COVID-19: City Hall and Lausmann Annex are closed November 18 through December 2.
Please note: Municipal Court is conducting business by phone. Please call 541-774-2040.
Click here for more information.

 

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, July 25, 2019

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the Medford City Hall, Council Chambers, 411 West 8th Street, Medford, Oregon 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
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 
10.     Roll Call
               
20.    Consent Calendar / Written Communications (voice vote)
20.1 LDP-19-060 / ZC-19-005 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval of a proposed two lot partition on a 0.50 acre parcel located at 665 Beall Lane approximately 150 feet west of Merilee Street, and a request for a zone change from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential – 1 dwelling unit per lot) to SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 4 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre) (372W11DD12700). Applicant: Robert Sousa; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting Inc.; Planner: Liz Conner.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.
        
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
                               
30.          Approval or Correction of the Minutes from July 11, 2019 hearing
30.1The minutes for July 11, 2019, were approved as submitted.
 
40.          Oral Requests and Communications from the Audience. None.
 
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings
Continuance Requests
50.1 DCA-17-104 A code amendment to Chapters 2, 6, and 10 of the Municipal Code to permit temporary mobile food vendors to sell from the street (the public right-of-way) and add provisions for mobile food vendor pods.  Applicant: City of Medford; Planner, Carla Paladino.  Staff requests this item be continued to the Thursday, August 22, 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 August 22nd 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 August 22nd.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued DCA-17-104, per staff’s request, to the Thursday, August 22, 2019, Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
50.2  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, August 8, 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 August 8th 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 August 8th.  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, August 8, 2019, Planning Commission meeting.            
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
50.3 ZC-18-178 Consideration of a request for a zone change of an approximately 91.5 gross acre parcel located at the terminus of Cadet Drive 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) (371W15C TL 300); Applicant: Mike & Gayle Jantzer; Agent: Richard Stevens & Associates Inc.; Planner: Liz Conner.  The applicant requests this item be continued to the Thursday, August 22, 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 August 22nd 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 August 22nd.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued ZC-18-178, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, August 22, 2019, Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
               
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
Old Business
50.4 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 staff received a letter from neighbor Christian Nelson.  The letter was emailed to the Planning Commission and will be submitted into the record as Exhibit NN.  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. 
 
Commissioner McFadden is curious of staff coming up with the criteria for the Conditional Use Permit of not creating a loss of value for surrounding properties?  It is obvious with a new street planned that is three feet off a wall it will affect property value.  Staff responded that the Conditional Use Permit is on the riparian issues.   
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Mike Savage, CSA Planning, Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Savage thanked the Commission for their consideration of reopening this application to allow the applicant to accommodate the road access to Kings Highway and the concerns by the neighbor to the south.  The way the applicant is proposing this the will have the ability to convey the entire 55 feet of right-of-way. 
 
The applicant would like to withdraw their request for relief along the westerly frontage of Lot 14.  They are fine with doing the sidewalks and frontage improvement for Lot 14. 
 
Staff mentioned a proposed discretionary condition regarding the removal of vegetation in the vision triangle on property that is not the applicants.  If there is vegetation to be removed one someone else’s property it is not the applicant’s responsibility.  Mr. Savage is not sure the Planning Commission has the authority to impose that condition.  If the applicant self-stipulates to that condition it is appropriate to accept and they would do that.  They would self-impose a condition that requires the property owner to pay for removal of vegetation should there be any on Mr. Nelson’s property to the south.
 
Mr. Savage addressed Christian Nelson’s submitted letter (Exhibit NN) concern over minor residential street appropriateness.  This was addressed in the prior hearing and in the applicant’s application in written form.  Public Works was specifically asked this question at the prior hearing.  The applicant is in agreement that as the project develops there will be alternative street connections.  This will not be the sole connection. 
 
Addressing the built-in exceptions to the 200 foot spacing requirement Mr. Nelson asserted that the applicant did not address that.  The applicant addressed it multiple times in multiple correspondence in the record and orally at the prior hearing.  There is a bridge across from Trinity Way and across from that on the east of Kings Highway is land not under the applicant’s control.  As testified in the prior hearing, after lengthy discussions with CEC Engineering, if the applicant were able to obtain that right-of-way an intersection at that location would require a bridge serving an arterial street that would be extremely expensive. 
 
Mr. Nelson asserts that the applicant should reconstruct the bridge at Kings Highway.  There is no nexus or proportionality for the applicant to do that.  The City is responsible for constructing, maintaining and building out higher order streets.        
 
Chair McKechnie asked, since the applicant does not know which way Lots 1 and 2 are going to go will they combine them or will they be individual whichever works best.  Is that the applicant’s preference?  Mr. Savage replied that is correct.  If the Engineers report the storm detention and access point needs to be where it showed on the original plat they will probably move forward with the two lots.  If it needs to move over they will likely do one lot with a duplex on it.    
 
Chair McKechnie asked, would the storm water detention on this particular property run parallel with Kings Highway?  Mr. Savage stated that currently it is shown as an easement that is on the easterly side of Lot 2.  If there is a need to push it further to the west along Kings Highway then it would become one lot. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, does the right-of-way improvements go to Kings Highway?  Mr. Savage responded that prior to final plat for any property under the control of the applicant they will provide the full improvements.  
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, will Terrazzo Way go the end of Lots 13 and 22 and are there any issues?  Mr. Savage stated that there are no issues. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson, stated that in Mr. Nelson’s letter he mentioned he did not want the vegetation removed.  Would Mr. Savage or Mr. Mitton address how that would be handled?  Mr. Mitton reported the site tringle is a safety issue.  Public Works would need the site triangle cleared by someone.  He does not know how tall the vegetation is and whether it creates a site triangle problem right now.  If it does, he does not think the applicant would have the ability to stipulate to leave it because it is a traffic safety issue.
 
Mr. Savage reported that Mr. Nelson cited that there is a required alternatives analysis.  Mr. Savage pointed out that there is no such requirement. 
 
Mr. Savage reserved rebuttal time.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer addressed the clearing vegetation on someone’s property that does not want it cleared stating that once an intersection is created, per the code, if there is a violation on a property it is the property owners responsibility to mitigate.  If they do not do it the City will do it and potentially charge them.  It is complaint based.    The site distance triangle is 18 inches off the ground and 10 feet.              
 
b. Andy Nager, P. O. Box 8519, Bend, Oregon, 97708.  Mr. Nager owns the mobile home park north of the subject property.  Mr. Nager still has concerns that the riparian corridor and wetlands of Crooked Creek will not be adequately protected.  The riparian corridor Ordinance 2011-123 clearly states “that when reviewing these applications for properties containing a riparian corridor the approving authority must consider how well the proposal satisfies the objectives of Goal 5 which is to protect the wetlands.  The approving authority must designate with certainty what uses and activities are allowed for future property owners and buyers what uses are not allowed”.  The proposed lot lines encroach on the riparian corridor.  He requested but has not seen the conservation easement that would protect the riparian corridor.  The lot lines run to the top of the bank and not set back 50 feet.  He would like the Planning Commission to consider moving the lot lines south to protect the riparian corridor and prohibit fencing along the corridor.      
 
Mr. Severs addressed Mr. Nager’s concern stating that the code requires that a conservation easement be recorded on deeds and plats describing conditions and restrictions of the riparian corridor.  That will be required to be submitted before final plat approval.  Also, staff received two exhibits from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in support of the applicant’s request to put the storm drain facilities within the riparian corridor.  They state they feel the addition of riparian vegetation will aid in cooling the creek as well as providing a needed habitat.     
 
Chair McKechnie stated that the conservation easement would affect any of the lots that extend beyond the 50 foot limitation.  Mr. Severs replied that is correct. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what about fencing?  Mr. Severs reported that fencing is allowed.  It is an extra security measure to prevent people from getting in the protected area. 
 
Mr. Mitton reported that earlier Mr. Severs commented that Mr. Mitton may want to comment on what affect there would be to the adverse possession case if that property is dedicated right-of-way.  He does not want to comment on that because it is not part of the criteria before this Commission.  That is something the applicant and Mr. Nelson needs to speak with their private counsel about.
 
Mr. Mitton encouraged the Planning Commission to discuss why they are voting the way they do before they vote.  If any aggrieved party were to appeal this application the reviewing body could see why and how the Commission voted.
 
Mr. Savage stated he agrees with staff regarding the riparian provision. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, will the fence behind the duplexes be as shown in the blue line?  Mr. Savage stated that he cannot say whether or not there will be fences.  Fences are allowed.  
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that it is also within the riparian easement and he is not aware general access is approved.  Mr. Savage responded that the City went through a process that developed the codes to implement the riparian protection.  That process expanded riparian protection from 25 feet to 50 feet and identified the uses that area allowed.  If anyone wants to do something other than what is allowed in the riparian corridor they will be obligated to go to the City and ODFW for permission.          
 
Commissioner McManus asked Mr. Savage to clarify his comment earlier about self-imposed regarding the vegetation removal on the property to the south by the applicant.  Mr. Savage responded that the applicant accepts that condition.   The applicant will accept the condition that sometime during construction there would be an inspection by staff and determined that vegetation needed to be removed the applicant will pay for that. 
 
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-19-040 and CUP-19-041 per the revised staff report dated July 18, 2019, including:
 
• Exhibits A-1 through MM, adding Exhibit NN.
• Adoption of the applicant’s stipulations as stated in the submitted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Exhibit Q).
• Approval of the applicant’s request for a reduced offset (less than 200 feet) between the proposed Terrazzo Way and the nearest intersecting street along Kings Highway, pursuant to 10.426(D).
• Approval to either plat proposed Lots 1 and 2 as shown on the tentative plat or consolidate the two lots into a single duplex lot.
• Approval to site the storm drainage pipe easement (currently reflected on the easterly boundary of proposed Lot 2) to be located as shown or shifted to the Kings Highway right-of-way or to be shifted to the westerly portion of Lot 1, outside the PUE.
• The applicant’s request for removal of granting relief from constructing street improvements along the 114 feet of frontage contained in the triangular portion of Lot 14, lying north of tax lot 4100; and, if applicable, that the construction of said improvements be delayed until the time that the reserve acreage tracts identified on the tentative plat are developed in the future.
• The addition of condition #11 that the applicant self-stipulated that they would be initially responsible for removing the vegetation should it be deemed necessary by the City as part of their safety review of the safety triangle.
• Including the completion of Terrazzo Way to the end of Lots 14 and 22. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Vice Chair Foley stated they went through a lot of discussion as it related to the riparian corridor making sure it is protected and what is and what is not allowed.   
 
He understands the concern with moving the street closer to the intersection.  The applicant has done as well as they can do on this property since the applicant does not own the property.  The applicant has worked hard to make this particular plat work.  
 
Chair McKechnie stated that Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife commented in their letter that the storm water management the way the applicant suggested is an improvement to the creek.
 
In Mr. Nelson’s letter he suggested the applicant buy property on the south end and use that as an access but looking on a larger map that particular access will have issues as well.  That does not necessarily solve anything better than the access they have now.
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
50.5 ZC-19-009 Consideration of a request for a zone change of a 0.7 acre parcel located at 1335 Garfield Street from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per parcel) to SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, 6 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre) (372W36CD3400); Applicant: Rory Wold; Agent: Taylor Wold; 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 reported that staff received an updated Public Works report that eliminates the need for restricted zoning as stated in the original staff report.  There are no more restricted constraints identified in the report.  The updated Public Works report was emailed to the Commission and will be submitted into the record as Exhibit F-1.  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.  Mr. Roennfeldt gave a staff report.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, is Exhibit A being eliminated?  Mr. Roennfeldt reported that the three conditions in Exhibit A were tied to the Public Works report.  The fourth condition was from the Medford Water Commission but those conditions were general comments.  They labeled them as conditions in their report but staff agrees that Exhibit A can be eliminated as a whole. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what order of street is Garfield?  Mr. Georgevitch commented from the gallery that it was a minor arterial.  
 
Chair McKechnie asked, are there any access limitations?  Mr. Roennfeldt reported nothing that can be identified. 
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Rory Wold, 2102 Martin Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Wold reported the property is underutilized.  There are three young men sharing the property in proportion to each other. 
 
Mr. Wold 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 ZC-19-009 per the staff report dated July 16, 2019, including Exhibits B through O, replacing Exhibit F with Exhibit F-1.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
               
60.          Reports
60.1 Site Plan and Architectural Commission
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, July 19, 2019.  They approved a 4,456 square foot restaurant with drive-thru (McDonald’s) in a shopping center on East Barnett Road and South Riverside Avenue.
 
60.2 Transportation Commission
Commission Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission met yesterday, Wednesday, July 24, 2019.  They continued the discussion of funding the Mega Corridor (South Stage overpass and North Phoenix/Foothills).   The main options increasing the SDC fees, increasing utility fees and imposing a gas tax that would require a vote by the city.  The recommendation the body is considering to forward to Council is 1/3 for each.  Each method has pros and cons.  The goal is to raise $50 million in a 20 year horizon to that project.
 
Several meetings ago they were looking at concurrency.  CSA Planning Ltd., submitted a memorandum identifying a number of concerns.  Staff has tried to address those concerns.  They will see it again before it comes back to the Planning Commission.    
 
60.3 Planning Department
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that there is a Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, August 12, 2019.  Discussion will be on concurrency.  There are several items for the study session on Monday, August 26, 2019.   
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, August 8, 2010 and Thursday, August 22, 2019. 
 
Last week the City Council over turned the Site Plan and Architectural Commission decision to deny the Circle K project on Springbrook and McAndrews.  The also approved an annexation for the right-of-way on Lozier Land from Main Street to Stewart Avenue. 
 
Next week the City Council will hear the minor historic review amendment, cottage housing and an annexation on North Ross Lane from Rossanley to Sterns.
 
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.     
 
80.          City Attorney Remarks. None.  
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
               
100.        Adjournment
100.1. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:40 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 Vice-Chair                                                              
 
Approved: August 8, 2018
 

© 2020 City Of Medford  •  Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top