Eagle Mountain City Council, 4 January 2022

Councilmember Love moved to appoint Steve Conger to the Cemetery Advisory Board for a four-year term. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Councilmember Love moved to appoint Corbin Wade to the Cemetery Advisory Board for a four-year term. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 9.B. Library Advisory Board

Councilmember Curtis moved to appoint Angelina Arnold to the Library Advisory Board for a three-year term. Councilmember Burnham seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Councilmember Curtis moved to appoint Sally Blaser to the Library Advisory Board for a three-year term. Councilmember Wright seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Councilmember Curtis moved to appoint Shelly Way to the Library Advisory Board for a three-year term. Councilmember Wright seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 9.C. Planning Commission

Councilmember Burnham moved to appoint Jason Allen to the Planning Commission, completing the term through December 2022. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, and Carolyn Love. Those voting nay: Brett Wright. The motion carried with a vote of 4:1. Councilmember Wright stated his nay vote was because Mr. Allen lacks the land use experience that he would prefer the City utilize. He requested the City consider appointing Alternate Planning Commissioners in order to begin training potential future Commissioners. 9.D. Senior Citizens Advisory Board

Councilmember Burnham moved to appoint Joye Roberts to the Senior Citizens Advisory Board for a four-year term. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Director of Administrative Services/City Recorder Fionnuala Kofoed administered the Oath of Office to the appointed individuals in attendance. CONSENT AGENDA 10. AGREEMENTS 10.A. Direct Communications Franchise Agreement 11. BOND RELEASES 11.A. Brandon Park Phase A, Plat 14 – Into Warranty 12. MINUTES 12.A. December 7, 2021 – Regular City Council Meeting 13. PRELIMINARY PLATS & SITE PLANS 13.A. SITE PLAN – Antelope Meadows Pool and Clubhouse 13.B. SITE PLAN – Atlas Tower - Sunset Flats 13.C. MASTER SITE PLAN – Ranches Crossing 13.D. SITE PLAN – Salt City Fitness 14. RESOLUTIONS

Councilmember Curtis moved to approve the consent agenda, tabling item 12.A. to the next scheduled City Council meeting and removing items 13.B. and 13.C. and placing them as scheduled items. Councilmember Wright seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 13. PRELIMINARY PLATS & SITE PLANS 13.B. SITE PLAN – Atlas Tower – Sunset Flats Senior Planner Tayler Jensen presented the item. The application is for an 80-foot wireless cell tower designed as a silo on a 2,500-square-foot property north of the Rocky Mountain Power substation west of Lake Mountain Road between two powerline corridors. The applicant has indicated they intend to paint the tower in a beige color palette but are willing to paint the tower any color the City wishes. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Atlas Tower – Sunset Flats Site Plan to the City Council with the following Conditions: 1. A six-foot privacy fence shall replace the chain link fence in accordance with EMMC 17.75.091(A)(2); 2. The applicant shall submit copies of all federal permits prior to a building permit being issued; 3. Generators for emergency use or testing shall be permitted; and 4. The applicant shall provide a rendering of how the silo will be painted to blend into the environment. Councilmember Curtis suggested the building look similar to the powerlines rather than a silo. Applicant representative Carri Wullner stated they are amenable to a monopole design to be more cohesive with the powerlines and the cost would be less than the silo design. The builder will determine the most durable and appropriate materials and paint. Councilmember Love requested an example of what a monopole would look like. Ms. Wullner said it would be a single pole with six to eight antennas per carrier with up to three or four sets of antennas at different levels on the pole. A silo would be approximately 10 to 20 feet in diameter and would conceal the antennas. A monopole would be approximately two feet in diameter with triangular antennas. Applicant representative Mike Powers explained the design standards for the towers are to both accommodate for the geology on the ground to ensure a strong foundation and the above-ground environmental issues in the area, such as wind, regardless of tower-style and type. Safety measures vary by tower type. The silos are conical with interior platforms with latches and ladders. The monopoles may have foot pegs and will have a safety cable. Monopoles are usually sky-colored, galvanized steel or painted to blend in with their background. He recommended galvanized steel as the option best suited for this area of Eagle Mountain. Councilmember Curtis expressed support for a galvanized steel monopole. Councilmembers Love and Curtis expressed support of requiring conditions 1, 2, and 3 recommended by the Planning Commission.

Councilmember Curtis moved to approve the Atlas Tower - Sunset Flats site plan with the following conditions: 1. A six-foot privacy fence shall replace the chain link fence in accordance with EMMC 17.75.091(A)(2); 2. The applicant shall submit copies of all federal permits prior to a building permit being issued; 3. Generators for emergency use or testing shall be permitted; and 4. Directing the applicant to install a galvanized steel monopole as represented in the email sent to staff rather than the proposed silo design. Councilmember Love seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. 13.C. MASTER SITE PLAN – Ranches Crossing Mr. Jensen presented the item. This application is for a master site plan for five commercial pad sites located at the northeast intersection of Ranches Crossing and Pony Express Parkway. A six- foot masonry wall will be constructed between the project and the Rock Creek Townhomes. The Planning Commission recommended approval without guidelines in order for the project to follow the requisite design standards at the time of the approval of the individual site plans. A traffic study shows a Level of Service of F at the intersection of Rock Creek Road and Ranches Parkway. The applicant's proposal creates two new road accesses: Access Y which accesses Ranches Parkway to the west, and Access Z which completes Clear Rock Road, providing it as a full access onto Pony Express Parkway. Both of these accesses are included as recommended mitigations which include that Access Y along Ranches Parkway should be built with a southbound left-turn deceleration with a minimum of 50 feet for stacking. This is a new access point and the center landscaped median will need to be modified if it is to be installed. Access Z would be built to align with the existing access to the south and include an eastbound left-turn deceleration lane with a minimum of 50 feet for stacking. There is currently a left turn pocket on Pony Express to accommodate the eastbound left-turn movement. Mr. Jensen stated City staff and the applicant received a number of comments from residents in the neighboring residential development concerned about commercial traffic entering their neighborhoods via Clear Rock Road as it is connected to Pony Express Parkway and Ruby Lane. The applicant has provided an alternative plan which continues the six-foot masonry wall across Clear Rock Road and along the east side of the parcel, cutting off access to Ruby Lane. This proposal would prevent Clear Rock Road from being connected as intended and would only provide access into the commercial area from Pony Express Parkway. Staff believes that Clear Rock Road should connect to Pony Express Parkway and Ruby Lane as it increases connectivity in the area, provides for better emergency access, and as the connections have long been anticipated and planned. The Planning Commission voted 3 to 1, with one absentee, to recommend approval of the master site plan with the following conditions. 1. The proposed lot plan shall be excluded from the approval; 2. Clear Rock Road shall connect to Ruby Lane; 3. Access X on Rock Creek Road shall be provided; and 4. The applicant-proposed design standards are excluded from the approval and the site plans shall adhere to current Municipal Code design standards at the time of approval. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed access options with consideration for fire department apparatus access and turn radius requirements, masonry screening, safety, and connectivity. Councilmember Love recommended sidewalk connectivity regardless of drive accesses. Mayor Westmoreland stated an emergency access gate could be installed, if necessary for connectivity. Discussion ensued regarding emergency access routes. Councilmember Wright stated that the project will meet the connectivity score for the residential development without the additional access. Mr. Jensen explained that the Fire Marshal indicated that as long as an adequate turn radius for fire apparatus was provided, the Ruby Lane access could be excluded. Applicant representative Brian Haskell stated they would be willing to consider extending the masonry wall across the proposed access to Ruby Lane. However, the residents were more concerned with increased traffic on Clear Rock Road than the connection to Ruby Lane. A hammerhead turnaround is already located on Ruby Lane to provide turn radius for emergency vehicles. They desire to address resident concerns and are amenable to the option deemed most appropriate by the Council. Councilmember Wright confirmed with staff that the applicant would be responsible for the installation of the left-hand declaration and turning lane access onto Ranches Parkway. Councilmember Curtis asked if City staff would consider adjusting the entire median in conjunction with the applicant's removal of a section of the median. City Engineer Chris Trusty agreed that as construction begins, it would be appropriate to redesign the medians along other areas of Ranches Parkway.

Councilmember Burnham moved to approve the master site plan for Ranches Crossing with the following conditions: 1. The proposed concept/lot plan shall be excluded from the approval; 2. Access X on Rock Creek Road shall be provided; 3. The applicant-proposed design standards are excluded from the approval and the site plans shall adhere to current Municipal Code design standards at the time of approval; 4. The masonry wall shall continue along Clear Rock Road in front of the townhomes on Ruby Lane; 5. Staff shall explore cost-saving options to collaborate with the applicant on the median design; and 6. Ruby Lane shall not connect to Clear Rock Road. Councilmember Wright seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. SCHEDULED ITEMS 15. ORDINANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS 15.A. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING – An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Approving an Amendment to the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 17.80 Sign Regulations and Sign Permits Regarding Monument Signs. Mayor Westmoreland recessed the meeting from 9:25 to 9:38 p.m. This item was discussed after item 15.D. Mayor Westmoreland stated the applicant is not in attendance and requested the item be tabled.

Councilmember Wright moved to table an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, approving an amendment to the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 17.80 Sign Regulations and Sign Permits Regarding Monument Signs. Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. Councilmember Gray abstained due to technical difficulties. The motion carried with a vote of 4:0. 15.B. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING – An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Approving an Amendment to the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 17.80 Sign Regulations and Sign Permits Regarding Flagpole Heights. Councilmember Love asked if flagpoles taller than 35 feet in commercial areas would be required to fly the National Flag as the primary flag with the State or corporate flags as secondary and if statement flags should be prohibited. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 9:42 p.m. As there were no comments, he closed the hearing. Councilmember Curtis asked if the flags can be limited to US, State, City, and corporate flags due to his concerns with statement flags. Discussion ensued regarding corporate flags and the flagpole height. The Council determined to not include corporate flags as a permitted flag, to stipulate flagpoles can be “up to” a maximum height of 80 feet, and to remove the option to apply for a conditional use permit for flagpoles taller than 80 feet. Councilmember Gray expressed concerns regarding 80-foot-tall flagpoles.

Councilmember Burnham moved to approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, approving an amendment to the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 17.80 Sign Regulations and Sign Permits regarding flagpole heights with the following changes: 1. Amending EMMC 17.80.120(Q)(2)(a) to “Non-residential developments may install flagpoles up to eighty feet (80’) in height; 2. Removing EMMC 17.80.120(Q)(2)(b); and 3. Replacing the removed verbiage in EMMC 17.80.120(Q)(2)(b) with “Secondary flags are limited to the State and City flag,” and 4. Amending EMMC 17.80.120(Q)(3) Size. to “The size of the flag shall not exceed the structural integrity of the pole.” Councilmember Wright seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. Those voting nay: Colby Curtis and Jared Gray. The motion carried with a vote of 3:2. Councilmember Curtis clarified his only objection to the amendment is the permitted height of commercial flagpoles. 15.C. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING – An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapters 17.10 Definitions, 17.75 Standards for Special Uses, 17.20 Agriculture Zone, 17.35 Commercial Zone, 17.37 Business Park Zone, 17.40 Industrial Zone, and 17.23 Open Space Zones, Relating to Indoor and Outdoor Shooting Ranges. Mr. Jensen explained the proposed amendment creates standards related to indoor and outdoor shooting ranges. He stated staff worked with individuals who own and operate shooting ranges and utilized the Planning Commission’s firearm expertise in drafting these standards. It was presented to the Planning Commission at two meetings. Indoor shooting ranges are proposed to be special uses in the Commercial Community, Commercial Regional, Business Park, and Industrial zones. Outdoor shooting ranges are proposed to be special uses in the Open Space-Natural, Agriculture, and Industrial zones. Councilmember Burnham expressed concerns regarding allowing shooting ranges on five-acre lots within the Agriculture zone, due to the possibility of residential areas with Agricultural zoning and five-acre lots. Jim Smith with Wasatch Wing and Clay suggested that shooting ranges on Agriculture property be required to obtain a conditional use permit and stated an outdoor range would not likely be approved in a residential area. Industry noise and safety standards and liability would pose further difficulties that would discourage shooting ranges in residential areas. An air rifle range, however, might be appropriate. He clarified that a Federal Firearms License is required for the sale of firearms but not the operation of a shooting range. Mr. Jensen stated special uses typically require a site plan which requires a public hearing at a Planning Commission meeting as well as City Council approval. The applicant would need to provide an adequate safety plan, as well. Councilmember Curtis expressed concerns about inadvertently allowing shooting ranges in undesired and inappropriate locations. He also advocated for requiring design standards for outbuildings and permitting the City Council discretion to waive certain commercial design standards as appropriate. Councilmember Wright stated he interprets that standard as meant for commercial applications and the Council should disallow commercial businesses in residential areas. The concerns regarding five-acre lots in Agricultural areas are likely unmerited because the City would not approve a special use for a shooting range in a residential area. Mr. Cook recommended adding EMMC 17.75.073(B)(7), “Outdoor shooting ranges shall not be located on a lot or parcel that includes a residence.” Discussion ensued regarding the ability of the City to grant exemptions for residences such as caretaker facilities. Mr. Jensen verified that Municipal Code definitions denote that shooting ranges are commercial uses open to the general public upon payment of a fee. He explained the reason for permitting shooting ranges in the OS-N zone is to permit businesses such as Wasatch Wing and Clay to continue operation if annexed into the City as OS-N property. City Administrator Paul Jerome explained most OS-N parcels that remain in the ownership of a private entity are likely unbuildable land. Mr. Cook explained shooting ranges would not be permitted in an area within a conservation easement as it will not qualify as an allowed use. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 10:12 p.m. Bettina Cameron expressed concern with the possibility of shooting ranges within vacant lots in Cedar Pass Ranch due to safety concerns and the danger for equestrian activities as horse trails are located throughout the subdivision. She requested the ranges not be permitted in Agriculture subdivisions. She said Shane Hill with the Division of Wildlife Resources said the half-mile distance requirement from the wildlife corridor should be sufficient and he suggested limiting operating hours during wildlife migration seasons. Teri Newfang and Larry Christensen submitted written comment opposing the proposed ordinance. Ms. Kofoed relayed a question from Commissioner Gray regarding exploding targets. Councilmember Curtis expressed support of prohibiting all exploding targets. Councilmember Wright agreed with that prohibition due to the dangers posed. Mr. Smith said there are exploding targets on drones that detonate in the air that are not a fire threat. Fire danger depends on the type of exploding target. He recommended allowing the shooting range operators to determine what they would like to permit and what liability they desire to assume. He is amenable to the exemptions of shooting table/rests, shelters, and check-in buildings from commercial design standards to be at the discretion of the Council. Mr. Jensen explained that staff and the Planning Commission defined the prohibited targets as exploding incendiary targets, such as Tannerite. Discussion ensued regarding the definition and intention of incendiary. Mayor Westmoreland closed the public hearing at 10:26 p.m. Councilmember Gray stated he is willing to permit some exploding targets in specific cases in a controlled environment. Councilmember Curtis asked about the potential of a shooting range on the Butterfield Annexation property as a large portion of the land is zoned OS-N. Ms. Kofoed stated the owner is not planning on turning over ownership of that property to the City, but it is not buildable land. Mr. Jensen said staff is willing to remove OS-N as an allowed zone for shooting ranges as Wasatch Wing and Clay could be granted legal, non-conforming status should their property be annexed into the City. Councilmember Love stated the discussed changes are significant enough that she would prefer to direct staff to rewrite the amendment and bring the item to a future City Council meeting. Councilmember Curtis confirmed the discussed changes include prohibiting ranges on any parcel with a residence, prohibiting ranges in agriculture subdivisions, allowing the City Council to exempt structures from commercial design standards, and determining the minimum distance permitted from the wildlife corridor and operating hour restrictions during migration season. Councilmember Gray stated Mr. Smith's email to Council noted deer and antelope cross the Wasatch Wing and Clay ranges and the range operations do not affect migration. Councilmember Love noted the difference between local wildlife and migratory wildlife and said the migratory wildlife may not be accustomed to shooting range operations. Mayor Westmoreland advocated for balancing and mitigating wildlife and use conflicts. Councilmember Love confirmed the following changes for staff: amend EMMC 17.75.073(B)(5) to state design standards may be exempted at the City Council's discretion, add EMMC 17.75.073(B)(7) stating shooting ranges are not allowed on a parcel that includes a residence, change the minimum distance from the wildlife corridor from one-quarter mile to one-half mile, limit range operation hours during migration season, prohibit the ranges within Agriculture subdivisions, and prohibit ranges within the OS-N Zone. Discussion ensued regarding concerns with limiting the hours of operation for shooting ranges during the wildlife migration season and the impact of the proposed one-half mile minimum distance from the wildlife corridor. Councilmember Gray stated the prohibition of ranges on lots with a residence could prohibit ranges on 100-acre parcels that happen to have a residence. He expressed frustration that the item may be tabled again in consideration of the time investment of the residents in attendance for the purpose of the item. Councilmember Burnham explained that lots over ten acres with a residence could be subdivided to accommodate a shooting range. Councilmembers Curtis and Love noted the changes are significant and the item should be tabled in order to be rewritten with apologies to the interested parties. Councilmember Curtis requested the item be placed early on a future agenda.

Councilmember Love moved to table an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapters 17.10 Definitions, 17.75 Standards for Special Uses, 17.20 Agriculture Zone, 17.35 Commercial Zone, 17.37 Business Park Zone, 17.40 Industrial Zone, and 17.23 Open Space Zones, Relating to Indoor and Outdoor Shooting Ranges and instruct staff to amend the draft ordinance as follows and place the item early on a future agenda: 1. EMMC 17.75.073(B)(5) shall be amended to state design standards may be exempted at the City Council's discretion; 2. Add that shooting ranges are not allowed on a parcel that includes a residence as EMMC 17.75.073(B)(7); 3. Add verbiage to prohibit shooting ranges within Agriculture subdivisions; and 4. Add verbiage to prohibit ranges within the OS-N Zone. Councilmember Wright seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Councilmember Gray noted further discussion regarding exploding targets standards should be included when the item returns. Discussion ensued clarifying that the future discussion can include any additional changes as desired by the Council and is not limited to the amendments included in the motion. Mayor Westmoreland confirmed that Councilmember Gray will not be in attendance in person at the next meeting and requested Councilmembers Curtis and Wright to dedicate additional time to working with staff on the amendments to the proposed ordinance. 15.D. ORDINANCE/PUBLIC HEARING – An Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, Amending Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 6.10 Animal Zone Regulations. This item was discussed after item 13.C. Mr. Jensen explained the ordinance was reviewed and approved on November 16, 2021. Staff is bringing the item to the Council to confirm that the language was adopted as the City Council intended. Councilmember Love stated this chapter should revert to the codified standards that were in Municipal Code prior to the November 16, 2021 City Council meeting and the item should be tabled to a future meeting. Councilmember Curtis stated his intention was not to change the setback requirements to be measured from the animal shelters or structures to a residence or building on an adjacent lot; however, he is open to further discussion and consideration of setback standards and requested example graphics to assist the Council with determining the impact of the various options. He expressed concern with the definition and application of the miniature animals and enforcement of the standards. Councilmember Love concurred that the setback standards were not intended to be amended. She believes additional research is required before the Council adopts changes to setbacks. She recalled the intention had been to count both miniature and adolescent animals as half of a full-sized adult; nevertheless, after further consideration, she regrets that decision. She contended conditional use permits are a better mechanism to address miniature animals. Councilmember Burnham stated as miniature animals are a specific breed type, she has fewer concerns regarding standards specific to miniature breeds. However, she has concerns regarding adolescent animals and feels additional research is merited. She expressed concern that if the setback is based on fenced area, one-acre lots may not be large enough to house any animals. Councilmember Wright agreed that miniature animals, setback requirements, and fenced square footage per animal need to be addressed. He said the fenced square footage per animal requirement was put in place to address the cumulative total of animals on lots. He requested maps and exhibits to be included in the upcoming discussion. Mayor Westmoreland opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Mike Boyd stated residents who would like a large number of animals should go through the conditional use permit process. He explained situations in the Cedar Pass Ranch neighborhood that are contributing to and exasperating animal rights conflicts and feels that the decision of the Council should be based upon the desires of the majority of residents. He expressed appreciation to the Council for reconsidering the ordinance. Councilmember Burnham clarified that this ordinance affects more than just Cedar Pass Ranch and other areas in the City need to be factored into the decision. John Hubbard expressed appreciation that the item is being reconsidered. He noted negative experiences he has experienced due to animals in his neighborhood and stated the updated ordinance allows too many animals. He alleged Councilmember Gray's animal knowledge shared during the previous meeting and his influence with the Council are problematic due to a potential conflict of interest. He expressed concern regarding difficulty with enforcement of the standards, home-based businesses operations, and safety hazards should shooting ranges be permitted in their neighborhood. Kelly Riem said something needs to be documented in Municipal Code regarding fowl allowances. Discussion ensued regarding allowances and Municipal Code standards addressing fowl. Bettina Cameron said Cedar Pass Ranch residents have experienced duress and she was upset that the Council joked about conflicts of interest during the Atlas Tower discussion. She stated Councilmember Gray has a conflict of interest regarding his livestock business. There are real issues with livestock in her neighborhood. The conditional use permit process can address additional animals over the previously approved animal ordinance. She noted difficulties in determining adolescent designations and the size of miniature cattle varieties and advocated against basing setbacks upon animal enclosures due to the impact on neighboring properties and nuisance issues. She asked City Attorney Jeremy Cook for clarification regarding conflict of interest disclosure requirements and expressed concerns with undue Councilmember influence outside of the public meeting. Councilmember Gray stated he houses livestock in areas outside of Eagle Mountain City. Mr. Cook stated he does not believe Councilmember Gray has a conflict of interest simply because he owns animals. All Councilmembers will have an interest in the items they vote on that affect the City. Regarding his influence on fellow Councilmembers, that is the process of the discussion; Councilmembers express their positions and attempt to obtain support from other Councilmembers. Councilmember Curtis asked for clarification regarding what constitutes a conflict of interest in relation to home business and financial benefits. Discussion ensued regarding conflicts of interest. Councilmember Burnham gave the example of a councilmember having a first-person interest in an item he/she is voting on. Ms. Kofoed said if an individual is operating a business within the City and the business does not impact the neighborhood, they can apply for a business license exemption. Councilmember Gray explained the selling and purchasing process of animals associated with his hobby activities. John Painter said a neighbor recently built a barn in the neighbor’s front yard and there has not been a negative impact to him. Nevertheless, there are a few new residents in his subdivision who are attempting to push the limits on what is allowed, resulting in nuisances to others. Mayor Westmoreland continued the public hearing to the meeting in which the item returns to the Council.

Councilmember Curtis moved to table the item with the understanding that while this amendment is in the process, the City will operate under the Municipal Code standards in place prior to the November 16, 2021 City Council meeting. Councilmember Love seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Jared Gray, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Mayor Westmoreland stated that while all Councilmembers should be involved in this Municipal Code amendment, he would like to specifically ask Councilmembers Love and Burnham to commit extra time to the amendment refinement process, without excluding the other Councilmembers. 16. MOTION 16.A. MOTION – Request for Waiver of Streetlight Requirements in the Deer Haven Development Mr. Jensen reviewed the item as presented during the work session. Councilmember Curtis asked if the Council would consider increasing the lighting requirements in more densely populated areas, scalable with the lot sizes, with a future amendment.

Councilmember Curtis moved to approve the request for waiver of streetlight requirements in the Deer Haven development. Councilmember Burnham seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Donna Burnham, Colby Curtis, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. Councilmember Gray abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 4:0. 17. CITY COUNCIL/MAYOR'S BUSINESS None. 18. CITY COUNCIL BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Councilmember Burnham Councilmember Burnham said the Senior Citizen Advisory Council has a vacancy. Councilmember Love None. Councilmember Wright None. Councilmember Gray None. Councilmember Curtis None. Mayor Westmoreland Mayor Westmoreland stated Tyler Shimakonis has requested a second set of Youth Council Advisors be appointed. He will be reaching out to Council regarding liaison assignments for 2022. 19. COMMUNICATION ITEMS 19.A. Upcoming Agenda Items 20. ADJOURNMENT