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, October 11, 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 (left at 7:00 p.m.)
E.J. McManus (arrived at 5:33 p.m.)
Alex Poythress (left at 6:29 p.m.)
Jared Pulver      
 
Staff Present
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1 ZC-18-097 Final Order of a request for a change of zone of a 3-acre parcel located at 503 Airport Road from Light Industrial (I-L) to Regional Commercial (C-R) (372W12A502). Applicant: Columbia Care, Inc.; Agent: Richard Stevens & Associates; Planner: Dustin Severs.
 
20.2 ZC-18-101 Final Order of a zone change from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential – one dwelling unit per existing lot) to SFR-6 (Single Family Residential – 4 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre) on a 0.87 acre lot located at 1919 Orchard Home Drive (372W35DD2000). Applicant: Sterling Homes, LLC.; Agent: Valente Sosa; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
20.3 LDS-18-109 Final Order of a tentative plat for a 17-lot subdivision on approximately 2.85 acres within the SFR-6 (Single Family Residential – 4 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district, located northwest of the Merriman Road and Mace Road intersection (372W13BB 500). Applicant: F.B. Owen, Inc.; Agent: Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc.; 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 September 27, 2018, were approved as submitted.  
 
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None. 
 
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
Commissioner McManus arrived at 5:33 p.m. 
 
50.          Public Hearings – New Business
 
50.1 ZC-18-110 Consideration of a request for a zone change of a 0.54-acre parcel located at 616 Cherry Street from SFR-00 (Single-Family Residential, one dwelling unit per gross acre) to SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) (372W26DD400); Applicant, Esteban Gonzalez Duran; Agent, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc.; Planner, Dustin Severs.
 
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 wished to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs stated staff received a letter from a neighbor after the agenda packet was published.  A copy of the letter was placed at the Planning Commissioner’s places.  The letter will be entered into the record at Exhibit I.  The neighbors are present this evening and wish to testify their concerns.  The Zone Change approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.204.  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 minimum density that would be required on this particular site?  Mr. Severs did not do a density calculation.  He assumes the applicant will subdivide but he has not made clear what his intentions are.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that it would have to be platted and it is too small for a Planned Unit Development.  It would have to be divided into separate lots.  Mr. Severs responded that is correct.  It is less than an acre so the applicant could not do a Planned Unit Development.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the site immediately across the street to the south also zoned SFR-10?  Mr. Severs responded that it is SFR-10 to the south and east.  They can do single family homes.  They can always do an Accessory Dwelling Unit in addition to the single family home.  They can also do duplexes if it met the density.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what is the minimum density for SFR-10?  Mr. Severs replied that it is 6.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, for a subdivision is it up to 3 lots is an administrative decision?  Mr. Severs stated yes and that an ordinance was recently passed that partitions are an administrative decision as long as there are no exceptions or special relief.      
 
The public hearing was opened. 
 
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens and Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon 97501.  Mr. Stevens reported that the application meets the locational criteria with both the eastern and southern boundaries zoned SFR-10.  Public facilities are adequate to serve the site with the development. 
 
In regards to Mr. Young’s letter, Commissioner McKechnie is correct that the applicant does not have a plat or any kind of land division proposed at this time.  It will not be a multiple family project.  It will be a single family project; either single family homes and maybe a duplex.  It will require a minimum of four dwelling units to make the density.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what was the decision to make it SFR-10 versus SFR-6?  Mr. Stevens replied that was the applicant’s request.  They were trying to maximize as many dwelling units as possible.  The goal of the City and State is to increase density to the greatest extent.  The applicant had an idea of a duplex on the corner and maybe two single family units.  They have not designed anything at this point. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie commented that it looks like it is going to end up with streets on three sides which negatively impacts the density.  Mr. Stevens replied they have not calculated that because it is not currently right-of-way.  He does not believe that would be counted into their density.  It is a future street for Meadows to go across.         
 
Mr. Stevens reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Michael H. Young, P. O. Box 276, Jacksonville, Oregon 97530.  Mr. Young owns the property at 609 Alison Way that abuts the property to the west.  He and both his neighbors have concerns not knowing what is going to be done with the property.  Mr. Stevens cleared most of his concerns with his report.   
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, on the administrative partition review will the neighbors get notified and have time for input?  Mr. Severs replied yes.   
 
Mr. Stevens addressed Vice Chair McFadden’s question that whatever the applicant proposes it will be noticed. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that some people do not know the difference between land divisions versus a partition.  In this particular property the outlook of what both those would look like would almost be the same.  Is that correct?  Mr. Stevens stated that is correct.  It is just the process that is different.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directed staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of ZC-18-110 per the staff report dated October 4, 2018, including Exhibits A through H and adding Exhibit I into the record.       
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed: 9-0.
 
50.2 LDP-18-088 / E-18-127 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval of a proposed two-lot partition on a 1.28 acre parcel located approximately 550 feet southeast of the intersection of Canyon Avenue and Roberts Road within the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (371W17DD 700) including Exception requests to the minimum lot density and the maximum lot size. Applicant & Agent, CA Galpin; Planner, Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Poythress disclosed that the property was up the street from his neighborhood.  He has no personal interest in this case.  It should not be an issue.      
               
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 stated that the Partition Tentative Plat approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.170(D).  The Exception approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.186(B).  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. Jim Zundel, 4460 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502.  Mr. Zundel reported that this is the first time they have tried to get less lots.  The main reason is the water easement. When discussing the property to the people at the time did not realize that the City does not take the easement out of the gross buildable area.  They have to build one house at the top of the lot, use the easement for a lawn and build a house at the side.  By the time they get to the bottom of the lot they could not find a way to get a third house in.   
 
Mr. Zundel reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Carol Fiddler, 2875 Lone Pine Road, Medford, Oregon 97504-5685.  Ms. Fiddler was curious as to the plans of the property.  She wanted to make sure homes were not crowded on the parcels.  
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directed staff to prepare the Final Orders for approval of LDP-18-088 and E-18-127 per the staff report dated October 3, 2018, including Exhibits A through U.        
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that this may be one of the hardest properties that he has seen to develop.  It is a good effort. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie noted that in this particular case he believes the exception process works well.  He does not believe strict adherence to the criteria of a subdivision would make this a better project. 
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed: 9-0.
 
50.3 CP-16-075 / DCA-18-120 The proposal is a legislative amendment to develop a procedure for preparing and adopting urbanization plans for areas recently brought into the urban growth boundary. The proposed language will amend the Neighborhood Element of the Comprehensive Plan and will outline the process land owners must follow to adopt plans that show land uses, densities, and transportation networks in the new expansion areas. This project is filed in conjunction with DCA-18-120, a development code amendment to revise Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code to incorporate procedural requirements associated with urbanization plans. Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Carla Paladino, Principal Planner.
 
Carla Paladino stated that the Major Type IV Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.220.  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, property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Paladino gave a staff report.  Staff received several new exhibits this week.  One was a letter from the Oregon Department of Transportation in support of Urbanization Plans with comments.  It will be entered into the record as Exhibit L.  Staff also received an email from Mike Savage, CSA Planning Ltd., proposing Urbanization language changes.  Staff has briefly reviewed those and would like to have time to review them before forwarding to the City Council.  They also submitted a memo that was incorporated into the Urban Growth Boundary record originally from Chris Olivier, GIS Coordinator regarding density.  This will be entered into the record as Exhibit M.  These exhibits were emailed to the Planning Commission earlier in the week.  
 
Commissioner Foley did not understand the changes proposed from Mike Savage, CSA Planning Ltd.  It was not redlined when emailed to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Paladino apologized for not sending the track changes to the Planning Commission.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Mike Montero, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Medford, Oregon 97504. Mr. Montero is in support of the Urbanization Plan.  He offered one suggested modification that has to do with Section #9, Open Space.  In the open space calculation the intent was not only to come up with some number as a percentage of the entire urban reserve area but was also to make certain that the open space would not be counterproductive to the goal which is to provide the ultimate number of urbanized dwelling units.  It appears in the Urbanization Plan that areas that were excluded from the urban growth boundary would not be considered in that calculation.  That would have unintended adverse consequences. Their recommendation is when calculating open space percentages to apply it not only to areas that were brought into the urban growth boundary but to the entire urban reserve area as a whole.     
 
b. Jay Harland, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Medford, Oregon 97504.  Mr. Harland stated that a lot of their recommended changes were adding headings.  There are a lot of complicated issues in the Urbanization Plan.  Some of the mathematical implications of a few of the requirements were not making sense to them. Mr. Harland submitted information on the open space.    
 
c. Mike Burton, 1783 East Vilas Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502.  Mr. Burton’s concern is that Crater Lake Avenue goes through the middle of his house.  He has a problem with that.  He was hoping someone could explain the road going through the middle of his home.  A traffic signal will be put in front of his house.  He has questions.  Can anything be moved?  Ms. Paladino reported that she believes Mr. Burton’s property is a part of MD-2.  That portion of MD-2 is not going to require this process.  It would just be an annexation process.  Ms. Paladino would be happy to meet separately with Mr. Burton for further discussion.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that nothing is happening quickly on this.  There is plenty of time for Mr. Burton to review and see how it will affect him.  Plans are flexible at this time.  The City will have other opportunities for comments through the entire process.      
 
d. Mike Savage, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Savage volunteered to answer any questions the Commission may have. 
 
Commissioner Foley asked, are there any big changes that the Planning Commission should be aware of that Mr. Savage would like to address?  Mr. Savage reported that they provided two copies, one with track changes accepted and another that was full track changes.  If they did not get that in color they would not understand the changes. 
 
The primary focus regarding density was to fully understand what the Regional Problem Solving Plan commitment was.  It related to specific special areas and a specific process.  It stated that the lands coming in with consideration of the efficiency measures taken have to overall achieve 6.6 units per acre.  Not each individual area specifically has to achieve 6.6 units per acre.  Chris Olivier’s memo summarizes that in fairly succinct terms. 
 
Commissioner Poythress left the meeting at 6:29 p.m.
 
e. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens and Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon 97501.  Mr. Stevens echoed their concerns also with the open space calculations.  It should be throughout the entire urban growth boundary expansion area.  These numbers should be allocated accordingly.  Not everything is going to fit in each subsection or planning area to meet everybody’s goals.  Also, the 6.6 units per acre in its entirety for the urban growth lands not each planning section.  He is in agreement and would like it to move forward.  
 
Ms. Paladino reported that there is new information that staff would like to review.  If the Planning Commission decides to make a recommendation this evening with the understanding that staff review the information and provide those options to the City Council, or if it is something the Planning Commission wants to see modified and brought back.  She needs clarification.
 
Commissioner Foley recommended to bring it back to the Planning Commission.
 
Ms. Paladino stated that it could be brought back to the Planning Commission on Thursday, October 25, 2018.  It is not scheduled to go to the City Council until Thursday, November 15, 2018. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, would staff like the Planning Commission to postpone this matter until the next Planning Commission meeting?
 
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director deferred the question back to the Planning Commission if they desired.  However, he believes the language that staff has drafted is sufficiently broad and flexible to allow Urbanization Plans to come in and address the issues that have been brought before the Planning Commission this evening.  This is not the last time they will talk about Urbanization Plans.  Staff recognizes the need to have mechanisms that provide the flexibility that the individuals that have testified this evening have raised.  The Regional Plan is not perfect and definitive.  There are a lot of questions of how it will be implemented.  Implementation is something staff is working on as long as they work on Urbanization Plans.  They are open to review the language that was provided this week and one ten minutes ago.  Staff would like the opportunity to review that and come to some sort of conclusion.  Staff does feel there is some urgency to move it forward.  Staff can bring it back to the Planning Commission on Thursday, October 25, 2018, if that is the Planning Commission’s preference.
 
Commissioner Foley how will staff make this happen the right way?  Mr. Brinkley stated that what staff has now is broad and general direction on how that would happen through Urbanization Plans as they are brought in. Individual Urbanization Plans would have to make findings about moving different allocations of different kinds of land uses around within the portion of the urban reserve area that is in the urban growth boundary.  It can be done on a case by case basis as an Urbanization Plan comes before the Planning Commission for recommendation then City Council for approval.    
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that he is hearing something that goes far beyond just looking at one area and making plans which he thinks is where the plan is now.  What mechanism is there to make it fair that one person’s plan does not “tromp” on another person? Mr. Brinkley reported that also applies to open space.  The problem Vice Chair McFadden just described is one of equity and fairness. Transferring residential density is another story.  Within part of the urban reserve area that is in the urban growth boundary it can probably be move around in a case by case basis as Urbanization Plans are brought in.  They can describe how it is going to be a little dense in an area because of environmental constraints, hillsides, riparian, etc. and move it somewhere else.               
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Ms. Paladino requested since the item is going to be continued that the Chair please reopen the public hearing.
 
The public hearing was reopened.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued CP-16-075 and DCA-18-120 to the Thursday, October 25, 2018 Planning Commission meeting.        
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed: 7-1, with Chair Miranda voting no.
 
50.4 CP-16-036 A legislative amendment to adopt a revised Transportation System Plan and amend applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan including the Transportation element and Goals, Policies, and Implementation element. Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Carla Paladino, Principal Planner.
 
Carla Paladino stated that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Sections 10.214 and 10.220.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Paladino gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie left the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that Siskiyou Velo is not in favor of the amendment. What is her response to serious criticism by the Siskiyou Velo organization?  Ms. Paladino reported that staff does not have a written detailed response, point by point, to their findings.  Staff will include those if necessary.  Staff feels they have addressed the Goal 12 requirements for the Transportation Planning rule relating to bicycle facilities.  That there is of differing opinion.  At this point staff does not agree with Siskiyou Velo.   
 
Commissioner Foley asked for clarification of providing findings or direct staff to provide the City Council with supplemental findings related to any new testimony.  Ms. Paladino reported this is in response to Siskiyou Velo testimony and other things that have been stated.  Making sure that staff addresses those concerns and provides a memo that addresses those based on staff’s findings. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that on the bicycle plan there are notations that show shared use paths.  It seems as though part of those paths in the east Medford area are utilizing irrigation ditches.  Unless the City of Medford has a joint easement with those property owners the City does not have a right to use those as paths.  Ms. Paladino stated that the City does not have detailed easements yet.  These are part of the Leisure Services Plan process.  Those would need to be refined at some point.  As development occurs staff would be looking for path connections.  Maybe they are adjacent to the canal and maybe they are not.    
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that one of them cuts directly through two holes at Rogue Valley Country Club.  Ms. Paladino commented that if the Country Club is not redeveloped staff would not be seeking an easement.
 
Commissioner Culbertson reported that it also identifies the road that will be the future connection of Murphy Road to Pierce Road which also goes directly through the Country Club.  Since those are on the plan if the City is not able to get full connection to walking paths or the roadway what happens to them if they are on the plan as proposed?  What right does the landowner have if they are not willing for the City to build?  Does the City have eminent domain to build the road?  Ms. Paladino stated that the reason they are in the plan is that if the land redevelops it is easier to have the street connection documented in the plan now rather than having to come back and change the plan and work with the property owners later.
 
Commissioner Culbertson is fine with the roadway but he is opposed to utilizing any paths on irrigation ditches.
 
Mr. Mitton agreed with the point that any easement for irrigation water purposes does not inherently carry the right to put a path there.  Whether there be discussion with the property owners to site a path next to the irrigation ditch is a separate issue than what is in the TSP.   
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Harlan Bittner, 4102 Southview Terrace, Medford, Oregon 97504.  Mr. Bittner is the President of the Siskiyou Velo Club.  The TSP update lacks sufficient details to ensure the bicycle facilities will be implemented in a way that meets the requirements of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule.  Mr. Bittner submitted a brochure that provides a brief summary of some of the design approaches the Club advocates.   
 
b. Ben Karetnick, 3485 Hollywood Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Karetnick is in agreement with what has been shared.  He strongly encouraged moving this amendment forward. 
 
c. Gary Shaff, 516 Herbert Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520.  Mr. Shaff requested that the Planning Commission reject the current TSP draft and insist that it establishes a goal for bicycle mode share somewhere above 10% of travel in 2038.  Provide for the modification and reconstruction of the existing TSP to make it safe and convenient for all modes so that everyone can on their preferred mode travel to everywhere.
 
d. Evan MacKenzie, 2434 County Club Drive, Medford, Oregon 97504-7712.  Mr. MacKenzie wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission understands that bicycles are transportation.  They are not alternative transportation.  Mr. MacKenzie submitted his testimony into the record.
 
e. Michelle Manion, 2434 County Club Drive, Medford, Oregon 97504-7712.  Ms. Manion talked about bike safety from a different view point.  The City of Medford could use a more walkable and bike-able neighborhoods for health and safety.   
 
f. Ann Smith, 3182 Forest Hills Drive, Medford, Oregon 97504.  Ms. Smith moved to Medford for the express purpose of using her bike as primary means of transportation. In Medford the lack of connected and safe facilities she experiences discourages all but the doggedly determined using a bike as a mode of travel.  Several times a week for the last six years she has biked to work on Highway 62 between Delta Waters and Northgate Market Place near the intersection of Highway 99.  The bike lane is narrow with an unprotected buffer in places that gives the illusion of protection.  She strongly urged the City of Medford to work with the County and State to ensure that its residents are provided with safe and convenient functional facilities that meet the standards of safety and accessibility for all ages and abilities and that this Transportation System Plan strives to implement.  
 
Vice Chair McFadden commented that the Planning Commission agrees with her but her desired route is not within the confines of Medford.  It is all done by the engineers of the Oregon Department of Transportation.  She has been riding in the middle of a construction project for the last three years.
 
Ms. Smith did not ride during the construction.  She understands her route is State built.  After all the construction her journey did not get any safer.  Her alternative routes do not have bike facilities.  
 
g. Mike Montero, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Medford, Oregon 97504.  Mr. Montero is in support of the Transportation System Plan.
 
h. Robert Shand, 406 Beatty Street, Medford, Oregon 97501.  He is present tonight regarding bicycle and pedestrian safety.  Medford’s culture needs to change to include bicycles.  Think of the future.   
 
i. Randy Jones, 815 Alder Creek Drive, Medford, Oregon 97504. Mr. Jones is in favor of scenario #5 and encouraged the Planning Commission to forward this to the City Council.
 
Ms. Paladino reported that staff recognizes there are concerns regarding multi-modal facilities and trying to upgrade the bicycle facilities.  Staff recognizes the City has a built environment that needs to be retrofitted.  Staff is making efforts within the TSP draft to get better systems to get the bike and pedestrian facilities in place. 
 
In regards to the Foothills project, that was a Transportation Facility project earlier this year that the City Council approved.  It does include an offsite multi-modal path between Hillcrest and McAndrews.  It is an approved project moving through Engineering. 
 
One of the action items within the goals and objectives is that staff would be looking, hopefully in the near future, at a specific bike/pedestrian plan to address some of the issues more deeply.  This Transportation Plan is addressing all transportation modes in a generalized plan. Staff recognizes a bicycle facility plan would be a better way to review that.       
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer stated that he heard a lot of testimony this evening about bikes and the facilities in the plan.  He does not disagree with most of the testimony this evening.  The Transportation System Plan is a planning level document, not a detailed engineering design guideline.  When it gets to the City Council through Transportation Facility hearings they get into those details and built environment.  The Transportation System Plan has considered the built environment as part of the major changes that are going on in this document.  It is not as simple as providing guidelines and being able to follow them.  They have proactively made changes with Foothill being a perfect example facility that is planning the first buffered bike lanes including multiuse paths.
 
There were statements made that he believes are inaccurate, especially about when someone extrapolates that sharrows should be put on a facility that an eight year old should be able to ride on at eight miles an hour.  He does not know where that was extrapolated from.  The Engineering Department follows AASHTO guidelines on placement of sharrows on all of the facilities they put in town.         
 
Mr. Mitton stated that a lot of the discussion this evening has been on policy issues.  It is not his job to weigh in on policy issues.  Whether the City should put more resources or less towards bicycling is outside of his job description.  However, a concern was raised by a couple testifiers about whether the draft TSP complies with State law, specifically Oregon Administrative Rules Division 660-012 and ORS Chapter 659 and 659A dealing with unlawful discrimination.  He appreciates the concerns.  He spent a good amount of time today going back through and he must respectfully but vigorously disagree that the draft TSP is legally insufficient.  He believes that what is being presented right now is compliant with the State TSP Rules and OAR Division 660-012.  He emphatically feels that nothing in this draft TSP would constitute unlawful discrimination under ORS 659A.   
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are satisfied, forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of CP-16-036 to the City Council per the staff report dated October 4, 2018, including Exhibits A through I and including funding Scenario 5 in the TSP.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that he is sympathetic with a lot of the testimony from the biking community he can say without reservation that the biking community was well represented in the TSP meetings and their concerns were heard loud and clear.  If they draw nothing else from the draft TSP they should draw that there is a significant funding shortage for all the transportation needs of this community.  In the testimony he heard this evening there was not discussion on how to solve that.  He will be voting in favor of the amendment and encouraged his fellow Commissioners to do the same.   
 
Mr. Mitton wanted to make sure they addressed the last bullet point.  There was one Commissioner that addressed their feelings on that.  It would be helpful for feedback if people wanted to weigh in to specifically provide findings or direct staff to provide the City Council supplemental findings related to the new testimony.  The staff report was written before a lot of the testimony was made today.  If the Planning Commission feels the comments made this evening or that the staff report adequately addressed it preemptively that is fine.  If there are either findings that this Commission wants to make or if this Commission wants staff to provide additional findings on those issues for the City Council, some direction would be helpful.  
 
Chair Miranda’s perspective is that although some of the testimony this evening has been from citizens that the Commission may or may not have previously heard from, the resounding opinion is still the same in this meeting as well as in the JTS forum.  Many of the perspectives have been represented over the timelines.  He believes the TSP is the City’s best foot forward.   
 
Commissioner Foley thanked the people that came to testify.  It is important to have citizen involvement.  He has a lot of sympathy for those folks.  He does not ride his bike as much anymore because of the reasons Mr. Montero mentioned.  He likes what he sees in the newer developments.  There is flexibility in the Plan to deal with those issues.  This Plan is a good start.  He is going to vote for it.  
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed: 6-1, with Commissioner Mansfield voting no.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met Friday, October 5, 2018.  They approved the consent calendar and left in a flat five minutes.  
 
60.2        Planning Department
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that the Planning Commission will have a study session on Monday, October 22, 2018.  Discussion will be on local Wetland Inventory and Wetland Regulations.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, October 25, 2018 and Thursday, November 8, 2018.  There was discussion at the Planning Commission study session on Monday, October 8, 2018 regarding the possibility of having a special Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, November 29, 2018.  There will be no business on Thursday, November 22, 2018 because that day is Thanksgiving.  There was some consensus at the study session.
 
Chair Miranda and Commissioner Foley is able to make the meeting on Thursday, November 29, 2018.  Staff will keep the Planning Commission informed if there will be a quorum.      
 
Last week the City Council initiated an annexation at Table Rock and Biddle.  It is scheduled for City Council hearing on Thursday, November 1, 2018. 
 
At the next City Council meeting there is no Planning business.
 
The City Council has made changes to the City’s Boards and Commissions structure.  One of the changes is that the Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair will be responsible for conducting interviews for Site Plan and Architectural Commission and Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission.  There are applicants and people that have reapplied. Staff will be scheduling interviews in November and December.  City Council has requested recommendations by January 1, 2019 so they can make their appointments in order to be seated for their first meetings in February.         
                    
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair. 
70.1 Chair Miranda called out all of staff’s efforts that they have put into the TSP.  It has been a long and hard road.  Everybody has come together and done a fantastic job in pulling it all together.  Making sure everybody who needs the information has the information.  He thanked staff for everything they have done on it.      
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.
90.1 Commissioner Foley likes the Urbanization Plan.  The one they struggle with today is still concerning to him.  He thinks it will work but does not know the answer on how to do it.  He is sure staff does.  The work staff did was very good.  He enjoyed reading through the document.
 
Commissioner Pulver requested the Planning Commission receive the changed documents on the open space and density.  
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 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: October 25, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top