Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-14 Jaime Junker Ltr Re Neighborhood Meetings June 14,2022 Mary McComber, Mayor Eric A Johnson, City Administrator Chuck Dougherty,Councilmember Jennifer Pinski,Assistant City Administrator,City Clerk Carly Johnson,Councilmember Julie Hultman, Building Official Planning&Code Mike Liljegren, Councilmember Lisa Danielson,Arborist • Mike Runk, Councilmember Mary Seiger,Administration Andrew Kegley, Public Works Director Dear Mayor McComber and City Council,City Administrator,City Assistant Administrator and Staff, Thank you for allowing us to use your beautiful facility to conduct neighbor meetings for Walk-a-Bout at Oak Park Heights, MN USA. The meetings were well attended with many excellent comments on how we could improve our project to be responsive to the adjacent neighbors. Although,as expected,some adjacent neighbors attended and communicated their concerns,the meetings were also attended and supported by other adjacent neighbors with very different(and very positive)viewpoints in support of Walk-a-Bout. As we prepare to submit our application to the city staff and planning group,we continue to make adjustments to the project based on the neighbors'comments. We plan to be responsively balanced to all those that attended the neighbor meetings as we submit our application. My summary of the four meetings is attached. Again, thank you for the use of City Hall for this purpose. Respectfully submitted, Jaime Junker, For J K& K Group, LLP Jaime Junker • J K&K Group, LLP • 11550 Stillwater Blvd North, Suite 106 • Lake Elmo, MN 55042 We sent the residents nearest 5676 Oakgreen two separate meeting invitations by sending those within 300 feet an initial letter and also including them on the second invite. There were approximately 85 residents on the first list. A week later, we sent out letters to an additional 265 residents(total of 350 letters)within a radius of 500 feet of our property. All 85 residents of the first list were again included in that second letter invitation. Those attending were given the same site plan and rendering of two, 3-story buildings with underground parking that the city staff was given in March on our zoom call. Following is a summary of the neighborhood meetings held at the City of Oak Park Heights for the upcoming project at 5676 Oakgreen avenue. Meeting 1 Tuesday May 17th 10:30 AM The meeting was attended by Dr Lois Hall,of Hall Chiropractic and two city police department members who stopped in to see pictures of the project and said hello. The officers didn't attend the meeting but were complementary about how it looked. Dr. Lois Hall liked the project and will support it. Meeting 2 Tuesday May 17th 6:30 PM The meeting was well attended,we needed to bring in about ten additional chairs to the small meeting room at city hall. It was a mix of neighbors both immediately adjacent to and around the property. A few Oak Park Heights residents that heard through the grape vine showed up. For the first half hour,the adjacent neighbors"peppered"Jaime with questions and were quite vocal. Their main concerns were: 1Traffic, 2 Building next to the buffer zone(green space), and the third floor. One neighbor objected that the project would be profitable. I corrected his facts that he shared with everyone at the meeting that our ownership group had paid$225,000 for the property. I explained his numbers were in error and omitted a second lot purchased from Presbyterian homes. Near the end of the meeting one attending asked,"where do you go from here Jaime?",and I stated that I would go back to my architects and see if we could split up the entrance/exit from only the one on Oakgreen Avenue, to having the West Building entrance/exit onto 58th. I stated the benefit would be to split the access points in two and to add more green space on our property by reducing the paved area to the south of our property between the West building which would now exit onto 58th if that was possible. That idea did seem to have merit with those neighbors in attendance. Another adjacent neighbor said we had a poor track record of maintenance. He tried to get the others in attendance to "reject the project"on our maintenance record alone,and one neighbor objected to his approach and said, "don't you feel that is unfair?We came to learn about the project,and we are not here to vote tonight." I explained that I believed that in 22 years of owning the properties,the city has contacted us a total of three times. I would request the file to the city where I believe that once a tree fell and the city contacted me to remove it,once the grass was getting long at the corner where our renter said he was having trouble getting his lawn mower in after some ruts were left after a project at the corner, and once the porch roof needed repair. I told the man that each of the three times there was any communication from the city over 22 years, I felt I responded appropriately and timely. Upon review of the city file for our property which I received from Eric Johnson, I confirmed my comments were accurate. Additionally, I make note that the adjacent residents'comments at the neighbor meetings bare striking resemblance to a city of Oak Park Heights document I obtained dated 649-18 when residents spoke in similar fashion against the Palmer Station project. After approximately a half hour, I stated that it seemed to me that there might be a silent majority in the room,and I asked if there were any in attendance that liked the project? Mr. Neff who lives in the Oakgreen townhomes explained that he was usually in the silent majority and that some of the others Jaime Junker • J K& K Group, LLP • 11550 Stillwater Blvd North, Suite 106 • Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Page 2 weren't speaking objectively and that he was in favor of the project. He also stated some of the neighbors that apparently came in unison to object were angering him and they weren't speaking with facts. Robin and Dave Schell who live at Sunnyside made a couple of comments in favor of the project: First, everyone has traffic,and we all need to adjust to it.Second, most developers don't contact the neighbors beforehand like Jaime and Maureen are doing tonight which could allow adjustments to be made before the application is submitted. Third,the tax revenues the project would bring are important to them as taxpayers and an opportunity for the city and they believed other residents would be in favor of the project also. Neighbors pressed Mr. Neff, "what do you like about the project?" He said, "it looks nice,it is ready to go right now for the city, I support the project." When pressed by the adjacent neighbors, "how about two floors Jaime?" Mr. Neff raised his hand and said, "who in this room believes like this 86-year-old resident that we live in the 21St century? How about 5 floors? he asked them". At that point,the meeting changed pretty dramatically, and the discussion became much more balanced. Meeting 3 Wednesday May 25th 10:30 AM The meeting was attended mostly by residents from the Oakgreen condominiums adjacent to city hall. There was also one resident from the close in neighborhood in a single-family home and one neighbor near the buffer zone. In summary of the • meeting, all the neighbors in Mr. Neff's same development supported the project,the neighbor adjacent to the buffer zone was clearly vocal and opposed to the project, I asked the senior couple near the end of the meeting that we hadn't heard from, if they wanted to tell us about themselves? They said they supported the project and actually,they would consider living there so they could stay in Oak Park Heights. All the neighbors supporting the project said three floors didn't bother them at all. One senior woman living in the Oakgreen townhomes asked,"Jaime,can you put in a coffee shop,so we have a place to meet within walking distance to meet neighbors?" Meeting 4 Wednesday May 25th 6:30PM was similar to meeting 2. Over half of the people in attendance were also at meeting 2 the prior week. Much of the meeting focused on traffic. I said if we can find traffic counts, we will be able to put into perspective the percent increase an additional 36 homes would create. I will ask the city for traffic counts, or we will provide them from a traffic study we will complete as part of the application process.The people in attendance adjacent to the buffer zone objected to the third floor and asked if we could do just two floors. A common comment was that they realized something would be built at our site at some point. In terms of three floors vs two floors, I said the picture that I was showing them was the same building rendering we showed the city staff in March. The third floor was needed to provide the funds to pay for the underground parking which had many benefits to preserve green space and save trees. I asked the neighbors if we received any good will in their eyes from donating the walking path along Oakgreen and they said yes, but they wished it would have come sooner. I said that we donated it in the same spring of the yearthat Mr.Johnson,city administrator met me at the property to tell me about the walking path idea. I feel the meetings went well and I left with ideas,especially relating to splitting the entrance/exit from Oakgreen to be responsive to those homes to the south of our property and I will discuss with our design team and attempt to adjust our plans accordingly with an entrance/exit onto 58th. Respectfully submitted, r, Jaime Junker,J K&K Group, LLP