Email - Neighborhood Concerns_Questions --- ADDENDUM to Letter to City of Chanhassen---Planning Dept.From:Al-Jaff, Sharmeen
To:Steckling, Jean
Subject:FW: Neighborhood Concerns/Questions --- ADDENDUM to Letter to City of Chanhassen---Planning Dept.
Date:Wednesday, May 4, 2022 9:07:32 AM
Attachments:Whitetail Cove--PLL Taskforce Questions Addendum 5-4-22 DJG.pdf
image001.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
Good morning Jean,
Please add this e-mail and attached addendum to the Morin Subdivision files (web, laserfiche, etc.).
Thank you
Sincerely,
Sharmeen
Sharmeen Al-Jaff
Senior Planner
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PH. 952.227.1134
FX. 952.227.1110
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
From: Don Giacchetti <don.giacchetti@tactsolutions.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 8:15 AM
To: Al-Jaff, Sharmeen <saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Cc: Heide Ahmann <heideahmann@gmail.com>; Douglas Ahmann <douglasahmann@gmail.com>;
Christopher Mozina <CMozina@msn.com>
Subject: Neighborhood Concerns/Questions --- ADDENDUM to Letter to City of Chanhassen---
Planning Dept.
Sharmeen,
This email and the attached “ADDENDUM” document involves additional concerns
and questions from various citizen neighbors residing in the Whitetail Cove and
Pointe Lake Lucy neighborhoods regarding the proposed development known as the
Gayle Morin Addition-- Rezoning and Subdivision with Variances project (Case#
2022-03). This 13-page ADDENDUM is a supplement to the 28-page “Letter”
originally submitted on April 4, 2022, to the City of Chanhassen by the Whitetail Cove
and Pointe Lake Lucy neighborhood task force.
The task force will be emailing out this ADDENDUM document later today to the rest
of the neighbors we have directly connected with. A few of the individuals on our
email list have other individuals and groups which they may forward this document to
for informational purposes.
As with our original Letter, we have attempted to ask reasonable/practical questions
and be as specific as possible. Hopefully, our attention to detail and incorporated
photos/video, diagrams, and weblinks will make it easier for City department staff or
other relevant organizations to be able to give us the specific answers to the
questions we have documented. We want to be professionally respectful of
everyone’s time in this process.
Please email back an acknowledgement of your receipt of this email and its attached
file to all addressees on this email. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Let us
know if you should have any questions for us. We look forward to the City’s
professional response in the near future….regards…DON
Don J. Giacchetti
TACT Solutions, Inc.
c#: 612-328-2853
website: www.tactsolutions.com
Chanhassen, MN 55317
ADDENDUM TO OUR LETTER TO CITY OF
CHANHASSEN —PLANNING DEPARTMENT
--MAY 4 , 2022 --
The following is an Addendum to the 28-page “Letter” originally submitted on April 4, 2022, to
the City of Chanhassen by the Whitetail Cove and Pointe Lake Lucy neighborhood task force.
The Letter and this Addendum are in regards to the Application for Development Review
submitted by Gayle Morin on January 28, 2022, to the City of Chanhassen (aka Gayle Morin
Addition -- Rezoning and Subdivision with Variances project (Case# 2022-03)). The
proposed rezoning is from Rural Residential to Single -Family Residential.
The questions posed in this Addendum are based on additional research of the existing publicly
available planning documents on the City’s website. There are certain elements in those
documents that are of concern which will cause dramatic and adverse changes in the character
of our neighborhood and potential adverse impacts to the public welfare and environment.
The task force understands the delay in the original public hearing dates for the City Planning
Commission meeting, and subsequent City Council meeting, was due to outstanding issues in
the existing submitted proposal plans that need to be resolved before the City could move
forward in its review/approval process. The new deadline for the applicant to submit revised
plans addressing these issues is June 17, 2022. The task force appreciates the City delivering a
copy of the original 28-page Letter to the applicant, the District Watershed Authority and the
City’s own internal review departments for consideration of our questions and concerns . The
task force respectfully requests that those same parties are informed of this Addendum so these
new questions, and concerns, will also be considered as part of their respective plan revision
and review processes.
Given the published schedule for the Application Deadline date of June 17 th, we anticipate that
the corresponding City Planning Commission meeting date would be July 19th and the City
Council meeting date would be August 8th respectively. Furthermore, we look forward to seeing
the revised development plans when re-submitted. The respective neighborhood homeowners
are hopeful that their questions and concerns will be ad dressed and answered.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Task Force Members:
_________________ _________________ _________________ _________________
Don J. Giacchetti Heide Ahmann Douglas Ahmann Chris Mozina
612-328-2853 612-518-6643 612-750-4223 315-622-8119
don.giacchetti@tactsolutions.com heideahmann@gmail.com douglasahmann@gmail.com cmozina@msn.com
6679 Lakeway Drive 6700 Pointe Lake Lucy 6700 Pointe Lake Lucy 6670 Pointe Lake Lucy
2
Additional Outstanding Concerns: Environmental
1. Soil Testing and Samples
Q: Will the City require new Soil Samples since the GPS system was not able
to be deployed for the existing 4 soil core samples used in the planning
documents?
Q: Does the City require Soil Samples from specific location s on the proposed
development site? (e.g., each of the four corners and center of each
proposed home foundation).
Q: When a builder/developer is involved, will new soil samples be required on
final locations for homes?
Q: Why do all 4 of the soil sample report pages indicate a “Bottom of the
borehole at 14.5 feet” when the scope of services on page 1 of the
Geotechnical report states the 4 soil samples were taken to a depth of 20
ft? Which statistic is correc t, 14.5 ft or 20 ft? If correct answer is 20 feet
then where is the soil analysis for the remaining 5.5 f eet in each of the 4
borehole core samples? Would the city consider these to be inconclusive?
20 ft VERSUS 14.5 ft?
3
2. Accuracy of any location markers staked out by Haugo GeoTechnical Services
versus CivilSite Group.
Q: Were there any inaccuracy issues in staking out the location markers of the
proposed development due to the failed GPS system of Haugo or did that
only affect the soil sample data as referenced above in prior question ?
Please clarify if all of the location markers were properly staked out by
CivilSite Group using a GPS system and/or official lot line boundary stakes
buried in the ground.
3. Best Management Practices (BMP)
Q: Is there a sufficient plan for storm water run off to be filtered before hitting
the surrounding Wetland A and Wetland B?
Q: Does the City expect to review and assess the drai nage plan needs that
must be completed at initial plan and at time of the individual build of Lot 2
& Lot 3? If no builder is currently involved, how will the City ensure that a
proper assessment pre/post-build will be performed?
Q: How will the “impervious” calculations be done? (i.e., if you can’t get credit
for areas you can’t build on, aren’t the two building footprints and
corresponding new driveways going to create an unacceptable level of
impervious coverage within the buildable footprint?)
4. Wetland Setbacks and Property Owner Rights
Q: Who defines the wetland’s edge? How is the high level of the wetland
taken into consideration as the water levels are seasonally dependent?
Q: Is the DNR and City’s requirement for Wetland setback 50ft (20ft to buffer,
30 from buffer to setback = 50ft)? Does the proposed plan meet these
setback requirements for Wetland A & B? Please explain how the proposal
meets these requirements for Wetland A & B.
Q: Does the City view Wetland A & B in the same way? Are these two
wetlands, despite their size, protected and fall under the same restrictions?
Q: What are preservation and restrictions for Wetland A & B as established by
the Watershed District that need to be met?
4
Q: How will Wetland A be preserved “as is” for the adjacent two properties
whose property lines go into Wetland A? see photos and aerial view below
Q: The small 60’x60’ home “pads” shown above are very close to the edge of
Wetland A. How will a builder/developer put a home , realistically with a
much larger footprint, in such close proximity to the Wetland A?
5
Q: The photos above taken on 4-29-22 show one of the bore holes that was
not properly filled in afterwards. There was standing water in the bore hole
about 2.5 feet below ground level at that location. The bore hole was
measured at about 4 feet in depth before sediment in the hol e was
reached indicating water had seeped in from at least 4 feet below grade to
2.5 ft below grade. A large straight tree branch was inserted into borehole
and through the sediment at the 4ft level continuing down past the 10 ft
below grade level. It appears that this bore hole is “SB-1” in the
Geotechnical diagram shown above. Can a home be built at that location if
there is actual standing water at the 2.5 ft level below the surface?
Q: On 4-29-22 a task force member physically walked to bore hole SB-1 to
observe it. However, the bore hole identified as SB-2 in above diagram
could not be physically located where the placement on the diagram
depicts it. Instead, there was a covered up bore hole (suspected actual
SB-2 bore hole) 33 feet due east-northeast of SB-1. See photo above.
Where is the actual location of SB-2? Is this an issue caused by GPS not
working during the taking of soil core samples?
6
Q: The photos above taken on 4-29-22 show another one of the bore holes
that was not properly filled in. This hole appears to be in the location
depicted on the Geotechnical diagram as the “SB-3” bore hole. There was
standing water in the bore hole about 1 foot below ground level at that
location. Can a home be built if there is actual standing water at the 1 ft
level below the surface at a point that is approximately 35 feet due
southeast of SB-3 and 40 feet due south of the water level in Wetland A?
Q: The physical location of SB-4 as depicted on the diagram could not be
found. However, a covered up bore hole was found about 40 feet nearly
due east of SB-3 and appeared a few feet higher in elevation than SB-3.
Based on water at the 1-foot level below grade at SB-3 and counting for a
few feet higher in elevation how can a home be built in the location
depicted on the diagram considering a home basement floor would be 8 -
to-10 feet below grade? Where is the actual location of SB -4?
5. A Natural Creek runs through proposed Lots 2 & 3 and was not indicated in the
proposed plans submitted on January 28, 2022. The 2008 aerial photo and
other photos below shows water in the creek flowing from Wetland A to
Wetland B. This functioning natural creek has been around a long time.
7
Click on this weblink below to view a 1-minute video from 4-21-22 of the
natural creek “in action” with running water:
NOTE: video quality can be improved from the default 360p to 1080p (HD). Click on the video link below, then click
on the cog-wheel (settings) in the lower right of the video and click on 1080p (HD). This will only be allowed if your
video monitor has the capability to do so.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16e7qT98L3moXzcOP01nSWhXXDkuoqd9U/view?usp=sharing
Q: Do the plans need to be resubmitted showing this natural creek?
Q: Will the City treat the creek as any other natural waterway and therefore
not allow it to be disturbed?
Q: Will the City issue requirements to the proposed development to preserve
its natural flow providing drainage from Wetland A to Wetland B?
Q: Will the city propose a bridge to keep it from being disturbed?
Q: Can a builder/developer put a culvert over a sewer line without creating an
undue risk?
Q: Will Wetland A be kept from being drained with the culvert propose d?
Q: The sewer line goes along and then under the natural creek as it travels
southeast. The ground area around the natural creek is usually very mucky
and susceptible to ruts from tires tracks. What precautions are in the
development plans to ensure that the heavy equipment and the
construction of the lot 3 driveway, and installation of a culvert for the
existing creek, do not adversely impact the underlying sewer line? What
extra measures will be implemented to ensure the driveway construction is
sufficient to withstand the naturally mucky ground in that area, especially
considering the additional water drainage from the two new impervious
driveways to the two new homes on Lot 2 and Lot 3? What is the risk
assessment that damage could occur to the ecosystems of Wetland A and
Wetland B due to the development construction required?
8
6. Water related issues appearing later with developments built on Wetlands
Q: What level of risk tolerance, water capacity/absorption factors and setback
requirements do the Planning Commission and Watershed District
engineers consider acceptable for development on or near wetlands? The
recent Star-Tribune article from 4-19-22 (see weblink… Building on
Nokomis swampland will haunt Minneapolis in wetter future, report says)
provides a clear warning especially given the last decade was the Twin
Cities area's wettest on record. At the recent Planning Commission session
on April 5th, one of the central themes was captured well by City Staff, with
the common quote; “an ounce of prevention, is worth a pound of cure.”
Q: Are there any known or suspected perched groundwater conditions or peat
concentrations adversely impacting the soil conditions in the proposed
development areas to manage stormwater and high-water tables? Have
any studies or white papers been done on this subject matter in the nearby
geographic locations? ...see weblink below:
https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/government/departments/public -works/surface-water-
sewers/programs-policy/lake-nokomis/
9
Q: Could disturbance of any perched groundwater conditions from lot
development create issues in supplying water to springs used as a source
of water by rural communities and animals? See weblink below.
http://solar.excluss.com/water/boreholes/groundwater-
dictionary/index216d.html?introduction_perched_groundwater.htm
Q: Since the water table levels have drastically changed in 40 years for the
proposed site, are the city water table levels expected to continue to rise in
this specific low -lying area?
Carver County Records –
1979 Morin Lot and
Wetland B
Carver County Records –
2020 Morin Lot and
Wetland B
10
7. Canopy / Tree Preserve Requirements
Q: What consideration is given to trees immediately on other side of property
line when building retaining walls proposed by applicant? What are
requirements to prevent the roots from being disrupted for mature oak and
other trees which are sensitive to root disruption on adjacent property lines?
Q: What is the minimum canopy amount that must be maintained?
Q: If the proposed canopy requires replacement plantings, does the City utilize
a formula to account for larger mature trees on the site to make up for the
removal of those larger trees ?
Q: Because the proposal included ash trees in the original submission, which
the City deems to not count as part of the canopy calculation, does the City
need to see a new Landscape Proposal?
Q: If a proposed house pad can be positioned differently to save a large tree,
would the City Planning Commission encourage it to be adjusted?
Q: Does the canopy of existing trees on adjacent property get figured into the
placement of the future development? (e.g., if a rather large tree just over
property line has a canopy that takes the space of a future home site, does
the builder have an obligation to get permission from adjacent property
owner to trim or cut down?) How does the city remedy these situations? Do
standard rules exist for this type of situation?
Q: Tree preservation ordinances must have diversity of trees and don’t allow
mature trees to be fragmented; how does the City enforce this?
Q: Why are the large Trees #1073 and #1074 on the proposed landscape
plan being “removed” per the legend? The 75 ft tall maple tree is 12 years
old, was planted by current homeowner with permission from Joe and
Gayle Morin and does not seem to be in the way for development of the
proposed lots. Does it make any sense to remove this mature, healthy
tree? See image and diagram below.
11
Q: If mature trees around the adjacent properties fail, or if trees are
encroached and need to be taken down during construction , who pays for
replacement of trees of a similar maturity?
Q: Has Jill Sinclair, City Environmental Resource Specialist, reviewed the
proposed development plan and specifically the Tree Survey and Removal
plan? Such plan lists 75 trees larger than 10 inches in diameter measured
by diameter at breast height (DBH). Why are there only 7 of the 75 trees
listed being saved with the other 68 listed trees removed? How many more
trees would be listed if the minimum DBH was set at 7 or 8 inches? Will all
the trees less than 10 inches in DBH be cut down and removed? Has Jill
approved the submitted Tree Survey and Removal plan. Does this comply
with the City’s approved Tree Preservation Ordinance, or will any variances
be granted?
Q: The City passed a resolution in August 2018 to participate in the
“GreenStep” program which requires implementation of best practice
actions in many areas of Land Use and Environmental Management. This
includes woodland best management practices addressing protection of
wooded areas into zoning or development review. At that time the City had
been designated as a “Tree City USA” for the past 23 years. Has Jill
Sinclair, City Environmental Resource Specialist and GreenStep
Coordinator, certified that the proposed development plan meets or
exceeds the requirements set forth in the GreenStep program? See
weblinks below for reference.
https://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/city -detail/11903
https://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/ChanhassenResolution.pdf
http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/218/Forestry -Landscaping
12
Additional Outstanding Concerns: Development
1. Concerns regarding “Conditional Approval” process
Q: Under a “Conditional Use Permit” after granting a Conditional Approval
what verification and enforcement does the city perform to ensure the
development adheres to the conditional approval requirements?
Q: What is included in the “Site Plan Review” process and who exactly
performs such review?
Q: Who is responsible for tracking the requirements in the conditional
approval if a builder/developer is brought in later?
Q: What level of Bonding / Letter of Credit will the City require to ensure the
completion of the development project, and restoration of the environment
back to its pre-development state if the project becomes untenable?
2. Lot Sub-Division
Q: If the proposed site is not suitable for homes, would that preclude the
applicant’s ability to sub-divide the lot?
13
3. Existing Private Road (and new Extensions) Use for Construction Traffic,
Emergency Vehicle Access and Other Impacts
Q: Has the City performed any studies around cost impacts to neighborhoods
including a private road? Aside from costs born by the proposed
development/the City, w hat costs should the neighborhood expect for
repairs during and post construction?
Q: Will the extensions to the existing Private Road, which will be needed to
service the 2 proposed new homes, post construction, be of high enough
quality and materials allowing adequate support of the extreme weights for
emergency vehicle access (including firetrucks) and other traffic weights?
The existing private road is only 15 ft wide of blacktop pavement plus an
additional 2.5 ft of concrete curbing on each side.
4. Right of way permission on adjacent properties do not currently exist; they have
not been granted by adjacent property owners
Q: Since right of way has not been obtained, will new locations need to be
“surveyed”? Further initiating new soil samples, etc.?
Q: How does the proposed development obtain approval for right away
beyond conditional approval? Are there conditions the engineer needs to
satisfy, or is that a burden assumed by a builder/developer?
Q: Is permission for the retaining wall required? If the retaining wall will be
built entirely on the side of the proposed new lot, would its location still
allow the necessary setbacks for a home to be built? If so, how large a
footprint?
Appendix: Exhibits
References from questions to public artifacts contained here:
Proposed Development:
1441 Lake Lucy Road (Gayle Morin Addition) Rezoning and Subdivision with
Variances | Chanhassen, MN - Official Website
Project Documents:
67.63.229.140/WebLink/browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=699708