PC Staff Report AppealPlanning 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