Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2036 <br />July 7, 1995 <br />Page 4 <br />History of 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 for residential construction within the to\. nship <br />at that time. The property was not zoned 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.f. 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 tor lakeshore <br />development. <br />Tax records back to 1974 indicate that the former owner received homestead credit from <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 />Sfafement of Hardship <br />Review Exhibits El-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 e.xisting structure? What degree <br />of structural improvement is acceptable.’ Even if only partial toundation 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 />W'ould you allow a new garage to be located within the footprint ot the 14* x 22 <br />existine 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 />garage structure? ... 3’? 5*? Why can’t garage be reduced to a 20* north/south <br />dimension rather than the 24* proposed? <br />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 />Would you allow the expansion of the roof structure within the 8’ average <br />lakeshore setback for Cases 1 and 2? The roof expansion involves merely an <br />alteration in the roof line. <br />If you are to provide direction to the applicant, the following points must be <br />addressed in your recommendation: