Workshop Item - Lori Johnson, City Planner
Title
Roers Companies Apartment Project in Lexington Meadows
Background
At the March 1, 2021 City Council meeting, the Council voted to table the approval of the Roers Companies North Meadows Apartment project so that the applicant could submit plans for an apartment project on the south side of 109th Avenue at the Austin Street intersection (Lexington Meadows).
At this time, the applicant has provided written confirmation that they wish to remove their items for the North Meadows project from the City Council agenda to allow the site south of 109th Avenue to be vetted. The items could be placed back on the agenda at any time, based on the discussion at this workshop.
History
On April 6, 2020, the City Council heard a proposal from JPL Companies for an apartment project in North Meadows. The response by the City Council at that time was generally supportive; however, concerns related to traffic and neighborhood impact were mentioned.
In the summer of 2020, Roers Companies approached staff with a proposal for another apartment project in Lexington Meadows. At the same time, JPL was also considering an apartment in North Meadows. Staff reviewed the plan presented by Roers Companies and provided many of the same comments that are provided in the following report. In order for Roers Companies to proceed with the apartment project in Lexington Meadows, they would have needed to bring their request to a City Council workshop due to the rezoning and land use amendments required.
Another issue that was pointed out to Roers Companies when they first submitted their Lexington Meadows plan, was that there was not enough sewer capacity for three large residential projects within such close proximity of each other. The three projects were Dominium, JPL and Roers Companies.
Wellington Management reviewed the issues surrounding the lack of capacity and indicated they could not financially have a second apartment project in Lexington Meadows due to the cost of increased sewer capacity. After learning of the site issues, neither Wellington Management nor Roers Companies determined they wanted to proceed in any further discussion of Lexington Meadows.
In the fall of 2020, staff learned that JPL had cancelled any interest in developing an apartment in North Meadows, and that Roers Companies had decided to pursue this site for their apartment project. This was not brought to a City Council workshop as the developer was relying on the feedback provided at the April 6, 2020 workshop and wanted to proceed with obtaining the necessary approvals. There was no discussion of revisiting the Lexington Meadows site as both Wellington Management and Roers Companies were proceeding with the North Meadows site.
Staff has no preference on which site is used for high density residential. Staff’s role is to identify the challenges and specific additional actions that are associated with each site.
Overview of Project
Roers Companies is proposing to construct a 181-unit, 5 story apartment project in Lexington Meadows on a lot that is southwest of the new Starbucks multi-tenant retail building. The lot is not yet platted, so a final plat will be required for any future application.
The zoning of this site is different from North Meadows, which is DF (Development Flex). The zoning in Lexington Meadows is PBD (Planned Business District). The PBD zoning district differs from the DF zoning district in setbacks, and other regulations listed in the ordinance, as there is no flexibility on these items unless variances are granted.
The site plan that is being proposed does not meet some of the setback requirements in the PBD zoning text. A rezoning would be required to DF (Development Flex) to allow the project as proposed. Staff would not recommend approval of variances for the site in the PBD zoning district as there are too many variances that would be required and it would make more sense to just rezone the site.
It is important to note that the purpose of using the DF zoning designation is to allow flexibility on certain standards if the City Council feels there is a significant benefit in doing so. For instance, in exchange for the reduced standards, the City should be gaining on exceeding requirements on architecture, landscaping, and/or other improvements and amenities.
The land use of the site is PI/PC (Planned Industrial/Planned Commercial). The apartment project would require a high density residential land use, so a land use amendment would be required. The current HDR (High Density Residential) land use designation in the comprehensive plan only allows up to 25 units per acre. The Metropolitan Council has allowed the City to go up to 32 units per acre with this land use. The proposed project has a density of 57 units per acre, much higher than what is currently allowed in the HDR land use, and unlike any other project in Blaine. It is very likely that the Metropolitan Council will require the City to establish a new high density land use category to accommodate the apartment project. It is unknown what that process would look like with the Metropolitan Council.
With regard to density, it may be helpful to look at what other peer cities have allowed with multi-family projects. Maple Grove has an HDR land use designation that generally allows between 10 and 18 units per acre, but have completed projects with densities as high as 43 units per acre. Woodbury’s HDR land use designation does not allow over 18 units per acre. Eagan’s HDR land use designation allows multi-family projects over 12 units per acre with projects in that city averaging 42 units per acre. In contrast, the inner ring suburb of St. Louis Park allows HDR densities between 30 and 75 units per acre.
The project proposed by Roers Companies (57 units per acre), would be a higher density than what is allowed in other peer cities of the same type and size.
A narrative has been submitted by Roers that outlines the project, but there are some inconsistencies in the land use/zoning section. In addition, the narrative states that this is a four-story project but the plans indicate this will be a five-story building.
Staff has determined that the following issues need to be addressed in relation to the proposed plans presented at this time:
1. Setbacks: The applicant is proposing the following:
• 19-foot side yard building setback on the south side of the site (Variance).
• 61-foot front yard building setback on the west side of the site.
• 93-foot side yard building setback on the north side of the site.
• 36-foot rear yard building setback on the east side of the site.
• Front yard parking setback on the west side of the site is unknown (possible Variance).
• Side yard parking setback on the north side of the site is unknown but appears to be 9-10 feet (possible Variance).
• There is no setback for parking on the east side of the site. (Variance or Conditional Use Permit for shared parking).
Some of these setbacks can be accommodated in the PBD zoning, but others cannot. Is the Council willing to consider rezoning this site? The Dominium project required no variances, and no variances were requested by the developer.
2. Lack of Green Space: It is estimated that the landscaping section in the zoning ordinance would require the following trees to be planted on site:
• Overstory: 24
• Conifer: 12
• Ornamental: 12
It would be difficult to accommodate this number of trees on the very limited green space provided. The only green space in the project is in the middle of the horseshoe. How does the Council feel about the lack of green space and the potential inability to provide the required amount of trees on site?
3. The zoning ordinance requires two parking stalls for every apartment unit, with one of those stalls provided underground. The total number of stalls required would be 362 stalls. The proposal is for 161 underground stalls and 96 external parking spaces for a total of 257 spaces (1.42 stalls per unit), more than 100 stalls below the City’s recently updated ordinance.
The City’s parking ordinance was revised in 2020, with staff researching multi-family parking requirements in other peer cities at that time. This research revealed the following parking requirements for peer suburban cities:
• Eagan - 1.5 stalls per unit (one underground and .5 surface stalls).
• Maple Grove - 2 stalls per unit (one underground and one surface stall).
• Plymouth - 2 stalls per unit with one of them required to be enclosed.
• Woodbury - 2.5 stalls per dwelling unit.
• Coon Rapids - 2.25 stalls per unit with no requirement for underground stalls.
Given that the research was completed less than one year ago and that it indicated that two stalls was in the range of what is allowed in peer cities, staff is comfortable with the current requirements. There are no apartment projects in the City that have not met the requirement of two stalls per unit.
The North Meadows apartment project met the two stalls per unit requirement of the zoning ordinance. Argument could be made that 1 or 1.5 stalls per unit for the studio units could make sense; however, if studios (70 are proposed) accounted for one stall per unit, the total number of spaces required would be 292. This is still 42 more stalls than indicated on the plan.
The applicant has provided a parking study for your review. Note that there could likely be restaurants in this commercial area that are going to need parking on their own lots, so spillover from the apartments would not be allowed.
Is the Council willing to consider a variance for the number of parking stalls for a dense apartment project?
4. If the apartment was located in Lexington Meadows, it would take a prime commercial lot off the market. This development was planned for commercial uses and is one of the few commercial developments located on the east side of Highway 65, with land currently still available. This is a prime corner for commercial development with the intersection of two county roads and the proximity of 35W within less than a mile.
An important factor to consider is that the North Meadows site for the apartments would occupy a less viable commercial lot since it is located by residential uses, blocked from view from 109th Avenue, and the commercial use on that site would generate more traffic than the proposed apartment use. Please see the attached traffic numbers provided by the developer for the North Meadows apartment site indicating the difference between commercial and residential land use traffic counts.
5. The developer (Wellington Management) is aware that it will not be possible from a sewer capacity standpoint to allow three apartment projects between the North Meadows and the Lexington Meadows project areas.
6. The applicant is showing that there is to be green space located on top of the underground parking garage. There may be an issue with this concept at the Rice Creek Watershed level. There needs to be enough soil added to the top of this structure for grass or trees to grow. There is little information that staff has to make any type of recommendation on this sort of project. This type of situation has never been explored and the Rice Creek Watershed District will need to weigh in on this site plan. Since the result of this type of project is unknown in the City, it is difficult to ascertain what this area will look like in 5-10 years or more. Is the Council supportive of exploring this type of green space construction without knowing what this space will look like in 5-10 years?
7. Some of the Council had mentioned their desire for commercial space on the first floor of the apartment building. The applicant has not proposed this as they do not believe that commercial on the first floor is a viable option for them at this time. Is this something that the Council still wishes to pursue?
8. At the time this report was written, the Community Standards Department was evaluating the need for a fire road on the south side of the building. More information will be provided at the meeting.
Process
The applicant would need the following approvals from the City Council:
• Comprehensive land use amendment and possible creation of a new land use category.
• Rezoning to DF (Development Flex).
• Final plat to create a new lot.
• Conditional use permit for the use and for shared parking and driveways.
Before an application would be considered complete, the applicant would need to obtain concurrence from the Rice Creek Watershed District.
The applicant will also be required to update the traffic report, as there will be new traffic patterns if the project moves to the Lexington Meadows project.
If the City Council chooses to approve the project in Lexington Meadows, staff would need to make an application with the Met Council for a land use change after the Council grants approval of the project. This approval could take 60-120 days. This would have been the same process required in North Meadows.
It is likely that there would not be a start date for this project until 2022.
As this staff report was completed with limited information from the applicant, more issues may arise once full sets of plans are received. If more information becomes available prior to the workshop, it will be presented on March 22.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review the plans for a Lexington Meadows apartment project and provide very clear direction to the applicant on whether they are supportive of such a project moving forward. The following questions should be addressed by the City Council:
1. Is the City Council willing to consider rezoning this site?
2. Is the City Council willing to consider creating a new land use category and approving a land use amendment for this site?
3. How does the City Council feel about the lack of green space and the potential inability to provide the required amount of trees on site?
4. Is the City Council willing to consider a variance for the number of parking stalls for a dense apartment project?
5. Does the City Council wish to pursue a first floor commercial requirement for a multi-family project on this site?
Attachment List
Location Map
Narrative (some inconsistencies exist within this document)
Proposed Site Plan
Utility Plan
Proposed Floor Plan
Parking Study
Elevations
Traffic Email