Today, July the 20th, 2026, planning commission and first order of business approve agenda. >> Mr. Chair, I move we approve the agenda as presented. >> I'll second.
>> All right, we have a first and a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose, same sign. All right, the agenda is approved. public hearing. Uh so welcome to the
planning commission. Just >> a minute. >> Oh yes, my item number three. Approval of the minutes. >> Motion to approve. >> A second. >> I have a first and a second. Any
discussion? All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose. Same sign. Three is approved. public hearing. So, welcome to the public uh the public hearing for the planning commission. We
are an advisory group. So, just to kind of let you guys know what we don't make any decisions up here. Go through the information. We get a um some information from the city staff. We have a discussion and then we open up public hearing. At the public hearing, you guys
are welcome to come up. come up to the mic and please state your name and your address please first and then ask your question. After the public uh hearing is closed, we'll come back up here for any
questions uh discussion questions and then we have a motion made and then uh that information will get carried on city council. So with that great >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you.
Um, I don't know. Are we supposed to delegate? >> Good evening, Blank Commission. So, the first item in front of you is uh a subdivision called Calvary Hill Commons. Um the owner of the properties uh
subject property is uh Jeff Jandro through Jeff Jandro Properties LLC. The applicant is his uh surveyor Tim Peterson on his behalf. The location is 3105 Highway 60 West or approximately that location and it's actually three
items in front of you today. So one is um approving both the preliminary and the final plat for Calvary Hill Commons. Another is for some rideaway v uh vacation. Um and then the last one is a
variance for a dead-end street. Here's the subject property uh denoted by the by the red star in relation to kind of other things within Farabbo. And the area um outlined in yellow on
this map are the uh three properties that are included as a part of this proposal. Um you'll notice that Calvary Drive or an unbuilt portion of Calvary Drive actually splits one of these properties. Um so that kind of tees it
up for the different requests in front of you. One is to vacate that partially constructed right ofway. Um that would be removing that right ofway so that the plat would or uh the preliminary and the final plat would be able to replplat all
three parcels um into what will end up being five buildable lots, two storm water lots and then uh three all lots for future development. And then the variance uh as I had mentioned earlier it's for a deadend road. Um the variance
itself would allow the road to be approximately 2,50 uh feet long. Um so that's a variance of around 1,400 ft. Here's the area that is proposed to be vacated. Uh it's outlined in in red on
this slide. The overall plat is on the left side. Um so outlot A and outlot B end up becoming the storm water lots. And then there's lot one which utilizes the uh what I
guess is the current KGP office building um soon to be former. Um that lot is is sort of expanded slightly as a part of this plat. And then lot two, three, four, and five are are created. Um those
would all become buildable lots. Outlot C D and uh strangely enough uh the parcel is actually biseected by the I35 rideway. So outlot E actually is on the other side uh a lot closer to where that
potential multif family development was near Walmart. On the right side is uh what we consider to be the variance distance. So, you know, 2,50 ft sounds like quite a bit.
Um, you know, if you're measuring all the way from where 38th uh Avenue intersects with with Highway 60 and and intersects with Calvary Drive, uh it starts there and goes all the way uh to to the end where eventually a a
culde-sac will be built, a temporary culde-sac. um you know there's very limited uh opportunities to go east or west in this area which we'll talk about in a second um which is why uh the variance is is
being sought in terms of the vacation um staff doesn't see any issues with it. Uh, one thing that I failed to put in here is that the uh, former or soon to be former rideway will actually be turned into a
drainage and utility easement. Um, that's to facilitate the fact that I think there's um, either a water line or a sewer line currently within that ride ofway. Um, so that easement will will guarantee that that line continues to be there. the preliminary and the final
plat uh does meet all of our requirements for uh zoning and and subdivision standards as well as a comprehensive plan. Um the comprehensive plan as well as the highway 60 master plan note that there is going to be a uh
commercial or a mixed commercial and industrial subdivision in in this area. And so the creative uh created lots as well as the future uh development outlots uh will facilitate that. Terms of the variance um there's a
practical difficulty here um in the fact that the area in between the cemetery and the ride ofway is pretty constrained. Uh there's really not a whole lot of ability to go east or west to create um a block or to create some
sort of intersection which is really intended as as a part of um having the rule for deadend streets to be no longer than 650 ft that there be some sort of greater connectivity or access. Um you just can't get that going through a
cemetery. There's probably a lot of people that would be upset with that. And then the state has has has said no more crossings over I35 at this point or at least in this area. So um we do feel like that there's
uh some reason some reasonable aspects to this particularly because even our highway 60 master plan doesn't denote any east west connections in this area. um you know we just this is a very restricted part u but we do intend for this area to become developed and and
and productive parts of the city. Um in summary, we do feel like a lot of these uh proposals uh meet our comprehensive plan and our zoning requirements. So you do have three uh motions that you have to make tonight. uh one or the first one
is for the uh ordinance and that's to vacate the right ofway. Second one would be the preliminary and final plat approval and then the third one would be for the variance with that I'm happy to take any
questions. >> Thank you Harry. Any questions? >> Mr. Chair, I've just got one question and I'm pretty sure I understand it, but on the platting part of it, the the outlaw E, the little orphan that's on the east side of the freeway, that
doesn't look buildable. >> Um, it's not it's actually at the end of uh I'm trying to remember. >> It's old Fourth Street is what? >> Yeah, it it's it's not buildable. And creating an outlot doesn't make it
buildable. So, someone's going to have to take that lot and if they want to be if they want it to be buildable, they're going to have to bring it in as a part of a larger development. >> So, it'll just this developer will own that piece of property. They'll be responsible for
>> Yes. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> questions. That we'll open up the public hearing. Again, if you have any questions, please feel free to come up and state your name and address.
Jackson and members of the commission. My name is Jeff Jandro. Finally able to bring something to you. with uh topo constraints, no water and sewer out there. And so finally, I think we have something that's going to really
benefit the area. We businesses interested, local business, built in Hampton in got some some real interest in there. I think property visibility.
>> Thank you. And would anybody else like to come up? The mic's yours if you do. All right. Well, we'll go ahead and officially close the public hearing and up for discussion. >> I'd like to.
>> All right. We have a first and a second. Any discussion, Mr. Chair? just ever so quickly. It's just I'm sure Mr. Jander and I are the only ones old enough to remember driving on that when it was old for it was before the freeway was there that street connected.
So, it was actually a fairly heavily traveled piece of road. Over the years, the city knew eventually we'd be vacating vacating part of this. Uh 20ome years ago, there was a big box developer that was looking at kind of the southern piece of this property and it almost happened. So, this vacation makes
perfect sense. I mean it's so it it's it's not an alarm at all. It's been in the plans for a very long time. Any other discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose. Same sign.
>> All right. One carries. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution 2026 to approve the pre preliminary and final plats for Calvary Trail Commons. >> A second. >> All right, we have a first and a second.
Any discussion? >> All right, all in favor say I. I. >> All oppose. Same sign. A2 moves and I was just going to say, Mr. Chair, if you're ready, uh, on the variance, I'll make the motion, but before I make the
motion, the variance that did get my attention in Harry's, uh, uh, presentation was absolutely right that that large of a number for a variance on a culde-sac gets your attentionally been reluctant to do variances that
long. In this particular case, it makes perfect sense. And also in the presentation that it is part of a master plan where that would continue on south. Uh what what brought me comfort was hearing that it's a temporary. Uh so that said, I would move that we approve the resolution in front of us as
presented for the variance on Calvary Hills comments. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second Ed be. All right. Any discussion? I I will say that and I don't believe that Harry had brought it up, but dusty
deans to go out there. Felt no issues with it as well. So, it's nice to have the the fire chief's blessing as well. >> All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose. Same sign. >> A3 carries and
carry. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so the second item or the second project in front of you um is a conditional lease permit for residential care facility. This is at 3105 Cardinal Avenue. The uh owner of
the property is Patrick Cashion. Um the applicant is actually Michael McHugh on behalf of a company called Midwest Recovery. It's for a uh residential care facility for 32 patients. Here is where the red
star is is where um the residential care facility is is proposed in relation to the different parts of of Farbo. And then uh here's kind of a closer in location map. So you'll notice um
as we as we kind of look a little bit more at this particular property um this is actually a pretty new apartment complex. uh it was sort of built um in collaboration uh with the property just south of it. Uh there's a conditional
use permit that was um passed for both of these buildings to be constructed. Uh property is C2, so to do multifamily does require a conditional use permit. Um, so there are some aspects of this uh
that we'll probably want to talk about, you know, parking, um, you know, share trash and all that, but the applicant has, uh, addressed a lot of those concerns. Um, the request is for a 32 patient
residential care facility. Um, it is a facility that will be helping people overcome addiction. Uh, and it is an existing in an existing multifamily structure. Um so a few different aspects uh of this
project you know one uh that had staff concerned from the beginning would be would be parking. Um the applicant actually has addressed quite quite a bit of that. None of the patients will have their own cars. So there are you know there won't be 32 cars parking at this location.
um staff will be the only um people bringing cars to this location uh to and from. Uh there might be a passenger vehicle um in order to take patients to an offsite location which is actually
where they'll be receiving care. Um this is really more of a um really more of a a a residence for these patients. Um there's just some change at the state level about what they need for licensing and so this is this is really the cause
for the conditional use permit. Um nothing is changing about the outside um building is is going to stay as is. Uh so it is going to be uh it's going to fit well in staff's opinion with the adjoining apartment building as well as
with the surrounding subdivision. Um, you know, there is there's a lot that the applicant has addressed in order to make sure that this is an appropriate use at this location. Um, they've gone ahead and they've talked to building
code. Building code has actually come out and taken a look. There's actually minimum or a a a very small number of changes that need to be made to the building in order to make this compliant from a building code standpoint, which they're happy to do. um trash will actually be shared and because the
property owner owns uh both this and the adjoining southern property. Uh it would be easy to set up a a you know some sort of shared trash situation. Um they have the parking
spaces that they need for sure u as well as for additional. So really in in summary this meets our comprehensive plan and our zoning requirements. So, we are recommending that you forward this conditional use permit to city council recommending approval.
>> And any questions for city staff? >> Mr. Chair, I've got one and it's really crazy technical, but when you had said that we had previously done a conditional use permit on apartment buildings, is there language in this cup or do we
need to add it that says that this supersedes the other one? because it doesn't look like we're repealing the other one. So, there'd be two cups on the same building. >> Mr. Chair, that's a really good question. Um, I almost viewed this as a
it I did think about this a little bit. I think where where I landed um and we don't have to go this route if we don't want to. We can clarify it in the in the in the conditions. Um, the way that I viewed it is that the conditional use permit is only good as long as you are
using it. And so you could theoretically just say, look, you know, we're we've got a conditional use permit to do this other use. We're not going to do the multifamily. We'll stop it and then after a year becomes null and void on
that. It would still apply to the other property. Um, so things that that would apply generally to both properties still apply to the other as well as anything specific on that southern property. Um, but my thought would be, you know, just let it expire. You know, we could repeal
it just to, you know, to your point, you know, just to just to make it clearer. Um >> I actually think the other conditional permanent part of it was because of the a lot of overlapping >> as more tentacles.
>> Mr. Chair, trust me, I wasn't looking for trouble here. I just it was a question that I wanted to make sure that we had asked that was that had been thought through. You're right that uh and I think Leslie's right on that if we put any language in here about repealing
you know conditional use permit 2024- whatever whatever it could open up a much larger can of worms than any of us want. So we have done our due diligence and really nerded out on the details. So I'm >> okay >> and I can understand because this this
may come up every four to eight years how they want to view I can so I'm the previous approvals for this piece of property was in 2020 use permit for the 28-11.
It says for wetland setback use permit for multi a lot of backstory here. So, >> so you know, I guess Mr. Chair, maybe the answer would be that, you know, in terms of the the wetland, um, you know, that sounds like it's covered by a separate variance. Um, you know, as long
as that variance is being held to, uh, that variance is is is still in effect as long as it's being used. Um, and then in this case, they're not they're not proposing any additions. So, exactly what was approved as part of that variance is is is what's moving forward.
Um, you know, we we could potentially remove the conditional use permit for this property, but you know, we could also just let it expire because it won't be used for a year or more. At least I I assume that it won't.
>> So, doesn't the original CUP cover both buildings? So then there'd have to be have to pass one for just one building. Is that is that how I'm understanding that? If we repealed it, is that kind of how that would work?
>> Well, it's not that we're repealing it. It's you have a better way of >> Well, that's that's that's essentially what I'm saying is like look >> covered two addresses and now we're just
working with I think what I'm >> covered two addresses and now we're just working with one. >> Um has the city attorney looked at this at all? >> No. phone call. >> Um
I am unable to provide that tonight. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Chair, if I could, and I think I I know, >> but once we pass whatever we pass tonight, the city attorney sees it before it goes in front of the city council.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, it it gets to where you want to be before the city council gets it, the attorney looks at it. >> Honestly, I was just I I asked the question just to make sure we didn't jam oursel up down the road. And Harry's explanation is really well thought through that as soon as this new one
comes in, the previous conditional use permit for this building becomes outdated. It just kind of happens automatically, but the attorney will have the opportunity to review it before city council. >> Before we move any further,
clear any additional questions. Yes, I'm only concerned about any security issues that might occur because that this is and if we have any preview to require additional, you know, security at the building or at
the doors being that this is a people recovering from something potential for going bad, something we need to worry about or we just can't in a preview.
>> Uh Mr. Sure. I think what we can do, I think, is is focus on, you know, different performance standards. You know, general things that that that we're able to talk about. You know, we could talk about screening. You know, we can talk about
um you know, uh requiring certain things in terms of uh performance standards. I you know I guess my question would be how you know in what manner would the
proposal come forward like would it be a request for additional employees um to have uh you know badge you know they you have to badge in in order to get into the building you know I'm I'm I'm trying
to understand I think where where we're going here >> well in six years. Um, we didn't have any any comment sent to you, correct? >> No. >> So, someone was concerned about it.
>> So, this is already being used as that facility. >> Yes. Yes, Mr. Chair. So, uh, it's it's currently a essentially a multif family residence that the Midwest Recovery um business is is is renting from the
property owner. It's it's it's currently under contract. There are just things that have changed at the state level that require them to license this location as well. So, that's why the condition use permit's coming forward.
>> Cameras and gates and things. Any additional questions? >> Yes, Sam. >> I I would assume that because of the um they have licensing protocols and requirements from the
state that they need to abide by for as >> Yes. that >> they're already working with. Correct. >> Yep. All right. Do we have a motion? >> Public hearing. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, yes. I'm sorry.
Thinking about everything. Uh, we will open up the public hearing now. Uh, please move forward to the mic. Please state your name and address. >> Owen Katona. I'm the program director for Meadows Recovery. It's actually 315
Cardinal Avenue. I think that's that's what we have it listed on. >> Okay. >> Typo. Um but yeah, it is a recovery residence and we've been there for two years now. Um, so and as far as I know the security thing came up. We do have
cameras both on the outside and inside of the building. We do have security stuff in place and DHS does have requirements for us. The issue for us now is what we currently are is a freestanding room and board. Next year DHS sunsets that license. And so what
we're applying for is the new license that is a replacement of that. It's basically the exact same thing we're doing, but they're just changing the name of it and a couple of the requirements for what we do. Um, what they're asking that we be licensed for is to be able to provide treatment within the building if need be. We'll
still be re providing our group services at our downtown location. So, basically, they'll still just be living there. It's it's the exact same thing we're doing. We just have to change what DHS is ling us for. since they're getting rid of the freestanding room board. They're just
getting rid of that as a whole on the state level. So, all of our things basically say the same, but we'd have to have the ability if need be in that building. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> And would anybody else like to come
forward? >> All right. We were closing the public hearing and we're coming back here for discussion. >> Mr. Chair, I I can make the motion. Move we would approve the conditional use permit for this residential care
facility correcting the address in the resolution to 3015 Cardinal Avenue. It just looks like a typo all the way through the resolution. So fix that before it goes to city council. >> Have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> A second. Michael has the second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All oppose, same sign. 4 B passes. 4 C.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so the um so the last item in front of you um is a variance. Uh this is actually for the Geno uh turkey store and facility. Um depending on where you are, it's
either 11164th Avenue Northwest or 512th Street Northwest. Um the applicant is is Michael Stabin on behalf of Geneo um and Hormeell. The proposal is a variance. Um the property I'm sure that everyone
knows where the Geno Turkey store is, but um you know, here it is in in relation to different parts of Farbo. Um it is tucked into um the area in between uh the lake and a lot of residential. Um
there's been a lot of discussion over time about uh screening and and and how this property transitions to the residential properties that are that are nearby. Um there is also a rail line that is along the southern part of these
properties and sort of goes northeast from that. Uh the variance in front of you is um it's it's a little different than our normal variances. It's actually for fence height of 8 ft within a front
setback. Um normally the limitation for a fence height uh within a front setback even on industrial property would be four feet. Um here they're looking for eight. um
where it's it's it's a little strange this this property. Um from staff's point of view, we're looking at pretty much 7th Avenue uh as well as uh 13th being the frontage areas for this this
variance and and where they want to put this fence at this 8ft height. Um, sorry. The uh what you see on the left would actually be probably most of that fence would be a um sort of a screened
version of a of a chain link fence for about 9 ft and then the top or I'm sorry the for seven feet and then the top one foot which would bring it to 8 feet uh would be barbed wire. Barbed wire is allowed in industrial um so that's not
really an issue tonight. Um but just the general height is the issue tonight. Um one thing to note about the image that's on the right. Um there are some areas where this fence would actually go into a flood plane. Um that's uh something
that we have been working with them as well as with uh the DNR about. Um they have actually gone ahead and and provided some information to staff from a from a licensed engineer um that the fence won't cause any issues and won't
it won't cause uh any rise in the uh you know just in case that there was a flooding event. Um really the discussion tonight is is more focused on you know what's the what's the reasoning behind having an 8ft tall fence right at the property line. Um
there are some practical difficulties that the facility is is working with. It is identified by the FDA as a as a as part of its critical infrastructure for food as well as for just for food security within the United States. Um
they do need to control access into and out uh out of the property. So um there are some things with that. uh having it screened would also help in terms of providing more of a a a secure facility.
Um there are some limitations I get, you know, physically particularly where we're talking about along uh the 13th um street part of its frontage. Um there is a parking lot that's pretty close as well as um some drainage swailes. And so
really uh in order to kind of navigate all these different elements that are within the same space, having it on the property line is is is is the best option rather than putting it uh well into the parking lot and having to reroute their entire parking lot just to
accommodate that. Um so there are, you know, some some some reasonable aspects to this request. um you know from a a public welfare safety um viewpoint there is a requirement to in and definitely a
need in order to make sure that this facility is secure. So we are recommending that you forward uh this resolution to city council recommending approval. >> Thank you Harry and questions for city
staff. Sam, >> this is on the riverfront. >> No, the property itself is not on the lake. It would be there would actually be the city park and then a road and
then it would be on their property which would be behind that. I'm just logistic thing. And Harry, you may have caught it from the time the packet went out, but the cover page memo is right and the resolution is
correct, but everything in between is the variance for for >> I did I did I did see that. I did correct that. >> Just wanted to make sure you had it before I went to city council. That's all. >> Yeah, I did. Yeah. No, it's it's a really good point. I actually caught
that like halfway through the day and I realized that the wrong word document got uploaded. So the correct word document is now out there. >> Mr. Chair, I have a question. So Harry, you said that the variance is for the height, but then you also were
mentioning we also have regulations about it can't be on the property line. You said something about avoiding swailes and pulling it back. Is that like or just like a general rule of thumb that we follow? >> Yeah. So in this situation, it's a a
variance of this height within the front setback. Um it would typically have to be set back the same distance that a building would. And I apologize for not explaining this uh very well earlier. Um it's to have a fence of this height within the front setback. Our ordinance
limits it to four feet in height. And that's probably, you know, uh to allow those that are um you know, if you're in an ambulance or if you are delivering something that you can clearly see where where you're
taking it. Um in this situation, you kind of know where you're taking it. Uh it's it's it's a pretty big facility. U people are pretty aware of it. Um you know, we're not worried about at that aspect of it. Uh, I think from from
staff's point of view, we we definitely see the safety concern of making sure that this is a a a pretty secure facility. Um, so really it's for an 8 foot tall uh height fence uh 4 foot
variance within a front setback. >> Okay. >> I do go down that road a lot because my daughter And the concern I have is the way it's going to look >> because it is a it's a beautiful area but right on the lake and the park there
and you put this 8ft steel fence there looks like a prison. It's like you go down the park over there the county park prison fence right there. Very obvious. It's very tall. An 8ft fence is a pretty tall.
wondering if there's any concern or way we can say you need to build like a four foot four foot burm and then a 4 foot fence because it'll it'll really kind of ruin that side of the road. I understand the security needs. I just wonder if there's any way we can make them present
a >> Sure. You know, I think with that I don't can't uh so we do have the applicant here. Um, and that's probably a better question for them. Uh, what space concerns that
they would have. I know that this whale gets really close to the property line. I don't know if you could physically uh feasibly create a 4ft tall burm within that area. >> Okay. What about changing the type of fence?
Real decorative fences that are 8t tall. is >> mainly fence which is probably you want to put there is a just because it's on that park front and you know you drive down that street and you see the parking lot which is not nice to look at here and I understand the need for the
fence but then I always go by there thinking boy that tree line would be a great place to put the residences because they're facing just a nice looking area if you face the lake face back it's not 8 foot chain link fence is more
prisonish than beautifification. Maybe we can include both. You know, you got to beautify it at the same time. >> Change the fence type. >> Yeah. Again, that's a really good question for the applicant in terms of did they look at other fence types or not? No, we don't have a requirement
though to you know because it's going to be such a it's almost a wall active wall for sight safety. So we since we have such an such a proximity to the city park which will never change and the waterfront right
there I think it just at least deserves a step up in >> which part of the fence you're talking about the that's right adjacent to where it turns and goes around the corner. Yeah, there's a street and it goes
>> parking lot then it turns into >> So this whole area is facing the park >> decorative areas where people hang out and play >> but is in the flood plane limited like if it's solid they can't
flood plane can't under there. >> I'm just trying to change the fence type so that at least when you go down this road since it is in proximity to a beautiful park and a nice building as to be chain fence just because
Yeah, it's going to be there forever. It's going to be there a long time and chain link fence is worst case scenario for any type closure. Let's just upgrade the fence and it's fine. I'm just worried about the visual and the effect of what it's
because it looks terrible and you got the got the barb wire on top and you know you can have decorative fences on them without having bar too. Those two beans that kind of go up and turn
in, you know, come to a point. They just look good, but they don't look. We put that in there saying yes, you can have the fence, but needs to be a decorative fence that enhances the community. >> Mr. chair. I'm I'm going to recommend
that the applicant that we open up for a public hearing so that we can sort of explore that with the applicant to see what they're willing to do before we move forward with coming up with wording for that. I'm I'm I'm uncomfortable from
a from a staff standpoint of of going that direction without the applicant involved. >> Um and I I'm agree with Harry. We'll have the public hearing in just a moment. And again, if you you're the one that makes the
the motion, you can also And do we have any additional questions before we open up? All right. Well, we are opening up public hearing. Uh any of those that would like to come up and comment, please come up front. Please state your
name and address, please. David Hormell Foods, uh, Austin, Minnesota. I don't want to talk, but I apparently I'm going to talk. So, um, currently there's rundown temporary fence in that whole area.
So, as far as for the beautifification, the green slatted fence would be much. And as far as for building a burm, believe there's already a burm. I don't know if that was put in for flood mitigation reasons
west and the burm would get difficult because the parking lot is there, the height of it, you know, it'd be a very steep, unmaintainable burm as far as for the sides of it. Um there's no slats where
the treat area is and that's due to the flood water. Um keep that open. Uh engineer engineers letter stated that the the chain link as as a chain link would meet either the
zero rise or well be within the 0.5 allowable rise. Um I would differ. I think it's going to make it look more beautiful because you're not going to see the feathers and the birds and the trucks full of birds
coming and going. That's obviously a difference of opinion. So, I'm I'm not going to go down that I think it's going to improve it. um a solid fence would not meet the the flood. We would not be able to even fence in
the entire west portion of that that area or at least the north west northwest area just due to the flood area. It's also somewhat to keep some lights out. We we didn't want those
There's a few residential homes on area. I won't get into beautifification of of backyards. Um, also moving the fence in just to not get property over time. I think there's been some infringements and
parking of stuff kind of near or on our property. We're not getting into that. We're moving the fence to not believe. So that's what we put forth. That's what we're putting around all of our facilities around the entire country.
There's been a fairly big push for security. The slats are added mainly for um just visibility. So turkey processing facility is not a
beautiful process. uh neither's a hog facility or you know none of those are beautiful processes. We love to eat them. We don't like to see them processed. So keeping that visual out especially in that area is we don't typically add the slatting
to all of our fences for one. They're not in areas like this. So we don't need to add that for visual impairment oration. You have any questions for me? That's that's basically my spiel.
>> Question question. I don't know the area well enough. Is there room to compromise here related to the beautifification to have the fence whether it's chain link or whatever have shrubbery or something in front of it? So the one side
where your side is being performing. Um to to answer that, there is a there is a section between the two driveways there that has some large trees and we're actually moving the fence back on the into our property farther to keep those
pine trees between I don't know if you can see. Okay, thank you. Um between those two driveways, there's a close to a dozen full grown pine trees. Um the fence is being moved inside of that. um
just to keep that >> you can make it more dense potentially with more pines or whatever it may be. That's >> um that area there I don't know that you can hardly see between don't don't quote me on that. Um but I do know that area is is fairly heavily
pined. Um then I know there's some hardwood trees in the in the um area kind of on the north planted along there. I can't answer who planted those or when they were planted.
Six to eight trees along where his red curs. You might not be able to know this, but what is in I think the part of the fence that's in question is the part that's along seventh, the west side, where that encompasses all of those trees. That
doesn't look like there's any operations within those trees. I think that's the part that that we're concerned about because it right is across the street from the city park. I understand that is in the flood plane and that's what Sorry. It has to be open but doesn't
appear like there's truck traffic in there. Do you understand what I'm asking? So what kind of operations do you have within those trees that the fence is pushed all the way to the curb line or the property line? To be fair, I'm not high enough up in Hormell to
know if we're ever going to add. I know we are really good at adding and building and expanding. There there's no as of this very moment plans to do anything with the treaty
area. There are plans to do some uh projects within the acquired we just acquired the the west half of that property um in >> January I believe. Don't quote me on that, but I won't say that there won't ever be
a plan to expand. Um, that would be the logical place to expand. Well, I know personally you um GeneO purchasing Gova to consolidate more in and then also traffic outside of your
your lot has been very helpful. and and the two the two gates on the on the west northwest, they're not going to be really operational. just the main we're we're trying to get everything to go through the
so there really won't be those gates will be basically they're there for necessity when needed but not not daily not weekly not two drives on the on the west.
There's really we're trying to get it to where there's one entry point. Unfortunately, due to a property line, uh we're not able to put a secure fence across the main drive. There's a property that the way it's drawn up, I
don't believe on this map it maybe doesn't show it, but the the rail is a northern progressive or something like that. They actually own a sliver of our driveway. So, close that off.
But the the goal is to keep all traffic coming in. And would anybody else like to come up for public comment? All right. public con uh public hearing is now closed and back to us for
discussion. Thanks for the confirmation. I do agree that it shouldn't be solid and shouldn't be burned, but I don't I do also agree that it needs to be a decorative metal fence aluminum format with vertical slats up to 8 ft. And they can also take care of
the security on the top of those if they choose the right fencing because those fences look good and to be secure at the same time of the entire area circled in red can be that fence fence type I think would improve the
park area and it would still provide the security that you need. So it's still open allows the water to flow through. It's decorative, so allows so the park doesn't look hibited or somehow confronted with an ugly fence. Still gives you everything that you
need, but it gives the city everything that the city would need. >> Are you really just concerned about? >> No, because the residence is over here, too. Drive down there. I've been down there. You see the parking lot. You see the factory. This fence is a good idea, but
if you make the fence a decorative part of that facility, then you've eliminated all the concerns that even the residents, >> Mr. Chair, they would just have to they would have to go back to the civil and the drainage engineer because a vertical slat would really could really impede
that flood plane. >> They were half inch. I I'm just saying like they would need they already went they already went to the drainage engineer and said yes we can get a chain link fence through they not saying that they can't do it that is just a step they will have to do and
possibly if it impedes they have to go through FEMA >> difference in the bottom part of the fence is still open and exposed >> I understand you're saying I'm just saying they will need the DNR will make them prove that I'm not saying they can't use that fence. I'm just saying
they will probably be just part of the council will have to run. >> A couple of things. I'll wave them on the fence in a second, but the map that we've got in front of us here, my it's not Canon Lake, it's Lake Farbo
and the state trail on the bottom part, that's the rail line. Is this like an official map or where did this come from? >> This came from the applicant. >> Okay. Yeah, because it's the the lake's wrong and it's not a trail, it's a rail line. That's just what threw me off. Okay. I just wanted to make sure we
hadn't renamed the lake. Um, as far as the fence, I'm in my other job, I deal with a lot of federal stuff and and Emily's absolutely right. FEMA has got some incredibly strict rules in the Broadway. This may be the only fences without
going back to engineering going back quite a bit. Uh, and between FDA and USDA, absolutely. They are making serious fencing. I toured a few turkey growing farms out around Wilmer and they are this like some of the most serious.
You got to know a guy who knows a guy to get. Uh so I get why they have to do this. Uh I'm not a big fan of 8 foot fences uh facing a park. I I I totally get it. I I wish there was a better way. Uh, I will
also add I know that the history on the 4-oot front yard setback. Think of it in a residential neighborhood at an intersection. You don't want some yahoo to put an 8ft fence up right on his property line because you can't see around. That's why that language is there. It's not necessarily germanine
here. Personally, am I in love with this fence? Am I going to show up at the ribbon cutting and cheer? Probably not. Uh but it's it's got a function like like you said uh this is livestock processing facilities are pretty rough
and tumble places USDA and FDA is telling put up a really big giant I want to be the one >> I don't necessarily want to be the person but I don't want it to look like a
I understand the need what they need to do. I don't want to be the person to say no, but I also don't want my neighborhood a prison. So do we find we're ourselves with the practical difficulty
because of the regulation. I think there is a difficulty. I deal with these fences all the time. I've done secure fences. I've done nonsecure fences. This one will not inhibit any water at all and it can be very pretty and it won't affect security and it won't affect the look of the the
building when it's all done. It just improve things. So don't agree that we're stuck at a chain link fence. Think they can get a decorative fence. They can get a super high security. They can do whatever they want with these fences. They're they come in many varieties and forms. They just need to choose the
right one which are all in a catalog and just pick out a good one. aluminum vertical slat on the top or not depends on what you want to do with it. So there's nothing out of the ordinary of what we're talking about. >> Mr. Chair, let me ask a question of my fellow commissioners. I'm reminded it's
an old saying. I've forgot some baseball manager said it. There's only three true outcomes in a baseball game. You win, you lose, or it rains. The three scenarios here are we make a motion to approve this and it passes. We make a motion to deny the request and it goes
forward to city council that way. The rain option and I'm never a fan of this, but is there a logic in tableabling this for two weeks? Let the applicant have time to sit down and talk to a city staff just, you know, to to to address my Michael's questions here because I
mean, again, you're an architect. You you know more about fences. You'll forget more about fences than I'll ever understand in my life. Uh, I hate tableabling things, but in this particular case, buying us two weeks to kind of clarify that stuff. Does that
make sense to the group? And I'm and and I also am aware that there's the 60-day clock that's ticking. So, I'm looking at Harry. Is there enough room on that 60-day clock to hunt for two weeks? >> Mr. Chair, I think that we do have time.
Um, one recommendation that I have before tableabling anything or or continuing discussion on an item would actually be to bring the applicant back up and see if they are willing to consider being
tabled or if they do want a decision today. Um that's that's typically what what I would prefer to provide to an applicant to at least give them um a chance to decide look you know is this worth going
um going back and and looking at this and coming back in two weeks or do they just want to move forward? >> So sir I know you enjoy talking. Would you >> Oh, I wanted to check with you first.
>> I asked you another question. I'm not looking for a solution here, but I just trying to throw throw things on the table. We talked about beautifification. We talked about 8 foot security is a big issue here out of the box here. Is there a enough land there of space there to actually put in a double fence where it's
something that's semi beautiful in front that the residents slash anything can enjoy. And behind that is your main link or whatever security that you feel is necessary. I know I'm adding a cost all this but I'm bravity is I'm
looking for a solution because we pushed it off two weeks. We still have to come back with something right. I'm asking out of out of pure I don't know. >> They don't have to reop they can invite you back.
>> Okay, that's fine. I just want to make sure that they're coming back with something. >> Yeah, Mr. questions. >> Yeah, you can invite him back up. >> Okay. Sorry about that. Um, if we don't proceed this route, there's a highly
I would say it's a very high chance we we won't pursue putting it in, at least not anytime soon, just because our budgets are set. Each facility has their own budget. Hormel obviously has its budget
facility. Um the plan was already put forward. Obviously that's not any of your guys's concern. Um just open. If it does not go through, it will probably not go through for a
while. If it if it goes through um one due to the winter coming, they're not going to probably work through the winter on it. Um, and it will probably get tabled and pushed to the back and probably not not
I'm not going to say ever. Um, I don't know if Hormell or Geneo has ever put in a decorative style um, fence on um, I think I say that with almost 100% sure. They've not ever
installed a decorative security fence around any US. I'm not arguing your concerns at all. I don't understand how this passes or doesn't pass, but I'm I'm looking for a
yes or a no. I mean, I don't know. Six. If it's if it's three and three or two and five, I don't care the outcome. Sorry. I do highly care the outcome, but I would prefer a yes or a no. Either we
don't do it and we we let it stay as it is and you you see into the facility and the birds up to you. Um or or a no and status quo stays the same for
and Oh sorry. Do we have any additional discussion? Mr. Chair, let me take a swing. Have to count myself for a second. I thought we had five. Um, again, go back to my, you know, when you
lose it rains. Uh the scenario here is again it's a reminder we're a recommending body to the city council. We're doing our job absolutely right now. Uh I think somebody should make a motion to do something. We can vote on that motion and I would bet that it's
either going to be for and we've made our recommendation to the city council. That's our job. That's okay. Any additional discussion, questions? >> I can make a motion. >> Yes.
>> I make a motion to approve it with a consideration that they use a decorative aluminum 8 foot fence. Purity and beautifification to the area. have a motion. Did anybody need any clarification? >> I'll second that.
>> All right, we have a first and a second. Do we have any >> Mr. Chair? Uh, I would like some clarification. Um, assuming that this gets built, uh, and if we're only talking about 7th Avenue getting this decorative fence, was the intention to
include 13th Street as well? I didn't see it circled as part of this information, but I would say if that's on a residential side, then yes, >> sure. Okay. Yes. So, if we're if we if we go back to the diagram, it is it is
on the 13th Street side because it starts 13th Street to go into what could be 13th or 7th uh Roinger Street uh and then it goes into 7th Avenue. You know, I guess I would include the entire length of
>> Okay. >> I think that that still requires a second because that is a change. >> I'll still second that. >> All right. We have a first and a second. >> Mr. Chair, if I could before we vote, I just I'm always reluctant to
change the essence of of of a resolution in front of us. an applica an applicant has come and asked for a request made a request. Let's say it's a homeowner that wants a variance to do a bigger garage. Our job is to say, "Yeah, you can build the bigger garage or no, you can't build
the bigger garage." Not my job to tell him how big you can build this garage. Let me finish. Let me get the floor. So, where I'm going with it is I'll vote against this motion because it changes
just the essence of really what their request is. Our job is to say, "Yeah, you can build the fence or no, you can't build the fence." So, I just wanted it on the record why I'm going to vote. >> Any additional discussion? >> State statute does
Mr. Chair, um I do I've been I've been holding just because nobody's specifically asked me uh yet about if the fence would actually change things from SAS's point of view. um if it if it
was determined to provide some amount of uh you know deterrence or or some sort of you know something that constricts the water flow that is where I am going to start getting a little bit antsy um
because within shoreland at that point you are required to get a conditional use permit for a fence that is constricting the water flow Um, if if that is the way that we go, sure, that's that's that's fine. You know,
just understand that, okay, we might be approving a variance with a requirement that then results in a conditional use permit. What I can't tell you because I'm not an engineer, um, at least not licensed. Um what I what it what I can
tell you is that I don't know if it's going to change things in terms of a no-rise uh determination for this. Uh we have brought that letter in front of the city engineer. The city engineer does agree with the engineer that reviewed it says that there will be a a no rise to
this. Um so just a few things from from staff's point of view on this. Heather, will you please do a roll call? >> Commissioner Aman, >> no. >> Green, >> hi. >> Leo, >> no. >> Salt. >> Hi.
>> No. >> Person Jackson, >> no. That motion fails. Do we have another motion? >> So, Mr. Chair, that was going to be my next favor of the resolution as presented. >> Uh, Mr. Chair, so something has to come
out of this. There has to be some sort of motion to council that gets passed. Otherwise, we're in this weird dead water situation. Um, so the answer to the question is yes. there there has to be some sort of motion whether it's to deny it or to approve it or some other
sort of motion you know again the uh uh the baseball at either you know you either win lose or reigns >> well I I assume I can't talk about the if >> so do we have a >> so Mr. Then let me just make the
opposite motion and see where this goes. That I would approve I would move that we approve the resolution in front of us as presented to approve the variance at 11164th Avenue Northwest and 512th Street Northwest. >> Have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second.
>> Ed has a second. And Heather, will you do a roll call, please? >> Pen. >> Green. No. Leo, >> no. >> Shaw. Hi. >> Uh, chair B Jackson.
>> I Right. Motion carries. Item five, requests to be heard are none. Six is none. Seven is none. And on eight, board and commission updates and reports. >> Uh, Mr. Chair. So, uh, the very last
project that came through, and I'm thinking on what that was. Uh, no, it was the Ry's Foods project. So, that that did go through city council. Um, so that project is is moving forward. I believe that there are some things to
take care of with the DA, which the city attorney is working with staff about. Um, other than that, you know, the other item is really what we'll cover in the work session. So, um, I'm not going to steal my own thunder, future thunder.
>> Thank you. And nine, adjournment. >> Make the motion we adjourn. >> Second. We have a first and a second. All in favor say I. I. Okay. All pose same