2h. Clean Water Partnership Grant CITYOF
:Lk_
il l ,
1 d.t-
_-, f
v, :... ,
, , _ CHANHASSEN
1 ,.,,,,,_,,,,:
, ,„
_.... .; 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 it
1 - Atiftf, by C:1 A: .^
I
MEMORANDUM 'ltx+i.L _
Roes' - _
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Dat'e _-T 1
ret Subrn t: ! Se C- : r:issrfl
II FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner et:Di
Elate StSt ` , tc nz
DATE: October 9, 1991 (O fi•_g
II SUBJ: Clean Water Partnership Grant ---
II Attached is a resolution in support of an application for a Clean
Water Partnership Grant from . Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. The grant application is .'09 matching funds to study Lotus
I Lake and is being prepared by st and Bonestroo - Rosene - Anderlik
and Associates. The first part f e study will be to determine
the cause of Lotus Lake's degret.ti.'q and the second part will be
II to resolve the problems. The s: • Lotus Lake will also become
an intergral part of the Sto ;'Wate ' anagement project and will
provide valuable information` or pr = r enting degredation of our
other lakes.
The Storm Water Manageme Task Forc has already unanimously
recommended support of th : ' lean Water P A tnership Grant. The cost
II of the project has no l et been dete , Fined, but it should be
somewhere between $30 ovi' to $60,000 with the City matching half of
the cost. The cost r the City will actu -, be much less because
we can use the co •f staff time, etc., to ards our contribution.
III Staff is recom— z • ` , " s to' ' • * he attached resolution
i n support .1 r .t, 0:, bpi ,•_$, -, .. x. , s -. `h q ty , 4 z ..N . -' •
1
I Attachments
1. Resolution
1
II
1 „�
� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: RESOLUTION NO.:
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CLEAN WATER PARTNERSHIP GRANT
Whereas, there are nine lakes within the city limits of
Chanhassen; and
Whereas, the City of Chanhassen sets a high value on its lake
' resources; and
Whereas, Lotus Lake is one of the most recreationally valued
lakes in Chanhassen for swimming, fishing and boating; and
1 Whereas, Lotus Lake is one of the most used lakes in
Chanhassen by both residents and non - residents and is a fully
' developed lake with a public boat access; and
Whereas, Lotus Lake is experiencing degradation as a result of
non -point source pollution from development on and around the lake,
' as documented by the Metropolitan Council and resident comments;
and
' Whereas, the City of Chanhassen wishes to prevent any more
degradation to Lotus Lake and wishes to resolve existing water
quality problems; and
1 Whereas, the City of Chanhassen wishes to learn from a study
of the cause, effect and resolution of non -point source pollution
on Lotus Lake and use this information to prevent non -point source
1 pollution degradation of future developing lakes in Chanhassen; and
Whereas, the information gained from this study will be
' beneficial to the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek watershed district,
the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, the Metropolitan Council, the Board of
Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources, as well as to the
City of Chanhassen and users of Lotus Lake; and
Whereas, the City of Chanhassen has established a
' Comprehensive Surface Water Utility Program to address water
quality issues and the proposed investigation of Lotus Lake is
complimentary to this program.
1 NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Chanhassen is requesting a grant
from the Clean Water Partnership to fund a study of the cause,
effect and resolution of non -point source pollution on Lotus Lake.
1
1
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen. City Council this 1
day of , 1991.
ATTEST 1
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1
YES NO ABSENT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
October 14, 1991
To: Members of the Chanhassen City Council
Mr. Mayor and Council Persons:
My name is Robert Scholer, I reside at 7212 Frontier Trail
and am the owner of Lot 12, Block 3 of Sunrise Hills Second
Addn. and Lot 2, Block 1 of Sunrise Hills Fourth Addn.
At the feasibility hearing for the Proposed Frontier Trail
improvements I submitted orally and followed up by furnishing
documentation of the construction of Frontier Trail and final
acceptance by the City Of Chanhassen.
You may recall that the presentation was a bit longer that
' you wanted to put up with but I wanted to establish that the
street was built to the City standards of that time and quell
criticism that the developer, Bob Scholer, had not built it
to those standards. I wanted to set the stage for pointing
out, as some others already have, that the City was remiss
and negligence in not properly maintaining this street since
I built it and negligent and remiss in not enforcing load
' limits during development and construction in the
neighborhood to the west.
' At this same hearing I agreed with staff and engineers that
the improvements, if approved, should be assessed according
to benefit. I went on to say that the only benefit accruing
to Lot 2 Biock 1, Sunrise Hills Fourth Addn. was for storm
sewer. No benefit was perceived for Curb, Gutter, and
Street.
' Having said the above, let me respectfully state my position
and my arguments for your consideration.
' 1) Lot 2 Biock 1 should be assessed, at the most, only for
storm sewer. No curb cut was provided nor was I even asked
if I wanted one as inaccessibility is obvious.
' 2) Failure to maintain and police Frontier Trail places an
incumbent responsibility of more than a 40/60 split of
costs on the City. A 30/70 division, in my view, would be
' fair.
3) Assessments should be on a unit basis rather than front
' footage. In an established neighborhood such as ours of
single family homes, everyone receives the same basic
benefit of access, ingress and egress to the neighborhood
and our homes regardless of footage.
' A concluding remark about people who collected the signatures
and the people who signed the petition for frontage
assessment. They are neighbors and in some instances even
friends. But I must say this. This may appear to be part of
our freedom under the democratic process but unless that same
petition is offered to me, and others with large front
' footages for signature or comment, then it is discriminatory
and shows no concern for what is just and fair and should be
ignored.
Thank You,
1
1
111
�
111
7 //TTT t
1
l
1
* r Alrit
_i________ A
1
i I 1
i
j 1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1