Developers propose 200‑plus apartments near Walmart, request up to $5M in city help

Representatives for Forest Drive Estates LLC presented a multi‑phase apartment development for land adjacent to the Walmart on Sycamore Estates Drive in Lawrenceburg and said they would seek some level of city assistance to make the project financially viable.

Eric Lang, with Land Consultants, said the proposal is “a development which includes somewhere on the neighborhood of 200 units,” configured mostly as two‑bedroom apartments with some one‑ and three‑bedroom units. He said the developers estimate a roughly $40 million total development cost and that the group would seek about $5 million — “somewhere in the neighborhood of a $5,000,000 range” — in public support, amounting to less than 10% of the projected project cost according to the presenters.

The developers described a phased build. Lang said a single building could take roughly 18 months to complete and that the first phase — described in the presentation as about 216 units — could be finished in approximately three years if construction is staged. Rents in the pro forma presented were in the neighborhood of $1,300 to $1,500 per month for dominant two‑bedroom units; presenters said the pricing is intended to target households that do not qualify for low‑income housing but cannot afford higher rents elsewhere.

Why it matters: Council members and the developers framed the project as a response to repeated public concerns about housing availability in Lawrenceburg and a potential source of property‑tax revenue. The developers presented a property‑tax projection that estimated roughly $420,000 in the first year and called out longer‑term growth over a 25‑year horizon.

Details presented and council concerns

- Scale and layout: The plan shown in the presentation places most buildings behind the Walmart parking area and along the existing road; presenters said buildings would be sited to provide a buffer from retail and to reserve space for parking and amenities such as a potential pool. The initial sketch covered the lower portion of the hill; presenters noted the top of the hill could be developed later depending on demand.

- Unit mix and rents: Most units are intended to be two bedrooms; presenters gave example rents of about $1,200–$1,500 depending on size. They said the product aims to fill a gap between subsidized housing and higher‑end market developments elsewhere.

- Timeline and construction: Presenters said two buildings could be under construction at a time, with the project remaining under active construction as it fills; an 18‑month build time was given for a single building and about three years for the first phase.

- Costs and city ask: Developers stated a rough total project cost around $40 million and said they would look to request about $5 million in assistance. They discussed financing approaches used elsewhere — including tax increment financing (TIF) and developer‑backed structures — and asked the city whether it had appetite to consider such tools.

- Traffic and infrastructure: Council members raised traffic concerns for the existing access near Walmart during peak periods and on holidays. Presenters said a traffic study and signal timing adjustments could mitigate peak congestion and noted an alternate backside connection could be developed; they also said the existing roadway infrastructure would reduce the need for entirely new streets. Staff and presenters said water and sanitary sewer capacity were believed to be adequate for the proposed phase, with a referenced 8‑inch sanitary main in the area, and that electrical service could be routed either overhead or underground.

- Public costs and protections: Council members and presenters discussed using TIF or other mechanisms and emphasized structuring assistance to protect the city’s interest rather than direct unrestricted grants. The developers said they expect to hold the property long term rather than sell it outright.

- Local impacts: Council members noted recurring resident complaints near the site about potholes and a lack of street lighting. Several members urged that any development agreement consider street lighting, road maintenance (including possible impact fees), and the timing of utility upgrades.

Formal action

The work session ended with a motion to adjourn, which carried by voice vote; no other formal votes or approvals were taken at the meeting.

Ending

Developers asked the city for time to review numbers and requested guidance on whether the city is interested in partnering. Presenters said they would share pro forma and tax estimates with staff and consultants and said they would like to start late summer or fall if the city expressed interest.