My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
04/10/91
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Economic Development Commission
>
Minutes
>
1991
>
04/10/91
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/27/2025 4:08:34 PM
Creation date
7/31/2003 11:17:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Document Title
Economic Development Commission
Document Date
04/10/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
NOTE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br /> <br />Noted was City Council meeting minutes dated February 12, 1991. <br /> <br />COMMISSION BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: Business Retention Survey. <br /> <br />The results of the Business Retention Survey were noted. Commissioner Nelson cited the need for <br />Ramsey to have a positive identity. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Fults and seconded by Commissioner Kent to adopt and send to City <br />Council for approval the 1990 Business Retention Survey. <br /> <br />Motion carried by consensus. Voting Yes: Chairman Wagner, Commissioners Fults, Kent and <br />Nelson. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners Zillinger, Greenberg, Gorecki, Vevea and <br />Muller. <br /> <br />Case #2: Sign Ordinance Review. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fults noted that there are some inherent difficulties with the ordinance as presented <br />(i.e., Corporate signs are required for certain franchise businesses) and that in the case of multi- <br />tenant commercial buildings, if the first tenant uses the entire allotment of sign space, the remaining <br />tenants have no sign space. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson noted that it was extremely difficult to figure out what businesses occupy a <br />building. <br /> <br />The Commission reviewed the Ordinance and offered the following suggestions: <br /> <br />General Provisions: <br /> <br />Subd. 7, Illumination: Permits could be issued for special events such as grand openings of <br />businesses. <br /> <br />Subd. 10, Maintenance: Unkempt appearance is an opinion and it would be quickly challenged. <br />Commissioner Fults suggested the use of certain guidelines such as rust, peeling paint, structural <br />damage, message damage and weathering. The consensus of the Commission was also that a sign <br />should be removed if a company goes out of business. <br /> <br />Temporary Signs: <br /> <br />Subd. 1, Banners, pennants, revolving spotlights and whirling devices: Grand openings should <br />be exempted from the sign permit requirement and permit fee. <br /> <br />Subd. 5, Real Estate Signs: a4) Needs to be reworded. It should state that they signs are to be <br />removed when sold or leased and exclude the statement "ninety-five percent (95%) completed". <br /> <br />Commissioner Fults was dismissed from the meeting at this time. <br /> <br />Economic Development Commission / April 10, 1991 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.