Minutes - Council - 11/24/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Council Business Motion by Councilmember Johns, seconded by Councilmember Riley, to adopt Ordinance #15- 18 Establishing Permit Fees, Service Charges, and Various Other Fees to be Collected by the City of Ramsey. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Strommen, Councilmembers Johns, Riley, Kuzma, LeTourneau, Shryock, and Williams. Voting No: None. A roll call vote was performed by the Recording Secretary: Councilmember LeTourneau aye Councilmember Shryock aye Councilmember Johns aye Councilmember Williams aye Councilmember Kuzma aye Councilmember Riley aye Mayor Strommen aye Motion carried. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 7.01: Consider Adopting Resolutions #15-11-272 and #15-11-273 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Exceed Sign Size and Height Restrictions at 8035 Riverdale Drive NW; Case of Ramsey -Arbor Properties, LLC Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the staff report and recommendation to approve a conditional use permit to exceed the square footage and height limitation for a ground sign in the Armstrong Boulevard Interchange Overlay District without incorporating additional design elements, such as a monument style base finish consistent with the exterior finish of the principal building to a minimum height of six feet; and adopt Resolution #15-11-272 approving Finding of Fact #0957 and Resolution #15-11-273 relating to Ramsey -Arbor Properties, LLC's request for a conditional use permit to exceed sign restrictions established in City Code. Councilmember LeTourneau referenced the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he is in agreement with the height of the proposed sign. He stated that he is not comfortable with the aesthetic portion as that is part of the Ordinance and the corridor. He noted that there was not a particular reason noted in the minutes and believed that there is aesthetic value and consistency provided by following the Ordinance. Community Development Director Gladhill provided additional information on the discussion noting that the sign would not be visible because of the retaining wall and would only be visible from the users of US Bank. He stated that there was healthy discussion and there may not have been full consensus from all the Commissioners. He stated that the applicant would prefer not to incur the additional cost and the majority of the Planning Commission felt that the improvement would be lost in the interchange because of the proximity to the interchange. City Council / November 24, 2015 Page 5 of 11