Laserfiche WebLink
City Planner Anderson confirmed that those signs are on City owned property. <br /> Commissioner VanScoy stated that while he understands the need and desire, he is appalled at <br /> the magnitude of the sign proposed. He stated that this request has multiple conflicts with the <br /> ordinance. He stated that the City has an opportunity to address the issue of visibility but did not <br /> think it appropriate to do that with a private sign on City property. He stated that perhaps a third <br /> community sign would solve this problem. <br /> Citizen Input <br /> Rob Hardy, applicant, provided background information on himself, experience, and his local <br /> connection to Ramsey. He stated that when he looked at Ramsey, he could not figure out why <br /> the City was not attracting retailers. He stated that he attempted to purchase land on Highway 10 <br /> and was quickly educated on why that property would not work for development because of the <br /> Highway 10 improvement proposed to occur. He stated that retailers were interested in being on <br /> Highway 10, but there is not available land. He stated that he then spent time working on the <br /> parcel in The COR that he holds a Purchase Agreement on. He stated that the retailers that have <br /> declined interest have stated that it is because they would not have visibility on Highway 10. He <br /> advised of a sign that he recently saw along a highway advertising businesses, which caused him <br /> to pull off the highway to visit those businesses. He explained that the reason Ramsey does not <br /> have the retailers that other communities have is because it lacks exposure for those businesses <br /> on Highway 10. He explained that the sign he proposed would cost over $500,000 and explained <br /> how those costs would be recovered from the tenants. He noted that the original sign proposal <br /> included a City branding area and a digital reader board, which could be used by smaller <br /> businesses that perhaps could not afford a tenant space. He noted that after receiving the <br /> feedback from staff, he removed those sections. He stated that he also reduced the height to <br /> match the U.S. Bank sign. He explained why the proposed location was chosen. He stated that <br /> Ramsey has a unique challenge in that The COR properties in that the businesses will want <br /> visibility from Highway 10. He believed that the time has come for the City to consider putting a <br /> larger sign on the City property, suggesting a modern digital sign which could be used to <br /> advertise local businesses, local events, and other civic announcements. He stated that without <br /> visibility from Highway 10, Ramsey will not be able to attract retailers. <br /> Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that the issue of private signage on City owned property will <br /> be a policy discussion for the Commission to consider. <br /> Matt Kuker, PSD and Armstrong West Retail, stated that he is the adjoining property owner. He <br /> stated that if the City wants to do something with the property, it should consult the adjacent <br /> property owners to determine if they are interested in purchasing the lot. He stated that he has <br /> invested a significant amount of money into his site and to allow the applicant to put a sign closer <br /> to Highway 10 than his sign, and of this size, would be appalling. He stated that he is doing a <br /> fully electronic sign. He stated that he was asked to work with the applicant but does not have <br /> experience with the applicant and would prefer to own his sign and allow his space for his <br /> tenants. He stated that if the applicant wants property along Highway 10, he could have sold him <br /> Planning Commission/February 6, 2020 <br /> Page 10 of 18 <br />