Laserfiche WebLink
~",r~nel~ne <br />original PUD December 21,1984 <br />Amendment No. 1 Dece~nbe~• 31,1985 <br />Ells River Plaza 2"~ additio~a. approved <br />~ Presidential Estates addition approved <br />Amend~.a~ent No. 2 Marc111G,1987 <br />~ Allow 1 G,000 sgft office/retail building <br />~ Substitute of building for GO units of multi family ~Qetober G,198G?~ <br />Amendment No. 3 September 21,1987 <br />® Ells Ri~rer Plaza 3'~~ addition approved <br />2,900 sgft office/retail <br />~ 15,000 sgft retail <br />® 3,200 sgft carwash <br />Amendment No. 4 June 21,1999 <br />® Ells Ri~rer Plaza 4~'' addition approved <br />® 15,000 sgft retail <br />® 200 seat Class I restaurant with on sale liquor <br />~ 40,000 sgft medical office <br />A~x~end~nent No. 5 Nove~.aaber 20, 20D0 <br />Second wall sign for 6,500 retail buidling <br />Amendment No. 6 May 20, 2002 <br />~ ~i1all signage - 4 allowed <br />~ Urgent Care <br />Amendment No. 7 Janua~~T 12, 2005 <br />® 12,7G5 sgft mixed-use building <br />1t appears that tlae PUD agreement is no longer consistent witla the needs of the commercial marl~et and <br />has outlived its usefulness. For example, tl~.e PUD agreement only permits a hardware stare or similar in <br />tlae bL~lding now liousitlg Flowers Plus. ~lncidentally, the owner of Flowers Plus is propos~.ag a rezoni~ag <br />of their building from PUD to C-3.~ Flowers Plus is tl-~~ii1g to marl~et half of their b~~lding to other <br />co~~.~mercial uses, but the restriction to hardware prohibits staff from issuing buildi~a.g permits. <br />Additionally, the review process can be seen as unnecessarily burdensome. Restaurants ha this PUD <br />require more review than others in the city. For example, Burger Kitag requires Council review of <br />building modifications, adding a month of review. New operators of the LaRose's would require Council <br />approval, while other restaurants in the city would not. <br />S,~PLANNING NIAiN~Case Iiiles~ZC~ZC T?R I'la~a memo to CC 2-'I-1[}.doc <br />