Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Director Ericson agreed that it is important to establish a fee that at a minimum covers the costs <br />but, if the initial fees set is not appropriate to cover costs, then it will be changed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like the information up front to discuss the fees. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated he would discuss the matter with the police department one last time <br />and provide information to the Commission. <br /> <br />Commissioner Scotch commented that a pawnshop with high-end jewelry would require <br />additional security. <br /> <br />Mr. Przetycki indicated that most businesses have cameras and said he does not want to increase <br />the police workload and that is why the City joined the automatic pawn system. The system is <br />designed to save time and assist with locating stolen goods. He then said he wants to run a <br />legitimate business and doing any differently would not be beneficial to his business. He further <br />commented that he is using a lot of his own money to start this business and it would not make <br />good financial sense to run a business that would jeopardize his reputation or harm his <br />investment. <br /> <br />Mr. Sonterre indicated there is an interesting issue as there is a police force that, because of levy <br />limits, is two officers down and this pawnshop would create significant work for the police <br />department but the City cannot charge the business owner the full costs of adding officers to <br />handle the increased work load. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To Table Resolution 724-03 to May 7, 2003. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />6. Review Proposed PUD Amendment Regarding the Property Located at 2442 <br />County Highway 10 <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the proposed PUD amendment regarding <br />the property at 2442 County Highway 10. He then indicated that when the PUD was established <br />the City was very specific that it would like a restaurant use for that lot. However, after <br />marketing the site for that type of use and being unsuccessful, the owner would like the use <br />changed to allow for an office building. <br /> <br />Director Ericson handed out drawings of the proposed two-story office building. He then <br />indicated that he had reviewed the criteria for recommending approval of this type of request in <br />his Staff report. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that in reviewing the criteria Staff was not able to ascertain any <br />potential adverse affects the difference between the restaurant and office building may have and <br />noted that the office building may be even less of an impact to the adjoining residential complex.