2006_0123_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DISCUSS�Q�11U��CTI�N : J�rarl ~irirl .� �r�rt73�, i I � 4_ � I1' ?�• ;7]�t��l' a'i�:�?��'tll: •• r• E] �t►�' ti_-? . • v�` ��-•.� _,J_ �� DATE. Ol/23/06 IT'EM ��:?.b �.;:�i��jc� ��cti�7�� Item L�escr�pt�on Uroup Homes - specifically relating to the complaints related to impacts of �roup homes in R-1 zones (PF37U7) 1.0 REQUEST: l,'E In the past three years the number of complaints regarding group homes has increased significantly. The calls are related to the irr� in the neighborhood not to the care facility within the structure. The state statute that allows group homes in a single family district in quite vague as to what the city may regulate. Staff requests direction from Council as to whether this issue should be addressed to our Legislative Representatives. (Representative Mindy Greiling is very knowledgeable on this topic and has offered to discuss this issue with the Council.) ?,� BACKGROUND �, I In the spring and summer of 2005 the H]ZA held a series of neighborhood meetings to better understand the residents concerns regarding housing and neighborhoods. One of the issues that came up repeatedly was group home establishment in their neighborhoods "...why was there no notice or hearing?". The complaints were not levied at the group home itself but rather the unusual impacts such homes have had on the neighborhood. Staff explained that State Statute 462357 states that licensed �roup homes shall be permitted uses in all single family zoning distncts, similar to a detached single family house. �,? The types of neighborhood complaints include the impact of traffic and parldng (on the site and in _ the street), with up to 12 to 14 cars in some locations. Deliveries to the site, night time office staff _ meetings, outdoor storage, late night shift change traffic noise, trash management, and lot coverage _ are additional complaints. '� The City staff acknowledges the pre-emption created by Section 462357, but also recognizes that the statute is not clear beyond allowing "the use". The City Attorney and staff (see attachment) believe the law should state clearly that a city may regulate all the auxiliary issues such as parking, hash, screening, property maintenance, the creation of duplex-separate living facilities, office management, and storage of equipment. In other words, the group home must be treated the same as other permitted uses (single family homes in an �-I zone) and be subject to the same land use and zoning requirements. ?�: There are two immediate remedies. Representative Grieling could help clarify the statute language adding a sentence that states that g�-oLi� homes are subject to the same additional land use ai3d zoning requirements as the next door single family home. The statute could be amended to allow for a local conditional use permit process, as it does currently in multi-family zones. �_fi SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTIONS: .� . Discuss and provide direction Report Prepared by: Dennis Welsch, Coi�.Development Director (651-792-7071) Attachments: SS462.357; City Attorney lette3- 1-6-06