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.

Mayor & Council (View All)

City Council Meeting Agenda & Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, July 07, 2016

July 7, 2016
12:00 Noon and 7:00 p.m.
Medford City Hall, Council Chambers
411 West 8th Street, Medford, Oregon


10.    Roll Call

 
20.    Approval or Correction of the Minutes of the June 16, 2016 Regular Meeting
 
30.    Oral Requests and Communications from the Audience
         Comments will be limited to 3 minutes per individual or 5 minutes if representing a group or organization.  PLEASE SIGN IN.
 
         30.1     Friends of Medford Parks and Recreation awards
 
40.    Consent Calendar
        
50.    Items Removed from Consent Calendar
 
60.    Ordinances and Resolutions
         60.1     COUNCIL BILL 2016-79 – SECOND READING An ordinance amending the Rules and Regulations for Executive, Supervisory, and Confidential-Professional employees pertaining to wages, hours, fringe benefits, and other working conditions effective July 1, 2016.
 
         60.2     COUNCIL BILL 2016-82 An ordinance authorizing execution of a Lease Agreement with Southern Oregon Veterans Benefits for use of an area within U.S. Cellular Community Park.  
 
70.    Council Business
         70.1     Unified Appeal Board appointment
             
80.    City Manager and Other Staff Reports
         80.1     Firewise community award
 
         80.2     Update on downtown sidewalk appeals
 
         80.3     Further reports from City Manager
 
90.    Propositions and Remarks from the Mayor and Councilmembers
         90.1     Proclamations issued:  Parks and Recreation Month
                       
         90.2     Further Council committee reports
           
         90.3     Further remarks from Mayor and Councilmembers
 
100.  Adjournment to the Evening Session
 
 
 
EVENING SESSION
7:00 P.M.
 
Roll Call
 
110.  Oral Requests and Communications from the Audience
Comments will be limited to 3 minutes per individual or 5 minutes if representing a group or organization.  PLEASE SIGN IN.
 
120.  Public Hearings
Comments are limited to a total of 30 minutes for applicants and/or their representatives.  You may request a 5-minute rebuttal time.  Appellants and/or their representatives are limited to a total of 30 minutes and if the applicant is not the appellant they will also be allowed a total of 30 minutes.  All others will be limited to 3 minutes per individual or 5 minutes if representing a group or organization. PLEASE SIGN IN.
 
120.1 Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of an Exception request for the elimination of a sidewalk, curb, gutter and street paving improvements on 0.74 acres located south of the intersection of E. Main Street, Fair Oaks Drive and White Oak Drive.  (E-16-034) Land Use, Appeal
 
130.  Ordinances and Resolutions
        
140.  Council Business
 
150.  Further Reports from the City Manager and Staff
 
160.  Propositions and Remarks from the Mayor and Councilmembers
         160.1   Further Council committee reports
                            
         160.2   Further remarks from Mayor and Councilmembers
 
170.  Adjournment
 
MINUTES

The regular meeting of the Medford City Council was called to order at 12:00 noon in the Medford City Hall Council Chambers on the above date with the following members and staff present:
 
Mayor Gary Wheeler; Councilmembers Clay Bearnson, Daniel Bunn, Dick Gordon, Tim Jackle, Eli Matthews, Kevin Stine, Michael Zarosinski
 
City Manager Pro Tem Alison Chan; Deputy City Manager Bill Hoke; City Attorney Lori Cooper; Deputy City Recorder Winnie Shepard
 
Councilmember Chris Corcoran was absent.
 
20.    Approval or Correction of the Minutes of the June 16, 2016 Regular Meeting
         There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as presented.
 
30.    Oral Requests and Communications from the Audience
         30.1     Friends of Medford Parks and Recreation awards
Awards were issued to Greg Jones; Wells Fargo Advisors represented by Christine Hendricks and Bank Manager Mark Heinz, Rogue Valley Senior Softball Association, represented by Roger Smith; Coyote Trails School of Nature represented by Molly and Joe Kreuzman.
 
Out of sequence.
 
         90.1     Proclamations issued: Parks and Recreation Month
 
Back in sequence.
 
30.2     Damien Rennie, Medford Poker Club, 3502 Excel Drive, stated his business license for a social gaming club had been revoked after an anonymous complaint was received by Planning Director Jim Huber. Mr. Rennie explained he went through the proper channels, but there was an oversight within the City and his business was not allowed. Councilmember Matthews noted this situation should be remedied and requested a motion to bring this topic forward in two weeks. Councilmember Stine questioned whether this issue should be reviewed by the departments before Council makes a decision. City Attorney Lori Cooper explained this location was approved by the Planning Department for gaming, but there is an over-arching state law prohibiting gaming without a specific ordinance passed by the Council allowing social gaming.
 
Motion: Direct staff to prepare a Code amendment allowing social gaming to be brought before the Council during the July 21, 2016 meeting.
Moved by: Eli Matthews                                           Seconded by: Daniel Bunn
 
Councilmember Jackle noted one of his law partners represents a partner in this business; he would abstain from the vote. Councilmember Stine questioned whether this should be scheduled for a public hearing; Ms. Cooper noted the law doesn’t require a public hearing, but the Council could hold one.
 
Councilmember Gordon requested a review of the items covered under the social gaming law; Ms. Cooper did not have the statute handy, but explained it was different than social gambling and did not include casino-type games. Mr. Rennie explained the law as he understood it, stating there could be no house player, house bank or house odds. Ms. Cooper asked Mr. Rennie how he made money; he explained there were many different ways to charge, sometimes a chip charge which is percentage of chips purchased or seat charge which is a fee for the amount of time spent. Their club requests a “donation”. Ms. Cooper stated there are various agencies that conduct casino nights and other charity gaming events in Medford; these events are handled through the Department of Justice and the City does not become involved in those types of charitable gaming activities.
 
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Gordon, Matthews, Stine and Zarosinski voting yes; Councilmember Jackle abstaining.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
Mr. Rennie noted that they have spent $45,000 to open and now are unable to operate. He requested an exception to the fines, while Council considered the issue. Councilmember Bunn agreed and requested no fines during the next two week period. Councilmember Stine agreed that staff made a mistake, but was not in favor of allowing an illegal business while the issue was considered.
 
Motion: Suspend all business license fines for MJP Enterprises until August 1, 2016.
Moved by: Daniel Bunn                                            Seconded by: Eli Matthews
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Gordon, Matthews, and Zarosinski voting yes; Councilmember Stine voting no; Councilmember Jackle abstaining.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
Councilmember Gordon asked whether holding a public hearing will delay approval of the ordinance; Ms. Cooper responded it would not.
 
Motion: Schedule a social gaming ordinance for a public hearing at our next regular meeting July 21, 2016.
Moved by: Dick Gordon Seconded by: Kevin Stine
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Gordon, Matthews, Stine and Zarosinski voting yes; Councilmember Jackle abstaining.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
30.3     Scott Henselman spoke regarding the sidewalks downtown between 4th Street and 10th Street. He noted that Medford Urban Renewal Agency installed incorrect sidewalks and the matter would be coming back to Council in the near future.
 
30.4     Kim Chandler from Medford House of Prayer, Susan Lancaster and Betty Denney from the I-5 Diamond Prayer Network, spoke regarding their pending special event, entitled the Medford Oregon Tabernacle Tent. They would like to worship Friday and Saturday September 2 and 3 from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. The Parks and Recreation Department Parks Rules and Regulations prohibit overnight events. She explained she was also denied due to the sound ordinance, but their event will not include amplification, just a guitar player. She requested Council suspend the ordinance to enable her event.
 
Ms. Cooper explained to Council that this would be an appeal of an administrative decision. Councilmember Bunn questioned whether there were issues with parks use during the night. Ms. Chandler explained that she had been told that sometimes the public causes problems for evening events.
 
*Councilmember Bearnson left the dais.
 
Parks and Recreation Director Brian Sjothun explained that parks use regulations are administrative regulations and he does have the authority to waive the requirement. He suggested the group apply for a special event permit through the City Manager’s Office which ensures City departments are aware of the event.
 
*Councilmember Bearnson returned to the dais.
 
Mr. Brian Sjothun explained that he does have the authority to waive parks use regulations, such as fees and overnight use. Executive Office Manager Lynette O’Neal clarified that this group did file a special event permit and the office also recommended Council approval to waive these requirements.
 
Motion: Direct Staff to work with Medford Oregon Tabernacle Tent event organizers to grant the variance to the sound ordinance.
Moved by: Kevin Stine                                             Seconded by: Daniel Bunn
 
Councilmember Jackle noted he would vote yes, but this issue appeared to be a Parks Department matter.
 
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, Stine and Zarosinski voting yes.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
30.5     Jack Schmidt reported that he had organized a repair to one of the street tree wells, as he requested in a previous meeting. He explained the process to Council; Councilmember Gordon thanked Mr. Schmidt for his work.
 
40.    Consent Calendar
         None.
 
50.    Items Removed from Consent Calendar
         None.
 
60.    Ordinances and Resolutions
60.1     COUNCIL BILL 2016-79 – SECOND READING An ordinance amending the Rules and Regulations for Executive, Supervisory, and Confidential-Professional employees pertaining to wages, hours, fringe benefits, and other working conditions effective July 1, 2016.
 
Mayor Wheeler explained the specific staff involved in this ordinance and their importance to the City and the Council. He urged Council support.
 
Motion: Approve an ordinance amending the Rules and Regulations for Executive, Supervisory, and Confidential-Professional employees pertaining to wages, hours, fringe benefits, and other working conditions effective July 1, 2016.
Moved by: Daniel Bunn                                            Seconded by: Eli Matthews
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews and Zarosinski voting yes; Councilmember Stine voting no.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
60.2     COUNCIL BILL 2016-82 An ordinance authorizing execution of a Lease Agreement with Southern Oregon Veterans Benefits for use of an area within U.S. Cellular Community Park.
 
Mr. Sjothun provided a staff report explaining the location and noted the group is responsible for all costs of installation, maintenance and repair. He also clarified that this ordinance approves the lease agreement only; organizers would complete all necessary steps with the various City departments.
 
Councilmember Bunn noted his support of this project and asked whether this would fall under recreational immunity. Ms. Cooper believed it would.
 
Council discussed the proposed location. Councilmember Stine recalled this project was before Council a couple years ago, but there was an issue with funding; President of Southern Oregon Veterans Benefits Ron Kohl explained the group had difficulty obtaining donations before a location was determined. The group continues to seek financial support as well as donated services from electricians and contractors for the installation. Mr. Kohl explained that Seven Feathers has generously donated all their proceeds from the evening’s Kenny Rogers concert at the Jackson County Expo.
 
Councilmember Gordon asked about including a construction start date in the contract; Ms. Cooper said if it was not included, it would be added before finalization.
 
Councilmember Matthews explained the benefits of the wall in our area.
 
Motion: Approve the ordinance authorizing execution of a Lease Agreement with Southern Oregon Veterans Benefits for use of an area within U.S. Cellular Community Park.
Moved by: Kevin Stine   Seconded by: Eli Matthews
 
Mayor Wheeler thanked the group and noted he was an Army Veteran and Mr. Hoke was an Air
Force Veteran.
 
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, Stine and Zarosinski voting yes.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
70.    Council Business
         70.1     Unified Appeal Board appointment
 
Motion: Appoint Bob Berg as the business member to the Unified Appeal Board with a term beginning immediately and ending January 31, 2018.
Moved by: Dick Gordon                                           Seconded by: Daniel Bunn
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, Stine and Zarosinski voting yes.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
70.2     Councilmember Gordon spoke regarding using City-owned land as possible options for Hope Village. Ms. Chan noted it would help staff narrow the search if Council gave direction to what zones (commercial, industrial, etc.) it would consider allowing the tiny house village to locate. Councilmember Gordon noted the map was too small for him to read and he was unable to determine whether the mapped locations were viable options.
 
Councilmember Bunn noted there are standardized guidelines for low-income housing that could be used. Ms. Chan noted that would help as urban campgrounds had fewer restrictions. Councilmember Gordon would like a plot of government-owned land, whether it was county or federally owned that could be developed for Hope Village.
 
*Councilmember Zarosinski left the dais.
 
80.    City Manager and Other Staff Reports
         80.1     Firewise community award
Fire Chief Brian Fish recognized the Eagle Trace Homeowners Association for their achievement in receiving recognition from National Firewise Communities. The program teaches citizens how to protect themselves and their properties in the event of a wildfire. The association took various steps to prevent wildfire, including education, creating a Firewise Board, removing and reducing flammable vegetation and applying for recognition from the City of Medford and the Oregon Department of Forestry.
 
*Councilmember Zarosinski returned to the dais.
 
Mr. Fish presented the Firewise community plaque to Bob Roe, President of the Eagle Trace Community Association. Mr. Roe noted it was a joint effort and thanked everyone.
 
80.2     Update on downtown sidewalk appeals
Public Works Director Cory Crebbin provided a staff report. Mr. Crebbin explained the job by Precision Electric looks great. He noted he met with property owners who would like the removal of the metal grates in the tree wells as well as the ten inch concrete sill to be paid for by the City. The cost of removal of the 57 tree grates is $200,000.
 
*Councilmember Bearnson left the dais.
 
Four or five of the property owners agreed to sign a waiver indicating the City would not need to pay to repair these locations again. Mr. Crebbin asked whether the City should remove the tree grates. Councilmember Bunn asked what purpose the tree grates served; Mr. Crebbin believed it was decorative, although they are used as a walking surface.
 
*Councilmember Bearnson returned to the dais.
 
Mayor Wheeler asked if it would create a trip hazard if the grates were removed; Mr. Crebbin explained it does not.
 
Motion: Authorize removal of all the tree grates on properties in which owners have signed waivers and indemnities that are satisfactory to staff.
Moved by: Tim Jackle                                              Seconded by: Dick Gordon
 
Councilmember Stine asked how the City would pay for the project; Mr. Crebbin responded the Public Works Department did not have the funding to conduct these repairs. Councilmember Stine asked whether the consensus was to fix the pavers versus replacing them with concrete; Mr.  Crebbin noted that $200,000 was to remove grates and replace pavers. If the City would like the pavers removed and replaced with scored concrete it would be approximately $300,000.
 
Councilmember Gordon asked how Public Works was funding the bulb outs; Mr. Crebbin explained they were trying to find available funds, but it may need to be included during the next budget cycle. Councilmember Zarosinski clarified the $200,000 covered removal of the grates and the frame only; Councilmember Zarosinski and Mr. Crebbin discussed the details of the repair/replacement of the tree well grates.
 
Councilmember Jackle clarified his intent with the motion was the removal of the tree grates. He modified his motion to include the installation of the pavers; Councilmember Gordon agreed to the modification.
 
Amended Motion: Authorize removal of all tree grates and to replace pavers on owners’ properties that have signed waivers and indemnities that are satisfactory to staff.
Moved by: Tim Jackle                                                    Seconded by: Dick Gordon
 
Councilmember Bunn was concerned that property owners did not have to pay anything for repairs; Mr. Crebbin explained property owners stated they would not sign waivers unless the City paid the entire cost of repair. Councilmember Gordon believed this project is different, because it was MURA project and the City needed to resolve the problem.
 
Councilmember Stine clarified the $200,000 was the cost for the entire repair; Mr. Crebbin agreed
that $200,000 is the estimated cost for the entire repair.
 
Councilmember Jackle stated the City is not responsible for water leakage into any basements. The City is not assuming responsibility or admitting liability for any damages other than the tree wells. Councilmember Zarosinski clarified the Council was only addressing the issues covered today and questioned the area that would be repaired; Mr. Crebbin indicated the area on a map.
 
Councilmember Stine asked whether all property owners would be contacted with a one-time offer
and what if owners refuse assistance and come forward later with expenses; Mr. Crebbin responded that it was Council’s discretion on how to proceed.
 
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Gordon, Jackle and Matthews voting yes; Councilmembers Bunn, Stine and Zarosinski voting no.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
Councilmember Bunn asked whether the Street Materials List should be amended for the project; Mr. Crebbin responded that Public Works can perform this work based on the Council’s motion, but an amended draft of the Street Materials Standards List will be prepared for Council’s consideration.
 
Motion: Funding for this project should come from the same source as proposed for the bulb outs.
Moved by: Dick Gordon                                           Seconded by: Mike Zarosinski
 
Mayor Wheeler asked for clarification on the source; Councilmember Gordon believed it was from
utility fees; Mr. Crebbin explained it would be from “street funds”.
 
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, Stine and Zarosinski voting yes.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
90.    Propositions and Remarks from the Mayor and Councilmembers
         90.2     Further Council committee reports
a.      Councilmember Stine spoke regarding the parking issue on the Layla Drive property. The Traffic Coordinating Committee agreed with the Fire Department’s decision. Only two people attended the meeting: one for and one against the parking revision.
 
b.      Councilmember Bunn noted one of his constituents has a neighbor with 40 to 50 chickens. The person had requested limiting the number of chickens within City limits. Mayor Wheeler noted the Council had discussed the topic ad infinitum. Staff will provide additional information on the topic to Councilmember Bunn.
 
         90.3     Further remarks from Mayor and Councilmembers
a.      Councilmember Gordon noted home occupation business licenses are charged an increased street utility fee of $3.21 per month. One of his constituents, Susan Bartells, owns a duplex. Her tenant opened a small business and obtained a business license and the fee has been included on her utility billing.
 
Mr. Crebbin explained the fee was brought before Council previously and Council decided to keep the fee. The fee is an estimated cost for the additional driving trips to and from locations as well as the extra deliveries made to home businesses.
 
Councilmember Gordon asked how much the administrative costs were in incorporating the fee versus the revenue received. Councilmember Bunn requested the estimated amount of revenue the small fee generated for the City.
 
100.  Adjournment to the Evening Session
Mayor Wheeler noted an executive session would be held at 5:30 p.m. before the evening meeting. He also spoke regarding the Fire Department’s Award Ceremony at 5:30 p.m. as well.
 
 
 
 
 
EVENING SESSION
7:00 P.M.
 
Roll Call
 
110.  Oral Requests and Communications from the Audience
 
a.   Ruth Klauss spoke regarding the home occupation business license utility fee. She noted she occasionally provides pet sitting services and is being charged a home occupation street utility fee retroactively for the past two years. She requested an exemption from the fee, an audit and a review of the home occupation street utility fee for home-based businesses.
 
Councilmember Gordon explained this issue was discussed during the noon meeting and the fee may be revised in the future.
 
Public Works Director Cory Crebbin stated his staff was conducting an audit of the home‑occupation business licenses and were finding home occupations had not been charged the fee. He further explained the fee is a flat rate for all home-based businesses, regardless of the number of trips or the neighborhood impact.
 
120.  Public Hearings
120.1   Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of an Exception request for the elimination of a sidewalk, curb, gutter and street paving improvements on 0.74 acres located south of the intersection of E. Main Street, Fair Oaks Drive and White Oak Drive. (E-16-034) Land Use, Appeal
 
Principal Planner Kelly Akin provided the staff report explaining that only people with standing were able to participate in the appeal. She outlined the four exception criteria pursuant to MLDC 10.253 and the Council’s scope of review as outlined in the Medford Municipal Code Section 10.053. Ms. Akin provided maps of the property and photos from multiple viewpoints, explained the applicant’s allegations of error and the Council’s options.
 
Councilmember Stine clarified that Council is only addressing the exception and not the decision about the partition; Ms. Akin responded he was correct.
 
Councilmember Bunn asked whether unusual site characteristics can be outside the tax lot boundaries; Ms. Akin explained the Code allows the public improvement standards to be addressed with the exception. Ms. Cooper clarified that whether the shape of the parcel constituted an unusual site characteristic is the Council’s decision.
 
Councilmember Bunn noted there were other design options available; Ms. Akin responded that adjusting the curb radii requirement may have been an option, but that was not presented to the Commission, only the elimination of the curb completely.
 
Councilmember Corcoran asked whether dividing the property into three tax lots would qualify the property owner as a developer; he noted developers have different requirements for sidewalks, streets and gutters; Ms. Akin explained the Code requires a development permit for property divisions. The development permit ensures new lots meet standards.
 
Councilmember Gordon asked for clarification of the deferred improvement agreement; Ms. Cooper explained the deferred improvement agreement fell under the Public Works  Director’s discretion. The Code states that people need to make the improvements now or obtain Public Works Director’s approval to pay a deposit of 125% of the estimated cost to defer the improvements.
 
Councilmember Gordon clarified the option of running this cost with the property is not possible; in other words, the future owner of the parcel could improve when the street was improved; Ms. Cooper believed that option was discussed during this process, but it was rejected.
 
Councilmember Gordon noted the Council was to review this issue, based only on the initial proceedings; Ms. Cooper responded that his interpretation is correct. Council could not consider any new information in the letters or testimony since that date.
 
Councilmember Zarosinski stated this is the first request for relief for street improvement standards and the appellant wanted no paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks or planter strips, not relief from the placement; Ms. Akin stated that his interpretation was correct.
 
Public hearing opened.
 
Shawn Kampmann, representing the appellant, Adderson Builders, Inc., noted the intent of the exception was not an attempt to waive responsibility for improvements. He explained the area is very unique and there are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks within a wide radius around the location. This requirement would change the character of the neighborhood and the improvements would cause line-of-sight issues and impact the right-of-way alignment. Because these improvements would be isolated in a small area, he was hopeful the improvements could be delayed until any street improvements occurred.
 
Mr. Kampmann displayed photos of the properties around the location. He clarified the petition was approved for one new lot on White Oak and one lot on Fair Oaks. The current lot is one of only two lots which were not subdivided in this area. He was filing for this exemption in an attempt to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Kampmann displayed photos of the road, and noted the curve did not follow the right-of-way requirement and many trees would need to be removed if sidewalks were required.
 
Councilmember Bunn asked whether his client would object to building a sidewalk adjacent to the existing roadway; Mr. Kampmann responded that they had not discussed that option. Councilmember Bunn asked whether building the sidewalk next to the existing asphalt would solve the problem; Mr. Kampmann explained the entire road would need to be revised to follow the code. Ms. Cooper clarified that a modification is within Council’s purview.
 
Mr. Kampmann stated their preference was to keep the character of the neighborhood, and this would be an expensive right-of-way improvement. He outlined the appellant’s reasons for appeal; it was injurious, because sidewalks would change site views; the curve of the road is not currently up to standard and changing the alignment would impact other properties; it was a unique or unusual circumstance, because there are not many lots like this in Medford; the improvements would result in an undue hardship due to the financial impact.
 
 
a.      Harry Baker, 2708 White Oak Drive, did not believe the improvements would cause an undue hardship and explained many neighbors would like to keep the character of the neighborhood.
 
b.      Marion Borchgrevink, Acorn Way, spoke to the character of White Oak Drive, stating there are few meandering streets with big lots in Medford. However, she also believed the developer should be required to pay something.
 
c.      Jane Fisher, 1 White Oak, explained neighbors are very upset about losing the ambience of the area. She recommended requiring a 125% deposit to maintain the character of the neighborhood and not require sidewalks.
 
d.      Land Use Consultant Bob Hart, representing Larry and Phyllis Moore, stated a lot of the information provided by the appellant tonight was not discussed during the initial Planning Commission hearing, including the conversations with the City Engineer. He noted the two lots created were significantly smaller than other lots on the street and that would change the character of the street.
 
Councilmember Jackle explained the improvements are required and it is the developer’s choice whether to enter into a deferred improvement agreement. The Council could not force a developer to enter into that agreement.
 
e.      Walter Cauble, representing Larry and Phyllis Moore, preferred the appellant pay for the improvements. He noted the site is not unusual or unique and the applicant is concerned about the cost of this project. The Planning Commission did the right thing and he urged the Council to affirm their decision.
 
f.       Don Hartley, supported the addition of the sidewalks for the safety of his family walking past the corner. Although he appreciates the character of the neighborhood, it is going to change anyway with the additional houses. He also explained there has been flooding issues due to inadequate water drainage and he was concerned with additional flooding with the development.
 
g.      Phyllis Moore, 130 White Oak, spoke against the development. She believed the appeal was an attempt to maximize the developer’s profit. She noted the residents did not want the new homes. Mrs. Moore stated the road is highly traveled and the installation of a sidewalk, curb and gutter are appropriate and will provide a safer area for pedestrians.
 
h.      Larry Moore, 130 White Oak, referenced portions of the notice of appeal and believed a portion of the language was not correct. The neighbors were not concerned with the street improvements, they were objecting to the two additional houses. He did not mind the removal of any trees to install the sidewalk as the neighbors will have the added safety of the new improvements.
 
*Councilmember Corcoran left the dais.
 
i.       Roger Scott, 2421 Acorn Way, believed this was a case of “easier to ask for forgiveness, than permission”. The applicant has the right to determine whether he should pay the 125% or conduct the improvements. He would rather see the character of the street maintained.
 
Councilmember Jackle explained that it wasn’t a matter of opinion, but these are required changes. Mr. Scott clarified the applicant has the right to put those funds aside to not comply with the Code; he was also concerned with setting a precedent.
 
j.       Dean Terbest, 133 White Oak Drive, believed this issue was mainly regarding money. This project would also cost the City money because of the grade of the road. The area has flooding issues and adding those homes will compound the problem. The flooding issue was discussed during the Planning Commission and the developer is aware of it.
 
Councilmember Gordon asked if there were storm drains in the area; Mr. Terbest responded there are no storm drains in the neighborhood.
 
*Councilmember Bearnson left the dais.
 
k.      Norman Wager, 186 White Oak Drive, spoke in opposition to the deferral of the requirement. He did not agree with the 60 foot right of way as it would impact neighbors’ properties.
 
*Councilmember Bearnson returned to the dais.
 
He did not think developers should be allowed an exemption as this was not a unique circumstance. The improvements are going to impact the main parcel which he believed was the reason for the appeal. Mr. Wager believed this development was in opposition to what Old East Medford neighborhoods should be.
 
Mayor Wheeler declared a recess at 9:20 p.m.
 
* * * * * * * * *
 
Council reconvened to the evening session at 9:30 p.m. with the same members present.
 
Mr. Kampmann noted that improvements would only be made on one side of the street.  He believed the flooding was coming from higher elevations and is not caused by their lot and noted there used to be a wetland in that area. Mr. Kampmann also stated the applicant did not create the zoning and the land partition is a zoning issue.
 
Public hearing closed.
 
Motion: Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny E-16-034 because no legal error was committed and there sufficient evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission decision.
Moved by: Daniel Bunn                                            Seconded by: Dick Gordon
 
Councilmember Bunn stated the applicant failed to demonstrate how not making the improvements would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of our land development code and failed to demonstrate an undue hardship on the applicant.
 
Councilmember Gordon requested Mr. Crebbin explain the flexibility the Public Works Department has in these types of issues. Mr. Crebbin responded there is no flexibility as Code establishes the street standards. However the developer can request the elimination of the planter strips in these cases.
 
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, Stine and Zarosinski
voting yes.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
130.  Ordinances and Resolutions
         None.
 
140.  Council Business
         None.
 
150.  Further Reports from the City Manager and Staff
Councilmember Bunn stated that perhaps the Council should consider the creation of a neighborhood design committee to maintain the character of neighborhoods in Medford. Councilmember Corcoran agreed, but clarified that pursuant to the Code, Council had no choice but to uphold the appeal.
 
160.  Propositions and Remarks from the Mayor and Councilmembers
         160.1      Further Council committee reports
 
         160.2      Further remarks from Mayor and Councilmembers
 
170.  Adjournment
There being no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 9:39 p.m.
 
The proceedings of this council meeting were recorded on tape and are filed in the City Manager’s Office. The complete agenda for this meeting is filed in the City Recorder’s Office.
 
 
 
 
Winnie Shepard
Deputy City Recorder
 

 
 
 

© 2017 City Of Medford  •  Site By Project A

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top