Eagle Mountain Planning Commission, 23 April 2019

Commíssioner Wood moved to upprove the April 9, 2019 Plønning Commission meeting minutes. Commíssioner Gray seconded the motion. Eagle Mountain Planning Commission Meeting - April23,2019 Page5ofll Those voting aye: Matthew Everett, DeLin Anderson, Brett Wright, Rich Wood, and Jared Grøy. The motíon pøssed with a unønímous vote. 5 Action and Advisory Items 5.A. Cedar Farms - Rezone and Preliminary Plat, Public Hearing Mr. Jensen explained the applicant is proposing to rezone 5.47 acres from Agriculture to Residential. The preliminary plat is a two-lot subdivision with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Items to consider include the General Plan designation, compatibility, impact on City services, traffic generation, property value impact, and lot frontage and zoning standards. Mr. Jensen explained the proposal complies with the General Plan, is compatible with surrounding land uses, complies with lot frontage and zoning standards, and is not anticipated to burden City services, have an impact on traffic or on property values. Commissioner Gray asked if the powerline corridors are dedicated to the City as open space and if the future road is a concern regarding the utility corridors. Mr. Jensen said utility easements can be either dedicated to the City, or included in lots, and staff is not concerned with the future road as it is not included in this plan. Applicant Karen Scott said most people cannot afford five acres of land, so they have decided to split the property into two lots to make them more affordable. Commissioner Everett opened the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed the hearíng. Commissioner Everett asked where the powerlines are located. Mr. Jensen said they are in the rear of the property. Any building that takes place on the lots will be outside of the easements, but the lots still contain large building pads. Commissioner Wood said he and Commissioner Gray visited the site, and it is important to note thaf a future road is planned on this property. Commissioner Gray also expressed concerns about the road. Mr. Jensen clarified that the future road will actually be west of the propose d rezone area. Applicant Jeff Scott conf,rrmed the future road will be approximately 100 feet behind the property, outside of the utility corridor. Commissioner Anderson asked staff if they have concerns regarding the gas easements. Mr. Jensen said they do not as any future structures will need to comply with the gas company's requirements for building over easements. Commissioner Wood stated City Attomey Jeremy Cook recommended against rezoning until the new residential zones are in place. He said since the City does not have a zoningmap yet, there is no way to determine what requirements and setbacks will apply. Eagle Mountain Planning Commission Meeting - April23,2019 Page6of11 Mr. Jensen explained the proposed rezone does comply with the General Plan. The proposed setbacks follow the base density setbacks, which are not changing in the amended residential zones. Commissioner Wright said details such as property setbacks and building envelopes are not defined as of yet. Commissioner Gray said it may be June at the latest when the amended zones are approved. He recommended that the item be tabled until the new zones are in place.

Commissioner Gray moved to table the Cedar Førms rezone and preliminary plat until the meeting directly following the City Council's øpproval of the new residentíøI ordinønce. Commíssioner Wright seconded the motion. Those votíng øye: Møtthew Everett, DeLín Anderson, Brett Wright, Rich Wood, and Jared Grøy. The motíon pøssed wíth s unanimous vote. 5.8 Chapter 17.80 (Sigr Regulations and Sign Permits) - Development Code Amendment, Public Hearing Mr. Jensen said the applicant-proposed Development Code amendment will allow flagpoles up to 50 feet tall at model homes. The current Code allows flagpoles up to 20 feet tall. Applicant Jessica Eddington with Edge Homes said homes stand up to 25 feet tall in the City and they would like to be able to fly the American flag above the homes. Commissioner Everett asked why she is proposing this for model homes only, and not for the entire City. Commissioner Gray stated the maximum square footage of the flag will remain at forty square feet for the American flag and fifteen square feet for all others. Ms. Eddington said they are proposing the amendment in this portion of Municipal Code because it applies directly to Edge Homes as they would like to put American flags at their model homes. Commissioner Wood said he is concerned that the proposed amendment does not limit flags on fifty-foot flagtrloles specifically to the American flag. He expressed concerns that Edge homes may fly their flags on fifty-foot poles. Commissioner Wright said model homes can install up to six flagpoles and expressed concern that the amendment would allow six fifty-foot flagtrloles. Mr. Hadley clarified that the limitation is six flags. Ms. Eddington said the American flag should be flown above all other flags, and the intention is not to fly Edge Homes flags as high as the American flag. Eagle Mountain Planning Commission Meeting - April23,2019 PageTofll Commissioner Wood said he understands that, but as this is a City-wide amendment, other companies may not fly the American flag as Edge Homes will. Commissioner Everett opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed the hearing. Commissioner Wood said he would like to allow model homes to fly the American flag. He asked what happens to the flagpoles once model homes are sold. Commissioner Gray explained the building code states that buildings cannot exceed 35 feet. He said 50 feet is too high for a flagpole. Since the American flag should fly higher than other flags, he would approve a height limit of 35 feet for American flags and 30 feet for other flags. Mr. Jensen said flagtrloles are defined as ancillary structures in Municipal Code. The height limits are different through the different densities and are typically 20 feet. Discussion ensued regarding flag poles located at previous model homes in the City. Commissioner Everett said he appreciates the desire to give prominence to the American Flag, but feels 50 feet is too tall. He expressed concern that this is specific to model homes and said it is appropriate to address this change in other sections of Municipal Code, as residents also desire to fly the Americanflag. He said a resident may choose to fly a flag that is offensive to other residents, although he would defend that resident's right to fly a flag of their choosing under their First Amendment rights. He asked if it is better to change the amendment to only apply to the American flag. Commissioner 'W'ood said it may be more appropriate to allow a larger flagtrlole at entrances to developments, but stated 50 feet is too tall. He said the model home portion of Municipal Code is the wrong section to amend. Mr. Jensen said taller flags could be provided in parks, as other amenities can be proposed by developers. He said staffs opinion is that 50 feet is too tall in residential neighborhoods, especially as they don't know what will be flown after the model home is sold. Another staff concern is that using the Americanflag for advertising is against the United States Flag Code. Discussion ensued regarding the height of existing flag¡loles in surrounding cities, and the number of allowed flags in areas with multiple model homes. Commissioner Gray said the American flag should be flown higher than other flags, and 35 feet is appropriate, with other flags at 30 feet. He said increasing the flagpole height is a legitimate change, and stated he would like the Municipal Code to require all but one flagtrlole need to be removed once a model home is sold. Eagle Mountain Planning Commission Meeting - April 23,2019 PageSofll Commissioner Wood said this is the wrong section in the Municipal Code for this amendment. He said there are more appropriate places to display the American flag, and the Code needs to designate a location on residential properties for flags. Mr. Jensen said staff can bring additional changes to flag and flagpole restrictions to a future meeting. Commissioner Wood said he is not in favor of approving the amendment and stated the City does not want to allow builders to fly flags over model homes. He said residential areas are not appropriate places for flags. Commissioner Gray recommended approving the amendment with changes stating the American flag can be flown on 35-foot flagpoles, other flags on 3O-foot poles, and all but one flagpole must be removed at the sale of the model home. He said staff can create an amendment that applies to the remaining areas of the City. Commissioner Wright stated he is not in favor of moving forward with the proposed amendment at this time, but is open to a well-researched staff-proposed amendment. Mr. Hadley said the Planning Commission can table the item and direct the applicant to work with staff to adjust the proposed amendment according to the Commission's feedback. If the Commission recommends denial, the item will go to City Council for further consideration. Discussion ensued regarding potential amendments to the Municipal Code regarding flags, and what the current Code requires regarding ancillary structures. Mr. Hadley recommended the Commissioners make a decision on the current item and allow the flag discussion to come back at a future meeting. Commissioner V/right asked if they can table the item but allow one flagtrlole to be taller than currently allowed. Mr. Hadley explained the best way forward is to make a recommendation to the City Council based specifically on information the applicant has provided.

Commissioner Wood moved to recommend deniøl to the Cíty Councìl of the Eøgle Mountøin Cìty Manicipal Code Chapter 17.80 (Sign Regulations ønd Sign Permits). Commíssíoner Anderson seconded the motion. Those voting øye: Matthew Everett, DeLin Anderson, Brett Wright, Rich ll¡ood, and Jøred Gray. The motion pøssed with ø unønímous vote. Ms. Eddington asked if she were to return with a revised proposal, would that proposal if follow the same process regarding Planning Commission and City Council hearings, or there was an option to expedite the process. Commissioner Gray said the Commission is interested in amending the regulations regarding flagpoles. He recommended she work with staff to help move an amendment forward regarding flags throughout the City, not just at model homes. Eagle Mountain Planning Commission Meeting - April23,2019 Page9ofll 5.C. Eagle Heights Village - Conditional Use Permit

Commíssioner lVood moved to approve the jindíngs of fact and conclusìons of law supportíng the Plunning Commission's previous approval of the condítionøl use permit with the condition thøt the eøstern row of homes be changed to single-family detached homes, øccording to cuwent Municípal Code. Commíssíoner Grøy seconded the motíon. Those voting øye: Møtthew Everett, DeLin Anderson, Brett Wright, Rich Wood, ønd Jared Gray. The motíon pøssed wíth ø unønimous vote. 5.D. Chapter 8.25 (Explosives) - Development Code Amendment, Public Hearing Mr. Jensen said the staff-proposed amendment adds an appeals process for blasting permits to allow the process to be in line with Utah State statute regarding appeal authorities. Commissioner Wood asked why the City Council is not the appeal authority on blasting permits. Mr. Hadley said the City Council is the approval authority on blasting permits within a certain distance of existing homes. This amendment adds a layer between the City Council and District Court. The added appeal authority will be a hearing officer. This will be a third-party who has entered into a contact with the City to serve an appeals hearing ofhcer. Discussion ensued regarding the current appeals process Commissioner Gray asked why this item was being presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hadley said the City Attorney felt it was necessary to bring the amendment to the Planning Commission, even though it is not required in Municipal Code. Commissioner Wright clarified the blasting permit process. A developer first submits an application to the City Engineer. If the City Engineer denies the permit, the City Council is the appeal body. If the blasting will take place close to existing residences, the permit is presented to the City Council after the City Engineer review. The third-party attorney will be the appeal authority after the City Council. Commissioner Everett opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed the hearing. Discussion ensued regarding the Municipal Code appeal authority table. The areas where the City Attorney was the appeal authority have been amended to Hearing Officer, and Hearing Officer has been added between the City Council and District Court.

Commissioner Vl/'ood moved to recommend approval to the City Councíl the amendment to Eøgle Mountain CW Municípal Code Chapter 8.25 (Explosives). Commissioner Grøy seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Matthew Everett, DeLìn Anderson, Brett Wright, Rìch Wood, and Jøred Grøy. The motíon pøssed with ø unønimous vote. Eagle Mountain Planning Commission Meeting - Apnl 23, 2019 Page 10 of I 1 6) Next scheduled meeting - May 14,2019 7) Adjournment

Commissíoner Grøy moved to ødjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Commíssioner Wright seconded the motion. Those voting øye: Matthew Everett, DeLín Anderson, Brett Wright, Rich Wood, ønd Jøred Gray. The motion pøssed with ø unønitnous vote. Approved by the Planning Commission on May 28,2019. / Iteve }/rwrtford Communify Development Director Eagle Mountain Planning Commission Meeting - April23,2019 Pagellofll