05-05-1980 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

■TP* LAW OFFICES LeFEVERE. LEFLER. PEARSON. OBRIEN & DRAWZ Mr. Alan P. Olson Page 2 April 29, 19 80 reducing the hardcover from 41% to 32%. Mr. Freeberg and Dr. Seifert done everything possible to improve the property and are pro losing tl house up four feet, utilize the fjj^ting crawl space and in effect double the s'ze of the living space within the structure. This iirproveirent will benefit the neighborhood and the City of Orono by adding major improvements not only in the - siruc?urrbut in landscaping and improving the aesthetic qualities of the property. t is iw understanding that Dr. Seifert and Roger Freeberg believed ifter ^nsultations with your staff that their proposal would meet with the favor of your department and with the ^ity fathers. Roger Freeberg appeared before the Orono Planning Commission and apparently several co^ssioners raised questions about the proposal and the mltter was continued to a later "ISlinl'Ma^usth Salunderstanding throuah my conversations with Jeanne Mabusth that will be on the planning commission agenda for the meeting o M y , 19 80. I have m.et with Dr. and Mrs. Seifert and ^eir architect Freeberg and we have gone over the site in great detail. 9 alno aone to the neighbors and have shown them the plans and discussed Dr Seifert’s proposed improvem.ents, and the neighbors on each side hlie SSStld^h?ir apprSval of this “P-^fading o ^e property. I in Sara sSulture which was built in the City many years aS il being up-graded to meet the quality of other properties in the neighborhood and on the lake. I hope that you in to the planning commission and the planning commissioners will consider lhat this property was charged four sewer units and four water charges 2“that all of the buildings on the site are connected to the and water system. The requested variance will result tTa substantial physical improvement to the site which will lead toward conformity wxth the goals established in yo planning and zoning ordinances. in m.y conversation with your staff P<=«onnel and in other conversations, I found there were some concerns as it related seirer I was also told that the neighbors had been promised "thif tSey'wolirle 1l?ormed prior to the'time the matter was put back In th“planning commission agenda. We are enclosing herewith ^ state ment frim the Ibutting property owners on e^tb=ide indicating that they have reviewed the proposed plan and are in favor of the City granting the proposed variance because they believe the proposal will 2p-grade t.he Neighborhood and will benefit their property values. r