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

Minutes
Thursday, December 11, 2014

The regular meeting of the Medford Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
Michael Zarosinski, Chair             
Bill Christie         
Bill Mansfield    
David McFadden             
Patrick Miranda               
Alec Schwimmer             
               
Commissioners Absent
Robert Tull, Vice Chair, Excused Absence             
Norman Fincher, Excused Absence
 
Staff
Jim Huber, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
Lori Cooper, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, Transportation Manager
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Desmond McGeough, Planner II
Jennifer Jones, Planner II
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV
               
10.          Roll Call
               
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1        CUP-13-081/E-13-082 Consideration of a request for a one-year time extension of the Conditional Use Permit to allow for improvements to Hawthorne Park and an Exception to street standards on a 13 acre parcel located on the south side of East Jackson Street, the north side of East Main Street, the west side of Hawthorne Street, and east of Interstate 5 within a C-S/P (Service Commercial/Professional Office) zoning district.   (City of Medford Parks and Recreation Department, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Agent).
               
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar.
               
Moved by: Commissioner Miranda      Seconded by: Commissioner Christie
               
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
               
30.          Minutes. 
30.1        The minutes for November 13, 2014, 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. 
                Continuance Request
50.1        PUD-14-116/LDS-14-117 Consideration of a Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan, including proposed modifications to Land Development Code standards pertaining to specific lots including: 1) modification of minimum lot area, width, depth, coverage, and frontage standards, and 2) implementation of private streets to be utilized as shared driveway easements; and consideration of a tentative subdivision plat to create 41 residential lots and two common area lots on an 8.16 gross acres located on the east side of Thomas Road, approximately 800 feet north of Sunset Drive, within the SFR-6 (Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per gross acre) zone district.  (Stella Real Estate Investments, LLC, Applicant; 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 disclosed.  
               
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts.  None were disclosed.
               
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the January 8, 2015, Planning Commission meeting.
               
Motion: Approve the applicant’s requests that the item be continued to the January 8, 2015, Planning Commission meeting.
               
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden       Seconded by: Commissioner Miranda
               
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
               
                New Business
50.2        ZC-14-118 Adopt the Final Order of a request for a change of zone from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per existing lot) to MFR-20 (Multiple-Family Residential, 20 dwelling units per gross acre) of approximately 3.24 acres located between the terminus of West 8th Street and Lozier lane, south of West Main Street.  (Denise Abroe, Applicant/Agent).
               
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.  
               
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts.  None were disclosed.
               
Jennifer Jones, Planner II, read the zone change criteria and gave a staff report.
               
Commissioner McFadden asked Ms. Jones to explain to those who might not know what the locational criteria are in regard to this application.  Ms. Jones replied that for some of the other zoning districts there are locational criteria but it does not apply to this residential request.  Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, stated that there are no locational criteria.  SFR-6 and SFR-10 zones require a minimum size or have to be contiguous to that same zone.  There is no such requirement for the multi-family zones.        
               
Commissioner McFadden asked staff, in their discussions with City Engineering about this project and if it is approved and developed, are they planning on extending 8th Street to Lozier Lane to coincide with their Lozier Lane Improvement project?  Ms. Jones replied that at time of development a right-of-way would be dedicated for the extension of West 8th Street continuing to the west.   
               
The public hearing was opened.
               
a.  Denise Abroe, 4697 Torrey Pines Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Abroe stated that she is the applicant for this application.   Ms. Jones covered all the items in her staff report.
               
b.  Adrianne Nowers, 2208 SW 17th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97201.  Ms. Nowers stated that this is going to greatly impact her property.  Would the City consider extending Lewis Park?  She has a lot of questions.  Chair Zarosinski reported that this is not where the Planning Commission answers questions.  The Planning Commission listens to testifier’s concerns and issues.  There will be no dialogue back and forth.  The Planning Commission looks at if this application follows the Code to go from SFR-00 to MFR-20.  Ms. Nowers can stay in contact with staff and this application to make sure she is notified of future action of this property.  Also, Ms. Nowers should ask her questions to staff.       
               
Commissioner McFadden commented that he does not think that the Planning Commission would be able to answer the type of questions Ms. Nowers is asking.  Tonight, the Planning Commission does not see the details of the applicant’s development.  This is strictly to change the zone.  There will be another meeting where the Planning Commission will discuss all the ins and outs. 
               
Alex Georgevitch, Transportation Manager and Acting City Engineer, stated that in their staff report they requested that the developer shall obtain easements for drainage to the West Main Street prior to Planning Commission approval of the zone change.  Mr. Georgevitch wanted to go on record that the Engineering Department has received those.  Since the Planning Commission is going to adopt the Final Order tonight, the Engineering Department will not have an opportunity to update their report.     
               
Commissioner McFadden asked Mr. Georgevitch regarding his question earlier regarding the roadways could it be coordinated with the Lozier Lane Improvement project?  Mr. Georgevitch replied not likely.  There is not additional right-of-way west of this site and it is a private development.  They have no idea what the intent of this is.  Right now the applicant is requesting a zone change.  The property could sit for years or it could be put up for sale for someone else to develop that could come in tomorrow with an application.  Staff does not know that. 
               
The public hearing was closed.
               
Motion: Adopt the Findings as recommended by staff and approve the Final Order of ZC-14-118 per the Staff Report dated December 4, 2014, including Exhibits A through J.  The Planning Commission acknowledges that the Public Works Department had received the easements that were requested in their staff report.   
               
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden       Seconded by: Commissioner Christie
               
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
               
50.3        LDP-14-120 Adopt the Final Order of a request to create two parcels on a 0.44 acre lot located on the south side of Charlotte Ann Road, approximately 900 feet east of South Pacific Highway, within the SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential, 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district.  (Daniel Gan, Applicant; Stephen M. Terry Land Use Consulting, Inc., Agent).
               
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.  
               
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts.  None were disclosed.
               
Jennifer Jones, Planner II, read the land division criteria and gave a staff report.
               
The public hearing was opened.
               
a.  Stephen M. Terry Land Consulting, Inc., P. O. Box 8083, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Terry stated that he is present tonight on behalf of his client Daniel Gan.  The subject land division meets the requirements for density, lot width, depth size and access.  They are in agreement with the staff report and the exhibits included.    
               
b.  Don Harding, 310 ½ Charlotte Anne Road, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Harding’s concern is that if this has not been approved why was a homeowner able to build two houses on the property already?  Chair Zarosinski deferred the question to Mr. Terry. 
               
Mr. Terry reported that the Land Development Code in single family residential zones 4, 6 and 10 allow Accessory Dwelling Units which is 50 % of the principal unit not to exceed 900 feet.  The principal unit is approximately 1700 feet and the Accessory Dwelling Unit is approximately 900 feet.  This meets the requirements of the Land Development Code.  Other properties in the area have not received Medford zoning.  The opportunity for those people would be the same as what his client has exercised at this point.
               
Chair Zarosinski asked if the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) was on the newly created lot.  Mr. Terry replied no.  The Accessory Dwelling Unit is on the west portion and the primary unit is on the east portion.  Once they received single family residential zone they were allowed to exercise their right in terms of a building permit as well on Parcel 2. 
               
The public hearing was closed.
               
Motion: Adopt the Findings as recommended by staff and approve the Final Order of LDP-14-120 per the Staff Report dated December 4, 2014, including Exhibits A through J.
               
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden       Seconded by: Commissioner Miranda
               
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
               
50.4        LDS-14-112 Adopt the Final Order of a request for tentative plat approval for Orchard Court Subdivision, a 7-lot residential subdivision on a 1.29 acre parcel located on the north side of Orchard Home Court, approximately 620 feet east of Orchard Home Drive within a SFR-6 (Single-Family Residential – 6 units per acre) zoning district.  (Suncrest Homes, LLC, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., Agent).
               
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.  
               
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts.  None were disclosed.
               
Desmond McGeough, Planner II, stated that the land division criteria had been read during a previous presentation and gave a staff report.
               
The public hearing was opened.
               
a.  Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner stated that he agrees with the staff report.  The application was prepared and meets all the standards and requirements for the Planning Commission’s approval. 
               
Chair Zarosinski asked how are the fire truck turnarounds kept open after construction?  Are they signed?  How will they not be blocked by people using their driveways?  Mr. Sinner replied that the northerly turnaround is in the middle of an easement.  They have the ability to fence off the dedicated pedestrian access on the west side.  They could provide signage as well.  They could be marked “No Parking”.  The Fire Department report mentions that this is one option that the applicant could use.  The applicant had the options of providing either residential fire sprinklers for Lots 5, 6 and 7, or provides the temporary turnarounds as submitted.  
               
b.  Reva Siewert, 1815 Orchard Home Court, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Her concern is with the street.  It is a minor residential street so it is smaller than the average street.  They have potholes and it is in poor condition.  They are concerned with the increase in traffic with the seven lots being added.     
               
c.  Sue Calzaretta, 1840 Orchard Home Court, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Calzaretta stated that her residence is midway between Orchard Home Drive and the proposed development on the north side of the street.  That section of street is undeveloped and very ill in repair.  With calls to the City for repairs to the street they were told that the owners of the properties, many years ago, promised to maintain that street and they were responsible for the maintenance of the street.  She has lived there approximately ten years.  Initially the City of Medford repaired some of the minor holes but in the last couple of years with the new high school it has become a major thoroughfare.  The holes are to the point they are dangerous at the corner of Orchard Home Drive and Orchard Home Court with people cutting the corners to avoid the potholes.  The street needs to be addressed before new properties are brought in.     
               
Mr. Sinner stated that he is not sure who has the jurisdiction to fix the road conditions.  It is inside the City limits.  He deferred the maintenance responsibility of that street to the Public Works Department.  The applicant will be improving a section of Orchard Home Court with curbs and sidewalks to current City standards.  They will also be improving Milton Lane.  Mr. Sinner does not believe the applicant has the responsibility for the remainder of the street.   
               
Mr. Georgevitch reported that Orchard Home Court west of this development and a slight section to the east of the development that was built just east to this proposed development that are still local access streets.  Those streets have been dedicated for public use but have not been built to City or County standards.  Therefore, they are not being maintained.  They are the property owners’ responsibility.  To ask this development to do off-site improvements is something that he believes the Planning Commission has authority to do.  Public Works staff could have asked for that but it was difficult for Public Works to support off-site improvements because of Dolan issues that could have been raised.  This development does have the ability to continue to the east and then north up Spruce which is a publically maintained street under the City of Medford jurisdiction.      
               
Commissioner McFadden inquired whether there was any help for the people that feel that the potholes are not a problem of their doing.  Mr. Georgevitch replied that the Public Works Department past practice has been not to do any maintenance on local access roads.  There have been occasions where the City Council has directed the Public Works Department to do some maintenance on those roads.  Typically, local access roads are not built to City standards.  A Local Improvement District could be formed and the City would help facilitate that process.  This is not for this applicant but for the other neighbors in the area.       
               
Chair Zarosinski asked Ms. Cooper to briefly speak to proportionality off-site improvements.  Ms. Cooper replied that the process would have to show findings that any off-site improvements that are required have rough proportionality to the impacts caused by development.    
               
The public hearing was closed.
               
Motion: Adopt the Final Order for approval of LDS-14-112 per the Staff Report dated December 4, 2014, including Exhibits A through R.
               
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden       Seconded by: Commissioner Miranda
               
Chair Zarosinski added that he sympathizes with the present condition of the street.  He listened to what the citizens had to say and thinks it would be an undue burden to place on one single property owner to repair existing problems such as this.  There was a proportionality test done for the taking of right-of-way and believes Public Works has filled their obligations.    
               
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
               
50.5        PUD-02-178/LDP-14-111 Adopt the Final Orders of a request for a revision to Creekstone Village Planned Unit Development and for tentative plat of Phase 2, a two lot partition. The revision request includes the reduction of the number of lots in Phase 2. The project is located on a parcel totaling 1.62 acres, located on the south side of Crestbrook Drive, 730 feet east of Ellendale Drive within a SFR-10/PD (Single Family Residential - 10 units per gross acre/Planned Development) zoning district.  (McAndrews Properties LLC, Applicant; Herbert Farber, Farber Surveying, Agent).
               
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.  
               
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts.  None were disclosed.
               
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV, stated that the land division criteria had been read during a previous application.  Ms. Sousa read the planned unit development revision criteria and gave a staff report.
               
Chair Zarosinski disclosed that this project was in the office that he worked at many years ago.  He did not work on the project but he saw the original map.  He has no relationship with the current project or is biased. 
               
Commissioner McFadden asked what the legal length limit of a cul-de-sac is.  Ms. Sousa replied it shall not exceed 450 feet in length.   
               
The public hearing was opened.
               
a.  Herbert Farber, Farber Surveying, P. O. Box 5286, Central Point, Oregon, 97502.  Mr. Farber stated that he is the agent for McAndrews Properties LLC.  He has been involved with this project since its inception.  With the additional riparian setback requirements makes it that this is the only viable way to do anything with the property.  The staff report has been reviewed and the applicant is pretty much in agreement.  However, the applicant’s representative met with Fire Marshal, Greg Kleinberg, and has agreed that there is no longer a need for a fire turnaround at the end of the street.  A report was sent to Ms. Sousa on December 8, 2014, that the applicant would like to incorporate into the final record. 
               
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal, stated that he met with Mr. Gary Whittle on December 8, 2014, and they assured Mr. Kleinberg that there would be a house built on the west end near the end of the cul-de-sac.  From the bulb section there is 150 feet.  If a fire engine stops there and they can stretch their hose line around all the outside walls of the house, then it has been their policy, not to require a turnaround. 
               
Mr. Farber requested that the Conditions of Approval on page 129 of the agenda packet that Section 4 (a) be deleted and that (b) be labeled as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2.   
               
Ms. Sousa reported that staff is fine with deleting Section 4 (a) and either deleting (b) or changing it to Parcel 1 and Parcel 2.
               
Mr. Farber commented on Mr. Lynch’s submitted letter.  Most of the discussion in his letter talks about what happened in Phase 1 of the approvals done previously and whether or not they had been completed properly.  When a project is completed it is reviewed and inspected to a high level of quality.  He cannot imagine they were allowed to get a final plat and a final Planned Unit Development approval for Phase 1 without complying with all of the requirements that were presented to them as part of that approval.  For the storm drainage issues, any project that he does has to be engineered and complied to with drainage standards.  They are not allowed to stop any water that is coming onto the site.  They have to accommodate it and move it off the site however the system was designed.  This project will be no different.  It states in the Public Works report that the applicant will have approved plans prior to construction of any homes or final plat to deal with storm drainage issues.              
               
b.  Roy Fullerton, 2190 Crestbrook Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Fullerton reported that his house abuts where the first section stopped.  He testified at the first meeting that the drainage would back up and flood properties.  They were assured it would not happen and property drainage would be installed.  The day that Phase 1 was completed it has flooded the back of his property every year.  He has standing water for three to four months several inches deep.  If there is further development it will flood his property higher.  
               
c.  Rodney McCambridge, 2160 Crestbrook Road #8, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. McCambridge testified that his house abuts Lazy Creek.  The concrete in his backyard popped because of the drainage in the back.  He is tired of changing the street light bulbs.  His other concern is no fire truck turnaround.  The residents park their cars on the street and at times only one car can get down the street.       
               
d.  John Lynch, 2212 Crestbrook Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Lynch read his letter that he submitted into the record this evening.  His concern is the drainage and requested the Planning Commission to vote against this agenda item. 
               
e.  Alice Boe, 2200 Crestbrook Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Boe testified that she has the lowest back property in the area.  She is concerned that water comes right to her property line.  As far as selling the house, she has had realtors tell her that she will have to disclose the water issue.  The value of her house is going down.  She is concerned that with the new development they will bring in fill dirt to raise the property which will affect her property because she is so low.     
               
Commissioner McFadden asked Ms. Boe that when she stated water up to the back, is she talking about flood waters from Lazy Creek?  Ms. Boe replied no.  It is drainage water coming from all the properties.  Lazy Creek has not flooded in fifty years.  The field is full of water. 
               
Mr. Farber stated that they would look into Mr. Fullerton’s issue that he believes that fill was put in for the temporary fire turnaround has caused flooding on his property.  They are responsible for that and to the best of his knowledge work to make sure they accommodate drainage issues.  They are not able to fix all the drainage issues in the neighborhood.  All of the properties along Crestbrook drain onto the applicant’s property.  This property does not drain to their property.  It is sloping down to Lazy Creek.     
               
Commissioner McFadden asked Mr. Farber that on the north side of the applicant’s property has there been or is there any type of drainage catch system?  Mr. Farber replied not to his knowledge.  
               
Ms. Boe testified that the field behind her was doing fine because the people on Ellendale were getting flooded.  A retaining wall was installed which backed the water to Ms. Boe.  With the new subdivision she watched them pump water for three days from one of the homes that they built.   
               
Chair Zarosinski asked Mr. Georgevitch can the Planning Commission place an action regarding the drainage?  Mr. Georgevitch replied that the Public Works Department staff report is requiring that when a future application is submitted to the City for the development of the proposed Parcel 2, a comprehensive grading, stormwater detention, and stormwater quality plan, showing relationship between adjacent property and the proposed site work, shall be submitted with building plans for review and approval by the Department of Public Works.  At that point, is when the Public Works Department would be looking at if anything they are doing would impede flow.  They have to allow natural drainage to occur.  Beyond that, he does not believe there is anything they can do for existing conditions west of the property.  The Public Works Department staff report also states that the future drainage improvements for Parcel 2 shall include infiltration trenches uphill of, and running parallel to the top of the north bank of Lazy Creek or an alternate system as approved by the City Engineer.         
               
The public hearing was closed.
               
Motion: Adopt the Final Order for approval of PUD-02-178 Revision and LDP-14-111 per the Staff Report dated December 4, 2014, including Exhibits A through L. Also with the changes to Exhibit H that the Fire Department is not requiring a Fire Department turnaround at the east end of the private street and on Exhibit A, delete Section 4 (a) and (b).  
               
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden       Seconded by: Commissioner Christie
               
Chair Zarosinski stated that the information presented for the Planned Unit Development Revision meets the criteria.  Some of the remedies for the drainage issues cannot be found through this process.  It does not give the applicant permission to damage anyone with flood water.  It did meet the criteria that were required for this action.
               
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
               
50.6        PUD-79-008 Adopt the Final Order of a request to terminate the Black Oak PUD, a commercial and office development on approximately 13.25 acres located on the southeasterly corner of E Barnett Road and Black Oak Drive and extending approximately 825 feet east, zoned C-C/PD (Community Commercial/Planned Development Overlay).  (Barnett Stage, LLC, Applicant; Sydnee Dreyer, Agent).
               
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.  
               
Chair Zarosinski inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts.  None were disclosed.
               
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, summarized the planned unit development termination criteria and gave a staff report.
               
The public hearing was opened.
               
a.  Sydnee Dreyer, Huycke O’Conner Jarvis, LLP, 823 Alder Creek Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Dreyer reported that she is the agent for the applicant.  The staff report was very concise.  This is a Planned Unit Development that has does not have much meaning any longer.  There is no commonality between the ownership, architecture, no common area, no consistent enforcement of the Planned Unit Development of years.  It could not be located on the City’s Planned Unit Development overlay maps.  She does have the proposed Reciprocal Cross Access Easement and assures that all of the owners subject to the Easement signed an agreement to cooperate before they started down this path. 
               
Chair Zarosinski stated that it appeared that the request to terminate the Planned Unit Development was a request from the City to act as a trip cap for the property.  Ms. Dreyer replied that her understanding is that at the time the zoning worked this was the assurance that was in place for traffic and whatever else they needed for the zone. 
               
Commissioner McFadden asked what is the resulting zoning going to be.  It appears it is going to be Community Commercial.  Ms. Akin replied that the underlying zoning will not change.  This is not a zone change.  The only effect on the zoning map is the removal of the  Planned Unit Development Overlay.  
               
The public hearing was closed.
               
Motion: Adopt the Findings as recommended by staff and adopt the Final Order for approval of the termination of PUD-79-008 per the Staff Report dated December 4, 2014, including Exhibits A through I.
               
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden       Seconded by: Commissioner Christie
               
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
               
60.          Report of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission. 
60.1        Commissioner Miranda reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, December 5, 2014 but they did not have a quorum. 
               
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        Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that the Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, December 22, 2014, has been cancelled. 
 
There will not be a Planning Commission on Thursday, December 25, 2014, due to Christmas. 
 
The next regular Planning Commission is Thursday, January 8, 2015.
 
Last week the City Council adopted Phase 1 of the Urban Growth Boundary Amendment project called the Proposed Amendment Locations (PALs).  There were some minor changes made that the Planning Commission had recommended.
 
This is Chair Zarosinski’s last meeting with the Planning Commission.  Ms. Akin thanked Chair Zarosinski for his services.  He has been an excellent Chair.  It has been a pleasure to serve with him.
 
On January 23, 2015, it is the annual Boards and Commissions luncheon.  Ms. Akin requested that the Planning Commission stay in order to have several photographs taken.
               
90.          Messages and Papers from Chair of Planning Commission. 
90.1        Chair Zarosinski stated that he has thoroughly enjoyed serving on the Planning Commission and working with them as well as staff. 
               
100.        Remarks from the City Attorney.  None.
               
110.        Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None. 
               
120.        Adjournment. 
                The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 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
 
David McFadden
Planning Commission Acting Chair
               
Approved:  January 8, 2015         
 
 

© 2019 City Of Medford  •  Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top