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 Agenda and Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, March 24, 2016

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:34 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
Tim D’Alessandro
David Culbertson
Norman Fincher
Joe Foley
Mark McKechnie
Jared Pulver
 
Commissioner Absent
Bill Mansfield, Excused Absence       
 
Staff Present
Jim Huber, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
John Adam, Principal Planner
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Ralph Sartain, Acting Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Carla Paladino, Planner IV
Desmond McGeough, Planner III
Tracy Carter, Planner II
           
 
10.       Roll Call
 
20.       Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 ZC-15-164 Final Order for a zone change from SFR-4 (Single Family Residential, four dwelling units per gross acre) to C-S/P (Service Commercial and Professional Office) for 5.72 acres located between Corona Avenue and Covina Avenue and between East McAndrews Road and Grand Avenue. (HATH LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Craig Stone, Agent)
 
20.2 LDS-15-167 Final Order for a request of a tentative plat approval for The Ridge at the Highlands Phases 2 – 10, a 67 lot subdivision on approximately 37.34 acres located at the northerly termini of Cherry Lane, Bermuda Drive and Stardust Way and approximately 100 feet north of Cloudcrest Drive, within the SFR-4/PD (Single Family Residential, four dwelling units per gross acre/Planned Development Overlay) zoning district. (Ayala Properties, LLC, Applicant; Urban Development Services, LLC, Agent)
 
20.3 GF-16-028 Initiation of code amendment to allow micro-distilleries in commercial zoning districts. (City of Medford, Applicant)
 
Commissioner Pulver requested to pull agenda item 20.3 from the consent calendar for further discussion.
 
Motion: Adopt agenda items 20.1 and 20.2 of the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                   Seconded by: There was none.
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8–0.
 
Chair Miranda requested a staff report for agenda item 20.3
 
John Adam, Principal Planner, stated that the Planning Commission discussed this item last week at their study session.  Mr. Adam’s understanding is that the Planning Commission requested that it be put on the consent calendar to consider initiation of the item.
 
Commissioner Pulver’s understanding of the study session was that the issue was discussed and staff commented that the Long Range Planning Division has a busy schedule.  If the Planning Commission decided it was important to move this item forward staff would reprioritize.
 
Mr. Adam reported that staff would not change any prioritization of how they do their work in the department on this.  It is a matter of capacity.  There are a lot of items stacked up with the Urban Growth Boundary amendment, adopting the wetlands regulations including an inventory, create new zoning districts for public use that are necessary, urbanization plans that will be adopted and carrying this through the County for the Urban Growth Boundary amendment.  Staff will get to the micro-distilleries when they have capacity.  The Long Range Division is down to one and half people.  The Urban Growth Boundary amendment is what the Long Range Division is working on at this time.
   
Motion: Adopt agenda item 20.3 of the consent calendar as submitted for staff to start working on the code amendment for micro-distilleries.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                   Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
30.       Minutes
30.1.    The minutes for March 10, 2016, were approved as submitted.
 
Chair Miranda read a specially prepared statement regarding agenda items 50.3 and 50.4 for Cedar Landing related to areas south of Cedar Links Drive.  The developers recently had a neighborhood meeting regarding changes to the area north of Cedar Links Drive.  If anyone in the audience is here this evening to testify on the area north of Cedar Links Drive that is not on tonight’s agenda they can comment on issues not on tonight’s agenda in item 40 Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  If anyone in the audience is here to testify on the proposed changes to the areas south of Cedar Links Drive please give their testimony during the public hearings for agenda item 50.3 and 50.4.
     
40.       Oral and Written Requests and Communications. None.
 
Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.       Public Hearings – New Business
50.1 SV-15-169 Consideration of a request to vacate a portion of Second Street located between railroad right-of-way and Front Street. (John and Claudia Lawton, Applicants; Farber Surveying, Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Vice Chair McFadden stated that he submitted written testimony representing his employer and will recuse himself from this agenda item.
   
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Carla Paladino, Planner IV, read the street vacation criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked who owns the fence along the railroad?  Ms. Paladino does not know who installed the fence.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked that if this reverts to private property can the fence stay?  Ms. Paladino replied yes.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the property is vacated does it go back on the tax records?  Ms. Paladino replied yes.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Herb Farber, Farber Surveying, 431 Oak Street, Central Point, Oregon, 97502.  Mr. Farber is the agent for the applicants, John and Claudia Lawton.  They have reviewed the staff report and are in concurrence with the conditions as stated.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: Based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are met or are not applicable, the Planning Commission forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval SV-15-169 per the staff report dated March 17, 2016, including Exhibits A through H including the following conditions of approval: 1) Reserve an easement over the subject right-of-way for public utilities that includes the right to access, maintain, and construct these utilities within the easement area.  The language shall state no structures including fences shall be built over the easement area; 2) The property owners shall install street improvements along Front Street at the time of developing (paving) the vacated right-of-way; and 3) No fencing shall be installed east/west across the property.
    
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie            Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-1, with Vice Chair McFadden recusing himself.
 
50.2  ZC-16-006 Consideration of a request for a change of zone from I-G (General Industrial) to C-H (Heavy Commercial) on approximately 2.36 acres located on the east side of Crater Lake Avenue approximately 700 feet south of Hollyhock Drive. (Blu Dutch LLC, Applicant; Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Tracy Carter, Planner II, read the zone change criteria and gave a staff report.  Mr. Carter stated that under the recommended action it reads “…per the staff report dated March 17, 2015…” it should read “…per the staff report dated March 17, 2016…”
 
Commissioner Foley asked how is the stipulation of the trip caps not exceeding 721 enforced, measured and managed?  Mr. Carter deferred the question to the City Engineer.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer, stated that the zoning is put on a map shown as restrictive zoning so that they know there is a limitation on that land so any time development comes in it is checked against the map.  The developer is requested, depending on the complexity of the site, to provide a trip accounting.  In this situation they would not make that request because of the small number.
         
Commissioner McKechnie asked is the trip count based on square footage of the proposed building?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that is correct.  When an application comes in with a specific use Public Works will use the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual that is based on trip generation per 1000 square feet to make sure they are not exceeding the cap.
   
Vice Chair McFadden asked at what point does the intersection at Owens Drive get a traffic signal?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that there are several developments that have stipulations at that location.  If any one of those developments chooses to exceed their trip cap they would have to make that improvement.  Currently, it is not in the City’s five year plan.  It is not something that Public Works is participating or doing the work at this time.  There are too many projects in front of it.  They would continue as it is and limit development in that area.  Public Works is also working on the Transportation System Plan that would address that and priorities.  They are probably approximately a year and a half out before any acceptance of that document.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked regarding a situation where all people that are affecting the intersection at Owen Drive pay at the time of development; is that type of an agreement being sought for the major developers impacting that intersection?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that is typically driven on the private side by the development community.  The City on higher order streets does not do that.  Public Works has seen developments in the past where a group of developers had a specific dollar amount per dwelling unit that they would pay into to reimburse the one developer who did the improvements.  Since that time the City’s Code has changed and they have the ability for a reimbursement district that does not require consensus from a group of people.  It can be based on as development impacts they could be reimbursed over a ten year period.  No one has come to the City to request that at this time.  It is a developer driven request.
         
Commissioner McKechnie asked if this was down zoning from Industrial to Heavy Commercial?  He is assuming Heavy Commercial would be a less intense use of the site than General Industrial.  Mr. Carter reported that he would generally agree with that.  Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, reported that she does not agree.  The intensity of uses may be less hazardous but as identified with trips it would be more intense than the Industrial zone that existed.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that he is thinking of the things that would go along with that.  To him Industrial would be manufacturing as opposed to Commercial which would be more retail uses.  Ms. Akin stated that potentially Heavy Commercial will allow some manufacturing uses and some things that would be seen in Industrial are also permitted in the Heavy Commercial zone.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if there was a reason that the applicant wants to put a use that is not allowed in an Industrial zone?  Ms. Akin said she is not sure of what the applicant’s future use is.  It is not part of the criteria.  The GLUP map designations changed as part of the Internal Urban Growth Boundary project.  That was the City’s proposal to do that.  Now they are bringing the zoning into conformance with the GLUP map designation.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that regarding the residential units that are around this subject site he is assuming when the residential units were built that the land that is currently Industrial was Industrial at that time.  Is that correct?  Ms. Akin replied that she assumes so.  She is not certain.  She wonders if there were bufferyards required at that time.  Commissioner McKechnie stated that the land apparently is still vacant.  There is still a bufferyard required for any development on this site and it must be approximately the same if it is Industrial versus Heavy Commercial.  Is that correct?  Ms. Akin replied that is correct.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if residential would be required to have a buffer from Industrial?  Ms. Akin reported that it depends on the laws that were in place at the time.  They may have been required to buffer themselves from the more intense use.  The more intense use buffers from the less intense.  In this case, the Code would require that when this property develops, they would provide a 10 foot bufferyard along the north and easterly property lines.
                      
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501-0168.  Mr. Stevens reported that this zone change is due to the General Land Use Plan map amendment that was recently done.  Staff has presented a thorough and complete report to the Planning Commission.  The applicant has reviewed the conditions of the approval and the stipulated trip generation count and is in agreement with the number of 721 trips.  The record demonstrates this application is in compliance with Section 10.227 of the Medford Land Development Code.  The reason for changing the zone from Industrial to Heavy Commercial is for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.  The proposed use is speculation right now.  It has been mini warehouses and multi-family that are both allowed in Heavy Commercial zoning districts.  They have no site design or anything at this point. 
  
b. John Cieri, 1520 Hartell Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Cieri has concerns with obstruction of view and bright lights shining at night into his home.  Mr. Cieri requested that when development begins that good neighbor courtesy would be applied.
    
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of ZC-16-006 per the staff report dated March 17, 2016, including Exhibits A through I.
    
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden       Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.3 LDS-15-044 Consideration of a request for approval of a 176-lot residential subdivision tentative plat revision, approved under application number LDS-15-044, for the purpose of modifying phase boundaries and amending underlying reserve lots. The subject 116.58 acre property is located entirely on the south side of Cedar Links Drive, approximately 1,000 feet west of North Foothill Drive within an SFR-4 zone district. (Cedar Investment Group LLC, Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd., Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda 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 III, requested that the Planning Commission consider agenda items 50.3 and 50.4 together as a single public hearing with two separate motions.  These items are coordinated and aligned with one another.
 
50.4 LDS-15-120 Consideration of a request for approval of a subdivision replat of Sky Lakes Village at Cedar Landing Phase 7A, in order to comport with requested modifications in the phase boundaries of the subdivision. The subject 116.58 acre property is located entirely on the south side of Cedar Links Drive, approximately 1,000 feet west of North Foothill Drive within an SFR-4 zone district. (Cedar Investment Group LLC. Applicant; CSA Planning Ltd.,/Craig Stone, Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired if any Commissioner has an issue with combining these two agenda items into one presentation but two separate motions?  None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Mr. McGeough read the land division criteria and gave a staff report Mr. McGeough reported that under the recommended action on agenda items 50.3 and 50.4 it reads “…per the staff report dated March 17, 2015…”  it should read “…per the staff report dated March 17, 2016…”. 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Mike Savage, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Savage stated that the applicant has reviewed the staff report and revised submittals from Public Works and the Fire department and agrees with the proposed conditions.
   
b. Jim Garner, 1020 Callaway Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Garner testified that he was under the impression when this came before the Planning Commission last September that only single-story homes were to be built.  He wants to make sure that remains in place. 
  
Vice Chair McFadden stated that he does not remember if only single-story homes were a condition or not with the original approval.  Mr. Savage reported that was a request made to the Planning Commission by several of the neighbors but was denied.  That was not made a condition of approval.  It is not part of the request before the Planning Commission tonight either.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that although it was not the applicant’s request and the Planning Commission is reviewing this again, the Planning Commission could make it a part of their conditions this evening as a point of law.
 
Mr. McConnell stated that unless Ms. Akin wanted to disagree with him it looks like it would be within the Planning Commission’s authority.
 
Mr. Savage reported that if that is up for consideration he would like some time to talk to his client about that topic.
       
Jim Huber, Planning Director, stated that he disagrees with Mr. McConnell’s statement.  The City does not have a view protection ordinance.  He does not know what Code provision Commissioner McKechnie would be implementing.  It is not related to the criteria that Mr. McGeough read earlier.  Also, what impacts is the Planning Commission trying to mitigate?  It is not a transportation or utility issue.  Since it is not rooted in the Code he does not know the basis for making that restriction on the type of single family home that is built at this point at a subdivision phase.  Legally he does not know how you would make that finding.
 
Chair Miranda asked if this application will go before the Site Plan and Architectural Commission for review.  Mr. Huber replied no.  These are single family homes.  Single family homes have a 35 foot height restriction.
 
Mr. McConnell asked to review the criteria presented earlier.  He does not know if there is anything in the Comprehensive Plan.  He was not prepared for the question.  It appears Planning staff disagrees with him.  He does not have enough information to overrule that at this time.
    
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings presented by the applicant as modified by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of LDS-15-044 per the staff report dated March 17, 2016, including Exhibits A through J and replacing Exhibit D with Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit F with Exhibit F-1.
    
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden       Seconded by: Commissioner D’Alessandro
 
Commissioner McKechnie spoke to the view ordinance stating that he suggested an amendment to this application last time and it did not pass.  He believes there is not anything in the Code that would necessarily limit the height of a subdivision other than the general code or unless there is a condition in a Planned Unit Development that would limit the height.  Unless the particular property owners in that subdivision voluntarily agree to limit the height of the units along the frontage to 25 feet as opposed to 35 feet the Planning Commission is stuck.  Other cities have an ordinance which might speak to this and that would be their solar ordinances to where a single family home is not allowed to cast a shadow on a certain height of a neighboring home.  Currently, the City of Medford does not have those kinds of things.
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.4 LDS-15-120 public hearing was opened.
 
a. Mike Savage, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9173.  Mr. Savage stated that he had no additional comments.
  
Commissioner McKechnie asked if this application was the creation of the lots and the other application was the phasing in which lots will be developed in which order?  Mr. Savage replied that is correct.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked how does the phasing relate to the platting?  Do they match up a little of each or does it matter?  Mr. Savage reported that the intent of the particular configuration is to match up with the phase boundaries.  Phase 1 matches up completely with Lot 95.  Lot 96 includes several phases.  He is not sure if it would be Phases 2a, 3a, or 3b but it would be three or four phases.  The perimeter boundaries of the future phases match up with the proposed underlying lots.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the intent was to start with Phase 1 and work around to Phase 7?  Mr. Savage stated generally there is nothing to restrict the developer if he wanted to come off Foothill and develop those particular phases first.
          
Ralph Sartain, Acting Fire Marshal, stated that it has to be done from Phase 1 to Phase 7.  That is part of the Fire Department’s conditions.  They are allowing Phase 1, 2, 3a, 3b 4a and 4b otherwise the entire complex has to be sprinkled.
   
Mr. Savage stated that it was his understanding that if the applicant proceeds with Phase 1a and continues to the easterly portion then it would have to be sprinkled unless they were to provide an access off Foothill Drive as the secondary access.  He did not read the proposed condition to say they could not start from Foothill for example.  The main emphasis was if they were going to develop any more than the westerly half going into the easterly half they would have to have a secondary access.  If they are going to come in from the east and proceed to the west they would need additional access off Cedar Links Drive.  Mr. Sartain reported that the reason they cannot go from the east to west is because of the amount of development and the amount of houses in the upper phases.  It exceeds the limitations of the Oregon Fire Code for residential.  There are too many houses and too many one-way zones in the way it was designed.
  
Chair McFadden commented that the Planning Commission accepted the Fire Departments revised land development report (Exhibit F-1) in the last motion.  It is a done deal.  Mr. Savage stated that the language in the revised report seemed adequate to the applicant and his understanding of the discussion with Greg Kleinberg was appropriate as well.
 
Mr. McGeough reported that Exhibit F-1 was already decided and is not applicable to LDS-15-120 but Exhibit D-1 is applicable to both LDS-15-044 and LDS-14-120.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings presented by the applicant as modified by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of LDS-15-120 per the staff report dated March 17, 2016, including Exhibits A through I and replacing Exhibit D with Exhibit D-1.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden       Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
50.5 LDS-16-002 / E-16-003 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval for Kasey Court Subdivision, a two phase, 6-lot residential subdivision with an exception to right of way dedication, on a 1.21 acre parcel located on the north side of Orchard Home Court, approximately 375 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 Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner McKechnie stated that he and Mr. Sinner are neighbors but that would not influence his decision.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Tracy Carter, Planner II, reported that the land division criteria had been read in a previous application, read the exception criteria and gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Foley stated that part of the requirement is that the applicant improves Orchard Home Court.  The condition of that street is bad.  Is there any plans for the City to fix the potholes at the end of that road that are bigger than most cars?  Mr. Georgevitch reported that the conditions are only for the frontage.  There are no other off-site conditions.  It is a local street therefore it is the property owner’s responsibility until it is built to City standards for the City to take maintenance and jurisdiction.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that he is guessing that Diamond Street has not been built behind this development.  Mr. Carter reported with the exception of the sidewalk on the south side along the frontage it has, by Warren Court.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked what was the park strip setback for Orchard Court subdivision?  Is it 7 or 10 feet?  Mr. Carter replied it is 10 feet.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked are they going to be able to adjust the sidewalk around the 3 feet?  Mr. Carter stated that the sidewalk is not there yet.  They will put the sidewalk in then the planter strip will be reduced to 7 feet. 
         
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner stated that on Orchard Court subdivision they had the 10 foot planter strip on the east side of what will be a 12 foot access-way.  There will be a 7 foot planter strip on the west side.  Diamond Street does not continue at this point.  It does not go anywhere to the west.  They are anticipating all the traffic will be from the southwest of them through the access-way heading towards South Medford High School.  The sidewalks will not be matching up plat to plat.  They agree with both the oral and written staff report and all the conditions.        
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of LDS-16-002 and E-16-003 per the staff report dated March 17, 2016, including Exhibits A through O and all related conditions.
    
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden       Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1         Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner D’Alessandro reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, March 18, 2016.  The Site Plan and Architectural Commission heard plans for the construction of a residential four-unit apartment building on a 0.27 acre parcel, located on the corner of Skyhawk Ridge Drive and Viewcrest Drive within the MFR-20 zoning district.  That item was approved.
                
60.2     Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee met yesterday, Wednesday, March 23, 2016, tentatively approving modified goals for the new Transportation System Plan.  John Adam, Principal Planner, from the Planning Department will work on those and bring it back to the subcommittee next month.  Then they will try to put policies to those goals.
  
60.3     Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, introduced the Planning Departments newest staff member, Dustin Severs, Planner II from Minnesota.
 
The Planning Commission’s next study session scheduled for Monday, March 28, 2016 has been cancelled.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, April 14, 2016 and Thursday, April 28, 2016.
 
Last week the City Council approved the Corona and Covina Land Use Plan Map amendment that the Planning Commission recommended a favorable recommendation.  The City Council adopted the Urban Growth Boundary option 4; the Grand Bargain.  City has retained an attorney, Jeff Condit, with special focus on this.  He will be reviewing the findings and help staff shepherd this package through the rest of the process.  The City Council has scheduled a study session for Thursday, April the 28, 2016.  They will adopt the resolution sometime after May or June depending on the outcome of the study session.  After that it will go to Jackson County for review sometime in June or July.  The County estimates their review will take six to twelve months that will involve hearings before both the County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners.  The County’s decision is sent to the state for another round of hearings and a final decision by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.  That will take another three to six months.
 
The Planning Department does not have any business before the City Council on Thursday, April 7, 2016.
        
70.       Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.
 
80.       Remarks from the City Attorney.  None.
 
90.       Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None.
 
100.     Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:17 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                                                  
 
Patrick Miranda
Planning Commission Chair
 
Approved: April 14, 2016
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top