City Council Packet - 02/16/2010 C' ' City of Tigard
" `.� ,, � , Tigard Workshop Meeting - Agenda
.
g p g g
� w..— ...a`�::. °,'RAa ., ^,^ .�'rr"..^m'"..^i,'" yiT' ^ .b.S".'S''. ^ .`� ° ."✓¢:,::". ''Y" L:...�. .. n...Rr'M
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MEETING DATE /TIME: February 16, 2010 — 6:30 p.m. — Workshop Meeting
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
tilt
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Times noted are estimated.
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 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410
(voice) or 503 - 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 by
calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 - 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
CABLE VIEWERS: The City Council Workshop meeting is taped and will be broadcast at the following times on
Channel 30:
Thursday noon Monday 6:00 a.m.
Friday 3:00 a.m. Tuesday 2:00 p.m.
Sunday 11:00 a.m.
SEE A'FfACHED AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA — FEBRUARY 16, 2010
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 11 503- 639 -4171 I www. tigard- or.gov 1 Page iof3
" ` City of Tigard
,, gat
Vii. .
Tigard Workshop Meeting - Agenda
T 'I ��ARD'
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MEETING DATE /TIME: February 16, 2010 — 6:30 p.m. — Workshop Meeting
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive
Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable
statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS
192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the
purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
6:30 PM
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non- Agenda Items
Mayor Dirksen: Call the meeting of the City Center Development Agency to order. Deputy
City Recorder Krager will call the Roll .
6:35 PM
2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY /CITY CEN TER
ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS CCAC ANNUAL REPORT
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
Mayor Dirksen — Adjourn the meeting of the City Center Development Agency and reconvene as
the Ci Council
7:35 PM
3. REVIEW OPTIONS FOR AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
ADVERTISING SIGNS IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA — FEBRUARY 16, 2010
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www. tigard- or.gov I Page 2 of3
8:05 PM
4. PERIODIC REVIEW UPDATE
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
8:20 PM
5. DISCUSS TREE CODE UPDATE PROJECT SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND PROCESS
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
9:05 PM
6. ADJOURNMENT
1: \ADM \CATHY \CCA\2010\ 100216 P workshop.doc
TIGARD. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 16, 2010
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 3 of3
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date February 16, 2010
CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title. Joint Meeting with City Center Advisor s Commission/ 2009 Annual Report Discussion
Prepared By: Seari Farrelly Dept Head Approval: City Mgr _Approval: r.
ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Review the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) 2009 Annual Report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss the City Center Advisory Commission 2009 Annual Report with members of the Commission.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The CCAC by -laws call for an annual report which describes the key activities of the Commission. The CCAC meets
annually with the CCDA to discuss the report and, the progress of urban renewal. The Annual Report was previously
provided to Council in the December 4, 2009 Council Newsletter (to comply with the CCAC by- laws.)
The CCAC addressed a range of issues throughout the year. In April 2009, the CCAC for the first time adopted goals
for calendar year 2009. The agenda for the CCAC for the balance of 2009 was largely devoted to developing and
implementing those goals.
Among the goals and accomplishments in 2009 were:
• Downtown Land Use & Design Code (Goal No. 1): The CCAC reviewed the draft code, made several
suggested revisions and endorsed the draft code that was later adopted by Council.
• Downtown Circulation Plan (Goal No. 2): served as the citizen advisory committee to the plan, worked
with consultants and recommended one option for further study. The Plan will be brought back to the
CCAC to make a formal recommendation prior to the start of the public hearing process
• Main Street Green Street (Goal No. 3): Several members of the CCAC paired up with representatives of
City staff during June to contact Main Street businesses and property owners, to explain the Main Street
Green Street project, to hear their concerns, and answer their questions.
• Storefront Improvement Program (Goal No. 4): A joint CCDA /CCAC subcommittee was formed. It first
met in June, to develop and implement a pilot commercial facade improvement program. This pilot project
was up and running in November and four businesses have been provided with architectural services. The
sub- committee will meet again to award a matching grant to one or more of the businesses and assess the
pilot project.
In addition to this work, the CCAC also formed a stakeholder outreach committee. This committee developed a
survey, which was distributed to business and property owners within the Urban Renewal Area. A report on the results
is forthcoming.
On January 18, 2010 the CCAC held it second annual retreat where it started to develop its 2010 goals (to be finalized).
As part of the discussion with the CCDA, the CCAC would like to talk about its role in implementing urban renewal,
what has been successful, and what can be improved.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: City Center Advisory Commission's 2009 Annual Report
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable
i.Vrpinlcouncil mat erials1201012 -16 -10 ais ccac joint meeting.docx
Attachment 1
2009 Annual Report of the City Center Advisory Commission
In April 2009, the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) for the first time adopted
goals for calendar year 2009. A copy of those goals is appended to this report as
Attachment A. The agenda for the CCAC for the balance of 2009 was largely devoted to
developing and implementing those goals. This report is organized around that
framework. Unless otherwise noted, all dates occurred within calendar year 2009.
Goal No. 1- Downtown Land Use & Design Code
o Review land use & design code
o Participate in public hearings and open houses
o State formal position to City Council
The joint TPC /CCAC Commission Advisory Team (appointed in 2007) completed its
work with consultants from, SERA Architecture and Angelo Planning and presented a
draft code to the CCAC. The, CCAC analyzed and debated the proposed revisions to the
land use and design in three meetings during June and July, and endorsed a revised
draft on July 8, and forwarded the draft code to the TPC for its consideration.
The proposed revisions of the land use and design standards for the URD were
presented and displayed to the public at an open house held in late July. CCAC
members and city staff were available to discuss the proposed revisions with Tigard
residents. The TPC unanimously endorsed the proposed code on October 19, and is
anticipated that the code will be placed before the City Council on December 8, 2009 for
final action.
Goal No. 2 - Downtown Circulation Plan
o Participate in public /business outreach
o Participate in open houses
o State formal position to City Council
1
The CCAC began its work on a downtown circulation plan in two meetings in April by
discussing and marking up a conceptual diagram and identifying values to be served by
revisions to the transportation system. City staff then utilized the marked -up diagram
and the statement of values in orienting the work of the consultants retained to develop
the Plan. The CCAC worked with representatives from the project consultants, SERA
. Architects, from July through September. The circulation plan concepts were also
presented to the public at an open house in July.
In September, the CCAC endorsed one of two options presented by the consultants.
With that endorsement, the circulation plan has been forwarded to be evaluated as part
of the Transportation System Plan (TSP) update and review by the City's Transportation
Advisory Committee. It is anticipated that the circulation plan will come before the
CCAC again for final consideration prior to the public hearing process leading to plan
adoption.
Goal No. 3 - Main Street Green Street
o Participate in public /business outreach
o Provide on -going feedback /recommendations to Council
Several members of the CCAC paired up with representatives of City staff during June to
contact Main Street businesses and property owners, to explain the Main Street Green
Street project, to hear their concerns and answer their questions. The outreach effort
produced generally positive responses. Questionnaires that were completed during the
interviews were forwarded to City staff. It is the CCAC's understanding that safety
concerns will be considered and addressed internally, while the balance of the public
input will be provided to the consultants to be retained by the City to oversee and
coordinate the project.
Information on the Main Street Green Street project was presented to the public at an
open house in July. CCAC members and City staff were present to discuss the project
and answer questions.
2
It is anticipated the City will have a finalized work program with a consultant by the end
of the year. The CCAC will function as the Citizen Advisory Committee for that project,
and will continue to assist the consultant with public outreach.
Goal No. 4 - Storefront Improvement Program
o Promote benefits and opportunities to business community
o Participate with Staff in developing project models
The CCDA and the CCAC formed a joint subcommittee, which first met in June, to
develop and implement a pilot commercial facade improvement program in the URD.
Through the efforts and with the input of the subcommittee, the City issued a request for
qualifications and retained LRS Architects as the on- retainer architecture firm for the
facade improvement program. At its October meeting, the CCAC met with a
representative of the firm to discuss the program's goals and implementation. It is
anticipated that the program will be up and running and applications from eligible
property and business owners will be actively solicited starting in November.
Goal No. 5 - Tigard Transit Center
o Review study as presented to CCAC
o Provide feedback and recommendations to CCDA
In August, the CCAC heard the presentation and received the written report of Johnson
Reid, the consultant on land use economics retained by the City to analyze the feasibility
of high- density mixed -use development of the Tigard Transit Center site (as well as an
adjacent privately -owned parcel). The results were disappointing. The consultant
concluded that, in current market conditions, the contemplated development of the
Transit Center site would not generate sufficient income to offset the relatively high
costs of construction. The consultant's report was forwarded to the CCDA without a
recommendation.
3
•
It is anticipated that the CCAC will return to the topic of development on the Transit
Center site in 2010. The parcel is central to the URD, both in location and in potential
significance. Tri -Met, the present owner, is apparently a willing seller (under the right
circumstances). The opportunity cannot be ignored.
Goal No 6 - Review, participate as needed, and provide on -going feedback/
recommendations for the following projects:
• Burnham Street. The CCAC continued to monitor the Burnham Street project as a
follow -up to outreach undertaken in 2008 by CCAC Chair Ellis Gaut and Mayor
Dirksen. This outreach played a role in the ultimate acquisition of necessary
ROW, and the subsequent awarding of the construction contract and the
groundbreaking for the project on October 20.
• Lower Fanno Creek Park. Preliminary work was completed in August 2009 and
the CWS re- meander of creek and bridge replacement will start summer 2010.
This work implements recommendations of the Fanno Creek Park and Plaza
Master Plan which was worked on by members of the CCAC.
• 99W Urban Design. CCAC commissioners attended review meetings and
provided feedback to the University of Oregon graduate students working on the
project.
• Hall /99W Intersection work. Information on the reconfiguration of the
Greenburg Road /Pacific Highway and the Hall Boulevard /Pacific Highway
intersections were presented to the public at an open house in July. CCAC
members were paired with City staff for those presentations.
Long Term Goals
The CCAC continued to improve its processes and procedures through the year.
Currently the commission is working to create a new member orientation program. The
CCAC undertook a training session in August to improve its agenda setting and meeting
procedures. The adoption of goals for the first time in the commission's history is also
4
an indication of its continuing commitment to self improvement. In January the CCAC
held its first retreat and currently the commission is planning another retreat for 2010.
Another long term goal is the continual improvement of outreach to businesses and the
local community. In 2009 this took the form of implementing many of the principles
contained within the Preliminary Recommendation on Organizational Leadership and
Capacity in Downtown, a report presented to the CCDA in February. An example of this
implementation is the outreach undertaken in support of the Main Street Green Street
project. Another example of principles contained within the preliminary
recommendation is the facade improvement program currently being formed.
The CCAC appointed a Stakeholder Outreach Committee in March and this committee is
preparing a survey on business conditions in downtown to be distributed before the end
of 2009. This survey will help to shape a formal recommendation regarding business
and organizational policy in downtown. It is anticipated that the CCAC will return to this
topic in 2010.
5
IL City of 'I'igard FOR ` - 6 l
° {�
(DATE OF MEETING)
Memorandum
TIGARD A L- I ��e 7_,
To: Chair Dirksen and the Members of the City Center Development Agency
From: Sean Fancily, Redevelopment Project Manager
Re: February 16th CCDA /CCAC Joint Meeting
Date: February 11, 2010
At the February 16, 2010 Council Workshop, the City Center Development Agency will hold a
joint meeting -with the City Center Advisory Commission. In,addition to discussing the CCAC's
2009 Annual Report, the CCAC would also like to share its draft goals for 2010 (see attached.)
At their February. 10th meeting °the CCAC raised the following potential additional discussion
topics:
1.) CCDA's expectations for the CCAC in 2010
2.) Explore different ways to liaise with CCDA.
3.) Circulation & Transportation issues, including
a.) The need to further refine the Downtown Circulation Plan
b.) The need for Downtown Circulation Plan to reflect community values
c.) Note that the proposed Ash Street bridge over Fanno Creek (included in the draft
Tran.6ortation System P /an and Donoitown Circulation Plan) remains a politically - charged
matter.
Attachment I,
CCAC 2010
I,
Project Infrastructure
a. Monitor, reView.and,prOVide input on the fallowing key projects:
I. Main Street/Green Street PhaSe 1
ii.. Main Street/Green Street Phase.2 (North end)
Plaza Site
iv: Burnham StreetCompletibn
v. '99W/Greenburg
Lower Fenno Creek
Vii. Transit CenterAedevelopMent
U. Development
a Explore incentives that may stimulate private development with a focus on residential
including:
I. OUtreach
ii. Financial incentives.
iii. Land assembly and direct development options
b. AdVise;CCDA on oUr of incantives.
c. Improve our know(edge of the "built" environment indluding demographics and
geography of downtown
Store-front Improvement Plan
a. Implementation of Phase 1 (approved businesses)
13: Continue to promote, and refine program
iv Cieculation:Pian
a. ReVieW for final adbption.
b. Engage in regular communication with Transportation Committee to ensure
transportation plan meets.needs and values of the community
Branding/Marketing
a Encourage the development of a Brand ID for downtown Tigard
b, Determine our role regarding marketing, advertftingand, promotion of Downtown
c. Liaise with cot Event Cotordinatbr to deVetOWappropriate event strategy
VI, communication
a. Determine effective way liaise with other COT boards and commissions
b. Engage in on-going communication with Council and Staff
Regular attendance at council meetings
ii Periodic attendance at Friday morning meetings on Burnham project
iii. Representation from CC,AC_atecop; meetin
iv. Periodically invite Council liaison to our meetings
Engage in on-going communication with:hirert,consuitants
Engage inon-going communication witiineighbdrhobdS
page J 1
Attachment 1
VIILong-term Goals
a. Continually iMprOve processes anCrp but not limited to
Annual Calendar Development
•
ii. Continue to evolve meeting efficiency and agendas
Increase our awareness the iMpadt our work has on community
On-going outreach to businesses and local community
ii Continually work to inCreate transparency with citizens
iii Continually work to improve communication with council and staff
'c. Perform other duties aS assigned by CCDA
•
Page J.2
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date February 16, 2010
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Tide Review Options — Amend Tigard Municipal Code — Advertising Signs in Public Right of Way
Prepared By: Christine Darnell Dept Head Approval: 1 City Mgr Approval: C.ft
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Discuss options regarding a revised confiscation, storage, retrieval, and disposal program for signs and other items
illegally placed in the public Right of Way in advance of a Council decision scheduled for the March 23, 2010 Business
Meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive information and provide input to staff regarding drafting code amendments and implementing new procedures
pertaining to confiscation, storage, retrieval, and disposal of items illegally placed in the public Right of Way, including a
fee for retrieval by the owner.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Items illegally placed in the public Right of Way (ROW), such as signs, furniture, and play equipment can cause clutter
and potential safety hazards, and have long been a concern for the Tigard City Council.
Over the years the City of Tigard has tried many different approaches to manage the problem of items illegally placed in
the ROW, most commonly signs. Methods included public information, outreach activities, enforcement efforts, and
changes to the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) in January 2004. For many years, staff removed illegal signs and then
allowed retrieval of those signs without a fee or other costs. This practice required significant staff time and was found
to be ineffective as a deterrent to placing items illegally in the ROW. With staff limitations, and an increasing illegal sign
problem, a new approach was initiated in 2008.
In April 2008 the City of Tigard began removing signs in, or obstructing, the public ROW and immediately disposing of
them. One year later, the Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors (PMAR) contacted the City of Tigard about
this policy. In researching PMAR's concerns about "unlawful destruction of private property," staff found that the
"seize and dispose of" procedure in effect was not explicitly supported by the TMC and was potentially in conflict with
due process standards.
With the discovery of these issues, the City of Tigard stopped the practice. With direction from City Council on
October 27, 2009, staff began developing a new approach, including a fee for reclaiming confiscated signs, which would
recoup some portion of the City's cost in removing them.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \2 -16 -10 AIS Signs in the ROW.doc 1
Staff recommends implementing a procedure that will (1) adequately protect due process and property rights, (2) be
effective in deterring the illegal placement of items in the public.ROW, (3) recover some cost for confiscation of these
items, and (4) protect the City from liability. The details of this recommendation, which focuses primarily on lawn and
A -board signs, are provided in Attachment #1.
To reach this recommendation, staff research included:
► Reviewing procedures in other Oregon cities
► Estimating City costs for documentation, confiscation, and retrieval of confiscated signs
• Estimating the average cost to purchase signs
► Comparing City costs and potential fees for retrieval
► Comparing sign replacement costs and potential fees for retrieval
► Identifying potential amendments to the Tigard Municipal Codes
The details of this research are provided in Attachment #2.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
■ Continue procedure initiated in 2008
► Stop enforcement of items illegally placed in the public ROW
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment #1: Additional Information Regarding Staff Recommendation
Attachment #2: Background Information and Research -
• FISCAL NOTES
Costs associated with the new program are included in Attachment #1. Staff proposal of retrieval fee would offset
some of the costs incurred.
•
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \2 -16 -10 AIS Signs in the ROW.doc 2
Attachment #1
Staff Recommendation for New Procedure and Fee
Staff recommends the City Council discuss retrieval fee options and new procedures pertaining to
confiscation, storage, disposal, retrieval fees, etc of items illegally placed in the public Right of Way
(ROW) and direct staff to draft code amendments for its consideration at the March 23, 2010 Business
Meeting.
Recommendation Specifications - Below are the details of the staff recommendation.
Amend Tigard Municipal Codes to:
• Allow staff from departments. other than the Tigard Police Department to seize, store, and
dispose of signs confiscated because they were illegally placed in the ROW;
• Allow disposal without an attempt to auction the items;
• Separate items confiscated in ROW from items confiscated through other enforcement actions
from private property;
• Establish fees for retrieval of confiscated signs;
• Set time limit (60 days) for storage of confiscated materials before disposal; and
• Consider addressing confiscation, storage, and disposal of other items found in the ROW.
Establish a fee for retrieval of confiscated signs
Based on examination of City costs, sign replacement costs, and practices in other Oregon cities,
staff recommends a single fee approach. Staff recommends setting the fee at $40 per sign, which
is approximately 50% cost recovery, for all A -board and lawn signs. Staff also considered setting
a $20.00 fee per sign for lawn signs and an $80.00 fee per sign for A -board signs, which is
approximately 75% of the replacement cost for each type of sign. The single fee is preferable
because it is easier to implement and manage over time.
Upon adoption of the required code changes, direct staff to implement the program by
establishing administrative procedures and other necessary measures such as:
• Fully document violations;
• Seize and store signs illegally placed in ROW;
• Manage retrieval of confiscated signs;
• Collect fees for retrieval of confiscated signs; and
• Properly document and dispose of unclaimed signs.
• Assign space for and construct secured sign corral;
• Provide safety and other equipment ;
• Determine and provide materials necessary for documentation, fee processing, etc.;
• Conduct appropriate staff training;
• Develop a written procedure for all steps and requirements in the confiscation and retrieval
process;
• Seek assistance from other departments to participate in and make ROW clean up and
confiscation an ongoing and successful program; and
• Perform additional public information outreach on sign regulations and new procedure.
Implementation steps - Staff proposes the following timeline for adoption and implementation of
a new policy for confiscation, fees, and disposal of signs illegally placed in the public ROW: •
March 23, 2010 - City Council adopts,recommendation.and code revisions
April 2010 - Determine space needs and location for secured sign corral
May / June 2010 - Construct secured sign corral
May / June 2010 - Develop procedures manual
June / July 2010 - Begin public education and outreach including:
o Press release
o Newspaper article
o Cityscape article
o Web updates
o Communications through industry groups
o Signs at Permit Counter •
June / July 2010 - Train and equip staff
August 1, 2010 - Implement new procedure and fees
August 2010 - Conduct sweep for signs without permits /not meeting regulations
Other considerations - Staff considered a wide range of issues and ideas before recommending the
new confiscation, retrieval, and disposal procedure; these are outlined below.
Amending Tigard Municipal Codes (TMC) — The TMC does not adequately address items
confiscated from the ROW or fees for retrieval of confiscated materials. TMC 2.52 groups all
"abandoned, found, seized, and stolen property" into one category, which is then assigned to the
Tigard Police Department (I PD). This means that all signs, furniture, appliances, etc. must be
assigned to TPD for storage, claims of ownership, sale by auction, and /or disposal. Proposed
changes to the TMC.may include:
• Minimally addressing signs but could address the range of items found within the ROW;
• Categorizing confiscated materials differently i.e., by type, confiscation from ROW,
approximate value, etc.;
• Authorizing staff in any department to store, handle, and dispose of certain confiscated
materials;
• Allowing disposal of certain unclaimed materials without attempt to auction;
• Assigning monetary fees for retrieval of confiscated materials; and
• Enhancing penalties or imposing mandatory minimum fines on citations issued for materials
illegally in the ROW.
Setting an appropriate retrieval fee — An effective fee for retrieval of confiscated signs should
create a deterrent for illegal use of the ROW and recover part or all of the City costs, but should
not make the option of just replacing the confiscated signs preferable. Issues considered when
recommending the fee include:
• What portion of City costs should be recovered?
• What fee amount creates a sufficient monetary deterrent for illegal use of ROW?
• What fee amount will support the practice of retrieving confiscated signs instead of replacing
them?
• Can different fees be set for different types, sizes, or approximated value of confiscated signs?
Page 2 of 4
Documenting that the sign is within the Right of Way (ROW) — The need to document violations
requires a determination be made that the illegally placed items are within the ROW. Determining
the limits of the ROW is a complex and often cumbersome task. ROW dimensions vary by each
location, requiring research and individual assessment for each site. Additional obstacles include
antiquated or unavailable historical maps, lack of computer access on site, and staff not trained to
accurately locate, measure, and assess ROW notations on record. Adaptations to aid in ROW
determinations include:
• Mobile GIS; and
• Additional staff training.
Storage — Currently the City does not have an acceptable storage facility for confiscated signs.
Solutions and for storage needs include:
• Allocation of space for a secured storage area;
• Construction of secured storage area, the cost of which is included in the 2010/2011 budget
request;
• Adequate space for up to three months of storage before disposal;
• Easy access for a variety of staff and vehicles; and
• e Electrical for lighting and appropriate security systems.
Staff Resources — Routine and consistent sign enforcement and confiscation requires significant
staff resources. Full implementation of the new procedures will tax the existing staff resources,
and the time available for other enforcement activities may be affected. Under the new procedure:
• Each confiscated sign will require:
o Individual assessment of location and ROW;
o Photographs;
o Documentation and measurements for exact location;
• o Documentation of identifying information;
o Creation of a case in Accela (permit tracking software); and
o Updates, results, and closing of the case.
• Each sign may also require staff to:
o Meet with "retrievers" and facilitate retrieval;
o Process retrieval fees; and
o Document items retrieved.
• The process will also require:
o A means to track storage and disposal of signs; and
o Sorting and disposal of unclaimed signs.
Safety and Efficiency — Confiscation of signs in the ROW usually requires stopping on a roadside,
exiting the vehicle into traffic, and /or crossing traffic to retrieve signs. New procedures to
document each violation and track each sign trough retrieval or disposal, which are necessary to
meet legal standards, add time to the process. Risk reduction and time saving methods could
include:
• Purchase materials, software, and /or equipment to enhance safety and expedite processing and
handling:
o Vehicle flasher lights and other safety equipment;
Page 3 of 4
o Multi -part labels will aid in managing confiscated items; and
o Handheld printer /scanners for labeling and recording confiscated items.
• Two person teams could allow for:
o Less time blocking ROW;
o Exiting from passenger side of vehicle;
o Assistance with heavy items; and
o Increased time efficiency during confiscation and documentation.
Options related to fee implementation — Ideas to include a grace period when this new procedure
is implemented or a "first tithe no charge" approach were examined Staff recommends a period
of education and outreach before the formal start date of the new procedure.
• Option to implement fees after 30 day grace period. Staff does not recommend this option
because:
o The effect of a 30 day grace period can be achieved through public outreach that
includes the implementation date and advance warning when sweeps will begin; and
o Creating systems to distinguish between signs confiscated during and after a grace period
creates an additional workload burden.
• Option to include a "first time no charge" procedure. Staff does not recommend this option
because:
o Documentation and tracking of who received "first time no charge" will be difficult and
time prohibitive;
o Many signs do not have sufficient identifying information;
o Usually multiple, signs are confiscated from individuals; and
o "First time no charge" could be endless due to agent turnover and transfers.
Other signs — Signs other than A -board and lawn signs create different challenges and should be
assessed separately. Illegal placement and subsequent need for confiscation of these types of signs
are not as common. These signs can include those which are:
• Attached to structures, frames, posts, pillars, etc.;
• Buried, concreted, or anchored into the ground; and
• Are very large or heavy.
Staff suggests that the new procedure include a fee range for these types of signs with Code
authority for the Community Development Director to impose an appropriate fee depending on
the characteristics of the sign and the circumstances of the confiscation.
•
Page 4 of 4
Attachment #2
Background Information and Research
Staff explored a variety of factors before making a recommendation on the procedures for
confiscation and retrieval of signs illegally placed in the ROW. Research included estimating the
cost to the City for the confiscation and retrieval process, ascertaining costs of A -board and lawn
signs, and comparing ROW confiscation and retrieval policies in other Oregon cities.
Estimating Staff Cost - To estimate staff costs, each identified step involved in the recommended
confiscation and retrieval process was assigned a rough time period. A "billable" rate based on the
salary and benefits of the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO), was applied to convert time to cost,
though the rate will change slightly if other staff is utilized in the process. Fuel and other overhead
costs are not included in the estimate. The results are an estimated City cost of $81.16 per sign in the
confiscation and retrieval process. Additional costs will be incurred by the City for signs requiring
disposal. The details of this estimated time are as follows:
Estimated time for steps in enforcement procedure (in minutes):
o Receive and document complaint 10
o Drive to Site 15
o Assess and measure ROW 10
o Document including photographs and create sign tag 05
o Remove sign 05
o Return from site 15
o Store and secure sign /s 10
o Download /transfer photos & other documentation 10
o Create case 10
o Meet-with retrieval agent / wait for sign sorting 10
o Document all retrieved signs 05
o Review retrieval form and get signature 05
o Return to City Hall for payment 05
o Process payment 10
o Update and close case 10
Total Estimated Time = 135 minutes or 2.25 hours
CEO Billable Rate = $36.07 per hour
Total Estimated.Cost = $86.16 per sign
When signs are not claimed, add bulk disposal procedure estimates:
o Document all signs ready for disposal 30
o Collect all signs ready for disposal 25
o Return signs to disposal location and unload 20
o Update /close cases on signs disposed 45
Total Estimated Time = 120 minutes or 2 hours
Additional costs:
o Secured sign corral
o Forms and materials
o Safety equipment
•
Policy comparison to other jurisdictions - In May 2009 staff conducted a broadcast survey
through the Oregon Code Enforcement Association (OCEA). Fifteen responses were received. In
December 2009 a follow -up broadcast survey was conducted to request any changes or updates to
the May 2009 answers; no changes were reported. The survey questions and results are as follows:
.Question #1 - Are signs illegally placed in the public ROW confiscated and if so, are they
available for retrieval?
• All 15 have sign confiscation policies and prohibit signs in ROW
• 5 allow retrieval of signs only after payment of fee
• 4 allow retrieval with no fee (though one is considering a fee)
• 4 may allow retrieval
• 1 does not allow retrieval
• 1 did not answer because signs are not a council priority
Questions #2 - How long are confiscated signs kept before disposal?
• 3 - not kept, immediate disposal
• 1 -. one day /24 hours
• 1 - three days /72 hours maximum
• 1 - seven days /1 week maximum
• 2 - ten days maximum
• 5 - thirty days maximum
• 1 - "until truck is full"
• 1 - no answer because signs are not a council priority
Questions #3 — Is there a fee to retrieve confiscated signs?
• $40 each sign (Lincoln City)
• $50 each sign (Sherwood)
• $20 each sign (Troutdale)
• $108 each sign (Bend)
• $35 each sign (Lake Oswego)
= average of $50.60 each sign
Question #4 If there is a fee, how was the amount determined?
• General response: By what seemed to discourage violators but was still fair.
• Question #5 - Has this been effective?
• - General response: Takes more time but helps discourage violators. Warnings, notices,
citations, confiscation, education, etc. have not been effective without loss of sign and
fines or fees.
Fee Assessment - In determining potential fees, staff examined the average cost to purchase signs,
the City's cost for enforcement, and examined both the percent cost recovery and replacement cost
in comparison to a range of possible fees. .
Page 2 of 3
Cost Estimate to Purchase Signs:
Companies surveyed:
• Build A Sign • Champion Signs • Sign Elect • Yard Sign Wholesale
• Real Estate Signs • Realty Sign Xpress • Sign Crafters • Sign Pros • Closing Time Signs
Lawn Signs
Lawn sign, plastic 6x18 with stakes added High $ 28.17 Low $ 10.94
Lawn sign, plastic 9x24 with' stakes added High $ 11.74 Low $ 5.55
Lawn sign; plastic 12x18 with stakes added High $ 22.21 Low $ 5.03
Lawn sign, plastic 18x24 with stakes added High $ 34.71 Low $ 12.53
Lawn sign, plastic 18x24 complete with stakes High $ 20.40 Low $ 9.08
Lawn sign, Plastic 24x24 with stakes added High $ 43.19 Low $ 12.23
High $ 43.19 Low $ 5.03
Average $ 26.74 Average $ 9.23
A -Board Signs .
A -board w /added plastic 18x24 advertising panel High $ 106.19 Low $ 73.45
A -board w /added plastic 24x24 advertising panel High $ 137.19 Low $ 105.00
A -board w /added plastic 24x36 advertising panel High $ 130.42 Low $ 81.14
A- board, plastic 36x24 complete High $ 117.48 Low $ 117.48
A- board, wood 24x24 complete High $ 51.34 Low $ 35.00
High $ 137.19 Low $ 35.00
Average $ 108.52 Average $ 82.41
Cost Recovery vs Sign Replacement, Lawn Signs
Proposed Fee vs Estimated City Cost ($81.16)
Proposed Fee $ 10.00 $ 20.00 $ 30.00$ 40;001, $ 50.00
Cost recovery (City cost $81.16 per sign) 12.32% 24.64% 36.96% ; 49.29 %. 61.61%
(Fee Divided by City Cost)
Proposed Fee vs Estimated Lawn Sign Cost
Proposed Fee $ 10.00 $ 20.00 $ 30.00 4E$.40 $ 50.00
'Lawn Sign
Average High ($26.74) 37.40% 74.79% 112.19% 449:59,9M 186.99%
Average Low ($9.23) 108.34% 216.68% 325.03% x'433:3:7 % 541.71%
(Fee Divided by Sign Cost)
Cost Recovery vs Sign Replacement, A -Board Signs
Proposed Fee vs Estimated City Cost ($81.16)
Proposed Fee ,340:00 $ 50.00 $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 80.00 $ 90.00 $ 100.00
Cost recovery (City cost $81.16 per sign) : ;p49l29 W: 61.61% 73.93% 86.25% 98.57% 110.89% 123.21%
(Fee Divided by City Cost)
Proposed Fee vs Estimated A -Board Sign Cost
Proposed Fee ,f3N . . gym
p $:40:00;:;: $ 5q.00 $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 80.00 $ 90.00 $ 100.00
A -board sign
Average High ($108.52) ,
N3'6 61%;1,,- 8 46.07% 55.29% 64.50% 73.72% 82.93% 92.15%
Average Low ($82.41) 1;4854 %` 60.67% 72.81% 84.94% 97.08% 109.21% 121.34%
•
(Fee Divided by Sign Cost)
Page 3 of 3
f' S
,P L MENTAL PACKET
:\ i.
R '6 : . 6 PORTLAND METROPOLITAN
(DATE OF MEETING) ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
WHAT DOES PMAR DO TO EDUCATE ITS MEMBERS ABOUT SIGN CODES?
PMAR provides its members with 24/7 access to an on -line municipal sign code guide summary
for each of the twenty -five cities and three counties in our region that includes:
• Physical requirements of signs
• Number of signs allowed on property for sale
• Who to contact at the city /county to seek interpretation or guidance on placing signs
• Open housesign placement
We contact each municipality on an annual basis requesting confirmation of the accuracy of our
interpretation of their respective sign codes. Our goal is to provide our members with the most
up -to -date information available to ensure their compliance with all sign codes.
WHAT TYPES OF SIGNS DO REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS. USE?
• Colonial, Lawn and Window
• A -Board or A -Frame
• Directional
HOW MANY SIGNS DOES A CITIZEN NEED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY?
As all signs are not real estate related this is quite subjective. Citizens may desire to use such
signs as: Happy Birthday, Congratulations Graduate, Support our Troops, Grandma's Garden,
Peas, Carrots, Vote For (add candidate name here), etc. But as it relates to real estate, the
answer depends on many factors:
• Is the home located on a corner or is it in the middle of the block?
• Is the home on a main arterial on a side street?
• Is the property located within the center of a large subdivision or near the edge of the
development?
• How many turns would it take someone to get to the property from the nearest arterial?
• What visual barriers might there be (hedges, fences, etc.)?
THERE ARE TOO MANY OPEN HOUSE SIGNS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD!
This is an easy position for anyone not currently attempting to sell his or her own home to take.
However, the reality is that open house signs are only used for a very brief period of time -
typically on Tuesdays from 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. for a "broker open" and during the weekend or on
holidays. Citizens needing to sell their home have a very different point of view when it comes
to the use of such signs.
DO ANY MUNICIPALITIES ALLOW TEMPORARY PORTABLE SIGNS WITHIN THE RIGHT-
OF -WAY IN OUR REGION?
Eight (8) municipalities currently allow the use of such signs within the public right of way
(Canby, Johnson City, Lake Oswego, Maywood Park, Portland, Rivergrove, Sherwood,
Wilsonville) for specific times.
•
One (1) city, recognizing the difficulty in the down- turned economy to sell homes, has adopted a
resolution to temporarily rescind its enforcement of A -Frame signs within the public right -of -way
for specific times (West Linn). They also extended this resolution for an additional period of
time.
ARE SIGNS EVEN NECESSARY WITH GPS AND MAPS ON -LINE?
Although technology is a wonderful thing, availability does not mean everyone has access, or
even a desire, to use it. Limiting a potential homebuyerto GPS or on -line maps in order to
locate a home they may wish to investigate would create an inequity for potential homebuyers
and a hardship on citizens trying sell.
People usually shop for the neighborhood before the house. So a family cruising a neighborhood
they really like usually stumble upon the directional sign that leads them to the home they buy.
In a recent bi- annual survey conducted by the National Association of Realtors, signs were
identified as the primary manner (second only to real estate professionals) in which the
respondent found the house in which they are currently living. Citizens want their real estate
professional to use all available tools to market their home, including signs, which benefit an
entire community. No one wants a vacant home, or one in foreclosure, within his or her
neighborhood.
SHOULD PORTABLE SIGNS BE ALLOWED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY?
The ability to guide potential homebuyers to a property that is for sale is vital and in many cases
the public right -of -way may be the only visible avenue available:
• Not all properties lend themselves to place such signs on private property.
• Portable signs will not damage property or irrigation systems within the right of way.
• Portable signs are used in real estate for a very limited period of time and for a very
specific purpose - open house or direction.
• They can be placed so as not to interfere with pedestrians or traffic.
SHOULD REAL ESTATE SIGNS BE SUBJECT TO A. PERMIT AND FEE?
Unlike signs advertising the corner cafe or floral shop, real estate signs are temporary in nature
in that they are not going to be used daily on a permanent basis and for an extended period of
time. But, again, real estate signs are not the only temporary signs desired and used by
citizens.
HOW SHOULD MUNICIPALITIES HANDLE SIGN COPE VIOLATIONS?
Education and enforcement. PMAR encourages its members to obey all laws, including municipal
sign codes. Consequently, education and enforcement for the benefit of citizens and those who
conduct business within a municipality regarding existing sign codes is thoroughly supported by
PMAR.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * **
City of Tigard Statistics:
Every day, individuals and families are buying and selling homes in Tigard. In 2007, Realtors
helped sell $387,655,000 million worth of residential property within the City. In 2008 and
2009, Realtors were part of transactions totaling more than $253 million and $225 million,
respectively. And through February 12, 2010, Realtors® have been part of transactions totaling
more than $18.1 million. There are currently 513 homes available for sale in Tigard. (Source:
RMLS)
Year No of Units Sold Average Days 3 on Market
2007 1,113
2008 791 121
2009 778 167
YTD 2010 62 204
YTD 2010 Average Days on Market: Portland 136, Wilsonville 173, West Linn 172
j1 =24 ..00:55 From' To.�173 big 1471 P.i?f�
• •
Portland Metro olitan
•
J
'3
A Ue tan c� R a
F
February 23, 2t1nn
•
• Mr. Dick Bewersdnrff
Planning Manager
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, CM g7223
•
Re: City of Tigard Sign Code Information Request
•
Good morning,
•
The Portland Matmpnlrtan Association of REALTORS maintains a matrix of the sign codes of the cities and counties within the
lri- county area OD o service to its more than 6,500 REALTOR"' members. We currently are in the process of updating this matrix Le
ensure that the information we are distributing to our members is, In fact, current and accurate. Our interpretation of City of
Tigard's sign code for inclusaion In this Matrix is as follows:
Physical Requirements of Real Estate signs: Lawn signs must not exceed 12 square feet per face in residential zones and must
be 60 feet apart, Maximum 6 feet in height, taut._ 1 n Sr ��w -f a
Sign(s) on Property For Safe: A total of 24 square feat of signage is allowed in residential zones S,� }i�
Addltional "For Sale" Signs Off Premises: Signa allowed off -site on ■rivatc pro, arty in residential zones with owner's permission,
Zo - _ • ulated size and placemont requirements still apply. Sign-1 ltjrequire •,' _ -- ; • -
ie zones. — ,us7 $ j, . • r i s . f. • e.e. faace
'�Ytr. '}�t3 ,5�.4�^c4 — d7r• _
Open House Signs: A -Board signs allowed between the hours of &00 a.m, and 6:00 p.m. on private properly in residential zones Pith*IL
only; May not exceed six square feet per face, Not allowed in right -of -way (which includes sidewalks and planter strlbs or visual
• clearance area)
Who to Call to Seek information: Development Service Technicians, 503 -635- 4171, x2421 Coda online at
http: ltwww, sttigard,or,us /busincsslmunicif al_code, Select Title 18. Select 16.750.
6 ) 1 - - ) u
It trio above information is correct, please sign & date below and fax this furni back to me ( 503.228 -4170
(Printed Name $ Signature) (Title) (Date)
- if any of the information above is incorrect or has changed, please make a note of such on this docurnnnt, sign and date it,
and fax it beck to me at 5O3- 228•4170 by Tuesday, March 24, 200g,
•
1 personally want to thank you In advance Tor your attention to this request. If you heave any questions or concerns, please do not
hesitate to call me at 503- 459.2182.
s esl req - rds, r ,
S �, p �. , .•T f 4 yi.�ir°(td , K �Y.,rrr�rcta�
lWnand y r Sr n >! L V 3 6
Governmental Affairs Specialist
Direct-.503.459.2162 ya ,+. n�*a ,{ p iLro -� � ; C � f.� fk r. c.,� .l-� +•K � a : � i
ms
dwlnandfprnar.org s_ r }t
n�
•
r*n ra n r G C. S c C,A,h Sa ' ' mil � t CC� 1 c�
•7 ► a ' -c:b .0 • 4--� •
5331 SW Macadam Avcnuc, Suite 207 7 r `,4
Pont :mc,il, OR 97239 -
50_3.22tS_c )5 .
iz.AtTOff' Fax 56.3 2.28 /1170 •
•
•
•
Residential Real Estate Sign Placement by Jurisdiction
-.4 ''. , . �.:� � "i, - a,;.' -e .1;�: :!5_6(0V110:,, � ?� " EC�FInte ' retativn���
,.:-...,• ...:.__.; elli .�,�, . �: z. C . :' ,rr�,�-{ r� _" ak OtCaii O?S
_. mss. '"• -t v ,'�, _ .myp.cv�w-,ti �n -`AbUS .- s `'¢ ....?APP,.,. , -, t-�
_.�.,��-...•..___�. .:... _..__.- - .,. ; ,.��.: dditional�,Fon- Sale�.� -Sa � ,�'•- .,.;. =:�< - �,, >, >.�_
' P
,. �.:. � o e .. f' or. S a le ,- FO, A - -
n4Pr "�. ...._,. -.,., ..._ „_,,,.�- „a�,..__.�l:Q. -: ,. �Y.;- Sig- „. �..r,v ,._ , --„ � �: M.,;�vn :,,�.,> ,:x.F �' ".r =�'1 -:x� =.
a is . S� s rxa : .. ebt'45 .- ..g..�...... .. , ,, - , a t r ,. ,,4 ,,. .,, ] i = =.,a:. ;a,
- ical -Re uir tuen_ �._� ... _..: -P ,.? _- ,.,.. -. >; .. , _ a,..�� -.. _. .._, .. r.... , -',: .:> ,z.- �t;:�, ..,� „� _ �..�..
. _ . .. _ ... ,._ ...._... ,...M, .,. , _,,.. �. ;:..a,- w ;ms-_µ- -
_ . _.......,., _” _ , , , -.... �. -...rte .a:,,.,.._ _ .n .: .f.., .� .,,. , ,.. . . -�:,
_+«,> .. ?. ,v s . ,. .. ,xt.-, -..» ._ .}... , _, S.. - 1? :�" ,. , t .. , t- ,f-. 's-. �;r.'.t '�` •'s,.,v =
,. o-,. _ ,. y � .._,F.{ T '� ue .. '1 .� . ..� .3": _ _ .. z ",-,, r,,. t. � -, G '” .Cxr.. -�� _.N "..f' ' ^:f•' .,Y:.:
v� r a. »... � fin. t „� . _ .. - Ol7fl ,�'1 I1$ ,�.: �.„.' .:t � _
. s G'��.. -�... .. �- M. .,. ,� Direc�i _ . F..:�...�- , ..,.i.., � ._,.��• _�
�, , . r _ Q �� ,- .... .. ..,r .. . � ,�,.. , �a P<reuuses . :. �... ...�, � x.
-f -zi: .. _x . ,. .. �u .,.. .. ._ . .��' _ � ,...h _, „ ..g. .. , .s ,� .: '^'' i :� a > y . a .
... " ...W t .. . z ._ .,�}. "..dv...,. n. _ ... .. . _ ,. .. `^F .v.. n,. C, tv, >k� , ,yy ='� ..1. :: �t.
eal �',State�l <. ` _ .o-.. , a ..... .,. lr,.. v. .v _ ,..., . 'sue .. : _, i. G_ . - t1f c -rYa :. �.
,+,.. • v .. v QL � - ,. 5. u- -V a _ .., , _.r u � kt, v r .. ., , ,. �... 'iPV•:• � "-t, -tvi5. r�s, a � c. {,L+:..4 �:: : ', a.n . _ .v",'a'{ -: .:eLx.� %` m...�*
- ._ -+. , , s ., , ,..., ..... b "" k`-Sry � .. .. .» u,: ._v. .. ., _. v... d- , . ..07. t.:n ( _ Y' ,:,, .. - :::ii"'. s
, „°. c. .> ... _., ., . »r.. -_. -, ,ET. -..9 _... u >.. ..,'r!„ dui.=- "�.;.,a :tis, °� t-V -
,
-., .,_ _ .. _ , r a •o- .,.> ,. r^. . : .... .5 >'i .,_, x.,,. v� v7, _ .......+ ,. " . , . :° ._s �,: ,:. „�< ,rt rK. »,. „A3_:e_ � __ .. s :.. tifr
-a .. ,-�.,. ..G r ._ -. _i,. -., .,, "_ _ _ , ,. ... s - .,_ x S '� „4 s � -:. ' wq•5'..:v,: ?u:�'si .�v - .sP:- : ?,Y ='ti !,.w'o'
... -. ..: , . .. ,s _. -, .. .r. � .e.,,..,,, , � ,. ,... ,5., :r.���..., :�, r .,.a . ._.a, -. - A:,.:T� .'r,r_M :.So-..,z: v' . 7+'`�` '?*rfr -'x ��P � �"s��ns.5. ,n7c^. 5,_»s Y ....'.':3, : :a:. .a .,L..:. ._:5.�.
-.1Q .r £., �}.�- :.0 a,_w_ ,:,,., r�,r._.:..:- , .� , 's"�'.- ., , ...�:,.:,,. Cray p {v.,s::�'S <: ,, - -ia, -. _ ;._q. :rim . _ _., wM'," �P ;,ra:u::_.ar....__..s..,.r`_!r .,:__.,�s'��'�.,.�,.:r w.,3.....�r - "__, _.
; :..., ?t" ...r. �+ ; ,e � '9 nk< �;a:a7.�<,�zr.$5' z":.,.k,�h.r; - -;.. m,F`.: §__' _.,_ .,a, .�,n hT."�:�:r A��'L -•
� ,ti :t�.�., •. ;ms: ,.. _ _ .,�,. _ , _ tom. �t,..
Beaverton For single - family Two double faced signs on the One sign per tax lot allowed for each Code does not address. No balloons Planning Counter 503 - 526 -2420; Code
dwellings: 4 square feet lot. property. May not be set out before allowed. Enforcement 503 - 526 -2270. Code is available
per face. sunrise. Must be removed by dusk. Not online at
allowed in public right -of -way. http: / /www.beavertonoreoon.00v /departments/
CDD /Codes /devCodeChp60.aspx - 60.40
•
Canby One temporary sign no See physical requirements. See open house signs. A -frame and lawn signs no taller than Planning Office, 503 - 266 -7001
taller than 5ft in height, 3 feet in height and not exceeding 6 •
and not exceeding 6 square feet in area may be displayed
square feet. in area. Must on weekends and holidays in right of
be removed within 14 way in relative close proximity to a
days after sale. property where an open house is
being held for the sale or lease of the
• property.
•
Cornelius 4 square feet. Maximum One temporary sign at a time One off -site, on private property with the If sign is inaddition to another sign on Dick Reynolds, Community Development, 503-
. height from ground to top allowed for a permitted owner's permission and sign permit. property for sale - temporary sign 357 -3011. Code online at
of sign 6 feet. event/activity per property - permit required. Signs are not allowed www.ci.cornelius.or.us /. Click on City
annually. in public right of -way. Government, then on City Code and Charter
then Cornelius Municipal Code. Signs are in
chapter 18.175.
Damascus 3 square feet or less. One per site. Allowed for no Code does not allow. Must follow regulations of "For Sale” Clay Glasgow, 503 - 353 -4520. Code online at
more than 60 days in any signs. No balloons allowed. http: / /www.co.clackamas.or.us/ Choose
calendar year. Government, then Clackamas County Code
under other resources. Chose Title 12 then
Section 1010.
•
Durham Not to exceed 8 square No more than two per site. No signs allowed in right -of -way. Code does not address. City of Durham, 503 - 639 -6851
feet. Must stand no less
•
than:'5 feet from property
• boundaries, No higher
than feet above
average grade. .
Fairvie w Maximum 42 inches in Code does not limit number of Directional signs permitted on private' A -Frame signs prohibited in John Gessner, Community Development
height. Maximum permitted temporary signs in property with owner's permission not in residential areas. Director 503 - 674 -6205
duration for .sign 6 residential zones: Must be on public right -of -way.
months. private property not in public
right -of -way.
•
Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors December 2009
'
Residential '
Real Estate Sign Placement by Jurisdiction -
Forest-Grove See Signs on Property fo 4 Sq Feet area/per side One 4 Sq area/per side � 8-days height One (1)�gn per pu�o on 3233
Sale (1>o�n��honmgo�x per frontage. mu^"" "�"�" � ^
maximum 8- days per calendar Must be removed by sunset on day private property.
� e,on�d.Tnue�n�odmnmedo�e�
year. adjacent to property where event is
6 Sq Feet area/per side x 6 occurring.
feet height One (1) sign per
. frontage / removed within 30 On private property with owner
days of the sate, lease or permission. Other than above no A-
FramesorDi,omionoi0nea||mwodinony
rental. .
public right of way.
Gladstone Temp Sign Height 6 2 Temporary Signs Must not exceed two signs per parcel A-Frames allowed dusk Fri thru dusk Clackamas County Planning Department, 503
-
feet; Face 8oqft; A- 180 day maximum displ limit ay|i� limit and combined area of the two signs Sun (within setback on private 3-4528
(includes di� | time of hm�oo",caed�8aq� Pmpo�y' not pu right-of-way).
F�me'Ho��4�� Face ( u�o �paymmem Also allowed un1�ve (�»��
, s*qft Thun$��um1Oom»o2pm
. ' displayed temp signs)
. must be See "For signs KhodnChUe, Code b feet. Lawn »�nnUmhedm�� GhoUm x b�Cxo�o vision, . um� on additional . 3 online at
oonui�ion(noa�
Gresham ��oo om «e*� month private property. regulations. Admi»is�adon5n3's18'u4s� Code »»o»*Qiok
� ,wv�oi� o,wn*umn"� ux/dopo monm/oeoo/ �
c|nan andingond .` _—
(neat, clean, onoovo�pmomCode select
. rep���Nopo|eorhannmpondngs��u� Code, .
be removed after 90 days. At major
' intersections, number of signs limited to _
one.
Nmo�o�i ssquam ��mmn��mpn��n�na None permitted. A��mns�na��*e on private �mcmrbfCommo�y8�vm�.��o .
Happy Valley feet mx�(counting both per streOt frontage on private property only. Campbell, 503-
sign faces). property with owner's
permission. No sign allowed in
public right-of-way. Violators
of sign code will incur penalties
as follows: 1st offense -
removal of sign by city and
sign owner's offense
documented (sign may be
. retrieved 4:City's office of
Public Works); 2nd offense:
$90; 3rd: $180; 4th: $380.
Finnsoonhnuom.dovhle for
eaohnMonpevp m:$2.500. •
` Ame8 feet; One s�hpe pmpo��Ome Not in Pob�R�h�o�Woymv�nn �gnx�osoqv�o�e inmno and 4 smueEUe�. Planning Department Hillsboro Sign Area additional p« cxsamonizn clearance ^ ~ ,00x AUo*ednnweekends feet in he�htfor maximum ofO'dayo G2O9; Code En�momem 5n»�1�uo4u.
Height: »�s'«^�' sign dif�h property ~ areas. Allowed in any odondarmo�hand ioremoved
Havging�Of��� ��moyuoe'e�o the ux« "«"""' `,' to by �
' • bo,de�an�mnd000e*and ��mi,oM�mmmessigns intersections erected.
. . the signs menot visible �d000pruxmity to site (1/2 mile or
simultaneously. less).
December 2009
•
Residential Estate Sign Placement by Jurisdiction
~~,~~~ �� Allowed Bomoou�a��Reco�e�nno�ss�7 o
� Ono�onnnhounomwindnw� None permitted. �
Johnson City maximum. Nn /H|nwedin�gU�u�wayoo�ngeomm
"°''' ^'� blocking clear vision.
King 4oqvene feet mo�mum. One double-faced, free None permitted. Nn more V,onthree �gno|no�edon 503-639-4082 standing. private property. Four square feet in
area. May state only the name of the
• Realtor® and/or firm and "Open" or
"Open House" with an arrow indicating •
direction to the property.
6 feet. One on�oignifd`e • None permitted. A4�me•s�no only (5oq�in�eo& Code EnYnnmmem0#ioec 503-699-7473 or
Lake Oswego sq d 0O|nnheo max heighV�oUowedinr\g»� Planning oepa�nent.son'su5'oono.
acres in,esidonUo|zones property b ond«ma»*««» o�'wmyodjocen�tuphv�oprnpe�� Codeun|inaou
sign ay be increased up �'««t.a» !Ong o» the signs am OndoyOom 8pm Must vmwwoioowegnorua�uo\�«i�«ode/.GiQ»
��csqfe^� no�ni�u|�onoous[yv�nib|e(G Sunday �� .' � � �� � �
sq ft only) effort to contact abutting property regulations are located in Chapter 47.
owner & if not hbme, must leave card
w/ contact info & description of effort
made to contact. Signs to include
• •
legible name, address, and phone
•
number of owner of the sign. Do not
block sidewalks or travel lanes.
. '
Where no curb exists, the sign shall
• be placed outside the roadway at
least 5 feet from the edge of the
roadway; cannot be placed in a
median, traffic island, or other area •
within the roadway. The sign is to be
entirely outside the roadway and any
shoulder. The sign shall not obstruct a
continuous through pedestrian zone
of at least five feet in width.
Maywood Park (�mdo��� C���d����n� [�m�d����n��� 'City code does not address City, of Maywood Park, 503-255-9805
addreaosigm^ City has signs.
requested that no signs •
be attached tostop sign,
street, or telephone •
• poles. •
•
P��mo,u[��eDoy5o3�85�G3O Code online
��hru��e Overall face of signs Exempt /mm.�gnponn� Pmhibhedin public hgh�o�way.Umhed AUuwed«nm/n�o of the �vw,�� de s�n� s»n}
p~ �mmedi '~'~~ squem� A||d�nd|ordumdnn�'�o��hy. mphyomdmqui,emomo|io�Uabove. pmpen�for o�e.Nnb�|onnum|ownU.a\ xnp qco �u n uwau .
not exceeding 16 within NoeUingeo�bannomorpennants 8n|e�TiUo14.
feet. Nonx|umina�d� Signombo��nveu na
reasonable period of time. allowed. Limited to physical
UmUodmphyo|md requirements listed above.
rduiremens listed above.
De
Portland ��etnomol�amApomcia�wnofD�emlbms. ` ,
•
•
'
Residential Real Estate Sign Placement by
'-- ---R-6;,;yik• A,F�mo�ondw�hboa�s streamers, M�DanonPenv 503-829-6855 �vh o nsq»=euomumoxmum F*��mPom�o�»noU»w«u balloons boards, 'vwmwmohUa"^^oKv��u»ic»d»A«e'P�»C»a»
���en 3 maximum per frontage www.moialla.net/-city/MunicodeAfterPlanChan feet �o�d See: zoned . 18.50: height above grade, no residential property __ _ __ _
illuminated signs allowed, under single ownership
provided they do not cause a
public safety hazard or
nuisance. Must be set back
from street as determined by
the Director. None allowed in
public right of way. Permitted
signs are not allowed.
Oregon City 4 square feet with no One per street frontage. See physical requirements. Portable signs, A-frame signs p��
prohibited, banners, �"""""''="`""v''o~`,~'°. Select City
p�nnn
' m
prohibited. Code Book 15.28. •
placed �A ��hgh�n�To ��pu�ob/ en�nn�|owedin Patty 5O3�23�315�ou�7�0
Portland 3 Lawn n�na��wo without Signs � in public �m VanAntwerp, d online at
« in all illegal, except for temporary ,ioh�n�woy (except inHiUndo|e�on am '5oopmCo eon e
����n�ce� |imkonphvo�PmP*�' »m way district) between a.m. 5:00 p.m.) ---- »ezmm� h»�»d«x/�
zones. Not allowed p"°"=�*=p�~~,` signs). -
� | nb - pm Sunday, and through m?c~uoies
•
parking/grassy planting � � . �
or medians. p.m. Tuesdays.
Rivergrove 4 square feet. 4-foot Code does not address. Code does not address. Code does not address. Shelia Richards.�R�����R�
maximum he�ixorwidth. Grove, 503-639-6919
Heather Austin
| Pole 4 P|onningDeFt•sno-sm�^un2n v o,
Sherwood Maximum 8 square feet on� •a�» parcel. »* 4on
G�o | s
per sign face for signs on signs prohibited. oq feet per �c«ax from.
6:00 (see "Additional For Sale Signs m »up�0 Off- @ 503-625-4206. Code online at
pnv�op,npeny.Q#�ko Txmmdovunu mpremises |o�unp�uvmuayun�vn pmi oev or requi emm/� /.. ,. ," dos .|exisnoxi»nnnKoodes/oho
temporary/portable signs: Tuesday in the city controlled public right- rwood/
6 square feet per sign of-way. May not be anchored to public
face. property! trees/poles, etc. Not permitted
in ODOT or Washington Co. right
• • not total square Signs allowed
property A-Board oUowedbeu�oenthe Development Service Technicians,
Tigard Lawn umn^om^u/m � signage inmsidenb�zonos��owne/n houoof8: 4171, x2421. Code online ��h�p�mmvw�goo
�^^""" '~~y~�~'~~ �� Zone regulated pnva�pmpn�yi�mx�enVu zones o,gu"�ubneoohnuni *1�1
porhsmeinmsidehU� residential zones. permission. mg residential . --- ��
zones and must be 50 placement requirements still apply. only. May not exceed sixsuare feet 780-1:pdf
• feet apart Maximum per face. mman m
allowed ' �hiohindudenoidowoknmndp�n�r
• �ominheighx� —
strips or visual clearance area).
•
PwrtlanctMctropolitum Association of Realt December 2009 -- �
Residential Real . Sign Placement by Jurisdiction
~~- -'—� Allowed m�cmmya��em,mn�,o��'.—'256.
NnnooUo*od daylight Correy, ----- Ros�onk�`Ovn�s 1u»qDnee�»��Pa�e� '—'--�~ ` m�� Cndnm�neoo
���������
h max / on o� �*p�. .MUST hemmovedphor0o www.ci.trouldale.or.us/documents/development
unU�es�nnU�o�»qh sunset cd the day ofplacement. o»d«/10.Pdf
max /1nhheight.
| ho 6 me*�po,siue. One frontage. ndgnsm�|.induding for mdo�gno See add�on�"For S�n^signs. Planning, 5O3�91�nus�odeonUnoat Menu,
�oum square enn�ed��odennphvo�PmP*�K ww°'°.tua~"''~'.~~. Under Quick Links
— c�50ee^me�mumh«�h\ p � ' oonsem��ommpon where didionDnvo|opmnm Code, and oo|o�Chop�,
(nr*emporo�A'�nome� 6 with ' 38.
Nob�|oons�|�ed Signs ���maximum�or allowed.
|e�or�onfour oquam�ot
�mpn�������
• | 5 signs permitted Te signs A-F�ma signs �|owedinpu�ic��h� Tom soppe' Assoc Planner 'snn'7^�nsso
West Linn u4aqu��*»»'�m s »n ''/p~'~` o��ayunN|�amh31 2010 on peggyJonns'CndeE»�nmm«mOM««r'
sign-age (m*oA»a»e'fom«jto\sign p»'m/*sm»n/m« property "=/e'o the Sundays between 74c�8onoCode�ovoi|ob|en»|i»«�
4�a' area). 2 pm��'(m�� upon �os��w*em u�o ' line: �m
E»am |»�� sign at � sign is to �ced Directional �O}a ' and pm hop�wesdinnom�n»�n»�|nmnin�o5e' nu
� placing 5- \�eogn o oop � (8) ^"� (6) � �
• �a ��om.��m�hxom�mum� 6 ������������'n�
»�/u�'«��"i�� height days annually. VVo�UnnSign Code Upd�a
property; maximum
7feed. Mbst'bo1fod« specifics at www.pmar.org/signcode.
• 'from hght-of:way.o4sqft
for a developing property
n( more than 1 acre, 6sq •
ft for a developing
property of less than 1 •
acre. 10sq foot set-back •
from intersection corners.
2rfoot
sidewa 3-foo setback •
from street pavement if
no sidewalk.
•
•
•
•
•
•
• / ����
--4-1.1 ua"t,annnvan Anxm,a�omoX'Rea�wre �
Residential Real Estate Sign Placement by Jurisdiction
• , ,. ,._. .::..., ,, _ o . - , a --�� i � - ; °„ � : ; -a 'Vlio to'Ca11 f o SeekInter refatiori
y is - :. - - v<
• a on •Er "o "ert - :for._S ,.Additional y Fr S le �S rgns',Off . ",�; : Open HoiYse S ,,r _ � P;.,,
urisdutton�, �,.Physical.Requirements ; Si p y„
;
,
Preiiiis DarecEiort ) . �, ; �; %_ : ,
-. ,.
< of. Real is s , , _.. „ : ,,.,., . , . -.. .. . :' .. _ ; .. , , g ,
Wilsonville 6 square feet. 6' in One per parcel. ALL OFF -SITE SIGNS ALLOWED ONLY ALL OFF -SITE SIGNS ALLOWED Planning Department, 503 - 682 -4960. Code
height. DURING WEEKEND HOURS AND ONLY DURING WEEKEND HOURS online at
TUESDAY MORNINGS - otherwise signs AND TUESDAY MORNINGS - http: / /www.ci.wilsonville.or.us /departments /com
must be on property for sale. 3 signs otherwise signs must be on property dev /planning /DevCode.htm - Sign Code is
allowed off -site and allowed only for sale. See additional For Sale" found under Section 4.156
between 6:00 p.m. Friday to 8:00 p.m. signs. Balloons not allowed.
Sunday, and 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Tuesday. No closer than 10 feet from
any other sign. For right -of -way
placement, refer to city map at: (See
• 4.156 Sub .10 Sub A5).
•
Wood Village Maximum 12 square feet Allows 2 signs on site. None allowed. Included in the maximum 12 square 503 - 489 -6859
total for up to 2 signs. feet total for up to 2 signs.
Clackamas 3 square feet or less. One per site. Allowed for no Code-does not allow. Must_follow regulations of "For Sale" Linda Preisz, 503 - 353 -4520. Code online at
• County more than 60 days in any signs. No balloons allowed. www.co.clackamas.or.us / Choose Government,
calendaryear- then Clackamas County Code under other
• resources. Chose Title 12 then Section 1010.
Multnomah 3 square feet, no more Temporary signs must be Not allowed in right -of -way. Not allowed in right -of -way. Planner on Duty, 503- 988 -3043. Code online at
County
than 42 inches in height. removed within 6 months. Not www.co.multnomah.or.us /landuse
Note: National scenic allowed in public right -of -way.
area has different sign
standards - refer directly
to code.
Washington Not to exceed 16 square Must be on private property, None allowed. Must be on private property - not Development Assistance Staff at 503 -846 -876,1
feet. not within any dedicated right- within any public right -of -way. Code online at
County
of -way. No permit required. http: / /washtech.co.washington.or.us /LDS /index.
Must be removed within 14 cfm ?id= 7section 414.
days after conclusion of event.
This chart' is a,guide for your reference. It is not meant to fully reflect the ordinance. Ordinances do change from time to time, so it is advised that Realtors® remain familiar with them. When overlapping
jurisdictions occur, the more restrictive regulations'usually govern. Questions should be directed to the telephone numbers listed above. Note: Oregon law requires that anyone digging in private property or
any public; right of way call the One Call Center prior to digging. You need to call the Oregon Utility Notification Center (OUNC). OUNC is the Oregon state agency that administers Oregon's excavation
laws and the statewide toll free ".One- Call "`number is 1 -800- 332 -2344 (available 24/7). Additional information is available at www.digsafelvoreaon.com
•
•
•
•
• Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors December 2009 •
•
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date February 16, 2010
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Tssue /Agenda Tide Periodic Review Update
s (�
Prepared Bp: Dairen Wyss Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Receive briefing on Tigard's Periodic Review status.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION •
Receive briefing from staff.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Periodically, cities and counties are required to evaluate their comprehensive plans and land use regulations through
a process called Periodic Review (ORS 197.628 -644 and OAR 660, Division 25). On May 20, 2008, the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) notified the City of the commencement of Periodic
Review for Tigard. Staff then developed a Periodic Review work program, which was presented to City Council on
January 27, 2009. At the meeting, Council approved the work program and directed staff to submit the documents
to DLCD.
In March 2009, because of budget issues, DLCD temporarily suspended approving any additional work programs,
including the City's. Subsequently, the state budget was adopted with adequate appropriations for Periodic Review
grants and DLCD commenced the process of reviewing work programs for approval in October 2009. Once its
work program is approved, the City will have a three year time period to complete all work program tasks.
Through discussions with the City's DLCD representative, two tasks submitted with the City's work program have
been removed from the. final work program'being reviewed by DLCD. This includes the task to develop a
Wellhead Protection Program and the task to Incorporate Technical Analysis of Clackamas River Water Right
Extension into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Both were recommended for removal by DLCD because they are
outside of the required scope (economic development, needed housing, transportation, public facilities, and
urbanization) of Periodic Review.
While not required, the two tasks were identified by state agencies and staff believes both warrant some
consideration for future attention. A Wellhead Protection Program would be very beneficial in helping the City
protect its investment in the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Prograin, and staff will work with the Departments of
'Environmental Quality and Human Services to evaluate any potential assistance available to complete such a
project. The Community Development Dept. will coordinate this directly with Public Works. The suggested
incorporation of the water right extension technical analysis into the - Comprehensive Plan will be addressed during
the update of the City's Public Facility Plan.
I: \LRPI,N \Council Materials \21110 \2 -16 -10 PcriodicRcvicwUpdate AIS.docx
The City has also secured a DLCD Periodic Review grant for $35,000 to perform the anticipated work task of
completing an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), Council supported the grant application with Resolution
09 -65 on September 22, 2009. Completion of an EOA will help provide the necessary findings for updates to the
Tigard Zoning Map regarding employment lands. Having adequate future employment lands is an important
component of implementing the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. City staff is working with DLCD to finalize a scope
of work. A consultant will then be hired in late spring to perform the work, which is anticipated to take about one
year to complete.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Goal 1: Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal
ATTACHMENT LIST
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development has committed $35,000 from its Periodic Review
Grant program to fund an Economic Opportunities Analysis. A consultant will be hired to perform the work. The
City is not required to provide matching funds, but will provide in -kind contributions of staff time and materials to
aid in completing the project.
I: \LRP1_,N \Council \Materials \2010 \2 -16 -l0 PcriodicRcvicwUpdare AISdocx
Agenda Item # -
Meeting Date February 16, 2010
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Discuss Tree Code Update Project Scope, Schedule, and Process
Prepared By: John Floyd Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
This briefing will'provide an overview of options for the scope, schedule and process to implement a Tree Code
Update project. Originally intended as part of the January 19 joint meeting with the Planning Commission, this
item was rescheduled due to time constraints and additional direction provided by Council at that meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive overview of options for the scope, schedule and process to implement a Tree Code Update project and
provide direction.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
• Staff has developed two draft options for how the City may choose to proceed with the update of Tigard's tree
protection and management regulations. These options incorporate feedback received at the January 19 Council
workshop, and can be described as follows:
Option 1: Comprehensive Tree Regulation Update with Enhanced Public Involvement
Option 1 would take a comprehensive approach to overhauling all of Tigard's tree regulations, both development
and non - development related; would develop a Tree Grove Protection Program; and would include significant
public involvement to maximize the potential for reaching consensus on what can be polarizing issues. This
approach would take approximately 18 -24 months to complete.
Option 2: Phased Update of Tigard's Tree Regulations
Option 2 is a multi =year, phased approach that would "fast- track" the update of development related tree
regulations in the first phase. Development of a tree grove protection program, a hazard tree abatement program,
and non - development related tree regulations, would occur in a subsequent phase. Completion of the first phase,
namely the Development Code regulations, would take approximately one year to complete. The remaining efforts
would take additional:time to complete, could require additional adjustments to the Development Code, and would
have to be programmed into future years.
While these two options differ in scope and timeline, there remains considerable similarity in the overall project
goals, structure, and major players. The details of the options are described in Attachments 1 and 2, and a summary
of the advantages and cautions associated with each is contained in Attachment 3.
I:\LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \2 -16 -10 Tree Code Schedule AIS.docx
•
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
2010 Council Goal 1b: Update Tree Code to Implement Comprehensive Plan
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Draft Tree Code Project — Option 1
Attachment 2: Draft Tree Code Project — Option 2
Attachment 3: Summary of Advantages and Cautions
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \2 -16 -10 Tree Code Schedule AIS.docx 2
Attachment #1
Tigard Tree Code Update
Draft Option E Comprehensive Tree Regulation Update with Enhanced Public Involvement
Project Goals
Consolidate, simplify, and update Tigard's urban forestry regulations in a manner that achieves the
following outcomes.
1. Implements the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. Implements the Goals and Sub -Goals of the Urban Forestry Master Plan;
3. Consistency with State and Regional Policies and Standards; and
4. Consistency with Council Direction and Community Preferences.
Project Scope
The project goals will be realized through a package of recommendations to Council including:
A. Amendments to consolidate and update tree management and protection standards in the
Community Development Code;
B. Amendments to consolidate and update tree management and protection regulations in the
Tigard Municipal Code, including the identification and abatement of hazard trees;
C. Development of a Tree Grove Protection Program;
D. Clarification and programming of tree removal mitigation funds; and
E. A design and maintenance manual for trees.
Public Involvement
Option 1 will utilize a high level of public involvement, to be coordinated through a Public
Involvement Plan that will appear before the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) in February
and March of 2010. The role of the CCI is to review the process of communications with residents
and provide input to assist in defining an appropriate approach.
A Communication Plan will be developed and implemented to ensure that all Citizens have an
opportunity to access information on issues in an understandable form; to communicate directly
with the City; and to participate in the planning process. Each phase of the project will be broken
into discrete components to ensure transparency and comprehension of project milestones. The
Plan will speak to the ways in which Citizens and Stakeholders will be able to receive information,
communicate with City staff, and participate in the Tree Code update during each component.
3
Attachment #1
Based upon recent projects, and Council's desire for innovative outreach programs, the following
items will be components of the project's public involvement efforts:
➢ Formation of an ad -hoc Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) that will meet and advise staff
throughout the process
➢ Project Website
➢ Informational documents including maps, flyers, factsheets, and other educational handouts
➢ Cityscape articles and press releases
➢ Listerve messages
➢ Utilization of a neutral facilitator to help manage the process, focus the dialogue, and build
meaningful consensus.
➢ Workshops, Open Houses and Public Forums
➢ Informational Booths at Community Events
➢ Presentations to Community Groups such as service clubs and key stakeholders
➢ Opportunities for public comment at meetings of the CAC, Planning Commission, and City
Council
Key Players
Project Management Team
The Project Management Team (PMT) will consist of City staff from Community Development and
Public Works. The PMT will be responsible for project management and oversight; developing
draft documents; facilitating meetings (except for the CAC); and implementation of the
Communication Plan.
Citizen Advisory Committee
A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), composed of Citizen Stakeholders will advise staff and seek
consensus solutions. The CAC may be led by an independent and neutral project facilitator in order
to focus and manage the meetings, ensure meaningful input by all participants, and deal with
differing views and ideas. At a minimum, the CAC will be composed of representatives from
existing Tigard committees including the Tree Board, the Planning Commission, and the Parks and
Recreation Board. These members are uniquely qualified to advise staff due to their technical
knowledge and familiarity with urban forestry issues unique to Tigard. In addition, Council may
wish to expand the CAC to include the following:
➢ Representatives from affected City departments.
➢ Representatives from specific stakeholder groups such as the Home Builders Association,
environmental groups, and professional associations.
➢ Citizens at large.
Peer Review Panel
A Peer Review Panel (PRP) will provide a comprehensive technical evaluation of the draft
amendments prior to consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. The function of
the PRP will be to provide a professional evaluation of the package of code amendments and
4
Attachment #1
program recommendations to ensure they are technically sound and are likely to perform as
intended. The PRP would include private and public sector professionals and stakeholders with
experience in urban forestry, development, and natural resources.
Major Tasks
Code Amendments
Amendments to the Community Development Code & Tigard Municipal Code will address the
following issues related to Tree Management:
➢ Tree Removal, Protection, and Maintenance Standards
➢ Mitigation Standards
➢ Landscape Planting and Maintenance Standards
➢ Street Tree regulations
➢ Nuisance Trees and Hazard Abatement
➢ Code Flexibility
Clarification and Programming of Tree Removal Mitigation Funds
The project will clarify the intent and programming of tree mitigation funds collected as a result of
Tigard's tree protection regulations.
Tree Grove Inventory and Protection Program
The project will develop a tree . grove inventory; an Economic, Social, Environment, and Energy
(ESEE) analysis; and grove protection incentives and /or protection standards. A consultant will be
hired to assist in this phase of the project.
Workshops
The project will host one or more day -long facilitated workshops for the purpose of disseminating
information, fostering dialogue with an expanded list of stakeholders, and providing opportunities
for meaningful public input prior to public hearings. City staff would be a participatory stakeholder,
with the meetings run by a neutral professional facilitator.
Design and Maintenance Manual
The project will include the development of a design, protection and maintenance manual to assist
developers and property owners. This manual will include drawings and specifications for species
selection, planting, protection, and maintenance.
Timeline & Phasing
In Option 1, the project begins with a kickoff phase where information materials are developed and
public involvement plans are reviewed and approved by the CCI. Project kickoff would also include
hiring consultants to implement specific functions such as facilitation, tree grove inventories, and
preparation of an ESEE analysis.
Time for completion of Option 1 is estimated at approximately 18 -24 months. Approximately half
of this time will be spent utilizing the advice of the CAC to inform and guide the development of
comprehensive tree management regulations and related materials. The CAC would meet
periodically, on a set schedule, and would provide a venue through which stakeholder consensus
5
Attachment #1
could be built before draft amendments are placed before the Planning Commission and Council.
As discussed above, the CAC schedule will incorporate one or more day -long workshops as a
mechanism for facilitating dialogue and input from an expanded group of stakeholders at key points
in the process.
Following the completion of draft amendments by the CAC, a Peer Review Committee will review
and report on the technical coherency and likely impacts of the proposed amendments. The
purpose of the committee is to provide independent, technical certainty to the Planning
Commission and Council before public hearings begin.
Following the completion of peer review, project staff will present recommended amendments and
related materials to the Planning Commission and Council for review and approval. At a minimum,
this process will take approximately four months. It is hoped that the duration and number of
• public hearings will be minimized due the varied and repeated mechanisms for public information
and comment throughout the project, which should assist in the development of consensus or a
narrowing of recommended options. Beginning with project kickoff, staff will disseminate
information to the public through a variety of media and face -to -face interactions. In addition,
public questions and comments will be recorded throughout the process and presented to the CAC,
the Planning Commission, and Council as final recommendations are made for each body's
consideration.
6
•
Draft Tree Code Project — Option 1
2010 Q1
Project Launch &
Q2 CAC Formation
a) to
Q3 0 ��
ot$ u) i = .4
CD CD o 01 E
id .= `� U o a) _
v, ca - a
Q4 •_ ,_ '- 0 . fl- _ o
E 01 co
o V V V
2011 Cu. t - v �
in 1
•- 0 V
.
Q2 a 3 Peer Review =
= m ° a
Arbor !' N Planning
Month Z
*
Q3 V v '- Commission &
Council Adoption
I
Q Implementation
7
• Attachment #2
Tigard Tree Code Update
Draft Option 2: Phased Update of Tigard's Tree Regulations
•
Project Goals
Option 2 is a multi' year, phased approach that would "fast- track" the update of development related tree
regulations in the first phase. Development of a tree grove protection program, a hazard tree abatement
program, and non - development related tree regulations, would occur in a subsequent phase. The goal of each
phase is to achieve the following outcomes:
1. Implements the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. Implements the Goals and Sub =Goals of the Urban Forestry Master Plan;
3. Consistency with State and Regional Policies and Standards; and
4. Consistency with Council Direction and Community Preferences.
Project Scope
Project objectives would be phased in over several years. Phase One would fast -track the following
recommendations in order to begin public hearings during 2010:
A. Amendments to consolidate and update tree management and protection standards in the
• Community Development Code;
B. Clarification and programming of how and when the City can expend tree removal
mitigation funds; and
Phase two would address the following matters, with the timing of each element yet to be
.determined:
A. Development of a Tree Grove Protection Program;
B. Amendments to consolidate and update tree management regulations in the Tigard
Municipal Code, including the identification and abatement of hazard trees; and
C. A design and maintenance manual for trees.
Public Involvement
Public involvement will be coordinated through a Public Involvement Plan that will appear before
the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) in February and March of 2010. The role of the CCI
is to review the process of communications with residents and provide input to assist in defining an
appropriate approach.
8
Attachment #2
A Communication Plan will be developed and implemented to ensure that all Citizens have an
opportunity to access information on issues in an understandable form, to communicate directly
with the City, and participate in the planning process. The project will be broken into discrete
components to ensure transparency and comprehension of project milestones. The plan will speak
to the ways in which Citizens and Stakeholders will be able to receive information, communicate
with City staff, and participate in the Tree Code update during each component. Based upon recent
projects and Council's desire for innovative outreach programs, the following items will be essential
components of the project's public involvement efforts:
➢ Project Website
➢ Informational documents such as maps, flyers, factsheets, and other educational handouts
➢ Cityscape articles and press releases
➢ Listerve messages
➢ Utilization of a neutral facilitator to help manage the process, focus the dialogue, and build
meaningful consensus
➢ Stakeholder Workshop to review proposals
➢ Opportunities for public comment at meetings of the CAC, Planning Commission, and City
Council
Project Management Team
The Project Management Team (PMT) will consist of City staff from Community Development and
Public Works. The PMT will be responsible for project management and oversight, developing
draft documents, facilitating meetings (except for the CAC), and implementation of the
Communication Plan.
Major Tasks
Phase I:
Code Amendments
Amendments to the Community Development Code & Tigard Municipal Code will address the
following issues related to Tree Management:
➢ Development Related Tree Removal, Protection, and Maintenance Standards
➢ Mitigation Standards
➢ Landscape Planting and Maintenance Standards
➢ Code Flexibility
Clarification and Programming of Tree Removal Mitigation Funds
The project clarify how and when the City can expend mitigation funds related to tree removal.
Stakeholder Workshop
In lieu of a Citizen Advisory Committee, Option 2 would utilize .a facilitated day -long workshop to
promote dialogue between stakeholders, and document meaningful public input on draft
development code amendments. City staff would be a participatory stakeholder, with the meetings
run by a neutral professional facilitator. If necessary, multiple workshops could be held.
9
• Attachment #2
Phase II:
Amendments to the Tigard Municipal Code will address the following issues related to Tree
Management:
➢ Non - Development Related Tree.Removal, Protection, and Maintenance Standards
➢ Landscape Planting and Maintenance Standards
• Street Tree regulations
➢ Nuisance Trees and Hazard Abatement
➢ Code Flexibility
Tree Grove Inventory and Protection Program
The project will develop a tree grove inventory, an ESEE analysis, and grove protection incentives
and /or protection standards. A consultant will be hired to assist in this phase of the project.
Design and Maintenance Manual
The project will include the development of a design, protection and maintenance manual to assist
developers and property owners. This manual will include drawings and specifications for species
selection, planting, protection, and maintenance.
Timing and Phasing
Phase I
Phase 1 of Option 2 begins with a kickoff phase where information materials are developed and
public involvement plans are reviewed and approved by the 'CCI. Project kickoff would also include
hiring consultants to implement specific functions such as facilitation.
Time for completion is approximately one year for phase one, and approximately one to two
additional years for the remaining phase(s). Due to the aggressive timeframe, staff would be
spending approximately six months preparing amendments to the draft development code, would
draft them in consultation with existing boards and commissions, and would then host one or more
day -long workshops as a mechanism for facilitating dialogue and input from an expanded group of
stakeholders at a key point (or points) in the process. .
Following the completion of stakeholder workshops and presentations to the Tree Board, Staff will
present the recommended amendments and related materials to the Planning Commission and
Council for review and approval. At a minimum, this process will take approximately four months.
It is hoped that the duration and number of public hearings will be minimized, due the varied and
repeated mechanisms for public information and comment throughout the project, which should
assist in the development of consensus or a narrowing of recommended options. Beginning with
project kickoff, staff will disseminate information to the public through a variety of media and face -
to -face interactions. In addition, public questions and comments will be recorded throughout the
process, and presented to the Tree Board, the Planning Commission, and Council as final
recommendations are made for each body's consideration.
10
Attachment #2
Phase II
Following completion of Phase I (defined by adoption of Development Code Amendments), Staff
would initiate work on Phase II to complete the remainder of the Project Scope. The timeframe for
Phase II would take approximately one to two years, and is expected to repeat the same sequence of
events as stated above: project launch, public input, and public hearings.
11
Draft Tree Code Project - Option 2
2010 Q1
Project Launch
&
Drafting of Development
Q 2 Code Amendments by Staff .
„,,P s
u
r.
a)
L
! Q3 0
Stakeholder Workshop & I ° Z
t Review by Existing Boards
..(
E
Q4 o
Planning Commission
Review & ,�
Council Adoption
a
2011 Q1
Begin Phase 2: Municipal
Code Amendments and Tree
Grove Program 12
Attachment #3
Summary of Tree Code Update Project Scope, Schedule and Process Options
Advantages Cautions
Option 1 • Administrative efficiency is realized • Longer time to achieve an adopted
through a comprehensive product.
approach. • Some Stakeholders expect a quicker
• Includes significant Public resolution that addresses tree related
Involvement to better inform the Development Code issues and those
outcome and increase potential to expectations may not be met through
reach consensus. this process.
• More time increases the potential • Significant time has already been spent
to reach consensus and technical on Development Tree Code issues.
certainty prior to hearings.
Option 2 • Shorter timeframe until • Staff will be making more decisions and
Development Code Updates are with less public input there is less time
completed to build community consensus prior to
• Addresses Stakeholder public hearings.
expectations for those who want to • Some inefficiency may occur if Phase 2
see amendments to the work requires amendments to the
Development Code sooner. Development Code adopted in Phase 1.
• Not a comprehensive approach to
addressing tree issues as identified in the
Urban Forestry Master Plan.
13
•