Public Alert: Get updates, cancellations, and resources related to coronavirus (COVID-19) here.


Agenda & Minutes

When available, the full agenda packet may be viewed as a PDF file by clicking the "Attachments" button and selecting the file you want to view.

Agendas are posted until the meeting date takes place.  Minutes are posted once they have been approved.

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission Minutes

Thursday, January 23, 2014

The regular meeting of the Medford Planning Commission was called to order at 5:45 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
Norman Fincher                                 Suzanne Myers, Principal Planner
Bill Mansfield                                     Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
David McFadden                                Lori Cooper, Deputy City Attorney
Patrick Miranda                                 Larry Beskow, City Engineer
Paul Shoemaker                                Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Alec Schwimmer                               Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
                                                       Joe Slaughter, Planner II
Commissioners Absent                      Desmond McGeough, Planner II
Bill Christie, Excused Absence            Sarah Sousa, Planner III
                                                       John Adam, Planner IV
10.       Roll Call
20.       Consent Calendar/Written Communications.  None. 
30.       Minutes. 
30.1     The minutes for December 26, 2013, were approved as submitted.
40.       Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None. 
            Lori Cooper, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
50.       Public Hearing. 
            New Business
50.1     ZC-13-113 Consideration of 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).
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were declared.
Desmond McGeough, Planner II, read the zone change criteria and gave a staff report. 
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
a. Craig Stone, CSA Planning, Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Stone stated that he was present tonight on behalf of Jackson County.  This is about as straight forward of a zone change application that has come through their office.  He will not take up any time going through their findings of fact and conclusions of law.  They would like those made part of the record and have the Planning Commission’s decision rely on them as staff has recommended.  
The public hearing was closed.
Motion: Direct staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of ZC-13-113 per the Staff Report dated January 16, 2014, including Exhibits A through E.
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden      Seconded by: Commissioner Miranda
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
50.2     CUP-13-133 Consideration of 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).
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose. 
Commissioner Schwimmer reported that he lived in close proximity to the proposed site.  He believes that it does not impose any conflict of interest for him.
Sarah Sousa, Planner III, read the conditional use permit criteria and gave a staff report.  Ms. Sousa mentioned the letter submitted by Jason Clinch, Wetland Biologist, with Terra Science, Inc. was emailed to the Planning Commissioners, labeled Exhibit AA.
Commissioner Fincher asked if this proposal includes the pedestrian foot bridge?  Ms. Sousa replied that feature is not included in this proposal.  The applicant would have to submit an application for another conditional use permit to install the pedestrian foot bridge.
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
a. Pete Young, City of Medford Parks and Recreation Department Planner, 701 North Columbus, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Young reported that the sports park has been very successful so far.  It has developed a reputation for being a facility that provides excellent tournaments nationwide.  They acknowledge there are some impacts and believe the conditions that have been set forth adequately addresses those impacts.  They have no problem with the staff report.  The discretionary change to Condition #4 relating to the removal of the restrictive covenant for field lighting to read: “Prior to installation of field lighting”, the applicant shall submit a notarized and recorded copy of the removal of the restrictive covenant regarding the field lighting, the applicant has been told it is on its way.    
Commissioner Fincher asked Mr. Young to speak to the foot bridge.  Mr. Young replied that they do not have funding for the foot bridge in this phase.      
Commissioner Tull stated that Mr. Young has spoken of the economic benefit to the community, very substantial year after year.  The City has developed a regional athletic facility that is used for tournaments and so on.  Has the City greatly improved the recreational opportunities available to Medford residents?  Is there any way of measuring that?  Mr. Young replied that there are not because these are artificial turf fields and the season is extended.  Commissioner Tull asked if the applicant assumed that most of the off season use of the athletic facilities is local use?  Mr. Young stated that it is his understanding that is the case.  They are able to play a lot more local games through the leagues and expand the number of teams and the season where those teams are able to play because of this facility.  Commissioner Tull asked if the fields are used by schools and school teams?  Mr. Young replied they are. 
The public hearing was closed.
Motion: Direct staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of CUP-13-133 per the Staff Report dated January 16, 2014, including Exhibits A through AA and revise Condition #4 from: “prior to issuance of the first building permit of Phase 4 improvements” to: “Prior to installation of field lighting in Phase 4”.
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden      Seconded by: Commissioner Miranda
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
50.3     PUD-13-119 Consideration of a request for revisions to Cedar Landing PUD, a mixed-use development on parcels totaling 114 acres on the north and south sides of Cedar Links Drive, west of Foothills Road within an SFR-4/PD (Single Family Residential – 4 units per acre / Planned Development) zoning district. Revisions include name changes, phase re-numbering, and lot reconfiguration.  (Cedar Investments LLC, Applicant; Dennis Hoffbuhr, Agent).
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were declared.
Sarah Sousa, Planner III, read the planned unit development criteria and gave a staff report. 
Commissioner McFadden asked if there were any more or any less technical exceptions within this Planned Unit Development with this revision?  Ms. Sousa replied no new modifications have been requested.  
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
a. Dennis Hoffbuhr, 880 Golf View Drive, Suite 201, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Hoffbuhr reported that he is the agent for the applicant.  As Ms. Sousa pointed out that these are largely just housekeeping issues as a result of the park being removed from the project and these are items that needed to be done in response to that.  
b. James Greathouse, 2868 Wilkshire Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Greathouse requested that any comments addressed be included in both of the proposed actions tonight because while they are for the purpose of planning separate, they are certainly interlaced In the project as a whole.  He is not taking any conflict with what Ms. Sousa has stated in terms of the initial or first phase of this proposal being a housekeeping matter.  He has other views with reference to the second part.  Ms. Cooper stated that from the legal perspective they need to be kept separate and have separate hearings.  If any further action is taken on these decisions, one decision can be referred to by the other.  The Commission needs to follow the format laid out in the agenda.            
c. Greg Mariska, 2983 Waverly Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504-5075.  Mr. Mariska stated that the map does not look like lots on the northeast corner are numbered as residential lots.  Ms. Sousa replied it is open space. 
d. Chris Hearn, 515 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  Mr. Hearn stated that he represents Monty and Teresa Jantzer and Cedar Landing LLC.  His clients were the previous applicants for the original planned unit development that is being modified.  His comments related to both tandem applications.  They currently have litigation in process filed with the Jackson County Circuit Court for wrongful foreclosure on this property.  His clients still retain six plus acres that they do not want part of this planned unit development, yet they are included.  That is what staff was alluding to earlier.  His clients also own the lot where the sewer system is proposed to exit.  His clients will not grant an easement through that area.  The sewer cannot go through the area where it is proposed because his clients own that lot as well as the six plus acres on the eastside.  They have questions regarding the easements associated with the project and questions regarding the ownership of the project.  The application is in the name of Cedar Investors.  No such entity exists according to the Secretary of State.  There is a Cedar Investment Group LLC that exists but the reference is to the other entity.  From what they can determine through the Secretary of State, they do not exist.  They are not legally created or existing entities.  Mr. Hearn and his clients would like to request, according to ORS 197.763 (6), that the record be left open for a minimum of seven (7) days to allow presentation of additional evidence, arguments and testimony on behalf of his clients that are in opposition to both this proposal and the tandem proposal.  He can make the same statement with regard to that to keep the two records separate.                    
Commissioner McFadden asked Ms. Cooper if their civil suit between parties affect any of the Planning Commission’s ability to make a decision on this Planned Unit Development tonight?  Ms. Cooper replied no. 
e. Janet Cook, 2848 Bailey Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504-5856.  Ms. Cook stated that her concern is a power pole that is twenty feet right outside her kitchen window.  It used to supply power to the pump house used to pump the ponds.  She would like to address the fact that it has two huge transformers on it and would like to get some information on what is going to be done with that pole.  Chair Zarosinski responded that the Commission could not address that concern at this time.  Her concern is in the record.
Chair Zarosinski asked Ms. Cooper to restate the issue regarding other litigation on this property that relates to this decision.  Ms. Cooper reminded the Planning Commission that their role is to look at the criteria and make a decision.  Any civil disputes between land owners are nothing this body can adjudicate tonight. 
The public hearing was closed.
Motion: Direct staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of PUD-13-119 per the Staff Report dated January 16, 2014, including Exhibits A through N. 
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that Mr. Hearn requested that the record remain open so the Planning Commission cannot take action.  The record needs to remain open for a minimum of seven (7) days.  There are seven days for those that made the request, an additional seven days for the applicant to respond and then City staff will require another seven days, by law, to produce that in writing to the Planning Commission.  Commissioner McFadden asked if there were was enough time in the 120 day rule to allow that much time?  Ms. Akin nodded affirmative.      
Chair Zarosinski reported that the record would remain open and would be on a future agenda. 
50.4     LDS-13-121 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval to create Sky Lakes Village Subdivision Phase 7, a 16 lot residential subdivision on approximately 4.33 acres located on the north side of Cedar Links Drive at the southerly termini of St. Francis Drive and Farmington Avenue, and nine reserve acreage tracts totaling approximately 94.57 acres, within Cedar Landing PUD, generally located on the north and south sides of Cedar Links Drive at the termini of Wilkshire Drive, Farmington Avenue and Callaway Drive, and on the west side of N Foothill Road at the terminus of Normil Terrace within the SFR-4/PD (Single Family Residential – 4 dwelling units per gross acre/Planned Development) zoning district.  (Cedar Investments LLC, Applicant; Dennis Hoffbuhr, Agent).
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were declared.
Sarah Sousa, Planner III, read the land development criteria and gave a staff report.  Ms. Sousa pointed out that there was a Revised Public Works report labeled Exhibit I-1 that the Planning Commissioners have before them and was also emailed to them.
Commissioner McFadden asked that if the City owns the property adjoining the trees, why does not the City give itself the right-of-way and not worry about the exception?  Ms. Sousa deferred the question to Larry Beskow, City Engineer.  Mr. Beskow stated that the trees go approximately 550 feet past the Parks property.  It still affects the subdivision so that is why Public Works made the comment in their report
The public hearing was opened and the following testimony was given.
a. Dennis Hoffbuhr, 880 Golf View Drive, Suite 201, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Hoffbuhr reported that 7a and 7b is a new twist to tentative plats.  Basically, 7a is creating tax lots for future phases.  No development will occur because of 7a.  This is an intermediate step they are taking to simply create tax lots to align for future phases.  7b is the tentative plat which matches the current approved master plan for Cedar Landing Planned Unit Development.  There are no changes to the approved plan.  The exception issue is relatively minor.  If the exception is not granted then the City will have to pay for more right-of way than they need.        
b. James Greathouse, 2868 Wilkshire Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Greathouse respectfully disagrees with staff’s findings and recommendations that pertain to the requested revisions to the Cedar Links Planned Unit Development specifically agenda item 50.4.         
c. Chris Hearn, 515 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  Mr. Hearn stated that he is present tonight on behalf of Cedar Landing LLC and Monty and Teresa Jantzer, the original developers of this Planned Unit Development project.  They are in opposition to this application.  They are requesting a minimum of seven (7) days to present additional testimony, evidence and argument pursuant to ORS 197.763 (6).  They have questions concerning easement rights with this property.  They have litigation pending concerning ownership of the property.  The applicant is not registered with the Oregon Secretary of State as a business entity licensed to do any business in Oregon as set forth on the application.  His client still owns the property through which the proposed sewer easements are going to go and will not grant those easements to allow this project to be built.  Six acres of this project as proposed are currently owned by his client.  They want it withdrawn from this Planned Unit Development application.  They will present additional evidence, argument and testimony within the seven day period.    
Dennis Hoffbuhr clarified Mr. Greathouse’s comments that the creation of the tracts for future phasing does not in any way affect the approval that the City currently has on the parcel.  In the event someone else would be in another ownership of a piece of this project would have to comply with the same rules as everybody else does that are a result of many public hearings by this body and the creation of the approved project. 
Ms. Cooper reported that the record would be kept open so no vote should be taken tonight.
Commissioner Zarosinski asked for clarification that the Planned Unit Development plan is still in effect and these tracts are a part of that Planned Unit Development plan.  Ms. Sousa replied correct.   
Chair Zarosinski reported that the record will remain open and no action will be taken.
The Commissioners took a 15 minute break.
50.5     CP-13-032 Consideration of a General Land Use Plan Map amendment to reclassify approximately 800 vacant or redevelopable acres (Internal Study Areas – ISAs) within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the purpose of maximizing the capacity of land within the boundary (City of Medford, Applicant).
John Adam, Planner IV, pointed out that he placed at the Commissioner’s seats a packet of written testimony that staff received since the agenda packet was assembled last Thursday.  Since the hearing is going to stay open through February 13, 2014, anything received subsequently will also be distributed to the Commissioners before or at the meeting.  Also, Mr. Adam distributed a new copy of the ISA Guidebook. There are spaces for each of the ISAs for note-taking, so that, when it comes to deliberations, the Commissioners can refer back to those notes.  Mr. Adam gave a staff report. Mr. Adam reported that representatives from the Carpenter/Dunbar Farms property approached the City with an alternative scenario; reducing the areas and shifting them over.  Staff has reviewed the scenario and has no objections.    
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 Rogue Valley has two pressing problems, air quality and water supply.  Air quality, which is primarily a result of our natural inversion, is well-documented in the Medford Comprehensive Plan, specifically in the Environment section.  Water supply, because of our present and ongoing below-normal precipitation, needs to be addressed.  Climate change has not been addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Only one effective way exists to address air quality and water supply concerns.  Limit population growth.  Ms. Hill requested that: 1) all proposals for increased multi-family zoning are tabled; 2) the Medford Comprehensive Plan be reviewed, with public input about the desirability of continued population increase; and 3) climate change be added as a separate category in the Comprehensive Plan.  We can control population growth if we can control the availability of housing.  We do not want to live in a City of 150,000 with un-breathable air and severe water rationing.  Climate change needs to be part of comprehensive planning.          
b. David Everest, Secretary of Mining for Twin Cedar Mining District, Township an Unincorporated City in Josephine County that borders Jackson County. Mr. Everest testified on general terms of private property and the lack of this Commission respecting it. His understanding on ISA 930 is that the property owner did not request the change to high-density housing. He wants to keep it as a farm. If the property owner wants to keep it as a farm, as his property right, he has the right to do so.  Climate change is the biggest fraud he has ever seen. Carbon dioxide is a fertilizer for plants and farmers know this. We have to respect property rights and sustainability about planning developments, let the free market decide this.  If the developer wants to build high-density housing, he will apply for the permit to do so.  Why does the City shove their high-density housing on people that do not want it?  Mr. Everest is a keeper of the Republic and he intends to keep it.            
c. Jim Norris, 3247 Auburn Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Norris stated that he is present tonight on behalf of the Rogue Valley Country Club, 2660 Hillcrest Road, Medford, Oregon. As the proposed map amendment to the ISAs makes note of the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility of those proposed changes with other elements of the City Comprehensive Plan, it was noted that there is a proposed draft of the Medford TSP that extends Murphy Road to Pierce Road. He asks that that proposed draft be eliminated, particularly Murphy Road extending to Pierce Road through the golf course. The Country Club and its officers are not aware of any plans of redevelopment in the next twenty years. If the City is aware of any plans for redevelopment, then the Country Club would love to hear from them and hear their thoughts. Secondly, the agenda packet mentions extending Country Club Drive to connect with Calla Vista.  Again, this intersects the golf course of the Country Club and as noted in the event there is future redevelopment.  They ask that their property be respected and any proposed draft changes that extend the roads through their property at this time be removed.          
d. Mark Hageman, 2680 Country Park Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Hageman reported that he lives in the vicinity of ISA 930.  He is present tonight to talk about the Economic Element.  The growth projections in that Element were wrong before the City adopted the Plan.  Despite this, the City chose to use a high-growth projection for the creation of the GLUP amendment.  The projections of this Element are based on data through 2007 and do not reflect the influence of the recession on this valley.  Because of this omission, the Economic Element is unrealistic and fails to demonstrate a need for additional employment land as required to meet Criterion 2.  In 2007, the GDP index for Medford was 102.  By 2011, the index fell by 11% to 91.  In 2007, Medford employed 95,700 people.  By 2013, the number of people employed dropped to approximately 87,700—an 8.3% contraction in employment. On page 19 of the Economic Element, it projects an employment growth rate of 1.5%. Compared to actual data, this projection was off by over 17,000 employees. At the time when the Economic Element projected a 10.5% expansion in the economy, Medford experienced an 8 to 11% contraction.  Ample research shows the need for commercial property drops as employment drops. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that the current need for commercial space is lower than the need in 2007 and approximates the need of 2003.  There are currently 135 commercial properties for lease or for sale in Medford now. The staff report dated January 15, 2014 uses the Economic Element’s adopted high-growth commercial land need of 568 acres. The Economic Element also contains a low-growth need projection of 266 acres.  The most likely scenario is that the growth over the next twenty years of the Economic Element will be flat to slow with no additional land need above what is currently available. One can do the corrections on Figures 18 and 20 of the Economic Element and it will bear this out. Therefore, the low-growth scenario is optimistic and the high-growth scenario is simply unrealistic. The conclusions are that the information presented in the Element is incomplete and does not reflect the current economic reality.  The low-growth scenario from the Economic Element is overly optimistic, and finally, using the low-growth projections with the appropriate adjustments to reflect the current economy, available land within the Urban Growth Boundary will accommodate commercial growth for the next twenty years without converting a single acre of single-family low-density residential land.                       
e. William Barchet, 1221 Park Street, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.  Mr. Barchet reported that he is the agent for some of the properties in ISA 240.  He does not believe that the particular area is appropriate for high-density or medium-density development simply because of the neighborhood and the surrounding communities.  He feels that it should remain either in its current zoning, which is SFR-4, or possibly SFR-6.  Those properties are located between North Medford High School and Lone Pine Elementary School.  It is ideal for families that have children.  He asked the Commission to consider removing ISA 240 from the list.           
f. Jason Anderson, 3521 E. Barnett Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504, spoke on ISA 240. He said that some years ago, the previous owners came before the Commission regarding a zone change.  The Commission unanimously voted not to change the zone.  Now, City staff is suggesting a zone change that the current owners and neighbors do not want.  Staff wants it so they can crunch numbers to come up with some appeasement for DLCD in Salem. That does not make a lot of sense. He said they live in these neighborhoods, their children play in these neighborhoods, and they are impacted by these neighborhoods. He called staff outstanding, but he is guessing none of them live in these neighborhoods. In fact most of them do not live in the City.  They feel the impacts, they have to live with the impacts; listen to the neighbors and listen to the owners.  If nobody wants it, it should not be approved. How did they come up with these parcels?  Was there some scoring criteria?  Was there a qualitative analysis done?  Did they ask what the neighbors and owners wanted, the compatibility and the infrastructure requirements? 
Chair Zarosinski commented that there was a qualitative analysis done for the Internal Study Areas. 
g. Jason John, 1869 Canyon Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. John lives several houses down from where ISA 240 is proposed. He echoed Mr. Anderson’s sentiments. He does live in that neighborhood.  He was actively involved the last time this issue came up.  The same issues are here tonight.  There is nowhere even close to that area that they have medium-density housing. It is all single-family residences. This amendment could change their property values and change the overall feel of the neighborhood. He asked the Commission to protect the integrity of his house and neighborhood.            
h. Tom Howard, 1851 Canyon Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504. Mr. Howard testified that Canyon Avenue currently terminates at the western boundary of the area indicated as ISA 240.  It is about sixty paces from his property. The City is proposing to rezone the 16-acre parcel from low-density to medium-density residential. This change, if approved, would allow construction of apartments, townhouses and duplexes.  Not mentioned but also included in that list is so-called low-income housing. That omission is important. This 16-acre area is virtually surrounded by existing single-family homes that are neat, clean and quiet. Access to this area would have to be over East Roberts Road, Canyon Avenue, Wilkshire Drive and Voss Drive. Traffic will have to wind through the maze of streets in those neighborhoods to reach Lone Pine, Springbrook or Cedar Links. Overcrowding in this area with any form of medium-density housing, with the impending traffic, noise and related problems will have a permanent, negative impact on all residents living in this vicinity.  This is a nice livable area that deserves to remain zoned low density.  He asks the City to be good stewards, respect the area and be considerate of those who have kept this neighborhood attractive.  There is no upside to the proposed change. 
i. Don Martel, 1860 Canyon Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Martel lives across the street from the last gentleman. There is too much traffic now in this area.  Crime comes with low-income housing.  They live in a very nice neighborhood in East Medford and they want to keep it that way. The houses in this area will lose value with a zone change.  That is a fact.  Keep low-income housing in areas, and take care of it, but not in the middle of an area that has been for years, single-family homes. 
j. Carolyn Miller, 2945 Lone Pine, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  They moved there because it is sort of a spread out single-family area, thinking they had a little piece of country in the City and they want to keep it that way. They do not want to develop it.  She does not want to see the zone change because that would change the dynamics of that area.  She wants to keep it low density.
k. Kevin McLoughlin, 2248 Gene Cameron Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504. He is a long-time Rogue Valley resident. He has lived in his home since 2000 that they bought because it was in a nice neighborhood. He asks the Commission to reconsider the designation not only on ISA 240, but in a lot of these areas. He is concerned about what this will do to our valley.  He is also concerned with the number of students in each classroom.     
l. Debra Bartels, 1938 Canyon Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  She had wanted to live in this area her whole life and moved in last summer.  It is a beautiful neighborhood.  It is family friendly.  To discover this may turn into a high-density, low-income apartments that will have to drive down Roberts Road, it is going to turn into a freeway out there.  No longer will you be able to go out and walk around with little children without worrying about them getting run over by the cars that go rushing by because there is no other place for them to get out.  Please keep ISA 240 as it is now.     
m. Sunny Fallis, 1225 E. 11th Street, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Fallis asked if the State required the Planning Commission to look into possibilities of properties to consider as high density. Apparently, according to the two previous agenda items, one has to jump through a lot of hoops to get anything approved.  Are the owners putting this forward to develop at this time?  Chair Zarosinski replied that the Planning Commission is reviewing areas in the City where they can intensify the density.  Ms. Fallis asked would the City be approaching homeowners to develop a high rise?  Chair Zarosinski recommended that Ms. Fallis contact the staff contact and her questions would be better resolved by that person.                   
n. Tim Barnack, 2569 Lausanne Circle, Medford, Oregon, 97504-1741.  He is not sure what the statutory constrictions are on the Planning Commission or the requirements by the State of Oregon.  He thinks the City Council should consider that where there is higher-density population it taxes law enforcement.  He requested that the Planning Commission look at law enforcement and the amount of money it is going to cost to patrol that area.  In his position he sees quite a bit of criminal activity in high-density areas.  Nobody is suggesting that they treat people differently because of their socio-economic status, but at the same time they have to look at the taxing of police in that particular area and what that would take away from West Medford as well.  It stretches the boundary sprawl of police departments.  Is this a requirement that the State is placing on the City?  Ms. Cooper replied they are trying to intensify uses within the City before looking outside the City.  The City Council has directed staff to go through this hearing process in order to do that.  Mr. Barnack asked if this was based on projection growth rate?  Ms. Cooper replied partially yes.  There are other variables that need to be taken into account.  There is the Economic Element, Buildable Land Inventory and Environmental aspect.  It is not just population that drives this.  Chair Zarosinski stated that at his point this should not be a question-and-answer period.  Mr. Barnack stated that he would like the Planning Commission to look at the amount of resources that will be needed for law enforcement to patrol these particular areas because of higher density.  He also echoed concerns about the inversion impact.  He would like an environmental impact study in that area.              
o. Kathy Fennell, 1738 Dragon Tail Place, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Fennel opposes the recommendation to change areas 212 and 213 to high-density housing.  If a change is needed, a change to moderate density housing should be considered since that fits in better with the existing neighborhood and with the need for more moderate density housing mentioned in the report.  Also, some of the undeveloped land should be converted to open space and recreational space since there is no present plan for either in this area.  She understands there are limits to the types of changes that can be made but they can be found and should be incorporated so that all property owners participate in meeting land use requirements.     
p. Ann Hackett, 1750 Hondeleau Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Hackett reported that the proposal is to completely surround their single-family homes with high-density apartments.  She highly opposes high-density apartments surrounding her neighborhood.  Springbrook cannot handle that kind of traffic.  She does not want the noise level and the crime which has already increased since the HUD housing was developed on Arrowhead.  This change would be devastating to her both financially and her quality of life.      
q. Sylvia Bossingham, 1742 Pearl Eye Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Bossingham stated that eventually her neighborhood is going to be totally blocked out by HUD housing.  Her and her husband absolutely disapprove and do not want these areas used for HUD housing because they were told by the builder when they bought their home, that the neighboring areas were all zoned for single-family dwellings, not multiple-family dwellings.  The concern of increased crime threatens them statistically with lower income and crime rate has gone up in her area.  The already upside down, financially speaking, house they purchased is most likely and potentially going to be even more upside down because of the resale value in the future with the HUD housing nearby.  The increased traffic congestion will be a threat to their families and pets.  The new HUD housing has already created much more traffic zooming through the side streets with younger drivers not paying attention.  The construction will potentially be non-stop for years through her neighborhood with mud, dust, noise, ground pummeling and unsightly garbage on-site.  There will be danger to children playing on the sites after hours.  They agree progress has to happen but why right next to the single-family dwelling homes? 
r. Steve Bossingham, 1742 Pearl Eye Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Bossingham stated that it is heavily wooded behind his house.  Since the high-density housing has gone in off of Owen Drive, there is a lot more traffic.  Leave his neighborhood alone.  It is already too crowded.   
s. Doug Schmor, 201 West Main Street, Suite 5A, Medford, Oregon, 97501-2744.  Mr. Schmor stated that he is an attorney here in Medford.  He is the agent for the property owner of 211 which is Rentals LLC, Patricia Smullin.  Property 211 is a 49-acre parcel consisting of the west side and top of Coker Butte and some land down below the slope of Coker Butte.  The property has been owned for many years by the Smullin family.  Patsy Smullin lives on top of the butte.  There is a rental house there and a communication facility that the City leases for its police department.  That is the extent of development on this 49-acre parcel.  Patsy Smullin has absolutely no plan to annex this property to the City of Medford in her lifetime.  She does not want to develop the property.  She did not ask to be included in the urban growth boundary in the first place.  No one has ever come to her and asked her of what her plans are for the property.  There are a couple of things as noted in the staff report that started out to say that properties with extreme slopes were not included.  That apparently was forgotten on this property and a good portion of this property on the northeast side has extreme slopes.  There was also a statement that they have determined that the Water Commission stated that everything over 1500 feet cannot be serviced without a substantial change in the water system and they are asking no development occur above that height.  Mr. Schmor has included a letter that they submitted and a topographic map so the Commission can see how much of the property would be involved.  Approximately 30 to 40% of the property is above that height.  This is a difficult property to build on because of the natural slopes and topography.  There are three possible visions for this property.  The vision that is recommended by the Planning action is to use this property and blanket it with high-density apartments.  The vision that existed prior to that was to allow all single-family residences.  Even with those you would not get a large number given that kind of hill and layout.  The other vision is Mrs. Smullins vision and that is that this land be preserved as open space as wildlife habitat as land that reminds people of what Medford used to look like before people got here.  They are absolutely categorically opposed to any increased densification on this property.                   
t. Paula McDermid, 1660 Husker Butte Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. McDermid stated that she has three points.  Her first point is the degradation of the neighborhood and the demands of infrastructure changes.  People have already spoken to that but she wanted to say that she opposes creating high-density housing in 211, 212 and 213.  Her second point is that she has questions and is just going to put them out there and get the answers later.  She is wondering about Citizen involvement in the Comprehensive Plan.  Her understanding is the Citizen Involvement Element of the Comprehensive Plan requires that the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee (CPAC) solicit additional citizen input on specific issues through contact with neighborhood organizations and groups; that, where appropriate, CPAC and subcommittee member meetings shall be held in neighborhoods affected by the issues under consideration.  As a resident of this neighborhood she can attest that she was not contacted by CPAC nor is she aware that any meetings were held in her neighborhood which will be greatly affected by the proposed change.  She has several questions in that regard.  The first is CPAC is divided into four subcommittees and one of these subcommittees is for matters pertaining specifically to Comprehensive Plan updates.  She would like to know does this subcommittee exist, who are the members, when do they meet on this application and specifically did they provide a recommendation for ISAs 211, 212 and 213?  She requested that the Planning Commission denies staff’s recommendation for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for ISAs 211, 212 and 213.  At the very least the Planning Commission should make a motion to defer any decision on ISAs 211, 212 and 213 and require that CPAC and/or the Comprehensive Plan subcommittee hold a meeting in the neighborhood to explain the decision process for changing urban residential to high density in the relevant criteria.          
u. Robert Morris, P. O. Box 967, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Morris stated that he is present tonight representing his family with properties in ISA 215.  Part of one tax lot is undeveloped and the rest of the properties are industrial and developed.  When Crater Lake realignment went through, the City degraded their zoning to I-00 which limited them to what they could do with undeveloped land and could do in future development possibilities for the current tenants. He would like the opportunity that suggests they could turn those properties into a commercial area that could support small commercial businesses and fit in a neighborhood that is growing to the east.  He referred to the letter written by Kathy Fennel which spells it out quite well.  Small commercial boutique kind of areas where you could walk and not worry about crossing Highway 62.         
v. Mike Montero, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 202, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Montero stated that he appears before the Planning Commission on behalf of his client Table Rock Holdings.  They submitted to the record for the Commission’s consideration unfortunately not in time for the electronic packet.  Mr. Adam has provided the Commissioners with a copy of the letter dated January 15, 2014, in tonight’s handout.  He would like to direct the Commission’s attention to ISA area 216.  His client owns the properties that are immediately north of the Coker Butte boundary.  Given the testimony that was provided by Mr. Adam based on the City’s adopted Economic Element and on its Buildable Land Inventory it demonstrates there is a deficit of commercial properties and there is a surplus of industrial properties.  They have worked with the City for some years to assist in the development and extension of the Coker Butte and Crater Lake Avenue enhancements that were built in 2010 and 2011.  His client believes that the intensification that is really the objective of the ISA process could be enhanced by designating these properties as commercial.  The industrial designation given the access restriction on the new portion of Coker Butte and the geometric curvature on Crater Lake Avenue does make it well suited to heavy truck traffic that could be associated with industrial.  They think it is more suited to the abutting commercial designations.  They ask respectfully that the Planning Commission add that to area 216 as commercial property.  
w. Ardene Klima, 1733 Garden Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Klima stated that the numbers do not warrant all the new high-structure, high-density housing.  She feels as a homeowner they are being punished by having all this HUD housing and low-cost income housing infiltrating nice neighborhoods with nice homes.  The traffic pattern on Springbrook has grossly increased in the past few years; adding more traffic to save the empty lot that backs up to her house and other areas is going to be impossible.  Noise has increased greatly.  She would greatly appreciate that the Planning Commission does not go forward with all this high-density housing. 
Commissioner Tull addressed the audience reminding them of the task that the Planning Commission is engaged in.  The expectation is that the population of Medford will grow.  How much it will grow, how quickly it will grow, how soon we will recover from the recession that we have experienced together, they do not know that.  If you look ahead twenty years he thinks it is reasonable to expect that the population of Medford will be greater than it is now.  The state of Oregon asks cities that anticipate a growth in population to plan carefully to accommodate that population.  If the City determines that it does not have within its current urban growth boundary enough land to accommodate the growth of population that can reasonably be expected, then it needs to plan to grow outside that urban growth boundary into what has historically been agricultural land here in this valley.  The City is asking all of the audience to help your city to plan carefully for its future, recognizing that we have chosen to live here because of what this City is and what this valley is.  Careful planning can help the City be as attractive of a place twenty years from now, forty years from now, as it is now.  The State is not requiring the City to do any specific thing.  The plans of the State are requiring cities to plan carefully for their future and that is what the Planning Commission is involved in.  He is glad the audience is in attendance.             
x. Raul Woerner, CSA Planning, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 202, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Woerner stated that when he passed Mr. Morris (who spoke earlier) in the aisle he told him he had forgotten to mention the qualitative score of ISA area 215’s parcelization.  The majority of that property is owned in a tract of common ownership.  Mr. Woerner reminded the Commission that he was present last year regarding an application of a solar carport for First Baptist Church on Crater Lake Avenue.  There is an opportunity site on the property that they believe would make a good S-C designation since it is near a hospital.  Service commercial allows for service professional offices.  There is no specific acreage requirement and the General Land Use Plan states it is appropriate against residential.  An office would be a good partner on their property.  It would be an additional way for them to help cover the costs of the operation of their school while also adding a tax base to the City because it is a nonprofit.  He is writing a letter to that effect of that property.  There is support for this in the Economy Element from the Economic Opportunity Analysis.  An interesting statement that he read into the record is:  “The EOA Subcommittee had an excellent observation with respect to the deficit of small office sites.  Small Offices are one of the few types of employment development patterns that are really capable of in-fill development.  Specifically, the typical site size of 0.45 acres is actually less than the minimum acreage analyzed for employment lands under the administrative rule at 0.50 acres.”  The church feels that they could put in a good in-fill project on their site. 
Mr. Woerner stated that he also represents the Carpenter family in ISA 930.  They have been monitoring the ISA project and requested Mr. Woerner review the map.  They wondered why all the acreage was being proposed and asked that Mr. Woerner come up with an alternative.  Mr. Woerner showed a constraints map that they worked with.  Trying to put medium-density in a 13 acre commercial site in the southeast corner would not be good with regard to the natural area on the property.  The property owners do not ever want to see that happen.  Their understanding of this proposal is that there will likely be a crossing approximately a quarter mile up from Hillcrest in the future.  They are proposing to take the commercial area in the southeast corner and relocate it to the crossing area.  It meets the City’s identified site requirements for commercial.  It would eventually be split in two with the street installation.  The southwest corner seems obvious to put commercial.  It is a good gateway into the area.         
y. Michael Miller, 1612 Dragon Tail Place, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Miller stated that up to this point he has seen a lot of crime in the area.  There are a lot of services being brought to the area.  Essentially he does not agree with any changes that need to be made there.
z. Dr. Jeffrey Louie, 2459 Quail Run, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Louie stated that he has lived here for 25 years and was the former chief of surgery and chief of staff.  Dr. Louie challenged the Planning Department to come up with a different approach to the planning.  He believes he understands the goals.  The challenge is for the Planning Commission to rethink the goal.  He is speaking to the overall approach to planning.  He urged the Commission to take a different approach to adding more people to Medford.
aa. Sydnee Dreyer, 823 Alder Creek Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Dreyer was representing John and Karen Daily who reside on Oak View Circle adjacent to ISA 930.  The preference of her clients and most everyone they have spoken to in this neighborhood is that there is no change to the designation in ISA 930.  She understands an alternative has been presented and they do feel the alternative is better than what the City currently has on the table.   They request that areas CM-1 and UM-1 at the north end be removed.  Those areas would run directly into the existing subdivision.  They do not think this is the appropriate area to re-designate.  They do not believe existing transportation or utilities could handle these sorts of improvements that would be necessary.  None of the uses would be compatible.         
bb. Robert Graham 2442 Fox Run, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Graham stated that he feels he is at ground zero.  The traffic problems that will be created by putting medium density on Pierce are going to be horrendous.  He highly supports the Dunbar alternative with the exception of eliminating CM-1 and UM-1. 
cc. Karin Dailey, 2673 Oak View Circle, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Dailey referenced the handout placed at the Commissioners seats.  The projected population growth rate should be adjusted.  The growth rate because it is too high compounds it.  We cannot be making these kinds of decisions based on a growth rate that is not realistic.  She opposes the current proposal for ISA 930 and likes the Carpenter proposal for ISA 930 except for CM-1 and UM-1.
Commissioner Tull asked Ms. Dailey that she stated the population projections are unreasonable.  Is it the numbers that are unreasonable or the timeline that is unreasonable?  Ms. Dailey replied that basically they have not changed the numbers to reflect the 2010 census.  Therefore, the rate of growth change is much higher than it would be if you base it on actual numbers.  Commissioner Tull asked if those numbers would be achieved in time?  Ms. Dailey replied not at this rate.  Not in the next twenty years.    
dd. Steve Swartsley, 174 Littrell Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Swartsley referenced his letter in the agenda packet that addresses the seven criteria that he thought staff either inadequately or failed to address.  Everyone refers this to rezoning but he refers it to social engineering.  All the Commissioners and Ms. Cooper are familiar with Dolan.  Everyone here tonight on all of the lots has talked about the decline in values that would result as medium-density and high-density housing is constructed.  Dolan talks about a taking and he thinks one can stretch Dolan to have it apply to the neighborhood surrounding this particular area.  There is no reason or need for the GLUP map to now be modified to reflect medium density and commercial.  He does not necessarily agree with staff’s recommendation to ISA 930.          
ee. John Dailey, 2673 Oak View Circle, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Dailey objects to the changes proposed in ISA 930.  The Population Element of the Comprehensive Plan is based on estimates arrived from a 2000 census.  The result of the 2010 census shows the Population Element is overstated.  Making the Dunbar Farm an island of multi-family on the edge of town is a bad idea.      
ff. Andrea Cook (did not sign in or provide an address).  Ms. Cook stated that she is a homeowner on Quail Run which is right outside Pierce Road.  She will be affected by tonight’s proposal of ISA 930.  She requested the Commission oppose the proposal of ISA 930 and consider the new plan that has been presented tonight by the Dunbar Farm family.     
gg. John Thiebes, 1084 Castlewood Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Thiebes is in complete opposition to the City Planning Department’s proposal for ISA 930.  He does support the landowners’ proposed alternative with the exception of the two northernmost parcels adjacent to McAndrews Road and identified as CM-1 and UM-1.  He is addressing primarily the environmental consequences of the City’s proposal for ISA 930.  The proposal turns much of this land into multi-family and commercial development.  He urged the Commission to omit ISA 930 from the proposal and support the alternative by the landowners with the exception of the northern parcels adjacent to McAndrews Road.   
hh. Jana Burwell, 2670 Country Park Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  She spoke against ISA 930.  She believes the rezoning of Dunbar Carpenter Farm will hurt the charm of this unique part of Medford.    
ii. Kate Empasis, 2512 Greenridge Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Empasis is in complete opposition of the City Planning Departments proposed ISA 930.  She does support the landowners proposed alternative with the exception of CM-1 and UM-1 the two northern most parcels adjacent to McAndrews Road.  As a real estate broker in Medford she foresees a decrease in property value if the zoning changes.   
jj. Monica Lewis, 2625 Jackson Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Lewis stated that it appears in her research that the Medford School District Plan (May 2012) may have not been considered when looking at these proposals.  Her biggest concern and request is that the Planning Department and the Planning Commission go back and really take a look at the school district’s plan. 
kk. Beverly Layer, 2341 Gene Cameron Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504-2179.  Ms. Layer has heard tonight a lot about HUD housing.  Increasing that would do nothing to improve the economy of our valley.   There could be unintentional consequences.        
ll. Garth Harrington, 3291 Miller Court, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Harrington testified in opposition of the proposal. 
mm. Nancy Thiebes, 1084 Castlewood Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Thiebes is in complete opposition to the City’s Planning Department’s proposed ISA 930.   She does support the landowners’ proposed alternative with the exception of CM-1 and UM-1, the two northernmost parcels adjacent to McAndrews Road.   
nn. Lee Tomlin, 545 Parsons Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97501-3769.  Mr. Tomlin stated this is a commercial property.  The area around the Rogue Valley Country Club is gorgeous.  Why are we dumping high-density housing into pristine neighborhoods?  The only thing he can think of is social engineering. There should be rethinking to this proposal.       
oo. Colby Olsen (did not sign in or provide an address in addressing the Commission).  What you have here is a manufactured crisis.  Jackson County’s Housing records show that over the last ten years they have been selling all properties they own that are single-family dwellings in order to build these.  These exact structures being discussed tonight.  The Commission should reconsider the proposal.
pp. Peter Carini, 2684 Oak View Circle, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Carini stated that he is in opposition to ISA 930.  He does not think the population projections are accurate.  He does not think the business projections are accurate.  He does not think the lack of industrial property or commercial property is accurate.      
qq. Dr. Bruce Van Zee, 2668 Oak View Circle, Medford, Oregon, 975204.  Dr. Van Zee reported that his house has a view of the Dunbar Farm.  He has a letter that he and his wife signed and would like it submitted into the record.  The alternative the Carpenters and Mostues have presented creates the high-density housing and the commercial space in an area in which people will move and make their investment when they know about it and they did not if the change takes place.    
rr. Kendall Ferguson, 269 Black Oak Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Ferguson stated that ISA 930 will directly impact her family moving forward if anything were to happen with high-density housing or even medium-density housing.  Their property value will go down.  Hoover Elementary had the highest rating for an elementary school and that is one of the reasons they moved there.     
ss. Bob Doolen, 2510 Meadowcreek Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Doolen supports what his neighbors have come forward and testified about.  It is his opinion that their position has been very well stated.  He reiterated the potential of property value going down.  It is easy to say these are long-range plans.  This will not happen for twenty more years.  The day the categories of the property changes, the property will go down.  It does not depend on the change being developed that way.  It is based on the possibility of that happening.  That is a real issue for all the people that have come forward. 
tt. Dan Wehage, 2462 Greenfield Court, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Wehage thinks the increased density will be mandated soon by LCDC.  He thought the whole purpose of this planning was to sort of save farm and forest areas.  Yet, the proposal for 930 is to take a nice farm and put high-density housing on it.  Seems counterintuitive to him.    
uu. Dr. James Hammel, 593 Pierce Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Dr. Hammel stated that he and his family moved here from Portland.  He is actually one of the only physicians who live in Medford.  He has a beautiful view and it is very peaceful.  The area along Pierce Road historically has been the quiet physician hangout for a lot of the physicians that live in Medford.  A lot of them are recruited very quietly to Medford because the houses there are very peaceful.  That is purely qualitative.  There is no way to quantify that or to know just how large an attraction that is for physicians that come here.  It seems it would be incredibly chaotic to this neighborhood if these plans were to go forward as they are being proposed.  The traffic on Pierce Road because it is a narrow road is unbelievably fast.  He supports the alternative that has been proposed.                 
vv. Dr. Marie Wehage, 2462 Greenfield Court, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Dr. Wehage stated that she is a physician of this community.   The reason for people to move to Medford is the livability.  She knows it is long-range planning but if they rezone it, it will happen and nobody knows when.  Do the best of planning this because high-density housing does not belong on the periphery of our communities.  They belong inside our communities.  Relook at how we restructure our community so that people can actually walk or bike.               
ww. Brian Hendrix, 417 Pierce Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Hendrix stated that he appreciates Commissioner Tull’s perspective.  That brought everything together for most of the people that presented testimony.  He knows the Commission has a job to do and he trusts they will do the best thing.  He opposes ISA 930.
Mr. Adam stated that at the next meeting he will give the same presentation for the benefit of the people who were not present tonight.  For the third meeting, the deliberation meeting, staff will come to the Commission with recommendations and responses to lingering questions the Commission may have. 
Commissioner Zarosinski asked Mr. Adam that if people with specific questions about the process in general or about a particular ISA, what should they do to get more information?  Who should they contact?  Mr. Adam replied that most of the calls get forwarded to him and that has been the case for the past few weeks.  Any one of the planners in the Planning Department can answer questions regarding the process in general.      
Chair Zarosinski reported that this would be continued to the February 13, 2014, Planning Commission meeting.  Chair Zarosinski thanked the audience for their input and stated that it was very helpful.
60.       Report of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
60.1     Commissioner Miranda reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission had one continuation request that they continued and they had new business which was to consider the Honda dealership on Coker Butte Road and Crater Lake Highway.  There was a good amount of discussion surrounding it, mostly about the aesthetics of the building.  Ultimately they forwarded a favorable recommendation. 
70.       Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
70.1     Commissioner Tull reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met.  They had a survey of members to see if there were items that needed to be addressed and nothing came of that that brought them together.   
80.       Report of the Planning Department.  
80.1     Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, welcomed Paul Shoemaker to the Planning Commission.
Last week City Council approved the West Main zone change and General Land Use Plan map change.  That means there is no more County zoning within the city limits.  The School’s Facility Plan was adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.  The Planning Commission’s recommendations were accepted and modified slightly.  City Council also adopted a resolution initiating a process to de-annex property, to withdraw it from the incorporated city limits.  This is scheduled for a hearing before the City Council on Thursday, February 20, 2014. 
On February 6, 2014, City Council is scheduled to initiate a street vacation related to the zone change the Planning Commission heard this evening.   There is an alley that runs on the north side of county owned property.
The Planning Commissions study session scheduled for Monday, January 27, 2014, is canceled because the Commission is going to have a joint study session with City Council on Tuesday, January 28, 2014.  It will be held in the Medford Room beginning at 6:00 p.m., dinner will be served at 5:30 p.m.  There has been an agenda created that was emailed to the Commissioners earlier today and also placed at their seats tonight.
The second half of the ISA hearings will be conducted on Thursday, February 13, 2014.  The Planning Commission is scheduled to deliberate on Thursday, February 27, 2014.  Also, the two items that the Planning Commission heard earlier tonight that were requested that the record be left opened will be scheduled for the February 27, 2014, Planning Commission meeting.
The Boards and Commissions luncheon is scheduled for Friday, January 24, 2014, at the Rogue Valley Country Club at 11:30 a.m.   
90.       Messages and Papers from Chair of Planning Commission.  None.
100.     Remarks from the City Attorney.
100.1   Ms. Cooper reported that a notice of appeal to LUBA was filed regarding the Spring Meadows decision that was appealed to City Council 
110.     Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None. 
120.     Adjournment. 
            The meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder's office.       
Submitted by: 
Terri L. Rozzana
Recording Secretary
Michael Zarosinski
Planning Commission Chair
Approved:  February 27, 2014           

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


Share This Page

Back to Top