Staff recently received an inquiry seeking a determination as to whether or not a proposed use would be considered a pawnshop. In responding to the inquiry, aside from the outcome of the inquiry itself, it was determined that the City’s current definition for pawnshop lacked the same clarity that is found in the Arizona Revised Statutes definition. In comparing the two definitions, it was apparent that the City’s intent aligns with that of the State Statute; therefore, staff elected to propose this text amendment, which incorporates the State’s definition of pawnshop into the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, staff included two new, but related, definitions from the State Statute pertaining to pawnbrokers and pawn transactions. These definitions are integral to the pawnshop definition and have been included verbatim in this proposed amendment.

The current definition for Pawnshops first appeared in the City’s Zoning Ordinance in 2000 following the City Council’s adoption of ORD No. 00-28. At the time, City staff initiated a broad effort to include several definitions believed to be missing from the Zoning Ordinance, which were needed to address certain uses that were beginning to arise throughout the City. These uses included: Body Piercing Studios, Massage Establishments, Non-chartered Financial Institutions, Retail Liquor Stores, Plasma Centers, Tattoo Studios, and Pawnshops. 

Ordinance No. 00-28 also included development standards to regulate pawn and other specified uses, including minimum separation distance (1,000 feet) from other establishments within this classification of uses. These standards can be found in the Zoning Ordinance under Section 21-505 (“Limitations on Uses”) associated with Personal Services.

There is no change to the development standards associated with pawn services. They would continue to be subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in certain commercial zoning districts and minimum separation requirements. 

• On May 3, 2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider the proposed zoning code amendment. The Commission voted 7-0 in favor of recommending approval of the request, as presented by City staff. No members of the public spoke in support or opposition to the request. 

A: Approve as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission; or

B: Approve with modifications; or

C: Deny; or

D: Continue action to a date certain or indefinitely; or

E: Remand to the Planning & Zoning Commission for further consideration.