Eagle Mountain City Council, 17 November 2020

Councílmember Curtìs moved to øpprove the consent agendø, removíng ílem 9.A. and placíng ít on the øgendafor the next meeting, ønd øpproving items 10.A., 10.8., 10.C., 10.D., ønd 10.8. wíth the alternøte bíd ødded ønd the condítíon that øny fands used above and beyond impøct fees be reímbursed to the impact fee fund within a year. Councilmember Clark seconded the motíon" Those votíng øye: Donna Burnham, Melßsa Clark, Colby Curtß, Iøred Grøy, and Cørolyn Love. The motion passed wíth ø unønímous vote. SC}TEDTJLED IT'EMS I3. APPE¡\L/PUBLIC HEARING 13.A". PTIBLIC FIEARING *"La Petite Grooming Salon Business l,icense Appeal Ms. Kofoed presented the item. A Home Business License was issued to La Pettie Grooming Salon in April 2015 thatpermitted a maximum of four dogs at one time, no more than 12 clients per hour with a maximum of 24 clients a day, and two on-premise employees. The Recorder's Office notified the applicant in March 2020 that. the business license would expire in April 2020. The lzzats did not contact the City until August2020 after receiving another notice from the City. In August 2016, the City received a complaint regarding the general condition of the property, odor, and the number of animals. A second complaint was received in December 2018 regarding the applicant not obtaining a building permit for the building being used for grooming, noise, employees not observing traffic rules, and 80 to 100 cars traveling to and from the business each day. The City followed up and observed 13 dogs on the premises and verified the salon building did not have a building permit. In January 2019,thelzzats expressed interest in a conditional use permit for overnight boarding and sought approval for more than four dogs on the properfy at one time" A site visit was conducted in October 2019 and determined wastewater from various stations from the facility was being improperly discharged into the wash. Additional concerns include the following items. The current operation is not secondary to the primary residential use of the property, as required by EMMC 17.65, and is adversely impacting surrounding residents. The applicant failed to file a timely renewal of the business license. The City received additional nuisance complaints of noise and excessive traffic from the Cedar Pass HOA and residents. The home business is operating outside of conditions of approval limiting the number of dogs to four; several site visits revealed 30 to 50 dogs on the premises" Dogs have been boarded ovemight and during the day without a pet siuing permit. City administration approved the increase of on-site employees to two, but the business employs more than two. The applicant- proposed sound barrier was not constructed. Home Business Standards stipulate that minor changes to 17 "65.060 (A) through (F) may be approved administratively, if the exception does not adversely impact surrounding residents or affect the residential characteristics of the neighborhood, or signif,rcantly increase traffic or demand on utilities. Any other exception requires approval by the Plaruning Commission (EMMC 16.75.050). Eagle Mountain Ciff Council Meeting - November 17 "2020 Page 16 of 32 Ms. Kofoed stated the City Council has been provided with resident communication for and against the business operation. The building permit issues have been resolved and the building passed the final inspection" Mayor [il'estmoreland opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Keli V/ashburn submitted an email comment in support of the Izzats requesting for the City to grant additional time to relocate the business. Heather and Shane Swanger, who live in close proximiff to the business, and Larry Christensen, the adjacent property owner, submitted email comments against the business license renewal. Nichole Christensen submitted an email comment against the business. The Ceclar Pass Homeowner's Association (HOA) submitted a letter against the renewal of the business license. Jarrett Nichols submitted an email comment supporting the City finding a solution to the situation that both brings the business in compliance and supports thelzzats. Tiffany lJlmer stated that since the Planning Commission meeting, the Izzats have turned away business and have ceased boarding and providing day care services for dogs, in accordance with the rules. Grooming services are completed as quickly as possible to remain under the maximum number of dogs allowed, instead of allowing the dogs to roam and play. The Izzats are in the process of securing a new location and have begun packing a container located on the property in preparation of relocating the business. She requested that the City allow the lzzats additional time to relocate their business, as 90 days is insufficient. She beseeched the City Council for leniency on behalf of thelzzats. Applicant Michael lzzatsaidhe and his wif'e Emma lzzat, the owners of La Petite Grooming Salon, have lived in Eagle Mountain for 13 years. They have experienced success that has caused their business to grow. He agrees that they have outgrown their current location. They have complied with the Planning Commission conditions of approval for the 90-day business license. They have found a potential location to move the business and have submitted an application for a conditional use permit for that location. They are working with developers to build on a property within Eagle Mountain City, as they were unable to find an existing facility on an agriculturally zoned property that will meet the needs of their business. He said it is not realistically leasible to relocate the business within the 90-day timeframe, as they need to construct a building for the business and a new home for their family on the new property. They do not desire to be a nuisance or a bad neighbor and try to have a positive impact on the community. The business was negatively impacted by the pandemic and needs to remain in operation at their current residence until they can relocate in order to provide for their and their employees' livelihood. FIe expressed his willingness to comply with City requirements if allowed to keep the business open and permitted suflicient time to make the necessary adjustments. Mayor Westmoreland stated the City values home-based businesses and expressed his hope to be able to resolve the issues. f:agle Mountain City Couneil Meeting * November 17,2020 Page l7 of32 Mark Lindsay representing the Ceelar Pass I{OA Board stated he appreciates everyone's willingness to work together. He stated the HOA desires to work together with residents to comply with laws and regulations. He said that the I'[OA has worked for three years to assist the Izz.ats with coming into compliance with City regulations. Other residents worked with the Ízzats on a proposed sound-proofing wall to mitigate sound nuisance issues and the project was never completed. He cited EMMC 6.05.330 "If the owner or custodian of any dog is convicted of any violation ofthis chapter on three or more different occasions during any l2-month period, the City may issue an order denying the right of the owner or custodian to maintain a dog in the City for a period of two years," and said the lzzats have had nine such violations. He said the HOA board desires to maintain a balance between the needs of all residents to resolve concerns. The HOA provided the City with a detailed chronology of the history of the issues and encouraged the City Council to include consideration of the materials in their decision. Mayor Westmoreland closed the puhlic hearing at 7:59 p.m. Councilmember Gray requested for Mr. Lindsay to remain in the meeting to represent the residents of Cedar Pass Ranch should the City Council have additional questions as the Cedar Pass Ranch HOA Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs) may have bearing on the Council decision. Councilmember Curtis stated that the CCRs are in"elevant to the City Council discussion and the business license approval or denial by the City. Councilmember Clark verified that Councilmember Curtis' oomment was clariffing the CCRs are not enforceable by the City Council and did not disregard the HOA complaints. City Attorney Jeremy Cook confirmed that the City Council does not have the authority to enforce the Cedar Pass Ranch CCRs. Councilmember Gray clarified he desired for Mr. Lindsay to represent the concerns and perspective of the Cedar Pass Ranch residents. Mr. Lindsay clarified that the letter sent to the City and the standa¡ds he cited earlier are violations of Municipal Code standards, not the FIOA CCRs and the notated infractions include exceeding the number of allowable clients per day, dogs, and empleiyees and generating commercial-level business traffic through the residential area. Councilmember Burnham said that a resident comment stated that the City Council gave thelzzats pref"erred treatment due to personal relationships with the Councilmembers. She assured residents that staff maintains professional impartiality and the City Council does not have conflicts of interests. Although they have a mutual friend, she does not have a personal relationship with the Izzats" Councilmember Curtis requested clarification regarding the level of continued operation being petitioned by the applicant and the timeframe necessary for relocating the business. Mr.Izzat entreated the Council to allow the continuance of operation under the conditions of eight dogs and no boarding as stipulated by the Planning Commission. I.{e said that once the permits are Eagle Mountain Cify Councilkleeting -November 17,2020 Page l8 of32 approved and the purchase of the new property is finalized, construction will take approximately four months. Councilmember Clark stated that she toured the location two years ago when the complaints were first logged ¿nd at that time, Mr. lzzat had indicated soundproofing would be installed on the property and asked why the soundproof barrier has not been completed. Mr" lzzat saicl that exterior soundproofing proved cost-prohibitive and that additional soundproofing of the interior of the structure had been completed during renovations the previous year. He cited State Code nuisance decibel levels and said that the noise level does not exceed the levels allowed by State statutes. Councilmember Clark asked if they are able to keep all the dogs inside the building during grooming as they are no longer boarding dogs" Mr.lzzaI stated that their dog yards are used to allow dogs to use the bathroom. The yards have been almost empty over the past month. Councilmember Love suggested temporarily relocating the business to a rental space that would permit dog boarding and operating at a higher capacity. She said she believes their clients would frequent a new, less convenient location if required. Mr. Izzat stated that of the 30 existing facilities he toured, only one would meet their grooming salon needs and that none of them would function for dog boarding services. The only facility they found that allowed them to operate their business as desired is located in southern Utah County. The only immediately available location allows for two groomers and prohibits boarding. A temporary facility would limit the business to grooming services and increase operating costs due to rental f'ees" Remaining in their current location at reduced capacity is the less costly option and will allow the business to stay solvent until they can relocate" Councilmember Curtis inquired if the potential locations did not meet the physical needs of the business, or if the locations were prohibitive due to eode requirements" Mr.Izz,at stated that Eagle Mountain Municipal Code prohibits boarding and daycare facility in a eommercial zone and is only allowed in an industrial location. Boarded animals require 24 hours a day supervision. Industrial properties prohibit them from living on location and staffing the facility 24-hours aday. Properties zoned Agriculture pennit the land uses necessary for both home ocoupancy and business operation. They are in the process ofpurchasing a20-acre parcel, and the closest neighbors would be a quarter mile away to prevent future issues for the business. Councilmember Curtis stated that the City Council is sympathetic to both sides of the issue and his intention was to determine an appropriate compromise in the interest of all impacted residents, including the lzzats and the several neighbors that have registered complaints with the City" t{e said the Council does not clesire to put La Petite out of business but is also charged with enforcing Municipal Code. Iìagle Mountain City Council Meeting - November 17,2020 Page 19 af 32 ,lllr. Izzat stated that neither Eagle Mountain nor Saratoga Springs have available properties that will meet their immediate needs" The closest available property with the necessary approved land uses is located in Pleasant Grove. All the locations would require remodeling; temporary occupancy lease agreements are difficult to obtain and are cost prohibitive. Councilmember Burnham suggested upholding the decision of the Planning Commission with the additional condition that the temporary license would be extended if signifrcant progress is being made towards relocating the business. Councilmember Gray stated for transparency that he knows Tiffany Ulmer, has met thalzzats, and lives within the boundaries of the Cedar Pass HOA; however, he feels he can remain impartial in the decision. He expressed concem in conditioning a guaranteed extension and stated his preference for date-specific benchmarks as evidence of progress towards relocating the business. He stated that as the Planning Commission had approved the business license, an extension approval would be under the direction of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Burnham clarified that her intention was to include set benchmarks as an approval requirement. Councilmember Curtis said that based upon Councilmember Gray's comments, he assumed that Councilmember Gray was receiving text messages from a Planning Commissioner during the meeting regarding the item, which is inappropriate" Mayor Westmoreland concurred that it is inappropriate for Planning Commissioners to communicate privately with City Councilmembers during public meetings, and that all discussion should be made openly. Councilmember Gray said his comments were in response to Councilmember Burnham regarding his understanding of the purview of the Planning Commission. He said he took issue with the accusation that he was communicating privately with a Commissioner. Councilmember Curtis apologized for and withdrew his comments alleging Councilmember Gray was in communication with a Commissioner during the meeting. Mr. Cook explained that as the item is a de novo review by the City Council, their decision is independent of the Planning Commission ruling. He said that it is unusual to approve a business license based upon the relocation of the business; however" the City Council can include any desired conditions in their approval. He suggested approving the license for a year with restricted uses with an immediate revocation clause if the terms of approval are violated. Councilmember Clark noted that Cedar Pass Ranch residents have expressed concern regarding traffic issues and residents have requested for the posting of signage within the business location encouraging patrons to adhere to traffic laws. She asked if the lzzats would consider a staggered schedule to reduce the number of on-premise employees and would adhere to a limit of eight dogs on the property, including their own dogs. Eagle Mountain Ci[ Council Meeting - November 17,2020 Page 2A of 32 Mr"Izzatsaid they have signage on the property requesting that clients adhere to traffic regulations, but he cannot control the actions of the patrons once they leave the property" He expressed his willingness to post signage within the business to encourage adherence to traffic laws. He said they stagger client appointments and employee schedules to reduce traffic" They call clients about 30 minutes prior to grooming completion; however, they are unable to guarantee that the dogs will be picked up promptly. They own three dogs and one is quite elderly. They are willing to limit the number of dogs on the property to eight, including their own dogs, and only use soundproofed kennels to mitigate noise. Councilmember Clark inquired regarding the reason the Izzats had not previously implemented these measures in order to comply with Municipal Code standards. Mr"Izzat said that prior to the October 13,2020, Planning Commission meeting, they had already discussed moving the business and had already received their financing and designed the new house and salon. He said they had delayed relocation due to sentimental attachment to their current home and location. Councilmember Clark stated that the City Council is charged with protecting the rights of all individuals" She noted that the neighbors have been negatively impacted by the Izzats' success. The decision of the City Council will not be a personal reflection of the Councilmembers' feelings regarding thelzzats. Ms. Kofoed clarified that a business license approval by the City Council would be effective from the current date. As the previous license has expired, a new application and approval are required separate from the previous license. Mr. Cook stated that the business license could be conditioned to be backdated to the Planning Commission approval on October 13,2020, if desired even though the review is de novo due to the business currently operating under the license approved by the Planning Commission at that meeting. Councilmember Love stated that the City had issued a cease and desist order to thelzzats, and the Cedar Pass HOA has sent certihed letters that have not been responded to and are in the process of fining the business. The neighbor complaints began four years ago. She noted that significant time has elapsed without concerns being adequately resolved. She asked Mr" Lindsay for the impact on residents of allowing the lzzats additional time to relocate their business. Mr. Lindsay stated that he does not wish hardship for thelzzats but also desires for the relocation to occur as soon as possible. He said that they can reach out to the impacted neighbors to gauge the temperament of the neighbors regarding allowing additional time for the business to relocate.

Councilmember Burnham moved to øpprove the La Petíte Grooming Salon busíness license subject to stríct complíance with thefollowíng condílions: l. The øpplicønt shøll høve no more than eíght dogs on the premìses at any time, inclading personal dogs; 2. Client dogs may only be on the premises between the hours of 7 a.m- and p.m; 7 3. The øpplicant shall only operate as a dog grooming business, and shall not offer or provide pet sitting or dog døy cøre servíces; 4. Except for drop-off ønd pick-up when the owner of the clíent dog ìs present, the applicant shall allow only one client dog at a time to be outsíde of the enclosed buildíng, ønd øll other clíent dogs must remaín insìde the enclosed buíldìng. Client dogs shøll only remaín outside the enclosed buildingfor ø period of time that is reøsonable to allow the dog to arinnte; 5. The øpplicønt must øllow Eagle Mountøin City Code Enforcement Oftïcers to inspect the premßes at any time to verífy complíance wíth the condítíons of this busíness license approval; 6" Any víoløtions of the condítíons of approval shøII result in immediate revocøtion of the business license; and 7. A sígn should be posted wíthÍn the buílding stating that clíents shall obey the trøfjïc rules. Motíonføíledfor lack of ø second. Councilmember Love verified that the business license approval would be for a period of one year beginning October 13, 2020. Councilmember Curtis expressed concern regarding the lack of a timeframe in the motion. He felt 90 days was too short but, one year would be too long. Mr.lzzat expressed his willingness to return to the City Council at a determined time to report on the progress with relocating the business. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriate timeframe and the desired benchmarks for the business license, benchmark approval body, and if approval needed to take place in a public forum or could be approved by staff. Mr. Cook stated that residents have the recourse to complain to City staff if they feel the conditions are not met, and Code Enforcement will evaluate compliance. If the imposed conditions are sufficient to mitigate resident concerns, allowing the business to operate for eleven months should not be onerous; the license will be revoked if the business does not comply and causes additional problems for neighboring residences. Councilmember Burnham noted that she did not believe that barking complaints should revoke the license as there are noises generated from dogs and other animals on other properties" Councilmember Curtis expressed reluctance to require staff to address adherence concerns and suggested requiring a six-month review of the application. Mr. Cook stated that staff could be allowed to approve an extension of a six-month business license if the City has not received additional complaints; additional nuisance complaints would require a Planning Commission review. Eagle Mountain Ciff Council Meeting - November 17,2020 Page22 of32 Ms. Kofoed stated that staff visits to the property due to complaints have resulted in a variance of perceived violations occurring at the time of the visit. She expressed concern regarding the standard to determine infractions and requested direction on how staff should evaluate compliance. Councilmember Love said that barking should not be an issue if the other conditions are met and that noncompliance with the conditions listed would cause the immediate revocation of the business license. She said that the benchmarks are not necessary as the business license expires in ayear, and the business needs to move prior to that date in order to continue operation.

Councìlmember Burnham moved to approve the Lø Petite Groomìng Sølon busíness license subject to strict complíance wíth thefollowíng conditíons: 1. The øpplícant shall have no more thøn eight dogs on the premíses øt øny tíme, includíng personal dogs; 2. Clíent dogs møy only be on the premßes between the hours of 7:00 ø.m. ønd 7:00 p.m.; 3. The applicant shøll only operate as a dog groomìng busíness, and shall not offer or provide pet sittíng or dog døy care services; 4" Except for drop-off and píck-up when the owner of the client dog is present, the applicønt shall allow only one client dog at a tíme to be outsíde of the enclosed buildíng, ønd all other client dogs must remøin inside the enclosed buíldíng. Clìent dogs shøll only remaín outsìde the enclosed buildingfor ø period of time that ís reasonable Ío øllow the dog to urínate; 5. The applícant must øllow Eagle Mountaìn Cìty Code Enforcement Ofricers to inspect the premíses at øny tíme to verify compliance wíth the condítíons of thís busíness license approvøl; 6. A sign should be posted within the buildíng stating thøt clients shall obey the trøffic rules; 7. Any violations of the condítíons of approvøl shall resalt in ímmedíate revocøtion of the business lícense; ønd 8. The City Councíl ínstructs the City Attorney to ßsue a decìsion consistent with the motíon. Councílmember Curtis seconded the motion. Ms. Kofoed verified that, per the City Council's direction, the Recorder's Office understood that no further business licenses shall be issued to La Petite Grooming Salon at the current address. Those votìng aye: Donnø Burnham, Melßsa Clark, Colby Curtß, Jared Grøy, ønd Cørolyn Love. The motíon passed wíth ø unanimous vote. 14. C JAY PROPERTIES BUILDING 14.,A. ORDTNANCE/PUBLIC HEARIhICì -- An Ordinance of b,agle Mountain Cit¡,, 111u¡, Iì.ezoning a Portirln of Land on Canrpus Drive to Comrnercial Community, 14.R. N{O1'ION - C Jay Properties l}uileling Site Plan Items 14.A. and 14.8. were presented and discussed concurrently" Long-Range Planning Manager Pete Kane presented the item. The site plan is for a proposed professional office building on 0.81 acres on the south side of Campus Drive and includes details for an approximately 8,165-square foot building at the rear of the property and 32 new parking spaces, including 2 ADA-accessible stalls and three existing spaces within the property bounds. Per EMMC 17.55, this site plan would need a minimum of 28 spaces including two ADA- accessible stalls. Screening along the rear property line will protect the property from stray golf balls. The subject property is part of The Ranches and was identified for commercial use through the master development agreement (MDA) and master development plan (MDP). The MDA has since expired, and all vested rights no longer carry. The property is identified in the Future Land Use Map with the Community Commercial land use designation. Staff has identified this property for future rezoningto Commercial Community. At the City Council work session on October 20, 2020, the Council provided feedback about colors and roof donners for the building. The applicant has submitted revised elevations based upon that feedback. The request to rezone the property to Commercial Community (CC) is an appropriate zone for the particular land use designation (EMMC 17.60)" Access to the property from Campus Drive utilizes an existing curb cut. Municipal Code recommends commercial buildings be similar in style to adjacent buildings. The plan calls for similar materials, but in a different color palette to adjacent buildings. The revised elevations have been submitted to update the color palette and architectural details. The plan includes vertical and horizontal articulation through a mix of materials and to emphasize entry points to the building. The proposed building is sited at the rear of the property with a parking lot located at the front; the applicant prefers the siting as demonstrated in the submitted plans. The outdoor patio space at the rear of the building includes decorative stretched fabric overhead and netting along the eastern side of the property due to proximity to the golf course. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 13,2020, to review the application and unanimously voted to recommend approval of the rezone request to Commercial Community, with conditions. Mayor lIlestmorelandwas excusedfrom 9:29 p"m. to 9:34 p.m. due to technicql dfficulties Mr. Kane verified that the building adhered to setback requirement standards. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 9:38 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.

Councílmember Clørk moved to approve øn ordinance of Eagle Mountøín Cíty, Utah, rezoníng a portion of land on Campus Dríve to Commercíal CommunÍty. Coancìlmember Love seconded the motíon. Those voting øye: Donnø Burnham, Melßsø Clørk, Colby Curtìs, Jared Grøy, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with ø unanímous vote.

Councilmember Burnham moved to øpprove the C Jøy Properties Buíldíng sìte plan wÍth the condítíon thøt the mechanÍcal equípment shøll be located or screened ìn ø wøy thøt ít ís not viewable from the street. Councílmember Gray seconded the motion. Those votíng aye: Donna Burnham, Melíssa Clark, Colby Curtß, Jared Gray, ønd Carolyn Love. The motíon passed wíth u unanimous vote. t5. C]RDINANCES/PUBt,ICHË,ARTNGS 15.4" ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HÞIARING - An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapters 16.35 Development Standards for Required Pubtic Facilities and 17.60 Landscaping, Buffering, Fencing and T'ransitioning" Mr. Kane presented the item. Municipal Code includes development standards for fencing based on the type of use, as well as requirements for fencing along certain roadway types. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on October 13,2020. The request was tabled for minor edits to the amendment. Those edits include increasing the allowed fence height to eight feet for commercial fencing (EMMC 17 "60.120(D)); requiring that chain link fencing for detached residential be screened with a solid fence or wall, so as not to be viewable from a street (EMMC 17.60"130(A)); and identifuing a separate, less costly "durable quality" standard for industrial privacy fencing (EMMC 16.35.090). The Planning Commission finished their review and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment at their November 10,2020, meeting. Councilmember Love inquired regarding the exclusion of wood composite alternative materials. Mr. Kane stated that the Planning Commission removed wood composite alternative materials due to the lack of oversight of industrial quality standards and concerns regarding the ability to replace damaged segments of fencing with the same material in the future. Councilmember Curtis expressed concem regarding the ability to replace sections of wood composite fencing, favoring one brand over others in order to set a fencing standard, or requiring higher standards with more expensive .materials. Mr. Kane stated that molds and color options may not be available for all brands of fencing which makes standard implementations and replacements diffi cult. Councilmember Gray expressed his approval of the standards proposed by the Planning Commission as the best option with the information available. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 9:52 p.m. No comments were submitted to the City Recorder's Office and no public was in attendance to make commenL As there were no comments, Mayor Westmoreland closed the hearing. Councilmember Curtis expressed concern that the proposed standards would allow for two styles of fencing for a single property if a portion of the property abuts collector roads and other portions abut minor roadways. Councilmember Burnham stated that requiring the entire property to be one type of fencing could be problematic. She expressed concern prohibiting chain link fencing due to existing homes with chain-link fences. Mr. Kane stated that homes with chain link fencing would be grandfathered into an altemative fencing allowance. Councilmember Love stated that she did not have concerns regarding permitting two styles of fencing for properties partially adjacent to major roadways and permitting alternative fencing in residential areas, even for properties with adjacencies to both areas. Councilmember Curtis said after consideration, he withdrew his concern regarding multiple fencing types for properties partially along collector roadways" Councilmember Gray clarified that his main concern regarding fencing and his purpose in requesting a review of the standards was due to noise and safety concerns along major roadways and the resulting impact on residents.

Councílmember Gray moved to approve an ordinance of Eøgle Mountøin Cíty, Utah, amendíng the Eøgle Mountøin Municipøl Code Chøpters 16.35 Development Standards -for Requìred Publíc Facilítíes and 17.60 Løndscøpíng, Bufferíng, Fencíng ønd Transitioning. Councílmember Love seconded the motÍon. Those voting aye: Donna Burnhøm, Melßsa Clark, Colby Curtß, Jøred Gray, ønd Carolyn Love. The motion pøssed wíth a unanimous vote. 15.8. ORDINANCE/PIJIILIC FIEARING - An Ordinance of,Eagle Mount¿in City, Lltah. Amending the Eagle Mountain Murricipal Code Chapter 16.10 Master Development Plans. Councilmember Burnhamwas excusedfrom 10:01 p.m. to 10:06 p.m. due to technical dfficulties" Mr. Kane reviewed the item as presented during work session. The Planning Commission and City Council have sought to revise and update the requirements for master development plans (MDPs) and agreements (MDAs) based on previous project proposals that have been submitted to the City . The proposed amendments resolve questions and process flow concerns. The amendment sets standards for all future master development agreements. The proposed amendments addresses concerns regarding the current Municipal Code standards for MDAs and MDPs including reducing the size requirement for properties that would need a master development; requiring smaller master developments; setting a time limit, potentially five years for agreements; establishing development benchmarks; outlining phasing requirements and focusing development on portions of properties with existing roads prior to the development of areas needing new roadways, developing a procoss to handle changes for public uses such as schools, churches, and roads, or topographic or geologic challenges that were unknown prior to the agreement being finalized; and adding a requirement for compliance with Municipal Code. The amendment underwent several Planning Commission reviews prior to being presented to the City Council. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their September 22,2020 meeting and unanimously recommends approval of the amendment to the City Council. Mayor Westmorelsnd opened the public hearing at 10:03 p.m" No comments were submitted to the City Recorder's Office and no public wss in attendance to make comment. As there were no comments, Mayor Westmoreland closed the hearing.

Coancílmember Curtís moved to øpprove an ordínance af Eøgle Mountaìn City, Utøh, amending the Eagle Mountøin Municípal Code Chøpter 16.10 Master Development Pløns. Councílmember Clark seconded the motÍon. Those votìng aye: Donnø Burnham, Melíssø Clark, Colby Curtís, Jøred Grøy, and Carolyn Love. The motíon passed with a unønímous vote. I6. BUTTERFIELDANNEXAÏTON l6^¿\ ORDINANCE - An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Lltah, Approving the Butterfield Arurexation Petition and Establishing Zoning Regulations for the Lands in the Butterfield Annexation Area" Items 16.A. and 16.8" were presented and discussed concurrently. Ms. Kofoed reviewed the information presented during work session. Ms. Kofoed explained that a rezone approval will be required to develop a density higher than allowed in the Agriculture zone.

Councílmember Burnham moved to approve øn ordinønce of Eagle Mountøín City, Utøh, øpproving the ButterJield Annexøtìon Petítion ønd establßhing zoníng reguløtíons for the lands in the ButterJield Annexatíon ørea. Councílmember Curtis seconded the motìon. Ms. Kofoed stated that the applicant has not indicated if the septic system issues have been addressed and the development of the areas is contingent upon the infrastructure of the Arrival development. Terrain constraints would require septic systems for the development. She was unsure if the applicant has addressed percolation and septic system installation for the area. Councilmember Curtis stated he would object to approval of one-acre lots should the septic system requirements prove problematic due to issues that have necessitated lot size adjustments to accommodate redundant drainage fields for other developments in the area. Applicant representative Kim Rindlisbacher stated that they have not researched septic systems for this area but have built projects with septic systems previously. They do not expect to develop this project for several years, especially as it is dependent upon connectivity and infrastructure from the noighboring development. Councilmember Gray expressed his support for adopting the annexation as agricultural land and expressed concern in granting vested rights for residential development for a density of 2.5 to 5 acre lots. Councilmember Burnham noted that the applicant intends to request arezoîe to a density of one- acre lots in the future. Discussion ensued regarding the desired lot sizes for the area. Those votíng aye: Donnø Burnham, Melissø Clark, Colby Curtis, and Cørolyn Love. Those votìng nay: Jøred Grøy. The motion catìed with a vote of 4:1. 16,tì. RI'ISOLUTION " A Resolution of Eagle Mountain City, lltah, Approving the Buttertield Annexation Agreement.

Councilmember Burnhøm moved to approve a resolutìon of Eøgle Mountøin CiA, Utuh, øpprovíng the ButterJield Annexstion Agreement. Councìlmember Curtís seconded the motíon. Those votíng øye: Donnø Burnhøm, Melßsa Clark, Colby Curtís, and Cørolyn Love. Those votíng nay: Jared Grøy. The motion cørried wíth ø vote of 4:1. 17. OVIIRI,AND 17.A'. RESOLU'|ION - A Resolution of Eagle Mountain Ciff, {Itah, Approving the Second A"mendtnent to the Amended and Restated Master Development Agreernent for the Overland Development and Pony Express Parcel. Mr. Mumford reviewed the item as presented during work session. He stated that the School and lnstitutional Trust Lands Administration (SI'ILA) submitted minor changes during the meeting to clarifr the Master Developer, Ivory Homes, will be responsible for the improvements and the landowner, SITLA, will convey or deed the land for the easement; the dedicated easement will allow for the alignment of the intersection to increase access to Cory Wride Memorial Park, in addition to improving safety.

Councilmember Burnhøm moved to üpprove a resolutíon of Eøgle Mountøìn City, Utah, approving the second amendment to the amended and restated master development agreement for the Overland Development and Pony Express Pørcel. Councílmember Love seconded the motíon. Those votíng aye: Donnø Burnham, Melßsa Clark, Colby Curtis, and Jared Gray, Carolyn Love. The motíon passed with ø unanimous vote. l'1.8. VILI-,AGE CONCIiP'I' PLAN - Overland Village'['wo Mr. Mumford reviewed the item as presented during the work session. He explained the Overland MDA requires concept plan approvals, which is not the Municipal Code standard for all MDAs. He explained that the transportation map will be updated to align with the roadways proposed in this project. Mr. Mumford indicated that the deceleration lane requested by the Planning Commission would be near the elementary school area. The condition to work with the Alpine School District is a request and not a binding condition. Currently, there is no northern connectivity with the Oquinh Mountain development. He said that the connectivity issues have been addressed with the Oquinh Mountain developers and staff is in discussions for a potential amendment between the developments. Councilmember Curtis recommended including a condition of approval to work with staff to provide adequate connectiviff with Oquinh Mountain.

Councílmember Curtís moved to approve the Overland Víllage Two concept pløn wíth the following condítions; L The north-south roød ìn the míddle of the development shall include ø minimum of 3 5 feet of øsphalt or on-street purking shøll be restrÍcted ølong the roødwøy. Direct driveway øccess on the road should be limíted as much as possible; 2. The applícønt shall improve uccess to the Alpíne School Districtts future elementary school síte off Pony Express Parkway by udding a decelerøtion/turn lane ; 3. The øpplícant shall work wíth the City Engineer to ìdentify and øgree apon an øcceptable íntervul by whìch trøffic study updøtes wíll be provided by the øpplicant to ensure appropríate development of Airport Road; 4. Accesses ønd intersections shall be ødjusted to be aligned or separøted sufficiently according to the City's standards; 5. The øpplicønt shall ínclude a raßed crosswalk where the trail crosses the north-south collector road in the míddle of the project; 6. The øpplicant shøll work with Alpíne School DßtrÍct to utílíze all of the streets surrounding the proposed elementøry school for student drop off ønd pick up routes to mítìgøte traf/ic congestìon and unsafe conditíons; 7. The applícant shall contínue the collector roadfencíng ølong the two lots on the northeust corner of the project close to the Overland monument sígn; ønd 8. The øpplícant shøll work wíth staff to determíne n rosd connection to Oquirrh Mountøín Ranch. Ëagle Mountain City Council Meeting -- November 17,2020 Page 29 of 32 Councìlmember Burnhøm seconded the motíon. Those votíng øye: Donna Burnham, Melíssa Clark, Colby Curtis, Jared Grøy, and Cørolyn Love. The motíon pøssed wíth ø unønímous vote. I8. ORDINANCE 18.4, An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, {.Jtah, Arnending the Eagle Mounl;ain lvfunicipal Code Chapters 2.05 Employees and Personnel and 2"10 Nufayor, ancl Enacting Chapters 2.16 Cify Administrator anel 2"27 Lloard Appointment Process. Councilmember Clark recommended tabling the item due to the lateness of the hour.

Councílmember Clørk moved to tøble øn orùínance of Eagle Mountaín Cíty, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountøin Municipøl Code Chapters 2.05 Employees and Personnel and 2.10 Møyor, ønd enacting Chøpters 2.16 City AdmÍnßtrutor ønd 2.27 Board AppoÍntment Process untíl afature meetíng. Councilmember Curtß seconded the motion. Mr. Cook stated that when the item returns to a future meeting, he will differentiate between the original changes proposed with this amendment and the changes based upon Councilmember suggestions during work session of this meeting. Councilmember Curtis requested for Mr. Cook to provide the changes to the Councilmembers for review and feedback prior to the item returning at a future meeting" Those votíng aye: Donnø Burnham, Melßsa Clørk, Colby Curtis, Jøred Gray, ønd Carolyn Love. The motíon pøssed with ø unanímous vote. Iq" CTTYCOTINCII,/MAYOR'SBUSINESS Councilmember Curtis Councilmember Curtis requested for nonurgent or non-time-sensitive items to be removed from the December 1, 2020 meeting to reduce meeting length. Mayor W'estmoreland directed staff to remove items from the December 1, 2020 meeting that can be reasonably delayed until January. Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark requested limiting the number of work session discussion items and noted that there were over 700 pages in the packet. Councilmember Curtis Councilmember Curtis advocated for including items in work sessions prior to including them on policy sessions and suggested postponing group presentations to the Council, when necessary. Ms. Kofoed noted that several of the group presentations were postponed several meetings due to the number of development items on the agenda. She said she will work with staff to limit and balance the agenda as much as possible. Councilmember Bumham Councilmember Burnham stated she forgot to thank Ms. Kofoed and the Recorder's Office for their assistance with collecting donations and preparing for the Veteran's Day breakfast Councilmember Gra)¡ Councilmember Gray clarified that his dissenting vote to the Butterfield Annexation was due to concems regarding granting vested rights and density for a project that will not be developed for several years" 20. CITY COTINCII- BOARD T,TAISON REPORTS Councilmember Gray None. Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark expressed her appreciation to Emergency Preparedness Manager Jeff Weber and the emergency preparedness group and communication team for the success of the November 7, 2020 Ham radio test and their efforts that have resulted in an increase from 50 licensed Ham radio operators in the City in 2019 to 99 in2020. Councilmember Burnham Councilmember Burnham encouraged resident participation in the new transit survey Councilmember Love Councilmember Love recognized the work and efforts of the Planning Commission to prepare items for the City Council. 2T COMMI.JNICATION ITEMS 21.A. Financial Report 21.8. Upcoming Agenda ltems 22. AÐJOIJRNMENT

Councílmember Clørk moved to ødjourn the meeting at 10:56 p.m- Councílmember Curtis seconded the motíon. Those votíng aye: Donna Burnhøm, Melissa Clørk, Colby Cartß, Jared Gray, and Cøralyn Love. The motíon pøssed wíth a anønìmous vote.