Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-18 & 20 Applicant Email Communicaiton Julie Hultman From: jaimecpa@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 7:20 AM To: davidm.white34@gmail.com Cc: freeman@ffsurveying.com; Eric Johnson;Julie Hultman Subject: Thank You For Your Response Chairperson White, I have been satisfied with the process in working with the City Staff on our application. An application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment was the correct approach as a first step. We all agree its a unique situation but I suggest that this is the way it is supposed to work and what I mean is that the properties in a City's zoning transition from one density to the next are always the ones where there is the biggest"bang for the buck" from everyone's standpoint. In 2008 it's one density, in 2018 it's another density, now the applicant is asking it to go back to 2008 density. All I'm saying is that it is good that properties near the transition should be expected to get the most scrutiny and there is good reason for that. Those properties have an exponential impact on the future of the Comprehensive Plan. Arbitrarily shutting down Walk-a-Bout @ Oak Park Heights because of a few neighbors opposition will hurt our owners, but it hurts others worse because every other tough decision the City makes in the future will be tougher especially as it relates to redevelopment, annexation, and allowing alternative housing. All these items are supported in the Comprehensive Plan but now this is an implementation issue. I say in the application respectfully, "Everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die". What I mean is the Comprehensive Plan is clear on how to get improvements in the City. Implementing the Comprehensive Plan is tough work and we can't make everyone happy. Thank you for the response. At this time I am not asking for a more in-depth presentation to the entire Plan Commission, but there are somewhat a substantial number of references I make in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application. I hope you request all Plan Commission Members to read the entire application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment prior to the public hearing night. During the neighborhood meetings, it was common for me to begin with introducing the project information and two minutes into it an adjacent neighbor would interrupt me and say, "when are we going to get to talk?". Fortunately, other adjacent neighbors politely told them, "ha, we came tonight to hear the information". We are in this situation in Oak Park Heights because a very small number of adjacent neighbors already protected by a substantial buffer zone (linear park) are demanding the Comprehensive Plan be ignored and our site not be allowed to develop although it is 100% consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. So as long as I get a fair amount of time to discuss the application's references to the Comprehensive Plan and the references substantial conformity to it, I'm satisfied with that. I suggest I'm allowed as the applicant, a minute for every year I've owned the property to address the numerous issues in the Comprehensive Plan which our application is responsive to. That would be about 22 minutes and I could probably get through it in 15 minutes if I am going to be limited to my time. Thank you for considering approving this request Chairperson White. Sincerely, Jaime Junker 1 Original Message From: David White <davidm.white34@gmail.com> To:jaimecpa@aol.com Cc: freeman@ffsurveying.com; Eric Johnson <eajohnson@cityofoakparkheights.com>; Julie Hultman <jhultman@cityofoakparkheights.com> Sent: Tue, Jul 19, 2022 4:39 pm Subject: Re: FW: [EXTERNAL]Correcting Earlier Email To Commissioner Freeman Jaime, Good afternoon! Thank you for your thoughtful email. The planning commission is aware of the project concept being discussed; we have received a little information from city staff on the subject. If you would like to share a back-and-forth question and answer session with the commission prior to any public hearing or formal recommendation to the council, I recommend setting that up through city staff, likely as a special session or as a new business item for our next meeting. Doing it through the city's official channels will keep us in compliance with Minnesota's open meetings law. Otherwise, thank you again for sharing the information and we look forward to hearing more! Very best regards, David David White davidm.white34(agmail.com From: jaimecpa(c aol.com <jaimecpaaol.com> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 10:09 AM To: David White <david.white(a�avivomn.orq>; freeman(a,ffsurveyinq.com Subject: [EXTERNAL]Correcting Earlier Email To Commissioner Freeman Good morning Chairperson White and Commissioner Freeman, 1 was encouraged by Councilmember Johnson to contact commissioner Freeman earlier in the spring and I recently realized I confused the matter by not recognizing that you, Mr. White is now the Plan Commission Chairperson. My name is Jaime Junker and I grew up at 15207 63rd Street North in Oak Park Heights and then my first home after college, where Maureen and I started our family was 5312 Ojib Way North. For the last 20 years my wife and I, Maureen have lived on a farm outside of New Richmond, Wisconsin where we raised our family and we are hay farmers and have a smaller herd of beef cattle. The work is enjoyable but sometimes physically difficult. We love it but it is time to return to our roots. We could update the old farm house at 5676 Oakgreen and happily live there but we think there is a greater good for the property. We have owned the property at 5676 Oakgreen for more than twenty years and we have worked with the City Staff to understand the correct process for an application for Walk-a-Bout @ Oak Park Heights, Minnesota USA is to submit an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We submitted the application on July 11th and we await word on its completeness, surely there is a lot that goes into that determination. Maureen and I plan to live at the project. We have a local co-investor(close friend)who has also been involved in the project over the duration of 20 plus years and he also plans to have a residence here. Historically, I have personally been aware of the neighborhood opposition of any potential development of our property. Certainly it has deterred me from moving forward until now. It is a powerful group of close in neighbors, but the neighborhood meetings we conducted showed this powerful force is in the minority. Most residents near by want the project and are in support it. Please see the summary of the neighborhood meeting notes given to the Council and Staff. What will be brought forward in the application, in part, are facts of the linear park that separates our property from 13 homes on the other side of the linear park: 1 The linear park is 4.56 acres or 157% larger than our property. 2 2 Of the 13 homes adjacent to the linear park, only 5 are across from the linear park from our property. The other 8 are to the west of our property, still separated by by linear park. All 13 homes fall under the substantially buffered provision of the Comprehensive Plan. 3 The linear park is a dense, established group of trees. It is considered dense by any engineering standards. It is not a landscaped buffer zone. 4 The linear park was contracted for in the year 2000 for$278,546.10. It was intended to be the buffer zone separating River Hills Development to the development to the north. In all respects, the buffer zone meets all common sense guidelines (and the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan screening guidelines) for an appropriate (substantial) transition zone between densities in current zoning doctrine. The comprehensive plan establishes the Buffer Zone concept of Transitioning Uses. It has merit that the buffer zone has lower density to the South, but then is strategically used by the city to separate that lower density (River Hills) from the higher density to the north. When we purchased the property over 20 years ago, we believed everything to the North of the Buffer Zone would be treated equally at the same density. We have over a million dollars in today's dollars including investing all rents over the history of our ownership into it. The site has two lots and the second to where the house sits was purchased in a later transaction from the then owner. It is not feasible to have our property be re-designated into the "buffer zone of the buffer zone". We look forward to the public hearing. The application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment goes into great detail how it is substantially in conformity with higher density. In fact, the application puts forward the idea that the application site is so much in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan that it would be difficult to find a property more suitable for higher density in the City in the next twenty years that meets the City's responsible fiscal balance test on Page 23 of the Comprehensive Plan which deal with having both existing roads and utilities in place to support the project: "The policies of the Comprehensive Plan are intended to outline the community's desires and set forth guidelines for how these desires are to be achieved. These issues must be continually assessed in terms of value compared to costs incurred by the City for implementation. Indicators of value include, but are not limited to, potential revenue, facility enhancement, and the common good of the Oak Park Heights Community" What will be brought out in the application for Comprehensive Plan development is how it will be challenging to overlook projects like Walk-a-Bout @ Oak Park Heights if the City is intent on overcoming the revenue challenges it will face in the next twenty years (ie. inflation, Xcel Energy Departing, Aging housing). The property is a prime candidate to implement the Comprehensive Plan's redevelopment guidelines and goals. The application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment has a matrix in it summarizing over a dozen "hall marks" in the Comprehensive Plan that support this site being high density consistent with that across 58th from it. The application supports substantial conformity to the Comprehensive Plan for higher density. There is one item that scores low on the entire matrix and that is the opposition from neighbors is a major hurdle. The central theme of the application is that with a robust public hearing where the Comprehensive Plan is looked at for the long term benefit of all residents of Oak Park Heights and tax payers, difficult decision will have to be made by staff, plan commission and City Council to implement the Comprehensive Plan over the next twenty years and beyond. With that, because of the closeness in time to potential public hearings, I don't know if either of you are inclined to visit with me about the project. I would welcome any feedback, but I understand if you feel the public process should suffice and I am fine with that. I thank you both for your roles in the Plan Commission, clearly you are people that put others in front of yourselves. Kindest Regards, Jaime Junker 651-246-1058 3