Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperso~ Wagner stated that the study was returned to the consultants at which time they <br />included the~s&fiOn called "Implementation Plan". <br />Commissiorter G0, recki stated that this could be a long term project that could take as much as six <br />months to c0 ..topi{re. Mr. Gromberg agreed with Mr. Gorecki that this, as the goals indicated, is a <br />long term p~o~ecg however, the Commission must start at some point to reach completion of the <br />goals. <br /> <br />Commissio~e'r Thorson wondered if the City could in some way force businesses to change their <br />name to rec~gniz~ that they are located in Ramsey and not in Anoka, such as the Anoka West Pet <br />Hospital, et~.5 The consensus of the Commission was that it would be very difficult because the <br />City has no 80lthoiSty to tell a business what it can/cannot be named. <br /> <br />Commissior[e~r Futts also indicated that many of the businesses that are currently located in Ramsey <br />came from ,/kthoka and would like to keep their tie with that identity and being a long term part of <br />this area. <br /> <br />Chairpersoni~Wagner felt that the Commission should schedule a time to review the entire study and <br />make recommendations for changes. If approved by City Council it could be used as a "game <br />plan" for tho ~tu~te development and redevelopment of the Highway #10 Corridor. <br /> <br />CommissioOer Fults stated that he had attended a public hearing on January 7, 1992 conducted by <br />the Planning. and'.iZoning Commission regarding the new sign ordinance and that he had some <br />problems w..i~h &_'fferent types of signs that may or may not be allowed under the new sign <br />ordinance; l'lqwe~er, he was pleased that the sign ordinance had been tabled for the evening for <br />additional ir[formation. Upon inquiry, he stated there were a few business people in attendance at <br />the hearing. :i <br /> <br />A brief discfiSSion ensued regarding the proposed sign ordinance. <br /> <br />Regarding t136 Highway #10 Corridor Study, Chairperson Wagner recommended that the EDC not <br />approve this doc(iment. Chairman Wagner recommended reviewing the study, taking the useful <br />and still co~t Eortions and developing a report to be forwarded to the City Council which could <br />be used as a~- .gh~dchne for future development of the Highway #10 Comdor. <br /> <br />Commissiogar Thorson suggested that the document be divided into four sections with each <br />section to b~e~eviewed at four subsequent meetings. <br /> <br />Chairpersoni wagner recommend that the EDC look at the economic development potential section <br />of the High~ay gl0 Corridor Study at the next meeting which is scheduled for February 12, 1991. <br /> <br />Commissioner Faits also suggested that the EDC should review the video tape that was done a few <br />years ago al~ci~ut the City of Ramsey and make changes and recommendations to possibly make it <br />more comprehensive. <br /> <br />Motion by iCommissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Thorson to examine the <br />economic d~¥elopment potential section of the Highway #10 Corridor Study at the next meeting. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Wagner, Commissioners Thorson, Nelson, Gorecki, <br />Greenberg ~n[l Fults. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners Vevea, Marn, and Kent. <br /> <br />Economic Development Commission /January 8, 1992 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />