10-17-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

...Hi'1989 tiat the to use t. cal map sked if parcel gh with ler the on the 3uncil. matter mattet commend lat the Lannlng roperly ity are Notion* mission s as to Lng were riances on the M 1985 Licants nee to etback. ;e been tone is ith the >ver to rdcover present V. ♦.'t ¥ L";.; mm ^4 % ... J 1 VtMIMUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15* 1988ZONING FILE #1311 CONTINUED their matter. Mr. Purdy stated that they had revised their proposal from what they had submitted in 1985. He did not think that the addition would interfere with drainage because runoff flowed east from the addition. The addition would not be visible to any of their neighbors* and would not interfere with any o^ the neighbor's view of the lake. Due to the internal configuration of their home* the addition* as proposed* is necessary. Their house is 80 years old and there is no other logical location for the addition. Mr. Purdy felt that the addition would not be detrimental to the lake* ncr to the neighborhood. Mrs. Purdy added that the screen porch would be virtually invisible from the lake* and would aesthetically improve the house. She stated that they needed the added bathroom because they have a teenager. Mr. Purdy stated that the average lakeshore setback is skewed somewhat because the house to the south of them is built on the road. This made their property inconsistent with any of the neighboring properties. asked applicants if they had considered building the addition along the side of the house where the kitchen and family room were located. Mr. Purdy said that they had considered the plan* but there is a large counter area in the kitchen that would limit access to the porch and bathroom. The only other possible access would be through the family room* but that would limit the light in the kitchen and not be as aesthetically pleasing. Bellows stated that she did not see a hardship in this matter. Mr. Purdy said that the proposed plan would allow access to the bathroom from the living room and dining room and access to the porch would be through an existing door. This would not be possible if they built the addition on the kitchen side of the house. Mrs. Purdy added that the proposed plan would allow them to view the lake from their porch* which is a rightful benefit of living on Lake Minnetonka. Kelley asked if applicants would then request to add a deck to their proposed porch. Mr. Purdy stated that they had no future plans to add a deck to their 3~season porch. Bellows stated that she did not like the fact that applicants were back before the Planning Commission with a more ambitious plan than the one they proposed in 1985. Mr. Purdy stated that the plan they now proposed was less ambitious. Their requests in 1985 included an extension to the garage and house. Kelley asked applicants why they could not turn their deck into a 3-*season porch. Mr. Purdy stated that such a plan would not give them the required space they need. Mrs. Purdy added that they really need the bathroom. They currently have only one bath and a half and have no bath on the main level. Brown asked applicants how this plan varied from the original plan submitted in 1985. Mr. Purdy stated that the original plan had all of the additions on the south side. Mrs. stated that after they had added the family room* they 8 ^ - .. . MINUTES 01ZONING PII discovere bathroom* Bell< real prob^ look at t stated ths only confj approve t Bellows r< structure addition She added screened p with the d the house. Kell was purch addition t Cohen stai he felt th setting a year plar structure they are ; until the were befoi reverse p matter whe individual if the Pu; existing I All othei years hav Bellows s were othei the lake y area* now remove. There was closet It Wi denial of for encro that he fc she could that the h exceeded : them as mi m