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