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 Study Session & Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, January 25, 2018

AGENDA
January 25, 2018

6:00 p.m.
City Hall, Medford Room
411 W. 8th Street, Medford, Oregon
 
1.         TSP Design Guidelines
 
2.         South Stage Overcrossing
 
3.         Wireless Communications
 
MINUTES
January 25, 2018

6:00 p.m.
City Hall, Medford Room
411 W. 8th Street, Medford, Oregon

The Medford City Council Study Session was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Medford Room of the Medford City Hall on the above date with the following members and staff present:
 
Mayor Gary Wheeler; Councilmembers, Tim D’Alessandro, Dick Gordon, Tim Jackle, Kevin Stine, Kim Wallan; Councilmembers Clay Bearnson, Kay Brooks, Dick Gordon and  Michael Zarosinski were absent
 
City Manager Brian Sjothun; Deputy City Manager Kelly Madding; City Attorney Lori Cooper; Deputy City Recorder Winnie Shepard
 
            Transportation System Plan
Planning Director Matt Brinkley spoke regarding the TSP history, the recent public meetings and noted:
  • Updating streets near schools; for example Wilson School
  • Updating streets like Spring Street to collectors
  • Draft will be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council
  • February 22 study session for project prioritization
     
Public Works Director Cory Crebbin spoke regarding cross sections, legacy streets and potential issues complying with the TSP:
  • TSP mainly governs arterial and collector streets
  • Staff recommended improving flexibility on for updating a “Legacy Street” (an existing street)
    • Multiple cross sections will provide flexible options for implementation
  • Outlined three options for major arterial configurations including center median and bicycle lanes; minor arterials will also have center median and bicycle lanes
  • Right-of-way width for new development:
    • City retains entire right-of-way width, despite width of improvement
    • Average bicycle path is 6’; multi-use paths are 14’; can modify as necessary
      • Do state laws require bicyclists to move at the same rate of speed as pedestrians
    • Planter strips between roadway and sidewalk/bicycle path provide safety; but not required
    • If Council includes alternatives for each type of roadway in the TSP to allow staff to modify for compliance; Council could provide alternatives for Planning to select best options for particular scenarios
    • Should allow contiguous path for all modes of transport versus transitions with improvements
    • Lower stress options preferred
    • Off-road bicycle lanes preferred; however Mr. Crebbin explained safety concerns at intersections as the bicycles are not in the vehicle line of sight when separated from traffic
    • Reducing the width of the planter strip provides a lower level of stress
    • At this point, no exceptions to right-of-ways within the street cross section; if that type of street is 95’, we would only receive the 95’ this prevents SDC credits to developers
                                                                 
Improved legacy streets (defined as existing streets with curbs and gutters):
  • Unimproved legal streets (defined as streets without curbs and gutters) will be handled on a case‑by‑case basis
    • Developers are required to comply with current TSP, even on existing streets
    • Not correct width
    • Missing vehicle lanes or center turn lanes
    • City should obtain/retain full right-of-way area, for future improvements
  • Require continuing curbs and gutters if the existing street has them
  • Outlined the various areas without sidewalks and bicycle facilities
    • Larson Creek Path being built as bicycle lanes cannot be placed on Barnett
    • Unimproved sections of roads should be matched to the abutting cross sections
    • Citizens can request a public hearing for concerns/objections to any requirement
      • Council could provide a process to allow exceptions
      • Criteria could be approved; staff needs direction for these exceptions
      • Can include a right-of-way range within each street classifications in the new TSP
         
Council comment:
  • Spring Street improvements were discussed; this would be included in the TSP as a “Non-improved Legacy Street” as it does not currently have curb and gutters
  • Legacy streets with curb and gutter, can they be left “as is” despite being out of compliance with the new TSP
  • Council direction regarding potential improvements to legacy streets
    • Center turn lane; could maintain right-of-way without the physical improvement
    • In situations without safety or capacity issues
  • Not every issue should be specified in the TSP; rare occurrences can be appealed to Planning or Site Plan & Architectural Commission
  • Council discussed whether to require planter strips
    • City maintains them on arterials and collectors
    • Citizens maintain them on smaller streets
    • Council would like Planning Commission to determine whether to have planter strips in situations in which no abutting properties are near
  • Legacy streets without bicycle lanes
    • Determine routes on alternate streets or create pathways
    • Unknown who would maintain multi-use paths as City maintains bicycle paths; citizens maintain sidewalks
    • Options need to be in the TSP in order to ever be used
    • Council agreed that improvements should match existing street for consistency
 
South Stage Overcrossing
Deputy Public Works Director and City Engineer Alex Georgevitch provided information on the proposed overcrossing:
  • South Stage is expected to serve two future areas of development
  • Currently, an approximately $50 million project and would include a large bridge
  • Bridge will be about 1485 feet to bypass riparian and wetlands around Bear Creek
  • Project will also need to be completed timely to comply with environmental impacts (studies are valid for approximately 10 years)
  • Connects to the largest area within the UGB amendment
  • City may qualify for a TIGER grant to provide a 40% match to assist with the estimated $50 million cost for the project; other cities may wish to assist as well
  • Project can be broken into two sections
     
Wireless Communications
Planner III Seth Adams explained the Planning Department needed Council direction regarding potential Code amendments for Wireless facilities in the right-of-way:
  • Cell towers have reached their capacities and carriers are using small cells on top of street lights or signage to assist with coverage in small areas
  • Topic was previously discussed at a study session; but there is nothing in the Code
  • Federal law allows wireless facilities within the right-of-ways, limiting city regulation to mainly aesthetics
     
Council comment:
  • Noise concerns could be an issue within residential areas, may not be an issue on major streets
  • Colleen Deshazer from Mobilitie spoke regarding their products; she noted:
    • Products needed for increased demand for data and not voice calls
    • Placed in areas with existing data loss
    • Provided examples of the types, sizes and what they looked like and how they would attach
  • Most likely Medford would have a very small number of the small cells
  • Planning Commission should be involved, but also requested Public Works involvement for traffic control issues and to assist with issues during construction
 
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
 
 
 
 
Winnie Shepard
Deputy City Recorder
 

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

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top