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, May 14, 2020

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
Jared Pulver
Jeff Thomas
 
Staff Present
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
 
Commissioner Absent
E.J. McManus, Excused Absence             
 
10.     Roll Call
 
20.    Consent Calendar / Written Communications
20.1 LDS-20-046 Final Order 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.
 
20.2 LDS-20-050 / E-20-051 Final Orders 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.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
30.          Approval or Correction of the Minutes from April 23, 2020 hearing
30.1 The minutes for April 23, 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 28, 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 28th 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 28th.  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 28, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
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, 7-0-1, with Commissioner Culbertson abstaining.
 
Old Business
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. 
 
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 and included in the property owner notices. Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, did the City’s Address Technician comment that Summerview Court has a significant change in direction of the street, therefore the street name is required to change and does the Commission need to include that in their motion?  Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director commented that it is already in the conditions of approval.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, Inc., 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer reported that based on the submitted application, prepared staff report and the presentation this evening, they have met the approval criteria and requests the Planning Commission approves the application this evening.
 
Mr. Neathamer reserved rebuttal time.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, does Mr. Neathamer have any comments on Jackson County Roads request, being upheld, “to review and comment on the hydraulic report including the calculations and drainage plan. Capacity improvements or on-site detention, if necessary, shall be installed at the expense of the applicant.  Upon completion of the project, the developer’s engineer shall certify that construction of the drainage system was constructed per plan and a copy of the certification shall be sent to Jackson County Roads.”?  Mr. Neathamer replied the applicant can meet that requirement without a great deal of difficulty.  It is a review process. 
 
Mr. Neathamer also commented that the applicant will comply with the City’s Address Technicians comments.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of LD-20-025 per the staff report dated May 7, 2020 including: Exhibits A through Q; Modifications to residential street standards; Approval of two Minimum Access Easements; Approval of the proposed Summerview Court to terminate into a Cul-de-sac; and Granting of the maximum timetable of five years for the platting of the subdivision in phases.          
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-1, with Commissioner Thomas abstaining due to no audio.
 
New Business
50.3 DCA-19-010 A legislative code amendment to modify the electric fence regulations found in Sections 9.560-9.561 and Sections 10.732 and 10.839(4) of the Municipal Code. Applicant, Michael Pate; Agent, Greg Lemhouse; Planner, Carla Paladino.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner Culbertson disclosed he had a conversation on the phone with Greg Lemhouse regarding this application amongst other things.  It was general and nothing specific.  Commissioner Jordan disclosed that he serves on a non-profit board that Greg Lemhouse has provided services to that board.  He feels he does not have a conflict and can vote in an impartial way.
 
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 Development Code Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Sections 10.214 and 10.218.  Ms. Paladino gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is the requirement of the double fence and 10 inch separation for safety purposes?  Ms. Paladino replied yes.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, on an older property that a buffer does not exist would there be a non-electrified fence or wall at the property line then the electric fence 10 inches from that fence?  Ms. Paladino reported no, the applicant would have to stay out of the buffer yard.   The perimeter fence would be 8 feet of solid construction and act as the buffer wall (but would not be on the property line).
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, what is the restriction in the Liberty Park Overlay with Star Auto Body and their electric fence?  Ms. Paladino reported an electric fence was installed and because it is zoned Community Commercial the property owner was told by a building inspector they could not have the fence.  The fence is not activated and they do not have a permit to have it. Also, since they are in the Liberty Park Neighborhood they would not be able to apply for a new one.   
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Greg Lemhouse, United Strategies, 2305 Ashland St., Ste. C PMB 265, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  Mr. Lemhouse reported that they agree with the staff report that seems to be in line with Option 3 which they supported and it seems like the Planning Commission supported at their study session.  It is important to note that they think the perimeter security systems enhance livability.  When backed up against residential it increases safety. 
 
 Mr. Lemhouse reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Michael Pate, Amarok (Electric Guard Dog), 550 Assembly Street, Columbia, SC 29201, Mr. Pate thinks there is a conflict regarding the maximum of a 10 inch separation from the perimeter fence to the actual fence then in the next breath it talks about a minimum of 24 inches from the property line.  He does not know why electrical permits would be required.  They run off a 12 volt battery.  They will comply if need be.  Regarding the buffer yard it seems to him with a buffer yard there will be two barriers. 
 
Chair McKechnie stepped in for Ms. Paladino on the buffer yard.  His understanding is that it does not apply to all properties depending on the zoning.  Buffer yards are only between a commercial property and a residential property.
 
Ms. Paladino reported under permits required the language states requiring a permit for the electrified fence from the Building and Safety Department including an alarm permit.  There is language that the Fire Department does an inspection. 
 
The 24 inches is noted on page 113 of the agenda packet Section 5.3 that no electrified fence shall be installed within 24 inches of a property line.  They can review and make sure it is not conflicting with the other separation wall. 
 
In terms of the buffer yard there is a chart of what zones buffer yards are required.    
 
Mr. Pate asked, is the buffer yard requirement in the code?  Ms. Paladino responded yes.  It is a land use requirement.
 
Mr. Pate asked, is the requirement for the second fence also in the code?  Ms. Paladino replied no.  
 
The public hearing was closed
 
Main Motion:  The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are either satisfied or not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of DCA-19-010 to the City Council based on the staff report dated May 7, 2020, including Exhibits A through D.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Pulver thinks this is a big step.  He agrees with the applicant that the more secure and safe the community the more deterrent it is to crime.  He looked at properties that have the electrified fences.  He does not know if aesthetically it is good or bad.  It sends a different message. 
 
Amended motion: Removing Community Commercial from allowed zones for this use.    
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver              Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote for Amended Motion: Motion failed, 4-4-0, with Commissioner Culbertson, Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner McFadden and Vice Chair Foley voting no.
 
Roll Call for Main Motion: 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, May 1, 2019.  They approved an eight unit, residential Cottage Cluster Development located at 1132 and 1146 Woodrow Lane.
 
60.2 Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission has not met but will meet later this month.
 
60.3 Planning Department
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported the Governor approved Phase 1 for Jackson County.  At least through the first Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2020 will be in this format. 
 
Monday, May 25, 2020 is Memorial Day.  The City offices will be closed.
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, May 28, 2020, Thursday, June 11, 2020, and Thursday, June 25, 2020. 
 
On Thursday, May 7, 2020, the City Council approved the urbanization plan and annexation on South Stage Road, the Consolidated Plan for 2020-2024 Action Plan, and the General Fund Grant Program award recommendations from the Housing Commission.  The Mayor proclaimed May is National Historic Preservation month.
 
City Council at their next meeting will hear the Shared Use Path amendment, and amendments to Chapter 9 on Floodplain regulations.
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that tonight’s meeting would have had less than twenty-five people.  Most of the Planning Commission meetings do.  He is surprised the City is not opening up a little bit.  There is adequate room to spread people out.  Mr. Mitton responded that as the City transitions into Phase1 the Governor’s orders are to use remote methods when possible.  Staff does not know ahead of time which meetings will or will not bring 30 people.  Ms. Evans noted that public hearing notices go out three weeks before the meeting and are obliged to conduct the meeting as stated. 
 
70.      Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.
 
80.      City Attorney Remarks.  None.
               
90.      Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None.
 
100.    Adjournment
101.  The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:40 p.m.  The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
 
 
Submitted by:
 
Terri L. Richards                                                               
Recording Secretary                                                      
 
Mark McKechnie
Planning Commission Chair
 
Approved: May 28, 2020

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

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top