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, March 28, 2019

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
Mark McKechnie, Chair
Joe Foley, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
David McFadden
E.J. McManus
 
Commissioners Absent
Bill Mansfield, Excused Absence              
Patrick Miranda, Excused Absence          
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
Jeff Thomas, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Liz Conner, Planner II
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
 
20.1        ZC-19-003 / LDS-19-004 Final Order of tentative plat approval for Hogue Heaven Estates – Phases 2 & 3, a proposed 5-lot residential subdivision, along with a request for a change of zone to SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre), on a 0.91- acre parcel located at 884 Ross lane in the SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential, four dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W23DD700). Applicant: Billy Hogue; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc.; Planner: Dustin Severs.
 
20.2        LDS-16-152 Consideration of request for a one-year time extension of the approval of Lilybrook Subdivision, a 14-lot single family residential subdivision on a 1.64 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Agate Street and Hart Avenue, within the SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, 6 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (382W01AB700). Applicant: Clyde Akins; Agent: CSA Planning Ltd.; Planner: Kelly Evans.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.         
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1        The minutes for March 14, 2019, were approved as submitted.
 
Vice Chair Foley appreciated the recording secretary catching the fact that there is no Planning Commission meeting on April 30, 2019 that he is not going to be able to attend.  
 
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 ZC-18-189 Consideration of a request for a zone change of a 1.89-acre parcel located at 4199 Rachel Way from SFR-00 (Single-Family Residential, one dwelling unit per lot) to SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential, four dwelling units per gross acre) (371W22400); Applicant: Jane Erin Griffin-Hagle; Planner: Dustin Severs.  The applicant has requested to continue this item to the Thursday, April 11, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.
 
Chair McKechnie stated that if there are members in the audience that have come to testify on this agenda item and cannot attend the Thursday, April 11, 2019, Planning Commission hearing, please come forward and the Planning Commission will hear your testimony at this time.  Please keep in mind that it is possible that your questions may be answered when staff presents their staff report on April 11th.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued ZC-18-189, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, April 11, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
 
50.2 LDS-19-008 / ZC-19-009 / E-19-010 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval for Delta Estates – Phases 6-9, a proposed 166-lot residential subdivision on two parcels totaling 31.64 acres; including a request for a change of zone for proposed Phases 6-8, totaling 22.64-acres, and an additional 0.14-acres of the adjacent Phase 5, from SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) to SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre); and a request for an Exception in order to allow a distance less than 200 feet between two intersections. The property is located east of Cheltenham Way and north of McLoughlin Drive in the SFR-10 zoning district (371W08 1103 & 1104). Applicant: Hayden Homes, LLC; Agent: CSA Planning Ltd; Planner: Dustin Severs.  The applicant has requested to continue this item to the Thursday, April 11, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.
 
Chair McKechnie stated that if there are members in the audience that have come to testify on this agenda item and cannot attend the Thursday, April 11, 2019, Planning Commission hearing, please come forward and the Planning Commission will hear your testimony at this time.  Please keep in mind that it is possible that your questions may be answered when staff presents their staff report on April 11th.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued LDS-19-008, ZC-19-009 and E-19-010, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, April 11, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
 
Old Business
 
50.3 LDS-18-160 Consideration of a tentative plat for a six lot subdivision on approximately 3.08 acres within the SFR-2 (Single Family Residential – 2 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district, located on Roxy Ann Road directly south of Autumn Park Drive (371W23DD TL 1800). Applicant: Rita Vinatieri; Agent: Neathamer Surveying Inc.; Planner: Liz Conner.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Chair McKechnie 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 reported that the Land Division approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202(E).  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the 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 Foley asked, does Autumn Park Drive extension get built and removal of the driveway off Hillcrest in Phase 1?  Ms. Conner deferred the question to the applicant but stated that the applicant proposed it in Phase 2.  
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, Inc., 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer reported that that the road will be built during Phase 1 with a non-access strip at the end of the road.  Phase 2 will complete the street. 
 
Chair McKechnie stated that the staff report indicated the accessory structure is not allowed on an individual lot.  It needs to be an accessory to something else.  Is there some logic or is the applicant in agreement with staff’s condition?  Mr. Neathamer reported that it is a shop.  It can meet the requirement for getting improvements to it a dwelling type unit as well.  It is either going to be removed or modified to be a separate dwelling unit within the structure.       
 
Mr. Neathamer reserved rebuttal time.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of LDS-18-160 per the revised staff report dated March 21, 2019, including:
 
A condition that a primary use must be established on Lot 3 or the garage must be demolished prior to the approval of the final plat; and
 
                Authorizing a 5-year approval period for the tentative plat; and
 
                Exhibits A-1 through P.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
 
New Business
 
50.4 CP-19-014 Request for a minor General Land Use Plan (GLUP) amendment to reclassify three contiguous parcels totaling 5.26-acres, located north of Barnett Road and east of Murphy Road, from Urban High Density Residential (UH) to Service Commercial (SC) (371W28DC TL 400, 500 & 600). Applicant: Mahlum Architects; Planner: Dustin Severs.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Chair McKechnie 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 Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.222.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the 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 McFadden asked, is the care facility next door to the east on one property?  He is surprised of the empty space north of the development off of Golf View.  Mr. Severs reported that is a separate parcel owned by the same people who own the Brookdale Care Facility. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, does it have separate access onto Golf View?  Mr. Severs replied yes.   
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Marjorie Brown, Mahlum Architects, 1231 NW Hoyt, Suite 102, Portland, Oregon, 97209.  Ms. Brown reported that the design team is requesting a GLUP map amendment in the hopes of creating a site that would house a new and comprehensive cancer treatment center.  The combined doctor’s Park Drive site and Barnett Road site are the only available sites that can accommodate the required program size and the 340B licensure on the Asante Rogue Valley Medical Center campus. The design is 70,000 to 85,000 square feet.  Approximately 25,000 square feet is a three story building.
 
b. Keith Russell, Asante Director of Real Estate, 195 Staples Lane, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  Mr. Russell stated that they have been discussing a traffic impact study.  There will be a lot of traffic associated with this development.  When comparing the traffic distribution to the traffic that would be associated with a residential use fully developed at MFR-30 their distribution of traffic will be dramatically different.  The MFR-30 would burden Barnett Road at rush hour.  Whereas, their use would be before rush hour begins and distributed throughout the day.   
 
Mr. Russell reserved rebuttal time.
 
c. Connall Bell, 2984 Siskiyou Boulevard, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  This project is going to be right in the middle of his backyard.  He is concerned with the zoning change.  How does that change his property?  What is the impact going to be?  Are his property values going to go down because of it?  How long is their construction phase going to be?  How much disturbance is it going to cause the neighbors and him?      
 
d. Fred Hernandez, 3006 Siskiyou Boulevard, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Hernandez reviewed the staff report trying to find a structure design what Asante proposes.  
 
Commissioner McFadden reported that at this point the discussion is whether or not to change the GLUP map to allow this project.  There will be subsequent meetings discussing the design and height of the building that may answer Mr. Hernandez’s questions.
 
Mr. Hernandez asked, south of Barnett is property that belongs to Asante that is zoned S-C.  Why is that not being used instead of trying to rezone from urban high density to and S-C at the proposed site?  Chair McKechnie reported that is a question that the applicant will respond to.  There will be a presentation before the Site Plan and Architectural Commission that will discuss the specifics of the building. 
 
Mr. Hernandez has concerns with setbacks and devaluations of homes.  He feels instead of a minor general land use it is basically a major general land use.           
 
Ms. Brown reported that the total construction could take up to twenty months.
 
The reason for not using the other property is that the project has to be within 250 yards of the hospital.     
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the Findings and Conclusions that all the approval criteria are met or not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation to City Council for approval of CP-19-014 per the staff report dated March 21, 2019 including Exhibits A through F. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Commissioner McFadden stated that for people that live in the neighborhood the facility to the east of the property is three-story.  The buildings to the west are a minimum of two and could be higher.  The owners of the property knows how to keep it clean, people controlled and security.  It is his opinion that this should be a desirable neighbor to have in this situation.
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
 
50.5 LDP-18-172 / ZC-18-173 / E-19-030 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval of a proposed three-lot partition on a 0.52-acre parcel located at 1485 Kings Highway within the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district and a request for a zone change from SFR-4 to SFR-6 (Single Family Residential – 4 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre) and a request for an Exception to allow for 5 parcels to receive access from a Minimum Access Easement (372W36DA801). Applicant/Agent: Larry Denn Construction; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Chair McKechnie 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 Partition Tentative Plat approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.170(D).  The Zone Change approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.204.  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, included with the 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 two letter last week from the neighbors to the south.  Mr. Roennfeldt deferred any issues in the letters to the applicant. The letters will be submitted into the record as Exhibits W and X. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, would the applicant be allowed to build three units if it remains SFR-4?  Mr. Roennfeldt stated no.  Two is the maximum on SFR-4. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what is the reason why the applicant could not put in a private residential lane instead of the access easement?  He has 30 feet to work with.  Mr. Roennfeldt will check on that or have the applicant address the question.  
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Larry Denn, Larry Denn Construction, 765 Sterling Street, Jacksonville, Oregon 97530.  Mr. Denn reported that there is a clerical error on the report.  It is not 0.52 acres it is 0.73 acres.  They were two one hundredths of an acre shy of being able to put a three lot subdivision in which inadvertently the City Council approved in 2007.  The miscalculation of square footage needed is the reason for the zone change to SFR-6.  They are not planning on having any more than three lots. 
 
According to their engineer they cannot have a 30 foot wide road with what is already there.  
 
b. Trevor Denn. 1016 Callaway Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  He agrees with the staff report and adopt the findings.  Their calculations reported the road was not large enough to put in an actual road to feed those lots.    
 
c. Cheryl DeLong, 1503 Kings Highway, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  If the road is not large enough to go in to develop the property then why further develop it?  Ms. DeLong read her letter with her concerns that was submitted into the record as Exhibit X.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, does Ms. DeLong and their neighbor on the other side of the access share that as a driveway?  To answer Chair McKechnie’s question it looks like the 30 foot access that belongs to the parcel in the back is where Ms. DeLong’s house and that house come off Kings Highway.  Is that correct?  Ms. DeLong agreed.   
 
d. Ed DeLong, 1503 Kings Highway, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. DeLong also wrote a letter that was submitted into the record as Exhibit W.  The Denn’s have been good neighbors and the letters are nothing personal but they are concerned with the impact.   
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is this in a historical district?  Mr. Roennfeldt reported no. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, did Mr. Roennfeldt find out about the minor residential lane?  Mr. Roennfeldt reported that private streets are only allowed in Planned Unit Developments.  A minor residential lane is thirty-three feet right-of-way.  There are thirty feet available with this project.   
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what would have to be done as an exception to the minor residential lane?  Mr. Roennfeldt stated to reduce the required amount of right-of-way by three feet.
 
Chair McKechnie stated that they could eliminate parking one side.  Mr. Roennfeldt agreed.  
 
Mr. Roennfeldt reported that the minimum access easement requirement is 20 feet wide.  This application has 30 feet.  The code states that you cannot park on the minimum access easement.  There is still 10 feet available on one side that would allow parking.
 
Chair McKechnie stated that they could have the two existing houses have their own access to Kings Highway as opposed to this.  Mr. Roennfeldt stated the goal is to reduce the amount of driveways off Kings Highway. 
 
Mr. Mitton commented that there are a few logistical issues with separate driveways for the other two parcels.  The other two parcels are not a party to this application so he would be uncomfortable moving their driveways.
 
Mr. Denn stated that he cannot imagine how they would be reducing the parking for any of the people that are adjacent to him if they are parking on their property and not parking on his property right now which they seem to be doing.  He has no objection but does not see it as an argument to addressing their parking issues.
 
As far as the song birds, they will have to remove some trees in order to build.  They try to keep as many trees as they can. They will require new trees be planted.
 
They have submitted a plan for the road that can be reviewed.  There will be “no parking” signs required for the road.         
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Orders for approval of LDP-18-172, ZC-18-173 and E-19-030 per the staff report dated March 21, 2019, including Exhibits A through X with the following consideration:
 
Approval of the Exception request to allow all five parcels to be served by the same Minimum Access Easement.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Chair McKechnie is opposed to the exception request.  He does not have a problem if it was a residential lane.  It is his opinion it sets a bad precedent when the code states only three accesses from a minimum access easement regardless of the circumstances.  He does not have an issue with the zone change or the land development.  He has an issue with the minimum access and five people accessing it. 
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, isn’t the exception to allow more than three?  Chair McKechnie replied yes.  There is nothing to change the number of parcels reached by a minimum access drive.  Vice Chair Foley thought they recently discussed that in a study session but not in place yet.  
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that discussion at the staff level was the possibility of having a minor and major access easement.    The major minimum access easement would be 33 feet.  Eliminating the parking on one side would look like a minimum access easement with a sidewalk.  
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is a residential lane private or public.  Ms. Evans reported a residential lane is a public right-of-way.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is a minimum access easement private?  Ms. Evans stated that it is an easement not a right-of-way. Under the code the only way to create a private street is within a Planned Unit Development.  The minimum acreage for a Planned Unit Development is an acre.  This site does not qualify.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what about his concern about setting a bad precedent?  Mr. Mitton reported that the Planning Commission is not bound by precedence in the way court decisions are.  It is generally understood that each of these are determined on the totality of their own unique circumstances.  Allowing it now does not force allowance in the future if someone else asks for five or six coming off a minimum access easement.  The exception can be granted without prejudicing the ability to grant, deny or consider exceptions on future cases. 
 
Chair McKechnie stated that infill development is difficult to do.  It is important to maintain flexibility.  If it is done sensibly everyone is happier than they were before it started.          
 
Commissioner McFadden thinks the nice thing about this development is that everyone is friendly with each other.  It will be a change. 
 
Speeding on Kings Highway is not Mr. Denn’s or Mr. and Mrs. DeLong’s fault.  If they want traffic slowed down they should contact the police department and request a radar van be placed in that area.
 
The sensitivity of this builder will be able to make things work that maintains the friendly relationship.  The access is probably benefitting both properties in front.  It is an unusual situation with properties behind properties that at one point needed access off Kings Highway so someone put a width of almost a roadway there.  Commissioner McFadden hopes for the best in the neighborhood.        
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
 
50.6 CUP-19-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to operate a multi-purpose neighborhood center, consisting of programs providing mentoring for youth and their families, at an existing building located at 1241 West 8th Street in the MFR-20 (Multi-Family Residential, twenty dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W25CA11200).  Applicant: Youth 71 Five Ministries; Planner: Dustin Severs.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Chair McKechnie recused himself because his firm is actively involved in developing this property. 
 
Chair McKechnie turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Foley and sat in the audience.
 
Commissioner McFadden disclosed that he drove by the location last night.  He did not know it had a driveway behind the building. 
 
Vice Chair Foley 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 staff received a letter yesterday in the mail that will be submitted into the record as Exhibit K.  The letter was forwarded to the Planning Commission yesterday. The Public Works report asks for a traffic study to be provided by the applicant.  The Traffic Engineer ran some numbers and did determine that the traffic study would not be required.  Staff will provide a revised Commission Report removing that requirement.  The email from the Traffic Engineer will be submitted into the record as Exhibit L.  The Conditional Use Permit approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184(C)(1).  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the 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 McFadden asked, is there an issue with the tree on the property?  Mr. Severs reported that there is a Redwood tree at the rear of the building.  The applicant reassured Mr. Severs that the tree needs to be removed.  Mr. Severs deferred the reason for removing the tree to the applicant. 
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Dan Thomas, 18227 Highway 66, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  He has been involved with the design of the building.  The applicant wants to build a youth community center.  They want to provide parking for staff.  Kids will walk, bike or be dropped off at the center.  They are trying to be neighborhood central.  The reason for the relief in parking is that they want to make it a walkup center.  They redesigned the building to meet the needs of the various programs that want to use the facility.  Having budget constraints of a nonprofit but separate space requirements led them to the design.
 
The Public Works staff report asks for a site drainage and retention plan.  From the applicants understanding of the code it is for a changes of impervious surfaces over 5,000 square feet.  Their proposal is an addition of approximately 1,250 square feet of impervious surface.  They are removing 600 square feet of the driveway in front.  Their net is approximately 600 or 700 square feet of impervious surface.  It is an unnecessary burden asked by Public Works.              
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is Mr. Thomas saying that he does not want to do a plan and paperwork or that he does not believe anything in the ground is required to be changed to meet the code?  It seemed to Mr. Thomas in the Public Works report they want a plan for a storm water detention/retention facility that is required for anything over 5,000 square feet.  The applicant is for clean water but feels since they have such a negative impact that it does not become a necessary criterion.  The way Public Works worded it is that it is necessary before the applicant can get a building permit.  If they meet the criteria they will show a grading and sloping plan.          
 
Commissioner McManus stated that Mr. Thomas mentioned he would address the tree.  Is he going to do it now?  Mr. Thomas reported that the roots are causing problems with the building and the neighbor’s property.   
 
b. Bud Amundsen, Executive Director, Youth 71 Five Ministries, 529 Edwards Street, Medford Oregon, 97501.    Mr. Amundsen reported that the foundation is deteriorating due to the root structure of the tree creating an inconvenience and issues with the structure.
 
Young people on the west side of Medford are dealing with significant issues.  They are dealing with the fact of a high rate of crime with significant gang activity in that neighborhood.  Those young people are looking for people to follow.  The gang prevention task force wants to come in and meet that need.  This place gives the applicant the opportunity to provide a safe supervised facility that young people in that neighborhood can come to and know they can receive help.  Also, the activities planned through the other agencies and his agency offer healthy activities for these young people to engage in.  Mostly importantly, young people are desperate for healthy trusting relationships.  That is what his organization does along with the other gang task force agencies; connect with young people, give them worthwhile things to do but also give them people in their lives that will lead them to healthy happy community involvement. This facility offers those activities to happen.     
 
Mr. Amundsen reserved rebuttal time.
 
c. Leona M. Rowley, 116 Lincoln Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Her residence is across the street and three houses down from the subject property.  She has concerns with this youth center because her neighborhood is nice and quiet.  Her elderly sick mother goes to bed at 6:00 p.m. and she requests that activities time stops at 8:00 p.m.  She does not like the idea of the new building.  When they mentioned removing the tree she started shaking.  She has been looking at that tree for 48 years and it has sentimental value.  She does not object having activities for the children because they need a safe environment to go to.    
 
d. Eric Heard, 106 Lincoln Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  There is a school two blocks down from the subject property known for criminal activity.  He suggested not to let kids loiter and go home on their own.  His concerns are loitering and outrageous noise.  
 
e. Geoffrey Smart, 27 Lincoln Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  He believes that before removing the tree that the applicant should get an independent assessor to look at whether that tree poses a hazard to the building.  His concern is noise.  What are the outdoor activities comprised of?  Is it games, music, races, competitions?  Who knows how much noise is generated by outdoor activities?  He requested that be strictly curtailed for the benefit of all who live in that neighborhood.  He is also concerned about the excess parking.  He loves the idea of a place for kids to go to.  He thinks there is going to be a lot of traffic generated by this place and providing half a dozen parking spaces is just not going to cut it. He does not think this building is appropriate for the use that is proposed.        
 
f. Kurt Hildebrand, 20 Ross Court, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  He is in favor of the project.  It is something the neighborhood would benefit a lot from.  His organization contracts with the Medford School District.  They serve Central Medford High School.  It is an alternative school.  Every Wednesday the review the list of students who are on the ten day drop.  They do home visits and roughly 80% of those home visits are within eight blocks of the subject site.  Those students would highly benefit from a center like this.  His organization has collaborated with Youth 71 Five and other organizations that will be housed in the facility.  They find the investment and efforts to engage students are absolutely worth it.      
 
g. Matt Sweeny, 2256 Meals Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  He has been the push on this project from its inception. 
 
Youth 71 Five Ministries was informed that the City had to pay to replace the parking lot of the four-plex behind the fire station because it was damaged by the tree.  The tree is going to continue doing damage. 
 
Regarding the noise issue, he understands where the neighbors would have a concern.  They do not know the applicant.  They operate five youth centers and programs in other areas.  They put in a youth center on Roberts Road near North Medford High School.  One neighbor was concerned about the noise.  They were given a restriction of 8:00 p.m.  After ten years of operation they returned to the Planning Commission to remove that restriction and there was no push back because they were such good neighbors.
 
Last year the school district was considering adding a bus route for McLoughlin Middle School because of safety hazards two blocks behind the fire station.  The kids that live in the blocks around the neighborhood are at risk.  This center will help to address those risks.        
 
Mr. Amundsen reported that a building inspector that the City hired assessed the condition before this process started.  It was their assessment that the roots had done significant damage to the foundation.   
 
Commissioner McManus commented that the applicant made a good value as far as being a good neighbor especially with the audience they are trying to service children.  A good principal to instill and part of their mission is to preserve the past and strengthen the future. 
 
Has the applicant considered repurposing the wood in either exterior or interior?  Mr. Amundsen stated they are looking at that.  They have the contractor that will bring the tree down and put in pieces that could be milled and used for furniture and other interior elements.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer addressed the applicant’s concerns regarding the Public Works staff report stating they are asking standard language on the drainage plan.  If there is no work being done on the site the drainage plan is simple.  If they are making changes the City wants to make sure they are not impacting surrounding neighbors.  The grading as well but there were concerns about storm water quality and detention.  Public Works condition is straight forward.  They are asking to meet the code.  Medford Land Development Code Section 10.729(B)(2) reads: “Building permits for development that adds or reconstructs 1,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces, if that construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development that contains, or will contain, 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface.  A “common plan of development” means the overall plan for development of land, including any pre-existing development and approved plans for future development…”  If the applicant does any changes of 1,000 square feet or more they are required to do detention and water quality on that particular section only, not the entire site.  The staff report is generic.  It is just saying to follow the code.  It is his opinion that the applicant will trigger the need for some water quality and detention on their site.
 
Mr. Mitton added there are multiple separate subsections that trigger some sort of water quality and detention.  Section 10.729(3) is where adding 1,000 square feet where the building was constructed before the requirement existed.  Given the age of the building that may be the one in play here.  The plan would only address what is being added, not the entire site.  It will be a minimal plan.
  
Mr. Thomas stated that the applicant is making sure that when they apply for building permits they will do what is necessary.     
 
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-19-017 per the staff report dated March 21, 2019 including:
 
Designation of the review of the applicant’s proposed site design and building architecture to the Planning Director pursuant to MLDC 10.184(B);
 
Adoption of the applicant’s Findings of Fact (Exhibit F) as identified under the subheadings ADDITONAL USES and HOURS OF OPERATION;
 
Relief from meeting minimum required parking spaces as required per MLDC 10.743(1);
Exhibits A through L.
 
 Moved by: Commissioner McFadden    Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 4-0-1, with Chair McKechnie recusing himself.
 
Vice Chair Foley turned the meeting back over to Chair McKechnie.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural met on Friday, March 15, 2019.  Again they heard the proposal for Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant with a drive-thru off Center Drive.  They approved the application.
 
60.2        Transportation Commission
Ms. Evans reported that the Transportation Commission met Wednesday, March 27, 2019.  She did not attend.   
       
60.3        Planning Department
Ms. Evans reported that the next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, April 8, 2019.  Discussion will be on Cross Sections and Legacy Streets. 
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, April 11, 2019, Thursday, April 25, 2019 and Thursday, May 9, 2019.
 
Mr. Foley is the only Planning Commissioner that signed up for the Southern Oregon Planners Network training on Tuesday, April 2, 2019.  If any other Commissioners are interested please let staff know in order to get them registered.
 
There is training Tuesday, April 23, 2019.  There will be presentation training then training on statewide planning program    
 
There was no Planning business before the City Council last week or next week.
 
Next week the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission will hear the demolition of the Sam Jennings building.  They will also have a study session on a text amendment for expanding the administrative review authorities.  
 
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 7:43 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                                                                      
 
Mark McKechnie
Planning Commission Chair                                                                         
 
Approved: April 11, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top