My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/23/2022
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2022
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/23/2022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 11:11:32 AM
Creation date
6/24/2022 8:53:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
06/23/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner VanScoy commented that the COR Framework talks about three signs along <br /> Highway 10 meant to identify the businesses within the COR and asked for an update on that. <br /> Community Development Dir/Deputy City Admin Brian Hagen replied that there is one at Ramsey <br /> Boulevard and Highway 10 that would be removed with the interchange. He stated that there is <br /> the dynamic City sign but that is used for City messaging. <br /> Commissioner VanScoy asked if the COR Framework requirements are going to be incorporated <br /> or going away. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff commented that should be treated separately. He stated that this <br /> would allow for those businesses that would be impacted by construction to follow an easier <br /> process. He agreed that the COR Framework signs should be revisited after the construction is <br /> done. <br /> Commissioner VanScoy commented that the intent of the City signs was to reduce the sign cluster <br /> along the corridor. He recognized the importance of allowing businesses to have signage during <br /> construction but noted that the signage plans within the framework continue to be pushed down <br /> the road. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff stated that he does not disagree,but a business will put their own sign <br /> up and would still take advantage of a spot offered by the City on another sign. <br /> Planning Manager Larson clarified that this intent would be to allow taller and larger signs for <br /> businesses that would be impacted by the interchanges. <br /> Commissioner Anderson stated that he would have difficulty saying what could be done now <br /> without knowing the impact of the interchange. <br /> Planning Manager Larson commented that the best example would be the Armstrong interchange <br /> as the height will be comparable. He stated that this would streamline the process the businesses <br /> impacted by the Armstrong interchange followed to address their signage needs. <br /> Commissioner Anderson commented that he understands the need for businesses to advertise but <br /> also wants to avoid sign clutter. He recognized that advertising will be important but again felt <br /> that he needed more information on what the interchanges will look like. <br /> Commissioner Gengler commented that this will not add additional signs but will allow the <br /> businesses to elevate and slightly enlarge their signs to be visible after construction. <br /> Commissioner Walker asked for clarification on the larger signs that were approved through <br /> variances. <br /> Planning Manager Larson replied that those were all multi-tenant signs that were issued through <br /> Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He explained the difference in discretion allowed for a variance <br /> and CUP. <br /> Planning Commission/May 26, 2022 <br /> Page 18 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.