HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 03-12 Citizens 'lick' project THE REVIEW Council fears lawsuit
/ • / a
��
Citizens lick
Maplewood city council members from being approved-. Neighborhood told the neighbors in hopes of softening
expressed concern about a possible opposition licked this project in the first their opposition to the project.
lawsuit resulting from their decision to instance. Now it is licking it a second Under the proposal, five buildings
deny a rezoning request and special use time." would have been constructed on the
permit at a public hearing on March 7. Tara Blommer, 1962 Adolphus St., told property site. The buildings would have
After hearing neighbors voice almost the council that the neighbors did not been sectioned off into a total of 40 in-
total opposition to the proposal, the want semi-trucks or day laborers in their dividual office or service commercial
council members unanimously turned neighborhood. units. Total square footage would have
down the rezoning and permit requests "We want this property cleaned up and been 32,400, with 30 percent for office
for an undeveloped 11.36 acre site. The maybe used for offices only. We don't space and 70 percent warehouse or ser-
property is located near the northwest want to waste the taxpayers money by vice commercial space.
corner of the intersection of Roselawn going to court, but at the same time we A list of possible tenants included a
Avenue and Interstate 35E in Maplewood. want to protect our property and in- lawn care company, book binder, glass
The property developers,D.W. Fourre, vestments. engraver and television and audio
J.D. Voight and R.L. Reiling asked the "I'm trying to protect my house.If this equipment wholesaler. Some of these
land be rezoned from farm residence to project is allowed to go in,the value of my businesses would have required one or
light manufacturing. They also wanted a house will really drop,"Blommer stated. more semi-truck delivery each day, This
special use permit for an office-service- Mayor John Greavu said that while he potential truck traffic was one of the
warehouse project. The property owners understood the neighbors' objections, he neighbors' major concerns.
were not present at the hearing. was concerned the developers would sue Councilman Nelson,who is an attorney,
This is the second time the council has the city."We cannot deny a person access told the audience that although the court
turned down requests on this property. In to his property. Ninety percent of the battle might be costly, the judge's
September it denied an application for a things we asked for,they(the developers) decision might not be totally against the
planned unit development for basically have agreed to. Now we can't tell them city.
the same proposal. The reason given for they still can't have access to their The judge may tell the developer to go
denial was the proposal did not provide property. back to the city planners and work out a
sufficient access to the site. "We have bluffed someone by denying planned unit development. Under a
Councilman Earl Nelson told the angry his project the first time. Now he is planned unit development,the city will be
neighborhood residents that"the tenacity calling our bluff. This city doesn't have able to put more restrictions on the
of the neighbors has kept this project the bucks to pay for a court suit,"Greavu developer, he explained.