Whitetail Cove_PLL Taskforce Letter to City of Chan 4-4-221
Don Giacchetti
From:Don Giacchetti
Sent:Monday, April 04, 2022 11:58 AM
To:Al-Jaff, Sharmeen
Cc:Heide Ahmann; Douglas Ahmann; Christopher Mozina
Subject:Neighborhood Concerns/Questions --- Letter to City of Chanhassen---Planning Dept.
Attachments:20220404 _ Whitetail Cove_PLL Taskforce Letter to City of Chan 4-4-22.pdf
Sharmeen,
This email and the attached letter involves 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).
A task force has been formed to communicate these concerns and questions to the City of Chanhassen---
Planning Dept.. We will be emailing out this letter/questions 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.
We have attempted to ask reasonable/practical questions and be as specific as possible in referencing the
particular section of the current 21 documents publicly available to us on the City’s online website from
which our questions arise. Hopefully, our attention to detail and ease of reference 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 wanted 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 and prompt responses….regards…DON
Don J. Giacchetti
TACT Solutions, Inc.
c#: 612-328-2853
website: www.tactsolutions.com
Chanhassen, MN 55317
LETTER TO CITY OF CHANHASSEN—
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
An Application for Development Review was submitted by Gayle Morin on January
28, 2022, to the City of Chanhassen for a Proposed Development at 1441 Lake
Lucy Road, Chanhassen, MN 55317 for two additional homes to be built to the
south of the existing Morin home at 1441 Lake Lucy Road.
The City has designated this proposed development as the Gayle Morin Addition
-- Rezoning and Subdivision with Variances project (Case# 2022-03). The
proposed rezoning is from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential.
The Application indicates there are 60 property owners within 500 feet of the
proposed development. A task force of neighbors (Whitetail Cove and Pointe Lake
Lucy) surrounding the proposed development has been formed to understand the
proposed development more fully.
It is recognized that the Diane G. Morin Trust as property owner has legal rights
regarding their property. However, after preliminary review of the 2 1 publicly
available planning documents on the City’s website, comprising 283 pages, there
are certain elements in the 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. There are numerous
questions in this report that we are submitting to the City Planning Department for
its review and corresponding answers. We appreciate the City’s attention to this
matter and await its responses.
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
Outstanding Concerns: Environmental
1. Soil Samples (Inconclusive) and inconsistent with Wetland
[Delineation] Report
Excerpts from Geotechnical Report dated 2-21-22 on pages 3 & 4 & 6 & Appendix
3
Q: Considering that soil samples were taken in February when the
soil was frozen to a depth of 2 to 3 feet below the ground surface
how much variation in the measurements, assumptions, analysis
and conclusions for “suitable to build” would there be if soil tests
were taken under “worst case” conditions rather than “best case”
conditions?
Q: With soil moisture contents at 19-to-25+ percent at depths of 5
feet to 10 feet below surface level as being described as “above
their assumed optimum soil moisture content levels” is that a
cause for concern?
Q: What would be the maximum moisture levels at those depths that
would preclude a favorable recommendation as “suitable to
build”?
Q: Would those maximum levels be approached/exceeded under
different times of testing when not frozen 2-3 feet below surface?
2. GPS failed – unable to obtain ground surface elevations and GPS
coordinates at soil boring locations
Excerpt from Geotechnical Report dated 2-21-22 on page-2
Q: If “estimated” elevation measurements are inaccurate, how would
you be able to compare with other studies and documents
showing accurate elevation data?
Q: Could this be a problem in understanding how close the boring
results were to the actual groundwater table as recorded in other
historical survey documents?
Q: Is it concerning to the City that assumptions were made without
proper location verification by GPS?
4
3. Groundwater Level at 20 feet down had no water observed in
boring holes however high moisture content (above optimal) was
uncovered in the lab testing of those boring samples.
Excerpt from Geotechnical Report dated 2-21-22 on page-3
Q: If there was potentially “insufficient time” for groundwater to
seep into boring and rise to the hydraulic level, especially in the
wintertime, then what is the level of risk that the analysis of
groundwater presence is inaccurate?
Q: What if groundwater levels are much higher than observed if
more time was given for seepage or tested in different seasons
and years? (e.g., after a drought or above average wet year)
Excerpt comparison aerial maps from
https://gis.co.carver.mn.us/publicparcel/?pin=250025820 website
under Property Viewers and then Historical Imagery for
associated wetlands show higher surface water in 2008 compared
to 2020.
2008 2020
Although water tables in recent surveys are much higher noting
that in any point of time, the water tables in this basin could
feasibly be higher or lower than they are today. Survey docs within
5
the Diane G. Morin Rezoning project reveal varying levels of water.
For example, northeast corner of Wetland B is at 964 and 962 feet
above sea level in two separate docs.
6
Q: How much variation in “seasonal and annual fluctuations in the
groundwater levels” are expected?
Excerpt MN DNR website documents the historic mega-rain events
in Minnesota that have happened periodically since 1973 and are
continued real possibilities in this climate.
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/summaries_and_publications/mega_rain_events.html
Q: What was the highest surface water levels recorded in the
associated wetlands in this area over the past 20 years, 40
years and even past 100 years?
Q: How does surface water levels impact groundwater levels in
this area?
Dick Loscheider (builder/developer) had an option to build on these
two propose lots (#2 and #3) in the 2003-2004 timeframe and
informed homeowner Don Giacchetti that he could not develop the
land since the lots did not pass the percolation (perc) test.
Q: Does the City have knowledge of any prior Geotechnical
surveys or other such reports/correspondence indicating
groundwater levels on the subject property.
Q: Does the City know any reason why Dick Loscheider could not
or did not build the two homes on those lots?
Q: Has a current “Geoenvironmental” study (more extensive than
a “Geotechnical” study) been performed on the land where this
proposed construction is sought to occur?
Q: Has any past “Geoenvironmental” (more extensive than a
“Geotechnical” study) study been performed on the site
location?
7
4. Wetland [Delineation] Report incomplete and not signed by Morin
(review performed 10/2021); Aquatic Resource Impact Summary
was not completed nor reference to any specific data within Part
Four of the application.
Q: Is the city still expecting the additional information for the
Wetland [Delineation] Report? Is there a deadline issued back
to the Diane G. Morin Trust to complete and sign the report?
Q: Has the city rejected the report since it is not properly
completed and signed?
Q: How would the City utilize information obtained through this
Aquatic Resource Impact Summary to assess the feasibility of
the proposed development?
8
5. Stormwater Calculations---ISSUES
Excerpts from Stormwater Report by Civil Site Group dated 2-17-22 on pages 4--5--6--7
Q: Does the City consider the Stormwater Report dated 2-17-22
complete and accurate in all respects?
Q: Filtration requirements are noted to have not been met due to
site constraints, has there been an update on this unsatisfied
condition?
Q: Exactly how much is a “sizable amount of additional trees
removed” would be needed in order to meet the Riley Purgatory
Bluff Creek Watershed District’s 3.1 requirements?
9
Q: Is this additional tree removal already included or not included
in the Stormwater Report and the Landscaping Plan and Tree
Survey?
Q: What is the impact/result of the impervious area not being
captured due to existing steep grades on the property?
Q: What is the impact/result of “water quality” being “Partially
Satisfied” when the text above states it is greater or equivalent
to the requirement? Does the City find this to be a bit
confusing?
Q: What is the impact/result of the Volume Control by rock
infiltration “water quality” being partially satisfied?
Q: Why would the “4.0 Conclusions:” section state that this project
meets all State, City and Watershed District” requirements while
also indicating several “requirements” are “partially satisfied”?
Q: How much grading and fill will be required to prepare lots for
construction of development?
10
Q: What impact will disturbance of the soil during grading and
filling have on the water run-off (during construction and years
after construction) into the pond wetland area A and B which
could also affect adversely affect water quality in Lake Lucy and
Lake Ann?
6. Landscape Proposal – Homes and retaining walls not consistent
among the documents submitted; for example, the Geotechnical
Report document as compared to the Proposed Landscaping
Plans vary greatly to the size, shape and exact location
Q: Does the city feel comfortable with the proposed location(s) of
the homes and retaining walls demonstrated in a way that the
full impact can be assessed on surrounding nature, wetlands
and wildlife?
11
7. Tree Preservation – all trees on designated lot are being cut down
except for 7 trees in total as designated with circles on the
Proposed Landscaping Plan. (Tree Tag number and species:
1000- Boxelder, 1001- Ash, 1035- [Basswood]/1037- Ash*, 1039-
Ash, 1058- Ash, 1073- Maple, 1074- [Basswood])
Q: Are these Ash trees, noted as being saved, diseased and will
further need to be removed? The percentage of tree canopy
kept in the Landscape Plan doc doesn’t seem to equate to
percentages of trees kept accurately and could be even less if
health of remaining trees not properly assessed. Does the city
have a minimum requirement? How does the city verify
requirements are met?
Q: *The Proposed Landscape Plan map conflicts with the legend
on the righthand side of the document: Tree #1035 is
designated as saved and circled however an additional
untagged tree (presumably Tree #1037) right above Tree #
1035, is not designated to have protective fencing during
construction while the legend to the right has #1035 cut down.
Will 1035 [Basswood] or will 1037 (Ash) be saved and have
12
protective fencing? Does the city have confidence the trees
were all tagged correctly?
Q: Is the City aware of any current designated tree preservation on
the site location? Has the city had an opportunity to assess
those protected trees as compared to those proposed to be cut
down? (For example, has the city reviewed Tree #1019 a
healthy 36” Oak Tree that is by far the largest tree in the
proposed development site.)
13
8. Wildlife Impact – breeding and migratory pathways for white tail
deer, loons, owls, wild turkeys etc.
Q: What impact will there be to all the year-round wildlife in the
area due to the substantial land grading, tree removal and
construction of 2 new homes in the wetland areas?
Q: Does the City require any wildlife study to be completed around
active lake, wetland and woodland areas for potential
displacement of animals, especially protected species such as
our state bird who currently nest on the shoreline of Wetland B?
14
9. Conservation Easement is not properly represented in all docs
(e.g., landscaping plan, plats)
Q: Is this a new request by the current property owner or an
existing Conservation Easement? Has the city granted approval
for this Conservation Request as noted in document labeled
“Conservation Easement – Exhibit” in the project documents?
Q: If it is a new request, does the City have any guidelines what
the proposed development will need to take into consideration
for this conservation easement? (e.g., water drainage and other
ecosystem factors while developing alongside.) What limitations
for new property owners in the future?
15
Q: Is the Conservation Easement offsetting the remaining canopy
saved in Question 7 above and therefore the proposed
development can cut down all but 7 trees in a wooded wetland?
Q: Do Conservation Easements on lake shores in the City of
Chanhassen allow public usage of the land? Who has access
other than the property owner, if applicable? Do Conservation
Easements have any perceived negative impacts on
neighboring property owners?
Outstanding Concerns: Development
1. Geotechnical study based on assumptions; it appears to have
been done without any actual proposed home size or structure
plans provided.
Q: How does the City’s 60’x60’ block footprint relate to an
unspecified home size/dimensions?
Q: How can the City, or surrounding property owners, be assured
that any constructed home would meet minimum requirements
of the city for size, location to easements/property lines, etc.?
16
2. Soil can only support 2,000 lbs per square foot; yet the assumption
for the development was that a building will include 2,000 to 3,000
pounds per lineal foot within the Geotechnical report.
Excerpts from Geotechnical Report dated 2-21-22 on Cover Letter and pages 4 & 5
Q: Can soil, in this location, support more than the 2,000 lbs per
square foot as stated in the Cover Letter?
Q: If not, then does a new analysis need to be prepared to support
the 3,000 pounds per lineal foot specification?
Q: What is the difference between square foot (2 dimension) and
lineal foot (only 1 dimension) in context of the plan and specs?
17
3. Soil Issues--- Report states that if proposed grades differ by more
than 2 feet from assumed values then additional analyses and
revised recommendations may be necessary.
Excerpts from Geotechnical Report dated 2-21-22 on page-5 and page-6
18
Q: If the elevation on Lake Lucy is 960 feet above sea level and
the pond (wetland A) is estimated at 970 feet and excavation of
topsoil will be 1-2 feet and the lower floor level of the 2 houses
to be built is planned to be at least 10 feet below grade, is the
basement for proposed house on Lot #3 then below the 960
feet level of Lake Lucy?
Q: Furthermore, the pond in wetland B is even higher than Lake
Lucy; and the pond in wetland A is even higher than the pond in
wetland B where homes are planned to be built. If this is the
case, won’t the proposed homes’ foundation and lower floor be
below surrounding surface water tables?
Q: Doesn’t the recommended construction separation distance of a
4-foot separation from groundwater and a 2-foot separation
from the 100-year flood levels (also see 1987 Twin Cities
Superstorm described above and previously) of “nearby
ponds, wetlands or other surface water” put the houses in even
further jeopardy of water damage and future insurance claims?
Q: How far below the Lake Lucy 960-feet level or the Wetland A
and B surface water levels is considered acceptable per City
building codes or other regulations?
Q: What are the consequences/impacts of not having accurate
measurements since the GPS failed during testing –
presumably they were unable to obtain ground surface
elevations and GPS coordinates at soil boring locations as
described previously?
Q: Since the water levels of Wetland A and B have increased over
20 years since Whitetail Cove and Pointe Lake Lucy
developments were constructed, as evidenced in satellite
imagery and surveys taken, has the city considered whether the
water tables will continue to increase and whether the future
homeowners of proposed lots 2 and 3 would have sufficient
drainage with the proposed filtration/drainage ponds?
19
Q: Would these proposed homes on Lot # 2&3 be considered to be
built in flood zones? Is the City of Chanhassen comfortable with
developments of single-family homes in flood zones? Are there
other requirements the proposed development will need to
consider?
4. House-pad sizing are inconsistent from document to document
(e.g., Preliminary Plat with revised Tree Survey as compared to
Landscaping Plan as compared to Geotechnical Report)
Q: Does the City understand which location and size is the
intended sketch? Will the city consider information submitted by
the current property owner to be insufficient and invalid due to
the inconsistencies?
20
5. Retaining Wall Issues--- Retaining wall construction is encroaching
neighboring property owner’s land.
Q: Have easement agreements been obtained (or will they be
needed) from adjoining property owners for the construction of
nearby retaining walls planned? How does the City typically
review these situations?
Q: What is the offset angle required to dig/construct a retaining
wall?
Q: If the angle is 45 degrees and the retaining wall is to be 10 feet
deep, then the set-back from the top of the retaining wall is also
10 feet, does this mean that if the retaining wall is 5 feet from
the property line would construction encroach on 5 feet of a
neighbor’s property?
Q: Are retaining walls represented in plan drawing at least 5 feet
from property line as required by City? How does the city
verify?
21
6. Conservation Easement - Exhibit (filed) is breached by house-pad
& construction in southwest corner (lot 3)
Q: Has the City provided temporary easement to the Conservation
Easement during construction of the proposed home on Lot #3?
Or has the city not finalized the Conservation Easement?
Q: Does the Temporary Easement access requested (as noted in
the Preliminary Plat-City Submittal 02-17-2022 Survey) apply to
both the Conservation Easement and Sewer Utility Easement?
Or just Sewer Access Easement?
22
Outstanding Concerns: Neighborhood Impacts
1. Private Drive – despite easement, concerns for maintenance and
upkeep during and post construction
Excerpts from Easement Agreement dated 2-4-99 (Morin and Loscheider, pages 2 & 3)
Q: What are the provisions in the proposed development plans to
repair, replace and restore to original pre-construction condition
of the private driveway for any damage to the private driveway
(asphalt/concrete curb/grass/utilities or other property) caused
by pedestrian, vehicular and/or construction vehicle ingress and
egress on the private driveway during any evaluation and/or
pre-and-post construction period?
Q: What are the provisions in the proposed development plans to
restrict construction activities to reasonable start/stop times so
as not to disturb the peace and also to not in any way interfere
with existing homeowner rights to readily access their homes as
a pedestrian or with their vehicles due to construction vehicles
and/or equipment blocking such access.
Q: If the private drive is blocked for a period of time, does the
proposed development have any requirements needing to be
met in order to not disrupt the neighborhood? (e.g., notification
of over-sized trucks unloading, etc.)
23
Q: Does the City, as an interested party, or existing property
owners, have any control over establishing reasonable weight
restriction limits on the private driveway or other reasonable
restrictions for the pre and post construction activities to protect
the property and rights of existing homeowners?
Q: Is the City, as a user of the sewer easement, responsible for or
have any liability for potential damage to the private driveway
(asphalt/concrete curb/grass/utilities or other property) from its
ingress and egress to sewer lines and/or other utilities in the
area?
2. No Lake Access (Lake Lot); the southern-most proposed lot #3
cannot be marketed as Lake Access (contains an unused and
abandoned easement).
24
Q: Does the City and Diane G. Morin Trust (owner of property
proposing development) acknowledge that Lot 3 does not
have lake access to Lake Lucy since the subject property line
goes through the pond in Wetland B?
Q: Does the City and Diane G. Morin Trust (owner of property
proposing development acknowledge that the 15-foot walking
access easement into the adjoining, separately owned and
private property of 6700 Pointe Lake Lucy has been under
water for 20+ years resulting in abandonment?
25
Q: Does the City recognize, and the Diane G. Morin Trust also
acknowledge, the 15-foot walking easement is “unusable and
abandoned” and underwater as noted by surveyors, contracted
by the Diane G. Morin Trust, which reflects the easement as
under water in the Preliminary Plat City Submittal 2-17-2022
Revised Tree Survey 031022 doc by Wetland B edge of water
lines?
Q: Does the Diane G. Morin Trust understand the Grant of Sewer
Easement access that was granted to the city, as noted in
Easement Doc. No. A244418, does not allow walking access to
Lake Lucy via neighboring private property around Wetland B?
26
Q: Since the referenced easement is unused and abandoned,
yet the foot access is still documented in several of the
project docs submitted by the Diane G. Morin Trust, is the
City’s intention to request a variance?
27
Outstanding Questions – Recent Timeline Changes
The Public Meetings have changed by two weeks for both the date of
the City Planning Commission and City Council (now May 3 and May 23
respectively.)
Q: How may this impact the deadlines presented in the project
documents as referenced such as the 60-day review of the
Agency Review Deadline that was previously set for April 7?
Q: Does the city have knowledge to whether the Trustee of the
Diane G. Morin Trust is intending to move the project forward?
Q: Will the City help the Trustee understand the magnitude and
complications of these issues we’ve listed in the questions
above?
28
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