Eagle Mountain City Council, 21 April 2020

Councilmember Curtis moved to approve the consent agenda, removing items 11.B. and 12.B. and placing them as scheduled items/or further discussion, and approving item JI.A. McDonald's site plan with the additional condition that the applicant shall indicate the northeast access as exit only through stripping and the installation ofe xit signage. Councilmember Clark seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Melissa Clark, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. SCHEDULED ITEMS 11.B. Available Storage - Amended Site Plan Planning Manager Mike Hadley presented the item. The site plan for Available Storage was approved by the City Council on October 15, 2019. The applicant is requesting that the office/apartment be allowed to be built with Phase 2. The applicant's proposal is to install underground utilities and construct footings and the concrete slab in Phase 1 for the office building. All landscaping surrounding the office and improvements along Pony Express Parkway will be completed in Phase l, with the actual building to be built in Phase 2. Councilmember Curtis stated that during the site plan approval, the applicant representative indicated Phase 2 would likely be completed three years after the completion of Phase 1. He expressed concern in allowing a three-year delay for the construction of the building. Councilmember Love asked if Phase 1 included the installation of storage unit buildings A and B along Pony Express Parkway to provide screening of the property; if Phase 2 included the installation of storage unit buildings J and C; and if truck rentals were included in Phase 1. She expressed concern that without the office building and onsite staff, returned rental trucks would not be moved to a screened location as Municipal Code requires. Councilmember Gray said the office building should be required in Phase 1, as other developers are required to install amenities before generating revenue. Councilmember Curtis stated he would not have approved the site plan without an office building. Councilmember Clark concurred with concerns regarding a three-year delay before the construction of the office building and expressed concern regarding proper business management without the office building. Councilmember Burnham expressed concerns with how the business would be managed and asked for clarification from the applicant. Applicant Dustin Aldridge, owner of Available Storage, confirmed the three-year timeframe for the construction of Phase 2 and stated it may be completed sooner. He explained that storage facility rentals and access would be automated and conducted remotely. He stated the bank lender for the project recommended expediting revenue-generating sources and delaying expenses on the project. After reevaluating the project, the applicants determined the business demands and revenue would not merit an onsite manager until Phase 2 of the project. Mr. Aldridge stated employees will be onsite daily and available to relocate returned rental trucks. Ms. Kofoed explained Municipal Code does not require onsite business management. Applicant representative Ken Menlove with Menlove Construction said he has built several kiosk operated storage facilities throughout Utah and explained the automated features offered for the management of storage units and rental trucks. He informed the Council that has constructed approximately thirty fully automated systems in Utah without onsite office facilities. Councilmember Clark inquired if Mr. Menlove had anticipated offsite, remote management when he had previously presented his application to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Menlove explained Mr. Aldridge had intended and desired to construct the building in Phase 1 of the project. He reiterated the bank lender recommended moving the office building construction to Phase 2 of the project, as it does not generate revenue. Councilmember Gray expressed his opinion that the site requires an office building to properly manage the rental and return of moving trucks. Councilmember Love referenced Municipal Code 17.40.090(F) Moving and Storage Facilities that states a maximum of three moving vehicles are allowed outside of a six-foot privacy wall or fence. She stated whereas the storage units were permitted in lieu of a fence for property screening purposes, the office building site would leave a gap in the exterior perimeter and expressed concern with the rental trucks being moved in a timely matter, as well as aesthetic and safety concerns regarding the office building site. Mr. Menlove confirmed delayed construction would leave a gap in the exterior perimeter storage unit buildings and a concrete slab would be installed at the office building site. He said Phase 1 included a black, wrought iron fence, an automatic lift gate, the parking lot, sidewalks, and landscaping installation. He said most of the rental trucks will be returned to and parked in the back of the property, where proper screening exists. He explained the kiosk can distribute keys for moving truck rentals, locks, and gate codes for the storage units. Mr. Aldridge stated his wife will manage the facility; they would be monitoring the site daily. Mayor Westmoreland expressed hesitation in discouraging businesses due to Council concerns regarding automation. Mr. Hadley stated the property is zoned as Industrial and is surrounded by agricultural land. Community Development Director Steve Mumford explained the Sweetwater Industrial Overlay Zone was created with the intention to allow reduced architecture and site improvement standards for projects within the Industrial Zone. Councilmember Love suggested approving the amended site plan if the applicant installed fencing along the future office building site. Discussion ensued regarding fencing requirements and other concerns with the amended site plan and potential conditions.

Councilmemher Burnham moved to approve the Available Storage amended site plan with the following condition: the applicant shall install a six-foot decorative, block wall along the office building site, and no other buildings shall he constructed after Phase 1 until the office building is constructed. Councilmember Love seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham and Carolyn Love. Those voting nay: Colby Curtis, Melissa Clark, and Jared Gray. The motion/ailed with a vote of2 :3. 12.B. Resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Authorizing the Extension of the Mayor's March 16, 2020 Proclamation Declaring a Local State of Emergency for Eagle Mountain City City Administrator Ifo Pili presented the item and stated Mayor Tom Westmoreland declared a local state of emergency on March 16, 2020, due to the infectious disease COVID-19. State statue prohibits a local emergency continuing or renewing for a period in excess of 30 days, except by or with the consent of the governing body of the municipality. With the City Council's approval, the proposed resolution will extend the local state of emergency until June 30, 2020. Mr. Pili acknowledged resident concerns regarding the item and stated he had considered removing the item from the agenda but determined an open discussion would be the best way to address concerns and qualm accusations. He explained the process and purpose of the City declaring a local state of emergency including qualifying for State or Federal government assistance, that State and Federal declarations supersede local directives, and the formalities involved in extending the declaration. To explain the powers granted to the mayor through the declaration, Mr. Pili read from Utah Code Title 53-2a-205: "(2) When a state of emergency or local emergency is declared, the authority of the chief executive officer includes: (a) utilizing all available resources of the political subdivision as reasonably necessary to manage a state of emergency or local emergency; (b) employing measures and giving direction to local officers and agencies which are reasonable and necessary for the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of this part and with orders, rules, and regulations made under this part; ( c) if necessary for the preservation of life, issuing an order for the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened area within the political subdivision; ( d) recommending routes, modes of transportation, and destinations in relation to an evacuation; ( e) suspending or limiting the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, explosives, and combustibles in relation to an evacuation, except that the chief executive officer may not restrict the lawful bearing of arms; (f) controlling ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, controlling the movement of persons within a disaster area, and ordering the occupancy or evacuation of premises in a disaster area; (g) clearing or removing debris or wreckage that may threaten public health, public safety, or private property from publicly or privately owned land or waters, except that where there is no immediate threat to public health or safety, the chief executive officer shall not exercise this authority in relation to privately owned land or waters unless: (i) the owner authorizes the employees of designated local agencies to enter upon the private land or waters to perform any tasks necessary for the removal or clearance; and (ii) the owner provides an unconditional authorization for removal of the debris or wreckage and agrees to indemnify the local and state government against any claim arising from the removal; and (h) invoking the provisions of any mutual aid agreement entered into by the political subdivision." Councilmember Curtis thanked Mr. Pili for his explanation. He cited Utah Code Title 53-2a- 208(2)(c) "activates the response and recovery aspects of any and all applicable local disaster emergency plans," and asked for clarification regarding powers granted in relation to the local disaster emergency plan. Mr. Pili explained that section defines an emergency, not powers granted. City Attorney Jeremy Cook suggested including a condition of approval to address Council and citizen concerns. Mr. Pili expressed concern that removing the activation of the City emergency plan would nullify declaring a local state of emergency; he stated the Council should not approve the resolution if they have concerns. He explained the main intent of extending the declaration is to qualify for funding assistance, which the City would most likely still qualify for without the declaration. Discussion ensued regarding the legalities, limitations, and concerns regarding granting emergency powers in accordance with the City's emergency plan, Utah Code interpretation, citizen concerns, and qualifications for receiving government relief funds. Mayor Westmoreland clarified that he had not requested the extension, and the City Council determines if an extension is merited. He explained he had determined in March that it was prudent to declare a local state of emergency. He stated a desire to proceed cautiously amidst uncertainty and expressed appreciation for staff efforts to maintain City function and legal propriety during an unprecedented pandemic. Ms. Kofoed stated the Recorder's Office, the Mayor, and Councilmembers received resident communications regarding the resolution requesting inclusion on the record; these emails are attached. She explained, due to the evolving nature and uncertainty of the pandemic, the inclusions in the proclamation were intended to cover all potential City emergency requirements, and she had selected June 30, 2020 with the intent to prevent the possibility of a second extension resolution next month. She stated if the City Council approved the resolution, it could later be revoked via a motion in a regular, special, or emergency session. Councilmember Love suggested the addition of a condition allowing for the City Council to revoke the resolution at any time. Councilmember Curtis stated the declaration was unnecessary, because the City Council would have adequate time to participate in a regular, special, or emergency session to address any City needs that arise. Discussion ensued debating the merits and potential consequences of an extension or revocation of the local state of emergency declaration. Councilmember Love suggested an alteration to item two, "the City Council authorizes the continued use of emergency powers in Eagle Mountain City to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic," to include the City Council and the mayor in the continued use of emergency powers. Mr. Cook explained the Councilmember are prohibited from jointly discussing City policies outside of a public forum and an alteration including the City Council in the continued use of emergency powers could result in logistical difficulties or legal ramifications. Councilmember Clark suggested removing item four, "all ordinances, resolutions and policies in conflict herewith are hereby repealed," to address concerns of activating Eagle Mountain's emergency plan and the resulting emergency power granted to Mayor Westmoreland. Discussion ensued regarding the suggestion to require emergency Council meetings to address pandemic concerns.

Councilmember Love moved to approve a resolution ofE agle Mountain City, Utah, authorizing the extension of Mayor Westmoreland's March 16, 2020 proclamation declaring a local State of Emergency for Eagle Mountain City through May 19, 2020, removing item/our, "All ordinances, resolutions, and policies in conflict herewith are hereby repealed." Councilmember Burnham seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. Those voting nay: Colby Curtis. The motion carried with a vote of 4:1. 13. ORDINANCES - PUBLIC HEARINGS 13.A. An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Section 15.80.050 Retaining Walls in PUEs Mr. Mumford presented the item and stated the amendment to Chapter 15.80.050 adds that retaining walls shall not be allowed in public utility easements (PUEs) unless the City Engineer determines the retaining wall will not unreasonably interfere with the PUEs and approves the retaining wall in writing, due to the difficulty for property owners to lose five feet of property in order to place a retaining wall outside of a PUE. The City does not often use PUEs for more than the occasional drainage system. The City Attorney recommended staff amend the Code to allow the City Engineer the ability to approve retaining walls within PUEs when it is determined that it will not unreasonably interfere with the easement. Mr. Mumford explained the amendment was not the result of an application but was drafted to resolve issues on existing properties with inadvertent Code violations. Councilmember Curtis expressed concern that the amendment would create an opening for developer abuse. He stated developers will install retaining walls on easements in order to build small lots. Mr. Mumford explained the purpose of the amendment is to allow residents with small lots to retain property in areas where a utility easement will not be utilized by the City. Councilmember Love suggested the inclusion of a condition stipulating that the City Engineer will only approve exemptions in cases where an undue burden is placed upon the homeowner in order to prevent developer exploitation. Discussion ensued regarding exploitation concerns. Mr. Cook explained the exemptions could not be used to obtain more property, as retaining walls may only be installed on the owners' or developers' land. He stated that the City rarely has need for a utility easement across the rear border of properties, and that he did not perceive any situation that would enable policy manipulation or abuse. Mr. Mumford explained existing policies concerning drainage swells or fencing that address developer PUE abuse concerns. City Engineer Chris Trusty explained the PUEs are used for drainage more frequently than for utilities. Councilmember Gray expressed concern that the amended language would place undue burden on Mr. Trusty. Mr. Trusty stated the location of existing or future utilities or drainage requirements would determine the approval or denial of the exemption, allowing him to remain objective. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing 10:02 p.m. No comments were submitted to the City Recorder's Office and no public was in attendance to make comment. As there were no comments, Mayor Westmoreland closed the hearing.

Councilmember Burnham moved to approve an ordinance of the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code amending Section 15.80.050 Retaining Walls in PUEs. Councilmember Gray seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Melissa Clark, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 13.B. An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Rezoning Carson Crossing West/LCS from Town Core Residential (a former zoning district) to Community Commercial Mr. Hadley presented the proposed Carson Crossing project, which is located on 6.38 acres on the southwest comer of Pony Express Parkway and Porters Crossing Parkway. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from Town Core Residential (a former zoning district) to Community Commercial. This item was tabled at the September 4, 2018 City Council meeting to allow time for negotiations on land located in the Pony Express Parkway right-of-way. Councilmember Gray expressed concern that the rezone application had not returned to the Planning Commission for an approval recommendation due to the excessive duration from the initial application. Mr. Cook explained the application was not required to return to the Planning Commission. Applicant representative Dan Ford said he presented Mr. Mumford's suggestion to rezone to the Commercial Community zone instead of the Commercial zone to the owner, of which the owner approved. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing 10:15 p.m. No comments were submitted to the City Recorder's Office and no public was in attendance to make comment. As there were no comments, Mayor Westmoreland closed the hearing.

Councilmember Curtis moved to approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, rewning Carson Crossing West/LCS from Town Core Residential to Community Commercial. Councilmember Clark seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Melissa Clark, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 14. CITY COUNCIL/MAYOR'S BUSINESS Councilmember Curtis Councilmember Curtis expressed appreciation to the Mayor and fellow Councilmembers. He stated the need for feedback on the small business needs assessment survey in order to determine ways for the City and residents to provide patronage and assistance due to the economic impact of the pandemic. Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark also expressed gratitude to the Mayor and fellow Councilmembers. Councilmember Love Councilmember Love stated her appreciation for the Council's robust and thorough discussions. Councilmember Gray Councilmember Gray also conveyed his appreciation to the elected officials. Mayor Westmoreland Mayor Westmoreland encouraged residents to complete the open spaces and small business needs assessment surveys. l5. CITY COUNCIL BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark reported the Cemetery Advisory Board is working on alternate Memorial Day observations. Councilmember Love Councilmember Love reported the Planning Commission is holding virtual meetings. Councilmember Gray Councilmember Gray reported the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will be sending out an open spaces survey with the intent to develop a comprehensive parks and recreation plan unique to Eagle Mountain City that incorporates the trail system and encouraged residents to complete the survey. He recognized the difficulty for the seniors as they are unable to meet socially due to the pandemic. Councilmember Burnham Burnham verified the Military and Veterans Advisory Board will not be meeting this week. 16. COMMUNICATION ITEMS 16.A. Financial Report 17. ADJOURNMENT