HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-02 BRAA Email to OPH Re Site Review CommentsKris Danielson
From:
Postler, Dennis M [dpostler@bonestroo.com
Sent:
Wednesda Ma 02, 2001 9:15 AM
To:
Kris Danielson (E-mail) Scott Richards (E-mail)
Cc:
Ja Johnson (E-mail); Jim Butler (E-mail) Jud Holst (E-mail); Kimberl Kamper (E-mail);
Mark Vierlin (E-mail); Thomas M. Melena (E-mail)
Subject:
Wal Site Review
Kris/Scott:
Here are a few comments/ re the Wal Site Plan.
Traffic Access /Ri -of -Wa
Drivewa accesses are, in g eneral, acceptable. Is the northerl
drivewa to be shared with the ad propert owner ( don't see a curb
return on the north side of the drivewa If not, the drivewa should be a
minimum of 24' wide and contained on Wal site.
The developer/en should contact the Count for their
opinion/approval of the ri onl drivewa ( and its proximit to the
intersection of Os Street N. and an potential widenin of Os
Avenue. In addition, MnDOT ma need to be contacted re chan
drivewa access locations alon 60th Street North?
Sanitar Sewer & Water Services:
It appears new sewer and water services are proposed to the new
buildin This will involve connectin to an existin sanitar sewer
manhole and, as shown, to an existin water main with a new tee (re
the water main to be shut down durin connection We recommend the
existin funeral home sewer and water services be utilized, if possible
(plans don't show where these are If not possible, the existin services
need to be properl abandoned. Also, the water main should be via a wet tap
unless shuttin down the existin mainline will not impose on adjacent
businesses/residents.
Storm Sewer & Draina Calculations:
We have ver little existin storm sewer and draina information in this
area. I believe Landform's anal of existin storm sewer and draina
patterns is accurate, in that all of this site eventuall end up draina to
Mn DOT propert then southerl under Hw 36.
From a runoff perspective, the additional impervious are bein
proposed should have a ne effect on the existin downstream storm
sewer. The appropriate Watershed District should be contacted for their
review.
Specific comments about the draina calculations and storm sewer
la
T for draina area tributar to CBMH 2? ( Table shows 0.60 acres
Map shows 0.25 acres - it appears 0.25 acres is the correct number This
would result in 1.66 less cfs in the entire proposed s since this is
on the upstream end. This could result in smaller pipe sizes/slopes
re
Also, we don't see a need for CB 1 since the tributar area is so
small and it appears to be located on a hi point ( ver y little or no runoff
will actuall enter it This would alleviate the need for CB 1 and also
120' of storm sewer to CBMH 2.
Dennis M. Postler
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates