COVID-19: City Hall and Lausmann Annex are closed until further notice.
Please note: Municipal Court is conducting business by phone. Please call 541-774-2040.
Click here for more information.

 

Agenda & Minutes

When available, the full agenda packet may be viewed as a PDF file by clicking the "Attachments" button and selecting the file you want to view.

Agendas are posted until the meeting date takes place.  Minutes are posted once they have been approved.

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, May 28, 2020

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:31 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
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
 
 
10.     Roll Call
 
20.    Consent Calendar / Written Communications
20.1 LDS-20-025 Final Order of tentative plat approval for the Saddle Ridge Subdivision Ė 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.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.            
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0-0.
 
30.          Approval or Correction of the Minutes from May 14, 2020 hearing
30.1 The minutes for May 14, 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 Requests
50.1        DCA-19-013 An amendment to portions of Chapter 10, Article II, to revise the Cityís Vacation land use review standards to omit Public Utility Easements (PUEs) from review at a public hearing, making them a Type I review; Applicant, City of Medford; Planner, Kyle Kearns. Staff requests this item be continued to the Thursday, June 25, 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 June 25th 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 June 25th.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued DCA-19-013, per staffís request, to the Thursday, June 25, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0-0.
 
50.2 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, June 11, 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 June 11th 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 June 11th.  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 applicantís request, to the Thursday, June 11, 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, 8-0-1, with Commissioner Culbertson abstaining.
 
New Business
50.3 LDS-20-083 Consideration of tentative plat approval for Angell Village Subdivision, a proposed 4-lot residential subdivision on a single 1.17-acre parcel located at 1225 Corona Avenue in the SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential, four dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (371W19BA2300); Applicant, Gary Angell; 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 Scott Sinner is his neighbor but it would not affect 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.  If you do please raise your hand now, or submit in writing within seven days to the planning department at planning@cityofmedford.org. None were disclosed.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner III reported that a revised Public Works report, correcting a minor typographical error on page 2, which read that a saw cutting was required at the east edge of the pavement that now correctly reads west edge.  The revised Public Works report was emailed to the Planning Commission earlier today and will be entered into the record as Exhibit E-1.  Staff also received an email from Scott Sinner requesting that the final order be adopted at the following meeting.  The record will remain open for seven days in case written testimony is submitted from this meeting.  This email will be submitted into the record as Exhibit I.  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, will all four units access the existing driveway or will the applicant enlarge the driveway since the minimum access easement does not match the existing driveway?  Mr. Severs reported that the applicant is only using the southerly half so they will not be utilizing the minimum access easement for the existing property to use as a driveway.  Chair McKechnie asked, is the reason for the minimum access easement for a fire truck to get down that driveway?  Mr. Severs replied yes.  Mr. Severs deferred the question to the applicant.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is curb, gutter and sidewalk along Corona a condition?  Mr. Severs did not have his paperwork in front of him and deferred the question to the applicant     
 
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 shed will be removed since it is in the buildable area.  Regarding the access, there is a gate of poles that come up through the driveway area.  The street is considered a legacy street.  The existing property line is at the footing of the pole fence.  As a legacy street it will have a curb tight sidewalk terminating at the fence footing.  The applicant will be reconstructing the public side of the approach.  Fire access requirement width is 20 feet.  The minimum access easement is 20 feet.  There is a way to configure the easement differently than what the plat shows through the north side of the fence.  There is adequate width to serve emergency services. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, how are they getting utilities in the back?  Mr. Sinner referred to page 55 of the agenda packet that has their utility plan.  Storm drain is coming out the north side of the property.  It slopes gradually from the south to north.  Other utilities are coming in from the south side that is not covered by existing pavement.  Commissioner McFadden asked, how are they getting telephone and power there?  Mr. Sinner replied, the same way.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, does the gate constitute a gated community?  Mr. Sinner does not know.  It is not the intent of the applicant to make it a gated community.      
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
Commissioner McFadden is surprised there was not a zone change or PUD to go to a higher density development and get more value out of the property.  Mr. Sinner responded that the applicant was happy with three new lots.
 
Vice Chair Foley is trying to understand the comment on Exhibit I.  He thought the Commission would make a regular motion to adopt the findings and approve the final order in the consent calendar at the next meeting.  Is there something different happening based on Mr. Sinnerís comments?  He is confused.  Mr. Severs stated that is standard operating procedure.  He wanted to get Mr. Sinnerís email into the record.
 
Commissioner McFadden agrees with Vice Chair Foley that is not the way it has been done in the past.  He does not remember a discussion on the change.
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that direction from the City Managerís Office and City Council due to City Hall being closed to the Public, staff has noticed this application as written testimony only.  The public can observe by tuning into cable television or live streaming on the Cityís website.  They cannot call in as done in the past.  In this forum a citizen cannot request to keep the record open.  The Commission will close the public hearing and keep the record open for seven days.  If no written comments are received in that seven day period the Commission will deliberate and decide the matter at their next meeting.  If comments are received statutorily there is a seven day response period for rebutting the new comments.  The applicant has the final comments in the third seven day period.  Then final deliberation at the second June meeting.  Tonight, close the public hearing, leave the record open and continue the item to the June 11, 2020 meeting.  At that time if no comments were received, in the first seven days, the Commission can deliberate and decide the matter.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, has the applicant waived the 120 day rule?  Mr. Sinner replied that is not a problem.
 
Mr. Sinner requested the Commission to grant an extension to June 11, 2020.  If testimony is received he will have to continue to June 25, 2020.
 
Mr. Mitton commented that legal is doing their best at accommodating the rules regarding land use hearings with the restriction they are under from the Governor, City Managerís Office and City Council.  In situations close to the 120 day rule, that the Governor could not waive, staff will work with the applicant on a case by case basis.
 
Commissioner Jordan asked, who controls the raising and lowering of the fence?  Mr. Sinner replied the owner. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is that type of fence allowed on an access easement?  Does the access easement need to jog to lineup with the curb cut?
 
Ms. Evans addressed the comment about a gated community stating that it is not considered a gated community.  The minimum access easement is a shared driveway not a private or public street.   There is nothing preventing the gate continuing to exist.  
 
Chair McKechnie asked, does a maximum access easement allow more than three people off it?  Ms. Evans responded that it does.  A maximum access easement is a 30 foot wide easement.  A minimum access easement is 20 feet wide.  Chair McKechnie asked, could the applicant do the 30 feet on the first lot and then switch to the 20 feet? Ms. Evans replied that is a solution.  Mr. Sinner stated that the maximum access easement has a sidewalk.  The minimum access easement does not.
 
Commissioner Foley is trying to understand what motion they need to make this evening.  Is the Commission going to close the public hearing and leave the record opened?  Ms. Evans replied that the Commission will close the public hearing, leave the record opened for seven days and continue the item to the June 11, 2020 meeting.
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that he hopes staff will look into if there should be a side setback from the driveway to the existing house.
 
Commissioner Jordan is struggling with the gate.  How will emergency services access the property if the gate is up?  Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal reported that if it is an electric gate they will need a currency services activated opening device.  It is a mic click on their radio that opens it automatically.  Mr. Sinner does not have a problem with that.
 
Ms. Evans asked, did Mr. Kleinberg add that in his report as a condition?  Mr. Kleinberg reported he will need to add that in his report.  Ms. Evans responded that planning staff would need a revised report from the Fire Department adding the condition for Fire access.
 
Commissioner Pulver expected Ms. Evans or Public Works to weigh in on the access easement.  If someone buys one of the lots in the back and subsequently Lot 1 sells their house and has bikes and toys in front of their house it could create a bottleneck and safety issue at the access as it is drawn.  He is okay if the applicant extends the minimum access easement or a maximum access easement without sidewalks so that it functions better.  Being silent is not the best approach. 
 
Chair McKechnie thinks going to a maximum access easement for a portion of the first lot addresses all the issues.  He thought Mr. Sinner was going to look into that.  He expects they will have that information for their deliberation.
 
If Commissioner Pulver heard correctly from Ms. Evans no one else can talk during the Commissionís deliberation at their next meeting.  Chair McKechnie responded that the Commission can talk and review any additional information that came in.  They would not be able to hear from the applicant.
 
Mr. Sinner asked, why canít the public hearing be opened again?  Ms. Evans replied that staff would have to re-notice the application. It is Mr. Sinnerís decision.  He can continue the item to the next meeting and leave the public hearing open.  He has waived the 120 days and extended to the next meeting.  Mr. Sinner does not want to do that. 
 
Mr. Mitton commented that situations where the applicant was able to speak after the hearing was closed was to reopen the hearing to supplement with something factual. That is easy to do when not in the middle of a pandemic where it is not allowed to have interested parties of the property at the meeting.  This gets into some of the hurdles legal has been trying to get around, 
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission will keep the record open for seven days and continue LDS-20-083 to the Thursday, June 11, 2020 Planning Commission meeting,         
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0-0.
 
60.      Reports
60.1 Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, May 15, 2019.  They approved a 3,000 square foot office building located at 629 Franquette Street and relief for the requirement to construct a public sidewalk on both street frontages.
 
60.2 Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission met Wednesday, May 27, 2020.  They made a recommendation to City Council to not build an interchange on the Expressway at Vilas.  Oregon Department of Transportation made a presentation that required $30 million from the City of Medford to build the interchange.  It did not improve anything consistent with the Expressway goals.  Medford Urban Renewal Agency requested expansion of the Downtown Parking District to mirror the Central Business District.  It was recommended favorably with some declension to City Council.  Medford Urban Renewal Agency also requested to decrease speed limits on the majority of the streets in the Liberty Park area to 20 miles per hour.  Medford Urban Renewal Agency is looking into making modifications where Court Street turns into Central Avenue to Fourth Avenue.  Taking the lanes from three to two, adding parking at least to one side of the street, bike lanes to lineup with the streets between Fourth and Tenth and add the ability for additional types of transportation.
 
60.3 Planning Department
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported there is a Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, June 8, 2020.  Discussion will be on Transportation Planning Rule Subsection 11. 
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, June 11, 2020, Thursday, June 25, 2020 and Thursday, July 9, 2020. 
 
Last week City Council continued, to June, the Shared Use Path amendment.  They were concerned of who maintains the path sidewalk.   They adopted the amendments to a new Chapter 13 on Floodplain regulations.
 
There is no Planning business for City Council next week.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is the Planning Commission continuing to do their June 11, 2020 and June 25, 2020 meetings on Zoom?  Ms. Evans is trying hard to not have a Zoom meeting on June 25, 2020. 
 
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 Recorderís office.
 
 
Submitted by:
                                                                                 
 
Terri L. Richards                                                               
Recording Secretary                                                      
 
Mark McKechnie
Planning Commission Chair
 
Approved: June 11, 2020
 

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

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top