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 Agenda and Minutes

Monday, May 08, 2017

The study session of the Medford Planning Commission was called to order at 12:05 p.m. in the Lausmann Annex Room 151-157 on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
Commissioners Present
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
E. J. McManus
Commissioners Absent
Mark McKechnie, Unexcused Absence 
Alex Poythress, Excused Absence           
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Kyle Kearns, Planner II
20.1        DCA-15-088 – Article II Reorganization
NOTE: The recorder at this meeting had a malfunction and did not record the meeting.  The notes were taken from staff’s PowerPoint Presentation and from staff members in attendance.
Kyle Kearns, Planner II, reported that the major articles of the Medford Land Development Code are:
•             Article I – General Provisions
•             Article II – Procedural Requirements
•             Article III – Zoning Districts
•             Article IV – Public Improvement Standards
•             Article V – Site Development Standards
•             Article VI - Signage
The Medford Land Development Code was adopted in 1987 with only minor changes to Article II in 30 years.
Typical code amendments pertain to land use/zoning and development.
There have been many changes in Planning in 30 years.
The lack of updates to Article II means:
•             Language is out of date
•             Procedures have changed
•             Procedures are outdated
The proposed changes within Article II are meant to create an easier and more adaptable Land Use Code to meet the needs of planning as it is today.
The following updates to Article II include:
•             Re-organization
•             Format Changes
•             Tentative Land Divisions/Partitions
•             Removal of Submittal Criterion
•             Updates to the entire Medford Land Development Code
A portion of the update is required to create an Article II that is easier to follow and read.  It includes:
•             Combination of related sections
•             Moved Sections from Article I to Article II; 10.021, 10.031, 10.052, and 10.056
•             Deleted redundant or unnecessary language.
Another portion of the update is proposed to create a more current land use code with current planning practices.  It includes:
•             Change plan authorization to land use action or review
•             Proposing procedural typed to change to:
•             Class A and B become Type IV
•             Class C becomes Type III
•             Class D becomes Type II
•             Class E becomes Type I
•             Changed Language to simpler terms
•             Converted masculine pronouns (he to neutral (they) words
Tentative Land Divisions/Partitions are currently Class C land use actions.
The proposal makes:
•             Partitions (3 or less parcels) a Type II Land Use Action
•             Land Divisions (>3 parcels) remains Type III (Class C)
Partitions are often simple in nature with little discretion needed to achieve approval.
Other changes include:
•             Removal of submittal criteria
•             Updated to the entire Medford Land Development Code
The next steps are as follows:
•             Send to agencies for comment
•             Ensure ORS compliance/consistency
•             Planning Commission hearing
The Planning Commission discussed the changes that pertain to tentative land divisions and partitions.
Vice Chair McFadden and Commissioner Foley raised concerns about controversial applications, including a particular case on White Oak Drive where there was a high amount of discretion needed as it was a concern of surrounding neighbors.  They were concerned that taking land partitions away from the Planning Commission review may cause some issues in the future for more complex cases and the lack of a public hearing.  Staff pointed out that partition applications accompanied by an Exception, such as the White Oak application, would go to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of adding a number threshold of citizen comments that would trigger a public hearing.  The Planning Commission acknowledged this cannot be a criteria.
The Commission asked staff to double check it is in fact just the simple partitions that would be going to the Planning Director for review.
It was asked, can the Planning Director submit to the Planning Commission for assistance on tougher cases?  Commissioner Mansfield pointed out that it is possible to give the Planning Director the authority to forward applications to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.  Staff agreed to add language to that effect.
The Planning Commission asked, would this have any effect on the 120 day rule?  Staff stated it will not.  Part of this proposal is to give the Planning Commission appeal authority in partitions.  The City Council would not hear this kind of appeal, the next step would be LUBA.
The Planning Commission was generally supportive of the changes to land partitions.
The Planning Commission was generally supportive of the overall changes to Article II with not much in terms of substantive comments
The Planning Commission gave some direction regarding more specific changes to Article II procedures.  They want the amendments in two phases:
•             Phase 1: What staff is currently doing
•             Phase 2: Specific procedural requirements such as changes to the Site Plan and Architectural
Commission review, conditional use permit process and other changes be done separately from this code amendment.
Staff noted receipt of comments from CSA Planning received this morning.  They would like to make changes to specific application procedures, particularly the conditional use permit.  Staff agreed with the Planning Commission’s direction to limit the amendment to reorganization at this time.
30.          Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 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