Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-26 Evironmental Quality Commission Meeting MinutesAGENDA Edina Environmental Quality Commission Monday, January 26, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. Edina City Hall I. Roll Call. II. Approval of the January 5, 1976, EQC Meeting. III. Old Business: A. Minnehaha Creek Cooperative Projects IV. New Business: A. Community Development Funds. B. Bredesen Park. V. Reports: A. Committee Reports. B. Watershed District Proceedings. VI. Other Business: VII. Others Wishing to be Heard. VIII. Adjournment. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1976 EDINA CITY HALL I. Roll Call: Ronald Hays Paul Mucke Virginia Shaw Donald Johnson John Telfer Barbara Casselman II. Approval of the January 5, 1976, EQC Minutes. Mr. Hays moved approval of the January 5, 1976, EQC minutes. Mr. Mucke seconded the motion. All voted aye. III. Old Business: A. Minnehaha Creek Cooperative Projects. Mr. Hughes presented final plans for the Meadowbrook Marsh area as proposed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He noted that these plans were presented at a joint meeting of the City Council and Park Board held on January 19, 1976, and varied somewhat from the original plans reviewed by the EQC on January 5, 1976. Mr. Hughes explained that the floating boardwalk in the vicinity of Circle West had been moved further out into the marsh as was suggested by the EQC at its November, 1975, meeting. Also, the trail in the vicinity of the Brookside Apartments had similarly been relocated further into the marsh. Mr. Hughes also noted that the proposed trail shelter next to the Brookside Apartments had been deleted and the canoe landing had been relocated to the west. Mr. Hays noted that Watershed District had indicated at the November, 1975, meeting that it was not feasible to locate the trail in the vicinity of Circle West further into the marsh. He asked why such a trail is now feasible. Mr. Hughes noted that such a trail placement had been reiterated to Watershed District engineers following the January 5, 1976 meeting. He assumed that the engineers had re-examined the trail placement and concluded that it was feasible. Mr. Hays requested that the minutes reflect the fact that such a trail placement had been termed infeasible by the District's engineers at an earlier meeting. He also noted that the proposed revisions to the trail location resulted in an added cost of $30,000.00. Mr. Hughes explained that while the revised plans do not change the basis on which the EQC originally recommended denial, any further comments or suggestions could be transmitted to the Council prior to their February 2, 1976, meeting. Mr. Hays noted that the EQC had recommended denial based on the plans of January 5 and had suggested that the Watershed District prepare alternatives to the plan. He felt that the EQC should respond to the alternatives presented on January 19, 1976. Mrs. Shaw qeustioned the basis on which the EQC had recommended denial of the walking trail on January 5, 1976. She asked whether trail placement or estimated cost was the determining factor. Mr. Hays referred Mrs. Shaw to the January 5, 1976, EQC minutes noting that denial was based on relatively low benefits derived from the Meadow- brook project in comparison to its cost. Mr. Hays further noted that the present proposal which results in an added $30,000 cost may make the project even less feasible. Mrs. Shaw stated that in her opinion the EQC should not direct its attention to the benefit/cost analysis of the project but rather to its environmental factors. She felt that cost factors should be considered by the Council. She further stated that 1-26-76 EQC Minutes, page 2 she is in favor of the trail because it will be an asset to the community and can be accomplished with a minimal impact on the neighborhood. Mrs. Casselman stated that she agreed with Mrs. Shaw. She asked for the opinions of other EQC members. Mr. Mucke disapproved of the Meadowbrook walking trail in that it is designed for neighborhood use but is opposed by nearly all of the residents of the area. Mr. Telfer questioned the desirability of a formal walking trail in an important wildlife area. Mr. D. Johnson felt that the EQC had been misled by the Watershed District regarding the feasibility of various trail placements. He questioned the feasibility of the current proposal. Mr. Telfer asked Mr. Hughes for his opinion of the project. Mr. Hughes noted that the Watershed District originally proposed a somewhat dubious plan for Meadowbrook. He noted, however, that because of numerous meetings with the neighbor- hood and others, a worthwhile and feasible plan had been prepared. He agreed with the conclusions of the environmental assessments that the project was sound environmentally. He disagreed with the contentions that the neighborhood would suffer from increased vandalism and similar problems. He also noted that cost/benefit analyses for such projects are very difficult to prepare and that the benefits of such projects should be discussed in more general terms. Following further discussion regarding the revised location of the canoe landing, Mr. Hays moved that the EQC recommend approval of the canoe landing and trail center at the north end of Vandervork Avenue as shown on the January 19, 1976, plans for the Meadowbrook area, provided that a need existed at Division Park for a parking lot and that the proposed parking lot would also satisfy such a need. Mr. Mucke seconded the motion. Discussion followed in which the EQC pointed out that the trail center could serve as a rest, launching, and picnic area for canoers. Mrs. Casselman recalled the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mrs. Shaw moved that the EQC recommend approval of the Meadowbrook area walking trail as shown on the January 19, 1976, plans provided that the feasibility of the floating boardwalk be re-examined. Mr. Telfer seconded the motion. Mrs. Shaw, Mr. Telfer, and Mrs. Casselman voted aye. Mr. Hays, Mr. D. Johnson, and Mr. Mucke voted no. Motion failed. IV. New Business: A. Community Development Funding. Mr. Hughes explained that each EQC member had received a memo from Greg Luce regarding the City's 1976 Community Development program. He noted that all commissions and interested parties were requested to participate in recommending budgeting of the funds received through the CD program in 1976. He explained that the Council will consider any such recommendations at the February 2 and February 9, 1976, City Council meetings. Mr. Hughes advised that the EQC recommend the expenditure of $2500 for acquiring shade tree stock for the Braemar Park nursery. A breakdown of costs and materials was presented to the EQC. Mr. Hughes noted that such stock could be used for replacing trees lost to Dutch elm disease and oak wilt and could also be used for establishing additional trees on public lands. Mr. Hays moved that the EQC recommend the expenditure of $2500 of Community Development funds for the acquisition of shade tree stock for the Braemar Park nursery. Mr. D. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. 1-26-76 EQC Minutes, page 3 B. Bredesen Park. Mr. Hughes presented plans and a He noted that the plan was based on the exception of the proposed fishing lake. not be constructed but rather a limited be conducive to wildlife. report for the Bredesen Park Nature Center. Mud Lake Task Force recommendation with Mr. Hughes recommended that the fishing lake excavation program be undertaken which would Mr. Hughes explained that staff discussed the Bredesen Park proposal with representatives of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. The Watershed District indicated that they would entertain a petition requesting the District to finance 100 percent of the development. Mr. Hughes noted that prior to such a petition, additional engineering data were necessary and were estimated to cost $13,000.00. He explained that the cost of such studies could be split 50-50 with the Watershed District and that the City's share would be refunded if the petition were subsequently approved. Mr. Hughes recommended that: 1. The staff plan based on the Mud Lake Task Force Report should serve as the guide for the development of Bredesen Park. 2. The City should enter into a cooperative agreement with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District to obtain soils information, hydrologic information, and topographic information for the purpose of determining the feasibility of and preparing final engineering plans for the proposed Bredesen Park development. 3. Subsequent to the cooperative agreement, the City should petition the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District to undertake the funding of the Bredesen Park development. Following discussion regarding the plan, Mr. Hays moved approval of the staff recommendations as presented by Mr. Hughes on January 26, 1976. Mrs. Shaw seconded the motion. All voted aye. Mr. Hays moved that the EQC recommend the expenditure of $6,500 of Community Development funds for financing the City's share of the cost for needed engineering and soils information providing that such an expenditure would be returned to the City if the petition to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District were subsequently approved. Mr. D. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. V. Reports. A. Committee Reports. Mrs. Casselman explained that the Criteria Committee established at a past EQC meeting had met and prepared a short report. Copies of this report were distributed to the EQC. Mrs. Casselman noted that criteria the EQC can use in making decisions was very complex and additional committee meetings were necessary. She explained that the committee had discussed ideas relating to land useage and development, population 1-26-76 EQC Minutes, page 4 limits, development of creek land, education and publicity, public service, and tree planting. Mr. Hays noted that a directions committee had met shortly after the establish- ment of the EQC. It concluded that ordinances were the best method of establishing standards and criteria. He explained that the soil erosion ordinance, tree cutting ordinance and floodplain ordinance were subsequently adopted. Mr. Hays also noted that that committee recommended against the EQC taking an advocacy role but rather that it remain strictly advisory. Mr. Telfer stated that the EQC should advocate environmental factors primarily and economic factors secondarily. Mr. Hays and Mr. D. Johnson responded that economics must be considered in all decisions. The EQC generally agreed that the criteria committee should continue to pursue the establishment of criteria. B. Watershed District Proceedings - none. VI. Other Business - none. VII. Others Wishing to be Heard - none. VIII. Adjournment. Mrs. Shaw moved adjournment of the January 26, 1976, EQC meeting. Mr. D. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Meeting adjourned. GH:ln