Eagle Mountain City Council, 16 July 2019

Councilmember Clark moved to øppoint Charlene Diehl to the Senior CouncíI Advísory Board, completing a three-yeør term, ending December 2021. Councilmember Grícius seconded the molion. Those votíng aye: Colby Curtis, Stephønie Grícius, Benjømìn Reaves, Donna Burnham, and Melissa Clark, The motìon passed with a unanimous vote" CONSENT AGENDA IO. BID AWARD 10.4. 2019 Pony Express Parkway Micro Surface Project I. I BOI\ID REI.,EASES LA. I Harmony Phase A, Plat I I LB. I Dublin Farms l1.Cl. Scenic Mountain Phase A, Plat I I t,D. Scenic Mountain Phase A.,PIat2 ll.E. Silverlake Plat 10 12. CHANGE ORDER Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - htly 16,2019 Page 8 of l7 12.A. 2018 Traffic Signal Installation 13 MINU'TES 13.4. June [8,20t9 Minutes 14 PRELIMINARY PLA'IS & SITE PLANS 14.4. Brylee Estates Phase B, PreliminaryPlat & Site PIan

Councilmember Curtís moved to approve the consent agendø with the understøndìng that the approvøl for ítem 14.A. is for optíon number one. Councilmember Burnhøm seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Colby Curtís, Stephanie Gricius, Benjamín Reaves, Donna Burnham, and Melìssa Clark The motion passed with ø unanímous vote. Brylee Estates Option l, conditions of approval: 1) Buildings shall be separated by 20 feet. 2) Town-home elevations shall comply with Chapter 17.72 Multifamily Design Standards. 3) Retention shall either be underground or else the project shall be redesigned so the sport court is not placed in a retention pond. 4) Elevations for the clubhouse shall be submitted and the clubhouse shall comply with 17.30.090. 5) Any additional conditions the CC feels are appropriate. SCHEDULED ITEMS I5. ORDINANCES/PUBLICHEARINGS 15.4. ORDINANCE - An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain Citly. Utah. Amendifrg the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code. Chagter 17.25 Residential Zone and Chagt-er 17.30 Residential Zone Bonus Density Entitlements. This item was discussed after ítem I5.8" Mr. Mumford said the proposal removes the bonus density chapter and replaces the current residential zone chapter. It includes twelve residential zones intended to implement principles and key initiatives in the City's General Plan. It includes aland use table, a table containing a majority of the residential development standards by zone, and includes generally applicable provisions. There are six residential land uses in the General Plan. Staff has implemented the intended land uses in the proposed zones. V/hen a developer rezones land, they will be able to propose a zone * Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting July 16,2019 Page 9 of l7 that flrts within the designated land use. Mr. Mumford explained the different zones permitted within each land use. The land use table includes permitted, conditional, special and prohibited uses by zone. The residential development standards table condenses many requirements into a single table, instead of including the information in alarge elocument" The Planning Commission reviewed the draft several times ancl have recommended approval of the amendment with conditions that staff has worked to implement. Regarding buildable land, Mr. Mumford stated requiring 75Yo of the lot square footage to be buildable is too high for larger lots. He said frontages should be addressed and stated Evans Ranch is an example of a good development that would not meet the proposed frontage standards; flexibility may need to be added to allow for similar developments. Mayor í(estmoreland opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Deann Huish with the Utah Valley Homebuilders Association expressed concerns regarding the cash escrow requirement, the required front and side landscaping before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and the garage and architectural standards. Sho said the setbacks are not excessive and asked the Council to consider items such as off-street parking for accessory structures, instead of size. Jacinda Montano spoke against high density and allowing multifamily projects to contain buildings with up to twenty-four units. Mare Burningham expressecl concern that the vision of the City is being directed by developers and stated the intent should be to remain a rural area" Councilmember Gricius asked staff if developers will be required to rezone property in order to build multifamily projects. Mr. Mumford said multifamily projects will require a rezotre, which is a legislative decision that provides leeway to the Council. Mayor l|lestmorelønd closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. Mr. Mumford clarified that current zoning does not limit number of units per building, as long as the project is at or under the project's density limit. The proposed Development Code simply puts a cap on the number of units per building, versus units per acre. Councilmember Burnham said the State is attempting to mandate affordable housing, and it helps the City if a plan is in place that allows affordable housing while allowing the City to dictate requirements for the developments. Councilmember Gricius said a transit-oriented residential zone can require high density multifamily projects to be located within certain distances to transportation, industrial projects, commercial developments, or other uses. Councilmember Clark said the highest density project currently located in the City has twelve units per building and expressed concern that the proposed limit is double that which currently exists. Councilmember Reaves agreed that twenty-four units is too high for a single multifamily building, but said the City should not put restrictions on what types of people can locate here. He stated the City needs to plan for what is going to come in the future. Mr. Mumford confirmed that the Council would like to limit the multifamily units to twelve per building. One option to increase the number of units per building is to create proximity requirements; another option is to create a new zone that allows more units per building. Councilmember Gricius stated she generally prefers campus-style multifamily projects. She likes the additional open space that can be provided when the buildings contain more units vertically" She can see MF3 as the transition zone to a transit-oriented residential zone. She clarified that creating a zoîe does not vest any developer with any rights. Councilmember Clark recommended the Council wait to create additional zones until they are needed. She stated the City currently meets more than the required criteria regarding affordable housing; the Council should not rush to create a zoîe based on fear of potential issues that may arise due to the State's mandate for affordable housing. Councilmember Gricius clarified that her desire for this discussion is not related to fear of the State's mandate. There has to be a place in the City for affordable housing. She also stated that creating a high-density zone will not vest any property with rights; developers will need to apply to the Council to rezone property for high-density projects. Councilmember Curtis stated the current Council has not approved any new condominium or apartment projects. He expressed dislike for the flattop condominium-style buildings and said they do not fit the vision of the City. Councilmember Reaves asked if the City can wait to research a high-density zone until inftastructure and amenities are in place. Councilmember Burnham said NIFI and MF2 are very similar and may need to be combined into one zone, and change MF3 to a zone that allows seven to twelve units per building. An additional zone can be added with very stringent requirements for higher density such as proximity to transit, entertainment, emploSrment centers, and industrial areas. Councilmember Clark cautioned allowing density in areas where the City will not be able to provide transportation, infrastructure or other services. She said the City does not need to plan for every eventuality; the Development Code can be adjusted as needed. Mr. Mumford confirmed the Council would like to combine MFl and MF2 and create a new zone allowing eight to twelve units per building. An additional higher density zone can be added in the future after staff researches potential proximity requirements. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - July 16, 2019 PagelloflT Regarding changes to architectural standards, Councilmember Gricius spoke against requiring three building materials. Councilmember Curtis said the Development Code currently requires two building materials and adding an additional requirement for building materials would not raise home prices significantly. Councilmember Burnham stated her concern is not a possible increase to home prices; residents should be able to build their homes with any valid building material. It is not the Council's place to legislate building material preferences. Mr. Mumford explained some subdivisions have master development agreements that require additional building materials. The Development Code requires homes to consist of atleast 75o/o masonry materials, such as stucco. A home that is 100% stucco would meet existing Development Code requirements. Councilmember Clark said the purpose of zoning is to protect property and property values of individual homeowners and of neighbors. A home that is I00% stucco does not lower property values. Councilmember Curtis stated if the City does not set minimum requirements, developments will not have creativity and developers will use the cheapest building materials possible. His concern is variation, not the number or types of materials; examples of this are the Ivory homes that are 100% stucco with no variation on the back sides. He suggested offering options such as color variation to break up the monotony of homes within projects, instead of requiring three building materials. Councilmember Clark stated that the homes Councilmember Curtis described have been purchased; the market allowed those homes to be built and sold. Councilmember Gricius stated a home on a corner lot should also contain variation on the road- facing facade, similar to the front of the home. Mayor Westmoreland asked the Council for their opinions on allowing one-bedroom units" Councilmember Clark said that there is not a restriction on one-bedroom units at this time. She stated she would prefer to allow one-bedroom units within a certain zone and limit the total number allowed within projects. Discussion ensued regarding one-bedroom homes and potential effects on adjacent property values. Councilmember Curtis said he would be comfortable with allowing one-bedroom units, as long as it is limited to a certain percentage of the project. Mr. Cook expressed concern that limiting one-bedroom units may also limit senior living facilities or retirement communities. Mr. Mumford said assisted living facilities are special uses in the proposed amendment. Councilmember Burnham explained the market will dictate how many one-bedroom units are developed in the City. Councilmember Curtis stated allowing accessory dwellings over detached garage structures is a more natural progression over centrally-managed apartment buildings. Regarding garuge sizes, Councilmember Reaves said it is the Council's job to set a standard for garages that accommodate two vehicles. Councilmember Burnham said standard cars will fit in twenty-foot by twenty-foot garages; if a resident purchases a large truck, they will need to understand that it may not fit in a garage. Councilmember Curtis said it is a bait and switch by developers because residents will not know that a truck does not fit until they attempt to park in the garage after they purchase a home. Councilmember Clark said increasing the required length of driveways is a vastly less expensive option than requiring larger garages, if off-street parking is the concern. Councilmember Gricius explained standard parking stalls are eighteen feet deep and nine feet wide; the current City standard for two-car garages is twenty feet deep and twenty feet wide, which is larger than two standard parking stalls. She stated she is not willing to expand the garage size, but is willing to look into lengthening the driveway requirement. Councilmember Clark asked for the reasoning behind requiring minimum dwelling sizes. Mr. Mumford explained the minimum dwelling size is in place to protect property values. Councilmember Burnham said she has concerns setting required size for homes; a resident may want to build a small one-story home with no basement, and would not be able to do so. Councilmember Curtis asked if the purpose of the limit is similar to transitioning, to avoid small homes adjacent to large homes, and said he did not feel strongly about the limit. Mayor Westmoreland stated the ordinance will be tabled and asked the Council for any additional comments. Councilmember Clark said the 75o/obulldable land restriction could potentially restrict accessory structures such as barns, but stated there are areas in the City that are physically unbuildable. Councilmember Bumham stated a building envelope should be required showing the main dwelling structure and any accessory structures, such as barns. Councilmember Curtis asked how the draft ordinance can contain language that prohibits skinny, lots. deep Councilmember Bumham said some people prefer deep back yards, versus long frontages. Councilmember Burnham asked if the Council would approve of detached accessory structures on lots that are at least 8,000 square feet instead of requiring the lots be lz-acre lots. The Councilmembers stated their approval of that change. july Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - 16, 201 9 Page 13 of l7 Councilmember Curtis said 60%o of the lots in the City are within the RC zone; he expressed concerns regarding flooding in lots that are 4,500 square feet, and asked that the minimum lot size be increased to 5,500 square feet, and allow MFI to contain lots 4,500 square feet or more. Councilmember Clark stated she would prefer to have the City Engineer set drainage requirements. Councilmember Gricius stated she prefers to keep the draft as is, as the RC zone allows for detached homes.

Councilmember Burnham moved to table øn ordinunce of Eagle Mountøín CW, Utsh, amending the Eagle Mountøín Municipal Code, Chøpter 17.25 Resídentiul Zone ønd Chøpter 17.30 Resídentíal Zone Bonus Densìty Entitlements. Councilmember Gricius seconded the motíon. Those voting aye: Colby Curtís, Stephanie Gricias, Benjamin Reaves, Donnø Burnham, and Melissa Clark. The motion passed with ø unønímous vote. t5.B the Eagle Mo.Urúirin Mgg_icipal_Code. Chapter 16.35.080 Street Trees and Chapter 17.60.140 Clear Vision Tlianele. This item was discussed after the consent agenda. Parks and Recreation Director Brad Hickman explained the amendment creates an approval process for trees along collector and arterial roadways. It clarifies distances from other trees and structures, and lists permitted trees that can be placed in park strips of specific widths. He stated the International Society of Arboriculture recommended clearance is fourteen feet over streets and eight feet over sidewalks. Larger roadways typically have larger park strips, which allows for larger trees. As long as trees are pruned correctly once they are planted, existing concerns with trees will be negated. Councilmember Clark stated the recommended clearance heights allows for large trucks on roadways and for pedestrians to safely walk along sidewalks. Councilmember Gricius asked for clarification on the tree escro\ry process. She asked if a resident were to accidentally kill a tree within the first year, if the escrow funds would be used for replacement. Mr. Hickman explained that the City only requires street trees along arterial and collector roads, and if a developer chooses to install street trees in a park strip along a residential road, the bond is in place to replace the tree. In that instance, the developer would be responsible to replace the tree. Councilmember Burnham asked if developers will be required to install irrigation on private properties. Mr. Hickman said the areas along arterial and collector roads will have landscaped area that is deeded to the City. Mr. Mumford explained that the City does not allow homes to front on arterial or collector roads; most of these situations will have land deeded to the City. For example, Pony Express Parkway and Ranches Parkway have open space deeded to the City. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - July 16, 20 l9 Page 14of17 Councilmember Burnham asked if arterial road street trees die within the first year while the City is maintaining the trees, will the developer be responsible for replacement. She also stated she does not want to discourage additional trees in the City and expressed concern that the $600 escrow amount will discourage developers from planting trees. Mr. Hickman stated that as long as approved, non-defective trees are planted correctly, they will survive the initial year. Discussion ensued regarding requiring developers to replace trees that died due to circumstances out of their control. Mr. Hickman said the intent of the ordinance is to address issues related to trees in park strips on major roadways. Staff drafted it with their best intentions and with much research and discussion. He stated this draft is a good starting point and will likely need future discussion and amendments. Councilmember Clark asked the Council if they would approve the amendment without the escrow requirement. Councilmember Curtis stated he would like to remove any language that will discourage additional trees from being planted in the City. Councilmember Burnham stated she would be comfortable removing section C. Councilmember Gricius expressed concern that developers would be responsible for trees that are not under their care. City Attorney Jeremy Cook clarified that section C relates to required street trees along arterial and collector roads and would require the escrow, but the optional trees in residential areas will not require the escrow. He said the bond language warranties against defective trees or trees that are planted improperly, and said they can add language defining defective trees. City Recorder Fionnuala Kofoed asked if the escrow is a requirement prior to recording. Mr. Hickman said the intent is if the developer chooses to plant trees, the escrow would be required at the time of recording. Councilmember Clark asked staff if the escrow requirement could be removed. Mr. Hickman said the amendment would still function without the escrow. The intent is to secure the commitment from developers and ensure that required trees will be planted. Councilmember Bumham said that since the escrow is only needed for required street trees, it would not cover residential trees that were promised by the developer but not planted. Mr. Hickman said the residential component was added to help monitor and guide tree planting in residential park strips. The City wants to avoid trees that will damage infrastructure. He explained staff feels this draft is one that does not discourage trees but still offers guidance to protect the City from issues that are occurring now because of trees located in inappropriate locations. Mr. Cook stated the intent was to regulate trees along major roadways; the Council can remove the escrow portion of the amendment and that section can be brought back to a future meeting. Ms. Kofoed requested that the amendment states whether the escrow will be collected at recording or at the time of the building permit. She asked if the escrow requirement could be included in notice of decision. Mr. Hickman said the best process moving forward is to remove the escrow language from the draft and staff will work on drafting different language regarding residential guidelines and the escrow process. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed the hearing. Councilmember Reaves said he does not have concerns regarding the escrow, as the City currently requires bonds for parks and open space. Councilmember Curtis said the City wants to encourage trees along major roadways. With that goal in mind, the draft appears to add roadblocks to that vision. He said residents often times plant trees in park strips without referencing the City's Development Code or approved list of trees. A future draft could include pictures of approved trees and examples of the spacing guidelines. Councilmember Burnham suggested that language be added that requires developers to replace trees that die due to poor planting or defective trees, instead of requiring an escrow. Councilmember Gricius expressed concerns that the developers' funds are used to replace trees that die, regardless of the reason. Discussion ensued regarding residential trees damaging sidewalks and determining responsibility for infrastructure repair. Mr. Mumford said the responsibility of residents maintaining trees has been excluded at this time. The intent of this amendment regarding residential trees is to offer a list of approved trees and spacing guidelines in order to avoid future infrastructure damage due to improper trees or improper planting. Councilmember Curtis stated he would approve the amendment with the escrow portion removed, or is willing to table the item to allow staff to bring back another draft of the amendment" He said if landscape bonds are required for a development, trees could be included in those bonds.

Councilmember Grícius moved to tøble øn ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, ømending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code, Chøpter 16.35.080 Street Trees ønd Chapter 17.60"140 Clear Vision Tríøngle untíl staff has had sufficient tíme to implement changes based on guidønce the Council høs given. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting øye: Colby Curtis, Stephønie Gricius, Benjamin Reøves, Donna Burnham, ønd Melissa Clark. The motíon pussed with a unanimous vote. I6. CÍTY COUNCIL/MAYOR'S BUSINESS None 17. CITY COUNCIL BOARD T-,IAISON REPORTS None. I8. COMMUNICATIONITEMS 18.4. Upcoming Agenda Items 18.8. Financial Report I9. ADJOURNMENT

Councilmember Gricíus moved to ødjourn the meetíng at 9:43 p.m. Councilmember Curtís seconded the motíon. Those votíng øye: Colhy Curfis, Stephanie Grícius, Benjømín Reøves, Donnø Burnham, and Melissa Clark The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Approved by the City Council on August 6,2019 B MMC City Recorder Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - July 16, 2019 Page l7 of 17