HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/01/2007
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP & OPEN FORUM/OPEN PODIUM
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 CITY CENTER
5:00 – 6:25 PM, HERITAGE ROOM II
6:30 – 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon
Duckstad, and Kathy Nelson
CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Police Chief Rob Reynolds, Fire Chief George
Esbensen, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development Director Janet
Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Communications Manager Joyce
Lorenz, Assistant to the City Manager Michael Barone, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder
Lorene McWaters
Heritage Room II
I. 2008-2009 BUDGET
Council Chamber
II. OPEN FORUM
III. OPEN PODIUM
IV. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon Duckstad,
and Kathy Nelson
CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks & Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Public
Works Director Eugene Dietz, City Planner Michael Franzen, Community Development Director
Janet Jeremiah, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Jan Curielli
I. ROLL CALL / CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
A. ARBOR DAY PROCLAMATION
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
VI. MINUTES
B. TOWN HALL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007
B. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007
C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007
VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST
B. LOCK UP PUD AMENDMENT Second reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 2.11 acres and Zoning District
Amendment in the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 2.11 acres.
Location: Hennepin Town Road & Pioneer Trail. (Ordinance for PUD District
Review and Zoning District Amendment and Resolution for Site Plan Review on
2.11 acres)
C. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF STARING LAKE
CORPORATE CENTER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 1, 2007
Page 2
D. APPROVE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY
CODE SECTION 2.32 RELATING TO CITY EMPLOYEES WHO MAY
ISSUE CITATIONS
E. AWARD BIDS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF MILLER PARK SOCCER
FIELDS #12 AND #13 TO REHBEIN COMPANIES
F. AWARD BIDS FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER PRE-FAB CONCRETE
AND BASEBALL FIELD FENCING AND NETTING
G. ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID
STREETS
H. ADOPT RESOLUTION DECLARING PROPERTY “ABANDONED”
I. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2007 STREET STRIPING TO UNITED
RENTALS, I.C. 07-5696
J. APPROVE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM
THE CITY TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
K. APPROVE ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACTS AWARDED BY THE CITY
FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION TO RJM
CONSTRUCTION
L. ADOPT RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDED TIF PLANS AND BUDGETS
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 12, 14, 15, 16 17 AND 18
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS
X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
XIII. APPOINTMENTS
A. TECHNOLOGY TASK FORCE
XIV. REPORTS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
C. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 1, 2007
Page 3
I. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
1. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW (Resolution)
2. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternative Selection
F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF
G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XV. OTHER BUSINESS
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
PROCLAMATION
ARBOR DAY – MAY 5, 2007
WHEREAS, in 1872 J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture
that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and
WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more
than a million trees; and
WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world; and
WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut
heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and provide
habitat for wildlife; and
WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for homes, fuel for
our fires and countless other wood products; and
WHEREAS, trees, whenever they are planted, are a source of joy and spiritual renewal;
and
WHEREAS, Eden Prairie has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National
Arbor Day Foundation and desires to continue its tree planting ways.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Phil Young, Mayor of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, do
hereby proclaim May 5, 2007, as Arbor Day in the City of Eden Prairie, and urge all citizens to
support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands and to support our city’s urban forestry
program; and
FURTHER, I urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the hearts and promote the well
being of present and future generations.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 1, 2007.
___
Phil Young, Mayor
ITEM NO.: IV.A.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TOWN HALL MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007 7:00 PM, HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
13100 College View Drive
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon
Duckstad, and Kathy Nelson
CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks Manager Stu Fox, Public Works Director Eugene
Dietz, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, City Attorney Ric Rosow, Police Chief
Rob Reynolds, Fire Chief George Esbensen, and Council Recorder Lorene McWaters
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Young called the meeting to order at 7:05. He read the guidelines for protocol.
II. RESIDENT INPUT
A. Donald Hanson, 7936 Timber Lake Drive, asked about the City’s role in overseeing
cable service. He said Comcast has a monopoly and that he is being forced to
purchase services he does not want or need. Neal said there is an open market for
cable operators in the Twin Cities, and the City has limited control over cable
operations. The City does not regulate content or pricing. Neal said he will follow up
with Comcast on Mr. Hanson’s concern.
B. Kathleen Cox, 9741 Mill Creek Drive, said she would like Flying Cloud Airport to
be left as it is. She asked what benefit would be gained from expansion and whether
or not fees for services could be used to cover maintenance costs. Neal said Flying
Cloud Airport is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, so
the City’s role is somewhat restricted. Neal said MAC and the City reached an
agreement in 2002 on a number of issues. That agreement allows for lengthening and
widening the existing runways and construction of a new hangar area. Cox asked
whether or not a letter was sent to Washington. Neal said the airport was one of nine
issues addressed with legislators when he, Fire Chief Esbensen, and Council Member
Butcher visited Washington in March.
C. Laurie Pepper, 15101 Scenic Heights Road, asked whether or not the letter saying
the City favors expansion will be retracted. Mayor Young said this meeting was an
appropriate forum to make a request, but it is not meant for policy debate.
D. Kevin Adams, 12235 OxBow Drive, said he loves Eden Prairie. He said he knew of
the airport when he moved here, but that Ordinance 51 was in place. He is against
ITEM NO.: VI.A.
TOWN MEETING MINUTES
November 28, 2006
Page 2
expansion, and asked the City to retract the letter requesting funding. He asked Neal
to clarify what was said in Washington. Neal said they spent very little time on the
airport. They noted the positive relationship between MAC and the City, but did not
ask for advance funding for runway expansion or hangars.
E. Laura Bluml, 10540 W. Riverview Drive, said she has repeatedly asked for
information on the City’s deer management program on the river bluffs, the
Homeward Hills trail expansion, and encroachment issues, but has not received it.
She said she would like to see zero tolerance on off-leash and defecating dogs this
summer.
F. Michael Neuharth, 9610 Eden Prairie Road, said there has been a “to be acquired”
sign from the airport on his property for 10 years, and no one would appreciate that.
He said the Council should be required to have an open debate on airport expansion
and vote on this serious issue.
G. Gary Demee, 9425 Shetland Road, said he wanted to ask each Council Member
whether or not they received a copy of the airport letter to Washington in advance of
the trip. Mayor Young said this type of questioning is outside the realm of a town
hall meeting. Demee said he had two additional questions, which could be answered
later. He asked whether or not use of the term “support of the airport” was an error or
intentional and whether or not each Council Member is in favor of lengthening and
expanding the runways.
H. Tom Heffelfinger, 11145 Bluestem Lane, said he is a former U.S. Attorney for
Minnesota and former member of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission.
He said he is concerned about apparent changes in policy in relation to airport
expansion. He is also concerned about security at the airport. He said MAC agreed
to a new security plan, but it does not appear to have been fully implemented.
Councilmember Nelson said at the February 20 joint Council / Flying Cloud Airport
Commission workshop that security be included in the commission’s 2007 work plan.
Councilmember Butcher said it appears that some but not all measures have been put
in place. Butcher also said when she went to Washington to meet with legislators, the
group talked about improvements at the airport rather than expansion.
I. Basil Wissner, 8293 Mitchell Road, said he agrees that Flying Cloud Airport needs
to have good security; however, he does not understand the current controversy over
the airport. He said the 2002 agreement between the City and MAC spells out what
can and cannot happen. He also said if the federal government wants the expansion,
it will happen. He said the City has larger issues to be addressed.
III. ADJOURNMENT
Young adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
UNNAPPROVED MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP & OPEN FORUM/OPEN PODIUM
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 CITY CENTER
5:00 – 6:25 PM, HERITAGE ROOM II
6:30 – 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon
Duckstad, and Kathy Nelson
CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Police Chief Rob Reynolds, Fire Chief George
Esbensen, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development Director Janet
Jeremiah, Housing and Community Services Manager Molly Koivumaki, Community Services
Coordinator Mary Keating, Communications Manager Joyce Lorenz, Assistant to the City
Manager Michael Barone, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters
Heritage Room II
I. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Housing and Community Services Manager Molly Koivumaki presented an update on
Affordable Housing in Eden Prairie. She reviewed the history of the Met Council’s
Livable Communities Act and the City’s participation in the program. The Livable
Communities Act includes goals for ownership housing, rental housing, amount of
affordable and life cycle housing, rental housing mix, and housing density. Koivumaki
provided data on which goals the City has achieved and areas in which goals have not
been met.
Koivumaki provided information on the amount and type of subsidized housing in Eden
Prairie. She said a Housing Focus Group was formed as part of the Comprehensive
Guide Plan Update process. The group reviewed current housing goals and recommend
additional goals.
Mayor Young asked if any communities have chosen to opt out of the Livable
Communities program. Neal said a few smaller communities, such as Orono and
Greenfield, have chosen not to participate in the program. Koivumaki noted that some of
the Met Council’s grant funding is dependent on participation in the Livable
Communities program.
Councilmember Duckstad asked where the money for subsidized housing comes from.
Koivumaki said there are a number of places the money comes from, depending on the
program. For example, Section 8 subsidies come from the federal government.
Duckstad asked who decides how much affordable housing there is. Koivumaki said
Council determines that. For the proposed Presbyterian Homes project, staff has
considered asking for more affordable senior housing.
ITEM NO.: VI.B.
Young said it seems if there is a market demand for something, it will happen. Neal said
something as simple as a zoning change could result in a particular type of housing
becoming available, such as accessory apartments. Young said he would like to see more
information on this.
Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah said the proposed Presbyterian Homes
development includes 650 units and 60 nursing beds. The City’s current policy requires
20% of all housing must be affordable to qualify for TIF. Presbyterian Homes has
proposed two buildings – one for seniors only and an all-age building. The plan also
calls for 75 housing units over retail. Presbyterian Homes has proposed all of these units
be affordable workforce housing. The City’s current policy would require 32 of those
units be affordable, and the City would like at least 20 percent of units in the senior
building, which is part of the first phase of the project, to be affordable. Jeremiah said
Presbyterian Homes has balked a bit at that suggestion. Councilmember Nelson asked if
there has been discussion of any of the units being co-op. Jeremiah said Presbyterian
Homes is flexible on that; however, they want at least some of the senior building not to
be co-op. Butcher said it would be best not to concentrate all affordable units in one
building, but that the City does not need to be rigid on number of units. Councilmember
Aho said he agreed. Young asked what is driving this discussion – the City’s desire for
affordable housing or Presbyterian Homes’ desire for TIF. Jeremiah said it is both.
Council Chamber
II. OPEN FORUM
No one was scheduled to speak at Open Forum.
III. OPEN PODIUM
No one requested to speak at Open Podium.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon
Duckstad, and Kathy Nelson
CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks & Recreation Director Bob Lambert, Public
Works Director Eugene Dietz, City Planner Michael Franzen, Community Development Director
Janet Jeremiah, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Deb Sweeney
I. ROLL CALL / CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Young called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
A. PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY SENIOR AWARENESS MONTH
Young read the proclamation. Senior Center Manager Carla Kress noted many
events are planned in May to celebrate older adults and increase intergenerational
involvement, including a raffle, buttons, a progressive dinner.
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Nelson removed Item L from the consent calendar for additional discussion and Neal
added it to his report.
Rosow noted Item T requires assignment of construction contracts and requested this
item include approval of the Assignment of Contracts which pertains to contracts
awarded to date. Contacts subsequently awarded will be included in a second
assignment.
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the agenda as published as
amended. Motion carried 5-0.
VI. MINUTES
A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007
ITEM NO.: VI.C.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 17, 2007
Page 2
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Aho, to approve the Council Workshop
minutes as published. Motion carried 5-0.
B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Duckstad, to approve the City Council
minutes as published. Motion carried 5-0.
B. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 27,
2007
MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the Special City
Council Meeting minutes as published. Motion carried 5-0.
VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION
PRESENTATION ON LIFELINK III OPERATIONS AT FCM
Andrew Kirkhoff, President and CEO of LifeLink III, presented information on
his company’s history, services, and connection to Flying Cloud Ariport.
Founded in 1979, LifeLink offers ground, helicopter, and airplane-based medical
transport services. Since 1985, the company has been owned by several large
Twin Cities hospitals with the principle of removing competition for better patient
care. However, the company operates as a public utility, transporting patients to
any facility that best meets their medical needs. LifeLink maintains a
computerized dispatch facility in Minneapolis which dispatches its airplanes
(operating out of the Saint Paul downtown airport) and its helicopters. While
helicopters formerly were also based in St. Paul, the increase in interventional
cardiology, interventional neurology, and other time-sensitive medical
interventions led the company to ring the metro area with satellite bases. Lifelink
bases are located in St. Cloud, Hutchinson, New Richmond, WI, and Flying
Cloud in order to provide faster response times for these interventions, as well as
for trauma care. Lifelink contracts with the for-profit company Air Methods, the
nation’s largest medical air transport provider, for helicopter operations. Lifelink
itself is a medical provider, under the medical direction of three doctors, and has
published peer-reviewed research papers on best practices for medical transport.
It is one of the only companies to be nationally accredited for both air and ground
transport.
Lifelink began operations at Flying Cloud Airport in July, 2006, and has found it
to be an excellent site. The relationship with the Airport Commission has been
good and helpful in addressing some noise issues, mostly resolved. Helicopters
can be more flexible in their flight paths than planes, so it is easier to find
solutions. Kirkhoff invited Council Members to also contact him or his
operations staff directly with any concerns.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 17, 2007
Page 3
Butcher asked for a clearer description of a Lifelink “base,” of how the helicopter
interfaces with ambulances, the number of trips per month, and whether the
helicopters are involved in organ transport. Kirkhoff explained each base serves a
60-mile radius and includes a helicopter, pilot, nurse and paramedic who are
stationed there 24/7. Most Twin Cities hospitals have a helipad so patients can be
transported directly there. Linklink operates about 1,500 trips per year from all its
bases, of which about 24 per month originate at Flying Cloud. Kirkhoff estimated
that number would grow to 40 as the service becomes established. The maximum
monthly capacity for a helicopter is 60 trips. The service does transport organs
from a planes landing at the downtown St. Paul airport to the hospital if
warranted, but this is rare.
Aho praised the Lifelink commitment to patient care and said it is a beneficial
service for residents.
Duckstad asked if helicopters fly directly to injured persons, and if helicopter
pilots have been directed to avoid residences in non-emergency situations.
Kirkhoff explained there are three kinds of transports. Direct scene transports
land the helicopter on a highway or field to pick up a patient, secondary scene
transports move a patient who has been stabilized at a local facility to a different
hospital, and a third type of transport shifts patients who have presented at an ER
to a different hospital for specialized care. Unless wind conditions or FAA
regulations make following a flight path unsafe, pilots must conform to
designated flight paths in accordance with noise abatement procedures. The
company has a responsibility to the community as well, whether outbound or
returning.
Nelson noted complaints about noise had dropped dramatically in the past two
weeks, where formerly complaints were received daily. Young said Lifelink
provides a vital service and thanked Kirkhoff for the presentation.
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Move approval of Items A-X on the Consent Calendar.
A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST
B. STARING LAKE BUSINESS CENTER Second reading of the Ordinance for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 19.3 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 19.3 acres, Zoning District
Amendment in the I-2 Zoning District on 19.3 acres, Site Plan Review on 19.3
acres and Preliminary Plat of 19.3 acres into two lots. Location: U.S. Highway
212 & County Highway 1. (Ordinance No. 11-2007 for PUD-1-2007 District
Review with waivers and Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 2007-
47 for Site Plan Review)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 17, 2007
Page 4
C. APPROVE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE NO. 12-2007
AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 5.36 RELATING TO LICENSING OF
COLLECTORS OF SOLID, RECYCLABLE AND/OR YARD WASTE AND
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-48 APPROVING SUMMARY
ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION
D. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-49 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF THE
DOUGHTY ADDITION
E. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-50 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
WHISPERING RIDGE
F. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SEH INC.
FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR RECONSTRUCTION
OF VALLEY VIEW RD., FROM FLYING CLOUD DR. TO GOLDEN
TRIANGLE DR., I.C. 02-5586
G. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BRAUN
INTERTEC CORPORATION INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
TESTING SERVICES FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF VALLEY VIEW
RD., FROM FLYING CLOUD DR. TO GOLDEN TRIANGLE DR., I.C. 02-
5586
H. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-51 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
RECONSTRUCTION OF VALLEY VIEW ROAD, FROM FLYING CLOUD
DRIVE TO GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE TO MINGER CONSTRUCTION
INC., I.C. 02-5586
I. STARING PRESERVE Request for: Termination of Development
Agreement. Location: 9181 Staring Lane East.
J. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2007 BITUMINOUS CRACK-SEALING TO
AMERICAN PAVEMENT SOLUTIONS INC., I.C. 075695
K. AMEND CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER LOT 1 BLOCK 3 OF
SETTLERS WEST
L. ADOPT RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDED TIF PLANS FOR TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 12, 14, 15 16, 17 AND 18 (removed
from consent calendar, not adopted)
M. APPROVE PERMIT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR
THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN TRAIL FROM BIRCH ISLAND PARK
NORTH TO THE BIKE TRAIL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CROSSTOWN
HIGHWAY
N. ACCEPT 2006 GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL RESULTS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 17, 2007
Page 5
O. APPROVE NAMING RIGHTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE AND CAMBRIA
P. APPROVE NAMING RIGHTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE AND WELLS FARGO
Q. APPROVE LIQUOR STORE PROJECT CHANGE ORDERS
R. APPROVE THIRD RINK ICE RENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE EDEN
PRAIRIE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION
S. AWARD BID FOR RESURFACING – BITUMINOUS OVERLAYS OF
FOUR TRAIL SECTIONS TO NORTHWEST ASPHALT, INC.
T. APPROVE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE OF $14,165,000 AND
RATIFY CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
SERVICES WITH RJM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE COMMUNITY
CENTER/ROUND LAKE PARK/BIRCH ISLAND PARK
IMPROVEMENTS
U. APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REGULATORY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE AND RYLAND GROUP, INC.
V. AWARD CONTRACT FOR BAKER ROAD WATER STORAGE
CONTROL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO PRAIRIE ELECTRIC
W. APPROVE HARDWARE PURCHASE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT
WITH BERBEE FOR UPGRADE OF NETWORK SWITCHES
X. AWARD CONTRACTS 2B, 2C, 6A, 7A, 7B, 8A, 9A, 9C, 13C, 15A, AND 15B
FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT AS RECOMMENDED BY
RJM CONSTRUCTION
Young noted Item N reflects a transfer of a portion of budget stabilization funds into the
CIP, an outgrowth of past discussions on drawing down these funds.
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Duckstad, to approve Items A-K and M-X. Item L
was moved from the Consent Calendar to Report of City Manager. Motion carried 5-0.
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS
A. JOINT HRA AND CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON
REISSUANCE OF BONDS TO FINANCE PORTIONS OF THE EDEN
PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT (Resolution No. 2007-52)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 17, 2007
Page 6
Neal said the HRA and the City Council are requested to approve the "reissuance"
of certain bonds previously issued by the HRA (the "Prior Obligations") to
finance portions of the Eden Prairie Community Center. Pursuant to the Third Ice
Rink Rental Agreement proposed to be entered into between the City and the
Eden Prairie Hockey Association (the "Hockey Association"), the Hockey
Association will lease significant amounts of ice time in addition to the ice time
already rented by it and other parties. Since usage of this volume and nature was
not anticipated at the time of issuance of the Prior Obligations, the Prior
Obligations were issued as governmental bonds, rather than as qualified 501(c)(3)
bonds. The Internal Revenue Code permits the Prior Obligations to be "reissued"
as qualified 501(c)(3) bonds, but only following a duly noticed public hearing.
The original terms of the Prior Obligations will remain in place and therefore the
debt service is not impacted.
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Duckstad, to adopt Resolution No.
2007-52 to reissue the City Obligations as qualified 501(c)(3) bonds and approve
the reissuance of the HRA Obligations and the issuance of the 2007A Bonds.
Motion carried 5-0.
B. LOCK UP PUD AMENDMENT Request for: Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 2.11 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers on 2.11 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial
Regional Service Zoning District on 2.11 acres and Site Plan Review on 2.11
acres. Location: 12995 Valley View Road. (Resolution No. 2007-53 for PUD
Concept Review; Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers and
Zoning District Amendment).
Neal noted the City Council previously approved a Development Agreement for
the Lock Up project. The approved plan is for a 71,187 square foot self-storage
building. The city granted a waiver for a floor area ratio of 0.78 and a parking
waiver from 427 spaces to 9 spaces. The proposed amendment shows a 72,726
square foot building. The applicant is requesting a floor area ratio waiver to
0.7936 and required parking waiver from 437 spaces to 9 spaces. The 120-Day
Review Period Expires on June 22, 2007. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to
recommend approval of the project at the March 12, 2007 meeting.
Jeremiah said parking was the most significant waiver, but little parking is needed
for a storage facility. A 20-inch discrepancy in the building size triggered a re-
approval, but Staff has no concerns about the project.
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Duckstad, to close the Public Hearing;
adopt Resolution No. 2007-53 for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on
2.11 acres; approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment within the
Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 2.11 acres; and direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Commission
recommendations and Council conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 17, 2007
Page 7
X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve Payment of Claims as
submitted. The motion carried on a roll call vote with Aho, Butcher, Duckstad,
Nelson and Young voting “aye.”
XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE
SECTION 2.32 RELATIVE TO CITY EMPLOYEES WHO MAY ISSUE
CITATIONS
Neal said the Police Department is requesting a re-classified civilian position in
the Police Department called Community Service Officer be added to the list of
employees who may issue citations. In July 2006 the Police Department re-
classified one full-time and two part-time positions called Community Service
Officer. These positions work in conjunction with the department’s Animal
Control Officer by responding to community service needs including code
enforcement, animal control, parking enforcement, car lock-outs and booking
procedures. As part of their role the Community Service Officers issue citations
and must be granted that authority through city ordinance.
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve first reading of an
Ordinance amending City Code Chapter 2 by amending Section 2.32 relative to
City employees who may issue citations by adding Community Service Officer to
the list. Motion carried 5-0.
XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
XIII. APPOINTMENTS
XIV. REPORTS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
1. Discussion of TIF, Item L on Consent Calendar
Neal said Item L on the consent calendar relates to several Eden Prairie
TIF districts. The action was proposed as part of a compliance study by
Springstead and Associates. Nelson asked for background information on
TIF in general. Kotchever explained the City has various TIF districts
where a certain percentage of tax increment goes back to the developer
and part to the City. Formerly these amounts were put to an
“administration” category, but the intent has always been to use these
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 17, 2007
Page 8
monies for transportation improvement projects. The action clarifies this
intent. Nelson asked for confirmation that the item does not impact taxes
or grant TIF to a developer. Neal explained TIF is always approved by the
Council in an overt action with a public hearing. Rosow said items on the
consent calendar are by their nature not significant.
Young said it is good to have an understanding of how TIF helps
accomplish City priorities, the Major Center Area, for example. Neal
confirmed TIF funds are designed to assist private development for public
benefit. Young asked if the City has a formal policy for when it will
consider TIF. Jeremiah said the policy was laid out in a 2005 Council
workshop discussion. Key parameters include achieving goals of the
comprehensive plan, limiting duration to 15 years, pooling money for
transportation, and using a pay-as-you-go mechanism vs. bonding. Young
requested an update on TIF be included as part of the budgeting
discussions, and Neal consented.
C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF
G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XV. OTHER BUSINESS
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Aho, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting
adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
- 1 -
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Christy Weigel, Police/
Community Investigations
Unit
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Clerk’s License Application List
ITEM NO.: VIII.A.
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity.
Temporary Liquor
Organization: EP Lions Club
Event: Schooner Days
Date: June 1-3, 2007
Place: Round Lake Park &
EP Community Center Parking Lot
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Agenda
DATE: May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Community Development/Planning
Janet Jeremiah
Regina Herron
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
The Lock Up PUD Amendment
ITEM NO.: VIII.B.
Requested Action
Move to:
• Approve 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers and Zoning District
Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 2.11 acres; and
• Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on 2.11 acres; and
• Approve the First Amendment to Development Agreement for The Lock Up PUD
Amendment; and
Synopsis
The proposed plan shows a 72,726 square foot self-storage building.
The 120-Day Review Period Expires on June 22, 2007.
Attachments
1. Ordinance for PUD District Review
2. Summary Ordinance
3. Resolution for Site Plan Review
4. First Amendment to Development Agreement
THE LOCK UP PUD AMENDMENT
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 13-2007-PUD-2-2007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the
"land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be amended within
the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District 13-2007-PUD-2-2007 (hereinafter "PUD-2-
2007-C-REG-SER).
Section 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD-2-2007-C-REG-SER is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive
Guide Plan of the City.
B. PUD-2-2007-C-REG-SER is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City
Code that are contained in PUD-2-2007-C-REG-SER are justified by the design of the
development described therein.
D. PUD-2-2007-C-REG-SER is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that
its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without
dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 4. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain First
Amendment to Development Agreement dated as of May 1, 2007, entered into between The
Lock Up-Evergreen Development Series, LLC and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter
“Development Agreement”). The Development Agreement contains the terms and conditions of
PUD-2-2007-REG-SER, and are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is
amended within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District and shall be included
hereafter in the Planned Unit Development 2-2007-C-REG-SER, and the legal descriptions of
land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall
be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated
verbatim herein.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and
publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
17th day of April, 2007, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as
attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1st day of May, 2007.
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _______________________________
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Phil Young, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on__________________, 2007.
EXHIBIT A
PUD Legal Description –
Lot 1, Block 1, Minnesota Tree Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Abstract Property
THE LOCK UP PUD AMENDMENT
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE NO. 13-2007-PUD-2-2007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE
ZONING OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN ONE DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This ordinance allows amendment of the zoning of land located at 12995
Valley View Road within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District. Exhibit A,
included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
__________________________ ________________________
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Phil Young, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on ______________________, 2007.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION – LOCK UP PUD AMENDMENT
Lot 1, Block 1, Minnesota Tree Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Abstract Property
THE LOCK UP PUD AMENDMENT
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR THE LOCK UP PUD AMENDMENT
BY LOCK UP-EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT SERIES, LLC, A DELAWARE
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WITH SERIES, FOR THE APPLICABLE SERIES
WHEREAS, The Lock Up-Evergreen Development Series, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company with series, for the applicable Series, has applied for Site Plan approval of The
Lock Up PUD Amendment to construct a 72,726 square foot self-storage building, by an
Ordinance approved by the City Council on May 1, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at
its March 12, 2007 meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its
April 17, 2007 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to The Lock Up PUD
Amendment based on the First Amendment to Development Agreement between The Lock Up-
Evergreen Development Series, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with Series, for the
applicable Series and the City of Eden Prairie, reviewed and approved by the City Council on
May 1, 2007.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 1st day of May, 2007.
_______________________
Phil Young, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
THE LOCK UP PUD
AMENDMENT
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into as
of May 1, 2007, by The Lock Up-Evergreen Development Series, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company with series, for the applicable Series, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," its
successors and assigns, and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City";
WHEREAS, the parties entered into that certain Development Agreement between Lock Up-
Evergreen Development Series, LLC, Eden Prairie Development Series and the City of Eden Prairie
for The Lock-Up, dated December 19, 2006, filed on February 8, 2007, recorded as Document
number 8934646 in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder (hereinafter the “Development
Agreement) for the property described on Exhibit A hereto (hereinafter the “Property”.)
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Development Agreement as set forth herein;
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment on 2.11 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.11 acres,
and Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 2.11
acres, Site Plan Review on 2.11 acres, legally described on Exhibit A (the “Property”);
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. ________ for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment, Ordinance No. ________ for Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional
Service Zoning District on 2.11 acres, and Resolution No. _________ for Site Plan Review,
Developer agrees to construct, develop and maintain the Property in accordance with the
Development Agreement as amended hereby as follows:
1. Paragraph 1 of the Development Agreement is amended in its entirety as follows:
"Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated
February 27, 2007, reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 17, 2007, and
attached hereto as the Plans, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
2. Paragraph 13 of the Development Agreement is amended in its entirety as follows:
PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: The city hereby grants the following waivers to City Code
requirements within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District through the Planned
Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of
PUD (list PUD number):
A. A floor area ratio of 0.7936. City code permits up to a 0.40 floor area
ratio in the Commercial Regional Service zoning district.
B. Required parking from 437 spaces to 9 spaces plus 27 proof of
parking spaces. City code requires 6 per 1000 gross square feet of
building area.
Developer shall provide additional screening within the setback in or to minimize the impact
of this waiver. The plans for the additional screening shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the City Planner prior to issuance of any building permit for the Property.
3. Except as amended by this First Amendment to Development Agreement, the Development
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this First Amendment to Development Agreement have
caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
DEVELOPER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
The Lock Up-Evergreen
Development Series, LLC
By _________________________ By___________________________
Its _________________________ Phil Young
Its Mayor
By__ ________________________
Scott H. Neal
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________________, 2007,
by Phil Young and Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Eden
Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
_____________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF DELAWARE)
) ss.
COUNTY OF NEW CASTLE)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ____________, 2007, by
, the , of The Lock Up-Evergreen Development Series, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company with series, on behalf of the ______________________.
_____________________________
Notary Public
EXHIBIT A
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT –THE LOCK-UP PUD
AMENDMENT
Legal Description
Lot 1, Block 1, Minnesota Tree Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Abstract Property
EXHIBIT B
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT –THE LOCK-UP PUD
AMENDMENT
PLANS
1. Sheet G0-0, Title Sheet, Drawing Index, Building Code Data, Abbreviations & Symbols
Legend dated 02/23/07 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
2. Sheet G0-1, ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey dated 5/19/06 by James R. Hill
3. Sheet A0-1, Aerial Context Plan dated 09/27/06 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
4. Sheet A0-2, Site Plan dated 02/23/07 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
5. Sheet A0-2a, Site Plan dated 02/23/07 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
6. Sheet C-1, Grading Plan dated 02/16/07 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
7. Sheet C-2, Utility Plan dated 01/22/07 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
8. Sheet C-3, Details dated 01/22/07 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
9. Sheet C-4, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan dated 01/22/07 by Sullivan Goulette
Architects
10. Sheet L-1, Landscape Plan dated 01/22/07 by Alan Whidby Landscapes
11. Sheet A1-1, Preliminary Floor Elevations dated 02/23/07 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
12. Sheet A1-5, Roof Plan dated 02/23/07 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
13. Sheet A1-5a, Roof Plan dated 02/23/07 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
14. Sheet A2-1, North & West Elevations dated 02/23/07 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
15. Sheet A2-1a, North & West Elevations dated 09/27/06 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
16. Sheet A2-2, East & South Elevations dated 02/23/07 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
17. Sheet A2-2a, East & South Elevations dated 9/27/06 by Sullivan Goulette Architects
18. Sheet SL-1, Photometric Plan dated 9/26/06 by On Site Lighting & Surveying, LLC
19. Sheet C-5, Proof of Parking Plan dated 12/4/06 by Schoell Madson
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Randy L. Slick
Public Works / Engineering
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Final Plat Approval of Staring Lake
Corporate Center
ITEM NO.: VIII.C.
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Staring Lake Corporate
Center.
Synopsis
This proposal is for the plat located at the northwest quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Pioneer
Trail. The plat consists of 19.3 acres to be divided into two lots and right-of-way dedication for
street purposes.
Background Information
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on March 6, 2007. Second reading of the
Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer’s Agreement was completed on April
17, 2007.
Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions:
• Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $2,509.
• Prior to the release of the final plat, Developer shall provide to the City a current title
insurance policy.
• Satisfaction of bonding requirements for the installation of public improvements.
• Execution of Special Assessment Agreement for trunk utility improvements.
• The requirements as set forth in the Developer’s Agreement.
• Provide a list of areas (to the nearest square foot) of all lots, outlots and road right-of-
ways certified by surveyor.
• Prior to release of final plat, Developer shall provide a Cross Access Easement and
Maintenance Agreement for Lot 1 and Lot 2, Staring Lake Corporate Center.
• Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall record and provide proof of filing the
Development Agreement at the County Recorder and/or Registrar of Titles.
• Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall submit Cross Access Agreement for the
adjoining land to the City.
Attachments
• Resolution
• Drawing of final plat
STARING LAKE CORPORATE CENTER R.T. DOC. NO.
C.R. DOC. NO.
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS That United Properties Investment ac. a Minnesota limited liability company, fee
owner of the following descnbed property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit:
(Certificate of Title No. 1059745):
The West 228 feet of that portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 116,
Range 22, lying Easterly of a line drown from a point on the Mxth line of sold Northeast Quarter distant 280.5 feet
Easterly from the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter to a point on the South line of the Northwest Quarter
of the Southeast Quarter of sold Section 27 distance 676.5 feet Easterly from the Southwest comer of sold
Northwest Quarter, which lies between the Survey line ° as shown on Hennepin County Highway Plat No. 6 CR Doc. No
3837760, and a line passing at right angles through the West line of said West 228 feet, at a point 1380 feet
Southerly from its Intersection with said North line of the Northeast Quarter.
AND
In witness vehereof said United Properties Investment, LLC, a Minnesota limited fiability compons has caused these presents to
be signed by its proper agents this day of 20 .
BONES ANITED PROP0271ES WIESIAIENT LLC
By By
Frank J. Dutke, Executive Wee President William P. Katter, Vice President
That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the north line of said Northeast Quarter, 280.5 feet east from the Northwest Quarter of
said Northeast Quart, thence In a southeasterly direction 1465 feet along a straight line (sold line to be hereafter
know as Line ..4) which if produced will intersect the south line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of said Section 27, Township 116. Range 2Z at a point 41 rods east of the southwest corner of said Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quart, for a point of beginning; thence East parallel with the north line of said Northeast
Quarter to a point in a line 21 1/3 rods Easterly at right angles from and parallel with aforesaid Line "A', thence
southeasterly In a straight line parallel with aforesaid Line A to the north line of County Rood No. 1 as now
established; thence northwesterly along the north Line of said County Road No. 1 to said Line thence northerly
along said Line 'A" to the point of beginning. Except that part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 115
Range 22, describe as follow Commencing at a point In the north line of said Northeast Quarter 280.5 feet east
from the northwest corner thereof; thence southeasterly along aforesaid Line "A" a distance of 1380 to the actual
point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence East ot right angles 228 feet; thence South at right ongles
to the center line of County Road No 1; thence westerly along said center line to said Line W; thence northerly
along said Line °A" to the actual point of beginning.
TOGE7HE7? 4$17H,
That port of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 116, Range 22, descHbed as follows: Commencing at a
point in the north line of said Northeast Quarter of Section 27, distant 2805 feet east from the northwest corner of
said Northeast Quart, thence southeasterly in a straight line, which if produced southeasterly will intersect with the
south line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 27 at a point distant 41 rods east from
the Southwest comer thereof, a distance of 1117.04 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be
hereinafter described; thence continuing southeasterly along said lost described line a distance of 262.96 feet; thence
East at right angles 228 feet; thence south at right angles to a point distance 20 feet north of the center of old
County Road No 1; thence easterly parallel with the center line of said Road to its intersection with a line distant 21
1/3 rods easterly at right angles from and parallel with the said first above described line; thence northerly along
said last described parofiel line to Its Intersection with a line drown easterly from the actual point of beginning at
right angles to the first above described straight line; thence westerly along said last described right ong/e line to the
actual point of beginning.
TOGETHER HAW:
That part of the North 1185 feet of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Townsh4o 116, Range 22, lying west of the
East 990 feet thereof and east of a line parallel with and 21 1/3 roads easterly measured at right angles, fi -om a
line drawn from a point in the north line of said Northeast Quarter distant 17 rods east of the northwest corner
thereof to a point in the south line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of sold Section 27, distant 41
rods east of the southwest comer of said quarter—quarter:
AND
That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian
lying south of the North 118500 feet thereof, and lying west of the East 990.00 feet thereof, and east of a line
parallel with and 21 1/3 rods easterly, measured at right angles from o line from point on the north line of said
Northeast Quarter, distant 17 rods east of the northwest comer thereof to a point In the south line of the Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 27, distant 41 rods east of the southwest corner of said Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, and northeHy of County Road No 1 and northwesteHy of Flying Cloud Drive
(formerly U.S Highway 169);
a/so EXCEPT:
That tract of land lying In Section 27, Towns,* 116, Range 22, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast
comer of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 27, thence North 89 degrees 34 minutes 17 seconds West assumed
beaHng along the north line of said Northeast quarter a distance of 990.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence
South 0 degree 33 minutes 59 seconds West parallel with the east fine of said Northeast Quarter a distance of
737.21 feet; thence North 83 degrees 11 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 932.45 feet to an intersection with
a line parallel with and 21 1/3 rods easterly of a line running from a point in the north line of said Northeast
Quarter distant 17 rods east of the northwest comer thereof to a point in the south line of the Northwest Quarter
of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 27, distant 41 rods east of the southwest comer thereof; thence North 4
degrees 34 minutes 44 seconds West along the last above described parallel line a distance of 636.00 feet to the
north line of said Northeast Quarter; thence easterly along said north line a distance of 95398 feet to the point of
beginning.
a/so EXCEPT:
That part conveyed to the State of Minnesota pursuant to the Personal Representative's Deed dated September 3,
1980, recorded September 10, 1980 in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder as Doc. No 4587166.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknow/edged before me this day of 20_, by Frank J.
Dutke, Executive Vice President and Wiliam P. Katter, Vice President of United Properties Investment aa a
Minnesota limited liability compan3.5 development agent of Eden Bluff Holdings LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company, on behalf of the companx
Notary Public County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
I hereby certify that I have surveyed and plotted the property described on this plat as STARING LAKE CORPORA7E
CEN7ER; that this plat is a correct representation of the survex that all distances are correctly shown on the plat
in fret and hundredths of a foot; that all monuments have been correctly placed in the ground as shown or will be
placed as required by the local governmental unit; that the outside boundary lines are correctly designated on the
plat; and that there are no wetlands as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.02, Subd. 1 to be designated on
said plat.
Mark R. Salo, Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No 43933.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me this day of 20_ by
Mark R. Salo. Land Surveyor.
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
EDEN PRAIRIE MINNESOTA
This plat of STARING LAKE CORPORATE CENTER was approved and accepted by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
at a regular meeting thereof held this day of 20 If applicable, the written comments and
recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the
City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations. as provided
by Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2.
CITY COUNaL OF EDEN PRAIRIE ANNNESOTA
By By
Mayor City Manager
TAXPAYER SETWCES Plata% Hennepin Counts Minnesota
I hereby certify that taxes payoble in and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat. Dated
this day of 20_.
JN L. Al , Hennepin County Auditor By
Deputy
SURVEY DIWBOW Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to MINN. STAT. Sec. 3836.565 (1969) this plat has been approved this day of
20_,
Wham P. Brown, Hennepin County Surveyor By
REDS/FAR OF TITLES Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that the within plat of STARING LAKE CORPORA7E CEN7ER was Ned in this office this
day of 20_, at o'clock .M.
Michael H. Cunniff, Registrar of Titles By
Deputy
Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as STARING LAKE CORPORATE CENTER and does hereby donate and
dedicate to the public for public use forever the drainage and utility easements as shoes an the plat. COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify thot the within plat of STARING LAKE CORPORA7E CENTER was filed In this office this
day of 20 at o'clock .M.
Deputy
Michael H. Cunniff, Registrar of Mies BY
WESTWOOD
Professional Services, Inc.
Sheet 1 of 2 sheets
STARING LAKE CORPORATE CENTER
R.T. DOC. NO.
C.R. DOC. NO.
,Mund copped
80
80
160
240
Scale In feet
Bearings shown on this plat are based upon the
north line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27,
Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County,
Minnesota
o Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch Iron monument
set and marked by License No. 43933
• Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 Inch Iron monument
found and marked by License No. 43933
Westwood
Professional Services, Inc_
N E;;EPTION 932252_ (rneas) 93245 se .‘• _
N84°08.48w
I
"11
It I
PI 11 V \i
NE comer of the
NE I/O of Sec. 27 -
west Ilne of the Emit
990.00 feet of Me NE
1/4 of Sec. 27
//
6
- 7
tail
rr;,:rnszrk,`"•,r..1 /2.7
south Ilne of the NW 1/4-7
of Me SE 1/4 of Sec. 27
f N(25:247723'/
487
o
05
/
/ sr'
_ / r'y
//
/ Cr, • ,_so •
21t4S/-
p /
'r'n"'Etetn -;:.)//--)/////"/ /4 7/
/ .6 .
/ • r,
_ ▪ ,
\--north line of Me NW
I/O of the SE 1/4
/ A
I / t"
2n4-°777 \ NE
nji r
1_ ----
----- 352 (211/3 red.) ----------
1/4 of Sec. 27
_
SCte43i 1.3.9(32
I I / —41,-.3•42.4.300,004- F.3#
• t • rci/ n „: \\ 1_0> --mi..-8844_9 /2. ,/
nv 0 \\,\ \ :44Fr* uoie e8A20
L— /I / ' 1,,•1 I L— 1
I /I
/ ' f ) i'-)(/ ' / 1 \
NI\ Ai
IN VV
Sheet 2 of 2 sheets
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
STARING LAKE CORPORATE CENTER
WHEREAS, the plat of Staring Lake Corporate Center has been submitted in a manner required
for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota
Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
A. Plat approval request for Staring Lake Corporate Center is approved upon compliance
with the recommendation of the City Engineer’s report on this plat dated May 1, 2007.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution to the
owners and subdivision of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of
approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 1, 2007.
____________________________________
Phil Young, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
______________________________
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Police Department/Rob
Reynolds, Chief
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Second reading of an ordinance amending
City Code Chapter 2.32
ITEM NO.: VIII.D.
Requested Action
Move to: Approve second reading of an Ordinance amending City Code Chapter 2 by amending
Section 2.32 relative to City employees who may issue citations by adding Community Service
Officer to the list.
Synopsis
First reading of the Ordinance was approved at the April 17, 2007, Council meeting.
Background
The Police Department is requesting that a re-classified civilian position in the Police
Department called Community Service Officer be added to the list of employees who may issue
citations.
In July 2006 the Police Department re-classified one full-time and two part-time positions called
Community Service Officer. These positions work in conjunction with the department’s Animal
Control Officer by responding to community service needs including code enforcement, animal
control, parking enforcement, car lock-outs and booking procedures. As part of their role the
Community Service Officers issue citations and must be granted that authority through city
ordinance.
Attachments
Ordinance
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ___-2007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 2 BY AMENDING SECTION 2.32 RELATIVE TO THOSE CITY
EMPLOYEES WHO MAY ISSUE CITATIONS BY ADDING COMMUNITY SERVICE
OFFICER TO THE LIST.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by amending Section 2.32 as follows:
“Community Service Officer” shall be added to the list of employees of the City of Eden Prairie who
may, in the course and scope of the performance of their duties as employees, issue citations in lieu
of arrest or continued detention, under the emboldened heading Police Department, below Zoning
Administrator, and above the emboldened heading Fire Department.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 17th
day of April, 2007, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the
City Council of said Council on the _______ day of __________, 2007.
_______________________
Phil Young, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 2007.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Stuart A. Fox, Manager,
Parks and Natural Resources
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Award Bid for Reconstruction of Miller Park
Soccer Fields #12 & #13
ITEM NO.: VIII.E.
Requested Action
Move to: Award the bid for Reconstruction of Soccer fields #12 and #13 at Miller Park to
Rehbein Companies in the amount of $404,100.
Synopsis
For the past fifteen years, City Park Maintenance staff has been dealing with compaction and turf
quality issues at Miller Park soccer fields because they were constructed utilizing the existing silty,
clay soil materials. In the past four years we have undertaken a process of evaluating ways to
improve not only the turf quality and maintenance of these facilities, but also the safety and
playability of the facilities for the tremendous amount of youth association games, both soccer and
football that occur at this facility. The City enlisted the consulting services of HTPO to redesign
these two soccer fields utilizing engineered soils and subterranean drainage. Plans and specifications
were prepared and the City received a total of eight bids for the proposed reconstruction. A summary
of the bids is as follows:
Rehbein Companies $404,100.00
Sunram Construction $424,390.25
Krueger Excavating Inc. $426,033.90
Petereson Companies, Inc. $438,755.00
Ramsey Excavating $453,350.00
Rachel Contracting $465,771.00
Veit & Company, Inc. $482,583.50
Frattalone Companies $495,779.00
There was a deduct alternate for this project which was to omit a concrete maintenance strip
underneath the perimeter fence; however, after looking at the particular alternate deductions, staff
does not recommend exercising the deduct alternate since the bid reduction amount would be
minimal in terms of the long term maintenance cost benefit that this concrete strip would provide for
the facility.
Each of the contractors were required to provide prequalification information that would
demonstrate that they had constructed similar types of sand-based athletic facilities to ensure that the
quality of work would be done according to the plans and specifications.
Award Bids for Reconstruction of Miller Park Soccer Fields #12 & #13
May 1, 2007
Page 2
The engineers estimate for the project was $421,522.50 and staff concurs with their recommendation
to award the bid to Rehbein Companies.
Background
Currently the soccer/football fields are used six days a week from mid-April until mid-October.
Since these fields were constructed in 1992, the amount of games and the level of play have
increased yearly to a point where the fields are dire need of major renovation. The fields were
constructed using the native soils at the site and they have required intensive maintenance, namely
overseeding and aeration to keep the turf relatively good condition. Staff had started researching
various options for improving the quality and safety of these athletic fields and had compared the use
of artificial turf surfaces versus natural turf surface. In researching the options we found that
artificial surfaces while having the greatest flexibility in terms of play were very expensive and had
some long term maintenance costs that seemed to be disproportionate to that of maintaining a natural
turf field. The initial installation cost for a synthetic or artificial surface was estimated at
approximately $1,000,000 per field, versus the $200,000 to put in a sand-base natural turf field. The
staff evaluated the various pros and cons, and did some research on facilities throughout the
metropolitan area and came to the conclusion that the best value field for the money was to begin a
process of converting all five soccer/football fields at Miller Park to sand-base natural turf fields.
This process will start in 2007 and conclude in 2010.
Recommendation
This reconstruction project is part of the approved Capital Improvement Plan. Funds for this
reconstruction will come from cash park fees and work is expected to begin in early May,
concluding in August, in time to seed the two fields. Staff is recommending award of the contract to
Rehbein Companies in the amount of $404,100 without the deduct alternate.
Attachments
Bid Tabulation
ITEMNo.ITEM QTY UNITUNITPRICETOTALUNIT PRICETOTALUNITPRICETOTALUNITPRICETOTALUNITPRICETOTALUNITPRICETOTALUNITPRICETOTALUNITPRICETOTALUNITPRICETOTALGrading, Utilities and Irrigation1 Clearing & Grubbing 1 Lump Sum 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 2,200.00$ 2,200.00$20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 1,800.00$ 1,800.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 2,325.00$ 2,325.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$2 Rock Filter Dike 1 Lump Sum 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,800.00$ 1,800.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 860.00$ 860.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$3 Silt Fence, Type Machine Sliced 1,750 Lin. Ft. 2.25$ 3,937.50$ 1.46$ 2,555.00$ 2.10$ 3,675.00$ 1.80$ 3,150.00$ 1.80$ 3,150.00$ 1.50$ 2,625.00$ 1.50$ 2,625.00$ 1.80$ 3,150.00$ 1.30$ 2,275.00$4 Storm Drain Inlet Protection 2 Each 250.00$ 500.00$ 330.00$ 660.00$ 300.00$ 600.00$ 130.00$ 260.00$ 50.00$ 100.00$ 300.00$ 600.00$ 300.00$ 600.00$ 190.00$ 380.00$ 400.00$ 800.00$5 Site Grading 1 Lump Sum 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 23,000.00$ 23,000.00$ 10,260.00$ 10,260.00$ 93,800.00$ 93,800.00$ 39,475.00$ 39,475.00$ 78,110.00$ 78,110.00$ 66,270.00$ 66,270.00$ 80,000.00$ 80,000.00$ 40,500.00$ 40,500.00$6 Remove Curb & Gutter 45 Lin. Ft. 5.00$ 225.00$ 6.20$ 279.00$ 12.25$ 551.25$ 2.22$ 99.90$ 5.00$ 225.00$ 5.00$ 225.00$ 10.00$ 450.00$ 3.00$ 135.00$ 3.00$ 135.00$7 Remove Irrigation System 1 Lump Sum 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 650.00$ 650.00$ 1,100.00$ 1,100.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$ 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$ 1,700.00$ 1,700.00$8 Remove Catch Basin 1 Each 250.00$ 250.00$ 165.00$ 165.00$ 315.00$ 315.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 360.00$ 360.00$ 200.00$ 200.00$9 Pavement Removal 280 Sq. Yd. 4.50$ 1,260.00$ 3.40$ 952.00$ 3.00$ 840.00$ 2.25$ 630.00$ 2.10$ 588.00$ 4.00$ 1,120.00$ 3.00$ 840.00$ 1.65$ 462.00$ 1.80$ 504.00$10 27" Catch Basin w/Frame & Grate 1 Each 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$ 855.00$ 855.00$ 1,785.00$ 1,785.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 1,100.00$ 1,100.00$ 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,600.00$ 1,600.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$11 48" Catch Basin w/Frame & Grate 1 Each 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 1,900.00$ 1,900.00$ 2,205.00$ 2,205.00$ 2,250.00$ 2,250.00$ 1,600.00$ 1,600.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 2,800.00$ 2,800.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$12 12" RCP CL V125 Lin. Ft. 30.00$ 3,750.00$ 43.00$ 5,375.00$ 27.30$ 3,412.50$ 45.00$ 5,625.00$ 25.00$ 3,125.00$ 25.00$ 3,125.00$ 50.00$ 6,250.00$ 37.50$ 4,687.50$ 40.00$ 5,000.00$13 Pipe Bedding Binder Stone 40 Ton 18.00$ 720.00$ 1.00$ 40.00$ 1.05$ 42.00$ 22.00$ 880.00$ 20.00$ 800.00$ 10.00$ 400.00$ 20.00$ 800.00$ 30.00$ 1,200.00$ 25.00$ 1,000.00$14 Pipe Bedding Sand-Gravel 40 Ton 15.00$ 600.00$ 1.00$ 40.00$ 1.05$ 42.00$ 10.00$ 400.00$ 15.00$ 600.00$ 5.00$ 200.00$ 10.00$ 400.00$ 10.00$ 400.00$ 15.00$ 600.00$15 4" Draintile (Includes Connections, Fittings, Cleanouts& Tracing Wire)7,125 Lin. Ft. 8.00$ 57,000.00$ 4.20$ 29,925.00$ 5.20$ 37,050.00$ 5.00$ 35,625.00$ 4.10$ 29,212.50$ 4.50$ 32,062.50$ 4.80$ 34,200.00$ 5.00$ 35,625.00$ 4.60$ 32,775.00$ 16 8" Draintile (Includes Connections, Fittings, Cleanouts & Tracing Wire)370 Lin. Ft. 9.00$ 3,330.00$ 6.80$ 2,516.00$ 6.25$ 2,312.50$ 5.00$ 1,850.00$ 4.15$ 1,535.50$ 8.25$ 3,052.50$ 7.80$ 2,886.00$ 12.75$ 4,717.50$ 16.00$ 5,920.00$ 17 Gravel Drainage Material1,500Ton 20.00$ 30,000.00$ 25.15$ 37,725.00$0.01$ 15.00$ 19.25$ 28,875.00$ 26.90$ 40,350.00$ 21.50$ 32,250.00$ 24.00$ 36,000.00$ 20.40$ 30,600.00$ 20.35$ 30,525.00$18 Root Zone Soil Mixture (Plan quantity, CV)4,500Cu. Yd. 30.00$ 135,000.00$ 35.00$ 157,500.00$ 40.00$ 180,000.00$ 27.00$ 121,500.00$ 39.93$ 179,685.00$ 33.80$ 152,100.00$ 33.00$ 148,500.00$ 37.50$ 168,750.00$ 43.90$ 197,550.00$19 Processed Sand (Plan quantity, CV) 1,700Cu. Yd. 30.00$ 51,000.00$ 23.00$ 39,100.00$ 36.25$ 61,625.00$ 18.33$ 31,161.00$ 28.47$ 48,399.00$ 24.15$ 41,055.00$ 28.00$ 47,600.00$ 30.37$ 51,629.00$ 33.40$ 56,780.00$20 Mountable Curb & Gutter 15 Lin. Ft. 30.00$ 450.00$ 33.00$ 495.00$ 45.85$ 687.75$ 35.00$ 525.00$ 45.00$ 675.00$ 60.00$ 900.00$ 45.00$ 675.00$ 29.50$ 442.50$ 25.00$ 375.00$21 B612 Concrete Curb & Gutter 25 Lin. Ft. 30.00$ 750.00$ 33.00$ 825.00$ 33.00$ 825.00$ 30.00$ 750.00$ 37.00$ 925.00$ 40.00$ 1,000.00$ 45.00$ 1,125.00$ 30.50$ 762.50$ 25.00$ 625.00$22 Bituminous Wear (MVWE35035B) (Parking Lot, Access Drive)4 Ton 200.00$ 800.00$ 210.00$ 840.00$ 78.75$ 315.00$ 310.00$ 1,240.00$ 275.00$ 1,100.00$ 200.00$ 800.00$ 550.00$ 2,200.00$ 485.00$ 1,940.00$ 210.00$ 840.00$23 Bituminous Base (LVNW35030B) (Parking Lot, Access Drive) 5 Ton200.00$ 1,000.00$ 210.00$ 1,050.00$ 78.75$ 393.75$ 310.00$ 1,550.00$ 275.00$ 1,375.00$ 200.00$ 1,000.00$ 450.00$ 2,250.00$ 395.00$ 1,975.00$ 210.00$ 1,050.00$24 Aggregate Base CL V (Parking Lot, Access Drive, & C & G)20 Ton25.00$ 500.00$ 37.50$ 750.00$ 52.00$ 1,040.00$ 30.00$ 600.00$ 18.00$ 360.00$ 25.00$ 500.00$ 120.00$ 2,400.00$ 100.00$ 2,000.00$ 30.00$ 600.00$25 Bituminous Trail (MVWE45035B) (Includes, Sand & Class 5)2,300Sq. Ft. 3.50$ 8,050.00$ 3.65$ 8,395.00$ 3.81$ 8,763.00$ 3.80$ 8,740.00$ 3.35$ 7,705.00$ 3.25$ 7,475.00$ 5.00$ 11,500.00$ 4.45$ 10,235.00$ 2.80$ 6,440.00$26 Pavement Markings 1 Lump Sum 500.00$ 500.00$ 270.00$ 270.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 400.00$ 400.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 250.00$ 250.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$27 Irrigation System (Complete & In Place) 1 Lump Sum 29,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 16,300.00$ 16,300.00$ 20,800.00$ 20,800.00$ 20,394.00$ 20,394.00$ 19,751.00$ 19,751.00$ 22,500.00$ 22,500.00$ 22,000.00$ 22,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 23,400.00$ 23,400.00$28 Fencing (Includes Gate & Footings1Lump Sum 39,000.00$ 39,000.00$ 38,600.00$ 38,600.00$ 38,760.00$ 38,760.00$ 37,929.00$ 37,929.00$ 37,500.00$ 37,500.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 36,825.00$ 36,825.00$ 39,760.00$ 39,760.00$29 Concrete Maintenance Strip ( Includes Class 5) 1850 Lin. Ft. 12.00$ 22,200.00$ 15.80$ 29,230.00$ 11.23$ 20,775.50$ 11.00$ 20,350.00$ 7.74$ 14,319.00$ 11.00$ 20,350.00$ 15.00$ 27,750.00$ 8.85$ 16,372.50$ 18.50$ 34,225.00$30 Remove Silt Fence & Inlet Protection 1 Lump Sum 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 558.00$ 558.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 800.00$ 800.00$ 100.00$ 100.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 900.00$ 900.00$ 2,200.00$ 2,200.00$TOTAL421,522.50$ 404,100.00$ 424,390.25$ 426,033.90$ 438,755.00$ 453,350.00$ 465,771.00$ 482,583.50$ 495,779.00$Deduct AlternateOmit Concrete Maintenance Strip (Includes Class 5). Deduct from the Base Bid amount stated above the sum ofdollars ( ).22,200.00$ 29,000.00$ 18,700.00$ 20,350.00$ 14,319.00$ 20,350.00$ 27,750.00$ 16,372.50$ 34,000.00$TOTAL399,322.50$ 375,100.00$ 405,690.25$ 405,683.90$ 424,436.00$ 433,000.00$ 438,021.00$ 466,211.00$ 461,779.00$Krueger Excavating, Inc. Petereson CompaniesBid Tabulation 4-19-07Reconstruction of Soccer Fields 12 and 13 at Miller Park City of Eden Prairie (I.C. 7108)Engineers EstimateRehbein Companies Sunram ConstructionVeit & Company, Inc. Frattalone Companies Ramsey Excavating Rachel Contracting1A
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Jay Lotthammer, Director
Parks and Recreation
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Award bids for the Community Center pre-
fab concrete and baseball field fencing and
netting
ITEM NO.: VIII.F.
Requested Action
Move to: Authorize approval of the bids as recommended by the Construction Manager for the
Community Center pre-fab concrete and baseball field fencing and netting.
Synopsis
These items were presented to the City Council on March 20, 2007. The City Council directed staff
to work with the construction manager to re-bid the items in hopes of a more favorable price.
RJM Construction, the construction manager for this project has submitted a letter recommending
the approval of bids for the Community Center electrical, pre-fab concrete and baseball / softball
field lighting.
Attachments
Letter from RJM Construction, dated April 24, 2007
Bid Breakdown
CONSTRUCTION
April 24, 2007
Mr. Jay Lotthammer
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Eden Prairie Community Center
Recommendations for Award of Contracts— Bid Package 2 (Partial)
City Council Meeting — May 1, 2007
Dear Mr. Lotthammer,
RJM Construction (RJM) has completed its review of the bids received on April 19,
2007 for Bid Package 2. In addition to the bid reviews, we have also conducted
scope reviews with the apparent low bidders from each bid category. Based on the
results of these reviews we recommend to the City Council that they award the
contracts for three (3) Bid Categories as listed on the attached Exhibit 1 dated April
25, 2007.
The remaining Bid Categories not referenced in this, or previous recommendations
presented will be presented for the May 15 th , 2007 City Council meeting.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Brian G. Recker
Vice President
5455 HWY. 169
PLYMOUTH, MN 55442
PHONE 763-383-7600
FAX 763-383-7601
www.rimconstruction.com
EXHIBIT 1
April 25, 2007
Bid Package 2
RJM Recommended Bid Categories for Award - City Council Meeting May 1, 2007
Alternates Accepted 1A, 4B, 7A, 7B, 13C, M-2
ri _
2E - Netting Systems Upper Midwest Athletic $ 112,870
3D - Precast Concrete Wall Panels Fabcon $ 494,069
3E - Precast Concete Plank Molin $ 248,519
Total of Recommendations for Award $
855,458
led for Award Recommendation on May 15th 2007 _
6B -Interior Architectural Woodwork Budget $ 120,123
9B - Sports / Wood Flooring Budget $ 92,363
13B - Dasher Boards Budget $ 113,400
15C - Fire Sprinkler Systems Budget $ 226,100
16A - Electrical Systems Budget $ 1,006,750
Total Budget of Remaining Recommendations for Award $
1,558,736
Eden Prairie Community Center
Bid Tabulation Form
Bid Date: Thursday, April 19, 2007 Bid Category: 2E Netting Systems
Contractor Bid Amount Addendums Noted Bid Security
Upper Midwest Athletic Construction $ 112,870 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Y N
Century Fence $ 195,000 1,2,3,4,5,8 Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
'(N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
'(N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
'(N
Y N
'(N
'(N
'(N
'(N
Eden Prairie Community Center
Bid Tabulation Form
Bid Date: Thursday, April 19, 2007
Bid Category: 3D Precast Structural Concrete Wall Panels
Contractor Bid Amount Addendums Noted Bid Security Alt #la
Fabcon $ 303,369 1,2,3,4,5,8 Y N $ 190,700
Hanson $ 435,150 1,2,3,4,5,8 Y N $ 282,270
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Eden Prairie Community Center
Bid Tabulation Form
Bid Date: Thursday, April 19, 2007
Bid Category: 3E Precast Structural Concrete Plank
Contractor Bid Amount Addendums Noted Bid Security Alt #la
Mol in $ 206,086 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Y N $ 42,433
Hanson $ 219,798 1,2,3,4,5,8 Y N $ 48,738
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Rod Rue
Public Works / Engineering
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Establishing Municipal State Aid Streets
ITEM NO.: VIII.G.
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt resolution establishing Municipal State Aid Streets.
Synopsis
Eden Prairie’s certified street mileage for 2006 is 225.14 miles. Based on the criteria established
for Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) designations, the City qualifies for a maximum MSAS
mileage designation of 45.03 miles, excluding allowable turnback mileage. The requested
designation of Valley View Road, Mitchell Road, and Bryant Lake Drive has received
preliminary approval from MN/DOT and will add 1.75 miles of municipal state aid streets to our
system.
Background Information
Annually, Cities in Minnesota with populations in excess of 5,000 are required by Minnesota
Statutes to provide information concerning their overall and municipal State Aid Street system to
the Commissioner of Transportation. Necessary information includes street mileage,
construction needs and population of the municipality. Based on the municipal street mileage,
each City is entitled to designate 20% of its mileage as Municipal State Aid Streets (MSAS). In
addition, Minnesota Trunk Highways whose jurisdiction has turned over to a municipality since
July 1, 1965 and County Highway turnbacks since May 11, 1994, may also be included. Eden
Prairie is authorized 2.14 turnback miles. State Aid funds are derived primarily from gas tax
receipts and are distributed to municipalities based on population and determinations from the
25-year construction needs for the designated MSAS streets. Eden Prairie receives
approximately $1.6 million per year from its present designation of 45.46 miles.
This additional designation will increase our MSAS mileage to 47.21 miles out of a possible
47.43. This maximum mileage includes Trunk Highway turnback mileage of 2.14 plus 0.26
miles for the revocation of a portion of old Eden Prairie Road (new CSAH 4 – Spring Road)
from CSAH 1 (Pioneer Trail) to Eden Prairie Road. Staff will monitor the ability to designate
additional mileage as our system grows and a candidate street of appropriate length is identified.
The MSAS rules require that a designated street connect at each end to a State Highway, County
State Aid Highway or other Municipal State Aid Street for its entire length to qualify.
Attachments
• Resolution
• Eden Prairie MSAS Route Map
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS
WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that the streets hereinafter
described should be designated Municipal State Aid Streets under the provisions of Minnesota
Law; and
WHEREAS, the designated streets meet the criteria for inclusion in the Municipal State Aid
Street System.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that
the roads described as follows, to-wit:
Valley View Road – from TH 101 (West 192nd Street) to Dell Road (MSAS No. 108)
Mitchell Road – from CSAH 1 (Pioneer Trail) to CSAH 4 (Spring Road)
Bryant Lake Drive – from CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) to TH 212 west-bound off ramp
Be, and hereby are established, located, and designated as Municipal State Aid Streets of said
City, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
forward two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for
consideration, and that upon approval of the designation of said road or portion thereof, that
same be constructed, improved and maintained as a Municipal State Aid Street of the City of
Eden Prairie to be numbered and known as Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS):
Extension of MSAS 104 - Mitchell Road
Extension of MSAS 109 - Valley View Road
MSAS 133 - Bryant Lake Drive
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 1, 2007.
_______________________
Phil Young, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
_______________________
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Police Department
Lieutenant James Morrow
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Resolution Declaring "Abandoned Property"
ITEM NO.: VIII.H.
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt resolution declaring property as "abandoned property."
Synopsis
The Eden Prairie Police Department has accumulated a quantity of bicycles, stereo/electronic
equipment, and miscellaneous items that remain unclaimed.
City Code 2.86 Subd. 2, Disposal of Unclaimed Property, requires adoption of a resolution by
City Council to declare unclaimed property that has been in the possession of the City for over
90 days as "abandoned property."
Background Information
In the course of municipal operations, the Eden Prairie Police Department's Evidence/Property
Room has several items that have lawfully come into its possession that remain unclaimed by the
owners and have been in its possession for at least 90 days.
In accordance with City Code Section 2.86 Subdivision 2 C., the Police Department would like
to dispose of this property by sale to the highest bidder at a public auction through the City of
Eden Prairie. In addition, in accordance with City Code 2.86 Subdivision C, the Police
Department would like to convert certain items for City use.
Attachments
Resolution - Declaration of Abandoned Property.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
DECLARATION OF ABANDONED PROPERTY
WHEREAS, City Code 2.86 Subd. 2 requires adoption of a resolution by City Council to
declare unclaimed property such as bicycles, stereo/electronic equipment, and miscellaneous
items as "abandoned property;" and
WHEREAS, the property has lawfully come into the possession of the City in the course
of municipal operations; and
WHEREAS, the property remains unclaimed by the owners; and
WHEREAS, the property has been in the possession of the City for over 90 days.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie declares the
unclaimed property as "abandoned property."
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 1, 2007.
Phil Young, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
Category Case Number Description
Abandoned Property for Auction
Exhibit A
Bicycle (B)2006026123 Giant Ricon Mens Bicycle, Gray w/Red Writing
Bicycle (B)2006026600 Mongoose Override 20", Boys Bicycle, Black/Red
Bicycle (B)2006026600 Raleigh M20 Mtn Sport 26" Bicycle, Blk/Gry/Whi
Bicycle (B)2006027476 7PK Mtn Bike, Blue & Silver, Boys
Bicycle (B)2006028422 Schwinn Continental II, Red, Girls, 10-speed
Bicycle (B)2006029037 Suzuki Yel/Red Boys Mtn Bike
Bicycle (B)2006029085 Raleigh Sprite, Brown, Mens Bicycle, 5-speed (older model) see notes
Bicycle (B)2006030480 Magna Night Vision Blue 10-speed Bicycle
Bicycle (B)2006030480 Next Power Climber Red 18 speed Bicycle
Bicycle (B)2006031259 Raleigh M20 Mountain Sport, Mens, Blk/White/Red Bicycle
Bicycle (B)2006032654 Magna Mtn Tamer Bike, Blue w/padlock & cable, 6-speed
Bicycle (B)2006032656 Huffy Rock It Boys Bike, Red
Bicycle (B)2006032656 Schwinn Whisper Girls Bike, w/flower decals
Bicycle (B)2006032917 Schwinn Ranger 2.4, Boys, Gray - No Brakes/Cables
Bicycle (B)2006033991 Next Shocker, Red w/Blk/Gry/Whi Lettering
Bicycle (B)2006034772 Unknown Make, Model, Boys Bike, Black BMX style w/Haro Seat
Bicycle (B)2006034772 Specialized Fatboy BMX, Black Bicycle w/Whi/Blk Lettering
Bicycle (B)2006035769 Univega Via Carisma Mens Bike, Green, Bi-axial Power Oval
Bicycle (B)2006035790 Next Break Point Pro Bike, Blue/Silver, 26"
Bicycle (B)2006036071 1 - Dyno Compe Boys Bike, Yellow (Gold)
Bicycle (B)2006036071 3 - Schwinn Traveler III, Blue, Bike License 1979-81
Bicycle (B)2006036480 Huffy "Digital" Bike, Purple
Bicycle (B)2006036546 Murray Daisy Craze, Teal/Pink Girls Bike (Small)
Bicycle (B)2006037450 Rhino Misfit Boys Trick Bicycle, Silver in Color
Bicycle (B)2006037575 Magna Double Divide Womens Bike, White w/Teal Accents, 12-speed
Bicycle (B)2006038126 1 - Magna Malibu Girls Bike, Small, Purple & White
Bicycle (B)2006038126 2 - Next Boys Bike, Red w/Sil/Blk Lettering, "Wipeout Motocross"
Bicycle (B)2006040011 Magna Great Divide Girls Bike, Teal/Silver, 18 speed
Bicycle (B)2006040407 Specialized Hard Rock Mens Bicycle, Black/Silver w/Cable Key Lock
Bicycle (B)2006041332 Huffy Stone Mountain II Red Bicycle
Bicycle (B)2006042280 Redline Slash Boys Trick Bike, Blk w/Yel stripe
Bicycle (B)2006042367 Dyno Boys Trick Bike, Silver
Bicycle (B)2006043317 Huffy Torsio Boys Trick Bike, Blk/Red/Sil
Bicycle (B)2006044162 Next Wipeout Boys Trick Bike, Black/Red
Bicycle (B)2006045213 Magna Glacier Point Bicycle, Black/Red/White/Gold
Bicycle (B)2006045976 GT Outpost Trail Bicycle, Blue w/Whi/Blk/Sil
Bicycle (B)2006046480 Roadmaster Mt. Sport sx Mens Bicycle, 18-speed, w/Kryptonite Key
Lock, Shimano
Bicycle (B)2006046480 Trek 730 Multi-Track Bicycle, Green w/combination lock
Bicycle (B)2006046480 GT Palomar Mountain Bicycle, Yellow w/Whi/Blk/Tan
Bicycle (B)2006047001 FS Elite "Big Horn" Green Girls Mtn Bicycle, 26"
Bicycle (B)2007000816 Next "Slumber Party, Pink Girls Bicycle
41 # of Items
14/11/2007Report Date:
Category Case Number Description
Abandoned Property for Auction
Exhibit A
Camera (C)2006024565 Canon EOS Rebel X 35mm Camera & Promaster Flash Attachment
1 # of Items
Cologne (E)2004029606 Pg 4 - #E - Cologne
1 # of Items
Watch (J)2004029606 Pg 4 - #F - Elgin Mens Watch
Watch (J)2006025675 Citizen Watch, Blue Face, Silver, Mens
2 # of Items
Purse (P)2005025315 #42 - (2) Brown Purses
1 # of Items
Car Stereo (R)2004029606 #5 - Car Stereo/CD
Faceplate (R)2004029606 #12 - Sony Faceplate, Silver
Faceplate (R)2004029606 #13 - Sony CD Faceplate
Camcorder (R)2005011278 Panasonic Camcorder/Palmcorder - Pg 3 #9
Faceplate (R)2006029964 Pioneer DEH1600 Faceplate
5 # of Items
Basketball (S)2005011278 Basketball in Case - Pg 4 #25
Bowling Ball 2006009566 Bowling Ball, 7# Brunswick, Red
Baseball Bat (S)2006014341 Worth Powercell Aluminum Bat
Glove 2006026696 Wilson Baseball glove, "Lindsay" written on glove
4 # of Items
Auto Parts (W)2004029606 #1 - Tint Film For Vehicles
Auto Parts (W)2004029606 Pg 4 - #B - Light Bulbs for Cars
2 # of Items
Tools-Other (X)2004029606 Pg 4 - #C - Wiring Kit
Tools-Other (X)2004029606 Pg 4 - #H - Accessory Kit
2 # of Items
Books (Y)2003006509 (9) Paperback Books
Spiral Wrap 2004029606 Pg 4 - #D - Spiral Wrap for Car Wiring
Spray Paint 2004029606 Pg 4 - #I - (3) Cans of Paint
Wire 2004029606 Pg 4 - #G - Speaker Wire
4 # of Items
63
24/11/2007Report Date:
Category Case Number Description
Abandoned Property for Conversion for City Use
Exhibit B
Conversion Purpose
Projector (C)2005011278 NEC Projector w/Case & Cords - Pg 4
#4
City of Eden Prairie
Camera (C)2005011278 Canon 35mm Camera w/lense & case
- Pg 4 #7
City of Eden Prairie
Projector (C)2005011278 Toshiba DLP Projector, Pg 4 #11 City of Eden Prairie
Projector (C)2005011278 Dell DLP Front Projector w/Black Case
- Pg 6 #1
EPPD Use
Camera Case 2005011278 Pg 4 - #21b - Black Tamrac Case City of Eden Prairie
5 # of Items
Fan 2005025315 #15 - Enviracaire Fan EPPD Use
1 # of Items
Computer, Monitor (O)2005011278 Cinema Display Screen - Pg 3 #16 EPPD Use
Printer (O)2005011278 HP Printer, Pg 4 #3 EPPD Use
Computer, Hard drive (O)2005011278 Pg 6 - #6A - Western Digital Hard
Drive
EPPD Use
Computer, Hard drive (O)2005011278 Pg 6 - #6B - Western Digital Caviar
36400 Hard Drive
EPPD Use
Computer, Hard drive (O)2005011278 Pg 6 - #6C - Seagate Barracuda ATAII EPPD Use
Computer, Hard drive (O)2005011278 Pg 3 - #11A - Hard Drive from #11 -
Seagate Barracuda ATA V 60 Gbytes
EPPD Use
Computer, Other (O)2005011278 Blk Case for Laptop - Pg 6 #3 City of Eden Prairie
Computer, Laptop (O)2005011278 Toshiba Laptop M35 & Cord, Pg 7 #1 EPPD Use
Palm Pilot (O)2005011278 Palm M500, Pg 7 #2 EPPD Use
Computer, Misc 2005011278 Box w/Misc Computer Cords, etc. - Pg
7 #6
EPPD Use
Computer, Monitor (O)2005011278 NEC Monitor, Pg 7 #10 EPPD Use
Computer, Monitor (O)2005011278 Dell Monitor, Model B17 - Pg 7 #13 City of Eden Prairie
Computer, Pocket (O)2005011278 IPAQ Pocket PC, HP Brand w/Blk
Case - Pg 4 #14
EPPD Use
Computer, Pocket (O)2005011278 HP IPAQ Pocket PC, Pg 4 #15 EPPD Use
Computer, Monitor (O)2005011278 Dell Monitor - Pg 4 #22 EPPD Use
Computer, Monitor (O)2005011278 Apple Monitor "Property of AGS
01340"
EPPD Use
Computer, Monitor (O)2005011278 Gateway Monitor - Pg 4 #28 EPPD Use
Computer, Other (O)2006007185 #2 - USB Wireless Network Drive EPPD Use
18 # of Items
14/9/2007Report Date:
Category Case Number Description
Abandoned Property for Conversion for City Use
Exhibit B
Conversion Purpose
Subwoofer (R)2005011278 Pioneer Subwoofer/Speaker - Pg 7
#16
City of Eden Prairie
1 # of Items
Duffle Bag (S)2003004548 #6 - Black Duffel Bag SWHDTF
Duffle Bag (S)2004001175 Item #17 - Black & White Gym Bag
w/contents
SWHDTF
2 # of Items
Currency - Cash/Coin (T)2006030885 $17 Cash City of Eden Prairie
Currency - Cash/Coin (T)2006034965 $.25 City of Eden Prairie
2 # of Items
Auto Parts (W)2004029606 Pg 4 - #A - Cable Ties City of Eden Prairie
1 # of Items
Tools-Other (X)2005011278 Pg 5 - #1 - Gray Bin & Tools EPPD Use
Tools-Other (X)2006034114 Wire Stripper/Cutter EPPD ERU
2 # of Items
Kit 2005011278 Toshiba USB FDD Kit, Pg 7 #3 EPPD Use
1 # of Items
33
24/9/2007Report Date:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Mary Krause
Public Works/Engineering
ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. #07-5696
Award Contract for 2007 Street
Striping to United Rentals
ITEM NO.: VIII.I.
Requested Action
Move to: Award contract for 2007 Striping to United Rentals, in the amount of $69,501.00.
Synopsis
Sealed bids were received Thursday, April 26, 2007 for the 2007 Striping project. One bid was
received and was tabulated as follows:
United Rentals - $69,501.00
Background Information
Street striping is an annual street maintenance project. The budget for 2007 is $80,000, under
budget #1714-6337. Although only one bid was submitted, the prices for the individual striping
items are comparable to or less than 2006 unit prices and are within the 2007 budget. The
contractor that submitted the bid has successfully performed striping work within the City of
Eden Prairie in previous years. If the submitted bid was rejected and the project rebid hoping to
attract additional bidders the striping project would be delayed which would be undesirable.
Staff recommends award to United Rentals.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Parks and Recreation
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Third Rink – Deed from City to HRA
ITEM NO. XIII.J.
Requested Action
Move to approve execution and delivery of a Quit Claim Deed from the City to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Eden Prairie.
Synopsis
The HRA will be issuing bonds to finance the construction of the Third Rink of ice at the
Community Center. As part of the financing it is necessary for the City to deed the property for
the Third Rink to the HRA.
Background
The City currently owns the property on which the Third Rink of ice will be constructed. The HRA
financing of this project requires that the City deed the property to the HRA.
Attachments
Quit Claim Deed
3I-M-- QUIT CLAIM DEED
Corporation, Partnership or Limited Liability Company
to Corporation, Partnership or Limited Liability Company
(Top 3 incites Reserved for Recording Dais) Miller/Davis Co.."' St. Paul, MN 691-642-1988
Minnesota Uniform Conveyancing Mattl<s (1/15/97)
DEED TAX DUE: $
Date: 20°7
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, City of Eden Prairie
a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota
Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the City of Eden Prairie
Grantee, a Public body corporate and politic under the laws of minnesota
real property in Hennep in County, Minnesota, described as follows:
See Attachment "A" for legal description
"The total consideration for this transfer of property is $500 or less."
together with all hereditarnents and appurtenances.
Check box if applicable:
Ci The Seller certifies that the seller does not know of any wells on the described real property.
A well disclosure certificate accompanies this document.
I am familiar with the property described in this instrument and I certify that the status and number of wells on
the described real property have not changed since the last previously filed well disclosure certificate.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
By
Scott Neal
Its City Manager
By
Phil Young
Its M.11 9.r
, 2007
(Date)
by Scott Neal
the City Manager
Of the City of Eden Prairie
a municipal corporation
on behalf of the corporation
and Phil Young
and Mayor
under the laws of Minnesota
NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL 1015 OTHER TITLE OR RAMO
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL
Check here if part or all of the land is Registered (Torrens) LII
Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should
be sem to (include name and address of Grantee):
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS):
Richard F. Rosow, Esq.
Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan,Ltd.
650 Third Avenue South
Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
WARNING: UNAUTHORIZED COPYING OF THIS FORM PROHIBITED.
3I-M-- QUIT CLAIM DEED
Corporation, Partnership or Limited Liability Company
to Corporation, Partnership or Limited Liability Company
(Top 3 incites Reserved for Recording Dais) Miller/Davis Co.."' St. Paul, MN 691-642-1988
Minnesota Uniform Conveyancing Mattl<s (1/15/97)
DEED TAX DUE: $
Date: 20°7
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, City of Eden Prairie
a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota
Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the City of Eden Prairie
Grantee, a Public body corporate and politic under the laws of minnesota
real property in Hennep in County, Minnesota, described as follows:
See Attachment "A" for legal description
"The total consideration for this transfer of property is $500 or less."
together with all hereditarnents and appurtenances.
Check box if applicable:
Ci The Seller certifies that the seller does not know of any wells on the described real property.
A well disclosure certificate accompanies this document.
I am familiar with the property described in this instrument and I certify that the status and number of wells on
the described real property have not changed since the last previously filed well disclosure certificate.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
By
Scott Neal
Its City Manager
By
Phil Young
Its M.11 9.r
, 2007
(Date)
by Scott Neal
the City Manager
Of the City of Eden Prairie
a municipal corporation
on behalf of the corporation
and Phil Young
and Mayor
under the laws of Minnesota
NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL 1015 OTHER TITLE OR RAMO
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL
Check here if part or all of the land is Registered (Torrens) LII
Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should
be sem to (include name and address of Grantee):
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS):
Richard F. Rosow, Esq.
Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan,Ltd.
650 Third Avenue South
Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
WARNING: UNAUTHORIZED COPYING OF THIS FORM PROHIBITED.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Agenda
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Scott H. Neal, City Manager
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Approve Assignment of Contracts for
Community Center Renovation Project to
RJM Construction
ITEM NO.: VIII.K.
Requested Action
Move to approve the Assignment of contracts awarded by the City for the Community Center
Reconstruction to RJM Construction.
Synopsis
Pursuant to the CMc contract between the City and RJM Construction, the City to is assign to
RJM the contracts awarded by the City for the Community Center Renovation Project.
Background
At the last City Council meeting the Council assigned to RJM Construction the contracts
awarded as of that date. Additional contracts are on the agenda at this meeting for the council to
award. If the council awards those contracts, it is appropriate for the Council to also approve the
assignment of those contracts to RJM Construction.
Attachment
Agreement between City of Eden Prairie and RJM Construction
ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of 1st day of May, 20007, by City of Eden Prairie a
Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and RJM Construction, a Minnesota corporation
(“Contractor”).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS City and Contractor have entered into that certain Standard Form of Agreement
Between Owner and Construction Manager dated as of March 27, 2007 whereby Contractor
undertakes the construction management of project known as the “Eden Prairie Expansion and
Renovation, Eden Prairie Community Center.” A true and correct copy of the Contract is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A.”
WHEREAS the Contract requires that City assign to Contractor all of City’s rights in and to
contracts for the construction of the Work (as defined in the Contract) which have been
competitively bid and awarded by the City. A list of all such contracts is attached as Exhibit A
hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promise and agreements made in the
Contract and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged:
1. City hereby grants, transfers and assigns to Contractor all of its right, title and interest
in and to the contracts identified on Exhibit A hereto.
2. The undersigned Contractor hereby consents to this Assignment and agrees to
perform all of its obligations under the Contract for the benefit of City
3. This Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the City and
Contractor and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, as the case may be.
4. This Assignment may be signed in more than one counterpart, together which shall
constitute an original document.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Contractor have executed this Assignment as of the
above date.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
2
_________________________________________
By: Phil Young
Its: Mayor
_________________________________________
By: Scott H. Neal
Its: City Manager
RJM CONSTRUCTION, a Minnesota corporation
_________________________________________
By: Robert Jossart
Its: President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________, 2007,
by Phil Young and Scott H. Neal, the Mayor and City Manager respectively of the City of Eden
Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation on behalf of the municipal corporation.
___________________________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of _______, 2007,
by Robert Jossart, President of RJM Construction, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the
corporation.
___________________________________________
Notary Public
3
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Richard F. Rosow, (93592)
Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan, Ltd
650 Third Avenue South, Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 338-0755
Facsimile: (612) 349-6718
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
EXHIBIT 1
April 25, 2007
Bid Package 2
RJM Recommended Bid Categories for Award - City Council Meeting May 1, 2007
Alternates Accepted 1A, 4B, 7A, 7B, 13C, M-2
ri _
2E - Netting Systems Upper Midwest Athletic $ 112,870
3D - Precast Concrete Wall Panels Fabcon $ 494,069
3E - Precast Concete Plank Molin $ 248,519
Total of Recommendations for Award $
855,458
led for Award Recommendation on May 15th 2007 _
6B -Interior Architectural Woodwork Budget $ 120,123
9B - Sports / Wood Flooring Budget $ 92,363
13B - Dasher Boards Budget $ 113,400
15C - Fire Sprinkler Systems Budget $ 226,100
16A - Electrical Systems Budget $ 1,006,750
Total Budget of Remaining Recommendations for Award $
1,558,736
Eden Prairie Community Center
Bid Tabulation Form
Bid Date: Thursday, April 19, 2007 Bid Category: 2E Netting Systems
Contractor Bid Amount Addendums Noted Bid Security
Upper Midwest Athletic Construction $ 112,870 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Y N
Century Fence $ 195,000 1,2,3,4,5,8 Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
'(N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
'(N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
'(N
Y N
'(N
'(N
'(N
'(N
Eden Prairie Community Center
Bid Tabulation Form
Bid Date: Thursday, April 19, 2007
Bid Category: 3D Precast Structural Concrete Wall Panels
Contractor Bid Amount Addendums Noted Bid Security Alt #la
Fabcon $ 303,369 1,2,3,4,5,8 Y N $ 190,700
Hanson $ 435,150 1,2,3,4,5,8 Y N $ 282,270
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Eden Prairie Community Center
Bid Tabulation Form
Bid Date: Thursday, April 19, 2007
Bid Category: 3E Precast Structural Concrete Plank
Contractor Bid Amount Addendums Noted Bid Security Alt #la
Mol in $ 206,086 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Y N $ 42,433
Hanson $ 219,798 1,2,3,4,5,8 Y N $ 48,738
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Agenda
DATE: May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Sue Kotchevar, Office of the
City Manager/Finance
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Adopt Amended Budget for Tax Increment
Financing Districts 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18
ITEM NO.: VIII.L.
Requested Action
Move to adopt resolution adopting amended TIF plans and budgets for Tax Increment Financing
Districts 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
Synopsis
This item was discussed at the April 17, 2007, Council meeting but no formal motion was made.
Springsted Incorporated, the City’s TIF advisor, has recommended that the City amend the TIF
budgets to reflect the City’s intention to pool the City’s share of TIF proceeds for projects.
Generally this required moving budgeted amounts from various line items to the other (eligible
TIF pooling activities) line item for expenditures and also budgeting for expected interest
income.
Attachments
Resolution
Amended TIF Plans
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT
DISTRICT NOS. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 AND 18
APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANS THEREFOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the
“City”), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City has heretofore approved tax increment financing plans:
(a) on February 6, 1996, for Tax Increment Financing District No. 12, a qualified
housing tax increment financing district of the City;
(b) on August 5, 1997, for Tax Increment Financing District No. 14, a housing tax
increment financing district of the City;
(c) on July 20,1999, for Tax Increment Financing District No. 15, a qualified housing
tax increment financing district of the City;
(d) on July 20, 1999, for Tax Increment Financing District No. 16, a qualified
housing tax increment financing district of the City;
(e) on March 20, 2001, for Tax Increment Financing District No. 17, a qualified
housing tax increment financing district of the City; and
(f) on April 16, 2002, for Tax Increment Financing District No. 12, a housing tax
increment financing district of the City.
The tax increment financing districts described in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this
Subsection 1.01 are referred to collectively herein as the “TIF Districts.” The original tax
increment financing plans described in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this Subsection 1.01 are
referred to collectively herein as the “Original TIF Plans.”
1.02. At the direction of the City Council, City staff began exploring with financial
consultants:
(a) a reallocation of the tax increment expenditures budgeted for certain public
development costs within the Original TIF Plans, which costs fell within the total budgets
for each of the TIF Districts set forth in the Original TIF Plans, and did not increase
the total expenditures of tax increments therefrom; and
-2-
(b) a specification of the intent to spend tax increments outside of the TIF
Districts’ boundaries to the extent permitted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.1763, Subdivision 2.
1.03. The City now intends to modify each of the Original TIF Plans to expressly
reallocate the budgets therein among authorized costs previously paid and authorized costs
anticipated to be incurred and paid in the future and to specify the intent to spend tax increment
outside of the respective TIF District boundaries and to approve these modifications subject to
final determination and verification of authorized costs incurred and paid to date for the
respective TIF Districts.
1.04. The City staff and financial consultants have prepared and presented to the City
for approval the proposed modifications, attached hereto as Exhibit A, to the Original TIF Plans
(the “Modified TIF Plans”).
1.05. Because the Modified TIF Plans will not reduce or enlarge the Project Areas or
the TIF Districts, increase the amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, capitalize interest
on the debt if that determination was not a part of the Original TIF Plans, increase the portions of
the captured net tax capacity of the TIF Districts to be retained by the City, increase the estimate
of the cost of the projects paid or financed with tax increment from the TIF Districts, or
designate additional property to be acquired by the City pursuant to the Original TIF Plans, the
notice, discussion, public hearing, and findings by the City required for approval each of the
Original TIF Plans are not required.
Section 2. Approval of Modified TIF Plans.
2.01. This Council reaffirms the findings, with respect to the TIF Districts, contained
in the resolutions approving the Original TIF Plans.
2.02. It is hereby found, determined and declared that it is in the best interests of the
City to approve the Modified TIF Plans. Therefore, this Council hereby approves the Modified
TIF Plans. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the Modified TIF Plans with
the Commissioner of Revenue and the State Auditor as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.175, subdivision 4a.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota this 1st
day of May, 2007.
__________________________
Phil Young, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
-3-
Exhibit A
[mark Modified TIF Plans “Exhibit A” and attach]
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Eden Prairie Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for
Tax Increment Financing (Qualified Housing)
District No. 12
(Columbine Road Housing Project)
Original Plan Approved: February 6, 1996 Administrative Amendment Dated: April 17, 2007 (Draft)
Prepared by:
SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
380 Jackson Street, Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55101
(651)223-3000
Introduction
The purpose of the Administrative Amendment to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 12 is to make a line-item adjustment to the Estimated Public Costs and Estimated Sources of Revenue.
This amendment will not increase the overall size of the budget. The sections specifically being modified are
Sections K and L. This amendment does not reflect all the legislative changes that have occurred since original
adoption, and may not reflect fully the financial ramifications of all the TIF and property tax system changes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page(s)
Section K
Estimated Public Costs........................................................................................... 1
Section L
Estimated Sources of Revenue............................................................................... 1
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
SPRINGSTED Page 1
Section K Estimated Public Costs
The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax
increments of the TIF District.
Original Budget
February 6, 1996
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Land/building acquisition $212,000 $352,612
Site improvements/preparation costs 67,600 111,940
Installation of public utilities 57,900 95,150
Parking Facilities 0 0
Bond interest payments 0 0
Loan principal payments 0 0
Loan/note interest payments 246,959 0
Administrative expenses 37,500 36,886
Capitalized interest 0 0
Other (eligible TIF pooling activities) 0 25,371
Subtotal $621,959 $621,959
Transfers out 0 0
Total $621,959 $621,959
The Authority reserves the right to adjust the amount of any of the items listed above or to incorporate additional
eligible items, so long as the total estimated public cost is not increased.
Section L Estimated Sources of Revenue
The Authority anticipates providing financial assistance to the proposed development through the use of a pay-as-
you-go technique. As tax increments are collected from the TIF District in future years, a portion of these taxes will
be distributed to the developer/owner as reimbursement for public costs incurred (see Section K of original TIF Plan).
Reimbursement may include accrued interest, but in no event will the total reimbursement exceed the total estimated
public costs plus accrued interest.
Original Budget
August 5, 1997
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Tax increment revenue $621,959 $571,959
Interest on invested funds 0 50,000
Bond proceeds 0 0
Loan proceeds 0 0
Real estate sales 0 0
Special assessments 0 0
Rent/lease revenue 0 0
Other 0 0
Subtotal $621,959 $621,959
Transfers in 0 0
Total $621,959 $621,959
The Authority reserves the right to finance any or all public costs of the TIF District using pay-as-you-go assistance,
internal funding, general obligation or revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The
Authority also reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such
costs including, but not limited to, special assessments, utility revenues, federal or state funds, and investment
income.
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Eden Prairie Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for
Tax Increment Financing (Housing)
District No. 14
(Edenvale Townhome Project)
Original Plan Approved: August 5, 1997 Administrative Amendment Dated: April 17, 2007 (Draft)
Prepared by:
SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
380 Jackson Street, Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55101
(651) 223-3000
Introduction
The purpose of the Administrative Amendment to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 14 is to make a line-item adjustment to the Estimated Public Costs and Estimated Sources of Revenue.
This amendment will not increase the overall size of the budget. The sections specifically being modified are
Sections K and L. This amendment does not reflect all the legislative changes that have occurred since original
adoption, and may not reflect fully the financial ramifications of all the TIF and property tax system changes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page(s)
Section K
Estimated Public Costs........................................................................................... 1
Section L
Estimated Sources of Revenue............................................................................... 1
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
SPRINGSTED Page 1
Section K Estimated Public Costs
The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax
increments of the TIF District.
Original Budget
August 5, 1997
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Land/building acquisition $330,000 $380,000
Site improvements/preparation costs 50,000 50,000
Installation of public utilities 50,000 0
Parking Facilities 0 0
Bond interest payments 0 0
Loan principal payments 0 0
Loan/note interest payments 0 0
Administrative expenses 50,000 25,000
Capitalized interest 20,000 0
Other (eligible TIF pooling activities) 0 45,000
Subtotal $500,000 $500,000
Transfers out 0 0
Total $500,000 $500,000
The Authority reserves the right to adjust the amount of any of the items listed above or to incorporate additional
eligible items, so long as the total estimated public cost is not increased.
Section L Estimated Sources of Revenue
The Authority anticipates providing financial assistance to the proposed development through the use of a pay-as-
you-go technique. As tax increments are collected from the TIF District in future years, a portion of these taxes will
be distributed to the developer/owner as reimbursement for public costs incurred (see Section K of original TIF Plan).
Original Budget
August 5, 1997
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Tax increment revenue $500,000 $450,000
Interest on invested funds 0 50,000
Bond proceeds 0 0
Loan proceeds 0 0
Real estate sales 0 0
Special assessments 0 0
Rent/lease revenue 0 0
Grants 0 0
Other 0 0
Subtotal $500,000 $500,000
Transfers in 0 0
Total $500,000 $500,000
The Authority reserves the right to finance any or all public costs of the TIF District using pay-as-you-go assistance,
internal funding, general obligation or revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The
Authority also reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such
costs including, but not limited to, special assessments, utility revenues, federal or state funds, and investment
income.
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Eden Prairie Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for
Tax Increment Financing (Qualified Housing)
District No. 15
(Eden Shores Senior Housing Campus)
Original Plan Adopted: July 20, 1999 Administrative Amendment Dated: April 17, 2007 (Draft)
Prepared by:
SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
380 Jackson Street, Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55101
(651)223-3000
Introduction
The purpose of the Administrative Amendment to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 15 is to make a line-item adjustment to the Estimated Public Costs and Estimated Sources of Revenue.
This amendment will not increase the overall size of the budget. The sections specifically being modified are
Sections K and L. This amendment does not reflect all the legislative changes that have occurred since original
adoption, and may not reflect fully the financial ramifications of all the TIF and property tax system changes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page(s)
Section K
Estimated Public Costs........................................................................................... 1
Section L
Estimated Sources of Revenue............................................................................... 1
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
SPRINGSTED Page 1
Section K Estimated Public Costs
The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax
increments of the TIF District.
Original Budget
July 20, 1999
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Land/building acquisition $3,627,689 $3,652,495
Site improvements/preparation costs 997,311 1,030,191
Installation of public utilities 0 0
Parking Facilities 0 0
Bond interest payments 0 0
Loan principal payments 0 0
Loan/note interest payments 0 0
Administrative expenses 462,500 47,620
Capitalized interest 0 0
Other (eligible TIF pooling activities) 0 357,194
Subtotal $5,087,500 $5,087,500
Transfers out 0 0
Total $5,087,500 $5,087,500
The Authority reserves the right to adjust the amount of any of the items listed above or to incorporate additional
eligible items, so long as the total estimated public cost is not increased.
Section L Estimated Sources of Revenue
The Authority anticipates providing financial assistance to the proposed development through the use of a pay-as-
you-go technique. As tax increments are collected from the TIF District in future years, a portion of these taxes will
be distributed to the developer/owner as reimbursement for public costs incurred (see Section K).
Original Budget
March 20, 2001
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Tax increment revenue $5,087,500 $5,037,500
Interest on invested funds 0 50,000
Bond proceeds 0 0
Loan proceeds 0 0
Real estate sales 0 0
Special assessments 0 0
Rent/lease revenue 0 0
Grants 0 0
Other 0 0
Subtotal $5,087,500 $5,087,500
Transfers in 0 0
Total $5,087,500 $5,087,500
The Authority reserves the right to finance any or all public costs of the TIF District using pay-as-you-go assistance,
internal funding, general obligation or revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The
Authority also reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such
costs including, but not limited to, special assessments, utility revenues, federal or state funds, and investment
income.
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Eden Prairie Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for
Tax Increment Financing (Qualified Housing)
District No. 16
(Lincoln Parc Apartments Project)
Original Plan Adopted: July 20, 1999 Administrative Amendment Dated: April 17, 2007 (Draft)
Prepared by:
SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
380 Jackson Street, Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55101-2887
(651) 223-3000
Introduction
The purpose of the Administrative Amendment to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 16 is to make a line-item adjustment to the Estimated Public Costs and Estimated Sources of Revenue.
This amendment will not increase the overall size of the budget. The sections specifically being modified are
Sections K and L. This amendment does not reflect all the legislative changes that have occurred since original
adoption, and may not reflect fully the financial ramifications of all the TIF and property tax system changes.
- ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section K
Estimated Public Costs........................................................................................................................ 1
Section L
Estimated Sources of Revenue............................................................................................................ 1
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
SPRINGSTED Page 1
Section K Estimated Public Costs
The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax
increments of the TIF District.
Original Budget
July 20, 1999
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Land/building acquisition $2,928,568 $2,695,725
Site improvements/preparation costs 2,313,932 2,129,962
Installation of public utilities 0 0
Parking Facilities 0 0
Bond interest payments 0 0
Loan principal payments 0 0
Loan/note interest payments 0 0
Administrative expenses 524,250 75,773
Capitalized interest 0 0
Other (eligible TIF pooling activities) 0 865,290
Subtotal $5,766,750 $5,766,750
Transfers out 0 0
Total $5,766,750 $5,766,750
The Authority reserves the right to adjust the amount of any of the items listed above or to incorporate additional
eligible items, so long as the total estimated public cost is not increased.
Section L Estimated Sources of Revenue
The Authority anticipates providing financial assistance to the proposed development through the use of a pay-as-
you-go technique. As tax increments are collected from the TIF District in future years, a portion of these taxes will
be distributed to the developer/owner as reimbursement for public costs incurred (see Section K).
Original Budget
March 20, 2001
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Tax increment revenue $5,766,750 $5,716,750
Interest on invested funds 0 50,000
Bond proceeds 0 0
Loan proceeds 0 0
Real estate sales 0 0
Special assessments 0 0
Rent/lease revenue 0 0
Grants 0 0
Other 0 0
Subtotal $5,766,750 $5,766,750
Transfers in 0 0
Total $5,766,750 $5,766,750
The Authority reserves the right to finance any or all public costs of the TIF District using pay-as-you-go assistance,
internal funding, general obligation or revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The
Authority also reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such
costs including, but not limited to, special assessments, utility revenues, federal or state funds, and investment
income.
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Eden Prairie Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for
Tax Increment Financing (Qualified Housing)
District No. 17
(Rolling Hills Senior Housing Campus)
Approved: March 20, 2001 Administrative Amendment Dated: April 17, 2007 (Draft)
Prepared by:
SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
380 Jackson Street, Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55101
(651) 223-3000
Introduction
The purpose of the Administrative Amendment to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 17 is to make a line-item adjustment to the Estimated Public Costs and Estimated Sources of Revenue.
This amendment will not increase the overall size of the budget. The sections specifically being modified are
Sections K and L. This amendment does not reflect all the legislative changes that have occurred since original
adoption, and may not reflect fully the financial ramifications of all the TIF and property tax system changes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section K
Estimated Public Costs........................................................................................................................ 1
Section L
Estimated Sources of Revenue............................................................................................................ 1
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
SPRINGSTED Page 1
Section K Estimated Public Costs
The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax
increments of the TIF District.
Original Budget
March 20, 2001
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Land/building acquisition $2,165,000 $2,048,920
Site improvements/preparation costs 540,000 512,230
Installation of public utilities 0 0
Parking Facilities 0 0
Bond interest payments 0 0
Loan principal payments 0 0
Loan/note interest payments 0 0
Administrative expenses 295,000 43,885
Capitalized interest 0 0
Other (eligible TIF pooling activities) 0 394,965
Subtotal $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Transfers out 0 0
Total $3,000,000 $3,000,000
The Authority reserves the right to adjust the amount of any of the items listed above or to incorporate additional
eligible items, so long as the total estimated public cost is not increased.
Section L Estimated Sources of Revenue
The Authority anticipates providing financial assistance to the proposed development through the use of a pay-as-
you-go technique. As tax increments are collected from the TIF District in future years, a portion of these taxes will
be distributed to the developer/owner as reimbursement for public costs incurred (see Section K).
Original Budget
March 20, 2001
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Tax increment revenue $2,942,833 $2,892,833
Interest on invested funds 0 50,000
Bond proceeds 0 0
Loan proceeds 0 0
Real estate sales 0 0
Special assessments 0 0
Rent/lease revenue 0 0
Grants 0 0
Other 0 0
Subtotal $2,942,833 $2,942,833
Transfers in 0 0
Total $2,942,833 $2,942,833
The Authority reserves the right to finance any or all public costs of the TIF District using pay-as-you-go assistance,
internal funding, general obligation or revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The
Authority also reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such
costs including, but not limited to, special assessments, utility revenues, federal or state funds, and investment
income.
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Eden Prairie Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for
Tax Increment Financing (Housing)
District No. 18
(The Heights at Valley View Apartment Project)
Original Plan Adopted: April 16, 2002
Administrative Amendment Dated: April 17, 2007 (Draft)
Prepared by:
SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
380 Jackson Street, Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55101
(651) 223-3000
WWW.SPRINGSTED.COM
Introduction
The purpose of the Administrative Amendment to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 18 is to make a line-item adjustment to the Estimated Public Costs and Estimated Sources of Revenue.
This amendment will not increase the overall size of the budget. The sections specifically being modified are
Sections K and L. This amendment does not reflect all the legislative changes that have occurred since original
adoption, and may not reflect fully the financial ramifications of all the TIF and property tax system changes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section K
Estimated Public Costs........................................................................................................................ 1
Section L
Estimated Sources of Revenue............................................................................................................ 1
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
SPRINGSTED Page 1
Section K Estimated Public Costs
The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax
increments of the TIF District.
Original Budget
April 16, 2002
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Land/building acquisition $2,456,000 $2,455,705
Site improvements/preparation costs 891,000 886,783
Installation of public utilities 65,000 68,214
Parking Facilities 0 0
Bond interest payments 0 0
Loan principal payments 0 0
Loan/note interest payments 0 0
Administrative expenses 50,000 25,000
Capitalized interest 0 0
Other (eligible TIF pooling activities) 853,000 879,298
Subtotal $4,315,000 $4,315,000
Transfers out 0 0
Total $4,315,000 $4,315,000
The City reserves the right to administratively adjust the amount of any of the items listed above or to incorporate
additional eligible items, so long as the total estimated public cost is not increased.
Section L Estimated Sources of Revenue
The City anticipates providing financial assistance to the proposed development through the use of a pay-as-you-go
technique. As tax increments are collected from the TIF District in future years, a portion of these taxes will be
distributed to the developer/owner as reimbursement for public costs incurred (see Section K).
Original Budget
April 16, 2002
Administrative
Amendment
April 17, 2007
Tax increment revenue $4,265,000 $4,265,000
Interest on invested funds 50,000 50,000
Bond proceeds 0 0
Loan proceeds 0 0
Real estate sales 0 0
Special assessments 0 0
Rent/lease revenue 0 0
Grants 0 0
Other 0 0
Subtotal $4,315,000 $4,315,000
Transfers in 0 0
Total $4,315,000 $4,315,000
The City reserves the right to finance any or all public costs of the TIF District using pay-as-you-go assistance,
internal funding, general obligation or revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The City
also reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such costs
including, but not limited to, special assessments, utility revenues, federal or state funds, and investment income.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Payment of Claims
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Sue Kotchevar, Office of the
City Manager/Finance
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Payment of Claims
ITEM NO.: X.
Requested Action
Move to: Approve the Payment of Claims as submitted (roll call vote)
Synopsis
Checks 162703 - 163098
Wire Transfers 2668- 2671
Attachments
Wire payment #2668 – 2671 US Bank Purchasing Card list
City of Eden Prairie
Council Check Summary
5/1/2007
Division Amount
General 336
100 City Manager 1,130
101 Legislative 549
102 Legal Counsel -400
104 Contingency 729
110 City Clerk 745
111 Customer Service 4,904
112 Human Resources 80
113 Communication Services 6,027
114 Benefits & Training 500
116 Facilities 64,656
117 City Center 57,806
130 Assessing 448
131 Finance 673
132 Social Services 9,502
133 Planning -200
135 Information Technology 9,925
136 Public Safety Communications 84,320
137 Economic Development 40
150 Park Administration 1,055
151 Park Maintenance 13,719
153 Organized Athletics 1,616
154 Community Center 834
156 Youth Programs 1,631
158 Adult Recreation 586
159 Recreation Administration 11,922
160 Therapeutic Recreation 35
162 Arts 261
163 Outdoor Center 4,143
180 Police 62,068
184 Fire 17,549
185 Animal Control 298
200 Engineering 879
201 Street Maintenance 14,688
202 Street Lighting 2,833
203 Fleet Services 17,886
204 Equipment Revolving 1,012
301 CDBG 2,574
303 Cemetary Operation 17
304 Senior Board 90
308 E-911 1,524
314 Liquor Compliance 8,648
502 Park Development 124,594
503 Utility Improvement 8,675
506 Improvment Bonds 1996 1,021
511 Construction Fund 24,129
515 Fire Station #4 5,980
519 Community Center Referendum 125,273
522 Improvement Projects 2006 4,189
601 Prairie Village Liquor 115,820
602 Den Road Liquor 161,064
603 Prairie View Liquor 85,082
605 Den Road Building 38,890
701 Water Fund 110,626
702 Sewer Fund 228,680
703 Storm Drainage Fund 19,026
802 494 Commuter Services 19,585
803 Escrow Fund 3,900
806 SAC Agency Fund 26,800
807 Benefits Fund 178,727
*** U S Bank 29,610
Report Totals 1,719,312
City of Eden Prairie
Council Check Register
5/1/2007
Check # Amount Vendor / Explanation Account Description Business Unit
2671 29,610 US BANK
162705 340 A MEYER'S ENTERPRISES INC Instructor Service Outdoor Center
162706 3,256 A-SCAPE INC Contract Svcs - Snow Removal Den Bldg. - CAM
162707 82 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant
162708 814 ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE Capital Under $2,000 Furniture
162709 142 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER Repair & Maint. Supplies Den Road Liquor Store
162710 100 ANDERSON, FRANSISKA Refunds Environmental Education
162711 1,065 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
162712 45 BACH, DAVID AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund
162713 2,690 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC Repair & Maint - Ice Rink Ice Arena Maintenance
162714 8,053 BELLBOY CORPORATION Operating Supplies Prairie View Liquor Store
162715 160 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
162716 290 BOLD, PAULINE Instructor Service Outdoor Center
162717 158 BOYER TRUCKS Equipment Parts Fleet Services
162718 25 BREDOW, VERNETT Program Fee Trips
162719 315 BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS Equipment Repair & Maint Traffic Signals
162720 100 CAMERON, MICHAEL Refunds Environmental Education
162721 80 CAMPOS, LORI Instructor Service Outdoor Center
162722 5,685 CARDIAC SCIENCE CORPORATION Operating Supplies Fire
162723 104 CARLSON-BANCROFT, SALLY General 494 Corridor Commission
162724 62 COMCAST General 494 Corridor Commission
162725 3,976 COMCAST Building Fire Station #4
162726 2,185 COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP Refunds CDBG - Public Service
162727 140 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES United Way Withheld General Fund
162728 120 COORDINATED BUSINESS SYSTEMS L General 494 Corridor Commission
162729 561 CORPORATE EXPRESS Office Supplies General
162730 259 CUMMINGS, KIM Travel Expense Fire
162731 4,623 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY Treatment Chemicals Water Treatment Plant
162732 10,173 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store
162733 61 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVI Other Rentals General
162734 205,112 DELANO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS Building Park Acquisition & Development
162735 130 DIERCKS, KATE General 494 Corridor Commission
162736 70 DITCH WITCH OF MINNESOTA INC Equipment Repair & Maint Traffic Signals
162737 330 DOHERTY, SANDRA L Other Contracted Services Volleyball
162738 4,485 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
162739 175 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER Miscellaneous Assessing
162740 369 EF JOHNSON Equipment Repair & Maint Wireless Communication
162741 75 EGGERT, JEFFREY P Employment Support Test Fire
162742 2,872 ELLINGSON DRAINAGE Improvement Contracts Park Acquisition & Development
162743 8,648 ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUP I Other Assets Liquor Compliance
162744 655 ENGINEERED ICE SYSTEMS Contract Svcs - Ice Rink Ice Arena Maintenance
162745 41 ESTLOW, CAITLIN Mileage & Parking Softball
162746 44 EXCEL CONSTRUCTION Cash Over/Short General Fund
162747 215 EXECUTIVE OCEAN Employee Award Internal Events
162748 96 EXTREME BEVERAGE Misc Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store
162749 220 FALCK, TIMOTHY R Other Contracted Services Volleyball
162750 70 FEDEX Postage Police
162751 79 FEDEX KINKO'S OFFICE AND PRINT General 494 Corridor Commission
162752 11 FIRESIDE HEARTH & HOME Cash Over/Short General Fund
162753 1,322 FLEET MAINTENANCE INC Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
162754 383 FSH COMMUNICATIONS LLC Telephone Miller Park
162755 1,114 GE CAPITAL Office Supplies General
162756 17 GENZ RYAN PLUMBING & HEATING Cash Over/Short General Fund
162757 394 GETTMAN COMPANY Misc Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store
162758 77 GRAFIX SHOPPE Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
162759 792 GRAINGER Supplies - General Bldg Community Center Maintenance
162760 1,159 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store
162761 17,596 GRIGGS COOPER & CO Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
162762 30 HANCE ACE HARDWARE Equipment Parts Fleet Services
162763 216 HAYEN, LINDA Operating Supplies Winter Theatre
162764 6,110 HENNEPIN SOUTH SERVICES COLLAB Other Contracted Services Housing, Trans, & Human Serv
162765 176 HENRY, PAUL Other Contracted Services Volleyball
162766 1,092 HOHENSTEINS INC Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store
162767 352 HOLMES, TOM Other Contracted Services Volleyball
162768 11,922 HOUSE OF PRINT Printing Community Brochure
Check # Amount Vendor / Explanation Account Description Business Unit
162769 171 ICI DULUX PAINT CTRS Operating Supplies Park Maintenance
162770 545 IIMC Conference Expense City Clerk
162772 20 INTERNET EXPOSURE General 494 Corridor Commission
162773 535 J J KELLER & ASSOCIATES INC Dues & Subscriptions Utility Operations - General
162774 1,123 JANEX INC Supplies - General Bldg Fire Station #4
162775 102 JENSEN, DON Tuition Reimbursement/School Fire
162776 10,302 JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MN Beer Den Road Liquor Store
162777 28,342 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store
162778 250 KARLSSON, MARY A Other Contracted Services Organizational Services
162779 10 KEEPERS Clothing & Uniforms Reserves
162780 252 L & S HOSPITALITY AND DIRECTOR Advertising Prairie View Liquor Store
162781 830 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC Cleaning Supplies Community Center Maintenance
162782 150 LAMETTRYS COLLISION Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
162783 876 LANO EQUIPMENT INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
162784 6,436 M R SIGN Signs Traffic Signs
162785 173 M. AMUNDSON LLP Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store
162786 25 MACTA Conference Expense Economic Development
162787 213 MADISON, MELISSA General 494 Corridor Commission
162788 10,264 MARK VII Beer Prairie View Liquor Store
162789 420 MENARDS Building Materials Street Maintenance
162790 100 METROPOLITAN FORD Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
162791 197 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION Patching Asphalt Street Maintenance
162792 964 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
162793 22 MILES, SHARON Program Fee Red Hat
162794 16,746 MINNEAPOLIS DOWNTOWN COUNCIL General 494 Corridor Commission
162795 170 MINNESOTA ATHLETIC Operating Supplies Fire
162796 119 MINNESOTA CONWAY Operating Supplies Fire
162797 20 MINNESOTA DEPT OF LABOR AND IN Licenses & Taxes Water Treatment Plant
162798 174 MINNESOTA PIPE AND EQUIPMENT* Repair & Maint. Supplies Water Metering
162799 973 MINNESOTA PRINT MANAGEMENT LLC Office Supplies General
162800 243 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP Electric Riley Lake
162801 186 MINT CONDITION DETAILING INC Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
162802 80 MN PRIMA Conference Expense Human Resources
162803 100 MOLDENHAUER, RON Refunds Environmental Education
162804 889 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
162805 848 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
162806 10 NEWPAPER LLC Operating Supplies Internal Events
162807 100 NOLAN, MARLENE Refunds Environmental Education
162808 250 NORTHERN STAR COUNCIL Conference Expense Organizational Services
162809 100 NYMARK, PAUL E Refunds Environmental Education
162810 771 OAKLAND MARRIOTT -CITY CENTER Travel Expense Fire
162811 7,077 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
162812 527 PENN CYCLE General Bicycle Program
162813 164 PEPSI COLA COMPANY Merchandise for Resale Concessions
162814 15,755 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Liquor Den Road Liquor Store
162815 469 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN Equipment Repair & Maint Water Treatment Plant
162816 266 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING Printing Street Maintenance
162817 1,412 PRECISION FINISHING Signs Traffic Signs
162818 782 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store
162819 136 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
162820 217 PROP United Way Withheld General Fund
162821 141 QUALITY PROPANE Motor Fuels Ice Arena Maintenance
162822 17,181 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
162823 3,035 QWEST Telephone Fire Station #4
162824 70 R & R SPECIALTIES OF WISCONSIN Supplies - General Bldg Ice Arena Maintenance
162825 263 REED BUSINESS INFORMATION Legal Notices Publishing Construction Fund
162826 1,200 ROTH, ANDREW J. Instructor Service Outdoor Center
162827 53 SCHAITBERGER, CHUCK Operating Supplies Fire
162828 120 SCHUCK, SCOTT AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund
162829 217 SHAMROCK GROUP, INC - ACE ICE Misc Non-Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store
162830 29,076 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC Design & Engineering Construction Fund
162831 154 SIEBERT, CHARLES Operating Supplies Internal Events
162832 21 SNAP-ON TOOLS Small Tools Fleet Services
162833 145 SONNY'S BUILDING MAINTENANCE Contract Svcs - Roof City Hall - CAM
162834 980 SOUTH CENTRAL TECHNICAL COLLEG Tuition Reimbursement/School Fire
162835 25 SOUTHWEST TRANSIT General 494 Corridor Commission
162836 1,717 SPECIALTY WINES AND BEVERAGES Liquor Den Road Liquor Store
162837 87 ST. LOUIS PARK, CITY OF Tuition Reimbursement/School Fire
Check # Amount Vendor / Explanation Account Description Business Unit
162838 440 STITELER, SHARON Instructor Service Outdoor Center
162839 4,220 STREICHERS Capital Under $2,000 Police
162840 535 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
162841 462 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
162842 97 SUN NEWSPAPERS Legal Notices Publishing City Clerk
162843 41,884 SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION Improvements to Land Park Acquisition & Development
162844 100 SWANSON, LORI Refunds Environmental Education
162845 595 TCALMC Conference Expense Engineering
162846 127 THIELMAN, MARC Operating Supplies Police
162847 12,966 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store
162848 1,340 TOTAL REGISTER Equipment Repair & Maint Prairie Village Liquor Store
162849 180 UNITED WAY United Way Withheld General Fund
162850 85 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
162851 44 UPS Postage Fire
162852 128 VERIZON WIRELESS General 494 Corridor Commission
162853 1,459 VERSACART SYSTEMS Operating Supplies Den Road Liquor Store
162854 82,319 VIDEOTRONIX INC Equipment Repair & Maint Wireless Communication
162855 268 VINTAGE ONE WINES INC Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
162856 5,970 WALL TRENDS INC Contract Svcs - Gen. Bldg City Center Operations
162857 889 WELLS FARGO BANK General 494 Corridor Commission
162858 1,725 WINE COMPANY, THE Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
162859 4,334 WINE MERCHANTS INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
162860 773 WINE SOURCE INTERNATIONAL Liquor Den Road Liquor Store
162861 21 WOLF CAMERA Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant
162862 306 WORLD CLASS WINES INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
162863 129,461 XCEL ENERGY Electric Water Treatment Plant
162864 6,705 YALE MECHANICAL INC Contract Svcs - HVAC Park Shelters
162866 231 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. Waste Disposal Den Road Liquor Store
162867 75 DAKOTA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEG Licenses & Taxes Fleet Services
162868 94 GORMAN, GARY AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund
162869 138 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS Other Contracted Services Engineering
162870 163 MEYER, TODD AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund
162871 61 NEWPAPER LLC Operating Supplies Internal Events
162872 605 NRPA Dues & Subscriptions Parks Administration
162873 18 STATE OF MINNESOTA Operating Supplies Fleet Services
162876 350 A MEYER'S ENTERPRISES INC Instructor Service Outdoor Center
162877 28 AMERICAN MESSAGING Pager & Cell Phone Water System Maintenance
162878 48 APPRAISAL INSTITUTE Dues & Subscriptions Assessing
162879 4,406 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. Waste Disposal Fire Station #4
162880 6,678 AWWA CUSTOMER SERVICE Dues & Subscriptions Utility Operations - General
162881 60 BOGREN, ANN Canine Supplies Police
162882 100 BOLD, PAULINE Instructor Service Outdoor Center
162883 80 CAMPOS, LORI Instructor Service Outdoor Center
162884 100 CHACKO, EAPEN Refunds Environmental Education
162885 74 COSTCO Operating Supplies Police
162886 297 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE Operating Supplies Police
162887 34 CULLIGAN-METRO Other Contracted Services Outdoor Center
162888 131 CUMMINGS, KIM Mileage & Parking Fire
162889 319 D'AMICO AND SONS Miscellaneous City Council
162890 519 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVI Other Rentals General
162891 1,710 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Software Maintenance Information Technology
162892 400 FBINAA Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
162893 54 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY Equipment Parts Fleet Services
162894 40 HICKMAN, JON Instructor Service Outdoor Center
162895 395 IMPRIMUS FORENSIC SERVICES LLC Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
162896 130 MACA Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
162897 2,340 MINNESOTA BD OF PEACE OFFICER Dues & Subscriptions Police
162898 325 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
162899 150 MN HTCIA Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
162900 135 QWEST Telephone Water Distribution
162901 500 REDWOOD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPAR Deposits Escrow
162902 100 RICE COUNTY K-9 FUND Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
162903 40 SECRETARY OF STATE Dues & Subscriptions Police
162904 56 UPS Equipment Repair & Maint Water Metering
162905 62 VERIZON WIRELESS Pager & Cell Phone Police
162906 36 W GORDON SMITH COMPANY, THE Motor Fuels Fleet Services
162907 40,160 XCEL ENERGY Electric Traffic Signals
162908 691 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER Miscellaneous City Manager
Check # Amount Vendor / Explanation Account Description Business Unit
162909 29 RICHFIELD, CITY OF Operating Supplies Fleet Services
162910 35 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference Expense Engineering
162911 3,071 US POSTMASTER Postage Fire
162912 539 US POSTMASTER - HOPKINS Postage Senior Center Administration
162913 3,393 IND SCHOOL DIST 272 Other Contracted Services Housing, Trans, & Human Serv
162914 1,384 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR Garnishment Withheld General Fund
162915 75 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER Operating Supplies Preschool Events
162916 560 ADMINISTRATION RESOURCES CORP Other Contracted Services Finance
162917 297 AFFILIATED EMERGENCY VETERINAR Canine Supplies Police
162918 20 AIR MECHANICAL Cash Over/Short General Fund
162919 679 AIR POWER EQUIPMENT CORPORATIO Contract Svcs - Fire/Life/Safe Fire Station #3
162920 65 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI Dues & Subscriptions Utility Operations - General
162921 132 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER Repair & Maint. Supplies Prairie View Liquor Store
162922 348 AMSAN BRISSMAN-KENNEDY Cleaning Supplies Community Center Maintenance
162923 727 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY Other Contracted Services City Manager
162924 155 ARNDT, GARY AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund
162925 62 ASSOCIATED BAG COMPANY Operating Supplies Police
162926 609 AUTOMATED ENTRANCE PRODUCTS IN Building Repair & Maint. Den Road Liquor Store
162927 309 AVI SYSTEMS INC Video & Photo Supplies Communication Services
162928 1,316 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC Supplies - General Bldg Ice Arena Maintenance
162929 5,940 BELLBOY CORPORATION Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store
162930 106 BERTELSON OFFICE PLUS Operating Supplies Utility Operations - General
162931 1,492 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS Contract Svcs - Security Community Center Maintenance
162932 7,900 BLUE WATER SCIENCE Other Contracted Services Storm Drainage
162933 814 BOYER TRUCKS Equipment Parts Fleet Services
162934 324 BROADWAY AWARDS Operating Supplies Reserves
162935 150 BUTCHER, SHERRY Miscellaneous City Council
162936 2,680 CARUS PHOSPHATES INC Treatment Chemicals Water Treatment Plant
162937 212 CHOICE INC Other Contracted Services Prairie Village Liquor Store
162938 44 CINGULAR WIRELESS Pager & Cell Phone Police
162939 2,669 CLAREYS INC Operating Supplies Utility Operations - General
162940 501 COLOR PRINTING Printing Police
162941 260 CONTROL STUFF INC. Process Control Services Water Treatment Plant
162942 2,418 CORPORATE EXPRESS Office Supplies General
162943 1,533 CRUISERS Capital Under $2,000 Fleet Services
162944 36 CUMMINGS, KIM Travel Expense Fire
162945 442 CUSTOM HOSE TECH Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant
162946 6,706 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY Treatment Chemicals Water Treatment Plant
162947 8,337 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie View Liquor Store
162948 223 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
162949 9,247 DELL Computers Fire Station #4
162950 856 DISPLAY SALES Supplies - General Building City Center Operations
162951 461 DITCH WITCH OF MINNESOTA INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
162952 45 DRAMATIC PUBLISHING Other Contracted Services Arts Initiative
162953 1,360 DYNA SYSTEMS Repair & Maint. Supplies Water System Maintenance
162954 4,724 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store
162955 90 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER Miscellaneous City Council
162956 2,620 EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION INC Instructor Service Water Treatment Plant
162957 25 EMS REGULATORY BOARD Miscellaneous City Manager
162958 347 ESPRESSO MIDWEST INC Supplies - General Bldg Public Works/Parks
162959 10,004 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC Repair & Maint. Supplies Storm Drainage
162960 900 EXTREME BEVERAGE Misc Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store
162961 86 FIRE FINDINGS Dues & Subscriptions Police
162962 281 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL Canine Supplies Police
162963 270 FORESTEDGE WINERY Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
162964 2,169 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC. Safety Supplies Park Maintenance
162965 318 FORKLIFTS OF MINNESOTA INC Equipment Repair & Maint Water Treatment Plant
162966 676 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL Cleaning Supplies Utility Operations - General
162967 2,077 GARDEN ROOM FRATELLI'S GARDEN Operating Supplies Preschool Events
162968 62 GARELICK STEEL CO INC Operating Supplies Traffic Signals
162969 389 GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES LP-E Building Rental CDBG Fund
162971 1,154 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY Equipment Parts Fleet Services
162972 113 GIRARD'S BUSINESS SOLUTIONS IN Other Rentals Finance
162973 208 GLEWWE DOORS INC Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant
162974 89 GOLDEN VALLEY HEATING & AIR Cash Over/Short General Fund
162975 25 GOOGLE INC Other Contracted Services Police
162976 192 GOT SWAT GEAR.COM INC Clothing & Uniforms Police
162977 729 GRAINGER Supplies - General Bldg Reserve
Check # Amount Vendor / Explanation Account Description Business Unit
162978 1,314 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store
162979 185 GREAT AMERICAN BUSINESS PRODUC Operating Supplies Community Center Admin
162980 35,968 GREYSTONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Building Den Road Building
162981 15,267 GRIGGS COOPER & CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store
162982 450 GUARANTY TITLE INC Land Planning & Development
162983 31 H P PIPEWORKS Cash Over/Short General Fund
162984 3,720 HAWKINS INC Treatment Chemicals Water Treatment Plant
162985 747 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD Repair & Maint. Supplies Water System Maintenance
162986 178,727 HEALTHPARTNERS Medical Bills Prepaid Health and Benefits
162987 4,364 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
162988 2,180 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Board of Prisoner Police
162989 88 HENRY, PAUL Other Contracted Services Volleyball
162990 35 HOCHREIN, PAMELA Program Fee Water Games
162991 37 HUDSON MAP COMPANY Operating Supplies Police
162992 1,936 HYDROLOGIC Repair & Maint. Supplies Park Maintenance
162993 227 ICI DULUX PAINT CTRS Operating Supplies Park Maintenance
162994 55 IMAGETECH SERVICES Operating Supplies Park Maintenance
162995 1,906 IND SCHOOL DIST 272 Transportation Special Events & Trips
162996 422 INNOVATIVE GRAPHICS Clothing & Uniforms Police
162997 102 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR Small Tools Assessing
162998 181 INTOXIMETERS Equipment Repair & Maint Police
162999 542 ISD #273 EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS General 494 Corridor Commission
163000 53 JANEX INC Cleaning Supplies Utility Operations - General
163001 12,453 JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MN Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store
163002 141 JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA IN Maintenance Contracts Water Treatment Plant
163005 37,837 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store
163006 35 JOHNSON, TOM Program Fee Outdoor Center
163007 675 KEEPERS Clothing & Uniforms Police
163008 115 KEMPSTON, LISA Program Fee Camps
163009 100 KENSICKI, BRIAN Refunds Environmental Education
163010 139 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC Operating Supplies Park Maintenance
163011 1,492 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC Operating Supplies Utility Operations - General
163012 8 LAMB, ELLISE Program Fee Outdoor Center
163013 2,603 LAMETTRYS COLLISION Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
163014 473 LANZI, BOB Mileage & Parking Ice Arena
163015 1,928 LAVAN FLOOR COVERING Supplies - General Building City Center Operations
163016 1,093 LAZNIARZ, HENRY Deposits Escrow
163017 85 LEROY JOB TRUCKING INC Kennel Services Animal Control
163018 214 LESCO INC Chemicals Park Maintenance
163019 218 LOFFLER COMPANIES INC Other Contracted Services Police
163020 156 M. AMUNDSON LLP Operating Supplies Den Road Liquor Store
163021 8,675 MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC Improvement Contracts Utility Improvement Fund
163022 13,289 MARK VII Beer Prairie View Liquor Store
163023 802 MAROTTA, VIC Instructor Service Winter Skill Development
163024 151 MCCORMICK, CHARLES AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund
163025 100 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL Refunds Environmental Education
163026 2,059 MENARDS Operating Supplies Park Maintenance
163027 186 METALS JOINING LAB CO INC Operating Supplies Utility Operations - General
163028 19,652 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Due to Other Governments SAC Agency Fund
163029 231,524 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME Waste Disposal Sewer Utility - General
163030 439 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
163031 3,129 MIDWEST DESIGN CO Other Contracted Services Communication Services
163032 934 MINNESOTA ATHLETIC Miscellaneous Police
163033 160 MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASS Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
163034 132 MINNESOTA CITY/COUNTY MANAGEME Dues & Subscriptions City Manager
163035 231 MINNESOTA GLOVE INC Safety Supplies Fleet Services
163036 825 MINNESOTA PIPE AND EQUIPMENT* Equipment Parts Water Metering
163037 186 MINT CONDITION DETAILING INC Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
163038 924 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
163039 36 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY Dues & Subscriptions Communication Services
163040 1,155 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
163041 277 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
163042 345 NORTHWEST BUSINESS SYSTEMS Other Contracted Services Den Road Liquor Store
163043 37 NORTHWEST RESPIRATORY SERVICE Operating Supplies Fire
163044 90 PAPER DIRECT INC Operating Supplies Senior Board
163045 5,074 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC Safety Supplies Fire
163046 5,926 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store
163047 382 PC MALL Other Hardware Information Technology
Check # Amount Vendor / Explanation Account Description Business Unit
163048 78 PEPSI COLA COMPANY Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store
163049 100 PETERSON, TROY Refunds Environmental Education
163050 138 PETSMART Canine Supplies Police
163051 16,713 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Liquor Den Road Liquor Store
163052 104 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO Equipment Parts Fleet Services
163053 76 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
163054 4,002 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY Contract Svcs - Electrical City Center Operations
163055 8,958 PRAIRIE PARTNERS SIX LLP Building Rental Prairie Village Liquor Store
163056 7,684 PRAIRIEVIEW RETAIL LLC Building Rental Prairie View Liquor Store
163057 764 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Imported Prairie Village Liquor Store
163058 44 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
163059 3,272 PROFESSIONAL FOODSERVICE Miscellaneous Police
163060 319 PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CONSULT Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
163061 39 QUALITY PROPANE Motor Fuels Ice Arena Maintenance
163062 20,144 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store
163063 335 R A DORAN & ASSOCIATES Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
163064 345 RCM & ASSOCIATES Capital Under $2,000 Assessing
163065 96 REED BUSINESS INFORMATION Legal Notices Publishing Engineering
163066 100 RINGSMUTH, DAVID Refunds Environmental Education
163067 100 ROREM, STEVEN Refunds Environmental Education
163068 131 SHRED-IT Waste Disposal City Center Operations
163069 2,210 SIGNSOURCE Other Contracted Services Communication Services
163070 199 SPECIALTY WINES AND BEVERAGES Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store
163071 174 ST. LOUIS PARK, CITY OF Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
163072 45 STATE SUPPLY COMPANY Supplies - Plumbing City Hall - CAM
163073 100 STOCKHAM, MARIA Refunds Environmental Education
163074 5,893 STREICHERS Protective Clothing Reserves
163075 10 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET Equipment Parts Fleet Services
163076 642 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC Tires Fleet Services
163077 104 SUN NEWSPAPERS Legal Notices Publishing City Clerk
163078 62 SZECSI, GABRIELLA Program Fee Camps
163079 55 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO Equipment Parts Fleet Services
163080 310 TESSMAN SEED CO Chemicals Park Maintenance
163081 22,362 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store
163082 714 TLC CAFE & CATERING Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
163083 288 TRI STATE PUMP & CONTROL Contract Svcs - Plumbing City Hall - CAM
163084 666 TRI-ANIM HEALTH SERVICES INC Safety Supplies Fire
163085 32,772 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Clothing & Uniforms Police
163086 194 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC Operating Supplies Park Maintenance
163087 4,004 VALLEY RICH CO INC Other Contracted Services Water System Maintenance
163088 68 VERIZON WIRELESS Software and Hardware Information Technology
163089 327 VINOCOPIA Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store
163090 298 VSA INC Video & Photo Supplies Communication Services
163091 195 WALSER CHRYSLER JEEP Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services
163092 1,044 WINE COMPANY, THE Wine Imported Prairie Village Liquor Store
163093 2,310 WINE MERCHANTS INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
163094 3,087 WORLD CLASS WINES INC Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
163095 20 YAHOO! Other Contracted Services Police
163096 9,017 YALE MECHANICAL INC Contract Svcs - HVAC Den Bldg. - CAM
163097 985 ZIEGLER INC Contract Svcs - General Bldg Public Works/Parks
163098 10 ZURN, REVONDA Program Fee Outdoor Center
1,719,312 Grand Total
US Bank Purchasing Cards
Wire # 2668 - 2671
Payment Date 4/20/2007
Amount Supplier Account Description Business Unit
10 THE BACKUP TRAINING CORP Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
415 HILTON HOTELS Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
60 SAFE KIDS WORLDWIDE Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
66 A QUICK DELIVRTY Postage Communication Services
8 WALMART COMMUNITY Video & Photo Supplies Communication Services
17 FEDEX KINKO'S OFFICE AND PRINT Miscellaneous Fire Station #1
725 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE & VID Video & Photo Supplies Communication Services
15 WALMART COMMUNITY Miscellaneous Fire Station #1
80 1ST INFORMATION GUIDE OF LAS V Printing Prairie Village Liquor Store
80 1ST INFORMATION GUIDE OF LAS V Printing Den Road Liquor Store
80 1ST INFORMATION GUIDE OF LAS V Printing Prairie View Liquor Store
105 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Conference Expense City Council
14 NORTHWEST AIRLINES Travel Expense City Council
265 NORTHWEST AIRLINES Travel Expense City Council
96 TARGET Operating Supplies Girls on the Run
2,544 HOM FURNITURE Other Assets Fire Station #4
12 SWEETWATER GRIL Operating Supplies Fire
27 PASTRAMI JACK'S Operating Supplies Fire
113 THE ROBERTS COMPANY Operating Supplies Internal Events
13 SWEETWATER GRIL Operating Supplies Fire
376 EXPEDIA Travel Expense Fire
5 EXPEDIA Travel Expense Fire
9,765 ICON FITNESS Other Assets Fire
5,221 ICON FITNESS Other Assets Fire
80 KOWALSKI'S MARKET Operating Supplies Fire
10 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Training Supplies Organizational Services
6 ORBITZ Travel Expense Organizational Services
5 ORBITZ Travel Expense Organizational Services
190 MARRIOTT WATERFRONT HOTEL Travel Expense Organizational Services
190 MARRIOTT WATERFRONT HOTEL Travel Expense Organizational Services
190 MARRIOTT WATERFRONT HOTEL Travel Expense Organizational Services
199 ORBITZ Travel Expense Organizational Services
266 ORBITZ Travel Expense Organizational Services
110 DAVANNI'S PIZZA Training Supplies Sewer Utility - General
19 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Postage General
30 ORBITZ Travel Expense Organizational Services
40 ORBITZ Travel Expense Organizational Services
1,957 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Building Surcharge General Fund
386 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Mechanical Surcharge General Fund
180 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Plumbing Surcharge General Fund
-50 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Other Revenue General Fund
1,104 CHANHASSEN DINNER THEATRE Special Event Fees Trips
100 D'AMICO AND SONS Other Contracted Services Community Brochure
102 D'AMICO AND SONS Operating Supplies Senior Center Operations
430 HISTORY THEATRE Special Event Fees Red Hat
275 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION Conference Expense Communication Services
25 CHEVRON Deposits Escrow
17 HILTON HOTELS Deposits Escrow
32 MSP AIRPORT Deposits Escrow
102 DOLLAR RAC Deposits Escrow
357 HILTON HOTELS Deposits Escrow
59 GINA MARIAS INC Miscellaneous City Council
382 ORBITZ Travel Expense Fire
317 LEEANN CHIN Miscellaneous City Council
52 ORBITZ Travel Expense Fire
422 ORBITZ Travel Expense Fire
105 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Travel Expense City Manager
28 OLD CHICAGO RESTAURANT Miscellaneous City Manager
73 MILIO'S SANDWICHES Miscellaneous City Council
10 MILIO'S SANDWICHES Miscellaneous City Council
7 TIGER TECHNOLOGIES Software Information Technology
125 ARMA INTERNATIONAL INC. Conference Expense City Clerk
128 I-SAFE Operating Supplies Police
128 I-SAFE Operating Supplies Police
96 MENARDS Capital Under $2,000 Outdoor Center
41 BEST BUY Recreation Supplies Youth Programs Administration
33 TICKETMASTER Special Event Fees Special Events & Trips
264 TICKETMASTER Special Event Fees Special Events & Trips
583 TICKETMASTER Special Event Fees Special Events & Trips
67 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA Special Event Fees Teen Programs
-13 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA Special Event Fees Around Town
10 WALMART COMMUNITY Operating Supplies Therapeutic Rec Administration
179 TICKETMASTER Operating Supplies Around Town
54 PAYPAL INC Software Maintenance Information Technology
29,610 Report Total
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Appointments
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Scott Neal, City Manager
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Appointments to the Community
Technology Task Force
ITEM NO.: XIII.A.
Requested Action
Move to appoint Scott Otis, Steve Sandness, Matt Thomas, Gary Hansen, Mike Schnapf, Kiran Mysore,
Heather Peterson, Marc Soldner, Ron Woods, Jodi Russell, and Rich Miller to the Community
Technology Task Force.
Synopsis
The Council recently approved forming a Community Technology Task Force to study issues related to
broadband services in Eden Prairie. Our goal is to appoint up to 15 members that represent a broad cross-
section of the community including residents, large and small businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, the
School District, HTC, and Hennepin County Library. My recommendation is to appoint the following
people that have committed to serving on the Task Force.
Member Title Representing
1. Scott Otis VP of Service Management/Resident ADC Telecommunications
2. Steve Sandness President/Resident Agate Partners (home-based)
3. Matt Thomas General Manager Best Buy
4. Gary Hansen VP of Technology/Resident BI Inc.
5. Mike Schnapf Chief Information Officer Digital River
6. Kiran Mysore Manager of Enterprise Systems GE Fleet Services
7. Heather Peterson Technology Services Hennepin County Library
8. Marc Soldner Chief Information Officer/Resident Hennepin Technical College
9. Ron Woods Owner/Resident IT Phenom Inc. (home-based)
10. Jody Russell Owner/Resident Thunder Communication Design
11. Rich Muller Owner/Resident Micro Business Strategies (Chamber)
Six other potential members have been contacted, but they have not yet committed. Recommendations
for the remaining positions will be made at the May 15 Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Reports of the Director of Public Works
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Eugene A. Dietz
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives
EAW
ITEM NO.: XIV.E.1.
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt resolution finding that the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW is
determined to be accurate and complete and that there is a finding of no significant
impact.
Synopsis
At its April 23 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to advise the City Council that the
EAW document is accurate and complete and that no further investigation of environmental
impacts is needed. While there was debate about the relevancy of the studied alternatives, there
was consensus that enough had been studied relating to the six alternatives to finalize the
document. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the finding of no significant impact.
Background Information
The attached documents represent the record that was established at the April 23, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting. Staff will make a presentation at the May 1 Council meeting to further
explain information in the attachments.
Attachments
1) Resolution
2) Excerpt from the unapproved Planning Commission minutes of April 23, 2007
3) Memorandum from Director of Public Works to Eden Planning Commission dated April
19, 2007
4) Map exhibit from Hennepin Village PUD Concept Approval Developers Agreement
dated 2-19-02
5) Matrix prepared by Eapen Chacko summarizing EAW issues
6) EAW revision comment summary
7) EAW general comment summary
8) Comment letters
HENNEPIN VILLAGE ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES EAW
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-____
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
FOR THE HENNEPIN VILLAGE ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES WORKSHEET DOES
NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet for the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives on both March 12, 2007 and
April 9, 2007, and did recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet as
accurate and complete, and that no further investigation of environmental impacts is needed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives on March 20, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council
that the EAW was complete, accurate and did not require further environmental review; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie reviewed the Record of Decision on the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet on May 1, 2007.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for the Hennepin Village
Roadway Alternatives.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 1st day of May, 2007.
____________________
Phil Young, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
(Excerpt From Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes, 4/23/07)
VII. PLANNERS REPORTS
A. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW Determination of
Accuracy and Completeness
Stoltz asked the Commission Members if they felt the EAW was accurate
and complete.
Koenig stated she would still like more information on this project and did
not feel the comments were complete. Dietz stated a lot of the comments
were editorial in nature and that is why they appeared incomplete.
Stovering said a lot of questions could not be adequately answered, so that
is why they are being forwarded on to the City Council.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Schultz, to advise the City Council
that the EAW document is accurate and complete, and that no further
investigation of environmental impacts is needed.
Pitzrick stated he views the EAW as irrelevant. Powell said this study will
never be complete and there will always be issues in regards to the EAW
and the six alternatives. Koenig stated she has lived on and off in Eden
Prairie for 35 years and has felt the southwest area of Eden Prairie was
suppose to be protected and now feels that is not happening. Seymour
said the City is doing a very good of protecting that area and the EAW did
a very good job of addressing the issues.
Stoltz asked Rocheford to repeat his motion. Motion passed 5-2.
B. Presentation of Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives
Stoltz asked the Commission Members for their decision on which
alternative they would like to send to the City Council.
Seymour commented he felt the City has been trying to do right to
preserve the property since the project originated in 2001. Seymour stated
he would pick Alternative 6 to send to the City Council.
Powell said he cannot support Alternative 6 because of safety and traffic
issues. He believes there are other alternatives that could be addressed.
Such as having the City pay to have sprinklers put in all the homes in the
area or work with MAC to find an access road. He stated as a last resort
he would go with Alternative 5, but he will not support Alternative 6.
Koenig concurred with what Powell stated. She believes there is too much
environmentally at stake with Alternative 6 and she does not support any
of the options.
Schultz pointed out that Alternative 6 was originally the first alternative
when this project started in 2001, and the City did come up with five
additional alternatives His recommendation is for Alternative 6. He
believes it is the best route for emergency use and best alternative for
environmental impact.
Pitzrick stated his biggest concern was the process this project has gone
through. He pointed out that the City came up with five additional
alternatives that did not resolve the problems associated with this project.
He believes this entire process was distorted. Because he would like to
preserve the uniqueness of Eden Prairie, he does not support any of the six
alternatives.
Rocheford stated he supports Alternative 6.
Stoltz stated Alternative 6 is the best option. He commented that the City
did a good job moving forward on this project.
The overall results from the Planning Commission are as follows:
4 members in favor of Alternative 6 – Prospect Road
3 members opposed to Alternative 6
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 19, 2007
To: Eden Prairie Planning Commission
From: Eugene A. Dietz, P.E., Director of Public Works
Subject: EAW
Staff requests that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending to the City
Council that “The Hennepin Village Roadways Alternatives – Discretionary EAW is
Complete and Accurate”. The balance of this memorandum and attachments provides
both background and basis for this conclusion in preparation for the 4/23/07 meeting.
BACKGROUND and NEED FOR EAW
First of all, it should be noted that this EAW was not a study to determine if the
area/neighborhood surrounding Eden Prairie Road should be developed, or not. The
decision to develop this area was actually made with the 1990 MUSA expansion and
reaffirmed with Hennepin Village decisions in 2001 and with the finalization of the
Guide Plan Update in 2002. The 160 acres that are generally adjacent to Eden Prairie
Road, south of Riley Creek, has an apparent development capacity of approximately 400
units (335 if the modification to Hennepin Village at Oak Creek occurs—reducing units
from approximately 180 to 90 units). Accommodating that number of units in this type
of challenging environmental setting typically leads to density transfer options.
The concept for Hennepin Village was a very significant planning event in our history.
The project received unanimous PUD concept plan approval from both the Community
Planning Board and the City Council on November 13 and November 20, 2001,
respectively. A few of the significant elements of that plan approval are:
• Developer’s Agreement dated February 19, 2002 provides for an East/West
connection road (see attached map).
• Although the staff report required that the entire roadway be completed with
Hennepin Village Site A, the requirement was modified during the Council
process.
• The Agreement states that the roadway will be built in two segments –segment 1
with Site A and segment 2 with Site B (contingent upon Eden Prairie Road and
utilities being available).
• The past and future costs that will or have been incurred for infrastructure
improvements to accommodate this development are on the order of $16 Million--
ranking these improvements as one of the top ten infrastructure projects in Eden
Prairie history.
• This PUD was a highly negotiated solution to a 250 acre project. It included over
70 acres of dedication that allowed the higher density clustered into the Sites of
A, B and C and as an inducement to approve a project that has a number of
environmental challenges.
• The result was clearly a compromise. In return for the developer doing all that
was included in the approved plan (including Prospect Road), the Planning Board
and City Council granted approvals to develop this highly sensitive and
remarkable piece of Eden Prairie.
When the Planning Commission reviewed the Hennepin Village at Oak Creek project last
summer, questions were raised during the hearing process concerning environmental
impacts of constructing Prospect Road. One of the most serious questions raised that
could not be answered by staff was the possible impact that this road project could have
on Miller Spring. While there was no science indicating that there would be an impact,
there was no expertise to counter the argument. The City Council needed additional
information to make a decision to proceed.
City Council authorized a Discretionary EAW at their October 3, 2006 Council meeting
with the following intent:
• The EAW process was selected as the format to review environmental impacts. It
should not be confused with a mandatory EAW that requires a “do nothing
alternative”. This was determined simply to be the best tool to understand and
compare environmental issues.
• Six alternatives were identified and directed for study.
• Alternatives to Prospect Road were deliberately included to ensure that an urban
solution emerged from the process.
• During the preliminary review of the Hennepin Village PUD, staff had generally
identified alternatives and rejected them in favor of the Prospect Road alignment
as ultimately proposed by the developer. However, there was no formal record of
that internal process.
• It was critical that if Prospect Road were to be rejected by City Council that there
be a full understanding of the impacts of other alternatives.
This Discretionary EAW process was the vehicle to identify significant impacts to the
Prospect Road alignment and if there were major impacts that could not be mitigated. If
so, eliminating the Prospect Road alignment needed to be done in concert with a decision
on how else to provide an urban solution for this final major growth area of the
community.
EAW Results
Attached are the following documents:
1) Matrix of Prospect Road EAW summary:
This Matrix was prepared by Eapen Chacko. Although he is the Chair of the
Conservation Commission, this represents his personal work and has no particular
status with the Commission.
2) EAW Revision Comments:
Based on comments received, these are the revisions that are being directed to be
made to the final document in order that it may be considered complete and
accurate.
3) Comment Summary:
At approximately 20 pages, this is a summary of all of the comments received
both in writing and as testimony at public hearings. Some of these comments
resulted in the revisions noted above, while other comments are provided answers
and still others have been determined to be beyond the scope of the final EAW
document, but are included and will be forwarded to City Council during the
decision process for a roadway alternative. Comments that are strictly
editorial/word-smithing in nature were not included.
Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator, will summarize these comments and
corrections at the Planning Commission meeting and we will engage with the
Commission in a discussion of the information.
The Commission and Council have heard hours of testimony on this topic and the record
is closed. Since this is not a public hearing at the Commission meeting on April 23, the
Commission should confine its discussion among the Commission and staff.
Finally, most of the debate at the Public Hearings has focused on a selection of a
particular alternative. In order to complete our task, it will be important to separate the
alternatives analysis from the completeness and accuracy of the EAW. The test for the
EAW has to do with the environmental information that you have on each of the
alternatives. Do you know on a macro level enough about the various alternatives to
understand their comparative impacts? Staff believes that with the modifications made to
the EAW as listed in the attachment, that we do have that information and that the
determination for completeness and accuracy can be made and forwarded to the City
Council.
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
i g2P_EACE4
51•5.
PARK/
OPEN SPACES
85 .
-151.1ALM PROPERTY
..n
:;c-sto iikt Laps 49 a•• Ei
S-Si"----2165-ite C
Site B
DVEL...,,..OPMENT DATA
--i--61 fie.
' 11.5-aq 11-5,st. 42 unit, •--- 3.6 urilan Rtitio,17.0 un/ac)
i'Asrars DeveL Auto tr_opelsed Unite cippi2•Nlyr Qgp24.__
73.5 sc. 22 ac
at. 20 ac.
50 ac. -338 units
184 units
127 units 45 an 9_11 (7.0 un/ac)
25 un/ac.
5.5 un-.....2,39 units ..
202 units •
_ Site D
Total Residential_ 1745 ac. - -t t 01 units- any J01--
- 1a - ._ . -- 4.0a_ Office i . 4.4 . --- -.-..
Lot3 .= 14494,
Lig 4 - 132 . a
' -3•4,2 • 14.2 se.
17 pa_ik open Space '7: 5 - c(40"s &O j f ate area)----- ---- -----
-------7.----, Proposed Guide 12Ltn.....Q...mge
-----,--,..1.•_-_,-----__
Noir All arsees ars 1-, found is neserst 1/2 or.
15.5 ac guided Office to proposed Medium Denlirtyltaildett . ."
m9 ed
—.-_.:---
• .69.3 se. • 23 un/9e. • 4.2 se. 41 7.0 unisc
-.- •• 34.2 au • 7.0 ein/ae. (por City Guide Planl ..-.__.
,-14 tc FARE
. 'MAC PROPERTY
• •
MAC PROPERTY
'E I
I 9
Optional 5-7 at. Neighborhood
Convenience Cbriter Bad
Potential Historic Restoration Site
n I
,
44,-;
41144''' ROA- a
7
STANDAL PROPERTY
24.4 ac. +/-
I opuRTY-1 r
'61'
BRDKuPW2gruN rKur7j1. j_••n:-/
.\t -)7,1
•.;:r/ Off ice
..Lot 6
• .14.5 be CITY OF EDEN num
PARE
- PARK/ •
OPEN SPAQE;
11 ac.
•
HENNEPIN
ILLAQE
123456NotesProject Magnitude9.35 acres 8.46 acres6.74 acres 6.15 acres 6.03 acres2.16 acresChange in Cover Types:Impervious Surfaces+1.37 acres +2.45 acres+0.66 acres+0.72 acres+1.12 acres +0.95 acresWooded Forest -3.42 acres-6.47 acres-4.79 acres -2.05 acres -3.18 acres0Brush/Woodland +2.49 acres +4.52 acres +4.33 acres +1.60 acres +2.56 acres -0.95 acresDry Prairie 0 0 0 -0.12 acres -0.50 acres 0Archaeological SitesYesAdjacentYesAdjacentFragmented Habitat/Yes Yes YesExtent not cited; mitigation not consideredBarrier to Migratory SpeciesHigh Biodiversity Site:Yes Yes YesSignificance and mitigation?Rhombic Petaled Evening PrimroseSurface Water Runoff:% incr imper area by trib watershed 1.4% 0.3%0.1%0.1%0.1%2.7%Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed% increase in runoff 0.058% 0.007%0.003%0.003%0.005%0.308%% increase in phosphorous load 2% 0.3%0.1%0.1%0.1%2.6%GeologyDepth to bedrock, range in feet 150-250 ft 150-200 ft 100-250 ft 100-250 ft200-300 ft100-200 ftDepth to water table, range in ft 10-20 ft 10-20 ft 10-20 ft 10-20 ft 10-20 ft0-20 ft"sensitive to groundwater pollution due to shallow depth of fracturedSteep Slope CrossingYes Yes Yes YesVisual Impact on BluffsYes Yes YesCumulative ImpactYes YesEAPEN CHACKOCodes: Red is a relatively or absolutely inferiorGreen is relatively betterPROSPECT ROAD EAW SUMMARY
Page 1 of 5
Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Leslie A. Stovring, Environmental Coordinator
Date: April 24, 2007
Re: Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives – Discretionary EAW
EAW Revision Comments
11.0 Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
11.1 Some of the alternatives go along the border of the Riley Creek Conservation
Area, which includes a rare ecosystem. This would lead to further edge
degradation of the Riley Creek big woods which is not acknowledged by the
EAW and should be avoided. Could the impacts of the roadway lead to incursion
of invasive species, such as garlic mustard, which were not identified in the
Conservation Areas Survey & Management Plan from June 2000? (Strate)
Response: Revise EAW to note in Question 11B that the Riley Creek Conservation
Area is an area identified in the MLCCS as a high quality natural community that
includes a Site of Biodiversity Significance. Edge degradation is already
occurring within the area around Alternatives 1 and 2 and may be due to
Turnbull Road, private driveways and development on the ridge that currently
serves as a transition between higher quality woods to the north and development
to the south.
11.2 Alternatives 1 and 2 would impact some of the remaining Big Woods left in the
metro area and they are significant, environmental features. (Strate, MN River
Bluff & Riley Creek Assoc.)
Response: Revise Question 11B in the EAW to note that Riley Creek Conservation
Area is an area identified in the MLCCS as a high quality natural community that
includes a Site of Biodiversity Significance. Construction of Options 1 and 2 may
exacerbate edge degradation that is already occurring due to the private road
and development on the ridge that serves as the boundary of the higher quality
woods to the north and the development to the south.
11.3 Provide more information on the type and fragility of the forest soils and duff that
are present that are needed to support these wooded areas and the regionally rare
plant community within them. (Strate)
Response: Revise EAW to note that Alternatives 1 and 2, if selected, would be
constructed with attention to minimizing removal of trees and preventing erosion.
11.4 Kitten-tails were within the proposed construction area for Prospect Road when
the entire grading footprint is laid out (Pemtom).
Page 2 of 5
Response – Revise EAW to include a statement that the City has evaluated the
design layout for Prospect Road and has determined that the road and associated
stormwater ponding requirements can be designed to avoid the kitten-tails and
reduce the grading footprint.
11.5 Acknowledge the proximity of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge to the EAW
study area. It is afforded protection through the 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan
and the Council’s review authority for impacts of Metropolitan Significance. (Met
Council)
Response – Add a paragraph to the EAW that discusses the general proximity of
the MVWF to the EAW study area.
17.0 Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff
17.1 The table is confusing and difficult to understand. The amount of increase (acres
i.e.) should be used for comparison rather than percentage. What is the relation of
tributary subwatershed to impervious area in acres? (Various, Conservation
Commission)
Response: Add a column to the table detailing the size of the subwatershed in
acres to allow comparison with the percentages reported.
17.2 Mention that Riley Creek and Minnesota River are both listed as impaired waters
for turbidity. Turbidity problems have impacted aquatic life in Riley Creek and
should be considered. Projects that might negatively impact Riley Creek may be
required to provide additional levels of water quality improvement in the future
and should be planned for. More specific information is needed to determine if
the measures proposed are adequate to protect the creek from additional impacts
that would further impair the creek. (DNR, Met Council, Conservation
Commission)
Response – Revise the EAW to include information on the impaired water status
of Riley Creek and how this will be addressed in the plans developed for the
alternative selected.
17.3 A Metropolitan Council monitoring station is being managed by the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District at the intersection of Flying Cloud
Drive and Riley Creek. This data should be incorporated into the EAW as a way
to provide baseline data to allow monitoring of the project to help protect the
creek from further impacts. (Conservation Commission)
Response: Revise the EAW to clarify that creek baseline hydrologic, water
quality and macroinvertebrate data from that monitoring station were used for
preparation of the EAW.
25.0 Parks, Recreation Areas, and Trails
25.1 Clarify trail access within area and location of trail head. (Boland, Strate)
Page 3 of 5
Response – Add to the EAW how the trail could be accessed by local residents
through the trail built alongside the road for the Oak Creek / Prospect Road
project.
21.0 Traffic
21.1 Clarify existing improvement plan for Dell Road and that these plans would go
forward regardless of the alternative selected. (Boland, Johnson, etc.)
Response – Take the word “may” out of the EAW paragraph on future
construction of Dell Road as it is planned to improved in the future regardless of
alternative selected.
21.2 Include a “no-build” alternative for Eden Prairie Road. Discuss how Eden Prairie
Road could be upgraded within the current alignment to improve safety and avoid
the need for the other alternatives. (Met Council, Conservation Commission,
Pitzrick, Tundel, AquaEssence ReSource, Mathewson)
Response – Revise the EAW to address the ability to upgrade Eden Prairie Road
to provide a “no-build” alternative. Example text:
A No-build Alternative was determined to be not feasible and as such was not
evaluated as an Alternative. There are five (5) major deficiencies affecting safe
operation of the south end of Eden Prairie Road. These include:
• Sight distance limitations through curves
• Curve design speed
• Grades in excess of 14 percent
• Width is less than 25 feet, should be 32 feet wide to handle the traffic
projected for this area
• Approach grade is greater than 1 percent at the intersection with Flying
Cloud Drive (TH 212)
These deficiencies combined make this segment an unacceptable alternative to
connect a neighbourhood with a high volume and high speed segment of highway.
As traffic is added through build-out conditions for this area, these deficiencies
would be more likely to cause future traffic safety issues.
The decision was made in the City’s Comprehensive Plan to develop this area and
infrastructure is needed to support this development. Since this area will develop
and Eden Prairie Road has these five major deficiencies, it is not an appropriate
solution as a roadway alternative.
29.0 Cumulative Impacts
29.1 The cumulative effects section is incomplete. The “cumulative potential effects”
inquiry requires a RGU to inquire whether a proposed project, which may not
individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, could
have a significant effect when considered along with other projects that are (1)
already in existence, actually planned for, or for which a basis of expectation has
Page 4 of 5
been laid; (2) located in the surrounding area; and (3) might reasonably be
expected to affect the same natural resources. (MPCA)
Response – Revise the EAW to provide more information on impacts beyond 2008
with known conditions and guide plan designation.
29.2 The bluff protection ordinance requirements, potential groundwater and surface
water, and/or ecologically sensitive native plant community impacts have not
been adequately investigated to assess each alternative’s cumulative
environmental impacts. (Met Council)
Response – Revise the EAW to state that the City is aware that construction
impacts will need to be evaluated further if Alternatives 1 through 5 are selected.
29.3 Concerned that there could be down-gradient impacts to the adjacent Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge, a potential impact of Metropolitan Significance.
(Met Council)
Response: Revise the EAW to address how Alternatives that are visible from the
valley may have a visual impact, but physical impacts such as stormwater volume
or pollutant loading are limited by stormwater management and erosion and
sedimentation control
29.4 The additive impact of volume and loading resulting from future projects as the
watershed develops could be significant and should not be minimized in the
report. (DNR)
Response: Revise the Cumulative Impacts section to expand this discussion and
to note that future development will be subject to city and watershed stormwater
management and Nondegradation rules and standards to minimize further
impacts.
30.0 Summary of Issues
30.1 Discussion of additional evaluation required is incomplete. (Various)
Incorporate the following issues into Question 30 as part of the staff report
prepared for the March, 2007 Planning Commission.
• Reforest cleared areas where feasible.
• Provide compensatory storage for floodplain areas filled by the project as
needed.
• Mitigate or replace filled wetlands as needed.
• Ensure compliance with the City’s stormwater management ordinance, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) stormwater pollution
prevention program and Watershed District requirements.
• Incorporate infiltration, including rainwater gardens, grassed swales or
stormwater ponds, to remove nutrients and sediment and reduce thermal
loads to water resources.
Page 5 of 5
• Prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention program that
includes best management practices for solid waste, hazardous waste and
spill management.
• Conduct an evaluation for special concern, threatened or endangered species
within the selected corridor and prepare plans to avoid or minimize impacts
to the identified species in conjunction with the DNR
• Evaluate stormwater treatment alternatives and their potential impacts to
resources (including fish, wildlife, ecologically sensitive, water and
archeological resources) within the selected corridor
• Evaluate construction of a bridge crossing (Alternative 6) to determine costs,
construction limitations and whether it would significantly reduce impacts to
the floodplain and/or wetlands within the crossing area
• Evaluate culvert sizing to minimize increases in creek surface elevations and
velocity impacts to the creek (Alternative 6)
• Conduct an archeological study and prepare a mitigation plan as needed
(Alternatives 1 through 4) for any areas within the construction limits prior to
development of construction plans
• Conduct further analysis to evaluate groundwater flow towards Frederick-
Miller Spring as needed (Alternatives 3 through 5)
• Evaluate the Shore Impact and Bluff Impact Zone ordinances and
requirements to determine whether a waiver from any of these requirements
would be necessary and should be granted based on the need for road
construction, and any necessary mitigative measures.
Page 1 of 24
Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Leslie A. Stovring, Environmental Coordinator
Date: April 24, 2007
Re: Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives – Discretionary EAW
EAW - General Comment Summary
Question 7 – Project Magnitude
7.1 Prospect Road is a roadway that the Planning Commission and City Council approved 5
years ago and should not be considered as an “alternative” but an approved choice that
should be a Hennepin Village issue. Prospect Road clearly stands out as the most
“environmentally friendly” and least expensive alternative of all the road alternatives
presented. (Barron Johnson, Travis Wuttke)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
7.2 Evaluate adding a second egress (street or public safety access road) to serve Summit
Oaks (Site A or the existing townhome development on the east side of Riley Creek) to
Spring Road instead of building Prospect Road. (Strate)
Response: This alternative was evaluated during the development review process for
Hennepin Village and Site A. The alternative was determined to be not feasible due to
the grades and stormwater infiltration needs within this area.
7.3 Evaluate redirecting a secondary access through the southeast end of the development
going through the old Cedar Hills golf course since that is one of the primary reasons
for the need for a new road. (McLaughlin)
Response: Locations for secondary access to Site A were evaluated during the
development review process for Hennepin Village and Site A. However, your comment
will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
7.4 Angle Eden Prairie Road westward down the bluff top towards Highway 212 to achieve
a less steep grade as impacts have already occurred in this area. (Strate)
Response: The area evaluated for Alternative 5 includes a westward route down the
bluff that was determined to be the best conceptual option for this area to meet
reasonable grades.
7.5 If Alternate 6 is rejected, there would be no road crossings of Riley Creek between Old
Dell Road and Spring Road. This fact should be sited in the EAW. (Strate)
Response: Actually, within this reach of Riley Creek there is one crossing for Eden
Prairie Road just north of Hennepin Village and there is a second within the Cedar
Hills golf course. Currently there are a total of 7 creek crossings south of Lake Riley.
7.6 Believes that the study does not adequately address the other local roads, driveways,
sidewalks, roof tops or other impervious surfaces that would be added with the
Page 2 of 24
completion of Alternatives 1 or 2. Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6 are in a terrain that would
not likely host additional development so feels the data is misleading. The long-term,
net environmental impact of Alternates 1 and 2 will not be that much different if either
one is rejected because these areas are most likely to be developed anyway. (Strate)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Question 10 – Cover Types
10.1 The Alternatives connecting Beverly Drive to Turnbull Road appear to potentially
impact a wooded “primeval” or “primordial” pond which should be avoided. This pond
would be within 50 feet of the alternatives and would destroy a unique environment.
The pond would easily become contaminated by sands, salts and other contaminants.
(Hron, McLaughlin)
Response: This is likely Water Body #29-32-A which is designated as a Moderate
Quality wet meadow within a forested watershed in the City’s wetland inventory. This
area will be delineated and use of wetland buffers will be evaluated if Alternatives 1 or
2 are selected for further evaluation prior to development of final construction plans.
10.2 Provide more specific information on the types of woodlands impacted for comparison.
For example, which would impact the remnant Big Woods area versus more shrub /
wooded areas that are outside of this footprint? (Strate)
Response: The Landcover Change table in Question 10 uses the Minnesota Land Cover
Classification System to classify land cover. Areas classified as any type of forest are
listed in that table as “wooded forest” while areas classified as woodlands or
woodland/brushland are listed in the table as “Brush/grassland.”
Question 11 – Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
Forest and Woodlands
11.1 Concerned that construction of Alternatives 1 or 2 would sacrifice the peaceful nature
of the Riley Creek Conservation Area for the Prospect Road area which in relative
scope is an area with high density housing. The City would be better served by
protecting the largely unaltered area of Riley Creek Conservation Area along Turnbull
Road. (McLaughlin)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
11.2 Alternative 6 goes through open space and requires less clearing and grubbing of trees.
(McLaughlin)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
11.3 Concerned that the impacts to the wooded areas would not be temporary impacts only.
In addition, the EAW is incorrect in concluding that tree mitigation could mitigate tree
loss in this area. (Strate, Conservation Commission)
Response: EAW in Question 11A says “restoration following construction could include
reforestation where possible, mitigating some of the tree loss.” The EAW does not
conclude that any mitigation that might occur would fully mitigate tree loss.
Page 3 of 24
11.4 Alternatives 1 and 2 would impact some of the remaining Big Woods left in the metro
area and they are significant, environmental features. (Strate, MN River Bluff & Riley
Creek Assoc., McLaughlin)
Response: Alternates that might impact resources designated through the County
Biological Survey (MCBS) as Sites of Biodiversity Significance are identified in
Question 11B. The estimated grading area for Alternates 1 and 2 as currently
delineated would not extend to the area identified by the MCBS as a Site of Biodiversity
Significance. Additional delineation will be required prior to finalization of the design
plans if one of these Alternatives is selected.
11.5 The effect of fragmentation on the bird and mammal species within this area needs to be
evaluated further, based on comments from the DNR for the Oak Park EAW. (Strate)
Response: The EAW notes that Alternates 3, 4, and 5 would fragment habitat and create
a potential barrier for some types of wildlife migration. The specific impacts and
mitigation potential are dependant upon the actual design of the roadways. The EAW
recommends that if any of these road alternatives are selected for construction a more
detailed natural resource assessment be conducted to inform the final design and to
comply with review agency requirements.
11.6 The potential environmental damage from Alternatives 1 through 5 is far greater than
that of Prospect Road. If Prospect Road is not built, the City will need to start over in
assessing the other Alternatives as the EAW does not begin to assess the environmental,
archaeological or economic issues of these Alternatives. (Edstrom)
Response: The EAW provides recommendations for additional environmental review
that would be considered in conjunction with the final design of the selected alternative.
The results of the analysis, if needed, will be used to minimize environmental impacts of
the project.
11.7 The EAW does not give any clear indication that any fish or wildlife will be impacted
negatively by either raising the road up to level and a culvert installed for a street or a
bridge crossing over the creek. The addition of a street with impervious surface and fill
is small in comparison to the overall picture of the completed Site B addition and future
long term outlook of the southwest area as stated in the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Mitigation should be implemented, but not at the expense of efficiency or logic.
Prospect Road is clearly the most suitable and efficient alternative, either with or
without a bridge. (Travis Wuttke)
Response: The EAW provides recommendations for additional environmental review
that would be considered in conjunction with the final design of the selected alternative.
The results of the analysis, if needed, will be used to minimize environmental impacts of
the project.
11.8 Alternative 6 would destroy one of the few remaining truly beautiful prairies left in
Eden Prairie. (Jill Anderson)
Response: No native prairie designation has been provided for this area which was
formerly a golf course.
Page 4 of 24
11.9 Concerned that years of snowplowing will result in a heavy erosion pattern on the
steeper slope areas, due to the banking of snow along the roadway. The dense tree
canopy and steep north facing slope receive very little to not direct sun light due to the
angle of the sun to slope. Water running off from this area would result in annual slope
erosions and with each new year the erosive damage would increase. (McLaughlin)
Response: Final road design will include evaluation of how to minimize impacts of the
roadway to the environment. This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it
considers this issue.
11.10 Alternative 6 would disrupt an area that is pristine and natural and it is important to
preserve these types of areas in Eden Prairie. (Robyn Riley)
Response: The area proposed for the road extension is within a former golf course and
an area that will be developed for construction of Site B. However, this comment will
be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
11.11 Alternative 5 cuts through a pristine area of the Minnesota River Bluffs to connect 230
feet west of the existing intersection. The cost and impacts of this road along the bluffs,
both for construction and land acquisition, does not clearly rationalize replacing one
intersection for another. (Travis Wuttke)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Endangered / Threatened / Special Concern Species
11.12 DNR and State Archaeologists office identifies impacts to Alternatives 1 through 5, but
not 6, so Alternative 6 is the logical choice. Feels there would be legal risks for
construction of Alternatives 1 through 5 as there are good alternatives with fewer issues.
(MN River Bluff & Riley Creek Assoc.)
Response: Alternates 1 through 5 may or may not impact resources; the EAW and
agency comments point out that further and more refined analysis would have to be
completed to determine if they could be constructed without harm to those resources.
The specific impacts and mitigation potentials are dependant upon the actual design of
the roadways. The EAW recommends that if any of these road alternatives are selected
for construction a more detailed natural resource assessment be conducted for the final
design and to comply with review agency requirements.
11.13 A natural resource survey should be conducted for the Alternative selected due to the
presence of a variety of special concern and threatened species as well as the high
biodiversity of species in the area. (Conservation Commission)
Response: The EAW provides recommendations for additional environmental review
that would be considered in conjunction with the final design of the selected alternative.
The results of the analysis, if needed, will be used to minimize environmental impacts of
the project.
11.14 No data or discussion about Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern species or
other sensitive ecological resources and areas were provided for Alternatives 1 or 2.
(Strate)
Page 5 of 24
Response: The EAW provides recommendations for additional environmental review
that would be considered in conjunction with the final design of the selected alternative.
The results of the analysis, if needed, will be used to minimize environmental impacts of
the project.
Riley Creek
11.15 With the environmental impact of the proposed Hennepin Village development itself,
the fact that the creek could be made into a trout stream is very unlikely. (Edstrom)
Response: The EAW provides recommendations for additional environmental review
that would be considered in conjunction with the final design of the selected alternative.
The results of the analysis, if needed, will be used to minimize environmental impacts of
the project.
11.16 Riley Creek could support trout fishery habitat or trout-friendly temperatures within
Riley Creek between Eden Prairie Road and Miller Spring if trout pools and bank
structures are constructed and the creek is properly managed. This can be an urban
stream that provides fishing, recreational and wildlife habitat of high merit. Riley
Creek can be returned to a condition that approximates pre-urbanized and pre-farming
character. He does not believe the carp barrier is relevant to re-establishment of trout
within the creek as trout do not migrate and can thrive above and below the obstruction.
(Strate)
Response: The EAW notes in Question 11A that discussions with the DNR fisheries staff
indicate that Riley Creek is unlikely to support a cold-water community. According to
the National Ecology Center of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, to support a cold-
water fishery, the creek must be able to: sustain cool to cold water; be well-oxygenated;
have relatively silt-free rocky substrate in riffle-run areas; provide clear flows; have
well-vegetated stable stream banks; provide areas of deep water; have abundant in-
stream cover such as woody debris, rock structures and vegetation; provide relatively
stable annual water flows; and provide adequate habitat. Development in the upstream
watershed results in periodic high flows of flashy, warmed, nutrient-enriched
stormwater. This fact as well as other habitat deficiencies in Riley Creek makes
development and sustainability of a cold-water fishery infeasible.
11.17 Further evaluation of the creek should be done for fishery habitat as the DNR survey
was only conducted over three days and was too brief to provide an adequate analysis.
The area evaluated was between Lake Riley and the Minnesota River but did not
adequately appraise the spring fed reach of the creek east of Eden Prairie Road and did
not comment on this reach’s historic condition that has supported trout in the past.
(Strate)
Response: The fish survey conducted by the DNR is typical of the level of assessment
the DNR routinely undertakes to evaluate and monitor stream conditions.
11.18 Additional discussion on potential temperature and nutrient impacts of the stormwater
discharge to the creek should be provided. Prospect Road would intercept the source
water of the seeps and springs in Riley Creek due to upslope construction and
stormwater treatment ponding. The thermal pollution from the stormwater treatment
pond would harm and degrade the springs. Sections of the creek that could support
Page 6 of 24
trout would be significantly diminished compared to current or future conditions
prompted by restoration of the upper creek corridor. (Strate)
Response: The pollutant loadings described in Question 17 are those prior to
stormwater treatment. Assuming the proposed stormwater pond treating Alternative 1
runoff is constructed to the required NURP standards, a 50% phosphorus load
reduction could be expected.
11.19 The creek provides unique habitat for aquatic life during low flow periods and
concerned that Alternates 3, 4, 5 and 6 could potentially decrease water quality of Riley
Creek and possibly the River. (DNR)
Response: The EAW provides recommendations for additional environmental review
that would be considered prior to final design of the selected alternative. The results of
the analysis, if needed, will be used to minimize environmental impacts of the project.
11.20 Potential for redirection of local groundwater flow and negative surface water impacts
to Riley Creek has not been adequately evaluated. (Met Council)
Response: The EAW provides recommendations for additional environmental review
that would be considered in conjunction with the final design of the selected alternative.
The results of the analysis, if needed, will be used to minimize environmental impacts of
the project.
11.21 The EAW should discuss how chloride usage will be managed to prevent chloride
impacts to Riley Creek. (Conservation Commission, Strate)
Response: The EAW notes in the response to Question 17A, that with regards to
Alternate 6, “If this alternate were implemented, ice control on the roadway should be
limited to sand or a salt/sand mix to minimize chloride contribution to the creek.”
11.22 Alternatives 1 and 2 would change the Riley Creek corridor where it crosses Dell Road
as well due to Dell Road improvements required for the connection of Turnbull and
Dell Roads. (Johnson)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
11.23 Eden Prairie and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District must work with
the Pollution Control Agency to create an action plan to remove Riley Creek from the
list of impaired waters which would reduce turbidity by 2009.
Response: The dates provided on the impaired waters listing are estimated start and
completion dates for creating a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan. These dates
can change based on Basin Planning or budget modifications. TMDL report planning
efforts can begin any time after the start date but are expected to be completed by the
estimated completion date. The Pollution Control Agency is the lead agency for
starting and completing the TMDL plans. A schedule will be established in the TMDL
Plan for completing action items needed to remove the water body from the impaired
waters list. The Pollution Control Agency has not started the TMDL plan for Riley
Creek.
11.24 Feels the EAW fails to address the uniqueness of the creek valley and how Prospect
Road would change the value of the valley. The area could be used for outdoor
Page 7 of 24
classrooms or educational experiences, especially out of the existing clubhouse. He is
also concerned that a culvert across the creek would act like a dam. (Daniels)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Question 12 – Physical Impacts on Water Resources
12.1 Supports construction of Prospect Road with the bridge alternative as believes it will
provide access and preserve the creek valley. (Kaerwer)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
12.2 The bridge alternative for Prospect Road should be built as this was the design approved
by the City. (McLaughlin)
Response: Prospect Road with a culvert is the option that was approved. However, this
comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
12.3 A bridge should be considered to mitigate the “dam” effects of building a culvert across
the creek, rerouting the creek, etc. (Robin Smith)
Response: The culvert can be designed to allow flow of the creek under the roadway.
The use of drain tiles or other measures will be evaluated to reroute the seepage that
enters the road area.
12.4 A bridge should be selected to minimize impacts to the Riley Creek system (Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Conservation Commission)
Response: Construction of a bridge would require stormwater ponding within the creek
valley. A culvert crossing can be designed to avoid construction of stormwater ponding
within the creek by using an infiltration area that currently exists on the east side of the
creek.
Question 16 – Erosion and Sedimentation
16.1 Provide more detailed grade information for the separate alternatives, for example this
section is between 10 and 13 percent. Expand the discussion of each alternative to
provide a clearer understanding of the potential impacts for each alternative in relation
to the steep slopes. (Strate, Conservation Commission)
Response: Preliminary road grade information is available only for Alternative 6.
Grade is relevant to environmental impacts only in that it may impact traffic safety or
maintenance such as ice control. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standard for local street grades is a grade of less
than 15% in residential areas and less than 8% in commercial areas. The standard for
residential streets recommended by the consortium of the Urban Land Institute,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, and
National Association of Home Builders is a grade less than 12%. These design
recommendations are less associated with traffic safety as they are for drainage and
erosion control. The grade proposed in the preliminary design of Alternative 6 is
within those standards.
Page 8 of 24
16.2 Add in information on the amount of fill that would need to be brought in to the bottom
of the valley as well as the grading impact. (Boland)
Response: The data in the table addressing question 16 shows estimated cubic yards of
soil to be moved. The cubic yardage shown is the estimated net cut and fill given the
preliminary profile of the roadway. The final volume of net fill would depend upon the
final design if Alternative 6 is selected.
16.3 Extent of grading required for Prospect Road is understated. Project magnitude is 8.0
acres rather than 2.16 acres. These calculations would carry forward into the cover type
impacts as well as other sections. (Pemtom)
Response: The City has evaluated the area and determined that the grading area for
Prospect Road construction, which is separate from the overall development, would
total approximately 2.1 acres (1.7 acres new and 0.4 acres of re-graded area). The
existing stormwater ponding area on the east side of Riley Creek could be used for
stormwater treatment without grading into the creek valley.
16.4 Provide more information on erosion control measures that will be used to protect bluff
areas, and thus Riley Creek (Conservation Commission) and the MN Valley National
Wildlife Refuge. (Met Council)
Response: The specific erosion control measures to be used would depend on the design
of the Alternative selected. Construction of any of the Alternatives would be subject to
city stormwater and bluff ordinances, and watershed and NPDES Construction Permit
erosion control requirements. Accepted temporary and permanent erosion control Best
Management Practices would be incorporated into any project design, including BMPs
such as double or reinforced silt fence, biologs, erosion control fabric, blown compost,
bale checks, and temporary sedimentation basins where needed.
16.5 Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6 are partly within a Bluff Impact Zone that would require a
waiver. The EAW has not adequately addressed the environmental impacts of such a
waiver, which may differ based on the various roadway alternative scenarios. (Met
Council)
Response: The EAW provides recommendations for additional environmental review
that would be considered in conjunction with the final design of the selected alternative.
The results of the analysis, if needed, will be used to minimize environmental impacts of
the project.
16.6 Alternate 6 would sit on top of a 36 foot high embankment. Feels the area impacted
would be more than 2.6 acres as the estimate is based on the area impacted with a flat
terrain. (Strate)
Response: The EAW includes the area that would be impacted by both the roadway
area and the side slopes.
16.7 Trying to mitigate the steep slope on what is now the western end of Prospect Road
would require exorbitant amounts of fill. (Jill Anderson)
Response: The EAW includes the area that would be impacted by both the roadway
area and the side slopes.
Page 9 of 24
16.8 Worried that Prospect Road would have to be dangerously steep and winding through
the creek valley. (Robyn Riley)
Response: This comment will be considered during the final design of Prospect Road if
Alternative 6 is chosen.
Question 17 - Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff
17.1 The table appears to be incorrect for all scenarios and needs to be redone (Pemtom).
Response: Commenter does not explain why they believe the table appears incorrect.
Data in the table was calculated using subwatershed areas from the city’s hydrologic
model. Land cover areas and types within the subwatersheds are from the Minnesota
Land Cover Classification System. Runoff volume and pollutant loading for existing
and proposed conditions were calculated using standard, accepted hydrologic
modelling techniques.
17.2 No detailed analysis of water quality impacts for Alternatives 1 – 5 are provided and no
mitigation measures are listed as they are for Alternative 6. Additional study and
analysis would be required to satisfy the environmental review process for Alternatives
1 – 5. (MN River Bluff & Riley Creek Assoc.)
Response: The EAW includes a table that estimates the stormwater impacts of each of
the six alternates. Detailed mitigation measures are available for Alternate 6 because a
more detailed design was available for it. Alternates 1 through 5 have been only
conceptually designed, and mitigation details would depend upon the design of that
selected option. The EAW notes that no specific Best Management practices have been
determined for those options, but that stormwater BMPs would be part of the final
design. It should be noted that construction of any of these alternatives will require
BMPs and will be subject to city and watershed stormwater management and
Nondegradation rules and standards and NPDES Stormwater Construction Permit
requirements to minimize impacts.
Question 19 – Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions
19.1 Measures required to protect groundwater resources for each Alternative need to be
clarified as the EAW states the study area is sensitive to groundwater pollution due to
the shallow depth of fractured bedrock in the area. (Conservation Commission)
Response: To minimize impacts to the spring and also the seeps and small springs along
the bluff, development and construction will attempt to mimic natural runoff conditions
as much as possible. Infiltration will be encouraged, but will be carefully implemented
to provide for pre-treatment of runoff prior to infiltration.
Question 21 - Traffic
21.1 Traffic model only forecasts through 2008. Recommend revising study to reflect
ultimate build-out development traffic volumes through the area to determine whether
one or more of the proposed roadway alternatives will be necessary, and if or when
further roadway redesign might be necessary. (Met Council)
Page 10 of 24
Response: This question is not required in the Discretionary EAW. However,
additional information on build-out conditions will be provided to the City Council
during the alternative selection process.
21.2 The traffic study is too optimistic as it does not include analysis of future development
and how it could impact traffic. The results could materially change the results.
(Pitzrick, MN River Bluff & Riley Creek Assoc.)
Response: This question is not required in the Discretionary EAW. However,
additional information on build-out conditions will be provided to the City Council
during the alternative selection process.
21.3 The City is not looking far enough ahead regarding traffic issues, 2008 is simply too
short sighted. An in-depth traffic study is needed to asses the impact of 400 new homes
on the safety of the Summit Oaks neighbourhood. The roads in the area do not appear
to be equipped to handle the added capacity anticipated for the future. (Jill Anderson,
Barron Johnson, D. Carl, Mathewson)
Response: This question is not required in the Discretionary EAW. However,
additional information on build-out conditions will be provided to the City Council
during the alternative selection process. In addition, Prospect Road was designed as a
collector road connecting Spring Road and Eden Prairie Road. It was developed with
few access points and no homes fronting the roadway.
21.4 Clarify where and how, under each of the proposed roadway alternatives, the existing
Eden Prairie Road would be closed off from through-traffic. (Met Council, Pemtom)
Response: Although the final design for Eden Prairie Road is not completed, it is
expected that a cul-de-sac would be built near the edge of the ridge which is
approximately 1,000 feet from Flying Cloud Drive (TH 212).
21.5 If Eden Prairie Road is closed, would this create a dead end? (Pitzrick)
Response: Yes, a cul-de-sac would be added near the top of the ridge line.
21.6 How many residents would be at the end of the dead end? (Pitzrick)
Response: There would be between three to six residents depending on the final design.
21.7 How would the existing parcels below the face of the bluff and north of the highway be
provided access to TH 212? (Met Council)
Response: This area is beyond the MUSA line and it is not clear that additional
development would be allowed below the face of the bluff. Private drives would be
needed to provide existing properties with access to the south end of Eden Prairie
Road.
21.8 Prefer roadway alternatives 6, 3 and 4 in that order. These three provide access to
Spring Road which has left and right turn lanes making it more suitable for redirection
of traffic. (MnDOT)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Page 11 of 24
21.9 Alternatives 1 and 2 route traffic to Dell Road which does not have left turn lanes. This
would not be recommended unless a left turn lane was constructed. (MnDOT)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue
and the design of future Dell Road improvements.
21.10 Access to Flying Cloud Drive (TH 212) from Alternate 5 would not provide adequate
sight distance in either direction. (MnDOT, Travis Wuttke)
Response: This comment will be considered during the final design of Prospect Road if
Alternative 5 is chosen.
21.11 Traffic flow for this area is primarily to the north, where there is shopping, schools,
churches and a mall. Feels the traffic flow should be focused on how to get people
north, into Eden Prairie, and not south to Flying Cloud Drive. Supports a dead end for
Eden Prairie Road, and perhaps even for Dell Road in the future. (Norma Wuttke,
Barron Johnson)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
The City does agree that some traffic will flow north, however as the area continues to
develop residents will need to access other areas and an east-west connection will be
needed.
21.12 Traffic flow will be primarily north and there is no need for an east-west connection.
(Tundel)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
21.13 The traffic study fails to examine traffic impacts from Alternatives 1 – 5. In particular
it omits many critical intersections that would become traffic pressure points if the
alternatives are selected. For example, Turnbull Road and Dell Road intersections.
(MN River Bluff & Riley Creek Assoc.)
Response: This detail is not required in a Discretionary EAW. These intersections will
be reviewed for the final design depending on the Alternative selected.
21.14 Safety impacts from Alternatives 1 – 2 are not included. Children regularly cross Dell
Road to reach Crestwood Park and both Turnbull and Dell Roads provide access to the
Riley Creek Conservation Trail system. Turning these roads into major thoroughfares
would pose unacceptable safety hazards to this area. (MN River Bluff & Riley Creek
Assoc.)
Response: This issue will be reviewed for the final design depending on the Alternative
selected. This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers the EAW.
21.15 Supports closure of Eden Prairie Road for safety reasons, although the use of
breakthrough barriers for emergency vehicles only might be an option. (Barron
Johnson)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Page 12 of 24
21.16 More information on the underlying issues regarding Eden Prairie Road, such as safety,
traffic history and accident rates, needs to be added. How does this data compare to
other roadways in Eden Prairie? (Pitzrick)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
21.17 Feels there is too little data on the Highway 212 / Eden Prairie Road intersection and
that the traffic impacts of closing Eden Prairie Road are not accurately reflected in the
EAW. (Travis Wuttke)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
21.18 Unclear whether a roadway crossing of Riley Creek to connect to Prospect Road would
be necessary in conjunction with planned development in this area. (Met Council)
Response: The need for a roadway alternative to serve this area is discussed in
Question 6 and was reviewed during development of the Hennepin Village plans.
21.19 Would signals be added at Dell Road and/or Spring Road which would slow traffic on
Flying Cloud Drive in the future? (Pitzrick)
Response: Traffic signals are not currently planned for either intersection.
21.20 Would the speed limit on Flying Cloud be lowered to reflect that it would no longer be
a highway after the new Hwy 212 is complete? (Pitzrick)
Response: The speed limit will not be lowered. Speed limits are set based on the
physical characteristics of the roadway, which will not change.
21.21 When Highway 212 is re-routed, this would lead to slower and more local traffic. This
should be considered in the EAW. (Strate, Jill Anderson)
Response: There may be a temporary reduction in traffic, but over long term traffic is
expected to return to previous levels as Eden Prairie and surrounding communities
continue to develop. No change in traffic speeds is anticipated
21.22 Dell Road south of Turnbull Road is currently mostly impassable at times. (Doyle)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue
and in future consideration of future Dell Road improvements.
21.23 Dell Road would require an upgrade to handle traffic volumes re-routed from present
Eden Prairie Road. The additional upgrades should be considered as a part of this
document as these upgrades will be necessitated by either Alternative 1 or 2.
Discussion and Dell Road is currently unable to handle the increased traffic.
Insufficient data is provided to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable impacts, including
the ecological structure of the river bluff, destruction of existing habitat, Riley Creek
modification for a widened Dell Road and potential archaeological site impacts.
(Johnson, Deb Peterson, MN River Bluff & Riley Creek Assoc.)
Response: Plans for future Dell Road improvements were being evaluated by the City
prior to the current Hennepin Village development plan. Dell Road will need to be
upgraded regardless of whether Turnbull Road is connected to Eden Prairie Road or
not.
Page 13 of 24
21.24 Concerned that Alternatives 1 and 2 would change the character of the Minnesota River
Valley corridor. (Doyle)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
21.25 How would Turnbull Road be constructed to provide safe access to Dell Road? With
the straight alignment and lack of housing, vehicle speeds would likely be well above
posted speed limits. Road grades and speed of the cars going through this area would
become a safety hazard. The only way to manage car speed is to make the road curving
and how do you do this without compromising the creek, the park, the bluffs and the
residents? (McLaughlin)
Response: The designs for Alternatives 1 or 2 are conceptual only. If Alternatives 1 or
2 are selected, more detailed design with appropriate horizontal or vertical alignments
would be developed.
21.26 Eden Prairie Road should be turned into a one way going north up the bluff and end at a
cul-de-sac to allow two way traffic to the north of the bluff. (McLaughlin)
Response: Current plans do not include this as an option. However, this comment will
be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
21.27 The Turnbull Road elevation / grade change is not accurately reflected on the plans, you
do need to “go down and back up” to get to Turnbull from Beverly Drive. (Hron)
Response: The designs for Alternatives 1 through 2 are conceptual only and do not
include road profiles. If Alternatives 1 or 2 is selected, then a more detailed design
would be developed to evaluate the extent and nature of grade changes.
21.28 The City Council and Planning Commission have not adequately stayed out front of the
rapid expansion of western Eden Prairie. Now trying to rectify these mistakes by
throwing them back onto Spring Road via Prospect Road. Closing the connection
between Eden Prairie Road and Flying Cloud Drive will only exacerbate the safety
problems as traffic will worsen at the junction of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
(TH 212) while converting Summit Oaks to a throughway for traffic in the surrounding
area. This issue renders the proposal unthinkable and irresponsible. This is a short
term, stop gap solution and before a truly viable solution is found the damage will be
done. The best thing to do when there is no viable long term solution is to do nothing.
(Pester)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Question 24 – Odors, Noise and Dust
24.1 Concerned that noise from traffic on Alternative 1 or 2 would carry into the Riley Creek
Conservation Area altering the peaceful setting and visual beauty for visitors.
(McLaughlin)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Question 25 – Nearby Resources
Archaeological, Historical, or Architectural Resources
Page 14 of 24
25.1 There are a number of Native American burial mounds within a few feet of the corridor
planned for Alternatives 1 and 2 that would be jeopardized by easier access to this area.
The final design has not been determined, including earthwork, alignment and utility
placement. A small shift to avoid the burial mounds could shift the alignment off the
ridge top, creating impacts to the north or south ridge faces and may become
impractical. (McLaughlin)
Response: The final design will evaluate these issues if one of these Alternatives is
selected. This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Other Unique Resources – Frederick Miller Spring
25.2 Surprisingly little is known about the spring and is difficult to evaluate the potential
impacts to the spring. No foundational geological or hydraulic data is provided to
evaluate the potential impacts to the spring. The EAW should address whether the
alternatives could impact the recharge zone for the spring as well as the quality of the
spring water. The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District should be petitioned
to assist in conducting a delineation of the recharge area and hydraulic characteristics o
the spring as it benefits residents throughout the District and not just the City. This data
would assist in determining appropriate mitigation measures that should be incorporated
into the Alternative selected and whether infiltration could minimize any negative
impacts to the spring. (Conservation Commission)
Response: There is very little information about this spring, as well as other similar
remaining springs in the Metro area. Most have never had a groundwatershed
delineated because this requires an extensive and intensive modelling effort. To
minimize impacts to the spring and also the seeps and small springs along the bluff,
development and construction should attempt to mimic natural runoff conditions as
much as possible. Infiltration will be encouraged, but must be carefully implemented to
provide for pre-treatment of runoff prior to infiltration.
25.3 The dependability of the spring is a function of recharge, aquifer size and yield
characteristics. Development in the spring’s recharge zone potentially could interrupt
recharge or reduce the capacity of the spring. The City should identify the areal extent
of the recharge area and the hydraulic characteristics that govern the amount of recharge
that occurs. (DNR)
Response: As one of the last springs of this kind in the Metro area, Frederick Miller
Spring is a regional resource, and the City should ask the DNR to consider evaluating
the hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of this area.
25.4 The source for Miller Spring is above the grade of Prospect Road and is piped down to
its current location. Does not believe the source of the spring would be contaminated
by Prospect Road construction. (McLaughlin)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
25.5 Alternates 3 and 4 may impact the underground waters that likely supply Frederick-
Miller Spring. The aquifer supplies water to the creek also. This should be evaluated.
(Strate)
Page 15 of 24
Response: Little information is available on the hydrogeology of the area. Based on
observations of springs and seeps in the area, flow in the creek, and the geology of the
area, it is likely that the springshed lies west and northwest of the spring. There is not
enough information available to say with any certainty what the impacts might be from
any of the Alternatives. It should also be noted that climate, regional fluctuations in
groundwater levels, and annual weather conditions also can significantly affect output
of springs and seeps, which may vary annually.
25.6 The unique environmental and scenic quality of Alternates 1 and 2 need to be re-
affirmed in the Scenic View and Vista section. (Strate, Doyle, McLaughlin)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
25.7 Concerned that the construction would impact the character of the Minnesota River
valley. (Strate, Doyle)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
25.8 Alternate 3 winds down a gully between two bluffs to Spring Road. This corridor
would impact the view from Frederick-Miller Spring and should be discussed in the
EAW. (Strate)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
25.9 Alternates 4 and 5 would affect the viewshed of the bluffs from the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge and a proposed Minnesota State Trail. (Richard Schultz,
Refuge Manager, 1997, Hennepin Village AUAR comments on how development along
the bluff is highly visible from the valley and could detract from the natural appearance
of the valley and reduce the quality of the experience of visitors to the valley and
refuge). (Strate)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
25.10 Alternate 6 would divide “State Park quality scenery” within the valley as well as from
a potential city park facility (Cedar Hills Club House) and the Summit Oaks
neighbourhood (Site A). (Strate)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Question 29 – Cumulative Impacts
29.1 The cumulative effects section is incomplete. The “cumulative potential effects”
inquiry requires a RGU to inquire whether a proposed project, which may not
individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, could have a
significant effect when considered along with other projects that are (1) already in
existence, actually planned for, or for which a basis of expectation has been laid; (2)
located in the surrounding area; and (3) might reasonably be expected to affect the same
natural resources. (MPCA)
Response: The Cumulative Impacts section will be expanded to address this issue.
29.2 The traffic study states that no new traffic will be generated, but will be redistributed.
This appears to be a function of the short time horizon for forecasting development. It
Page 16 of 24
appears that the road construction will favour faster development with some of the
Alternatives provided, which will generate more trips requiring additional road
upgrades outside of the EAW scope. More work needs to be done to provide a fuller
picture of future traffic impacts. Full build out conditions should be addressed in the
Cumulative Impacts section. (Conservation Commission)
Response: The traffic analysis took into account the traffic impacts of development that
is currently underway or that could reasonably be expected to occur in the short term.
The EAW states (and the City’s Comprehensive Plan indicates) that it is likely that in
the long-term there will be redevelopment of some of the large-lot parcels in the area,
but the extent, nature, and timing of that redevelopment is difficult to predict and is
related mainly to market conditions. Evaluating long-term land use is a long-term
planning decision that is addressed during the Comprehensive Planning process.
Although not required in the EAW, additional traffic information on build-out
conditions will be provided to the City Council during the Alternative selection process.
29.3 The bluff protection ordinance requirements, potential groundwater and surface water,
and/or ecologically sensitive native plant community impacts have not been adequately
investigated to assess each alternative’s cumulative environmental impacts. (Met
Council)
Response: The Shore Impact and Bluff Impact Zone ordinances and requirements will
be reviewed for the Alternative selected to determine whether a waiver from any of
these requirements would be necessary and should be granted based on the need for
road construction, and any necessary mitigative measures.
29.4 Concerned that there could be down-gradient impacts to the adjacent Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge, a potential impact of Metropolitan Significance. (Met
Council)
Response: Some Alternatives that are visible from the valley may have a visual impact,
but physical impacts such as stormwater volume or pollutant loading are limited by
stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control requirements.
29.5 The potential severities of environmental effects have not been adequately determined.
This includes items such as groundwater diversions, ecologically sensitive native plant
community impacts and bluff protection zone impacts. (Met Council)
Response: The EAW provides recommendations for additional environmental review
that would be considered in conjunction with the final design of the selected alternative.
The results of the analysis, if needed, will be used to minimize environmental impacts of
the project.
29.6 Cumulative impacts outlined for Alternatives 1 and 2 are not adequate as it does not
discuss how the construction of a connecting road would impact future development
within this corridor. (MN River Bluff & Riley Creek Assoc., Strate)
Response: The EAW states (and the City’s Comprehensive Plan indicates) that it is
likely that in the long-term there will be redevelopment of some of the large-lot parcels
in the area, but the extent, nature, and timing of that redevelopment is difficult to
predict and is related mainly to market conditions. Evaluating long-term land use is a
Page 17 of 24
long-term planning decision that is addressed during the Comprehensive Planning
process.
29.7 Cumulative impacts section does not look at the significant acreage needed for
construction that would require condemnation of prime land. (MN River Bluff & Riley
Creek Assoc.)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
29.8 A more detailed analysis of the cumulative impacts of each roadway alternative should
be prepared prior to the determination of whether an EIS is necessary. (Met Council)
Response: The Cumulative Impacts section will be expanded to address this issue. This
comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
29.9 Would the MUSA line move to accommodate increased development potential? (Strate)
Response: Location of the MUSA line is a long-term planning decision that is addressed
during the Comprehensive Planning process. The MUSA line would not require
adjustment to construct any of the road alternatives.
29.10 Would lot densities within the road corridor area increase? (Strate)
Response: Lot density is a long-term planning decision that is addressed during the
Comprehensive Planning process. The area is guided for lot densities of 2.5 residential
units per acre and would not require adjustment to construct any of the road
alternatives.
29.11 Inadequate treatment of development scenarios in the long-term as does not look
beyond the development of Sky Lane and Oak Creek and does not look at complete
build out of the area. By failing to consider build-out scenarios, the EAW does not
provide a source of information to guide other approvals and permitting decisions.
(Carroll, Travis Wuttke)
Response: The EAW provides guidance on the potential impacts of the road
alternatives. The impact of long-term development in the area is a long-term planning
decision that is addressed during the Comprehensive Planning process. Lot densities
would not require adjustment to construct any of the road alternatives.
29.12 A more detailed and extensive look was provided for the Prospect Road alternative
while little work was done on the other alternatives. (McLaughlin, MN River Bluff &
Riley Creek Assoc.)
Response: More information was available for Alternate 6 because the developer had
prepared a preliminary road design, performed a wetland delineation, and field located
a community of a threatened species. Only schematic designs have been prepared for
the other alternates. The EAW disclosed where additional field work would be required
to adequately assess environmental impacts, such as the potential for threatened or
endangered species or cultural resource impacts. Section 31 summarizes the additional
work that would be necessary to adequately assess environmental impact should a
particular Alternate be selected. The EAW also recommends that a more detailed
analysis be performed for whichever Alternative is selected.
Page 18 of 24
Question 30 – Other Potential Environmental Impacts Not Mentioned in EAW
30.1 Concerned that the wooded area along Turnbull Road would become an easy
opportunity for dumping of trash. (McLaughlin)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
30.2 Include information on previous studies done for the conservation areas and bluff land,
such as the conservation area plans developed by the City. (Strate)
Response: The road alternatives do not cross conservation areas. Evaluation of
previous conservation area studies and plans were beyond the scope of the
Discretionary EAW. This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers
this issue.
30.3 Finds that the discussion of whether to cross Riley Creek as confusing as Riley Creek
will soon be surrounded by large housing developments and the remaining natural land
area will suffer due to the scope and size of housing development. (McLaughlin)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
30.4 The EAW indicates that significant environmental effects would result from
Alternatives 1 – 5. As such an EIS would be necessary before selecting one of these
Alternatives under State Law (Minn. Stat. 116D.04). (MN River Bluff & Riley Creek
Assoc.)
Response: The EAW provides recommendations for additional environmental review
that would be considered in conjunction with the final design of the selected alternative.
The results of the analysis, if needed, will be used to minimize environmental impacts of
the project.
General Comments – Issues not Within the Scope of an EAW
Financial Considerations
a. Alternatives 1 - 5 would be expensive and difficult to build and would include land
acquisition and condemnation costs that would not be needed for Alternative 6. The
Developer is responsible for the costs associated with Alternative 6. This is not
adequately represented in the EAW. (MN River Bluff & Riley Creek Assoc.)
Response: An EAW explicitly evaluates only environmental impacts and does not
evaluate financial impacts. In that manner, environmental impacts can be evaluated on
their own merit without regard to cost. Financial impact is a separate policy issue that
will be evaluated by the City Council as it considers this issue.
b. Should add in a brief discussion of the economic costs of each alternative as this should
at least be considered by the City Council. (MN River Bluff & Riley Creek Assoc.)
Response: An EAW explicitly evaluates only environmental impacts and does not
evaluate financial impacts. In that manner, environmental impacts can be evaluated on
their own merit without regard to cost. Financial impact is a separate policy issue that
will be evaluated by the City Council as it considers this issue.
Page 19 of 24
c. The EAW is inadequate to support selection of Alternatives 1 through 5 yet is adequate
to justify constructing Prospect Road. If one of the Alternatives 1 – 5 is selected,
additional environmental review and economic expense would be required and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would likely be required. (MN River Bluff &
Riley Creek Assoc.)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
d. Financial cost for Turnbull Road alternative would be grossly inequitable to the
residents as this would be built to service another community and the need of a
developer and/or future development that may never happen. (McLaughlin)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
e. The cost of the development is for the Developer to solve and should not be shifted to
the neighbouring areas. Alternatives 1 and 2 would be much more expensive to create.
(Megan Doyle)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
f. The financial costs of the land acquisition and construction should be mentioned in the
EAW. In addition, the financial implications of adding a bridge to Prospect Road
should be clarified. (Travis Wuttke)
Response: An EAW explicitly evaluates only environmental impacts and does not
evaluate financial impacts. In that manner, environmental impacts can be evaluated on
their own merit without regard to cost. Financial impact is a separate policy issue that
will be evaluated by the City Council as it considers this issue.
g. The traffic from the development should not be forced onto neighbours to fight over
when an adequate solution exists and will fight to stop any other alternative if Prospect
Road is not selected. Contests the City’s right to condemn property when a solution is
already there that would not require condemnation. Concerned that Alternatives 1
through 3 would destroy the entire neighbourhood and the bluff itself. (Edstrom)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Prospect Road Improvements
a. No berm was installed along Prospect Road to protect existing residents from the traffic.
(Kosteliz)
Response: Prospect Road was designed as a collector street for connection of Spring
Road and Eden Prairie Road. The City will evaluate the existing road to determine if
deficiencies exist and work with the Developer to have them corrected as needed.
b. Ryland Homes informed residents that traffic on Prospect Road would be light as the
road would only connect the two Hennepin Village locations along the creek. (Kosteliz,
Tundel, Neikus, Lankas)
Response: The Prospect Road extension has always been a part of the overall Hennepin
Village project. The Developer was responsible for informing residents about the
extension. The comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Page 20 of 24
c. Ryland informed them when they purchased their home that there would only be a path
or small trail leading up to a clubhouse and pool on the site of the old golf course.
(Tundel)
Response: The Prospect Road extension has always been a part of the overall Hennepin
Village project. The Developer was responsible for informing residents about the
extension. The comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
d. Ryland told them that a pool was going to be built where the extension for Prospect
Road is proposed, then that the pool was going to be replaced by homes, and finally by
Prospect Road. They were also told that the pedestrian / resident walk ways were
walking paths and are now worried they will be heavily used. Feels the City held public
meetings on the extension without involving the residents. (Morales)
Response: The Prospect Road extension has always been a part of the overall Hennepin
Village project. The Developer was responsible for informing residents about the
extension. The comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
e. They were never informed (by developer or in public hearings for the project) that this
could become a major road or that Eden Prairie Road at Highway 212 could be closed.
(Kosteliz, Caza)
Response: The Prospect Road extension has always been a part of the overall Hennepin
Village project. The Developer was responsible for informing residents about the
extension. The comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
f. Prospect Road was never built to handle or accommodate all the traffic from Eden
Prairie Road. (Kosteliz, Pierson, Morales, Pester, Neikus, Mathewson)
Response: Prospect Road was designed as a collector street for this area with few
access points with no homes fronting the roadway.
g. Prospect Road has bad sight lines and blind spots that would result in safety hazards if
the connection is made. (Kosteliz, Caza, Pierson, Tundel)
Response: Prospect Road was designed as a collector street for connection of Spring
Road and Eden Prairie Road. The City will evaluate the existing road to determine if
deficiencies exist and work with the Developer to have them corrected as needed.
h. The intersection at Prospect Road and Spring Road has traffic problems at night and in
the morning currently. (Kosteliz)
Response: The intersection of Prospect Road and Spring Road was analyzed. The
analysis indicates that the intersection has adequate capacity to accommodate any of
the roadway alternatives without geometric or control changes.
i. The intersection at Prospect Road and Spring Road has inadequate sight lines and will
cause back ups and safety hazards in peak morning hours as vehicles attempt to access
Spring Road. (Pierson)
Response: The intersection of Prospect Road and Spring Road was analyzed. The
analysis indicates that the intersection has adequate capacity to accommodate any of
the roadway alternatives without geometric or control changes.
Page 21 of 24
j. Prospect Road is too close to their home and the increased traffic would not only
jeopardize the use of their lawn and house as well as change the dynamic of the
community. (Davis, Riley, Neikus) Davis felt that an up to an additional 300 vehicles
could cross through Summit Oaks during rush hour.
Response: Prospect Road was designed as a collector street for this area with few
access points with no homes fronting the roadway. Afternoon peak hour traffic volume
based on traffic counts taken in October 2006 is approximately 70. If Alternative 6 is
constructed peak hour traffic volume is estimated to be 132, an increase of 62.
k. Concerned about the noise levels that would result from Prospect Road. (Davis,
Pierson)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
l. Sending this amount of traffic through the heart of a residential neighbourhood would
decrease property values and endanger the children. She is also concerned that the park
in this area is right on the corner of Prospect Road and Porchlight Lane. (Jill Anderson)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
m. Not enough parking spaces for guests or extra family vehicles were provided for the
development. Currently residents have to park along Prospect Road. Increasing traffic
would result in being unable to park here. (Pierson, Morales)
Response: Parking was provided for the development in accordance with City Code
requirements. The private streets can be used for additional parking.
n. Prospect Road and its connection to Site B was public knowledge and a part of the
original plan for Hennepin Village. The dispute by Hennepin Village residents as to
whether it should now be built is confusing and invasive and should be resolved
internally. Appears that the neighbourhood is asking others to solve and finance a self-
initiated situation they do not want to resolve within their own development. (Loren &
Norma Wuttke)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
o. Prospect Road was designed to provide adequate access of emergency vehicles and
allow the residents of Hennepin Village to choose to exit the development onto either
County Road 4 or Eden Prairie Road. Public safety is not addressed in the other
Alternatives. (Edstrom, Travis Wuttke)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
p. Alternatives 1 through 5 fail to connect the Hennepin Village phases with proposed
phase B nor do they connect the proposed clubhouse with the rest of the Hennepin
Village development. Connectivity within Hennepin Village for continuity, street
maintenance and safety are not solved by the addition of another road in the southwest
area. (Travis Wuttke)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
Page 22 of 24
q. The comment that all traffic will now go past the front doors of Hennepin Village is
untrue as most traffic will go north, going east would be illogical and time consuming.
Eden Prairie Road connects easily with roads such as Pioneer Trail, Highway 5,
Highway 312 (new 212), etc. and would be the preferred route for most traffic in this
area. (Loren & Norma Wuttke)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
r. Show Prospect Road in the context of the approved plan for Hennepin Village as this
will change the character of the corridor, regardless of whether Prospect Road is
constructed. (Robin Smith)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
s. One argument for Prospect Road is that a second egress is needed in case of fire.
However, they believe the only fire danger to the Summit Oaks neighbourhood would
be within the creek valley and that use of Prospect Road would not be needed. (Tundel)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
t. The idea that Prospect Road would alleviate safety and traffic concerns is preposterous
as it will only shift the problems to an area less equipped to handle them. If approved, it
would reduce the Hennepin Village property values by as much as 40% while failing to
meet any intended goals. (Pester)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
u. The Prospect Road is a cheap, expedient and incorrect way of solving any supposed
problem. This ridiculous scheme will fail and will do so at the expense of our homes
and the safety of our children. (Pester)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
v. The Prospect Road project as proposed is a serious public safety issue for residents in
Site A and was poorly planned. The Engineering Department must have known that the
eventual traffic would be a serious safety hazard for Site A residents and the Eden
Prairie Road residents who would use it. Eden Prairie Road has been a problem for
years and the City has not done any normal maintenance adjustments to improve the
problem. Adjustments could be made to Eden Prairie Road that would not affect any
homeowners while improving the safety conditions of the curve. This would leave land
available for development and tax collection. The EAW is flawed in general and does
not reflect on the true safety issue. Feels the Public Works Department did not
represent the development of Prospect Road properly. (Lankas)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
w. The traffic study provides an assumption that there would be no operational or safety
impacts from Prospect Road construction, but only looks at the short term for build out
and traffic flow. Feels that future road usage would put children playing inside the
unfenced park, as well as bicyclists and pedestrians within the development at risk due
to blind spots and development too close to the road. The public safety risks associated
with the road are higher than the risks associated with a potential fire or water main
break. (Carroll, D. Carl, Lankas)
Page 23 of 24
Response: Prospect Road was designed as a collector road connecting Spring Road and
Eden Prairie Road. It was developed with few access points and no homes fronting the
roadway. The City will evaluate the existing roadway to determine if deficiencies exist
and work with the Developer to have them corrected as needed.
x. “Critical factors for assessing public safety issues in Hennepin Village must include
realistic peak traffic flow patterns, Prospect Road design flaws, and the character of the
Hennepin Village neighbourhood through which Prospect Road passes.” These items
should be made known to the public for review and comment. (Carroll)
Response: Prospect Road was designed as a collector road connecting Spring Road
and Eden Prairie Road. It was developed with few access points and no homes fronting
the roadway. The City will evaluate the existing roadway to determine if deficiencies
exist and work with the Developer to have them corrected as needed.
y. The junction of Spring Road and Prospect Road is a blind intersection that sits atop a
winding hill when coming from the south. Worried that stop lights will be needed at
this dangerous intersection due to the increased traffic. (Pester)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
z. The City should consider installing a traffic signal at Prospect Road and Eden Prairie
Road to help mitigate the safety concerns for residents within Hennepin Village.
(Edstrom)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
aa. A second access onto Eden Prairie Road for Summit Oaks residents would provide
ingress and egress from the development if the Spring Road / Prospect Road
intersection is such a hazard, thus completing Prospect Road is necessary. (Travis
Wuttke)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
bb. If Prospect Road is connected, would the speed limit be set at a safer speed such as 25
miles per hour (mph)? This would be consistent with the 30 mph speed limit set for
Charlson Road. How will the speeds be monitored? (Matthewson)
Response: The statutory speed limit on urban roadways in Minnesota is 30 miles per
hour (mph). This is the speed limit applied to residential or connector streets in Eden
Prairie. Staff strongly supports this consistency.
Miscellaneous Comments
a. To go forward with the Turnbull Road expansion would lead to a loss of trust with the
City. Building permits have been issued along Turnbull in the last couple years and
how could the City turn around and condemn these properties. One of those that could
be potentially impacted is a Parade of Homes house. (Linda Johnson)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
b. The EAW is not adequate and should be found inadequate in its unamended form.
(Strate)
Page 24 of 24
Response: Agreed. The comments were reviewed and revisions were incorporated into
the Draft EAW to address this issue.
c. The City Council should request consideration of other alternatives subsequent to its
acceptance or rejection of the EAW. (Strate)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
d. The existing neighbourhood within Hennepin Village (Site A) never received public
notice and should have. More residents to the west received notice than in Summit
Oaks, where only 14% of the residents were informed of the public hearings. (Carroll,
Caza, Davis, Tundel, D. Carl, Matthewson)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
e. Ask that the City Council look at this area and consider decreasing the density of
Hennepin Village Site B in light of the EAW. Eden Prairie has historically kept “green
space” in mind and such a large development with the proposed density would scourge
the area. (Barron Johnson)
Response: This comment will be conveyed to the City Council as it considers this issue.
f. Various editorial comments.
Response: All comments that were editorial in nature that have to do with semantics or
wording have not been addressed individually.
06 -
Leslie Stovring
From: Jill Andersen Uillster519@yahoo.com ]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 2:28 PM
To: Leslie Stovring
Subject: Prospect Road-opposed to completing through to Eden Prairie Road
Hi, Leslie-
I attended the sessions held last summer at the old Cedar Hills Clubhouse to help me understand the issues
surrounding the completion of Prospect Road through to Eden Prairie Road.
I oppose completing this road through to EP Road for a number of reasons:
1. Environmental impact, and destroying one of the few remaining, truly beautiful prairies left in Eden Prairie.
2. Trying to mitigate the steep slope on what is now the western end of the road would require exorbitant
amounts of fill.
3. I don't think the city is looking far enough ahead regarding the traffic issues. 2008 is simply too short
sighted. The gentleman I met with at Cedar Hills last summer indicated how much development was slated to
take place on the south end of Eden Prairie road in the next few years. I remember a figure of about 200-300
more households would be added on Eden Prairie Road nearer to 212. He also said that the city is planning to
close off EP Road at 212 because of traffic issues on 212. That would send all this traffic north, and none of
these roads seem equipped to handle that much more capacity. Not to mention that in a few years, traffic on the
old 212 will now be on the NEW 212, so the EP Road/212 intersection will have much lighter traffic than it
does currently.
4. Sending that much more traffic through the heart of a residential neighborhood (Summit Oaks and Hennepin
Village) will decrease property values and endanger our children. One of the few large green spaces available
for recreation in this high density neighborhood is on the corner of Prospect Road and Porchlight Lane. Many
children and families use it for recreation: Frisbees, football, wiffle ball, etc. That would seem incompatible
with increased traffic on Prospect Road.
I feel very strongly that the city needs to take a longer term look at the impact of what extending Prospect Road
will have on the neighborhood and the environment. Please consider the large number of homes slated to go on
the south end of EP Road, and keeping the EP Road/212 intersection open to help handle this capacity, rather
than funnel these cars through a high density neighborhood with lots of children and pets.
Thanks for listening.
Jill Andersen
15751 Porchlight Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
952-974-8007
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
4/5/2007
Lorene McWaters
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jill Andersen pillster519@yahoo.com ]
Thursday, April 05, 2007 7:08 PM
Philip Young; GRP-AllCouncil; pete@rockfordinc.com ; jstoltz@shopnbc.com ;
raymond_stoelting@golden.com ; jlkirk4@aol.com ; frankpow@comcast.net ;
jerry@pitzrick.com
dhc@att.net ; Steve Lyon
Prospect Road extension-OPPOSED
To Eden Prairie City Leaders:
I attended a session held last summer at the old Cedar Hills Clubhouse to help me understand the issues
surrounding the extention of Prospect Road through to Eden Prairie Road.
I oppose completing this road through to EP Road for a number of reasons:
1. Environmental impact, and destroying one of the few remaining, truly beautiful prairies left in Eden Prairie.
2. Trying to mitigate the steep slope on what is now the western end of the Prospect Road would require
exorbitant amounts of fill.
3. I don't think the city is looking far enough ahead regarding the traffic issues. 2008 is simply too short
sighted. The gentleman I met with at Cedar Hills last summer indicated how much development was slated to
take place on the south end of Eden Prairie road in the next few years. I remember a figure of about 400 more
households would be added on Eden Prairie Road nearer to 212. He also said that the city is planning to close
off EP Road at 212 because of traffic issues on 212. That would send all this traffic north, and none of these
roads seem equipped to handle that much more capacity. Not to mention that in a very short time, traffic on the
old 212 will now be on the NEW 212, so the EP Road/212 intersection will have much lighter traffic than it
does currently.
4. Sending that much more traffic through the heart of a residential neighborhood (Summit Oaks at Hennepin
Village ) will decrease property values and endanger our children. One of the few large green spaces available
for recreation in this high density neighborhood is on the corner of Prospect Road and Porchlight Lane. Many
children and families use it for recreation: frisbee, football, wiffleball, etc. Prospect Road runs the length of
this green space/recreation area, and the increased traffic brought on by extending Prospect Road would emperil
our children at play.
I feel very strongly that the city needs to take a longer term look at the impact of what extending Prospect Road
will have on the neighborhood and the environment. Please consider the large number of homes slated to go on
the south end of EP Road, and keeping the EP Road/212 intersection open to help handle this capacity, rather
than funnel these cars through a high density neighborhood with numerous children and pets.
The city MUST perform in-depth traffic studies to assess the impact that 400 new homes will on the safety of
the Summit Oaks at Hennepin Village neighborhood. To not do so is shortsighted, fiscally irresponsible, and a
disservice to the taxpaying residents of Summit Oaks at Hennepin Village.
Thanks for listening.
Jill Andersen
15751 Porchlight Lane
Eden Prairie , MN 55347
952-974-8007
Aqua Essence ReSource AquaEssence ReSource assists in the convergence
of scientific, educational, business and spiritual
communities in regard to sustainable freshwater use,
management and protection.
April 5, 2007
City Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives
Dear Member:
AquaEssence ReSource (AERS) is interested in commenting on the EAW: Hennepin
Village Roadway Alternatives.
AERS is a Minnesota based, non-profit organization dedicated to raising awareness
around the central importance of water. AERS has provided forums for concerned leaders
and members of interested communities to develop ideas that expand current water
practices, policies and technologies and help to provide workable global solutions for our
rapidly declining freshwater resources.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 58/217 in December 2004
entitled: Decade For Action: "Water for Life, 2005-2015". This resolution calls upon
governments, national and international organizations, non-governmental organizations
and the private sector to take advantage of this decade to focus on sustainable freshwater
use as well as the implementation of proper management and environmental protection.
Minnesota is known around the globe as "the land of ten thousand lakes". Therefore, it
seemed appropriate for AERS to host an International Water Conference in recognition of
the United Nations' newly adopted resolution. AERS, with the support of the United
Nations and A Single Drop, hosted this International Water Conference in Hopkins, MN
during April of 2005 called Bridging The Water Gap.
Through the use of traditional presentations, interactive workshops and celebration
Bridging The Water Gap achieved an attendance of nearly two thousand people.
As you are well aware, Eden Prairie is listed in the Top Ten cities in the nation by Money
magazine. Congratulations! AERS believes there are very good grounds for that status.
Of the many, varied reasons for the Top 10 designation, AERS will concentrate this
comment on the quality of life.
Eden Prairie has more than 170 miles of multi-use trails, 2,250 acres of parks, and 1,300
acres of open space. According to the city's own website:
"Eden Prairie is home to a wide diversity ofwater resources, including 15 lakes, 513 wetlands, 177 storm
water ponds and 3 creek systems. Because of the prominence of lakes, creeks and wetlands in Eden Prairie,
protecting these resources is important, The City has initiated many projects over the years to control
flooding caused by storm water runoff In addition, it has taken steps to protect and improve the water
quality of our wetlands and lakes."
12002 County W9eld 11, Buntroilk, 1ff 55337 info@aquaessenceresource.org 612.245.7979 or 952.890.3141
Page Two
The Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW directly relates to the water quality of
life in Eden Prairie. A vast array of communities are able to produce low crime, good
jobs, and first-rate healthcare, however the amenities Eden Prairie can provide somehow
brings the city into the top ten! Some may ask how? Eden Prairie has answered through
action. Much effort has been provided on behalf of environmental quality of life. This is
a big issue in Minnesota. Eden Prairie has become a leader in the metro area and its' own
state! AERS supports the city in preserving this quality of life through best practices
regarding roadway and development alternatives.
AERS will comment on the potential impacts of the EAW #6b & #1I-17.
6. b. [In this section the city has provided 6 alternative roadway proposals.]
The City of Eden Prairie has commented on both Prospect Road and Miller Spring as
follows:
Project Qualifications:
The City describes the road as necessary, because it is part of the master plan that was originally drafted
more than twenty years ago. The City's other justification for the road is "if in the future the City chooses
to terminate Eden Prairie Road and after that happens, a catastrophic event happens that would close
Eden Prairie Road to traffic, then residents would need to use Prospect Road to cross to Spring Road"
Miller Spring
"Historic Fredrick-Miller Spring has a long history of active use. Exactly how long the spring has
been used is not known. The earliest recorded mention of springs and seeps comes from mid-nineteenth
century government surveys and the diaries and memoirs of the area's first Euro-American settlers. Based
on these sources, it is known that springs and seeps occurred in relative abundance in the valley areas and
that these sources of clean water were highly sought.
The City of Eden Prairie acquired the property in 1969 and made improvements on the site in 1972 and in
2003. Little else disturbs the spring site and today it appears much like it did in 1890. "...
AERS believes that the city has made declarative comments through these and other
previously affirmed public statements. Twenty years ago Eden Prairie was quite a
different place. Much growth has taken place. Recognizing there is a grand opportunity
to preserve an area that has remained 'untouched' is a privilege Eden Prairie seems to
have already chosen. This is an occasion to provide natural, historical and archeological
opportunities while also safeguarding an important watershed area. Updating roadways
already in existence rather than creating a new, non-sustainable alternate route seems to
be the logical direction to take. AERS supports the city of Eden Prairie in preserving the
described Prospect Road area for this and future generations' education and utilization.
EAW #11-17: 'Varied water issues described.]
AERS believes the answer, to the above mentioned bullet points, comes through Eden
Prairie's progressive thought process stated below:
"The City of Eden Prairie is committed to conservation by working to protect natural areas, provide water
conservation incentives, minimize impacts of development, facilitate recycling and reuse of materials,
design and build trails to support understanding of the environment, provide information on ,green building
and remodeling, and involve residents in environmental education. This page will provide residents with
information related to conservation and ideas on how to conserve resources in our day to day lives."
Environmental Services, Leslie Stovring
Page Three
"Protection of our groundwater resources is important as this is where we get our drinking water. The
area from which water is supplied to the City's drinking water wells is termed the "Wellhead Protection
Area". This area is to be protected and managed to maintain or even improve the quality of our drinking
water. As a result, a Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) was developed in 2004 which outlines a set of
goals and objectives that the City will follow in order to meet or exceed drinking water standards.
During development of the WHPP it was determined that the City has relatively young surface water. As a
result it is considered to be more susceptible to contamination from activities at the land surface than many
other cities in Minnesota. Due to the vulnerable rating of the aquifer, it has been concluded that land
usage is a concern and a series of management strategies to address land use and public awareness were
developed These are listed as Action Items in the WHPP."
Both statements, adopted by the Eden Prairie City Council, perfectly sums up the answer
to the circumstances AERS understands is asked by the EAW bullet points numbered 11-
17. This second statement signifies the importance of the City Council's decision
regarding the PAW and its' implementation on the water quality in Eden Prairie. Best
practice management standards keep our waters pure and available for public use.
AquaEssence ReSource believes that one person, given the tools to make a difference,
can raise the awareness of those around them. This awareness happens by using the
opportunities presented as "teachable moments". The acceptance of change, as a
universal constant, can become the implement of those tools. We, alone, do not change a
situation. However, a council of individuals can make an enduring difference! Your
personal decision, as a member of the Eden Prairie City Council, will be that difference.
AERS supports the guidelines Eden Prairie's city council has adopted previously and
feels certain that this current decision is in good hands! AERS thanks you for this
opportunity to comment on the PAW.
Sincerely,
.44-kg
'Q 'A inn/1
Diane Jankord, Sharon Mullen and Terri Peterson
Co-founders, AquaEssence ReSource
Attachment: Bridging the Water Gap conference guidebook
March 12,2007
The Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Dear Board Members:
Overall, I am pleased with the results of the EAW though I did feel that many parts of it
were written with a subtle bias. In addition to the bias, I have also found a few important
mistakes and omissions I would like to bring to light.
In regard to question #16, the answer states the slopes are in excess of 18% but doesn't
truly detail the extreme grades throughout the area. Please review topographic map
(figure 2) for a better understanding of the varied terrain (many slopes exceed 30%). I
would recommend that more precise degree of slope be stated for each of the six options
so people could more accurately evaluate the impact each option would have. Also in
question #16, the table shows the amount Cubic Yards to be moved for grading. If
Option #6 is built as planned (without a bridge) 16,500 Cubic Yards of soil would need to
be moved for grading with au additional 20,600 Cubic Yards of till that would needed to
support a roadway with 10% slopes on both the east and west sides. To prevent the
roadbed from exceeding a slope greater than 10%, most of the 20,600 cubic feet of fill
would be needed to elevate the roadway approximately 35 feet above the valley floor.
In regard to Question #25, (Parks, Recreation & Trails) the EAW states that "The
proposed Alternate #6 would provide public access to the creek corridor." In the original
concept plan, the passive Park Trail System provides for a 6-foot wide trail that would
run north/south along the bottom of the creek valley. Alternate #6 would run east/west
and would have be elevated 30-35 feet, well above the trail. This would have forced
pedestrians through a long tunnel under the roadway. The city has since realigned the
trail to meet and cross the road where the road embankment and safety fencing begins.
Though this solves the problem of a long tunnel under the roadway, I'm not sure this
point could be defined as a trail access. The true "Trail Access" would be at the trailhead
at Cedar Hills Park about a half-mile away. Moreover, with the addition of a 35-foot tall
rodd embankment, there will be very little "Creek Corridor" left to access in this area.
In regard to question #29, the findings of the report generally restate the City Engineer's
comments that were made at a meeting held at City Hall on August 10, 2006. The final
sentence "Connecting Eden Prairie and Dell Road may also require future upgrades to
Dell Road" does not accurately reflect what was said at that meeting, however. The
Director of Public Works, Mr. Gene Dietz, stated that the city had already hired an
engineering firm to design improvements for Dell Road. He went on to say that Dell
Road will be significantly improved, will most likely have a controlled intersection at 212
and that he would expect the improvements to begin when the land north of the EAW site
begins to develop. He said, "the improvements to Dell Road should be considered a done
deal."
1
Though these points may seem minor, I believe the above omissions, once corrected,
provide a broader perspective for the people and organizations tasked with reviewing this
EAW. This area is rich with both natural and archeological treasures. Please take the
time and resources you feel are necessary to assure that your comments and all the other
comments related to this EAW provide the City of Eden Prairie the best guidance
possible as they move forward with development in this area.
Thank you for helping to create, and your present and future participation in this p oppss.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Boland
13579 Berkshire Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
612-751-5800
Carroll
9776 Cupola In
(952) 270.5375
Eden Prairie, MN 55347-3622
dhc@attnet
March 26, 2007
Mr. Scott Neal, City Manager
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW: Comment on Paragraph 21 and on
Safety Impacts that Warrant Further Investigation
Dear Mr. Neal:
I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives
EAW. Pursuant to the purpose of the EAW, comments will be received to address the
accuracy and completeness of the material contained in the EAW, as well as potential
impacts that warrant further investigation before the project is commenced.
Accordingly, my enclosed detailed comments will be directed to the following four
issues.
(1) With reference to Appendix A of the EAW, the inadequate treatment of additional
development scenarios and the impact thereof on traffic patterns.
(2) The inappropriate, unsupported and misleading conclusion in Paragraph 21 of the
EAW that "No operational or safety issues would be anticipated from these volumes."
(3) Failure of the process to adequately address the public safety impact of the project
on the residents of Hennepin Village.
(4) Procedural irregularity in failing to furnish notice to the residents of Hennepin Village.
Thank your for your consideration of my comments and for entering them into the
record.
Verytruly yours,
David H. Carroll
HENNEPIN VILLAGE ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES EAW: COMMENTS OF DAVID H. CARROLL ON
MARCH 26, 2007
PARAGRAPH 21 AND ON SAFETY IMPACTS THAT WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION
Page 2 of 4
My name is David Carroll. My residence is 9776 Cupola Lane, which is in Hennepin
Village. Hennepin Village is also known as Site A in some of the EAW project maps.
My comments are directed to the following four issues.
(1) With reference to Appendix A of the EAW, the inadequate treatment of additional
development scenarios and the impact thereof on traffic patterns.
(2) The inappropriate, unsupported and misleading conclusion in Paragraph 21 of the
EAW that "No operational or safety issues would be anticipated from these volumes."
(3) Failure of the process to adequately address the public safety impact of the project
on the residents of Hennepin Village.
(4) Procedural irregularity in failing to furnish notice to the residents of Hennepin Village.
FIRST ISSUE: INADEQUATE TREATMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
The EAW has assumed only one development scenario, namely the development of 90
single family residential homes in the Oak Creek development, and 40 single family
residential homes in the Sky Lane development. While this scenario has the merit of
being likely to occur, it falls far short of representing the final build-out of the EAW area,
which could very well be as many as 400 homes. The City has an obligation to evaluate
road projects comprehensively and in the big picture, to ensure that the projects are in
the best long term interests of all residents. By failing to consider development
scenarios that are most likely to accurately represent the final build-out, the EAW falls
far short of its purpose of being a source of information to guide other approvals and
permitting decisions.
To speak plainly, I am concerned that the EAW has assumed a development scenario
that essentially ensures the wrong decision about the impact of traffic on the Hennepin
Village neighborhood and throughout the EAW area. The EAW development scenario
HENNEPIN VILLAGE ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES EAW: COMMENTS OF DAVID H. CARROLL ON
MARCH 26, 2007
PARAGRAPH 21 AND ON SAFETY IMPACTS THAT WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION
Page 3 of 4
is a short term scenario whose number of homes is low enough to avoid triggering a
disruptive situation that would significantly increase peak hour traffic flow through
Hennepin Village. That situation is peak hour traffic congestion on Eden Prairie Road,
which would induce drivers to choose the faster if marginally longer "alternative route"
through Hennepin Village and Char!son Road. I am concerned about the morning peak
flow of agitated drivers among school buses and waiting groups of children. I am also
concerned about the evening flow of tired drivers among children on bicycles and adults
pushing strollers and walking dogs. A full and fair consideration of additional EAW area
build-out scenarios is essential for providing appropriate information to the City to
assess the traffic flow impact on Hennepin Village.
SECOND ISSUE: THE INAPPROPRIATE EXPRESSION OF A MISLEADING AND
UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSION IN PARAGRAPH 21
I find it troublesome and contrary to the purpose of the EAW that the authors would
opine that "No operational or safety issues would be anticipated from these volumes."
As the City Council explained in the Public Hearing Notice, the EAW "is simply a source
of information." Appropriate information for helping with the evaluation of the public
safety issue would be in the nature of the type and frequency of pedestrian activities in
the vicinity of Prospect Road, the number and frequency of children playing and riding
bicycles in the area, the number and frequency of children playing catch or soccer in the
grassy unfenced park adjacent Prospect Road, residential parking needs, whether the
generally straight routing of Prospect Road invites speeding, whether the steepness of
the proposed Prospect Road extension as it rises into Hennepin Village from Riley
Creek creates blind spots, and so forth. The authors of the EAW have made no effort
whatsoever to understand the character of the Hennepin Village neighborhood through
which Prospect Road passes, or the impact of road design flaws on the safety of the
residents of Hennepin Village. Their unsupported conclusion that there are no public
safety issues is reckless and irresponsible.
HENNEPIN VILLAGE ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES EAW: COMMENTS OF DAVID H. CARROLL ON
MARCH 26, 2007
PARAGRAPH 21 AND ON SAFETY IMPACTS THAT WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION
Page 4 of 4
THIRD ISSUE: FAILURE OF THE PROCESS TO ADDRESS PUBLIC SAFETY
Critical factors for assessing the public safety issues in Hennepin Village must include
realistic peak traffic flow patterns, Prospect Road design flaws, and the character of the
Hennepin Village neighborhood through which Prospect Road passes. To my
knowledge, the process thus far has not generated any documented information about
these critical factors. If the City has generated such information, it should be made
know to the public for public review and comment. If the City has not, it is crucial that
the City do so, so that the public safety impact of the project on the residents of
Hennepin Village may be fully understood.
FOURTH ISSUE: INADEQUACY OF HEARING NOTICES
I have recently learned that almost no residents of Hennepin Village received notice of
the Planning Commission meeting last week, or of this City Council meeting. In my
view, every resident within 500 feet of Prospect Road, whether from the proposed
extension or the existing segment, should be notified. In effect, the project in question
spans the entire length of Prospect Road, since at the very least, parking on the existing
Prospect Road segment will have to be banned if the extension is built. As a practical
matter, the Prospect Road extension will affect each and every resident in Hennepin
Village, and the City owes each and every resident the courtesy of full, consistent and
reliable notice.
Lorene McWaters
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jae Caza [mcaza@mn.rr.corn]
Monday, April 09, 2007 3:59 PM
GRP-AllCouncil
dhc@att.net
Prospect Road
John and Mary Caza
9767 Picket Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
April 9, 2007
I am writing to express my concern and dismay at the proposed extension of Prospect Road. My husband and I
have been residing in Hennepin Village since October of 2006. When we purchased this property, we were not
informed of the potential extension of Prospect. Before deciding upon our decision to purchase a home in Eden
Prairie, we considered many different locations. One of the deciding factors in our purchase was the fact that
Hennepin Village is a very safe neighborhood to live in. We are concerned that extending Prospect Road will
adversely affect our safety when driving. As it is now, there is just enough room for two cars to drive by each
other at a slow rate of speed. The potential of adding 400 new homes at the end of Prospect will greatly
increase traffic. Picket Road, which we live on, has a blind corner turning on to Prospect. The turn onto
Cupola is very steep, and increased traffic will make it more hazardous. Even with a reduced posted speed
limit, more cars will be dangerous. Just look at Mitchell Road, and how people drive without regard to the
speed limit.
We were not informed of any previous public hearings regarding this matter, and are disappointed that this has
progressed so far. Please consider our valid concerns when making any decisions about extending Prospect
Road.
Mary Caza
March 24, 2007
Mr. Scott Neal
City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Neal:
On behalf of all the members of the Conservation Commission, I am offering the following
comments on the Alternatives presented in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EAW")
titled, "Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives." In addition, we were charged with pointing
out areas in which we felt additional data are warranted in order to provide the City Council a
sound basis for taking into account environmental issues and concerns relating to the project.
We appreciate being able to participate in this process as a citizen advisory body to the City
Council.
PROJECT MAGNITUDE & CHANGES IN COVER
• Item 7, "Project Magnitude" - Alternative 6 has an impact area of 2.16 acres, which is
significantly smaller than the other alternatives, a characteristic which we deem to be
desirable assuming all other factors are comparable among the Alternatives.
• Item 10, "Cover types," - The increase in impervious surface area stemming from Alternative
6 comes solely at the expense of brush and grassland cover, while the other alternatives
generate significant loss of wooded forest, ranging from 2-6 acres. Although mitigation
measures are suggested for these losses, they are not specific and it seems more desirable to
preserve wooded areas for environmental and aesthetic reasons.
• Item 25, "Nearby resources" - Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would require "...tree removals and
construction of new roadways on the bluff, changing the appearance of the bluff" This
suggests that the mitigation efforts from reforestation for these Alternatives might be limited,
and the consensus among commissioners is that the visual aesthetics of the bluffs should be
preserved wherever possible.
RILEY CREEK & WATER QUALITY ISSUES
• Item 11 "Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources" - Alternative 6 is proposed as
either a culvert crossing or as a bridge crossing. Based on the limited information presented,
the commissioners feel that a bridge crossing is preferable as it could mitigate potential
impact on wildlife migration, upstream migration by fish and a wetland impact. However,
the details of a bridge crossing and the construction footprint for a bridge need to be specified
before the final environmental effects are known.
• Item 17, "Water quality; surface water runoff" - Alternative 6 appears to be significantly
worse relative to other alternatives on relative increase in runoff volume and on percent
increase in phosphorus export. We would suggest citing the absolute changes to provide a
better measure for comparison. This table needs to be clarified in order to provide better
data.
• Riley Creek is an impaired water for turbidity according to information on the EPA and
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") websites. Since much of the impact of
Alternative 6 surrounds Riley Creek and Miller Spring, this is an area where significant
additional information regarding the impairment should be provided in order to make good
environmental choices.
• The EAW states that the study area is "... sensitive to groundwater pollution due to the
shallow depth of fractured bedrock aquifers in the area." Indeed, for Alternative 6, a table
shows the depth to the water table ranging from 0-20 feet, and the depth to bedrock ranging
from 100-200 feet. Measures required to protect the groundwater resources for each
Alternative need to be clarified.
• Item 17, "Water quality; surface water runoff" - The need for a stormwater detention pond
prior to discharging into Riley Creek is discussed for Alternate 6 as a means to mitigate
sediment and phosphorus export to the creek as well as some or most of the potential
temperature increases to the Creek. However, specific information for these measures are not
provided, so the commissioners do not know if they are adequate to protect the Creek,
especially given its current status as an impaired water body.
• The need to control chloride use during winter road de-icing in order to protect Riley Creek
is mentioned in the EAW. However, we do not know if this policy is feasible and if the
detention pond design will be sufficient to deal with this issue. What types of mitigation
measures are proposed?
STEEP SLOPES
• Steep slopes present in Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 raise concerns about sediment loads into
Riley Creek. It is our understanding that the Metropolitan Council has a water quality
monitoring station at the intersection of Riley Creek and Flying Cloud Drive that is being
managed by the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. However, this data is not
integrated into the EAW. It is our opinion that the data should be provided as part of the
EAW review process. This would provide baseline data prior to construction to allow
monitoring of the project and to help protect the creek from further turbidity impacts.
• Alternative 3, 4, 5 and 6 will require a waiver of the City's steep slope requirements of the
City Code. Overall, the Commission is concerned about the advisability of waiving the
requirements of an ordinance which was designed to protect environmental values which are
specifically impacted by the project in question. How bluff areas will be protected during
construction, with a waiver of City Code requirements need to be discussed in the EAW.
1 Page 10.
• Discussion of extent of the slopes for each Alternative should be expanded in the EAW to
provide a clearer understanding of the potential impacts for each alternative in relation to
steep slopes. What percent of grades would be required for each roadway Alternative?
FREDERICK-MILLER SPRING
There has been quite a lot of discussion surrounding the Frederick-Miller Spring, both within our
Commission and in the general public conversation. The spring is cited as a unique and historic
resource. However, it is our observation that surprisingly little is known about the Frederick-
Miller Spring 2, and hence it is very difficult to evaluate conflicting public statements by various
interested parties.
Development may impact the recharge zone for the spring as well as the output and/or quality of
the water. The discussion in the EAW surmises that the source of the Frederick-Miller Spring is
located such that these impacts would likely not occur, but there is no data provided and no
foundational geological or hydraulic data was reviewed for the EAW.
The Commission recommends that the City petition the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
District to assist in conducting a delineation of recharge area and hydraulic characteristics of
Frederick-Miller Spring given that its benefits freely accrue to residents throughout the District
and not just within the City. This data would assist in evaluation of the various Alternatives and
whether they are likely to impact the spring. The evaluation could also assist in determining
appropriate mitigation measures which should be incorporated into the Alternative selected and
whether items such as infiltration could minimize any negative impacts on the spring.
FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 pass through a "Site of High Biodiversity Significance," which contains a
special concern plant species, Oenothera rhombz'petala 3 (Rhombic-petaled Evening Primrose).
In addition, a consultant for the Developer has identified Kitten-Tails, a threatened species,
within the corridor for Alternative 6. The Commission recommends that a natural resource
survey be conducted for the Alternative selected to ensure that the proposed road corridor avoids
any species of concern. If they cannot be avoided, the City should work with the DNR to
determine how to move the species of concern or mitigate the impact.
TRAFFIC SURVEY
The conclusions of the Traffic Survey attached to the EAW are somewhat counterintuitive: its
basic premise is that none of the alternatives will generate any new traffic, merely redistribute it.
This may be a function of having a short time horizon out until 2008 as forecasting development
was not within the purview of this EAW However, it seems clear that the probabilities favor
faster development associated with some of the Alternatives provided, which in turn, will
2 In the same MPCA, the staffer noted that there is nothing about Frederick-Miller Spring in the Environmental Data
Access Information system, and consultations with the DNR and other MPCA staffers yielded no concrete information.
Checks of the U.& Geological Survey's online database also yielded no information.
3 Letter, dated November 13, 2006, from Sarah Wren, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, to Diane Spector,
Wenck Associates.
generate more trips, requiring associated additional road upgrades outside the scope of this
project. More work needs to be done within the context of broader planning and development
activities for this area to provide a fuller picture of the future traffic impacts as the area fully
develops. Full build-out conditions should be addressed in the EAW, perhaps in the Cumulative
Impacts section.
The Commission also recommends that information on a "no-build" alternative be added to the
EAW. The issues surrounding re-construction of Eden Prairie Road within its current alignment
have not been adequately addressed. The question as to whether the existing roadway could be
made safe enough for the traffic needs projected within the EAW needs to be answered.
Again, thank you to the Mayor and the City Council for the opportunity to express our concerns
and questions on the EAW into the public process. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions regarding the Commission's comments.
Sincerely,
Eapen Chacko
Chair
Conservation Commission
Lorene McWaters
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jason Davis Udavis6960@yahoo.com ]
Thursday, April 05, 2007 7:05 PM
Philip Young; Brad Aho; Jon Duckstad; Sherry Butcher; Kathy Nelson; mn03@mail.house.gov ;
pete@rockfordinc.com ; jstoltz@shopnbc.com ; raymond_stoelting@golden.com ; jlkirk4
@aol.com ; frankpow@comcast.net ; jerry@pitzrick.com ; dhc@att.net ; Communications E-
Mail; GRP-AlICouncil
Prospect Road Extension
Dear City Officials,
Please reconsider the extension of Prospect Road. As a community member of Hennepin Village and a property
owner who would be one of the most impacted by the costruction of the extension, I am expressing my concern.
It is approximately ten steps from Prospect Road to the side of our house. More specifically, our bedroom. Our
safety in our own home would be jeapordized. We could no longer feel comfortable playing in our own yard -
as it parallels Prospect Road. We very much enjoy the outdoors and that would no longer be a safe option. The
noise factor is another major concern. The amount of traffic through our neighborhood would change the whole
dynamic of our great community. I believe I can speak for most of the Hennepin Village homeowners when I
say that we purchased homes in Hennepin Village for the scenic, quiet and peaceful surroundings that were so
highly promoted by Ryland homes. Whomever is under the impression the road will be lightly traveled needs
to find calculator. 400 new homes = approx. 650 additional cars through our neighborhood. One could say with
confidence this would be a thru-way for appox. 300 speeding cars through our neighborhood during rush hour.
It was unethical of the City to send notification letters of the road extension to only a select few Hennepin
Village homeowners. We heard about this from our neighbor. It is also very unfortunate for us to have missed
the opportunity to voice our concerns.
Please consider ALL options before moving forward with the extension of Prospect Road. We look forward to
expressing our concerns and opinions in the presence of the decision makers on April 9th.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mr. & Mrs. Jason Davis
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55106
651.772.7900
February 28,2007
Mr. Scott Neal, City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Dear Mr. Neal:
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the EAW prepared for the Hennepin
Village Roadway Alternatives project in the City of Eden Prairie. In general, the EAW appears to be
complete and accurate. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Water quality: surface water runoff (Item No. 17)
The EAW states that "[T]he estimated increase in stormwater runoff volume and phosphorus and sediment
export from existing conditions is small relative to watershed volume and loading." While this may be
true for a single project, it is important that we not lose sight of the potential for cumulative effects of
numerous activities in the watershed. As the watershed continues to develop, the additive impact of
volume and loading resulting from past and future projects could be significant.
Item No. 17b identifies Riley Creek and the Minnesota River as receiving waters for runoff from the
alternate roadway sites. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has listed both streams as failing to
meet state water quality standards and, therefore, their designated uses. Turbidity problems have impaired
aquatic life in Riley Creek. The Minnesota River, including the stretch from Riley Creek to the
Mississippi River, is impaired by multiple pollutants; here too, turbidity is a major problem. Although the
U.S. Environmental Policy Agency has not approved a Total Maximum Daily Load study for either of
these streams, the need to clean them up and maximize their contributions to the state's economy and
quality of life and to protect them as a resource for future generations should be a driving factor in local
and state land use decision-making.
Riley Creek receives considerable groundwater inflow in the reach east of Eden Prairie Road, resulting in
decreased water temperatures in summer. Although runoff in the watershed results in increased water
temperatures and flow in the stream during storm events, the springs provide unique habitat for aquatic
An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity
DNR Information: 651-296-6157
1-888-646-6367 TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929
Hennepin Village Roadway EAW
February 28, 2007
Page 2
life during low flow periods. Groundwater flow, surface runoff, steepness of slopes, erosion and
sedimentation are factors of particular concern for Roadway Alternates 3,4, 5 and 6. These four
alternates will increase stormwater runoff and may reduce infiltration, diminishing the water quality of
Riley Creek and possibly the Minnesota River. Roadway Alternates 1 and 2 appear to minimize the
effects to natural resources in the study area. These two alternates minimize impacts to steep slopes,
reducing the potential for erosion and sedimentation during and following construction and providing
opportunities for infiltration of runoff from the roadway. To aid in infiltration, we recommend that the
contractor take care to not compact soils outside the footprint of the roadway during construction.
Nearby resources (Item No. 25)
This item identifies Frederick-Miller Spring as a unique and historic resource. This spring provides the
local community with dependable, high-quality water. The dependability of the spring is a function of
recharge, aquifer size and yield characteristics. Development in the spring's recharge zone potentially
could interrupt recharge or reduce the capacity of the spring, rendering it less valuable to the community
and city. We recommend that the City take any necessary steps to identify the areal extent of the recharge
area and the hydraulic characteristics that govern the amount of recharge that occurs.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving your
record of decision at the conclusion of environmental review. If you have any questions about these
comments, please contact Wayne Barstad, regional environmental assessment ecologist, at 651 772-7940.
Sincerely,
Joseph M. Kurcinka
Regional Director
CC: Wayne Barstad, Bonita Eliason, Steve Colvin, Bernice Cramblit, Julie Ekman, Bryan Lueth,
Daryl Ellison, Heather Tetrault, Sarah Wren (DNR)
Jon Larsen (EQB)
Nick Rowse (USFWS)
ERDB 20070339-0002
EPO7HennepinVillageRoadway.doc
An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity
DNR Information: 651-296-6157
1-888-646-6367 TTY: 651-296-5484
1-800-657-3929
April 11,2007
To the Mayor, Members of the City Council, Members of the Planning Commission and City
Staff:
These are our comments on the EAW for Prospect Road and the alternatives to Prospect Road.
We believe the EAW illustrates that there are no major environmental reasons Prospect Road
should not be built as originally planned. There will be no impact on Miller Spring as was first
claimed by the group opposing the road. Any impact of the road on Riley Creek, either with a
bridge or culvert, is purely speculative; in any case, it is likely much less than the certain
environmental impact of the development itself. That the creek was ever a trout stream is in
doubt and that it could be made into one is the stuff of air dreams.
The potential environmental damage of any of the remaining alternatives 1 — 5 is far greater
than that of Prospect Road. If Prospect Road is rejected, the city will essentially have to start
over in assessing the other alternatives because the EAW does not begin to address the
environmental, archeological, or economic issues involved in any of those alternatives.
Installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Prospect Road and County Road 4 would go far
in mitigating the safety concerns for the residents of Hennepin Village. As with the many new
traffic signals on County Road 4 between Pioneer Trail and Highway 5, such a signal would
increase safety for both Prospect Road and County Road 4 traffic. It would also be
advantageous for residents on the east side of the creek to have access to Eden Prairie Road,
deemed to be a neighborhood road, as well as to County Road 4, which is the major collector
road. What Prospect Road will do is to allow adequate access of emergency vehicles and allow
the residents of Hennepin Village to chose to exit the development on either County Road 4 or
Eden Prairie Road. The public safety issue of emergency access and traffic issues within
Hennepin Village would not be addressed by any of the other alternatives.
Our last comment relates in particular to the five houses on the bluff at the end of Eden Prairie
Road. We have lived in our house at 10133 Eden Prairie Road for 33+ years. We have raised
our four children here, paid our taxes and generally been good citizens and made a positive
contribution to the community. Ralph and Patty Nielson who live across the street from us have
been here almost as long. Our other neighbors, Barron and Sue Johnson, Don and Valerie
Koster and Rick and MagLou Carlson have moved in during the past 5 years, and all of them
have completely rebuilt their homes at considerable investment These 5 houses have been
here since the 1950's and early 60's. We have a charming, lovely little neighborhood of
comfortable (If not grand) homes, spacious lots, and many huge, old trees. Any of the
alternatives 1 — 3 would essentially destroy the entire neighborhood, not just the house or
houses that would be taken out, as well as destroy the bluff itself. We all have considerable
emotional as well as financial equity in our homes and our neighborhood, and we will fight to
save what is ours and to save the bluff as well.
Dean and Karen Edstrom
10133 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
FAE 6GRE
BENSON
LIP
UNITED STATES 1 ENGLAND I GERMANY 1 CHINA
CRAIG COLEMAN
ccoleman@faegre.com
(612) 766-6981
April 10, 2007
BY UPS OVERNIGHT & EMAIL
Mr. Gene Dietz Mr. Scott Neal
Director of Public Works City Manager
8080 Mitchell Road
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
gdietz@edenprairie.org communications@edenprairie.org
Re: Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW
Dear Mr. Dietz and Mr. Neal:
This letter comments on Eden Prairie's Environmental Assessment Worksheet
("EAW") that examines Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives. The comments are
submitted on behalf of the Minnesota River Bluff and Riley Creek Association (the
"Association").
The Association is comprised of individuals concerned about the impacts of
development on the Minnesota River Bluff in Eden Prairie and the Riley Creek watershed.
The Association is particularly concerned about many of the roadway alternatives examined
in the EAW. The Association maintains that any alternative other than Alternative 6 (the
"Prospect Road Alternative") will cause environmental and traffic impacts that cannot be
justified given the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the Prospect Road Alternative.
The EAW is inadequate to support Alternatives 1-5. While the EAW is adequate to
justify constructing Prospect Road (with a bridge) without additional environmental review,
Alternatives 1-5 would likely require an EIS. The City should construct Prospect Road and
avoid the additional environmental review, environmental impacts, and economic expense
inherent in Alternatives 1-5 . This conclusion is based on the following:
1) Alternatives 1-5 would destroy environmentally significant acreage
The EAW indicates that Alternatives 1-5 would impact substantially more acreage
that the Prospect Road Alternative. While Prospect Road would impact only 2.16 acres, the
acreage impacted by Alternatives 1-5 range from 6.03 to 9.35 acres. $ee EAW at 3. By
extending Turnbull Road across the bluff, Alternatives 1 and 2 (the "Turnbull Road
2200 WELLS FARGO CENTER 1 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET 1 MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55402-3901
TELEPHONE 612-766-7000 1 FACSIMILE 612-766-1600 1 WWW.FAEGRE.COM
Page 2
Alternatives") have the most significant impacts by affecting 9.35 and 8.46 acres
respectively. Id.
The EAW confirms that the acreage taken by Alternatives 1-5 would be
environmentally significant. The Turnbull Road Alternatives would destroy valuable
wooded areas and wetlands. Alternatives 3-5 would destroy wooded forests directly on the
bluff See EAW at 4-5. These lands are significant for several reasons. Id. Some of the
wooded areas are among the last remnants of the Big Woods eco-system. These wooded
lands are critical to the natural aesthetics of the bluff lands in the area. Finally, Alternatives
3-5 impact lands designated as "Sites of Biological Significance" that contain plant species
of special concern. Id. at 6.
The Turnbull Road Alternatives would destroy public and private wooded areas that
have been carefully preserved. Alternatives 3-5 would construct a road down the face of the
bluff. All of these alternatives require additional environmental review if selected. In
particular, an EIS would be necessary to survey and study the specific lands impacted by
each alternative.
2) Alternatives 1 -5 require additional study of ground and storm water impacts
While the EAW closely evaluated the impacts of the Prospect Road Alternative on
ground water and storm water management, the EAW contains virtually no analysis of the
water quality impacts for Alternatives 1-5. See, e.g., EAW at 6-7. Nor does the EAW
address mitigation measures for Alternatives 1-5. $ee EAW at 9 (discussing mitigation
measures for Prospect Road runoff). The City's staff acknowledges that Alternatives 1-5
would require additional environmental study before selection in order to assess groundwater
impacts and mitigation measures. See City Council Agenda, March 20, 2007. This
conclusion is not surprising given the EAW's understanding that "minimal roadway design
for Alternatives 1 through 5 has occurred." Simply put, considerable design and study
remains before the City has satisfied the environmental review process for Alternatives 1-5.
3) Alternatives 1 -2 fail to examine the development of Dell Road
The Turnbull Road Alternatives are not functional traffic and access solutions unless
accompanied by substantial improvements to Dell Road. Dell Road's access to Flying Cloud
Drive requires reconstruction in order for Turnbull Road to offer viable access to Hennepin
Village and developments in its vicinity. Thus, Dell Road improvements are necessarily
linked to the Turnbull Road Alternatives and would ineluctably follow.
Despite this reality, the EAW fails to provide any study of Dell Road improvements.
This is a significant omission because Dell Road, like Alternatives 3-5, travels down the
bluff Improvements to Dell Road entail engineering obstacles and environmental impacts
due to the grading, slope, and sensitive nature of the area. The Turnbull Road Alternatives
should be studied in conjunction with Dell Road improvements before selection.
Page 3
4) Alternatives 1-2 entail significant cumulative effects by spurring development
The Turnbull Road Alternatives would cause significant cumulative environmental
and land-use impacts. Those alternatives would open a new road across the bluff and would
also open a north-south access to bluff lands by forcing the City to improve Dell Road. As a
result, the Turnbull Road Alternatives would inevitably spur and accelerate substantial new
development along Dell Road. The EAW acknowledges the likelihood of cumulative
impacts from the Turnbull Road Alternatives, but fails to provide any assessment of those
impacts or to consider mitigation measures. See EAW at 15.
Prospect Road was considered in the context of concrete proposed developments.
With Hennepin Village, the City planned development in conjunction with road solutions to
increased traffic demands. In contrast, the Turnbull Road Alternatives will inevitably
accelerate development and unforeseen, unexamined environmental impacts that would
result.
While City staff have indicated that Dell Road improvements will be necessary to
meet needs not examined by this EAW, those improvements should be considered and
studied in the context of a concrete, formal proposal. Accelerating Dell Road improvements
would cause significant environmental effects and would demand environmental review.
5) Alternatives 1 -5 require additional traffic study
The traffic analysis attached to the EAW provides a thorough assessment of the
impact of the Prospect Road Alternative by focusing on key intersections affected by the
Prospect Road extension. However, it fails to examine adequately traffic impacts from
Alternatives 1-5. In particular, the traffic study omits many of the critical intersections that
would become traffic pressure points if those alternatives are selected. For instance, there is
no assessment of traffic impacts on Turnbull Road or Dell Road intersections. Additional
traffic study is necessary before Alternatives 1-5 can be selected.
The traffic study makes overly optimistic projections of future traffic demands by
failing to consider future developments. Inclusion of likely developments in the traffic
analysis would materially change the results.
Finally, the EAW and its traffic analysis fail to account for significant safety hazards
that would arise if either of the Turnbull Road Alternatives is selected. Children regularly
cross Dell Road to access Crestwood Park and will cross both Turnbull and Dell Roads to
access the Riley Creek Conservation Trail system. Turning these roads into major
thoroughfares would pose unacceptable safety hazards to children living in the area.
6) Letters by state agencies confirm that Alternatives 1-5 necessitate further study
Page 4
Letters submitted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the
Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist confirm that Alternatives 1-5 have the potential
to cause significant environmental effects. These agencies explained that Alternatives 1-5
have the "probability" of impacting protected burial, archaeological, and biological lands.
As such, the agency letters demonstrate that an EIS would be necessary before Alternatives
1-5 can be selected.
In sum, the EAW indicates that Alternatives 1-5 would cause significant
environmental effects. As such, preparation of an EIS is necessary before selecting
Alternatives 1-5. See Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a ("Where there is potential for
significant environmental effects resulting from any major governmental action, the action
shall be preceded by a detailed environmental impact statement prepared by the responsible
governmental unit.").
In contrast, the EAW demonstrates that constructing a bridge to extend Prospect Road
would not lead to significant environmental effects. The EAW includes extensive analysis of
the impacts of Prospect Road on land, water, wildlife, and traffic, and in each case potential
impacts from bridge construction are inconsequential. Construction of the Prospect Road
bridge would even offer recreational benefits by facilitating access to the Riley Creek
corridor. It would be consistent with the City's long-term planning of maintaining
recreational trails along Riley Creek.
Apart from environmental impacts, Alternatives 1-5 should be rejected due to their
substantial economic costs. The developer of Hennepin Village committed to fund
construction of the Prospect Road extension during the land-use approval process. While the
developer should also be responsible for funding Alternatives 1-5, those alternatives include
land acquisition and condemnation costs that the City may have to bear. Given the value of
the lands in question, those costs would run into the millions of dollars.
The City approved Hennepin Village with the intent to construct Prospect Road, and
the developer received approvals for Hennepin Village with that understanding. No one
disputes that Prospect Road will adequately service Hennepin Village and solve traffic-
related issues. Prospect Road is the only alternative that provides two access points to
Hennepin Village, a safety requirement identified by the Eden Prairie Fire Marshall when the
development was initially approved. Because the EAW demonstrates that Prospect Road
will have minimal environmental impacts, it makes no sense to reverse course and entertain
dramatic road construction alternatives that would necessitate considerable environmental
review, entail enormous costs, and destroy some of Eden Prairie's most valuable lands.
Craig Coleman
Hennepin County Transportation Department
1600 Prairie Drive
Medina, MN 55340-5421
612-596-0300, Phone
763-478-4000, FAX
763-478-4030, TDD
www.hennepin.us
February 7, 2007
Ms. Leslie A. Stovring, Environmental Coordinator
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives
Dear Ms. Stowing:
This letter provides comments on the draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Hennepin Village
Roadway Alternatives dated December 2006.
We recognize the significant challenges presented by the difficult terrain in this area. If one of the roadway
alignments is pursued that intersect CSAH-4 (Spring Road) — such as alternative 3 or 4, we would request that the
City adhere to both the County access spacing guidelines and the desirable entering sight distance guidelines. The
charts for both these items are attached.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft EAW. If you have any questions, please call me at 612-596-0354.
Robert H. Byers, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
c. Jim Grube, Director Transportation Department
Tom Johnson - Transportation Planning
Craig Twinem — Design
Gene Dietz - Eden Prairie Public Works Director
An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper
HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN (HC-TSP)
Exhibit 7-6
Access Spacing Guidelines - Urban
Access Spacing Criteria on County Roadway
Facilities Requesting Access
to County Roadways
Type of Access
Minor Arterial Roadways
Undivided Divided
Collector Streets
Non-Public - Low Volume (<1,000 ADT)
• Res'dental Driveways
• Low Trip Generating Commercial
Full Movement Access @ 1/8 Mile (660 ft)
Partial Access 1/8 Mlle (660 ft) 1/16 Mlle (330 ft)
Local Public Streets
• Local Residential Streets
Full Movement Access 1/4 Mlle (1,320 ft) 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/8 Mile (660 ft)
• Local Minor Collector Streets
Partial Access o
9
1/8 Mlle (660 ft)
Non-Public - High Volume (> 1,000 ADT)
• Shopping Center entrances
• Large Apt Complexes
• Large Industries, industrial Park Entrances
Full Movement Access 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/8 Mile (660 ft)
Partial Access ..0 1/8 Mlle (660 ft) 0
1 0
Arterial and Major Collector Roadways
• Principal Arterials (state highways)
• Minor ArteriaLs and Major Collector Roads
Full Movement Access 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft)
Partial Access v Full Access Allowed \
0
Notes: 1) Urban definition is based on being within the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary (MUSA)
- Access via alternative
2) Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes are based on 20-year forecasts
facility required
3) Measurements for spacing are taken to next access (driveway or street) on the same roadway side for divided minor arterials
- Further variance considered
4) Measurements for spacing are taken to next access on either side of road for undivided minor arterials
under hardship conditions
5) Existing medians will not be broken (even if the above guidelines would suggest full access is allowed)
6) Other criteria are also reviewed such as sight distance, speeds, traffic volumes and other elements (vehicle types, land use activity, etc.)
Exhibit 7-7
Access Spacing Guidelines - Rural
Access Spacing Criteria on County Roadway
Facilities Requesting Access
to County Roadways
Type of Access
Minor Arterial Roadways
Undivided
Collector Streets
Greater Than
7,500 ADT *
Less Than
7,500 ADT •
Non-Public - Low Volume (< 1,000 ADT)
• • FtesIdental Driveways
• Low Trip Generating Commercial
Full Movement Access 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/8 Mile (660 ft) 1/8 Mile (660 ft)
Local Public Streets
• Local Residential Streets
• Local Minor Collector Streets
Full Movement Access 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 118 Mlle (660 ft)
Non-Public • High Volume (>1,000 ADT)
• Shopping Center entrances
• Large Apt. Complexes
• Large Industries, Industrial Park Entrances
Full Movement Access 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/8 Mile (660 ft)
Arterial and Major Collector Roadways
• Principal Arterials (state highways)
• Minor Arterials and Major Collector Roads
Full Movement Access 1/2 Mile (2,640 ft) 1/4 Mlle (1,320 ft) 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft)
Notes: 1) Measurements for spacing are taken to next access (driveway or street) on the same roadway side for divided minor arterials
2) Measurements for spacing are taken to next access on either side of road for undivided minor arterials
3) Chart assumes all rural County roadways are undivided
4) Other criteria are also reviewed such as sight distance, speeds, traffic volumes and other elements (vehicle types, land use activity, etc.)
5) Rural area is defined as being outside the Year 2000 Metropolitan Service Area (MUSA) as defined by the Metropolitan Council
Changes to the above spacing guidelines may be granted where sufficient justification is provided.
Chapter 7
Access Management
Page 7-12
HEIVNEPIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN (HC-TSP)•
Minimum Safety Sight Distance Guideline**
The minimum entering sight distance guidelines of 10 times the
speed will be used for extreme circumstances where desirable
entering sight distances cannot be met and access off a county road
is necessary. The minimums are to afford a minimum level of
safety. No new accesses will be allowed, and no entrance permits
will be issued for proposed entrances that do not meet this basic
minimum criterion, but rather a partnership approach with
communities and property owners would be used to develop a safe,
acceptable solution.
Exhibit 7-9 below summarizes the minimum, desirable, and major
new construction sight distances.
Exhibit 7-9
Summary of Sight Distances for Vehicles Entering County Roadways
Minimum
Entering
Sight Distance
Desirable
Driveways and Street
Entrances
(existing & minor
construction)
MnDOT
Road Design Manual
Practice
(major new construction)
Speed
(MPH)
10X Speed
Limit
(ft)
Site
Distance to
Left (ft)
Site
Distance to
Right (ft)
Distance to Right and Left
Street Entrance (ft)
30 300 350 300 410
35 350 440 350 540
40 400 530 440 670
45 450 635 570 835
50 500 740 700 1,030
55 550 845 875 1,280
60 600 950 1,050 1,540
Chapter 7
Access Management
Page 7-18
April 11, 2007
To: Mayor Phil Young and all City Council Members
Planning Commission Members
City Staff
From: Barron and Suzanne Johnson
10065 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Re: Comments on the EAW for Roadway Alternatives to Prospect Road
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, Planning Commission Members and Staff,
Thank you for reviewing all public comments on the EAW and Prospect Road
alternatives. We have been attending all meetings and listening to comments from all
parties involved and do not envy your task of having to make a very difficult decision on
which road proposal to choose. However, we feel that the right decision will be made in
the end for the residents and City of Eden Prairie.
Our comments on the EAW are brief and as follows:
First, we would like to comment on the title of the EAW: Hennepin Village Roadway
Alternatives. This is a Hennepin Village issue, primarily, and as such that should be kept
in mind. There are only 5 "alternatives", as the 6 th "alternative" (Prospect Road) is not
an "alternative". It is the approved road that the Planning Commission and the City
Council approved 5 years ago.
As you know, the EAW was discretionary and completed as a result of concerns from
citizens that Prospect Road was not the best choice for the environment. After reviewing
the findings, Prospect Road CLEARLY stands out as the most "environmentally
friendly" alternative of all road alternatives presented. Putting in any of the other
alternative roadways would do far more damage to the environment, the sensitive bluff
areas, and require very expensive land acquisition at the expense of the City. Not to
mention far more in-depth research/cost to explore ANY of the other options proposed
with an EIS, as the EAW identified many potential issues with burial grounds, sites of
archeological interest, and plant species that were considered "threatened or endangered"
by the DNR. Alternatives 1-5 would also see the removal of wooded forest (see
questions #10 in "Cover types" with the estimated acreage each site would require to be
lost in order to complete each option.) Significant legal fees would also be incurred by
the city if alternates 1-5 were chosen. Again, Prospect Road stands out as the least
invasive and less expensive choice in these regards, CLEARLY.
We would also like to comment on the Traffic Impact Study. The study was not
complete and woefully inadequate in the proposed future development of the second site
of Hennepin Village that is planned. We would recommend that a real traffic study be
done with the proposed future development of up to 400 housing units in this area. The
current study does not even come close to being accurate stating "The proposed project
would not generate new traffic, but would reroute existing and future traffic". The
"future traffic" has not been taken into consideration. We also support the closing of
Eden Prairie Road at Highway 212 for safety reasons, and support the use of
breakthrough barriers for emergency vehicles only, as the great majority of traffic on
Eden Prairie Road flows North and is not neighborhood traffic, but rather transient, and
the new Spring Road/County Road 4 is the preferred route, as per discussions at both the
City Council meetings and the Planning Commission meetings.
Also, we ask your consideration in the area that is set for future development in the bluffs
area. In our opinion, it is too high of density for that area of Eden Prairie. It will be a
shame to see an identical "Hennepin Village" in the beautiful bluffs area, with the
proposed 90 homes going in to the South of Cedar Hills Golf Course and it is our
recommendation in light of the EAW to look at that area again and decrease the density
of the Hennepin Village site B, due to the economic biodiversity of the area. We
understand that this would decrease the tax base for the City, but we feel that is the right
approach to maintain the beauty of the area. Eden Prairie has historically kept "green
space" in mind, and such a large development with the proposed density would scourge
the area.
Thank you for reviewing these comments and taking them into consideration. We
understand that this is a process that must be followed through in regards to the EAW.
The primary objective of the EAW was to assess the best option of the roadway
alternatives presented, which it did, and Prospect Road is the clear choice for the City to
continue to support (as it has already approved this road once).
Sincerely,
Barron and Suzanne Johnson
Leslie Stovring
From: btj1965@att.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:47 PM
To: Gene Dietz; Communications E-Mail; Leslie Stovring
Subject: Public comments on EAW
Attachments: EAW Comments to the City.doc
Dear Mr. Dietz, Mr. Neal and Ms. Stovring,
I am sending along comments that I wish to be added to the public comments on the EAW for the Hennepin
Village Roadway Alternatives. (Better late then never, I guess). Please include them in the packets of
information that the Planning Commission, City Council and the City Staff are to review. Should you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me at 952-906-0488. Thank you.
--
Sue Johnson
4/11/2007
Mr. and Mrs. Todd K. Johnson
10020 Dell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Phone 952-829-1787
Fax 952-829-5954
March 14, 2007
Mr. Scott Neal
City Manager/RGU
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: EAW, Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives, Comments
Dear Mr. Neal:
I have the following comments in review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
referenced above. Please enter them into the record for consideration.
My principal concern with the document, as proposed, can best be addressed in reference to
Item 29, which reads, in part, as follows:
"...It is likely there will be traffic, storm water runoff, and bluff impacts from that new
development. Connecting Eden Prairie Road and Dell Road (Alternatives 1 and 2)
may also require future upgrades to Dell Road."
It is my contention that the additional upgrades mentioned in this Item should be given
consideration as a part of this document, as these Dell Road upgrades would be necessitated
by selection of either Alternative 1 or 2, and would involve environmental impacts at least
as serious and extensive as those addressed in the present EAW with regard to the project
area therein. Put another way, I believe that the project area under consideration is
insufficient to include all reasonably foreseeable impacts of the Alternatives presented.
Dell Road, in its present state, is a weight restricted route with significant grades, both
northwards up the Minnesota River Valley bluff from highway 212 and southwards
approaching its crossing of Riley Creek. The segment of Dell Road crossing Riley creek, in
fact, remains an unimproved dirt and gravel road with no shoulder, requiring periodic
grading maintenance to repair washouts and potholes. Some points along this segment of
Dell Road have, at present, inadequate turn visibility. In no way is Dell Road, in this current
state, capable of handling the anticipated increased levels of traffic which would be caused
by adoption of either Alternative 1 or 2.
The upgrades which would be required to Dell to handle traffic volumes re-routed from the
present Eden Prairie Road (Alternatives 1 and 2) would represent a project with magnitude
at least as great as those contemplated in the present EAW. Impacts which could be
immediately anticipated include altered land use, altered ground coverage, significant
increase in impervious surfaces and issues related to that increase, large volumes of soils
disturbed and relocated, altered fish and wildlife habitats, affects to regulated shore land
and watershed areas, and increased vehicle traffic and the attendant levels of emissions and
noise.
Mr. and Mrs. Todd K. Johnson
10020 Dell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Phone 952-829-1787
Fax 952-829-5954
March 14, 2007
Page two - EAW Comments
Impacts on the ecological structure of the river bluff, destruction of existing habitat, and
potential archaeological sites are all likely to be significant issues.
The modification needed to the present culvert through which Riley Creek passes would be
both extensive and invasive, if a standard roadway were to be established in place of the
narrow, low volume track now in place. A whole subset of issues quite similar to those dealt
with in regard to Alternative 6 would be necessitated by this part of the Dell upgrade.
Modifications needed to ameliorate the grade on the river bluff represent a completely
different but extensive subset of impacts requiring assessment.
For all of these reasons, it is my belief that the present EAW is not a complete document as
needed to adequately address all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the
alternatives presented. The document should be modified and Alternatives 1 and 2 be
eliminated from consideration, or the document should be expanded for an adequate
consideration of the upgrades proposed to Dell Road.
Summary
Upgrades to Dell Road are required by the adoption of either Alternative 1 or 2, as
recognized in Item 29 of this document. These upgrades therefore fall within the scope of
this EAW. They are not addressed in this document, as proposed, however. The document
is inadequate as a result.
Furthermore, the magnitude of the environmental impact of Dell Road upgrades could easily
match or exceed those of the various alternatives discussed in the present document. It
should not therefore be summarily dismissed from review, but should rather be included in
any consideration of Alternatives 1 and 2.
Todd K. Johnson - Resident
10020 Dell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Cc/Mr. Gene Dietz, P.E., Director of Public Works
Q-D)vq, di
1-km i:tit tots-I
barbara mackey kaerwer
12800 gerard drive
eden prairie, minnesota 55346-3130
tel/fax 952-941-2290
00\,-;04
,r2.(firt
Crti,(fri,ek-v
0 Tic \IA:A-A A 'goad
r3 L14-LL
-4J> Latl)i vo
w cc*: \Cfu,
0 kiLrost , li,„x•rx ovd;
t ,4 0.4e1 na..iikLAA .r)4
(eus) ThkJ -1-10 L v
c't st14 (51
cou
P-ea yLa vivi\.)s 1Rs \u/sto'iN
yAs) Inixf '?i›f), v)2> 1' Lti kg,,t iwe uu ?
I OF a,An ves-totA\41 )O,t42pv\ii Amlaiv-i-t A
V (JkaoSt HO° A oak
QJkJ3gs1,--6elj E
6-2).) g , cit
'-wv‘-i -k4;(2.(11 11\5' OAkIldT I 0 Skr ctvoi
2, a, „42)-(41p Qj4iuY
tii
aA \;Y>lYv-011:1„
1 ,
6-kri 6-rh;
W,/ z vo 0 \A-91k
1 Let Pli2-3" iphdltk +LI
°1 4
-flAdoiv3 cj i _0.7:11'„" rtd-q4-,
Lorene McWaters
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
ron kosteliz [rkosteliz@yahoo.com ]
Sunday, April 08, 2007 9:41 PM
GRP-AllCouncil
EXTENDING PROSPECT ROAD FROM HENNEPIN VILLAGE TO EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD
Dear Councilmembers: I'm a resident of Hennepin Village. My name is Ronald Kosteliz,
residing at 9756 Gable Drive. My home is about 50 feet from Prospect Road. We do not have a
burm to protect us from traffic on Prospect Road. I was told that the traffic on Prospect
Road would be light. I WAS NEVER TOLD, NOR MY NEIGHBORS, THAT PROSPECT ROAD WOULD BECOME A
MAJOR ROAD. EVERY PERSON I HAVE TALKED TO, IN HENNEPIN VILLAGE, STATED THEY WERE NEVER TOLD
THAT EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD AT 212 WOULD BE CLOSED. We were all told that houses would be built by
Eden Prairie Road and that Prospect Road would be extended to these homes, per Ryland Homes.
Prospect Road has bad sight lines, blind spots and with more traffic, I think we will be in
for some BIG SAFETY PROBLEMS. Prospect Road and Spring Road have problems with traffic in the
morning and at night. Close 212 at Eden Prairie Road and it will just add to the problem.
Prospect Road through Hennepin Village, was never built to handle or accomodate all of this
traffic and make it a through highway. I say, don't extend Prospect Road but let Eden Prairie
Road be the outlet for the 90 Hennepin Village/Ryland homes to be built. The outlet for the
homes should be Eden Prairie Road to Spring Road to 212. Thank you for your consideration
regarding this issue. Ron Kosteliz
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
9 2 e-c,J
/14 -tE5
N'Ide /1 6---a-k7-
r f_sr r;t,
P5 v d pro -s-/pz--c7 i?e/
s )44, RLs.
o If 776:ay
547 41 ,s7 -
3 1 ir €s t c iy >45:
//7 R
(IA k/a e ;442 ,eci krt.)
/-27
"c /1
o a- rify /574i 7 /-74/r-- 6-4 -x/ cts
i? a ./ e 7c7 Am? ey ,ti
6,5 /.,0. 6/7 -C-7- 7,2 Wci
/ 7 C- r /t2 --
/c/
s/4.
77) c.t9i 17-/ a 9
>y kin) zo 7`7 clASF -- 747;27S
A p e4 4E- "7' hai-
/7) //exg.:_z> 2E: ?z-66/1ct
c, ,6E- ifEe?.,--1.E2
G4) 1)4 E t/t;_r;).0 O -c
y 444 /pis)
Al 6)-r- ?C k fr_E--zzp /FE lb
krf
/al Def rEs7ortA6 -E-- --7L0 -.7174E
579 (. 74-23
17-69 /7 0 \_c-Jcz-zi--/-y ca,c) // z>
-fe//e2l:7 /c2sT
//0 fre/jr
) /72 112E75717
,/17/ e ct7LE: 122 Z-f,t17- (&cE / rc
eLS
-AL Rot?.0 fs. cke__A..7 9 4- Re a,S
ca r5 ,;6)i .,// c1614/).t) )4 7-A)
5//oz. 6,up
/5 7 ) ii2R 06 /fhIE
1/0 T2i) F-- i R.. 9 7 / n
6of )9.65a,2s
ack co/t3c,6k./0
s'L--Fil.--7Ly cis
• Q7./5 /37 72T
1/7i3 6r -cty
/77 4f-1,/ TcLs czsg
LkS of o r
Id+
.1e_p
fra As to Prospect Road, this matter will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council in the next
five weeks. To put this matter into historical perspective, it is important to remember that Prospect Road
was part of the original plan for the development of Hennepin Village. The currentftetindl has been
sked to look at alternatives and has done so, but even this step is unprecedented as roads are usually
built as the master development plan specifies. I do not know what Ryland told prospective purchasers but
the plan has always been to build Prospect Road. This may change, but i think that is unlikely.
• -fe:9R7Eri
/f. / 5 — tc. ds/ cc , Rthcii
17/1),D v/e-c./Z e,-()/// h//c-
57-4/s 1,5S ti&Z ,46 17D
•Pct_h l" Excel/
6 )c,L,R y phr ./ f --/-67
/4) cL. mc-L7
/ /la v p 17)A5S e c_D 7 17) ckli-/:-:LS,S
P-/ ff) di ‘d. 10 -t 17c/a4-6,
6clz (,/t Hc/ bt5 ?614 2,
Ch (O/0 74-0 (;21,2
I-245 th
WZZ /1---7-4//cir.-;E:i Qv--•TL i
rks z-ts r 7-; /km)y ,6 ,e.t:7',7
fV Q
Aie /?)a: v /((s7 47227/---c
fl) pro6/E/i7
`74.- p p rsicJt
/ cocz6
-24gy 1
re 6-6? (-7
s a.; k-cI_ 9 E: a I/7-
/ tr)E._ c.( rcz ch
5 r a -74 7C-F;-C:7; 4:5
JI
/IT) prel._E le,--,_.7:-L- 64 le-: /I- C-1(.9/tc--4 717e/ti -1"
147 tzz--- c__,c,c t.. vF - , 2,/-:-7
777 / 4/1/4/L-zi Au' Yedczy 6 - c5 79d a PrIS %
C-9 f I PP "Dr& C) (5. a GKLI C
/4ic7/-u I S 7iD c_e_4)
/ 4 /
,15,5
c-t r po t,( hs c iv r k:_c I
,qv u ,
g7r.__ [a/o c/
k eiga-1-7-- n z./6icx__
r a9(5'ceici Ca/b_E.-CT ?(>1.-y ---f<1-1.
cleVAP /C5 7 Tf be 9 /22 'ZS
il-1766. 192, rE e 4) /
EEG; /
C.,cA__4.)/tietryE i -f:
Conlmiz-:-.07 - /6 6/F4c.77
/41
f
4.)/
L./ 4)cii---:::Z.,5--T,14)
1 4/‹ /c/o ,
/ A./c I
r2E
if
/iv' 6et / ti gof ct.TE 54' r
peS PE/0% -f
/4) cin‘ye. tri rillrev-Ts.ft)--fietWEJ)
/ F.: LE k a 174 / ck i ,LH) r1-4
043 .1-AAL rrt-tt: „c'cr.FL5-ty j...5S6c E
7 mply c eewo 4,9 0 7' y tz :k betv
p Ice,tp 4,1 I A)
/7-pp re vcz_I / 0 7 i5 1-0 if 0 /4)14 -
c-4,5 eiti y c.-43),t)olt(s7 /nvy-)/-- •74-e) ‘Afat-
/1>Fizo/5- Ee. ;-ef 7.-)t"-(17/;C ‘4,96' ks - /
r'EfrF,St--->TuT -2/74 E6-7/5v6 . kpirilyt_77' 6.) I ?r,e25? •Rei
°J-r 15- kit/ fis /7- eiTa,tg 71-odeof
1--iLtp rna a i Ocal - re- Nfei rc-E. E
-1-e:,) do$ E 'Rd
CL A3
a--66.8`cr
Leslie Stovring
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Stuart_Mathewson@swissre.com
Thursday, April 05, 2007 5:22 PM
Communications E-Mail
Leslie Stovring; GRP-AllCouncil; raymond stoelting@golden.com ; pete@rockfordinc.com ;
jstoltz@shopNBC.com ; Jlkirk4@aol.com ; -rankpow@comcast.com ; Jerry@Pitzrick.com
EAW Report - Prospect Road
Mr Scott Neal, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission and the Eden Prairie City Council
I am a resident of Hennepin Village - 9759 Cupola Ln
I have several comments to make on the current proposal on extending Prospect Road to serve as the major
through road from Eden Prairie Road to the south.
The road was originally approved as a local road to connect two sections
of Hennepin Village. There was no thought in the design that it would
carry significant traffic loads
The proposed closing of the 212/Eden Prairie Road intersection obviously
changes this dynamic drastically
The huge additional development near Beverly Road was also not in the
plan
My first thought is - why chose to close the intersection with this
growth? Has there been any thought on improving the intersection
itself. It is hardly the fault of our area that Eden Prairie Road was
designed as a rural road and not updated through the years. Should we
bear the traffic problems of all this new growth on Eden Prairie Road
just because the traffic issues weren't worked out?
I suppose the answer is that there was, on the map, an approved
extension of Prospect Road. That looked like an easy fix.
But, Prospect Road is not just a line on a map - it is a local road,
designed for traffic within a designed development
I ask that you, the planning commission members and the city council to
drive the road before telling us that it can serve as a major
through-route between the 400+ houses near Eden Prairie Road and all
points south.
After driving it, imagine the safety issues and the drastic change in
character of the area.
Along those lines, will the speed limit be 25 mph - and enforced? That
would be consistent with Chalson Road being 30 mph, with turning lanes
and berms to protect the housing. But I don't see the rush hour traffic
as driving that slow - unless the cars are simply stuck on the road due
to congestion.
I have heard that the road is already partially funded by the developer,
but I can't imagine that, that includes the major bridge work that must
occur over Riley Creek if it is to carry the traffic that is sure to
flow
The solution of making Prospect Road major connector is obviously the
"easy fix." After all, it is already approved and somewhat funded by
the developer. But, this ignores the changes that totally change the
character of the road from what was approved. And, it really won't be
that cheap
Therefore, I urge you to find a different answer to this issue. I
acknowledge that there are no easy answers. And, there is a lot of
pressure from the other side. But, using some common sense, just look
carefully at the situation.
I also must protest some of the process involved here. The fact that
very few Hennepin Village residents were notified is just wrong.
Prospect is our only egress road - any change to it effects everyone on
the west side of Spring Road. Again, if you would just drive out and
look at the situation, it will be apparent.
Also, the lack of proper traffic studies is a major deficiency. This is
about "Planning;" and any planner, by definition, looks at the
foreseeable future - huge traffic volumes are foreseeable.
The EAW only looked at one alternative in detail. Again, Prospect Road
was perceived as the easy fix, so the alternatives were not adequately
explored; including the alternative of not closing the 212/EP Road
intersection.
Thank you for your attention. Please advise the commission to think this through before approving this
alternative.
Stuart Mathewson
9759 Cupola Lane
Eden Prairie, MN
952-929-1360
This e-mail, including attachments, is intended for the person(s) or company named and may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this
information may be unlawful and is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this
message and notify the sender
April 11, 2007
City of Eden Prairie
Leslie Stovring
Environmental Coordinator
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives
Dear Leslie,
I am enclosing my assessment of the Appendix A Traffic Impact Study of
Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives and Environmental Assessment
Worksheet. I am also enclosing a supplement to my report which outlines
aspects of my report that I have not covered. The supplement is from a head
roadway civil engineer who is hoping the responses presented to the city in
regarding roadway alternatives will help mitigate his need to become further
involved in the course of the events.
I would also like to know if the city plans to respond individually or will there be a
public forum to comment on or answer questions posed during the gathering of
facts and information from the public? Do we need to submit a request? If so,
please consider this my request.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tim McLaughlin
9999 Dell Road
Home: 952-974-7812
Cell: 612-910-7796
Work: 952-944-1665
1
Assessments of
Appendix A Traffic Impact Study of Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives
And
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
My position is that Prospect Road should go ahead as planned, it is by far the best alternative
offered to the problem. The city planners have already made plans to allow that portion of Riley
Creek to become heavily developed by housing, which will not allow any significant quality of
native flora to survive. The remaining woodland and prairie area will be subject to adverse
environmental hazards that accompany large housing developments, such as human activity,
fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, trash, auto, and other household pollutants, etc. Over a long
period of time such stressors to a small environment will diminish ecological quality of these
natural spaces, these natural spaces act more as a buffer for the housing development than an
independent ecosystem. This would not be a great place to make a stand to save threatened
plant species.
My main concern in this matter is Turnbull Road Alternatives 1and 2. I live on Turnbull Road
and my concern for the preservation of the Riley Creek Conservation Area (RCCA) and the bluff
area is strong but objective. If the community of Eden Prairie was enlightened on the issues of
the destructive impact that such a roadway would have on RCCA; they would be outraged that
the south end RCCA would possibly be sacrificed for an area along Riley Creek that is far less
significant to RCCA and less volatile environmentally as my letter will further demonstrate.
“The Big Woods”, (RCCA) area is a part of the less than 1% of undisturbed woodland left in
Minnesota. You can at anytime walk through this park and feel like you’re stepping back in
time. There are no city noises. The natural landscape and the tree canopy along the Riley
Creek Valley are unmatched inside the twin cities. The aspect I find most confusing about
whether or not to cross Riley Creek at Prospect Road is that the creek will soon be surrounded
by large housing developments, bringing with it all the environmental hazards that come with
such development. It should be apparent that the remaining natural land area will suffer due to
the scope and size of the housing developments.
What I find most irrational and hypocritical about the environmental impact a bridge will have on
the creek area, is that it ignores the development around this creek area but looks the other way
when offering Turnbull Road as a viable solution. The environment around Turnbull is a unique,
2
pristine and fragile forest creek valley. The Prospect Road Alternative 6 as well as all other
alternatives are not comparable to the beauty or the fragile nature of the environment, the
ecosystem and how it impacts the rest of the RCCA.
Housing development along Turnbull Road is sparse with large lots as reflected in city and state
rules and regulations. This is why we moved here, for the privacy and quiet natural beauty of
“The “Big Woods” and Riley Creek Valley. We were told due to the sensitive nature of the
environment, ecosystem, habitat and bluffs, development needs to be held to the minimal
impact, but current events tends to suggest such goals are false and are subject more to
political agenda than park preservation.
If Turnbull Road Alternatives come through, the front of my house will be less than 70 feet off
the new road. The impact for us is unthinkable at this time, not to mention the loss of trees that
will be replaced with a view of a busy traffic way. To further aggravate this tragedy due to the
straight alignment of the road and lack of housing; vehicle speeds will be well above posted
limits. Such a road design would not only make the road unsafe for the people living along
Turnbull but also for other drivers. I also have very young children, so this will pose an even
greater issue for me and my family.
Due to the lack of housing and neighborhood supervision and large wooded area this roadway
will also create an easy opportunity for the dumping of trash of all kinds; violators will find this
roadway an easy target to discard anything from beer cans, to mattresses, box springs and
construction debris, etc…. This is most evident along Dell Road which has the same
characteristics, and the amount of discarded trash is substantial.
The southern area of RCCA and the Minnesota Bluff area have many environmental attributes
that deserve a closer look before a decision is made whether to put a roadway through. I will
present them in three broad categories, environmental, community, art factual.
Art factual
“The Big Woods”, Riley Creek Conservation Area is an extremely rare park and is all that
remains of untouched old growth forest in Minnesota, less than 1% exist today. To the south
end, running parallel to this ancient woodland lays the current gravel road Turnbull, and
adjacent to the south is the Minnesota River Valley Bluffs. Few barriers exist except for a few
3
homes with large lots. There are also a number of Native American burial mounds within a few
feet of the planned alternative road route.
This road has always been very well maintained by the people living on Turnbull and is still
today. I have never seen Turnbull in a state of disrepair. The gravel road integrates into park
area in a very natural way and doesn’t take away anything from the natural beauty of the RCCA
and river bluffs environment.
Community
The few families living along Turnbull Road have had no real negative impact on the RCCA and
bluff area. Currently along Turnbull there are relatively few physical barriers between Riley
Creek Conservation area and the Minnesota River Valley Bluffs. Hikers and visitors in the big
woods can move about in a natural environment unspoiled by the sounds and visual impact of
traffic. Unfortunately because of the isolation of the RCCA and easy vehicle access that
Alternatives 1and 2 would provide, this stretch of road will most certainly become a trash
dumping ground for tires, mattresses, beer cans, etc…, which will have adverse impact for
those who visit the RCCA.
Turnbull is a road that runs parallel at the southern end of the largest area of the RCCA which
rests high on a ridge with Riley Creek below it to the north, and the bluffs of the Minnesota River
Valley to the south. With the road placed so high on a Riley Creek Valley ridge noise from cars,
trucks and motorcycles will be easily carried throughout the southern park area altering the
natural tranquility, peaceful settings, and visual beauty of that the area provides for visitors to
the RCCA.
The natural peaceful nature of RCCA will be sacrificed for the Prospect Road area of the creek,
which in relative scope is a drive by area with high density housing. For this reason alone we
should consider the solution of Alternatives 1 and 2 as very short sighted in scope. I would think
the community of Eden Prairie would be better served by protecting the largely unaltered area of
RCCA along Turnbull than the other highly developed area along Prospect Road, which by the
way, still has not demonstrated what adverse impact that a bridge would create to the
community as a whole. There is however an overt slant presented by a so claimed free
consultant / environmentalist. The hypocrisy of his claims are either a show of his apparent bias
or a demonstration of his incompetence or more likely both.
4
Environmental
Among the many ecological sensitive elements to this area there is a primordial pond which
may likely be the only one that exists in Minnesota less than 1% “Big Woods” ecosystem. Very
little light makes it way through the canopy of trees, creating a very unique environment for
plants, animals and organisms in this habitat in and around the pond habitat. This pond would
be within 50 feet of the alternate roadway and would not only be a source of contamination but
would alter the natural water shed to the pond. Snow plows would throw contaminated snow
directly into the pond.
The loss of the natural state of this unique pond and the fragile ecosystem that exists dwarfs
such damage caused by a prospective bridge crossing the creek. This pond will easily become
polluted by salt, oil, trash from such a roadway. The resulting effect to the pond and the
surrounding ecosystem, unique to the pond, would be enveloped with trash, car tires and other
pollutants less visual but ultimately more destructive to this rare ecosystem.
As Turnbull Road borders along the upper south side of a steep north facing slope of Riley
Creek Valley and if the alternative roads are built, the slope will allow all types of pollutants to be
washed down into the creek. This will be most evident during the spring melt, due to salt, sand
and other contaminants produced by such a roadway.
Years of contamination from road snow mainly from snowplowing, will have a cumulative effect
on long-term pollution built up for the Riley Creek Valley and direct road snow and water
contamination to the primordial pond will inversely alter the environment causing ecological
damage.
Snow plowing will result in heavy erosion patter on the steeper slope areas, due to the banking
of snow along the roadway. The dense tree canopy and the steep north facing slope receive
very little or no direct sun light, (even in the spring because of the angle of the sun to slope)
reaches the ground creating soil conditions that lies exposed and loose or unpacked. Walking
on this soil is like walking on fine tilled soil. Water running off from the unnatural snow pack will
result in annual slope erosions, and with each new year the erosive damage increases.
5
I am sure there are other environmental impact issues such a roadway would have on this
environmentally fragile “Big Woods” creek valley but I am not an environmentalist.
Where is a good free consulting environmentalist when you need one?
I feel I have made a strong presentation on the very fragile aspect of the Turnbull area, how the
RCCA and the Minnesota bluff area transition together with the limits on development allows the
RCCA to maintain a thriving ecologically stable environment. The restriction to development in
the area has provided a secure future for the RCCA and the Bluffs, and assure that the
environment will provide flora, wildlife, hikers and other visitors access without the destructive
presence that this type of roadway presents.
Public Agenda
In the Eden Prairie News there has been a falsehood perpetuated to the public that the
Fredrick-Miller Spring could be contaminated by the road construction. I believe it has already
been clearly demonstrated that is not the case. The spring’s actual source is well above the
grade of Prospect Road and is actually piped down to its current location. I would like for the
City Official to clarify this issue for the community. Such statements are established clearly to
mislead the public. Also from the same article, why would the runoff from the Turnbull
alternatives be less of an impact to Riley Creek than Prospect road; Turnbull presents greater
exposure to the creek due to the slope and length of the road.
This whole controversy is more of an economic problem for the developer, and not an
environmental problem for the community. As this report has presented, there are a number of
incomplete elements to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Appendix A Traffic
Impact Study for Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives. To continue with and not take into
account the end result that the alternative roadway creates and not to fairly represent these
tremendous differences is negligent on many accounts. Prospect Road crossing is the best
alternative and if it is not possible there must be a look at other solutions. One option not
presented would be to redirect the secondary access through the southeast end of the
development that is gong into the old Cedar Hills golf course since that is the one of the primary
reason for the need of the need for a new road. This is a better solution than Alternative 3
because it provides access to Spring RD with out affecting a developed property.
6
My thanks to the city for the opportunity to express my concern and hopes that they are aware
of the need to preserve this Turnbull and RCCA area as it is for now and for the future
generations of the Eden Prairie community to enjoy but more so for the future of the habitat that
thrives there.
A supplement to my report is an attachment which further out lines aspects that my report has
not covered. Close consideration should be taken on the review of this assessment and
comments.
If you have any questions please call me.
Tim McLaughlin
9999 Dell Road (Turnbull Road)
Home: 952-974-7812
Cell: 612-910-7796
Office: 952-944-1665
Apr. 9. 2007 f2:35PM
0 . 0112 P,
4.11-; AVAIr _ _4.s j r
_orNOLAS_-•se r‘9"._$
ex=5!!- _
netc
Ve„,-Tkrt •
o_skcok:c.c‘,,:io .
.. sa4 _..ck\kcoNfro,e4r- tkr*N% l'tsPt-e it 4efit 1/4ArktiS
... ,clocrgi 13,\
,71u. sk‘-P.4.....t 0.41 4.‘",tbi,
. _
4o -4te, 0 AIN NowvMeN
1 0 4' Lagf4.44` /Lk is 1.410_o . ink44- chtivf;Acii
.r_ts 1 icift14305-LC.7. L__ CP...1 1'71 .
s Aie 4.5-1012c __C
./d._0444 e'S
e..$S ErA vIrd" fro.siirp. I 22" 0*
.A Oezre,A4t* . 6 cs4.0sLorecf 4 IptrelAi Z
_ Itis j -Orvo./.4 1. 1.
- _.1.5,±
e . .
Rece[ved Time APr . 9. r2:
Apr. 9. 2007 I235PM
No. 0111 P. 3
z
_17) wr
,c_p_in .ssap-5.04 1 .
***‘Cir 4rs. _ iv\
•
I Vn-544-4-1-5 - 11Z,N-ke VAN. aresaA
IQ c\‘. 1%-e
\_
\N%rvie.).frl
OrrvOrick-Ov ;:tra-\
1 1\42-
Pr_74,1
kg" A to c144AoN 4StN etcN gitc,v44 S
ztp_ort.cibe 1\c&±t....
sr43r) _ cjip,e3 .caktitt
__Jr .ric&Nv• _Co
16.I cm\ek
.C.4mANA,
be- v44
er‘Ner cci` kd t
J,me
•mei-Vs% +Vsa,,,17.4 dQ 4 L. siv t )-
141,A?k .
, Ctiw%.C.t
-Received Timeilrir.
Apr. 9. 200? 11:35PM
Ni:'. 0111
l eSS __ 4043?•tr..A8._0,1,4.. COW% A\N__.crf, 'f3 le 55 .01)•
tNv‘r% o-\14 jo 4c lag% P044 _
1,14A. rcriArs.p fk ou,4 1 c- 3rcci
kiCl_ckk. 441 3 -Oortrt..Protc e1/4".." ro
_ A- \ ke_r r4e....Irc 6
Ad 1) verL-tc,Ae
4kcs 44.Pwiri -5 .A1?
iggr uy1). 41‘4. 01?' ctojt,X,„v
AtAvs.,t- g
•
4s14,4-. rfAA4 bt Is7t.wc. c_s_LT
_LI,L._4\NptrA.5.15-5 2 ceNkt,.._ _ciwt ijAiNtrt,
rri _cert!r4Ifogy. IP/reak. ir_SkS\ TQAPP4___It5 cAL Arla.v.`1%
L_Vr_geb% Prw. tc _SAL 44_,Av t") DeP, 1:2 4:pui -16._
ria0 34- d\A-1/44AitA Acr es
_ao*P-t9."_154.A _ECILlekk C
/444a( ru Agchl Nye tie
af4 Orpi,ckirm
e ce i v d Time-Apr. 9.-12:33PM
Apr, 9. 2007 12;36PM
No. 0112
_A".‘LCV.f_Pt _NzAN\c.,A
i!'NetirrANc, rqi,y.kpo
.bt 4. Otf_vk kdk ..4 sq.k •
_crii‘..1rAke \ CANA. 1 5.4,41.A ‘?lerh-Aiiii4.J1_,
.FP3i_MikS01.dr
tpaiN\ neeer.te:t:/__
14,k4144._..c.11.4)49 .„.m. 1C1 61 A ;color dt'L +kr.
c.!,.4,L.4_
2 441 c-9-m-IP 41.?
(ex,
L
1
---------4-----Rece i ved Ti me —AP r . 9 .-1 2: 334
Page 1 of 2
Leslie Stovring
From:
Tim M. McLaughlin [tim@grootvvassink.com ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:35 PM
To:
Leslie Stovring
Subject:
Prospect Road Plan
Attachments: Tim McLaughlin (tim@grootvvassink.com ).vcf
Dear Leslie Stovring,
I live at 9999 Dell Road or Turnbull Road. I feel the plan to run a main road to service other
developments or future developments is fundamentally wrong.
The Oak Creek at Hennepin Village development created the noise and pollution therefore, it should be
responsible for the result of dealing with it in an environmentally sound manner.
I believe the bridge at Prospect Road should be built. This was the design approved by the developer
and approved by the city. Eden Prairie Road should be turned into a one way going north up the bluff
and end at a cul-de-sac to allow two way traffic to the north of the bluff area.
A higher traffic road on Turnbull would adversely impact the natural environment of the Bluffs, Riley
Creek and the Big Woods. The volume of traffic would have the same or similar impact on Riley Creek,
the Big Woods and springs along the bluffs that it would for Prospect Road.
The road grades and speed of the cars going through this area would also become a safety hazard. My
question is how you put a road on Turnbull without making it a straight road? The only way to manage
car speed is to make the road curving and how do you do this with out compromising the creek, the
park, the bluffs and the residents?
The financial cost to put a road on Turnbull would be grossly inequitable to the residents. This road no
matter how you justify it is being built to service another community and the need of a developer and or
future development that may never happen.
To place this responsibility on another community is irresponsible, and to justify it for future
development that may never take place has questionable legal merits.
There is only a downside for residents on Turnbull Rd if such a .road is to happen; grossly inequitable
cost of the road, pollution, environmental degradation to a the Big Woods park area along the Bluff, and
The impacted of noise and the sight of cars that come with higher traffic roads.
Tim McLaughlin
Grootwassink Real Estate
6440 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 203
Eden Prairie MN 55344
(0) 952-944-1665
(C) 612-910-7796
(F) 952-944-2419
timgrootwassink.com
2/15/2007
t Metropolitan Council
February 27, 2007
Gene Dietz, Public Works Director
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 44344
Re: City of Eden Prairie — Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) — Hennepin Village
Roadway Alternatives
Metropolitan Council Review No. 19946-1
Metropolitan Council District 3 (Mary Hill Smith, 952-475-1388)
Dear Mr. Dietz:
The City of Eden Prairie is considering closing or rerouting the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and
Flying Cloud Drive. Six roadway alternates are being considered too provide for traffic flow and
adequate emergency access. The proposed project is called Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives.
Council staff has conducted a review of this EAW to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing
regional concerns and potential for causing significant environmental effects. Staff finds that the
proposed project has the potential for causing significant adverse environmental effects. While the EAW
has identified that such impacts could occur (including groundwater diversions, ecologically sensitive
native plant community impacts, and bluff protection zone impacts), it has not adequately determined
their potential severity. Staff recommends more detailed alternative analysis be undertaken before a
negative declaration on the need for an EIS is made and a preferred alternative is selected.
Item 6— Project Description (James Larsen, P.E., Sr. Environmental Planner, 651-602-1159,
Jim.Larsen@metc.state.mn.us )
All six proposed roadway alternatives to maintain the existing connection between Eden Prairie Road and
current U.S. 212 have been evaluated using the Appendix 'A' traffic model, that has only forecast traffic
numbers through 2008. Additionally, each of the six roadway alternatives is predicted to need a waiver
from the City's existing bluff protection ordinance or have potential groundwater, surface water, and/or
ecologically sensitive native plant community impacts that have not been adequately investigated in this
document to assess each alternative's cumulative environmental impacts. Due to the proximity of the
project site and potential impacts, Council staff anticipates that there could be down-gradient impacts to
the adjacent Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, a potential impact of Metropolitan Significance.
The document is not clear about where and how, under each of the proposed roadway alternatives,
existing Eden Prairie road would be closed off from through-traffic. Council staff presumes that the
existing connection to Trunk Highway (TH) 212 will need to be maintained below the face of the bluff
for each alternative to provide access to existing parcels of record north of the highway in that location.
The Record of Decision document needs to clarify this issue.
The Appendix 'A' "Traffic Impact Study" evaluates projected traffic volumes to only 2008 for each of the
roadway alternatives. Council staff recommends that the study be revised to reflect ultimate build-out
www.metrocouncil.org
390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651) 602-1000 • Fax (651) 602-1550 • TTY (651) 291-0904
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Gene Dietz, Public Works Director
February 27, 2007
Page 2
development traffic volumes through the area to determine whether one or more of the proposed roadway
alternatives will be necessary, and if or when further roadway redesign might be necessary.
Council staff recommends the Record of Decision document address the viability of an alternative that
would maintain the existing location of Eden Prairie Road over/down the bluff in its current location, with
revisions to its connection to TH 212 that would either minimize or eliminate current public safety issues.
This roadway alternative would minimize the number of new impact zones along the bluff face, to
minimize wildlife crossings, vegetation impacts, and new sources of erosion along the highly erodable
bluff face.
Item 11 – Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources (James Larsen, P.E., Sr. Environmental
Planner, 651-602-1159, Jim.Larsen@metc.state.mn.us )
The potential for redirection of local groundwater flow and negative surface water impacts to Riley Creek
has not been adequately evaluated in the EAW. The document states that the area in the vicinity of
Alternative #6 is guided for medium-density residential development. It is unclear from the document or
the City's existing comprehensive plan, whether or not a roadway crossing of Riley Creek to connect to
Prospect would be necessary in conjunction with planned development in this area. Council staff
recommends that the Record of Decision document clarify these issues.
Item 12– Physical Impacts on Water Resources (James Larsen, P.E., Sr. Environmental Planner, 651-
602-1159, Jim.Larsen@metc.state.mn.us )
Storm water runoff from several of the proposed roadway alternatives will be routed into Riley Creek
following pretreatment. Riley Creek has been designated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) as an impaired water, and is on the agency's 'Total Maximum Daily Load' (TMDL) list for
turbidity, which negatively impacts aquatic life. The current turbidity level in the creek due to suspended
solids exceeds the accepted federal Clean Water Act adopted water quality standard. This turbidity
impairment is likely due to pollutants in storm water runoff, exacerbated by the highly erodable soils in
the creek's watershed. The MPCA has established a timeline of 2005 –2009 for completion of a Riley
Creek TMDL study, which will include a plan to restore the creek's ability to meet water quality
standards. Projects that might negatively impact the water quality in Riley Creek may be required to
provide additional levels of water quality improvement, in accordance with ultimate TMDL study and
program requirements.
Item 25—Nearby Resources—Parks, Recreation Areas and Trails (Jan Youngquist, Senior Park
Planner, 651-602 1029, Jan.Youngquist@metc.state.mn.us )
The EAW should acknowledge that the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located
on the south side of Highway 212, across from the EAW study area and at the intersection of Roadway
Alternative 5 with Highway 212. The Refuge, a component of the Regional Park and Open Space
System, lies at the base of the bluff and continues south to the Minnesota River. It is afforded protection
through the 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan and the Council's review authority for impacts of
Metropolitan Significance.
Gene Dietz, Public Works Director
February 27, 2007
Page 3
The EAW indicates that Roadway alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6 are partly within a Bluff Impact Zone and that
roads are permitted to be constructed on steep slopes provided that adequate erosion control measures are
taken. The EAW then states: "The City Council must evaluate whether erosion control measures
proposed for any selected alternate for construction in the Bluff Impact Zone meets those requirements or
whether a waiver should be granted based on the need for road construction." Council staff has concerns
regarding the potential impacts to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge from a waiver of the
Bluff Impact Zone requirements or the implementation of inadequate erosion control methods. The EAW
has not adequately addressed the environmental impacts of such a waiver, which may differ based on
each of the various roadway alternative scenarios.
Staff recommends that a more detailed analysis of the cumulative impacts of each roadway alternative be
prepared prior to the determination of whether an EIS is necessary.
This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. The Council will take no formal action on the
EAW. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact the two technical review
staff noted above or Jim Uttley, AICP, Principal Reviewer and Sector Representative at 651-602-1361.
Phyllis Hanson, Manager
Local Planning Assistance
cc: Leslie A. Stowing, Environmental Coordinator, City of Eden Prairie
Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division
Mary Hill Smith, Metropolitan Council District 3
Keith Buttleman, Environmental Services
Jim Uttley, AICP, Principal Reviewer and Sector Representative
Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator
V:\Reviews 'Em unities\Eden PrairieTette IEden Prairie 2007 EAW Hennepin Village Roadway Alternative 19946-1.doe
toNEsop Minnesota Department of Transportation
0
kt Metropolitan District
(fp Waters Edge
OF IRO 1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113-3174
February 22, 2007
Michael Franzen
City of Eden Prairie Planner
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
SUBJECT: Hennepin Village Roadway EAW (Prospect Road EAW)
Mn/DOT Review #EAW07-001
Flying Cloud Drive (TH 212) and Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Hennepin
Control Section 2744
' Dear Mr. Franzen:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Hennepin Village Roadway EAW (Prospect Road
EAW). Mn/DOT's staff has reviewed the plans and has the following comments. Please address
these comments prior to further development.
Design/Traffic:
Roadway alternates 6, 3, and 4 are the preferred options (in that order). These three alternates
would route traffic to Spring Rd in order to access TH 212. The intersection of Spring Rd and
TH 212 provides left and right turn lanes making it more suitable for the redirection of traffic.
Alternates 1 and 2 route traffic to Dell Rd in order to access TH 212. This intersection does not
have a left turn lane, therefore these alternates would not be recommended unless a left turn lane
was constructed.
The access to 212 from alternate 5 would not provide adequate sight distance in either direction.
Intersection Site Distance (ISD) at the proposed new location (Alt. 5) may be as little as 600' to
the west, and 950' to the east, due to the horizontal curves. At the posted 55 mph, the desired ISD
is 1220'; the minimum (10 sec.) is 810'.
For questions concerning these comments, please contact Lindsay Sheppard (651-634-2379) in
Mn/DOT Traffic Engineering Section.
Drainage:
There is not enough information in the EAW to determine if a drainage permit is required. When
the plans are developed, the city will need to provide drainage comps and drainage area maps so
that Mn/DOT can determine if a drainage permit will be required. For questions concerning
drainage, please contact Derek Beauduy (651-634-2080) in Mn/DOT's Water Resources Section.
Permits:
Any work impacting MnDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from
MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/utility . Please include 1 full size plan
set and 1 electronic plan set in pdf format for each application. For questions concerning permits,
please contact Jeff Dierberger (651-582-1443) in Mn/DOT's Permits Section.
1
An equal opportunity employer
As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as
plats and site plans to:
Development Reviews
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2)
copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a
plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay
Mn/DOT's 30-day review and response process to development proposals. We appreciate your
anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from
having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals.
If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582-
1548.
Tod Sherman
Planning Supervisor
Copy: Bob Byers / Hennepin County Planner
Copy sent via Groupwise:
Buck Craig
Lindsay Shephard
Derek Beauduy
Ken Ljung
Jeff Dierberger
Victoria Nill
Cindy Carlsson
Ann Braden / Metropolitan Council
File Copy:
Mn/DOT Division File CS 2744
Mn/DOT LGL File Eden Prairie
Leslie Stovring
From: Morales, Marty [Marty.Morales@ironmountain.com ]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:35 AM
To: GRP-AllCouncil; Leslie Stovring; Communications E-Mail
Subject:
Prospect Road Extension
Importance: High
Dear Council Members, Leslie Stovring, Scott Neal:
I received a letter last night informing me of the proposed extension for Prospect Road at Hennepin Village in Eden
Prairie. I am so upset with this proposal that I don't know Where to being. First of all, when we purchased our home from
Rylan Homes three years ago; I was told that a swimming pool was going to be build where the propose extension is to
go. I was later told by the sales office that no pool was to be built but rather homes would be built. Now I hear about this
extension, which it sounds like meetings have been held with NO communication to home owners about this. I don't like
being lied to and force fed a proposal which will have effect on my investment (home) in Eden Prairie. I moved from
Bloomington after 23 years thinking Eden Prairie was an up and coming community and cared about its residents.
Here as just a few reason why I don't feel the proposal is justified and should not be approved:
• The heavy traffic (30-40 Feet) will be right in my living room. I live right on Prospect Road.
• The road is build for neighborhoods and not a major road like Eden Prairie Road for example.
• School buses come in to pick up kids and will have to wait next to heavy traffic.
• There is heavy pedestrian / resident use of walk ways. Remember we were told these were walking paths, etc.
• Where do you expect my guest to park when lots are full and they can't park on Prospect Road?
• Do I really have to say anything about Eden Prairie Road and 212 being closed and the impact of traffic?
• Where are the environmental and traffic impact studies? Who did them and who received a copy?
These are just a few of the things I can think of but I am sure myself and the other residents can think of more if you would
ask or need them for your documentation. Here is the last two points I would like to make. City official are to represent all
residents of Eden Prairie, so why do we have some of them working with residents from the west side of Eden Prairie
Road along with Faegre & Benson law firm?? Is the message to me and other residents that unless I am rich enough to
afford an attorney or have the in with certain city official; we will impose our will on you for our benefit!! In addition, could
some one explain to me how this proposal is for the good of All the residents of Hennepin Village, not just those who can
afford attorneys, who have made the investment to move to Eden Prairie?
If I have been mislead; please let me know and I apologies for this email. I plan to attend your City Planning Commission
meeting on April 9th to hopefully hear how this is in my best interest or not.
Marty Morales
15600 Prospect Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Marty Morales
Manager, Human Resources
Iron Mountain
9715 James Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55431
marty.moralesironmountain_com
952-888-3852 Ext: 207
Cell: 952-292-5024
Toll Free: 1-866-670-2204
Fax: 952-888-8445'
4/9/2007
oFICii Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
!Hitt nV/1111111141 CUC-864 I 651-282-5332 TTY I www.pca.state.mn.us
February 21, 2007
Mr. Scott Neal
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Mr. Neal:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has received copies of the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared for the above project, prepared by the city of
Eden Prairie, Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). The MPCA has not reviewed the EAW
for this project; therefore, the MPCA has no specific comments to provide the RGU. This
decision not to review the EAW does not constitute waiver by the MPCA of any pending permits
required by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the project proposer to secure any
required permits and to comply with any requisite peimit conditions. The enclosed checklist
identifies permits that the project may require, together with the most recent contacts at the
MPCA.
We remind the RGU that, pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 5 (Environmental Quality
Board Rules), a copy of the RGU's decision on this EAW needs to be sent to the MPCA.
Sincerely,
Jessica Ebertz
Project Manager
Environmental Review and Operations Section
Regional Division
JE:mbo
Enclosure
cc: Gene Dietz, P.E., City of Eden Prairie
St. Paul I Brainerd Detroit Lakes Duluth I Mankato I Marshall I Rochester I Willmar I Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper
CILECKLIST
After a cursory review of the proposed project, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff noted areas that may
need additional follow-up and/or a permit from the MPCA. Those specific areas are checked below:
• n SDS Permit — Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit
A State Disposal System (SDS) Permit is required for any extension of a sanitary sewer. If a sanitary sewer is
proposed as a part of this project, an application for the SDS Permit should be made to the MPCA by contacting
David Sahli, Municipal Division (MUN), Metro Region, at 651/296-8722.
NPDES/SDS Permit for dredged material disposal. — 14errN cck-e — C rOSS (N.A. If disposal of dredged material is anticipated, then Brett Ballavance (Duluth office) at 218/723-4837 or Jararnie
Logelin (Duluth office) at 218/529-6257 (northern), or Elise Doucette (MUN/Metro Region) at 651/296-7290 or
Jeff Smith (Rochester office) at 507/285-7302 (southern) should be contacted.
K NPDES, Permit — Construction Stormwater:
A General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the -MPCA for construction
activities Will be required for all projects that disturb one (1) or more acres- of land. The NPDES Permit
specifically requires Best Management Practices which are detailed in the permit (additional information can be
found in the MPCA document Protecting Water Quality 'in Urban Area) to prevent erosion and control
sedimentation during construction and a stomrwater pbllution prevention plan to manage pollutants in storm-water runoff from the site that will occur after construction is complete. As a requirement of the NPDES Permit,
storm-water Wet-detention ponds must be installed to treat the storm-water runoff whenever a project replaces
surface vegetation with one or more cumulative acres of impervious surface. If you have need of technical
assistance regarding this, please contact Michael Firidorff (MUN/Metro Region) at 651/296-6798 or Todd Smith
(MUN) at 651/215-6008: For more general information, please contact the appropriate MPCA Regional Office
staff below:
Brainerd, Lisa Woog at 218/855-5017
Duluth, Jim Dexter at 218/529-6253
Detroit Lakes, Joyce Cieluch at 218/846-7387
Willmar/Marshall, Judy Mader (St. Paul office) at 651/296-7315 or ,
Mark Hanson (Marshall Office) at 507/537-6000
Rochester, Roberta Getman at 507/280-2996
Metro, Brian Gove (REM/Metro Region) at 651/296-7597
Industrial Storrnwater
CI Brainerd, Robin Novotny at 218/828-6114
- Ci Duluth, John Thomas at 218/723-4928
[11 Detroit Lakes, Jack Frederick at 218/846-0734
El] Marshall, Brad Gillingham at 507/537-6381
El Mankato, Teri Roth at 507/389-5235
Li Rochester, Dennis Hayes at 507/280-2991
LII Rochester, Jeff Smith at 507/285 2
Li Major Facilities, Elice Doucette (MUN/Metro Region) at 651/296-7290
11:1 Willmar, Ben Koplin at 320/231-5321
Septic Tank System
Individual septic tank systems design and construction must comply with Minn. R. 7080.
For additional information, contact Mark Wespetal (MIJN, Water Policy and Coordination) at
651/296-9322.
• 6/21/05 OVER
Water Quality Certification
Waiver of the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required. When wetlands are altered or
impacted by filling, drainage, excavation, or inundation as part of the federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit
process, a statement waiving the 401 Certification from our agency must be obtained.
If you have any questions regarding this, please contact Jennifer Olson, of the Regional Division, Business
Systems Unit 1, at 651/297-8611. The MPCA requires the project be evaluated for mitigation in accordance with
the following hierarchy of preference:
a. Avoid the impact.
b. Minimize the impact.
c. Mitigate the impact through wetland replacement.
ri Demolition Debris
Demolition debris must be disposed of at a properly permitted disposal facility. For information on the location
of one nearest you, please contact the appropriate MPCA Regional Office staff below:
Brainerd, Curt Hoffman at 218/828-6198
El Detroit Lakes, Roger 'Rolf at 218/846-0774
El Duluth, Heidi Kroening at 218/723-4795 or Tim Musick at 218/723-4708
El Marshall, Brad Gillingham at 507/537-638 i
Rochester, Mark Hugeback at 507/280-5585
Ell Metro, Jackie Deneen (MUN) at 651/297-5847
Asbestos
Asbestos may be present in the building(s) that will be demolished, which requires special handling. Please
contact Jackie Deneen (MUN) at 651/297-5847 for additional information.
Wells
Abandonment and/or installation of wells must be done by a licensed well driller. Please contact the Minnesota
Department of Health 651/215-0823 for additional information.
Above and Below Ground Tanks
The installation and/or removal of ALL above and below ground tanks must be reported to the MPCA before any
work begins. Please contact the MPCA Customer Assistance Center at 651/297-2274 or 800/646-6247 for
additional information.
Potential Cumulative Effects
The section of the EAW designated for the analysis and discussion of potential cumulative effects is
incomplete. Please refer to Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v. Kandiyohi Board of
.Commissioners, 713 N.W.2d 817 (Minn. 2006). The Court held that a "cumulative potential effects" inquiry
under Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7, requires a Responsible Governmental Unit to inquire whether a
proposed project, which may not individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects,
could have a significant effect when considered along with other projects that (1) are already in existence,
are actually planned for, or for which a basis of expectation has been laid; (2) are located in the surrounding
area; and (3) might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resources
Other Issues Identified by Staff
6/21/05 2 OVER
The Pemtom Land Company
7697 ANAGRAM DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
(952) 937-0716 • FAX (952) 937-8635
TO: City of Eden Prairie
SUBJECT: EAW Roadway Alternatives
DATE: March 9, 2007
Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, Planning Commission and Professional
Staff
The study of roadway alternatives for this area is an honorable undertaking. Utilities and
roads that meet City standards do not serve land in this area and this study puts these
parcels and transportation systems under review. The Project title is much broader than
"Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives". The Hennepin Village property was
previously studied by an AUAR. This study area incorporates many land parcels and
roads outside of the Hennepin Village boundary.
Hennepin Village is required, under its original approval process, to build the future
Prospect Road crossing over this very sensitive Riley Creek Corridor. To this end,
Hennepin Village has already completed the preliminary road design for this crossing and
had preliminary approval by City Staff in advance of hearings on Site B and the Small
Property last fall.
In many respects with the many safety issues and substandard design of Flying Cloud
Drive, Dell Road/ Flying Cloud Drive and Eden Prairie Road, it would seem logical that
a decision on the future of these two intersections should have been made before this
study proceeded. For example, if the decision is reached to upgrade these intersections,
that would have an impact on the alternatives that would have been studied. The City
Staff should put forth their plans for these two intersections and the alternative roads
between the two roads to serve the undeveloped land in this area, subsequently putting all
property owners including Hennepin Village on notice as to the City's intentions for
serving this area in the future. The study, under Paragraph 6, indicates that the City is
"consideringneither_closing_or_rerouting_theintersection_ofFlying_CloudDrive_and Eden__
Prairie Road. It would be of benefit to all concerned if that decision is made.
Our work within Hennepin Village has provided us the detail knowledge of the impacts
of Prospect Road and Alternative 6. To that extent, our comments are respectfully
submitted.
Several errors in the study downplay the known impacts due to construction of
Alternative 6. We are therefore concerned that if that option is constructed the proposed
impacts will be much greater than the document describes. For example:
City of Eden Prairie
March 9, 2007
Page 2
EAW Question 7, Page 3 — The table summarizes the project magnitude as 2.16 acres.
The plans that we submitted and were reviewed by staff indicate an impact of
approximately 8.0 acres.
EAW Question 10, Page 5 - The table lists the cover types totaling 2.16 acres. This is
incorrect also. The project magnitude is approximately 8.0 acres.
EAW Question 11, Page 7 - The document claims that the Kitten-tail is outside the
construction limits. The threatened species of Kitten-tail is in a location that will require
removal should this roadway be constructed.
EAW Question 16, Page 8 - The graded total is approximately 8.0 acres versus 2.16 acres
as stated. The estimated amount of soil to be removed is stated at 15,600 cubic yards.
The actual amount planned is 140,000 cubic yards.
EAW Question 17 Page 9 - The document states that Alternative 6 would discharge
directly to Riley Creek. This is not consistent with the plans we submitted since it is our
understanding that this would not be allowed by the Watershed District.
EAW Question Number 17, Page 10 - We believe that the data contained in the table is
incorrect and should be corrected by the author in all scenarios.
EAW Question Number 31, Page 16 - Item number 2 states that the Kitten-tail falls
outside of the construction limits. That is incorrect as stated above. A group of plants
falls within a large cut area during the excavation.
We have submitted our comments to you based on your request for feedback. As
indicated above, we understand that our original approval required the construction of
Prospect Road between Site A and Site B. We now realize, as you will from reflecting
on this study, that the crossing of this very sensitive Riley Creek Area prompted and
requared -alook—atAl the alternativesfor serving not only the Hennepm Village site, but
also the entire area between Eden Prairie Road and Dell Road.
If it is determined that the current approved design of Prospect Road is changed resulting
in greater cost and/or the closure of Eden Prairie Road and Flying Cloud Drive occurs,
the cost to complete Prospect Road from Site A to Site B should be a shared cost to all
benefiting property owners. The intersection and approach to Flying Cloud Drive from
Eden Prairie Road is a known safety hazard and as such the closure of that intersection
benefits a very large area of the City and in fairness the cost of Prospect Road dictates
that the cost be shared on an equitable basis.
City of Eden Prairie
March 9, 2007
Page 3
We trust that the results of this study, our comments and the comments of other
concerned residents will be carefully reviewed by the City as they resolve the issues
facing this developing area of the City.
Sincerely,
HENNEPIN VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Daniel J. Herbst
President
DJH/idt
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to address the proposal to connect Eden Prairie Rd
and Spring Rd via Prospect Rd which runs through the western Hennepin
Village development. This idea to supposedly alleviate safety and
traffic concerns is utterly preposterous as it will only shift any
existing problems to an area less equipped to handle them. In an
extremely offensive manner, this plan exhibits total disregard for some
144 homeowners and any remaining wildlife still inhabiting the
surrounding area. Should this proposition be validated, it would not
only fail to accomplish any intended goals, but it would serve to
reduce the market value of the homes in Hennepin Village by as much as
40%. Our neighborhood was not constructed with intent of playing host
to non-local traffic passing as little as 30 ft from our doorsteps.
Furthermore, the asinine idea of closing the connection between Eden
Prairie Rd and HWY 212 should clearly exacerbate safety problems as
traffic will therefore become worse at the junction of Spring Rd and
212 while, at the same time, converting our neighborhood into the only
throughway connecting 212 from the north. Such a path should not
coincide with the road our children cross to go to the swimming pool,
this pool being one of the amenities for which our residents pay as
much as $180 per month. This junction of Spring and Prospect is a blind
intersection coming from the north and sits atop a winding hill when
approaching from the south (212 near Lion's Tap). The ultimate
development of private land east of Spring Rd between 212 and Prospect
will already serve to sufficiently increase traffic. Closing off an
existing alternate route (Eden Prairie Rd. and 212) will only magnify
this problem and would most likely require stop lights both in our
neighborhood and at the already dangerous intersection of Spring and
212, further disrupting traffic on 212 and allowing it to back up into
our residential area.
The implications of this proposed plan have clearly not been
realized, prompting one to wonder if the drafters have simply been
pushing ideas around on a map instead actually visiting the area they
intend to vastly modify. The role of city officials is that of
tactfully devising ways to make the lives of citizens better.
Conversely, this proposal merely represents a cheap, expedient, and all
together incorrect way of solving any supposed problem. To reiterate,
such a ridiculous scheme will fail and will do so at the expense of our
homes and the safety of our children. This is truly unconscionable. The
development of western Eden Prairie will be the legacy of the current
council/planning commission, therefore, I urge you to please reconsider.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bradley J. Pester
15889 Porchlight Ln.
Eden Prairie, MN. 55347
CC).rf tie IT E...K<
if\ .11)131,11
0 ti /SOW IY)i)(,-s
1 c ("),:iT" -clA E. IQ,
rz) A\ii» T-r-i *0 -4.1f) TitoRitic.
1-11%1 -4,1. 1010\1 VOr -
I E- tz- ( 6 4-12 N ak.) 1..c)1 ,1-1 C
Df Pf..)fP \r ,r 110
/bbtiit,T.
Si SA rp -. RtmLt.____goiwy
11,-M--
VDU Dr.: r -4'7) [7:- Rcia 0 41T 2,1 2_
E.AF C. \.olLu Tei)\1 t ?rz-,Fos Rag; (\Dap
SPcin t7 -Re J2 alsa L.` sri'D 1Th R On
11.1Z E. .1), )1PuL. lbw sozar:Do vi 6--
Tu( EL-L , c QD
ig Li f-L Of ft
EAD`c-, eRZAi 7i)VD
CCOS F
Nor OC 00 (P3 Q AR.DgEfkicca
(2,4mc P ou g 0 47 I -B,FF
Ap_o? o 4 3(1,,o ' Cf ect., -a or- T-(21,Ffc:1(._
o 111)1,
Ee R D; oh Sou-S14
Luf, c73 k-) 2 1 2- g 1 6T Pi) SS: p 114 Ff
cE 1 4) ec4
c
1)(67
. 4
I
e kiseak '-`)fr)
GNI
'Llo ViEki T V)
A v-) CC- A L-T - if_ -11-T T€ecm
iiiF. I in MD
f-2JF C-D TT -
1-r) 1Z -11-VYr C (-(2. Cu 116/u.
Po -,11) PIA v\ Co vY) Cci a
f 14 FQA C n/t..fcc iTAk D f),*31 ifihS 11.e-Sr" n (5')X1411,
iAo ThE `/(PAvriliDr)
F- f43 lc\ R7,6)107.4 1-1-\\,: ficLiFfc
e:,(po'4.1 or-7 i2un 11)f 1,L,16 (I)Lue_ '40vy)ss
-4( I 1/1 6— q -r AprzDu -L„4c OZvisily
Lc)\.1S[k\41 C) eooki p flA1"
5 -c vy-wre,c) ccr)
Sci ,1 C-1 1"=-- imp
urr -ill cAe -r-
Afrt0
c s '7173 cf . (20tA
cE,
Vv n C lc oTi) (Ve C4 o \ll fl -
PO -Ci; (-Lip .1?.4•:„.
LP 06c:- ov tZ. 99 e. 1/6- Koi1.1)
Ck) rl-14 7c--4 1/1 rci 4AT iCc._
0 1/1 D Tr) !`. I 5 ftj) 41 Li c-14-1-
f, ilc7 L... 4.-(.
/
-P2 0 7 4, Pee_)//g/. E 11-7 IS S.)4,, (,) F p,
T 1 11 6— ThREC<D6-41 2E
Con -11 Y1i U1v E0 1-0
Cc>v)c \011 I A v\tO ALL ,
n ioSu( 2 I 3 ?A17' W)
c(} 6DI/Yffiu1.frfl
A ovl Vi-1 cc_ S
00U c_
go C D tC."C I V (/ IT IS
nH jvTf1/1013,), FT- 1 s gL.q.11
5 S AY\ 17)-FALLvi kiu TO, ()Lir PF 64a g.0
714 SaF E- 40D W EL-144) 1-e_)tZ
A.00 6Lu cer-s, .(1) (LJ
n)z v\T I 0 v b c -Thao
TR6T- I frcrc;', a ,c v 114)S TkV1:1
64_
c R-r
Co ---Clra-U (1- kTh Thfr TV, Z. .0? of-7 71-1
SPCA-) c- 660 se Ewa° IvTZSci Je y)
flV)1b7 or ,.)c) sj - rfq, Loca_
() p 4 q: x1.2; \i•,stkic()Es
2:(c-c/ ilE14 C S vl OTT-
<-73h Af )1c
D ,(_) crO LOA 077--- rf-- kiCAFiA c a.. TV
TrAFF c- V.) T-1.1 fr/("FU F-c7fr Pr As
S 3 0 T No GUI (-ir
a- I-1)
(-)a-
15 7-1-14 r r pe)\ T-; (75 ylE a ---d-NAr
ftz,k I-60P ttz, 71 LI FA 5-7)* F
q_iiaoyn z.f 2_ latt-ak41.ry -ALL Tki .)c)
0 UO-c4t -r-rs Te7D TX.) Eq 1,01
)1(1 kk) , rF et ("D e t (41 11,1 1
A 1/11-i*H1 et -0F 1--cL4F-f-71.C__
fr-Yi vY) Oh 1-0 GPe( Cow,
t
ii 3c. 54 Ttv 1 ST-of CAP Lt.2 fir.)
ci) u P ot1/41 g Pie _e)gi, 0-v -1 - s
-rJE v A 11 t) 7114 n ib 57- 1,9ficov)
koWt f --1A ;Tki -AWloolly 0 F -1-LAcK
DC }1ufl ify) two E_ '1 00 .)-nriO
fl i A a Lo nJ.2 VY
--CAA ec7 , DPI v1141 -E WILL Vc.
P Vp -t rc_s w I.( FLV i ifj
14tiv E, tiCTI eL , L.
pito uvi D Tfie.)71 - c -r(6.)Th -; 17-41
17 -\ 1-ofe,(7)i cicu14110...vy) oki
IT-4N oll E_ ci d7 C.;_U Li9U
vl ilou;r -c: at° )11
c>. cjc FD,_,)
o .(() n
-ADO1I il r
vi7-) p6ruc,D 7-0 (cy c
u 4 o Trki C---An (7. ifq(e-_)
rri.; rflj Pivr- oF
\rim A F, vI6-t 1o1rii S LC11 -1-) '100 1eofos41L,
k iv) t ),)v vit, To 7/4/ 9.
1-14 e Oi Ti-) UC., 1)--)E4c6--- Com P -,n4
gG vv.\S 'O)
-114 E Lk) AFT: i C tfr.)XT-P -Ah CO QTI-1' '1)11 FOCI) Q1
S (NIA RC) eTh AvC YY\ - - 4,0 A L-L v\-1-5:;
Af --n4 , -4)1 f-- (7:72 TN ODAPcpnThiiP12-: 1941 d-1 I n C-
7-4 E 01-2,.6. ei ao / "1 ia4 Tu miThtseaok
kFt . .64t9tat.) -ro j s 4 00
)' vi Co vyyPoo nO EU 7c,i ?IL() EL, tin g t:1f
WP1,61,--1 f3(zt.y -)(r-s IV) 1i D 0 YT
r)CAL TFJcim fl Fvkif
Lu 51 -z S c_k& Ar ()Lc
Ti,t tr r cl-MN-rj
lardwrons
C,
nJcr, C 171 517Z Cip 1-1-1ce
I ST
CUo(c4 ir kr TfAKr
T -14?,eviy
Io C 77 Tc_ OTE 7-J2
LC TP E V 5 I-112,A \C<) C Lxlvoz c 0 n ,y,3 P vLOCt.ok.,0
43-7 s1v4ec.y ccsv: oh 71,1 f__
P12.4 Po c; (CO `ISID-'ApF e o I 6-47 - J-. ov
Dc)(,)4 ST-ccif re-) Sliem Co. Ai02.1-4
5 i t ) 01- Tb TG-P cc , Pa. FtF>T -1AS7-
C>') )9217-C", o sIm f&e 76A_
(DE -1—cc_vm 6EST T-J)
`f0() v .\) Cii-A6VE LOVA .- T-t,OL
•Tt2,613 1.1-3; /5 5-6 noigiozr-
A-r --nAF vs-r f.c-410,c gtiwl D A117 c Oh A
qt0 5ca3Lc siz
Tb I De D6 )10,TD16-v--(1/_
Leslie Stovring
From: njp [peste005@umn.edu ]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:31 PM
To: GRP-AllCouncil; Leslie Stovring; dhc@att.net ; Philip Young; Brad Aho; Sherry Butcher; Kathy Nelson; Jon
Duckstad; jstoltz@shopNBC.com ; raymond_stoelting@golden.com
Subject: Thoughts on current proposal
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to address the proposal to connect Eden Prairie Rd and Spring Rd via
Prospect Rd which runs through the western Hennepin Village development. This idea to
supposedly alleviate safety and traffic concerns •is utterly preposterous as it will only
shift any existing problems to an area less equipped to handle them. In an extremely
offensive manner, this plan exhibits total disregard for some 144 homeowners and any
remaining wildlife still inhabiting the surrounding area. Should this proposition be
validated, it would not only fail to accomplish any intended goals, but it would serve to
reduce the market value of the homes in Hennepin Village by as much as 40%. Our
neighborhood was not constructed with intent of playing host to non-local traffic,
passing as little as 30 ft from our doorsteps. Furthermore, the asinine idea of closing
the connection between Eden Prairie Rd and HWY 212 should clearly exacerbate safety
problems as traffic will therefore worsen at the junction of Spring Rd and 212 while, at
the same time, converting our neighborhood into the only throughway connecting 212 from
the north. Such a path should not coincide with the road our children cross to go to the
swimming pool, this pool being one of the amenities for which our residents pay as much
as $180 per month. This junction of Spring and Prospect is a blind intersection coming
from the north and sits atop a winding hill when approaching from the south (212 near
Lion's Tap). The ultimate development of private land east of Spring Rd between 212 and
Prospect will already serve to sufficiently increase traffic. Closing off an existing
alternate route (Eden Prairie Rd to 212) will only magnify this problem and would most
likely require stop lights both in our neighborhood and at the already dangerous
intersection of Spring and 212, further disrupting traffic on 212 and allowing it to back
up into our residential area.
The implications of this proposed plan have clearly not been realized, prompting
one to wonder if the drafters have simply been pushing ideas around on a map instead
actually visiting the area they intend to vastly modify. The role of city officials is
that of tactfully devising ways to make the lives of citizens better. Conversely, this
proposal merely represents a cheap, expedient, and all together incorrect way of solving
any supposed problem. To reiterate, such a ridiculous scheme will fail and will do so at
the expense of our homes and the safety of our children. This is truly unconscionable.
The development of western Eden Prairie will be the legacy of the current
council/planning commission, therefore, I urge you to please reconsider.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bradley J. Pester
15889 Porchlight Ln.
Eden Prairie, MN. 55347
via
Nicholas J. Pester
Dept. of Geology and Geophysics,
4/9/2007
Lorene McWaters
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
David & Julie Pierson [dapjdp@hotmail.com ]
Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:03 PM
Communications E-Mail
GRP-AllCouncil; dhc@att.net
Prospect Road extension
Mr. Scott Neal
City Manager
Dear Mr. Neal,
I am a resident of Hennepin Village, residing at 9743 Cupola Lane, which is the first
twinhome at the intersection of Prospect Road and Cupola Lane. I am writing this letter to
express my concerns regarding issues not addressed in the EAW, which I believe would have a
negative impact on our neighborhood upon the extension of Prospect Road.
1) The traffic volume on Prospect Road would increase significantly and would create an
unsafe situation. Prospect Road was not designed as a main thoroughfare. It is narrow, has
a tight curve east of Pickett Drive and a steep grade west of Pickett Drive down to Riley
Creek. The steep grade causes a blind intersection at Pickett Drive and Prospect Road, which
will be a signifcant safety hazard.
2) Increased traffic volume on Prospect Road during the peak morning hours will cause
significant backups at the intersection of Prospect Road and Spring Road. This intersection
has an inadequate sightline, due to the curves approaching the intersection, and the
increased volume of traffic attempting to access Spring Road will cause a significant safety
hazard.
3) The residents in homes along and in close proximity to Prospect Road will be negatively
impacted by the noise levels from increased traffic volume.
4) Hennepin Village is a densely populated neighborhood with many small children. The
increased traffic volume will create a safety hazard to children who are playing outside.
Some of the current traffic on Prospect tends to travel at unsafe speeds and the road should
be restricted to 20 MPH.
5) Hennepin Village was built with no parking spaces for guests or extra family vehicles.
Therefore any excess parking is required on the streets, including Prospect Road. If the
road were extended and due to the improper design, parking would have to be prohibited on
Prospect Road causing an inconvenience to those residents along Prospect Road.
One of the main reasons my wife and I moved to Hennepin Village was the safety and quiet it
provided. I watch deer and turkey cross the area that the proposed extension of Prospect
Road would dissect. I sincerely believe that the safety, quiet and wildlife in this area
will all be things of the past if Prospect Road is extended.
Eden Prairie has always been a forward thinking community with its sights on preserving
nature and providing a safe environment for its citizens. In this age of increased concerns
of the impact from development on nature, the environment and noise pollution, I would
believe it to be inexcusable to approve the extension of Prospect Road.
Respectfully submitted,
1
David A. Pierson
Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as
$771/month*
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.isp?product=100000035&url.%2fst.isp&tm=v&search=mortgage text li
nks 88 h27f8&disc=v&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117
2
Leslie Stovring
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
ROBYN A RILEY [rilera@msn.corn]
Saturday, April 07, 2007 1:33 PM
Leslie Stovring; Communications E-Mail; GRP-AllCouncil
dhc@att.net
Prospect Road Issue
I am writing to let you know my views on the Prospect Road issue. As a homeowner in the Hennepin Village
neighborhood, I am concerned about this issue. I do not think it would be a good idea to extend Prospect
Road to Eden Prairie Rd. I think that there are better alternatives as shown in the Eden Prairie News dated
April 5. The proximity of this road to Riley Creek concerns me. That area is so pristine and natural; it's
important to maintain such areas in Eden Prairie. There are few areas as beautiful as this valley. I am also
concerned about routing traffic through my neighborhood. Currently Hennepin Village is a quiet, sleepy
neighborhood where kids can play without worrying about heavy traffic. This would change for the worst if
heavy traffic were allowed to use Prospect Road to get to Eden Prairie Road not to mention the fact that any
road built through this area would have to be quite dangerously steep and winding. As a 20 year resident of
Eden Prairie, I am opposed to extending Prospect Road to Eden Prairie Road. I believe that there are several
alternatives that would serve the city much better in the long run.
Thank you,
Robyn Riley
9768 Gable Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 5554,7
.10
Sincerely,
obert C. Obermeyer
Barr Engineering Compa
Engineers for the District
FEB-27-2007 10 14 BARR ENGINEERING
Barr Engineering Company
4700 West 77th Street - Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803
Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 • www.barr.com
9528322601 P.02
BARR An EEO Employer
Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO
February 27, 2007
Mr. Gene Dietz
Director of Public Works
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: EAW for the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternative Analysis
Dear Mr. Dietz:
The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District appreciates the opportunity to provide
comments on the EAW for the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternative Analysis. If the city of Eden
Prairie decides on Alternative 6, the District recommends that the bridge crossing of the creek be
selected which will minimize impacts to the Riley Creek system.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us.
C: Board of Managers
Paul Haik
TOTAL P.02
Riley
p B l uff
P u r
aCreek
t o r y
Watershed District
Web Site: http//www.rileypurgatorybluffcreek.org
Legal Advisor: Krebsbach and Haik, Ltd.
225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4320
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612 333-7400 Fax: 612 333-6959
Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering
4700 West 77th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55435
952 832-2600 Fax: 952 832-2601
March 29, 2007
Mr. Gene Dietz
Director of Public Works
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: EAW for the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternative Analysis
Dear Mr. Dietz:
At the March 7, 2007 meeting of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, the Managers
further discussed the EAW prepared for the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternative Analysis. As
stated in the District's February 27, 2007 correspondence, if the city of Eden Prairie decides on
Alternative 6, the District recommends that the bridge crossing of the creek be selected which will
minimize impacts on the Riley Creek system. Even though the EAW does not specifically address the
handling of surface water runoff if this Alternative is selected, the Managers felt that a culvert and
fill roadway section would result in (1) potentially more fill/encroachment into the floodplain of
Riley Creek and (2) a greater disturbance for the construction of storm water management basins
riparian to the creek than if a bridge were to be constructed. In either scenario, treatment of storm
water will be required prior to being discharged to the creek. In addition, the movement of both
pedestrian and wildlife along the creek corridor needs to be addressed with either the bridge or
culvert option.
The District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EAW for the Hennepin Village Roadway
Alternative Analysis. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
R96ert C. Obermeyer
?dart. Engineering Company
Engineers for the District
Board of Managers
Howard Peterson James Landini Kenneth Wendl
Michael Casanova Erin Ahola
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 1 of 29
Jeff Strate
15021 Summerhill Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346
952-949-8980 bukumi@infionline.net
April 11, 2007
Scott Neal, City Manager, Gene Dietz, Director Public Works
Mayor Phil Young and City Council Members
Staff and pertinent Commissions
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Comments on Draft EAW Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives
Dear City of Eden Prairie:
Decisions regarding future land use in southern Eden Prairie between Dell Road and
Spring Road need to have accurate data and knowledgeable interpretation and holistic
perspective of that data. This paper presents my final comments on the “Draft EAW
Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives” and suggests amendments and addenda to the
Draft EAW.
This paper supersedes and expands upon comments that I submitted for the March 12
th,
2007 Planning Commission hearing and the March 20
th, City Council hearing.
My review of the draft EAW leads me to request that (1) the City Council find it
inadequate in its un-amended form; (2) the City Council request consideration of
other alternates subsequent to its acceptance or rejection of the EAW.
Although my bundle of comments refers to a number of inadequacies that need amending
or need additional data, it mostly focuses on some of the natural resources that will be
affected by the 6 Road Alternates, especially (a) the Riley Creek Big Woods and (b) the
reach of Riley Creek between Eden Prairie Road and Miller Spring.
For example, in 2003, a DNR survey found that Riley Creek was unsuitable for game fish
and in 2005 the stream was designated as an impaired water by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA). Both determinations profiled the creek from Lake Riley to the
Minnesota River but did not adequately appraise the spring fed reach of the creek east of
Eden Prairie Road and did not comment on this reach’s historic, pristine, cold water
condition – a reach that in the past has supported trout.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 2 of 29
Additionally, the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District and the City are now
required by the MPCA to create an action plan to reduce Riley Creek’s turbidity by 2009.
The EAW must reference the importance of historic conditions as well as the future
prospects for the management of the creek (and other natural resources). To make
informed choices on how to develop this area, the Council must have a full register of
facts and perspectives and be able to reference commitments that have been made to
restore the creek – the Council must be able to anticipate the impacts that would be
prompted by a new embankment-culvert crossing and/or a bridge crossing on the
stream’s waters as well as the high scenic and recrationbal value of this portion of the
creek valley.
The EAW should not assume or imply that the current impaired condition of Riley Creek
is an acceptable standard in terms of predicting future impacts of new roads and
subdivisions.
Like other creeks in the metro region, Riley Creek can be restored to a condition that
approximates its pre-farming and pre-urbanized character. It can be and should be a
pristine, urban stream that provides fishing, recreational, scenic and wildlife habitat
resources of high merit. Eden Prairie (by law) must plan for and in the future provide the
necessary resources to remove Riley Creek from Minnesota’s list of impaired waters.
Municipalities, agencies and non-profit organizations that participate in such programs as
Great River Greening and The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization
(See appendix for references) have had great success in improving local water quality.
The EAW needs to reference this for future planners and city councils.
I am only commenting on those sections of the Draft EAW with which I have questions
or recommended amendments. I am not presenting my comments on behalf of others.
With warmest regards,
Jeff Strate
(An electronic and printed version of this document are being provided to the City)
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 3 of 29
KEY TO JEFF STRATE’S COMMENTS
Text that has a shaded background is lifted verbatim from the Draft
EAW or from other public documents and referenced sources.
Text that has shaded margins signifies a verbatim version or
copied version of a document or letter.
My supporting comments are identified as such.
Text in this font style that and/or is colored dark blue identifies my
recommended amendments and addenda.
Page 2
6b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction.
Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and
features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes.
Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant
demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration
of construction activities.
I recommend that the strike through words be replaced by an addendum identified in UPPER
CASE WORDS in the following sentence.
Construction would proceed using typical municipal roadway construction techniques, as
either a public construction contract (Alternates 1 through 5) or by agreement with a
developer FUTURE DEVELOPERS (Alternate 6).
In the following paragraph, I recommend that the word “proposed” should be qualified by
an addendum (UPPER CASE) so that it accurately reflects that the developer’s “proposal”
for the Prospect Road extension has been requested by the City not by the developer.
Minimal roadway design for Alternates 1 though 5 has occurred, and design parameters
such as roadway widths, cross section, alignment, grades, earthwork, and utility design
have not been determined or determined only conceptually. A preliminary design by a
developer has been proposed AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY for Alternate 6.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 4 of 29
Page 2 and 3
I recommend that the EAW be amended so that it can evaluate two additional alternates.
(a) the current alignment of Eden Prairie Road but from the bluff top to the valley angled
westwards along a less steep gradient to Highway 212. (b) an additional street or public
safety access between the Summit Oaks subdivision to Spring Road
Discussion: There are at least two viable road alternates which have not yet been
presented by the City.(a)Impacts would occur on a section of the bluff that already has
been impacted. Traffic on what will become old Highway 212 likely will be slower and
more local.(b)Variations of this alternate has been described by the developer and
residents of Hennepin Village and would be similar to the limited use street that connects
the east and west stretches of Cedarcrest Drive, 3/5 mile north west of Summit Oaks.
Page 3, Item 7 Project Magnitude Data
Discussion: The table that provides estimated road lengths and estimated sizes of impact
areas and the following analyses for each alternate, seemingly (perhaps unintentionally)
presents the data in a manner which suggests that Alternates 1,2,3,4 and 5 would have
more impact than Alternate 6. However, a realistic analysis needs to take into account
that other local roads, driveways, sidewalks and roof tops and patios- impervious
surfaces- WILL BE constructed in the areas of Alternates 1 and 2 even if Alternates 1 or
2 are not selected. Alternates 3, 4, 5 and 6 are in terrain that will not likely host any
additional development.
In other words, the long-term, net
environmental impact of hypothetical
alternates 1 and 2 on the areas that they
are being proposed for will not be that
much different if either one is rejected
because these areas are most likely to
be developed anyway.
Discussion:Alternate 6, as envisioned,
would sit on top of a 36 foot high
embankment. Proper construction of
this embankment would impact
significantly more than the 2.6 acres
that the Draft EAW estimates because
it is basing its estimate only on the
amount of area that would be required
for the connection if it were on
relatively flat terrain.
The Cedar Hills Ski Area rope tow path in the
late 1960’s. The view looks down to the
proposed bridge or embankment crossing of
Riley Creek as described in Alternate 6.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 5 of 29
Discussion: If alternate 6 - the proposed road over Riley Creek Valley -- is rejected, no
other additional road crossings of the creek would be built within the creek valley from
Old Dell Road to Spring Road.This scenario should be referenced in the final EAW.
I recommend amending this portion of the draft EAW to accurately reflect what will actually
happen along alternates 1, 2 and 6 as described in my comments.
Page 5, 6
11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how
they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or
avoid impacts.
Riley Creek is home to various aquatic life typical of warm water streams (MCES, 2005;
DNR, 2003). Alternate 6 is proposed as two alternates: a culvert crossing or a bridge
crossing. A bridge crossing is ecologically preferable as it minimizes the potential to
impede upstream migration by fish and macroinvertebrates and provides a path for other
wildlife to move from one side of the road to the other without crossing traffic. However,
just upstream of the proposed crossing is a DNR carp barrier. Any barrier to fish
movement that might result from the proposed culvert option would be inconsequential as
the carp barrier already effectively limits upstream migration.
The estimated increase in runoff volume (see #17 below) is small relative to existing
subwatershed volume, so it is unlikely that any of the alternates would result in increased
flow or flow velocities in Riley Creek that might affect the biota or impact the channel
form. The estimated increase in pollutant loading (see #17 below) is small relative to
existing loading, and would be further reduced through stormwater treatment. The fish
community monitored by the DNR at locations upstream and downstream of the
proposed Alternate 6 crossing is composed of common species that are pollution-tolerant
or pollution-neutral. No pollution-intolerant species were identified at those locations.
The macroinvertebrate community monitored at the Watershed Outlet Monitoring
Program (WOMP) station at Flying Cloud Drive downstream is composed of mainly
pollutiontolerant or pollution-neutral species. No pollution-intolerant species were
identified at that location. While the fish and macroinvertebrate collections were not
completed at the point where Alternate 6 would be expected to cross, it is likely those
communities are similar in composition to the sampled locations. No water
qualityrelated impacts are expected to the biotic community. The new crossing and a
permanent NURP water quality pond south and west of the creek crossing may result in
a redirection of local groundwater that presently discharges to Riley Creek. Road grading
and nearby ponds might redirect local groundwater to those features prior to discharge
into Riley Creek. The northern extent of springs tributary to Riley Creek is not fully
delineated, however, it most likely follows the depth to bedrock contour 51-100 shown
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 6 of 29
in the Hennepin County Geologic Atlas. The increase in runoff and the redirection of
local groundwater to ponds may result in slightly higher temperatures discharging to
Riley Creek. However, those impacts would be extremely localized, and input from
springs immediately downstream would mitigate any minor thermal impacts that might
occur. No temperature-intolerant species are known to be present in Riley Creek.
Discussion with DNR Fisheries staff (Ellison, pers. comm. 2006) and the most recent
DNR fish survey (DNR, 2003) indicate that Riley Creek is unlikely to support a cold-
water community.
Item 11 (above) needs to be amended to accurately describe what would most likely
happen as described in the following discussions.
Discussion: The Draft EAW is inconsistent. It says that studies show that the volume of
the creek increases from spring inputs fed by shallow surficial groundwater, different
from the bedrock that feeds Miller Spring (see below).
The Draft EAW also says that construction of the road and associated stormwater ponds,
dewatering and other work has the significant likelihood of intercepting this surficial
groundwater and diverting it to stormwater ponds, before releasing this sun-warmed
water into Riley Creek.
Then, paradoxically, it claims the springs feeding the creek immediately downstream of
the stormwater pond outlets will mitigate the pond’s warming effect.
There are two problems with this contention:
1. The springs won’t be there, because their source water was intercepted by the
upslope construction and the upslope ‘treatment’ ponds!
2. Even if by some magic the springs maintained their flow, the cooling impact
under present conditions would be HARMED and degraded by the thermal
pollution from the ponds. Sections of the stream that can again be capable of
supporting trout would be significantly diminished compared to current
conditions or future conditions prompted by the restoration of the upper creek.
Studies on the effect of road salt and chemicals show that salt spray from the road or a
bridge will negatively impact vegetation below the crossing, as well as increase chloride
pollution. Salt and it’s substitutes will stay in solution, and will be ‘untreated’ by the
stormwater ‘treatment’ ponds, which are merely designed to let sediments settle out. The
ponds also will not treat any of the pesticides or fertilizers that will be applied to any new
grassy areas that are installed in areas near the NURP ponds.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 7 of 29
The Draft EAW should be amended to acknowledge that trout – a game fish - would not be
affected by the existing DNR carp barrier if they are stocked in Riley Creek.
DISCUSSION: Trout do not need to migrate. Trout do need cold, clean water to survive
and can thrive in stream reaches above and below the obstruction. When considering
future trout populations in the creek, the carp barrier is irrelevant and in fact could be an
asset.
Page 5
11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
a. … Alternates 1 though 5 would require the removal of existing forest and woodlands
and would replace them with impervious surface and grassland, reducing wooded habitat
and replacing it with tall grass habitat. For each of the alternates, tree removals would
be a small percent of the existing wooded habitat, so it is unlikely that these removals
would have more than a temporary impact on overall habitat availability. Restoration
following construction could include reforestation where possible, mitigating some of
the tree loss. Alternates 3, 4, and 5 would create a new cleared pathway through existing
woodland or grassland, fragmenting habitat and creating a potential barrier for some
types of wildlife migration. No mitigation measures are proposed.” Draft EAW
I strongly recommend that the above paragraph be amended to accurately reflect the type
of “existing forest and woodland” that would be affected by Alternates 1 and 2 and
Alternate 6.
Discussion: The Draft EAW in this section states that projected tree removals for each of
the alternates would be a small percent of the existing wooded habitat and concludes that
these removals would unlikely have more than a “temporary impact on overall habitat
availability.” The draft EAW in this section also claims that restoration including
reforestation where possible could mitigate tree loss.
Because of the regionally rare ecosystems, significant scenic merits of its landscapes, its
close location to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and as the trail
connection to the upper Riley Creek corridor, Lake Riley and the South West Regional
Trail, the following discussion is detailed.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 8 of 29
Segments of Alternates 1 and 2 as
described in the Draft EAW would pass
through and inside the southern boundary
of one of the very few, prime and
sustainable remnant Bigwoods to survive in
the Twin Cities region. According to the
Minnesota County Biological Survey of
Natural Communities and rare species of
Carver, Hennepin and Scott Counties in
1998, less than 1% of Hennepin County’s
maple basswood Bigwoods biome survives
today. At that time, only 1100 acres
remained. The DNR’s Hannah Texler
reported to me by phone on Friday March
9th that the figures pertaining to surviving
Bigwoods remnants then are most likely to
be smaller. (Reference: Minnesota County
Biological Survey. Carverr, Hennepin and
Scott Counties, 1998).
The Bigwoods in Riley Creek CA
The north edge of Turnbull Road which is
incorporated into Alternatives 1 and 2 and
the north and south edge of Alternative 1
from existing Beverly Drive to existing
Turnbull Road borders on the Riley Creek
Conservation Area. The Riley Creek
Conservation Area protects the Bigwoods
as well as associated woodlands up stream
and down stream that help sustain the
Bigwoods plant and animal communities.
Further edge degradation of the Riley
Creek Bigwoods and associated woodlands
caused by new roads and new homes is an
important environmental consideration that
the draft EAW does not but needs to
acknowledge. The draft EAW also
wrongly suggests that tree mitigation will
answer the challenge of tree loss in the
vicinity of the Bigwoods.
Solomon’s Seal in the Bigwoods of the Riley
Creek Conservation Area.
The Riley Creek Bigwoods also supports
Trillium, Rue Anemone, Blue Cohash, Marsh
Marigold, False Solomon’s Seal and other rare
forest plants. Barred Owls, Pileated Wood
Peckers and Opossum are among the animals
that live in the Bigwoods.
Additional comments and references related to the Riley Creek Conservation Area follow in
alignment with related sections of the draft EAW.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 9 of 29
Page 6 and 7
11b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant
communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat,
colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the
site? _X_Yes __No
I recommend that the draft EAW be amended to include data on (1) the regionally rare
plant community and (2) the organic layers of soil - forest floor duff - which these plants
require and the animal life which lives in this now rare ecosystem.
Discussion: The draft EAW refers to areas that will be affected by Alternates 3, 4 and 5
but should also refer to Alternates 1 and 2. Although the studies referred to in the report
present lists of plants that can be found in the Bigwoods (none of which are on the
endangered or threatened species lists), they do represent what was in the past a common
ecosystem that is now rare. The area is currently protected within the Riley Creek
Conservation Area and is one of the highest ranked Bigwoods remnants in the 7 county
metro area.
Discussion: Existing Turnbull Road forms part of the conservation area’s southern
boundary. As described in the Draft EAW Segments of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
would cut through woodlands associated with the Bigwoods which are important to the
sustainability of the rare, big wood biome. The City’s own public record clearly
references the ecological importance of the Bigwoods:
The first study of the Riley Creek
Bigwoods was done as part of the City’s
1993 Natural Community Survey which
was prepared by Barton-Aschman
Associates and Lee Frelich. The survey
evaluated and then ranked some of the
most environmentally valuable natural
areas at that time in southern and western
Eden Prairie in anticipation of the City’s
Land Preservation Referendum that was
held on May 24, 1994. The Bigwoods
north of Turnbull Road and Beverly Drive
that includes the Riley Creek Valley and
upland sections on the north side of the
creek were ranked along with prairie
blufflands north of Highway 212 and east
of Spring Road as the most deserving of
protection.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 10 of 29
The Referendum passed and the City began acquiring
property in the area for inclusion into the conservation area
adding to it when possible with land dedicated from new
developments.
The City has looked at the Riley Creek Valley and the
Bigwoods north of Turnbull Road and Beverly Drive a
number of times. Relevant sections of the public record
beginning with the Natural Community Survey are
provided on the following pages.
_____________
The Bigwoods in the Riley Creek
Conservation Area. The creek bed is
up from the bottom of the photo.
The Referenece Map is from the
Birch Island Woods website at www.fbiw.org
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 11 of 29
Natural Community Survey, City of Eden Prairie
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 12 of 29
Natural Community Survey, City of Eden Prairie
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 13 of 29
In 1995, Eden Prairie Parks Director Bob Lambert submitted a report to the City Council
regarding a proposal to name the two areas which were being acquired with money from
the 1994 referendum. In that report he mentions that the Minnesota DNR considers the
Riley Creek Conservation area and the Prairie Bluffs Conservation Areas to be high
enough quality sites, if nominated by the City, to be designated as a DNR Scientific and
Natural Areas. See below:
A December 16, 1998 letter to City Planner Mike Franzen from Thomas Balcom,
Supervisor of the MN DNR’s Environmental Review and Assistance Unit in commenting
on what this DNR office felt was an inadequate Draft EAW for the Orrin Thomspon
development on the north side of the creek [Oak Parke-Eden Orchard] cautioned about
development in a forested woodland adjacent to the Riley Creek Bigwoods and the
unrealistic value that tree loss mitigation would have on the health of the Bigwoods.
In General, remnant stands of the Bigwoods forest have long been considered to be one
of the most threatened natural community types in the state and are given high priority
[by the DNR] for protection. (Balcom, DNR, 12/16/98)
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 14 of 29
Discussion point: Effect of fragmentation on bird and mammal species
Forest fragmentation is an issue of concern statewide, but particularly in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan area. The development as proposed fragments the forest by creating more
open areas and forest fringe, thus changing the existing “unopened” condition to a more
sunny and windy condition. Such a change favors those species, especially birds species
adapted for the boundary zone between forest and open space while adversely affecting
forest bird species adapted to inhabiting only the interior portion of mature forest stands.
The main consequence is to change the predation and competition and competition
profile o the forest. In particular, interior-adapted forest bird species are subject to
increased predation from crows, jays, and mammals that tend to hunt forest edges.
(Balcom, DNR, 12/16/98)
Discussion point: Tree loss mitigation is not sufficient.
Unfortunately the lost ecological functions on the site [the woodland next to the
Bigwoods] cannot be mitigated by simply planting replacement trees. Furthermore, the
dimunition of ecological function and value offsite will not be mitigated by tree
replacement either. (Balcom, DNR, 12/16/98)
The Eden Prairie Conservation Areas Survey and Management Plan (June 2000) notes
that the native Minnesota hardwood forest biome in the section of Riley Creek
Conservation Area bordering Turnbull Road still retains its environmental integrity; that
is to say it is free of such invasive, non-native species as buckthorn and garlic mustard.
QUALITY:
The Riley Creek Conservation Area is unique for its expansive maple basswood forest
and for Riley creek, which created this picturesque valley. The forest at Riley Creek is
one of the largest continuous tracts of maple basswood left in the region and has
significant natural historical and wildlife value. Oak forest and prairie communities at
Riley Creek are also in relatively good condition. As a result of its ecological quality,
Riley Creek has the highest priority among Eden Prairie’s conservation areas.
The Eden Prairie Conservation Areas Survey and Management Plan, June 2000
Discussion: As the Draft EAW notes, some of the terrain along Turnbull Road,
especially on its northern edge, is very steep with some slopes exceeding 18% of the
grade. Given the high environmental significance of the Bigwoods and the fragile nature
of its soils as identified in the Natural Community Study, the EAW should present
adequate data on the matter in a clear fashion.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 15 of 29
Page 5 and 6
11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how
they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or
avoid impacts. (Draft EAW)
Section 11a. and Section 11b. (see below) of the Draft EAW should be amended to indicate
that cold water fish species can live in the reach of Riley Creek between Eden Prairie Road
and Spring Road.
Discussion: The pristine reach of the creek
from Eden Prairie Road to Highway 212 is
constantly fed year round by clean, pure
springs in the form of seepages and rivulets
with sufficient flow to support trout IF the
creek watershed is properly managed and
trout pools and bank structures are
constructed.
The spring water is cold enough to support
brown, brook and rainbow trout. Brett
Hope, former manager of Cedar Hills Golf
Course reports that a trout pond
constructed in 1989 supported a healthy
population of rainbow trout for two years.
(See Mr. Hope’s March 12, 2007 email
letter in the appendix). The pond was
made by damming the creek and stocking
the new pool with 6 to 8 inch fingerlings as
a three-year drought was phasing out.
Within just two years, some of the
rainbows grew to 5 pounds. In January
1991, a leak in the dam drained the pond
killing most of the trout. But some of the
Riley Creek looking downstream, east from
the proposed Alternate 6 crossing in June
2006. 100% of the flow shown in this
photograph is spring fed although no trout
pools are evident.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 16 of 29
trout survived in natural pools
further downstream and were
landed by anglers as late as May.
Silt from upstream eventually
filled in the site of the man-made
trout pond and efforts to restore it
were probably frustrated by the
construction of a DNR rough fish
barrier that was not supportive of
ponding which support trout.
__________
The diagonal line of trees in the
center of the photo marks Riley
Creek tucked between fairways.
Photo from TerraServer.
__________
Discussion: Although a limited, two day, DNR fishery survey of Riley Creek in 2003
(that is referenced in the Draft EAW) did not find cold water species like trout and
concluded that the stream is generally not supportive of game fish, the survey did not
conclude that trout could not live in this reach of the creek.
In June 2006, Eden Prairie residents Doug Schmidt, I and my son Alex recorded brown
and brook trout-friendly stream temperatures of 66 and 67 degrees and likely trout habitat
on the reach from Eden Prairie Road to Miller Spring. The temperatures of creek side
springs ranged from 53 to 50.5 degrees. During our visit we found little or no flow in the
creek west of Eden Prairie Road; but east of this crossing we found increasing amounts of
clear and cold water, some good bank structure and sufficient woody debris in the form
of fallen trees and branches and a shady stream canopy of trees along most of creek .
Occasional warm storm water surges in Riley Creek may not seriously affect the ability
of trout to survive; they will hang out near the springs. Continuous temperature
monitoring of Eagle Creek in Savage by Barr Engineering showed temperatures often
exceeded the range normally believed to support trout. Experts theorize that the fish
“camped out” near springs and seeps during the times when water temps were marginal.
(Reference, John Hunt of Barr Engineering, (jhunt@barr.com , 952-832-2777)
The rainbow trout that had thrived in the creek pond at Cedar Hills had had sufficient
food including insects and a flourishing population of cold stream shrimp called “scuds.”
Scuds are an important trout indicator. In Savage’s Eagle Creek, scuds are the main food
source for trout.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 17 of 29
These are conditions that indicate that trout can again live in Riley Creek.
Discussion: Notable trout stream restoration and management projects in urban and
urbanizing areas include Eagle Creek (Savage), Miller Creek (Duluth), Valley Creek
(Afton), Spring Brook (Northfield/Dundas),Kinnickinnic River(RiverFalls)and
Vermillion River, (Scott County).
Although, as far as I can tell, these streams never suffered the level of degradation that
Riley Creek has, they likely would have deteriorated to Riley Creek’s impaired condition
without intervention -- without better watershed and creek management practices been
engaged to repair and sustain their environmental integrity.
In 2005, Riley Creek was designated an impaired water by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency which also listed Eden Prairie as one of Minnesota’s “Dirty Thirty,” one
of the state’s 30 cities with the highest growth rate since 1988. Each of these cities will
have to provide reports detailing the effect that development has had on their cities’
waters since 1988 and then go forth and fix them. Eden Prairie is fifth on the list behind
Rochester, Woodbury, Maple Grove and Lakeville. (See appendix for reference)
Additionally, the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District and the City are now
required by the MPCA to reduce Riley Creek’s turbidity by 2009.
Again, the EAW must reference the importance of historic conditions and future prospects
for the creek (and other natural resources) with a full register of facts and perspective if
the City Council is to accept the EAW as a tool to evaluate an embankment or bridge
crossing of the creek in this part of the creek.
The Council must not only be able to reference commitments that have been made to
restore the creek, it must be able to clearly anticipate the impacts that would be prompted
by a new embankment/culvert crossing and/or a bridge crossing on the stream’s waters as
well as the high scenic value of this portion of the creek valley.
The EAW should not assume or imply that the current impaired condition of Riley Creek
is an acceptable standard in terms of predicting future impacts of new roads and
subdivisions.
Like other creeks in the metro region, Riley Creek can be restored to a condition that
approximates its 1998 and possibly its pre-farming and pre-urbanized character. It can be
and should be a pristine, urban stream that provides fishing, recreational, scenic and
wildlife habitat resources of high merit.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 18 of 29
Page 6
The Draft EAW on page 6 discusses the impact of underground water, surface water and
Riley Creek water for Alternate 6 as follows:
11a. The new crossing and a permanent NURP water quality pond south and west of the
creek crossing may result in a redirection of local groundwater that presently discharges
to Riley Creek. Road grading and nearby ponds might redirect local groundwater to
those features prior to discharge into Riley Creek. The northern extent of springs
tributary to Riley Creek is not fully delineated, however, it most likely follows the depth
to bedrock contour 51-100 shown in the Hennepin County Geologic Atlas. The increase
in runoff and the redirection of local groundwater to ponds may result in slightly higher
temperatures discharging to Riley Creek. However, those impacts would be extremely
localized, and input from springs immediately downstream would mitigate any minor
thermal impacts that might occur. No temperature-intolerant species are known to be
present in Riley Creek. Discussion with DNR Fisheries staff (Ellison, pers. comm.
2006) and the most recent DNR fish survey (DNR, 2003) indicate that Riley Creek is
unlikely to support a cold-water community. (Draft EAW)
Thesectionaboveshouldbeamendedtosaysomethingtoheeffectthatdischargedwater
from the proposed NURP pond will have a higher temperature and be richer in nutrients
than the underground water that flows into this reach of the creek.
Discussion: The Draft EAW says that construction of the road and associated
stormwater ponds, dewatering and other work has the significant likelihood of
intercepting this surficial groundwater and diverting it to stormwater ponds, before
releasing this sun-warmed water into Riley Creek.
Then, paradoxically, it claims the springs feeding the creek immediately downstream of
the stormwater pond outlets will mitigate the pond’s warming effect.
There are two problems with this contention: (1) The springs won’t be there, because
their source water was intercepted by the upslope construction and the upslope
‘treatment’ ponds! (2) Even if by some magic the springs maintained their flow, the
cooling impact under present conditions would be HARMED and degraded by the
thermal pollution from the ponds. Sections of the stream that can again be capable of
supporting trout would be significantly diminished compared to current conditions or
future conditions prompted by the restoration of the upper creek.
Discussion: As argued elsewhere, the EAW should not imply, as it does in this section,
that a degraded creek which can not support game fish (including trout) is an acceptable
standard.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 19 of 29
Page 6
11b Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant
communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat,
colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the
site? _X_Yes __No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the
project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the
results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted
give the correspondence reference number: ERDB 20070339. Describe measures to
minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
SECTION 11b is incomplete
Discussion: The Draft EAW is incomplete in this section by its own admission but also
incomplete by an un-acknowledged omission. While the draft EAW provides some
discussion about endangered species in areas affected by Alertnates 3. 4, 5 and 6, it
provides no data or discussion about endangered, threatened or special concern species or
other sensitive ecological resources and areas along Alternates 1 and 2.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 20 of 29
Alternates 1 and 2 pass though adjacent woodlands that are important to the sustainability
of the Riley Creek Bigwoods and also would alter or destroy habitat from the southern
edge of the Conservation Area. The Bigwoods, as noted elsewhere, is a rare ecosystem.
Page 7
12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or
hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and
impoundment — of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage
ditch? _X_Yes _ _No If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR
Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI:
Riley Creek. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to
minimize impacts.
AND Page 10
20a. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks a. Describe types, amounts and
compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and
ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of
disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source
34separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous
waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine
hazardous waste reduction assessments.
The Draft EAW needs to gather reliable data about and maps of the aquifer that supplies
Fredrick-Miller Spring.
Disccussion: The Draft EAW does not consider impacts that Alternate 3 and Alternate 4
might have on the underground waters that are likely to supply Fredrick-Miller Spring.
The aquifer, either via springs along Riley Creek or through the pipe that runs to the
Fredreick-Miller Spring tap on the east side of Spring Road, supplies water to the creek.
Page 13
25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? _X_Yes __No Prime or unique
farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? __Yes _X_No Designated parks,
recreation areas or trails? _X_Yes __No Scenic views and vistas? _X_Yes __No
Other unique resources? _X_Yes __No If yes, describe the resource and identify any
project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid
adverse impacts.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 21 of 29
Parks, Recreation Areas, and Trails
The Riley Creek corridor in the study area is designated in the Eden Prairie Guide Plan as
passive Park and Open Space. The proposed Alternate 6 would provide public access to
the creek corridor.
The above paragraph needs to be amended to (1) more accurately reflect already planned
trail access options and (2) reference creek, corridor and conservation access options that
may or may not be enabled by Options 1, 2 and 4.
Discussion: Any access to the Riley Creek Trail system that would be enabled by
Alternate 6 would be of minimal or no net gain in terms of access to residents. Access to
the trail system along the creek near Alternate 6 can be also enabled by the planned trail
system from Eden Prairie Road/Cedar Hills Park, Spring Road, the Prospect Road stub
and from the proposed Oak Creek at Hennepin Village subdivision. Reference: Nature
Trail Master Plans for Edenbrook, Riley Creek
Scenic Views and Vistas
Alternates 1 and 2 would require the extension of Turnbull Road to the east, to connect
with either Beverly Drive (Alternate 1) or a new road (Alternate 2). The new public road
would be constructed on the alignment of what is now a private unimproved road located
on a ridgeline between the bluff to the Minnesota River to the south and an extensive area
of wooded open space to the north through which Riley Creek flows. Some tree
removals would be necessary to construct a wider roadway to city standard.
The existing view from the open space looking south is a wooded hillside with an
occasional car passing by on the private road. Under Alternates 1 and 2, the view would
be a wooded hillside with a public road and associated traffic on top of the ridge.
Alternates 3, 4, and 5 would appearance of the bluff. (Draft EAW)
(a) THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:”Alternates 1
and 2 would require the extension of Turnbull Road to the east, to connect with
either Beverly Drive (Alternate 1) or a new road (Alternate 2). The new public
road would be constructed on the alignment of what is now a private unimproved
road located on a ridgeline between the bluff to the Minnesota River to the south
and the extensive, variably sloped, Bigwoods and associated forest and
woodlands to the north through which Riley Creek flows. Some tree removal
would be necessary to construct a wider roadway to City standard but alignment
and construction zones would need to respect the boundary of the Riley Creek
Conservation Area.”
Discussion: The unique environmental and scenic quality of Alternates 1 and 2 need to
be re-affirmed in this section. Alternates 1 and 2 pass through State Park quality scenery.
(b) SECTION 25 ALSO NEEDS TO REFERENCE THE SIGNIFICANT SCENERY AND VIEW SHEDS
AFFECTED BY ALTERNATE 3, 4, 5 AND 6.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 22 of 29
Discussion:Alternate 3 which winds
down a gully between two bluffs to Spring
Road a bit south of Fredrick-Miller Spring
could affect the view from Fredrick-Miller
Spring which before European settlement
times has been a source of drinking water
and now-a-days attracts people daily,
throughout the year. “The spring’s
significance remains a blending of
environmental feature and ongoing human
use, resulting in a geographical landscape
of historical importance – a city landmark.”
Eden Prairie Park and Open Space System
Plan.
Photo at right from the top of a bluff,
looking from a proposed trail right of way
on the top of the bluff approaching Oak
Creek at Hennepin Village towards
Alternate 3 to the south.
Discussion:Alternate 4 which cuts diagonally down the buff behind Lion’s Tap
Restaurant and Alternate 5 which cuts diagonally down the bluff from different points on
Eden Prairie Road would affect the viewshed of the bluffs from Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge and a proposed Minnesota State Trail.
“Our primary concerns about development along the valley relate to development near
the bluff. Development near the the bluffs concerns us for three reasons –erosion,
removal of native vegetation and aesthetics.Our preference is that all development be set
back from the bluff at least 250 feet from the bluff line….
Development along the bluff is highly visible from the valley. Developments detract
from the natural appearance of the valley and reduce the quality of the experience of
visitors to the valley and the refuge.”
Richard D. Schultz, Refuge Manager,Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Letter to Jeff Strate regarding a request to Manager Schultz’ for his expert opinion on a
proposal to develop close to the bluff line (Hennepin Village), January 13, 1997
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 23 of 29
Discussion:Alternate 6 would bifurcate State Park quality scenery within the valley and
from both a possible City of Eden Prairie park facility (the Cedar Hills Club House) at
Oak Creek at Hennepin Village and the Summit Oaks neighborhood on the northeast side
of the valley.
APPENDIX ITEMS
From:BRETTH163@aol.com
Subject: Re: Riley Creek Trout
Date:March 12, 2007 2:59:27 AM CST
To:bukumi@infionline.net
Jeff-
Rainbow trout can be supported in the lower portion of Riley Creek because I have made it happen with the
help of artesian springs that flow within, and nearly north andwest of the Cedar Hills area during a drought.
The Minnesota DNR asked to build a rough fish barrier on Cedar Hills Golf property, as there was already
an impoundment area on this Riley Creek site and consent was given for construction in 1989. The
contractor used natural sediment fill from the impoundment area to retain the spring erodeddown stream
slope to create the earthen bridge. This created a pool to which I applied for a fish-stocking permit and
applied 300-6 to 8 inch rainbow trout.
Rainbow trout thrived and were caught in the pond area until a leak drained this area in February 1991. The
MN DNR constructed sheet piling on the face of the impoundment to prevent future leaks but in the
interim nature took its course and sediment filled the void.
Every trout caught contained large levels of scud.*
The last rainbow trout caught in May 1991 was downstream of the barrier and measured 24 inches and 5
pounds.
Brett
Brett Hope
16316 Lincoln Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
612.723.8675
*Editor’s note: Scuds are members of the class Crustacea, order Amphipoda. Scuds are
distant cousins of crayfish and shrimp.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 24 of 29
Fredrick Miller Spring Interpretative sign at Fredrick Miller Spring
Wading in Riley Creek near Fredrick Miller spring
The map and all photos except the ski area photo are by Jeff Strate.
Ski Area rope tow path photo courtesy of Brett Hope.
Aerial photo of Cedar Hills Golf Course is from TerraServer. The printed overlays
on the photo are inserted by the author for this presentation only.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 25 of 29
APPENDIX ITEM
GREAT RIVER GREENING
Great River Greening restores valuable and endangered natural areas and open spaces in the
greater Twin Cities by engaging individuals and communities in stewardship of the Mississippi,
Minnesota, and St. Croix river valleys and their watersheds.
Since we started our work in 1995, we have engaged more than 12,000 volunteers in projects on
public and private property along the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix rivers to enhance the
ecological quality of these spaces.
By mobilizing and educating citizens to restore woods, prairies and other natural resources in
their communities, we are building a community of individuals who will be good stewards of
these natural areas in the future.
WEBSITE: http://www.greatrivergreening.org/
BIG RIVERS PARTNERSHIP
The Big Rivers Partnership is a team of nonprofit and government agencies that have joined
forces to restore critical river valley habitat while building community investment in our urban
natural resource base. The partnership provides resources and technical assistance to public and
private landowners who wish to create ecologically sound management plans and make real, on-
the-ground improvements to natural areas near the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers.
Big River Partnership Members
Great River Greening
Friends of the Minnesota Valley
Friends of the Mississippi River
City of Saint Paul, Division of Parks and Recreation
Metropolitan Council
Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, National Park Service
Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department
The Trust for Public Land
WEBSITE: www.greatrivergreening.org/brp.asp
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 26 of 29
APPENDIX ITEM : Road salt and chemical studies
1 Environment Canada. 2000.Priority Substances List Assessment Report: Road
Salts . August 2000 draft for public comments, 156 p. A hugesummary of information.
2 Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7050.0220 SPECIFICSTANDARDS OF QUALITY
AND PURITY BY ASSOCIATED USE CLASSES
(http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/7050/0220.html)
3 EPA. 2003. Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Guidance for Nuisance
Chemicals (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/consumer/2ndstandards.html). US Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. USA.
4 EPA. 1988. Ambient water quality criteria for chloride. USEnvironmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. USA. EPA 440/5-88-01.
5 Shoultz, B. 1997. RoadSalt: Minnesota's need to examine its use and effects.
Lakeside Magazine - the Official Publication of the Minnesota Lales Association,
January/February 1997.
6 Shoultz, B. 1997. RoadSalt Prt 2:Salt alternatives and methods to minimize salt
impact. Lakeside Magazine - the Official Publication of the Minnesota Lales Association,
January/February 1997.
7 Keating, J. 2001. Deicingsalt:Still on the table. Stormwater 2(4) May/June p. X:
xx-xx.
8 Young, R. And K.Schreiber. 1999.Salt of the earth: Does road salt affect our
waters. Lake Tides 24 (1): 1-3. U. of Wisconsin Extension, Stevens Point, WI 54481
http://www.uwex.edu
9 Minnesota Environment. November 2000.Worth his salt.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/mnenvironment/fall2000/salt.html
10 Novotny, V., D.W.Smith, D.A.Kuemmel, J. Mastriano and A. Bartosova.
1999.Urban and Highway Snowmelt: Minimizing the Impact on Receiving Water.
WERFProject 94-IRM-2. Water Environment Reserach Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
11 I-35W & Mississippi River Bridge Anti-Icing Project, Author(s): Cory Johnson,
Report Date: Jul 2001, Report No.: 2001-22, Report/Product:
http://www.lrrb.gen.mn.us/pdf/200122.pdf (2.28 MB)
APPENDIX ITEMS: TROUT STREAM RESTORATION
The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization rules, including how to deal
with stormwater:
http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/00000ff9/nafeakedwmcapqcsmaijxtleoxblpya
k/7a2Rules.pdf
Miller Creek, Duluth
http://www.duluthstreams.org/streams/miller.html
Eagle Creek, Savage (an early appraisal of maintaining it)
http://horticulture.coafes.umn.edu/vd/h5015/96papers/pphifer.htm
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 27 of 29
Spring Brook, Northfield/Dundas area (Study)
ttp://www.stolaf.edu/depts/environmental-studies/courses/es-399%20home/es-399-
04/Projects/Jasperson_Project/intro.html
Kinnickinnic River Land Trust, River Falls,
http://kinniriver.org/
Valley Creek, Afton
http://www.embraceopenspace.org/learn/t_valley.aspx
APPENDIX ITEM
The state of the lakes
By Karla Wennerstrom, Eden Prairie News, September 14, 2006
Eden Prairie’s lakes and creeks will be under scrutiny in the coming months, according
to a report to the City Council presented by Eden Prairie’s Environmental Coordinator
Leslie Stovring.
Eden Prairie is one of the “dirty 30,” 30 cities with the highest growth rate since 1988
that will have to provide reports detailing the effect development has had on their cities’
waters. Eden Prairie is fifth on the list behind Rochester, Woodbury, Maple Grove and
Lakeville.
“In 1988, the state wrote some rules that basically say the waters of this state are not to
be impacted,” Stovring said. “When we say nondegradation, we are looking at how
things were in 1988 and we’re supposed to have not degraded the waters since that
time.”
Joe Bischoff, a consultant with Wenck Associates, said the group will be compiling
information for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on what effect development has
had on water quality since 1988. Information will include the difference in impervious
surface in the city and phosphorus levels in its lakes, for example.
The requirement is a result of the MPCA being sued by the Minnesota Center for
Environmental Advocacy, Stovring said. “A result of that was that they needed to
address nondegradation. What happened is they kind of worked out a deal with the
League of Cities, the MCEA, the Pollution Control Agency and our water resource
coordinators group – to work out a reasonable solution.”
Eden Prairie is one of the first five cities that will have to submit a nondegredation plan
to the MPCA. “ We’re going to be under scrutiny,” Stovring said.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 28 of 29
“ We have a lot of concerns with it,” she said. “This is almost 20 years of development
that’s occurred.” She said the city has been progressive with stormwater ponding and
previously many sites were row crop, so, “In some ways, we might have better quality
than we might have had under agriculture.”
The financial impact of any corrective measures won’t be known for several months,
Bischoff said, but it could be costly.
“ It could end up requiring some costly projects to help correct some of the water quality
issues in parts of the city,” Stovring said. Projects could include restoring banks and
adding infiltration areas. Stovring said costs would be shared with the watershed district
and some costs could also be covered by the stormwater utility fund, which totals about
$1.6 million.
“ We do know that we will have to do some projects,” Stovring said. “I know there are
areas of the creek that will need stabilization. I’m sure we will need to retrofit some
areas that were built without adequate stormwater ponding. … There may be some
pond cleaning we need to do, which is not cheap either.”
However, “We’re holding out hope that we’ve improved water quality,” said Public
Works Director Gene Dietz.
Public hearings will be part of the process. Stovring said it’s important to remember that
everyone is responsible for the city’s water quality. “It’s not just the city, it’s the
individual practices of the people who live and work in the city,” she said. “That’s what
contributes to the water quality in our city. The way you fertilize your lawn, raking up
leaves and grass, picking up litter and dog waste. All of those things contribute to the
quality of our lakes and creeks.”
Anderson Lakes
The City Council was also updated on the status of several lakes in the city that have
projects planned with local watershed districts. At Anderson Lakes, a proposed water
level drawdown during the next two winters would allow the bottom sediments to freeze
to help control invasive species and make room for native plants, providing habitat for
wildlife. Snow melt and spring runoff help refill the lakes during the summer, Stovring
said. “We’re hoping the teals and ducks and everything comes back because of this. …
By bringing back this habitat it should only be an improvement in what they see out their
window.”
A public hearing process is planned before the drawdown, which would be a Nine Mile
Creek Watershed District Project. Steve McComas of Blue Water Science is also doing
plant surveys in Eden Prairie’s Anderson Lakes. He said drawing down the lake level
should control curly leaf pondweed and improve native plants for wildlife habitat. The
lake level would be brought back to the historic level of about 1 to 1.5 feet lower than it
is now.
Comments on Draft EAW “Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives”
Jeff Strate, April 11, 2007 Page 29 of 29
Birch Island Lake
Water levels are to be restored to what they were before the construction of Highway 62
over the next two to five years. A stormwater pond would be upgraded and one new
stormwater pond would be built. Stovring said the water level is anticipated to go up
about seven feet. She said drain tile would have to be installed along the Crosstown
corridor. “They will be boring under the freeway to connect some stormwater and
surface water drainage from the upper watershed back into Birch Island Lake.”
“When they put Crosstown through, they cut off the natural flow pattern to the lake,” she
explained. She said this would bring groundwater back to the lake. She said work on the
project could start as early as this year.
Bryant Lake
Whole lake alum treatment would be set in 2008 or 2009. Alum interacts with
phosphorus in the water, causing it to settle into the sediments at the bottom of the lake,
Stovring said. “t will just make it clearer so it’s more comfortable for swimming and
boating,” she said. She said the alum helps clean the lake while waiting for stormwater
improvements to work.
Mitchell Lake
Listed as an impaired body of water. Stovring said improvements at Round Lake will
help water coming in to Mitchell. Recommendations include herbicide treatment to
reduce curlyleaf pondweed and Eurasion watermilfoil for four years plus alum treatment
for six years. Stovring said that because Mitchell Lake is so shallow, when water is
more clear, native species start growing. “There will be plant growth still,” she said, “just
a more diverse variety of native species and a better fish habitat.
Rice Marsh and Riley Lakes
Alum treatment set for 2007 or 2008.
Round Lake
Alum treatment would be set after stormwater pond construction finished. Monitoring of
Round Lake over the summer has yielded positive results, according to Steve
McComas of Blue Water Science, a consultant. “It’s about the best it’s been in the last
15-20 years,” he said. He said that assuming September is OK, “Round Lake will not be
an impaired lake.” He said the clarity, phosphorus and algae levels meet criteria for an
unimpaired lake. And bacteria levels have been low enough to be at safe swimming
levels. McComas will continue to monitor the lake through September. The beach is
expected to be open for swimming next year.
Lorene McWaters
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tundel@aol.com
Saturday, March 31, 2007 2:00 PM
Philip Young; Scott Neal
Kathy Nelson; Jon Duckstad; Sherry Butcher; Brad Aho
prospect road and airport
My husband and I voted for each of you but we are extremely disappointed in your recent actions. If it were our choice,
each of you would be replaced in your positions. This community has been opposed to airport expansion and yet now
you have gone against the wishes of this community and have stepped up and presented the federal legislators with false
information about the city's desire to improve and expand Flying Cloud airport. What gave any of you the right to make
this presentationl91917 You stated that the Chamber of Commerce and the business community of Eden Prairie were in
favor of expansion. It is highly unlikely that all business owners or their employees are residents of this community. Have
they listened to the air traffic increase as they sit in their homes in other communities.?!? Businesses who desire airport
expansion will also create greater use of all of this community's roads. Are you also willing to put out the money for
improvements there? This letter must be retracted but more than that, each of you need to explain to this community and
the federal legislators as to why you took it upon yourselves to make this decision. After viewing the last city council
meeting on cable I saw another example of how this council works. Money was lacking in one area for the expansion of
the community center yet it was decided that even though the community passed a referendum for a certain amount of
money,it would be "just fine" to take the money needed from somewhere else.. ..just because that's the way things are
done. In all actuality, each of you should step forward and offer your resignations as you certainly are not doing the jobs
you were elected for.
I would also like to comment on the Prospect Rd. extension. My husband and I live at 9751 Cupola Ln. This is in 100 feet
of the proposed extension. We received a letter on the delay of this project until this fall but did not receive any other
information about a discussion on this project. I do know that meetings have been held with community members who
live off of Eden Praire Rd and Dell Road. Representatives of the city have spoken at these meetings. I realize that the
size of these homes and their property values are probably of much greater importance to the city but to make matters fair
to both sides, it would only seem right that the same information were given to both sides. My husband and I have
owned 3 homes in this community and have raised our family here. We have recently downsized from 4,000 to 2,000
square feet. We feel that we are equally entitled to the same treatment as those living in higher priced neighborhoods.
One of the arguments from the city to extend Prospect Rd is that another egress is needed in case of a fire. The only
danger to this neighborhood as far as fire goes is if there were a fire in the Riley Creek area and the wooded land
between Prospect and EP Road. No one in their right mind would drive into an area where there was a fire burning.
When we purchased our home on Cupola Ln. we were told that there would be a path or small trail leading up to a
clubhouse and pool on the site of the old golf course. We were told it would just be used for this neighborhood. I
understand that this was info received from Ryland but in no way did we have knowledge that a thru road was planned.
Please make sure that all groups involved in this issue are receiving equal information and time. Thank you.... Pete and
Sandi Tundel
**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com .
1
Leslie Stovring
From: Tundel@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:28 PM
To: Gene Dietz; Leslie Stovring; Communications E-Mail; Brad Aho; Sherry Butcher; Jon Duckstad; Kathy
Nelson
Subject: Prospect Rd
I am well aware of the difficult decision that will need to be made about Prospect Rd. Both sides of this issue are sharply
divided and my concern is that the decision will be made for intirely the wrong reason.
My husband and I have lived in EP for approximately 23 years. We have owned 3 new homes in this community. Before
we downsized to our current home at 9751 Cupola Ln , we lived in a 4,000 sq.ft home at 10926 Franlo Rd. Our home did
provide more taxes to the city of EP than does our current one. It is easy to see right now that the side with the most
money is "winning the race" The mayor has assured the residents of the MN.River Bluff and Riley Creek Assoc. that if
Prospect is not chosen that they would not automatically choose one of the alternatives. An email that I received on
Sunday, April 1 at 12:30 pm from Mr Phil Young stated as follows, "..The plan has always been to build Prospect Rd.
This may change, but I think it is unlikely." His decision has been made before any of the facts are in. Please tell me why
the city is having meetings with those residents on the west side of Eden Prairie Rd. and yet only 14% of the residents of
Summit Oaks were informed of this situation. The statement has frequently been made that the traffic flow is to the north.
Why is it then neccesary to build an east / west route by extending Prospect Rd.? Eden Prairie Rd is already in existance
and should be considered as an alternative by upgrading. There are already safety issues with Prospect Rd as far as
sight lines and inclines go. Let's see what is decided Safety in one area or Money in the other. Please do more than
drive thru these areas. Spend some time there at different periods of the day. Currently, there is not a huge traffic jam.
The are times of day when it is difficult to exit on Spring Rd but what will approximately 400 homes in a new development
do or that's right, traffic only flows north and south.. .Thank you for your consideration. Sandi Tundel
**************************************.
See what's free at http://www.aol.com .
4/10/2007
Loren and Norma Wuttke
16860 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie MN 55347-3820
Telephone 952-934-1380
April 10, 2007
Mr. Scott Neal
City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie MN 55344
Re: Public Comments on the EAW for Hennepin Village Prospect Road
Dear Mr. Neal:
Please consider our comments for the upcoming decision on the Prospect Road/Hennepin Village
issue. Thank you in advance for your time and for the opportunity to express our opinion
regarding this situation.
"THE OTHER SISTER"
The draft EAW for Oak Creek at Hennepin Village project has been read with much
interest with comments from the public, including comments from the Hennepin Village
citizenry who now have expressed major concerns about increased traffic through their
residences of Hennepin Village Phase A.
When Pemtom Land Company under the direction of Dan Herbst designed this large
parcel of land, lying between Spring Road and Eden Prairie Road, they were successful in
publicly presenting and obtaining approvals through the public process for a fresh, unique
concept called HENNEPIN VILLAGE, designating it Phases A and B, creating a complete-
harmonous—contiguous concept called "A VILLAGE".
Now it appears that residents of Phase A do not want to accept their "other sister, Phase
B," into the family fold by way of a crossover-connective road, even though all plans for its
completion and subsequent connection by way of a road were public knowledge as well as a
contractual, legally binding arrangement that the two phases, A and B, charted as Prospect Road,
Sincerely,
Mr. Scott Neal, City Manager
Re: Public Comments on the EAW for Hennepin Village /Prospect Road
April 10, 2007, Page Two
be built by Pemton. This insistence to isolate Phase A from Phase B goes contrary to the concept
of "A VILLAGE."
Furthermore, it is invasive and confusing to the rest of us in this area outside of Hennepin
Village to have to be involved with these disputes, changes, and unfinished business which, I
believe, should have been worked out within the family framework of Hennepin Village
residents and the Pemtom Land Company. Intentional or unintentional, this unfinished business
has the appearance that Hennepin Village is demanding that some other neighborhood solve and
finance a self-initiated situation they do not want to resolve within their own development
In addition, these Phase A residents voiced concerns that traffic from the future
development(s) west of Eden Prairie Road will flow past their front doors as well. As twenty-
five-year area residents, we can assure them, that if connective Prospect Road were completed
today, area residents would not need to use it as our traffic patterns and designation needs would
take us north from this area. Because our area and the remaining developable area west of Eden
Prairie Road lie at the far south end of Eden Prairie, all Eden Prairie community points of
interest, i.e. churches, schools, parks, athletic fields, its shopping areas, etc. are located at a
reference point north from this immediate area. Traveling through Hennepin Village Phases A
and B would be illogical and time consuming when Eden Prairie Road so handily connects us to
Pioneer Trail, Scenic Heights Road, 312/new 212, Highway 5, etc which, in turn, effortlessly
connects us to major highway systems.
In conclusion, I would encourage the Council to follow through on the contractual
arrangement that was signed in 2001 for Prospect Road to be completed and paid for by Pemtom
Land Company.
Travis Wuttke
16860 Flying Cloud Dr.
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
April 10, 2007
Scott Neal
City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: DRAFT EAW Prospect Road Alternatives 30 day public comment period
Dear Mr. Neal:
To begin, I would like to commend City Staff, the City Commissions and City Council for their
handling of the Voluntary Prospect Road Alternatives Environmental Assessments Worksheet
and its subsequent public opportunity for comments. With much deliberation, I have researched
the facts regarding the EAW, its subsequent proposed alternatives, along with the public records
pertaining to the development of Hennepin Village beginning at the origin in 2001, and the basis
for complete and well-engineered street infrastructure. This précis will be formatted in a By-
Alternative outline containing points within the EAW, its strengths and inadequacies, and the
accompanying opinions of each alternative presented. By the summary's end, I hope there will
be a greater understanding of the natural opinion of the area landowners and the best possible
course of action.
Basis for initial argument against Prospect Road
The fundamental argument initially conceived against the completed construction of the cross-
over road, formally named Prospect Road, was two fold: Non-residential traffic along Prospect
Road will increase once completed, and impacts along the Riley Creek Corridor regarding Miller
Spring due to the addition of fill required to connect the abutting end of Prospect Road with
Eden Prairie Road.
In the following headings, these arguments will be either solidified or negated by each
alternative proposed and capable solutions to remedy the situation will be postulated.
Alternative 1: Connect existing Beverly Drive west to Turnbull Road
This road alternative connects a now existing residential street with a private street in an east-
west connection. Its location with respect to now existing Prospect Road is west and south. The
purpose of this road was to create traffic mitigation for the southwest bluff land as an alternative
to Prospect Road; however, it fails to solve any of the reasons to build Prospect Road. It does
not connect Hennepin Village Phases A, C, or D, with proposed Phase B, nor connect the
proposed clubhouse located currently at the Cedar Hills Golf Course Clubhouse with the rest of
the Hennepin Village development. The road does not serve as any secondary access for any of
Wuttke Page 2
April 10, 2007
the Hennepin Village sites, thus does not solve the fire and safety concerns. Connectivity within
Hennepin Village for both continuity and street maintenance and safety are not solved by the
addition of another road in the southwest area. Hypothetically, if Alternative 1 were to be
constructed today instead of Prospect Road, Dell Road would also have to be improved and there
has been objection by Turnbull Road area landowners against such an improvement.
The addition of Alternative 1 as road infrastructure to the Southwest area in the long-term scope
of further development may be foreseeable in the future, but it fails to solve any of the reasons
the City initially required the developer to construct a road between Spring Road and Eden
Prairie Road, namely: traffic mitigation, fire and emergency safety, easy road maintenance, and
neighborhood connectivity along with access to local development amenities and local parks.
Alternative 2: Construct a road south of and parallel to Beverly Drive connecting Eden
Prairie Road and Turnbull Road
This alternative suggests the construction of a new road running south and parallel to Beverly
Drive and connecting up to Turnbull Road. Much of the same reasons presented in Alternative 1
apply here except this road would be constructed completely on private land and all road right-
of-way access would have to be acquired at a much higher cost than Alternative 1. Another
consideration is the roadway length of more than three times and impacted acreage of four times
that of Prospect Road.
The same logic in construction of Alternative 1 applies towards Alternative 2 whereas there are
no solutions to the underlying reasons for Prospect Road completion regarding traffic mitigation,
fire and emergency safety, easy road maintenance, and neighborhood connectivity along with
access to local development amenities and local parks.
Alternative 3: Realign Eden Prairie Road east connecting to Spring Road 400 feet north of
Flying Cloud Drive
Although this alternative may appear to solve the east-west connection, there are problems that
are still not answered by the EAW. The first being Alternative 3 still crosses at a location with
grades that can be as much as 10%, require 38% more roadway than Prospect Road yet impact
185% more wooded acreage and require close to 50,000 cubic yards of additional soil be moved
(compared to Prospect Road). The connection between Eden Prairie Road and Spring Road
would be created thus eliminating one constraint, yet Alternative 3 fails to include Hennepin
Village phases A and B. The underlying reason for an east-west connection is to have continuity
in road infrastructure as well as neighborhood connectivity for traffic flow, road maintenance,
and emergency access. None of these aforementioned concerns are addressed. From the
perspective of wildlife and plant preservation, the locations of Alternatives 3 and 4 to Prospect
Road require further research be conducted to eliminate any question that the same possible
environmental implications could not arise from constructing such an alternative. The EAW
fails to address these concerns. The inadequacy of exhausting all environmental concerns
coupled with the lack of traffic mitigation, fire and emergency safety, easy road maintenance,
and neighborhood connectivity along with access to local development amenities and local
parks, Alternative 3 cannot fully solve all the constraints of Prospect Road.
Wuttke Page 3
April 10, 2007
Alternative 4: Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Spring Road 100 feet
north of Flying Cloud Drive
Similar in nature, logic, and conclusion, Alternative 4 has many of the same complications and
concerns addressed in Alternative 3. One caveat: Alternative 4 redirects traffic only 100 feet
from an already busy intersection of County Road 4 and existing Highway 212, and further
traffic study focusing on traffic demands and safety concerns of two uncontrolled intersections in
close proximity would need to be constructed.
Alternative 5: Realign Eden Prairie Road south connecting to Highway 212/Flying Cloud
Drive
The description of the EAW as stated in Question 6 of the EAW states, "The City of Eden Prairie
is considering closing or rerouting the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Flying Cloud
Drive." A realignment of Eden Prairie Road is suggested as this fifth alternative and cuts
through the pristine Minnesota River Bluffs to connect 230 feet west of the existing Highway
212/Flying Cloud Drive intersection. The length of road right-of-way required is roughly 17%
longer than Prospect Road yet impacts 180% more acreage of beautiful bluff land of which the
City has so ardently preserved along the southern border of Hennepin Village Phases C and D.
The cost of such a road along the bluffs both in land acquisition and construction does not clearly
rationalize replacing one intersection for another—especially when the alternative presented still
does not provide connectivity of Hennepin Village Phases A, C, and D with proposed Phase B,
nor with the planned parks located along Eden Prairie Road at the Riley Creek Crossing (old
Aitkins property) and the existing location of the Cedar Hills Golf Course Clubhouse.
By observation, transient commuters use Eden Prairie Road as a shortcut northward from the
south and southwestern neighboring cities. Traffic flow of current area residents is, in general, a
northern and eastern direction. County Road 1 and the new Highway 312 provide east-west
travel and County Road 4 north of Pioneer Trail provides northern travel to all required work and
recreational activities within Eden Prairie and neighboring cities. Traffic along the completed
Prospect Road would be used for Hennepin Village residential access to the City Park at the
Riley Creek crossing at Eden Prairie Road and the redeveloped Cedar Hills Golf Course
Clubhouse. Prospect Road would well serve the area residents of Hennepin Village Phases A
and B, as well as C and D for connectivity.
Alternative 6: Extend the existing Prospect Road off Spring Road to intersect with Eden
Prairie Road
This alternative cannot be reasonably considered an alternative since the City has already
approved and agreed under the developer's agreement in 2001, but for argument's sake, and
consistency with the EAW, it will be labeled an alternative. Within the preceding headings, I
have outlined the problems that occur within the other five road alternatives. Here I will
demonstrate the reasons for the construction of the Prospect Road.
Wuttke Page 4
April 10, 2007
The first reason is traffic. This has been of concern to area residents. Prospect Road, once
completed, will serve as a connecting street for Hennepin Village Phases A, C, and D to future
residents of Phase B. It will also connect the entire Hennepin Village neighborhood to the
shared amenities both on the east and west sides of Spring Road. A future City Park is planned
for the Riley Creek Crossing at Eden Prairie Road and access to this Park by residents east of
Riley Creek can be easily accomplished by Prospect Road. A concern of increased transient
traffic was addressed by an existing Phase A resident. The EAW provides little indication that
traffic on Prospect Road itself will increase because of transient commuters rather than residents
of the future development of Hennepin Village Phase B. Another concern addressed at the
Planning Commission meeting on April 9, 2007, was the heavy transient traffic at the
intersection of Spring Road and Prospect Road heading north and south. Safety issues when
exiting Prospect Road onto Spring Road were of importance to the residents who voiced their
opinion. A second access onto Eden Prairie Road for Phase A residents would be well served for
ingress and egress if this aforesaid intersection is such a hazard—thus concluding the completion
of Prospect Road as necessary.
The second reason is safety vehicle access. Construction of the units of Hennepin Village Phase
A, as I understand, were not sprinkled with proper fire hazard mitigation measures because the
final plan approved in 2001 for the entire Hennepin Village Neighborhood included the
secondary access at Eden Prairie Road, namely Prospect Road. This requirement of secondary
access not only applies to fire trucks, but also to police and ambulance vehicles. Without the
Prospect Road/Eden Prairie Road connection, congestion at the existing Prospect Road dead-end
could arise, creating confusion and chaos in an emergency event.
The third is road and street maintenance. Connectivity has been a long-term strategy for the City
and staff has done a wonderful job adhering to this philosophy. Snow removal, street cleaning,
and spring sweeping costs are minimized with streets that connect. Connecting Prospect Road to
Eden Prairie Road provides an efficient flow of right turns during snow season as well as street
cleaning. Utility maintenance cost is also minimized with a second access into and out of
neighborhoods.
The forth is environmental. Some questions on the environmental impacts of a street crossing
the Riley Creek Corridor were raised. Possible road construction plans have included building
up the valley and providing a culvert for Riley Creek or constructing a bridge with a length
required to keep within certain municipal grade requirements. The EAW does not give any clear
indication that any fish or wildlife will be impacted negatively by either raising the road up to
level and a culvert installed for a street or a bridge crossing over the creek. The addition of a
street in impervious surface and fill is small in comparison to the overall picture of the completed
Phase B addition and the future long-term outlook of the southwest area (as stated in the
Comprehensive Guide Plan). Mitigation against loss of wildlife should be implemented, but not
at the expense of efficiency or logic. A road with a culvert designed for Riley Creek or a bridge
crossing over Riley Creek would tackle both these constraints without losing the aesthetic beauty
of the area.
Wuttke Page 5
April 10, 2007
Summary
It is clear and evident that the City's original agreement in 2001 with the developer of Hennepin
Village clearly demonstrates the City was looking at all possible aspects of the southwest bluff
area when creating a long-term strategy for road construction and improvements. The
description of the EAW exemplifies well the intent of the City in logically planning proper street
placement for traffic mitigation, fire and emergency safety, easy road maintenance, and
neighborhood connectivity along with access to local development amenities and local parks.
The EAW exhausts all aspects of the Prospect Road connection in full. It is clear that Prospect
Road either with or without a bridge is the most suitable and efficient alternative.
Thank you to the City of Eden Prairie, Staff, City Commissions, and City Council as well as
Wenck Associates, Inc. for providing a venue for public comment on such an important topic.
Discretionary
Environmental Assessment
Worksheet
Hennepin Vitlae
Rbadway Alternatives AnaCysis .
April version is on the City website for review
25. Parks, Recreation Areas
and Trails
11. Fish, Wildlife Et Ecologically
Sensitive Resources
• Riley Creek Conservation Area
— MN Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS)
— High Quality Natural Community with Site of
biodiversity Significance
— Edge degradation
• Construction practices to minimize impacts
to trees and soils
• Design layout evaluated to avoid known
kittentail sites
• Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge proximity
17. Water Quality: Surface Water
Runoff
• Clarify table to show tributary area
(acres) as well as % for amount of
surface water runoff increase
• Provide information on impaired water
status and how will be addressed
• Specify data collection from
Metropolitan Council monitoring
station used (hydrologic, water quality
& macroinvertebrate data)
21. Traffic
• Dell Road improvements
• Eden Prairie Road deficiencies
• Ability to maintain existing corridor for
Eden Prairie Road
29. Cumulative Impacts
• Expand discussion of impacts beyond
2008
• Additional evaluation needs if Alternatives
1 through 5 selected
• Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
—Visible Impacts
• Clarify use of nondegradation and
stormwater management rules and
standards
• Expand discussion of volume and loading
30. Summary of Issues
Based on alternative selected:
• Reforestation
• Floodplain storage
• Wetlands
• Infiltration / stormwater management
• Ecological study
• Bridge crossing / culvert sizing
• Stormwater treatment alternatives
• Archeological Study
• Groundwater analysis
• Shore Impact! Bluff Impact Zones
General Comment Summary
• General Comments not incorporated
into EAW
• Responses categorized
• Summarized for ease of responding
• Over 140 comment summaries
• Not exact quotes
• Individual comment letters are
available to review
Summary Responses
"This comment will be conveyed to the
City Council as it considers this issue"
—General informational statement
—Comment unclear
— No answer needed
—Comment reiterates information already
addressed in the EAW
— Related to information that will be
evaluated further depending on the
alternative selected
— Level of detail not required in an EAW
Comment Summary - Related to EAW
7. Project Magnitude
10. Cover Types
11. Fish, Wildlife & Ecologically Sensitive Resources
12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources
15. Erosion & Sedimentation
17. Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff
19. Geologic Hazards & Soil Conditions
21. Traffic
24. Odors, Noise and Dust
25. Nearby Resources
29. Cumulative Impacts
30. Other Potential Environmental Impacts not
Mentioned in EAW
Comment Summary -
Issues not within Scope of EAW
• Not addressed within the EAW format
• Received during public comment
period
• Include items such as:
— Financial Considerations
—Alternative Selection
— Prospect Road
— Miscellaneous Comments
— Editorial Comments
2
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Reports of the Director of Public Works
DATE:
May 1, 2007
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Eugene A. Dietz
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Hennepin Village Roadway Alternate
Selection
ITEM NO.: XIV.E.2.
Requested Action
Move to: Approve construction of Prospect Road utilizing a culvert crossing as the selected
alternative from the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW analysis.
Synopsis
At its April 23, 2007, meeting, four Planning Commission members advised the City Council
that Prospect Road is the proper roadway alternative; while three Planning Commissioners
recommended against Alternative 6—Prospect Road. The minority opinion is that there should
be further investigation to find an alternative other than the six that were studied to address all of
the safety and transportation needs for this area. Staff recommends that Council approve the
motion selecting Prospect Road as the preferred option.
Background Information
Staff will present the attached information along with some additional traffic information at the
May 1 Council meeting in support of the selection of Prospect Road with a culvert creek crossing
of Riley Creek.
Attachments
• Excerpt from the unapproved Planning Commission minutes of April 23, 2007
• Memorandum from Director of Public Works to Eden Prairie Planning Commission
dated April 19, 2007
• Memorandum from Fire Marshall Allen Nelson
(Excerpt From Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes, 4/23/07)
VII. PLANNERS REPORTS
A. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW Determination of
Accuracy and Completeness
Stoltz asked the Commission Members if they felt the EAW was accurate
and complete.
Koenig stated she would still like more information on this project and did
not feel the comments were complete. Dietz stated a lot of the comments
were editorial in nature and that is why they appeared incomplete.
Stovering said a lot of questions could not be adequately answered, so that
is why they are being forwarded on to the City Council.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Schultz, to advise the City Council
that the EAW document is accurate and complete, and that no further
investigation of environmental impacts is needed.
Pitzrick stated he views the EAW as irrelevant. Powell said this study will
never be complete and there will always be issues in regards to the EAW
and the six alternatives. Koenig stated she has lived on and off in Eden
Prairie for 35 years and has felt the southwest area of Eden Prairie was
suppose to be protected and now feels that is not happening. Seymour
said the City is doing a very good of protecting that area and the EAW did
a very good job of addressing the issues.
Stoltz asked Rocheford to repeat his motion. Motion passed 5-2.
B. Presentation of Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives
Stoltz asked the Commission Members for their decision on which
alternative they would like to send to the City Council.
Seymour commented he felt the City has been trying to do right to
preserve the property since the project originated in 2001. Seymour stated
he would pick Alternative 6 to send to the City Council.
Powell said he cannot support Alternative 6 because of safety and traffic
issues. He believes there are other alternatives that could be addressed.
Such as having the City pay to have sprinklers put in all the homes in the
area or work with MAC to find an access road. He stated as a last resort
he would go with Alternative 5, but he will not support Alternative 6.
Koenig concurred with what Powell stated. She believes there is too much
environmentally at stake with Alternative 6 and she does not support any
of the options.
Schultz pointed out that Alternative 6 was originally the first alternative
when this project started in 2001, and the City did come up with five
additional alternatives His recommendation is for Alternative 6. He
believes it is the best route for emergency use and best alternative for
environmental impact.
Pitzrick stated his biggest concern was the process this project has gone
through. He pointed out that the City came up with five additional
alternatives that did not resolve the problems associated with this project.
He believes this entire process was distorted. Because he would like to
preserve the uniqueness of Eden Prairie, he does not support any of the six
alternatives.
Rocheford stated he supports Alternative 6.
Stoltz stated Alternative 6 is the best option. He commented that the City
did a good job moving forward on this project.
The overall results from the Planning Commission are as follows:
4 members in favor of Alternative 6 – Prospect Road
3 members opposed to Alternative 6
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 19, 2007
To: Eden Prairie Planning Commission
From: Eugene A. Dietz, P.E., Director of Public Works
Subject: Roadway Alignment Alternative Selection
Staff requests that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending to the City
Council that Prospect Road be constructed from its current westerly terminus to Eden
Prairie Road utilizing a culvert crossing. The balance of this Memorandum and
attachments provides both background and basis for this conclusion in preparation for the
4/23/07 meeting.
BACKGROUND
Currently, the southerly end of Eden Prairie Road has five major deficiencies:
• Width — the current roadway is less than 25 feet in width; the minimum urban
standard for our community is 28 feet.
• Steep grades – grades on the southerly segment of Eden Prairie Road exceed 14%.
• Horizontal curves – in one particular location the roadway makes nearly a 90
degree turn. Standards in our community strive for a minimum curve that has a
radius sufficient to accommodate a 30 mile per hour speed limit.
• Site distances – both stopping site distance and entering site distance are deficient.
Standards dictate that at least a 30 mile per hour site distance requirement be met
for both entering onto the roadway from side streets and driveways as well as for
emergency stopping.
• Landing at TH 212 – safety standards require that there be a minimum of 50 to
100 feet of roadway with a grade of less than 2% to allow for safe stopping at the
entrance to a high speed roadway.
All of these deficiencies represent serious safety issues and only the issue of width could
perhaps be addressed without major site impacts identified in the Discretionary EAW.
As noted in the EAW Discussion Memorandum, this existing roadway is not adequate to
support the urbanization proposed for the area (335 to 400 units). Attached is a map of
the 6 alternatives and a simple matrix that shows the “Non-EAW” parameters that greatly
influence the feasibility of the alternatives. Taken together with the matrix from the
EAW process, staff offers the following analysis for each alternative (see attached
alignment map):
Alternative 1
This alternative would connect Beverly Drive to Turnbull Road and has the following
significant characteristics:
• The largest grading footprint
• Adjacent conflict archeological sites
• Combined cumulative impact
• Does not provide secondary access to Site A
• Will cost over $2 Million, assuming that the multi-million dollar home on the
south side of Turnbull Lane can be avoided.
Alternative 2
This roadway assumes an alignment through the Wuttke property during development
and connected to Turnbull Road and has the following significant characteristics:
• Second highest grading footprint
• Highest tree loss
• Is listed as having cumulative impacts
• Does not provide secondary access to Site A
• Has an estimated cost of at least $2.4 Million, assuming that the multi-million
dollar home on the south side of Turnbull Lane can be avoided.
Alternative 3
This alternative loops Eden Prairie Road east to Spring Road and has the following
significant characteristics:
• Nearly 7 acres of grading footprint
• Nearly 5 acres of tree loss
• Habitat and bio-diversity impacts
• Does not provide secondary access to Site A
• Cost is estimated to be at least $2.6 Million
• Two homesteaded properties would need to be acquired, which could result in a
much higher cost
Alternative 4
Loop Eden Prairie Road easterly to Spring Road near Lions Tap. This alignment has the
following significant characteristics:
• Over six acres of grading footprint
• Approximately two acres of tree loss
• Major conflict with archeological site
• Habitat and bio-diversity impacts
• Bluff impacts
• Does not provide secondary access to Site A
• Cost estimated to be at least $3 Million
• At least one home would be acquired and possibly two, which could increase the
estimated cost
Alternative 5
Loop Eden Prairie Road westerly to TH 212. This alignment has the following negative
characteristics:
• Over six acres of grading footprint
• Over three acres of tree loss
• Habitat and bio-diversity impact
• Bluff impacts
• Does not provide secondary access to Site A
• Cost estimated to be at least $2-3 Million
• At least one home would be acquired
Alternative 6
This alternative is the approved Prospect Road connection and has the following
significant characteristics:
• Least amount of grading footprint at just over 2 acres
• Although this alignment has the highest percentage of impervious area in its
watershed, all of the alignments are a fractional portion of their respective
watersheds.
• Both the percentage of increase of runoff and phosphorous load were somewhat
higher than the other alternatives, but all were a fractional portion of the loads in
runoff in the watershed and any selected alternative, including Prospect Road,
will have treatment to NURP standards.
• This alternative is the only selection that provides a secondary access to Site A
(Attached is a Memorandum from the Fire Marshall regarding the fire safety
needs for the secondary access).
• This alternative is the only one that is presently funded through a Developers
Agreement commitment (and is the least costly).
• This alternative is the only alternative that is guaranteed not to require acquisition
of homesteaded property.
Conclusion
All of the alternatives have some deficiencies in one way or another. For example,
Alternatives 3, 4 5 & 6 will all have grades that slightly exceed our desirable standard of
8% -- they require a 10% grade. All of the alignments have some environmental impact
ranging from major tree loss to a controversial creek crossing. However, the only
solution that can address all of the needs for urbanization of this area, has a feasible
funding source and does not require the possible or real displacement of residents is the
solution that was identified in 2001—Prospect Road.
Staff has determined that modifications to the Prospect Road alignment can allow for the
avoidance of the species called “kittentail”. It is clearly going to be necessary to establish
proper erosion control and monitor grading during construction of the roadway.
However, this was successfully completed with the work on the east side of Riley
Creek—much of that area was disturbed with construction of Site A.
Staff recommends that a culvert solution be utilized to cross the creek. Although there
are desirable attributes for utilizing a bridge, it would require more disturbance in the
creek valley. By utilizing a culvert, storm water from Site B and the roadway can be
piped to the existing ponding areas on the east side of the creek, which can be enlarged
to accommodate these drainage needs. If a bridge were to be constructed, it would
require that ponding be created on the east side of the creek in the valley and it is our
strong opinion that this creates more of a negative impact than the culvert option.
Finally, staff will provide additional drawings and information that address some of the
comments from existing Site A residents regarding traffic volumes. We will show streets
that have similar volumes as those expected in both 2008 and ultimate build out of the
neighborhood.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the Prospect Road
Alternate with a culvert crossing of Riley Creek.
To: George Esbensen, Fire Chief
From: Allen Nelson, Fire Marshal
Date: 4/13/2007
Re: Prospect Road
Fire Department Access
The City of Eden Prairie always attempts to provide multiple fire access points
for residential neighborhoods in the City. This is one of the considerations
when new developments are proposed. The fire codes provide for fire access
to be required. The code recognizes that ideal fire access may not be possible
and allows it to be modified if additional fire protection is provided. The City
has worked with developers in these situations. Our preferred option is
always fire sprinklers.
The reason for providing this access includes getting to emergency situations
as fast as possible. Having multiple ways into a neighborhood recognizes that
the very conditions that create the emergency can compromise the access.
Hennepin Village Special Considerations
The Hennepin Village development was a new concept for Eden Prairie when it
was proposed. The developer proposed very narrow lots with alleys,
combined with multi-unit town homes. This provides firefighting challenges
different from other areas in our City. The closer together the homes are
placed, the faster the fire can ignite the adjoining homes. This situation is
recognized in many older cities by their fall-back plan for stopping fires at the
block of origin.
The original position of the Fire Prevention Bureau was that this development
would require fire sprinklers in the units. The developer proposed providing
the best access he could to allow us to approach fires and other emergencies
from multiple directions. This included Prospect Road extending from Spring
Road to Eden Prairie Road.
The Fire Prevention Bureau would not have agreed to the Hennepin Village “A”
phase without the extension of Prospect Road or fire sprinklers in all units.
Based on the above information it is imperative that Prospect Road be built as
was originally agreed to and approved by all parties involved.