6.1. SR 01-18-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J/ c°,v or Elk -~--~ River REQUEST FOR ACTION '~O ITEM NUMBER Ci Council 6.1. AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY Plannin anua 18, 2011 Chris Leeseber ,Park Planner-Planner ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By Request by Furniture Outlets USA for Conditional Use Permit erem Barnhart, Plannin Mana er to Amend Existing Elk Park Center PUD Agreement for REVIEWED BY Furniture Store and Associated Retail, Case No. CU 11-01 - Public Heari ACTION REQUESTED Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit request (Planned Unit Development amendment), as illustrated on drawings dated 11/29/10, with the following conditions: 1. As a Conditional Use Permit is not a Building Permit, the applicant shall apply for all required permits. 2. Signage requirements shall be as shown on Proposed Signage for Elk Park Center Exhibit. 3. Landscaped islands with trees shall be added as proposed on staffs Exhibit A. Construction shall be completed prior to occupancy for any business receiving signage per this amendment. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The original agreement determined signage for the subject site to be 7' diameter "bulls eye" and 6' high individual internally illuminated letters. These requirements were specifically created for the one tenant that occupied the space, Target. In order for any other business to occupy the space, the PUD agreement should be amended to allow flexibility in signage. The request can be summarized in the attached chart. PLANNING COMMISSION The applicant spoke stating they want to help enliven the development and feel what they are proposing will help do that. It was also stated a furniture store of this size will only generate about 20-30 vehicles at its busiest time. Although there is more than adequate parking on the site, the applicant did not want any obstacles in the parking lot. The Planning Commission discussed the proposal and agreed that additional landscaping needs to be introduced to the site and directed staff to work with applicant on creating an approved landscape plan. There was also discussion on a larger development wide signage concern and how that might be changed to help draw users into the development. The Planning Commission discussed the two options developed by staff. After discussion, the Planning Commission supported Option A, but directed staff to work with the applicant on the final design specifics. It was noted that the landscaping requirement for the subject