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.
City Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session Agenda and Minutes
Monday, September 24, 2018
The City Council and Planning Commission Study Session was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Prescott Room of the Medford Police Department on the above date with the following members and staff present:
Mayor Gary Wheeler; Councilmembers Clay Bearnson, Kay Brooks, Tim D’Alessandro, Dick Gordon, Tim Jackle, Kevin Stine, Kim Wallan, and Michael Zarosinski; Planning Commissioners Dave Culbertson, Joe Foley, Bill Mansfield, David McFadden, Mark McKechnie, E.J. McManus; Patrick Miranda, Alex Poythress, and Jared Pulver
Acting City Manager Ryan Martin; City Attorney Lori Cooper; Planning Director Matt Brinkley; Principal Planner Carla Paladino; Planner III Seth Adams; Deputy City Recorder Winnie Shepard
Planner III Seth Adams spoke regarding cottage housing.
• Cottage housing is defined as a cluster of houses centered around a common open space; average size is approximately 1000 square feet
• Benefits to cottages are home ownership, detached residences, sense of community and safety, shared costs for landscaping and maintenance and they are less expensive than traditional housing.
• Current obstacles are minimum lot sizes, maximum densities, minimum parking requirements, prohibition on residential pad lots and single-family units are prohibited in MFR zones
Council/Planning Commission Comments and Questions
• Ashland has a similar ordinance
• No developers currently interested specifically, although there are newer subdivisions with smaller lots
• Code regarding cottages was previously revised after issues were reported regarding common areas and the shared expenses
• Expense to build depends on the location; generally between $185 to $220 per square foot
• City could provide grants or incentives for new construction; new design standards would not apply to cottages and incentives would be based on the project
• Currently, MFR does not allow single family detached dwelling units
• Common areas should have standards and detailed restrictions
• Cottages generally have one to one and a half parking spaces, plus an allowance of one extra space for every two to four units
Mayor Wheeler requested objections toward moving forward with cottage housing.
Councilmember Zarosinski requested maintaining one and a half parking spaces with the possibility of modifying the parking standards in specific areas with transit availability. Councilmember Wallan agreed with and requested information from other cities regarding their parking regulations for cottages.
Councilmember Bearnson recommended incentives for developers; Councilmember Zarosinski suggested using the Construction Excise Tax funding.
Mr. Brinkley advised that Planning would be looking at various incentives programs which will be brought back to Council in the next several months.
Commissioner McKechnie noted that developers and builders tend to avoid infill projects because they are more complex, and the units are small. He recommended identifying areas that would qualify for infill projects and focus on making it easier and cheaper for the builders and developers.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Principal Planner Carla Paladino spoke regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
• Currently half the square footage of the residence or 900 square feet, whichever is less
• Built behind or within an existing SFR home
• One ADU allowed per lot; code could be revised to allow two units
• 50 ADUs built in the last 10 years; 170 in the last 20 years
o Possible incentives could be waiving or reducing SDC fees or offering financing options
• Potential regulation revisions
o Increasing ADUs from one to two units per lot
o Permit in multi-family and commercial zones
o Reduce off street parking requirements
o Increasing the percentage of the home accounted in determining ADU size
o Remove limitation of one door on front façade
o Require alley access be used for vehicular access to ADU
• Junior ADU
o Conversion of existing space within a SFR
o Generally less than 500 square feet and generally lack one utility such as a kitchen or bathroom
o Possible incentives could be waiving or reducing SDC fees, offering low-interest loans and/or providing permit ready designs
Council/Planning Commission Comments and Questions
• Junior ADUs are conversions of existing space within the home; not separate from the structure
• SDC fees can be somewhat prohibitive; Councilmember Gordon noted two constituents reported SDC fees of $7,000 and $10,000 for their ADUs
• Temporary changes on the regulatory side may make sense
• Handle issues relating to affordable housing through a separate process
• Commissioner Culbertson advised that construction could run as inexpensive as $75 per square foot
• Economic incentives should be regulated
o Could have different regulations for existing and new ADUs
o Should look at expense of the SDC fees
• Allowing two ADU units on one property
o Commissioners McKechnie and Pulver were against two units
o Councilmember Bearnson and Commissioner Poythress weren’t against two ADUs on a lot, but it should depend on the lot size
Ms. Paladino clarified that staff would look at incentives for building, including SDC incentives, looking at the CET program, expanding ADUs to other zones, and provide more information on one versus two units.
Ms. Paladino provided a brief review of the urbanization plans as discussed during the September 13, 2018 Council study session:
Planning is drafting a major comprehensive plan amendment and a development code amendment. The Council and Planning Commission recommended the following:
• Written consent of owners
• Neighborhood meeting
• Concept plans during UBG process
• Impact on the annexation process
• Adopt a new land use process
• Applicable to new expansion areas
• Help regulate and ensure compliance with the Regional Plan
Overview of the plans
• Plans must comply with the Regional Plan
• Plans required for each planning unit
• Adopt prior or concurrently with the annexation
• Pre-application required
• Plans require 50% of property owners and 50% of the total property area
• Changes to the GLUP or Higher Order Streets considered
• Submittal requirements outlined in Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code
• Neighborhood meetings
In response to Commissioner Pulver, Mr. Brinkley noted that the Regional Plan allows the transfer densities from the unincorporated UGB as well as the area brought in through the URA.
• Show compliance with minimum gross density
• Provide transportation circulation map
• Comply with open space requirements
• Comply with mixed use/pedestrian friendly
• Coordinating with public utilities, other agencies, and identifying historic areas
Allowances to rearrange GLUP designations and changing the GLUP from less intense to more intense density.
Amendments would happen over time, would require the 50/50 requirement and any amendment would replace the previously adopted plan.
Hearings are tentative scheduled for October 11 for the Planning Commission and for Council on November 15.
Council/Planning Commission Comments and Questions
Mayor Wheeler noted that the City is on a fairly aggressive schedule to move things through before the end of the year.
Councilmember Zarosinski voiced concerns about the 50/50 requirement, specifically in areas in which there were multiple small property owners and a single landowner with a large amount of property; Commissioners Miranda and Culbertson agreed. Mr. Brinkley clarified that conceptual plans could be not be radically changed without going back to the county. The percentages are based on a market study that was done in 2007.
Commissioner Pulver clarified that during the neighborhood meetings, anyone could object. There has been flexibility throughout the MD process.
Ms. Paladino advised that the urbanization process and the 50/50 recommendation is the City’s and can be revised.
Commissioner Miranda noted that if an urbanization plan is approved, there is no obligation for all the property owners to develop within any specific time period and the plan can be revised/modified in the future.
Property owners could appeal the decision through the state, but hopefully property owners participate in the meetings to avoid conflict. Mr. Brinkley clarified that these were land use actions and could be appealed.
No one objected to using current hearing schedule.
Councilmember Zarosinski stated that Council heard a motion and a recommendation that came from the Planning Commission. There was also a hearing with non-profit agencies after which the Planning Commission’s recommendation was revised. He questioned Planning Commission’s intention with forming a recommendation and then asking for additional information.
Commissioner Foley explained that Planning Commission heard testimony from non-profits and it was the general consensus that the Planning Department had enough information to make a recommendation. Maslow Project voiced concerns regarding teenagers and longer term transitional housing. Planning Commission knew the Council’s study session was soon and thought the basics provided to the Planning Department were pretty good.
Councilmember Stine commented that were two different scenarios provided; one for 15 or fewer residents and one for 16 or more. Commissioners did not recall that scenario.
Councilmember Jackle remarked that it appeared that the Commission’s intention was to take the recommendations from the non-profits and change the ordinance. Commissioner McFadden did not recall that as the intention with his motion.
Commissioner Foley reported that Maslow Project requested additional time to provide feedback, the Commission knew it was coming forward to Council and thought Maslow could attend the Council meeting and present there. Commissioner McManus recalled that Maslow’s input didn’t seem material and would be more of a recommendation. Commissioner Miranda stated Maslow had concerns with the proposed safety searches. They thought the searches were of individuals, when the searches were to search for building and safety code violations.
Mr. Brinkley advised that after the non-profit input, two options were provided to Council.
Councilmember Gordon voiced concern that this was a complicated issue and wished the Commission had reviewed it again, before it came before Council. He also recalled a different number of days within a year that shelters could be open.
Mr. Brinkley questioned to revise the Code to change the number of days the shelters could be open. After discussion, Council and the Planning Commission agreed to leave the language “as is”, because the City Manager has the discretion to extend the time period.
The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Deputy City Recorder