Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2010 I Volume 4 [ No. 18 The Background/Facts: On June 7, 2007, Pawn America Minne- sota, LLC ("Pawn America") applied to the city for a license to operate a pawnshop in the city. After hearing concerns from residents near the proposed pawnshop location, city officials sought to "[f]igure out a way to say `no" to Pawn America's application. The city attorney noted that "the zoning on the property permitted a pawnshop, but suggested that the [c]ity could adopt a moratorium on new pawnshops by interim ordi- nance, and initiate a study in order to decide whether the [c]ity wanted to implement any additional conditions or restrictions on pawnshops." On October 1, 2007, the city council: (1) adopted the first (of two required) reading of an interim zoning ordinance that temporarily pro- hibited new pawnshops; and (2) passed a resolution directing a study to determine how the city should regulate pawnshops. On October 8, 2007, the city council adopted the second reading of the interim zoning ordi- nance —effectively temporarily prohibiting "the further processing and approval of pending or new applications for a pawnbroker license." The zoning study analyzing pawnshop uses was completed on De- cember 5, 2007. On February 4, 2008, the city adopted a permanent ordinance. That ordinance "amended the zoning code to make pawnshops conditional uses." It also included "a distance separation requirement" of 350 feet between pawnshops and residentially zoned property. Because the property at which Pawn America proposed to operate a pawnshop abutted a single-family neighborhood, a pawnshop was not permitted at that location. Pawn America brought legal action against the city. It asked the court to declare the interim ordinance invalid because: (1) it violated Minnesota's interim ordinance statute; and (2) the city adopted the or- dinance for an improper purpose (i.e., to delay or prevent Pawn Ameri- ca from opening a pawnshop). Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and de- ciding the matter on the law alone, the district court issued summary judgment in favor of the city. The court concluded that the interim ordinance was valid. It also concluded that Pawn America's proposed pawnshop was not permitted by the permanent ordinance. Pawn America appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. Pawn America again appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. ® 2010 Thomson Reuters 9 97