02-22-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1995 inspections department had concluded the fire code does not require this shelter building to be sprinkled. Schroeder suggested that the City may wish to consider requiring sprinkling regardless considering the expected use. Schroeder expressed a final concern regarding funding, noting that the applicants had earlier indicatcu the shelter is essentially operated as a non-profit business, and not immune from financial failure Mabusth noted that with funding coming from grants and donations, funding is always a concern, but that even with the cutbacks in spending in the 1980s, sources for fundint! this type of use generally continued to be available. Sichender noted that the shelter organization has good support at the legislature and has been able to lobby effectively in past e.xperience. Moving on to Outline Item IV, Physical Characteristics of the Facility, Mabusth noted the building location in e.xcess of 200’ from adjacent residential properties. She indicated the applicants have no intent to expand the existing building, only remodel it. She noted that Webber’s memo indicates sites had been chosen based on specific features including safety, physical accessibility for target population, access to public transportation, the number of women and children to be served within the projected operating budget and cost. Webber indicated that the Navarre site was suitable with respect to its adjacency to public transportation and access to school transportation. Further, the building will be easy to secure. There is plenty of space for a safe outdoor playground for children, which shelters have found to be crucial. Sichender added that its location between a residential neighborhood and a commercial district is typically from a neighborhood prospective better than a location embedded within a neighborhood. He also noted the accessibility and visibility of the site is a plus. Mabusth noted the adjacency to grocery and other shopping is a benefit. Webber also indicated that the site in Navarre was affordable and that the purchase price is relatively inexpensive for the housing of twenty persons. Webber noted that in other areas where shelters were within a neighborhood, some neighborhoods perceived the shelter to be a problem and have generated additional police calls. In Minneapolis, shelters often found parking and playground space inadequate, and over crowding was a problem, none of which would be the case with the Navarre site. Schroeder questioned why the site in Mound was not used. Webber indicated that a number of residents had spoken against it at the Council meeting although the shelter use had been unanimously approved by the Mound Planning Commission. Sichender noted that Mound residents expressed concern about the safety of the neighborhood if a shelter is allowed, and general fears about what a shelter might do to the neighborhood and its potential impact on property values. Sichender suggested the shelter may have a positive rather than negative impact on the neighborhood. He also indicated that the experience of other shelters is that violence doesn ’t happen in the shelters or near them. It happens at home when no ody is watching, and because at the shelter some one is watching, the violence does not occur. Schroeder questioned