HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 08-22 Maplewood residents claim PUD project misrepresented REVIEW Map ewoo
Pup ro •
ec t
By MELANIE WAAGE does not include black top. Two wetland
areas would be preserved during the
Residents living near a proposed office- project. A large number of trees also
service commercial project said the would be preserved.
project had been misrepresented and any He said another consideration was the
factory or warehouse was not conducive potential employment opportunities.
to their residential area. They told the "THERE WILL POSSIBLY be 40 small
Maplewood City Council Aug.16 that they tenants, each needing between two and
were concerned about disturbances from four employees," Fourre said. "And the
traffic problems from employees driving advantage to city tax base, based on
to and from work, noise pollution, Ramsey County survey,is approximately
problems with semi-trucks driving to and $100,000 per year on taxes from this
from the project making deliveries, and project."
the potential for late-night work at the Then, he explained the history of the
facility. project to the council.He said he had sent
THE APPLICANT, James D. Voight, letters to 18 homeowners adjacent to the
one of the three owners, was requesting property.He offered to visit with them in
approval for a special use permit for a March and got responses from seven.
Planned Unit Development (PUD), plus "We met with those residents March 31
approval of site and building plans. and heard some of their objections,"
The project, planned for the northwest Fourre said. "Some of their objections
corner of Roselawn Avenue and I-35E, were to indirectness and dishonesty of
would consist of five buildings, which representing the project."
would be divided into 40 individual office Then he explained that he never used
or service commercial units. the term office-service to mean anything
The Maplewood design review board but some offices and some small
recommended denial of the building and manufacturing companies.
development because the neighbors THERE HAS BEEN much confusion
hadn't had input on the project, and had among the residents as to the term office-
stated they thought the project was service.Many residents thought the term
misrepresented. The Maplewood plan- meant offices, offering services. They
ning commission recommended approval were not prepared for the types of
of the PUD, with special consideration businesses that could be included in the
and planning for trucks entering the complex. The term also includes
project. warehouses and light manufacturing.
After a two-hour public hearing at the It was this mix-up in terminology that
city council meeting, council voted to led to the residents' loud complaints and
table the request and called a special reservations with the project.
meeting for Sept. 13.They recommended Plus, many residents told the council
the developer organize a meeting for the they were very concerned with the
residents to explain all the details of the number of semi-trucks that would be
project and alleviate problem areas. driving in and out of the project during the
DAN FOURRE, another owner, used day hours.
the opportunity at the council meeting to THE QUESTION OF WHO would be
explain why he thought the project would responsible for policing the PUD was
be valuable to the city. raised by residents.Many told the council ,
He said the limited service commercial that they would be the first to call if work
zoning was the most compatible use of the was going on in any of the offices after 6
land. Only 22 percent of the grounds will p.m. and if semi-trucks didn't stick to
be covered with buildings,compared with scheduled delivery times.
30 percent for like projects. That figure Residents did agree that the owners had
residefltm . .
b
jçpreseflted1
the vague
but they We are concerned with to be stucku
a right to improventdtheir property, generalities. We are going
with this and we wanmore to
do with it"
merely wanted more input in what was g It was at this point
going to wouldbe in their property cleaned
"I theike the pvepthey right to use decided the neighbors and the develoknow
pers
il
should get together each could They
theire feel e men Tara tBlommer, 1962 moreuof wat the sos were could
Adolphus
property,
offered the use of council chamberstal
neighborhood ot., said. `Butfeel e should have the and tabledathe theec until a see
something
tand about what is going in. Sept. 13.
something to say meeting,