CCMin_64Nov4_Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2182 Mxs. Frances Laba- The situation that has developed regarding the apartment lestra - site will directly affect our future home which is 1899 Larpenteur Ave. directly behind, The zoning of this area should remain. I realize the majority of people would like to keep it as R-1. Bianchis In answer to the 'little things, To me the sale of ~ property is not a 'little thing.' I have an opportunity to sell the land and they will not buy it if you put your apartments there - then anything can happen east of there, too. If the Council does not take a stand at this time, you will not have a residential area, you will have an apartment area, Charles K. Otis - The Planning Commission considered this and I think 1757 Fairview: all of us on this commission are mare than 30U feet from the area and are not involved personally, but the biggest objection is the thing that Dr. Anderson brought out here. It would then permit R-1 next to Larpenteur with apartment between the existing house and other residential area. Vice thought it would be very poor from the village standpoint. Tt deviates from the purpose for which this zo Wing plan was adopted. Attorney Tarbox: The answer is this - txiere is a piece of land now zoned multiple dwelling between Lindig's house and the resi- dential zoned part of his property so that in any event multiple dwelling is zoned so the piece of land on his residence and the piece lying north of this proposed variance merely adds 53 feet tti it, which would make it a more feasible development in a multiple dwelling con- struction. It has no connection with any of these people except in a small degree. Tt does not affect their residences. I cannot see any real effect. The weight of their objections does not seem to me to be very serious. John Strait Of course, we live far too distant, but I feel a valid 1763 Fairviews interest in the zoning as adopted by the village. If this can be changed bit by bit, there is no validity iri it. There is a possibility of apartments back of my property, then. I feel there should be a more compelling reason. Bianchi: If they need additional property, Mr, Lindig has his home. He can use this unless he doesn't want to move. If they want 17 units, Mr. Lindig should be willing to sacrifice his home and not someone elses. Anderson: I do not agree that those of us who are more than 200 feet away have no interest. Certainly the whole develop- ment is of real importance to the whole village. If this were permitted to be changed, the next step would be to widen this multiple housing strip and go east right behind our lot, the next closest piece would be for an apartment, too. Lindig: We don't want to extend this any further than the 53 feet, `T'hat is the way the property should have been in the first place.