Citing incompatible size and design with adjacent properties, the Medford City Council late Thursday said no to the Wal-Mart Supercenter proposal for the Miles Field site.

The Council voted 5-1 to reverse the Site Plan and Architectural Commission’s April 2 decision to approve the Wal-Mart application.

"I don’t know what art is, but I know what ugly is," said Councilman John Michaels, admitting he was quoting Councilman Skip Knight.

Council members cited the architectural features, overall design and one-story footprint of the proposed 206,000-square-foot store as reasons for overturning the commission’s approval.

It was unclear what the next step of the process will be — Wal-Mart representatives said they were undecided over what course of action to take.

Advertisement

The council heard a third appeal of the commission’s decision Thursday from the South Gateway Center Partners, made up of South Gateway developers Bob Kaczor of Medford and Bob Barks of Seattle.

On May 6, the council heard the first two appeals, filed by former Medford City Councilman Bill Mansfield and by Wendy Siporen, a member of the Talent City Council.

The April 2 SPAC decision approved the application for the 206,533-square-foot supercenter, to be built along Highway 99 at Center Drive, where Miles Field is located.

Even though the appeal and public testimony Thursday was about traffic concerns, council members said the decision had nothing to do with traffic.

Portland attorney Dana Krawczuk, representing South Gateway Center Partners, presented an argument that a comprehensive traffic study was needed for the proposed superstore.

Chris Koback, a Portland-based attorney representing Wal-Mart, said the South Gateway Center Partners were contorting the language of the city code, and that Wal-Mart is in full compliance with the city’s requirements.

The council had the choice of upholding the SPAC decision, reversing, modifying or sending it back until the Wal-Mart representatives decided Thursday they would not waive the 120-day application period deadline date.

The application period expires May 29, so not waiving it took away the council’s ability to remand the decision back to the site plan commission.

Following public testimony, which saw six area residents oppose the project and two speak in support, the council began discussion. Several members voiced concern that Wal-Mart was not more willing to work with the community.

"It is not compatible with the surrounding area," said Councilwoman Claudette Moore. "I shop at Wal-Mart. I have no problem with Wal-Mart," she said, explaining she was concerned with how the superstore would fit in the neighborhood.

Councilman Jim Key said he did not support reversing the commission’s decision.

He said even though he has struggled with the notion of a Wal-Mart Supercenter coming to town since he first heard about it, he thought the council could do things such as limit the size of the building.

"I believe we can condition the approval," he said.

But Councilman Jim Kuntz said he supported reversing the decision.

"I believe the burden of proof for compatibility has not been met," he said.

Mayor Lindsay Berryman said the nearest buildings, including the Rogue Federal Credit Union, the Armory and Harry and David, have the height of two-stories. She would like to see Wal-Mart decrease the size of their footprint and build a second story.

"Comfort Inn is a four-story building," she said.

Following the meeting, Koback declined comment because the decision pertained to previous hearings which he had not been present for, but Chuck Martinez of Medford, who secures sites for Wal-Mart in Oregon and Southern Washington, said he was a little bit surprised by the council decision.

"We did work with the city," he said, adding that they had satisfied many requests the Site Plan and Architectural Commission had made.

"It seems very inconsistent with past applications," he said, adding that others, like Fred Meyer, had not been required to do a second story or to screen their storage containers.

He said they will regroup and consider options, one of which is an appeal to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.

"We’re not going to go away," he said.

Reach reporter Meg Landers at 776-4481 or e-mail mlanders@mailtribune.com.