Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/13/2021 P&Z Minutes APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Vice-Chair Root called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on October 13, 2021. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to approve the September 8, 2021 meeting minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Wipperfurth. Motion carried 5 – 0. Vice-Chair Root abstained. V. OPEN MIKE Vice-Chair Root declared Open Mike at 6:31 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Wipperfurth made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:31 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 – 0. Vice-Chair Root abstained. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Lake Amelia Woods Preliminary Plat DATE: October 13, 2021 TIME STARTED: 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED: 8:27 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Root, Neil Evenson, Isaac Wipperfurth Nathan Vojtech, Perry Laden, Jeff Reinert MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Tralle (Chair) STAFF PRESENT: Katie Larsen, Diane Hankee, Janele Waterman, Jessica Eller Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. A public hearing was held by the Planning & Zoning Board to review the preliminary plat for Lake Amelia Woods on September 8, 2021. At that time, the Board motioned to continue the public hearing in order to give the applicant time to address staff’s and Board’s concerns. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat for Lake Amelia Woods subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Board Comments Vice-Chair Root asked what is the status of the utility easement vacation. Ms. Larsen said the applicant is currently working with the utility company to have the easement removed from the property. She clarified once the final plat application is submitted, the City will have more information concerning the vacation. Vice-Chair Root declared the Public Hearing open at 6:37 p.m. There was no one present for the Public Hearing. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 6:38 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 – 0. Vice-Chair Root abstained. Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Lake Amelia Woods subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 – 0. Vice-Chair Root abstained. B. PUBLIC HEARING: Belland Farms – AECP Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Review Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The property owner, Rehbein Properties, is platting two (2) commercial lots. Lot 1 is 1.76 acres for the purpose of constructing a 12,230 sf medical eye clinic. Lot 2 will be a future commercial development and a formal site plan will be reviewed at a later date. The name of the preliminary plat is Belland Farms. The name of the eye clinic is Associate Eye Care Partners (AECP). Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat and site plan review for Belland Farms and Associate Eye Care Partners subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Board Comments Mr. Reinert asked if staff had any concerns regarding this project. Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Larsen said City staff did not have any concerns with the project. However, she noted improvements to the transportation corridor will be needed. Mr. Laden asked which elevation of the building will face Main Street. Ms. Larsen asked the architect to come forward to the podium to specify which side of the building will face Main Street. Denton Mack, with Sperides Reiners Architects, Inc. located at 6442 City West Parkway, Suite 300, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, stated the south elevation will face Main Street. Mr. Wipperfurth wondered if the City will require the sidewalk on the north side of the site to be developed in the future. Ms. Larsen said development of the sidewalk will be required in the future. She stated it is also possible the existing sidewalk on the south side of the parking lot will be extended to the trail. Mr. Wipperfurth asked if there is trail along 24th Avenue currently. Ms. Larsen said no. Mr. Wipperfurth questioned if trail along 24th Avenue will be constructed in the future. Ms. Larsen said the applicant will be responsible for constructing sidewalk and the trail section along 24th Avenue. Mr. Wipperfurth asked if the street next to Duncan Donuts in the Main Street Shoppes development was private or public. Ms. Larsen said it is a private street. Mr. Wipperfurth then inferred connection to the street would not occur because it is private. Ms. Larsen explained the City needs to communicate with the Main Street Shoppes development first to identify what is going to work best for them and who will be their end users. Mr. Wipperfurth asked if the lot between the Belland Farms site and the Main Street Shoppes development is still vacant. Ms. Larsen said the parcel is still vacant. Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Vice-Chair Root declared the Public Hearing open at 7:02 p.m. Ed McCormick, 14880 Empress Ave N, Hugo MN 55038, said when he purchased his home he did not realize Rosemary Way would be extended. Rather, he thought the road near Kwik Trip would be extended for the connection to the Belland Farms parcels. Mr. McCormick wondered when construction of the Otter Lake Road extension would begin and where the street would go. Lastly, he asked if there are plans for Elmcrest Avenue/24th Avenue to be widened. Dick Pickhartz, 14941 Empress Ave N, Hugo, MN 55038, expressed concern regarding the possible increased traffic on Rosemary Way. He informed the Board he recently witnessed a child get hit by a vehicle at the corner of CR 14 and Rosemary Way. Moreover, he also stated there was a recent major accident at the intersection of Victor Hugo Blvd and CR 8. Mr. Pickhartz expressed concern with the U-turn at the stoplight on Victor Hugo Blvd. He asked why the City would not connect Rosemary Way across 24th Avenue to the controlled intersection at CR 14 and Otter Lake Road. He explained by directing traffic to Otter Lake Road, U-turns at the stoplight on Victor Hugo Blvd. would be prevented. He asked if the City has considered connecting Rosemary Way across 24th Avenue to the intersection at CR 14 and Otter Lake Road. Furthermore, Mr. Pickhartz questioned why the City is waiting to proceed with road construction until the other lot is developed. Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 7:06 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Wipperfurth. Motion carried 5 – 0. Vice-Chair Root abstained. Staff Comments Diane Hankee, City Engineer, said Rosemary Way is a future planned road intended to be a frontage road to Main Street in the City of Hugo. There are plans for Rosemary Way to be extended all the way to Highway 61. She commented Rosemary Way may come out at McDonalds or it may come out to the north depending on intersection spacing, stacking distance for cars, and turning to serve the commercial area. She said there is potential for a round-a-bout or a signal at that future intersection. Ms. Hankee stated Rosemary Way as it heads west will likely be a collector road and will have more traffic than 24th Avenue. She noted, Otter Lake Road at the intersection with McDonalds is planned to be right in right out only. Ms. Hankee stated Otter Lake Road is dependent upon wetlands. She said the City cannot set alignment of Otter Lake Road at this point because the City is required to go through a wetland sequencing process with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Rice Creek Watershed District. She explained the wetland sequencing process is set in coordinator with those agencies through their permitting process. The next phase of the Otter Lake Road extension is planned for 2024 due to the fact the City will need to work with property owners, wetland delineations will need to be complete, and permitting will need to be authorized. Ms. Hankee said Otter Lake Road will likely connect near Heritage Parkway and thus traffic on 24th Avenue will likely be reduced to mainly Hugo traffic. She stated street improvements for 24th Avenue have Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES not been planned as it depends on traffic volumes and future development phasing in the City of Hugo. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and site plan review for Belland Farms and Associate Eye Care Partners subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was supported by Mr. Vojtech. Motion carried 5 – 0. Vice-Chair Root abstained. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Zoning Ordinance Update – Zoning Districts, Kendra Lindahl, Landform Ms. Kendra Lindahl, Landform, presented a summary of changes to the Zoning Districts section of the Zoning Ordinance. She requested feedback from the Planning & Zoning Board on impervious surface coverage in Residential Districts and house footprint minimums. Board Comments Vice-Chair Root asked Ms. Lindahl when the Board would see the general provisions section again since several items have been moved to that section of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Lindahl stated a comprehensive, full copy of the zoning ordinance will be presented to the Board in December. Mr. Reinert asked Ms. Lindahl or staff to define bicycle racing in regards to Rehbein Arena. Ms. Larsen stated bicycle racing at the Rehbein Arena was specific to individual pedal bikes and not motorized bikes. She explained several years ago, Rehbein Arena had been operating without a conditional use permit so the City created a provision in the ordinance thereby granting them a conditional use permit which allowed them to continue operating within the City. She reiterated the provision in the ordinance concerning bicycle racing was specific to the Rehbein Arena. Mr. Reinert wondered why the City has an issue with this particular use and why staff would like to remove it from the zoning ordinance. Ms. Larsen clarified the City does not have an issue with bicycle racing as a use. Rather, she explained the City does not see the value in retaining a provision in the ordinance that is specific to only one site in the City. She commented the provision does not benefit the entire City. Moreover, bicycle racing at Rehbein Arena has ceased for several years. Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Reinert asked if a bicycle racing project is presented to the Board in the future and the City wants to approve the use, could the project still be allowed given the removal of the bicycle racing provision. Ms. Larsen said the Board can amend the zoning ordinance and resume the bicycle racing provision at any time. Regarding minimum garage sizes, Mr. Reinert said having a decent sized garage is important especially in Minnesota as space is needed for snow removal equipment, lawn mowers, garbage cans etc. He stated in townhomes particularly, garages are quite small and they cannot accommodate large vehicles. He also shared he has heard many complaints about garage sizes from residents over the years. Because of these factors, Mr. Reinert recommended adjusting the minimum garage width to a more reasonable size. He explained contractors build small garages in order to fit more houses within developments and though he understood why they do so, Mr. Reinert said residents’ quality of life should be considered as well. Vice-Chair Root asked if minimum garage sizes are in the general provisions section of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Lindahl stated minimum garage sizes were discussed during the review of the general provisions section. She said the code states a two car garage is required for single family homes. For twin homes and townhomes, a two car garage with a 20 ft. minimum width and a 440 sq. ft. minimum is required. Ms. Lindahl recommended applying the same minimum garage width and square foot minimum of townhomes to single family homes. She informed the Board City Council had a recent discussion on the topic and questioned if the City is doing enough to protect buyers. Mr. Reinert stated when he bought his first home, he did not consider garage size. The previous owner of the home added a foot on either side of the garage because he wanted extra space. Mr. Reinert said while he lived in that home, he was grateful for the additional foot on either side of the garage. In regards to adjusting the porch minimum depth from 8 ft. to 6 ft., he said porches typically not are large in size and having an addition 2 ft. of porch width would be desired by most homeowners. Concerning impervious surface percentages, Mr. Reinert stated he did not support the reduction of impervious surface from 65% to 40% years ago. He thought the decision to do so was a mistake and it suppressed property owner’s use of their land. He said he would support increasing impervious surface to 65%. He asked if the shoreline impervious surface maximum was 65% in years past. Ms. Lindahl explained the ordinance from the DNR limits shoreline impervious surface to 25% on shoreland lots. However, when Lino Lakes adopted their shoreland ordinance, they received a special exemption from the DNR to allow 30% impervious surface and 35% on multifamily units. She clarified 65% impervious surface was never allowed on shoreland lots. 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%. Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Evenson commented the reduction from 65% impervious surface to 40% in years past was a significant change. He wondered why the change to impervious surface percentages was made. Ms. Larsen said, due to a Rice Creek study, the decision was made to change the impervious surface percentages. However, staff has since learned the decision was based on inapplicable information and if the Board desires, the impervious surface can be increased to 65%. Mr. Evenson mentioned, while on the Planning and Zoning Board, he has never recalled an applicant having too much impervious surface. Ms. Larsen said impervious surface on individual lots are not reviewed at a P&Z level. Mr. Laden asked if impervious surface requirements are an issue at a staff level. Ms. Larsen shared in some instances, residents have been close to surpassing the 40% impervious surface requirement. Mr. Laden asked if any residents have wanted 65% impervious surface. Ms. Larsen said no. Ms. Lindahl informed the Board staff pulled some examples from the Watermark development. She said the homes were 25% to 33% impervious surface on smaller lots and they did not have yard barns or sheds. Mr. Reinert explained with small lots and a small impervious surface requirement, the amount of land a homeowner can use is limited. He commented the home may meet the impervious surface requirement during construction, but if a new homeowner wants to pour a large patio they may not be allowed to do so. Mr. Reinert said on his previous home, he had a large patio approximately 15 ft. in width and the length of the house. He enjoyed the large patio because that was the area of the yard his kids often played. Mr. Evenson commented due to the City’s limits on driveway size and setbacks, impervious surface is also limited. He stated he would support 65% impervious surface in all urban residential districts. Mr. Laden expressed concern with increasing the impervious surface to 65% on large lots. He commented if his neighbors, who live on large lots, were able to do 65% impervious surface, it would equate to creating a commercial sized parking lot. He asked if impervious surface requirements could be scaled per lot size. Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Reinert asked Ms. Larsen when impervious surface was at 65% previously if it was ever an issue. Ms. Larsen said she was not on staff at the time, but she would ask other staff if it had been an issue previously. Mr. Wipperfurth asked Ms. Larsen if she believed residents are knowledgeable of the 40% impervious surface requirement thus they do not submit plans with more impervious surface than what is allowed. Ms. Larsen surmised most residents do not know the City has an impervious surface ordinance. Mr. Reinert recommended increasing the impervious surface to 65% for lots less than three-quarters of an acre and 50% for lots three-quarters of an acre of more. Ms. Lindahl said she and staff will review the proposal and return with a recommendation for the Board to consider. Mr. Evenson asked if several 6 ft. wide porches were granted by the City or if it was only one. Ms. Larsen stated 6 ft. wide porches were granted for the Watermark development and Century Farm development. She commented she would need to check to see if the NorthPointe development requested them as well. Mr. Wipperfurth said he lives in the NorthPointe development and he was certain his porch is only 6 ft. wide. He commented the porch is plenty big as he can fit two chairs and a table in the space. Mr. Evenson said a 6 ft. porch is too small. He preferred the two foot recess on the third stall of the garage rather than the four foot recess. He commented his third stall garage is recessed two feet and he did not think it looked bad. Mr. Reinert agreed with Mr. Evenson. He supported the two foot recess on the garage and he favored the 8 ft. wide porch. Mr. Laden said he was fine with the two foot setback on the garage. He stated since it is typical in most single family homes, the setback should be the same for townhomes. He noted a 6 ft. wide porch is restrictive and feels small when a railing is added to the front. He said since townhomes are slab on grade, porches on these homes do not require a railing and thus a 6 ft. wide porch would be comfortable. Mr. Reinert suggested changing the ordinance to state if no railing is needed, a 6 ft. wide porch is acceptable, but if a railing is necessary, an 8 ft. wide porch is the minimum requirement. Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Wipperfurth commented he does not have a railing on his porch, but if he did its current size would not be preferable. Mr. Evenson and Vice-Chair Root liked the idea of differentiating porch size based on whether a railing is added or not. Mr. Vojtech said if someone desired a larger porch, he would support the 8 ft. wide porch requirement. Mr. Wipperfurth stated porch sizes are a buyer beware issue. He said if a homeowner wants a big porch, they will have to pay for it. He commented he does not have a preference if the City mandates garage setbacks to 4 feet or 2 feet. Vice-Chair Root said he was fine with the proposed 2 foot garage setback. He noted the developments who requested 6 ft. wide porches were PUDs which were negotiated developments. He commented if a large porch is a buyer’s top priority, a buyer will simply seek out homes with large porches when house shopping. Ms. Lindahl reiterated the Board’s recommendations. She stated the Board is fine with the garage setback of 2 feet in R-2, a 6 ft. wide porch is acceptable if it is at grade and unenclosed, and if a porch has a railing it needs to have an 8 ft. width. Mr. Laden said the definitions need to be reduced and some are not applicable anymore. He suggested simplifying the entire footprint requirement section and changing the footprint requirement to 980 sq. ft. for ramblers, split entries, and 2 story homes. Mr. Evenson agreed with Mr. Laden. Mr. Wipperfurth stated he is not a fan of having minimum sizes, but he understands having minimum sizes increases property values. He commented the City would probably not want a tiny house on a quarter-acre lot, but he said he would not be opposed to it. Mr. Laden agreed with Mr. Wipperfurth. He said most developments have their own covenants which dictate minimum size anyway. He asked Ms. Lindahl what is wrong with a tiny house if it is on a rural lot, not visible, and 100 ft. from each of the property lines. He commented the Board should find a way to allow something unique that is beyond the norm of a house on an average lot in a standard size development. Ms. Lindahl said most cities have a minimum floor area requirement, but Lino Lakes has a footprint requirement. She noted she does not see most cities specify square footage. She commented minimum size was implemented by cities to stop individuals from placing single wide trailer homes on lots within city limits. Cities did not want those on lots because they were concerned property values would decrease and they believed the homes functioned more like temporary dwellings. Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden asked if other cities detail minimum floor area requirements by type or just x amount of square footage irrespective of type. Ms. Lindahl said Lino Lakes is the only City she has seen that details minimum footprint requirements by type. She noted the intent of minimum requirements is to ensure property values are maintained. She commented since tiny homes do not have garages they would not be allowed in Lino Lakes. Nonetheless, tiny house subdivisions do exist, but they tend to be PUDs because cities typically are not prepared to handle such developments. Mr. Laden asked if an individual property owner wanted to have a tiny house, would he/she have to apply for a PUD. Ms. Lindahl said the property owner would likely apply for a variance from the minimum footprint requirement. Mr. Reinert commented if a resident was able to construct any type of house anywhere in the city, zoning districts would not be needed. He said if we did not have zoning districts, large houses would be built next to small houses and it would look reminiscent of the 1920s. He stated people typically do not like such neighborhoods and it does affect property values. He said if the Board wanted to add a tiny house development standard, he would not be opposed to it. He noted tiny homes are a current fad and who knows if they will be around ten years from now. Mr. Laden said most of the time, individuals want to own a tiny home for themselves and they are not typically looking to construct tiny home developments. Mr. Reinert reiterated if a resident was able to construct any type of house anywhere in the city, zoning districts would not be needed. Mr. Laden stated the city could create a zoning district which allows individuals to build whatever they desire. Mr. Vojtech said he questions why the City has minimum requirements as well. He commented there is a small house on his block approximately 650 sq. ft. and another small house on the block was recently torn down and a new large house was constructed in its place. He stated he likes differentiation between houses and he does not like suburban tract housing. Mr. Vojtech said the idea of allowing tiny homes should be discussed further because tiny homes are quite popular and there may be in influx of requests if the City decides to allow them. He stated he knows a builder who quit his job building homes in order to build tiny homes and he receives at least 10 calls a day from interested buyers. Vice-Chair Root commented there should be individual zoning districts in the City and minimum standards for each zone to ensure consistency from lot to lot. He suggested clustering tiny homes or implementing buffers. He said having the Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES minimum footprint in the R-1 and R-2 districts is sensible. He cautioned staff on implementing an overall square feet requirement in these areas because the footprint of the building could be small, but it could have several stories. He stated 850 sq. ft. is sufficient because it is relative to the 1080 sq. ft. requirement in the urban residential districts. Mr. Reinert said suburban tract housing has been mitigated by the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council because developers are told their houses need to have more variety in color, treatment, and design. Mr. Laden stated the minimum garage size is currently 440 sq. ft. and it is more than enough space. He said a parking stall is 19 ft. deep and it accommodates most vehicles so there would be 3 ft. remaining in the front of the vehicle for garbage bins, etc. He commented he did not like the 20 ft. width requirement because it eliminates a lot of design opportunities. He stated he would rather have a square foot minimum than a dimensional minimum in order to give the builder more freedom with configuration. Mr. Wipperfurth, Mr. Evenson, and Mr. Reinert liked the recommendation to have a square foot minimum instead of a dimensional minimum on garages. Mr. Laden said many times builders will propose a small garage and upsell a larger one in order to make more profit. Therefore, by requiring contractors to build larger garages per the square foot minimum it makes them less competitive than other contractors in neighboring cities. Mr. Wipperfurth recalled brewpubs are allowed in the general business district, but breweries are not. He stated breweries would be a good fit for the area and should be added to the general business district. Mr. Reinert explained in years past, many cities had ordinances in place to prohibit breweries because they were large scale production breweries such as Hamm’s or Schmidt Brewery. He asked Mr. Wipperfurth what is the difference between breweries then and now. Mr. Wipperfurth said a brewpub is a combination of a restaurant and a brewery. He noted brewpubs can have a full bar while breweries cannot and due to the Surly bill, breweries can now sell food. Vice-Chair Root specified large scale production breweries should only be allowed in industrial districts. Mr. Wipperfurth concurred. Mr. Wipperfurth noted while veterinary hospitals are allowed in the business and industrial districts, some hospitals have a max boarding capacity of 20 animals while Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES others have a capacity of 40 animals. He said the capacity figures seem arbitrary and do not have anything to do with the lot size. He suggested for the light industrial district, reducing the minimum lot size from 1 acre to allow smaller businesses to move into the area. Mr. Laden asked if the shoreland overlay district was being removed. Ms. Lindahl explained the airport zoning overlay, shoreland overlay, and floodplain overlay was removed from the general zoning district provisions section because they are not zoning districts rather they are standards. Vice-Chair Root asked if the number of people permitted at day care facilities has been an issue. Ms. Lindahl explained the decrease from 16 to 14 people is due to state law compliance. Mr. Laden commented since the light industrial district is allowed next to residential areas, the City needs to be cognizant of light pollution from the indoor self-storage facilities. He noted there is already a neutral color ordinance in place for light industrial districts. He said if indoor self-storage facilities are allowed in full industrial areas, he would not be partial to building color. Mr. Vojtech commented since indoor self-storage facilities are well lit at night, they will be especially noticeable in dark industrial areas and it is something the City will need to take note of. B. Project Updates Staff provided verbal updates to the Board on current City projects. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Laden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 – 0. Vice-Chair Root abstained. Respectfully submitted, Janele Waterman, Community Development Administrative Assistant