|
SPF~CIAL MEETING N~RCH 9, 1959. ~~~J
<br />Meeting was called to order a.t 7:45 P. I:4. , the following Council A:Zembers being
<br />present: Harold C. Tdilsen, ~Tayor; Geo. Shavor, Trustee; Vtiillis ~'yarkentien,
<br />Trustee; Paul Coppini, Trustee and tidm. R. Utecht, Clerk. Also present were
<br />Frank P. Graham, Village Attorney; Vdm. E, Olsen, Treasurer; Nick Christensen.,
<br />Buildnrg InsUector; David P„ Cartwright, Acting Chairman Planning Commission,
<br />and Ethel E, J~`hite, Deputy Clerk and Treasurer.
<br />Proposed Apt, TTayor Nilsen opened the meeting with the statement that this
<br />Lindig-~,piegler Special T~:?eeting had been called for the purpose of Considera.-
<br />tion of Application of Spiegler Construction Company for
<br />building n~rmits to erect 6 apartment buildings on the Wm.
<br />Lindig property a+, the northwest corner of Larpenteur & Fry:
<br />The T~Tayor reviewed past proceedings as follows3
<br />1. T.r. George T,~iembrez a:~peared before the Council on December
<br />~., 1958 and. r:ade a preliminary rresentation of the proposal.
<br />At teat time Trustee Shavor stated he would contact the
<br />Planning Commission and protiose a public meeting at v~rhich
<br />the matter could be explained to the people in the affQcted area.
<br />2. Since that time the Planning Commission has heard 'Tr. Spiegler
<br />outline the proposal and has conducted. a public hearing on the
<br />matter.
<br />3. On February 11, 1959, r.4r. Cartwright, Acting C'_zairman of the
<br />Planning Commission submitted. the Commissio~z's report to the
<br />Council recommending that the Village Council refuse to grant
<br />building ~rTM;:its for the proposed apart~~ents and gave their
<br />specific reasons.
<br />4. The recommendations and reasoa~s were made available to Pvlr:
<br />George ~?embrez and, through him, to hr, Spiegler,
<br />;. On `"hursda;T, Fobrua:_°~- ?6th, 1959, i!,~r. Solly Robins, Attor-
<br />ney-atAlaw, and representing the Spiegler Construction Company,
<br />anoeared before the Council to present reasons for approval of
<br />permits. The Council set a special meeting for Ptiionc~2~r, ':larch
<br />S-ch, 1959, a+., which time the proponents a.nd onnorents were to
<br />be asked to state their cases for ar,d against the proposed
<br />apartments.
<br />D.obins ~„ttorney Robl.ns, Speaking for the Spiegler Company, adv'sad
<br /> treat at the reru~st of tie ?~ayor, a.n u~~tists' con~~ntion of the
<br /> project, hac? been prepared r'nd sho~rred the same to those in
<br /> attendance. He also stated: The contractor planned an entrance
<br /> onto Larpenteur which should direct most of the traffic away from
<br /> Fry Street. Each building would contain 17 units. They were
<br /> providing narking space for 105 cars at the rear of the various
<br /> buildings. The buildings would have a love silhouette. The
<br /> height did not Pxceed that of neighboring one family buildings.
<br /> They had 2.6~. acres ~rrhich would result in a family density of
<br /> 38? families nor acre. Lot coverage vrould. be 21~.8~. Buildings
<br />would be faced with brick all around. Density of 38~ families
<br /> per ,acre is well within limits set by the American Public Health
<br /> Association, which permit ~5 families per acre and 35~ lot
<br /> coverage. Lot coverage ?proposed would be fully 1/3 less, The
<br /> Federal. Housing Administration is the strictest and their regulation
<br /> 1101B provides for Iot coverage of 35~ for interior plots and ~5~
<br /> for corner plots. Under that regulation, lot coverage on this
<br />
|