Eagle Mountain City Council, 20 July 2021

Councilmember Clark moved to appoint Jennifer Shimakonis as a Youth Council Advisors for a one-year term. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtis, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Councilmember Clark moved to appoint Tyler Shimakonis as a Youth Council Advisors for a one-year term. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtis, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Tyler Shimakonis encouraged all youth to attend the Youth Council meetings on the second Wednesday of each month and to participate in events the Youth Council is assisting with such as Shopfest and the Summer Bash and Laser Show. CONSENT AGENDA 10. BOND RELEASES 10.A. Sunset Ridge Phase A, Plat 7 – Into Warranty 11. MINUTES 11.A. July 6, 2021 Minutes – Regular City Council Meeting

Councilmember Curtis moved to approve the consent agenda. Councilmember Burnham seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtis, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. SCHEDULED ITEMS 12. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING 12.A. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING – An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Approving the First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget. Finance Director Kimberly Ruesch reviewed the item as presented during work session. She explained that the cost of the software for the Administrative Law Judge court is included in the General Fund under the legal services division of the budget. A judicial branch fund is usually only implemented after the establishment of a judicial court within a municipality. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed the hearing.

Councilmember Clark moved to approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, approving the first amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 budget. Councilmember Burnham seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtis, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 13. AULT FARMS 13.A. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING – An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Amending the Future Land Use Map of the General Plan for Certain Lands Known as Ault Farms. Item 13.A. and 13.B. were presented and discussed concurrently. Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director Steve Mumford reviewed the item as presented during work session. Two neighborhood parks are designed for the north and south halves of Ault Farms. These parks will be programmed with active and passive recreation features and amenities. These parks are located within a ten-minute walk for residents within a half-mile radius. Amenities in the neighborhood parks may include play space, neighborhood gardens, pathways, bike facilities, fire pits, open lawn for unstructured play, pavilions, Bocce ball courts, and/or sports courts. Seven local parks have been designed into the master development plan (MDP). Some of these parks are more linear in nature and provide green space connections into the Eagle Point neighborhood to the north. Others are more rectangular fitting the surrounding subdivision development pattern. Local parks serve residents within a quarter-mile radius and are held privately and maintained by the homeowners’ association (HOA). Amenities in the local parks may include improved landscaping, trails and/or pathways, seating, shade structures, BBQ grills, fire pits, play spaces, and/or open lawn for unstructured play. Trails throughout Ault Farms provide circulation for both pedestrians and bicyclists to move freely around the neighborhood to access parks and the commercial node and to exercise. Two north-to- south regional trails along Pony Express Parkway and Lake Mountain Boulevard are received from the north and built through the Ault Farm development to the south. The trail network planned for the community is approximately seven miles in length. Trails are planned to be the standard City width of eight feet. Depending on their context, the material may be asphalt, concrete, or road base. Conceptual design of the open space located under the Rocky Mountain Power transmission lines facilitates the Lake Mountain Boulevard regional trail, a trailhead, nodes of manicured landscape at major intersections, and natural vegetation. A mountain bike course or pump track could be a suitable use in this open space area. The developer may also find private uses for the power corridor such as equestrian facilities or other animal-related recreational uses. Key areas around the master-planned community called gateway landscapes are designed to create a distinct aesthetic of Ault Farms and to communicate a sense of arrival and welcoming. Signage may be included in these open spaces as well. Though not shown in the master development plans, common open space in multifamily areas will be designed and submitted with the site plan applications. The plans will include amenities consistent with neighborhood and local parks in the multifamily common open space areas. In addition, these common open spaces may include pools, clubhouses, spas, or sports courts. Applicant representative Pete Evans explained they desire a single MDP in considerations of the infrastructure cost in the development and for coordination and cohesion. The exception in the code is for unique circumstances and they believe the project qualifies due to the location of minor arterial roads on the east and west and three major roadways—one minor arterial and two minor collectors—running east to west through the development. It would be difficult to divide the cost between several MDPs as they assume the City will want the full road constructed once any part of the development connects with the applicable road. One MDP would assist with the cost of the infrastructure and cohesive open space improvement. Master development surveys indicate the number one desired and year-round utilized amenities are linear parks and walking trails that appeal to multiple types of users. They removed all the product that did not comply with the existing Municipal Code standards from the MDP. He understood that previous issues with agreements were due to allowing products unique to the agreement whereas their plan contemplates product and design standards found within the zoning code. Mr. Evans said he did not feel the homes backing onto the powerline corridor are amenable to an R1 lot and thinks the R1 lots are better suited in the locations proposed on the zoning map. Previously, they had placed RC lots along the corridor and included R2 units as a compromise based upon Council requests for larger lots in the location. The geographical features provide a natural buffer to transition to the FR homes. He proposed deepening the lots into the powerline corridor and implementing use restrictions on the area within the corridor should the Council require R1 lots in the location. Councilmember Clark said that she thinks including the powerline corridor in the lots is a benefit due to the market calling for larger lots. She beseeched the applicant to increase the lot size in the areas requested by the Planning Commission from R2 to R1. Mr. Evans requested an exception to the R1 zone 85-foot lot frontage requirement to maintain the R2 80-foot frontage for the lots the Council would like changed to R1 along the powerline corridor. He noted that the number of lots will likely be reduced to accommodate a new City well site. Councilmember Curtis spoke against allowing an exemption to the lot frontage standards. Councilmember Clark stated she believes that the size of previous MDPs caused things to be overlooked that resulted in issues and undesired outcomes and is one of the reasons for requiring agreements with smaller acreages. Mr. Evans requested the Council allow the width of the frontage to be measured at the building setback line to allow for curvilinear streets; measuring from the street imposes gridded streets. He explained their lots will be designed differently than those in Evans Ranch. Councilmember Curtis expressed concern regarding the unintended consequences of allowing the frontage to be measured at the building setback. Discussion ensued regarding potential requirements to mitigate creating wedge lots that fail to meet the intent of the frontage standards; changes in previous projects resulted in developments that differ significantly from the map exhibits presented during the approval process. Mr. Mumford explained that the frontage standard considerations would be a condition of approval of the MDA and he will research the issue prior to the presentation of the MDA to Council. Councilmember Clark challenged that the applicant was able to incorporate infrastructure development considerations with the adjacent developments which she believes demonstrates that multiple MDPs can be coordinated together. Mr. Evans clarified that the sewer line is the only joint infrastructure project with Scarlett Ridge. Councilmember Clark requested staff calculate the differences between the desired lot frontages at the building setback line and the standard requirements when the item returns. She spoke against allowing a width difference as great as permitted in the cul-de-sac setback exemption standards. Mr. Mumford verified the rear setback requirements are 25 feet for the R1 zone and 20 feet for the R2 zone. Mr. Evans noted that the houses could not be set back farther than the rear width setback requirement and their designs meet all design standards. They are willing to change the R1 lots on the north end of the project as suggested by staff, if desired by the Council. He feels the road would be a sufficient buffer between the adjacent RC lots as the lots will not be facing each other. Discussion ensued supporting allowing noncompatible lot adjacency transitioning due to the similar land uses for the product types, the onerous burden to request a different product type and requiring the developer to provide additional transitioning due to the impact to the plan, people purchasing lots next to smaller properties being aware of the size of the smaller adjacent lots, and the unlikelihood of existing residents objecting to the development of larger lots next to their homes. Councilmember Burnham inquired regarding the purpose of dividing the plan into three MDPs if they intend to approve all three to be completed simultaneously. Discussion ensued regarding whether to approve part or all of the development with consideration of the major roadway running between Areas B and C, the total acreage of each area, park installation, tying the rezoning of the development to individual phases due to concerns with the rights granted with the rezone, and the uncertainty of the future housing market. Mr. Cook explained that separate MDPs would complicate the master development agreements because it would divide roads and other infrastructure contingent upon the other MDPs. The agreements would need to reference the other agreements and include parts of roads with timing for each section. If the Council elects to approve the full development, it would be preferable to include the full plan in a single agreement. Should the Council decide to only approve part of the development, multiple agreements would become necessary. Councilmember Clark advocated for approving the 550-acre residential portion in separate MDPs as recommended by the Planning Commission and in accordance with Municipal Code rather than approving various portions of the project individually at separate times or granting the waiver to code standards recently approved by the current body. Councilmember Burnham said when she voted to approve the changes to MDP requirements, she had not considered an applicant requesting multiple, simultaneous MDPs. Although she understands Councilmember Clark’s reasons for desiring to adhere to the approved standards, she does not see the benefit of dividing the plan into multiple MDPs. This would complicate the project and increase the burden on staff. Councilmember Gray said that the full infrastructure would need to be installed with the first MDP, other than perhaps part of a road where houses are located. He is not in favor of approving an agreement until the lot sizes are increased to further reduce the density in the development. Discussion ensued regarding the impact of the required infrastructure development and phasing benchmarks on a single or multiple MDPs, potential infrastructure divisions to include within in separate MDPs and the resulting obstacles with dividing the roads and infrastructure, and benchmark timing requirements and impacts to one or multiple agreements. Councilmember Gray stated that increasing the R1 product on the northeast of the project as suggested by the Planning Commission would be an insufficient density reduction. He objects to the inclusion of RC and MF1 in the plan because the zones are not compatible with the General Plan Neighborhood Residential One land use designation for the area. He advocated for developers bringing uses not already abundantly available in the City. Discussion ensued clarifying the gross density calculation for the project at 3.25 units per acre and the RC and MF1 land uses representing 28.7% of the total area including the open space with the FR, R1, R2, and R3 General Plan compatible units representing 56.7% of the land uses. Mr. Evans stated they feel the proposed variety of uses are appropriate for the area. Of the undeveloped residential property remaining in the City, 92% of the land has the Neighborhood Residential One General Plan land use designation, the remaining 8% is designated as Neighborhood Residential Two, and none of the land is designated at Neighborhood Residential Three. When factoring in buffering requirements, they feel they have met the intent of the Neighborhood Residential One land use designation. Councilmember Curtis stated that the residential land use designations match his vision for the City. Discussion ensued regarding concerns with granting maximum unit counts and requirements to adhere to the lot size and setback standards in the master development agreement compared with previous agreements granting minimum units counts. Mr. Evans clarified that the plan excludes the requested flexibility with the location where the frontage is calculated, and the numbers provided anticipate following current Municipal Code standards exactly. The new zoning code is based upon lot sizes and setbacks rather than unit counts and densities and prohibits increasing the numbers due to lot efficiencies or density transfers from land lost to public facilities sales. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed the hearing. Councilmember Curtis stated that while he would prefer lower density as requested by Councilmember Gray, he did not oppose the plan on that basis. When asked, none of the other Councilmembers raised objections to the plan based upon the proposed density, especially in consideration of the applicant agreeing to convert some of the R2 lots to R1. Councilmember Clark stated that increasing the size of the lots near the powerline corridor would allow the applicant to sell them for a premium. Councilmember Burnham disagreed due to noise and other concerns of living adjacent to powerlines. Councilmember Burnham concurred with Councilmember Curtis’ concerns about granting vested unit counts based upon a table and suggested clarifying in the agreement that all units are required to adhere to lot size and setback standards regardless of the number of lots listed in the master plan tabulations. Discussion ensued regarding the conditions and language to include in the motion to ensure the design standards are met and to prevent density transfers from public facilities land purchases, whether to include the unit counts in the master plan tabulations in the MDP due to issues with unit count vesting in prior agreements, and whether current lot and setback standards are sufficient to mitigate potential density transfer concerns. Mr. Evans said they would prefer not to redesign the plan for the northwest corner of the project to accommodate a road in Eagle Village but are willing to if required. The original plans they were given and designed according to did not include the road. They later received an updated plan for Eagle Village that included the road. Mr. Mumford clarified that the approved road to the northwest is located within the Eagle Village project and not partially located on the subject property. The full residential road, which will be maintained by the City, would only access lots on one side. The open space area is to the east and west of the road. Should the applicant not be required to utilize the road, staff recommends the applicant at least connect to the north-to-south neighborhood roads. He explained the purpose of the Eagle Village redesign was to provide access to the south. Although excluding the connection might be the preference for design cohesion in the Ault Farm development, increased connectivity is preferable to create access to Pony Express Parkway for both neighborhoods. Discussion ensued clarifying the location of the roadways and the connectivity between the Eagle Village and Ault Farms projects. Councilmember Clark expressed concern with R1- and R3-zoned homes from separate subdivisions fronting on the same road. Mr. Mumford verified that the concern with the road was efficiency, not safety. The cost to the City to maintain the road with houses along one side is the same as if houses were along both sides. Incorporating the road would result in a cost reduction to Ault Farms; however, if the applicant prefers to assume the cost of installing a full road south of the north units, it is the purview of the Council to approve the design as requested as long as access and connection to the Eagle Village is provided. Discussion ensued regarding whether to allow the design of the northern roads as presented and regarding the trail connectivity within the development. Mr. Evans expressed his willingness to incorporate the open space along the northern boundary of the project into the open space and trails plan. Mr. Mumford said he will contact ASD representatives regarding a school site. The placement of a school within a master-developed community will be less impacted by the variance of land prices and hopefully be less problematic. Discussion ensued regarding potential school and church locations and concerns regarding the impact of the reduced unit counts from various zones, particularly R1 units. Mr. Evans said the City Council could review and approve the school site; however, the developer has little control regarding the placement of the school. Mr. Mumford explained that the new MDP process follows Municipal Code more strictly than previous agreements. Park designs are required during the preliminary plat approval. His purpose in including the information regarding the park in the staff report was due to concerns regarding the design, visual appeal, and useability of the linear parks. Changes to the park plan to address concerns can occur with the approval of the MDA. Councilmember Burnham requested the applicant include park examples with the MDA. Councilmember Love requested the applicant include examples for the commercial area in the MDA to ensure the acreage provided is viable for applicable business uses and does not need to be modified. Discussion ensued regarding City involvement with homeowner’s association (HOA) covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). Mr. Cook explained that the City no longer approves CC&Rs other than ensuring that mechanisms are included to collect funds to maintain private amenities. Councilmember Curtis expressed concern with the potential for HOAs to become predatory or to contain CC&Rs that are a disservice to residents. His greatest concern is the length of time prior to turning the HOA over to the residents. Mr. Cook clarified that the City could stipulate to include or exclude some elements from HOA CC&Rs. As the size of a development grows, changing the terms of the CC&Rs becomes increasingly difficult due to the percentage of homeowners required to approve changes. He suggested further discussion of Councilmember Curtis’ concerns outside of the meeting to decide the appropriate course of action. Discussion ensued clarifying that the inclusion of the number of units in the approval would be based upon a maximum unit count per zone product type rather than the maximum total unit count of combined product types. The Council also discussed concerns with approving the rezone and granting the associated land uses should the MDP expire prior to the full buildout of the project. Mr. Cook stated he would devise a formula to determine the appropriate unit count reduction for land acquired for public facilities. He will also explore if rezoning of the property could occur when the plat is recorded as suggested by Councilmember Curtis to protect against rezoning concerns. Mr. Evans noted that the higher density RC and MF1 units, not contemplated in the Neighborhood Residential One land use, are located along major roadways which is a requirement of and compliant with Municipal Code buffering and transitioning requirements.

Councilmember Love moved to approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Future Land Use Map of the General Plan for certain lands known as Ault Farms. Councilmember Burnham seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtis, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 13.B. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING – An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Approving a Master Development Plan and Rezone for Ault Farms. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 10:06 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed the hearing.

Councilmember Burnham moved to approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, approving a master development plan and rezone for Ault Farms with the following conditions: 1. The row of R2 units directly west of the FR zone in Phases A4 and B6 shall be zoned as R1; 2. The remaining zoning shall remain as presented in the zoning map exhibit; 3. No density transfers shall be allowed for schools or churches; 4. Unit counts shall not exceed the number listed on the master plan tabulations per each zone designation and all units shall comply with Eagle Mountain Municipal Code design standards; 5. The southern 214 acres to the south are excluded from the approval and require a separate agreement; 6. A parks plan with detailed conceptual designs shall be included in the master development agreement and submitted prior to the approval of the master development agreement; 7. The approval of the master development plan shall be contingent upon the approval of the master development agreement; 8. The applicant shall work with the City to improve the open space to the north of the development; 9. The applicant shall provide Commercial Neighborhood concept plans prior to the approval of the master development agreement; and 10. Phasing shall occur as indicated on the phasing map and only slight modifications to the phasing schedule shall be permitted. Councilmember Clark requested Councilmember Burnham include the Planning Commission recommendation to divide the MDP into four master development plan areas. She confirmed with staff that the benchmark requirements will be included in the MDA. Councilmember Burnham declined Councilmember Clark’s request. Councilmember Love seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, and Carolyn Love. Those voting nay: Colby Curtis. The motion carried with a vote of 3:1. Councilmember Clark explained that she does not desire to vote against a plan that implements many of the elements included in the General Plan. She understands the applicant’s request for the exemption and is relying on the recent residential code changes to compensate for her concerns with the MDP. Councilmember Curtis stated that he appreciates the work put into the item but is hesitant to approve the plan as presented. He feels it needs additional work and would prefer the plan be divided into multiple MDPs. 14. CITY COUNCIL/MAYOR'S BUSINESS None. 15. CITY COUNCIL BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Councilmember Curtis Councilmember Curtis reminded the public about the Military and Veterans ice cream social at the Senior Center on August 14, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Burnham Councilmember Burnham said the Senior Citizen Advisory Board is holding a meet the candidate event for on July 26, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. Councilmember Love Councilmember Love noted that ShopFest is coming up on August 7, 2021. Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark inquired regarding the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's request for direction and to report on their observations on unimproved, improved, and natural open space and their directive to assist with the Flip the Strip program. Mayor Westmoreland directed staff to include a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board discussion item on the August 17, 2021 City Council work session agenda. 16. COMMUNICATION ITEMS 16.A. Financial Report 16.B. Upcoming Agenda Items 17. ADJOURNMENT