1. science
2. ecology
3. pollution

Peachtree Partners LLC
Residential Development Plan
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Located in the
City of Corcoran, MN
September 22, 2014
EAW Figures (Following the EAW Worksheet)
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. USGS Map
Figure 3 (A). Existing Natural Resources Map
Figure 3 (B). Wetland Classification Map
Figure 4. Site Plan-Proposed PUD Sketch Plan
Figure 5. Soils Map
EAW Exhibits (Following the EAW Worksheet)
Exhibit 1. DNR Natural Heritage License Agreement
Exhibit 2. DNR Natural Heritage Letter (prepared by Stantec)
Exhibit 3. SHPO letter
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
EAW Tables
Table 1. Project Magnitude ................................................................................................ 5
Table 2. Land Cover Types................................................................................................ 5
Table 3. Required Permits and Approvals.......................................................................... 6
Page | 2
July 2013 version
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the
Environmental Quality Board’s website at:
http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information
about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines
provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can
either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be addresses collectively under EAW Item
19.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1.
Project title: Schendel Development
2.
Proposer:
Contact person: Paul Robinson
Contact person:
Kendra Lindahl
Title:
Title:
Corcoran City Planner
Address:
8200 CR 116
City, State, ZIP: Blaine, MN 55449
City, State, ZIP:
Corcoran, MN 55340
Phone:
763-398-0320
Phone:
763-420-2288
Fax:
763-792-8974
Fax:
612-638-0227
Email:
[email protected]
Email:
[email protected]
Address:
4.
3. RGU
Development Manager
th
1521 94 Lane N.E.
Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
Required:
Discretionary:
EIS Scoping
Citizen petition
Mandatory EAW
RGU discretion
Proposer initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):
N/A
Page | 3
5.
Project Location:
County:
Hennepin
City/Township:
Corcoran
PLS Location:
SE Qtr of Section 23, Township 119, Range 23
(¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range)
Watershed:
Mississippi River – Twin Cities Elm Creek Watershed
(81 major watershed scale)
GPS Coordinates:
45.099336, -93.550262
Tax Parcel Number:
23-119-23-42-0004
At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:
• County map showing the general location of the project;
• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries
(photocopy acceptable); and
• Site plan dated August 26, 2014 showing all significant project and natural features.
Pre-construction site plan and post-construction site plan.
See Figures 1-4.
6.
a.
Project Description:
Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50
words).
The proposed development is a residential subdivision consisting of 226 single
family units and 23 townhomes for a total of 249 units.
b.
Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including
infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing
facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause
physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to
existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling
of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
The construction of this project will include grading the existing topography to meet the
needs of a residential subdivision which will result in roads, house pads, ponds and
infiltration basins as well as the installation of potable water, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer piping. The existing wetlands will be maintained and even improved in some areas
and there will be some clearing of trees. There are no existing structures on the property.
It is currently used for agriculture. The construction activities are anticipated to start in
2015 and be completed in 2019.
Page | 4
c.
Project magnitude:
Table 1. Project Magnitude
Total Project Acreage:
103 acres
Number and type of residential units:
226 Single Family
23 Town Homes
Commercial building area (in square feet):
d.
Industrial building area (in square feet):
0
0
Institutional building area (in square feet):
0
Other uses – specify (in square feet):
0
Structure height(s):
35’
Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit,
explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The project purpose is to create a residential subdivision in the City of Corcoran.
e.
Are future stages of this development including development on any other property
planned or likely to happen?
Yes
No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
f.
Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project?
Yes
No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
7.
Cover types:
Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
Table 2. Land Cover Types
Cover Type
Wetlands
Deep water / Streams
Wooded / Forest
Brush / Grassland
Cropland
Before
After
10.7 ac.
0.0 ac.
29.2 ac.
0.4 ac.
62.1 ac.
10.3 ac.
0.0 ac.
12.1 ac.
0.2 ac.
0.0 ac.
Cover Type
Lawn / Landscaping
Impervious Surface
Stormwater Pond
Other (describe)
TOTAL
Before
After
0.7 ac.
0.2 ac.
0.0 ac.
N/A
48.9 ac.
27.0 ac.
4.8 ac.
N/A
103.3 ac.
103.3 ac.
Page | 5
8.
Permits and approvals required:
List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications and financial
assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental
review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including
bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions
are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.
Table 3. Required Permits and Approvals
Agency
City of Corcoran
Metropolitan Council
Environmental Quality Board
(EQB)
Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)
Minnesota Department of
Health
Type of Application
Status
Planned Unit Development, Sketch Plan
Review
Completed
Preliminary and Final Planned Unit
Development Plan
Future
Preliminary and Final Plat
Future
Utility and Street Construction Plans –
Staff approval
Future
Grading Permit – Staff approval
Future
Erosion Control Plan – Staff approval
Future
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Review.
Metropolitan Council
approved on
8/27/2014; City
Public Hearing
3/6/2014 (approved
by City Council on
6/12/14, subject to
Metropolitan Council
approval)
As part of the EAW process, a completed
EAW is submitted to the EQB, which
publishes the availability of the document
for a 30 day review.
Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) –
Until a site plan is completed and the
floodplain elevations are analyzed, we
cannot determine whether this will be
required. If required, it will pertain to a
small portion of the property in likely a later
phase of development/construction.
Pending
Future
Individual Well Abandonment –
The current homeowner of the exception
parcel may be obligated to complete this.
Potential Future
Water Main Extension Approval –
This approval is needed prior to starting
construction of water main.
Future
Page | 6
Agency
Type of Application
Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval –
This approval is needed prior to starting
construction of sanitary sewer.
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Elm Creek Watershed
Management Commission
US Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE)
Hennepin County
Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit - This is needed
prior to starting construction and is typically
approved along with the construction plans
or shortly thereafter.
SWPPP
Status
Future
Future
Future
Wetland Delineation Approval
1/3/2014
Wetland Conservation Act Permit
Potential future
Water quality, water quantity, erosion
control, and floodplain review
Future
Wetland Delineation Review –
This is being processed at this time.
In progress
Jurisdiction Determination
In progress
Section 404 Wetland Permit
(General Permit or Letter of Permission)
In progress
Highway Access Permit, work in the rightof-way, and County Utility Permits are
anticipated to be required.
Future
Sewer Extension
Future
Direct Connection Application
Future
Application for Connection to or Use of
Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services Facilities
Future
Future
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual
EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response
to EAW Item No. 19. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to
include information requested in EAW Item No. 19
9.
Land use:
a. Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails,
prime or unique farmlands.
The subject property contains a combination of tilled agricultural area, surrounding
wooded areas and wetlands. Across County Road (CR) 10 is parkland with ball fields
and supporting parking. The area around the CR 10 and CR 50 intersection contains
some limited commercial use.
Page | 7
There is a 4.6 acre exception that juts into the northwest corner of the property. This
land is likely to be subdivided in the near future and will yield between 8 and 12 lots.
ii.
Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any
other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state,
or federal agency.
The Comprehensive Plan has been amended to be consistent with the land uses
proposed with this development.
iii.
Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic
rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The site includes property in the Wetland Overlay District, Shoreland Overlay District
and Floodplain Overlay District. A small portion of floodplain juts into the north central
portion of the property. There is also a stream on the south and west of CR 10. It
meanders in a pattern that roughly parallels CR 10. The Existing Natural Resources
exhibit attached to this document shows the area included in the Shoreland Overlay
District. As shown there is an area that a small portion of property in the middle of the
Subject Property along CR 10, even though the protected stream is on the other side of
the roadway. The Shoreland Overlay District also includes a small area in the extreme
northwestern corner of the property. There are a number of wetlands scattered
throughout the site.
b.
Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item
9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
Issues associated with land use compatibility were considered in the Comprehensive
Plan. The design of the project includes trails, private open space and buffer areas as well
as a restored wetland. Special attention has been taken to analyze the effects on the
surrounding street network and planned changes that will respond to these changes. A
copy of the Transportation Feasibility study is attached as an Exhibit 4 to this document.
c.
Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential
incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.
The project is being designed and processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to
allow design flexibility to work better with the topography and natural resources.
Considerable landscaping is anticipated along CR 10. Additional outlots are intended to
provide open space buffers to adjacent properties. Landscaping along CR10 and outlots
will contribute in creating an urban forest. The largest wetland on the property will be
restored to improve the existing quality level of vegetation. All shorelands and wetlands
will be subject to the standards in the Shoreland and Wetland Overlay Districts in the City
of Corcoran Zoning Ordinance.
Page | 8
10.
Geology, soils and topography/land forms:
a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any
susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations,
unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features
for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project
designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
N/A
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications
and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site
conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep
slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation
and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction
and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and
after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections
or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be
addressed in response to Item 11 (b) (ii).
A copy of the County Soil Survey map is attached as Figure 5. The soils on the property
are well suited to urban development, except for the wetland soils that are being protected
and restored. Approximately 70 acres of the site is expected to be graded to prepare the
site for development. That includes moving approximately 300,000 cubic yards of material
on the site. Grading and erosion will be controlled on site and a SWPPP will be prepared.
NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation
assessing the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that
could create an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface
water. Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item
11 must be consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential
effects described in EAW Item 10.
11.
Water resources:
a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a (i) and a (ii)
below.
Exhibit 5 - Stormwater Feasibility Study examines on-site water resources and makes
recommendations for the development review process.
i.
Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches.
Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes,
migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water
quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters
List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
Page | 9
This property includes wetland and a portion is in the Shoreland Overlay district because
for a tributary stream in the South Rush Creek Corridor. The development is separated
from the stream by County Road 10 to the south and the preserved Wetlands to the west.
The development will not have any site drainage going directly in this stream. The
development will comply with all local ordinance requirements for these overly districts.
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within
a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including
unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain
the methodology used to determine this.
Groundwater was not present during the soil boring on this project which was drilled to a
depth of 14 feet. There are no wells currently present on this property however there was a
domestic well on the property that has been sealed and officially closed. Documentation is
available upon request.
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or
mitigate the effects in items b (i) through b (iv) below.
i.
Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all
sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site.
1. If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste
loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater
infrastructure.
2. If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe
the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system.
3. If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods
and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss
any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
The waste water discharge for this development will be handled through the local
sanitary sewer system being discharged in the Metropolitan Council system. This
will require the installation of a lift station as a result of the low topography. The
anticipated volumes for the development will be approximately 68,000 gallons per
day.
ii.
Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post
construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major
downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any
environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention
plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to
manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or
stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction.
The storm water runoff on this site will meet the standards of the Elm Creek watershed.
This includes but is not limited to not increasing the rate of discharge off site for a 2, 10
or 100 year storm event. It also includes no increase to total phosphorous loading from
the predevelopment to post development. The proposed development would disturb
more than one acre of land and as a result Peachtree Partners, LLC would be required
to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water
Page | 10
Construction Permit from the MPCA. The NDPES permit requires that a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be developed to describe Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to prevent on-site construction-related
erosion and protect downstream water bodies from sedimentation or water quality
impacts. Construction BMPs would likely entail measures such as silt fence, bio-rolls
and construction of temporary sedimentation basins. Additionally, under the terms of
the NPDES construction permit.
iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater
(including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water
use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If
connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source
and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss
environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources
available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental
effects from the water appropriation.
The project will be served by the City of Corcoran’s water system. As previously
mentioned a former domestic well has been sealed on the property and the existing
well on the exception parcel will need to be addressed in the future when it is
developed.
iv. Surface Waters
a. Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features such
as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal. Discuss direct
and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the
anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed.
Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or
mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory
wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major
watershed, and identify those probable locations.
A minimum of a 25-foot average buffer and a 15-foot structure setback from the
buffer will be provided around all wetlands, actual buffer width will range from 25
feet up to 50 feet. There will be two minor wetlands filled. A US Army Corps of
Engineers permit may be required for this work. In addition the development will
restore a large wetland on the site to improve the vegetation. The project will
impact less than a half an acre of existing wetlands and will be restoring over 5
acres of existing wetland on site.
b. Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface
water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such
as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment,
aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental
effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best
Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while
physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or
type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.
N/A
Page | 11
12.
Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes:
a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental
hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water
contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks,
and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from
pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction
and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from
existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a
Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.
The Environmental Site Assessment by Braun Intertec Dated November 18, 2013
identified no historical recognized environmental conditions with the exception of the
following underground storage tank which, upon inspection and testing, did not reveal any
environment impacts.
One 1,000-gallon fuel underground storage tank (UST) was previously located at the site.
Based on interview information and information provided by the client, the tank was
pumped and removed from the site in October 2013. One sample was collected from 12
inches below the tank basin and analyzed for diesel range organics (DROs) by Pace
Analytical. DRO was not detected in the sample analyzed and the tank was reportedly in
good condition with no visible signs of leaks or contamination at the time of removal.
Based on this information, the former fuel tank is considered a historical recognized
environmental condition. A copy of this report is available upon request.
b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of
disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and
disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the
generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling.
All waste materials produced during the project construction process will be disposed of
properly.
c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous
materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method
of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to
store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental
spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate
adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source
reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan.
The proposed development would produce some construction debris during construction.
Construction debris disposal would be the responsibility of the contractors performing the
construction work. The proposed development will generate municipal solid waste (MSW)
and household hazardous waste (HHW) for the residential units proposed. Recycling and
trash pick-up services are currently provided to residents by the City, which in turn has a
contract with Randy’s Environmental Services, a licensed waste hauler, for collection and
disposal. It is anticipated that recycling and trash services would also be provided by the
City for residents of the proposed development. Disposal of household hazardous waste
would be the responsibility of the individual residents.
Page | 12
d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of
disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage,
and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the
generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
N/A
13.
Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features):
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site.
There will be some habitat loss as a result of tree clearing and grading activities. Habitat
will be improved as part of the wetland restoration.
b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern)
species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of
Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close
proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-) and/or correspondence
number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter
from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been
conducted within the site and describe the results.
Based on a GIS review of available Element Occurrence data from the MN DNR Natural
Heritage Database there are no documented occurrences of MN Biological Survey (MBS)Mapped high quality natural areas, Rare Element Occurrences (rare species), or
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources mapped Sites of Biodiversity Significance
within the project site in Corcoran (see Exhibit 2).
That being said there is one record of a rare species within one mile of the project
boundary which is the Trumpeter swan and two additional records that occur between one
and two miles from the Schendel site which are the Blandings turtle and the Loggerhead
shrike. See attached letter verifying these findings and providing more detailed information
from Ecologist Paul Bockenstedt on behalf of Stantec (Exhibit 1 - DNR license LA-663).
c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems
may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive
species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known
threatened and endangered species.
There will be some tree loss as part of the construction grading activities. A significant
planting program will also be included to establish and maintain a healthy urban forest.
There will also be a significant effort to remove and treat Buckthorn and restoration work to
increase the quality of vegetation in approximately 50% of the wetlands on site.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
Page | 13
Increasing the level of vegetation in the existing wetlands and creating a buffer around the
high level wetlands and the creation of a new stormwater management system will lower
the total phosphorous loading.
14.
Historic properties:
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties
on or in close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact
areas, and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during
project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties.
There are no historical structures and no known cultural resources present in the project
area. The attached document in Exhibit 3 from the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) identifies two structures that are not located in the project area and will not be
impacted by this project.
15.
Visual:
Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project
related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the
potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate visual effects.
N/A
16.
Air:
a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of
any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any
hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to
air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria.
Include a discussion of any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the
results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that
will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source
emissions.
N/A
b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions.
Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g.
traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to
minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions.
There are no intersections in close proximity to the subject property that will experience
poor air quality.
c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of
dust and odors generated during project construction and operation (Fugitive dust may be
discussed under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project
Page | 14
including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken
to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
The proposed development would produce noise and dust typical of construction projects.
Noise and dust would be intermittent and temporary during development of the project
area dependent on construction phasing. The end use of the proposed development of low
density single family residential homes, which is consistent with the target use for the area
as identified within the City’s Comprehensive plan and would not produce nuisance odors,
noise, or dust.
17.
Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated
during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the
project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors,
3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will
be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
Bulldozers, scrapers and other construction equipment will be used during the construction
process. The equipment will meet all applicable industry standards for noise. Construction
activities will be subject to the City of Corcoran ordinances for hours of construction
activities.
18.
Transportation
a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing
and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated,
3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate
source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or
other alternative transportation modes.
See the attached Transportation Feasibility Report in Exhibit 4.
b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic
improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional
transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total
daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use
the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s
Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local
guidance,
See the attached Transportation Feasibility Report in Exhibit 4.
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation
effects.
See the attached Transportation Feasibility Report in Exhibit 4 for a description of the
proposed improvements to the CR 10/CR 50 intersection.
Page | 15
19.
Cumulative potential effects:
(Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the
applicable EAW Items)
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental
effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential
effects.
See the attached Feasibility Reports in Exhibits 4, 5 and 6.
b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has
been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the
geographic scales and timeframes identified above.
As described in response to question 9 (i) there is an existing exception parcel located in
the northwestern portion of the site that will likely develop in the near future.
c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental
effects due to these cumulative effects.
The impact to the local environment would be minimal. The area can be readily connected
to the surrounding street network and stormwater drainage system and the parcel doesn’t
include any existing wetland or wooded areas.
20.
Other potential environmental effects:
If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to
19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and
identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.
N/A
Page | 16
RGU CERTIFICATION.
(The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment
Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.)
I hereby certify that:
• The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
• The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or
components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project
as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200,
subparts 9c and 60, respectively.
• Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature:
Title:
Date:
9/22/2014
Corcoran City Planner_________________________
Page | 17
EAW Figures
Peachtree Partners LLC
Residential Development Plan
FigureMap
1. 4
Project Location
Site
Medina
St. Louis Park
Minnetrista
Hopkins
Edina
Project Site
Hennepin County Boundary
Municipal Boundaries
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri
(Thailand), TomTom, 2013
Schendel - County Location Map
- 08.26.2014 -
0
3
6 Miles
V:\1938\active\193802577\GIS\Projects\County Location.mxd
N
Map2.4
Figure
USGS Location Map
97th Ave N
G
H
¢
E
BECHTOLD ROAD
G
H
s
E
G
H
i
E
K
L
ï
I
TRAIL HAVEN ROAD
MEISTER ROAD
GOOSE
LAKE
K
L
ö
I
CS
AH
Co Rd 116
ROAD
10
Fletcher Lane
STREHLER
ROAD
CAIN ROAD
SCHUTTE
Co Rd 50
Rebecca Park Trail
G
H
¼
E
COOK
LAKE
LARKIN
G
H
s
E
RD
PIO
N
EE
R
WILLOW DRIVE
JUBERT
LAKE
ROLLLING HILLS RD
SCOTT
LAKE
OL
D
HORSESHOE TRAIL
TR
MORIN
LAKE
SE
TT
LE
RS
RD
HACKAMORE
Project Site Boundary
ROAD
@
A
Ø
?
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Schendel - USGS Location Map
- 08.26.2014 -
0
3,000
6,000 Feet
V:\1938\active\193802577\GIS\Projects\USGS.mxd
N
Figure 3 (A).
Existing Natural Resources Map
DNR Regulated Tributary
to Rush Creek
Medium
Quality
Wetland
Low Quality
Woods
Low Quality
Wetland
Low or Medium
Quality Wetland
Flood
Plain
Medium Quality
Maple Basswood
Low or Medium
Quality Wetland
High Quality
Wetland
Flood
Plain
Low Quality
Woods
Low Quality Wetlands
Shoreland
Overlay
District
Existing Farm
Field
Low Quality
Wetland to be
Restored
Low Quality
Woods
Medium Quality
Wetland to be
Restored
Low Quality
Woods
Low Quality
Wetland
0
200
Schendel - Existing Natural Resources
- 08.26.2014 -
Project #_193802580
500
N
³
Figure 3 (B) . Wetland Classification Map
B
A
H
E
H
C
Channel
D
Site 3
F-T1
Fletcher Lane (County Road 116)
Site 4
Channel
F-T2
t
un
Co
y
Ro
ad
10
G
City Classification
High
Medium
Property Boundary
Rebecca Park Trail (County Road 50)
Stantec Consulting
2335 Highway 36 W
Saint Paul, MN 55113
tel 651.636.4600
fax 651.636.1311
Geographic Information Systems
Image Source: U.S. Geological Survey (2012)
Parcels
0
150
300
600
Feet
SCHENDEL SITE, CORCORAN, MN
March 2014
The information on this map has been compiled
by Stantec staff from a variety of sources and is
subject to change without notice. Stantec makes
no representations or warranties, express or implied,
as to accuracy, completeness,timeliness, or rights
to the use of such information.
\\Us1291-f01\workgroup\1938\active\193802592\GIS\Projects\fig1_wetlnd_class.mxd
Figure 4.
Site Plan-Proposed PUD Sketch Plan
Current Zoning - RMF-3 High Density Residential
Proposed Zoning - PUD Planned Unit Development
Proposed Minimum Lot Widths = 55’,65’,75’
Proposed Minimum Lot Depth – 120’
Proposed Lot Setbacks
•
Front = 25’
•
Side = 5’
•
Rear = 30’
Proposed Townhome Setbacks
•
Front = 20’
•
Side = 20’
•
Rear = 30’
•
Between Townhome Structure = 20’
Proposed Right-of-way = 50’
Trail
Restored
Wetland
Gross Density
Property Area = 103.3 acres
55’ Wide Lots = 81
65’ Wide Lots = 88
75’ Wide Lots = 57
Proposed Number of Lots = 226
Proposed Number of Townhomes = 23
249 Total Residential Units
Gross Density = 2.4 units/acre
Overlook
Fletcher Lane (CR 116)
Zoning & Lot Information
LEGEND
55’ Wide Residential Lot
65’ Wide Residential Lot
75’ Wide Residential Lot
Townhome (Southeast Parcel)
Flood Plain
Wetland
Open Space
Sidewalk
Trail
Rebecca Park Trail (CR 50)
Future Trail
0
200
Schendel - PUD Sketch Plan
- 08.29.2014 -
Project #_193802580
500
N
Figure
Map 4 5.
County Soil Survey Map
L27A
L37B
L27A
L25A L22C2
L27A
L22C2
L22C2
L24A
L22D2
L24A
L22C2
L37B
L22D2
L24A
L22D2
L25A
L23A
L37B
L37B
L22C2
L37B
Project Site
L23A
L22C2 - Lester loam, morainic,
6 to 12 percent slopes,
eroded
L22E - Lester loam, morainic,
18 to 25 percent slopes
L22D2 - Lester loam, morainic,
12 to 18 percent slopes,
eroded
L24A
- 08.26.2014 -
L22E
L22C2
L22C2
L25A - Le Sueur loam,
1 to 3 percent slopes
Schendel - Soils
L22D2
L25A
L24A - Glencoe loam, depressional,
0 to 1 percent slopes
L37B - Angus loam, morainic,
2 to 5 percent slopes
L25A
L37B
L23A - Cordova loam,
0 to 2 percent slopes
L27A - Suckercreek loam,
0 to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded
L24A
L37B
L37B
L22C2
L22C2
L24A
L22C2
L25A
L24A
L22C2
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the
GIS User Community
0
300
V:\1938\active\193802577\GIS\Projects\Soils.mxd
600 Feet
N
EAW Exhibits
Peachtree Partners LLC
Residential Development Plan
Exhibit 1. DNR Natural Heritage License Agreement
Exhibit 1. DNR Natural Heritage License Agreement
Exhibit 1. DNR Natural Heritage License Agreement
Exhibit 1. DNR Natural Heritage License Agreement
Exhibit 1. DNR Natural Heritage License Agreement
Exhibit 2.
DNR Natural Heritage Letter
(prepared by Stantec)
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2335 Highway 36 West, St. Paul MN 55113-3819
September 9, 2014
File: 193802577
Attention: Paul Robinson, Development Manager
Peachtree partners
1521 94th Lane NE
Blaine MN 55449
Reference: Summary of rare features near Schendel site, Corcoran, MN
Dear Paul,
Based on a GIS review of available Element Occurrence data from the MN DNR Natural Heritage
Database, we observed the following:
There are no documented occurrences of MN Biological Survey (MBS)-Mapped high quality
natural areas, Rare Element Occurrences (rare species), or Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources mapped Sites of Biodiversity Significance within the project site in Corcoran (see
attached map).
There is one record of a rare species within one mile of the project boundary:
•
Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinatory) MN THR
o
Observed approximately one mile to the southeast of the site in 2000.
Two additional records occur between one and two miles from the Schendel site, including:
•
Blandings turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) MN THR
o
•
One individual observed approximately 1.1 miles east of the project site, crossing
County Road 10.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludoviciana) MN THR
o
A nesting pair with young was observed in 1994 with an additional observation in
1995.
Exhibit 2. DNR Natural Heritage Letter (prepared by Stantec)
September 9, 2014
Paul Robinson, Development Manager
Page 2 of 2
Reference: Summary of rare features near Schendel site, Corcoran, MN
This information is based on the most recent GIS-based EO data that Stantec has on file. If you
have questions or need additional information, please let me know.
Thank you,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Paul Bockenstedt
Ecologist/Project Manager
Phone: (651) 604-4812
Fax: (651) 636-1311
[email protected]
Attachment:
EO Map
c. file
pjb document2
Exhibit 2. DNR Natural Heritage Letter (prepared by Stantec)
_
^
³
Emydoidea blandingii
Lanius ludovicianus
_
^
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
_
^
_
^
Native Plant Community, Undetermined Class
_
^
Approximate Schendel
Site Boundary
_
^
_
^
Emydoidea blandingii
Cygnus buccinator
Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest Class
_
^
Sedge Meadow Type
_
^
Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Bitternut Hickory) Forest Type
_
^
Schendel Site - Rare Features
²
0 0.125
0.25
Legend
_
^
Rare elements
MBS Sites
Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Geographic Information Systems
0.5
Miles
Exhibit 2. DNR Natural Heritage Letter (prepared by Stantec)
Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
Exhibit 3.
State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO)
Letter
From: Thomas Cinadr [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 6:37 AM
To: Paul Robinson
Subject: Re: File Search Letter
THIS EMAIL IS NOT A PROJECT CLEARANCE.
This message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you
requested. The database search produced results for only previously known archaeological
sites and historic properties. Please read the note below carefully.
No archaeological sites were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic
Structures Inventory for the search area requested. A report containing the historic properties identified is
attached.
The result of this database search provides a listing of recorded archaeological sites and historic architectural
properties that are included in the current SHPO databases. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state
and many historic architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or structures may exist within the
search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field
survey, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties.
If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic
architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with
a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in Review and Compliance @ 651-259-3455 or by email at
[email protected].
The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata and Contractor Lists can be found at
http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/inventories.htm
SHPO research hours are 8:30 AM – 4:00 PM Tuesday-Friday.
The Office is closed on Mondays.
Tom Cinadr
Survey and Information Management Coordinator
Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office
Minnesota Historical Society
345 Kellogg Blvd. West
St. Paul, MN 55102
651-259-3453
Exhibit 3. SHPO letter
History/Architecture Inventory
PROPERTY NAME
COUNTY:
ADDRESS
Twp
Range
Sec Quarters
USGS
Report
NRHP CEF DOE
Inventory Number
Hennepin
CITY/TOWNSHIP: Corcoran
store
NW corner Co. Rd. 10 & Co. Rd. 50
119
23
23 SW-SE-SE
Hamel
HE-88-1H
HE-COC-025
St. Thomas Catholic Church
20000 Co. Rd. 10
119
23
23 SE-SE-SE
Hamel
HE-88-1H
HE-COC-026
Tuesday, September 09, 2014
Exhibit 3. SHPO letter
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 4.
Transportation Feasibility Study
Wenck File #2294-24
July 2014
Transportation Feasibility Study
Peachtree Development
Prepared for:
THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MN
8200 County Road 116
Corcoran, MN 55340
Prepared by:
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249
(763) 479-4200
Table of Contents
1.0
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1-1
1.1
1.2
2.0
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.0
Configuration ...................................................................................................... 2-1
Traffic Volume Data ............................................................................................ 2-1
Traffic Forecasts .................................................................................................. 2-1
Traffic Projections for 2030 ................................................................................ 2-2
Traffic Signal Warrants........................................................................................ 2-2
Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 2-2
ROAD NETWORK CONFIGURATIONS..........................................................................3-1
3.1
3.2
4.0
Background ......................................................................................................... 1-1
County Road 10 Turnback ................................................................................... 1-1
County Road 10 Alignment ................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1
Meister Road—Option A ..................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2
“T” at CR 50—Option C ....................................................................... 3-1
CR 10 CR 50 Interesection................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1
Option B1-A ......................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.2
Option B1-B ......................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.3
Option B2 ............................................................................................ 3-3
3.2.4
Option B3 ............................................................................................ 3-3
3.2.5
Option B4 ............................................................................................ 3-3
FINANCING ...............................................................................................................4-1
4.1
Approach............................................................................................................. 4-1
TABLES
1-7 of Estimated Costs
FIGURES
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Peachtree Concept Entrance to 50, Classification Figure, Traffic Counts
County 10 Turn Back Memo
Peak Hour Turn Movement Volumes
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\transportation\Transporatation Feasibility Study.docx
i
July 2014
1.0
Introduction
Peachtree Properties have requested a feasibility study for potential access and estimated costs for
transportation improvements to serve the proposed development generally located in the northwest of
the intersection of County Road 10 and County Road 50. The entrance to the development is proposed
to be on to County Road 10.
This report looks specifically at the feasibility of providing transportation needs for ultimate buildout.
Contained in the report are options for road configurations, access to the site and a traffic analysis to
determine impacts and potential need for traffic signal at the “10-50” intersection.
1.1
BACKGROUND
The “10/50” and “10-116” intersections have had numerous studies and potential alignments. The
City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows a realignment of CR 10 to Meister Road along with Larkin Road
being reconstructed as an A Minor Connector. The 2030 Roadway Functional Classification is given in
Appendix A (published June 2011 and updated April 2014).
1.2
COUNTY ROAD 10 TURNBACK
The Council has recently discussed accepting jurisdiction of County Road 10 under a “turn back”
agreement with Hennepin County. County Road 10 is listed in the County’s own plan as being eventually
under City jurisdiction. A memo reviewing turn back costs for reconstruction and maintenance is given in
Appendix B. Council is not pursuing a turn back at this time, however this report reviews two
alignments and costs for reconstruction of CR 10 along Meister or west of a development known as
Corcoran Trail.
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\transportation\Transporatation Feasibility Study.docx
1-1
July 2014
2.0
Traffic Analysis
2.1
CONFIGURATION
The CR 50/CR 10 intersection is currently configured as a “Y” type intersection, with CR 10 serving as the
mainline and eastbound CR 50 controlled with a stop sign. CR 10 curves to the northwest at this
location, creating an awkward intersection with CR 50. Improvements to the intersection layout are
being developed in conjunction with the proposed project, however in the long term improvements to
the intersection are needed whether or not the proposed development occurs.
2.2
TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA
Intersection turn movement data was collected at the CR 50/CR 10 intersection on Thursday, July 10,
2014. The resultant turn movement data is shown in Appendix C.
Observations during the data collection periods indicated some operational difficulties due to the
intersection geometrics combined with the high volumes. Westbound left turns from CR 10 onto CR 50
must turn from the through lane, resulting in conflicts with traffic continuing on CR 10. Eastbound
traffic on CR 50 must wait for gaps in the CR 10 traffic, resulting in delays. The awkward angle of the CR
10 leg to the northwest creates difficult sight lines for eastbound traffic on CR 50.
The traffic volumes at this intersection are highly directional during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
During the a.m. peak hour, which occurred from 7:00 – 8:00 am, 49% of vehicles entered from the
northwest on CR 10, 36% from the west on CR 50, and 15% from the east on CR 10. During the p.m.
peak hour, which occurred from 4:30 – 5:30 pm, 7% of vehicles entered from the northwest on CR 10,
16% from the west on CR 50, and 77% from the east on CR 10.
In addition to peak hour data, daily volume data is available from Hennepin County. The most recent
data for this area was collected in 2013. The annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume on CR 10 north
of CR 50 was 2,600 vehicles per day. The AADT on CR 50 west of CR 10 was 2,900 vehicles per day.
The percentage of the daily volume occurring during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours was also determined.
On CR 10 north of CR 50, the a.m. peak hour volume was 13.3% of the daily volume and the p.m. peak
hour was 16% of the daily volume. On CR 50 west of CR 10, the a.m. peak hour volume was 10.8% of the
daily volume and the p.m. peak hour was 13.3% of the daily volume. These percentages are higher than
the typical 10% value found at many locations. The higher than usual percentages are likely due to the
large amount of commuter traffic that is present at this intersection.
2.3
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Traffic volume forecasts were developed for the CR 50/CR 10 intersection assuming development of the
Schendel property. The expected development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip
Generation, Ninth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations
represent gross total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. The resultant trip
generation estimates are shown in the following table.
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\transportation\Transporatation Feasibility Study.docx
2-1
July 2014
Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Land Uses
Land Use
Size
Single Family Dwelling
Units
Townhouse Dwelling Units
Totals
226 DU
23 DU
Weekday AM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
40
130
170
2
42
8
138
10
180
Weekday PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
142
84
226
8
150
4
88
12
238
Weekday
Daily
Total
2152
134
2286
Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using trip distribution
percentages based on existing travel patterns in the area. Traffic volumes were established for a five
year build-out assumption during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant traffic volumes
are presented in Figure 1.
2.4
TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS FOR 2030
The Hennepin County 2030 traffic volume forecasts show a daily volume of 4,800 on CR 10 in 2030 and a
baseline volume of 3,050 in 2005. An interpolation of these numbers results in a daily volume of 4,100
on CR 10 in 2020. The Peachtree residential development is expected to generate 2,286 daily
trips. Added to the base 2020 daily volume of 4,100 on CR 10 results in a total daily volume of 6,386. Of
the 6,386 daily volume on CR 10, 36% is attributed to Peachtree and 64% is other background traffic.
2.5
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
A preliminary review of traffic signal warrants was completed to determine if traffic signal control
should be considered for the future CR 50/CR 10 intersection. Using the peak period data collected at
the intersection, the peak hour and four hour warrants as described in the Minnesota Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) were reviewed.
Under existing 2014 conditions, neither of the warrants are met. Under 2019 Build-out conditions, the
peak hour warrant is met for one hour and the four hour warrant is met for three hours. This analysis
did not include other future development in the area, which is expected to occur in the downtown area.
Based on this preliminary analysis, traffic signal control would not be needed immediately but would
likely be warranted within five years.
Even if signal warrants are met in the future, Hennepin County will make the final decision on any traffic
control changes at this intersection. Hennepin County ranks intersections based on traffic volumes,
crash history, and funding to determine when traffic signal control is needed. Further discussions with
Hennepin County will be needed to determine if traffic signal control can be installed at this
intersection.
2.6
•
•
CONCLUSIONS
The traffic volumes at the CR 50/CR 10 intersection are highly directional during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours. Observations during the data collection periods indicated some operational
difficulties due to the difficult intersection geometrics combined with the high volumes.
Improvements to the intersection layout are needed independent of the proposed
development. Traffic volumes added by the proposed development make the need for
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\transportation\Transporatation Feasibility Study.docx
2-2
July 2014
improvements more evident and necessary.
•
Existing volumes do not meet traffic signal warrants. Future volumes with the full development
in place will likely meet warrants by 2019.
•
Even if signal warrants are met in the future, Hennepin County will make the final decision on
any traffic control changes at this intersection. Further discussions with Hennepin County will
be needed to determine if traffic signal control can be installed at this intersection.
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\transportation\Transporatation Feasibility Study.docx
2-3
July 2014
3.0
Road Network Configurations
The engineering drawings given as Sheets C-101 through C-105 show several options for different
configurations of the road network. Costs are given in Tables 1 through 6.
3.1
COUNTY ROAD 10 ALIGNMENT
As noted previously, the City is not pursuing a turnback at this time. The configurations shown on Sheet
C-101 “move” the County road to either Meister Road (Option A) or an extension of Cain Road (Option
C).
3.1.1 Meister Road—Option A
The project involves reconstruction of the existing Meister Road with a “T” intersection at CR 116 and
four-way intersection with Cain Road. County staff initial feedback was creating a “T” intersection at CR
116 was not problematic, therefore the alignment appears feasible.
The alignment does create an additional turn movement for northwest/southeast traffic whereas
northwest traffic from the CR 116 / CR 10 intersection would need to travel north along CR 116, then
turn left (west) onto Meister. The addition of traffic onto CR 116 for a short distance would need to be
managed via extended turn lanes and possible signal at CR 116.
Costs are given in Table 1 and show the following:
• Construction $4.4M (includes significant ROW and poor soils correction at approx. $750K)
• Contingency 20% and Engineering 15%
• Total Project at $5.9M
3.1.2 “T” at CR 50—Option C
Option C shows a new alignment to direct traffic onto CR 50 which would be a “T” intersection.
Ultimate buildout shows the potential to connect with a Larkin Road extension as shown in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
The project lowers some costs as compared to Option A such as the new road length is lower than
Meister and eliminates intersection complexity with Cain /Meister and has dedicated half-ROW in
Corcoran Trail development. The project has higher costs of estimated soil correction and wetland
mitigation since the route crosses significant wetlands.
Costs are given in Table 2 and show the following:
• Construction $4.0M (includes significant poor soils correction and wetland work at $1.5M)
• Contingency 20% and Engineering 15%
• Total Project at $5.45M (wetland soil conditions will affect final cost)
• Additional intersection work at Meister/CR 10 connection would increase cost
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\transportation\Transporatation Feasibility Study.docx
3-1
July 2014
3.2
CR 10 CR 50 INTERESECTION
The 10-50 intersection options are labeled “B Options” and focus on potential intersection
configurations. The Peachtree entrances are shown at different locations, and it should be noted the
main entrance to the development will likely be moved and is shown for illustrative purposes only. The
final design criteria and ROW requirements will affect land impacts and alignments.
3.2.1 Option B1-A
Design criteria as shown on Sheet C-102A are:
•
50 MPH Speed
•
120’ ROW
This option eliminates the Y configuration and creates a T intersection however requires Peachtree land
dedication to the 50 MPH road curvature and removes existing businesses at the intersection. Should
the option be considered for further evaluation, moving the T slightly east may avoid one of the
businesses.
Costs are given in Table 3 and show the following:
• Construction $1.6M
• Contingency 20% and Engineering 15%
• No land acquisition costs or demolition are included
• Signal is included at $250K
• Total Project at $2.2M
3.2.2 Option B1-B
Design criteria are the same as B1-A and are shown on Sheet C-102B as:
•
50 MPH Speed
•
120’ ROW
This option eliminates the Y configuration and creates a T intersection however preserves developable
(Peachtree) property but then requires City Park land dedication. Businesses may be able to remain if
flexibility of lesser ROW requirement is received from the County
Costs are given in Table 4 and show the following:
• Construction $1.5M
• Contingency 20% and Engineering 15%
• No land acquisition costs, demolition, or park replacement costs are included
• Signal is included at $250K
• Total Project at $2.0M
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\transportation\Transporatation Feasibility Study.docx
3-2
July 2014
3.2.3 Option B2
Design criteria was modified for a lower speed however the ROW remains the same (Sheet C-103).
Criteria are:
•
30 MPH Speed
•
120’ ROW
This option also creates a T intersection, however preserves businesses and lessens Peachtree land
impacts. Properties to the north of existing CR50 would need to be acquired, but the existing residential
home remains. Access to the businesses would need to be clarified.
Costs are given in Table 5 and show the following:
• Construction $1.6M
• Contingency 20% and Engineering 15%
• No land acquisition costs or demolition costs are included
• Signal is included at $250K
• Total Project at $2.2M
3.2.4 Option B3
This option shows the Peachtree concept entrance through the City Park. The Peachtree concept has
been further defined to show required turn lanes at the CR 50 intersection, and appears to need
additional ROW. This concept is not feasible under County jurisdiction, and therefore not applicable.
Costs are given in Table 6 and show the following:
• Construction $1.1 M
• Contingency 20% and Engineering 15%
• No land acquisition costs, park replacement, or demolition costs are included
• Signal is included at $250K
• Total Project at $1.5M
3.2.5 Option B4
This option shows a roundabout concept with the Peachtree development being the 4th leg. The
roundabout would also function as three legged without the development entrance. The project
requires acquisition of two businesses, the properties to the north of CR 10 and a small easement of the
existing residence.
Costs are given in Table 7 and show the following:
• Construction $1.0M
• Contingency raised to 30% and Engineering 15%
• No land acquisition costs or demolition costs are included
• Access for south side of CR 50 and CR 10 needs to be provided
• Total Project at $1.5M
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\transportation\Transporatation Feasibility Study.docx
3-3
July 2014
4.0
Financing
4.1
APPROACH
Financing will depend on the direction given for the road network in this area. Staff has had discussions
with the County about available funds or programs, longer term CIP project lists, etc. Overall it appears
that a three party financial approach is optimal, where the County, City and developer contribute to the
ultimate road network.
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\transportation\Transporatation Feasibility Study.docx
4-1
July 2014
Tables
Table 1.
Option A Estimated Costs
Peachtree Development Feasibility Study for Transportation
MEISTER RD AND CAIN RD MAINLINE IMPROVEMENTS
Item
Units
Qty
Unit Price
1 $ 50,000.00
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
LUMP
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
ACRE
$ 45,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMP
1 $ 5,000.00
CLEARING
TREE
$
300.00
GRUBBING
TREE
$
100.00
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SY
18,864 $
3.00
FABRIC
SY
31,924 $
3.10
TOPSOIL
CU YD
7,256 $
20.00
23,092 $
COMMON EXCAVATION
CU YD
15.00
15,500 $
POOR SOIL CORRECTION
CU YD
25.00
14,047 $
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TON
12.00
2,235 $
AGGREGATE SHOULDERING
TON
40.00
21,070 $
SELECT GRANULAR
TON
15.00
1,451 $
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GAL
4.00
13,417 $
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
TON
90.00
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
SF
$
33.00
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
EACH
$
250.00
STORM SEWER PIPE
LF
$
75.00
7 $
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
EACH
800.00
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
CU YD
$
120.00
SILT FENCE
LF
14,366 $
2.00
SEEDING
SY
43,533 $
0.50
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
EACH
$
125.00
19,590 $
STRIPING
LF
0.60
WETLAND IMPACTS
ACRE
3.2 $ 55,000.00
ROW ACQUISITION
ACRE
7.4 $ 50,000.00
OPTION A MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Price
50,000.00
5,000.00
56,593.33
98,965.78
145,111.11
346,380.22
387,500.00
168,561.07
89,388.44
316,052.00
5,804.44
1,207,527.60
5,600.00
28,732.00
21,766.67
11,754.00
176,000.00
370,000.00
3,490,736.67
698,147.33
523,610.50
4,712,494.50
4,700,000.00
CR-116, MEISTER RD, & CAIN RD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Item
Units
Qty
Unit Price
1 $ 40,000.00
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
LUMP
EASEMENT
ACRE
1 $ 5,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMP
CLEARING
TREE
$
300.00
GRUBBING
TREE
$
100.00
5200 $
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SY
3.00
10400 $
FABRIC
SY
3.10
2000 $
TOPSOIL
CU YD
20.00
7523 $
COMMON EXCAVATION
CU YD
15.00
4576 $
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TON
12.00
616 $
AGGREGATE SHOULDERING
TON
40.00
6864 $
SELECT GRANULAR
TON
15.00
480 $
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GAL
4.00
4438 $
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
TON
90.00
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
SF
$
33.00
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
EACH
$
250.00
STORM SEWER PIPE
LF
$
75.00
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
EACH
$
800.00
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
CU YD
$
120.00
3960 $
SILT FENCE
LF
2.00
12000 $
SEEDING
SY
0.50
12000 $
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
SY
1.50
9000 $
STRIPING
LF
0.60
WETLAND IMPACTS
SF
$
1.00
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
EACH
$
SIGNAL
EACH
$
OPTION A INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
Total Price
40,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,000.00
15,600.00
32,240.00
40,000.00
112,840.00
54,912.00
24,640.00
102,960.00
1,920.00
399,427.20
7,920.00
6,000.00
18,000.00
5,400.00
866,859.20
173,371.84
130,028.88
1,170,259.92
1,200,000.00
SUMMARY
OPTION A MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
OPTION A INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$
$
$
Total Price
4,700,000.00
1,200,000.00
5,900,000.00
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Table 2.
Option C Estimated Costs
Peachtree Development Feasibility Study for Transportation
Item
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
FABRIC
TOPSOIL
COMMON EXCAVATION
POOR SOIL CORRECTION
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
AGGREGATE SHOULDERING
SELECT GRANULAR
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
STORM SEWER PIPE
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
SILT FENCE
SEEDING
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
STRIPING
WETLAND IMPACTS
ROW ACQUISITION
CAIN RD MAINLINE IMPROVEMENTS
Units
Qty
Unit Price
LUMP
1 $ 50,000.00
ACRE
$ 45,000.00
1 $ 5,000.00
LUMP
1.5 $ 10,000.00
ACRE
SY
16,178 $
5.00
SY
20,044 $
3.10
CU YD
1 $
20.00
13,363 $
CU YD
15.00
45,700 $
CU YD
25.00
8,820 $
TON
12.00
1,403 $
TON
40.00
13,229 $
TON
15.00
911 $
GAL
4.00
8,424 $
TON
90.00
SF
$
33.00
EACH
$
250.00
LF
$
75.00
EACH
$
800.00
CU YD
$
120.00
8,870 $
LF
2.00
27,333 $
SY
0.50
27,333 $
SY
1.50
EACH
$
125.00
12,300 $
LF
0.60
9.40 $ 55,000.00
ACRE
ACRE
9.00 $ 50,000.00
OPTION C MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Price
50,000.00
5,000.00
15,000.00
80,888.89
62,137.78
22.22
200,444.44
1,142,500.00
105,834.67
56,124.44
198,440.00
3,644.44
758,172.00
17,740.00
13,666.67
41,000.00
7,380.00
517,000.00
450,000.00
3,724,995.56
744,999.11
558,749.33
5,028,744.00
5,000,000.00
CTY RD 50 & CAIN RD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Item
Units
Qty
Unit Price
1 $ 15,000.00
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
LUMP
EASEMENT
ACRE
1 $ 5,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMP
CLEARING
TREE
$
300.00
GRUBBING
TREE
$
100.00
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SY
4,160 $
3.00
FABRIC
SY
8,320 $
3.10
TOPSOIL
CU YD
400 $
20.00
COMMON EXCAVATION
CU YD
1,505 $
15.00
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TON
3,661 $
12.00
AGGREGATE SHOULDERING
TON
493 $
40.00
SELECT GRANULAR
TON
5,491 $
15.00
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GAL
96 $
4.00
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
TON
888 $
90.00
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
SF
$
33.00
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
EACH
$
250.00
STORM SEWER PIPE
LF
$
75.00
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
EACH
$
800.00
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
CU YD
$
120.00
SILT FENCE
LF
3,168 $
2.00
2,400 $
SEEDING
SY
0.50
2,400 $
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
SY
1.50
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
EACH
$
125.00
1,800 $
STRIPING
LF
0.60
WETLAND IMPACTS
SF
$
1.00
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
EACH
$
SIGNAL
EACH
$
OPTION C INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
Total Price
15,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,000.00
12,480.00
25,792.00
8,000.00
22,568.00
43,929.60
19,712.00
82,368.00
384.00
79,885.44
6,336.00
1,200.00
3,600.00
1,080.00
327,335.04
65,467.01
49,100.26
441,902.30
450,000.00
SUMMARY
OPTION C MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
OPTION C INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$
$
$
Total Price
5,000,000.00
450,000.00
5,450,000.00
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Table 3.
Option B1-A Estimated Costs
Peachtree Development Feasibility Study for Transportation
Item
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
CLEARING
GRUBBING
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
FABRIC
TOPSOIL
COMMON EXCAVATION
POOR SOIL CORRECTION
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
AGGREGATE BASE SURGACING CLASS 2
SELECT GRANULAR
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
STORM SEWER PIPE
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
SILT FENCE
SEEDING
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
STRIPING
WETLAND IMPACTS
ROW ACQUISITION
CTY RD 10 IMPROVEMENTS
Units
Qty
Unit Price
LUMP
1 $ 20,000.00
ACRE
$ 45,000.00
LUMP
1 $ 5,000.00
TREE
$
300.00
TREE
$
100.00
SY
2,600 $
3.00
SY
4,400 $
3.10
CU YD
1,000 $
20.00
3,183 $
CU YD
15.00
3,600 $
CU YD
25.00
1,936 $
TON
12.00
308 $
TON
40.00
2,904 $
TON
15.00
200 $
GAL
4.00
1,849 $
TON
90.00
SF
$
33.00
EACH
$
250.00
LF
$
75.00
1 $
EACH
800.00
CU YD
$
120.00
1,980 $
LF
2.00
6,000 $
SY
0.50
6,000 $
SY
1.50
EACH
$
125.00
2,700 $
LF
0.60
0.5 $ 55,000.00
ACRE
ACRE
OPTION B1 A MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Price
20,000.00
5,000.00
7,800.00
13,640.00
20,000.00
47,740.00
90,000.00
23,232.00
12,320.00
43,560.00
800.00
166,428.00
800.00
3,960.00
3,000.00
9,000.00
1,620.00
27,500.00
496,400.00
99,280.00
74,460.00
670,140.00
700,000.00
CTY RD 10 & CTY RD 50 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Item
Units
Qty
Unit Price
1 $ 30,000.00
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
LUMP
EASEMENT
ACRE
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMP
1 $ 5,000.00
CLEARING
TREE
$
300.00
GRUBBING
TREE
$
100.00
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SY
3.00
4,911 $
FABRIC
SY
3.10
10,400 $
TOPSOIL
CU YD
20.00
2,000 $
COMMON EXCAVATION
CU YD
7,523 $
15.00
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TON
4,576 $
12.00
AGGREGATE BASE SURGACING CLASS 2
TON
40.00
616 $
SELECT GRANULAR
TON
15.00
6,864 $
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GAL
4.00
480 $
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
TON
4,438 $
90.00
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
SF
$
33.00
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
EACH
$
250.00
STORM SEWER PIPE
LF
$
75.00
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
EACH
1 $
800.00
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
CU YD
$
120.00
SILT FENCE
LF
3,740 $
2.00
SEEDING
SY
12,000 $
0.50
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
SY
12,000 $
1.50
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
EACH
$
125.00
STRIPING
LF
9,000 $
0.60
WETLAND IMPACTS
SF
$
1.00
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
EACH
$
SIGNAL
EACH
1 $250,000.00
OPTION B1 A INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
Total Price
30,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,000.00
14,733.33
32,240.00
40,000.00
112,840.00
54,912.00
24,640.00
102,960.00
1,920.00
399,427.20
800.00
7,480.00
6,000.00
18,000.00
5,400.00
250,000.00
1,106,352.53
221,270.51
165,952.88
1,493,575.92
1,500,000.00
SUMMARY
OPTION B1 A MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
OPTION B1 A INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$
$
$
Total Price
700,000.00
1,500,000.00
2,200,000.00
Assumes Peachtree ROW dedication and excludes any comercial business purchase costs.
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Table 4.
Option B1-B Estimated Costs
Peachtree Development Feasibility Study for Transportation
Item
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
CLEARING
GRUBBING
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
FABRIC
TOPSOIL
COMMON EXCAVATION
POOR SOIL CORRECTION
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
AGGREGATE BASE SURGACING CLASS 2
SELECT GRANULAR
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
STORM SEWER PIPE
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
SILT FENCE
SEEDING
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
STRIPING
WETLAND IMPACTS
ROW ACQUISITION
CTY RD 10 IMPROVEMENTS
Units
Qty
Unit Price
LUMP
1 $ 20,000.00
ACRE
$ 45,000.00
LUMP
1 $ 5,000.00
TREE
$
300.00
TREE
$
100.00
SY
3.00
1,676 $
SY
3.10
2,836 $
CU YD
20.00
644 $
CU YD
15.00
2,051 $
2,800 $
CU YD
25.00
1,248 $
TON
12.00
198 $
TON
40.00
1,871 $
TON
15.00
129 $
GAL
4.00
1,192 $
TON
90.00
SF
$
33.00
EACH
$
250.00
LF
$
75.00
1 $
EACH
800.00
CU YD
$
120.00
1,276 $
LF
2.00
3,867 $
SY
0.50
3,867 $
SY
1.50
EACH
$
125.00
1,740 $
LF
0.60
0.60 $ 55,000.00
ACRE
ACRE
OPTION B1 B MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Price
20,000.00
5,000.00
5,026.67
8,790.22
12,888.89
30,765.78
70,000.00
14,971.73
7,939.56
28,072.00
515.56
107,253.60
800.00
2,552.00
1,933.33
5,800.00
1,044.00
33,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
356,353.33
71,270.67
53,453.00
481,077.00
500,000.00
CTY RD 10 & CTY RD 50 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Item
Units
Qty
Unit Price
1 $ 30,000.00
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
LUMP
EASEMENT
ACRE
1 $ 5,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMP
CLEARING
TREE
$
300.00
GRUBBING
TREE
$
100.00
4,911 $
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SY
3.00
10,400 $
FABRIC
SY
3.10
2,000 $
TOPSOIL
CU YD
20.00
7,523 $
COMMON EXCAVATION
CU YD
15.00
4,576 $
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TON
12.00
616 $
AGGREGATE BASE SURGACING CLASS 2
TON
40.00
6,864 $
SELECT GRANULAR
TON
15.00
480 $
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GAL
4.00
4,438 $
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
TON
90.00
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
SF
$
33.00
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
EACH
$
250.00
STORM SEWER PIPE
LF
$
75.00
1 $
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
EACH
800.00
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
CU YD
$
120.00
3,740 $
SILT FENCE
LF
2.00
12,000 $
SEEDING
SY
0.50
12,000 $
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
SY
1.50
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
EACH
$
125.00
9,000 $
STRIPING
LF
0.60
WETLAND IMPACTS
SF
$
1.00
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
EACH
$
1 $ 250,000.00
SIGNAL
EACH
OPTION B1 B INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
Total Price
30,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,000.00
14,733.33
32,240.00
40,000.00
112,840.00
54,912.00
24,640.00
102,960.00
1,920.00
399,427.20
800.00
7,480.00
6,000.00
18,000.00
5,400.00
250,000.00
1,106,352.53
221,270.51
165,952.88
1,493,575.92
1,500,000.00
SUMMARY
OPTION B1 B MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
OPTION B1 B INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$
$
$
Total Price
500,000.00
1,500,000.00
2,000,000.00
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Table 5.
Option B2 Estimated Costs
Peachtree Development Feasibility Study for Transportation
Item
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
CLEARING
GRUBBING
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
FABRIC
TOPSOIL
COMMON EXCAVATION
POOR SOIL CORRECTION
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
AGGREGATE BASE SURGACING CLASS 2
SELECT GRANULAR
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
STORM SEWER PIPE
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
SILT FENCE
SEEDING
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
STRIPING
WETLAND IMPACTS
ROW ACQUISITION
CONCRETE MEDIAN
CTY RD 10 MAINLINE IMPROVEMENTS
Units
Qty
Unit Price
LUMP
1 $ 25,000.00
ACRE
$ 45,000.00
LUMP
1 $ 5,000.00
TREE
$
300.00
TREE
$
100.00
SY
3.00
1,444 $
SY
3.10
2,444 $
CU YD
20.00
556 $
1,768 $
CU YD
15.00
3,100 $
CU YD
25.00
1,076 $
TON
12.00
171 $
TON
40.00
1,613 $
TON
15.00
111 $
GAL
4.00
1,027 $
TON
90.00
SF
$
33.00
EACH
$
250.00
LF
$
75.00
1 $
EACH
800.00
CU YD
$
120.00
1,100 $
LF
2.00
3,333 $
SY
0.50
3,333 $
SY
1.50
EACH
$
125.00
1,500 $
LF
0.60
1 $ 55,000.00
ACRE
3 $ 65,000.00
ACRE
SF
OPTION B2 MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Price
25,000.00
5,000.00
4,333.33
7,577.78
11,111.11
26,522.22
77,500.00
12,906.67
6,844.44
24,200.00
444.44
92,460.00
800.00
2,200.00
1,666.67
5,000.00
900.00
27,500.00
182,000.00
513,966.67
102,793.33
77,095.00
693,855.00
700,000.00
CTY RD 10 & CTY RD 50 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Item
Units
Qty
Unit Price
1 $ 30,000.00
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
LUMP
EASEMENT
ACRE
1 $ 5,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMP
CLEARING
TREE
$
300.00
GRUBBING
TREE
$
100.00
4,622 $
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SY
3.00
10,400 $
FABRIC
SY
3.10
2,000 $
TOPSOIL
CU YD
20.00
7,523 $
COMMON EXCAVATION
CU YD
15.00
4,576 $
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TON
12.00
616 $
AGGREGATE BASE SURGACING CLASS 2
TON
40.00
6,864 $
SELECT GRANULAR
TON
15.00
480 $
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GAL
4.00
4,438 $
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
TON
90.00
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
SF
$
33.00
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
EACH
$
250.00
STORM SEWER PIPE
LF
$
75.00
1 $
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
EACH
800.00
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
CU YD
$
120.00
3,520 $
SILT FENCE
LF
2.00
12,000 $
SEEDING
SY
0.50
12,000 $
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
SY
1.50
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
EACH
$
125.00
9,000 $
STRIPING
LF
0.60
WETLAND IMPACTS
SF
$
1.00
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
EACH
$
1
SIGNAL
EACH
$ 250,000.00
OPTION B2 INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
Total Price
30,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,000.00
13,866.67
32,240.00
40,000.00
112,840.00
54,912.00
24,640.00
102,960.00
1,920.00
399,427.20
800.00
7,040.00
6,000.00
18,000.00
5,400.00
250,000.00
1,105,045.87
221,009.17
165,756.88
1,491,811.92
1,500,000.00
SUMMARY
OPTION B2 MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
OPTION B2 INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$
$
$
Total Price
700,000.00
1,500,000.00
2,200,000.00
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Table 6.
Option B3 Estimated Costs
Peachtree Development Feasibility Study for Transportation
PEACHTREE ACCESS MAINLINE IMPROVEMENTS
Item
Units
Qty
Unit Price
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
LUMP
1 $ 25,000.00
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
ACRE
$ 45,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMP
1 $ 5,000.00
CLEARING
TREE
$
300.00
GRUBBING
TREE
$
100.00
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SY
3.00
1271 $
FABRIC
SY
3.10
2151 $
TOPSOIL
CU YD
20.00
489 $
1556 $
COMMON EXCAVATION
CU YD
15.00
1900 $
POOR SOIL CORRECTION
CU YD
25.00
946 $
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TON
12.00
151 $
AGGREGATE BASE SURGACING CLASS 2
TON
40.00
1420 $
SELECT GRANULAR
TON
15.00
98 $
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GAL
4.00
904 $
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
TON
90.00
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
SF
$
33.00
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
EACH
$
250.00
STORM SEWER PIPE
LF
$
75.00
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
EACH
$
800.00
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
CU YD
$
120.00
968 $
SILT FENCE
LF
2.00
2933 $
SEEDING
SY
0.50
2933 $
SY
1.50
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
EACH
$
125.00
1320 $
LF
0.60
STRIPING
0.5 $ 55,000.00
WETLAND IMPACTS
ACRE
ROW ACQUISITION
ACRE
OPTION B3 MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Price
25,000.00
5,000.00
3,813.33
6,668.44
9,777.78
23,339.56
47,500.00
11,357.87
6,023.11
21,296.00
391.11
81,364.80
1,936.00
1,466.67
4,400.00
792.00
27,500.00
$
$
$
$
$
277,626.67
55,525.33
41,644.00
374,796.00
400,000.00
PEACHTREE ACCESS RD & CTY RD 50 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Item
Units
Qty
Unit Price
1 $ 30,000.00
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
LUMP
EASEMENT
ACRE
1 $ 5,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMP
CLEARING
TREE
$
300.00
GRUBBING
TREE
$
100.00
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SY
3.00
3120 $
6240 $
FABRIC
SY
3.10
1200 $
TOPSOIL
CU YD
20.00
4514 $
COMMON EXCAVATION
CU YD
15.00
2746 $
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TON
12.00
370 $
AGGREGATE BASE SURGACING CLASS 2
TON
40.00
4118 $
SELECT GRANULAR
TON
15.00
288 $
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GAL
4.00
2663 $
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
TON
90.00
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
SF
$
33.00
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
EACH
$
250.00
STORM SEWER PIPE
LF
$
75.00
1 $
DRIVEWAY CULVERTS
EACH
800.00
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
CU YD
$
120.00
2376 $
LF
2.00
SILT FENCE
7200 $
SEEDING
SY
0.50
7200 $
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
SY
1.50
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
EACH
$
125.00
5400
STRIPING
LF
$
0.60
WETLAND IMPACTS
SF
$
1.00
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
EACH
$
1 $ 250,000.00
SIGNAL
EACH
OPTION B3 INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
$
Total Price
30,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,000.00
9,360.00
19,344.00
24,000.00
67,704.00
32,947.20
14,784.00
61,776.00
1,152.00
239,656.32
800.00
4,752.00
3,600.00
10,800.00
3,240.00
250,000.00
778,915.52
155,783.10
116,837.33
1,051,535.95
1,100,000.00
SUMMARY
OPTION B3 MAINLINE SUBTOTAL
OPTION B3 INTERSECTION SUBTOTAL
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$
$
$
Total Price
400,000.00
1,100,000.00
1,500,000.00
`
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Table 7.
Option B4 Estimated Costs
Peachtree Development Feasibility Study for Transportation
Item
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
CLEARING
GRUBBING
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
FABRIC
TOPSOIL
COMMON EXCAVATION
POOR SOIL CORRECTION
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
SELECT GRANULAR
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST
STORM SEWER PIPE
STORM SEWER STRUCTURES
RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III
SILT FENCE
SEEDING
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
STRIPING
ROUND-A-BOUT LANDSCAPING FOR ISLAND
WETLAND IMPACTS
ROW ACQUISITION
Roundabout
Units
LUMP
ACRE
LUMP
TREE
TREE
SY
SY
CU YD
CU YD
CU YD
TON
TON
GAL
TON
SF
LF
EACH
LF
EACH
CU YD
LF
SY
SY
LF
LS
ACRE
Qty
Unit Price
1 $ 100,000.00
$ 45,000.00
1 $
5,000.00
$
300.00
$
100.00
4,564 $
3.00
4,916 $
3.10
1,756 $
20.00
3,556 $
15.00
6,800 $
25.00
2,163 $
12.00
3,469 $
15.00
211 $
4.00
1,948 $
90.00
10,000 $
10.00
3,185 $
25.00
30 $
300.00
500 $
50.00
5 $
3,500.00
25 $
120.00
2,000 $
2.00
10,533 $
0.50
10,533 $
1.50
4,740 $
0.60
1 $ 10,000.00
0.5 $ 55,000.00
OPTION B4 SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (30%)
PERMITTING AND APPROVALS
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED TOTAL
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Price
100,000.00
5,000.00
13,693.33
15,238.22
35,111.11
53,333.78
170,000.00
25,954.13
52,039.00
842.67
175,304.16
100,000.00
79,625.00
9,000.00
25,000.00
17,500.00
3,000.00
4,000.00
5,266.67
15,800.00
2,844.00
10,000.00
27,500.00
946,052.07
283,815.62
50,000.00
141,907.81
1,421,775.50
1,500,000.00
Figures
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Appendix A
Peachtree Concept Entrance to 50
Classification Figure
Traffic Counts
Zoning & Lot Information
Current Zoning - RMF-3 High Density Residential
Proposed Zoning - PUD Planned Unit Development
Proposed Minimum Lot Widths = 55’,65’,75’
Proposed Minimum Lot Depth – 120’
Proposed Lot Setbacks
•
Front = 25’
•
Side = 5’ and 10’
•
Rear = 30’
Proposed Townhome Setbacks
•
Front = 20’
•
Side = 20’
•
Rear = 30’
•
Between Townhome Structure = 20’
Proposed Right-of-way = 50’
Fletcher Lane (CR 116)
Trail
Restored
Wetland
Gross Density
Property Area = 103.3 acres
55’ Wide Lots = 75
65’ Wide Lots = 93
75’ Wide Lots = 70
Proposed Number of Lots = 226
Proposed Number of Townhomes = 23
249 Total Residential Units
Gross Density = 2.4 units/acre
Overlook
LEGEND
55’ Wide Residential Lot
Net Density
Property Area = 103.3 acres
Wetlands Not Impacted by Development = 10 ac
Wetland Buffer Not Impacted by Development = 4.34 ac
Flood Plain without Wetlands and Buffer = 1.25 ac
Ponds In Open Space = 2.2 ac
Right-of-way = 15.6 ac
30’ Wide Trail Easement = 3.6 ac
Net Developable Acreage = 66.3 ac
Net Density = 3.76 units/acre
65’ Wide Residential Lot
75’ Wide Residential Lot
Townhome (Southeast Parcel)
Flood Plain
Wetland
Open Space
Sidewalk
Trail
Rebecca Park Trail (CR 50)
Future Trail
0
200
500
Schendel - PUD Sketch Plan
- 06.03.2014 Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Project #_193802580
N
TOWNSHIP OF HASSAN
Country Rd
$
+
95th Ave
Patrick Pl
Meister Ct
116
RU
W Corcoran Tr
e
gl
Ea
Winchester Tr
t
Willow Dr
EE
K
81st Pl
Proposed A Minor Connector
Minor Collector
Proposed Minor Collector
COOK
LAKE
Olde Sturbridge Rd
Local Street
City Limit
Gleason Rd
eN
La
Hunter Rd
County Rd 116
66th
Av
63rd Ave N
rth
CITY OF MEDINA
Trail La
wo
tter
r
Bu
dD
State Hwy 55
a
Elm St
il L
Tra
Mohawk Dr
Rolling Hills Rd
A Minor Expander
Abilene La
Rd
Be n
Horseshoe Tr
MORIN
LAKE
Wagon Wheel La
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
A Minor Reliever
rs
tle
se
sho e
Lakeview Cir
Principal Arterial
Open Water
t
Se
Ho r
ee
rT
r
81st P
l
d
Ol
LAKE
2030 Roadway Functional Classification:
County Hwy 101
70th Ave N
Buckskin Tr
La
er
t
Ju
b
le S
Bel
Homestead Tr
Bluebonnet Dr
50
$
+
Nystrom La
JUBERT
3,000 Feet
Proposed Major Collector
Auger Ave
Larkin Rd
Pi
on
CR
75th Ave N
SCOTT
LAKE
0
Major Collector
County Hwy 50
19
$
+
1,500
A Minor Connector
SH
d
Kalk Rd
50
$
+
4
Proposed A Minor Expander
Maple Hill Rd
hl
er
R
3,000
GOOSE
LAKE
$
+
Ridge Rd
Rebecca Park Tr
10
$
+
Commerce St
St
re
Meister Rd
Cain Pl
E Corcoran Tr
County Hwy 19
Julie Ann Dr
101
Sc hutte Rd
Cain Rd
Trail Haven Rd
Strehler Rd
$
+
CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
Schutte Farm Rd
Larson Rd
Salem La
Brandywine Rd
Mystique Dr
Proposed as Part of
NW Hennepin Study
Foxline Dr
Bechtold Rd
Garrison Rd
97th Ave N
Shannon La
$
+
2030 Roadway
Functional Classification
2030 Comprehensive Plan
d
Duffney Dr
Fox Valley Dr
Hill La
Sunny
93rd Ave N
10
Hunters Ridge
Fa
Lily Pon
d
Osw al
30
County Hwy 10
CITY OF GREENFIELD
101st Ave
La
Tr
Chis
holm
uf
fL
Tamiami Tr
Hi
gh
Bl
Garden La
Sundance Rd
lv d
Woodland Tr
d
Hillside Dr
r m Rd
a
r
a
D
High
Ridg land
e Rd
yL
kB
Proposed as Part of
NW Hennepin Study
gR
City of
Hidden Ponds Dr
le
Ebert Rd
fer
Jef
Rush Cr e
e
Sti
e
Darrel La
O
ak
da
CORCORAN
Country Cir E
Stieg Rd
Tessmer Rd
19
$
+
Robert La
Proposed as Part of
NW Hennepin Study
r
Figure 16
Dassel La
Heather La
Meadowview Dr
kD
Rush C
Oakdale Dr
Jackie La
Rush Meadow La
a
r ee
Sun
set
L
Hage Dr
Meadow Creek Dr
109th Ave N
Brockton Pl
Windmill Dr
Maple La
Ginseng La
Jonquil La
COUNTY ROAD 117
Updated April 2014
Adopted June 2011
Hackamore Rd
(62ND
AVE
N)
TOWNSHIP OF HASSAN
CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
12,300 Hennepin County 2030 ADT Forecasts
12,300 2030 ADT Forecasts
Road Centerline
City Limit
81st P
l
Maple Hill Rd
81st Pl
00
COOK
LAKE
1,660
15,700
*2030 forecast does not take into consideration proposed
realignments the City is considering.
63rd Ave N
L
rth
15,000
Gleason Rd
ve N
Hunter Rd
66th
A
13,700
Elm St
wo
a
CITY OF MEDINA
3,000 Feet
County Hwy 101
Buckskin Tr
Bluebonnet Dr
tter
Mohawk Dr
Trail La
Bu
r
26,000
a
County Rd 116
470
Willow Dr
1,020
Rolling Hills Rd
il L
Tra
MORIN
LAKE
0
Abilene La
Rd
dD
11,400
2,000
s
er
ttl
Se
B en
340
1,500
Open Water
K
d
Ol
sho e
State Hwy 55
25
,5
EE
Olde Sturbridge Rd
Horseshoe Tr
Wagon Wheel La
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
CR
13,700
E Corcoran Tr
W Corcoran Tr
ag
le
E
Kalk Rd
690
660
t
Lakeview Cir
9,000
Larkin Rd
Homestead Tr
le S
Pi
o
1,3 neer T
80 r
0
Commerce St
720
1,180
70th Ave N
se
SH
4
75th Ave N
Nystrom La
Ho r
4,8
0
Auger Ave
er
tL
Ju
b
Bel
SCOTT
LAKE
GOOSE
LAKE
L
K
ö
I
a
7,700
Winchester Tr
470
3,000
Meister Ct
Cain Rd
Meister Rd
RU
Rd
L
K
ï
I
Schutte Rd
Cain Pl
County Hwy 50
LAKE
Brandywine Rd
Schutte Farm Rd
Rid ge Rd
JUBERT
27,500
95th Ave
Patrick Pl
Trail Haven Rd
County Hwy 19
9,000
Julie Ann Dr
H
G
s
E
17,300
18,000
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Mystique Dr
Strehler Rd
H
G
¼
E
46,100
2030 Average Daily Traffic
Volume Forecasts (ADT)
19,700
1,060
Fa
520
Lily Pon
d La
Tr
holm
Chis
Fox Valley Dr
Bechtold Rd
Hill La
Sunny
17,400
97th Ave N
Larson Rd
7,800 8,900
Hunters Ridge
d
Foxline Dr
CITY OF GREENFIELD
Osw a l
H
G
¢
E
Garrison Rd
St
re
hl
er
CORCORAN
d
Shannon La
H
G
i
E
gR
101st Ave
93rd Ave N
4,4
00
Rebecca Park Tr
Sti
e
51
0
City of
Hillside Dr
r m Rd
r
Duffney Dr
D
a
fL
Tamiami Tr
Bl
uf
Hi
gh
Garden La
Sundance Rd
l vd
8,700
kB
4,400
County Hwy 10
Salem La
300
Hidden Ponds Dr
le
High
Ridg land
e Rd
ak
da
a
Rush Cr e
e
8,650
Woodland Tr
Country Rd
Stieg Rd
Ebert Rd
L
fery
Jef
O
Figure 22
Country Cir E
Darrel La
Tessmer Rd
H
G
s
E
10,000
Brockton Pl
500
r
Dassel La
Heather La
Meadowview Dr
kD
Robert La
Rush Meadow La
Rush C
Oakdale Dr
Jackie La
11,600
et L
a
r ee
Maple La
Sun
s
Hage Dr
Meadow Creek Dr
109th Ave N
20,200
Windmill Dr
12,300
13,600
Ginseng La
Jonquil La
COUNTY ROAD 117
I:/504/50408144/GIS/ComPlan/Maps/2030 ADT.mxd
Hackamore Rd
(62ND
October 7, 2009
AVE
N)
Appendix B
County 10 Turn Back Memo
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249
(800) 472-2232
(763) 479-4200
Fax (763) 479-4242
[email protected]
www.wenck.com
ENGINEER’S MEMORANDUM
TO:
Brad Martens, City Administrator
FROM:
Kent Torve, P.E. and Heather Libby, P.E.
DATE:
July 3, 2014
SUBJECT:
County Road 10 Turnback
Background
This memo presents basic information on a turnback and the costs associated with future
maintenance and some benefits for future development.
Turnback Length
The City operates 102 miles of roads, of which 25 are paved (information taken from Dust
Control presentation). The potential turnback of County Road 10 from County Road 19 to
County Road 50 is approximately 5.0 miles (Figure 1). The road is currently a 24-foot wide rural
section roadway.
Developments
Currently the County reviews all developments through its access permit process for impacts to
the regional system. This review ranges from single access to homes, 40-acre and 4 lot splits, to
large developments (Lennar/Peachtree). The County reviews impact studies and typically
requests additional ROW and comments from the City during development approval process. If
the turnback occurred, the review by the County would not be necessary.
County History of Maintenance
The following text was received from the County’s Road and Bridge Operations Division.
This section of roadway, was last overlayed in 2003. Generally our overlays have lasted
between 12 and 15 years. The 2013 Present Serviceability Rating (PSR), or ride rating, is
3.14. Our current practice is to place a roadway onto the overlay candidates list once the PSR
drops below 2.5.
C:\Users\TorKC0063\Documents\Corcoran Offsite\2_Development Projects\2_Schendel\county 10 turnback memo Thursday.docx
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Based on the above information I would estimate that the next overlay would not happen until
2016 or 2017 at the earliest.
Maintenance Costs
Below is a summary of the potential maintenance costs associated with maintaining five
additional miles of roadway:
Item
Crack Repair
Striping
Mill/overlay
Reconstruct
Frequency
annual
annual
every 12-15 years
every 30 years
Cost/mi
$1,000
$1,000
$150,000
$ 1,600,000
~Cost for 5 mi
$5,000
$5,000
$750,000
$8,000,000
Seal coating is used in certain areas of the state on high speed roads. This may be an option for
CR10 as a City road in years 7 and 14 to reduce maintenance costs, and are estimated at
$40,000/mile or $200,000 for 5 miles and delays the mill/overlay to a 20 year frequency.
Process for Turnback
CR 10 is currently listed on the County’s turnback plan, where the County wants to divest itself
of selected roads throughout the County. Timing will be based on City request, and Corcoran
has had a more recent turnback with “half” of Old CR 101 near Lions Park being turned back to
Maple Grove and Corcoran. The reimbursement to the City was estimated, and cash was given
to the Cities in lieu of overlay. Specific negotiations do occur on segments that benefit both
parties.
County Feedback on January Inquiry
The County’s answers to selected questions from January of 2014 are attached in email from
Jim Grube of Hennepin County.
C:\Users\TorKC0063\Documents\Corcoran Offsite\2_Development Projects\2_Schendel\county 10 turnback memo Thursday.docx
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Garden La
ak
O
da
le
Dr
7
6
5
4
Legend
County Highway 10
30
Municipal Boundary
7
6
5
4
Fox Valley Dr
5.01 Miles of County Rd 10
turn back to City
Parcels
Patrick Pl
10
Foxline Dr
93rd Ave N
Cain Rd
Bechtold Rd
Schutte Rd
Trail Haven Rd
Larson Rd
Strehler Rd
Cain Pl
Meister Rd
7
6
5
4
©
¨
19
116
E Corcora
0
1,700
Feet
Path: L:\2294\01\mxd\CountyRd10Turnback.mxd
Date: 6/26/2014 Time: 8:20:41 AM
User: KacHD0606
±
7
6
5
4
50
Kalk Rd
850
Rolling Hills Rd
1,700
n Tr
2012 Aerial Photograph (Source: ESRI)
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
TIF DISTRICT STUDY
Option
1 - Downtown
Alignment
County
Road 10 Turnback
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
www.wenck.com
Wenck
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429
1-800-472-2232
JUNE 2014
Figure 1
Email Attachment
Kent C. Torve
Subject:
FW: follow up from January 21st meeting
From: James Grube [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:40 PM
To: Brad Martens
Cc: Brian Langseth; Craig Twinem; Gregory M. Chock; Harlan Hanson; Jay R Baldwin; Thomas D. Johnson
Subject: RE: follow up from January 21st meeting
Mr. Mertens,
I offer that the information provided below within the email you have sent me is my attempt to meet the city’s desire. It
does not constitute the final Hennepin County position on the series of questions tendered below. The responses are
offered to help further discussion of the implications of decision making. I consider emails to be an alternative to official
communication and the city needs to recognize that the short response time that you have given the county for such
leaves me uncomfortable with any assumption of official status. This exchange has not been vetted with either
Hennepin County administration or Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson. With that in mind please know we
will do whatever we can at the staff level to help the city as it strives to make important and meaningful long term
decisions.
Jim Grube, P.E.
Director, Transportation Department, and County Engineer
Hennepin County
1600 Prairie Drive
Medina, MN 55340
Office: 612-596-0305 Cell: 612-250-2615
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:29 PM
To: James Grube
Cc: Carla J Stueve; Ken Guenthner ([email protected]); [email protected]
Subject: follow up from January 21st meeting
Mr. Grube,
This email is in follow up to a meeting on February 21, 2014 in which the City of Corcoran requested information from
Hennepin County regarding proposed alignment changes to County Road 10. The City appreciated the opportunity to
discuss this opportunity to make changes to the transportation system within the City of Corcoran to improve safety as
well as to meet our long-term transportation needs.
As stated at the meeting, the City is currently reviewing two proposed projects near the County Road 10/County Road 50
intersection. The County and the City are well aware that this intersection is less than ideal in its current alignment and
would prefer to make improvements to the transportation system in this area. The two projects moving forward
provide a window of opportunity to make the change at this time in order to avoid further challenges in the future. To
that end the City is requesting that you respond to the below questions regarding three scenarios in order for the City to
best use this opportunity to improve transportation the betterment of the City of Corcoran and Hennepin County. It is
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
1
important that a response be received by Tuesday, March 11th as the City will discuss the information from the response
at a March 13th strategic planning workshop. A response via email, letter, or a personal meeting is fine.
Scenario #1:
County Road 10 is realigned along Meister Road and is “turned back” to the City of Corcoran from County Road 19 to
County Road 116 upon completion as a local road. If this were to take place please answer the following:
1. Is the County in favor of this scenario? County staff supports the turnback of County Road 10 to the city. This is
stated in the county’s Transportation Systems Plan. Thus if Meister Road becomes the main connection to
County Road 116 the county offers no comment on how Meister Road is configured since it would remain a city
street.
2. Does the County have a requirement of any standard of road construction? The county does not have design
requirements for local streets.
3. What infrastructure would be required at the intersection of the new road and County Road 116?
a. Turn lanes on the new road.
b. Turn lanes on County Road 116. Southbound right turn land and northbound left turn lane.
c. Traffic control devices. Any traffic control devices would need to meet required warrants in accordance
with the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD), and be justified as outlined
in the county’s Cost Participation Policy.
d. Other.
4. What role would the County play in the project?
a. County takes the lead.
b. City takes the lead with County approval. If the outcome is that there is no county road between County
Roads 19 and 50, the county would see itself in a support role, essentially looking at the intersections of
County Roads 19 and 116.
5. What would the County contribute to the project? The county has traditionally either provided a pavement
overlay of the roadway to be turned back to a city, or if desired, the cash equivalent of the overlay.
a. Financial assistance in the new construction. The county does not normally provide such assistance
when the work occurs on a city street.
b. Financial assistance for the City taking on the roadway for the County. As noted above, the value of an
overlay.
c. Financial assistance to abandon the now unused roadway. See above.
d. Design assistance. Not in this case.
e. Other.
6. If this option is accepted what is a logical timeline for project completion? If the city was willing to accept either
the overlay of County Road 10 or the cash equivalent for accepting it into its local system, the reversion could
occur in 2014, if supported by the County Board. If there is a desire for a different arrangement, serious
discussions relative to the city’s position on financial assistance would need to occur.
Scenario #2:
County Road 10 is realigned along Meister Road but continues to be a County Road. If this were to take place please
answer the following:
1. Is the County in favor of this scenario? This scenario is not preferred by county staff.
2. Does the County have a requirement of any standard of road construction? If the realignment of County Road
10 along Meister Road occurs, the new county road would have to be designed to state aid standards.
3. What infrastructure would be required at the intersection of the new road and County Road 116? See the
response offered under scenario #1.
a. Turn lanes on the new road.
2
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
b. Turn lanes on County Road 116.
c. Traffic control devices.
d. Other.
4. What role would the County play in the project?
a. County takes the lead.
b. City takes the lead with County approval. The county’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is overprogrammed, with no staff resources available for at least 5 to 7 years, if such a project is deemed
worthy of inclusion in the CIP by the County Board.
5. What would the County contribute to the project? To provide any financial assistance beyond the value of an
overlay of the existing County Road 10 segment, a proposed project would have to compete for funding through
the county’s CIP evaluation process.
a. Financial assistance in the new construction.
b. Financial assistance for the City taking on the roadway for the County.
c. Financial assistance to abandon the now unused roadway.
d. Design assistance.
e. Other.
6. If this option is accepted what is a logical timeline for project completion? As noted above the county’s CIP is
over-programmed with an approximate 7 to 10 year wait for supported projects to be funded.
Scenario #3:
County Road 10 continues to connect with County Road 50 however the alignment is changed to “T” up to County Road
50. If this were to take place please answer the following:
1. Is the County in favor of this scenario? This is the second choice of county staff, if the long term vision of County
Road 10 turnback is not viable in the opinion of the City Council.
2. Does the County have a requirement of any standard of road construction? The design would have to meet
state aid standards.
3. What infrastructure would be required at the intersection of the new road and County Road 116? Please refer
to scenario #1 if Meister Road is to develop as a city collector street and to intersect with 116.
a. Turn lanes on the new road.
b. Turn lanes on County Road 116.
c. Traffic control devices.
d. Other.
4. What role would the County play in the project?
a. County takes the lead.
b. City takes the lead with County approval. See the answer of this question for scenario #2.
5. What would the County contribute to the project? This type of project would also need to compete for CIP
funding, just as I note above.
a. Financial assistance in the new construction.
b. Financial assistance for the City taking on the roadway for the County.
c. Financial assistance to abandon the now unused roadway.
d. Design assistance.
e. Other.
7. If this option is accepted what is a logical timeline for project completion? As noted above the county’s CIP is
over-programmed with an approximate 7 to 10 year wait for supported projects to be funded.
3
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
6. If a residential neighborhood were developed along the existing CR 10 alignment would the 30 mph speed limit
be extended to the extent of the neighborhood? While we recognize the desire to reduce traffic speeds, a
speed reduction would be post development, not pre-development if you will. This probably needs a bit more
conversation because County Road 10 is an arterial, not a neighborhood street.
In addition to answering the above questions the City is interested in learning what the maintenance plan is for County
Road 10 within the City of Corcoran. Please provide this information in your response. There is not an extraordinary
plan for County Road 10. It would receive an overlay when needed with crack sealing shortly thereafter to support the
investment. We do not have immediate plans for sidewalk or off road trails, either.
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions. If there are
challenges in answering all of the questions in the timeframe above please send anything you have instead of waiting for
all of the answers to come together.
Sincerely,
Brad Martens
City Administrator
City of Corcoran
763-400-7030
www.ci.corcoran.mn.us
Disclaimer: Information in this message or an attachment may be government data and thereby subject to the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may be subject to attorney-client or
work product privilege, may be confidential, privileged, proprietary, or otherwise protected, and the
unauthorized review, copying, retransmission, or other use or disclosure of the information is strictly prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission
error and then promptly delete this message from your computer system.
4
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Appendix C
Traffic Analysis
Memorandum
1800 Pioneer Creek Center, Maple Plain, MN 55359
Phone: 763-479-4200
Fax: 763-479-4242
Exhibit 4. Transportation Feasibility Study
Exhibit 5.
Stormwater Feasibility Study
Wenck File #2294-24
JULY 2014
Stormwater Feasibility Study
Peachtree Development
Prepared for:
THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MN
8200 County Road 116
Corcoran, MN 55340
Prepared by:
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249
(763) 479-4200
Table of Contents
1.0
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1-1
2.0
WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................................2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.0
Regulatory Agencies ........................................................................................... 2-1
Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 2-1
Water Quantity ................................................................................................... 2-2
Water Quality...................................................................................................... 2-2
Floodplain ........................................................................................................... 2-2
Erosion and Sediment Controls .......................................................................... 2-2
RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................3-1
FIGURES
1
FEMA Floodplain
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
City Water Resources Plan & Historical Photos
MNRAM Review
Filtration BMP Details
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\stormwater feasibility study\Stormwater Feasibility Study.docx
i
July 2014
1.0
Introduction
Peachtree Properties is proposing a development near the “10-50” intersection in Corcoran on property
known as the Schendel property. Three feasibility studies are being completed for the project and they
involve transportation, utilities and stormwater.
The development area is shown on Figure 1, which also shows the 100 and 500 year floodplains. This
report introduces topics pertinent to the development in stormwater management, natural resources,
floodplain and Best Management Practices.
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\stormwater feasibility study\Stormwater Feasibility Study.docx
1-1
July 2014
2.0
2.1
Water Resources
Regulatory Agencies
The City is responsible for development approvals, however residential and commercial site
development plans must also be reviewed and approved by Elm Creek Watershed. A developer is
required to plan for water quality design, hydrology design, any compensatory floodplain mitigation plan
for floodplain fill, a wetland replacement plan and an erosion and sediment control plan. During
construction, the MPCA’s NPDES Construction Permit is also required for control of erosion and
sediment and also BMPs.
2.2
Wetlands
A wetland delineation has been reviewed and approved for all areas of this site. The Elm Creek
Watershed Management Commission is the Local Government Unit in charge of administering the
Wetland Conservation Act in CorcoranA wetland replacement plan will be necessary for any impacts to
wetlands on site. The replacement plan must include a sequencing analysis for each impact and abide
by the Commissions wetland review process.
Recent Work
A MnRAM analysis was performed to review wetland classification in March of 2014, and the wetlands
on the site are all classified as Medium or High according to the City’s classification system. Section
1020.020 of the City Ordinance demonstrates that wetlands are to be ranked as high, medium, or low
quality based on the functional level ranking of six selected categories from the MnRAM analysis: Floral
Diversity/Integrity, Flood/Stormwater Attenuation, Water Quality Protection, Wildlife and/or Fishery
Habitat, and Aesthetic/Recreation.
The majority of the wetlands were observed to have low quality vegetation communities, but the high
and moderate scores in other categories led to the medium or high rankings by the City’s classification
system. This indicates potential to improve these vegetation communities through restoration or
management efforts.
Buffers
Buffers will be required around impacted and replacement wetlands according to the City and WCA
rules and the Commission’s wetland review process. A buffer would also be required on any portion of
Rush Creek.
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\stormwater feasibility study\Stormwater Feasibility Study.docx
2-1
July 2014
2.3
Water Quantity
The Commission requires post development runoff rates for the 2, 10 and 100-year storm events be
equal to or less than the pre-development rates. The Commission standards include extended detention
and /or runoff volume controls. The City and watershed both review these calculations for overall
stormwater management. The downstream creek/stream is the nearest regional water resource and
therefore the extended detention review is important to overall peak flow management.
Urbanizing watersheds impact rural ditches/streams through continuous flow, whereas agricultural land
can be intermittent streams and the stream has adapted to being dry, or drier, for a portion of the year.
The City will conduct a walkthrough of the downstream creek, and review the condition for any
susceptible areas of degredation. This stream is located on private property, so the City may be limited
in its investigation by property access.
2.4
Water Quality
The project must comply with the Commission’s non-degradation standard for storm water runoff
quality, as outlined in Appendix F of the Watershed Management Plan. The City implements a BMP of
filtration, which can be utilized as standalone dry basins, or constructed within a typical NURP pond. A
detail for the required BMP is given in Appendix B.
2.5
Floodplain
The site has a minor area identified on the north as floodplain, which appears unaffected by the project.
Should impacts occur, the Elm Creek WMC standards prohibit activities that impact the storage volume
within the 100-year floodplain unless compensatory floodplain mitigation is provided at a 1:1 ratio by
volume and it is demonstrated that the 100-year floodplain will not be impacted.
Section 1050.030 of the City’s code states the Engineer should review the boundary for accuracy.
“Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district as
shown on the Official Zoning Map, as for example where there appears to be a conflict
between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions and there is a formal appeal of
the decision of the City Engineer, the City Council shall make the necessary interpretation.
All decisions will be based on elevations on the regional (100-year) flood profile, the
ground elevations that existed on the site at the time the Community adopted its initial
Floodplain Ordinance, and other available technical data. Persons contesting the location
of the district boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to
the City Council and to submit technical evidence.”
2.6
Erosion and Sediment Controls
An erosion and sediment control plan must be provided that addresses and minimizes erosion during all
phases of the development and construction process. This activity is covered under a development’s
NPDES permit required by the MPCA (and monitored by the developer and City Engineer).
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\stormwater feasibility study\Stormwater Feasibility Study.docx
2-2
July 2014
3.0
Recommendations
The Peachtree development on the Schendel property is feasible from a stormwater management and
natural resource perspective. It is recommended the following be part of the development review
process:
On site
• Investigate restoring the historical flow path shown on aerials and the City’s storm water plan.
Investigation will consist of topographic surveying and designs for potentially discharging further
west than the current north discharge point.
• Review submittals to watershed and work in coordination with Elm Creek WMC on stormwater
BMPs.
• Provide the developer modeling and construction parameters for the developed land use (runoff
curve numbers, routing direction, structure requirements, etc.
• Install filtration BMP in addition to typical wet detention (NURP) ponds
• Review wetland mitigation areas and any banking will be reviewed for conflicts with City via
covenants or maintenance.
Off Site
• Conduct walkthrough of stream to north to investigate for areas susceptible to erosion due to
additional volume from development. Developer may be required to fund selected
reinforcement of streambed, which includes easement for City access. (This was also a
requirement of a prior development, Lennar in SE Corcoran.)
• Potentially conduct additional floodplain work to identify/verify elevations.
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\stormwater feasibility study\Stormwater Feasibility Study.docx
3-1
July 2014
Figures
FEMA Floodplain
2012 photo shows tree clearing
and defined ditch. Earlier photos
show trees in this area. See
Appendix A.
Legend
Property Boundarys
FEMA Floodplains
100-Year
500-Year
2012 Aerial Photograph (Source: ESRI)
350
175
0
350
Feet
Path: L:\2294\0024\mxd\FEMA Flooplains.mxd
Date: 7/8/2014 Time: 10:31:40 AM User: ShuJC0243
±
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
CITY OF CORCORAN
FEMA Floodplains
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
www.wenck.com
Wenck
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429
1-800-472-2232
JULY 2014
Figure 1
Appendix A
City Water Resources Plan
and
Historical Aerial Photos
COUNTY ROAD 117
27-345 W
27-1099 W
27-167 W
Figure 5
27-1091 W
ST
IE
27-338 W
LE DR
OAK DA
27-335 W
GR
D
27-318 W
27-163 W
27-317 W
27-348 W
27-336 W
H
G
s
E
CORCORAN
City of
27-319 W
Water Resources
2030 Comprehensive Plan
27-337 W
27-334 W
H
G
¢
E
BECHTOLD ROAD
H
G
E
i
27-316 W
ROAD
27-441 W
27-443 W
ROAD
27-352 W
27-440 W
MEISTER ROAD
CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
SCHUTTE
TRAIL HAVEN ROAD
27-351 W
GOOSE
LAKE
L
K
ö
I
RU
SH
CR
EE
1,500
0
3,000 Feet
City Limit
DNR Public Watercourse
Other Watercourse
DNR Protected Waters
Other Open Water
Wetlands from Hennepin County MLCCS
27-439 W
K
27-429 W
27-1103 W
3,000
4
L
K
ï
I
27-350 W
STREHLER
27-442 W
27-315 W
CAIN ROAD
CITY OF GREENFIELD
27-314 W
27-448 W
27-416 W
27-428 W
H
G
i
E
27-353 W
H
G
¼
E
27-420 W
27-355 W
27-417 W
COOK
LAKE
27-430 W
27-120 P
27-438 W
27-426 W
27-354 W
27-165 P
27-360 W
JUBERT
LAKE
27-361 W
ON
E
27-1102 W
ROLLLING HILLS RD
SCOTT
LAKE
RD
27-431 W
27-432 W
27-427 W
27-421 W
27-422 W
WILLOW DRIVE
H
G
s
E
PI
LARKIN
27-425 W
27-423 W
ER
27-437 W
27-424 W
O
LD
HORSESHOE TRAIL
MORIN
LAKE
TR
SE
TT
LE
RS
GLEASON ROAD
R
D
October 7, 2009
27-435 W
27-494 W
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
27-493 W
27-433 W
27-436 W
27-434 W
HACKAMORE
ROAD
27-490 W
I:/504/50408144/GIS/ComPlan/Maps/Final Maps/water resources.mxd
CITY OF CORCORAN
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Comp Plan Water Resources (Cropped)
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359
JULY 2014
FIGURE A-1
Path: N:\Technical\XXXX\xx\xx\FILENAME.pptx
Date Saved: 9/5/2012 9:04 AM
CITY OF CORCORAN
1937 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359
JULY 2014
FIGURE 1
CITY OF CORCORAN
1947 Aerial Ph otog raph
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359
JULY 2014
Fig ure 1
CITY OF CORCORAN
1957Feasibility
Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 5. Stormwater
Study
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359
JULY 2014
Figure 1
CITY OF CORCORAN
1960 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359
JULY 2014
Figure 1
CITY OF CORCORAN
1962 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359
JULY 2014
Figure 1
CITY OF CORCORAN
1971 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359
JULY 2014
Figure 1
Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO)
350
175
0
350
Feet
Path: L:\2294\0024\mxd\Historical Aerial Photographs.mxd
Date: 7/8/2014 Time: 9:34:46 AM
User: ShuJC0243
±
CITY OF CORCORAN
1991 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
www.wenck.com
Wenck
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429
1-800-472-2232
JULY 2014
Figure 1
Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO)
350
175
0
350
Feet
Path: L:\2294\0024\mxd\Historical Aerial Photographs.mxd
Date: 7/8/2014 Time: 9:37:43 AM
User: ShuJC0243
±
CITY OF CORCORAN
1997 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
www.wenck.com
Wenck
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429
1-800-472-2232
JULY 2014
Figure 1
Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO)
350
175
0
350
Feet
Path: L:\2294\0024\mxd\Historical Aerial Photographs.mxd
Date: 7/8/2014 Time: 9:38:28 AM
User: ShuJC0243
±
CITY OF CORCORAN
2000 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
www.wenck.com
Wenck
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429
1-800-472-2232
JULY 2014
Figure 1
Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO)
350
175
0
350
Feet
Path: L:\2294\0024\mxd\Historical Aerial Photographs.mxd
Date: 7/8/2014 Time: 9:36:37 AM
User: ShuJC0243
±
CITY OF CORCORAN
2003 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
www.wenck.com
Wenck
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429
1-800-472-2232
JULY 2014
Figure 1
Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO)
350
175
0
350
Feet
Path: L:\2294\0024\mxd\Historical Aerial Photographs.mxd
Date: 7/8/2014 Time: 9:48:45 AM
User: ShuJC0243
±
CITY OF CORCORAN
2006 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
www.wenck.com
Wenck
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429
1-800-472-2232
JULY 2014
Figure 1
Appendix B
MN RAM Review
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249
(800) 472-2232
(763) 479-4200
Fax (763) 479-4242
[email protected]
www.wenck.com
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
City of Corcoran
FROM:
Wes Boll, Wenck Associates, Inc.
DATE:
March 18, 2013
SUBJECT:
Schendel Property Wetland Functional Assessment Report and Woodland/Forest
Evaluation
This technical memorandum is prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc. (Wenck) to provide a review of
evaluation of woodland/forest areas and wetlands located on the Schendel property in the City of
Corcoran.
The evaluations were prepared for Peachtree Partners by Stantec Consulting (Stantec). The submitted
documents included a March 4, 2014 letter providing a summary report of the conditions of the
woodland/forest areas on the site and comparing the current conditions to the qualitative rank given to
the site during a Natural Resources Inventory conducted in 2001. A wetland Functional Assessment
Report which summarized a MnRAM analysis conducted on the site based on current conditions
classified the wetlands according to the City’s classification system for wetlands.
Woodland/Forest Analysis
The woodland area on the Schendel property was identified during the 2001 Natural Resource Inventory
as Site 28 “Maple-Basswood Forest”. This woodland community was assigned a Local Rank score of
“High”, due to it’s location within the South Rush Creek Corridor, and a lower Ecological Status score of
“B/C”, based on the nature of disturbance and the presence of exotic species (buckthorn).
The letter summarizing current conditions documents that the site would more appropriately be
classified as a young elm-ash-basswood forest. The letter also states that due to the lack of mature
trees, the prevalence of invasive and nonnative shrubs, and the lack of native species in the ground
cover, that the qualitative rank for the site would more appropriately be low to very low (CD to D). Of
the two stands of forest evaluated on the site, the north stand was said to be of a higher quality with a
better potential for restoration.
The letter appears to accurately describe the current condition of the site based on photos contained in
the document and makes a valid argument for the reclassification of the Ecological Status of the
woodland/forest community. The vegetation community remains in a high priority area according to the
2001 Natural Resource Inventory and according to the Inventory would retain it’s local rank of “High”
due to it’s location within the South Rush Creek Corridor.
t:\2294-corcoran\24 - peachtree\feasibility study\stormwater feasibility study\app-c technical memo_functional assessment.docx
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Based on the results of this analysis, it appears that the woodland forest community in the northern
portion of the property is in better condition and would be worth the effort of restoring or improving.
The community to the east appears to be further degraded without high potential for successful
restoration or improvement without significant effort.
Wetland Analysis
Stantec completed a functional assessment on 11 wetlands that were delineated on the subject
property using MnRAM 3.4. The applicant prepared the MnRAM to classify the wetlands according to
the City’s classification system. As required by the City Zoning Ordinance, the report provided the
results from the analysis using the latest version of MnRAM.
Section 1020.020 of the City Ordinance demonstrates that wetlands are to be ranked as high, medium,
or low quality based on the functional level ranking of six selected categories from the MnRAM analysis:
Floral Diversity/Integrity, Flood/Stormwater Attenuation, Water Quality Protection, Wildlife and/or
Fishery Habitat, and Aesthetic/Recreation. Table 1 below illustrates the functional ranking in each of
these categories and the appropriate City Classification according to the results of the MnRAM
conducted by Stantec.
Table 1-MnRAM Analysis Results
Type (Eggers
Wetland ID & Reed)
A
Wet meadow
B
Wet meadow
MnRAM
Vegetative
Diversity/
Integrity
Low
Low
Maint. of
Char. of
Wildlife
Habitat
Moderate
Moderate
Maint. Of
Char.
Fish
Habitat
NA
NA
Aesthetics/
Recreation/
Education/
Cultural
Low
Low
City
Classification
Downstream System
Flood/Stormwater/ Water
(2014
Attenuation
Quality
MnRAM)
Moderate
High
Medium
Moderate
High
Medium
C
High
High
High
Low
Moderate
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
NA
NA
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
High
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High
High
NA
NA
NA
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Medium
High
Medium
Low
Moderate
NA
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Medium
Low
Moderate
NA
Low
High
High
Medium
Low
Moderate
NA
Low
Moderate
High
Medium
D
E
F T1
F T2
G
H
Site 3
Site 4
Shallow marsh
Seasonally
flooded (basin)
Wet meadow
Seasonally
flooded (flat)
Wet meadow
Wet meadow
Seasonally
flooded
(floodplain)
Seasonally
flooded (basin)
Seasonally
flooded (flat)
According to the MnRAM analysis, as documented in the report dated March 5, 2014, the wetlands on
the site are all classified as Medium or High according to the City’s classification system. The majority of
the wetlands were observed to have low quality vegetation communities, but the high and moderate
scores in other categories led to the medium or high rankings by the City’s classification system.
While all of the wetlands scored medium or high according to the City’s classification system, many of
these basins had low quality vegetation communities, which indicates potential to improve these
vegetation communities through restoration or management efforts.
2
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\stormwater feasibility study\App-C Technical Memo_Functional Assessment.docx
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Appendix C
Filtration BMP Details
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Exhibit 5. Stormwater Feasibility Study
Exhibit 6.
Utility Feasibility Study
Wenck File #2294-24
July 2014
Utility Feasibility Study
Peachtree Development
Prepared for:
THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MN
8200 County Road 116
Corcoran, MN 55340
Prepared by:
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249
(763) 479-4200
Table of Contents
1.0
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1-1
2.0
SEWER......................................................................................................................2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.0
WATER .....................................................................................................................3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.0
Alignment And Lift Station .................................................................................. 2-1
Connections ........................................................................................................ 2-1
Force Main Alternatives And Costs ..................................................................... 2-1
Trunk System ...................................................................................................... 3-1
Looping And Connections ................................................................................... 3-1
Modeling ............................................................................................................. 3-1
Costs.................................................................................................................... 3-2
FINANCING AND NEXT STEPS ....................................................................................4-1
4.1
4.2
4.3
Background ......................................................................................................... 4-1
Methods .............................................................................................................. 4-1
Next Steps ........................................................................................................... 4-2
TABLES
1
Off-Site Costs for Sewer and Water
FIGURES
1
Sewer Alignments and Force Main Route Alternatives
2
Water Looping and Connection Points
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Sewer and Water Trunk Systems from Comprehensive Plan
Downtown Feasibility Study for Gravity Sewer (April 2012)
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\utility feasibility study\Utility Feasibility Study.docx
i
July 2014
1.0
Introduction
Peachtree Properties is proposing a development near the “10-50” intersection in Corcoran on property
known as the Schendel property. Three feasibility studies are being completed for the project and they
involve transportation, utilities and stormwater.
This report looks specifically at the feasibility of providing trunk sewer and water service to the
proposed development. Contained in the report is the sanitary sewer and water main options for the
trunk system that is consistent with the overall City utility plans.
Financing options of the development infrastructure will be further detailed as the project moves
forward. For guidance, the City has recently followed the following financial procedures:
•
•
•
•
•
Off-site utility extensions may require developer cash contribution
Off-site utility extension costs may be shared with City utility bond contributions
The City manages permitting, easements, design and construction of off-site utilities
Trunk Line Area Charges (TLAC) may still be required if cash for off-site facilities is provided
Credit towards TLAC is given for oversizing and over depth costs of trunk utilities on site.
Cost breakdown is given in Table 1.
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\utility feasibility study\Utility Feasibility Study.docx
1-1
July 2014
2.0
2.1
Sewer
ALIGNMENT AND LIFT STATION
The City’s sewer trunk system also serves the Peachtree Development as conceptually shown on Figure
1. The alignment includes installation of a lift station on the north end of Peachtree’s development and
force main to the existing manhole connection near the church at CR 116/CR 10 Intersection. The lift
station will be located in the natural low point of the property in coordination with the development
layout.
The tributary area to the lift station is comprised of the proposed development as well as a future
gravity sewer system to be installed in the downtown area south of County Road 10. Ultimate
development will require the lift station to be taken “off line” and a new lift station constructed at City
Hall to pump sewage to the north. This will be ultimately required to route sewage away from the Elm
Creek Interceptor since it is currently oversubscribed according to MCES.
2.2
CONNECTIONS
Sewer will be required to be “stubbed” to serve the south and southwest in accordance to the trunk
system plans (Appendix A). These stubs will be located during the design phase of the project, however
for the purposes of this report it can be assumed a southerly connection to serve the City Park and
Downtown will be constructed under CR 10. The City would construct a separate project to connect
Downtown and the City Park with the gravity system through Schendel.
2.3
FORCE MAIN ALTERNATIVES AND COSTS
The development is important to the overall system, however for Peachtree to develop there appears to
be only one discussion item discharge of sewer system —the route of the forcemain from the
development to the Church manhole along CR 116. Costs are given in Table 1.
Option A as shown on Figure 1 will take the forcemain from the lift station directly east to CR 116, south
along CR 116 to the Church manhole. A complicating factor is the route requires easement to the east
and easement to the south along CR 116.
Cost for Option A--$475,000
Unit cost = $153/LF, similar to Lions Park project
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\utility feasibility study\Utility Feasibility Study.docx
2-1
July 2014
Option B will utilize the internal street network to bring the forcemain south, then east along sideyards
to CR 116. This route shortens the off-site easement work necessary, and therefore appears less
expensive for off-site costs.
Cost for Option B--$315,000
Unit cost = $190/LF
Unit cost increases from Option A due to smaller project, more
sideyard easements, etc.
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\utility feasibility study\Utility Feasibility Study.docx
2-2
July 2014
3.0
3.1
Water
TRUNK SYSTEM
The City’s water trunk system is nearby at the corner of CR 116 and CR 10. The ultimate system includes
connections to the west and north along CR 116. A booster station is planned within the next few years
(located at the Maple Grove border) to boost pressure within Corcoran.
3.2
LOOPING AND CONNECTIONS
The development will be required to provide looping, which allows for water service to be maintained
while under maintenance or repair. The looping required is at the north end of the development at CR
116, and at the south end where it will be connected to the City Park trunk line that also extends from
the Downtown area. Figure 2 shows route along the west side of CR 116, which may or may not be
shared with sewer force main.
3.3
MODELING
Computer modeling was performed to estimate the water availability to the proposed development that
included the existing 24” and 12” pipeline from the connection point to Maple Groves’ water
distribution system near the intersection of CR10 and CR101. The purpose of this analysis was to
estimate the water systems ability to provide adequate water and fire protection to the proposed
subdivision. New pipe was added to the end of the existing pipe at CR 116 and continued north along
CR 116 then continued west for a distance of approximately 1,100 lineal feet to a point inside the
proposed development and would “dead end” (i.e. no looping of distribution piping was assumed to
begin the development).
Demands
The water use demands were peak day demands and were estimated at 1,140 gallons per day (GPD) per
house. The modeling assumes that the beginning water pressure at the intersection of CR10 and CR101
was approximately 50 psi and it was also assumed that the highest elevation within the new
development to be served was 980 feet above sea level. Another assumption was that the Lennar
development would consist of 300 homes during the modeling analyses. It is anticipated that the
ultimate supply will be for 250 homes at full buildout. No other water use demands were placed on the
distribution system.
The model runs with WaterCAD were phased to review the water pressure as development progresses.
The analyses included model runs to determine pressures at no new development, 50 new homes, 100
new homes, 150 new homes, 200 new homes and 250 homes; each with a 1,500 gpm fire flow demand
and without the fire flow. The table below shows the resulting pressure at the end of the proposed pipe
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\utility feasibility study\Utility Feasibility Study.docx
3-1
July 2014
to represent the pressure available to the new development. This table shows the pressure available
with and without the 1,500 gpm fire flow.
Number of
Homes
0
50
100
150
200
250
Pressure at
Peak Day
Demand
(psi)
47.6
47.6
47.5
47.4
47.3
47.1
Pressure
with 1,500
gpm Fire
Flow (psi)
26
24.9
23.8
22.7
21.6
20.4
Conclusion
The results of the model analyses indicate that the water system as described can provide adequate
water and fire flow to the proposed development, which will improve as the City constructs a looped
system further south to tie into Lennar’s west end.
3.4
COSTS
Costs for the CR 116 northerly extension as shown on Figure 1 are given in Table 1.
Cost for water main--$485,000
Unit cost = $155/LF, similar to Lions Park project
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\utility feasibility study\Utility Feasibility Study.docx
3-2
July 2014
4.0
4.1
Financing and Next Steps
BACKGROUND
The City has created area and connection charges for the development area, as documented in the
“Regional Development Study, September 2013”.
The study included costs of:
• Water mains
• Water booster station
o This is a permanent structure to boost pressure for development and eventually to the
Downtown water tower.
• Water Towers
• Sewer trunk lines, and
• Sewer lift stations
Transportation was included in the study also, however these costs are implemented on a sub district
/impact basis as development occurs. The Peachtree impacts are for CR 10 and the CR 10/CR 50
intersection.
4.2
METHODS
As noted in the introduction to this report, financing options of the development infrastructure will be
further detailed as the project moves forward, however the developer needs to make a decision at some
point on the viability of the project. Therefore for guidance, the City has recently followed these
funding procedures:
Offsite Utilities
• Off-site utility extensions may require developer cash contribution
o This would be an option for the CR 116 water main
o This would be an option for the sewer force main leaving the Peachtree development
•
Off-site utility extension costs may be shared or covered by City utility bond contributions
o The cost for water main along CR 116 could be included in the upcoming City project
which will install a booster station at the Maple Grove border, and extend water main
from the CR 10/CR 116 intersection to the west end of Lennar development.
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\utility feasibility study\Utility Feasibility Study.docx
4-1
July 2014
Area and Connection Charges
• Trunk Line Area Charges (TLAC) allow the City to recoup offsite trunk costs, and may still be
required if cash for off-site facilities is provided
• Credit towards TLAC is given for oversizing and over depth costs of trunk utilities on site.
Property and Construction Management
• The City is responsible for permitting, easements, design and construction of off-site utilities.
4.3
NEXT STEPS
The project financials will be clarified as the applicant continues on the City process. The financial next
steps for utilities are to:
•
Update the TLAC costs per buildable acre, since construction bids (actual costs) are available for
portions of the SE Area trunk system. The intent of the City is to maintain a forward looking area
charge (TLAC) system, and as portions of the system are built out, to update the analysis to
represent the remaining system costs. This will include:




•
Insert project costs on Lions Park Sewer and CR 101 Water Main such as recent
easement costs and actual bid costs
Remove a portion of the system that will be installed by Lennar and insert the
amount of TLAC credit applied to Lennar
Review the “buildable acre” portion of the study to represent market
conditions.
Update the pipe unit costs (per linear foot).
Re-execute the Multi-Year Financial Management Plan Report for review by Council and
determine potential impacts to the City should market conditions change. The current version
of the 5-Year Financial Plan includes $1.4M for a water booster station and water main
connecting the CR 10/ CR 116 intersection with the west side of Lennar. This could be increased
in scope to include the Peachtree water main along CR 116.
T:\2294-Corcoran\24 - Peachtree\Feasibility Study\utility feasibility study\Utility Feasibility Study.docx
4-2
July 2014
Tables
Off-Site Costs for Sewer and Water
Table 1.
Off-Site Costs for Sewer and Water
Peachtree Development
ITEM
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
CLEARING GRUBBING
12" WATERMAIN - DIRECTIONAL DRILL
6" DIP WATERMAIN
HYDRANT & VALVE
12" - 45 DEGREE BEND
12" X 6" TEE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
WATERMAIN COSTS
UNITS
LUMP
LUMP
ACRE
LF
LF
EACH
EACH
EACH
ACRE
QTY
1
1
1.4
3100
80
4
2
4
1.4
UNIT PRICE
$ 20,000.00
$ 7,500.00
$ 8,000.00
$
70.00
$
60.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 3,500.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 45,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED VALUE
FORCEMAIN SEWER COSTS - OPTION A
ITEM
UNITS
QTY
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
LUMP
1
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMP
1
CLEARING GRUBBING
ACRE
0.7
8" FORCEMAIN - DIRECTIONAL DRILL
LF
3100
4' DIA SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
EACH
1
6' DIA AIR RELEASE MANHOLE W/ VALVE
EACH
2
CONNECT EXISTING SEWER PIPE TO STRUCTURE
EACH
1
8" 45 DEGREE BEND
EACH
2
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
ACRE
0.7
UNIT PRICE
$ 18,000.00
$ 7,500.00
$ 8,000.00
$
80.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 45,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED VALUE
FORCEMAIN SEWER COSTS - OPTION B
ITEM
UNITS
QTY
MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION
LUMP
1
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMP
1
CLEARING GRUBBING
ACRE
1.0
8" FORCEMAIN - DIRECTIONAL DRILL
LF
1650
4' DIA SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
EACH
1
6' DIA AIR RELEASE MANHOLE W/ VALVE
EACH
1
CONNECT EXISTING SEWER PIPE TO STRUCTURE
EACH
1
8" 45 DEGREE BEND
EACH
2
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
ACRE
1.0
UNIT PRICE
$ 12,500.00
$ 7,500.00
$ 8,000.00
$
80.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 45,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
ENGINEERING (15%)
EST. TOTAL
ROUNDED VALUE
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
TOTAL PRICE
$
20,000.00
$
7,500.00
$
11,200.00
$ 217,000.00
$
4,800.00
$
20,000.00
$
7,000.00
$
8,000.00
$
63,000.00
$ 358,500.00
$
71,700.00
$
53,775.00
$ 483,975.00
$ 485,000.00
TOTAL PRICE
$
18,000.00
$
7,500.00
$
5,600.00
$ 248,000.00
$
5,000.00
$
30,000.00
$
2,500.00
$
3,000.00
$
31,500.00
$ 351,100.00
$
70,220.00
$
52,665.00
$ 473,985.00
$ 475,000.00
TOTAL PRICE
$
12,500.00
$
7,500.00
$
8,000.00
$ 132,000.00
$
5,000.00
$
15,000.00
$
2,500.00
$
3,000.00
$
45,000.00
$ 230,500.00
$
46,100.00
$
34,575.00
$ 311,175.00
$ 315,000.00
Figures
Sewer Alignments and Force Main Route Alternatives
Water Looping and Connection Points
958
94
6
958
960
!
94
0
956
934
936
938
946
!
946
!
94
4
!
!
!
!
!
954
970
97
8
974
!
!
98
6
970
!
Sewer
!
!
!
!
!
Contour Type
!
970
!
Index
974
972
Intermediate
!
98
0
Tax Parcels
4
96
974
96
97
0
96 GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo,
2 Esri, DigitalGlobe,
Source:
and the GIS User Community
6
97
6
98
!
!
!
982
Wenck
0
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
!
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429
1-800-472-2232
JULY 2014
!
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
www.wenck.com
!
Sewer Alignments
Force Main Route Alternatives
Proposed and
Development
!
CITY OF CORCORAN
!
!
!
960
982
97
4
!
980
98
4
970
97
6
!
Water
Connect to existing
structure
Commerce St
!
954
!
954
!
96
8
956
978
968
!
!
!
962
968
964
960
964
960
954
964
96
6
960
976
974
956
!
966
976 8
97
958
960
958
2
97
956
964
956 95
8
97
2
958
956
Red line shows potential
water line in same area
962
958
±
970
2
96
Feet
0
97
980
972
976
Path: L:\2294\0024\400\mxd\proposed_development.mxd
Date: 7/11/2014 Time: 10:25:44 AM User: KacHD0606
962
6
96
350
50
972
968
96
0
974
946 948
0
96
950
175
962
6
95
7
6
5
4
974
6
95
954 (Source: ESRI)
2012 Aerial Photograph
4
950
!
952
96
2
958
954
958
96
2
966
6
94
952
986
962
956
2
95
950
958
988
986
Legend
97
2
978
Downtown gravity
954
system
extended to
CR 50
988
966
95
4
95
0
956
2
98
8
97
966
976
970
966
0
96
984
968
960
980
4
96
95
8
950
958
8
95
952
8
95
Option B for sewer forcemain is within street
974
network and along a sideyard
easement to 966
existing manhole adjacent to CR 116
960
950
6
95
!
97
2
97
6
962
960
946
0
98
!
6
95
948
!
954
944
958
948
952
956 958
98
2
0
96
94
4
!
!
964
!
7
6
5
4
962
946
!
!
!
940
942
!
©
¨
116
960
95
0
962
954
94 946
2
!
96
2
ran
Tr
950
orco
964
95
8
10
0
96
6
95
EC
980
958
964
966
960
962
954
952
948
958
944
2
95
96
4
96
0
95
0
948
350
956
966
95
0
978
0
96
954
8
95
6
9 2
0
96
Gravity Sewer through development is shown as
21-inch in Comp Sewer Plan. Alignment to
coincide with street network and wiil be modified
during design phase.
946
946
94
4
972
976
950
2
94
968
970
4
97
4
95
948
948
6
94
2
94
964
956
958
950
946
4
94
96
0
95
2
952
948
942
944
Red line shows potential
water line in same area
960
4
94
956
W Corcoran Tr
94
6
!
96
0
958
962
954
95
8
96
2
0
96
96
2
4
95
6
95
960
948
95
6
0
94
8
95
962
950
958
940
94
6
95
6
948
!
2
94
95
2
956
!
954
938
956
958
!
950
8
94
942
950
952
946
!
0
94
938
944
946
944
95
6
!
944
950
954
Provide gravity stub to west / southwest to
958
service areas in accordance with Comprehensive
95
6
Sewer Plan
(See Appendiix A) 944
958
956
!
95
0
Option A for sewer forcemain to existing manhole
is along CR 116
6
94
!
938
934
!
94
0
952
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
958
!
950
!
954
2
95
4
95
956
!
95
0
948
958
960
!
93
6
938
93
8
944
!
938
8
94
!
942
2
94
!
2
95
!
946
Figure 1
958
94
6
958
960
!
94
0
956
934
936
938
946
!
946
!
94
4
Yellow line shows
potential sewer force
main in same area
!
942
!
!
!
!
!
964
!
!
954
!
95
8
!
©
¨
!
7
6
5
4
970
97
8
980
984
!
974
966
!
98
6
970
!
!
!
Sewer
!
!
!
Contour Type
!
970
!
Index
974
972
Intermediate
!
98
0
Tax Parcels
4
96
974
96
97
0
96 GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo,
2 Esri, DigitalGlobe,
Source:
and the GIS User Community
6
97
6
98
!
!
982
Wenck
0
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
!
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429
1-800-472-2232
JULY 2014
!
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
www.wenck.com
!
Water Looping
andDevelopment
Connection Points
Proposed
!
CITY OF CORCORAN
!
!
!
!
956
960
982
97
4
!
980
!
Water
Connect to existing
water main
Commerce St
!
954
!
96
8
!
954
!
98
4
970
97
6
960
954
964
978
968
976
974
96
6
960
!
!
!
962
964
960
964
968
96
2
958
954
958
96
2
956
!
966
976 8
97
960
2
97
96
4
986
97
2
958
956
958
956 95
8
958
964
958
±
2
96
Feet
0
97
980
972
976
Path: L:\2294\0024\400\mxd\proposed_development.mxd
Date: 7/11/2014 Time: 10:25:44 AM User: KacHD0606
962
970
Yellow line shows
potential sewer line in
same area
962
956
350
50
972
968
0
96
0
974
7
6
5
4
6
96
175
96
946 948
350
962
6
95
950
954 (Source: ESRI)
2012 Aerial Photograph
4
950
976
952
966
958
974
6
95
954
968
966
6
94
956
988
986
Legend
97
2
978
Water main extended
954
through
park
988
966
95
4
95
0
2
95
970
966
962
956
950
2
95
948
4
96
0
96
0
96
960
958
95
8
950
8
95
8
95
952
960
950
6
95
2
98
8
97
974
952
!
97
2
97
6
962
960
946
0
98
!
6
95
948
!
954
944
958
948
952
956 958
98
2
958
944
0
96
94
4
!
!
962
960
95
0
964
116
10
0
96
6
95
95
0
8
95
6
9 2
!
940
962
954
94 946
2
96
0
948
946
ran
Tr
950
95
0
978
980
orco
966
2
94
942
944
0
96
950
958
EC
948
946
964
966
960
962
954
952
972
976
946
94
4
968
970
4
97
4
95
948
948
6
94
2
94
964
956
958
950
960 needs to be "looped" with future
Water
Downtown Project. This provides two sources
and allows for maintenance or repair.
4
94
4
94
96
0
95
2
952
94
6
956
956
W Corcoran Tr
958
962
946
96
2
96
0
954
95
8
96
2
0
96
96
2
4
95
6
95
960
948
95
6
0
94
8
95
962
950
958
940
94
6
95
6
948
!
2
94
95
2
956
!
954
938
956
958
!
950
950
952
946
!
0
94
94
4
938
944
946
8
94
942
95
6
958
950
954
944
95
6
944
958
956
!
95
0
Water Looped to CR 116, and future connection
to north.
6
94
!
960
938
934
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
958
!
!
!
950
!
954
2
95
4
95
956
!
95
0
948
!
93
6
938
93
8
944
938
94
0
Provide
water connection to west / southwest 952
958
8
94
!
942
2
94
!
2
95
!
946
Figure
Figure 21
Appendix A
Sewer and Water Trunk Systems
NE-V
2030 Comprehensive Plan
SE-AF
SE-AP
Trunk Sanitary Sewer
SE-AQ
18"
SE Area
Figure 26
SE-AS
SE-AR
SE-32
10"
SE-AO
12"
SE-14
21
"
SE-B
SE-A
"
SE-13
SE-11 24
21"
8"
SE-I
SE-D
SE-H
SE-F
8" SE-10 8"
SE-8
18"
SE-9
SE-E
Forcemain
SE-M
SE-12
Sewer Subdistricts
8"
18
" SE-5
SE-N
SE-Q
12"
SE-T
8" SE-4
SE-18
12"
SE-R
SE-S
15"
SE-2
SE-U
Parcel Base Map
SE-J
18"
"
15
SE-3
18"
SE-19
21"
SE-P
City Limit
SE-20
SE-16
6"
10
"
MCES Interceptor
SE-15
SE-L
Trunk Invert
SE-O
936.9
Gravity Sewer
SE-K
SE-7
SE-AM
Sewer Node
SE-C
SE-G
SE-6
SE-A
Lift station invert
SE-AT
SE-A
926.7
SE-31
SE-17
SE-21
SE-V
Fugure Connection To
Elm Crreek Interceptor
SE-1
SE-X
SE-Y
SE-Z
0
2000
21"
SE-W
15"
SE-AK
"
24
SE-22
SE-AB
SE-AC
SE-23
12"
Feet
12"
SE-AV
SE-24 15" SE-26
SE-AA
SE-28
SE-29
10"
8"
8"
10
"
SE-30
SE-AU
SE-AG
SE-AH
SE-AI
SE-25
SE-AJ
SE-AE
SE-27
SE-AD
18"
SW-11
"
12
April 2009
i:\504\50408143\gis\se sanitary map.mxd
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
TOWNSHIP OF HASSAN
kD
r
Country Rd
97th Ave N
95th Ave
Patrick Pl
Meister Ct
Cain Rd
Schutte Rd
Trail Haven Rd
GOOSE
LAKE
SH
CR
EE
le S
70th Ave N
t
COOK
LAKE
66th
A
Future Well Exploration Areas
2030 Service Boundary
Peachtree Water
Main Looping
Shown on Comp
Water Plan
Gleason Rd
ve N
Hunter Rd
October 7, 2009
63rd Ave N
L
rth
a
CITY OF MEDINA
Elm St
wo
Mohawk Dr
tter
r
Bu
dD
State Hwy 55
a
County Rd 116
Willow Dr
Rolling Hills Rd
il L
Tra
Trail La
B en
Wagon Wheel La
Rd
sho e
Horseshoe Tr
MORIN
LAKE
Olde Sturbridge Rd
s
er
ttl
Se
se
Future Trunk Watermain
Abilene La
d
Ol
Ho r
Lakeview Cir
Potential Supply Connections with Neighboring Communities
County Hwy 101
Buckskin Tr
Bluebonnet Dr
a
er
tL
Ju
b
Bel
Homestead Tr
Nystrom La
LAKE
Potential Water Tower Locations
81st Pl
Maple Hill Rd
Commerce St
W Corcoran Tr
ag
le
E
Kalk Rd
Winchester Tr
Auger Ave
Larkin Rd
JUBERT
3,000 Feet
Wetlands
81st P
l
K
75th Ave N
SCOTT
LAKE
0
City Limit
Rd
County Hwy 50
1,500
Open Water
RU
E Corcoran Tr
County Hwy 19
Meister Rd
Cain Pl
Rid ge Rd
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
Foxline Dr
CITY OF GREENFIELD
Schutte Farm Rd
3,000
Shannon La
St
re
hl
er
ee
rT
r
Brandywine Rd
Mystique Dr
Larson Rd
Pi
on
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Fa
Hill La
Sunny
Draft Trunk Water System
Hunters Ridge
d
Duffney Dr
Fox Valley Dr
Chis
holm
Lily Pon
d La
Tr
fL
Tamiami Tr
Bl
uf
Hi
gh
Bechtold Rd
l vd
Garden La
Sundance Rd
101st Ave
Osw a l
Garrison Rd
Julie Ann Dr
d
Hillside Dr
r m Rd
a
r
a
D
93rd Ave N
Strehler Rd
gR
City of
Hidden Ponds Dr
le
High
Ridg land
e Rd
ak
da
Ebert Rd
Heather La
L
fery
Jef
kB
County Hwy 10
Rebecca Park Tr
Sti
e
Darrel La
O
CORCORAN
Country Cir E
Dassel La
Rush Cr e
e
Salem La
Figure 28
Stieg Rd
Tessmer Rd
Woodland Tr
Robert La
Rush Meadow La
Rush C
Oakdale Dr
Meadowview Dr
Jackie La
et L
a
r ee
Sun
s
Hage Dr
Meadow Creek Dr
109th Ave N
Brockton Pl
Windmill Dr
Maple La
Ginseng La
Jonquil La
COUNTY ROAD 117
I:/504/50408144/GIS/ComPlan/Maps/trunk water system.mxd
Hackamore Rd
(62ND
AVE
N)
Appendix B
Downtown Feasibility Study for Gravity Sewer
(April 2012)
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Ctr.
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249
(763) 479-4200
Fax (763) 479-4242
E-mail: [email protected]
TO:
Dan Donahue, City Administrator
FROM:
Kent Torve, P.E. and Heather Libby, P.E.
DATE:
April 5, 2012
SUBJECT:
Feasibility Report for Downtown Gravity Sewer, Water and Street Reconstruction
The Council has authorized a Feasibility Report to review the cost associated with gravity sewer
and water service to the Downtown area. This analysis was an outcome of a business owner
meeting, where costs of service were presented for a system of low pressure sewer and water.
The business owners were looking for a comparison cost for gravity sewer, which eliminates
each building’s tanks and pumps. These utilities would be installed beneath the street which is
typical of an “urban” utility service. This memo serves as the report for this authorization. A
separate analysis of creating a special services district to fund the project as compared to the 429
process is being prepared by Northland Financial Services.
Trunk Services
The sewer would provide service to 48 parcels (44 hookups) via an 8-inch gravity pipe. The
pipes drain to the north and west, and terminate at a lift station located near the City ball fields
north of CR 50. This location is consistent with the Master Sewer Plan, and is feasible from a
topography standpoint. From the lift station the sewer would be pumped via forcemain to the
connection point along CR 116 near St. Thomas Church. The alignment is shown in Figure 1.
Water service would be provided to the same parcels. A 12-inch watermain is proposed as being
installed in the existing street with a minimum of 10-foot separation distance as required from
the sewer. The 12-inch watermain would be extended (or “stubbed”) east of the intersection of
CR116 and 75th Ave. N for future development, and west to provide for future connections for
undeveloped areas. The alignment is shown in Figure 1.
Street Restoration
Installation of sewer and water would require a complete reconstruction of the street. The
existing street is 24-feet wide with two foot gravel shoulders. We have estimated the cost for
street reconstruction two ways, a) reconstruct the street to its existing condition and b)
reconstruct to 32-feet width with curb and gutter and storm sewer.
Properties
The parcel count has been expanded to 48, and the boundary includes Commerce, Auger, 75th
Ave. N, and some properties along CR116, CR10 and CR50. Figure 2 shows the proposed
service area.
\\francis\vol1\2294-Corcoran\10-Sewer and Water Planning (TIF Districts)\Feasibility Study Apr 2012\memo feasibility downtown.docx
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
Cost
Table 1 details the individual costs associated with water, sewer and street reconstruction work.
It can be noted the costs include significant contingency due to the property issues, possible
stormwater work, and coordination involved with servicing 48 parcels and disconnecting septic
tanks, etc.
Summary of Costs
Sewer
$584,000
Water
$552,000
Street Reconstruction
• 24-ft Rural Street
$464,000
Indirect Costs (Engineering, Legal, Appraisals, Easements)
$365,000
Total Project at 24 ft street $1,965,000
Alternative A
• 32-ft Urban Street (curb & gutter)
$792,000
Total Project at 32 ft street $2,293,000
Conclusion
The project is feasible from an engineering perspective and necessary should residents and
council wish to install gravity sewer to the downtown area. The project involves logistical
challenges of connecting individual properties along with significant legal and property efforts to
obtain access.
\\francis\vol1\2294-Corcoran\10-Sewer and Water Planning (TIF Districts)\Feasibility Study Apr 2012\memo feasibility downtown.docx
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
Table 1.
Downtown Gravity Sewer, Water and Street Reconstruction Costs
City of Corcoran
Gravity Sewer (in street) From Downtown to Lift Station
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Description
8" Gravity Sewer and Manholes
Sewer Forcemain (4"-diameter)
Lift Station
Jacked Steel Casing (CR 10 & CR 50)
Jacking/Boring Mobilization
Valves and Connection Stub
Misc. traffic control, testing, etc.
County Road 10 & 50 Construction Complexity
Unit
Quantity
Lineal Feet
Lineal Feet
Lump Sum
Lineal Feet
Lump Sum
Each
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
5,220
1,970
1
200
1
44
1
1
Unit Cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40
25
75,000
150
30,000
2,000
20,000
30,000
Amount
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
209,000
49,000
75,000
30,000
30,000
88,000
20,000
30,000
Total Sewer Construction: $
Contingency (10%) $
Total
$
531,000
53,000
584,000
Water Main from CR 116 to Downtown
Item
No.
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Description
12-inch Main Open Cut with restoration
Jacked Steel Casing (CR 10 & CR 50)
Valves and hydrants
Misc. traffic control, testing, etc.
County Road 10 & 50 Construction Complexity
Curb Stops
Restoration
Unit
Quantity
Lineal Feet
Lineal Feet
Estimate
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Each
Lump Sum
7,025
200
10
1
1
44
1
Unit Cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40
300
4,000
20,000
30,000
1,500
5,000
Amount
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
281,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
30,000
66,000
5,000
Total Construction: $
Contingency (10%) $
Total
$
502,000
50,000
552,000
Total Sewer and Water Trunk Lines $ 1,136,000
\\francis\vol1\2294-Corcoran\10-Sewer and Water Planning (TIF Districts)\Feasibility Study Apr 2012\Downtown Mini FS Cost Table-gravity
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
Street Reconstruction (24-foot street with gravel shoulders)
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Description
Removal of existing pavement
Wear Course (1.5")
Base Course (2")
Class 5 Aggregate (12")
Select Granular (12")
Class 5 Aggregate for 2' shoulders
Geotextile
Restoration
Unit
Quantity
Square Yards
Ton
Ton
Cubic Yards
Cubic Yards
Cubic Yards
Square Yards
Lump Sum
9,700
800
1,100
3,200
300
3,200
9,700
1
Unit Cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10
65
61
25
23
25
2
20,000
Amount
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
97,000
52,000
67,000
80,000
7,000
80,000
19,000
20,000
Total Street Construction: $
Contingency (10%) $
Total
$
422,000
42,000
464,000
Street Reconstruction (32-foot street with curb and gutter)
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Description
Removal of existing pavement
Wear Course (1.5")
Base Course (2")
Class 5 Aggregate (12")
Select Granular (12")
Geotextile
Curb & Gutter
Storm Sewer
Pond Construction and Stormwater Improvements
Restoration
Unit
Quantity
Square Yards
Ton
Ton
Cubic Yards
Cubic Yards
Square Yards
Lineal Foot
Lineal Foot
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
9,700
1,100
1,400
4,300
4,300
12,900
7,200
3,600
1
1
Unit Cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10
65
61
25
23
2
9
25
75,000
3,000
Amount
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
97,000
72,000
85,000
108,000
99,000
26,000
65,000
90,000
75,000
3,000
Total Street Construction: $
Contingency (10%) $
Total
$
720,000
72,000
792,000
Indirect Costs
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
Description
Easements
Legal and Appraisal
Engineering and Surveying
Utilities, Landowner Coordination, misc.
Unit
Quantity
Acre
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
1.54
1
1
1
Unit Cost
$ 10,000
$ 60,000
$ 250,000
$ 40,000
Subtotal
\\francis\vol1\2294-Corcoran\10-Sewer and Water Planning (TIF Districts)\Feasibility Study Apr 2012\Downtown Mini FS Cost Table-gravity
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
Amount
$
$
$
$
$
15,000
60,000
250,000
40,000
365,000
Legend
Tax Parcels
Lift Station
3'' Foremain
1
38
8'' Gravity Sewer
"
)
2
12'' Water Main
0
25
23
22
21
5
4
40
10
24
3
39
31
20
8
9
41
6
19
27
26
42
11
12
7
18
45
28
16
29
17
17
46
30
15
14
43
13
44
48
36
Future
Connection
32
34
33
47
Would Require Pumping
up to Gravity Line
37
35
Aerial Photograph (Source: Bing Maps)
250
125
0
250
Feet
Path: L:\2294\10\mxd\SE Alt\mxd\Water and Sewer Options_CenterRdNW.mxd
Date: 4/5/2012 Time: 1:11:09 PM User: ShuJC0243
±
Map ID PIN
Bldg #
Street
Ow ner
Map ID
PIN
Bldg #
Street
Ow ner
0
053-2311923430004
20115
CO RD NO 10
10-50 PROPERTIES LLC
25
053-2611923120005
20209
CO RD NO 50
EDNA G LLC
1
053-2311923440015
20020
CO RD NO 10
ST THOMAS THE APOSTLE CHURCH
26
053-2611923120012
20110
AUGER AVE
K & R LEWIS PROPERTIES LLP
2
053-2311923440018
20000
CO RD NO 10
CH OF ST THOMAS OF CORCORAN
27
053-2611923120013
20120
AUGER AVE
K & R LEWIS PROPERTIES LLP
3
053-2611923110006
52
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
S W TREPTAU & M T TREPTAU
28
053-2611923120014
20125
AUGER AVE
PRO DEVELOPMENT PROP LLC
4
053-2611923110008
20045
CO RD NO 10
SCOTT W TREPTAU
29
053-2611923120015
20115
AUGER AVE
GRANMOR LLC
5
053-2611923110009
20101
CO RD NO 50
S W TREPTAU & M T TREPTAU
30
053-2611923120016
52
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
COMMERCE STREET PARTNERS LLP
6
053-2611923110013
7625
CO RD NO 116
J H RYAN & D RYAN
31
053-2611923120017
20175
CO RD NO 50
FORSBERG PROPERTIES LLC
7
053-2611923110016
7559
CO RD NO 116
CORCORAN CORNER LLC
32
053-2611923140014
20095
75TH AVE N
WW CONSTRUCTORS INC
8
053-2611923110019
7631
COMMERCE ST
L M & S N OARE TRUSTEES
33
053-2611923140018
19950
75TH AVE N
LOREN & DORIS LEUER
9
053-2611923110022
19905
CO RD NO 10
A & P KRAL
34
053-2611923140024
20010
75TH AVE N
LEE W SUNRAM
10
053-2611923110025
52
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ST THOMAS CHURCH
35
053-2611923140026
20050
75TH AVE N
T L & L E HILDE
11
053-2611923110030
7670
COMMERCE ST
TMR PROPERTIES LLC
36
053-2611923130012
20160
75TH AVE N
G & M PROPERTIES INC
12
053-2611923110031
7604
COMMERCE ST
RS HOLDINGS LLC
37
053-2611923130013
20150
75TH AVE N
JOMICO INC
13
053-2611923110035
19945
75TH AVE N
D W LADDUSAW & S M LADDUSAW
38
053-2311923430003
20121
CO RD NO 10
JOSEPH ANDRES
14
053-2611923110036
20015
75TH AVE N
D G & C J FACKLER
39
053-2611923110005
20045
CO RD NO 10
WILLIAM G TREPTAU
15
053-2611923110037
20055
75TH AVE N
DAVID B ANDERSON
40
053-2611923110007
20037
CO RD NO 10
F A WALDRON & D E BENSON
16
053-2611923110038
7550
COMMERCE ST
FAIRWAY LLC
41
053-2611923110020
7591
COMMERCE ST
T E GLEASON & K M GLEASON
17
053-2611923110041
7555
CO RD NO 116
DAVID A REMER ET AL
42
053-2611923110029
7590
COMMERCE ST
PHILIP J KERBER
18
053-2611923110045
52
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
CORCORAN CORNER LLC
43
053-2611923110039
19925
75TH AVE N
L G LEUER & D A LEUER
19
053-2611923110046
7610
COMMERCE ST
M E INDUSTRIES LLC
44
053-2611923110040
19905
75TH AVE N
L G B INC
20
053-2611923110048
19925
CO RD NO 10
JEFFREY L JOHNSON
45
053-2611923110043
7575
COMMERCE ST
DANNY L & EILEEN E PETRIE
21
053-2611923120001
20113
CO RD NO 50
S W TREPTAU & M T TREPTAU
46
053-2611923110049
52
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
COMMERCE STREET PARTNERS LLP
22
053-2611923120002
20123
CO RD NO 50
KATHLEEN ROEHL
47
053-2611923140019
19910
75TH AVE N
G & M PROPERTIES INC
23
053-2611923120003
20137
CO RD NO 50
HEIDI ANN SHAWD
48
053-2611923140025
7525
COMMERCE ST
MANITOU GROUP LLC
24
053-2611923120004
20201
CO RD NO 50
ADAM DAVID LLC
CITY OF CORCORAN
Downtown Water and Sewer Trunk Lines
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
www.wenck.com
Wenck
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429
1-800-472-2232
APR 2012
Figure 1
Legend
Tax Parcels
Lift Station
3'' Foremain
1
38
8'' Gravity Sewer
"
)
2
12'' Water Main
0
25
23
22
21
5
4
40
10
24
3
39
31
20
8
9
41
6
19
27
26
42
11
12
7
18
45
28
16
29
17
17
46
30
15
14
43
13
44
48
36
Future
Connection
32
34
33
47
Would Require Pumping
up to Gravity Line
37
35
Aerial Photograph (Source: Bing Maps)
250
125
0
250
Feet
Path: L:\2294\10\mxd\SE Alt\mxd\Water and Sewer Options_CenterRdNW.mxd
Date: 4/5/2012 Time: 1:11:09 PM User: ShuJC0243
±
Map ID PIN
Bldg #
Street
Ow ner
Map ID
PIN
Bldg #
Street
Ow ner
0
053-2311923430004
20115
CO RD NO 10
10-50 PROPERTIES LLC
25
053-2611923120005
20209
CO RD NO 50
EDNA G LLC
1
053-2311923440015
20020
CO RD NO 10
ST THOMAS THE APOSTLE CHURCH
26
053-2611923120012
20110
AUGER AVE
K & R LEWIS PROPERTIES LLP
2
053-2311923440018
20000
CO RD NO 10
CH OF ST THOMAS OF CORCORAN
27
053-2611923120013
20120
AUGER AVE
K & R LEWIS PROPERTIES LLP
3
053-2611923110006
52
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
S W TREPTAU & M T TREPTAU
28
053-2611923120014
20125
AUGER AVE
PRO DEVELOPMENT PROP LLC
4
053-2611923110008
20045
CO RD NO 10
SCOTT W TREPTAU
29
053-2611923120015
20115
AUGER AVE
GRANMOR LLC
5
053-2611923110009
20101
CO RD NO 50
S W TREPTAU & M T TREPTAU
30
053-2611923120016
52
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
COMMERCE STREET PARTNERS LLP
6
053-2611923110013
7625
CO RD NO 116
J H RYAN & D RYAN
31
053-2611923120017
20175
CO RD NO 50
FORSBERG PROPERTIES LLC
7
053-2611923110016
7559
CO RD NO 116
CORCORAN CORNER LLC
32
053-2611923140014
20095
75TH AVE N
WW CONSTRUCTORS INC
8
053-2611923110019
7631
COMMERCE ST
L M & S N OARE TRUSTEES
33
053-2611923140018
19950
75TH AVE N
LOREN & DORIS LEUER
9
053-2611923110022
19905
CO RD NO 10
A & P KRAL
34
053-2611923140024
20010
75TH AVE N
LEE W SUNRAM
10
053-2611923110025
52
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ST THOMAS CHURCH
35
053-2611923140026
20050
75TH AVE N
T L & L E HILDE
11
053-2611923110030
7670
COMMERCE ST
TMR PROPERTIES LLC
36
053-2611923130012
20160
75TH AVE N
G & M PROPERTIES INC
12
053-2611923110031
7604
COMMERCE ST
RS HOLDINGS LLC
37
053-2611923130013
20150
75TH AVE N
JOMICO INC
13
053-2611923110035
19945
75TH AVE N
D W LADDUSAW & S M LADDUSAW
38
053-2311923430003
20121
CO RD NO 10
JOSEPH ANDRES
14
053-2611923110036
20015
75TH AVE N
D G & C J FACKLER
39
053-2611923110005
20045
CO RD NO 10
WILLIAM G TREPTAU
15
053-2611923110037
20055
75TH AVE N
DAVID B ANDERSON
40
053-2611923110007
20037
CO RD NO 10
F A WALDRON & D E BENSON
16
053-2611923110038
7550
COMMERCE ST
FAIRWAY LLC
41
053-2611923110020
7591
COMMERCE ST
T E GLEASON & K M GLEASON
17
053-2611923110041
7555
CO RD NO 116
DAVID A REMER ET AL
42
053-2611923110029
7590
COMMERCE ST
PHILIP J KERBER
18
053-2611923110045
52
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
CORCORAN CORNER LLC
43
053-2611923110039
19925
75TH AVE N
L G LEUER & D A LEUER
19
053-2611923110046
7610
COMMERCE ST
M E INDUSTRIES LLC
44
053-2611923110040
19905
75TH AVE N
L G B INC
20
053-2611923110048
19925
CO RD NO 10
JEFFREY L JOHNSON
45
053-2611923110043
7575
COMMERCE ST
DANNY L & EILEEN E PETRIE
21
053-2611923120001
20113
CO RD NO 50
S W TREPTAU & M T TREPTAU
46
053-2611923110049
52
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
COMMERCE STREET PARTNERS LLP
22
053-2611923120002
20123
CO RD NO 50
KATHLEEN ROEHL
47
053-2611923140019
19910
75TH AVE N
G & M PROPERTIES INC
48
053-2611923140025
7525
COMMERCE ST
MANITOU GROUP LLC
23
053-2611923120003
20137
CO RD NO 50
HEIDI ANN SHAWD
24
053-2611923120004
20201
CO RD NO 50
ADAM DAVID LLC
CITY OF CORCORAN
Downtown
TrunkArea
Lines
Proposed
TrunkWater
Sewerand
and Sewer
Water Service
Exhibit 6. Utility Feasibility Study
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
www.wenck.com
Wenck
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429
1-800-472-2232
APR 2012
Figure
Figure 21