Laserfiche WebLink
c. Rainbow Foods development-T. H. 49 and T. H. 96. <br />d. Deluxe Corporation addition. <br />B. Hearings and Petitions <br />B-1 Roseville School District property development review <br />Keel introduced the item by giving a brief overview of the project including a <br />summary of the board's review authority. Keel indicated that permits for the project <br />would be issued by the City of Roseville. Meyer indicated that it was his <br />understanding that the Board had more authority than review and comment if <br />properties were proposed to drain directly into area lakes. The Board discussed <br />GLWMO's authority and directed staffto investigate this issue further. <br />John Shardlow of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban reviewed the school district <br />development proposal focusing on wetland and stormwater issues. Tim Orr of Shoell <br />and Madson, the developer's engineer, answered questions regarding the proposed <br />stormwater system. Following discussion by the Board, Roberts moved that the <br />following comments in the form of a resolution regarding the School District property <br />be sent to the Roseville Planning Commission and the Roseville City Council: <br />The potential pumping from Wetland Basin 5 should be analyzed with regard to <br />flooding on Lake Owasso. Some properties, especially on Sandy Hook Drive, <br />are very susceptible to high water levels on Lake Owasso. <br />The Board commended the school district for the proposed treatment of on-site <br />run-off and encouraged the district to provide treatment for off-site drainage <br />wherever feasibly possible. <br />The Board recognizes the importance of strict erosion and sediment control <br />during construction and urged Roseville to carefully control construction to <br />minimize erosion. The Board suggested that this development be reviewed with <br />the Ramsey Soil and Water conservation District to utilize their expertise in this <br />area. <br />The board emphasized the need to design the site drainage to protect the existing <br />wetlands. Protection of existing wetlands was considered a must. <br />The Board recognized that many details of the stormwater plan have yet to be <br />finalized. The Board emphasized the need to resolve all the stormwater details <br />prior to construction. <br />Olson seconded. Ayes: Roberts, Meyer, Smith, and Olson. Nays: None. <br />3 <br />