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, November 08, 2018

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
Jared Pulver (left at 6:22 p.m.)  
 
Staff Present
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
Kyle Kearns, Planner II
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 
10.          Roll Call
 
Commissioner Foley requested staff discussion regarding agenda item 20.2.
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that the property owner requested to remove one lot on the west side of the future Rutherford Drive.  The purpose is that the lots are small removing the one lot will increase the size of the lots.  Adjusting the center line five feet to the east will accommodate development proposed on the north side.  The code states that there needs to be substantial consistency between the tentative and final plats.  Losing a lot staff could not find consistent.  The question to the Planning Commission is it consistent?  If it is, the request can move forward for final plat as shown on page 34 of the agenda packet.
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1 ZC-18-099 / LDP-18-100 Final Orders 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.
 
20.2 PUD-14-074 / LDS-14-091 / ZC-14-103 Determination of whether reducing density by one lot and realigning Rutherford Drive by 5 feet to the west is substantially consistent with the approved tentative plat for Rockland Place Phase 3. The approved tentative plat creates 31 residential lots on the south side of Harbrooke Road within the SFR-10/PD (Single Family Residential – 6 - 10 dwelling units per gross acre/Planned Development Overlay) zone. Applicant: Brian Lovett, Lovett Trust; 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, 9-0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1        The minutes for October 25, 2018, were approved as submitted.  
 
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None. 
 
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings – Continuance Request
50.1 E-18-137 Consideration of a request for an Exception to the lot depth requirement for Lot 10 of Phase 7 of West View Village Subdivision, located north of Lozier Court, approximately 300 feet east of Lozier Lane within the SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, 6 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W26DD900); Applicant: PDK Properties; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.  The applicant has requested to continue this item to the Thursday, November 29, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Chair Miranda inquired if anyone in the audience would like to testify that would not be able to make the November 29, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.  There was no testimony.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued E-18-137, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, November 29, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.        
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0.
 
New Business
50.2 DCA-18-113 A development code amendment to portions of Chapter 10, the Medford Land Development Code (MLDC) to create more permissive standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Kyle Kearns.
 
Kyle Kearns, Planner II stated that the Land Development Code Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.218.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Kearns gave a staff report and reported that the recommended action refers to the staff report as October 25, 2018 and it should read November 1, 2018.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, does allowing ADU’s in MFR-15, MFR-20 and MFR-30 zoning districts due to the comment from DLCD?  Mr. Kearns reported partially.  If there is a detached single home in the multifamily zone the code allows for that.  When it is on a nonconforming lot that cannot meet MFR standards it would have to be allowed.  
 
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, initiated the amendment and forwarded a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-18-113 to the City Council per the staff report dated November 1, 2018, including Exhibits A through I.        
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Commissioner McKechnie recommended not allowing ADU’s on multifamily lots where there are single family homes.  Mr. Mitton reported that under Senate Bill 1051 it is required to allow an ADU per single family dwelling anywhere that single family dwelling would be.  He is not sure it can be prohibited in MFR zones.  Mr. Kearns added that on page 62 of the agenda packet it states: “Subsection (C) Siting ADUs in Multi-Family and Commercial Zones, ADUs shall be permitted in multi-family and commercial zones when the following apply: (1) The primary use on the property is a primary dwelling as in 10.821(B)(2). (2) A primary dwelling, as in 10.821(B)(2), in the multi-family zones that meets the standards of Section 10.826 shall be permitted an ADU meeting the standards of this Section.”
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, if there is a single family residence on a commercial lot, does the state regulation allow ADUs?  Mr. Mitton stated that Senate Bill 1051 will require ADUs where there is a permitted single family residence in a commercial zone.  Mr. Kearns reported that it is explicit to the nonconforming lots for multifamily zones.  Commercial lots do not have that standard.    
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is Mr. Kearns stating that DLCD indicated that they would be supportive of an appeal if an ADU was proposed and turned down on a commercial zoned lot with a single family residence on it?  Mr. Kearns replied only detached single family residences.  This does not apply to duplexes and townhouses. 
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that this is getting a lot of attention for an issue that the code is favorable to begin with.  He understands complying with the law.  He would rather react to problems on a case by case basis.  The City is pushing for small lots and more density.  He does not see how that falls in line with that.  These play better on a bigger lot.  Unless the City starts allowing bigger lots he does not see the reason advocating so hard for ADUs. He does not understand that ADUs are allowed in SFR-6 or dense zones and not require more parking.  The Transportation System Plan showed inadequate funding for the transportation system.  He believes there is inadequate funding for parks.  He would be more receptive to the cottage concept.  There is no credit in density calculations for ADUs.  Affordability is cited and he believes that is invalid.  He is opposed to not requiring additional parking for what is being forwarded to the City Council.         
 
Amend Motion: Remove the ability to not require additional parking for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner Poythress
 
Mr. Kearns reported that it is not a direct allowance to remove parking. It is for the older lots that have one off-street parking.  This does not exempt from what is required for single family development by the code. Mr. Kearns read: “A primary dwelling shall adhere to the parking standards in Table 10.743-1. No additional parking shall be required for an ADU. When existing primary dwellings do not meet the standards of Table 10.743-1 a reduction of the required off-street parking shall not exceed one space if one of the below conditions is met: (a) The subject parcel is within the Central Business (CB) Overlay or other established Transit Oriented Districts (TODs) as established by the Transportation System Plan (TSP); or (b) The subject parcel is within a quarter (1/4) mile radius of a transit stop; or (c) The subject parcel is within a quarter (1/4) mile radius of an existing bicycle facility including a bicycle lane, multi-use/shared-use path or a neighborhood bikeway; or (d) The subject parcel has at least 24 feet of lot frontage with on-street parking available, excluding any area considered to be a part of the driveway width/throat; or (e) The subject parcel is unable to comply with off-street parking standards due to existing structures built prior to January 1, 2019.”  
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that it appears to him that no additional parking shall be required for an ADU. The addition of the ADU and associated square footage does not create additional parking requirement. If creating additional residence it should have additional parking.  Mr. Kearns reported that a parcel containing a primary dwelling unit and an ADU shall provide a minimum of two off-street parking spaces in accordance with the City of Medford standards.
 
Mr. Mitton stated that it is required to have two off-street parking spaces whether there is just a single family home or a single family home with an ADU.  That is not changing.  The change is for legacy homes that do not have two off-street parking spaces.  This amendment allows for certain legacy homes that one off-street parking space to add an ADU.      
 
Commissioner Culbertson agrees with Commissioner Pulver.  This is compounding an existing problem. 
 
Commissioner McManus stated that having an older generation relying on the tenants in the primary residence would not be adding additional vehicles.  The legacy lots would not be meeting the parking standards.  He would not be in favor of the amended motion.  
 
Commissioner Culbertson reported that currently there are no rules that prohibit Airbnbs.  What if someone has an ADU and decides they want to Airbnb it.  Airbnb people are not going to bike to the property.
 
Mr. Mitton stated that there is no rule prohibiting someone from doing an Airbnb in an ADU.  There is no rule of someone having an Airbnb in a spare bedroom and having the guests bring their various guests with vehicles day in and day out to the residence.      
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that Mr. Kearns mentioned a date at the end of his presentation of January 1, 2019.  Is the problem the date?  Older neighborhoods have single car garages where the streets are wider.  Newer neighborhoods have narrow streets.  Mr. Kearns reported that the date was to have a point in time.  Staff would entertain an earlier date but it would take research that would be time consuming. 
 
Mr. Mitton stated the reason for the January 1, 2019 date is so that people cannot try and use it for new development.  It was chosen to be a date somewhat contemporaneous with this amendment going into action.  Choosing a date in history he would be hesitant to put anything like that in the code without research to support it.  It would be a lot of research to figure out what date would be the boundary.  It is to prevent any sort of intentional chicanery with future development.
 
Commissioner Poythress believes that the prohibitive policies in place for building ADUs is the issue of the low number of ADUs having been built in the last ten or twenty years.  Simplifying the process or move some of the barriers would get the desired effect.  He has spoken to a number of councilors and commissioners from other cities around the state.  A phenomenon they found to be true as they simplify and reduce the costs of developing ADUs for residences.  At the same time doing a diligent job of communicating the inventory need of homes in their community.  There has been a substantial surge in the development of ADUs as the accessibility becomes lower and easier. 
 
The parking issue is conflicting because on one hand the City and community is saying there needs to be more housing inventory and on the other hand the City and community is saying here is a way to it but it comes with a cost of mobility.  Reading through the notes on this and the intention of removing that parking space requirement is so that somebody does not have to pay to expand their driveway or to incur further costs to develop an ADU.  He struggles with that.  Maybe not requiring some form of parking is not the way to do it.  Maybe one of the ways to go about this is for Council to take a look at some of the prohibitive costs are for building an ADU outside of parking.  He does not know the solution to reducing the costs and increasing accessibility to decrease mobility around town.  The solution may lie elsewhere.         
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that it is a flat fee for building an ADU regardless of size.  Working on a developed lot is more expensive than developing on a new lot.  Being more allowable on ADUs will not reduce the cost to make it attractive for someone.
 
There should be one off-street parking space per ADU per lot.  If two are required for a single family home and an ADU is added that gets one per unit per home.  In areas where houses are dense and parking is tight people manage to live with one car instead of four or five.   
 
Roll Call Vote for Amended Motion: Motion failed: 3-6, with Commissioner Foley, Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner McKechnie, Commissioner McManus, Vice Chair McFadden and Chair Miranda voting no.
 
Roll Call Vote for Main Motion: Motion passed: 9-0
 
50.3 LDS-18-123 Consideration of a tentative plat for a 15 lot subdivision on approximately 2.11 acres within the SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – 6 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning districts located on the south side of Maple Park Drive and east of North Ross Lane (372W23DC1600). Applicant/Agent: Ross Lane Homes LLC; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.  
 
Commissioner Pulver left at 6:22 p.m.   
               
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III stated that the Subdivision Tentative Plat approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202.  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. Roennfeldt gave a staff report.  Staff received a letter from a neighbor stating her concerns with storm drain and run off issues as well as fencing that will be entered into the record as Exhibit P.  The applicant addressed the concerns of the letter and will be entered into the record as Exhibit Q.  Those exhibits were forwarded to the Planning Commissioners.
 
Commissioner Foley asked, is the flag lot the reason why there is a Fire Department turnaround?  Mr. Roennfeldt reported that it is part of the flag pole on one flag lot and it is required because Heber Lane does not continue through.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, did Ms. Hanson get a copy of the applicant’s answers to her concerns?  Mr. Roennfeldt stated that he received the letter today and had not sent a copy to Ms. Hanson before the meeting.  
 
The public hearing was opened. 
 
a. John Hardy, P. O. Box 1625, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Hardy is the agent for the project.  He has spoken to Ms. Hanson a number of times.  They have made provisions to take care of her concerns.  The storm drain will be connected through.  Provisions have been made for the drainage and he understands Ray Knapp will be developing a new cedar fence along the property line.   
 
b. Gary Hill, 2362 Kamerin Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Hill has concerns with street parking of visibility and accessibility.  The street is narrow and there is one side of off-street parking.  The new development will make it more congested and dangerous for the children.  He wants provisions put in place to mitigate mobility and the safety of the children.              
 
c. Carole Nilson, 771 Kaitlin Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Nilson did not see anything about a requirement for open space for children to play. There are many school age children that live in the neighborhood with no place to ride their bicycles, skate boards, scooters or electric scooters, and no place to play any kind of ball except the street.  She is asking that before more population is added to this neighborhood some more consideration be given to some nearby open space for kids in this area either as part of this subdivision or other nearby site. 
 
d. Rebecca Giannikos, 2320 Kamerin Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Giannikos has the same concern as Ms. Nilson regarding the safety of the children.   
 
e. Christina Ruby, 1550 Upper Applegate Road, Jacksonville, Oregon, 97530. Ms. Ruby has concerns with the drainage.  She wants to make sure the drainage issues are being taken into account with the new road being proposed. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that the agricultural drainage is not really an agricultural drainage.  It is part of Elk Creek the goes down through the neighborhood and collects near Rossanley Road.  The City has been working at improving the drainages.  The reason the water drains there now is that there has not been a connection through the property to get the water south to flow to the north.
 
Ms. Ruby asked, is Vice Chair McFadden saying that what is being proposed actually improve some of the concerns that they are seeing right now with the drainage issues?  Vice Chair McFadden stated that he would expect that.  If they experience drainage issue after that the Engineering Department would be happy to chat with the neighborhood about it.   
 
f. Rosemary Stover, 1480 Honeysuckle Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.   Ms. Stover has concerns with access to North Ross Lane.  Is there any thought about getting a traffic light at Maple Park and Ross Lane?
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that the Planning Commission is not charged with having any say so in terms of that kind of traffic action.  There is a city of Medford Traffic Committee that would listen and work towards that issue.  The cost of traffic lights are extremely high. 
 
Ms. Stover commented that even stop signs on Maple Park and Dahlia would be good. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden recommended that a lot of the issues that the Commission has heard tonight the neighbors should take to their City Councilman.  For parks and their locations they should speak with the City’s Parks Department.   
 
Ms. Evans reported that she heard comments about parks and open space.  There is the West Howard Memorial Sports Park at the corner of North Ross Lane and Highway 238.  That has gone through a County Planning process because she participated in that process.  That is a facility in the area. 
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer stated that Maple Park is a minor residential street, 28 feet curb to curb with 55 foot right-of-way.  There are connections to the north and eventually to the south that will have standard residential streets.  The entire street connectivity needs developments like this to continue to build out.  This project will add one of those streets that will connect.  Further south it will have connections to West McAndrews that will come out to a traffic signal.  These interim situations are always a challenge until further development moves forward there is a lot of stress at any single location like Maple Park.  Maple Park continues east and is a popular street to go to East McAndrews.  This a point of concern for the neighborhood and a challenging location for the City Transportation Manager.  He recommended that anyone in the neighborhood that has concerns contact the City’s Engineering Department and fill out a citizen request form.  The City will take a look at signage, speed signs, any type of traffic control like stop signs.  Unfortunately, this Commission does not have authority over those.  Those are left to the Transportation Manager and the Public Works Director. 
 
There is parking on both sides of a minor residential street if the driveways are staggered.  If not then the houses would need to have a fire sprinkler system or they would have parking eliminated on one side.  Any location where people are parking close to an intersection is an issue for the Transportation Manager to review and potentially the Transportation Commission to see if there needs to be additional restrictions.              
 
Mr. Hardy reported that he is also the engineer on the project.  The applicant is providing 60 off-street parking spaces with their project. 
 
There is a large 36 inch pipe that comes out at the south end of Heber.  The applicant is picking that pipe up and draining it.  Each lot will have storm drainage piping.  The large pipe is part of a bypass system.   
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the findings as recommended by staff and adopted the Final Order for approval of LDS-18-123 per the Planning Commission report dated November 8, 2018, including Exhibits A through Q.            
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed: 8-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission did not meet on Friday, November 2, 2018.  There will be a robust meeting on Friday, November 16, 2018.  
 
60.2        Planning Department
Ms. Evans congratulated Councilor elect Poythress.
 
At the Commissioner’s places this evening is a form to confirm their residency.  Please sign before leaving this evening and staff will gather those.    
 
The Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, November 12, 2018 has been cancelled.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, November 29, 2018.  The regular meetings for December are Thursday, December 13, 2018 and Thursday, December 27, 2018.  Currently there is no business scheduled for the meeting on Thursday, December 27, 2018.  Staff will try not to schedule any business but if need be staff will poll the Planning Commissioners to make sure there is a quorum      
 
Last week the City Council approved the Transportation System Plan and will have a final vote next week.  The City Council also adopted the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.  They approved an annexation at Table Rock and Biddle, annual report on the Community Development Block Grant Program.
 
Next week the City Council will hear the Urbanization Plan.         
                    
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair. 
70.1 Chair Miranda congratulated Commissioner Poythress on his election to the City Council.  Chair Miranda thanked Commissioner Poythress for his expertise and insight that he has offered to the Planning Commission.  He looks forward to working with him with the City Council.     
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None. 
 
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: November 29, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top