10/13/2021 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Larsen said the Lino Lakes shoreland ordinance was adopted in 1995. Mr. Reinert supported reducing the number of categories in regards to minimum footprint. He agreed with the idea to create a rambler category. He said the smallest footprint of 850 sq. ft., although it is small is larger than what it used to be in years past. He recalled the minimum in the late 70s was 800 sq. ft., but City Council wanted a minimum of 760 sq. ft. because gas and energy prices were expensive. He asked Ms. Lindahl what would be a bad example of indoor self-storage. He stated most of the self-storage buildings he had seen were nice, multilevel buildings with a lot of glass. Mr. Reinert asked how the City can ensure a poor indoor self-storage facility is not constructed in Lino Lakes particularly in a visible part of town. Ms. Lindahl explained indoor self-storage is proposed only in the general and light industrial districts where mini storage is allowed. She said, for the most part, people generally like indoor storage. She stated companies will sometimes brand the storage buildings with particular colors and people will sometimes complain about the color. Some companies will also have a lot of signage and this can be an issue for residents if signage is not managed by the City. Ms. Lindahl stated typically indoor self- storage facilities have a lot of windows and the interior lights remain on 24 hours a day. She said it is noticeable in an industrial district since light is not usually seen in such areas at night. She explained she has not received complaints about the lighting, but it is a factor to be aware of. Ms. Larsen noted all commercial and industrial buildings in Lino Lakes are required to meet particular design standards. Mr. Reinert commented the problems acknowledged by Ms. Lindahl could likely be mitigated, for example, tint could be added to the windows of the indoor self-storage facility to reduce light pollution. In regards to the impervious surface discussion, Mr. Evenson asked Ms. Lindahl if the conversation is specifically addressing low density. Ms. Lindahl said she is addressing low density which is typically single family homes. Mr. Evenson asked if 60% impervious surface is allowed in some areas of the City. Ms. Larsen explained in an R-2 district in a low density guided area, 40% impervious surface is allowed which is consistent with the current R-1 standard. In a medium density guided area, impervious surface up to 50% is allowed. Ms. Lindahl stated staff’s proposal is to change the areas that were 40% impervious surface to 65%.