Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page#16 <br /> <br />Wednesday, October 12, 1988 <br /> <br />stokes moved and Berry seconded to recommend approval of a <br />special use permit request for a family billiard and video <br />entertainment center at 2819 North Hamline Avenue with the <br />condition that the special use permit be for a one year period <br />beginning at the opening of the center with annual renewal to <br />ensure that the business is operated without problems. <br /> <br />stimmler stated a concern that the applicants would be investing <br />$200,000 into tenant improvements and would not have a guarantee <br />beyond one year that they could stay there. Johnson replied that <br />they could stay there as long as they perform without problems. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Berry, Goedeke, Stokes, Maschka, <br />Moeller, DeBenedet, Johnson <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Planninq File 1895 <br /> <br />Motel 6 request for sign variances at 2300 Cleveland Avenue. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized the location and proposal. <br /> <br />Rick Palmeteer, from Universal sign co., summarized the proposal <br />and the need for variances. <br /> <br />Berry asked how many feet lower was the grade level of the sign <br />than the property to the northwest. Palmeteer responded that he <br />was not sure but it was likely more than 10 feet. Goedeke asked <br />how the sign compares with signs to the east at Long Cadillac. <br />Palmeteer responded that it would be higher than the sign at Long <br />Cadillac. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked if the 350 foot notice went across highway 36. <br />Johnson commented that the sign really didn't effect single <br />family residential property. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Goedeke moved and Moeller secpnded to recommend approval of a <br />variance to have a 151.25 sq. ft. sign which is 45 feet high at <br />2300 Cleveland Avenue. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that he was against the motion because there are <br />reasons for the sign restrictions in the ordinance which the City <br />should stick to. <br />