|
DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting
<br />Monday, April 2,8, 2008
<br />Page 19
<br />Attachment B
<br />1 Councilmember Roe advised that he'd come to tonight's, meeting unsure of how
<br />2 he would vote. Councilmember Roe offered his appreciation for the research
<br />3 provided by the public; and noted that he'd also done his own personal research of
<br />4 regulations, in the state and in other states,, and had come away with a sense of ap-
<br />5 preciation for the strong regulations, for pawnshops, in the State of MN, with other
<br />6 states, using us, as a model. Councilmember Roe advised that he did not usually
<br />7 want to unnecessarily restrict a bus,ines,s, that was, allowed by State Statute and
<br />8 City Code; but after taking everything into consideration, he spoke in support of
<br />9 the motion, based on the perceptions, of decreased property values, and how other
<br />10 communities, have found the need to regulate and restrict this type of bus,ines,s, in
<br />11 residential areas,, and areas, with liquor stores, and/ or schools,.
<br />12
<br />1 n
<br />%3 Councilmember Roe noted the need for future review by the City Council of their
<br />14, licens,ure requirements, for pawnbrokers, and similar businesses; noting his intent
<br />15 to look at how pawnshops, are regulated, their location, and how they relate to
<br />1 other uses, and comparable bus,ines,s,es, in the receipt of stolen property, as well as
<br />17 possible restrictions, for locations, of such types, of businesses.
<br />100
<br />1
<br />Mayor Klausing spoke in opposition to the motion; while having; hoped he would
<br />20
<br />hear something that would lead him to deny the CUP application; noting that
<br />21
<br />clearly people were opposed, but based on his research and review of criteria for
<br />22
<br />approval, opined that he could not support the denial, based on zoning designation
<br />23
<br />of the proposed location and it's, compatibility with the City's, Comprehensive
<br />24,
<br />Plan; the shopping center owner's, determination that this use would not impact
<br />25
<br />his other tenants, in the multi-tenant mall; and the only remaining is,s,ues, being that
<br />26
<br />of the impacts, on the general public health, safety and welfare, with his inability
<br />27
<br />to qualify those concerns,.
<br />28
<br />29
<br />Mayor Klausing reviewed the criteria in Section 6 of the staff report and noted
<br />30
<br />that this was, a niche market, and recognized concerns, expressed and respected the
<br />31
<br />decision of his fellow Councilmembers, and their opinions,- however, opined that
<br />32
<br />in all good conscious,, he couldn't support the motion.
<br />33
<br />34,
<br />Pus,t moved, 1hlan seconded, to DENY the request of Ros,ewood Center Partners,
<br />35
<br />(and Red Dog Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Cash - N-Pawn), for a Conditional Use Permit
<br />36
<br />(CUP) to allow a Pawn Shop at 2189 Snelling Avenue (P"F- 8- 14 based on
<br />37
<br />findings, articulated and to be more formally presented at a later meeting.
<br />38
<br />39
<br />In order for staff and the City Attorney to draft formal findings, of fact for denial,
<br />4,0
<br />City Attorney reviewed the findings, as articulated by individual Councilmembers,
<br />41
<br />for clarification. The findings, of fact were based on the following comments, of
<br />4,2
<br />Councilmembers, Ihl an, Roe and Pust:
<br />4,3
<br />CUP Criteria 6.5: The perception of residents, that "location, location, loca-
<br />44
<br />tion" can affect a decrease in property values,- based on comments, and studies,
<br />45
<br />identified by public speaker, Ms,. Cavanaugh, and referenced impacts, of those
<br />
|