The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPPLICATION & DOCS - 06-00017 - Harvest Heights Div 2A - Final Plat ~~oeo s n ~4etlSHE~ 1~ CIOF R~x~uR~ AMERICA'S FAMILY COMMUNI fY -- - - :z .. 1~ ~~.rt., 19 E Main (PO Box 280) Phone: 208-359-3020 x2 Rexburg,ldaho 83440 Fax:208-359-3024 www.rexburg.org comdevCa~rexburg.org ' /Final Plat Application for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plat The attached Subdivision plan has been prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Rexburg, and the following items are shown on the plan or plans, or explanations given with respect thereto. Requirements for Preliminary Plats All Preliminary Plats shall be 24' x 36' foldable, drawn to scale, North point, dated. The following shall be shown on the Preliminary Plat or shall be submitted separately: 1. The name of the proposed subdivision: Harvest Heights, Division 2 2. The location Mill Hollow Road & 7th South Acreage 14.3 Number of Lots 18 3. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the subdivider or subdividers and the engineer or surveyor who prepared the plat: Subdivider Name: Richard F. Smith Address: 950 Mill Hollow Road, Rexburg Phone Number: 356-4912 Cell Number: 390-7000 Engineer Name: The Dyer Group, LLC Address: 310 N 2"d East #153, Rexburg Phone Number: 656-8800 Cell Number: 390-9700 Surveyor Name: same as above Address: Phone Number: Cell Number: 4. The name and address of all property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the subdivision whether or not bisected by a public right-of--way as shown on record in the County Assessor's office. see plat 5. The legal description of the subdivision. see plat y 6. A statement of the ended use of the ro osed subdivision~h as: Residential - (single family, two-family and multiple housing); Commercial, Industrial, Recreational or Agricultural. Show sites proposed for parks, playgrounds, schools, churches or other public areas. s_ in~le family residential 7. A map of the entire area scheduled for development if the proposed subdivision is a portion of a larger holding intended for subsequent development. see ownership map attached to plat 8. A vicinityman showing the relationship of the proposed plat to the surrounding area (1/2 mile of minimum radius, scale optional). see ulat 9. Streets, street names, rights-of--way, and roadway widths, including adjoining streets or roadways, curbs and sidewalks. see plat. Street R/W = 68', street = 42' with 7' boulevard and 5' sidewalk (note rural residential style no curbs) 10. Lot lines and blocks showing the dimensions and numbers of each. see plat 11. Contour lines, shown at five (5) feet intervals where land slope is greater than ten percent (10%) and at two (2) feet intervals where land slope is ten percent (10%) or less, referenced to an established bench mark, including location and elevation. see preliminary plat 12. Any proposed or existing utilities, including, but not limited to, storm and sanitary sewers, irrigation laterals, ditches, drains, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants, power, gas, street lights and their respective profiles and easements. see preliminary plat 13. A copy of any proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions. (To be attached or submitted with final plat). attached (similar to Division 1 covenants 14. Any dedications to the public and/or easements, together with a statement of location, dimensions, and purpose of such. se_ a plat Please complete the following: (If not applicable, please fill in with N/A) 1. What is the land use and existing zoning of the proposed subdivision and the adjacent land? _ recently agricultural use, most zoned for RR2, some outside the Citv recently annexed and zoned as RR 2 (area south of section hne) 2. Does subdivision conform to present zoning? yes 3. Requested zoning: RR 2 4. Variance Requested: Yes No X (If yes, attach written request) 5. Requesting annexation to City? Recently done 2 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Probable impact of the proposed project on the environment effect on: a. Public safety and convenience streets to City standards, minimum of 2 auproaches to all lots b. Fire, police, and ambulance services as above c. Recreation one common area that may be used for neighborhood parks d. Schools 25-30 pupil increase in enrollment e. Displacement or relocation of people none f. Land values improves to residential values g. Local and long-distance travel, i.e., highway and local road impact will construct'/2 of 7th South on next phase h. Behavior of wildlife species already disturbed area i. Wager quality and effect on underground water supply municipal water supply j. Noise pollution minimal in residential area k. Air pollution minimal in residential area 1. Method proposed to dispose of storm drainage waters borrow ditches on roads, occasional sumps m. Extent of increased city road maintenance, including snow removal roads in subdivision n. Floodplain- methods proposed to alleviate effect of 100-yr flood; effect on adjacent properties. N/A o. provisions for housing for persons of low and moderate income N/A p. Harmony with the character of surrounding developments continuation of existin development 2. Probably adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided a. Traffic Use minimal b. Rights-of--way required dedicated to City, including R/W for all of 7th South on next phase c. Pollution effect on existing envlronment none as City standards are followed 3. Relationship between local short-term uses of man's economic environment and the long-term productivity. a. Existing vs. proposed tax base increases tax base b. Costs to City if proposal approved (annual) maintenance of streets 4. Measures taken to minimize harmful effects on environment a. Effects of construction activities best management practices to be employed b. Erosion control BMP's followed c. Stream pollution prevention N/A d. Borrow-pit rehabilitation to be landscaped e. Fencing perimeter of subdivision, otherwise private lot fencing f. Buffer zones consistent with adjacent uses g. replacement of parklands or farmlands park space available, loss of some farmland 5. Is this plat plan harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with any specific objective of the City's Comprehensive Plan? consistent with Comprehensive Plan IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE REXBURG PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3 ytE.XMC^y~, {.~ CITY OP a 1~~v1~G PLANNING & ZONING ' > yl~ FINDINGS OF FACT Amenia's Foruity Gornnentity 12 North Center (PO Box 280) Phone: 208-359-3020 x312 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Fax: 208-359-3022 www.rexburg.org emilya@rexburg.org Facts of Finding Harvest Heights, Division 2A -Final Plat 1. On January 10, 2006, The Dyer Group presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Secretary a Request and Application for a Final Plat for Harvest Heights, Division 2A. 2. On January 19, 2006, Richard Smith presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Commission the Request for approval of the Final Plat for Harvest Heights, Division 2A. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to approve the final plat for Harvest Heights, Division 2A. Randall Porter seconded the motion. Charles Andersen abstained. None opposed. Motion carried. 3. On February 08, 2006, Richard Smith presented to the City Council the Request for approval of the Final Plat for Harvest Heights, Division 2A. The conditions set by Planning and Zoning have been met. Lot 1 and lot 2 will be included in the subdivision for the University President's home. Council Member Erickson reviewed the Planning Decision to accept the plat if the conditions are met. Richard Smith indicated the next phase will be started in the fall of 2006. 1000 East is I/a mile east of this subdivision. Council Member Erickson moved to accept the Final Plat for Harvest Heights, Division 2, with the changes as discussed by Richard Smith; Council Member Schwendiman seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. 04/24/2006 M0N 10;00 FAX 1 208 524 6181 MOUNTAIN RIVER ENGINEERI f~002/002 Niounta~>E~l River, inc. April 24, 2006 Harvest Heights, Aivision 2A comments SHEET I OF 2 1. Remove all of tlae future development Iine work and lot information; it is not pert anent to this division. 2. If you are going to show all of the extra section breakdown, show how it relates to this division. 3. Show the instrument no. s on all of the PLS corners. 4. Redo the curve on lots la and 19 of block 2, this is a bad design. 5. Change the symbology on the found rails, they will not show up on the silver image. 6. How can lot 3 become a portion of something that isnon-existent, and wby did you do that? 7. Curve and line tables should only be used when you can't fit the text on the line, please review those areas. 8. Remove the areas in square feet from the lots. SY~EET 2 OF 2 I. Why is this labeled Division 2A, what does it mean? 2. The irrigation water rights certificate is not to address the ground water, it is to address the surface water, I believe a statement similar to this should be used, "water rights and assessroent obligations are not appurtenant to the lands included on this plat". If you have any questions please call, JeffL Williams 208 524 6I75 1020 East t3ncoln Raad . ~rsho FalEs. Idaho 83401 Phone: (209) 524-6 T 75 Fox: 1208) 524-b18t • • Final Plat -Harvest Heights, Division 2~, Public Works Review January 17, 2006 Notes by John Millar Note• since approval of the preliminary plat for Division 2 the developer has indicated a desire to create two final plats for approaching phased devel~ment of the property improved at the preliminary_plat stage. For record-keeping the two final plats will be called Division 2A (the presently submitted final~lat consisting of the northerly 21 lots) and Division 2B (to be submitted for approval in the near future, consistin og f the southerly 201ots). 1. Lot 2 Block 3 is anon-conforming lot. What is to happen to this lot? Will it be owned in common or sold? This needs to be defined on the plat. Plat issue. Lot 2 will be a nei borhoo~ark and will be noted as "park" on the plat with the same term being added to the dedication. Lot 3 is also nonconforming and is intended to be sold to the adiacent Lot 1 of Block 3 (of Division 1). A clarifyinp_ note to this effect will be put on the plat where Lot 3 is called. 2. The area North of Lot 19 Block 2 must be added into the subdivision plat. Plat issue. This parcel is already a separate deeded parcel owned by the LDS Church and as such is not a part of the subdivision. Although it would be convenient to have it be part of the subdivision for record-keying and future reference ep ttin~ it included is a matter of preference and will require a significant amount of effort for which the owner is not really responsible. There are two options to get it included in the subdivision if absolutely necessary: first, it could be added to the subdivision and the Church could then become a signatory to the final plat (which maybe cumbersome and time-consuming), and second, the Church could temporarily deed the ground back to Smith (with an agreement that Smith would in turn deed back the Matted Lot) so it could become a part of the subdivision and then be deeded back to the Church after subdivision recording. 3. Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 cannot be served by the Division 2A sanitary sewer system. How will this be handled? Design issue. The sewer line on Whheatland will be extended northeasterly from approximate station 5+15 back to about 3+15 which will provide service for these lots. Then the sewer line on Mountain View Drive in Division 2B will terminate at the manhole shown at Station 9+50 and will not need to extend further northeast as these two lots will alreadYbe served bathe sewer line in Wheatland. 1. The sewer/water line crossing at Wheatland Drive and Wheatland Circle should be eliminated. Design issue Will keep sewer on the south and water line on the north side in the final en ing eerie dg esig~n plans. - ' Deleted: ,Phase 1 ~~~~~`~~ o~~ ~ w; • 2. Street grades should be no greater than 7%. Design issue. Mountain View Drive and Wheatland are designed at 7% maximum 3. Make sure that adequate valves are shown on the plans for proper pressure testing and disinfection. Design issue. Will add valves on each waterline where they are to be extended from the existing Division 1 area 4. The downstream manhole in Block 3 Lot 16 needs to be moved onto 7th South for access for maintenance. Design issue. We believe this can be accommodated however closer examination of the roadway profile for 7th South shows that if the manhole comes m around station 26+00 (as would be the case if it is moved into 7th South for maintenance) then it will require approximately 5 feet greater depth of sewer as it flows westward by gravity through a "knob" between stations 25+00 and 21+00 We will examine this more closely in the final en ineerin design to see if an appropriate solution meeting both constraints can be engineered 5. Easements for the proposed pumping station need to be shown. Plat issue for next phase. We will likely pull the pump station into the unusable trian le of ground northwest of the presently shown pump station location and will create a Lot of sufficient area to be dedicated to the City for accommodating the pump station and eas future access off of 7th South. 6. The pressure line from the pumping station to the manhole needs to be shown. Design issue. Will be shown on final design plans and will be located in Autumn Drive 7. Easements for the sewer line in Block 3 Lot 16 need to be established. Plat issue for next phase. We will likely dedicate Lot 16 as a park to be under City ownership which will eliminate the need for an easement across the lot for the sewer line Alternately proper easements will be designed and platted 8. A storm water plan needs to be submitted for approval. Desi~ issue. Will be developed and submitted with final en ineerin design plans and specifications Conceptually, we intend to use the asst' Swale associated with the streets to be constructed in this Rural Residential 2 zone for collecting and conveying runoff and will provide area drains locally connected by piping to an adjacent storm water infiltrator umt, for disposal of collected storm waters. Response to Comments from GIS Review 1. Extend Wheatland to Mill Hollow Road Plat issue Wheatland Drive connects to Harvest Drive before reaching Mill Hollow Road Harvest Drive comes in a short distance off of Mail Hollow Road and then makes a ri tangle turn into Division 1 of the subdivision. Its straight extension into the proposed Division 2 lat is roposed to be called Wheatland Drive. It would be nice to rename the short iece of Harvest Drive ad'acent to Mill Hollow Road as Wheatland Drive as it has the strai~l-ter alignment but unfortunately this piece of Harvest Dnve has already been platted and recorded and therefore it would be necessary to either amend the Division 1 plat or otherwise obtain approval from the City for renarrun~ it. In either case it is a separate issue from the resently proposed plat that can be addressed as the City desires 2. Mountain View Drive name has alread been used. Plat issue. The owner will select another appropriate name and properly clear it with the Coun register of street names poor to executing the final plat 3. Ownership shown as Richard Smith and not Harvest Heights LLC Plat issue Onemally the owner intended to have transferred ownership of the property to the LLC nor to final plat recordme Since this has not taken place and in order to facilitate matters. the ownership name to be used on the final plat will be changed to Richard F Smmth. 4. Parcel 19 north of the subdivision. Plat issue. This arcel is not a art of the subdivision because it is owned b the LDS Church and thus the subdivision owner has no interest in or control over the property to be able to make it be a part of the subdivision. See also the response to the first item 2 on page 1_ --End of Res onses-- J~R~,xw~e~ P.O Box 280 ~•.~ c, i 'r r o H • 19 E. Main St. -~ r_V_..--T_m v» ° 1~L~ V 1\G Rexburg, kiaho 83440 ,_ "~' Phone (208) 359-3020 Ari~ericas Fnmi]y Comnauniay Review Action Fax (208) 359-3022 January 11, 2006 Permit Number: 06 00017 Project Name: Harvest Heights, Div. 2 Project Type: Final Subdivision Plat Review Item Actions Required for Approval Approved GIS Review Township, range, and section are shown 01/11/2006 Two ties to established section corners exist Information exists to COGO all line segments Subdivision adjoiners are correctly Street and other public dedications are worded correctly Signature are correct for all elected officials and staff Flood Plain designation exists Subdivision is Addressable Boundary description matches the plat Irrigation certificate exists Utility and access easments are shown graphically Subdivision and Street name are not in Extend Wheatland Dr to Millhollow Rd conflict with existing names Mountain View Dr. already exsists in Madison County in the Mountain View Estates Subdivision Ownership matches Assessor's role and Ownership at the county is shown as Richard recorded documents F. Smith not Harvest Heights LLC Can identify ownership withing the subdivisi on Why is the parcel owned by the LDS Church north of lot 19 not part of the subdivision? Parcel #'s 1ZP1tXBCA0290007 01 /11 /2006 01 /11 /2006 01 /11 /2006 01 /11 /2006 01 /11 /2006 01 /11 /2006 01/11/2006 01 /11 /2006 01 /11 /2006 01 / 11 /2006 RP06N40E320601 Page 1 of 1 Kyle Spaulding From: Winston Dyer [wdyer@thedyergroup.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:38 PM To: Kyle Spaulding; Craig Rindlisbacher; John Millar Subject: Harvest heights Phase 2 -Final Plat The attached electronic plat is for review at the Jan 19th P&Z meeting. The zip file does contain a couple of font files and a signature image, so you may want to unzip it to a controlled location. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks. Winston R. Dyer, PE The Dyer Group, LLC 208.656.8800 (v), 8808 (fl 1/10/2006