Laserfiche WebLink
!MINUTES OF RBGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 <br />ZONING <br />FILE #1303-REZABEK CONTINUED <br />indeed <br />there are new property <br />owners, <br />the City would ask them Lo <br />attend <br />the Council Meeting <br />so their <br />intentions regarding the <br />fence <br />could be determined. <br />If it is <br />their desire to reinstall <br />the fence, the Council could <br />proceed <br />as planned, otherwise the <br />matter <br />would be dismissed. <br />It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by <br />Councilmember Nettles, to table this matter until the September <br />26, 1988 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=4, Nayes=0, Motion <br />passed. <br />#1311 JOBN PURDY <br />1975 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD <br />VARIANCE <br />City Administrator Bernhardson advised the Council that the <br />Purdys were asking to renew and revise variances granted in 1985. <br />The Purdys were seeking approval to construct an addition <br />consisting of a 3-season, porch and bathroom. They would require <br />lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover <br />variances. <br />Mr. Purdy made reference to a written statement that was <br />included in the information given to the Councilmembers. He did <br />not agree with the Planning Commission's findings and asked the <br />Council to reconsider their proposal. Applicant stated that <br />their hardship was that the house was built 80 years ago and only <br />has a bata and a half. Mr. Purdy did not feel that their <br />proposal was obtrusive to any of their neighbors and the addition <br />would not be visible from the lake. There would be no drainage <br />problem created by their proposed addition. <br />Councilmember Goetten stated that she would look at this <br />application more favorably if it were for a bathroom only. She <br />did not feel that a 3-season porch was a necessity. She also <br />questioned the feasibility of putting the addition on the kitchen <br />side of the house. She stated that she would have a difficult <br />time approving the addition because it would be in the 0-75' <br />zone. <br />Mr. Purdy replied that the proposed location of the bathroom <br />was the most sensible and accessible. The remodeling and <br />addition they did in 1985 eliminated the screen por-h they had. <br />They now find that they miss the porch and wish to build one that <br />would allow them a view of Lake Minnetonka. Placing the addition <br />where they currently propose would eliminate the need to make any <br />new accesses. In terms of minimum costs, their present proposal. <br />is the most economical. Councilmember Goetten inquired as to the <br />location of the previous screen porch. Assistant Planning and <br />Zoning Administrator Gaffron indicated that the porch had been <br />located on the street side of the house. <br />Mr. Purdy also volunteered to remove hardcover in the form <br />3 <br />