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, September 12, 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
Jared Pulver
Jeff Thomas
 
Commissioner Absent
E.J. McManus, Excused Absence             
 
Staff Present
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Karl MacNair, Transportation Manager
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Kyle Kearns, Planner II
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 
10.     Roll Call
 
20.    Consent Calendar / Written Communications (voice vote).
Commissioner Mansfield requested that agenda item 20.4 be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered individually.
 
20.1 ZC-19-011 Final Order 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.
 
20.2 ZC-19-012 Final Order 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.
 
20.3 ZC-19-010 Final Order 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.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar items 20.1, 20.2 and 20.3 as submitted.
        
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
20.4 Consideration of a citizen initiated request to amend Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code to expand the types of uses and number of zoning districts that permit electric fences.  Planner: Carla Paladino.
 
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner reported this item was recently heard by the Planning Commission at a study session.  This is a citizen request to update Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code to expand the types of uses and number of zoning districts that permit electric fences.  If the Planning Commission would like staff to work on the request they need a motion from the Planning Commission this evening.  It will become part of staff’s work tasks for 2020.  
 
Motion: The Planning Commission directed staff to review the request and return to the Planning Commission for further proceedings.   
        
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Chair McKechnie asked, does staff have a different position than what was discussed at the study session?  Ms. Paladino responded that staff has the same position.  They do not agree to make any changes at this point. 
 
Commissioner Pulver is in favor of staff working on this request.  It seemed unclear to him at the study session what their request is.  It seems broader than what he is comfortable with and maybe what staff is comfortable with.  Ms. Paladino replied that staff will work with the applicant.   
 
Chair McKechnie cannot see the need for the request.  He is planning on voting against the request and not recommending that staff further review it. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, how many reviews can the Planning Commission do in a time period?  Ms. Paladino reported two a year and the Planning Commission has not initiated any this year.   
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-1-0, with Chair McKechnie voting no.
                               
30.          Approval or Correction of the Minutes from August 22, 2019 hearing
30.1The minutes for August 22, 2019, were approved as submitted.
 
40.          Oral Requests and Communications from the Public. None.
 
50.          Public Hearings
 
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
 
Continuance Request
50.1 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 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-18-178, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, September 26, 2019, Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
New Business
50.2 GLUP-19-003 / ZC-19-013 Request for a minor General Land Use Plan (GLUP) amendment from (UH) Urban High Density Residential to SC (Service Commercial) and to change the zoning from MFR-20 (Multiple Family Residential - 15 to 20 dwelling units per gross acre) to C-S/P (Service Commercial and Professional Office) on a 0.61 acre parcel located at 2217 Barnett Road (371W29DC9800). Applicant: Hong (Kevin) Wu; Agent: Richard Stevens & Associates; 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 Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment 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(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.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what is the reason for changing the zoning to C-S/P (Service Commercial and Professional Office) opposed to C-C (Community Commercial)?  Mr. Roennfeldt deferred the question to the applicant.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what does Mr. Wu plan to do with the property?  Mr. Roennfeldt responded the possibility of mixed-use.  
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Joe Slaughter, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Slaughter addressed Chair McKechnie’s question as to why C-S/P opposed to C-C is the minimum parcel size required for the C-C zone.     
 
Mr. Slaughter reserved rebuttal time.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of GLUP-19-003 to the City Council per the staff report dated September 5, 2019, including Exhibits A through N.
 
Also, the Planning Commission also adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of ZC-19-013 per the staff report dated September 5, 2019, including Exhibits A through N, provided the City Council approves the GLUP amendment. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
50.3 LDS-19-067 / E-19-048 Consideration of a request for approval of Summerfield at Southeast Park, Phases 19 and 20, a 44-lot residential subdivision on 15.23 gross acres and an Exception to allow through lots between Shamrock Drive and Sunleaf Avenue. The Site is located at the easterly termini of Sunleaf Avenue and Shamrock Drive south of Cherry Lane, and is zoned SFR-4/SE/RZ (Single Family Residential, four dwelling units per gross acre/Southeast Plan Overlay/Restricted Zoning Overlay). The request is a revision to the previous approval for Summerfield at Southeast Park Phases 16 – 21 (LDS-17-051). (371W27DA TL 200, 300, 1100 & 1200). Applicant: Crystal Springs Development Group, a Joint Venture; Agent: Neathamer Surveying; Planner: Kelly Evans.
 
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.
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that staff received a letter from Westview LLC that is the property adjacent to the north property owner.  It will be entered into the record as Exhibit Q.  Also, revise Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) adding a requirement note be on the plat for Condition 3 restricting access to certain lots.  Condition 6 does not apply.  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. Evans gave a staff report.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, where does the multi-use path continue on to?  Ms. Evans reported it will be picked up at the east end of the development across Shamrock. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, how wide is the path?  Ms. Evans responded that the proposed path is 10 feet wide.  
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer reported that Mr. Randy Jones is in the audience that also represents this item and the next agenda item.  They are aware of the request from the adjacent property owner and it was an oversight on the conceptual plan.  They have always intended to provide sewer and storm drain connections to the properties to the north.   
 
Mr. Neathamer reserved rebuttal time. He will be sharing his rebuttal time with Mr. Jones.
 
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-19-067 and E-19-048 per the staff report dated September 5, 2019, including Exhibits A through Q, revising Exhibit A adding the requirement that a note be on the plat for Condition 3, delete Condition 6 and including the applicant’s stipulation regarding the sanitary sewer being stubbed to the property line as per requested. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, do they need to stipulate the utility connection?  Ms. Evans responded that in the motion the Commission can accept the applicant’s stipulation.  
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
50.4 LDS-19-069 Consideration of a request for approval of Summerfield at Southeast Park Phases 23-29, a 183-lot residential subdivision on 65.83 gross acres generally located on the east side of Waterstone Drive extending between Shamrock Drive and Barnett Road. The applicant also proposes to create eight reserve acreage tracts following the phase boundaries. The Site is zoned SFR-4 (Single Family Residential, 2.5 – 4 dwelling units per gross acre), SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, 4 – 6 dwelling units per gross acre), SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, 6 – 10 dwelling units per gross acre), and MFR-20 (Multiple Family Residential, 15 – 20 dwelling units per gross acre) and is within the Southeast Plan (SE) Overlay District and has restricted zoning (RZ). The request is a revision to the previous approval for Summerfield at Southeast Park Phases 23 – 29 (LDS-17-113). (371W27 TL 1001). Applicant: Crystal Springs Development Group, a Joint Venture; Agent: Neathamer Surveying; Planner: Kelly Evans.
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that Exhibit A needs to be revised adding the requirement that a note be on the plat for Condition 3, vehicle access restrictions and Condition 7 needs to include Phase 25.  The Land Division approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202(E).  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the property owner notices, and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Evans gave a staff report.
 
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.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, where the subdivision connects to Barnett Road if the applicant intends to have full access to Barnett Road, in the near term, would they be required to build a 22 foot wide paved road to North Phoenix Road.  Ms. Evans responded that it is close to North Phoenix Road. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, how do they limit it to the Fire Department only?  Ms. Evans reported that no construction traffic would be able to use that.  She assumes the end of the street would be blocked to not allow access down to Barnett Road.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, how does the Fire Department get in?  Ms. Evans replied with a temporary access road.        
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, doesn’t that road continue to wind up past the property?  Ms. Evans commented yes.  Vice Chair Foley commented that there is residential traffic that goes beyond that property on Barnett Road.
 
Ms. Evans is not talking about blocking Barnett Road.  Waterstone would connect at Barnett Road.  They will do something capable of supporting fire and emergency vehicles.   
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what is the restriction for the restrictive zoning?  Ms. Evans deferred the question to the applicant. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, did staff have any concerns about the long blocks that result in a dead end opposed to the other one that had a north/south street located at the end of the development?  Ms. Evans responded no.  This is adjacent to MD-5 which is one of the expansion areas.  She is confident that they will be seeing an urbanization plan in the relatively near future that will give a north/south loop.   
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, has the Southeast Plan block length rule changed?  Ms. Evans will have to look carefully at the Southeast Plan language.  The block length ordinance in Code Section 10.426 explicitly excludes the Southeast Plan area from applicability.  Commissioner McFadden stated that maybe it does but the Southeast Plan has a lot that can be separate from the rest of the Code.  Ms. Evans agreed.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked is there room for a school in the general plan west of this development?  Ms. Evans reported that areas MD-8 and MD-9 were designated parks/schools in the Southeast Plan.  The park was not built where it was designated.  The School District has stated the land slopes that will not service them well.  There is an agreement with the School District to move into MD-5 in the urban reserve areas.
 
Ms. Evans stated that the Southeast Plan was adopted in 2004.  There have been changes in the last fifteen years with the Plan.  Staff will be working on cleaning it up since designations have moved.   
 
Mr. Mitton reported that in Section 5.3 page 10-23 of the Southeast Plan reads: “Maximum block length standards optimize convenience for pedestrians and enhance street connectivity.  Street intersections should be located approximately every 600 to 800 feet in single-family areas and 400 to 600 feet in the Village Center and other higher density areas…”  He does not know if that applies here or not?  Ms. Evans asked, is this in the Comprehensive Plan or Chapter 10?  Mr. Mitton responded it is in the Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Evans stated the Southeast Plan is difficult to work in.  There are aspirational things in the Comprehensive Plan that were not carried into the clear and objective standards of the Land Development Code.               
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer concurred with Ms. Evans that working in the Southeast Plan is difficult.  Sometimes the proposed street layouts makes it almost impossible to get a good circulation plan. 
 
The applicant understands the concerns with Barnett Road.  They have not intentions of using any of the construction traffic on that road.  The gate will be placed at the end of Waterstone.  It is a system that allows emergency uses but is not used for public access.  The project will build from the north to the south.
 
The School District did not want the school located where it was shown on the Southeast Plan.  They are discussing with the School District for a location in the urban expansion area to the south and east.       
 
Chair McKechnie asked Mr. Neathamer to address his concern about the three long streets with no crossings for connections.  The original plan had a north/south street at the end of the subdivision.  Mr. Neathamer commented that the circulation plan streets that carries traffic through the entire project were dead ends on each end because they were not intended to go further north or south.  Parks had an issue with having so many pathways crossing intersections.  This layout addresses their issue,
 
Chair McKechnie stated that Parks is not the only people utilizing this. There is a 600 foot long dead end alley and trash trucks will have to figure out how to get down it and back out.  It seems to him there are two of those plus two streets that would be a concern.  Mr. Neathamer responded that this has been reviewed by Public Works and the Fire Marshal.  Neither one of them had those concerns.                  
 
Commissioner McFadden stated he was concerned about the distances but comparing with other developments in the area have blocks longer than this project and some shorter.  That mixture seems to be working that eased his concern.  Commissioner McKechnie’s concern about the traffic at the end of the streets is a valid concern and thinks some of it will be solved by temporary hammerhead turnarounds or similar treatment at the end of those areas.  Commissioner Foley commented that is in the Fire Department report.  Mr. Neathamer stated again, that the Southeast Plan with the streets that are placed where they have to stay a major street, makes it difficult.  They have to build around it. 
 
b. Randy Jones, 815 Alder Creek Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Jones reported that going east on long dead ends there will be a connection in MD-5 that will be a gravel road accessible by fire and construction that will go north and south.  As they layout MD-5 and present to the Planning Commission they will build another corner lot.  There will be a north/south street with residential on the west side and on the east side there will be a school and park.  The park will be related to a playground with an elementary school.  Until then each one of the streets will have a connection road through.  He prefers connecting one street to another and not just a circle for a fire truck turnaround or a hammerhead but an actual loop that helps the construction vehicles, fire and garbage trucks.  This has been done in Summerfield further north for years and it works great.    
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, what is the acreage laid out for the school?  Mr. Jones responded that the school district for the elementary school is looking at six acres.  The park is looking at two acres.  The Parks Department would prefer the school district take the lead on how that part of the park looks.
 
Where the forty foot wide greenway trail would be crossing the block there would be tremendous amounts of crossings.  There would be fences in people’s backyards.  The Parks Department made it clear that they did not have the money to buy the land, build or maintain the forty foot wide trail even though the Southeast Plan says they are to do.  The applicant, Planning and the Parks Department design team came up with doing a ten foot wide instead of a 5 foot sidewalk, give more right-of-way land, still have a park strip not as wide as the eight feet, trees, pedestrian scaled street lights, stamped street crossings at the intersection making it work as one.  The City does not have to pay for any of it.  The applicant will pay for it and build it as they build their development. The park strip irrigation and sidewalk maintenance is tied to each of the lot owners.   
 
Chair McKechnie paraphrased Mr. Jones’ earlier comment that the intention on the original plat with the north/south street on the east end goes into the MD-5 area.  Mr. Jones responded yes. They have the first pre-application for annexation in the new Urban Growth Boundary.  The school will be in that area and a regional detention area.  That is the best way to keep development without all the driveways from the houses to where they get to the true greenway that is further southeast.  They will get to a real natural greenway that the applicant will enhance and put normal trails on.   
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what is the phasing of the buildouts on the eastern half of the development related to MD-5?  Mr. Jones stated that for Phases 23-29 the most north western phase will be the first.  The next phase will be directly south of it.  The next phase will be in the north east connecting Shamrock through since it is the major residential street that will run into MD-5.  They will build south from there.  The last to finish will be the further southern parts.    
 
Mr. Neathamer reserved rebuttal time.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of LDS-19-069 per the staff report dated September 5, 2019, including Exhibits A through R, revising Exhibit A adding the requirement that a note be on the plat for Condition 3, vehicle access restrictions and Condition 7 needs to include Phase 25.
 
Moved by:  Vice Chair Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
50.5 PUD-19-003 / GLUP-19-004 / ZC-19-014 Consideration of a revision to the approved Preliminary PUD Plan for Lot 6 of the Tower Business Park Planned Unit Development to allow for the construction of rowhouse-style residential buildings, including an amendment to the General Land Use Plan map from GI (General Industrial) to UM (Urban Medium Density Residential) and to change the zoning to MFR-15 (Multiple Family Residential – 10 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre) on 1.16 acres located at 3583 Arrowhead Drive within the I-L (Light Industrial) zoning district (371W08BC2511). Applicant: Dan & Gina Reece; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd.; 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 Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment 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(B).  The Revision to Planned Unit Development approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.198.  The Planned Unit Development approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.190. 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 stated that staff received an email from the applicant requesting to use Code Section 10.192, relief from off-street parking standard, building orientation and entrance standards and to allow for rowhouse-style, multi-family development within the PUD.  Staff supports the proposed deviation request.  This email will be entered into the record as Exhibit LL.     
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, what is the total number of modifications and deviations that are being requested for this development?  Mr. Roennfeldt responded there are two units that face the public right-of-way and the off-street parking standard.  There are three modifications.     
 
Commissioner Pulver asked Mr. Roennfeldt to review the topic of architecture review.  He heard the Planning Director had the option to require it, he did not.  Does the Planning Commission have the option to require that or make it a condition of approval?  Mr. Roennfeldt replied yes.  
 
Chair McKechnie asked, how deep are the driveways on the units and if there is a garage and driveway are both allowed to be counted as spaces?  Mr. Roennfeldt responded yes if the driveway meets the standard.  
 
Chair McKechnie asked, are the parking spaces in the front going away?  Mr. Roennfeldt replied no.  If the Planning Commission agrees with the applicant that he can use Code Section 10.192 to modify the PUD standards when it pertains to the locational criteria for parking, they can remain where they are.    
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Raul Woerner, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Woerner reported that the applicant wants to construct affordable market rate housing on their one acre similar to the adjacent housing. 
 
They requested a modification where the units have the front door within 30 feet of the street, facing the street or visible from the street but within a 90 degree access.  The northeast unit meets that standard but the southern row is more than 90 degrees depending on where it is measured from the street.  The doors are still visible from the street. 
 
If they tried to move the parking spaces to the back there would be no open parking near the front.  It is currently spaced evenly.  The two parking spaces between the building and street have a lot of landscaping in between.
 
The applicant hopes that Planning Commission looks at the architecture.  The have incorporated all the requirements under the new multi-family design code.
 
The driveways meet the driveway standards on a public street.       
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what is the length of the driveways?  Mr. Woerner stated they are 20 feet on the north side and 20 feet on the south side.  The driveway is recessed under the second floor.  There is also a 5 foot pedestrian walkway.
 
Chair McKecknie stated that the building code requires two accessible parking spaces for an apartment complex.  Where is the applicant putting those? 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, does the applicant object to forwarding the architecture and site plan to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission?  Mr. Woerner would like to get the architecture reviewed this evening.  A final PUD plan still has to be presented that is the Planning Director’s approval process. The applicant can make some adjustments to the number one space adjusting the landscaping to carve enough room to back out.  He thought there was a revised site plan that showed the ADA.  Spaces six and seven were adjusted to have a center aisle between them.  At the end of the development on the lower southwest they could put an isle next to the last space to get a wheelchair out.  
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that his questions would be more for site plan and if they refer it to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission there is no reason for him to ask.  He would like something with more shape and see what the neighborhood looked like.  Mr. Woerner showed a photograph of the complex next to the subject property.  The photograph was the same that was in the agenda packet.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, was the complex next to the subject property built before or after the multi-family standards?  Mr. Roennfeldt replied before.    
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, is there a requirement for bicycle parking?  Mr. Woerner responded that in the application the applicant asked that the bicycle parking be placed inside the garages.  The chose that on the final design plan with the option of adding some on the outside.    
 
Mr. Woerner reserved rebuttal time.
 
Ms. Evans reported that the Planning Commission can approve the architecture.  Staff felt this project met the new residential design standards with the two exceptions that have been discussed this evening.  From staff’s perspective they did not feel there was a reason that they could not ask the Planning Commission to review because the standards are clear and objective with the two exceptions.  They can make a decision on it this evening or they can send architecture and site design to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission but need to be specific on what it is they want them to look at and decide.  Alternatively they could send it to the Planning Director but need to be specific what it is they want the Director to decide.  It is a limited review not a full application to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.     
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, how does it play into time requirements?  Is there a 120-day requirement?  Ms. Evans responded that if the Planning Commission sends it to the Planning Director it would be looked at in the building permit process with a final decision.  Sending it to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission would become a condition of approval.  It is awkward for the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  It would be a second 120-day process.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, did the Oregon state law change that the classification for homes for speedy development that limited and shortened the 120-day rule that were preapproved?  Would this applicant qualify for their low income housing?  Ms. Evans understood this to be market rate housing, not affordable housing.  There is something for affordable housing at certain income levels.          
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Main Motion: The Planning Commission forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of GLUP-19-004 to the City Council per the staff report dated September 5, 2019, including Exhibits A through LL.
 
Also, the Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Orders for approval of ZC-19-014 and PUD-19-003 per the staff report dated September 5, 2019, including Exhibits A through LL, provided the City Council approves the GLUP amendment.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, can the motions be separate? How do they approve parking issues outstanding?  Vice Chair Foley responded that if there is further review with the Site Plan and Architectural Commission it would be an amendment to the motion. 
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, is it correct that you cannot approve the project without handicap parking?  Mr. Mitton replied that the Planning Commission should address the handicap parking issue.
 
Mr. Mitton responded that in terms of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission (SPAC) review it can go to them in two different ways.  Before this hearing the Planning Director can route something to SPAC.  This Commission as a condition of approval can require a SPAC review on certain specified issues.  In order to address changes the Planning Commission could break it up into two separate motions one for the GLUP recommendation to the City Council then a second motion for the issues resolved at this level or amend the motion that would have the same affect.
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that the Commission could make a condition of approval provided the applicant fixes the handicap parking problem according to staff if staff were not able to prove the legality of the proper handicap parking.
 
Chair McKechnie stated that they could also include the Site Plan and Architectural Commission review the two modifications to the multi-family standards.  The front door not facing the street and parking in the front yard. 
 
Vice Chair Foley is inclined to deal with the handicap parking but not the other one.       
 
Commissioner Pulver’s discomfort is the Planning Commission asked to do SPAC’s job because it is procedurally allowed.  He does not know what the look at or what their requirements are.  
 
Vice Chair Foley shares Commissioner Pulver’s discomfort but the applicant applied all the new multi-family residential standards.  That eased his concerns.   
 
Commissioner Pulver stated the front door and parking on the street issues do not concern him.  The handicap parking should be addressed if the Commission chooses not do anything beyond that on site plan review. 
 
Chair McKechnie responded that standards are there for a reason.  If one cannot meet them for a legitimate reason they cannot meet them.  He reviewed the floor plans and it is simple to turn the door another direction.  He does not know if it makes the plan any worse.  The comment about there is plenty of landscaping in front of the parking spaces so that really should not apply is a bogus argument.  There are issues with the parking overall on the Site with the extra spaces.  With a little creative work they can find more spaces that meet the criteria without having the Planning Commission to give up arbitrarily.  He is happy to do it either way.  If they want to act as SPAC the Commission needs to add a lot of conditions.  If the Commission feels more comfortable letting SPAC look at the issues he is happy to illuminate the Items he thinks they should review.  The zone change and GLUP change makes perfect sense and he does not have an issue with either one of those.           
 
Ms. Evans reported that if the Commission’s concern is parking it is clear and objective that staff can change it.  She did not encourage the Commission to send parking to SPAC.  She does not know how Commissioner Culbertson feels about that since he is the liaison.
 
Commissioner Culbertson is good with seeing it again or deferring it to Planning. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, in Ms. Evans comment is she also referring to the handicap parking?  Ms. Evans replied yes.  It is a federal requirement.  Are Chair McKechnie’s comments Items that can be managed through the building permit process or are they so substantive and require such discretion that it needs to go to SPAC?
 
Chair McKechnie has concerns when staff has already said they think it sort of meets the standards.  There are some design tweaks which is more SPAC purview that they would pick up on.  Those things need to be addressed.  SPAC looks more at the overall development.  The parking can be tweaked to get more spaces than they need with some design flips.  The front doors is an easy fix.  That needs to be looked at.  According to the site plan there is a significant slope in the front corner that the two front parking spaces are not going to fit without a four foot retaining wall.    
 
Mr. Mitton reminded the Commission that design tweaks and not wanting design review to be checking boxes legislature with residential housing limited it to a clear and objective standards.  If it goes to SPAC it is not supposed to be a subjective analysis with design tweaks.  
 
Mr. Mitton also pointed out that under Code Section 10.192 the ability to modify for a PUD is traditionally applied by the Planning Commission.  It is discretionary.  The front door issue is in the Planning Commission’s purview.    
 
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission reviews the landscaping plans, elevations, it would be a long discussion on where is the parking.  The plans should have had handicap parking clearly identified.  Space one is obviously not going to meet the criteria.  If they shave out part of the landscaping are they still going to be meeting the minimum standard number of bushes and trees required for that development.  If it is only down to finding a handicap parking space the Planning Director should have the discretion to work with the applicant to make that happen effectively so that it is safe.      
 
Amended motion #1: Denial of the modifications under Code Section 10.192 to the multi-family standards regarding the front door and the parking space in the front yard.
 
Moved by: Chair McKechnie                       Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, does or does not the parking in the driveway count?  Chair McKechnie stated they are allowed to count parking in the driveway per the code.  The applicant has elected not to do that.  But it can be counted. 
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 4-3-0, with Commissioner Pulver, Commissioner Thomas and Vice Chair Foley voting no. 
 
Amended motion #2: Refer the plan to the Planning Director to resolve the issue over the location of accessible parking.
 
Moved by: Chair McKechnie                       Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
Main Motion: The Planning Commission forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of GLUP-19-004 to the City Council per the staff report dated September 5, 2019, including Exhibits A through LL.
 
Also, the Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Orders for approval of ZC-19-014 and PUD-19-003 per the staff report dated September 5, 2019, including Exhibits A through LL, provided the City Council approves the GLUP amendment.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
50.6 DCA-18-180 An amendment to portions of Chapter 10, the Medford Land Development Code (MLDC), regarding the City’s transportation concurrency standards and Transportation Impact Analyses (TIAs) to implement the adopted 2018-2038 Transportation System Plan (TSP).  Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Kyle Kearns.
 
Kyle Kearns, Planner II 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.  Mr. Kearns gave the staff report.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, have they addressed all the issues raised by incorporating them into the Trip Generation table and scaling that based on size?  Mr. Kearns responded that is correct and it is outside the scope of Chapter 10.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, do the other issues relate to Subsection (11)?  Mr. Kearns replied that is correct.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, does the trip generation relate to the commercial zones C-C, C-N, C-R and C-H?  Exhibit Q talks about daily trips created.  The issues raised by Jay Harland and Kim Parducci were, that in larger commercial developments, the daily rates were unachievable.  It created grim traffic studies.  Mr. Kearns did not want to speak to the policies directly because it would be largely in the Public Works Department.  Public Works would be best to answer specific questions but the idea is as the sites get larger the ADT is reduced based by acreage.    
 
Commissioner Pulver addressed Vice Chair Foley’s previous questions stating that it explicitly excludes the conformance of the pass-by rate with the ITE Manual.  It stops recommendation.  Mr. Kearns clarified the pass-by rate stating they can ask for the use of the ITE Manual and be left to the discretion of the Public Works Director at that point.  Right now it is capped at 25 percent.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, does pass-by have a maximum of 25 percent and a credit in the TIA?  Mr. Kearns replied yes.       
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Harland wanted his comments on record on a few of the issues.  One is Subsection (9) TPR Prohibition.  His understanding from reading the structure of the code, Section 10.204, is directed at Quasi-judicial zone changes of specific pieces of property.  It would not necessarily be prohibited as part of a legislative action because it is allowed by TPR.  That is flexibility the City should retain.  He does not think the amendment proposed by staff would prohibit that. 
 
He is pleased to hear their policy recommendation and how that has moved forward on Subsection (11) of the TPR.  It is something that would get used infrequently but could be something to make a big difference for the community.  The other part of the staff report seemed to indicate that in the interim one would be able to use Subsection (11) and apply TPR directly even though the City has not written a specific process.  From the code language he does not think it would be prohibited. 
 
Mr. Kearns had mentioned that zone changes is when facility adequacy is measured.  That is how Medford has done it historically.  The City is now making changes to that code section.  When he does future zone changes and the development comes in, the neighborhood does not like it and wants the traffic reevaluated.  This amendment would benefit from having findings that state this is how Medford has always done it and this is how Medford is continuing to do it under the new code changes.  That is consistent with the policy direction that is in the TSP. 
 
Mr. Harland does not have a comment for commercial trip rates.  Staff is wanting to get that worked out.  It is central to how these amendments will function moving forward.      
 
Chair McKechnie asked, staff is recommending Subsection (11) be studied separately.  Does Mr. Harland think that is a good idea?  Mr. Harland responded that would be great for the City to do that and have a specific process.  He can see the rationale.  There are good things happening in the amendments.  
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are satisfied, forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of DCA-18-180, including the Trip Generation Policy as recommended by the Transportation Commission, to the City Council per the staff report dated September 5, 2019, including Exhibits A through R.
 
Also, the Planning Commission moves that staff create a General File (GF) project for reviewing the use and application of TPR subsection (11) into Medford Municipal Code following up with study sessions with the Transportation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council (as needed).
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Mansfield is confused because there are two motions.  He is in favor of one and opposed to the other.  Is the Commission voting on them at the same time?  Vice Chair Foley responded that he rolled the two into one but if Commissioner Mansfield wants to break them up into two he can do that.  Commissioner Mansfield thinks they need to since not all agree to the inclusion of Subsection (11).
 
Previous motion was withdrawn.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission moves that staff create a General File (GF) project for reviewing the use and application of TPR Subsection (11) into Medford Municipal Code following up with study sessions with the Transportation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council (as needed).
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Pulver is okay either way on the amendment.  In his opinion it would become a tricky code to write.  He would encourage findings that state Subsection (11) of the TPR be leveraged as the code is currently written and leave the discretion to the Public Works Director or City Council.
 
Commissioner Mansfield is opposed to studying Subsection (11).  It appears to him to be an attempt to subvert the entire process of intelligent limitation in the interest of economic development.  In his view, they either stay with their standards or they do not.  He wants Subsection (11) prohibited.  That is why he is opposed to studying it. 
 
Commissioner Pulver thinks it is a state rule.
 
Karl MacNair, Transportation Manager reported it is a state law.  In order to prohibit an approval under Subsection (11) it would need to be in the code. Staff did prohibit a different subsection that is an option of the TPR.  As a local government they could elect to not allow approvals under Subsection (11).
 
Mr. Mitton commented that one of the requirements with Subsection (11) is that local governments make partial mitigation only if the local government determines that the benefits outweigh the negative impacts on local transportation facilities. There are two ways to do that.  A stance in the code can make it easy or impossible to use or be silent which requires a lot of findings if using in a particular case.
 
Vice Chair Foley thinks that based on what Mr. Mitton just stated he recommends they study Subsection (11) then they have the option to prohibit it, ignore it or adopt it.  If the leave it alone they are subject to it.
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, if they do not study it and leave it does that give more flexibility to have more findings?  Chair McKechnie responded that it can be studied and leave it silent.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked about the approving authority.  Ms. Evans replied that if it is a discretionary zone change it would go to the Planning Commission.  There would be a traffic study.  Staff would make a recommendation.  It would likely be the Planning Commission’s decision or the Site Plan and Architectural Commission’s decision depending on the application it may go to City Council.  That is part of the study.  Having something in the text acknowledging that it exists would be helpful.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, is Vice Chair Foley’s point Subsection (11) exists and if wanting to contest it they should move to study it rather than letting it sit?  Vice Chair Foley responded that is his understanding.  The Commission has three choices.  They can ignore it or build it into the code or not allow any of it.                                       
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-1-0, with Commissioner Pulver voting no.
 
Main Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are satisfied, forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of DCA-18-180, including the Trip Generation Policy as recommended by the Transportation Commission, to the City Council per the staff report dated September 5, 2019, including Exhibits A through R.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Pulver wanted to amend the motion before going to City Council that staff provide additional findings on when and where facility adequacy is reviewed.
 
Mr. Mitton reported that a finding can be made that it is determined at the time of zone change.
 
Commissioner Pulver is fine with that as long staff is.  Is zone change the only time facility adequacy is reviewed?  Mr. MacNair stated that the code requires a study for facility adequacy in Code Section 10.204 that relates to zone change and show there is Class “A” transportation facilities.  That is where staff made the change to reference the TPR as the determinant of that facility adequacy.  Being that requirement is already in Code Section 10.204 addressing zone changes he is not clear where the clarification is needed.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is Commissioner Pulver’s concern other land development issues?  Commissioner Pulver nodded yes.
 
Mr. Mitton stated the legal affect a finding would and would not have is that the code expressly states to do the analysis at this time.  A finding like that is not going to contradict a clear part of the code.  It would prevent people from arguing that there is now an implied additional review at the time of site plan review or something like that.  It would say, just as always, look at the code as explicitly when this review is done, historically, that has been at zone change.  If at some point they have a new land use process that specifically calls for an analysis at that time this sort of finding would not contradict that.  Explicit code language would still govern.  This helps interpret it to head off an argument that staff is applying to other cases.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is Mr. Mitton’s recommendation to amend the motion that says the Commission makes this finding?  Mr. Mitton responded it makes it clean to have a motion to amend to include a finding that zone changes historically when this analysis is done and that is still the intent.  That amendment would include that finding that would go to City Council as the recommendation on the whole.
 
Amended motion #1: Facility adequacy is assessed at time of zone change.  
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                                              Seconded by: Vice Chair Foley                  
 
Amended motion #1 Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
Commissioner Pulver commented that staff is not supportive of using the ITE Manual for pass by rates.  The argument is that the manual is being used for a lot of things (i.e. traffic counts, etc.) that it is recognized nationally as a guide for traffic engineering as opposed to the 25 percent that is arbitrary.  Why not use it?  The manual is being used for other things why chose to ignore its pass by rate?
 
Chair McKechnie responded that the idea behind the ITE Manual is how many trips it actually generates.  Pass-by trips are a subset of trip generation that only apply to commercial / retail developments.  They are the people already on the road who the business hopes to suck into their site as they are driving by.  It could be as high as 80 percent.  Staff is saying they do not care what the ITE Manual states they are only going to allow 25 percent.
 
Mr. MacNair reported that the ITE Manual does provide trip generation rates for specific uses and also pass-by rates.  Currently, the code caps pass-by rates at 25 percent.  It has been in the code since 2001.  It was put into the code to address specific issues that Public Works had been having with consultant proposing pass-by rates that were not reasonable.
 
It seems to Commissioner Thomas that the ITE Manual is based on data; the 25 percent is arbitrary.  What is better for the business is what the data says and data should drive decisions.       
 
Amended motion #2: The percentage for pass-by trips to be used in accordance with the latest ITE Manual.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Vice Chair Foley
 
Amended Motion #2 Roll Call Vote: Motion passed: 5-2-0, with Vice Chair Foley and Chair McKechnie voting no.   
 
Main Motion Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
60.          Reports
60.1 Site Plan and Architectural Commission
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, September 6, 2019.  He was not able to attend the meeting but they continued to October 18, 2019 a multi-phase development for Public Works Service Center located on the east side of Corona Avenue and Hilton Road.
 
60.2 Transportation Commission
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission met on Wednesday, August 28, 2019.  They discussed concurrency. Commissioner Pulver asked Ms. Evans to talk about a Citizen’s Academy.
 
60.3 Planning Department
Ms. Evans stated the Citizen’s Academy was set up by the City Manager’s Office for citizens to come to the City to learn what different departments do.  This week they kicked off with the City Manager’s Office.  October 1, 2019, they will visit the Planning and Building Departments.  Discussion will be on zoning and concurrency.   
 
What Commissioner Pulver heard about the Citizen’s Academy was that there was a fair amount of interest. 
 
There are training opportunities coming up for the Planning Commission.  The League of Oregon Cities is sponsoring a training opportunity at the Oregon City Planner / Director Association in Bend on Wednesday, September 25, 2019 from 1:00 to 4:30 p.m.  John Morgan is the speaker.  The other training opportunity is the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association (OAPA) the end of    October in Eugene. 
 
There is a study session scheduled for Monday, September 23, 2019.  Discussion will be on Residential Administrative Review. 
 
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 26, 2019 and Thursday, October 10, 2019. 
 
Last week the City Council approved the Annexation of the right-of-way and Wes Howard Sports Park on North Ross Lane and Rossanley to Stearns.  The also approved the GLUP for Rogue Valley Transit District at Forest Hills and Crater Lake Avenue from UH to GI.
 
Next week the City Council will hear the GLUP and Zone Change for North Phoenix Property at North Phoenix Road and Barnett Road from UH to SC and MFR-20 to C-S/P.  They will also hear to vacate the pedestrian easement through St. Mary’s; food trucks in the right-of-way and food pods; and the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report for the CDBG.
 
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 8:40 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                                                                      
 
Joe Foley
Planning Commission Vice-Chair                                                                              
 
Approved: September 26, 2019
 

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

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top