09-09-13 pc ss agenda pc ss agenda packet.pdf · definition of qualified development shall be in...

AGENDAAGENDAAGENDAAGENDA September September September September 23232323,,,, 2012012012013333

12:00 Noon Meeting12:00 Noon Meeting12:00 Noon Meeting12:00 Noon Meeting

MEDFORD PLANNING COMMISSION MEDFORD PLANNING COMMISSION MEDFORD PLANNING COMMISSION MEDFORD PLANNING COMMISSION

STUDY SESSIONSTUDY SESSIONSTUDY SESSIONSTUDY SESSION

ROOM 151 – LAUSMANN ANNEX 200 South Ivy Street

Subject 1.

2.

CP-13-032 Proposed GLUP Map Amendment for Internal UGB Study Areas (UGB Amendment Project) DCA-13-083 Proposed Code Amendment for Commissions Residency Requirements

Working with the Community to Shape a Vibrant and Exceptional City

Lausmann Annex 200 South Ivy Street Medford, Oregon 97501

Phone 541.774.2380 Fax 541 .618.1708

www.ci.medford.or.us

CITY OF MEDFORD

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Urban Growth Boundary Amendment project

Phase 1: Internal Study Area adoption

Screening criteria for General Land Use Plan map designation changes

Findings for GLUP changes

File no. CPA 13-032

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: John Adam, Long-Range Planning

DATE: 17 September 2013 for 9/23/2013 study session

Background

The Council authorized the Planning Department to proceed with the internal study area (ISA) adoption process (Resolution 2013-127 on 9/5/2013), so staff would like to contin-ue working on refinement of the screening criteria with the Commission. Staff will bring maps showing the results of the criteria.

Screening Criteria

There have so far been two sets of internal study areas. The first set included nearly all the vacant and redevelopable land in the city; this we pared down to an “analysis” set of ISAs. This second set was studied for general facility adequacy, but the results failed to give us differentiating information that we could use to cull the ranks. In order for the Planning Commission to develop a set that they can recommend to the Council, we need to apply more qualitative screening factors.

Parcelization

Development projects work better when there is more area to work with. If a develop-ment lot is too small, the resulting multi-family project will consist of a building sur-rounded by parking lot. In order to create a project that is more pleasant for inhabitants and neighbors, a larger area is superior.

Proximity to elementary schools, grocery stores, and transit routes

document: Memo_PCss_ISA screening_2013-09-23 2

These tests measure quality-of-life factors that both relieve pressure on the transportation system and provide more choices of nearby goods and services to higher concentrations of residents.

Size and Mix

This test considers the “texture” of the surrounding quarter mile fringe for areas—“area” being defined here as cohesive clusters of lots within an ISA—that (1) were analyzed for conversion to UH and (2) are less than 15 acres. For these UH ISA lots we would calcu-late the total percentage of non-UR-designated lands that are within a quarter-mile pe-riphery of them. The greater the percentage the higher the score. The table below sug-gests that the proximity test not be weighted as heavily as the others because spatially mixed land uses are not necessarily bad. Thus, the worst possible score for that metric is a “2” and the greatest possible score is a “4”.

A similar test is not needed for new UM sites; from a density standpoint UM sites should be considered compatible with single family.

Corollary to this is a recommended policy that areas that are converted to UH and are larger than 15 acres are not likely to fully develop all at once— and perhaps never fully develop given their size. To overcome this and to integrate them better into their sur-roundings, staff suggests that for sites larger than 15 acres a ratio of total multi-family acreage to total single-family acreage should be considered as a policy directive. The Housing Element suggests a single-family-to-multifamily ratio of 65:35, so this provides some reasonable guidance. For example, the City could suggest that areas over 15 acres include a mix of housing densities that shoot for an overall ratio for those sites between 55:45 and 70:30, single-family to multi-family.

Example Findings

Attached to this memo is a mock example of how findings might be made for an internal study area. This represents a translation of the analyses and testimony into—in this case—a justification for adopting a new GLUP designation for an area. The example was created in response to a request by the Commission to understand how the findings might be made and how they relate to the facts and testimony.

Attachments

� “Findings for faux ISA” dated 9/17/2013

� Resolution no. 2013-127


For reference: the density ranges of the residential GLUP categories

Category Density range

UR 1.5–10

UM 12–15

UH 15–30

Scoring

Test 1 2 3 4 5

Parcelization Less than 2 acres 2–3 acres 3–4 acres 4–5 acres More than 5 acres

Elementary school More than 2

miles

2–1.5 miles 1.5–1 mile 1–0.5 miles Less than 0.5 mile

Grocery store More than 2

miles


Transit route More than 2

miles


Higher-intensity land

use proximity

UH sites 15 acres or less

N/A 0–15% non-UR

designations

within 0.25-mile

radius

15–25% non-UR

designations

within 0.25-mile

radius

>25% non-UR

designations

within 0.25-mile

radius

N/A

1

Findings for faux ISA 9/17/2013

This is a mock example of how the findings for an internal study area might be done.

The attached map is from a distant city with slightly different but clearly recogniza-

ble zoning district designations: R-2 is low-density residential; R-4 is high-density; I-

2 is heavy industrial; C-2 is Highway Commercial.

Contents

Site description ................................................ 1

Analysis ............................................................... 2

Map: Vicinity Zoning .................................... 11

Map: Aerial ...................................................... 12

SITE DESCRIPTION ISA 007

Area: 33 acres (two lots, 7 and 26 acres), bounded on the north by

3rd Street SW, on the south by 8th Street SW, on the east by

9th Avenue SW, and on the west by Prairie Avenue.

Current GLUP: UR, Urban Residential, low-density; current development po-

tential is 135 dwelling units (0.9% of housing need)

Analyzed GLUP: UH, Urban Residential, high-density; analyzed development

potential is 396 dwelling units (2.6% of housing need)

Net effect: Gain of 261 dwelling units

Neighborhood (general land use designations and notable features):

North: UR, UH, IL, rail line South: UR

East: UR West: UR, UH, CM, rail line

Proximity to… screening score

School: 700 feet (Jefferson Elementary) 5

Shopping: 100 feet 3

Transit: Adjacent (Prairie Avenue and Ninth Avenue SW) 5

Park/Rec: 700 feet (Jefferson Park) 5

Average: 4.5

Background: Site of abandoned high school. School District is planning to

dispose of the property.

2

Utilities evaluation:

Water: Existing 12-in. line in Ninth Ave SW and 8-in. line Prairie Ave

provide adequate supply for analyzed density.

Sewer: The 18-in. main in Prairie Ave and the 9-in. main in 9th Ave SW

can handle the negligible flow increase from a change to UH.

Storm: Existing system can be supplemented by on-site detention if

necessary, which is normal procedure.

Streets: Public Works suggests a realignment of Third Street SW

through the property when it redevelops to move its western

outlet onto Prairie Ave further south to provide more stacking

for the rail crossing.

ANALYSIS ISA 007

The approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments are in Chapter 10, Arti-

cle II, of the Municipal Code:

10.184 Class “A” Amendment Criteria.

(1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Refer to the Review and Amend-

ment section of the Comprehensive Plan…

The Review and Amendments chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains these cri-

teria for General Land Use Plan map changes:

Map Designations. Amendments shall be based on the following:

1. A significant change in one or more Goal, Policy, or Implementation strat-

egy.

2. Demonstrated need for the change to accommodate unpredicted popula-

tion trends, to satisfy urban housing needs, or to assure adequate em-

ployment opportunities.

3. The orderly and economic provision of key public facilities.

4. Maximum efficiency of land uses within the current urbanizable area.

5. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences.

6. Compatibility of the proposed change with other elements of the City

Comprehensive Plan.

7. All applicable Statewide Planning Goals.

Findings follow.

3

1. A significant change in one or more Goal, Policy, or Implementation

strategy.

Findings

The recently changed Housing Element contains the following policy and implemen-

tation measures:

Policy 2: The City shall designate areas for residential development that are or

will be conveniently located close to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit or high-

capacity transportation routes, community facilities and services, and employ-

ment to ensure that the benefits of public investment in those facilities are avail-

able to as many households as possible.

Implementation 2-A: Pursue amendments as needed to achieve transit-

supportive density near current and future transit streets, especially where

parks or schools are present.

* * *

Policy 3: In planning for needed housing, the City of Medford shall strive to pro-

vide a compact urban form that allows efficient use of public facilities and pro-

tects adjacent resource lands.

Implementation 3-A: Assess policies, regulations, and standards affecting res-

idential development and pursue amendments as needed to meet Policy 3.

Consider actions such as:

a) Upzoning buildable land to medium- and high-density residential.

* * *

Policy 5: The City of Medford shall provide opportunities for alternative housing

types and patterns, such as planned unit developments, mixed-uses, and other

techniques that reduce development costs, increase density, and achieve pro-

jects that are flexible and responsive to the site and surroundings, including the

conservation and enhancement of areas having special scenic, historic, architec-

tural, or cultural value.

The Regional Plan Element contains the following goal, policy, and performance in-

dicators:

Goal 1: Manage future regional growth for the greater public good.

Guiding Policies:

* * *

4

c. The Region’s overall urban housing density shall be increased to provide for

more efficient land utilization.

* * *

[Performance indicators]

4.1.5 Committed Residential Density. Land within an urban reserve and

land currently within an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but outside of the

existing city limit shall be built, at a minimum, to the following residential

densities. This requirement can be offset by increasing the residential densi-

ty in the city limit.

City Dwelling units per gross acre

2010–2035 2036–2060

Central Point 6.9 7.9

Eagle Point 6.5 7.5

Medford 6.6 7.6

Phoenix 6.6 7.6

Talent 6.6 7.6

4.1.6 Mixed-Use/Pedestrian-Friendly Areas. For land within an urban re-

serve and for land currently within a UGB but outside of the existing city lim-

it, each city shall achieve the 2020 benchmark targets for the number of

dwelling units (Alternative Measure no. 5) and employment (Alternative

Measure no. 6) in mixed-use/pedestrian-friendly areas as established in the

2009 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or most recently adopted RTP. Be-

yond the year 2020, cities shall continue to achieve the 2020 benchmark tar-

gets, or if additional benchmark years are established, cities shall achieve the

targets corresponding with the applicable benchmarks. Measurement and

definition of qualified development shall be in accordance with adopted RTP

methodology.

The requirement is considered met if the city or the region overall is achiev-

ing the targets or minimum qualifications, whichever is greater. This re-

quirement can be offset by increasing the percentage of dwelling units

and/or employment in the city limit.

The Environmental Element contains the following goals and policies:

Policy 3-B: The City of Medford shall continue to require a well-connected circu-

lation system and promote other techniques that foster alternative modes of

transportation, such as pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development and a

linked bicycle transportation system.

* * *

5

Goal 9: To assure that future urban growth in Medford occurs in a compact man-

ner that minimizes the consumption of land, including class I through IV agricul-

tural land.

Policy 9-A: The City of Medford shall target public investments to reinforce a

compact urban form.

Policy 9-B: The City of Medford shall strive to protect significant resource lands,

including agricultural land, from urban expansion.

* * *

Goal 10: To assure that urban land use activities are planned, located, and con-

structed in a manner that maximizes energy efficiency.

Policy 10-A: The City of Medford shall plan and approve growth and develop-

ment with consideration to energy-efficient patterns of development, utilizing

existing capital infrastructure whenever possible, and incorporating compact

and urban-centered growth concepts.

Implementation 10-A(3): Provide examples for developers to follow which

reduce motor vehicle transportation needs by using mixed uses, urban infill

projects, etc.

From the Transportation Element:

Policy 8-A: The City of Medford shall facilitate development or redevelopment on

sites located where best supported by the overall transportation system that re-

duces motor vehicle dependency by promoting walking, bicycling and transit

use. This includes altering land use patterns through changes to type, density,

and design.

Implementation 8-A(1): Through revisions to the Medford Comprehensive

Plan and Land Development Code, provide opportunities for increasing resi-

dential and employment density in locations that support increased use of al-

ternative travel modes, such as along transit corridors.

* * *

Implementation 8-B(1): Through revisions to the Medford Comprehensive

Plan and Land Development Code, pursue changes to planned land uses to

concentrate employment, commercial, and high-density residential land uses

in Transit-Oriented Districts (TODs).

Conclusions

Several goals, policies, and implementation measures from various elements of the

Comprehensive Plan plainly state that the City should try to increase densities in

6

opportune areas. Some of these elements—notably the Housing, Regional Plan, and

Economic Elements—have been recently updated and were specifically developed

to evaluate the City’s land needs for the next twenty years. They collectively pro-

mote a new paradigm of growth and growth management, with emphasis on utiliz-

ing existing infrastructure in order to maximize public investments and to create

vibrant urban areas instead of maximizing the profits of landowners on the backs of

the public, which bears the long-term real cost of infrastructure maintenance and

the physical costs of greater and greater distances between destinations, increased

pollution, and the consumption of arable land.

Objectors to proposals will sometimes go to great lengths to block them. A common

method is to isolate segments of the findings and pick them apart, calling into ques-

tion the meaning of terms like “demonstrably” or “conveniently located,” in order to

distort or distract and to impute that a given ISA is inappropriate for intensification,

as though the terms were deliberately placed as semantic landmines instead of be-

ing chosen for eloquence or variety.

2. Demonstrated need for the change to accommodate unpredicted popu-

lation trends, to satisfy urban housing needs, or to assure adequate

employment opportunities.

Findings

The Housing Element projects that Medford will need 15,000 dwelling units for the

period 2009–20291 and has capacity for nearly 11,5002 dwelling units, or about

three quarters of the 20-year need. To accommodate those dwelling units, the City

would need to add 1,000 acres to the urban growth boundary.

The Economic Element projects employment land need in the following categories

and quantities:

Type Need, in gross acres3

Svc Commercial (office) ......................................... 290

Industrial ........................................................................... 0

Commercial ................................................................ 278

Other ............................................................................. 354

Total ............................................................................. 709

The total land need is therefore about 1,700 acres. The Economic Element projects a

213-acre surplus of industrial land overall—hence the zero need figure in the ta-

1 Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, Table 31, p. 53.


3 Comprehensive Plan, Economic Element, figure 28, p. 47. Gross acreage figures were derived by staff

from guidance in the paragraph below Figure 28.

7

ble—but there is a 75-acre deficit in small industrial sites, those that are one to two

acres. Staff believes that amending the Zoning Code to allow low-impact manufac-

turing in some commercial zoning districts would largely satisfy the need; the Eco-

nomic Element contained a similar recommendation.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.296(6) states that when there is a need, a city

should expand its boundaries, increase its capacity, or do a combination of both. The

internal study areas were conceived as the means to increase the capacity of the ex-

isting urban area.

Conclusions

There is a demonstrated need for housing and employment land. Increasing the de-

velopment capacity of the urban area by increasing densities or changing over ex-

cess industrial land to needed commercial land is a response to that need.


Findings

All utilities are available to the site and can handle the additional number of dwell-

ing units without upgrades. The one improvement recommended for the site, name-

ly, the realignment of Third Street SW, is inherent to the site, not to the zoning of it.

Conclusions

The Commission could reasonably conclude that this criterion does not apply in this

case because the provision of key public facilities is not necessary to make the

change. However, it is worth noting that utilizing already-existing facilities to serve

a portion of the City’s 20-year housing need yields an economic advantage over ex-

tending facilities to serve the same number on virgin land.


Findings

The purpose of the internal study area (ISA) project was to find locations were the

development capacity of land could be increased by changing the General Plan clas-

sification. Under the classification Urban Residential (UR) the average density that

could be expected from a piece of land is 4.1 units per gross acre. If that piece of land

were reclassified as UM (Urban Medium-Density Residential) the average density

that could be expected is 12 units per gross acre4. In this example the number of

dwelling units that can be built is nearly trebled.

In the course of analysis and evaluation by the Planning Commission, it was deter-

mined that an increase in density on ISA 007 would not adversely affect the charac-

4 Average density figures for GLUP designations taken from Housing Element, Table 29, p. 50.

8

ter of the neighborhood, but an increase to a high-density designation (UH) would

be an ill fit for the neighborhood.

Conclusions

Changing the GLUP designation from a lower-density to a higher-density residential

designation on a vacant area to get more dwelling units in the existing urban area is

an increase in the efficiency of that land.

“Maximization” is a term subject to the judgment of the Planning Commission and

City Council, who seek a balance between density gains and established neighbor-

hood character. In the case of ISA 007 they have concluded that the maximization of

efficiency is achieved through a change to Urban Medium-Density Residential.


Findings

Environment: The land was first developed decades ago. It has been in the City and

intended for development since the 1940s. Both the current and analyzed designa-

tions allow dwelling units; the difference is not of kind but of degree.

Energy: There is an energy benefit from reducing the distance between housing and

the jobs, shopping, and services that residents want.

Economic: Increasing the amount of population that can be served by existing public

facilities will save costs on extensions in outlying areas. Some of this benefit may be

offset by the costs of upgrading existing facilities; however, this area in itself will not

necessitate such upgrades; only collectively do the internal study areas have im-

pacts on existing facilities. The same is true of outlying development, so the econom-

ic argument is neutral.

Social: The Development Code does not anticipate conflict between the two, based

on a lack of zone change criteria for multi-family residential zoning (10.227), but it

does recognize potential aesthetic or nuisance conflict and prescribes buffering re-

quirements (10.790), which apply only to abutting lots, not across a street.

Changing the designation will increase affordable housing choices in an area with

good access to work, shopping, schools, and recreation.

Neighborhood testimony was generally negative, with a lot of concern expressed

about the additional traffic and the incompatibility of the architecture with the exist-

ing single-family houses across the street frontages.

Conclusions

There will be no adverse environmental effect because the proposal does not affect

a natural area. The energy consequences will be generally positive. Although there

9

are positive and negative economic effects, the overall effect is a little better than

neutral. There is some potential for conflict between low- and medium-density resi-

dential zoning, but there are also positive social consequences that outweigh con-

cerns about architecture and additional traffic on what is already a busy collector.


Comprehensive Plan.

Findings

The findings under Criterion 1 apply to this criterion as well.

Conclusions

The conclusions under Criterion 1 apply to this criterion as well, with the additional

conclusion that the various goals and policies in other elements are compatible with

the concept of increasing density and creating nodes of mixed-use activity.


Findings

Goal 1—Citizen Involvement: The Planning Department conducted two open houses

to receive comments from property owners and neighbors. In addi-

tion to the property owners, staff notified neighbors within 200 feet of

the hearings. Staff prepared press releases and provided information

on the City’s website.

Goal 2—Land Use Planning: Staff analyzed the impacts of change to this lot’s desig-

nation and determined that it would have no negative effect on public

facilities.

Goals 3–9 do not apply in this case.

Goal 10—Housing: The Housing Element states that the City has a greater need for

lower-income housing options in convenient locations for the targeted

population.

Goal 11—Public Facilities and Services: Staff analyzed the impacts of change to this

lot’s designation and determined that it would have no negative effect

on public facilities. Fire Department reports that it will have no trou-

ble serving the site. Police Department commented that it has suffi-

cient resources to serve the small change in population in this area.

Goal 12—Transportation: The streets surrounding the site have enough capacity to

handle the additional traffic. The intersections within a half mile have

enough capacity to handle the additional traffic. There is transit ser-

10

vice passing along the east and west sides of the site. The sidewalk

system is complete throughout the vicinity, connecting to shopping,

recreation, schools, and work locations.

Goal 13—Energy Conservation: Among this goal’s guidelines is this: “Land use plan-

ning should, to the maximum extent possible, combine increasing

density gradients along high-capacity transportation corridors to

achieve greater energy efficiency.” ISA 007 is located along a high-

capacity transportation corridor; the proposed change is an increase

in density over the existing and can be graded in density from the

eastern edges toward the west to achieve greater spatial compatibility

with the neighborhood.

Goal 14—Urbanization: The second directive under the “Land Need” section of the

goal states “Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local gov-

ernments shall demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accom-

modated on land already inside the urban growth boundary.” Staff

and the Planning Commission identified and analyzed ISA 007 specifi-

cally to determine if it could accommodate some of the need.

Goals 15–19 do not apply to Medford.

Conclusions

The City provided adequate opportunities for citizen input (Goal 1). There is an ad-

equate factual basis for the proposed designation change (2). The change will pro-

vide housing opportunities for an underhoused part of the population, as measured

by income level (10). The population that will inhabit the area is accounted for in

the population estimate of the City; its presence at ISA 007 is a locational matter for

fixed utilities but inconsequential for mobile public services (11). The site is well

served by a variety of transportation modes and is therefore suitable for an increase

in density (12). The proposed change to ISA 007 complies with directives in Goals

13 and 14.

Overall Conclusion

With very few negative features, the proposed change from Low-Density Urban Res-

idential to High-Density (UR to UH) is appropriate for ISA 007.

11

VICINITY ZONING ISA 007

ISA 007

Base image source: City of Faribault, Minnesota

Elem.

School

Park

9th

Av

e.

SW

3rd Street SW

8th Street SW

Pra

irie

Av

e.

12

AERIAL ISA 007

ISA 007

Image source: Google maps, 2013-07-09

RESOLUTION NO. 2013-127

A RESOLUTION initiating a General Land Use Plan Map amendment to reclassify 856 acresofland within the current Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).

WHEREAS, the Medford Urban Growth Boundary Amendment (UGBA) project includesanalyses of growth options that are both internal and external to the existing urban area; and

WHEREAS, the redesignation of land in the urban area to be used more efficiently issupported by the City of Medford Strategic Plan under Action Items 5.Ia, 6.2c, and Objective 7.1under the theme "Healthy Economy"; and

WHEREAS, the redesignation ofland in the urban area for more efficient use is supported byHousing Policies 2 and 3 of the Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the redesignation of land in the urban area for more efficient use IS

recommended by Oregon Revised Statute 197.296(6)(b); and

WHEREAS, the the redesignation ofland in the urban area for more efficient use is requiredby Statewide Planning Goal 14, titled "Urbanization"; and

WHEREAS, the provision of adequate transportation facilities for current and futureboundary expansions needs to be taken into account; and

WHEREAS, the Medford City Council seeks a balance between the differing methods ofurban growth; and

WHEREAS, there is potential for poor compatibility between intensification areas andexisting neighborhoods that calls for standards to counter architectural, massing, and spatialincompatibilities; and

WHEREAS, there is a recognized need for design standards, they will be developedseparately from the UGBA project; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON,that staff and the Planning Commission are hereby directed to initiate the screening andrecommendation process for the internal study areas with the following provisions:

Section 1. Obtain acknowledgement from the Oregon Department ofLand Conservation andDevelopment that the Internal Study Areas constitute an "efficiency measure" according to OregonStatute.

III

-I-Resolution No. 2013-127 P:\JMP\RESOS\CP-13-032

Section 2. Reach an understanding with Department ofLand Conservation and Developmentofficials on the relationship between Medford's planned density obligations and buildable lands ongreater-than-15% slope.

Section 3. Perform the external analysis portion of the UGB Amendment projectconcurrently with the internal portion, though there cannot be concurrent adoption because the areaof the expansion is contingent on the amount of ISA land approved.

Section 4. Account for systemic transportation needs when evaluating external areas.

Section 5. Prepare for the development of design standards addressing architectural,massing, and spatial compatibility, contingent on the Medford City Council adding the project to itsStrategic Plan.

Section 6. Evaluate and report to City Council the feasibility ofmoving the SFR-l 0 zoningdistrict into the Urban Medium-Density Residential (UM) general land use plan designation.

PASSED by the Council and signed by me in authentication ofits passage this dayof , 2013.

ATTEST: ---------City Recorder

-2-Resolution No. 2013-127

Mayor

P:VMP\RESOS\CP-13-032

Chapter 10 Article II

Commission Residency Amendment draft 02 [revised 09-13-2013]

1

DCA 2013-083, Commission Residency Requirements, draft 02 (Reformatted)

Tracked-changes key: Added text; Deleted Text;

ARTICLE II - PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 10.120 Planning Commission. The Planning Commission membership shall, at a minimum, comply with the requirements of ORS 227.030 (Membership). The Planning Commission shall have all powers set forth in ORS 227.090 (Powers and Duties of Commission) except as otherwise provided by ordinance of the City Council. [Amd. Sec. 2, Ord. No. 5873, May 21, 1987.] 10.123 Planning Commission, Membership. (1) Number Appointed. The Planning Commission shall consist of nine (9) voting members appointed by the Mayor and City Council. (2) Length of Term. All terms shall be for a period of four (4) years beginning on February 1 of each year with not more than three terms expiring in the same year. (3) Position Appointments. The Planning Commission members shall at a minimum comply with the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 227.030 (Membership) as provided below or as amended:

(a) Not more than two members of a city planning commission may be city officers, who shall serve as ex officio nonvoting members.

(b) No more than two voting members of the commission may engage principally in the buying, selling, or developing of real estate for profit as individuals, or be members of any partnership, or officers or employees of any corporation, that engages principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit.

(c) No more than two members shall be engaged in the same kind of occupation, business, trade or profession.

(4) Selection Criteria. All members shall be residents of the City and if any member ceases to be a resident, his or her position shall become vacant.All members of the Commission shall meet a minimum of one of the following residency requirements unless specifically addressed otherwise in the Medford Code or State Statutes:

(a) Physical residency within the City of Medford Urban Growth Boundary. (b) Owner of fifty (50) percent or more of a business located within the City of Medford Urban Growth Boundary



2

(c) Owner of real property located within the City of Medford Urban Growth Boundary. A Commissioner who ceases to meet one of the above conditions during his/her term of office shall forfeit the office and a new member shall be appointed to serve the unexpired portion of the term. (5) Removal Terms. A member may be removed by the Mayor and City Council, after a hearing, for misconduct or nonperformance of duty. (6) Vacancy Replacement. Any vacancy shall be filled by the Mayor and City Council for the unexpired term of the predecessor in the office. (7) Quorum. A quorum of the Planning Commission shall consist of five or more members. [Amd. Sec. 4, Ord. No. 5820, March 19, 1987; Amd. Sec. 2, Ord. No. 6040, Jan. 7, 1988; Amd. Sec. 4, Ord. No. 7659, June 2, 1994; Amd. Sec. 1, Ord. No. 2011-06, Jan. 6, 2011.] * * * 10.133 Site Plan and Architectural Commission, Membership. (1) Number Appointed. The Site Plan and Architectural Commission shall consist of nine (9) voting members appointed by the Mayor and City Council., as follows. (2) Length of Term. Site Plan and Architectural Commissioner terms shall be for a period of four (4) years, with the exception of the member of the Planning Commission, whose initial term shall be for a period of two (2) years. Subsequent Planning Commissioner terms shall be for one (1) year if reappointed. Said terms shall begin on February 1 of each year with not more than two (2) terms expiring in the same year, exclusive of the Planning Commissioner. (3) Position Appointments.

(a) One (1) member shall be a Planning Commissioner nominated by the Planning Commission chairperson.

(b) One (1) member shall be a licensed architect. (c) One (1) member shall be a licensed professional engineer. (d) One (1) member shall be a licensed landscaping professional. (e) One (1) member shall be a licensed contractor.

When selecting persons to fill the remaining four (4) positions, preference should be given to applicants who have training or experience closely related to the licensed positions. The Site Plan and Architectural Commission may review the applications and may make



3

recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding appointments. At the Mayor and City Council’s discretion, an appointment to any of the four (4) professional/licensed positions may be an individual who, in lieu of having a valid license in the profession, possesses a comparable combination of skill, education, training and experience related to the respective professional licensing category. (4) Selection Criteria. Members shall reside within the City of Medford. All members of the Commission shall meet a minimum of one of the following residency requirements unless specifically addressed otherwise in the Medford Code or State Statutes:

(a) Physical residency within the City of Medford Urban Growth Boundary. (b) Owner of fifty (50) percent or more of a business located within the City of Medford Urban Growth Boundary. (c) Owner of real property located within the City of Medford Urban Growth Boundary.

A Commissioner who ceases to meet one of the above conditions during his/her term of office shall forfeit the office and a new member shall be appointed to serve the unexpired portion of the term. (5) Removal Terms. A member may be removed by the Mayor and City Council, after a hearing, for misconduct or nonperformance of duty. (6) Vacancy Replacement. Any vacancy shall be filled by the Mayor and City Council for the unexpired term of the member being replaced. (7) Quorum. A quorum of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission shall consist of five or more members. [Amd. Sec. 3, Ord. No. 6040, Jan 7, 1988; Amd. Sec. 6, Ord. No. 7659, June 2, 1994; Amd Ord. No. 2001-159, Sept. 6, 2001; Amd. Sec. 2, Ord. No. 2006-13, Jan. 5, 2006; Amd. Ord. No. 2007-99, June 7, 2007; Amd. Sec. 3, Ord. No. 2008-236, Nov. 20, 2008; Amd. Sec. 2, Ord. No. 2011-06, Jan. 6, 2011.] 10.134 Procedure of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission. Except as otherwise provided by law or this chapter, the Site Plan and Architectural Commission shall conduct its meetings in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised., excepting that a quorum shall be defined as five (5) or more members for purposes of this section. [Amd. Sec. 3, Ord. No. 2006-13, Jan. 5, 2006.] * * *



4

10.137 Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission, Membership. (1) Number Appointed. The Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall be made up of seven (7) voting members appointed by the Mayor and City Council. (2) Length of Term. All regular terms of members of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall be for a period of four years, and shall begin on February 1, with not more than three terms expiring in the same year. (3) Position Appointments. All members of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall have demonstrated positive interest, competence, or knowledge of historic preservation. The Planning Director or designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission. (4) Selection Criteria. All Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission members shall be residents of the City of Medford, and, if any member ceases to be a city resident, his/her position shall become vacant. . All members of the Commission shall meet a minimum of one of the following residency requirements unless specifically addressed otherwise in the Medford Code or State Statutes:


A Commissioner who ceases to meet one of the above conditions during his/her term of office shall forfeit the office and a new member shall be appointed to serve the unexpired portion of the term. (5) Removal Criteria. A member of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission may be removed by the Mayor and City Council, after a hearing, for misconduct or nonperformance of duty. Replacements shall be appointed by the Mayor and City Council for the remainder of the unexpired term. (6) Quorum. A quorum of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall consist of four or more members. [Added, Sec. 2, Ord. No. 2006-199, Sept. 7, 2006; Amd. Sec. 3, Ord. No. 2011-06, Jan. 6, 2011.]



5

10.138 Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission, Meeting Procedures. Except as otherwise provided by law or this Code, the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall conduct its meetings in accordance with rules as adopted by the commission., except that a quorum shall be defined as four or more members. The Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall meet as necessary to act on Historic Reviews in a timely manner. There shall be at least one meeting of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission held each year, during the month of March. [Added, Sec. 3, Ord. No. 2006-199, Sept. 7, 2006.]

Working with the Community to Shape a Vibrant and Exceptional City

Lausmann Annex 200 South Ivy Street Medford, Oregon 97501

Phone 541.774.2380 Fax 541 .618.1708

www.ci.medford.or.us

CITY OF MEDFORD

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Urban Growth Boundary Amendment project

Phase 1: Internal Study Area adoption

Screening criteria for General Land Use Plan map designation changes

Findings for GLUP changes

File no. CPA 13-032

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: John Adam, Long-Range Planning

DATE: 17 September 2013 for 9/23/2013 study session

Background

The Council authorized the Planning Department to proceed with the internal study area (ISA) adoption process (Resolution 2013-127 on 9/5/2013), so staff would like to contin-ue working on refinement of the screening criteria with the Commission. Staff will bring maps showing the results of the criteria.

Screening Criteria

There have so far been two sets of internal study areas. The first set included nearly all the vacant and redevelopable land in the city; this we pared down to an “analysis” set of ISAs. This second set was studied for general facility adequacy, but the results failed to give us differentiating information that we could use to cull the ranks. In order for the Planning Commission to develop a set that they can recommend to the Council, we need to apply more qualitative screening factors.

Parcelization

Development projects work better when there is more area to work with. If a develop-ment lot is too small, the resulting multi-family project will consist of a building sur-rounded by parking lot. In order to create a project that is more pleasant for inhabitants and neighbors, a larger area is superior.

Proximity to elementary schools, grocery stores, and transit routes

Page 2


These tests measure quality-of-life factors that both relieve pressure on the transportation system and provide more choices of nearby goods and services to higher concentrations of residents.

Size and Mix

This test considers the “texture” of the surrounding quarter mile fringe for areas—“area” being defined here as cohesive clusters of lots within an ISA—that (1) were analyzed for conversion to UH and (2) are less than 15 acres. For these UH ISA lots we would calcu-late the total percentage of non-UR-designated lands that are within a quarter-mile pe-riphery of them. The greater the percentage the higher the score. The table below sug-gests that the proximity test not be weighted as heavily as the others because spatially mixed land uses are not necessarily bad. Thus, the worst possible score for that metric is a “2” and the greatest possible score is a “4”.

A similar test is not needed for new UM sites; from a density standpoint UM sites should be considered compatible with single family.

Corollary to this is a recommended policy that areas that are converted to UH and are larger than 15 acres are not likely to fully develop all at once— and perhaps never fully develop given their size. To overcome this and to integrate them better into their sur-roundings, staff suggests that for sites larger than 15 acres a ratio of total multi-family acreage to total single-family acreage should be considered as a policy directive. The Housing Element suggests a single-family-to-multifamily ratio of 65:35, so this provides some reasonable guidance. For example, the City could suggest that areas over 15 acres include a mix of housing densities that shoot for an overall ratio for those sites between 55:45 and 70:30, single-family to multi-family.

Example Findings

Attached to this memo is a mock example of how findings might be made for an internal study area. This represents a translation of the analyses and testimony into—in this case—a justification for adopting a new GLUP designation for an area. The example was created in response to a request by the Commission to understand how the findings might be made and how they relate to the facts and testimony.

Attachments

� “Findings for faux ISA” dated 9/17/2013

� Resolution no. 2013-127

Page 3


For reference: the density ranges of the residential GLUP categories

Category Density range

UR 1.5–10

UM 12–15

UH 15–30

Scoring

Test 1 2 3 4 5

Parcelization Less than 2 acres 2–3 acres 3–4 acres 4–5 acres More than 5 acres

Elementary school More than 2

miles


Grocery store More than 2

miles


Transit route More than 2

miles


Higher-intensity land

use proximity

UH sites 15 acres or less

N/A 0–15% non-UR

designations

within 0.25-mile

radius

15–25% non-UR

designations

within 0.25-mile

radius

>25% non-UR

designations

within 0.25-mile

radius

N/A

Page 4

1

Findings for faux ISA 9/17/2013

This is a mock example of how the findings for an internal study area might be done.

The attached map is from a distant city with slightly different but clearly recogniza-

ble zoning district designations: R-2 is low-density residential; R-4 is high-density; I-

2 is heavy industrial; C-2 is Highway Commercial.

Contents

Site description ................................................ 1

Analysis ............................................................... 2

Map: Vicinity Zoning .................................... 11

Map: Aerial ...................................................... 12

SITE DESCRIPTION ISA 007

Area: 33 acres (two lots, 7 and 26 acres), bounded on the north by

3rd Street SW, on the south by 8th Street SW, on the east by

9th Avenue SW, and on the west by Prairie Avenue.

Current GLUP: UR, Urban Residential, low-density; current development po-

tential is 135 dwelling units (0.9% of housing need)

Analyzed GLUP: UH, Urban Residential, high-density; analyzed development

potential is 396 dwelling units (2.6% of housing need)

Net effect: Gain of 261 dwelling units

Neighborhood (general land use designations and notable features):

North: UR, UH, IL, rail line South: UR

East: UR West: UR, UH, CM, rail line

Proximity to… screening score

School: 700 feet (Jefferson Elementary) 5

Shopping: 100 feet 3

Transit: Adjacent (Prairie Avenue and Ninth Avenue SW) 5

Park/Rec: 700 feet (Jefferson Park) 5

Average: 4.5

Background: Site of abandoned high school. School District is planning to

dispose of the property.

Page 5

2

Utilities evaluation:

Water: Existing 12-in. line in Ninth Ave SW and 8-in. line Prairie Ave

provide adequate supply for analyzed density.

Sewer: The 18-in. main in Prairie Ave and the 9-in. main in 9th Ave SW

can handle the negligible flow increase from a change to UH.

Storm: Existing system can be supplemented by on-site detention if

necessary, which is normal procedure.

Streets: Public Works suggests a realignment of Third Street SW

through the property when it redevelops to move its western

outlet onto Prairie Ave further south to provide more stacking

for the rail crossing.

ANALYSIS ISA 007

The approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments are in Chapter 10, Arti-

cle II, of the Municipal Code:

10.184 Class “A” Amendment Criteria.

(1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Refer to the Review and Amend-

ment section of the Comprehensive Plan…

The Review and Amendments chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains these cri-

teria for General Land Use Plan map changes:

Map Designations. Amendments shall be based on the following:

1. A significant change in one or more Goal, Policy, or Implementation strat-

egy.

2. Demonstrated need for the change to accommodate unpredicted popula-

tion trends, to satisfy urban housing needs, or to assure adequate em-

ployment opportunities.





Comprehensive Plan.


Findings follow.

Page 6

3

1. A significant change in one or more Goal, Policy, or Implementation

strategy.

Findings

The recently changed Housing Element contains the following policy and implemen-

tation measures:

Policy 2: The City shall designate areas for residential development that are or

will be conveniently located close to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit or high-

capacity transportation routes, community facilities and services, and employ-

ment to ensure that the benefits of public investment in those facilities are avail-

able to as many households as possible.

Implementation 2-A: Pursue amendments as needed to achieve transit-

supportive density near current and future transit streets, especially where

parks or schools are present.

* * *

Policy 3: In planning for needed housing, the City of Medford shall strive to pro-

vide a compact urban form that allows efficient use of public facilities and pro-

tects adjacent resource lands.

Implementation 3-A: Assess policies, regulations, and standards affecting res-

idential development and pursue amendments as needed to meet Policy 3.

Consider actions such as:

a) Upzoning buildable land to medium- and high-density residential.

* * *

Policy 5: The City of Medford shall provide opportunities for alternative housing

types and patterns, such as planned unit developments, mixed-uses, and other

techniques that reduce development costs, increase density, and achieve pro-

jects that are flexible and responsive to the site and surroundings, including the

conservation and enhancement of areas having special scenic, historic, architec-

tural, or cultural value.

The Regional Plan Element contains the following goal, policy, and performance in-

dicators:

Goal 1: Manage future regional growth for the greater public good.

Guiding Policies:

* * *

Page 7

4

c. The Region’s overall urban housing density shall be increased to provide for

more efficient land utilization.

* * *

[Performance indicators]

4.1.5 Committed Residential Density. Land within an urban reserve and

land currently within an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but outside of the

existing city limit shall be built, at a minimum, to the following residential

densities. This requirement can be offset by increasing the residential densi-

ty in the city limit.

City Dwelling units per gross acre

2010–2035 2036–2060

Central Point 6.9 7.9

Eagle Point 6.5 7.5

Medford 6.6 7.6

Phoenix 6.6 7.6

Talent 6.6 7.6

4.1.6 Mixed-Use/Pedestrian-Friendly Areas. For land within an urban re-

serve and for land currently within a UGB but outside of the existing city lim-

it, each city shall achieve the 2020 benchmark targets for the number of

dwelling units (Alternative Measure no. 5) and employment (Alternative

Measure no. 6) in mixed-use/pedestrian-friendly areas as established in the

2009 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or most recently adopted RTP. Be-

yond the year 2020, cities shall continue to achieve the 2020 benchmark tar-

gets, or if additional benchmark years are established, cities shall achieve the

targets corresponding with the applicable benchmarks. Measurement and

definition of qualified development shall be in accordance with adopted RTP

methodology.

The requirement is considered met if the city or the region overall is achiev-

ing the targets or minimum qualifications, whichever is greater. This re-

quirement can be offset by increasing the percentage of dwelling units

and/or employment in the city limit.

The Environmental Element contains the following goals and policies:

Policy 3-B: The City of Medford shall continue to require a well-connected circu-

lation system and promote other techniques that foster alternative modes of

transportation, such as pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development and a

linked bicycle transportation system.

* * *

Page 8

5

Goal 9: To assure that future urban growth in Medford occurs in a compact man-

ner that minimizes the consumption of land, including class I through IV agricul-

tural land.

Policy 9-A: The City of Medford shall target public investments to reinforce a

compact urban form.

Policy 9-B: The City of Medford shall strive to protect significant resource lands,

including agricultural land, from urban expansion.

* * *

Goal 10: To assure that urban land use activities are planned, located, and con-

structed in a manner that maximizes energy efficiency.

Policy 10-A: The City of Medford shall plan and approve growth and develop-

ment with consideration to energy-efficient patterns of development, utilizing

existing capital infrastructure whenever possible, and incorporating compact

and urban-centered growth concepts.

Implementation 10-A(3): Provide examples for developers to follow which

reduce motor vehicle transportation needs by using mixed uses, urban infill

projects, etc.

From the Transportation Element:

Policy 8-A: The City of Medford shall facilitate development or redevelopment on

sites located where best supported by the overall transportation system that re-

duces motor vehicle dependency by promoting walking, bicycling and transit

use. This includes altering land use patterns through changes to type, density,

and design.

Implementation 8-A(1): Through revisions to the Medford Comprehensive

Plan and Land Development Code, provide opportunities for increasing resi-

dential and employment density in locations that support increased use of al-

ternative travel modes, such as along transit corridors.

* * *

Implementation 8-B(1): Through revisions to the Medford Comprehensive

Plan and Land Development Code, pursue changes to planned land uses to

concentrate employment, commercial, and high-density residential land uses

in Transit-Oriented Districts (TODs).

Conclusions

Several goals, policies, and implementation measures from various elements of the

Comprehensive Plan plainly state that the City should try to increase densities in

Page 9

6

opportune areas. Some of these elements—notably the Housing, Regional Plan, and

Economic Elements—have been recently updated and were specifically developed

to evaluate the City’s land needs for the next twenty years. They collectively pro-

mote a new paradigm of growth and growth management, with emphasis on utiliz-

ing existing infrastructure in order to maximize public investments and to create

vibrant urban areas instead of maximizing the profits of landowners on the backs of

the public, which bears the long-term real cost of infrastructure maintenance and

the physical costs of greater and greater distances between destinations, increased

pollution, and the consumption of arable land.

Objectors to proposals will sometimes go to great lengths to block them. A common

method is to isolate segments of the findings and pick them apart, calling into ques-

tion the meaning of terms like “demonstrably” or “conveniently located,” in order to

distort or distract and to impute that a given ISA is inappropriate for intensification,

as though the terms were deliberately placed as semantic landmines instead of be-

ing chosen for eloquence or variety.

2. Demonstrated need for the change to accommodate unpredicted popu-

lation trends, to satisfy urban housing needs, or to assure adequate

employment opportunities.

Findings

The Housing Element projects that Medford will need 15,000 dwelling units for the

period 2009–20291 and has capacity for nearly 11,5002 dwelling units, or about

three quarters of the 20-year need. To accommodate those dwelling units, the City

would need to add 1,000 acres to the urban growth boundary.

The Economic Element projects employment land need in the following categories

and quantities:

Type Need, in gross acres3

Svc Commercial (office) ......................................... 290

Industrial ........................................................................... 0

Commercial ................................................................ 278

Other ............................................................................. 354

Total ............................................................................. 709

The total land need is therefore about 1,700 acres. The Economic Element projects a

213-acre surplus of industrial land overall—hence the zero need figure in the ta-



3 Comprehensive Plan, Economic Element, figure 28, p. 47. Gross acreage figures were derived by staff

from guidance in the paragraph below Figure 28.

Page 10

7

ble—but there is a 75-acre deficit in small industrial sites, those that are one to two

acres. Staff believes that amending the Zoning Code to allow low-impact manufac-

turing in some commercial zoning districts would largely satisfy the need; the Eco-

nomic Element contained a similar recommendation.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.296(6) states that when there is a need, a city

should expand its boundaries, increase its capacity, or do a combination of both. The

internal study areas were conceived as the means to increase the capacity of the ex-

isting urban area.

Conclusions

There is a demonstrated need for housing and employment land. Increasing the de-

velopment capacity of the urban area by increasing densities or changing over ex-

cess industrial land to needed commercial land is a response to that need.


Findings

All utilities are available to the site and can handle the additional number of dwell-

ing units without upgrades. The one improvement recommended for the site, name-

ly, the realignment of Third Street SW, is inherent to the site, not to the zoning of it.

Conclusions

The Commission could reasonably conclude that this criterion does not apply in this

case because the provision of key public facilities is not necessary to make the

change. However, it is worth noting that utilizing already-existing facilities to serve

a portion of the City’s 20-year housing need yields an economic advantage over ex-

tending facilities to serve the same number on virgin land.


Findings

The purpose of the internal study area (ISA) project was to find locations were the

development capacity of land could be increased by changing the General Plan clas-

sification. Under the classification Urban Residential (UR) the average density that

could be expected from a piece of land is 4.1 units per gross acre. If that piece of land

were reclassified as UM (Urban Medium-Density Residential) the average density

that could be expected is 12 units per gross acre4. In this example the number of

dwelling units that can be built is nearly trebled.

In the course of analysis and evaluation by the Planning Commission, it was deter-

mined that an increase in density on ISA 007 would not adversely affect the charac-

4 Average density figures for GLUP designations taken from Housing Element, Table 29, p. 50.

Page 11

8

ter of the neighborhood, but an increase to a high-density designation (UH) would

be an ill fit for the neighborhood.

Conclusions

Changing the GLUP designation from a lower-density to a higher-density residential

designation on a vacant area to get more dwelling units in the existing urban area is

an increase in the efficiency of that land.

“Maximization” is a term subject to the judgment of the Planning Commission and

City Council, who seek a balance between density gains and established neighbor-

hood character. In the case of ISA 007 they have concluded that the maximization of

efficiency is achieved through a change to Urban Medium-Density Residential.


Findings

Environment: The land was first developed decades ago. It has been in the City and

intended for development since the 1940s. Both the current and analyzed designa-

tions allow dwelling units; the difference is not of kind but of degree.

Energy: There is an energy benefit from reducing the distance between housing and

the jobs, shopping, and services that residents want.

Economic: Increasing the amount of population that can be served by existing public

facilities will save costs on extensions in outlying areas. Some of this benefit may be

offset by the costs of upgrading existing facilities; however, this area in itself will not

necessitate such upgrades; only collectively do the internal study areas have im-

pacts on existing facilities. The same is true of outlying development, so the econom-

ic argument is neutral.

Social: The Development Code does not anticipate conflict between the two, based

on a lack of zone change criteria for multi-family residential zoning (10.227), but it

does recognize potential aesthetic or nuisance conflict and prescribes buffering re-

quirements (10.790), which apply only to abutting lots, not across a street.

Changing the designation will increase affordable housing choices in an area with

good access to work, shopping, schools, and recreation.

Neighborhood testimony was generally negative, with a lot of concern expressed

about the additional traffic and the incompatibility of the architecture with the exist-

ing single-family houses across the street frontages.

Conclusions

There will be no adverse environmental effect because the proposal does not affect

a natural area. The energy consequences will be generally positive. Although there

Page 12

9

are positive and negative economic effects, the overall effect is a little better than

neutral. There is some potential for conflict between low- and medium-density resi-

dential zoning, but there are also positive social consequences that outweigh con-

cerns about architecture and additional traffic on what is already a busy collector.


Comprehensive Plan.

Findings

The findings under Criterion 1 apply to this criterion as well.

Conclusions

The conclusions under Criterion 1 apply to this criterion as well, with the additional

conclusion that the various goals and policies in other elements are compatible with

the concept of increasing density and creating nodes of mixed-use activity.


Findings

Goal 1—Citizen Involvement: The Planning Department conducted two open houses

to receive comments from property owners and neighbors. In addi-

tion to the property owners, staff notified neighbors within 200 feet of

the hearings. Staff prepared press releases and provided information

on the City’s website.

Goal 2—Land Use Planning: Staff analyzed the impacts of change to this lot’s desig-

nation and determined that it would have no negative effect on public

facilities.

Goals 3–9 do not apply in this case.

Goal 10—Housing: The Housing Element states that the City has a greater need for

lower-income housing options in convenient locations for the targeted

population.

Goal 11—Public Facilities and Services: Staff analyzed the impacts of change to this

lot’s designation and determined that it would have no negative effect

on public facilities. Fire Department reports that it will have no trou-

ble serving the site. Police Department commented that it has suffi-

cient resources to serve the small change in population in this area.

Goal 12—Transportation: The streets surrounding the site have enough capacity to

handle the additional traffic. The intersections within a half mile have

enough capacity to handle the additional traffic. There is transit ser-

Page 13

10

vice passing along the east and west sides of the site. The sidewalk

system is complete throughout the vicinity, connecting to shopping,

recreation, schools, and work locations.

Goal 13—Energy Conservation: Among this goal’s guidelines is this: “Land use plan-

ning should, to the maximum extent possible, combine increasing

density gradients along high-capacity transportation corridors to

achieve greater energy efficiency.” ISA 007 is located along a high-

capacity transportation corridor; the proposed change is an increase

in density over the existing and can be graded in density from the

eastern edges toward the west to achieve greater spatial compatibility

with the neighborhood.

Goal 14—Urbanization: The second directive under the “Land Need” section of the

goal states “Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local gov-

ernments shall demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accom-

modated on land already inside the urban growth boundary.” Staff

and the Planning Commission identified and analyzed ISA 007 specifi-

cally to determine if it could accommodate some of the need.

Goals 15–19 do not apply to Medford.

Conclusions

The City provided adequate opportunities for citizen input (Goal 1). There is an ad-

equate factual basis for the proposed designation change (2). The change will pro-

vide housing opportunities for an underhoused part of the population, as measured

by income level (10). The population that will inhabit the area is accounted for in

the population estimate of the City; its presence at ISA 007 is a locational matter for

fixed utilities but inconsequential for mobile public services (11). The site is well

served by a variety of transportation modes and is therefore suitable for an increase

in density (12). The proposed change to ISA 007 complies with directives in Goals

13 and 14.

Overall Conclusion

With very few negative features, the proposed change from Low-Density Urban Res-

idential to High-Density (UR to UH) is appropriate for ISA 007.

Page 14

11

VICINITY ZONING ISA 007

ISA 007

Base image source: City of Faribault, Minnesota

Elem.

School

Park

9th

Av

e.

SW

3rd Street SW

8th Street SW

Pra

irie

Av

e.

Page 15

12

AERIAL ISA 007

ISA 007

Image source: Google maps, 2013-07-09

Page 16

RESOLUTION NO. 2013-127

A RESOLUTION initiating a General Land Use Plan Map amendment to reclassify 856 acresofland within the current Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).

WHEREAS, the Medford Urban Growth Boundary Amendment (UGBA) project includesanalyses of growth options that are both internal and external to the existing urban area; and

WHEREAS, the redesignation of land in the urban area to be used more efficiently issupported by the City of Medford Strategic Plan under Action Items 5.Ia, 6.2c, and Objective 7.1under the theme "Healthy Economy"; and

WHEREAS, the redesignation ofland in the urban area for more efficient use is supported byHousing Policies 2 and 3 of the Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the redesignation of land in the urban area for more efficient use IS

recommended by Oregon Revised Statute 197.296(6)(b); and

WHEREAS, the the redesignation ofland in the urban area for more efficient use is requiredby Statewide Planning Goal 14, titled "Urbanization"; and

WHEREAS, the provision of adequate transportation facilities for current and futureboundary expansions needs to be taken into account; and

WHEREAS, the Medford City Council seeks a balance between the differing methods ofurban growth; and

WHEREAS, there is potential for poor compatibility between intensification areas andexisting neighborhoods that calls for standards to counter architectural, massing, and spatialincompatibilities; and

WHEREAS, there is a recognized need for design standards, they will be developedseparately from the UGBA project; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON,that staff and the Planning Commission are hereby directed to initiate the screening andrecommendation process for the internal study areas with the following provisions:

Section 1. Obtain acknowledgement from the Oregon Department ofLand Conservation andDevelopment that the Internal Study Areas constitute an "efficiency measure" according to OregonStatute.

III

-I-Resolution No. 2013-127 P:\JMP\RESOS\CP-13-032

Page 17

Section 2. Reach an understanding with Department ofLand Conservation and Developmentofficials on the relationship between Medford's planned density obligations and buildable lands ongreater-than-15% slope.

Section 3. Perform the external analysis portion of the UGB Amendment projectconcurrently with the internal portion, though there cannot be concurrent adoption because the areaof the expansion is contingent on the amount of ISA land approved.

Section 4. Account for systemic transportation needs when evaluating external areas.

Section 5. Prepare for the development of design standards addressing architectural,massing, and spatial compatibility, contingent on the Medford City Council adding the project to itsStrategic Plan.

Section 6. Evaluate and report to City Council the feasibility ofmoving the SFR-l 0 zoningdistrict into the Urban Medium-Density Residential (UM) general land use plan designation.

PASSED by the Council and signed by me in authentication ofits passage this dayof , 2013.

ATTEST: ---------City Recorder

-2-Resolution No. 2013-127

Mayor

P:VMP\RESOS\CP-13-032

Page 18



1

DCA 2013-083, Commission Residency Requirements, draft 02 (Reformatted)

Tracked-changes key: Added text; Deleted Text;

ARTICLE II - PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 10.120 Planning Commission. The Planning Commission membership shall, at a minimum, comply with the requirements of ORS 227.030 (Membership). The Planning Commission shall have all powers set forth in ORS 227.090 (Powers and Duties of Commission) except as otherwise provided by ordinance of the City Council. [Amd. Sec. 2, Ord. No. 5873, May 21, 1987.] 10.123 Planning Commission, Membership. (1) Number Appointed. The Planning Commission shall consist of nine (9) voting members appointed by the Mayor and City Council. (2) Length of Term. All terms shall be for a period of four (4) years beginning on February 1 of each year with not more than three terms expiring in the same year. (3) Position Appointments. The Planning Commission members shall at a minimum comply with the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 227.030 (Membership) as provided below or as amended:

(a) Not more than two members of a city planning commission may be city officers, who shall serve as ex officio nonvoting members.

(b) No more than two voting members of the commission may engage principally in the buying, selling, or developing of real estate for profit as individuals, or be members of any partnership, or officers or employees of any corporation, that engages principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit.

(c) No more than two members shall be engaged in the same kind of occupation, business, trade or profession.

(4) Selection Criteria. All members shall be residents of the City and if any member ceases to be a resident, his or her position shall become vacant.All members of the Commission shall meet a minimum of one of the following residency requirements unless specifically addressed otherwise in the Medford Code or State Statutes:

(a) Physical residency within the City of Medford Urban Growth Boundary. (b) Owner of fifty (50) percent or more of a business located within the City of Medford Urban Growth Boundary

Page 19



2

(c) Owner of real property located within the City of Medford Urban Growth Boundary. A Commissioner who ceases to meet one of the above conditions during his/her term of office shall forfeit the office and a new member shall be appointed to serve the unexpired portion of the term. (5) Removal Terms. A member may be removed by the Mayor and City Council, after a hearing, for misconduct or nonperformance of duty. (6) Vacancy Replacement. Any vacancy shall be filled by the Mayor and City Council for the unexpired term of the predecessor in the office. (7) Quorum. A quorum of the Planning Commission shall consist of five or more members. [Amd. Sec. 4, Ord. No. 5820, March 19, 1987; Amd. Sec. 2, Ord. No. 6040, Jan. 7, 1988; Amd. Sec. 4, Ord. No. 7659, June 2, 1994; Amd. Sec. 1, Ord. No. 2011-06, Jan. 6, 2011.] * * * 10.133 Site Plan and Architectural Commission, Membership. (1) Number Appointed. The Site Plan and Architectural Commission shall consist of nine (9) voting members appointed by the Mayor and City Council., as follows. (2) Length of Term. Site Plan and Architectural Commissioner terms shall be for a period of four (4) years, with the exception of the member of the Planning Commission, whose initial term shall be for a period of two (2) years. Subsequent Planning Commissioner terms shall be for one (1) year if reappointed. Said terms shall begin on February 1 of each year with not more than two (2) terms expiring in the same year, exclusive of the Planning Commissioner. (3) Position Appointments.

(a) One (1) member shall be a Planning Commissioner nominated by the Planning Commission chairperson.

(b) One (1) member shall be a licensed architect. (c) One (1) member shall be a licensed professional engineer. (d) One (1) member shall be a licensed landscaping professional. (e) One (1) member shall be a licensed contractor.

When selecting persons to fill the remaining four (4) positions, preference should be given to applicants who have training or experience closely related to the licensed positions. The Site Plan and Architectural Commission may review the applications and may make

Page 20



3

recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding appointments. At the Mayor and City Council’s discretion, an appointment to any of the four (4) professional/licensed positions may be an individual who, in lieu of having a valid license in the profession, possesses a comparable combination of skill, education, training and experience related to the respective professional licensing category. (4) Selection Criteria. Members shall reside within the City of Medford. All members of the Commission shall meet a minimum of one of the following residency requirements unless specifically addressed otherwise in the Medford Code or State Statutes:


A Commissioner who ceases to meet one of the above conditions during his/her term of office shall forfeit the office and a new member shall be appointed to serve the unexpired portion of the term. (5) Removal Terms. A member may be removed by the Mayor and City Council, after a hearing, for misconduct or nonperformance of duty. (6) Vacancy Replacement. Any vacancy shall be filled by the Mayor and City Council for the unexpired term of the member being replaced. (7) Quorum. A quorum of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission shall consist of five or more members. [Amd. Sec. 3, Ord. No. 6040, Jan 7, 1988; Amd. Sec. 6, Ord. No. 7659, June 2, 1994; Amd Ord. No. 2001-159, Sept. 6, 2001; Amd. Sec. 2, Ord. No. 2006-13, Jan. 5, 2006; Amd. Ord. No. 2007-99, June 7, 2007; Amd. Sec. 3, Ord. No. 2008-236, Nov. 20, 2008; Amd. Sec. 2, Ord. No. 2011-06, Jan. 6, 2011.] 10.134 Procedure of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission. Except as otherwise provided by law or this chapter, the Site Plan and Architectural Commission shall conduct its meetings in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised., excepting that a quorum shall be defined as five (5) or more members for purposes of this section. [Amd. Sec. 3, Ord. No. 2006-13, Jan. 5, 2006.] * * *

Page 21



4

10.137 Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission, Membership. (1) Number Appointed. The Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall be made up of seven (7) voting members appointed by the Mayor and City Council. (2) Length of Term. All regular terms of members of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall be for a period of four years, and shall begin on February 1, with not more than three terms expiring in the same year. (3) Position Appointments. All members of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall have demonstrated positive interest, competence, or knowledge of historic preservation. The Planning Director or designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission. (4) Selection Criteria. All Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission members shall be residents of the City of Medford, and, if any member ceases to be a city resident, his/her position shall become vacant. . All members of the Commission shall meet a minimum of one of the following residency requirements unless specifically addressed otherwise in the Medford Code or State Statutes:


A Commissioner who ceases to meet one of the above conditions during his/her term of office shall forfeit the office and a new member shall be appointed to serve the unexpired portion of the term. (5) Removal Criteria. A member of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission may be removed by the Mayor and City Council, after a hearing, for misconduct or nonperformance of duty. Replacements shall be appointed by the Mayor and City Council for the remainder of the unexpired term. (6) Quorum. A quorum of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall consist of four or more members. [Added, Sec. 2, Ord. No. 2006-199, Sept. 7, 2006; Amd. Sec. 3, Ord. No. 2011-06, Jan. 6, 2011.]

Page 22



5

10.138 Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission, Meeting Procedures. Except as otherwise provided by law or this Code, the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall conduct its meetings in accordance with rules as adopted by the commission., except that a quorum shall be defined as four or more members. The Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission shall meet as necessary to act on Historic Reviews in a timely manner. There shall be at least one meeting of the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission held each year, during the month of March. [Added, Sec. 3, Ord. No. 2006-199, Sept. 7, 2006.]

Page 23

09-09-13 pc ss agenda pc ss agenda packet.pdf · definition of qualified development shall be in...

Documents