Laserfiche WebLink
City Planner Anderson provided additional details on the different types of signage allowed. He <br />stated that the Council has talked about going away from The COR branding and focusing on the <br />City of Ramsey. <br />Councilmember Musgrove provided additional input on recent Council discussions related to <br />uniform City of Ramsey branding and signage. <br />Chairperson Bauer asked if this topic could be added to the joint meeting with the City Council <br />the following week. <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl replied that she did not believe that agenda would have space for <br />an additional topic. She asked for input from the Commission on whether it would support an <br />off -premise sign. <br />Commissioner Johnson stated that he would not support an off -premise sign for the applicant <br />specifically but would support a community sign for multiple tenants/projects. <br />Commissioner VanScoy stated that he would like the Commission/City to consider a community <br />sign, looking at the long-term needs for The COR. He stated that perhaps a partnership could be <br />done to support that action. He stated that he would like to see more signage for the businesses <br />but also wants to see the City have control. <br />Commissioner Woestehoff stated that he would appreciate a community sign but believes that <br />the Ramsey overpass would need to be completed prior to that sign being added because of future <br />visibility issues. <br />Commissioner VanScoy stated that the Armstrong interchange has caused a significant negative <br />impact on visibility for businesses even though it was a positive for transportation. <br />Commissioner Peters stated that he has an issue with the size of the sign. He stated that the <br />population of Ramsey will support the businesses and not the traffic that pulls off the highway by <br />chance. <br />Commissioner Woestehoff asked if a decision would need to be made in March, if tabled tonight. <br />Chairperson Bauer stated that if the issue is still not resolved in March, the Commission can <br />recommend it not be approved. He stated that tabling does not require the request to come back <br />in March. <br />City Planner Anderson replied that the City has a 60-day timeframe for review but can issue a 60- <br />day extension if needed. He noted that anything beyond one extension would require consent of <br />the applicant. <br />Commissioner Johnson asked what would change between now and the next review. <br />Planning Commission/ February 6, 2020 <br />Page 12 of 18 <br />