My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 08/25/2022
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2022
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 08/25/2022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 10:50:38 AM
Creation date
10/12/2022 9:56:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/25/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Ramsey. He commented that they are on the fringe of getting what they want, and he would hate <br />for signage to blow that deal. <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked if other locations were considered and what the process was for <br />selecting this site. <br />Planning Manager Larson replied that this decision predated his time with the City. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated that in the two years he has heard about this, several sites were <br />discussed but does not recall any being truly defined. <br />Mr. Gilleland stated that they mocked up four locations, although more were discussed. He noted <br />that some of those locations were eliminated because of the upcoming changes to Highway 10. <br />He stated that the last location was the site to the north on the other side of Highway 10 but recalled <br />a conflict with an entity that owned the property other than the City which is when the location <br />was pushed across the street. <br />Acting Chairperson Gengler stated that these digital billboards are different than a typical business <br />sign and asked the type of restrictions that this sign would have on a business that would want to <br />have a sign on their parcel. <br />Planning Manager Larson replied that there would be no restrictions about sign proximity, it would <br />just be one sign per property. He stated that the business would have more leniency than the <br />billboard given the recent code updates to allow higher signs for businesses along the highway. <br />He noted that a large retailer could have typical business signage along with a tall freestanding <br />sign. He stated that perhaps the concern is whether this sign could potentially block sightlines. <br />Mr. Gilleland stated that is what is nice about the vertical signs, is that they do not block much <br />from other sites. He asked the window of time for Scheels with Mr. Kuker. <br />Mr. Kuker replied that he does not have a definite timeline. <br />Mr. Gilleland stated that they have been working for two years and was unsure the length of this <br />process before final approvals, noting that it could be a few more months between CUP approval, <br />building permit approval, and lease signing. He noted that they may wait for spring until <br />construction, noting that he would be fine with an alternative site if that meant Scheels was coming <br />to this site. He stated that they do have several billboard leases with Scheels. He stated that if <br />they had an idea of the site plan, they could go on the opposite side of the property to allow <br />additional spacing. He noted that they would be willing to work together and accommodate both <br />uses. <br />Motion by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Hunt, to close the public hearing. <br />A roll call vote was performed: <br />Commissioner Hunt aye <br />Planning Commission/ August 25, 2022 <br />Page 20 of 27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.