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.

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 activities other than the office occur at 4835 Lyndale Ave in Minneapolis.  No non-resident employees nor vehicles or equipment related to the operation of Lumen Signs are located at the Subject Property.  Based on this information, Staff would recommend that a Home Occupation Permit shall not be required.

At the October 6, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting, action was tabled to get additional feedback from the City Attorney to better understand the City's ability to enforce the family member clause of the CUP.  Based on the feedback provided by the Planning Commission, the City Attorney continues to review the legalities of the clause further.  A legal opinion will be provided to the Planning Commission and available to the public under separate cover prior to the meeting.

All costs associated with the application are the responsibility of the Applicant.

Based on discussion.

Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the resolution approving findings of fact.

-AND-

Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the conditional use permit.

-OR-

Motion to recommend that the City Council deny the resolution approving the conditional use permit, based on findings of fact.