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

Minutes
Thursday, July 26, 2018

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
David McFadden, Vice Chair
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Jared Pulver
 
Commissioners Absent
Patrick Miranda, Chair, Excused Absence             
David Culbertson, Excused Absence       
Alex Poythress, Excused Absence
               
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Eric Mitton Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Haley Cox, Parks & Recreation Department
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Liz Conner, Planner II
               
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1        ZC-18-055 / CUP-18-056 Final Orders for a change of zone of the 4.36-acre parcel of land located at 555 Airport Road (Tax Lot 500) 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.
 
20.2 LDP-18-068 Final Order 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.
 
20.3 CUP-17-053 Consideration of request for a one-year extension of time for the Conditional Use Permit approval for Larson Creek Trail Segment II, which extends from Ellendale Drive to Black Oak Drive. The project includes two pedestrian bridges, fence relocation and improvements spanning approximately 7.32 acres within the Larson Creek Riparian Corridor.  (371W32AA, portions of Tax Lots 200, 300, 400 and 500 and 371W32AB, portions of Tax Lots 3100, 1100 and 3000.); Applicant: Medford Public Works Department; Agent: Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc.; Planner Kelly Akin.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1        The minutes for July 12, 2018, were approved as submitted.  
 
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None. 
 
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings – Old Business
 
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.
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Mansfield disclosed that at the previous hearing he mentioned that he was personal friends with one of the witnesses, Barbara Griffin.  He does not notice her present this evening but he noticed written material on her behalf.  He does not believe his friendship with here will affect his decision.  Commissioner Pulver disclosed that he was not present for the January 11, 2018, meeting but he did watch the hearing online.  He believes he is current with all the testimony and presentation by staff.     
               
Vice Chair McFadden 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 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 gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie understands that the sign has to go to the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission for approval.  If the applicant does any paving, does that go to the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission for approval as well?  Mr. Severs reported yes. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, how is it regulated if someone wants to have a small gathering in a residential zone?  Is it based on the number of people and/or noise complaints?  Mr. Severs stated that it is a nuisance complaint.   
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Gloria Thomas, 15 Geneva Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Thomas reported that she feels that Medford is ready for more bed and breakfasts.  Her background is hospitality. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, does every room have an on suite?  Ms. Thomas replied that in the future she would like to do that.  Currently, there are four bathrooms and six bedrooms. One is being occupied by her and the other by her son.  Three of the rooms will have an on suite. One bathroom will be shared for two rooms.      
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Main Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of CUP-17-116 per the staff report dated July 19, 2018, including Exhibits A through Q, and allow the applicant to exceed the total number of guests permitted to a total of 9 guests at any one time for the bed and breakfast.  Also to include discretionary condition #7 but needs discussion.      
 
Moved by:  Commissioner Foley                               Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Commissioner Foley stated that he believes discretionary condition #7 is included because staff does not want to authorize activities from the Conditional Use Permit perspective but how can they be silent on it and not cause a problem?  Mr. Mitton asked, is the intent not to prohibit backyard activities but to simply be silent on it so that it would be as if it were never mentioned in the application in the first place?  Commissioner Foley replied that would be the desire.  Mr. Mitton reported that if that is the intent instead of prohibiting activities associated with the bed and breakfast the Commission could state that this does not specifically authorize activities other that the bed and breakfast that falls under the code.  If there was a code enforcement complaint about commercial weddings every weekend on that location it would fall under business license being allowed or not.  Because it is in the applicant’s request the condition cannot say nothing at all.  Perhaps language stating not specifically authorized by the Conditional Use Permit and be considered through the City of Medford Municipal Code.        
 
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that the code defines bed and breakfast as a single family dwelling or a part thereof other than a motel, hotel or multifamily dwelling where traveler’s accommodations and breakfasts are provided for a fee on a daily and weekly room rental basis not to exceed fourteen consecutive days.  It does not say anything about activities.  In the residential use section there is a subsection that talks about non-residential special uses.  It includes bed and breakfast, daycare and institutional uses like churches.  Churches have weddings and events.  Bed and Breakfasts have morphed that it is not uncommon to have that kind of activity.  There are several ways the Planning Commission could do this.  One way is as Mr. Mitton suggested and state they are not saying yes but not really saying no either.  Another way is to allow a specific number of occasions per year based on a finding that it is not an uncommonly associated use.
 
Mr. Mitton stated that Ms. Akin’s suggestion of a certain number of backyard events per year would be easier for ease of administration.     
 
Commissioner Pulver stated the applicant referenced wine tasting.  A neighbor may have concerns if this were a public event that was drawing traffic above and beyond the guests of the bed and breakfast. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie has the same concern.  He is looking for something reasonable with this and it looks like from Ms. Akin’s suggestion that there should be language that gives the applicants some flexibility.
 
Mr. Mitton reported that with that concern perhaps there could be language stating backyard events are authorized in connection with the guests staying at the bed and breakfast but not as a separate commercial activity.   
 
Ms. Akin stated that whatever the Planning Commission decides they have to come back to the approval criteria.  Remember, only one needs to be satisfied.  Either the first one that there are no significant impacts or that there are some but it is in the public interest.  If they chose the second criterion which would be necessary to allow the expansion of the use there would have to be other findings made which was not part of staff’s recommendation at this point in time.   
 
Vice Chair McFadden understands the discussion but any of the other allowed uses are allowed to do what condition #7 would prevent the applicants from doing.  He suggested limiting the events to guest only under criterion #2.  Ms. Akin reported that criterion #2 has additional findings that are required.  If there are impacts then the use has to serve a purpose.  It is one of three things.  It either preserves a unique asset of interest to the community; or it provides a public facility or public nonprofit service to the immediate area or the community; or provide a use or improvement that is consistent with the overall needs to the community in a location that is reasonably suitable for its purpose.  If the Planning Commission finds there are impacts associated with a use under criterion #2 there is more work that needs to be done.    
 
Commissioner Foley asked, if the Planning Commission limits it to the guests of the bed and breakfast, does it fall under criterion #1?  Ms. Akin agrees with that.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie suggested changing condition #7 to read be prohibited from conducting any activities not directly associated with guests of the bed and breakfast.  Ms. Akin stated, in excess of the number of the guests at the bed and breakfast.  Mr. Mitton reported that the benefit of Ms. Akin’s language limits it to the people staying at the bed and breakfast.  In making findings Mr. Mitton emphasized it is not so much a question of whether there is adverse impacts but whether the adverse impacts when compared to the impacts of development that is not classified as conditional.  If allowing backyard events for only the guests at the bed and breakfast are comparable to a house where there is social guests over three nights a week is not conditional under the code.  That is allowed in a residential zone.  That is a finding that could be made to support criterion #1.            
 
Commissioner Mansfield intends to vote no on this application.  He finds there is a significant adverse impact when compared to the impacts of the development that is not classified as conditional.  This is an SFR-4 residential zone and it is also in a historic preservation overlay district.  He also finds that criterion #2 is not satisfied.  It is not a sufficient public interest to balance against the harm that will be created to the neighbors in their use and enjoyment of the property.  Those are his findings.
 
Commissioner McKechnie responded to Commissioner Mansfield last comment stating that the Planning Commission only has to find the criteria for either criterion #1 or criterion #2.  Given the location of this property adjacent to commercial businesses on Main Street he believes it is a nice buffer between private single family residential uses further up the block and the heavy commercial facing Main Street.    
 
Amended motion: Discretionary condition #7 to be modified to read:  Be prohibited from conducting any activities not directly associated with guests of the bed and breakfast and in excess of the number of guest at the bed and breakfast.  
 
Moved by:  Commissioner McKechnie                   Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote for Amended Motion: Motion passed, 5-1, with Commissioner Mansfield voting no.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the amended motion is now a part of the main motion.
 
Roll Call Vote for Main Motion:  Motion passed, 5-1, with Commissioner Mansfield voting no.
 
50.2 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 Foothills Road (371W21AA TL 100); Applicant, Twin Creeks Development LLC; Agent, Hoffbuhr and Associates; Planner, Liz Conner. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.     
               
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Liz Conner, Planner II, stated that the 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.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that he thought he heard Ms. Conner stated that this project was not going to impact traffic on McAndrews Road.  Ms. Conner reported that it does not have vehicular access off McAndrews Road. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is Ms. Conner stating a median strip at Palermo?  Palermo is going to connect to the developed part of Palermo and come up to the other street.  He thinks most of the traffic out of this project will go to McAndrews Road.  Ms. Conner deferred the question to the City Engineer.  The parcel does not front McAndrews Road.       
 
Commissioner McManus asked, is the developer funding the raised median?  Ms. Conner reported it was part of the original zone change in 2006. 
 
Commissioner McManus asked, how is the raised median going to be with the rest of Foothills Road?  Ms. Conner deferred the question to the City Engineer.       
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, reported that the developer will be required to install the median to limit traffic at the right-in right-out intersection.  It was a previous condition from the zone change.  It will have to be a part of the first phase of the development unless there is a reanalysis of traffic.  If the applicant reanalyzes and comes back to the Commission for modifications to their application assuming they get approval this evening.
 
The City is improving Foothill from Hillcrest to McAndrews through the north interchange.  It will be in close proximity to this project but it narrows back to the existing two lane facility prior to Lone Pine.  This will be a raised median in the middle of the road right now and will not have any impacts to the City’s project or vice versa.  Eventually, when the section north of where the City is stopping (Lone Pine to Cedar Links) they would have to reconfigure everything but it would still be right-in and right-out.             
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, will this median be constructed to prevent traffic on Lone Pine west of this location from crossing over Foothills to this new section?  Mr. Georgevitch replied yes.   
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is Lone Pine on the west side going to be right-in and right-out?  Mr. Georgevitch replied yes. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated right now Lone Pine is a dirt road.  Is it going to connect from Foothill to the end?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that the responsibility of this development will have to build half street plus 12 across their frontage.  There will be no other improvements besides their frontage.  If it was a dirt road they would be responsible for paving 20 feet all the way to Foothill.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that Camina Drive has a cutout at McAndrews.  Is that going to be improved to make that connection or left for someone else to do?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that will be left for someone else to do.   
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Dennis Hoffbuhr, Hoffbuhr and Associates, 880 Golf View Drive, Suite 201, Medford, Oregon, 97504-8496.  Mr. Hoffbuhr reported that this project was approved in 2007 pretty much exactly as presented tonight.  At that time a portion of Bella Vista on the north side of McAndrews was not improved.  Having Palermo developed gives people another option to ingress and egress from Bella Vista.  Not 100% of the traffic is going to be going by way of McAndrews Road.  Some of that traffic will choose to go north on Foothills Road.    
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, will there be at some point paved access down Lone Pine to Foothills Road with this development?  Mr. Hoffbuhr reported the applicant will have to produce a half plus 12 foot improvement along Lone Pine on their frontage.    
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, could Mr. Hoffbuhr speak to Lone Pine Creek.  He does not think it is a year round creek.  Is it just intermittent?  Mr. Hoffbuhr replied yes it is intermittent.  It is a natural stream at this point and will remain in its current state.    
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that Lot #4 looks like it is on the outside of a bend on Lone Pine Creek.  Is the lot big enough to put a house on?  Mr. Hoffbuhr stated that it is.    
 
Mr. Hoffbuhr 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-18-058 per the staff report dated July 19, 2018, including Exhibits A through N.    
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Commissioner Pulver encouraged Public Works to if and when the improvements to north Foothills occur north of the current design project it is important to achieve eastbound access to Lone Pine Road.  There is quite a bit of land currently in the UGB as well as to be added to the UGB that coming from the north he is not sure how to get to those properties.  
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, is Commissioner Pulver suggesting a modification of the right-in/right-out?  Commissioner Pulver stated that he is not given the current state of Foothills Road being one lane in each direction.  He does not believe there is a center lane at this juncture.  It is justified in its current state.  The future plan would not allow the right-in/right-out to continue in future improvements of Foothills Road.  He encouraged the Public Works department to see if that could be solved.
 
Commissioner Mansfield commented that he thinks the right-in/right out is right for now and probably perpetually.  They need to consider the safety of the public over the convenience to the individual property owner.  Commissioner Pulver stated it is not a matter of convenience it is a matter of practicality to access property.         
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 6-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission did not meet Friday, July 20, 2018.  There were no business items.         
 
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
Ms. Akin, reported that on Monday at the Planning Commission study session staff discussed the League of Cities meeting September 27-29, 2018.  There is an early registration and if any Commissioner is interested, please contact staff as soon as possible.
 
The next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, August 13, 2018.  There is no business scheduled at this time but staff will keep the Planning Commissioners informed.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, August 9, 2018, Thursday, August 23, 2018 and Thursday, September 13, 2018.
 
Last week the City Council heard an appeal on Westminster Presbyterian Church Project Warm.  They upheld the Planning Commission’s decision and denied the appeal. 
 
Mr. Mitton commented that the City Council reviewed if there was substantial evidence in the record to support the conditions as chosen.  They were in support of the interpretation of Section 10.314 as to whether the use was comparable to a food bank or whether that language prevents any storage use.  They agreed that language was dealing only with primary use on the property.  They could still have accessory uses such as wood storage where the primary use was the church.  There was one no vote.          
 
Ms. Akin stated that what made the decision of the appeal relatively simple was that the Planning Commission shared their thoughts and why they think it works or does not work.  It makes it simpler for staff to defend the Planning Commission’s decision when they understand what they are thinking.  The criteria are broad for Conditional Use Permits.
  
Next week there is no Planning business for the City Council
 
Tonight the City Council study sessions is the start of the budget. 
 
August 9, 2018 will be the last study session on the Transportation System Plan.  The City Council will also have discussion on Temporary Cooling and Warming Shelter language. 
 
On August 23, 2018, the City Council will hear discussion on Urbanization Plans and Wetland regulations.
 
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner this week mailed a letter to property owners that are affected by the wetlands inviting them to a steering committee to work through the regulations.
 
Staff finished interviews with stakeholders in the Liberty Park area.  That information is going to the consultant that is working on the housing issues in Liberty Park.     
                    
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 6:47 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                                                                                      
 
David McFadden
Planning Commission Vice Chair                                                               
 
Approved: August 9, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top