#08 - At Home Apartments Premin Plat & PUD

Home Browse Search

PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPLICATION UPDATE 11.03.23 Comment 2: Need evaluation of exact 39th street storm water capacity. What is the exact and proposed site discharge directly to 39th Street storm sewer pipes? Response: Actual sewer capacity was not modeled or provided by the city. Drainage areas have been updated to reflect discharge to 39th Street storm sewer. Summary tables in the stormwater report reflect discharge points, including 39th Street storm sewer. While the discharge to 39th Street storm sewer east of Wildflower is increased in the proposed condition, the sewer was designed with a 24” stub into the site, while the proposed connection (downstream of the existing stub) is only a 15” pipe. Therefore, the existing pipe has capaci ty for the proposed flows. Comment 3: Soil borings are required per city design standards (and VBWD standards). Based on the estimated basin foot print 4 borings must be taken within the basin foot print. There are only 2 borings near the basin and both appear outside of the 100-HWL. Response: Braun Intertec completed the additional boring as requested and that information can be found on Appendix A the stormwater report. Comment 4: Infiltration basic design infiltration rate must be based on ONLY soil borings taken within the basin itself. Borings ST-8 and ST-9 reflect very different soil types. Response: Soil types and infiltration rates have been verified with additional borings. Design infiltration rate has been adjusted based on the 4 borings within the basin. Please see Appendix A the stormwater report. Comment 5: No geotechnical evaluation or professional opinion was provided for design infiltration rates. Response: Design infiltration rate is taken from guidance in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual based on the soil classification COMMENTS FROM CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Comment 1: A tree preservation plan has been submitted that does not meet all the requirements on the basis that: • The tree inventory as shows for the west parcel is not adequate. The plan on Sheet 4 seems to show tree IDs for the west parcel, but they are not linked to the table on Sheet 5. Significant trees need to be ID-ed on the table by number that corresponds to the plan; they should be identified by type (deciduous hardwood, common, confier/evergreen, or nuisance); and columns should also have labels for clarity. Add a sheet if necessary to fit. The legend on Sheet 4 does not correspond to the trees shown on the west parcel. Please adjust so that all significant trees are identified on the plan, and all existing significant trees to remain and existing significant trees to be removed are shown consistently between east and west parcels.