Eagle Mountain City Council, 20 October 2020

Councilmember Curtß moved to approve the consent agenda. Councílmember Grøy seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnhøm, Melßsa CIørk, Colby Curtß, ønd Jøred Gray. The motion pøssed with a unanímous vote. SCHADULED IT]],MS 12. ORDINANCE/PIJI]t,IC I-TEARTNGS 12"A. OI{DINANCIE/PUBLIC FIFIARING - An Orclinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, A¡rproving the Second Amen<lment to the Fiscal Year 2020-202 t Budget. Eagle Mountain City Couneil Meeting - October 20,2020 Page 72 of2l Finance Director Kimberly Ruesch presented the item. This is the second budget amendment for this fiscal year and includes changes to the General Fund to hire an engineer in training, to the Enterprise Fund for an amendment to the a 3.5 million-gallon water tank for the Facebook project, and to the Transportation Impact Fee Fund to add two debt service payments on a loan with the State for the widening of Pony Express Parkway, resulting in an overall budget increase of s876,t42. Councilmember Gray requested that staff explain the purpose of hiring an engineer in training for, the benefit of the public. City Administrator Paul Jerome explained that the City Engineer had included the cost of an additional employee in the budgeting process, but the expense had been unintentionally omitted from the final budget. Due to the uncertainty of the impact of the pandemic on City revenue, hiring has been temporarily frozen. The City experienced an increase in sales tax revenues and not a decrease and determined to move forward with hiring the position. City Engineer Chris Trusty stated the engineering staff includes himself, an engineering assistant, a Blue Stakes technician, and two full-time public works inspectors. The City currently hires a consultant for water model maintenance, and this position will allow the Ciff to maintain the water model with staff" The individual will also oversee some capital improvement project management and assist with public works inspections to help alleviate the workload on current staff. Mayor Westmorelqnd opened public comment at 7:24 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed public comments. Mr. Jerome explained the salary amount listed was for the remainder of the year and included benefits and total compensation costs.

Councilmember Burnham moved to approve an Ordínønce of Eagle Mountøin City, Utøh, Approving the Second Amendment of the Fìscal Yeør 2020-2021 Budget. Councílmember Curtß seconded the motíon. Those votíng øye: Donna Burnham, Melíssa Clørk, Colby Curtß, and Jøred Grøy. The motíon pøssed with ø unønimous vote. 12.8" ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARIN0 - An Orclinance of Eagle Mountain City, Uterh, Amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Adding Chapter 17 "23 Apen Space Zones. T,ong-Range Planning Manager Pete Kane presented the item. Current Municipal Code standards include zoning districts for residential, commercial, agriculture, and industrial uses. There are other land uses that are currently permitted across each of these zones, rather than set as their own use. By creating azone for open spaces, the City will establish the allowed uses and development requirements for this use. This will also provide a clearer picture of the actual land use in the City. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 22, 2020, and recommended approval with a unanimous vote. Eagle Mountain Ciff Council Meeting - October 20,2020 Page l3 of2l Mayor Westmorelctnd opened public comment at 7:29 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed public comments.

Councilmember Grøy moved to approve an Ordínønce of Eagle Mountøín City, Utah, Amendíng the Eøgle Mountøín Munícípøl Code adding Chupter 17.23 Open Space Zones. Councilmember Curtís seconded the motìon. Those voting øye: Donna Burnhøm, Melßsa Clørk, Colby Curtis, and Jared Gray. The motíon pøssed wíth ø unanìmous vote. 12"C. ORDINANCE/P{.JBLIC HIIAR|NG- An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City,lltah, Amencling the hìagle Mountain Municipal Cocle Aelding Chapter T7"31 Public Iracilities Zone. Mr. Kane presented the item and explained that creating azone for public facilities allows the City to establish the allowed uses and development requirements for this use. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 22,2020, and recommended approval with a 4 to 1 vote. The dissenting vote by Commissioner V/ells was due to her belief that outdoor storage should be included in the standards as a special use. Mr. Kane explained that the definition of outdoor storage includes storage of equipment outside of a structure; City screening requirement standards are still applicable. The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding equipment storage maintenance and Municipal Code enforcement and discussed a possible future amendment either to allow outdoor storage as a special use with improved standards, or as a subordinate use to an allowed use due to the potential need for outdoor storage for some public facility uses. Discussion ensued regarding concerns with outdoor storage impact on sunounding areas and the proper timing and manner to address outdoor storage concerns and infractions. Mr. Kane clarified the updated definition of outdoor storage is defined as "the storing of materials, products, and equipment incidental to an allowed use in an outdoor setting that is not accessible to public." Councilmember Clark expressed concern regarding shipping containers being used for storage on public facilities adjacent to residential areas or similar unintended, undesirable allowances should outdoor storage be an approved use. Mr. Kane explained that outdoor storage standards require a six-foot or greater masonry wall or solid, opaque fencing to screen all open storage areas from the view of the street, and items taller than the fence may not be stored within twenty feet of the fence" Storage containers would be required to be screened by appropriate fencing. He noted that if outdoor storage \ryere an approved special use, an additional site plan approval would not be required for the addition of outdoor storage to an approved project; however, the outdoor storage would need to adhere to the approved regulations regarding use standards including fencing and screening. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting * October 20,2020 Page 14 of2l Councilmember Clark expressed concern with allowing outdoor storage as a special use due to the lack of additional approvals or oversight to mitigate undesirable impacts on residents. Councilmember Curtis stated homeowners have the right to install fencing on their property without the approval of impacted neighbors and shipping containers are not permitted. Discussion ensued debating the difference between the impact and desired allowance of fencing installation on public and private land. Councilmember Curtis stated the City could mitigate and regulate concerns through the terms and enforcement of lease agreements. Mr. Kane clarified that shipping containers are only allowed as a special use in the Light Manufacturing/Distribution Zone and the Sweetwater Industrial Overlay. City parks and the rodeo grounds would be zoned as open space, which does not permit outdoor storage. However, a building installed adjacent to park property such as the American Legion community center proposed during work session would have Public Facility zoning. Mayor Westmoreland opened public comment at 7:48 p"m. As there were no comments, he closed public comments Mr. Kane explained that the rezoning of properties is not automatic and that legal statutes require rezone applications and approval. He clarified the amendment under consideration does not include outdoor storage as a special use due to the Planning Commission's recommendation to remove it from the amendment. Councilmember Gray stated that storage concerns could be addressed during the rezone approvals

Councìlmember Gray moved to øpprove an Ordínance of Eagle Mountøin Cíty, Utah, Amending the Eagle Mountaín Municìpal Code øddíng Chøpter 17.31 Public Føcílítíes Zone. Councilmember Clark seconded the motíon. Those votíng aye: Donna Barnham, Melßsa Clørk, Colby Cartß, and Jøred Grøy. The motion pøssed with a unanimous vote. I3. MOTION 13.4" MO'I'ION - Bryhle l'arms Alternate Fencing Request Mr. Mumford reviewed the item as presented during work sessron. Councilmember Gray inquired if the altemate fencing request was valid due to fencing standards having been placed under review. He requested clarification regarding the reference to the current standards requiring The Ranches-style fencing, as he believed those should be considered previous standards due to the related Municipal Code being under review. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - October 20,2020 Page l5 of2l Mr. Mumford stated that the City Council can deny or table proposals due to the review of fencing standards. Mayor W'estmoreland asked if the applicant would be able to install cedar f"ence, should the altemate fencing be denied. Mr. Mumford stated he believed the applicant could install the cedar fencing despite the fencing standards being under review. Councilmember Gray stated his preference to table the item until the fencing standards have been updated. Councilmember Curtis verified that masonry fèncing cannot be required by the City Council because it is not included as a requirement in Municipal Code fencing standards. If the City Council reÇommended that masoffy fencing be installed, the applicant could decide to install cedar fencing instead due to existing standards. Mr. Mumford clarified that the City Council has the ability to table or deny the alternate fencing request because the standards are under review. However, the applicant would be able to install cedar fencing, or residents may occupy the homes prior to the installation of the fencing should the item be tabled. Councilmember Gray clarified he is in favor of issuing certificates of occupancy to the affected homes without the fencing. He reiterated his desire to delay the approval to ensure the fencing is in accordance with updated standards. Mr. Mumford stated the City Council could approve the fencing if they feel the fencing option is appropriate for the area and that denying the request may result in the installation of cedar f,encing, which he feels is inappropriate and undesirable for that area. He recommended either tabling the item or approving the Bufftech option. Mayor Westmoreland stated the Bufftech meets the intention and desired product type of the proposed fencing standards under review. He is not in favor of the vinyl options. Councilmember Curtis expressed coRcern regarding approving wood composite materials as he had heard they may detoriorate over time. He advocated for requiring a quality, durable product due to the location of the fencing along major roadways. Mr" Mumford stated the Bufftech product is steel-reinforced, has a lS-yoar colorfast fade protection, and a limited lifetime warranty. Applicant representative Matthew Loveland stated one homeowner is already living in a home within the Brylee Farms project and within the next 30 days, an additional ten homes will be occupied. He stated they began discussing fencing options in May and as the majority of the occupied homes will be along the major roaelways, Fieldstone Homes needs to make a decision regarding fencing tonight. Otherwise, they will need to proeeed with the currently vested fencing Eagle lMountain City Council Meeting - October 20,2020 Page l6 of2l option. They desire for their housing community to be aesthetically consistent along Eagle Mountain Boulevard with the adjacent communities. The proposed vinyl fencing has vertical and horizontal steel reinforcement, is superior to other vinyl fencing, and is consistent with the existing fencing in other developments" The vinyl option has a wood grain, nontextured appearance, and has a thirty*year color fade manufacture guarantee, which is one of the reasons they believe it is a superior product. Í{e desires to install fencing that will be economically feasible for the residents should repairs be required in the future. He explained the reason for requesting a decision regarding the fencing prior to the standards update was due to the desire to provide a quality, completed product to the residents including fence installation. Councilmember Gray reiterated his preference to table the application. He cited a section of State Code 10-9a-509 and stated his understanding is that as the standards are under review, no fencing types are approved, and the application should be tabled until the standards have been updated. Councilmember Curtis asked when the alternate fencing request had been submitted by the applicant. City Attorney Jeremy Cook concurred with Mr. Mumford that Municipal Code allows for the City Council to approve or deny the alternate fencing request. He stated the applicants are entitled to install cedar fencing; however, the fencing options proposed by the applicants are perhaps a better altemative than the cedar fencing. Mr. Loveland stated that the final plat application had been submitted in 2018. He expressed his preference to install either of the proposed alternate fencing options rather than a cedar fence. Mr. Mumford clarihed that staff brought forward the alternate fencing application prior to the fencing standard amendments due to timing considerations for the project. Councilmember Gray stated he believed that updated standards will require masonry f"encing along major roadways; however, he did not object to allowing vinyl, steel-reinforced fèncing options in other areas. He dcles not desire the cedar fencing" He inquired if the applicant would be willing to install masonry fencing" Councilmember Curtis stated that although he concurred with Councilmember Gray regarding requiring masonry fencing along major roadways, should the City Council table the item, the applicant would likely install the undesired cedar fbncing in order to meet the timing constraints for the project. Thus, tabling the application would not accoRrplish the desired installation of a masonry wall. Councilmember Gray said he is unwilling to allow vinyl fencing along the busiest road in the City Mr. Loveland stated that the 3O-year warranty on the vinyl fencing includes wind damage up to 110 miles per hour. He stated that consistency depends upon which con'idor the City Council desires to mateh fencing with. The Sage Park development south of Brylee Farms along Eagle Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting --October 20,2020 Page 17 af2l Mountain Boulevard has fencing consistent with the grey, wood-grain option in their proposal; the Brandon Park development to the south across Aviator Avenue has difierent fencing. Mr. Mumford noted that the Brandon Park development has faux-stone fencing. Councilmember Curtis expressed the desire to require durable, long-lasting fencing along major roadways and noted the difficulties caused by inconsistency in the standards and differing fencing styles for the adjacent developments. Councilmember Clark expressed concern regarding matching fencing when future repairs are required should the style no longer be available through the manufacturer. Mr. Loveland stated that the financial impact on the homeorvner to repair masoffy fencing due to graffiti or other damage is significantly higher than repairs to other fencing alternatives; painting over graffiti on masonry is apparent and unappealing. Applicant representative Brett Woodland stated that in the fifteen years he has worked for Fieldstone Homes, he does not recall having to repair fencing other than due to vehicular damage. MOTIONz Councílmember Burnhøm moved to øpprove the Brylee Farms alternøte fencing request wíth the øpplícønt's lirst choice vinyl fencing option. The motionføiledfor løck of a second.

Councilmember Burnhøm moved to øpprove the Brylee Førms alternate fencíng request with the øpplícant's second Bufftech fencíng optíon. Councílmember Curtß seconded the motion. Mr. Cook clarified that timing requirements are based upon the alternate fencing request application, not the final plat, in relation to when the Municipal Code amendment review went into effect. The City Council may consider the application or may table it until the alternate fencing options are ftnalized. Councilmember Clark noted that should masonry fencing be determined to be the preferred fencing option for major roadways in the City, the City Council cannot require the existing developments along Eagle Mountain Boulevard to remove the existing wood composite fencing and install masonry fencing. Councilmember Gray stated although the City Council had no recourse against previously installed fencing, he desires to prevent any additional installation of fencing along major roadways until the standards are updated. He does not approve of either cedar lencing or the proposecl options. He said he does not believe that the applicants will install a cedar fence and the City has legal recourse under State statute should the applicant attempt to move forward with cedar fencing. Councilmember Clark expressed concern regarding the impact on the home buyers due to an increased price to the project should masonry fencing be required Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - October 20,2020 Page l8 of2l Councilmember Gray stated that he agreed with her concern; however, land values and housing costs have increased since the applicant purchased the land" The developer should be able to incur the price increase of masonry fencing. Masonry fencing is the most desirable product for the homeowners and the City for safety and sound mitigation. Councilmember Clark concurred with Councilmember Gray's concerns but disagreed that this development could be required to be held to updated standards. Mr. Cook reiterated that the alternate fencing style can be denied because the standards were under review based upon the timing of the submission of the application. However, as cedar fencing had been the permitted standard, it would be difficult to legally justiS'that the applicant cannot install cedar fencing depending. He stated that many fences were installed in the City that matched the appearance of the cedar fencing but lacked the desired equivalent quality and durability. The fencing proposed by the applicant adheres to what has been previously required by developers and is superior to cedar fencing. Discussion ensued regarding the desired fencing for major roadways and the uncertainty regarding the timing of the application to verifu whether the applicant has a legal right to install cedar fencing. if Councilmember Clark inquired Councilmember Burnham would consider withdrawing her motion to permit additional time to collect more information. Councilmember Burnham determined not to withdraw her motion due to the other alternative fencing options previously installed adjacent to this development. Those votíng øye: Donna Burnham, Melíssa Clark, and Colby Cartís. Those votíng nay: Jared Gray. The motíon carrÍed wìth a vote of 3:1. 14. CIT'YCOIINCTI.,/MAYOR'S BUSINESS Councilmember Gray requested clarification regarding the mechanism for Councilmembers to place Municipal Code standards under review. Discussion ensued regarding the ability for two Councilmembers to request items be added to the City Council agenda and the possibility of creating a codified mechanism for Councilmembers to be able to ensure items are included on Planning Commission agendas. Mr. Mumford noted that when Councilmember Gray requested the fencing standards be placed under reviewo staff had 15 Municipal Code amendments in process. He requested clarification regarding timing and order priority of processing Councilmember requests. Mr. Cook stated that two or more Councilmembers can jointly request an item to be placed on the Planning Commission agenda. A single Councilmember may also request that the mayor direct staff to add an item to the Planning Commission agenda. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - October 20,2020 Page l9 of2l Councilmember Burnham expressed concem regarding the delay in a request for an item to be on the agenda that was requested by Councilmembers the previous year" Councilmember Carolyn Love joined the meeting at 9: 18 p.m. Mayor Westmoreland noted that prioritizationmay impact the timing of adding items to agendas. Staff must prepare the requested item before noticing the item and placing it on an agenda. Mr. Mumford explained that staffbegan immediately on Councilmember Gray's request; however, the item was delayed due to other Municipal Code amendments already in process as well as additional requests made by the Planning Commission. He stated the request for a transit oriented zone made last year by the Councilmembers is a lengtþ amendment and suggested that staff add future requested items to an agenda for discussion before preparing the Municipal Code amendments. Councilmember Burnham expressed concern that the Planning Commission has the ability to stall or block items that are a priority to the City Council when Planning Commission priorities differ. Discussion ensued regarding Planning Commission roles and responsibilities, potential conflicts, joint efforts, and processes. Mayor Vy'estmoreland stated he would confer with Mr. Mumford and Mr. Cook regarding formalizing the process for Councilmembers to place items under review" Councilmember Clark requested to know the status regarding her request for a formal discussion about the City appointment and hiring process for department heads. Mr. Cook said he has been working on her request and it will be included at the next meeting Councilmember Curtis clarified he did not intend to chastise the Planning Commission" He appreciates their efforts and only meant to imply that direction from the elected officials should be given priority" Mayor Westmoreland requested that staff recommend an official process for Councilmember requests at the next meeting. 15. T]ITY COUNCIL BOAIID LIATSONI REPORTS Councilmember Love Councilmember Love said she will meet with the Planning Commissioners whose terms are expiring to determine if they desire to continue to serve. The Youth Council meeting was rescheduled; however, she was able to meet with the Youth Councilmembers individually. Councilmember Curtis None. Eagle Mountain Cþ Council Meeting - October 20,2020 Page 20 of 2l Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark commended the Eagle Mountain Be Ready emergency preparedness group volunteers and reminded residents that a Ham radio exam will be held on Saturday, November 7, 2020, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at City Hall. To register, email dbecar@,charter"net. Unified Fire Authority taught an Avoid, Deny, Defend active attacker defense class via live stream that is still available, and Boy Scout troops participated in a Stop the Bleed class. Councilmember Grav None. Councilmember Bumham Councilmember Burnham stated the Veterans Board will meet on October 2I,2020. l6 COMMT JNICA"T'ION ITEMS 16"4" Financial Report 16.8. Upcoming Agenda Items 17. ADJOURNMEN'I'

Councilmember Grøy moved to ødjourn the meetíng øt 9:36 p.m. Councilmember Clørk se:conded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Bu,rnham, Melßsa Clark, Colby Curtís, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love" The motion passed wíth ø unanímous vote"