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, April 11, 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
Bill Mansfield
David McFadden
E.J. McManus
Jared Pulver
Jeff Thomas
 
Commissioner Absent
Patrick Miranda, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Doug Burroughs, Development Services Manager
Karl MacNair, Transportation Manager
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
 
20.1        LDS-18-160 Final Order 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.
 
20.2        LDP-18-172 / ZC-18-173 / E-19-030 Final Orders 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.
 
20.3 CUP-19-017 Final Order 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.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.         
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1        The minutes for March 28, 2019, 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 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 25, 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 25, 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 25th.  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 25, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
Old Business
 
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. 
 
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 reported that the Land Division approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202(E).  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. Severs gave a staff report.  Staff received a revised staff report from Public Works.  The revision is that the dedication of McLoughlin Drive was originally half plus twelve.  They reduced it down to half plus eight.  The revised staff report will be submitted into the record as Exhibit O-1.  A mistake was made on the Land Division criteria.  It was listed that criterion was inapplicable.  It is not inapplicable because it does abut EFU land.  The commission report will read: “Staff finds the subdivision plat consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all applicable design standards set forth in Article IV and V.  Furthermore, the subdivision will not prevent development of the remainder of the property under the same ownership or of adjoining land; bears a name (Delta Estates), which has been reviewed and approved by the City’s Address Technician, the plat includes the creation of streets, which are laid out to be consistent with existing and planned streets of the adjoining properties.  Criterion 5 is inapplicable; and the mitigation measures outlined in the applicant’s Agricultural Impact Assessment will ensure that an unmitigated land use conflict will not be caused between the land division and the adjoining agricultural lands within the EFU zoning district.” 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, why the residential lane and what is the difference between a residential lane and street?  Mr. Severs respond that a residential lane can serve up to eight lots.  A residential lane is 33 feet with parking on one side only.  A paved standard residential street is 36 feet with parking on both sides.      
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Harland addressed Chair McKechnie’s question stating that for a residential lane there is parking on one side.  The paved width is the same as a minor residential street.    
 
Mr. Harland reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Brett Pearson, 3051 Edgewood Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Phase 4 was designated wetland with a large pond.  It is his understanding that the pond was removed by Hayden Homes LLC.  He called EPA to inquire if it was legal.  He addressed CSA Planning Ltd. several years ago and asked them to cut out pond area to save it for ecological significance for the community.  Mr. Pearson showed a photograph of egrets on the land.
 
Mr. Mitton asked, is Mr. Pearson talking about the wetlands with Phase 4?  Mr. Pearson confirmed the question.  Only Phases 6 through 9 are before the Planning Commission this evening.  Mr. Pearson stated he is talking about Phase 7.
 
Mr. Pearson continued showing photographs of trees and bushes where the egrets used to be.  He also showed photographs of some of the construction equipment trying to eliminate the pond.             
 
Mr. Harland addressed Mr. Pearson’s concern stating that this is not a locally significant wetland.  The map in the Comprehensive Plan identifies it as an irrigation pond.  There is no water source for the wetland.   
 
Doug Burroughs, Development Services Manager clarified that several months ago Owen Drive was classified as a major collector street.  In December the new Transportation System Plan was adopted which changed its classification to a minor arterial street.  There is approximately a four foot difference in the right-of-way and pavement width.  The applicant’s application reflects the road as a major collector.  The Public Works staff report calls it a major collector which matches what is west of the property.  There is a difference and the code would require that it be built to a minor arterial standard.  It could impact the applicant’s site by several feet on the south side of Owen Drive.  There are other ways they could deal with it by reducing planter strips from ten feet to eight feet, keeping the same right-of-way widths.  He will let the applicant address his preference.  Public Works will be changing their staff report to reflect it as a minor arterial street and what those requirements would be.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is that reflected in the revised Public Works report the Commissioners received earlier?  Mr. Burroughs reported it is not.  The revised report deals with McLoughlin Drive.  Originally, McLoughlin Drive would require half plus twelve improvement unless requested otherwise.  The applicant has requested to do half plus eight.  That is why Public Works changed their staff report.  Mr. Burroughs is talking about Owen Drive.        
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, are the improvements required on Owen Drive half plus twelve?  Mr. Burroughs responded that the applicant is doing the full width of Owen Drive on the south side with curb, gutter and sidewalk.  North side is full pavement up to and including the curb but no sidewalk. 
 
Vice Chair asked, what is happening with Owen Drive from Springbrook?  Mr. Burroughs reported that currently nothing is happening.  The City will end up extending.   
 
Karl MacNair, Transportation Manager reported that stretch of Owen Drive is in the twenty year plan.  It is a Tier One project in the Transportation System Plan.  It is identified as a short term project which should be in the first five years of the plan. 
 
Mr. Harland reported that they are trapped in a little bit of a transition with the new Transportation System Plan (TSP).  They do not have the new street standard codes for the new TSP and to the west of the project was built as a major collector.   There are several different ways to deal with this under the code.  Public Works and the applicant will work it out to make sense with SDC credits and planter strip widths for that section.  
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, besides the open spaces and the newly developed park at Kennedy school and the park around Lincoln school, are those the nearest parklands to the project at the current time?  Mr. Harland is not aware of any other parklands in this part of the City at this point.
 
Mr. Mitton reported that as mentioned before these are not locally significant wetlands. 
 
Mr. Pearson asked by what standard because if that pond or wetland was not significant he cannot name one in Medford that was.  He does not think the applicant should be rewarded by approving their zone. 
 
Mr. Mitton was saying that locally significant wetlands, not as a value judgement but as a legal term, that there are certain wetlands that have been classified for City purposes as locally significant wetlands.  As the staff report notes on page 57 of the agenda packet that the Oregon Department of State Lands is aware of this application.  They have the ability to put in conditions and the developer has to meet those conditions.  This is not a situation where this Commission has direct control over it like it would for wetlands that have been designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as locally significant wetlands.    
 
Vice Chair Foley pointed out that on the Conditions of Approval, Exhibits W and X are transposed.  Mr. Severs will state and correct that in the Commission Report.    
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, in addressing Mr. Pearson’s concern does the Planning Commission have the ability to take that into consideration with their decision?  Mr. Mitton reported it is not one of the criteria that is before the Planning Commission.  It is not the same framework if it was deemed locally significant. 
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, Is it between the developer and the State?  Mr. Mitton replied they would have to meet any conditions the State puts in place.  This Commission is not in a position to require redesign of that phase if the State is supportive of the plan.            
 
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 LDS-19-008, ZC-19-009 and E-19-010 per the staff report dated April 4, 2019, including:
 
Exhibits A through X and replacing Exhibit O with Exhibit O-2.
Approval of the maximum timetable of five years for the platting of the development in phases.
Approval of the proposed Minimum Access Easement to serve lots 187-189, as shown on the tentative plat.
Adoption of the applicant’s submitted Agricultural Impact Assessment (Exhibit N).
Adoption of the applicant’s stipulation as stated in the submitted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Exhibit L).
The applicant and Public Works will resolve the issues regarding the classification and build out of Owen Drive. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
               
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
New Business
 
50.3 CP-19-021 / ZC-19-020 Request for a minor General Land Use Plan (GLUP) amendment to reclassify two contiguous parcels totaling 1.57-acres, located at the southwest corner of Stewart Avenue and South Columbus Avenue, and currently containing nine dwelling units, from Urban Residential (UR) to Urban Medium Density Residential (UM); along with an associated request to rezone the parcels from SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) to MFR-15 (Multiple Family Residential, fifteen dwelling units per gross acre) (371W36BC TL 100 & 200).  Applicant: Columbia Care Services, Inc.; Agent: Richard Stevens & Associates Inc.; 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 reported staff received a letter jointly submitted by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon and the Housing Land Advocates.  They expressed concerns with the staff’s findings for Goal 10.  Staff included a letter in response from the Planning Director which addressed the concerns they had.  They wanted staff to “beef up” findings that addresses Buildable Land Inventory and the Housing Need Analysis.  The letter from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon and the Housing Land Advocates will be submitted into the record as Exhibit K.  The Planning Director’s response letter will be submitted into the record Exhibit L.  The Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.222.  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 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.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Stevens addressed the Fair Housing letter stating that the intent of the future residents of this site is for low income housing for predominately veterans and behavioral disability.  The applicant believes they will be providing adequate housing for a needed population within the City. 
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, how are the facilities being accessed?  Mr. Stevens reported from Stewart Avenue. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, who owns the property to the east?  Mr. Stevens stated it is owned by the City of Medford. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, has the applicant considered talking to the City of Medford about purchasing the property?  Mr. Stevens reported there have been discussions during the Land Development meeting whether the applicant would be interested in purchasing the property. The City has made improvements to that intersection and Columbus Avenue.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is this a fence free community?  Mr. Stevens replied yes. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, how would Mr. Stevens describe the necessary parking spaces?  Mr. Stevens stated that this population does not necessarily need what the code requires.  With this development the applicant will go with the parking count due to the fact there are other residents on this site and visitor parking.  When they redevelop the other site they will recalculate parking standards for the demand and needs.               
 
Mr. Stevens reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Anthony Martinez, 1224 W. Stewart Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Martinez has concerns with Dutch Brothers drive-thru where the vehicle lights shine in his front window.  They put external speakers that are on eighteen hours a day that faces his front door.  He has contacted City of Medford Code Enforcement approximately five times to have the speaker removed.  Dutch Brothers did not get a permit for the speaker and have them blaring.  They have removed the speaker.  Dutch Brothers has a lot of traffic. 
 
Chair McKechnie commented that Mr. Martinez needs to speak about the housing proposal before the Planning Commission this evening not Dutch Brothers.  If he could tie the two together that would be helpful.  Mr. Martinez replied that he is trying to tie it all together. 
 
Mr. Martinez continued to talk about Dutch Brothers installing parking lights around the entire property that are on all night that lights up his property.  It is annoying. 
 
Mr. Martinez is concerned about the addition of residential units basically under his front window.  It will create more traffic. 
 
There is a bus stop directly out his front door.  The bus stop has been a problem for years with trash in his yard.  He was able to have RVTD put a refuse receptacle in front of his property that helped for a while. 
 
He does not know how the applicant can say the residents of the units will not have vehicles.  He is sure it will increase the traffic.  It will increase foot traffic.  Increase the bus stop traffic.  He is concerned that it will devalue his property.  High density residential units is too much for the subject property since there is one right next door to that to the west that was recently built.        
 
Chair McKechnie commented that Mr. Martinez has issues with Dutch Brothers that have not been helpful.  There are regulations in the development code that prohibit parking lot lights from shining on adjacent properties.  He has reasonable concern that he needs to take up with the Planning Department and RVTD.   
 
Commissioner McFadden reported that Mr. Martinez may want to discuss his concerns with his City Council representative because he works for RVTD.  He may get some relief.   
 
Mr. Stevens reiterated that the net increase in average daily trips from SFR-10, MFR-15 and multiple family projects is five to six trips per day.  Single family has 9.57 trips per unit. There is a significant reduction in trips with the style of housing the applicant is proposing.
 
Mr. Martinez will have another opportunity to voice his concerns with the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.    
 
Commissioner McManus asked, will the memo that was provided in response to the Fair Housing Council of Oregon be submitted to the City Council?  Mr. Severs replied yes.   
 
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 ZC-19-020 per the staff report dated April 4, 2019, including Exhibits A through L; and, based on the findings and conclusions that all the approval criteria are met or not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of CP-19-021
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.4 DCA-18-179 A Development Code Amendment to update the standards related to level-of-service, modify the roadway cross sections, and incorporate legacy street standards to reflect changes adopted in the 2018-2038 Transportation System Plan. Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Carla Paladino.
 
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner stated that the Development Code Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.218.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Paladino gave a staff report.  Ms. Paladino reported that staff received a letter from Harlan Bittner that will be entered into the record as Exhibit G.  Also, a letter was received from Siskiyou Velo (Gary Shaff) that will be submitted into the record as Exhibit H.  Both letters were emailed to the Planning Commission.  The comments are fourfold.  Three are the same in both letters and one additional one from Mr. Shaff.  The comments include: Require criteria when separated facilities are not installed; still safe: Add definition for bike lane: Under legacy streets, eliminate bike facility if substandard (less than 5 feet excluding the drain pan): Reduce speed limit on streets with on-road bike facilities to 25 MPH.  Public Works and Ms. Paladino have reviewed the letters.  They will be forwarded to the City Council.  There are no changes staff is proposing at this point to the Planning Commission.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner is in favor of the legacy street amendment where a standard applies to new streets only.  Developers were having to reconstruct existing streets.  This will help a lot of that.  He is also in favor of the minimum access standards that are in this amendment that differentiate a minor and major minimum access easement.  It is a great infill strategy that developers can work on to achieve a safe convenient access for smaller lots.  
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, are the letters going to be forwarded to the City Council and not included in the Planning Commission’s recommendation?  Ms. Paladino responded that staff will forward the letters as information for the City Council.  Staff does not propose any changes to the amendment at this point.  Staff is not going to make changes to the text that the letters suggested.  
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all the applicable criteria are satisfied, forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of DCA-18-179 to the City Council per the staff report dated April 4, 2019, including Exhibits A through H with modifications identified on pages 211, 213, 220, 224, 239, 240 and 243 of the agenda packet. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Pulver discussed the Exception language.  If it is an Exception what criteria is being used?  His concern is how the criteria are complied with.  It seems subjective. 
 
Vice Chair Foley commented that an Exception does not come into play until after the City Engineer has made a recommendation. 
 
Commissioner Pulver’s concern is how will they win a potential dispute with an applicant?  It is a tricky topic. 
 
Chair McKechnie commented that it gives flexibility.
 
Commissioner Pulver is for flexibility.  The terms are ambiguous.    
 
Mr. Mitton reported that the terms are subjective in that they are not numerically quantifiable.  Staff does use subjective criteria.  Subjective criteria are reasonably applicable when stating it will not increase safety hazards, increase delay, equal or higher quality.  They are not so vague where they are unenforceable.  The Exception criteria are subjective when talking about whether something is unique in the City.  As drafted on page 211 of the agenda packet gives road maps that if push came to shove could be defended on any decision made under it.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, what happens if there is a disagreement between the applicant and City Engineer?  Mr. Mitton stated that it is tasked to the Commission on deciding who made their facts better.         
 
Vice Chair Foley likes two of the proposals that the bike people came up with but he is glad they are not forwarding those on as a recommendation.  A bike lane definition is not bad.  It is not a bad idea if they cannot do a good bike lane to not be included at all. Those are two things he would definitely like the City Council to consider. 
 
Mr. MacNair responded to Vice Chair Foley’s comments stating that staff did discuss the letters.  He has concerns with their specific bike lane definition.  Oregon State law already has a definition.  The letters will be forwarded to the City Council.  The Planning Commission can still make a recommendation regarding the letters.          
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.5 LDS-19-018 Consideration of tentative plat approval for the DeClans Landing Subdivision – a proposed 2-phased, 7-lot residential subdivision to be developed as townhouse lots, on a 1.12-acre parcel located at 738 N Ross Lane in the SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W23DD1300).  Applicant: Glen Clark; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc.; 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 disclosed that Scott Sinner is his neighbor but it would not affect his decision.
 
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 Land Division approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202I.  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.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, what is the difference between a private driveway and a minimum access?  Mr. Severs reported that a minimum access is where there is no street frontage.  These lots have street frontage.     
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner reported that the private alley shared driveway is news to him and is supportive of it.  This will be a phased subdivision with the extended time period.   
 
It seems to Commissioner McFadden that this plan could be extended to the next street to the south easily.  Mr. Sinner stated that the frontage buildings are developed at or near urban density with the single family dwellings south of the site.  There is a good circulation plan in place.   
 
Chair McKechnie is assuming the existing house with the driveway on Ross Lane will end up taking access off the private driveway.  Mr. Sinner replied that is correct. 
 
Mr. Sinner 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-19-018 per the staff report dated April 4, 2019, including the maximum timetable of five years for the platting of the development in phases, Exhibits A through I.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
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 met on Friday, April 5, 2019.  They approved three townhouses located at 1026 West 10th Street; a rental car facility located northeast of the Biddle Road and Old Biddle Ramp intersection; and a standalone Starbucks to replace an existing 4,800 square foot building at 2372 W. Main Street.
 
60.2        Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission met Wednesday, March 27, 2019 and deferred the report to Mr.  MacNair.  Mr. MacNair reported they discussed the budget that took up most of the meeting.  The Transportation Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation on the proposed two year Public Works project budget and gave guidance on where to look first for cutting items from the budget.  They also discussed the amendment that was before the Planning Commission this evening.      
 
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that the next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, April 22, 2019.  Discussion will be on housekeeping amendments focused on housing issues. 
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, April 25, 2019, Thursday, May 9, 2019, Thursday, May 23, 2019, Thursday, June 13, 2019 and Thursday, June 27, 2019.
 
There is training Tuesday, April 23, 2019.  John Morgan from the Chinook Institute will have Commissioner training at 3:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.  Ms. Evans encouraged the Planning Commission to attend.  
 
There has been no Planning business before the City Council. 
 
This is budget season and Ms. Evans would like to take a photograph of the Planning Commission before they leave this evening.  Staff likes to include photographs of the Commissioners in their budget presentation.      
 
Commissioner McManus stated that at a prior City Council study session the priorities were set of possibly updating the 2050 Plan.  He was trying to interpret City Council’s direction to staff.  Ms. Evans reported that the Leadership Team for the City is working on helping the City Council refine their priorities.  They are helping them prioritize updating the 2050 Plan.  Make it a plan that can be implemented and incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan.            
 
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 7:35 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 25, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top