Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2020

Home

Commissioner VanScoy stated that if the City continues on this path, Ramsey will face a forest of signs in this area. He asked if the business would be in agreement with a monument sign. Mr. Tauscheck replied that although that could be a possibility, it would not be visible from the highway. Commissioner VanScoy stated that this is another reason the City needs to expedite its review of the sign ordinance. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that staff originally believed that this sign would be administratively approved but the City Attorney suggested that the Commission review this request because although allowed in the district, the language is not clear. Commissioner VanScoy stated that The COR is not intended to be the typical suburban development and he is having difficulty continuing to support these types of requests. He recognized that visibility is important for retail and commercial businesses along Highway 10. He stated that although the master sign plan addresses that intent, it has not yet been accomplished. He stated that he would support a monument sign along the highway that would be visible to support these businesses, similar to the City signs near the rail station and Ramsey Boulevard. He agreed that visibility is critical but did not believe that ending up with multiple signs is the intention. City Planner Anderson read language from The COR design framework related to allowed signage. Commissioner VanScoy stated that he finds it difficult to support this situation. Chairperson Bauer referenced the location of this property and the two vacant lots that have interest from two potential businesses. He asked if there could be shared signage for those three parcels. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that the two vacant parcels are both owned by the City and will come forward for a lot split and therefore the City could ask for shared signage at that time. She stated that the City can still look into shared monument signage but that would be further into the future. She reviewed the type of signage that could be approved administratively, noting that this traditional ground sign would be preferred to what could be allowed under the Code. Chairperson Bauer asked if the business would be open to building signage at this time and waiting for the future development of the adjacent parcels in attempt for shared signage. Mr. Tauscheck stated that while he understands the intent he could not speak for the business. Commissioner Johnson asked why the business does not use one of the open spaces on the Coborn's sign. Mr. Tauscheck replied that there is another property owner and location for that sign, and it would not be New Horizon's space to take. Planning Commission/ March 5, 2020 Page 3 of 7