pf_02491 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. April 14, 1993 Roseville Planning Commission Re: Paul's Place Development Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to address you on February 10 concerning the proposed Paul's Place site development. For your deliberations prior to the vote, I have summarized my testimony and some more recent information. Please include this in the record of the April 14 hearing. Let me also note as a preface that I do not oppose the development and consider Northwestern College a far better developer than others that might have purchased the site. My only interest is that the development be carried out rationally and that the legitimate interests of the adjoining property owners be protected. In that context, I have the following concerns: I. Drainage In light of the two flooding incidents during the summer of 1992, it would be foolish to allow the site to be disturbed until the overall drainage problem has been addressed. This is not the responsibilitv of the colleae but it clearlv must be done first. ' It is impossible to access the drainage impact of this development until there is a valid baseline to measure it against. At this time, there is no valid baseline. The 100 year flood levels estimated for the 1986-87 ditch improvements are clearly wrong today. If they were correct five years ago, one must presume that the upstream development in the last five years has changed the drainage characteristics drastically. The city did channel maintenance in the fall of 1992 and sponsored a study by SEH Engineering. The study provided some useful data and conclusions but failed to survey all the areas where the berm has settled and failed to address the issue of upstream drainage changes and their effect on projected 100 year flood levels. Without the upstream data, it is impossible to say whether channel maintenance and specific berm levels provide adequate protection. Sandbagging of the low a~eas, promised ,by the city in the fall of 1992 still has not been done, I urge you to obtain a firm commitment from the City Engineer that the drainage problem will be resolved before the site is disturbed as a prerequisite to a~thorizing this project. I cannot help but wonder how a series of upstream developments, each one presumably required to be "drainage neutral", could have produced such a drastic cumulative effect in five years. I suppose that it is easy in each case to say "this shouldn't have much effect" and let a project go forward without hard