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, February 27, 2020

  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
David Jordan
Bill Mansfield
David McFadden
Jeff Thomas
 
Commissioners Absent
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
E.J. McManus, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Madison Simmons, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Doug Burroughs, Development Services Manager
Karl MacNair, Transportation Manager
Dennis Hart, Design and Construction Manager
Craig Howe, Engineering Technician IV
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Seth Adams, Planner III
Carla Angeli Paladino, Principal Planner
 
               
10.     Roll Call
 
20.    Consent Calendar / Written Communications (voice vote).
20.1 LDS-19-076 Final Order 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.
 
20.2 Written Communication: City of Medford Planning Commission Rules of Order.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
30.          Approval or Correction of the Minutes from February 13, 2020 hearing
30.1        The minutes for February 13, 2020, were approved as submitted.
 
40.          Oral Requests and Communications from the Public.  None.
                  
Madison Simmons, Senior Assistant City Attorney read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings
 
Old Business
50.1 LDS-19-070 Consideration of tentative plat approval for Stewart Meadows Village – Phases 1-6, a proposed  39-lot subdivision on a 110-acre site bounded generally by Stewart Meadows to the north, Highway 99 to the east, Myers Lane to the west, and Garfield Avenue to the south; and an approximate 30-acre tract on the south side of Garfield. The site is zoned Community Commercial (C-C), General Industrial (I-G), Light Industrial (I-L), and SFR-10 (Single-Family residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre). (371W31A TL 2802, 2000, 2190, 2200, 2300, 4000, 3900; 371W31D TL 200, 1001, 2500, 1000, 2501, 2800, 900, 2900, 3000; 371W32C TL 5503, 5400); Applicant, KOGAP Enterprises, Inc.; Agent, Maize & Associates Inc.; Planner, Dustin Severs. 
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner III reported that the 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 in 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.  Two new memos were presented to staff earlier today that were forwarded to the Planning Commission.  Exhibit S is a memo submitted by the applicant’s attorney opposing Myers Lane street connection.  The applicant’s attorney disagrees with the findings submitted by Public Works specifically the Nollan/Dolan that they are insufficient and the required street connection constitute an unlawful “taking”.    Exhibit T is a memo submitted by the City Attorney’s Office stating the Public Works staff report and supplemental memo is consistent with the Medford Land Development Code block length requirements.  However, they state it would most likely not survive a legal challenge.  The City Attorney’s Office recommends removing the conditions requiring connection to Myers Lane, as outlined in the Public Works staff report.  Mr. Severs noted that Public Works has not revised their staff report.  They are still asking for the connection.  Planning staff has not altered its staff report.  The Planning Commission has two options:
•             Uphold the requirement of Public Works, requiring the applicant to dedicate for public right-of-way, sufficient width of land in order to make a future connection between Myers Land and Anton Drive, as outlined in the staff report submitted by Public Works (Exhibit Q), and identified in Conditions #1 and #5 of Exhibit A.
•             Remove conditions requiring connection to Myers Lane, as outlined in the Public Works staff report identified in Condition #1 and strike Condition #5 of Exhibit A.  That is based on the recommendation of the City Attorney’s Office.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, could Myers Lane be looped in and around west of Hansen Creek? Mr. Severs deferred the question to Public Works.  Mr. Severs pointed out that it is possible the City could require the street to be connected in the future at the time of Site Plan and Architectural Commission review.    
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jim Maize, Maize & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 628, Medford, Oregon, 97501-0042.  Mr. Maize reported that present this evening is Mark Bartholomew from Hornecker Cowling attorney representing KOGAP.  Also present this evening is Brent Hackwell representative from KOGAP Enterprises, Inc. They are present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have.  The applicant agrees with staff except for the street connection of Myers Lane.  The Planning Commission approved the existing Stewart Meadows preliminary PUD plan in 2017.  It includes the approximate 30 acres south of Garfield.   
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, was the 30 acres added to the PUD at the 2017 meeting?  Mr. Maize replied yes.  It was part of the applicant’s last revision. 
 
Mr. Maize continued that the tables on the preliminary PUD plan are specific uses for the entire PUD.  The street pattern was in existence before the 2017 revision.  It has not changed.  The section south of Garfield has been in existence since the 2017 revision.  The applicant is not asking for anything that creates impacts.  The applicant is subdividing the property that has already been through the review process and PUD approval into individual lots.
 
Commissioner Mansfield commented that the City Attorney agrees with Mr. Bartholomew and does not see why they need to spend time debating the issue.  There is no debate to be made.  He does not think they need to spend the time for Mr. Bartholomew to urge the Planning Commission on something they already agree with.  Chair McKechnie agrees.  If Mr. Bartholomew has something new to report the Planning Commission would be glad to hear.
 
b. Mark Bartholomew, Hornecker Cowling LLP, 14 N. Central Avenue, Suite 104, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Bartholomew stated that it is uncommon to have two attorneys on opposite sides generally agree with the ultimate conclusion that the condition should not remain.  He trusts the Planning Commission would follow the advice of its City Attorney.  Ms. Simmons agrees with the ultimate conclusion of not supporting the specific condition and unique circumstance.  She is not fully endorsing Mr. Bartholomew’s entire memo.   
 
Mr. Maize requested rebuttal time.
 
Doug Burroughs, Public Works Development Services Manager reported the reason for leaving that condition in their staff report.  
 
Commissioner Mansfield called point of order.  Why does the Planning Commission have to hear the history?  The Planning Commission has already decided that they agree with the attorneys on both sides.  He thinks it is totally irrelevant.  Chair McKechnie stated that Public Works expressed a condition and thinks the Planning Commission should allow a brief version of why they want the condition.   
 
Mr. Burroughs continued reciting approval criteria #4.  It is in the Planning Commission’s authority to suggest it is appropriate to modify the street pattern of that criteria.  However, one of the criteria is that the applicant meets the street patterns of existing streets and there is an existing street there.
 
Mr. Burroughs emphasized the application of Code Section 10.246 that deals with circulation of block length.  Mr. Maize indicates it does not apply because they are not proposing a street there.  Public Works disagrees with that rationale and is outlined in Public Works memo by Karl MacNair. 
 
Mr. Burroughs pointed out that the Planning Commission has the authority to accept the body of water as an exception to connecting a street.  Public Works sees this as an important street connection as the City grows and develops.
 
Mr. Burroughs stated that Code Section 10.246 block length circulation was a requirement of the PUD approval in 2017.  They talked about the applicant needing to conform to that code section.  That was a preliminary plan approval that will be followed by a final PUD plan approval that has not happened yet.  Also, followed by a Land Development Subdivision being presented tonight.  He expected that criterion to be addressed with this application and it was not. 
 
Mr. Burroughs thinks the Planning Commission needs to consider the Nollan/Dolan issue.  The applicant states it would cost $2.5 million to do a public street and bridge similar to the ones they did on the north end.  Public Works is not requiring them to build a bridge or street to that extent.  On the PUD plan it actually shows a drive aisle going almost all the way to the creek.  That is fine with Public Works but they want an easement over it so they can have access to that area.  In addition, Public Works is asking them to contribute half towards future construction of the bridge which Public Works estimates their portion to be approximately $156,000.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is the City interpreting the driveway entrance at that location to become the start of a street?  Mr. Burroughs responded it could be a public street and connect to Myers Lane up to the creek.  It could be a private interior access road.  That satisfies the conditions of Code Section 10.246.  The applicant is already planning on paving back there and creating a drive aisle back to the creek.  He does not see that as an additional cost on the applicant’s part.  The bridge is an additional cost.  That is why Public Works changed their report to making a connection with a bridge to just contributing to a Deferred Improvement Agreement to construct the bridge at a future date.  They will just pay their proportional share. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, are there any roadways on the west side of the creek that prevents Myers Lane to circle around to Garfield?  Mr. Burroughs replied there could potentially be a street connection there.  Public Works would have to analyze the spacing.  It would not provide a connection to this side of the development.  This is a great development.  It will probably draw a lot of people.  The property between Garfield and Myers is in the City limits.  It will be ripe for development as well.  There are two restaurants proposed off Garfield and Anton that could benefit from a connection at that point. There are additional properties to the west and south in the UGB and urban reserves that could come in.  There are not a lot of other east/west connections between those streets that could come in that puts a lot more traffic on Garfield which is what Public Works is trying to prevent and limit.  That is the reason Public Works is really in favor of that connection.                   
 
Vice Chair Foley commented that Anton Drive does not go anywhere other than Garfield.  Mr. Burroughs responded that Anton goes from Garfield terminating at the Harry and David property.  Vice Chair Foley does not understand Mr. Burroughs’ last statement of how this connection will take some increased traffic off of Garfield.  Karl MacNair, Transportation Manager reported that traffic with this connection would relieve Garfield traffic from the southwest of Stewart Meadows going to the development specifically to that corner.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, isn’t Myers Lane currently in the County?  Mr. MacNair replied yes. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, is Public Works urging the Planning Commission to vote in favor of a “taking”?  Is that right and if so how do they decide the cost?  Mr. MacNair responded that Public Works sees this as a code requirement.  Mr. Burroughs commented that Public Works does not see it as a “taking”.  Commissioner Mansfield asked, Public Works does not agree with counsel?  Mr. Burroughs replied no they do not.  
 
Ms. Simmons reported that the Planning Commission is the deciding body. Occasionally, internal departments within the City may disagree.  The ultimate conclusion of mandating the conditions, the City Attorney’s Office fears even if it does not run afoul of the code it would run afoul of a legal analysis if it is pressure tested.   
 
The public hearing was closed.
   
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of LDS-19-070 per the staff report dated February 20, 2020, including Exhibits A through T, approval for maximum timetable of five years for platting and remove conditions requiring connection to Myers Lane, as outlined in the Public Works staff report identified in Condition #1 and strike Condition #5 of Exhibit A. 
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Commissioner Thomas requested clarification on the motion.  Vice Chair Foley repeated the last part of his motion.  Commissioner Thomas asked counsel if that worked for the public record or should there be an amendment to the motion?  Ms. Simmons replied that the original motion was clear that they are revising Condition #1 to remove Condition # 5 from the staff report.    
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
New Business
50.2 TF-19-001 The City proposes to improve Foothill Road between Delta Waters Rd. and McAndrews Rd. to regional arterial standards which include: four travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, medians, and planter strips where feasible.  Applicant, City of Medford Public Works; Planner, Seth Adams.
 
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.
 
Seth Adams, Planner III reported that the Transportation Facility approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.226.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included in the property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Adams gave a staff report.  Mr. Adams reported that yesterday staff received additional citizen comments that were forwarded to the Planning Commission.  These exhibits will be entered into the record.  Exhibit K is an email from Ms. Victoria Brown.  Ms. Brown is a member of the Jackson County Bicycle Advisory Committee.  She supports the project and implementing the TSP.  Exhibit L is a letter from Ms. Brenda Brannon.  She is a property owner on the east side of Foothill Road across from Cedar Links Drive.  She wanted to inform the City that she wants full involvement of any and all changes proposed to her property.  Exhibit M is a letter from Mr. Harlan Bittner.  Mr. Bittner is the President of Siskiyou Velo.  Staff will prepare a formal written response to Mr. Bittner that will be included in the record for the City Council agenda packet.  One of his comments was that the Cross Section “F-F” identified in his letter north of Lone Pine Road has an on-street buffered bike lane.  This section is actually south of Lone Pine Road where the project’s intent is to match up the conditions exactly with the conditions that will be built from Hillcrest.  That is why the bike lanes are on-street and buffered, not off road and behind planters like in the TSP.  The letter also notes Cross Section “C-C” is a substandard 5 ˝ foot wide bike lane with no separation from traffic on the northbound lane.  The bike lane is actually off road with no buffer.  Mr. Frank Kinney presented a letter at tonight’s meeting that will be entered into the record as Exhibit N. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, does Medford Irrigation District (MID) own the piece of property by Eucalyptus that will be used for the bicycle and pedestrian path?  What was their proposal?  Were they going to have the City purchase the land and give an easement back or just grant an easement?  Mr. Adams deferred the question to Mr. Hart.  Dennis Hart, Public Works Design and Construction Manager stated that they met with MID and due to the ditch they will probably leave that property alone.  They are discussing a location for the multi-use trail on the back of Pacific Power’s property that looks favorable.     
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, is it just asphalt in the 3 foot buffer in Cross Section “F-F”? Mr. Hart responded it is striped and open asphalt.  There is no physical barrier. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is it an oversight that all the intersections are being designed for traffic signals except for Lone Pine?  Mr. Hart stated the only proposed signal will be to modify Cedar Links at this time.
 
Commissioner Jordan asked, will pedestrians and bicyclists heading east up Lone Pine cross at just a crosswalk?  It is a dangerous area for non-motorized traffic.  Mr. Hart reported that the pedestrian cross movement west has not been decided.  There is a median for right-in / right-out only at Lone Pine for vehicle traffic.  It is dangerous in its current configuration.  It is being widened and the radii opened.  The driving movements will be flattened to see a greater distance.  The vehicle turning movement onto that street would have to yield to pedestrians and will be seen.     
 
Commissioner McFadden recommended installing yellow flashing lights for pedestrians like the one on south Riverside by the college.  Mr. MacNair responded they can look at additional safety treatments there.  This would not be the typical application for a rapid flashing beacon.  He would research if it is an allowed use in that location.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, when the road comes through the substation, is the elevation staying the same or being cut to see around the corner better?  Mr. MacNair stated Public Works is softening that curve so the sight lines will be better. 
 
Vice Chair Foley has concerns with the pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Lone Pine Road.  Mr. MacNair reported there are similar behaviors at every intersection.  Chair McKechnie commented this one specifically because traffic is going east on Lone Pine to turn south on Foothill.  Other ones are up against the roadway where drivers will see.  This one is perpendicular to the roadway and a pedestrian or bicyclist appears right where the intersection is.  If Public Works pulled the crosswalk south and across Lone Pine, then vehicles will have slowed to go around the corner and will see pedestrians or bicyclists on the roadway.       
 
Chair McKechnie stated it is right-in / right-out on both sides of Lone Pine.  Right-in / right-out on Eucalyptus and full movement on the rest of the roads up to Delta Waters.  Is that correct?  Mr. MacNair replied yes.  Chair McKechnie asked, if leaving the commercial area, how does one get out to go the opposite direction?  Mr. MacNair stated that the shortest route to head north would be left to Thrasher Lane, come out McAndrews to Foothill where there is a signalized left turn.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, has Public Works looked at other ways to provide additional movements or is it because of the two substations?  Mr. MacNair replied it is due to the substation and because of the requirements of the grant.  In order to get this done in the specified timeline Public Works has to move quickly.  In order to do that they have to keep the project in a categorical exclusion phase which prohibits them widening the road and dealing with the substation at this time.  They can come back in the future and modify those intersections.
 
Mr. Hart reported that Cross Section “F-F” which has the buffered bike lanes provides more room and movement for a U-turn at the signal on McAndrews.  Commissioner McFadden commented that a U-turn at a signal is illegal in the state of Oregon unless noted.   
 
Chair McKechnie noticed that Public Works is proposing to plant trees at 50 foot on center.  He assumes along the periphery.  Mr. Adams replied yes they are 50 feet on center in the 5 foot planter strip on both sides of the road.   Chair McKechnie agrees 50 feet makes sense.  However, the standards are 30 feet.  If the City is going to get away with something that the people in private practice cannot, he wanted it noted, that is an exception to City standards of 30 feet.  Mr. Adams responded that the TF process is the exception and the purpose of a TF.  Chair McKecknie wanted it noted that it is a deviation from the standard with justification.  Commissioner McFadden has never heard a TF is an exception process.  There are plenty of exceptions in it but that is not the reason for a TF application.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, will the intersection at Normil Terrace and the new one going down the hill to the new subdivision be a right-in / right-out?  Mr. Hart reported that Normil Terrace is full movement.  Directly across it is a High Cedars access and to the south is a future right-in / right-out.
 
Commissioner Jordan asked, is there a proposed signal at Normil Terrace?  Mr. Hart replied no.  The only intersection current warranted for a signal is at Cedar Links, and it has a signal that Public Works needs to modify to widen the road at that location.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, what about Delta Waters?  Mr. Hart stated it does not currently meet the signal criteria.  In the future when it does a signal would be installed.        
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
Mr. Hart requested rebuttal time.
 
a. Jeanne Grazioli, 2450 N. Foothill Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Grazioli believes the project is excessive and should be less invasive on the residents that live on Foothill Road.  Her concerns are noise and safety.  Their driveways are on a steep slope.  No one from Public Works has spoken to her about her driveway. 
 
b. Brandon Hall, 2615 N. Foothill Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Hall had a misunderstanding of when letters should be submitted and submitted his letter at tonight’s meeting.  Mr. Hall objects to the section regarding Public Works proposal of an easement over his neighbor’s property giving him a right-in / right-out only from his property.  He has had contact with Public Works but given the timelines and process he has not been able to keep up and put something together until recently in opposition of the proposal.  He noted that he would like to see language put in a Public Works staff report that states they are working together to come up with an alternative solution and all other options be vetted at this point.   
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is it possible to construct a left turn only lane to address Mr. Hall’s concern?  Mr. MacNair stated Public Works can look at that.  They have talked to Mr. Hall about the City owned lot at the corner of Cedar Links and Foothill, and coming out to Cedar Links so they can access the signal.   
 
c. Mark Gustafson, 3111 Westminster Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Gustafson is the chair of a committee that works with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints welfare farm that borders between Cedar Links and Delta Waters.  He is concerned how far the project will go into their property and removing pear trees.  Their main concern is the right-in / right-out traffic flow during harvest time.
 
d. Sharon Winningham, 3332 Cloie Anne Court, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Her fence is along Foothill Road.  Looking at the plans it looks like there is a potential retaining wall that she is in favor of.   She is concerned with street light pollution and traffic noise.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, are they between Normil Terrace and the substation?  Ms. Winningham stated she is between Normil Terrace and Cedar Links. Chair McKechnie stated that the plans show a retaining wall as required.   
 
e. Clayton Johnson, 3495 View Point, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Johnson is concerned about a retaining wall.
 
f. Lowell Krieg, 2450 N. Foothill Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Krieg does not think it is necessary for the addition of bike lanes, planters, turning lanes, and sidewalks between McAndrews and Delta Waters because it is not a neighborhood.  He is being asked to give up property that he paid for on a project that is not going to be used. 
 
g. Jennifer Wickland, 2620 Foothill Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Wickland also feels the scope of this project is excessive.  She does not understand why it has to be larger than the improvements on North Phoenix.  The inability to make a left turn from Lone Pine to go west is a mistake, as well as being unable to leave this businesses heading north on Foothill.  She has not been approached by Public Works about her driveway.
 
h. John Neilsen, 2750 N. Foothill Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neilson manages the welfare farm for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  They look forward to working with staff.  They were not aware of the open house.  He believes there are a number of options that could work. 
 
Mr. Hart addressed Ms. Wickland not being able to make a left turn with the median.  Public Works is proposing a U-turn at the intersection at Cedar Links heading southbound.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, would Ms. Wickland have to submit an application to make the U-turn legal?  Mr. Hart reported that a U-turn is illegal unless it is signed and Public Works would sign it. 
 
Chair McKechnie stated that some people have not been contacted.  Public Works stated earlier that the plans were preliminary and that anyone that has a driveway that will be affected by the project will have contact from Public Works.  Is that correct?  Mr. Hart replied yes.  They noticed the same group of people for their open house as for the Planning Commission public hearing.  Public Works will work with the people that have not been contacted.     
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, is the retaining wall against Cloie Anne a wall with a fence on top?  Mr. Hart responded it is a fill wall on the Cloie Anne side.  A noise study will be performed at peak times modeled against future traffic volumes.  If mitigation is warranted that will be the prescribed method.  Commissioner Culbertson asked, will Public Works contact the neighbors that will be affected to get their input?  Mr. Hart replied absolutely.  A right of entry is needed for this project to analyze eight different metrics.  One is a noise study at various locations.  Microphones will be placed at a resident’s front door and back yard.  Notices have been sent out.  Public Works is going door to door to get information to people and answer questions.  The project was given to Public Works with $15 million at the end of November.  It is a 30 to 36 month normal delivery time but they get 16 to 18 months to do it.  They are rushing through the federal process.       
 
Commissioner Thomas stated that it has been mentioned several times that this project is excessive.  To get the federal money do they have to deliver the product this way?  Mr. Hart stated that the Transportation System Plan established this facility.  That is what Public Works is complying with. 
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, if the people in the audience have not been contacted could they contact Public Works to make sure their voices are heard?  Mr. Hart replied absolutely.  Public Works has made themselves available and will continue to do so until they have worked with every one of them.
 
Mr. Hart addressed full house takes stating that there are none.  That would make the project fail in its entirety.  Right-of-way will be acquired.  A certified appraiser will appraise the land and then another certified appraiser will review before any offer is made.
 
Mr. Hart reported that the current section moves the lights inward.  The road is 60 feet wide instead of 78 feet with buffered bike lanes.  The lights can be shrouded to deflect the lighting to the right direction.
 
Mr. Hart stated that Public Works will fit the project within much of the subdivided land on the west side of Foothill.  They will do their best not to buy right-of-way.
 
Mr. Hart reported that Public Works has been working with Mr. Brandon Hall and Mr. Kinney regarding their driveway.  There is another property owner at Delta Waters with a similar situation.  Mr. Hall and Mr. Kinney are trying to work out an option to take access from their property down to Cedar Links.  Mr. Hall and Mr. Kinney’s situation involves a third party, Mr. Horton, whom Public Works will work with.           
 
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 TF-19-001 to the City Council per the staff report dated February 20, 2020, including Exhibits A through O and recommends moving the crosswalk west down Lone Pine Road.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Chair McKechnie is encouraged that Public Works has agreed to meet with all the affected property owners and feels comfortable their needs will be addressed as is humanly possible. 
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that City staff will continue to work on this project making improvements as they work it all out.  This is a recommendation to the City Council.  The audience will have another opportunity to voice their concerns at one of the Council’s meetings. 
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
50.3 TF-20-015 The City proposes to construct a new segment of South Stage Road from North Phoenix Road to 1,000 feet west.  The new segment is proposed to be constructed as a minor arterial with two travel lanes (one each way), separated bike lanes, sidewalks, median, planter strips, landscaping, and street lighting.  Applicant, City of Medford Public Works; Planner, Seth Adams.
 
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.
 
Seth Adams, Planner III reported that the Transportation Facility approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.226.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included in the property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Adams gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that at one time he heard recommendation that this road would not terminate where it is terminating on North Phoenix Road.  It would terminate south at the intersection of Campbell Road to form a standard intersection rather than a T-intersection at the top of an elevated rise in North Phoenix Road.  What is the reason it was down routed south to Campbell Road?  Mr. MacNair responded that the TSP calls for South Stage Road in this alignment.    Commissioner McFadden commented that the City appears to be building a road to nowhere.  He questions the timing of doing it now when it does not do anything.  Mr. MacNair reported it was included in the grant application because of the plan for a future employment campus in the area.  The 1,000 feet does not go anywhere now, but the plan is for it to keeping going west and eventually connect at South Stage Road which will be an important connection.
 
Commissioner Thomas commented that in order to get the money the City has to do it.  It is a benefit to build the road.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, how far off the intersection of Campbell is it?  Is it creating a problem at some point in the future?
 
Commissioner McFadden is wondering if this is the southwest corner of the new proposed urban growth boundary.  South of Campbell is proposed to be a part of City of Phoenix.  Is that field south of that line also proposed to be in the City of Phoenix?
 
Mr. MacNair stated that the distance between the two roads is approximately 600 feet.  Minimum intersection spacing is 200 feet.  The City would not signalize both intersections that close.      
 
Chair McKechnie asked, would Public Works consider making Campbell right-in / right-out?  Mr. MacNair responded it is undetermined at this time.
 
Mr. MacNair commented that the area south of Campbell is not within the City or its urban growth boundary, but the area south of the project is within the urban growth boundary.  It is planned as commercial and industrial.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, if and when commercial development comes in, will they be required to share in the cost of the roadway?  Mr. MacNair stated that this, 1000 feet will be built and they would not have to pay into that 1,000 feet.  They will have to build their frontage improvements unless the City comes in with the full connection project to cross at some point in the future.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
Mr. Burroughs reserved rebuttal time.
 
a. Mike Montero, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Montero stated that he is in support of this project.  He represents the Harry and David Holdings owned by 1-800-Flowers, which is one of the parcels of land that Commissioner McFadden questioned, in addition to Mahar Dukes South Stage Property which is the abutting property owner.  In regards to his client’s participation on this project, they have letters in the record providing their commitment to donate without reimbursement, all of the right-of-way on their property.  One of the discretionary sources of funding that the City will have for funding future sections of this regional corridor will be Systems Development fees.  He characterizes this section of 1,000 feet as a critical installment.  One of the elements in the build grant application was that it demonstrates that it would provide future freight facilities for users.  Among those freight users is Harry & David.  Harry & David looks at it as being an alternative freight route once it is completely constructed across Interstate 5 to allow them to have access out of their campus.  Members of the City of Medford and City of Phoenix met with the US Department of Economic and Development Administration and the US Department of Agriculture today to look at future funding for portions of this project. 
 
Mr. Hart reported there is no landscaping proposed of this segment.  Water is 5000 feet away.  Landscaping would come with future development. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is water and sewer going under this segment or will we wait until later and rip it up to put it in?  Mr. Hart responded storm drain only is proposed.  Chair McKechnie asked, where are they going to treat water and sewer?  Mr. Hart replied that is what is 5000 feet away and will be put in at the time of development in the future.   
 
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 TF-20-015 to the City Council per the staff report dated February 20, 2020, including Exhibits A through J.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
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, February 21, 2020.  They discussed construction of two multi-family apartment buildings located at the corner of Stewart Avenue and S. Columbus for Columbia Care Services to house veterans.  A testifier requested to continue the item to the next meeting.
 
60.2 Transportation Commission.
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that the Transportation Commission met on Wednesday, February 26, 2020.  Staff was not present but they discussed two TF applications.
 
60.3 Planning Department.
Ms. Evans reported there is a Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, March 9, 2020.  Discussion will be on Flexible Design Standards and the yearly Citizen Involvement report.
 
There will be a short Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, March 12, 2020.  There is business scheduled for Thursday, March 26, 2020 and Thursday, April 9, 2020.
 
City Council at their last meeting adopted Southeast Plan updates, Annexation code amendments, Residential Administrative Review.
 
At the next City Council meeting they will consider the vacation for McDonald’s on Barnett.
 
City council is in a study session this evening regarding the Charter Review Committee priorities.
 
70.      Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.
 
80.      City Attorney Remarks. 
80.1 Ms. Simmons reported her last meeting with the Planning Commission will be March 12, 2020.  She will also be present for the study session on March 9, 2020.  Thereafter, Katie Zerkel will be sitting on the Planning Commission meetings.    
 
90.      Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None.
 
100.    Adjournment
101.  The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:45 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: March 12, 2020
 

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

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top