2011-04-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 06, 2011 Page 6 continue operating a household hazardous waste collection facility at the Kent 246 Street location; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6, and the 247 recommendation of Section 7 of the RPCA dated April 6, 2011. 248 Ayes: 7 249 Nays: 0 250 Motion carried. 251 It was noted that this case is scheduled to be heard at the April 18, 2011 City Council 252 meeting. 253 Recess 254 Chair Boerigter recessed the meeting at approximately 6:26 p.m., and Vice Chair Gisselquist reconvened 255 the meeting at approximately 6:30 p.m. 256 f. PLANNING FILE 11-005 257 Request by Yellow Dog Holdings, LLC for approval of a pawn shop as a 258 CONDITIONAL USE at 2057 Snelling Avenue 259 Chair Boerigter recused himself from the meeting and left the room at this time; turning 260 the gavel over to Vice Chair Gisselquist. 261 Vice Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing at 6:30p.m. 262 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request, as detailed in the Request for 263 Planning Commission Action (RPCA), of the property owner, Capp Industries, Inc., and 264 Yellow Dog Holdings, LLC seeking approval of a Max It pawn shop as a CONDITIOANL 265 USE to occupy an existing, vacant retail space at 2057 Snelling Avenue. Mr. Lloyd 266 advised that this request was similar to one received in 2008 that was denied with 267 findings gleaned from the public record (Attachment C); with the current application 268 included in the staff report (Attachment D). 269 Staff recommended DENIAL of the request for a pawn shop as a CONDITIONAL USE at 270 2057 Snelling Avenue; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6, and the 271 findings of Section 7 of the RPCA dated April 6, 2011. 272 Member Boguszewski opined that he was struck by the staff recommendation for denial 273 of this case, since only three (3) years ago, staff had found the a proposed pawn shop 274 use would not have any adverse impact, and the applications appeared to be identical. 275 Member Boguszewski questioned how staff justified their current recommendation for 276 denial and opposite conclusion and their apparent use of the findings applied by the City 277 Council in the City Council’s subsequent denial, and reversal of staff recommendation, of 278 that previous application. Member Boguszewski questioned if staff was basing their 279 recommendation on facts presented or in anticipation of probable City Council action. 280 Member Boguszewski noted the different roles of the City Council as an elected body 281 charged with the overall general welfare of the City and its citizens, and the charge and 282 focus of the Planning Commission on existing zoning laws and regulations, whether or 283 not a proposed use was desirable or fitting. 284 Mr. Lloyd recognized that, due to the mandated timeline for such requests, the 2008 285 recommendation for a similar use had been prepared in advance of public testimony and 286 subsequent discussions and further considerations and impending implications of the 287 proposed use; with the findings established through that public testimony and formalized 288 by City Council resolution. Mr. Lloyd explained that the Council’s decision in that previous 289 case had demonstrated that staff had overlooked the pertinent facts and erroneously 290 based its approval recommendation on less relevant information. 291 Member Boguszewski noted that the study referenced in Section 7.6 of the staff report 292 addressing pawn shops seen as a characteristic of neighborhoods in decline had not 293 been included in the packet. 294 Mr. Lloyd advised that he did not recall the author of that specific study, noting that it was 295 an academic research study reviewing characteristics of neighborhoods in decline 296