Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2020

Home

City Planner Anderson confirmed that those signs are on City owned property. Commissioner VanScoy stated that while he understands the need and desire, he is appalled at the magnitude of the sign proposed. He stated that this request has multiple conflicts with the ordinance. He stated that the City has an opportunity to address the issue of visibility but did not think it appropriate to do that with a private sign on City property. He stated that perhaps a third community sign would solve this problem. Citizen Input Rob Hardy, applicant, provided background information on himself, experience, and his local connection to Ramsey. He stated that when he looked at Ramsey, he could not figure out why the City was not attracting retailers. He stated that he attempted to purchase land on Highway 10 and was quickly educated on why that property would not work for development because of the Highway 10 improvement proposed to occur. He stated that retailers were interested in being on Highway 10, but there is not available land. He stated that he then spent time working on the parcel in The COR that he holds a Purchase Agreement on. He stated that the retailers that have declined interest have stated that it is because they would not have visibility on Highway 10. He advised of a sign that he recently saw along a highway advertising businesses, which caused him to pull off the highway to visit those businesses. He explained that the reason Ramsey does not have the retailers that other communities have is because it lacks exposure for those businesses on Highway 10. He explained that the sign he proposed would cost over $500,000 and explained how those costs would be recovered from the tenants. He noted that the original sign proposal included a City branding area and a digital reader board, which could be used by smaller businesses that perhaps could not afford a tenant space. He noted that after receiving the feedback from staff, he removed those sections. He stated that he also reduced the height to match the U.S. Bank sign. He explained why the proposed location was chosen. He stated that Ramsey has a unique challenge in that The COR properties in that the businesses will want visibility from Highway 10. He believed that the time has come for the City to consider putting a larger sign on the City property, suggesting a modern digital sign which could be used to advertise local businesses, local events, and other civic announcements. He stated that without visibility from Highway 10, Ramsey will not be able to attract retailers. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that the issue of private signage on City owned property will be a policy discussion for the Commission to consider. Matt Kuker, PSD and Armstrong West Retail, stated that he is the adjoining property owner. He stated that if the City wants to do something with the property, it should consult the adjacent property owners to determine if they are interested in purchasing the lot. He stated that he has invested a significant amount of money into his site and to allow the applicant to put a sign closer to Highway 10 than his sign, and of this size, would be appalling. He stated that he is doing a fully electronic sign. He stated that he was asked to work with the applicant but does not have experience with the applicant and would prefer to own his sign and allow his space for his tenants. He stated that if the applicant wants property along Highway 10, he could have sold him property where Diamond's was. He stated that the City has never offered an off -premise sign to Planning Commission/ February 6, 2020 Page l0 of 18