PL MINUTES 06181985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- • 1 and said it would be no problem to .remove that signage; :,i-f that's what..the City 2 wants. The applicant told Chair F.ranzese 'he antici-pates no problems with the 3 runoff from the second addition, since the drainage system on the site had been 4 designed to meet the Rice Creek Watershed District's requirements which differed 5 from the City's at the time the first. addi,tion was constructed. 6 7 Although he recognized, as stated by Commissioner Bjorklund, that the industrial 8 standard for a typical mini=warehouse was to have -the facility .fenced in, Mr. 9 Blanske said there are many..in other states which are not fenced in. The petitioner 10 said he perceived fences to be' unnecessary. since he lives next door and provides 11 surveillance of, these units 95% of the time, and the City police patrol the area 12 every night. The facility owner indicated -he believed Commissioner Bjorklund's 13 concerns about unauthori.zed persons getti'ng' into the warehouse units at night 14 were unfounded since the facility is secured each night at 9:00 P.M. by both 15 deadbolt locks -and padlocks and no .access is permitted onto' the property or cars. 16 allowed to park there at -ni,ght. He perceived a partial fence would just provide 17 a good hiding place and said he has never 'had. a� problem while he has heard that .18 facilities which are fenced have been broken into. The Manager agreed, saying 19 the City Police would rather be able to drive around the property and disliked 20 fences because they prohibited them from seeing all -around buildings. 21 22 Mr. Blanske told Commissioner Bjorklund he would not have to be told to provide a 2.3- fence if he started to have break-ins -in his facility and the petitioner concluded 24 by saying his had always been a "clean operation-- .' -with no problems for the City 25 because' he had always delivered on all ,his promises, and more". Commissioner 26 Madden, who lives a 'half block away, agreed. • 27 28 No one else spoke for or against the proposal and the hearing was closed at 8:27 P.M. 29 for Commission -deve-l:opment of a motion- to the Council . 30 31 Mr:. Childs was absent from the room during most of the discussion which preceded 32 the motion. 33 34 Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he found the existing facility to be a clean, non- 35 offensive- type of use which generated *litt-le or no traffic on that deadend 36 street. and he recognized the parcel had both unique terrain and topography, but 37 he indicated he still persisted in the belief that if gates were installed, there 38 would be necessity for less po'l'ice involvement in, and City responsibility for, 39 the security of--the buildings: He wanted the approval made. contingent upon the 40 removal of the sign from the truck/trai-ler; guidelines set to prevent access to 41 the property- or the internal hallways-after dark; and finally, the installation of 42 gates on the project. 43 44 Commissioner, Wagner indicated he foresaw- gates would create more problems than 45 they .would solve. - Commissioner-Madden said he perceived a real advantage in having 46 the police swing completely around the structures during their patrols of that 47 area, and the Chair indicated she wanted to accept the staff's recommendation 4 g against fences- since-it appeared there -had been no problems without them to date. 49 Commissioner Bjork'lund. r.esponded by saying it had been his intention to guarantee 50 it would stay that way, even if the ownership of the facility should change in - 51 the future. • 52 53 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend 54 the Council- grant Bernard Blanske a seven foot variance from the City Zoning 55 Ordinance requirement for a 40 foot setback from Sunset Lane, which would allow