that he will be unavailable to attend the Monday, July 23, 2018, Planning Commission study session and the Thursday, July 26, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. He has already informed staff of his absence.
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
 
 
Submitted by:
 
______________________________                                                ______________________________
Terri L. Richards                                                                                David McFadden
Recording Secretary                                                                       Planning Commission Vice Chair                                                                               
 
Approved: July 26, 2018
  

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top