Thanksgiving Point Office Concept Planning Commission
Report, Dec 10, 2015
APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS Section 11.010.
Concept Plan – Applicability: The Concept Plan gives the applicant, staff,
Planning Commission and City Council an opportunity to discuss the project in
the conceptual stage. The applicant can use the Concept Plan meeting to receive
direction on project layout as well as discuss the procedure for approval, the
specifications and requirements that may be required for layout of streets,
drainage, water, sewerage, fire protection, and similar matters prior to the
preparation of a more detailed preliminary subdivision plat.
Let’s hope that the
Planning Commission and City Council educate themselves on the specifics of
this proposed development and not lean on DRC to vet the development. It is my belief that the Planning Commission
and City Council does not properly vet many of the developments within the city
and is totally dependent on the staff at DRC.
Total time DRC reviewed this application – 20 minutes! All of the foregoing
was discussed and finalized in 20 minutes.
Where a Resort
Community Zone proposes a mix of recreational and commercial or business park
uses, the following development standards shall apply in addition to any other
commercial development standards contained in this Code or the Design Standards
and Public Improvement Specifications manual:
A.
Building Design.
The proposed structures shall
be complimentary to the surrounding architecture in terms of scale, massing, roof
shape, and exterior materials. Buildings should not create large bulky masses,
but should be scaled down into groupings of smaller attached structures.
Buildings adjacent to single family detached units should be limited to 2
stories or 35 feet.
The term adjacent MUST
be defined in a court of law. The
Thanksgiving Point home owners own Desert Forest Lane which borders the
proposed development. The Thanksgiving
Point home owners believe that their property is not only adjacent to the
proposed development but adjoins the proposed development. We believe any such building should be
limited to 2 stories or 35 feet. If you
read the building design, it specifically states the architecture SHALL be
complimentary to the surrounding existing structures (homes and club house), it
is NOT. The scale, massing, roof shape and exterior materials shall be
complimentary to the surrounding structures, it is NOT. Buildings SHOULD NOT
create large bulky masses (120,000 square feet is most certainly a large bulky
mass), should be scaled into groupings of smaller attached structures. These two buildings are not attached and they
are not scaled down into smaller units. This development FAILS in all aspects
of this provision of the code.
B.
Parking.
Large expanses of asphalt shall be
reduced and broken into smaller parking lots. Parking lots shall include ample
landscaping to buffer cars from neighboring properties including the use of
berms and landscaped islands (see Section 12-090 C).
The parking lot as
shown is one continuous parking lot. The
office building and a church share the same parking lot. The parking lots are NOT broken into smaller
parking lots. The drawings as presented
DO NOT show us AMPLE landscaping to buffer cars from neighboring
properties. Interesting, in this
description, it uses the term neighboring.
Thanksgiving Village homes do neighbor the proposed development. We are adjacent to the proposed development.
C.
Access and Traffic.
Adequate vehicular and
pedestrian access must be provided. Direct access from an arterial or collector
street to the office and professional service uses must be provided. A traffic
impact study shall be required as part of the Area Plan, to project auto and
truck traffic generated by the uses proposed.
How do you define Adequate? Currently, the traffic study shows traffic
conditions in and around Thanksgiving Point as an “F”. I doubt an “F” rating can indicate that
vehicular access is adequate.
D.
Roof Design.
Flat or low-pitched roofs shall be
avoided and rooflines should blend in with surrounding buildings. Roof design
may be further defined as part of an approved Area Plan.
The roof design as
shown DOES have a low pitched or flat roof.
The code indicates that a flat pitched roof SHALL BE AVOIDED. The roofline DOES NOT blend in with the
surrounding buildings (proposed Stake Center, homes or club house). The roof line as show fails this requirement.
E.
Materials. New buildings should blend with the
materials of surrounding buildings. Building materials may be further defined
as part of an approved Area Plan.
The materials as
proposed (show the use of brick, metal accents, and glass for both buildings)
DO NOT blend in with the surrounding buildings (homes, proposed Stake Center
and club house). This building would stand out and not be harmonious to the
existing buildings.
F.
Signage.
Signage of buildings should be part of
a coordinated signage system for the entire Resort development. Signage should
help unify the development and provide a positive image. Natural materials such
as wood, stone, rock and metal with external illumination are encouraged. The
use of monument signs is also encouraged. The size and location of signage
shall conform to the requirements and design guidelines of Chapter 23, Signs,
of this Code.
The signage was not
shown in the plans.
G.
Lighting.
Outdoor lighting should be screened by shields or hoods to prevent glare onto
adjacent properties. The intensity of large fixtures should be reduced by
utilizing a larger number of smaller light poles of twelve (12) to eighteen
(18) feet. Incandescent lights should be used in smaller pedestrian spaces
where quality light is especially important.
Lighting and the
affects of lighting was not shown on the plans.
Neighboring homes are within 100 to 150 feet from the proposed
development. Lighting is a big concern
of the residents of Thanksgiving Village.
Section 37.010. Commercial Design Standards.
A. Architectural Standards.
6. Variation. Commercial buildings shall be designed with
architectural wall variations spaced at intervals of thirty (30) to fifty (50)
feet in linear width, depending on the size of the project (see Figure 3). At
least four (4) or more of the following architectural features shall be
incorporated into the design of the building: a change in building materials,
building projections measuring at least three (3) feet in depth, roof line
variations measuring at least three (3) feet in height, awnings and lighting,
or another architectural variation that creates visual interest.
7. Vertical Separation. Buildings in excess of two (2)
stories in height shall exhibit architectural detailing that establishes a
vertical separation between lower and upper stories. This may be accomplished
by a mid-façade cornice or trim, a change in material, style or color, a façade
step-back or roof pitch with dormer windows, or other methods.
B. Site Design Standards.
1. (a) Buildings shall be oriented to the right-of-way in order
to create a “streetwall” along the street edge with no front yard setback
except to allow for some minor landscaped areas, courtyards, plazas, or a drive
thru if the site constraints do not allow for an alternative design.
It is important to
remember that the proposed development MUST meet the guidelines as set forth in
chapter 28 of the Lehi City code. The architectural standards as defined by
chapter 37 are subservient to chapter 28.
HISTORY
December 26, 1995 – Thanksgiving Point annexation – The subject
property was included in this annexation and assigned Planned Community zoning.
Later the Thanksgiving Point Area Plan was amended and this property was
assigned Resort Community zoning.
July 9, 2015 – The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
concept plan where it was tabled. The following motion was made:
Scott Dean moved to table VCBO Architecture’s request for
Concept Plan approval for Thanksgiving Point Office, two proposed office
buildings to be located at approximately Garden Drive and Desert Forest Lane in
an existing Resort Community zone for a period of no-longer than 30 days, if
and when at that point the landowner or developer needs to make a concerted
effort to open up to the residents an opportunity to hear, address and respond as
best they can to the concerns of the citizens and it is recommended when they
return to demonstrate in a traffic study the impacts of this development on the
surrounding road ways; further, that this delay is primarily premised because
there is no such traffic study evident today and evident of the participation
here, the citizens have demonstrated that they have not had the opportunity to
discuss this directly and to begin to make adjustments to the potential use.
A traffic study was
done by the church and the study indicates that traffic in and around
Thanksgiving Point is currently at an “F” rating. The city and the church both agree that two
stoplights must be constructed in order for this development to proceed.
ANALYSIS The applicant requests approval of a concept plan
for Thanksgiving Point Office located adjacent to the Thanksgiving Point Golf
Course club house. The proposed concept will be built in place of the existing
golf course driving range. It is the understanding of staff that the driving range
will be relocated.
The relocation of the
driving range HAS NOT been revealed.
There are two proposed buildings, an office building and an
LDS stake center. The proposed office building is approximately 120,000 square
feet and the proposed stake center is approximately 22,000 square feet. The
previous concept plan showed 2 office buildings and the current proposed
concept plan includes a stake center that is shown on the south side of the
office building. The concept plan shows the buildings oriented towards Garden
Drive with a considerable landscaped setback. The office building shows a drop-off lane in front of the building.
If parking is being proposed as part of the drop-off lane, an exception to
Chapter 37 of the Development Code will be required. The DRC recommended
pushing both proposed buildings closer to Garden Drive as Chapter 37 of the
Development Code requires that buildings only have minor landscaped setbacks in
the front of the building. The City Code requirement does conflict with the required
100 foot setback of the Thanksgiving Point Area Plan but may be allowed by the
Thanksgiving Point Architectural Review Committee. Pulling the buildings closer
to Garden Drive makes the buildings more visible from the street as to showcase
them, pushes them slightly farther away from the nearby homes, and increases
the perception of walkability from the nearby transit station. The transit
station provides a great opportunity for office buildings to locate in the area
and allow employees and visitors to be less dependent on cars. There is also a
planned trail that is funded through Mountainland Association of Governments
along the property frontage that will help the walkability to and from the site
and transit station. Landscaping is shown on the concept including significant
landscape buffers on the south side of the property. A landscape calculation
has not been provided but will be verified at the time of site plan to ensure
it meets the requirement. Pedestrian walkways are shown between the buildings and
into the parking lot which meets the Development Code requirement. Parking is
required at 400 stalls for the office building and 70 stalls for the stake
center. The proposed 500 stalls meet and exceed the required 470 stalls. Bike
parking will need to be addressed as 40 spaces are required for the office
building and approximately 7 are required for the stake center. The office
building bike parking stalls are required to be secure and placed in the
building or in a separate covered structure outside.
The proposed building elevations show the use of brick, metal accents,
and glass for both buildings. The DRC commented that the designs of the two
buildings need to be cohesive and stated that the colors and materials of the
two buildings need to coordinate. The proposed office building elevations show
pop-outs, awnings, decorative lighting, roof cantilevers, and a recessed entry
for architectural variations. The DRC noted that the elevations must meet the
Design Standards in terms of architectural variation and vertical separation.
Please consider other DRC comments as part of the motion.
ACTION/RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission may recommend
approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the concept plan. Please
remember to include findings as a part of the motion. The Planning Commission
may also advise the applicant of specific changes or additions, if any that
would be required in the layout as a prerequisite to the approval of the site
plan.
The planning
commission DID NOT make any changes or additions. One reason they did not is because they had
no idea what they chapter 28 of the Lehi City code indicates. They had no idea
of the special warranty deed and they had no idea how the subdivision was
created.
FINDINGS The Development Code does not identify specific
findings that must be considered when approving a concept; however the Planning
Commission may wish to include the following findings in the motion:
1. The proposed Concept is consistent with the Lehi City
Development Code, not true and not conclusive. Making a statement of fact
requires much more than merely reciting words.
2. The proposed Concept conforms to the goals and policies
of the General Plan, not true and not conclusive. Making a statement of fact
requires much more than merely reciting words.
3. The proposed Concept does not affect the health, safety,
welfare, and morals of the City
Terms missing, safety, health, long term welfare, warranted,
morals.
If these terms are not defined,
how can one make a declaration that it does or does not affect the residents of
the City of Lehi? How can you profess and proclaim the following statement was
made by the Lehi Planning Commission.
“The proposed concepts DOES NOT affect the health, safety, welfare, and
morals of the City.” Without defining these terms and concretely calibrating
there effect, one cannot make a definitive statement of fact.
It should be noted
that although the plans changed from 2 office buildings to one office building
and a church building, the same drawings were included in the latter meeting
showing the buildings as they appeared on July 9th, 2015. The planning commission approved architectural drawings that showed two large 120,000 sq ft office buildings. The Stake Center which was shown will not be the exact Stake Center on the property. VCBO Architect did not even bother to make a new rendering of the proposed buildings. The renderings they submitted where the exact same renderings they submitted on July 9th, 2015. It is quite obvious, this development has been pushed through with the Planning Commission not having a clue about the project. The questions they asked last Thursday evening showed how ignorant they are about the specifics of this project. I might add that I believe all members of the planning commission may be LDS and may also be Temple worthy LDS members. There is NO WAY they could ethically be able to sit and judge this proposed development by a church where they are a member. They should all recuse themselves or at least identify to the public there membership in the church. In my opinion, Ethically they are bound to announce their membership, why didn't they do that.
Thanksgiving Point Office Concept DRC Redline Comments VCBO
Architecture - Requests Concept Plan review for Thanksgiving Point Office,
proposed office and stake center buildings located at approximately Garden
Drive and Desert Forest Lane in an existing Resort Community zone.
DRC Members Present: Brent Thomas, Kerry Evans, Greg Allred,
Todd Munger, Kim Struthers, Gary Smith, Mike Howell, Ross Dinsdale, Steve
Marchbanks
Representatives of the Applicant Present: Sean Onyon and
Joshua Stewart
Date of Plans Reviewed: 11/25/15
Time Start: 2:40 PM Time End: 3:00
Note: The total time of review, 20 minutes.
Seriously what could you possibly discuss in 20 minutes?
PM DRC REDLINE COMMENTS:
Brent – Power: 1. At the time of site plan, show transformer
and meter locations and provide load calculations for the building. 2. A line
extension will be required in order to service this project.
Kerry – Fire: No comments
Greg – Water/Sewer: 3. Sewer issue needs to be resolved.
Todd – Public Works: 4. Two traffic signals are warranted
for this project as per the traffic study - note locations as Club House Dr and
Executive and at 2150 N and 2300 W.
Gary Smith and Todd
Munger signed off on the creation of the plat in violation of the Lehi City
Code, chapter 28, section 28.080
It should be noted
that that Todd Munger DID NOT attend a review meeting to discuss the Family
Search Plat in June of 2015. This was a
meeting held by Kim Struthers and all other members of the Lehi DRC committee
were in attendance. Todd signed off on
the plat even though he had no knowledge of the plat. When I questioned him about this, he
indicated that he was not concerned, that everything the church did in his
opinion was first class. I asked Todd
Munger 4 separate times if the signature on the plat was his, he did not answer
me. I also asked Jason Walker and Ryan
the attorney to look into whether or not the signature on the plat was Todd
Munger’s, they did not answer me. I
asked no less than 6 to verify Todd Mungers signature and no one ever responded. I even went to his office and asked his
secretary to produce a document with his signature and she indicated she did
not have one. I speculate Todd Munger
did not sign this document.
Chapter 28, section
28.080 section 1. Minor subdivision.
Subdivision review and approval MAY be granted by the Chief Building Official
and Public Works Director if ALL of the following provisions apply: A. The
subdivision includes less than ten lots.
B. The subdivision DOES NOT
require the construction of ANY public improvements or the dedication of any
public right of way. It goes on to
say; the lots in a minor subdivision WILL be divided by a metes and bounds
document rather than a plat.
Kim – Planning: 5. The building will need to meet
the Commercial Design Standards contained in Chapter 37 and Chapter
28 of the Development Code. Some specific things that need to be
addressed are as follows:
a.
With the office and stake center building, the
site needs to be designed such that the overall development is cohesive.
Exterior materials and colors need to coordinate.
Not only do they need
to coordinate, they MUST be harmonious with the surrounding buildings (homes
and club house).
b. The main entrance to the buildings needs to relate to the
street and sidewalks. Also, the buildings need to be oriented to the right-of-way/main
access, with no parking between the front of the buildings and the
right-ofway/access.
c. The elevations must meet the design standards in terms of
architectural variation and vertical separation.
The elevation CAN NOT
exceed two stories or 35 feet.
6. Recommend moving the buildings closer to Garden Drive.
7. If parking is proposed in the drive-thru drop-off, an
exception and conditional use permit will be required.
Gary – Building/Inspections: No comments
Mike – Public Works: No comments
Ross – Engineering:
8. Coordinate with
the City on any traffic requirements.
Here is the language
again stating the city is and has been fully aware the infrastructure changes
that will need to be made to accommodate this development.
9. Must detain storm water on site as per Lehi City
standards.
10. Provide indoor fire flows to the Engineering Department.
11. Provide a water analysis at the time of site plan.
Craig (Steve) – Parks: No comments
THIS ITEM WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER
10, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment