Eagle Mountain City Council, 2 April 2019

Councìlmember Curtis moved to øpprove the consent agendø, removíng ítem 12.4. for farther discussíon, and addìng items 14.A., 15.A., ønd 16.A. Councílmember Clørk seconded the motíon. Those votíng aye: Donnø Burnham, Colhy Curtís, Benjamin Reaves, Stephønie Grícìas, ønd Melíssa Clark The motìon passed wìth a unønímaus vote. SCHEDUTED ITEMS 12, PRELIMINARY PLAT 12.A. Lone Tree Plat F Planning Manager Michael Hadley said a preliminaryplat with 163 units was approved for Lone Tree Plat F on March 12,2006; 106 units have been platted so far. The applicant is proposing a new layout for the remaining 57 lots. The updated plan now shows a road connection to the Circle 5 Ranch preliminary plat. He presented the proposed landscape Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - March I 9, 201 9 Page l1 of20 plan and showed the location of the trail system and exercise areas. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with the following conditions: 1. If any retaining walls are required, the maximum height of retaining wall is five feet with a maximum of four tiers; retaining walls shall not be located any closer than ten feet from a home; 2. An updated landscape/park plan shall be provided, addressing the changes discussed in the meeting; 3. A bench drain on the top of any retaining wall area and above steep lots shall be installed; 4. The average slope for each lot shall be calculated and submitted, with each lot maintaining a significant building envelope; 5. All dead-end roads include sufficient tum-around areas, as required by Fire and Municipal Code; 6. The name of the plat remains Lone Tree F; 7. All blasting complies with Municipal Code; and 8. All lots show building envelopes. Applicant Brian Haskell explained the plan was modified due to a survey examining the rock depth throughout the property. They redesigned the road layout to avoid the rock areas, as the previous preliminary plat went through those areas. V/ith the new layout, Walnut Road is the only road that goes through the rock bed" This will minimize the amount of rock mitigation the project requires. Mr. Haskell explained their desire to finish the park to provide a nice completed amenity for the community. They worked with staff to incorporate the detention/park area in one large park in order to create a more usable area with walking paths and exercise stations. The redesign adds additional costs to the construetion. Utilities will be relocated as a result of the redesign. He stated the additional work is worth the expense because they desire to create a better community. City staff and the adjacent landowner requested the road connection to Circle 5 Ranch. Councilmember Gricius asked if the original plat was feasible, as she prefers that design. She expressed concern regarding the higher density next to existing residences. Mr. Haskell said the old plan will have a more significant impact to residents and will require more rock mitigation. Councilmembor Curtis expressed concem regarding smaller lots adjacent to existing homes. He said this is a change to what existing homeowners were expecting. Councilmember Clark asked if the applicant had any other creative solutions to the issues the original plat presents. She explained she wants to respect the fact that adjacent landowners purchased properties when the original preliminary plat was in place. Mr. Haskell explained the presented plat is not their first draft; they have been working on this plan for almost a year. They are trying to balance usability and minimize impact to the community. He said twelve of the 57 lots are below 6,000 square feet in this plan. He said the Lone Tree subdivision has lots that are smaller than 6,000 square feet; this plan is consistent with the subdivision. He stated he is open to options or alternatives. Councilmember Gricius asked if a lot could be removed with the lancl included in the surrounding lots, and expressed concerns regarding the reduced lot sizes adjacent to existing homes. Mr. Haskell said they coulcl consider that option. Mr. Haskell explained the existing preliminary plat did not take the slope or rock into consideration when it was designed, and stated it will have a much more significant impact to the hillsides" This is what drove the decision to change the layout. Councilmember Clark stated there aro surprises that come up in the development process which require the developer to adjust plans. Councilmember Burnham asked if the lots also were adjusted to avoid rock, or if they only made changes to the roads. She expressed concern that residents would encounter significant expenses due to rock to improve their properties. Mr. Haskell said they have mapped out the rock areas and designed the lots to ensure they are not significantly impacted with rock, as described by a resi<lent during publie comment. He said he can show the Council where ho believes the rock exists. Councilmember Reaves asked why the applicant is proposing this change now. Mr. Haskell said market conditions are such that the demand exists, so the natural course is to begin this phase of development. He said they would like to finish the park and the only way to complete that park area is to develop the surrounding homes and bring in utilities and infrastructure. He does not know when construction of the third phase will begin. Mr. Mumford explained if the original plat is developed, current park standards would not apply to the project. If the plat is amended, the project would need to comply with current standards. Mr. Haskell explained the proposed park has significantly more trail than required by Municipal Code, but stated it is the right thing to do, as it ties the parks together. Councilmember Reaves asked the applicant why he is willing to comply with the park requirements but not the ridgeline ordinances. Mr. Haskell stated they have not communicated to staff or the Council that they will not'comply with the ridgeline ordinance. Councilmember Reaves stated the proposed plan does not comply. Mr. Mumford clarified that the ridgelines are protected in the updated plan and explained the slopes are calculated with aR average for each lot. The plan complies with the slope ordinance. Councilmember Burnham asked if the applicant would comply with the blasting ordinance. Mr. Haskell said they will comply with all City ordinances. Councilmember Curtis confirmed with the applicant where the rock shelf exists in the projeet" Discussion ensued regarding blasting in other areas of the City. Mr. Haskell said V/alnut Road has been designed to follow land contours in order to minimize cuts and necessary rock mitigation. Councilmember Curtis asked Mr" Haskell if he would be willing to table the item to find a solution to the smaller lots near existing homes. Mr. Haskell stated that is not his preference, but he is willing to work with the City to accomplish their goals. Councilmembers Gricius and Burnham agreed that a lot should be removed to increase the lot sizes adjacent to existing homes. Councilmember Burnham expressed appreciation that the applicant moved the roads to minimize rock mitigation. She clarified that even though the City has a blasting ordinance, blasting permits are not always approved. Councilmember Curtis asked if a condition of approval can be placed that allows the if applicant to finalize the preliminary plat with City staff. Councilmember Reaves asked stafl is prepared to discuss concessions with the applicant if a lot is removed from the plan. Mr. Mumford stated the applicant has made several changes to the plans according to Development Review Committee feedback. Councilmember Clark stated residents expressed concerns regarding the curve of Walnut Road and asked Fire Chief Ross Fowlks to address those concerns. Chief Fowlks stated the road design does not present a problem for emergency access. He said the secondary egress is a benefit to the Fire Department, as well. Councilmember Gricius asked if the applicant has something in mind that the City could offer in order to remove a lot from the plan. Mr. Haskell said he would prefer to evaluate options regarding removing a lot in order to discuss potential City concessions. He stated if the plan is feasible without asking anything of the City, they are willing to adjust the plan as needed" Resident Tyler Woodward expressed concerns regarding drainage. Mr. Cook recommended Mr. V/oodward contact City Engineer Chris Trusty regarding his concerns.

Councilmember Grícìus moved to tøble the Lone Tree Pløt F Preliminary PIøt to øllow the applicønt to lessen the ìmpact the smøller lots have on exìsting houses. Councílmember Reaves seconded the motion. Councilmember Reaves asked that the motion include alternative measures other than blasting. Councilmember Clark asked that the motion also include direction to staff and the applicant to address and mitigate flooding concerns in the area. AMENDED MOTION: Councílmember Gricius moved to table the Lone Tree PIut F Preliminøry Plat w íth the fo llowíng co n ditíon s : L The applicønt shøll revìew ønd ødjast the plan to lessen the ímpact the smaller lots have on exísting homes; 2. The plan shøll ínclude alternatíve meøsures other than blasting þr rock mitígøtion; ønd 3" The applicønt ønd staff shall address ønd mítigøte flooding concerns. Councílmember Reaves seconded the motíon. Those voting nye: Donnø Burnhøm, Colhy Cartis, Benjamin Reøves, Stephaníe Gricius, ønd Melíssa Clark The motíon passed with ø unanimous vote" Councilmember Burnham stated an adjacent property was draining to her property, causing flooding, and she explained properties must retain water and not drain to adjacent lots. She requested residents with drainage issues contact the City" Mr. Mumford clarified there is little the Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - March 19, 2019 Page l4 of20 City can do regarding flooding between existing homes, as that is a civil issue between property owners; however, staff can work with developers regarding drainage during construction. He said he will follow up with Mr. Trusty regarding this property's drainage. 13. EAGLE HEIGHTS VILLAGE 13.A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPEAL 13.8. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING - An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Approving the Eagle Heights Village Master Development Plan. I3"C. SITE PLAN Mr. Jensen said the applicant-proposed plan for 308 duplex units is located on approximately 51.38 acres, for a project density of 5.99 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has proposed that the master development plan also serve as the preliminary plat. The applicant will be required to dedicate 5.5 feet along Eagle Mountain Boulevard for the road's required right-oÊway width" Regarding safe routes to school, the nearest trail to Mountain Trails Elementary School on the south side of Eagle Mountain Boulevard is 1,800 feet away; there is also a trail on the north side of Eagle Mountain Boulevard. If the Council requires the applicant to install a trail on the south side of the road, the applicant should receive amenity points for the connection. The plan largely meets connectivity requirements with one block being 42 feú too long, which is due to the curvature of the road. The Council can allow an exception for that road length or require a mid-block connection. Mr. Jensen explained the applicant is proposing an open space buy down of 3"95 acros, with 3.17 aeres of open space provided in the project. The applicant is proposing I,976 amenity points, which includes points for clubhouses and lighting. The Planning Commission did not feel the clubhouses warranted amenity points, but did feel the lighting was an appropriate use for points" Mr. Jensen presented landscape plans for the project, and stated staff has not received updated plans showing the pool and splash pad parking area. The plan includes two clubhouses, tot lots, community gardens, a basketball court, and playground areas. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with the following seven conditions: 1. Rock/stone shall make up at least 30%o of the building and be useel on all sides of the buildings; 2. Five and a half feet of right-of-way along Eagle Mountain Boulevard shall be dedicated to the City at the time of plat recording; 3. An additional road connection shall be provided between Oak Boulevard and Stallion Street (in the northem section of the project); 4. Collector road fencing shall be required adjacent to Eagle Mountain Boulevard, take Mountain Road, and future Airport Road; 5. Applicant shall comply with any traffic mitigation required by the City Engineer; Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - March 19, 2019 Page l5 of20 6" Additional open space shall be provided, combined with an existing open space area to create alarger, more usable park area with a grass play field; and 7. Parking stalls shall be added to the pool area according to current parks and open space mater plan. Kirt Peterson with Horizon Development explained his company owns and operates 1,200 similar units across the Wasatch Front, and has been in operation since 2003. He said they include a large number of amenities in their projects as it provides a high stanclard of living. He described the units, landscaping, and the planned amenities for this project. He explained some features of the project include decorative concrete block wall fencing, two community centers, a full-size basketball court, parks with gazebos and built-in barbeques, playgrounds, and concrete garden boxes available for resident use. He presented the planned amenities in the community centers and explained they intend to use high-end finishes. He explained rather than including two smaller swimming pools, they have planned one pool that is larger than the two required pools combined" He said they have designed a splash pad which will use recirculated water, and they have added sixteen parking stalls at the Planning Commission's request. Councilmember Clark asked for dimensions on the splash pad. Mr. Peterson said he does not have dimensions at this time; they have not built splash pads in previous projects, but added it to Eagle Heights Village as they received a request for one, and they have budgeted $130,000 for the splash pad project. Councilmember Clark stated she researched splash pads while on the Parks and Recreation Board and she understands the expense and components of splash pads. She would like to see more concrete plans for their splash pad design. The system at Cory Wride Memorial Park cost over $150,000. She stated developers have committed to installing splash pads in the past which were not built due to the high cost of construction. Mr. Peterson explained Horizon Development has an estimator who has estimated billions of dollars of projects. He said if they commit to providing a splash pad, they will construct it, and the City can hold them to their plans. They can bring the splash pad details with the master development agreement. He explained he has worked with Mr. Mumford during Mr. Mumford's time with Logan City and stated Horizon Development always fulfills their commitments. He invited the Councilmembers to visit his other projects. Councilmember Reaves saicl the Municipal Code requires two pools based on the number of units within this project. Mr. Peterson said the square footage ofthe single pool exceeds the requirement of the two pools. Mr. Mumford said the pool requirement in Municipal Code is a minimum of 1,000 square feet for up to 250 units. He explained the Silverlake developer requested to build a single pool, instead of the two required pools. Staff researched recent City Council discussions regarding that subdivision's pool, and the Council recommended it be four square feet per unit. He said Mr. Peterson sized this development's pool to the four square feet per unit requirement applied to Silvertake. Mr. Peterson said the four square feet per unit size would be 1,200 square feet and the pool they are proposing is approximately 1,340 square feet. Councilmember Curtis said the Council was told the decision on the Silverlake pool would not set a precedent. Mr. Mumford clarified the four square feet per unit is not required in Municipal Code, and said the Council has discretion regarding this decision. Eagle Mountain City Courcil Meeting - March 19, 2019 Page l6 of20 Mayar Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. Jeff Ruth spoke against the proposeclplan and expressed concerns that the applicant is only improving two thirds of the roadway width along Lake Mountain Road, and regarding the entrance on Eagle Mountain Boulevard" Mayor lVestmoreland closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Mr. Mumford clarified developers are required to complete half width plus ten feet of roadway; this provides enough asphalt for two lanes of traffic. This may add up to the two thirds width, ¿s stated durirrg the public hearing. Regarding the Eagle Mountain Boulevard entrance, an island is located at Eagle Point I which spread out the access points. The Planning Commission asked the applicant to install a similar entry point across from this island, but it is not required in Municipal Code. He said the City Engineer will look at the area to ensure a safe crossing exists. Regarding item 13.A., the appeal of the condition applied to the conditional use permit, Mr. Jensen explained the applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's condition that states the eastern row of homes shall be changed to single-family homes, according to Municipal Code. He said the Planning Commission discussed the following findings during the meeting: the Tier III dwelling units in this location conflict with the intent of the Eagle Mountain City General Plan (EMMC 17.95.060(D)), and the Tier III dwelling units create a population density that is not compatible with planned uses for this property and adjacent properties. Mr. Jensen explained the Council shall determine if the land use authority in this situation (the Planning Commission) applied a reasonable condition on the conditional use permit that reasonably relates to mitigating anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use. This determination should include findings of what detrimental effects are being mitigated, how the condition mitigates the detrimental effects, and what applioable standards in Munieipal Code support the condition" Mr. Peterson said the optional condition noted in Seotion 17.95.80(D)6 of Municipal Code states population densiry of land use limitations or land capability and/or vicinity relationship make it appropriate to do so to protect health, safety, and welfare. He stated the proposed plan meets Municipal Code. He explained the General Plan designation of Foothill Residential does not govern the proposal, and said he does not understand how changing one ro\ry of homes provides health, safety, or welfare for the City.

Councilmember Gricius moved that the Cíty Coancíl decisíon be øs follows: In accordance wìth Eagle Mountøín City Code 17.05.180, the øppeul nuthoríty møy remønd the applicøtíon with theír Jíndings back to the lønd use authoríty þr further øctíon. As the øppeal authoríty, the City CouncílJínds thøt the Planning Commíssìon føíled Ío íssue wrítten jïndíngs of føct and conclusìons af Iøw regarding the detrímentøl impacts of the condítional use or how the condítíons ímposeú hy the Planning Commíssíon mítigate the reasonøble ønticípated detrimentøl elþcts. Thereþre, it is the decision of the Cíty CouncíI to remund Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - March 19,2019 Page l7 of20 tke condítíonal use permít høck to the Planning Commissíon to íssue wrítten jindings of føct and conclusíons of law in support of the approvøl und the condítíons imposed by the Planning Commíssíon. Councilmember Barnham seconded the motion. Councilmember Reaves suggested adding "while the Planning Commission acting according to Code" before the statement that the Planning Commission failed to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Mayor Westmoreland stated it is not necessary to add that point to the motion, but appreciated the clarification" Mr. Peterson asked if the motion only sends the condition back to the Planning Commission, or if it will be a new discussion regarding the conditional use permit. Mr. Cook clarified the motion remands the item to the Planning Commission to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the Commission may determine how to address those findings" Those voting aye: Donnø Burnhøm, Colby Cartis, Benjømin Reaves, Stephønie Grícíus, and Melíssa Clarlc The motíon pøssed wíth ø unanímous vote" Mr. Cook suggested the Council table items 13.8 and 13.C", contingent upon the Planning Commission's decision regarding item 13.4.

Councilmember Burnham moved to table the ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utøh, øpproving the Eagle Heíghts Vílløge Master Development Pløn ønd the Eagle Heights Village Site Pløn contingent upon the Planníng Commission's decision regardíng the Eagle Heights Village Conditional Use Permít øppeøL. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Mr. Peterson asked that Council have a discussion regarding items 13.8. and 13.C., as he would like comments from the Council to ensure they address concems moving forward. Councilmember Curtis said depending on the decision of the Planning Commission, the Council's direction may change. Mr. Cook stated it is at the Council's discretion to have a discussion with the applicant. He stated it would be appropriate For the Council to provide direction to the applicant, so that if the conditional use permit is approved, the applicant may begin working towards meeting the Council's directives. Councilmember Clark stated her preference to hold any discussion until after the Planning Commission has made a decision. She asked the applicant to provide an updated parks plan for review. Mr. Peterson clarified he only wanted to discuss the amenities and how they are being treated, the buy down of amenity points, and the block that is over the length limit of connectivity standards. Councilmember Curtis said he will not grant a buy down and said he will not approve amenity points for amenities that do not currently have points assigned in Municipal Code" He stated the applicant needs to abide by Municipal Code. Councilmember Reaves said sufficient feedback has been given to the applicant and directed Mr. Peterson to follow Municipal Code to the letter. Those voting øye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtß, Benjamin Reaves, Stephanie Grìcíus, ønd Melissa Clark The motíon pøssed with a unønímous vote. Mayor Westmoreland asked the Council if they would like to continue discussion, as per the applicant's request. Councilmember Clark said two Councilmembers were clear regarding feedback and stated the Council is ready to move on to the next item. 17. CITY COUNCIL/MAYOR'S BUSINESS Councilmember Curtis See Board Report. Councilmember Burnham See Board Report. Councilmember Reaves None. Councilmember Clark See Board Report. Councilmember Gricius See Board Report. Mavor Westmoreland None. 18. CITY COI.INCIL BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Councilmember Curtis Councilmember Curtis expressed appreciation for the Senior Council and said they have many activities planned. Councilmember Burnham Councilmember Burnham informed residents Soda Shack is now open in City Center Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark said she attended a previous Youth Council meeting and they expressed a desire to shadow the City Council during an upcoming Council meeting" Councilmember Gricius Councilmember Gricius said Unified Fire Authority is updating the fireworks restriction map and it should be presented soon. Eagle Mountain City Cowrcil Meeting - March 19,2019 Page l9 of20 19. COMMLINICATION ITEM 19.4. Upcoming Agenda ltems 20. ADJOURNMENT

Councilmember Reøves moved to ødjourn the meeting øt 9:08 p.m. Councìlmember Clørk seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Colby Curtís, Stephaníe Grìcíus, Benjømín Reøves, Donna Burnhøm, ønd Melíssø Clark