Email thread between Robert Ranc (Assistant City Administrator) and myself this past week.

Email thread between Robert Ranc (Assistant City Administrator) and myself this past week.

Robert

 Another question for you. 

In chapter 28 of the Lehi resort community code, page 28-4 section 28.060 - Development Approvals and Permits in A.1 there is a sentence that is causing me some confusion.  It states that the Chief Building Official and the Public Works Director have the authority to sign on behalf of the City Council "if they are designated by the City Council as the officers having authority, on behalf of the City Council, to approve and sign the final document (s). 

Is there any kind of document you could send me that states that the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director have been given this authority and have the right to sign on behalf of the City Council and then provide me with examples where this has been the case.  I would like to see the document authorizes them to sign on behalf of the City Council.

Secondly, in that same section it states, "The lots in a minor subdivision WILL be divided by a metes and bounds document rather than a PLAT."  I have contacted the Utah Recorders office and the Family Search subdivision is recorded as a PLAT, not by metes and bounds as outlined in the resort code.  I would like an explanation as to why the code as written above was not followed. 

I will be sharing your response to the hundreds of those Lehi residents who are outraged by the proposed destruction of the Thanksgiving Point driving range to put up two massive office buildings.

Thank you

Bill Conley

Here is Robert's response

Bill,

 

Section 28.080A1 does not use the word “if.”  It uses the word “are.”  This is a very important legal distinction.  I have directly copied the language below.  You are, of course, welcome to verify this for yourself.

 

The Preliminary and Final Plans shall be submitted and reviewed simultaneously, and the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director are designated by the City Council as the officers having authority, on behalf of the City Council, to approve and sign the final Document(s)

 

On the issue of metes and bounds, you are correct as to the language.  However, you misunderstand the difference between a metes and bounds document and a plat document.  A plat document is completed to a higher standard than a metes and bounds document.  So when a developer offers a plat document rather than a metes and bounds document, the city is happy to accept a plat.

 

Based on this information, the city is maintaining its position that the developer for this project has followed all applicable requirements.

 

Regards,

My response back to Robert

Robert 

 Thanks for the point of clarification. It seems as though words matter or you would not have pointed out a specific word.  If words matter, than so do the words metes and bounds.  You seem to believe the term plat is superior to the term metes and bounds and therefore the city will accept a plat over a metes and bound description.  If words matter than the city MUST follow what is written and what is written is not plat, but metes and bounds language.  You, I and no one else gets to determine that a plat is superior to metes and bounds.  If you are going to suggest the word "are" is relevant, well then, so are the words, "metes and bounds".  You can't simply pick and choose what you will and will not enforce. 

You seem to suggest that a plat is superior to the term metes and bounds.  Maybe you could show me anywhere within Lehi City code that the term plat is superior to the term metes and bounds and that the City as an official statement accepts a plat description in place of a metes and bounds description, please provide me the relevant code or statute that specifies this. 

This must be corrected at the county, you can't just be happy to accept a plat description in place of a metes and bounds, the code specifies a metes and bounds description and specifically states it cannot be a plat.  "The lots in a minor subdivision WILL BE divided by a metes and bounds document rather than a plat."  What is so difficult to understand about this language.  You don't get to choose or be happy, you must follow the code as it is written.  You commented on the relevance of a single word "are", now you must follow the code, there is nothing to misinterpret, language as written MUST be followed.

I requested that you provide me with a document that was prepared by the mayor or city council granting the Public Works Director and Chief Building Official with the authority to sign legal documents on behalf of the legislative body (city council).  The code says "The Chief Building Official and Public Works Director "are" designated by the City Council as the officers having authority, on behalf of the City Council to approve and sign the final documents."  I would like to see any documents created by either the City Council or may granting them this authority. I would like to know if there are no such documents.  I would also like to know if there is anywhere else in any Chapter within the City Code that grants the authority for the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director to sign minor lot subdivisions on behalf of the City Council or is the only place this shows up in the City code?

Lastly, could you testify that there will not be any requirement for the construction of any public improvement or the dedication of any public right away.  The language in the code specifically states the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director can sign as having authority, if the subdivision includes less than ten lots and the subdivision does not require the construction of any public improvements or the dedication of any public right of way.  Are you or anyone at the city willing to sign a document clearly stating that there is and will never be any requirement for the construction of any public improvement? 

Did you know Todd Munger NEVER attended a reported or recorded meeting to discuss the Family Search subdivision, yet he put his signature on the documents recorded by the county.  How did the city allow Todd Munger to sign off on a subdivision that he was never at a meeting to discuss? All I can say is WOW.  There was no City Council or Planning Commission discussion and one of the two people who signed off on the subdivision was never even in a recorded meeting (there was only one) to discuss the proposed subdivision.  Who told him to sign the document and who gave him the information about the new subdivision.  I can't imagine Mr. Munger signed something he knew nothing about, maybe he did, although that would be incredibly irresponsible of him.

Please fix the situation at the County.  According to Chapter 28, this cannot be recorded as a plat, it MUST be recorded as metes and bounds. 

Bill Conley
 
And finally, it seems as though Robert has had enough and does not want to engage in meaningful dialog, provide me the answers and documents I am looking for.  By the way, Robert in no way provided me with answers to my questions.  Take a look at my question and Robert's response and you let me know if he answered each and every one of my questions. It baffles me that city administrators who work for me and the other residents of Lehi, refuse to engage in a meaningful dialog.

Bill,

 

I have provided you an answer to your questions.  I am sorry you are not satisfied, but I will not be engaging in any additional arguments.  If you have legal concerns you are welcome to contact city attorney Ryan Wood.  You may also contact city administrator Jason Walker or any of your elected officials.  This will be the last communication you receive from me.

 

Regards,

Family Search subdivision is it legal and was it created in secret?

There has been a lot of news coverage recently regarding the proposed destruction of the Thanksgiving Point driving range, replacing it with 2 massive commercial office buildings with enough parking for nearly 800 cars.

 

But did you know how the new Family Search subdivision came about? 

 

Typically a new subdivision within a city is discussed and approved by either/both a Planning Commission and/or the City Council. Other department heads may also get involved and provide their input such as a Development Review Committee (DRC).  

 

In the case of the Family Search plat (#14674)  recorded with Utah County, July 9^th, 2015 at 3:36:01 pm, neither the Lehi City Council nor the Planning Commission had any input regarding the creation of a new subdivision that had just being carved out of the Thanksgiving Point golf course driving range. 

 

This 12 acre single lot subdivision was discussed on June 11^th from 4:20 – 5:15 pm by 8 members of the Lehi Development Review Committee.  Also in attendance was Sean Onyon from VCBO Architecture.  These 9 men discussed the proposed architectural plans for 2 massive office buildings which would require the destruction of the Thanksgiving Point driving range.  The creation of the Family Search plat would be necessary to carry out The Church’s plans to destroy green space and driving range in order to build their massive office campus.

 

Here is where it gets interesting.

 

Typically, the City Council and/or the Planning Commission would get involved in the discussion and creation of a new subdivision within the City.  In this case, Todd Munger of the Public Works Department and Gary Smith, the Chief Building Official signed the documents creating the new Family Search plat on behalf of the Legislative body of The City of Lehi.

 

July 1, 2015 A Lehi City letter was sent to three residents of Thanksgiving Village to notify them of a proposed development in their vicinity. This was a courtesy notice sent to those homes that were within 300 feet of the proposed development.  The letter was dated July 1, 2015, mailed July 2, 2015 from VCBO Architecture, Salt Lake City not by Lehi City. I received the notice on July 7^th. The notice referenced a Lehi Planning Commission meeting to discuss a proposed concept development by VCBO Architecture, not the LDS Church, scheduled for July 9, 2015.

 

On July 2, 2015 A Special Warranty Deed was signed by David Harkness, Beesmark Investments, LC, Manager.

 

“Consideration of $10 is given by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a Utah corporation sole, whose address is 50 North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150, Attn: Director, Special Projects (Grantee). It is noted in the Special Warranty Deed that the “Grantee (The Church) will maintain a family search and discovery center in the building located closest to the southern border of the property consisting of at least 6,000 square feet and that is open to the general public. Grantee will also maintain sufficient parking on the property to service such center.”

Notice there is no mention of 2 x 120,000 square feet office buildings and parking for nearly 800 cars as proposed by VCBO Architecture, July 9^th – Lehi Planning Commission meeting. They did say that the Ashton’s donated some of the land, did The Church really only pay $10 dollars for 12 acres of prime real estate? (Special warranty deed document number filed with Utah County, 61212:2015) I would love to see the purchase and sale agreement between The Church and the Ashton's, do you think they will ever make this information available to the public? Don't hold your breath.

 

A survey of the land was conducted and signed by Chad A. Paulsen on July 7^th, 2015, a mere 2 days before the Family Search plat was recorded at the County.

 

July 9, 2015 The Family Search plat is created and recorded with Utah County at 3:36:01 pm.

 

July 9, 2015 a special warranty deed is recorded with Utah County at 4:09 pm, a mere 33 minutes after the Family Search plat is created with the Utah County.  Weren’t we told that The Church had purchased the property some time earlier than July 9^th when it was recorded with the County? The Special Warranty deed was signed on July 2, 2015. Maybe this is what they were referring to.

 

July 9, 2015 The Lehi Planning Commission meets and is met with over 75 angry Thanksgiving Point residents. The proposed concept development is tabled until further notice.

 

But is the subdivision legal? 

 

According to Chapter 28 of the Lehi City Code for resort communities section 28.080, it states that the lots in a minor subdivision be divided by a metes and bounds document rather than a plat.  The City of Lehi recorded the Family Search subdivision as a plat and not by metes and bounds as required by the resort community code.  It also states that the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director are designated by the City Council as the officers having authority on behalf of the City Council, to approve and sign the final subdivision documents, but only if the subdivision does not require the construction of any public improvements.  There has already been several statements made by Church and City officials that there may need to be improvements made to the current roads and bridge that would access the new massive office campus.  If they knew this in advance, shouldn’t the subdivision have been brought before the Planning Commission and City Council and did the Public Works Director and Chief Building Official have the authority to approve and sign the final subdivision documents if there might need to be improvements made to current roads and the bridge?

 

It also should be noted that Todd Munger, the Public Works Director was not at the DRC meeting on June 11^th, yet he signed off on the creation of the new subdivision. 

 

So, was the creation of the new Family Search plat created in secret? 

 

Let’s review, there was only one meeting discussing the creation of the new subdivision with 8 men from the Lehi DRC, one from VCBO Architecture and no one from the LDS Church. The Family Search plat should have been recorded using metes and bounds not as a plat as required by Lehi City code.  A question remains as to whether Todd Munger or Gary Smith had the authority to sign on behalf of the City Council. The Lehi City Council and Planning Commission had no input as is typically done in the creation of a subdivision.

 

For those of you who don’t know much about the creation of a subdivision, this is NOT typical or normal. 

 

So, I will let you be the judge, was there a rush to create the new Family Search subdivision and might it have been done in secret and lastly, is it legal?