Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Pagel 4 <br /> <br />Wednesday, September 6, 1989 <br /> <br />Maschka questioned if the units on the roof could be painted out. <br />Amdahl responded that they don't intend to paint the units until <br />they are replaced in the future because paint will chip off the <br />units. <br /> <br />Maschka questioned the parking lot changes, retaining wall, and <br />resurfacing. <br /> <br />Amdahl explained the proposed grading, resurfacing, and retaining <br />walls. <br /> <br />Maschka questioned how close the existing roof is to design <br />standards. Amdahl replied that there is no problem now, but the <br />problem would be because of additional snow load which would <br />resul t from drifting behind any screen fences. Amdahl stated <br />that the roof is currently within safety standards but that 40% <br />of the roof would need restructuring with screen fences. <br /> <br />stokes questioned whether or not there would be sufficient <br />sidewalk space in front of the new vestibules. Amdahl explained <br />that the new entrance would have east west entry onto the <br />sidewalk. <br /> <br />stokes questioned whether the parking lot would be patched or <br />would the asphalt be totally replaced. Amdahl stated that areas <br />of the lot would be repaired and then the lot fully resurfaced. <br /> <br />stokes stated that he liked the landscaping and had no problem <br />with the exterior materials because the painted block areas would <br />be essentially below grade. stokes stated that the developer has <br />disregarded his suggestion for a green strip or sidewalk along <br />the east edge with vehicular openings at appropriate places which <br />he suggested at the previous meeting. stokes stated he wouldn't <br />support the proposal without that green strip. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned how high the retaining wall would be and <br />whether there would be a safety problem. Amdahl stated that <br />there would be a guard rail on the top of the retaining wall. <br /> <br />Goedeke expressed concern that the intersection changes at <br />Fernwood and Larpenteur result in the road getting close to the <br />existing Little Ceasers building. Keel explained that <br />improvements were being made at the request of Ramsey County. <br /> <br />Amdahl stated that there would be no additional visibility if the <br />Margolis landscaping building were taken out. Amdahl also stated <br />that a green strip wouldn't be possible along the east edge <br />because of the cross access easement with adjacent property and <br />