My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-20-2003
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
08-20-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/4/2018 7:16:57 AM
Creation date
9/4/2018 7:16:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/20/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Item No: 8 <br />Meeting Date: August 20, 2003 <br />Type of Business: Discussion <br />City of Mounds View Staff Report <br />To: Mounds View Planning Commission <br />From: James Ericson, Community Development Director <br />Item Title/Subject: Discuss Modifications to Proposed Ordinance 711, an <br />Ordinance Relating to the Zoning of Pawnshops <br /> <br />Introduction: <br /> <br />The City Council adopted an Interim ordinance on February 27, 2003, which directed the <br />Planning Commission to review the licensing and zoning implications related to pawnshops <br />and to recommend applicable provisions. The Planning Commission discussed this issue at <br />meetings in March, April and May of this year, reviewing State statues, ordinances from <br />adjoining communities and ordinances from communities where pawnshops currently operate. <br />The Commission also heard testimony from representatives of the Mounds View Police <br />Department who did research on their own, discussing the potential impacts of a pawnshop <br />with other police departments. After significant discussion and input from interested parties <br />including residents and tenants from Moundsview Square, the Commission adopted a <br />resolution forwarding two ordinances on to the City Council for their consideration. <br /> <br />The City Council deliberated on the pawnshop zoning and licensing matters before sending <br />the zoning component back to the Commission for additional study to consider (1) an overlay <br />district and (2) potential additional uses to include within the overlay. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />The Planning Commission discussed the two issues at length and from that discussion, many <br />questions were raised concerning the legalities of an overlay district. The questions were <br />generally as follows: <br /> <br />1. Is there a minimum amount of land that the City can identify as an overlay district without <br />being unreasonably restrictive? <br /> <br />2. Would the City be at "risk" if the overlay district encompassed ONLY unavailable property? <br /> (the golf course for example?) <br /> <br />3. Which other cities (if any) currently have a pawn overlay? <br /> <br />4. Some cities explicitly limit the number of pawnshops that can be sited in the City while <br />other communities ban them outright. Is either practice legally permissible? <br /> <br />5. What are the legal ramifications (outside of the scope of strict land use considerations) of <br />identifying multiple “unwanted” land uses within one overlay? <br /> <br />6. While there is some element of legal risk in everything a city does, is the City at greater risk <br />if it creates a "red light” district, especially if opposed by the property owners?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.