The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSTAFF REVIEW SUMMARY - 17-00513 - Charles Place Final PUDCity Staff Review Summary Application Status: Finaled Application Number: 17-00513 Final Planned Unit Development Applicant Details Charles Place Final PUD Application Reviewed Date: 08/23/2017 Applicant: Stephen Zollinger Address: Charles Place Property Owner , Property Details PROPERTY ID LOCATION RPR0000022002B, RPR0000022004B, RPR0000022001D, RPR0000022003B, RPRRXB10223040, RPR0000022003A, RPR0000022001G, RPR0000022002C, RPR0000022001C 23 E 1st N, , 144 Charles Place, , Parcel Size : Authority § 6.13 (E) "The Commission may recommend that the amendment be granted as requested, that it be modified, or that it be denied" City Staff Reviews RESUBMIT2 08/29/2017PZ Final Plat Review 1. Building permits have been requested for twin homes that are not reflected on the plat. The plat must be revised to identify these changes. 2. Access is not identified to the Thomas Mounts property. 3. A landscaping plan that identifies the PUD requirements of Section 4.14 of the City of Rexburg Development Code is required' 4. The CC&R's for the subdivision are required for review by the Community Development Director. RESUBMIT2 08/29/2017PW Final Plat Review * Utility easements dedicated Water and sewer easements need to be dedicated to the City. Are there other easements needed? (power, phone, etc.) The only one shown is for the gas company. RESUBMIT2 08/29/2017GIS Final Plat Review * Does the boundary close, and the exterior dimensions match the boundary description on the plat? Legal Description commencing at the southwest corner of block 19 should be block 22 * Are the PLS corners clearly identified and is the point of beginning tied to at least two monument PLS corners? Missing Section Corner Ties * Does the subdivision fit with adjacent parcels and section breakdown? Would be very helpful if adjoining parcels where shown in a more subdued shade, and only owner name would be less confusing to read. The focus should be the Subdivision and the information needed to map it not all the stuff around it. * Are adjoining landowners identified (subdivision or record of survey references)? Would be very helpful if adjoining parcels where shown in a more subdued shade, and only owner name would be less confusing to read. The focus should be the Subdivision and the information needed to map it not all the stuff around it. Page 1 of 3Report Date: 06/27/2018 3:04 pm City Staff Review Summary Application Status: Finaled Application Number: 17-00513 Final Planned Unit Development City Staff Reviews * Is all needed COGO information (curve and line tables, calls, etc.) contained on plat in order to map all lots, open spaces and R-O-W? Boundary bearing not same as lot bearings, which bearing should be used to get to POB of lots? Need bearing and distance to get to POB of lot 9, 15, 12 otherwise it’s a guess as to where they begin. Ex. Maintenance shop need ties to get to POB to map it. All lots need distance and bearing ties so they can be mapped correctly. Also the property previously deeded to Margaret Bake as per Inst.#401987 doesn't fit to lot dimensions. * Are the required signature blocks shown? Recorder Certificate is not correct it refer to THE SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF CANTEMERE VILLAGE P.U.D SUBDIVISION * Is the owner dedication complete, and does the owner of record and/or mortgagee match the plat dedication? Missing 3 additional owners of record: Kristie Mounts, Jeffrey C. Zollinger, Margaret Bake * Are the street widths and calls shown? Needs centerline that can be mapped. Street name needs to be clearly labeled. * Do the lot and block numbers uniquely identify the parcel and in sequence with adjoining phases is applicable? All parcels inside of subdivision boundary should be shown as lots and blocks, common area, etc. or they should not be included in subdivision boundary. (see following insert from Idaho Basic Mapping Book): I.C. 63-210 states: Description of lots or parcels of land, according to the number and designation on such recorded plat, in conveyances for the the purposes of taxation, shall be deemed good and valid for all intents and purposes. This is a very special power: one must a have a subdivision to use lot and block descriptions. Metes and bounds parcels which aren't in subdivisions must have a complete metes and bounds description. Individually owned lots should have lot numbers. * Are utility easements called out and labeled? Point of beginning for utility easement not defined need distance. COMPLETED 04/12/2018GIS Final Plat Review * Does the boundary close, and the exterior dimensions match the boundary description on the plat? Legal Description commencing at the southwest corner of block 19 should be block 22 * Are the PLS corners clearly identified and is the point of beginning tied to at least two monument PLS corners? Missing Section Corner Ties * Does the subdivision fit with adjacent parcels and section breakdown? Would be very helpful if adjoining parcels where shown in a more subdued shade, and only owner name would be less confusing to read. The focus should be the Subdivision and the information needed to map it not all the stuff around it. * Are adjoining landowners identified (subdivision or record of survey references)? Would be very helpful if adjoining parcels where shown in a more subdued shade, and only owner name would be less confusing to read. The focus should be the Subdivision and the information needed to map it not all the stuff around it. * Is all needed COGO information (curve and line tables, calls, etc.) contained on plat in order to map all lots, open spaces and R-O-W? Boundary bearing not same as lot bearings, which bearing should be used to get to POB of lots? Page 2 of 3Report Date: 06/27/2018 3:04 pm City Staff Review Summary Application Status: Finaled Application Number: 17-00513 Final Planned Unit Development City Staff Reviews Need bearing and distance to get to POB of lot 9, 15, 12 otherwise it’s a guess as to where they begin. Missing lot number on Ex. Maintenance shop and need ties to get to POB to map it. Would be very helpful to have this information on all lots so they can be mapped correctly. * Are the required signature blocks shown? Recorder Certificate is not correct it refer to THE SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF CANTEMERE VILLAGE P.U.D SUBDIVISION * Is the owner dedication complete, and does the owner of record and/or mortgagee match the plat dedication? Missing 3 additional owners of record: Kristie Mounts, Jeffrey C. Zollinger, Margaret Bake * Are the street widths and calls shown? Where does street or drive centerline begin, need distance to POB? What is name of street otherwise where are lots to be addressed from? * Do the lot and block numbers uniquely identify the parcel and in sequence with adjoining phases is applicable? All parcels inside of subdivision boundary should be shown as lots and blocks, common area, etc. or they should not be included in subdivision boundary. (see following insert from Idaho Basic Mapping Book): I.C. 63-210 states: Description of lots or parcels of land, according to the number and designation on such recorded plat, in conveyances for the the purposes of taxation, shall be deemed good and valid for all intents and purposes. This is a very special power: one must a have a subdivision to use lot and block descriptions. Metes and bounds parcels which aren't in subdivisions must have a complete metes and bounds description. * Are utility easements called out and labeled? Point of beginning for utility easement not defined need distance. COMPLETED 02/27/2018PW Final Plat Review * Utility easements dedicated Water and sewer easements need to be dedicated to the City. Are there other easements needed? (power, phone, etc.) The only one shown is for the gas company. Page 3 of 3Report Date: 06/27/2018 3:04 pm