Canterbury Court

Agenda topic details… linked full agenda details.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

In 2008, the Canterbury Court Development was approved by the City of Glendale. Canterbury Court was a condominium development at 2233, 2245, 2129, and 2105-19 West Mill Road. In 2010, the developer requested the single building built to be allowed to be a rental unit. The anticipation at the time was the remaining buildings would be constructed as condominiums and the first building revert back to a condominium building.

Recently the property was purchased by Rory Oppenheimer. Mr. Oppenheimer has submitted a request to complete the project; however, due to economic restraints would like them all to be apartments.

To review this topic that was brought to my attention on Thursday May 20, 2021 with the publishing of the agenda, I visited the property and walked around it. The exterior looked nicely landscaped and the building looked to be constructed of high quality materials. This was not my first time there having been there before to pick up popcorn from a family who lived there who also had a boy in scouting. I did observe there was no marked crosswalk or sidewalk approach to the entrances on the south crossing Mill Road. I then reached out to City Staff to see what was the initial plans. Those details are in images below. I also did my ‘google’ research on TRRBO, LLC. who is the owner. It seems they purchased the property in 2020 from the prior owners who never finished the build out. I also had a brief discussion with Alderwoman Shaw for history as it is her district and she was in office when this was approved in 2008.

Feedback received from residents and some thoughts.

• Condos are better than apartments, we should keep them as condos
  I feel we need a mix of condos, apartments, single family homes, duplexes, etc. within Glendale. To have a vibrant community we need to have homes for various desires for home ownership as well as price points. Some have said that people who live in apartments are more transient and therefore take less care of the property, neighborhood, and are less vested in the community. I personally do not believe that to be true. When younger I lived in apartments, duplexes, townhomes, and eventually my home here in Glendale.

  Even to this day I sometimes wonder why I own a home when I just needed to put $20,000 into exterior work. Younger generations do not want the added burden that comes with ownership. Also, looking at that location, between two light industrial properties and railroad tracks, I also wonder what condo owner would be interested in buying there.

  It is a hot seller’s market, though new construction comes at a cost, and who knows what next year will bring once the housing market slows down from pent up demand during COVID, and new construction picks back up once construction material costs stabilize. When the Council asked the developer about the business case, he indicated they could not build and sell the condos as construction costs are $175 to $225 a square foot and at 1,700 square feet the units would need to sell for upwards of $385,000 to break even. Apartments allow a longer period to recoup costs, and higher present value when taking rent over multiple years into consideration.

• The layout is too big to begin with, we should push for something smaller
  When I look at the first building and the layout, it seems a second would balance out the line and also improve the view. Right now the single building looks out of place. I would prefer to have residential all along the road heading east to Green Bay Road, though history has told me what was on Mill Road predates much of the City’s other developments. Looking at the layout there would be 22 of the 58 units along the road, 8 are there today. Most of the build out is tucked behind, and there’s still plenty of green space. Someone also mentioned the building is too tall only being two stories but looks like four. I think the gables adds a positive architectural touch blending a peaked roof style that most single family homes have in that neighborhood, rather than having cookie cutter box apartments we see popping up elsewhere. Plus, we’ve already had this discussion in 2008, and the prior development was reduced from hundreds of units to this.

• There’s going to be too much traffic
  Well there’s a lot of traffic already. Looking at the egress and ingress the road cuts were planned. There are right turn only and left turn lanes established. Prior to the responsive speed sign moving from Mill to Green Tree, in October 2020 (during COVID) there were about 3,000 trips one way on Mill a day. Adding 58 units, maybe 100 cars, is a drop in the bucket. A commercial development could see more trips and an industrial one could bring larger trucks that make more noise.

• Who’s this new developer and will they really finish it?
  Some have been concerned the work may start and then it will not complete, or the apartments may be mismanaged. There’s not much to be found easily about TRRBO, though they have been around since 2004. Mr. Oppenheimer was in attendance at the meeting and indicated he had other rental units and would be very involved in the location being often onsite. He did not mention which ones. When asked about management, and the inclusion of a management office in the plans, he indicated there would not be any and they would be using an outside management company. This concerned me as a property with 58 units I would expect to have some onsite management. From my research, without onsite management, issues can and do arise more often.

• There will be more kids and that’s dangerous on Mill
  I were looking to move somewhere in Glendale with kids, this would be a great spot! Kletzsch Park and Goody Gourmet walking distance in one direction and Glen Hills School in the other. There is a gap in having a partial side walk and a pedestrian crossing to the side walk on Mill on the North side. It would be beneficial to work with the State on potentially adding this and maybe cost sharing with the developer. When I asked at the Council meeting about amending our motion to include this, it was noted it was outside the City’s purview so I was ruled out of order. Staff was instructed to investigate this and I will be asking staff to bring forward a future topic to special assess these costs (once everything is worked out with the State who has Mill Road jurisdiction) to the developer.

• What about my property values
  Will apartments vs condos and in particular the development as planned negatively impact property values? I am not a relator, though a developed property I would expect would increate values as compared to a half developed one or one with industrial use. Condos are not directly comparable to homes, and neither are apartments.

• Can’t wait to see it finally finished
  Some are looking forward to seeing this currently awkward plat finished off. I am as well.

• More improved property means more tax base for the City
  This is true. With net new construction we can provide more services to our residents.
  As an aside, it may also help increase enrollment in the Glen Hills school district getting them more state funding.

• Shouldn’t this go back through the Plan Commission
  While various council members asked Staff and Mayor Kennedy about this, it was reasoned that since it was not a rezoning, and no changes were being requested from the initial plans, both being residential, it did not need to go through the Plan Commission. I disagree. I feel apartments of this size should include a management office, and in the time since the initial plan, Mill Road has changed so it should now include safe passage to the sidewalk on the North. Though there seemed to be some interest in recommending this to go back to the Plan Commission, Mayor Kennedy called for a motion to approve as is, got it and a second, so this ultimately went to a vote.

During the Council meeting I brought to light these questions and viewpoints. Though I am overall pleased with seeing this development proceed, I am not happy with the pedestrian traffic concerns, and more so what I feel will be lacking management. I voted no, as did one other. The amendment passed four votes to two. If the motion would have failed, I would have referred this to the Plan Commission to address these issues formally in the amended development agreement.

I still hope to see the traffic issues addressed by staff, and can only hope Mr. Oppenheimer will be sufficiently attentive and have strong remote management to offset not having something established on-site.