COVID-19: City Hall and Lausmann Annex are closed until further notice.
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 26, 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
Joe Foley, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Bill Mansfield
David McFadden
Jared Pulver
Jeff Thomas
 
Commissioners Absent
Mark McKechnie, Chair, Excused Absence          
E.J. McManus, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Katie Zerkel, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Sheila Giorgetti, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Liz Conner, Planner II
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 
10.     Roll Call
 
Vice Chair Foley reported that agenda 50.3 will be continued. Testimony will be heard but no decision will be made this evening.
 
20.    Consent Calendar / Written Communications (voice vote).
20.1 ZC-19-013 Final Order 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.
 
20.2 LDS-19-067 / E-19-048 Final Orders 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.
 
20.3 LDS-19-069 Final Order 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.
 
20.4 PUD-19-003 / ZC-19-014 Final Orders 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.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar items 20.1, 20.2, 20.3 and 20.4 as submitted.
        
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by:
 
Commissioner Pulver requested that agenda item 20.5 be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered individually.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar items 20.1, 20.2, 20.3 and 20.4 as submitted.
        
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0-0.
 
20.5 Consideration of a Site Plan & Architectural Commission request to amend Chapter 10 of the Medford Municipal Code to require a conditional use permit for car washes and fuel stations adjacent to residential zones.  Planner; Sarah Sousa.
 
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission requests to amend Chapter 10 of the Medford Municipal Code to require a conditional use permit for car washes and fuel stations adjacent to residential zone.  The Planning Commission had a study session earlier this month discussing the issues.  Staff would review the code language and come back to the Planning Commission with the draft language. 
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, will it come back to the Planning Commission in a study session?  Ms. Paladino replied yes. 
 
Commissioner Pulver feels the Site Plan and Architectural Commission has broad based ability to stipulate conditions that require the applicant to implement items into their development to make it compatible with neighboring development.  He does not think this necessary or a good use of staff’s time.
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that the issue on one of the applications was that there was no legitimate latitude to deny the application.  It was difficult on how to fit a gas station in the middle of a residential area.  It went to City Council that eventually approved the application.  The Site Plan and Architectural Commission wanted more clarity on permitted uses within the proximity to residential areas.
 
Commissioner Thomas agrees with Commissioner Pulver but there is a request and the Planning Commission should allow staff to bring draft language back.  He personally would like to see the draft language.
 
Commissioner Mansfield plans to vote in favor.  He thinks primarily both uses should be conditional.
 
Commissioner Culbertson does not know if Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director was at the meeting when Commission Quinn raised the question that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission had the latitude to deny certain applications based on the code.  He was requesting the Planning Commission to review to better define what residential and commercial uses and how compatible they are.
 
Ms. Evans reported that Commissioner Culbertson is correct.  It was a request from the body as a whole for the Planning Commission to review the issues.  It does not need to result in something but it is something the Planning Commission can review.  Staff is in support of the Planning Commission reviewing it. 
 
Commissioner McFadden thinks the emphasis should not be on how to deny it but how to enable an approval or not to enable an approval. 
 
Commissioner Pulver commented the Planning Commission has reviewed conditional use permits in the past and they are a difficult tool.  For churches and schools it is easy to argue public benefit.  A straight use could be a hard argument.  Conditional use permits in this vane are not appropriate.  He does not think the Site Plan and Architectural Commission’s role is to approve or disapprove based on use.  Their role is to take into consideration the site plan and architecture. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson agrees with Commissioner Pulver.  It is not worthwhile to review this.  The applications that comes before the Commissions should go on their merits.  Do they fit in the box that was created for the applications?  If they do move forward.  It is not an emotional decision.        
 
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 McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 4-2-0, with Commissioner Culbertson and Commissioner Pulver voting no.
                               
30.          Approval or Correction of the Minutes from September 12, 2019 hearing
30.1The minutes for September 12, 2019, were approved as submitted.
 
40.          Oral Requests and Communications from the Public. None.
 
50.          Public Hearings
 
Katie Zerkel, Senior Assistant City Attorney read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
 
Old Business
50.1 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.
 
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(B).  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the property owner notices, and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jane Erin Griffin-Hagle, 4199 Rachel Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Hagle reported that the City wanted a revised sewer study from CEC Engineering that they are still waiting on. She would like to get out of the SFR-00 status to SFR-4.   
 
Ms. Hagle 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-18-189 per the staff report dated September 19, 2019, including Exhibits A through H.           
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0-0.
 
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.
 
Vice-Chair Foley inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Culbertson received a phone call from another realtor that that lives in the community asking the process and procedures.  Commissioner Culbertson referred them to contact the City and to show up at tonight’s meeting if they wanted to testify.  Commissioner McFadden received a phone call from Mr. Duane Wallace expressing his concern in terms of resulting in time traffic flow in and out of the hillside.  It will not affect his decision on this application.
 
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.
 
Liz Conner, Planner III reported that staff received amended comments from Jackson County Roads that were emailed to the Commissioners and will be submitted into the record as Exhibit V.  Staff is revising the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A-1) that adds language regarding restricted zoning.  The Zone Change approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.204(B).  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the property owner notices, and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report.  Ms. Conner stated that the amended comments from Jackson County Roads addressed Normil Terrace, Cadet Drive and Annapolis Drive being under Jackson County jurisdiction.  On August 15, 2019 City Council approved the Jurisdictional Exchange and adopted a resolution on September 19, 2019.  With the Exchange being complete with City Council staff received amended comments from Jackson County that addressed the three roadways.  Those comments included an average daily trip cap of 27 single family dwelling units that is identical to the trip cap proposed by the Public Works Department.  Ms. Conner reported that amending the Conditions of Approval gives the ability for the developer to make improvements to the downstream sanitary sewer system to alleviate capacity restraints; or the developer provide an engineering study of the downstream sewer system to show capacity exists to allow the proposed zone change.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that given the presentation and conditions proposed the criteria are met.  With the conditions proposed the project is different than what was applied for.  At what point is the proposed project not getting approved?  In reading the material it seems denial is more appropriate than an acceptance with extreme conditions or limitations on development.  Ms. Conner deferred the question to the applicant but stated that with the conditions and the trip cap it will allow phasing on the property that the constraints can be addressed later.
 
Vice Chair Foley stated that now the City will be in charge of Normil Terrace that seems to be the road block of egress and ingress in this subdivision.  What can the City do to improve the ingress and egress of the property?  Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer reported this is a challenging project with single access.  Normil Terrace has its challenges.  Based on the geographic constraints it has steep hills, sharp corners and is unimproved.  There is little that will likely occur improving this road.  The main goal is getting development started and looking for secondary access. That option exists to the south and southeast through Bordeaux through Vista Point.  Also, Lone Pine currently turns into a private dirt road and goes through property owned by Pacific Power and Light.  There is an opportunity for negotiations and it becomes a public street.  That is the bigger picture for development on this hillside.
 
Commissioner McFadden spoke but was inaudible.  Mr. Georgevitch addressed Commissioner McFadden stating that they City typically does not accept roads from the County without them being fully improved that they have been imposing approximately a decade.  Beyond ten years ago the City exchanged unimproved roads for dollars on an annual basis.  That program went away when the County lost ONC funds.  Recently they started reconsidering this and this is the first time in ten years.  There is funding and they included $300,000 for the City to use for roadway purposes.  The question is, is the money best spent on Normil Terrace or is the City better off spending it on secondary access or someplace else in the community?  That is a decision that will be made later after they perfect the Jurisdictional Exchange and have the money in hand.                   
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
b. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Stevens reported that the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with all public facilities prior to development of the property.  They have to get the zone change before they can apply for a land division application.  They have to ensure the new homes will have the capacity and safety upon upright construction.
 
Mr. Stevens stated that comments were made about access.  Panorama Drive comes towards the south and Lone Pine Road.  There is a private drive that traverses Pacific Power property and the applicant will need to negotiate with Pacific Power to acquire public right-of-way into the site.  From Lone Pine it connects to Foothill Road.  It is a through road that is the secondary access to the site.  Normil Terrace is not the only access.  It is the only public road into the site.  The applicant has contacted Pacific Power regarding acquiring public right-of-way.
 
Mr. Stevens discussed the intensity of the site.  Based on water availability they can only develop approximately sixty acres of the site.  The applicant will have to do a topographical survey because it will require SFR-2 development because it exceeds the 15% slope. 
 
Mr. Stevens discussed comments regarding Normil Terrace future development proposal.  The applicant anticipates improvements will be made to Normil Terrace as part of that.  It could be additional turn lanes on Normil Terrace for a left and right movement at the intersection.  It could be widening of Normil Terrace.  Each incremental development will make improvements to Normil Terrace.
 
Mr. Stevens stated the applicant is in agreement with the amended conditions of approval and the Jackson County comments.                       
 
Mr. Stevens reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Teresina Christy, 3283 Annapolis Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Christy does not think improvements will happen on Normil Terrace because it is limited by its steepness.  It is a difficult road for large heavy equipment to navigate. That is what will be coming up Normil Terrace to build the 27 homes.  The streets are inadequate.  The issues are the safety of the roads, there is no lighting on the roads, the density of development not being adequate with the roads and issues with the sewers.  If the Commission approves things conditionally she wants to be certain those conditions hold.  It seems to her there is a history in the Valley of things falling through the cracks sometimes.  Their lives would be falling through the cracks because of the safety issues. 
 
c. Pat Krikorian, 3277 Annapolis Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Krikorian confirmed what Ms. Christy stated.  Normil Terrace is so bad with its two hairpin turns that if two people are navigating the hill simultaneously usually someone has to stop and wait for the other person to pass.  There is no shoulder on the road.  She has no problem with the 91 acres being developed.  Her concern is adequate access.
 
Ms. Conner clarified that the City requires a deed restriction on a property that has a restricted zone on it that any future development has to comply with all conditions set forth with the approval.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is it fair to assume in the Transportation System Plan there is nothing related to Normil Terrace?  Mr. Georgevitch responded that the Transportation System Plan does not consider lower order streets.  Lone Pine is a higher order street but because it is going across private property there were no plans for extension.  It is developer driven. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, with the expected east Medford bypass improvement of Foothills and this section of Foothills might be expected to be improved and widened by what year? Mr. Georgevitch reported there is a developer working on plans for the west side of the road.  They will be doing a half plus twelve improvement but does not know when.  One of the City’s funding priorities is looking at the Foothills and North Phoenix corridor and proposals are moving forward through City Council for funding opportunities.  The City is also looking for federal grants along the corridor.  In a perfect world if they get the grant they would have five years to complete (2025).  Realistically somewhere in the next ten years he would anticipate seeing it more fully improved. 
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that at the Transportation Commission meeting they talked about the pavement management process.  Would Normil Terrace fall into the pavement management process?  It would be analyzed and assessed and put on the list of other streets for maintenance even though it is not a major project but the maintenance would be considered.  Mr. Georgevitch responded yes.  The City currently collects street utility fees that are used primarily for maintenance of all public roads.  County roads within the City are not included but once the City takes jurisdiction it becomes the City’s responsibility to maintain and there is funding to maintain it coming from the citizens of Medford.  Every couple of years the City would do an analysis on the pavement and depending on the conditions it could rise up quickly for pavement maintenance only.  Widening would either be through the developer’s conditions when they move forward with their development plans or through the transfer of jurisdiction and the funds that come with the transfer could fund curve mitigation, etc. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked Ms. Conner to elaborate on the comments from the Fire Department on this development.  Ms. Conner responded that the Fire Department comments are Exhibit I page 159 of the agenda packet.  The specific development requirement says that it is approved as submitted with no additional conditions or requirements.  This is a zone change and not a land division application. 
 
Mr. Stevens stated that Ms. Christy and Ms. Kirkorian mentioned improvements will need to be made and staff concurred that improvements will be made to Normil Terrace on future development of this site.  When Panorama Heights was developed there was a condition that they all trucks use Lone Pine and Panorama to access the development.  Trucks and development use the secondary alternative access to stay off Normil Terrace.  Staff has mentioned there is $300,000 that more than likely will go to Normil Terrace.  It does not have to depending on the needs.  Widening is a potential improvement.  That is between the engineers and Public Works. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is Mr. Stevens’ comment of using Lone Pine and Panorama for construction purposes after negotiating with Pacific Power?  Mr. Stevens responded Mr. Jantzer has an easement to use that private road that was agreed to during development of Panorama Heights.                                
 
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-18-178 per the staff report dated September 19, 2019, including Exhibits A through U, including the revision of Exhibit A-1 and including Jackson County Road comments Exhibit V.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner Thomas
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, how much flexibility does the Planning Commission have on this application?  For example, allowing the developer no more than nine homes be built at one time and could not build anymore homes until one was finished and received occupancy rating.  Would that have been a condition of development that would have been acceptable of the Planning Commission to make?  Ms. Evans responded that the Planning Commission’s decisions are criteria based.  Any conditions of approval need to relate back to the approval criteria.  The Planning Commission has the ability to conditionally approve zone change based on various studies, etc.  There is evidence from the Public Works Department there are constraints on traffic, storm, and sanitary sewer facilities.  If there is evidence in the record that they can build 27 dwelling units but as a body they decide to do one or two or limit the timing they need substantial findings.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, does Ms. Evans or Ms. Zerkel feel that staff’s recommendation for denial sufficed?  Ms. Evans reported that the Planning Department did not recommend denial.  Public Works generally has options when there are capacity constraints.  The first option is always to not approve or as the statute allows conditionally approve the different constraints.  From the Planning Department perspective the Planning Commission is within their authority to conditionally approve with these restrictions. 
 
Ms. Evans addressed Ms. Christy and Ms. Krikorian concerns that the best time to testify about the safety and access is at the time of the land division application.  Karl MacNair, City Transportation Manager and Ms. Evans had the opportunity to meet with some of the neighbors on site and one of the items they talked about was how are they going to get there, what is it going to look like and the answers were they do not know.  This is a zone change application.  Staff has no idea at this point in time how it will develop out. 
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that it is not something that Public Works or someone can impose they do improvements to Normil Terrace unless their development was immediately adjacent to the subject property.  Ms. Evans reported it does not necessarily have to be adjacent.  It has to meet the Dolan test of legitimate government purpose, the nexus and proportionality.
 
Commissioner Mansfield commented that Mr. Stevens articulately set out the conditions and staff has set out the limitations.  This is a limited development and the petitioner has graciously accepted those or otherwise the property is not going to be use at all.  He plans to vote for this.          
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 5-1-0, with Commissioner McFadden voting no.
 
50.3 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, a mixed-use structure, increase maximum building height for mixed-use building to 40 feet, and increase the paved width of the private street. 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. 
 
Vice Chair Foley stated that the applicant has requested this item be continued to the October 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.  There will be no staff report this evening.  If there are people in the audience that cannot attend the October 24th meeting the Commission will hear the testimony.  However, their questions may be answered by the staff report on October 24th.  There will be no decisions made on this item this evening. 
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued PUD-19-002, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, October 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0-0.
 
50.4 CUP-19-044 Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a new educational use in an existing single-family residence located at 2841 Juanipero Way within the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (371W33BD8902); Applicant: Phoenix-Talent School District; 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.  Commissioner Mansfield disclosed that he lives in the neighborhood of the area but that should not disqualify him.  He has had no contact with anyone.
 
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 staff had a meeting with the agent on this application and it is the intention of the agent to continue this for 30 days.  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. Roennfeldt gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Harland reported that the applicant requests a 30 day continuance. Mr. Harland addressed the use issue stating that the applicant wants to use the facility as a house as much as possible.  The reason is that it is special education for people trying to learn skills so that they can live independently.  It is school owned and a type of public school but the nature of the use is different.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, what is the age of the students at this facility?  Mr. Harland reported from twelve years of age to past high school age. 
 
Mr. Harland reported that the two versus five staff members.  That was a confusion from the first set of findings.  There will be two staff members on site for the day to day operations.  The five is a maximum in case of an all staff meeting.
 
Commissioner McFadden spoke but was inaudible.  Mr. Harland replied yesterday.    
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued CUP-19-044, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, October 24, 2019, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0-0.
 
60.          Reports
60.1 Site Plan and Architectural Commission
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission there was no business for their meeting on Friday, September 20, 2019. 
 
60.2 Transportation Commission
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission met on Wednesday, September 25, 2019.  When the discussed concurrency one of the items was the trip generation associated with commercial zones.  They made a recommendation of increase the lot size.  The Transportation Commission approve that.  
 
60.3 Planning Department
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that Commissioner Miranda resigned.  That leaves a vacancy on the Planning Commission.  It has been advertised. 
 
Ms. Evans sent out the training information for the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association in Eugene on October 24-25, 2019.
 
 There is no business scheduled for a study session on Monday, October 14, 2019.   
 
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 at 5:30 p.m. in the Prescott Room at the Police Department.  Dinner will be served at 5:00 p.m.  Discussion will be on findings.       
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, October 10, 2019 and Thursday, October 24, 2019. 
 
Last week the City Council approved 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 approved to vacate the pedestrian easement through St. Mary’s; food trucks in the right-of-way and food pods.
 
Next week the City Council will approve a proclamation for October National Community Planning month.  They will hear the concurrency amendment, the street vacation at Normil Terrace and west Foothills.
 
Vice Chair Foley found it interesting that City Council approved the food trucks and food pods that had a lot of things that did not come through the Planning Commission.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, was there any no votes on the food trucks?  Ms. Evans did not recall but she thinks it was split. 
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that they can only add Planning Commissioners as seats become available and City Council has the time to evaluate.  Whenever he tends to disappear for a little while come mid-November until February there will be more pressure on a quorum. 
 
Commissioner Pulver hypothetically speaking, that evaluating completeness of an application is a step in the process.  It is troubling to him that an application gets through the Planning Department and comes to the Planning Commission missing a lot of pieces.  If the application is not complete it needs to continue in the Planning Department until it is then brought to the Planning Commission so they can make a decision.  Ms. Evans replied that they could but statutorily they have no options.  Under the statute if someone submits an application, staff deems in incomplete, staff sends a letter stating what needs to be done and/or submitted and the applicant states they are not doing that, staff is obliged statutorily to do so regardless of completeness or not. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, if that happens and staff presents it to the Planning Commission would staff be able to share the list of items they said no they were not going to do it?  Ms. Evans replied yes and staff would.
 
Again, Commissioner McFadden spoke but was inaudible.       
 
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 7:16 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: October 10, 2019
 

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

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top