Email and attachment from Chris MozinaFrom: Christopher Mozina <CMozina@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 10:39 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@chanhassenmn.gov>
Cc: Al-Jaff, Sharmeen <sal-jaff@chanhassenmn.gov>; Heide Ahmann <heideahmann@gmail.com>;
Don.Giacchetti@TACTSOLUTIONS.COM; Douglas Ahmann <douglasahmann@gmail.com>; Nancy
Giacchetti <nancy.giacchetti@partnersinsynq.com>
Subject: Notice of Zoning Appeal to Planning Commission Approval of 1441 Development Proposal July
19, 2022
Hi Kate,
1. Commitment to answer “Task Force” questions: I wanted to follow-up with you concerning
our 22 minute conversation on July 25, 2022 at 12:14pm. During that conversation you
indicated that the City would indeed answer all of the questions submitted by the “Task
Force” with respect to the development at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. To date, we have not
received those answers. I’m concerned because the answers would edify an appeal of the
Planning Commissions approval of the proposal made at the July 19, 2022 Planning
Commission meeting. Myself, and other parties, have various and substantial interests that
will be harmed if the approved proposal should ever be acted on. Please let us know when
the City will provide the answers you committed to during our July 25 conversation to the
Task Force, to include the questions in the original Letter and the 3 Addendums that are all a
part of the public record.
2. Notice of Appeal and Request for Meeting as per the Zoning Appeal Application Checklist:
Consistent with our conversation on July 25, 2022, I’d like to once again discuss the appeal
process to ensure that myself and the parties with interest meet all required administrative
procedures for the execution of our appeal. We are reaching out as citizens for help from
someone on the City of Chanhassen staff to help us to navigate the appeal process. To date,
we have been able to find a “Zoning Appeal Application Checklist” which states the
following:
“Zoning appeals occur where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement,
decision or determination made by a city administrative officer in the enforcement of the City Code.
Prior to filing an application for a Zoning Appeal, the applicant shall attend a conference with
city staff. The application shall include the following:
1. Completed Application Form
2. Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property
3. Application fee of $100
4. Narrative describing the appeal”
Again, the application checklist was easy to find, however, I haven’t been able to find
the actual “Application Form”. Please send me a copy of the Zoning Appeal Application
Form. Please also let me know how/when we can schedule the necessary conference
referenced in the application checklist.
1. Outline of Appeal: Attached you’ll find the significantly completed “Narrative describing the
appeal”. In short, the allegations are a. that the Zoning proposal was based on a significant
error in the findings of fact document by the City Administrative staff, b. that the unified
proposal that included both Zoning and Preliminary Platt subdivision recommendations was
written in such a way as to be indivisible; meaning errors and omissions by City Staff in one
regard would because of the unified nature of the proposal, pollute the entire proposal, c.
the City has not presented a formal waiver of the requirements of section 18.40 of the code,
and as such all requirements should have been met by the applicant, but there is no
evidence to support the fulfilment of 4 of the significant requirements of section 18. Again,
in the interest of all parties, I respectfully ask that the answers to the questions of the Task
Force be supplied as many are directly relevant to the appeal itself. As a concerned
taxpayer, citizen of Chanhassen, and substantially interested party, I’m concerned both for
my own interests, as well as the interests of the Task Force, and most importantly the
Chanhassen Community as a whole. I’m anxious to prevent the squandering of additional
Tax Payer money on an ill conceived property development proposal, as well as to avoid the
City being engaged in legal action from both from private citizens and the Federal
Government.
2. Next Steps:
1. Please make this email and the attached Notice of Appeal a part of the Public Record for
the 1441 Lake Lucy Development
2. Please send me a copy of the Zoning Appeal Application Form
3. Please let me know when the City will provide written responses to the Task Force
questions as committed on July 25, 2022.
4. Please let me know as soon as possible when members of the City staff are available to
conference.
5. Please forward this email and the attachment to each of the City Planning
Commissioners
6. Please postpone presenting this at the August 22, 2022 City Council meeting; pending
the conclusion of the Appeal.
Sincerely,
Chris Mozina
315-622-8119
1. Notice of Zoning Appeal
a. In accordance with Section 20 of the City of Chanhassen Ordinances, the below
interested taxpayers, interested property owners, interested environmental stewards
and citizens of Chanhassen, hereby submit an appeal of the Planning Commissions
approval of the 1441 Lake Lucy Development administered on July 19, 2022.
b. Zoning appeals, according to Section 20 of the Chanhassen Municipal Code, occur where
it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination
made by a city administrative officer in the enforcement of the City Code. The
interested parties below, alleged such errors with respect to the 1441 Lake Lucy
Development proposal submitted at the July 19th Planning Commission meeting which
states:
“Recommendation The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of
rezoning of property from Rural Residential District (RR) to Single Family Residential
District (RSF), preliminary plat to subdivide 4.75 acres into two lots as shown in plans
Received June 16, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of
Fact and Recommendation.”
c. Indeed it is the erroneous zoning and preliminary Findings of Fact and the Failure of the
City Staff to ensure that all requirements, unless officially waived, of Section 18-40 were
met, that form the basis of the Interested Parties below allegations, thus triggering our
Appeal.
2. Interested Parties:
a. Jeff and Patti Dahl
b. Don and Nancy Giacchetti
c. Juli Schwartz
d. Chris and Amy Adams
e. Tom Hoghaug
f. Paul and Laurie Lokar
g. Mike and Gina Buchholz
h. Christopher Mozina and Jennifer Kemnitz
i. Tammy and Blake Tornga
j. Heide and Doug Ahmann
3. Interests:
a. As stated in Watershed Documents – Property Owners with Wetland A within Property
b. As stated in Watershed Documents – Properties specifically labeled by Watershed as
being potentially significantly impacted by the proposal
c. As conscientious taxpayers who wish to avoid lawsuits from adjacent owners whose
drainage plans are not articulated in the proposal
d. As conscientious taxpayers subject to significant squandering of taxes for the evaluation
of a very marginal development property
e. As property owners subject to potential substantial depreciation of property values
f. As concerned environmental citizens
4. Allegations:
a. Basis of Allegations
i. It is alleged that Erik Johnson, a Planning Commissioner, has a conflict of
interest which he did not disclose, and by virtue of the City requiring his resume,
the City knew or should have known that he should recuse himself, but he did
not recuse himself from the vote. It is therefore alleged that the vote is invalid.
ii. City presented a unified indivisible proposal that included both a Zoning
approval and a Preliminary Plat approval. By virtue of the unified proposal, any
defects/allegations exposed in the Zoning proposal by definition pollutes the
Preliminary Plat proposal and any defects/allegations exposed in the Preliminary
Plat by definition pollute the Zoning proposal.
iii. Individual allegations from Zoning Findings of Fact –
1. Will not cause depreciation – The interest parties allege that this finding
of fact is in fact not a fact and has no expert factual basis to support it
such as a Comparative Market Analysis of adjacent properties.
iv. Allegations from Preliminary Plat Requirements not met and not formally
waived by the City Planners
v. Pre-emptive allegation of intended granting of variances without due process to
assess the buildability of the property – perching water, soil samples inaccurate:
Civil Site essentially described how it is possible to overcome any building
obstacle, i.e. through variances
b. Zoning Erroneous Findings of Fact
i. “d. The proposed zoning will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which
it is proposed.”
ii. “f. Traffic generation by the proposed use within the zoning district is within
capabilities of streets serving the property.”
c. Preliminary Plat Failed Requirements from Section 18-40:
i. “An accurate soil report indicating soil conditions, permeability and slope”
ii. “All proposed retaining walls must be shown on the plan. The top and bottom
elevations of the wall must be noted.”
iii. “The style of home (e.g. slab on grade, split entry, lookout, walkout, full
basement) must be noted on the plan.”
iv. “Proposals for street lighting, curb and gutters, sidewalks and boulevard
improvements.”
v. “Photo composite 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.”
5. Remedies Requested Prior to Further Actions on this Project
a. Immediately halt any further proceedings concerning this development
b. City Staff to answer all Task Force Questions in writing as per the commitment from
Kate Aanenson in a 22-minute conversation with Christopher Mozina on July 25, 2022,
at 12:14 pm.
c. Allow sufficient time for the interested parties to evaluate the answers provided by the
City, and present additional evidence to support the appeal
d. City Planning assistance to ensure all required forms and protocols are understood by
Interested Parties so that Appeal is not disqualified on procedural grounds.
e. City Planning assistance in describing how the appeal will be administratively heard
(verbally or in writing, with what submission deadlines).
f. Conference to be scheduled with City Staff as per the Zoning Application Checklist.
g. City to provide, as soon as possible, Zoning Appeal Application Form.