Applicant: Jim and Nancy Schreiner

Property Owner: Serendipity Summit

Operator: American Heritage Assisted Living

Current Zoning: R1B

2040 Comp Plan: Suburban Residential

The city code requires a Conditional Use for the operation of an Assisted Living Facility in the R1B zone.

Such a facility is defined as follows:

ASSISTED LIVING HOUSING FACILITY. A housing facility for persons who need assistance with their daily living needs, including special support services such as meal preparation, housekeeping, medical care, transportation, or cognitive needs assistance, including memory care assistance.

The Applicant obtained a license from the State of Minnesota for an Assisted Living Facility and has been marketing the facility online, with offerings that include nursing, chef services, pharmacy, daily assistance etc.

The applicant opened the assisted living facility prior to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit for the property.  One of the individuals involved in the operation of the facility is a licensed realtor. The Applicant notes that they were not aware of the Covenants that had been recorded on the land records for the neighborhood that restricts any business or commercial use of any of the homes.  Even though there was not an active Homeowners Association at the time of the Applicant's purchase, the covenants run with the land and continue to be enforceable.   

The facility is advertised as a "small, private assisted living estate in Shakopee that's dedicated to making the last season of life just as connected & enjoyable as the first season of life."

The applicant made substantial renovations to the property but did not disclose on the building permit application that the property would be used as an assisted living facility. 

Residents in the surrounding neighborhood filed complaints with the city about traffic and a commercial use in their neighborhood.  Currently, the website lists nine staff for the facility, all of whom are not on site at the same time.  People would also be visiting the residents on different days and times.

The applicant has held a neighborhood meeting and those in attendance and their concerns are attached.

Criteria #1           The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity;

Finding #1           The City has received evidence from the surrounding neighbors that the current use may be impeding the enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, and that it might diminish or impair property values in the area.  Commercial or business use of a property is currently prohibited by the subdivision’s recorded covenants and restrictions. The neighbors have complained about deliveries, number of staff, number of vehicles at the property.

Criteria #2           The establishment of the conditional use permit will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area;

Finding #2           The use is not allowed by the subdivision’s recorded covenants and restrictions.

Criteria #3           Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided;

Finding #3           There are currently necessary utilities in the area, however, the SAC and WAC for the facility were not calculated as a commercial use when the original building permit was issued.  The current site would require additional parking to meet the needs of the facility and there are limits to the amount of paving allowed in the front yard.

Criteria #4           The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use; and

Finding #4           The use of the subject property is not consistent with the purposes of the R1B zone without a Conditional Use Permit that based on the applicant's information, staff does not support.

Criteria #5           The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.

Finding #5           The use is in conflict with the Suburban Residential land use per the notations above and based on neighborhood feedback and the original covenants and restrictions.