03/17/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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