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 25, 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
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
Jared Pulver
 
Commissioner Absent
David Culbertson, Excused Absence       
 
Staff Present
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Doug Burroughs, Development Services Manager
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV
Dustin Severs, Planner III
 
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1 ZC-18-110 Final Order 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.
 
20.2 LDP-18-088 / E-18-127 Final Orders 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 Ė 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.
 
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 October 11, 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 Ė Old Business
50.1 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, Principal Planner stated that the Major Type IV Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.220(B).  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, included in property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Paladino gave a staff report.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that staff has mild concerns with the proposed language from CSA Planning Ltd. stating: Urbanization plans that demonstrate coordination and consensus with all the property owners within a planning unit may be prioritized for review.  It provides no direction for staff on how to enforce that provision.  Does staff plan to develop that before submitting it to the City Council?  Ms. Paladino replied that staff included it in the proposal and it is fine.  She wants the Planning Commission to know that the language does not add anything if there is not a mechanism to enforce the provision.   
 
Mr.  Mitton commented that he reads it as it is currently drafted is that staff would not be in a position to have first come first serve.  It would not be enforceable by the applicant. 
 
Ms. Paladino continued the staff report.
 
Commissioner Foley has a concern with the revised language of slopes greater than 25 percent may be counted, unless the land was deemed unbuildable as part of the UGB findings, then it shall be counted.   If counted there is nothing that means it is going to stay that way.  Ms. Paladino reported that the language of the property owner shall provide a recorded legal document that specifies the use of the land for open space purposes and restricts other development from occurring will remain.
 
Commissioner Pulver wondered if the Transportation Planning Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 approval is going beyond what is intended for the Urbanization Plans.  It is fine if staff and public works are comfortable making those decisions at this point.  Ms. Paladino stated that staff could look at changing the basic approval part.  If an applicant proposes something that is a little off of the conventional pattern the Planning Commission and the City Council have a right to review and recognize the change.
 
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director reported that there is a list that staff does not want to accept with the Urbanization Plans.  Staff does not want the level of specificity.  There may be some Urbanization Plans that will violate the block length ordinance.  This gives flexibility to deal with that.       
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated there are items listed as criteria.  Are those the only ones?  If there are more this is like requiring a Conditional Use Permit.  Mr. Brinkley reported that staff does not want to see details but they need to see street connections off higher order streets. 
 
The record remained opened from the Planning Commission meeting of Thursday, October 11, 2018.      
 
a. Raul Woerner, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Medford, Oregon 97504.  Mr. Woerner was the person that raised the issue of the slopes.  The concern he had was if it is mandatory and listed as open space then the proportions are off because there is so much slope land on a property that now the open space allocation is not the same as what the Regional Plan adopted.  In recognition that slopes over 25% can be built on under the Code, even though they are not required to be accounted for as buildable land in an Urban Growth Boundary amendment, the DLCD rule does not prohibit development on slopes over 25%.  There needs to be flexibility in the Urbanization Plans that are received to meet the proportions that are in the Regional Plan.  They may have enough open space in other categories.  That is why he suggested it be optional. 
 
The proportions versus acres on 0.25 acres is that the margin of error is greater than a quarter acre on the lines on the map.  It is not a survey level of review.  It should be substantially the same as the RPS allocation.  If there is a slight deviation the City should have the flexibility of 1%.  That would be reasonable. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the 0.25% a workable number?  Mr. Woerner reported that it is so small.  He suggested 1% above or below would be acceptable.      
 
Ms. Paladino reported that staff did the 1% on open space as a guide.  It seemed like it was giving people a 2 and 3 acre margin.  Staff thinks that is too much.  That is why they went with the 0.25%. 
 
There is enough flexibility in the document that if there are slopes on the land one can determine if it is open space or not.  Those that were deemed unbuildable as part of the UGB there needs to be findings about what that is, how they are staying and something else has slopes is open space or not.  
 
Commissioner Pulver asked on the open space whether 0.25% or 1% if it is a requirement of 20% one could have 19.75% open space and that would be okay as opposed to 0.25% of the 20%.  Those are differences.  Ms. Paladino stated that one can deviate 0.25% which would potentially give one an acre or more of deviation, not the actual 20% of open space and one gets 19.75%. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, isnít that 1 acre in 400? That is the deviation at 0.25%.  Personally, he thinks 1% would be more workable. 
 
Doug Burroughs, Development Services Manager stated Public Works does not have additional comments on this item unless the Planning Commission has specific questions.   
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Main Motion: The Planning Commission based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are either satisfied or not applicable, forwarded a favorable recommendation for approval of CP-16-075 and DCA-18-120 to the City Council per the staff report dated October 18, 2018, including Exhibits A through N.        
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Commissioner McKechnie commended staff for an excellent job on Urbanization Plans. 0.25% is an unworkable number.  1% will give more flexibility especially at the scale that is being discussed. 
 
Friendly amendment: Change the 0.25% to 1%.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie                    Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, if the planning unit is 200 acres with the 10% requirement of open space, there would have to be 20 acres of open space?  Commissioner McKechnie replied yes.  Commissioner Pulver stated that Ms. Paladino reported that the 0.25% variation from that would mean taking the 20 acres and times it by 0.25% to see what the variation would be.  He thinks that would have a result of five hundredths of an acre.  Even the 1% is not much.  He thought if the requirement was 10% that the variation with 0.25% that would go down to 9.75% as opposed to 10%.  Which would have a resulting impact of half acre.
 
Mr. Mitton asked, what page was the open space requirement by planning unit on?  Mr. Brinkley stated that it was on page 79 of the agenda packet.  Commissioner Pulverís first characterization of what staff is talking about is correct.  It would not be a 1% deviation off of the 20%.  It would be 1% off the 20% leaving 19%.  That is as low as one could go.  Mr. Mitton concurred.  When varying from the requirement by x% instead of varying from the calculated open space by x%, 20% deviation of 1% would get to 19% or 21% not 20.2% or 19.8%   
 
Friendly Amendment Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
Main Motion Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
New Business
50.2 DCA-18-118 A development code amendment to Chapter 10 of the Medford Municipal Code to make housekeeping corrections and minor changes related to housing and density. Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Sarah Sousa.
 
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV 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.  Ms. Sousa gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie is struggling with 40% maximum coverage for SFR-00, which is property annexed into the City and converted to SFR-2 with a home larger it would be nonconforming.  SFR-00 and SFR-2 should be the same so there will not be a conflict when going from SFR-00 to SFR-2.  He suggested leaving SFR-00 and SFR-2 at 35%, 45% for SFR-4 and SFR-6 and 50% for the rest.  He agrees with whatever the zone is the lot coverage for a single family, duplex and townhome should all be the same.  He also thinks the side setbacks, regardless of units, should be the same as well.  
 
Vice Chair McFadden commented that if SFR-00 is a holding for properties being annexed into the City the percentage does not have to be listed.  It is already what has been built and if they do any building they have to go to a different zoning.  Ms. Sousa commented not necessarily.  There are properties zoned SFR-00 that would be eligible for a single family home and an ADU.      
 
Commissioner Foley agrees with Commissioner McKechnie on the SFR-00 and SFR-2. It does not make sense making those two different.  The 50% makes sense. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that if leaving everything else at 50%, 40% for SFR-00 and SFR-2 makes more sense.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
Mr. Mitton reported that most SFR-00 are properties coming in from the County he has not been able to confirm but he is wondering if the 40% may make the property nonconforming.  If adjusting one of the two numbers it would probably be more prudent to bump up SFR-2 than to bump down SFR-00.
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that SFR-2 is only allowed where there are topographical constraints.  She is confident that is the reason for the lesser lot coverage.
 
The public hearing was closed.     
 
Main Motion: The Planning Commission based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not applicable, initiated the amendment and forwarded a favorable recommendation for approval of DCA-18-118 to the City Council per the staff report dated October 18, 2018, including Exhibits A through F.        
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Commissioner Pulver has concerns with single family residential structures that are in commercial zones that have been converted to commercial and be able to be converted back and forth.  He recommended a modification to the motion.   
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that Commissioner Pulver is wanting that particular amendment dropped.  He agrees with that.
 
Friendly Amendment #1: Delete the housekeeping amendment of changing nonconforming section so that SFRís in commercial zones can convert back and forth between commercial and residential uses.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Vice Chair McFadden
 
Commissioner Poythress shared his thoughts.  He does not think it is a surprise that there is a shortage of housing inventory.  He appreciates this gesture tries to solve that issue.  He agrees with the premise behind what is being discussed about the back and forth.  There was some lack of resolution about the question of accessory dwelling units that was not fully answered.  There are too many unknowns.  He supports Commissioner Pulverís motion. 
 
Roll Call Vote on Friendly Amendment #1:  Motion passed, 6-2, with Commissioners Foley and Commissioner Mansfield voting no.
 
Commissioner Poythress would love to revisit this and thinks the Planning Department could workshop it and it may materialize into something better.
 
Commissioner McKechnie wanted to revisit the densities for the single family lots.
 
Friendly Amendment #2: Change SFR-00 and SFR-2 to 40% maximum lot coverage.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote on Friendly Amendment #2: Motion passed, 8-0
 
Friendly Amendment #3: Leave SFR-4 and SFR-6 at 45% on detached homes only.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Poythress
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, would this make it harder to put an ADU on?  Mr. Brinkley reported ADUís count towards lot coverage. Yes, it will make it harder to do ADUís and RV storage facility.  It restricts the property ownerís ability to do what they want.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, does that include non-livable space as well? Yes, this is lot coverage.     
 
Roll Call Vote on Friendly Amendment #3: Motion failed, 1-7, with Commissioner Foley, Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner McManus, Commissioner Poythress, Commissioner Pulver, Vice Chair McFadden and Chair Miranda voting no. 
 
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion: Motion passed: 8-0.
 
50.3 LDP-18-100 / ZC-18-099 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval of a proposed three-lot partition, along with a request for a change of zone from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per lot) to SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre) on a 1.2-acre parcel located at 2158 Kings HWY within the SFR-00 zoning district (382W01AA3800); Applicant, Christian Nelson; 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 wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner III stated that the Partition Tentative Plat approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202.  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, included in 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 Foley stated that in the staff report there is discussion about the riparian corridor running through both the houses on the property making them nonconforming.  He is concerned that on parcel one could they redevelop?  Mr. Severs reported the southeast corner is slightly out of the riparian corridor.  There is a potential to do some construction at the far southeast corner.  It is possible to expand on the house.  It has to be outside the riparian corridor.  If they were willingly to demolish the existing home they would not be able to rebuild.       
 
The public hearing was opened. 
 
a. Christian Nelson, 2165 Kings Highway, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Nelson reported that he owns and is representing the property.  He gave a brief history of the property.  It was brought in from the County it is current state.  His intent is to try and bring the property into conformity as much as possible.  Removing and rebuilding the existing driveways is a little excessive.  Vehicles are able to pull out face forward.  They are not backing out onto Kings Highway.  There is sufficient space to turn around in both driveways.  The house existed before the riparian right-of-way and there should be the ability to replace the building.  There is no foundation under the house.  It is on cinder blocks.      
 
Mr. Nelson reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Brenda Salem, 876 Archer Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97501-4412.  Ms. Salemís concern is there would be a road from Kings Highway to the neighborhood and she would like to not see that happen.  The traffic would increase dramatically and it is already an unsafe area.  There are not enough sidewalks and children are playing.  They would like to see the side street remain sealed off from Kings Highway if possible. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is Ms. Salem talking about the street west of the subject property?  Ms. Salem stated they are concerned there would be a road built in the future that would come in from Kings Highway that would connect with Archer Drive.  Vice Chair McFadden stated that with the riparian area there no one will build a bridge.
 
c. Raoul B. Salem, 876 Archer Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97501-4412.  Mr. Salem stated that Archer Drive comes in from west to east and ends at Sunshine that provides a boundary for the west end of the reserve acreage.  He has concerns there was a plan either short term or long term to extend Archer Drive to connect with Kings Highway.  Apparently that is not going to be a problem.  He asked if there was any possibility of developing the reserve acreage or otherwise covering up Crooked Creek and building on it.  Mr. Severs reported that it is the applicantís ultimate goal to develop or sell the reserve acreage to be developed.  As far as Crooked Creek being covered up it is fish bearing so he does not anticipate that ever going away.  Mr. Salem is concerned with the trend to reducing the setbacks and increasing the lot coverage.      
 
Mr. Burroughs does not have additional comments than what they have in the Public Works staff report.  They recommend the single shared driveway which would be in accordance with current standards.  
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, is that a safety measure?  Mr. Burroughs replied absolutely. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the plot plan shows having to dedicate a 14 foot access on the street side.  Dedicating that and if the street is further improved in the future will that make the driveway extremely short?  Mr. Burroughs reported that it will be that much shorter.
 
Chair Miranda asked, would that make the right-of-way a few feet from the front porch? Vice Chair McFadden commented that it would be close.   
 
Mr. Mitton touched on the question of whether or not removing and reconstructing the house would be permitted considering the riparian corridor.  He has concerns particularly if there is not a foundation it would fall under the limited exceptions that would allow to build in the riparian corridor.  The caution is that is not the issue here tonight so the Planning Commission does not have to resolve that issue. 
 
Mr. Nelson stated that the concerns of the neighbors have been addressed.  There was a question of the length of the driveway on the north property.  That driveway goes back to the creek.  There is a bridge that crosses the creek to a structure back there. Bringing the road closer to the house would decrease the length of the driveway but there is still sufficient space to turn around.
 
Chair Miranda asked, is the bridge a pedestrian or vehicle bridge?  Mr. Nelson reported that the previous owners had driven across it but he does not believe it is safe.  There are two bridges that cross the creek.  The other one is strong enough to drive a small tractor across. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, in the future could the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife come in and remove those bridges?  Mr. Severs stated that since they are legal nonconforming and grandfathered in he does not think so.  Any new structure constructed within the riparian corridor such as bridges, etc., would require a Conditional Use Permit.
 
Mr. Nelson stated that with part of this partition it reduces and/or removes the need for the bridges.   
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Main Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the findings as recommended by staff and directed staff to prepare the Final Orders for approval of ZC-18-099 and LDP-18-100 per the staff report dated October 18, 2018, including Exhibits A through K, and do not require the removal of the two existing driveways; include condition #6, requiring a cross-access easement when the first discretionary condition becomes necessary #6 enables that; disregard the block length in this particular case mainly because of the riparian corridor; and the same thing with the access way through the property.  There are people from Sunshine that can walk around the block just as easy as they can cut through this piece of property.  The way this property is going to be developed with the creek it does not make sense either.            
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Amend Motion: Include removal of the two existing driveways.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
There was no second to amend the motion. Motion failed.
 
Roll Call Vote to Main Motion: Motion passed: 8-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Ms. Evans reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met Friday, October 19, 2018.  They approved plans for a development of a three-story apartment building on the south side of East Barnett Road, approximately 600 feet east of Ellendale Drive within the MFR-30 zoning district.  
 
60.2        Planning Department
Ms. Evans reported that the Planning Commission will have a study session on Monday, November 12, 2018.  Discussion will be on local Trails Amendment and Wetland Inventory and Wetland Regulations.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, November 8, 2018.  The meeting on Thursday, November 22, 2018 will be canceled due to Thanksgiving.  There will be a meeting on Thursday, November 29, 2018.  Staff will keep the Planning Commission informed if there will be a quorum.      
 
Last week there was no Planning business for the City Council. 
 
Next week the City Council will hear an annexation, Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan adoption into the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, annual report on the Community Development Block Grant Program and a project to fund purchasing of property on Almond Street.
 
There is a project moving through Cedar Landing.  They had a neighborhood meeting last week and staff has heard a lot of comments from the neighbors.  Staff received an email addressed to the Planning Commission but has not been forwarded because it is ex-parte contact and staff has not received an application yet.  Ms. Evans has an email that she will send to the Planning Commission regarding how to handle ex-parte communications.           
                    
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 7:19 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorderís office.
  
 
Submitted by:
 
 
Terri L. Richards                                                                               
Recording Secretary                                                                      
 
Patrick Miranda
Planning Commission Chair                                                                         
 
Approved: November 8, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top