Whitetail Cove PLL Taskforce Questions Addendum 3 7-18-22From:Al-Jaff, Sharmeen
To:Potter, Jenny
Subject:FW: Urgent Communication to the 7 Appointed Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission for July 19 Meeting
Date:Monday, July 18, 2022 10:13:51 AM
Attachments:image027.png
image030.png
image032.png
Whitetail Cove--PLL Taskforce Questions Addendum 3--v1 7-18-22 NLG-DJG-CM.docx
image001.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
Hi Jenny,
Please post with other project documents
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: Christopher Mozina <CMozina@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:41 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@chanhassenmn.gov>
Cc: Al-Jaff, Sharmeen <sal-jaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Seidl, Joe <jseidl@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Urgent Communication to the 7 Appointed Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission for July 19
Meeting
Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
Kate,
Please ensure the delivery of my email listed immediately below to the 7 individual Appointed
Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. Such communication is in regards to the July
19, 2022 City Planning Commission meeting agenda item on the Gayle Morin Addition --
Rezoning and Subdivision with Variances project (Case# 2022-03), and the Proposed Motion
made publicly available on Friday, July 15th. We’ve worked extremely hard over the weekend, and
indeed over the last 4 months, both as Taxpayers and Impacted citizens, to raise critical legal,
environmental, engineering, and financial concerns to the City. We remain hopeful that before
proceeding with adopting the referenced motion, that the City will acknowledge and respond to all
of our concerns. We remain logically and objectively convinced that the proposal, as written should
be rejected.
Please ensure that all contents of the this email should be placed into the public record and
available for public viewing on the City of Chanhassen website.
Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Let me know if you should have any questions.
Best regards,
Chris Mozina
6670 Pointe Lake Lucy
315-622-8119
3RD ADDENDUM TO OUR LETTER TO
CITY OF CHANHASSEN—PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JULY 18, 2022
The following is a 3rd 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 many of the task force questions identified in the initial Letter or the 1st Addendum
submitted to the City on May 4, 2022 or the 2nd Addendum submitted to the City on July 8, 2022. For the record,
the task force has not received any response from the RPBCWD either.
Our Letter, 1st Addendum, 2nd Addendum and now this 3rd Addendum are all in regards to the Application for
Development Review originally 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)) and subsequent filings by the
Applicant. The proposed rezoning is from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential development.
The questions posed in this 3rd Addendum are based on all of the documents submitted since July 8, 2022. 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 it issuing a
Conditional Approval for the Morin Development Project. Additionally, the task force also disagrees with the City
Staff Department’s very recent recommendation to the City Planning Commission to “conditionally approve” the
Applicant’s motion to proceed with the development process. We “discovered” this new document late Friday night,
July 14th, 2022, inserted into the Planning Commission meeting agenda section of the website. Unfortunately, it is
not listed in the “Project Documents” section of the City’s Planning Department website for this project case where
all previous 37 other project documents have been listed for the public to view. Accordingly, the task force and
other public parties have had very little time to “react” to this new information.
The task force respectfully requests the City deliver a copy of this 3rd 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 the Appointed Managers 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 under the project documents portion of such website, so it is readily transparent
to the public.
We look forward to attending and speaking at the Planning Commission Meeting on July 19th at 7pm. The respective
neighborhood homeowners are hopeful that their questions and concerns will be addressed and answered. We
respectfully ask that the Appointed Members of the City Planning Commission to act in accordance with the
“prudent man” principle where a reasonable person uses common sense and exercises average care, skill, and
judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others'
interests.
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
The following items are found in the PDF file (filename--- “ staff_report_preliminary_final “ discovered on and
downloaded from the City website Friday late Friday night, July 14th, 2022, as it was inserted into the Planning
Commission meeting agenda section of the website. It is the City Staff recommendation for conditional approval.
Page 1
Q: What are the four outlots”?
Comment: the private road off Lakeway Drive remains Lakeway Drive. Homeowners have do not use Lakeway Court
as a mailing address or google map location. All of our mailboxes are on Lakeway Drive.
Page 6
Q: The services agreement exists between the new home-owner and what other party?
Q: What purpose does 7 feet of right-of-way serve on Lake Lucy Road?
Page 6
Existing Conditions Survey
The existing conditions survey now appears to meet all applicable requirements from Section 18-40 of Ordinance.
Extract from City Ordinance 18-40 Same –Data Required (b) Existing Conditions (7)(b):
Two soil borings on each drainfield site for a total of four soil borings per lot or per CSTS site and two percolation
tests per drainfield site for a total of four percolation tests per lot or CSTS site.
Given the Haugo Geotechnical Report dated 2-21-22 on page 3 (and highlighted in the Task Force April 4, 2022
Letter), “Given the cohesive nature of soils encountered, it is possible that insufficient time was available for
groundwater to seep into borings and rise to its hydrostatic level. Groundwater monitoring wells or piezometers
would be required to more accurately determine water levels. Seasonal and annual fluctuations in the groundwater
levels should be expected”.
Q. How can the City consider the required percolation tests to be complete when Haugo states “it is possible that
insufficient time was available for groundwater to seep into borings…”?
Q. Did the City Engineers ask how long Haugo stayed on the site to observe? If not, why not? What is the
engineering standard?
Given the Haugo Geotechnical Report dated 2-21-22 on page 2 (and highlighted in the Task Force April 4, 2022
Letter), “We attempted to obtain the ground surface elevations and coordinates at the soil boring locations using
GPS equipment but the GPS unit could not capture a signal which we assume was due to tree cover.”
Q. How can the City rely on the results of the percolation tests when Haugo themselves state that there GPS was not
working?
Q. Since Haugo’s GPS was not working, and “freeboard” is measured in feet, isn’t it possible that Haugo’s inability to
determine the true elevation could dramatically impact the ability to build on the site based on incorrect
determinations of groundwater levels? If so, who is liable for those incorrect determinations, and what could be the
cost to Chanhassen Taxpayers?
Q. Given the above, how can the City state “The existing conditions survey now appears to meet all applicable
requirements from Section 18-40 of Ordinance”.
Extract from City Ordinance 18-40 (b) Existing Conditions (8)
(8) An accurate soil report indicating soil conditions, permeability and slope
Q. Given the failed percolation tests (no time to observe results), and the failed GPS also reported above by Haugo,
how can the City state that the soil report is “accurate”?
Extract from City Ordinance 18-40 (d) Supplementary Information (4)
(4) A proposed grading plan shown at contour intervals appropriate to the topography or spot elevations indicating
the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features.
Q. Please demonstrate where this has been provided. The Ordinance does not describe “Custom Grading”. How
would the City be able to state that the Ordinance requirements have been met if this grading plan is not currently
available?
Q. Is the City aware of the precedent setting legal cases requiring the applicant to account for and remediate any
potential run-off that would negatively impact adjacent or surrounding property owners? Are plans to mitigate re-
directed water run-off that will severely impact neighbors included anywhere in the proposal? If not, why not? If
not, is the City accepting Legal liability for that lack of mitigation?
Extract from City Ordinance 18-40(d) Supplementary Information(4)(a)
a. All proposed retaining walls must be shown on the plan. The top and bottom elevations of the wall
must be noted.
Q. Have these elevations been accurately provided? If so, please demonstrate?
Q. Does the proposed design meet the requirements specified in the Ordinance?
Extract from City Ordinance 18-40(d) Supplementary Information(4)(b)(3)
3. The style of home (e.g., slab on grade, split entry, lookout, walkout, full basement) must be noted on the plan.
Q. Has the style of home been provided? If so, please demonstrate?
Extract from City Ordinance 18-40(d) Supplementary Information (11)
(11) Proposals for street lighting, curb and gutters, sidewalks and boulevard improvements.
Q. Have these proposals been provided? If so, please demonstrate?
Extract from City Ordinance 18-40(d) Supplementary Information (13)
(13) Photocomposite images, artistic renderings, or site elevations which depict the visual impact of the proposed
development’s design, landscaping, street layout, signage, pedestrian ways, lighting, buildings, or other details that
affect land use within the city shall be submitted. Such images and renderings shall be from key vantage points and
provide an undistorted perspective of the proposed development from abutting properties, less intensive land uses,
and/or from entryway locations. Appropriate levels of resolution for the visualization shall be used from flat shading
for massing studies and preliminary design to photorealistic imaging for final design.
Q. Have these images been provided? If so, please demonstrate? Do they provide an undistorted perspective of the
proposed development from abutting properties?
GOVERNANCE:
Q. Has the City provided the applicant with any official waiver to any of the provisions of the City Ordinance 18-40?
If not, aren’t the Commissioners bound to reject the proposal if any of the above are not accurately and immediately
satisfied?
Extract from City Ordinance Chapter 18 Sec 18-22 Variances
The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval
process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience
(b) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of
the land;
(c) The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable
to other property
(d) The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord
with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan
Q. Are any variances, either currently contemplated or expected in the future to support the implementation of this
proposal? If so, given all the detrimental impact statements and facts presented by the Task Force and expected at
the Public meeting, how can the City honestly state that (d) above is satisfied?
Page 6
Q: “Lots” is used in plural in the above information on grading. Is there grading to be done on the existing home lot
in addition to the new lot?
Q: What does “mass grading mean? What kind of construction equipment needs to be deployed (types and
weight)”?
Q: How much devastation will occur on which specific lots and is this when trees get torn out?
Q: Who is the “developer”? Has one been identified?
Q: What does that mean?
Q: Who is the “builder”?...Has one been identified?
Page 8
DRAINAGE
Q: What happens if there are changes to the drainage in these areas?
Q: What about all the extra water from new impervious surfaces draining into Wetland A and new artificial bio-
drain and new SWM flow into the existing natural creek flowing into Wetland B….that is “disturbance” to the
ecosystem….isn’t it?
Q: Does the City “guarantee” that there will be no adverse effects to neighbors’ property or surrounding ecosystem
from these changes?
Q: What are the risk levels???
Q: Whom are the parties liable if “the plan” does not work out? …the City, RPBCWD, the developer, the builder, Civil
Site Group, others???
Page 8-9
STREET
Q: What specifically will be done with the existing “dead-end turnaround” road to upgrade it for heavier vehicles to
access the new home and driveway?
Q: What “guarantee” is there, and from whom, that such new development construction of an upgraded
turnaround road will not cause the ecosystem to change with water now draining onto neighbors’ property and
causing damage?
Page 13
FINDINGS
Q: With so many detailed requirements laid out in the approved Conditional Approval from the RPBCWD and the
recently issued City Staff Recommendation Report:
How will the City enforce compliance in order to avoid the implementation being fraught with potential errors
and mistakes by City Staff and others which has happened in other cases (For Example Case #00-8 VAR June 20,
2000)
Q: How will this all get tracked to ensure that and future development complies with all such requirements?
Q: Will the RPBCWD and/or the City enforce the CA conditions or issue “variances” to accommodate the
developer/builder to the detriment of the neighboring homeowners and larger community?
Q: What visibility and transparency will the City and other involved agencies allow for the public to monitor the
process?
Q: What circumstances and conditions would cause the City to stop the development of this project?
Q: Is the City aware of the Bald Eagle nesting on or in extremely close proximity to the Morin property? Is the City
aware of the legal ramifications of disturbing a Bald Eagle’s habitat? Has the City done a study to ensure no
Bald Eagle habitat will be disturbed or destroyed during construction or after?
Chanhassen, MN 55317
3 RD ADDENDUM TO OUR LETTER TO
CITY OF CHANHASSEN—PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JULY 18, 2022
The following is a 3rd 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 many of the task force questions identified in
the initial Letter or the 1st Addendum submitted to the City on May 4, 2022 or the 2nd Addendum
submitted to the City on July 8, 2022. For the record, the task force has not received any response
from the RPBCWD either.
Our Letter, 1st Addendum, 2nd Addendum and now this 3rd Addendum are all in regards to the
Application for Development Review originally 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)) and subsequent filings by the Applicant. The proposed rezoning is from
Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential development.
The questions posed in this 3rd Addendum are based on all of the documents submitted since July 8,
2022. 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 it issuing a Conditional Approval for the Morin
Development Project. Additionally, the task force also disagrees with the City Staff Department’s very
recent recommendation to the City Planning Commission to “conditionally approve” the Applicant’s
motion to proceed with the development process. We “discovered” this new document late Friday
night, July 14th, 2022, inserted into the Planning Commission meeting agenda section of the website.
Unfortunately, it is not listed in the “Project Documents” section of the City’s Planning Department
website for this project case where all previous 37 other project documents have been listed for the
public to view. Accordingly, the task force and other public parties have had very little time to “react”
to this new information.
The task force respectfully requests the City deliver a copy of this 3rd 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 the Appointed Managers 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 under the
project documents portion of such website, so it is readily transparent to the public.
We look forward to attending and speaking at the Planning Commission Meeting on July 19th at 7pm.
The respective neighborhood homeowners are hopeful that their questions and concerns will be
addressed and answered. We respectfully ask that the Appointed Members of the City Planning
Commission to act in accordance with the “prudent man” principle where a reasonable person uses
common sense and exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its
members for the protection of their own and of others' interests.
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
The following items are found in the PDF file (filename--- “ staff_report_preliminary_final “
discovered on and downloaded from the City website Friday late Friday night, July 14th, 2022, as
it was inserted into the Planning Commission meeting agenda section of the website. It is the
City Staff recommendation for conditional approval.
Page 1
Q: What are the four outlots”?
Comment: the private road off Lakeway Drive remains Lakeway Drive. Homeowners have do
not use Lakeway Court as a mailing address or google map location. All of our mailboxes are on
Lakeway Drive.
Page 6
3
Q: The services agreement exists between the new home-owner and what other party?
Q: What purpose does 7 feet of right-of-way serve on Lake Lucy Road?
The existing conditions survey now appears to meet all applicable requirements from Section 18-
40 of Ordinance.
4
5
Q: “Lots” is used in plural in the above information on grading. Is there grading to be done on the
existing home lot in addition to the new lot?
Q: What does “mass grading mean? What kind of construction equipment needs to be deployed
(types and weight)”?
Q: How much devastation will occur on which specific lots and is this when trees get torn out?
Q: Who is the “developer”? Has one been identified?
Q: What does that mean?
Q: Who is the “builder”?...Has one been identified?
Page 8
6
Q: What happens if there are changes to the drainage in these areas?
Q: What about all the extra water from new impervious surfaces draining into Wetland A and
new artificial bio-drain and new SWM flow into the existing natural creek flowing into Wetland
B….that is “disturbance” to the ecosystem….isn’t it?
Q: Does the City “guarantee” that there will be no adverse effects to neighbors’ property or
surrounding ecosystem from these changes?
Q: What are the risk levels???
Q: Whom are the parties liable if “the plan” does not work out? …the City, RPBCWD, the
developer, the builder, Civil Site Group, others???
Page 8-9
STREET
Q: What specifically will be done with the existing “dead-end turnaround” road to upgrade it for
heavier vehicles to access the new home and driveway?
Q: What “guarantee” is there, and from whom, that such new development construction of an
upgraded turnaround road will not cause the ecosystem to change with water now draining
onto neighbors’ property and causing damage?
Page 13
FINDINGS
Q: With so many detailed requirements laid out in the approved Conditional Approval from the
RPBCWD and the recently issued City Staff Recommendation Report:
How will the City enforce compliance in order to avoid the implementation being fraught with
potential errors and mistakes by City Staff and others which has happened in other cases
(For Example Case #00-8 VAR June 20, 2000)
Q: How will this all get tracked to ensure that and future development complies with all such
requirements?
Q: Will the RPBCWD and/or the City enforce the CA conditions or issue “variances” to
accommodate the developer/builder to the detriment of the neighboring homeowners and
larger community?
7
Q: What visibility and transparency will the City and other involved agencies allow for the public
to monitor the process?
Q: What circumstances and conditions would cause the City to stop the development of this
project?
Q: Is the City aware of the Bald Eagle nesting on or in extremely close proximity to the Morin
property? Is the City aware of the legal ramifications of disturbing a Bald Eagle’s habitat?
Has the City done a study to ensure no Bald Eagle habitat will be disturbed or destroyed
during construction or after?