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 Minutes
Thursday, February 13, 2014
he regular meeting of the Medford Planning Commission was called to order at 5:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
Commissioners Present Staff
Michael Zarosinski, Chair Jim Huber, Planning Director
Robert Tull, Vice Chair Bianca Petrou, Assistant Planning Director
Bill Christie Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
Norman Fincher Lori Cooper, Deputy City Attorney
Bill Mansfield Larry Beskow, City Engineer
David McFadden Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Patrick Miranda John Adam, Planner IV
10. Roll Call
10.1 Election of Officers
Commissioner Mansfield nominated Chair Zarosinski to serve as Chair for 2014. Commissioner Miranda seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
Commissioner Miranda nominated Vice Chair Tull to serve as Vice Chair for 2014. Commissioner Christie seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
Chair Zarosinski reappointed Commissioner Miranda to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission for 2014.
Chair Zarosinski reappointed Commissioner Christie and Vice Chair Tull to the Joint Transportation Subcommittee for 2014.
20. Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1 ZC-13-113 Final Order approving a request for Zone Change from SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – 10 units per acre) to C-C (Community Commercial on one parcel totaling 1.17 acres generally located at the northwest corner of the intersection of West Main Street and Quince Street. (Jackson County, Applicant; Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd., Agent).
20.2 CUP-13-133 Final Order approving a request for a Conditional Use Permit for U S Cellular Community Park Phase 4, including a parking lot, ball fields, grandstand, dog run, restroom, and encroachments into the riparian setback of storm water facilities and pathway widening on a parcel totaling 131 acres located on the east side of South Pacific Highway approximately 1,000 feet north of South Stage Road within a C-R (Regional Commercial) zoning district. (City of Medford Parks and Recreation Department, Applicant).
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar.
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden Seconded by: Commissioner Christie
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
30.1 The minutes from January 23, 2014, meeting will be ready for approval at the February 27, 2014, meeting.
40. Oral and Written Requests and Communications. None.
Chair Zarosinski stated that tonight’s hearing was a legislative hearing.
50. Public Hearing.
50.1 CP-13-032 Consideration of a General Land Use Plan Map amendment to reclassify approximately 800 vacant or redevelopable acres (Internal Study Areas) within the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB) for the purpose of maximizing the current capacity of land within the boundary. (City of Medford, Applicant).
John Adam, Planner IV, gave a staff report. Mr. Adam stated that deliberations will begin at the March 13, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. The task of the Planning Commission is to develop a recommendation to the City Council on which ISAs or which portions of ISAs are suitable for a General Land Use Plan map change. Since the City Council would like to consider both, the intensification and the expansion proposal in one package, the Planning Commission’s recommendation will lie dormant until the Commission has considered an expansion proposal and put together a recommendation on that one as well. It will likely not be until next fall or winter that a full recommendation on both the ISAs and expansion go to the City Council. Mr. Adam touched on ISA 930, the Carpenter property. He reported that the owners now propose to eliminate the two northernmost areas from their plan (CM-1 and UM-1) based on the testimony heard from neighbors at the last meeting. Staff supports and appreciates the family’s initiative in approaching the City with their own recommendation. There is a lot of land that was analyzed and there is quite a bit of work to do to get it narrowed down to the need figures.
Chair Zarosinski asked Mr. Adams to walk through the summary of analyzed land types in ISA’s. It lists the types of General Land Use Plan map designations, the number or acres analyzed under each category, percent, and target needs.
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
a. Chris Hill, 1630 Spring Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Hill testified that the General Land Use Plan recommendation to increase multi-family construction sites is the latest attack on the middle class. The properties recommended for multi-family are currently zoned single family. By reducing single-family acreage, middle-class Medford citizens will have few places to build a single-family home. The rich will continue to build on the hills east of Medford. The financially challenged will be accommodated in the low-income housing projects which will most likely occupy the new high-density building sites. Owning a home is still an American dream for many middle-class citizens. Medford has been largely a middle-class community; but the "American Dream" and a middle-class citizenry will be a fond memory if the General Land Use Plan recommendations are approved. Ms. Hill asked the Planning Commission to carefully consider the long-term ramifications of the Planning Department's recommendations.
b. Stuart Sennat, 2797 Barclay Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. It seems to him that the Planning Commission is making decisions that involve a lot of people that own private property. It should be the other way around. The people that own private property who are affected should be sitting where the Commissioners are sitting and the Commissioners should be coming to them with their suggestions for them to approve of it. This is not the way it is supposed to be. People that have private property are the people that make this whole thing work. It is his opinion that any Commission should not have any bearing on what happens to the people's lives, fortunes, and prospects. All this is being done on projections. Who knows how this is going to go.
c. Steve McNeal, 4 East Clark Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Mr. McNeal read his letter that he submitted to the Planning Department on Wednesday, February 12, 2014. His concerns are the notification process and the best interest of the citizens of Medford. His ISA concerns are about the long standing existing neighborhood of East Medford, ISAs 240, 250, 930, 940, and 950. In an attempt to have the best interest of its citizens in mind, it is his opinion that the City of Medford should adopt a rule to only hire staff and employees that reside either within the boundaries of the city limits or at least within the adjacent close cities to Medford. He strongly opposes the General Land Use Plan map amendment to reclassify the above properties from the existing UR to UM. The central east side of Medford, a few blocks east of Crater Lake Avenue, is primarily zoned SFR and it is his opinion there is already enough diversity with select MFR-20 and MFR-30 high-density properties. More medium-density or high-density apartment buildings will cause significant adverse environmental and social consequences including the increase in crimes and destruction of property values. The ISA study for UM indicates that there are over 350 acres available and that only 69 acres are actually needed. Please choose these from other areas that will not greatly impact the existing neighborhoods. Other areas are also available where many existing properties are vacant or not maintained that would benefit with an upgrade.
Commissioner Mansfield asked about the neighborhood alert Mr. McNeal said he received. He requested that Mr. McNeal enlarge on his comment about significant adverse environmental and social consequences. Commissioner Mansfield is particularly interested in what the social consequences mean. Mr. McNeal stated that the social consequences would be slanted towards the increase in crime and that happens any time there is large increases of population; that there would be traffic consequences, and impacts to schools. Chair Zarosinski said he did not want a debate about interpretations of social consequences; Commissioner Mansfield said he was seeking clarity. The Chair asked Mr. McNeal to make a quick list of the consequences. Mr. McNeal listed increased traffic, upgrades of public streets, upgrades of already overcrowded schools, upgrades of sewer and water systems, an increase in crime, and destruction of property values, to name just a few.
d. Mark Hageman, 2680 Country Park Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Hageman questions the data in the Housing Element specifically regarding Criterion 2 and Criterion 5. The data presented in the Housing Element are from 2008 and 2009 when Medford's employment was at a ten-year high and the housing values were still inflated. The Executive Summary of the Housing Element indicates that Medford's median home value rose by sixty-five percent from 2000 to 2008. The current average home value for Medford is only approximately thirty percent greater than in 2000. According to US Census Data Medford's median family income remained close to $45,000 from 2008 to 2012. Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicate a ten-year average unemployment of 9.7, a 2009 rate of 12.6, and a current rate of about 9.7. Thus, the current unemployment rate is more reflective of the norm than in 2009. The Southern Oregon Multiple Listing Services provide a housing affordability index. This index measures the ability of a median-income family to afford a median-priced home. Values over 100 reflect affordability. In 2008 the affordability index was 115. In 2013 the index was 136. This current ability to afford a home in Medford is much higher than in 2008 when the Housing Element was written. Table 25 of the Housing Element indicates a deficit of 4,456 homes in the affordable range for households earning less than $25,000. Correcting this table to reflect an approximate 25% reduction in the home values since 2008 reduces the deficit of homes to fill the affordability gap to less than 200. Look at the table and you can figure it out for yourselves. Furthermore, and before this adjustment, the Housing Element states the analysis in Table 25 probably somewhat overestimates housing needs for households below the median family income. The General Land Use Plan amendment is based on sloppy and lazy planning. Please ask questions.
e. Scott Clay, 407 Park Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Clay spoke to the procedure that the Commission is following at this point. He does not believe increased density is detrimental to existing residential areas or new residential areas. When he looks at the proposal that has been provided this evening he understands that it talks about maximum efficiency of existing land within the urbanized area before one starts to study other areas. He does not see more of the study for Stewart Avenue, Crater Lake Avenue, and segments of Jackson Street. These have become linear, high transportation routes within the City for east/west, north/south transportation patterns. It seems appropriate to look at those for increased density and a mixed-use format for those particular routes. They are already part of the transportation system. They could fall within a transit-oriented development proposal as well. He hopes those would be considered.
f. Greg Holmes, Box 2442, Grants Pass, Oregon, 97528. Mr. Holmes stated that he is a southern Oregon planning advocate for 1 000 Friends of Oregon. He submitted written comments. The case has been made on a technical basis and none of them should be disqualified for what the proposed uses are for. What this is going to come down to is trade-offs in the end and frankly a political decision. Mr. Holmes made a couple of general comments and pointed out one specific technical issue that he believes needs to be addressed. It is important to remember the context of this. This is part of a larger look at the potential for expanding the urban growth boundary in the future to meet future needs for growth that stems from population growth. What gets changed here has a huge impact on what has to happen out in the new areas and how much development and what types of development goes on to land that is possibly now being farmed or used for other purposes. There are a number of studies and analysis that shows one wants to have the higher density and higher uses in closer to the City core on transportation routes which makes it more efficient for the City to operate. There are a number of studies, one of which he will submit into the record tonight that talks about the tax and service consequences for communities spreading out all over and not bringing in some of the more intense uses in closer where utilities and facilities already exist. Investing in that infrastructure that one has already paid for. There are good reasons to be looking at this up-zoning potential. There are also trends out there showing that the baby boomers and the Generation Y population, which together make up more than half of the U.S. population, are heavily preferring smaller units closer to facilities within neighborhoods where there are options to meet some of their needs by walking rather than getting into a car. Those can be fairly high-end but also much denser developments than what we see in a lot of these neighborhoods currently that some of these areas are proposed to be near. In those cases those types of amenities actually increase the value of the neighboring properties and that actually needs to be considered. The one technical issue is that, the total number of acres needed for meeting future needs, based on the projections, is slightly overstated. It is based on overall average density figure that came out of the Housing Element that the City adopted several years ago. That Housing Element was never approved by the State. Subsequently, the City did adopt the RPS Plan which has higher density commitments in it. Those density commitments need to be reflected in the calculations which will reduce slightly the total number of acres that are needed to meet all future needs.
g. Gordon Challstrom, 943 Summit Avenue, Suite A, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Mr. Challstrom stated that he has land in ISA in 718. He is very concerned that this seems like a heavy-handed approach to the planning. In a free society a government reacts to the will and movement of the people. In a planned society you dictate to the people what to do. He asked the Commission to look closely and move very slowly in their process of planning.
h. Joan Middendorff, 1252 Valley View Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504. She wonders if staff has done a visual inspection of the ISA areas and can really understand how the people feel. She has a major concern with getting out of Valley View Drive and onto McAndrews Road. It is extremely difficult at many times during the day. If she tries to go the other route up to Gardendale and come down Springbrook, it is the same.
i. Pamela Dieterichs, 2491 Greenfield Court, Medford, Oregon, 97504. She lives close to ISA 930. She has four questions: 1) How often does the City have to go through this procedure to update or satisfy the State mandate; 2) When was the last time this was done; 3) Will the property taxes on existing homes go down when the home values go down if the Commission enacts any of proposed ISAs; and 4) What will happen if the Commission does not approve any of the ISAs? Chair Zarosinski stated that he has no idea about taxes and in general the Planning Commission will not address specific questions, but he asked staff to respond to the other questions. Adam reported that urban growth boundary amendments are done to address twenty-year needs. There is no set schedule on how often it happens. A city will start looking at its need, developing a new Housing Element, doing a new Buildable Lands Inventory-finding out how much need there is; that is when it embarks on a UGB amendment. It could happen anytime between twenty and thirty years. The last time this was done in Medford was in 1990.
j. Sunny Fallis, 1225 East 11th Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Fallis spoke at the January 23, 2014, Planning Commission public hearing. Ms. Fallis asked how much of the area around Larry's Music fills the land use need for multifamily. Chair Zarosinski stated again that the Commission will not answer specific questions. If you have a concern or rhetorical questions then proceed. Ms. Fallis asked the Commission to really look at the downtown where there are already buildings that are vacant and neighborhoods that are already adjusted to multi-unit density. Adding to the outskirts in areas that people discussed intensely at the last meeting, the City does not have the road structure for quick access in and out of a neighborhood when there are extra people living in apartments. It increases the traffic flow and that needs to be considered for emergency vehicles.
k. Suzanne Messer, 2440 E. McAndrews Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Messer stated that she lives right by ISA 950 that is going to be zoned SFR-15. She would rather not be blocked in on all three sides and not be able to get out of her house at all. She does not want the high density in her area.
l. Nancy Leever, 2470 E. McAndrews Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Leever stated that the medium density means that the low-income housing will probably keep on moving her way up to her property. Single-family residential would be okay; that is what they have been expecting for years. Higher-density housing should be closer to town. There are huge economic and social consequences of rezoning many of the parcels, most of them that have been pinpointed in East Medford to allow for commercial and multi-family housing.
m. Michael Finley, 1520 Nottingham Circle, Medford, Oregon, 97504. He has an interest in property near Cherry Creek. Mr. Finley asked where is the vision? Where is the commitment to protect existing neighborhoods and the character of those neighborhoods? Or do we just look at vacant land as a convenient place to dump density? Those are ugly apartments on West Main by Bi-Mart on the south side of the road. It is actually shameful from color to design and the quality of residents that live there. Look at the Twin Creek development. From zero lot lines to age-friendly development. The outlets are higher, there are no steps from the garage into the house, there are no steps out to the patio and there are raised areas for washers and dryers. Those are single-family homes but the range in the amount of square footage, the amount of opportunity, the placing of the parks is something that gives higher-density, single-family development a different take, a different vision. It will give you a different look between either/or which is often not the base choice for any of us who believe in good public policy.
n. Charlene Beaty, 2902 Fredrick Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504. She and her husband oppose the restructuring of ISA 240. Currently it is single family, four dwellings per acre. They would not like to see it changed to medium density, fifteen structures per acre. Wilkshire Terrace is surrounded by single family homes and they wish to retain that current classification so it will be compatible with future development. Earlier this week Ms. Beaty submitted to Mr. Adam a petition signed by one hundred-forty eight residents who live on streets surrounding ISA 240. The petitioners also request to retain the current category of SFR-4. They agree with the position of William Barchet and Talbert Shelton who are the current owners of majority of ISA 240 land. In a letter dated January 9, 2014, they informed the residents of their opposition to this reclassification. The letter stated, "while increasing the density from UR to UM would presumably increase value of our property, it is not clear to us that is the best use of the land." At the meeting two weeks ago Mr. Barchet spoke about his opposition and his reasons for that.
o. Christian Nelson, 2165 Kings Highway, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Mr. Nelson stated that he lives in ISA 620. His concern is that there is a creek cutting across the corner of the property and because of the riparian setback laws the actual development of that property will be fairly difficult. It seems to be a conflicting desire to have both open space and green space around a riparian right-of-way, yet trying to increase the density around it. Currently there is no public transportation on Kings Highway. It concerns him to have a large medium-density type structure in an area without public transportation. The other issue is that part of the process would be that any development would require them to improve Kings Highway. Historically as they have developed along Kings Highway they have developed immediately adjacent to it and that road is not suited for pedestrian traffic. There are no street lights or sidewalks. It is very unsafe.
p. Tom Hall, 1353 Ryan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Hall stated that he owns a piece of the property in ISA 630 that has been isolated and completely surrounded by medium-density zoning, if that is what the City is going to be doing. He has been told if he develops that single-family piece of property, they have to put the road to nowhere. They are being mandated to build the road and for some oddball reason they have isolated the entire piece of property. They have the urban growth boundary as their back fence and completely surrounded by medium-density housing. They ask that the Commission not do that. If the goal is to devalue their property the City has done well. They ask that the City does not create them as an island. At least back off on some of the housing around the property and not isolate them as single-family residences with the urban growth boundary as their back fence.
q. Jack Fender, 2516 W. Stewart Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Mr. Fender lives in ISA 670. He bought his property because it was in the County. He has a single-family dwelling on the property that used to be a farm. He cannot comprehend the designation change. He fought for his country and now he has to fight for his land. If you cram more people into one area, which we saw in World War II in the concentration camps, you are guaranteed to have problems. Utilize what you have to the best ability. Leave ISA 670 alone.
r. Mike Montero, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 202, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Montero stated that he appears before the Commission tonight on behalf of his clients Cogswell Limited Partnership. In the packet on pages 493 and 494 they have submitted a letter and an exhibit into the record. It is clear from the testimonies from two succeeding meetings that trying to meet the desperate housing and employment needs in a built environment is a challenge. Mr. Montero referred to the parcel on the corner of Hillcrest and North Phoenix next to the Hillcrest Business Park. It is currently split zoned. It is designated both commercial and multi-family housing. His clients believe it is an opportunity to address part of the commercial need. From the record this evening, Mr. Adam referred to a deficit in the urban high density housing and commercial acreage. There is an opportunity to utilize the specific infrastructure for this property to meet one of those needs better. They believe it is the commercial. They respectfully request that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to re-designate the General Land Use Plan map for the multi-family portion of this property to commercial.
s. Jack Peebler, 1879 Gene Cameron Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Peebler testified that he submitted a letter in January to the Planning Department. He and his wife are strongly opposed to having any zone change on property the City has identified as ISA 240 on the General Land Use Plan map. They are a single-family residential property and they do not want apartment-type townhouses or duplexes in their neighborhood. These types of housing do not fit into their established SFR-4 neighborhood area. They are concerned about their property values and the quality of their living.
t. Carolyn Miller, 2945 Lone Pine Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Ms. Miller has property in ISA 240. From other testimonies it sounds like everyone else in that area does not want the change. She spoke at the January 23, 2014, Planning Commission public hearing. She wants to reiterate they do not want the change and hopes the Planning Commission will take it off their consideration. They would like to keep the SFR-4 designation. She is also concerned about schools being highly impacted.
u. Scott Kilgras, 1817 Stratford Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504. He still has some confusion with this amendment even though he spent about a half hour at the Planning Department. As a veteran of the Cherry Creek matter he knows whatever decision the Planning Commission makes will essentially make rezoning the property a slam dunk. Future litigants will have no chance to change the decisions the Planning Commission makes today no matter what the circumstances are. He is present to preserve the objection of future litigants that this is a zoning activity and there are certain codes, regulations and statutes that require notice to parties affected. He wants to preserve the objection of future litigants that the people who are proposing this change have failed to meet their notice requirements.
v. Jim Hearndon, 805 Cherry Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501. He received a notice the other day that shows the City is looking at high density area on Cherry Street off of Stewart. On weekends it is a drag strip through there. The intersection at Cherry Street and Stewart is very dangerous. He does not recommend high density. There are new homes being built in that area. There is no bus service.
Mr. Adam pointed out that Mr. Holmes' submittal was in fact not in the material that was passed out before the meeting (because he had overlooked and so did not print it), but the Commission would get the material soon. He explained that staff will be coming back on March 13, 2014, with a recommendation that the Commission can wrestle with, and staff will be present to help them through that process.
Commissioner Miranda asked if the 200 feet in the targeted area was an optional baseline chosen to be used and not an actual requirement? Mr. Adam reported that when the City does a comprehensive action and a General Land Use Plan map like this, the people whose property would be directly affected are notified. Staff sent out notices for the 200 feet when they did their open houses a couple of years ago so they repeated that this time. It was an elective.
Commissioner McFadden stated that the City Council has changed the notification on Planned Unit Development notifications. Those are the only ones that officially have a larger area of notification than the property involved. Mr. Adam confirmed Commissioner McFadden's statement.
Vice Chair Tull stated that several of the people that spoke to the Commission implied that the information being discussed this evening came to the Planning Commissions awareness very recently. Does Mr. Adam remember when he began working with the Planning Commission in study sessions, in analyzing population projections and estimates? Does he remember how far back this material became a part of Planning Commission study sessions? Mr. Adam reported that the County started doing population allocations in 2006. It was completed and adopted in 2007. That was basically a starting point giving staff a projection out more than twenty years. From there you can start calculating what the housing and economic need is going to be. A Buildable Lands Inventory was done in 2007 to analyze what lands were available or what categorizations they fall into. The Economic Element was adopted in 2008 and the Housing Element was adopted in 2010. Those both derive from the data available in the Buildable Land Inventory and using the Population Element. The ISA discussions began in Planning Commission study sessions approximately three years ago. The City Council has been continually updated on the process.
Commissioner Tull stated that helps in terms of where the City is in a process. This is not something that has all of a sudden sprung to life here in Medford. It is part of an ongoing projection of what we can plan to happen in our City looking ahead a generation. We have some sections of the City that have been old sections of the City for a generation or two. What is going to happen to those in the next twenty years? What needs to be done differently and re-thought? If it is true that the population of our valley could double in the next forty years and the population of our City could double in thirty-five or forty years, because a lot of us feel this is a very attractive place to live, work and raise children, how do we think ahead to the changes that will and need to take place if we are going to be a growing City and be as pleasant and accommodating place for another generation or two as we have found here? This is not something that suddenly came to the Planning Commission's attention. Hopefully, it is not the first time that those who are present tonight have heard of this. You have accepted an invitation from the City and the Planning Commission to jump in and participate in shaping decisions that we are going to live with for a long time.
The public hearing was closed.
60. Report of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
60.1 Commissioner Miranda reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday but he was out of state and unable to attend.
70. Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
70.1 Commissioner Christie reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met.
80. Report of the Planning Department.
80.1 Bianca Petrou, Assistant Planning Director, reported that on February 6, 2014, City Council initiated a street vacation for the alley between West Main and Quince. Jackson County owns the property. The Planning Commission approved a General Land Use Plan map change and a zone change.
On February 20, 2014, a de-annexation will be presented to the City Council. It is on Erhman Way.
The Planning Commissions next study session is scheduled for Monday, February 24, 2014. Discussion will be on two text amendments. One is for Historic review code amendment and the other one is for political campaign signs.
The Planning Commission had their joint study session with City Council on Tuesday, January 28, 2014. City Council has requested that the topic of West Main Transit Oriented District be discussed at another joint study session with the Planning Commission scheduled for Tuesday, April 24, 2014, at noon in the Medford Room.
Thursday, February 27, 2014, the Planning Commission will consider five or items.
Thursday, March 13, 2014, staff will present to the Planning Commission their recommendation on the ISAs. The Planning Commission will have their deliberation then.
The Spring Meadows decision that the Planning Commission denied the modification was appealed to City Council. City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s decision and a LUBA appeal had been filed.
Commissioner McFadden asked that the areas in the County that were developed, exception areas, will the Erhman Way de-annexation create an exception area? Ms. Petrou replied that exception areas are areas outside the urban growth boundary. It would continue to be in the urban growth boundary. If it got de-annexed and then part of the urban growth boundary expansion, it would make sense for them to request to be taken out of the urban growth boundary. But staff will deal with that when they come to it. Then it would be considered an exception area.
90. Messages and Papers from Chair of Planning Commission.
90.1 Chair Zarosinski thanked Commissioner Christie and Vice Chair Tull for accepting reappointment to the Joint Transportation Subcommittee. Commissioner Miranda accepting reappointment to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission. Vice Chair Tull for accepting reappointment of Vice Chair for another term.
Chair Zarosinski thanked the people for their participation in tonight’s meeting. It was very much appreciated.
100. Remarks from the City Attorney. None.
110. Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder's office.
Terri L. Rozzana
Planning Commission Chair
Approved: February 27, 2014