06-12-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MLNLTES FOR MAY .'4, 1995 CONTESTJATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-IA OR B-4 ZONING DISTRICTS ■'people in need of shelter" replaced the term "victims of domestic abuse". Schroeder commented that op>ening the shelter use to any kind of shelter may be premature, in that the focus of the entire review process to date has been towards domestic abuse shelters. The Planning Commission and staff haven’t researched other types of shelters, how they operate, etc. He indicated he would at this time be opposed to limiting the shelter use to other than simply domestic abuse shelters. After some discussion. Planning Commission chose to continue reviewing the proposed changes and come back to this issue. Gaffron stated that in the location section. Items 1 and 2 remained unchanged, but Items 3-6 (3-5 in the commercial draft) now included explanatory language defining the reasons for proximity to a bus line, proximity to retail shopping and commercial zoning, and the basis for separation distance between shelters. Rowlette noted that it was her impression that at the previous meeting the members present requested that the 1,000 ’ proximity to a bus line and retail shopping be revised to 500 ’ to be consistent with the 500 ’ proximity to a commercial district. Other members agreed that 500 ’ is the appropriate distance, and agreed that the 500 ’ sundard is near enough to be considered reasonable walking distance to shopping, public transportation,ai^ the services provided by the commercial districts near a residential zone. Planning Commission further agreed that it would be inappropriate for shelters to be less than one-half mile apart, agreeing that this would reduce the potential impacts on any given neighborhood by not forcing more than one shelter in a neighborhood. Dan Hessberg of Westonka Intervention commented that there is also a negative financial impact on the operation of a shelter if many shelters are located in a small area and none of them are used to capacity. Gaffron commented that in the Site/Buildings section of both drafts. Items 1 , 2 and 3 remained unchanged. Items 4 and 5 now include explanatory language to the effect that 3,000 s.f. of lot area per resident and 300 s.f. of floor area per resident will eliminate the potential for site overuse, will accommodate the necessary amenities within the site boundaries, and will eliminate the potential of overcrowding the facility. Items 6-10 under Site/Buildings have not changed from the original draft. Gaffron noted that in the Operations section. Item 1 had been revised to eliminate the automatic invalidation of the conditional use permit if State or other required licenses become invalid. The City Attorney had suggested that due process would be better served by requiring a review of the CUP if other licenses become invalid, which would then allow the Council to determine whether the CUP should be revised or terminated. Planning Commission members generally agreed this was an appropriate revision.