Eagle Mountain City Council, 19 February 2019

Donna Burnhøm moved to øpprove the consent agenda. Melissø Clark seconded the motion. Those votíng øye: Colhy Curtis, Stephanie Grícìas, Benjamìn Reaves, Donna Burnhøm, and Melissa Clark The motíon pøssed wìth a unanimous vote. SCHEDULED ITEMS 13. PRELIMINARY PLATS & SITE PLANS 13.4 The Landing at Eagle Mountain Phase 4 Planning Manager Michael Hadley explained the proposed project has 29 lots and removes a road that no longer connects to a City road, as roads in the Colonial Park development are private roads. He said an issue to consider is that the property is no longer owned by a single entity. Councilmember Burnham asked if the City can mediate a discussion between the two property owners. City Attorney Jeremy Cook said staff did approach Monte Vista Ranch regarding the property and can potentially attempt discussions again. His concern is the appearance of the City giving one party leverage in the negotiations. Councilmember Reaves said he is not convinced that all avenues of negotiation have been exhausted. He expressed the desire to have the other property owner in attendance to discuss the issue and asked the applicant if he can do more to obtain the land in question. Applicant Cameron Spencer said more can always be done; however, forward movement depends on the property owner to the north. He said he was prepared to pay fair market price for the land, and still is. The price per acre Monte Vista Ranch requested for the unbuildable property in question is higher than any other property price within all zones in Eagle Mountain City. His opinion is that an approval from the City Council will allow the applicant to reengage with Monte Vista Ranch to attempt to purchase the land at a reasonable price. Applicant Andy Flemm said he understands the Council's reluctance to use eminent domain, but his previous experience with eminent domain causes him to believe it to be a good option for mediation. A third person independently values the property. If the Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - February 19,2019 Page 12 of 2l seller is not happy with the value, he can have another appraisal completed, and the buyer and seller can use those figures to negotiate. Councilmember Curtis asked if the discussions between the applicant and Monte Vista Ranch were heated. Mr. Flemm stated they were not. After multiple unretumed emails and voicemails, Mr. Mumford's office was able to facilitate a phone conversation between Mr. Flemm and Monte Vista Ranch. Mr. Flemm explained his desire to purchase the land, and the Monte Vista Ranch representative stated a purchase price. The price was so unreasonable that further conversation was not necessary. Mr. Mumford said the fee in lieu is $3,750 per lot, plus the appraised value of the land. If this application is approved, the City will appraise the property for the fee in lieu payment, so the City will have a value associated with the land under discussion. Councilmember Reaves asked if it is coÍìmon practice for cities to use eminent domain to facilitate negotiations. Mr. Mumford said it is not. He explained previously, the City attempted to mediate a negotiation between Monte Vista Ranch and another property owner regarding an easement, and the City's involvement was not helpful. He recommended against mediation between the two entities in this instance. Councilmember Curtis suggested the Council table the application for further discussion. He said it would be helpful to have a representative from Monte Vista Ranch present for the discussion. He expressed concerns about future problems the orphaned land may cause but stated he does not believe eminent domain is an appropriate action for the City to take. Councilmember Clark stated that not taking an action on the application gives the appearance that the City is taking the side of Monte Vista Ranch. Councilmember Reaves said the Council is not prepared to make a decision at this time. He asked Mr. Spencer if the offer from Monte Vista Ranch was a one-time offer. Mr. Spencer said the offer was stated as such, and the difference between the asking price and market value was so greatthat they did not pursue the issue further. Mr. Spencer stated his application meets all Municipal Code requirements and stands on its own merit. The land in question around his proposed plan is already orphaned land; this application does not create orphaned land. He said the Council can add a condition of approval requiring him to continue working with Monte Vista Ranch, which will allow an opportunity to readdress the land purchase. He said Monte Vista Ranch was notified and invited to the meeting and chose not to attend. Mayor V/estmoreland asked Mr. Mumford if the proposal meets all obligations in the Municipal Code. Mr. Mumford said yes; the Council has the authority to approve a fee in lieu of open space. Councilmember Curtis expressed concem that an approval of the preliminary plat creates a problem for the City that it cunently does not have. Mr. Cook said without the approval of the preliminary plat, the land is undeveloped; the worst-case scenario would Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - February 19,2019 Page l3 of2l be for the land to remain undeveloped for an additional twenty years. He asked if it is reasonable to require a developer to acquire land from a third party for a City park. Councilmember Clark said the land cannot be developed. She does not want to penalize the applicant for a third party not negotiating in good faith, and the applicant has done everything the Municipal Code requires. She said the previously approved plat is no longer valid, as the property is not owned by a single entity. Councilmember Gricius stated she is not concerned about the orphaned land in question, as it could be worse. There are areas within the City that are neglected. Councilmember Clark stated this application is an example of why master development agreements need to have expiration dates. Councilmember Curtis said the master development agreement is expired and asked how the plat has vested rights. Councilmember Clark said approval of this project reduces the amount of unimproved land within the City. She stated the Council can deny the project and leave the land undeveloped for an additional twenty years, become a mediator between the two entities, or approve the project. Councilmember Gricius said the Council is the Land Use Authority for the City. It is up to the Council to make a decision that allows the best possible outcome for residents. Councilmember Curtis said it is not the Council's responsibility to make the project feasible for the applicant. He does not believe all avenues have been exhausted. He said the City should have a discussion with Monte Vista Ranch regarding their upcoming projects. Councilmember Clark recommended tabling the item. Councilmember Gricius said if the item is tabled, the City needs to help facilitate negotiations, as the applicant has made multiple attempts to work with Monte Vista Ranch. Councilmember Clark asked if there is anything the City can do that has not been attempted already. Mr. Mumford said staff can discuss options with City Administrator Ifo Pili. Mr. Cook said the City has already facilitated discussions between the applicant and Monte Vista Ranch. Mr. Spencer reiterated the proposal meets Municipal Code. He said an additional two weeks will not allow enough time to solve the purchase price issues. He said an approval that also asks him to readdress the issue with Monte Vista Ranch allows them to move forward. Mayor V/estmoreland agreed that setting an arbitrary deadline of two weeks does not resolve the issue. Ms. Kofoed said a resident in attendance \ryas under the impression that this item was a public hearing item. Eagle Mountain resident Jeff Ruth said he lives close to the proposed development and prefers approval of the project. He said the approval may force Monte Vista Ranch to develop the vacant property. If not approved, all the land will stay vacant. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - February 19,2019 Page 14 of2l Councilmember Clark asked if concern regarding the small amount of land around the applicant's project is a large enough issue to delay the application, which meets Municipal Code. Councilmember Gricius said it is not. The orphaned pieces of land will be in back yards, and homes in the development will reduce weeds and dust for adjacent residents. Councilmember Curtis said the Council tabling the item is not delaying the project. He reiterated his belief that approving the plan means the City will take on risk.

Donna Burnham moved to øpprove The Landing at Eøgle Mountaín Phase 4 Amendedpreliminøry plat wíth thefollowing condítions: 1. The applícant møkes reøsonøble attempts to work wíth the Iandowner to resolve the strip of land to the north ønd add ít to the lots on the north side; 2. The applícant makes reøsonøble øttempts to work with the løndowner lo dedicøte the eastern pìece of lønd in the northeast corner to the Cíty, to be ødded to Walden Pørk; 3. The applícant removes one lot and distributes the lønd to the lots on the north side of the project; ønd 4. The applícant is øllowed to frontJoød garøges and not reqaire the homes to utilize the ølleywøyþr rear-loøding garages. Stephanie Grícíus seconded the motíon. Councilmember Reaves asked what the applicant will do to resolve the issue. Mr. Spencer said he will work in good faith with Monte Vista Ranch. It is in the best interest of his company to add the orphaned property to the lots on the north side of the project. The property on the east side would be used as parks and open space dedicated to the City, reducing the fee in lieu amount. He stated they are months away from breaking ground, as they still need to go through the final plat process. Councilmember Reaves asked if the applicant will install a fence around the orphaned land and asked if the section to the north is large enough for a trail. Mr. Spencer said they do not have plans to install a fence at this time, as Municipal Code does not require it. The land is only one foot wide in parts, so there is not enough space for a trail. Those voting øye: Colby Curtís, Stephanie Gricius, Benjømín Reøves, Donnø Burnham, snd Melíssø Clørk The motion pøssed with a unanímous vote. 13.8 Silverlake Clubhouse and Pool Site Plan Mr. Mumford said the clubhouse has been expanded to 5,000 square feet, and the pool has been increased from 1,200 to 1,800 square feet. He said the applicant's intent is to include the units south of Tickville Wash in the amenity area. An additional fourteen units have been added to the plan, as approved by the Council at a previous meeting. The development now contains 264 townhome units. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - February 19,2019 Page l5 of2l Councilmember Clark said a clause in the Municipal Code states the Planning Commission may recommend a pool size that accommodates 35%o of the residents in the development and said the proposed pool does not accommodate that total. Councilmember Curtis said the Council can either limit the pool use to the multifamily units only or require a larger pool that could accommodate the single-family homes in addition to the multifamily units. Councilmember Reaves asked if the residents who pay higher HOA dues will receive a greater benefit than those who pay lesser dues. Mr. Tatton said the areas with higher HOA dues include additional amenities. He said they consider the pool, clubhouse, and coÍrmon open space as an amenity package. As it is a package, each amenity does not serve 35olo of the population at one time. For example, the parks do not include enough swings so that 35o/o of the population can swing at the same time. He said if 35% of the City population attended a City Council meeting, City Hall could not accommodate them. Councilmember Curtis said residents may not understand that they will not able to use the pool when they desire to, if that many units are permitted access. Mr. Tatton explained the area which is allowed to utilize the pool has been disclosed to residents. Councilmember Clark said the pool is not large enough to allow I,200 units access. Councilmember Curtis asked Mr. Cook if the Council can limit the use to multifamily units only or require a larger pool facility. Mr. Cook said the Council can require either of those options. He said the Municipal Code can be interpreted to argue against allowing developers to spread the cost of pools required with high density developments across the lower density single-family homes. Councilmember Burnham asked how the Council can prevent an HOA from assessing dues to single-family homes not in the amenity area. Mr. Cook said that can be addressed in the HOA documents. He said the declarant can commit to structure the CC&Rs to that effect, but in the future, homeowners can vote to change the pool access. Councilmember Reaves asked if there is room to expand the pool in its current location, while leaving the clubhouse as it is currently designed. Mr. Tatton explained to the east is the planned extension area of Silverlake Parkway, to the north is Golden Eagle Road, and to the south is a planned park. Councilmember Clark said the pool in the proposal is 100 square feet smaller than the Northmoor/Southmoor pool, which is underserving that development. Mr. Tatton said Mr. Jensen suggested using the Evans Ranch pool's square footage to unit ratio in the Silverlake pool design. He said the fenced areathat includes the pool is 6,000 square feet. He said he is providing a large clubhouse, deck area, and other amenities, which are not provided in other developments in the City. He asked what size of pool the Council would like to see in order to allow all1,200 units use. Eagle Mountain City Coturcil Meeting - February 19,2019 Page 16 of2l Councilmember Clark said the package is well put together, but the Council is concemed with allowing 1,200 units use of the amenity. She said additional pools are likely necessary. Mr. Tatton said they can decrease the size of the clubhouse and reclaim that area for the pool. They increased the clubhouse from 4,250 to 5,000 square feet at the Planning Commission's request. Mr. Mumford said every multifamily project requires a clubhouse, and a 1,200-square foot clubhouse is required for every 250 multifamily units. Mr. Tatton said he can use the Evan's Ranch size of 3.67 square feet per dwelling unit and determine if that is a feasible size for the Silverlake pool. Councilmember Clark stated the Evans Ranch pool is not vetted yet, as the area is not built out. Councilmember Curtis said 3.67 square feet per dwelling unit is a reasonable size and places the Silverlake pool in the same category as other community pools, but he would prefer to use what is dictated in the Municipal Code and require a pool with 4.0 square feet per dwelling unit. Discussion ensued regarding the origins of the Municipal Code and the reasoning for the limitation set of 250 units per pool. Mr. Cook stated allowing 1,200 units to utilize a pool that is meant for 250 units is not reasonable but advised against applying the Tier III and Tier IV requirements to the single-family units. Councilmember Clark asked if the clubhouse needed to be resized according to Municipal Code, similarly to the pool's resizing. Councilmember Burnham stated there is not space for a larger clubhouse. Mr. Mumford explained Evans Ranch does not have a clubhouse; they were required to have a clubhouse according to the number of units built but were allowed to build a pool in its place. Discussion ensued regarding clubhouse size requirements, and staff and the Council determined the Silverlake clubhouse should be 2,400 square feet. Mr. Tatton said he would prefer to retum to the original clubhouse size of 4,250 square feet in order to avoid a redesign and can look for space to build a pool the size the Council wants. He mentioned that he can include an in-ground spa to help meet the pool size requirement. Mayor Westmoreland asked the Council to provide specific requirements for the pool and clubhouse sizes. Councilmember Reaves said he would like larger facilities, maximizing the space available. He asked Mr. Tatton to attempt to design a pool with 3.67 to 4.0 square feet per dwelling unit. Mr. Mumford asked the Council if they were willing to allow clubhouse square footage over the required 2,400 square feet to be used against the pool size requirement. Councilmember Curtis said he is not comfortable removing 1,850 square feet from the pool requirement. Councilmember Clark said removing 1,850 square feet from the Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - February 19,2019 Page 17 of2l required pool size still offers a large pool; adding an in-ground spa also adds to the amenity package. A large clubhouse is desired, as it is used year-round. Mr. Tatton said his goal is to return with a plan that the Council will approve. Councilmember Curtis asked Mr. Tatton to inform staff of the updated design before the project retums to the Council.

Melissa Clørk moved to table SílverLake Clubhouse and Pool site plan to allow the øpplicant to redesign the pløn with thefollowing requirements: L The øpplicant increøses the síze of the pool to match støffs HOA pool study; and 2. The applicant ensures the clubhouse sqaøre footage meets Municípal Code requirements. Colby Curtis seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding setting specific pool and clubhouse size requirements. Mr. Tatton clarified that the Council will not require a 4,800-square foot pool and a 5,000- square foot clubhouse.

AMENDED Melissø Clørk moved to tøble SìlverLake Clubhouse and Pool site pløn to øllow the applicant to redesign the plan with the followíng requirements: 1. The applicant increøses the pool size to be within the HOA pool study range, up to 4.0 squarefeet per dwellíng unit; and 2. The applicønt consíders what is required ín Municipal Code for the clubhouse square footøge. Colby Curtis seconded the motíon. Councilmember Burnham stated the motion does not reflect the fact that the applicant can use extra square footage in the clubhouse towards the pool size requirement.

AMENDED Melissa Clurk moved to tøble SilverLøke Cluhhouse ønd PooI síte plan. Colby Curtis seconded the motíon. Those votíng øye: Colby Curtís, Stephanie Gricius, Benjømìn Reaves, Donnø Burnhøm, ønd Melissa Clørlc

Colby Curtis moved to øpprove Skyline Ridge Phase 2 Preliminøry Plats 5 and 6 with thefollowing conditions: L An updated slope stabìlìty report ís providedþr both plats; 2. Maximum height of retaining wøll is 5 feet wíth a muximam af 4 tiers, with all tìers to be evenly dívíded ín heíght. All retainíng walls should be ínspected by a lícensed geotechnícal engineer throughout the construction period and who will províde a letter at the completion of the project stating that the walls have been constructed per their recommendøtions and conþrm to typicøl construction requirements, includíng the stahílity and makeup of the materiøIs. Retøiníng wølls shøll not be locøted any closer than 10 ft. from u home; 3. No blasting møy be used in thís project; 4. A fence and drainøge swøIe shøll be constructed on the top of any retaíníng wøll area; .t Homes shøll be designed with the hílls¡de to reduce necessøry cuttìng/grading and retøìning wall heights; 6. Lots thøt øverøge 25% or greøter shall be removed; 7. All retøining wølls, drainage, and requiredfence ølong the top of the retaining wølls shall be completed beþre home construction in either of the phøses; ønd 8. Two more pørking stalls shall be added in Track B park for snow removø1. Benjømin Reøves seconded the motìon. Those voting øye: Colby Cufüs, Stephønie Gricíus, Benjømin Reaves, Donnø Burnham, and Melissa Clørlc