Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Administrator Hagen replied there are two separate issues the City has been discussing. He <br />stated it started with a lease with the billboard company which led to a need for an ordinance to <br />allow billboards. He explained the ordinance is broad in nature and regulates any property along <br />the Highway 10 corridor if adopted and identifies what will be allowed for billboards regarding <br />location. He highlighted benefits to businesses, noting that anyone can advertise on it and it <br />increases advertising ability, especially for businesses along The COR. He stated public service <br />alerts could be posted and community events. He explained separate from that, which the Council <br />has already supported, is a lease for a billboard on land owned by the City. Within that lease, there <br />is more freedom to place additional requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff commented that the ordinance does not include a requirement that <br />any of the billboards have civil or City-based messaging. He stated at one point it was mentioned <br />that was going to be included but has since been removed. He pointed out the differences between <br />those in the ordinance and those on City-owned land. He highlighted that two included in the <br />ordinance would have no direct fiscal benefit to the City but may benefit Ramsey businesses. He <br />commented that he brought up the PUD because the golf course isn’t zoned specifically as a <br />residential area and the ordinance is written billboards are excluded in residential areas and the <br />definition for PUDs is a little ambiguous that it could be possible. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if that would be something Councilmember Woestehoff would <br />want to add to the ordinance or not. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff replied he didn’t support the ordinance but thought having a billboard <br />next to the golf course distracting because of the open space but could imagine that being attracting <br />for a business. He questioned the assumption that this is the solution to helping smaller Ramsey <br />businesses be more visible and would buy advertising on the digital billboards or if they would be <br />taken over by larger franchise chains. He stated he has never supported billboards in Ramsey <br />because it pulls away from the small-town feel. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Specht, seconded by Councilmember Riley, to waive the City Charter <br />requirement to read the ordinance aloud and adopt Ordinance #22-19 Amending Sign Code to <br />allow off-premise digital billboards with the recommended changes to not allow them in the PUD <br />zoned areas. <br /> <br />Further discussion: <br />Councilmember Riley answered Councilmember Musgrove’s question on why the EDA started <br />with this which was to help the local businesses in The COR that can’t be seen to get their name <br />out and advertise on Highway 10. He stated the EDA found that it wouldn’t cost the City anything <br />and could become a source of revenue. Councilmember Musgrove asked with the inclusion of the <br />PUD and other limitations within the district, if they were being too limiting. Councilmember <br />Woestehoff replied it wouldn’t be too limiting because there is room on the far end but it does <br />make it a little harder. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Kuzma, Councilmembers Specht, Riley, Howell, and <br />Musgrove. Voting No: Councilmember Woestehoff. <br /> <br />City Council / June 28, 2022 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br /> <br />