Loading...
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.