Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />PLANNING REPORT <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />6 June 1990 <br /> <br />CASE NUMBER: <br /> <br />2071 <br /> <br />APPLICANT: <br /> <br />Gerald K. Richards <br />(Representing General Mills <br />Restaurants, Inc./Developers of <br />Olive GardeA-' Restaurants) <br /> <br />LOCA TION: <br /> <br />Northeast Quadrant of Snelling <br />Avenue and County Road C <br />(see sketch) <br /> <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br /> <br />Approval of Special Use <br />Permit for Site Plan Review <br /> <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br /> <br />1. BACKGROUND <br /> <br />This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the May 2nd <br />meeting. After hearing presentations by the Staff and the developer <br />and discussing the proposal, the Commission voted to continue the item. <br />The motion to continue identified the following iL. TIS to be resolved: <br /> <br />a. The use of more climate compatible landscaping. <br />b. Other parking options. <br />c. Incorporation of dumpster into the building. <br />d. Exterior finish of building. <br />e. The type and detail of any signage to be utilized on the site. <br /> <br />The applicants had still not resolved these issues in time to be placed <br />on the June 6th agenda. Therefore, they requested that the item be <br />continued again and the Planning Commission honored their request. <br /> <br />Initially, after this item was continued, the applicants searched to find <br />another prototype Olive Garden restaurant building design that would <br />respond to the Planning Commission's concerns about exterior building <br />materials and require less parking. After some searching, they were <br />able to locate another design that utilized brick as the principal <br />exterior material and included less seating area. Through much of last <br />month, we understood that this would be the building that they would <br />base their plans on. <br /> <br />After preliminary plans were reviewed, however, it was clear that while <br />the alternate building included less seating, it did not solve the parking <br />problem. This is due to the fact that Roseville Code requires parking <br />for common area and the new plans showed an increase in square <br />footage devoted to common area. <br /> <br />Following the rejection of the alternate prototype design, the developer <br />commissioned the design of a new building for this site. Both from our <br />review and our discussion with the applicants, we believe that the result <br /> <br />I <br />