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, August 09, 2018

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Alex Poythress
 
Commissioners Absent
David Culbertson, Excused Absence       
Mark McKechnie, Excused Absence       
E.J. McManus, Excused Absence             
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Katie Zerkel, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Samantha Metheny, Deputy Fire Marshal
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Seth Adams, Planner III
Liz Conner, Planner II
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1        CUP-17-116 Final Order 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.
 
20.2 LDS-18-058 Final Order 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.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted 20.1 and 20.2 of the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
 
20.3 GF-18-104 Staff initiated request to consider a code amendment to allow Offices of Other Health Practitioners (SIC Group 804) as a permitted use in the Light Industrial (I-L) zoning district. Applicant, City of Medford; Planner, Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Commissioner Foley has an issue with 20.3.  He is going to vote against it because he would rather see staff time put into getting a better line between heavy commercial and light industrial opposed to dealing with these one of a kind exceptions all the time.  
 
Vice Chair McFadden agrees with Commissioner Foley’s comment.  However, he does not want to throw someone down when opening a business in Medford. 
 
Motion: The Planning Commission approved the initiation of a request for a code amendment to allow Offices of Other Health Practitioners (SIC Group 804) as a permitted use in the Light Industrial zoning district and directed staff to bring the item back to the Planning Commission at a future time.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Poythress
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 3-2, with Commissioner Foley and Vice Chair McFadden opposed.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1        The minutes for July 26, 2018, were approved as submitted.  
 
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 DCA-17-091 Application for code amendment to revise the Wireless Communications Facility Section of the MLDC. Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Seth Adams.
 
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.
 
Seth Adams, Planner III, stated that the 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.
 
Chair Miranda asked, were exclusions the decorative street lights and traffic signals?  Mr. Adams replied, correct. 
 
The public hearing was opened. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that reading through the minutes of the Monday, July 23, 2018, Planning Commission study session he discovered an error.  During the discussions he was talking about wireless offerings on television communications and the impacts.  The minutes refer to his referral to such facilities on Roxy Ann repeatedly.  He was not talking about facilities on Roxy Ann.  He was talking about facilities on the west hills of the valley. 
 
Chair Miranda asked, is there language in the code to limit the radius or distance between these small cells?  Mr. Adams replied that there is not as proposed.  Under Federal law it becomes a tricky situation preventing cell services to not be in close proximity when trying to maintain their coverage.    
 
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, forward a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-17-091 to the City Council per the staff report dated August 2, 2018, including Exhibits A through C.      
 
Moved by:  Vice Chair McFadden                             Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Commissioner Poythress is going to vote no on this code amendment. He appreciates the intention and reason.  It is a good and worthy effort.  He thinks the City can do better than creating parameters around the poles that ideally the City would not have.  There will always be street lights and traffic signal trusses.  Traffic signal trusses will not hold these facilities.  The comment about the City is already used to having ugly lights why not make them look uglier most accurately represents where he is coming from.  He thinks the City can do better in terms of whether there will be creating parameters around designated towers or support structures for the devices so that the City is not adorning the poles that need to be reduced with more expensive equipment. 
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 4-1, with Commissioner Poythress voting no.
 
50.2 CUP-18-076 Consideration of a modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit for a private recreation facility to add parking and to allow for new construction and site modifications to the former tennis and swim club facility located on the east side of North Phoenix Road, approximately 325 feet south of Calle Vista Drive (709 N Phoenix Road, 371W27 TL 701). Applicant: North Phoenix Properties Holdings, LLC; Agent: CSA Planning; Planner: Liz Conner. 
 
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.
 
Liz Conner, Planner II, stated that yesterday staff received a comment from David F. Cuttrell stating that he is in support of the proposed project.  The comment was emailed to the Planning Commission this morning and will be entered into the record as Exhibit P.  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.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Foley asked, is this a new Conditional Use Permit or modifying the one from Jackson County?  Ms. Conner reported that it is modifying the existing one from Jackson County as their conditions are coming forward into this one.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Raul Woerner, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrance, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Woerner reported that the Conditional Use Permit issued in 1981 allowed for a portable cover to be placed over the existing outdoor tennis courts along the north property line.  In 1991 there was a change from that cover to a permanent steel building that exists today. 
 
The immediate need was to expand the parking area that is identified in Phase 1.  The applicant was told under the Conditional Use Permit standards it would be considered a major amendment.  It was recommended by staff that if the applicant has long range plans to get them approved all at once.
 
The applicant wants to provide an aquatic center.  It will be an indoor facility that would accommodate the 25 yard by 25 meter swimming pool.  It would accommodate competitive events under the international standard in meters or the domestic interscholastic standard in yards. 
 
Phase 3 is the outdoor pool.  The applicant developed a plan that accommodated the 30 foot setback on the south line.  The Southeast Plan had a black line that stated it was a local street.  That map does not show any property lines.  It just shows streets.  When going through the narrative of the Southeast Plan it does not mention local streets.  It discusses all streets standard and higher.  A memorandum to staff mentioned that given the map is ambiguous to where property lines are is it really the case that the local street connection must go through the property if they were not proposing the Conditional Use Permit.  The 37 ½ feet would go into the edge of the swimming pool.  It does not make sense to put a street there for all the reasons in the memorandum.  If the street is required they will have extend the parking.  Mr. Woerner did not find any Dolan findings for the exaction.  There is a boiler plate provision in the public facilities Exhibit K that speaks to Medford Land Development Code Section 10.668 stating: “…an applicant for a development permit shall not be required, as a condition of granting the application, to dedicate land for public use or shall provide public improvements unless: (1) the record shows that there is an essential nexus between the exaction and a legitimate government purpose and that there is a rough proportionality between the burden of the exaction on the developer and the burden of the development on public facilities and services so that the exaction will not result in a taking of private property for public use, or (2) a mechanism exists and funds are available to fairly compensate the applicant for the excess burden of the exaction to the extent that it would be a taking.”  It is a local street so there are no SDC credits.  It is 37 ½ feet plus the setback.  If the property ever develops to the east/west there will be internal connectivity.
 
Regarding the Windgate easement connection.  The subject property does not connect to Windgate right-of-way.  There are existing subdivision lots that are between Windgate and the subject property corner.  That is side yards for those properties.   A pathway was not required as part of the subdivision approval so why is it requiring a connection to a path that does not exist.  Recognizing there should be some access eventually to that side the applicant has proposed that the parking area that extends through Phase 3.  The Phase 1 parking area will eventually add 10 more spaces to the east and is designed to provide the interconnection.  When that property gets redeveloped staff stated that they will look at the applicants plan and if it is built out that way they will require that property to provide the connection at that time.  It will accommodate a pedestrian access way.                  
 
Vice Chair McFadden agrees with Mr. Woerner about the path and roadway.  The Southeast Plan was supposed to be flexible but both requirements do not make sense. 
 
Commissioner Foley asked, is there a sidewalk in the front on the North Phoenix side?  Mr. Woerner stated not currently.  Commissioner Foley asked, is there one in the plan?  Mr. Woerner replied yes.
 
Commissioner Foley asked, does the applicant intend to change the current entrance even if they have to put the other road in?  Mr. Woerner replied that is not the applicant’s intention.  It is a condition that the City would like once the street gets built make the applicant remove the existing commercial access and put the access on the local street.       
 
Mr. Woerner reserved rebuttal time.
 
Commissioner Foley asked, how does the Planning Commission go about the applicant suggesting not requiring the road?  Vice Chair McFadden stated to put it in the motion.  
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he heard clearly that the applicant wants to get rid of the road.  Why should the road remain?  Ms. Conner reported that staff is obligated to address that the road is there because it is in the Southeast Circulation Plan which is adopted by the City’s Comprehensive Plan.     
 
Ms. Zerkel asked Commissioner Foley to restate his question. 
 
Commissioner Foley asked, there are two issues that the Planning Commission needs to address, one being the road that is on the Southeast Plan that the majority of the Commissioners think does not make any sense.  The other issue is the path through private property that is not part of this application.  How does the Planning Commission make those go away without causing a lot of problems from a legal perspective?  Ms. Zerkel reported that the pedestrian access way was recommended by Public Works.  The Planning Commission does not have to adopt it as a condition.  Make it clear in the motion it is not a condition.  One of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit is that it complies with the City code.  The code states it must comply with the Southeast Plan map.  There is not a clear legal out not requiring it without amending the Southeast Plan map.       
 
Vice Chair McFadden thinks the Planning Commission is wanting to direct the City to change the Southeast Plan to eliminate this roadway or significantly relocate it at some point.  There is nothing to move that forward to get it done.  There needs to be a mechanism that the City will move forward to get it done.     
 
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that the street is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the Southeast Circulation Plan.  The applicant could also apply to amend the Southeast Circulation Plan.  Staff does not have to initiate although staff has been discussing it internally because there is some cleanup work that needs to happen in the Southeast Plan.  Staff added an amendment that the conditions of approval reflected to the Public Works report stating: “If the City Council amends the Southeast Neighborhood Circulation Plan Map to remove the future street prior to the approval of building permits for Phase 2 or 3, whichever comes first, the dedication and improvement are not required.”  That is an out so staff would not have to come back to the Planning Commission to amend the condition.     
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, does it look like the best that the Planning Commission could do is agree with the applicant that the road is not usable or necessary?  Chair Miranda stated that the best thing they can do is agree with staff’s recommendation and accept everyone will do the best they can on the timing.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, does the applicant accept that?    
 
Ms. Akin reported that Mr. Woerner reminded her of the testimony he gave.  One was related to Dolan which is the Code Section 10.668 analysis the limitation of exactions.  The other was locational exactness of the plan itself.  
 
Commissioner Foley asked, what does that information mean to the Planning Commission?  What can they do with that?  Ms. Akin stated that the Public Works Department provides an analysis when improvements and dedications are required.  Dolan is a three prong test. 1) Legitimate government purpose which all can agree public rights-of-way are legitimate public purpose; 2) The nexus to the development that there is a connection between the two things; and 3) Rough proportionality.       
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, can the Planning Commission find there is not a nexus and simply dump it?  Ms. Akin reported that is the Planning Commission’s prerogative.  They would have to make findings to that affect.
 
Commissioner Mansfield suggested that the Planning Commission makes the findings.    
 
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 CUP-18-076 per the staff report dated August 2, 2018, including Exhibits A through P, and the Planning Commission does not see that the recommendation dealing with the pedestrian path to Windgate can legally be accomplished unless adjoining neighbors allow it to happen.  The original Conditional Use Permit condition #22 regarding pedestrian gates can be deleted.  The Southeast Circulation Plan due to inexactness and necessary to establish Dolan requirements for the establishment of a road in this location be stricken and the requirement of road improvements along the south property line.          
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 5-0.
 
50.3 LDS-18-077 Consideration of a tentative plat for a 20 lot subdivision on approximately 3 acres within the SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district, located on the north side of Sweet Road approximately 270 feet east of North Ross Lane (372W26AA TL 800, 900, 1000). Applicant: Edward Fleming; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc.; Planner: Liz Conner. 
 
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.
 
Liz Conner, Planner II, stated that staff received an email late afternoon yesterday from Jackson County Roads, Mike Kuntz that will be entered into the record as Exhibit P.  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 asked, does staff agree that there is no airport facilities within several miles of the subject property?  Did staff receive a boiler plate from FAA regarding restrictions on this property when maybe they did not understand where the property was?  It was amazing to him to find a letter from the FAA dealing with airport stuff in this packet.  It seems to him this is one that should be ignored.  Maybe the City or the applicant could send a letter back to them straightening them up on this issue.  Ms. Conner reported that the City is required to notify the airport if a property is in the airport area of concern which is an overlay on the subject property.  Staff has just recently started receiving comments back from the airport.
 
Ms. Zerkel commented that the email is asking for two different things.  The airport itself is asking for the avigation noise and hazard easement and by the way contact the FAA. It is not necessarily requiring the filing they just always ask.  Vice Chair McFadden stated that it looks like a boiler plate email.      
 
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 page 5 of the staff report in the agenda packet discusses the Rogue Valley International airport Exhibit L and the applicant agrees with staff stating that the easement has not been included.  There are no Nollan and Dolan findings. 
 
Lots 9, 10, 11 and 20 on the extension of Fleming Way to the east are proposed to be zero lot line dwellings. 
 
Nicholas Lee Way was established with the approval of Silky Oaks Subdivision on the north side of Maple Park Drive.  The approval and development of this plat will create another segment parallel to Ross Lane that is consistent with the block length requirement. 
 
The difference between this plat and the expired plat is that the applicant added the tax lot to the east.  This is infill development.
 
The original plat had an east/west street proposed for the north property line.  This plat proposes coming back 100 feet that will benefit future development with back to back facing lots on the east/west street.  It will allow the properties north of this between Sweet Road and Maple Park Drive another road segment that gives the circulation pattern they are striving for in urban development.                  
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Mitch Swan, 1310 Sweet Road, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Swan reported that he does not have concerns but has questions about the road ending at his fence.  He has a commercial garden not accepted an accepted agricultural property.  This is affecting his property value.  Traffic will be extremely affected.  How is the applicant going to deal with privacy, traffic and fencing to mitigate his issue?  He does not see that density coming next door to him without anyone saying anything.  He feels his questions are valid.  
 
Ms. Zerkel reported that Mr. Sinner was correct when he stated the easement was not required because the findings have not been given and staff is not requiring it as a condition.  However, on Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval (1) (h) states that the applicant shall comply with the Jackson County Airport email.  If staff is not requiring that condition it should be stricken.   
 
Mr. Sinner stated that this property has been zoned SFR-10 since 2007.  It has been annexed into the City many years ago.  Mr. Swan’s property is also in the City.  It currently has the SFR-00 zoning.  He is in urban development.
 
As far as property value he is not in an agricultural zone so an agricultural impact analysis was not required. 
 
The road 100 feet from his property line will at some point be valuable to him.  It will extend services at some point when he or his successors choose to develop.  Mr. Sinner gave Mr. Swan his business card and will be happy to talk to him.
 
Currently the applicant does not have plans for fencing.  He believes the developer would fence his development as individual lots.  That will be taken care of at the building permit stage.
 
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-18-077 per the staff report dated August 2, 2018, including Exhibits A through P, and Conditions of Approval (1) (g) be amended to mention the inclusion of Exhibit P as an explanation of itself, (1) (h) be stricken and all plats have correct road names.     
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 5-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, August 3, 2018.  They approved plans for the development of a 500 unit mini-warehouse storage facility, on 4.1 acres of a 10.3 acre parcel located at 576 E. Vilas Road within the General Industrial zoning district.         
 
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Chair Miranda reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met since the last Planning Commission meeting.
 
60.3        Planning Department
Ms. Akin, reported that the next Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, August 13, 2018 has been cancelled. 
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission through September.  The dates are Thursday, August 23, 2018, Thursday, September 13, 2018 and Thursday, September 27, 2018.
 
Last week the City Council approved the System Development Charge deferral program.  It is an incentive program to delay the fees for a period of time.  They also approved the resolution that upheld the Planning Commission’s decision on the Westminster Church Project Warm.    
 
Next week the City Council will be hearing Senate Bill 1051 Interim Design Standards also the GLUP map amendment on Airport Road for Grace Christian School. 
 
The City Council has requested a study session with the Planning Commission to discuss upcoming code amendments related to housing and accessory dwelling units.  It will be held Monday, September 24, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. in the Prescott Room.  The regular noon Planning Commission study session will be canceled. 
 
Reminded the Planning Commission of the League of Oregon Cities conference scheduled for September 27-29.  Commissioner Foley replied he was not interested but staff has not heard from any of the other Commissioners.  If any Commissioners are interested to please notify staff as soon as possible.  Chair Miranda declined.
                    
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 7:10 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: August 23, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top