Letter from John Chadwick 06-18-2013CHADWICK GROUP INC. orecr(952)853 -2473
3 Fax 1 -866- 734 -3621
4477 Manimu Road
L'xcelsior, MN 55331
June 19, 2013
To: Planning Commission, City of Chanhassen
City Council, City of Chanhassen
Fr. John Chadwick on behalf of Mr. Bruce Jeurissen, B. Elmer Fauns, LLC Ore
"'v
RE: Bruce Jeurissen Farm - Camden Ridge
The purpose of this letter is to offer additional input and information in written form to be
considered by planning convnission and city couneil. This project has been a long time in
coming and it would have been sold long ago and the assessments paid had the Sale in
2006 gone through. Recently the City Council directed City staff to pull together some
information a few months ago. I am not certain if that made it to final form and was
distributed. The City staff has been working hard on all of these items but it has not been
without a few major difficulties along the way. Mr. Jeurissen is generally in favor of the
project and wants to see this action proceed in a fair and equitable manner.
ApqM and Assessments
i) The property was accessed from the south off of pioneer Trail before Hwy 2l2 was
built. Exhibit 1 a and 1 b from MNDOT (attached) shows the frontage road that was to
be built to replace the driveway access. The frontage road was to service both the
portion of the farm north and the portion of the farm south of the creek. It was never
built. MNDOT elevated Highway 212y rather than building it at grade, after the
acquisition of the land from Bruce, which meant the current driveway has never
"closed". It still exists under the 212 bridges. If 212 was built according to plan, then
it would have closed the driveway and the frontage road would had to have been
built.
2) MNDOT in its acquisition from the property owner to the west, did acquire land
necessary to provide access as MNDOT owns land with frontage on pioneer Pass to
the west all the way cast to the Southwest corner of the south part of die Jeurissen
farm.
3) The MNDOT taking "addendum to offer to sell- item 14 clearly calls out for
replacement of the driveway by a MNDOT or a governmental unit and not by the
landowner. See exhibit 2. The MNDOT sale went through in 2002.
4) A contract between Jeurissen and Town and Country Homes was entered into stating
landowner was to be paid for land used in the development including paying for land
that supported the "transfer of density ". Exhibit 3 is a letter from Mr. Robert
Generous to Mr. Kevin Clark of Town and Country Homes clearly states that
"transfer of density" was not used. The development that was approved in 2006 called
for 146 + - units North of the Creek and zero South. A lawsuit between seller and
tang. Lording, Farm,
Town and Country ensued. The deed to property was placed in escrow, and never
transferred to Town and Country. Ultimately the sale was killed as Town and Country
as a result of Exhibit 3, felt they did not have to pay for any land south of the Creek,
however that land was to be dedicated to the City for park/open space. During the
court proceedings it was determined that there was 8.09 acres of land usable South of
the Creek.
5) Since there is 8.09 acres of usable land South of the Creek, and no transfer of density
was used before, or in this action for 58 +- units, there is still considerable land value
in the South.
6) The City process has assessed the faun based on 30 acres out of a gross acreage of 36
acres. Only 22 acres ate north of the creek, again that would support the notion that 8
acres to the South of the creek would have or must have benefit of the Bluff Creek
Boulevard assessment. if the actions taken were to deem the south as not usable, how
can there be an assessment?
7) While Town and Country did sign up for the Bluff Creek Boulevard assessment, they
did not have title to the property due to the lawsuit. The deed was held in escrow.
8) The City asked Town and Country sign up for the assessment, at a time when they did
not own the parcel and there was no access to Bluff Creek Boulevard. How is it that
the land is asked to pay interest on Bluff Creek Boulevard and yet it could not and
still cannot use the road that they were paying for?
9) How is it that as of June, 2013 there is still no access to that improvement? It is
requested that with no access, there should be no interest paid on this assessment.
Access was a condition of approval for Ryland/now Degler in 2006, yet it was not
enforced /required at that time. When the next phase for Degler was approved, the
access easement could have been enforced/required, but it was not. It is now being
forced as a private matter. When the adjacent Peterson property was developed, the
land was deeded to the City on a timely basis to allow the access to occur. (The
access crosses Degler and the former Peterson farm to reach Jeurissen)
Land to be provided for open space
1) The City is requesting landowner to provide land south of the creek for the open
space for this development. It will leave the landowner with just five acres
remaining south of the creek. Any such land transferred will require an easement
across this provided land so that the retained parcel will have continued access to
driveway to the south. Landowner has been working with MNDOT to rectify this
issue for over one year. There is no resolution as of this date. As of June 13. 2013
it was communicated verbally that the issue was being transferred out of the
Ombudsman's office and over to MNDOT Metro Right of Way Division. Once
suitable alternate access is provided to the retained parcel, this right of access
(easement) can be eliminated.
2) Additionally, since there are eight acres per the court case, and landowner is only
able to retain five acres south of the creek, it is requested that there be no further
open space requirements /dedications/takings when the land is later developed.
Conclusions- to be recommended to City Council by Planning Commission
I ) Assessments on five acres retained will stay on the five acres and will be paid
when there is benefit provided by the assessment. The fact that assessments are
being paid on three acres of the south parcel and yet being provided to the City is
interesting in and of itself.
2) Interest on the remaining assessment shall be waived since there is no access.
Interest would start to accrue on the day there is access. Several hundred
thousand dollars of assessments for other projects have already been paid on
behalf of this property and no benefit has been received to date. This would be a
middle ground.
3) Assessments on land provided to City, shall be transferred to City with
assessments intact, and not paid by landowner who is providing the land.
4) There shall be no additional open space requirements for the retained parcel.
5) An easement over Outlot B to the retained parcel shall be put in place and remain
until resolution with MNDOT.
List of Exhibits
I a MNDOT MAP (red)
lb MNDOT Map (segment 2)
2 Addendum of offer to sell (see item 14)
3 Mr. Generous letter to Mr. Clark
Comments on the staff report to Planning Commission for review June 18 2013
P6 of 31 paragraph 2. There is a reference to "under the TH 212 bridge ". This is not
correct. In 2002 when executed, there was no TH212 bridge contemplated. TH 212 was
to be built at grade and not elevated. Without a bridge, the passage under could not
physically be possible.
P6 of 31 paragraph 3 "Town and Country Homes had title ". The title was in escrow,
they were to have made payments June 2, 2006 and ten days after. The second payment
was not made and the deed went into escrow
P6 of 31 paragraph 5 "Homes as title owner ". See above. As a result of the lawsuit and
the settlement thereof, all rights and obligations of Town and Country, were transferred
back to Mr. Jeurissen in exchange for certain actions on behalf of Mr. Jeurissen.
P7 of 31 paragraph 4 and P18 of 31 paragraph? Assessments for Bluff Creek Blvd
Improvements.
It states the amount due * $667,834.02 as of 12/31/2012 and on page 18 states as of June
6, 2013 the assessment amount due was $796,302.31 At 61/o interest for % year the
667,834.02 only grows to $6$7.869.04. There is an arithmetic issue here to be resolved.
P7 of 19 paragraph. It states "in order to complete a link to Pioneer Trail" This is
something that needs to be negotiated. Perhaps a non- exclusive right of use at the
discretion of land owner. Once the MNDOT access issues to the south are resolved,
further discussion would be in order.
P27 of 31 paragraph I Item U'develoM must obtain right of way" This has caused
considerable delay, price reductions and interest cost for the project as noted earlier.
P28 of 31 paragraph I Item 15 "driveway access closed" No, this must wait until
MNDOT issues are resolved. We have tried for a year, but have not one thing in writing
back from MNDOT as of 6/1312013.
P28 of 31 paragraph 6 Item 20 "or reassessed" This would be to Oudot B (donated or
dedicated) parcel and to the retained parcel Outlot C.
P29 of 31 paragraph 9 Item 4 "shall provide" This will be done at time of development,
not at this time
P30 of 31 paragraph I Item 5 "intended use...." Property owner must retain an
eaututut across Outlot B to service the property and will release that easement once
suitable access or resolution is provided by MNDOT. It will be used for farming at this
time.