Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-2003 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION May 7, 2003 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes a. April 2, 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 Conditional Use Permit Request Regarding Property Located at 7988 Edgewood Drive, Planning Case CU03-002 6. Consideration of Development Review Requests Regarding Properties Located at 2436 and 2442 Highway 10, Planning Cases DE03-001 and DE03-002 7. 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 APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: May 21, 2003 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: April 16, 2003 2. Staff Reports 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 16, 2003 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., April 16, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Hegland, Song, Zwirn, Miller, Scotch Members Absent: Johnson. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. SP-114-03 2 Pawnshop Ordinance Planning Case PD03-001 9 Location: 2442 County Highway 10 Consider Possible Amendments to the Zoning Code Relating 10 To Expansions of Existing Multi-Family Dwelling Properties ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. March 19, 2003 MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Miller. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for March 19, 2003 as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Consideration of Resolution 724-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Two Ordinances Related to Pawnshops, Zoning and Licensing in Mounds View Community Development Director Ericson indicated that this item would be a continuation of the discussion concerning pawnshops and indicated he had reviewed the Ordinances with the Police Department and the fees of $5,000 for an annual license, $750.00 for the investigation fee and $1.50 per transaction fee along with a $10,000 performance bond meet with their approval. He then indicated that the fees, if it is determined that they are not sufficient to cover the City’s costs, would be increased as needed. Director Ericson indicated that gambling was discussed at the last meeting and, after researching ordinances from other cities he has determined that gambling is an area that is already well regulated and it is not necessary to add that language to the ordinance. He then indicated that he had added language from the city of Plymouth concerning the requirements for pawning items and the requirement to have signage listing those requirements. Director Ericson indicated that there was a requirement that the pawnshop disclose to the person pawning the items the contact information for the person that had purchased that item and Staff did not feel that was appropriate so a change was made to allow for the police to be provided with that information but not the person pawning the items. He then explained that Staff recommends that the dollar amount be set at $50.00 and all items over that amount the contact information of the purchaser is required to be obtained but noted that Mr. Przetycki would like that amount to be for any items over $100.00. Director Ericson indicated there were no changes beyond what was just discussed and indicated there are two ordinances: Ordinance 711 amends the zoning code and Ordinance 712 creates all of the licensing requirements. Director Ericson indicated that a number of handouts were provided prior to the meeting and apologized for the late information but said there was some research done by Mr. Przetycki that was provided to the Commission as well as information from former Mayor Sonterre. Director Ericson indicated he had spoken to the City Attorney concerning this matter to verify that the Commission is proceeding as it is supposed to do. He then noted that the Commission is charged with the task of providing a recommendation as to the location of pawnshops and how pawnshops should be regulated, as the City is not allowed to prohibit pawnshops within the City. The City can, however, indicate where pawnshops can be located so as to protect the heath, safety and welfare of the community. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller indicated that draft Ordinance 712 provides a definition of consignment on page 3 and on page 4 discusses reportable transactions listing consignments but on page 13 it is prohibited. Director Ericson indicated the reportable consignment information should be removed as the City does not wish to allow consignments. Director Ericson indicated that bulk transactions must be with an established business with a permanent place of business. Director Ericson indicated the Police Department had asked that there be a 90 day hold on pawned items to allow time for reporting and verifying of the potential for stolen merchandise. He then said that most other cities require a 60-day hold and a shorter hold on purchased items. He also indicated that the Police Department had requested that handguns, rifles, and shotguns not be allowed. Chair Stevenson indicated that Blaine and New Brighton require 120 days and Fridley requires 90 days so he does not feel that 90 days is excessive. Director Ericson indicated that precious metals are regulated by the state of Minnesota and that hold is less than the 60 or 90-day requirement. He then said that the City took the position that it was not going to regulate precious metals above and beyond State requirements but the 14 day state required hold may be insufficient so adding a 90 day hold requirement would mean that the City’s Code supersedes the state requirement. Chair Stevenson asked for an explanation of the difference between the buy hold and the pawn hold. Mr. Przetycki explained that the difference in the buy and the pawn is that the pawn is coming back each month to renew the contract and he actually purchases the buy items. He then indicated that he would like to be able to sell the purchased items as soon as possible to recover his costs and eliminate the incidents where holding the item too long makes it not saleable. Commissioner Hegland indicated he did not feel it was necessary to require a 90-day hold on the purchased items as the information on the item and who purchased it is available, if necessary. He then said that it seems fair to him that if the owner purchases an item he should be able to sell it provided the requirements of the City Code are met and the owner is collecting sales information from the person. Mr. Przetycki indicated he was fine with the 90-day hold on the pawned items but would prefer a 30-day hold for purchased items. Commissioner Hegland asked if the police department had commented on the buy hold. He then said that, if records are available, he does not understand the concern other than it is easier to obtain the merchandise if it is still at the pawnshop. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that the police department would like every opportunity to ensure that if something is stolen they have the opportunity to retrieve it. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the police department has a communication system set up to cross reference burglaries and thefts and to check against the pawned items. Director Ericson indicated the police department has the hardware and software to monitor the activities but the investigators will need to be trained to operate the system. There was consent for a 30-day buy hold and 90-day pawn hold. Jackie Entsminger of 7954 Long Lake Road addressed the Commission and indicated she is opposed to having a pawnshop in Moundsview Square. She then said that she has spoken with several business managers and owners in Moundsview Square and they were not aware that a pawnshop was being considered and do not want one. Ms. Entsminger indicated she has lived in Mounds View for 17 years and it is a quiet community and she does not think that a pawnshop belongs in a residential area. She then said that the business people said they have enough theft already at Moundsview Square and what a pawnshop would bring is more theft and more vandalism and she cannot imagine that he City would consider it. Ms. Entsminger indicated she spoke to Mr. Przetycki regarding the matter and he disagreed with her way of thinking and dismissed it as “old school”. She then said that the City is discussing brining a business into Mounds View that will degrade the reputation of the City. She further commented that when she tells people she lives in Mounds View they have a perception of a lower class City and she feels a pawnshop would further enhance that perception rather than enhance the City. Ms. Entsminger indicated the City has been working hard to redevelop the City and adding this pawnshop will make all the work for not. Chair Stevenson clarified that the Commission was given the challenge to regulate where the pawnshop could be located and cannot determine that a pawnshop would not be allowed within the City. Thomas Shrump, a representative of Pastor Enterprises addressed the Commission and indicated he was not aware of any vandalism and the only theft he is aware of is the theft of a television during an electronics blowout sale. He then commented that any retail environment will have issues with theft. Ms. Entsminger indicated the hair salon had its windows broken twice and Petters has issues with theft all the time. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Shrump indicated he had heard no backlash from the merchants in the shopping center and to his understanding, the pawnshop is not a huge issue and they feel it would draw traffic to the center. He then said that many of the newer pawnshops are very clean and well stocked. Mr. Shrump indicated he had come to the Commission to ask that the Commission not force the pawnshop to a different location as he has already developed a relationship with Mr. Przetycki and his partners and feels their business would be an asset to Moundsview Square. Mr. Shrump indicated he does not see the sale of firearms as an issue because there used to be a sporting goods store in that same location and they sold firearms. Commissioner Miller asked if Mr. Shrump felt that rifles and shotguns would be okay. Mr. Shrump indicated the sporting goods store had them for years and there were no issues. He then said that handguns would not be allowed so he has no problem allowing the rifles and shotguns. The Commission asked whether rifles and shotguns were discussed at the merchant’s meeting and how many attended that meeting. Mr. Shrump indicated that all were invited and it was their choice whether to attend. He then said that the information was discussed. Bob Bushy, General Manager of Petters, addressed the Commission and commented that any time you put a high value product into a store it becomes a target at night. He then clarified that they had several televisions taken by smashing a window at night. Mr. Bushy commented that he is concerned a high value jewelry store would be a target and said he wants to invite new businesses in but is concerned about increasing an already existing problem. Mr. Przetycki indicated he owns a jewelry store that he has operated for 14 years in St Anthony Village with no break-ins, no crime, and no bad checks passed to him. He then said that he has no intention of opening up a business that would not be secure and does not want to bring crime to Mounds View. He further commented that his business will be 80% jewelry and 20% other items and he will provide adequate security for his business. Wendell Smith representing Anthony Properties addressed the Commission and indicated that one of his clients is a large pawnshop that is a clean, upstanding business that is an asset to the community by providing jobs. He then said he has met with Mr. Przetycki and has no reason to believe he would run anything other than a clean, honest and reputable business. Richard Sonterre, 5060 Red Oak Drive, commented that he appreciates what was called the “challenge to construct guidelines for pawnshops.” He then said he was not at the meeting to try to prevent them from coming to town but he is concerned and thinks that as a part of the Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ challenge the Commission needs to recognize that certain businesses operate in a fashion with a particular type of clientele that do not belong on a Main Street. He further commented that the City has dealt with this in the past with tattoo parlors or adult entertainment or other types of businesses that bring about public criticism and this falls into that category. Mr. Sonterre commented that with regard to whether pawnshops of today are trapped in the bad images of the past he drives an old ratty Caravan and sticking a Mercedes sticker on it does not make it a Mercedes. He then said he likens the pawnshop to that because it seems that they will be putting a Mercedes sign on the shop but it will still be a pawnshop and that concerns him. Mr. Sonterre indicated the staff report mentions no changes regarding zoning provisions and he wanted to bring up that there were other alternatives that would not prevent them from coming but give the City the ability to impact how and where they are located. He then said the city of Robbinsdale created a specific zoning designation for those types of businesses commonly referred to as a red light district. This would require more changes but the City would be able to create a geographic area that would be only in a commercial industrial area and away from schools, churches and parks. Mr. Sonterre cautioned against allowing a passport for identification purposes in Section 516.02 as it is easier to forge a passport than a driver’s license. Mr. Sonterre asked whether or not the City could prohibit non-Minnesota identification and said the reason for that is that not all states have an identification process that includes enhancements like holograms and he knows of people in the past that have successfully manufactured an out of state driver’s license because of the lack of technical enhancements. Mr. Sonterre asked that Section 516.04 identify a definition of the minimum number of hours that the pawnshop is required to have a manager on the premises as it is customary for businesses to float a manager amongst several stores. Mr. Sonterre expressed concern with the cost of investigation in 516.05 as well as the licensing fees and billable transaction fees in 517.07. He then said that the City usually does not compare itself to adjacent cities but, in this case, he feels it would be prudent to do so because the business climate is the same. He further asked Staff to look into the fees being charged by other cities and use that model. Mr. Sonterre indicated he had issues with the identification in 516.11, Subd 1d. Mr. Sonterre indicated he felt it was good to have daily police reports as required by 516.11, Subd. 4 to reduce the number of stolen items moving through the pawnshop but said that the City is already short on police and this is going to exacerbate the situation even more. Mr. Sonterre asked whether the City has the authority to set a maximum interest rate as he would like to hope that the City could to make the establishment above board. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Sonterre commented that Section 516.13, Subd. 1, does not indicate a formula but says that the City Council may suspend or revoke upon finding of a violation. He then commented that the tobacco ordinance has a clearly defined process for violations and he sees no clearly defined process for violations of this ordinance and that concerns him. Mr. Sonterre commented that Section 516.14 addresses prohibited acts but there is no definition of the consequences for those prohibited acts and that concerns him. Mr. Sonterre indicated he served several years back on the latest version of the County Highway 10 Steering Committee and the Steering Committee made recommendations to Council that were ratified by Council as to the improvement plan for County Highway 10. The first was safety and the second was to make the area a true corridor and more attractive. The City spent tens of thousands of dollars for engineering and plans and the upgrade will cost $3,000,0000 to $5,000,000 and he asks why would the City and its residents pay that much money to upgrade the corridor and allow a pawnshop in the center of the City. Mr. Sonterre indicated he wants to give the business the opportunity to run a pawnshop but wants the City to have the means to say run it in a different area. Mr. Sonterre commented that the City has given Pastor Enterprises opportunities in the past to work with the City and those opportunities were ignored by them. Mr. Sonterre asked Council to digest the information and consider requiring a different location. Commissioner Miller asked where Mr. Sonterre would locate the pawnshop. Mr. Sonterre indicated he liked the separation that new Highway 10 provides as it divides the City. He then said that the area is commercial industrial and a pawnshop would have no impact on housing, churches, schools or parks located in that area. He further commented that a pawnshop is a destination shop and does not need to be located within a shopping center environment. Commissioner Scotch asked what space was being looked at in Moundsview Square. Mr. Przetycki indicated it was the 4,000 square foot space between the frame shop and Penny Pinchers store. Commissioner Scotch asked for the name of the business. Mr. Przetycki indicated the name would either be Security Pawn and Jewelry or Security Loan and Jewelry. Director Ericson indicated that Staff would review the suggestions of Mr. Sonterre and provide feedback to the Commission if necessary. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller indicated she felt the revocation and licensure comments were good in that there is no set process for determining when licenses would be revoked. Director Ericson indicated that the way it is drafted the Council could take action after one violation. He then said he does not think that would happen unless there was a valid reason. Commissioner Hegland indicated that it would be up to the discretion of Council and, while guidelines would be helpful, it would not make much of a difference. Commissioner Hegland asked whether Canadian and out of state licenses would be allowed. Director Ericson indicated he would check with the police department for comment. Commissioner Scotch asked how many hours Mr. Przetycki would be at the shop. Mr. Przetycki indicated he would be at the shop from 6 to 10 hours per day. He then indicated he has a full staff at his St. Anthony store and at his coffee shop. Commissioner Miller asked how the Commission felt about shotguns and rifles. Commissioner Scotch indicated she was not willing to have firearms. Chair Stevenson indicated he was not willing to have firearms. Mr. Przetycki indicated that out of the 17 cities he researched not one restricted firearms and left regulation up to the Federal Fire Arms Regulations. Commissioner Hegland commented that this City is talking about allowing a pawnshop in a shopping center area close to residential areas and other cities may not have a similar location. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like to have one more shot at the fees. He then said he has asked for information and it appears that no one is sure what it will cost the City and what the fee should be. Mr. Przetycki indicated the per transaction fee pays for the electronic system. Commissioner Hegland asked whether the $1.50 per transaction fee covers the cost of the automated system. Mr. Przetycki indicated that $1.00 goes toward the automated system and $.50 goes to the City. Commissioner Hegland indicated he is not convinced that $.50 per transaction covers the cost of the extra work for the police department. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson agreed that it is important to establish a fee that at a minimum covers the costs but, if the initial fees set is not appropriate to cover costs, then it will be changed. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like the information up front to discuss the fees. Director Ericson indicated he would discuss the matter with the police department one last time and provide information to the Commission. Commissioner Scotch commented that a pawnshop with high-end jewelry would require additional security. Mr. Przetycki indicated that most businesses have cameras and said he does not want to increase the police workload and that is why the City joined the automatic pawn system. The system is designed to save time and assist with locating stolen goods. He then said he wants to run a legitimate business and doing any differently would not be beneficial to his business. He further commented that he is using a lot of his own money to start this business and it would not make good financial sense to run a business that would jeopardize his reputation or harm his investment. Mr. Sonterre indicated there is an interesting issue as there is a police force that, because of levy limits, is two officers down and this pawnshop would create significant work for the police department but the City cannot charge the business owner the full costs of adding officers to handle the increased work load. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To Table Resolution 724-03 to May 7, 2003. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Review Proposed PUD Amendment Regarding the Property Located at 2442 County Highway 10 Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the proposed PUD amendment regarding the property at 2442 County Highway 10. He then indicated that when the PUD was established the City was very specific that it would like a restaurant use for that lot. However, after marketing the site for that type of use and being unsuccessful, the owner would like the use changed to allow for an office building. Director Ericson handed out drawings of the proposed two-story office building. He then indicated that he had reviewed the criteria for recommending approval of this type of request in his Staff report. Director Ericson indicated that in reviewing the criteria Staff was not able to ascertain any potential adverse affects the difference between the restaurant and office building may have and noted that the office building may be even less of an impact to the adjoining residential complex. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that Resolution 725-03 would recommend approval of the amendment to the PUD and noted that there would be a public hearing before Council on April 28, 2003. Chair Stevenson commented that Outlot B would remain with a restaurant designation and the office building may help bring in a restaurant for that site. Audie Tarpley of LandCor, Inc., reviewed the proposal with the Commission. Wendell Smith indicated they had sold one lot to Jake’s to attempt to resolve some parking issues. He then said they are working with Carmike Theaters to lease the additional site for parking to accommodate their overflow parking issues. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 725-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to the PUD for the Property Located at 2442 County Highway 10. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Consider Possible Amendments to the Zoning Code Relating to Expansions of Existing Multi-Family Dwelling Properties Community Development Director Ericson indicated that this item comes out of the request for a variance to increase a four-plex to a six-plex. He then said that the property could expand if the parking requirements are met and there may be room on site to do that. He further commented that Council had asked that the Commission review this matter for a change to require conditional use permits. He then reviewed some proposed language to add to the zoning code. The Commission agreed that the change should be made. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Announcement: Renumbering of Planning Commission Resolutions Adopted April 2, 2003 Community Development Director Ericson indicated that two of the Resolutions adopted at the April 2, 2003 meeting were renumbered from 720-03 to 722-03 and from 721-03 to 723-03. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: May 7, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 7, 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., May 7, 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 CU03-002 2 Location: 7988 Edgewood Drive Planning Case PD03-001 3 Location: 2442 County Highway 10 Planning Case No. SP-114-03 4 Pawnshop Ordinance ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. April 2, 2003 MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Miller. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for April 2, 2003 as Presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Request Regarding Property Located at 7988 Edgewood Drive Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the conditional use permit request with the Commission. He then indicated that the applicant had revised the plan to orient the garage differently to bring it into compliance with the City’s Code for front footage. Commissioner Miller asked what the combined square footage of the garage and shed would be. Mr. Eyler indicated that the square footage would be approximately 1,644 and that would be within the 1,800 square foot limitations. Chair Stevenson asked how many useable garage doors there would be. Mr. Eyler explained that he has three college children at home and that amounts to five cars, a boat and a snowmobile in the garage. He then explained how he intended to orient the garage to best utilize the space and be able to get the boat into the garage. Chair Stevenson asked where the garage doors were and how many were off of the driveway. Mr. Eyler indicated there would be one 18 foot door and one nine foot door and, in the back, there would be an eight foot roll up door for access to the boat as well as a service door along the side. Community Development Director Ericson read Resolution 726-03, a Resolution recommending approval of a 1,344 square foot garage at 7988 Edgewood Drive. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the Resolution requires the applicant to remove the second curb cut. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Hegland. To Approve Resolution 726-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a 1,344 Square Foot Garage at 7988 Edgewood Drive. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the City Council would hear the recommendation and make a final decision. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Consideration of Development Review Requests Regarding Properties Located at 2436 and 2442 Highway 10 Community Development Director Ericson explained where the parcels were located and provided an overview of the development. Director Ericson indicated that the applicant would need 60 parking stalls or would need to shrink the size of the building to conform to the Code. Director Ericson indicated the applicant would need to provide photometric analysis for the adjacent residential properties to conform to the Code. Director Ericson indicated the applicant would need to provide further specifications with regard to the garbage enclosure. Director Ericson indicated the landscaping plans provided look nice but the City Forester will review it and make recommendations for specific plantings. Director Ericson indicated that no sign plan had been submitted yet but the PUD will dictate what type of sign is allowed. Director Ericson indicated that it looks as though the site plan submitted was carried over from a previous site plan so there are some notes to be revised on it. Director Ericson indicated that all dimensional requirements and setbacks are met for Outparcel B. Director Ericson indicated that Staff is recommending that the developer revise the plans and correct them as noted but feels no reason not to approve the development review at the next meeting. Commissioner Miller asked if Staff addressed the distance from the pond as it seems there would be additional parking available. Director Ericson indicated the problem is that the pond is already there and, if it is adequate to suit the needs of the site it may not be possible to change it. Commissioner Zwirn asked how long Rice Creek would take to review this development. Director Ericson indicated it usually takes from 30 to 45 days for Rice Creek Watershed approval. Audie Tarpley addressed the Commission and apologized for the shortcomings in the drawings and explained that limited engineering work was done in case the project is turned down. He then said that the building is 12,500 square feet of useable space and that is what they based the Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ parking on. He further commented that the plans would be amended and they would meet all City requirements should the project proceed. Chair Stevenson asked if the extra spaces could be added. Mr. Tarpley indicated that they had tried to respect the setbacks but could add six more spaces on site with some consideration from the City. Chair Stevenson commented that the Commission is keenly aware of how parking issues can affect the surrounding area and will ensure that the development has adequate parking. Commissioner Miller asked how many uses were expected for the building. Mr. Tarpley indicated he expected four or five and no more than six. Commissioner Johnson asked if the tenants would be medical and dental. Mr. Tarpley indicated he thought so but lost a big user that he was planning on. He then said that he has been talking to other medical practitioners but they are not as heavy as a use as what was initially proposed. The Commission asked whether a coffee shop was possible. Mr. Tarpley indicated he was working very hard on a coffee shop but said he did not want to disrupt their relationships with their landlords by naming names. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Consideration of Resolution 724-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Two Ordinances Related to Pawnshops, Zoning and Licensing in Mounds View Community Development Director Ericson overviewed the history of the pawnshop ordinances for the Commission. Director Ericson indicated he had not added the manager definition but will do so. He then asked for clarification on the buy hold and the pawn hold and reviewed the other changes that were made based on the discussions at the last meeting. Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Sonterre had raised a number of issues at the last meeting and overviewed them with the Commission. He then said that the way the Code is drafted concerning violations and revocation allows the City flexibility to review the violation and make a determination as to whether it warrants revocation. Director Ericson indicated that Staff had reviewed the fees of other cities and found Mounds View’s fees to be in the middle. He then said that if it is determined that the recommended fee is inadequate the fee would be changed immediately. Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that Minnesota Statutes sets the maximum interest rate but the City of Mounds View could set something less if the City feels 24% is excessive. Director Ericson indicated that the Commission needed to discuss the possibility of creating an overlay district and where that would be located. He then said the current version of the Ordinance allows pawnshops in the B-4 zoning district. Director Ericson indicated he would like the definition of manager to include that the manager is on site an average total of 80 hours per month. Chair Stevenson indicated he would like fee recommendations to be included when the recommendation goes to Council. Director Ericson indicated he would add it after the first now therefore be it resolved. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like to hear from Chief Sommer as to whether he feels the fees are adequate. Chief Sommer addressed the Commission and provided an overview of how the police department would use the APS system. Commissioner Hegland asked whether the system was used only for investigating or periodically. Chief Sommer indicated the use would depend upon how much time the department can devote to the investigation of pawnshops. Commissioner Hegland commented that the APS system is a deterrent for thieves attempting to unload stolen goods because, if the system is used properly, they will get caught. Chief Sommer indicated that is a side benefit but there are many items of stolen property that end up in pawnshops with the automated pawn system. Commissioner Hegland asked for the percentage of stolen goods pawned. Chief Sommer indicated that some items cannot be easily tracked such as CD’s and things without serial numbers. He then said that he has no information to be able to answer what the percentage of stolen goods would be. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether it was the consensus of the Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Mounds View Police Departments that the automated system becomes another avenue for legalized fencing. Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Chief Sommer said he does know that some stolen property ends up in pawnshops but he does not want to make the statement that a pawnshop is a legitimate fencing operation. Commissioner Zwirn indicated the City’s police department is stressed already and adding a pawnshop to Mounds View will take police man hours away from other duties and he is concerned that the fees being charged do not take into account the time for the police department. Chief Sommer indicated he is not able to say how many hours will be spent on it because he simply does not know what it will involve at this point. Commissioner Scotch asked whether Staff looked into how often police departments from other cities are called to pawnshops. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether adding the pawnshop will further stress the department because of the time involved. Chief Sommer indicated there would be more staff time used for managing pawnshops that was previously used on other tasks. Commissioner Hegland asked if a sworn officer has to do the tasks or if an administrative staff member can. Chief Sommer indicated the City does not have anyone to review the system so it would be extra duties given to someone that already has a full plate of duties. Commissioner Zwirn asked if, in discussions with other cities, Staff had learned whether the fees are high enough to pay for the extra man hours or if the cities are in a deficit situation where the city is picking up the tab for the extra requirements from a pawnshop. Chief Sommer indicated that cities fall into both those of those categories as some spend a lot more time than others. Commissioner Johnson commented that there are cites that have large pawnshops in excess of 20,000 square feet and the pawnshop proposed for Mounds View is a lot smaller. Commissioner Zwirn asked how many police calls are attributed to Mounds View Square for malicious mischief, theft and vandalism. Chief Sommer indicated he did not have that information with him. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he had learned from residents and business owners that there are a number of police calls to Mounds View Square. Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Chief Sommer indicated it would be hard for him to say how much extra time would be involved. Commissioner Scotch recommended getting some statistics from the City of Fridley. Commissioner Johnson indicated this is one small pawnshop. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he has issues with the location and issues with regard to youth activities at Mounds View Square including vandalism and theft and he is vehemently opposed to something of this nature in that mall. Director Ericson indicated that Staff had researched the amount of time other cities spend on managing pawnshops and then reviewed the time spent and the cities that were checked. He then said that all cities contacted recommended not allowing handguns. Commissioner Hegland indicated he did not have an issue with the applicant but wants to make sure that the Commission’s recommendation to Council for this ordinance takes into consideration all the possible scenarios and possible owners. Commissioner Zwirn thanked Staff for the information on how much time communities spend on pawnshops but then said that he has information from Blaine, Anoka and Roseville that indicates that pawnshops are an overpowering stress on the department and they cannot supply the demand for following up on items stolen. Further, those departments feel that the fees are a joke and do not cover the manpower that is lost by having a police officer taking time to do the checking and not doing other things he is trained to do making for double time lost. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he feels the need to either increase the fees or deal with the situation with regard to pawnshops in the community. He then said that all the cities he asked said they would be better off with out a pawnshop and he wants Commissioners to really consider whether they want a pawnshop in Mounds View due to the negative aspects associated with it. Chief Sommer commented that the City’s police department is below the state average and the fees will not allow the City to hire additional officers so there will be extra work with the same number of people. Mr. Przetycki said he appreciated the concern that this could be a problem but said it is a legal business and it is something that police departments do use to find recovered merchandise. Mr. Przetycki indicated he has relationships with other pawnshop owners and they have not had much of a problem with stolen merchandise. He then said that he has an incentive to ensure that the merchandise he accepts is not stolen because, if it is stolen, he has to turn the item over to the police and is out the money he spent to purchase it. Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson indicated that this Commission was challenged by Council to come up with an ordinance and a location for a pawnshop. He then said that whether they want a pawnshop or not is not the issue as the task is to ensure that the Commission makes a good recommendation to Council on how to regulate pawnshops and where to locate them. He further commented that he feels the Commission has spent a lot of time and done a lot of research on the ordinances and he feels it is time to send the recommendation to Council for further discussion and public input. Commissioner Johnson asked if during all the research done with other police departments if they had all said they would rather not have a pawnshop. Chief Sommer said, generally, yes.” Commissioner Zwirn said he disagreed with Chair Stevenson with regard to how much time and effort needs to be put into this ordinance. He then said that expediency is not the answer to this problem and he is vehemently opposed to the location proposed. He further commented that Penny Pinchers is right next door to the proposed location and that is an establishment that works with kids. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that there is a liquor store only 50 feet away from the proposed pawnshop location and there have been numerous break-ins and vandalism incidents at that location. He further commented that he does not feel it would be appropriate to allow a pawnshop in that location as it would further exacerbate the vandalism and break-ins and draw a certain type of person that pawnshops attract to a family mall. Commissioner Miller indicated that she went to a couple of pawnshops and even made a purchase and she was very impressed with the operation and the way that things were displayed. She then said that the people coming and going from the pawnshops seemed to be upstanding citizens so she is not sure what is meant by the types of people that frequent pawnshops. Director Ericson indicated he would prefer not to have a pawnshop located in Mounds View but, legally, the City cannot say no to the pawnshop but can decide where it goes and how to regulate it. He then said the City is spending a lot of money to upgrade the corridor and this may not be something the City wants in the corridor but, if not in Mounds View Square in B-4 zoning, then where should it be located? Commissioner Zwirn indicated he feels the Commission needs to put more time into this and find a location that will not impact the corridor and a family run mall. He then said that he understands that the applicant has entered into a lease with the mall which is a little premature. He further commented that he feels that the City needs to create fees that are high enough so that locating in Mounds View is unattractive. He also said he is aware that the City cannot prohibit pawnshops but could make the fees so high that it is not attractive to come to Mounds View and he does not want the pawnshop in Mounds View Square. Commissioner Scotch asked where Commissioner Zwirn proposed to locate the pawnshop. Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn suggested the industrial park or across the street but not where children congregate and there is a lot of loitering and mischievous activities already occurring. Council Member Gunn addressed the Commission and said she has begun receiving input from residents that are concerned about the pawnshop and the primary concern is the proposed location. She then said that she feels it is time to consider an alternate location. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he has fielded 30 telephone calls with regard to pawnshops being located in the mall and a number of tenants were not told about the pawnshop proposal or it was misrepresented to them by Paster Enterprises. Secondly, the residents surrounding the mall within a three or four block area have indicated that they do not want a pawnshop in the mall. Some were okay with having a pawnshop but not in the mall and not in a family area they want it away from children and not around apartment areas and this Commission needs to address that issue and/or raise fees so high that it is not attractive. Chair Stevenson indicated he is not opposed to limiting Mounds View Square. Commissioner Hegland asked if there is any square footage limit to the size of the operation or if it is possible for this business to take over the entire Mounds View Square. Director Ericson indicated there is no limitation as to the size. Director Ericson indicated that he would hesitate to comment on the record making the fees high enough to discourage someone from locating in Mounds View. Director Ericson indicated that the Commission could discuss creating a new overlay district but he is not sure of a consensus on the position of the Commission and asked whether it would be necessary to discuss the location further or if the Commission was ready to make a recommendation. Chair Stevenson indicated that one of the reasons why Mounds View Square was chosen was because of the uniqueness of a B-4 zoning district and, this being the only one, it would limit the number of pawnshops in the City. Commissioner Song indicated the fee is only an estimate and can always be raised if necessary. She then said she believes the owner will cooperate very nicely with the City. Commissioner Miller indicated the Commission discussed and determined that the best location would be Mounds View Square. She then said she has a problem with the comments concerning the types of people that frequent pawnshops after having been in one and seen people coming and going. Chair Stevenson indicated he feels that the Commission has spent a lot of time on this recommendation and now it is time to pass it on to Council who will deal with the resident input and amend the recommendation as necessary. Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland indicated the City needed to limit the square footage for the business. The Commission agreed to a 5,000 square foot limitation. Commissioner Zwirn asked if any of the Commissioners had gone to Mounds View Square and seen the activity in the evening. He then asked if any of them wanted the pawnshop in the mall. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that most of the people that he talked to had not been given a notice and nobody informed them about what is going on. He then said he is tired of this community passing things without informing residents that later negatively impacts them. Commissioner Johnson indicated that what the Commission is doing does not require public notice and that is why no one is informed. He then said that once the recommendation goes to Council the notices will go out and residents will have an opportunity to come to Council and voice concerns. He further commented that the City can only do so much to notify people and the rest is up to residents to keep informed of what is going on within the City. He also commented that the information will be on the website, cable, and in the paper so, if residents are not informed it is because of a lack of effort on their part. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he feels the Commission needs further information. Commissioner Hegland indicated it is not the Commission’s job to inform the residents. Commissioner Johnson indicated that if there is as much outrage at the Council level as has been eluded to at this meeting then the pawnshop at Mounds View Square will not fly but that is up to Council to determine. Commissioner Zwirn said he has been a victim of this process with Mr. Mezzenga and he is still dealing with the fallout. He then commented that the people in this community do not have the time that it takes to worry about what variances are being approved and how that is going to affect them and it is the City’s responsibility to inform them. Council Member Gunn indicated that residents are concerned as there has never been a pawnshop in the City and they do not know how it will impact them. She then said that the Commission has done a lot of work on the ordinances and she feels it is time to forward the recommendation to Council for further research and public input. Commissioner Hegland indicated that no matter where the pawnshop is located it is in someone’s backyard and they will say they do not want it. Commissioner Johnson indicated an overlay is a band-aid for the problem as it would have to be in the industrial parks and he is not sure that is a good idea. He then said he would like to limit the square footage and pass the recommendation to Council for further consideration. Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Song. To Approve Resolution 724-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Two Ordinances Related to Pawnshops, Zoning and Licensing in Mounds View. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1(Zwirn) Motion carried. Director Ericson indicated that there would be coverage of the issue in the newspaper as well as the required notification, website and cable channel. He then explained the reason the City does not go overboard on notifying for the Planning Commission meetings is because of the sheer volume of opposition has the possibility of tainting the recommendation to Council. Director Ericson indicated that the City is in no way trying to exclude public input and Paster Enterprises should have been more forthright with their tenants but the City cannot control that. He then said that proper notification will be provided for the Council meeting and all interested public comments will be taken. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: May 21, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:04 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. Item No: 5 Meeting Date: May 7, 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 Conditional Use Permit Request for an Over-Size Garage at 7988 Edgewood Drive; Planning Case No. CU03-002 Introduction: Property owners Steve and Sandy Eyler are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct a detached 1,344 square-foot garage on their property located at 7988 Edgewood Drive. The Eylers indicate that the existing single-stall garage is in poor condition and needs to be replaced. The lot is 36,750 square feet, which is more than four fifths of an acre. The existing garage will be demolished to make room for the proposed garage, which would be built in the same location in the rear yard, extending closer to the north side lot line. Discussion: Section 1106.4, Subdivision 6, lists the specific conditional use permit requirements for garages larger than 952 square feet. These requirements, such as setbacks and maximum square-footage would be met with this proposal, with one exception, which shall be explained on the next page. The Code sets an upper limit of accessory storage space on a property at 1,800 square feet, this requirement is also met. The applicant is proposing to construct the new garage behind the house in the same location as the original garage, except that the garage would be much closer to the north property line than the original garage. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7988 Edgewood Drive, as low-density residential. The 36,750 square-foot lot is large however typical for this area. Most of the homes in this were built with detached single-stall garages, which by today’s standards is not sufficient for the typical multi-car family. Many of the property owners in this area have already expanded or replaced the original garages. Adverse Effects According to the City Code, the Planning Commission must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The findings of the Planning Commission shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: • Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. • The Geographical Area Involved • Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. • The Character of the Surrounding Area • The demonstrated need for such a use. Eyler PC Report May 7, 2003 Page 2 As stated on the previous page, the proposed request fully complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood has many large lots of this same size so the oversized garage would not appear too large for the lot. The garage would not depreciate the are and in fact would bring added value to the property and would have a positive impact to the tax base. While many homes in the area still have the original, small garages, a growing number of properties in the area are making similar improvements. As for demonstrated need for such a use, the Eylers’ letter expresses in great detail their need. Code Inconsistency Subdivision 6 of Section 1106.04 lists the conditions under which a conditional use permit can be issued. These are as follows: a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 and subdivision 1106.03(l) of this Title. b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one (1) lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred (1,400) square feet. c. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. d. The width of the building cannot exceed thirty-five feet (35'). e. The building shall be a permanent structure. f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. Item D stipulates that the garage not exceed 35 feet in width. Our assumption is that the width limitation was put in place to prevent an overly-wide garage fronting the street. In fact, until just recently, the Code contained a provision which limited the number of stalls at three. With the width limitation, the Commission felt that there was not reason to further regulate the number of stalls. (Ord 664, adopted in 2000.) The Commission has interpreted that a garage more than 35 feet DEEP is however acceptable. The attached site plan shows the garages facing the street. If the Eylers would agree to rotate the garages 90 degrees so that the garage doors faced south, the Code provision would then be satisfied. I have asked the City Attorney if the CUP could be granted in spite of the inconsistency, and his response was “No”, the conditions articulated in the Code are conditions that need to be satisfied in order to grant the CUP. The only way to vary from the conditions would be to apply for and be granted a variance, provided there was sufficient hardship to warrant such an approval. Eyler PC Report May 7, 2003 Page 3 Recommendation: Based on the above information and the site plan presented for consideration, staff would recommend denial of the requested conditional use permit unless the Eylers limit the width to 35 feet or reorient the garages so that entry is from the south. If the site plan were revised in such a way to be in compliance with City Code, then staff would support the granting of a CUP for the oversized garage at 7988 Edgewood Drive. If the CUP is granted, staff would recommend that as a condition of approval, the looped driveway be removed to be in compliance with Code limitations of one curb cut per property. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Attachments: 1. Application 2. Applicants’ Letter 3. Site Plan 4. Location Map 5. Zoning Map 6. Photographic Documentation Site Plan Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a particular zoning designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. Photographic Documentation 7988 Edgewood Drive, looking southwest (Subject property.) House to the north, 8012 Edgewood Drive. (Note the growth of mature trees between the lots and the separation between the two homes.) Item No: 6 Meeting Date: May 7, 2003 Type of Business: Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Development Review Request for Properties Located at 2436 and 2442 County Highway 10, Planning Cases DE03-001 and DE03-002 Introduction: The applicant, LandCor Development of Maple Grove, has requested a development review on two separate parcels within the Anthony Properties / Theater Planned Unit Development to construct a two-story office building at the corner of Long Lake Road and County Highway 10, and a multi-tenant food / retail building next to the theater at the corner of Edgewood Drive and County Highway 10. The purpose of a development review is to allow the Planning Commission to evaluate proposed development in terms of its consistency with City Codes and other requirements and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to the adjoining properties and the community as a whole. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, which then acts upon the request. For the purposes of this report and discussion, I will refer to the lot at the corner of Long Lake Road and County Highway 10 as “Outparcel A” and the lot at the corner of Edgewood Drive and County Highway 10 as “Outparcel B”. It should also be noted that these two parcels are further controlled by the Theater Planned Unit Development, which is attached for the Commission’s reference. Discussion, Outparcel A: This parcel is an irregularly shaped lot zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The only permitted use for this lot, according to the PUD, is a sit-down restaurant. As the Commission is aware, the applicant is seeking a PUD amendment to permit an office building on the lot as well. The Council will address this request at their meeting on May 12, 2003. This review will assume and be contingent upon the office use being approved by the City Council. Dimensional Requirements Building Setbacks Required Proposed: Compliance Front (Co. Hwy. 10): 30 feet 30 feet Yes Front (Long Lake Rd.): 30 feet 120 feet Yes Rear (south): 20 feet 140 feet Yes Parking Lot Setbacks Front (Co. Hwy. 10.): 30 feet * 30 feet Yes Front (Long Lake Rd.): 20 feet * 30 feet Yes Rear (south): 30 feet * 175 feet Yes * It is unclear what the intended parking lot setbacks are. LandCor PC Report May 7, 2003 Page 2 Parking The PUD establishes the parking requirement for an office use at one space per 250 square feet. The proposed office would consist of a maximum 15,000 square feet of gross space. With that much area, a total of 60 parking spaces would be required. ADA requirements indicate that of the 60 spaces, three need to be handicap accessible. The plans show a total of 54 spaces, two of which are marked handicapped. To comply with the PUD, either 6 additional stalls would need to be shown or 1,500 square feet would need to be eliminated from the building. If the setback for parking along Long Lake Road were 20 feet rather than 30 feet, three to four more stalls could be added to the site plan. Access & Circulation There is one access driveway shown from Long Lake Road; no access is shown onto County Road 10. The absence of an access onto County Highway 10 is consistent with the goals established in the corridor redevelopment and revitalization plan adopted by the City Council. The Long Lake Road access is offset to the north of Moundsview Drive by about 100 feet. No traffic conflicts would be anticipated because of this. The circulation within the development is not optimum however there is sufficient space in the drive aisles and there is adequate space provided to back out of all parking spaces. Lighting The applicant has submitted a photometric analysis of the site, however it is not known if the analysis complies with City Code as the foot-candle readings are provided only for the parking lot area. (The City Code indicates that foot-candle measurements shall be shown up to the centerline of any abutting street right of ways.) Additionally, the photometric analysis does not indicate the lighting fixtures to be used, the pole height or the individual lumens specifications. Any building mounted lighting would also need to be shown and figured into the photometric analysis. The attached resolution includes this provision. Drainage The plans indicate that the site would be serviced by a series of catch basins linked together by a storm sewer which empties into the existing NURP pond at the rear of the property. (The existing pond was constructed with the original development to accommodate the future build-out of the site. Permits would need to be obtained from Rice Creek Watershed District before the City will issue any building permits for the project. The applicant and any utility subcontractors shall meet with the Public Works department for final utility plan approval. Garbage Enclosure As shown on the site plan, the garbage enclosure would be located on the south side of the property. No details were provided regarding the enclosure’s construction, however the PUD indicates that the enclosure shall be of the same construction as the building with solid, opaque, latching gates. Chain link is not an acceptable gate material. LandCor PC Report May 7, 2003 Page 3 Landscaping A Landscaping Plan has been submitted with the plan set, however the plan lists generalized planting types (e.g., “Overstory Trees, Evergreen Trees); it does not identify which of the listed plantings would be utilized or in what numbers. The City Forester will review the planting schedule and make recommendations from the lists provided or make alternative recommendations. The applicant shall revise the plan based upon the City Forester’s comments and to show all species and in what quantities. Wherever possible, the existing tree cover shall be preserved. Signage No sign plan has been submitted for the site however staff has communicated the PUD requirements to LandCor representatives. While not specifically addressed, no pylon sign will be allowed, as the intent of the PUD is to establish a consistent design theme throughout the development, using similar construction, color and materials. The Theater sign has a masonry, monument styled base and the same would be required on this site. Building Construction As noted earlier, the proposed office building would be two stories with a 7,500 square-foot footprint. The materials used would consist of a colored split face block base, brick, and a upper level EFIS treatment. (EFIS is “Exterior Finish Insulation System”.) A colored rendition has been provided for this building which is attached for the commission’s review. The proposed colors are consistent with the Theater. A patio area is shown off the back of the building. General Site Plan Comments The first four Site Plan General Notes listed on Page C2-1 do not apply to this development and should be revised to reflect the subject parcel. The site plans should indicate snow storage areas and on Page A100, the building elevations should include building heights. Discussion, Outparcel B: Located adjacent to the Theater at the corner of Edgewood Drive and County Highway 10, this parcel is an irregularly shaped lot zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The permitted uses for this lot include restaurant and/or retail uses. Dimensional Requirements Building Setbacks Required Proposed: Compliance Front (Co. Hwy. 10): 30 feet 75 feet Yes Front (Edgewood Dr.): 30 feet * 145 feet Yes Side (south): 20 feet * 105 feet Yes Rear (west): 20 feet * 95 feet Yes LandCor PC Report May 7, 2003 Page 4 Parking Lot Setbacks Front (Co. Hwy. 10.): 30 feet * 30 feet Yes Front (Edgewood Dr.): 20 feet * 20 feet Yes Rear (south): 30 feet * 60 feet Yes * It is unclear what the intended parking lot setbacks are. Based upon reasonable assumptions, staff believes all setbacks to be satisfied. Parking The PUD establishes the parking requirement for the restaurant / retail uses as one space per 100 square feet. The proposed multi-tenant building would consist of a maximum 7,785 square feet of gross floor area. With that much area, a total of 78 parking spaces would be required. ADA requirements indicate that of the 78 spaces, four need to be handicap accessible. The plans show a total of 93 spaces, three of which are marked as handicapped. The amount of parking provided complies with the PUD however one additional handicap accessible stall should be shown on the plans. Access & Circulation There is one access driveway shown from Edgewood Drive; no access is shown onto County Road 10. As with Outparcel A, the absence of an access onto County Highway 10 is consistent with the goals established in the corridor redevelopment and revitalization plan adopted by the City Council. The site has good circulation and drive aisle widths are sufficient. Lighting The applicant has submitted a photometric analysis of the site, however it is not known if the analysis complies with City Code as the foot-candle readings are provided only for the parking lot area. (The City Code indicates that foot-candle measurements shall be shown up to the centerline of any abutting street right of ways.) Additionally, the photometric analysis does not indicate the lighting fixtures to be used, the pole height or the individual lumens specifications. Any building mounted lighting would also need to be shown and figured into the analysis. The attached resolution includes this provision. Drainage The plans indicate that the site would be serviced by a series of catch basins linked together by storm sewer which terminate into the existing storm sewers under Edgewood Drive. Permits would need to be obtained from Rice Creek Watershed District before the City will issue any building permits for the project. The applicant and any utility subcontractors shall meet with the Public Works department for final utility plan approval prior to construction. LandCor PC Report May 7, 2003 Page 4 Landscaping A Landscaping Plan has been submitted with the plan set, however the plan lists generalized planting types (e.g., “Overstory Trees, Evergreen Trees); it does not identify which of the listed plantings would be utilized or in what numbers. The City Forester will review the planting schedule and make recommendations from the lists provided or make alternative recommendations. The applicant shall revise the plan based upon the City Forester’s comments and to show all species and in what quantities. Furthermore, there should be an attempt to match the landscaping provided on the theater site and along Edgewood Drive to whatever extent possible. The City Forester shall approve different plantings only if not considered inconsistent with the existing. Last, the Landscape Plan should identify the existing landscaping materials on Edgewood Drive. Garbage Enclosure The site plan indicates that the garbage enclosure would be located at the rear of the building. No details were provided regarding the enclosure’s construction, however the PUD indicates that the enclosure shall be of the same construction as the building with solid, opaque, latching gates. Chain link is not an acceptable gate material. Signage No sign plan has been submitted for the site however staff has communicated the PUD requirements to LandCor representatives. While not specifically addressed, no pylon sign will be allowed, as the intent of the PUD is to establish a consistent design theme throughout the development, using similar construction, color and materials. The Theater sign has a masonry, monument styled base and the same would be required on this site. At a minimum, the plans should indicate where on the site the monument sign is proposed to be located Building Construction The proposed retail / restaurant building would be a single story building with a 7,785 square-foot footprint. The design is very appealing and the materials would match the proposed office building. Most of the building would be brick; with brick columns and an EFIS roof detail. Fabric awnings are shown adding more character to the building. The entryways would have a tall arched design very similar to the Abbey Carpet building currently under construction. The building is shown partitioned for three users with drive-up windows at either end of the building. There is an outdoor patio / eating area adjacent to Tenant 3’s space, however it appears as though Tenant 2 also has access to the patio area. Since the plans do not indicate a building height, I was unable to determine compliance with the PUD. The plans should be revise accordingly. General Site Plan Comments As with Outparcel A, the first four Site Plan General Notes listed on Page C2-2 do not relate to this development and need to be revised to reflect the subject development. The site plans should indicate snow storage areas. LandCor PC Report May 7, 2003 Page 5 Summary While the plans need many revisions as pointed out herein, the proposed development is on the whole consistent with the City Codes and the controlling PUD document. Recommendation: Unless directed to do otherwise, staff will draft a resolution recommending approval of the LandCor development project. The applicants shall make all of the requested revisions for Planning Commission approval (or if not possible in the time frame available, the resolution will stipulate to the revisions.) In addition, the applicant will need to submit a colored rendition of the retail/restaurant building and shall provide to staff three separate full-size copies of the landscape plan for the City Forester. The resolution would be available for consideration at the Commission’s next meeting on May 21, 2003. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. PUD Document 4. Office Building Facade Item No: 7 Meeting Date: May 7, 2003 Type of Business: Action 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: At the Commission’s meeting on April 16, 2003, the latest versions of both the zoning ordinance and the licensing ordinance, respectively entitled Ordinances 711 and 712, were reviewed. The only changes to proposed Ordinance 712 (Licensing) from the version last reviewed are as follows: 1. Manager. A definition for “Manager” was added in response to comments raised at the last Planning Commission meeting. In addition, a requirement was added that the designated Manager would need to be on site on average a minimum of 80 hours per month. Multiple “Managers” are permissible so long as the appropriate police investigation has been completed. 2. Holding Period. As discussed by the Commission on April 16, the ordinance has been changed to reflect a 90-day pawn hold and a 30-day purchase hold. 3. Disposition of Articles. The dollar threshold for requiring name and address of purchaser was increased from $50 to $100. 4. Refusal to Disclose. The provision that required the Pawnbroker to disclose the name and address (and phone number!) of the purchaser to the original pledger was removed. All parties agreed that such a provision would be inappropriate. 5. Oral Information. The language requiring the Pawnbroker to orally inform the person pawning or selling an item that they are being videotaped has been deleted. The signage requirement remains. No changes were made to draft Ordinance 711 regarding the zoning provisions. Pawn Ordinances Report May 7, 2003 Page 2 Public Comments: Former Mayor Sonterre addressed the Commission at the last meeting and raised a variety of subjects. His points and our responses are as follows: a. Acceptable Identification. I asked the Police Department if they felt it would be appropriate or advantageous to limit the acceptable ID provisions to include ONLY Minnesota drivers licenses or state issued Ids. The Police Department did not feel such a restriction was necessary b. Guaranteed Enforcement. The manner by which enforcement will occur will be through random checks and through proactive Police work. Regardless, the Police Department will provide the enforcement and will bring any violations to the attention of the City Council for possible license suspension or revocation. c. How will Manager be defined. The definition of a Manager has been added to the ordinance and a requirement added that on average the Manager shall work a minimum of 80 hours per month. d. Fees should reflect that of the highest of the adjacent communities. If the Commission would like to recommend an alternative fee structure than what has already been discussed and agreed upon, a majority recommendation would suffice, keeping in mind that the Council establishes the fees and any recommendations are simply that— recommendations. e. How will a Pawnshop impact the PD. Until a Pawnshop locates in the City, no one is quite sure what the impact will be to the police department. The Chief and his investigators have researched other communities and are familiar with the impacts to other departments and as such, they feel comfortable in the fee structure being proposed. If the impact is such that the Pawnshop is requiring a disproportionate amount of police activity, the fees would be adjusted accordingly. f. Maximum Interest rate. Minnesota Statutes establish the maximum interest rate that can be charged. g. Enforcement. The comment was raised that the ordinance does not explicitly communicate what offenses would warrant what penalties. Rather than attempting to identify the multitude of potential violations and then attempt to associate an appropriate consequence, the Police Department suggested leaving the language as is to allow for discretion and flexibility. h. Prohibited Acts. It was suggested that the prohibited acts identified in Section 516.14 should be referenced in Section 516.13, the section dealing with suspension and revocation. The prohibited acts ARE referenced, however in a broad sense with the following language: “The City Council may suspend or revoke a license issued under this chapter upon a finding of violation of . . . any of the provisions of this chapter” which of course includes Section 516.14. While the prohibited acts COULD be referenced if desired for additional emphasis, it would be redundant. Pawn Ordinances Report May 7, 2003 Page 3 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 N:\Data\Groups\Comdev\Special Projects\SP-114-03 (Pawn Shops)\PC Report - April 16, 2003.doc 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 12th day of May, 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: D R A F T – REVISED 5-6-03 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 valid photo driver's license or identification card issued by another state or province of Canada. Ordinance 712 Page 3 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. 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 Ordinance 712 Page 4 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 or purchase, 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 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 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 the 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 shall display a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place on the premises informing patrons that all transactions are video-recorded. 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: a. Any item 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. b. Any item sold outright to a pawnbroker for which a report to the police is required under this chapter shall not be sold or otherwise transferred for thirty (30) days after the date of the sale or pawn. 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 $100.00, the name, address and telephone number of the purchaser. Subd. 20. Managers: In the event the Licensee places a manager or managers in charge of the operation (subject to the requirements of Section 516.04), the manager or managers shall work on average a minimum of 80 hours per month. 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. Ordinance 712 Page 13 516.14 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. Make a loan on a pledge to a minor or purchase property from a minor; e. Accept consignments or sell consigned goods or items. f. 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. Ordinance 712 Page 14 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 12th day of May, 2003. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 27th day of May, 2003. Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, Interim Clerk / Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ City Attorney (SEAL) 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 May 7, 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 7th day of May, 2003. ______________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Administrator (SEAL) N:\Data\Groups\Comdev\Special Projects\SP-114-03 (Pawn Shops)\724-03, Pawn ordinances.doc