Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2021-33 - Findings and Facts for Citizen Petition EAW Request - 05/04/2021CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-33 RESOLUTION DENYING CITIZEN PETITION FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE PROPOSED NOBLE HILL PROJECT WHEREAS, on April 23, 2021, the City of Eden Prairie received from the Environmental Quality Board ("EQB") a petition requesting that the City Council require an environmental assessment worksheet ("EA W") for the proposed project known as Noble Hill, to be located at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the petition was signed by 221 individuals, more than half of which are Eden Prairie residents; and WHEREAS, the EQB has designated the City as the responsible governmental unit ("RGU") for the Project; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a petition from the EQB, the City must review the evidence presented by the petitioners, evidence provided by the Project proposer, and other evidence otherwise known to the City and determine whether, because of the nature or location of the Project, the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the EQB Rule requires the City to take into account the following factors in considering the evidence: A. The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. The cumulative potential effects, including the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other environmental impact statements. WHEREAS, the City Council considered the petition for an EA W at its meeting on May 4, 2021. The petitioners and the Project proposer were provided the opportunity to present information and comment. The City Council considered all of the evidence and information presented as well as the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that the following Findings of Fact and Decision are hereby adopted: FINDINGS OF FACT Nature and Location of Project 1. The Project involves the construction of 50 single-family homes on 27.51 acres of land. The proposed Project has a density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre. 2. The current land use on the site includes agricultural use for a tree farm with a home, barn, shed, and dirt field paths. The property is located within the City's Metropolitan Urban Service Area and is guided for Low Density Residential development in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Low Density Residential land use category allows a density of 5 units per acre. 3. The Project site has a significant amount of topographic relief. There is a nearly 150-foot grade change from east to west. Riley Creek runs through a portion of the west side of the Property. There are floodplains and wetlands along the creek corridor. There is also a bluff on the southwest comer of the site. There are significant wooded areas along the creek and on the bluff. In addition, the northeast comer of the property is wooded and there is a line of mature trees along the east property line. 4. Adjacent land uses to the Project site include conservation land to the south, a residential development to the east, one residential building to the west, and conservation land to the north. 5. City-owned property to the west of the Project site contains access to a natural spring known as the Fredrick-Miller Spring. The spring is designated as a local Heritage Preservation Site that carries with it local protections through City Code. Biodiversity of Project Site 6. The petition alleges that the Project site is ecologically significant and that the Project will negatively impact the biodiversity of the site, including negative impacts to migratory birds, the Rusty Patch Bumblebee, the Kitten-Tail plant, the Petala Evening Primrose, significant and heritage trees, and wildlife habitat. 2 Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects 7. The vast majority of the area identified on the Hennepin County Natural Resources Inventory Map as "DNR Sites of Biodiversity Significance" will remain undisturbed by the Project. This area is contained within Outlot D of the Project site and is proposed to be deeded to the City for preservation. These lands, when combined with the current Prairie Bluff Conservation Area, provide a natural buffer between developed areas and existing water bodies. Preserving this area of the Project site minimizes any potential effects to biodiversity. 8. The Project area is included in the Minnesota River Valley Important Bird Area ("MRVIBA"). The MRVIBA is a corridor extending a certain distance from the Minnesota River that migratory birds use as a flyway. The MRVIBA includes a wide variety of both developed and undeveloped areas. 9. Inclusion in the MRVIBA does not mean that the Project site has been surveyed and identified as an Important Bird Area. Petitioners have presented no evidence that any birds will be particularly impacted by the Project. 10. Species included on Minnesota's List of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Species have been found in the area surrounding the Project site. The City will require a survey to be completed prior to the issuance of a Land Alteration Permit to identify any endangered, rare, and threatened species on the site, including but not limited to Kitten- Tails, Petala Evening Primrose, and the Rusty Patch Bumble Bee, and provide findings to the City. Any impacts to such species that are found within the grading limits of the Project must be mitigated. 11. The Project proposer has provided a Rare Plant Survey report prepared by Stantec dated April 27, 2021. The survey found no kitten-tails or other rare plants at the Project site within the proposed limits for tree clearing or grading or within the proposed Outlot D. 12. 445 significant trees will be removed from the Project site. Most of these trees will be removed from the northern parts of the property in an effort to save the trees on the more environmentally sensitive property on the southwest of the Project site. The developer will undertake tree replacement efforts as required by City Code, both in the form of actual replacement and payment-in-lieu of replacement that will provide funds for the City to plant trees throughout the City. Cumulative potential effects 13. There are no significant cumulative potential effects related to biodiversity. 14. Past developments surrounding the Project site have been subject to the same review process as this Project, which takes into account biodiversity concerns. 15. There are no other known proposed projects in the Project area to be considered for potential cumulative effects related to biodiversity. 3 Mitigation bv ongoing regulatory authority 16. Because the majority of the portion of the Project site identified as having biodiversity significance will be deeded to the City for conservation, the City will be able to monitor and mitigate any biodiversity concerns. Other studies 17. Studies that describe how environmental effects the biodiversity of the Project site can be anticipated and controlled include the following, which have been considered by the Council and are incorporated herein by reference: Rare Plant Survey report prepared by Stantec dated April 27, 2021. Riley Creek Impairment 18. The petitioners assert that Riley Creek (the "Creek") will become further or irreversibly impaired by the Project. They cite increased impervious area in the Creek watershed, stresses from existing developments, decreased forest cover, and landslide potential as negative impacts to the Creek. Tvpe, extent. and reversibility of environmental effects 19. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's ("MPCA") Lower Minnesota River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Study (February 2020) ("TMDL Study"), states that the Creek is impaired for Total Suspended Solids ("TSS") and Escherichia Coli ("E. coli") bacteria. Further impairments for aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments and macroinvertebrate bioassessments are a result of the TSS impairment and would be considered addressed through the TSS impairment by the MPCA. 20. The TMDL Study states that the primary cause of the TSS impairment is "likely streambank and near-channel erosion of sediment." Much of Riley Creek has an incised channel with relatively little floodplain and sparse riparian vegetation due to the dense forest canopy cover. The lack of vegetation along the Creek, minimal floodplain, sandy native soils, and steep gradient of the creek all contribute to bank and bed erosion that facilitates sediment transport. Regarding TSS, the study further explains that, "much of the reduction will need to come from near-channel sources (e.g., streambank erosion)." 21. Over the past 10 years, the City and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District ("RPBCWD") have participated in several streambank stabilization and creek restoration projects along Riley Creek. The TSS data from the Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program ("WOMP") station managed by the Metropolitan Council and the City have shown that the TSS concentrations in the Creek have decreased as streambank stabilization and creek restoration projects have occurred in the watershed. This is despite additional residential development in the watershed. More recent projects, such as Reeder Ridge and the realignment of Eden Prairie Road, have also employed similar infiltration stormwater management best management practices ("BMPs") to reduce runoff to the Creek and treat 4 for pollutants. The WOMP sampling has not shown increasing TSS trends in the Creek since these projects were completed. 22. The TMDL Study acknowledges that reductions in runoff volume from municipal storm sewer will result in lesser peak flows and potential for erosion in the Creek. The Project proposes to use stormwater BMPs to retain stormwater on-site for infiltration and remove stormwater pollutants including TSS. The proposed infiltration basins for the Project are sized to retain an equivalent volume of 1.1-inches multiplied by the proposed impervious surfaces. Based on the Minimal Impact Design Standards ("MIDS") program from the MPCA, this volume will result in on-site retention of 90 percent of annual rain events. Additionally, MIDS Calculator modeling submitted in the Stormwater Management Report has shown that the annual runoff volume and TSS loading from the Project site will not exceed that of its existing condition. Lastly, RPBCWD Rules stipulate that the rate of runoff cannot increase at all discharge points on the site. These factors demonstrate that although the Project will have a net increase in impervious surface, the BMPs will reduce runoff volumes and TSS loading to the Creek and make it unlikely to contribute to the high flow conditions that lead to erosion in the Creek. 23. Based on WOMP sampling data, the E. coli levels in the Creek have been variable over time, but have recently shown a slight upward trend. E. Coli concentrations in the Creek have been linked to wildlife, congregations of waterfowl, and improper management of pet waste. The MPCA Stormwater Manual states, "Bacteria removal is assumed to be 100 percent for all water that infiltrates." Given the Project's runoff from 90 percent of storms will be retained within the basins for infiltration, the majority of E. coli loading from the Project's storm sewer systems will be treated and not reach the Creek. Additionally, the MPCA Stormwater Manual identifies pet waste management ordinances and education as highly effective methods in controlling or reducing bacterial pollution. The City has a pet waste ordinance in place and is the process of expanding educational programs on this subject. The Project's proposed basins are also designed to draw down within 48 hours, making them unlikely to become frequented by large congregations of waterfowl. 24. While landslides are a potential risk in any environment where there are sandy soils (or other susceptible soils) together with the presence of water that could saturate the soils, the City requires a geotechnical analysis for any development to provide engineered solutions for soil conditions, site grading, retaining wall construction, and drainage control for retaining walls. Based on Braun Intertec's Geotechnical Evaluation Report for this Project, recommendations were made for various site conditions such as overall site grading, reuse of on-site soils, effects of groundwater, excavated slopes, filling on slopes, dewatering, retaining walls (drainage control; selection, placement, and compaction of backfill; and configuring and resisting lateral loads), as well as structure and pavement recommendations. In addition to these geotechnical recommendations, the City is requiring that surface drainage near retaining walls be routed away or designed to capture and direct runoff from a 100-year storm event toward storm drainage structures (which will reduce the risk of drainage overtopping the retaining walls). A drain tile system will also be installed behind the retaining walls to release any water that collects behind the walls. All retaining walls over four feet in height will require a building permit from the City's Building Inspection Division. 5 25. Since this Project site is within a Shoreland Management Zone, City Code 11.50 requires a bluff determination, consistent with DNR regulations. A "bluff' is defined as a rise in elevation of at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level and with a grade of slope at or over 30%. A bluff was identified on the Project site, which means that any structures must be setback at least 20 feet beyond the top of the bluff. The entire bluff and bluff setback zone is located with Outlot D, which will be deeded to the City to be preserved in perpetuity. 26. The trees and native vegetation preserved within Outlot D and the wetland buffer will continue to provide protection to adjacent water resources. These buffers help filter out stormwater pollutants and prevent erosion. The natural buffers provided by the Project are in excess of those required by City Code. Additionally, the proposed stormwater BMPs will serve to provide additional treatment of stormwater on the site. Monuments will demarcate areas to be preserved as buffers to prevent them from being encroached upon. 27. Based on the combination of these facts, the Project's environmental effect on Riley Creek is not significant and may in fact improve some conditions beyond where they exist today. Cumulative potential effects 28. There is no evidence of significant cumulative potential effects relating to impairment of Riley Creek. Despite additional residential development in the Creek watershed since the WOMP sampling began in 1999, the majority of stormwater pollutants have been stable or decreased over this time. The decrease in TSS in the Creek is likely resultant of on-going creek restoration and stabilization practices. Furthermore, the WOMP report has noted that pollutants commonly associated with fertilizer use (orthophosphates, nitrates, ammonia, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen) have decreased as land use has transitioned from agricultural to residential. Mitigation by ongoing regulatory authority 29. The permanent stormwater management BMPs associated with the Project will be maintained by the City. The City has watershed district-wide Maintenance Agreement with the RPBCWD that stipulates that the BMPs must be kept in working order through routine and major maintenance activities. 30. The City, in partnership with RPBCWD, will also continue to work on Creek restoration and streambank stabilization projects that will work toward bringing TSS concentrations in the Creek into compliance with the standards identified in the TMDL Study. As part of the most recent 2020 MS4 Permit Application, the City is working toward establishing a compliance schedule for the TSS TDML for the Creek. As such, the City will also continue to implement BMPs throughout the Creek watershed to minimize stormwater pollution. This includes but is not limited to pet waste management education programs, waterfowl management, retrofitting of existing structural stormwater BMPs, and cleaning of existing stormwater ponds in the watershed. 6 31. City and RPBCWD rules and regulations regarding stormwater management will continue to apply to this Project and to future development or redevelopment within the Creek's watershed. Other studies 32. Studies that describe how environmental effects on Riley Creek can be anticipated and controlled include the following, which have been considered by the Council and are incorporated herein by reference: 2020 WOMP Riley Creek Monitoring Results; Lower Minnesota River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load; MPCA Stormwater Manual; Braun Intertec's Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the Standal Property dated October 10, 2019; and Braun Intertec' s Supplemental Soil Borings -Standal Property dated March 5, 2020. Fredrick-Miller Spring 33. The petition alleges that the Project will have a direct negative effect on the water quality of the Fredrick-Miller Spring (the "Spring") and may potentially lead to the elimination of the Spring. The petition cites heritage, testing, and water quality degradation as evidence demonstrating potential for significant environmental effects. 34. As a locally designated Historic Preservation Site, the Spring is governed by Section 11.05 of the City Code. This portion of the City Code seeks to safeguard the heritage of the City, promote the preservation and continued use of historic sites, and foster civic pride. Section 11.05 outlines the process of public review and the criteria that must be met if alterations, buildings, or demolition are proposed for a Historic Preservation Site. The Fredrick-Miller Spring Historic Preservation Site is not located within the Project boundaries. No changes are proposed to the Historic Preservation Site. 35. Minnesota Statutes Chapter l 16D establishes a statewide environmental policy that is intended, among other things, to preserve natural resources. The statewide definition of "natural resources" includes "historical resources." Minn. Stat. § 1168.02, subd. 4. The petition alleges that this reference endorses the request for the preparation of an EA W. The Council finds that this general definition that applies statewide does not provide evidence that this Project will cause significant environmental impact to the Spring. Tvpe. extent. and reversibilitv of environmental effects: 36. According to the Summit Envirosolutions Report titled "Results of Impact Assessment Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, MN" dated April 9, 2021 ("Summit Report"), Frederick-Miller Spring is a seep, not an artesian spring, that emerges from the side of a bluff on the west side of County State Aid Highway 4 ("Spring Road") which is west of Riley Creek and west of the Project. Water from the seep is collected in an underground cistern and is then piped down the remaining bluff and under Spring Road to a trough in a parking lot on City-owned property west of Riley Creek. 37. The Summit Report identified the Spring's recharge area by compiling published geologic information in the area within a Geographic Information System (GIS), performing field 7 reconnaissance to evaluate the current conditions and hydro geologic setting of the Spring, obtaining surveyed elevations of the Spring and proposed Project features, and preparing a summary of findings and conclusions. Based on the published data, the field reconnaissance, and Summit Envirosolutions' experience in similar geologic terrains, the Summit Report concluded that the entire recharge area for the Fredrick-Miller Spring is located west of Spring Road and that activities associated with the Project will have no impact on the quantity or quality of the water recharging the Spring. 38. The Summit Report also reviewed Dr. E. Calvin Alexander's "Steps to Protect Water Quality of Fredrick-Miller Spring," which was included with the petition. Summit Envirosolutions disagreed with Dr. Alexander's analysis by stating: I do not think Dr. Alexander was given all the information we have regarding the recharge area of the spring. The oral history is clear that the original seep location is located up the east-facing hill west of the current location and was outfitted with an old bathtub and piping to convey the water first to an area west of Spring Road and then under the road to the current location. I do not believe Dr. Alexander was given that information, since he suggests that the initial recharge area should be ' ... all of the land and surface water bodies at elevation above the Fredrick-Miller Spring ... '. If he knew the original seep location is located on the east-facing hill west of Spring Road on what is an isolated topographical feature, he would likely not suggest a 2-mile area for further study. The other key pieces of information that are not referenced in his document are the surficial geology map (Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County Balaban, N.H., 1989) that shows outwash surrounded (and underlain) by till and the 18 drilling logs (obtained from the Minnesota Well Index) that enabled us to interpolate a clay surface that is the likely mechanism for the Spring recharge. I think if Dr. Alexander had this same information, he would likely not use the term "artesian spring", because the flow produced at the Spring discharge outlet is gravity drainage from a "perched" water table that is unconfined. 39. In 2005, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("2005 EAW") was completed by the City for its Hennepin Village Roadway Alternative project. The 2005 EA W evaluated a number of alternatives for the layout and construction of a new collector roadway servicing several residential neighborhoods in the southcentral portion of Eden Prairie. The 2005 EA W considered a number of the roadway alternatives that had potentially significant irreversible environmental impacts because the proposed roadway crossed environmentally sensitive lands such as bluffs, Riley Creek, wetlands, the Frederick-Miller Spring recharge area, known archeological sites, recorded burial areas, and other unique resources. The EA W concluded that the Spring "originates in the bluff area directly west across Spring Road from the current spring trough location. It is likely that the Miller Spring ground watershed is west and northwest of the spring." This conclusion is consistent with the Summit Envirosolutions report and indicates the Project will not impact the Spring recharge area. 8 40. The Council finds the Summit Report and the 2005 EA W to be more credible than the opinion of Dr. Alexander as to the type and nature of any environmental effects that the Project may have on the Spring. 41. Historical City monthly testing of Nitrates at the Spring shows a decrease in average Nitrates as agricultural properties have developed into residential single-family housing. This is likely due to stormwater runoff management facilities being constructed during development and the reduction in Nitrates from farm animal confinements, manure spreading, and agricultural fertilizer use. The polynomial trendline of Nitrate values between July 2009 and April 2021, the period for which testing results exist, shows a decrease from highs of approximately 3.8 parts per million (ppm) in 2009 through 2011 to lows of 1.8 ppm in 2020 through 2021. The United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health list Nitrate concentrations of 10.0 ppm or lower as safe for potable drinking water sources. Nitrate is a naturally occurring compound and levels around 3 .0 ppm are considered safe and customary for well water sources. For comparison purposes, the City tested several types of store-bought bottled water on April 8, 2021. These results found Nitrate levels of 3.9 ppm, 4.0 ppm, and 6.4 ppm for three popular bottled water brands, which were all still below federal and state maximum contaminant levels. Because the Spring's Nitrate test results are consistently well within safe drinking water standards, and in fact seem to suggest an improvement over time as residential development has displaced agricultural uses, and because the recharge area for the Spring has no relation to the Project, there is no potential for significant environmental effects related to the water quality of the Spring from the Project. 42. Historical City monthly testing of total Coliform at the Spring from July 2009 to April 2021 shows two instances of a positive sample. Those tests detected the presence of Coliform on August 1, 2016 and again on August 2, 2016. Because the samples are taken directly from the spigot of the communal-use Spring discharge pipe, it is very possible the bacterial Coliform came from a user of the Spring as a hand, used bottle, jug, or other object touched the end of the pipe while collecting water. These are the only two records from the past twelve years of testing at the Spring where the presence of Coliform was detected. Because the Project will not impact the recharge area or the distribution point of the Spring there does not appear to be a correlation between the two and no environmental impacts are expected. Cumulative potential effects 43. There is no evidence of significant cumulative potential effects relating to impairment or the potential elimination of the Spring. To the contrary, data is showing Spring water quality is improving as land use changes from agricultural use to residential use. All analysis done on the Spring and its recharge area has demonstrated that the Project will not have an environmental effect on the Spring, significant or otherwise. 44. The Project nonetheless proposes to take steps to protect nearby water resources by deeding sensitive lands that harbor Riley Creek, a wooded forest, wetland, creek buffers, and bluffs into an outlot to be deeded to the City for preservation as a natural landscape environment. This naturally preserved outlot is 8.79 acres, which comprises 31 % of the total Project area. 9 This outlot serves as a buffer between the Spring discharge point and the homes proposed within the Project. The Project is also proposing to meet all City and watershed district requirements for water resource protection during and after construction. Mitigation bv ongoing regulatory authority 45. The City anticipates future development that is within the Spring recharge area to the west, and will take necessary steps to ensure this water resource is protected through our various environmental controls. RPBCWD will do the same as development and land disturbing activity applications are submitted and reviewed for appropriateness. 46. The City plans to continue testing the Spring on a monthly basis for Nitrates and total Coliform. Other studies 47. Studies that describe how environmental effects on the Spring can be anticipated and controlled include the following, which have been considered by the Council and are incorporated herein by reference: Summit Envirosolutions Report titled "Results oflmpact Assessment Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, MN" dated April 9, 2021, and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives dated February 2005. Health, Safety and Quality of Life 48. The petition alleges that the Project will have a general negative impact on health, safety, and quality of life. Specifically, the petition cites the potential negative impact on surrounding developments to the north and east, increased traffic, noise, and air quality impacts, and road safety and sight distance risks on Spring Road. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects 49. As is mentioned in the findings of fact above under the Biodiversity of Project Site, Riley Creek, and Frederick-Miller Spring categories, the extent of the Project's environmental effects are minimal and even show potential for improving existing conditions. 50. The addition of 50 residential homes within the 27.51 acre Project area will result in minimal increases in noise and air pollution above current conditions. The proposed density of homes in the Project area is 1.8 dwelling units per acre, which is well below the allowable density of 5 units per acre for the zoning district. This density also is much lower than the existing densities in nearby residential neighborhoods to the east and north. Also, according to the Project proposer, the energy efficiency of the homes being proposed in the Project area are 77-83% more energy efficient than typical resale homes which will result in lower building emissions. Overall, the Project will generate very minimal increases in noise and air pollution. 51. Flying Cloud Airport is situated 825 feet from the property line of the Project. Flying Cloud Airport is a reliever airport for the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport and serves as 10 a popular hub for corporate business jets, turbo-props, and helicopters. The airport has an FAA-operated control tower and an instrument landing system. The tower operates daily in the winter from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., staying open an extra hour until 10 p.m. in summer. In 2018 there were 364 aircraft based at Flying Cloud Airport resulting in 88,762 landings and takeoffs. Traffic, noise, and emissions generated from the Project will be a fraction of those generated from the adjacent airport. 52. The adjacent roadways have been designed and constructed to anticipate the increased traffic that would be generated by the Project. The Project is expected to generate 4 72 average daily trips ("ADT"). The adjacent roadway, Spring Road, is classified by the City's Comprehensive Plan as an A-Minor Expander and has the capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the Project. The roadway was designed and constructed for 10,000 ADT. With left tum lanes, the capacity increases to 17,000 ADT. Current average daily trips on Spring Road are 4400 ADT north of Charlson Road and 1800 ADT south of Charlson Road. The roadway classifications in the Project area and any associated impacts are consistent with the development levels identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The petition provides general information regarding traffic impacts on a national level. It provides no evidence of significant environmental effects resulting from the traffic that the Project will generate. 53. Spack Solutions evaluated existing sightlines at the Project's access point to Spring Road under current conditions. According Spack Solutions, "sufficient sight distance is provided for passenger vehicles and single-unit trucks to safely complete both left and right-turning movements from the proposed access." Spack Solutions used national standards adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in performing this sight-light analysis. AASHTO is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association representing highway and transportation departments across the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and is a standards setting body which publishes specifications, test protocols, and guidelines that are used in highway design and construction throughout the United States. Spack Solutions goes on to say, "Tree-trimming along Spring Road will provide more sight distance to drivers, specifically to the south." Because the Project proposes to construction a 15-foot wide boulevard area on the east side of Spring Road for a future pedestrian and bicycle trail, the sight lines will be dramatically improved over the conditions that exist today. Additionally, improvements along Spring Road made by the Project will be overseen by Hennepin County's Transportation Department to ensure all applicable safety standards are met (see Hennepin County comment letter). 54. Considering all these factors collectively, there is no potential for significant environmental effects related to traffic, safety, noise, or air pollution as a result of the Project. Cumulative potential effects 55. There is no evidence of significant cumulative potential effects relating to traffic, safety, noise, or air pollution as a result of the Project. 11 Mitigation by ongoing regulatory authority 56. Spring Road roadway safety, intersection design, and sightline requirements will be approved through Hennepin County's Transportation Department permitting process. The County will evaluate access design and post construction sightlines to ensure conformance with adopted performance standards. Other studies 57. Studies that describe how environmental effects relating to traffic, safety, noise, or air pollution can be anticipated and controlled include the following, which have been considered by the Council and are incorporated herein by reference: Spack Solutions - Technical Memorandum -Traffic Assessment -Standal Concept dated November 7, 2019; Alliant Memorandum -Noble Hill Development dated February 10, 2021; and Hennepin County -Preliminary Plat Review Letter dated March 1, 2021. Summary 58. The evidence presented to and considered by the Council does not demonstrate that, because of the nature or location of the Project, the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Any environmental effects that may result from the Project are not significant. Areas of potential concern will be monitored and negative effects mitigated. 59. Any cumulative potential effects of the Project are not significant as demonstrated in these findings of fact. The potential effects of the project when reviewed in connection with the other potential effects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources are not significant. Existing developments within the vicinity of the Project have been reviewed and constructed consistent with City and Watershed District requirements in effect at the time of development. The developer of the Project will be required to obtain and comply with all necessary permitting and approval processes required by the City and Watershed District that will address mitigation measures as appropriate. The Project minimizes any potential effects by preserving natural resources areas in Outlet D of the Project area. 60. The petition alleges that the Project is part of a connected and phased action that requires individual environmental review. Specifically, the petition alleges that the Project "is collectively part of a large existing or planned network ... for which the City has attempted to separate the approvals in order to make a determinate that no environmental review is needed." In determining whether a project meets the threshold for a mandatory EA W, Minnesota Administrative Rule 4410.4300, subpart 1, requires consideration in total of "[m]ultiple projects and multiple stages of a single project that are connected actions or phased actions." Beyond these unsupported allegations, Petitioners provide no evidence that the Project is part of a connected action or phased action that is subject to a mandatory EAW. 12 DECISION Based upon the above findings of fact, the Council hereby concludes that the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The petition for preparation of an EA W for the Project is therefore DENIED. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 4th day of May, 2021. ATTEST: K(~~~ 13 _/~ z Ronald A. Case, Mayor