Bill Conley, Investigator of the City of Lehi Utah: Memorandum given to the Lehi planning commission prior to the April 28, 2016 meeting highlighting Lehi City code violations in the Application put forth by Trio on behalf of the LDS Church.

April 24, 2016

To Planning Commissioners

Please review the following before the planning commission meeting scheduled on April 28th, 2016 concerning a conditional use application submitted by Trio.

Thank you for taking your time and attention to review this document prior to the meeting and please let me know at the meeting that you indeed read the material I send you prior to me speaking.

Bill Conley

Parking

A parking study for shared parking was done for the LDS Stake center and NOT the commercial office building.

The commercial office building does not show any parking for the Family Search and Discovery Center. In a meeting put on by LDS Church representatives, they expect between 500 and 1500 people per day to use the Family Search and Discovery Center. They have not accounted for those cars (not a single stall). Parking needed for the Family Search and Discovery Center between 200 – 500 stalls per day.

There is NO bus parking, RV parking or large vehicle parking for the out of town people who are expected to visit the family search and discovery center. We were told people from all over the Mountain States would be flocking to the Family Search and Discovery Center. This center would be the best discovery center in the world. The commercial office building is the Worldwide Corporate Headquarters of the Family Search and Discovery Center.

Violation: The developer has FAILED to take into account any parking requirements by the Family Search and Discovery Center. The city has violated its own parking ordinances to ensure the developer is allowed to build whatever they like on the property. The developer is building a LDS Stake Center on the southern border of the property in violation of the special warranty deed they signed and the city has put its head in the sand and said it is not our problem failing to protects its citizens from unscrupulous developers. The developer is building a 135,000 square foot commercial office building and has failed to identify that there will be a Family Search and Discovery Center located within the building. The city has failed to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The city has allowed this commercial development to proceed despite numerous violations to the Lehi City building codes.

Violation: DRC comment by Kim Struthers. ‘On the parking required, the Thanksgiving Point Architectural Control guidelines call for 4.5 stalls per 1000 square feet of leasable building space. For 135,000 square feet, this would be 607stalls unless otherwise approved by the Thanksgiving Point ARC (Lehi’s standard is 3.3 stalls per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor space) In addition, the church would require 1 stall for every 4 seats in the assembly area. The current plan is for 510 stalls. Either additional parking would be required, or the TPARC needs to allow approval based upon Lehi City standard vs. the ARC guidelines.”

Not enough parking and insufficient parking for the types of vehicles that would arriving at the commercial office building!!

DRC comment: “The TPARC control guidelines call for 9’ x 20’ size parking stalls with 25’ aisles. The site plan either needs to be adjusted to meet these standards or otherwise approved the TPARC.”

Christie Hutchings wrote in an email on April 19, 2016 to Marilyn Banasky “TPARC approvals are still pending”.

DRC comment: They need the following which they do not have, “Approval from TPARC on the design of the building, parking, lighting and landscaping.

Violation: Parking is significantly undersized, stall size has not been revealed, aisles size has not been revealed, TPARC has not approved, no bus or RV parking, no parking identified for the Family Search and Discovery Center, shared parking wholly inadequate for commercial office building and LDS Stake Center and there is simply NOT enough parking.

The applicants attempt to show two different applications for the proposed commercial office building and LDS Stake center is a clear attempt to muddy the waters in regards to parking. The applicant’s failure to identify the required number of parking stalls for the Family Search and Discovery center is a blatant effort to conceal the true number of parking stalls for the project. The applicant’s failure to identify bus, RV and large vehicle parking for those visiting the Family Search and Discover Center shows they no they have a parking problem and are attempting to cover up the problem by submitting two different building applications. This is dishonest, disingenuous and deceitful on the part of the applicant. Games SHOULD NEVER BE PLAYED WITH CITY CODE!

Comments on the upcoming Conditional Use approval meeting scheduled for April 28^th, 2016 7pm

Violation #16

The following are issues regarding the Thanksgiving Village Stake Center Conditional Use and Site Plan.

Applicable development code regulations

They Site Section 09-050 (b) and then list section 09-060 (a) language. The wrong section has been cited. Section 09-050 (b) says something entirely different.

This error was not caught and this goes to show how out of touch they are with their own code.

Section 09-060 (a) actually reads differently than the opening paragraph they included in the application.

“Conditions: In granting a conditional use permit, the commission may impose such requirements and conditions which the commission, in its sole discretion, deems necessary for the protection of PERSONS and PROPERTIES in the vicinity of the proposed conditional use, as well as the preservation of the integrity of the general plan. Said requirements and conditions may include (but are not limited to) location, construction, size, maintenance, operation, site planning, traffic control and parking, relocations, dedications, installation and upgrading of public services and roads, and time limits for the proposed conditional use, in addition to the following non-exclusive list of potential requirements and conditions. “

Violation: Language between the Lehi City code section 09-060 (a) does not match language in the application, specifically the opening paragraph.

For this reason alone, the application for approval should be set for a future date.

Analysis

Second paragraph Section 28.070

“The following analysis is STAFF’S interpretation of how that section is being met.

A. Building Design.

Read Section on page 1.

Staff’s opinion. The architectural design of the proposed 1 story (they put this in because you can have max 2 story) is complimentary to nearby residential use. (What? Complimentary in what way, remember we are talking design). Remember, this is their opinion. Additionally, it is Staff’s opinion that the church creates a good transition between the office building to the north and residential areas to the south. (how nice, but does it meet code requirements, no it does not!)

Violation: Commercial office building and LDS Stake Center do not meet code.

What does section A actually say? 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 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 city and the church know they are in violation to Lehi City code. The city and the church know this development is adjacent to single family resident homes. That is why this is not mentioned. They can say that the building is not adjacent to single family residences, but that would not be true, just like Garden Drive is considered a collector street. You can say it is a collector street, but that would not be true. Just because you want this project to go forth does not mean you can violate city code after city code.

The city and the church know that a 135,000 square foot commercial office building with a flat roof is a large bulky mass for the neighborhood; they just don’t want to recognize it as such, because if they did, it would violate city code and the project would have to altered, changed or abandoned!

Violation: Building Design:

Code states: A: Buildings should not create large bulky masses, but should be scaled down into groupings of smaller attached structures.

Violation: 135,000 Square foot office building violates this language. Completely out of character for the surrounding neighborhood and adjacent buildings and is a large bulky mass. The proposed project is not scaled down and not broken up into smaller attached structures. This commercial office building MAY BE the largest office building in Thanksgiving Point.

Continued:

Code states: Buildings adjacent to single family detached units should be limited to 2 stories or 35 feet.

Violation: The proposed 135,000 square foot office building IS adjacent to single family detached units. (Thanksgiving Village and Desert Forest Lane which borders the Family Search Plat.)

Thanksgiving HOA owns Desert Forest lane and land north of Desert Forest Lane which borders the Family Search Plat. According to our HOA covenants, I, as well as ALL homeowners in Thanksgiving Village own the street and the land that borders the street. We are responsible for the maintenance of the street and the land that borders Desert Forest Lane. The single family residents of Thanksgiving Village collectively maintain the street and land bordering the street to the north. We are single family residents. The border of my home is approximately 170 feet from the border of the Family Search Plat. There are two other homes which are significantly closer to the border of the Family Search Plat.

Thanksgiving Point have a height restriction which both buildings violate:

Section 4.2.4 Building Height. All establishments in the development shall not have a building constructed that exceeds 60 feet in height. Building height shall be measured from the finished floor to the highest point on the building.

Commercial office building height at its highest point 66’

LDS Stake Center at its highest point 70’

Violation of Thanksgiving Point 7.1 Building Setbacks

Both the commercial office building and LDS Stake Center DO NOT meet Thanksgiving Point Building setback requirements.

Requirements:

Street Front 60’ Side and Rear 40’

Lot Boundary Front 40’ Side and Rear 40’

Parking Lot Front 20” Side and Rear 20’

Driveway or Lot Entryway Front 30’ Side and Rear 20’

Parking Lot Setbacks. All parking lots shall have a Minimum Setback from the following:

Reference Point Front to the Street 40’ from the Street to the Side or Rear 40’

Reference Point for the Lot Boundary to the Street 40’ to the Side and Rear 40’

Violation: Neither buildings meet these setback requirements.

Violation of the Landscape ration: 5.1.5 states. All properties will include an area to be landscaped that will comprise at least 35% of the total property area.

The LDS Stake Center has 21.2% landscape area

The commercial office building has at most 26% landscape area.

Additionally, for class A businesses, section 5.1.1 also discusses setback requirements.

All buildings shall have a Minimum set back from the following:

Street Front 100’ Side Rear 40’

Lot Boundary Front 40’ Side Rear 40’

Parking Lot Front 30’ Side Rear 40’

Driveway or Lot Entryway 30’ Side Rear 20’

Violation: Neither the Commercial Office Building or LDS Stake Center meet these setback standards.

Lastly, spacing of driveways is defined as the distance between the closest edge of the driveway to the right of way line of the street. All access drives shall have adequate site distance. No access drives will be allowed on collector streets without the approval of the Design Control Committee. Access drives shall be spaced according to the following Thanksgiving Point standards.

Local Minimum Spacing 75’ Minimum distance/Intersection 100’

Collector Minimum Spacing 200’ Minimum distance /intersection 200’

Violation: Neither the LDS Stake Center or Commercial office building meets this standard.

Bottom Line for nearly all if not all Thanksgiving Point development standards: Neither the LDS Stake Center or Commercial Office Buildings meet the standards set by the DCC. TPARC at the time this brief was written have not given written approval for either building. If they do and they allow these applicants to slide on these standards, future developers will be given notice that DCC does not require them to meet their standards.

B. Parking. The parking lot includes ample landscaping, including landscaped islands in the parking lot that help to buffer surrounding properties and break up large expanses of asphalt. (That is nice, but does it meet TRARC and City guidelines?)

I will discuss this latter in in this brief.

C. Access and Traffic – a traffic report was completed with the first phase. (have you seen the traffic report, final report was given to the city on April 13, 2016) Did the traffic report take into account traffic to and from the Family Search and Discovery Center? No, it did not. Representatives from the church indicate between 500 – 1500 people will visit the 8000+ square foot Family Search and Discovery Center, where will they park? Will there be any bus, RV or large vehicle parking? Seems a bit disingenuous that the parking analysis did not take into account the Family Search and Discovery Center, the purpose behind the development.

They go on to say; “The city engineering department and the developer and UDOT are currently in the process of FINALIZING an agreement regarding traffic improvements to help mitigate traffic concerns.

Finalizing? This simply is not true, they only began talking. There are NOT EVEN CLOSE to finalizing a solution to the traffic nightmare this project will create.

Last but not least.

The following simply is not true and goes to show the intent on how far the city will go to approve this project.

The engineering department considers Garden Drive as a collector road.

Why did they say this? Garden Drive is NOT a collector Road. You will not find Garden Drive as a collector Road in any city document. Remember this is only their interpretation and not FACT! The fact is, Garden Drive which turns into 2350 W is considered a road by the city in every document and map produced by the city. The engineering department can consider Garden Drive as a collector road, this simply is NOT true. Note the use of the word consider. This is a death nail in their planned development.

Why is this important, critically important.

Read 28.070 (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 study shall be REQUIRED as part of the AREA PLAN, to project auto and truck traffic generated by the uses proposed.

They CANNOT build this project UNLESS they designate Garden Drive as a collector street. Currently Garden Drive is a road. Garden Drive is ONLY 33’ in width. Garden drive is 17’ wide heading north and 15’ wide heading south with a 1’ center strip. Garden Drive heads south from Club House Drive and turns into 2350 (a pure residential street with townhomes and single family residences). It would be IMPOSSIBLE to label Garden Drive a collector. Garden Drive does not any of the cities criterial for a collector street and currently it is not defined as a collector street.

Truth is, this project CANNOT go forward without classifying Garden Drive as a collector street. Problem is, IT IS NOT!

This entire project needs to be put on hold until the applicant(s) apply with Lehi City Code, section 28.070 (c) which clearly states, DIRECT ACCESS FROM AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET TO THE OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE MUST BE PROVIDED.

This project needs to be re-evaluated. The city and the LDS Church have been trying to push forth a development that CANNOT meet city code unless you ignore the code.

D. Roof design: Staff’s interpretation of the term “may” can be interpreted as “encouraged but not required”. However, the church building is proposed to have a pitched roof, which complies with the suggested architectural design.

What does D actually say. “Flat or low pitched roofs shall be avoided and rooflines should blend in with surrounding buildings. Roof lines may be further defined as part of an approved AREA PLAN.

If it meets code, why the need to have a staff interpretation of the word “may”? The code specifically states that flat roof lines SHALL be avoided. Kim Struthers in a DRC meeting made the following comment regarding the commercial office building.

Violation: DRC comments by Kim Stuthers “The resort community development standards (Section 28.070) state that flat roofs shall be avoided. Recommend considering additional architectural features to break up the roofline.”

Flat roof proposed is not allowed by code, is not harmonious and is not compatible to the surrounding buildings.

They put this in there to protect the commercial office building. The commercial office building does not meet code, they know it and they tried to slip in this language in hopes of masking the FACT that the commercial office building has a flat roof when Kim Struthers in a DRC comment told them to change the roof. They did not!!!!!

The use of the word “may” is ONLY used in the following sentence.

“The roof design may be further defined in the area plan. You still can’t have flat roofs.

E. Materials. DRC redline comments #8 from the March 30, 2016 review requests that the architect provide a written statement on how the two buildings are architecturally compatible. This item is still pending completion; however, staff has encouraged the developer to match the building materials of the church with those of the phase 1 Family Search Building.

What does E actually say? “Materials. New buildings should blend with the materials of surrounding buildings. Building materials may be further defined as part of an approved area plan.

How are you going to match the single story church building with a pitched roof and a commercial office building with a great deal of glass?

Why did they write this sentence the way they did. Because the church commercial office building once again does not meet code in any way shape or form. It will not be compatible or harmonious with any of the other buildings in the area. The two buildings will not match and until the architect puts forth the EXACT architectural plans showing that they match each other and the surrounding architecture (homes, club house), this project needs to be put on hold.

DRC redline comment by Kim Struthers: “building, materials, architectural features, etc. need to tie into Family Search building. Architect to provide written statement on how the two buildings are architecturally compatible.” This is too big an issue to leave to speculation. Way to many city codes depend upon the two buildings being compatible with one another. Right now, we have no clue if they are or aren’t. We have not seen anything from the architect on either project that would indicate they are in compliance with Lehi City code.

This has not been done and until it is done, this project cannot move forward and approval should not be forthcoming.

This project has not been approved by Thanksgiving Point architectural review committee.

Prior to construction meeting comment by DRC. “Written approval from TPARC”

The TPARC committee has very specific parking requirements which have not been addressed in this application.

The TPARC has very specific building, landscaping and other codes which have not been addressed in this application.

The parking analysis put forth in this application is disingenuous for a few reasons. One being that the parking standard put forth by TPARC is different than the cities. This application fails to mention that the project is bound not only by city parking standards but by TP parking standards as well as laid out below.

Each parking stall shall have a minimum dimension requirement of 9’ x 20’. Drive aisle minimum width shall be 25’.

What is the parking width of each parking stall as proposed in this project? What is the aisle width?

Another big problem:

Parking

DRC redline comment by Kim Struthers: “Clarify the parking tabulations and requirements. For the Family Search project, based on the gross floor area of 135,000 square feet, it would require 450 parking stalls (remember, they have not identified any parking for the Family Search and Discovery Center). The stake center building requires 1 stall for every 4 seats in the assembly area. Provide date on the number of seats so that the parking amount can be determined. Not sure where the TOD zone reduction requirement is coming from?”

A parking study for shared parking was done for the LDS Stake center and NOT the commercial office building.

Not enough parking and insufficient parking for the types of vehicles that would arriving at the commercial office building!!

Christie Hutchings wrote in an email on April 19, 2016 to Marilyn Banasky “TPARC approvals are still pending”.

DRC comment: They need the following which they do not have, “Approval from TPARC on the design of the building, parking, lighting and landscaping.

I like the last line on page 3. Planning staff is in support of approving shared parking for this site. They are also in support of calling Garden Drive a collector street. They are also in support of the commercial office building having a flat roof. They are also in support of the 4 story commercial office building being built adjacent to single family residences. They are also in support of two completely different, distinct and unique being built when they should be compatible and harmonious with the surrounding architecture. They are also in support of the materials between the two buildings (not yet identified) being completely different from one another. They are also in support of not identifying any parking for the Family Search and Discovery Center. They are also in support of going forward and approving this project even though the TPARC has not approved the project. I could go on and on. This project needs to be shut down until the applicants come into compliance with city code and the city and the applicant stop planning games with the code.

Recommendations/possible actions

The planning department recommends final approval based on the following:

“The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience.” (they forgot the person’s part of the code)

“The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in compliance with the goals and policies of the Lehi City General Plan and purposes of this code.”

“That the property on which the use, buildings or other structure is proposed to be established is of adequate size and dimensions to permit construction of the facilities and the conduct of the use in such a manner that it will not be detrimental to adjoining properties and the area.”

These are the same people who said Garden Drive was a collector.

What does Chapter 9 in the Lehi City code additionally say?

Lehi City Code, chapter 9, section 09.050 Standard for Granting a Conditional Use states
A. A conditional use permit shall be granted or conditionally granted by the commission, unless:
1. The proposed conditional use will be detrimental or injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons or properties within the vicinity of the proposed conditional use; and
2. The reasonably anticipated detrimental or injurious effects of the proposed conditional use cannot be mitigated by the imposition of reasonable conditions upon said proposed conditional use.
B. A proposed conditional use shall be considered as detrimental or injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons or properties within the vicinity of the proposed conditional use if:
1. The proposed conditional use will cause unreasonable risks to the safety of persons or properties because of vehicular traffic, parking, or large gatherings of people.
2. The proposed conditional use will unreasonably interfere with the lawful use of properties within the vicinity of the proposed conditional use.
3. The proposed conditional use will create an additional need for essential city or public services which cannot be met without unreasonable efforts or expenditures of city or public resources.
4. The proposed conditional use will be non-compliant with chapters 12 and 13 of this code.
5. The proposed conditional use will otherwise present an unreasonable detrimental injury to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons or properties in the vicinity of the proposed conditional use; or
6. The proposed conditional use will not be in harmony with the general plan.

The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove to the planning commission that they have not violated any of the 6 items listed above. It is not our burden of proof to disprove any of the six items above. The applicant MUST prove they are in compliance to the six items listed above and clearly state their reasoning in a memorandum proving they are in compliance. To date, this has not been done. You can’t just say you are in compliance without factually proving it.

Violation #17

What code are we following? Are we following The Thanksgiving Point Development Code or are we following the Lehi City Code and which code trumps the other and who determines which code to use?

The Thanksgiving Point Architectural Control Guidelines (written Dec.1 2000) were accepted by the city on received by the city on Dec 1, 2003, 3 years after they had been written.
The Thanksgiving Point Area plan, received May 21, 2002, simply states it is in compliance with the Resort Community Code (Chapter 28).
The Thanksgiving Point Master Plan shows the Thanksgiving Point Driving Range as part of the golf course and NOT a site for commercial development.
The Thanksgiving Point Private and Public Street Designation Map show Desert Forest Lane as a Private Street.
The Thanksgiving Point Architectural Guidelines were set forth and selected sections are highlighted below so as to show which parts of the code impact the two proposed developments on the Family Search Plat.
For example, 5.1.5 Landscape Ratio: TP requires 35% (Class A, 30% Class B, 15% for Commercial/retail) of total property area to be landscaped.
TP requires a minimum of 4.5 parking stalls for every 1000 square feet of gross leasable building space per lot.
TP requires to have approval for their desired use and design for the property from the DCC prior to submitting for a city building permit.
TP allows a church to be built in the RC zone, the city does not define the RC zone and what can and cannot be built (Chapter 28). Refer to tables 05-030 (A and B).
TP in section 5.1, Site requirements (Class A) defines setback requirements for the building and parking lot. They also define with requirements for driveways and access ways and landscape ratios.
TP in section 7.1, Site requirements (Class B) defines setback requirements for the building and parking lot. They also define with requirements for driveways and access ways and landscape ratios.
TP in section 8.1, Site requirements (Commercial Retail) defines setback requirements for the building and parking lot. They also define with requirements for driveways and access ways and landscape ratios.
Question: How is the commercial office building categorized by TP? How is the LDS Stake Center categorized by the TP? (Class A, B or Commercial/retail)
After reviewing the applicant’s conditional use application and commercial office building, there is NO categorization revealed for the LDS Stake Center and NO categorization for the commercial office building.
Violation: In either case, the commercial office building and LDS Stake center DO NOT meet TP guidelines in the areas described above.
Chapter 28, section 28.040 Allowed Use states the following: Proposed uses will be reviewed for compatibility within the Resort Community Zone as well as compatibility with allowed uses in adjacent zones.
Violation: TRARC has not approved either project at the time this brief was written.

Thank you for reviewing this submission.

Bill Conley

Bill Conley, Investigator of the City of Lehi Utah

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Memorandum given to the Lehi planning commission prior to the April 28, 2016 meeting highlighting Lehi City code violations in the Application put forth by Trio on behalf of the LDS Church.

No comments:

Post a Comment