Laserfiche WebLink
condition pertaining to the affidavit. Based on the revised Resolution, staff recommends approval of the <br />requested Special Use Permits with conditions: <br />1. The proposed improvements are consistent with the submitted plans attached to the <br />Planning Report dated 2/20/2018. <br />2. The applicant submits payment of a second Special Use Permit fee of $370. <br />3. The applicant submits a copy of an approved Rice Creek Watershed District Permit for <br />this project. <br />4. The applicant accomplishes the compensatory fill requirement in advance of the City <br />issuing a building permit for the proposed garage. <br />5. All existing square footage and proposed improvements affecting the detached and <br />attached garage square footage shall be such that the combined total of all detached and <br />attached garage space shall not exceed 1,664 SF. <br />6. The detached garage shall not be used for a commercial purpose. <br />7. The property continues to comply with the statements made in the affidavit provided by <br />the applicant, signed and dated March 5, 2018. <br />Discussion included: <br />• The Commission asked how the property would be brought into compliance if sold to a new <br />owner. Gundlach stated if evidence were found that the home had been altered into a duplex, the <br />City would have to take legal action in court. She reported the City would be attaching this <br />information to the title to ensure the home was not converted. <br />• Discussion ensued regarding what could be construed to be commercial purposes for the <br />proposed garage. It was noted the garage space could not be rented to another individual. <br />• A member expressed concern that it would be the responsibility of neighbors to contact the City <br />with concerns and requested a condition be added to address this matter. <br />Commissioner Fynewever requested the Commission allow the public to speak to this issue. <br />Andra Storla, 1248 Long Lake Road, thanked the Commission for their time and for thoroughly <br />addressing the duplex issue. She commented she finds the Miller's to be good people but noted the <br />property in question was still a rental property. She explained she opposed the proposed garage due to <br />the fact it would be built within the l 00 -year floodplain. She indicated she would miss her lake and <br />creek view because of the proposed location of the oversized garage. She stated she would maintain a <br />view of the lake if the oversized garage were positioned elsewhere. She reviewed a map of her property <br />along with the neighbors noting they already had two garages. She recommended the garage be placed <br />outside the current floodplain and that it have a flat roof so as not to impede lake views. <br />Commissioner Fynewever stated she was saddened that Ms. Storla's quality of life would be impacted <br />by this request and thanked her for bringing her comments and concerns before the Planning <br />Commission. <br />Commissioner Murphy asked the applicant why the garage could not be placed outside of the floodplain. <br />Tim Miller, 12444 Long Lake Road, explained it would be difficult for him to maneuver into a garage in <br />if it were moved to the east. He reviewed a picture of the view from his neighbor's yard into his <br />property noting the location of the garage stakes. He stated he was frustrated with the way his <br />neighbor's home was built on their lot because it was non -conforming with respect to the setbacks. <br />3 <br />