Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION\DIRECTION <br /> DATE: 01/23/06 <br /> <br /> ITEM NO: <br />Department Approval: City Manager Approval: Agenda Section: <br />DPW <br />Group Homes - specifically relating to the complaints related to impacts <br />Item Description: <br />of group homes in R-1 zones (PF3707) <br />1.0 REQUEST: <br /> <br />1.1 <br />In the past three years the number of complaints regarding group homes has increased significantly. <br />The calls are related to the impacts in the neighborhood not to the care facility within the structure. <br />The state statute that allows group homes in a single family district in quite vague as to what the city <br />may regulate. Staff requests direction from Council as to whether this issue should be addressed to <br />our Legislative Representatives. (Representative Mindy Greiling is very knowledgeable on this topic <br />and has offered to discuss this issue with the Council.) <br /> <br />2.0 BACKGROUND <br /> <br /> <br />2.1 In the spring and summer of 2005 the HRA held a series of neighborhood meetings to better <br />understand the residents concerns regarding housing and neighborhoods. One of the issues that came <br />up repeatedly was group home establishment in their neighborhoods “…why was there no notice or <br />hearing?”. The complaints were not levied at the group home itself but rather the unusual impacts <br />such homes have had on the neighborhood. Staff explained that State Statute 462.357 states that <br />licensed group homes shall be permitted uses in all single family zoning districts, similar to a <br />detached single family house. <br /> <br />2.2 The types of neighborhood complaints include the impact of traffic and parking (on the site and in <br />the street), with up to 12 to 14 cars in some locations. Deliveries to the site, night time office staff <br />meetings, outdoor storage, late night shift change traffic noise, trash management, and lot coverage <br />are additional complaints. <br /> <br />2.3 The City staff acknowledges the pre-emption created by Section 462.357, but also recognizes that <br />the statute is not clear beyond allowing “the use”. The City Attorney and staff (see attachment) <br />believe the law should state clearly that a city may regulate all the auxiliary issues such as parking, <br />trash, screening, property maintenance, the creation of duplex-separate living facilities, office <br />management, and storage of equipment. In other words, the group home must be treated the same as <br />other permitted uses (single family homes in an R-1 zone) and be subject to the same land use and <br /> <br />zoning requirements. <br /> <br />2.4 There are two immediate remedies. Representative Grieling could help clarify the statute language <br />adding a sentence that states that group homes are subject to the same additional land use and zoning <br />requirements as the next door single family home. The statute could be amended to allow for a local <br />conditional use permit process, as it does currently in multi-family zones. <br /> <br />3.0SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTIONS: <br /> <br /> <br />3.1 Discuss and provide direction. <br /> <br /> <br />Report Prepared by: Dennis Welsch, Com.Development Director (651-792-7071) <br /> <br />Attachments: SS462.357; City Attorney letter 1-6-06 <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />