7. Lake Lucy boat Access, Options 1 .
I ,-, \
CITY OF 7
CHANHASSEN
1 ,
.. ,
..„,,,I _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
:_ (612) 937-1900
,. -, 'iw ,..;
Iic•s-P(L { —FAA)MEMORANDUM Mmlt
.0$+c'
ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager = ___.7_-4-E`t
note lie:- - -„ . _I..,
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator :5
.'ate SI. 4-;-'sc-----% nucak
1 DATE: July 5, 1989tP_ 7,..._
SUBJ: Lake Lucy Boat Access
I
The report on this item is dependent upon the outcome of the
1 meeting on Thursday afternoon with Council members; therefore, a
verbal synopsis will be presented on Monday evening. Attached
please find the background information leading up to this point.
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
•
CITYOF ,
1 1 A„ , 1. ,
�'` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
M VA`` . (612) 937-1900 1
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Mayor and City Council
I
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: June 30 , 1989 1
SUBJ: Work Session on Lake Lucy Access
II
As per Council direction, I have scheduled a work session to 1
discuss boat access requirements and time lines for Lake Lucy.
As was also requested I have asked representatives from each
agency that has an interest in the access to attend. Specifi-
cally, the following people have been invited: 1
Mayor
City Council 1
Representative Becky Kelso
Senator Robert Schmitz
Mark Tomasek, PCA 1
Jim Anderson, PCA
Mike Markell, DNR Trails & Waterways
Duane Shodeen, DNR Fisheries
Ceil Strauss, DNR Hydrologist
II
Conrad Fiskness, Watershed
The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 6 , at 3 : 00 p.m. at
II
Chanhassen City Hall. Again, the agenda for this meeting is to
determine what will qualify as "adequate” access and to work out
a time schedule for acquisition and development. Discussion of
the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Clean Up Project and the work plan
II
will be scheduled at another time.
Please call me as soon as possible if you are unable to attend
II
this meeting.
cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Those noted above
II
I
1
'i 1 C/
.ti 77�y
CITY OF �„,, ,,-4—
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900
1 June 21, 1989
' Mr. Conrad Fiskness, Manager
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District
1 8033 Cheyenne Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 Dear Conrad:
As a long time resident of Chanhassen and a part of the
1 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, we call upon you
to help stem off what appears to be a potential disaster. As you
are aware, a meeting was held with Watershed consultants/
representatives and with Councilmembers Ursula Dimler and Tom
1 Workman. The purpose of the meeting was to share information and
answer questions regarding the Chain of Lakes Project Work Plan.
The meeting ended on a sad note in that our Councilmembers, whose
1 only desire was that Chanhassen citizens know what the work plan
is , felt that their pleas were not being considered. By
contrast, Mr. Haik apparently left the meeting feeling that the
City no longer supports the project. This position must have
1 been presented to the Board as Mr. Haik' s letter of June 3, 1989
has the same misperceptions. This position is also unfortunate
as the work and requests for public input into the process by
1 residents such as Eric Rivkin and Dale Carlson has been solely to
insure that this was a good project - not to scuttle it.
1 This is to confirm that the City of Chanhassen is committed to
the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Clean Up Project and to the sche-
dule approved by the Watershed District and Pollution Control
Agency last year. The Lake Lucy boat access issue is scheduled
1 to appear on the July 10, 1989 City Council agenda. [ Please note
that the LAWCON grant application and actual purchase was moved
to September of 1989 by LAWCON. This was not asked for by the
1 City nor supported by the City of Chanhassen. LAWCON' s position
is mandatory not advisory.
This is also to request that the Watershed District and their
' consultants hold a series of public meetings where area residents
would be notified of the draft plan and invite their input into
this preliminary process. If there are monetary costs of pre-
paring notices or sending such, the City stands ready to bear
1
•
.,
Mr. Conrad Fiskness ,
June 21, 1989
Page 2
this burden. However, we are not in a position to present the
project or to field questions . This is where we need your help.
The City feels this is a major project and recognizes its impor-
tance to the quality of the lakes. We do not want to jeopardize
the project or the grant; however, the questions posed to date
are sincere and valid ones. We would like to work with you and
the agencies involved in cleaning up our lakes .
S . cerely, '
D.nald J 'Chmiel
Mayor
DA:ks
' I
•
June 19 , 1989
' Ms . Lori Sietsma
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
PO Box 147
Chanhassen , MN 55317
Dear Ms . Sietsma :
You have requested a price on seven acres of Lakeshore ro ert
known as Outlot A to Lake Lucy. This property is apparently y
' being considered as a lake access point for Lake Lucy.
I have discussed this issue with realtors and land appraisers
from the Chanhassen area and have looked at other buildable
' lots and acreage in Chanhassen. I have decided that I will sell
the property to the City of Chanhassen for the price of $15 , 800
per acre.
' As you know, I am not desirous of selling the property as I had
planned to build a home there . You have indicated that the City
' might have an interest in splitting the property, leaving me a
building site . I have enclosed a rough sketch of how the property
might be split to my satisfaction . This would leave the City with
about 5 acres and me with about 2 acres . Perhaps this is a reasonable
compromise .
In the event that the property is split , I would want clear title
' to my property and a variance that would guarantee me a buildable
lot with proper access to Lake Lucy and Lake Lucy Road as well as
the necessary permits . I would also require that those building
rights be transferable .
Please note that I am not an attorney or a surveyor . The sale of
any or all of this property would be subject to the approval of
' my legal counsel .
Sincerely,
JATL7
Judith A. Dirks
' 1205 West Ash
Olivia , MN 56277
' JUN 2 1 1989
CITY DFC ANHAss
•
_TFcL6R _ _,••
8 42
�' F t+,tai .4.si 7a•' ....
�G yM 9S
art Gn ;•r:, ,a',�1�. ,f.6�•L tR - r .. =iy �
•o i
ON ■■ .
.r ....k g �':,a„�a
� r'1 f: rr d
r.:../
EI(II4 3, P2S3N
•
33 �<
I •
I 352 A6 �� .nRO$AL
r CIT..II
13R J 1
• 48 :0 I/4F T Y\ ` —=
REINHOLD GJTHMILLER g "`
6K I31, F 285 -- ,
s
ir
, -804.43-- - r'
i
LUG
`,• ♦ ,. . .
, .
i„
R
P� : .
I !' 1
- s e ,
• ,•
; I A •
M.G ' 'r • -•
15)
.'� THEODORE D. KE
COUNTY-‘,-SURV
•
pv.' t la,
POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD. g1O!N
I 3300 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
-
WAYNE 0 POPHAM JAMES A.PAYNE TELEPHONE MARK B.PETERSON ROBERT C.CASTLE
RAYMOND A.HAIK DAVID A.JONES 612-333.4800 TIMOTHY W KUCK THERESE M HANKEL
ROGER W.SCHNOBRICH LEE E.SHEENY CAROL B.SWANSON JULIE FLEMING-WOLFE
I DENVER KAUFMAN ALAIN FRECON TELECOPIER BRUCE A.PETERSON
ROBERT A.MINISH LESLIE GILLETTE DEBORAH A.DYSON
ROLFE A.WORDEN MICHAEL I NILAN 1331 612-334-2713 THOMAS C.MIELENHAUSEN Y M JONES
BENSON G.MARC WHITEHEAD THOMAS M SIPKINS 1321 612-334-2781 MICHAEL D.CHRISTENSON BENSON K.WHITNEY
J.MICHAEL SCHWARTZ KATHRYN M.WALKER
BRUCE D WILLIS ROBERT C.MOILANEN 1311 612-334-2503 TODD N JOHNSON GEORGE J.SOCHA
G.ROBERT JOHNSON THOMAS F NELSON JEFFREY P CAIRNS SHANE A.KELLEY
I GARY K.MACOMBER THOMAS J RADIO LOUIS P SMITH MARK F.TEN EYCK
ROBERT S.BURK DAVID L.HASH MALL BRUCE H.LITTLE DUANE R.NOECKER
HUGH V.PLU NKET T,III KATHLEEN M.MARTIN SUITE 2400 MARK F PALMA ELIZABETH LEVINE
FREDERICK C.BROWN JOHN C.CHILDS 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET RUSSELL S.PONESSA DEE ROWS
THOMAS K.BERG DOUGLAS P.SEATON DENVER,COLORADO 80202 BRYAN L.CRAWFORD JOHN M.BAKER
BRUCE D.MALKERSON THOMAS E.SANNER TELEPHONE 303-893-1200 MATTHEW E.DAMON KAREN M.HANSEN'•
JAMES R.STEILEN RICHARD A.KAPLAN JOHN W.PROVO SUESAN PACE-SHAPIRO"'
I JAMES B.LOCKHART BRUCE B.Mc PM EETE RS TELECOPIER 303-893-2194 JILL I FRIEDERS
ALLEN W.HINDERAKER SCOTT E.RICHTER LINDA S.FRIEDNER
PAUL B.JONES ANDREW D.PARKER
CLIFFORD M.GREENE PAUL J.LINSTROTH SUITE SOUTH
M STREET, ELLEN L.MARS
O.WILLIAM KAUFMAN SCOTT A.SMITH 1800 STREET,N.W. WILLIAM D.HITTLER
PAUL H.TIETZ BRIAN N.JOHNSON WASHINGTON, D.C.20038 ELLEN SUE PARKER OI COUNSEL
MICHAEL Q.FREEMAN DONALD M.LEWIS GREGORY G.BROOKER FRED L.MORRISON
I HOWARD SAM MYERS,III KENNETH ROSS• TELEPHONE 202.828-5300 •LARRY D.ESPEL WILLIAM M.OJILE,JR.
DAVID R.STRAND TELEPHONER 202-828-5318-530 BRIAN W.OHM
JANIE S.MAYERON ELIZABETH A.TH OM PSON DIRECT DIAL NUM BER GREGORY G.SCOTT AOrtT•[O OM,.C•1.0•01•01.1
THOMAS J.BARRETT KEITH J.HALLE LAND •ROSANNE G.ZAIDENWEBER ' AOr,TT[O""'"
I (334-2609 ) "AOrITT[D OMIT IN OHO
June 8 , 1989
I
Mayor and City Council '`'"-'
I City of Chanhassen JUN 9 ���
690 Coulter Drive
P . O. Box 147 cur( OF CHANHASSE3
IChanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mayor Chmiel:
IAt the last meeting of the Board of Managers of the
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, we reported on the
failure by the District to comply with the obligations assumed in
Ithe Substate Agreement entered into with the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. The Agreement covered the period from May 4 ,
1988, to March 31, 1989 , and set forth requirements which have not
I been accomplished. These include the failure to obtain by March
31, 1989, the appropriate legal instruments, assurances, and
financial commitments to insure the establishment of a public
I access to all lakes within the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes system.
Specifically, a public access was not obtained to Lake Lucy.
This effort to obtain EPA/PCA funds for the Chain of Lakes was
I a joint effort with the Watershed District, the City of
Chanhassen, and the City of Eden Prairie. In reliance on the
commitment by Chanhassen to obtain the access to Lake Lucy, the
I District proceeded to prepare the required reports and meet the
obligations imposed upon it as the responsible local unit of
government by the Substate Agreement. The District has advanced
its funds in reliance on the understanding that the City of Eden
I Prairie and the City of Chanhassen would share in the payment of
the costs to fund a work plan. The local share of the project for
the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Chanhassen is one-third
Iof the local cost in the amount of $8 ,233 . 00 . The Watershed
I il
t
C
Page 2
Mayor and City Council
June 8, 1989
District has advanced the funds and has submitted the work plan
required by the contract. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
is reviewing the material in consultation with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Given the requirements of State and Federal law that the
public access be obtained, and the substantial monies advanced by
the District to date, the Managers at the last meeting, discussed
the failure by the City of Chanhassen to supply the public access
to Lake Lucy. The Managers understand the desire by Chanhassen to
obtain information and have supplied substantial information
requested by the City. They have exhausted funds that are
available for this project and are not in a position to advance
additional funds on behalf of either the City of Chanhassen or the
City of Eden Prairie. The Managers directed the staff to not
incur additional expense, and that we inform the City of
Chanhassen of the need to obtain the access to Lake Lucy by
July 15 , 1989 . A copy of the executed Substate Agreement is
enclosed for your information. If the project is terminated, the
District will request reimbursement from the City for one-third of
the local costs incurred to date.
Vef 'truly yours, '
Raymond A. Haik
RAH/766ZBDH '
Enclosure
cc: Mayor and Council of the
City of Eden Prairie (w/enc. )
Board of Managers, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
District (w/o enc. )
Barr Engineering (w/o enc. )
1
J
t
I . , ot . ..-
is.....
... ,
C / 9
.: ,..I , ,.
CITY OF
ti
fl)J 1 1-2
1 \ tj
, •.
I ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
` (612) 937-1900
IMEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
I FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
Jo Ann Ols= , ' sst. City Planner 6-00
IDATE: June 9 1988
SUBJ: Approva of Formal Commitment, Lake Riley Chain of Lakes
IIICleanup Project
The Cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and the
I Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District agreed to each
contribute $8, 300 towards a $50 ,000 budget for the Lake Riley
Clean Lakes Project work plan. The work plan was to be initiated
I immediately by the Watershed District and completed by November
30 , 1988. The work plan will provide a timetable and implemen-
tation plan for the clean water project. The DNR is contributing
close to $500 ,000 towards the clean water program and as part of
I this is requiring any of the lakes involved in the program to
have a public boat access. One of the factors affecting the
funding of the project is that Lake Lucy and Lake Susan do not
I have public boat accesses. The DNR and PCA want some form of
commitment from the City of Chanhassen that a public boat access
will be provided on Lake Susan and Lake Lucy.
ILake Susan has land available for a public boat access and funds
have been applied for for the development of a public boat
access. Lake Lucy does not have the property or any immediate
I plans for a public boat access . Because of this , it was
necessary to meet with the Pollution Control Agency and the DNR
to determine what the consequences would be if a boat access was
I not possible on Lake Lucy and what exactly were they defining as
a public boat access. On Thursday , June 2 , 1988 , staff (Jo Ann
Olsen and Lori Sietsema) met with members from the
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District , the Pollution
IControl Agency and the DNR to discuss the issue of a public boat
access on Lake Lucy. The PCA and DNR stated that a public boat
access on both Lake Lucy and Lake Susan was necessary for them to
I participate in the project. Staff explained the difficulty of
immediately locating a public boat access on Lake Lucy. Staff
explained that the City did not control land suitable for a
I public boat access at this time but would pursue locating a
public boat access through a study group and any required public
hearings and would initiate this process immediately.
1
1
s '
Don Ashworth ,
June 9, 1988
Page 2
The DNR and the Pollution Control Agency requires some form of
commitment from the City to the pursuit of a public boat access
for Lake Lucy. This commitment is preferred prior to the expen-
diture of the $8, 300 from Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and the
Watershed District for the work plan. Both the Watershed
District and Eden Prairie prefer not to spend the $8, 300 on the
work plan if the additional funding needed for the whole project
will be removed by the DNR and the Pollution Control Agency.
Staff has prepared the attached proposal with a timetable for the
location and improvement of a public boat access on Lake Lucy.
Also attached is a letter of commitment from the Chanhassen City
Council. Staff feels that if we can provide the timetable and
the letter of commitment that this will satisfy the DNR and the
PCA and that the project can move forward. Staff recommends that
the City Council approve the attached letter of commitment and
timetable and that it be signed by the mayor and sent to the DNR,
PCA and the Watershed District.
1
•
-- C
LAKE SUSAN
July 1, 1988 LAWCON Grant Application is
' submitted.
September, 1988 Preliminary approval awarded to
' qualified applicants .
July - October, 1988 Public hearings are held for
residents ' input. Final application
is prepared and submitted.
December, 1988 Final approval is awarded to
qualified applicants .
May, 1989 Construction of access begins . *
September, 1989 Project completed.
1
LAKE LUCY
• June - December, 1988 Study alternatives; hold puolic
hearings .
January, 1989 Present recommendations to City
Council .
1 May, 1989 Sunmit LAWCON Application .
August, 1989 Preliminary approval.
August - October, 1989 Final approval is prepared and
submitted.
' December, 1989 Final approval .
May, 1990 Construction .
1
* Lake Drive East Extension required. Study complete. Currently
11 on schedule as shown.
err
� - I
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
f
520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 /►'/
Telephone (612) 296-6300 ei
MINNESOTA 1990
•
March 21, 1989
•
--,�
Mr. Conrad B. Fiskness, President
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
Barr Engineering, Room 4
7803 Glenroy Road
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435
Dear Mr. Fiskness:
Enclosed is your copy of an
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed cDistrict sand ethe rMinnesotatPollutioey-
Agency for the "Implementation of Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Restoration's
project. Please keep this copy as a reference of grant requirements.
I want to congratulate you and Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
on receiving Clean Lakes Program Funding to conduct your lake restoration
project. Your work is highly valuable and greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact Mark D.
Tomasek of my staff at (612) 296-7756.
Sincerely, '
4„ /. z_j z
Gerald L. Willet
Commissioner
GLW/j mg
Enclosure
I
Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes• Marshall• Rochester '
Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
•
I
STATE OF MINNESOTA
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
' DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
SUBSTATE AGREEMENT
FOR THE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF PUBLICLY
' OWNED FRESHWATER LAKES
PHASE II AGREEMENT
' I. SUMMARY
' LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT: Riley - Purgatory - Bluff Creek Watershed District
PROJECT NUMBER: S005893-01
PROJECT TITLE: Implementation of Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Restoration Project
COUNTY: Iiennepin and Carver
PERIOD COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT: May 4, 1988 TO March 31, 1989
TOTAL ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS: S 50,000
FEDERAL SHARE: S 25,000
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT SHARE: S 25,000
OTHER: NA
------ — ---------
' II. RECITALS
' A. Pursuant to Minn Laws 1979. Ch. 333 . Section 31 . Subd. 6(a ) , and Minnesota
Statutes 115.06, subdivisions 1 and 2 ( 1986) the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (Agency) is authorized to administer the state appropriation for lake
improvement grants-in-aid to provide grants- in-aid to local units of
government.
B. Pursuant to Section 314 of the Clean Water Act (33 U. S.C. 1324 ) . the
' United States Environmental Protection Agency is d
financial assistance, through Section 314 Cooperative Agreements with pthe 1de
States. to implement methods and procedures to protect and restore publicly
owned freshwater lakes .
C. The Agency is the designated state agency that is authorized to enter into
Section 314 Cooperative Agreements and to receive and administer Section 314
financial assistance. The Commissioner of the Agency is the state agent who is
responsible for applying for , receiving, disbursing and administering federal
funus made availalbe pursuant to Section 314 Cooper.itive Agreements .
`_ i�
II
II
Page 2 of 17.
I
D. Pursuant to 40 CFR 35. 1600 . Subpart H. the Agency may make financial
assistance available to substate agencies by means of a Substate Agreement
(Agreement) transferring Section 314 funds from the Agency to substate
II
agencies. The Agency may enter into Agreements with substate agencies to
perform all or a portion of the work provided for under a Section 314
Cooperative Agreement.
E. The Agency has entered into Section 314 Cooperative Agreement N I
5005893-01 with the EPA for the Agreement umber
undertake a Phase II Lake Restoration Implementation ProjectaofathesRiley to
Creek Chain of Lakes .
II
F. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District is a local unit of govern-
ment (Local Unit) eligible to enter into a substate agreement with the Agency.
II
III. DEFINITIONS
II The
terms used in this Agreement have the meanings defined in 40 CFR 30.200
( 1987) , and 40 CFR 35. 1605-1 through . 1605-8 ( 1987 ) . and Minn. Stat. chs . 115
and 116 ( 1986) . Notwithstanding the definitions referenced above, the II
following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
Best Management Practices (BMP) - Practices , techniques , and measures, that , '
prevent or reduce water pollution from nonpoint sources by using the most
effective and practicable means of achieving water quality goals . Best
management practices include, but are not limited Lo. offical controls ,
structual and nonstructual controls , and operation and maintenance procedures . II
Cost Effectiveness Analysis - An analysis performed to determine which best
management practices will result in the minimum total resource costs over time
to meet federal , state, local and substate agreement requirements and objectives. I
Eligible Project Costs - Those project costs that are: reasonable, necessary
and allocable to the project . permitted by appropriate federal cost II approved by EPA in the applicable Section 314 Cooperative Agreement andnciples,
determined to be eligible pursuant to this Agreement . Eligible project costs
do not include costs allocable to Agency administration, public information
dissemination, or training.
II
In-Kind Contribution - The value of a
sharing obligation of the Local Unit of Government . An�oin-kind contribution e cost
may consist of charges for real property and equipment or the value of goods II
and .services directly benefiting the project.
Local Unit of Government or Local Unit - A statutory or home rule charter city.
town, county. soil and water conservation district . watershed district, an
organization formed for the Joint exercise of powers under Minn. Stat . 471 . 59,
and any other special purpose district or authority exercising authority in
water and related land resources management at the local level . I
Nonpoint Source - A land management activity or land use activity that contributes
or may contribute to ground and surface water pollution as a result of runoff ,
seepage, or percolation and that is not defined as a point source in Minn.
II
Stat. 115.01 • subdivision 15 . Nonpoint sources include, but are not limited to,
I
II
f
_Page 3 of 17.
' rural and urban land management activities and land use activities and
specialty land use activities such as transportation.
Official Controls - Ordinances and regulations that control the physical
development of the whole or part of a local government unit or that implement
the general objectives of the local governmental unit.
' Operation and Maintenance - Activities required to provide for the dependable
and economical functioning of the best management practice. Maintenance means
the preservation of functional integrity and efficiency and includes
preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance and replacement. Operation
means control of the processes and equipment, structures. facilities,
accessories or appurtenances which make up the best management practice:
including but not limited to financial and personnel management. recordkeeping,
laboratory processes and planning.
Phase I. - A diagnostic-feasibility study to determine the current condition
lake water quality, evaluate methods for lake restoration and protection, and
recommend a program of best management practices to preserve and restore lake
' water quality.
Phase 11. - Implementation of a program of best management practices to preserve
' and restore lake water quality.
Replacement - Obtain.ing and installing equipment . structures , accessories, or
appurtenances which are necessary during the design life or useful life, (which-
ever is longer) of the best management practices to maintain the capacity and
performance for which such practices were designed, implemented and constructed.
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
•
•
I
1
1
Page 5 of 17.
ii) Support for the Fisheries Management Project. Initiation and
resolution to the satisfaction of the Agency, of those issues
necessary to permit implementation of the Program outlined by the
Minnesota Department of DNR fisheries project including: rotenone
treatment. fish barrier construction, re-stocking, and winter '
aeration to prevent fish kill in appropriate lakes within the
Lake Riley Chain of Lakes system where satisfactory public access
has been or can be obtained. '
iii) Resolution of Continuing Operation Maintenance, and Equipment
Replacement for Winter Aeration Systems,thc Lake Riley
}Iypolimnctic Aeration System, and the Fish'Barriers.
To define assignment of financial and managerial responsibility
for Operation. Maintenance. and .Equipment Replacement. as defined
herein, of winter aeration systems to be installed in conjunction
with the DNR Fisheries Proiect .the hypolimnetic aeration of Riley
Lake, and the Fish Barriers , following completion• approval , and
acceptance of the Work Plan.
B. BUDGET PERIOD:
May 4, 1988 through March 31 . 1989
C. TOTAL BUDGET: $50.000
Work Plan Elements
1) Coordinate Project Efforts with Cities
(Staff Level )
2) Explain and Define Project with Cities
(Council and Commission Level )
3) Assess requirements of Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) regarding: public access .
fish barriers , and fishery aeration.
4) Negotiate Agreements with the Cities regarding
Operation, Maintenance, and repair of fish
barriers and fishery aerators .
5) Feasibility study of fish barrier between
Lake Riley and Rice Marsh Lake
6) Identification of Water Quality Objectives '
for Surface Water Runoff and Lakes and Streams
7) Review and assess District and Cities nonpoint
runoff control regulations
8) Develop type of Nonpoint Control Measures
to be implemented
Page 4 of 17.
' IV. AGREEMENT
A. PROJECT INITIATION ACTIVITIES - WORK PLAN
' 1. Project Scope and Description. In accordance with the conditions for a
Lake Restoration Implementation Grant as provided for in 40 CFR 35. 1600.
Subpart H. the Local Unit shall accomplish the following:
' a) Develop and submit to the Agency for review and approval by March
31 . 1989 a Project Work Plan for the Restoration and Protection
of the Riley Chain of Lakes which is consistent with the conditions
' of EPA Cooperative Agreement Number 5005893-01 . which work' plan shall
describe in detail proposed project implementation. and include at
least the following:
' i ) A milestone schedule for project implementation
ii) A detailed project budget which describes the financial
' participation and obligation of : The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District (District ) , the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR ) , the Agency as the administrator of EPA grant
assistance, the City of Chanhassen, and the City of Eden Prairie.
' iii ) The identification of water quality objectives for each of the
project lakes including in- lake water quality objectives and
inflow water quality objectives .
' iv) A detailed description of the
P prospective Nonpoint Source
Abatement Program indicating: The prospective watershed
management activities to be implemented including BMPs and
appropriate offical controls . and the roles and
responsibilities of all cooperating governmenal units, agencies,
and groups to be involved in the llonpoint Source Abatement Program
' implementation, and operation, maintenance and replacement as
defined herein. The description should identify the type.
number and location of BMPs to be utilized, and the areas to be
subject to local controls.
' v) A completed feasibility study for the proposed fish barrier
between Lake Riley and Rice Marsh Lake.
' vi ) An evaluation of the benefits of undertaking biomanipulation
in Lake Riley.
b) In cooperation with the City of Chanhassen and the City of Eden
Prairie, initiate, and implement to the Agency' s satisfaction,
•
undertakings to obtain by March 31 . 1989 the appropriate
legal instruments . assurances , and financial cormittments
' necessary to ensure the following:
i ) Public Access. The establishment of public access to all
lakes within the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes system
as is required to perform and implement the Work Plan. For the
purposes of this Agreement ' Public Access ' shall be in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR 15. 1600. Subpart H and
conditions and requirements of the Fisheries Division of the the
DNR as applicable to the proposed fisheries management program.
I•
1
Page 6 of 17.
9) Establish cost sharing mechanism for Nonpoint '
Control Measures
10) Prepare and Distribute Work-Plan
OF THIS B ,
THE REMAINDER 0 S PAGE HAS BEEN
LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
1
1
1
II
Page 7 of 17.
ID. SPECIAI. CONDITIONS This Agreement shall be subject to the following
Special Conditions: owin g
II ,1. No portion of this award ma be used for lobbying or propaganda
purposes as prohibited by 18. U. S.C. Section 1913 or Sectin 607(a)
of Public Law 96-74 .
II 2. No costs can be incurred until the EPA Project Officer concurs. in
writing, with the contents of this Substate Agreement between the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Riley - Purgatory - Bluff
II Creek Watershed District. ,
3. The following provisions ;hall be in(
to be inserted in d future Substate Agreement intended`toJbeions
II entered into between the parties to this Agreement for the
purpose of project implementation . if and upon the completion
approval and acceptance of this Agreement and subject to the
availability of Section 314 Grant Assistance:
la) EPA Project Officer review of Substate Agreements will
assess those nonpoint source controls included in the
project scope to determine if such controls are sufficent in
ther nature, number , and location. to protect water
duality II
from future degradation throughout the Riley Chain of Lakes.
b) No costs for monitoring and analysis can be incurred by any
I entity other than the Agency until a Ouality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) is approved by the Agency and the EPA
project officer in accordance with its Quality Assurance
I Program Plan and any applicable Quality Assurance Project
Plans . If the QAPP element is approved, costs for laboratory
analysis shall be reimbursable. The QAPP is to be
transmitted to the Agency for approval prior to undertaking
I any monitoring.
c) The Local Unit shall forward a copy of the proposed
monitoring plan to the Agency for review and approval . No
II costs for monitoring and analysis can be incurrred by any
entity other than the Agency until such monitoring plan is
approved.
IITHE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS
LEFT BLANK I,VTENTIONAI,LY BEEN
II
II
1
II
II
■
( 1
Page 8 of 17.
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
1
• 1
1
1
1
1
U
■
I . ., C
`r
Pagc 9 of 17.
II E. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT
1. Exclusive Use of Project Funds. The Local Unit shall use all state and federal
II funds disbursed to it under this Agreement exclusively for the purposes
described in this Agreement. The Local Unit shall keep complete and accurate
records that fully disclose the amount and disposition of such funds. Accounts
and records related to the funds shall be accessible to authorized
I representatives of the Agency for the purposes of examination and audit.
2. Completion of Project. The Local Unit shall complete the project described in
Section IV,' Part A through D in accordance with the budget and project schedule
I described therein.
3. Applicability of EPA Cooperative Agreement and Regulations. This Agreement is sub-
ject ject to the terms and conditions of the following agreement and regulations :
a) Section 314 Cooperative Agreement Number 5005951-01 dated September 24. 1987
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Ib) 40 CFR 35 Subpart H (Lake Protection and Restoration Agreements ) . 40 CFR
Subpart 33 (Procurement ) . 40 CFR Subpart 32 ( Debarment and Suspension) .
and 40 CFR Subpart 30 (General Regulations for Assistance Programs) .
I 4. Amendments The Local Unit may apply to the Agency to
and, through the Agency, to EPA to amend the Section 314 Coo eeratit eiAg eementt
Amendments may be sought for the following purposes : ( 1 ) extension of the
project workplan schedule or budget period: (2 ) increases or decreases in the .
eligible project costs and the federal and non-federal share: (3) reallocation
of project funds to different Program Elements . (4 ) increases or decreases in
I the scope of the project ; (5) modification of the method of payment .
a) A Local Unit requesting an amendment shall submit to the 4gency the
i ) An original signed by the Local Unit ' s Authorized Representativefollowing;
I and three copies of a written request for the amendment on the
appropriate application or form as provided by the Agency
i ) A complete cost breakdown and description of the scope of work , as amended
II iii ) A revised breakdown of the Local Unit ' s costs , and the costs
of any subcontractor with whom the Local Unit has contracted. Such
information shall be reported on EPA Form 5700-41 or an equivalent
Form provided by the Agency
iv) An unexecuted amended Architectural/Engineering Agreement indicating
I changes in the cost. scope of work , and budget period .
v) A budget period extension request signed by the local Unit ' s Authorized
Representative if the budget period is to be extended.
I vi) Any additional information deemed necesssary or appropriate by the EPA
or the Agency to clarify the nature or purpose of the request.
b) Amendments to the Section 314 Cooperative Agreement which .ire approved
II by the EPA shall become effective upon acceptance by the Cormissioner.
c) Amendments to this Agreement which are mutually acceptable tc the Local
Unit of Government and the Agency shall be effective on the date of
I execution as to encumbrance by the Commissioner of Finance, and shall
remain in effect until the conclusion of the original budget period, or if
amended, the conclusion of the amended budget period
II
II
Page 10 of 17.
5. Change Orders. The Local Unit shall obtain written approval from the '
Commissioner or his delegee before any change order is made which results in.:
( 1 ) an increase in the amount of funds needed to complete the project , (2) an
increase in project duration. or other changes , regardless of their effect on
project costs or duration, which substantially alter the method or scope of the
diagnostic -feasibility study, the planning and specification of best
management practices , or the implementation of selected best management
practices. Change orders which, in the determination of the Commissioner or
his delegee. do not require prior approval shall be submitted to the Agency
within one month after the change order is executed by the Local Unit .
6. Designation of Authorized Representative The Local Unit shall by resolution of
its governing authority, appoint an authorized representative. The authorized
representative shall have the authority to represent the Local Unit in all
matters that do not specifically require action by the governing authority. The
Agency shall direct Project correspondence to the authorized representative and
shall consider correspondence from and action on the part of the authorized
representative as representations and actions taken by the Local Unit . A
certified resolution appointing the authorized representative shall be
forwarded to the Agency upon execution of this Agreement .
7. Subcontracts. The Local Unit may subcontract for the performance of any or
all of the work to be performed under this Agreement subject to the following
conditions :
a) The Local Unit shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws and
rules in its selection of architects , engineers or contractors to perform any
of the work required under the terms of this Agreement.
b) Subcontracts between the Local Unit and any person with whom it contracts for
the purposes of performing work under this Agreement shall provide that the
Agency is a third-party beneficiary to the subcontract.
c) All subcontracts between the Local Unit and any person with whom it proposes
to contract for the purposes of performing work under this Agreement shall be
approved by the Commissioner or his delegee prior to the execution of the
contract by the Local Unit. The Local Unit shall provide the Agency with an
executed copy of each subcontract within 10 days of the execution of such
subcontract.
d) Prior to the execution of subcontracts , the Local Unit shall provide,
for Agency review, an unexecuted Cost and Price Summary (EPA Form
5700-41 or equivalent ) of anticipated expenditures under each
subcontract. The Comissioner or his delegee shall determine the
eligibility for reimbursement of costs and prices indicated on the
summary, provided that this provision shall not apply to Local Unit
'engineering, limnological and legal services to be provided by the
Local Unit ' s engineering and legal consultants previously retained to
provide engineering, limnological , and legal services under the
conditions of this Agreement .
I
Page 11 of 17.
e) The engineering, limnological , and legal services provided under the
conditions of this Agreement shall be provided by the engineering and
legal consultants previously retained by the Local Unit.
f) The Local Unit shall retain its right to assign its subcontract with any
' person in regard to performance of this Agreement. and any or all rights
pursuant thereto, to the Agency.
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
•
1
. , . . \' T
Page 12 of 17.
II
g) The Local Unit shall be responsible for the satisfactory and timely II
completion of all work required under any subcontract and the Local Unit shall
be responsible for payment of such subcontracts.
h) The Local Unit shall exert all reasonable effort to investigate claims which II
the Local Unit may have with respect to the work performed under this
Agreement and, in appropriate circumstances . take whatever action, including
withholding of payment and legal recourse, is available to the Local Unit. II
i) Architectual/Engineering consultants subcontracting to preform services
provided for in this Agreement shall provide certification of adequate Errors
and Omissions Insurance as defined by Minnesota Rules part 7075.0200. subpart II
4 ( 1987) .
8. Records Maintenance. The local Unit shall maintain complete and accurate
records that fully disclose the amount and disposition of all Federal and State II
Grant funds disbursed under this Agreement. Such records shall also account
for: disposition of eligible g project costs . property purchased, program income.
and documentation of compliance with applicable statutes. regulations . and the II
conditions of this Agreement . Such records shall be available to authorized
representatives of the Agency or the EPA for examination and audit and shall be
maintained for a minimum of three years after termination of this agreement . -
II
9. Semiannual Progress Reports. The Local Unit shall submit Semiannual Progress
Reports (original and two copies ) to the Commissioner or his delegee. Reports
shall be submitted for the periods ending June 30th and December 31 , and II
shall be submitted within 15 days of the end of the period. Reports shall
include at least the following information:
a) Work progress relative to the milestone schedule, and difficulties II
encountered during the report period.
b) A brief discussion of the project findings appropriate to the work
II
conducted during the report period.
c) A report of water quality samples taken and monitoring data and a
discussion of the changes in waler quality which appear to have occured I
from the best management practices implemented during the report period.
d) A report of expenditures in the previous report period and those anticipated
during the upcoming report period. II
State Fiscal Year Spending Projections. The report for the period ending December
31st shall include a projection of total anticipated project expenditure for
the subsequent State Fiscal Year. The State Fiscal Year begins on July 1 and II
ends on June 30th.
10. Annual Submittal of Cost or Price Summary. The Local Unit and any subcontractor II
with whom the Local Unit has contracted shall provide annually, by December
31st. , the following information for the subsequent calander year : a breakdown
of labor rates and anticipated costs , an indirect rate and anticipated cost , and.
supply and equipment prices and costs . Such information shall be reported on II
EPA Form 5700-41 or an equivalent Form provided by the Agency.
1
II
It
II JUN 5 ;_'� Ill , l7 Btir F. EH'3 EER
�� I t. I il�i F �.� •J3
•
1
Page 13 of 17.
11. Non-Discrimination in Employment. During the performance of this Agreement .
' neither the Local Unit , nor those with whom the Local Unit subcontracts for all
or part of the work to be preformed under this Agreement shall , because of age.
sexual preference, political affiliation, race. color. creed, religion,
national origin. sex, marital status . status with regdrd to public assistance
' or• disabiiity; discriminate against any person with respect to hire, tenure.
compensation, terms of employment , upgrading of employment, facilities.
privileges or conditions of employment; refuse to hire. persons seeking
employment; or discharge an employee.
13. Non-Discriminitation in Availability and Use of Facilities. Neither the Local
Unit. nor those with whom the Local Unit subcontracts for all or a portion of
' the work to be preformed under this Agreement shall exclude an
participating n, y person from
9 deny them the benefits of . or dp,crimrnate dgdnist them an
the bdsts of race, color• , creed, religion, ndtiond ! origin, sex , marital
status . age. sexual preference, political dffrlydlron, or status with
1 regard to public assistance or disability.
14. Agency Rights. In addition to any other remedies . the Agency may seek to
recover from the Local Unit any or all funds tendered or disbursed for the pro-
ject if the project is not designed or constructed in conformance with sound
engineering practices or if the project is improper ly operated or rnatntdnled.
' THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS REEN
LEFT BLANK .INTENTIONALLY
•
1
1
•
JUU h ' 89 10: 48 EAPP Eli6I NEEF I ft H := . �? '
Page 14 of 17.
F. FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION
1. Cost Sharing
a) Federal Share. Contingent upon receipt from the EPA of Section 314 funds for
this project, and sublect to the limitations in Section IV (F) , on cost sharing, II
the Agency shall provide to the Local Unit the federal share of the project
cost, not to exceed $25,000. The federal share available to the Local Unit
for project activities shall not include those funds designated in the Section II
314 Cooperative Agreement for Agency grant administration, project support . •
public information dissemination or training.
•
c) Local Share. For that portion of eligible project costs incurred by the
Local Unit for designated eligible project expenditures, the Local Unit shall
provide full payment subject to reimbursement . The Agency shall provide
reimbursement to the Local Unit for up to 550.000 of eligible project costs
at a rate of fifty percent (50'4) of eligible project costs.
2. Limitations on Cost-Sharing
a) In the event that the total expenditure necessary to accomplish the project
objectives described in this Agreement is less than the total eligible cost
provided for in the Section 314 Cooperative Agreement and this Agreement;
actual costs incurred by the Local Unit in accomplishing the project objectives
shall be used to determine the amount of federal financial participation.
b) In the event that the project or any part therof shall be determined to be
ineligible for federal financial participation pursuant to 40 CFR 35. 1650-5, the 1
Agency shall deny reimbursement of expenditures incurred by the Local Unit in
undertaking such ineligible activities . The Agency also reserves the right to
require repayment of all or a part of previous reimbursements where
ineligibility of project activites has been determined.
c) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties hereby
recognize and agree that the cost sharing for this project is on an
equal basis so that regardless of the total costs of the completion of
the Work Plan (provided that such costs shall not exceed the total
sum of 550.000) each party to the Agreement shall pay an equal
amount of such total costs .
3. Requests for Reimbursement
a) The Local Unit shall submit a request for reimbursement of expenditures for
each of the standard calendar quarters ending: March 31st . June 30th. September
30th, and December 31st. The Local Unit may submit requests for reimbursement
at more frequent intervals for good cause shown in writing and submitted to the
Commissioner or his delegee. Submittal of requests for reimbursement for
periods less than a standard quarter shall be subject to approval by the
Commissioner or his delegee.
I
Pagc 15 of 17.
b) The Local Unit shall submit a completed Request for Reimbursement
(RFR-1) with supporting documentation of expenditures .
' c) The Request for Reimbursement shall be signed by the local Unit' s
Authorized Representative.
•
t d) Expenditures for eligible project costs shall be recorded on the Request for
Reimbursement according to the approved Program Elements provided for in the
Section 314 Cooperative Agreement between the Agency and the EPA. Supporting
documentation of expenditures shall be organized and tabulated according to
t approved Program Elements. and where applicable. Sub-elements. Each
expenditure for which reimbursement is being requested shall be supported by:
(1) an approved invoice or payment voucher. (2) a copy of the check or other
financial instrument by means of which payment has been made. (3) indication of
applicable labor hours and hourly rates . (4) indication of applicable indirect
rates and costs. (5) indication of material . supply. and equipment prices and
costs , and, (6) sufficient additional information to verify the nature and
eligibility of the program activity associated with the expenditure.
' 4. Determination of Eligibility of In-kind Contributions. In-kind services
shall be eligible for reimbursement subject to the following conditions:
' a) The activity is an approved and eligible activity for a particular Program
Element of the Section 314 Cooperative Agreement and this Agreement. and is
a part of the approved project work plan.
b) The activity does not exceed the approved budget allottment for the Program
Element of which it is a part .
' c) The equivalent cash value for non-cash services is reasonable, necessary and
allocable to the project .
d) Where federal reimbursement is being requested under this Agreement.
' reimbursement may be provided only for those local expenditures which exceed
the cumulative local expenditure necessary to meet the requirements for a local
match under the conditions and requirements of any other federal program or
' programs in which there is concurrent participation.
e) Non-violation of other foderal agency, department . etc. conditions interagency
agreements . etc.
5. Documentation of In-Kind Contributions. For those act iv ites where local project
support is in the form of eligible in-kind contributions rather than cash
expenditure. the request for reimbursement shall provide a statement
' documenting: ( 1) hours expended. (2) actual or reasonable equivalent estimates
of hourly rates. 3 indication of applicable actual or reasonable indirect
rates and costs , 4 indication of material , supply, and equipment prices 'and
costs , and, (5) sufficient additional information to verify the nature and
' eligibility of the program activity associated with the in-kind contribution.
The Statement shall indicate the total cash value of the services provided, the
Program Element( s ) or Sub-element( s ) to which the services apply, and shall be
signed by an offical representative of the organization or department or agency
of government providing the services certifying provision of services and by
th. Local Unit ' s Authorized Representative indicating receipt of services . Such
-�tion mai e provided :n the °r ;t of nd Services (RIS) . or eouivalent.
11
I
. w
_�
II
Page 16 of 17. I
6. Program Sub-Elements. Where approved Program Sub-Elements have been
II
established through an agreement between the Local Unit and the Agency or the
EPA. eligible project expenditures shall be recorded by approved Project
Sub-Element on Report of In Kind Services , or equivalent and supporting
documentation of eligible project expenditures shall be organized and tabulated II
according to approved Program Sub-element.
7. Withholding Reimbursement Payments
The Agency may withhold reimbursement payment on ten II
project expenditure eligible for reimbursement or on percent ( 1t ( of the total
eligible expenditures associated with a particular Program eElement1uuntil fsuch
time as the Commissioner or his Delegee is satisfied, by means of inspection I
that satisfactory construction or equipment installation has been accomplished.
or by means of review that a satisfactory work product has been completed, or
through documentation that an acceptable legal instrument has been duly executed.
II
G. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
1 . Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, there is no obligation on I
any party to this Agreement to do any work not otherwise described herein, nor
as described herein, other than to complete the Work Plan study as described
above. The only financial obligation of the Local Unit is to expend not more
than $50,000 of which $25,000 shall be reimbursed to the Local Unit by the II
Agency according to the conditions of Section IV, (F) above in order to compelete said
Work Plan study, subject further , however , to paragraph 2 below:
•
2. In the event public access to any or all of the lakes within the Lake Riley II
Chain of Lakes has not or cannot be obtained under conditions satisfactory to
all the parties hereto, prior to the completion of the Work Plan study
described herein , than the Local Unit or the Agency can terminate this II
Agreement at any time without incurring any additional financial obligations
hereby. In such an event, the Local Unit and the Agency shall agree to share
equally in all costs incurred to date in accordance with Section IV (F) above.
3. Any additional Substate Agreement to be entered into for initiation and II
implementation of all work and activities to be undertaken as identified in the
Work Plan study shall be subject to the expessed approval of all parties hereto
including: the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, the cities of II
Eden Priarie and Chanhassen. the Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Minnesota Department of Nautural Resources . Such approval shall
include the expressed approval for any further financial obligations to be
incurred by all local governmental units . II
11. EFFECTIVE DATE OF TILIS AGREEMENT
This .Agreement shall be effective on the date of execution as to encumbrance by II
the Commissioner of Finance and shall remain in effect until March 31 . 1989
or until all obligations set forth in this Agreement have been satisfactorily
fulfilled, or until terminated according to the conditions of Section IV (G ) II
2. . whichever occurs first.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have caused this Agreement to be executed
this the parties h II
II
J
11
•
' Page 17 of 17.
' LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNME T MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
-- -
Co missioner
die
' Title
Date 6e��.�t., / / C/� � Date / V/lo r8i
' Approved As to Form and
Execution Approved As to Form and
Execution by the
!� Attorney General
Authorized Title / y , —
Signature Special Assistant
' I ' Attorney General
Date el C/ / ' 'S� \
�— Date .�. _if
' COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
By
• Title
3Y 17ID;u
Date
COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE
•
ENCUMBERED
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
' B y Y.AtkIER�
Title FEB 2 11969
Date
I. ,
•
•
Discussion items for the Council meeting on June 12th to Riley chain of lakes
restoration project
1. Lake Lucy Homeowner's Association organization and representation on project
Dale Carlson, Co-chair
Eric Rivkin, Co-chair
Tom Hickey, Co-chair
Other volunteers -
Joe Morin, questionnaire for lake uses
Mark and Cathy Sanda- Communications
Other Lake Homeowner's organization project representatives -
Ray Lewis - Lake Riley area
2. Public acceptance of the Lake Lucy public access
Getting public acceptance of a Lake Lucy access is conditional upon public confidence that I
Lake Lucy will be cleaned up. We agree that the success of the whole project is highly
dependent upon cleaning up the lakes starting with the headwaters. The public feels that I
spending money on this project is worthwhile if we have confidence that our water quality
goals can be met. Results must not be purely experimental, but we require that the
methods have a believable and reasonable degree of success. 1
Issues: Ongoing expenses and taxes to cover them
Not likely to pass Wetland Ordinance
Alt: Mechanical assists similar to ones used in BWCA might be cheaper but --
definitely ecologically economically more feasable in the long run
Option that if all else fails, we can finance a lake Lucy restroration
independently
3. Public acceptance of a Work Plan
Before getting public acceptance of a Work Plan, a process and a schedule that directly
involves the lake users must be used to insure that revisions to the work plan will be
acceptable.
Summary of concerns from the Lake Users meeting on June 6 1
Formation of an advisory committee
Legitimate part of process from now on
Need reasonably more time
Watershed support and involvement which we have from Conrad
Redefine water quality problems, objectives, and methods to
achieve those objectives
Public discussion of methods -on for the 14th or postpone when problems and
objectives are defined
Peer review of feasability of future work plan revisions
Monitoring of employed restoration methods by independent team
Solicit input from Carver County Soil and Water Consery Dist '
What's our deadline?
•
r
I
■
I4. Project Advisory Committee To get public acceptance of a Work Plan, several thing s can take
place. An advisory committee should be set up to technically review the Work Plan, its implementation
and monitoring, and evaluate watershed management techniques to make recommended changes in
Ia revised work plan to the MPCA. This should include but not be limited to:
Redefining water quality problems with the help of the questionnaire
I Refining of the water quality objectives to align with lake user expectations and
feasability of attaining them
Serious consideration of more feasable alternatives that help acheive the new
Iobjectives in a discussion group meeting open to the public
I It would be a good idea for the Committee's recommendations to precede the EPA's
evaluation of the current work plan. Representatives from Lakes Riley and Lucy have
already been selected, our consultants, other experts as reviewers, as well as one council
I member, could make up the Committee. Mark Tomasek has agreed to review any output of
the Committee.
•
I Extension for time has to be applied for by the Watershed Dist, which their board has to
approve. A formal extension of the sub-state agreement requesting more time, perhaps
until the end of the year, needs to be sent to Mark Tomasek of the MPCA from the
IWatershed Dist. to insure we don't lose the grant opportunity.
Enough Money for the Watershed District - do they have enough for consultants, peer reviews, and
Imeeting time to carry the process forward? Influencing factors:
Conrad says attorney advised him it may not be possible to spend any more money with
IBarr on this project because there isn't enough to cover it.
Barr Eng. is expected to have public meetings included in their Work plan budget
15. Summary of meetings with Barr Engineering and Conrad Fishness of the Watershed
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Informational meeting of lake users
Riley Chain of Lakes Restoration Project
June 6, 1989 7pm Chanhassen City hall
Agenda:
A.Introduction
Please sign the attendee list
B.Why are we here
(Please feel free to help answer these and other reasons you may have)
An active process. Informed citizens must become involved if desired and attainable lake uses are to be
achieved.
What is the project really all about?
What stage is this project in?
Why should we be concerned about our lakes?
Extent of involvement so far-
How many got chance to read work plan,familiar with any part of it?
Attended any Council meetings on the subject?
Were you polled earlier in the project to find out what you want?
Help ourselves understand possible causes of our lake problems
Help ourselves assess the practicality of our expectations
Can it be changed?How?
Understand role of our consultants,various experts
C.A quick lake terminology primer
(I'm no expert but I'll do my best-feel free to ask questions as we go)
D.Interpretations of the Work Plan from different sources
From myself
From Councilmembers present I
From Watershed president
From others who evaluated the Work Plan
(Feel free to ask questions as we go)
Items of concern so far expressed:
Does it meet anyone's expectations of water quality improvement?
What will really happen to my lake in Phase II of the project if we sat back
and did nothing?
Are these affects permanent?
Is it real restoration?
Are there any detrimental effects?
What confidence is there that these techniques will improve water quality?
Why aren't other water quality problems being targeted for improvement,
such as weed growth,muck depth,foul odors,poor fishing, that impair all major uses
of the lake?
Are there alternative techniques to solve those water quality problems?
If so, why aren't they incorporated in the Work Plan?
E.How to reach a consensus on water quality goals
Do a questionnaire -Ray Lewis
A lake problem is a limitation on the desired uses by a particular set of users
Define the desired lake uses
Define the limitations on these uses
Don't confuse symptom of problems with cause '
F. Discuss possible means of achieving improved water quality
G.Discuss appropriate response to strive to meet those goals '
Letter to EPA, copies to MPCA, Barr Eng., City all lake residents
Plan of action involving lake residents
Type of lake user organization
representation
degree of formality
volunteers for participating throughout the project
Meetings scheduled ahead
■
Cl` C ^ rS / S 0.4.1
Riley Chain of Lakes Users Survey
I
' Your input into the Riley Chain of Lakes Restoration Project is very important. This
questionnaire is intended to find out how you use the lakes, and to get your assessment
of the lakes' quality. This information is needed to ensure the success of the project.
' Please provide your support by answering the questions below.
1. Indicate below which lakes you actively use (or live on). (Check all that apply).
' I actively use lake: on lake:
01 Lucy ❑ Lucy
❑ Ann ❑ Ann
' ❑ Susan ❑ Susan
❑ Rice Marsh ❑ Rice Marsh
' ❑ Riley ❑ Riley
2. How many years have you actively used (or lived on) the lakes? (Check one only).
' ❑ 0-5 years
❑ 5-10 years
' ❑ 10-15 years
❑ over 15 years
3. How would you rank the most important lake uses?
' For each item below, write in the numbers (from 1-9) that best expresses your opinion:
1=Most important
2=Second most important
' 3=Third most important
Etc.
Fishing from shore
Fishing on the lake
Swimming '
Water skiing
Motor boating
Sailing
' Canoeing
Lake shore use (walking, jogging, wildlife observation, etc.)
Other
' (please specify)
•
I
4. How would you rank the biggest quality problems? I
For each item below, write in the numbers (from 1-9) that best expresses your opinion:
II=Biggest problem
2=Second biggest problem
3=Third biggest problem
Etc.
I
Reduced game fish population
Too many rough fish
I
Poor water clarity
Undesirable odors
Too many weeds in the lake
I
Too many weeds near shore
Too muck algae
Mucky bottom
I
Other
(please specify)
5. Please indicate those areas where you have observed an increase in quality problems
over the years. (Please check all that apply).
I
❑ Reduced game fish population
❑ Too many rough fish I
❑ Poor water clarity
❑ Undesirable odors
❑ Too many weeds in the lake
I
❑ Too many weeds near shore
❑ Too much algae
CI 'Mucky bottom
❑ Other
(please specify)
I
6. Is there storm sewer or road (driveway, sidewalk, etc.) runoff entering the lake near
your property?
❑ Yes
❑ No
I
7. Do you fertilize your lawn?
❑ Yes I
❑ No
I
■
1 - "
I8. Please use the space below to write in your comments or observations about lake use,
lake quality, or related issues.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i9. Please provide the following information:
Name:
IAddress:
Date:
I .
IThank you for your help with the Riley Chain of Lakes Restoration Project.
I
I
•
Page 2 '
May 19, 1989
better inform residents of the projects being proposed by the
Watershed District.
Very truly yours, '
P/4
Conrad Fiskness
Chairman
RAH/632( 2) ZBDH '
cc : Mr. Raymond Haik
Barr Engineering '
1
I
- ■
/2.-4
1
CITY OF La : rel_{
1I k
1 ' _
„, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: June 12 , 1989
1 SUBJ: Lake Lucy Boat Access , Update Report
1 The Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that the City
pursue acquisition of the Lake Lucy Highlands Outlot for access
to Lake Lucy. They have directed staff to work out an arrange-
ment with the DNR to construct the access. I am working on
details and plan to take this item to the City Council on June
26th. The current owner of the outlot is having appraisals done
1 to determine an asking price for the property. The first
appraisal he received was $129 , 000 . He paid about $49 , 000 for
the property and indicated he would have another appraisal done.
1 Hopefully, we will have this information by the meeting on the
26th. Per our conversation, we will not have it appraised until
the City Council decides that they want to pursue acquisition.
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
STATE OF `- / / '
MINNESOTA,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES \ ,
Trails & Waterways, 1200 Warner Road, St . Paul , MN 556
PHONE NO. 296-3572 FILE NO.
May 19 , 1989 '
Ms. Lori Sietsema
Park & Recreation Coordinator
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Lori :
I am glad to hear that the Chanhassen Park and Recreation '
Commission is committed to finding adequate access to the
lakes in Chanhassen, and in particular , Lake Lucy.
The portage access between Lake Lucy and Lake Ann would
not be an acceptable alternative, for a couple of
reasons. First , there are pople living on Lake Lucy who
may have larger boats than could possibly be portaged.
Also, there may be many older or limited capability users
who would not be able to do the portage. To be an
acceptable access, it must be equally accessible to all
Potential lake users .
The second proposed alternative , to dredge the channel
between the two lakes and install a barrier to maintain
water levels , is essentially the same as a portage. Any
user crossing to Lake Lucy from Lake Ann would need to
portage his or her ecuipment the same as if it were a a
portage . These two proposals are in essence the same
thing and they are not acceptable. And. more
importantly, I do believe it would be extremely
difficult , if not impossible , to get a permit from
Department of Natural _Resources (DNR) Waters to do such a
dredging project . '
The best alternative for access to Lake Lucy the
purchase and development of an access on Lake Zucy
totally separate from Lake Ann. Once the City of '
Chanhassen has acquired a site for access , the DNR will
be open to negotiating development cost sharing. There
are other sources of development funding available to the
City that can be pursued. The DNR also has several
MAY 3 1 1989
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
LI I Y GE CHANHASSEN
■
c
, i
' Ms. Lori Sietsema
Page two
May 19 , 1989
methods for assisstance. If it were left up to being
' done totally by DNR, I can see absolutely no way for
construction before 1991 , at the earliest , and more
realistically, 1992 . As I say, we are open to
' alternative ways for assistance.
Hopefully, this answers your questions and meets your
needs as requested by the Parks and Recreation
Commisssion.
Sincerely,
'
' Delos Barber , Supervisor
Region 6 Trails & Waterways
cc : Kathleen Wallace
' Mike Markell
Brad Thompson
John Steward
„ -„a
1
■
I
j
CITYOF , . .
,.
.,
t-M1,
CHANHAS SEX, . .
1
..,,,,
`\ ' , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
`. W2) 937-1900 II
May 5, 1989 II
I
Mr. Del Barber
Regional Trails and Waterways Coordinator
IIDepartment of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Dear Del:
Thank you for meeting with me last week to discuss the boat
II
access on Lake Lucy. The Chanhassen Park and Recreation
Commission remains committed to finding adequate access that will
meet DNR requirements; however, to pursue such, I need clarifica- II tion on a couple of points .
I understand that a portage access to Lake Lucy from lake Ann has
been determined to be unacceptable. Such was not considered
II
equal access as lakeshore owners do not need to portage to gain
access.
The second option was to dredge the creek between Lakes Ann and I
Lucy to a depth that would accommodate a coat. Thus, the Lake
Ann access could be used to serve both lakes without having to
portage. As Lake Lucy is higher than Lake Ann, a barrier would
II
have to be installed to maintain water levels . Such could be
constructed so that a boater would simply have to lift their boat
over. I
Although we discussed this proposal and walked the site, you were
unable to give me a clear determination as to whether this alter-
native would be acceptable. Please let me know what would be
needed to make this determination, as it is felt that this would
be the easiest and most inexpensive way to achieve public access
on Lake Lucy.
II
In our discussion regarding the outlot on the nothwest side of
the lake, Mr. Markell indicated that the DNR would be willing to
II
assist with access development. I have presented this alter-
native to the Park and Recreation Commission and they have recom-
mended that the City pursue that option. Before making a II presentation to the City Council, however, I must know the
1
11
' Mr. Del Barber
May 5 , 1989
Page Two
details of the DNR' s involvement. Please let me know what steps
must be taken to get a firm commitment from your department to
construct the access if the city purchases the property.
As the Pollution Control Agency is anxiously waiting for progress
' in obtaining access on Lake Lucy, I would appreciate your
response as soon as possible. Please feel free to call me at
937-1900 if you have any questions or need additional
information. Again, thank you for your cooperation and efforts
on this project. Hopefully an access can be put in place that
will be acceptable to everyone.
Sincerely,
&OA:(
' Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
LS:ks
I
I
i
CNYOF /2/O,CEit. : ,1311ASSEN
' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
NDUM 1
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: May 1, 1989 '
SUBJ: Lake Lucy Access
The Park and Recreation Commission directed staff to find out if
designating Lake Lucy as a quiet lake would be considered a
taking, thus requiring compensation. The City Attorney' s
response was a negative one as the surface zoning of a lake is a
regulation and would not require compensation. He said that it
may generate law suits and/or be an unpopular decision; however,
he does not believe compensation would be required.
i
I
I
I
I.
I CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
,APRIL 25, 1989
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
I MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Ed Hasek, Jim Mady, Curt Robinson, Larry
Schroers and Dawne Erhart
IMEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Boyt
STAFF PRESENT: Lori. Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman ,
IRecreation Supervisor
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHAIR.
ISchroers moved , Hasek seconded to appoint Curt Robinson as the Acting
Chair for the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
II
UPDATE OF LAKE LUCY ACCESS AND CHAIN OF LAKES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
IPublic Present:
Name Address
IC Brian Ti.chy 1471 Lake Lucy Road
Allen and Barb Finstad 1701 Stellar Court
I Madeline Hickey 6990 Utica Lane
Dale and Gloria Carlson 6900 Utica Lane
Ron and Mary Knudten 6830 Utica Terrace
II Conrad Fi.skness Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Watershed District
Joe Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road
Eric Rivkin 1441
Stellar Court
R. Guhtmiller 1801 Lake Lucy Road
I
Sietsema : At the last meeting staff was directed to look it 3 couple of
I options. One of them being the acceptability of a portage access , to
check it out with DNR. The idea was to launch a boat on Lake Ann , paddle
across and portage through Greenwood Shores to Lake Lucy. I called DNR
and their initial reaction was actually positive. They thought that that
1 would be okay. When they took it up to the head office, they denied it .
They said that that would not be an acceptable option It would not
provide equal access to non-riparian lake users . They said that the lake
I is on Met Council ' s list of priority lakes and would require a ramp of
it ' s own with parking. I then called DNR and asked them to meet with me
because I wanted them to look at what we were dealing with out here and
I the limited options that we have out here . I approached them about the
idea of dredging the creek between the two lakes , putting in a barrier so
that you could paddle up the creek and lift over as we had discussed in a
('previous meeting which would not really be a portage but it would still
require paddling across Lake Ann to get to Lake Lucy. At first they
weren ' t real negative on the idea . We did go out and walk the site and
upon walking the creek bed they were not impressed with the idea at all .
. 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 2 '
Although they wouldn' t give me a flat out no , I have a hunch that they' re
going to take it back to their departments and think of good reasons why
it would not be acceptable. Then the other option that we were to look
into, staff was direct to prepare a mini-feasibility on the outlot in Lake
Lucy Highlands to determine if an access could be accommodate on this site
and what it would look like and what kind of costs would be involved.
Scott has prepared the mini-feasibility study. It was included in your
packet and he' s here to address some of the high points of that. After
that I can address how DNR felt about that option as well .
Scott Harri : The subject piece of property that we were charged to look
into was Outlot A of Lake Lucy Highlands subdivision. The site is located
in the northwest corner of Lake Lucy on the south side of Lake Lucy Road.
Presently it' s a long rectangular lot almost 1, 100 feet in length from
north to south and nomimally about 300 feet in width. As you can see by
the little graphic marks on the subject piece of property, about 70% of
the site is marsh or wetland. About 30% of the site is higher. ground. I
say higher ground , anywhere ranging from perhaps 3 to 6 feet higher than
the marshland . The proposal , what we looked at, Lori mentioned we looked
at two basic questions that we wanted to answer . Can we fit facilties
size large enough for a boat access to Lake Lucy and secondly, what would
the costs be for that. In applying the standard DNR criteria for a boat
access , we were able to look at a number of alternatives ' i.ncor_porating
CaVoa us d ifferenoptions for_ parking arrangements access , location lso for_ where the boat access , either 'be at the shoreline or back
closer to the high ground . In looking at all these things , we presented
this one that you see right here which shows parking for boat and car
combinations of 7 which meets the DNR criteria of 1 every 20 acres of
water and we' re proposing a 20 foot wide driveway and a boat ramp that
would come down over in this location right here . Furthermore , what part
of this project would entail , dredging approximately a 50 foot wide
channel depending upon where. . .and how deep the depth to the ground
surface. We would be dredging anywhere from 2 to 4 feet of material to
provide a navigatable type of channel out to a contour map where there ' d
be about 4 feet of depth of water out to Lake Lucy. In conjunction with
this, we feel that the project cost is approximately $118 , 300. 00 to
accomplish this. In summary conclusion, we feel that parking access fit
on Outlot A. It can meet the DNR expectations and regulations for boat
access. The project would require both winter and a summer season to
construct due to the lake area dredging and the marshland types of
dredging. And that prior to proceeding with, I guess a commitment to
purchase the property or do anything further , we would recommend that soil
borings and topographic surveys be obtained so that we could better update
the cost that we presented in here because we ' ve made a number. of '
assumptions which I guess was the intent of the mini-feasibility study to
get a ballpark cost figures . So we do think it ' s a feasible project from
an engineering standpoint and we can fit facilities on the site.
Hasek: Is the cost of the topo survey
p y and the soil samplings in the
c $27, 300. 00 or is that an additional cost?
Scott Harri. : That would be part of the $27 , 300 . 00 .
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IApril 25, 1989 - Page 3
II
Schroers : Do you plan on installing any retainers to keep the dredged out
Iarea from filling back in with sediment?
Scott Harri : We had not contemplated that level of detail at this point.
Our intentions was to do some over dredging if you will so that the 50
I foot wide channel could perhaps encroach over some purative years and have
some sediment build up could come and still the channel could be accessed
with boat traffic for an indefinite period of time before redredging or
Iwidening would have to occur .
Mady: Do you have any estimates Scott on the length of time before
redredging would be necessary?
IScott Harri : Not really. We have not looked at that at all . I think it
would be quite a long time. I think that marsh and stuff is a fairly
I stable area so I wouldn' t anticipate within 10 years something would have
to be done.
I Mady: You' re anticipating it would be a fairly gentle slope down to a 4
foot depth?
Scott Harri : In typical boat access areas , this portion of the ramp would
Abe fairly steeply sloped. 10% to 15% grade so that you could get a
I
trailer in the water_ to float a boat . Then this por_ tion of the channel
would be excavated at essentially level . At one depth because it would
I actually be the water level here and we would just take it down to a
uniform depth below that.
IMady: Okay, I was wondering about the side slopes of the trench .
Scott Harri : The side slopes in the trench, they could be made to be
quite flat , yes .
IRobinson : How long is that channel?
II Scott Harri. : This channel right now is about 500 feet long to get out to
the area that is about 4 feet deep in the lake.
Hasek : Is the scale on the drawing wrong or is the drawing wrong? It
Ilooks like it' s about 800 feet if you scale it out. About 700 feet .
Scott Harri. : From here to here? From the lakeshore to a 4 foot depth is
I about 500 feet. That would be the lake area type dredging and then the
marsh area type dredging would be another almost 300 feet , 200 feet .
I Sietsema : Upon receiving Scott ' s feasibility study, I felt the DNR should
take into consideration the economic impact of putting in a facility on
this site before flatly saying no to our other options so I asked them to
come out there. We went over the options that we previously discussed and
rwe went to this site. They were excited about this site. They thought it
was a good site . They felt that they would not put i.n , they would not
recommend or require an access built to these standards . We could have an
II
ill
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 4 '
access with a gravel road and gravel parking pad . We wouldn ' t have to
have curb and gutter . They felt that you didn ' t have to go to a 4 foot
depth. That would lessen the amount of feet you have to dredge out . They II
felt there was a lot of cutbacks that we could make to make this work.
That would also keep it more natural looking and not have as much of an
impact on the wildlife that' s out in that area. They indicated that with
their resources they could probably do it for much cheaper and hearing
that, I asked them are you available to assist us in construction with
this because we don ' t have $200, 000. 00 to buy the property and put in that
access for 7 car trailer spaces on a lake of this type that has such '
minimal open water . They asked me what I thought would be reasonable and
just as a shot in the dark I said, well what if we purchase the property
and you build the access . They said they thought that was reasonable.
They'd have to walk it around the head office and get everybody' s okay on
it but initially they didn ' t really see that that would be a problem. I
think that they' re making a big effort to work with us on this and with a
downgraded access , you still could launch a boat simi.liar to what is on
the lake but it would not be attractive to a larger boat.. It would be
attractive to the fishing type boat or canoes and that kind of thing and
that' s the kind of thing DNR wants to attract anyway. So giving tht information , that they wouldn' t a pprove a portage type access or the
dredging between the two lakes, what I need tonight is a recommendation to
pursue this or to look somewhere else. To do something different one way
or the other. We need to proceed with this because the chain of lakes ,
the PCA needs to see progress in our area because they are approving the
funds to be spent on the chain of lakes clean-up project. It would then
be staff' s recommendation to pursue an agreement with DNR to have them
construct and maintain the access and we would purchase the property and
deal with enforcement . Also, then to recommend that we enter into
negotiations to purchase the property upon holding public, formal public
hearings to make sure that we ' ve taken in all of the public ' s concerns and
get their input. One of the other things that I want to mention on this
site is that it would not require any kind of surface zoning on boat motor
size or boat size so whoever has boats on the lake could maintain what
they have. Again , to hold formal public hearings before actually
purchasing anything and then also to recommend that we apply for. LAWCON
funds or State bonded grant to help us acquire the property. '
Mady: The question I had Lori was on the grant. That' s not to build now,
it' s just to purchase without the actual building . Does that impact our
possibility of getting a grant?
Sietsema : I don ' t think so because we' ve gotten grants in the past for
acquisition only. North Lotus Lake was acquired with a LAWCON grant for.
acquisition only and so was a portion of Lake Ann Park so I do not feel
that that would be a problem for them. The only thing I can think of that
might give us fewer points or something is that DNR is actually doing the
construction and they may consider that the State' s share already and say
that they' re doing enough and maybe wouldn ' t kick in but if we separated
the two and this was acquisition only, my feeling is that we have a pretty II
good shot at it.
IL ' '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' ( APril 25, 1989 - Page 5
II
Mady: In your recommendation you mentioned that the DNR is looking
favorably on possibly building this ramp and you said and maintain.
USietsema : Well we didn' t talk about that at the meeting but it was kind
of a second thought after they left. If we buy the land, own the land and
enforce the rules , and we have them construct it and maintain it . They
I feel that the boat traffic will keep that channel clear and you' re never
going to have to go in there and dredge again. But just to be sure, I 'd
like to stick in the agreement that they maintain it as well . It' s
Isomething to try.
Hasek: I think even if we should lose it, if they don ' t agree to it,
I there wouldn' t be a whole lot of maintenance to go into a gravel lot.
Some erosion perhaps . Even if it did fill in there in 10-15 years . The
DNR doesn ' t think that it ' s going to fill in so there' s a good chance that
it won ' t.
ISchroers : Lori , do you have any estimates on the cost of gravel versus
the pavement? How much are we saving and where is the money coming from?
ISietsema : Well if they do it, it saves us the whole construction if they
do it all . We don' t have to pay for any of the construction then. They
would do it. I don ' t know how much the paving is but Scott might .
IC Hasek: It'd probably be the aggregate less the bituminous and the curb.
I cut the number in half myself.
IScott Har_ri. : That ' s pretty reasonable for ballparki.ng . Maybe even a
little less than half.
I Robinson : Anyone else have any more comments or questions before we open
up the public hearing?
II Schroers : I guess I have some comments on it . I think that Lake Lucy is
one of the last precious few natural environments left in the city. I 'd
like to see it left that way. I 'm not in favor of a formal public access
I to Lake Lucy. I guess I would prefer to pursue making Lucy a quiet lake
the same as Lake Ann. Non-motorized and I would like to continue
negotiations further with the DNR as far as working out something as far
as a portage type of access .
Mady:. Lori , a question on that comment . When you met with the DNR, did
you bring that up, making it a quiet lake? With their requirement for the
I non-riparian owner have the same rights as riparian owners , would those
two coincide?
Sietsema : We can make it a quiet lake . We have to initiate , change our
Iordinance and submit the ordinance change to the DNR for their approval
but if it ' s a quiet lake , it ' s got to be quiet for everyone. That means
that people that live on the lake could not have motorized boats if the
IIgeneral public was not allowed to . It ' s become a state law since the
Christmas Lake ordeal .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 6
Hasek: Would that position go through Council for approval before it went
onto DNR or would it go straight to DNR?
Sietsema: It would go to Council first . If I could make just one more
quick comment. I know that Conrad Fiskness is here from the Watershed
District to answer some easy questions about what ' s going to happen with
the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes clean-up project but I would like to just
say that I know that you got the work plan. It ' s a draft copy of the work
plan of how the whole project is going to take place but it' s not our
jurisdiction as far as how that ' s going to be carried out and if people
have specific questions about the work plan, they should go to Bob
Obermeyer at the Watershed District and discuss those because it ' s not
within our realm of responsibility or anything else. That portion of it.
Mady: What' s a BMP? Talking about non-point source of pollution.
Sietsema: I don' t know. Maybe Conrad could answer that .
Eric Rivkin : I 'm here because I live on Lake Lucy and I love our natural
resources so much that I had to find out what' s going on. My lot borders
the access . I have a couple of concerns . One is that, a question I have
is how tied is the ability to get the access to clean up lakes project? In
other words if, let ' s say there were different ways to do the clean up
Cthat did not include DNR involvement so we would not have to be required
to put in the access , could we still get a grant to clean the lakes up?
Sietsema: As I understand it, Lake Susan is part of the chain of lakes
and for them to do any work on Lake Lucy, we have to have access so it ' s a
requirement. They can' t do one without the other .
Eric Rivkin : Is the plan designated with the EPA? Is funding designated? '
Sietsema: Yes .
Eric Rivkin : It is designated? In other words , everything that ' s
proposed in the plan, can only be funded by that grant? In other words ,
if other methods are picked . . . '
Sietsema: I might defer that question to Conrad.
Eric Rivkin: Conrad , if other methods were picked or let ' s say we don ' t
get public acceptance for whatever reason of this plan, that we could open
up discussions or get bids, the EPA could get new bids or whatever for new
proposals?
Conrad Fiskness : Conrad Fiskness . I 'm President of the Watershed
District. The history of this is that over the course of a number of
years , there have been a lot of studies done on Lake Riley and the other
lakes within the Watershed District which includes the Riley chain. As a
.result of a number of things that happened at the regional and even the
federal level of the EPA, they were looking for places to do demonstration
type work. Because of the advance level of some of the work that has been
done on this chain, particularly on Lake Riley and some of the others ,
•
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 7
Ithis was identified as a system that met a lot of their criteria , in fact
virtually all of their criteria for a project of this kind . One where
I they could demonstrate what they have developed today. And they really
went through and looked at all the work that had been done and said, if
this agency will do this . If this agency will do what they have proposed,
you' ll see in our proposals that have been made, I don' t know if this is
I the report that you saw, there ' s a lot of work that ' s been done so the EPA
said, if this is done, we would do this project. So because of the fact
that this chain is in two cities and two counties , there is no one agency
I that they could really go through without having a joint powers agreement
other than the Watershed District so they came to us . They literally
recruited us to be the sponsoring body. We didn' t design the project. We
didn ' t decide what was going to be in the project. Basically we took what
they came and said would be if, the EPA said we' ve already talked to the
MPCA and they' ll do this . We' ve talked to DNR, and they will do this .
This looks to us like something that we would be willing to fund and if
I you will do the work of coordinating and sponsoring it and one of the
contingencies is that there has to be public access for the local , as I
understand it, they've got some rules . Number one, all of this should
I have been done before they committed the money including the access but on
the basis of commitments with the City of Chanhassen had made, they said ,
okay we' ll rely on that and we ' ll go ahead . And they also were willing to
allow the DNR portion, which would be a lot of the work in the
Irestoration, to be counted as the local contri.butor_y part to the project .
Consequently, the amount of money that has to come out of us here, either.
the Watershed District or the City of Chanhassen or the City of
I Eden Prairie is very, very minimal . We ' re talking about $20, 000. 00 on
what ' s almost a 1 million dollar project . So to answer the question , the
technology was basically brought to us . If we were to say, well we don ' t
I want to do it this way, they would say, well then you pay for it and that
changes the whole ballgame because you ' re talking about, for example the
DNR portion is $322 , 000. 00. I don ' t know that our district , I know that
our district is not prepared or able to pick that up and I doubt that the
I City of Chanhassen is either . That doesn' t mean that we have closed the
door to hearing other ideas. I know that Mr. Rivkin had an informal
meeting of some local residents which I attended last week. I believe you
I probably received a letter from our engineer ' s office inviting you to come
in and share whatever information that you have . I don ' t hold any great
hopes that we would be able to convince them to abandon some technology
that they wish to showcase . I don ' t know if that answers the question
Ibut. I don' t know that the door is 100% locked but it ' s a little bit
beyond our domain too to say okay, we don ' t want to do this . We want to
do this and I think we would probably lose it all .
IHasek : Is our portion of this worth about a million dollars? Our segment
of this as the City of Chanhassen? We are providing $20, 000. 00 and DNR is
I providing $320, 000. 00 and a remainder of that million for our segment is
being put up by the EPA?
t Conrad Fiskness : The total project is $966 , 000 . 00 and that includes
Ipublic information. The construction work is estimated to be about three
quarters of a million and then about $200, 000 . 00 in education to control
non-point source pollution.
■
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25 , 1989 - Page 8
Hasek: Okay. The City of Chanhassen has committed to that public project II
for $20,000. 00?
Conrad Fiskness : No. That ' s split between Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and
the Watershed District so your share is one-third. The other thing though II
is that it was the responsibility of the City in where a lake was located
to provide that there would be public access to the lake and the DNR can
not go in and do their work on public waters using public money for lake
restoration if the general public can' t use it. They just are prohibited
from doing that.
Hasek: Okay, second question. The project was basically begun because '
all of the cities made a commitment to go ahead. They agreed that it was
good project and they made a commitment to find the accesses were
appropriate. Were we the last city to commit to that? '
Conrad Fiskness : Yes . Eden Prairie , they weren ' t going to spend any
money unless Chanhassen committed to pulling their half of the wagon. '
Eric Rivkin : I want to applaud the efforts of the Watershed District to
try and improve the water quality of our lakes and I also want to thank
tLori for her asking the DNR whether they would help with acquisition and
development. That was one of my concerns early in the game and I 'm glad
to see some progress was made there . Also , downgrading the access to make
it unattractive to large boats. Thank you very much. If , for whatever.
reason , the public access for the lake goes through, then I think we have
a couple of concerns. One was the number of trailer parking spaces in the
access . Dale Carlson who lives on Lake Lucy caught some discrepencies in
the report and there are 2 or 3 figures used in the plan and I found some
others that are used from government sources . I got an aerial photograph
or drawing of Lake Lucy and it says 175 acres . There' s a figure of 120
some acres in the report . 132 and another says 94 . It makes a
difference in the number of parking spaces so if we could make it more or
less attractive for people coming to use the lake and cut that down by
finding out what is consistent and what is up to date with the figure. '
Sietsema: And I ' ve done that . I checked with them and asked them what ' s
the real number and DNR goes by, and I forget the source but for their
requirement for parking , it goes back to what they have on their records
and it' s 134 . 5 acres or something like that so we have to have 7 is what
they require .
Eric Rivkin : There' s less than that . That goes to the ordinary high
water mark?
Sietsema : Right . ,
Eric Rivkin : And that would include about 50 to 75 acres of cattails and
marsh. '
•
IF .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IApril 25 , 1989 - Page 9
ISietsema : Right and they are aware of that . I said don' t you go by open
water because you can ' t boat in cattails. But they said, no we go by the
Iordinary high water mark and that is determined by what they have on their
maps.
I Eric Rivkin : As with public spaces , there' s always neighborhood concern
about parties and stuff going on there and people using the gravel road as
additional parking . I understand that you can actually turn around , it' s
Ilimited to 7 and that 's it and you can be turned away.
Mady: Anybody can put their boat in and use it to park.
ISietsema: If the City adopts a policy that there would be no parking
along the access road or along the street, which there is no parking along
Lake Lucy Road as we all know, if you post it that way, then you would not
I be allowed to park there but you cannot turn a boat away. We tried to do
that on the Lotus Lake deal and they said that was limiting access ,
therefore di.scrimnatory to the non-riparian lake users and therefore
I illegal . And we went round and round with them on that one and we go
nowhere fast . The only way we can control the number of boats is by
limiting the number of parking spaces and limiting where parking elsewhere
is available .
IEric Rivkin : You' ve got to allow them, they can come in but they can ' t
park there? They have to make their own arrangements to park?
ISietsema : So therefore if you had a friend that lived on the other side
of the lake and you could park in their driveway, you could do that .
I You'd have to figure it out on your own where you ' re going to park if the
parking lot is already filled .
Eric Rivkin : As I heard at Minnewashta , I think friends of somebody else,
I at Lake Minnewashta Regional Park there are 21 spaces . They have a booth
there I understand . He was turned away.
I Sietsema: That ' s the way it is and DNR is catching wind of it and it
won' t be that way very much longer . They were doing that at Lake Riley
and they put the kaboosh on it immediately.
IEric Rivkin : So . . .get access?
Sietsema: That ' s correct . 7 is the minimum. It ' s not the maximum.
IEric Rivkin: Also as a concern of myself and a couple other residents who
have canoes , that we ' d like to walk in and like a municipal park like on
I Lake of the Isles, Lake Calhoun. Just have a simple, inexpensive canoe
rack where we can simply lock up our own canoes and leave them there .
I don' t know what kind of liability would be turned over but I would Like
e to use it as a canoe storage myself since I 'm adjacent to the lot and it
Iwould also eliminate the need for me to pursue extension of my permit to
dig a channel for my riparian rights to get lake access . I have a permit
with the DNR right now. All I have to do it get Council to approve for the
I
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
1, April 25, 1989 - Page 10 '
extension which may not be so easy with this now so in lieu of that I 'd
like to see that for not only myself but for other people around Lake
Lucy. . .
Hasek: If I could address that . I think we ' ve talked a little bit about
the possibility of putting up canoe racks . The problem that we' ve run
across and we haven' t decided how to handle it is who gets the right to
use them. I think because they' re on the lake, they' re put in by the
City, that all the residents in the City should have an equal opportunity.
I don ' t know if that' s done with a lottery or what but I think to expect
that we as a City, I know I wouldn' t be in favor of putting a rack down
there simply for the adjacent users to use because there' s a lot of people
in the City who would like to be able to get down to the lake. I guess
that' s my own opinion. We' ve talked about it but haven' t come up with a
solution to that yet.
Eric Rivkin: Canoe racks are a pretty low impact thing . '
Hasek: No question about it. The question is, if you put them there, the
people to lock them, then what you' ve done is basically allowed them a use
that you haven ' t allowed anyone else. The question is, how do you allow
that? I lived in Mound for a while and they had city docks out there and
the way the City docks were run is you put your name into a hat and each
k. spring they draw names out for the people who are non-riparian homeowners
within the city get to use the docks. You might have one year and you
might not have it the next year .
Eric Rivkin : It ' s worth a try. We' re not as populated an area . If it
doesn' t work, you can always take them out.
Hasek: Exactly. I think part of it is that not everybody is going to
want to participate in that particular use. Not everybody has a canoe but
however we decide to do that , if we should decide to do that , it has to be
equitable for the whole city. Not just for the immediate neighborhood . '
Eric Rivkin : Also , there ' s a wetland ordinance, as you all know, whereby
any alteration to a Class A wetland has to go through Council to prove a
benefit to the wetland . Just being treated equally here, I had to go
through the process in the alteration of this wetland .
Sietsema: We will too . The City will have to go through the same '
process , or the State if they' re going to construct it .
Eric Rivkin : I 'd love to hear what they have to say about what proof
there is, that there ' s actually benefit to the wetland. I also have
questions , and they' re all technical oriented towards the project itself .
I just want to summarize the questions and if Conrad can answer any of
them, that ' s great . If not, either Lori , I would expect somebody from the II
City to try and investigate the answers to these. One is , as I mentioned
first , how tied is the grant with this? I know Conrad gave a very lengthy
answer to this but I talked to Mark Tomzcak who this was addressed to and
he seemed to be open to the idea of opening this up more to public
understanding of what ' s going on. He said the plan would go ahead, he
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 11
Iwouldn ' t approve the plan unless there was public acceptance of this so
that means some kind of a discussion open to the public and open to
I experts . Maybe scientists that are. . . that may have opinions about the
plan or shed some light on it so we' re not kept in the dark about what
we' re really getting ourselves into . My questions to Barr Engineering who
developed this plan, one is how many lakes have they restored and do they
Ihave any data?
Sietsema: How many lakes has who restored?
Eric Rivkin: Has Barr Engineering restored and do they have any data .
Hasek : Lori , the easy thing would maybe be to just have him submit his
questions to you.
Eric Rivkin : Okay, but I wanted the public to hear them because it may
I spur some other questions. How much of the nitrogen and phospherous ,
which are the bad nutrients studied in the report , typically come from
outside the lakes? It' s shown that almost always more nutrients come from
I inside the lake itself than from outside the lake . From things like
waterfowl and fish excrement , 4 times as much nitrogen and phospherous is
released from bottom sediments when it ' s released anirobically, which is
in sludge. In the muck. In the lakes than it receives from the inflow.
jr, We can ' t put diapers on the ducks or geese . There ' s more geese than
ducks. I question the amount of effort that ' s being put into cleaning the
lake . The nutrification which was cited in the report was the number one
I water quality problem. On page 20 or 28 it says , that ' s the number one
problem. What are we doing about that? Also , the calcium nitrate
treatment which is slated for Rice Marsh Lake. Has it been proven to work
I to reduce nitrogen and phospherous in a lake? I want to cite a report
that was done in Long Lake in the south basin done by. . .who is the Ramsey,
I think I gave Ursula a copy of that this morning . I don ' t know if it ' s
been distributed yet for this meeting or not . . . He ' s the Ramsey County
I City Engineer and they did a test , it was very highly experimental thing
where they took calcium nitrate and tried to improve the water quality
with it and the experiment didn' t work. The calcium nitrate happens to be
I more soluable than sugar. It ' s 1. 2 times more soluable than sugar . I
don ' t know why calcium nitrate has been applied . It' s one-third of this
$966,000. 00. $310, 000. 00 is slated for calcium nitrate treatment.
Where ' s the proof that this is going to work? Water clarity on Long Lake
I was 11 inches. They said you could put the disc in the water , when it
disappears , that ' s when you read it . 11 inches is regarding as extremely
poor . Where is the funding coming from? The biggest part of this budget
I is the Rice Marsh treatment . Is that really the pivoting point of this
project or is it approved in the works somewhere and we don ' t know about
it. The City of Roseville, Eb Kare who is one of the councilmen up
I there , Roseville turned it down after . . . Long Lake . I 'd also like to know
which projects they cite to education. To farmers and residents to use
less phospherous and nitrogen. What projects have Barr Engineering
conducted where education resulted i.n i.mp.rovi.ng water quality? What
I projects have they conducted where a control of nutrient inflow resulted
in improvement of water quality? Do they know of any documented cases
where by manipulation of fish , which is cited as one of the inlake
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 12
treatments , by manipulation of fish population contributes significantly
to the improvement of water quality? Water quality improvements is the
main objective of this project . That ' s why EPA is doing this . Again , the
predominant . . . identified in the report is nutrification. Why isn ' t more
attention being given to that? I guess that ' s my observations .
Mady: Your questions are really technical in nature. My understanding '
this whole project has been of an experimental nature. If there ' s no
proof available that really show that calcium treatment does indeed work ,
would you want the City to say no, not to do the whole project or to throw I
it all out?
Eric Rivkin : Yes, I think we should . If it proves that the feasibility
of the recommendations show that it ' s not going to work, why waste the
money and the effort . There are a lot of hidden costs and hidden agenda
in there. What happens when the calcium nitrate, when it fails? Will the
City have to pick up the tab to retreat it? It will be more expensive to
do it later . What would happen when the calcium nitrate, all it will do
is add nitrates to the water . I 've been told that it does not lock out
the phospherous which is the nutrient pollutant that they' re trying to '
control . That we' ll be left with, they want to do it at Lake Riley, it ' s
right upstream from Lake Riley. What ' s going to happen when all this
nitrate dumps into Lake Riley? Are we going to be left with all kinds of
environmental problems that are going to be bigger than right now? So
yes . These lakes are our most important natural resource . We shouldn ' t
screw it up and it could be disastrous, I don ' t know but I would like to
put the proposal to the test somehow. '
Mady: I guess my comment is, I don ' t feel we ' re going to get a yes/no
answer on a lot of those questions .
Eric Rivkin: I know, not here. I don ' t expect to.
Mady: But if we don' t have a yes/no answer to those things , I guess my
concern is, I ' ve been hearing about Lake Riley for 8 or 9 years now. How
bad Lake Riley is. I guess this is the only effort that I ' ve seen to kind
of address the problem. I would hope this is the best knowledge around .
My concern is if we don ' t get a yes/no answer , what happens? If we do
nothing, because we' re losing Lake Lucy right now. Everybody admits the
lake is slowly filling in. It ' s getting worse and worse and that process
speeds up, it doesn ' t slow down .
Sietsema: What I 'd like to do is take Eric ' s list of questions and submit
them to Bob Obermeyer up at Barr Engineering and he can respond back to
us .
Schroers : Do we have a deadline that we have to meet as far as proposing
something to the DNR and getting the program started by a specific date?
Sietsema : I have deadlines if we want to apply for a LAWCON grant money,
I have to know by June 1st so things can start getting , and we have to
show consistent progress towards access on Lake Lucy to PCA for them to
continue to hold those funds for this project .
1
IF •
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
I (7 April 25 , 1989 - Page 13
IEric Rivkin : It ' s of to worth all 1 this trouble . If we' re going to have
I an access and it' s contingent upon, it ' s got to be worth it. I live on
Lake Lucy and my biggest concern is there but also I hate to see a million
dollars wasted on something where, Bob Obermeyer told us we won' t see an
appreciable increase in visible water quality. That means when we look in
I the water , it ' s not going to be really clearer than what it is today. I
think we ' ve got to raise questions and get some answers on it pretty
quick. I 'm not sure that getting questions from Bob maybe can answer
those.
I
Resident : He' s not impartial though. He wouldn ' t be giving an impartial
answer. You've got to get a third party to give you a partial answer .
IEric Rivkin : We need a second opinion . If the lakes have cancer , let ' s
get a second opinion.
IResident : Would they EPA monitor this? Would they do anything else
afterwards?
IHasek: I guess Lori the question that I have is , the City Council has
made a commitment to go ahead with this project and obviously. . .and it ' s
not going to work out and we find the answers to these questions are
I f negative, and we find we ' re going to want to step away from them, what is
the potential impact on other things we may want to do this year? Is
there any ramification? Is there any political thing that could happen?
ISietsema: No. It' s on their list of priorities . It would just probably
delay the access . There eventually, according to them, will be access
on Lake Lucy. It just will delay it because it wasn' t slated for next
I year ' s construction in this budget but it might be in 5 years or 10 years
or at some other time. I don' t think that if we back out of this now
because we don ' t agree with the project or what the project ' s going to do
Ifor us , I don ' t think that has a negative effect with DNR.
Hasek: Do we know, are we aware of how the EPA assessed this program at
I all? How they looked at it and what they did to analyze the program?
They must have some means of evaluation to determine that it was a valid
way of attacking the problem.
I Sietsema: I 'm not aware of that but Jo Ann or Gary may be because I was
only handed this portion of it to get access on Lake Lucy. Then it goes
back to Planning and Engineering to coordinate the efforts with DNR and
I PCA and the Watershed . The only reason Park and Rec is involved in this
is because we' re in charge of boat accesses so I could direct Eric ' s
questions to Gary and he can get an impartial answer if that ' s what you
want to do too or I could do both .
IHasek: Perhaps if there ' s not an impartial answer out there through some
other agency that' s already taken a look at it and determined through
I their own sources that the program has some validity. I think it ' s like
anything else. As soon as you send something to test it, you ' re going to
get different results from everybody. The question is , how different are
I
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 14
(7
the results? It may be worth while just to try and track down through the I
EPA whether any studies were done by them on Barr Engineering ' s proposal .
Conrad Fiskness : I think there ' s a bit of misconception here. It is not
a Barr Engineering program. Barr Engineering is a consulting firm that
does the technical work for the Watershed District . The Watershed
District was asked to be the coordinating body. The technology was
brought to us by all the other agencies that have been mentioned .
EPA came to us and they had pulled all these things together . The DNR has
basically submitted what was their best technology. Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and EPA so we were charged with, we' re carrying the ball
through the various local agencies and then also with the writing up of
what has been submitted . You go through the plan you' ll notice that a lot
of it, there are proposals that have been submitted by the other agencies
so all we' re doing is really coordinating . As far as the statement how
many lakes has Barr Engineering restored? Barr Engineering is an
engineering firm and so they do have knowledge on staff and that kind of
thing but that is not their main thing. They' re a consulting engineering
firm but they are coordinating this effort as the hired arm of the
Watershed District. '
Sietsema: And I 'd just like to reiterate again that the City Council made
commitment to the project and directed the Park and Recreation Commission
to achieve the mission of getting an access on Lake Lucy. These questions
may better be addressed at the Council level where they can direct the
appropriate staff . Not that I 'm trying to pass the buck. It ' s just that
I don' t have the knowledge or even the contacts to find out some of these
answers . It ' s not our portion of the project . We' re here to deal with
access on Lake Lucy. Questions about the work plan and the rest of it
should really be addressed to engineering and planning .
Schroers: I 'm just interpretting what I 'm hearing. It sounds like there
e
are a number of agencies that want to conduct experiments on our lakes .
That concerns me. If they work, fine. What if it doesn' t? Then where
are we?
Mady: I think Eric brought up the point , the comment he made that you ' ve
got to look at it as cancer . Think of it as a cancer patient . You have
to look at what the research that' s been done to date . Does it look like
it works? Does it look like it helps? Benefits . If it does , . . . then go
ahead and do it . If it doesn ' t , then throw it out if there ' s evidence
that it doesn ' t work but there' s no way you ' re going to get a scientist to
say unequivably that this is going to work 100% of the time . Just
anything, there' s no cut and dry answer to this. This thing is
experimental . We ' ve got a serious problem in the chain of lakes . There ' s
no doubt about it and to . . .
Hasek: I think Lori brought up a very good point that might help to kind
of shorten things up here a little bit. I know there' s a lot of concerns
out there about the technical aspects of the program. Park and Rec ' s
mission is to find an access so the thing can get onto Council . The
Council level is where all the technical issues should probably really be
addressed. You ' re more than welcome to put them in the record here but we
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 15
have no answers for you. Our decision tonight is this a good location for
an access? Should we proceed with it? If the project should go forward ,
' is there where we' d like the access to be and under this design so that ' s
kind of what our mission is here.
Sietsema : We don ' t have the option of saying this is a bad project and
1 not pursuing. We have to give the Council . . .
Hasek : The Council ' s going to give this , they have the final say on this
' really. Our mission is to try and pick the best location for an access
and a design for that location.
Joe Morin : My name is Joe Morin . I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road . With
that in mind, I won' t comment on some of the previous discussion although
I do have some comments to make . With regards to the access , I really
support Larry' s idea that it should be a quiet lake and that we should
' continue to pursue the alternative of a carry on access for Lake Lucy. I
live on Lake Lucy and I 'm willing to give up my speed boating rights. I 've
said that before.
Mady: If I 'm not mistaken though, you don' t really have water . You ' ve
got a large swampland on your property.
Joe Morin : My property goes all the way down to Lake Lucy.
Mady: Basically like Eric ' s property where you 'd have a problem getting
' to actual open water .
Joe Morin : Not really. I have 10 to 30 feet of cattails to go through.
' It ' s not a problem. Neighbors on both sides have docks .
Schroers : Do you happen to know how any of these neighbors may feel about
the quiet lake? Have you spoken to anyone else in the neighborhood in
' regards to this?
Joe Morin : The people I ' ve talked to feel the same . I 'm not saying that
' everyone around the lake feels the same.
Schroers : But do you think there would be more neighborhood support for
making Lake Lucy a quiet lake?
Joe Morin : I think you 'd get in excess of 80o that would agree with that .
That' s just my own gut feeling . I ' ve only lived there for a short time .
About one week so I 'm not a very good person to ask .
Ron Knudten: My name is Ron Knudten and I live at 6830 Utica Terrace. We
do have a beach . We do use the lake . There are a lot of people on the
lake that enjoy it. We' ve been out there for 20 years. This is one of
the reasons why we moved out here . We would like to continue on with
this.
IIMady: You have a boat right?
i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 16
Ron Knudten: Yes. We have a boat.
Schroers : It doesn ' t bother you that there may be , the general public may II
be coming out there and using the lake as well . Seven other boats running
around out there doesn ' t bother. you?
Ron Knudten: I don ' t think you ' ll have 7 boats out there. 1
Barb Finstad : My concern about the access , and I have let the DNR know
how I feel about my concerns about that access but maybe the public will
share my concern. It' s to destroy the habitat for all the birds and the
wildlife that are on that shore of the lake. I lived next to Eric so I am
also adjacent to the outlot and I 've observed a lot of the wildlife and
the habits and with the deer that travel back and forth, it would be right I
across the rear of that access . There' s ducks and geese and pheasants and
this year we' ve had egrets and herons that come and feed on that south
shore of that lake which if there were a lot of traffic , I doubt that they II
would. And they sometimes travel 50 miles when they feed. That' s my main
concern . I 'm not a boater . I would prefer a quiet lake but my main
concern is that area. If you just preserve it. It' s just beautiful . You I
don ' t see much like that anywhere in the city or anywhere really. It ' s so
protected right now and to build that channel through there would destroy
a lot of the habitat and the habits of the animals.
Sietsema: I asked DNR about that because I gave them your letter because
I got it before they did . . . . Their initial feeling was that this type of
an access , downgraded as I described, would have less impact on the
wildlife there than a house would and the people who own the lot are
planning to build a house .
Barb Finstad : And a channel? '
Hasek: The channel , we' ve got one gentleman who ' s already got a permit.
Barb Finstad: I know and I know what he went through. That ' s why I was
surprised that this would be such a favorable site for the DNR.
Hasek: I guess what I 'm suggesting is , if he can get a permit for a
channel , then the likelihood of somebody building there and putting a
channel in that area is still there . . .
Barb Finstad : But if a single person had a channel , you wouldn ' t have the
cars and the constant traffic going through there to interrupt all that
wildlife .
Mady: One thing that Larry' s talked about is the City has to check with
Roger Knutson, the City Attorney and find out if making the lake a quiet
lake actually becomes a taking to those riparian owners and what
compensation would be necessary to the riparian owners for, taking away
( their right to utilize the lake that they' ve had in the past . We would
L need to find out what that compensation is .
Hasek : I guess again , I think that ' s a matter for the council .
It
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 17
II
Mady: Yes , but the question should be asked.
IIMattie Hickey: My name is Mattie Hickey. I live at 6990 Utica Lane. I
also live on the lake. I am opposed to making it a quiet lake. We' ve
lived there for almost 17 years . We don ' t have a boat right now. We have
I canoes and two sailboats but I don' t really want to give up what it does
for us to be able to. Our kids had allergies , the lake is filthy so when
our boat went, we didn' t replace it but now we' re going to be having
I grandchildren . They may not have allergies . Also , just from a property
value standpoint, it would reduce our property value if we live on a lake
that is not accessible to water skiing so I am definitely opposed to a
quiet lake.
IDale Carlson: I 'm Dale Carlson at 6900 Utica Lane . I 'm one of the 20%.
We've lived there for quite a few years and we purchased land there also
I to use the lake and use a boat on the lake so obviously I 'm also opposed
to a quiet lake. Thank you.
IHasek: Just a further question . Are you in favor of a boat access?
Dale Carlson: I 'm in favor of a boat access if the boat access is
necessary for the improvement of all the lakes in Chanhassen . And I think
I , I need to thank Eric. Obviously Eric ' s done a tremendous job of
researching what ' s kind of happening here . It amazes me how much he has
learned in the past weeks and months. Some of the things that Mr. Mady
I you say are too technical , were not technical to me and from the
standpoint that why spend a million dollars if it ' s not going to have a
pretty good chance of making it . And from what he said , it doesn ' t sound
Ito me like it has a real good chance of making it .
Hasek: I don ' t know that what he said necessarily makes it sound like it
doesn ' t have a chance but there are certain questions that have to be
Iasked in order to make it reasonable to go ahead with the opportunity.
Eric Rivkin: Just a couple responses . I was talking to Larry and Barb
I and Joe, myself about , trying to preserve that side of the lake is a prime
nesting area for egrets and herons . Four beautiful snowy great whites
feeding there on the minnows and it was a beautiful sight . Now if we ' ve
I got a boats zipping in and out of there, every 150 feet there ' s either a
pair of mallards or geese . That ' s their territory. It ' s all around the
entire perimeter of that end of the lake. That nesting area . What ' s
going to happen when we have new chicks and we have boats zipping in and
I out? On the other hand , there ' s no dark shadow cast on this lake
improvement thing . There are methods that I know about that will work on
cleaning up the lakes and for a lot less money. I would like to have some
I opportunity to present these for some educational purposes . I don ' t claim
to be an expert . . . I 'd like the opportunity sometime to explain these to
Conrad and show him these lakes that have been improved by other. methods .
It has worked and it is possible. If this plan is not gone through ,
1 technically speaking it may not work. There are other ways to get grants
from the EPA through lobbying with individuals that I know about . I have
their phone numbers out , that can lobby to get grant the way we think it ' s
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 18
II
C
going to work and not have to have an access . You don ' t have to deal with II
DNR and it doesn' t have to be a million dollars. So there' s light at the
end of the tunnel and just being more educated and more knowledgeable
about all this stuff. I try to make a plan simple when I start talking to II
the residents that live on the lake and I read that report and tried to
separate the understandable language stuff from the temptable language
stuff. I was able to do it and I think anybody can so . I stayed up
I
nights trying to pour through those things because I was so interested in
it but there is light in the tunnel . There is no dark shadow so I just
want to make sure there' s some opportunity to see that in a different
I
light .
Robinson: Anyone else? The public hearing is closed . Comments .
Schroers: I guess I have a comment. I don' t like to repeat myself but I
I 'd just like to ask the question. How many other unique areas
environmentally speaking do we have in and around Chanhassen? I think
II
that people move out to this area for the peace and the tranquility that
other echelon rural suburbs can' t give them and I think to preserve some
of our natural areas is money well spent and I would prefer to pursue the
I
education aspect of it as Eric mentioned. Spend more time researching
into what we ' re actually doing before we actually go ahead .
c Erhart: I also would go along with what Eric presented us tonight. I
I
would also like to see us look into some other alternatives where we do
not have to put accesses on the lake and at the same time we would be able
to preserve the wildlife . I also agree with Larry on that and if I had to
make a choice, I would be in favor of the portage and would like to see us
pursue that .
Sietsema : The portage isn ' t an option . No longer an option . I
Erhart: Oh, it' s not .
Sietsema: They will not approve the portage idea . II
Erhart: Okay. Well then, I 'm back to pursuing Eric ' s option .
I
Mady: On the point of the boat access , a couple things I 'd like to see
the City work at. Whether or not this whole idea goes through. I know
the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association has asked at least 3 couple of times
if not more, is that the City Council take a good hard look at restricting
fertilizer use near the lakes . That question ' s been around for as long as
I 've lived in Chanhassen. It' s the reason we got this problem now. It ' s
II
just over fertilization of the area causes the nutrification of the lake .
It' s a natural aging process of the lake. The lake slowly infills and
ultimately becomes a shallow pond and finally a dry bed . So I think the
II
City needs to address that concern no matter what they do with this whole
issue . Finally on the boat access , everything that I ' ve seen and read on
this issue for the last couple years has said that the DNR can not under
State law do anything with that lake without a public access . They are
II
just restricted by law to do anything. My belief, and it ' s only a belief,
is that if we make the lake quiet , it would be considered a taking and
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' April 25, 1989 - Page 19
C
' would cost the City a lot of money to have to compensate the current
owners of the lake and will severely impact their property value. I
' wasn ' t really happy with thi.s ,si_te mainly because of my fear maintenance
on it. The building of a trench. It sounds like that ' s not going to be a
problem. I was fearful that we 'd have to dig this thing out every couple
years. It sounds like maybe that' s a 10 to 15 year project and maybe that
often . If that ' s the case and if the DNR has worked with that , then it
becomes a very viable alternative so I guess on the boat access issue
itself, if all the other things go through, this looks like to be the best
choice for a boat access . Especially a quiet access. Make a compromise
on all the issues there . Keep the traffic on the lake to a minimum.
Making it a gravel road and maybe not as deep a trench and definitely keep
' the big boats off. That ' s one of my concerns . . .on whether or not
defending this particular program. I don ' t know anything about other
methods and what their costs are and I don ' t think it ' s this commission' s
job really to find those things out. That will be handled by the Council
level probably and directed to engineering but I believe something ' s got
to get done here. I ' ve been hearing about this problem here now at Lake
Lucy and Lake Riley for a long , long time and if you live by those lakes ,
' you know there' s a severe problem. We can ' t just hope that someday
something will come along . We' re got to try and make something happen
now.
Hasek: I guess when the time comes I 'd like to entertain a motion on this
if I may be allowed to do so but I ' ve got a couple of comments to go along
with that . There' s a lot of information out there . The most qualified
information that we have to date comes from the Watershed , the DNR and the
EPA. I don ' t pretend to be an expert . I 'm completely uneducated in this
area. I know that you can get a lot of background information from doing
' a lot of reading but I don' t know how much real education you can get
without experience. I agree that the questions that have been asked here
tonight need to be answered . I also believe that this commission has been
charged to at least go ahead with this project . I think the questions
that are being asked can better be asked and answered at the Council level
and I would like to see this issue, rather than stalmate here, all the
residents to be able to have that opportunity so I 'd like to , when the
time comes , be able to at least make a motion that would perhaps move this
on and pass it up.
Lash: First of all I want to apologize for being late . I had to go to a
school concert tonight but I did have a chance to talk to Conrad several
hours one evening so I feel like I know some of the information . I guess
I would feel that the best of both worlds for this would be, for the
residents that live on the lake and other people who just use it , maybe to
clean it up but leave it natural . I think just about everybody would like
to be happy. I don' t know if at this point it ' s possible but I think
those are some of the things we should try to check into by answering and
try to check into some of Eric ' s points . I think he had a lot of real
good questions. This costs a million dollars . It doesn ' t cost the City a
million dollars but tax money and i.f I thought we were getting it for
nothing, I usually think of things like that for nothing are worth i.t . I
would like to check into some other avenues but I agree , that ' s not our
job. I 'd like to see people who have that job check into those things .
I
i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 20
If we had to choose an access , I would choose this site . It seems to be
our only option but I even have questions then of spending the City' s
money that we would have to spend for that access unless have some pretty
strong guarantees that there' s going to be marked improvement in this
chain of lakes and specifically Lake Lucy. It would cost a very large
amount- of money for this access and I guess that' s all I have.
Robinson : I 'd like to see us move forward with this . With an access and
I think the option we've looked at tonight seems to be the best choice. I
guess I would like to see if there are better methods as Eric has I
indicated but I 'd like someone who is knowledgeable in that area to review
those . Do you want to make a motion?
Hasek: Yes. I guess based upon the discussion we've heard and been ,
entered into the Minutes this evening , I would like to go ahead and
recommend to City Council that we pursue, that they pursue an access on ,
what it is? Identified as Lot 23, on the northwest shore of Lake Lucy but
that I would also caution the City Council to pursue any alternate method
of cleaning up that lake which might either cost the City less money or
cause less impact on that lake . Is there anything else that we need in
that motion?
Sietsema: You may want to recommend that they hold formal public hearings
and if they do go through with this , to approve a LAWCON grant .
Hasek: I think that ' s just a natural part of this but if you ' d like me to
put it in the motion. 1
Sietsema: We can do the LAWCON grant at another time.
Hasek: We might as well do it all now because they' re going to have to '
approve it eventually anyway. I just don ' t think that it serves the
community or us to keep having public hearings at this level when they
really should be at the Council . 1
Mady: I ' ll second that.
Hasek moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to pursue acquiring Lot 23, the Outlot in Lake Lucy Hignlands on
the northwest shore of Lake Lucy for a boat access . Also , to caution the
City Council to pursue any alternate method of cleaning up that lake which
might either cost the City less money or cause less impact on that lake .
Also, recommend that the City Council hold formal public hearings and make
application to LAWCON for acquisition . All voted in favor. except Schroers
and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2 .
111
CITYOF zi
C ' INHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
.� (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
' DAIE: April 18 , 1989
SUBJ: Lake Lucy Access
Attached please find a memo with the status of access for Lake
Lucy. I had hoped to have met with DNR officials by now to
discuss alternatives in greater detail. However, that meeting
will not occur until next Monday. Therefore, I will be prepared
to give a verbal update as to the outcome of that meeting.
r
Although I do not feel optimistic about the DNR changing their
position on the portage access , I do feel there may be other
options not yet explored that would be suitable. Again, I will
have more details after Monday' s meeting.
1
CiTY OF , ,
; y 11
1
. \ � 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
- __, (612) 937-1900
II
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator I
DATE: April 4, 1989
P II
SUBJ: Joint City Council/Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
The City Council requested a second joint meeting with the Park II
and Recreation Commission on April 11 at 6 : 30 p.m. to discuss
access to Lake Lucy. A considerable amount of research has been
done in this area.
II
The Park and Recreation Commission held a public hearing with
Lake Lucy residents to review the access study done by Mark
II
Koegler (attached) . Based on the study, the general concensus
was to pursue the idea of a portage from Lake Ann to Lake Lucy.
Although a portage arrangement, if acceptable to DNR, would require II making Lake Lucy a quiet lake, this was the most favorable
option. I have contacted DNR as to whether or not they would
approve a portage access. Initially the reaction from Del Barber II and Duane Shodeen was positive. However, upon discussions with
the Central Office, such was determined to be unacceptable ( see
attached letter) .
The second option that seemed most favorable was shown as Option
D in the study. Staff was directed to have a mini feasibility
study done on the outlot to determine layout and cost ( see
II
attached) . The outlot would accommodate the necessary components
of an access ; however, due to poor soil conditions , a con-
siderable amount of correction is needed. Additionally, this
site will require dredging a 500 ft. channel to get to open
II
water. This brings the cost of the access on this site to almost
$120, 000 for construction alone. Although the owner of the
outlot has not named a price or expressed a willingness to sell, II the property was sold to him for $49, 000 one and one-half years
ago.
It is my feeling that Lake Lucy is an exceptional lake with I
characteristics that warrant special considerations. I have ten-
(._ tatively set up a meeting with the DNR Central Office to appeal
to them to reconsider their position given facts that I have I
II
11
Mr . Don Ashworth
' April 4 , 1989
Page 2
attached here. Unfortunately, the meeting is not until after the
joint meeting, at which time the City Council was to be updated.
As the funding of the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Clean Up Project
is contingent upon this access , staff will continue to pursue a
reasonable solution.
IL,
1
I
■
:,,-,r•Y-'-^.^, ;:;,-'77. 4,:r:W' ...,
rip
-4
'yti ...V,•-...,A.,....7.,• ,J,..
1 ' " 4,,,,,,•—y,,y,,. .--,;,.
, . .
:::- ..7 t-..1.47-T/7" •:-:
:..,.
, _ ...gtz-c..:. !.2.,- ,k- -_,o•- ,
I
,J•7,A,-,.:.i,2 ,e: :',.!‘,.... -;,N,..,..
:-__7'Ye'-'122111'a.4Ltli
IIAprIl 5 , 1969
Ms. Lori Sietsema I
RcreatIon Coordi %ator
City ..-.4 Chnhassen
690 Coulter Drive
I
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Fesibility Study for
I
I.--Ae Lucy Boat Access
Project Jo. 39- 04
Dear Lori : I
We i-f- ril .a!1,e(41 -t-., present t,1 q .Ju ff.--. r,..sults of t11:1; f215 : 11 '-. !
I
:; tl.- i cc,,Iernin out .--Ic L;.-J L.,Ae. ' '.;:.:; . ;',1,z..- sAy ,,,,is
per ) ,70jr J..ii:norizaci3n ::,;,1 •-.-!li °,c:!i.c.;.1 ,,,r , : ).S3 . TkiE ;ti; / .: •.t
tr::,s.:tr -;:. ,, :;.!nstlons : '. ) ;:i--- ..N-)es .h,:1- '',."_ [ 2, ;ind i-; 7-,. : ' it
( ti--1,-: %:-;::periz.:.: ?
,dr ;11e,; T17 :: r
II
1., 1;1 :,-,- T(2. : ,
tht! ,; -. :—,,,-r ...cr,!-:, is-c. , -a -.:1-; ::::- ii . ,, :■1 '; ;II , ,,I, , Th,_! - ," :' : ;: :: : II
iS t Sty ' .ii -, : :,2-4t ,,,-'. - 71 ..,-,. .
P ,.:. t?. :c. 1 • *. -i- -,;.,I.J .. , ,. ,-, . i : -7., : - .1 -_-- ,.:.„ , ,—;-,;.1 :- .,7. 4 .. . "_ —?. , : . . II
tral .: :: , :t , '-.-.. 4t — F.1 =..: ,_i " f—, ''' ', .,:is . "- .2 : - ; .:'. .-!:.'-- ■ 3 , . .. ', -. .! i .. -;
c; -: ; -:. ,. 7 . . , :_ •-•-t . :- .
II
ThR 1 :1y .-2.'Jr 47o , E - 5 ‘..ti -.; i 'r, ,,,r , - -_, L: -. .-.1r-Jr„ , ') : : - - t., ,
wl : ti,. :.•.: :::::2 :: 7e-: 1,1. 1 -1,1 :-;r,-:':?:', t Ir ..H.i : • .: ir. :.
. .,-.
— . I
-i..!::::r i: - :::i71 -: 1 ' :- ,• . . :,--.-:,r,.,-1 -: -••••: ,•-, • ' -. , - . :-:e -2-- ' t . :, ;;,:-: [:.,r • , , 1 1. ; , .
*Ieff... ..scl ,:n '.7.-.• 7: ; Th-, -..,- ,, • ,.. .. ; .710 , -. i ... -: -. .1 .': , ,:!2 . .. - ", r:: ::• -
pc,, ,-e -... y - -. ,7- : ‘i , -!;-t-" . 'r -1 -: .i:* 1 -,1 ;. •-‘ .',;)i. - (..1 '_ : .• : .. :. . : );_.:Id I
',i1 i .„;-; -.. L ... • ,.. -..: - - : . -,..•• v.: •- - ' • ' .. :. .. 7: ,: :` ... ?.. '. .! , '‘ :. - ' 1 ' :"; .
(
I
I
3030 ciarbor ;.;...le N:(111 ,iicsi ■ . ..,i11 s ... ! ' . •• - , -. ' 4. 447-2176 11:' J-12S(.
II
I , ' -iie. tw,...-;Isceu Lro-::t
Ani'l !-,',i1clw ':-:Eltz?r 1 :1L? -,ir .7 — , % . , r, , i , :.... .!--,.. .::
" Ye Jotto
• contoJr map an,:i IntortHn rf, -; ,-, :' - : - , -': .idj .:,, i , ic.. ; ;) . 7,r_lrnr
who Is rontemplatirlg th,:, , I.:1,;- ....ct . vi ; ,
1 ThE ::,-Instructir.ln 1-ior% :r,:-. 1 ,..,es "ilri':.r ,: t . ,
cul ,ert ', n5.tallati :71 , .16, , arz, .-?\ vazir,n , la'e. drr-dgin; , bor, t.
rarlp ,, sighincj Jni..1 rast!sratir.1:1 . iic ._!1-1(1
I included nor recnmmended . I-i. Is ,,,nY ,: iat..L, thq the : .::
economical approach to the Pcress con5tructior. is to " flo4tm the
drive acrnss the marsh area . With ihi pproach , lcoc-term
settlements are predictable ,ind would :::luse t curb t:-.) bcome
Idysfunctional . All 1,1rp7us excavated inaerial and tne mars!! and
lakc area dredgings ara prcjented t-,Q e -__ sposed of otf- l. ite .
There is no spare ay.:Illable un th1 -s site. for disposal of e,cav,--itec
Imaterial . .
Two methods of lake dredging were studie . 3ne iliethod Involved
•II conventional exrevation equipment , i . e. ..',a0:hues or drag lir.es .
This inethed could only be don n the ,,,,iptef whpn the ice cover 4, ,.;
sufficient to support the equipi;,ont The ,-.ecr, -.1 w,athoo. Invo : ves
a wit vi-:uum process . The mnt.„( ial t4cuie, : e :_-,vrnpi?d ro a lay down
II area :here natur 3 ! drying witild oc1-.11r. It. co,i1 .1 tin te londefl and
truc',. ed off- site. This voceure, could "se ,.ione dJrIng the s:.: trier
months . Tne no conveticral ,:! : :!,, aclnn •,'6,0a res:Jited ii) the
Iicwor cost ano , ,:,erefore, 15 ,,.S2,_ in ,ile i.-f: iing
Clez! ring 's ::;rucbir,c ' .,,i-, 1 r 1 , 500
Ilr '... ;-:ravt ' on Fill
! rive ',:.-!. iig z - ,:_; 11, ,: ',-j :, '2
Lc 1
1, ''..,.: • ts 1V3 i. F. , „
I
' .' _.:-: .
- -- . .. .-,--)
I
,.- CO',e - : ')1: , •'
4.1.11611,00.1 *
I TOT,i'..t.
•I spIXARY
a.,....r.“■•••••■,-.-4•■■■•■•-■■•■■-■.-........■■■•••■••■■■•....%I-•■•■•C
1 2 —.1 -"- - - , . -
f -
Icomplete.
111-'
I
II
. .
r. 4ic 1:1
71 :1 1y .1 -trz
)f assqmp>,. ; .:19s . tu
prepared .
' id csric,cv,e ■ 12 ,n,
La trust ths. Infcrmatn ri uir 4111 .7,$ ) Ht in
evaluatio th oparall nerits of Alls p, cicct .
We will he gid t: rev ts put In d ) 11 fur
convenience.
Very truly yours ,
VAN DOkEN-hAna0-STALLINGS , INC.
Ha
R. Scott Harri , P . E .
RSH : ta
1
L
...,,
■
I ,
..,
{l's .
I
.?"
/ , .1 I
-,.,-/;/ - /
//
I( iv
4 \')'-'•••`..-- /
i
d
g
%
II
Ictt--Jo Rop \
'I
\ LUe,y /
.. 411014,
f
I I
I N t
I "
Outis)t A \
it t,
".,.
1
I ,1
i
1
t i A —124 Civi P
\ /
. o
/r •
// % slte„,—tliii h fro Li n d
I ,/(
1 \\ ,•;.
I '
\
\ I
I 1 ;
; ',.../.
I
,
\ t
N.\ .•
.
...„,... ,, _,.....i_.-,,,_:„. •. ,,, ..„...... 4
..--- :, carseilrt.q3
i x ‘
\ ,
/.., \
f
D lit \\N . /
..• z .
I 1,-. ---, ________.t, ,......,N. ..„....e.„........,.. • ,
l'it N .'-',.‘ ‘A ti. It
\ -/".
---„, -- \I %.,
Ir 1 „ , --...._-_-_ 4
'N. \ ..'::..'---'
t 1 •,'" ---4 '.,
fJ ;
\ i
— ;
)
'1/4_
, ..,./ .
I k
' ..--\
.
--- i •, ‘
•
•
.c. ), .Z."--,'"-•"•■•••.s,
.7
;--,-,
,, • , ..,,,,,...-*..,
I Z.
i
• ,„
I
'..___ ,
_._____
........___.._, -71
\
-.. -
. 1
I
. .
. ‘,.
\ „ i
1 I
k
,:l N , „^
I I
,.:1
, 7.
....,s ti....:,..2.,..",..-.., ' ,
.
11 .,:j ;-;1‘4 i .. 'fl , s\
, ,
I ..
I 'M
1
-,
N.- I
I 1 ■'I,-1 '%. 2,-.) -_,-!k!-...i--, ._,....,-. ;
?...)1.11L3T A
ri
i., .)(24-i' -'r-l!Gi-ii..,-kt4rJ.3 — Ai4. - • "
lir I ''.L,;-"4 i-izz.acci
;.d Stngs
).-rt*.41e.e• t,+ I. 4•POI•••,•
■...--------+-•--.---.--,
Plats No. 1
k
iop°/ ) '
1
C
1
1
1
1
i
1
Lake Lucy Y Access Study
City of Chanhassen 1
February, 1989 1
1
1
1
I
r". 1
VanDorEn 1
Hazard
Noto
Stallings 1
s architects • engineers• planners
t` topEka • wichita • minnEapolis• kansas city
1
•
r -
a
1
1
LAKE LUCY ACCESS STUDY
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
This report provides an overview of potential public access
' locations on Lake Lucy in north central Chanhassen . For the
purposes of this study , "public access " is defined as a publicly
owned or controlled parcel of land whose purpose is to provide
' access to Lake Lucy . Lake Lucy is categorized by the State of
Minnesota as public waters .
Facilities at a public access include required entrance roads ,
parking , a boat ramp and associated facilities . Standards utilized
' by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ( DNR) require the
provision of one parking space for every 20 acres of surface water .
' Lake Lucy consists of a total of 135 acres necessitating the
provision of seven parking spaces .
PLANNING CONTEXT
' Public access to Lake Lucy is being sought for two primary reasons .
The first is related to a lake clean up project and the second is
due to City policy . Over the past 10 years , a variety of studies
of water quality have been done for lakes throughout the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area . Lake Riley , located in south central
I[— Chanhassen , has frequently been included in such studies . The
•
i ? J
2
watershed affecting Lake Riley has a number of tributary lakes
including Rice Marsh , Lake Susan , Lake Ann and at the north end ,
Lake Lucy ( Figure 1 ) . All of these lakes and their surrounding
drainage areas have an impact on Lake Riley. Because of the
physical connection each of the lakes , the clean up of Lake Riley '
requires clean up efforts on each of the lakes in the watershed
including Lake Lucy.
In August of 1985 , a report entitled "Lake Riley Diagnostic Study "
was completed by Barr Engineering . The report identified water '
quality problems in a number of lakes including Lake Lucy. Based
partially on that report , the Riley-Purgatory Watershed District '
in conjunction with other state and local agencies applied for
federal ( EPA) funding under the Clean Lakes Act to specifically
identify problems and effectuate clean up procedures . The total
project which carries a cost of just under one million dollars
involves a thorough analysis of problems in the watershed area and
follow up actions including but not limited to fish kills and
restocking , fish barriers , aeration systems , weed harvesting and '
chemical treatments .
Under federal guidelines utilized for the Clean Lakes Program , all '
lakes within a watershed area that receives federal assistance are
required to provide public access . Additionally , it is the policy ,
of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to require public
access prior to the restocking and continued stocking of game fish .
At the present time , Lake Lucy is the only lake in the Lake Riley
•
I , ' r ,-
-,,
. 3
I
1
0
1 2
I 1
0 ' Scale in Miles
1
2
III if
I Lek•
Lucy
4h11; Scale in Kilometers
Lak•
I
r/ Anna, =31 Areas not Contibuting to Surface
Water Drainage.
I '
•- SUBWATERSHED )
\_.
1 /
I Riley I/SUBWATERSHE D
2
(-.. ■
I ., Rico Lak•
c,_ Marsh
Lak• -FN.
-.....
Susan (
-,,.
.......„ ___., ,
,
L SUBWATER SHED 3
I
I
OLak• //
Alloy
I
I
I
I Figure 1
Lake Riley Watershed
I
Nt Lake Lucy Access Study
il
4 .
Watershed without either an existing public access or an access
under construction . As a result , this study is investigating
potential locations that will satisfy both federal and state
criteria for public accesses . Federal and state agencies are on ,
record as stating that without a public access to Lake Lucy , the
Lake Riley Watershed clean up project will not be funded .
In addition to the federal and state access requirements tied to
the clean up funding , policies adopted by the City of Chanhassen 1
encourage public access . The 1980 Comprehensive Plan states ,
"Chanhassen has a long standing goal of providing a public access
on each lake within the city . The community contains all or part 1
of ten lakes which are legally public waters and , as such , should
f be accessible . Because it is impossible for everyone to live on
a lake, the establishment of public accesses is imperative if the
entire community is to enjoy the amenities associated with lakes . "
The provision of an access to Lake Lucy would also fulfill the goal '
identified in the Comprehensive Plan .
POTENTIAL ACCESS LOCATIONS
With two exceptions , Lake Lucy is surrounded entirely by privately I
owned land . Exhibit 2 identifies the ownership of parcels
contiguous to Lake Lucy . The City of Chanhassen maintains a
neighborhood park ( Greenwood Shores ) on the east side which is
labeled as parcel 1 . The DNR owns a parcel on the north end of the
lake that is designated as parcel 19 . The remaining shoreland is
•
5
I
I p,• coon , 7 W' , oM ``, ,/ ��
C RE VIE ~ C' p j-• C1R �3' ' •Ok _ o Jelatri � '��r�tttt ti 1 . ,. �� eu LaKE} LUG ..��' , LANE � Q l_n1��
Te
4110 sr
Gy CpUq
-LAKE _ VJ 21 I--° 14 -_r---'
18 17 15
I 6 ._
1 • rE\13 MIN
I • : AM prZINEa z
�� m 11111111
N.
1
VA
K
•E 24 ` je:)\,
7 Willi 1
ERR/SON .> .:Ls .° :. . ! . �� =%iv-4
..... ___ Iv,
1 a�
IdEci�� A - !?Fl I lk Q 24
4t 24 ikrirli at Mt 11(
1 Nr Air
allilignalit
1
LAKE ANN 11
ii
r I I
•
•
I
1 City of Chanhassen 9 Dale Carlson 17 R. Christensen Figure 2
I 2 Jeff Farmakes 10 Alfred Olsen 18 Warren Phillips
3 Dan Fisher 11 Ron Knudlen 19 DNR
4 Tom Folsom 12 Gerald Hoffman 20 Rosalie Dodd Property ownership
5 James Buehring 13 Jim Schlock 21 Mark Sanda
6 Tom Hickey 14 Theodore Coey 22 Eric Rivkin
I 7 William Ward 15 Joseph Morin 23 Judith Dirks
8 Ed Neuinski 16 Brian Tichy 24 Prince R. Nelson
li— 0
N
500 1000 2000 Lake Lucy Access Study
6
privately owned with the majority associated with single family
1. residences . One notable exception exists . Prince R. Nelson owns 1
a substantial tract of land along the south and western shorelines
of the lake . The total frontage owned by this individual '
constitutes approximately 33% of the entire lakeshore .
POTENTIAL ACCESS CONSTRAINTS
The identification of an access site on Lake Lucy is hindered by
a number of factors including property ownership , wetlands and the
limited size of the lake which results in limited shoreline
availability . In general , the northern end of the lake contains '
wetland areas which either prohibit access or result in expensive
dredging operations . The eastern side of the lake is developed
into single family lots . As was noted previously , the southern
and western shores are under one ownership . Privacy and security
concerns of the property owner realistically preclude acquisition '
of any of the southern and western shoreline areas . Additionally ,
large portions of this area are designated as Class A wetlands by
the City of Chanhassen . Despite these limitations , four sites have
been identified as possible access points to the lake . The sites
are shown on Exhibit 3 .
Site A - Greenwood Shores Park '
Greenwood Shores Park contains approximately 3 . 5 acres . Because
k_ of its location , the park has lakeshore on both Lake Ann and Lake
11
I ' i,_ s'
7
1 ---couR ,
ICR4VIEL 3op.
-
•� L AK E} JOSINSat.44Voltifr aQ /�'
A ,, Lucy LANE LV Y �• LP A OMB al
I
411* , QP
s r cces. r oa :
J64 Co TARE N is
I -
UM Firlilleh__ Ce
-- . \ -'...'k/-_____I__•D
\ ----_____ _ , 111$
,. 0 ___- Nnu � s
A PR/soN LAK£ LUCY AE I.F 6 VFe�„i �s ,
1 ,. ,1 / ��, _ .
_._ _
lk 0 1D m� , s.: . ____ _. , migindivi
I 17....
..
N,
r, e--
I LAKE ANN ��
I
Figure 3
Potential Sites
I
f
r
N o 500 1000 2000 Lake Lucy Access Study
•
a i
8
Luc y . The Lake Lucy shoreline is approximately 100 feet in length .
The park is classified as a neighborhood park and primarily serves '
the surrounding Greenwood Shores residential area .
I
The land area of Greenwood Shores Park is sufficient for
construction of a boat access and associated parking . Use of the
parcel for an access would , however , terminate use of the property
as a neighborhood park . Due to the shape and size of the site ,
accommodation of both uses would be impossible . Additionally , i
construction of an access would have a detrimental impact on
adjacent residences due to the close proximity of existing homes
and on the entire neighborhood area . Access to the park is via
Utica Lane which is designed to serve as a local street .
Site B - Dodd Property
The shape of Lake Lucy creates a peninsula on the north end . The '
peninsula , in plan view, appears to be a good location for a public
access . The owner of the peninsula also owns a 33 foot wide parcel '
of land which connects to Lake Lucy Road ( Exhibit 3 ) . This parcel
could be used to provide road access to the peninsula area .
In the field , however , one gains a different perspective of the
Dodd property . The 7 . 9 acre parcel consists of a heavily wooded
knob bordered on the northwest side by a large wetland area . The
wetland area is designated as Class A by the City of Chanhassen . I
t
Development of the parcel as an access is possible , however , the
I
ii
9
' project would substantially impact the wetland areas and the cost
1(7 of the road and the boat ramp construction would be extremely high
due to soil conditions and topography . According to the Carver
County Soil Survey , soils in the wetland area are exclusively
marsh , muck and deep peat .
■
' Site C - DNR Property
Site C consists of approximately 1 .5 acres of land owned by the
Minnesota Wildlife Heritage Foundation which is administered by
■ the Department of Natural Resources ( DNR) . The property which lies
immediately north of Site B presently contains a trail used by
pedestrians , skiers and snowmobiles and an identification sign .
Road access to the DNR property could be via the 33 foot wide strip
of land identified on Exhibit 3 as "Road Access " .
■
The land comprising the DNR site is virtually 100% wetland . The
area which is designated Class A by the City of Chanhassen contains
' exclusively marsh soils according to the Carver County Soil Survey .
As such , the land is essentially undevelopable due to soil
' conditions and adverse impacts to the extensive wetland area .
Site D - Dirks Property
P Y
■
Site D which lies on the northwest side of Lake Lucy contains
approximately 7 acres of land . The parcel which is presently
vacant contains a mix of upland and wetland areas . According to
ir
i
•
(— 1
10
the Carver County Soils
y S � ls Survey, the southwestern portion of the
property consists of Terril Loam soils which can support road ,
construction . Wetlands on the property occur along the lakeshore
and along the northeastern portion of the site . The upland area
has been used for agricultural purposes in the past .
Construction of an access on the property appears to be feasible 1
with some disturbance of the wetland area . The wetlands along the
shoreline would have to be modified to allow the placement of a '
boat ramp and some modification of the wetlands along the northeast ,
may be required for turn around construction . The site is large
enough to allow for the creation of new wetland areas to replace I
the disturbed areas as a migitation technique .
1
Installation of a boat access will require dredging in Lake Lucy .
At the present time , the quantity of dredging is impossible to
estimate because of the lack of accurate bottom contour '
information . In general , the northern portion of the lake
including Site D is shallow requiring excavation at the access and
in all probability , a channel from the access to areas of the lake
with adequate depth for boating .
1
OTHER OPTIONS
One additional option for providing access to Lake Lucy has been
has been mentioned in recent years . The option consists of
connecting Lake Lucy to Lake Ann via a new channel along the route
•
a � f
11
of the existing natural creek . This option has not been seriously
investigated but preliminary inquiries have revealed potential
major problems .
I
The primary problems are water quality and lake elevations . At
' the present time , Lake Ann has significantly better water quality
than Lake Lucy . Lake Ann has a normal water elevation
approximately 1 foot above Lake Lucy. If the two lakes are
connected by a major channel , the flow into Lake Ann may increase
adversely affecting the water quality in Lake Ann . Additionally ,
restrictions on Lake Ann limit boats to electric motors only . It
would present operational problems to require boat launching at
Lake Ann which prohibits gasoline motors as the method of reaching
Lake Lucy on which gasoline motors are presently permitted .
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the information presented herein , only one option
' appears viable if the City of Chanhassen elects to install a boat
access on Lake Lucy . Site D , the Dirks property , has the highest
potential of providing an access site which minimizes the
disturbance of wetlands . Additionally , the site is located along
Lake Lucy Road which is classified as a collector route . Based on
the information available at this time , the site has the ability
to accommodate an access that will meet DNR criteria while
' satisfying the EPA funding requirements for the Clean Lakes
Project .
Ir-
111
I
1
r
Home phone 474-0330
Work " 341-2861
1701 Steller Court
Excelsior, Mn. 55331
April 20, 1989
Mr. Mike Markell
DNR
Trails and Waterways Unit
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Mn. 55155-4052
Dear Mr. Markell:
I am writing out of concern for the environmental impact of a
proposed access road from Lake Lucy Road to Lake Lucy.
Our home is directly adjacent to the outlot slated for construc-
tion. My husband and I regularly observe deer, ducks , geese,
pheasants , racoons , fox etc . traversing and nesting on this
property. In addition, Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets regu-
larly feed on the south shore of the lake.
The access road as proposed would severly disrupt the habitat of
these animals .
I talked to Lori Sietsema at the City of Chanhassen and told her
I would be more than happy to meet with your personnel to walk
the property and point out the trails and nesting areas that would
be affected.
I know that you share my concern for protecting the environment
and preventing unnecessary disruption of a delicate environmental
balance. '
I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience so
that we can arrange a time to show you the property.
Sincerely,
{ Barbara F: . .d
cc: Lori Sietsema
L i
r;3 1989
■
1 ,,,f , \ z
i
I
Home phone 474-0330
1 Work 341-2861
1701 Steller Court
Excelsior, Mn. 55331
1 April 20, 1989
■
II Mr. Mike Markell
DNR
Trails and Waterways Unit
500 Lafayette Road
1 St. Paul, Mn. 55155-4052
Dear Mr. Marken:
:
II am writing out of concern for the environmental impact of a
proposed access road from Lake Lucy Road to Lake Lucy.
I Our home is directly adjacent to the outlot slated for construc-
tion. My husband and I regularly observe deer, ducks , geese ,
pheasants , racoons , fox etc . traversing and nesting on this
I property. In addition, Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets regu-
larly feed on the south shore of the lake.
I The access road as proposed would severly disrupt the habitat of
these animals .
I talked to Lori Sietsgna at the City of Chanhassen and told her
II would be more than happy to meet with your personnel to walk
the property and point out the trails and nesting areas that would
be affected.
II know that you share my concern for protecting the environment
and preventing unnecessary disruption of a delicate environmental
balance.
1 I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience so
that we can arrange a time to show you the property.
1 Sincerely,
1 Barbara F.' d
1 cc: Lori Sietsema ``�1
---_ _ �/ i 1989
r ' -•;,H ASS EN
•
I/O
• STATE OF
CebitaP /I
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ,1990
TRAILS & WATERWAYS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 551O67
PHONE NO. 296-3572 MEWL
March 23 , 1989
Lori Seitsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: LAKES ANN - LUCY WATER ACCESS
Dear Lori :
I checked with our Central Office into the allowance of
the Lake Ann Access serving as the access for both lakes.
They said that an access with separate parking would be
required for Lake Lucy. A portage between the lakes with
only parking and access through Lake Ann could not serve
both. One ramp area with parking could not serve both
lakes unless it was situated between the lakes and two
ramp areas were provided, one into each lake.
I am sorry if this creates any inconvenience. Good luck.
Sincerely,
Delos Barber , Coordinator
Region 6 Trails and Waterways
cc: Kathleen Wallace
Martha Reger
John Steward
D26/dv 1
MAR 2 8 1989 1
CITY.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER OF CHANHASSEN
I
_ ,
I ,
c i
C
\I t-
1 cEANHAssEN
..,
_ 4._ . ,
690 COULTER DRIVE •• P.O. BOX 147 •• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
�.`�� ±
1 (612) 937-1900
1 February 21, 1989
I
Mr. Prince R. Nelson
I Paisley Park Studios
7801 Audubon Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 Dear Prince:
The City of Chanhassen, in conjunction with the Riley-Purgatory-
1 Bluff Creek Watershed District, has received a ,11 million grant
for the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Clean-up Project. This project
involves the lakes upstream of Lake Riley, i .e. Lake. Lucy, Lake
1 Ann, Lake Susan and Lake Riley itself . One of the stipulations
to receive the grant is to provide a boat access on each of the
lakes involved. Unfortunately, due to the wetland and soil con-
ditions we are unable to do so in any of the undeveloped areas .
1 This letter is to inquire as to your willingness to sell or
donate a portion of your property along Lake Lucy for the purpose
I of a boat launch. A minimum of 5 to 7 acres is needed that is
accessible to Audubon Road or Lake Lucy Road.
The Chain of Lakes Clean-up Project and grant money is in
1 jeopardy if access is not attained. Please contact me at the
above address or call me at 937-1900 if you need additional
information or are able to assist the City in this project.
IRespectfully,
1 /4&/f Se-
Lif' \ --P---7.--)-z-41---1
Lori Sietsema
1 Park and Recreation Coordinator
LS :k
1
1
I
IN
CITYOF •
cEANEAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 ,
January 13 , 1989 '
Mr. Jim Anderson
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Program Development Section
Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155 '
Re: Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Clean Up Project
Dear Mr. Anderson: '
This letter is to update you on the progress the City of
Chanhassen is making in obtaining access on Lake Susan and Lake
Lucy.
The City submitted a LAWCON/State Grant Application for access on
a park site on Lake Susan in July of 1988 . We were notified in
November that the application received preliminary approval for
the $220 ,000 project by the Department of Trade and Economic
Development. Recently a resolution was passed authorizing the
submittal of a final application. Additionally, the City Council
acted to approve the revised site plan for the access site. The
deadline for the final application is January 20 , 1989 . It is
anticipated that final approval will be given by March, 1989 and
construction will begin in the spring.
The Park and Recreation Commission held a public hearing in June
of 1988 to inform the residents in the Lake Lucy area that the
City Council had made a commitment to the Lake Riley Chain of
Lakes Clean Up Project. It was explained that by resolving to
commit to the project, the City made a commitment to obtain
access on Lake Lucy. The meeting involved getting the residents '
ideas on where access could be obtained . Since that time , staff
has met with DNR officials , reviewed all areas of the lake and
researched lakeshore characteristics.
There are a number of items that required research, i .e obtaining '
access by channeling between Lakes Ann and Lucy, putting access
at small neighborhood park known as Greenwood Shores, accep-
tability of an outlot in the Lake Lucy Highlands neighborhood ,
I
1 _.
' Mr. Jim Anderson
January 13 , 1989
Page 2
etc. Most recently we have been looking at a piece of property
' owned by the Minnesota Heritage Foundation . The problem that is
most redominant on any of these sites is the marshy-like
lakeshore which would require dredging 400 to 600 feet.
A consultant has been hired to determine if prospective sites
could support an access given soils and water tables.
It is anticipated that alternatives can be listed with pertinent
facts listed for each by February 1, 1989 for a public hearing
discussion to be scheduled. It is further anticipated that a
site will be selected by April , 1989 with LAWCON application sub-
' mitted in May.
I feel that we have made progress in both areas and believe we
' will be able to proceed as suggested. Please feel free to con-
tact me if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
' r .
ict
Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
' LS:ktm
cc: Bob Obermeyer, Watershed District
' Conrad Fiskness , Watershed District
1
1
•
1
y` Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
January 10, 1989
Ms. Lori Sietsema
Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Lori:
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation January 3, 1989 regarding
what constitutes sufficient public access to Lake Lucy to satisfy the
requirements of the federal Clean Lakes Program.
In accordance with your description of current uses of the lake, indicating the
limited value of Lake Lucy for swimming, provision of boating access according
to the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources would
appear to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 35.1605-3 "Publicly owned
freshwater lake." A copy of 40 CFR 35.1605-3 is enclosed with this
correspondence.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at (612)
296-8238.
Sincerely, 1
James R. Anderson
Program Development Section
Division of Water Quality
JRA:nmf
Enclosure 1
cc: Mr. Conrad Fiskness; President, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District
Mr. Robert Obermeyer; District Engineer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District
Mr. Fred Richards; Attorney, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District
JAN 11 1989 1
Phone:
520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 `''t T OF C►iANHASSEN
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
■
L.cy 07 t(4er1/ Ote,tt.Ld/On
V 3
I
35.1605 40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-85 Edition) §35.16
these regulations allow � Environmrrntol Protection Agency
through substate agreements. to dele- schedule that implemented
included dingan oa
gate some substate
all of the required work era113'result from land runoff, precipi- essary, conducting pilot scale evalt
P tation,drainage,or seepage. lions.
to substate agencies. proved plan or discharge permit. Clear
(b) Only projects that deal with pub- lakes funds may not be used to control p35.160�-5 Eutrophic lake. §3:x•1610 Eligibility•
p the discharge of pollutants from a A lake that exhibits an> of the EPA shall award cooperative agr
licly owned freshwater lakes are eligi- point source where the cause of pollu- lowing characteristics: (a) Excessive ments for restoring publicly Otl'T
foi-
ble for assistance. The State must tion can be alleviated through a mu- biomass accumulations of primary pro freshwater lakes only to the Stt
have assigned a priority to restore the nicipal or industrial permit under sec- ducers: (b) rapid organic and/or inor• agency designated by the State c Ch
mu-
lake, and the State must certify that lion 402 of the Act or through th; panic sedimentation and shallowing:
the lake project is consistent with the 402 Executive The award will be '
State Water Quality Management
planning and construction o! or (c) seasonal and/or diurnal dis- projects which meet the requiremei
Plan (§ 35.1521) developed under the wastewater treatment facilities under solved oxygen deficiencies that may of this subchapter.
State/EPA Agreement. The State/ section 201 of the Act. cause obnoxious odors, fish kills, or a
EPA Agreement is a mechanism for §35.1605 Definitions. shift in the composition of aquatic §35 1613 Distribution of fund.
fauna to less desirable forms. (a) For each fiscal year EPA c
EPA Regional Administrators and
States to coordinate a variety of pro- The terms used in this subpart have §35.1605-6 Trophic condition. notify each Regional Administrator
grams under the Clean Water Act, the the meanings defined in section 502 of the amount of funds targeted for et
Resource Conservation and Recovery the Act. In addition, the following A relative description of a lake's bio• Region through annual clean la
.•A Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and terms shall have the meaning set logical productivity based on the avail- program guidance. To assure an ec
other laws administered by EPA. forth below. nutrients. table distribution of funds the tarp
(c) These regulations provide for of ability trophie of plant conditions is characterized The range ed amounts will be based on the clh
Phase 1 and 2 cooperative agreements. §35.1605-1 The Act. by the terms of oligotrophic for the lakes program which States identify
least biologically productive, to eutro- their State WQM work programs.
The purpose of a Phase 1 cooperative The Clean Water Act, as amended
agreement is to allow a State to con- (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). phic for the most biologically produc (b) EPA may set aside up to twe•
duct a diagnostic-feasibility study to tive. percent of the annual appropriati
determine a lake's quality, evaluate §35.1605-2 Freshwater lake. for Phase 1 projects.
possible solutions to existing pollution §35.160:>-7 Desaliniz:,tion.
problems, and recommend a feasible ny inland pond, reservoir. Any mechanical procedure or proc §35.1615 substate agreements.
program to restore or preserve the p or other similar body of ess where some or all of the salt is re States may make financial assista:
quality of the lake. A Phase 2 coope the water that has recreational value, that moved from lake water and the fresh available to substate agencies
tive agreement is to be used for imple- exhibits no oceanic and tidal influ• water portion is returned to the lake means of a written interagency agr
menting recommended methods and ences, and that has a total dissolved
procedures for controlling solids concentration of less than 1 per- §35.1605-R Diagnostic-feasibility study. ment transferring project funds 1r
g pollution cent. A two-part study to determine a the State to those agencies. The apt
entering the lake and restoring the lake's current condition and to detielop ment shall be developed, administe
lake. EPA award of Phase 1 assistance §35.1605-3 Publicly owned freshwater possible methods for lake restoration and appro�ed in accordance with
does not obligate EPA to award Phase provisions of 40 CFR 33.240 (InterE
2 assistance for that project. Addition- lake. and protection. ernmsions agreements). A State r
ally, a Phase 1 award is not a prerequi- A freshwater lake that offers p ublic (a) The diagnostic portion of the
study includes gathering information enter into an agreement with a s
state agency to per
site for receiving a Phase 2 award. access to the lake through publicly and data to determine the limnologi- form all or a I
However, a Phase 2 application for a owned contiguous land so that any lion of the Fork under a clean la
"„-rfproposed project that was not evaluat- person has the same opportunity to cal, morphological, demographic,
socio-economic, and other pertinent cooperative agreement. Recipie
ed under a Phase 1 project shall con- enjoy nonco the lake privileges and characteristics of the lake and its wa_ shall submit copies of all interage
tain the information required by Ap- benefits of the lake as any other tershed. This information will provide agreements to the Regional Admi
pendix A. person. If user fees are charged for trator. If the sum involved exce
(d)EPA will evaluate all applications public use and access through State or recipients an understanding of the $100,000, the agreement shall be
in accordance with the application substate operated facilities, the fees quality of the lake, specifying the to roved by the Regional shall be
review criteria of §35.1640-1. The maintaining cation and loading characteristics of p
must be used for maintainin the significant sources polluting the lake. before funds are released by the sr
;
review criteria include technical feast- public access and recreational facilities to the substate agency. The agrecrr
bility, public benefit, reasonableness of this lake or other publicly owned (b) The feasibility portion of the shall incorporate en reference the t
of proposed costs, environmental study includes: (1) Analyzing the diag-
freshwater lakes quality li the State, or for nostic information to define methods visions of this subchapter. The ag
impact, and the State's priority rank- improving the quality of these lakes. and procedures for controlling the ment shall specify outputs. milest
ing of the lake project. sources of pollution; (2) determining schedule, and the budget requirec
(e) Before awarding funding assist- A 35.1605-4 Nonpoint source. the most energy and cost efficient perform the associated work in
ance, the Regional Administrator shall Pollution sources which generally pro-
cedures to improve the quality of the same manner as the cooperative ag
determine that pollution control mess- are not controlled by establishing ef- lake for maximum public benefit;. (3) ment between the State and EPA.
't ures in the lake watershed authorized fluent limitations under sections 301• developing a technical plan and mile-
, by section .201, included in an ap- 302, and 402 of the Act. Nonpoint stone schedule for implementing pol- §35.1620 Application requirements.
proved 208 plan, or required by section source pollutants are not traceable to lution control measures and in lake (a) EPA will process application
402 of the Act are completed or are a discrete identifiable origin, but gen- restoration procedures• and (4) if nec- accordance with Subpart B of Par
434 435
• I MN MIN MINI ONE IIIN Mil OM ii. OM INN illi MI MINI la. MI
2i6 II' City Council Meeting - Ju . 13, 1988 ,�
II
.T _ti Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Architect's
Cl Agreement pending review by the City Attorney for the Fire Station. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
II-
CONSENT AGENDA: (Q) APPROVAL OF FORMAL COMMITMENT, LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES I
CLEAN-UP PROJECT.
i0 Councilman Johnson: In the resolution, the second Whereas, it says whereas I
public access is required, I'd like to change that to desired. I'm putting same
must words in here a little bit. The second paragraph, Now Therefore be it
resolved the City of Chanhassen will commit to this attached schedule and
instead of saying so as I'd like to substitute in, to attempt to provide public II
access to Lake Lucy and Lake Susan. You don't think it will fly?
Councilman Geving: No. I
Councilman Johnson: We're committing to attempt to do it?
Councilman Geving: That's what they want is a commitment. II
Councilman Johnson: We're committing to attempt to do it. If it's not
feasible, if it's not possible. We'll do everything in our power to do it but. II
Mayor Hamilton: They want us to provide it period and that's all they want.
Councilman Geving: They want a commitment Jay. And it is required, not
1:-
desired.
Councilman Johnson: Under what laws is it required? It's desired by the DNR
and they are holding us blackmail to do it which is, I'm just trying to drag my
feet a little bit against it. I don't like a gun stuck up my back.
Councilman Geving: I think if we are wishy-washy about this particular II
commitment the project will fail and we'll go through a lot more comments on
this thing. II
Councilman Johnson: I'm looking to protect us in the future. 1
Councilman Geving: I think we all understand what you're getting at but I read I
it too and I had the same feeling but I do believe that if we go through and are
not totally committed to this, they'll back off of the total project.
Councilman Johnson: Are we fully committed to providing a public boat access to II
Lake Lucy?
Mayor Hamilton: You bet. Why not? Why shouldn't we be? It's a public lake. II
Councilman Horn: All lakes are public.
Councilman Boyt: I think that Eden Prairie was smart in protecting their money '
and saying they wouldn't make theirs available unless we indicated that we were
Ell
going to provide public access to Lake Lucy. There are some possible ways we
can provide public access and have minimal impact on Lake Lucy. I think that
6
II
' 96!
- City Council Meeting - �e 13, 1988
those need to be worked out and Lori you were going to go to a meeting or you
jr- haven't gone to it yet.
Lori Sietsema: Yes, we did and basically the meeting involved finding out what
would qualify as an access and there are two things they said. It has to be
equal to whatever the riparian homeowners have rights to on that lake. If they
can have a ski boat, than you have to have an access that will launch a speed
boat. The other one was one car/trailer parking space for 20 acres of lake
surface.
Councilman Boyt: I think that one of the questions that we have to ask
ourselves is are we prepared to limit boat use on Lake Lucy as we have on Lake
' Ann. If we are than we have an access possibility that has minimum impact on
the shoreline of Lake Lucy. If we're not, than we're talking about something
that's going to be quite a bit bigger. I think that's an important issue.
Councilman Johnson: How many acres are we talking?
(Lori Sietsema: It would require 7 car/trailer parking spaces which they're
willing to deviate a little bit. Some of those could be on the street. They
wouldn't all have to be off-street.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill has a good point. We're going to have to have a
public hearing to have the lakeshore and the people around Lake Lucy come in
here to see if they'd be willing to do that type of thing. That's a good idea
and I don't see any reason why they couldn't do that. We can attempt to move
ahead with that type of a thing. I think it would be really neat.
Councilman Boyt: What's our constraint as far as paying our $8,300.00? Do we
' have a deadline we have to pay that by?
Jo Ann Olsen: They're just waiting to start. They're looking for this and then
' when they get the go ahead.
Mayor Hamilton: We're not saying that we have to have a public access that is
going to launch speed boats. We're just saying a public access.
' Councilman Horn: That's exactly the procedure we used on Lotus Lake and it
turns out that enough people use Lotus Lake and live on Lotus Lake were not
' willing to give up or limit their horse power so this is the type of thing we go
through everytime we have an access issue.
' Councilman Johnson: A lot less people on Lucy.
Councilman Horn: Yes, I'd say we have a much better chance on Lake Lucy.
' Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to see us pass the motion or pass the resolution with
that idea in mind that the Park and Rec hold a public hearing and take comment
from the people around Lake Lucy. They seem to be willing to do the same type
of thing as we're doing on Lake Ann.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask another question of Lori. Did we look at
or talk to the DNR on the alternative of us doing the treatment of Lake Lucy?
Ir--
Part of the cost that they're giving us is for them to come in and do the fish
' 7
268 •Council Meeting - Jur13, 1988
1
kill on Lake Lucy and for them then to restock Lake Lucy with non-rough fish.
Did we talk to them about whether they'd see us do that for them?
(-
Lori Sietsema: They said that it wouldn't be possible for them to do the fish
kill if we did not provide access. They couldn't kill the fish and they could
not restock it and they couldn't install the aerator so that would have to be
done by the city.
Councilman Johnson: Would it stop the whole project? That sounds like they are 1
relenting a little bit if they say...
Lori Sietsema: They wouldn't give us a firm, I don't know. Jo Ann do you
�\1/renember?
0 VD
Mayor Hamilton: I think we're getting a little off the track here and I don't
want to. We've got a long evening ahead of us and we're talking about things
that have nothing to do with what we're talking about right now.
Councilman Johnson: We're committing here to giving public access and we're not
sure yet whether we have to make that commitment is what they're saying.
They're looking at an option...
Mayor Hamilton: They are. We do have to make that commitment to have a public 1
access on that lake. How that public access functions is something that we have
to determine yet but it seems, to start talking now about us doing a fish kill,
which we have no capability of doing and restocking, which we don't have the
capability.
Councilman Johnson: We're not starting talking about this Mr. Mayor. I talked
about this a month ago or whenever it was when this last came up and I asked
staff to look into this. They have and now they're presenting us an option.
Mayor Hamilton: That's fine but it's not the item that we're concerned about
tonight. We need to pass a resolution stating that we will provide public
access on Lake Lucy.
Councilman Johnson: Even though we have an option that staff is still pursuing.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's not a favorable option.
Councilman Johnson: I guess you can believe staff or not but we need to move
ahead with this. Any other questions on item 1(q)?
Councilman Boyt: What we're voting on then is we're really saying that we're
committed to putting some sort of public access on Lake Lucy and we are going to
then go through the appropriate process to decide what sort of public access
that will be?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Well, this is a major decision we're making. This might be 1
something where it would be helpful to have public input since all we're talking
Ell
about is delaying the project for a few weeks. We're not talking about killing
the project.
8 1
City Council Meeting - one 13, 1988
■
Don Ashworth: Are they not considering a PCA reshifting dollars and they
' consider this has been held up a year. .. PCA, I think is the one who is taking
the strongest position. DNR is the one who talked about potentially we could do
the kill. Maybe not but it's PCA that's saying, we have our money involved in
' chis. It's been going on for a long period of time. We need a commitment from
you people. If it's not made within the timeframe that we're talking about,
those dollars will be reshuffled somewhere else.
IMayor Hamilton: I think they recall what's happened with the Lake Ann access
and we hassled them for years on that project and we still continue to hassle
than, or some of the neighbors do. I think they're sick and tired or screwing
' around with us.
Councilman Horn: I think something we can't forget either is the DNR always has
if the right to go in and establish their own public access on any lake. We're not
going to stop them from doing that.
t ;
it Mayor Hamilton: We can go through the process and put in an access like Bill
had said and if the neighbors agree to make it a quiet lake, that's something we
can do. Otherwise, they can put in their access and they will do it. They'll
buy the property, put their own access in and they'll run it the way they darn
' well please. Those are our choices.
Councilman Boyt: But aren't we saying that we're going to buy the property and
' , put in the access if it has to be a power boat access?
Councilman Geving: We haven't said that. That's what I thought would come out
of the public hearing.
■ Councilman Boyt: But I'm saying Dale, if it does, aren't we saying that it
will. If they say we won't give up our motor boat...
Mayor Hamilton: I think we're saying we'll provide a public access. How we
provide it hasn't been determined yet with who's funds. Like Lake Ann. We
' provided the public access. It was with their funds. We went through the
condemnation of the property but we bought it basically with their funds.
Don Ashworth: Staff tried to protect the City in here as well. I know the time
' table requires that a LAWCON application be received. There are ceilings on
those. It limits the City's participation to 25%. If we get into a situation
where the only land that's available is $300,000.00 or some other type of
' option, we have a reasonable basis for why we could not complete it. Similarly
we have a caveat regarding Lake Drive East which is a major heart of the
decision of Lake Susan.
Resolution #88-57: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adopt
P
the resolution outlining the City's commitment for public access on Lake Lucy
and Lake Susan for the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes clean-up project and at the
same time directing the Park and Recreation Commission to develop a public
meeting schedule date. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
r
9
t . 1
i
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE:: June 13, 1988 RESOLUTION NO: 88-57
ma= BY: Geving SECONDED BY: Horn
A RESOLUTION OUTLINING THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC
ACCESS ON LAKE LUCY AND LAKE SUSAN FOR THE LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF
LAKES CLEAN UP PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen is committed to the Lake
Riley Chain of Lakes Clean Up Project as presented by the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff
Creek Watershed District, involving Lakes Lucy,
Ann, Susan, and Riley, and;
WHEREAS, public access is required on all lakes involved in 1
the project and Lakes Lucy and Susan do not currently have public
access.
&CW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Chanhassen
will commit to the attached schedule so as to provide public
access on Lake Lucy and Lake Susan.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
13th day of June , 1988.
ATTEST:
Ck CT-1 717/7/
1
Don Ashworth-- City Manager - Thomas L. Hamiltbn, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
Hamilton None None
Horn
Johnson
Boyt
Geving
i
1
1
•