Loading...
ZOA1999-00001 ZOAI9OOOO • 41b,! CITY OF TIGARD Community cDeve(opment Shaping Better Community 's q O • LAND-USE PRPOSAL•DESCRIPTION Tj.x< 120 DAYS = N/A FILE NO.: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT[ZOAI 1999-00001 FILE TITLE: TEMPORARY SIGN RETRIEVAL POLICY • APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A Attn: Mathew Scheidegger 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: The City of Tigard is proposing an ordinance amendment to the Tigard Municipal Code Sections 2.52.010 and 18.780.120(C) to declare signs in the public right-of-way as abandoned property and establish a retrieval fee for sign owners. LOCATION: Citywide ZONE: N/A APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 (Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map); 18.390.060(G) (Type IV Procedure); 18.780.120(C) (Enforcement; and Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 2.52.010 (Custody of Property). CIT AREA: Citywide CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request DECISION MAKING BODY: COMMENTS SENT: DUE: ❑ STAFF DECISION DATE OF DECISION: ❑ HEARINGS OFFICER [MONJ DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:00 PM © PLANNING COMMISSION [NUJ DATE OF HEARING: JULY19,1999 TIME:1:30PM © CITY COUNCIL RUES) DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST10,1999 TIME:1:30 PM COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION O VICINITY MAP ❑ LANDSCAPING PLAN ❑ NARRATIVE ❑ SITE PLAN ❑ ARCHITECTURAL PLAN ❑ TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ❑ ARBORIST REPORT ❑ OTHER STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger, Assistant Planner (503) 639-4171 Ext. 317 ZOA 1999-00001/TEMPORARY SIGN RETRIEVAL POLICY LAND USE PROPOSAL Z OA 1 q99-©66°I • 4110 Agenda Item No. 3. 1 Meeting of 4 b8 l e6 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Planning Director Dick Bewersdorff; Utilities Manager Mike Miller > MACC Liz Newton,Assistant to the City Manager, advised the Council that the City received a request from Wilsonville to withdraw from MACC. She said that staff intended to put a resolution accepting the withdrawal request on the August 24 consent agenda. She explained that Wilsonville gave its reason for its request as its belief that it had the resources and staff capability to oversee and enforce the franchise itself. She mentioned that the MACC Board passed a resolution encouraging the member jurisdictions to accept the withdrawal request. Councilor Scheckla asked if other jurisdictions were thinking of withdrawing from MACC. Bruce Crest, MACC Executive Director, stated that he knew of no other jurisdictions contemplating withdrawal. He commented that Sherwood and Wilsonville left for different reasons. He indicated that MACC had the resources it needed to do its job. He pointed out that Wilsonville and Sherwood combined represented only 5% of the total number of 98,000 cable subscribers. He mentioned the savings to MACC coming from not having to work for a jurisdiction. He stated that MACC was operating more efficiently on its recently reduced budget, and it would continue to do so. Councilor Scheckla asked what the procedure was for a jurisdiction wanting back in. He asked if the fight between Multnomah County and AT&T was a factor in Wilsonville leaving. Mr. Crest stated that the AT&T battle had nothing to do with Wilsonville leaving. He said that the process to rejoin MACC was the same as the process to join MACC. He confirmed that the entry or re-entry of a jurisdiction to MACC required a unanimous vote of the member jurisdictions. Councilor Scheckla asked how much money Wilsonville's departure involved. Mr. Crest said that Wilsonville would have contributed $21,103 to MACC this fiscal year and $14,350 to TVCA. Councilor Scheckla asked if Wilsonville would deal directly with TVCA or go a different route. Mr. Crest said that next week the MACC Board would hold its preliminary discussions of Wilsonville's interest in continuing with TVCA. He noted that, according to the MACC/TVCA contract, TVCA served member jurisdictions. Councilor Scheckla indicated that he had concerns with Wilsonville going with TVCA while not a member of MACC. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 1 • Ms. Newton asked the Council to provide feedback to Councilor Scheckla with regard to two issues to be discussed at the MACC Board meeting next week: the MACC contract with TVCA (and the performance standards to be included), and Wilsonville's request to contract with TVCA for cable access services. She referenced her memo listing ideas performance standards (based on a base line service scenario), and listing concerns about Wilsonville contracting with TVCA directly. Mr. Crest pointed out that the MACC Board would not make decisions on those issues at the upcoming work session. He said that the Board would make those decisions in September. He indicated that the MACC staff wanted to gather input from the member jurisdictions and to get direction from the Board. Councilor Hunt asked Councilor Scheckla to discuss his thoughts on the issue. Councilor Scheckla said that he has not yet decided his position. He indicated that he wanted to know what the MACC jurisdictions were giving to TVCA on an individual basis. He discussed his concern that the MACC jurisdictions be protected so that they did not get into a similar situation in the future. Councilor Patton spoke to Wilsonville alone bearing any of the costs involved with a contract to TVCA. She mentioned the need for stringent fiscal controls on TVCA,including an accounting method that separated out the resources it used for Wilsonville from the resources it used for the member jurisdictions. She discussed her concern of setting a precedent if TVCA was allowed to contract with non-member jurisdictions; this may have an impact on TVCA's service to member jurisdictions. She pointed out that this sort of contract went beyond the original scope intended for TVCA by MACC. Councilor Patton emphasized that these sorts of questions needed to be answered clearly. She asked what recourse the member jurisdictions had, in the event of inappropriate use of TVCA resources by a contract jurisdiction. Mayor Nicoli spoke to allowing only a year-to-year contract. He suggested requiring Wilsonville to sign on financially for the length of an investment in major purchases of equipment or buildings. He mentioned his concern that a contract jurisdiction might pull out of • a large capital investment, leaving the rest of the jurisdictions to pick up the financing. Councilor Scheckla mentioned TVCA's discussion of acquiring a building and leasing out the part that they did not use. He discussed his concern with MACC retaining control, even over any"horsetrading"deals made between TVCA and non-MACC jurisdictions. Mr. Crest commented that Patricia Dare, the new TVCA Executive Director, shared many of the Council's concerns with regard to the Wilsonville withdrawal. He reviewed the work he and Ms. Dare have done in getting clarification from Wilsonville on exactly what it wanted to do. He mentioned that the MACC staff's concerns dealt with equity issues and making sure that an outside contract did not cost the MACC jurisdictions anything in resources or dollars. He reiterated that what happened with Wilsonville was a decision for the MACC Board. Mr. Crest pointed out that Sherwood left MACC because it did not want to use TVCA's services. He emphasized that the MACC Board had to first decide whether or not to allow TVCA to contract with outside jurisdictions, and then to decide how to set up the procedures to provide protections for its member jurisdictions and appropriate financial compensation for services. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 -PAGE 2 • • > EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:45 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(f) and (h) to discuss exempt public records and current and pending litigation. > Executive Session adjourned at 7:39 p.m. • 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order- City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla were present. Cub Scout Pack#221 performed the flag ceremony and led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Nicoli presented the scouts with City of Tigard lapel pins. 1.4 Council Communications: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None > INTRODUCTION FINANCE DIRECTOR CRAIG PROSSER Bill Monahan, City Manager, introduced Craig Prosser, the new Finance Director. He reviewed his background in government finance, including his work as Metro's Financial Planning Manager and in various positions at the City of Portland. He said that Mr. Prosser would discuss potential changes to the business tax program at Council's workshop meeting next week. Mayor Nicoli welcomed Mr. Prosser and presented him with a City of Tigard lapel pin. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA • Norman Penner, 12714 SW Woodhue St, Tigard Water District Board of Commissioners Chair Mr. Penner stated that he did not live within the Tigard city limits. He noted that Gretchen Buehner, the Tigard Water District's representative to the Intergovernmental Water Board, was also present. He said that they represented over 3,000 ratepayers within the Tigard water system. He presented a letter dated August 3, 1999, to the Council from the Tigard Water District Board regarding the potential consequences of the upcoming referendum in Tigard on long-term water sources. Mr. Penner read the letter into the record. He stated that the 1994 intergovernmental agreement between the City of Tigard, the City of Durham, the City of King City,and the Tigard Water District provided that a decision regarding a long-term water source for the system would be made by the Intergovernmental Water Board (comprised of representatives from each participating entity). He pointed out that a vote by any three members of the Board constituted a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 3 • binding majority. He observed that the Tigard Water District, the City of King City and the City of Durham each chose the Willamette River option earlier this year, as did the Intergovernmental Water Board. Mr. Penner mentioned the submittal of valid signatures by the Citizens for Safe Water in June for an initiative requiring a vote of the Tigard citizens before the City could go to the Willamette for its water source. He stated that, should the initiative pass and the voters refuse to vote for the Willamette River option, that decision would put the City in default under the IGA. He said that Tigard's failure to participate in the Willamette River option would result in damages in excess of$25 million to the Tigard Water District and its ratepayers for separation of the systems. Mr. Penner stated that, in the opinion of their legal counsel, the proposed initiative contained a number of flaws that would make it unenforceable. The Tigard Water District asked the City of Tigard to take all necessary steps to stop any barriers to proceeding with the Willamette option. He stated that, should Tigard fail to move forward with the Willamette option, the Tigard Water District would initiate legal action against the City to protect its rate payers from the results of the City of Tigard's default. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Patton asked to pull Item 3.4. Councilor Hunt asked for more explanation on Item 3.3. He asked what impact vacating this property would have on the people parking on the property. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, explained that the vacation gave the property to the people currently using it for parking. He pointed out that Item 3.3 initiated the vacation process (which included a public hearing at which citizens could voice any concerns). Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda, pulling Item 3.4. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [5-0] 3.1 Approve Council Minutes of: June 15, 22, 29, 1999 3.2 Receive and File: a. Tentative Agenda b. Council Calendar c. Expenditure of Civil Forfeiture Funds 3.3 Initiate Vacation of a Portion of Main Street Right-of-Way North of Existing Roadway- Resolution No. 99-58 • 3.4 Amend Resolution No. 99-18—Correct Calculation Error in Fee Increases for Building, Plumbing, Mechanical an Electrical Permit and Related Fees—Resolution No. 99-59 • Consent Agenda -Items Removed for Separate Discussion 3.4 Amend Resolution No. 99-18—Correct Calculation Error in Fee Increases for Building, Plumbing, Mechanical an Electrical Permit and Related Fees—Resolution No. 99-59 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 4 • • Mr. Hendryx said that Councilor Patton had asked if this was the appropriate process to go through to make these changes, and to explain why the two tables for the two different resolutions were the same. He explained that Resolution 99-18, the fee resolution adopted by Council earlier, contained a calculation error. He indicated that this was the appropriate process to amend the original resolution. He explained that the fee structures in both resolutions drew from the same table but for different sections of the Building Code. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt,to adopt Resolution 99-59. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [5-0] 4. UPDATE: CITY OF TIGARD YOUTH VOLUNTEERS • Trish Stormont, Library Volunteer Coordinator Ms. Stormont reviewed the youth volunteer program at the library(ages 12 to 18). She mentioned that they had five parent-child teams for the children under age 12. She described the various projects and activities performed by the youth volunteers, including a project to relabel the library's 6,000 plus picture book collection, shelving books, assisting librarians with craft time and story time, checking in books and videos, sorting books, and other general maintenance jobs. She noted that the kids were competent computer users who coached other volunteers and the staff on using the computer. Ms. Stormont pointed out that the library provided teenagers with a place to learn job skills and to interact with adults in the workplace prior to entering the workforce. She said that from January to June 1999, 28 youth worked over 350 hours at the library with another nine youth signing up in July to volunteer. She mentioned that the kids volunteered for various reasons, including meeting a requirement to perform community service hours (i.e., National Honor Society, Peer Court). She commented that some of the kids stayed for years, literally growing up at the library. She described the youth volunteers as forming a bridge between the library today and the library tomorrow. • Marin Younker, Adult Services Librarian Ms. Younker presented a series of slides illustrating the different tasks performed by the youth volunteers. She mentioned the Homework Program held at the library in partnership with the Tigard-Tualatin School District. She said that middle school students could take the bus to the library to do their homework and receive tutorial assistance, often provided by high school students who received credit for tutoring and mentoring. She described the Teen Idea Group, a monthly meeting where teens provided her with input on programs and materials of interest to teens. • Sheryl Huiras, Youth Services Police Officer Officer Huiras described the Tigard Police DARE camp for fourth to eighth grade kids. She said that they recruited high school students to serve as counselors for the one-week camps. She noted that they initiated the program last year with one camp for 40 kids and expanded it this year to five camps for 250 kids. She presented slides showing the various positive activities presented at the camp as alternatives to drugs and gangs. She mentioned that most of the camp counselors from last year returned this year. She introduced four counselors in attendance. She commented that the high school students were both good leaders and good friends with the kids at the camp. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 5 . • • • Officer Huiras described the Peer Court program run solely by the students who played the roles of jury, court clerk, bailiff and attorneys. She commented that the opportunity to hear and try cases from the Police Department provided the kids with good leadership experiences and a chance to interact with first time offenders to show them that perhaps they were not making good choices. She presented slides of the Peer Court, noting in particular the prosecuting attorney, a 12 year old who has been involved in the program for a couple of years. She noted that, out of the 280 cases tried in Peer Court, only 2%reoffended. Councilor Scheckla asked several questions regarding the DARE camp. Officer Huiras said that they held the five camps at a Tigard elementary school with 40 kids per one-week session. She said that they just finished three camps of fourth and fifth graders and they were in the middle of a sixth to eighth grade camp now. She described the application process, both to participate in the camp and to serve as a counselor. She confirmed that the camps were open to all schools in the Tigard area, including private schools. She indicated that they provided snacks and lunches, T-shirts, and two field trips along with other activities. Mr. Monahan commented that the City was not the sole-source funding for the DARE program. Officer Huiras listed donations from the Rotary Club, the Kiwanis Club, many business owners, Liz Newton, and a variety of people from all over the City. She confirmed that the Ronald McDonald House gave them a$2,500 grant. She said that the cost of a week long camp ranged from $1,500 to $2,000. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the Peer Court was open to the public. He recommended attending it to watch the excellent job done by the kids. Officer Huiras recognized Councilor Patton as a Peer Court judge. Councilor Patton stated that she has been impressed by the program. • Diane Jelderks, Engineering Department Senior Administrative Specialist and CE2 Liaison Ms. Jelderks explained that "CE2"stood for"Community Education times 2." She said that it was based on the idea that it took two - the community and the school -to educate their children. She said that she has been the City's liaison to the program for the last five years, ever since she asked the City to participate in the program. Ms. Jelderks described how the program worked at City Hall. She said that the students selected a work site for 3 hours a day, four days a week, for four weeks. She described her interaction with the students on a one-on-one basis to find them work to do at City Hall. She indicated that, although most students performed clerical tasks, she had one who wanted to do manual labor and so she sent him out with the wastewater crew to dig a ditch down at Cook Park. She stated that, at the end of the four weeks, she gave the students a performance evaluation and wrote a letter of recommendation. She commented that most of the students have commented that they learned a lot about the City during their time here. Councilor Scheckla asked if Ms. Jelderks has sent any students to the Senior Center. Ms. Jelderks said that she has not used the Senior Center. She explained that the work the students did was part of their grade. She remarked that they included the CE2 program as part of the volunteer program because the students did accomplish a lot during their four-week assignment. She commented that occasionally the City has hired some of the students as part-time help. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 6 • • Bryon Terry, Eagle Scout,Troop 419,High School Senior Mr. Terry described the community service requirements in the Boy Scout program. He said that one out of every five people were Boy Scouts and one of 100 became Eagle Scouts. He stated that the Scouts participated actively in the community and were always available to help anyone. • Susan Koepping,Volunteer Coordinator Ms. Koepping observed that the volunteer program was not her project,it was everyone's project at the City. She cited the 28 City employees who worked directly with volunteers. She mentioned a variety of projects completed by youth volunteers, including: Eagle Scouts filling over 500 sandbags last winter; cleaning up the east end of Durham Street as part of the Adopt a Street program, helping decorate City Hall for the tree lighting ceremony, cleaning and painting fire hydrants, and providing clerical support to various City departments (during the summer for the most part). She spoke of the value of the youth volunteers to the City. She asked the youth volunteers present at the meeting to stand and be acknowledged. Councilor Hunt asked what expansion plans Ms. Koepping had in mind, as stated in her recommendations. Ms. Koepping said that she would make those plans after finishing the fire hydrant project. Mr. Monahan reported that the number of volunteer hours for the library and City Hall totaled 2,100 hours with half of those hours volunteered by youth. He pointed out that the youth hours were the equivalent of one full time employee in one month. Councilor Scheckla asked if they had equal gender distribution. Ms. Koepping commented that most of the Scouts they dealt with were Boy Scouts, although they have started their first Girl Scout program. She indicated that a number of girls helped with different kinds of things. Ms. Stormont stated that the library had a good gender balance in its youth volunteers. Councilor Scheckla commended staff for the excellent volunteer program. 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative) -;TEMPORARY SIGN-ORDINANCE-AMENDMENT 7 Ordinance amending Tigard Municipal Code sections 2.52.010 and 18.780.120(C) to declare signs in the public right-of-way as abandoned property and establish a retrieval fee for sign owners. a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Summation by Staff Matt Scheidegger, Code Enforcement Officer, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the temporary sign code program. He reviewed the Council's previous direction to staff at the March 16 and June 15 meetings. He mentioned the City Attorney's ruling that the Council could not make provisions specifically for political signs, as the sign code had to be content neutral. He reported that staff presented the revised ordinance to the Planning Commission on July 19; several people expressed concerns with seasonal signs in the public right-of-way. He reiterated that the sign code must be content neutral, and the Council could not specifically legislate with regard to seasonal signs. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 7 • S Mr. Scheidegger stated that temporary signs included A-boards,banners, lawn signs and tenant signs. He reviewed the provisions of the temporary sign ordinance. He stated that the Code allowed signs on private property only and prohibited signs in the public right-of-way(unless the owner obtained a 30-day temporary sign permit). He presented slides illustrating various illegal signs. Councilor Patton asked if the City issued temporary sign permits for business/commercial but not for residential. Mr. Scheidegger said that single family residential could get a temp sign permit for an A-board. He explained that the restriction on signs in single family residential neighborhoods was intended to prevent cluttering up the neighborhoods and masking visual clearance at intersection corners. He pointed out that the Code allowed small signs for home occupations only if they were located on the dwelling itself. Mr. Hendryx commented that the home businesses in residential zones were so small that they did not impact the character of the. neighborhood. Mr. Scheidegger confirmed to Councilor Patton that the Code did allow lawn signs in single family zones, such as garage sale signs on private property. Councilor Hunt asked why the ordinance indicated that the Police Department would hold the signs, instead of maintaining the current practice of the Public Works Department holding the signs. Mr. Scheidegger said that the procedure would not change; the Public Works Department would still hold the signs. Mr. Monahan explained that staff recatagorized illegal temporary signs as "abandoned personal property" in order to make use of the existing process (used by the police under the abandoned personal property ordinance), as opposed to developing a new process to handle the signs. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Director, asked for Council discussion of an appropriate fee for the retrieval policy. He commented that they would not recover 100%of the costs of the program because most people did not retrieve their signs. Councilor Patton noted Councilor Hunt's suggestion at an earlier meeting to educate first time offenders with regard to the process as opposed to charging them a fee. Mr. Bewersdorff said that the Council could do that through a resolution. Councilor Patton discussed the need for the City to do a better job of educating the public on the legal placement of signs and the location of the public right-of-way. She pointed out that many people believed that the area in front of their homes was part of their personal property, not public right-of-way. Councilor Patton spoke to the need for the City to be consistent with its application of the ordinance in order to avoid the appearance of partiality. She held that consistent application and enforcement would require more staff time and resources than currently used. Mr. Bewersdorff explained that most of Mr. Scheidegger's work was one on one education with the sign owners on where to place their signs appropriately. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 8 • • d. Public Testimony • Bev Froude, 12300 SW Bull Mountain Road Ms. Froude asked the Council to hold off on acting on this ordinance until the CIT had a chance to discuss it this fall. She held that there has not been sufficient public involvement in this issue. She argued that the public should drive this issue because of the importance of signs to people. She suggested that the Council form a Task Force of the stakeholders to address the issue of temporary signs. She commented that the general public might not even know what the right-of-way was, much less where it was located. e. Staff Recommendation • Mr. Bewersdorff recommended adoption of the ordinance as written. He pointed out that the ordinance did not mandate picking up new illegal signs; rather it tried to make the mechanism for picking up the signs (that have been illegal since the adoption of the sign code in 1984)work better. f. Council Questions Councilor Scheckla asked if the seasonal farm market signs were grandfathered in. Mr. Bewersdorff mentioned that some of the seasonal signs were in the State right-of-way(which did not allow them either). He said that the only way to allow seasonal signs was through selective enforcement, a policy that he did not like. He mentioned the issues of content neutrality, fairness, and interference with vision clearance and movement in the public right-of- way. Councilor Scheckla commented that the Saturday Farmers Market placed signs in the right-of- way on Hall Blvd and Greenburg/Olson. He questioned allowing these signs on the weekend while penalizing those who put them up during the week. Mr. Bewersdorff indicated that it was difficult to deal with that issue unless they had staff available to work weekends. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that occasionally Mr. Scheidegger has worked on Saturdays to work the temporary sign problem. Councilor Hunt asked if this ordinance would affect the farmers who put seasonal signs on their private property. Mr. Bewersdorff indicated that it would not. He confirmed to Councilor Moore that the farmers could get temporary permits for signs at $30 per sign for 30 days. He explained to Councilor Patton that single family residential did not need permits, according to the way the Code was written. Councilor Moore pointed out that this was a difficult decision because the variety of different situations clashed with the need for consistency. He spoke to maintaining consistency, even if they had to penalize a few people in order to keep the public right-of-way clear of sign.clutter. He held that people could ask private property owners for permission to put signs on their property. He mentioned his irritation at the unsightly residue left on street light poles by the duct tape used to tape up signs. Councilor Hunt commented that he had pushed for this temporary sign ordinance because the City had not been enforcing the existing ordinance. He suggested either taking the ordinance off the books completely or enforcing it. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 9 • Mayor Nicoli said that he was not that concerned with the outcome of this particular ordinance. He concurred with Ms. Froude's comments that they needed to involve more people in understanding the sign ordinance. He asked, if they passed the ordinance, to commit part of their monthly newsletter to training the public and businesses specifically about temporary signs. g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99-21 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance No. 99-21. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-21, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO AMEND TIGARD MUNCIPAL CODE SECTIONS 2.52 AND 18.780.120(C). Motion failed by a majority roll call vote of the Councilors present. (Councilors Hunt and Moore voted"yes"; Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton and Scheckla voted"no.") [2-3] Mayor Nicoli said that they would put this back on the agenda for discussion at a later date. 6. PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative) - BUILDING FEES INCREASE Adopt a new fee schedule for permits issued under the Oregon Structural Specialty Code a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Summation by Staff Mr. Hendryx mentioned that the Building Code-related fee increases were appealed to the Oregon Building Codes Division. He stated that the Division upheld the fee increases but denied the Oregon Structural Specialty Code fee increase. He said that tonight staff proposed a 51% increase for the Oregon Structural Specialty Code for this year with the remainder of the 89% total increase proposed for next year. Mr. Hendryx indicated that the study that the Council wanted staff to conduct on the costs of a department would be completed over the course of the year for the remaining part of the fee increase. He recognized Bob Poskin, Plans Examiner, who has done an outstanding job on pulling the study together. d. Public Testimony: None. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx recommended adoption. f. Council Questions g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 -PAGE 10 • • h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99-60 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution 99-60. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION 99-60, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BUILDING PERMIT FEES PURSUANT TO OREGON STRUCTURAL SPECIALTY CODE SECTION 107 AS AMENDED UNDER ORS 455.020. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted"yes.") [5-0] 7. PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative) - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS The City of Tigard proposes to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 to clarify existing code language relating to Final Decisions, Effective Dates, Appeal Requirements, Development Conformance, Standards Applicability, and Dedication and Improvements Requirements. a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None. c. Summation by Staff Mr. Bewersdorff stated that staff has worked with the City Attorney's office to clarify Development Code provisions dealing with a variety of issues. He said that the amendments took off from the Director's interpretation adopted by Council on July 13. He indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval on July 19. d. Public Testimony: None e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Bewersdorff recommended approval. f. Council Questions g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99-22 Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance No. 99- 22. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 11 • • The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-22, A ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA 1999-02) TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 18.340.020(g), 18.390.040(f), 18.390.040(g)(2)(c), 18.390.040(h), 18.390.050(g), 18.390.080(a)(1)(d), 18.620.010(b), 18.810.020(a), 18.810.020(e), 18.810.030(a), 18.810.070(a), 18.810.080(a), AND 18.810.110(a) AND (b) TO BETTER DEFINE FINAL DECISIONS, EFFECTIVE DATES, APPEAL REQUIREMENTS, DEVELOPMENT CONFORMANCE, STANDARDS APPLICABILITY, AND DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENTS REQUIREMENTS. Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted"yes.") [5-0] 8. CITY/METRO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF METRO-OWNED GREENSPACE PROPERTY Mr. Hendryx stated that Metro purchased a six-acre piece of property adjacent to Woodard Park as part of the Metro Greenspaces program. He said that, in the two years since then, City staff worked with the neighbors to develop a master plan for Woodard Park and the Metro property as part of the City's Parks Master Plan update. He noted that the Council adopted the updated Parks Master Plan this year. Mr. Hendryx stated that the IGA allowed the City to implement the Woodard Park expansion. He reviewed the elements of the master plan that used the Metro Greenspace land for the park expansion. He explained that the IGA was for a 20-year period with additional 10 year periods renewed by mutual consent. He pointed out that the lengthy contract period provided the City with the assurance that they would use their improvements installed on the Metro property as a community resource for a long time. Mr. Hendryx presented a series of slides illustrating the park elements and surrounding neighborhoods of Woodard Park. He stated that the IGA did not include the house on the Metro property but it did include the red barn. He mentioned discussions of using the red barn for • shelter or an activity center. He recommended approval. Councilor Hunt asked to remove the designation of an individual's name from page 6 of the IGA. He said that he preferred using a title only—Community Development Director as opposed to Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to authorize the Mayor to sign the intergovernmental agreement with the correction of the deletion of the individual names. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted"yes.") [5-0] 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None. 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS • Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 9:02 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 -PAGE 12 • • • Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:07 p.m. 11. STUDY SESSION • Mr. Monahan asked if the Councilors had any suggestions for changes to the Council groundrules. Hearing none, he said that he would bring the rules_back again next July. • Mr. Monahan reported that he received a call from School Superintendent Russ Joki asking if the Mayor wanted to appoint a Councilor to sit on the School District's new Bond Measure Study Committee, starting in September. He said that Mr. Joki indicated that they would extend this opportunity to all the jurisdictions in their district. The Council discussed the request. Councilor Moore volunteered to be the Council representative with Mayor Nicoli volunteering as the alternate. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:10 p.m. rlk 60 Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder 4 14.,„ � r, City of Tigard Date: q66)/�-4 I:\ADM\CATHY\CCM\990810.DOC CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 13 7-019 611,1 • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • Ordinance failed. ORDINANCE NO. 9941 _ 2-3; Hunt'.&. Moore - "Yes' Nicoli, Patton & Scheckla - 'No' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 2.52, AND 18.780.120(C). • WHEREAS, the Ci of Tigard wishes to abate potential hazards to pedestrian and traffic safety due to the placement of unpermi•,-• signs within the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City of ' igard Municipal Code contains provisions which prohibit certain signs to be placed within the public righ•-of-way; and WHEREAS, greater enforceme of this prohibition will be available by declaring unpermitted signs in the right-of-way to be abandoned pro.-rty as provided by the following amendments to the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY OF '.GARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Tigard Municipal Code ection 2.52.010 is amended as follows: Custody of Property Whenever any personal property q ther than a motor vehicle is taken into the custody of any department of the city by reas. of its having been abandoned, found seized, or for any other reason, the personal prop- shall be turned over to and held by the police department at the expense and risk of ' - owner or person lawfully entitled to possession of it. Abandoned personal property inclu.es temporary signs located within the right-of- ' way prohibited by Section 18.780.070(K). SECTION 2: Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.780.120(C) . amended by adding subsection 4 to read as follows: 4. Signs in the right-of-way, prohibited under Section 1:.780.070(K), are declared to be abandoned property and shall be removed from the righ of-way pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 2.52. Pursuant to TMC 2.52.020, prior to re' rn of the sign to the owner., the owner shall pay the charges and expenses incurred by he City in enforcing this section. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Co i,cil, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No. 99-2-I Page 1 PASSED: By vote of all Council members presenT after being read by number and title only,this day of , 1999. Catherine Wheatley,City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigar• City Council this day of , 1999. James Nicoli,Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney • Date is\citywide\ordinanc.dot • ORDINANCE No. 99-21 Page2 • • • Agenda Item No. 3 Meeting of D I qG • TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 15, 1999 > STUDY SESSION • Bill Monahan, City Manager, informed the Council that Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue was interested in hosting another meeting with the Council. The Council discussed the request and directed staff to convey their interest in a dinner meeting at TVF&R's new offices. • Atfalati Recreation District Mr. Monahan updated the Council on the Atfalati recreation district discussion. He reported that when Tualatin declined to participate the consultant revised the project with a total cost now of$66,200. He noted that Tigard has agreed to participate with $15,000 and Washington County with$25,000. He said that the Sherwood School District,the Tigard-Tualatin School District and Sherwood all would participate while Durham residents, rather than the City, would probably contribute their$700 share. He indicated that Atfalati would contribute the remaining $11,000. Mr. Monahan stated that Linda Davis was the lead principal on this project for the consulting firm, Cogen Owens Cogen. He explained that Tigard would be the lead agency handling the contract. He noted that the County would give their$25,000 to Tigard through an intergovernmental agreement. He suggested that the City use IGAs for the other governmental entities in order to allow Tigard to handle the money and to process the bills. He pointed out that Atfalati was not a governmental entity. Councilor Scheckla asked if staff would set up a deadline date for participation. Mr. Monahan explained that doing so was not necessary because Tigard had $51,000 available from itself, the County, and Atfalati to get the consultants started. He noted that Dave Nicoli informed him that he had commitments from the other partners. He said that he would send letters and the IGA to the other groups to start that process. Mr. Monahan suggested informing the partners that Tigard expected to receive the money by July 30. • Mr. Monahan advised the Council that the City of Beaverton has accepted Mary Wells nto the their mediation training program. • Community Resource Center Mr. Monahan advised the Council that the Mayor received a letter today requesting funding for the Community Resource`Center(formerly the Rite Center) in the amount of$10,000 to $15,000 for next year, instead of the $8,200 set aside by the Budget Committee in the social services budget. Mayor Nicoli advised the Council that there were unresolved issues between the new local group (headed by Wes Taylor) and the County Community Action. He suggested waiting to see if these two groups could work out these issues before the City decided where to send its money. Councilor Moore commented that they could also discuss at that time whether or not to increase the allocated funding amount of$8,200. Mayor Nicoli stated that he would try to talk with Mr. Taylor before the meeting next week. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 - PAGE 1 • • • City of Happy Valley letter Mr. Monahan advised the Council that the Mayor received a letter from the City of Happy Valley regarding a proposal from an out-of-state company to get tax exempt bonds in order to purchase two apartment complexes, one in Portland and one in Tigard. He explained that several months ago he received a phone call from the same company with the same proposal. He reviewed his concerns with a proposal to purchase the Tiffany Court Apartments with the expectation that $100,000 worth of improvements would be sufficient to bring it up to Code. He said that he and Wayne Lowry decided that this was a transaction that the City did not need to get involved in, particularly since $100,000 would not "scratch the surface" of what was needed to bring those apartments up to Code. Mr. Monahan explained that the Happy Valley City Manager told the salesman to prepare the paperwork for his review. He read the letter sent to the Mayor for his signature indicating Tigard's support of the financing, noting that the Mayor would not be signing the letter. He said that he suggested that the Happy Valley City Manager come look at the property if they were interested in purchasing it. • Fourth of July Celebration/Tigard Country Daze Mayor Nicoli suggested that the Council split the increase allocated by the Budget Committee for next year's Fourth of July Celebration and give half to the event committee for this year's celebration and half for next year's celebration. The Council agreed with the Mayor's suggestion. Councilor Scheckla suggested reallocating some of the money slated for the Country Daze parade to the Fourth of July. Councilor Moore pointed out that that the Budget Committee already did that. Mr. Monahan mentioned that the non-profit originally set up to sponsor the Country Daze event needed to vote to put the $2,500 remaining in the Country Daze account towards this year's program. Mayor Nicoli directed staff to help this year's Country Daze volunteers work through the process in order to access that money. Councilor Hunt asked if this year's volunteers liked the different parade route suggested by Council. Mr. Monahan said that Ms. Crone liked being off Pacific Highway. He mentioned a parade route starting across from Magno Humphries, going down to Main Street, running the length of Main Street, and ending at the Rite Aid store. • Mr. Monahan mentioned the proposal from the citizen members of the Budget Committee to increase the Council compensation. He discussed possible concerns with implementing the recommendation. Councilor Scheckla suggested that the seated Councilors not receive any benefit from a salary increase until their terms were up. Councilor Hunt disagreed with paying different Councilors different rates. The Council discussed how the City increased Council compensation the last time. Mr. Monahan said that he would discuss the issue with the City Attorney. 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current &pending litigation issues. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 - PAGE 2 • • • Mayor Nicoli recessed the Executive Session at 7:50 p.m. 2. WORKSHOP MEETING • Call to Order Mayor Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:52 p.m. • Roll Call Council Present:Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; City Engineer Gus Duenas; Administrative Risk Analyst Loreen Mills; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley • Council Communications Mayor Nicoli advised the Council that the Washington County Coordinating Committee heard a presentation from the Federal government and the Unified Sewage Agency regarding the impacts of the Endangered Species Act regulations on local jurisdictions. He mentioned his surprise at how heavily these regulations would impact Tigard's maintenance of its streets and drainage areas. He explained that the Washington County cities all wanted USA to be the lead agency in developing the compliance plan for the Tualatin River drainage basin. He explained that, although Metro has asked to be the regional leader, USA already managed surface water runoff in the Tualatin River basin and has successfully worked on reversing the pollution in the basin. Mayor Nicoli said that USA has set aside $100,000 to start studying a process on how to deal with the Endangered Species Act. He noted that it involved working with several State and Federal government agencies as well as the local jurisdictions. He stated that the desire was to give a more in-depth presentation to the Mayors and the City Managers who would in turn report to their Councils. He mentioned that Washington County would likely take the lead in developing the compliance plan. Mayor Nicoli spoke to Tigard hosting a meeting of the mayors to discuss this issue and a few others of county-wide concern. He mentioned that all the mayors were taken aback at the extent of the impacts of the Endangered Species Act. Tim Ramis, City Attorney, commented that USA or the County would have a real opportunity to take leadership in the event that Metro's strategy of adopting Title 3 did not work(adopted to avoid more stringent regulations from the National Marine Fisheries), and the Federal government imposed more restrictive regulations. Mayor Nicoli mentioned discussion among the Mayors of the cities collectively raising another $100,000 as part of taking a proactive approach to deal with this issue themselves instead of waiting for the Federal government to tell them how to handle it. Councilor Patton commented that the regulating agencies would like the affected agencies to develop their own proactive plans. Mayor Nicoli stated that the Federal government representative was very clear that they did not have all the answers to implementing this Federal law. He observed that the people first to the table would probably get the most flexible plan. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 - PAGE 3 • . • Councilor Scheckla asked when the Federal law took effect. Mayor Nicoli said that the Federal representative told them that the Federal law kicked in as soon as they put a certain type of fish on the endangered species list. Mr. Ramis said that the listing was about three months ago. ,Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, mentioned the USA briefing to the full Council on the Endangered Species Act, scheduled for the July 20 meeting. • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 3. DISCUSSION: WATER OPTIONS • There was no discussion at this time. 4. DISCUSSION: PUBLIC, EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT (PEG) ACCESS FRANCHISE FEE SUPPORT • Ms. Newton reviewed the five items on PEG access which the Council reached consensus on at its May 11 meeting. She mentioned the Council's support of the baseline amount proposed by TVCA and the Council's suggestion to invite other cable access providers to submit proposals for service. She noted the Council's agreement that TVCA should not assume large portions of the incidental payment and capital grant dollars to fund their operation and that TVCA should reconsider its proposal to purchase a building. She mentioned the Council's support of a franchise fee support level of 15%to 17.5%. Ms. Newton reported that, at its May 19 meeting, the MACC Board agreed to forward a recommendation to its member jurisdictions to support a minimum level of funding of 15% (preferably 17%). She mentioned that the Board encouraged the jurisdictions to provide a higher level of support if they so desired. She explained how the MACC staff proposed reconfiguring the percentage splits of the franchise fee to allocate 17%to TVCA and 58%to the cities. She mentioned that the other member jurisdictions did not support going out to other access providers, as suggested by Tigard. She said that the Board postponed the discussion of TVCA's funding assumptions to a later date. Ms. Newton reported that at the June 9 MACC meeting, the City of Wilsonville withdrew from • MACCand would administer their cable contract on their own. She said that Wilsonville intended to contract with TVCA for PEG access services. She reviewed the Board's discussion of the budget for the next two years, mentioning that the Board decided to allocate all of the incidental payment to TVCA in $75,000 increments. She said that the other jurisdictions did not support her suggestion to put the money in the budget unallocated and review what other needs might exist before allocating the money. She mentioned that the Board postponed a discussion of the building until later also. Ms. Newton mentioned that Councilor Scheckla recommended the 15% funding level because they still lacked performance measures for TVCA. She explained that the Council could change the level of its support every year in January, following appropriate notice to MACC. She reviewed the Council's choices this evening: 15% fee support, 17% fee support or another level of support. At Councilor Scheckla's request, Ms. Newton reviewed the situation with Lake Oswego. She said that Councilor Bob Chizum attended in place of Mayor Bill Klammer. She explained that, prior to the May 19 meeting, the Board had discussed letting the cities decide how much they wanted to contribute. The Lake Oswego City Council had come to consensus on contributing CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 - PAGE 4 • • • 12%, and Councilor Chizum came to the meeting expecting to receive the option of 12%. Instead, the Board came up with a resolution recommending a minimum of 15%. She noted that Mayor Klammer intended to discuss the 15% level with his Council on July 20. Councilor Scheckla recommended going with 15%, as Lake Oswego probably would. He pointed out that if TVCA met and exceeded their performance guidelines, then the City could renegotiate the level of its support. Councilor Moore asked what levels other jurisdictions supported. Ms.Newton said that Washington County has voted in 17%. She indicated that the Hillsboro Budget Committee recommended 19%to its Council but the Council has not taken any action yet. She said that Councilor Evelyn Brezinski would ask for 19% from the Beaverton City Council. Mayor Nicoli spoke in support of 17%to match the County. Councilor Scheckla reiterated his support of 15% until they found out what the performance measures were. Councilor Moore supported 15%, as that gave MACC six months until January to develop performance measures. Councilor Patton supported starting out at the 15% level, as did Councilor Hunt. The Council agreed by consensus to revisit this issue in January to consider adjusting the percentage level. 5. UPDATE: CITY'S Y2K READINESS EFFORTS Loreen Mills, Administrative Risk Analyst, reported that the staff Task Force on Y2K issues has been working to identify potential problem areas, including equipment, traffic signals, and service providers. She stated that the City was prepared to respond to any emergency on January 1, whether it was due to a storm or to Y2K glitches. She mentioned a practice emergency management response event on September 8, 1999. Ms. Mills advised the Council that the City's essential services and systems would be ready for Y2K. She reviewed the five areas of potential problems remaining. She mentioned working with the local post office to address problems (since the National Post Office Service would not be Y2K ready until 2002). She said that staff had yet to get written contracts to confirm the verbal agreements made with substitute service providers, in the event that the regular service provider failed. She noted that they have not yet received confirmation from GTE on what services it would provide. Ms. Mills discussed the problem of no back-up generator for the building housing the brain for the city-wide local area computer network. She indicated that they hoped to have this resolved by mid-October. She said that, due to lack of information from the City of Portland, they could not say with confidence that there was no problem with the water supply. She mentioned that many agencies have stated that they would provide detailed reports on July 1. Ms. Mills mentioned the concern that TCI might not provide Y2K ready broadband support in its cable system. Since the City accessed the Internet and the WILLINET system via broadband support, staff was concerned and working to resolve the issue. Ms. Mills reviewed the information available from the City regarding Y2K compliance. She mentioned the City website and emergency home preparation brochures available at the library, at community events, and at CIT meetings. She commented that preparation for disaster was a wise precaution, whether the cause was Y2K or a natural disaster. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 - PAGE 5 • • Ms. Mills noted the $116,000 allocated in next year's budget for Y2K compliance. Councilor Hunt asked if that money included a generator. Ms. Mills said that it did not. The Council discussed generators. Ms. Newton pointed out that the staff was looking at what their options were to preserve the service for the least amount of money. Mr. Ramis mentioned discussions between his office and City staff with regard to Y2K liability issues. He emphasized that the Council was not responsible to be Y2K perfect. He explained that the decision of how many resources to put into making the City Y2K ready was a policy decision. He indicated that policy decisions were not subject to second guessing by a court. He said that the City's first line of defense was keeping this as a policy decision and not independently establishing a higher level of responsibility for the City. 6. UPDATE: CITY'S COMPLIANCE FOR CITY BUILDINGS - AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Ms. Mills stated that it was time to update the City's ADA assessment(adopted on January 26, 1993) . She mentioned the City's proactive work in keeping its buildings, facilities, programs and services accessible. She pointed out that the ADA regulations did not mandate that a City had to be in compliance by a certain date, rather it was the City's prerogative to determine what the priority was in its transition plan. Ms. Mills directed attention to the transition plan in the packet which included areas needing modifications, the responsible party, the anticipated completion date, and cost estimates. She reviewed the balancing act required when the requirements of another regulating code, such as the Fire Life & Safety Code or the Uniform Building Code, conflicted with the requirements of the ADA regulations. She said that staff would implement the Federal ADA requirements with possible modifications based on the other codes. Ms. Mills pointed out that the formal transition plan included a written philosophy on how ADA improvements would be made in the City parks. She mentioned that the City has not done a major retrofit of all the curbs in the City because the standard has been changing since the ADA was first adopted. She stated that staff dealt with complaints on a case by case basis and did what was necessary to resolve the situation for the person needing access. • Ms. Mills said that the Council would formally recognize the ADA compliance plan on the consent agenda next week. She mentioned that copies were available at the library. Councilor Hunt asked what constituted a renovation, citing the Niche in particular. He noted that the building itself was only worth$50,000. Ms. Mills said that the definition of"major renovation" came out of the Uniform Building Code. She explained that the Council had the right and the authority to decide what its policy was for the building. If the Council decided that the building was not worth the investment of an elevator, then it could chose to bring the services down to the citizens who could not reach the second floor. Councilor Scheckla asked if the City has received many complaints regarding ADA access in the City. Ms. Mills said that no complaints have reached the level of the ADA grievance officer (herself) because staff has always been able to resolve the situation internally and provide the requested service. She commented that they rarely received complaints anyway because the City had fairly new buildings. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 - PAGE 6 • • • Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 8:43 p.m. • Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting. 7. DISCUSSION: PROPOSED TEMPORARY SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS Mr. Monahan confirmed to Councilor Hunt that the resolution reflected the changes made orally by the Council at the last meeting. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reviewed the Council's previous direction to staff regarding the issue of temporary signs. He mentioned looking into recouping the costs of the removal and retrieval of illegal signs, and allowing political signs in the public right-of- . way during a campaign. He advised the Council that,because of the issue of content-neutral sign regulations, if the Council decided to allow political signs in the public right-of-way during campaigns, then the City had to allow any temporary sign in the public right-of-way for the same time period. Matt Scheidegger, Code Enforcement Officer, gave a Power Point presentation using slides to illustrate the types of signs illegally posted in the City. He also reviewed which temporary signs were legally posted according to the sign code. He mentioned the City's 30 day permit for temporary signs ($30 fee and renewable two times). He said that he spent a lot of time talking to sign owners and trying to explain the regulations. Mr. Monahan commented that the staff did not rigorously enforce the temporary sign regulations on the weekends when most real estate and garage sale activity occurred. He said that if the people did not take down their own signs by Monday or Tuesday, then City staff took them down. • Mr. Hendryx reiterated that the issue before the Council tonight was to give staff direction with regard to penalties for illegally posted signs, and whether or not to allow signs in the public right-of-way during political campaigns. He emphasized that if the Council allowed political signs to remain in the public right-of-way, then it had to allow all signs to remain in the public right-of-way. Councilor Hunt mentioned that he was still against allowing signs in the public right-of-way. Mayor Nicoli described the Council's previous direction as being that staff should not aggressively enforce the restriction against signs in the public right-of-way during political races but return to strict enforcement when the election was over. Mr. Hendryx concurred. Councilor Scheckla raised a concern about legal signs that obscured the line of sight at intersections, citing the one at Gaarde and 110th Avenue in particular. Mr. Hendryx agreed that no sign should intrude on the vision clearance area at an intersection. Councilor Patton asked if the residential property owner(in front of whose property someone put a sign in the public right-of-way during a campaign) had any say about.the sign. Mr. Hendryx said that the property owners could remove the signs themselves but the City would not be regulating those, if these changes were adopted. Councilor Scheckla mentioned a potential problem of litigation between the property owner and the sign owner. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 - PAGE 7 • • Mayor Nicoli asked what the time frame was for allowing these signs to remain posted. Mr. Hendryx said that it was seven days before and after the election date. He commented that mail- in elections were more complicated. The Council discussed how long to allow the signs to remain in the public right-of-way for mail-in elections. Mr. Monahan pointed out that allowing a five-week period for each of six election days a year totaled 30 weeks out of 52 weeks in a year. The Council discussed whether or not to allow temporary signs in the public right-of-way at any time. They agreed by consensus not to allow any temporary signs in the public right-of-way at any time. Councilor Moore commented that the next step was to outlaw all temporary signs. Staff indicated that the Council could do that. Mayor Nicoli did not support the idea. Councilor Moore asked what other cities did about temporary signs. Mr. Hendryx said that Lake Oswego had a permit process. Mr. Hendryx asked for direction with regard to the penalty issue. Mr. Scheidegger supported assessing a retrieval fee for signs that he removed from the public right-of-way. He mentioned that Lake Oswego had a$20-per-sign fee. Mr. Ramis pointed out that Section 3 of the proposal allowed the City to set a charge for sign retrieval. Mr. Monahan noted that the City could distribute information at the time someone came in to pick up his/her sign as a way to try to reduce the number of repeat offenders. Councilor Patton suggested providing political candidates with better, clearer information on where signs could be posted. She supported assessing a fine against those who understood the rules and posted signs illegally anyway. Councilor Hunt suggested waiving the fine the first time someone picked up his/her sign and providing the offender with appropriate information. Councilor Moore suggested sending out a flyer with the City business licenses explaining the program. Mr. Monahan suggested holding an open house for political candidates and their supporters six weeks before an election in order to provide them with information regarding the placement of signs. 8. DISCUSSION: (CARRIED OVER FROM THE 6/8/99 COUNCIL MEETING) WITH JIM CORLISS CONCERNING TIGARD TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Mr. Hendryx presented slides of projects in Tigard with separated sidewalks, with curb-tight sidewalks, and with meandering sidewalks. He said that there was latitude within the Triangle standards to allow for some meandering of sidewalks. He listed 10 projects approved in the Triangle with separated sidewalks. He commented that they were in a transition period between the old standards and the new ones. Councilor Hunt stated that in his opinion, one of the most attractive landscapes in the City was the PacWest project with its meandering sidewalks. He commented that he would not like to see the City prohibit people from creating an attractive area because of a strict interpretation of the regulations. Gus Duenas, City Engineer, mentioned that undergrounding of utilities was another major concern related to the sidewalk issue. He said that they needed the full 12 feet to accommodate all the sidewalk utilities and the plantings. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 - PAGE 8 • • Jim Corliss presented.a video of the sidewalks in the area of Dartmouth, SW 68th, SW 69"', and Franklin. He pointed out the area on his property where he had an issue with regard to the cut. He reiterated that he would like to see the sidewalk on the streetside. He noted the examples of parking strips with barkdust and trees that were not well maintained and became eyesores. He held that most of the separated sidewalks in the Triangle would look unsightly without a City plan to force the property owners to maintain them. Mr. Corliss said that, from aesthetics and functional standpoints, he would like to see a curbside sidewalk. He supported dropping the standard completely from the Triangle guidelines in order to allow flexibility in the design. • Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on whether this discussion would focus on the standard within the context of the entire Triangle or on a request by a single property owner to deal with . the sidewalk in front of his property. Mr. Corliss supported discussing his request tonight and the whole standard at a later date. Mr. Monahan pointed out that Mr. Corliss did not have a land use application. If the Council agreed to vary Mr. Corliss' sidewalk treatment from the standard, it was in effect giving direction for a possible variance. He suggested discussing the origins and purpose of the standard with possible direction to staff to initiate a review of the entire standard. Mayor Nicoli noted that Mr. Corliss' property was involved in an LID(which was not a land use action). He said that the Council had the authority to direct staff to move the sidewalk or to not put the sidewalk in at this time (requiring Mr. Corliss to bond for its installation). Mr. Monahan stated that staff was obligated to follow the standard adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Nicoli stated that if a block was already three-quarters built out with curb-tight sidewalks, then he supported completing the block with curb-tight sidewalks in order to maintain consistency within the block. He indicated that the blocks could differ from one another. He spoke to giving design professionals and property owners the flexibility needed to do creative and attractive sidewalk designs instead of imposing a tight standard. Councilor Scheckla spoke to having flexibility while maintaining the goal of attractive development in the Triangle. He asked if the Council could deal with this project while looking to the future to alleviate potential problems. Mr..Duenas stated that, although he did not care whether or not the sidewalks were curb-tight, he was concerned at starting out a contract with a change order. He stated that doing so could leave the City open to additional costs. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff could discuss greater flexibility in the standards at a later date but he would want a very clear idea from the Council on what that flexibility was. He commented that the standards allowed for common sense flexibility. Councilor Patton noted that she did not participate in the Tigard Triangle standards. She said that from what she has heard at the past Council meetings, she could see that perhaps the standards were too restrictive, given the potential development in the Triangle. She supported revisiting the standard to create more flexibility and to give designers more ability to find creative ways to do things. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 -PAGE 9 • Councilor Patton said, with regard to Mr. Corliss' request, she supported a single look for each block for reasons of consistency. She spoke to moving forward with the LID, dealing with Mr. Corliss' request now, and discussing modification of the standard at a later date. Councilor Hunt spoke in support of modifying the standards as long as they were the same for everyone. He said that he did not support allowing a standard for Mr. Corliss that was different from everyone else. Councilor Moore stated that he was still not in favor of parking strips, citing the lack of maintenance mentioned by Mr. Corliss. He spoke to going back through the process to change the standards by the book. He remarked that he thought that staff, the consulting engineer, the contractor, and Mr. Corliss could work out the issues with Mr. Corliss' property under the current standards. He referenced the existing situation on the block. Councilor Moore said that he supported revising the Tigard Triangle Plan because there were situations that did not fit the plan 100%. He spoke to allowing the flexibility to make adjustments in those situations on a case-by-case basis out in the field (especially for land already partially developed with pre-existing conditions). He disagreed with using Mr. Corliss' situation to set a precedent for curb-tight sidewalks simply because another property owner in the future wanted curb-tight sidewalks. He emphasized that these choices should be made on a case-by-case basis. He said that otherwise they should follow the Triangle plan. Councilor Moore stated that he had no problem with asking Mr. Corliss to set aside money to put in the curbs after the Council went through the process to change the standard. Mayor Nicoli spoke to eliminating the sidewalk from the LID totally and reducing the bond amount. Mayor Nicoli summarized the discussion as all Councilors were in favor of revisiting the standard to create more flexibility in it. He mentioned two options for Mr. Corliss' situation: ask Mr. DeHaas, the LID engineer, to resolve the problem or remove the sidewalk from the LID and ask Mr. Corliss to bond the completion of the sidewalk within six months of the change to the standard. Councilor Moore mentioned his concern with the placement of the underground utilities without the sidewalk. Mr. Corliss pointed out that it would cost more to put in the sidewalk later. He confirmed to Mayor Nicoli that he was only one of the property owners on his side of the street, and that he was not making this request for any of his neighbors. Mr. Duenas said that staff had Mr. DeHaas look at this situation. He said that one option was to avoid the cuts and fills entirely by building a keystone wall at the sections with two feet of cut or fill. He said that the other option was to get a slope easement, adjust the fences, and do some relandscaping on the top. He indicated that the slope easement option was cheaper but the keystone wall option could avoid the problem entirely. Mr. Corliss stated that the retaining wall cost $10,000. He said that if they moved the sidewalk streetside, they would like it better and find it less expensive. He said that of the two options, the option of the keystone wall was best. He stated that he did not want to give a slope easement. He mentioned another issue of staff asking him for additional land for the handicapped access at the two corners, land that he did not want to give. Councilor Moore declared that he talked with Mr. DeHaas on another issue and this situation came up in the conversation. He mentioned a safety issue of street lighting set behind the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 -PAGE 10 • • sidewalk and not reaching the street itself. He reported Mr. DeHaas' concern with regard to the placement of utility vaults and conduits. He indicated that PGE has put them beneath sidewalks before in the City of Tigard. Mr. Duenas mentioned that street trees were a problem area if located near the curb. If they moved them back, then they might have some flexibility. Mayor Nicoli asked if staff had sufficient direction to work something out with Mr. DeHaas and Mr. Corliss. Mr. Duenas mentioned a meeting between staff, Mr. DeHaas, and Mr. Corliss yesterday to discuss various issues. He said that the wall made sense to him, if Mr. Corliss did not want the landscaping disturbed on the top. He.indicated that the City would take what land it needed for the handicapped corners. Mr. Corliss disagreed that the City needed the additional land if it installed curb-tight sidewalks. Councilor Moore suggested a design to solve the problem at the corner. Mr. Duenas said that they could implement the Councilor's suggestion. Mr. Duenas supported installing the keystone wall but leaving the sidewalks where they were at the back. Mayor Nicoli noted that Mr. Corliss has asked to move the sidewalks forward, thus. eliminating the need for the keystone wall. Councilor Moore reiterated his concerns with locating the utilities. Councilor Scheckla mentioned his concern that Mr. Corliss be compensated for any property taken by the City.. The Council agreed that Mr. Corliss would be compensated fairly, in the event that the City needed the sliver of land for the corners. Mr. Corliss clarified that his proposal would require some keystone work but considerably less than Mr. Duenas' proposal. Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Duenas what his objections were to moving the sidewalk forward, other than the adopted standards. Mr. Duenas said that his main objection was that changing the ' design after the bid left the City open to more expensive costs. He said that staff has not discussed this with the contractor yet. He noted Mr. DeHaas' concern with the utilities also. Councilor Hunt supported staff contacting the contractor to discuss costs and potential problems. Mayor Nicoli concurred but supported pulling the sidewalk out of the design entirely. He said that if Mr. DeHaas reported that unreasonably high costs were needed to make this work, then the issue was back on the table. Councilor Hunt asked if they had two to three weeks within the time frame of the LID project. He acknowledged the desire to get the LID done as soon as possible. Mr. Corliss said that he had no time constraints; the time constraints were on the Specht project. Todd Schaeffer, Specht Development, stated that, per the conditions on their development, they had no guarantee of receiving an occupancy permit until completion of the LID. He said that their goal was to finish the project by the end of December. Mr. Duenas said that staff hoped to complete the street portion by mid-September. Councilor Patton supported staff going back to the contractor, citing the utility concerns. Councilor Scheckla concurred. He discussed his hope that they could find a way to make this work for everyone. He reiterated that they needed flexibility, not a stringent uniform standard. Councilor Hunt pointed out that this resolution might help Mr. Corliss but hurt Mr. Specht. He spoke to finding a way to accommodate both of them. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 - PAGE 11 • • Mayor Nicoli summarized the Council discussion as a consensus to facilitate Mr. Corliss' request. He mentioned bringing in Mr. DeHaas and the contractor to see if there was a way to do it. He commented that if there were major problems, then the Council would have to deal with them. He asked staff to return to Council at next week's Council meeting with its report. He noted that the Council has agreed to review the standard. Mr. Duenas pointed out that the solution of the retaining walls would not touch Mr. Corliss' property other than to match the existing slope. He said that he was not certain what the Council was asking him to do. He said that if the direction was to move the sidewalk to the curb, that was fine. Mayor Nicoli reviewed the issue as Mr. Corliss wanting all the sidewalks along his property moved to the curb (allowing a small keystone wall where necessary) versus staff wanting to pull the sidewalk to the back and install keystone walls at the property line. He stated that Council wanted to facilitate Mr. Corliss' request but it also wanted staff to contact Mr. DeHaas and the general contractor to discuss facilitating the request without creating undue difficulties. Mr. Duenas asked if the street trees could be moved back. Mayor Nicoli said yes. Mr. Duenas pointed out that they would be an obstacle. Mayor Nicoli asked staff to schedule their report for next week's workshop. Mr. Corliss noted that he would.be out of town but his wife could attend. Mrs. Corliss asked if the other two property owners on their side of the street could attend next week's meeting. Mayor Nicoli said yes, and encouraged anyone with concerns to express them both to staff and to the Council immediately. He mentioned that the City was under a time constraint to get this project done. . Mayor Nicoli assured Mr. Schaeffer that the City would draw a deadline on requests from property owners who wanted a similar change. Mr. Hendryx noted that if the City changed the standard unilaterally for the whole street, then they needed to talk about how to do that. He said that a change to the standard was a variance. He commented that the standard allowed some flexibility to meander the sidewalk but he questioned whether staff had the authority to unilaterally change the street. Mr. Duenas said that he personally would like to see flexibility in the standard. 9. REVIEW PROPOSED RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE METRO GREENSPACES RESOLUTION—Canceled. 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS—None. 11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS—None. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 - PAGE 12 • • 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:12 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current&pending litigation issues. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 11 p.m. 410 Attest: atherine Wheatley, City Rec s rder 1 /or, City of Tigard / . Date: &'1V44 t:\AD M\CATHY\CC M\990615.D OC • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 15, 1999 - PAGE 13 - 72W?9-1 • cA'4CTY C®U'NC(Lr DNn��wNl E� ;� SI ES, EE IN,G � GUSH :10 9996" 0 P� CITY OF TIGARD ,�1GARD,.CITY, AL ; R 25 Si. A L BL D TIGA'D 0 REGON 9 2,4 3 +4 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the. meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639- 4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA—AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 1 • • TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 10, 1999 AGENDA 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), 8t (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > Discussion: Wilsonville Withdrawal from the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission > Discussion: Review of Council Ground Rules • 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8t Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items > INTRODUCE FINANCE DIRECTOR CRAIG PROSSER • ' City Manager 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 15, 22, 29, 1999 3.2 Receive and File: a) Tentative Agenda b) Council Calendar c) Expenditure of Civil Forfeiture Funds COUNCIL AGENDA—AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 2 • • • • 3.3 Initiate Vacation of a Portion of Main Street Right-of-Way North of Existing Roadway - Resolution No. 99- 3.4 Amend Resolution No. 99-18 — Correct Calculation Error in Fee Increases for Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Permit and Related Fees — Resolution No. 99- • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. UPDATE: CITY OF TIGARD YOUTH VOLUNTEERS • City Administration 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative) -. TEMPORARY SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Ordinance amending Tigard Municipal Code sections 2.52.010 and 18.780.120(C) to declare signs in the public right-of-way as abandoned property and establish a retrieval fee.for sign owners. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Summation by Staff d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents) e. Recommendation by Community Development Department f. Council Questions or Comments g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99- 6. PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative) - BUILDING FEES INCREASE Adopt a new fee schedule for permits issued under the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Summation by Staff d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents) e. Recommendation by Community Development Department f. Council Questions or Comments g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99- COUNCIL AGENDA—AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 3 • • i • • 7. PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative) — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS The City of Tigard proposes to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 to clarify existing code language relating to Final Decisions, Effective Dates, . Appeal Requirements, Development Conformance, Standards Applicability, and Dedication and Improvements Requirements. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Summation by Staff d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents) e. Recommendation by Community Development Department f. Council Questions or Comments g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99- 8. CITY/METRO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF METRO-OWNED GREENSPACE PROPERTY • Community Development Department • Council Discussion • Council Consideration: Motion authorizing the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro for the development and management of a Metro-purchased 6-acre property abutting the City's 3- acre Woodard Park. 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1 ) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media` are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 12. ADJOURNMENT I:1ADM\CATHY\CCA\990810P.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA—AUGUST 10, 1999 - PAGE 4 • ' oregon Department of Transportation " ='z Transportation Building 1 18'59 John A.Kitzhaber,N1:D.,Governor _ 355 Capitol St. NE • • ;Salem Oregon 97301 4 . .. FILE CODE: July 23, 1999 • • Matt Scheidegger City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Amendment to Tigard's Sign Code Allowing Temporary Signs in Right of Way Before and After and Election Dear Matt: I received a copy of a Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Tigard Community Development code. ODOT would like clarification on the portion that would "allow temporary signs within the right-of-way before and after an election(with time period for remaining within right-of-way to be specified by City Council)." We assume that "right-of-way" in this amendment means "city right-of-way" and not ODOT right-of-way, because ORS 377.715 and 377.650 prohibits signs (other than official highway signs) in ODOT right-of-way. ODOT in no way intends to try to enforce or interfere with the City sign code. But we want to make sure that persons erecting temporary signs are aware that such signs are not allowed in ODOT right-of- way. I have enclosed copies of the ORS Sections of the law that apply in this situation. If you have questions regarding ODOT sign regulations, please contact ODOT's Outdoor Advertising Sign Program staff. (-)4/;;rirmiTh 04771, Jimmy L. Odom Outdoor Advertising Program Technician JLO Cc: Jane Estes, District 2A Form 734-3122(4-99) NOTICE&F PROPOSED A1VINDMENT ®I ST R I D1 fAu st be received by DLCD at least 45 days prior to the final hearing ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 n JUN 1. 4 1999 11 See reverse side for submittal requirements O O 1DEC PMT y, I M JutiMtionOlftgard OS Date of Final Hearing August 10, 1999 Local File# ZOA 1999-00001 Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD?_Yes XNo Date Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment _ Comprehensive Plan Map Ame nt c X •Land Use Regulation Amendment _ Zoning Map Amendment F'' �` C . IF, New Land Use Regulation c (. — g ��"I fV Cif 1 rn N -.- ©t Briefly summarize the proposal. Do not use technical terms. Do not write"See Attached." En_ Do The zoning ordinance amendment to the Tigard Community Development Code to allow a gr at r ca --i enforcement of temporary signs in the public right-of-way. This amendment would include t orary signs as abandoned property,which the City would return to the owner at the owners' expens9._ e amendment would also allow temporary signs within the right-of-way before and after an election(with time period for remaining within right-of-way to be specified by City Council). Plan Map Change From N/A to N/A Zone Map Change From N/A to N/A Location: City wide Acres Involved: N/A Specified change in Density: Current Density N/A Proposed Density N/A Applicable Goals: State wide goals, 1,2, 12 Is an Exception proposed? Yes X No Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a., 2.1.1,2.1.2,2.1.3 & 8.1.1 Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: None Local Contact: Matt Scheidegger Phone: 639-4171 X314 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 DLCD File # Date Rec'd # Days Notice S • . . • SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 1. Send this Form and Two (2) Copies of the Proposed Amendment to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capital Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 COPY TO: Metro Land Use &Planning 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232-2736 ODOT-Region 1, District 2-A Jane Estes, Permit Specialist 5440 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 3 Portland, OR 97221-2414 2. Unless exempt by ORS 197.610 (2), proposed amendments must be received at the Salem DLCD office at least 45 days before thefmal hearing on the proposal. 3. Submittal of proposed amendments shall include the text of the amendment and any other information the local government believes is necessary to advise DLCD of the proposal. "Text" means the specific language being added to or deleted from the acknowledged plan or land use regulations. A general description of the proposal is not adequate. 4. Submittal of proposed "map" amendments must include a map of the affected area showing existing and proposed plan and zone designations. The map should be on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper. A legal description, tax account number, address or general description is not adequate. 5. Submittal of proposed amendments which involve a goal exception must include the proposed language of the exception. If you need more copies of this form, copy it on green paper or call the DLCD office at 503-373-0050. • • • 377.650 Personal property not junk as nuisance; disposition of property; liability. Any personal property not coming within the definition of junk as defined in ORS 377.605, except a vehicle as defined in ORS 801.590, which is deposited, left or displayed on a state highway is hereby found and declared to be a public nuisance. The director may do any of the following with respect to personal property declared to be a nuisance by this section: (1) Ten days after written notice is mailed to the person owning the personal property, the director may institute on behalf of the department any legal proceedings the director considers necessary to prevent the violation of this section. (2) Ten days after written notice, the director may remove the personal property and store it. After 30 days of storage, unless claimed sooner by the owner, the director may sell or otherwise dispose of the personal property. Where removal is performed by the director, the director shall not be liable for any conversion of personal property and may collect the cost for removal, storage and sale or disposal of the personal property from the person owning it. (3) If the property is a sign, as defined under ORS 377.710, that is portable or if the property has been repeatedly deposited, left or displayed in violation of this section, the director may follow the procedures under ORS 377.655. This subsection applies notwithstanding any other provision of this section. 377.655 Rules for removal and disposition of signs and property in violation of ORS 377.650. (1) The department shall adopt rules consistent with this section to provide procedures for the removal and disposition of portable signs or personal property that has been repeatedly left, deposited or displayed in violation of ORS 377.650. (2) Rules adopted by the department under this section may provide for any of the following: (a) A reduction in the times required for notice of violation, opportunity for hearing, opportunity to remove the violation and removal of the violation. (b) Removal of the violation without prior notice if the person committing the violation has been given prior notice of the violation. If removal is provided under this paragraph, opportunity for hearing must be provided by the rules within five days after the removal. (c) Any other rules concerning removal and disposition of such violations that the department determines will reduce the repeating of such violations 377.715 Application of ORS 377.700 to 377.840; prohibition against erection or maintenance of certain signs not in compliance with law. ORS 377.700 to 377.840, and the rules adopted pursuant thereto, apply to outdoor advertising signs and directional signs erected or maintained outside the right of way along state highways and visible to the traveling public from a state highway. A person may not erect or maintain an outdoor advertising or directional sign visible to the traveling public from a state highway, except where permitted outside the right of way of a state highway, unless it complies with the provisions of ORS 377.505 to 377.545, 377.700 to 377.840, and the rules adopted pursuant thereto, and with federal requirements, including any statute, regulation or contract. A person may not erect or maintain an outdoor advertising sign, directional sign or on premise sign on the right of way of a state highway (bold and italics added for emphasis). -!I CITY OF TIGARD FACT SHEET 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Contact: Mathew Scheidegger, (503) 639-4171 AGENDA: August 10, 1999 TOPIC: Temporary Sign Collection& Retrieval Policy BACKGROUND: On March 16th 1999 City Council directed staff to draft a sign ordinance under the Temporary Sign section of the Community Development Code (Section 18.780.070). The ordinance would allow political signs to be located in the public right-of-way 7 days before and 7 days after the dates for elections and establish a collection fee for illegal temporary signs. According to the City Attorney, allowing political signs in the public right-of-way during election periods would have to be content neutral, meaning all temporary signs would have to be allowed during election periods. At the June 15th 1999 Council workshop meeting, the proposed ordinance was presented. After reviewing the problems of allowing temporary signs in the public right- of-way, Council agreed that all temporary signs including political signs in the public right-of-way remain illegal and declared as abandoned property. If sign owners want to retrieve their property, a retrieval fee will be assessed for the cost of removal. The attached ordinance makes temporary signs abandoned property in Municipal Code 2.52.010. It also adds under 18.780.120(C) that the owner of signs in the right-of-way shall pay charges and expenses incurred from the enforcement of temporary signs. On July 19th, 1999, Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Temporary Sign Collection & Retrieval Policy. They voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment. COST: N/A • • AGENDA ITEM# FOR AGENDA OF CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public Hearing for Temporary Sign Collection& Retrieval Policy (ZOA 99-00001) PREPARED BY: Mathew Scheidegger DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL • Should Council approve an ordinance amending TMC 2.52.010 and TMC 18.780.120? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the March 16th, 1999, Council meeting, staff and the Council discussed ideas for removal and retrieval of illegal temporary signs within the public right-of-way and assessing fines to recover the costs of removal. As a result of that meeting, Council asked staff to draft an ordinance, which provided for fines for illegal signs within the public right-of-way, while allowing for political signs during election periods.•Staff worked with the City Attorney's office to prepare a draft ordinance. At the June 15th, 1999, Council meeting, the proposed temporary sign ordinance was presented. After reviewing the problems of allowing temporary signs in the public right-of-way and remaining content neutral, Council agreed that all temporary signs including political signs in the public right-of-way remain illegal and be declared as abandoned property. If sign owners want to retrieve their property from the City, a retrieval fee will be assessed for the cost of removal. The attached ordinance makes temporary signs abandoned property in Municipal Code 2.52.010. It also adds, under 18.780.120 (C), that the owner of illegal signs in the right-of-way shall pay charges and expenses incurred from the retrieval of those signs. On July 19th, 1999, Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Temporary Sign Collection& Retrieval Policy (Staff Report attached). The code amendment was unanimously recommended for approval. There was testimony at the Public Hearing by Paul Owen of the Summerfield Homeowners Association and Bev Froude. Mr. Owen brought up certain concerns for the need of no soliciting signs in the Summerfield Development. Staff met with Mr. Owen and provided alternatives to meet the Associations needs without being in the right-of- way. Ms. Froude indicated that her Christmas tree business as well as other seasonal businesses need to be able to place signs in the right-of-way. The Commission's suggested that she take her concerns to the Council. • • • OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Stay with the current enforcement procedures. 2. Introduce a citation policy that would allow the Code Compliance Specialist to write monthly citations until the problem is resolved. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES Adoption of this ordinance would generate revenue for the City of Tigard to help cover the cost of sign pick-up. I:\ciytwide\codeenf sigi.ord3.doc • • • • CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 99- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE. SECTIONS 2.52, AND 18.780.120(C). • WHEREAS, The City of Tigard wishes to abate potential hazards to pedestrian and traffic safety due to the'placement of unpermitted signs within the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Municipal Code contains provisions which prohibit certain signs to be placed within the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, greater enforcement of this prohibition will be available by declaring unpermitted signs in the right-of-way to be abandoned property as provided by the following amendments to the Municipal Code. now, therefore; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Tigard Municipal Code Section 2.52.010 is amended as follows: Custody of Property Whenever any personal property other than a motor vehicle is taken into the custody of any department of the city by reason of its having been abandoned, found seized, or for any other reason, the personal property shall be turned over to and held by the police department at the expense and risk of the owner or person lawfully entitled to possession of it. Abandoned personal property includes temporary signs located within the right-of-way prohibited by Section 18.780.070(K). • Section 2: Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.780.120(C) is amended by adding subsection 4 to read as follows: • 4. Signs in the right-of-way, prohibited under Section 18.780.070(K), are declared to be abandoned property and shall be removed from the right-of- way pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 2.52: Pursuant to TMC 2.52.020., prior to return of the sign to the owner,the owner shall pay the charges and expenses incurred by the City in enforcing this section. • • Section 3: This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its enactment. PASSES: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1999. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 1999. Jim Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney • Date ORDINANCE NO. Page 2 • • Agenda Item: 5.1 Hearing Date: July 19, 1999 Time: 8:00.PM STAFF REPORT CITY of TIGARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NAME: TEMPORARY SIGN RETRIEVAL POLICY Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 99-00001 . PROPOSAL: The zoning ordinance amendment would amend the Community Development Code (Section 18.780.120(C)) and Municipal Code (Section 2.52.010) to declare signs in the public right-of-way as abandoned property and establish a retrieval fee for sign owners. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2, Tigard Comprehensive Plan • Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, Community Development Code 18.380.020, 18.390.060(G) and 18.780.120(C), Municipal Code 2.52.010. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance program according to the findings found in Section III of this report. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION • On March 16th 1999 City Council directed staff to draft a sign ordinance under the Temporary Sign section of the Community Development Code (Section 18.780.070). The ordinance would allow political signs to be located in the public right-of-way 7 days before Staff Report City of Tigard/Temporary Sign Retrieval Policy Page 1 • • • and 7 days after the dates for elections and establish a collection fee for illegal temporary signs. According to the City's Attorney, allowing political signs in the public right-of- way during election periods would have to be content neutral, meaning all temporary signs would have to be allowed during election periods. At the June 15th 1999 Council workshop meeting, the proposed ordinance was presented. After reviewing the problems of allowing temporary signs in the public rig ht-of- way, Council agreed that all temporary signs in the public right-of-way remain illegal and be declared as abandoned property. If sign owners want to retrieve their property, a retrieval fee will be assessed for the cost of removal. The attached ordinance makes temporary signs abandoned property in Municipal Code 2.52.010. It also adds under 18.780.120(C) that the owner of signs in the right-of-way shall pay charges and expenses incurred from the enforcement of temporary signs. On July 19th, 1999, Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Temporary Sign Collection & Retrieval Policy. The code amendment was unanimously recommended for approval. There was testimony at the Public Hearing by Paul Owen of the Summerfield Homeowners Association and Bev Froude. Mr. Owen brought up certain concerns for the need of no soliciting signs in the Summerfield Development. Staff met with Mr. Owen and provided alternatives to meet the Associations needs without being in the right-of-way. Ms. Froude indicated that her Christmas tree business as well as other seasonal businesses need to be able to place signs in the right-of-way. The Commission's suggested that she take her concerns to the Council. IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS LCDC Goals: Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. Notice of the hearings and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITS, DLCD, and all utility companies. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Adoption of implementation measures is provided for under Goal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed ordinance requirements fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged ordinance requirements. -- Comprehensive Plan Policies: 1.1.1 a. - This policy requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. 2.1.1 - This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement process. The amendment was legally advertised. Staff Report City of Tigard/Temporary Sign Retrieval Policy Page 2 • • 2.1.3 - This policy requires that information on issues be available. The staff report and findings, and proposed ordinance have been available for review since Other No Metro regulations are applicable and no other state or federal regulations are applicable. Community Development Code: Chapter 18.380.020 - Indicates all legislative amendments are to follow 18.390.060(G). Chapter 18.390.060(G) -- Establishes the review procedure and criteria that must be followed and as addressed in this report. Chapter 18.780.120(C) — This code section allows the City to charge owners of temporary signs in the right-of-way for the expenses in enforcing this section. Municipal Code: Chapter 2.52.010 - This code section establishes temporary signs in the public right-of- way as abandoned personal property. V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS N/A VI. AGENCY COMMENTS N/A .:. 6/ 28 /99 PREPARED BY: at I •'• • -• - - . -4' ;■ ompliance Specialist Staff Report City of Tigard/Temporary Sign Retrieval Policy Page 3 • AGENDA ITEM# FOR AGENDA OF CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Temporary Sign Collection& Retrieval Policy PREPARED BY: Mathew Scheidegger DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Adoption of new regulations for temporary signs in the right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the March 16th 1999 Council meeting, staff and the Council discussed ideas for removal and retrieval of temporary signs within the public right-of-way and assessing fines to recover the costs of removal of illegal signs. As a result of that meeting, Council asked staff to draft an ordinance, which provided for fines for illegal signs within the public right-of-way, while allowing for political signs during election periods. Staff worked with the City Attorney's office to prepare a draft ordinance. At the June 15th 1999 Council meeting, the proposed temporary sign ordinance was presented. After reviewing the problems of allowing temporary signs in the public right-of-way, Council agreed that all temporary signs in • the public right-of-way remain illegal and be declared as abandoned property. If sign owners want to retrieve their property from the City, a retrieval fee will be assessed for the cost of removal. The attached ordinance makes temporary signs abandoned property in Municipal Code 2.52.010. It also adds under 18.780.120 (C), that the owner of signs in the right-of-way shall pay charges and expenses incurred from the enforcement of signs. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Stay with the current enforcement procedures. 2. Introduce a citation policy that would allow the Code Compliance Specialist to write monthly citations until the problem is resolved. • • VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE'STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES Adoption of this ordinancewould generate revenue for the City of Tigard to cover the cost of sign pick-up. I:\ciytwide\codeenflsign.ord3.doc • • CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 99- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 2.52, AND 18.780.120(C). WHEREAS, The City of Tigard wishes to abate potential hazards to pedestrian and traffic safety due to the placement of unpermitted signs within the public right-of-way. WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Municipal Code contains provisions which prohibit certain signs to be placed within the public right-of-way. WHEREAS, greater enforcement of this prohibition will be available by declaring . unpermitted signs in the right-of-way to be abandoned property as provided by the following amendments to the Municipal Code; now,therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Tigard Municipal Code Section 2.52.010 is amended as follows: Custody of Property ' Whenever any personal property other than a motor vehicle is taken into the custody of any department of the city by reason of its having been abandoned, found seized, or for any other reason, the personal property shall be turned over to and held by the police department at the expense and risk of the owner or person lawfully entitled to possession of it. Abandoned personal property includes temporary signs located within the right-of-way prohibited by Section 18.780.070(K). Section 2: Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.780.120(C) is amended by adding subsection 4 to read as follows: 4. Signs in the right-of-way, prohibited under Section 18.780.070(K), are declared to be abandoned property and shall be removed from the right-of- way pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 2.52. Pursuant to TMC 2.52.020., prior to return of the sign to the owner, the owner shall pay the charges and expenses incurred by the City in enforcing this section. • . Section 3: This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its enactment. PASSES: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1999. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 1999. Jim Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE NO. Page 2 • • rat■ -:�F< Vic'' `� _+ate afA a@ 'x tJ 1; *-- t Aa ,sP:E N I tF^i/ li r s � .42;4i x t �'�..� �t•,���at �,,a• s �ayy55ait;.:mt._;.._.; °° . '•- -a° I- i �° tt': -^ u +x,� . ' ���Nx.'; `a m� GAMY/,/tiN�l�l l�l�,�t�'I�I �sr City of Tigard TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Community Tigard 19, 1999 Shaping BetterCarmnnury • TIGARD CIVIC CENTER 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN TASK FORCE MEETING, 6:00— 8:00 P.M. RED ROCK CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM 8:00 P.M. — REGULAR MEETING TOWN HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVE MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 1999-00001 TEMPORARY SIGN RETRIEVAL POLICY PROPOSAL: The zoning ordinance amendment would amend the Community Development Code (Section 18.780.120(C)) and Municipal Code (Section 2.52.010) to declare signs in the public right-of-way as abandoned property and establish a retrieval fee for sign owners. ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2, Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, Community Development Code 18.380.020, 18.390.060(G) and 18.780.120(C), Municipal Code 2.52.010. 5.2 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 1999-00002 TITLE 18 LANGUAGE CLARIFICATION TO CHAPTERS 18.340, 18.390, 18.620, 18.810 The City of Tigard proposes to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 to clarify existing code language relating to Final Decisions, Effective Dates, Appeal Requirements, Development Conformance, Standards Applicability, and Dedication and Improvements Requirements in Sections 18.340.020.G., 18.390.040.F., 18.390.040.G.2.c., 18.390.040.H., 18.390.050.G., 18.390.080.A.1.d., 18.620.010.B., 18.810.020.A., 18.810.020.E., 18.810.030.A., 18.810.070.A., 18.810.080.A. and 18.810.110.A. & B. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard • • • Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7 and 8; and Community Development Code Sections 18.380.020 and 18.390.060.G. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT • • • • • Agenda Item: 5.1 Hearing Date: July 19, 1999 Time: 8:00 PM u III' STAFF REPORT CITY OF TIGARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NAME: TEMPORARY SIGN RETRIEVAL POLICY Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 99-00001 PROPOSAL: The zoning ordinance amendment would amend the Community Development Code (Section 18.780.120(C)) and Municipal Code (Section 2.52.010) to declare signs in the public right-of-way as abandoned property and establish a retrieval fee for sign owners. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: Citywide • APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2, Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, Community Development Code 18.380.020, 18.390.060(G) and 18.780.120(C), Municipal Code 2.52.010. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance program according to the findings found in Section III of this report. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On March 16th 1999 City Council directed staff to draft a sign ordinance under the Temporary Sign section of the Community Development Code (Section 18.780.070). The ordinance would allow political signs to be located in the public right-of-way 7 days before Staff Report City of Tigard/Temporary Sign Retrieval Policy Page 1 and 7 days after.the dates•for elections and establish a collection fee for illegal temporary signs. According to the City's Attorney, allowing political signs in the public right-of- way during election periods would have to be content neutral, meaning all temporary signs would have to be allowed during election periods. At the June 15th 1999 Council workshop meeting, the proposed ordinance was presented. After reviewing the problems of allowing temporary signs in the public right-of- way, Council agreed that all temporary signs in the public right-of-way remain illegal and be declared as abandoned property. If sign owners want to retrieve their property, a retrieval fee will be assessed for the cost of removal. The attached ordinance makes temporary signs abandoned property in Municipal Code 2.52.010. It also adds under 18.780.120(C) that the owner of signs in the right-of-way shall pay charges and expenses incurred from the enforcement of temporary signs. IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS LCDC Goals: Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. Notice of the hearings and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all. CITS, DLCD, and all utility companies. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Adoption of implementation measures is provided for under Goal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed ordinance requirements fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged ordinance requirements. • Comprehensive Plan Policies: 1.1.1 a. - This policy requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. 2.1.1 - This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement process. The amendment was legally advertised. . 2.1.3 - This policy requires that information on issues be available. The staff report and findings, and proposed ordinance have been available for review since Other No Metro regulations are applicable and no other state or federal regulations are applicable. Staff Report City of Tigard/Temporary Sign Retrieval Policy Page 2 Community Developme•ode: Chapter 18.380.020 - Indicates all legislative amendments are to follow 18.390.060(G). Chapter 18.390.060(G) -- Establishes the review procedure and criteria that must be followed and as addressed in this report. Chapter 18.780.120(C) — This code section allows the City to charge owners of temporary signs in the right-of-way for the expenses in enforcing this section. Municipal Code: Chapter 2.52.010 - This code section establishes temporary signs in the public right-of- way as abandoned personal property. V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS N/A VI. AGENCY COMMENTS N/A dr/ • Aim 6/28 /99 PREPARED BY: Math- cheldeg• T Code Compliance Specialist • Staff Report City of Tigard/Temporary Sign Retrieval Policy Page 3 PLANN/N6-56cWTARY /144TER/,kLS - - , .. , . ;,, • • COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal . . . Notice TT 9449 i:.: • . P.O. BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising , . ,..,. °City of Tigard •• 0 Tearsheet Notice s,;:,., -..'-,.. .: . i.t;!, 1.;,,,, ;474,1„.:474,"x,,,,,:740.A...4..:7:.;,:,...,,,,,,,.7,,, ,...,,„,:,::, IThi-follOWing4iii-be."ennsideiedrarpOtilieheiriniebYilie'Tiinid=Plaii - i. •, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. 'Tigard,Oregon 97223 • 0 Duplicate Affidavi --41i.n8-CoMMis4913:`0X.1■10,11,144.,410y;',T9i19,99at.7i3.0,P.M.;;and:thp'-,,,;,'.:,.;., :i .:.rigar.(1'.City,, otiiecilusiti,frtireidagitegtist711);11999,04:30)P.Mtliblli:atIA:' • :: 1•;.11[1:9:Ti_g41„c1F,igiviOg.pil.tgriifiT.9..*9140;01I*1.51,S.wikia4.S1ydt:;;Tigar44):::.:-, .. .. • 'Accounts Payable • +3'-q9K9g.°11•4119"4,14.14§-*FiCOYiSWi'jgC#4*PiirP.0"sa';Pf iphirii,.4 x.4.p14.It ,:ti6P1914aP904.9*SilK9uJigr',911.440•6Figek..i3P,6.igitx4,5il,willia)ntieV conchiCt'a-hearing on.this•request priorto.niakiniadecision:;;,.', '. .';:i';''::;',;,";':' •-' Both public:oral'Und ,,-■,,..„ wriite,n:,t-..e-S.t%iXn.' i's:iq n_V•ict,6ii4r?,hTrht eq,.,publ,ie,,.hearings, ,..',4 lV. .”n"this.nveT,yogibsCOnduptlAinccoia accordance cs itheiruiescpQhapter W AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION o"4 oft.hozg4Tgi mogicglatcsphapdtospvA9iiesan proeWuresf•thegigardPlannini!coiois,i,i:4TigardCitycotncir, .,'.•.-.;'.:.:-:.,:„'...'.•-...'.: • • .. •...-; .' STATE OF OREGON, ) s. ':'..-1`r6spestiyely:I.Failnie to raise an issue in person or Oyiettei..itsoss4oist: COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )s k.pi.#0, t.#9,::claki.);:irtlie:tieitringsforli'tlie:re4ose.b,isohirefe6.05yrdeistale-'.,,- i'.)j;:.,;,ruent's**iiie.n6e'g',.uffi,6iPlg:totallo*';S,the:the4riniitauth'orit 'A:i'cb'p-p'orttini'IY.4 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising !`;,;.;•:'•,-A-P.':rP.904,002.R1146-PiPr.eCIP:Ies.*PO:e.01t9ethlai*,..4qt:),4p?;:cl:pf-40,4:,110 Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi ga rd—Tlialn tin Times .:;1141§i911#1.4tes,VOlf011e,fitrifoll.1144,1,1'0.091040.6.00.Jalti*.A.MiA a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 irl':-.41.11.03-'44iOnt;f144;10W004#14,'Tg4.01:Pi•Rga, P14M49;r1J)44hAi$" and 193.020; published at Tigard in the q4.ing:024171:444,4V64:.1.!47iii..s.41W0f;4%., iii4A'SiL';-'1*.ifiilik,;";*""iir ' -'PURI*HEARING s-:‘=Y;: 'j0.7,4,1:f 5'"q41'f''''';W- aforesaid county and state; that the ; '.'; "• :'10_10:Colt.DINOlbrAMF,4DMEingibli.lt14F9tlililieVirPt :,'':'''::::::: : Zone OrainAncP/SLgns 't Oriiiniri41,finVitliliVOI&SfuniCiiiiiittkagaNiff.k1'.(lisd$461, -;,::. a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the A....18!.71.861',.1.29(0,i6fifoct4iekkiidi4iiiiii'5pliiiliViiiiiit entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and . ••.::,;propertY'.and-eStablisii.a reltr,ievatfee,!for;signlib*n'ei*,APPP,CA4E.i'-;$ '-iREVIEWicgATERIA;sia*igT4iikningico4414:tptitmoidorie ........,- ; consecutive in the following issues: '' 'kqkil*?,01:Tini:Osie$,,1:1100;14121-1VA:Cpiiin;rwitypc,v,eioAapi;' ',..;;.f:;;::,:.'.,.'. :,-, ,ce..0 Chapteri:418:380.020;4;.;egislatiVerAnienihnents folpiiiirrilerarici :.•!2:::, '.• July 8 1999 ; '/vlap);•18.390.0600?(Decisionrmakirig•PrOcedures). '4t.;',;.k:';'. . ..'-A.?'; .'' , .:. TT9449 7-Publish July 8, 1999L:2;:;:- ;;;;:. -c'f.:-.P.7;ii; ;',-;,'•';'"- ;'-'f:;,:'!;;?•'-. :•: . ;:‘ :,, . • 771,Rtq.Y:F7:71:1, ,V:t‘.::N;',.- 7 ,u0111:';DAII-1 fr npoli ?,;).14;,,voliz.?!),(1 .:.•., . :. 41) • • . . .. _ Subscribed and sworn to be . e me this8-1-h (ley (If jii 1 y, 1 9 9 9 .._.-- r --.OFFICIAL SEAL i 4,,:),...,. G. - 64.4.. . rt-r.-- ---,I ROBIN A. BURGESS Notary=for Oregon -10'2 ;„;, '''NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ■104; COMMISSION NO. 062071 My Commission Expires: • MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001. AFFIDAVIT . . • • CITY OF TIGARD Community<DeveCopment Shaping A Better Communit CITY OF TIGARD • Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Case Number: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 1999-00001 Case Name: TEMPORARY SIGN RETRIEVAL Name of Owner: N/A Name of Applicant: City of Tigard Attn: Mathew Scheidegger, Assistant Planner Address of Applicant: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Address of Property: Citywide Tax Map/Lot No.: Citywide ' A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. THE CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 19. 1999 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CITY COUNCIL HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 10. 1999 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION AND CONSIDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. Request: ➢ The City of Tigard is proposing an ordinance amendment to the Tigard Municipal Code Sections 2.52.010 and 18.780.120(C) to declare signs in the public right-of-way as abandoned property and establish a retrieval fee for sign owners. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 (Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map); 18.390.060(G) (Type IV Procedure); 18.780.120(C) (Enforcement; and Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 2.52.010 (Custody of Property). Zone: N/A Action: ➢ ❑ Approval as Requested ❑ Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: © Owners of Record within the Required Distance © Affected Governmental Agencies © The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator © The Applicant and Owner(s) Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED.ON ,-1999, AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON 1999. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be, obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or the City Recorder at (503) 639-4171. ZOA 1999-00001/TEMPORARY SIGN RETRIEVAL POLICY NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE CITY COUNCIL {COVER SHEET} • • • NOTICE OF ADOPTION This form must be mailed to DLCD not later than 5 working days after adoption ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 See reverse side for submittal requirements . Jurisdiction City of Tigard Local File# ZOA 1999-00001 Date of Adoption August 10. 1999 Date Mailed Date the Proposed Notice was mailed to DLCD and Metro June 11. 1999 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment _ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment — X Land Use Regulation Amendment _ Zoning Map Amendment New Land Use Regulation — Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached." A zoning ordinance amendment to the Tigard Community Development Code to allow a greater " enforcement of temporary signs in the public right-of-way. This amendment would include temporary signs as abandoned property. which the City would return to the owner at the owners' expense. The amendment would also allow temporary signs within the right-of-way before and after an election (with time period for remaining within right-of-way to be specified by City Council). Describe how the adopted amendment differs from the proposed amendment. If it is the same, write "Same." If you did not give notice of the proposed amendment, write "N/A." • Plan Map Change From N/A to N/A Zone Map Change From N/A to N/A Location: Citywide Acres Involved: N/A Specify Density: Previous Density N/A New Density N/A Applicable Goals: Statewide Goals 1. 2 and 12: and Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a. 2.1.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.1.3 and 8.1.1 Was an Exception adopted? _Yes_ No DLCD File# DLCD Appeal Deadline • • Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment 45 days prior to the final hearing? Yes: X No: The Statewide Planning Goals do not apply Emergency Circumstances Required Expedited Review Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: None • Local Contact: Mathew Scheidegger. Assistant Planner Phone: (503) 639-4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard. OR 97223 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 1. Send this Form and Two (2) Copies of the Adopted Amendment to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capital Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 COPY TO: Metro Land Use & Planning ODOT- Region 1,District 2-A 600 NE Grand Avenue Jane Estes, Permit Specialist Portland, OR 97232-2736 5440 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 3. Portland, OR 97221-2414 2. Submit Two (2) copies of adopted material, if copies are bound, please submit two (2) complete copies of documents and maps. 3. Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than five (5) working days following the date of the final decision on the amendment. 4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings and supplementary information. 5. The deadline to appeal will be extended if you do not submit this Notice of Adoption within five (5) working days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed within 21 days of the date Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD. 6. In addition to sending Notice of Adoption to DLCD, you must notify persons who participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. If you need more copies of this form, please call the DLCD at 503-373-0050 or this form may be duplicated on green paper. Z 274 237 730 te Z US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail iNo Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail(See reverse) Sent to °Dar- '- k--6/6A)z, Dj �cr .—I- \ Street&Number . 4' 'D!dumber join Jae ...ti/r3 raP Office,State,&ZIP e 2rUI-AvJD, 9, 97D'f-022/"'I Postage $ Certified Fee O SSpeaal Delivery Fee t: Restricted Delivery Fee to �@ Return Receipt Showing to ▪ Whom&Date Delivered - Q.a Return Receipt Showing to Whom, A< Date,&Addressee's Address • OTOTAL Postage&Fees $ Postmark or Date 0 %.1 u- ".7. Fold at line over top of envelope to the right of the return address CERTIFIED . Z 274 237 730 MAIL d SENDER: I also wish to receive the :2 •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. rn •Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for an d •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): I ✓ card to you. 1 > ■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1.❑ Addressee's Address ' •permit t Write d" "Return Receipt Requesteon the mailpiece below the article number. 2.❑ Restricted Delivery w 1 rn L •The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date 1 • delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. a o 3. Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number m Iv ()DOT= G.vn17, Des,,c,gp q Z a rj 1/ a3 7 73 , B. 4b.Service Type c 1 EWMfr SPt!// /$T ❑ Registered &edified i. ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured 5-gga Se Al STG C Y1,�LUTT 3 �, ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD �1 PD2rLAA2A Ole 97�?W=a9// 7. Date of Delivery w I oI 5.Received By: (Print Name) S.Addressee's Address (Only if requested ,e h I and fee is paid) C) V I 6.Signature: (Addressee or Agent) I-I o X I y PS Form 3811,December 1994 102595-98-B-o229 Domestic Return Receipt • , Z 463 251 267 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail o No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail(See reverse) Sent to II per of LMNb CON f-altrmm a 1L-V Street&Number ISO�_ 3_r'pQf14L ST�rk-T�t Number _ 34.01E State,&ZIP e 1Ee, , Q 730/-C7Sy( t: Postage $ -$ Certified Fee bSpecial Delivery Fee wRestricted Delivery Fee rn Return Receipt Showing to Whom&Date Delivered I Return Receipt Showing to Whom, r Q Date,&Addressee's Address 0 TOTAL Postage&Fees $ Postmark or Date 0 V LL Q_ Fold at line over top of envelope to the right of the return address CERTIFIED Z 463 251 267 . MAIL ai SENDER: I also wish to receive the , V •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. following services(for an rn •Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. an •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): i card to you. c0i 0 •■Attach this form to the front of the,mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1.El Addressee's Address cy▪ •perm . Write at°Return Receipt Requested on the mailpiece below the article number. 2.❑ Restricted Delivery 0 2 ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date N• ▪ delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. a 0 3. Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number c°ni 0 • 1EProf CoNsg ibmo, c LAND ) t i v Z L/ 3 05/ 06 7 a 4b.Service Type 3 c X 33- copsT L. snekL-7`Ate;.Slit,rr/so El Registered ertified i' c0 5�`�M �,r1 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured c f U� 973 )/. 7 D ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD co' 7.Date of Delivery o 0. 5. Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested Y' , I and fee is paid) co .c r) 6.Signature: (Addressee or Agent) i- , >. X y PS Form 3811,December 1994 102595-98-B-0229 Domestic Return Receipt T I Z 435 490 569 US Postal Service I Receipt for Certified Mail 'Z No Insurance Coverage Provided. t Do not use for International Mail(See reverse) nt to �7i�D 414-ND tlSf g' M-.vvlA/l� Street&Number � iW GFJM/D Pot Office,State,&ZIP Code fo�IVPI y� -*D934a ` Postage $ Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee • Restricted Delivery Fee Wu7 • rn Return Receipt Showing to d` Whom&Date Delivered • .8. Return Receipt Showing to whom, *Z < Date,&Addressee's Address tV O TOTAL Postage&Fees $ • C"/ Postmark or Date ' ti v rn tL a- Fold at line over top of envelope to the right of the return address CERTIFIED Z 435 490 569 MAIL ai SENDER: I also wish to receive the I •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. H •Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for an ar •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): card to you. w ■Att ach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1.❑ Addressee's Address •• perm . Write it"Return Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2.❑ Restricted Delivery re •-• ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date Consult postmaster for fee. delivered. P a o 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number U c.)1 d 4' M l.�t�us- 8 AAA/new& Z 3.5 cc o, 4b.Service Type 3 E ( OO AlE G/2 4,1/L 144(JC ❑ Registered IZertified U f okn_AAID D 1Q 073(o ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured C ��� ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD 7. Date of Delivery 0 5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested Y and fee is paid) C 6.Signature: (Addressee or Agent) )-- O X 2 PS Form 3811,December 1994 102595-98-B-0229 Domestic Return Receipt • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CRY OF TIGARD • Community(Development Shaping A Better Community STATE of o ,EGoX ) County of Washington )ss. • City of Tigard ) I, cPatricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative Specialist II for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: • • © NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR: 7 '/ZOA 1999-00001/CITY OF TIGARD SIGN COLLECTION & RETRIEVAL WITHIN THE PUBLIC R.O.W. (File NoJName Reference) ❑ NOTICE OF ADOPTION FOR: / (File No:Mame Reference) (Date of Public Hearing) ❑ NOTICE OF WITHDRAW/DENIAL FOR:Et7 I (File NoJName Reference) • (Date of Public Hearing) • TO: 0 OREGON DLCD 0 METRO I ODOT-REGION 1, DISTRICT 2-A 635 CAPITOL STREET NE,SUITE 150 600 NE GRAND AVENUE JANE ESTES,PERMIT SPECIALIST SALEM,OR 97301-2540 PORTLAND,OR 97232-2736 5440 SW WESTGATE DRIVE,SUITE 350 • PORTLAND,OR 97221-2414 • A copy of the Notice of which is attached, marked Exhibit"A",was deposited in the United States Mail on the 11m day of lune,19 postage prepaid. • /%el)) ) s / r • (Person thaeared Notice Subscribed and sworn/:ffirmed before me on the 9 day of , 19x9. • ( '''-' OFFICIAL SEAL • {' i D L WISE 7 NOTARYPUBUGOREGON • COAAMIS810N N0.920882 �, r �FEa"'2ao3 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON • My Commission Expires: Fe-6. I I ) ecio3 h:masters\aff-dlcd.mst • • NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMTDMENT EXHIBIT A This form must be received by DLCD at least 45 days prior to the final hearing ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 See reverse side for submittal requirements ovJurisdiction Tigard Date of Final Hearing August 10, 1999 Local File# ZOA 1999-00001 Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD? Yes XNo Date Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment _ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment X Land Use Regulation Amendment _ Zoning Map Amendment New Land Use Regulation Briefly summarize the proposal. Do not use technical terms. Do not write"See Attached." The zoning ordinance amendment to the Tigard Community Development Code to allow a greater enforcement of temporary signs in the public right-of-way. This amendment would include temporary signs as abandoned property,which the City would return to the owner at the owners' expense. The amendment would also allow temporary signs within the right-of-way before and after an election(with time period for remaining within right-of-way to be specified by City Council). Plan Map Change From N/A to N/A Zone Map Change From N/A to N/A Location: City wide Acres Involved:N/A Specified change in Density: Current Density N/A Proposed Density N/A Applicable Goals: State wide goals, 1, 2, 12 Is an Exception proposed?_Yes X No Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a., 2.1.1,2.1.2,2.1.3 & 8.1.1 Affected State or Federal Agencies,Local Governments or Special Districts:None Local Contact: Matt Scheidegger Phone: 639-4171 X314 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 DLCD File # Date Rec'd # Days Notice • • SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS • ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 1. Send this Form and Two (2) Copies of the Proposed Amendment to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capital Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 COPY TO: Metro Land Use & Planning 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232-2736 ODOT- Region 1, District 2-A Jane Estes, Permit Specialist 5440 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 3 Portland, OR 97221-2414 2. Unless exempt by ORS 197.610 (2), proposed amendments must be received at the Salem DLCD office at least 45 days before thefinal hearing on the proposal. 3. Submittal of proposed amendments shall include the text of the amendment and any other information the local government believes is necessary to advise DLCD of the proposal. "Text" means the specific language being added to or deleted from the acknowledged plan or land use regulations. A general description of the proposal is not adequate. 4. Submittal of proposed "map" amendments must include a map of the affected area showing.existing and proposed plan and zone designations. The map should be on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper. A legal description, tax account number, address or general description is not adequate. 5. Submittal of proposed amendments which involve a goal exception must include the proposed language of the exception. If you need more copies of this form, copy it on green paper or call the DLCD office at 503-373-0050. • • AGENDA ITEM# FOR AGENDA OF CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adoption to TMC Chapter Temporary Sign Collection & Retrieval Policy PREPARED BY: Mathew Scheidegger DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council adopt new regulations for Temporary Signs in the Right-of-way? STAFF RECOMMENDATION For this work session the following information is formatted similarly to what will be provided to council for a later public hearing. The attached ordinance is a draft. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard has standards that do not allow signs in the public right-of-way as a part of it's sign code provisions. Temporary signs are, "A"board frame, banner, lawn sign, or balloon which is not permanently erected or permanently affixed to any sign structure, sign tower, the ground or building. Signs of this nature are only permitted for 30 days on private property. A permit may be reissued by the Director for two additional permit periods (30 days each)per calendar year. The enforcement procedures used to regulate temporary signs are as follows: 10 days to obtain a temporary sign permit, or at the end of the ten days the sign is removed. If the permit is not obtained or the sign is not removed then a summons and complaint into Tigard Municipal Court is issued. "Signs in the public right-of-way in whole or in part, except signs legally erected for informational purposes by or on behalf of a government agency," are considered illegal. The City Council expressed desire to control signs in the right-of-way yet offer flexibility durring election periods. The proposed . adoption is designed to allow greater enforcement of the prohibition against signs within the right-of-way by declaring these signs abandoned property and allowing the City to remove them. The ordinance will also allow small temporary signs to be placed within the right-of-way during election periods. In developing the provision to policy decisions will be of interest to the Council—1) the maximum size of a temporary sign allowed in the right-of-way; and 2) the length of time that these signs would be allowed to remain in the right-of-way. The maximum sign size of 6 sq. ft. and a time limit of 7 days before and 7 days after the election as a starting point for discussion. Another point of interest to the City Council will be the effect of these regulations. ORS 221.230 cites four dates when elections can be held and allows the City to call an emergency election under particular circumstances. Therefore the effect of the changes to TMC 18.780(K)will be to allow limited sized temporary signs to be located within the right-of-way for periods in the months of March, May, September, November, and any other time that an emergency election is called. Signs located within the right-of-way during these periods could only be removed if they exceed the size limit and/or do not meet the TMC Section 18.780.15(52) definition for"temporary sign." The content of a sign cannot be used as a basis for removal. For this reason all temporary signs would be legal in the right-of-way during election periods. Because the proposed ordinance affects Title 18 of the Development Code , notice to L.C.D.C. and hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council are required. • ' • • OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Stay with the current enforcement procedures or introduce a citation policy that would allow the Code Compliance Specialist to write monthly citations until theproblem is resolved. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY This adoption would fall under goal #1 of the Growth & Growth Management section of the Tigard Vision Task Force, "Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established areas." FISCAL NOTES This adoption would generate revenue for the City of Tigard to cover the cost of sign pick-up. I:\c iytwide\codeenf\s i gn.ord3.doc • • • • • • • • MAY,14 '99 10:01AM RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN P.3 • • DRAFT CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 99- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 2.52.010, 18.780,070(K), AND 18.780.120(C). WHEREAS, The City of Tigard wishes to abate potential hazards to pedestrian and traffic safety due to the placement of unpermitted signs within the public right-of-way. WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Municipal contains provisions which prohibit certain signs to be. placed within the public right-of-way. • WHEREAS, greater enforcement of this prohibition will be available by declaring unpermitted signs in the right-of-way to be abandoned property as provided by the following amendments to the Municipal Code; now, therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Tigard Municipal Code Section 2.52.010 is amended,as follows: Custody of Property Whenever any personal property other than a motor vehicle is taken into the custody of any department of the city by reason of its having been abandoned, found seized, or for any other reason, the personal property shall be turned over to and held by the: police department at the expense and risk of the owner or person lawfully entitled to. possession of it. •i_1 • • 1 • • __ -a5 in • t1 •• ; _ v!-- -• : ^_• toff--w v trohibited by Section 18.780.070M. Section 2: Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.780.070(K) is amended as follows: • K. Right-of-way. Signs in the public right-of-way in whole or in part, except signs legally erected for informational purposes by or on behalf of a government agency. . • -.et;•1 ' ___!! t •1 • .a •• i I _-1 1_ • -.! 1.. !_ 1- • �1t ./ 1•t the right-of way!-7 days before and 7 days after the dates for elections established under ORS 221 f 23 0 ORDINANCE NO. Page 1 MAY 14 '99 10:01AM RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN P.4 Y y • • Section 3: Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.780.120(C) is amended by adding subsection 4 to read as follows: 4. - �!.- t_- • -!. . L4 - - •i. - =+ I I �._ -. • - l:r- • • • . .1.4_ :.!_• •i-• • • • - at !! •.--- •- - - 1• :• I • ti t_: �!.�! .._. ! in • Municipal Code.Chapter 2.52. Putsuamt_to TMC 2.52:020,for to return Qf the sign Ip_ihesamner,the owner aball.D.Ayihe charges and exnensg.sin c_ujed by the City in enforcing this section. • Section 4: This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its enactment. . . I PASSED: By ; vote of all Council members present after being- read by number:and title only, this day of , 1999. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder • APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 1999. • Jim Nicoll, Mayor Approved as to form: • City Attorney • Date C:\arccb1900241tempsigt.ord.wpd • • ORDINANCE NO, ` Page 2 • • i 1 • • o; SENDER: I also wish to receive the 2 •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. following services(for an H ■Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. i II/ •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): 12 card to you. aii rU •Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1.❑ Addressee's Address •12 Write" 2.❑ Restricted Delivery 0' • ■Write"Return Receipt Requested"on the mailpiece below the article number. ry rn ✓ ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date Consult postmaster for fee. delivered. P 11•' . o o Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number co 2. Def+. of land emwrulb inn Deli. Z ����9�Sal Q, 4b.Service Type Y E CO SS- e6fi*0.I .4 f 1 IL .5 Lc 1 o❑ Registered Certified g V ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured c Salem, Ok 93311' .251/0 ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise El COD 7.ler Dili ry o �. o, T� 5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's ddress (Only if requested •Y 4.... and fee is paid) co .c 6.Sign : (A res§ee or 'gent) 1— o X _1 H 102595-98-B-0229 f PS Form 3811,December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt ,t + - ___ - . Z 435. 490 571 • US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail I No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail See reverse -1 Sent to 4 I'�. S _/.L a•!. F. f,. '1 Street&Number b k .•3S t L. 4 a P. t•• .•,State,&ZIP C..e • . - r . 0 —__11, 1 O' Postage . D Certified Fee ' Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee —w_ . rn Return Receipt Showi . 0 'r Q _ Whom&Date Defiv: :•j�� izs < Return Receipt` • •m.m�ul Q Date,&Addressee's'ddreds N g TOTAL Postage 8t j AM co Postmark or Date -,� • o d • ! • • ai SENDER: I also wish to receive the r '2 •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. following services(for an y •Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. ry •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): cii in card to you. Cl./ •Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1.❑ Addressee's Address 0 • permit. 2 2.❑ Restricted Delivery d •Write"Return Receipt Requested"on the mailpiece below the article number. ry ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date Consult postmaster for fee. t delivered. C• 3.Article Addressed to: :~= 4a.Article Number d 13 - Me,ko 1.-•and use t Plana in z �l.'�S LfgO S70 E a 4b.Service Type �/ m g CO tiC /^ d iC ❑ Registered p Certified p� ww IIJJ ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured c, tr+LCLrl d, O 9 17a3a-0'73 6 ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD 7.Date of Delivery Q - ��- 9� o 5 .Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address (Only if requested Y and fee is paid) tt 6.Signa fir : (Addr ss or Agent) I- PS Form 3811, cember 1994 102595-98-B-0229 Domestic Return Receipt _i . . -1� Z 435 490 570 f US Postal Service -a. Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail(See reverse) ntto 61 t /611111 61543 Street&Number �I13 • p PRst Office,State, ZIP Code CPostage $ , oCertified Fee . 1 ``` (1 O 1 1 \/ V1 Special Delivery Fee W . C. Restricted Delivery Fee O.• in 0�--... "'' rn Return Receipt Showi to"'` = Whom&Date Deliv ed`' • ' " • _l Q, Return Receipt Show' tam Q Date,&Addressee's • '• . 1-a Lt 2 TOTAL Postage&Bees agjill O. M Postmark or Date arm.c I 7�Uc cry„� ,, V ti k�_ • . . _. 1 . u; SENDER: • - I also wish to receive the I 0 •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. following services(for an H •Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. - 9 • w ■Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this -extra fee): , 6. card to you. ai > ■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1.❑ Addressee's Address v •- •permit. ri e at °Return Receipt Requested°on the mailpiece below the article number. 2.❑ Restricted Delivery a0i 2 ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date in delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. o. v3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article��� a) SOT— ilk.9.0,Q1 I(S-ft, fi , —j} Z�.�=�� _. l CC . p� 4b ="ice Type ', 3 e jsfes, Peynni+ , ll�(ISfi 3 •■F ti efis-E ' Certified cc C tc:ress Mall°"`" ❑ Insured 2 5-qqo sty tues+ Drt ve,SGc rfC ❑ \ , ::4; eceipt fJ f.ndise ❑ COD a■ P O r-N o A d Die qvaa i-EDLI/y 7. Da 'gave )1/ 0 •5.Receive By Print Name) 8.Addressee's Addres. (On y if requested Y and fee is paid) m s 4'c,.G. 6CZtAP, ./ I >. 6.SX n tur dres or Agent) iJ o w PS For 381 , mberr 1994 102595-98-8-0229 Domestic Return Receipt • • I Z 463 251 266 • US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail - • No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail(See reverse) Sent to ,/, � NY177- . MA).Z,,, `ISnPIr7 --f4 • Street&Number • k ,SSW SW tijk3r4orc Dr Su t 1. C Post Office,State,&ZIP Code k Po2.rtAwf) De 9`7.?/-a5�id/ t Page $ r SS 0 Certified Fee 1 `ra V Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Os 0) rn Return Receipt Showing to Whom&Date Delivered • _1.Y_�'.. Return Receipt Showing to Whom; � r; I�V1 < fie,&Addressee's Address ` ?1''\ • TOTAL Postage&Fees` � 7 Postmark or Date ' .S �( 4J t0 v Al y-1='9 • CI- •