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 27, 2019

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
Joe Foley, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Bill Mansfield
David McFadden
E.J. McManus
Jared Pulver
Jeff Thomas (left at 7:44 p.m.)
 
Commissioners Absent
Patrick Miranda, Excused Absence
Mark McKechnie, Chair, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Doug Burroughs, Development Serv. Mgr.
Steve Parks, Deputy Fire Marshal               
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Liz Conner, Planner II
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV
Kyle Kearns, Planner II
Seth Adams, Planner III
 
10.       Roll Call
 
20.       Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
 
20.1   LDP-19-055 / ZC-19-003 Final Orders of a request for tentative plat approval of a proposed two-lot partition of a 6.20-acre parcel, along with a request for a change of zone from Light-Industrial (I-L) to Regional Commercial (C-R) of a 1.90-acre portion of the total 6.20-acre parcel, located at 590 Airport Road (372W12A1102). Applicant: Sedona Properties, LLC; Agent: CSA Planning Ltd; Planner: Dustin Severs.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.         
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
30.       Minutes
30.1   The minutes for June 13, 2019, were approved as submitted.
 
40.       Oral and Written Requests and Communications. None. 
 
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney read the Quasi-Judicial statement. 
 
50.     Public Hearings – Continuance Request
50.1 ZC-18-189 Consideration of a request for a zone change of a 1.89-acre parcel located at 4199 Rachel Way from SFR-00 (Single-Family Residential, one dwelling unit per lot) to SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential, four dwelling units per gross acre) (371W22400). Applicant: Jane Erin Griffin-Hagle; Planner: Dustin Severs.  The applicant has requested to continue this item to the Thursday, July 11, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.
 
Vice Chair Foley stated that if there are members in the audience that have come to testify on this agenda item and can-not attend the July 11th hearing, please come forward and the Planning Commission will hear your testimony at this time.  Please keep in mind that it is possible that your questions may be answered when staff presents their staff report on July 11th.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued ZC-18-189, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, July 11, 2019, Planning Commission meeting.            
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
Old Business
50.2 LDS-19-029 Consideration of a tentative plat for an 11 lot subdivision on approximately 2 acres within the SFR-6 (Single Family Residential – 6 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district, located on the north side of Sunset Drive approximately 415 feet west of Thomas Road (372W35DC Tax Lot 3300). Applicant: Gary McFarlane and Timothy McFarlane; Agent: Neathamer Surveying Inc.; Planner, Liz Conner.
 
Vice Chair Foley inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Vice Chair Foley inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Liz Conner, Planner II 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.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report. 
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, Inc., 3126 State Street, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Neathamer re-ported that based on the submitted application, the prepared staff report and presentation this evening the applicant believes they have met the approval criteria and respectfully requests the Planning Commission to approve the application.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, was it the County that recommended against using the name Ione Street and has a re-placement name been assigned?  Mr. Neathamer reported that came from City staff.  The applicant has submitted other names.      
 
Mr. Neathamer reserved rebuttal time.
 
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 LDS-19-029 per the Revised Staff Report dated June 20, 2019, including Exhibits A through O.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner McManus
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
New Business
50.3 CUP-19-036 / E-19-037 Consideration for a Conditional Use Permit application to allow a new wireless communication facility consisting of a 100-foot support structure and associated equipment cabinets use for communication systems. The Applicant has submitted an associated Exception Application requesting relief from side and rear yard setback on a 1.44 acre parcel zoned C-H (Heavy Commercial) located on the west side of North Central Avenue at the intersection of Maple Street and North Central Avenue (372W24DD TL 4401). Applicant: New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC; Agent: SmartLink LLC; Planner: Liz Conner. This application has been withdrawn.
 
50.4 Consider amending the use table and require conditional use permits for gas stations in proximity to residential areas.  Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Kelly Evans.
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission recently heard an application to locate a convenience store with a gas station and car wash in a commercial zone but within a predominantly residential area.  The use is permitted outright and not conditional.  While the Site Plan and Architectural Commission has a great deal of latitude in determining compliance with their first criterion – whether a proposed use is compatible with its neighboring uses and development – they found that the conditions they were able to place on permitted uses insufficient to mitigate anticipated impacts.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, was the “push back” on the gas station or car wash?  Commissioner Culbertson reported that concerns were transients at the convenience store.   Concerns were raised with the emissions from the gas station not being healthy.  The lighting was going to be a problem.  The Site Plan and Architectural Commission addressed that stating the applicant would need to submit a photometric analysis.  The coffee kiosk was not mentioned except for the amount of cars lining up before going into the street.  That was the bulk of the first hearing.  Commissioner Culbertson was not in attendance at the second hearing. 
 
Ms. Evans reported that the fuel station was the crux for the Site Plan and Architectural Commission to request the Planning Commission initiate a text amendment.  Ms. Evans was reminded that normally the Planning Commission would have a study session and that might be the direction the Planning Commission would like to direct staff.         
 
Vice Chair Foley stated a study session would be helpful to better understand the issues. 
 
Commissioner Pulver commented that he would not be in favor of staff spending anytime on this.  It is either in favor of commercial in residential working together or not.  The Site Plan and Architectural Commission has mechanisms to help facilitate that happening.  It is a poor use of staff’s time.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked Commissioner Pulver was he favoring the amendment to put it into a Conditional Use Permit or leave as is?  Commissioner Pulver wants to leave the code as is.  
 
Commissioner Culbertson reported that when the application came to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission that parcel came before the Planning Commission for a zone change.  One person testified opposing the zone change.  The zone change was approved.  With the zone changed, the recent application on its merits, should have been approved unanimously.  There was no requirement for a conditional use permit for what the applicant was wanting to do because they fell within the guidelines of the code.  Ms. Evans stopped Commissioner Culbertson because the issue has not be resolved with that specific case.  An appeal has been filed.  It is still an active land use application at this time.  Commissioner Culbertson needs to speak to the issue generally and not to the application specifically.  Commissioner Culbertson continued that the concern of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission is that if a property abuts a residential area they do not have the mechanisms to require a conditional use.  The Site Plan and Architectural Commission is asking that the conditional use table be altered to give them the ability to decide whether or not something is compatible next to a residential area.
 
Vice Chair Foley stated that if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to testify on this item the Planning Commission would hear their testimony.  He suggested this item be moved to a Planning Commission study session to get facts. 
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that the discussion so far has proven it needs further discussion in a study session. 
 
Motion: The Planning Commission directed staff to bring this item forward in a Planning Commission study session.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Friendly amendment made by Commissioner Mansfield: Also instruct staff to bring this item forward to a study session. 
 
Commissioner McManus recommended that Site Plan and Architectural Commission members be invited to the study session.
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-1-0, with Commissioner Pulver voting no.
 
50.5 DCA-19-001 An amendment to portions of Chapter 10, the Medford Land Development Code (MLDC) to make housekeeping corrections and other changes related to housing and density. Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Sarah Sousa.
 
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV 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. Sousa gave a staff report.  There are three options the Planning Commission needs to consider:
 
1)  Remove all locational criteria for the SFR-10 zone; or
2)  Reduce the locational criteria to allow the SFR-10 zone if a property is within 200 feet or if one acre or more (cur-rent requirement is abutting or 5 acres); or
3)  Keep current proposal to allow SFR-10 zone if another property is within 200 feet of if the property is 3 acres or more. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, does staff expect an answer on the three options this evening or is it something in the future?  Ms. Sousa stated that staff would like the Planning Commission to choose one of the options to include with their recommendation to the City Council. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that it was clear from the study session that the Commission is not unanimous on the locational requirements for SFR-10. Someone needs to make a motion then discussion.  Vice Chair Foley reported they need to have discussion first, open the public hearing then they can get to Commissioner Mansfield’s statement.  Vice Chair Foley agrees there has been dissension and there needs to be discussion.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Harland reported that if at least 70% on SFR-4 of the area proposed to be rezoned exceeds a slope of 12% or greater the 70% is high.  Mr. Harland suggested adding 50% “or as approved in a neighborhood plan”.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Main Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not applicable, initiates the amendment and forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of DCA-19-001 to the City Council per the staff report dated June 20, 2019, including Exhibits A through H, for the locational criteria for SFR-10 recommends Option 3 and the locational criteria for SFR-4 area be reduced from 70% to 50%.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner Thomas
 
Commissioner Pulver recommended to eliminate all locational criteria being proposed for SFR-4.  SFR-4 is an important zone.  With the urbanization plans he proposes some of the locational criteria of MD-2 be eliminated to allow creativity.  Still requiring the density requirement. 
 
Commissioner Pulver proposed tabling the locational criteria for SFR-10.  They have discussed moving SFR-10 into medium density classification and GLUP. 
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that the duplex maximum density table Code Sections 10.309 and 10.310 allowing double density is excessive.  He believes 1.5 times the maximum makes more sense. 
 
Commissioner Pulver does not want to go in contrast with the Fire Department but the setback issue related to daylight basement homes using the back measurement seems excessive.  The middle makes more sense.  It is a safety issue and if the home builders agree then he is good with that. 
 
Commissioner Pulver does not think detached duplexes should be permitted.       
 
Amended Motion #1: Amend the main motion for the SFR-10 locational criteria by substituting Option 3 with Option 1.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                      Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, are Options 1 and 3 opposite Option 2 in the SFR-10 locational criteria?  He is not sure all areas should be opened for SFR-10.  He does not like separating SFR-10.  He cannot look at the three Options and figure out which one is the better answer.    
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, does the current code read that a parcel has to abut SFR-10 and has to be 5 acres or greater?  Ms. Sousa replied that it has to be one or the other of those two.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that his reason for selecting Option 1 instead of Option 3 is that it will advance the cause of increasing density.    
 
Commissioner Culbertson thinks there could be an Option 4 that retain the code as it is.  Reject all three options. 
 
Ms. Sousa reported that another option would be to keep the abutting rule but reduce the acreage. 
 
Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion #1: Motion failed, 1-6-0 with Commissioner Culbertson, Commissioner McFadden, Commissioner McManus, Commissioner Pulver, Commissioner Thomas and Vice Chair Foley voting no.
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, is it possible to make a motion to have no recommendation on the SFR-10 locational criteria Options to the City Council especially if there really is no agreement or if trying to put something together quickly.  Mr. Mitton reported that is possible.  There could be a motion to amend to remove any recommendation number and state the Planning Commission is moving it forward providing no feedback on the three options. 
 
Commissioner Thomas has concerns with a motion on the fly without a lot of thought. 
 
Commissioner Pulver does not know what the rest of the Commissioner’s think.  He would not mind if each Commissioner commented where they stand to see if there is any consensus.  Mr. Mitton replied that is discussion and then the Commission could decide the motion to amend.    
 
Commissioner McManus commented that he is not comfortable forwarding a favorable recommendation.  As a collective body they need to understand where the goals are being met as a City regarding density. 
 
Commissioner Thomas is not clear what direction the City Council wants from the Planning Commission to hit density goals and targets moving forward.
 
Vice Chair Foley is comfortable with Option 3.  It is close to what is current.  He likes the suggestion from Mr. Harland relating to SFR-4 allowing discussion on the new lands coming in and the density discussion around that.  Making the SFR-4 criteria easier to manage than what was presented to the Commission.  His suggestion had a lot of merit.  
 
Commissioner McFadden would like more information on this before making a decision. 
 
Commissioner Pulver commented that it needs more study.  He is going with no recommendation on this particular portion of the proposed amendments. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson is in favor of keeping the code the way it is currently.  His concern is that if the Commission forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council without a resolution on this portion they can pick and choose.  It is either the Planning Commission does not forward a favorable recommendation and send it back to and come up with a good resolution or figure out some way to come up with a criteria that is acceptable to the Body.  He is in favor of keeping the code the way it is and reducing the number of acreage that needs to go in.        
 
Commissioner Mansfield has nothing further to add.
 
Chair Foley asked, is it correct that no matter what the Planning Commission does this evening this will be scheduled on the City Councils agenda whether they forward a favorable or unfavorable recommendation?
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that there are other items besides the SFR-4 and SFR-10 issues.
 
Amended Motion #2: Make no changes to the SFR-10 locational criteria.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion #2: Motion failed, 3-4-0, with Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner McManus, Commissioner Thomas and Vice Chair Foley voting no.
 
Amended Motion #3: Option 5 for the SFR-10 locational criteria is decrease the required acreage to 3 acres but require the property to abut another SFR-10 zone property.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion #3: Motion passed, 5-2-0, with Commissioner McManus and Commissioner Thomas voting no.
 
Amended Motion #4: Do not move forward with the locational criteria for SFR-4.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion #4: Motion passed, 6-1-0, with Vice Chair Foley voting no.
 
Amended Motion #5: Sections 10.309 and 10.310 that the maximum density factors be decreased for SFR-4 from 8 to 6, SFR-6 from 12 to 9 and SFR-10 from 20 to 15. Instead of multiplying the maximum by a factor of 2 it is maximum of 1.5.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Commissioner Pulver’s intent is recognizing they are smaller units.  Double the maximum is an excessive strain on the zones.  
 
Commissioner McManus asked Commissioner Pulver is the reduction in the unit and everything else is the same and he is fine with that?  Commissioner Pulver shook his head yes.   
 
Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion #5: Motion passed, 6-1-0, with Commissioner Mansfield voting no.
 
Amended Motion #6: Section 10.713 Duplex Dwellings there was an added detached dwelling section that should be stricken.  He does not think that detached dwellings are the same thing as a duplex.  It should not be allowed. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                Seconded by: None
 
Ms. Sousa commented that it was moved from the base of the table into the main body.  The current language in the code allows two detached dwelling units in lieu of a duplex on an individual lot.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, it that an extension of the cottage housing?  Ms. Sousa reported it is existing language.  In SFR-10 if meeting the current density for two units they do not have to have an attached duplex they can have two detached homes.
 
Mr. Mitton reported that the key difference with cottage housing is this is describing two structures on a single lot owned by a single owner.  Cottage housing has the possibility for separate ownership.
 
Mr. Mitton stated that this particular provision is not new it is moving a footnote to the main body.  It is already in the code.  Removing it from the code is not on the table.  It has not been noticed to the public.      
 
Mr. Mitton restated the current motion on the table. That based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not applicable, initiates the amendment and forwards a favorable recommendation for approval of DCA-19-001 to the City Council per the staff report dated June 20, 2019, including Exhibits A through H, for the locational criteria for SFR-10 Option 5 is recommended that decreases the acreage to 3 acres but maintains the abutting requirement as opposed to a distance requirement;  the zone change locational requirements for SFR-4  be removed; Sections 10.309 and 10.310 the maximum density factors will be 1.5 times not 2 times so for SFR-4 it changes to 6, SFR-6 it changes to 9 and SFR-10 it changes to 15.   
 
Roll Call Vote on the Main Motion: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
50.6 DCA-18-180 An amendment to portions of Chapter 10, the Medford Land Development Code (MLDC) regarding the City’s transportation concurrency standards and Transportation Impact Analyses (TIAs) to implement the adopted 2018-2038 Transportation System Plan (TSP). Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Kyle Kearns.
 
Vice Chair Foley reported that this item will be continued but staff will present a staff report and receive testimony.  No decisions will be made this evening.
 
Kyle Kearns, Planner II 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.  Mr. Kearns gave a staff report. 
 
Vice Chair Foley does not recall what improvements were made at Pierce and Hillcrest.  Mr. Kearns stated that the improvements on Foothills prevented the needs at the intersection.  There were other improvements made that negated the need to improve those intersection.  Commissioner Pulver reported that McAndrews extension alleviated some of the traffic at that intersection. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, will there be another study session before the August 22, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing?  Mr. Kearns replied that staff has not discussed another study session.  It depends on how substantive the changes are. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, whether the decision to not allow for the use of the “Mega-Corridor” projects (N. Phoenix, Foothill, S. Stage overcrossing) in TIA analysis changes was directed by the State or internally?  Mr. Kearns stated it was a mix of both.  The City feels it being a Tier 1, in the TSP, gives it priority when pursuing funding opportunities; the City ran into problems in the past securing grant funding.  
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Harland provided comments on the proposed code amendment.  Mr. Harland’s comments addresses the code amendment implementing action item 4-a in the Transportation System Plan.  The staff report did not go through the OAR 660 rule of the Transportation Planning Rule item by item.   
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued DCA-18-180, per staff’s request, to the Thursday, August 22, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-0.
 
50.7 DCA-18-144 An amendment to portions of Chapter 10, the Medford Land Development Code (MLDC), to create standards that will allow for the development of cottage housing.  Applicant: City of Medford, Planner: Seth Adams.
 
Seth Adams, Planner III 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.  Mr. Adams gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is the ANSI Type A accessibility standards for people in wheelchairs?  Mr. Adams reported yes.  Builders can do a minimal amount of improvements or a full ADA.  The ANSI Type A is in the middle where the house has the necessary widths but the builder does not have to install the grab bars, etc. but can easily be attached.      
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, how is the cottage housing maximum height measured?  Mr. Adams stated that right now it is the measured from the mid-point.  If Ms. Sousa’s housekeeping amendment is approved it is measured from the top plate. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, how is the front property line determined in these developments?  Mr. Adams replied that it would be the street frontage that the units are addressed off of. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, are common or accessory buildings counted as part of the open space?  Mr. Adams reported they are not counted. 
 
Commissioner McFadden, are pad lots not applicable now?  Mr. Adams stated that currently the code for a pad lot subdivision are allowed for commercial and industrial development.  Residential was taken out of the code years ago.  As pro-posed, only cottage housing would be put back into pad lots.   
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, would those go through the Site Plan and Architectural Commission and not the Planning Commission?  Mr. Adams reported that it would still follow the land division process.  It would come before the Planning Commission.    
 
Vice Chair Foley is confused about the square footage.  Mr. Adams responded that total floor area is 1,000 square feet but if the unit meets the accessibility standards the total floor area is 1,200 square feet.  Two story units ground floor is limited to 1,000 square feet and second story is limited to 50% of ground floor.      
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, is extra documentation on the standard included in the deed that states they can only rent or lease those properties to people that need the accessibility issues?  Mr. Adams responded no.  If the Building Department states it meets the ANSI standards for accessibility the builder can build the full 1,200 square feet.            
 
The public hearing was opened and there being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
 
Main Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are met, forwards a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-18-144 to the City Council per the staff report dated June 20, 2019, including Exhibits A through I.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Commissioner Pulver commented that staff has admitted there has been no demand for this type of development.  He is nervous putting something out there that may be too broad that they do not understand or have seen before.  He advocated that the Planning Commission not permit these in SFR-4 and MFR-20. 
 
The minimum lot size should be increased to 20,000 square feet that would allow larger cottage housing.
 
It would be appropriate for 1.5 times the maximum density allowed not two times.
 
He does not think the square footage should 1,000 or 1,200.  He proposed a maximum 1,800 square foot unit with a maximum ground floor 1,500 square feet or maximum 1,800 square feet if it meets accessibility standards.
 
It was disturbing to him that the building separation was different than the standard separation.  They should mirror what the code is for separation based on building height.     
 
Commissioner Culbertson agrees with Commissioner Pulver’s comment that cottage housing is misplaced in SFR-4 or MFR-20 zoning.  They will not fit in that type of usage. 
 
He also likes the idea of increasing the lot size to 20,000 square feet.  It will encourage more of these developments. They have the potential of having a good place in the community.
 
He disagrees that they need to be 1,800 square feet.  He thinks the smaller community is what the cottage housing is driven for.  Builders in the 1960s and 1970s were very efficient with the space they used.  There is no reason the builders today cannot use the same thing.  A two-story unit may pose some complications because some interior space will be lost with the stairways.  They can efficiently be done with a 1,200 square foot maximum.      
 
Vice Chair Foley is fine with cottage housing being in SFR-4 zoning.  He agrees with Commissioner Culbertson on the size that 1,200 square feet is fine.  
 
Amended Motion #1: Eliminate SFR-4 and MFR-20 as permitted zones for this proposal.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion #1: Motion passed, 4-3-0, with Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner McManus and Vice-Chair Foley voting no.
 
Amended Motion #2: Across all permitted zones that the required lot size be 20,000 square feet.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion #2: Motion failed, 2-5-0, with Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner McFadden, Commissioner McManus, Commissioner Thomas and Vice-Chair Foley voting no.
 
Amended Motion #3: Maximum density allowed to be 1.5 times the maximum density permitted in the underlying zoning districts.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                Seconded by: None
 
There was no second on the Amend Motion #3.
 
Mr. Mitton restated the main motion is the Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are met, forwards a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-18-144 to the City Council per the staff report dated June 20, 2019, including Exhibits A through I, with SFR-4 and MFR-20 being removed from the permitted zones. 
 
Main Motion Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-1-0, with Commissioner Pulver voting no.
 
50.8 DCA-19-022 An amendment to portions of Chapter 10, the Medford Land Development Code (MLDC), to allow for a wider range of projects within the Historic Preservation Overlay District that can be approved administratively under Minor Historic Review.  Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Seth Adams.
 
Commissioner Thomas left the meeting at 7:44 p.m.
 
Seth Adams, Planner III 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.  Mr. Adams gave a staff report. The Fire Department has flammability concerns with wood shake and shingle roofs.  Wood shake and shingle roofs is currently in the residential historic district under certain appropriate materials.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, would a fence that was prohibited be out of the realm of minor historic review and go before the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission?  Mr. Adams replied that is correct.  If using new technology or material would always have the option to have the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission approve or deny it. 
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, does the City currently send people within the historic district the websites necessary to review the material on a regular basis?  Staff is going to reinstitute a process that was in place a number of years ago sending out, on an annual basis, a letter to all registered property owners in the historic overlay informing them of procedures and links to where they can find the information. 
 
Commissioner McManus stated that he is not favorable with the color palette coming back.  He did not see it as a value in the beginning.  He sees the benefit of having a guideline for quantity no necessarily the color pattern.  Mr. Adams reported that currently one picks from the color palette that is limited to one body and up to two trim colors.  Staff is looking at an expanded palette.   
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, what is happening or not happening with shake roofs?  Mr. Adams stated that currently the use of wood shake shingle roofs are allowed in Medford under the building code.  The Fire Marshal brought up a concern that the flammability of wood shake shingle roofs is higher than a comp shingle roof.  There is no historic properties in the Wildland Fire overlay.  Fire has the ability to travel great distances.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, what is the current proposal?  Mr. Adams replied to leave it as it is.  It is allowable for a property owner to put wood shake shingles on their roof.
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that shake roofs are lighter.  Older homes were built with greater spacing between joists that does not react to heavier materials as well.  It is a good recommendation.   
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
Steve Parks, Deputy Fire Marshal reported that wood shake shingles are appropriate for historic houses.  They present a fire hazard and have for many years.  Moving forward their use has been reduced or eliminated nationwide.  The Wildfire Hazard zone has a new code going in affect with the building code modification that prohibits them specifically.  The Fire Department feels the risk they pose extends outside that hazard zone.  Embers can travel one mile, two miles ahead of a fire front.        
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, do some of the other cities prohibit wood shake shingles altogether?  Mr. Parks replied yes.  Other cities and states have prohibited them.  California has prohibited them.  The City of Ashland has moved away from permitting them.  There is not a retroactive policy in effect in those other areas but as the time comes to repair a significant percentage of roof or replace the entire roof it is required to go to an alternate material.  
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, does your department advocate outlawing them?  Mr. Parks shook his head yes. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, does he know why the City Council has not done so?  Mr. Parks does not know the answer to what their reasoning is for that particular issue.  
 
Commissioner McManus asked, is there a fire retardant sealant for those types of roofs?  Mr. Parks stated there are wood shake products that have under gone testing with a material applied.  There are products that have reached a Class A or Class B flammability rating that are wood shake.  It has been found with those that resistance is not a permanent feature.  It degrades over time.  There is a lack of maintenance.  The treatment is effective for approximately ten years.  If the treatment is not reapplied it goes back to a raw shingle.   
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are met, for-wards a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-19-022 to the City Council per the staff report dated June 20, 2019, including Exhibits A through G.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Commissioner McManus would hate to be in a reactive mode when an unfortunate situation were to take a building.  Then the City would need to look at changing the code after the fact.  The discussion was helpful.  It would be unfortunate to be in favor of it knowing the opportunity to consider restricted that type of roofing material.  It appears there are alternate products available even if it is treated.    
 
Vice Chair Foley agrees with Commissioner McManus.  He is in favor of not increasing wood shake shingles usage.  It is a fire hazard. 
 
Commissioner Pulver understood that one of the issues of wood shake shingles is still permitted in non-historical districts.  He does not disagree with what was said but this is the wrong venue.  If this is something that needs to be done it should be changed across the board for historical and non-historical.
 
Commissioner McManus would like to have a conversation with staff to review.  
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0-0.
 
60.1    Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met Friday, June 21, 2019.  They approved the construction of a convenience store and offices, a residential care facility with 30 beds, enclosed RV storage facility and a new fueling/lubrication and maintenance station along with an Exception request to three separate standards of the code: (1) Street Circulation Design and Connectivity, (2) Block Length and Perimeter Length, and (3) Driveway Spacing in the Heavy Commercial zoning district.
 
They also approved a master site plan for Rogue Community Health including a new two story general office buildings and shared parking areas on approximately 2 acres south of East Main Street between Myrtle Street and Portland Avenue.
 
Also, they approved a request to add 1,700 square feet to an existing 6,336 square foot building on approximately 3.07 acres located at 600 N. Central Avenue.   
     
60.2    Transportation Commission
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission met Wednesday, June 26, 2019.  He was not in attendance and deferred the report to Carla Paladino, Principal Planner.
 
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner reported that discussion was on funding options for the Mega Corridor.  The Commission is evaluating options in terms of increasing the gas tax, increasing SDC’s, utility fees, or a combination of all three.  The Commission requested additional information for their July meeting.    
 
60.3    Planning Department
Ms. Evans reported there is no business scheduled for the next Planning Commission study session on Monday, July 8, 2019.  
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, July 11, 2019, Thursday, July 25 2019 and Thursday, August 8, 2019.   
 
Last week City Council adopted a fee increase for the Planning Department that goes into effect Monday, July 1, 2019.  The City Council initiated the annexation of the right-of-way for Lozier Lane from Main to Stewart.  The approved vacations for Tom Malot’s McKenzie Village project.      
 
The appeal for Circle K on Springbrook and McAndrews will be heard at the Thursday, July 18, 2019 City Council meeting.
 
Last August a new construction excise tax, a third of a percent, was created for affordable housing.  The request for proposals were sent out this week to spend approximately $400,000.  The proposals are due August 2 2019. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is the intent for people to propose projects that would be affordable housing and it is winner take all the City would contribute $400,000 to the project if it met the needs?  Ms. Evans stated that the request for proposal has a list of items to do.  It is up to 120% of medium income.  It is not restricted to low income.  It is for profit and non-profit.
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, is the next meeting in Council Chambers or the Prescott Room.  Ms. Evans stated that City Council cancelled their meeting on July 11, 2019 so the Planning Commission will be meeting in Council Chambers.             
 
70.       Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.
 
80.       Remarks from the City Attorney. None
 
90.       Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.
90.1 Commissioner Pulver felt uncomfortable with the amount of items on the agenda.  It was too much this evening given the substances, discussions and decisions.  He thinks housekeeping is one thing and substantive changes are others.  It got too big with too many issues.  There were things that required some thoughts and discussion.  It got too broad.  He encouraged that if it gets like that in the future to split it up a little bit.              
 
100.    Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
 
 
Submitted by:
 
__________________________________                         ___________________________________
Terri L. Richards                                                        Joe Foley
Recording Secretary                                                  Planning Commission Vice-Chair                                                   
 
Approved: July 11, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top