Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2036 <br />July 7“, 1995 <br />Page 4 <br />History off Property <br />Lot 10 of the Loma Linda plat was created in 1912. Based on the Assessor's record, the <br />structure was built in 1934 prior to any standards tor residential construction within the township <br />at that time. The property was not zor^d until November 20, 1950 at which time it became part <br />of the Forest Lake district requiring a 75’ minimum frontage and 15,000 s.t. minimum lot area. <br />In 1967, the area was rezoned to an R-IC district requiring one acre. In 1975, it was rezoned <br />to LR-IB requiring also one acre in area and included more restrictive standard for lakcshore <br />development. <br />Tax records back to 1974 indicate that the former owner received homestead credit trom <br />1974 to 1981. The property has been non-homesteaded to the current time. From 1974 to <br />1995, the former owner ’s address was listed to a Minneapolis address. <br />Statement of Hardship <br />Review Exhibits Fl-2. applicant ’s hardship statement. <br />Issues for Consideration .....What levels of improvement are reasonable for this property <br />1. Will you allow structural improvements to the existing structure? What degree <br />of structural improvement is acceptable? Even it only partial foundation repair <br />is to be completed, existing structure must be raised. Would you allow only <br />replacement of the existing foundation or will you allow the 3’ x 8’ expansions <br />to the northeast and southeast side of residence? <br />2. Would you allow a new garage to be located within the footprint of the 14 x 22 <br />existins garage? If not, how far should structure be relocated from right side lot <br />line and provide adequate area for driveway and turnaround at north side of <br />garace structure? ... 3’? 5’? Why can t garage be reduced to a 20 north/south <br />dimension rather than the 24’ proposed? <br />3 Will you approve a structural coverage variance for these improvement plans? <br />Applicant shows an excess of 41.5 s.f. over the allowed 1,500 s.f. <br />4 Would you allow the expansion of the roof structure within the 8’ average <br />lakeshore setback for Cases 1 and 2? The roof e.xpansion involves merely an <br />alteration in the roof line. <br />5. If you are to provide direction to the applicant, the following points must be <br />addressed in your recommendation: