04-10-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEWTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO>LMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON FEBRUARY 21, 1995 of the criteria provided by the applicant that made this location attractive, could be easily written into the amendment as required criteria. Mabusth questioned whether Planning Commission wanted to limit the use to the LR-IC district, or to anv residential district that meets specific criteria. She suggested that once the criteria are selected', it would be fruitful to examine the various City maps and determine all potential locations meeting the criteria, in order that the criteria can be tested. Schroeder asked how the proposed Mound amendment was structured. Dan Hessburg indicated the shelter CUP would have been allowed in four different areas of the City zoned similarly, although none contained buildings suitable for a shelter. Since the amendment was not approv'ed. Wcstonka Intervention has no formal office facilities currently, and is operating out of the Hessburgs' residence. Gaffron noted that excluding the B-2 Marina zones. Orono s commercial zones are limited to the immediate Navarre area and the strip west of Long Lake along Highway 12. A stipulation that shelters be within a residential zone and within a specified distance from a commercial zone, would strictly limit their potential locations. In reviewing the Plymouth ordinance, it was noted that shelter services were limited to the shelter’s residents, which would not allow the educational aspects of Westonka Intervention’s proposal for Orono. Possible reasons why Plymouth chose this language were discussed Other aspects of the Plymouth ordinance were briefly discussed. The Minnetonka ordinance was also looked at notine they included specific standards for building and lot size related to the number of possible residents in the facility. The Navarre site would meet Minnetonka’s standards. Minnetonka also limits shelters on the basis of traffic generation and accessibility, and again the proposed Orono facility meets Minnetonka’s standards. It was also noted that Minnetonka and a few other cities require shelters to have a Board of Directors including members of the coininunity, which Planning Commission felt was appropriate. Peterson reiterated that the ordinance needs to be written specifically enough that uses similar to shelters but which are perhaps inappropriate, would be excluded, or so regulated that they aren ’t a problem. Mabusth suggested that aspects of both the Plymouth and Minnetonka codes might be appropriate. The code should be written so that only sites meeting all criteria would be allowable. Gaffron asked whether Planning Commission feels it is at a point where it wants to consider specific criteria, or whether it would be appropriate to first hear from the the March 7th public information meeting. Mabusth noted that the public has been notified by mail of the March 7th meeting, and that will be the first oppormnity for public reaction to the proposal. At the end of that meeting, Planning Commission may be in a position to ni^ke a recommendation to Council regarding a code amendment to allow shelters. Procedurally, if the Council agrees. Planning Commission would be directed to proceed with the code amendment process.