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, November 14, 2019

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the Medford City Hall, Council Chambers, 411 West 8th Street, Medford, Oregon on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
Mark McKechnie, Chair
Joe Foley, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Bill Mansfield
David McFadden
E.J. McManus
Jared Pulver
Jeff Thomas
           
Staff Present
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Madison Simmons, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
Dustin Severs, Planner III
 
 
10.     Roll Call
 
20.    Consent Calendar / Written Communications (voice vote).
20.1 CUP-19-044 Final Order 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.
 
20.2 LDS-19-074 / E-19-050 Final Orders for tentative plat approval for Mollie’s Place Subdivision, a proposed 8-lot residential subdivision, consisting of two single-family lots and six duplex lots, along with a request for an Exception to construct a half-street with a reduced width. The property is located on a single 1.08-acre parcel located at 1432 Orchard Home Drive in the SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W35DA TL 201);  Applicant, Reeder, Knouff, Thomas, LLC; Agent, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc.; Planner, Dustin Severs.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.
        
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley             Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
30.       Approval or Correction of the Minutes from October 24, 2019 hearing
30.1    The minutes for October 24, 2019, were approved as submitted.
 
40.       Oral Requests and Communications from the Public. None.
 
50.       Public Hearings
 
Madison Simmons, Senior Assistant City Attorney read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
 
Continuance Request
50.1 CP-19-004 A legislative amendment to incorporate the Liberty Park Neighborhood Plan into the Neighborhood Element and Goals and Policies section of the Comprehensive Plan; Applicant, City of Medford; Planner, Carla Paladino.  Staff requests this item be continued to the December 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 December 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 December 12th.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued CP-19-004, per staff’s request, to the Thursday, December 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley             Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
50.2 LDS-19-076 Consideration of tentative plat approval for the Medford Center, a proposed commercial pad-lot subdivision in order to separate 11 buildings on their own legal tracts of land. The property is located on a single 24.42-acre parcel located east of Biddle Road between Stevens and E Jackson Street in the C-R (Regional Commercial) zoning district (371W19CD 1000); Applicant, LBG Medford, LLC; Agent, Neathamer Surveying, Inc.; Planner, Steffen Roennfeldt.  The applicant requests this item be continued to the December 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 December 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 December 12th.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued LDS-19-076, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, December 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley             Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
New Business

50.4 ZC-19-017 Consideration of requests for zone changes of two contiguous parcels located at 611 Meadows Lane: TL 12400 (0.79 acres) is requesting a zone change from SFR-00 (Single-Family Residential, one dwelling unit per lot) to MFR-20 (Multiple Family Residential, twenty dwelling units per gross acre), and TL 12300 (0.18 acres) is requesting a zone change from SFR-00 to SFR-10 ((Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre) (372W25CB TL 12300 & 12400); Applicant, Johnnie & Sharon Barger; 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 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. Johnnie Barger, 174 DeHague Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Barger reported that he will not be able to do any development on the property but perhaps sell it to provide housing for people that need it. 
 
Chair McKechnie, asked what was the rationale of the recommendation for one parcel to be MFR-20 and the other parcel to be SFR-10 as opposed to all of being SFR-10?  Mr. Severs commented that is what the applicant requested.  
 
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-19-017 per the staff report dated November 7, 2019, including Exhibits A though F.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley             Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
TAKE OUT OF ORDER
Old Business

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.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Thomas lives near the neighborhood but will not affect his decision.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III reported 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.  Mr. Roennfeldt stated that four letters were received after the publication of the agenda packet and another was received this evening.  They will be entered into the record as Exhibit XX through Exhibit BBB.  There is a signature issue.  The Medford Land Development Code Section 10.198(A)(1) reads: “An application to revise an approved PUD Plan (…) shall bear the signature of the owner(s) who control a majority interest in more than 50% of the vacant land covered by the approved PUD and who are also the owner(s) of land and improvements within the PUD which constitute more than 50% of the total assessed value of vacant portion of the PUD”.  This code section has been interpreted differently in the past.  The applicant’s position is that the signatures of owners of vacant land qualify for both the improvements and vacant land.  Or, are signatures required from both owners of vacant land and owners of improved land aka home owners within the whole PUD which is the neighbor’s position.  The Planning Commission should make a decision on this issue as per staff’s recommended motion.   
 
Chair McKechnie stated that the Commission needs to come to a resolution as to whether or not the issue with signatures has been satisfied.  Mr. Roennfeldt commented that the PUD-16-024 signatures did not include the neighbors but was not an issue brought up then or addressed.  
 
Chair McKechnie asked, should the Commission discuss the signature issue first or hear from the applicant?  Ms. Simmons stated that the Commission should hear from the applicant and public testimony before discussing the signature issue.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, are the signatures in Exhibit TT the signatures required for MLDC Section 10.198(A)?  Mr. Roennfeldt responded that most of those signatures could be required.  Ms. Simmons commented that those are signatures of the land owners of the improved land in the PUD.
 
Commissioner Mansfield sees no reason why anybody is benefited by a private street.  Why is the applicant doing a private street instead of a public road?  Private streets create repair messes two or three decades from now.  Mr. Roennfeldt stated that private streets are permitted in a PUD.  The question was deferred to the applicant.
 
Commissioner Pulver wanted clarification on the mixed-use buildings in term of this application versus the 2016 changes.  Are they in the same location just different?  Mr. Roennfeldt reported that in 2016 there were three separate buildings all commercial and now there is one mixed-use structure with residential on top. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, with the 2016 proposal were the three buildings single story?  Mr. Roennfeldt responded they were single story with the option for a second story for storage and office use only.   
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, in regards to approving architecture aren’t there building standards in the code now?  Mr. Roennfeldt responded yes there are multi-family residential standards.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, are the 14 foot aisles one-way and the 20 foot aisles is narrower than standard?  Mr. Roennfeldt responded yes and the 20 foot aisles are a narrow two-way.
 
Chair McKechnie asked Ms. Simmons that an example that was cited was a project he was involved in.  What does he do besides disclose that?  Ms. Simmons stated that is not an issue.  He worked on a project but it is not the only project this Commission has interpreted 10.198(A) and it is done.      
 
a. Terry Amundson, Koble Creative Architects, 2117 NE Oregon Street, Portland, Oregon, 97232.  Mr. Amundson stated that the most significant change were the primary concerns that came from the last Planning Commission meeting that had to do with Cedar Links and Farmington relationships between the three-story mixed-use building and the residential homes across those streets.  The applicant reduced it to two story, redistributed the units and eliminated ten units.  There is residential is above the commercial rather than the commercial and storage per the previous PUD.      
 
Mr. Amundson addressed the signature language stating that the “and who are also” with the vacant portion of the PUD being repeated twice seemed straight forward and they covered their basis thinking it was a non-issue.  He can understand the language being interpreted multiple ways. 
 
It does not seem to Commissioner Mansfield that the private street is a good idea.  It is creating a maintenance problem several decades down the road.  Mr. Amundson responded that he did not request that.  It was in the original PUD for the subject area.  He did not know it was a concern or a preference for that public right-of-way.  He is not against having it as a public right-of-way.  
 
Commissioner Thomas stated that Mr. Amundson mentioned he had met with a few of the neighbors.  What is a few and when was it?  Mr. Amundson reported they did the neighborhood meeting.   Commissioner Thomas stated folks made decisions on their property based on the original PUD.  His hope was that Mr. Amundson would go back and work with the neighbors before coming back to the Planning Commission.  After the last Planning Commission meeting Mr. Amundson stated that he met with a few neighbors.  How many neighbors and when was the meeting?  Mr. Amundson responded that after that Planning Commission meeting he worked with Planning staff to invite key concerned neighbors to a group session at the Planning Department.  Commissioner Thomas asked, were the neighbors being affected spoken to?  Mr. Amundson replied no.    
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, how did the decision come to take the three multi-family units in the center of the property and move them to the back of the project?  Mr. Amundson responded that the previous PUD had the multi-family units condensed towards the center of the site surrounded by parking.  There are a number of reasons they put the parking towards the interior area of the site and put the buildings towards the exterior of the site.  It activates the street frontages better, it reduced the number of ingress and egress points to the site and it places the parking and vehicle circulation so there is less impact of vehicle headlights, etc. on the surrounding neighborhood.  
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, has Mr. Amundson had any conversations with the owner of the cottage lot?  Mr. Amundson replied he has.  
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, does the Planning Commission have the option to defer the architecture to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission?  Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that there are paths in the PUD ordinance.  The applicant can ask to defer architecture; the Planning Director has the ability to send those issues to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission before coming to the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission has the ability to defer specific issues to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission and there are multi-family design standards.  Staff has reviewed this project and determined that it meets those standards.  Based on that staff does not feel there is a need for this to go to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  There is nothing for them to do.
 
Chair McKechnie commented that since they have those standards having that piece in the narrative would have been helpful.   
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is it true that the design standards do not necessarily apply to the mixed-use building?  Ms. Evans responded that is correct. However, again staff felt that in its design it is comparable with the multi-family, particularly the second floor, it did not warrant a need for Site Plan and Architectural Commission review.     
 
Vice Chair Foley is concerned with the size of the drive aisles.  Mr. Amundson reported that 20 feet is ample width with a deep parking stall.  They are only asking for compact spaces in certain areas.  The rest are standard spaces.  It is a 4 foot difference with 2 feet from each side.  It is larger than other jurisdictions.  
 
Chair McKechnie stated actually it is not if he wants to know the truth.  Very few jurisdictions that he deals with have a 20 foot wide drive aisle.  Maybe they do in Portland but no place else that he is familiar with from Seattle to California.  Chair McKechnie stated that Mr. Amundson indicated that a 14 foot access way was one-way but he has two-way markers on the plan.  If he intended that he should identify those as one-way loops.  Mr. Amundson apologized.  Chair McKechnie replied that when you are asking for something you have to be careful.  
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, what would be the overall effect of changing the parking to diagonal?  Mr. Amundson stated that they could make adjustment to the aisle widths because they have made so many adjustments with the unit counts and what the parking counts are now from the first iteration.  There is a chance it would feasible to make some of the aisles 24 feet and a portion of the aisles 20 feet.  Diagonal takes up parking spaces quicker and it is harder to get the counts.  
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, where is the compact parking located?  Mr. Amundson responded at the two ends.  Commissioner Thomas asked, was it anticipated there would be street parking in front of the houses?  Mr. Amundson reported that the only street parking they are showing is on the south side of the private road.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is there parking allowed along the curb line on Cedar Links or Farmington?  Mr. Amundson stated it is bike lanes and traffic.            
 
Mr. Amundson reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Nancy Hawkins, 1030 St. Francis Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Hawkins addressed the major decision that needs to be made regarding the signature issue.  Ms. Hawkins referenced MLDC Section 10.198(A) citing that the applicant has failed to meet the criteria pertaining to a preliminary PUD under Subsection (1).  She split the subsection into two parts.  She stated part one reads: “The application form shall bear the signature of the owner(s) who control a majority interest in more than 50% of the vacant land covered by the approved PUD… part 2 reads: and who ae also the owner(s) of land and improvements within the PUD which constitute more than 50% of the total assessed value of the vacant portion of the PUD”. The applicant fulfilled part one.  For part two the applicant needed thirteen homeowner’s signatures to fulfill the 50% value of the developed land.  The applicant has not fulfilled this part of the application requirement. 
 
Ms. Hawkins was part of the mini meeting that was held.  After that meeting they were sent a question from Mr. Westerman wanting to know how they felt now that he had given consideration to lower the three-story building to two-story.  Volunteers collected three hundred twelve signatures within the community which included fifty eight of the sixty one developed homes that are located in the PUD.  They do not support the revised proposal.
 
Ms. Hawkins asked Mr. Westerman and his representatives to resubmit a layout more in the likeness of the design approved in 2016; less density, open and inviting front perimeter and all living quarters be kept in the central or back portion of the property as the 2016 plan showed.     
 
c. Millie Carlton Brenner, 2934 Farmington Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Brenner’s concerns revolve around what steps the developer has taken to address today’s need for a fire adapted community.  
 
d. Elvin Hawkins, 1030 St. Frances Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Hawkins read the language on the petition stating: “Petition, by signing this petition, I submit my signature to t the Medford Planning Commission and ask that you DENY the Joe Westerman application of the revisions to the corner of Cedar Links Drive and Farmington Avenue, within the Cedar Landing PUD.  There are two major objections to the 2019 proposal: Objection #1: The very large structure proposed to be 403 feet, 2 inches of continuous length creating a massive building wrapped around the front corner perimeter at one of the major entries to the community; Objection #2: We do not approve of residential living in this same building.  We support the 2016 approved plan that offers a much more open and inviting feel to this corner and does not have upper story residents able to intrude upon the privacy of the homeowners living directly across the streets”. There are approximately three hundred twelve residents in the community and over two hundred homes.    
 
e. Tim Partch, 2430 Herrington Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Partch asked three times for clarification without the timer on.  Mr. Partch disagrees with the petition in some respects.  He feels the apartment complex should not be included in the area. Cedar Links, two miles in either direction, is single family homes. Mr. Partch recommended to relocate high density housing to a relevant location, return to single family residential homes or cottages, redesign the commercial buildings that fit the community and apply relevant TIA data to the entire development instead of the phased buildouts.    
 
f. James Greathouse, 2868 Wilkshire Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Greathouse submitted a letter this evening as an update to his letter with attachments, submitted September 26, 2019, designated as Exhibit NN.  The subject of that and this evenings submitted document being the applicant’s failure to meet the requirements for revision of a PUD as specified in MLDC Section 10.198(A)(1) item 2 of the current PUD ordinance.
 
Mr. Amundson did not provide rebuttal.   
 
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director addressed the Traffic Impact Analysis stating that it was done during the zone change application.
 
Emergency evacuation is not a standard of the Land Development Code.  The Planning Commission does not have discretion to address that this evening.  Staff is working on changes to the Land Development Code to address fire hazard on the wildland urban interface. The City of Medford has adopted new changes to the Oregon Structural Code that are designed to reduce fire risk. 
 
Schools are not a standard of review.  The City meets with the School District quarterly to discuss development.
 
The issue of consent is misleading to say that in the past the Planning Commission / Planning Department have processed PUD modifications twice looking at the consent with the signature issue in the way the applicant has interpreted it.  The wording could be opened to interpretation however, the construction of the sentence states: “and the property owners who are also owners of improvements of vacant land”.  Staff discussed how this was constructed and the implications of interpreting it the way the neighbors would like the Planning Commission to interpret it.  Staff arrived at the conclusion that this would make it impossible for any owner of vacant land in a PUD to change an approval.  They would have to get the signatures without going through the land use process.  Staff thinks it was designed to make sure the current owners of vacant land who may have constructed improvements that are not homes or buildings, maybe culverts, sanitary sewer connections, etc. has protection against the owner of property who had a large geographical area.  To do otherwise would set a bad precedent.  It would make the owner of vacant land at the mercy of the property owners to provide the signatures of consent before they get to a land use decision.  That would be a de-facto land use decision.  It would enable property owners who had something against a property owner of vacant land to deny an application before it comes to the Planning Commission and potentially City Council.  This is not contemplated in Oregon law.  That is not the way the code is written.  The neighbors still have recourse.  They can come to a public hearing, provide testimony that addresses the standards and the Planning Commission makes a decision.  That is the way the process is supposed to work.  The consent portion of this ordinance should not be construed as a means to circumvent a land use decision.        
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, does the apartment complex need to have fire sprinklers?  Mr. Brinkley responded that anything over three units is sprinkled.  Chair McKechnie replied that is not entirely true.  In the mixed-use buildings it is every unit that is required sprinkled. 
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, what is the protection for people that buy into a PUD based on the approved PUD and do the improvements?  Mr. Brinkley replied there is a land use process defined by the Land Development Code, Oregon State Law and Administrative Regulations.  
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, when was the last revision to the Planned Unit Development language?  Mr. Brinkley replied 1998. 
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, was the 2016 revision made in conjunction with the partnership of the community?  Mr. Brinkley does not know about partnership but in the 2016 approval there was a condition regarding the KSW letter.  It was a resolution of a dispute between a neighborhood group and the owners at the time over the 2016 revision.  It was resolved that KSW Architecture was hired to come up with some design standards and guidance in terms of the development in that particular part of the property and everyone signed off on it becoming a condition of approval for that modification.    
 
Chair McKechnie stated that the original PUD, in 2006, was approved for up to 500 dwelling units in various shapes and forms and up to 80,000 square feet of commercial space. That PUD had been revised a lot.  At the moment the law in force on that particular parcel is the revision approved in 2016.  That had 100 of the 500 units were to be in this particular location and 15,000 square feet of the 80,000 that was originally approved of commercial.  He sees that the Commission is looking at a different site plan, architecture, 20 foot drive aisles, 10 additional dwelling units over the 100 that have already been approved.   Mr. Brinkley replied that is correct with the mixed-use building replacing the commercial building.   
 
Commissioner McFadden stated that it seems to him that a phase of a PUD becomes a PUD by itself.  He does not know of anything in the code that differentiates the PUD versus smaller phases?  That might be something in the future to look at because the area being discussed is completely independent of everything else.  The houses around it do not face it.  Mr. Brinkley responded that whatever the Planning Commission decides this evening staff needs to cleanup this part of the PUD ordinance and other sections.      
 
Commissioner Thomas wanted clarity that when this was approved in 2016 one of the conditions of approval was there had to be a resolution between the neighbors and owners of the PUD.  Now the Planning Commission is being asked to throw that out.  Commissioner Pulver reported that there was an agreement between the developers and neighbors added as a condition of approval.  
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Commissioner Pulver would be an advocate for discussion before making motions. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, if the Planning Commission gets past the initial signature question and want to approve the changes but there are portions they do not want to approve, would the appropriate process be to approve it with the exception of?  Mr. Brinkley commented that the Commission has the discretion to agree, disagree or in the case of the drive aisles, three feet or four feet.  Also, provide reasoning as to why they are making the change or if they vote something down that is not in staff’s recommendation.    
 
Motion: The Planning Commission finds that the applicable criteria in MLDC 10.198(A) in regards to property owner consent have not been satisfied and denies PUD-19-002 per the Revised Staff Report dated November 7, 2019, including Exhibits A-1 through BBB.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley             Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, is the motion to accept the neighbors interpretation instead of the applicant’s?  Vice Chair Foley replied yes. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson sees it all the time that building developers hold onto a piece of property and may make modifications to the CC&Rs.  They hold on to 51% to make modifications they want without having to get the neighbors consent before they do a modification.  He agrees they are probably small PUDs in itself.  Some of the modifications should have been done before they sold 51% of the overall project.  Most of them come before the Planning Commission with a specific design and plan.  Modifying it is altering the original designer’s vision even though it is allowed.  They should have had more buy-in from the land owners.    
 
Commissioner Pulver read this as being focused on vacant land.  Maybe the language and improvements had more to do with roads, utilities, etc. and not vertical construction.  It is not 51% when talking about houses.  A lot gets five votes instead of one.  He does not think that is the intent or the way it reads.  He will vote against the motion.    
 
Vice Chair Foley thinks they have a precedent on this particular PUD with the work they did relating to things that happened in 2016.  They have an engaged population looking at this.  He is inclined to think they did not meet the criteria.  He is leaning towards voting in favor of this motion. 
 
Commissioner Thomas thinks if the policy is unclear it needs to be changed.  The people who made an investment and read the policy a certain way based on what they thought the PUD was going to be should not be punished.  He will vote yes on the motion.    
 
Commissioner McManus is not in favor of the motion.  This is an application with more than one factor that has an impact.  He appreciates the public input and involvement.  In relation to policy making, he feels for consistency purposes, if you are focusing on the factor that the motion was made on, it is clear from what staff had interpreted that it is the intent to have direction for staff to provide the quantitative information.  
 
Commissioner Mansfield will vote no because he does not believe the Council intended to give that kind of veto power to the neighbors.
 
Chair McKechnie intends to vote no.  The intent of the ordinance is not to deny modifications to existing PUDs.  The intent of that particular paragraph in the land development code is to allow developers of PUDs to come in with a better idea for the Planning Commission to review.  People that live in the PUD have an opportunity to comment.  If they agree on the motion it will make redevelopment or improvements to PUDs impossible. 
 
Ms. Simmons commented that there has not been one precedent for PUDs.  It has never been a contested issue.  There is not a legal precedent.  
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion failed, 3-5-0, with Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner McFadden, Commissioner McManus, Commissioner Pulver and Chair McKechnie voting no.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission finds that the applicable criteria in MLDC 10.198 (A) have been satisfied and adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of PUD-19-002 per the Revised Staff Report dated November 7, 2019, including Exhibits A-1 through BBB including the following revisions:
 
Increase the amount of permitted multiple-family dwelling units from 100 to 110.
Adding the mixed-use building at the corner of Cedar Links Drive and Farmington Avenue, including 17 residential units.
Add the ‘common building’ including 2 residential units.
Increase the paved width of Private Street to 28 feet and allowing 17 parallel parking spaces.
Decrease drive aisle width to 14 feet and 20 feet.
Approve architecture.
Remove Condition 7 of PUD-16-024 Exhibit A-2 having to do with the design letter by Kistler, Small & White and amend Condition 2 of Exhibit A-1 for PUD-19-002 to read ‘Comply with the Multi-Family Residential Design Standards as set forth in MLDC 10-716 through 10.719, striking references to the KSW letter.
Delete Condition 8 of PUD-16-024 regarding 2nd story commercial use only.
           
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley             Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Commissioner McFadden made a friendly amendment: Accept the applicant’s offer to change the private street to a public street.  Commissioner Mansfield seconded the motion. 
 
Commissioner Pulver would advocate for not allowing the increase in the number of units (staying in the previously permitted 75-100 range).  He is troubled by the drive aisle widths and does not like the architecture issue. 
 
Chair McKechnie made a friendly amendment: Not allowing decreasing the drive aisle width to 14 feet and 20 feet. 
 
Ms. Evans suggested make the street a minor residential street which is a 55 foot right-of-way, 28 feet curb to curb with parking on one side.  It is a condition to dedicate as a public right-of-way. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson requested clarification that if they hold the maximum number of units down to 100 that would still permit the mixed-use in the front. Chair McKechnie commented that the applicant would have to figure 10 less units somewhere.  Commissioner Culbertson has a problem with having the mixed-use.  That was a big issue in 2016. They were having trouble calculating the number of parking spaces, the use and how the flow would work.  They decided not to have the mixed-use on the front piece.  He views that as a big change. 
 
Commissioner McFadden stated that the mixed-use is being promoted across the country as a way to integrate the friendliness to the commercial area with the livability space of a residential area so that vandalism is controlled in the commercial area by having people there all the time.
 
Commissioner Thomas agrees with Commissioner Pulver on the previously permitted 75 to 100 units.
 
Ms. Evans reported that the motion on the table now is the main motion, the public street was an amendment to the main motion and the aisle width was an amendment to the main motion. 
 
Vice Chair Foley stated they have had discussion on the number of units in the mixed-use.
 
Ms. Evans reported that the current motion is:           
 
Motion: The Planning Commission finds that the applicable criteria in MLDC 10.198 (A) have been satisfied and adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of PUD-19-002 per the Revised Staff Report dated November 7, 2019, including Exhibits A-1 through BBB including the following revisions:
 
Increase the amount of permitted multiple-family dwelling units from 100 to 110.
Adding the mixed-use building at the corner of Cedar Links Drive and Farmington Avenue, including 17 residential units.
Add the ‘common building’ including 2 residential units.
Dedicate to minor residential street standards with 28 feet curb to curb.
Approve architecture.
Remove Condition 7 of PUD-16-024 Exhibit A-2 having to do with the design letter by Kistler, Small & White and amend Condition 2 of Exhibit A-1 for PUD-19-002 to read ‘Comply with the Multi-Family Residential Design Standards as set forth in MLDC 10.716 through 10.719, striking references to the KSW letter.
Delete Condition 8 of PUD-16-024 regarding 2nd story commercial use only.
 
Amended Motion: Strike the first bullet that would take it back to the previously approved 75 to 100 residential units. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                            Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Commissioner McFadden asked Commissioner Pulver what his desired affect is for the change.  Commissioner Pulver reported that he heard a lot of objection on a lot of fronts but the primary objection is a lot of density being pushed in a single family residential neighborhood.  He does not see the need to increase the units from the 2016 approval. 
 
Chair McKechnie thinks the increase to 110 units is perfectly reasonable.  It is less than the overall density of the development.  He intends to vote against the amendment. 
 
Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion: Motion failed, 4-4-0, with Vice Chair Foley, Commissioner Mansfield, Chair McKechnie and Commissioner McFadden voting no.
 
Commissioner Culbertson requested discussion on adding the mixed-use building at the corner of Cedar Links Drive and Farmington Avenue, including 17 residential units.  He is not opposed to mixed use. He thinks that if they are permitting that mixed-use on the front corner they are taking all the discussion and negotiations the homeowners and the previous PUD owner had and throwing it out. He is concerned because they voiced concerns of the people on the second floor of privacy looking down.   That is a large departure from the 2016 application.
 
Commissioner Thomas strongly agrees.  The reason he voted for the 100 to 110 units was because they are working with a community that worked hard to come up with something that nobody liked but they agreed this would be a good working model.  Then in a couple of meetings the Planning Commission throws everything out.  The 100 to 110 units may not seem like a big thing but it was a big deal to some of the folks.  The mixed-use is a big deal so if there is a way to come to a compromise the community is still going to go on after the decision.  The Planning Commission needs to consider that. 
 
Commissioner McFadden commented to make the two-story all commercial or nothing at all. Chair McKechnie stated that the 2016 approval was all commercial.  Commissioner Pulver responded that the 2016 approval was for storage and offices.
 
Amended motion: Eliminate the mixed-use on the corner of Cedar Links and Farmington Avenue keeping the 2016 approved application. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Culbertson                    Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Ms. Evans wanted clarification stating that Condition 8 limits the use.  Is it correct Commissioner Culbertson does not want it to be two-story?  Commissioner Culbertson replied the amendment is to keep it the way the 2016 application was for two-story commercial use. 
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion failed, 4-4-0, with Vice Chair Foley, Commissioner Mansfield, Chair McKechnie and Commissioner McManus voting no. 
 
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion: Motion passed, 5-3-0 with Commission Culbertson, Commissioner Thomas and Vice Chair Foley voting no. 
 
60.       Reports
60.1 Site Plan and Architectural Commission
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, November 1, 2019 and approved the construction of Advanced Auto Parts, Planet Fitness and Party City at Crater Lake Plaza containing Hobby Lobby and Ashely Home Store.  He found it interesting that the middle of the parking lot is in a floodplain.  He asked, how is it going to flood across Crater Lake Highway?  It was not an issue for the applicant. 
 
60.2 Transportation Commission
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission has not met since their last meeting.  
  
60.3 Planning Department
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that there is a Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, November 25, 2019.  Discussion will be on the City Initiated Zone Change / Annual Parks Zone Updates and Mr. Brinkley will give an overview of HB 2001.
 
There is no meeting on Thursday, November 28, 2019 due to the Thanksgiving holiday.  There is business scheduled for Thursday, December 12, 2019.  At this point in time there is no business scheduled for December 26, 2019.   
 
Last week City Council approved the Street Vacation at Normil Terrace and Foothills, the Emergency Shelters amendment and the Housing Opportunity Fund award for two projects.  One is Hearts with a Mission.  They have a homeless facility for teens on the north side of Kids Unlimited.  Columbia Care has 16 apartment units for Veteran housing.  It is located on the southwest corner Stewart and Columbus.      
 
Next week the City Council will hear an Annexation at 3558 Table Rock Road from RR-2.5 to I-L/I-00 and Funding Priorities and Homeless System Action Plan Implementation.
 
Chair McKechnie stated that he has a question regarding the administrative approval for Cedar Landing cottages where the applicant wanted to straighten out the meandering sidewalk.  He remembers when it came before the Planning Commission the applicant made a big deal about the meandering sidewalk and how it was a solution to something.  What happened?  Mr. Brinkley responded that Rich Rosenthal, Parks and Recreation Director did not recollect what that was a great solution to.  He was supportive of getting rid of the meandering pathway.   Commissioner Pulver commented that they ended up making them curb tight as opposed to landscape strips.     
 
70.       Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.       
 
80.       City Attorney Remarks. None.        
 
90.       Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.
90.1 Commissioner Pulver stated that it is regular that the Commission sees objection to differing density in near proximity and mixed-use in close proximity.  He hopes in some of the Urban Growth Boundary expansion areas people are better informed so there is not so many surprises.  This was a unique situation.  A good realtor should educate the buyer.  He thinks a density agenda is being pushed and he does not know that it is solving the problem it is claiming to try and solve.  He does not know that it is desired by all communities.  There are residents in the City that are objecting to this agenda that is being pushed on them.  It is a hot contested issue that they are being forced to deal with.  Mr. Brinkley commented that the Planning Commission approved the Urban Growth Boundary amendment that made significant findings about mixed-use, higher density, walkable urban neighborhoods.  That is the agenda.  Commissioner Pulver responded that the Planning Commission approved that the density requirement was not one that they got to pick.  RPS dictated all the mixed-use, the Planning Commission did not.  You have to take the good with the bad but they were not the ones that decided all pieces of that.  They agreed the City needs to grow but they were sort of forced to the terms it has to grow.  Mr. Brinkley commented that is the tradeoff.  That is the way the State planning system works.  They added 1,039 acres of low density residential land in the Urban Growth Boundary.  Of that they added 80 acres of high density.  There is a lot of low density still available.  Commissioner Pulver stated that the State needs to hear this.
 
Mr. Brinkley reported that the State is coming to Medford and have a listening session on HB 2001 and 2003.  It will be in December.  He will get the exact date.  It would be nice to have local input on that process. The will be doing rule making.  He asked the local representative to include someone from southern Oregon on the rule making body. No one received a call and they have formed the rule making body.  This may be the only chance outside of the legislative process to discuss what Commissioner Pulver is concerned about.           
 
Commissioner Mansfield responded to Commissioner Pulver stating that he would be disappointed if Commissioner Pulver stopped talking against density.  Commissioner Mansfield’s agenda is higher density.  His point is that the public has not been educated as to why density is in the public interest.  He thinks they should have more honest, solid, robust debates on the issue of whether it is or is not in the public interest. 
 
Commissioner Pulver is not opposed to density in the general sense.  He thinks larger lots can create special scenarios that do not need to be everywhere in the City but do need to be in some places of the City.  The current zoning does not allow that.    
           
100.    Adjournment
101. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:07. 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: December 12, 2019
 

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

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top