Eagle Mountain City Council, 19 October 2021

Councilmember Curtis moved to approve the consent agenda removing item 9.A. and placing it as a scheduled item. Councilmember Love seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 9. AGREEMENTS 9.A. AGREEMENT – Approving a Deed of Conservation Easement. Councilmember Love inquired if the Deer Haven Proposed Easement Controls for Wildlife Corridor and Nature Trail should be included in the conservation easement agreement. Applicant Scot Hazard said he submitted the Deer Haven Proposed Easement Controls for Wildlife Corridor and Nature Trail with the preliminary plat documentation and he has every intention of fulfilling those commitments even though the easement controls were not included as a condition of approval for the preliminary plat. He believes it would be inappropriate to include the easement controls in the conservation easement agreement. The Council discussed verbiage requested to be included in the conservation easement received via an email sent to the Council prior to the meeting by the Eagle Mountain Nature and Wildlife Alliance citizen group including an amendment to Section II(A)(ii): “Upon two (2) business days prior notice to Grantor, and without unreasonably interfering with Grantor's use and quiet enjoyment of the Easement Property as restricted by this Easement, to enter upon the Easement Property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner in order to monitor Grantor's compliance with and otherwise enforce the terms of this Easement, provided that in the absence of evidence which gives Grantee a reasonable basis to believe there has been a violation of the provisions of this Easement (which evidence shall be made available to Grantor), such entry shall not occur more often than twice annually;” Councilmember Love stated that prior to the meeting, the applicant agreed to change Section II(A)(ii) to allow access to the property four times rather than twice annually. Councilmember Curtis asked if the changes include the Eagle Mountain Nature and Wildlife Alliance’s request to add “The Grantee, however, can perform maintenance or improve the 15’ public trail at any time.” Mr. Hazard explained that he was not amenable to allow the Grantee to perform trail maintenance at any time because the trail will be located on private property and there should not be a need for anyone to enter another person’s backyard at any time to conduct whatever they want to do. He feels the two-day notice period is reasonable and will prevent trail maintenance during times the residents have activities planned in their backyards and allowing unlimited access to the backyards seems extreme to him. Access might be merited on occasion to repair the trail or plant native vegetation. The 15-foot trail system would be publicly accessible year-round and the City would have constant access to the dedicated property around the wash. Councilmember Gray asked if the agreement needed to include clarification that access to the public trail for recreation would be available year-round. City Attorney Jeremy Cook explained the trail would require a separate easement and would be designated on the recorded plat. The Eagle Mountain Nature and Wildlife Alliance citizen group recommended the following amendment to replace Section III (A) Construction of Structures, Section III (B) Recreational Amenities, and Section III (C) prepared by City Attorney Jeremy Cook, the applicant, and applicant counsel, “Section III(B): Limitation on Hard Surfaces, Structures and Storage. In order to maintain open space that is easily traversable by mule deer, not more than a 20% of the total surface area of the Easement Property on any subdivided parcel of property may be utilized for the combination of any of the following: parking pad(s); sheds or other enclosures; outbuildings; above-ground structures; pavilions; parking or storage of vehicles, trucks, RVs, boats, trailers, campers or other recreational or commercial vehicles; storage of equipment; storage of construction or commercial materials (except for materials that are being utilized for active construction on the property); skateboard ramps, swimming pools, tennis courts, basketball courts, trampolines or other recreational amenities; or containers or any other human-made objects. At least half of the Easement Property will remain unobstructed; no hard surfaces, structures, and storage shall exceed 50% of the width of the Easement Property.” Mr. Cook explained he had elected to retain swimming pools, despite the applicant expressing willingness to have swimming pools excluded from the easement, to provide for cases where the installation of a swimming pool could result in encroachment of a few feet into the easement as he felt swimming pools would not be any more impactful than the other structures or increase the risk to the wildlife more than a swimming pool located just outside of the easement. Councilmember Love agreed that due to the likelihood of swimming pools and hot tubs being located in proximity to the home, she would not object to allowing swimming pools in the conservation easement because the majority of the pool would likely be located outside of the easement. Mr. Hazard had no objections to retaining or excluding swimming pools and hot tubs from the easement; nevertheless, retaining the same standards for recreational amenities would be clearer, more practical, and easier to enforce. He agreed to allow the addition of “any other human-made objects” and “at least half of the Easement Property will remain unobstructed; no hard surfaces, structures, and storage shall exceed 50% of the width of the Easement Property.” The citizen group requested the following underlined additions to and language removal from Section III (E) Mule Deer Migration Season and Nesting Season, “Mule deer migration season refers to the time of year the mule deer migrate between their winter and summer ranges and occurs between March 15th and April 30th May 15th and December 1st through January 15th annually. Nesting season refers to the period of the year in which birds are building nests and raising young and occurs between March 15th and July 31st annually (together the "Restricted Seasons"). The following uses shall not be permitted on the Easement Property during the Restricted Seasons: i. Construction of any kind, including the construction of trails and/or fences, unless construction will not impede migration or nesting during the proposed construction period; or” Councilmember Love asked if Mr. Hazard would accept the request to limit all construction activities between March 15th to July 31st and December 1st and January 15th annually to begin January 1, 2023, after the completion of the development. Mr. Hazard suggested the standard go into effect after the completion of the development improvements as he intends to complete the development prior to 2023. He asked that construction activity be allowed outside of the corridor during that time and to allow the transportation of the construction materials through the corridor to access the lots on the opposite side of the wash. He noted that the restrictive seasons only allow a few months of the year for residents to make improvements in the corridor including landscaping which could be onerous. He inquired if it was necessary to restrict construction activities during the nesting season in addition to the migration season and suggested reducing the restriction to March 15th through May 15th annually. Discussion ensued clarifying that only landscaping installation, not maintenance, would be considered construction activity and methods to balance protecting the success of the corridor and preserving personal property rights regarding limitations on construction activities. Councilmember Curtis explained the reason for changing the migration season from April 30th to May 15th was due to fluctuations in the timing of wildlife migrations to exclude the word “typically” and to encompass the annual variances. The citizen group requested the following addition to the agreement: “Livestock. To ensure the continued use of the migratory deer path and to avoid overgrazing of the Easement Property, the following limitations on livestock within the Easement Property apply: Max Number Allowed on Setback from Minimum Property Lots Residence or Area Located Available Fenced Area Other Animal More WITHIN THE 1/2 to 1 1 to 3 per Animal Periodically than 3 EASEMENT Acre Acres Inhabited Acres PROPERTY Building1 Horse/Mule 0 4 12 22,000 s.f. per 1 – 4 50 1 Acre animals Buffalo 0 2 6 22,000 s.f. per 1 – 4 150 1 Acre animals Cattle 2 4 12 2,500 s.f. 50 1/2 Acre Donkey 2 4 12 2,500 s.f. 50 1/2 Acre Llama 2 4 12 2,500 s.f. 50 1/2 Acre Emu/Ostrich 4 8 16 500 s.f. 50 1/2 Acre Sheep/Goat 4 8 16 500 s.f. 50 1/2 Acre Pig (all kinds) 2 4 8 500 s.f. 150 1/2 Acre The number of animals above shall be reduced geometrically if the resident desires to keep and maintain more than one species of permitted animals. Example: If two species are desired, then the number of each species shall be reduced to one-half (1/2). If three species are desired, then the number of each species shall be reduced to one-third (1/3), etc.” Councilmember Love said she agreed with the Eagle Mountain Nature and Wildlife Alliance request for the livestock allowed within the conservation easement to be limited to the number of animals permitted in residential areas, including the two lots zoned Agricultural. She and the developer discussed reviewing the new standards once an amendment is passed for the number of animals allowed in residential areas which are currently under review to determine whether the new or current standards are more appropriate for Deer Haven. Councilmember Gray countered that the lots would already be subject to the livestock standards for their applicable zoning and the lots zoned as Agricultural should be afforded the rights within that zone designation. Discussion ensued regarding balancing the Agricultural land rights and protecting the wildlife corridor by prohibiting uses that would discourage wildlife traveling through the corridor. Councilmembers Burnham, Clark, and Curtis expressed their support of applying residential livestock standards to the two Agricultural lots in the development. Mr. Cook stated that the condition for the standards for this conservation easement agreement could apply to only the Deer Haven development and recommended including the number of livestock animals allowed per acre within the agreement rather than referencing Municipal Code. Discussion ensued regarding the metrics to use to determine the maximum number of livestock to allow in the conservation easement even though other standards would still apply. Discussion ensued clarifying the number of maximum animals allowed in the conservation easement should lots 109 and 110 be limited to the number of livestock permitted in residential developments. Mr. Hazard stated that he has not decided whether to allow animal rights for the one-acre lots; however, buyers interested in the ten-acre lots desire animals rights, and excluding animal rights would make those lots unsellable. Easement restrictions for the pasture area on lot 109, due to approximately six acres on the east and north side of the lot falling within the easement, and the impact of prohibiting “other manmade objects” applying to the storm drain detention area cause him concern. He was agreeable to allowing the current residential animals standards for the conservation easement without the additions suggested by the wildlife citizen group and would be amenable to considering implementing the updated residential animal code standards once adopted. Discussion ensued determining to allow the detention pond within the easement as the pond would not negatively impact wildlife and whether to reduce the total number of animals if multiple types of animals are desired and fencing area and wildlife permeable fencing requirements impact on the number of animals. Councilmember Clark stated that the wildlife group would also like lighting and Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV) standards to be added to the conservation easement standards. Councilmember Love clarified that the purpose of the request for lighting, hillside development, and OHV trail restrictions even though the standards are included in Municipal Code, is to retain those standards in the conservation easement agreement should Municipal Code be amended in the future. The wildlife group requested to add an additional restriction, “OHV Trails. No off- highway vehicle recreational trails will be constructed on the Easement Property. The Grantor may use off-highway vehicles for the maintenance of their property.” Mr. Hazard stated his understanding was that the owners of the property would be allowed to use OHVs on their property, but other motorized vehicles would not be allowed to utilize the wildlife corridor. The Wildlife Corridor Overlay Zone permits landowner OHV use but prohibits the construction of new OHV trails. Mr. Cook explained that motor tracks would be limited under the recreational amenities. The City could restrict the property owner’s OHV use on their property if the Council felt that was appropriate. The overlay stipulates that “No recreational vehicles, such as Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs), shall be allowed in the corridor during the mule deer migration season, except for corridor maintenance.” Councilmember Curtis suggested attaching the Wildlife Corridor Overlay Zone to this agreement and stated that the requirements of the overlay must also be followed. Mr. Cook said due to the vagueness of the overlay restrictions being open to multiple interpretations, he believes that the easement is more restrictive. Discussion ensued regarding the benefits and limitations of including either the entire overlay or portions of the requirements from the overlay documentation in this agreement or to including the wildlife groups lighting restriction suggestions. Mr. Hazard stated that he had no objection to including the wildlife groups’ lighting or hillside development and sensitive areas restriction suggestions from Municipal Code standards. Councilmember Love said that based upon an email from Shane Hill with the Department of Wildlife Resources, she believes that the fence post spacing was intended to be a 16-foot maximum rather than minimum interval. She said the standards should be amended to a maximum rather than a minimum 16-foot spacing. Mr. Cook stated that he would make the correction in the conservation easement agreement. The Wildlife Corridor Overlay Zone would need to return for an amendment to correct the overlay documentation. Councilmember Gray said that the 42” high fence and the smooth top wire requirement are insufficient to use for horses or cattle and will lead to future issues. Allowing square tubing fencing would still be wildlife-friendly. Councilmember Curtis said that due to the uniqueness of this area of the City and the impact on only two lots, he feels that it is appropriate to make considerations that are not typical. Councilmember Clark noted that the owner can use other fencing on the portions of the property outside of the easement. Councilmember Burnham recommended starting with more restrictive standards and the Council can consider changing the requirements in the future if merited. Councilmember Gray expressed concern with waiting to address the fencing after issues arise due to potential damages and liability. Councilmember Love suggested consulting with the wildlife experts regarding Councilmember Gray’s concerns in the future if desired by the Council. Mr. Hazard stated he preferred not to address the subdivision of lots in the easement as a request would require rezoning and other approvals. Should the animal and fencing concerns prove to be preventative for him to sell lot 109, he may be required to subdivide lots 109 and 110 in the future.

Councilmember Love moved to approve an agreement approving a Deed of Conservation Easement with the following conditions: 1. Section II(A)(ii) shall be amended to allow entry “not more than four times annually;” 2. Section III(B) “Other manmade objects,” shall be added to the list of restricted amenities and “at least half of the width of the Easement Property will remain unobstructed; no hard surfaces, structures, and storage shall exceed 50% of the width of the easement property,” shall be added. Storage drain retention ponds shall be excluded from these restrictions; 3. Section III(D) shall be amended to, “Mule Deer Migration. Mule deer migration season refers to the time of year the mule deer migrate between their winter and summer ranges and occurs between March 15th and May 15th and December 1st through January 15th annually (together the "Restricted Seasons"). The following uses shall not be permitted on the Easement Property during the Restricted Seasons: (i)Construction of any kind, including the construction of trails and/or fences; or;” 4. Section III(D) of the agreement shall not go into effect until January 1, 2023; 5. The following shall be added as Section III(I) of the agreement, “Hillside Development and Sensitive Areas. (i) No construction, development, or earthwork may occur on land within 50' of natural washes, storm drain retention/detention areas, or geologically sensitive areas that require special engineering considerations for safe habitation. (ii) Nor shall any person grade, level, or improve in any manner any parcel of land which crosses a natural wash before submitting a Stream Alteration permit with the City Engineer and the State of Utah. (iii) No development, excavating, grading, or leveling of Easement property is allowed on land exceeding 25 percent;” 6. The following shall be added as Section III(J) of the agreement, “Lighting Pollution. In addition to compliance with Eagle Mountain City Code Outdoor Lighting Standards, (i) Outdoor lighting should use lighting that does not affect wildlife or attract insects by limiting the color temperature and brightness: a. The color temperature should not exceed 3,000 Kelvin. b. The light output of individual fixtures should not exceed 850 lumens. (ii) Lighting for outdoor recreational facilities shouldn't be mounted any higher than 15 feet above the ground;” and 7. The following shall be added as Section III (K) of the agreement and the current residential livestock standards will apply to the conservation easement acreage of Agriculture zones lots 109 and 110. “Livestock. To ensure the continued use of the migratory deer path and to avoid overgrazing of the Easement Property, the following limitations on livestock within the Easement Property apply: Max. Number Allowed on Lots Setback from More Available Fenced Residence or Animal ½ to 1 1 to 3 Minimum Lot Size than 3 Area per Animal Other Periodically Acre Acres Acres Inhabited Building 22,000 s.f. per 1-4 Horse/Mule 0 4 12 50 1 Acre Animals 22,000 s.f. per 1-4 Buffalo 0 2 6 150 1 Acre Animals Cattle 2 4 12 2,500 s.f. 50 ½ Acre Donkey 2 4 12 2,500 s.f. 50 ½ Acre Llama 2 4 12 2,500 s.f. 50 ½ Acre Emu/Ostrich 4 8 16 500 s.f. 50 ½ Acre Sheep/Goat 4 8 16 500 s.f. 50 ½ Acre Pig (all kinds) 2 4 8 500 s.f. 150 ½ Acre Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Melissa Clark, and Carolyn Love. Those voting nay: Jared Gray. The motion carried with a vote of 4:1. SCHEDULED ITEMS 12. OQUIRRH MOUNTAIN RANCH 12.A. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING – An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Approving a Second Amendment to the Oquirrh Mountain Master Development Plan. 12.B. MOTION – Oquirrh Mountain Ranch Preliminary Plat and Site Plan. Mr. Jensen reviewed the item as presented during work session. Applicant representative Tamara Connolly presented the background for the project. The original master development agreement (MDA) approved an urban-style project with a density of 5.3 dwelling units per acre and single-family attached and multifamily. They develop single-family detached product and adapted a smaller single-family product that accommodates the higher density approval for the area. Working with staff, they have reduced the density and increased the frontage widths in the plan several times. They have been working with the City and resident wildlife activists to revise the original plan to dedicate land for a petroglyph park to preserve the petroglyphs in place with a trail connecting the two sites and the wildlife corridor. The open space area will include an incline as one of the recreational features and the trail system will connect with the City trial system. The first plan neglected to consider the slope and topographical challenges of the property. The plan they devised accounts for the lots lost to accommodate the terrain and to dedicate 57 acres, over half of the property, to the City. Option A is their preferred plan and Option B is the absolute minimum lot count in order to make the plan fiscally feasible without reverting to the urban-style, high-density units. They worked with the Planning Commission to reach a compromise for the project. Staff suggested varying the lot frontage widths rather than grouping equally-size units together. LGI will be designing a new line of housing specifically for this project. Ms. Connolly addressed questions the Council asked during the September 21, 2021, work session discussion. The road connection to Overland was based upon the preliminary design information they were provided and they are working with the Overland survey company to adjust their plans to align with the road. The western boundary will have an elevation difference that will likely require retaining walls for the connection to work and they are unaware of the plans to the west of the property. The western connection placement was based upon staff recommendation. They prefer to use a hammer and a pick rather than blasting. They would need to apply for a blasting permit if one is required for an area of the project located far from existing homes. The home designs will exclude windows on the five-foot setback side or possibly both side elevations. Preliminary designs indicate a sewer gravity system connection should be viable depending on the timing of the Overland development. A lift station is a secondary option should the timing of the applicable Overland infrastructure prove unfavorable. Should the lift station not be needed, landscaping would be installed next to the retention facility where the lift station is indicated. The MDA requires a 20-foot landscaped buffer along the southern boundary; the landscaped buffer also provides drainage due to the slope in that area and will meet the City landscape design standards. Mr. Mumford clarified that the MDA contemplated that the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) would provide a ten-foot, half-width of the 20-foot corridor. However, the Overland Village 2 plan excluded the corridor in lieu of trails on less steep terrain that fulfilled the requirement. His opinion is that the corridor is not necessary if the lift station is not built unless the Council desires another trail. Ms. Connolly stated that if the City desires to remove the buffer along the southern border, she would incorporate the 20-foot width into the adjacent lots as a slope easement within those lots. Discussion ensued regarding the slope of the lots and buffer area and the preference for adding the additional 20-foot width to the lots should a lift station not be required. Mr. Cook expressed his preference for the 20-foot buffer area to be an easement rather than owned by the City and recommended adding the acreage to the adjacent lots even if the sewer lift station is necessary. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 9:19 p.m. Bettina Cameron said the petroglyph park will assist with qualifying for grants. The developer has been a great partner and agreed to remove the frisbee golf course due to the location being adjacent to a critical portion of the wildlife corridor especially in consideration of the future wildlife bridge over Pony Express Parkway. Mayor Westmoreland closed the public hearing at 9:22 p.m.

Councilmember Burnham moved to approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, approving a second amendment to the Oquirrh Mountain Master Development Plan for Option B with the following conditions: 1. All open space within the wildlife corridor, 330 feet on the northern edge of the project, and all property on both major hills shall be zoned OS-N with the Wildlife Corridor Overlay; 2. All other native open space shall be zoned OS-N; 3. All improved open space, OS-1 through OS-6, shall be zoned OS-I; 4. All residential pods shall be zoned RC; 5. If a lift station is necessary, it shall be owned and maintained by a homeowner’s association; 6. The approval of the master development plan is conditional based upon the approval of an amended master development agreement; 7. The side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five feet and ten feet on the garage side; and 8. The 20-feet of land along the southern border indicated as a buffer shall be divided and added into the adjacent lots and an easement shall be placed upon the land should a lift station be required. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Councilmember Burnham moved to approve the Option B site plan and preliminary plat for Oquirrh Mountain Ranch with the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plat shall comply with the development standards approved in the master development plan; 2. The preliminary plat shall include any changes made during the master development plan approval; 3. The applicant shall provide evidence that they meet the RC zone minimum improved open space requirement of 6.5 acres; 4. The side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five feet and ten feet on the garage side; and 5. The approval is conditional upon the approval of an amended and restated master development agreement. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Mayor Westmoreland recessed the meeting from 9:31 p.m. to 9:39 p.m. 13. ORDINANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS 13.A. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING – An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Repealing Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 17.70 Accessory Apartments and Replacing it with Chapter 17.70 Accessory Dwelling Units, and Amending Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Section 17.25.030 Land Use Table. Mr. Mumford reviewed the item as presented during work session. Mr. Mumford said the reason for adding the allowance for ADUs in the RC Zone is because the zones have lot size minimums but not maximums and staff felt as long as the minimum lot size and the other requirements were met, an ADU could be allowed and residents with larger lots designated as RC should not be punished and prohibited from having detached ADUs. The main purpose of requiring all utilities to be in the property owner’s name is to make the ADUs function less like a duplex and to have the landlord retain responsibility for the ADU. Councilmember Love suggested having all the requirements as a portion of the application the landlord initials in acknowledgment rather than requiring a notarized letter which could be burdensome. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. Resident Dave Norman said he turned in an application for an ADU permit. He is on a one-acre lot in Arrival and is concerned with the 1,000-square-foot size limitation. They built a large garage with plans to place an ADU above it in accordance with the Arrival requirement for the ADU not to be the primary usage. He would like the appearance of the ADU to match the barn appearance and of the garage rather than the home and to be the same size as the garage square footage. Councilmember Curtis expressed concern that if the City permitted ADUs of any size, residents could build two single-family homes and essentially subdivide a lot. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriate size limitations for attached and detached external ADUs in relation to the footprint of the ADUs relative to the primary structure, garage, or outbuilding; concerns with large ADUs not fulfilling the need for affordable housing; setback requirements limiting the potential ADU size, allowing ADUs for large lots in the RC Zone increasing parking issues, prohibiting internal ADUs in some neighborhoods due to parking limitations as allowed by State Code for up to 25% of residentially-zoned properties in the City, some cities prohibiting ADUs in upscale neighborhoods, and limiting external ADUs based upon frontage widths. Mayor Westmoreland closed the public hearing at 10:12 p.m. Mayor Westmoreland noted that other cities have expressed concern with the impact of ADUs on sewer capacity and said that infrastructure constraints should be a factor in consideration. Mr. Mumford verified that the City can either prohibit or allow the installation of a separate utility meter. Discussion ensued regarding the benefits and difficulties with requiring the installation of second utility meters, the requirement for the home to be owner-occupied in order to be allowed an ADU, density increase concerns with multigenerational home plans, drainage impacts and potential issues with detached ADU units on small properties, the ability for the City to require a frontage minimum for homes with external ADUs, the appropriate minimum frontage requirement for external ADUs, concerns with too lenient of standards resulting in unforeseen detriment, whether to permit ADUs above garages to match the garage due to concerns that the design of the detached garage is unappealing, potential architectural standards for detached structures and external ADUs, preventing shipping container structures, difficulties in applying limits to the RC Zone to areas in the City zoned under previous zoning designations, and possibly increasing the lot size requirements for external ADUs. Mr. Mumford noted that State Code prohibits municipalities from restricting street frontage, total lot size, or size in relation to the primary dwelling for internal ADUs. Detached ADU impacts would be the same regardless of whether or not an 8,000-square-foot or larger lot is located in the RC zone. Allowing external ADUs in the RC zone on properties that meet the other standards could assist first-time homebuyers with affording their mortgage and is beneficial to both the homeowner and the renter. The City currently allows internal ADUs and external ADUs on one- acre or larger lots. Staff is concerned that the restriction of two stories is vague as the height of the stories has not been defined. He suggested adding a total height restriction in addition to the two- story limitation. Discussion ensued regarding large properties within areas likely to be rezoned to the RC zone being potentially prohibited from having external ADUs, even though the property has a larger acreage well over the required 8,000-square-foot minimum, potential methodology for rezoning individual lots and neighborhoods with current zoning designations, the appropriate minimum lot size and frontages for external ADUs, setback and parking requirements limiting external ADUs on smaller lots, and mechanisms to request an exemption for properties that fail to meet the qualifications but would be appropriate for external ADUs. Mr. Mumford clarified that prohibiting ADUs on 25% of residentially zoned areas in the City applies to internal ADUs. The City has more liberty regarding the prohibition of external ADUs.

Councilmember Gray moved to table an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, repealing Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 17.70 Accessory Apartments and replacing it with Chapter 17.70 Accessory Dwelling Units, and amending Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Section 17.25.030 Land Use Table until the next City Council meeting. Councilmember Burnham seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. Those voting nay: Colby Curtis. The motion carried with a vote of 4:1. 13.B. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING – An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Rezoning Utah County Parcel 59:045:0065 and a Portion of Parcel 59:045:0064 to the Public Facilities Zone. Mr. Jensen presented the item. This proposal is to rezone approximately 1.25 acres to the PF zone to allow Fire Station 251 to be rebuilt at this location. Applicant representative Steve Simmons with AJC Architects said the approximately 11,000- square-foot firehouse is meant to house six firefighters. Parking is located to the rear with visitor parking along the side with sufficient egress for the fire engines. The location will house fire vehicles and an ambulance once staffing has been approved. Councilmember Burnham recommended headlight screening between the station and the adjacent homes. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 10:51 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed the hearing.

Councilmember Burnham moved to approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, rezoning Utah County Parcel 59:045:0065 and a portion of Parcel 59:045:0064 to the Public Facilities Zone. Councilmember Love seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 14. SPRING RUN 14.A. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING – An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Approving a Fourth Amendment to the Spring Run Master Development Plan. 14.B. MOTION – Spring Run Preliminary Plat, Phase D. Items 14.A. and 14.B. were presented and discussed concurrently. Mr. Jensen reviewed the item as presented during work session. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 10:56 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed the hearing. Applicant representative James Allred said they are happy to comply with the staff recommendation to realign the road to connect appropriately to the adjacent property. The total unit count is still under the original vesting for the project.

Councilmember Burnham moved to approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, approving a fourth amendment to the Spring Run Master Development Plan. Councilmember Love seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Councilmember Burnham moved to approve the preliminary plat for Phase D of Spring Run. Councilmember Love seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Melissa Clark, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 15. CITY COUNCIL/MAYOR'S BUSINESS 16. CITY COUNCIL BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Councilmember Gray None. Councilmember Curtis None. Councilmember Burnham Councilmember Burnham stated the Senior Citizen Advisory Council has a vacancy that needs to be filled by the end of the year. Councilmember Love Councilmember Love said the Eagle Mountain Chamber of Commerce has a combined bowling activity on November 2nd and a North Utah County Business Summit on November 9th and 10th. Councilmember Clark Councilmember Clark said that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board desires Council direction regarding landscaping standards, undeveloped open space, and defining maintenance standards for open space and park areas in the City. Discussion ensued clarifying the direction desired by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, the roles and responsibilities of advisory boards, mechanisms for providing direction to advisory boards, especially regarding Municipal Code standards, clarifying methods for the Council to provide advisory boards direction, the roles of liaisons in providing and passing direction between the advisory boards and Council, discussing advisory board direction during the liaison reports and City Council items portion of meetings, and procedures for the Council to bring items forward for the agenda. Director of Administrative Services/City Recorder Fionnuala Kofoed explained that she has reached out to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board several times regarding presenting to the City Council and they have indicated that they were not yet prepared to make a presentation. Staff will prepare an item for the next agenda to discuss direction with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. 17. COMMUNICATlON lTEMS 17 .A. Financial Report 17.B. Upcoming Agenda Item 18. ADJOURNMENT