Laserfiche WebLink
Liberty Classical Academy Site Plan and CUP <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />There were concerns about well interference and impacts to wells. Staff stated that the DNR is <br />steward of the water resource and that the applicant has been in contact with the DNR on the <br />proposed wells. The DNR has not expressed any concerns to staff or the applicant. The <br />Department of Health issues the permit for well drilling and construction. The applicant does <br />have to work with the DNR in order to construct the proposed wells. <br /> <br />There were concerns with location and size of the septic system and impacts to the soil and <br />water. The applicants representative/civil engineer stated that the system is required to be <br />permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and has much higher standards and <br />regulations that an individual septic system. The system will need to meet of the requirements <br />including testing least monthly and reported to the State. The applicants representative stated that <br />the system is required to be over designed and system has a back-up in case of a failure. They <br />also stated that ground water flows away from the lake. <br /> <br />There were concerns about the stormwater pond location and size. The applicants <br />representative/civil engineer stated the area with the stormwater pond the location that the site, <br />and properties to the north, drain today. It is the low point of the property and that they are <br />making sure the properties drain the same way. The size of the pond is for earthwork balance and <br />for holding water for stormwater reuse for irrigation. <br /> <br />There were concerns about lighting and the parking lot location. Staff recommended a revised <br />lighting plan with reduced pole lights and timers/dimmers on the lights. A resident near the <br />proposed parking area ask for it to be moved away from their property. <br /> <br />There were concerns about the safety of the roads and the access location. The adjacent streets <br />are County roads and are managed by the County. The applicant and staff has been working with <br />Washington County over the last several months on access and road improvements. Washington <br />County provided a comment letter that they are comfortable with the access location with the <br />addition of improvements such as turn lanes. Washington County has stated that the County <br />Roads can handle the additional traffic. <br /> <br />There were several people that were in support of the school building addition. Most had kids or <br />knew of kids/parents that were part of the school. Some live in the area and felt the school <br />provided value to the area. Some stated that they understand the concerns with traffic, but the <br />school will have a small amount of student compared to the surrounding schools. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission discussed the building addition, lighting, parking lot location, and <br />other aspects of the request. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of <br />the request with the following additional conditions: <br /> <br />1. The proposed parking lot be shifted to the north with additional landscaping around <br />parking areas. <br />2. The lights shall have dimmers to reduce impact on the surrounding properties. <br />3. Staff to have another discussion with Washington County on access points.