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 Study Session Minutes

Monday, May 11, 2015

The study session of the Medford Planning Commission was called to order at noon in the Lausmann Annex Room 151-157 on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
Commissioners Present
David McFadden, Chair
Patrick Miranda, Vice Chair
Chris MacMillan
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
Jared Pulver
Alec Schwimmer
Commissioners Absent
Norman Fincher, Excused Absence
Tim D’Alessandro, Excused Absence
Staff Present
Jim Huber, Planning Director
Bianca Petrou, Assistant Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
John Adam, Senior Planner
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Aaron Harris, Planner II
Joe Slaughter, Planner IV
Alex Georgevitch, Acting City Engineer
Megan LeNier Wattier
Greg Holmes
1.            DCA-15-052 “Spring Cleaning” 2015 code amendment
2.            CP-14-114 UGB Amendment, Phase 2
1.  DCA-15-052 “Spring Cleaning” 2015 code amendment
John Adam, Senior Planner reported that for the last several years’ staff has been doing housekeeping amendments on a regular basis.  The current Code does not allow brew pubs in downtown.
Aaron Harris, Planner II, reported that staff is presenting four code amendments at the June 11, 2015, Planning Commission meeting.  The amendments are intended to: 1) Allow the use “Brewery-Public House” in all commercial zoning districts except the C-S/P; 2) Allow a new industrial use in the C-H zoning district; 3) Grant staff the authority to add referral agencies to the schedule of referral agency distribution; and 4) Modify Section 10.667(A)(3) Security for Public Improvements language and protocol. 

1.            Brewery-Public House – An establishment where beer is brewed and served on site.  A brewery-public house requires a brewery public-house license issued by the State of Oregon and is subject to all conditions set forth in ORS 471.200.
This will permit retail sales of malt beverages, wine, and cider both on and off premises.  It also permits wholesale sales to other OLCC licensees if the license holder produced 5,000 barrels or less of malt beverages in the preceding calendar year.
Chair McFadden asked what is the difference with this use from a tavern?  Mr. Harris replied that it allows brewing beer on-site.
Commissioner McKechnie asked why did staff decide not to include brewery-public house in Commercial Service Professional (C-S/P) zoning districts?  Mr. Harris replied because of the nature of the use.  Commissioner McKechnie stated that eating and drinking establishments are allowed in Commercial Service Professional zones.  He does not see a problem with allowing a brewery-public house in a Commercial Service Professional zone.
Commissioner Pulver asked if there were certain criteria that have to be met when determining which zone.  Mr. Harris replied that it is open for discussion.  Commissioner Pulver stated that it is his opinion that it makes more sense to allow brewery-public houses in light industrial zones more than neighborhood commercial because they are manufacturing the product on site.  Mr. Adam replied that staff did not work with any specific criteria.
Commissioner McKechnie reported that drinking places are already allowed in the zoning districts and a brewery is a drinking place.
Vice Chair Miranda stated that the state regulates whether or not it is a pub or not based on its volume.  If it reaches a certain volume, it is not commercial, it is industrial.  He can see it in a C-S/P zone.
Alex Georgevitch, Transportation Manager, stated that Public Works does not get involved in the presented table.  They do get involved in the transportation impacts of this table.  C-S/P zones in the past have been argued by the development community that it is a different zone.  It is a confined end zone which is unique in Public Works’ system.  The development community successfully argued that they should have less trip associated with them.  If there is going to be additional uses then those trips will go back up.  C-S/P has primarily been office type of developments.
2.            Allow a new industrial use in the C-H zoning district.  This is an addition to Use Table 34 that is Fabricated Metal Products.  The proposed use is cutlery, hand tools, and hardware in the C-H zoning district.
Commissioner Pulver asked if this came from a citizen request?  Mr. Adam stated that someone asked the question and when research was being done staff looked at the uses and determined that it should be allowed in C-H zone.
3.            Modify Section 10.667(A)(3) Security for Public Improvements language and protocol.  The language would read “(3) An irrevocable letter of credit, or assignment of deposit or loan disbursement agreement from a bank or savings and loan association, redeemable at a location within the State of Oregon.”  This provides developers with greater flexibility and addresses developer complaints.         
Chair McFadden stated that it is his opinion that the developers had concerns regarding the security without costing so much.  Mr. Georgevitch reported that the cost is different than this particular amendment.  It is a different issue.  The dilemma with the cost of the security is based on the construction cost.  The reason this was brought up is the expiration date of the bond and the redeemable location.
4.            Grant staff the authority to add referral agencies to the schedule of referral agency distribution.  This process is for simplification.
Vice Chair Miranda stated that this is at the discretion of staff that an agency can be added but not removed.  Does that imply that once an agency is added, it becomes permanent, or added just for that notification?  Bianca Petrou, Assistant Planning Director replied that it is just for that particular notification.
2.  CP-14-114 UGB Amendment, Phase 2  
Ms. Petrou reported that this item is on the study session agenda in case the Planning Commissioners had questions after receiving the agenda packet for Thursday, May 14, 2015, regarding the UGB Amendment.  The agenda packet included the memorandum from 1000 Friends of Oregon and several other items that would cause the Planning Commission to remove the 175 acres.
Commissioner Pulver asked if staff tried to follow existing tax lot lines?  Ms. Petrou stated that it was for ease.
Mr. Adam reported that it was working through legislation.  The problem is if land is zoned Exclusive Farm Usage (EFU) it cannot be lot line adjusted to fewer than 80 acres.
Joe Slaughter, Planner IV, stated that there is a piece of MD-3, in Alternative 2, that does not follow a tax lot.  The rest of the recommendations follow tax lot lines.
Properties with houses on them are not counted in the land need because they are already developed.
All of MD-6 is employment land.  Commercial or industrial are the only two classifications that can be put on MD-6.
Commissioner Pulver commented that the requirement for annexation is that a master plan be submitted.  He needs assurance that the master plan is an appropriate way that can be administered effectively and efficiently by the City.
Commissioner Pulver has concerns of the 6.6 density requirement language.
Mr. Slaughter stated that the master planning process needs to be done through the urban growth boundary expansion process in order to demonstrate compliance with the Regional Plan.
Ms. Petrou reported that the master plan is the plan map designation and possibly pre-zoning.  Instead of calling them a master plan they could be called a Neighborhood Plan.
Mr. Adam commented on the density obligation.  The Housing Element projected a density for the City of 6.3.  The land use density distribution was already planned.
Chair McFadden asked Megan LaNier how would her clients look at mixing density?  Ms. LaNier stated that larger lot developments are easier because they are easier to master plan.  The small developments are also different.  It depends on the surrounding areas.
Mr. Adam reported that doing a conceptual plan of the entire urban reserve there is a basic armature that has the density assumptions built in, the land use distribution and the land need if one builds on that armature.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
Submitted by:
Terri L. Rozzana, Recording Secretary

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


Share This Page

Back to Top