Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, April 02, 2008 <br />Page 7 <br />Lt. Rosand clarified that the City of Roseville licensing requirements require the pawn <br />shop to keep the merchandise for a period of sixty (60) days. <br />Mr. Smith opined that MN laws were ahead of other states regulating pawn shop <br />businesses; and reiterated that he was a huge proponent of the APS system in keeping <br />his business accountable, and his testimony from experience and working with law <br />enforcement agencies in cross-referencing items, further opining that MN served as a <br />model for other states. Mr. Smith advised that he had received an offer to purchase a <br />chain of pawn shops in FL, a state not having the regulatory agencies that MN had, and <br />he declined based on that lack of regulation. Mr. Smith further noted that he currently <br />has two (2) stores in MO, and was considering closing those operations, since MO didn’t <br />have an APS system either, and it wasn’t worth his business to operate outside the law. <br />Mr. Smith recognized the various articles referenced by Ms. Goodwin, and criminals <br />seeking instant cash for stolen items. <br />Further discussion included clarification of hours of operation of the store, with Mr. Smith <br />responding that they would be the same as the shopping center; Mr. Smith was <br />amenable to any conditions the commission wished to apply to the CUP. <br />Mr. Smith also thanked Lt. Rosand for his comments and clarification with respect to the <br />proposed store. <br />Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing, thanking all for their comments. <br />Commissioner Wozniak questioned staff on the exterior of the building and minimum <br />standards and/or prohibited features (i.e., no bars across windows). <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the City’s sign regulations would address the exterior; however, <br />noted that the City’s Zoning Ordinance didn’t address security features, but that the <br />license requirements may address some of those items. <br />Commissioner Doherty advised that he had come into the meeting prepared to oppose <br />the application, recognizing neighborhood concerns and the many changes occurring in <br />that area at this time. However, Commissioner Doherty advised that, after hearing the <br />compelling testimony of the owner and Lt. Rosand he didn’t see much connection <br />between the application and events in the neighborhood. Commissioner Doherty opined <br />that it appeared to be a “clean” business, and it certainly wouldn’t be in their best interest <br />to buy stolen merchandise. Commissioner Doherty spoke in support of the application; <br />opining that he didn’t believe the operation of this store would significantly increase crime <br />or impact public health, safety and welfare. <br />Commissioner Gottfried spoke as a counterpoint to Commissioner Doherty, advising that <br />he’d come into the meeting skeptical of the idea of a pawn shop; and he maintained that <br />skepticism based on the comments of the residents. Commissioner Gottfried opined that <br />this went beyond the classic “Not in My Backyard (NIMBY)” attitude, and thanked the <br />community for coming to the meeting and expressing their concerns. Commissioner <br />Gottfried concurred with residents speaking, that this specific neighborhood had seen a <br />lot of changes in the last few months. Commissioner Gottfried spoke in opposition to the <br />application, agreeing with the neighborhood position, opining that the additional and <br />revised conditions wouldn’t change his mind. <br />Commissioner Martinson questioned how staff could appreciably measure the impact of <br />the use on the market value of contiguous properties, as detailed in Section 6.5 of the <br />staff report, specific to residential properties, not that of the strip mall or other commercial <br />properties. <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that, while staff was unable to perform a market analysis, the <br />Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, both of which allow uses including pawn <br />shops, considered the compatibility of adjacent land use categories and zoning districts in <br />an attempt minimize any negative impacts including reduction of property values. Mr. <br />Lloyd further explained that, because the proposed use was allowed in the relevant <br /> <br />