HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 08-08 Van Dyke project ends THE REVIEW Ian amendment denied
Van Dyke project
ends
buffer zone between the business com- necessary rezoning is contingent upon the
The Maplewood city council rejected anmercial and residential." developer's getting the loan to build, and
application for a plan amendment and The property is currently designated because the council doesn't want to be
rezoning for Van Dyke Street and East SC, Service Commercial, in the land use confined by property zoned R-3, they
County Road B, stating they thought it plan, and the proposed land use denied the rezoning.
was contrary to the city's land use plan, designation is RH, high density - —--–
and there was no valid reason to change residential. This would allow an average
it. density of 34 persons per acre. The
THE APPLICANT, Lundgren rezoning change would be from BC,
Associates., Inc., was requesting the business commercial, to R-3, multiple
changes to build VanDyke Estates,which housing.
would consist of 20 townhouse units Lou Lundgren, representing the
distributed among five buildings. The
project qualified for 8 associates at the council meeting,told the
project
financing,thas which woulddallow Sectionqualifie8 council the proposed housing was the type
persons to collect rent subsidy payments. and t selected siteby the a goodo Council that as needed,
This is the third such proposed housing for o transitionr was a one commercialoffers a
Maplewood, of which only one will good between the
probably receive approval from the state. and residentialhd areas.
Many of the residents in the area had Another resident presented the council
signed a petition at an earl ier date with a petition against the rezoning signed
requesting rezoning the property. But, theby council area resipos.possiblye thealen housingsuscould to
these same residents appeared at the that co m
Aug. city council meeting to tell the be a mix, half low-income and half not.
Aug. 2l that the project had beenhThe council discussed this, mentioning
counmisrepresented,and they no longer were rulesthat financing under mixes,x8 has specificwan
in favor of the changes. about such but it was a
suggestion worth looking into.
"We are here tonight to ask that you not "I'm against low income housing across
recommend the changes,as the planning from me," Steve Wicks, 2210 Van Dyke
commission has done," Connie Laun- St. said. "I'm tired of subsidizing in that
derville, 2194 Van Dyke Ave., said.
"Lundgren Assoc. were present at the area. Someone making $16,500 a year,
with four of
planning commission hearing and ad- children living in that type
mitted the project was misrepresented housing, will have no need to expand
when we signed the petition. beyond that and will never consider being
"People weren't told it was an HUD up ameowner. The area may not be kept
project, or up for Section 8 financing.. Norm Anderson moved denial of the
There are other areas in Maplewood plan amendment, Burt Murdock secon-
where this type of housing would be just ded. Their foundation for denial was no
as good.We feel as home owners it would physical changes had occurred to warrant
be more suitable if it were medium the land use change.The council rejected
residential. Otherwise, there will be no the plan amendment. Then, because the