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, April 23, 2020

5:30 P.M.                                                                                                            
 
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM as a virtual meeting in 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
E.J. McManus
Jared Pulver
Jeff Thomas      
 
Staff Present
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV
 
 
10.     Roll Call
 
20.    Consent Calendar / Written Communications
20.1 CUP-18-148 Consideration of request for a one-year time extension of the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow storm water facilities within the Riparian Corridor of Lone Pine Creek, located approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Delta Waters Road and Crater Lake Highway (HWY 62) 1884-1862 Delta Waters Road (371W18AA TL 1200-1400). Applicant: Delta Waters Lenders; Agent; Bill Philp; Planner: Liz Conner.
 
Commissioner Foley requested a short presentation on this agenda item.
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that the applicant is requesting a one-year time extension on the Conditional Use Permit. He is planning to start work this summer.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.            
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0-0.
 
30.          Approval or Correction of the Minutes from March 12, 2020 hearing
30.1 The minutes for March 12, 2020, were approved as submitted.
 
40.          Oral Requests and Communications from the Public.  None.
 
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
                  
50.          Public Hearings.
 
Continuance Request
50.1 PUD-20-032 / LDS-20-100 Consideration of a revised tentative plat and PUD Plan for the Springbrook Park Planned Unit Development in order to create nine additional lots at the southeast corner of the site.  The subject site is contained within an approximate 1.50 acres of a 19.6-acre tract of land, and is located along Springbrook Road north of Owen Drive within the SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre) and MFR-15 (Multiple Family Residential, fifteen dwelling units per gross acre) zoning districts. Applicant, Springbrook Park, LLC. Agent, Steven Swartsley; Planner, Dustin Severs.  The applicant requests this item be continued to the Thursday, May 14, 2020, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Chair McKechnie stated that if there are members in the audience that have joined to testify on this agenda item and cannot attend the May 14th hearing, please raise your hand and when your microphone is unmuted 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 May 14th.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued PUD-20-032 and LDS-20-100, per the applicant’s request to the Thursday, May 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Commissioner Culbertson will be abstaining from the vote.  He previously financially represented Mr. Swartsley in purchase and sale of the property listed. 
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-1, with Commissioner Culbertson abstaining.
 
50.2 LDS-20-025 Consideration of tentative plat approval for the Saddle Ridge Subdivision – Phase 4 & 5, a proposed 45-lot residential subdivision on two, contiguous parcels totaling 59.5 acres, which includes two tracts of land to be used for storm detention, and a reserve acreage portion. The property is located east of Cherry lane, north of Hillcrest Road, and is transected by Roxy Ann Road; and is within the SFR-2 (Single-Family Residential, two dwelling units per gross acre) and SFR-00 (Single-Family Residential, one dwelling unit per lot) zoning district, and with an RZ (Restricted Zoning) Administrative Mapping overlay (371W23DA1500 & 371W23101); Applicant, Michael Mahar; Agent, Neathamer Surveying, Inc.; Planner, Dustin Severs.  The applicant has requested to continue this time to the Thursday, May 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.
 
Chair McKechnie stated that if there are members in the audience that have joined to testify on this agenda item and cannot attend the May 14th hearing, please raise your hand and when your microphone is unmuted 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 May 14th.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued LDS-20-025, per the applicant’s request to the Thursday, May 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0-0.
 
Old Business
50.3 LDP-20-016 / ZC-20-017 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval of a three lot land partition of a single parcel totaling 0.53 acres, including a request for a change of zone from SFR-4 (Single Family Residential, four dwelling units per gross acre) to SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre). The property is located at 2939 Bailey Avenue approximately 300 feet south of Delta Waters Road in the SFR-4 Zoning district (371W16BB TL 15800); Applicant, Richard Krebs; Agent, Scott Sinner Consulting Inc.; Planner, Liz Conner.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Chair McKechnie disclosed that Scott Sinner is his neighbor but that would not influence his decision on this application.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that two new exhibits were sent to the Commission today that will be entered into the record. Exhibit R is a letter from Fair Housing Council of Oregon and Housing Land Advocates and Exhibit S is the Planning Department response memorandum.   The Land Division approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202(E).  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 and included in the property owner notices. Ms. Evans gave a staff report and addressed the letter from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon.  It expresses concern regarding the lack of Goal 10 findings in the staff report and that the Commission should defer adoption of the proposed amendment until Goal 10 findings have been clarified.  Staff does not agree that findings of compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals are required at the time of zone change.  Rather, a finding of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is the standard.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, if the lot was left as an SFR-4 could the applicant put two dwelling units plus two ADU’s? Ms. Evans responded that is correct, although ADU’s do not count in density per the statute. 
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner reported that this is an infill development.  It is the last remaining parcel to be development on Bailey Avenue.  The 15 foot dedication right-of-way is a legacy street and the applicant is requesting the curb tight sidewalk that would match the rest of Bailey Avenue. 
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Lee Gamber, 2956 Bailey Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Gamber asked, was Mr. Sinner going to address the unstable land on the north section of the property from the old irrigation ditch?  The consensus of the neighbors is to split the property into two parcels not three.   They are concerned of the street traffic and property values.
 
Mr. Sinner reported that the change from SFR-4 to SFR-6 is still a low density single family detached development.  He is confident it will be a nice development. 
 
Vice Chair Foley requested that Mr. Sinner address the stability issue that Mr. Gamber raised.   Mr. Sinner responded that it is not a criteria for the zone change or the land division.  He is not aware of any problems.  It will be addressed in the construction and building permitting process.
 
The public hearing was closed
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the final orders for approval of LDP-20-016 and ZC-20-017 per the Planning Commission report dated April 23, 2020, including Exhibits A through S.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
The public hearing was reopened.
 
c. Susan Van Hoose, 2972 Bailey Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Van Hoose agrees with Mr. Gamber regarding the neighbors.  A lot of them may not know how to get on Zoom.  She also thinks three houses on the subject property will be too tight.  There will be a lot more traffic.
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that often staff follows up with a letter regarding a testimony and their issues.  He does not know if that should be expounded on.  The application being proposed is allowed.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer reported that a single family dwelling generates approximately ten trips per day.  During peak hours it is one additional vehicle.  This is insignificant on this street.  They do not see high levels of traffic so there are no concerns from the City’s Traffic Department.   
 
Mr. Sinner thinks this project will be complimentary to the neighborhood.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Chair McKechnie is opposed to the arbitrary spot zoning.  He thinks this is bad planning and will vote no. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is Chair McKechnie going to cite a criterion for his no vote?  Chair McKecknie responded it is incompatible with the neighborhood and sets a bad precedent. 
 
Commissioner Pulver commented that Chair McKechnie mentioned previous criteria that spoke to consistency with neighboring lots.  Is that true or no longer applies?  Ms. Evans reported that last year the approval criteria were changed to remove the locational standard for SFR-6 zones.  She pointed out that the size of these lots at 7,000 square feet is larger than the minimum for the SFR-4 zone.  There is not a compatibility criterion.     
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-1-0, with Chair McKechnie voting no.
 
50.4 UP-19-003 Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to adopt an Urbanization Plan into the Neighborhood Element for approximately 29.72 acres of property located at the northwest corner of South Stage Road and Kings Highway (Planning Unit MD-7c) (382W01AD1000 and 382W01D100); Applicants, KDA Homes LLC, Lazaro Ayala and Mark Knox; Agent, Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting Inc.; Planner, Carla Angeli Paladino, Principal Planner.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner Pulver’s business does real estate work occasionally for Mr. Ayala but he has no specific ties to this property and feels his independence can be maintained.  Chair McKechnie’s business does a lot of work for Mr. Ayala and Scott Sinner is his neighbor.  He has no stakes in this project and will abstain from the vote.  Commissioner Jordan and Mark Knox serve on another non-profit board together. He does not think it conflicts him to make a decision on this application. 
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner reported that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Sections 10.102-10.122, 10.214, and 10.220.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report and included in the property owner notices. Ms. Paladino gave a staff report and reported that Exhibit P was a new exhibit sent to the Planning Commission last week that will be submitted into the record.  Also, a letter was received from Ed Snyder regarding access will be submitted into the record as Exhibit Q.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, did Ms. Paladino state earlier that there is a decrease in density being requested?  He is surprised that South Stage Road is considered a minor collector street.  He has discomfort with the intersection at Lillian and South Stage Road.  Ms. Paladino reported that the overall density requirement for the City is 6.6 dwelling units per acre.  The calculation estimated 86 dwelling units needed to meet the urban growth boundary requirements.  The applicant will be requesting SFR-10.  That will be increasing the number of units on the property to 106 which is the minimum for that zone.  South Stage and Kings Highway are both minor arterial streets.  Jackson County Roads was not in favor of the Lillian Street connection to South Stage.  However, they have indicated that if it does get extended in the future they would likely ask for a right-in right-out only.    
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, when does the issues with the parks, open spaces, trails and bike paths connectivity get finalized?  Ms. Paladino responded that the application and land is required to provide the open space that will be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The trails and bike paths will be part of the Off-road Network. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, will the issue of access in Exhibit Q be resolved at time of subdivision?  Ms. Paladino replied yes.
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that in one of the study sessions when they talked about these applications coming before the Planning Commission one of the concerns was to make sure there were not major deviations.  The previous application that was submitted is not here so there is no reference of whether or not it is a deviation.  He remembers seeing a master plan that was very detailed.  There is a reduction in commercial land that was previously allocated.  Ms. Paladino reported that MD-7B and MD-7C each have their own neighborhood plans that were submitted with the urban growth boundary.  The City Council did not adopt or require any specific elections or whatever was noted in those plans to be carried forward as they did in other areas. 
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, is staff recommending that the Planning Commission not move the circulation plan forward? He feels it may add clarity to the surrounding properties.  Ms. Paladino stated that staff did not want to necessarily have this in the Comprehensive Plan and at a later date shift lines.  Staff could caveat the plan as conceptual and add language that details in the development code will need to be met at time of subdivision.           
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner reported that the applicant would like to do a minor GLUP amendment within the property boundary to facility development on the commercial and low density.  Exhibit B-1 is the applicant’s preferred circulation plan.  Further development will be a zone change and subdivision. 
 
Regarding Mr. Snyder’s letter on the southwest corner of the property, two properties on the west uses a private road and access off South Stage Road.  The private road is an easement for the first 250 feet.  When the applicant develops the commercial area they will develop the half street improvement on that private road that will eventually become a public road.
 
The applicant has on-going discussions with the Parks Department of providing a three plus acre Public Park.  The three acres is consistent with the Leisure Services Plan.  Jackson County Roads does not want any more streets coming onto South Stage Road.  It was the applicant’s intent to bring Lillian through.  Discussions with Public Works and the County that indicated upon annexation of this property the roadways would be brought into City jurisdiction and standards.  The applicant’s proposed Lillian location is approximately 700 feet from Kings Highway intersection that will be adequate for travel.  It will be reviewed further at time of land division.
 
The urban residential will probably consist of single family detached and single family attached (townhouses).  There are no plans at this time for the commercial area. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, was there any discussion of using the commercial area, within this development, as a buffer by the use of a park space from the busy streets around it and extend the commercial along Kings Highway and South Stage Road, concentrating residential to the northwest?  Mr. Sinner responded that they have had extensive discussions along those lines but it did not go anywhere.  It was determined that an opportunity for open space in this arrangement would be a good fit.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, what implications will the commercial property extending into the adjacent land have in the future?  Mr. Sinner reported that Kings Highway is a minor arterial and when fully developed it will provide a substantial buffer.
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
 b. Marta Schulenburg, 721 South Stage Road, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Schulenburg has requested in writing and verbally consideration of the residents on South Stage Road about commercial across the street from them.  Her suggestion with help from one of the developers for wording was that there would be no commercial closer than 1,000 feet from the center line of the right-of-way on South Stage Road to the existing homes.  She is upset that commercial is still be considered in front of her.
 
Vice Chair Foley suggestion Ms. Schulenburg make her concerns known to the City Council since they will be making the final decision on this application.
 
c. Jay Harland, CSA Planning, Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Harland requested that the conceptual circulation plan not be put in the Comprehensive Plan.  It is valuable to look at. There are different uses that could affect the street layout.  He would prefer this be a reference document through this kind of adoption process but not adopted.
 
Commissioner Culbertson commented that he found the original conceptual plan.  It identified 13.8 acres of commercial, 7.5 acres residential and 3.5 acres of open space.  The commercial has been decreased and increased the residential.
 
Commissioner McFadden stated that in other areas the commercial area is slow to develop and get dramatically reduced in size.  He does not know how the percentage process figures into that.  Ms. Paladino responded that the Regional Plan designates the open space percentage for each of the planning units.  It does not give the acreage.  There are specific acreages allocated for residential and commercial / industrial as part of the urban growth boundary process. Specific open space in each of the planning units was not adopted.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is there a rule for the amount of commercial land area versus residential?  Ms. Paladino does not believe there was a ratio.  She would have to review the Regional Plan to see how the distribution worked. 
 
Mr. Sinner stated that he recalls Ms. Schulenburg’s letter.  He does not see how there could be a 1,000 foot buffer between her house, the commercial development, planning unit or the proposal.  He hopes because of the topography in that area will help with some of her concern.  
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council per the staff report dated April 16, 2020, including Exhibits A through Q for approval of UP-19-003.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                                         Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield

Commissioner Mansfield asked, does the motion include or exclude adopting Exhibit B-1 into the Neighborhood Element of the Comprehensive Plan?  Vice Chair Foley stated that his motion excluded adopting Exhibit B-1 into the Neighborhood Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
 
Ms. Paladino clarified that Exhibit B-1 is staff’s recommendation of adopting into the Neighborhood Element of the Comprehensive Plan.  Staff would like direction on whether the Planning Commission wants to add the circulation plan or not. 
 
Amended motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council per the staff report dated April 16, 2020, including Exhibits A through Q for approval of UP-19-003, and adopting Exhibit B-1 into the Neighborhood Element of the Comprehensive Plan.  Excluding the circulation plan.
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that he thought Mr. Harland made a great recommendation on dropping plans that show streets.  However, he is not sure if he would like to see more or less detail.  He was hoping for something different.
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-2-1, with Commissioner Culbertson, Commissioner McFadden voting no and Chair McKechnie abstaining.
 
New Business
50.5 LDS-20-046 Consideration of tentative plat approval for Buettner Place, a proposed 4-lot residential subdivision on a single 0.84-acre parcel located at 1375 Orchard Home Drive in the SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential, six dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W35AD 800); Applicant, Barbara Buettner; Agent, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc.; Planner, Dustin Severs.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Chair McKechnie disclosed that Mr. Sinner is his neighborhood but would not affect his decision on this matter.
 
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 staff received two new exhibits this week that were emailed to the Planning Commission and will be submitted into the record.  Exhibit J is a letter from the applicant’s surveyor concerning the strip of land along the subject parcel’s southern boundary that is not a public right-of-way.  It is part of the property south of the subject site.  Exhibit K is an email received from the applicant’s agent, Scott Sinner, requesting that condition #6, regarding the removal of the site’s accessory structure, be removed as a condition of approval.  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 and included in the property owner notices. Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
Mr. Mitton reported that an accessory building needs to be subordinate to a principal structure or a principal use.  An alternative option is to impose a condition that the building cannot be used until a residence is built on that lot.   
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner reported that this is a shed.  The applicant has over $3,000 in the slab under the shed.  It does add value.  It is an accessory structure for the primary use and the primary use is single family residential.  The applicant is going to develop a structure on this parcel and the shed would be a nice asset. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, did Mr. Sinner hear the language that Mr. Mitton cited?  Mr. Sinner replied the applicant would be happy with Mr. Mitton’s option.
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
The public hearing was closed
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the final order for approval of LDS-20-046 per the Planning Commission report dated April 23, 2020, including Exhibits A through K, granting relief from creating a public street connection and/or public access way in order to satisfy block length requirements and modifying condition #6 to leave the accessory structure that cannot be used until a residence is built on that lot.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0-0.
 
50.6 LDS-20-050 / E-20-051 Consideration of tentative plat approval for a six-lot subdivision and an Exception pertaining to minimum lot frontage standards on one parcel of land, 22.38 acres in size, located at the northern terminus of McLoughlin Drive and the eastern terminus of Ford Drive within the SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential, 4 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre) and SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, 6 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district, and with an RZ (Restricted Zoning) Administrative Mapping Overlay (371W081103); Applicant, Delta Waters Properties LLC; Agent, CSA Planning Ltd.; Planner, Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III reported that the Land Division approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202(E).  The Exception approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.186(B).  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report and included in the property owner notices. Mr. Roennfeldt gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is it correct that if a cell tower was developed in a subdivision there are certain distance requirements?  Mr. Roennfeldt responded that is correct.  Commissioner McFadden stated In this case it is reversing that situation.  Is it safe to assume that the distances have been met by the creation of lot 6?  Mr. Roennfeldt that is correct.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Harland reported that this action is about creating lots that can secure financing for individual developments between the seller and developer.
 
Mr. Harland requests that the Exception be approved because with the reservation of right-of-way it could extend streets to McLoughlin Drive and get city street access.
 
Mr. Mitton questioned the additional setbacks required for new wireless communication facilities are not applicable because they are for new towers to existing houses.  With a new tower next to an existing house it would be 84 feet but the findings read there is a 61.8 foot setback to the south, 15.2 feet to the west and 39.8 feet to the north and east.  Is he reading that wrong?  Mr. Harland replied no, Mr. Mitton is reading that correctly.  He may have misunderstood Commissioner McFadden’s question.  Those are the setbacks to the property line.
 
Mr. Georgevitch asked, with the exception stipulation for improvements on Lot 6 fall on any portion of Lot 5 because it is a 5 acre parcel and could be phased?  That intersection will be critical allowing development to move through the intersection as well as developed to the east since expansion of the urban growth boundary.  What is the stipulation envisioning?  Mr. Harland would be comfortable with language of vertical construction or any further division of Lot 5.  The owner of Lot 5 knows it is their responsibility to build a street around it.  They do not have an issue with it.  It will be recorded before closing.  The City will review it before recording.
 
Mr. Harland 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 orders for approval of LDS-20-050 and E-20-051 per the staff report dated April 16, 2020, including Exhibits A through X, and adoption of the applicant’s stipulations as stated in the submitted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Exhibit O).
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                                         Seconded by: Commissioner Jordan
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0-0.
 
50.7 DCA-18-112 An amendment to Chapter 10 of the Medford Municipal Code to add standards for shared use paths.  Applicant, City of Medford; Planner, Sarah Sousa.
 
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV reported that the Land Development Code Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.218.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report. Ms. Sousa gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McFadden is curious about the fiber optics cable near the path along Siskiyou Park.  Is there language in this amendment allowing similar installations along other sections of the path?  Ms. Sousa responded that it is not written in the current draft but language could be added if the Commission thinks it is needed.  If the Parks Department does not have an issue Ms. Sousa does not see why they could not add installation of utilities language to the draft amendment.
 
Ms. Evan stated that the City has franchise agreements with different entities that provide services through the City.  Placing facilities like that in a public right-of-way will be part of that agreement.
 
Commissioner McKechnie added that unless it specifically prohibits it, it would allow it by omission.     
 
The public hearing was opened and there being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
 
Vice Chair Foley lost connection.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of DCA-18-112 to the City Council per the staff report dated April 16, 2020, including Exhibit A.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Culbertson                                     Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-1-0, with Chair McKechnie voting no.
 
60.      Reports
60.1 Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, April 3, 2020 and Friday, April 17, 2020.  On April 3rd they had two applications.  They approved a gas station and convenience store located at the South Medford Center on Center Drive.  The second application was a 3,000 square foot office building within the existing foundation footprint located at 629 Franquette Street at the intersection of Franquette Street and Earhart Street.  That item was continued to the April 17, 2020, meeting and then continued again to the May 15, 2020, meeting.  On Friday, April 17, 2020, they approved a 3,500 square foot restaurant and 12 multiple family dwelling units located at 2217 & 2301 E Barnett Road, including an Exception request to the parking standards for multiple family residential dwellings. They also approved a 33,600 square foot metal commercial storage and office facility located at 1170 Knutson Avenue and a 7,500 square foot single story warehouse located at 1525 N Central Avenue.
 
Rick Whitlock stepped down from the Site Plan and Architectural Commission because he is now the City Attorney. 
 
60.2 Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission has not met because they have been deemed non-essential, He mentioned that Ms. Evans may want to speak to that.
 
60.3 Planning Department
Ms. Evans reported that the only bodies that have been meeting are the Site Plan and Architectural Commission, Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council.
 
Ms. Evans welcomed back Mr. Mitton to the Planning Commission.  She is delighted to have Mr. Whitlock as the City Attorney.
 
There is a Planning Commission virtual study session scheduled for Monday, April 27, 2020.  Discussion will be on the electric fence code amendment.
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, May 14, 2020, Thursday, May 28, 2020, Thursday, June 11, 2020, and Thursday, June 25, 2020.  The meeting on May 14, 2020 will be virtual. 
 
On Thursday, May 7, 2020, the City Council will discuss the urbanization plan and annexation on South Stage Road that the Planning Commission heard this evening, the Consolidated Plan for 2020-2024 Action Plan, and the General Fund Grant Program award recommendations from the Housing Commission.  May is National Historic Preservation month.  Staff will ask the Mayor to proclaim it as such.
 
Vice Chair Foley was reconnected into the meeting.
 
Ms. Evans asked the Commissioner’s to stay online for a few minutes in order to get a picture of all the Commissioners.       
 
70.      Messages and Papers from the Chair. 
70.1 Chair McKechnie stated the Commission survived the Corona Virus and their first virtual meeting so they can survive anything.
 
80.      City Attorney Remarks. 
80.1 Mr. Mitton reiterated that Mr. Whitlock is now the City Attorney.  They are excited to have him on board.  Mr. Whitlock will now be sitting on the City Council which puts Mr. Mitton back on the Planning Commission.  He is pumped to be back.
               
90.      Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None.
90.1 Commissioner Pulver noted to staff that the issue of density comes up a lot.  He thinks the mandate from the State on a blanket level is not appropriate.  He thinks every city should make its own determination as to what they want to be and what they want to look like in terms of density.  It should not be mandated from Salem, Portland or anywhere else.  He is particularly concerned that the City’s density requirement jumps into the seven units per acre in 2030. It warrants discussion. 
 
Urbanization plans may be a good discussion for a study session since they saw the first one this evening.  Commissioner Culbertson had good comments that need to be revisited in general about what was discussed by property owners, developers, etc. when their various pitches were made to be included in the urban growth boundary expansion. What they promised back then versus what they bring forward now.
 
Also to be revisited is the issue of allocation of lands between residential, employment, industrial, and open space.  It would be a good refresher course with more urbanization plans coming forward in the upcoming months.
 
Chair McKechnie agrees.  
 
100.    Adjournment
100.1  The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:25 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: May 14, 2020

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

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top