Laserfiche WebLink
August 1.6, 19(93 <br /> • As requested by tre llanntn p at the July 19th meetinv , the <br /> c,-ncerr.ed ne5ghbors met, with the Elmwood Lutt:erar. Chinch officers on Aug. 4th. <br /> The church did not propose any adju.stnPrts or alternatives to their present <br /> nimn. They indtcflt.ed t'iat sh-nibs could be planted to 11"-prove the landscape <br /> around the addition. Thr, netghboks nnggested several alternatives which <br /> the church wr�uld nct a^_c�;pt. Tr- say t''^e least,the results ®t the meeting <br /> were very disappc.'.ntiny . <br /> I understa- ' Vat V-vre may be no set standards of height as relatee to settack <br /> and we can-tit ~h,ar t; fact axi_stir.? c:iurch t-u!lding is fifteen <br /> feet frcm 'hR let line and t.�e pr.c _ty :??e:•a`_nd a7rra:rimately feet <br /> above t':a re-+., °+':::1 '.c,ts. F-wo•. _x, 1 be1:,-.,e '_I- `,e in-r-zoT-er to <br /> conpound %-a a;rp -~:' t",,, currEnt una•?s'_.ra:)I: _it-i:ation. <br /> I direct vour attention to condition number two of theaaprli.cation. The <br /> Frrposed arir?ition bo V-�e &.arch will '�e detremental to health , safety and <br /> general welfare of a t, 'least two the r ei hbors' <br /> petition an environmental ass,:ss^rent shovl ri be In _er91t r or� pzcperty <br /> values will be injured. And tt is certainly injurious to the ;.rcr:erty <br /> improvement of the family roor. and deck addition I nadE to my ,repe:ty. <br /> Therefcre, I resrectively request that the Manning Ccnmission reject the <br /> proposal. <br /> L1, E,AL <br /> 3505 - 36th Ave., N.E. <br /> 'el �` 781-;G38 <br />