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, August 22, 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 (left at 7:15 p.m.)
Joe Foley, Vice Chair
David Culbertson (left at 7:05 p.m.)
Bill Mansfield
David McFadden
E.J. McManus
Jeff Thomas
 
Commissioners Absent
Patrick Miranda, Excused Absence          
Jared Pulver, Unexcused Absence
 
Staff Present
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Debbie Strigle, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 
 
10.    Roll Call
               
20.    Consent Calendar / Written Communications (voice vote). None.
                               
30.      Approval or Correction of the Minutes from August 8, 2019 hearing
30.1The minutes for August 8, 2019, were approved as submitted.
 
40.    Oral Requests and Communications from the Public. None.
 
50.     Public Hearings
 
Motion: Take agenda item 50.7 out of order and placing it before agenda item 50.4.
 
Moved by: Chair McKechnie                       Seconded by: Vice Chair Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.  
 
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
 
Continuance Requests
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, September 26, 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 September 26th 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 September 26th.  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, September 26, 2019, Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
50.2 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 Thursday, September 12, 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 September 12th 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 September 12th.  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, September 12, 2019, Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
Old Business
50.3 ZC-19-011 Consideration of a request for a zone change of three contiguous parcels totaling 5.26 acres located north of Barnett Road and east of Murphy Road, from MFR-30 (Multiple Family, thirty dwelling units per gross acre) to C-S/P (Commercial, Service & Professional Office)  (371W28DC TL 400, 500 & 600); Applicant, Mahlum Architects; Planner, Dustin Severs.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner III reported that 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. 
 
a. Steve Schwaeber, Mahlum Architects, 1231 NW Hoyt, Suite 102, Portland, Oregon, 97209.  Mr. Schwaeber reported that they understand the need for traffic assessment and controls in the community.  They request from the Planning Commission that the project be seen completely separate entity from the mitigation requirements.
 
Mr. Schwaeber reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Jason Stranberg, 185 Mistletoe Road, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  Mr. Stranberg reserved the right to comment on any discussion tonight.
 
c. Shahrzad Sheibani, 1518 E. Barnett Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Sheibani is representing Oregon Retina Center.  The future traffic barrier will create a hardship for their patients.  She would like the City’s Transportation department evaluate the safety issue of the barrier.  She submitted a one day 160 signature petition into the record.
 
d. Justin Spaulding, 435 Briscoe Place, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  Mr. Spaulding stated there is not a good area for his patients to make a U-turn safely. He has concerns that the barrier create potential traffic problems that have not been accounted for at this point in time.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, does Mr. Spaulding understand that the project being discussed this evening will delay any action on the median.  The agreement has been made if the median is necessary.
 
Chair McKechnie commented that Public Works had revised their recommendation that no work will be done to the median at this time.         
 
e. Keith Russell, Asante Director of Real Estate, 2650 Siskiyou Boulevard, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Russell responded that Commissioner McFadden made the rebuttal for the applicant. 
 
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-19-011 per the staff report dated August 15, 2019, including Exhibits A-1 through N. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Vice Chair Foley noted that the applicant will invest money to the City. It is the City’s decision if something needs to be done at that intersection.  It has nothing to do with this project directly.
 
Commissioner Thomas thanked the people that came to the last and this meeting to share their concerns.  He was glad there was a continuance so Public Works could come up with a compromise to move this into the future to work with the stakeholders and partners to come up with a solution to other businesses and residential partners.       
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
New Business
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
50.7 PUD-19-002 Consideration of a request for a revision to ‘the Village’ area of Cedar Landing Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD revision contains amendments to the site design including an increase in multi-family units from 100 to 120, vehicular parking standards, and eliminating the previously approved single family & congregate care uses. Cedar Landing PUD is located on approximately 116 acres on the north and south side of Cedar Links Drive, west of Foothill Road within an SFR-4/PD (Single-Family Residential – 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre / Planned Development) zoning district. Applicant & Agent: Koble Creative Architecture; 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 the project description mentioned elimination of the congregate care uses that is not true.  The correct project description is in the published staff report.  The Planned Unit Development approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.190.  The Revision or Termination of a Planned Unit Development can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.198.  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.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, why a private road instead of a dedicated street?  Mr. Roennfeldt responded that PUDs allow for private streets and deferred the question to the applicant. 
 
Commissioner Foley stated that reading through the staff report and conditions of approval there seemed to be more unanswered questions than normal.  There are items that the applicant was supposed to comment on and they have not.  What is going on with that?  Mr. Roennfeldt stated that staff was expecting more items to arrive between the times the staff report was written and today that did not happen.  Mr. Roennfeldt deferred the question to the applicant.
 
Commissioner Thomas reported that is a huge concern for him.  He cannot support this application without those questions being answered. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is the new commercial building and apartment buildings three stories?  Mr. Roennfeldt replied that is correct. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the amenities building two or three stories?  Mr. Roennfeldt responded it is two stories. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what is the rationale approving the reduction in back up from 24 to feet?  Mr. Roennfeldt stated that the proposed parking stalls are 19 feet deep which is standard but the code allows for a reduction in parking depth up to 17 feet if it overhangs landscaping.           
 
a. Terry Amundson, Koble Creative Architects, 2117 NE Oregon Street, Portland, Oregon, 97232.  Mr. Amundson stated that the primary change from the previous approved PUD is to do some of the items that have been incorporated into the multifamily residential criteria now.  Keeping all the parking behind the buildings not between the buildings and the street. 
 
They combined the commercial with residential to limit the footprint to provide needed parking, landscape and buffer area.  The mixed-use approach allows them to better blend the building with the surrounding residential area so all the buildings have a residential character with a pitched roof.  That is the reason for the height request.
 
They had a neighborhood presentation meeting on March 13, 2019.  The primary feedback was in relation to the 120 units versus 100 units.  The concerns were parking and traffic impacts. 
 
b. Joe Westerman, 7420 SW Hunziker Street, Suite A, Tigard, Oregon 97223-8242.  Mr. Westerman is the owner, builder and manager of Cedar Links.  They build high quality, safe, well lighted, well landscaped properties.  They added extra units because they want full time, on-site management.  It makes sense to have the height because they need parking, landscaping and movement.             
 
Mr. Amundson reserved rebuttal time.
 
Vice Chair Foley is concerned about the drive lanes in the parking lot being tight for full size vehicles.  He is nervous with the reduction and other issues that were raised in the staff report relating to landscaping and overhangs of the balconies.  There were questions raised in the staff report that did not get answered.  Mr. Amundson responded that the landscape plans are extensive and part of why they request the reduction to 20 feet.  The applicant is opened to a condition of approval that states the balconies or anything else cannot extend into the setback. 
 
Vice Chair Foley read the comment that he was referring to that “the applicant has submitted a landscape plan (Exhibit B) which does not seem to meet street frontage landscaping requirements in MLDC 10.797.  No calculations addressing the parking area landscaping in MLDC 10.746 were included, either.  It will be a condition of approval to all applicable landscaping standards…”  Mr. Roennfeldt reported that it is a typical condition of approval.  Missing was the calculation for the parking lot landscaping which is also typical to take care after the fact and the same is true for the balconies.  It is reviewed at the time of building permit issuance.
 
Commissioner Thomas believes landscaping is a big deal based on what the residents are being told.  It not being there he does not see how it can be approved when they do not know what it is going to look like. 
 
Mr. Amundson did not realize the calculations were not submitted with the landscape plans for the interior landscaping.  Their intent has always been to meet the landscaping criteria.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, how wide are the spaces between the parking rows? Mr. Amundson reported they are fully landscaped and believes they are 4 feet wide. 
 
Chair McKechnie stated that if the applicant is required to maintain the 24 foot drive aisle they could do that without modifying the plan.  They may have to change some of the plant materials.  Mr. Amundson responded that they are erring towards more pervious and landscape area versus impervious. 
 
Chair McKechnie stated that in the applicant’s design narrative they mentioned meandering walkways.  Where are those located?  Mr. Amundson stated that there is circulation through the site north to south and east to west.  It does not meander aggressively through the site.
 
Chair McKechnie commented that looking at the plan for buildings D and C they have a change of plane every 40 feet but he sees dimensions of 70 feet.  He does not see any horizontal changes in those areas.  Mr. Amundson stated that the balconies meet the criteria for the change in plane.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked about the bike parking.  Mr. Amundson reported they have not located those locations. 
 
Commissioner Thomas stated that a lot of homes have been bought and sold in the last six to twelve months along Farmington Avenue. Were those residents informed that the PUD across from them was changing and invite them what it would look like?  Mr. Westerman reported that they had a neighborhood discussion about everything.  Mr. Amundson stated not aside from the neighborhood.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, how is the building height comparing to the natural grade with home?  Mr. Amundson will look that up and answer during his rebuttal.
 
c. Jim Wilson, 2774 Farmington Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Wilson read his submitted letter with his concerns.  He opposes the proposed revisions to The Village area of the Cedar Landing Planned Unit Development. 
 
d. Tim Partch, 2430 Herrington Way, Medford, Oregon 97504.  Mr. Partch has concerns with the design, location, number of proposed apartment units in the Cedar Links community.  How does a 40 foot height represent residential character?  
 
e. Kathy Partch, 2430 Herrington Way, Medford, Oregon 97504.  Ms. Partch has the same above concerns along with traffic impacts. 
 
f. David Erickson, 2822 Farmington Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Erickson has concerns with the impact and speeding of traffic on Farmington Avenue. 
 
g. Kevin Geller, 3089 Sycamore Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Geller agrees with the previous speakers.  He has concerns with the infrastructures. 
 
h. James Greathouse, 2868 Wilkshire Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Greathouse submitted a letter dated August 22, 2019, that conveys pertinent and serious information.  He would like the Planning Commission to reject the proposed project as presented in favor of the previously approved multifamily condominium project as approved in 2016.
 
i. Heather Kile, 2823 Farmington Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Kile submitted a letter earlier with her ideas clearly stated.  She is concerned there is no need for a traffic impact study for Farmington Avenue.  She also has concerns with the wetlands.
 
Commissioner Culbertson left at 7:05 p.m.
 
Mr. Amundson reported that the proposed property was previously targeted for commercial and multifamily.  Their understanding from that was what is desired.  They did sketches and preliminary layouts to convey their concept of centralizing the parking so it was not around the perimeter of the site.  Combining residential and commercial so the commercial was less a strip mall based configuration so that all the structures visually and architecturally tied together.  There was support for that.  The biggest issues during the neighborhood presentation were traffic and parking which they have addressed.  That being said, If there are truly gaps in landscaping that the Commission, as a group, is concerned about and balconies and bicycle parking being clearly and thoroughly addressed and expanded upon would lend itself towards approval, they would be willing to hold the record open.  There is not an intent to redesign or reconfigure the site.  They are willing to supplement landscape screening, work with balconies for clarity.  He is not yet asking to hold the record open but they are not against that if it will benefit them in the long run. 
 
Chair McKechnie stated that it would not hurt.  There is a previous approved plan that went through negotiations between neighborhoods and the developer at the time.  It had a combination of multifamily units, commercial, amenities and a concept for parking that was approved.  The revision to a PUD is to offer additional benefit over a standard development.  The issue is whether he proposed development offers the same, more or less number of amenities.  According to the neighbors it is offering less amenities.  Some Commissioners have concerns with gaps in what is being proposed.  He feels there is concern that a standard cover condition may be too broad that staff will address to the Commissions satisfaction.  He heard Mr. Amundson wants to keep the record open and thinks it is an excellent idea.  The simplest way to do this is to continue the public hearing that leaves the record open.  Mr. Amundson stated that he would like to do that but would like to hear the additional questions that have been generated.
 
Chair McKechnie commented that the proposed buildings have not been characterized charitably.  Compared to the previous plan they look monolithic.  He needs to look carefully at the Medford code for multifamily development and provide more interest in elevations, plans, entries characterized from the streets and parking.  On record is 100 units and he understands that 100 to 120 units is important for management purposes.  For him the density is not as big an issue as it needs to prove to the Commission they have added more amenities than the previous approved plan. 
 
Vice Chair Foley echoed Chair McKechnie’s comments but is concerned with the parking. 
 
Commissioner Thomas commented that he is concerned about the surrounding neighbors that made lifetime investments based on what was currently on the books and that has changed.  Maybe have a response to the wetlands and ponds. 
 
Mr. Mitton asked, is the applicant requesting a continuance?  Mr. Amundson stated yes. 
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, does Mr. Amundson want to continue to the next meeting or beyond?  Mr. Amundson asked if he needed to decide that now.  Mr. Amundson would like to continue the hearing to Thursday, September 26, 2019.    
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued PUD-19-002, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, September 26, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
The Planning Commission recessed at 7:15 p.m. and reconvened at 7:25 p.m.
 
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
50.4 ZC-19-012 Consideration of a request for a change zone of a 0.155-acre portion of a single 4.4-acre parcel located at 4088 Table Rock Road from I-G (General Industrial) to I-L (Light Industrial) (372W01D901).  Applicant: JBR Table Rock, LLC; Planner; Dustin Severs.
 
Vice Chair Foley inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Vice Chair Foley inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner III reported that 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. Calvin Martin, JBR Table Rock Road, 100 E. Main Street, “A”, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Martin reported that there was a mutual fence line that both property owners thought it was their property line.  When they gave land to the County for the widening of Table Rock Road and improvements they found through the survey the fence was off.  They have submitted a property line adjustment but is waiting for the zone change approval.  
 
Mr. Martin 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-19-012 per the staff report dated August 15, 2019, including Exhibits A through G. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner Thomas
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-0-0.
 
50.5 SV-19-046 Consideration of a request for the vacation of excess right-of-way for the Larson Creek Trail on a parcel located at 816 Black Oak Drive in the SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential, 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (371W32AA400) (This segment of the Larson Creek Trail is already under construction in a nearby location); Applicant & Agent: City of Medford; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Vice Chair Foley inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Vice Chair Foley inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Steffen Roennfeldt, 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. Roennfeldt gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer was in the audience but did not speak.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are met or are not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of SV-19-046 per the staff report dated August 8, 2019, including Exhibits A through M. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-0-0.
 
50.6 GLUP-19-002 / ZC-19-010 Request for a minor General Land Use Plan (GLUP) amendment to reclassify 5.07 acres, located at 709 N Phoenix Road, currently containing the “Court House Family Fitness”, from Urban Residential (UR) to Commercial (CM); along with an associated request to rezone the parcel from SFR-4, Single Family Residential – 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre) to C-C (Community Commercial) (371W27701); Applicant: North Phoenix Property Holding LLC; Agent: CSA Planning Ltd.; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Vice Chair Foley inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Vice Chair Foley inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III reported that the General Land Use Plan approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.222(B).  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. Roennfeldt gave a staff report and reported that staff received a letter from David Cuttrell this afternoon that just stated “I object”.  
 
Commissioner McFadden stated that he did not see in the staff report when the property was annexed into the City.  He feels the reason it has the wrong GLUP designation the City probably enclaved it in with the Southeast Plan.  Therefore, it did not get changed until they wanted to improve it.  Mr. Roennfeldt responded that it has always been commercially developed and before the Southeast Plan.
 
The public hearing was opened.     
 
a. Raul Woerner, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Woerner reported that this property has been developed with a commercial recreational facility since before it was annexed into the City.  The property owner wants to put in a metric measured swimming pool.  The bank was nervous with a conditional use permit and wanted alternate uses.  The applicant does agree with the restrictions on the sewage and trip cap.    
 
Mr. Woerner reserved rebuttal time.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of GLUP-19-002 to the City Council per the staff report dated August 15, 2019, including Exhibits A through R.
 
The Planning Commission also adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the final order for approval of ZC-19-010 per the staff report dated August 15, 2019, including Exhibits A through R, provided the City Council approves the GLUP amendment 
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-0-0.
 
50.8 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.
 
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner reported that the Development Code Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.218(B).  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.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, what City standards are in place for selling other items (i.e. hats, blankets, etc.) than food?  Ms. Paladino responded that the special use regulations break down the temporary mobile units such as food and medical vendors.  As things occur they have been added to the code. 
 
Vice Chair Foley stated that in the right-of-way they can only take one parking space.  How will that work?  He is thinking of the Buttercloud truck.  Ms. Paladino stated that was a comment that came from Public Works.  She has not measured a space but they may be larger than 20 feet.
 
Vice Chair Foley supports additional fees.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, how is the City going to ensure the mobility of the trucks and semi-permanent pods?  What mechanisms will be in place to enforce that?  Ms. Paladino responded that there are design standards.  It will be up to the property owner how they manage it. 
 
Mr. Mitton reported that Vice Chair Foley’s questions are dealt with Code Enforcement on a complaint basis. 
 
Ms. Paladino stated that the semi-permanent food pods are a fixture on that lot.  If they are connected to utilities they are probably not moving. 
 
Commissioner McManus agrees with the fees especially with the food trucks in the right-of-way.  A right-of-way cleaning fee would be appropriate downtown.  He is concerned with the size of trucks in the right-of-way.  Trucks can average 28 feet with the combustible tanks in the back. Is the intent of a food trailer to unhook and leave it for those hours?  Some of the trailers draw some of their power from the vehicle.  Ms. Paladino replied yes.  She can clarify that language before it goes to the City Council.
 
Commissioner McManus thinks the 10 feet clearance is ambiguous.  He sees challenging from a code enforcement perspective.  Ms. Paladino showed the Fire Department’s regulations.  It is a radius of 10 feet.                 
 
The public hearing was opened and there being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are met, forwards a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-17-104 to the City Council per the staff report dated August 15, 2019, including Exhibits A through K and recommendations made from tonight’s discussion.
 
Ms. Paladino summarized the comments. The Commission would like to forward in the recommendation that fees be adjusted specifically for the on-street and maybe for more than that.  The on-street vending encroachment of the space.  If there is a car and trailer they can take more than one space.  The 10 foot radius for separation.
 
Commissioner Mansfield commented that his objection is twofold.  This creates a cluttered appearance.  His principal problem is the unfairness that is created when permitting these people to use all right-of-way at a low cost.  He realizes there is a business tax paid.  They do not have to pay the real property taxes and the brick and mortar investment that the other legitimate business owners do.  For that reason he is voting no.      
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 3-2-0, with Commissioner Mansfield and Commissioner Thomas voting no.
 
60.          Reports
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
60.2 Transportation Commission
Ms. Paladino reported that the Transportation Commission is meeting next Wednesday at 12:30 p.m. in City Hall room 330.  They will discuss concurrency.
 
60.1 Site Plan and Architectural Commission
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, August 16, 2019.  They approved plans for the construction of a convenience store, drive-thru coffee kiosk, retail space and gas station at McAndrews and Crater Lake Avenue.
 
60.3 Planning Department
Ms. Evans there is a study session scheduled for Monday, August 26, 2019.  Discussion will be on electric fencing and Wildfire Risk Reduction Program. 
 
There will be a joint study session with the Planning Commission, Site Plan and Architectural Commission and the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission on Tuesday, October 22, 2019.  Discussion will be on findings.       
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, September 12, 2019, Thursday, September 26, 2019 and Thursday, October 10, 2019. 
 
Last week the City Council approved the GLUP change for Rogue Valley Transportation District, housekeeping amendments, the vacation for the pedestrian easement through St. Mary’s and adopt the resolution of the Circle K project on Springbrook and McAndrews.
 
70.    Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.           
 
80.    City Attorney Remarks. None.        
 
90.    Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
               
100.  Adjournment
101. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:20 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: September 12, 2019
 

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

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top