Kevin Rudd reported that this issue came forward when some residents from Padre Canyon Phase 7 and 8 approached the City Council to purchase some property. Some of the owners’ lots back up to Red Rok Park, and there is a drainage area that the houses butt up against. There are several homes closer to their rear property lines than the setbacks allowed. However, there are no homes over the property line. The City Council questioned how this could happen. Ivins does not have and ordinance that requires that a survey be performed on every lot. In the past the building department has depended upon the builder or the person in charge of laying out the lot, getting a survey and determining the property lines before the inspection. The only assurance that an inspector has that the building is within the building envelope is to have actual survey pins that have been verified. When a subdivision is originally platted, the pins are set on each corner of the lots. Over time the pins get removed, and if someone buys a lot a builder may go out with a tape measure and try to determine where the property corner is. He is probably not a surveyor but most of the time the measurement is close. If the inspector cannot find a survey pin, he cannot tell if it is correct. The Building Department and the City does not guarantee that the home is placed on the lot correctly. The cost to have a surveyor come out is approximately $400-$500 to find one corner and stake it. A full survey is over a $1,000 to stake the entire property. If a surveyor places the building on the lot, staks the corners of the building and certifies where the building is, the cost goes up to $1,500-$2,000. Staff reported back to the City Council that this is the additional cost that would be incurred if there was an ordinance. The City Council felt it should be surveyed prior to someone building a home. Building a home is one of the most expensive investments that most people make and if they don’t know where the property lines are, it could be a costly mistake. St. George requires a survey but they did not do it by ordinance. It’s a policy of the building department. The City Council directed Staff to put it in ordinance form.
As proposed the applicant must provide a copy of the survey with the building permit application. A copy or enlargement of the subdivision plat of that particular lot would be sufficient. In the old part of town it would be a copy of a survey that clearly shows what the parcel looks like, and where the survey pins are located. If someone is building a garage or a small accessory building, a survey would not be required.
Commissioner Reed felt that additions and remodeling should be excluded. The ordinance just says accessory buildings.
Kevin Rudd agreed that it would be a burden.
Chairman Hart commented that once a block wall is built around the home the pins are gone. Chairman Hart opened the Public Hearing.
Lance Anderson asked if the ordinance was saying that they have to survey a lot that already has survey pins in it.
Kevin Rudd stated, "yes" that there would have to be a paper document. Not just a piece of paper that shows a couple of dots and measurements on it. A plat has a surveyor stamp on it.
Lance Anderson asked if the lot has survey pins and the lot is a platted subdivision, would a copy of the plat be okay.
Kevin Rudd stated that it would because it is a recorded survey plat.
Lance Anderson asked about larger parcels such as fifty (50) acres, and asked if the setbacks could be defined by any monuments with the surrounding streets, etc. He gave an example of a recent home Kayenta is building on a large parcel of property. That lot would have required a fifty (50) acre survey
Kevin Rudd explained that language could be put in the ordinance to leave it to the building inspector’s discretion. These decisions are tough because some of the problems have been on acre lots where homes are close to the property line. He was not in favor of the Planning Commission limiting surveys to a particular size lot.
Lance Anderson asked about having criteria in place such as Kayenta’s ACC that already has checks and balances. When a house is designed, the architect has the plan and Kayenta Gulch actually shoot the points, finds the corners and tells them where to put the house but they are not a licensed surveyor. They have the ability with a GPS to find the points. Could an architect identify the corners to a site plan and drawing instead of having another person that would charge $500 to $2,000 because they won't be doing anything more than the architect. The architect is not a licensed surveyor but has taken on that responsibility. Mr. Anderson explained that he was referring to shooting lot corners and house corners. If a monument is missing, the architect shoots the lot corner.
Commissioner Blair asked if the architect would accept liability.
Lance Anderson stated that the architect does accept liability by telling the buyers where to put the house. He asked if every house requires a site plan that identifies the streets and monuments around it.
Kevin Rudd stated, "Yes."
Lance Anderson asked if it would require an extra inspection to verify a survey before issuing a permit and cause the building department more inspections.
Kevin Rudd explained that St. George has implemented pre building inspection. Before they break ground, a builder chalks out on the ground where the building is going to be prior to digging the footings. The inspector inspects the footings to ensure that it is going to work. St. George and Ivins have had foundations dug that were wrong, and the builder had to fill it back in and move the footings over five (5) feet or so. Most builders chalk out the ground, and it would be inspected before breaking ground. This was done in Anthem Estates because of the building envelope. At the beginning of that project, the department did not require pre inspection but we realized that some of the buildings were slightly outside the small building pad. Now, we require that the corners are staked, the house is chalked out on the ground, and the inspector verifies it.
Lance Anderson asked if a surveyor does it or does an in-house person to take on the responsibility.
Kevin Rudd stated that the surveyor sets the corners of the building pad. Ence Homes lays out the house.
Lance Anderson stated that Kayenta uses the story poles to shoot the corners. The ordinance says, "The property corner boundaries shall be clearly marked." Is the City asking for more than one positive identifier or is the inspector okay with one.
Chairman Hart stated that he is asking for all of them. There were no further public comments. Chairman Hart closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Blair stated that he understood where the City Council was coming from when they asked that the ordinance be amended. When a subdivision is layed out, the corners should be there for each property. If over time a corner is missing, he didn’t see it to be overwhelming for the owner to have it replaced prior to being built. The ordinance makes sense and it will probably clear up discrepancies in the future.
Commissioner Mehr asked if the Padre Canyon issue was a recent example of a continual problem throughout the City.
Kevin Rudd stated that he has been a building inspector for fifteen (15) years and could show them that there are some houses too close to the property line. The home in Padre Canyon Phase 8 ended up with a very small backyard, approximately five (5’) to six (6’) feet. When the lot was purchased, they thought they had twenty (20’) feet, and they felt short changed.
Commissioner Reed felt that the amended language of the ordinance did not define who should replace the pins. The language only refers to, "offical recorded survey pins." Therefore, if there was a copy of the survey and a pin was missing, couldn’t it be replaced by an architect, etc? Also, additions to existing buildings should be included in the subsection of exclusions.
Kevin Rudd stated that the language refers to "official recorded survey pins" but the only person that could officially do that would be a surveyor.
Chairman Hart stated that this amendment is another example of solving a small problem with a club. This issue seldom happens and wasting $500-$2,000 on every piece of property is an irresponsible thing to impose on the citizens of the City. Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the time it is very obvious whether or not the house is within the setbacks. As walls are built around homes, there will be one lot that eventually has pins missing, but it will have three (3) block walls around the home. Imposing $1,000-$1,500 of cost on the person that is building on the last lot to have nails driven in the tops of the block walls makes no sense. A large lot where the property lines are reasonably defined, and the house doesn’t come near any setback requirements, it is a ridiculous waste of the home buyers resources. The building department should have the prerogative of requiring that the pins be put in place or sufficient definition of the property lines to verify when it is a close call. But if one pin comes up missing because of utility trenching, etc., a plat can be used to triangulate 100 feet one way and 200 feet another way to establish the property lines. Sometimes the City gets so casual about the expenses that we impose on the people that come to live into our community, and that includes the impact fees and other fees that are charged. Unnecessary fees should not be imposed. The language may not be able to be changed without the possibility of being arbitrary and capricious, and he did not want to put the Building Official, Kevin Rudd, in an awkward situation.
Kevin Rudd explained that builders have been upset and complain about the survey cost. A survey has only been required when he is sure there is a problem. But many times the inspectors depends on the honesty of the builder and take them at their word. When the property line is off, the owners comes into the City Council and complain. It is not the building department’s responsibility to supervise the building of the home, but some people are under the illusion that we guarantee that the house is in the right spot. If a builder builds the home on the wrong lot, the inspector may not catch it because our department does not have the time and resources. The owner is paying their builder to do that. He doesn’t want the City Council to make him personally responsible to make sure the house is guaranteed to be in the right spot. St. George decided to enforce it by policy instead of by ordinance. An ordinance would not give Mr. Rudd much leeway to say that a builder is not required to have a survey.
Commissioner Mehr suggested changing paragraph (2) to "should" instead of "shall" and create a paragraph (3) that says, "at the request of the City Building Inspector the builder shall get a survey."
Kevin Rudd felt that a survey should either be required or not. If it is left up to my purgative, then the ordinance should be left as it is because he has that authority already.
Commissioner Reed commented that every lot should be surveyed when it is platted, and the pins should be in a relative permanent placement manner, but one might come up missing through trenching, etc. Once a survey is completed, couldn’t one pin be replaced by someone other than a licensed survey. That’s what Chairman Hart is referring to. If there are three (3) out of four (4) or 8 out of 10 survey pins in place, it seems that the replacement of a pin or two could be accommodated. It’s normal in a construction process. Probably 75% of the lots in a project are missing some pins. He asked Kevin Rudd if this could be accommodated, would this still meet the needs of setback requirements, and accommodate Chairman Hart’s comments about a subdivision being surveyed yet coming up short through construction activity.
Kevin Rudd gave an example. Sometimes it is easy to determine but other times it is not.
Commissioner Reed stated that it has already been recorded.
Chairman Hart stated that the building department is not required to certify that the footings are dug and that a block wall is built exactly on the property line. Most properties have been surveyed at one time or another. If not, he would agree with Mr. Rudd that there needs to be a survey. If someone has twelve (12) acres and someone sells off five (5) acres, there needs to be some identification of the five (5) acres, and typically it has to be surveyed before it can be recorded as a subdivision plat. It is fair to require a builder or owner to clearly identify the property lines. He gave some examples. There does need to be some reasonable way for the inspectors to access whether or not the home is being built within the setbacks. If there are no pins and they have no idea what the boundaries are, then a survey should be required. However, if the average cost of a re-survey is $1,000 andd $99,000 dollars is spent unnecessarily to make a point because one person needed to spend a $1,000, government should not impose that expense.
Commissioner Blair stated that as an engineer with 37 years plus of service in government and dealing with areas where mistakes have been made, and he too has been called on the carpet, but he believed that an addition to the ordinance makes good sense because it is protecting the City of possible liability. It puts the responsibility on the developer and not the City.
Chairman Hart asked about the City’s liability. It’s a civil suit if someone builds on their neighbor’s property.
Commissioner Mehr stated after listening to Chairman Hart’s concerns about the cost burden to the citizens and since Kevin Rudd already has the authority to require a survey, he did not see the purpose of adding paragraph (2). He wasn’t necessarily opposed to the amendment but did not see the connection because the City can already require a survey within our current ordinances.
Kevin Rudd stated that the state absolves the City of any responsibility when it comes to building inspections. There is no ordinance that requires a survey. It is a matter of him making the decision to determine if the property line is correct. He’s done his own measurements and surveys on lots, and sometimes it doesn’t work. In extreme cases he requires a survey. This is the biggest investment someone will make, and to spend $500-$1,000 is not much expense to ensure that the home and the property lines are correct. This was the City Council’s consensus. If the City Council is concerned about this, he prefers that the building department require the survey.
Chairman Hart gave an example of how an unscrupulous builder or owner could replace the pins themselves to avoid spending the $1,500-2,000. The inspector would have the plat and all corner pins in place but would not know who placed them. The house would probably end up in the wrong spot. He felt the building department would see more of this.
Lance Anderson has suggested using someone that knows how to use a GPS, understands coordinaces and how to place the pins. If a lot is required to be certified, then it has to be done by an engineer. If Chairman Hart has pins missing or has a complicated home, he does pay to have this service performed but it may not be the common practice. He recently spent nearly $3,000 for what appeared to be a forty-five minute job. He was opposed to mandating a survey because the situation requiring a survey is so infrequent.
Commissioner Reed commented that not every lot will require a $1,000 survey. Through lack of diligence is the reason pins come up missing and not everyone has to spend this extra amount of money.
Chairman Hart stated that virtually every lot is going to have at least one pin taken out by virtue of the utilities.
Commissioner Reed suggested that the contractor should put it in his contract that his subs are responsible for removing the quarter pins and will have to replace them.
Chairman Hart explained that if it is the City or the utilities it’s not his problem.
The Commissioners continued discussing examples of lot situations and pin placements and how Kevin Rudd would handle the situation.
Commissioner Mehr asked if the recorded survey was a way to demonstrate the intent in paragraph (1) which is, "a buildable area sufficient to establish a building or structure thereon which meets the minimum standards, etc." and in Paragraph (2) we could suggest or recommend a way for a the builder or developer to demonstrate a better way of determining that the boundaries areas are sufficient.
Kevin Rudd felt that some of their suggested language is not easily written in an ordinance.
Commissioner Reed stated there has to be an identifiable criteria for when it is allowed and not allowed and for demarcation of lot boundaries.
Kevin Rudd explained that a policy would make it easier for the Building Department to use a little more judgment rather than an ordinance which is the letter of the law. He gave them an example. He’s looking to have the City Council’s support.
Chairman Hart suggested language that the expectation is that the pins or identifiable boundaries have to be indicated. If there are three (3) pins and it is simple to triangulate the fourth (4) pin, he felt an engineer did not have to be paid to get the fourth pin. Also, include that the building official may require a survey and if so the copy of the survey has to be submitted when permitted.
Commissioner Reed suggested the following language, "If a lot is lacking clearly identified boundaries......" If a lot doesn’t have any pins or too few pins to clearly identify the boundaries, that should give Kevin Rudd enough direction to make a decision. Most lot boundaries are clearly identified by the survey and if a pin is missing because of utilities, etc. then there is still clearly identified lot boundaries. He asked if that was criteria Kevin Rudd could live with.
Kevin Rudd stated that he did not have a problem with the language that leaves it to his discretion if he is comfortable with the property lines that have been identified.
Commissioner Reed stated that he sees the need for this ordinance but wasn’t comfortable with it being so black and white that if it is missing one pin that the whole lot has to be surveyed or resurveying one pin when any reasonable individual can come up with that location.
Chairman Hart asked if Kevin Rudd was asking for a copy of the plat when it says, "A copy of the survey shall be provided....."
Kevin Rudd stated if it was a recorded subdivision, a copy of that portion of the plat showing the owner’s lot would be provided.
Chairman Hart inquired about a twenty (20) acre lot and asked if they would need to get it surveyed to get some corner pins to work with.
Kevin Rudd stated that where it says "A copy of the survey shall be provided..." the surveyor would not only set the pins but would also make a drawing of the lot. Then, the inspector would have in hand a survey drawing of that lot of record. When a survey is done, Washington County requires a survey recorded. The inspector uses the drawing as a guide. Four corners are easy to determine but if there are multi corners they need a paper copy of the survey to be sure of the property corners.
Commissioner Reed also suggested the following language, "This subsection shall not apply to small accessory buildings or additions to existing buildings."
Chairman Hart felt that the following language wasn’t necessary, "In the event site contraints make it difficult to place survey pins at a property corner, the affected survey pin may be placed at a different location and noted on the survey."
Kevin Rudd explained that a written copy of the survey would indicate that the pin is offset which may not represent the real corner.
Chairman Hart asked if that wouldn’t show up on the plat. He gave an example.
Commissioner Blair stated that offsets should be shown on the official subdivision plan, and they are all marked on the plans. This verbiage is basically saying that we will accept offset pins.
The Commissioner’s revised the language and made the following motion:
MOTION: moved to
SECOND:
MOTION: Commissioner Mehr moved to recommend that the City Council amend Ivins City Municipal Code, Chapter 16, Section 16.11.118 regarding Buildable Area and Survey Requirements, Ivins City, applicant, as written with the following additions: In the event that a lot lacks clearly identified boundaries, the building inspector may require official recorded survey pins to be placed
SECOND: Commissioner Blair
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Hart |
AYE |
| Commissioner Blair |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mendenhall |
ABSENT |
Chairman Hart suggested that the Commissioners review the basic outline on Multi-Family housing. The Commissioners are proposing the following:
1. Calculations: Base density of (15) units per acre expandable to a maximum of thirty (30) units per acre with density bonuses.
(Twelve (12) is permitted without any density bonus based on the current density bonus of 4.65 units per acre)
2. Density bonus criteria: Additional density may be achieved using a variety of "weighted" amenities that may be based on Categories such as "A, B & C" classifications or assessed in some other way. For example, the "A" amenities could include a swimming pool, club house, tennis court, handball or other sports court and open space. The "B" amenities could include a play lot, basketball court, pavilion, walking path and open space. The "C" amenities could include security lighting, a crime prevention program, outdoor BBQ and picnic tables, sandbox, volleyball court, horseshoe pitching area and open space.
Perhaps a category "A" amenity could provide up to a 30% density bonus, a category "B; amenity up to 15% and a category "C" up to 5%.
Chairman Hart favored looking at each amenity individually since the cost of the various options to the developer and value to the project can vary dramatically.
3. Maximum Units attached: 12 units
4. Maximum building length: 120’
5. Building Height: Maximum building height within 60’ of any property line shall not exceed twenty 25’ in height. Maximum building height beyond 60’ from any property line shall not exceed 35’ in height.
6. Access: Vehicular access should be from minor rather than major streets. Vehicular access point (s) shall be no closer to an intersection than 1/3 of the length of the adjacent property line. Pedestrian sidewalks shall provide easy access to every building within the project and multiple points of access into the project.
7. Open Space: Open space requirements shall consist of 400 square feet for each of the first two dwelling units and an additional 200 square feet for each additional dwelling unit. Setbacks and parking medians do not qualify as open space. Required open space must be landscaped for recreational use by the project residents.
8. Parking: Parking areas may be interior or peripheral but must be walled in or masked with berms and landscape in either case. Metal carports must be completely concealed in the interior of the project. Perimeter parking areas must fall within the building setback and may not exceed in total 30% of the length of the adjacent property line.
Individual parking sections may not exceed 120’ without a minimum of 10’ peninsular landscape break. Parking areas must be a minimum of 10’ from any building other than cluster garages or carports and from any adjacent set of parking bays. A drawing exhibit will be required to illustrate parking requirements.
9. Massing, detailing and color: Buildings must maintain a "neighborhood" character. Individual buildings shall vary a minimum of three (3) times in height and projection (see language from Sedona’s ordinance, see attached), and incorporate a minimum of three (3) additional types of detailing such as covered porches, balconies with railings, or window shading "pop outs."
Coloration must conform with Ivins City ordinance and shall harmonize throughout the project. Each individual building must display a minimum of two (2) wall surface colors not excessive in their contrast with each other or the natural surroundings. Other "accent" colors are encouraged.
10. Landscaping: Landscaping is required in all setback areas and open space. Streetscape and parking related landscaping should include drought tolerant plants, boulders and hardscape with intermittent outcroppings of grass or ground cover. Required open space is to be landscaped in user friendly materials like grass, synthetic turf, sand aread, etc.
11. Lighting: Lighting is to conform with Ivins City ordinances. Provide adequate but not excessive parking lot (hooded type canopy lighting) and pathway (bollard) lighting for the safety and security of its residents. Lighting attached to building or landscape walls are to have shielded bulbs. Recessed and ground lighting are encouraged. Flood lighting is not allowed.
Page 8, Line 40 change: "Cul-de-sac" to "Cul-de-sacs."
MOTION: Commissioner Blair moved to approve the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for September 30, 2008 as amended
SECOND: Commissioner Reed
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Hart |
AYE |
| Commissioner Blair |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mendenhall |
ABSENT |
No report.
Chairman Hart advised that the City Council did not hold a meeting on October 2, 2008.
|
C. |
Building & Zoning Administrator, Kevin Rudd |
No report.
|
D. |
City Attorney, Dale Coulam |
No report.
|
E. |
Items to be placed on future agendas |
None
Commissioner Mehr moved to adjourn at 8:17 P.M.