Loading...
Narritive for Application1, From: Below lnterested Parties - Contact Chris Mozina 6670 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 (315)-622-8119 Date: August 18,2022 Notice of Zoning Appeal a. ln accordance with Section 20 ofthe 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 12141 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 ofthe city code. The interested parties below, alleged such errors with respect to the 1441 Lake Lucy Development proposal submitted at the July 19ti 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. lndeed it is the erroneous 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 lnterested Parties below allegations, thus triggering our Appeal. lnterested Parties: a. Jeff and Patti Dahl - 6675 Lakeway Drive, chanhassen, MN 55317 b. Don and Nancy Giacchetti - 6679 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 c. Tom Hoghau8 - 5713 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 d. Juli Schwartz - 5687 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 e. chris and Amy Adams - 5595 Lakeway Drive, chanhassen, MN 55317 f. Paul and Laurie Lokar-5642 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 g. Mike and Gina Buchholz-5655 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 h. Christopher Mozina and Jennifer Kemnitz - 5670 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 i. Tammy and Blake Tornga - 6686 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 i. Heida and Doug Ahmann - 6700 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 lnterests: 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 7 3 Appeal to the Chanhassen Zoning Board of Appeals concerning 1441 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen MN 55317. 4 d. As conscientious taxpayers subject to significant squandering oftaxes for the evaluation of a very mar8inal development property e. As property owners subject to potential substantial depreciation of property values f. As concerned environmental citlzens g. As indicated by receipt of "Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting" Dated tuly 7 ,2022. h. As indicated by the addresses above and the associated Carver county Property lnformation Public Records recording ownership in the indicated addresses Carver County Prop ertv lnformation -. Allegations: a. Basis of Allegations i. City presented a unified indivisible proposal that included both a Zoning approval and a Preliminary Platt approval. By virtue of the unified proposal, any defects/allegations exposed in the Zoning proposal by definition pollutes the Preliminary Platt proposal and any defects/allegations exposed in the Preliminary Platt by definition pollute the zoning proposal. ii. The City Staff by not addressing the numerous, specific and legitimate questions raised in a Letter and 3 Addendums from the 'Task Force"(all represented in the list of lnterested Parties)"(Letter and 3 Addendums in the public record), prior to the Public Hearing and Planning Commission meeting on luly 79,2022, failed to meet the specific requirement of Section 20-2 Purpose "(g) Secure equity among individuals in the use of their property." iii. lndividual 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 Platt 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 FindinBs 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." iii. According to to Sec 2043 Public Hearing should have occurred prior to the July 196 Planning Commission Meeting? "(b) lf a development is proposed adjacent to a lake or will affect the usage of the lake, the community development director may require an expanded mailing list for sites fronting on lakeshore where the development would be visible over a large area. The applicant is responsible for meeting with affected homeowners." c. Preliminary Platt Failed Requirements from Section 18-40: Section 1840 Preface: "Unless waived by the city because of the limited size and nature of the proposal, the following shall be furnished with a preliminary platt:" Further the City in the proposalto the Planning Commission on page 5 of 15 made the following determination: "The existing conditions survey now appears to meet all applicable requirements from Section 18-40 of Ordinance." However, that is not the case, and the City did not demonstrate a waiver of any of the following requirements which were not met: i. "An accurate soil report indicating soil conditions, permeability and slope" - The watershed concluded that this requirement was not met, and substantial evidence was provided at the public hearing on July 19th to support that conclusion. 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. "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 visualiration shall be used from flat shading for massing studies and preliminary design to photorealistic imaginB for final desi8n." 5. Remedies Requested Prior to the hearing of the Appeal: (These requests were articulated at a meeting held on August 17, 2022 with City Staff and the Clty Attorney. lt is requested that they again be reviewed and addressed). a. lmmediately halt any further proceedlngs concerning this development i. 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 fuly 25,ZOZ2 al 12:14 pm. The City Staff at a meetingon 8.17.22 indicated refusal to answer any previously presented questions or any further questions from the lnterested Parties thus again reinforcing the failure to meet the very purpose of Section 20 ""(g) Secure equity among individuals in the use of their property." b. Allow sufficient time for the interested parties to evaluate the answers provided by the City, and present additional evidence to support the appeal c. City Planning assistance to ensure all required forms and protocols are understood by lnterested Parties so that Appeal is not disqualified on procedural grounds. - At the meeting with City Staff and the City Attorney it was articulated numerous times by the City Staff that the City Staff was unclear how such an appeal should be addressed and what procedures to follow in doing so. No tuidance was received from the city Attorney other than pointing to the limited requirements in Section 20-29. d. City Planning assistance in describing how the appeal will be admlnistratively heard(verbally or in writing, with what submisslon deadlines). - Per the meeting with the City Attorney and City Staff on 8.17.22, Other than administrative scheduling elements with Section 20-29, there are no documented rules or standards of how an appeal will be heard and dispositioned. e. Conference to be scheduled with City Staff as per the Zoning Application checklist. f. City to provide, as soon as possible, Zoning Appeal Application Form. - Per the meeting with the City Attorney and City Staff on 8.17,22, there is no specific "Zoning Appeal Application Form", but instead, interested parties were asked to use the "Application for Development Review Form". The meeting clearly evidenced that this form did not seem to lend itself to the purpose of an Appeal, and indeed the City staff indicated that in 30 years the form was never used for an Appeal. Thus indicating there really isn't a well defined Appeal process although this is indeed stipulated as a requirement of Minnesota Statutes.