Loading...
09-06-2022 Agenda and Packet A.7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS B.1 Short Term Rental Code Amendment B.2 Appeal Regarding Alleged Error in an: Order, Requirement, Decision, or Determination, made by a City Administrative Officer on the Gayle Morin Addition - 1441 Lake Lucy Road C.GENERAL BUSINESS D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated August 16, 2022 E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS F.1 City Council Action Update G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION H.ADJOURNMENT I.OPEN DISCUSSION AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record 1 based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. 2 Planning Commission Item September 6, 2022 Item Short Term Rental Code Amendment File No.Item No: B.1 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations Chapter 13 Nuisances, prohibits noisy gatherings, establishes quiet hours, prohibits accumulations of trash/junk, etc. SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Chapter 1, General Provisions, and Chapter 20, Zoning, concerning short term rentals and establish licensing and regulations for operating short term rentals." SUMMARY Short-term rentals are not currently addressed by the City Code, due to their potential to become nuisance properties the City is considering adopting licensing and performance standards to mitigate their potential impacts on surrounding properties. BACKGROUND February 12, 2018, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work session, 3 and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it key financial strategy for 2018. January 28, 2019, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work session, and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it key financial strategy for 2019. July 25, 2022, due to an increased volume of complaints the City Council asked staff to prepare a briefing on short-term rentals. The City Council reviewed this briefing and directed staff to investigate possible approaches to regulating short-term rentals. August 8, 2022, staff presented information from Host Compliance, a service that helps municipalities monitor short-term rentals, and proposed several possible regulatory approaches. The City Council directed staff to draft an issue paper and ordinance amendment to establish a licensing system for short- term rentals. DISCUSSION Short-term rentals provide property owners with an opportunity to use their home to generate supplemental income and can help make the City a desirable destination for tourists by supplementing the traditional hospitality industry; however, these properties can also become nuisances when they are used to host noisy gatherings and parties in residential neighborhoods. Recently the City has experienced an increase in complaints associated with short-term rentals and the City Council has directed staff to look into possible options for addressing residents’ concerns with these properties. There are three regulatory approaches that the City could adopt: 1) ban short-term rentals; 2) adopt additional general standards to regulate aspects of the short-term rentals not currently addressed by the nuisance ordinance; or, 3) require short-term rentals to be licensed. In the third approach, performance standards would be attached to the license and violations of these standards would result in the revocation of the short-term rental’s license. Staff believes that the first approach would unduly penalize responsible short-term rental owners and that the second approach would not be any more successful at addressing problematic short-term rentals than the current approach of using the nuisance ordinance to respond to reported violations. Staff is recommending the third approach because it will allow responsible short-term rentals to continue to operate in the City while providing additional tools to address problematic properties. Under the proposed license system, short term rentals would be defined as the rental of all or part of a residential property for a period of less than 30 days. Any short-term rental would be required to apply for and receive a license. Each short-term rental would be approved for a maximum number of overnight guests and overnight parking. Additional standards would reiterate the City’s most applicable nuisance provisions (i.e. noise and trash) and regulate parking and daytime visitors. Finally, owners would be required to display The Good Neighbor Brochure (attached) and to grant the City the right to enter the property in response to a complaint to determine if an ordinance violation had occurred. If a short-term rental accrued three violations in a year, the license would be revoked, and any individual violation would constitute a misdemeanor. Staff is proposing that the City contract with an outside organization to help identify short-term rental properties and operate a 24/7 reporting system. Staff believes that the proposed license system combined with additional monitoring and enforcement tools will help ensure that for the short-term rentals in the City operate with a minimal impact on surrounding properties 4 A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City define short-term rentals and adopt regulations requiring them to register with the city and abide by performance standards. The proposed ordinance is included as an attachment. ATTACHMENTS Short Term Rental Issue Paper Short Term Rental Ordinance Good Neighbor Policy Rental Property Flyer 2021 Email From Resident Email From Resident (2) 5 MEMORANDUM TO:Planning Commission FROM:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner DATE:September 6, 2022 SUBJ:Short-term Rentals Issue: Short-term rentals are not currently addressed by the City Code, due to their potential to become nuisance properties the City is considering adopting licensing and performance standards to mitigate their potential impacts on surrounding properties. Summary: Short-term rentals provide property owners with an opportunity to use their home to generate supplemental income and can help make the City a desirable destination for tourists by supplementing the traditional hospitality industry; however, these properties can also become nuisances when they are used to host noisy gatherings and parties in residential neighborhoods. Recently the City has experienced an increase in complaints associated with short-term rentals and the City Council has directed staff to look into possible options for addressing residents’ concerns with these properties. There are three regulatory approaches that the City could adopt: 1) ban short-term rentals; 2) adopt additional general standards to regulate aspects of the short-term rentals not currently addressed by the nuisance ordinance; or, 3) require short-term rentals to be licensed. In the third approach, performance standards would be attached to the license and violations of these standards would result in the revocation of the short-term rental’s license. Staff believes that the first approach would unduly penalize responsible short-term rental owners and that the second approach would not be any more successful at addressing problematic short-term rentals than the current approach of using the nuisance ordinance to respond to reported violations. Staff is PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20, concerning short-term rentals.” 6 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 2 of 9 recommending the third approach because it will allow responsible short-term rentals to continue to operate in the city while providing additional tools to address problematic properties. Under the proposed license system, short term rentals would be defined as the rental of all or part of a residential property for a period of less than 30 days. Any short-term rental would be required to apply for and receive a license. Each short-term rental would be approved for a maximum number of overnight guests and overnight parking. Additional standards would reiterate the City’s most applicable nuisance provisions (i.e. noise and trash) and regulate parking and daytime visitors. Finally, owners would be required to display The Good Neighbor Brochure (attached) and to grant the City the right to enter the property in response to a complaint to determine if an ordinance violation had occurred. If a short-term rental accrued three violations in a year, the license would be revoked, and any individual violation would constitute a misdemeanor. Staff is proposing that the City contract with an outside organization to help identify short-term rental properties and operate a 24/7 reporting system. Staff believes that the proposed license system combined with additional monitoring and enforcement tools will help ensure that for the short-term rentals in the City operate with a minimal impact on surrounding properties Relevant City Code: Chapter 13 Nuisances, prohibits noisy gatherings, establishes quiet hours, prohibits accumulations of trash/junk, etc. Background: Timeline: February 12, 2018, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work session, and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it key financial strategy for 2018. January 28, 2019, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work session, and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it key financial strategy for 2019. July 25, 2022, due to an increased volume of complaints the City Council asked staff to prepare a briefing on short-term rentals. The City Council reviewed this briefing and directed staff to investigate possible approaches to regulating short-term rentals. August 8, 2022, staff presented information from Host Compliance, a service that helps municipalities monitor short-term rentals, and proposed several possible regulatory approaches. The City Council directed staff to draft an issue paper and ordinance amendment to establish a licensing system for short-term rentals. 7 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 3 of 9 Survey of Comparable Cities: As part of staff’s research on this issue a survey of comparable cities was conducted. The results of this survey are described below: Not Regulated Regulate Same as Long Term Rentals Specific Short-term Rental Regulations Prohibit Short-term Rental 5 5 1 3 The one city that had specific short-term rental regulations caped the number of days they could be rented at a maximum of 60 days per year, but had no other short-term rental specific standard. Cities that defined the term short-term rental did so based on the duration of the rental, using either 15, 30, or 60 days as the criteria. Cities with rental regulations or prohibitions indicated they used complaint based enforcement to ensure compliance with their short-term rental ordinances. Five cities charged license fees for rental properties, with fees ranging from 60 dollars to 205 dollars. Analysis: Issue 1: Overview Over the last decade, there has been a rapid growth in the short-term rental industry. Property owners can use websites like Airbnb to list either a room or entire property as available for rent. Some individuals use these sites to rent out a room once or twice a year, while others own numerous properties and make their living renting out these properties. Neighbors, especially 8 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 4 of 9 those living next to non-owner occupied rental properties, often feel that renters are less respectful of nuisance ordinances and neighborhood norms than fulltime residents are; however, property owners using their property for short-term rentals feel that these concerns are overstated, that they have a right to rent out their property, that short-term rentals make the community more desirable for tourists, and note that property owners sometimes rely on the supplemental income to help them maintain their homes. Based on data provided by Host Compliance, a service that helps cities identify and regulate short-term rentals, there are approximately 37 short-term rentals operating in Chanhassen. Staff believes that this number may include a number of properties that were listed once, but are not actively being rented. The available date shows that 85 percent of these rentals are single-family homes and in 95 percent of cases the entire home is being offered for rent. The average price is $468.00 per night. While not necessarily indicative of the number of short-term rentals in the City, there has been a recent increase in calls asking about the possibility of using for homes for short-term rentals. So far in 2022 staff has received 4 inquires, this compared to 3 inquiries between 2021 and August 2016 (no records are readily available prior to August 2016). Two of the inquiries received this year were from individuals looking to buy for sale homes for use as short-term rentals. As staff was not tracking this issue as closely in previous years, the available notes are not sufficiently detailed to determine if the inquiries made between 2021 and 2016 where from current or prospective property owners. Due to the fact the complaints are received by different departments (i.e. Community Development, Code Enforcement Specialist, and Carver County Sheriff’s Department) and that complaints may not specify if the property is a short-term rental or not, it is not possible to provide concrete numbers on the number of complaints involving short-term rentals that the City receives. Anecdotally, staff believes that while the overall number of complaints is still low in absolute terms, the number and severity of complaints has increased in the last couple years. Given the increased interest in short-terms rentals and the presence of several problematic properties in the City, staff is recommending that the City adopt a regulatory scheme to address these types of uses. Issue 2: Regulatory Approaches Ban The City could pass an ordinance banning short-term rentals. In this scenario staff would work to identify all short-term rentals in the City and require them to cease operating. Staff would likely need to utilize the court system to enforce the ban in cases where owners chose to continue operations despite the ban, and past experience with home occupations leads staff to believe that in these cases enforcement would be a resource intensive process. Since most short-term rentals have not generated any complaints, staff believes that a ban would address the issue of a small number of problematic properties by preventing everyone, including 9 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 5 of 9 responsible operators, from using their property in a manner that had previously been permitted. Given that there is a market for this service, that most short-term rentals are not causing issues, and considering the benefits that residents can accrue from using their properties as a short-term rental, staff is not recommending that the City ban short-term rentals. General Standards The second regulatory approach that the City could adopt would be passing an ordinance establishing performance standards for short-term rentals. Under this approach the City would adopt various rules governing noise, parking, and other elements of the short-term rental businesses and then enforce these rules when a complaint is received. This approach would be consistent with how the City addresses most other nuisances and how issues with short-term rentals are currently addressed. The difficulty with this approach is that the City’s general enforcement practices are designed to address violations that can be tied to a specific occupant or present owner. For example, if a resident violated the noise ordinance by hosting a noisy gathering, they could be given a citation. Since the person controlling the property is the person penalized, they have an incentive not to repeat the violation. In the case of a short-term rental, the citation given in response to the noise violation would be to the renters, and the operator of the short-term rental would not be penalized and would not have an incentive to prevent future violations. The other issue with this approach is that it is reactive. While staff can engage in educational activities, past experience shows that some residents will not be aware of the new rules until they receive a letter stating they have violated the rules. Often times by the time a neighbor reports a violation, they are already very frustrated by multiple infractions and want a quick resolution to the issue. When dealing with a short-term rental property where the operator may not reside in the community it can take staff a significant amount of time to get in touch with the owner and in some cases, such as the noise example above, the owner may have little incentive to substantively address the issue. For these reasons, staff does not believe that adopting general standards will effectively address the issues the City is facing with short-term rental properties. Especially considering that several of the most common complaints (noise and trash) are already addressed by the City’s existing ordinances. Licensure The final regulatory approach would be requiring a license for the operation of short-term rentals in the City. Under this system properties seeking to operate as short-term rentals would need to provide the City with the operator’s contact information as well as information to determine the property’s parking and occupancy limits. Staff is proposing an occupancy limit of two adults plus two adults per bedroom and a parking limit of two cars plus one car per garage stall. The City would establish rules for short-term rentals and a process for revoking the license of any short-term rental that violated the rules three times in a given year. Violation of the rules governing short-term rentals would also be a misdemeanor which would make it easier for the 10 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 6 of 9 City to take enforcement action against the property owner, rather than just the temporary occupant. A condition of the license would be that property owners grant the City permission to enter the yard/property when responding to a reported violation of the license in order to ascertain if the property is in fact in violation. The City would bar properties that had previously had a short-term rental license revoked from receiving a new license for stipulated period of time. Under this approach, the City would contract with an outside organization to identify short-term rentals operating in the City and would send these properties letters notifying them of the license requirement and associated standards. A license fee would be established defray the cost of this service and the staff time associated with processing and monitoring the licenses. Staff would use the provided contact information to notify owners of any violations and work with them to prevent future violations. When necessary, licenses could be revoked. While there is still the potential for enforcement issues for problematic properties that attempt to operate without a license, this approach provides the City with a more robust tool set for ensuring that short-term rentals do not negatively impact surrounding properties. It will also allow for responsible short-term rentals to continue to function with minimal changes to their operation. For these reasons staff is recommending that a license requirement be adopted. Issue 3: Performance Standards The most common complaints the City receives regarding short-term rentals are related to noise, trash, and parking. To address these issues the City will require that short-term rentals prominently display the City’s Good Neighbor Brochure which will make sure occupants are aware of the City’s nuisance ordinances. The license standards will prohibit noisy gatherings and require that occupants adhere to the City’s quiet hours. They will also restrict the number of daytime guests that the renters can have at the property between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to four adults. Overnight parking will be limited to the maximum parking stipulated by the property’s license, and in no case will vehicles be allowed to obstruct emergency vehicle access or access to neighboring properties. Staff believes these provisions will help deter short-term rental operators from letting their properties be used as party houses. Staff is also proposing additional standards requiring the provision and proper storage of an adequate number of trash receptacles to help address complaints about excessive trash generated by some of these properties. Issue 4: Enforcement Staff is proposing to contract with an outside organization to identify short-term rentals operating in the community. Using this information staff would contact those properties and inform them of the licensing requirements and standards. If necessary, the City would utilize the court system to require properties refusing to get a license to cease operations. Staff is also proposing to contract with an outside organization for a 24/7 reporting system which will permit neighbors to report suspected violations. This hotline has the ability to reach out to property owners through their 24/7 telephone number to inform them of the violation and 11 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 7 of 9 encourage prompt resolution of the issues. As part of the service the reporting system allows the uploading of photos/videos which will help staff determine the extent of the violation. In the case of egregious violations or situations where the property owner failed to resolve the situation, the proposed ordinance makes the violation of its standards a misdemeanor. The City can use this language to pursue a variety of remedies. A final enforcement tool under the proposed ordinance is the ability to revoke a short-term rental’s license. If a property had three violations within a calendar year the ordinance would permit the City to revoke a short-term rental’s license. If a license is revoked the property would be ineligible to receive a license for a seven year period. Staff feels the use of a 24/7 reporting system, misdemeanors, and ability to revoke licenses will provide superior enforcement tools compared to what is currently available under the nuisance ordinance of the City Code. Alternatives: 1) Do nothing. The City would continue to respond to complaints against specific properties through its nuisance ordinance, but no specific provisions would address short-term rentals. 2) Define and ban short-term rentals. 3) Define short-term rentals, require them to register with the City, and adopt regulations governing them. 4) Define short-term rentals and adopt regulations governing them. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City define short-term rentals and adopt regulations requiring them to register with the city and abide by performance standards. The proposed ordinance would read as follows: Section 1-2 Rules of Construction and Definition Short-term Rental means the renting or offer to make available for compensation or consideration, of residential property, a dwelling unit, or a portion thereof, for a period of 30 days or less. Section 20-961 Short-term Rentals (a)Intent. The City recognizes that short-term rentals provide an opportunity for residents to use their property to generate supplemental income; and, when properly managed, short- term rentals have a minimal impact on surrounding properties. When not properly managed, short-term rentals have the capacity to generate noise, traffic, and trash beyond what is typically present in a residential neighborhood creating a nuisance. These issues can be especially acute when the owner of the property does not reside in the home. In order to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the 12 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 8 of 9 community, the City facilitates and regulates the use of residential properties for short- term rentals by: a. Requiring the licensure of short-term rentals. b. Establishing standards pertaining to noise, maximum occupancy, parking, and waste generation for short-term rentals. c. Establish procedures for revoking the licenses of short-term rentals violating the provisions of this section. (b)License Required.No property shall be used as a short-term rental without a license issued by the City. The procedure for receiving a license shall be as follows: a. Application for a license shall be made to the City upon a form furnished by the City. A nonrefundable fee in the amount established by the ordinance adopting fees shall be paid to the City when the application is filed. b. In order to be issued a license the applicant must: i. Provide the name and contact information, including a 24-hour telephone number, for the party responsible for managing the property. ii. State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental. The maximum occupancy shall be two adults plus an additional two adults per bedroom. iii. State the maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on the property. The maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on the property shall be two vehicles plus one for each garage stall. iv. Agree that City Staff has permission to access their yard/private property when responding to a reported violation of the standards in this section in order to ascertain if a violation has occurred. v. Not have any unresolved Code Enforcement or Property Maintenance cases. vi. Not have had a short-term rental license revoked by the City of Chanhassen within the last seven years. vii. If the owner of a short-term rental fails to apply for a license within thirty days of being notified of the need for a license by the City, they shall be ineligible for a license for a period of one year from the date of the notice. (c)Standards.The following standards apply to all short-term rentals: a. Guests shall not be permitted to participate in any party or other gathering of people giving rise to noise, unreasonably disturbing the peace, quiet, or repose of another person. The operation of any such set, instrument, machine, or other device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly audible at the property line is prohibited. b. An appropriate number of waste containers must be present to accommodate the amount of trash generated by the short-term rental. Waste may not be stored outside of approved containers. All waste containers must be stored outside of public view, except on day of collection. 13 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 9 of 9 c. Between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. no more than the maximum number of overnight guests stipulated in the license may be present on the property. At no time may more than four adults in addition to the number of overnight guests stipulated in the license be present on the property. d. Overnight parking is limited to the property’s garage stalls and a maximum of two vehicles parked in the driveway. At no time may vehicles be parked on grass or so as to obstruct access to neighboring residences, the public right-of-way, or emergency vehicle access. e. The Good Neighbor Brochure must be posted on the inside of the front door and the primary door to the backyard, or in a conspicuous location near each such door. (d)Violation constitutes a misdemeanor. Any person who violates a provision of this section, or any person who permits the violation of any of the provisions of this section upon any property they own or occupy, and any person who shall fail to comply with any order made under a provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (e)Revocation. a. If a short-term rental or its occupants violates any of the above standards or any other provision of the City’s Code the owner of the short-term rental shall receive a written notice of violation form the City, regardless of if a misdemeanor or citation is issued. b. If a property with a short-term rental receives three notices of violation within a 365 day period, its short-term rental license shall be revoked. c. A property owner may appeal the revocation of a short-term rental license using the process outlined in Section 20-29 of the City Code. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Good Neighbor Brochure 14 Section 1-2 Rules of Construction and Definition Enterprise means any corporation, association, firm, partnership, limited liability partnership, or other legal entity. Managing Agency or Rental Agent means a person, enterprise, or agency representing the owner of the short term home rental unit. Remuneration means compensation, money, or other consideration given in return for occupancy, possession, or use of real property. Rent means the consideration or remuneration charged whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a short term vacation unit, valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor, or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits, property, or services of any kind. Rent may include consideration or remuneration received pursuant to an option to purchase whereby a person is given the right to possess the property for a term of less than thirty (30) days. Rental means an arrangement between a transient and a home owner whereby rent is received in exchange for the right to possess a residential structure. Short-term Rental means the renting or offer to make available for compensation or consideration, of residential property, a dwelling unit, or a portion thereof, for a period of 30 days or less. Short-term Home Rental Unit means any structure, or any portion of any structure, that is rented to a transient for less than thirty (30) consecutive days. Transient means any person who, at their own expense or at the expense of another, exercises occupancy or possession, or is entitled to occupancy or possession, by reason of any rental agreement, concession, permit, right of access, option to purchase, license, time sharing arrangement, or any other type of agreement for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. Section 20-961 Short-term Rentals (a) Intent. The City recognizes that short-term rentals provide an opportunity for residents to use their property to generate supplemental income; and, when properly managed, short-term rentals have a minimal impact on surrounding properties. When not properly managed, short- term rentals have the capacity to generate noise, traffic, and trash beyond what is typically present in a residential neighborhood creating a nuisance. These issues can be especially acute when the owner of the property does not reside in the home. In order to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community, the City facilitates and regulates the use of residential properties for short-term rentals by: 1. Requiring the licensure of short-term rentals. 15 2. Establishing standards pertaining to noise, maximum occupancy, parking, and waste generation for short-term rentals. 3. Establish procedures for revoking the licenses of short-term rentals violating the provisions of this section. (b) License Required. No property shall be used as a short-term rental without a license issued by the City. The license once issued shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance and must be renewed annually. The procedure for receiving a license shall be as follows: 1. Application for a license shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the City. A nonrefundable fee in the amount established by the ordinance adopting fees shall be paid to the City when the application is filed. 2. In order to be issued a license the applicant must: i. Provide the name and contact information, including a 24-hour telephone number, for the party responsible for managing the property. ii. State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental. The maximum occupancy shall be two adults per bedroom plus an additional two adults. iii. State the maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on the property. The maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on the property shall be two vehicles plus one for each available garage stall. iv. Agree that City Staff has permission to access their yard/private property when responding to a reported violation of the standards in this section in order to ascertain if a violation has occurred. v. Not have any unresolved Code Enforcement or Property Maintenance cases. vi. Not have had a short-term rental license revoked by the City of Chanhassen within the last seven years. vii. If the owner of a short-term rental fails to apply for a license within thirty days of being notified of the need for a license by the City, they shall be ineligible for a license for a period of one year from the date of the notice. (c) Standards. The following standards apply to all short-term rentals: 1. Listings advertising the property’s availability for rent must state the license number, maximum occupancy permitted by the license, and the maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on the property. 2. Guests shall not be permitted to participate in any party or other gathering of people giving rise to noise, unreasonably disturbing the peace, quiet, or repose of another person. The operation of any such set, instrument, machine, or other device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly audible at the property line is prohibited. 3. An appropriate number of waste containers must be present to accommodate the amount of trash generated by the short-term rental. Waste may not be stored outside of approved containers. All waste containers must be stored outside of public view, except on day of collection. 4. Between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. no more than the maximum number of overnight guests stipulated in the license may be present on the property. At no time may more than 16 four adults in addition to the number of overnight guests stipulated in the license be present on the property. 5. Overnight parking is limited to the property’s available garage stalls and a maximum of two vehicles parked in the driveway. At no time may vehicles be parked on grass or so as to obstruct access to neighboring residences, the public right-of-way, or emergency vehicle access. 6. The Good Neighbor Brochure provided by the City must be posted on the inside of the front door and the primary door to the backyard, or in a conspicuous location near each such door. 7. Property must have working smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in each bedroom or sleeping area and the owner must provide any transient renting the property with information regarding emergency egress. 8. Property must be in compliance with all state and local laws and regulations. (d) Violations 1. Unlawful Acts: It shall be unlawful for a person, firm or corporation to be in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this Section or other provisions of this code. 2. Notice of Violation: The code official shall serve a notice of violation on the licensee. 3. Prosecution Of Violation: If the notice of violation is not complied with, the code official shall institute the appropriate proceeding at law or in equality to restrain, correct or abate such violation, or to require the termination of the unlawful occupancy of the structure in violation of the provisions of this chapter or of the order or direction made pursuant thereto. 4. Violation Penalties: Any person who shall violate a provision of this section, or fail to comply therewith, or with any of the requirements thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense. Licenses may be revoked or suspended for violations of this section. 5. Abatement of Violation: The imposition of the penalties herein prescribed shall not preclude the city attorney from instituting appropriate action to restrain, correct or abate a violation, or to prevent illegal occupancy of a building, structure or premises, or to stop an illegal act, conduct, business or utilization of the building, structure or premises. 6. Fees and Charges: The property owner of record shall be responsible for any city costs in enforcing the provisions of this chapter including inspection fees, or other fees, charges or penalties that are imposed as permitted by law. (e) Suspension and Revocation. 1. In the event of any potential health or safety violations, the City Manager may suspend the license until the violation is corrected. 2. If a property with a short-term rental receives three notices of violation within a 365 day period, its short-term rental license shall be revoked. The license may be revoked after a single violation if the violation is not immediately corrected pursuant to a notice of violation. 17 (f) Appeal. The licensee may appeal a denial, suspension, or revocation to the city council. The licensee must file with the city clerk a notice of appeal within ten days of a denial, suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal. The council shall consider the appeal at a regularly or specially scheduled council meeting on or after 15 days from service of the notice of appeal upon the city clerk by the licensee. Hearing on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee shall have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence in behalf of licensure. At the conclusion of the hearing, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the council may order: 1. The denial, suspension, or revocation of the license. 2. The denial, suspension, or revocation by the city manager be lifted and the license be returned to the licensee. 3. Additional terms, conditions and stipulations to be imposed on the licensee to mitigate problems. 18 CITY OF CHANHASSEN | QUESTIONS 952.227.1100 | WWW.CI.CHANHASSEN.MN.US | VIOLATIONS 952.227.1607 City Codes In order to keep Chanhassen neat and clean and a community in which we can all be proud of, we wish to make you aware of popular property violations. If you have questions, please feel free to call 952.227.1607 Animal Control Future animal control violations could result in being issued. If you have any questions or need assistance, please call a Community Service Officer at 952.227.1607 Storage of Recreation Vehicles Animal at Large Grass & Weeds Barking Dog Nuisance Animal Garbage & Refuse Waste Cleanup Snow Removal No more than 1 (one) recreational vehicle may be parked or stored in the side or rear yard behind the required setback on a surfaced or unsurfaced area. Additional recreational vehicles may be kept within an enclosed structure. Recreational vehicles must be maintained in a clean, well-kept, operable condition. Unmounted slide-in pickup campers must be stored not higher then 20 inches about ground and must be securely supported at least at 4 (four) corners by support mechanisms. Recreation vehicles may not be occupied or used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes for more than 7 (seven) consecutive days. No dog or cat shall be allowed by its owner to run at large. The police or animal control officers of the city shall take up and impound any dog or cat found at large in violation of this section. A dog or cat is con- sidered to be at large when it is off the premises of the owner and not under restraint. Any grass or weeds over the height of 12 inches on any occupied or unoccupied property is prohibited and must be cut.No person owning, operating, having charge of, or occupying any building or premise shall keep or allow to be kept one or more animals that unreasonably disturbs the comfort or repose of any person by its frequent or continued noise. (Commonly, any animal that noise can be heard from a location outside the building or property where the animal or animals being kept.) Chanhassen City Code prohibits accumulations of manure, rubbish, garbage, junk, debris, or other waste which are kept so as to result in offensive odors, or unsightly conditions to the discomfort or the annoyance of adjacent property owners or the public. The following items are examples of rubbish: cans, paper, cardboard bottles, wood (not firewood), appliances, furniture, tires, bricks, cement etc. or any household refuse or materials The owner or a person having control of a dog shall immediately remove any feces left by the dog not on property of the dog owner or the person in control of the dog. A person walking a dog off the owner’s property must have in their possession equipment for picking up and removing the feces. It is our pleasure to welcome you and hope you have a great time experiencing Chanhassen. Many visitors to our area choose to rent a home to fully enjoy their stay. Renting a home offers that “at home” feeling while giving you space to bring family and friends. It is the responsibility of the homeowners to remove all snow and ice from public sidewalks within 12 hours after the time of snow fall. It is our pleasure to welcome you and hope you have a great time experiencing Chanhassen. Many visitors to our area choose to rent a home to fully enjoy their stay. Renting a home offers that “at home” feeling while giving you space to bring family and friends. An added benefit for vacation home renters is the peace that permanent residents enjoy year-round. It is an extraordinary feeling to view the beauty of nature in a quiet and safe surroundings. We hope that you too will embrace this special sense of being close to nature and respect the quiet neighborhood with courtesy. Good Neighbor Policy FOR VACATION RENTALS IN CHANHASSEN Keep In Mind... Your permanent neighbors have a right to peace and repose and this must be respected at all times of the day but especially into the evening hours. For information regarding Chanhassen ordinance codes please go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/codes 19 From: Jessica Bliss <oehr0007@umn.edu> Sent: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:26 AM To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals Hi MacKenzie, I am hoping that me or my husband Mark can attend the meeting on Tuesday. If not, I thought that I should send an email with my thoughts on the proposed ordinance. I agree that short term rental properties should be required to be licensed, and if they have a certain amount of violations that their license be revoked. Given that we have had multiple issues over the last 8 months of living next door to a short term rental, and Airbnb still allowing the property owner to rent out their property (even after multiple complaints and parties - which violates Airbnb's own terms), we are hoping that this ordinance will ensure that our neighboring rental property will be more compliant in the future. I read over the ordinance, and I agree with the parking limitations - I do get concerned about the amount of cars during the daytime not having a numerical limitation, because in our experience, renters and party-goers seem to have their own interpretation as to what is occluding our driveway and not, they have even attempted to park in our private driveway on our property. But I think 2 in the driveway and 1 per garage stall is fair. I also didn't see anything listed in the ordinance about renters that are bringing pets - we have had dogs running loose on our property from their neighboring rental, and the dogs are relieving themselves in our yard, unattended and we get to clean it up. This is also a safety concern from the point of us having small children and having our own dog, I can't say I'm thrilled to have unfamiliar dogs running loose on our property. The Airbnb site for our listing next door does have rules for pets - but it doesn't seem to be helping the issue, so I'm hoping that this could be addressed in the ordinance. I also was hoping to see more about property maintenance - since we did 100% of the snow removal this past winter (the Airbnb property was purchased Jan 2022) on our shared driveway an the owner never offered to help, hire a service, or even a "thanks" for regularly clearing the long driveway for his renters. However, I realize most people living next to an Aribnb are not sharing a driveway. In our situation, the owner of the neighboring property is allowing the yard to turn completely to weeds, and trash cans are overflowing in public view - clearly it's not something they are concerned about, since the owner doesn't live at the property. Trash day seems to be getting missed by the renters and owner, and the overfilled trash cans are attracting various wildlife. The fact that nobody is continuously living in this property or monitoring it is affecting our neighbors - we are the ones that are having to call in reports when trash is blowing onto our property and into the road. I am very happy that the issue of parties is being addressed - since we have had party buses pulling into our driveway, and it is frustrating when they are arriving past midnight with large numbers of inebriated people, waking up our children and our dog. Airbnb seems to be doing nothing about this, even after our photos, videos, etc. we've submitted, because the rental property continues to allow this to happen. 20 Lastly, I want to thank you for your hard work addressing this issue - this has been extremely frustrating for our family and neighbors. especially since Airbnb continues to allow this property to list on their website and the issues keep recurring. We hope that this ordinance helps improve our neighborhood as well as other Chanhassen residents that are experiencing the same issues we are. Jessica Bliss 21 From: Dave Bloomquist <d.bloomquist@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 11:22 AM To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Proposed Ordinance Section 20-961 Short Term Rentals I thank you all for the opportunity to appear before you this evening regarding the proposed rules on short term rentals. I live in Chanhassen and I also have a short term rental house in Chanhassen on VRBO. My main issue is the one size fits all proposal for short term rental properties. When you do a search on VRBO for a Chanhassen location, we are number one on the search engine. We have over 100 five star reviews and have not had a single issue. We have many customers that immediately rebook for the next year upon their departure. I wanted to address several of the points of the section 20-961 proposal. Referencing section (b), license required. (b) License required b. In order to be issued a license i. Provide name and phone number, all my neighbors have my phone number, if they have issues they would contact me. iv. Agree that City Staff has permission to access the yard/private property at any time This is a clear violation of my 4th amendment rights. (c) Standards a. Noise related to disturbing the peace As I was talking with Dan Campion previously, I was looking out at my back yard and looking at the distances of the houses, and the ambient noises, and I could see if a homeowner was not selective in whom he rented to, had sensitive neighbors and disrespectful renters, noise could be a problem. We’ve lived in Chanhassen for 31 years on a typical Chanhassen lot and never had a noise issue with any of our neighbors. However, a cookie cutter statute is not appropriate. Noisy groups would be a real issue for apartments and condos. 22 My rental property is four acres, which is 14 times the size of a normal Chanhassen lot, which is less than 1/3 acre lot. The nearest distances of neighbors: To the north, 232 feet. My nearest neighbor behind which is up the hill and through the woods, is 314 feet, the nearest neighbor to the south is 444 feet, the nearest neighbor to the east is 1,637 feet. My neighbor to the south was mowing his lawn earlier this week and he has an old, inexpensive, noisy riding lawn mower. So I walked down there and did some decible readings and at 50 feet he was producing more than 80 db. So when I went back to my house 275 feet away, the decibel was down to 65, which is equivalent to the cars on Powers Boulevard. If a loud outdoor party was producing 70 db, by the time it reached any of the neighbors it would be 1/16th as loud or equivalent to a whisper or rustling leaves. Here are some comparibles Loud restaurant 70 db The TV with a soundbar turned all the way up, can get to 65 db Normal group conversation 60 db, which, comparing it to the loud restaurant, is half as loud. A refrigerator is 50 db A whisper or soft music is 30 db What I found was an online calculator to input a know decibel reading and a known distance, but not taking into consideration the forest or other obstructions. And, the neighbor to the south, if the sound from my house or anywhere around it was 65 db, by the time it got to him would be 27 db, which is equivalent to the sound of a whisper or rustling leaves. Keep in mind that the road noise from Powers Blvd. continuously exceeds those numbers. I even did the same calculations at 70 db, which is a “loud bar” and 3x louder than a jet, and 3x louder than Powers Blvd, at 240 feet it still was only 38 db. Renters have held family events at the base of our hill, and the neighbor on the south told me that he couldn’t even hear them. 23 b. waste containers I have three trash cans and two recycle bins and they are checked bi-weekly or before any wind event. I have too large an area to clean up after, and I don’t want the mess. My driveway, at that point, is 330 feet from the road, so the cans cannot be seen. c. At no time may more than 4 adults in addition to the number of overnight guests stipulated in the license be present on the property. I have four acres, 200,000 square feet, 14 times the normal city lot. My wife has 28 people in her family, with grandparents, brothers and sister, grandkids and great grandkids, on holidays we would have to do three shifts to meet this rule. The majority of our clients are coming back to visit family and friends, wedding parties, family gatherings for holidays, etc. Our overnight guest limit is 10 people and we pre screen our guests for gatherings and set an appropriate limit based on the size of the house, the maturity or age of the renters, and the season. This lot is 14 times the size of a normal city lot. Based on the proposed density, That would mean that the entire property could have only 1 person per city lot. Only 14 people for a four acre lot. d. overnight parking To give you an idea, my driveway is 295 feet long. The parking area up on top is 48 x 45’ plus an additional 22 x 14. To give you perspective, I can take my full size SUV with a long trailer, go all the way up the driveway, do an 180 degree turn without backing up and go all the way back down the driveway without touching a blade of grass. I can easily park 12 cars there. And now I’m going to be limited to 2 plus the garage stalls. Also part of 2. d. at no time vehicles parking on the grass Due to the size of my driveway, no one has any need to park anywhere on any other property or public right of way. I was thinking about how to rectify this licensing issue by how to deal with the problem homeowners. Doing research, it was surprisingly difficult to find information on short term rentals but I came up with something that was interesting from St. Louis Park. Apparently in those tiny houses with the tiny 24 yards in St. Louis Park, they want to put a tiny house in the back yard, so they have regulations, but its based on how the property is zoned. Restrictions apply to properties R1, R2, R3 and R4. My property is zoned Ag 2. If you look to see what the zoning commonalities are with the problem properties, then apply the rules to those zones. For example, it is reasonable not to allow 14 people in an apartment. It’s reasonable to limit parking when they are not parked on the hard surface on the property. There needs to be different requirements for properties in different zoning, that recognize the different needs for condos, city lot home rentals and large acreage lot rentals (Ag 2 zoned). Thank you for your time. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Planning Commission Item September 6, 2022 Item Appeal Regarding Alleged Error in an: Order, Requirement, Decision, or Determination, made by a City Administrative Officer on the Gayle Morin Addition - 1441 Lake Lucy Road File No.Planning Case Number 2022-14 Item No: B.2 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Applicant Christopher Mozina Present Zoning Rural Residential District (RR) Land Use Residential Low Density Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION "Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the appeal, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision," SUMMARY Appealing a recommendation of an administrative officer. This determination would apply to this and all other applications. BACKGROUND 1) A recommendation is not an order, requirement, decision, or determination made by a city 32 administrative officer in the enforcement of the code. A recommendation is staff’s professional judgement related to the decision-making body. The decision-making body examines the recommendation and other information (such as provided by various parties at the public hearing) and makes a determination. In this case, the determination of the Planning Commission was to recommend approval to the City Council. As such, staff’s recommendation is not subject to appeal under 20-28. 2) Findings of Fact are the findings of the Planning Commission, not of the administrative officer. The City Council may or may not adopt these findings of fact. In any event, they are not subject to appeal under 20-28. 3) Section 18-40 is located under the Subdivision Ordinance and not the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20). Section 20-28 only allows appeals of the Zoning Ordinance. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the appeal, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report Findings of Fact Application Application Narritive 2022 Property Tax Info on 1441 Lake Lucy Road 2022 Property Tax Info for Interested Parties Affidavit of Mailing for Public Hearing Notice Staff Response to Taskforce Questions 33 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: September 6, 2022 PC DATE: September 6, 2022 CASE #: 2022-14 BY: KA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appealing a recommendation of an administrative officer. This determination would apply to this and all other applications. LOCATION: 1441 Lake Lucy Road LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: Approval or denial of an appeal requires 3/4 of members present. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Sec 20-28 Board of Appeals and Adjustments (a) Board designation. The planning commission shall act as the board of appeals and adjustments. (b) Powers. Pursuant to M.S. § 462.357, subd. 6, the board shall have the following powers: (1) To hear and decide appeals 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 this chapter; (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulty because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter; and (3) To grant permits or approvals for appeals authorized under M.S. § 462.359. Sec 20-29 Board of Appeals And Adjustments Variance And Appeal Procedures (a) Form; fee. Appeals and applications for variances shall be filed with the community development director on prescribed forms. A fee, as established by the city council, shall be paid upon the filing of an application. The board of appeals and adjustments may waive the application fee in unusual circumstances. 34 Appeal of Recommendation September 6, 2022 Page 2 of 9 (b) Hearing. Upon the filing of an appeal or application for variance, the community development director shall set a time and place for a hearing before the board of appeals and adjustments on such appeal or application, which hearing shall be held within 45 days after the filing of said appeal or application unless the applicant waives the 60-day review period or the City exercises it right to extend the 60-day review period by up to an additional 60 days. At the hearing the board shall hear such persons as wish to be heard, either in person or by attorney or agent. Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten days before the date of hearing to the person who filed the appeal or application for variance, and to each owner of property situated wholly or partially within 500 feet of the property to which the appeal or variance application relates. The names and addresses of such owners shall be determined by the community development director from records provided by the applicant. (c) Decisions of the board. The board shall be empowered to decide appeals and grant variances, other than variances in conjunction with platting, site plan review, conditional use permits and interim use permits, when the decision of the board is by an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members present. A vote of less than three-fourths of the members present or any vote on a variance in conjunction with platting, site plan review, conditional use permits and interim use permits shall serve only as a recommendation to the city council, who shall then make the final determination on the appeal or variance request within 30 days after receipt of the board's action. If the board recommends approval, it may also recommend appropriate conditions. The board shall act upon all appeals and variance requests within 15 days after the date of the close of the required hearing. (d) Appeal from decisions of the board. A city council member, the applicant, or any aggrieved person may appeal such decision to the city council by filing an appeal with the community development director within four days after the date of the board's decision. (e) Council action. By majority vote, the city council may reverse, affirm or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed from the board, and to that end the city council shall have all the powers of the board, or the city council may approve or deny the variance request. The council shall decide all appeals within 30 days after the date of the required hearing thereon. In granting any variance, the city council may attach conditions to ensure compliance with this chapter and to protect adjacent property. (f) Action without decision. If no decision is transmitted by the board to the city council within 60 days from the date an appeal or variance request is filed with the community development director, the council may take action on the request, in accordance with the procedures governing the board, without further awaiting the board's decision or recommendation. (g) Decisions of the Council. All decisions by the City involving a variance or appeal shall be final, except that any aggrieved person or persons shall have the right to appeal within thirty (30) days of the decision to the Carver or Hennepin County District Court. Any person seeking judicial review must serve the City and all necessary parties, including any landowners, within the thirty (30) day period defined above. 35 Appeal of Recommendation September 6, 2022 Page 3 of 9 BACKGROUND 1) A recommendation is not an order, requirement, decision, or determination made by a city administrative officer in the enforcement of the code. A recommendation is staff’s professional judgement related to the decision-making body. The decision-making body examines the recommendation and other information (such as provided by various parties at the public hearing) and makes a determination. In this case, the determination of the Planning Commission was to recommend approval to the City Council. As such, staff’s recommendation is not subject to appeal under 20-28. 2) Findings of Fact are the recommended findings of the Planning Commission to the City Council, not of the administrative officer. The City Council may or may not adopt these findings of fact. In any event, they are not subject to appeal under 20-28. 3) Section 18-40 is located under the Subdivision Ordinance and not the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20). Section 20-28 only allows appeals of the Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL BY APPLICANT 1. “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 Interested Parties)"(Letter and 3 Addendums in the public record), prior to the Public Hearing and Planning Commission meeting on July 19, 2022, failed to meet the specific requirement of Section 20-2 Purpose "(g) Secure equity among individuals in the use of their property." 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 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 Findings of Fact 36 Appeal of Recommendation September 6, 2022 Page 4 of 9 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 20-43 Public Hearing should have occurred prior to the July 19th Planning Commission Meeting? "(b) If 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." a. Preliminary Platt Failed Requirements from Section 18-40: Section 18-40 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 proposal to the Planning Commission on page 6 of 16 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 visualization shall be used from flat shading for massing studies and preliminary design to photorealistic imaging for final design." 2. 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 City Attorney. It is requested that they again be reviewed and addressed). a. Immediately halt any further proceedings 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 July 25, 37 Appeal of Recommendation September 6, 2022 Page 5 of 9 2022 at 12:14 pm. The City Staff at a meeting on 8.17.22 indicated refusal to answer any previously presented questions or any further questions from the Interested 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 Interested 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 guidance 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 administrative ly heard(verbally or in writing, with what submission 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.” ANALYSIS Responding to the Applicant’s allegations to the zoning ordinance (City Code Chapter 20) the city staff finds: Allegations: c. 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. Findings: There are no ordinance restrictions prohibiting Rezoning and Subdivisions from being processing concurrently. Cities are required to process and decide such applications in the time provided by state law from the date the applications are received, and processing concurrently is generally necessary to meet the required deadlines. It routinely done by the City. 38 Appeal of Recommendation September 6, 2022 Page 6 of 9 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 Interested Parties)"(Letter and 3 Addendums in the public record), prior to the Public Hearing and Planning Commission meeting on July 19, 2022, failed to meet the specific requirement of Section 20-2 Purpose "(g) Secure equity among individuals in the use of their property." Findings: The staff report addressed pertinent questions relating to the subdivision. 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. Findings: This finding is irrelevant to this application. It is not a required finding for approval of the zoning or subdivision application for the property under the City Code. iv. Allegations from Preliminary Platt Requirements not met and not formally waived by the City Planners Findings: Preliminary Plat Requirements are stipulated by Chapter 18 and are not subject to appeal under 20-28, which applies only to appeals of orders, requirements and decisions made by a city administrative officer under Chapter 20. In any event, the language “officially waived” does not appear in the City Code. Section 18-40 reads “Unless waived by city…” the code does not state a mechanism for waiving the requirements and staff’s decision to accept an application as complete without a given item, is understood to constitute waiving the requirement. 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 Findings: No variances were requested in the applications related to the property, therefore it is not applicable. d. Zoning Erroneous Findings of Fact i. The proposed zoning will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed." Findings: This finding is irrelevant to this application. It is not a required finding for approval of the zoning or subdivision application for the property under City Code. ii. Traffic generation by the proposed use within the zoning district is within capabilities of streets serving the property." Findings: The private street serving the proposed single-family home on the property was previously approved in 1993 to provides access to 5 homes. iii. According to Sec 20-43 Public Hearing should have occurred prior to the July 19th Planning Commission Meeting? Findings: Public Hearings for zoning amendments are held at the Planning Commission. No public hearing is required prior to the public hearing scheduled with the Planning Commission on the July 29, 2022. 39 Appeal of Recommendation September 6, 2022 Page 7 of 9 "(b) If 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. " Findings: Section 20-43(b) states “If 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 larger area. The applicant is responsible for meeting with affected homeowners.” The use of the word “may” establishes that this is a discretionary requirement, and the subsequent language provides guidance on when the expanded mailing can be required. The existing lot has rights to a dock and water oriented accessory structure. The proposed subdivision would sever lakeshore rights of the existing home. The proposed subdivision lot would be permitted lake shore rights, thus not changing the intensity of the lakeshore use. The City mailed notification to properties within 500 feet of the subject site which exceeds the 350-foot notification standard required by the State of Minnesota. A Proposed Development notification sign has been placed on Lake Lucy Road for those that lived beyond the 500 feet. g. Preliminary Plat Failed Requirements from Section 18-40: Section 18-40 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 proposal to the Planning Commission on page 6 of 16 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. Findings: Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not appealable. ii. "All proposed retaining walls must be shown on the plan. The top and bottom elevations of the wall must be noted." Findings: Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not appealable. It is noted that City staff responded to this question that the retaining wall elevation was shown on page C-3. iii. "The style of home (e.g. slab on grade, split entry, lookout, walkout, full basement) must be noted on the plan." Findings: Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not applicable. At preliminary plat the lowest floor and garage elevation were shown. 40 Appeal of Recommendation September 6, 2022 Page 8 of 9 iv. "Proposals for street lighting, curb and gutters, sidewalks and boulevard improvements." Findings: Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not appealable. Access to the property was previously approved by the City Council as a private street. 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 visualization shall be used from flat shading for massing studies and preliminary design to photorealistic imaging for final design." Findings: Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not appealable. 3. 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 City Attorney. It is requested that they again be reviewed and addressed). a. Immediately halt any further proceedings 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 July 25, 2022 at 12:14 pm. The City Staff at a meeting on 8.17.22 indicated refusal to answer any previously presented questions or any further questions from the Interested 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." Findings: Staff has answered pertinent questions received. Pursuant to state law and city code, the City cannot halt proceedings on a zoning or subdivision application which must be processed and decided within the required timelines. b. Allow sufficient time for the interested parties to evaluate the answers provided by the City, and present additional evidence to support the appeal Findings: This is not a requirement of the City Code. The City is under specific timelines required by state law and city code to process and decide zoning applications from the date of the application. The required public hearing was provided allowing applicants to raise concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. 41 Appeal of Recommendation September 6, 2022 Page 9 of 9 c. City Planning assistance to ensure all required forms and protocols are understood by Interested 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. Findings: This is the first administrative appeal that the City has received in many years the appeal process is established in the City Code and was provided to the Applicant. No guidance was received from the CityAttorney other than pointing to the limited requirements in Section 20-29. Findings: The City Attorney represents the City, not the Applicant, and provided the information concerning the appeal process as identified in the City Code. d. City Planning assistance in describing how the appeal will be administratively hea rd(verbally or in writing, with what submission 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. Findings: Staff provided the relevant provisions in the Code for appeals. The method of disposition is provided in the Ordinance, which provides that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the appeal and decide the appeal. e. Conference to be scheduled with City Staff as per the Zoning Application Checklist. Findings: This is a statement and no appeal is identified. 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.” Findings: While the City did not have a specific Zoning Appeal Form, in the interest of time and urgency as expressed by the Applicant, city staff recommended using the Application for Development Review Form and indicated it would be acceptable to city staff and Applicant’s use of the form was accepted by city staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the appeal, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision 2. Application 3. Application Narrative 4. 2022 Property Tax Information on 1441 Lake Lucy Road 5. 2022 Property Tax In formation for Interested Parties 6. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice 7. Staff Response to Task Force Questions 42 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Zoning appeal of Interested Parties of staff’s recommendation of approval for Subdivision 1441 Lake Lucy Road. On September 6, 2022, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the appeal preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant’s appeal is brought under City Code Section 20-28 which provides as follows: Sec 20-28 Board of Appeals and Adjustments (a) Board designation. The planning commission shall act as the board of appeals and adjustments. (b) Powers. Pursuant to M.S. § 462.357, subd. 6, the board shall have the following powers: (1) To hear and decide appeals 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 this chapter; (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulty because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter; and (3) To grant permits or approvals for appeals authorized under M.S. § 462.359. The Appeal relates to City staff processing of zoning and subdivision applications for the property legally described as provided in Exhibit A attached hereto. 2. Appeal Findings – a) 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 43 2 defects/allegations exposed in the Preliminary Plat by definition pollute the Zoning proposal. Finding: There are no ordinance restrictions prohibiting Rezoning and Subdivisions from being processing concurrently. Cities are required to process and decide such applications in the time provided by state law from the date the applications are received, and processing concurrently is generally necessary to meet the required deadlines. It is routinely done by the City. b) 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 Interested Parties)"(Letter and 3 Addendums in the public record), prior to the Public Hearing and Planning Commission meeting on July 19, 2022, failed to meet the specific requirement of Section 20-2 Purpose "(g) Secure equity among individuals in the use of their property." Findings: The staff report addressed pertinent questions relating to the subdivision. c) Individual allegations from Zoning Findings of Fact - 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. Findings: This finding is irrelevant to this application. It is not a required finding for approval of the zoning or subdivision application for the Property under the City Code. d) Allegations from Preliminary Plat Requirements not met and not formally waived by the City Planners Findings: Preliminary Plat Requirements are stipulated by Chapter 18 and are not subject to appeal under 20-28, which applies only to appeals of orders, requirements and decisions made by a city administrative officer under Chapter 20. In any event, the language “officially waived” does not appear in the City Code. Section 18-40 reads “Unless waived by city…” the code does not state a mechanism for waiving the requirements and staff’s decision to accept an application as complete without a given item, is understood to constitute waiving the requirement. e) 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 Findings: No variances were requested in the applications related to the property, therefore it is not applicable. f) Zoning Erroneous Findings of Fact The proposed zoning will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed." Findings: This finding is irrelevant to this application. It is not a required finding for approval of the zoning or subdivision application for the Property under the City Code. g) Traffic generation by the proposed use within the zoning district is within capabilities of streets serving the property." Finding: The private street serving the proposed single-family home on the property was previously approved in 1993 to provides access to 5 homes. 44 3 h) According to Sec 20-43 Public Hearing should have occurred prior to the July 19th Planning Commission Meeting? Findings: Public Hearings for zoning amendments are held at the Planning Commission. No public hearing is required prior to the public hearing scheduled with the Planning Commission on the July 29, 2022. i) "(b) If 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. " Finding: Section 20-43(b) states “If 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 larger area. The Applicant is responsible for meeting with affected homeowners.” The use of the word “may” establishes that this is a discretionary requirement, and the subsequent language provides guidance on when the expanded mailing can be required. The existing lot has rights to a dock and water oriented accessory structure. The proposed subdivision would sever lakeshore rights of the existing home. The proposed subdivision lot would be permitted lake shore rights, thus not changing the intensity of the lakeshore use. The City mailed notification to properties within 500 feet of the subject site which exceeds the 350-foot notification standard required by the State of Minnesota. A Proposed Development notification sign has been placed on Lake Lucy Road for those that lived beyond the 500 feet. j) Preliminary Plat Failed Requirements from Section 18-40: Section 18-40 Preface: "Unless waived by the city because of the limited size and nature of the proposal, the following shall be furnished with a preliminary plat:" Further the City in the proposal to the Planning Commission on page 6 of 16 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: "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. Findings: Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not appealable. k) "All proposed retaining walls must be shown on the plan. The top and bottom elevations of the wall must be noted." Findings: Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not appealable. It is noted that City staff responded to this question that the retaining wall elevation was shown on page C- 3. 45 4 l) "The style of home (e.g. slab on grade, split entry, lookout, walkout, full basement) must be noted on the plan." Findings: Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not applicable. At preliminary plat the lowest floor and garage elevation were shown. m) "Proposals for street lighting, curb and gutters, sidewalks and boulevard improvements." Findings: Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not appealable. Access to the property was previously approved by the City Council as a private street. n) "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." Findings: Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not appealable. o) 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 City Attorney. It is requested that they again be reviewed and addressed).Immediately halt any further proceedings concerning this development 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. The City Staff at a meeting on 8.17.22 indicated refusal to answer any previously presented questions or any further questions from the Interested 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." Findings: Staff has answered pertinent questions received. Pursuant to state law and city code, the City cannot halt proceedings on a zoning or subdivision application which must be processed and decided within the required timelines. p) Allow sufficient time for the interested parties to evaluate the answers provided by the City, and present additional evidence to support the appeal Findings: This is not a requirement of the City Code. The City is under specific timelines required by state law and city code to process and decide zoning applications from the date of the application. The required public hearing was provided allowing applicants to raise concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. q) City Planning assistance to ensure all required forms and protocols are understood by Interested 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. Finding: This is the first administrative appeal that the City has received in many years. The appeal process is established in the City Code and was provided to the Applicant. 46 5 r) No guidance was received from the City Attorney other than pointing to the limited requirements in Section 20-29. Findings: The City Attorney represents the City, not the Applicant, and provided the information concerning the appeal process as identified in the City Code. s) City Planning assistance in describing how the appeal will be administratively heard (verbally or in writing, with what submission 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. Finding: Staff provided the relevant provisions in the Code for appeals. The method of disposition is provided in the Ordinance, which provides that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the appeal and decide the appeal. t) Conference to be scheduled with City Staff as per the Zoning Application Checklist. Finding: This is a statement and no appeal is identified. u) 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.” Findings: While the City did not have a specific Zoning Appeal Form, in the interest of time and urgency as expressed by the Applicant, city staff recommended using the Application for Development Review Form and indicated it would be acceptable to City staff and Applicant’s use of the form was accepted by City staff. 3. The planning report #2022-14, dated September 6, 2022, prepared by Kate Aanenson, is incorporated herein. DECISION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the appeal, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments this 6th day of September 2022. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Mark von Oven, Chairman g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-05 204 w 77th fence var\findings of fact.docx 47 6 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED That part of Government Lot 5, Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Government Lot 5; thence westerly along the north line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 308.34 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue westerly along the north line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 180.08 feet; thence southerly, parallel with the west line of said Section 2 to the shore line of Lake Lucy; thence easterly along said shore line to the intersection with a line parallel with the west line of said Section 2 and passing through the point of beginning; thence northerly, parallel with the west line of said Section 2, to the point of beginning. Subject to a street easement over and across the north 33 feet thereof. AND TOGETHER WITH a 15-foot easement for walkway purposes over and across that part of the following described property: That part of Government Lot 5, Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows : Beginning at the northeast corner of said Government Lot 5; thence westerly along the north line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 308.34 feet; thence southerly, parallel with the west line of said Section 2 to the shore line of Lake Lucy; thence easterly along said shoreline to the intersection with the east line of said Government Lot 5; thence northerly along the east line of said Government Lot 5, to the point of beginning. ALSO The West Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. Subject to a road easement over and across the south 33.00 feet thereof. Which lies 7.50 feet on each side of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Government Lot 5; thence westerly along the north line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 308.34 feet; thence southerly, parallel with the west line of said Section 2 a distance of 810.0 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect 30 degrees to the left 75.00 feet; thence deflect 60 degrees to the right, 75.00 feet to the west line of the above described parcel of land and said line there terminating. *Please note that the 15-foot easement for walkway purposes described above benefits the subject property and lies over a part of Lot 7, Block 1, POINTE LAKE LUCY, as shown hereon. 48 GOIUXrfY DEVELOPE}IT DEPARTXENT Plenning Divisk n - uI00 Maket Boulryard i,t8iIng A&rr€€s - P,O. Box 147, Chanltassen. ldN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1 too I Fax: (952\ 2?7-1110 *flrroFruAr{HAsslt{ DEVELOPTIIENT REVIEW SiJ&nidal Dat!3, i8, zz * r*, 31il9 ! Tbur *,., w, fr l,'l h,Z-- (ldd b fp W.ab AMb ffi br tqlird s},r*Ll itbrn,,llrn d','t ir,6I @t!p,ty tiE Wi.n) tr Csnpotrsr*r,e Pbn Am€n&mnt.......-.................t600 ! SuMivbiofl (SUB) E g'ntro.Eru!.ps'mir(cup) E 3ffiilSrff::..:..:.::...:..i€ii,;;,;#SE Singl+Family Resironc.......-........-... ... .. .....9325 (_ bE)D AllO$€r8....... .............,......3s00 D recsagg1rnostZifii-.....-.... .,...........93{E E l4arimusepamir(rup) E ff[H$ft"f;bd,iu;;Ad,;il;0.....:....1]33D tn conjunciin with Singte-Famity R*irtence..t325 i ei""rirjr _ Siip51d_..- . -:_.... ...............t700.I Arr otr6s-...-.. .. ........................t500 ' lnaroo 3o50 cacrow ror afio.r*y costi)-ldgio,ral aadu ma, bc c$rrad h. dli +dcdamLI Hoz rng (t<tsZt _. - rvq{rr rc ari*ognsm cqrrra.E ganneO Unn Dedogn6.tt (pUO)................... t750 E Uhor Aneddrnert b existing PUD.................t100 E vacaion ot eaaemenE/R8ht-of-way (VAC)........$00 D AllOtEf6-..--.. .............-......3500 ( ddtio t 'rqdir to 'tq 4p.v) n Sbn Phn R6vbw.."........- n site Ptan Review {SPR)E Administratire..--.-..... . .t150 n Variance (VAR) ...... ..s200 -Wetlsld Alterstbn Permh (WAP) fl Srnglc-Family R6ir.nce... ..E nt ourers. s100 .... .3150" s,75D Commercbnnasstbl DBriis'....-.................S500 Plus S10 p€r 1,0@ square lb€t of Mldhg area:( tleHrd squatB lh€i)( zoningAppaat s200 ]ffiffiS$Hffi:- E zo.rhsordimnceArn€ndment(zoA) I n€silolEl tHicls ...........i600 Plur 35 per (t!/idlFE unit ( units) -.... s500 t&!E: l|,l.'ar6,.ffi'...W ca|cr,rrnqr. r.*l!prird. t .rdt dlfftd b. dr rffiL D Property Oxnors List within 500' lCry to gcnc.e Ji.r orGrppl€rtn n dl.diu.i "oi,*"iiii i3 per address ! Esceow for necording DocumentE (check all that a99nlv)........... . . - hterim Use Permit .. ... ................ $50 per document ! Site Plan Agreemer n Wedand Altffation Pormitn oeeos TOTAL FEE: tril Conditional Use Permit Vac€tion ! Variance I tr,tetea & Bounds Subdivision (2 de€ds) [ Easemens ( easemenls) Oescnpliofi ot Propcal: Pro?erty AddrBs or Locaion:I { Lt I Latce L,^.h Pe,.c,,l *. L O0ZrSzo Legal Descriptten ,5t<t'to,o? G'^r*rL.r llA 8.,r*. O?.3 Total Acrcage:.{,weflands Prescnt? Elves D Ho tJIrgo.agkgtgr,lz "f CalrcJ to'- e N(* 8o14O as PGsent Zoning:Rcqursted Zoning Prcaont Land Us€ Designaton t Cot t+,(. ExBting Uss ot Prope{ty: Section l: Applicatron Type (chect all that apply) Sectior Required lnformation X Check box if scparae narrative B allacfied P-t tn equcstcr, Ltrl(t Use Oesrgnatbn Ps.Jr.t I lrt , s 49 '6uEs€oo,d ro, Ap als ol,(fu lqrofp e pu.s q nUOJ ]irf EnS tuauied pue sluaurncop palrnbQ $lnl 6uoF Al. ol r3 lp, pu" nUOJ lfgud al,\3p rnort cq ldoc e ar,es ol xtHOJ S/\yS pqa6 usr+l'Eptql urpl tuessaau |F alqduroC :Imii=EEF6:fmEiEim .IeuJ3 dz"tqs/$c Idca €ded pqle ^do3 ladEd petlerl IdoO r€ded pq|Pn trdo? raded pat€yl rpurD :e;? P'J Pffi#ox tpur3 [ 'EA ,ear!fu3 f]IeUJE:q1 ltr€rd6C E lreurf [ :el lguno ^]edord n :ssa./Ppvrt1a"$V }?S aureN :uoortrrlolul l3Eluof, jetso.eqJoda/ ,|!ls lo !.ldo3 e le3eJ Hnoqa o{/s xeJ rle3 :|cUl3 :dZelqgArC :auoqd :peluo3 ssarpgv :aureN (etqectddE $) U33itlCt{3 tSSrOUd ateo aJn1euBrS :xeJ 1te3 :lrPuJ3 :dzlqasdl3 :euoqd :peluoS sseJppv axeN 'lrelloc pue en4 a:e pe$urqns sqqqxs pue uollpuno1rlr ar.g 1al lt*to t '{pnp gtg qlr\ pseojd q uoqezuo$ne {uB ol Joud aeu'l3€ ue l{l/r\ aB3 'seipllls AuolsegJ 'sae} fulxtrg.r@ ro1 pe6.,ep ag Ieu sae, Fuoglppe lsqs puqs,epun lawrn, | 'uot?3ddE $ts lo ssalooJd al{ pu" lqualeu, lo r.Elqurqns lql ceulFeep eS lo peuJolu flas,(ur daal llr. | -spouad PoddE au 6uunp ro sougeaq 3r{ !e palqo ot tq6u a{ q /tuo l5dlns 'qloflpuoo ssol{ /h punoq aq ol aej6e puE oulpuq ele IE orddB }o suolupuoc tEql pl.qsJapun I uoo€3rd(E slB }o 6uU elo ezrdIne 'og IqaJaq puE 'ol ,qcpdec te6q nJ arreq 'l5UAo ,UadoJd se 'l 'srqg 6uru6rs u1 ALu3doud :arnleu6rg xej la3 I a ? :lteu3 5li8-zz1-s,E drzBprs/lc b II8'zz7-5t':auoqd :peluoc o 1 :ssaJp9v 2 )t raureN 'perjoc pue en4 a]€ p.Bnuqns s q!qx3 pue uogeu.rolur aql tpt0 Arsis | ,bnls i)tr) alAo l10lrlr c[ Jold a]Eur$o ue w,$ -a€ 'sEprus &pqrseal 'g€e1outnsuoa Jol pe&ei}3 eq i l seg leuolppe Pl{ puqsJeprn Jeqjr] I uoleodde sq,o ss.t6old at..[ pue ppalPu] ]o uqsEuqns ,oI satxpBp ar{ ro paulolu gasrtu daa; |1nr 1 .uouea6lde s!i8 q oulul4red ,a$eur IuE 6uplp6€J pquo plnoqs ,fu3 aq uJoqrs fued e$ ure | flJe auJeu ,{ul ut passeojd eq gnoqs uooeclddE slql 'uo["3ldde a|{ alg c[ ItE€d"] te6et ItU lo uote+eurmop €qPrgde6 peqE€qtg 3^eq t leuqo lladoJd a+ Iq psu6|s ue€q pu ser{ uoqe.rtddE qql lt pou.d te3dd? ar8 6uunp.lo uoI"3lldde aq1 uo sougeaq an p pa{qo ot u6u aq o,{po pahrc le ordde p suolpuoc dq pu*oq aq q aeroe I uoqetdde srn ag o1:auuo ,(yado;d oq uo4 uolszuo$ne p.rJrsfp./\eq ol tu#rdal 'psqdds sB 't 'uooe3qdde sr$ 8uruos ul :U$mO llU3dOUd vl{I U:ll{lo lIYgnddv 'uoqeqldde ]o s,(Ep sseur$q 9! ur.t$,r lua(dde a{l ot galreu,l aq IEils secuasJap uoleqdde ro a0ou uqryrtr V 'lEllulqns Eqrcqdde ro sr(ep ggaulsnq 9 ! ur$lrt\ spaur eq flBtls uoBBc{dde a\0 p ssaueladur@ p uoPu!urr3}4 v 'qu€uambar lernpmjd qqeql&e pue slueulpro cu@ds al{ aulurel+ ol lua!4Jedao orruuqd eql qtn raluoc puB lsllx3sl.l3 UoF{ddy glaudod8 at4 c[ JaFI 'uooeclltEe org 6ull1 arola€ suolsr^ord sueurprg Ar3 apatEde Ig pelmbo: suqd pue uqleur.p]u! Ite & pquedroooe eq lsnuJ puB Pstuud ,qJe3p Jo ua$ur$ad& sq PUB [rU u! g€qqduoc eq l$ul uogeqdde sql uolleuuorul tus3llddv pup Jaunto ,(!adord :C uoll3aS E!tr D uoll?ur.loJUl uo!l?lrrrloN :t uoll3as 3teleg 50 Appeal to the Chanhassen Zoning Board of Appeals concerning 1441 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen MN 55317. From: Below Interested Parties -Contact Chris Mozina 6670 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 (315)-622-8119 Date: August 18, 2022 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 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 -6675 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 b.Don and Nancy Giacchetti -6679 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 c.Tom Hoghaug -6713 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 d.Juli Schwartz -6687 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 e.Chris and Amy Adams -6695 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 f.Paul and Laurie Lokar -6642 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 g.Mike and Gina Buchholz-6656 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 h.Christopher Mozina and Jennifer Kemnitz -6670 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 i.Tammy and Blake Tornga -6686 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 j.Heida and Doug Ahmann -6700 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 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 51 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 g.As indicated by receipt of "Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting" Dated July 7, 2022. h.As indicated by the addresses above and the associated Carver County Property Information Public Records recording ownership in the indicated addresses Carver County Property Information -. 4.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 Interested Parties)"(Letter and 3 Addendums in the public record), prior to the Public Hearing and Planning Commission meeting on July 19, 2022, failed to meet the specific requirement of Section 20-2 Purpose "(g) Secure equity among individuals in the use of their property." 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 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 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." iii.According to to Sec 20-43 Public Hearing should have occurred prior to the July 19th Planning Commission Meeting? "(b) If 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 52 visible over a large area. The applicant is responsible for meeting with affected homeowners." c.Preliminary Platt Failed Requirements from Section 18-40: Section 18-40 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 proposal to the Planning Commission on page 6 of 16 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 visualization shall be used from flat shading for massing studies and preliminary design to photorealistic imaging for final design." 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 City Attorney. It is requested that they again be reviewed and addressed). a.Immediately halt any further proceedings 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 July 25, 2022 at 12:14 pm. The City Staff at a meeting on 8.17.22 indicated refusal to answer any previously presented questions or any further questions from the Interested 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 Interested Parties so that Appeal is not disqualified on procedural grounds. -At the 53 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 guidance 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 administratively heard(verbally or in writing, with what submission 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. 54 "G Csver County Protdty Tsr D€parknent $-C:r.t.4' St€:i, 90. irr 69 C!:a;la 4l!i 5a313-4i.9 i!52: :5i- j S:! , rilu!$e$4i!:nr Fd B do-r! r4i s ra.b d !!!lq4!!!4a.P.yF,e.a{* .5 l, k*r!r fhyns F.nilet . Plid .d*L.rl .+i.! or rou. r* $bmr ProPerry lo * 25.0c25820 EEl&pq,* dAr,tr{€ G rcBN TFttST C]O OIANiE G MOFITI TFUSTEE la/tl ta(E ftcYRo CHANHASSEN MN 55317,84I'5 kr"r,lth,r,l,rhrl,r,rIl"rll.lh,rriltrlhrl.l,trrrrhr,r. $$$ BEFUl{tX;? fdt,,ty,,.t4i .lqNq .d tn r&n d. b EduQ t ttptq.tytd rldt, t*l.rarBfit n$ t,d,13,b.frlr. E t: l:t5351!l CHANHASSEN MN 55317+O5 6 Corft A CAFVEB COUNTY 6. CO FAL AlJTllOparY r Cnrdlm crTY OF C+lltiHASSEt'l 9. S.hod D6lb SD(E 6l{lNrErOMA I vot6r Arp@6d L.vr6 B. OltEr locJ 1fl6 r, u.. n* tuns Fqn rrtr'n b e lt yq, &.foat b ru a Eq.rry l, rdutld. FL it Ar4Et t 5. t tas b.x E .tEr6r, Fu m d.qcn Ea rn .G .rd dgD€. Z Ustl -.JwnEq F@ MiPF ro $. iryaecilid. trr. so**r ..GJrd. 3 ftDp.nyteE lq.*nr4 qt.rtlEl rEriEclyr.E l^lridrrc mrtlio*&i E Olscdlrr .l rr.tiyrrr. rlE cars 2921 2gz2 _0c 6.5a stu(PI ErE r16nreoan w r30c oF E .a{.2 of 60vr Lor 5 00c !0. sp..c laso Died* 2 654_61 | 6!*_73 8r2r.o I7.ZOi' 2.e60s 33.@ 33.00 qrlno B. L.ro racqrb Cdnd 2&34 90.$ 15034 rr. rE>$it d rr(e.ar{6dr.d6@!.l.@ la'rou D,t 4ry rd Eh.e spaoa, as€*.lt 13. 6D..id Als€ryIE tn 6t !4. TOTAL PflOPCB'Y TAX ANO 3PECIAI ASSESST'EITS g Pr.E 6E I{Or'ATE YOJn AOO8ESS Corlrfcion ON AEVERSE gOE G IHIS PAYYAfi SNjB t,rotenY lDl: 25.q|25E20 Ai[ ]: 13!9534 DIANNE G IIIORIN TBUST C6dANI\CG MOF . IRUSTEE ,,1,r1 LJIXE IUCY FO cH^r*r ssN MN 55317-8405 Blllr: 1359534 0a aoee e50Ee5aa0 000r+39000 r lSHALF PAYMENT STUB - PAYABLE 2022 TO AVOIO PENALTY PAY ON OB BEFORE: 11y172022 SECOI{D 1/2 TAX AMOUNT OUE:4,390.00 l,trtll,ll,[,rtrlrnttlhrl.llltllrlt.rllrtr,,,rIIlh,r,,thtl ToFr dt eolor*odEfrdlc..:JdBtdym odd*E.ltdedbEida'lE Pb&?6|&,ForylJ'dlura.d td#@r'.!riac o.l @ u s.dtu* &?i d Bd nJ d I@Bpl!&.l*'Ert*dld.Edvs..Ec,,4l.l. t !3!J .EIt 5= EE6* q5 Ii- =d OIANNE G MOHN TNUST Ci/O OIAIJNE G MOFIN, TNUSTEE 1{,T1 LA(E LUCY FO CHANH SSEN UN 55317-3,105 PtEAtE NDIC IE YOOF ADDEESS @Afi'CiON OI F€VEFSE 9D€ OF THIS PAYMENI SITB ProFrty lDa: 25.0([5420 to p.y dii. !o io 8.6.caw.n..G Eld mEi Drymtu ar* h Fd dlN. TO AYolO PEMLTY PAY OI{ oB BEFoRE: $142022 FULI T ( A}.4OUNT:8,780.fi) FIRST 1,4 TAXAIJOTJ T DUE:4.390.00 ilrae a)ecks ,ay.rtii. r;...i^,1 r.nrl L.i Carver County P.O. Box @ Chaska, MN 5531&.qr6!, I,trtll.ll.r.hrll([,ltrl.utllh.rll .,,rurI,.r.rIrl t :3 i* a6 l4 66 t 1 VATUES A D CLASSHCATIOI T.rc3Prr.bbYcar: 2021 2022 719.lOO 2 PROPOSEO IAX $.7,r2-OO 22 Property Tax Statement 0r a0ee a500e5Ba0 000q31000 3 Y}r€t..d.]i.dt.,e]dryrhd.?4!q,F*rylDtqr'.*r te.rdr.dHd.oit.ind irr &.+ 6r ur- {c*d rtd .6 .a !.o@ d r-,rc R.d E& d6 d a1@ o d h.. tui !. e€n . I'/t n,-ro,yFjbBl.b,yfu*lEeada@rys..Mb,dbb 3 PROPEflTYTAXSTAI ElT Fial haIlrEtue: 5t18t2@2 s.6id nd br6(g6 1ot17l2@ Tor, Ts.. D!. h ,O22: 4,390.00 4,780.00 ! i ur rr srd L.630r o-l i uz e souo wesre ree ars,,ro ?d HALF PAYMENT STUB. PAYABLE 2022 $aiL€ cnecks irayable t3 and r.{rrit !t!: CarYer County P.O. Box @ ChaBka, MN 551ll8{Xr@ 1 55 1 Zoning Appeal for 1441 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen MN 55317 From Christopher Mozina - (315)-622-87L9 6670 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317, cmoztna m m Date: August 18,2022 lnterested Parties: a. Jeffand Patti Dahl -6675 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 b. Don and Nancy Giacchetti - 5579 Lakeway Drive, chanhassen, MN 55317 c. Tom Hoghaug - 5713 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 d. Juli Schwartz - 5587 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 e. Chris and Amy Adams - 6695 Lakeway Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 f. Paul and Laurie Lokar- 5542 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 g. Mike and Gina Buchholz - 6556 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 h. Christopher Mozina and Jennifer Kemnitz - 6670 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN ss317 i. Tammy and Blake Tornga - 5686 Pointe Lake Lucy, Chanhassen, MN 55317 j. Heida and Doug Ahmann - 5700 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 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 g. As indicated by receipt of "Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting" Dated luly 7,2022. h. As lndicated by the addresses above and the associated Carver County Property lnformation Public Records recording ownership in the indicated addresses Carver un Pro lnformati 2 56 "G Fdtuhlo-rcs&r.n3rdEsdw.mB . P., F' h.i dl m.s,o14rdd/t r ?.r rni6ni!&r.P d.ddrinJ..dG or l.[ Td sbtfu Properiy lD r: 25,89301 rlo I ElnT.e.y* JEFfnEY loAHt PAIBqA J CTiAPMAX 6675T KEW Yoi cruNltlssEN MN 5gll7-7573 llIr,,ItIti,,tlhrhl,rltrrr,"h,,rr,lht"rhr, Irl,rIr,l $$$ ta Oetal lor Y&r P,!pc.ry f@ tuy b.fii* to.4 q rfr 16 ,rit rdt lo ra<lud, yott pto*ty bt. x ttc dddtt arlatdn t tun da L* to *l, 3 Prlp.ivhFt lor.clrb. qnrbn.lBrEplt iltlrrll r&roird ml3doRf,. E Oircdflt a ?r.ttrd&.lt0t !L:134a:A cHll*r ssE tll{ 56!}r7-757a a Cdr!, A oAivEB CU.jiITY B. OO BXI- AI'IIOr.TY 7. CilnTdr (,TY(F(}| I*TASSEN r. Ue{Bffiur d Fdn r't]PF b*e 'l rc! & d,rible lo. a prto6ny trl Etu4d. F,e by ArlgrEr 15. t nE bd 6 drcd@<r, Fu 4s ddnqust ls6 and .E id .ligak. a tka [E gjlpnE 6 Fom Ml PF lo ,. n ya @ ditid€ totr q sp..i,r Etuin ! sD @70 tairlGfq'aG ^ vor, Ar?6rd tab a. Otd todt taic BEFUNDS? S€.to.r 02 Twlg]p r 16 R&t!e o23 W}IrTETAI mVE Lot 0O1 Blcl 003 L,E 13 SpaJ A*senan D!a.I {rz ! soLrD w slrFEERESAG 33.44 202'l 2U22 9071.00 e.o!&d, 9.07r.@ I!FE EE 10. Sp6i, Tdi^E Ois.ric. B. Metro Mcqltb cdrd 2.76445 50.20 30ll, 9,r2lo 275A.U r.752.34 29,a6 r 1. rbts$nod Ers .,procd rgd4ra I.!i€. lZ r.,id p.qaty rd hloe ar&al dsssri.rts 3.00lA SpsiJlls&,EIE kfld6t It. TOTAL PSOPEFTY TAI AIID 3PEOAI AS9€SSr|E,TS 2d HALF PAYMENT STUB - PAYABLE 2022 To p.y dru OF !om6,a,w,m,c Th. di6 r.rEd t .r@ a &tLtb ro.. dnri r-r Er p.r@, od Elff Fyl8B 6d b€ p.n dn{- Yor.ca.ird!.dr. r.d d olrdl rt.$ so yos aopin,lo r d y$ *r ft.!.bd@ e d hdd o.tctdJ u S .dMr &6F E Bd rrr @ !o a.arsr d€ .{Gd d kleclsoodladB.nF&ddttoo(ntrodbts!.rlrI@ap!l&.l&gll4&ld.F.ly*ul,d]... g prEAsE ilolc^'rE YoJa AooFEBs cofiEllor{ ON EEVERSE 90€ O' THIS 'AYU€XI SNA ProF ty lDa: 25JAm14o Bill ,t 1Cll428 6675 LIXEWAY DR CHANHAS"SEN MN 55317.7574 CHANHASSEN MN 553]7.7573 "l ri!, jr.{k. ;:a!.rr:tr ' i - i':.ri',: Carver Coung P.O. 8ox 69 Chaska, MN 55:r'l&.(xl6! Bllla: 1378428 Ee a0aa a58i30r't0 000rr55e00 e IdHALF PAYMENT STUB. PAYABLE 2022 TO AVo|O PENILTY PAY ON OF BEFORE: 10n 712022 SECONO T,2 TAX AMOUNT OUE:4.552.00 l,trtll,ll,[,rtrI"tt,hrl,llltlI ,tlItr,,,rIII,,t,,th t is 6;t43: 6H Es-i;t*1d EIIE t +3t? iB del* It a1 a2 PI€A3E NDICAIE YdJF AOOFESS @hEIIO'I ofi REVERSE 90E C rlrl3 PAYI.€{I 5n,B ProFrty lO* 2r89il0lql ioFydrirgpiomEdErh.6 !.r.ffi'*l,l!.,'ffi dmEiFrl'sd*p.5dre- Io AYolD PEIULIY PAY Ot{ OB B€FOR€: $lazua FULL TA)( AMOUNT:9,104.00 FIRS' 12 TAX AI,'OUI.IT DUE:4.552.00 Make cheqks paysbte io anc remit to: Carvgr Coun{y P,O. Bor @ Cha8ka, MN 55314{I!@ l,trtll.ll.r.hrlhtt,hrl.llltlltt.tllrrrorrlulnr,tlIl Ycd.r!.a.ddr.d.r!..rcsd Pt -dp.cqln.'p.JdEr*!d-dd6t*r fFno,yo,6Gh.,odEd'!...F]r,s..8',dl.A 1 VALUES At{O CLASSHCAION Tlxes Pry.bLYeer: 2021 2022 739,300 2 PROBOSEO TAX s9.06a.oo 0I a0ee a5a130rq0 000'{55400 q Carver County Prcp€rty Tar D€parbnent aic ta< .s Slr6?i 20. irrr 6! i.a.i(. i.1,{ 5a313r0i9 ag32i 35:-19:, . litlllueE!:ti.!} 2a22 Ptope.ty Tax Statement 3 PNOPBTY TAI sTAIffTT kh{la6dr6: 5fi0t2@ sddh.tll8rtE lotlft& TdrffiDrh2E2 a.s62no .562.00 9.t0{,00 1 57 "G Caarer CotE{y Pro!€rty Tax DBpartmeot i{C:a.ti' Slre.i 1!}. trr 6? Caaik. i,!!{ 55ir13-0iaq i!52: 36i-1-i:i, "a!.itlre&El!li-i F h td*rC a* d tr-.- r t!|!lesE!!4rE.P.y,o,l.Go*4 .s4wE@rdP.y6n 6id .A!.r turc+G d Ff ru srffi Prop€.ty lD * 25.8Enl S TrED.rF. OONALD J a NANCY L GIACCHETI 6619 LAI<E!/VAY OR aHANHASSEN N 55317-7t3 rtr,hrhlllrI rlthI,rt[,trhrh,l,Jr,h,l,tt",trr,I,l, $$$ rd Oetal br Y@. Prqeny se.I.i @ TMsno I 16 E&l(e @lwlrrETxf covE ror o10 ad{ 62 10. Sp.dd raidg lknds i. lr5tr.,fuusld Fq M,Pl b e.l y.q e d{itlr i,i a p,q.ny ta eirrr, Fb by Ar4rd 15. t tB bq . .lrtqr, Fo a dcaiEEr hE rn .G .r.a dlde. Z U- tE* amnl3 6 Fom Ml PR l.r -. n y@ @ digilE t '. sp.oal ,*rn I ffi ;6 3 alt n, l.I.. b.ro6 cr.dt! 'l crsallsthetEdEprwrlyL$ A Aooorlu.C Nrrpr lde d.d r S. Ots Cedit S ProFr,E..ltr.r.dn !lr: tSTaOat oHAI\iUSSENI l553r7-757A 6 Cody A C ,WEF @(xlrY & oo n^It alrnglYz cil'trTm ctrYoFcH tltassE'{ a S.l'.dl,ilE So@tlLlnElq'a< A Vort Arfdd tsrb aolrt.cLc 2021 2022 ! 9,089.00 9.?25.00 9,0&9.00 9 225.00 2.766-21 33.O 10 Lr6 13 !rr@' A*sB( O.r.t naz r souD w sTEFE€FEs^G 3100 r r. Idlai.d v.re arpoEn eradlr. lni6 rZ lord p.Bdry rd H.E .GEI es€€5@6 9.03S,9) 1225.00 2310.54 5a36 ?0.90 96,04 r59.5. !-!F! &r B. M6to llo6qirb Corl|d 13. SDciJ AsErE li1d6t rd- rorar PsoPEBn r^.x ano gPEclaf assEssriEl{rs 2I HALF PAYMENT STUB . PAYABLE 2022 To p.t drltE go ro rfiro.r,vt mn,u. ]b dim ffidJ.dw a drd. (].@dp.r'ttel,ldb,.dg}8, pt.lftpFcl,rylrldp..d tid&d.]t{inid{, o^rrtuusFdB^ddsrcrydd6 lrdla@okdq.rE4 !d.Fd's..bad*ce To p.y d*. go lo w@.eE.nn.G o.l (d Frrl*d4* b p..d drfr. lo IVo|D PENAI-TY PAY Ox oB gEFonE: 5al6dl022 a pLE SE if,)n^rE yoJF AOOiESai @AAECnON ofl gEVE*SE s|oC OF rlrls P Yra€XTSTrr Prooerry rDh 25t9i10130 OONAIO J & NANCY L GIACCHETN CHANHASSEN t{N 55317-7576 l,l ri:i :ii.irr : .1/:i|]]( - , Carver County P.O. Box 69 Chaska, MN 5ai3l8-{x)69 Blll r: l376ql 0a e0Ee esa130r30 000qh4100 0 1"HALF PAYMENT STUB. PAYABLE 2022 TO AVOID PENALW PAY ON OF BEFORE: 1On 22022 SECOIID l/2 TAX AI,5OUNT DUE:4.629.00 l, tr t ll.ll, r, r tr I ,hrl,[l|llh,tlIrr,,,rIII,,t,,thtl t IE 8x E!T6 Eq I_- *? KI Billr:1378541 oor{alo J & NArlcY ! oAccHETn cH^itrtassEN tr/tN 55317-7578 FULL TAX AMOI,NT:9,258.00 FIRST 1.l2 TAX AMOUNT OUE:4.629.00 Make ciEcks payebie io 3r'.C rernrl ia: Catwr Counttf P.O. Box @ Cha8ka, MN 55ill8.{X!@ I,rrtll,ll,r,rrrI.tr,ltrltllltl[[.tllthnrIIIr,ttrrlIl r. Pb.& {i. @ PIEC ro.6p' l:H,..4.d tl* J€ d Ed oii o6dr ^r'e.5iord6q.dr ta l!.or,e.@,r-d*rEr&Bortr@rErramdb!ah,r'tFF6'F,!Bl&,ye*lLdl!.d!FJ's..ulr.obk 'l VALUES ANO CLASSIFICATION T.xes Paydble Y.!ar: 2021 2022 2 PROPOSEOTAX ss,220.00 r 01, e0eP a581301,30 000q84100 e 2o22 Property T*x Statoment 3 PROPEFW TAX STETEIETT FFs! hdl br6 deB; st16lxh2 slsd hd t i.. du.: 10'17t2722 aod-ra5 Dtr h 202e 4.629-00 .r,629.00 REFUNDS? foQ n ay b. aiqiltb br @ q .frlfrt lurdttotzd@ yar FoFt! r't. kd tl* h.* ol lN. fr,.@rt to l1d, otl l$*to 9r. PLE^SE aErC rE YolrF AOOhESS COAAEC,IrON O'I FEVERSE SIDE OF IHIB PAYIIEIIT SIUa. P.oFrty l[x: 25.8930130 t =3gH &B i4 |- ;E12a 58 G Carvea Ctunty Prcpe.ty Tax Oepartrnent airt a;< :r Sr,e3i iao. 6rr ri! Caai.i.,',!ii 5ail 3-rl0:g t!52: li:-1i:i. r.ae :....,s..,..,i fdtuha*! '.i @ *-.D, Eaaw.@G.P,y,.@'.cdrft . s'o up ra d Tu PDni &5,tlr . r\tr ..Eir!J c.Fr 01 Fr Id Sed P,oPe.ty lD n 25,89110O rt-d l&p.y.. THoMAS ANOFEW HOGHAUG 6713 LAKEWAY DA oXANHASSEN MN 55t17-7579 rlll,t,tqrltr ltr,tUltrt,r,utrl,rttrrtr,q,rlhl,l,,h $$$ Tar Del, br Y@ Prqetiy 2021 2t22 REFU[t]S? fd tuy E daibEbr N * .d t6 rcrqntbEd@ ttu FoFq nt. M<ttit b, ol lltl, *tuEntto n n oa b* Io 4rty. lar:1an1$ crl^ttta6sEl| t/it 55317€234 l. ljre !B aeud @ Fdr Ml PF b 5 'r yoq @.figibB lu a Frcsry iar Ellrd. Fr. tt a4isa 15. It tis bq 6 dredql. FU 4 {dinld t c an .6 rn dg5b. 2 l,rtHqrunbdFomMIPFro{.ty.uadig.i.ru.ca.*loturn- I Ptle.rrr 16 b.rq. cr..b { Cdl!. ItEl BrE pr9.g Le I Aldqrt rl qtul vC* ct dL s.ot cedb 5. ?rlF la-.trqri. a Cs, A CtFVeB COUNTY & c, Rrlr AunoBTY z C ydTm ClrY G Clllt.DlA,lsElt t s.,!.dD.xir sD @7! nt{NEId9q A vol, App66d rsiB B- Ols t!.c l*! 9 754.0S 97rI.61 9.766.@ 2 SO.IO S..rDn t2 IwEnE t16F&q€ 023 wHfrETAlf COVE Lo: 0o7 ale{ oo2 Lr. 13 S9..d rca6Ei o*lt }IAZ ' SOUO WASTE F€E AESAG i_!-! |6 &E ro- Sp6.d Tdino Oilincs 5.{.16 32-S5 5S57 3r.32 iOl.9,l 16927 r 1. iro.l$rel&tg aaproed ielnEda l€eies 12 Told tsqly rd belo.e spoo.l €*:en rc 11 Sa-tl AB'Elts ldrct i4. TOrAL pCOPEBTY rlr lio SPTOAL llSESSlrEr{TS 2''d HALF PAYMENT STUB - PAYABLE 2022 a PLE S€ OrcfiE YOJn A00|i€66 COir€IlOr{ OX EEVEBSIE SbE Of THS PAYI'EXI STIA P'qerty lDa: 25SlilotlP SECOND 1,2 TAX Ai'OUNT OUE:5,734.00 EdiEd t ?;6: E5 ii 1d t EI d3 E3:4:r;6 5 THOMAS ANOFEW IIOGHAUG oHAt{HASSEN llN 55317-7579 !'.la&€ checls |dyable tc and rcrril ti Carver counq P.O. Box @ Chaaka, MN 559i8-{X!69 Blll ,: 137n45 0a aoaa e58330100 0005?3'.t00 l hrrrllrllrrhrrrlh{trhrl,rUltt,tl|l|r,ilurI,,rnrhrl :Pt.&.i!a,Frr'D.d@l.d tdsr@&.! d d 6t dlto.l U S 'd'rr &'r a Bd d * br..a,dtuqaEd.6d!.o@drc'nqd.4n4Bw6E*.pnlrcrr.d.F.lv*@..ee 1"HALF PAYMENT STUB - PAYABLE 2022 To C.y dlir Oo ro mE.ffi.6n,G ,L di,E Frd bdrB idl* d. aifir Fi b, ry'd-o.l6q]A p.y@ e^d b€ !.4 dl E, lO AVOID PEi{ALTY PAY Or OR SEFORET tlCl2022 PTEASE I{DI€AIE Yo4JF AOO'ESS @inEfiloN OIi FEVERSE gOE OF THIS PAYTENT SITE PToFrty lDa: 2nEqlo'100 rdEl ^FE B6rC P D svEsmxc*AYIEU3F^r,i:l^IgERvcE m t: 1r7t5 lliOIASAt\DFEWllOGrl t G cHANltassEN lllN 5531 7-7579 FULL TAJ( AMOUNT:11.458.00 FIRST 1.,2 TAX AT'OUI.IT EUE:5.734.m Melie ch€ci.s payable to and remrt t6: Caw€r county P.O. Bor @ Cha8l6, N 5qI6{Xl@ l.trrll!ll,r,rrrlh,[,hrlrutlltr,tlltrtr.rIIItrI,thtl Yo{dJ'.idfuapddrF6l'Pl&*DydrF@r'lD.mYoIc.r'Er*rdd!d!. s d hac. (,l'dba r.r.s.qh.*d.h.E Bdid 4 r& Gir6t ul6qd,d. 'gcl50@dt*di.i6*Bdai@.6dr-dh!a.rhr'rtn Fr E@i&r.rqF -r6.@!. F, s..M6rlle 1 VALUES AtID CLASSIECATIOT{ Teres Piyable Ye!r: 2021 2022 709.900 749_900 2 PROFOSEDTAX s9,76,(.00 01, e0ae e50330100 000571'{00 5 2a22 P?oparty Tax Statement Eslimal6d Mal(d valoo 3 PNOPERTY TAX STITEIIEITT FBt lExta€dlc: ane"xt?2 S..r.rd ii{ lar.s drE: 1U17t*2 Td Ta.5 Drr. h @? 5.734.O 5.734rO ! B. Uol'D rr4i4ato C.nld To Fy dill go io mffiIn6.0. Ib 116 lqrci hoft E rr*dtr4trF,l':6ffih!.ddlfi. TO VOID PEIIALTY PAY OX OF AEFOFE: 10fl7/2l}2 1 59 "G carrercou y Prop€rty Tax Delarlment -J.s =a< i: St'e.,i ?o. Ax n9 ar-a*i il]{ 5a31J-4C,:g i!52: 3S:-1S::, E$f!!}3!y&:I:l! FdtEid.at cn u r&I dtua.e.mB .Ptr F,Bdlcrs41',ddTd?'yi6in.ii* $$$ ProPrty lD *: 25,8gOOr20 lepqF.i Jlrl.l^r{N U SCHW FTZ 66A7 LAXEWAY DR CHAIIHISSEN MN 55317-7573 lhr.h,rrrl,IllIrl.,,lll,rrI,lh,rrrr,lhrr,,h,lhIr,rn I ki fq .Ny E .trtqiblo 16 fr d .@ td Elun3 b r.<ltE your Noca, tu, *t<l tlt b*, ol tN. trat€Md to frrrt ora tp, to 4pu.Ilj T€ 3 PEe.n,t.r!frr. {r. 4 C{tdb th.l,t rs r,Frty t ra A. Alio.lud n r!'cvd!.oidi. E. OtErc{dlt 5 rEf.rr bib.qtrlL laa:13Ir90O CHAUTASSEN MN 55317-75/A ! co6t a clFvER oqrNlY E eoE ll^r,I}oraTY 7. Cntsidr CiTY Of Clllr+I SSEN l Sdtod oiltl SD @7a milEl(ra(A a v.r ADod-lrr5 E Oa! tlol L6r- Td Oelai tor Your Prpe.ly r. li. ois rrwr 6 F@ Ml PF lo e , y@ & dh*b lq a o.lcdly iar Etund. F,€ t Atgd 15. I ib bq i5 .n6&d, ,ou m ddrqlBn uF *n rG nd e*!&&. a U!. t'-.nqrde ('r Fom M! Pa ro *. n ror d Ctid. tu{ & sPFd Etun. a. M.!! ucqrio cdtlr 28.73 125.15 29.63 19_76 1',-60 REFUNDS? sa.bn @ TtrEh, I 16 Ba.Ee @3 WHmT,U C'OVE Loi mS sl€k 0@ ue 13 Sr..:d Ass.ar D.rail ! 2022 2.ztt.6 ro spa.id Tai.g Dirids r 1. nq!$i.d vde. 4.ocd rde@r. rdiE rz Tou p.Qeo ld D.ioi. sp@.1 .s€€6ti 13. Spdil A!.6rslts lrrr6t !4 TOrAL eqop€B.y ru lio sPcoar AsSESsrrErrs 3S Zd HALF PAYMENT STUB - PAYABLE 2022 To !? dL to ro wt.o.r!t mi! rh dr r.Ff t-4 6 &rl.ldq- FrIdald t6r.n dre.g FLEAS€ IIOICAIE YOJA ADOFESS @FfiECIIOt] ot{ FEvEas€ grx oF r}ls P YU€,rTsttB ftoFrty lI* 25j9ll0l2o Bllla: 1371900 0a aoae e585301,a0 E00q 57500 ? TO AVOID PENALTY PAY ON OR BEFORE: 10t172022 SECOND .lN TAX AMOUftT DUg 4,575.00 Irrrtll,ll,[.rtrIn[4trl,Irtlltt,tlItr.trrIII,rrtrtl P-utDd .rt{ ,. !t id, Oit .roc U s rdirr &!n a ryd id @ ^b rlir -r drs @sd.in. r.d3rrvs..b.dt&ia I H* iE 99 PqJULIANN M SCHWAFTZ CHANHASSEN lllN s5317-7578 Irrri€ .h($ks tlayablc tl) arid refiit i.) Carvsr Counq P.O. Bor @ Cha8ka, MN 55318{X}@ 1"HALF PAYMENT STUB - PAYABLE 2022 Prras€ xDlc rE Yo(lR AooaEss cofitiEcnoN ON FEVERSE gOE OF THIS PAYIfNT 3T('B ProFrty lo+ 2iE9il012o to p.y d*r €o io ffiodE.n..c-lt.dlE,.'lfruJ,..Dnb od ^qd ,.r@ e,Er !. Fd dr *. TO AVOID PE?aALTY PAY ()ll OR AEFqE: Yl6/2tP2 B t: 137900 JULIANN M SCIIWA'ITz CHANHASSEN MN 5{t17-7574 FULL TA.}( AMOUNT:9,1sO.00 FIRST 12 TAX AI'OUNT DUE:4.575.00 Malre cirecks payable 10 R,r.i r€tntl lc: CarEa Counv P.O. Bot @ Chsd€, MN 553tE-{xr@ Irtrtll,llr[!hrlhr{trl,mtl[tHlrtr..rIII.t,.tl[l Yua,ld.dcic.e.c6frh.6pFF!.lo.Ep.dFtff.oae dil.d. o{ dri. u s 16,rdd,ri!. Fri rd erb,Erri!.- q& rld ae c,30d dr-,i rr.J E -l6da1@.6 a15di. !dnrrln,a''F,!'.1&lql.{&c!q.d.F{ysaMl'd& t =3 5* a6 aq s 1 VALUES AND CLA:IEHCATIOTT Trr.s PEyrble Year: ]O21 2022 7015X) 2JOO 2 PFOMSED TAX ss,112.00 0r a0aa e58130I40 000'i5?500 1 2022 Property Tax Statemsnt 3 PROPEETY TAX STITEreXT Fidndlkresde: 5:1&W S@rn ndl sB .tu!: ,0!17;5,2 Tod Ta€s D!. .n 2C22: +575.@ 45ra0o 9.r54.00 2U21 1 60 "G CeYer Count, Property Tar Oepartnent +, i?d 3i Sreet 9o. ', E9 +:a*! l,!l{ 5a31 Y)0!9 !i5?) 36: -1! i, , !a$iiLr,SEE!-4.ii fd,t6dld.trc vi! { *-.r. rIne.mc . P., d..s. diri. .g.nl,hdruPn.ldkdl t Plinr .rrfto.rl ..d.r or you, rd sdd|nr , PtoPedy lD l: 25.8A3ol lO bfi r,rildtrilrlhrrtrill,rilrllllIrl,lhlil,,r,,rhlll,,,ll,lhn $$$ td O€td ror Y&r Pqe,ly EEFUNDS? S€.ioi 02 T r$D 116aslqe 023 WHTETAIL CrOvE Lo1 ooa 6le( 0o2 r0. sp6.il iaano oi6ri.B I6Oar* GHESTOPICB T AOrtllS 6@5 rIXE:rV V OF cHAilr^ssEir MN 553r7-7t8 Ll61l Sp..u rss6l D.t t (AZ a SOUO W STE FEE BCSAG l@ nuy E .ligibE lo. or9 or .@twt hrn b..<tE t@PoFtyt,.,'dt**a ol d* al,,.frrt to tudda,tub*t. :E 3ltDr.nyEstfr!*ba cEdlr,drrdEFes9LE a alrbJtxl Drrd vcu *n & ollr cdlrt 5. ?t!F 6.E.i!tt. tar. ilrfi25 crilt'i.tassEr ttt 56317-7570 6. Cdrlt, A CAnVEB @araTv a @aILAUII{ETY Z CqdI CIIYSCllLaUSAEll t 9!d a6u st @?at ltNErl.(a arrol..Ar?ddt,B r. rJse tis ftunr s Fon Ml PF b.€e rr y@ & di(iue lu a pr!9elty ldr @lund. Fle by Allr6r 15. ll lE bo( E .n.d.rr, ,ou rE dcfrRu6r t a drn .d .td .rgds. z Lri uF$ r]E48 q Fm Mtm |o *. lt tcr @ cioide ln a 3p..ist drrn. B. u.tD Moscuno Cond 20a1 ! 2:tz2 11 7-OC 3t&33 3 3dL@ I.9 E: Il. rE}..,l... r4rter aoarwr rdoddd loa. 12 Tori ,.a.try t! telo.E so€orl .ssessrsit ll.063.6 r Ol7.@ 36.r4 192-15 3a@l3 SOCaa A*edlb lr|lr€t t.. r o I AL pffoPtR ry r ^i Ano 3Pr 6af asgrsg.ft,fis 2"d HALF PAYMENT STUB . PAYABLE 2022 lo F, dit€ !o io lw.o.dv€..mn.u!Ii' rl md baM a .vrr.d. oc ad !.rffi (fu b. pd dr6.a PIEASE l{OlCArE Yo.Jn AOOREeS COFA€CrOar O,I FEVERSE gOE OF'I}IIS PAYTE}|I SNB ProFcrty IIX: 25.89:l0t 1O Blllt: 1378125 0a E0aa a5853011,0 00055r.r000 e rO AVOIO PENALTY PAY ON OR AEFOFE:101t72022 SECOND T2 TAX AMOUNT DUE;5.540.00 IrtHl4lnHrr[,,Ithrlrutl tr,tlltrnJlur!.ttrthtl Pred.*t u. d rid o.t dftir u r rdur tu' ry Brd rr 4 ^r,ts!6lui6.qEd.d. {d.E{|vs.ludl,4& t htr i; td E=6Ba: Ii CHRISTOPHEfI I ADAMS CHANHASSEN tlN 55317-757A lrake onecis gayable ii, 2,id ,ed'iil ] Carver Coudy P.O. Bor d, Chaska, rrlN 5531HXr6g PLErlE llO T E YOIF AOOAE:}S @iFCIION OII FEVEFS€ 9OC G I}IIS PAYI'EIIIT STTB ProFrty lot;2aEg:Xlll0 IdHALF PAYMENT STUB - PAYABLE 2022 lo Dr, dtr 60 lodoe,E.in.E b.dac,9Ero:,lrr, cldr\dr Fyi!6ederddle. TO AVOID PEIIALTY PAY Oll OB BEFqE: SalOZl@ FULL TA} AMOUNT r 1.080.00 FIRST 12 TAX AI'OUNT IX,}E:s_540.00 Make cir€c"\s payable to and refiit lo: Carver Counv P.O. Bor @ Chasta, MN 55318-{Xr@ l,trtlHlrr,ltrF,,||,hrl,mtlltt,tlIrrtr,rIIlhrtuthl Y@r.dd.dc'.c.@.cNd tt-.*p Fdq|D.6p&r.!.[d.]tbEdtdd o, or.cc U s .-irr c.ba,. Ed i!.1d |bterd'fuqEd-n. rr F' r.rF, te.rar. Fi.l d dr,!.c. F, s..E'rcrlt t r3 IP AZ t9 ;6 5 B t:137E125 CHHISTOPHEF T AOAMS orAJ\{1ASSEN MN 55317.7578 1 VAI.UES A O CLASSFCATION Tares Payable Ye!.: 2021 2022 342.900 2 PROAOSEO TAX lr1 012.00 0r a0aa e5a3301,10 00055'.t000 t{ 20.22 Ptoperty Tax Statement 3 PNOPGNTY T I STATEGXT Fi6rttdla6.iE; SnCt?@2 6@nd ld lat. d,c' lotlll?l}e2 5540,00 'r1.0€o!0 61 "G CarY€f, County Property Tsx Oaparbnent a(t !asl3' Stf6ei 911. 3,rr 6! a:a:i; f.lN 5aj1 3rl{r:9 t!52! :16i - r -! :O . !:$trt!eeg!s!i F4 r€ d.-ra ti o l..a . !!!r494!!sa:ta.P.r !.(E c{4 .9!n Q ld dru ?.y{n x..!Er.Fnd.dn,6l.Ft.!'.,Tus.....' Aopeny lo * 25.641@a)l ffiTrD.y- LAUAE A Lol<AA FEV IRUST LAUAEA! P^U.J Lo|(^B, TRJSTEES ca42 rcilIE ur(E LucY cHAi*tAssE{ MN 553r7-3a33 stu 02 TmsnD r 16 ttare @3 POINTE LAXE L(T,Y Ld oo3 Bbd( 61 Lnr 13 Spdd lodnctl O.aal HAZ a SOUO W SrEfEEAESAG ?,9oa5r 2 09t5 92t 237!.@ l 630.70 A Lto n.+ecd rr 52.60 139.54 51e r3a.32 16.4 rtr,tl,rltlItrlh,t,h ",l.hrl.,r,lIttrtIIl,lthr,r $$$ -fd OeLd lor Y@. PrQeily !. UF fis riqr( @ Fqs xt Pfi b G .l tqr &.lrgrbb lu a p.q..ty Ut ,€{^r. Fr. !t r{rd 15. , tE Dd s crEd.d, tou m €.{.dr Le Er .B rd -!4r..2 U-!l-.J!@n o Fm MlI,n ro 5 i rqr d .lld. !o.. $ql En n. REFUT{DS? rq i.y E .r*r. b. d * .@ t6 t*rd. bnaEyanpqty tu. Ntlt d,dlrbffilo tu.,qtrl, low, 3. ltlt rl,trt h-orba crdt tn dD Fqrr, r.E a^rmrt l turtcd[dt B. Olsct*L i PtlFt,E-alt arrb 9.5P1-6 -- 95r?no 2021 9.527.00 2t22 aaa: l'rarct 6a2 POlllrE tArG LUCY cH r\.l ssEx r/i!r 56317{.33 c @uq a clFvEF cqr{tY B. @6ILAUT}€TY 7. Cinatm qrYoFcS[firssEn r sci.dad6 lio(z,tl.lllET(L< ^. Vot AFr.a L.'- :!:t I9 10. sr..a la'hs o&rdds ! l. tlo.!r?E<r ,de. aap.ad ee@r. |aiE 12. t6d 'ocary ld Etore sreod &*irrsls 13. SO-iJ A.6rrtlr ldd.d ra roral pao9.EBrY T]lx Aio gPEclal ass€ssrE{rs Zt HALF PAYMENT STUB - PAYABLE 2022 loD.,dlrlobEroryJm6irdh9rdt r a rd. rr.Cl,d r.rr.r rrtdo.,rqdFri'.dEt.,.5d'r... Makc .rxrcrs trayrDh 1o aid renril !. Cerver County P.O. Box @ Charlo, MN 5531&dE0 3a@ arGo 3.00 9.5tl.@ a PLEATE I|OlcAE YOIA AOOhESSi @FFCnqr Orl FEITBSE SIOE OF TIIS PAYIlErtIT SNE Pror.rly lor: 25.6aloolI)TO AVOID PENALIY PAY ON OB AEFOFEj 1 011 72022 4,759.00 t iE 8x eB ElIr l a: 1fr476s IAUFIE A Lot(AF HEV TFUST IAUftE AA PruL J Lol<AA, T'{JSTEES 66112 PO rEL XE LUCY CH NTTASSEN tlll 55317-0.(}3 0a a0ee a 5Eq 10030 000 q 75180 r l,trtlltllr[,Hr..lt.hrl,llltllr|l,tllthrllllllnt.,thtl ry-.lgddEddrdrorUso6,vr&,.rIBdil4 l..o.asdoodr-.ia{al&6darooo, -db.r3. 4 ld HALF PAYMEI.IT STUB - PAYABLE 2@2 PfE SE rtlolc^E YAra ADOAESS Cffillor{ oir iEv€Rs€ 90E oF iHlS PAY|E ,lr sTtB RoP.rty lDa: 2n6at0m0 To F.y ditr !o b ft@grn..6 Ii.d!-,.Yldl.*o..i.Bt.116''*E€,l*- oa eff 'ffB c@ !. r.d dld. lO IVolD PEIULTY PAY (x of, BEFOBE: 5rl6.i2ozl 8l ri 1ra?cl LAUFE A LO(IF EV IruST LAUFE A A PAUI J LOI(AF. TFUSTEES 66rt2 POlrlE LIXE LUCY cH r\&rassEN MN 55317-0433 FULL TAX AMOUNT:9,518.m FIRST 12 TAX AIIOUNT OIJE:4,759.00 Make checks payable !o 3rc r€mit to: Caaver County P.O. Box @ Chat(a, M e'3lS-Ulg l.lrtllrlFrrtrl,,||.ltrlfl rtlII.tlItrn.rI lrfi r.tl[l Yd.-r.i.d.ri.d . &r d sd h-.,a p FEry lc. 6 rs .t a tt-ad D E r!5 O^iorioa U s Fdfuitc.-@F rrla d rbtr.a.dul-,id,t.!..ddtdriEu..r rt!,id,-No{ d.l tao@qt- rn q.a E aBcar66.r-tut. !nh[r x,o,o'F,lg[-,!q,dbcu!.d.Fl'sedl,orA t 53 IP 86 E3:4 ;E t 1 VALUES AIID CLASSIFICATTON Tar$Pay.bbYerr: m2l 2022 2 PROPOSEO TAX s9,.40.00 01, e0aa a5L'{10030 000q75i08 l 2O22 Ptop€,tty Tax Statoment Eslmare<t Malter v.tu€ 3 PTOFTN'Y TII STATEGIT Fdnatra.i 5tLtllczsoftdnatsl6dlr.r lotlllw T.C IE Or h 2022 a.759-00 4,759r0 9,51&00 ! SECOIID l.2 TAX AMOUNT DUE: I I 62 ,,G CarvGr County Propdty Tar Oepart{le.t 5(c lrst .f St'6+ 90. ir{ 69 Ciasi" tlN 5a:i1.-00;g 1952: 36i-1s10. q:s.!+!Etses: f{tu ltlo-rc lla @ ra.&rm6etu . P.r FrLGdJ@.Eorob@r t vldtu4i*.hrred.:ll..rF.,Tu stu ftloerly lo t 2t6al@ao t ieqrd: MCHAEL J I FEGINA M Bt ClrHOLz 6656 POIiITE TAE LUCY cH^ilH^ssEN MN 55317.443 lnntuhrhIr,,l,n Ih,,h,t.lhr,llrrtll!rhfl lltl.rtll tvr:[.8 $$$ Id Oetat tu Your Pr+eily 1. tae sc rtEn d Fon Mr PB b e ll y@ rq dcidc rl| a p€gdv lar eturld. F,. B A4(d I t , ,|6 bq 6 d..red, Fo * d.kqlql t.E &n .€ tua digade. z rJs.rtu*.mnte Fm Mrf,B b... trosflt Ctir. b.arpsal ohrn. REFUTID6? Ytu ity b .091* 14 n q fiLtdurd.btldiE PuPtoFety bz x oc ,-*olalbtu t ttu dr tw tooiaf- 3 PEFrty t- lrlq..rt(b. G-rltdLrEpr4rryM a &rEn!, iarrdB flr3 & ol?c fi. s. ttwtrc.tr lrrr. O€66 POXIE TAKE LUCY cH Nlt ssEN llm 5531 7{a33 6 Codlry AC IiVEBCqJNTY B. @ FAll ArrtonrrYZ C,'dt OTYOFCII^IIHASSEX so @?6 i l0lErg\a( a vol'r ar9red rrbB &Otsrlel t i6 2,3i'&37 s€.rdr 02 Tmsllo r 16 F.rc@3 POIMIE LAXE LLJC,Y LoI 00. BbcI OO1 A M.to U..4Ja. C.nr"ol 5Z30 29.95 1XA8 2041 2tz2 ! 9,169.@ TE 10. Sp.dd laino Oini.is 9,1@.lb 92ll.S 2,711.51zs 1,nate tl@.@ 3a@ uE 13 Sp..r' ls.$p, D.r.t Hrza sojo w sre FEE FEsAG 3.@ r1 r@l.d lore *6d, @ler.ida le'/E 12 lod gBdty Ir oeh.! sceod .ss"srtsrE 13. .!":- ABtuE In.rdt Id TOTAL PROPERTY TAT ATiO 3P€qA! S9ESS|.ET'IS 2E HALF PAYMENT STUB - PAYABLE 2022 Blll t: 137,4295 TO Avolo PENALTY PAY ON OR BEFORE: 10I17,2022 SECOND ID TA-X AMOUNT DUE:4.62200 To Fy dllE lDlo twto.sB.m,@Tllrl E ffrd h.r@ a.l&l&b ra.. ddl rd 6 oy'ul Dd ad p.rlmb ald b. Fid drtu tatt Malrc .tecks pd/rule'c b.d ,efl,i '.'. ,-Ef,, Cawar County P.O. Box d, Chaska, UN ssair&{X!@ l.rrtllrllrllrrrlh ,ltrl.lllrlI[,tl[tlil,lllllllnt..tlIl Pb{*pForyltrd'{,ei.d l..ed .JEt s! d t.rd. o.r 6od u s ldfu(c@aurydila& |bG.iD!dd3!q6d.dEtld,!ndg.h@tuj'r'&lE{o,. i @q pr!3r&. r {tE e,!.datsaly s.. b.crr i.d. To p.y ditr !o io w.6d,w.6..G ibodflFl,ndidj.badk*o.,^c6 ,.yRB oi-r b. pai dJ E TO AVolD PE?IALTY PAY O OR BEFORE: 5ntf20lZ2 g pLE .5E itolcalE YouF looREBs coanEcnofl ON FEVEFI;E gOE OF }IIS PAYUAfT STLA ftoF'ty lot: 25.64t0040 t .5E ;r i6 {-- :6 z2 t Eif9 a6 ;; 0a a0ae e5bqL00'{0 0E0qEea00 I IdHALF PAYMENT STUB. PAYABLE 2022 l.rcflAEL J a F€GINA ttl EL|CI]O|Z 6656 PONTE LIXE LUCY CTIANHASSEN ll 55317{,(ts PLEASE I{DETTE YA't ADDRE:}S @AEC]IOI{ OII BEVEFSE !,|OE OF I}IIS PAYME'II SIT,E f,rop.rry ltn: 25.6410040 o!. Ec6Da tElclrE fl^r rm raEs E r6ic Prb E alaior crarY rEus tri6 ell^, sERtcE BI r:137995 MICHAEL J ! FEGIIA I' BI,,CH}O(Z 6656 FOI{TE LAI(E LUCY cHlt*iAssEN ttN 554r7-a{3 FULL TAI AiTOUNT:9,244.fi) FIRST 1/2 TAX AI'OUIIT DU';4_622.6 Make checks par3bl€ to anC reflit 1oi Carver County P.O. Bor( @ Chad(., MN ssi}l&{Xr@ l,trtll,ll,rhtrlh,||.ltrl.llltll\r,tlItri.rIurnt,.tlIl Yo,.d.B.*ddBld ft.&adu@icM.&q.r..ros F6.^".ciqEdid@ 15 ,srrr dr uia..q!d,n a Ed -i d6 a rEvd rliurdrld ntB d. ot !aoo6 s Ls.,n i.l Etl.e !.6.a 3l(..@ d rr tud b. nt it rLtr llppryF,l.aLEFl,tBfu{d',.i.lys..bcl,dLlr 1 vatuEs ANo clAltslHcaTlo}{ Taxes P.yabbYear: m?l 2022 2 PROPOSED TAX !s,20a.oo 01, a0aa a5Lql,00rr0 EE0qhea00 l, 20.22 Prapetty Tax statement 3 PAOPEBTY TAT STATEXEI{T Fiilr &{arr6.bs a1gM2 s!.oi.t i*tx.3.ir.: 1o!171.l}?2 aotd rals D.6 h @r: ,422.& 1 63 ,G Csrv6 Cotsrty Propert Iax OEpartsneot i$ !.a{ 1' Slrc.L 3.O. $n 69 Cti*a tiN 5&1!r0tg i352i 361n S:O . EeljlljlElr,liljD rd r. t&-E va q ra.- . !!!!14id!4!r.PtFrr.6 dL. r slan '4 E e T.r TrrlH A.i.* . Pid .i[-, ..d.t ol F! rd s-rd Prof€rry lo r: 25,6410050 I ffiE,dp.r.i CHFISIOPTCF w MOZtra JE'II{FEA XEUI|TZ 6670 tll\Ilt tll(E LLrCY cH rlH SSET{ MN 553r7,i.33 $$$ r,ltltttr,rtl rh, hrhll,,h,lhrrft ,I,rrIl,I,Illh,l Ta Oelaa bl Your Prlperty 2021 REFUNDS? r. u*nts,lw1d F6 nrtabE a,on & €xlrt'bid. c'qdv Lr Et ra- Fac !, rr4(d 15. I lE Dc 6 .rEtrd, yoJ m (,.rqar l.6 .n .€ rd €hab 2 U-tE.,riS6 Fm MIPF t, I t4 d dtial.ld. !p6d Eirn. !6 3 FrDFdy t,- ... cra. a crdi tn LtEFqrt r.r- a A!.earl Drta dE d!& a. oltr cr.6b n tor.nt ad...ttr l':ll. f@ fry E .ngih lb. o.a or to*Fqa, at. M ttt b*ol,rL ffi, allo 6 'dr lrtaoryly. tla: la7'asrt 6?O PONTE IAKE IUOY cH l!l.r ssEN !ll| 55317{.@ Sdh 02 TddE ! 15 F E d23 PCINI E L XE LIEY LoI G B.d( 61 11Il.13 S,9@d resarEn CE n HAZ a SOUO w^srE fEE RES AG 3.m ro $.r.r lai.s oarncs ro,o3t.6 0.9r.ot 3,Ota r7 3.(Bg!0r 9.75 346 rosa& 33.0l) 6 C.lr,t, a CInVEE CClrl{TY & @ hlltAurloETY 7. Otaldr OIYOFctllr+lAAstN g S6.d DtH SD @Ta lLltlElgia(a A \td.. Att6r.d t i- & OaE L..a t.i- !.8LErn &E9; B. ra.b ltoqrb Cd{d 5&54 t(r& 1125 r l. lls]rrrEd rrocr alc,ltrd lEl6E da l€lhs la Toad ,@pdry ld b.lo.E s9&:l .*sE!E 13 SDdC Ag.dE hdcr 14. roTAr Pf,or€aTr TA.l aio 3P€ctAt rss€ssrrExrs ZE HALF PAYMENT STUB. PAYABLE 2022 Bllll: t374579 loFrc*reoblfrD'E1rru]brrrffi b6rard.LOllq,rl. r?bdbr.naadafi-Ersc loEaIE YdrR AooaEsS @finEcrlotl ON EEVEESE SbE G T}dS PAYIIEI{I SI(B Pro?.rt loa: 256110050 Esaoi.ar'erlqlsF^.coErAsEF!/lcE rO AVOIO PENALTY PAY ON OF BEFOFE: lMZ2022 SECOT{O 1.T TAX AMOUNT DUE:4,987.00 t ffi a!IE P*3e 8E6E Ed I-- cllBtsr@lrEF w troaN JENNFEF XEI'IITZ .670 POI\ITE [-^XE LUCY C}iAr{HASSEN tal{ 55317-8,133 Ea aoaa esbq10050 000q14?00 3 f.lrhe .xeck! piyable tr) a^d r.rnit l.r Carwr County P.O, Bor @ Cha.k , uN 553t8.{XlGl, l.rrtllrll,llitrl,,I.ltrl,rtlltt.tlltrurlrlrlrtrt.,tltn rtc n. p Fory rr ' o rq,, .r.c!!d. d & !. hd. e{' .rror U s 'd', c.'' . ts,.r,i ,l d e.d.F{,s..Ec,,41... IdHALF PAYMENT STUB. PAYABLE 2022 ToFy drrit eolokoalE.m.G Dd rG p.r!t6 -d !. p.. d*e. rO AYOID PEXALIY PAY Oll OR AEFOFE: t 16/202r P|SASE iTO|CATE Yqre IDOEans @renoa{ Oi AEIERSE gOE G T}II9 PAYME}IT gN'E P'q.rty lot 2a64loo5o o.r. EcoFoa Ldc rs^rta. .Yg,cercorPljr'iEu'.rmi€Yr.Ig:.!lGE t =3l9 r* a6 ee *s 5 En ,: lra!t7! CHFTSToPHEA W MO2!{A JEI'IFEF XEMNM 6670 POI{TE LAXE LUCY cH^r*t ssEN MN 55317.A431 FULL TA)( AMOUNT:9.974.@ FIRST If2 TAX AI'OUNT DUEI 4.947.m Mahe ch€cks payable lo anC remit to: Carvor County P,O. Bo( 0e Chsqt8, MN 55i}l8-(nGg Irtrdl,ll,r.rtrlr.||!hrl,rntlltHllrtrnJIr ntrtl[l .hr..aE FaqrD.6@ctr ui ra'.r&,'t Edrddrbt*d'fuq.!rl.!.a'r.rsar@.d rlrrddlft d.crloorr-rritaEr-rdarod'r-dbr.a.1|r!'d'qF,bald.tai'dI!..tF{'s..ul'Gl!.r 1 VAIUES ANO CLASgFCATIOI{ T.1o3 P.ylbb Ycai: 2021 2022 2 PFOBOSED TAX s9.936.m 0r a0aa e5hqI0050 000'{16?00 5 2(}.22 Prop€.rly Tax Statoment 3 tnotEnTtrar STlTmfr Fidhabn: srlrt@llarlJirrtE 10h7D@ld r- Or.h2@a /t.967.@ ,r,S7.OO 2t22 1 64 "G Caffer Counly Property Tax Dapartment a{C izilri Str63i e0. & 6:, Cirark.i :.lil 5:i13110i9 (S521 36ir9:,. Erglqieez,!]lja fd ,€ !.[o*to vdr q ror. ! !a!!4!!!!44a]t.P.Y,ntt 16cl4.sianr?ktuTrP4,dfb rirr r Fiid .dni..J .ci$ or Fu Io S:Er.mr : PrcpeiylOl: 25.6410060 ffiTdPAyT: BU{XE J TORIIGA REFUNDS? 6686 f\OtNTE t.AXE IUCY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-3a33 hil.rlI,l,lll.ilr,rl,I,lll4rr,",l|r[,r,[,llhrl,,rtl,l $$$ ftu dry E .ngiw lo. @ @ .@ tw tdun, b d<tE ytu FoFty ,.t. M ttc *aot[L.n'Bn,n to fia dr rwlo @ly. 666 P(INIE TAI(E LUCY cHA }rassEx t/hl s5:rr{aiB Td Detal lor Yolr Prqeiy. l. ll!. rrs.iou'n d For. UI PE b G il Fr, ft dirbL td a plee,q i.r Btund. Flo by Ar4.d 15. lt tE bd s chatd, ,o{ m ddhqud t.E 6n .G El .adtle 2 Ur 0E .rEnb 6 Fm tllr PR lo -. t roJ o Ctil. Lr. !p5d EhnL ! 3, tt!Frl,r.r6.b.. ta O!.lt itr,nE pltl.ry EE A AFortr.l m,t dodr.bBOl Ct*rlt S PtlFlrlr.rt odb 9.541.(x) 9129-00 :3 r-! a codly a clFvEB colrxTY a oo nl! AuDo rY 1, CO(tm OIv tr ClllrtllSSEN &3?94 so @70 iatitNE'0t{(A A Vol.r Atolr.d L.,b a. (,l! r.!er r,6 2.35&61 t a2oz) a rat! rao.qh cr d 94_76 9321r Slfu 1,2 TM$D 116 Ft re O23 POIMI E LAKE LUC,Y Ld 06 Bb.{ d I uE 13 sp.dJ l69'Erl o.Lt MZ A SOTID W^STE 'EE RES AG ro. sp..d lalh! oi3dds r r. trd;*..d 'Die. .F*d ,ele@d. 16&. 1Z lor.l D.q.rly rd h.ft,! s9.o., .*:sFts 13. Sp*ii lsJEi. lt(ded ra. rofar pfloprBry TAx io 9PEoal ass€sslrEirs a3,lb to p.,ct go ro mroEE m.6i.drn9.irdt wan&oi@,.r.^6ed..,dd.-. z. HALF PAYMENT STUE - PAYABLE 2022gptE sE NobrrE You6 AooiE66 COGCIlOfi ON N€VERSE gIE OF II'S PAYTEXI SITB t ro9eir, lD* 25511 0060 rr€s rE 35rG Pxo rY E$iow cofk uw Eecsr uaor BlllJi l371166€ 0a aoee eSbq 10010 800q71100 3 TO AVolD PENALTY PAY ON OB AEFORE: 10{172022 SECONO 1/2 TAX AMOUNT DUE:4,731.00 l,trtll,ll,r,rtl|ltrtr,hrlrrUItHlltrr rHrI'rttrthrr Pb.'4pf'w'ylc.&pe.detec.*!$"dMo!l'dbJUs'd].@tdD'']ud@|r)t.'ldui..c,djl. d.r3$6dr-..d H.J E& llpqel!!.d.pdbc'.t.d.F:ty*.ud|.c& t ffi 5siE Pq Ii BI-A,(E J TORNGA 66€6 PONIE LTXE LUCY oSANHISSEN nt{ s53r7-B:llB 1"HALF PAYMENT STUB. PAYABLE 2022 toE,d1urEorow6,elw.n..6 i'at,rPI,ffib.lun'MhD|.i'a'Ml,s.EroJyM- crd,nc6 FYft* dna i. p.E dt re. TO AVolD PEMLTY PAY oI oB BEFoRE: 5}16/2022 rrE sE t{otc^rE yolF AoDqEss cofrBEcno Ofl NEVEF'IE slDC OF THIS PAYT'€NT STIE ProFrty lDa: 25.6a1 0060 oon Ecoms idcflE fiar vo.Jn r^lEs AaE BEr6 PAD 9y ElCAOrCdranY lrrFEDCiATCCOrrlrOar Blll.:1374644 BI-AXE J TOBNGA 66A6 POINIE LAKE LUCY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-3'33 FULL TAX AMOUNI 9.462.00 RRST 1n TAX AMOUNT DTJE:4.731.00 Malis cheoks payable io anC retnit la' Carrqr County P.O. Box @ ChaBk6, MN sslrl&,(xl@ I,trtll,ll,r,rtrItrtr4trlrllltllttttllthrrrllIrrtntlIl 't.e?epFrlj10'6p'ctrEurrl.d ..d ,' d hrd o,t d'!cJoE+'srd-qEd.d.ldr0rr&6dr*diH€&Bd3ro.odkmdb. r!.rr'l ri rou o.yyn,llgrr. ytu 'r E d!'o.a, @ry s..M,'drl t *3 a6 E6 1 VALUES A'{D CLAIISiI,ICANO]{ T.!.3 P.y.blo Yet.: m21 7r1.900 2022 7I1.900 2.000 2 PNOPIOSED TAX s9.,Q€.00 r 01 a0ee a5Eql,00h0 E00q?31,00 5 2(}22 Propetty Tax Statoment 3 PNOPERTY IAT STAIIf,EITT Eillr r{l.)6s.!r€: 546rru S..ridh.lr'ca6io: 10,17/24?2, Tod 1.r.. Oi/. h a,2a 4,731.d) s_452.00 w1 @ 9,5ar.m 9,429.00 lrrie dle(k! pdyable 1l and rrritrJ: CarYer County P.O. Box @ Chsrkr, MN ssitl&{Xt@ 33.04 65 ,.,G Carrer County Paop.rty Tsx Orpartnent 5$;zn4f Stre* eO. &)x 69 C!'!rta ilN 5.31M0aq i352i 361-1910. tsA:sjlils8lll:ri Fd r.rdlo-t llld rr.. rm44ru . P.,,o,'e '}a. si,] rD E c r.r Ptffr fE !r! .ftid.r, irr.a, or Fd Td Stl.dd Propert lO r: 25.6410(110 WTdD# muc^tlual.r HE-ID€ Altl llll d,Q POI'TE LA<E LUCY crl^^lr^ssEr{ ur{ 55317-3.3. $$$ Ifl .lIl.,tlIrrrlltt,IIrtrt,lItH,.ltl'tll'h'lhllht. I-rd Deri tx Yo6 Preetty 2021 2tn r. t - rrs 4qt @ Fd .rrPn b c a ro & digrtb r... llqdly ld 'aiBn-FletArrlrd,ntaFEE.lat d, yoo * dd.Br.d t Ein.F El clds 2 t r !r..Jrw!6a Fm *IPF rr s a vo{ d di!i,. br. spol Dirtd. !6 3 F!-iyts o..c.dL a odt rrl rldlaa orert Ei6 I A{na^ri Bta vcE olat! g, Oi! Cndl s tFFltro..lt trt iL ! 15.347.00 tr23.00 15.34t.@ REFUNDS? fd 't r!.tlr..b.d$.@t o,.tnr,b,.dE tq* roqtt ut- ld tlt *dahbfrt . to tun o.a lfr @*tL ttr: l''ain 6'@ POIIiTE I KE LI'C'V CHlltllASSEN i/N 55317{.3r 6 cdrt A ClllvEF@lrxw & @ FX! ^trn.orlTv7. Ct'o.ldr atlY G cHAa.lrss€l. t Sclr..l OatE St @?otllrl€Ioix A VoL. Arc|tii.d (.,5 a. oltr r!.c l....'5 Lrfu 13 Sad.l Ao.aar-i Oadt Hrz e souD w^sTe FEE aESA6 33.00 Sllla: 1374171 io So..U Iqho Oiltlds 1 r- r&.>ri,.d ,,ceJ a99.o6d idedd. l6i€ 1e -rAaJ AQaly ta b.lo.! 69€0.I dsseiffiE 8.9.44 aieg.o 15 Szoa aGa 33.O a.Ed, 33.0t tq4l!.oo !.9 !?t: 0. ra-o llqis c4l'd ll&35 ai.33 50.73 16453zf.6 2{ HALF PAYMENT STUB. PAYABLE 2022 To,.tatrgob .o.rr-rYiLrt Ih din !.id td-b rdL.L b..l,d t-'rt Fr|tdau'qdF l!!s6dt rddr6. !3 SOdJ A!drnd!. ln*-t 14. TOrl! pf,opfRTy t^l arao sP€oa! A93€99aEfi9 TO AVOTO PENALTY PAY ON OF SEFOFE: 10t172022 SECONO 1l2 TA.X AMOUNT DUE:7.7t0.00 0a aoaa e5h'{1,00?0 000??1000 e l.trtll,llrlltrtrI,, ,ltrl.Urtlltt,tlltl."llllllltrtItl .|.4!xwucryl3t6'd,6.c b-clrt{edd cHtc.oaUS rd'-r d.rd ryd ''a a I"HALF PAYMENT STUB - PAYABLE 2022 OOJG AIIMANN HgoE llrMll\n 6700 POITITE L]tlG LUCY ctt t'tH ssEN lr{ 55317-6{!r Make orEck! payaule to and rcttil lo Carvrr Courg P.O. Box @ CtEsta, ils5ill8.q,el g PrEi6€ ilolc^tE Yo(.,i AooiEls cohhEcrlcllr dr iEvERsE sr c l}ls ,lYlrELT sT(E Pro?.rt lDt 256a1OI) Egfu.rfsc4l-o..s.CEFE1,DE'rS t =EIBg; 2A Ea6Bri *z EE PLEISE NDlcA E Yo(,i AOORE'}S COMECllol{ Oil AEVEBSE gOC f THIS PAYME'{I SII'B ProFrly loa: 2s.64t0070 rarEs ^E Erc p.D !Y eEmr @ItllrY l,3 a^rE!i. !€rrlcc aiolloEis 8l l; lJ7a17l oooc Atir^t{{ HEloE A}IMAAN 67(N PONTE I. XE IUCY crlar\+rassE MN 55317.4.34 ,o D.y d*t ao lo m6..E.m.6 !.U6lFhgyI tld &6 r.16 ffi !. Fddre- lO AVOID PEilllTY PAY o OA BEFORE: 5rl6/20:D FULL TAX AMOUNT:15,420.00 FIRST U2 TA]( AUOUTIT DUE:7.7r0.00 Male cirecks payeble 10 3nd remit to: Canrt County P,O. BoE 60 Clal(.,lrlt{ s5(}ta-qr@ l,trtll,lFr,trI,!I.ltrl,fl lllht,tl[trnlrIIIop.d YU.Ji..ld.ll.cl.'alcB!1'b'.pr'6ry15.oF,d u.s t6i d.t-i{ rd ia 4 r.o ...i rr {.- qs.ra aBctaroqr-rrrH€-.I.orat@l,rr-dbrdnrnrF,!i,n,.al..,odb6,!d.Fl.l's..6i,cl-' t =tt* a6 E3:4 *E12a 1 vaLUES lito clAlisEcaTloll TrrarP.yrbbYrr: m21 1.212.3fl) 2072 375.0!O r56 3715m 830,600 2 PROF()SEO 'AX3rs 380.00 01, eoee ashq100?0 000??1000 'r 2o.22 Property Tax Statement 3 ,mDgwl rSrr1aqr Fitrnrbcd,.: 5,Lt&gorxl tar.. rlr: lol17l@ T.d IE Orr h 2tP2 z71o.o 7,71ofi r5.420.& se.rE mTMsh.I16FdEO23Por[rE uxE rL'cl Lol oo7 Bhd. @1 1 66 67 68 69 70 71 Chanhassen, MN 55317 3 RD ADDENDUM TO OUR LETTER TO CITY OF CHANHASSEN —P LANNING 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 72 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”? Correction noted Comment: The private road off Lakeway Drive remains Lakeway Drive. Homeowners do not use Lakeway Court as a mailing address or google map location. All of our mailboxes are on Lakeway Drive. Page 6 73 3 Q: The services agreement exists between the new home -owner and what other party? This is a private matter Q: What purpose does 7 feet of right-of-way serve on Lake Lucy Road? Collector Streets must maintain an 80 foot width. The additional 7 feet will bring the Right-of-Way into compliance The existing conditions survey now appears to meet all applicable requirements from Section 18 - 40 of Ordinance. The section of code that is referenced is for the design of septic systems, because the development will be connected to city sanitary sewer these regulations do not apply. 74 4 The section of code that is referenced is for the design of septic systems, because the development will be connected to city sanitary sewer these regulations do not apply. Grading Plan – Sheet C3.0 The City applies city code requirements and state law in reviewing subdivision plans related to surface water. In so doing, the City is general immune from liability in suits by abutting landowners related to its approval of the subdivision and plans. As to the run-off caused by the property owner’s development of the property, Minnesota follows the reasonable use doctrine. Grading Plan – Sheet C3.0 Grading Plan – Sheet C3.0 Grading Plan – Sheet C3.0 None proposed 75 5 The city code addresses setbacks, hard surface, building height, etc. the city does not control the house design as long as it meets ordinance requirements. The applicant submitted a complete application, as determined by city staff, which is effectively a waiver of any submittals deemed inapplicable to the proposed application. No variances are requested with this application. 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? New lot only Q: What does “mass grading mean? What kind of construction equipment needs to be deployed (types and weight)”? Mass grading refers to the construction activities used to prepare the site for home construction, construct stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPS) and install 76 6 utilities. Standard construction equipment is typically used – excavators, bulldozers, skid steers, ect. Q: How much devastation will occur on which specific lots and is this when trees get torn out? Grading is limited to lot 2 as shown on sheet C3.0 Q: Who is the “developer”? Has not been selected Has one been identified? No Q: What does that mean? The lot will prepared for home construction with minor grading to fit the footprint of the home to be built. Q: Who is the “builder”? Has not been selected ...Has one been identified? No Page 8 Q: What happens if there are changes to the drainage in these areas? The design meets City of Chanhassen rules and regulations that regulate stormwater design and wetlands. The design shows no material chances to both upstream and downstream properties. 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? The additional impervious area is mitigated by the Best Management Practices (BMPS) constructed onsite. Wetland A was modeled and the analysis showed no adverse impacts to the wetland/conveyance channel. The 100 year HWL of wetland A is slightly lower in the proposed condition which acts to decrease flooding risk to surrounding properties. Q: Does the City “guarantee” that there will be no adverse effects to neighbors’ property or surrounding ecosystem from these changes? The design meets City of Chanhassen rules and regulations that regulate stormwater design and wetlands. The intent of these rules and regulations are to protect water resources and residents from adverse impacts caused by stormwater. The design also meets watershed rules and requirements that were created for the same general purpose. 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??? Generally, the government entities would have immunity. This is a question for legal counsel of anyone bringing an 77 7 action in the matter to determine and would be based on the facts as to how “the plan” does not work out. 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? The applicant is required to verify a 7-ton road is in place which would meet city ordinance for private street weight standards. 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? Unknown at this time if an upgraded turnaround is necessary – however all improvements are required to meet the rules and regulations of all jurisdictions. 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) Today, conditions of approval are digitized and they are checked against the property at the time of building permit. Q: How will this all get tracked to ensure that and future development complies with all such requirements? Today, conditions of approval are digitized and they are checked against the property at the time of building permit. 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? 78 8 No variance is being requested. Q: What visibility and transparency will the City and other involved agencies allow for the public to monitor the process? All records submitted related to the applicant’s requests for approvals are public. Information is posted on the City’s website. Public Hearings are published and advertised. Q: What circumstances and conditions would cause the City to stop the development of this project? Failure of the applicant to meet the requirements identified in City Code for approval of the subdivision or reasonable conditions of approval imposed by the City that are consistent with the ordinance or state law. Failure to pay any required fees. 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? The developer will comply with any mandates regulating Bald Eagles. 79 Planning Commission Item September 6, 2022 Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated August 16, 2022 File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approved its August 16, 2022 meeting minutes." SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION 80 ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Minutes dated August 16, 2022 81 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Erik Johnson, Perry Schwartz, Edward Goff, Kelsey Alto. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ryan Soller. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young- Walters, Associate Planner; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT: Mark Nordland Level 7 development PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. RSI MARINE, 10500 AND 10520 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH SITE PLAN, VACATION, CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS, AND VARIANCES Associate Planner Young-Walters gave a presentation on the item, noting in March the Planning Commission saw a concept PUD for this development and the applicant is now back for formal rezoning and site plan approval. This will go before the City Council on September 12, 2022. The area is zoned fringe business district and the applicant is requesting to be rezoned to planned unit development (PUD), guided in the 2040 land use plan as mixed, and is proposed to be used as warehousing in the short-term and mixed-use commercial development in the long-term. Mr. Young-Walters spoke about zoning in the area and said staff believes rezoning to PUD will allow a reasonable use of the warehousing until sewer and potable water is available to the site. Staff also believes it will serve as a good transition between Highway 101 and 61and the planned high density residential to the east. The applicant is proposing two 22,600 square foot buildings and two 20,000 square foot boat storage buildings. They are providing a fire turn around and retaining walls along the north and east side. Mr. Young-Walters spoke about colors and architectural details noting they will get further material boards before bringing it to the City Council. The applicant asked for a variance to the vehicular area landscaping standards as typically the City Code would require five islands or peninsulas and 3,000 square feet of landscaping. However, due to the nature of the business involving pulling boat trailers into the buildings there is no way to make it work while allowing efficient vehicle movements within that area. Mr. Young-Walters noted a condition that when this is redeveloped and parking spaces are added, the area would need to meet the landscaping standards at that time. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. 82 Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2022 2 Project Engineer Henricksen spoke about public utilities noting sanitary and potable water services are not yet available to the site and due to the nature of use, the applicant is only proposing to connect to the water system. They will need to extend the water main to the eastern property line through the right-of-way on site for fire suppression. The property will be specially assessed for the cost to connect to sanitary sewer once it is available. Mr. Henricksen spoke about access to the site noting the surrounding right-of-way is under Carver County jurisdiction and preliminary comments are concerns about the left turn movement into the site while headed eastbound because of a median at that location. There are no wetlands delineated on the site but one wetland is located south of the project and plans will need to show vegetation and wetland buffer markers. He spoke about a steep slope on the property which is not considered a bluff and noted the Watershed District regulates steep slopes within their borders and the applicant will need to confirm if regulations apply. Mr. Henricksen spoke about grading and stormwater. Mr. Young-Walters showed a compliance table noting the applicant meets or exceeds all requirements with the exception of parking standards. City Code gives staff flexibility on parking when the business model does not require the parking that Code requires. Given the operation, staff is comfortable with the five parking stalls. Commissioner Schwartz asked what happens when a bunch of people show up for their boats and park their cars. Mr. Young-Walters replied a customer never brings a boat to this site. Rather, RSI staff brings the boat to the site and winterizes it. Commissioner Schwartz noted most of the business parks in Chanhassen are pleasantly hidden from street view by landscaping and asked about having more tree barriers between the structures and the street. Mr. Young-Walters showed the landscape plans and noted the business parks are subject to the same buffer yard and landscape standards as this development. Staff has a condition that the applicant must add numerous overstory and understory trees and shrubs to align with those standards. Commissioner Noyes asked if the City is limiting themselves when the applicant wants to hook up sewer and water for businesses or offices. Mr. Young-Walters replied by giving the applicant the entitlement they have the right to continue this operation as long as they find it desirable. They will be required to hook up to the sewer and water and extend it so it will not become a choke to further developments. The applicant has indicated eventual interest in redeveloping. Chair von Oven asked about a fence. Mr. Young-Walters noted if the applicant chooses to add a future fence it will need to be located behind the landscape buffer, would be subject to the 8 foot height minimum, and would need a building permit. 83 Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2022 3 Rob Schatzle, owner of RSI Marine, noted customers will not be allowed at the site and this site is basically just for storage. He is open to redevelopment in the future noting this is a short-term solution for watercraft storage for his business. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. Mike Spiess, 470 Flying Cloud Drive, noted any mixed-use concerns him and he asked if the Commissioners have thought about the traffic implications. He noted the roundabout gets backed up now and with the location of the driveway and mixed-use, it is already difficult to get out onto the road. In putting more houses and people down there, he asked about the implications of more traffic trying to get onto Flying Cloud or Highway 61 because it is a concern for Mr. Spiess even right now. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the future with mixed-use and who is responsible for the traffic surveys that may dictate modification to the road or an increase in lanes. Mr. Henricksen replied looking at the site as presented they must provide reasonable access to someone’s property. On this location the County installed the driveway access to the furthest southeast corner of the property. There was no viable way to introduce access off Trunk Highway 101. He noted this is a County road and it is their purview to comment and have requirements when there is development on their right-of-ways so they can request certain traffic studies. Mr. Young-Walters stated any change to the buildings that would modify them more than 10% would trigger a site plan review before the Planning Commission and at that point traffic studies would be conducted and the County would have another look to determine concerns on access. Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Planned Unit Development rezoning, site plan, vacation, consolidation of lots, and variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 2. AVIENDA: CONSIDER A REQUEST TO AMEND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RC Community Development Director Kate Aanenson gave a report on the item noting this is the amended PUD and is a revision to a PUD approved in 2020. The developer is requesting changes after meeting with neighbors including 1. Adding 53 row homes between the townhomes and the apartments 2. Increasing the number of apartments from 250 to 417 3. Combine the 150-unit senior housing development to one 300-unit building at the southwest corner 84 Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2022 4 4. The northerly senior housing is now a retail use in the plan 5. Shows potential locations for three to four additional drive-throughs, but does not seek approval at this time 6. The district plan may be fluid as future users are identified Ms. Aanenson stated the developer has agreed to work within the 768 units and if the senior housing is built on the southern location that could be up to five stories built into the hill. She spoke about history of the project going back to 2016 and showed the 2020 site plan on screen and contrasted it with the proposed revisions. Mr. Henricksen spoke about high-level traffic implications noting a traffic study was done in 2005 and updated in 2017. With the updated land use the developer’s engineer provided an updated trip generation analysis between the proposed and he stated overall they see a reduction in volume from the proposed uses. Ms. Aanenson contrasted the district master plan from the 2020 approved and the 2022 proposed plans on screen. She spoke about the projected housing demand within Chanhassen through 2040 at 6,560 housing demands which could be ownership (single-family or multi-family), senior (adult owned, adult rental, or service enriched), rental (affordable and market rate). She summarized proposed changes on screen speaking about the adjustments to housing, the addition of a car wash, and 25,000 square feet of entertainment for regional draw. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in making a PUD amendment as they are acting in their legislative authority and Ms. Aanenson noted they can add to or subtract some of the changes. She clarified site plan approval is required for all buildings, a public hearing is required with notice, and the site plan must comply with standards in the PUD-RC ordinance including height, setback, architecture, signage, parking, traffic, utilities, etcetera. If the use/plan meets all standards and is consistent with the PUD ordinance, the City has little discretion to deny at time of site plan approval. Mark Nordland, Level 7 development, gave a presentation and spoke about grading and infrastructure work that has already been done and showed aerial photos on screen of the work. Mass grading is about 95% complete and they are working on finalizing roads so they can order stormwater structures and noted there is a supply chain issue with those but they are on order. The goal is to have all utility work and roads in by fall. They are working with staff to get building permits to begin construction of the first homes on site this fall, as well. He noted originally this property was going to be a regional mall and in many areas of the country those are being redeveloped as retailing has changed. This is why the developer has been coming back with changes to get the right product and make it successful. He spoke about consolidating the senior living into one building and adding row homes at the west end to further step the density before the apartments. Mr. Nordland noted the biggest concerns from the neighborhood meeting are traffic, density, and height. He spoke about the clay soil in Chanhassen and infiltration rates, noting they are using a stormwater re-use system on site to collect a majority of rainwater into ponds and irrigation on site will utilize that water. Mr. Nordland spoke about the entertainment district and they are retaining the original vision, however the original plan showed a movie theater which may not be the right choice. Their designers looked at options for the plaza area 85 Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2022 5 showing winter and summer activities including skating rink, Christmas market, ice castle/sculptures, Christmas tree sales, concerts, movie nights, pickleball, bocce ball, outdoor dining, shuffle board, etcetera. He showed renderings on screen of winter and summer activities on the plaza. The hope is that people will come to the destination, park, and go to 3-4 different places during each visit. Ms. Aanenson spoke about comments received which are included in the packet and on the website. The Comprehensive Plan says 30% of the gross acreage multiplied by 16 units an acre equals the maximum number of units of 768. The current PUD includes approval for 250 apartment units up to five stories and the amendment seeks approval of 417 units and will remain five stories. The City does not have any policies to require the developer to include affordable housing. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. Gary Haberman, 9036 Sunnyvale Drive, has a question about the electric power provider and if it has been designated or if there is a choice between Minnesota Valley Electric or Xcel Energy. Ms. Aanenson replied each has their own districts and whenever there is a project all jurisdictions that would have comment whether the State, the gas company, or electric company all get copies of this to see if they have any concerns. Mr. Henricksen clarified there are boundaries within Chanhassen dictating which service provider services those areas. Dave Howe, 400 Santa Fe Trail, lived in Highland Park which is a very busy business district and stated they closed Finn so people coming out of the shopping area cannot drive straight into the neighborhood and park. He brings this up because he is very concerned that people will find it very handy to drive across Mills Drive and park in the neighborhood which will create a nightmare for those living in that area. He stated it will be very difficult for those people if the City does not block Mills off. Mr. Howe stated there will be a lot of housing and cars on that west side and it will be so tempting to go across Mills Drive. He noted this is not Eden Prairie and there is a charm about Chanhassen. To put a giant apartment in there he feels that Eden Prairie is coming to Chanhassen which he does not want. He would like to keep the feel of Chanhassen cozier and he would like to see a tree-lined bike trail through the development to help it fit the vibe of Chanhassen. Jon Dimino, 9751 Meadowlark Lane, agrees that Chanhassen had a particular charm when he moved here 15 years ago. He noted adding five story apartments will change the whole nature of the area. He spoke about traffic and noted all the roof space and people concerned about CO2 and the environment but he has not heard anything about putting solar panels up to help supply power to the grid. Chanhassen should preserve the town for what it is, keep open spaces, and make sure they do not overburden it. A windmill could probably keep the whole thing off the grid. He thinks Chanhassen should be leaders and think about solar panels and windmills to be part of this development. 86 Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2022 6 Jon Gilbert, 1641 Jeurissen Lane, agrees with all the points that were just made by neighbors. He has concerns about density, transportation, and the entertainment area. Regarding the entertainment area, the concept had nine buildings and now they have five buildings, less open area, they want to get rid of the theater, add 53 row homes, and move the apartment east. He spoke about density and noted it is not transparent to the public what the ratio is of 55+ independent living versus assisted living which goes back to the demands for senior housing. He spoke about pulling out the row houses and putting something more walkable, and creating a buffer other than more housing. Regarding the traffic study, he thinks they need a more comprehensive study to be done. Mr. Gilbert would have liked to have heard the questions before the public comment time. Zhexin Zhang, 1455 Bethesda Circle, asked if the 768 includes all townhomes, apartments, and row houses. Ms. Aanenson replied in the affirmative. She clarified each district calls out what uses can go in there. Mr. Zhang agrees with his neighbors that the density is a little over-the-top. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz asked the developer if there are any green building practices they will employ. Mr. Nordland replied in the affirmative stating they do not get the buildings LEED certified but are more focused on the design principles. Many of the design principles are pedestrian access, daylighting, bike racks, etcetera. Each individual project will be presented for site plan approval and can be vetted at that time for that level of detail. The approval today is for the PUD and concepts of what physically can go there but not the specifics on each building. Commissioner Schwartz asked if it is the City’s or developer’s responsibility to determine whether the builders adhere to environmentally sound building practices. Mr. Henricksen noted it is not in any of the City’s standard specifications. He does not believe there is a Code requirement and that staff’s responsibility is to be stewards of the Code and ensure that when developers come before them it is meeting all plans, Codes, ordinances, and standard specifications. Mr. Nordland spoke about water on the site and working with the Watershed District to mitigate that through rainwater reuses. Commissioner Noyes would like to talk about why the residential portion of the development is increasing so much and asked if it is demographics or lack of interest from retailers. Mr. Nordland shared in thinking about retail over the last few years, fewer square feet of retail is being constructed today as many more people are purchasing through e-commerce channels. 87 Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2022 7 There is less demand for retail so they need to make it “special retail” and make it experiential so people want to go there. He shared they do not need as much brick-and-mortar space. In looking at the changes from 2020 plan to today there is less junior box-type space on the plan. He does not think it changes the number of bodies coming to the site and noted they are working with a grocer right now. He thinks about 5-6 acres out of 120 acres has changed since the last plan in adjusting retail to housing. Commissioner Alto asked about the senior housing and if that is assisted living and a senior home. Mr. Nordland stated the provider they are working with wants to do independent living, assisted living, and memory care. Commissioner Alto noted Bluff Creek Boulevard is creating a new entryway into the neighborhoods to the west where people can come right off 212 and cut through. She does not know how safe it is for seniors to be crossing from that senior center to the retail space. She suggested a walking bridge or something to create a safe pedestrian area. Mr. Nordland replied they are trying to make the road as calming as it can possibly be. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there will be underground parking to accommodate the entertainment, office, and retail traffic. Mr. Nordland noted the apartments will have below-grade parking for all residents, the senior facility will have 100% of their resident parking below-grade, the office buildings are built into the hill and will have underground parking, but all retail and entertainment will be surface parking. He explained walkways and sidewalks throughout the retail and entertainment area and connections to trails. Mr. Henricksen noted a condition of approval from engineering is to be able to see the roaming traffic study including vehicular and pedestrian connectivity site-to-site. Chair von Oven asked why people will come from other cities for this site. Mr. Nordland thinks it is the mix of offerings, food and entertainment, and when people think about what to do on a Saturday night they want this area to be the first thing that comes to peoples’ minds in Chanhassen and from the surrounding region. He noted they are also targeting entertainment restaurants right now which may offer things such as a pickleball, bags, and other games. Commissioner Schwartz asked how this will impact the City’s downtown core. Ms. Aanenson replied when they put the district together (regional and commercial) the intent was to add a different type of draw. They see the downtown as being for daily needs including City Hall, post office, big boxes, and grocery stores. The intent of this regional/commercial is for more specialty things. 88 Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2022 8 Commissioner Schwartz spoke about page 6 of the report and staff being in support of the two senior housing developments being combined. Speaking as a senior, Mr. Schwartz would like to express a concern that this will effectively be warehousing these people in a mega-building. He is concerned about long distances and routes between parking garages, exits, public areas, and residences. As one gets older they are able to do less and less and he thinks many get hoodwinked into spending their senior years in places like this and many regret it. He would like to know staff’s comments on his opinion. Ms. Aanenson replied the vendor believes they can meet the needs of seniors and noted Mr. Schwartz can make any statement he would like and make modifications to the ordinance if he has the support of his fellow Commissioners. Mr. Henricksen noted regarding traffic they stick to the public right-of-way, look at site plans for traffic circulation, and said they take certain metrics into account for an elderly population. Once they know the end user they can look at whether improvements at an intersection are warranted for enhanced crosswalk treatments. Commissioner Goff understands the movie theater removal as they have all seen it post-Covid. He spoke about changes from a lot of retail, restaurants, and entertainment to housing with retail on the side. He understands they want higher density but thinks it is losing a lot of the character from when it came forth the first time. Mr. Goff thinks there is a different solution than the one proposed and while he is okay with the density he wants to see a different plan. Commissioner Johnson stated when he looks at the first drawing all he sees is parking lots and whether the pavement is any less now it looks more appealing and is not just a sea of asphalt. He noted it is intermixed with smaller retail buildings and the top view of the new layout looks more appealing to him. Commissioner Alto likes the row houses and thinks the apartments will happen regardless of the Commissioners’ opinion. She agrees with Commissioner Noyes about the way it is laid out and while she does not like that the entertainment space is smaller, she thinks it is important to still focus on that entertainment space. Commissioner Noyes noted one thing he does not like about the project and stated five story buildings do not seem like Chanhassen to him. He knows the apartments have been approved for that and he cringes a bit to think that they will move to one senior building that will be five stories. He liked the two senior buildings and agreed with the comment that it makes Chanhassen look like Eden Prairie. He does like the other things including the mix of retail, commercial, and open space but thinks the desire for higher density has really pushed the height issue. Commissioner Alto asked to see a review of what the Commission is looking at this evening. Commissioner Schwartz would like to request a modification to revert to two senior buildings rather than one building. 89 Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2022 9 Chair von Oven noted any project that brings more senior housing to Chanhassen is appealing to him. He is not following the logic of why combining two facilities to have more resources available for seniors is a bad idea. He dislikes the idea of seniors walking back and forth between two facilities. Commissioner Schwartz is more concerned about quality of life than he is about quantity. He asked to imagine that some seniors can move on their own volition who park their car with several bags of groceries and must navigate through the parking garage, up elevators, and down extremely long hallways to get to their residence. He stated that is a challenge and when people start to get old and lose their marbles it becomes a problem. It is a matter of quality of life on a daily basis and to stuff 300 units into that kind of building is not right and is not treating people as human beings. Commissioner Alto noted they can only assume about parking and that memory care would be on the other side and they also must make the assumption that the company who owns facilities around the country and does this every day knows how to set up this large of a facility. However they are not at that stage in the project yet. Chair von Oven noted the thing that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve is the flexibility of one 300 unit building or remaining two 150 unit buildings. The Planning Commission will be at a point to evaluate each of the 27 projects and how the building will be brought to life. Ms. Aanenson replied that is correct. Chair von Oven feels the Commission gets some say on how the building will work down the road but today is not that day. Right now it is not a hang up for him and he wants to get the best vendor in there. Commissioner Schwartz replied if the vendor is truly a good vendor they ought to be able to design two facilities and make access to public areas, the garage, and areas that seniors really need. Mr. Schwartz thinks it is advisable to modify the request and require two buildings rather than one five story building. Chair von Oven thinks Schwartz could ask the Commission whether they are in agreement with striking item 3 in the list of detailed changes. Commissioner Schwartz asked if his fellow Commissioners agree with his concern and agree to delete item 3. Commissioner Alto does not support it. Commissioner Johnson does not support it. Chair von Oven and Commissioner Noyes stated the Commissioners know where they stand. 90 Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2022 10 Commissioner Goff does not support it. Chair von Oven asked if a Commissioner has a major issue with the motion right now, what are those concerns. He specifically asked about item 4. Commissioner Noyes stated that is probably the only concern he has. He thinks it is a great project but does not like five story buildings in Chanhassen. He is not going to vote against it solely for that concern and noted they will have many more chances to have discussions on this development. Chair von Oven is in the same boat and noted there is a ways to go but it is a fantastic idea for Chanhassen. He stated they only get one chance to do it right and in looking at future projects, specifically the whole center and green space feels very different from what it was. It felt like the space has become so small and he asked what will draw people into that space from outside the City to hang out in that green space? He thinks it’s going to have to be a lot more than what is proposed. As they move forward and look at future individual projects on this property, Chair von Oven will be keenly looking for increases in green space. The gathering place sets this apart from everything else and he asks whether they table this in an effort to get more in the green space, although he does not want to be the guy that delays the project again. He reiterated this project will only be done right one time. He believes this is the right direction and tweaks can be made to the green space to keep people coming. Commissioner Alto asked if they can recommend the green space and entertainment space be revisited to the City Council. Chair von Oven agreed. Ms. Aanenson noted they could add that as item 8 to the requested changes. Mr. Nordland noted the plaza area programming is important and when it comes back before the City they can vote down the developer’s ideas if they have not succeeded. Ms. Aanenson suggested the developer goes back to the larger acreage they saw in the 2020 plan. Commissioner Alto suggested language that the regional draw/entertainment aspect of the project in terms of scope be increased. Ms. Aanenson suggested language encouraging the City Council to value the size, location, and configuration of the gathering space as it is integral to the project. Commissioner Goff noted he likes the more contiguous plan rather than having it all broken up. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve amending the Planned Unit Development, PUD-RC, Ordinance 657 for Avienda with details of requested changes: 91 Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2022 11 1. Adding 53 row homes between the townhomes and the apartments. 2. Increasing the number of apartments from 250 units to 417 units. 3. Provide flexibility to combine the two 150-unit senior housing developments to one 300- unit building at the southwest corner or develop as shown. 4. Allow southern senior building location to be up to five stories (if buildings are combined) 5. The northerly senior housing would be required to be a retail use if not senior housing. 6. Adds full-service car wash as a permitted use in District 3. 7. Shows potential locations for three to four additional drive-throughs (beyond the four already approved) but does not seek approval at this time. 8. The Planning Commission encourages the City Council to value the size, location, and configuration of the gathering place as an integral part of the project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JULY 19, 2022 Commissioner Alto noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 19, 2022 as presented. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Ms. Aanenson updated the Commissioners noting a short-term rental ordinance is being drafted and the next Planning Commission meeting may be a work session. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Schwartz moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director 92 Planning Commission Item September 6, 2022 Item City Council Action Update File No.Item No: F.1 Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 93 City Council Action Update 94 City Council Action Update MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2022 N/A Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the City’s website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links. 95