Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security Fencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends variance for 8‑foot security fence at Jennie‑O/Hormel facility, rejects conditioned decorative-fence motion
Summary
The commission voted to recommend approval of a variance allowing an 8-foot security fence at the Jennie‑O/Hormel property, after debate about park-facing aesthetics, floodplain constraints and alternatives; a separate motion to require decorative fencing failed and the variance passed on a recorded 3–2 vote.
The Faribault Planning Commission voted to forward to city council a variance allowing an eight-foot security fence at the Jennie‑O/Hormel property after extended public comment and debate over visual impacts and floodplain engineering.
Harry, city planning staff, said Jennie‑O (Hormel) seeks an eight-foot fence (four feet above the usual 4‑foot front-setback limit) along portions of its frontage on 7th Avenue and 13th Street. The proposed fence would consist largely of chain-link with vertical slats and a top foot of barbed wire; staff noted the facility is identified by the FDA as critical food infrastructure, which drives heightened security needs. Harry said a licensed engineer submitted a letter, and the city engineer agreed, that the proposed chain-link configuration would not cause a flood-rise.
A Hormel representative (Dave) told the commission there is existing temporary fencing and that slatted chain-link was proposed to reduce visual exposure of processing activity. "There's been a fairly big push for security around our facilities," he said, and he described operational constraints, including property lines and a rail owner that prevent full consolidation of access points.
Commissioners and members of the public raised concerns that an 8‑foot chain‑link fence with barbed wire would look like a "prison" facing the city park and Lake Faribault and suggested alternatives, including decorative aluminum fencing, planting or a double-fence solution. Commissioners also noted that vertical decorative slats could affect floodplain behavior and would require review by DNR/FEMA or the city engineer.
One motion to approve the variance with a condition requiring decorative aluminum fencing failed on roll call. A subsequent motion to approve the variance as presented carried on roll call (the record shows three in favor, two opposed). Commissioners’ discussion and the applicant’s engineer letter were entered into the record; staff recommended forwarding the recommendation to city council for final action.
Next steps: the commission’s recommendation (variance approval) will be sent to city council; staff, DNR and engineering reviews and any required FEMA coordination remain possible next steps depending on final fence design.
(Provenance: staff presentation SEG 602–SEG 693; public comment SEG 869–SEG 1004; motions and roll-call votes SEG 1279–SEG 1415.)
