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, May 23, 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
Bill Mansfield
David McFadden
Jared Pulver
 
Commissioners Absent
David Culbertson, Excused Absence       
E.J. McManus, Excused Absence             
Patrick Miranda, Excused Absence          
Jeff Thomas, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Liz Conner, Planner II
Dustin Severs, Planner III
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
 
20.1        PUD-18-152 Final Order of a request for amendment of the Rogue Valley Manor Planned Unit Development, File No. PUD-98-023, to consider changes to the PUD boundary of approximately 233-acres of property and to demonstrate that the ‘Commercial Village’ is able to develop without any vehicle trip stipulations, located east of Interstate 5 between Ellendale and La Loma Drives, within the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre), SFR-6 (Single Family Residential – 4 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre), SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – 6 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre), MFR-20 (Multiple Family Residential – 15 to 20 dwelling units per gross acre), MFR-30 (Multiple Family Residential - 20 to 30 dwelling units per gross acre) and C-C (Community Commercial) zoning districts.  Applicant: Pacific Retirement Services; Agent: Richard Stevens & Associates; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
20.2        ZC-18-192 Final Order of a zone change from SFR-6 (Single Family Residential – 4 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre) to MFR-15 (Multiple Family Residential – 10 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre) on approximately 1 acre located south of Westwood Drive, approximately 375 feet west of Orchard Home Drive (372W35DD700).  Applicant & Agent: Judith Ann Hogue; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.         
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0-0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1        The minutes for May 9, 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, June 13, 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 June 13th 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 June 13th.  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 Thursday, June 13, 2019, Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 5-0-0.
 
New Business
 
50.2 SV-19-044 Consideration of a request for the vacation of both a portion of a public storm drainage easement and a public utility easement on two non-contiguous parcels located north of Midway Road, west of Interstate 5, and east of Cummings Lane in the SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W13AA TL 601 & 372W13AB TL 211). Applicant: Tom Malot Construction Company, Inc.; Agent: Richard Stevens & Associates, 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 Street Vacation approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.228(D).  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 reported that the public sewer easement will go away and be realigned within the public right of way for storm drainage.  The Midway extension towards I-5 is a reduction in the public utility easement.  There is currently a 44 foot easement that will be reduced 20 feet on the applicant’s property and there will still be a 20 foot public utility easement on the property to the south.  
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is there a storm drain in the easement area?  Mr. Stevens replied the one with the extension of Midway as it terminates towards I-5 is strictly a public utility easement.  The one that traverses west then back north is strictly a storm drain easement.  All storm drains will be relocated within the public right of way when the applicant develops the subdivision.       
 
Mr. Stevens reserved rebuttal time.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are met or not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of SV-19-044 per the staff report dated May 16, 2019, including Exhibits A through K.           
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-0-0.
 
50.3 ZC-19-001 Consideration of a request for a zone change of a 0.93 acre parcel located on the south side of Cherry Lane approximately 200 feet east of the intersection of Mary Bee Lane and Cherry Lane from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per parcel) to SFR-4 (Single Family Residential, 4 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre) (371W27AC TL 1200). Applicant: Mahar Homes Inc.; 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 Zone Change approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.204(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.  Ms. Conner addressed the description used for Exhibit B (a).  The legal description terminology was listed as the subject area and it should be listed as proposed rezoning area description sheet.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report.
 
Vice Chair Foley stated that Ms. Conner mentioned B (a) in her presentation.  Does the Planning Commission have to do something with that in their motion?  Ms. Conner reported that it is a title correction.  She called it a legal description of the subject area and it should be called a proposed rezoning area description.  The change will come forward in a Commission Report.     
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, are there plans to further develop the property other than the one house and selling off the back part?  Ms. Conner deferred the question to the applicant. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, when does the stipulation for the three choices need to be made?  Does that need to be made this evening?  Ms. Conner commented that it is a condition of approval under Exhibit A in the staff report.  It reads: “Provide staff with a deed restriction recorded in the official records of Jackson County stipulating to only develop the property so that the total sewer flows do not exceed current zoning limitation, which will result in the property’s approved SFR-4 zoning classification additionally be designated with a Restricted Zoning administrative mapping overlay, restricting future development of the property; or the applicant shall make improvements to the downstream sanitary sewer system to alleviate capacity constraints; or the developer shall provide an engineering study of the downstream sewer system to show  capacity exists to allow the proposed zone change.”    
 
Mr. Mitton reported that the applicant does not need to decide which of the three stipulations this evening.  The condition can be imposed that they do the engineering study and if the study is favorable they can move forward.  If the study is not favorable they can discuss staying at the development equivalent to current zoning limitation or whether they want to improve capacity.  The Commission just approves the condition.  The applicant can make those decisions further down the line.     
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, Inc., 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer reported that based on the submitted application, the prepared staff report and presentation the approval criteria can or has been met.  Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests the Planning Commission approves the zone change.    
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is the width of Cherry Lane in front of the house adequate for future development by the City?  Mr. Neathamer reported that is not an approval criteria for a zone change.  There are plans to improve Cherry Lane.  Commissioner McFadden has concerns with the way it is currently laying out.  The City will have no other time to request a remedy if the roadway is not wide enough because the lot may not be further developed.   According to Mr. Neathamer’s knowledge there are no plans to further develop the property at this time.  However, the potential does exist.  There are some requirements about changing driveways and so forth that are tied to the development project that will take place immediately to the east.  When improvements are done for that project there will be a lot of street improvements.  He does not know if they will extend in front of the subject property but there will be a water main extended and other improvements.  
 
Mr. Neathamer reserved rebuttal time.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer reported that Cherry Lane is a higher order road.  It is not part of the criteria but because it is a higher order road he understands Commissioner McFadden’s concerns that this is a section that could be left unimproved for a long period of time.  Since it is a higher order road there is a possibility for Public Works to build the section of roadway with street SDCs. 
 
Mr. Georgevitch pointed out that the issue with the sewer is often they have a stipulated zone change and later shown adequate capacity.  It is an administrative process to remove the stipulation.  It is a common process.   
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is the road adequate?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that the road has the capacity but does not meet the standards for a major collector which is its designation.  The City would eventually build that section if the property is not developed.  Public Works may negotiate with the developer on future phases to build it all at the same time.  
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, could the City now ask for the dedication as part of this application and not have to go through measures in the future to purchase property if it is not wide enough?  Mr. Georgevitch replied that the City does not have that authority at zone change. 
 
Mr. Mitton concurred with Mr. Georgevitch with the street issue.  It is not before the Planning Commission at this time so ask for any additional widths.    
 
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-19-001 per the staff report dated May 16, 2019, including Exhibits A through H, with the title change on Exhibit B (a).            
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-0-0.
                                     
50.4 LDS-19-049 Consideration of tentative plat approval for Shafer Valley Landing, a proposed  8-lot residential subdivision on a single 1.50-acre parcel located at 1105 Shafer Lane in the SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (382W01BD 7800). Applicant: Horton Homes, Inc.; 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.  Commissioner Pulver disclosed that he ran into a neighbor coming into the meeting this evening and they spoke briefly.  The neighbor had several questions and Commissioner Pulver directed him to the applicant’s agent and planner.  It will not affect his ability to weigh in on this matter. 
 
Chair McKechnie disclosed that Mr. Sinner is his neighbor but it would not affect his decision on this particular matter.
 
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 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. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon,  97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner reported that the applicant will be extending urban services in the public right-of-way.  At the east end the applicant will provide a recommended barricade that will allow for future development and for the eventual connection by other development of Shafer Lane consistent with the circulation plan.     
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is Tract A a storm water management facility?  Mr. Sinner replied yes. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, who will be maintaining that?  Mr. Sinner reported that it will be dedicated to the City.   
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, will Shafer Lane end at the barricade with no turn around?  Mr. Sinner replied yes.    
 
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-19-049 per the staff report dated May 16, 2019, including Exhibits A through J.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
               
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-0-0.
 
50.5 LDS-19-051 / E-19-047 Consideration of a proposed tentative plat for an 8-lot residential zero lot line dwelling subdivision with an exception to the number of units allowed to take access off a minimum access easement on 0.9 acres, located on the east side of Columbus Ave approximately 150 feet south of Garfield St. within a SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district. (372W36CD TL 400). Applicant: Lori Magel Homes; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting LLC; Planner: Liz Conner.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Chair McKechnie disclosed that Mr. 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.
 
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 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.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report.
 
Vice Chair Foley stated that staff and the Planning Commission have been discussing a major minimum access easement.  This seems to meet that criteria.  Ms. Conner reported that it does.  However, at the time of the application submittal it was not in the code.  
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon,  97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner reported that the applicant is proposing a duplex building, two units attached with a lot line in between to allow for each side to be sold.  The reason for doing the application and reconfiguring it from the approved plat is because the applicant could not create the separate home ownership opportunity with the cul-de-sac design.  They could not meet the standards for lot frontage for the proposed duplex divided by a lot line.  That is the reason they came up with the exception request.  The applicant designed to the residential lane so it looks like and functions as the same as a public residential lane.  The applicant will be responsible for the maintenance. 
 
The applicant does not have the buildings determined exactly but there is a possibility that they could meet the arterial street frontage landscape requirements and the sound wall.    
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, do the adjoining properties on Columbus have separation walls?  Mr. Sinner reported that the south is undeveloped.  He believes there is to the north. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, has there been any thought to running the driveways of the north two lots on the east end of the property instead of the west end?  Mr. Sinner commented that it has to do with storm drainage.
 
Tract A is relatively large and the applicant does not anticipate the entire area being required for storm drainage.  The applicant will be proposing additional parking because residential lanes are constricted.      
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is Tract A going to be deeded to the City?  Mr. Sinner replied only if there is public water in it.  It could go either way but not the entire Tract A.   The applicant will be improving South Columbus so there will be detention and treatment requirements.  If it is public the applicant will be potentially dedicating.  If it is private they have a Homeowners Association for the maintenance of the private street.  
 
Chair McKechnie stated that even with a zero lot line scheme for the two lots on the north it looks hard to develop.  Are they 30 or 50 feet apart?  Mr. Sinner reported they are 30 feet net.  The center line of the property extends to the center line of the minimum access easement.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, did the applicant give any thought of running the lot division vertically north and south to get it square and design something that works?  Mr. Sinner stated that the lots would be nonconforming for length and depth.  They will be taking access off the hammerhead turnaround without parking in them.  They are deeper lots.  There will be private parking on Lots 7 and 8 out of the turnaround area.         
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Bonnie Fichera, 1361 Garfield Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Fichera requested that the maple trees between her property and the subject property remain.  They provide a lot of shade.  Her daughter has a large flower area and wanted to know if that would be eliminated and how soon.  She just wanted more information.  Chair McKechnie commented that her questions could be answered by the applicant.    
 
Mr. Sinner gave Ms. Fichera his contact information.    
 
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-19-051 and E-19-047 per the staff report dated May 16, 2019, including Exhibits A through P.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 4-1-0, with Chair McKechnie voting no.
 
50.6 LDS-19-040 / CUP-19-041 Consideration of tentative plat approval for The Meadows at Crooked Creek – Phase 1, a proposed 22-lot residential subdivision, along with a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for placement of storm detention facilities partially within the riparian corridor of Crooked Creek, on a 3.28-acre parcel located at 2145 Kings Highway in the SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (382W01AA TL 4000). Applicant: Meadows at Crooked Creek, 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 there is an ongoing lot line dispute between the subject property and the abutting property to the south 2165 Kings Highway.  Staff received new exhibits that were forwarded to the Planning Commission earlier this week.  Both exhibits are in reference to the lot line issue.  The first exhibit is from the applicant and will be submitted into the record as Exhibit DD.  The next exhibit is an email received from Mr. Nelson who is the owner of the property at 2165 Kings Highway.  It will be submitted into the record as Exhibit EE.  Mr. Severs will not speak to the exhibits since lot line issue disputes are civil matters.  Mr. Mitton will speak to this at the end of Mr. Severs presentation. 
 
The Land Division approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202(E).  The Conditional Use Permit approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184(C).  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.
 
Mr. Severs did not include in the staff report intersection spacing pursuant to MLDC 10.426(D).  It requires a minimum of 200 feet between two intersecting streets.  The proposed Terrazzo Way is less than 200 feet from Trinity Way.  The Planning Commission has authority to allow less than 200 feet if it is necessary to economically develop the property with a use for which it is zoned or an existing offset of less than 200 feet is not practical to correct.  In this particular situation there would be no way for the applicant to access their property.  They did locate the street as far south as they possibly could.  Staff is supportive of this.  It will need to be included in the motion this evening to grant approval for the intersection to be less than 200 feet.    
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Mike Savage, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173 .  Mr. Savage reported that he submitted a packet via email today to Planning staff and staff requested that he bring hard copies for the Planning Commissioners.  Included in the packet are short responses to additional information received from the neighbor Mr. Nelson to the south in regards to three points: 1) Intersection spacing; 2) Property line dispute; and 3) The appropriateness of the residential street.  The memorandum and attached documentation speak for themselves.
 
The applicant agrees with the staff report with one minor correction.  The staff report referred that the developer or HOA will maintain the storm drainage lot.  According to the code the City maintains storm drainage facilities if the storm drainage takes runoff from public streets.  The City of Medford will be responsible for the maintenance of storm drainage facilities.  However, the developer or HOA are responsible for the vegetation management.
 
Mr. Savage contemplated addressing the intersection spacing and the property line dispute upon rebuttal.  He addressed the intersection spacing stating that not much can be done.  They looked closely at putting an intersection directly across from Trinity.  The applicant does not own the frontage there and if there was an ability to gain frontage it would be an expensive proposition because that is where the bridge is located.  A new bridge would have to go in to accommodate Kings Highway and also accommodate the new road.  It is not economically feasible.  Pushing the road further south to meet the 200 feet the land is owned by Mr. Nelson. 
 
Mr. Savage runs across property line disputes all the time.        
 
Commissioner Mansfield interceded asking, why is this even relevant?  The City has no power to deal with it.  Why is the Planning Commission dealing with it? 
 
Mr. Savage concurred.  They based the property line information based on their surveyor’s expertise.  They are comfortable moving forward as far as their proposal is concerned with the property line the way it is.      
 
Mr. Savage requested that if the storm drainage easement is not needed the applicant would like the option to convey Tract A to the City if the City is willing to accept it.   
 
Mr. Mitton reported that normally legal counsel speaks at the end but given the issue has been raised in the record regarding the lot line dispute he would like to speak to it now.  As Commissioner Mansfield noted when there is a property line dispute it is not part of the conditions that this Commission looks at.  At the same time, for anyone in the audience, if there is a civil claim for it an approval by this Commission would not extinguish that civil claim.  They are two separate issues.  This Commission goes off recorded property lines as the record currently stands.  The applicant is correct that they are referring to recorded property lines and that is what it is based off of.  Whether or not a neighbor has a civil claim to obtain some of that is an issue Mr. Mitton cannot tell whether it is a strong or weak claim.  If an individual feels they have a claim they would pursue it at Circuit Court in a proceeding separate from this proceeding. 
 
Mr. Savage pointed out that they were praised for the abundance of vegetation and care by ODFW for designing the mitigation of vegetation along Crooked Creek.   
 
Mr. Savage reserved rebuttal time. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is there a temporary plan for a turnaround at the end of the street?  Mr. Savage replied yes. 
 
b. Andy Nager, P. O. Box 8519, Bend, Oregon, 97708.  Mr. Nager owns the mobile home park north of the subject property.  There is a riparian corridor.  It is his understanding there should be a setback of 50 feet from the north bank on each side.  The plat looks like the lot lines are going all the way up to the bank.  
 
c. Christian Nelson, 2165 Kings Highway, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Nelson briefly summarized his earlier submitted comments (Exhibit CC) to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Nelson has concerns with the minor residential street, minimum distance between intersections, circulation plan, improvement of Kings Highway, sound barrier wall, dedicated right-of-way space, no notification from the developer and the lot line issue.  Mr. Nelson requested that the Planning Commission not approve this application this evening.  He would like to get legal counsel and deal with the lot line adjustment in civil court. 
 
Chair McKechnie stated that there were comments regarding sound barrier walls and improvements to Kings Highway. 
 
Mr. Georgevitch deferred the sound barrier question to Planning staff.  Mr. Georgevitch reported that the applicant will have to make improvements along their frontage.  The length of those improvements will have to be designed to meet AASHTO standards.
 
The minor residential street opposed to the standard residential street is confusing at times for people to understand.  If this street served over 100 homes and there were no other outlets it would have to be a standard residential street.  There is Marsh Lane to the east and other streets planned north and south that will limit it to less than the 100.  There will be over 100 homes most likely in this area but there will be other roads to maneuver on.  Therefore, they do not meet the requirements for a standard residential street. They can still be a minor residential street.   
 
Mr. Mitton stated that Mr. Nelson mentioned he wanted time to seek counsel and pursue something about the adverse possession.  There is no mechanism in the code to postpone this matter indefinitely while he pursues a civil matter.  There is a mechanism to request additional time which could result in either continuation of one hearing or seven days to present additional written evidence to this Commission as opposed to pursuing something with the applicant.  Is Mr. Nelson asking for additional time to submit additional evidence to this Commission or is he asking for a postponement to pursue something directly with the applicant through Circuit Court or direct negotiations?  Mr. Nelson requested the record to remain opened to submit additional information.
 
Vice Chair Foley stated that another comment that came up was regarding setback versus lot line issues.  Mr. Mitton reviewed the code.   
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that the riparian standards were updated that there is not a requirement in the code now to have the riparian corridor on a separate unit of land.  It is permissible under the code at this point in time.  When Mr. Nager developed the property to the north it may not have been the case. 
 
There is a requirement in Section 10.797 that requires for land divisions with houses that do not face an arterial street that an arterial street frontage landscape plan shall be submitted showing a vertical separation feature that is a minimum of eight feet in height.  It can either be a wall or a combination of landscaping and berm.  Ms. Evans does not believe the applicant requested relief from this requirement.       
 
Mr. Mitton suggested to finish with testimony and rebuttal.  When that is done instead of closing the hearing a decision needs to be made whether to continue to the next meeting or hold the record opened for additional written evidence.  
 
Ms. Evans recommended close the public hearing and keep the record opened.
 
Mr. Savage stated that the applicant’s preference would be to close the hearing and keep the record opened. 
 
Most of the issues raised were answered fully by staff. 
 
The applicant agrees that the riparian setback applies to the development not the lot lines.
 
It was pointed out regarding circulation that there are a number of local streets in the area.  Under the previous subdivision years ago the land to the east had not come into the Urban Growth Boundary yet.  That is a huge difference in considering circulation for the area. 
 
The packet that Mr. Savage provided this evening includes a full report from Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering that analyzes safety of the intersection and spacing.  Her conclusions were that it is adequate and safe, meets line of sight, clear vision, and queuing.  All the elements that are looked at for transportation safety.    
 
For the frontage improvements the applicant has no problem building the wall the code requires. 
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission moved to keep the record opened for seven days to receive additional written information.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, what is the basis for the seven day continuance?  He has a great deal of empathy for Mr. Nelson.  He respectfully disagrees with counsel when he suggested six to nine months.  His experience with those kinds of disputes are more like a year or two years before they decide.  It is not fair to the applicant for the Commission to hold off until Mr. Nelson’s boundary dispute gets settled.  It is clear to him that the reason Mr. Nelson wants this postponement is so that he can solve his boundary dispute.  He questions whether it is appropriate to do that.  
 
Mr. Mitton reported this is not a motion to postpone until the boundary issue is resolved in Circuit Court.  The statute makes it clear that when someone asks for seven days to present additional written evidence the City has to grant that time whether the Commission thinks the evidence is relevant to the criteria or not. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield commented that Mr. Mitton makes sense he firmly believes whatever evidence is going to be presented is not relevant. 
 
Mr. Mitton commented that it may not be.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, at the next meeting if the Planning Commission approved this application and for some reason the applicant could not comply with all the regulations, do they have a choice of bringing it back to the Planning Commission with those changes or not proceed forward?  Mr. Mitton replied that is correct. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, would the alternative be to leave the public hearing opened and continue the hearing until the next Planning Commission meeting?  The reason that it might be better or worse is that it does not allow the applicant adequate time to rebut what is presented.  Is that accurate?  Mr. Mitton explained that there are two mechanisms: 1) Mr. Nelson has seven days to present written evidence then the applicant has seven days to respond to it in writing.  2) Nobody presents anything in writing for the next meeting and the Commission continues the public hearing.  At that meeting or any time before then either Mr. Nelson or the applicant can submit additional documentation.  The additional documentation will likely be a letter from a lawyer.  If there is a lengthy letter raising details that is submitted on the day of the hearing it would not be uncommon for the applicant to continue the hearing in order to review the documentation with their legal counsel.       
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-0.
 
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
 
60.2        Transportation Commission
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission met yesterday, Tuesday, May 22, 2019.  The bulk of their agenda had to do with discussing the amendment to the code related to concurrency and they moved to forward it to the Planning Commission. 
 
The second major item dealt with funding relating to the Mega Corridor that includes South Stage overpass over I-5 and the North Phoenix improvements.  The number discussed was $1.6 million total dollars coming from multiple sources.  The City of Medford would have to raise approximately 40% of that.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked about the South Stage Overpass.  Mr. Pulver reported that ODOT does an analysis of needs and at this point their needs analysis indicates that does not need to be a full interchange.  The City feels differently with the functionality of the South Stage Overpass and the strain it will put on I-5 or the Phoenix Interchange if nothing happens in this regard.    
 
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
 
60.3        Planning Department
Ms. Evans reported that the Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, May 27, 2019 has been cancelled due to Memorial Day. 
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, June 13, 2019, Thursday, June 27, 2019 and Thursday, July 11, 2019.  The July 11th meeting is scheduled to be in the Prescott Room at the Police Department building. 
 
Last week City Council approved the GLUP amendment for Columbia Care at Stewart and Columbus.  They also approved the code amendment for Legacy Streets and adopting the new cross sections into the code that includes the major/minor residential streets.
 
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
 
 60.1       Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Ms. Evans reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met Friday, May 17, 2019.  They denied the Circle K project based on incompatibility of the intensity of the use.  The final order will be adopted at their next meeting.
 
They approved 17 more units on West Main Street.  It is part of the Orchard Glen project that is under construction.     
 
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 7:22 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: June 13, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top