2011-04-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 06, 2011 Page 10 having no plan to leave, allowing this type of an establishment would make him seriously 453 reconsider that; while also creating a decline in property values and what profit he could 454 hope to realize if he decided to sell his home. 455 With no one else coming forward to speak, Vice Chair Gisselquist closed the Public 456 Hearing at 7:18 p.m. 457 Vice Chair Gisselquist noted the significant e-mail communication he and other 458 Commissioners had received to-date, and made a part of the record. Vice Chair 459 Gisselquist noted that he lived at 1881 Shryer in that neighborhood, and concurred the 460 unique aspects of this residential neighborhood. Vice Chair Gisselquist expressed 461 appreciation for staff’s recommendation for denial based on findings of fact done in 462 conjunction with City Council consideration done during the last request in 2008. Vice 463 Chair Gisselquist noted that one issue often faced by the Commission in land use cases 464 and what uses were allowed in Community Business Zoning Districts, was a lack of 465 policy discretion on those uses. However, on this particular use under a Conditional Use 466 with conditions clearly established, Vice Chair Gisselquist strongly supported staff’s 467 recommendation for denial, based on quality of life impacts for the City and 468 neighborhood; in addition to concerns expressed by the Police Department about 469 additional constraints on their resources. 470 Vice Chair Gisselquist suggested that, as a separate issue, the City may want to review 471 its Zoning Code, since this was the second denial for such a use, and take into 472 consideration the steps taken by the Cities of Bloomington and St. Louis Park, MN. 473 Vice Chair Gisselquist spoke in support of staff’s recommendation to deny the request at 474 this location. 475 Member Wozniak advised that he was on the Planning Commission in 2008, and voted in 476 support of that proposal. However, as stated earlier, Member Wozniak noted that the 477 Commission was somewhat swayed by those in support of that request, in addition to 478 Planning and Police Department staff and their recommendations. Member Wozniak 479 expressed disappointment in staff’s research this time around, opining that he usually 480 admired and appreciated their research, but this time they appeared to have dropped the 481 ball. Member Wozniak noted public testimony provided by the City’s Police Department in 482 2008, and limited comments related to a possible drain on their resources with this 483 request; and opined that given those differences between 2008 and now, it would have 484 been helpful to have the Police Chief or his designee present to provide testimony for this 485 rather dramatic shift. 486 Member Wozniak further referenced the public testimony of residents in the 487 neighborhood and the various studies, some close to home, and their potential value, 488 specifically those closer to Roseville and the potential to track regulations with local law 489 enforcement agencies in the flow and tracking of stolen goods through these facilities. 490 Member Wozniak advised that he had been unaware of the buffer zone implemented in 491 the City of St. Louis Park, MN; and the resolution passed by the City of Bloomington, MN 492 to limit the number of pawn shops based on their population. Member Wozniak advised 493 that the information would have been helpful to him in his analysis of the proposal. Based 494 on his review of traffic and the limited impacts based on fact from such a use, Member 495 Wozniak advised that he was disregarding public comments related to negative traffic 496 impacts, opining that they were simply meant to be a “red herring.” 497 In conclusion, Member Wozniak thanked residents for their public testimony and written 498 e-mail contributions and for their efforts. Member Wozniak opined that this proposal was 499 different that the 2008 application, due to its proximity to single-family residents, in 500 addition to the City Council’s findings of fact from 2008; and based on those issues; he 501 could not support allowing this use in this neighborhood at this time; and spoke in support 502 of the recommended denial. 503 Member Boguszewski, while being new to the Planning Commission, noted his twenty 504 (20) years residing in Roseville, and residence within one (1) mile of the proposed site, in 505