6.12. SR 10-18-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Mayor & City Council/CD 99-32 October 18, 1999 Page 4 . Signage Wal-Mart is proposing 580 square feet of wall signage. For comparison, Menards has 586 square feet, Cub Foods 655 square feet and Target has 222 square feet. Wall signage includes Wal-Mart channel letters over the entrance and their company motto, "We Sell For Less" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed" on the front of the building. Also across the front are 3 smaller signs, "pharmacy","vision center" and "1 hr. photo". The automotive center will also have wall signage. Tire and Lube Express and the Pennzoillogo are proposed for the front of the building with smaller product identification signs over the 3 overhead bay doors. No freestanding sign is proposed at this time. The location of a project identification sign has been approved near the intersection of Main Street and Highway 169. No details of that sign have been provided or approved. Planning Commission Meeting . The Planning Commission reviewed this item on September 28th. At that meeting 4 people spoke at the public hearing. Ernie Haas, St. Paul, had concerns about Wal-Mart's business practices; he felt an economic study to look at Wal-Mart's affect on the local small businesses, job loss and tax base should be conducted prior to approving this CUP. Jennifer Swanson, Bloomington, also spoke about Wal-Mart's business practices and the need for businesses to provide a living wage and benefits. Ron Christianson, Elk River representing Ron's Foods, was concerned about closing down their access from Main Street. He felt that losing the direct access from Main Street would force them to close their business. He also felt development was moving to fast. Kathy Swanberg, Elk River, was concerned about the garden center. She has seen other Wal-Marts where the garden center becomes an eyesore that is used as a storage area for junk and discarded materials. . The Planning Commission reviewed the plans and felt the overall site plan was consistent with the development plan approved as part of the conditional use permit for the PUD. However, the proposed building elevations were not consistent with the proposed development standards. The Planning Commission tabled the item to October 12th to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the Commission's concerns. The building elevations in your packet are the same as those presented at the October 12th Planning Commission meeting. The Commission discussed the new design, felt it was a significant improvement over the previous design, and determined the new elevations were consistent with the proposed development standards. S: \PLANNING\SCOTT\CD9932CC.DOC