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 24, 2019

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
Jeff Thomas
 
Commissioner Absent
Patrick Miranda, Chair, Excused Absence             
E.J. McManus, Excused Absence             
Jared Pulver, Excused Absence
 
Staff Present
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Liz Conner, Planner II
Dustin Severs, Planner III
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
20.1        LDS-18-163 Final Order of tentative plat approval for April’s Meadow Subdivision, a proposed 4-lot residential subdivision on a 1.44-acre parcel located at 2570 Springbrook Road in the SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential, four dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (371W17BD400). Applicant: Sidney & Linda Lumpkin; Agent: Farber Surveying; Planner: Dustin Severs.
 
20.2        CP-18-182 A legislative amendment to incorporate by reference, the Phoenix-Talent School District Long-Range Facilities Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan, and to make related updates to the Conclusions, Goals, Policies and Implementation Strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant: City of Medford; Planner: Seth Adams.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.         
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1        The minutes for January 10, 2019, were approved as submitted. 
 
40.          Oral and Written Requests and Communications.  None. 
 
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney, read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings – Continuance Request
 
50.1 LDS-18-160 Consideration of a tentative plat for a six lot subdivision on approximately 3.08 acres within the SFR-2 (Single Family Residential – 2 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district, located on Roxy Ann Road directly south of Autumn Park Drive (371W23DD TL 1800). Applicant: Rita Vinatieri; Agent: Neathamer Surveying Inc.; Planner: Liz Conner.  The applicant has requested to continue this item to the Thursday, February 14, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.
 
Mr. Mitton stated that if there are members in the audience that have come to testify on this agenda item and cannot attend the Thursday, February 14, 2019, Planning Commission hearing, please come forward and the Planning Commission will hear your testimony at this time.  Please keep in mind that it is possible that your questions may be answered when staff presents their staff report on Thursday, February 14, 2019.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
The public hearing remained opened from the previous meeting. 
 
Mr. Mitton reported the record would remain opened to receive further information.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued LDS-18-160, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, February 14, 2019, Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.2 LDS-18-153 Consideration of a request to revise the tentative plat of Phases 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7A and 7B of the “High Cedars at Cedar Landing a Planned Community”. The project area is located south of Cedar Links Drive and west of Foothill Road within the SFR-4/PD (Single Family Residential four dwelling units per gross acre/Planned Development Overlay) zone. (371W16CA, TL 2200-2206, 371W16D, TL 7000-7005). Applicant: Cedar Landing Development LLC; Agent: CSA Planning Ltd.; Planner: Liz Conner. 
 
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.
 
Liz Conner, Planner II stated that this morning staff received a Revised Public Works Department staff report.  It is to clarify the construction requirements for Foothill Road and clarify requirements associated with the future vacation of the right-of-way along Foothill Road.  It will be entered into the record as Exhibit L-1.  The Land Division approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202(E).  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.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what was the open space on the original proposal versus now and how does that compare to the minimum required for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)?  Ms. Conner did not know the exact overall total for the entire PUD.  The approximate PUD approval was 64,000 square feet.  The applicant’s findings brings it down to 58,000 square feet. She does not know if it was for the area south of Cedar Links Drive or the entire PUD.   
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is there a minimum percentage the open space has to meet?  Ms. Conner is not sure if the approved PUD was required to retain a percentage of the open space.   
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the open space only affected in 6A, 7A and 7B?  Ms. Conner replied yes. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the number of lots being changed?  Ms. Conner reported that originally 91 lots were approved and there still is 91 lots.  They are reconfigured.   
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked for clarification that if the Commission determines this is a De Minimis change that it has to come before the Planning Commission.  Is that not what they are doing this evening?  Ms. Conner reported that the application before the Planning Commission is not the PUD it is a tentative plat for the phases.  Since it does not match the original PUD the Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not the change is slight and inconsequential or significant.    
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, are all the lots in the subdivision at the required size for the SFR-4 area?  Ms. Conner stated they are.  There is a minimum access easement being proposed causing the size difference from the original plan.
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated that according to his calculation there is a 17,000 square foot difference between the open space before and after this application.  Ms. Conner deferred the calculation difference to the applicant.     
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Mike Savage, CSA Planning Ltd., 4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 101, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Savage reported that the original application included the entire High Cedars and the applicant has reduced it to just the areas being modified that include 5B 6A-B and 7A-B. The maps used for notice reflected those areas but the current maps include 5A that is not part of this application.
 
Answering Commissioner McKechnie’s question regarding open space.  If proposing multifamily for a PUD one is obligated to commit at least 20% towards open space common area.  The southern half of this project is single family residential. The vast majority of the open space is on the north end of the PUD area within close proximity to the multifamily.  The applicant requests that the Planning Commission acknowledge that the commitment for open space does not necessarily tie strictly to the single family residential.  There were some mathematical differences between what was originally submitted versus what they ended up with.  There is one half of one percent reduction.  It is approximately half an acre.  They went from 21 ½ percent open space to just under 21 percent open space.
 
The applicant focused on the change to access points.  The applicant was told that they needed the tentative plat revision but the PUD could be processed through a De Minimis change without having to do an amendment. 
 
The lot sizes conform to the SFR-4 minimum lot size.
 
As part of the review and when the engineer looked at what it would require to put in Normil Terrace where previously approved they discovered grading issues. They looked at the overall site and determined to increase the size of some of the lots to reduce the amount of cuts and fills for future dwellings.  That is where the open space reduction comes from.
 
A minor issue that the applicant would like the Planning Commission to consider is related to the Hillside Ordinance and the restriction of using the modified cross-section for High Cedars.  Staff accepted the modified cross section for High Cedars but they limited it to 5B based on the GIS mapping.  Portions of 6B exceed 15%.  The reason the Hillside Ordinance allows for a modified cross-section is not just for where the street is, it is to give a little leeway for the lots.  The applicant requests that the condition be modified to allow, at a minimum, the modified cross-section for both 5B and 6B.
 
Commissioner Foley asked Mr. Savage to explain the math on the open space.  It is down from 10% to less than 1%.  Mr. Savage stated that it is half an acre reduction of open space for the entire PUD.  The half-acre reduction is in the phases discussed tonight but the percentage is for the entire PUD.  
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that if it is a half-acre that is 22,000 square feet.  Mr. Savage stated that is correct. It is approximately 20,000 square feet.   
 
Vice Chair McFadden stated the neighbors on Callaway have been concerned about two-story homes behind them.  Has that been resolved?  Mr. Savage reported that 5A is close to Calloway but is not part of this project.  He recalls there is no restriction on two-story homes but as an incentive to provide single story there was an allowance for additional lot coverage.
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that staff is recommending that the Hillside Ordinance limitation be in 5B.  It allows curb tight sidewalks eliminating the park strip.  Does it allow or require a reduction in the overall width of the 28 feet curb to curb or is it going to be consistent throughout the development?  Mr. Savage stated that the Hillside Ordinance allows for a modified cross-section based on what the engineer can demonstrate to be appropriate in order to minimize cuts, slopes, erosion, etc. The applicant’s engineer proposes eliminating the park strip and Public Utility Easement (PUE) on one side in exchange for parking on one side and sidewalk and PUE on one side. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie stated that down the strip the intention is to have the same width of street, on the uphill side there will be a curb only and no sidewalk, on the downhill side there would be a sidewalk tight to the curb.  That would be consistent from whatever street that goes out to Foothill up around the knuckle.  Mr. Savage responded that is what the applicant is requesting.  If they are limited to 5B it will taper to a residential street.
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, did the applicant have a problem with the access pathway between 5A and 6A or B?  Mr. Savage commented not at all.  The final plat before the City currently for 5A will show the right-of-way there. Since it is being final plat reviewed for all the infrastructure the City has agreed to allow the applicant to put that in prior to or part of 6A. 
 
Mr. Savage reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. James Garner, 1020 Callaway Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Garner showed photographs of the construction area.  There was a storm drain behind his house but the developer removed it and rain water floods his backyard. He wanted to make the Planning Commission aware of what the construction was doing to the area. He would like the drainage on Callaway Drive be addressed.  He is tired of sitting in water.     
 
c. Tamara Barris, 3227 Sycamore Way, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Ms. Barris is frustrated with all the changes being adopted for this PUD and her testimony does not make a difference.  Nothing changes except the developers get to do what they want to do.  It is affecting her with noise, her property value, and the views. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden reported that in many ways Ms. Barris is correct.  From the beginning this property was zoned for homes.  Changes get made.  Some for good reason that make logical sense.  The City of Medford has a Land Use Planning document that outlines the specifications that developers have to go through to get their project done as long as they meet all the criteria that is approved by the State of Oregon.  Ms. Barris is seeing tonight minor changes to make the project better.  For example the street onto Foothill Road.  It is a difficult road to get into because of how steep it is.  Vice Chair McFadden recommended that she voice her concerns to her City Council person.          
 
Commissioner Thomas commented that he lives at the end of Wheat Ridge where the development started.  Approximately fifteen minutes after he bought his lot and closed developers starting tearing out the golf course.  He was frustrated and upset.  He did not check that the golf course was zoned for single family homes.  He now has three rows of homes behind him instead of a golf course.  There are certain things the Planning Commission can do based on the zoning of the property. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer to talk about the drain south of Callaway Drive.  Mr. Georgevitch reported that he does not have details and cannot answer specifics about that this evening without looking at engineering plans.  Each of these developments goes through a complete hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to determine where drainage is going, how to accommodate the flows on the site, and make sure it is not draining onto neighbor sites.  There are times, during construction, when things are not complete.  Some developments are master planned with several phases and as each phase is built out, even though they are supposed to accommodate everything during construction, there can be times where not all of the infrastructure is in place that it could be problematic when it rains.  He cannot speak to any detail what occurred on Mr. Garner’s site but through the engineering process, staff has reviewed all the plans for all the construction that has been built and they have accommodated all their storm water going into appropriate facilities.      
 
Vice Chair McFadden commented that all those plans are available if a citizen visits the Engineering Department.  Mr. Georgevitch replied that is correct.  He encouraged anyone to come to the Engineering Department if they are having problems.
 
Mr. Georgevitch pointed out that there has been discussion reducing a cross-section for the Hillside Ordinance.  Unfortunately, it was limited to 5B.  There has been no analysis provided of the slopes.  When getting into the Hillside Ordinance staff will have a constraints analysis and a geologic hazard report.  Staff does not have that on this application so he cannot tell the Planning Commission where slopes are exceeding the 15%.  He does not believe the applicant can right now as well.  If they have that information the Engineering Department staff will review and make a decision based on that type of analysis.  Staff did not receive that.  All they had was a cross-section with the limited location of the GIS location of 15% or greater.  That is why staff made the recommendation they did.  Anything else would be an exception process.    
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, since the Planning Commission is aware of this and cannot decide that issue, can the Planning Commission leave it that City staff and the applicant work it out according to the standards?  He does not see the road width as being a major issue for the Planning Commission to be concerned with in terms of the division of the properties.  Mr. Georgevitch clarified that the applicant is maintaining the standard road width of 28 feet.  They are requesting a reduction in the right-of-way.  Mr. Georgevitch has concerns based on the data staff has available.          
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that as Mr. Georgevitch pointed out the question is reducing the right-of-way.  It is something staff has no authority to do nor the Planning Commission outside an exception request, except of the relief provided in the Hillside Ordinance.  The Hillside Ordinance provides relief for properties with areas that exceed slopes of 15% for 1000 square feet or more.  Staff has not seen that analysis.  Staff is correct in their analysis on 5A on the northerly piece because it is clear the easterly section would be within the proposed right-of-way.  The applicant’s request on 6B would likely fall into that category but without the slope analysis and demonstrating that the development will occur more than 1000 feet, it is difficult for staff to approve.  The question of staff doing something, the Planning Commission may decide if the applicant demonstrates that the Hillside Ordinance applies, it could be reduced.  It would only be limited to those areas where slopes exists and they do not exist farther south.  The Planning Commission could state that the applicant can utilize the provisions of the Hillside Ordinance in phase 5B and demonstrate in 6B that they will disturb more than 1000 square feet of area that exceed 15%.  If they cannot make that demonstration they would be obliged to do one of the two: 1) build to the standard; or 2) come back with an exception requesting relief through that process. 
 
Mr. Mitton wanted clarification that one of the key issues is the determination of whether the reduction in open space is or is not De Minimis.  Is the recommended motion finding that this is not De Minimis?  Ms. Conner replied finding that it is or is not De Minimis, either way.  Mr. Mitton stated that the Planning Commission in making the motion needs to make findings.     
 
Mr. Savage reported that the applicant has a slopes map that provides a little analysis but the clearest thing to do is the “if then”.  If the applicant’s engineer provides the appropriate information that staff could accept to allow for the reduced cross-section the applicant is willing to accept that as a condition.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of LDS-18-153 per the staff report dated January 17, 2019, including Exhibits A through T, replacing Exhibit L with Exhibit L-1, determination on the reduction in open space is De Minimis, and the applicant provide the information that shows the slopes in the area exceeds the 15% or meets the Hillside Ordinance requirement then staff could find their proposal to include the modified cross-section from 5B down to 6B would be included. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Commissioner McKechnie reported that the applicant’s agent reported that the open space in the Cedar Links subdivision is a reduction of half a percent.  It is close to 8 or 9% in this particular area.  It needs to be pointed out that a large portion was not open space per se but the pedestrian connection over to Foothill was required because originally it eliminated vehicular connection.  That effect of usable open space in that area is considerably less than the 8% reduction that one would see on paper.       
 
Commissioner Foley stated it is important to consider that.  When looking at the larger map at this particular part most of the open space was associated with another section that made a big difference.  Just looking at the data the Planning Commission had it was a huge number. Looking at the south side it is still De Minimis.   
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0. 
 
50.3 CUP-18-148 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow storm water facilities within the Riparian Corridor of Lone Pine Creek, located approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Delta Waters Road and Crater Lake Highway (HWY 62). (371W18AA TL 1200-1400). Applicant: Delta Waters Lenders; Agent: Bill Philp; Planner: Liz Conner.
 
Vice Chair McFadden inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Commissioner Culbertson disclosed that he is on the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  They had a coordinated application that was presented to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission that was continued to the February 1, 2019 meeting.  He has information on that. Does that preclude him from hearing this item?  Mr. Mitton replied no.  It was another application on the same thing and could be considered ex-parte.  Simply disclosing that he knows about another application is not the same thing as a conflict of interest that would disqualify him from voting on this.  All the information related to this application being presented tonight is a separate issue and separate proceeding.  Disclosing the information is sufficient.    
               
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.
 
Liz Conner, Planner II stated that the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184(C). 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.  Ms. Conner gave a staff report.  Ms. Conner reported that staff has been in communication regarding the Public Works staff report that suggested a 30 foot easement.  Through communication it can now be a 25 foot easement.  Ms. Conner deferred questions of the easement to Mr. Georgevitch and have him explain what the access is for.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is the drainage facility within the 25 foot easement?  Ms. Conner replied yes. 
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, what happens when the creek overflows?  Ms. Conner stated that it will go into the drainage facility.
 
Commissioner McKechnie asked, is this detention or retention?  Ms. Conner deferred the question to the applicant.   
 
Mr. Georgevitch reported that Public Works spoke with the applicant and Public Works would like to change their staff report from a 30 foot to a 25 foot easement from the center line.  Also, clarify that the easement is for riparian planting and access for creek maintenance.  Public Works will update their staff report for the final order. 
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is there going to be a roadway between the detention area and the creek?  Mr. Georgevitch replied no.  Creeks are part of the City’s storm drain system.  They need to get into the creeks occasionally to maintain them.  To maintain them they either, by hand cut away overgrowth, or use a ditch cleaner through the bottom of the channel and work the sides to recreate and stabilize the banks.  The applicant has no issues with this.  They just wanted clarification what the easement was for.
 
Mr. Georgevitch answered the question of was it a detention facility or retention.  The City does not do retention as of yet.  That may change in the near future.  These types of facilities near the water have to be located above at least the 10 year high watermark if not the 25 year high watermark.  It does not preclude water from coming in but the detention ordinance is only dealing with 10 year or lesser events.           
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, if the water comes across and gets washed out is the property owner required to rebuild to proper heights?  Mr. Georgevitch replied yes.  They have a responsibility to maintain their water quality requirements conditioned in the code.  If there is a natural event that causes damage they would have to maintain it.  It also goes beyond a major event.  It is the day to day maintenance.     
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, is the major regulation through the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)?  Mr. Georgevitch replied no.  The location brings it into ODFW purview but the City’s municipal code requires water quality and detention.  It is out of the water quality and detention ordinance that they are building this.  They are building within the creek area where ODFW is involved.     
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Bill Philp, 277 Coyote Run, Jacksonville, Oregon.  Mr. Philp reported that they needed clarification of the easement and glad that it is in the record.  ODFW says a lot about the storm detention.  He quoted: “The addition of the bioswale will provide stormwater treatment as well as adding significant natural area to a current decomposed granite parking lot.  In large quantities, decomposed granite will smother and kill incubating salmon and steelhead eggs.” It is a benefit to the City and stream.  They have complied with everything ODFW has. They have no problem with the 25 foot easement for access into the property.  
 
Vice Chair McFadden asked, since they are going through the Site Plan and Architectural Commission, is the City requiring right-in/right-out at Delta Waters?  Mr. Philp stated that the right-in/right-out will be there.  The divider already there will be extended 50 feet to the west.   
 
Mr. Philp reserved rebuttal time. 
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Order for approval of CUP-18-148 per the staff report dated January 17, 2019, including Exhibits A through R, and the change to the Public Works staff report to allow for a 25 foot easement for riparian planting and access for maintenance for the creek.            
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Culbertson
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
50.4 CUP-18-176 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to operate a temporary shelter for homeless individuals and families (Kelly Shelter) at the First United Methodist Church located at 607 West Main Street in the Commercial-Service & Professional Office (C-S/P) zoning district (372W25DA TL 200, 400, 500, 700 & 800). Applicant: Rogue Retreat; Agent: United Methodist Church; Planner: Dustin Severs.
 
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 Conditional Use Permit approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184(C).  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. Severs reported that staff received a revised guest agreement form that is before the Planning Commission.  There were minor changes that City staff requested to be added.  It simply states that City personnel can enter and inspect without advance notice.  This will be entered into the record as Exhibit F-1.  Mr. Severs gave a staff report. 
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Chad McComas, Executive Director, Rogue Retreat, 711 E. Main Street, #25, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. McComas reported that they have been in operation for three years.  The reason they are coming for the Conditional Use Permit at this point is because things changed with the new policy that was put into place last year for shelters.  They helped create that policy.  They opened in December because they are under the 2018 year.  Now they are in 2019 and have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process.
 
Statistics about the shelter:  Since December 1, 2018, they have had 101 different guests come through; 81 males, 19 females, 1 transgender person.  They have had 11 veteran quests.  They have had 6 dogs and 1 cat.  Eighty-four guests have active health insurance.  If they do not have medical insurance Rogue Retreat helps them to get medical insurance.  They have had 9 people move out of the shelter into more permanent housing.  That is the point of running the Kelly Shelter.  They have case management staff that works with the guests addressing their needs and trying to keep them off the streets.  Last year from January 1 to March 31, 2018 they were able to transition over 40 people out of the shelter and into more permanent housing.          
 
Mr. McComas reserved rebuttal time.
 
 
b. Willie Johnson, c/o Rogue Retreat, 711 E. Main Street, #25, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Johnson reported that if the shelter does not get an extension there will be approximately 50 more people on the street.  He wants to make sure these people have a place to be at year round.  A lot of people consider homeless people to be ignorant, drug addicts and alcoholics which is not true.  He is a former Marine with two associate degrees.  He was evicted from his home.    
 
c. Christine Hardy, 525 N. Riverside Avenue, #8, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Ms. Hardy was a client on the floor last year of Rogue Retreat.  She started out January 1, the middle of March she went to the Tiny Houses and the middle of June she got an apartment.  Last summer she volunteered at the cooling shelter and clean sweep.  She is now an employee of Rogue Retreat taking care of the people that are in the shelter.    
 
Mr. McComas stated they are grateful to the City for working with them for the last 3 to 4 years creating something they all can be proud of and something that will move forward.  They are currently working on a full time shelter because they think it really needs to happen in this community.  They are proving with a little care and work they can help change things.    
 
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 CUP-18-176 per the staff report dated January 17, 2019, including Exhibits A through K, and replacing Exhibit F with Exhibit F-1.           
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner McKechnie
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural met on Friday, January 18, 2019.  There were three applications that came before the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  One was Kentucky Fried Chicken off Center Drive.  There was discussion of the ingress and egress on Belknap Road.  The City was requiring half the road.  They kept the record open and continued the item to February 1, 2019.  The other application was Pilot Rock Excavation on Bateman.  They have a 6,000 square foot heavy equipment repair yard.  The applicant requested an exception to put in rough rock rather than paving so they can unload and load their tract machines.  That was approved.  The last application was a continuance on the Delta Waters Lenders building.  The argument letter that was pitched to the Commission for the continuance he thought was kind of inflammatory.  He is not sure if someone from the Planning Commission would want to sit in as he will not be able to attend that meeting.    
 
Ms. Evans reported that there is not a provision for a Planning Commission alternate appointee.  Mr. Mitton agreed.       
 
60.2        Planning Department
Ms. Evans reported that the next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2019.  Discussion will be on Sanitary Sewer Collection Master Plan. 
 
There is business scheduled for the Planning Commission on Thursday, February 14, 2019, Thursday February 28, 2019, Thursday, March 14, 2019 and Thursday, March 28, 2019.
 
City Council is interviewing Ward 4 candidates this evening. 
 
The Planning Department does not have any business items for the City Council for several weeks.         
 
Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission had a study session with staff a week before last.  They discussed if the Commission was comfortable giving staff administrative authority.  It will require a text amendment that will come before the Planning Commission at a future date.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked if there was any items scheduled for the Monday, February 11, 2019 Planning Commission study session.  Ms. Evans replied yes.  Commissioner Culbertson will be out of town.      
            
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 7:23 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                                                                      
 
David McFadden
Planning Commission Vice-Chair                                                                              
 
Approved: February 14, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top