Laserfiche WebLink
Eric Meyer, Larson Engineering, commented that the stormwater management would be the same <br /> for the site, regardless of the type of development. He provided additional details on the <br /> LRRWMO stormwater management requirements that have to be met. He stated that with the <br /> platting of the property,the school would have the park dedication and dedication of right-of-way. <br /> He noted that the improvements to widen the road and add the trail would happen on the school <br /> and church properties. <br /> Chairperson Fetterley commented that it does sound like there is frequent filling of yards and <br /> wetlands now and asked if there would be a net zero flow or whether more water could even be <br /> moved out to help those other properties. She asked what would happen after development if there <br /> were issues with water flow. <br /> Mr. Meyer commented that if there are drainage issues along 161 St it would make sense to make <br /> those improvements when the improvements to the road are made. <br /> Mr. Lindenberg commented that he coached at Central Park for ten years and noted that the <br /> proposed stadium is further north, near those homes. He stated that Central Park does not have <br /> stadium lighting or speakers but is still very bright and very loud. He commented that the football <br /> field will be much brighter and louder than the park activity. <br /> Mr. Patro commented that it sounds like the water from the pond would drain to the wetland,which <br /> he views as a concern. He commented on the contamination that would be contained in the runoff <br /> from the parking lot and fertilized areas on the school property that could damage the wetlands <br /> and plant communities. <br /> Senior Planner Anderson asked the focus to come back to the purview of this Board. He noted <br /> that the comments related to drainage can be forwarded to the engineering department. He stated <br /> that impacts from deicing and fertilizers is not limited to this property and would apply to all <br /> residential and commercial properties. <br /> Ms. Patrow asked when the traffic study was completed. She stated that she noticed the study on <br /> a Thursday, Friday, Saturday during Easter break therefore kids were only in school one of those <br /> days. She believed that in order to be accurate the study should be done on days kids are going to <br /> school and parents are going to work. <br /> Ms. Holder commented that the MPCA states that noise pollution is considered anytime noise <br /> traffics onto residential property in excess of 60 decibels for more than 50 percent of an hour. She <br /> stated that the park activity measured at 70 decibels in her child's room for seven hours. She stated <br /> that the MPCA also suggests that the City not place development in areas where it would impact <br /> residential properties. She stated that there is no room for a tree buffer to be installed with the <br /> development size proposed. <br /> Mr. Fincher commented that the study was completed during three weekdays during peak school <br /> hours. He noted that a study was also done on Sunday in order to consider the plans for the church. <br /> He stated that information is detailed within the report that will be reviewed at the Planning <br />