HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-2003
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
April 2, 2003 -- 7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes a. February 19, 2003 b. March 5, 2003
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,
AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
5. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request for a Variance to Allow Encroachment of a
New Home into the Prevailing Front Setback at 7741 Long Lake Road.
Applicant: Hamilton Creek, Scott & Gretchen Davis
Planning Case No: VR03-002
6. Discuss Proposed No Parking Request on Greenfield Avenue
Special Planning Case No. SP-115-03
7. Consideration of a Development Review Request to Expand the Business Located at 2865
County Highway 10.
Applicant: Greg Johnson
Planning Case No: DE03-001
8. Discuss and Review of Proposed Code Amendments to Regulate the Siting and Licensure
of Pawn Shops in Mounds View.
Special Planning Case No. SP-114-03
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: April 16, 2003
10. Adjournment to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes: March 19, 2003
2. Staff Reports
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports
N:\Data\Groups\Comdev \Planning Commission \PC Agendas\2003 \04-02-03 PC Agenda.doc
Item No : 5
Meeting Date : April 2, 2003
Type of Business: Public Hearing
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request for a
Variance to Allow Encroachment of a New Home into the
Prevailing Front Setback at 7741 Long Lake Road.
Introduction:
In January of 2002, the City Council approved the final Plat for Gustafsons Fifth Addition, a
replatting of land located at the northeast corner of County Road I and Long Lake Road. The
subdivision was complicated due to ownership issues, variances and utility work, which was not
initiated until the last months of 2002. After all of the legal and utility issues had been resolved,
the City issued a building permit for a new home on Lot 1, Block 1 of the subdivision, the
northernmost lot on Long Lake Road. The permit was issued on January 27, 2003. The survey
attached to the permit application indicated a building s etback of 30.3 feet from the property line
abutting Long Lake Road. Such a setback complies with the City’s “typical” requirements.
Discussion:
On February 28, 2003, one of the City Council members contacted me questioning the setback
of the new home u nder construction at 7741 Long Lake Road, in that it was significantly closer to
the street than other homes on the block. Staff inspected the property and verified that the home
was indeed closer to the street than the other homes along that side of Long Lake Road. The
survey for the property indicated the building would be set back thirty feet (30.3) from the Long
Lake Road right of way. The inspection revealed that the home was being constructed
according to the survey-specified set back.
Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning
district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R -1, Single Family
Residential district, the typical setbacks are as follows: Front, 30 feet; Side, 10 feet; and Rear,
30 feet. It is footnoted in the Code that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have
side and rear setbacks of 5 feet. (No accessory building can be located in a front yard unless it
is attached to the principal structure, and even then the minimum set back is thirty feet.) The
front yard setback is further footnoted to address the issue of “prevailing setbacks”, articulated
as follows:
“Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same
side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the
minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum
front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard
setback be less than thirty feet (30').”
Setback Report
7741 Long Lake Road
April 2, 2003
Page 2
Based on the above information regarding “prevailing setbacks”, it becomes readily apparent
that the structure under construction at 7741 Long Lake Road is too close to the street. The
building permit for the structure should not have been issued; the error is admittedly the City’s.
Incorrect setback information was provided to the developer and/or his surveyor, and upon
submission of the building permit application, another error was made in not verifying the
setback of the building. After learning of the potential error, the City’s temporary inspector field-
verified prevailing setbacks and at the same time staff reviewed the Long Lake Road
reconstruction as-built plans, survey quality plans which include building setback information.
The field inspection and review of the as-built plans indicated that the home located at 7801
Long Lake Road was the closest to the street at 41 feet, and as such, 41 feet would constitute
the prevailing setback for this block of Long Lake Road.
Once the prevailing setback had been determined, the building official posted a “Stop Work”
order on the property and staff then notified the developer, Neal Zinser. Three options were
presented to Mr. Zi nser: Remove 11 feet from the garage to satisfy the prevailing setback, slide
the whole structure back by 11 feet, or apply for a variance. Mr. Zinser indicated that the second
option (move the building back an additional 11 feet) was NOT an option due t o the extent of the
construction already completed and immediately requested to be heard for a variance request.
Mr. Zinser also requested to continue construction on the house itself, to which the building
official agreed, amending the Stop Work order accordingly.
One additional issue regarding the construction is inconsistent with the Zoning Code.
Subdivision 1c of Section 1106.03 of the R -1 Zoning requirements indicates that no garage shall
exceed 952 square feet in area except by conditional use permit. The size of the garage at
7741 Long Lake Road, at 25 feet by 42 feet, is 1,050 square feet, 98 square feet more than the
maximum without a CUP. Furthermore, the Zoning Code states that the maximum square
footage of accessory building space on a lot i s 1,800 square feet. A shed has been constructed
on the lot which, at 30 feet by 31.66 feet, totals 950 square feet. The shed and garage space
together totals 2,000 square feet, 200 square feet more than what is allowed by the Zoning
Code. Thus, in addition to the front setback issue, to maintain the size of the garage, a CUP
would need to be obtained; and to maintain the TOTAL square footage, a variance would need
to be approved for the additional 200 square feet.
Variance Considerations:
For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical
difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly
burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning
Commission, in Mounds View) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make
its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02,
Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly sta tes that a hardship exists when all of the
criteria are met. The criteria are as follows:
Setback Report
7741 Long Lake Road
April 2, 2003
Page 3
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or
shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since
the effective date hereof have had no control.
The property is zoned R-1 and is currently being improved with a new, two -story single -family
dwelling. The lot is not irregularly shaped and at 22,000 square feet, is more than double the
size of a standard lot. The sole cause of the variance request, as it is well documented herein,
is due to a City oversight. The Community Development Department failed to “flag” the setback
encroachment and issued the permit in error. The developer began construction in accordance
with the City’s approval and it was not until March 4, 2003, that he became aware of any
problems.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Title.
While the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the
applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, to apply the provisions after-
the -fact would certainly deprive the applicant a right he was granted by virtue of an approved
building permit. It should be noted however that mistakes and oversights do occur and that
when discovered, builders are required to correct the mistakes, even if the mistakes are not their
own. The question, then, is, which is preferable —preserving the intent of a uniform building
setback and requiring the applicant to tear down walls, redraft plans and pour new footings, all at
considerable cost, or to grant a variance because of the City’s error.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant.
d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
Granting the variance would confer upon the property owner a special privilege that would be
denied other property owners. However, one could consider the investment already made by the
applicant a mitigating factor.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
Leaving the structure “as is” certainly could be considered the minimum variance which would
alleviate the ha rdship. The cost of removing one foot of the garage, in this case, would
essentially be the same as removing 11 feet.
Setback Report
7741 Long Lake Road
April 2, 2003
Page 4
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
Granting a variance to allow the structure to remain within the setback could be viewed as
materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the zoning code. It is hard to imagine a
situation where the Planning Commission would have approved this request had the setback
been flagged prior to construction. Staff has not received any feedback from neighbors
regarding this request.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
The proposed variance would not result in any of the above -cited adverse effects.
Summary:
All of the criteria, as indicated above, need to be satisfied to justify the granting the variance.
Certainly the fact that the applicant was issued a building permit in good faith does support the
requirement that the exceptional or extraordinary condition not be caused by the applicant. But
does that error necessitate approval of the variance? No. The fact that the City erred in its
issuance of the building permit, even given the magnitude of the oversight, does not in itself
obligate variance approval.
The Planning Commission needs to determine whether the City’s error in itself is sufficient
justification to grant the variance.
Recommendation:
After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the builder, the property
owner and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related
to the request:
1. Approve the requested variance with stipulations requiring application of a conditional use
permit for the oversized garage and a variance for accessory space beyond the 1,800 square
foot maximum. Furthermore, a stipulation should be included which indicates that if the structure
is ever damaged or destroyed, the original prevailing setback shall apply to any reconstruction.
Resolution “A” is attached for this option.
2. Deny the requested variance and require that 11 feet be removed from the front of the garage
to satisfy the prevailing 41-foot setback. If the Commission determines this option is
appropriate, the applicants would have the right to appeal the Commission’s decision and such
an appeal would be heard by the City Council on April 14, 2003. Resolution “B” is attached for
this option.
Setback Report
7741 Long Lake Road
April 2, 2003
Page 5
3. Table the request pending receipt of additional information. Staff would NOT encourage the
Commission to table the request as the applicant and building owners have stopped work on the
garage construction and tabling the request would exacerbate the delay. If additional
information is needed, I would strongly urge the Commission to contact me prior to the meeting
and I will do my best to obtain the information for presentation at the meeting.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
Attachments:
1. Certificate of Survey
2. Location Map
3. Resolutions
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 720-03
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK
FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 7741 LONG LAKE ROAD ;
PLANNING CASE NO. VR03-002
WHEREAS , the applicant, Hamilton Creek, has applied for a variance from the
minimum front setback for a single -family dwelli ng under construction at 7741 Long Lake
Road; and,
WHEREAS , Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the
minimum front setback for a principal building is 30 feet unless the prevailing setback for
existing structures exceeds 30 feet, in which case the prevailing set back IS the minimum
setback; and,
WHEREAS , the structure under construction, set back 30.3 feet from the front
property line, is located within the “prevailing” set back on this block, which is 41 feet; and,
WHEREAS , the applicant was issued a building permit for the structure on January
27, 2003 based on a survey indicating a 30.3 -foot front set back; and,
WHEREAS , upon discovery of its error, the City issued a “Stop Work” order on the
construction prompting the applicant to request a variance; and,
WHEREAS , according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which
all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
makes the following finding of facts related to this request:
1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance request is
simply the City erred in its issuance of a building permit and did not discover the
error until work had substantially began on the structure.
2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code, in conjunction with the City’s error,
does deny the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by other recipients of building
permits.
3. The applicant has not caused the condition which prompted the variance
request.
4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege.
Resolution “A”
Resolution 720-03 (A)
Page 2
5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship.
6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to
other property in the same zone.
7. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase
the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View
Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby
approve the variance requested for a 30.3 -foot front setback for the structure under
construction at 7741 Long Lake Road, subject to the following requirements:
1. The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a conditional use permit for an
oversized garage before the Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.
2. The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a variance for 200 square feet
of accessory storage space in excess of the maximum allowed 1,800 square feet of
space.
3. If the structure is ever damaged or destroyed beyond repair, reconstruction shall
occur at the original prevailing setback of 41 feet.
Adopted this 2nd day of April 2003.
____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 720-03
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK
FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 7741 LONG LAKE ROAD ;
PLANNING CASE NO. VR03-002
WHEREAS , the applicant, Hamilton Creek, has applied for a variance from the
minimum front setback for a single -family dwelling under construction at 7741 Long Lake
Road; and,
WHEREAS , Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the
minimum front setback for a principal building is 30 feet unless the prevailing setback for
existing structures exceeds 30 feet, in which case the prevailing set back IS the minimum
setback; and,
WHEREAS , the structure under construction, set back 30.3 feet from the front
property line, is located within the “prevailing” set back on this block, whi ch is 41 feet; and,
WHEREAS , the applicant was issued a building permit for the structure on January
27, 2003 based on a survey indicating a 30.3 -foot front set back; and,
WHEREAS , upon discovery of its error, the City issued a “Stop Work” order on the
construction prompting the applicant to request a variance; and,
WHEREAS , according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which
all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
makes the following finding of facts related to this request:
1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance reque st is
simply that the City erred in its issuance of the building permit and did not
discover the error until work had substantially began on the structure.
2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code, in conjunction with the City’s error,
does NOT deny the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by other recipients of
building permits.
3. Granting the variance would confer upon the applicant a special privilege.
4. The variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to
other property in the same zone.
Resolution “B”
Resolution 720-03 (B)
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View
Planning Commission, based upon the above -identified finding of facts, does hereby
DENY the variance requested for a reduced 30.3 -foot front setback fo r the structure under
construction at 7741 Long Lake Road
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the garage currently
under construction at 7741 Long Lake Road shall be reconstructed to comply with the
existing prevailing setback which is 41 feet.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the applicant shall be
notified of the right to appeal this denial to the City Council. The appeal shall be submitted
in writing within 10 business days of the adoption of this Resolution.
Adopted this 2nd day of April 2003.
____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Item No : 6
Meeting Date : April 2, 2003
Type of Business: Commission Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Chair Stevenson and Planning Commissioners
From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Further Discussion and Reconsideration of the “No Parking” Request
on Greenfield Avenue South of County Road I
Introduction:
On March 24, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the request to post the east side
of Greenfield Avenue 350 feet south of County Road I “No Parking” Monday through Saturday, 8 am to 6
pm. Commissioners Johnson and Zwirn attended the meeting as did property owner Steve Farrell and a
tenant at the property, Ted Rose. Mr. Rose operates the State Farm Insurance Agency in the building.
Discussion:
After taking testimony, the Council acknowledged that a parking problem existed in the area and was
concerned that Mr. Farrell’s clients and employees were parking on the street causing an inconvenience
for the property owners south on Greenfield Avenue. The Council discussed with staff and the property
owner various alternatives that could be employed to resolve the situation without imposing parking
restrictions.
The Council asked Mr. Farrell if he would be willing to expand his parking lot, to which Mr. Farrell
responded in the affirmative; and the Council also discussed the possibility of allowing parking on
Greenfield directly across from the building, but not any further south until beyond the 350-foot location.
Allowing parking on Greenfield across from the business would leave two or three stalls and if the
parking lot were expanded by two stalls, that could potentially resolve the parking situation. While that
may be true, the Council was told the Commission had already discussed the parking lot expansion
issue at length and was concerned that any further expansion of the lot would be an aesthetic detriment
to the neighborhood. The Council also suggested exploring the possibility of striping for narrower
parking stalls (i.e., 8 ½ feet in width instead of the required 9 feet) and whether that would generate more
stalls.
After considering all of the testimony and information presented, the City Council tabled action on the
request, sending the issue back to the Planning Commission for additional review and consideration.
Recommendation:
Reconsider the parking situation and dimensional requirements and determine if there is a need to
amend the Commission’s Resolution 718-03 recommending No Parking on Greenfield Ave.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 718-03
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING INSTALLATION OF A “NO PARKING FROM HERE
TO CORNER” SIGN ON THE EAST SIDE OF GREENFIELD AVENUE FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY PURPOSES
WHEREAS , the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the parking situation on
Greenfield Avenue between County Road I and Bronson Drive in response to complaints from residents in
this area; and,
WHEREAS, the business located at 2402 County Road I consistently and regularly overflows its
parking lot resulting in employees and customers parking on Greenfield Avenue; and,
WHEREAS , the west side of Greenfield Avenue has alr eady been posted as No Parking to control
and restrict on-street parking on this block.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds
View, finding there to be sufficient cause and in the interest of public safety, recommends that a “No
Parking from Here to Corner, Mon – Sat, 8 am – 6 pm” sign be installed on the east side of
Greenfield Avenue, 350 feet south County Road I, shown as Location “C” on the attached Exhibit 1.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this
resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 5th day of February, 2003.
____________________________________
Jean Miller, Acting Chairperson
ATTEST
____________________________________
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
No Parking Report
February 5, 2003
Page 3
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission may choose to act on the attached resolution, Resolution 718-03, recommending
posting the east side of Greenfield Avenue “No Parking from Here to Corner.” The Resolution does not
indicate the actual distance back from County Road I and would need to be added as part of its adoption.
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Resolution 718-03
EXHIBIT 1.
C
Proposed Location of
“No Parking from Here
to Corner” Sign
Item No : 7
Meeting Date : April 2, 2003
Type of Business: Commission Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Development Review Request for a 780
Square-Foot Expansion to the Business Located at 2865
County Highway 10. Planni ng Case DE03-001
Introduction:
Greg Johnson, the property owner of 2865 County Highway 10, has requested a Development
Review to expand his existing business located on the property. The business is operated from
a 1,248 square foot building alongside the property owner’s residence. The property is zoned
R-O, Residential Office, the only p roperty in the City to be so designated.
Recently the applicant requested a text amendment to the Zoning Code to officially recognize his
business as a permitted commercial use and to be considered a commercial use rather than a
residential accessory use. The Planni ng Commission recommended approval of this text
amendment and the City Council gave first reading to the corresponding ordinance at their
meeting on March 24, 2003. Second reading and adoption of the ordinance will occur on April
14, 2003. Submitted for the Planning Commission’s review are copies of the Site Plan, Building
Permit Application, Zoning Map, and front Building Elevation.
Discussion:
A Development Review is required for this expansion since the amount of the expansion
exceeds ten percent of the business area. (According to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View
Building Code, expansions of less than ten percent do not requi re review.) The expansion
proposed by Mr. Johnson amounts to a 38 percent increase in floor area. The expansion would
allow for an additional work bay however would not increase the amount of parking needed for
the business.
Mr. Johnson proposes to match the architecture and design of the existing structure, adding a
brick facade to the front of the building for added visual appeal. The expansion would not
encroach into either the front, rear or side setback, however the building would be closer to the
residence. A separation of eight feet is proposed between the house and the business, the
minimum allowed by the Building and Zoning Code is three feet. The parcel is 1.25 acres in
area and is wooded to the rear. Neighboring residential properties would not be impacted by
the proposed expansion; no additional screening would be necessary.
While not necessary, Staff sent notices to property owners within 350 feet of Mr. Johnson’s
property in an effort to ensure promote awareness and to solicit feedback, encouraging
residents to attend the meeting if they had questions, comments or concerns.
Recommendation:
There does not appear to be any negative consequences associated with the requested
expansion and as such, staff is recommending adoption of Resolution 721-03, a resolution
recommending approval of the requested Development Review to permit the 780 square foot
expansion of Mr. Johnson’s business at 2865 County Highway 10.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Site Plan
3. Floor Plan
4. Building Permit Application
5. Front Building Elevation
6. Resolution 721-03
Zoning Map
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 721-03
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REQUEST FOR A 780 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS LOCATED
AT 2865 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10;
PLANNING CASE NO. DE03-001.
WHEREAS, The Applicant, Greg Johnson, property o wner of 2865 County Highway
10 has requested approval of a Development Review to construct a 780 square-foot
expansion to his business; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-O, Residential Office, and is legally
described as follows:
Subject to Highway, Lot 49, Auditor’s Subdivision 89,
Ramsey County
State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any
new construction or expansion of existing facilities of ten percent or more of the building
area requires the approval of a development review; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Building Permit Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plan
d. Elevation Drawing
e. Floor Plan
f. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the proposed development satisfies all applicable requirements of the
Zoning Code; and,
WHEREAS , the site plan indicate s that the proposed addition would be 20 feet by
39 feet with a footprint of 780 square fe et.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission, finding that all of the requirements have been met, does hereby recommend
that the City Council approve the development review request for the construction of a 780
square foot addition to the existing business facility located at 2865 County Highway 10.
Resolution 721-03
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 2nd day of April, 2003.
_________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Item No : 8
Meeting Date : April 2, 2003
Type of Business: Discussion
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Review Code Changes Related to Pawnshops
Introduction:
The City is in the process of amending its Zoning and Business Codes to allow for the regulation
of Pawnshops in Mounds View. The City Council adopted an Interim ordinance on February 27,
2003, which directs the Planning Commission to review the zoning implications and to
recommend applicable provisions. Thus far, the Planning Commission has discussed this issue
at their March 5th and March 19th meetings.
Discussion:
Precious Metal. At the March 19th meeting, there was discussion regarding the possibility of
adding language to the proposed ordinance to regulate precious metals dealers. Mr. David
Przetyski, a Mounds View resident who is proposing to open a Pawnshop in Mounds View,
testified that he currently holds a Precious Metals Dealer License and anticipated obtaining one
for his Mounds View business as well. There was some confusion as to the purpose and intent
of such a license and why some cities regulated it and others did not. Roseville’s ordinance,
which was reviewed at the March 19th meeting, includes very specific requirements pertaining to
precious metals dealers.
I did some research and learned that a precious metals dealer license is a State requirement.
The Statutes, which I have attached for the Commission to review, address persons or
businesses that deal in precious metals. The County in which the business is located sets the
fee and issues the license. (The State indicates that persons engaged in the buying and selling
of coins, bullion and ingots are excluded from needing a precious metals dealer license, though
I’m not quite sure why.) To include language in the City’s ordinance regulating precious metals
dealers and requiring a local license for precious metals seems redundant and unnecessary. If
the Commission agrees, our draft ordinance will simply reference Minnesota Statutes that such
a license is required.
Impact on Police Services. I asked the City’s police department to investigate how much
additional work would result if a Pawnshop located in Mounds View by inquiring with police
departments in cities where Pawnshops already exist. The results of this investigation clearly
show that Pawnshops are resource intensive, which means that such a business would demand
more police time than would a typical business. The Cities of Maplewood, Blaine, Coon Rapids,
Roseville, Fridley, Anoka and Spring Lake Park were contacted. All of the departments
contacted recommended we require the business to be on APS (Automated Pawn System) and
all recommended the business NOT be allowed to deal in handguns. The departments indicate
an average of 4 to 10 hours a week are spent working on pawn-related issues, which more than
justifies the annual fees and per transaction fee.
Pawnshop Report
April 2, 2003
Pa ge 2
License Requirements. Issues that will be addressed under the licensing provisions would
include application, investigation, license term and renewal, hours of operation, separation
between similar uses and all other operational requirements that wo uld be associated with
business licensure. Annual license fees, per-transaction fees, and investigation fees would
be established by Council resolution, however staff continues to support the following fee
structure as outlined in the last report:
o $2,500 annual fee
o $500 investigation fee
o $1.50 per transaction fee
o $5,000 performance bond in force for the life of the operation
Attached to this report, in addition to the draft Zoning ordinance the Commission has already
reviewed, is the proposed ordinance language to amend Title 500, Business License
Regulation.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Commission review and discuss the attached information and provide
direction to staff regarding the proposed ordinances. If the Commission determines little or no
additional revision or updating is needed, staff would draft for the Commission’s approval
resolutions recommending adoption of the two draft ordinances, with such resolution being
considered at your April 16, 2003 meeting.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
Attachments:
1. Proposed Zoning Amendments
2. Proposed License Requirements
3. Precious Metal Dealer License Requirements and Application
ORDINANCE NO. 711
CIT Y OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE SECTIONS 1102.02,
PERTAINING TO DEFINITIONS, AND 1115.02, PERTAINING TO PERMITTED USES
IN B -4 ZONING DISTRICTS
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Section 1102.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to
definitions is hereby amended by adding new definitions as underlined to read as
follows:
Subd. 86. PAWNBROKER: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) , "pawnbroker"
means a person engaged in whole or in part in the business of lending money
on the security of pledged goods left in pawn, or in the business of purchasing
tangible personal property to be left in pawn on the condition that it may be
redeemed or repurchased by the seller for a fixed price within a fixed period of
time.
(b) The following are exempt from the definition of "pawnbroker": any bank
regulated by the state of Minnesota, the comptroller of the currency of the
United States, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the board of
governors of the Federal Reserve System, or any other federal or state
authority and their affiliates; any bank or savings and loan whose deposits or
accounts are eligible for insurance by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation or any successor to it and all affiliates of those banks and savings
and loan associations; any state or federally chartered credit union; any
industrial loan and thrift company or regulated lender subject to licensing and
regulation by the department of commerce.
Subd. 87. PAWNSHOP: "Pawnshop means the location at which or premises in
which a pawnbroker regularly conducts business.
All existing subsequent subdivisions within Section 1102.02 are hereby renumbered as
appropriate.
SECTION 2: Section 1115.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to
Permitted Uses within the B4 Zoning District is hereby amended by alphabetically inserting the
following underlined uses:
Pawnshops, as regulated and licensed according to Chapter 516 of the City
Code.
SECTION 3 . This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its publication
in the official City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this __ day of ____, 2003.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this __ day of
____, 2003.
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
James Ericson,
Acting Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 712
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE INDEX AND TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE
MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE TABLE OF CONTENTS OF
TITLE 500, BUSINESS LICENSE REGULATIONS, AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER
516, ENTITLED “PAWNSHOPS”
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: The Mounds View Municipal Code Index is amended by alphabetically
inserting the following underlined text:
Pawnshops ………………………………………………………….………………………516
SECTION 2: The Mounds View Municipal Code Table of Contents is amended by
inserting the following underlined text:
Pawnshops ………………………………………………………….………………………516
SECTION 3: The Table of Contents for Title 500, Business License Regulations, is
amended by inserting the following underlined text:
Pawnshops ………………………………………………………….………………………516
SECTION 4: A new Chapter 516 entitled “Pawnshops” is hereby added to Title 500,
Business License Regulations:
Ordinance
Page 2
CHAPTER 516
PAWNSHOPS
SECTION:
516.01: Purpose
516.02: Definitions
516.03: License Required
516.04: Application for License
516.05: Investigation by Police Department
516.06: Term of License and Renewals
516.07: License Fees
516.08: Billable Transaction Fees
516.09: Bond Requirement
516.10: Ineligible Persons and Locations
516.11: General License Requirements
516.12: Alarm System Requirement
516.13: Suspension or Revocation of License
516.14: Prohibited Acts
516.15: Adoption of State Statute by Reference
516.16: Separability
516.01 PURPOSE: The City Council of the City of Mounds View finds that
pawnbroker regulation is appropriate because such activities provide an opportunity
for the commission of crimes and their concealment because such businesses have
the ability to receive and transfer stolen property e asily and quickly. The City Council
also finds that consumer protection regulation of such activities is warranted because
customers of such businesses frequently seek their services during times of
desperate financial circumstances.
To help the City of Mounds View to better regulate current and future pawn
businesses, decrease and stabilize costs associated with the regulation of the pawn
industry, and increase identification of criminal activities in the pawn industry through
the timely collection and sharing of pawn transaction information, this chapter also
implements and establishes the required use of the Automated Pawn System (APS).
516.02 DEFINITIONS: As used in this Chapter, the following words and terms
shall have the meanings as follows:
Ordinance
Page 3
ACCEPTABLE IDENTIFICATION: Acceptable forms of identification are a current valid
Minnesota driver's license, a current valid Minnesota identification card, or a current
valid photo driver's license or identification card issued by another state or province
of Canada.
AUTOMATED PAWN SYSTEM (APS): A computerized data collection system that
mandates the collection of data and digitized images via modem for the purpose of
regulation and review of licensed pawn dealers by city officials and authorized
subscribers.
BILLABLE TRANSACTIONS: Every reportable transaction conducted by a
pawnbroker, except renewals, redemptions, or extensions of existing pawns on items
previously reported and continuously in the licensee's possession.
CONSIGNMENT: Acting as a sales agent for another, selling another person’s goods
without having to first purchase said goods.
ISSUING AUTHORITY: The City of Mounds View.
ITEM CONTAINING PRECIOUS METAL: An item made in whole or in part of metal and
containing more than one percent (1%) by weight of silver, gold or platinum.
MINOR: Any natural person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
PAWNBROKER: A person engaged in whole or in part in the business of lending
money on the security of pledged goods left in pawn, or in the business of purchasing
tangible personal property to be left in pawn on the condition that it may be redeemed
or repurchased by the seller for a fixed price within a fixed period of time. The
following are exempt from the definition of "pawnbroker": any bank regulated by the
state of Minnesota, the comptroller of the currency of the United States, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the board of governors of the Federal Reserve
system, or any other federal or state authority and their affiliates; any bank or s avings
and loan whose deposits or accounts are eligible for insurance by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation or any successor to it and all affiliates of those banks and
savings and loan associations; any state or federally chartered credit union; any
industrial loan and thrift company or regulated lender subject to licensing and
regulation by the department of commerce.
PAWNSHOP: The licensed location in which a pawnbroker conducts business.
PERSON: One or more natural persons; a partnership, in cluding a limited partnership;
a corporation, including a foreign, domestic or nonprofit corporation, a trust, a political
subdivision of the state; or any other business organization.
Ordinance
Page 4
PRECIOUS METAL DEALER: Except as exempted by MN Statutes Section 325F.731,
any natural person, partnership or corporation engaging in the business of buying,
selling or pawning secondhand items containing precious metal, including, but not
limited to, jewelry, watches, eating utensils, candlesticks, and religious and decorative
objects.
PRECIOUS METALS: means Silver, gold or platinum.
REDEMPTION PERIOD: The date by which an item of property that has been pawned
must be redeemed by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold. Such date
must be a day on which the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer is open for regular
business.
REPORTABLE TRANSACTION: Every transaction conducted by a pawnbroker in
which merchandise is received through a pawn, purchase, consignment or trade, or in
which a pawn is renewed, extended, or for which a unique transaction number or
identifier is generated by their point of sale software, is reportable, except:
A. The bulk purchase of new or used merchandise from a merchant, manufacturer, or
wholesaler having an established permanent place of business, and the retail sale
of said merchandise, provided the pawnbroker must maintain a record of such
purchase or consignment which describes each item, and must mark each item in
a manner which relates it to that transaction record.
B. Retail and wholesale sales of merchandise originally received by pawn or
purchase, and for which all applicable hold and/or redemption periods have
expired.
516.03 LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall exercise, carry on or be engaged
in the trade or business of pawnbroker within the city unless such person is currently
licensed in accordance with this chapter to be a pawnbroker. Pawnbrokers shall also
maintain and display at all times a current and valid Precious Metal Dealer License
issued by Ramsey County.
516.04 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE: Every application for license under this
chapter, whether for a natural person, partnership, corporation or other organization,
shall be made on a form supplied by the City and shall contain all information as
required on that form by law.
Subd. 1. All applications for a license under this chapter shall be signed and sworn to
under oath or affirmation by applicant. If the application is that of a natural
person, it shall be signed and sworn to by such person; if that of a corporation,
by an officer thereof; if that of a partnership, by one of the general partners; and
Ordinance
Page 5
if that of an unincorporated association, by the manager or managing officer
thereof.
Subd. 2. Any falsification on a license application shall result in the denial of a license.
Subd. 3. When a licensee places a manager in charge of a business, or if the named
manager(s) in charge of a licensed business changes, the licensee must
complete and submit the appropriate application within fourteen (14) days. The
manager s hall be subject to the investigation required by section 516.05 of this
chapter, and to payment of the investigation fee required by this chapter, which
shall be paid in advance. The designation of a new manager shall not cause the
license to become invalid before a decision is rendered, provided proper notice
and application are made by the applicant. A proposed new manager shall be
referred to as the interim manager. In the event an interim manager is rejected,
the licensee shall designate another interim manager and make the required
application within fourteen (14) days of the decision. If a proposed manager is
rejected, the decision may be appealed to the city council by filing a written
notice of appeal with the city manager within ten (10) days after being notified of
the rejection.
516.05 INVESTIGATION BY POLICE DEPARTMENT:
Subd. 1. Investigation and Report: All applications shall be referred to the police
department for verification and investigation of the facts set forth in the
application. The police department shall make a written report and
recommendation to the City Council as to approval or denial of the license. The
City Council may order and conduct such additional investigation that it deems
necessary.
Subd. 2. Cost of Investigation: An investigation fee shall be collected with each
application for a Pawnshop license to cover the expense of any investigation
needed to assure compliance with this chapter. The investigation fee is
established by resolution of the City Council. If the investigation and
verification process is conducted outside the state of Minnesota, additional fees
may be required
516.06 TERM OF LICENSE AND RENEWALS:
Subd. 1 Term: Licenses expire annually on December 31. The license fee will be
prorated in thirty (30) day increments for licenses issued after June 30.
Subd. 2. Renewal: A license under this section will not be renewed if the City Council
determines that the licensee has failed to comply with the provisions of this
Ordinance
Page 6
chapter in a preceding license year or if there would be sufficient grounds not
to issue a license in the first instance.
516.07 LICENSE FEES: To defray administrative and other costs of processing
applications for Pawnshop licenses, a nonrefundable fee shall be paid at the time an
application is filed with the City. The minimum fee shall be established by resolution
approved by the City Council.
516.08 BILLABLE TRANSACTION FEES: Licensees shall pay a monthly
transaction fee on all billable transactions. The minimum fee shall be established by
resolution approved by the City Council. Such fee shall be due and payable within
thirty (30) days. Failure to timely pay the billable transaction fee shall constitute a
violation of this chapter.
516.09 BOND REQUIREMENT: At the time of filing an application for a license,
the applicant shall file a bond in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) with
the City. The bond, with a duly licensed surety company as surety thereon, must be
approved as to form by the city attorney. The bond must be conditioned on the
licensee observing all ordinances of the City and all laws relating to the business of
pawnbroker or precious metal dealer, and the licensee accounting for and delivering
to any person legally entitled thereto any articles which may have come into the
possession of the licensee as pawnbroker, or in lieu thereof such licensee paying the
person or persons the reasonable value thereof. The bond shall contain a provision
that it may not be canceled without thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the
licensing authority.
516.10 INELIGIBLE PERSONS AND LOCATIONS:
Subd. 1. Ineligible Persons: No licenses under this chapter shall be issued to an
applicant who is a natural person, general or managing partner, manager,
proprietor or agent if such applicant:
a. Is a minor at the time the application is filed;
b. Has been convicted of any offense related to the occupation licensed or
involving moral turpitude;
c. Is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien;
d. Is not of good moral character or repute;
e. has misrepresented or falsified information on the license application;
f. Holds an intoxicating liquor license under this code;
Ordinance
Page 7
g. Has had a pawnbroker or precious metal dealer license revoked elsewhere;
or
h. Other good and sufficient reason at the sole discretion of the City Council.
Subd. 2. Ineligible Locations: The following locations shall be ineligible for licenses
under this chapter:
a. No license shall be granted or renewed for operation on any property on
which taxes, assessments or other financial claims of the state, county, school
district or city are due, delinquent or unpaid.
b. No license shall be granted or renewed if the property on which the business
is to be conducted is owned or controlled by a person who is ineligible for a
license.
c. The property is not properly zoned.
d. A location within one thousand (1,000) feet of an existing pawnshop.
Subd. 3. Multiple Brokers Or Dealers Prohibited: No license shall be issued for
multiple pawnbrokers at one location.
516.11 GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS:
Subd. 1. Record Keeping: All licensees shall utilize the Automated Pawn System
(APS) for the creation, maintenance, and storage of transactional records
regarding licensed activities. At the time of a receipt of an item of property,
whether purchased or pawned, the pawnbroker shall immediately record, on
computer disc or if the computer is temporarily unavailable in a book or journal
which has page numbers that are preprinted and in an indelible ink, the
following information:
a. Description Of Item: An accurate description of the item of property including,
but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model
number, brand, brand name or other identifying mark on such item;
b. Date And Time: The date and time the item of property was received by the
licensee, and the unique alpha and/or numeric transaction identifier that
distinguishes it from all other transactions in the licensee's records.
Transaction identifiers must be assigned consecutively;
c. Description Of Person: The name, address, residence phone number, date of
birth, and accurate description including: sex, height, weight, race, color of
eyes and color of hair of the person from whom the item of property was
received;
Ordinance
Page 8
d. Identification Number: The identification number and state or nation of issue
from any of the following forms of identification of the person from whom the
item of property was received:
(1) A valid driver's license;
(2) A valid state or national picture identification.
e. Price: The price of the item paid and whether the item was purchased or
pawned;
f. Fees: A list of all fees and charges that the transaction may be subject to;
g. Statement: A signed statement from the person from whom the item of
property is received that there are no liens on the item, that it is not stolen and
that the person has the right to sell it.
h. Photograph or Video Recording: The licensee must take a color photograph
or color video recording of each customer involved in a billable transaction and
every item pawned or sold that does not have a unique serial or identification
number permanently engraved or affixed.
(1) Photo Provisions: The photograph taken must be at least two inches
(2") in length by two inches (2") in width and must be maintained in such
a manner that the photograph can be readily matched and correlated
with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. Such
photographs must be available to the chief of police, or the chief's
designee, upon request. The major portion of the photograph must
include an identifiable front facial close up of the person who pawned or
sold the item. Items photographed must be accurately depicted. The
licensee must inform the person that he or she is being photographed by
displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place in the
premises.
(2) Video Provisions: If a video photograph is taken, the video camera
must zoom in on the person pawning or selling the item so as to include
an identifiable close up of that person's face. Items photographed by
video must be accurately depicted. Video photographs must be
electronically referenced by time and date so they can be readily
matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which
they relate. The licensee must inform the person that he or she is being
videotaped orally and by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a
conspicuous place on the premises. The licensee must keep the
exposed videotape for four (4) months, and furnish it to the police
department upon request.
Ordinance
Page 9
(3) Digitized Photographs: Digital images shall be provided in a format
specified by the issuing authority, electronically cross referenced to the
reportable transaction with which they are associated.
i. Renewals, Extensio ns And Redemptions: For renewals, extensions and
redemptions, the licensee shall provide the original transaction identifier, the
date of the current transaction, the type of transaction, interest charges
accrued, and any amount paid for the transaction or the article. When an article
of purchased or forfeited property is sold or disposed of by a licensee the
records shall contain an account of such sale with the date, the amount for
which the article was sold, and the full name, current address, and telephone
number of the person to whom sold.
Subd. 2. Inspection Of Records: The pawnbroker shall make available the information
required in subdivision 1 of this section at all reasonable times for inspection by
the police department or other representatives of the licensing authority.
Subd. 3. Retention of Records. The pawnbroker shall retain the information required
in this section for at least five (5) years.
Subd. 4 Daily Reports To Police Are Required: The pawnbroker shall submit daily to
the police department all information required by this section regarding every
reportable transaction by transferring it from their computer to the Automated
Pawn System. All required records must be transmitted completely and
accurately after the close of business e ach day in accordance with standards
and procedures established by the issuing authority using procedures that
address security concerns of the licensees and the issuing authority. The
licensee must display a sign of sufficient size, in a conspicuous place in the
premises, which informs all patrons that all transactions are reported to the
police department daily.
Subd. 5. Data Transfer Failures:
a. If a licensee is unable to successfully transfer the required reports by
electronic means, the licensee must provide the police department printed
copies of all reportable transactions along with the videotape(s) for that date, by
twelve o'clock (12:00) noon the next business day;
b. If the problem is determined to be in the licensee's system and is not
corrected by the close of the first business day following the failure, the
licensee must provide the required reports and shall be charged a fifty dollar
($50.00) reporting failure penalty, daily, until the error is corrected; or
c. If the problem is determin ed to be outside the licensee's system, the licensee
must provide the required reports and resubmit all such transaction
electronically when the error is corrected.
Ordinance
Page 10
d. If a licensee is unable to capture, digitize or transmit digital photographs
required by this chapter, the licensee must immediately take all required
photographs with a still camera, cross reference the photographs to the correct
transaction, and make the pictures available to the police department upon
request.
e. Regardless of the cause or origin of the technical problems that prevented
the licensee from uploading their reportable transactions, upon correction of
the problem, the licensee shall upload every reportable transaction from every
business day the problem had existed.
f. The police department may at their discretion, upon presentation of
extenuating circumstances by the licensee, delay the implementation of the
daily reporting penalty imposed by this section.
Subd. 6. Police Order To Hold Property: Whenever the police department notifies the
pawnbroker not to sell an item, the item shall not be sold or removed from the
licensed premises until authorized to be released by the police department.
Subd. 7. Holding Period Of Pawnbrokers: Any item sold or pawned to a pawnbroker
for which a report to the police is required under this chapter shall not be sold
or otherwise transferred for sixty (60) days after the date of the sale or pawn.
However, an individual may redeem an item pawned seventy two (72) hours
after the item was received on deposit by the pawnbroker, excluding Sundays
and legal holidays.
Subd. 8. Receipt: The pawnbroker shall provide a receipt to the seller or pledger of
any item of property received, which shall include:
a. The name, address and phone number of the pawnbroker or precious metal
dealer business.
b. The date on which the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer received the
item.
c. A description of the item received and amount paid to the pledger or seller in
exchange for the item pawned or sold.
d. The signature of the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer or agent.
e. The last regular business day by which the item must be redeemed by the
pledger without risk that the item will be sold and the amount necessary to
redeem the pawned item on that date.
f. The annual rate of interest charged on pawned items received.
g. The name, address, and signature of the seller or pledger.
Ordinance
Page 11
Subd. 9. Hours Of Operation: No pawnbroker shall be open for the transaction of
business on any day of the week before eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. or after eight
o'clock (8:00) P.M.
Subd. 10. Minors: The pawnbroker shall not purchase or receive personal property of
any nature on deposit or pledge from any minor.
Subd. 11. Inspection Of Items: The pawnbroker shall at all times during the term of the
license allow the police department to enter the premises where the
pawnbroker business is located, for the purpose of inspecting such premises
and inspecting the items, wares and merchandise therein for the purpose of
locating items suspected or alleged to have been stolen or otherwise
improperly disposed of.
Subd. 12. License Display: A license issued under this chapter must be posted in a
conspicuous place in the premises for which it is used. The license issued is
only effective fo r the compact and contiguous space specified in the approved
license application. Any additional required county and state licenses shall be
similarly posted.
Subd. 13. Maintenance Of Order: A licensee under this chapter shall be responsible for
the conduct of the business being operated and shall maintain conditions of
order.
Subd. 14. Prohibited Goods: No licensee under this chapter shall accept any item of
property which contains an altered or obliterated serial number or "operation
identification" n umber or any item of property whose serial number has been
removed.
Subd. 15. Payment By Check: Payment of more than two hundred fifty dollars
($250.00) by a licensee for any article deposited, left, purchased, pledged or
pawned shall be made only by a check, draft, or other negotiable or
nonnegotiable instrument that is drawn against funds held by a financial
institution. This policy shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises.
Subd. 16. Storage: All items shall be stored within the licensed premises.
Subd. 17. Prohibited Items. Licensee shall not accept or offer for sale firearms or
handguns.
516.12 ALARM SYSTEM REQUIREMENT: An alarm system, professionally
installed and approved by the Police Chief shall be installed at the licensed premises.
Ordinance
Page 12
516.13 SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSES:
Subd. 1. Violation: The City Council may suspend or revoke a license issued under
this chapter upon a finding of a violation of:
a. Any of the provisions of this chapter
b. Any state statute regulating pawnbrokers or precious metal dealers
c. Any state or local law relating to moral character and repute. Any conviction
by the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer for theft, receiving stolen property
or any other crime or violation involving stolen property shall result in the
immediate suspension pending a hearing on revocation of any license issued
hereunder.
Subd. 2 Notice; Hearing: Except in the case of a suspension pending a hearing on
revocation, a revocation or suspension by the City Council shall be p receded by
written notice to the licensee and a public hearing. The written notice shall give
at least ten (10) days notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state
the nature of the charges against the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer. The
Council may, without any notice, suspend any license pending a hearing on
revocation for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days. The notice may be served
upon the pawnbroker by United States mail addressed to the most recent
address of the business in the license application.
516.14 PROHIBITED ACTS:
Subd. 1. No pawnbroker licensed upon this chapter shall:
a. Lend money on a pledge at a rate of interest above that allowed by law;
b. Possess stolen goods;
c. Sell pledged goods before the time to redeem has expired;
d. Refuse to disclose to the pledger, after having sold pledged goods, the
name of the purchaser or the price for which the item sold;
e. Make a loan on a pledge to a minor or purchase property from a minor;
f. Accept consignments or sell consigned goods or items.
516.15 ADOPTION BY REFERENCE: Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 325J is
hereby adopted by reference. Wherever this chapter is more restrictive than said
statutes, this chapter will control. Wherever said statutes are more restrictive than
this chapter, said statutes shall control.
Ordinance
Page 13
516.16 SEPARABILITY: Should any section, clause or other provision of this
chapter be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be valid such decision
shall not effect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part other than the
part so declared invalid.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its publication
in the official City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this __ day of ____, 2003.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this __ day of ____, 2003.
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
James Ericson,
Interim Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
City Attorney
Minnesota Statutes
Precious Metals Dealer License
325F.731 Definitions.
Subdivision 1. Terms. For the purposes of Laws 1981, chapter 333, sections
1 to 17, the following terms have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. Precious metal dealer. "Precious metal dealer" means any natural
person, partnership, or corporation, either as principal or agent, engaging in the
business of buying secondhand items containing precious metal, including, but not
limited to, jewelry, watches, eating utensils, candlesticks, and religious and decorative
objects.
Subd. 3. Precious metals. "Precious metals" means silver, gold, and
platinum.
Subd. 4. Item containing precious metal. "Item containing precious metal"
means an item made in whole or in part of metal and containing more than one percent
by weight of silver, gold or platinum.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 1
325F.732 License.
Subdivision 1. Requirement. Except as provided for in subdivision 2, it is
unlawful for a precious metal dealer to engage in or transact any business as such
without having a valid license as provided in section 325F.733.
Subd. 2. Scope. The requirements of Laws 1981, chapter 333, sections 1 to
17 do not apply to the following:
(1) Transactions at occasional "garage" or "yard" sales, or estate sales or farm
auctions held at the decedent's residence, except that precious metal dealers must
comply with the requirements of sections 325F.734 to 325F.742 for these transactions.
(2) Transactions regulated by chapter 80A.
(3) Transactions regulated by the Federal Commodity Futures Commission Act.
(4) Transactions involving the purchase of precious metal grindings, filings,
slag, sweeps, scraps, or dust from an industrial manufacturer, dental lab, dentist, or
agent thereof.
(5) Transactions involving the purchase of photographic film, such as
lithographic and X-ray film, or silver residue or flake recovered in lithographic and X-ray
film processing.
(6) Transactions involving coins, bullion, or ingots.
(7) Transactions in which the second hand item containing precious metal is
exchanged for a new item containing precious metal and the value of the new item
exceeds the value of the secondhand item, except that a natural person, partnership or
corporation who is a precious metal dealer by engaging in a transaction which is not
exempted by this section must comply with the requirements of sections 325F.734 to
325F.742.
(8) Transactions between precious metal dealers if both dealers are licensed
und er section 325F.733 or if the seller's business is located outside of the state and the
item is shipped from outside the state to a dealer licensed under section 325F.733.
(9) Transactions in which the buyer of the secondhand item containing precious
metal is engaged primarily in the business of buying and selling antiques, and the items
are resold in an unaltered condition except for repair, and the items are resold at retail,
and the buyer paid less than $2,500 for secondhand items containing precious metals
purchased within any period of 12 consecutive months.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 2
325F.733 License; application; terms and conditions.
Subdivision 1. Application. Any precious metal dealer desiring to engage in
or transact business as such in any county of this state shall file an application for a
license for that purpose with the auditor of the county in which the dealer desires to do
business. The application shall include the applicant's name, date of birth, resident
address, and locatio ns of the proposed principal place of business and branch offices
within the county, and other locations within the county where the applicant intends to
hold secondhand precious metals. If the person in charge of the business or a branch
office is someone other than the applicant, the name, date of birth, and resident address
of the person in charge shall be stated with the location or branches indicated. If the
applicant is a corporation or partnership the name, date of birth and resident address of
each officer and general partner shall be stated. Each application shall be kept by the
auditor for a period of no less than three years and shall be available for inspection only
by employees of the county auditor, the county attorney, the attorney general, or by a
peace officer.
Subd. 2. Fee. Each applicant shall pay to the treasurer of the county a
license fee in an amount determined by the board of county commissioners of the
county to be necessary to cover the expenses of administering this licensing function.
Subd. 3. Business locations. A precious metal dealer license shall authorize
the precious metal dealer to transact business only at the location or locations
designated in the license.
Subd. 4. Term. A precious metal dealer license shall be valid for a period of
one year from the date of its issuance.
Subd. 5. Branch offices. Each branch office shall be operated under the
same name as the principal office.
Subd. 6. Posting of license. Every precious metal dealer shall prominently
post the dealer's license in a conspicuous location at the dealer's principal place of
business and a copy of the license in a conspicuous location at each branch office.
Subd. 7. Posting of prices; weighing. Every precious metal dealer shall
prominently post in a conspicuous place and in letters exceeding one inch in height the
minimum prices per ounce or pennyweight that are currently being paid by the dealer for
precious metals and a warning notice that unless otherwise informed, the prices offered
are based on the meltdown value of the precious metal, rather than the value of the item
in its existing form. Precious metal items shall be weighed in plain sight of the
prospective seller on scales approved by the division of weights and measures of the
department of commerce in accordance with sections 239.011 and 239.09.
Subd. 8. Public record of licenses. The county auditor shall keep a record of
the licenses in a book provided for that purpose. The book shall contain the same
information as required on the application for the license; provided, that the applicant's
resident address and date of birth shall not be recorded. The book shall be open for
public inspection.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 3; 1986 c 444; 1991 c 198 s 11; 1Sp2001 c 4 art 6 s 77
325F.734 Identification of sellers.
Every precious metal dealer shall require a seller of secondhand items containing
precious metals to present to the dealer at the time of the transaction an identification
card of the seller containing a picture of the seller and the seller's address.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 4; 1986 c 444
325F.735 Records required.
Every precious metal dealer shall keep a book at the dealer's business location in which
shall be clearly written in ink, in the English language, at the time of each transaction,
or as close thereto as possible, the following information:
(1) an accurate description of every secondhand item containing precious metals
bought, including the type of item, number of items, bra nd name of item, if any,
engraving or other identifying features of the item, if any, and a description of any gems
attached;
(2) the amount of money paid;
(3) the date of the transaction; and
(4) from the identification card containing a picture of the seller, the type of card
presented and the serial number of the card, if any, and the name and address of the
person selling the item. The book, as well as the item in the possession of the dealer,
shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection by any police officer of the city
Wherein the business is located or the sheriff or any deputy sheriff of the county
wherein the business is located.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 5; 1986 c 444
325F.736 Required holding period.
Every precious metal dealer shall keep in possession at the dealer's business location
or other location within the licensing county from the time of the transaction or as close
thereto as possible, for a period of no less than 14 days, every secondhand item
containing precious metal purchased by the dealer unless the item is purchased or
consigned from another dealer licensed under section 325F.733. The item shall not be
altered at the time of sale and shall remain unaltered during the required holding period.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 6; 1986 c 444
325F.737 Additional holding period.
The sheriff or a designee may by written notification require a precious metal dealer
licensed in the sheriff's county not to sell or alter a secondhand item containing precious
metal if the sheriff or designee has probable cause that the item is stolen. The item
shall not be sold, altered, or removed from the licensed premises until authorized to be
released in writing by the sheriff or a designee.
The chief of police or a designee may also exercise this same authority for licensed
businesses, within the chief's jurisdiction.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 7; 1986 c 444
325F.738 Trading.
It is unlawful to trade or barter in a manner intended to avoid identification and recording
of transactions under sections 325F.734 and 325F.735 and payment under section
325F.741.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 8
325F.739 Certain purchases prohibited.
It is unlawful for a precious metal dealer to purchase a secondhand item containing
precious metals from a person und er 18 years of age unless the person is accompanied
by the person's parent or guardian who is identified and whose identity is recorded in
accordance with sections 325F.734 and 325F.735.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 9; 1986 c 444
325F.741 Payment by check.
Payment by a precious metal dealer for the purchase of a secondhand item containing
precious metal shall be made only by a check, draft, or other negotiable or non-
negotiable instrument or order of withdrawal which is drawn against funds held by a
financial institution.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 10
325F.742 Governmental subdivisions may regulate.
The provisions of Laws 1981, chapter 333, sections 1 to 17 shall not be construed as
prohibiting, or in any way limiting, or interfering with the right of any governmental
subdivision of the state to regulate or license precious metal dealers within its
jurisdiction in a manner more restrictive than Laws 1981, chapter 333, sections 1 to 17;
provided, that transactions described in section 325F.732, subdivision 2, shall not be
regulated in a manner inconsistent with Laws 1981, chapter 333, sections 1 to 17.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 11
325F.743 Criminal penalty.
Any person who violates any provision of Laws 1981, chapter 333, sections 1 to 17 is
guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years
or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 12; 1984 c 628 art 3 s 11
325F.744 Civil penalty.
The attorney general or any county attorney may institute a civil action in the name of
the state in the district court to revoke, deny or suspend for a period of time the license
on the ground that the licensee has violated a provision of Laws 1981, chapter 333,
sections 1 to 17. For this purpose, the attorney general or county attorney shall be
invested with the additional powers contained in section 8.31. It is no defense to the
action that the state has adequate remedies at law.
HIST: 1981 c 333 s 13
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
March 19, 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., March 19, 2003.
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Hegland, Song, Zwirn, Miller, and Johnson
Members Absent: Scotch (excused)
Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson
________________________________________________________________________
Index to Minutes Page
Discussion of Text Amendme nt to Code for Pawnshops 2
______________________________________________________________________________
3. Approve Minutes
None.
______________________________________________________________________________
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
Neal Zinser addressed the Commission and explained that an error on the City’s part has led to a
stop work order being placed on the home he is building. He further indicated that the home is
constructed of concrete and all but a s mall portion of the concrete walls have been erected and it
would be cost prohibitive to move the home back out of the setback at this point in the project.
Mr. Zinser asked the Commission to consider the extenuating circumstances and grant a variance
whe n heard at the next meeting.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 19, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 2
________________________________________________________________________
Commissioner Zwirn asked how this happened.
Mr. Zinser indicated that the building official had signed off on the plans and granted the
building permit but Staff had later learned of an additional setback requirement that newly
constructed homes not be any farther forward than the forward most home on the block and that
is the setback requirement they are in violation of.
______________________________________________________________________________
5. Discussion pertaining to a Code Amendment to regulate the location and licensure
of Pawn Shops in Mounds View.
Community Development Director Ericson asked the Commission to discuss and provide
direction to Staff as to whether they felt it necessary to include language governing precious
metal dealers with this amendment.
Mr. Przetycki indicated he holds a precious metal dealer’s license in Hennepin County and it is
simply a $50.00 fee he pays each year to receive a certificate he hangs on the wall of his
business. He then ind icated he intends to file an application with Ramsey County and the fee is
$175.00 for the license. He further commented that he did not think it would be a bad thing to
include the requirement for a precious metal dealer’s license.
Chair Stevenson indic ated he would like to check with Ramsey County to see what the benefit of
the licensing fee is.
Commissioner Miller asked whether there should be any requirements for furs.
Mr. Przetycki indicated he would be applying for a pawnshop license as well as a second hand
dealer’s license and furs should be covered with one of those two licenses. He further
commented that he did not intend to take in many, if any, fur pieces.
Commissioner Zwirn commented that this license is much like the federal fire arms licensure in
that it is a way to have the business registered as a way of tracking if there is a crime committed.
Chair Stevenson asked if pawnshops take in guns.
Mr. Przetycki indicated that some pawnshops do take in guns but others do not and he does not
plan to do so as it is not something he knows about.
Commissioner Zwirn asked if Mr. Przetycki would be taking in boats trailers or cars.
Mr. Przetycki indicated he would need a vehicle dealer’s license to take in cars, boats and
trailers. He then said that he could only take in what can be properly stored on his site.
Commissioner Zwirn specifically asked if Mr. Przetycki intended to take in large items such as
vehicles that he intended to store outside in the parking area.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 19, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 3
________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Przetycki indicated tha t he did not have, and would not have, a fenced storage area so he
would be prevented from taking in the larger vehicles but said he intends to take in the
occasional snowmobile or ATV that can, and will, be stored within his storage or retail space.
Commissioner Hegland asked for an estimate of the number of transactions Mr. Przetycki
expects per month.
Mr. Przetycki indicated the number would be dependent upon the establishment of the business
but said he expects to have 400 to 600 transactions per mont h within a year of opening.
Commissioner Miller asked who determines the interest rate charged to the seller of the items.
Mr. Przetycki indicated it is not really an interest rate but a storage and holding fee of 25% per
month.
Commissioner Zwirn asked whether Mr. Przetycki intended to handle high-end jewelry as he is a
jeweler.
Mr. Przetycki indicated he does expect to handle high-end jewelry and said he intends to run his
pawnshop like a clean, well-run jewelry operation with glass cases. He then said he thinks his
operation will be 75% jewelry.
Commissioner Song asked whether Mr. Przetycki would be doing certification of precious
stones.
Mr. Przetycki indicated he would do appraisals on jewelry for customers but the normal
procedure is that items sell as is and he will only be offering the nicest items possible for sale at
his operation. He further commented that he would be verifying the diamond sizes and quality to
ensure that there is no fake jewelry being sold at real jewelry prices as he is a very reputable
jeweler and businessman and intends to run a reputable operation.
Commissioner Song asked whether Mr. Przetycki would be taking in antique coins.
Mr. Przetycki indicated he could take in older currency and trade it for new currency.
Commissioner Miller indicated the Roseville sample ordinance was very detailed and asked
whether it was necessary to have the Mounds View ordinance as detailed.
Director Ericson indicated it was up to the Planning Commission to determine the extent of the
detail to be recommended for approval. He then indicated he would contact Ramsey County for
further information on the precious metal dealer’s license.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 19, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 4
________________________________________________________________________
Commissioner Zwirn indicated that Maplewood has had numerous issues with break-ins at their
pawnshops especially with the high-end jewelry and asked Staff to contact them for information
on their ordinance requirements.
Chair Stevenson asked Staff to determine what Section 301.03 in the Roseville ordinance refers
to as it may have further useful informatio n on the precious metal dealer’s license.
Commissioner Hegland asked how Staff arrived at the recommendations for fees.
Director Ericson indicated he looked at other City requirements and considered the work that
would be required by City Staff in tracking the activity of the pawnshop.
Commissioner Hegland asked if Staff contacted other cities for actual costs and whether those
costs are covered by the fees charged.
Director Ericson indicated he did not ask but said that it is his estimation that the fe es will more
than compensate for the time involved. He then indicated that Staff would put together an
ordinance for review at the next meeting.
Chair Stevenson asked why Mounds View Square is a B4 property and the area across the street
is not.
Director Ericson indicated it is based on the size of the development and the limited parking
across the street warrants the B2 designation to limit the uses to keep parking in check.
______________________________________________________________________________
6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: April 2, 2003
______________________________________________________________________________
7. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 7:40 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.
to: Mounds View Planning Commission
from: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
re: April 2, 2003 - Planning Commission Packet
date: Monday, March 31, 2003
Attached please find the April 2, 2003 Planning Commission Packet. I hope you can accept my
apologies for the delay in delivering the packet; it was unavoidable.
I chose to NOT e-mail the packet due to the size of some of the files. Instead, I have posted the
information to the City’s website which you can view and print at your leisure. I’m hoping to find a
more streamlined method to deliver the information to you, both in terms of time and format. Your
suggestions are always welcome in this regard.
The packet will be available online at http://www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/Packets/04-02-03.htm
If you have any questions regarding the information contained herein, please call me at 763-717-
4021.
Thank you for your continued patience and understanding.
____________________________
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Inter-office
M E M O