Eagle Mountain City Council, 16 April 2019

Councilmember Grìcius moved to proclaim the last Friday in Apríl as Arbor Day in Eagle Mountain City. Councílmember Curtís seconded the motion. Those votíng aye: Colby Curtis, Stephaníe Gricíus, Donnø Barnham, and Melissø Clørk The motíon passed with ø unanimous vote. CONSENT AGENDA 10. AGREEMENT 10.4. Services Agreement - Farmers Market 11. BOND RELEASES 11.4. Lake View Estates Phase A Plat I - Out of Warranty 11.8. Evans Ranch K-5 - Out of Warranty t2 CHANGE ORDERS I2.A. Change Order - Pony Express Parkway 2019 Widening Project 13. MINUTES 13.4. Aprll 2,2019 Minutes 14. RESOLUTIONS 14.A. Fireworks Map

Councilmember Clark moved to approve the consent øgenda, removing items 10 and 12 und add them øs scheduled items. Councílmember Cartis seconded the motion. Those votíng aye: Colby Curtis, Stephønie Grícíus, Donna Burnham, and Melissø Clark. The motion passed with ø unønimous vote. SCHEDULED ITEMS IO. AGREEMENT 10.4. Services Agreement This item was discussed after item I5.8 Economic Development Director Aaron Sanbom said residents have expressed an interest in a farmers market in the City. This is not something the City would like to manage, so a request for proposals was sent out to solicit qualified individuals to run a farmers market. The Cityreceived one response from the Painters, residents of Eagle Mountain, who would run the market as the Utah Farmers Market. The proposed location for the market is the north side of Cory Wride Memorial Park. The Utah Farmers Market would manage the event, to include obtaining vendors and market operations. Councilmember Clark confirmed that vendor parking will be in the dirt area, and the asphalt parking stalls will be for park visitors and market patrons. Mr. Sanborn said there are approximately 500 parking stalls and the park has sufficient space for a farmers market in addition to existing events and visitors. Councilmember Curtis said he loves the idea of a farmers market, but stated he has a few concerns. He asked if the man'agement company is a non-profit or for-profit entity, and stated he is concerned that the City is offering a company the space at no charge while allowing the company to retain all profits. He said he struggles with helping private corporations while providing services for the City. City Attorney Jeremy Cook clarified there are only two individuals who make up the management company, and that it is a for- profit organization. He said a non-profit company can still pay for services to organize an event while maintaining a non-profit status. Councilmember.Clark said the agreement could be a six-month trial, to be renegotiated next year. She stated residents ask for this service and the City does not want to manage ir. Mr. Cook explained the Painters are taking a risk and the City has limited the amount they can charge vendors and limited the size of the event. It is unlikely they will make a great deal ofmoney. Councilmember Burnham asked what the vendor fees are for the market. Mr. Cook said the management company will not charge farmers, and a scale is in place for charging commercial vendors. Councilmember Clark asked if there is a difference between a food truck or a vendor who brings in cottage bakery items. Mr. Cook said those bringing in home-baked goods would not be considered a food vendor. Mr. Sanborn confirmed the home-produced item vendors will be charged differently than food trucks. Utah Farmers Market representative Becky Painter said they intend the event to be a farmers market, instead of a market of produced items. Farmers can sell their produce for free. Vendors will be able to sell items produced at home, as that is an added value to the market. Councilmember Clark asked if Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits will be accepted. Ms. Painter said they have passed the deadline for applying for that option. She said the cost of insurance alone is $900, and the market will not even break even this year. She clarified that youth farmers will be charged $5 a day to sell products but can sell their produce for free. This is to encourage youth entrepreneurs. Ms. Painter explained itmay take years to build up the farmers market, but they are hopeful that it will become a successful event.

Councilmember Curtis moved to approve ün øgreement between Utah Farmers Market ønd Eøgle Mountaín Cítyfor the management of øførrners market at Cory B. Wride Memoriøl Pørk. Councìlmember Clørk seconded the motìon. Councilmember Clark asked if the City will limit food trucks at Cory Wride Memorial Park during the farmers market, and if the maximum of 50 food trucks stated in the agreement includes outside food tn¡cks not associated with the farmers market. City Recorder Fionnuala Kofoed explained food trucks are restricted by the City's permitting process. Councilmember Clark confirmed that food truck vendors will not be able to locate at the park during the farmers market without signing up as a vendor. Those voting øye: Colby Curtís, Stephaníe Gricius, Donna Barnham, and Melissø Clark. The motion pøssed with ø unønìmous vote. T2. CHANGE ORDERS I2.A. Change Order - Pony Express Parkway 2019 Widening Project This item was discussed after item 10.A. City Engineer Chris Trusty said the change order amount is based on the estimated construction costs to extend the Pony Express Parkway widening to Mid Valley Road. It is a five-lane road with a center median and bike path. The contractor working on the high school will install a left-tum lane at that site; they have already installed a right-turn lane. The turn lanes will be extended to a length of 400 feet; this will allow a stacking capacity of approximately twenty cars. City Administrator Ifo Pili said the City can borrow from the State Infrastructure Bank. If UDOT takes ownership of Pony Express Parkway, they would absorb that expense. He explained the funding can come from impact fees, borrowing from the City, or borrowing from the State Infrastructure Bank. He said they will bring the final funding options to the Council at alater meeting. The City's plan is still to widen Pony Express Parkway to Eagle Mountain Boulevard. Mayor Westmoreland said adding additional length to the road widening project will use a portion of the City's rainy day fund, so borrowing from the State Infrastructure Bank is a good option. This additional widening of Pony Express Parkway puts the road development a few of years ahead of schedule. Councilmember Clark said transportation is one of the main reasons for the City's existence. Councilmember Curtis asked what the rainy-day fund balance will be after the widening project is paid for. Mr. Pili explained this project will not be funded through the rainy-day fund. He said the City can borrow from the solid waste fund, which would be a transparent interfund transfer that does not have to be paid back. The State has not informed the City what the interest rate is for a loan through the State Infrastructure Bank, but the City expects it to be low. The State has $2 million available.

Councilmemher Clørk moved to øpprove the change order for the Pony Express Pørkway 2019 wídening project wíth Kenny Seng Constructíon. Councilmember Burnhøm seconded the motion, Those votìng øye: Colby * Curtis, Stephanie Gricíus, Donnø Burnhøm, and Melíssa Clarlc The motion passed wíth ø ununimous vote. I5. ORDINANCES/PUBLICHEARINGS 15.4. An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 17.38 for the Commercial Storage Zone. This item was díscussed øfter item 17.D. Community Development Director Steve Mumford said the applicant-proposed amendment increases the number of allowed moving vehicles to be displayed outside of a building or in front of a fence at moving storage facilities from six to twelve. He said the item was tabled at a previous City Council meeting to allow staff to research the amendment. Staff recommends an increase to ten vehicles. Sunset Storage owner Scott Weber stated his business has room for twenty vehicles. He explained the business rarely has more than twelve vehicles parked in the front parking area. He suggested the increase to twelve to allow trailers to be temporarily parked for pick up and drop off. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing øt 9:07 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed the hearing. Councilmember Curtis asked for the differences between the applicant's proposal and staffs recommendation. Mr. Mumford said currently the Municipal Code allows six moving vehicles to be displayed outside of a building or in front of a fence. Staff recommends allowing ten moving vehicles (six trucks and/or box trailers and up to four flatbed trailers). The applicant's proposal is twelve vehicles (eight trucks andlor box trailers and up to four flatbed trailers). 'Weber Mr. said his business has been storing the smaller moving trucks behind the building. He explained longer moving trucks are a challenge to park in the back of the business. He said the request for additional parking is not a marketing issue, but a lack of available space in the rear of the business. Councilmember Clark asked if the applicant's concern is that trucks are dropped off after business hours, causing them to be out of compliance. Mr. Weber said they have four trucks in the front of the business most of the time, but the Municipal Code includes flatbed trailers in the moving vehicle definition. He explainedparking moving vehicles in the back of the business creates liability issues. Discussion ensued regarding the differences between box trailers and flatbed trailers. Councilmember Burnham reminded the Council this amendment will apply to the entire City, not just Sunset Storage. Mr. V/eber stated it will only apply to his business, as Eagle Mountain Storage does not have room to park moving vehicles in front of the business. Mr. Mumford clarified the owner of Eagle Mountain Storage has discussed paving a section in front of his facility to allow for parking. Mayor Westmoreland asked staff to explain the intent of the current Municipal Code regarding the number of allowed vehicles. Mr. Mumford said it is to avoid visual clutter, and to allow some vehicles to be placed in the front of the business without taking up too many visitor parking stalls. He showed examples of other moving and storage facilities in surrounding cities. Councilmember Gricius asked if the amendment would be unnecessary if the applicant extended the existing wall. Councilmember Clark said that was suggested previously, but the applicant explained that would cause the area to be too small for the trailers. Mr. Mumford said the original landscape plan contained an access to the adjacent property, which, if extended, the wall would impede.

Councìlmember Curtis moved to deny the proposed ordinance of Eagle Mountaín Cìty, Utøh, amending the Eøgle Mountain Municipøl Code Chøpter 17.38.090 for the Commercial Storøge Zone. Councilmemher Burnham seconded the motion. Those votíng øye: Colby Curtis, Stephanìe Gricius, Donnø Burnhøm, and Melissa Clørk The motion passed wíth ø unanimous vote. 15.8. An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 17 .20 Agriculture Zone and 17 .10 Definitions. Mr. Mumford explained the applicant-proposed amendment is to add a dehnition for an Equine Assisted Therapy Center and add it as a conditional use in the Agriculture zone. This would only be a conditional use in the Agriculture zone, and each use would require a conditional use permit that goes to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Curtis expressed concerns regarding clinical therapy centers and if the definition could applyto non-equine applications; the definition of a clinical therapy center needs to be very specific. Marley Juarez, Strides Pediatric Therapy Director of Operations, explained she and Casey Wiest, Director of Clinical Services, are the cofounders of Strides Pediatric Therapy. Ms. Wiest said the services offered are all ouþatient and they provide occupational, speech, and physical therapy. She explained they are using the horse's movement to facilitate a change in the child, such as they would with a weight or swing. They are not servicing children with trauma-based diagnoses. She said the typical diagnosis for those served at this center are autism, Down syndrome, or other developmental or physical disabilities. Councilmember Curtis expressed concern regarding allowing commercial uses in the Agriculture zorLe. He stated conditional uses are almost always required to be approved. Councilmember Clark asked if there is a way to ensure the amendment does not facilitate all types of commercial therapy centers in Agriculture zone. Mr. Cook said therapeutic equestrian riding, equine-facilitated therapeutic services, and equine-assisted services are limited as they are written, but clinical therapy sessions may be too broad a category. He said wording can be added that limits treatment to outpatient services only, and that limits those served by the center. Ms. Juarez said they included clinical services in the definition because they plan to bring a mobile office building to offer services in an office or gym setting. They understand the need to have buildings congruent with the structures within the Agriculture zone. They cannot operate within the definition of an equestrian center, as office space is not allowed there, and they cannot operate in a Commercial zone, as horses are not allowed in that zoîe. Ms. Wiest saidpatients currentlymust go to multiple locations to obtain the services Strides Pediatric Therapy wants to provide in a single location. The horses are not used in every session; it may not be conducive to use the horse on a particular day. They are a pediatric clinic and serve clients up to 2l years of age. They would like to have two of each kinds of therapists, and would like to be able to grow, as the need is great in Utah County. All services will be individual therapy unless they offer a monthly family support event. Councilmember Clark said having all services in one location would be a benefit to the City. She expressed the desire to ensure clinical therapy services are limited to be in addition to equine therapy, and that the City is able to limit the amount of traffic. Councilmember Curtis said he likes the idea presented by the applicants and asked if the conditional use permit would stay with the land, if the owner decided to move or sell to another owner. He stated he is concerned about other clinical uses and asked how the City could verify that horses are being utilized in therapy sessions. He also asked if the use could be approved through a business license, instead of through this definition addition. Mr. Cook clarified the conditional use permit stays with the property and stated the applicant would not be able to obtain a business license as the current Municipal Code stands. Ms. Wiest said they will own the property, and explained the use of the horse is dependent on the patient. A horse can only be used for three sessions per day. Councilmember Curtis expressed concern that horses would only be used a small part of the time. Ms. Wiest explained patients use a horse at least every other week; at least half of the time, horses are utilized in therapy sessions. Councilmember Gricius stated the horses are on the property and the Council should not regulate how often medical treatments include horses; the impact to the neighborhood is not different if treatment is in the office or on a horse. Councilmember Curtis said he likes what the applicant is proposing, but expressed concern that the amendment would allow clinical commercial centers within the Agriculture zone. Ms. V/iest suggested the definition be inclusive and require both equine and clinical services. Mr. Cook stated his concern that the definition could be interpreted to provide drug rehabilitation treatment centers and potentially a group-home center. He said the amendment should not be written in a way that is discriminatory. He explained limiting the allowable age could potentially be considered discriminatory; limiting it to ouþatient services would not be discriminatory. Councilmember Curtis asked if the facility would be required to obtain a professional license. Ms. Juarez said the services listed in the proposed amendment are technically defined forms of treatment; each center may not offer all of those treatment options. She explained Hoofbeats to Healing only offers therapeutic riding and does not offer clinical services. Ms. Wiest said in order to allow patients to use medical insurance, the facility needs to clinically evaluate the patients to understand their needs. Discussion ensued regarding possible phrasing and definitions that would ensure clinic- only services will not be allowed in the proposed conditional use. The Council agreed to add ouþatient to the definition and require three of the four services listed in the proposed amendment. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 9:52 p.m. Becky Painter explained she offers adaptive riding. Equestrian therapy is not a license- required practice. She said requiring a license may not stand up to legal scrutiny. Møyor Westmoreland closed the public hearíng at 9:54 p.m. Councilmember Curtis said they can approve the item with a strict definition and adjust it later, if needed.

CouncíImember Burnham moved to øpprove øn ordínønce of Eøgle Mountaín City, Uteh, ømendíng the Eagle Mountain Municípøl Code Chapter 17.20 Agrìculture Zone and 17.10 Deftnítíons with the deftnitíon being changed to støte "Equine Assìsted Therapy Center' meøns øn outpøtíent føcíIíty that offers therøpeutic equestrian ridíng, equíne-øssisted services, ønd equíne-facilìtated therapeatíc services, and may offer licensed clìnicøl therøpy servíces. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motìon. Those voting aye: Colby Curtis, Stephønie Gricius, Donna Burnham, and Melíssa Clørk The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 15.C. An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 16.15 for Concept Plans. This item was discussed after item 12.A. Mr. Mumford said this item was presented to the Planning Commission and was recommended for approval with additions that clarify applicants cannot present concept plans to the City Council without presenting to the Planning Commission, and that staffs word is not binding. He said it is beneficial for some projects to be discussed with the Council before moving forward with applications. Councilmember Clark asked if there is a limit to how many times a project can be presented to the Council or Planning Commission. Mr. Mumford said there is not a limit set in Municipal Code. A recent item was presented to the Planning Commission a few times, and the applicant was told that in order to present again, a new concept plan fee would be required. Mayor íl'es tmoreland op ened the public hearing at I 0 : 3 0 p.m" As there were no commentg he closed the hearing.

Councilmember Clark moved to approve an ordinønce of Eøgle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chøpter 16.15 for Concept Plans. Councìlmember Burnhøm seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Colby Curtß, Stephøníe Grícíus, Donna Burnham, ønd Melissa Clark The motíon passed with a unanìmous vote. 16. MOTIONiPUBLIC HEARING 16.4. Significant Land Disposal - Portion of Parcel 46:543:0075 Mr. Cook explained the City is disposing of a small section of land, approximately 300 square feet in size. The land is not significant in actuality, but as it is designated significant land, a public hearing must be held to dispose of it. It is more beneficial to the City to not own this property; the shape is odd, and it is between a private lot and the roadway. Councilmember Clark askedthatthe documenttitled Land Disposal Map be removed from the packet, as it is confusing when compared with the actual land to be disposed of that is shown in the Ranches Estates C Land Disposal Map. Mayor\(estmorelandopenedthepublichearingat10:33p.m. Astherewerenocomments, he closed the hearing.

Commissioner Clark moved to approve a sígniJícant land disposal, portíon of pørcel 46:543:0075. Councílmember Curtis seconded the motion. Councilmember Clark asked if the reason for the land disposal canbe stated for the record. Ms. Kofoed explained communications to her from Planner Tayler Jensen state the arangement is that the developer has agreed to build a single-story home on the lot in exchange for the property. Mr. Cook said he is unsure if that stipulation has been ftnalized, and it may still be in negotiations. He said the Council can make that a condition of approval. Councilmember Clark stated she does not want to make that a condition of the motion. Those votíng øye: Colby Curtis, Stephanie Grícias, Donna Burnham, and Melissø Clark, The motion passed with ø unanimous vote. 17. MOTION 17.A. Hidden Flollow Blasting Permit Application This item was discussed after the Consent Agenda. Mr. Trusty informed the Council the applicant was not in attendance. He stated the applicant believes this item is a continuation of the previous year's blasting permit. The applicant removed disturbed material over the last year and now needs to continue blasting for a sewer trench and to remove a final section of material that they were not able to blast last year. Mr. Trusty explained the City did not receive any complaints from the applicant's previous blasting. There are eight homes within 500 feet of the proposed blasting site, and the applicant understands the requirement of pre- and post-blast inspections for homes in the area. Councilmember Curtis asked if additional building permits have been given to the applicant in the past year, and asked how close the nearest home is to the blasting site. Mr. Trusty said he did not believe building permits have been given in the last year. The closest home is 343 feet away. Councilmember Clark confirmed with staff that this blasting is for utility work and for a section of material the applicant was not able to remove with previous blasting. She also confirmed that residents will be notified before any additional blasting takes place. She stated the City's blasting ordinance is the most restrictive in the state. Residents have the right to request pre- and post-blast inspections to ensure they have redress for any issues that arise due to blasting. The blasting company must have insurance and is required to place a bond to protect City structures. The City has also reduced the allowed intensity to half of the typical approved intensity in other areas in the state. She said the applicant utilized additional measures to protect residents during previous blasting events. Mr. Cook clarified the $25,000 bond is in place to protect residences, as well as City structures. If a resident has a claim against the developer, the City will not release the bond back to the developer until those claims are resolved. Councilmember Curtis asked how many blasting events this application requests and how many were previously approved. Mr. Trusty said he believes this application is for six events, and stated it may be safe to assume seven events will be necessary. The previous approval was for 23 total blasts; the applicant only completed 1l blasts. Councilmember Clark stated it would be best to table the item to allow the applicant to return to address the Council's questions.

Councílmember Clark moved to tøble the Hidden Hollow bløsting permit application. Councilmember Grícíus seconded the motíon. Those voting aye: Colby Cartís, Stephanie Gricíus, Donna Barnham, ønd Melissø Clarlc The motion passed with a unønímous vote. 17.8. Juniper Springs Blasting Permit Application Mr. Trusty said this item was discussed at a previous meeting and the applicant asked that the item be tabled to allow a redesign of the plan to reduce blasting. Applicant Travis Taylor said the intent of the redesigned plan was to move the orientation of structures to allow a new driveway layout in order to minimize blasting. The proposed changes potentially eliminate the need for blasting in the project. He said in the City's Land Use Authority table, a minor adjustment to a preliminary plat does not require the project to go through approval process again, but a major adjustment does. He explained that staff determined the amended plan was a major adjustment, requiring additional applications and approvals. He asked that the blasting permit application be tabled to allow development to begin without blasting. They will complete all work that can be done without blasting, and he will return to City Council with specific plans if there are portions that require blasting. Mr. Taylor said he met with Frank Pulley, Jr., the Alpine School District Director of Physical Facilities, and Kraig Sweat, Alpine School District Construction Supervisor.. They communicated that Alpine School District utilizes blasting in construction of their facilities. Mr. Pulley spoke with the Alpine School Board and informed Mr. Taylor that the District is concerned about blasting during school hours. They provided Mr. Taylor with a list of conditions in which they would approve of blasting. Mr. Taylor explained to the Council that Mr. Mumford has independently verified this information with Alpine School District. Mr. Taylor explained he sent a mailer to surrounding residents and requested a meeting to discuss potential blasting; one resident came to the meeting. This resident communicated that he had damage in his drywall from prior blasting which is being remedied, and said as long as he is able to obtain a pre-blast inspection, he approves of additional blasting. Mr. Taylor said he received an email from another resident who requested a pre-blast inspection and monitoring equipment in her home. Councilmember Curtis thanked Mr. Taylor for finding creative solutions to blasting concerns. He said he is wary of committing to a way forward without knowing what potential blasting will specifically entail. Mr. Taylor said the original plan required atotal of 18 to 24 blasting events. They would have had three blasts in one day, once a week, over a period of six to eight weeks. The realigned plan potentially reduces the blasting by up to 80%. Councilmember Clark asked the applicant to describe the history of the project. Mr. Taylor said the current version has twenty to thirty fewer units than the original plan, which was approved in2006. Councilmember Clark confirmed that the applicant reduced density at the request of the Council and surrounding residents, and she stated the applicant has further redesigned the plan to reduce blasting. Mr. Taylor said they will atalyze the costibenefits of blasting before returning to request permission from the Council. They will determine ifthe requirements ofblasting are worth the expense, or if they will utilize other excavation options. Councilmember Gricius stated she appreciates that Mr. Taylor is willing to look at ways to avoid blasting. She said she would approve.allowing the plan change to be classified as a minor adjustment to the preliminary plat. Mayor Westmoreland expressed concems regarding the width of Hidden Valley Parkway. Mr. Mumford said the road was approved with the Hidden Valley Master Development Plan before Hidden Valley Elementary was built. Mr. Trusty said the road is 100 feet and will have five lanes. Mr. Mumford explained staff determined the adjustment of the plan to be a major amendment and said the Council can determine the adjustment is a minor amendment. Mr. Trusty said the applicant's belief is that the change includes a driveway realignment, not a road realignment. Councilmember Curtis confirmed with staff that since no other changes are being made to the plan, the driveway realignment can be considered a minor amendment. Mr. Taylor asked thataportion of the blastingpermit fee be refunded ifno fuitherblasting is required. Mr. Cook said that can be considered by the Council at a later date as a reimbursement request agenda item.

Councílmember Grícius moved to tahle the Juníper Spríngs blasting permit øpplication. Councilmember Clørk seconded the motion. Those votíng aye: Colby Curtis, Stephøníe Gricíus, Donna Burnham, ønd Melissa Clarlc The motion passed wíth a unanímous vote. 17.C. Juniper Springs Request for Partial W'aiver of Application Fees This item was removed at the applicant's request. 17.D. Glenmar Ranches Phase B Request for Waiver of Streetlight Requirements Mr. Mumford explained Glenmar Ranches is along Lake Mountain Road. The first phase of Glenmar Ranches has been approved and is being developed. He said Municipal Code requires streetlights to be installed at a minimum of 150 feet and a maximum of 250 feet apart on arterial and collector streets. Residential streets require streetlights at a minimum spacing of 250 feet and a maximum of 350 feet. The Municipal Code allows Council to exempt urban-type public infrastructure such as streetlights in base density developments. Applicant Steve McCleery said they spoke about the possibility of streetlights with existing residents and with those considering purchasing lots in Phase B. He explained they considered the Arrival subdivision and the other developments north of Wride Memorial Highway and said he feels his project warrants the waiver that was granted for those subdivisions. The current requirement is thirteen streetlights in Glenmar Ranches Phase B. Councilmember Gricius explained her neighborhood does not have streetlights. There was a concern with children walking in the streets, as there were no sidewalks, but there are now sidewalks around the school. Her main concern is safety of children walking in the dark. Councilmember Curtis understands the importance of the rural open feel, but stated safety is a concern in the City. He stated there are generally more problems in areas without streetlights. He asked if the applicant would be willing to compromise by only installing lights along Lake Mountain Road. He said the City receives many requests for streetlights where none exist. The lights will be full cutoff and will not shine into homes. Councilmember Clark said she understands the applicant's desire to not have streetlights. She asked if the applicant would be willing to install three lights at the major intersections, instead of the full thirteen. Mr. McCleery said the residents who have purchased homes did so with the understanding that there were no lights in place. Applicant Marianne Smith said the residents have their own lights on their homes and can be turned on and off, as needed. There is enough natural light throughout the project. She explained the intent of the project is to have no constant manmade lights. She said with thirteen streetlights, three would be directed towards her home. She stated the distance between intersections along Lake Mountain Road is 548 feet. Councilmember Curtis said it is assumed that lights are included in subdivisions, and stated safety is important, and crime is a concern in the City. Mr. McCleery said there will be 45 homes on approximately 100 acres; therefore, traffic will be minimal. He said the community all feels the lights are not necessary. Mr. Mumford clarified in Phase B, there are 50 acres included in lots, and Phase C contains 34 acres. All streetlights installed in the City are full cutoff, dark sky-compliant lights. The light will shine straight down, but a small percentage does bleed out. He explained the homes on the west side that are currently being built are at a lower elevation, so they may see more light than those to the east. Councilmember Curtis stated if lots are not sold at this point, the landowners will not be purchasing homes with the belief that there will not be lights. Mr. McCleery said they believed they would be able to obtain the exemption based on verbiage in the base density ordinance. He said the compromise of three lights is an improvement on thirteen, but they believed they would not be required to install any, based on the exemptions given to Arrival and Valley View. He expressed the desire to maintain dark skies for the nature preserve they have planned. Councilmember Clark stated she strongly supports property rights, but safety is important. Mr. McCleery agreed that safety is important, and said he believes the design of the project provides safe features. No roads are directed straight down the hill, and they have added curves to avoid straightaways. Councilmember Curtis said all homes will have lights on the porches, garages, and rears. He said it is not reasonable to believe three additional lights will cause that much more light in the subdivision. Councilmember Clark asked if a resident could speak. Resident Kristy Dunn owns a home in the first phase of Glenmar Ranches. She said she was informed there would be no streetlights, and two of the three under discussion would be along her property line. Mr. McCleery said he spoke with Mr. Hazard and was told his exemption was easily obtained. Mr. Mumford said Arrival was different in that they would need to bring power from the first phase to the second phase at great expense. Councilmember Curtis said this project has been granted many exemptions such as not requiring the trail to Pony Express Parkway. He said the adjacent SITLA development is high density and will contain many streetlights. Applicant representative Kenneth Olsen said Valley View has 335 lots and most of the traffic is along Horizon Drive and Mustang Road. He explained Glenmar Ranches is along a hillside ridge and only a few houses will utilize the roads. Councilmember Curtis stated he is unsure of a decision at this time. He sees both sides of the issue and both are important factors. Mr. Mumford said the applicant is eager to move forward, and staff can approve the construction drawings with the streetlights if the Council tables this item. If the Council decides to allow an exempti on at a later time, the streetlights can be removed from the construction drawings. The Municipal Code does not require the streetlights to be in place until the first certificate of occupancy is approved. Ms. Smith said she has told potential buyers that the project will not contain streetlights and stated she does not want any lights in the project. She said in comparison with other developments, Glenmar Ranches is small with only three entrances. Councilmember Curtis expr€ssed concern that surrounding landowners in the area will request the same exemption, especially since the density will increase. Councilmember Gricius asked if the trail to Pony Express Parkway can be added back if the streetlights are removed, in order to provide a safe walking area off the street. Mr. McCleery said trails exist in the current plan.

Councilmember Burnhøm moved to approve the Glenmar Ranches Phase B request for waiver of streetlight requírements. Councílmember Grìcíus seconded the motíon. Those voting øye: Stephønie Gricias, Donna Burnhøm, ønd Melissa Clarlc Those votíng nøy: Colby Curtis. The motion carriedwíth a vote of 3:1. 18. CITYCOLINCIL/MAYOR'SBUSINESS Councilmember Gricius was excused at 10:38 p.m. Councilmember Curtis None. Councilmember Burnham See Board Report. Councilmember Clark See Board Report. Councilmember Gricius None. Mayor W'estmoreland Mayor Westmoreland said the City is considering funding to provide dinner to staff and the Planning Commissioners during Planning Commission meetings, as they now hold work sessions. 19. CITY COUNCIL BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Councilmember Burnham Councilmember Burnham welcomed Allstate to the City. Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark reminded residents of the quilt show that will be held on Saturday at Garden Near the Green. 20. COMMTINICATION ITEMS 20.A. Financial Report 20.B. Upcoming Agenda Items 21. ADJOURNMENT

Councílmember Curtís moved to ødjourn the meetìng øt 10:38 p.m. Councilmember Clørk seconded the motíon. Those votíng øye: Colby Curtis, Donna Burnham, and Melìssa Clark The motion pøssed with a unønímous vote. Approved by the City Council on May 7,2019 *sa{ FionnuaffB .l(6foed, MMC City Recorder