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, November 29, 2018

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
Patrick Miranda, Chair
David McFadden, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Joe Foley
Bill Mansfield
Mark McKechnie
E.J. McManus
Alex Poythress
 
Commissioner Absent
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Madison Simmons, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications. None.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1        The minutes for November 8, 2018, were approved with the following correction.  Commissioner Poythress reported that on page 8 of the agenda packet it reads: Commissioner Poythress believes that the issue of the low number of ADUs having been built in the last ten or twenty years.  There is no explanation for why.  It should read: Commissioner Poythress believes that the prohibitive policies in place for building ADUs is the issue of the low number of ADUs having been built in the last ten or twenty years.  Simplifying the process or move some of the barriers would get the desired effect. 
 
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None. 
 
Madison Simmons, Senior Assistant City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings – Old Business
50.1 E-18-137 Consideration of a request for an Exception to the lot depth requirement for Lot 10 of Phase 7 of West View Village Subdivision, located north of Lozier Court, approximately 300 feet east of Lozier Lane within the SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, 6 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W26DD900); Applicant: PDK Properties; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner McKechnie disclosed that the agent, Scott Sinner, is his neighbor but it would not affect his decision on any of the three applications Mr. Sinner represents.  
               
Chair Miranda 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 that the Exception approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.186(B).  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the property owner notices, and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Roennfeldt gave a staff report. There is one correction in the staff report on page 19 of the agenda packet.  Under Agency Comments it reads: Jackson County Roads confirms that Lozier Court is a local access road that is already under City jurisdiction.  The City does not have jurisdiction at this point of the right-of-way.  It is privately maintained.  Once it is improved to City standards it will be dedicated to the City.  The City will then take over maintenance.  Mr. Roennfeldt resumed his staff report.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner reported that it was a thorough and complete staff report.  It addresses the approval criteria for an Exception.  There are unique circumstances but they believe this is the best solution to moving through with this property.  
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the findings as recommended by staff and directed staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of E-18-137 per the staff report dated October 30, 2018, including Exhibits A through I, with the correction of the staff report on page 19 of the agenda packet.  Under Agency Comments it reads: Jackson County Roads confirms that Lozier Court is a local access road that is already under City jurisdiction.  The City does not have jurisdiction at this point of the right-of-way.         
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0.
 
New Business
50.2 ZC-18-132 / CP-18-133 Request for concurrent consideration of a minor General Land Use Plan (GLUP) amendment to reclassify four parcels of land, totaling 2.35 acres located at 2231 & 2251 Table Rock Road from Urban High Density (UH) to Service Commercial (SC); and a change of zone of the subject parcels from SFR-6 (Single Family Residential – 4 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre) and MFR-20 (Multiple Family Residential – 15 to 20 dwelling units per gross acre) to Service Commercial and Professional Offices (C-S/P) (372W13CA 2400, 4903, 4904 & 5000); Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc.; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner McKechnie disclosed that the agent, Scott Sinner, is his neighbor but it would not affect his decision. His firm has also done work for the Housing Authority of Jackson County in the past.  He thinks they have worked on the parcel but has no involvement with this application.  This will not affect his judgement.  
               
Chair Miranda 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 that the Zone Change approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.204.  The Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval criterial can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.222.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included with the 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 asked, is the way the Housing Authority of Jackson County has stated they would handle the potential increase in sewer flow is to limit the amount of development to no more than 20 units per acre?  Mr. Roennfeldt reported that as far as he knows there are no plans for any kind of redevelopment.  If there will be new residential development there, it will be kept to 20 units.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie thought that the way the Public Works report was written the commercial development is what is going to kick the potential of the sewer beyond what is capable.  Mr. Roennfeldt deferred the remark to the City Engineer.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, if there is a residential development on commercial property does it, in order to meet the minimum of MFR-30, have 20 units per acre to meet that minimum?  Mr. Roennfeldt replied yes.     
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that when Mr. Roennfeldt was going through the sewer related exhibits that it was not only Exhibit G but Exhibits S, T and U.  Mr. Roennfeldt stated that Exhibit G is the Public Works staff report.  The additional new exhibits are Exhibits S, T and U.  Exhibit U is the applicant stipulating to the sewer flow.
 
Vice Chair McFadden commented that this cannot move forward unless the City Council approves it.  He is wondering if it should be approved in the opposite with the Comprehensive Plan amendment first and then the Zone Change.  Is it being done because of Type III and Type IV?
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director clarified that it is the Type III and Type IV.  Included in the Conditions of Approval stating that the Zone Change will become effective upon the City Council’s action.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer reported that the question in regard to commercial is that commercial is sort of unique.  Standard commercial generates less sewage per acre than multifamily.  The dilemma is that commercial allows for unlimited multifamily.  The only limitation is that it has to be at least MFR-20 and under the height restriction.  Because it is an unknown it is a hard time stating that it has adequate sewer because commercial allows for unlimited multifamily.  The stipulation is as long as it stays at least MFR-20 minimum there are no issues.  The applicant has agreed to that stipulation.         
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner reported that the current zoning MFR-20 allows for 20 units per acre.  It was an unrestricted zone change when originally approved.  The request to go to Commercial Service Professional allows for development at 20 units per acre minimum with no maximum.  It is driven by site conditions, height restrictions, parking requirements, etc. as far as how many units can be built.  The multifamily zoning districts are higher generators of sanitary discharge than the permitted uses in the Commercial Service Professional which are offices.  With the outright permitted use today of producing 20 units per acre for their maximum is what the site allows.  The minimum for the commercial development multifamily is 20 units.  The applicant is stipulating to that and will not impact the sanitary sewer facility more than what has already been planned.
 
The purpose the applicant is doing this because they have been operating under Conditional Use Permits.  Every change they want to do as they grow is to come back to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit amendment. Then to Site Plan and Architectural Commission for the development project.  This makes it outright permitted uses.  They foresee Jackson County Housing Authority offices at this site for the conceivable future.       
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that the lot on Berrydale is going to land lock the two lots next to it.  Mr. Sinner reported that the applicant contacted those property owners and they were not interested in participating.  Those lots are in the SFR-6 zone in the urban high density designation.  Any development or redevelopment of those properties will have to go through a zone change first.     
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
The public hearing was closed.     
 
Motion for the Zone Change: The Planning Commission adopted the findings as recommended by staff and directed staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of ZC-18-132 per the staff report dated November 16, 2018, including Exhibits A through R, adding Exhibit S, Exhibit T and Exhibit U, provided the City Council approved the GLUP amendment.        
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote for the Zone Change: Motion passed: 8-0.
 
Motion for the Minor Comprehensive Plan (GLUP Map) Amendment: The Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation for approval of CP-18-133 to the City Council per the staff report dated November 16, 2018, including Exhibits A through R, adding Exhibit S, Exhibit T and Exhibit U.        
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote for the Minor Comprehensive Plan (GLUP Map) Amendment: Motion passed: 8-0.
 
50.3 LDP-18-140 / ZC-18-141 Consideration of a request for tentative plat approval of a proposed two-lot partition, along with a request for a change of zone from C-C (Community Commercial) to, in part, MFR-30 (Multi Family Residential, 20 to 30 dwelling units per gross acre) on a 4.31-acre parcel located at 59, 75 & 101 Lozier Lane and 2267 & 2287 W Main Street within the C-C zoning district (372W26DA1000); Applicant: Manjoh LLC; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Chair Miranda inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner McKechnie disclosed that the agent, Scott Sinner, is his neighbor but it would not affect 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.
 
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III stated that the Zone Change approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.204.  The Land Division approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202.  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included in property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Roennfeldt gave a staff report. Mr. Roennfeldt reported that on page 114 of the agenda packet under Background there is an “l” missing from the word public.  A letter was received on November 27, 2018, from a neighboring property owner that was unhappy with the rezoning.  He was worried they would lose too much commercial land in that area.  Mr. Roennfeldt explained to the property owner that only the southern part of Parcel 2 will be rezoned.  The property owner was happy with that.  He still wanted his letter to be added to the record.  It will submitted into the record as Exhibit T.
 
Mr. Roennfeldt continued his staff report.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that the discussion of the block length left him thinking that the solution is going to be generated by neighboring properties and not by the applicant.   Mr. Roennfeldt replied in part.  It will depend on what is going to happen with 8th Street.  Vice Chair McFadden stated that another way to look at it is that the applicant can wait to develop until the other properties develop in which case the applicant will have to conform his plan to their plan.  Or would it not be to the applicant’s advantage to have an approved development plan even if not activated then he gets to say where to put roadways?  Mr. Roennfeldt replied could be.     
 
Commissioner McKechnie left at 6:15 p.m.
 
The public hearing was opened. 
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504-9343.  Mr. Sinner introduced Mick Wyntergreen from Hoffbuhr & Associates that will be seeing the Planning Commission more often representing applications.  If the Planning Commission has questions on the land partition Mick will answer those and Mr. Sinner will answer questions on the zone change. 
 
The block length issue that Vice Chair McFadden brought up is that there is no development proposed with this application.  The applicant has no intent of developing.  There is a mixed GLUP designation that needs to be straightened out.  The applicant wants commercial property.  He bought the property and is partitioning the multifamily to sell.  Mr. Sinner expects a street to be coming through on the southern boundary.  Currently, there is a public water line through there.  Eventually other public services will be brought in.  Both future development will be able to use those facilities. 
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.    
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the findings as recommended by staff and directed staff to prepare the Final Orders for approval of LDP-18-140 and ZC-18-141 per the staff report dated November 16, 2018, including Exhibits A through S and adding Exhibit T.            
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed: 7-0.
 
50.4 CP-17-117 / DCA-17-118 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate by reference the 2016 Urban Reserve Local Wetlands Inventory report into the Comprehensive Plan and amend applicable sections of the Environmental Element. This is filed in conjunction with a Development Code Amendment to revise applicable sections of Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code related to wetlands. Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Carla Paladino.
 
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner, stated that she received an email this afternoon from Commissioner McKechnie.  He mentioned that he had concerns with the Development Code Amendment portion of the wetlands regulations.  He may be requesting that it get sent back to staff for more work.  If the Planning Commission would like staff to go back and do more work they could do that.  Staff would like to present the Comprehensive Plan portion to the Planning Commission this evening and see if they can get a recommendation from the Planning Commission on that portion.  Staff is prepared to present both if the Planning Commission would like to hear both.
 
Commissioner Foley concurs with Commissioner McKechnie that the regulations need more work.
 
Consensus of the Planning Commission was that the Development Code Amendment portion of the application be deferred back to staff.    
 
Motion: The Planning Commission tabled DCA-17-118 from consideration requesting staff to revise and bring back to the Planning Commission in a future study session or public hearing.        
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed: 7-0.
 
The Major Type IV Amendment approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.220(B).  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included in property owner notices and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance. Ms. Paladino gave a staff report on the Comprehensive Plan.
 
Commissioner McKechnie returned at 6:30 p.m.
 
Commissioner McKechnie disclosed that he had conversations with some people from the advisory committee.  He does not think it will affect what he has to say. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie has concerns with the 50 foot buffer especially in urban areas.  He feels that it is arbitrary and there needs to be a better mechanism for determining what that buffer should be.  There are other jurisdictions that deal with this and better ways that what the City has.  He is not sure this is ready for “prime time”.
 
Chair Miranda reported that the Planning Commission is considering the Comprehensive Plan amendment and has deferred the Development Code amendment back to staff for further consideration. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, are the references to the 50 foot buffer, within the Comprehensive Plan that is being considered this evening, specific enough that wording can be changed to indicate it will be decided at a later date as far as the actual size or type of buffer?  Ms. Paladino stated that staff could strike it and come back and change it when they know there is going to be a buffer. Once it gets adopted it should say what it needs to say.  If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the 50 feet it should be stricken.
 
The recommended buffer/setback area is in the table on page 214 of the agenda packet. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, can the column of the recommended buffer/setback area be deleted and state that it will be revised later?  Ms. Paladino replied yes. The other thing that identifies the buffer is the actual ESEE analysis.  This is just the table that summarizes the analysis part.  The buffer language can also be changed in the analysis part.
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked Commissioner McKechnie to give the Planning Commission input as to what his issue is with the 50 foot setback.  Commissioner McKechnie stated that at 50 feet on every side in an urban area seems to him to be extensive. Depending on the slope of the land 50 feet is appropriate.  If it is steeper than 20 feet it would be plenty depending on the kind of wetlands.  He does not know arbitrarily stating 50 feet is a blanket case is okay.     
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon 97504.  Mr. Harland objects to the wetland buffer.  It is not a requirement under any State land use regulations for doing a wetland buffer except for when it extends the riparian corridor; when the wetland is next to part of a stream.  There are specific rules on those.  Medford has those in their code in the riparian ordinance.  There is no need to do anything new on that.  The 50 foot buffer is a lot of land.  The 50 feet is going to impact the buildable land supply.  That analysis has not been done at this point.  There is a deficiency issue that would have to be addressed. 
 
The extraterritoriality issue that the areas outside Medford’s Urban Growth Boundary this does not apply to.  If any maps are going to be adopted on those there should be a hatch that states “For Information Only”.  He would like to see the extraterritoriality stricken.      
 
b. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501.   Mr. Stevens agrees with Mr. Harland in regards to elimination of the buffer in both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the ESEE documents.  There are two different buffers.  There is a 50 foot for significant wetlands and also 25 foot which he thinks is also up for discussion purposes.  He would like to ensure that both buffer measurements for both wetland types be eliminated from the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the ESEE documents.  In the past the wetlands expert would submit a plan or mitigation plan to DSL and they would come up with a buffer standard based on slope, soil, conditions, amount of water feeding it and discharging from it. 
That dictates a buffer area for those locations.    
 
c. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner agrees with the other two previous testimonies.  It is difficult to work with wetlands in development.  To have a 50 foot buffer in urban settings is not appropriate as far as he is concerned.  Where they are doing specific delineations and protection plans should be adequate.  He supports removing all references to the 50 foot buffer.   
 
d. Mike Montero, 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 202, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Montero concurs with the previous testimony and explained why.  Throughout the process of establishing Urban Growth Boundaries to meet the future urban needs of the City of Medford has been a balancing act.  Trying to balance intensification of the density of the land that has been selected, identified and brought in would appear to be counter to this issue of having buffers that put arbitrary standards that defeat the objective.  The State and Federal regulations that are associated with the management of wetlands is robust and comprehensive.  The agencies an applicant will have to deal with would include the Division of State Lands, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, US Army Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Board.  With those four agencies there is protection that one cannot imagine.  The Urban Growth Management Agreement provides language that states the most restrictive of the standards that are adopted are the ones that prevail with the applications of the wetlands.  There needs to be the concern of unintended and adverse consequences.  Unless the Planning Commission believes that those State and Federal agencies are somehow deficient in their management of wetlands they can rely on those for that. 
 
In many cases the mitigations standards presents opportunities for applicants to not only increase the scope of wetland but also to intensify or enhance the quality of the wetlands.  That opportunity needs to be available for the applicants.  He echoed and encouraged the Planning Commission to remove the buffers.   
 
Ms. Paladino reported that a letter was sent to property owners within the Urban Reserve this past summer stating there would be a committee to meet on this issue.  It was not intentional that there was not a meeting.  Staff was running out of time and this project was supposed to be done by the end of the year.  It was an attempt to get regulations and the Comprehensive Plan finished.  The committee was emailed but there were issues with the email that was sent.  Staff is happy to continue and meet with the committee.   
 
Matt Brinkley, Planning Director reported that the 50 foot buffer is not arbitrary.  It is the minimum buffer that is recommended by wetland biologists and the scientific community for protecting wetlands.  It is the lower end and the basis for the 50 feet.  Whether it is kept in the language or not there are other protections, as Mr. Montero mentioned.  In the Development Code amendment there is a provision for reducing the buffer to 25 feet and further if encroaching into the wetlands. 
 
An interesting point that Mr. Harland brought up about the effect the buffer would have on the buildable lands inventory.  Staff has begun that analysis because a lot of the wetlands occur or around the riparian zones and buffers.  As it turns out, a lot of the wetlands are within unbuildable lands.
 
The issue of the wetlands outside the urban growth boundary that are in the County; the City has an Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Reserve Management Agreement with the County that addresses some of the issues.  The City does not have wetlands jurisdiction in the County.    
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission based on the findings and conclusions that all of the applicable criteria are either satisfied or not applicable, forwarded a favorable recommendation for approval of CP-17-117 to the City Council per the staff report dated November 15, 2018, including Exhibits A through E, adding Exhibit F, Exhibit G, Exhibit H, deleting buffering requirements and amend information on pages 206 and 207 of the agenda packet.        
 
Moved by: Vice Chair McFadden                              Seconded by: Commissioner Foley
 
Vice Chair McFadden commented that the more they discuss this he has a tendency to think there is not a need for the land development code. If there are all these other requirements by the State, Federal and everybody else, why is the City trying wade into the water?  It is just going to muddy everything up.    
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that it is important to understand that the wetlands are already regulated by the State and Federal regulations.  If anyone wants to do anything with them they have to pass muster with those agencies.  He is not sure, unless doing a feel good clause, that there needs additional regulations at the City level for the wetlands.  One of the testifiers is correct that the strictest rules apply which is usually DSL or US Army Corps of Engineers. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson agrees with Vice Chair McFadden and Commissioner McKechnie.  At this point, do we want to remand it back to staff to revise or is it something they can say stop the work? 
 
Commissioner Mansfield asked, is Commissioner McKechnie suggesting a no vote on this motion?  Commissioner McKechnie stated that he thinks he is.  It would be nice to flush it out a little.  It sounds like this is a more of a feel good thing.  Everything that has been discussed needs to be in the Comprehensive Plan.  If it is already addressed in some other regulation that needs to be followed there may be a simpler way to address this stating that wetlands are important and one needs to follow Federal regulations. 
 
Chair Miranda reported that the overall CP-17-117 deals with more than just that.  It was just the buffering discussion to be set aside.  The rest of it is still relevant. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie he is fuzzy on the details.  Are they doing this because they are required to by the State or is it to have everything covered?
 
Ms. Paladino reported that the City needs to cover Goal 5.  Goal 5 requires that the City does a local wetland inventory for the new lands.  Staff has done that work.  The State has approved that document and now the City needs to incorporate that into the Comprehensive Plan.  It is finishing that project.  The wetlands regulations are something different.  
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed: 8-0.
 
Commissioner Foley asked, does Commissioner McKechnie want to do something about whether the Planning Commission consider more regulations or not?  Right now it is going back to staff to do more work.  Does he want the Planning Commission to send to the City Council that states it is not necessary?  Commissioner McKechnie state that it sounds like the Planning Commission is not interested in producing duplicate regulations and not make it harder for people if not necessary. 
 
Chair Miranda commented that since it has been sent back to staff that the Planning Commission indicates to have a study session prior to hearing.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural met on Friday, November 16, 2018.  They approved plans for the development of an 8,400 square foot metal warehouse building with office space at 1120 Helicopter Way.  
 
60.2        Planning Department.
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported the next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, December 10, 2018.  Discussion will be on Trails Amendment.
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, December 13, 2018, Thursday, December 27, 2018, Thursday, January 10, 2019 and Thursday, January 24, 2019.
 
Ms. Evans asked if any Commissioners would be available for a quorum for the meeting on Thursday, December 27, 2018. Chair Miranda, Commissioner Foley, Commissioner Mansfield, Commissioner McKechnie and Vice Chair McFadden stated they would be able to attend.  Commissioner McManus stated that he would not be able to attend.     
 
Several weeks back the City Council approved the Urbanization Plan process and a second read on the Transportation System Plan.
 
Next week the City Council will hear the Housing and Housekeeping amendments and the Accessory Dwelling Units.         
                    
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 7:10 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorder’s office.
 
 
 
Submitted by:
 
 
Terri L. Richards                                                               
Recording Secretary                                                                      
 
Patrick Miranda
Planning Commission Chair                                                                         
 
Approved: December 13, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top