5.2. SR 02-01-2010ci~~ us„
Staff is requesting authorization to pursue rezoning the entire Ells River Plaza Planned Unit Development
~'UD~, starting uTith the commercial side.
Sun~~nr
The Ells River Plaza Planned Unit Development SPUD} was approved on December 21,1984. 1t was one
of the earlier PUD's created i.n Ells River and stated that t11e uses shall be restricted to those uses wl~ch
are prhlcipal and conditional uses in the C1, ~2, and C3 zones with the 14 exceptions listed.
1. Multifamily dwellings
2. Professional offices
3. Business offices and public buildings
4. Hospitals and mental health centers
5. Parl~ing Rainps
G. Taverns and hotels
7. Motor vehicle service station servicing ~rel~icles with more than two ~2} axles
8. Auto repair shops
9. Storage facilities
10. Drive-in theatres
11. outdoor amusement centers
12. Those conditional uses permitted its t11e R4 district
13. Those principal uses permitted in the R3 and R4 districts
14. The use of Parcel "L" shall be restricted to a hardware gild related items retail sales store.
Qver the past 26 years, the development has undergone many changes. Many 17usinesses anal buildings
have come and gone. There have been seven amendments over that tine period. The earlier
arn.endments were necessary to accommodate the completion of the development while tl~e later
amendments were necessaf~r to adjust to the inarl~et and allow uses that initially were not allowed with t11e
original PUD. Signage also evolved over tune and was addressed in formal amendments.
5:~~'LANNING ]V~A~N~Case l ~iles~ZC~ZC alt Plaza mem~~ to CC ~-1-~O.dac
~",r~nel~ne
original PUD December 21,1984
Amendment No. 1 Dece~nbe~• 31,1985
Ells River Plaza 2"~ additio~a. approved
~ Presidential Estates addition approved
Amend~.a~ent No. 2 Marc111G,1987
~ Allow 1 G,000 sgft office/retail building
~ Substitute of building for GO units of multi family ~Qetober G,198G?~
Amendment No. 3 September 21,1987
® Ells Ri~rer Plaza 3'~~ addition approved
2,900 sgft office/retail
~ 15,000 sgft retail
® 3,200 sgft carwash
Amendment No. 4 June 21,1999
® Ells Ri~rer Plaza 4~'' addition approved
® 15,000 sgft retail
® 200 seat Class I restaurant with on sale liquor
~ 40,000 sgft medical office
A~x~end~nent No. 5 Nove~.aaber 20, 20D0
Second wall sign for 6,500 retail buidling
Amendment No. 6 May 20, 2002
~ ~i1all signage - 4 allowed
~ Urgent Care
Amendment No. 7 Janua~~T 12, 2005
® 12,7G5 sgft mixed-use building
1t appears that tlae PUD agreement is no longer consistent witla the needs of the commercial marl~et and
has outlived its usefulness. For example, tl~.e PUD agreement only permits a hardware stare or similar in
tlae bL~lding now liousitlg Flowers Plus. ~lncidentally, the owner of Flowers Plus is propos~.ag a rezoni~ag
of their building from PUD to C-3.~ Flowers Plus is tl-~~ii1g to marl~et half of their b~~lding to other
co~~.~mercial uses, but the restriction to hardware prohibits staff from issuing buildi~a.g permits.
Additionally, the review process can be seen as unnecessarily burdensome. Restaurants ha this PUD
require more review than others in the city. For example, Burger Kitag requires Council review of
building modifications, adding a month of review. New operators of the LaRose's would require Council
approval, while other restaurants in the city would not.
S,~PLANNING NIAiN~Case Iiiles~ZC~ZC T?R I'la~a memo to CC 2-'I-1[}.doc
Staff also believes da.at the PUD was origitaally established to protect neighboring residential proper'ties
from adverse impacts possible in an unl~nown co~rvnercial environment. Since the original PUD was
approved, the residential component of the project was approved ~I'residential Estates} and built. These
l~omes form a buffer between the co~ninercial and the original residential, if one remains necessafy, It
seems as though the adjacent residential properties Have recognized and accepted the commercial
development, reducing the need for protection above and beyond what is prescribed in the zoning
ordit.~ance.
~Iit1a the imbedded references to other zoning districts, exceptions, and numerous amend~r~ents, it is
difficult to quicldy, efficiently, and clearly co~ntnunicate with the public ova. what can or cannot be
completed in the development. For example, a resident called to question the setbacl~ for his parcel in
Presidential Estates. This would typically be a 30 second answer, but because the PUD did not establish
m~~imum setbacl~s for the residential, it tools staff a couple of hours to gather necessar~r hlformation and
respond to the reside~a.t. To address these issues, staff reco~ntnends rezoning the PUD to one or two of
tlae current zoning classifications, Anew zoning district could also be created to accommodate all of t11e
histoi~r i~lvolved with the development. ~;Iith authorization, staff will research the best avenue to address
the issue.
To accommodate this, staff envisions the followu~g process beginning with the commercial properties;
~ initial mailing explai~.i~.g what is going on ~mai.led to busi~a.ess and property owners in and
within 350-feet of the project}
open house meeting fu~•ther explaini~.lg what is going on and why
Planning Conunission public hearing
City Council public hearing
~f successful, staff intends to continue to the Presidential Estates portion of the PUD,
S:~P~,t~NNING I1f111IN~CaSC I~~iles~ZC~ZC I~R Plant mezx~o t~} CC 2-1-10.c~oc