Loading...
Whitetail Cove--PLL Taskforce Questions 2nd Addendum_7-8-22Chanhassen, MN 55317 2 ND ADDENDUM TO OUR LETTER TO CITY OF CHANHASSEN— PLANNING DEPARTMENT JULY 8 , 2022 The following is a 2nd Addendum to the 28-page Letter of Concerns originally submitted on April 4, 2022, to the City of Chanhassen by the Whitetail Cove and Pointe Lake Lucy neighborhood task force. To date, the City has not formally responded to any of the task force questions identified in the initial Letter or the 1st Addendum submitted to the City on May 4, 2022. It is our understanding that the City also sent these documents to the Riley, Purgatory, Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD), however, the task force has not received any response from the RPBCWD either. While the April 4, 2022 Letter and May 4, 2022 1st Addendum do appear on the City’s website, they do not appear on the public record at the RPBCWD website, nor in the meeting materials package for their June 1, 2022 meeting. Our Letter, 1st Addendum and 2nd Addendum are all 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 development. The questions posed in this 2nd Addendum are based on all of the documents submitted since May 4, 2022. All such documents are available to the public on the City of Chanhassen website. There are certain elements in those documents that are of concern which will cause potential adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood homes, and particularly, those located at 6675 and 6679 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317. The task force certainly appreciates the work of the RPBCWD, however, we still disagree with them issuing a Conditional Approval for the Morin Development Project. The task force respectfully requests the City deliver a copy of the 2nd Addendum to the Applicant, the Planning Commission, the RPBCWD, and the City’s own internal review departments so these new questions, and concerns, can also be considered as part of their formal review of the Morin project at the July 19, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Additionally, the task force requests this document be posted on the City’s Morin Development project case website. We anticipate the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting dates will take place as scheduled on July 19th and August 8th respectively. Furthermore, we look forward to attending and speaking at the Planning Commission Meeting on July 19th. The respective neighborhood homeowners are hopeful that their questions and concerns will be addressed 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 Due Process Concerns Please keep these questions in mind as you read the following process that occurred: Q: Does the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission believe a professional process was followed by the RPBCWD in their issuing a Conditional Approval given that Public Comments, Concerns and Questions were not addressed? Q: Does the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission, agree that RPBCWD addressed all of the water-related issues and concerns posed previously in our Letter and 1st Addendum? PROCESS 1. RPBCWD requested, from a task force member, the original Letter and 1st Addendum containing all of our questions and concerns. This information provided to them by a task force member on May 13, 2022, does not appear to have been made a part of the public record on the RPBCWD website, nor did the RPBCWD’S Conditional Approval of the Revised Morin Plan address the numerous issues raised to the RPBCWD. 2. Chris Mozina from the task force had an extensive conversation with Terry Jeffrey (tjeffrey@rpbcwd.org) at the RPBCWD on May 12, 2022. a. Based on Terry’s advice, Chris Mozina sent the Original Task Force Letter and 1st Addendum to Terry with the expectation Terry would share with the Board of the RPBCWD, per the discussion on 5-12-22. b. Chris Mozina sent another email on 5-18-22 requesting follow-up which was acknowledged back in an email by Terry to Chris, but Terry was unable to find time to discuss. c. A final follow-up email was sent to Terry on 5-23-22 to which no response was received. d. In the conversation with Terry on 5-12-22, Terry stated that in order to meet the 6-1-22 1 RPBCWD meeting agenda, an updated plan from CSG would have to be received by RPBCWD by May 16, May 20 to the attorneys, then May 25th to the Board. Terry indicated the tight timeline was extremely unlikely. Based on Civil Site presumed to not meet the deadline as stated by Terry, and based on the belief that Terry was providing the Task Force documents to the Board, and based on the follow-up emails and the approaching Memorial Day Holiday, Chris anticipated Terry would provide feedback after the Memorial Day Holiday. e. Unfortunately, we later discovered that the RPBCWD Board Meeting did in fact occur on June 1st and the Conditional Approval was granted. On June 6th, Don Giacchetti received an email from Sharmeen Al-Jaff indicating that Conditional Approval was granted at the June 1st meeting and based on the email trail it appears that Terry would have known about the June 1st meeting date. Terry did not communicate this to Chris Mozina, and never followed up during the two weeks prior to that Board Meeting. As a result, there was no opportunity by any of 3 the neighbors impacted by the Conditional Approval to present their commentary and objective, including the task force members. Additional Outstanding Concerns pertain to the following documents: RPBCWD Permit Application Review Permit #2022-007, the Haugo Geotechnical Report Bundle, or the RPBCWD 10 Year Management Plan, as noted NOTE: This video gives a great perspective of the Morin property as it sits between Pointe Lake Lucy and Whitetail Cove neighborhoods. At the time of production, it was not known that the plans for Lot 3 had been cancelled. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14RGYqzvFQVJSKvy51NoM0Uur- 18DXkpt/view?usp=sharing 1. RPBCWD Permit Application Review, Page 2: Background Q: Why aren’t “upgradient” considerations mentioned? Water that runs down the hill from Lake Lucy Road and the Morin’s existing home, hits the retaining wall and gets redirected West and East. The East side may be controlled by the basin, but the West side will run down the funnel and driveway, right to the South-facing turnaround and then towards 6679 Lakeway Drive. Hence the potential need for work upgradient from the new home, and work on either 6679, or potentially 6675 Lakeway Drive to prevent future water damage/erosion. The following short video shows the two pathways of water running from the northern side of the turnaround to the southern end and flowing towards the back yard of 6679 Lakeway Drive. https://drive.google.com/file/d/15WUuKXHbRQzlcswRYCTPTosCR4PT7544/vi ew?usp=sharing - How high will the retaining wall be? How high should it be? 4 - Will the retaining wall divert water away from the western side of the property where it would impact 6679 Lakeway Drive and 6675 Lakeway Drive? - What additional engineering would the City require to ensure water has a proper path? Q: Based on slope and elevations won’t the new building itself, and the additional impervious driveway, create a funnel for rainwater run-off to the immediate west of the Morin property, thus potentially doing significant harm to 6679 Lakeway Drive? Q: The proposed plans attempt to remediate the impact to Wetland A, but they do not address the potential impact to 6679 Lakeway Drive. - Aside from the “Low Floor Elevation” condition specified in the Permit Review, what is the specific design element that would prevent additional run-off from the impervious new driveway, and the funnel effect of the new home from leading to surface and groundwater issues at 6679 Lakeway Drive? - Moreover, did the Watershed estimate the impact to Wetland B from the funnel that is being created? 2. RPBCWD Permit Application Review Page 4: C Erosion and Sediment Control Q: Has that name been provided? If so, who is it? - Can this be a trustee of an estate? - What happens if the trust is wound down prior to any work or the land is transferred to a new owner prior to any development? 3. RPBCWD Permit Application Review Page 4: Rule D Wetland Creeks and Buffers And further, 5 Q: How can the above statements be reconciled? - Isn’t the reason for the buffer to prevent the construction from being too close to the Wetland as to disturb it? - Why then is it acceptable to ignore the buffer in this case? - And what level of bonding will be required to ensure that if an error occurs in the engineering estimates and the home can’t be constructed, or if indeed, the Wetland is “disturbed”, that the existing ecosystem can be restored? Who would be responsible for this bonding or other remedy? 4. RPBCWD Permit Application Review Page 5: Rule J: Stormwater Management 2nd paragraph Q: Who is the developer? Who will be responsible for this management? It is the task force’s understanding that no developer has been identified and therefore are concerned this will not be properly managed nor that anyone will be held accountable for this management. 5. RPBCWD Permit Application Review Page 5: Rate Control The existing and proposed 2-, 10-, and 100-year frequency discharges from the disturbed site area are summarized in the table below. As referenced in the RPBCWD Management Plan section 5.1.2 Climate Trends and Future Precipitation 6 This diagram shows 100 Year Rainfall Depths of “7.4 inches in 24 hours” as of 2013 (present standard), and “10 inches in 24 hours” at “Mid-Century” 2050.” Clearly, the City is expecting that any property built would last well beyond 2050. Q: Are the “Rate Control”, “Volume Abstraction” and “Low Floor Elevation” measurements based on 2013 precipitation standard estimates or on the more likely “Mid Century” estimates? Q: Given the lack of GPS data and erroneous boring hole locations and depths provided by Haugo Geotechnical Services, and given “Mid Century” estimates, - What assurances can the City provide to demonstrate that a Lake Nokomis scenario (See … Building on Nokomis swampland will haunt Minneapolis in wetter future, report says) isn’t being “Conditionally approved” by the Watershed district? Q: What assurances can the City provide to demonstrate no further encroachments on Wetland A will occur disrupting the established balance of neighborhood and wildlife? - Could the city also ensure the lack of GPS and incorrect boring locations from Haugo (see below) in this case would not lead to such an error or encroachment? Geotechnical Report Bundle Final 2-21-22 (Haugo Geotechnical Services) - 7 - Note: this video gives a good perspective on the location of the boring holes. White 5 gallon bucket lids are placed where the bore holes were located, two of which were not properly covered up. At the time of this production, it was not known that the house on Lot 3 would be cancelled. - - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qiiSER593Rh4t5ohWMaElROlv8ReKDVV/view? usp=sharing 6. RPBCWD Permit Application Review Page 5: Volume Abstraction Q: While the biofiltration basin may address run-off within the Morin property, given the slope and contours of the land, and the new driveway installation: - What direction will the water flow go? - Where will the underground water from the biofiltration basin be released? - How does the drainage process work for this basin? - What remediation is required to the west of the proposed development, i.e., at 6679 and 6675 Lakeway Drive? - Will this not result in an impact on the natural creek running between Wetland A to Wetland B? Note: this video shows the natural creek running from Wetland A to Wetland B. Will the drainage from the house on Lot 2 impact this natural flow of water? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f21Zxbf93-zIn-Jz5kwV-XV0iK4R4- Mr/view?usp=sharing Q: The existing private road, up to the turnaround, is not on Morin property. Furthermore, the turnaround area, which is on the Morin property, may not be up to the standards for fire equipment to service the new home. This new upgraded turnaround portion of the road would be necessary to provide access to the new home driveway. 8 - To provide this access, won’t the proposed development and broader surroundings, need to be “disturbed”? - Shouldn’t this road be under consideration for its impact on volume abstraction? - Will the developer be responsible for repairing the private road and turnaround to at least pre-construction condition? Who will be held accountable for this? 7. RPBCWD Permit Application Review and Haugo Geotechnical Report Page 6: Volume Abstraction Given two statements (shown below) made in the RPBCWD Permit Application 2022-007 and in the Haugo Geotechnical Services report dated Feb. 21, 2022: And, also from the Haugo Geotechnical Report dated 2-21-22: Q: “Given the cohesive nature of soils encountered, it is possible that insufficient time was available for groundwater to seep into the borings and rise to its hydrostatic level,” and another from the Haugo Geotechnical Services Report dated 2-21-22 Location and Elevations admitting that the Haugo GPS wasn’t working that day and so locations and elevations were estimated. - Wouldn’t it be prudent for the City to require the use of accurate GPS and re- borings with sufficient time for proper scientific evaluation of groundwater, to avoid 9 a “finding of fact” potential lawsuit in the future based on relying on a conditional approval from the Watershed, which isn’t actually based on factual scientific data? - Has anyone from the City looked at the boring holes to see the cone shapes of dirt at the top of them? - Could anyone reasonably conclude that blowing snow and snowmelt and even rain for that matter, directly entered those bore holes and then never evaporated? (Note, rain running down the hill would not go up the cone at the top to enter the boring hole; and in the woods blowing snow doesn’t really occur due to all the trees and location in a ravine). - Did the Applicant’s Engineer provide a model demonstrating the amount of snow that blew during that time period and the amount of water it therefore would have deposited in the bore hole? 8. RPBCWD Permit Application 2022-007, Page 6: Volume Extraction Q: Given the questions about the borings above, how was that concurrence arrived at? It would appear there is an assumption that the soil is clayey and therefore it would have an infiltration rate of 0.06 inches. - Wouldn’t it be prudent of the City to request a more specific scientific infiltration analysis? - Wouldn’t it be prudent to request that information prior to providing any conditional approval, especially given the Lake Nokomis scenario and previous City Errors referenced in Question 5 above? 9. RPBCWD Permit Application 2022-007, Page 8: Low Floor Elevation 10   J2.  The  applicant  must  submit  supporting  documentation  demonstrating  there  is   adequate  freeboard  or  separation  to  groundwater  to  achieve  the  low  floor  criteria  for  the   adjacent  structures  at  6679  Lakeway  Drive.  If  the  technical  information  demonstrates  the   existing  habitable  structure  would  be  brought  into  nonconformance  with  the  low  floor   requirement  in  subsection  3.6b,  design  modifications  to  achieve  compliance  with   RPBCWD  requirements  will  need  to  be  submitted  (in  the  form  of  an  application  for  a   permit  modification  or  new  permit).   Q: Since this property is already -4.4 below the 100 year event, who is liable if the engineering analysis proves to be in error, and the homeowners at 6679 Lakeway Drive incur water damages as a result? - Who pays for repairs and damages and liability? - Are the homeowners left hanging? 10. RPBCWD Permit Application 2022-007, Page 9: L Permit Fee Deposit Q: Has that deposit been made? What are implications if not replenished? 11. RPBCWD Permit Application 2022-007, Page 9: Rule M: Financial Assurance. The total Financial Assurance is stated as $57,283 Q: Who is responsible for providing the Financial Assurance? - Is that in the form of a bond? - Is a separate bond required to cover potential damages if something goes wrong during construction? - If so, what is the requested amount of that bond? 11 - What would be covered under financial Assurance and what is the timeframe? Q: Considering the potential for water damage due to the change in the natural flow of water is likely to impact 6679 Lakeway Drive, and possibly 6675 Lakeway Drive, does the City expect that $57,283 would cover those costs that would also arise outside of Lot 1 into Whitetail Cove? - What does the Planning Commission estimate this cost would be? Q: In order for the proposed development and surrounding homeowner properties to be in compliance with all State and other regulatory laws and codes, and eliminate any potential risk of future damage caused by such development, what is the estimated total cost of modifying the proposed development lot and surrounding existing homeowner properties?