Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Roseville. <br /> <br />B. Hours of operation must be no later than 10:45 p.m. on Sunday to Thursday and 12:45 <br />a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. <br /> <br />C Replaced rooftop mechanical units must be screened per Section 1010.07 of the <br />Roseville City Code. <br /> <br />D. Parking lot lighting plan must be brought into conformance (foot-candles and <br />downcast lighting) with Section 1010.12 ofthe Roseville City Code. <br /> <br />E. Any signage for the bingo hall must meet the requirements of Section 1009.03 ofthe <br />Roseville City Code. <br /> <br />F. Trash containers must meet City enclosure and/or screening requirements. <br /> <br />G. If a building permit and construction activity has not begun within six months of the <br />CUP approval, the CUP shall be considered null and void. <br /> <br />H Seating in the bingo hall shall be limited to 300 seats. <br /> <br />I No serving or license to serve alcohol shall be allowed on the premises. <br /> <br />J If a building permit and construction activity have not begun within six months of the <br />CUP approval, the CUP shall be considered null and void. <br /> <br />6.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br /> <br />6.1 On September 13,2000 the Roseville Planning Commission held regarding the public <br />hearing regarding the amusement establishment or bingo hall conditional use permit <br />request. At the hearing a resident from Hamline House and a representative for the <br />Roseville, Covenant Church opposed the use of Hamline Center for the bingo hall. <br />Specifically, they were opposed to increased traffic, surge traffic, and noise. They also <br />indicated a concern with the notice of the public hearing not reaching all property owners. <br />(In preparation for the Council meeting staff mailed out over 400 notices of the <br />Commission's action and noted the Council meeting time and date.) <br /> <br />6.2 The Planning Commission was initially unclear on which 24-hour use requirements <br />would be applied to the proposal. Staff indicated that it reviewed the remodeling <br />proposal and determined that only screening or parking, delivery and lighting would be <br />applied. One Commissioner was opposed to proceeding forward without a landscape <br />plan and another Commissioner was reluctant to proceed without re-notifying adjacent <br />property owners. <br /> <br />PF3251 RCA (102300) Page 7 of 9 <br />