2011-04-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 06, 2011 Page 7 worldwide, and noting the commonality with pawn shops defined as one of those 297 characteristics. 298 Member Boguszewski noted the differences in the opinion of the City’s Police 299 Department between the 2008 case and this one (Section 7.8 of the staff report) and 300 sought supporting information to determine the accuracy of the statement showing 301 additional resources were required. 302 Mr. Lloyd advised that the Police Chief was unavailable for comment at tonight’s meeting; 303 and that further refinement of those comments could be provided at the City Council level 304 if so requested. 305 Member Boguszewski encouraged staff to make that detailed information available for 306 that meeting. 307 Member Wozniak clarified that the Planning Commission had voted 5/1 in support of the 308 previous pawn shop application, since the Commission had been convinced by staff’s 309 analysis that it would not increase crime, public security threats, or increased activity for 310 the Police Department. Member Wozniak noted assurances of the Police Department in 311 2008 of the efficiencies of the Automated Pawn System and tracking of potential criminal 312 activity. Member Wozniak concurred with Member Boguszewski that the current staff 313 recommendation seemed to be based on the City Council’s previous denial and their 314 findings for that denial, and not based on Planning Commission determinations. 315 Mr. Lloyd noted that staff’s recommendation was consistent with previous City Council 316 action taken since the findings and their decision was founded on public testimony 317 provided during those public meetings, and not merely a City Council decision, but based 318 on their reception to public testimony and facts presented by the public. 319 Member Wozniak opined that some of the City Council findings were not consistent with 320 facts presented with the last application; and expressed concern that staff was basing 321 their recommendation based solely on the City Council’s findings. 322 Mr. Lloyd reiterated that staff was basing their recommendation for denial on the findings 323 subsequent to the 2008 application; he opined that since there was nothing to suggest 324 any different outcome between this application and the 2008 application in terms of the 325 relevant facts for such a use; and that staff stood by their recommendation for denial. 326 Member cook questioned if there had been any changes in the Comprehensive Plan 327 since the 2008 case that would impact this application. 328 Mr. Lloyd responded negatively, opining that no Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code 329 revisions were made that would impact whether or not this use was appropriate in this 330 location, other than introductory language in the documents guiding uses to be more 331 explicitly protective of residential neighborhoods. 332 Vice Chair Gisselquist reviewed the Public Hearing and Public Comment protocol for 333 audience members wishing to speak. 334 The applicant was not present at tonight’s meeting. 335 Public Comment 336 In addition to numerous e-mails and phone contacts with staff included in and/or 337 referenced as part of the meeting packet, additional e-mails were provided as bench 338 handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof, all in opposition to the proposed 339 pawn shop, with the exception of one (1) phone call received by staff seeking additional 340 information, but not ultimately opposed to the proposed use. 341 Vice Chair Gisselquist noted that written comments, via e-mail or other methods, would 342 be entered into the official record; and while welcoming public testimony, advised that, in 343 an effort to conserve time, there was not a need to repeat those written comments. 344