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, August 24, 2017

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
Jared Pulver
               
Commissioner Absent
Patrick Miranda, Chair, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director
Eric Mitton, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Rozzana, Recording Secretary
Sarah Sousa, Planner IV
Dustin Severs, Planner III
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
Praline McCormack, Planner II
               
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. None. 
 
30.          Minutes
30.1.      The minutes for August 10, 2017, were approved as submitted.
 
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None.
 
Eric Mitton, Senior Assistant City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings – Continuance Request
50.1        SV-17-069 Consideration of a request for the vacation of an approximate 60-foot wide strip of public right-of-way along with the adjacent Public Utility Easements, being a portion of Myers Lane, running north from Garfield Avenue approximately 1743 feet in length, within the Stewart Meadows Village Planned Unit Development. (KOGAP Enterprises, Applicant; Maize & Associates, Agent; Dustin Severs, Planner III).  The applicant has requested this item be continued to the September 14, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission continued SV-17-069, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, September 14, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Mansfield                       Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 8-0.
 
Old Business
50.2 SV-17-039 Consideration of a request to vacate a portion of Belknap Road, located south of the intersection of Garfield Street and Center Drive.  (C.A. Galpin, Applicant/Agent; Sarah Sousa, Planner IV). 
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner Pulver stated that he had a conflict and recused himself.  Vice Chair McFadden disclosed that he has had contacts with agents dealing with the project that have been work related but it would not affect his decision.  
               
Vice Chair McFadden 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 vacation criteria can be found in the Medford Land Develop Code Section 10.202.  The applicable criteria was included in the staff report, property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Sousa gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie thanked staff and the two property owners for being able to bring this application to a happy resolution that both parties agree with.
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. C.A. Galpin, 744 Cardley Avenue, Suite 100, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Galpin reported that he had no comments and was available for questions.
 
The Public Hearing was closed.
 
Motion:  The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are met or are not applicable, forwards a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of SV-17-039, per the staff report dated August 17, 2017, including Exhibits A through P including the following conditions of approval: 1. Comply with Public Works Report, related to the reservation of a public utility easement over the vacated area (Exhibit D; and 2. Comply with the Medford Water Commission Memo (Exhibit F).
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Poythress
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 7-0-1, with Commissioner Pulver recusing himself.
 
50.3 LDS-17-050 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval for Jam Industrial Park, a proposed 9- lot industrial Pad Lot Development on a 17.13 acre lot located at 301 Ehrman Way, In the General Industrial (I-G) zoning district (372W14 TL 1400). (Fjarli Merlin, Applicant; Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., Agent; Dustin Severs, Planner III).
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. None were disclosed.
               
Vice Chair McFadden 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 III, stated that the land division criteria can be found in the Medford Land Develop Code Section 10.270.  The applicable criteria was included in the staff report, property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report.
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Joe Slaughter, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97504-0168.  Mr. Slaughter reported that the revised tentative plat is based on discussions from the last meeting.  There may have been some unclearness on whether or not the previous tentative plat met the strict definition of a pad lot not being contained within a common area.  Now, each pad lot is contained within the common area.  This tentative plat meets the concerns that some of the Planning Commissioners had regarding access out of the buildings and encroaching onto other properties to maneuver in and out.  The common areas provide the additional buffer between properties to allow maneuvering between buildings.  It also covers some of the existing easements in the common areas.              
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, will fencing be prohibited in the CC&Rs?  Mr. Slaughter stated that fencing would not be prohibited.  However, the fencing would have to be discussed with the association on where it is to be located even if it is within the pad lot to make sure it is not interfering with utilities, access, etc.  That is how it is currently handled in the lease process.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that it is his opinion the applicant has done little less than absolute minimum possible. This is basically the same proposal that they presented originally except now there is 10 feet between the property lines instead of zero.  It seems to him this is something trying to avoid the strict adherence to the code.  He does agree that a 4 foot offset from the building is problematic when there is a 10 foot overhang.  A 10 foot offset from the building that encompasses a loading dock is his idea of what this should be as a pad lot. 
 
Mr. Slaughter clarified that the distance between lots is 20 feet not 10 so that traffic can circulate through the site without crossing onto individual properties. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie interrupted that 20 feet does not count.  The City requires 24 feet access for two-way accesses.  That is an issue. 
 
Mr. Slaughter stated that the maneuvering areas to access the docks was covered in greater detail at the last meeting. These are large trucks, semi-trucks.  The docks being located within the property makes sense.  If there is only 4 feet from that area then someone could park 4 feet from the end of the dock. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated the entire site does not work unless there is no fencing.  If this was truly a pad lot situation, one would own the pad lot however it is defined that includes the loading dock or the roof overhang and the rest is common area that is controlled by all the people with no fences inside of it.  The trucks are going to move around however they are going to move.  Putting a 20 foot space between these with the possibility of a fence makes this site not work.  In his opinion he is not sure the reasoning is valid.             
 
Commissioner Foley asked, why are there three different common areas?  Mr. Slaughter reported it is a mechanism to address the maintenance of the common areas in the CC&R’s.  The CC&R’s will have to dictate who maintains each of the different areas.  
 
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-17-050, per the staff report dated August 17, 2017, including Exhibits A through R and the discretionary requests of the agricultural buffering and locating all lot-lines within four feet of the exterior walls of the buildings. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Commissioner McKechnie will vote against the motion for the exact reasons he mentioned earlier.  He is not opposed to these kinds of developments.  If a pad lot development is done correctly on this site, makes perfect sense.  What the Commissioners were shown seems to skirt the very edge to get staff to approve something he does not think is reasonable.    
 
Commissioner Pulver was opposed to this application the last time it was presented to the Planning Commission.  He does not disagree that some property lines could be moved.  Some effort was made to try and make this more consistent with a pad lot while keeping in mind the special purposes specific to this site and the use.  A pad lot of offices would be easier to comply with the strict letter of the code.  With some of the uses that come with industrial pad lot development he can generally speaking buy into this.  He does not think the applicant has the intent of trying to do something that is not going to work whether he owns all nine, one or none of these.  The people that owns these will come to the applicant for answers and remedies if it does not function right.  He thinks a condition of approval is the creation of CC&R’s hoping they would take into consideration Commissioner McKechnie’s comments regarding fencing and the like.  He will be voting in favor.      
 
Commissioner Poythress backs up Commissioner Pulver’s comments.  It is up to the prerogative of the buyer to work through some of these things and to take into consideration when making the purchase.  The applicant has gone around with this more than one or two rounds.  He has done his due diligence.  The consideration for fencing is worth noting.  In an industrial situation the circumstances are a little different than an office situation or a heavily traffic area for the average consumer or public facing retail but this is utility and that has been taken into consideration by the applicant.  He will be voting in favor. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson last time believed that either Mr. Severs’ previous layout or this one are both functional.  He thinks it is asinine to assume that somebody is going to obey an imaginary line.  The common area without a fence, one does not know where the common areas are.  The turning radius on a truck is more important.  Lot 4 already has fencing around it.  He hopes it is married up where the property lines are going to be otherwise they are going to have to move their fence.  On a hot summer day, one is going to park in the shade on Lot 9 and walk over to Lot 8.  Is someone going to tow the car?  Probably not because they are all patrons.  They are looking at functionality.  He thinks it turns the corner on the fact that staff is willing to sign off.  It is a workable, functional plan.  He is going to vote in favor.      
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that Commissioner McKechnie suggested in his debate that the fences could be built. He is not suggesting that they can be built in the common area.  Commissioner McKechnie replied no.  There is no way a fence could be built inside the common area.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, is there enough space in the common area for the vehicles to do their turning?  Commissioner McKechnie stated that the way it is drawn right now, no.  If there is a fence, one could not drive a truck down one of those common areas.  There is enough space between the buildings to do the turning movements a truck needs to do but it requires the entire area between one building and the other to make it work.    
 
Commissioner Culbertson disagrees with that.  It depends on what type of truck.  If it is a standard service panel van, there would be more than ample turning radius to get into one of those loading docks.  If one is talking about a full semi, he agrees with Commissioner McKechnie.  One is not going to get a turn without going across the common area.  But it depends on the type of service.  
 
Vice Chair McFadden, in his experience, CC&R’s get broached every day.  They have very little teeth for the most part.  Therefore, it makes him nervous on what one can and cannot do with a fence.  He agrees with both sides of the discussion they are having.  He does not know how he is going to vote.     
 
Commissioner McManus is in favor of voting on this.  He appreciates the applicant as well as staff from the prior presentation they showed, because of the existing elements within each lot, a special purpose.
 
Commissioner McManus does not know if this would be relevant to the motion but he does not know if they need to note the discretionary requests of the agricultural buffering and locating all lot-lines within four feet of the exterior walls of the buildings.   
 
Roll Call Vote:  Motion passed, 6-2, with Commissioner Foley and Commissioner McKechnie voting no.
 
New Business
50.4 ZC-17-075 Consideration of a zone change on 1.30 acre parcel located immediately southwest of the intersection of Stewart Avenue and Lozier Lane in Southwest Medford from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential – 1 dwelling unit per lot) to MFR-20 (Multi-Family Residential – 20 dwelling units per acre). (372W35AD1900) (Scott Becker, Applicant; Richard Stevens & Associates, Agent; Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III).
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Commissioner Culbertson stated that he lives on Alex Way which is immediately to the south.  He has discussed this project with his wife and recused himself.  Vice Chair McFadden drove by the area today to become familiar with it.  
               
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III, stated staff received a letter late this afternoon from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon and the Housing Land Advocates.  It will be submitted into the record as Exhibit I.  What they are asking for has been addressed in the past as part of the GLUP amendment.  A copy of the letter was placed at the Commissioner’s seats.  The zone change criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.227.  The applicable criteria was included in the staff report, property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Roennfeldt gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that he is at a loss regarding the letter submitted by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon.  Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, stated that staff has seen these letters fairly often in the last year or so.  They are asking for Goal 10 Analysis which happens at the time of the amendment to the General Land Use Plan map.  She is not sure why staff continues to see these.  Staff acknowledges the receipt of the letter and gives the information to the Planning Commission that this analysis is something that happens in a previous decision.  It becomes part of the record.       
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Joe Slaughter, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97504-0168.  Mr. Slaughter reported that this property was identified as a possibility for meeting some of the City’s need for housing within the existing urban growth boundary prior to expanding the urban growth boundary.  This is consistent with the Oregon Transportation rule and the Transportation System Plan. This is also consistent with the General Land Use Plan map designation.  The property has adequate capacity to serve the requested zone.                
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, when was this property changed to the current General Land Use Plan map designation?  Mr. Slaughter reported it started in 2013 and was approved in 2014.  
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, has the applicant had any dialogue with the property owner to the west?  Mr. Slaughter stated that he was unaware with any dialogue with any adjacent property owners. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, if and when this gets developed, will a traffic study be required?  Mr. Slaughter reported that it is under the threshold.  There may be some analysis required for access, etc.  It is his understanding there should not be a traffic analysis required. 
 
b. Brad Bennington, Executive Officer, Builders Association of Southern Oregon, 1006 E. Jackson, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Bennington serves as council liaison to the Planning Commission of the City of Jacksonville.  He serves on the Jackson County Planning Commission and he serves on the Board of Directors for the American Planning Association of Oregon.  He is pretty familiar with this part of town and with the particular set of circumstances.  He talked about the letter from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon.  It encourages him that these folks understands there is an Oregon that exists outside of Portland and Salem.  It is unfortunate that they think they can perhaps influence opinions in other parts of the State.  If they can figure out how to straighten out their affordable housing problem in Portland maybe they can come down here and visit with us a little more.  This is a form letter that they send out as part of their agenda. Staff has dealt with that appropriately.  Lozier Lane is undergoing a seismic redo currently that will tremendously increase capacity.  Stewart Avenue is already robustly serving this area. There is high density construction just to the east that has been in service and quite a bit that is coming to completion.     
 
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-17-075, per the staff report dated August 17, 2017, including Exhibits A through I.  
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                              Seconded by: Commissioner Mansfield
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-0-1, with Commissioner Culbertson recusing himself.
 
50.5 CUP-17-067 Consideration of a request to revise a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to extend the days and hours of operation of a youth center on a 0.62 acre parcel located on the north side of Roberts Road within an SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential – 4 units per gross acre) zoning district (371W17CA Tax Lot 2200). (Rogue Valley Youth for Christ, Applicant; Praline McCormack, Planner II).
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose. Vice Chair McFadden disclosed that he was on the Planning Commission when this was previously brought to the Commission.
               
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Praline McCormack, Planner II, stated that a revised memo was submitted by the Medford Water Commission and will be submitted into the record as Exhibit E-1.  The third condition of that memo was revised to note that the existing meter will need to be relocated unless the driveway is widened or altered.  Also, this afternoon staff received two letters of support that will be entered into the record as Exhibit P and Exhibit Q.  Exhibit Q is written in Spanish and an English translation is attached.  Ms. McCormack stated that the conditional use permit criteria can be found in the Medford Land Develop Code Section 10.248.  The applicable criteria was included in the staff report, property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. McCormack gave a staff report. 
 
The Public Hearing was opened.
 
a. Bud Amundsen, Rogue Valley Youth for Christ, 529 Edwards Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Amundsen addressed the Planning Commission that the Google street view from April 2012 is making them look bad.  The date the Google photograph was taken, there were a group of volunteers working on the landscaping in the back of the facility.  That is not the normal way in which they park in the parking area. 
 
Commissioner McManus asked for the location of the outside lighting.  Mr. Amundsen stated that there are lights on the southeast and southwest corners of the front of the building.  All of those light fixtures are hooded and directed down towards the parking lot.  They are on a timer.   
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what about security lighting?  Mr. Amundsen reported they do not have security lighting at this point.  They try to keep it as dark as possible in terms of the neighbors.  He believes there are street lights across the street.  It is not completely dark.   
 
Commissioner Culbertson stated that he read the letter of opposition from the Merrill’s.  The letter states they have called the office many times.  Can Mr. Amundsen address that?  Has he spoken with them?  Mr. Amundsen stated that he personally has not spoken with them but the director of the facility has.
 
Missy Masterjohn, former Director of North Medford Campus Life, 342 N. Ivy Street, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Masterjohn reported that she received two phone calls from the Merrill’s a few years ago in regards to children playing football in the backyard being loud.  It was after school, approximately 4:00 p.m.  They tried to accommodate the Merrill’s by asking the children to play on the basketball court or inside.  She does not believe the noise is any different than children playing in a cul-de-sac in the afternoon after school.      
 
b. Brad Bennington, Executive Officer, Builders Association of Southern Oregon, 1006 E. Jackson, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Bennington reported that his organization does not have interest in this application as a building project.  They do along with the other work they do for education advocacy, policy and construction industry support several non-profits that they feel add value to the community.  Rogue Valley Youth for Christ is one of them, mostly for the work they do with children and young teenage children in the Medford urban area. 
 
The Medford we live in today is different than it used to be.  Crime is a factor.  Crime is a 24-hour a day problem.  When there is a facility like the Rogue Valley Youth for Christ that is well managed and staffed it is a safe harbor for parents where they know there children are safe and attended.  This seems to him the kind of facility that one would want more access to rather than less access.  Also, this area is not your typical neighborhood.  There is a large commercial area to the west with North Medford High School a baseball’s throw away.  It is an area that has a lot of activity anyway.       
 
c. Mike Thorton, P. O. 1618, Jacksonville, Oregon, 97530.  Mr. Thornton stated that he, like Vice Chair McFadden, was present the first time around helping the applicant.  He is not representing the applicant today or his business.  He passed along that Mr. Amundsen contacted him several weeks ago and sent him the application that is before the Planning Commission today.  Mr. Thorton read through it.  He read the letter of opposition.  The letter states the applicant is not playing by the rules and is present under a conditional use permit.  Mr. Amundsen stated that was an isolated incident.  They looked into it and found it really was not an on-going issue.  Mr. Amundsen contacted other neighbors that submitted letters of support.  Mr. Thornton believes the Planning Commission has before them testimony and evidence that provide findings to support the decision to approve the change of the conditional use permit.          
 
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 CUP-17-067, per the staff report dated August 17, 2017, including Exhibits A through Q, replacing Exhibit E with Exhibit E-1, and striking discretionary condition number 2 and other minor corrections.
 
Moved by: Commissioner McKechnie    Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Commissioner Pulver is struggling that the Planning Commission’s task is to look at the conditional use permit criteria and he is putting himself as being a neighbor.  His suggestion is to modify the hours proposed and cut back Monday through Thursday to 9:00 p.m. as opposed to 10:00 p.m.    
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the outdoor activities are limited to 9:00 p.m.  It is the indoor activities that are 10:00 p.m. 
 
Commissioner Pulver understands that but it is his opinion that they have to leave at some point.  Kids tend to loiter often times.  If he was a neighbor it would be an irritant.  
 
Amended motion: To modify the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver
 
The amendment failed due to no second.  
 
Commissioner Culbertson raised the question of how intensive was the dissenting letter.   It was striking that the two neighbors that are the closest to the basketball court and play area are whole heartedly behind the Rogue Valley Youth for Christ facility and extending the hours.  It is interesting there is one person sending such a volatile letter.  It is like the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  In this case, it is his opinion, they should be granted.  If they really have a dissenting opinion they should be in the audience.      
 
Vice Chair McFadden replied that maybe they were unable to attend therefore they submitted a letter.  When the Planning Commission looked at this in 2008 one of his comments was that he lived in Central Point with the house backed up to a park. He found it grating that on a warm summer night about midnight there would be someone bouncing a basketball in the middle of the park because the basketball court was right in the middle of the park.  Parks do not make good neighbors.  He believes this project makes a much better neighbor than that city park will ever make.        
 
Commissioner McManus is favorable of the hours and necessary for the community they are serving.  For enforceability it is more consistent and easier to address.  He questioned the lighting.  If there is an indoor activity ending at 10:00 p.m. getting everyone out by 10:00 p.m. in the winter it will be really dark.  It is great if there are street lights.  Pathway lights help.  He is wondering if they need to change the requirement on the lighting to be consistent with their overall operations.  They do not want to over react of putting the applicant in a situation where they have a liability issue of not having adequate outside lighting.        
 
Commissioner McKechnie thinks it is more of a liability for the organization than it is for the Planning Commission.  They are going to make sure they have adequate lighting for the parking lot. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden believes that there is a street light across the street because there is so much traffic that often comes out of the high school in the north direction onto Roberts Road.
 
Mr. Amundsen testified from the audience that there is a street light across the street from the Rogue Valley Youth for Christ.
 
Mr. Mitton asked, if the Commission thought they need to reopen the Public Hearing to put that testimony in the record?  He thinks there were already some comments to that affect and so reopening the Public Hearing is not necessary.  He just wanted to raise the question.
 
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the aerial map shows there is a street light at each corner of that property on the street.      
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 7-1, with Commissioner Pulver voting no.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural Commission met Friday, August 18, 2017.  He was unable to attend the meeting.
 
60.2        Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Joint Transportation Subcommittee has not met.     
 
60.3        Planning Department
Kelly Akin, Assistant Planning Director, reported that the Site Plan and Architecture Commission approved two projects.  One was Stewart Meadows.  They are proposing 134 units between Myers Lane alignments.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, why has Myers Lane been closed so long?  Ms. Akin stated that the street vacation was continued to the September 14, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.  Before it will go to the City Council for final approval the applicant has to do some work.  They are either going to bond for the improvements and dedicate the new right-of-way.  They want building permits that they cannot obtain until they vacate the right-of-way because the buildings are placed on the right-of-way.
 
The Site Plan and Architectural Commission approved a project on Gilman Road to add approximately 13,000 square feet of new industrial buildings.        
 
The Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, August 28, 2017, is cancelled. 
 
There is business for the Planning Commission study sessions on Monday, September 11, 2017.  Discussion will be on transitional housing.  Monday September 18, 2017, there is a joint study session with the City Council to discuss food trucks.  Monday, September 25, 2017, discussion will be on the Transportation System Plan work.      
 
There is business for the Planning Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2017, Thursday, September 28, 2017 and Thursday, October 12, 2017.
 
City Council approved the Foothills Road transportation facility.  Landscaping down the center was approved as part of that proposal.  They also approved a Citizen Advisory Committee for the Transportation System Plan work.
 
Next week the City Council will hear Article II reorganization that the Planning Commission recommended.  Staff is proposing to change the number of members required for the Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission from seven to five.  They had several people resign and are having a problem getting a quorum.
 
On September 7, 2017, the City Council will hear the revised and hopefully final Urban Growth Boundary amendment findings. 
 
LCDC is supposed to hear the Urban Growth Boundary amendment in February or March 2018. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie requested that maps of the project be put right after the staff report.  Ms. Akin reported that there is the staff report, conditions and then the map of the proposal.  Commissioner McKechnie stated it is not.  It is all the reports, findings from the applicant and the map is way down in the report.  If the map could be put within the first two pages of the staff report it would be wonderful.  Ms. Akin stated staff would review how they can make that happen.  She is not sure how or if they can make it happen.  Staff goes through the effort of bookmarking all the exhibits so it is easy for the Commissioners to maneuver around.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the exhibits are stamped only once.  He requested to stamp each page and mark 1 of 12 or maybe a blank sheet ever so often so one sees the difference in Exhibits.  Ms. Akin asked, is it a question of the iPad?  Commissioner Poythress commented that after the meeting he could show Vice Chair McFadden an easier way to navigate through.  Vice Chair McFadden likes Commissioner McKechnie’s recommendation better than his.  Staff stated that they would see what they could do to make it easier for the Commissioners.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is the City recommending the pamphlet of the Oregon Land Use Law or is it address to him and staff forwards it to him?  Ms. Akin reported that if a Commissioner is interested in training to let staff know and they will see if they can fund it.  October 7, 2017 is a training in Central Point.                      
 
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.  
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney.
80.1        Mr. Mitton, thanked everyone for him being present.  Kevin McConnell has left the City and gone to exciting adventures.  In the short term Mr. Mitton will be handling everything Planning Commission related.  If anyone has any questions, feel free to reach out to him.  They are currently advertising for Deputy City Attorney position.  Long term, this may or may not be his Commission but until they hear otherwise he is happy to help them out with anything they need.
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. None.
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
 
 
Submitted by:
 
______________________________                                                ______________________________
Terri L. Rozzana                                                                 David McFadden
Recording Secretary                                                                       Planning Commission Vice-Chair
 
Approved: September 14, 2017
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top