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, June 25, 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
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
Seth Adams, Planner III
 
10.     Roll Call
 
20.    Consent Calendar / Written Communications. None.
 
30.          Approval or Correction of the Minutes from June 11, 2020 hearing
30.1 The minutes for June 11, 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.
 
Old Business
50.1 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 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.
 
Chair McKechnie reported that on May 28, 2020 the Planning Commission closed the public hearing but left the record open for seven days.  On June 11, 2020, the item was continued to the June 25, 2020, Planning Commission meeting.  There will be no public testimony on this item.  The full staff report was provided on May 28, 2020, but could planning staff please summarize if anything additional was received while the record was kept open?
 
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 with the property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Severs summarized that the applicant submitted a new plan addressing concerns raised by the Planning Commission.  The applicant proposes to extend the approach and remove the existing pipe gate with the approach flush with the minimum access easement.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is the applicant intending to move the north side driveway approach to get 30 feet to the street?  Mr. Severs replied yes.  Chair McKechnie is concerned that the picture does not show that.  Is there a way to make that a condition of approval?  Mr. Severs responded that staff specifically stated in the conditions that the applicant provide a plat that shows the layout which they provided in Exhibit I.  Maybe there should be more specific language in that condition. 
 
Commissioner McFadden found that page 15 of the agenda packet is adequate dealing with Chair McKechnie’s concern.   
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the final order for approval of LDS-20-083, per the staff report dated June 18, 2020, including Exhibits A-1 through J.  
 
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. 
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Culbertson disclosed that he previously financially represented Mr. Swartsley in purchase and sale of the property listed and recused himself.
 
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 is a map showing building envelopes for Lots 43 and 44 that will be submitted into the record as Exhibit N.  A few minutes ago staff received a letter from a neighbor that will be submitted into the record as Exhibit O.  The Planned Unit Development approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.190(D).  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 with the property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, does the area of the buffer yard require a zone change?  Mr. Severs replied no.  It is required to have a buffer yard because it has two incompatible zones.  It is a multi-family zone next to an SFR-6 but since the applicant is proposing SFR-6 lots they are eligible to be granted relief.  This is not an exception. 
 
Mr. Severs continued the staff report.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, shouldn’t Lot 57 be included for access?  Mr. Severs responded no. It does not have access to a lower order street.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, does Lots 50 through 56 designed to the SFR-6 standards?  Mr. Severs stated they do with the exception of lot depth.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Steven Swartsley, Springbrook Park LLC, P. O. Box 8600, Medford, Oregon 97501.  Mr. Swartsley reported that they broke ground ten days ago and Springbrook Road is moving quickly.  The paving of all the streets will be within a few days of each other.  The completion of the three interior streets together with Springbrook Road will be simultaneous.   
 
Mr. Swartsley did not reserve rebuttal time.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, does Lots 43 and 44 meet the setback requirements on the south side of the lots?  Mr. Severs stated yes. 
 
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 PUD-20-032 and LDS-20-100 per the revised staff report dated June 18, 2020, including: Exhibits A through O; Approval to terminate Kingsbury Drive in a cul-de-sac, pursuant to MLDC 10.450(1); Approval to create Lots 51 and 54 as flag lots, pursuant to MLDC 10.450(1); The granting of relief from constructing a Type A Buffer yard along the southerly boundary of the portion of the site zoned MFR-15 which abuts the SFR-6 zoning district, pursuant to MLDC 10.790(E)(5); Approval of the PUD modified standards requests [(MLDC 10.192(B)] including: Approval for Lots 55 and 56 to take vehicular access off of Springbrook Road – a Major Collector street pursuant to MLDC 10.192(B)(4); Approval to create lots not meeting the minimum design standards for lots in the MFR-15 zoning district (Lots 50-56) pursuant to MLDC 10.192(B)(1); Approval to create lots not meeting the minimum design standards for lots in the SFR-6 zoning district (Lot 57 and lots 43-44 in Phase 5) pursuant to MLDC 10.192(B)(1); and Approval to construct a cul-de-sac without a public access way pursuant to MLDC 10.192(B)(4).  
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-1, with Commissioner Culbertson recusing himself.
 
New Business
50.3 ZC-20-112 Consideration of a request for a change of zone of two contiguous parcels totaling 6.26 acres located approximately 880 feet east of Crater Lake Avenue, south of Owen Drive, and north of Delta Waters Road. The applicant is requesting a change from I-G (General Industrial) and I-L (Light Industrial) to MFR-20 (Multiple Family Residential, twenty dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (371W08C TL 900 & 901).  Applicant: Fred Owen; Agent: Richard Stevens & 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 Zone Change approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.204.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.  Mr. Severs also reported that he received calls from neighbors that have concerns that will be raised when the development goes before the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  There will be notifications sent out of that public hearing. It will be the responsibility of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission to look at the impacts the development will have on this site.  The zone change is limited to specific criteria.   
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, are roadways and layouts reviewed now? Mr. Severs responded that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission will review those,
 
Chair McKechnie commented that this is a change in the zone only.  They are reviewing land with nothing to be put on it or any other conditions.  Mr. Severs replied that is correct.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens and Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon 97501.  Mr. Stevens reported that in 2014 the City of Medford proposed and re-designated this site through the Internal Study Area from industrial to urban high density residential.  This was part of the future Urban Growth Boundary amendment.  
 
Mr. Stevens reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Laura Mowbray, 3174 Forest Hills Drive #A, Medford, Oregon 97504.  Ms. Mowbray is concerned with traffic, drainage, traffic congestion, two story buildings looking into backyards.
 
c. Jose Bugarin, 3186 Forest Hills Drive #B, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Bugarin is concerned with the roadway that will cut into his property. 
 
d. Joseph Smith, 3182 Forest Hills Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Smith thinks the MFR-20 is unacceptable for those that live in the houses that face the subject lot because there will be no privacy.  There is not adequate storm drainage in his neighborhood.  He has concerns with traffic and no pedestrian facilities.  He would like a buffer yard between their privacy fence and the subject property.
 
Commissioner Pulver wanted clarification on Mr. Smith’s last comment regarding the buffer yard.  Mr. Smith would like green space and a buffer yard between his privacy fence and the development.      
 
e. Brian Bernstein, 3218 Dearborn Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Bernstein does not have concerns of the high density if it was a 55 and older community, single story, zero lot line and two story behind the Mercedes dealership.  He mentioned speed bumps to slow traffic.  He has concerns with the response time for emergency vehicles.
 
f. Lynda Westlake, 3182 Forest Hill Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Westlake reiterated the concerns. There is inadequate parking now and will have a similar problem with the subject property. The drainage needs to be reevaluated. 
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer stated that regarding traffic on a zone change they look at the underlying zoning which was Light Industrial. It generates, under Public Works procedures, 300 trips per acre.  When looking at the number of potential homes for MFR-20 it is half the number of trips under the Light Industrial designation.  Therefore, no traffic study is required. 
 
Mr. Georgevitch pointed out that Mr. Stevens stated that all Category A facilities were acceptable.  There is actually a sewer capacity issue on the site.  The applicant is willing to stipulate to not exceed the underlying zoning.  They can get approximately 78 or so dwelling units without impacting the sewer systems. 
 
Public Works is working on a sewer project west of the subject site that is approximately a year or two away.  They do not look at lower order streets only higher order streets.  The code requires to look at Collectors and Arterials not local streets.  The neighborhood might have concerns about local streets but they are not part of Public Works code required Category A facilities. 
 
Under the zone change Public Works is not looking at circulation, block length, design of the site or number of units.  They look at the base zoning compared to the proposed zoning.  If there is an increase the applicant would have to do a traffic, sewer, storm drain study, accept the underlying zoning or provide mitigation of which Public Works would be satisfied of Category a facilities.
 
Mr. Georgevitch also stated there were comments regarding traffic calming.  This Commission does not deal with traffic calming.  It is a citizen request form through Public Works Engineering Traffic section or the City’s website and put in a request for any type of traffic calming that they feel is necessary for their community.
 
Mr. Georgevitch addressed storm drain issues that were brought up.  Public Works does not look at the design at this time.  When the applicant submits a development application the code requires detention on the site so there will be no increase impacts to the surrounding storm drain system, which in this case is an open channel.  The channel will likely remain open.  The applicant will have to mitigate that channel or make sure there is adequate capacity when they design their site and storm drain will not impact surrounding neighborhoods any more than the dirt fill that is there currently.  It is important to understand that during a thunderstorm event it is highly likely that they had a greater than ten year storm drain event.  The City’s storm drain system is only designed for a ten year event.  As the City exceeds those events it is anticipated water will not be maintained in the system and the short duration high intensity events like thunderstorms can often cause some localized flooding to occur.  The community should contact Public Works Operations so they can find out if there are capacity constraints or blocked systems and work with the community to fix those issues.  It is not an issue for this development.              
 
Commissioner Pulver asked Mr. Georgevitch to speak to whether it is allowed on Ford Drive that the Mercedes Benz dealership is loading, unloading vehicles and tire changing.  Mr. Georgevitch stated that loading and unloading is allowed on all public streets.  It is common that car dealerships load or unload either in a travel or center lane on wider streets.  Tire changing is not allowed unless it is a broken down vehicle.  This is an operations issue with the dealership.  If the dealership is using the public right-of-way as part of their site operations that can be brought to the attention of the City’s Code Enforcement Department.
 
Mr. Georgevitch stated that curbs, gutters and sidewalks are on the north side where Mercedes went in.  The south side, until RVTD does something different, will likely stay that way until the City can do a Local Improvement District or there is redevelopment of that site. This development will not extend Ford Drive through but inch it further to west getting it closer to the connection.  There will not be a connection until the property to the west develops.  It does put more burden on Ford Drive to the east to Springbrook.     
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is Ford Drive shown on the map dedicated or reserved?   Mr. Severs reported it is a dedicated right-of-way.
 
Chair McKechnie asked Mr. Severs to address the comment regarding buffer yards between MFR-20 and SFR-6.  Mr. Severs responded that a buffer yard would be required by the code for the section of the site that borders the SFR-6 area. However, it would not be required per the code to abut the properties to the south on Mountain Gate.  It could be added with the Site Plan and Architectural Commission review because of the single family homes and the applicant would be doing multi-family.       
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, are the upper stories required to be set back from the property line?  Mr. Severs stated no.  The height for multi-family zone is the same as single family maxed at 35 feet. 
 
Vice Chair Foley commented there was a fire issue brought up earlier.  The question was is there adequate fire stations in the area for multi-family?  Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal reported that there is.  Station #5 would be the closest on Roberts and north Keene Way.  They have mutual aid agreements.  There are five fire stations.  Typically, if they get a fire four engines respond plus a battalion chief.  If these are multi-family homes (three or more units) they would be protected with a sprinkler system.      
 
Mr. Stevens reported that Mr. Georgevitch mentioned that 78 dwelling units is the maximum for the sanitary sewer service. For the traffic generation the applicant has a net reduction so less impact.  The wetlands and storm drain will be part of their Site Plan and Architectural Commission application.  They just completed the survey.  The boundary identified the storm drain retention pond that is being called the wetlands.  That will be incorporated in their site design.  
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the final order for approval of ZC-20-112 per the staff report dated June 18, 2020, including Exhibits A through H.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that this project will come before another City meeting and people that have concerns should attend and voice their concerns.  The ultimate person to talk to is their City Council representative. 
 
Vice Chair Foley appreciated citizens coming and offering their testimony.  Most of the issues raised this evening will be addressed with the Site Plan and Architectural Commission. 
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-1-0 with Commissioner Thomas voting no.
 
50.4 ZC-20-131 Consideration of a request of a change of zone on a 3.6-acre parcel located at 2399 South Pacific Highway from C-H (Heavy Commercial) to the C-R (Regional Commercial) zoning district (371W32CD TL 4100). Applicant: Cedar Hotel 1 LLC; Agent: ORW Architecture; 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 Zone Change approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.204.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, is the applicant Cedars Hotel 1 LLC a subsidiary of the Indian tribe?  Ms. Severs reported they are associated with them.  Commissioner Mansfield stated they are not associated they are part of it.  It would be more direct if the tribe would be direct about its application instead of coming in under a different name.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, does the requesting zoning permit a gambling casino?  Mr. Mitton stated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs recently denied the Coquille Tribe’s request to put the land in trust which is a stepping stone for placing a casino here.  This proposal is purely as a hotel.  It is not connected with the Federal application and litigation related to a potential casino.  Commissioner Mansfield is aware of that history but it does not answer his question.  The question is does this zoning permit a gambling casino?  Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director responded that she is not confident that it does.  There is some limited gaming that is permitted statutorily.  There is not a specific use listed in the Medford Land Development Code for gambling facilities.  She assumes it would be under standard industrial classifications 799 that is miscellaneous amusement classification.  There may something listed in that which is already permitted in all the commercial zoning districts.  Commissioner Mansfield stated that his vote is dependent on the answer so at the close of this application he is going to move to postpone until he gets a direct answer.  He is thinking of other kind of stealthy things that could be done in case that gets changed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  Ms. Evans clarified that the 799 class is permitted in all the commercial zones.  Commissioner Mansfield asked, so whatever is permitted now will be permitted in the new zone?  Ms. Evans replied that is correct.  Commissioner Mansfield is simply trying to alert everyone the idea that certain interests are trying to bring gambling into the City of Medford.  He is very opposed to it.  Ms. Evans will find the information on the 799 SIC code and come back.          
 
Commissioner McFadden stated that if the applicant makes other applications to the federal government and gets approved to do the gambling or create that as tribal property then the City’s zoning does not make a difference at all.  Ms. Evans replied that is her understanding.  It becomes a sovereign nation and the City’s rules do not apply.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, then why are we going through this procedure?  Ms. Evans stated to allow the building height for the hotel is the entire point of this application.  
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. J. David Wilkerson ll, ORW Architecture, 29 S. Grape Street, Medford, OR 97501.  Mr. Wilkerson clarified that the property that was being considered being placed in the trust is the bowling alley next to this property.  The tribe’s plan is to build a hotel.   When the property was annexed into the City along with the property to the east (Charles Point Apartments) is kept the County’s general commercial zone.  Later on when Charles Point was developed they rezoned the subject property as heavy commercial along with their own property because it was most advantageous to them at that time.  The zoning map actually shows a zoning error that the PUD zoning applied to the subject property as well so it shows C-H/PUD which is not the case. The zone change will bring the subject property into compliance with the other City properties along Highway 99.      
 
Mr. Wilkerson reserved rebuttal time.
 
Ms. Evans answered Commissioner Mansfield earlier question as yes.  The 799 SIC code allows billiard and bingo parlors, bookies, book makers for races, bridge clubs, card rooms, gambling establishments not primarily operating coin operated gambling machines except coin operated, game parlors except coin operated and teaching of games, etc., horses, judo, karate, off track betting.  Those are already permitted in the existing zoning district.  Commissioner Mansfield asked, and would be in the requested zone?  Ms. Evans replied that is correct.  Commissioner Mansfield commented that basically gambling is allowed in either zone.  Ms. Evans replied that is correct.  Commissioner Mansfield asked, then why don’t they call it gambling instead of gaming?  Ms. Evans replied that is what the words say.    
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the final order for approval of ZC-20-131 per the staff report dated June 18, 2020, including Exhibits A through E.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Mansfield commented that he is going to abstain.  His bias are such that he is not sure he can vote intelligently on this matter.  He plans to abstain on it.  
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-1, with Commissioner Mansfield abstaining.
 
50.5 DCA-19-013 An amendment to portions of Chapter 10, Article II, to revise the City’s 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.
 
Carla Angeli Paladino, Principal Planner reported that the 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 and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Paladino gave a staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
Mr. Mitton reported that he wanted to address page 172 of the agenda packet.  Mr. Jon Proud, City Surveyor stated that this proposal would expose the City to liability and would not protect the public safety, health and welfare.  Mr. Mitton believes that the proposed plan is compliant and consistent with State law.  There is a policy decision to be weighed by policy makers which is not his job.  The current method is extremely cautious and conservative way that emphasizes making sure there is any possibility that there could be notice slipped through the cracks by having this lengthy Vacation process.     
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
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-19-013 to the City Council per the staff report dated June 18, 2020, including Exhibits A through H.        
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0-0.
 
50.6 LDP-20-120 / E-20-121 Consideration of tentative plat approval for a two-lot partition and an Exception pertaining to relief to street and storm improvement standards on one parcel of land, 0.76 acres in size, located at 2133 Dellwood Avenue within the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (371W29DB4300); Applicant: Ryder & Tyler West; Agent: Neathamer Surveying Inc.; 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 Partition approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.170(D).  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, included with the property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Roennfeldt gave a staff report and reported that staff received an email and pictures from a neighbor at 416 Windsor that has issues with runoff from adjacent properties.  She requested a condition of approval that the applicant hire an engineer to prepare a plan that assures post construction runoff does not exceed pre-development conditions for volume and thereby will not cause any additional runoff to adversely impact the property at 416 Windsor.  Mr. Roennfeldt talked to her on the phone today and it is his understanding she had a meeting with the applicant and will have him discuss what happened at that meeting. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is 416 Windsor uphill or downhill form the subject property?  Mr. Roennfeldt stated it is downhill. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is the ditch the only storm drainage system currently in that neighborhood?  Mr. Roennfeldt responded along Windsor and Dellwood is his understanding. 
 
Commissioner McManus asked, can a street light be installed without other street improvements?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that generally they do not install street lights without some form of vertical protection (curb).  There are situations where they have installed them if they meet the AASHTO Roadside Guidelines for obstructions in the right-of-way.  They will not be able to do that without curb and gutter in this situation.  When there is no curb and gutter in a neighborhood and a street light is requested it is installed on a PP&L pole by Pacific Power. 
 
Chair McKechnie asked, are there any other street lights in this neighborhood?  Mr. Georgevitch replied that there is a street light on a PP&L pole on the other side of the street. 
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying Inc., 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer reported that the applicants are in the audience this evening that may want to add testimony.   They are aware of the issues raised by the neighbor down the street.  He does not think that anything they can do will help that situation.  He suspects if they do put the street improvements in and create a more impervious surface, curb and gutters it will increase the problem rather than decrease it.      
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what about the possibility of doing storm water detention when a new structure is built so the runoff from the hard surface is more controlled or maintained on this parcel like a drywall wall or a rain garden?  Would that be amendable to the applicant?  Mr. Neathamer replied he believes it would be.  Perhaps the applicant would like to answer that question.  They are not opposed to detaining water on their site. 
 
Mr. Neathamer reserved rebuttal time.
    
b. Ryder West, 148 Josephine Court, Central Point, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. West reported they would be willing to do that if necessary.  They did speak with Stephanie Holtey and explained that the property at Dellwood is bordered on both downhill sides.  The current storm drains do catch all the water that falls within the watershed of the property.  They do collect in the storm drain that bypasses her property.  Anything they do there he does not see having an effect on captured on her property.  They did brainstorm some solutions with Ms. Holtey where she could put a French drain and possibly a collection basin in her backyard that would help with the issues she is having. A large percentage of the standing water is due to thin soil level above bedrock and two of her neighbors are uphill from her.      
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that Mr. West is right.  There is very little soil in most of that neighborhood.  Then there is sandstone and bedrock.  Any water that hits it just runs off.  He was surprised to hear there is a pool in the backyard of the first house.
 
c. John Pierce, 2117 Dellwood Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Pierce approves of the Exception.  The orientation of the first parcel faces Dellwood.  According to the City’s Address Technician the narrow portion of the lot will be addressed to Windsor for that first parcel.  Almost all of the houses in the rest of the neighborhood face Dellwood on that two block section.    
 
Vice Chair Foley wanted to understand Mr. Georgevitch’s comments in the Public Works report regarding storm drainage.  Mr. Georgevitch reported that he comments in the Public Works staff report are if they build a public street.  If they build a public street they will have to put in a storm drain.  If not building a public street storm drains will not be required.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and direct staff to prepare the final order for approval of LDP-20-120 and E-20-121 per the staff report dated June 18, 2020, including Exhibits A through L.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner McFadden questioned whether they are approving or denying the Exception.  He is in favor of approving it.  
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0-0.
 
50.7 UP-20-095 A legislative amendment to adopt an Urbanization Plan into the Neighborhood Element of the Comprehensive Plan for approximately 88.73 acres of property located between Owen Drive and Coker Butte Road, and to the east of Springbrook Road (Planning Unit MD-3a)(371W08 TL 300 - 1000 and 371W08BA TL 100 - 400).  Applicants: Steven Skinner and Veritas Properties, LLC; Agent:  Jay Harland, CSA Planning, Ltd.; 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 Type IV Legislative 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, included with 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 Pulver was unclear with the Public Works staff report that states Coker Butte is maintained by the County currently but is classified as a major collector.  Does the City not require improvements to that at this time because it is not a City road yet?  Mr. Adams responded that when Veritas Properties is annexed into the City the City will take jurisdiction of the couple hundred feet of Coker Butte Road.  Sometime in the future that section would have to be brought up to City standards triggered by development by the applicant.       
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Harland commented on the process of an urbanization plan.  The process for this type of application is working well.  The City will be well served by the process. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, did Mr. Harland and staff discuss the pond on the subject property about breaching it, moving the irrigation ditch and who is responsible if the old embankment fails?  Mr. Harland replied it actually has been breached.  It is not a pond anymore.  Commissioner Culbertson asked, why is it still classified as wetlands?  Mr. Harland reported there is a cover letter in the agenda packet of what to do with the wetlands.  It will take approximately two years to shrink the wetlands.  Commissioner Culbertson asked, when they receive the delineation where the wetlands actually are and when development plans are re-fined, will they maintain the open space?  Mr. Harland responded that the RPS Plan requires a percentage of how it lays out.       
 
Mr. Harland reserved rebuttal time.
 
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 to the City Council per the staff report dated
June 18, 2020, including Exhibits A through T for approval of UP-20-095, and adopting Exhibit B into the Neighborhood Element of the Comprehensive Plan.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0-0.
 
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:11 p.m. and reconvened at 8:19 p.m.
 
50.8 CP-20-134 Consideration of Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Urbanization and Neighborhood Elements specifically related to the Rogue Valley Manor’s open space assessment requirement in planning unit MD-5f. Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Carla Angeli Paladino.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Mansfield disclosed that he owns and lives in a residence in the neighborhood.  It is his belief it will not affect his fairness in voting on this matter.  This also goes for the next agenda item.
 
Carla Angeli Paladino, Principal Planner reported that the Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.222.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Paladino gave a staff report.
 
Chair McKechnie commented that this only has to do with the golf course holes rather than the parcels.  Ms. Paladino responded correct.  The holes will be deed restricted.    
 
The public hearing was opened. 
 
a. Norma Novy, 3100 Alameda Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Novy is close to the golf course and wanted to know if it will stay as open space?  Chair McKechnie replied yes.   
 
b. Al Jaeger, 1310 Ryan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Jaeger’s concern is that he is landlocked.  Is there a plan to go around the other side of the golf course?  Ms. Paladino stated that the next application will have more detail on the road network.  
 
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 for approval of CP-20-134 to the City Council per the staff report dated June 18, 2020, including Exhibits A – H.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0-0.
 
50.9 UP-19-004 Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to adopt an Urbanization Plan into the Neighborhood Element for ten tax lots totaling 417.18 acres located west of North Phoenix Road (planning unit MD-5f- Rogue Valley Manor). Applicant: Rogue Valley Manor; Agent: Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc.; Planner Carla Angeli Paladino.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Mansfield disclosed that he owns and lives in a residence in the neighborhood.  It is his belief it will not affect his fairness in voting 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.
 
Carla Angeli Paladino, Principal Planner reported that the applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Paladino gave a staff report.  Ms. Paladino stated there have been over 32 emails or letters received to date from Exhibits P through RR in the report.  New Exhibits SS and TT were submitted and emailed to the Commission on Monday. Exhibit UU was submitted from the Medford Water Commission that was also emailed to the Commission. Staff received a letter from Cynthia Sheppard late today Exhibit VV that is on the dais for the Commission.  Also, a letter from Bruce Bauer.  His exhibit is already in the packet but he has provided the Commission another copy on the dais.  Out of the 32 letters or emails 12 are opposed to the development and 18 are in favor.  The ones that are opposed are concerned with added traffic, residential density numbers, and how it will affect the school.  
 
Commissioner Jordan asked, are the planned trails on South Stage and North Phoenix Road shown on the plans?  Ms. Paladino stated it is just in the written text because those trails are part of the cross section of a street but they are planned.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, has the amount of commercial land area changed?  Ms. Paladino stated it has increased.  Page 373 of the agenda packet talks about the existing what was adopted as part of the Urban Growth Boundary.  The commercial area originally was adopted at 60.6 acres and the proposed is 86.83 acres.  Service Commercial was at 14.81 acres and the proposal is at 21 acres.  The overlay of open space pieces will take away some of that.   
 
Chair McKechnie commented that the difference is that the applicant is proposing a significant amount of urban high density compared to the original plan.
 
Chair McKechnie asked, is the proposed map the way it will be or can it change?  Ms. Paladino stated that the proposal would change the General Land Use Plan map as shown in the proposal.      
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is the open space included in the calculation of the required number of units? Ms. Paladino responded no.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is SFR-6 and SFR-10 permitted in UR?  Ms. Paladino stated that she failed to say in her presentation that the UR is proposed to go to the SFR-4 zone.  Commissioner Pulver commented if that is the intended density of the UR is in the 2.5 to 4 range then they have to pick up the units somewhere else that necessitates the high density.  
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Brian McLemore, Pacific Retirement Services, 1 W. Main Street, #303, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. McLemore reported Rogue Valley Manor was built in 1961. It is one of the premier retirement communities on the west coast.  They have also built approximately 318 affordable housing units in Jackson County. They have tried to create a unique opportunity on this parcel.  They want to make sure the golf course works well with the neighborhood.  They want commercial and residential development.  The golf course is 120 acres and they have allowed room for stray golf balls to not put houses right on the 120 acre parcel.  From a transportation and planning perspective they connected Golf View and putting the multi-family housing in the upper northwest corner to allow access to the Manor and Asante down Golf View.  They had a neighborhood meeting several months ago and one of the changes they made was a stretch of land that was adjacent to the west homes and allowed a row of single family homes so they would not have apartments on the neighbors. 
     
Chair McKechnie asked, is the entire residential part a gated community or just the area around the golf course?  Mr. McLemore reported the course extends off to the left and the land that is already in the City has three golf holes.  The gated residential community will only be around the other 16 golf holes.    
 
b. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens and Associates, Inc., P. O. 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Stevens addressed questions regarding the commercial area of how much they were adding.  They incorporated the street circulation and followed the commercial area along North Phoenix Road and South Stage Road.  The service commercial was modified because of the open space requirement.  They could not extend the service commercial into that area with the existing open space and golf course.       
 
Commissioner Pulver is trying to understand the requirement to meet the number of units.  Mr. Stevens stated that when doing the percentages they did not have the 120 acre open space requirement at that time.  Doing their 19 percent that was required with the 56 percent residential and 25 percent commercial those numbers would probably work.  The 19 percent equates to 79 acres.  They have 41 acres that is somewhere else and that is why these numbers do not match because it will calculate where the commercial is.  They are giving up 40 acres of residential because of the open space calculation.  Commissioner Pulver thought he heard Ms. Paladino say that the open space is not part of the calculation.  Mr. Stevens stated that it took them out of the residential calculation.  There is additional land that is not being developed for a safety zone that is roughly 30 acres.      
 
Mr. Stevens reserved rebuttal time.
 
c. Bruce Bauer, 1249 La Loma, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  He does not know if this is the proper hearing to address his concerns.  Chair McKechnie stated that the concerns in his letter would be addressed at a later hearing specifically when they discuss roads through the property, design of houses and layout of streets.  Those would be discussed at a Site Plan and Architectural Commission hearing or it may be back to the Planning Commission for a zone change or a subdivision plat.  That is not what is being discussed this evening.
 
d. Norma Novy, 3100 Alameda Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Novy asked if Juanipero was one of the streets that bordered the subject property.  Chair McKechnie reported it is at the northeast corner.  Open space to her is a contiguous open space.  She is concerned about the height of the building whether two story or three story to get the residential requirement, view of the mountains and how close are the residents going to be to Juanipero. Chair McKechnie stated that is a question the Planning Commission cannot answer because they do not have that information.  She is concerned about the noise, pollution, loss of wildlife and she would be happy to have fewer residential multi-family homes.     
 
e. Linda Smith, 2809 Sonnet Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Smith is sad the pheasant will move once the development starts.  It seems greedy for 117 acres to build that much housing.  She is concerned about the future of Medford for the air quality and traffic.  There are not enough schools.
 
f. Cynthia Sheppard, 1221 La Loma Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Sheppard submitted a letter right before the meeting.  It is her understanding that the area that the applicant rearranged will be three story apartments.  Chair McKechnie stated the Planning Commission does not know that.  The height limit in Medford for any kind of housing is 35 feet.  
 
g. Andrea Cordova, 1231 La Loma Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Cordova asked the Commission if they are voting on the lay out she requests they reconsider.  The way it is laid out currently is concerning to her.   
 
h. Hank Levin, 3100 Alameda Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  To Mr. Levin referring to the golf greens as open space is going to be enclosed by houses.  There is something insincere about it.  They will not see the open space from Juanipero or Phoenix Road.  His understanding that on Juanipero there will be a gated community.  He is worried they will block off the mountain view that is seen from much of that area.    
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, are MFR structures limited to 35 feet?  Ms. Paladino replied yes.  Commissioner Pulver asked, are there exceptions of MFR structures in commercial zones? Chair McKechnie replied except in the Central Business District.     
 
Mr. McLemore addressed the open space stating that on Juanipero they are planning a small number of lots.  The hole that runs along par 5 is 600 yards so they will build 100 yards down that hole so it will remain open space.  Their plan is not to wall it off.  The plan for Golf View is the 7th and 8th hole.  The road will be adjacent to the golf course.  Going towards the south one will be able to see the 5th hole and pond.  There are no homes adjacent to that.   
 
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 to the City Council per the staff report dated June 18, 2020, including Exhibits A through VV for approval of UP-19-004, and adopting Exhibit A-3 into the Neighborhood Element of the Comprehensive Plan.           
 
Moved by: Vice Chair Foley                         Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Chair McKechnie was concerned about putting urban high density in the northwest corner of the site but since he sees Golf View is a direct link further up is a great place to put higher density because it will impact the rest of the neighborhood around in a minimal way.    
 
Commissioner McManus commented that it is good to see public involvement.  He appreciates from Pacific Retirement Services as well as Rogue Valley Manor being they are locally vested and not new.  The encouragement for them to be a long standing neighbor has been apparent from their existing development.  Hopefully the people that submitted their testimony as well as those attending tonight take the opportunity to meet with the applicant as well as the City to make this more collaborative.  This is a large development and the applicant is wanting to obtain the same quality the neighborhood wants.  He will be voting in favor of the application.     
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that he remembers when most of the area was bare.  Medford survived the developments and is a great place to live.  Everything seen tonight is growing in Medford not in the forests.  He does not think it is ruining the City of Medford.  There are openings on the Planning Commission periodically and if anyone is interested in planning make an application to the City and can have a say in what is happening.  This plan is well thought out.   
 
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, June 19, 2020.  They had four agenda items and two were carry overs from the previous meeting.  He deferred the report to Ms. Evans since he was unable to attend. 
 
Ms. Evans reported they approved a 9,000 square foot commercial structure located at 5274 Crater Lake Avenue; Construction of Joseph Office Park – Building III, a 8,400 square foot building located at 3531 East Barnett Road; Construction of an 82,600 square foot, four-story hotel with 132 rooms on located at 3519 Heathrow Way; and Construction of the Hotel at the Cedars, a proposed five story, 65,353 square foot, hotel located at 2399 South Pacific Highway.  
 
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
60.3 Planning Department
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported there is business scheduled for Thursday, July 9, 2020 and Thursday, July 23, 2020.
 
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER
60.2 Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission met yesterday, Wednesday, June 24, 2020.  The Commission is being asked to create a six year plan of the Tier One projects.  They will be working on that for the next couple of meetings and make a recommendation along with the budget to City Council.  They forwarded a favor recommendation to City Council to stop TPR Subsection (11) of creating separate language in the code alleviating traffic requirements for special projects. 
 
70.      Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.
 
80.      City Attorney Remarks. 
80.1 Mr. Mitton thanked Ms. Evans for cleaning the podium after each speaker.  He appreciates everyone getting through the meeting with the public.  It was great to be back in person.  With social distancing they got it done.
               
90.      Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. 
90.1 Commissioner Pulver has concerns whether open spaces are truly a benefit to the public or a byproduct of development. 
 
There seems to be a consistent theme of neighborhood objections to growth such as not wanting density and issues relating to parking.  The State is pushing an agenda for other modes of transportation and higher density.  He encouraged staff to say this is not a universal view that is being shoved on the Commission.  He thinks there is dissenting opinion that does not seem to be heard.  The Commission hears about it without a means to accommodate because of meeting the required density.            
 
100.    Adjournment
101.  The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:31 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: July 9, 2020

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

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top