Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2002-04-16 PM .0 D,LAKE Eki, � CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ��'� April 16, 2002 Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. on April 16, 2002, in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak. Councilor Hoffman was excused. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Andy Harris, Engineering Technician; Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Sandy Ingalls, Code Enforcement Specialist; Joel Komarek, City Engineer Youth Council: Matt Buehler 3. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Hammerstad presented a 10-year to Doug Schmitz, City Manager, in honor of his 10 year anniversary with the City. She noted that Mr. Schmitz has made more difference in Lake Oswego over the past 10 years than any other resident. She expressed the Council's appreciation for his ability to work with a variety of mayors and councilors. Mayor Hammerstad recalled seeing an aerial photo of the city, around the time when the City hired Mr. Schmitz, which showed that Lake Oswego was a pedestrian unwelcome city. She thanked Mr. Schmitz for helping Lake Oswego do a better job through projects, such as Millennium Park and the beautification of the downtown. She observed that it would not have been possible without Mr. Schmitz' sustaining ability to help the Council through these decisions, the opportunities for purchase of open space, and the credibility with the voters to pass the bond measures. She thanked Mr. Schmitz for all he has done. 3.1 Springbrook Creek Restoration Presentation Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the Council visited Springbrook Creek to see what has happened and view the restoration project. She noted that Springbrook Creek ran parallel to Boones Ferry Road and had cut deeply through erosion. She expressed her hope that they could use this as a little wild space in the city. She thanked Mr. Harris for his work. Andy Harris, Engineering Technician, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Springbrook Creek project. He commented that the name contained three water features that were present at the time of its naming: spring, brook and creek. He noted that this almost 3 mile long stream, with 10 tributaries, drained 1,200 acres of urbanized watershed on Mt. Sylvania, falling from an elevation of 947 feet to 98 feet at Oswego Lake. He pointed out the project area location: half a mile of the stream running parallel to Boones Ferry Road. Mr. Harris reviewed the four unique qualities of the project: it was a major reconstruction of a stream in an urbanized area, the stream has deeply cut down into its channel, the make up of the project team, and the approach they took to restore the stream. Mr. Harris observed that many changes resulting from development have occurred in the Springbrook Creek watershed over the last 40 years, which caused the stream channel to cut down in its channel; it had steep side slopes and almost never flooded over its bank, which meant that little riparian vegetation grew along the side of the stream. He showed a culvert abandoned by the stream sitting four feet above the stream channel. City Council Minutes Page 1 of 13 April 16, 2002 • The Council moved on to the Consent Agenda, following an equipment malfunction. • The Council returned to this item after staff fixed the problem. Mr. Harris discussed the make up of the project team: a river morphologist and a fisheries biologist from the US Fish & Wildlife Department, a Lake Oswego Corporation representative, City staff and Henderson Land Services, their consultant who specialized in stream restoration and morphology. Mr. Harris presented a slide tour of Springbrook Creek. He noted that much of it still had the deeply down cut channel, which accelerated erosion beyond the norm for a stable stream. He pointed out that the City straightened the channel in 1968 to install a sewer line. Mr. Harris reviewed the project objectives: to restore the natural stream channel stability, to reconnect the stream to its flood plain, to improve the water quality and to improve the riparian habitat. He described what methods they used to slow down and reduce the water flow. Mr. Harris reviewed the project process, beginning with an assessment of the stream condition (which they compared to a 1964 survey of the channel), including the adjacent developments and utility lines, the stream morphology, and the macro-invertebrate and fish inhabitants. He commented that knowing what creatures lived in the stream would provide a measure of future success when those intolerant of pollution returned. Mr. Harris indicated to Councilor Rohde that the trout came up to the pond at Rainbow Drive; they could not get up the 150-foot long chute that started there. Mr. Harris commented that a morphology approach recognized that streams naturally wanted to be stable, and that they would change their channels in response to changing climatic or watershed conditions in order to achieve that balance within the existing conditions. He described the stable section of the stream near the Mormon temple, which they used to design the project section of the stream (along with other stream studies from Oregon and Washington). Mr. Harris showed before, after and during construction photos of the two types of channels they constructed; the type of channel depended on whether they could widen the channel or had to leave it narrow due to existing constrictions. He noted that the stream height was much closer to the old culvert now. He indicated to Councilor Rohde that, while he did not know why that culvert was there, he suspected that 40 years ago the Hunt Club had built it as part of a bridge for a riding path. Mr. Harris noted the removal of another bridge that had constricted the flow, causing severe erosion. He indicated to Councilor Graham that they replanted with Western Red Cedar, ash and shrubs. He pointed out the meanders and bends used in combination with widening the channel to recreate the flood plain. Mr. Harris showed a picture of the portion of the stream channel that he had straightened in the early 1980s as part of building a detention facility. He commented that he had the pleasure of learning from his mistakes and restoring the meander. Mr. Harris described the functioning of a cross vein in changing the grade of a stream, and showed an example of the structures they included to create a cross vein. He noted that these structures also served to aerate the water as it flowed through. Mr. Harris explained that their goal in replanting along a new channel was to create the plant community native to this area years ago. He said that they planted 1,700 Western Red Cedars, several hundred ash, thousands of shrubs and thousands of wetland plants. Mr. Harris mentioned the two community involvement events: blackberry removal two Earth Days ago and a fall planting event. He described the team's efforts to be sensitive to the citizen concerns, including restoring as much of the `babble' of the stream near the condos and offices as they could (they had put in a pool for the fish). City Council Minutes Page 2 of 13 April 16, 2002 Mr. Harris reviewed the project benefits. He reported that they met their objectives in completing what has become a showcase of stream restoration, much appreciated by the neighbors and other interested parties. He described it as a place to enjoy and an opportunity to learn. He noted that the true measure of success would be improved water quality and a thriving fish population. Mr. Harris mentioned that, in 1964, this stretch of stream was 3,000 feet long; in 2001, it was 2,500 feet long. He noted that the project added over 180 feet back to its length at a cost of$137 per foot plus $105,000 for construction($317,000 total). He confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that the money came from the surface water management fees. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the access road to this project was off Boones Way on Red Cedar. • The Council moved to Item 8, Business from the Council. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Rohde reviewed the consent agenda for the audience. He noted that the $695 in additional funding from the Older Americans Act, Title 3D, for medication management services would allow the Adult Community Center to offer drug education programs. Councilor Rohde moved approval of the consent agenda with correction to the minutes. Councilor Graham seconded the motion. A voice call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting `yes.' [6-0] 4.1 RESOLUTIONS 4.1.1 Resolution 02-24, authorizing the Mayor to sign an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the City and Clackamas County Department of Human Services Social Services Division for fiscal year 2001-02 ACTION: Adopt Resolution 02-24 4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.2.1 March 5, 2002, morning meeting 4.2.2 March 19, 2002, morning meeting ACTION: Approve minutes as corrected END CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hammerstad welcomed a Boy Scout(working on his citizenship in the community badge) and his father. 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA There were none. 6. CITIZEN COMMENT There was none. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 An appeal of the Development Review Commission's denial of the applicant's request for approval of two variances to the Sign Code (Ramsay Signs/GK Travel) AP 02- 03[AP 01-07/LU 01-00601 City Council Minutes Page 3 of 13 April 16, 2002 - - - - Mayor Hammerstad read the title. David Powell, City Attorney,reviewed the quasi-judicial hearing criteria and procedure. He asked the Council to declare any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. Mayor Hammerstad declared that she had received a letter on January 26, which she put into the record. Councilor Turchi indicated that he drove by the area today to take a closer look at it. Mayor Hammerstad observed that all the Councilors drove by that area frequently. There were no challenges. STAFF REPORT Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director, reviewed the Code provisions relating to this appeal of two Development Review Commission (DRC) decisions denying variances for the General Commercial (GC) subject property on Boones Ferry Road. He noted that the Code specifically allowed pole signs in the GC zone only when necessary to provide vision clearance at driveways or intersections, and when there was no alternative visible on a building or monument sign location. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that both staff and the DRC found that the pre-existing sign on the subject property was non-conforming, in that it was a pole sign and that it exceeded the maximum sign area of 32 square feet, as specified in the Code. He noted that the Code required non-conforming signs (which pre-dated the Code changes that made them non-conforming) to come into compliance upon a change of business at the location or by May 21, 2004. He emphasized that all the existing pole signs in this zone would be changed by May 21, 2004. Sandy Ingalls, Code Enforcement Specialist, reviewed the background of this situation, beginning with her processing a sign code violation on April 1, 2001. She said that GK Travel, the new business that took over the location when Journeys closed in 2001, installed a new sign face (which exceeded the maximum size allowed in the Code by 10 square feet) (Exhibit 4,page 55) on the oversize pole sign without prior approval from the City. She noted that the Code allowed the installation of a 32 square foot sign in the GC zone with an approved permit, but it also required all non-conforming signs to come into compliance at the time of a business or use turnover. Ms. Ingalls referenced the staff letter of April 27, 2001, notifying the Ramsay Sign Company of the Code requirements and need for a City permit. She indicated that Ramsay Sign Company submitted a sign permit application for the existing pole sign, which staff denied because it did not meet the sign code criteria (as reviewed by Mr. Lashbrook). She noted that the applicant did not prove that the site had a vision clearance problem or that a monument sign would not work, as staff found several examples of monument signs along Boones Ferry Road (pages 62 to 66). Ms. Ingalls indicated that Ramsay Sign applied for a variance to retain the existing pole sign and a second variance to retain the 42.5 square foot oversize sign. She said that the applicant appealed the staff denial of the variances in a December 20, 2001 letter, and requested a Development Review Commission hearing. Ms. Ingalls mentioned that the appellant requested a seven-day continuance from February 7, the DRC hearing, in order to submit additional written materials but the period elapsed on February 11 with no further submittals by the appellant. She said that the DRC denied the appeal on February 20 on the grounds that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proof; the appellant appealed the DRC decision on March 15. Ms. Ingalls reviewed the three variance criteria, which staff found that the appellant failed to meet. She indicated that the appellant failed to prove that a strict application of the Code would deny the applicant a reasonable opportunity to communicate by sign because of unusual or unique circumstances relating to the property; the site was not unique, and other sites along Boones Ferry have complied with the Code in installing monument signs. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 13 April 16, 2002 Ms. Ingalls mentioned the second variance criterion: proof that the sign that would result from the variances would not affect the surrounding neighborhood. She pointed out that granting these variances legalized the pole sign and removed it from the non-conforming category, which exempted it from the standard that would apply to all other pole signs on May 21, 2004. Ms. Ingalls pointed out that the appellant could not comply with the third criterion of limiting the degree of the variance to that which was necessary to alleviate the problem created by the unusual or unique circumstances because the site was not unique and there were no unusual circumstances. Ms. Ingalls described the reconfiguration of the parking lot, which staff and the DRC found would accommodate a monument sign in front of the building (Exhibit#-6, page 59) and the required eight parking spaces. She recommended Council affirmation of the DRC denial of the two variance applications. Mr. Powell addressed the constitutional issue raised by the appellant at the DRC with respect to the sign code portions enforced by the City, which led to the applicant request the variances in the first place. He suggested to the Council that the sole issue before it tonight was whether the applicant's variance request met the three criteria outlined by staff. Mr. Powell indicated that the constitutional issue related to the enforcement action, which was more appropriately raised in other venues, such as the citation pending in Municipal Court or a request to the Council in another context to make a legislative decision to change the Code. He pointed out that, even if the Council were to find the Code unconstitutional, the result would be non-enforcement of the Code; it would not be granting the variance. Councilor McPeak asked whether staff physically measured the 41 feet from the center of Boones Ferry Road to its suggested location for the monument sign (page 59) to verify that that placement would work or that moving the sign closer to the road would work. She asked to what did the 41 feet refer(page 83), noting the 82-foot right-of-way mentioned in Kathy Marcotte's staff paper. She explained that she wanted to make sure that the Boones Ferry project would not change the physical location of a monument sign. Ms. Ingalls said that she personally did not go out to measure from the middle of the street; she relied on the Engineering Department to take care of that issue. Mr. Lashbrook indicated that staff did not have the information available to answer the Councilor's question. Councilor Turchi asked for clarification of the process for a change in business. Mr. Lashbrook indicated his understanding that staff informed a new business license applicant that he/she would need a sign application if he/she intended to install a new sign. He observed that professional sign companies were used to dealing with planning and building departments on a regular basis because cities commonly had a sign code. He mentioned that city sign codes tended to vary from city to city, so sign companies needed to keep make such contacts frequently. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hammerstad opened the hearing to public testimony. APPELLANT • Darryl Paulson, 11275 SE 121st Court, Clackamas, representing Ramsay Signs and GK Travel Mr. Paulson submitted into the record the letter sent to the Mayor, and a letter sent to Sandy Ingalls on December 5 from Bud Gillison at GK Travel. He referenced Ms. Ingalls' statement that the sign was installed without prior approval. He clarified that the City had no record that this sign was installed without a permit in the 1980s. He held that the business did have a City permit to install the pole sign at that time. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 13 April 16, 2002 1 - - Ms. Ingalls indicated that the City sign records only went back to 1995, but noted that she had been referring to the change in text on the sign face. Mr. Paulson commented that discussing the change of the current text raised a touchy issue, as the City could not regulate sign content. He emphasized that all they did was change the sign face to read GK Travel. Mr. Paulson argued that business people did not know that they had to bring a sign into conformance when they changed a sign face nor did the sign industry typically get permits to change sign faces. He cited several cities recently eliminating their copy change permits, including Gresham, Salem and Portland. Mr. Paulson indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that those cities did have a code provision that a new business use or change in business triggered sign compliance but not if they only changed the sign face, and not the sign itself. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that that meant that a city could not bring any non-conforming sign into compliance at a change of business. Mr. Paulson mentioned that he owned the sign and leased it to Bud Gillison; therefore the sign ownership has not changed. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the point was not the sign but the change in business. Mr. Powell concurred that they were mixing issues here. Mr. Powell indicated that Mr. Paulson was bringing up the issue of whether the City should be able to issue a permit to change the copy of a sign, which was not under challenge in this venue. He reiterated that the challenge here was whether the applicant had to bring the pole sign into compliance upon a change of business. He emphasized that the City did not read the sign and decide if it was a permissible message. Councilor McPeak asked if the provision applied if the new owner retained the name of the business and made no content change to the sign. Mr. Powell indicated that, in theory, since what triggered the compliance provision was any kind of change or copy alteration to the sign resulting from a new business or a new use, the owner would probably not have to make the sign comply if there was no change to it. He concurred that the intent of the Council was to impose this requirement when the owner had to spend money to change the sign anyway. Mr. Paulson indicated to Councilor Turchi that he purchased Ramsay Signs in 1998, which gave him ownership of the sign that had been on contract since 1980. He indicated that his theory was that he would not have had to bring the sign into conformity when he bought the company that owned the sign. He compared it to owning a house with a non-conforming panel box that still met the Code provisions; he would not redo the electrical system unless he wanted to change something in the house, which would require a permit. Mr. Paulson pointed out that what tripped this situation was Ms. Ingalls' issuing a violation notice for changing the face of the sign without a permit. He indicated that normally they did not get permits to change the copy, as they changed copy routinely as a maintenance issue, but they followed the City process and applied for a permit. He argued that the trigger was content- related because the only way that Ms. Ingalls knew that the business changed was to read the copy on the sign. Mayor Hammerstad stated that they would seperate the copy change permit issue from the sign code variance issue. Mr. Powell confirmed that the citations for failure to bring the pole sign into compliance were in municipal court. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that municipal court was the place to address the copy change permit issue; tonight, the Council was focusing on the sign code variance issue. Mayor Hammerstad asked Mr. Paulson to tell the Council why he thought that the pole sign met the three variance criteria, starting with why he thought he had an unusual or unique circumstance. Mr. Paulson referenced the photos he submitted showing how the sign would be blocked by cars parking and traffic. He mentioned, as a member of the Clackamas County City Council Minutes Page 6 of 13 April 16, 2002 Development Review Board, that they looked for adequate parking for business, which was why the staff recommendation to remove parking made no sense to him. Mr. Paulson argued that they had a sign that worked effectively, which a monument sign would not do, as traffic would block it. He referenced the sign code criteria providing for the improvement of the effectiveness of signs. He contended that reducing the sign and copy size and putting it behind cars did not improve the sign's effectiveness. Mr. Paulson argued that one could barely read the copy on the monument signs in the photos submitted by staff, which meant that they were not effective signs. He disagreed with the staff testimony that these companies were able to install a monument sign, contending that the companies were required to install monument signs. He reiterated that monument signs, with their small sign and copy size, were ineffective and inadequate. Mr. Paulson argued that the sign in front of this business was directly related to the revenue it generated. He contended that removal of the pole sign would cripple the business. He observed that pole signs were allowed under the Code. He held that staff's interpretation of the criteria was purely subjective, as common sense would say that no one would see a sign four feet off the ground and blocked by a car. He reiterated that meeting this part of the Code did not provide for an effective use of a sign. Mayor Hammerstad asked what unusual or unique circumstances existed on this property that made it different from other properties with monument signs. Mr. Paulson indicated that the circumstances were that they were not changing anything; this business has been the same for 20 years and simply wanted to continue to use its effective sign. He reiterated that if they followed the Planning Department's proposal, the sign would be ineffective, which did not meet the Code criteria. Mr. Paulson argued that making the sign and text smaller created a safety and traffic problem for those trying to read the sign. He pointed out that cities all over the U.S. were installing bigger street name signs in order to make them easier to read by the aging population of the U.S. Mayor Hammerstad commented that reducing the sign to regulation size would eliminate the extra advertising by the travel agency but none of the other signs in the area could have extra advertising either. Mr. Paulson argued that pole sign was visible, not blocked by autos, and did not require the owner to sacrifice three parking spaces. He contended that these were unreasonable requests by the City. He held that leaving it the same would not change the overall appearance of anything. Ms. Ingalls confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that the example parking lot reconfiguration (Exhibit E-6, page 59) would leave adequate parking for the business. She indicated that there were other reconfigurations that would also work. Mr. Paulson asked if it was reasonable to ask the business owner to restripe the lot when it worked satisfactorily the way it was. Mayor Hammerstad noted the second variance criteria, that the sign resulting from the variance would not affect the surrounding neighborhood or affected property in a manner materially inconsistent with the purpose of the sign code. Mr. Paulson argued that there was no impact because the sign was already there. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that the other signs would come into compliance in 2004, leaving this one obviously different. Mr. Paulson held that granting the variance to leave the sign as it was did not mean that it was exempt from the amortization schedule. Mayor Hammerstad disagreed. Mr. Powell indicated that it depended on what degree of variance the Council allowed. He explained that granting a variance on the grounds that the applicant met the criteria did exempt the sign from the 2004 compliance deadline because those conditions would not cease to exist in 2004. He clarified that if the Council believed that the existing conditions justifying a variance would cease to exist in 2004, then it could narrowly draw the variance and limit it. City Council Minutes Page 7 of 13 April 16, 2002 - 1 -- Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the third criterion, limiting the degree of the variance to what was reasonably necessary to alleviate the problem created by the unique or unusual circumstances, which she indicated has already been discussed. Mr. Paulson reiterated that the most reasonable approach was to leave the sign as it was. Seeing no others who wished to testify, Mayor Hammerstad closed the public hearing. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor McPeak said that she did not find that the company made the case for hardship based on special circumstances, except in the general terms that any inhibition on the right of a business to have any kind of signage that it wanted imposed a hardship on it. She observed that that issue ran through all the sign code controversies that she has noticed, as a business's goal was sometimes at variance with the community's goals, resulting in restrictions on businesses. Councilor McPeak commented that she believed that Mr. Paulson exaggerated the situation in stating that not having a pole sign would ruin the business, and that monument signs were ineffective. She noted that the community wanted to improve the appearance of the Boones Ferry corridor, and selected controlling the signage as one method of doing that. She indicated that pole signs, although an effective means of communication, were unattractive, and the ordinance spoke to making them disappear from the area. Councilor McPeak commented that the community, which passed the ordinance, believed that a business could communicate effectively enough and, at the same time, prevent sign proliferation and clutter, minimize adverse visual safety factors and promote the health, safety and welfare of the public by providing a neat, clean, orderly and attractive appearance. She conceded that this was subjective but held that the community knew when it became a more attractive city. Councilor McPeak observed that, unfortunately for the sign industry and businesses, achieving the more attractive city meant curbing the most effective signs. She argued that monument signs have worked for the Boones Ferry Road businesses. She held that Mr. Paulson did not make the case that moving to monument signs would cause businesses to close down. She described Mr. Paulson's request as making this business the one left with a pole sign, which she characterized as asking more of the community than was necessary. Councilor McPeak commented that another option besides a monument sign was a wall sign, which would not impede the parking and was up off the ground. She asked if the outline on the picture (Exhibit E-5,page 57) showed where a monument sign would fit. Ms. Ingalls indicated that Ramsay Signs provided the outline of where a monument sign might sit. Mr. Powell pointed out that a monument sign could be up to 8 feet tall, whereas the outline was drawn at the 6-foot level. Councilor McPeak commented that there were possibilities that allowed her to balance the needs of the business to communicate with the needs of the community to beautify the community. She held that businesses prospered in a more attractive community. She indicated that she found it hard to understand Mr. Paulson's argument that only a pole sign would do. Councilor Schoen recalled that the prior Council, which amended the sign code, had extensive discussions regarding this issue. He indicated that their decision was to bring the signage in the Lake Grove area into conformance in order to create a business district on the Westside of the city, as a means of aiding the businesses. He noted that this sign code would be less restrictive than the regulations on East End or downtown redevelopment signage. Councilor Schoen said that extending conformance to 2004 represented a compromise; initially, the Council had intended to make conformance effective immediately but felt that it should give businesses sufficient time to amortize the cost of replacing pole signs. He indicated that they wanted to eliminate pole signs because they contributed to the clutter in the commercial area. City Council Minutes Page 8 of 13 April 16, 2002 He commented that, with the long-term plans for developing the Boones Ferry corridor, this sign code would be effective in helping to beautify the area while still supporting businesses. Councilor Graham referenced a statement in Mr. Paulson's March 12, 2002 letter, which quoted the DRC as saying that there were many examples on Boones Ferry Road of monument signs surrounded by vegetation and visible from the street. She noted Mr. Paulson's contention that such signs were not effective or readable, and neither were they visible when cars were parked in front of them. She observed that Mr. Paulson provided no back up for the statements in his letter, nor did he provide that information in his testimony tonight. Councilor Graham discussed the first criteria, which spoke of signs similar to other businesses in the area. She indicated that she drove Boones Ferry almost every day, and she found the monument signs very visible. She observed that they kept their individuality and were both readable and aesthetically pleasing in meeting the City criteria. She said that Mr. Paulson had not answered the criteria, which was sufficient for her to support the DRC's denial. REBUTTAL Mr. Paulson said that appraisals would substantiate the economic impact of the sign, in addition to lawsuits in California over reduced sign size. He argued that the economic impact of the sign was tied to how well the business did. He directed the Council to the books that they submitted into the record addressing these issues. Mr. Paulson described amortization as an old method that was applied to non-conforming uses to bring them into compliance. He stated that over the last five years the courts found that amortization did not work effectively because of the economic impact to the business, which went beyond the cost of the sign and included the reduced revenues generated by the sign. He reiterated that these factors could be substantiated by case studies showing that there was a direct relationship between sign size/effectiveness and the ability of a business to generate revenues. Mr. Paulson argued that the Chevron sign in the picture submitted by the Planning Department was not visible when someone drove out of that driveway. He contended that the three gas prices listed on the sign were too small to read as someone drove by. Mayor Hammerstad commented that their experience in shopping in Lake Grove led the Council to conclude that the businesses were doing well and that people did not have trouble finding the businesses. Councilor Turchi commented that he thought that Mr. Paulson could make an argument for the sign on the property based on its uniqueness but instead Mr. Paulson was making an argument that monument signs did not work well, and that the sign code (which was based on monument signs) was a bad idea. Mr. Paulson held that there were better alternatives to improve the aesthetics and not add clutter than monument signs. Councilor Turchi observed that the impact of removing all the pole signs on Boones Ferry would be the same on all the businesses. Mr. Paulson reiterated that the City Code had a provision allowing pole signs when there was no reasonable way to put in a monument sign. He stated that their argument was that the monument sign was unreasonable. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Turchi that a business owner, whose purchase of a business predated the sign ordinance, could change the copy on his sign and not the sign itself. He said that the sign code exempted copy changes when it did not involve a change for a new business or a new ownership. Councilor Turchi noted that this situation involved a similar business with a new name and new ownership, and a sign, which Mr. Paulson contended predated the current requirement. Mr. Paulson compared the situation to a sign for Fred and Ginger's dance studio; Fred died and it became Ginger's dance studio. He argued that it was still a dance studio,just a different name City Council Minutes Page 9 of 13 April 16, 2002 on the sign. Councilor Turchi commented unless Fred& Ginger had owned it together or sold it to someone else. Councilor Turchi asked if Mr. Paulson had a valid argument that there has been one continuous ownership, and that all he did was change the text, which meant that he had until 2004 to come into compliance. Mr. Powell reminded the Council that this applicant made that argument and asked for that interpretation six months ago when this situation began. He reiterated that the Code criterion was if there was a change for a new business or use. Mr. Powell said that staff urged the interpretation it has always made that that language meant that the sign was changing because there was a new business or a new use. He clarified that a new use meant that the person who owned the travel agency could do something other than have a travel agency, while a new business meant a new owner or another travel agency. Mr. Powell observed that the philosophy behind the staff interpretation made sense, in that the Council wanted to allow those businesses with an investment in their existing signs to keep using those signs until 2004. However, someone coming in with a new business would comply with the Code the same as someone building a new business would, because neither would have spent money on the existing sign. Councilor Graham observed that, with the changeover to monument signs along Boones Ferry, her line of sight, as she drove along, was almost level; therefore, she did not see the pole sign because it was above her level of sight. She disagreed that the Chevron gas prices were not visible, as she could see them from the road. Mr. Paulson reiterated that they were not visible if a car was parked in front of them. Councilor Graham pointed out that no one could park in front of the Chevron sign because of their garden area and the brick liner around the sign. Councilor McPeak moved to affirm the decision of the Development Review Commission by denying AP 02-03, and direct staff to prepare the findings, conclusion and order. Councilor Graham seconded the motion. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that they were not arguing the validity of monument signs, as their current code listed them as the preferred type of sign along the Boones Ferry corridor. She commented that since the City required everyone to install monument signs, which many have done, GK Travel did not have a special or unique circumstance. She observed that, as the improvements occurred to the Boones Ferry corridor, a pole sign would become more obvious and distracting. Mayor Hammerstad commented that her experience with nonconforming uses found that people thought they went on forever. She cited Mr. Paulson's argument that the City should allow the nonconforming use to continue because it was there. She pointed out that that was not the purpose of a non-conforming use. She explained that the City intended non-conforming uses to go away, and used a change of business as the trigger for a change to conforming uses. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that she would support the motion. She expressed her hope that, as other businesses changed, they would see more monument signs, which would create a better visual spectrum along the corridor. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting `yes.' [6-0] Mr. Powell noted that this tentative decision of the Council would become final upon adoption of the written findings at the May 14, 2002, meeting. Mayor Hammerstad welcomed another Boy Scout. She commented that this hearing had had arguments on both sides with the Council trying to make a decision in the best interests of the community. • The Council heard the remainder of Item 3.1, Springbrook Creek Restoration Presentation City Council Minutes Page 10 of 13 April 16, 2002 -.1 - 8. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL 8.1 Councilor Information 8.1.1 Fourth Street Transit Mall Councilor Turchi reported on his tour of the transit mall on Fourth Street with the citizen who had informed the Council about problems at the transit mall. He commented that his first impression had been that the sidewalk was too narrow to accomodate everything that was going on there; what was there might not violate the letter of the law, but it probably violated the spirit of the law. Councilor Turchi indicated that the City has already moved to make some changes, and would likely make additional ones, such as turning the benches around and moving the newspaper boxes. He commented that a problem with the newspaper boxes was that they were movable and there needed to be at least 36 inches of right-of-way on the sidewalk. He suggested looking at an ordinance regulating newspaper boxes and that sort of thing in the public right-of-way in order to make sure that they were not hampering handicapped people's access to these areas. Councilor Turchi expressed his appreciation for the citizen coming forward, and said that he would have a final report when he completed the work on this issue. Councilor Graham reviewed the Earth Day 2002 events (April 20), scheduled at Millennium Park from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. She mentioned the sponsors, including PGE, Dan Rigger& Rockamanna, Vanessa Carr and the Retreads, and Starbucks. 8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees and Intergovernmental Committees 9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 9.1 City Manager Joel Komarek, City Engineer, noted that the following two amendments related to the City's Clackamas River intake project. He mentioned that the second one dealt with the contractor, which staff selected under a CMGC process in August 2001, who has become a valuable member of the design team. Mr. Komarek referenced the PowerPoint presentation given by Deputy City Attorney Evan Boone on the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He explained that, in January 2001, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) promulgated the 4D rules under the ESA, which prohibited the taking of protected salmon species. He said that the City proactively chose to retrofit its existing Clackamas River intake facility with new fish screens in order to comply with the new design standards (two protected salmon species lived in that river). Mr. Komarek noted that this project was the first of its kind in the region to seek a limit under the 4D rules, and to conduct a biological assessment under Section 7 of the ESA in order to determine the impact of the project on the protected fish stocks in the river. He reported that the preliminary report from NMFS indicated that there might be a finding of no effect for this project. Mr. Komarek described the CNGC process used by the City to select the contractor. He indicated that the contractor has provided significant value to the City on the project and was committed to completing the project by August 31, 2002. Mr. Komarek mentioned their finding that the intake facility was vulnerable to seismic events. He said that one improvement would be to strengthen the facility so that it stayed in place during an earthquake. City Council Minutes Page 11 of 13 April 16, 2002 Mr. Komarek discussed the project impacts on the city. He mentioned the reduction of water withdrawals out of this facility while the work was going on. He indicated that staff has proactively talked with its water provider partners to ensure access to alternative water supplies. Mr. Komarek confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that the project funding came from water revenues. 9.1.1 Authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to a personal services contract with MWH Americas, Inc., to provide additional design and construction management services for Clackamas River Intake Fish Screen Modifications. Councilor Graham moved to authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to a personal services contract with MWH Americas, Inc., in the amount of$145,900,to provide additional design and construction management services for Clackamas River Intake Fish Screen Modifications. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion. A voice call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting `yes.' [6-0] 9.1.2 Award a Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) construction phase contract to Natt McDougall Company for the Clackamas River Intake Fish Screen Modifications project. Councilor McPeak moved to award a Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) construction phase contract to Natt McDougall Company in the amount of $1,288,978 for the Clackamas River Intake Fish Screen Modifications project. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A voice call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting `yes.' [6-0] 9.1.3 Resolution 02-22, authorizing the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement between Clean Water Services and the City of Lake Oswego for the Tualatin Basin Floodplain Restudy This item was removed from the agenda. 9.1.4 Completion of the Infill Development Task Force Mayor Hammerstad explained that, as a result of the report last week from the Infill Task Force, the Council made some decisions, including retaining the consulting services of the University of Oregon, which led the Task Force through the process. She noted that there was still some work to complete before the recommendations went to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lashbrook mentioned that all who worked with Ron Kellett and the University of Oregon students were impressed by the quality of work, the speed at which they turned things around for the Task Force and their ability to guide a large group of citizens to consensus. He observed that this project has been on a rapid timeline, compared to the usual planning project timelines, in order to get the job done before the emergency ordinances enacted by the Council concerning house heights sunsetted. Councilor Graham moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract extension with the University of Oregon for up to $14,000 for the consulting services of Ron Kellett in regard to the Infill Task Force. Councilor Turchi seconded the motion. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Rohde that the funds would come from the Community Development fund. A voice call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting `yes.' [6-0] Mayor Hammerstad expressed the Council's appreciation for the good work by the Task Force and their eagerness to see its work completed. She commented that, based on the work presented City Council Minutes Page 12 of 13 April 16, 2002 - last Tuesday and the outstanding issues yet to be resolved, she expected to end up with something that the community was happy with. 9.1.5 Resolution 02-25 Mr. Schmitz asked for the Council authorization of the proposed two-year contract with the Lake Oswego Police Officers Association, which the Council reviewed this morning. Janice Deardorff, Human Resources Director, said that this new labor agreement would be retroactive to July 1, 2001, and effective through June 30, 2003. She indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that they have been negotiating with the association since May 2001 over the course of 13 meetings, and have just now reached agreement. She mentioned that the agreement covered the 45 members of the association, including police officers, community service officers and communications and senior communications officers. Ms. Deardorff reviewed the changes made in the contract. She mentioned a clarification of the call-in protocol for taking accrued comp time off(which would result in a cost savings to the City in overtime), a 3% wage increase retroactive to July 1, 2001 and a 4% wage increase effective July 1, 2002. She noted the 1.2% contribution into a post-retirement program, which would allow for the establishment of a pre-tax savings account for the reimbursement of health care expenses and retiree insurance premiums. Ms. Deardorff described this as a fair settlement for both sides, which would keep the City competitive in the metro market in order to attract and retain a quality workforce. She said that the Association ratified the tentative agreement with a vote of 35 to 0. Councilor Schoen moved to adopt Resolution 02-25, entering into a labor agreement with the Lake Oswego Police Officers Association, effective July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003. Councilor Graham seconded the motion. A voice call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting `yes.' [6-01 9.2 City Attorney 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting at 7:50 p.m. to Executive Session pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(e) to consult with persons authorized to engage in real property negotiations. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive Session parameters. 11. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the meeting at 8:12 p.m. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _ o Robyn Chri .tie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON July 2, 2002 J ie Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Minutes Page 13 of 13 April 16, 2002