Agenda Packets - 2003/06/02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Location. The Planning Commission discussed possible locations for a pawnshop and determined that Moundsview Square would be the least intrusive location in the City, and even though located within the City’s primary commercial corridor, the visual impact would be limited to 100 square feet of signage amidst the other wall-mounted signs at Moundsview Square. (The proposed requirements however would not preclude a pawnshop from opening at either the Hardee’s or Mattress Factory building instead of within the mall itself.) Tenants of Moundsview Square and nearby residents have voiced concerns that a Pawnshop would not be an appropriate use within the family oriented mall. Other uses may not be consistent either but that is more of a leasing issue determined and controlled by Paster Enterprises, the mall’s owner. The City cannot dictate what kind of commercial retail uses locate within the mall unless otherwise regulated by licensing or permitting provisions. The question then is, if not Moundsview Square, where? A resident has suggested creation of an “overlay zone” within the City where a Pawnshop could locate. The one identified zone would be north of new Trunk Highway 10, in the area currently being utilized by Sysco Foods, the Bridges Golf Course, Bridges Technology Park and Zep Manufacturing. (I am not aware if there is any available space for lease at any of these locations.) Another potential “overlay” location would be parcels abutting Mustang Drive and Mustang Circle, however there could be some potential opposition from the existing businesses in that area. Fees. While the Planning Commission did discuss fees at length and made a recommendation regarding fees, the City Council is the body that sets the fees. Any fees would need to be separate from the ordinances and would need to be adopted by resolution with an amendment to the City’s Fee Schedule. Licensing fees need to reasonably relate to the impact upon the City, thus a City cannot legitimately impose for example a $25,000 license fee simply to discourage a certain business. The annual license fee currently proposed is $5,000. In addition to that, the City would receive 50 cents from every reportable transaction as currently proposed. Together, it would be intended that the collected fees would cover the City’s added expense of overseeing and monitoring the operation, the bulk of which would be handled by the Police Department. We have researched other cities fees and have made inquiries with other p olice departments to get a sense of how much extra work is generated with the addition of a pawnshop. Based on this research, it could be determined that a $5,000 annual license fee would be insufficient. Whatever is ultimately decided on fees, if it is determined after the fact that the fees are insufficient, the Council does have the authority to adjust them as needed. (Attached to this report is a breakdown of what other cities charge.) It has been reported in the newspaper that the proposed annual license fee is $10,000. That figure has been discussed and may well be appropriate, however no formal recommendation of that amount was ever adopted. Other Requirements. In terms of the other licensing requirements, the Planning Commission took a fairly restrictive approach to the regulations and these can be reviewed line by line to familiarize the Council with all of the issues. Our prosecuting attorney has reviewed the proposed regulations and has no problems with it. Scott Riggs has reviewed it as well.