Farmington City Planning Commission May 6, 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Farmington City Planning Commission
May 6, 2021
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday May 06, 2021
Public Meeting - Farmington City Hall
160 S. Main Street, Farmington, Utah.
Study Session: 6:00 p.m. Regular Session: 7:00 p.m.
Farmington City Planning Commission meetings, including this meeting, are open to the public. If you wish to view the
meeting online, the link to the live hearings and to comment electronically can be found on the Farmington City website at
www.farmington.utah.gov. If you wish to email a comment for any of the listed public hearings, you may do so at
crowe@farmington.utah.gov by 5 p.m. on the day of.
1. Minutes
2. City Council Report
ACTION ITEMS
3. *The applicant has requested that the City remove this item to allow him additional time to prepare for a
future Planning Commission agenda. The public will be notified in the event of another Public Hearing.*
Nathan Miller (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting approval for a special exception to allow access to a
proposed building lot over an existing adjacent building lot and a recommendation for a plat amendment and
the proposed flag lot related thereto (the proposed building lot is also a flag lot). The property is located at
340 N Flag Rock Drive in the LR-F (Large Residential – Foothill) zone. (M-3-21)
SUMMARY ACTION
Public Hearing
4. Douglas and Teresa Wood (Public Hearing) – Applicant(s) are requesting subdivision approval by metes and
bounds for one additional lot on their property, located at 823 N Main St., and a recommendation to change
the zone designation on a portion of the property from LR (Large Residential) and A (Agriculture) to R
(Residential). (S-8-21 & Z-2-21)
5. Matt Frost (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting conditional use permit approval to build an accessory
dwelling unit (ADU) on the property located at 753 W Glovers Ln., in the A (Agricultural) zone. (C-5-21)
6. Davis Community Housing Authority (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting conditional use permit
approval for an additional garage on the property located at 352 S 200 W., in the BP (Business Park) zone.
(C-6-21)
7. Farmington City (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting recommendation(s) to amend the Zoning and
Sign Ordinance regarding Conditional Uses and Special Exceptions. (ZT-9-21)
8. Farmington City (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting consideration for a Text Amendment of the
Zoning Ordinance related to Short Term Rentals and standards related thereto. (ZT-10-21)
9. Nathan Rigby (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting approval for a special exception to allow a 2nd and
3rd driveway approach on 550 S. The property is located at 569 S 650 W., in the AE (Agriculture Estates)
zone. (M-6-21)
Non-Public Hearing
10. Jeff Allen/Teton Investments – Applicant is requesting approval for final plat for The Rose PUD (Planned
Unit Development), consisting of 50 lots on 10.19 acres of property located in the R (Residential) and LR
(Large Residential) zones, at approximately 850 N Lagoon Drive. (S-12-20)
MISCELLANEOUS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.
11. Good Spray Car Wash
12. Front Yard Fence Height Input/Discussion
13. Other
Please Note: Planning Commission applications may be tabled by the Commission if: 1. Additional information is needed
in order to take action on the item; OR 2. If the Planning Commission feels, there are unresolved issues that may need
additional attention before the Commission is ready to make a motion. No agenda item will begin after 10:00 p.m. without
a unanimous vote of the Commissioners. The Commission may carry over Agenda items, scheduled late in the evening and
not heard to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Posted May 5, 2021 Carly Rowe, Planning/Recording Secretary
WORK SESSION: A work session will be held at 6:00 p.m. in Farmington City Hall, 160 South Main
Street. The public is welcome to attend. The agenda for the work session will be as follows:
1. Budget presentations and discussions
a. Paramedics program and property tax rates
b. Fire
c. Police
d. Parks & Recreation
2. Questions or concerns the City Council may have on agenda items.
FARMINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE AND AGENDA
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Farmington City will hold a
regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 04, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will
be held at the Farmington City Hall & electronically over Zoom for the public, 160 South
Main Street, Farmington, Utah.
Farmington City Council meetings, including this meeting, are open to the public. In consideration of the
COVID-19 pandemic, members of the public wishing to attend this meeting are encouraged to listen to the
meeting on line. The link to listen to the meeting live and to comment electronically can be found on the
Farmington City website at www.farmington.utah.gov. If you wish to email a comment for any of the listed
public hearings, you may do so at hbouck@farmington.utah.gov.
The agenda for the meeting shall be as follows:
CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 Roll Call (Opening Comments/Invocation) Pledge of Allegiance
7:02 Utah Youth Singers
PUBLIC HEARING:
7:05 Ordinance for Zone Text Amendment – Building Height and Elimination of
Residential Use Types in the TMU and OMU Zones
7:15 Appeal – Modification of Conditions of Approval for Special Exception
7:30 Ordinance Amending Zone Text – Accessory Buildings Allowed in a Reduced
Rear Yard Setback & Site Plan Review for Permitted Uses
NEW BUSINESS:
7:35 Ordinance Amending Section 3-4-010 of the Farmington City Code regarding HR
7:40 Consider Approval of Agreement with Farmington Bay Contractors to Use 950
North as an Access to the West Davis Corridor
7:45 FY 2022 Adoption of Tentative Budget and Setting the Public Hearing for
June 15, 2021
Minute motion adjourning to the Redevelopment Agency meeting.
(See RDA Agenda)
SUMMARY ACTION:
(Items listed are considered routine in nature and will be voted on in mass unless pulled for separate
discussion)
8:50 Minute Motion Approving Summary Action List
1. Approval of Minutes for March 16th
GOVERNING BODY REPORTS:
8:55 City Manager Report
1. Building Activity Report for March
2. Fire Department Activity Report for March
9:05 Mayor Talbot & City Council Reports
ADJOURN
CLOSED SESSION
Minute motion adjourning to closed session, if necessary, for reasons permitted by law.
*PLEASE NOTE: Times listed for each agenda item are estimates only and should not
be construed to be binding on the City Council.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Heidi Bouck, City Recorder at
801-939-9209, at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
I hereby certify that I posted a copy of the foregoing Notice and Agenda and emailed
copies to media representatives on April 29, 2021.
DATED this 29th day of April, 2021.
FARMINGTON CITY CORPORATION
Heidi Bouck
By: _________________________________
Heidi Bouck, City Recorder
Posted April 29th 2021
FARMINGTON CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 18, 2021
ELECTRONIC MEETING
STUDY SESSION
Present: Chairman Alex Leeman; Vice Chair Rulon Homer; Commissioners Greg Wall, Larry Steinhorst, John David
Mortensen, Mike Plaizier, and Erin Christensen. Staff: Community Development Director David Petersen and
Planning/GIS Specialist Shannon Hansell. Excused: Planning Secretary Carly Rowe.
Planning/GIS Specialist Shannon Hansell spoke about the Romney project, Item #3. Staff is uncomfortable with the
density, namely the residential to commercial ratio. The applicant has submitted a rework; however, it was not included
in tonight’s packet. There were problems with parking and access points. The options are to continue the public hearing
tonight, or the Commission can make a motion to recommend it. She doesn’t feel she can answer questions deeply
tonight and there is no staff report. If another mailer is sent out, it is only to four other property owners, all of whom
are other developers familiar with this project.
Community Development Director Dave Petersen would like to continue the public hearing to the April 8 meeting. There
is 5 feet of sidewalk before hitting the fence, which is very narrow. On the west, it is 10 feet. He cannot recommend
approval of this. The reworked plan has more commercial. The six units on the south only have a 5-foot driveway.
Chariman Alex Leeman is not inclined to make this a long agenda item tonight, but will hear the developer out. He
would like to continue the public hearing to a future date.
Hansell spoke about the Boyer/Evans project, Item #4. The site plan in the packet shows doing only one of two office
buildings. The second building is not shown due to the uncertainty of the design of the road, but is expected to be to
the south. Some of the proposed parking is for a second building. There is potential to put in a future parking structure.
An easement will punch through to Cabela’s. A condition of approval should be to match the drive behind Maverik to
the west. This is the same property owner as Maverik, but not the same developer. A more detailed plan will be
provided at site plan review. Petersen said they are following the regulating plan without having to use Section 140.
Hansell addressed Item #5, the OrthoStar project up for preliminary plat, which looks similar to the schematic. A
connection from the sidewalk to the parking lot has been added. At this point, parking can be on Park Lane except after
11 p.m. on the winter, but the parking is not needed for the overall project plan. The City could redline it or put up “no
parking” signs in the future if it is warranted. This does not go to the City Council. The applicant followed the mixed use
zoning ordinance, so there is no need for section 140 or Project Master Plan (PMP). Petersen said there is not a concern
of using this parking lot to get to Park Lane. This is a minor subdivision with two lots, including the tip being a road
dedication.
For the conditional use agenda Item #6, Greg Gardner is seeking approval to establish accessory living quarters as part
of a barn. Petersen said he is expecting some public comment on this. Gardner earlier got approval to put a barn in a
conservation easement area. The home will be in Parcel 1 right against the road with the other homes. The rest of the
26-acre parcel will be left open. The owners of Lots 827 and 828 will likely be commenting tonight. The opening of the
existing barn will be toward Parcel 1 to the west. The applicant is looking for the auxiliary living unit tonight.
REGULAR SESSION
Present: Chairman Alex Leeman; Vice Chair Rulon Homer; Commissioners Greg Wall, Larry Steinhorst, John David
Mortensen, Mike Plaizier, and Erin Christensen. Staff: Community Development Director David Petersen and
Planning/GIS Specialist Shannon Hansell. Excused: Planning Secretary Carly Rowe.
Item #1 Minutes
Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
Commissioner Rulon Homer made a motion to approve the minutes from February 18, 2021, and March 4, 2021.
Commissioner Mike Plaizier seconded the motion. Commissioner Erin Christensen abstained since she did not have a
chance to review them. The remaining Commissioners voted to approve the minutes.
Item #2 City Council
Community Development Director Dave Petersen reported on the March 16, 2021, City Council meeting. The Council
talked a lot about paramedic services. Some of the cities in the center of the County are considering going jointly in on
that. The zone text amendment regulating plan was approved. The Brighton Townhomes on the Cook property north of
Cabela’s on Station Parkway couldn’t bring the Cook Lane road all the way to the edge because they have to cross install
a culvert to cross Shepard Creek, which would require a permit from the Army Corps. The Army Corps wanted to see a
wetland layout and delineation to the property to the west, the Jones property. No one is prepared to do that. The
applicant asked if they could get an estimate of what the culvert would cost and give the City that much cash instead.
When that adjacent property develops, the City can use that money to build the culvert. The Fiore Townhomes enabling
ordinance was passed. When a zone change occurs, there is an ordinance that enables it. Only the City Council can
approve those. In this case, it was approved as a final step. Mountain View Phase I fence improvement agreement was
a cash bond given for a fence that goes by Homer’s house. Residents want it actually installed, although the cash was
given a while ago.
SUBDIVISION / PROJECT MASTER PLAN APPLICATIONS
Item #3 Justin Atwater (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting recommendation of a Project Master Plan
(PMP)/Development Agreement, and a schematic subdivision and site plan, for the proposed Romney Development,
consisting of apartments, townhomes, and commercial space located at approximately 1450 W Burke Lane (2 acres) in
the OMU (Office Mixed Use) zone. (S-22-20 & PMP-7-20)
Planning Commission Chairman Alex Leeman said this was not included in the packet, as items came in too late to
include in the packet. However, the Commission reviewed some items during the work session.
Planning/GIS Specialist Shannon Hansell presented this agenda item. Two commercial spaces were a concern, as
Commissioners were not in favor of the residential-to-commercial ratio. There was too much residential. Another
concern was a road where half of it was on another property. Driveways are shortened so that sidewalks could be
widened.
Petersen said the last three or four days, Staff has been very busy. The agenda item was noticed in the newspaper and a
mailing was sent to surrounding property owners, so Staff decided to let it proceed on the agenda with the idea that
updates could be presented at the meeting. The thing holding this up the longest is 1400 West to the east side of the
project, as it straddles their property and the property to the east of them. The whole site plan doesn’t work unless they
get that road. A meeting of the minds between the two property owners has recently occurred. What residential-to-
commercial ratio should be on this 2.5 acre sub-PMP? They compromised with ground floor commercial facing Burke
Lane with apartments above that, and then a townhome element. The back parking is covered but open, not with
garage doors. The commercial uses will be during the day, and there will be a shared parking arrangement with the
tenants.
Applicant Justin Atwater addressed the Commission. He said updates include four commercial buildings instead of the
original two. There is a total of 10,000 square feet of commercial office space and 70 residential units, which combine to
an 80-20 residential-commercial ratio. 48 units are for-rent apartments above commercial space, and 22 are for-sale
townhomes. The townhomes are configured in two eight-plexes and one six-plex. On 16 townhomes, there will be
2
Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
driveways that will accommodate full vehicles. The six-plex units will not accommodate full vehicles in the driveways.
All townhomes will have two-car garages. The land use plan contemplated 25 parking spaces on Burke Lane and 1400
West. The 1400 West infrastructure is critical, and will be built at the same time the first development goes. The
second access on Burke Lane has been moved to a better spot to share it with the property owner to the west. About 17
percent is common space that will not just be turf. They are considering several uses there and are open to suggestions.
Mike Romney, owner of the property, addressed the Commission. He has taken everyone’s concerns into consideration
the best he and his team could, and incorporated them into their current plan. It meets his needs and would be good
for the future of Farmington.
Leeman asked if there would be 48 apartment units in the building by Burke Lane. Atwater answered yes, there will be
four stories. The first ground level would be commercial. The remaining three levels would have 16 residential units on
each level. There are 160 parking stalls on site, and 22 townhomes with two-car garages. 70 of those stalls would be
exclusive to the townhomes. Leeman said it would be 51 stalls for the apartments. Atwater said there would also be 25
on the street. On the south side of the project is the Amenti property is owned by Chris McCandless and Wayne
Neiderhauser and their group, who is working on an application for that property. He assumes it will be some version of
a mixed use project.
Atwater said that for every four apartment units, there will be three one-bedroom apartments and one two-bedroom
apartment. That means there will be 12 two-bedroom units and 36 one-bedroom units in this project. There are no
basements in the townhomes. The rear-load garages will be at ground level and the townhomes will have a total of
three levels.
Commissioner Greg Wall said the rear of six townhomes will be to the center of the development and looking south may
just be a fence. He asked if they could be rotated to face the center of the development with front-loading garages
instead. Atwater said the front doors would face the south, which has a 12-foot buffer with a sidewalk and planter
boxes. He understands the Commission’s concern. Wall wants a breakdown of the parking in future iterations.
Leeman said the parking is the biggest concern he has with all of this. He said Building C doesn’t have room for people
to park in driveways, and people are notorious for filling their garages with stuff instead of cars. The competition for the
center parking spaces will be acute. By the time all is said and done, it will be one parking space per apartment,
including handicap stalls. In addition, there will be competing commercial demand for parking. Parking will be spilling
over into neighborhood streets. During the winter, there cannot be overnight parking on the Right of Way (ROW).
Petersen said following Chapter 32, for multifamily housing there needs to be 1.85 parking stalls per unit, but
allowances can be made for shared parking or proximity to public transportation. Leeman said he is concerned about
front doors of Building C opening to a fence.
Atwater said they have a product to look at that has front doors with front-loading garages. As for parking, there is a
traffic study commissioned for the shared apartment/commercial parking arrangement. The 56 parking stalls for the 48
apartment units will have to be reviewed, or less units considered. It would be challenging to add affordable housing
units to this project.
Leeman said he liked the ground-floor commercial, but it feels there is too much being crammed onto this square. The
parking thing is a headache. From a planning perspective, every project should be self-sustaining for parking. Wall
suggested he would prefer to have more two-bedroom apartments, and this would alleviate some of the parking issues.
Leeman opened and closed the public hearing, as no attendees asked to be heard.
3
Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
Leeman said it is rare to move forward with an item that does not have a Staff report, which is a vetting process. The
Commission is seeing this for the first time tonight. He would rather the applicant take the comments from tonight and
bring something new back for consideration and another public hearing. Atwater said he would love to see a straw poll
tonight, but he understands that the parking needs to be corrected. He would not want a recommendation not to
approve tonight.
The straw poll revealed that all Commissioners were against this as currently configured. Wall and Christensen want the
applicant to make changes. They would also like to have the public review the most recent changes before a public
hearing is held. Commissioner Larry Steinhorst appreciates the mix of commercial and residential, but parking is a
significant concern. Homer said he is frustrated with the number of meetings on this project, and it wasn’t quite
prepared to face the Commission yet. He wants to see a Staff report before voting on this agenda item. Plaizier said he
has concerns on the commercial, which is 10,000 square feet out of 80,000 square feet. The goal is to have it be more
commercial and less residential. Commissioner John David Mortensen said more time and another swing at this would
be best for all. Leeman said it should be re-noticed as a future public hearing.
Greg Wall made a motion to table this item to a future Planning Commission meeting. Erin Christensen seconded the
motion, which was unanimously approved.
Item #4 Ryan Simmons/Boyer Company (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting recommendation of a schematic
subdivision and site plan for the proposed Farmington Station II offices in the Office Mixed Use (OMU) zone. (S-21-20
& SP-3-21)
Wall said he has a client that has dealings with the Boyer Company, a declarant for a subdivision they are in. There are
no financial obligations to Boyer on Wall’s part or on his client’s part, so he does not feel he has a conflict of interest.
Hansell presented this agenda item. While there are two offices contemplated, only one will be considered for
schematic site plan subdivision. Part of the Farmington Station II PMP, this office project by the Boyer Company fulfills
the mixed use aspects of the Master Plan area. Directly west of this proposal is The Everly, a multi-family apartment
project (the City has not yet received an application for this development). South adjacent to the offices and residential
is proposed retail. The Farmington Station II office proposed today covers about half of the area intended as office, as
the second building site depends on the design of the future “Commerce” Drive. As part of the PMP, the Farmington
Station II office has the chance to do a “sub”-PMP, which would alleviate any deviations from the Chapter 18 Mixed Use
form-based code. However, the applicant has been working with the City in an attempt to follow that code, with
building siting being one of the larger issues. The applicant now seeks a recommendation for the Subdivision Schematic
Plan and an approval of the Site Plan.
[Note: Owners of land involving at least 25 acres in the mixed-use zones identified in Chapter 18 of the Zoning
Ordinance may elect to use the alternative approval process set forth in Section 11-18-140, but the applicant’s site does
not meet this threshold. However, E & H Land LTD, which owns this property and the rest of the 62+ acres north of Park
Lane, entered into an agreement (including an accompanying “global” PMP) with the City on June 9, 2020, which allows
the City to consider applications through Section 11-18-140 for property less than the 25 acres in size].
Petersen said they have the option of a public easement or dedicated public Right of Way (ROW). It is a public
thoroughfare but not a public street, and therefore maintenance is their responsibility. The applicant is considering a
parking structure in the distant future, maybe within 20 years, which is good planning. They would need a site plan
amendment to add that in the future.
4
Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
Hansell said the property on the east, called Market Street, is already half behind Cabela’s and would need to be
connected. Petersen said half the responsibility is with another party per Development Agreement, and half would be
with this applicant, although Staff is not sure what the trigger is. The south corner is an awkward orphan piece.
Applicant Ryan Simmons with the Boyer Company (101 S. 200 E., Salt Lake City, Utah) addressed the Commission. This
is a concept application they wish to get the Planning Commission’s general feel on, including the height of four to five
stories. They would like a multi-phase Class A office park. The master plan is 15 acres and two buildings, working as far
as the infrastructure will allow. An office tenant can drive this project, including access and cross access, as a public road
is not required. However, easements have to be aligned with the regulating plan, Petersen said. Staff is satisfied with
where the drive aisle is designated. Simmons said he expects home-grown businesses to be the tenants here, and the
market is wide open to the type of tenant.
Alex Leeman opened the Public Hearing at 8:01 PM. And closed the Public Hearing at 8:02 PM.
This schematic site plan is the first level of approval for this project. The Commission will see this a few more times
before final approval. The level of detail is light at this point, which is not surprising at this level.
Petersen said this is right in line with the master plan for this area. Commerce Drive is the major north-south road. The
elevations along Commerce Drive in the General Mixed Use (GMU) Zone are four stories, with the possibility of being
higher. It is in a nice place behind the big box. Leeman said it is in the middle of the field, where it is good to have the
taller elements.
Christensen said it looks nice and is well laid out. Wall said with the multifamily element on the west side of Commerce,
it transitions well to the height of the office buildings. He would prefer a small sandwich shop in the area by the
Harmon’s. This office is a good use, and he thinks the office market will make a comeback. The dedication of Commerce
Drive will make it easier to connect to Shephard Lane. Leeman said it is a great complimentary use of the area.
Petersen said 80 percent of the Cabela’s shoppers are men, while 80 percent of the Station Park shoppers are women.
This makes this an area for all tastes.
MOTION
Rulon Homer made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the schematic site plan and recommend the
Subdivision’s Schematic plan for approval, subject to all applicable Farmington City ordinances and development
standards and the following conditions:
1. The subdivision and site plan must meet all applicable ordinances in Chapter 18 Mixed Use zone to avoid
submitting a “sub”-PMP to utilize exceptions to the form-based code allowed by S. 140.
2. Address any remaining Development Review Committee (DRC) comments.
Findings for Approval:
1. The use of office and professional space in the mixed use zones supports the goals of the GMU zone, promoting
higher density, walkability and economic stability.
2. The office use contributes less to light and noise pollution, as well as local traffic, during evenings, weekends and
holidays.
3. The subdivision provides the City with an opportunity to construct the 1100 West connection to the future
“Commerce” Drive.
4. Office use supports other business in the area and provides jobs closer to Farmington.
5. As stated in 11-18-060, lots may be a “building lot” or a “zone lot.” Zone lots can contain a use or uses by right
or special review, meaning that the zone lot does not necessarily have to be a building lot, and can be used to
5Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
apply the building siting standards of the chapter. A parking lot, in this case, is an acceptable and allowed zone
lot.
6. The plan allows for space to be used as a possible future parking structure.
7. The current maximum building height for the GMU zone is four stories. Last fall, the Planning Commission
recommended increasing the building height, which has not been reviewed by the City Council yet. This opens
the door for offices that are potentially greater than four stories.
8. The Regulating Plan shows neighborhood roads, and easements may be used to follow the Regulating Plan.
Mike Plaizier seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Item #5 Northstar Builders/Adam Watts – Applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for the proposed
Farmington OrthoStar medical offices, located at Clarke Lane/Park Lane (1.72 acres) in the GMU (General Mixed Use)
zone. (S-1-21)
Wall disclosed that Adam Watts and Northstar are clients of the company he works for. However, Wall is not working
on this project and does not feel there is a conflict of interest.
Hansell presented this agenda item. The Farmington OrthoStar Subdivision is a proposal for two small office buildings on
a triangular parcel at the convergence of Park Lane and Clark Lane. The two buildings would be done at separate times.
The applicant got approval for the schematic site plan, and is now seeking preliminary plat for the subdivision. Parking
was removed from Park Lane. The parking ratio meets City standards.
Earlier proposals for this site include car washes, which the Planning Commission and City Council, supported by public
comment, determined were not the best use for Farmington’s mixed use areas. Now, the developer proposes office
space, and has chosen to follow the Chapter 18 ordinance on Mixed Use Development. The schematic subdivision plan
was approved by the City Council on March 2, 2021.
Applicant Adam Watts (2221 S. 2000 E., Salt Lake City, Utah) addressed the Commission. Regarding parking, he said the
City requires three per thousand, but this has four per thousand. It is a two-building subdivision. Two well-known
groups are lined up for Office Complex Lot 2. Parking and set back requirements have been a challenge to incorporate
into this project. These are projected as professional or medical offices. There are two levels to each building, one with
11,804 square feet, and Building 2 with 14,000 square feet on the west. Building 2 will be the first to go in, although the
applicant hopes both buildings will go in simultaneously.
Wall suggested shifting the detention basin to the west of Building 1 further to the west so the sidewalk can be
continued to the end of the parking stalls. Watts said a three-foot high screen wall to block headlights is planned where
the landscaping tapers down to three feet. Wall suggested breaking up long rows of parking stalls, even though it is not
required. He would like to see three landscaping peninsulas take up the space of three parking stalls, one on the east
side and two rows on the west, one on the north and one on the south for shade trees. It would contribute to the
aesthetic. Watts said he would look at that, but parking is at a premium and they need each possible stall. Doug
Cromar mentioned that three stalls would be lost for shared access to the building to be built on the east.
Leeman said it is not a requirement. He would like a more detailed landscaping plan in the future. He would like to see
trees in the park strip along Park and Clark Lanes, as Farmington is famous for tree-lined streets throughout the City.
Watts plans to present at final a tree count double what Farmington requires on Clark Lane to provide additional
shading from the parking lot and buildings.
MOTION
6Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
Larry Steinhorst made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat for the Farmington
OrthoStar Subdivision, subject to all applicable Farmington City ordinances and development standards and the
following conditions:
1. Address any remaining conditions from schematic subdivision plan approval.
2. Address any remaining DRC comments.
Findings for Approval:
1. The use of office and professional space in the mixed use zones supports the goals of the GMU zone, promoting
higher density, walkability and economic stability.
2. The OrthoStar subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because it provides an attractive, healthy, and
pleasant living environment.
3. The office use would not be detrimental to neighboring residential uses, as there would be very little noise and
light pollution.
4. Because the buildings front Park Lane, traffic would be less likely to leak over to Clark Lane, which currently
experiences less traffic.
5. The subdivision provides the City with an opportunity to construct an increasingly necessary connection from
Park Lane to Clark Lane.
6. The development allows for pedestrian usability as it provides a connection from Park Lane to Clark Lane, with
sidewalks to be installed along both frontages.
7. The site plan follows the Chapter 18 Mixed Use ordinance, thereby removing the need for a “sub”-PMP as part
of the larger North Station Master Plan.
Rulon Homer seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE
Item #6 Greg Gardner (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting conditional use approval to establish an accessory
living quarters as part of an existing barn, located at 441 Comanche Rd in an AA zone. (Parcel ID# 08-073-0050) (26.28
acres). (C-3-21)
Petersen presented this agenda item. The barn, which is next to the east side of Lot 867 of the Farmington Ranches
Phase 8 subdivision, is located on a large non-platted parcel encompassed by a conservation easement. This easement
allows for accessory living quarters as a conditional use. The 26.28-acre parcel cannot be subdivided, so there cannot be
additional homes there. The conservation easement was enacted around 2007 and was intended for agricultural uses
such as pasture for Class B and C animals (horses and cows). The property owner owns Parcel 1, which is where he
wants to put his home. He can place a barn on the conservation easement near his home. The underlying zone allows
accessory living quarters in a barn as a conditional use. The process is to go to the Planning Commission for the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) first, then go to the City Council to amend the exhibit to accommodate accessory living
quarters.
Leeman said this approval requires two steps, only one of which is in front of the Commission. Before the Commission is
the CUP to add an accessory dwelling inside of the barn. It is an approved use in the area that the Commission can
attach conditions to in order to mitigate negative impacts to surrounding property. The Commission has very little
discretion on whether or not to approve the CUP. Generally CUPs can be denied only if there is no way to mitigate
negative impacts.
7Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
Amending the easement is only something the City Council can do, and they have discretion to do so. There is ambiguity
between the text and the map that the City Attorney may need to weigh in on. That is not for the Commission to
consider. Leeman said if the Commission approves the CUP, it should be conditional on the City Council amending the
easement. The CUP would not be granted and take effect until the Council actually amends the easement. Wall
inquired about the 15-foot side yard setback. The Buffalo Ranch Trail runs east and west to the south side of the barn.
Applicant Greg Gardner (1955 E. Laird Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah) addressed the Commission. He and his wife are
owning on an interim basis while serving an inner city religious mission. He had been looking for a place for horses. This
land is his brother’s, who doesn’t have any children who desire to take it on. His brother sold it to him. Gardner’s son
lives nearby and mentioned the weeds, mosquitoes and swamp. Gardner spent his childhood in West Point and he
feels this is an opportunity to reclaim this ground. He is aware of the neighbors and wanted to give them a buffer. The
setback on the barn is 30 feet, more than the 15 feet required. The trail is a great buffer. It is not easy living in a fish
bowl and having the neighbors see a new dwelling show up. Brad Miller is the builder for the caretaker quarters and the
house. John Swain is the landscape architect he hired. He wants this to be an amenity for the future. The caretaker
quarters are small at one-bedroom and a total of 576 square feet inside the barn, not an addition to the outside of the
barn. There will also be a shop inside the barn. The applicant’s future plans include an equestrian property with an
arena. His two daughters with down syndrome, as well as other neighborhood children, can use it for non-commercial
therapeutic riding. There is reclamation to do to augment the soil for use as pasture. A gazebo may be under the
cottonwood trees for picnicking. Code will make it necessary to enlarge the windows on the south side for egress.
Leeman said a commercial venture would necessitate securing an additional and more significant CUP. Commercial uses
like a reception center or an equestrian boarding facility are not an option. Agricultural uses like keeping animals, or
buying, training and selling animals is permitted.
Alex Leeman opened the Public Hearing at 8:56 PM.
Andrew and Natalie Warner (1950 W. Buffalo Circle, Farmington, Utah) addressed the Commission. He appreciates the
applicant’s efforts to beautify the property. When he chose the lot backing to the barn, it was because he didn’t want
backyard neighbors. He doesn’t want someone living behind him, and he thought because of the conservation
easement, he would never have to worry about that. He is concerned with the huge increase in traffic and noise behind
his home in recent years. He wants the area open and quiet for solitude.
Bill Kimball (1908 W. Buffalo Circle, Farmington, Utah) said his property abuts the 26 acres. He is also glad for the
applicant’s efforts to beautify the land. He said the approved specs were smaller than the actual barn that went in. If
the CUP and amendments are approved, will that mean a future expansion to the barn’s square footage, or allow for a
larger expansion of living quarters within the barn? He asked if utilities will be available to that area.
Lori and Andreas Kalt (1972 W. Buffalo Circle, Farmington, Utah) live on the southwest corner of the property. They
have lived there 13 years. She bought the lot because of the conservation easement behind the lot to minimize the
people and traffic. When someone lives in a permanent residence, it impacts the surrounding property owners. There
will be cars coming and going, as well as headlights. While Gardners are good people, there is no guarantee they will
continue to be the future property owner.
Brad Vandermeyden (1928 W. Buffalo Circle, Farmington, Utah) addressed the Commission. The applicant has been
good maintaining the access to the trail and installing fencing. He would like verbiage to not allow it to be a rental unit,
and make it specific to what a caretaker does. The word “ADU” (Accessory Dwelling Unit) is very broad and allows for a
lot to be done.
Alex Leeman closed the Public Hearing at 9:06 PM.
Leeman said there are email comments that will be added to the record.
8Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
Gardner said the dwelling unit will be on the south side of the barn, which is oriented east to west. The front door of
the barn faces west. The south side faces the residents. Leeman asked if it could be flipped to the north side instead.
Gardner said the barn is already segmented to have the living quarters on the south side, as he wanted to protect the
residents from the equipment. He said the barn was expanded a bit lengthwise, but not width wise. The minutes noted
an extra 50 feet. The City has inspected it and so far it has met City approval. He would like to have power and sewer.
There is already water to the back of the barn through a meter.
Petersen said this is not an ADU, it is accessory living quarters, which is only allowed in the AA and the Light
Manufacturing and Business (LM&B) Zone like the storage units south of Glovers. He thinks it is a reasonable condition
judging on the impacts to treat it like an ADU, with the owner having to live on site. Leeman noted 11-2-20 and the
language that it not be rented out. The ordinance already restricts it being rented out, and it can only be used by the
owner or employee of the owner.
Gardner said there is a three-rail cedar fence on the south border of the property. It is not a privacy fence. Access is
from West Comanche Road. The curb is still intact, and the applicant has received permission to move the mailbox to
the south. No curb cuts have been made to access the lane, which will be right next to the sewer lift station. The lane is
planned to be road base. Access is on the south side of Lot 1 straight in to the property. Leeman said the CUP is for a
single dwelling unit, and the size of the barn is dictated by the current zoning ordinance. Petersen said the single
dwelling unit can be occupied by a family. Being a bit over 500 square feet, he said it is intended for a single caretaker
and a large family wouldn’t fit. It would not be possible to have multiple dwelling quarters. Christensen asked if they
could put conditions on it that would limit the size of the dwelling quarters so it can’t be expanded. A new CUP would
need to be sought to expand the dwelling unit in the future.
Leeman has seen CUPs that expire at change of ownership. Therefore, a new owner would have to come to get a new
CUP to continue the same use. It would stay in effect as long as the Gardners owned the property. If there were
problems with the arrangement, the neighbors could approach the City during the public hearing for the new CUP. Wall
would like a condition that says once it is occupied, the lane is developed with gravel instead of road base, including the
curb cuts. This would mitigate kicking up dust for the neighbors. If Lots 828 and 827 are worried about windows facing
their homes, there could maybe be a 6-foot privacy fence. Gardner said they are willing to work with the neighbors on
this. There is a public trail there that already affects privacy. Leeman said the approval would be contingent on the City
Council amending the conservation easement. The Commission’s discretion to deny is very limited.
MOTION
Greg Wall made a motion that the Planning Commission grant approval for the Gardner accessory living quarters subject
to all applicable Farmington City ordinances and development standards, and that the City Council must approve an
amendment to Exhibit B of the conservation easement showing the accessory living quarters as part of the barn.
Conditions:
1. The size of the accessory living quarters cannot be changed.
2. If the ownership of the property changes from the Gardners, a new CUP must be applied for and approved by
the Planning Commission as accessory living quarters.
3. Before occupancy of the living quarters, the lane needs to be developed with a curb cut and gravel to keep dust
down.
Findings for Approval:
9Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
1. The use is accessory to the perpetual agriculture use of the land and is allowed as a conditional use within the
easement area.
2. Such uses are also allowed as a conditional use in the AA zone.
3. The conditional use permit complies with Farmington City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Rulon Homer seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
Christensen made a motion to move agenda Item #10 up to be heard next. Homer seconded the motion, which was
unanimously approved.
Item #10 Miscellaneous, Correspondence, etc.
a. Craig Holmes (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting a modification of a fence/gate requirement related
to a special exception to operate a U-Haul Dealership, located at 97 N State Street, located in the BR
(Business Residential) zone. (M-1-14)
Petersen presented this agenda item. This is for a windshield repair business that also rents U-Hauls. One of the
conditions of approval was that there be a gate on the rear of his property. He would like to see if this condition can be
amended.
Hansell said that on June 19, 2014, the Planning Commission approved a special exception for an adaptive reuse of a U-
Haul dealership in the Business Residential (BR) zone. An adaptive reuse enables an owner of an historic building in the
BR zone to apply for a commercial use not listed therein if the building is eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. Specifically, the following uses allowed in the Commercial (C) zone as either a permitted or conditional use, but
not in the BR zone, may be considered for said zone as a special exception if the owner meets the historic preservation
eligibility criteria for his building and some area requirements.
At the time of approval, the Planning Commission included a condition stating: “The rear yard must be screened from
both Main Street and from 100 North through the use of a historically compatible fence.” On or around February 3,
2021, code enforcement issued a notice of violation to the applicant for lack of screening, siting the condition of
approval quoted above. On February 25, 2021, the applicant responded to the notice stating several prior issues with
the fence’s durability during windstorms, which frequently damaged the fence screening the rear yard. He has had a
difficult time keeping the fence up due to the winds. Solutions were not satisfactory or excelled the original screening,
and often encroached into useable space of the property. As a result, the applicant now requests that the Commission
modify or remove the condition of approval from the original special exception from 2014.
Applicant Craig Holmes (262 E. 2200 South, Kaysville, Utah) addressed the Commission. He has been in the business for
26 years, and started U-Haul nine years ago. He has had three fences, and the wind has destroyed each of them. There
is limited space to have his equipment there, and he tries not to have equipment in the front. It would be an extreme
help not to have a fence there, as it affects how he can park equipment there. He keeps all the equipment behind what
would be the fence line. The change he is seeking only applies to the gate, not to the fence. The original intent was for
aesthetics, necessitating a 6-foot fence. However, U-Hauls are 12 feet tall. He has had fencing companies come and
make suggestions, but it would take from the workable space because it would need an additional post in the middle.
He would rather the special exception condition be removed. If the gate is there, he can only park two trucks side by
side. With the gate not there, he can store three. The building is 26 feet deep, and the gate area is 30 feet wide. If it
was on a sliding rail, it would be longer than the building and go into the front parking lot when it was opened all the
way.
Alex Leeman opened the Public Hearing at 9:44 PM.
10Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
Lori Conover (469 Quail Run Road, Farmington, Utah) said that although she is not a direct neighbor, she has never been
bothered by U-Hauls being parked there. It is fine without a gate.
Alex Leeman closed the Public Hearing at 9:45 PM.
Leeman doesn’t feel strong about removing the condition the special exception, especially since no neighbors chose to
address the Commission during the public hearing. This is purely discretionary for the Commission. He would lift the
requirement. Wall said the original Commission got it right, as an equipment yard should be shielded and screened.
Options include making it so the middle post could be temporarily removed. There are ways to keep the original
requirement in place.
Christensen said this doesn’t seem to be bothering people. She appreciates the inconvenience and expense to the
property owner, but she is hesitant to remove what the Planning Commission did before. She is inclined to leave it in
place, as there are ways to accomplish the original intent. She suggested maybe there could be trees in the park strip or
high foliage in order to screen the area from Main Street to the south.
The applicant would prefer the option of trees in the parking strip instead of a gate. Mortensen asked if the gate were
removed completely, if it could be stated that equipment could be no further north than the edge of the building. This
could be a compromise. Wall said he is concerned about the tree option as it could inhibit vehicles having appropriate
line of site near an intersection. Homer said the gate is not essential to the nature or volume of the applicant’s
business. He should be allowed to remove the gate. Steinhorst said he would rather have a nice fence put in that is
also a historically compatible fence as noted in the special exception. Leeman noted that the Commission is split.
Greg Wall made a motion to keep in place the conditional use approval conditions from the 2014 Planning Commission.
Larry Steinhorst seconded the motion. Wall, Steinhorst, and Christensen voted in favor of the motion. Mortensen,
Homer, and Leeman voted nay. The motion does not carry on the 3-3 vote. It stays as-is according to that tie vote. The
special exception condition would stay.
Erin Christensen moved that the special exception placed in 2014 be amended to require the use of trees, privacy
shrubs or other vegetation in the park strip to the northeast of the parking lot as well as the grassy area north of the
building to create a screen for the parking area from Main Street. An additional condition is that the U-Haul trucks or
other equipment may not be parked any further north than the north edge line of the existing building.
Wall asked about the intersection site triangle. Petersen said the applicant meets the site triangle. A condition could be
added that the traffic engineer look at it and verify it in writing on his letterhead. He could approve the placement of
the vegetation. Petersen said a good landscape architect is on retainer with the City to review the proposal.
Christensen added a condition that vegetation would be in lieu of the fence requirement previously required and
subject to review and approval of the City traffic engineer of any site distance or other related issues. She also added a
condition that the Commission delegates Staff to handle approval of the proposed vegetation.
Mortensen seconded the motion.
Christensen, Mortensen, Steinhorst and Leeman voted in favor of the motion. Wall and Homer voted nay. The motion
carried 4-2.
11Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
Petersen said when there is a tie vote, the Commission could consider one alternate vote. During their next meeting,
the Commission could verify the parliamentary rules and reconsider this vote during the miscellaneous portion of the
agenda. Leeman said this is worth verifying before this item is formally stamped.
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENTS
Leeman suggested leaving the three zone text amendments remaining on the agenda for the next meeting. Petersen
said Item #9 is the biggest item and an important issue. He would like the appropriate time for the Commission to
consider the formulas proposed by the Affordable Housing Committee. April 8, 2021, is a light meeting so far. The three
zone text amendments include:
Item #7 Farmington City (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting recommendation(s) to amend the Zoning and Sign
Ordinance regarding Conditional Uses and Special Exceptions. (ZT-9-21)
Item #8 Farmington City (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting recommendation(s) to amend building heights
standards in the OMU and TMU zones, and to remove selected residential use types as allowed uses in the TMU zone
as set forth in Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. (ZT-6-21)
Item #9 Farmington City (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting recommendation to consider amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance to require developers/owners of any new dwelling units to set aside a certain percentage of their
developments as moderate-income housing, or to pay a fee in lieu, or provide some other benefit (ZT-1-21)
Homer made a motion to move items 7, 8 and 9 to the next agenda. Steinhorst seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously.
b. Other
Petersen said the Historical Preservation Commission meeting at 7 PM on the 24th is a training on what the Original
Townsite Residential (OTR), or downtown zone, is all about. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to attend that
meeting via Zoom.
Also, Plaizier had recent medical issues, which necessitated him leaving the meeting early tonight. The Mayor would like
to keep the public meetings to Zoom through April 10, 2021, when the State will lift the mask mandate. The second
meeting in April may be an in-person meeting, offered in a hybrid format of both in-person and Zoom.
ADJOUNRMENT
________________________________________
Alex Leeman, Chair
12Farmington City Planning Commission Minutes 3.18.2021
Petersen said when there is a tie vote, the Commission could consider one alternate vote. During their next meeting,
the Commission could verify the parliamentary rules and reconsider this vote during the miscellaneous portion of the
agenda. Leeman said this is worth verifying before this item is formally stamped.
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENTS
Leeman suggested leaving the three zone text amendments remaining on the agenda for the next meeting. Petersen
said Item #9 is the biggest item and an important issue. He would like the appropriate time for the Commission to
consider the formulas proposed by the Affordable Housing Committee. April 8, 2021, is a light meeting so far. The three
zone text amendments include:
Item #7 Farmington City (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting recommendation(s) to amend the Zoning and Sign
Ordinance regarding Conditional Uses and Special Exceptions. (ZT-9-21)
Item #8 Farmington City (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting recommendation(s) to amend building heights
standards in the OMU and TMU zones, and to remove selected residential use types as allowed uses in the TMU zone
as set forth in Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. (ZT-6-21)
Item #9 Farmington City (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting recommendation to consider amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance to require developers/owners of any new dwelling units to set aside a certain percentage of their
developments as moderate-income housing, or to pay a fee in lieu, or provide some other benefit (ZT-1-21)
Homer made a motion to move items 7, 8 and 9 to the next agenda. Steinhorst seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously.
b. Other
Petersen said the Historical Preservation Commission meeting at 7 PM on the 24th is a training on what the Original
Townsite Residential (OTR), or downtown zone, is all about. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to attend that
meeting via Zoom.
Also, Plaizier had recent medical issues, which necessitated him leaving the meeting early tonight. The Mayor would like
to keep the public meetings to Zoom through April 10, 2021, when the State will lift the mask mandate. The second
meeting in April may be an in-person meeting, offered in a hybrid format of both in-person and Zoom.
ADJOUNRMENT
________________________________________
Alex Leeman, Chair
12Carly Rowe RE: Mar 18th Notice of Public Hearing - Greg Gardner Easement Andrew Warner Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:54 PM To: crowe@farmington.utah.gov, shansell@farmington.utah.gov Cc: Natalie Warner To Farmington City Planning Commission & City Council Members: When we bought our lot and built our home 9 years ago, we still had our pick of several lots within the development. We specifically chose our lot only after determining that it backed to a large piece of open land that was protected by a conservation easement. Over the years, we have enjoyed the benefits of this open land and the peace and solitude that it offered. We watched a fox build its home and raise it’s pups right behind us. We’ve enjoyed listening to the pheasants and watching them come into our yard. We appreciate that Mr. Gardner has made efforts to enhance the property, but unfortunately these efforts have come at a cost. Our views have been impeded, our privacy is gone, along with the wildlife. There are frequently large gatherings on the property which has brought an unreasonable amount of noise and traffic. I can’t imagine how any of these changes would fit within the original intended purpose of this conservation easement. I feel it is our duty to respectfully request that the proposed amendment request be denied and that all reasonable efforts be made to restore the tranquility and peace of this beautiful conservation land. Furthermore, I feel it is the duty of the city planning commission and the city council to fiercely protect and uphold these easements that ensure we continue to have lands that enhance the beauty of this wonderful community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Andrew and Natalie Warner
FARMINGTON CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 6, 2021
ELECTRONIC SPECIAL MEETING
REGULAR SESSION
Present: Chairman Alex Leeman; Vice Chair Rulon Homer; Commissioners Greg Wall, Larry Steinhorst, John David
Mortensen, Mike Plaizier, and Erin Christensen. Staff: Planning & Recording Secretary Carly Rowe and Planning/GIS
Specialist Shannon Hansell. Excused: Community Development Director David Petersen.
Alex Leeman opened the meeting at 7:03 PM.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATIONS
Item #1 David Livingston (Public Hearing) – Applicant is requesting consideration of a request for special exception to
allow a garage to encroach on the front setback requirement. The property is located at 79 S 100 E in the OTR
(Original Townsite Residential) zone. (M-4-21)
Shannon Hansell presented the item; the applicant is requesting a special exception to place a detached garage in a
front yard setback, which is not allowed by ordinance 11-17-050 D1. The current historic home sits on a 0.33-acre parcel
with minimal rear yard space, leaving limited options for the proposed detached garage placement. The garage would
be on the north side of the existing home with a small extension of the current driveway to the east, leading to the
garage. The owner’s property shares a common boundary with the BR zone. As such, the proposed garage is a few feet
from a commercial office building, which abuts the Livingston property’s side and front property line much closer to the
right-of-way (ROW), than the proposed garage.
Greg Wall asked about the Historic Preservation training that was held recently to ask if this request was relevant to the
training. Erin Christensen also asked about 11-17-050 regarding garages “no encroachment under any circumstance into
front yard except side yard” – she asked if that ordinance overrides the request or if the request overrides the
ordinance. Alex indicated that the special exception would override the zoning restriction. Shannon pointed out that
there was going to be a basement and noted that some residents have inquired about that. If it is an accessory dwelling
unit (ADU), the applicant needs to go through the conditional use permit process and at that, the owner must live on
site. Alex wanted to make it clear to the applicant that there can be no living in this basement unless a conditional use
permit is approved and the owner lives on site as stated above.
Rodney Miller (resident) asked if that included short-term rentals, Alex replied yes.
John David asked about the tree in the front of the home, as the garage will be just east of it. David Livingston noted
that the tree was taken down, since it was rotting.
David Livingston (139 N Main St.) said he wanted to put a garage on the property to limit the parking on the street. He
chose to put a basement in to use as a “shop”. He has the same garage at his home on Main St. the only difference is the
side-loading garage. The reason he is asking for special exception on the north end of the home is that he fears on the
south end, it would look out of place.
Greg asked if he wanted to rent that basement out, David responded that at this time, no. Erin asked about the
elevations and on the east side, she asked about the small covering. David responded that it is a covering for the stairs
that lead to the basement, Erin also asked about materials that will be used, since the Historical Architect will be
reviewing the plan. Shannon said that it is not required for the Architect to review ADU’s, as she mainly does homes but
if the Commission wants that as a requirement, then it can be arranged. John David asked the square footage and the
layout of the shop. David said there would be one support post and two steel posts in the middle of the shop. Square
footage is approximately 750 top and bottom. Greg asked on the flooring, David responded it is a b-deck with a 7-inch
slab. Alex said he wants to open the Public Hearing but beforehand, he explained that while he understands that nearby
residents have concerns about some items (renting), that is not the issue nor the application that is presented hereYou can also read
