Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br />Council Member Kuether moved to approve the variance as outlined <br />in DRB application No. 91 - 25. Council Member Bohjanen seconded <br />the motion. <br />VOTING ON THE MOTION: <br />Bisel <br />Neal <br />Abstained: none <br />Bohjanen <br />Reinert <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br />Kuether <br />Site and Building Plan Review, Minnesota Correctional Facility - <br />Mr. Miller explained that this request is an after - the -fact <br />application since construction on the site has already started. <br />The plans indicate that there will be additions to Buildings "B" <br />and "Q" and two new cottages will be constructed. Each cottage <br />will house 84 persons. <br />Mr. Bernard Herman, architect for the improvements explained the <br />site plan. Since space will be added to house 168 inmates, <br />facilities must be expanded to provide work situations for them <br />as well. In addition, food and other services will have to be <br />expanded to provide for the inmates. The court yard will be <br />enclosed with a roof and there will be an expanded visiting area. <br />The two new cottages will be served with municipal sewer and <br />water from 4th Avenue. <br />Mr. Schneider explained that these additional facilities were <br />considered when the sewer and water system for the facility was <br />constructed. The utility system will benefit from this <br />connection. <br />No additional parking space is planned for the expansion. Mr. <br />Miller explained that public facilities are not addressed in the <br />City Code so there are no minimum parking requirements. Usually <br />public facilities construction plans are screened by several <br />boards who are employed by the state. There has been no need for <br />Lino Lakes to specifically address public facilities. <br />A landscape plan was not submitted for consideration. Mr. Miller <br />explained that the facility has special requirements for security <br />reasons that precludes the City of ordinances. Council Member <br />Kuether suggested that the state had "free reign" in this matter. <br />Mr. Schumacher explained that the only reason the City is <br />involved, is that the Building Official noticed the construction <br />and asked that the City site and building plan review process be <br />followed. Mayor Bisel felt this is a concern since the City must <br />provide police and fire protection for the facility. Mr. Hawkins <br />PAGE 4 <br />299 <br />