Apartment project stalls

BY DEBRA NEUTKENS STAFF WRITER

WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP — A development company requesting a new “floating zone” to build an upscale apartment complex got a thumbs down from the Town Board.

White Cedar Apartments LLC is hoping to build a multistory apartment complex on a 5-acre undeveloped site on Centerville Road. The zone would allow a maximum density of 30 units per acre, including wetlands.

The applicants, Mark Houge of North Oaks Company, which manages the property owned by North Oaks Farms Inc., and developer K. Peter Stalland, White Cedar Apartments, requested a new high-density zoning district that “floats,” meaning it exists for future development.

Houge told the board that large employers in the area are struggling to find and retain employees. Providing nearby housing would be a plus to sustain these businesses, especially since there is no bus service, he said.

If the new zone is created, Stalland’s company would build a three-story, marketrate apartment complex with underground parking. Wetland areas would be part of the density calculation. “We don’t impact the wetlands,” Houge said, “but it is to our advantage to include them (in the calculation).”

And there’s the catch. The town currently omits wetland and other areas considered unbuildable when calculating density of a parcel, regardless of zone.

Town Board Chair Ed Prudhon said using wetland to get the acreage up is “a hurdle for him.”

The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request, noting issues with the low water table and ongoing litigation with the lake level lawsuit, citing concern the town will not have capacity to serve an R-4 development. They also had concerns with traffic congestion, an inconsistency with the Comp Plan, parking and the 45-foot building height.

The applicants addressed some of the commission’s concerns with the board, saying they could work with the height issue, depending on how it was measured, and planned two parking stalls per unit. Setbacks would be expanded from 30 to 50 feet, but they’d like to include know the rents, and say they’d love to have the project.”

When Stalland asked the board if there was at least interest in the project, Prudhon said the issue before the board at the April 17 meeting was amending the zone. The chair did add that “some properties aren’t made to develop. Sometimes you just don’t build there.”

Supervisor Steve Ruzek questioned why the town would need a R-4 zone. “This is fairly new to us. My issue is, why do we need it? We have a process in place. A floating zone undermines the ability of our citizens to rely on our zoning.” single-story accessory structures.

Town Attorney Chad Lemmons pointed out that creating a zone is not the same as assigning a parcel, which would require a public hearing.

Prudhon asked Town Planner Evan Monson to explain the Comp Plan inconsistency cited by the Planning Commission. Monson said new residential development is based on Met Council guidance that proposes a goal of 37 affordable housing units on a 4.7-acre site. This project would meet the goal at eight units per acre, except the units would be market rate, making it inconsistent with the Comp Plan.

“Thirty units per acre is not palatable for me,” Prudhon continued. “You’re trying to cram too much on 5 acres. Is it good for the township? I don’t feel comfortable with it.”

Stalland reminded the board that the site is unusual because of the “tons of wetlands” that make it hard to figure density.

“There is clearly a demand for housing here,” he said. “I built 140 units down the road in Vadnais Heights that have been very successful. It’s full. The employers (on Centerville Road)

“The big picture to ask,” the planner emphasized, “is does the zone fit in the township and does the language carry Comp Plan goals?”

Chair Prudhon added that it looks like the board is catering to special projects by going against the zoning ordinance. “We get feedback about that, that we’re not treating everyone fairly,” he said.

Ruzek agreed, observing that it appears the board is favoring private development versus public interest.

To that, Houge asked the board: “Do you want to facilitate having nice apartments in White Bear Township? The only way it will happen is within a R-4 district. That’s not a threat, just the reality of what the industry has to offer.”

Not to be dissuaded, the board denied the request to create a new zone, adding the wetland issue to the reasons cited by the Planning Commission. Prudhon said it will be up to the applicants if they want to bring back a new proposal, again voicing skepticism that the parcel would work for an apartment complex.

Wed