Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Bauer agreed that the sign ordinance needs to be reviewed, as visibility will continue <br /> to be a huge issue for The COR. <br /> 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 /> Planning Commission/February 6, 2020 <br /> Page 12 of 18 <br />