Eagle Mountain City Council, 5 January 2021

Councìlmember Burnham moved to øpprove the consent øgenda. Councílmember Clark seconded the motion. Those votíng aye: Donnø Burnham, Melßsa Clark, Colby Curtß, ønd Cørolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanímous vote. SCHEDULED ITEMS 15. MASTER SITE PLAN 15.A. MOTION - Scenic Mountain Phase C Master Site Plan City Attorney Jeremy Cook explained the City Council determined to discuss the master site plan before holding the conditional use permit (CUP) appeal in case the issues regarding the appeal could be resolved with the master site plan approval. The master site plan approval includes additional elements not related to the CUP. Planning Manager Pete Kane reviewed the item as presented during work session and noted that the condition that the site plans for the individual phases of Phase C are not required, had been omitted from the previous presentation during work session. Councilmember Curtis stated that his understanding was that projects should be substantially similar to renderings in the approved master development agreement (MDA) and he did not feel that the renderings presented in the application met that requirement and were inferior to the MDA elevations. Mr. Kane concurred that the designs differ from those presented in the MDA; however, the MDA does not specifically require the elevations be substantially similar to the MDA renderings. Councilmember Curtis stated that the product offered should be substantially similar to the exhibits provided in the MDA. During the initial negotiations for this project, the City Council was concerned with the elevations for the project due to the location of Scenic Mountain at the entryway into the City. They desired an upgraded product similar to the townhomes located in Mt. Airey and had expressed their desire during the negotiations. Applicant representative Jason Harris, Vice President Land Acquisitions for Fieldstone Homes, expressed his desire to work with the City Council and staff to adhere to Municipal Code and resolve concerns. He said he will address the concems that resulted in the denial of the CUP. He explained the drivable surface of the public roads is 33 feet and the drivable surface of the proposed width of Hurstbourne Drive is 34 feet. He stated that parking is permitted on both sides of public roads, but they are limiting parking on the private roads to one side of the road. The passable road width with cars parked along the road will be 17 feú on the public road if vehicles are parked along both sides of the street, and26 feet on the private roads if vehicles are parked along one side of the street. He said that permitting parallel guest parking would allow them to exceed the parking requirement for the development. He felt that exiting a parallel parking stall is safer than backing out of a parking stall and did not create a health, safety, and welfare issue for the community. He said that Municipal Code allows for a parking deviation if the option did not impair the service level. Councilmember Love requested clarification regarding Municipal Code standards regarding the allowance of parking deviations. Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director Steve Mumford cited EMMC 17.55.110(G) "Alternative Parking Requirements. Alternative parking provisions which do not fully comply with requirements may deviate from the standards contained in Table 17.55.120(c), Required Parking by Land Use when the planning commission determines that the deviation does not impair the service level required by this chapter." Councilmember Love stated her understanding of the approval of deviations to the parking standards was regarding parking stall width. Mr. Kane verified that the parking standards on Table I7.55.120(c) identihes the number of parking spaces for land uses and allows for the approval of a reduction of off-street parking stalls due to the incorporation of parallel parking stalls, if approved by the City Council. Councilmember Clark stated that parallel parking stalls along the street do not meet the off-street parking requirement, regardless of the road width. Mr. Harris stated that Municipal Code differentiates between public and private roads and the parallel parking stalls qualify as off-street parking because they are not located along a public road. He requested that the City Council approve the parking altemative as they believe it is beneficial to the project and residents and the width of the private road is sufficient to allow emergency vehicle access. Councilmember Clark expressed concern regarding pedestrian and vehicle safety in relation to parallel parking stalls and noted that on-street parking issues and traffic are the most frequent type of complaints received by the Councilmembers. She is unaware of anywhere in the City where the City Council has approved parallel parking to count towards an off-street parking stall requirement. Mr. Harris said the Fire Marshal is available to address any safety concerns the Council has with the plan. Councilmember Clark clarified her concerns with the parallel parking is not related to fire safety. Applicant representative Julie Smith with Fieldstone Homes stated that Municipal Code permits parallel parking on minor, local, rural, and alley roads and that private roads are part of the off- street parking zone. Councilmember Curtis clarified that the concern of the City Council was not whether parallel parking was permitted in the City, but whether the parallel parking stalls could or should count towards the number of required off-street parking stalls for the project Mr. Harris presented an alternative parking plan to meet the number of ofÊstreet parking stalls for the project that removed the parallel parking stalls on Hurstbourne Drive and added additional off- street parking throughout the development, although he advocated for the parallel parking plan as the better solution. The new proposal with additional ofÊstreet parking would reduce the width of Hurstbourne Drive by eight feet. Councilmember Love stated that the Planning Commission had expressed concern that the parking along Hurstbourne Drive was not readily accessible to the residents on Longleaf Lane and the new parking plan would provide parking closer to the north portion of the project. She suggested adding standards to Municipal Code to require guest parking to be distributed throughout multifamily developments. Councilmember Curtis expressed concern that allowing guest parking stalls along Hurstboume Drive would impede snow removal. Councilmember Burnham noted that the snow removal regulations would not apply because Hurstbourne Drive is a private road; however, the presence of vehicles would still cause snow removal issues for the homeowner's association (HOA). Mr. Kane said that as the parking is intended for guests, signage and the HOA Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) could prohibit resident use of the parking stalls which could mitigate snow removal obstruction. Ms. Smith stated her willingness for the CC&Rs to prohibit resident parking in the guest parking stalls. Councilmember Love stated that the pulpose of the guest parking standards is to increase development livability for the residents and objected to prohibiting resident parking as insufficient parking is frequently a concern for residents especially when vehicles are required to be off the road for snow removal. Ms. Smith stated that the parking standards in the MDA require 2.3 parking stalls per unit with one covered stall. The townhomes provide two in-garage parking stalls per unit in addition to the guest parking. Councilmember Love noted that although the townhomes have in-garage parking for two vehicles, the units lack driveways. Should a resident use their garage for storage rather than parking, the units provide no parking alternative other than the guest parking. Councilmember Clark inquired if the applicants were willing to provide both the additional off- street parking presented in the new plan and the parallel parking along Hurstbourne Drive. Mr. Harris stated he would consider providing the additional parking but preferred to provide the new plan with the off-street parking stalls to fulfill the Municipal Code requirement. Councilmember Clark stated that when she has visited the townhomes adjacent to the project and the current townhome development lacks sufficient parking, even though it met the City standards. She encouraged the applicants to visit their development in the evening to observe the parking concerns. Mr. Kane verified that the City Council could, but was not required, to approve the parallel guest parking. The revised parking plan meets the required 28 off-street parking stalls but provides seven fewer parking stalls than the original proposal with 14 parallel guest stalls. Mr. Cook noted the proposed location of the additional off-street parking obstructs the trails between the units. He was surprised that after the compromises the City has made for the project, the applicants were unwilling to provide both the parallel parking stalls and the additional off- street parking stalls. He advised the applicants not to expect the City to extend flexibility in the future if they were not willing to reciprocate. Mr. Harris stated that the placement of the off-street parking in relation to the trail could be adjusted and expressed his willingness to provide both the parallel and off-street parking. He presented the open space amenities plan to show how the amenities for this phase relate to the overall project and identified the accesses to the park space from public roads. Ms. Smith explained parking amenity points were only awarded for additional parking above the requirements. Mr. Kane explained that the Scenic Mountain MDA allows for the transference of amenity points between the phases of the project and the development will be under a single HOA with resident access to all the amenities. Discussion ensued regarding amenity point transference, the MDA allowances for this development, and amenity requirements for single-family versus multifamily units. Ms. Smith stated due to the size of the arca, all the units are within a few minutes walking distance from all the amenities. Mr. Kane stated the MDA required a clubhouse for the multifamily units and the project complies with the requirement. Councilmember Burnham noted that Phase B has already been approved and evaluation of Phase C should be in consideration with the vesting of the previous approvals and the MDA. Mr. Mumford stated that in his initial review of Phase C, he had concerns regarding the amenities until he evaluated the project in relation to the MDA. Staff directed the applicants to provide a beneficial amenity in this phase for the residents and the developer determined to include the pickleball court. When evaluating the project, he considered the Scenic Mountain Development as a whole. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - January 5,2021 Page l8 of29 Councilmember Love expressed concern regarding the access to the amenities from the trail due to fencing, retaining walls, natural landscaping, and topography barriers and desired additional access to the pickleball court and tot lot. Fieldstone Homes Landscape Engineer Jeremy Ainsworth presented a graphic representation of the pickleball court and stated the location of the pickleball court is to be centrally located to the overall development. He agreed to provide increased accessibility to the pickleball court and tot lot. Mr. Harris stated they agree to comply with the staff recommendation to provide additional access to the pickleball court and implementing increased access to the tot lot is topographically feasible. Brian Gabler with LEI Engineering stated that stairs could be added in between the retaining walls to increase the tot lot access. Councilmember Clark inquired if the amenities are wheelchair and stroller accessible. Mr. Harris stated that all amenities are wheelchair and stroller accessible. He cited a section of the MDA that stipulates oothe Parties understand and agree that the final conf,rguration of the townhome elevations must comply with the City Laws and will vary from the depictions shown on Exhibit F." Councilmember Curtis expressed his frustration with the differences between Exhibit F in the MDA. He said the proposed elevations were inferior to those in the MDA and felt the vast differences between the elevations were akin to abait and switch. Mr. Harris stated they did not intend to offer an inferior option and believe the proposed elevations are aesthetically appealing and beneficial for the community. Councilmember Clark noted that the MDA required for the elevations to adhere to Municipal Code requirements and felt the proposed elevations did not comply with City standards. Mr. Harris presented the horizontal articulation of the building and the design elements. He said they believe the elevations meet Municipal Code requirements. He felt some of the objections were due to personal preferences. Councilmember Curtis stated a side by side comparison of the elevations demonstrates superiority in design, articulation, and roofline variance in Exhibit F in the MDA lacking the currently proposed elevations. Mr. Kane stated that the review of the updated elevations determined adherence to City standard requirements except for roof height variation. Mr. Harris stated that the elevations use Hardie board and board and baton to fulfill the mixed material requirements. Councilmember Clark expressed concern with the similarity between Hardie board and board and baton. Mr. Kane verified that Municipal Code identifies Hardie board and board and baton as separate materials that fulfill the requirement. He explained that garuge doors and windows count as negative space. Mr. Harris stated that the rear elevation was of concern due to the proximity to Wride Memorial Highway and due to those concerns, the front elevation faces towards Wride Memorial Highway with the rear elevations fronting on the private drives. Mr. Mumford concurred with Councilmember Cunis that the elevations in the Exhibit ooF" are superior to those in the current proposal, except for the materials used, and his frustration with the differences between elevations proposed in MDAs and the elevations submitted with projects. He noted that the elevations have been improved from the first submission to the City. He expressed his preference for external visual variation between townhome units. The proposed elevations represent current design trends. He confirmed that the City Council can require roofline height variance in order for the project to adhere to Municipal Code standards. Discussion ensued regarding the preferred method for the applicants to increase the roofline height variance. Troy Gabler with Fieldstone Homes President apologized that the plan conflicted with City Council expectations and said they took over the project a couple of years ago. He said the contour of the land will add to the "elevation reprieve." He expressed concem that adjusting the roofline according to a subjective height difference may result in an aesthetically displeasing result and requested for their team to be able to propose elevations with increased diversity between individual units. Discussion ensued regarding permitting the applicants to propose new elevations Councilmember Curtis stated he was unwilling to allow flexibility for the applicants to amend the elevations due to concerns the bare minimum requirements would be addressed. Councilmember Love concurred with Councilmember Curtis and said she desires to approve the new elevations. Mr. Gabler stated they did not want to do a full redesign of the project or alter the architecture as the elevations adhere to the majority of Municipal Code requirements. Councilmember Love clarified that she preferred for the applicants to alter the front elevations to differentiate the individual units rather than only altering the height of the rooflines. Councilmember Clark concurred with Councilmember Love and advised the applicants to vary the material, window placement or type, or doors. Mr. Harris stated their willingness to amend the elevations; however, he expressed hesitation to commit to specific changes without consulting their architects to determine howthe changes would impact the overall design, interior, and aesthetics. Discussion ensued clarifying the City Council's concerns and suggestions on how to resolve those concems. Councilmember Burnham stated she desired for each unit to be distinct while remaining in harmony as a cohesive townhome unit. Mr. Harris requested for the City Council to inform him of any additional questions regarding the Planning Commission concerns about the lack of man-doors on the units that had not been resolved by the letter from the Fire Marshal. He stated a ten-foot-high fence for the pickleball court would appear intrusive due to the court's location in the center of the community and recommended retaining the eight-foot fence. He stated that there are a few points along the trail where the retaining wall height or spacing requirements would be difficult to implement due to topographical impediments. Councilmember Love stated she did not have a strong opinion regarding the height of the pickleball court fence; however, Municipal Code stipulates a maximum retaining wall height of five feet and desired for the retaining walls to adhere to the standards. Councilmember Curtis stated that the Municipal Code retaining wall height standard is non- negotiable. Councilmember Clark concurred regarding the retaining wall height requirement because the standard is due to safety purposes not aesthetic reasons. Mr. Trusty stated that the five-foot height maximum Municipal Code standard is specific to retaining walls and not rock retaining walls.

Councilmember Burnham moved to tøble the Scenic Mountaín Phase C síte pløn untíl the next meeting, dírecting the applicant to return with elevatÍons that dílþrentíate between the individual uníts, an updated parkíng pløn, and an ømenìty plan with increøsed connectívíty øs dßcussed. Councílmember Love seconded the motion. Those voting øye: Donnø Burnham, MelÍssø Clark, Colby Curtis, ønd Carolyn Love. The motíon pøssedwíth ø unønímous vote. 16. PRELIMINARY PLAT AMENDMENT 16.4. MOTION - Brylee Farms Preliminary Plat Amendment Mr. Kane presented the item. Brylee Farms includes Phase A single-family and Phase B townhome residential developments. The preliminary plats for these phases were approved in 2018 and2019, respectively. Phase A is being developed by Fieldstone Homes and Phase B is being developed by Concord Homes. The developers desire to merge the homeowners' associations (HOAs) that will oversee the open space and amenities in the developments into one master HOA. The proposed amendment changes the park space in Phase A from aplayground to a swimming pool, clubhouse, active lawn space, and parking areas. The proposed amendment in Phase B moves the separate tot lot to the large park area, leaving the former tot lot area as improved open space; removes the sport court above the underground retention to leave the land as improved park space for informal sport activities; and expands amenities at the primary amenity area with pickleball courts, a large playground, pavilion, and parking areas. Based on the proposed open spacs and amenities amendment, the new plan would achieve 1,003 points in total between the two phases where 737 points are required. The applicants are seeking to amend the preliminary plat for the two phases with regards to the open space and amenities. There are no proposed changes to the number of lots, density, or right- of-way configurations. Multifamily projects are required to include a clubhouse and swimming pool (EMMC 17.25.050). These elements cannot count toward the amenity points as they are required for this development type. The proposed pool is sized at2,000 square feet, exceeding the size minimum of 1,268 square feet by 732 square feet. The proposed pool and clubhouse meet the size requirement of the Phase B development but will be located within Phase A. The amenity area within Phase A is within a quarter-mile distance of all residences in both phases except for twelve tor¡snhome units in the northwest corner. The amenity area within Phase B is within a quarter-mile distance of all residences in both phases except for six single-family properties in the southwest corner. Per the approved preliminary plat for Phase B, a pedestrian crossing was to be included between the main amenity area and the trail to the west. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 10, 2020, to review the preliminary plat amendment application. The Commission unanimously voted, with one absentee, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat amendment with the condition the applicant shall remove two spaces in the center of the row of the parking area on the west side of the primary amenity area in Phase B in order to incorporate a landscape island and pedestrian crossing. During the December 1, 2020, City Council meeting, Councilmembers raised concerns about the proposed location of the clubhouse and pool. The request was tabled with feedback related to the clubhouse and pool location to potentially relocate the pool to the location of lots 69 to 72, swap the amenities between the two phases, or place the pool and clubhouse in a more central location. Councilmember Clark stated that the Municipal Code square footage requirements for clubhouses include all the residential units being served by the clubhouse. She expressed concern that the applicant was counting additional amenity points for the size of the pool, in excess of the requirement, while also desiring for the increased pool size to offset the deficit in the clubhouse size. Applicant representative Matthew Loveland with Fieldstone Homes stated that the project would exceed the required number of amenity points, even if the additional square footage for the pool was not included in the calculations. Mr. Loveland presented a review of the proposal and explained their intention was to partner with Concord Homes to offer grandeur amenities at a reduced HOA assessment to residents of both projects and compared the larger pool and additional amenities to the minimal required amenities for the project. He demonstrated that all the units adhered to the standard for units to be located within a one-quarter mile from a park. He believed that the residents would prefer the increased number of amenities rather than a higher HOA assessment with the amenities specifically required for their unit type to be located slightly closer to their homes. He said that a redesign is not an option due to the progress on the project and other constraints and because they believe their plan is what is best for the community.

Councílmember Burnham moved to approve the Brylee Førms prelímínary plat amendment with the condìtíon that the parking are& on the west síde of the primøry ømenity area ín Phase B shall remove two spøces in the center of the row ìn order to incorporøte a løndscøped ßlønd ønd pedestrìan crossíng. Councílmember Love seconded the motìon. Those voting øye: Donna Burnham, Melßsa Clørk, ønd Carolyn Love. Those voting nay: Colby Curtís. The motíon cøníed wíth ø vote of 3:1. 17. ORDINANCE

Councilmember Love moved to table øn ordínance of Eøgle Mountain City, Utah amendíng the Eøgle Mountain Municipøl Code chøpters 2.05 Employees and Personnel and 2.10 Møyor, and Enøcting Chapters 2.16 City Adminßtrøtor ønd 2.27 Board Appoíntment Process ín order to øllow Mr. Cook to ímplement the requested ømendments ín accordønce with the following proposed recommendøtions dßcussed in the meeting: 1. EMMC 2.10.010(E) "Shall møke recommendations to the cíty councíl regørding the City's policíes ønd procedures found by the mayor to be necessaryfor the proper ødminßtratíon of the city councíl which shøll be approved by the cíty council;" 2. EMMC 2.16.020 "The process shall, at the minimum, ínclude posting the position and acceptìng applications ; " 3. The line "the mayor shøll recommend to the cìty council ø process to híre a new city ødminßtrator," to be strickenfrom EMMC 2.16.020; 4. The møyor shall conduct an annual perþrmance revíew of the City Admìnßtratíon in coruelatíons with the døte of the employment contract; ønd 5. A desígnee may provìde the Cíty Councíl wíth the nøme and applícøtìon or resume, dprovided, of the Mayor's recommended board appoíntees. Councilmember Clørk seconded the motíon. Those voting øye: Donna Burnhøm, Melßsa Clark, Colby Curtís, ønd Cørolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanímous vote. I8. CTTY COUNCIL/MAYOR'S BUSINESS Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark expressed concern regarding Municipal Code intentions and specifications in relation to City Council expectations for MDA elevations, multifamily parking, and pickleball height standards. She desires to discuss and address potential amendments via applicable methods. She requested for the Parks and Recreation Board to research and determine an appropriate height requirement for pickleball fencing to be codified. Councilmember Curtis Councilmember Curtis inquired if the recently adopted standard application for MDAs could include the requirement for the site plan elevations to be significantly similar to elevations approved in the MDA. Mr. Cook stated that the lapse of time between the MDA approval and construction may necessitate alterations to the MDA elevations due to market changes and current design trends. He concurred with Councilmember Curtis' concerns and said that developers might use market changes and design trends as an excuse to attempt to construct an inferior project to the original approval. He stated that staff can explore verbiage to include in MDAs to illustrate City Council expectations regarding allowable elevation variance. 19. CITY COUNCIL BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Councilmember Burnham Councilmember Burnham stated that the Military and Veterans Advisory Board desires to meet and requested direction if an in-person meeting could be accommodated. Ms. Kofoed stated she would discuss meeting options with the Military and Veterans Advisory Board and Councilmember Burnham. Councilmember Curtis Councilmember Curtis inquired regarding calendar coordination between the City Events Department and the Eagle Mountain Arts Alliance. Eagle Mountain Cify Council Meeting - January 5,2021 Page28 of29 Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark stated that the groups have been in contact regarding calendar coordination. A Be Ready Eagle Mountain event on Thursday, January 14,2021, af 7:00 p.m. will include Ham Radio Coordinator Dave Becar explaining the basics of Ham Radio and Councilmember Clark speaking on getting started with Emergency Preparedness. 20. COMMUNICATION TTEMS 20.A. Upcoming Agenda Items 2T. ADJOURNMENT