Eagle Mountain City Council, 16 February 2021

Councílmember Clørk moved to approve the consent agenda with the Februøry 2, 2021 mínutes ømended as díscussed. Councílmember Gray seconded the motíon. Those votìng aye: Donna Barnhøm, Melissø Clark, Colby Curtß, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vole. SCHEDULED ITEMS 1. I ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING 1.4. I ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING - An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Rezoning Certain Lands known as Brylee North. Planning Manager Pete Kane presented the item. The subject property is approximately 22 acres located on the west side of Eagle Mountain Boulevard and north of the Brylee Farms development . The rezone application requests a change from the current Commercial zoning to Commercial Regional on 10.63 acres of the property, and to MF2 on the remaining I 1.4 acres. The surrounding areas include Brylee Farms, and MFI zoning. The properties to west and north have a future land use designation of Employment Center/Campus, the property northeast and east is zoned Commercial Storage, and land southeast has been approved as a single-family development would be zoned R3 in the current zoning standards. The General Plan amendment requests a future land use designation of Regional Commercial on 10.63 acres and Neighborhood Residential Three on the remaining 11.4 acres. The property currently has a future land use designation of Employment Center Campus on 14.3 acres and Neighborhood Residential Two on the remaining 7.7 acres. In 2018, the City Council approved Commercial zoning on the northern 22 acres; Tier III residential zoning on the middle 15 acres with the maximum of l2 unitslacre, a maximum density of 180 units, and the approval of 162 townhomes; and Tier II Residential zoning on the southern 32 acres with 155 single-family homes. Desert Willow Drive, identified as a collector road in the Transportation Master Plan, ends at Eagle Mountain Boulevard east of the subject property, separating the approved commercial storage development and Sage Park. Staff recommends this road be required to be carried in and through Brylee North to connect to the property to the west, which has an Employment Center/Campus land use designation. The requested MF2 and CR zones are compatible with the development to the south. Requested CR zoning along Eagle Mountain Boulevard, opposite the CS zone is also compatible. The Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zone is the only commercial zoning district that is compatible as an adjacent zoneto R3, which is to the southeast. The applicant requested a CR zoning designation for land directly along Eagle Mountain Boulevard with a minimum depth of about 270 feet and an average lot size of about 1.5 acres. The CR zoîe may be appropriate given the proximity of the property to the future freeway. The requested future land use designations are appropriate land uses for the requested rezoning. The current land use designation indicates 65 percent Employment Center/Campus and 35 percent Neighborhood Residential Two. The requested General Plan amendment proposes 48 percent Regional Commercial and 52 percent Neighborhood Residential Three uses. The applicant has been working with the City on a plan to dedicate one of the central commercial parcels along Eagle Mountain Boulevard to the City. This would allow the City to direct the potential development and use on that property. Initial discussions have begun with Unified Fire Authority for a potential firehouse located on the northwest portion of the project. Contract negotiations are currently underway with a local businessman on the southeast parcel. The Planning Commission held apublic hearing on January 12,2021, and unanimously voted 4 to 0 with one absentee to recommend approval of the rezone and General Plan amendment requests with the condition that the General Plan amendment shall include continuing Desert Willow Drive through the subject property east to west as a minor collector. Eagle Mountain Cify Council Meeting - February 16,2027 Page l0 of l9 Councilmember Curtis noted that the previous negotiations permitted multifamily in exchange for commercial acreage and expressed concem that the applicant is requesting additional multifamily units. Councilmember Gray expressed frustration with the request for additional multifamily units. He said the applicant had stated that the commercial area would remain commercial when the plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Due to that understanding, he is unwilling to approve additional multifamily uses for the project. Councilmember Burnham concuffed with the concerns expressed by Councilmembers Gray and Curtis. Although the location is appropriate for multifamily uses due to the proximity to major roadways, she desires to retain the commercial acreage and feels a different commercial zone and use would be more appropriate as the parcel is too narrow to suff,rciently accommodate Regional Commercial uses. Councilmember Clark concurred with the other Councilmembers. Although she is not against multifamily uses near major roadways, due to the history of the project, the depth of the commercial property, and its location at the intersection of major roadways, commercial uses are more appropriate and of greater benef,rt to the City. Applicant representative Randy Smith reviewed his discussions with former City Administrator Ifo Pili regarding potentially dedicating a commercial parcel to the City. The Planning Commission removed the agreement from the approval due to concems that the dedication of the parcel could be misinterpreted as a bribe. He stated he felt the dedication would be a mutually beneficial agreement. The MF2 request increases the feasibility of developing the commercial uses. He said that most people live in apartments at some point in their lives and have less of an impact on City infrastructure while generating higher property taxes than single-family units. He understands the importance of commercial uses; however, their request only slightly reduces the overall commercial acreage designated throughout the City. He stated that the rear of the property is less viable for commercial uses and in light of market changes since the previous approval, this is the best course forward for the City. Councilmember Love noted that the shape of the parcel of land was due to the lower rectangle portion being rezoned and developed as a residential project. She recommended including the 15 acres rezoned to the Tier III residential under the previous standards and placing commercial uses along Eagle Mountain Boulevard as the Council would likely be more amenable to allowing residential uses to the west of the property and commercial along the western side adjacent to Eagle Mountain Boulevard. Mr. Smith expressed support of Councilmember's Love's recommendations; however, another party owns the 15-acre parcel to the south. He said the proposed depth would accommodate most fast- food restaurants with drive-through services. Councilmember Clark said that she does not feel the project is in the best interests of the City. She clarified that the Council had not spoken against multifamily housing and several of the Councilmembers stated they are willing to approve multifamily uses in the appropriate areas. The concern of the Council is rezoning prime commercial locations to residential along a major roadway and in consideration of the uses along the opposite of side Eagle Mountain Boulevard. The Council needs to retain sufficient acreage for commercial uses to meet the future needs of the growing City and respectfully disagreed with the proposal. Councilmember Curtis recognized that even though Mr. Smith had not been a part of the project previously, he felt the original agreement still needed to be honored regarding the promise of commercial uses in this area. As Eagle Mountain has more vested residential units than constructed units, offering additional multifamily units is of far less value to the City than retail. Discussion ensued regarding the previous and current reviews of the project by existing and former Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers and understandings based upon the previous agreement. Mr. Smith stated they had previously tried to secure retailers for the property without success but have found interest in smaller parcels along Eagle Mountain Boulevard; however, they cannot move forward with negotiations for the proposed smaller parcels until determining a use for the western portion of the property. He did not intend to break promises previously made to the Council and desires to find a solution the City will be happy with; he noted that due to the increasing online markets most large retailers are not expanding, with the exception of grocery and discount stores. Councilmember Gray noted the applicant requested the maximum possible density that could be accommodated in the area and expressed his frustration with the high unit counts proposed by developers. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 8:57 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 l(estmoreland closed the hearing.

Councílmember Curtß moved to deny an ordinønce of Eøgle Mountain City, Utah, amending the lønd use element of the Generøl Plan and rezonìng certain land known øs Brylee North. Councílmember Gray seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donnø Burnham, Melíssa Clørk, Colby Curtis, Jøred Gray, and Cørolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 12. SCARLET RIDGE ESTATES 12.A. PUBLIC FIEARING/ORDINANCE - An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Amending the Transportation Master Plan of the General Plan and Rezoning Certain Lands Known as Scarlet Ridge Estates. Items I2.A., 12.8., and I2.C. were presented and discussed concuruently Mr. Kane presented the items. The subject property is approximately 160 acres east of Lake Mountain Road and south of the future Tiffany Lane extension. The property is currently zoned Agriculture and is designated Agriculture/Rural Density Two in the General Plan. The Planning Commission's review of the 2019 concept plan received feedback regarding concerns about the placement and distances of roads and equestrian trails, connectivity, and a recommendation of zoningthe smaller lots to RD2 and the larger lots to RD1. The concept plan was revised and reviewed by the City Council in August 2020. Feedback included a request for a minimum of 30 one-acre lots and an increase in aesthetic appeal by adjusting lot widths and including curvature in the roads. Applications for a preliminary plat, Íezoîe, and General Plan amendment have also been submitted. Based on the City Council work session discussions on January 79, 202I, and February 2, 2021, the applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat and park concept plan. The applicant is seeking to amend the future transportation plan as it relates to plans for future road expansions to Tiffany Lane between Airport Road and the north-south collector along the -Ihe eastem edge of the subject property. request is to change the classification to a collector road for the portion between Airport Road and the northwest corner of the subject property, and then to a residential road with a 53-fbot width for the portion running along the northern edge of the property to the north-south collector on the eastem edge of the property. Staff agrees with changing this to a collector road but for the entire length between Airport Road and the future north-south collector to Eagle Mountain Boulevard. Although a revised General Plan amendment exhibit was not submitted, the applicant's revised preliminary plat matches the staff recommendation setting Tiffany Lane as a collector road along the northern edge. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from Agriculture to RD2. The RD2 zone is an appropriate zone for the Agriculture/Rural Density'fwo land use designation. The revised preliminary plat proposes a mix of 2ll residential lots with 37 one-acre lots and I74 lots that range from a half-acre to approximately 0.71 acres. The original plan included f,rve retention areas. Staffrecommended utilizing other low-impact development methods to reduce the number of retention areas, and the revised plan includes three retention areas. The application identifies the development to be constructed and platted in seven phases. One possible consideration may be that Phases 1,2, and 3 be combined and re-divided into two phases to allow the park feature to be installed with Phase 2 rather than Phase 3. The project proposes alarge park of about 2.5 acres which would be dedicated to the City. The park includes asphalt/concrete pathways, eight pavilions, ten picnic tables spread among the pavilions, garbage receptacles, grills, a drinking fountain, two pickleball courts, one full basketball court, trees, landscaping, and open lawn space. The proposed location of the park results in 91 residential lots in the southem third of the subdivision and lot 101 in the far northeast corner being outside of the quarter-mile park distance requirement. Staff recommended several changes to improve the usability and care of the park, and the applicant has revised the plan based on those recommendations. One final recommendation is to relocate two trees currently depicted within the basketball court. The proposed road network includes multiple connections: two road connections at the north to Tiffany Lane, three connections to the east to the future collector road that will run along that side of the development, two connections to the south to the future collector road that will run along that side of the development, and three connections to the west to the concepted Triumph residential development. As requested, the applicant has revised the plans to incorporate half'-width dedications for a 53-foot righrof-way on the eastern and southern edges of the property. Collector roads are required to have street trees and residential lots with side or rear lot lines along collector roads are required to have privacy fencing. The concept plan presented to the Planning Commission in December 2019 included 139 one-acre lots. The concept plan presented to the City Council in August2020 included 36 one-acre lots and 178 half-acre lots totaling 2l4lots. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the requests on January 12, 2021, and unanimously voted 4 to 0 with one absentee to recommend approval of the master development plan request with the following conditions: o That Phases 1,2, and 3 are adjusted into two phases, and the park feature constructed as part ofPhase 2; o Revisions to the park plan as outlined in the staff report; o Consideration of utilizing park strip drainage, swales, or other low impact development method in place of multiple retention areas; and o Incorporation of the half-width of the east and south collector roads. Mayor [4lestmoreland opened the public hearing at 9: l4 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 \lestmoreland closed the hearing. Councilmember Gray stated his preference for the design from the concept plan presented to the Planning Commission in December 2019. He said he is willing to rezone the property to allow a total of 139 lots, including some half-acre lots, but is in favor of denying the rezone request as presented. Applicant representative Ryan Kent said the original engineer had understood that only the RDI zone, and possibly a small portion of RD2 zoning, was allowed for the property. Their new engineer is more familiar with Eagle Mountain Municipal Code and based upon their meetings with City representatives and the General Plan designation of Agricultural Rural Density Two which allows for RD1 and RD2 zoning,they believe they are providing less density than is allowed in RD2, and the proposal exceeds the open space and amenity point requirements. Councilmember Gray expressed frustration that the applicant desires the highest end of the allowed density. He noted the RDI requires a minimum lot size of one-acre and reiterated his preference for the median lot size to be closer to an acre with only a few half-acre lots. Mr. Kane clarified that the General Plan sets land use designations, not zoning. Based upon the land use designation of the Agricultural Rural Density Two, Municipal Code indicates the potential zoning as RDl and/or RD2. The land is currently zoned Agricultural. Mr. Kent inquired regarding the adjacent lot sizes they would be buffbring against. He noted the project does not include only half-acre lots; therefore, he is not proposing the highest possible density. They have been acting on the understanding that their proposal was acceptable based upon previous feedback and requested the Council consider the cost of preparing the plan, infrastructure, viability, and feasibility of the lots in consideration of their property rights. They desire to develop a community that is a beneht to the residents and the City. Mr. Kane stated the average lot size is 0.6 acre or approximately 26,000 square feet. Councilmember Burnham stated she appreciates that the applicant added more one-acre lots and a greater variety of lots, as requested. She said she feels the project meets what the City desires and is appropriate. Councilmember Curtis stated that he thinks there has been some confusion due to the land use designation and zone names. He suggested a future amendment to Municipal Code to improve clarity. He said that due to the RDI and RD2 zones allowing for lot sizes from a half-acre to 2.5 acres, he concurs with Councilmember Gray that 0.6 acres is not an appropriate median lot size for the Agricultural Rural Density Two land use designation and should be closer to an acre. Where the land is currently zoned Agriculture, the landowner's property rights do not include vested rights for the density of the RDl andlor RD2 zones. Councilmember Love said that if the median acreage for the project were closer to an acre, there would likely be more of a consensus among the Council. Councilmember Clark suggested tabling the item to allow time for further negotiations to find an agreeable density. Mr. Kent said he would prefer to table the item rather than starting the process over again due to a denial. He said they are doing what they can to adhere to City standards. He expressed concern with the moving target recommendations from the City Council. He recognized the marketability of the lots is not the concern of the City Council but beseeched the Council to be cognizant regarding lot size viability and affordability within the current housing market when making their recommendations. Councilmember Curtis recognized the validity of Mr. Kent's concerns with a lack of specificity regarding City Council feedback. He clarified his preference remains for 50 percent RDI and 50 percent RD2 zoning. Discussion ensued regarding the past and current recommendations of the City Council and the specificity of the feedback. Councilmember Gray noted that the RDl and RD2, unlike other zones, do not have an average lot size requirement; however, he said they could theoretically zone the entire property to RDI and require a minimum of one acre. Discussion ensued debating and verifing the conditions and requirements the City Council can impose regarding lot sizes, the number of lots of a specific size, and zone acreage. Mr. Kane clarified that the City Council can request a median or average lot size. Based upon the buildable 130 acres in the development, a 50 percent split between the RDl and RD2 zones would result in 65 acres each of the RDI and RD2 zones with 130 half-acre lots and 65 one-acre lots for a total of 195 lots. Mr. Kent requested clarification as to why the General Plan designation allows half-acre lots if the intent for the area was to require one-acre lots. Discussion ensued debating the intent of the General Plan land use designation for the area.

Councílmember Clark moved to tøble øn ordinønce of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Transportation Master Pløn of the Generøl Pløn ønd rezoning certøín lands known øs Scarlet Ridge Estøtes. Councilmember Gray seconded the motion. Those votíng øye: Melíssø CIørk, Colby Curtß, Jared Gray, ønd Cørolyn Love. Those voting nay: Donnø Burnham- The motíon cørríed wíth a vote of 4:1. 12.8. PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE-An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, {"Itah, Approving aMaster Ðeveloprnent Plan for Scarlet Ridge Estates. Items 12.A., 12.ß., and 12.C. were presented and discussed concurrently.

Councìlmember Clørk moved to tøble øn ordinønce of Eagle Mountaìn City, Utah, approving ø master development plan for Scørlet Rìdge Estøtes. Councilmember Gray seconded the motíon. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melíssø Clørk, Colby Curtß, Jared Grøy, ønd Carolyn Love. The motion passed with ø unsnimous vote. 12.C" N4OTION - Scarlet Ridge Estates Preliminary Plat. Items 12.A., 12.8., and 12.C. were presented and discussed concunently. MOTIONz Councílmember Clark moved to table the Scarlet Ridge Estates prelimínary plat. Councilmember Grøy seconded the motion. Those voting øye: Donnø Burnhøm, Melßsa Clark, Colby Curtß, Jared Grøy, ønd Cørolyn Love. The motíon pøssed wíth a unanímous vote. 13, FITDDEN HOI,LO$/ PHASE C 13.4. MOTION - Hidden F{ollow Phase C Consideration of Density Vesting. Mr. Mumford presented the item. The Planning Commission tabled the Hidden Hollow Phase C preliminary plat and site plan on January 12, 202I, with a unanimous vote of 4 to 0 with one absentee providing direction to the applicant to work with staff to bring the application into compliance with Municipal Code. The applicant is now requesting that the City Council consider their density vesting claim of 360 units and approve their proposed density of 134 total lots/units. Rather than building the preliminarily platted 360 units, the applicant is proposing to reduce the density by approximately 60 percent and is proposing 48 single-family lots and 86 townhomes, for a total of 134 lots/units. Mr. Mumford presented following history of the project: . 1998: Ranches Master Development Plan and Agreement approved the zoning and density . 2006: Hidden Valley North Preliminary Plat approved, including 300 condominiums and 60 townhomes in the Phase C area . 2006: Hidden Valley North Plat A approved . 2007: School Board condemned a portion of the property for the Hidden Hollow Elementary School . 2014: Hidden Hollow Phase A approved . 2017: Hidden Hollow Phase B submitted . 2018: Ranches MDA expired . 2018: Hidden Hollow Phase B Preliminary Site Plan approved . 2019: Blasting permit approved . 2020: Hidden Hollow Phase B Amended Site Plan approved . 2020: Hidden Hollow Phase C applications submitted for review Because this review is of the density vesting claim only, items for consideration related to the design and layout of the preliminary plat and site plan will be included when those plans are being considered. The applicant will revise the plans to comply with Municipal Code and return for approval of the preliminary plat and site plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Hidden Hollow Phase C consideration of density vesting to the City Council on February 9,2021, with a vote of 3 to 1 with one absentee with the following conditions: 1. A portion of the density is contingent upon the sale/purchase of the 1.5 acres of City property atfair market value. The City may use the revenue to benefit the area through additional park/trailhead improvements, safety improvements for school children, andl or trail improvements; 2. The Phase C site plan and preliminary plat must be redesigned to comply with all current Municipal Codes standards, including, but not limited to, garage sizes, architectural standards, and parking. These plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council through the standard approval process; and 3. No blasting shall be permitted within this Phase C development. Mr. Mumford explained a road was relocated due to the slope of the land resulting in an orphaned segment of City-owned land. The sale of the land would be beneficial to the City and an appraisal last fall was conducted to determine the value of the parcel. The decision regarding the sale of the land would be made in conjunction with the site plan and preliminary plat approval. Councilmember Curtis expressed concern that approval of the density vesting would bind the City to sell the land prior to discussions to determine the desired action regarding the property. Mr. Mumford stated that the land purchase would have a future separate application with a closed session. City Attorney Jeremy Cook explained that in an effort for efficiency, the sale of the property would be considered with the plat after the density vesting is resolved. The proposed plat is not under consideration for approval currently, only the vesting. The plat would need to be redesigned and amended should the City determine not to sell the property. Applicant representative Ryan Bybee reiterated previous statements regarding their desire to reduce the density for the project and misunderstanding regarding the vested density, approvals, and the continuity of intentions for the project. He said that they are willing to pay for an additional redesign for Phase C of the project to adhere to current Municipal Code, after already redesigning Phase B to meet previous standards, in order to resolve Council concerns and allow the project to move forward.

Councilmember Clørk moved to table the Hidden Hollow Phase C consíderøtíon of density vesting. Councílmember Curtís seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donnø Burnham, Melíssa Clark, Colby Curtìs, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. The motíon pøssed with a unanímous vote. 14. CITYCO{.INCIL/MAYOR'SBUSTNESS 15. CITY COUhICII., BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Councilmember Love Councilmember Love stated she would be attending a Chamber of Commerce meeting later that week and was unable to attend the previous meeting due to the City Budget Meeting. Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark reported that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board met and elected a Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary and scheduled their meetings for the remainder of the year. The board is eager to assist the City. She requested that the board be given clear instructions regarding their responsibilities. Councilmember Curtis Councilmember Curtis requested the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board assist with determining methods to either secure easements for portions of the trail system that extend onto privately- owned property or to relocate the trails onto City property. He stated he will be attending board meetings scheduled later in the week. Councilmember Gray Councilmember Gray expressed appreciation to Councilmember Clark for her efforts with the Parks and Recreation Board. Eagle Mountain City Council Meeting - February 16,2021 Page l8 of 19 Councilmember Burnham None. Mayor Westmoreland Mayor Westmoreland stated that the Bureau of Land Management has opened land to extend City trails and advocated for the City to secure the proffered land while the option is available. He expressed appreciation for City efforts to continue functions during difficult times. T6, COMMLTNICATION ITEMS 16.4. Financial Report 16.8. Upcoming Agenda ltems T7. AÐJOURNMENT

Councilmember Clark moved to ødjourn the meetíng øt 11:34 p.m. Councílmember Grøy seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donnø Burnhøm, Melßsø Clørk, Colby Curtis, Jøred Grøy, ønd Cørolyn Love. The motion passed wíth ø unønìmous vote.