Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 <br />ZONING FILE #1311 CONTINUED <br />their matter. Mr. Purdy stated that they had revised their <br />proposal from what they had submitted in 1985. He did not think <br />that the addition would interfere with drainage because runoff <br />flowed east from the addition. The addition would not be visible <br />to any of their neighbors, and would not interfere with any of <br />the neighbor's view of the lake. Due to the internal <br />configuration of their home, the addition, as proposed, is <br />necessary. Their house is 80 years old and there is no other <br />logical location for the addition. Mr. Purdy felt that the <br />addition would not be detrimental to the lake, nor to the <br />neighborhood. Mrs. Purdy added that the screen potn would be <br />virtually invisible from the lake, and would aesthetically <br />improve the house. She stated that they needed the added <br />bathroom because they have a teenager. Mr. Purdy stated that the <br />average lakeshore setback is skewed somewhat because the house to <br />the south of them is built on the road. This made their pr^pertl <br />inconsistent with any of the neighboring properties. <br />Bellows asked applicants if they had considered building the <br />addition along the side of the house where the kitchen and family <br />room were located. Mr. Purdy said that they had considered the <br />plan, but there is a large zounter area in the kitchen that would <br />limit access to the porch and bathroom. The only other possible <br />access would be through the family room, but that would limit the <br />light in the kitchen and not be as aesth-�tically pleasing. <br />Bellows stated that she did not see a hardship in this matter. <br />Mr. Purdy said that the proposed plan would allow access to the <br />bathroom from the living room and dining room and access to the <br />porch would be through an existing doer. This would not be <br />possible if they built the addition on the kitchen side of the <br />house. Mrs. Purdy added that the proposed plan would allow them <br />to view the lake from their porch, which is a rightful be.. :fit of <br />living on Lake Minnetonka. Kelley asked if applicants would then <br />request to add a deck to their proposed porch. Mr. Purdy stated <br />that they had no future plans to add a deck to their 3-season <br />porch. <br />Bellows stated that she did not like the fact that <br />applicants were back before the Planning Commission with a more <br />ambitious plan than the one they proposed in 1985. Mr. Purdy <br />stated that the plan they now proposed was less ambitious. Their <br />requests in 1985 included an extension to the garage and house. <br />Kelley asked applicants why they could not turn their deck into a <br />3-season porch. Mr. Purdy stated that such a plan would not give <br />them the required space they need. Mrs. Purdy added that they <br />really need the bathroom. They currently have only jne bath and <br />a half and have no bath on the main level. <br />Brown asked applicants how this plan varied from the <br />original plan submitted in 1985. Mr. Purdy stated that the <br />original plan had all of the additions on the south aide. Mrs. <br />Purdy stated that after they had added the family room, the} <br />