Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />designation from the Metro Plan Diagram where these sign districts occur. <br />The purpose and description section was also changed to allow the Goodpasture <br />Island dealerships to apply for the Highway-Oriented sign district. <br /> <br />The second major issue identified by Mr. Croteau is the streamlining of the <br />Sign Code variance process, with a maximum time period allowed for a decision <br />of 30 days. Decisions appealed from the Building Official would still be <br />heard by the Sign Code Board of Appeals. Also, the City Council is removed <br />from the Sign Code variance process. <br /> <br />Mr. Rutan said that he had mixed emotions about this change: that in one way <br />it made good sense, but he wondered if people would feel they would be treated <br />fairly through the Sign Code Board of Appeals. Mr. Croteau responded that the <br />removal of the zoning variance process from the City Council has worked well. <br />He explained that if the Sign Code Board of Appeals feels that the Sign Code <br />needs changing, it can recommend the initiation of a code amendment, and the <br />City Council would have the final decision-making authority. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Mr. Hansen was also uncomfortable with the change and suggested that there be <br />an appeal process which the City Council could choose to be involved in if it <br />wished to do so. He believes that it is going too far when the elected <br />officials have no final say. Ms. Bascom expressed a similar concern and <br />believed that revisions in the code would be difficult to address if the <br />council was not involved in the process. In response to Mr. Miller's <br />question, Mr. Croteau said that when the council considers an appeal, the <br />decision is based on the policy in place at that time; the current process <br />does not allow variance or change of the policy at the same time. In the new <br />process, the Sign Code Board of Appeals would do this in place of the City <br />Council . <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau continued reviewing the 11 major issues identified in the staff <br />notes, beginning with number three in the staff report. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />3. Integrated Shopping Sign District <br /> <br />Under the current code, each shopping district is allowed one overall <br />identification sign. The change would allow one identity sign per street <br />frontage. Mr. Hansen asked if the individual signs (on Coburg Road) would <br />remain attached to the identity sign, and Ms. McDonald said that this was the <br />Outlying Commercial district where they are allowed; in Integrated Shopping <br />districts they are not allowed (for example, Valley River Center, Oakway, and <br />Southtowne). Mr. Hansen asked if ownership of land had a bearing on the <br />number of signs. Ms. McDonald explained that entrances and traffic patterns <br />determined whether there was an Integrated Shopping district. Mr. Croteau <br />said that if a piece of property was not a part of the integrated group, then <br />another identity sign would be allowed. The proposed change, he further <br />explained, would not further expand or liberalize the existing code, but only <br />allow the same kind of identity sign on each street frontage. Mr. Hansen <br />asked if using the same rules for Outlying Commercial districts and Integrated <br />Shopping districts had been considered. Mr. Croteau said this would be <br />difficult because each business develops as a separate entity with its own <br />parking areas and frontage; a sign is allowed for each business on its <br />frontage. In an Integrated Shopping district, each business is allowed a wall <br />Sign, but not an individual sign on the street frontage. <br /> <br />EXCERPT MINUTES--City Council Work Session <br /> <br />March 17, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />