HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-23 Jaime Junker Communication to CC Meeting Julie Hultman
From: jaimecpa@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday,August 23, 2022 3:00 PM
To: Eric Johnson
Cc: liljegrens@comcast.net;Julie Hultman
Subject: Re: Memorandum re 5676 Oakgreen Application Record
Thank you Eric
Original Message
From: Eric Johnson <eajohnson@cityofoakparkheights.com>
To:jaimecpa@aol.com <jaimecpa@aol.com>
Cc: 'liljegrens@comcast.net <liljegrens@comcast.net>; Julie Hultman <jhultman@cityofoakparkheights.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2022 2:56 pm
Subject: RE: Memorandum re 5676 Oakgreen Application Record
X3123122
Jaime
will provide this to the City Council via email.
Julie Hultman will place it in proper file.
Thank you
Eric
From: jaimecpa@aol.com <jaimecpa@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 2:52 PM
To: Eric Johnson <eajohnson@cityofoakparkheights.com>; Julie Hultman
<jhultman@cityofoakparkheights.com>
Cc: liljegrens@comcast.net
Subject: Memorandum re 5676 Oakgreen Application Record
Please include the attached memorandum in the council package for this evening.
Thank you,
Jaime Junker
JK& KGroup
1
Dear City Council,
Following are a few items that I request be part of the record for the Comprehensive Plan amendment
Application record for 5676 Oakgreen Avenue North.
The following three questions should be asked of TPC, by the City staff,The Planning Commission or the
Council:
1 Why were the allowable units not given to the applicant at either of the two meetings held between
the applicant and the staff on June 15th or June 29th and not released until the report was issued on
August 4th?
2 Why wasn't the traffic study by the applicant's expert included in the report information that was
contradictory to the report's conclusions on traffic at the intersection of 58th and Oakgreen? The report
was at hand in the application.
3 Why weren't any of the 13 to 16 examples that the applicant pulled from the 2018 Comprehensive
Plan text showing support for high density at the project application site discussed in the report as the
applicant was instructed to focus on by the staff at the June 29th meeting at City Hall?
1. The TPC report states that staff has concerns about the traffic at the intersection of 58th and
Oakgreen Ave in so much as three of the eight negative points in the August 4th report is against
the project because of potential traffic concerns. This overstated point wasn't given any factual
information as compared to our application that had the opinion of a professional engineer that
looked at both MNDOT and Washington County guidelines for roads such as 58th and Oakgreen
and our traffic engineer concluded that the intersection and both roads are operating at only
50%capacity allowed. When major facts such as this are left out of the report when an opposite
conclusion or recommendation is being made,it leaves the reader to question the report's
impartiality.
2. We as applicant met with the City staff for pre-application meetings on both June 15th and June
29th at City Hall. On the June 15th meeting we were given the suggestion that we should not
submit an application for final project approval but that we should submit either an amendment
application for a Comprehensive Plan or a Zoning Application amendment. Scott Richards and
Eric Johnson were discussing in front of the staff group,me and my consultants as to which one
was preferable and that they wanted a little more time to discuss and think about it and we
were invited back to the City Hall for their answer in two weeks. We returned to the City on
June 29th and the answer we received was that they had time to discuss,and we were
encouraged to submit an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. We had
discussions of allowable unit density but we were not told what the allowable unit density of the
project was based on an estimate of 3 acres and we were told that would be a matter of the
final project application after a Comprehensive Plan Application. Our prototype for the project
was 36 units but the calculations were not available as to the allowable density. We agreed to
submit pictures of our prototype project even though we were not submitting an application for
project approval. We were flexible as to total units for the project once we knew the allowable
count. When the TPC report came out,it appeared to use our 36 unit prototype in a way that
JS&A Group, LLP
JaimeJunker • 11550 Stillwater Blvd North, Suite 106 • Lake Elmo,MN 55042 • 651-246-1058
Page 2—For record on 5676 Oakgreen Avenue Application
was not in good faith. The report stated over and over,(ten times at last count)that 36 units
was over the allowable density. The report unfairly repeated the 36 unit prototype plan in a
way that led the reader to believe that our project should be disqualified because it had too
many units. We wanted to understand the allowable units at either the June 15th or June 29th
City staff meeting but the calculation was not given to us until the August 4th TPC staff report
was sent out. Our prototype was submitted in the application,as agreed in advance with the
staff,solely to allow the Plan Commission a sense of what the final project would be like and
was used in such a way that was unfair against the application. This is another example of how
the application process was not handled in good faith.
3. At the June 29th meeting we agreed on a process and application that a Comprehensive Plan
amendment application would have as a focus the 2018 Comprehensive Plan and show
examples from that document on how the site was suitable for a higher density. The application
showed over a dozen direct quotes from the 2018 Comprehensive Plan that showed how the
site should be higher density. Neither the August 4th report or the Plan Commission hearing
mentioned the items from the application as to how the 2018 Comprehensive Plan supported
high density for the site. There was a summary matrix in the application that talked about the
walkability of the lot to local businesses,less dependency on automobiles for the site,economic
efficiencies for infrastructure and utilities,the linear park already in place as a buffer,our
expert's traffic study,and diversity of real estate choices for seniors already living in Oak Park
Heights. None of this was discussed in the report or at the Plan Commission level.
Thank you for including this memo as part of the final record.
Sincerely,
.. Q�
Jaime Junker
J K&K Group, LLP