Laserfiche WebLink
MSP Assisted Living Proposal <br />Planning Case 559-99 <br />July 21, 1999 <br />Page 4 <br />use, which might have 75 percent of its space open for display or sales, and the balance for storage. <br />It is not currently known what assessed valuation the County assessor would establish for this use <br />and there are no known similar facilities with which to compare. Similarly, there are no new <br />commercial uses in the area that would be appropriate to use as a commercial comparison in terms <br />of tax generation. As best as staff can determine with the information it has, the proposed facility <br />would be likely to generate an equal or greater amount of taxes than many, but not all, commercial <br />uses. <br />Rezoning: <br />Some members of the community who were in attendance at the Planning Commissions's last <br />meeting expressed concern over the potential re -uses of the property should the assisted living <br />facility fail or be sold to another developer. The permitted uses in an R-4 district are multiple <br />family residential, townhomes, boarding home or day care home (both of which are restricted to a <br />family dwelling). Nursing homes and similar group housing is permitted conditionally within this <br />district. Because of the configuration of the building and the rooms, none of which would have <br />private kitchens, utilities, or entrances; this building could not be reused for multiple family <br />housing --not only would it not meet housing and building code requirements, the lot could not <br />accommodate the required parking of 2.5 stalls per unit. From a practical standpoint, this building <br />could only be reused for what is being proposed --assisted living. If a developer at some point in <br />the future intended to raze the structure and start from scratch, this would be allowed yet would <br />probably not be economical feasible given the expected value of the facility. But even if this were a <br />realistic consideration, the re -uses without a CUP would be limited to multi family housing. <br />Because of the size of the lot and the parking requirements, probably no more than 12 units could <br />be built. The other possible use that was of some concern was "group housing," which is allowed <br />only if the use is in a family dwelling and be limited to no more than 12 children. <br />The Code in Section 1109.04, Subd 2 is somewhat unclear in its definition of what would be <br />considered a similar group housing use. Because the subdivision heading is Nursing Homes, staff <br />would contend that similar types of group housing would pertain only to elderly group housing. <br />But because this is not explicitly stated, staff would recommend that if it is the Commission's desire <br />to limit the type of group housing to the elderly, that the code should be amended to reflect that. <br />The amendment would be simple, changing the first line of Subdivision 1109.04 (2) to read, <br />"Nursing homes and other elderly congregate housing...." This would effectively eliminate any <br />possible reuse of the property to anything other than a multi -family structure of a limited size. <br />Recommendation: <br />Staff is recommending that the Commission discuss this request in the context of whether or not it <br />would be an appropriate use for this location given the information that has been presented and <br />direct staff to prepare a resolution for action at your next meeting on August 4, 1999. <br />gam, <br />James Ericson, Planning Associate <br />N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\MSP.PC2 <br />