Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2003 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION April 16, 2003 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes a. March 19, 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. Consideration of Resolution 724-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Two Ordinances Related to Pawnshops, Zoning and Licensing in Mounds View. Special Planning Case No. SP-114-03 6. Review Proposed PUD Amendment Regarding the Property Located at 2442 County Highway 10; Planning Case PD03-001 7. Consider Possible Amendments to the Zoning Code Relating to Expansions of Existing Multi-Family Dwelling Properties 8. Announcement: Renumbering of Planning Commission Resolutions Adopted April 2, 2003 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: May 7, 2003 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: April 2, 2003 2. Review 1988 Community Survey 3. Staff Reports 4. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports N:\Data\Groups\Comdev\Planning Commission\PC Agendas\2003\04-02-03 PC Agenda.doc Item No: AS-1 Meeting Date: April 16, 2003 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Review 1988 Community Wide Survey Discussion: The Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commission has been discussing the possibility of undertaking a professional community-wide parks survey, and in the 2003 budget, $7,500 was included for such a task. The issue was discussed by the City Council on April 7, 2003 and there was direction to open the survey to all facets of City Hall service delivery, not just a Parks survey. All City Commissions are being asked to review the 1988 survey and to suggest questions which may be relevant to their specific function. Recommendation: Attached is Greg Lee’s April 7 report to the City Council and the 1988 Community Survey. Please review both and discuss possible questions to be included in a new community survey. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Attachments: 1. Greg Lee’s Report to Council – April 7, 2003 2. 1988 Decision Resources Community Survey Item No: 5 Meeting Date: April 16, 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: Consideration of Resolution 724-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Two Ordinances Related to Pawnshops, Zoning and Licensing in Mounds View; Special Planning Case No. SP-114-03 History: 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. The Planning Commission has discussed this issue at their March 5th, March 19th and April 2nd meetings. Discussion: The Planning Commission reviewed in detail the last version of both the zoning ordinance and the licensing ordinance, respectively entitled Ordinances 711 and 712. The license fees, because they are established by Council resolution, are not reflected in either ordinance. They were discussed at your last meeting, and the fees being recommended to the Council are as follows: o $5,000 annual fee o $750 investigation fee o $1.50 per transaction fee o $10,000 performance bond in force for the life of the operation The only changes to proposed Ordinance 712 (Licensing) from the version last reviewed are as follows: 1. Gambling. Language has been added to Subd. 1 of Section 516.14, Prohibited Acts, that prohibits gambling. The language is similar to that present in Burnsville ordinance. 2. Signage. Language was added to Section 516.11, General License Requirements, to require signage conspicuously posted within the business that articulates to the public who can pawn and under what conditions. The language is similar to that found in the Plymouth ordinance 3. Disposition of Articles. In the version last reviewed, Section 516.14 required that the licensee, upon request by the pledger, disclose to the pledger the name of the purchaser or the price for which the pledged item was sold. Mr. Przetycki objected to this requirement on the basis that it is too restrictive, that people buying a CD or movie may Pawn Ordinances Report April 16, 2003 Page 2 not want to provide their name. I reviewed some of the other ordinances we have on file and determined that while the requirement is common, (Roseville and Golden Valley have similar requirements in their licensing provisions) other communities, such as Hopkins and Plymouth, only require this if the item is sold for $75 and $100 or more, respectively. If the objective of this requirement is to allow the original pledger an opportunity to buy back his or her item after the licensee sells it to a third party, simply requiring a “name and purchase price” would be of little assistance to the pledger. Hopkins’ and Golden valley’s ordinances require the licensee to collect name, address AND phone number, but only if the sales price exceeds the indicated amount. As a compromise, staff added Subdivision 19 to Section 516.11, General License Requirements, which addresses the Disposition (sales) of pledged or purchased items. The subdivision requires that certain information be collected on all sales, and for items sold for more than $50, a name, address and phone number shall be additionally required. Thus people buying a DVD, CD or VHS movie would be excluded from having to disclose their personal information (unless of course, the value of such item exceeds $50.) No changes were made to draft Ordinance 711 regarding the zoning provisions. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission discuss both draft ordinances and the proposed changes and if found acceptable, to consider approving Resolution 724-03, a resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of draft Ordinances 711 and 712 pertaining to the zoning and licensing of Pawnshops in the City of Mounds View. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance 711 2. Draft Ordinance 712 3. Resolution 724-03 ORDINANCE NO. 711 CITY 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 28th day of April, 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 712 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 easily 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: ACCEPTABLE IDENTIFICATION: Acceptable forms of identification are a current valid Minnesota driver's license, a current valid Minnesota identification card, or a current Ordinance 712 Page 3 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 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. PAWNSHOP: The licensed location in which a pawnbroker conducts business. PERSON: One or more natural persons; a partnership, including 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. 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. Ordinance 712 Page 4 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 AP PLICATION 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 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. Ordinance 712 Page 5 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 shall 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 clerk/administrator 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 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. Ordinance 712 Page 6 516.08 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 ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) 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; 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. Ordinance 712 Page 7 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; 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; Ordinance 712 Page 8 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 on 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 orally inform the person that he or she is being videotaped and must display 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. (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, Extensions 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. Ordinance 712 Page 9 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 each 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 determined 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. 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. Ordinance 712 Page 10 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 ninety (90) 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. 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. Ordinance 712 Page 11 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 for 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" number 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. Subd. 18. Signage: Licensees shall by adequate signage and separate written notice inform persons seeking to pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit articles of property with the licensee of the foregoing requirements: TO PAWN OR SELL PROPERTY: • YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE • YOU MUST BE THE TRUE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY • THE PROPERTY MUST BE FREE OF ALL CLAIMS AND LIENS • YOU MUST PRESENT VALID PHOTO IDENTIFICATION • VIOLATION OF ANY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS IS A CRIME. For the purpose of this Subsection, “adequate signage” shall mean at least one sign of not less than four (4) square feet in surface area, comprised of lettering of not less than three-quarters (3/4) of an inch in height, posted in a conspicuous place on the licensed premises. Ordinance 712 Page 12 Subd. 19. Disposition of Articles: When any article is sold or disposed of by the licensee, the records shall contain an account of such sale with the date thereof, interest and charges accrued, the amount for which the article was sold and, in the case of items sold for more than $50.00, the name, address and telephone number of the purchaser. 516.12 ALARM SYSTEM REQUIREMENT: An alarm system, professionally installed and approved by the Police Chief shall be installed at the licensed premises. 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 preceded 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; Ordinance 712 Page 13 d. Refuse to disclose to the pledger, after having sold pledged goods, the price for which the item sold, or, if sold for $50 or more, the name, address and phone number of the purchaser; 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. g. Keep, possess or operate, or permit the keeping, possession or operation on the licensed premises of dice, slot machines, roulette wheels, punchboards, blackjack tables or pinball machines which return coins or slugs, chips or tokens of any kind, which are redeemable in merchandise or cash. No gambling equipment authorized under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 349, may be kept or operated and no raffles may be conducted on the licensed premises and/or adjoining rooms. The purchase of lottery tickets may take place on the licensed premises as authorized by the director of the lottery pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 349A. 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. 516.16 SEPARABILITY: Should any section, clause or other provision of this chapter be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid 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 28th day of April, 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) Ordinance 712 Page 14 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ City Attorney MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 724-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 500, BUSINESS LICENSE REGULATIONS, AND TITLE 1100, ZONING CODE, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO THE LICENSURE AND ZONING REGULATION OF PAWNSHOPS WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW. WHEREAS, on January 27, 2003, the Mounds View City Council adopted Interim Ordinance 709, an emergency interim ordinance regulating the presence and siting of Pawnshops and related establishments within the City Of Mounds View; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance 709 directed the Mounds View Planning Commission to conduct a study of this matter and make recommendations as to the adoption of amended official controls or regulations to fulfill the City's legal obligation to adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community; and, WHEREAS, in response to said direction, the Planning Commission studied this matter at their meetings on March 5, March 19, April 2 and April 16, 2003; and, WHEREAS, throughout the process the Planning Commission has encouraged interested parties to provide comment on the topic; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed ordinances from neighboring communities, ordinances from communities in which Pawnshops have already located and review various sections from the Minnesota State statutes, all of which helped form the basis for its draft ordinances relating to licensing and zoning requirements for Pawnshops in the City of Mounds View. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 1100 and Title 500 of the Mounds View Municipal Code respectively represented by draft Ordinances 711 and 712, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and 2, respectively. Resolution 724-03 April 16, 2003 Page 2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution and the two draft ordinances to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 16th day of April, 2003. ______________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Administrator (SEAL) N:\Data\Groups\Comdev\Planning Commission\PC Resolutions\724-03, Pawn ordinances.doc Item No: 06 Meeting Date: April 16, 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: Review Proposed PUD Amendment Regarding the Property Located at 2442 County Highway 10 Introduction: On May 11, 1998, the Mounds View City Council approved Resolution 5226, a resolution formally approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement for a theater development on a parcel bounded by County Road H2 to the south, Long Lake Road to the west and Highway 10 (now County Highway 10) to the north. The PUD agreement established uses for the site which were as follows: • Multi-screen movie theater • Office uses • Parking • Restaurants • Retail The PUD agreement was specific as to which uses would be located on which lots. Since its approval, four of the seven parcels have been developed: The theater, the parking lot (which is its own lot since it is separated form the theater by Edgewood Drive right of way) and an office building. Recently, Jake’s of Mounds View entered into a purchase agreement with the developer to improve the second of the three office lots for additional parking to serve Jake’s. (The remaining office parcel is also being considered for additional parking by Carmike Cinemas.) The only two remaining undeveloped lots then are identified by the developer as Outparcel “A” and Outparcel “B”. Outparcel B is the undeveloped lot next to the theater which was planned for use as a restaurant or retail, or a combination of the both. Outparcel A, the parcel within the PUD currently being considered for amendment, was originally established for a restaurant use. Since the theater opened, the developer’s representatives have marketed the site to potential restaurateurs and franchise groups, however they have not succeeded in securing an appropriate restaurant tenant, which has prompted them to consider alternative uses and, this PUD amendment. In addition to the restaurant use, the developer would like to add “office” as a permitted use for the parcel. Discussion: An amendment to a Planned Unit Developments is processed as would an amendment to an approved Conditional Use Permit, which is to say that the procedural requirements of Section 1125 of the Zoning Code would be followed. Section 1125 requires that the Planning Commission review the request, taking into consideration any and all potential adverse effects of the proposed amendment. PUD Amendment Report April 16, 2003 Page 2 Based upon its review of the adverse effects and analysis to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission is to prepare a Finding of Fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code. Such recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council along with the recommendation of City staff. Potential Adverse Effects: 1. Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. Mounds View’s adopted Comprehensive Plan identifies the Theater PUD site as a Regional Commercial PUD. All of the identified and approved uses within with the PUD would fall into this future land use designation. The proposed office use on the corner of Long Lake Road and County Highway would be just as consistent with the Comp Plan as would the PUD approved restaurant use. 2. The geographical area involved. The site is located on County Highway 10, the City’s primary and most important commercial corridor. The parcel is a corner lot bounded to the west by Long Lake Road, a higher volume traffic arterial. A wetland and woods separates the parcel from the other parcels associated with the Theater PUD. Rice Creek Watershed District approved the development and stormwater ponds were constructed to handle full site build out. 3. Neighborhood Impact. As mentioned earlier in this report, the original planned use for this particular parcel was a restaurant. A restaurant however would generate more traffic and would have a greater demand for parking than would an office use. While there’s no denial that a restaurant would be preferred, an office use would have less impact to the neighborhood and would be less likely to generate later evening disturbances. 4. The character of the surrounding area. As indicated above, the parcel is separated from the other Theater PUD parcels by the intervening woods and wetlands. Across the street to west is Wildwood Manor, a 40-unit multi-family senior residential complex. Beyond Wildwood Manor is the Silver Lake Woods Townhomes. North of the parcel, across County Highway 10, higher density commercial has been developed. Thus, the proposed office building would not be out of place and may even have less of an impact to the neighbors closest to the parcel, Wildwood Manor. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. Residents continually comment that it would be nice to have another sit-down type of restaurant in the City. (There are many restaurant options in Mounds View, however most are of the “Fast food” variety.) The other most wanted uses residents tend to identify are grocery, hardware and medical. It is my understanding that the proposed office building on Outparcel A would be marketed to medical practitioners. Only one such use exists in the City currently—Silverview Chiropractic in Silverview Plaza. A specialized office development on this site could fill a niche not currently met in the City. Summary: Based upon the above review of potential adverse effects, it appears that there is sufficient basis to accept an amendment to the Theater PUD to allow for an office use on Outparcel A as an acceptable alternative to a restaurant. PUD Amendment Report April 16, 2003 Page 3 Recommendation: Discuss the proposed PUD amendment and consider any potential adverse effects associated with the amendment. If the Commission concurs with staff’s position, Resolution 725-03 is available for your action this evening. If the Commission would like to postpone consideration of this matter pending receipt of additional information, a tabling action would be in order. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Attachments: 1. Development Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Proposed Site Plan 4. Resolution 725-03 Zoning Map LIBRARY COMMUNITY CENTER WALGREENS THEATER JAKE’S PARKING LOT A B OUT PARCELS MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 725-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE THEATER PUD AGREEMENT BY ADDING “OFFICE” AS AN ALLOWED USE ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2, ANTHONY PROPERTIES ADDITION; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE PA03-001 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council approved the Theater Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement on May 11, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the approved uses for the Theater PUD included a theater, three office buildings, restaurants and retail uses; and, WHEREAS, the lot located at 2442 County Highway 10, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2; Anthony Properties Addition, was approved by the Council for a Restaurant use; and, WHEREAS, having been unable to develop the property with a restaurant, the developer wishes to amend the PUD Agreement by adding “office” as an allowed use for the site; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has examined the potential adverse effects that could result from such an amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of fact related to this request: 1. The lot in question, 2442 County Highway 10, described by the developer as Outparcel “A,” is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the only allowed use for the site is a restaurant. 2. The lot in question remains vacant and as such the developer has requested an amendment to the PUD to allow for an office building to be constructed on the site. 3. The Future Land Use Map from the City’s Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Regional Commercial Planned Unit Development which is consistent with the zoning of the site. 4. 2442 County Highway 10 is within the City’s primary commercial corridor and as such either a restaurant or an office building would be a fitting development. PUD Amendment Report April 16, 2003 Page 6 5. The property is a corner lot, bordered to the north by County Road 10 and to the west by Long Lake Road. To the south is a wooded wetland. The nearest “improvement” is the 40-unit Wildwood Manor multi-family residential development across Long Lake Road. The construction of an office building would have no depreciatory affects upon this area. 6. The original intent of the PUD would be preserved in that the same architectural requirements and development standards would prevail for this lot, regardless of whether developed as a restaurant or office building. 7. The developer has indicated that the office concept would fill a niche not currently present or available in the community. 8. The improvement of an office building on this lot would have potentially less of an impact to the multi-family development across the street on Long Lake Road than would a restaurant. 9. There do not appear to be any adverse effects associated with this proposed amendment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above finding of fact, does hereby recommend that the Theater Planned Unit Development (PUD) be amended such that the use “Office” be added to those uses expressly permitted on Lot 1, Block 2, Anthony Properties Addition. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution and the two draft ordinances to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 16th day of April, 2003. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 07 Meeting Date: April 16, 2003 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Possible Amendment to the Zoning Code Relating to Expansions of Existing Multi-Family Residential Structures Introduction: At the Planning Commission’s last meeting, I reported that the City Council was interested in having the Planning Commission review the Zoning Code and make a recommendation that would either restrict or control the process by which an existing multi-family residential development could expand. I explained that the method by which control could be exercised is by requiring all existing developments to go through a conditional use process to expand density (the number of individual dwelling units.) Discussion: Last year, the City recently adopted a change to the Zoning Code pertaining to townhomes and multi-family developments. The change, effectuated by Ordinance 698, removed CUP requirements on townhomes, and instituted CUP requirements for multi-family developments. The difference between the two can be defined as follows: Townhomes are individually owned and occupied on individual lots, whereas multifamily dwellings are typically rental units on one parcel. (That does not preclude, however, townhomes from being rented.) Since multi-family dwellings are now considered a conditional use in either the R-3 and R-4 Zoning districts, it could be as simple as adding one line in both districts which require that all existing complexes go through a CUP to expand density: Multi-Family developments having been constructed prior to January 1, 2003 shall first obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) prior to expanding the number of dwelling units or the principal building footprint. In addition to the criteria outlined in Section 1125, all zoning, building and parking requirements shall be satisfied as a condition of approval. Recommendation: Please consider the above language and discuss whether it or different language would accomplish the goal of controlling multi-family expansion. Based on the Commission’s direction, I can draft an ordinance and resolution for your action on May 7, 2003. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Administrator Item No: 08 Meeting Date: April 16, 2003 Type of Business: Information City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Renumbering of Planning Commission Resolutions Discussion: The Planning Commission adopted two resolutions on April 2, 2003: Resolution 720-03, a resolution approving a variance for the home under construction at 7741 Long Lake Road, and Resolution 721-03, a resolution recommending approval of a development review for the expansion of the business at 2865 County Highway 10. Both of these resolution numbers had already been assigned and as such need to be renumbered. • Resolution 720-03 becomes 722-03 • Resolution 721-03 becomes 723-03 I would recommend that the April 2, 2003 minutes be amended to reflect these new resolution numbers. Recommendation: No action is needed; this is brought to the Commission’s attention purely for your own information. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Administrator PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 2, 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 2, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Hegland, Song, Zwirn, Miller, Scotch and Johnson Members Absent: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR03-002 2 Applicant: Hamilton Creek, Scott & Gretchen Davis Planning Case No. SP-115-03 8 Discuss No Parking on Greenfield Avenue Planning Case No. DE03-001 9 Applicant: Greg Johnson Planning Case No. SP-114-03 10 Discussion of Text Amendment to Code for Pawnshops ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. February 19, 2003 b. March 5, 2003 Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Hegland. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for February 19, 2003, and March 5, 2003 as Presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request for a Variance at 7741 Long Lake Road Community Development Director Ericson provided an explanation of the history surrounding the variance request indicating that the City had made an error when it issued the building permit and now the structure is 11 feet into the “prevailing” setback. He further explained that the structure is made of concrete and there would be a large cost associated with removing the concrete and moving the structure back the 11 feet to meet the setback requirement. Director Ericson indicated he had gone through the seven required hardship criteria in his Staff report and commented that it could be argued that there is a hardship not caused by the developer in this situation. He then said that granting this variance would mean that the Commission would also need to address the total square footage of the garage and shed, which together exceed the maximum of 1800 square feet. Director Ericson indicated that Staff feels badly that this error occurred and said that if the additional setback requirement had been caught the developer has indicated that it would not have been a problem to move the entire structure back the 11 feet. He then said that while Staff does feel badly about the incident, he is not sure if staff’s error along justifies a variance. Commissioner Johnson asked how many variances have been granted for accessory structures over the 1800 square feet. Director Ericson indicated that the City has not granted any variances for over the 1800 square feet. Director Ericson commented that he does not see an issue with a conditional use permit request for an oversize garage but does see an issue with approving a variance for 2000 square feet versus the 1800 square feet allowed by the City’s Code. He then commented that the City, in essence, approved the size when the building permit was approved and said that if this variance is approved the Commission would need to seriously consider approving the other variance request. Commissioner Johnson asked where the shed is located. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated it was located in the northeast corner of the property at the rear of the lot. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the shed was concrete as well. Director Ericson indicated that it was not. He then said that denial of the variance could result in financial implications for the City due to the error. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the structure could be changed now that the error was found. Director Ericson indicated that the wall of the garage could be moved back 11 feet but that would require new footings and forms at great expense to the developer and property owner. Commissioner Hegland asked for a cost estimate for moving the structure back. Commissioner Miller referenced page 3 of the Staff report and asked who makes the requirement that errors be corrected. Director Ericson indicated that the requirement is from the International Building Codes that states if an error is made, corrections have to be made. He then said this is a severe case in that it would be very costly to move the structure. Commissioner Miller commented that the homes on Long Lake Road are all set back farther and this home being forward of those homes causes a distraction. Chair Stevenson asked how far along the shed was. Director Ericson indicated that the shed is completed. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Neal Zinser from Hamilton Creek indicated the homeowner was willing to expand the living space into the garage to bring the size of the garage into compliance with the City’s Code. He then said that the problem is not as simple as moving the house back 11 feet as the entire structure is made of concrete and all of that concrete would need to be removed and disposed of and he would have to start over with an estimated cost to do so of $75,000. Mr. Zinser indicated he and the home owners have a desire to work with the City and the neighbors and would not have had a problem moving the structure back if the setback was caught prior to the installation of the concrete. Commissioner Hegland asked what the cost would be for the homeowners to turn the extra garage space into living space. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Zinser indicated the cost for doing so would be approximately $10,000 to $15,000. Commissioner Miller commented that $75,000 seems like a lot to move a structure 11 feet. Mr. Zinser explained that because the entire thing is made of concrete all of the existing concrete has to be removed and he has to start completely over so the costs include removal, disposal, and redoing it in the right location. Commissioner Hegland asked for an estimate on the costs to construct the home not including the lot. Mr. Zinser said he estimates the home to cost approximately $340,000. Commissioner Johnson indicated he has an issue with granting a variance to the 1800 square feet of garage space but would be okay with granting the variance for the setback. Chair Stevenson indicated the homeowners have agreed to convert the extra garage space to living space eliminating the need for a variance on that matter. Director Ericson agreed that the issues with the garage are removed if the space is used for living space. He then said that he would revise the Resolution to indicate that the garage square footage would need to be brought into compliance. Bob Moore of 7777 Long Lake Road indicated he thinks it looks bad to have the structure forward of the other homes. Don Rossbach of 7740 Long Lake Road indicated that the home seemed close to the property lines and asked whether the side setbacks were met. Chair Stevenson indicated that the side setbacks are met. Mr. Rossbach said he feels that $75,000 seems high for moving the structure back and said that the house sticks out and it detracts from the look of the street. Chair Stevenson asked how far back the homes are. A Resident indicated that the homes are 48 to 50 feet back. Terry Hiye of 7750 Long Lake Road commented that it seems the developer would need to change the doors on the garage to convert to living space due to the way it is oriented. He then said that he is surprised that City Staff did not notice this before things got this far along in the process as it is clear that the home sticks out beyond the others on the street. Scott Davis, the property owner of 7741 Long Lake Road, indicated that the home has a wraparound porch eliminating the need to change the garage doors. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Hiye indicated that it seems to be a quality structure but he is surprised that the garage was built in the back. Chair Stevenson indicated that the structure in the back is a shed and it will not house cars. Tori Johnson of 7730 Long Lake Road indicated she was concerned that the structure meets the City’s Codes as well as aesthetics but has decided that the difference in setbacks provides character to the neighborhood. She then said her only real concern is that there is a safety issue since the structure is forward of the others and blocks the line of sight down the street. She also expressed concern for the underground utilities, especially the pipeline, and asked Staff to look into whether there are any special setback requirements from the pipeline. Director Ericson agreed to look into any potential issues with the pipeline. Mr. Zinser indicated that someone from Lot 2 had been given information from the City that the setback is 30 feet. He then said that a 40-foot setback for that lot would dramatically affect the size of the house on the corner lot. He further commented that they want to work with the neighbors and comply with City requests but this error would be too costly to rectify as there are 12-inch thick concrete walls. Scott Davis indicated this was a very unfortunate situation and told the neighbors he had hoped to meet them under less ominous circumstances and in no way wants to alienate them. He then said that he and his wife are willing to assume the costs of enlarging the living space in order to resolve the oversize garage issue. Mr. Davis explained that the reason the shed is in the back is because he is a carpenter and has a lot of woodworking equipment and the shed was to provide a woodworking shop for him. He further indicated that the house is located where it is in an attempt to keep the neighbors from looking at the back half of his house instead of grass and trees but he would have been willing to move it back had he known about the setback. Mr. Davis indicated he appreciated the safety concern of the neighbors but said that before the trees were taken out for construction you could not see down the street. The Commission asked Staff to look into the pipeline issue. Commissioner Zwirn commented that if this variance came before the Commission prior to construction there is no way it would be approved and he does not feel it is proper to approve this after the fact. He then said that it is unfortunate that the City made a mistake but the structure is very imposing and there is an opportunity to rectify the situation rather than modifying the rules to allow it to continue. He further commented that this home affects what happens on Lots 2 and 3. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Johnson said he is not willing to risk the City having to pay $75,000 to solve the problem. He then said that in no other cities do they require new developments to match the prevailing setbacks. Commissioner Scotch asked how this happened and then said she does not feel the developer or homeowner should pay a penalty when it was a City error. Mr. Zwirn commented that this is very similar to the Mezzenga property and there are ongoing issues with that property due to a questionable variance that allowed the development to proceed. Commissioner Johnson commented that in many cases the hardship criteria are questionable and subjective and he does see a hardship in this case. The Commissioners discussed other circumstances that were similar to this one that were allowed. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether the City Attorney has looked at the wording of the International Building Code that even if it is an error by the City, the situation must be rectified and whether that is open to interpretation. Director Ericson commented that everything is open to interpretation when you are an attorney. He then said that it is probably a defensible position but the costs associated with the litigation may not warrant doing so. Commissioner Miller indicated she felt the Commission should find that no hardship exists as she does not feel the criteria are met. She then said that the Commission is bound by the hardship requirements but the Council is not and she would like to deny the variance and let them appeal to Council where Council could allow it if so desired. Director Ericson commented that often times there is subjectivity involved with the hardship criteria. He then said he agreed with Commissioner Zwirn that if this had been asked for ahead of time it probably would have been denied and asked whether the error itself warrants the hardship for the developer. He then said that, litigation possibilities not withstanding, he feels that there is a hardship in this case. Commissioner Hegland commented that it is not as simple as whether the Commission would have approved this if asked for ahead of time, as the facts are the building is there and it is cost prohibitive to move it. Commissioner Zwirn commented that he questions the integrity of this body if it does not make sure that the criteria are met when granting variances. Commissioner Hegland commented that justifiable criterion is that the building codes are for new construction and this is reconstruction and the codes do not necessarily fit. He further Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ commented that the error was made, the building is already there, the costs to move it back are cost prohibitive, and he feels the Commission needs to consider allowing the variance. Commissioner Hegland said he did not feel it would be appropriate to monetarily penalize the developer and homeowner for an error by the City and he feels that as long as the homeowner is willing to assume the costs for adding additional living space so that the Commission is not being asked for a variance for extra garage space he would have no problem approving the setback variance. Commissioner Johnson commented that the Commission has given variances for new houses in existing neighborhoods on lots that would have been too small for building on. One of the neighbors indicated that the home is more noticeable and sticks forward of the other homes but he does not feel the homeowner or developer should have to pay that high a price to move it. He then said he is not opposed to the variance. Commissioner Miller commented that the Commission is not to consider economics when determining hardship. Director Ericson indicated that economics alone should not be the sole consideration. One of the neighbors indicated that granting this variance means that a variance would be needed for Lot 2. Mr. Zinser indicated he wanted to work with the neighbors and then said that moving the home back on Lot 2 would mean that the house on Lot 3, the corner lot, would be only 24 feet wide but he has plans to construct it at that size and will need to wait to see how things progress to see whether he needs to come before the Commission for a variance or not. Chair Stevenson asked Staff to read the Resolution. Commissioner Zwirn commented that this is Lot 1 and there is the potential that Mr. Zinser would be asking the City for consideration on Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Zinser said the possibility exists but he is planning a 24 feet wide house on Lot 3 at this time and cannot say definitively whether he would be before the Commission on one or both of the lots for a variance. Commissioner Zwirn commented that this would come before the Commission two more times. He then said he would like Staff to review the surveys. Director Ericson read the now therefore sections of the Resolution. He then commented that Staff received the surveys for both Lots 1 and 2 at the same time and Lot 2 shows a setback of 41 feet but Lot 1 shows 30 feet. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Zinser explained that the house on Lot 2 was shown back at 41 feet because the purchaser had asked that it be located there to avoid damage to as many mature oak trees on the lot as possible. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. The Commission asked whether Mr. Zinser and the homeowners were aware of the requirement that if the home is destroyed it has to be rebuilt at the proper setback. Mr. Zinser and the homeowner indicated they were aware of the requirement and had no issue with it. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Song. To Approve Resolution 720-03A a Resolution Approving an 11 Foot Front Setback at 7741 Long Lake Road as Amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1(Zwirn) Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Discuss Proposed No Parking Request on Greenfield Avenue Community Development Director Ericson reviewed with the Commission the discussion from the Council meeting concerning the recommendation to post Greenfield Avenue no parking and asked for direction from the Commission as to how they wished to proceed on the matter. Director Ericson indicated he had gone out to the site and measured and that it is possible to park three cars from 30 feet back from the stop sign and keep them in front of the property involved. A fourth car could be added but not contained entirely in front of the business. Director Ericson asked whether the Commission wanted to amend its recommendation to allow three or four cars to park in front of the business and then post no parking from that point to 350 feet or reaffirm its previous recommendation of no parking. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that each and every time Mr. Farrell has mentioned working with the City the caveat has been that he would expand the parking lot as long as the City did not prohibit parking on the street. He then asked whether expanding the driveway to allow vertical parking would be allowed. Director Ericson indicated that the City’s Code would not allow that but said it is a possibility provided there is a safe drive aisle. Chair Stevenson expressed concern for fire truck access. Director Ericson indicated that the fire department prefers 24-foot drive aisles but there are some at 18 feet within the City. He then said the fire department would need to review any proposed site plan. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked why the Commission would do this. He then said that Mr. Farrell has not offered any alternative parking solution for off site parking as asked by the Commission and he does not want to change the recommendation. Commissioner Scotch agreed. Commissioner Johnson agreed and said that commons sense should have dictated that the parking was not adequate for Mr. Farrell’s plans for the building. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he had spoken at the Council meeting and said he was shocked that Council Members had not done their homework and did not know about the issues. He then asked if Mr. Farrell intended to come to this meeting to discuss the matter. Director Ericson indicated he was notified of the meeting but was unable to attend. There was consent among Commission Members to reaffirm their previous recommendation to post Greenfield Avenue no parking. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Consideration of a Development Review Request to Expand the Business Located at 2865 County Highway 10 Community Development Director Ericson explained the development request for the Commission indicating that a 780 square foot addition is sought. He then said that given the depth of the lot it is unlikely that the neighboring properties would even notice the expansion and the expansion would give the applicant additional work space inside. He further commented that the applicant intends to dress up the front of the garage with a brick treatment. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 721-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review to Expand the Business Located at 2865 County Highway 10. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Johnson abstained from voting on this matter. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Discuss and Review of Proposed Code Amendments to Regulate the Siting and Licensure of Pawn Shops in Mounds View Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff had done a lot of research into the pawnshop ordinance and then reviewed the proposed changes with the Commission. He then indicated the police department had reviewed the ordinance and made several recommendations. They are concerned that the fees charged will not actually cover the cost of Staff time. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland said he does not think the transaction fees will cover the administrative costs to oversee the business. Director Ericson indicated the police department had recommended that the licensing fee be raised from $2,500 to $5,000 to ensure that the City covers its costs and the investigation fee be raised to $750.00. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like to see the bonding amount doubled from $5,000 to $10,000. Director Ericson indicated that the Ordinance would allow pawnshops only in B4 zoning districts as a permitted use. Commissioner Hegland asked whether Staff had inserted language to regulate how close pawnshops could be located to each other. Director Ericson indicated that location information is located in the licensing requirements portion of the Ordinance and noted the spacing is 1,000 feet. Director Ericson reviewed Ordinance 712 with the Commission indicating that the police department had asked that consignment not be allowed as it would be difficult for the department to track as consignments are not a reportable transaction. The police department also had an issue with bulk purchases of new and used merchandise so the Ordinance was amended to allow for bulk purchases only from an established business with a permanent place of business. Director Ericson indicated that the Ordinance would require the pawnshop to be on the automated system as well as containing many requirements for pawning articles. Commissioner Hegland asked whether the list of requirements for pawning articles would be posted at the business. Director Ericson indicated if it was not already in the Ordinance it could be added. He then reviewed the general license requirements with the Commission indicating that video and/or photographs must be taken of those pawning items as well as of any items without a serial number. Director Ericson indicated the police department had asked that the hold be lengthened to 90 days rather than 60 days, the hours of operation be changed to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and that firearms be prohibited. Commissioner Hegland asked Staff to look into whether gambling needed to be addressed in the Ordinance. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson noted that other cities restrict cash checking facilities within the pawnshop ordinance and indicated that could be added later, if necessary. He then said that Staff would make the recommended changes and provide ordinances for review at the next meeting. Mr. Przetycki indicated he did not have any issues with the proposed changes but asked the Commission to consider allowing the hold to remain at 60 days rather than the 90 days. Commissioner Hegland indicated that Staff would need to research and provide a recommendation on the transaction fees. _____________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: April 16, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:02 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.