Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2003 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 16, 2003 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., April 16, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Hegland, Song, Zwirn, Miller, Scotch Members Absent: Johnson. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. SP-114-03 2 Pawnshop Ordinance Planning Case PA03-001 9 Location: 2442 County Highway 10 Consider Possible Amendments to the Zoning Code Relating 10 To Expansions of Existing Multi-Family Dwelling Properties ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. March 19, 2003 MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Miller. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for March 19, 2003 as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Consideration of Resolution 724-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Two Ordinances Related to Pawnshops, Zoning and Licensing in Mounds View Community Development Director Ericson indicated that this item would be a continuation of the discussion concerning pawnshops and indicated he had reviewed the Ordinances with the Police Department and the fees of $5,000 for an annual license, $750.00 for the investigation fee and $1.50 per transaction fee along with a $10,000 performance bond met with their approval. He then indicated that the fees, if it is determined that they are not sufficient to cover the City’s costs, would be increased as needed. Director Ericson indicated that gambling was discussed at the last meeting and, after researching ordinances from other cities he has determined that gambling is an area that is already well regulated and it is not necessary to add that language to the ordinance. He then indicated that he had added language from the city of Plymouth concerning the requirements for pawning items and the requirement to have signage listing those requirements. Director Ericson indicated that there was a requirement that the pawnshop disclose to the person pawning the items the contact information for the person that had purchased that item and Staff did not feel that was appropriate so a change was made to allow for the police to be provided with that information but not the person pawning the items. He then explained that Staff recommends that the dollar amount be set at $50.00 and all items over that amount the contact information of the purchaser is required to be obtained but noted that Mr. Przetycki would like that amount to be for any items over $100.00. Director Ericson indicated there were no changes beyond what was just discussed and indicated there are two ordinances: Ordinance 711 amends the zoning code and Ordinance 712 creates all of the licensing requirements. Director Ericson indicated that a number of handouts were provided prior to the meeting and apologized for the late information but said there was some research done by Mr. Przetycki that was provided to the Commission as well as information from former Mayor Sonterre. Director Ericson indicated he had spoken to the City Attorney concerning this matter to verify that the Commission is proceeding as it is supposed to do. He then noted that the Commission is charged with the task of providing a recommendation as to the location of pawnshops and how pawnshops should be regulated, as the City is not allowed to prohibit pawnshops within the City. The City can, however, indicate where pawnshops can be located so as to protect the heath, safety and welfare of the community. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller indicated that draft Ordinance 712 provides a definition of consignment on page 3 and on page 4 discusses reportable transactions listing consignments but on page 13 it is prohibited. Director Ericson indicated the reportable consignment information should be removed as the City does not wish to allow consignments. Director Ericson indicated that bulk transactions must be with an established business with a permanent place of business. Director Ericson indicated the Police Department had asked that there be a 90 day hold on pawned items to allow time for reporting and verifying of the potential for stolen merchandise. He then said that most other cities require a 60-day hold and a shorter hold on purchased items. He also indicated that the Police Department had requested that handguns, rifles, and shotguns not be allowed. Chair Stevenson indicated that Blaine and New Brighton require 120 days and Fridley requires 90 days so he does not feel that 90 days is excessive. Director Ericson indicated that precious metals are regulated by the state of Minnesota and that hold is less than the 60 or 90-day requirement. He then said that the City took the position that it was not going to regulate precious metals above and beyond State requirements but the 14 day state required hold may be insufficient so adding a 90 day hold requirement would mean that the City’s Code supersedes the state requirement. Chair Stevenson asked for an explanation of the difference between the buy hold and the pawn hold. Mr. Przetycki explained that the difference in the buy and the pawn is that the pawn is coming back each month to renew the contract and he actually purchases the buy items. He then indicated that he would like to be able to sell the purchased items as soon as possible to recover his costs and eliminate the incidents where holding the item too long makes it not saleable. Commissioner Hegland indicated he did not feel it was necessary to require a 90-day hold on the purchased items as the information on the item and who purchased it is available, if necessary. He then said that it seems fair to him that if the owner purchases an item he should be able to sell it provided the requirements of the City Code are met and the owner is collecting sales information from the person. Mr. Przetycki indicated he was fine with the 90-day hold on the pawned items but would prefer a 30-day hold for purchased items. Commissioner Hegland asked if the police department had commented on the buy hold. He then said that, if records are available, he does not understand the concern other than it is easier to obtain the merchandise if it is still at the pawnshop. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that the police department would like every opportunity to ensure that if something is stolen they have the opportunity to retrieve it. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the police department has a communication system set up to cross reference burglaries and thefts and to check against the pawned items. Director Ericson indicated the police department has the hardware and software to monitor the activities but the investigators will need to be trained to operate the system. There was consent for a 30-day buy hold and 90-day pawn hold. Jackie Entsminger of 7954 Long Lake Road addressed the Commission and indicated she is opposed to having a pawnshop in Moundsview Square. She then said that she has spoken with several business managers and owners in Moundsview Square and they were not aware that a pawnshop was being considered and do not want one. Ms. Entsminger indicated she has lived in Mounds View for 17 years and it is a quiet community and she does not think that a pawnshop belongs in a residential area. She then said that the business people said they have enough theft already at Moundsview Square and what a pawnshop would bring is more theft and more vandalism and she cannot imagine that the City would consider it. Ms. Entsminger indicated she spoke to Mr. Przetycki regarding the matter and he disagreed with her way of thinking and dismissed it as “old school”. She then said that the City is discussing bringing a business into Mounds View that will degrade the reputation of the City. She further commented that when she tells people she lives in Mounds View they have a perception of a lower class City and she feels a pawnshop would further enhance that perception rather than enhance the City. Ms. Entsminger indicated the City has been working hard to redevelop the City and adding this pawnshop will make all the work for not. Chair Stevenson clarified that the Commission was given the challenge to regulate where the pawnshop could be located and cannot determine that a pawnshop would not be allowed within the City. Thomas Shrump, a representative of Pastor Enterprises addressed the Commission and indicated he was not aware of any vandalism and the only theft he is aware of is the theft of a television during an electronics blowout sale. He then commented that any retail environment will have issues with theft. Ms. Entsminger indicated the hair salon had its windows broken twice and Petters has issues with theft all the time. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Shrump indicated he had heard no backlash from the merchants in the shopping center and to his understanding, the pawnshop is not a huge issue and they feel it would draw traffic to the center. He then said that many of the newer pawnshops are very clean and well stocked. Mr. Shrump indicated he had come to the Commission to ask that the Commission not force the pawnshop to a different location as he has already developed a relationship with Mr. Przetycki and his partners and feels their business would be an asset to Moundsview Square. Mr. Shrump indicated he does not see the sale of firearms as an issue because there used to be a sporting goods store in that same location and they sold firearms. Commissioner Miller asked if Mr. Shrump felt that rifles and shotguns would be okay. Mr. Shrump indicated the sporting goods store had them for years and there were no issues. He then said that handguns would not be allowed so he has no problem allowing the rifles and shotguns. The Commission asked whether rifles and shotguns were discussed at the merchant’s meeting and how many attended that meeting. Mr. Shrump indicated that all were invited and it was their choice whether to attend. He then said that the information was discussed. Bob Bushy, General Manager of Petters, addressed the Commission and commented that any time you put a high value product into a store it becomes a target at night. He then clarified that they had several televisions taken by smashing a window at night. Mr. Bushy commented that he is concerned a high value jewelry store would be a target and said he wants to invite new businesses in but is concerned about increasing an already existing problem. Mr. Przetycki indicated he owns a jewelry store that he has operated for 14 years in St Anthony Village with no break-ins, no crime, and no bad checks passed to him. He then said that he has no intention of opening up a business that would not be secure and does not want to bring crime to Mounds View. He further commented that his business will be 80% jewelry and 20% other items and he will provide adequate security for his business. Wendell Smith representing Anthony Properties addressed the Commission and indicated that one of his clients is a large pawnshop that is a clean, upstanding business that is an asset to the community by providing jobs. He then said he has met with Mr. Przetycki and has no reason to believe he would run anything other than a clean, honest and reputable business. Richard Sonterre, 5060 Red Oak Drive, commented that he appreciates what was called the “challenge to construct guidelines for pawnshops.” He then said he was not at the meeting to try to prevent them from coming to town but he is concerned and thinks that as a part of the Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ challenge the Commission needs to recognize that certain businesses operate in a fashion with a particular type of clientele that do not belong on a Main Street. He further commented that the City has dealt with this in the past with tattoo parlors or adult entertainment or other types of businesses that bring about public criticism and this falls into that category. Mr. Sonterre commented that with regard to whether pawnshops of today are trapped in the bad images of the past he drives an old ratty Caravan and sticking a Mercedes sticker on it does not make it a Mercedes. He then said he likens the pawnshop to that because it seems that they will be putting a Mercedes sign on the shop but it will still be a pawnshop and that concerns him. Mr. Sonterre indicated the staff report mentions no changes regarding zoning provisions and he wanted to bring up that there were other alternatives that would not prevent them from coming but give the City the ability to impact how and where they are located. He then said the city of Robbinsdale created a specific zoning designation for those types of businesses commonly referred to as a red light district. This would require more changes but the City would be able to create a geographic area that would be only in a commercial industrial area and away from schools, churches and parks. Mr. Sonterre cautioned against allowing a passport for identification purposes in Section 516.02 as it is easier to forge a passport than a driver’s license. Mr. Sonterre asked whether or not the City could prohibit non-Minnesota identification and said the reason for that is that not all states have an identification process that includes enhancements like holograms and he knows of people in the past that have successfully manufactured an out of state driver’s license because of the lack of technical enhancements. Mr. Sonterre asked that Section 516.04 identify a definition of the minimum number of hours that the pawnshop is required to have a manager on the premises as it is customary for businesses to float a manager amongst several stores. Mr. Sonterre expressed concern with the cost of investigation in 516.05 as well as the licensing fees and billable transaction fees in 517.07. He then said that the City usually does not compare itself to adjacent cities but, in this case, he feels it would be prudent to do so because the business climate is the same. He further asked Staff to look into the fees being charged by other cities and use that model. Mr. Sonterre indicated he had issues with the identification in 516.11, Subd 1d. Mr. Sonterre indicated he felt it was good to have daily police reports as required by 516.11, Subd. 4 to reduce the number of stolen items moving through the pawnshop but said that the City is already short on police and this is going to exacerbate the situation even more. Mr. Sonterre asked whether the City has the authority to set a maximum interest rate as he would like to hope that the City could to make the establishment above board. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Sonterre commented that Section 516.13, Subd. 1, does not indicate a formula but says that the City Council may suspend or revoke upon finding of a violation. He then commented that the tobacco ordinance has a clearly defined process for violations and he sees no clearly defined process for violations of this ordinance and that concerns him. Mr. Sonterre commented that Section 516.14 addresses prohibited acts but there is no definition of the consequences for those prohibited acts and that concerns him. Mr. Sonterre indicated he served several years back on the latest version of the County Highway 10 Steering Committee and the Steering Committee made recommendations to Council that were ratified by Council as to the improvement plan for County Highway 10. The first was safety and the second was to make the area a true corridor and more attractive. The City spent tens of thousands of dollars for engineering and plans and the upgrade will cost $3,000,0000 to $5,000,000 and he asks why would the City and its residents pay that much money to upgrade the corridor and allow a pawnshop in the center of the City. Mr. Sonterre indicated he wants to give the business the opportunity to run a pawnshop but wants the City to have the means to say run it in a different area. Mr. Sonterre commented that the City has given Pastor Enterprises opportunities in the past to work with the City and those opportunities were ignored by them. Mr. Sonterre asked Council to digest the information and consider requiring a different location. Commissioner Miller asked where Mr. Sonterre would locate the pawnshop. Mr. Sonterre indicated he liked the separation that new Highway 10 provides as it divides the City. He then said that the area is commercial industrial and a pawnshop would have no impact on housing, churches, schools or parks located in that area. He further commented that a pawnshop is a destination shop and does not need to be located within a shopping center environment. Commissioner Scotch asked what space was being looked at in Moundsview Square. Mr. Przetycki indicated it was the 4,000 square foot space between the frame shop and Penny Pinchers store. Commissioner Scotch asked for the name of the business. Mr. Przetycki indicated the name would either be Security Pawn and Jewelry or Security Loan and Jewelry. Director Ericson indicated that Staff would review the suggestions of Mr. Sonterre and provide feedback to the Commission if necessary. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller indicated she felt the revocation and licensure comments were good in that there is no set process for determining when licenses would be revoked. Director Ericson indicated that the way it is drafted the Council could take action after one violation. He then said he does not think that would happen unless there was a valid reason. Commissioner Hegland indicated that it would be up to the discretion of Council and, while guidelines would be helpful, it would not make much of a difference. Commissioner Hegland asked whether Canadian and out of state licenses would be allowed. Director Ericson indicated he would check with the police department for comment. Commissioner Scotch asked how many hours Mr. Przetycki would be at the shop. Mr. Przetycki indicated he would be at the shop from 6 to 10 hours per day. He then indicated he has a full staff at his St. Anthony store and at his coffee shop. Commissioner Miller asked how the Commission felt about shotguns and rifles. Commissioner Scotch indicated she was not willing to have firearms. Chair Stevenson indicated he was not willing to have firearms. Mr. Przetycki indicated that out of the 17 cities he researched not one restricted firearms and left regulation up to the Federal Fire Arms Regulations. Commissioner Hegland commented that this City is talking about allowing a pawnshop in a shopping center area close to residential areas and other cities may not have a similar location. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like to have one more shot at the fees. He then said he has asked for information and it appears that no one is sure what it will cost the City and what the fee should be. Mr. Przetycki indicated the per transaction fee pays for the electronic system. Commissioner Hegland asked whether the $1.50 per transaction fee covers the cost of the automated system. Mr. Przetycki indicated that $1.00 goes toward the automated system and $.50 goes to the City. Commissioner Hegland indicated he is not convinced that $.50 per transaction covers the cost of the extra work for the police department. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson agreed that it is important to establish a fee that at a minimum covers the costs but, if the initial fees set is not appropriate to cover costs, then it will be changed. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like the information up front to discuss the fees. Director Ericson indicated he would discuss the matter with the police department one last time and provide information to the Commission. Commissioner Scotch commented that a pawnshop with high-end jewelry would require additional security. Mr. Przetycki indicated that most businesses have cameras and said he does not want to increase the police workload and that is why the City joined the automatic pawn system. The system is designed to save time and assist with locating stolen goods. He then said he wants to run a legitimate business and doing any differently would not be beneficial to his business. He further commented that he is using a lot of his own money to start this business and it would not make good financial sense to run a business that would jeopardize his reputation or harm his investment. Mr. Sonterre indicated there is an interesting issue as there is a police force that, because of levy limits, is two officers down and this pawnshop would create significant work for the police department but the City cannot charge the business owner the full costs of adding officers to handle the increased work load. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To Table Resolution 724-03 to May 7, 2003. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Review Proposed PUD Amendment Regarding the Property Located at 2442 County Highway 10 Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the proposed PUD amendment regarding the property at 2442 County Highway 10. He then indicated that when the PUD was established the City was very specific that it would like a restaurant use for that lot. However, after marketing the site for that type of use and being unsuccessful, the owner would like the use changed to allow for an office building. Director Ericson handed out drawings of the proposed two-story office building. He then indicated that he had reviewed the criteria for recommending approval of this type of request in his Staff report. Director Ericson indicated that in reviewing the criteria Staff was not able to ascertain any potential adverse affects the difference between the restaurant and office building may have and noted that the office building may be even less of an impact to the adjoining residential complex. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that Resolution 725-03 would recommend approval of the amendment to the PUD and noted that there would be a public hearing before Council on April 28, 2003. Chair Stevenson commented that Outlot B would remain with a restaurant designation and the office building may help bring in a restaurant for that site. Audie Tarpley of LandCor, Inc., reviewed the proposal with the Commission. Wendell Smith indicated they had sold one lot to Jake’s to attempt to resolve some parking issues. He then said they are working with Carmike Theaters to lease the additional site for parking to accommodate their overflow parking issues. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 725-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to the PUD for the Property Located at 2442 County Highway 10. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Consider Possible Amendments to the Zoning Code Relating to Expansions of Existing Multi-Family Dwelling Properties Community Development Director Ericson indicated that this item comes out of the request for a variance to increase a four-plex to a six-plex. He then said that the property could expand if the parking requirements are met and there may be room on site to do that. He further commented that Council had asked that the Commission review this matter for a change to require conditional use permits. He then reviewed some proposed language to add to the zoning code. The Commission agreed that the change should be made. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Announcement: Renumbering of Planning Commission Resolutions Adopted April 2, 2003 Community Development Director Ericson indicated that two of the Resolutions adopted at the April 2, 2003 meeting were renumbered from 720-03 to 722-03 and from 721-03 to 723-03. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: May 7, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.