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, September 14, 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
David Culbertson
Norman Fincher
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
Jared Pulver
Commissioner Absent
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
Carla Paladino, Planner IV
  1. DCA-15-103 Housekeeping 2015
Carla Paladino, Planner IV, reported that the Planning Department proposed six text amendments to Chapter 10 of the Land Development code.  These are code sections that staff has identified that need clarification or revisions in order to more effectively administer the code provisions.
  1. Clarify if duplexes are allowed in SFR-10 zone regardless of density.
Duplexes are permitted in SFR-10 but must meet density.  It does not need to be separated by a lot line.
Chair McFadden asked if there would need to be an adjustment for corner lots?  Ms. Paladino reported that there is no distinction in SFR-10 for corner lots.  Usually corner lots are larger.
     2. Clarify attached units and related parking.
Add duplex and townhouse to the parking table.  Allow required front yard to count for parking.
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the property line is back to back to the sidewalk?  Ms. Paladino replied yes. 
     3.  Amend calculation of required yard.
Building height calculation for required side and rear yard on detached single family dwelling.  The current code is the yard is determined by height of front wall of building. 
Option #1 – Increase measurement from 15 feet to 18 feet and calculate each side; and Option #2 – Use stories instead of height
CSA Planning sent in two options: Option #1 is to change the ½ foot rule to a ¼ foot rule; and Option #2 splits it per zone.
Commissioner Mansfield asked what does the industry desire and also the interest of staff administering it?  What recommendations do they have to these various options as to which one they prefer?   Ms. Paladino reported the simplest one is the story one, unless it gets complicated with slope or walkout basement.  The definition of story covers all that.  Staff does not get paper plans anymore.  It is all electronic and scaling from there.  Hopefully, measurements will be given with the plans submitted.  This is Option #2 from staff.
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, stated that they need to be careful that they have had a minimum 4 foot setback for a long time.  They do not want to make their minimum 5 or 6 feet because then they have 90% of the City as non-conforming.
Commissioner Foley asked what were the ramifications of non-conformities?  Ms. Akin reported that it is something else to manage.  They are messy.
Commissioner Pulver stated that a higher density in the higher zones resonated with him.  Also, possibly closer lot line on one side allowing the neighbor to have a larger lot.  He is thinking possibly a total of 12 feet side yard setback. 
Commissioner Culbertson asked why SFR-10 was in this group and not classified with a medium density with 15?  The footprint on those is so small.  John Adam, Principal Planner, reported that medium density designation and the MFR-15 were late comers to this scheme.  They had low density and high density.  When the medium was created it may have been envisioned that SFR-10 would someday be moved into that category.
Jim Huber, Planning Director, reported that staff considered moving SFR-10 into the GLUP designation UM.  In doing GIS work they found there were over a thousand lots with SFR-10 zoning.  It is doable but it would be a huge zone change application.  It is not a priority at this time.  It is his opinion that it would be very controversial.
Ms. Paladino stated that she has heard a range of items but not one specific option.  Is this something that the Planning Commission would like to pull from this and discuss it more or have staff bring back something different or point to and run with?  She has heard talking to builders about this, looking at a combination of story plus the height, looking at the total number, buffer between SFR-6 and SFR-10 zones. She is asking the Planning Commission for direction.
Commissioner Mansfield repeated himself that it is time to hear from the industry. 
Commissioner Foley requested staff to bring back some scenarios of this impact on existing developed neighborhoods.
Commissioner Culbertson asked if anyone liked the calculation of ½ foot per foot over 18 as opposed to trying to go to some sort of uniform single story so many foot setback?
Vice Chair Miranda reported that he likes the simplification.  It is easy to manage, enforce, track and adjust.  He leans towards that option. 
Ms. Paladino stated that maybe the question is if one goes to a two-story in an existing neighborhood what is a reasonable setback for the neighbor that may not have a two-story.                 
     4.  Lot Legality.
Outlines a process to validate an illegal lot; reference statutes; identify actions and dates that created lawful lots and list types of unauthorized lots.
     5.  Amend development code amendment criteria.
Remove Criterion #1 – Conformity with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines.
     6.  Delete the definition of private garage.
Remove private and public garage from the definition section.
Commissioner Foley asked when will the marijuana-related business code amendment go before the City Council?  Mr. Akin reported October 1, 2015 or October 15, 2015.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 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