Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2001-10-16 PM 4 r°�L.°swt CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 16, 2001 .... Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. on October 16, 2001, in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Tom Tushner, Principal Engineer; Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner; Russ Chevrette, Engineering Technician; Dan Semrad, Fire Chief 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1 Recognition of Kathy Kern, Corinne Hickey and Wayne Richards for work on Farmers Market Mayor Hammerstad thanked Corinne Hickey for her work as the Volunteer Coordinator for the Farmers Market this year and presented her with a Certificate of Appreciation. Mayor Hammerstad introduced Kathy Kern as the woman behind the Farmers Market who arranged for all the vendors and varying activities. She thanked her for her hard work and presented her with a Certificate of Appreciation. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Hoffman reviewed the consent agenda for the audience. Councilor Hoffman moved approval of the consent agenda with correction to the minutes. Councilor Rohde seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting in favor. 17-01 Councilor Hoffman moved to continue Item 4.1.1 to October 23, 2001. Councilor Turchi seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting in favor. [7-0] 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 Award of a public improvement contract for construction of FY 2001/02 water system rehabilitation program ACTION: Removed for consideration on October 23, 2001. 4.2 RESOLUTIONS 4.2.1 Resolution 01-79, correcting a zoning map error on approximately 1.5 acres located at 15835 and the eastern portion of 15875 Boones Ferry Road (21 E08CB, Tax Lots 100 and 101, specifically Lots 5 and 6 of Lake View Villas First Addition), by changing the zone designation from R-7.5 (low density residential) to GC (general commercial) ACTION: Adopt Resolution 01-79 City Council Minutes Page 1 of 14 October 16, 2001 4.2.2 Resolution 01-83, authorizing the City Manager to acquire right-of-way and/or easements for the construction of Phase One Bryant Road Improvements per the Bryant Road Corridor Study, April, 2001. ACTION: This item was moved to Item 7.1. 4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.3.1 September 4, 2001, morning meeting 4.3.2 September 17, 2001, information session 4.3.3 September 18, 2001, morning session 4.3.4 September 18, 2001,joint meeting with the Historic Resources Advisory Board 4.3.5 September 18, 2001, regular meeting ACTION: Approve minutes as corrected END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 6. CITIZEN COMMENT There was none. Councilor McPeak moved to take Item 7.4, sign code amendment, at this time. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting in favor. [7-01 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Planning Commission recommendation to adopt LU 01-0029, Comprehensive Plan text amendments to Goal 12, Transportation,Figure 19, Transportation Facilities Plan, related to projects recommended by the Bryant Road Corridor Plan David Powell, City Attorney,reviewed the public hearing procedures and criteria for a legislative hearing. He asked if any Councilors needed to declare a conflict of interest. There were none. STAFF REPORT Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, indicated that this item changed the Comprehensive Plan Public Facilities Project list to accommodate the recommendations coming out of the Bryant Road Facilities study. She explained that statewide planning required the City to have a Public Facilities Plan with a list of major projects that the City planned for its planned land uses over 20 years. Ms. Heisler noted that the current plan for the Bryant Corridor was a continuous center turn lane. She pointed out that the preferred alternative replaced that center turn lane with intersection improvements, sidewalks, bike lanes and signals. She said that the alternative reduced the right- of-way impacts, displaced fewer trees and lessened the square footage of natural resources lost. Ms. Heisler referenced the changes listed on page 108. She recalled a question asked during the morning meeting on why the agenda cover sheet said $1.3 million. She said that she did not know why but speculated that it referred to Project T-5 only. Ms. Heisler distributed a revised set of Planning Commission findings, which corrected a typographical error. City Council Minutes Page 2 of 14 October 16, 2001 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hammerstad opened the hearing to public testimony. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Schoen moved to approve LU 01-0029 and direct staff to prepare findings and finalize Ordinance 2312 for adoption. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting in favor. [6-0] 7.1.1 Resolution 01-83, authorizing the City Manager to acquire right-of-way and/or easements for the construction of Phase One Bryant Road Improvements per the Bryant Road Corridor Study, April, 2001. Mayor Hammerstad noted that this item had been on the consent agenda as Item 4.2.2 but it was related to Item 7.1. Councilor Rohde moved adoption of Resolution 01-83. Councilor Graham seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting in favor. [6-0] 7.2 Proposal to annex .05 acres at 13020 Knaus Road (AN 01-0005/Ord. 2305) Ordinance 2305, an ordinance annexing one parcel on Knaus Road, comprising 0.5 acres in the aggregate to the City of Lake Oswego (13020 Knaus Road); declaring City of Lake Oswego zoning pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code 49.62.1600; and withdrawing the area from the Lake Grove Fire District#57 and the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, while retaining the parcel within the Lake Grove Park District, (21E04BB Tax Lot 04800) (AN 01-0005) Mayor Hammerstad read the ordinance title. Mr. Powell reviewed the standard land use hearing criteria, procedures and testimony time limits. He asked if any Councilors needed to declare any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. There were none. There were no challenges. STAFF REPORT Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner,presented the staff report. He stated that the property owners signed a petition requesting annexation to the city and a Measure 7 waiver. He indicated that the City could provide city services to the subject property. He mentioned that the annexation complied with all applicable statewide statutes and Metro Code requirements. He recommended adoption. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hammerstad opened the hearing to public testimony. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Rohde moved to enact Ordinance 2305 and authorize the City Recorder to mail the ordinance to Metro and all necessary parties, and to welcome James Clune and Kathryn Budny as the newest citizens of the City of Lake Oswego. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting in favor. [6-0] City Council Minutes Page 3 of 14 October 16, 2001 7.3 Planning Commission's recommendation to approve amendments to LOC 48.20.535 (4), Special Street Setbacks (LU 99-0020) Mr. Powell reviewed the standard land use criteria for a legislative hearing and the hearing procedures and testimony time limits. He asked if any Councilors had conflicts of interest to declare. There were none. There were no challenges. STAFF REPORT Mr. Sin gave the staff report using a PowerPoint presentation. He noted the purpose and use of special street setbacks as a transportation planning tool (page 1 and 2). He reviewed the two proposed amendments (page 2). He presented a map showing the original 74 roadways with special street setbacks, the 44 proposed for removal from the list, the 19 proposed for modification by reducing the special street setback, the 11 proposed for addition and the 14 with no changes (page 3) Mr. Sin discussed the two parts of the second amendment (page 3) to clarify the purpose and method of measuring special street setbacks. He noted the reason for the proposed amendments (page 4) and the results of not amending the City Code (page 4). He went over examples of how the special street setback applied in R-7.5 zoning (pages 5, 6) and the results of removing a special street setback (page 7). He clarified that removing the special street setback did not increase the total lot size, although it did provide the opportunity for the property owner to expand his/her house into the former special setback area. Mr. Sin reviewed the distinction between removing the special street setback versus vacating the right-of-way (pages 7, 8), especially with reference to potentially partitionable properties. He clarified the effects of removing the special street setback(page 9). He presented a map showing the location of all residential properties within a special street setback area where the setback would be removed (approximately 1,005 properties) (page 9). He presented a matrix listing the number of lots affected within each zoning district(R-6, R-7.5, R-10 and R-15) (page 10). Mr. Sin reiterated that removal of the special street setback did not increase opportunities for partition, which remained at 22% of the 1,005 residential properties affected(page 10). He pointed out that many of the potentially partitionable lots faced major restrictions on partitioning due to location of the existing house or the impacts of natural resources. He presented the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve LU 99-0020. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hammerstad opened the hearing to public testimony. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing. COUNCIL QUESTIONS OF STAFF COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Rohde moved to approve LU 99-0020 and direct staff to prepare findings and finalize Ordinance 2302 for adoption. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion. Mr. Sin indicated to Councilor Turchi that staff notified the affected property owners through a Measure 56 notice. He said that he discussed the impacts of the proposals on the properties with the 13 people who called in response to the notice; the property owners agreed with the City's actions. He indicated answering the questions of two more people who came to the Planning Commission hearing. He confirmed that, as far as staff knew, there was no opposition to this proposal from the affected parties. Councilor McPeak complimented Mr. Sin on his excellent presentation and clear explanation of a complicated subject. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 14 October 16, 2001 A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting in favor. [6-0] Mr. Powell noted that the final ordinance would come back to the Council at its November 6 meeting. • The Council considered Item 8.1 at this time. 7.4 Sign Code amendment for signs in the public right-of-way Ordinance 2310, amending LOC Chapter 47 (Sign Code) of the City of Lake Oswego Code to allow temporary signs in the public right-of-way at specified times and specified zoning districts. Mayor Hammerstad read the ordinance title. Mr. Powell reviewed the hearing procedures for a non-land use public hearing. STAFF REPORT Mr. Powell mentioned that the right-of-way administered by the City typically extended beyond the paved portion of the road and over to the far side of the sidewalk. He said that the City's current Code did not allow signs and other objects in the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit. He recalled that local realtors approached the City suggesting an amendment to the City sign code that would allow them to place signs of a certain size in certain locations within the right-of-way in order to advertise open houses, sales, etc. Mr. Powell noted that the direction to him had been to model the Lake Oswego ordinance after the Portland ordinance, and to modify it in connection with a meeting of the local realtors and City staff He reminded the Council that the Oregon Constitution did not allow the regulation of sign content but it did allow the regulation of size, shape and time of day for placement. Mr. Powell reviewed the particulars of Ordinance 2310, which allowed portable, self-supporting signs (A-frames), no more than two feet high, in residential zones but not on sidewalks or obstructing driveways or curb ramps, etc. He mentioned the times for display as from 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. on Tuesday and from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Powell reviewed the modifications in Councilor Graham's proposal, which were to expand the hours to include Friday and a start time of 8 a.m., to delete the restriction that barred signs at corners, and to allow signs up to 30 inches tall. He noted that Exhibit A was a synopsis of Ordinance 2310 as it came out of the Council study session, Exhibit B was the formal ordinance for that, Exhibit C was a synopsis of Councilor Graham's proposal and Exhibit D was the formal ordinance for Councilor Graham's proposal. He mentioned a typographical error on p.236; subsection 3(e) (24 inches instead of 30 inches). PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hammerstad opened the hearing to public testimony. • Dave Tangvalo,4729 Lakeview Blvd; business at 3045 Douglas Way Mr. Tangvalo indicated that he spoke on the behalf of several realtors in the area who were members of the Portland Metro Association of Realtors. He thanked the Council for working with the realtors to find an amenable resolution to the situation, mentioning Councilor Graham in particular. Mr. Tangvalo presented two examples of typical portable A-frame signs used by the industry. He emphasized that this ordinance did not include directional arrow signs. He characterized the signs as providing realtors with the ability to communicate with the public. He pointed out that the signs were approximately 30 inches high. He described one as an 'old sign' because it was wooden and stood 29.5 inches tall while the newer signs were made out of plastic and metal. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 14 October 16, 2001 Mr. Tangvalo said that the industry saw this as an opportunity for realtors and brokers to educate their agents in the use of their tools and as an opportunity to self-police. He expressed his hope that the days of the City picking up 13 signs from one brokerage in one weekend, which cost the brokerage $20 per sign to reclaim, were over. Mr. Tangvalo reviewed the specific desires of the realtors. He said that they did not want to put their signs in medians but they did want to put them on corners. He explained that corners were critical for them in getting buyers to sellers' homes, as they correlated the corners with their newspaper ads and directions. Mr. Tangvalo pointed out that realtors, as city residents and workers inside the city limits, helped push property values up (and therefore property taxes) each time they sold a home. He asked the Council to consider that this ordinance mirrored Portland's A-frame ordinance, which the Portland Metro Association of Realtors successfully negotiated with Portland. Mr. Tangvalo concurred with the times set out in the ordinance. He reiterated the cost to the realty businesses of the City picking up their signs, as new signs cost $20 a piece (the same price to reclaim them). He emphasized that realtors could not operate without these tools of the A- frame signs; they could not sell homes without signs to direct people to those homes. Councilor Turchi observed that the homes located on prominently traveled roads would see these signs in their rights-of-way every weekend. Mr. Tangvalo commented that he hoped they would not see that sort of turnover in any particular neighborhood. He spoke of realtors placing signs on different sides of the street, depending on how they worded their directions. He conceded that an intersection might see an influx of signs but held that the signs might be placed on any one of the four corners of the intersection. Councilor Turchi cited his personal experience of living on the well-traveled corner of Carman Drive and Bonita Road. He commented that he would expect to see a sign in his yard most weekends at that location. Mr. Tangvalo spoke to the realtors asking permission to place signs in yards; if a homeowner agreed to the request, then there would be signs in that yard. He clarified that he was speaking of private property. He concurred that more signs would appear in the public right-of-way if this ordinance passed tonight. Councilor Turchi pointed out that the right-of-way did not take away the individual's property rights; the property underneath the right-of-way easement still belonged to the property owner. Mr. Tangvalo spoke to realtors using their manners. Councilor McPeak noted that both the original ordinance and Councilor Graham's revisions allowed a maximum sign area of 4 square feet. She observed that increasing the sign height to 30 inches meant a reduction in the sign width. She asked what the actual dimensions were of one of the sign examples. Mr. Tangvalo said that that sign was 29.5 inches high and 24 inches wide. He indicated that the realtors would work with the sign size to make it fit with the code. Councilor McPeak referenced Councilor Graham's comment this morning about raising the height to 30 inches in order to allow agents to use signs that they already had as playing a role in her evaluation of the ordinance. Mr. Tangvalo mentioned that the feedback he has received from other brokerages indicated that 30 inches high was the critical number. He volunteered to get his tape measure to measure the exact width of the sign. Mayor Hammerstad commented that, if the Council passed the ordinance, it would be better to pass something that accommodated the tools currently used by the realtors, rather than requiring them to purchase new signs. Mr. Powell clarified that the four square feet of area referred to the area of the sign itself; it did not include the overall height and width of the support structure of the A-frame holding the sign. Mr. Tangvalo established that the sign area measured 24 inches high by 18 inches wide, while the A-frame height was 29.5 inches. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 14 October 16, 2001 Councilor Graham asked if realtors risked misdirecting people to houses not for sale if they could not place these signs at the corners and had to put them farther down the road from the intersection. Mr. Tangvalo concurred. He stated emphatically that realtors did not want to misdirect traffic with the signs. He reiterated that the corners correlated to the open house advertisements and were a more critical directional sign location than the actual street on which the house or parcel sat. Councilor Hoffman observed that in Lake Oswego, typically the lawns went down to the pavement or the sidewalk, which was what Councilor Turchi had been referring to. He pointed out that over the years property owners have often come to believe that the lawn, even if it went up to the pavement, was theirs. He asked what the realtors would say to someone who lived on a high visibility corner, such as Carman and Bonita, and saw these signs on their lawn every weekend, even if those signs were in the right-of-way. Mr. Tangvalo commented that realtors dealt with people in selling houses, and they needed to address the issue of putting signs in someone's yard or property that was in the right-of-way. He reiterated that realtors needed to self-police the situation. He spoke to educated realtors on an individual basis remembering their manners. Councilor Schoen asked how important it was to change the 9 a.m. to 8 a.m. hours for open houses on weekends. Mr. Tangvalo indicated that on a scale of 1 to 10, the times were a 7.5 or an 8 to him. He noted that in the realty business, they usually did not see buyers until after church or breakfast. Mayor Hammerstad recalled that Councilor Graham had requested the time change on behalf of the estate sale industry, whose sales took place earlier in the morning. Councilor Graham confirmed that the times of sales for estate sales were 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. • Allen Merwin, 5100 SW Macadam#360, Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors President-elect Mr. Merwin said that he was here on behalf of the 5,100 members of the association and the 556 association members who either resided in Lake Oswego or had their offices here. He urged Council adoption of Councilor Graham's version of Ordinance 2310 with a minor amendment. Mr. Merwin described realtors as people who served the community by helping people realize the American dream of home ownership. He argued that home ownership was good for every resident in the city as it created stable communities with lower crime rates and children with higher academic test scores. Mr. Merwin described the use of signs as a tool in the realty business, focusing on the portable 'open house' signs under discussion tonight. He said that the realtors association supported the hours of display, placement in the public right-of-way, the height allowance of 30 inches and placement on corners. He asked the Council to delete subsection 3(f), which prohibited portable signs on corners. He argued that people trying to find their way around the windy roads in certain residential areas in Lake Oswego depended on corner and road signs to locate the house for sale. Mr. Merwin asked for an additional amendment to Councilor Graham's proposal: placement of signs temporarily on sidewalks. He argued that if a sign could be placed on a sidewalk and meet the ADA requirements, then it should be allowed. He explained that in many residential areas the planting strips were landscaped such that it was impossible to place a sign in them. Some of these areas, such as Westlake, had fences built right to the sidewalk edge or the right-of-way dropped off sharply, such as Royce Road, leaving no place but the sidewalk to place the sign. Mr. Merwin expressed the realtors association's appreciation of the Council's willingness to amend the City sign code to allow greater flexibility in the use of signs. • Chris Schetky, 55 S. Condalea Terrace City Council Minutes Page 7 of 14 October 16, 2001 Ms. Schetky commented that she has lived in Lake Oswego for over 25 years and believed that one of the unique characteristics of Lake Oswego was the willingness of the City government to work with its constituents to try to create the best possible community for everyone. She thanked the Council for its willingness to address the temporary sign code. Ms. Schetky indicated that she was speaking for herself. She stated that she strongly supported Ordinance 2310 with the addition of two of Councilor Graham's suggestions. She spoke to deleting (f), which referred to extending property lines out to the curb. She clarified that she was not asking to put signs on sidewalks or on concrete corners but rather to place signs in the usually grassy area commonly referred to as the parking strip. She indicated that deleting (f) allowed realtors to utilize the area that was relatively close to the actual corner. Ms. Schetky argued that extending unknown property lines would complicate the code for the realtors, as they had no way of knowing where the real property line was. She indicated that setting the guideline as behind a utility pole effectively prohibited realtors from using any part of the corner(because of the setbacks in many areas). She concurred that the corner was the most important sign placement for realtors. Ms. Schetky said that they were trying to find a sign code that was as simple as possible so that everyone could understand the guidelines and comply with them. She characterized guidelines such as 'no signs on a sidewalk' and `signs five feet from the roadway if there was no sidewalk' as clear guidelines that the realtors could follow. She conceded that it did not eliminate every gray area but it went a long way towards eliminating most of them. Ms. Schetky stated that it has never been the realty community's intention to impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic with its signs. She said that their goal was to market their Lake Oswego clients' homes to the best of their ability. Ms. Schetky spoke in support of Councilor Graham's proposal to increase the sign height from 24 inches to 30 inches. She argued that it would be a disadvantage for the real estate companies that already had 30 inch signs to start off out of compliance with the ordinance. She held that it placed an undue hardship on them and was unfair. Ms. Schetky encouraged the Council to adopt the proposed ordinance with the two modifications. She thanked the City for its willingness to work with the realtors to find a compromise that both of them could live with. Ms. Schetky clarified to Councilor McPeak that she did favor Councilor Graham's proposal to eliminate the restrictions on signs on corners. She explained that her comments about extending property lines went back to a meeting with Mr. Powell and Mr. Pishvaie; extending property lines would rule out part of the grassy parking strip area. She said that the less restrictive the better but she was trying to be reasonable. Mayor Hammerstad thanked Ms. Schetky for bringing this to the City's attention. She commented that she thought that Ms. Schetky has been reasonable, and that the suggestions would fit Lake Oswego. Ms. Schetky mentioned the helpfulness of staff. Ms. Schetky confirmed to Councilor Turchi that extending the open house days to Friday would not affect the real estate industry. • Gail Fisher, Coldwell Banker/Barbara Sue Seal Properties President Ms. Fisher spoke of her long-time residency in Lake Oswego (since she was 6 years old) and her memories of Lake Oswego when it was a community of 2,500 and Mountain Park nothing but hills with sheep. She noted the desire on everyone's part to maintain the beauty of the community as well as its safety, which she held pertained to the issue of open house signs. Ms. Fisher observed that, as the community has grown, there has been great confusion over the exact location of property lines. She cited First Addition as an example of a neighborhood where City Council Minutes Page 8 of 14 October 16, 2001 people have grown their lawns out into the public right-of-way. She spoke to finding closure on this issue. Ms. Fisher spoke in support of Councilor Graham's proposal with the addition of allowing placement of temporary signs on sidewalks. She held that the real estate industry had a responsibility to implement an education process to make sure that its agents continued to be considerate and thoughtful of property owners. She concurred that there were areas in Lake Oswego where something directly abutted the sidewalk, thus preventing the placement of a sign off the sidewalk. She argued that if the sign placement provided proper pedestrian access, there should not be a problem. Mr. Powell confirmed to Councilor Hoffman that the proposed ordinance prohibited sign placement on road shoulders, parking spaces, pedestrian pathways and bike paths in addition to sidewalks and the paved roadway(Sections b and 1). • Dave Roher, 6345 SW Edgewood Street Mr. Roher thanked the Council for the time and effort that staff put into working with the realtors on this issue. He encouraged adoption of Councilor Graham's amendment with the changes requested by the realtors association. He observed that the issue for realtors was that they were in this business fulltime whereas the homebuyers and sellers were involved only briefly once or twice a decade. He commented that most people did not bring their concerns to the Council because it was not their concern at a particular moment. Mr. Roher concurred that signs on corners were necessary for directions to a property. He agreed that streets with walls or hedges at the edge of the sidewalk were a problem in terms of placing signs. • Councilor Gay Graham Councilor Graham spoke in support of her proposed revisions. She held that it was important to add Friday in order to accommodate the estate sale industry. She concurred with the testimony with respect to increasing the height to 30 inches, citing the expense to realtors of replacing signs. She argued that corner signs were important in terms of traffic and safety, as people were looking for quick directional information. She emphasized that she did not support allowing placement of signs on sidewalks. Mayor Hammerstad closed the public hearing. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Graham moved adoption of Exhibit D on Ordinance 2310. Councilor Rohde seconded the motion. Mr. Powell confirmed to Councilor Rohde that the ordinance did not allow staked signs in the right-of-way, although the sign code would continue to allow staked signs on private property. He indicated that the type of sign of concern to the Old Town Neighborhood Association was exempt under the sign code. Councilor Schoen discussed his concern with the signs on corners issue. He said that he had several neighbors who would be impacted every time there was a house for sale within a six block area, which he did not think was a unique situation. He mentioned his opposition to placing signs on sidewalks. He indicated that he could go along with the other amendments as stated. Councilor Schoen moved to amend the motion to restrict the placement of signs on corners. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion. Councilor McPeak indicated that her major reluctance to endorse Councilor Graham's proposal has been her concern about the signs on corners issue. She pointed out that all the Councilors, City Council Minutes Page 9 of 14 October 16, 2001 having used signs in their election campaigns, were aware of the problems with placing signs. She commented that, while she had sympathy with the real estate industry's dilemma, her concerns about signs at corners focused on the universal application of this ordinance to all signs, regardless of content. Councilor McPeak said that she would be more comfortable revisiting the issue of signs at corners in a year to see how the ordinance has worked and to determine if it was a good idea to relax the restrictions. She noted that if it turned out that many homes were bothered by various signs (not just real estate signs), then she would consider pulling back instead of opening up. She spoke to retaining the corner clearance while including the remainder of Councilor Graham's suggested changes. Councilor Graham asked how far from the corner signs could be placed and still be legal. Mr. Powell indicated that 24-inch signs could usually be placed 10 to 20 feet back from the corner. He referenced Table 47-3 on page 238. He confirmed that they continued to struggle with the issue of the location of the property line with respect to the right-of-way and whether a sign- owner needed to get the property owner's permission. Mr. Powell discussed the impacts on signs of the requirements of the vision clearance ordinance in the traffic safety section of the Code. He indicated that a sign that stood more than 30 inches above the centerline of the pavement had to be 60 feet back from the corner on either side of an uncontrolled intersection. He said that signs could be placed closer to controlled intersections but only on the basis of a safety impact study, which he thought unlikely to happen for a real estate sign; therefore, the effective restriction 30 inch plus signs at controlled intersections was also 60 feet back. Councilor Graham argued that having two different standards for a 24-inch sign and a 30-inch sign made this more complicated. She spoke to either allowing signs at corners or not allowing them. She suggested that the Council approve all the amendments, see how the ordinance worked and set a review in a year; if they found no problem, then the ordinance could continue. Councilor Turchi said that he would support allowing signs at corners because buyers needed a clear sign telling them where to go. He described a scenario of drivers not spotting the sign until they entered the intersection, thus requiring drivers to turn around in driveways and come back to the intersection. He argued that signs at corners created the least amount of disruption. He commented that, as a former owner of a corner lot, he was concerned with the possible proliferation of signs on a particular property, but he would wait to see what happened. Councilor Rohde asked if the motivation behind not allowing signs on corners was to reduce the number of signs on the corner. Mr. Powell said that the reasons he found in the Portland ordinance were the clutter at the corner issue and the potential vision clearance issues. He commented that even a 24-inch high sign could theoretically violate the vision clearance issue if the sidewalk was high enough above the street. Councilor Rohde argued that the restriction at corners would not affect the clustering of signs because they would just cluster at 60 feet back from the corner rather than at the corner, and therefore, it was not an appropriate restriction. He asked if the sight restrictions would still be in effect if they allowed signs at the corners. Mr. Powell said yes, under the safety code, a sign over 30 inches higher than the height of the roadway could not be within 60 feet of the corner, whether it was on a sidewalk or the ground. Councilor Rohde supported not restricting the corners. He said that he would not support the amendment motion. Councilor McPeak observed that it would not be possible to enforce the ordinance because it was too fine a matter between a 30-inch sign and a 24-inch sign. She held that they would end up with 30-inch signs at the corners. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Schoen that the Portland ordinance eliminated corners. City Council Minutes Page 10 of 14 October 16, 2001 Mayor Hammerstad stated the motion as 'to restrict signs on corners as shown in the diagram on page 238.' A roll call vote was taken on the amendment to the motion and the amendment passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman, Schoen and McPeak voted in favor; Councilors Rohde, Turchi and Graham voted against the motion. [4-3] Mr. Powell assured Councilor Hoffman that the ordinance did not legislate out the temporary signs typically used in political campaigns. He explained that the definition in the code of `portable sign' was a leftover from previous days and not used anywhere in the code today. He said that he amended the definition to take out the term `permanently affixed' but that did not affect the rest of the code because it was not used anywhere else. He emphasized that `temporary' referred to the length of time a sign was at a place while `portable' referred to its not being affixed to anything. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the main motion was to pass Exhibit D, with the amendment 3(f) reinstated. She reviewed the specifics: display on Tuesdays (9 a.m. to 3 p.m.) and on Fridays and weekends (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), 30 inch height including the supports but the area of the sign itself not to exceed four square feet, and no placement on corners or sidewalks. Councilor Rohde moved to amend the ordinance to allow sidewalk placement when the placement is in keeping with ADA requirements. Councilor Rohde argued that it made sense to place signs on sidewalks as long as they did not block the sidewalk, especially on an eight-foot sidewalk directly abutting a wall, which offered no other place to put the sign. He noted that blocking the sidewalk violated ADA requirements. Mr. Powell said that Portland tried to cover the ADA concerns by describing a through pedestrian zone at least five feet wide and no obstruction of curb ramps, etc. He commented that it could not hurt to put in a further admonition about ADA. Councilor Turchi seconded the motion. Councilor McPeak asked what would preclude portable signs from being moved to where they obstructed the sidewalk. Councilor Rohde indicated that a Community Service Officer could move any signs not in ADA compliance. Councilor McPeak commented that the CSOs could not police all the signs. Councilor Rohde held that that was the same argument used to restrict the corners. Councilor McPeak argued that they could not have an ordinance that required policing; it had to be self-policing to the greatest extent possible. She held that the portable signs could easily be moved to impede pedestrians on sidewalks. She commented that she had a problem visualizing these signs not being in the way on sidewalks. Councilor Schoen observed that most sidewalks were not wide enough to place the sign and meet the five-foot ADA requirement. Councilor Hoffman commented that they would have to have seven-foot sidewalks. Mr. Powell mentioned that ADA mostly required 36 inches of clearance, although the ordinance did require five feet in some cases. Mayor Hammerstad stated that the motion was to allow placement of signs on the sidewalk in consideration of ADA requirements. A roll call vote was taken on the amendment to the motion and the motion failed with Councilors Rohde, Turchi and Graham voting in favor of the motion; Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman, Schoen and McPeak voted against the motion;. [3-4] Councilor Turchi supported Councilor Graham's suggestion to revisit this in a year. He mentioned his concerns with sign content and the Council's inability to regulate sign content. He spoke to also reviewing how the ordinance actually worked in the community. He recalled that City Council Minutes Page 11 of 14 October 16, 2001 they took out the sunset clause but argued that they needed to revisit it and see how it was working. A roll call vote was taken on the main motion and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting in favor; Councilor Rohde voted against the motion. [6-1] Mayor Hammerstad thanked the participants for their hard work. She noted that the success of the ordinance depended largely on the self-policing of the real estate industry. She said that the Council would review the ordinance in a year to make sure that it was working the way that the Council envisioned it working. • Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting at 7:30 p.m. for a break. • Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m. The Council considered Item 7.1 at this time. Councilor Hoffman was excused. 8. ORDINANCES AND FINDINGS 8.1 Vacating portions of Tenth Street Ordinance 2304, a special ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego vacating portions of Tenth Street between Evergreen Road and Berwick Road Mayor Hammerstad read the ordinance title. She recalled that the Council held a public hearing on this earlier. Mr. Powell said that the only changes were a refinement of the description of the area to be vacated. He recommended that the Council invite testimony from anyone who wanted to comment. Russ Chevrette, Engineering Technician, indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that the changes meant that the City was keeping about two feet more for the public right-of-way for public purposes than was originally shown. Mayor Hammerstad asked if there was any one here to testify on vacating this portion of Tenth Street. There was no one. Councilor Rohde moved to enact Ordinance 2304. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. Councilor Turchi observed that this issue presented a dilemma in which the City ceded right-of- way that it no longer needed back to the property owner, which increased the developable area of the property and allowed the possibility of a greater partition than otherwise would have occurred. He pointed out that right-of-way was a transportation planning tool, and not a land use planning tool; therefore, he would support the motion. Councilor Turchi mentioned that the property owners at the intersection of Berwick and Tenth have done a stupendous job of maintaining the property and making it a lovely spot in Lake Oswego. He recalled their assurances to the Council that they had no plans to change their property and their belief that the property was better left under their control as opposed to the City's control. He expressed his hope that no owner of this property, present or future, took advantage of this vacation and partitioned the property to create substantially greater density at that corner. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting in favor. [6-0] 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL 9.1 Councilor Information City Council Minutes Page 12 of 14 October 16, 2001 9.1.1 Youth Council program Councilor Turchi encouraged high school students to apply for the youth council program, noting the application requirements. He indicated that it involved three to four meetings a month from November to May. Linda Kesgard-Brown described the amount of work assigned to high school students in the Lake Oswego School District and the pressure they were under to excel. She held that they were losing students because of extreme stress and duress in the classrooms. She asked that the Council not make unreasonable demands of the students and their families or set unattainable expectations. Councilor Turchi assured Ms. Kesgard-Brown that it was not the Council's attention to add increased stress to the students' lives. He stated that they would listen to the students and make sure that the program met both the students' needs and the Council's needs without making it too difficult for the students to participate. 9.1.2 Friends of the Library Book Sale Councilor Graham announced the 10-year anniversary sale at the Friends of the Library's Booktique, October 19 and 20 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., located in Mercantile Plaza on Boones Ferry Road. She described the importance of the volunteer Friends organization to the public library in providing funds for programs and items for the collection, such as the monthly Music at the Library, a complete file of the Oregonian, more books on tape, $5,000 for new art books and $6,000 for foreign film videos. She mentioned that from 1989 through April 2001 the Friends have donated$379,000 to the library. 9.1.3 New Urbanism Community Forum Mayor Hammerstad invited citizens to attend the community forum on the principles of new urbanism (focusing on design and density) scheduled for next Tuesday at 7 p.m. She mentioned a presentation by urban design consultants. She described this as an opportunity for citizens to gain a common base of understanding of these issues, along with the Council, for the future discussions and public hearings that would occur on these subjects. 9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees and Intergovernmental Committees 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 10.1 City Manager 10.1.1 Resolution 01-77, accepting a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Grant to assist in the City's efforts to provide sprinklers to Foster Care Facilities. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, asked for Council approval of Resolution 01-77. He complimented Fire Chief Semrad and Fire Marshal Phil Sample for coming up with an innovative program to put sprinkler systems in foster care homes, special needs homes and special facilities. He mentioned that FEMA identified only two out of the 168 plus applications as `innovative,' one of which was Lake Oswego's. He said that the Fire District would manage the program under a consultant contract. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that there were 18 of these homes in the area but not all were within the city limits. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the homes were within the fire district limits. She mentioned the Council's desire to give preference to foster homes located within the city; if other foster homes wished to take advantage of this federally funded program, they were welcome to annex to the city. Councilor McPeak moved to adopt Resolution 01-77. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. City Council Minutes Page 13 of 14 October 16, 2001 Fire Chief Dan Semrad indicated to Councilor Graham that they have already contacted the care facility operators to alert them to the program and to ascertain interest level. He said that they would work on hiring a consultant to manage the program as soon as Council gave approval. He noted that the contract completion date was scheduled for August 2002, with a provision for a 90-day extension. Councilor McPeak urged the home operators to apply for this program in order to take advantage of this cost-free program that would provide a safety benefit to their facility. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting in favor. [6-0] 10.2 City Attorney 11. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON November 27, 2001 J, 4// /i/-e4=%7 die Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Minutes Page 14 of 14 October 16, 2001