Have not been in California since June 1975. Both the citizens of California and I are happy about that fact. 🙂 🙂
@rj-schneider i'd rather not include anything that doesn't belong on a subdivision plat on a subdivision plat.
?ÿ
trees, puddles of water, the junk car parked on top of the NE corner, the horse in the field, proposed front door locations, 99% of the stuff that ends up on a site plan...
?ÿ
Man I guess. There's subdivision platting, ALTA surveys, retracement surveys to meet minimum TBPLS, and/or TSPS standards .. each one specifies a level of care. Those legacy hardwoods sound like a righteous cause. ymmv
please show all existing utilities on site.?ÿ utilities.?ÿ not easements.
?ÿ
on a subdivision plat.?ÿ submitted together with a site plan that shows 98% of existing utilities will be moved or removed.?ÿ i just, i can't, i, i...
Utilities are elec/tel poles,MH,water/elec/gas meters and inlet pipes to name a few right? You mean you don't plot them in your plans? If not, question is WHY NOT?
Heard from a client about his former architect not needing a topo survey prior to making his house designs because he said the land was flat. When construction time came, he had to hire another architect to revise construction plans because an electrical pole was located smack middle of where his gates were located.
.. then there's well-sites, graveyards, wetlands, toxic waste or superfund locations.?ÿ You have to account for these features when when subdividing, right ?
?ÿ
thisbis for a subdivision plat. Not an Alta, not a topo, not a design survey. Of course that stuff would be shot and shown on a design survey.
but-again- i have yet to hear of a good reason why all of these impermanent features that have nothing to do with the boundary of land belong on a subdivision plat whose primary (like 98%) purpose is to establish the boundaries of new tracts.
why does everything have to be everything?
Preliminary plan vs final plan.
The preliminary plan for a new subdivision around here generally asks for the moon and stars to be shown as they may have an affect on how things will have to be if the final subdivision plan is approved.?ÿ Most of what is expected makes sense.?ÿ Once the preliminary is finally approved, you make any revisions required for final approval and start setting bars.?ÿ Then you draft the final subdivision plat with all of the certifications, approvals and signature lines.
To do otherwise can become chaos.?ÿ Yesterday, I received a call from a realtor/appraiser asking about a tract in a certain rural subdivision roughly 50 miles from here.?ÿ He asked what sort of fee to expect if I were asked to do the survey.?ÿ My response was "One million dollars."?ÿ We have known each other for years so he wasn't terribly surprised.?ÿ He began asking good questions and I answered them all truthfully.?ÿ That subdivision was created on paper only by a fellow, now deceased, with whom I had a lengthy discussion many years ago.?ÿ In his mind, he was to create a nice looking sketch as to what might be possible on a 160-acre tract.?ÿ Lovely, curving streets and maybe 300 oddly shaped lots.?ÿ The owner took that sketch, added lot numbers and had it recorded.?ÿ This was in about 1960.?ÿ There was no formal subdivision rules in that county, the Register of Deeds did not realize what it was she was recording and the chaos began.?ÿ The owner of the overall tract began selling an odd lot here to someone who had never seen the property and then sell a lot far from the first to another unsuspecting buyer.?ÿ He did not sell very many.?ÿ As each buyer arrived, they simply picked out a spot they thought might be where the numbered lot appeared on the drawing and made their improvements with the assumption that no one could argue with them.?ÿ Access is on pathways the owners created for themselves via whatever route they chose.
yes, it's a similar situation here. prelim plat has contours, trees, proposed floodplains, etc. in my opinion this is still kinda stupid as they're almost always filed in conjunction with (or, more often, as a COMPONENT of) the engineering planset, which always has sheets of existing conditions and proposed conditions. there's a terrible amount of redundancy.
once prelim is approved, what gets filed as a final plat is- or, i should say: has typically been- a decidedly SURVEY oriented document. the main function being the establishment of lot lines. secondary function being the easements and setbacks. to the extent there may be contingencies such as wells, cemeteries, caves, etc- those are shown but also dealt with by the aforementioned setbacks and easements.
putting geriatric trees, fence lines, bluff lines, anything else with a decidedly temporary lifespan makes no sense to me. it needlessly clutters up a document- both graphically and conceptually- whose overriding purpose is the establishment of the physical location of a tract. i don't know how it works everywhere, and we are not a recording state, and there have certainly been times where it would have been nice to know where "mr. johnson's old chicken coop used to stand". but there are still MYRIAD resources to derive that info to any diligent surveyor, and as far as i'm concerned the cost/benefit analysis of turning subdivision plats into full-blown engineering documents is foolish.
yes, see my answer to holy cow regarding that. i ain't got no beef with trees or protecting them. in the least. but a plat isn't the place to do it, if'n you ask me.
Agreed. Give them the proof in the preliminary of what exists and what should be altered. The final plat should be layout only showing boundaries and various easements and setbacks per current policies. It would be impossible to add "future" setback requirements, for example.
Sounds like they want you to update their GIS data. What was your client's reaction?
