Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/20/2011 - Special

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/20/2011 By: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Title: Request for an Amended Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling at 16101 Ramsey Blvd NW (continued); Case on Anthony Reed 6. 1. Background: The City has received an application to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an accessory dwelling in a detached accessory structure at 16101 Ramsey Blvd NW. The City approved a CUP in November, 2000 that allowed for an accessory dwelling on the Subject Property for use by a relative of the owner/tenant of the primary dwelling. The Subject Property was sold in May, 2010. The new owner of the Subject Property desires to lease the accessory dwelling to a non -relative for the purposes of gaining lease revenue. This appears to be in conflict with the CUP approved in 2000 and the City's current ordinances related to accessory apartments/dwellings. City Code currently does not allow for accessory dwellings. Notification: All property owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property were notified of the Public Hearing via Standard US Mail. A Notice of Public Hearing was also published in the Anoka County Union. Observations: Although accessory dwellings are not currently allowed by City Code, the City did approve the accessory dwelling by CUP in 2000, thereby affording the Subject Property certain lawful, non -conforming rights under Minnesota Statute Sect. 462.357 subd. 1 e and City Code Sect. 117-57. The question at hand is whether the Planning Commission believes that this request is an expansion of a lawful, non -conforming use. This type of use would be considered an accessory apartment or an accessory dwelling. Neither is listed as an allowable use under Chapter 117 of City Code. Furthermore, City Code Section 117-348 states that there shall be only one (1) main building per lot. The City Attorney is reviewing the term of restricting use to a relative of the primary dwelling as it relates to Minnesota Statutes and Fair Housing Act standards. Mr. Reed purchased the Subject Property in 2010. At the time of sale, Staff was contacted by a real estate agent regarding the status of what was being marketed as a 'guest cottage'. With any request that was submitted to the City, a copy of the CUP that was approved in 2010 was sent as background, which included the provision that the tenant of this dwelling needed to be related to the primary dwelling tenant. The City Council recently addressed accessory apartments and whether the City's policy should allow for these types of uses. However, at that time, questions regarding regulation of off-street parking and maintenance of the dwellings remained unresolved. There are certain benefits in allowing accessory apartments, especially from an affordable, life -cycle housing standpoint. Accessory apartments do allow independent living arrangements, especially for family members that have the need or desire to live in close proximity to other family members for a variety of reasons. However, Staff reminds the Planning Commission that it is acting in an administrative and advisory manner for these types of requests. If the Planning Commission desires to consider allowing this type of use for future requests, amendments to City Code will need to be processed and specifically address off-street parking and housing maintenance standards. Finally, the Applicant does operate a Home Occupation on the Subject Property. It appears that the only business activity that occurs on the Subject Property is a home office for mailing and billing purposes. The Applicant operates a sign fabrication and installation company called Lumen Signs. According to the applicant, all other