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, January 12, 2017

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:35 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
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
Jared Pulver
               
Staff Present
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner
Carol Wedman, Office Administrator
Eric Mitton, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Carla Paladino, Planner IV
Dustin Severs, Planner II
Liz Conner, Planner II
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. 
20.1 GF-16-154 Initiation of a code amendment to revise the temporary mobile food vendor regulations. (City of Medford, Applicant)
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked what exactly are they voting on?  He has reviewed the memorandum and all he thinks the Commission is sending to the City Council are the minutes of the study session.  Is that not right?  He does not see a written recommendation.  He knows that several of the Planning Commissioners were under the opinion that food cart operators have a decided advantage that they do not have to pay real property tax and other expenditures that property owners do.  There should be something in consideration of that.  None of that is reflected in the memorandum.
 
Commissioner Foley stated that it is his opinion that the Planning Commission is voting to ask Planning staff to initiate and work on a text amendment that the Planning Commission would review in another study session. 
 
Carla Paladino, Planner IV, this is initiating whether the Planning Commission wants Planning staff to move forth and amend the current regulations and bring them back to the Planning Commission.  Changes will be brought to the Planning Commission in a study session first then it would go through the hearing process before the Planning Commission and City Council.
 
Commissioner Foley reported that the choices the Planning Commission discussed in the study session was; yes, the Planning Commission wants staff to review the code and the Planning Commission wants it revised; or no they do not, because they are happy with the way it is. 
      
Motion: Adopt the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 7–0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for December 8, 2016, were approved as submitted.
 
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Planning Commission study session minutes from January 9, 2017, page 4, last paragraph reads: “If DLCD changes it… It should read: “If OLCC changes it…
 
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications. None.
 
Eric Mitton, Senior Assistant City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
       
50.          Public Hearings – New Business
50.1 CUP-16-084 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application to allow a new wireless communications facility consisting of a 90-foot support structure and associated equipment cabinets used for communication systems. The subject site is located at the southwest corner of the future intersection of Owen Drive alignment with the McLoughlin Drive alignment, at the northeast property corner of 371W08 Tax Lot 1102. (Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Paul Slotemaker, 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.
 
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, read the conditional use permit approval criteria and stated that the approval criteria applies to the first two hearings this evening.  Ms. Akin noted several corrections.  The project description incorrectly lists the initial application as a 90-foot support structure.  It is a 106-foot wireless communication support structure as reflected in the staff report.  Also, a revised Public Works report that will be submitted into the record as Exhibit O-1.  Ms. Akin gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Foley asked if the code requires or is it the applicant’s choice for aesthetics of the non-functioning windmill on the top of the wireless communication structure.  Ms. Akin reported that she does not know if the windmill functions.  It was part of the concealment proposal.
 
Commissioner Foley asked what is the windmill concealing?  Ms. Akin deferred the question to the applicant.
 
Commissioner Foley has concerns of properties surrounding the wireless communication structure of the setback requirements as the sites get developed.  It is Ms. Akin’s opinion that if the development moved to the site it would render the site non-conforming if the new property lines were allowed within the setback.  It becomes non-conforming when it is legally established and the situation around it changes.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked if this would be restricting the surrounding properties from proper development?  Ms. Akin replied that is an opinion.  She is not sure it does.  If the property is developed in a way that the code allowed and the setback for the existing structure was diminished it would become non-conforming. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie clarified that stating it would be a continuing non-conforming use.  It would be allowed at some point and would be allowed to continue in its current condition as long as it did not change.  If it changes in some way then it would have to go back through the process as an existing non-conforming.  Ms. Akin replied that being non-conforming is a burden.  There are certain limitations as to what can be done when it becomes non-conforming.  Commissioner McKechnie stated that it has no impact on other development around it that is conforming.  Ms. Akin commented, not in her opinion.  Commissioner McKechnie shares that opinion.
  
Mr. Mitton stated that ultimately he concurs with Ms. Akin.  He does not see it as a setback issue to the properties that would be developed to the north and east.
 
Ms. Akin asked if that was coming to the nuisance doctrine?  Mr. Mitton replied that he sees coming to the nuisance doctrine more often in the tort context where something is a tort nuisance.  The doctrine is not specifically land use doctrine but similar idea.
          
Commissioner Pulver stated that the question that was raised spoke to the properties to the north and east which have some residential components but he does not know how those measurements play out.  Ms. Akin stated that the current zoning to the north and east is Exclusive Farm Use (EFU).  The proposed General Land Use Plan designation are urban high density and commercial.  The code limitation on building setbacks equal to the tower height specify single family.
     
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the Public Works report stated public improvements had to be in and approved before the applicant could apply for a building permit.  It seems that the revisions Ms. Akin spoke about is that there are no public improvements.  Ms. Akin replied, that is correct. 
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Paul Slotemaker, Technology Associates EC, Inc., 11500 SW Terra Linda Street, Beaverton, Oregon, 97005.  Mr. Slotemaker reported that the proposed wireless facility is needed to improve the wireless network in this part of Medford.  It is meant to improve capacity as the demand for wireless services continues to increase.  The wireless facility was initially designed as a “mono pole” with a compact antenna array at the top.  It was purposefully located at the northeast corner of the property because the property owner wanted it located there and trying to keep it away from neighbors as much as possible.
 
Going to the Land Development Committee meeting, Desmond McGeough, was the planner at the time, there was discussion about the design and facility and whether the “mono pole” was the best design.  Mr. McGeough had given Mr. Slotemaker several different options to think about to help improve the visual appearance of the facility.  Mr. McGeough leaned towards the windmill design.  The area is a field with no tall trees which may lend themselves to the “mono pine” which is a wireless facility disguised as a tree.  That works well in a grove of trees.  The windmill may be the best way to help fit it in and pay homage to the agricultural area.  It could be worked into a monument signage for a neighborhood.

The applicant is proposing a compact antenna array.  There is an image provided in the staff report of a windmill design that had a larger antenna array.  Typically it is twelve antennas but this one will have six antennas.
 
The facility will be designed to be co-locatable, meaning that other wireless carriers will be able to attach their antennas if they wish to locate in that area. This minimizes additional towers in this part of the City.
 
With the 90-foot design the FAA determined that no lighting was needed at the top of the wireless facility.  The Oregon Department of Aviation agreed no light was required.  When the design changed to include the windmill that changed the height the Oregon Department of Aviation recommended a light.  The Federal Aviation Administration’s review is pending.  Mr. Slotemaker is hoping that the FAA will not require a light then the applicant can go to the Oregon Department of Aviation and get the light removed.  He suggested adding that as a condition of approval that if the FAA decides no light is required the applicant would pursue that route.  
             
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the windmill works or is it just for aesthetics?  Mr. Slotemaker reported that the windmill spins but does not pump water.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if the structure was an open web structure?  Mr. Slotemaker replied yes.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that there were no dimensions on any of the plans.  It looks like there is a fence.  How tall is the fence and how wide is the structure at its base?  Mr. Slotemaker reported that the fence is 6-foot tall cedar fence surrounding the 40-foot by 40-foot lease area.  The dimension of the base is 15-feet each side.
            
Vice Chair McFadden does not understand the progression from a “mono pole” to this braced structure.  He dislikes braced structures.  There are two in the Valley.  One is extremely big at the north end of the Valley.  The other one is out by the airport with a light at the top.  He finds the “mono pole” infinitely more camouflaged or hidden or blends in more to the surrounding area. He is not sure how the applicant got from one to the other.  Mr. Slotemaker stated that initially they went with the “mono pine” over the “mono pole” design with a compact antenna array at the top.  How they ended up with the lattice tower windmill design was out of the Land Development Committee meeting where Desmond McGeough had suggested doing the windmill design.  The image that Mr. McGeough provided was a lattice tower similar to the one in the staff report.  Mr. McGeough’s design had several more antenna arrays attached that look more cluttered than the image that is in the staff report.
      
Commissioner Pulver asked if the unsigned lease provided in the agenda packet is the current status of the lease?  Mr. Slotemaker reported that at the time they were in negotiations and they may still be in negotiations.
   
Mr. Slotemaker reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Robert Barnhart, 841 North Old Stage Road, Cave Junction, OR  97523.  Mr. Barnhart reported that he is concerned with the wireless facility and its location to the elementary school and its aesthetics.  The houses now have a view of Roxy Anne and soon they will be looking at the wireless facility.  He has several studies that he brought with him that he would like to submit regarding cancer rates and cell towers.
 
Commissioner Mansfield raised to the point of order that Federal Law prohibits the Planning Commission considering matters of health.  He suggested that these matters are not relevant because the Planning Commission is not permitted by law to consider them.
     
c. Robert D. Williams, 3340 Sharman Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Williams stated that the location of the wireless facility is approximately one to one and a half miles away from the top of Roxy Anne.  There are already towers on Roxy Anne.  Someone is going to be paid rent for their land or Verizon will purchase the land to install the wireless facility.  It seems to him that from the top of Roxy Anne there would be better and more complete communication aspects off that tower.  Why not put the wireless facility there if possible.
    
Mr. Slotemaker reported that the public for voicing their opinions on the project.  He is aware of the health effects ruling but he wanted to add a little information that the neighbors may be interested in.
Commissioner Mansfield raised to the point of order again.  If Mr. Slotemaker is going to discuss it he is wasting the Planning Commissioner’s time because they are not permitted to consider it.
 
Mr. Slotemaker stated that he would mention what is in the staff report.  Verizon Wireless has an FCC license to broadcast.  The FCC regulates radio frequency emissions.  They have a guideline of how much one can broadcast.  The report in the staff report states that this facility when turned up fully it will be at 2% of the limit of 100%.  That is at the base of the facility.  As one moves away it decreases.
          
Mr. Mitton stated that as a point of order looking at the law that Commissioner Mansfield cited he believes the Planning Commission cannot consider that any more than they can consider a neighbors opinion on the same subject.  That simply cannot be used one way or another as a basis of the decision of this Commission.
 
Regarding putting the wireless facility on Roxy Anne Mr. Slotemaker reported that the proposed wireless facility needs to be in the location where it is providing service not on a mountain top.  Today’s wireless facilities are low powered.  They do not cover a large sheet area especially in Medford.  The coverage area for this wireless facility will roughly go north to Coker Butte Road, south of Delta Waters Road, east of Foothill Road and west to Springbrook Road.
   
Regarding the visual Mr. Slotemaker stated that to reach the height the windmill design is not unreasonable especially if it can be worked into the signage of the neighborhood.  It may work out as a feature in the area.  It provides beneficial service to the area.
      
Vice Chair McFadden asked if Mr. Slotemaker foresees changes in cellular communication?  Does he see it going from the large tower installations to a diffused system ?  Mr. Slotemaker stated that what he is hearing in the industry is that there will be many more only smaller wireless facilities.  Smaller antennas and equipment with the idea of locating on utility poles and street lights.  It is his understanding that the frequency bands do not cover as quite a large area so there will be more facilities to provide the service.  They are called small cell facilities or Distributed Antenna System (DAS) facilities.
        
Ms. Akin reported that with all due respect to Desmond McGeough, the windmill design was not the only design alternative that they discussed.  They also discussed a giant pencil, the “mono pine” and a water tower.
 
Ms. Akin stated that the originally submitted design of the “mono pole” antennas were not screened as required by the code.  She can show them to the Planning Commission, which would be peculiar because staff has not advertised them or distributed them, or the applicant may desire to continue the application.
 
Mr. Mitton reported that he would feel uncomfortable showing designs here that have not been published as part of the notice. If neighbors found it an unpleasant design may wish to comment and would now not have the opportunity to comment.  If there is a desire to review other designs the safest route procedurally would be continuing the application.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that he has no interest in reviewing other designs or taking further time on the subject.
 
Chair Miranda agrees with Commissioner Mansfield.
   
The public hearing was closed.
 
Commissioner Mansfield finds nothing wrong with the design.  He does not see how it could be objectionable. In adopting the findings he believes that Criterion 1 should be used rather than Criterion 2 as suggested by staff because he does not see anything objectionable.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings for MLDC 10.248(2) and 10.249(3) as recommended by staff and direct staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of CUP-16-084 per the staff report dated January 5, 2017, including Exhibits A through S with the exception Criterion 1 be used instead of Criterion 2.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated the amendment should be Exhibits A through Q. and replacing Exhibit O with Exhibit O-1.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that he has concerns with the aesthetics.  The site is perfect.  He has no problem with the access arrangements.  Right now it is a fair distance from everyone.  Without a light at the top it will probably camouflage itself and blend in to the neighborhood.  It is already in annexed portions of Medford.  There will be homes and businesses put at its footprint.  What is acceptable now he does not think will be acceptable ten to fifteen years when it develops out.
 
Chair Miranda reported that there is the possibility that in ten to fifteen years when the area is further developed that wireless facilities will be going to the smaller devices and the tower may be removed in lieu of those devices.
 
Commissioner Pulver disagrees with Commissioner Mansfield about Criterion 1 versus Criterion 2.  He would have a hard time saying that it does not have a significant adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of abutting property...He has an issue with the motion based on Criterion 1.

Commissioner Mansfield respects the Commissioner’s comments and he indicated that he did not want to have this issue center around whether it is Criterion 1 or Criterion 2.  His proposal would be that the Commission vote on Criterion 1 and if that does not work vote on Criterion 2.
 
Amendment to the Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings for MLDC 10.248(2) and 10.249(3) as recommended by staff and direct staff to prepare a Final Order for approval of CUP-16-084 per the staff report dated January 5, 2017, including Exhibits A through Q, replacing Exhibit O with Exhibit O-1 and based on  Criterion 2.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie                    Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Mr. Mitton stated that voting yes would mean using Criterion 2 and a no vote would mean using Criterion 1.
 
Roll Call Vote for Amendment to the Motion: Motion passed, 6-1, with Commissioner Mansfield voting no.
 
Roll Call Vote for original motion: Motion passed, 6-1, with Vice Chair McFadden voting no.
 
50.2 CUP-16-145 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to operate an indoor race track for Sodi kart racing in an existing 70,000 square foot industrial building on a 3.29 acre lot located at 2065 Lars Way in the Heavy Industrial (I-H) zoning district. (Adelia Coffman, Applicant; Bill Conway, 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.
 
Dustin Severs, Planner II, stated that staff received an email from Jackson County Roads.  A copy was forwarded to the Planning Commission earlier today.  The email will be submitted into the record as Exhibit L.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked if the applicant had indicated the hours of operation.  Mr. Severs replied, they have not.
 
Vice Chair McFadden does the code mention decibel ratings outside a structure?  Commissioner McKechnie stated that in the narrative required by the applicant talks about noise and lists the section of the code.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that several of the properties in the area and possibly this one has a loading dock.  Some are sunken instead of raised and become a traffic issue.  Is there a requirement so that someone does not fall into a sunken dock?  Mr. Severs reported that the subject property does have a loading dock on the northerly side of the building. He is not sure if it is a sunken or standard dock.  Perhaps the applicant can answer that question. 
   
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bill Conway, 4902 McLoughlin Drive, Central Point, Oregon, 97502.  Mr. Conway stated that regarding the noise, at open throttle they are only 72 decibels.
 
The inside of the building is fully insulated so there will be no noise will be heard from the outside.
The loading dock is slightly raised but the road dips to the loading dock.  The owner of the property is going to fence it from the loading dock on the north side to the back corner of the south side.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked what are the hours of operation?  Mr. Conway stated that the main business is the work shop.  The hours of the workshop are 8:00 a.m. t0 6:00 p.m.  The track will be open from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked if there was any requirement that the applicant has to meet for indoor air quality?  Mr. Conway replied yes.  They are installing a filter system.  One side of the building will be vents and the other side fans.  It will create a draw-through to exit any CO2 build-up. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked how many karts can you get on a track at one time?  Mr. Conway replied twelve.  Parking is not a concern.  Staff parking will be in the rear of the building.  They will not be using any of the 54 spaces allocated for customers.
 
b. Scott Sinner, 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner reported that there are a lot more mini storages that what was in the aerial that was shown. Climate Control Mini Storage, who Mr. Sinner represented, has commenced construction through their next phase.  There is less sound transmissions to the west.  It is a CMU wall that will be helpful.  
      
The public hearing was closed. 
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of CUP-16-145 per the Planning Commission report dated January 12, 2017, including Exhibits A-1 through L.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                               Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
 
50.3 LDS-16-131 Proposed tentative plat for Jordan Village a, 4-lot residential duplex subdivision on 0.9 acres, located on the east side of Columbus Ave approximately 150 feet south of Garfield St. within a SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district, 372W36CD TL 400. (RNN Properties LLC, Applicant; Scott Sinner Consulting LLC, Agent)
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner McKechnie disclosed that Scott Sinner is his neighbor but it would not impact his decision on this project.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Liz Conner, Planner II, read the land division criteria.  Ms. Conner stated that there were several corrections to the staff report under recommended action.  The date should be January 5, 2017 not 2016, and the Exhibits should be A through O not A through J.  Late today the address technician submitted a new comment to her previous comment that required Kenzie Lane to be renamed.  It was too similar to another street name in the City.  That comments will be entered into the record as Exhibit J-1 replacing Exhibit J which was provided to the Planning Commissioners before the hearing.  Also, Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval, the date should be January 5, 2017, not 2016.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if improvements on South Columbus were not required for this particular parcel?  Ms. Conner deferred the question to the City Engineer.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer reported that there are four conditions of approval for this project. There is as dedication requirement as well as half street plus twelve improvements.  This is a situation where the South Medford High School recently built half streets plus twelve for their project which is their entire frontage for this development.  Public Works has requested half plus twelve or they can verify the structural section is good and saw cut into 1-foot. Public Works has not given the specifics because that is an engineering detail that they will work out through the design process.  Generally speaking, they will be doing their frontage improvements along the entire frontage whether it is out to the existing improvements that the school district made or potentially to the center line.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked if they will have curbs, gutters, sidewalk and park strip on the two lots that front Columbus Avenue.  Mr. Georgevitch stated they will.  The plan that was shown was that the applicant is proposing to add sidewalks on both sides.  Everything else will be within the existing right-of-way with a 10-foot dedication that will handle the 5-foot walk, the 10-foot planter strip with the curb being 5-feet west of the existing right-of-way line. 
          
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner reported that the applicant has a 10-foot right-of-way dedication that is a public improvement to Public Works requirements from the northwest property line to the southwest property line.  There will be an 8-foot sound wall to be constructed to comply with site distance criteria.  On page 12 of the applicant’s findings it discusses the sound wall.  They have not finalized the plans for the duplexes at this time.  There is the potential that the duplexes could be developed to face Columbus Avenue in which they would not be required to have the sound wall.  The applicant agrees with all the conditions.
     

Chair Miranda asked for clarification that this project has a cul-de-sac with 4-duplexes and there is still consideration that they will be face Columbus rather than face the cul-de-sac.   Mr. Sinner stated that the duplexes would have a front door appearance that comes out on Columbus. 
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of LDS-16-131 per the Planning Commission report dated January 12, 2017, including Exhibits A through O, correction of dates in the staff report and replacing Exhibit A with Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit J with Exhibit J-1.
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                               Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Ms. Akin reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met on Friday, January 6, 2017.  They considered plans for a two-story 28,000 square foot building, on a 2.08 acre lot located at the northwest corner of Garfield Street and Center Drive within a Regional Commercial zoning district.  That application was continued to the Friday, January 20, 2017, meeting.  They also considered Southside Center Phase 1, a proposed commercial and retail center consisting of a restaurant and two multi-tenant commercial building, located at the intersection of Garfield Street and Center Drive in the Regional Commercial zoning district.  That application was approved.
 
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee will have their next meeting the end of January 2017. 
                  
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Principal Planner, introduced Carol Wedman, Office Administrator and Matt Brinkley, Planning Director.
 
Ms. Akin congratulated Chair Miranda on his reappointment to the Planning Commission, serving another four years.  The City Council appointed E.J. McManus to the full term vacancy.  Mr. McManus will be seated at the first Planning Commission meeting in February. Orientation is scheduled for the new Commissioners on Friday, January 20, 2017.  There remains one partial term vacancy on the Planning Commission. 
 
Election of officers and appointments/reappointments occurs at the first meeting in February.  The appointments/reappointments will be for the Site Plan and Architectural Commission and the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
 
The next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, January 23 2017.  Currently, there is no business scheduled but staff will keep the Commissioners informed.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission through March.
 
In December the City Council approved the A-Frame signs downtown and the craft alcohol production text amendments.
 
At City Council’s last session they were scheduled to hear the street vacation for Cedar Landing but they were snowed out.  It will be rescheduled for their next meeting. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that he appreciated having a map to review right after the staff report. 

Commissioner Pulver reported that he appreciates the amended reports staff sends out before the meetings.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked if a conditional use permit could be revoked?  Ms. Akin stated that she does not know of language in the code to revoke a conditional use permit.  All decisions run with the land.
                
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair. None.
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. 
80.1  Mr. Mitton reported that Kevin McConnell, Deputy City Attorney is recuperating from tendon surgery and Mr. Mitton will be standing in unit Mr. McConnell returns.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.  None. 
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
 
Submitted by:
 
Terri L. Rozzana                                                                
Recording Secretary
 
Patrick Miranda                                                                               
Planning Commission Chair
 
Approved: January 26, 2017
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top