Anderson council tables rezoning for proposed 200-unit Redwood apartments after affordability and drainage questions

The Anderson Common Council on a March evening postponed final approval of a rezoning that would allow a 200-unit Redwood apartment complex on a 40-acre parcel at Lindberg Road and South Rangeline Road.

Mr. Styers, who presented Ordinance 34-25 for third reading, said the developer proposes 200 one-, two- and three-bedroom units and estimated monthly rents would range “anywhere from $1,600 to $2,600” depending on unit size. He told council members that the city engineer provided a letter supporting two driveway accesses and that drainage remains under discussion; the petitioner has proposed multiple retention ponds and, Styers said, the design would “over detain” (he estimated roughly two and a half times but added, “don’t quote me on that”).

The proposal would rezone the site from R2 (single-family) to R4 (allows higher-density residential), a change Mr. Styers acknowledged is in conflict with the current comprehensive plan, which is being updated.

At the podium, resident Angie Strickler questioned who could afford the proposed units and whether the developer would use Low-Income Housing Tax Credits or accept HUD funds. “If you’re on a fixed income and you only make $967 a month, you sure as heck aren’t living there,” Strickler said, asking whether the company would participate in affordable-housing programs. Joe Sikos, a representative the developer brought forward, said he did not believe Redwood typically uses LIHTC or HUD funding but that he would raise the question with the company.

Council members also pressed on drainage arrangements with neighboring airport property and were told discussions and preliminary engineering are ongoing. The building commissioner’s office noted it will not issue construction permits until a drainage plan is approved by the city engineer.

A council member moved to postpone the third reading until the next regular meeting so supervising company staff could attend; after a second, the roll-call vote was unanimous in favor (Turner, Harless, Wagner, Landers, Newman, council president). The ordinance was tabled.

The council will reconsider Ordinance 34-25 at its next regular session; council members asked that company leadership and final engineering details be present at that time.