Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Shelter Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks staff to draft code changes to limit locations for homeless shelters
Summary
After extended debate, Loveland City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to restrict principal-use homeless shelters to industrial/PUD zones and to study 500- and 1,000-foot buffer options from major corridors and residences.
The Loveland City Council voted to ask city staff to draft a formal code amendment that would restrict where principal-use homeless shelters may locate in the city. The motion — passed by a majority — directed the city manager and city attorney to prepare an ordinance to amend the Unified Development Code removing homeless shelters as a permitted use in general business (B) zones and permitting them only in industrial (I) zones or by planned unit development (PUD). The council also specified that the draft ordinance should consider excluding sites within 500 and 1,000 feet of major entry/exit corridors (U.S. 34, U.S. 287, State Highway 402 and Taft Avenue) and that shelters be set back at least 1,000 feet from residential structures as an option to study.
City staff said the direction would require a standard code-amendment process (neighborhood notice, Planning Commission review, public hearings) and that staff would prepare maps showing the buffers and identify candidate parcels. Planning and GIS staff noted that applying the proposed buffers to existing zoning would leave relatively few areal options — primarily industrial parcels near the airport and some Longview/Midway-area properties — and asked council whether it wanted both buffer scenarios modeled for comparison.
Public comment included residents and advocates on both sides: many speakers urged the council to prioritize a shelter and services that help people exit homelessness; others urged strict locational limits or opposed sites near schools, parks or downtown. Advocates and shelter volunteers warned that some proposed limits (for example, industrial-only sites or restricting corridors) could place a shelter far from transit or services and could hamper operations. Several speakers asked the city to pursue a regional, coordinated solution involving nonprofit operators and county partners.
The motion asked staff to return with code language and maps showing suggested buffers and zoning implications. Councilors who supported the motion said they wanted to protect residential neighborhoods and business districts while giving staff concrete policy direction. Councilors who opposed the draft direction said it risked limiting viable sites and urged work with regional partners and nonprofit shelter operators before changing the UDC.
The decision to draft the ordinance does not itself change the law; any final amendment would require Planning Commission review and subsequent council votes on an ordinance.
