HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-13 Written Public Hearing CommentsMembers of the Oak Park Heights Planning Commission, RECEIVED MAR 12 2025
Once again, I'm writing to strongly oppose the revised six -unit condo proposal and conditional
use parking allowance at 5845 Stagecoach Trail N., across from my home.
My neighbors will address ongoing concerns, especially overflow parking and increased traffic
on a dangerous curve (see findings of fact, parts C and D from the denial of the first round of
permits). Rather than reiterating those points, I'd like to highlight other flaws in the updated
plans that still conflict with Conditional Use Permit criteria found in Section 401.03.A.7 of
the Zoning Ordinance and the reasons the Planning Commission and City Council denied the
first proposal and corresponding permits, respectively on Nov. 25 and Dec. 10, 2024.
First, the appearance remains a jarring, modern structure resembling shipping containers —still
clashing with the historic single family residential neighborhood across from it. (Do not get me
started on how badly the proposed exterior light features have misunderstood the assignment of
"fitting in with the neighborhood.") The findings of fact, part A from the Dec. 10 denial still
apply in that these revised plans for the condo building "...would not be in conformity with the
present and future land uses in the area because the... appearance of the structure is at odds
with the historic single family residential neighborhood directly to the west of the subject site."
The revised plans also promise nothing to reduce occupant density, a concern noted in findings
of fact, part B: "The proposed condominium building would have an impact on the character of
the surrounding area in that the density of the development would be higher than the single
family residential neighborhood to the west." While all units now have two bedrooms (instead
of four 2-bedroom and two 4-bedroom units), the two extra bedrooms from the 4-bedroom units
remain on the floor plans —simply left empty. Nothing prevents future residents from using them
as bedrooms, effectively increasing occupancy again.
Furthermore, the revised plans still fail to address the neighborhood's privacy concernswestern
balconies and windows remain unchanged, and no tree replacement has been added at the front
of the lot. With the current western balcony placement, residents have a choice of only two
views: into our homes or of Stagecoach traffic —I'll let you decide which they would find more
interesting.
I'm curious as to why JACC Capital Holdings, LLC hasn't tried right -sizing the proposed
building to the third -of -an -acre lot. I offer the following as an example of changes that would
improve the second proposal's conformity:
• Instead of six units, if the plans were redone for four 2-bedroom units laid out like the
larger, previously 4-bedroom units,
But with the square footage of the two empty rooms removed from all four units to yield
an overall smaller building footprint,
In addition to garage parking, surface parking spots could then fit on the lot and may
suffice overflow parking needs.
Further design changes could improve privacy for all and reduce light and noise pollution:
• Relocating all balconies to the east side (since the larger units span the building) ensures
no unit loses a balcony and everyone gets a "riverfront" view.
• This prevents the direct light and noise pollution of condo residents on balconies from
disrupting the peace of the neighborhood to the west. (No homes directly face the back of
the proposed building, so this change wouldn't inconvenience existing neighbors.)
• Removing west -side balconies eliminates the need for double -wide sliding glass doors,
allowing for smaller windows to enhance privacy for both condo residents and neighbors.
• Replanting more mature evergreens (like the two currently at the front of the lot) between
the condo building and the street would create a partial privacy screen between the
building and our existing homes across the street.
I am sensitive to the fact that Mr. Randazzo owns a piece of property he has not been able to
profit from. Yet, I'm also keenly aware that the quiet life I anticipated when I purchased my
home —with neighbors on only two sides —and have enjoyed for four years now hangs in the
balance, facing up to six new households overlooking my daily life. There must be a middle
ground between drastic population growth with corresponding car congestion and the status quo,
and I remain open to finding a solution that works for both Mr. Randazzo and our beloved,
historic neighborhood.
Once again, I thank you for your service and support of our community.
Sincerely,
Carissa Stimpfel
5856 Stagecoach Trail N.
RECEIVED MA1 12 2025
To Whom it May Concern:
I have a suggestion, gathering community input would go a long way in this community backing
this.
What if we kept the tree line and had a house, a duplex or a tri-plex? Then also make sure we
ensure privacy for those across Stagecoach. A smaller dwelling would also be safer to traffic,
could keep the tree line and add to the neighborhood.
For the updated proposal: JACC Capital Holdings LLC may feel entitled to put this condo in our
neighborhood because they invested some money. Everyone in this neighborhood made one of
the biggest, if not the biggest investment of their lives and since it's where we live, it's personal.
Based on the fact that very little was changed in their proposal, and after hearing us detail at
length all of the personal and financial impacts to us, it tells us JACC Capital Holdings LLC
doesn't care about this neighborhood. The neighborhood's core is its people and our homes, and
we deeply care about this neighborhood, its character and to support each other. Your investment
is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the investment each one of us made and continues
to make personally and financially.
JACC Capital Holdings LLC made a choice to buy that property and what they're choosing to do
with that investment is to attempt to make everyone in this neighborhood live with those choices
despite the fact that we emphatically and unanimously don't want this proposal as stated.
To detail again (and there's many more):
• The traffic dangers with the multiple cyclists that frequent the narrow Stagecoach Trail.
■ The very dangerous corner where cars speed around a blind corner nearby.
■ Then there's the narrow neighborhood streets that are not made for a lot of parking.
o The disruption to our too narrow streets when a resident at the condo has a party
or family gathering.
• The impact of the removal of the tree line for our neighborhood when we live here to be
semi -rural and love our natural setting and love our natural habitats.
• Then of course the colossal difference in architecture that makes this proposed structure
stick out like a sore thumb.
■ Neighbor's privacy
• Property value
• Where does the construction equipment go? The construction worker's vehicles (refer
above to my point about our narrow streets or take a stroll through the neighborhood)?
The construction noise.
You've heard all of this in November. We still don't want it.
To those who decide this, we care about our neighborhood, our neighbors and our homes. If
there are suggestions you would like from us, please let us know.
As an aside. As far as revenue for the city goes, with the King Coal plant shutting down, with the
current administration (whether you like them or not), there could be interest in bringing a
factory here. I heard they were using or trying to use existing empty factories instead of building
new, so that could potentially save some money. I'd like to see this community thrive and it
could potentially create a few new jobs, so thought I'd throw that out there.
Sincerely,
Brenda Paulson
5718 Stagecoach Trl N.
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
To whom if nay concern ITvtart"
'7,eats
my came is jttl(& non1v) Va1fl
and r own -rne prO9e(ltl across
Worn SS4S st*çe (oait) lYW l .
IR am asiany VOt4 to 9IeOS€I
Vote no on The ppica1i6fl for
CorWifian0.l kS,Q emit For buJIAfl5
colitinS 4Dr tine puspO!sec Six unit
condo ar Sedic 5tasecoach 1'(tdI .
.me 9t( O&& Cando i s -to Write,
por tMt loft. 'r' h2 request is co(
13 SPA +0 be aProutA AnA ir%'xk+ iS
na. ,even a„ouSn to twee visitoaS
04.4- i'►iis Gordo .
Tf residents oC 9apostd
axtto vas visiters theti wuwe( bde-
aywSeamg on Streeev and, inert
�;� ns across a caun+y read w )fn
a qs an Pjoitr Speed limit that
dots noi- rauc a cross ua.Ir. . is
aie4st not Sak" RECEIVED MAR i3son
CO- park. vieiSlnt S A,ISo bets a
Winer 9ojIcfrLS ban so condo ouor►ers
Would 'VW no isohOT For Their visiir►'S
.ro pargir in -Mt winter.
tine p4 (posed areM) for Th'S
COndO iS across The stree}
•prorn my biomt. _ am pers
ariall1/41
cona ,rled ahou.+ I is pt A,na
noise
pOflt+'Ô" n i n9} 13 frbn,Ca'rs hom� fi r
the stre►
urcterstanct Ana+- thiS propeE*14
was ?wck1tSe4 and wilt bye
clievettipied bo:PP wit thi3 detiQ%Op€r
i S elanninS is Just 'b lav3e fb (
This u�+'�do
�e �°t � pi'C.fr%tSM eager)eager) Space çor
fan on?etS and no land Sca P�ands n-r�e.
�twoo the Oki I di ns,xtra pariestis (-°r v��r our
dl�es'°J^ �also Is an invasion
�; r�
OP privacy t&SS windowy
and baitonys Facie my Pfeperiy .
ti erne slruch4rl was Sm* kr
i•lw Cot14 5up,O(+ ih¢ iparkin9
fl.f.PJIS as well as landscaping in
the Aim* flt would w,trotou
privacy for me rondo owners
as welt as the p(OY4"J owners
across The streel.
Z Ol0 estill lEi of $ia+ tFhC
dnvt wax; is gOiVLS tD be vtn.I
unsa4t warn trie Spictea i+ and
sharp CDYV) L . r USISuft how
{p arm IiiiS Con&ern with his
Mat it• d2VtIOP on laud- he 9u(cPlsscy
Thank. you for your consideration
and %109*411y your Sttpf tb
YOQ no on This . _ •RA-ujua ptoth 'y1�h
5636 S1aSe(Od4ITJN