Officials with the St. Louis County School District have decided to withdraw their conditional use permit application for construction of a new school north of Cook, but the move appears to increase the likelihood that a school could be built on the site after all.

That prospect had appeared dim following the March 25 St. Louis County Planning Commission meeting, when commission members refused to approve the permit for the site, located on Olson Road, citing issues of safety and hunting rights. But because of an error on the part of the commission, the school district was able to withdraw its application before a permit was officially denied. That will allow the district to reapply, but only after it completes an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW), a process that is likely to take several weeks at least.

But many of the concerns raised by local residents and elected representatives of Field Township may prove tough to address, which means final approval isn’t assured. “It could still go kaput,” acknowledged John Henry, project manager for the district’s consultant Johnson Controls, during a board study session this week. If so, it would leave the district few good options for building a new school in the Cook/Orr area.

Decision a setback, but mistakes added to problem

The planning commission’s decision was just one of several stunning developments stemming from a permitting process that quickly turned from mundane to mortifying, particularly for Johnson Controls.

While school officials may have initially taken solace in the planning commission’s approval of their conditional use permit request for the planned new school in the district’s south half, it proved a short-lived victory— because Johnson Controls provided incorrect information to the county.

According to county planner Mary Anderson, who advises the nine-member planning commission, the permit approved last Thursday was for a significantly smaller project than the school district actually wants to build. While the permit application calls for the construction of a 100,000 square foot building plus related structures, Anderson said district consultants had cited different figures in a meeting subsequent to the initial application on Feb. 5. Anderson said it was unclear from the application how large the project actually was. “That’s why we had a meeting with them,” she said.

At issue, said Anderson, was the total amount of impervious surface, which has an impact on runoff from such a development. The impervious surface includes the school building, along with the associated bus garage, driveways and paved parking lots. According to Anderson, the district’s consultants told county planners that the project encompassed about 91,000 square feet. Yet the school itself, based on revised plans approved by the school board in early February, totals 106,000 square feet. Add in a bus garage and other paved surfaces and the total amount of impervious surface is almost certainly in excess of 150,000 square feet.

“What they applied for was less than 100,000 square feet,” said Anderson. “That’s what the planning commission acted on. If they want to go with a larger size, they will need to reapply.”

Johnson Controls officials still seemed unsure of the process even this week.

Jeff Schiltz, of Johnson Controls, told school board members on Tuesday that the district could simply amend the existing permit that the commission approved last week and would not have to reapply. But Anderson confirmed on Wednesday that the only way to amend the permit is to go through a full re-application, which would also require another public hearing and a new decision by the planning commission.

Need for EAW

While re-applying for a conditional use permit could delay the start of construction on the south school by 45 days or more, Anderson said the county won’t move forward with a public hearing on the new application until the district has completed an EAW.

Schiltz told board members that much of the information needed in an EAW has already been compiled, and that Johnson Controls should be able to have a draft document out for comment within 2-3 weeks. Once a draft is issued, the EAW is subject to a 30-day public comment period. Then, Johnson Controls will need to provide answers to comments prior to completing the document. At that point, the EAW will have to go before the county’s planning commission, which will determine if the document is adequate, whether more information is needed, or if a full-blown environmental impact statement is necessary. If approved, the document will still need to be published and followed by a second, shorter public comment period.

That could well push final approval of the EAW out to late May or June, and that’s if everything goes smoothly.

Then, the school district will still need to reapply for a conditional use permit as well as a long list of other permits, some of which it may not be able to apply for until completion of the EAW. Schiltz told board members on Tuesday that construction could begin at the south site by mid-June and in the north by late June, or early July. Such a timeline, however, appears unrealistic, since the earliest the planning commission is likely to take up the EAW is in early June. And even if the document is approved immediately, the school district will still need to apply for a conditional use permit and several other permits, all of which typically take weeks to obtain.

Indeed, it could well be late summer before the school district will be able to finally get construction underway on the south site. That’s months later than school officials had originally planned.

Much of the delay could have been avoided had the school district’s consultant not overlooked the need for environmental review. Henry acknowledged that he did not realize until recently that the size threshold for a mandatory EAW was 100,000 square feet. He said he had assumed that 200,000 square feet was the maximum allowed before an EAW was triggered. He later reread the document to learn that the higher threshold applied to cities, not rural townships.

Schiltz said Johnson Controls’ contract with the district covers its services connected with preparing the EAW, but didn’t specify if the district would have to pay the fee for other agencies hired to assist with the EAWs. Schiltz said SEH Engineering would be retained to assist in the draft.

Although the EAW may respond to many of the Planning Commission’s concerns, other issues such as infringement on hunting grounds will not be addressed. Consultant John Powers said the school is far enough away from hunting sites that it should not impinge on anyone’s rights, but said consultants will have to prepare a response to the issue should it resurface.

Fate of north school

still in doubt

Given the uncertainty over the prospects for permitting the school site north of Cook, school board members discussed possible contingency plans on Tuesday.

Darrell Bjerklie, who represents the Cherry attendance area, suggested that the board may want to obtain an option on another site to keep available for development if the district can’t build at the north site.

But Schiltz said there are few sites available for development between the two schools because of wetland issues and said some of the same issues at the current north site are likely to crop up at other sites. The district has already identified an alternative site at Gheen, but may encounter similar problems there, and would likely lose some Cook students if the school were moved to that location.

Another option would be to move the school into either Orr or Cook, which would eliminate the need for an EAW.

But Schiltz said the language in the referendum specifies a new school for the Cook and Orr attendance areas, which would prohibit the district from using bond proceeds to remodel either the existing Orr or Cook school. In addition, he noted that the district had publicly stated it would build a school between the two communities to keep travel distances reasonable for students.