COVID-19: City Hall and Lausmann Annex are closed until further notice.
Please note: Municipal Court is conducting business by phone. Please call 541-774-2040.
Click here for more information.


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 Agenda & Minutes

Thursday, June 28, 2018

June 28, 2018

6:00 p.m.
City Hall, Medford Room
411 W. 8th Street, Medford, Oregon
  1. Draft Transportation System Plan Review
  2. Art Acquisition Policy

June 28, 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 Medford City Hall on the above date with the following members and staff present:
Mayor Gary Wheeler; Councilmembers Clay Bearnson, Kay Brooks, Tim D’Alessandro, Dick Gordon, Tim Jackle, and Kim Wallan
City Manager Brian Sjothun, Deputy City Attorney Eric Mitton, Deputy City Recorder Winnie Shepard
Art Acquisition Policy
Park Superintendent Tim Stevens presented information on the current public art policy, noting:
  • Arts Commission prepared a draft revision to the public art policy to include regulations for murals
    • Meeting with applicant, staff and Arts Commission chair
    • Complete/submit application
    • Require approval by the Arts and the Landmarks & Historic Preservation Commissions before presenting to the City Council
    • Would enter into an easement agreement with the property owner and the City; City would assume all maintenance during the agreement period
Council comment and responses:
Michael Davis, Medford Arts Commission, noted the Commission did not discuss what would happen if the property owner preferred to maintain the murals.  However, the agreement could be revised if the property owner requested to conduct their own maintenance.
It was unknown whether the changes recommended by the Arts Commission vetted through legal; Deputy City Attorney Eric Mitton will verify.
Unsure what would happen to existing murals with the code revision; Councilmember Gordon preferred an easier process for applicants while still ensuring compliance.
The easement agreement was designed to protect the City’s interest for City-sponsored murals.
Mr. Mitton clarified the arts policy revisions provide for easements allowing publicly-funded art; the regulations for murals on private property were not being revised.
Draft Transportation System Plan
City Manager Brian Sjothun noted a sub-committee prepared proposed revisions to the Transportation System as outlined in the handouts.
Councilmember Wallan explained the main objectives were:
  • Infill of sidewalks to achieve connectivity
  • Update the definition of legacy streets
  • Worked to create a safe bicycling network
  • Create accommodations for freight travel
Principal Planner Carla Paladino noted that the legacy street table was created to explain the difference between creating a new street versus upgrading an existing street.  Council discussed the various options outlined in the table.
Public Works Director Cory Crebbin explained that the new definition of a legacy street increased from six to seven items and allowed more flexibility in modifying the TSP to allow removing planter strips, bike lanes, etc. to allow space for traffic and/or pedestrian improvements.
Transportation Manager Karl MacNair spoke about legacy streets:
  • “Improved” was defined as streets with curbs and gutters; “unimproved” are streets without curbs and gutters
  • Legacy street definition applies to arterial and collector streets only
  • Seven legacy street categories were defined as:
    1. Improved streets with lanes narrower than the current standard
    2. Improved streets that are missing vehicle lanes
    3. Improved streets with missing center turn lanes
    4. Improved streets with missing planter strips and/or sidewalks
    5. Improved streets with missing bike facilities
    6. Mostly improved streets with unimproved segments
    7. Streets that are predominantly developed on both sides
  • Provided Council with specific streets that met each of the above categories.
Council comment and responses:
Council discussed the language/requirements of wayfinding signs.  Mr. Mitton noted that signage is determined on an as needed basis.
Councilmember Jackle clarified that the intent to the higher pedestrian to bicycle funding ratio was for the existing City; believed the City needed more pedestrian pathways/accessibility, especially to comply with ADA requirements.
Mr. Crebbin explained Hillcrest and Barnett were designated as “strategy corridors” as they cannot be widened. The definition was previously used for streets that were recommended to have additional travel lanes, but could not be widened due to existing structures and emphasized alternative routes such as pedestrian/bicycle paths.
Concurrency is currently outlined in the Code, but not in the existing TSP.  Council agreed to discuss concurrency separately from the TSP.
Councilmember Jackle would like an additional review of the environmental impact standards. Council discussed and requested review by the legal department to ensure compliance.
Council had no objection to staff planning the last outreach effort and obtaining public comment on the latest draft.
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. 
Winnie Shepard
Deputy City Recorder


© 2021 City Of Medford  •  Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A


Share This Page

Back to Top