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