11-23-2005 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Brett Miller 132 Australian Avenue Little Canada MN, 55117 November 15, 2005 Little Canada City Council This letter is submitted to the City Council of Little Canada for their consideration in regard to the application of Mr. Brandon Heffron and Christian Life Ministries (CLM) requesting: 1. A text amendment to allow for the establishment of a tattoo parlor as a conditional use within B -3 zoning districts and 2. A Conditional Use Permit for a tattoo parlor (Beloved Ink) in the currently B -3 zoned property owned by CLM at 2760 Lakeshore Avenue. The following opinion is influenced by the following factors: 1. I am a resident of Little Canada living 1.5 blocks from proposed business. 2. Review of Little Canada's Zoning Codes 3. Review of Planning Report presented to Little Canada Planning Commission presented 11/4/05 by Michael Darrow / Stephen Grittman. 4. Televised viewing of Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 2005 5. Review of minutes of Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 2005 6. Review of Mr. Heffron's letter to Little Canada City Council dated Oct 24, 2005 7. Comparative reviews of White Bear Lake and Vadnais Heights zoning regulations 8. Immediate area visitation of tattoo parlors in White Bear Lake and Maplewood for land use comparisons The requests of Mr Heffron as a representative of CLM (property owner), are in fact, two distinct requests deserving separate consideration. The first is a request for a "text amendment" to zoning code allowing for the establishment of a tattoo parlor as a conditional use within B -3 zoning districts" I request, with respect, that the City Council take into serious consideration the degree to which this request does, or does not, "enhance our unique identity, heritage, and quality of life" (Little Canada Mission statement, on -line) I believe that there are two values dynamically present in the consideration of a text amendment which proposes the introduction of a business category/type currently not included in the zoning code. One of these values is economic based, and the second is related to quality of community life. These are both broadly based values which present challenges in defining and, I believe in this case, even greater challenges when there are questions of whether or not the two values are working in the same, or divergent, directions. My personal belief is that only those additions which would clearly benefit the community should be added to our existing code. Those additions which cannot be demonstrably proven to be of clear benefit to the community should not be added to our zoning code. In the case of the request at hand I am very unclear, after studying reports of public record, how the addition of a tattoo parlor as a conditional use in a 3 -3 zone would benefit the community. I am unclear as to whether the minimal requirements enumerated in 921.010.0 have been met, - 2 7 -