04-10-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON FEBRUARY 21, 1995 developed, as opposed to open lands in Burnsville where interim development might be a stepping stone towards a final development plan. Nolan noted this was used .o encourage development even though the ultimate use of the property might change in say 15 years. Schroeder noted that suggests a great degree of future planning toward reaching a significantly different end point, not Orono's current situation. Gaffron noted he had obtained the zoning information from the cities, and had not contacted each of the shelters listed. Only information from those cities in the metro area was gathered. Gaffron indicated the proposed zoning code changes in Mound were merel> lO include a definition of "victims of domestic abuse shelter" and add that rse to the list ot allowed uses in a general business district. Peterson commented that it may be inappropriate to specify "domestic abuse" shelter as opposed to other type of shelters, such as a teenage or runaway shelter or some other shelter that might be appropriate. The idea would be to allow shelters generally without limiting their scope. It was noted that Mound never did go through with the proposed amendment. Gaffron noted that other cities defined the shelter more broadly, such as a "residential shelter" or "residential tacility'. Gaffron briefly reviewed that other cities had adopted "flex" or "interim" districts which gave them great flexibility in allowing uses via a conditional use permit. None of those cities had noted any problems with claims of "spot zoning". Mabusth questioned whether this was a direction the Planning Commission wished to pursue, or whether it was appropriate for Orono at this time. Nolan suggested that it may be more appropriate to create some "institutional" districts rather than auopt a flexible zoning district. The obvious existing institutional uses could be rezoned without much fear of "spot zoning" charges. Mabusth questioned whether that is more appropriate than merely amending existing residential zoning to allow shelters under limited conditions. Schroeder and others concurred a simple zoning amendment would be the best way to accomplish the shelter use. Mabusth questioned whether the Planning Commission concurred with Councilmember Hurr that the code should be amended in such a strict manner to eliminate the possibility of other types of crisis agencies pursuing a similar use under the same amendment. Smith indicated she would prefer to struemre the amendment to allow similar uses but only tinder very restricted circumstances and locations, perhaps requiring a separation between facilities, etc. Nolan felt that he wouldn’t mind facilities being near each other as long as they are in an appropnate location. Peterson expressed concern regarding the degree of restrictions to be placed, notmg that writing criteria too loosely would allow any number of unwanted uses to qualify. Gaffron agreed, but noted that once Planning Commission identifies inappropriate locations or uses, the amendment can be worded to be extremely restrictive. He used the example of Orono s duplex credit, which allows a duplex only within 200 ’ of a commercial zone. He also noted that certain