Agenda & Minutes

When available, the full agenda packet may be viewed as a PDF file by clicking the "Attachments" button and selecting the file you want to view.

Agendas are posted until the meeting date takes place.  Minutes are posted once they have been approved.

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, March 14, 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
Mark McKechnie, Chair
Joe Foley, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
Bill Mansfield
Patrick Miranda
David McFadden
E.J. McManus
Jared Pulver
Jeff Thomas
 
Staff Present
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
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
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 
 
10.          Roll Call
 
20.          Consent Calendar/Written Communications.
 
20.1        ZC-18-190 Final Order of a request for consideration of a zone change from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential – 1 dwelling unit per existing lot) to C-R (Regional Commercial) on approximately 2.6 acres located east of Garfield Street, approximately 600 feet east of the Garfield Street and Center Drive intersection (371W32B5000 & 371W32C2401). Applicant & Agent: South Center II, LLC; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.         
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Miranda
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 9-0.
 
30.          Minutes
30.1        The minutes for February 28, 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 ZC-18-189 Consideration of a request for a zone change of a 1.89-acre parcel located at 4199 Rachel Way from SFR-00 (Single-Family Residential, one dwelling unit per lot) to SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential, four dwelling units per gross acre) (371W22400); Applicant: Jane Erin Griffin-Hagle; Planner: Dustin Severs.  The applicant has requested to continue this item to the Thursday, March 28, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.
 
Chair McKechnie stated that if there are members in the audience that have come to testify on this agenda item and cannot attend the Thursday, March 28, 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 March 28th.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
The public hearing remained opened from the Planning Commission meeting on February 14, 2019.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued ZC-18-189, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, March 28, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.           
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 9-0.
 
Old Business
 
50.2 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.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed.
 
Chair McKechnie 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 reported that staff received a continuation request from the applicant after publication of the agenda packet.  Staff is able to present their staff report but the applicant has requested to continue this item to the March 28, 2019, Planning Commission meeting. 
 
Chair McKechnie reported that after publication staff received a continuance request on this agenda item to Thursday, March 28, 2019.  Is there anyone that would like to participate on this agenda item that will not be able to attend the March 28th meeting?  If so, staff will present their staff report.  There was no testimony. 
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued LDS-18-160, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, March 28, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 9-0.
 
50.3 LDS-19-004 / ZC-19-003 Consideration of tentative plat approval for Hogue Heaven Estates – Phases 2 & 3, a proposed 5-lot residential subdivision, along with a request for a change of zone to SFR-10 (Single-Family Residential, ten dwelling units per gross acre), on a 0.91- acre parcel located at 884 Ross Lane in the SFR-4 (Single-Family Residential, four dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district (372W23DD700). Applicant: Billy Hogue; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc.; Planner: Dustin Severs.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  Chair McKechnie disclosed that Scott Sinner is his neighbor but it would not affect his decision.
 
Chair McKechnie 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 approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.202(E).  The Zone Change criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.204(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. Severs gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, should the language on the minimum access easement be referencing the adjoining property to the north or east?  Mr. Severs asked, is Commissioner Culbertson talking about the minimum access easement or the driveway?  Commissioner Culbertson stated the minimum access easement.  He thought it was in reference to Lot 13 with the hammerhead.  Mr. Severs reported that is not a minimum access easement.  It is a driveway to serve that property.
 
Commissioner Miranda asked, what is the reason that the 10 foot Public utility easement west of Lots 4 and 36 do not line up?  They are offset by 8 feet according to the drawing.  Is that a drafting error?  Mr. Severs deferred the question to the applicant.  
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc., 4401 San Juan Drive, Suite G, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Sinner addressed the offset stating that Nicholas Lee Way was originally approved south of Katie Mae as a minor residential street with a 55 foot right-of-way.  At the same time Silky Oaks Phase 5 was approved north of Katie Mae as a residential lane.  Hogue Heaven Phase 1 extended Nicholas Lee Way as a minor residential street instead of a residential lane.   The right-of-way for a minor residential street is 55 feet.  It is 33 feet for a residential lane with sidewalk on one side.  The public utility easement on the east side comes up Nicholas Lee Way to the public right-of-way.  The way the street is engineered the center line is in perfect alignment even though it transitions for Lot 36 of Silky Oaks from a minor residential street to a residential lane.  It is not part of this application. 
 
The explanation makes sense to Commissioner Miranda but the end result, in his opinion, does not. 
 
Mr. Sinner noted that the applicant is showing graphically Phase 3 is Lot 13 alone.  Phase 2 are Lots 8 through 12.  In the middle of the tentative plat there is a phasing note written out that states the opposite.  It will be corrected on the final plat that Phase 3 will only be Lot 13 and Phase 2 are Lots 8 through 12.         
 
Commissioner McFadden agrees that the alignment on the other side of the street is not part of this project.  It is part of the ownership of the developer in this neighborhood.  Is the applicant going to leave those property lines and public utility easements not matching any better than they are on this one?  Is the applicant going to correct the mistake from the last phase during this phase? Mr. Sinner reported there was no mistake.  It is two different street classifications.  Commissioner McFadden asked, doesn’t the applicant feel it necessary to make them all uniform?  Mr. Sinner stated they do not make them uniform.  The center lines are aligned.  The paved street section is in alignment.  Commissioner McFadden is concerned with the property lines and public utility easements.  Those affect the properties along the way.  Mr. Sinner suggested comments from Public Works because it looks like Lot 36 coming out of the public utility easement goes into a public right-of-way adjacent to the public right-of-way west of Lot 4.   
 
Chair McKechnie stated that Lot 36 is in a different subdivision and is not part of this application.     
 
Commissioner McFadden does not disagree with that.  He is saying that if there is a situation that looks as “screwy” as this one can’t it be fixed or required to be fixed at this time by a different action as the Planning Commission approves this one. 
 
Mr. Mitton reported there is no basis in the Code, even though they are owned by the same individual, to require any change of public utility easements as part of an approval criteria for the two applications before the Planning Commission this evening.
 
Commissioner McFadden agrees but it is worthless the way it is written.  Any utility serving Lots 3 and 4 with that type of position of those lines where ownership cannot be guaranteed is putting themselves liable for facilities not working or damaged.  There is no continuation between Lots 36 and 4.  Mr. Sinner has not seen the construction documents for this.  It would be helpful if Public Works commented. 
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that Commissioner McFadden has not made it clear to him that this is even a problem.  Commissioner McFadden reported that if the City is going to require non-City utilities to be in that area and not in continuation with each other they would lose legal standing.  One cannot just move a line 10 feet over and have them work.  He agrees it is not a problem with this application.  It seems to him that since this is a continuation of other units under the same name that something should be adjusted so there is a continuation of the properties allowing the utilities to be installed.  Commissioner Mansfield asked, would it be helpful to know that under Oregon Law that the street right-of-way is available for public utility use?  Commissioner McFadden commented that in practicality yes.  In terms of legal standing one foot is in a public utility easement and the other foot is in the City.  The utilities should be in the public utility easement where they are protected because it is on private property.  In the street right-of-way the City can say at any time the utilities have to move.  Commissioner Mansfield stated the importance is to the utility but not to the general public.  Commissioner McFadden replied true.   
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer reported that it sounds like there is uncertainty between two separate subdivisions.  The dilemma is that the subdivision Lot 36 is in has a different owner than the owner of these two subdivisions.  This was a challenge for Public Works.  Ideally, Lot 36 would provide a wider public utility easement for a short distance to allow utilities to stay within that.  It is legal for utilities to go in the right-of-way but also there is a time in the future if they have to be relocated they have to do it at their own expense because they are in the public right-of-way.  The property line will line up at about the curbs.  They will not be in the street.  They will be behind the sidewalk and planter strip for a short distance.  In his opinion it is a low risk but still a risk.  Staff does not have the ability to condition this developer to do something on adjoining property that they do not control.           
 
Chair McKechnie stated that in this case the issue is that Nicholas Lee Drive with the exception of the one half street that abuts Lot 36 is a minor residential street and that one half block is a minor residential lane.  At the time Silky Oaks was approved people thought it was the end of the road.  Mr. Georgevitch reported that when Silky Oaks did their development north of Katie Mae they developed it as a residential lane which is 33 feet in width.  The concept was that there would be a cul-de-sac terminating north.  The property north is a mobile home park.  This application would not have gone forward past Hogue Heaven Estates Phase 1.  Working with the Transportation Manager there was an agreement to plan for future connectivity and Nicholas Lee would no longer be a residential lane.  It would have to be a minor residential street.  Therefore, the offset right-of-way.       
 
Mr. Sinner reported that rarely do they get full development in infill development.  They are always dealing with segments.  He has been involved in Silky Oaks since 2007.  As long skinny lots developed, equipment came out on the grounds and roads were being built the neighbors would ask if the developer wanted their property.  Silky Oaks was Phase 5.  Hogue Heaven was Phase 1 and now Phases 2 and 3.  That is the way they try and align different codes, different development and with the exception of the mix, the rest of the transition is making the best of the situation.   
 
Chair McKechnie asked, what was the rationale with the minimum access drive on the north side of this property opposed to the south side?  Mr. Sinner stated it was for storm drainage.  There is a public utility easement on the north side.  
 
Mr. Sinner reserved rebuttal time.
 
b. Jim Gulrich, 870 North Ross Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Gulrich has concerns with the Medford Irrigation District ditch that goes through Lot 10.  When they enclose that it will flood his property.  Property boundaries were skewed from the County many years ago.  All the driveway accesses are on North Ross Lane.  Some have been corrected.  When they correct his driveway it will not be accessible.  
 
Chair McKechnie asked, does the Medford Irrigation District ditch run behind Mr. Gulrich’s property?  Mr. Gulrich reported that the ditch is behind his house heading to Lot 13.  It makes a ninety degree turn at the back of his home, goes another seventy five feet with a gradual turn, goes across his property and goes under Lot 10.  The ditch is not represented on the plan.    
 
Commissioner McFadden suggested that Mr. Gulrich discuss his concerns regarding the ditch with Mr. Sinner and the Medford Irrigation District about the flow in that area so that it does not flood his property.
 
c. Elizabeth Hanson, 7300 W. Evans, Rogue River, Oregon, 97537.  Ms. Hanson stated that when the City widened North Ross Lane they knew the property lines were not aligned.  The City told the residents if everyone was happy and agrees with the property lines they would grandfather the current boundaries.  Why now is the developer asking for the slice of her family’s property?   
 
Chair McKechnie asked, when Ms. Hanson talks about the slice of property is she talking about the right-of-way dedication on the west side against Ross Lane?  Ms. Hanson reported that the slice is in between her family’s property and the property the developer purchased. It will take out part of their driveway where they will not be able to get vehicles in and out.  
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that the City has no authority or power to determine boundary disputes.  He is hearing Ms. Hanson describing a neighborhood boundary dispute. The City did not then or do they now have any authority to decide those.  Those are decided between and among the parties, or if not, by the courts.  Ms. Hanson replied that someone came and made everybody agree to this.  Everybody was happy to agree with it.  Commissioner Mansfield stated that the City had no authority to do any such thing.  Ms. Hanson asked, how would you feel if you lived on a piece of property for over 50 years and all of a sudden a big developer comes in and says they want their piece of property because it is theirs not yours?  Commissioner Mansfield replied that it is not a function of this body to determine a property dispute issue.  It sounds like that is what Ms. Hanson has.  Ms. Hanson replied yes and does not care about the homes being built but why do they want her slice of property?    
 
Commissioner McFadden recommended that Ms. Hanson consult an attorney.  After 50 years of use and ownership of the property there may be some right that she has.  If this is all in flux these are questions that should be answered.  The only way to keep 6 feet of her driveway might be to involve someone versed in land use law.  He agrees with Commissioner Mansfield’s comments. 
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, is Exhibit K in reference to the property lines that Ms. Hanson discussed?  Mr. Severs reported it is.  The legal description provided did not account for the additional right-of-way that Jackson County had when they did those improvements. The City Surveyor requested an update and a new legal description.  Commissioner Culbertson asked, is it still in dispute?  Mr. Severs replied no.  The legal description they provided does not account for the additional right-of-way that Jackson County took when doing the improvements four years ago.    
 
Vice Chair Foley asked, is Mr. Severs saying that Exhibit K refers to the Ross Lane side and not anything between the south properties?  Mr. Severs reported that the City Surveyor’s comment was that it did not account for the right-of-way on North Ross Lane.  Vice Chair Foley does not understand how Mr. Severs made that reference from this exhibit.  Mr. Severs reported that there are two parts to the exhibit.  The first page is an email and the second page is the City Surveyor’s reference to the legal description being inaccurate.  The email is Exhibit K referring that the south property overlaps some of the structures and suggested a property line adjustment.  The applicant, Mr. Hogue is considering doing the property line adjustment.   
 
d. Greg Gulrich, 870 North Ross Lane, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Gulrich has an issue with the driveway.  Currently, the front of the property is roughly 6 feet off and the rear property line is a maximum of 13 feet off.  If the developer wants to continue this project Mr. Gulrich feels it is necessary that there are conditions that need to be met.  For one, he believes the curb cut pavement needs to be made and any associated cost for moving the property line over due to access.    
 
Mr. Mitton reported that Mr. Gulrich is describing actual usage not lining up with property lines.  This body has no authority to change property lines.  That is something they can consult with an attorney whether or not they have any remedies through the circuit court, not through this body.  This body has no ability to require them to shift a property line to match the actual usage of the property.
 
Mr. Sinner addressed the storm drainage stating it is between Lots 8, 9 and 10.  It is an existing storm drain.  From the north property line of this development it is piped and from that pipe it goes to Bear Creek.  The applicant proposes to pipe into this existing pipe.  They do not have the ability to dump water onto someone else’s property.  It will be engineered to drain properly.  Chair McKechnie clarified that it is storm drain not irrigation.  Mr. Sinner agreed.
 
Based on the legal description this plat defines the property.  The plat meets the criteria for the applicant’s land division approval.  The applicant is willing and has the ability to discuss with the neighbors what the issues are and come to a satisfactory resolution.     
 
Commissioner Thomas asked, when will that happen?  Mr. Sinner replied soon.  Commissioner Thomas is uncomfortable moving forward knowing there are property owners that have been on property over 50 years.  He would like to see additional information from the City, City Attorney, and the applicant about what those remedies are, if there are any.  Mr. Sinner replied that the applicant will initiate discussions with the neighbors of what kind of issues there are and what can be solved.  Again, the applicant is working with the legal descriptions of the properties and submitting a plat for the Planning Commission to approve.   
 
Mr. Mitton deliberately stayed vague.  As someone involved with the City Attorney’s office he cannot pick sides and give legal advice to either one of the parties.  All he can do from the City’s side is state it is in another venue.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, if there is a 6 foot section that is in question, is the required square footage per lot critical?  Mr. Sinner did not want to address the question on the fly.  The applicant is willing to open discussions in good faith to see what they can do.
 
Commissioner Mansfield does not know why the Commission continues debating this matter.  Boundary disputes are none of the Commission’s business. 
 
Mr. Mitton agreed.  The Planning Commission has no authority to condition or delay the decision on the two agenda items being discussed based on the boundary disputes.  It is outside of this body’s jurisdiction.
 
Staff looks at the recorded property lines. Whether anyone has a right to get those property lines changed by a court based on prior usage is a separate issue.  This body looks at the current property lines recorded by the County. 
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, does it matter from Public Works perspective where the driveway is?  Mr. Georgevitch does not believe so.  Commissioner Pulver stated that if he reads the Public Works requirement correctly, would the existing driveway on the north side of the property, that needs to be rebuilt, be a shared easement between the subject property and the property to the north.  Mr. Georgevitch believes Commissioner Pulver is reading the condition correctly.  There are options.  The applicant can leave the driveway where it is and provide an easement.  It is on a major collector street and the Code requires access on high order streets with a hammerhead and shared access.  Since this is going through entitlement process staff has asked that the driveway be set up to allow for future shared driveways.  They can move it to the north.  It would be acceptable to move it to the south and provide shared access.  They can choose to leave it where it is and provide an easement to allow it to be shared so the property on either side would be able to take access.
 
Commissioner Pulver stated that one of the goals is to turn two driveways into one.  Mr. Georgevitch replied that is correct. It is a safety consideration.     
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and directs staff to prepare the Final Orders for approval of LDS-19-004 and ZC-19-003 per the staff report dated March 7, 2019, including the approval for the creation of a Minimum Access Easement to serve lots 10-12, authorization of the maximum time schedule of 5 years for the platting of the property in phases, and the adoption of all Exhibits A through L. 
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0.
 
50.4 PUD-18-152 Consideration of a request for amendment of the Rogue Valley Manor Planned Unit Development, File No. PUD-98-023, to consider changes to the PUD boundary of approximately 233-acres of property and to demonstrate that the ‘Commercial Village’ is able to develop without any vehicle trip stipulations, located east of Interstate 5 between Ellendale and La Loma Drives, within the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential – 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre), SFR-6 (Single Family Residential – 4 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre), SFR-10 (Single Family Residential – 6 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre), MFR-20 (Multiple Family Residential – 15 to 20 dwelling units per gross acre), MFR-30 (Multiple Family Residential - 20 to 30 dwelling units per gross acre) and C-C (Community Commercial) zoning districts.  Applicant: Pacific Retirement Services; Agent: Richard Stevens & Associates; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Commissioner Mansfield sees in the record that there is a motion to postpone this hearing until a later date. 
 
Mr. Mitton reported that there was a continuance request.  However, since staff noticed the hearing there may be individuals present to testify that may not be able to attend the continued meeting date but will have the opportunity tonight.  
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  E. J. McManus disclosed that his wife works for the applicant Pacific Retirement Services.  Her role is not involved in the operations or decision making of the project.  He does not feel there is a potential conflict of interest.
 
Chair McKechnie inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed. 
 
Mr. Mitton stated that after publication staff received a continuance request on this agenda item to Thursday, April 25, 2019.  Is there anyone that would like to participate on this agenda item that will not be able to attend the April 25th meeting?  If so, staff will present their staff report.
 
Commissioner McFadden thought the reason for continuances is that the applicant will change their application.  He thought it was opened for testimony but no staff report.   
 
Mr. Mitton stated that they will get a staff report.  Commissioner McFadden stated that if it is going to be continued they do not get a staff report.  They take testimony but the Planning Commission has nothing to judge by.  
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director reported that Commissioner McFadden is correct.  That is often how it is.  Like for the first item where there was a continuance request.  In this case and the Vinatieri project staff is prepared to give a staff report because staff anticipated to do that work.  The continuance came after the report was published.  It is better for the Commission and public to be able to hear about the project so the testimonies are in context.
 
Commissioner McFadden asked, so the applicant will not be changing their application?  Conditions will not be changed between now and April 25th?  Ms. Evans understanding of the continuance request has to do with ODOT’s review of the traffic analysis.       
 
Mr. Mitton stated that it is important that staff give their report this evening so the individuals present to testify have something to respond to.  If things change between now and April 25th or not staff will give the same report again or a new report.  The staff report is not only for the Planning Commission’s benefit it is also for members of the public that are present to testify. 
 
Commissioner McFadden agrees with Mr. Mitton.  He was just saying that historically this Commission has seen a lot of continuations where nothing was presented and told the people that wanted to testify that the Commission has no information.  
 
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III stated staff received a continuation request from both ODOT and the applicant regarding reviewing the traffic impact analysis.  The Planned Unit Revision or Termination approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.198(A)(3).  The Planned Unit Development criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.190(D).  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.
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Clark Stevens, Richard Stevens & Associates, Inc., P. O. Box 4368, Medford, Oregon, 97501.  Mr. Stevens was present but did not speak.
 
b. Tom Harris, 740 Hilldale Avenue, Medford, Oregon, 97504.  Mr. Harris is in support of staff’s recommendation of retaining the current traffic cap for the commercial village section of the proposed boundary change.  There is a long term health consideration that he has.  It is exacerbated when traffic is slowed at rush hours.  He has concerns with the carbon monoxide emissions. 
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued PUD-18-152, per the applicant’s request, to the Thursday, April 25, 2019, Planning Commission meeting.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Foley                                Seconded by: Commissioner Miranda
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9-0.
 
60.  Reports
60.1            Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural met on Friday, March 1, 2019.  They continued the proposal for Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant with a drive-thru to Friday, March 15, 2019 meeting.
 
60.2        Transportation Commission
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission has not met. 
       
60.3        Planning Department
Ms. Evens reported that the next Planning Commission study session is scheduled for Monday, March 25, 2019.  Discussion will be on Cottage Housing. 
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, March 28, 2019, Thursday, April 11, 2019, and Thursday, April 25, 2019.
 
Ms. Evans sent out an email this afternoon to the Planning Commission regarding training in Phoenix presented by Southern Oregon Planners that includes Commissioner training.  It is beneficial and Ms. Evans encouraged the Planning Commissioners to attend if able.  It is Tuesday, April 2, 2019 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.  Snacks will be provided. 
 
On Thursday, March 7, 2019 the City Council approved the Sanitary Sewer Collection Master Plan and Lighting Standards.
 
There is no Planning business before the City Council at their March 21, 2019 meeting.
 
70.          Messages and Papers from the Chair. 
70.1 Chair McKechnie thanked the Commission for bearing with him through his first meeting as Chair. 
 
80.          Remarks from the City Attorney. None
 
90.          Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.
90.1 Vice Chair Foley reported that likely he will not be in attendance at the May 30, 2019 meeting.  (There is no Planning Commission meeting scheduled for that date.)
 
90.2 Commissioner Miranda thanked and appreciates the Commission for all the support while he was Chair of the Planning Commission. 
 
He thanked Chair McKechnie for the relief from being Chair.  It could not have come at a better time.  He is facing some family matters that is going to take him out of the state for a little while but he will be back.    
 
100.        Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 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                                                                      
 
Mark McKechnie
Planning Commission Chair                                                                         
 
Approved: March 28, 2018
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top