Laserfiche WebLink
1 Proponent <br /> Tom Rose, 4311-6th Street N.E. , Columbia Heights, speaking for Mr. <br /> 3 Aulwes who he indicated was unable to attend. <br /> 4 *indicated the applicant was proposing to erect two signs, one on the <br /> 5 front of the restaurant and the other on the east side which would be <br /> 6 more visible to prospective customers approaching St. Anthony from <br /> 7 Highway 88 or St. Anthony Boulevard; <br /> 8 *reported Mr. Aulwes had been in the restaurant business for the past <br /> 9 year and a half; <br /> 10 *said he owned a smaller restaurant in Columbia Heights (Tom's Cafe) <br /> 11 but expected the St. Anthony restaurant would be "his bread and butter" <br /> 12 and "a step up" from the other restaurant; <br /> 13 *confirmed that the applicant does intend to remove the roof sign <br /> 14 which is still on the building. <br /> 15 There was no one else present to speak either for or against the <br /> 16 variance and Chair Wagner closed the hearing at 8:24 P.M. <br /> 17 A short discussion of the test well the Army was digging east of the <br /> 18 property preceded the Commission's motion recommending approval. <br /> 19 Commissioner Hansen commented that he perceived the new signage would <br /> 20 be "a vast improvement over the previous signage on that building. " <br /> 0 Commission Recommendation <br /> 22 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Hansen to recommend the City Council <br /> 23 grant the request from Thomas J. Aulwes for a variance from the sign <br /> 24 regulations of the City Code to allow two signs, 56 square feet each <br /> 25 ( 112 square feet total ) on the TA Family Restaurant at 2905 Kenzie <br /> 26 Terrace, where the City Sign Ordinance only allows one sign, 100 square <br /> 27 feet, for that building. As a condition for granting the variance, the <br /> 28 owner is required to remove the existing roof sign on the building as <br /> 29 he had stated would be done in his Petition for Sign variance. <br /> 30 In recommending the variance be granted, the Planning Commission finds <br /> 31 that: <br /> 32 1. all three conditions required by statute to be satisfied <br /> 33 affirmatively have been met with this proposal; <br /> 34 2. the fact that the restaurant is located on three streets <br /> 35 seems to justify the variance; <br /> 36 3. no opposition to the variance was expressed either to staff <br /> 37 prior to the hearing or during the hearing. <br /> 38 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 0 8 <br />