HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-16 Public Hearing Comment - Jim Kremer Memorandum
TO: Jennifer Bye, Planning Commission Chair
FROM: Jim Kremer
5475 Oakgreen PI. N.
DATE: May 14, 2016
RE Oakgreen Commons, LLC Request
I am unable to attend the Planning Commission's meeting on May 16, 2013, thus I am
putting some of my thoughts into writing.
It seems to me that the one agenda item that merits in depth discussion and comment is
Oak Park Senior Living —Phase III.
I begin by pointing out that I do not think it is appropriate for the city to micromanage how
an individual uses his /her property within the city. Indeed, by and large the city ought to be
an ally of a landowner in the development of his /her property. That said, however, I do
believe the city has an obligation to also protect the property rights of other citizens. Put
another way, all citizens have a right to rely on the city not to change in any substantial
way the codes, rules and regulations or zoning those citizens relied on when they
purchased their property. (At the extreme, such changes can, I think, be viewed as a
taking without compensation.)
When we view the newest proposal /requests by Oakgreen Commons, LLC (Oakgreen
Commons) in the above context there are several issues that arise.
First, the plan by Oakgreen Commons for development of the area in question seems to
be an ever moving target. As pointed out in Mr. Richards' May 9, 2013, memo, the original
plan for the site was approved in May of 2008. Since then there have been numerous
changes in the kinds, style and occupancy of various proposed buildings. Most notably,
the proposed density of the area has been increased substantially. I suspect the
increased density does and will continue to have an impact on surrounding properties,
many of which were purchased believing the area would remain a low density area.
Second, and related to the above, the present requested changes, as well as those that
have come before, seem to be tied to some sort of vague guestimate of need or demand.
For example, the present proposal justifies the need for changes by saying there is "an
extraordinary demand" for memory care and an "increased demand" for an enclosed patio
while "lack of marketability" has made previously proposed townhomes unnecessary. The
point is that without decent data the city will be in this situation again next year: listening to
a request for major changes in the development plan. It seems to me that such "seat of
the pants" planning does not serve the developer, the city or, most importantly, the
residents of Oak Park Heights.
Jennifer Bye Memorandum
May 14, 2013
Page 2
Third, in justifying its requested changes, Oakgreen Commons says, "We think these
changes enhance and reason well with this site. The apparent increase in density is
illusory, since we are asking to expand our Memory Care units and decrease the amount
of units which add traffic, residents and guests, by 12 units. The residents of the Memory
Care units never drive, nor avail themselves of outside services. We view this increase in
units as an entirely different 'use' of the site." Once again, Oakgreen Commons has
provided no real documentation for its assertions about decreases in traffic; however,
common sense does tell us that memory care will require more staff and potentially more
visitor parking and emergency vehicle traffic.
In addition, though there may be fewer people living in memory care one needs only look
at the "Master Plan" to see and feel the nearly stifling density of the area. If one doubts
this he need only walk or drive by the four story building that looms over the walking path
and Oakgreen Avenue North itself. I suspect that by virtually any measure this will be the
most densely covered parcel in Oak Park Heights.
Fourth, it seems to me the original plan for this development had somewhere in the
neighborhood of 160 units. Over the years that grew to 291 units, which I think required a
zoning change. Now the city is being asked to approve another 20% increase in the
number of units. (291 to "possible" 351.) Where does it, or does it, end? We have seen
that Oakgreen Commons is not a very good predictor of future needs. What happens
when there is not the anticipated "extraordinary demand" for memory care? One suspects
Oakgreen Commons will then be back before the city requesting additional changes and
still higher density.
Fifth, is it wise for Oak Park Heights to issue Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds for this project?
Should the City be in a position to decide which businesses and enterprises get the most
beneficial financing?
Sixth, Mr. Richards suggests, "The applicant will be required to enter into an amended
development agreement with the City should approval of the general plan of development
be granted." After seeing the number of changes and requested changes in the plans for
this site one wonders what value such an agreement has. What leverage will the city truly
have when radical changes are requested in the future?
Finally, it is telling that the latest Master Plan indicates there will be a total of 335 units
while Oakgreen Commons' formal request asks approval for a "possible" 351 units; the
target has not yet stopped moving after more than five years of flux. I suspect this is not
the final rendition of this development and the City shall see continued requests for
changes and increased density as perceived "extraordinary demand" and "lack of
marketability" ebb and flow.