Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2003 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION May 21, 2003 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes a. April 16, 2003 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request Regarding Property Located at 7375 Pleasant View Drive, Planning Case VR03-003 6. Consideration of Development Review Requests Regarding Properties Located at 2436 and 2442 Highway 10, Planning Cases DE03-001 and DE03-002 APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: June 4, 2003 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: May 7, 2003 2. Staff Reports 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Item No: 5 Meeting Date: May 21, 2003 Type of Business: Public Hearing and Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request Regarding Property Located at 7375 Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case VR03-003 Introduction: The subject property is a narrow, interior lot located at 7375 Pleasant View Drive and is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The property owners, Lens and Blair Loder, are requesting a variance to reconstruct a garage with a one-foot side-yard setback. The Zoning Code requires a five-foot setback for accessory buildings. The lot is only 66 feet wide, significantly less than the minimum required by Code. It is due to this narrow lot width, existing mature trees and a desire to maintain visibility between the house and a backyard play area that has prompted the applicants to request the variance. Discussion: For a variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The existing garage, which is too small and too narrow to be of contemporary function, is currently set back one foot from the side yard lot line. The new garage would be constructed behind the existing garage at the same setback. The property owners had no control over the reduced lot width and the existing setback. The other circumstance relating to this request is the desire to preserve the mature oak trees in the back yard. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The subject property is not typical—it is more narrow than any other residential lot in the City, created by a minor subdivision (presumably) in the late 1950s. The existing garage is situated one-foot from the property line. The configuration of the lot and the location of the house create circumstances whereby literal interpretations would deprive the applicants of rights in that the setback requirements are based on a minimum 75-foot wide lot. Loder Report May 21, 2003 Page 2 c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicants have had no control over their lot size, the location of the existing garage nor the location of the mature trees which they desire to preserve. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would allow a non-conforming garage to be torn down and replaced at the same setback. The reduced setback would be a special privilege if the lot were the same as other lots in the City, however this is not the case—the lot is substandard. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested is essentially four feet. To preserve the trees and to preserve the sightlines to the children’s play area, the requested variance WOULD be the minimum to alleviate the hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of this Title. The setback of the home on the adjacent lot is quite sizable. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Recommendation: Open the public hearing and consider the testimony of staff, residents and the applicant. Because of the substandard lot width, the setback of the existing garage, the desire to preserve mature trees and the desire to preserve sight lines to the children’s play area in the rear yard, staff recommends approval of the requested variance. The conditions that necessitate the variance are not the applicant’s doing and they did not cause or control the circumstances leading up to the request. Staff believes all of the hardship criteria to be satisfied. If the Commission agrees, staff has prepared a resolution for your action. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Zoning Map Site Plan 7375 Pleasant View Drive 7365 Pleasant View Drive 7585 Pleasant View Drive N Photographic Documentation Looking southeast toward 7375 Pleasant View Drive Looking northeast toward 7385 Pleasant View Drive. (Note the separation between the property line and the house.) Dashed line represents approximate location of lot line Photographic Documentation Looking southeast toward 7365 Pleasant View Drive, the other 66-foot wide lot. View of the existing garage, looking north. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 727-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A ONE-FOOT SETBACK FOR A GARAGE AT 7375 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE; VR03-003 WHEREAS, The applicants Jens and Blair Loder applied for a variance from the sideyard setback requirement to allow for a garage constructed one foot from the property line at 7375 Pleasant View Drive; and, WHEREAS, 7375 Pleasant View Drive is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: North ½ of Lot 69, Spring Lake Park Knolls Addition County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Letter from Applicant 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Staff Report WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Wednesday, May 21, 2003, with regard to this variance request; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code requires that garages and accessory buildings be setback five feet or more from side and rear lot lines; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. Resolution 727-03 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances DO apply to this property in that the lot is only 66 feet wide, the existing garage is at the same requested setback, and mature trees in the backyard limit options for siting of a new garage. 2. The configuration of the lot and the location of the house create circumstances whereby literal interpretations WOULD deprive the applicants of rights in that the setback requirements are based on a minimum 75-foot wide lot. 3. The applicants did NOT cause the special condition or circumstance. 4. Granting a variance to allow the garage to be reconstructed one-foot off the property line would NOT confer on to the applicants any special privilege. 5. The one-foot setback variance IS the minimum setback required to alleviate the hardship. 6. The variance would NOT be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Code or to any property in the Single-Family residential zoning district. 7. The reduced setback would NOT impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve the request for a variance to allow for a one-foot garage setback at 7375 Pleasant View Drive, contingent upon the following: 1. The applicant shall arrange to have the property surveyed to determine without question the location of the lot line and the setback of the garage prior to the issuance of the building permit. Adopted this 21st day of May, 2003. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6 Meeting Date: May 21, 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. The Planning Commission reviewed the site plans and suggested some revisions. Staff has received the revised plans and has reviewed them based on the suggestions made by staff and the Planning Commission. On a related note, the City Council on May 12, 2003 approved the PUD amendment which now permits an office building on Outparcel A. Discussion: Outparcel A Outparcel B Building and Parking Lot Setbacks OK OK Parking Stalls OK OK Handicap Accessible Stalls OK OK Drive Aisle, Curb Cuts OK OK Photometric Analysis (1) OK OK Landscaping (2) OK OK Circulation OK OK Building Height (3) OK OK Utilities OK OK PUD Consistency OK OK (1) The height of the light standards (poles) are not indicated. The plans should be revised accordingly. (2) Landscape plans have been clarified however additional copies are needed for the City Forester to review. City Approval subject to Forester approval. (3) Although compliant, the building elevations are not stated and should be. LandCor PC Plans May 21, 2003 Page 2 Other than as noted above, the revised plans satisfy all Code and PUD requirements and reflect the changes requested by Staff and the Planning Commission at the May 7 meeting, with the exception of the following: • Snow storage areas are not indicated on plans • Garbage enclosure details not indicated on plans • Sign plans and details not submitted • Wetland delineations not shown Revisions to Outparcel A Site Plan: The setback along Long Lake Road has been reduced to 20 feet, which allowed for a reconfiguration of the parking lot. An additional 10 stalls have been added and site circulation has been improved. The revised site plan is attached for the Commission’s review. Recommendation: The plans reflect a majority of the requested revisions and the remainder of the plan deficiencies can be revised prior to Council approval. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 728-03, a resolution recommending approval of the LandCor development plans for Outparcels A & B of the Theater / Anthony properties Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Attachments: 1. Outparcel A Site Plan 2. Resolution 728-03 Outparcel A – Revised Site Plan MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 728-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 2442 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10 AND A MULTI-TENANT RETAIL BUILDING AT 2436 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASES NO. DE03-002 AND DE03-003. WHEREAS, LandCor Development of Maple Grove has applied for a development review to construct a 15,000 square foot, two-story office building at 2442 County Highway 10 and a 7,785 square foot single story multi-tenant retail building at 2436 County Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned PUD, Planed Unit Development, is designated as a “Mixed Use PUD” use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as follows: Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Anthony Properties Addition, Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any new construction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a development review; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plans d. Staff Report WHEREAS, the proposed development is consistent with the Mounds View Zoning Code and the Planned Unit Development provisions originally approved in 1998 and amended in 2003; and, WHEREAS, Page C2-1 (Outparcel A Site Plan) indicates that the proposed two- story office building will be set back 30 feet from the property line fronting County Highway 10 and will be 15,000 square feet; and, WHEREAS, according to the PUD, the number of parking stalls required for Outparcel A is 60, Page C2-1 indicates 64 stalls are provided, three of which are marked handicapped accessible; and, Resolution 728-03 Page 2 WHEREAS, Page C2-2 (Outparcel B Site Plan) indicates that the proposed 7,785 square foot one-story retail building will be set back 75 feet from the property line abutting County Highway 10 and 145 feet from the property line abutting Edgewood Drive; and, WHEREAS, according to the PUD, the number of parking stalls required for Outparcel B is 78, Page C2-1 indicates 93 stalls are provided, three of which are marked handicapped accessible; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal has reviewed and approved the site plans in terms of access, drive aisle width and other Fire Department requirements and considerations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, finding that all of the requirements of the Zoning Code and PUD Document have been met, does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the development review request for the construction of a two-story, 15,000 square foot office building on Outparcel A and a 7,785 square foot, single-story multi-tenant retail building on Outparcel B, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Landscape Plans shall be revised per City Forester specifications. 2. The applicant shall submit plans to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). No building permits shall be issued without a valid watershed permit. 3. All disturbed pervious area shall be sodded or landscaped. Silt fencing shall be installed and maintained in accordance with Rice Creek Watershed District specifications. 4. All exterior lighting shall be hooded and downcast to prevent glare in accordance with City Code requirements. Height of light standards shall be indicated. 5. Site Plans shall be amended to reflect garbage enclosure details. 6. Grading Plans shall show boundaries of delineated wetlands. 7. All utilities to the building shall be installed underground. 8. Signage detail plans shall be submitted prior to permit issuance. Ground signage shall be monument style of masonry construction -- no pylon signage permitted. 9. Building signage not to exceed 100 square feet per designated building tenant. 10. All architectural features and building treatments shall be consistent along all building elevations. 11. A development agreement which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements, guarantees and plans for the orderly development of the parcels shall be executed and recorded with Ramsey County as required by Section 1006.06, Subd. 4 of the City Code. 12. The applicant shall obtain a permit from Ramsey County for the Long Lake Road curb cut and for any work performed within the County right of way. Resolution 728-03 Page 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 21st day of May, 2003. _________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Administrator (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVELOPMENT CASES\DE03-002, DE03-003, PA03-001 (LANDCOR COS. - PARCELS ADJACENT TO THEATER)\LANDCOR PC REPORT - MAY 21, 2003.DOC 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.