Eagle Mountain City Council, 1 September 2020

Councilmember ßarnham moved to øpprove the consent agenda. Councìlmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donnø Burnhøm, Melßsa Clark, Colby Curtis, and Cørolyn Love. The motion pøssed with s unanimous vate" Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - September 1,2020 Page I I of2l SCHÐD{]T,Ii:D TTEJVTS 13. O[{Ð[N¡\NCES/PLf[JLIC HF;ARINGS 13.¡\. OR.DINANCE - An Ordinance of [iagle Mount¿rin City, Utah, Amending the Eagle Itvlountain Municipal Code Chapter ['7.l0 Definitions ¿ncl Chapter ] 7.75 fitandards for Special Uses. Long-Range Planning Manager Pete Kane presented the item. The City Council recently approved amendments to the use tables in various zoning districts and created a permitted special use classification. Special uses must meet standards established within Eagle Mountain Municipal Code (EMMC) Chapter 17.75. When the standards were amended, language was included indicating that special uses were considered prohibited until special use standards were adopted. The item under discussion revises the chapter in order to organize the expanded list of special uses and includes proposed new language to be added to EMMC Chapter 17 "10 Definitions to create definitions for all special uses not cun"ently in the chapter. The proposed changes to EMMC Chapter 17 .10 Definitions include the additio n of 23 definitions; no modifications were made to any existing definitions. The proposed changes to EMMC Chapter 17.75 include restructuring the chapter into use-related sections, the inclusion of an Applicability section that clarifies that the special uses must also comply with other relevant chapters in Title 17 , the addition of proposed regulations for 16 of the new special uses, and updated language for some existing special uses. Mr" Kane explained the proposed changes in EMMC 17 .75.062 do not include a residential use element for the distance requirement when locating new gas stations" Based on previous discussions and research, the City Council could consider an amendment to the proposed change to G. Distance to Other Uses. Options may include, "The minimum closest distance from the automobile gas/service station or car wash with gas pumps site to an existing residence, school, park, playground, museum or place of public assembly will be not less than 300 feet," or, 'oThe minimum closest distance from the gas pumps and fuel vents at an automobile gas/service station or car wash with gas pumps site to an existing residence, school, park, playground, museum or place of public assembly will be not less than 300 feet." Mr. Kane noted a correction to a citation in the definition of oonuisance" from "788-38-l Utah state code" to "788-6-1 101 Utah State Code." The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Municipal Code amendment with a 4 to 0 vote, with one Commissioner absent" Councilmember Love expressed her preference that gas station standards be measured from the fuel pumps and vents to the residential property line as she had a greater concem regarding the potential for fumes reaching the residents' yards than the actual homes. She prefers a 300-f'oot setback but agreed to consider other distances. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - September 1,2020 Fage 12 of2l Discussion ensued regarding the distances from residences to existing gas stations within the City. Councilmember Curtis advocated to prohibit gas stations closer to residences than the distance between the homes and the proposed 7-Eleven on the comer of Pony Express Parkway and Porter's Crossing. Mr. Kane stated the 7-Eleven setback is approximately 200 feet to residential property lines. Mr. Kane explained gas station setbacks vary in Utah cities from 250 to 500 feet from schools, parks, museums, or places of public assembly; however, none of the cities included a residence setback requirement. He stated a large distance requirement from residences may prevent gas station uses in some areas of certain zones, resulting in the reduction of the accessibility of gas stations. Councilmember Love noted gas stations are generally located on corner properties which should enable locating the vent farther from residences and hopefully allow buffering with other commercial uses due to frontage requirements. Councilmember Curtis said a property line setback requirement could prevent locating gas stations near multifamily residences as well as prevent gas stations in inappropriate locations within the City. He also expressed concern requiring a standard that no other cities include and cited alcohol and tobacco sales, not health concerns due to fumes, as the likely reason for the setback standards. He expressed hesitation to approve standards without understanding the reasons why other cities do not include a gas station to residence setback standard. Discussion ensued regarding potential gas station setback distance requirements. Councilmember Clark expressed concem regarding determining a setback without understanding the reason and purpose of setback standard requirements in other cities. The Chevron gas station located on Ranches Parkway and Pony Express Parkway is approximately 90 feet from residences, and the proposed standards would have prohibited that gas station, which is heavily utilized. Councilmember Love suggested the setback be from the fuel vents to the residences and stated the City Council should consider previously approved gas stations and set standards in accordance with desired gas station locations in the City. Councilmember Burnham expressed concern regarding the location of the Chevron on Ranches Parkway and Pony Express Parkway and stated she is not in favor of approving a gas station closer to residences than the recently approved 7-Eleven on Porter's Crossing and Pony Express Parkway. Mayor Westmoreland inquired if the City Council desired to table the item for additional time to research concerns. Councilmember Curtis expressed ooncern regarding uniquely shaped parcels and recommended designating a setback as a placeholder in order to approve the other special use standards with the intent to address gas station setback standards separately at a future meeting. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - September 1,202A Page l3 of2l Councilmember Love recommended a 200- to 250-foot setback to potentially be amended at a future meeting in order to approve the other special use standards. City Administrator Paul Jerome stated he believes the vent for the Chevron gas station on Ranches Parkway and Pony Express Parkway is located approximately 190 feet from the closest residence. Councilmember Clark stated as the gas station information was not published in the agenda materials nor publicly noticed, and due to previously expressed resident concerns regarding gas stations, gas station setback standards should return to a future meeting. She expressed concern regarding arbitrarily selecting a setback distance without properly researching the reason for setback standards in other cities and required government safety standards. Councilmember Curtis concurred with Councilmember Love's assessment that the City Council is setting a precedent by adopting a setback standard. He stated he read the studies submiued by residents regarding gas station impact on resident health and although no proof of harm was established, concerns regarding the possibility of an association between gas station fumes and health concerns were presented to the City Council. He recommended 200 feet as a reasonable minimum setback to address health concerns without making commercial areas unviable. Discussion ensued in support of implementing a 200-foot setback from the fuel vent to a residential property line to address resident health concerns without unreasonably impeding City development. Mayor Westmoreland opened the publíc hearing at 8:03 p.m. No eomments were submiued 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 Love moved to upprove øn Ordinance of Eagle MountaÍn City, Utah, amendíng the Eøgle Mountaìn Munícípøl Code Chøpter 17.10 Deftnìtíons and Chøpter 17.75 Standørds for Specíal Uses ømendíng the nuisønee statute citøtÍon øs presented ín lhe meeting, and amending 17.75.062 (G) to, "The minimum closest dìstønce from the gøs vents øt øn automobíle/gøs servíce statíon or cør wash wíth gas pumps síte to the properÍy líne of an existíng resídence, school, park, pløygraund, museum or place of public assembly wíll not be less thsn 200 feet"' Councilmember Clørk seconded the motian. Those votíng øye: Donnø Burnhøm, Melíssø Clark, Colby Curtß, and Carolyn Love. The motion pøssed wíth ø unanìmous vote. 13.8. ORDIN¿\I:{CE - An CIrclinance of liaglr Mountain City, Lltah, Amencling the l-ragle Mountain V[unicipa.l Codc Chapter 17.25.030 Residenlial l.anc1 [Ise I able, Planner Jessa Porter presented the item and explained Eagle Mountain lVlunicipal Code does not include regulations regarding roosters. Chickens are permitted in all single-family residential zones, except the RC zone. In order to address an increase in complaints regarding roosters, staff recommended a revision to the Residential Land Use'I'able (EMMC 17.25.030) to include a Eagle Mountain City Council ùIeeting.- September 1,2020 Page 14 of2l ooRoosters footnote that states are permitted in the Agriculture zone, prohibited in all other zones." Ms" Porter reviewed the concerns discussed during the August 11,2020, Plaruring Commission meeting and said the Planning Commission recommended approval with a vote of 3 to tr to allow roosters in the Agriculture, RAl, RA2, and RD1 zones. Councilmember Curtis asked what lot sizes contain roosters that have reoeived eomplaints and how passing the ordinance will better facilitate code enforcement over the existing noise ordinance" Community Improvement Offrcer Jeanie West said most complaints are from residents with small, 0.16-to 0.18-acre lots with shared private drives behind homes. Complaints have increased since the pandemie; the City has received nine rooster complaints since March, compared to two complaints in 2019 and three complaints in 2018. She said one of the issues may arise from residents purchasing chicks with the intent to raise hens but are unable to confirm the sex of the chick until after the family has formed an emotional attachment to the ro<¡ster. She said the City rarely receives complaints regarding hens and recommonded permitting roosters on half-acre lots or larger. This ordinance would allow Code Enforcement to require the removal of a nuisance rooster to resolve complainfs. She said other cities have standards regarding roosters and a set standard would provide clarity for Community Improvement Offrcers to address resident complaints. Councilmember Bumham said she lives in a neighborhood with lots sizes ranging from ll5 to Il3 acre and her neighborhood has several roosters. She can hear the roosters, but dogs are a greater nuisance. She explained one of her neighbors mitigates noise issues by keeping the chickens inside the coop until T:30 a.m" and the rooster does not crow inside the coop" She advocated for using the noise ordinance to address concerRs and expressed concem that people could release roosters in the City if required to remove the rooster from their property. She concurred that residents may potentially purchase and hand-raise a chick and cliscover the chick is a rooster after forming an attachment. However, she said she was willing to consider prohibiting roosters on small lots. Councilmember Clark concurred with Councilmember Burnham's statements. She said she felt it is over-reach f"or the City to require residents to prohibit an animal based upon its sex, especially considering the difficulties in accurately sexing chicks. She said the City has a noise ordinance in place to acldress rooster noise concerns. She expressed her willingness to consider additional noise mitigations requirements such as crow collars or coops to adclress complaints. She would prefer to promote resident self-reliance by allowing chickens ancl statecl rr¡osters provide protection to the flock. Councilmernber Curtis stated that chickens are already restricted in the RC zone and advocated for prohibiting chickens on small lots. Assistant City Administrator/Community Development f)irector Steve Mumford stated that the previous Residential Zone standards apply to all existing homes; these residences are pemritted to have chickens unless and until the City rezones existing residential areas. I{e said speoifuing a lot size in the standards will only impact new construction. Eagle Mountairr City Council Meeting - September 1,2020 Page l5 of2l Councilmember Love expressed her support of speciffing a lot size standard, although issues may arise due to neighborhoods comprised of lots with varying sizes. Councilmember Burnham stated that multiple roersters housed together will compete which increases crowing. She suggested possibly limiting the number of roosters allowed per residence; however, she advocated for the noise issues involving roosters to be resolved with the noise ordinance. Councilmember Clark recommended using the l<lt size standards for the number of dogs pemritted per residence as a guide f'or rooster standards. She said most smaller lots are governed by homeowners associations (HOAs) and the covenants of the association will address rooster ownership and noise concems. Councilmember Curtis suggested a more robust noise ordinance to befter resolve nuisances and said negatively impacting a person's ability to sleep infringes on that individual's rights. Ms. W'est explained Community Improvement uses the noise ordinance to address rooster complaints, which has been effective in resolving most complaints. She expressed her willingness to continue to address rooster complaints through the noise ordinance if desired by the City Council. However, the City Council may need to revisit the item if problems continue. Councilmember [,ove said Commissioner Wells had noted some of the benefits of roosters during the Planning Commission meeting. She requested clarification regarding current Ciff standards as chickens are permitted, and Municipal Code does not distinguish between hens and roosters. Ms. V/est explained one of the reasons for the ordinance amendment was to specifically address rooster permittance due to the ambiguity in the standards. Ms. Kofoed stated roosters were prohibited by The Ranches HOA and complaints increased after the HOA dissolved" Councilmember Curtis verified the nine rooster complaints in 2020 were from different complainants from various areas in the City and expressed concern that the ordinance will not reduce rooster complaints or decrease issues. Councilmember Clark noted that two of the complaints came from areas of the City with Yz-ase or larger lots. Ms. V/est stated compliance response varies; sometimes a letter resolves the concerns other timos additional intervention is required. She verified that clog complaints have also increased over the past six months and one of the complaints involved both dogs anel roosters" Mayor l.l/estmorelønd opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - September 1,2020 I'¡age 16 of 2l Ms. Kofoed stated an email had been received from Lisa Clawson. Lisa's daughter, Bella, has a rooster named Nugget. The email explained the benefits of owning a rooster and expressed concern regarding the ordinance as it would require the family to relinquish a pet. Sandy White submitted the following comment: 'oI am asking the City Council to vote no on the proposal, which would prohibit roosters on lots less than I acre. Our city already has a noise ordinance. If the rooster is causing a noise problem, let the residents use that ordinance to get the city involved. The city should not prohibit the freedoms of all the residents because of one or two complaints, particularly when a code already exists that would address the problem. Roosters can be an essential element to a flock, providing protection and safety to the hens, both from predators and from each other. They also provide fertilization of eggs, allowing one to continue one's flock size" A rooster's crow is about the same decibel as a dog barking, and yet dogs are not restricted to I acre lots. One may argue that residents are expected to keep their dogs from barking at night, but again this relates to the noise ordinance which is already in place, and which would apply equally to dogs and roosters. In summary, please do not create additional restrictions on liberty when current city code already addresses the problem"" Mayor LVestmoreland closed the public hearing at 8:43 p"m.

Councìlmember Burnham moved to deny an ordinønce of Eøgle Mountaín City, Utøh, amendíng the Eagle Mountaín Municípul Code Chapter 17"25.030 Resídential Land Use Table. Councílmember Clørk seconded the motíon. Those voting aye: Donnø Burnhøm, Melßsa Clørk, and Carolyn Love. Those voting nay: Colby Curtís. The motíon curried wíth a vote of 3:1. After the vote, discussion ensued regarding potential rooster noise mitigation requirements ll.C. OIU)INANCII - An Ord.inance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Annexing an Area of Approxirnately 204 Acres, Comrnonly Known as the Butterfield Annexation. Ms. Kofoed presented the item and stated the City received an application for annexation earlier in the year for 204 acres adjacent to the Arrival subdivision. The applicant only intends to develop 22 acres of the property. The area is designated in the General Plan as open space, and staff is working on an ordinance to create an open space zone. Ms. Kofoed explained the annexation process, if approved and not protested, results in agriculture zoning, unless the applicant has a master development agreement (MDA) with alternate zoning. Ms. Kofoed explained concerns have arisen regarding the annexation of the area due to the difficulty in providing City services and the need for septic tanks. She explained approving the annexation with the Agriculturalzone would allow for Frve-acre parcels. She recommended tabling the item to allow time to create ¿n MDA for the property and for the completion of the open space zone designation, or to deny the annexation, if desired by the City Council" She stated that the planned property purchase through the Army Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) is dependent upon funding and an agreement has yet to be signed. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - September 1,2020 Page 17 of2l Councilmember Curtis expressed concem regarding approving the annexation and zoning the land as Agricultural prior to preserving the ACUB open space land. Ms. Kofoed explained staff desires to detennine if the City Council is amenable to allowing the annexation to move forward with the development of 22 acres of residential property prior to drafting an MDA to determine zoning. She said access to the property will be contingent upon the development of the adjacent Anival development. City Attorney Jeremy Cook explained the developer of Arrival had to reconfigure the lots in order to accommodate septic systems, and a proposed community septic system for the area was denied. Septic system requirements led to nonideal compromises for the Arrival lot configurations. The City Council may require a minimum lot size for the Butterfield development to prevent lot size reduction due to septic system requirements. Mr. Mumford presented a map designating the Camp Williams land under contract for an ACUB easement or acquisition in relation to the annexation property. The ACUB land acquisition is not dependent upon the annexation. Applicant representative Braiden Rindlisbacher stated he had met with Master PlanneriACUB Manager Paul Raymond with Carnp Williams and Mr. Raymond stated the ACUB agreement should be finalized by the end, af 2020. The annexation is required in order to develop 22 acres of the property, and the remainder of the property is planned as open space. Mayor Ilestmoreland opened the public hearing 9:04 p"m" Bettina Cameron reiterated the importance of preserving the ACUB area as open space without development encroachment. There is a high probability that the wildlife corridor will extend into the ACUB property and annexing the property as Agricultural could threaten the area" The desired development area of the 22 acres of property does not impact the wildlife corridor. Mayor llestmoreland closed the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. Councilmember Love verified the majority of the property is undevelopable due to topographical challenges. Discussion ensued clarifring the options available to the City Council regarding the annexation, the development of an open space zone, the fact that denial of the annexation would prevent the applicant from resubmitting the same annexation request, and the preservation of the ACUB area as open space.

CouncÍlmember Burnham moved to tuble an Ordinønce of Eagle Mountaín C¡ty, Utah, annexìng an ørea af øpproxímately 204 øcres, commonly known øs the Butterfteld Annexøtíon. Councilmember Love seconded the motíon. Those votìng aye: Donna Burnham, Melíssa Clark, andCarolyn Love. Those votìng nøy: Colby Curtß. The motìon carried wíth ø vote of 3:1. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - September 1,2020 Page l8 of2l 14. RIISOLUl'i0NS 14.4. Rtj$i{)l,II'f'lON A Resolurion uf'lragle lv{ol¡ntain City, lJtah, Amending anrl Adopting thc 2020 Eagle Mountairr City llarks,'l'rails & Open Space Master Plan, Parks and Recreation Director Brad Hickman explained the City solicited bids earlier in the year and selected MHTN Architects to assist staff and local officials with updating the City's Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan with input from the DV/R and the Eagle Mountain Nature and Wildlife Alliance. MTHN representatives presented an overview of the 2020Eagle Mountain City Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan included in the packet materials. MHTN Architects Community Planner Ryan Wallace explained the process to create visions and goals for the foundation of the project and the implementation process of these goals. MHTN Architects Community Engagement Planner Amanda Dillon presented the community engagement methods used to inform, consult, involve, and collaborate with residents regarding the project. She highlighted the results of a 39-question survey that received 1,041 responses. She reviewed the focus interview participant list and the interview results. MHTN Architects Landscape Architect Project Manager Vince Olcott presented park recommendations based upon the data collected" MHTN Architects' recommendations are to focus City resources on constructing more communi6, and regional size parks and amenities as the City population increases, and to ensure that new and existing parks provide high-quality, diverse opportunities for the community. Alta Planning Trails and Trerrsportation Planner Dave Foster presented the trail recommendations, which include collaborative plans for future trail development on open spaces and adjacent federal lands; planning for the needs of all trail users including hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, and motorized users; and expanding and enhancing the City's in-town paved pathway system. Mr. Wallace said the open space recommendation includes embracing and enhancing the City's identity as a City with unparalleled access to preserved open space, intact wildlife corridors, ancl spectacular vistas to create a unique legacy, positive economic impact, and elevated quality of life" As Eagle Mountain continues to develop, it should identify and preserve important wildlife habitat and migration corridors valued by citizens. Councilmember Curtis said although he supports the plan, he has concerns regarding some of the language in the plan, including setting an air quality goal as it is outside the purview of the open space and parks plan. He also expressed concerns regarding policies to encourage physical activity, as he does not support socially engineering resident behavior" He stated his preference to support rather than direct lifestyles, and that he does not want to adopt polioies that drive a specific political agenda. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - September 1,2020 Page l9 of2l Councilmember Clark recommended changing "encourage" to "facilitate" to support rather than drive activity and behavior. She concurred with Councilmember Curtis that air quality is outside the scope of the parks, trails, and open space plan. Mayor Westmoreland stated policies in the parks, trails, and open space plan may be appropriate to support State air quality requirements" Councilmember Curtis requested clarification regarding the reason for air quality considerations being included in the plan. Mr" Wallace explained the air quality considerations come from best practices for smart growth in urban planning, and some of the considerations coordinate with the City's General Plan. This plan is intended to implement other City documents and practices, and the language can be revised and amended. He explained other Utah cities have expressed air quality concerns as impacting quality of life, and if air quality is not an important or appropriate consideration for the City in this document, it can be removed from the plan. Councilmember Burnham stated bhaf air quality is an important issue for her. Her daughter's asthma greatly improved after moving to Eagle Mountain due to improved air quality. Providing open spaces and park areas impacts the quality of the air. Mayor Westmoreland stated one of the purposes of the plan is to prevent typical urbanization. Discussion ensued regarding including or excluding air quality from the plan. Councilmember Clark expressed concems that aspects of the General Plan have been used by developers to promote agendas and to create undesired exemptions. Councilmember Love recommended tabling the item as requested by residents to allow time to better review the plan. Mr. V/allace stated he could provide software to allow the Councilmembers to enter notes on the same document. Ms. Kofoed explained that the use of a means of electronic software that is not publicly available for viewing can be problematic and stated it would be best for the City Council not to use the software to prevent potential issues. Mr. Cook concurred with Ms. Kofoed" He clarified that comments by individual Councilmembers are not problematic. The concem is dialogue between Councilmembers regarding a policy item outside of a public forum that may impact a decision by the Council.

Coancìlmember Burnham moved to table a resolutìon of Eagle Moantain Cíty, Utah, ømendìng ønd adoptíng the 202A Eagle Mountøin Cìty Parks, TraÍls, & Open Space Master Plan untìl the next meetíng. Councìlmember Eagle Mountain Cify Council Meeting - September 1,2020 Page20 of2l Clark seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donnø Burnhum, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtß, ønd Carolyn Love" The rnotíon pøssed wíth a unanimous vote. I5. CTIIY C:OUNCIL/IVíAYOR'S BIJSINESS I6" CN-Y CO{]NCII, BOARD LIAïSON IT}'POR-I'irJ Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark stated several residents received their Ham radio license certification. Councilmember Love None. Councilmember Bumham None. Councilmember Curtis None. 17. COMMTJNICATION ITT'MS 17.A. Upcoming Agenda Items l8 ADJOUR]\MËNT"

Councilmember Clørk moved to ødjourn the meeting øt 10:24 p.rn Councílmember Curtís seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnhøm, Melíssu Clark, Colby Curtís, ønd Carolyn Love" The motíon passed with ø unønímous vote.