Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/16 City ofFam ington A Proud Past-A Promising 430 Third Street Future Farmington,MN 55024 Committed to Providing High Quality, Timely and Responsive Service to All of Our Customers AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 2016 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (a) Approve Planning Commission Minutes 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS (a) Consider Ordinance Amendments to the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts 4. ADJOURN Ati ii. City of 4Fa mington A' rd Street Farmington, Minnesota AI10/ 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 1..44 WWw.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler,Planning Manager SUBJECT: Approve Planning Commission Minutes DATE: December 13, 2016 INTRODUCTION Attached, are the minutes from the November 9, 2016 regular meeting. DISCUSSION NA ACTION REQUESTED Approve the minutes from the November 9, 2016 regular meeting ATTACHMENTS: Type Description © Backup Material November 9,2016 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting November 9,2016 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present:Rotty,Bjorge,Franceschelli,Kuyper,Rich • Members Absent: None Also Present: Tony Wippler,Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a. MOTON by Franceschelli second by Kuyper to approve the minutes of October 11, 2016. Voting for: Bjorge,Franceschelli,Kuyper,Rich. Abstain: Rotty. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings—Chair Rotty opened the public hearings a. Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a Two-Family Dwelling in the R T Zone and Variances to Reduce the Front Yard Setback and to Allow Construction of a Two-Family Dwelling Without Including a Garage--2201st Street The applicant is Mr. Gene Vaynberg. The subject property is 220 1st Street. A two- family home is-a conditional use in the R T district. He will be replacing an existing duplex with a new duplex. The property is located on the northwest corner of Elm Street and First Street and therefore,is subject to two front yard setbacks. The applicant is requesting a variance of 10 feet from the front yard setback along Elm Street. All other setbacks will be met. The other variance being requested is to vary from the requirement that single and two-family dwellings be erected over a basement and include a single car garage. If a basement is not possible,the construction shall include a double car garage. The applicant is not proposing a garage. Staff proposed the conditional use permit and variances be approved with the following conditions: 1. Submission and approval of a demolition permit for the existing structure. 2. Submission and approval of a building permit,including a grading plan,for the proposed structure and driveway. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that there is adequate parking on site to accommodate at least 4.5 vehicles. Mr.Vanberg stated the structure was in such disrepair that there was nothing to salvage and had to be demolished. There is a need for rental property in the downtown area. Mr.David Marsh,lives two properties down the street. This property has been an eyesore for a long time and it is nice to see something transpire with it. His only concern is we already have a busy street and now there will be five cars on an extremely small lot and extremely busy road. He cannot get out at 7:30 a.m. and cannot turn left at 4:30 p.m. It is a big building on a really tiny lot. He would like to see a different design. Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2016 Page 2 Mr.Darryl Nelson,212 First Street,agrees with such a small lot the parking will be an eyesore and it appears to be right up to the sidewalk. It overshadows all the other houses on that block. It would not be a benefit. There will be a problem with snow removal. There is no way you will get five cars on that little area to the north. There should be another design that fits with the neighborhood. Mr.Darryl Franke,owner of 212 First Street,stated there is not enough parking on the lot. They will be parking on the property line and where will the snow go? It has been a duplex forever,but it has not been a functioning duplex for 20 years. The entire half block is six small lots and five have small houses. A small house should go on that lot. A garage on the north side and a house with a split entry would function real well. He did not see a hardship because you could put a small house on the property. The small houses have garages with an alley access. There is no alley access to this property. Mr.Michael Richardson,35 Elm Street, stated something has to go on the lot. Maybe a duplex is not the right thing. The snow will be in his backyard or on the side yard. You will send more water into the backyard. The parking is a big issue. Mr.Vaynberg understood the concerns,but was trying to do what he could with a very small lot. He would like to have alley access and not have to fit a driveway onto the lot. If the tree in the boulevard was removed it would allow more room for the driveway and be able to get more cars in. Member Franceschelli asked if Mr.Vaynberg has considered a smaller structure on the property rather than a duplex. Mr.Vaynberg stated the duplex was the decision maker in purchasing the lot. He was told it was grandfathered in for that specific use. Member Franceschelli asked about removal of the boulevard tree. Planning Manager Wippler stated the city will remove a tree if it is dead or diseased. A property owner can remove it at their own cost. The city would not replace it. Mr.Vaynberg stated the tree is too big for the area and should be removed. As it is in the boulevard,it should be up to the city to do that. Member Franceschelli was glad to see rehab and replacement of a failing structure. We have to be more creative with the parking. He asked that the applicant and staff discuss the tree. Member Kuyper thanked the applicant for demolishing the house. He asked if the new duplex will be changing the elevation from what the previous house was. Mr.Vaynberg stated it will be shorter than the previous structure. Half of the basement will be underground. Member Kuyper was concerned that the cars can fit in the back because they'cannot be in the street. Mr.Vaynberg stated that will be part of the lease that cars cannot park on First Street or Elm Street, Member Kuyper stated there has been growth in the city and that brings more cars. Four cars will not overwhelm the area. Member Bjorge asked what is considered under the policy of 4.5 cars. Staff stated that code has been in place for 20 years. The code was redone in 2000 and parking was part of that. There are options for the property and one option is the removal of the tree to accommodate the parking. Member Rich had difficulty thinking they should feel pressured to do something that doesn't exist. He was concerned a subsequent owner gets to keep that because somehow Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2016 Page 3 it happened that way. This property is ideal for a single family residence. The applicant started off planning to rehab the property,now it is demolished and will be rebuilt. The number of things we have to waive or give special consideration to,add up between the parking,the setbacks and the conditional use. It is a value to the neighborhood to have • residents here,but this may not be the residence that works or should fall under what the city allows because someone divided up the property. Member Franceschelli stated the applicant has invested in what he assumed was a viable property. It is still a viable property in the historical,duplex mode. He should be allowed to recover his economic investment as a duplex. There is no reason to penalize him for the size of the property or variances. We shouldn't dictate that he should take a loss by building a single residence. Member Rich agreed,but was adequate research done to know whether this could meet the conditions. Just because it was a duplex, doesn't mean it was a permitted duplex. Mr.David Marsh stated as a builder,we do our due diligence before going in. I'm not saying Mr.Vaynberg didn't have someone look at it,but you will know if the foundation is bad or good. Let's not put someone's personal financial obligation into consideration. Mr.Marsh cautioned the board to be very careful as to how we address a personal situation. He could discuss a 14-year battle. He agreed Mr.Vaynberg is doing the right thing and wants to do a duplex. Mr.Marsh does not have a problem with the duplex. His concern is the size of the duplex for the size of the lot and what does that do to his value. He has put an extension on his home to increase the value. Let's look at the neighborhood. Everyone else has little cottage style homes and a rambler. He was all for development on this corner,but not for the size of this and how much green space will be left. If he has a renter that comes with kids,where are those kids going to play? There is no green space,no place to put the snow,no place for a driveway. Let's reconfigure it and look at what that will look like from Elm Street. We know renters will park on the street all summer long. The commission needs to decide what will fit on that corner. Mr.Franke thought the commission's decision shouldn't have anything to do with finances. Member Franceschelli stated he addressed what he saw as a concern. The commission is not trying to recoup any costs. Chair Rotty stated the commission does not get involved with property value or taxes and recouping financial gains or losses. That is up to the applicant. Chair Rotty asked staff if it was discussed with Mr.Vaynberg that this was an existing duplex. Planning Manager Wippler stated according to our records, it was utilized as a duplex,but research did not show it was ever permitted as a duplex. Chair Rotty stated many homes in this area of the city were used as duplexes before there were permits for duplexes. That's why Mr.Vaynberg made the decisions he did. There is concern on the size of the building he is proposing. It is not significantly different in height. The duplex that was there was not a lower height. Mr.Vaynberg discussed the plans for the new structure. Chair Rotty stated the applicant was informed it was a duplex and he went under that assumption. The traffic was a concern and with growth everyone just has to be more cautious. Parking is an issue and can we get it off the road on this small lot and it will be right up to the property line. That probably occurs on other lots in the area also. We Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2016 Page 4 have had a lot of comments about traffic,size of building and the duplex issue. It is not perfect,but it is a lot better than what was there. He will support the request. Member Rich had a concern with one of the conditional use criteria being met and that was concerning the use having a harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent properties. He would like to see more architectural interest from Elm Street. He will reluctantly support it. Member Kuyper stated the proposed duplex covers 33.4% of the lot. If he wanted to do a single family residence,he could expand the footprint up to 35%. Chair Rotty noted if this is approved,the parking situation needs to be addressed and approved prior to any building permit. It is up to the applicant to get the parking approved. MOTION by Franceschelli,second by Bjorge to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Franceschelli,second by Rich to approve the conditional.use permit in the R-T zoning district at 220 First Street,and a setback variance from the front yard of 10 feet and a variance to allow a two-family dwelling without including a garage. The applicant should meet with staff regarding potential removal of the tree.There are also three conditions as noted previously. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Discussion on B-3 and B-4 Zones Regarding Ministorage and Recreational Vehicle Storage Uses The City Council denied the application for a rezone and comprehensive plan amendment for the property located at 20522 Akin Road. Council gave direction to staff to discuss with the Planning Commission regarding the B-4 district which is neighborhood commercial district regarding uses for ministorage and recreational vehicle storage. Staff looked at the B-4 and B-3 districts for those types of uses. Ministorage is currently allowed in the B-3 as a conditional use and within the I-1 district as a permitted use. Recreational vehicle storage is only allowed within the A-1 district. Staff asked for comments from the commission on these uses in the B-3 and B-4 districts. They would be a conditional use in both districts. Currently the B-4 consists of four properties towards the south end of Third Street. The B-3 has over 60 lots that are zoned that way. If we amend the B-3 or B-4 districts it will be for all lots under that zoning. Staff feels there is an opportunity for these two uses in both districts. With requiring a conditional use,you can safeguard the property through screening, landscaping,lighting, etc. Chair Rotty made it clear we are not doing spot zoning to help facilitate the sale of one property. This commission had the discussion with staff that this would be discussed during a comp plan update. We are discussing these two uses in these two zoning districts. Member Kuyper's main concern was do the two fit as far as traffic. In the majority of the areas,other included businesses would bring in more traffic,so these two are a good fit for these two areas. Most ministorages are well maintained. • Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2016 Page 5 Member Bjorge agreed the conditional use is key,particularly with screening. There are currently other uses in these districts that create a lot more traffic than a ministorage. Member Rich stated when we have something established,we have not thought of everything that might fit together. Sometimes examples come along that help us do that. He does not see anything in B-3 where ministorage would not fit.•With B-4,the conditional use is key. Member Franceschelli suggested also adding data centers to B-4. By their nature,they are low key and do not want to advertise they are a data center. They do not have traffic ,or a lot of people working there. They are harmonious to the neighborhood. He felt the commission should add data centers to the B-4 along with ministorage and recreational vehicle storage. Previously,data centers were placed in only B-3. Chair Rotty noted part of this process would be a public hearing. He asked if we should notify residents in the B-4 district within a certain distance. Staff agreed they should be notified. Staff will bring this back for a public hearing next month and will also include data centers in the B-4 district. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Bjorge second by Kuyper to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Muller Administrative Assistant 4E141i City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 e*?.A, , WWW.CLfarmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler,Planning Manager SUBJECT: Consider Ordinance Amendments to the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts DATE: December 13, 2016 INTRODUCTION Attached, for the Commissions consideration are two ordinance amendments. The first ordinance is a proposed amendment to Section 10-5-15 of the city code adding recreational vehicle storage as a conditional use to the B-3 (Heavy Business)zoning district. The second ordinance is a proposed amendment to Section 10-5-16 of the city code adding ministorage units, recreational vehicle storage and data centers as conditional uses within the B-4(Neighborhood Business)zoning district. DISCUSSION The idea of making these changes was discussed at the November regular meeting. After completion of the discussion the Commission was in favor of moving the amendment process forward and scheduling the public hearing for the suggested changes subject to one change. That change being to add data centers as a conditional use in the B-4 zone as well. As a review, I have attached the staff memorandum from the November regular meeting. This memorandum outlines the reasoning behind the proposed changes. The changes as proposed are: • To add recreational vehicle storage to the B-3(Heavy Business)zoning district as a conditional use; and • To add recreational vehicle storage,ministorage units, and data centers to the B-4(Neighborhood Business)zoning district as a conditional use. As explained in the attached November memorandum, it is staffs contention that the B-3 and B-4 zones are appropriate for these types of activities provided they are approved through a conditional use permit as they are not typically large generators of traffic. This is especially notable for the B-4 zones which are integrated into residential neighborhoods. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend approval of the attached ordinances amending the B-3 zone conditionally allowing recreational vehicle storage and the B-4 zone conditionally allowing ministorage units, recreational vehicle storage and data centers and forward that recommendation on to the City CounciL ATTACHMENTS: Type Description P Ordinance B-3 Ordinance Amendment o Ordinance B-4 Ordinance Amendment d Backup Material Zoning Map D Backup Material November 9,2016 PC staff memorandum CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-5-15 B-3(HEAVY BUSINESS) ZONING DISTRICT OF THE CITY CODE TO CONDITIONALLY ALLOW RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 10-5-15 of the Farmington City Code, is hereby amended by adding the underlined language as follows: 10-5-15:B-3 HEAVY BUSINESS DISTRICT: (A)Purpose: The B-3 heavy business district is a transitional district designed to provide space for certain existing commercial and industrial uses which are compatible together but are more intense and therefore incompatible with uses identified in the B-1,B-2 and B-4 districts. (B)Bulk And Density Standards: 1.Minimum Standards: ----- Lot area 5,000 square feet Lot width 150 feet Front yard setback I 0 feet Side yard setback 6 feet Rear yard setback 6 feet Minimum side and rear yard abutting any residential district_ L Off street parking and access drives 110 feet Public and semipublic buildings 35 feet IRecreational,entertainment,commercial and industrial uses n 50 feet Height(maximum) 45 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures `_� I l 35 percent All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. (C)Uses: 1.Permitted: Animal clinics. Auto repair,minor. Auto sales. Breweries. Commercial services. Convenience store without gas. Data centers. Distilleries. Light manufacturing facilities. Mechanical sales,service and repair. Microdistilleries. Offices. Public buildings. Restaurants,class I,traditional. Retail facilities,greater than 3,000 square feet. Sexually oriented businesses-accessory. Small breweries. Supply yards. Truck terminals. Wholesale businesses. 2.Conditional: Auto repair,major. Car washes. Cocktail rooms as accessory to a microdistillery. Convenience store with gas. Greenhouses and nurseries,commercial. Group daycare center,commercial. Home and trailer sales/display. Impound lot. Manufacturing facilities. Ministorage units. Outdoor sales. Petroleum bulk storage. Public utility buildings. Recreational vehicle storage facilities. Solar energy systems. Taprooms as accessory to a brewery or small brewery. 3.Accessory: Parking lots.(Ord.015-705, 10-19-2015) SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this day of , 2016, by the City Council of the City of Farmington. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Todd Larson,Mayor ATTEST: By: David McKnight,City Adminstrator SEAL Approved as to form the day of ,2016. By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the day of ,2016. CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-5-16 B-4(NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) ZONING DISTRICT OF THE CITY CODE TO CONDITIONALLY ALLOW MINISTORAGE UNITS,RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE, AND DATA CENTERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 10-5-16 of the Farmington City Code, is hereby amended by adding the underlined language as follows: 10-5-16:B-4 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT: (A)Purpose:The B-4 neighborhood business district is intended to provide a setting for low to medium density housing combined with complementary and supporting business land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. (B)Bulk And Density Standards: 1.Minimum Standards: Lot area n[5,000 square feet Lot width ---- 50 feet Front yard setback n 20 feet Side yard setback 6 feet Rear yard setback 6 feet Minimum side and rear yard abutting any residential district: J L Off street parking and access drives 10 feet Public and semipublic buildings 35 feet Recreational,entertainment,commercial and industrial uses L50 feet Height(maximum) 45 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures 35 percent All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. (C)Uses: 1. Permitted: Dental laboratories. Neighborhood services. Nonprofit recreational,cultural and entertainment uses. Offices. Personal and professional services, less than 3,000 square feet. Personal health and beauty services, less than 3,000 square feet. 2.Conditional: Animal clinics. Child daycare facilities, commercial. Churches. Clinics. Data centers. Dwellings,multi-family. Funeral homes. Health clubs. Light manufacturing facilities. Ministorage units. Personal and professional services,greater than 3,000 square feet. Personal health and beauty services,greater than 3,000 square feet. Public and parochial schools. Public utility buildings. Recreational vehicle storage facilities. 3.Accessory: Parking lots. (Ord. 002-469,2-19-2002) SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this day of ,2016, by the City Council of the City of Farmington. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Todd Larson,Mayor ATTEST: By: David McKnight,City Administrator SEAL Approved as to form the day of ,2016. By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the day of ,2016. City of Farmington Map 12.1 Farmington Zoning Map /-----------,----, . . 'I� v1, W , , ,, ,,i,''' .....„,. ., ..„,„,,„„,,,,,,,,..,,„ , , 53s"inm un r 11 ��as !y� e , Z j®1!, t. H rN� 4 ',i . : �i s c ���\a a 1 is ra. = I: EMI e '1,:k1', .1.1 .j �°tr-.1. .„,�21 .y7:4 d�F1' p :24, N 4 \ ‘ rA, iyp r\ S 61S f I, ._'Tf rw• i zz'1Y�17T1 ll�= • '1 .. Eta i iitiiiy ma 1 Mil IIIIIIII .1_ v r .4.i'a..... G rr j \ _ ♦ Q 5aiiiliti.. \ r17 a IHE at; [ .a �_a Y�iYllllr 1.rg ad' f i ` ' wr '” tb menu ill 1!I: • TT1I -• o - w,..., VD ,I LIT.- 7'„v Ili r 4007f 40',Ia.."' <4,-0".46 ‘`.."0 0 Ad ‘/;1/4 I k 11yin: , 1l Err A .11111 J 4111 . �.. I it LI i UPI:-; / `__ ..- , I- � 1; IIII II �1 ��y:!..: -' r/ L�MI®Ra - X14:II VIII 911.a i. `I` Ii __. '11 -,id ' - IIII HIH:II a If® .- ; liiiiIII 9-Ili~ -:M-" IIIIIII 11w ... ft 1 H 111' t i I--- / m e x rrr IIII�� I i,71 VIII 111 !lora I S. Fv" I1111� Ikll r:I 'llll.111• • •G • _?f4f' �T' HI: p p .- k , ,i.:11--z S p 460 • I� �►: i r I _- _. -- n.I;r I irIV)• .. . iliffI 1 I ii I 1 I , :,"t,•'--A11NI_, °b 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles i Iliil4: a� 'a ,.ur . I F .,.-t PRP a•1,, !PRH 1.1..MN Legend 9 Zoning - P/OS(Park/Open Space) ___ 1 A-1 (Agriculture) [______1 R-1(Low Density Residential-1.0-3.5 du/ac) ! —1 B-1 (Highway Business) [ R• -2(Low/Medium Density Residential-3.5-6.0 du/ac) ® B-2(Downtown Business) R• -3(Medium Density Residential-6.0-12.0 du/ac) -B-3(Heavy Business) ®R-5(High Density Residential-12.0+du/ac) N -B-4(Neighborhood Business) I 1 R-D(Downtown Residential) -Business/Commercial Flex r1 R• -T(Downtown Transitional Mixed Use) 1N E 11-1(Industrial) 1 I ROW(Right-of-Way) - IP(Industrial Park) 111M SSC(Spruce Street Commercial) S -Mixed-Use Water -Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Other Map dated December 30,2015. t [ Vermillion River Floodplain Q Downtown Commercial District Prepared for the City of Farmington Community Development Department + Historic Properties I / I Empire OAA by the Dakota County Office of GIS. • AR iy� City of Farmington Vika?91 430 Third Street Farmington,Ivl"mnesota 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 N,,A pita,:, www cifatmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler,Planning Manager SUBJECT: Discussion on B-3 and B-4 zones regarding Ministorage and Recreational Vehicle Storage uses DATE: November 9,2016 INTRODUCTION As the Commission may or may not be aware,the City Council denied the application for a rezone and comprehensive plan amendment for the property Iocated at 20522 Akin Road at the October 17,2016 regular meeting. This application was to amend the comprehensive plan designation for this property from Low Density Residential to Commercial and to rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential)to B-3(Heavy Business). Within the Council's motion for denial of these applications,direction was provided to staff to work with the Planning Commission to consider changes to the zoning ordinance in regards to mini-storage and recreational vehicle storage within the B-4(Neighborhood Business)zoning districts. DISCUSSION As part of this discussion,staff would not only like to review the 13-4 zone regarding ministorage and recreational vehicle storage but the B-3 as well specifically regarding the recreational vehicle storage component. Both the 8-3 and B-4 codes are attached for your reference. Under the current zoning ordinance,ministorage is allowed in the following districts: • B-3 (Heavy Business)as a conditional use • I-1 (Industrial)as a permitted use Recreational vehicle storage is currently allowed in the following zoning districts: • A-1 (Agriculture)as a permitted use Staff would like to discuss and get feedback from the Commission on whether the Commission would be receptive to amending the B-3 zoning code to allow recreational vehicle storage as a conditional use. Staff would also like to guage the Commission on whether the B-4 zone would be an appropriate zone to allow both ministorage and recreational vehicle storage as uses,likely conditional uses. Staff feels that the 11-3 and B-4 zones could potentially be appropriate for these types of activities provided they are approved through a conditional use permit as these types of uses are typically not large generators of traffic. There are several significant differences between the B-3 and B-4 zones that staff wanted to make the Commission aware of. First of all the B-3 zone is considerably larger than the 13-4 just in the number of properties zoned. There are a total of 63 parcels that are zoned B-3. Conversely,there are 4 properties within the entire community with the B-4 zoning attached to them. The existing B-4 properties are as • follows: • 805 3rd Street-Blocks Auto Service • • 821 3rd Street-Former Dakota Electric building • 901 3rd Street-White Funeral Home • 1017 3rd Street-L&G Orthodontics The second difference that I wanted to point out is the general intensity of these two districts. The B-3 zone is a high intensity district that allows for certain commercial and industrial type uses that are typically incompatible with other commercial zoning districts. The B-4 zone is a commercial district that typically serves a neighborhood and the uses are developed and operated in harmony with residential characteristics that may surround it. It is important to note that if changes are made to these districts that those changes would apply to all the properties within these districts. ACTION REQUESTED Discuss the potential of amending the B-3 zoning district to allow recreational vehicle storage as a conditional use as well as the potential of amending the B-4 zoning district to allow ministorage and recreational vehicle storage as a conditional uses. ATTACHMENTS; Type Description I:5 Backup Material Zoning Map u Backup Material B-3 Zoning Code ✓ Backup Material B-4 Zoning Code