Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTAFF REPORT - 08-00023 - Sunrise Dr - Founders Square Final PUDPlanning and Zoning Department 1 STAFF REPORT 12 North Center garyi@rexburg.org Phone: 208.359.3020 x314 Rexburg, 1083440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3024 SUBJECT: Planned Unit Development, file # 08 00023 APPLICANT: Founders Square, LLC c/o Bill Collins PO Box 15540 Jackson, WY 83002 CITY OF REXBURG America's Family Community PURPOSE: Approval of a Final Master Plan/Final Subdivision Plat for Phase I of the Founders Square Planned Unit Development (PUD). PROPERTY LOCATION: South 2nd East Rexburg, ID 83440 "OMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low -Moderate Residential Density ZONING DISTRICT: Low Density Residential 1 (LDRI) APPLICABLE CRITERIA: City of Rexburg Development Code (Ordinance Code 92.6) § 4.15 Planned Unit Development (PUD) AUTHORITY § 4.150(3) The Commission shall recommend to the City Council that the proposed final master plan be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. I. BACKGROUND The applicant has requested that Phase I of the Founders Square PUD be approved as a final master plan and a final subdivision plat. Obtaining this approval would then allow the applicant to record the plat with Madison County and begin the selling of individual lots and construction of new homes. The request is preceded by an approval of the Founders Square preliminary master plan and preliminary subdivision plat, which occurred August 15, 2007. The review process for a final master plan/final subdivision plat is such that the Commission shall review the application and determine if the proposal satisfies any relevant substantive criteria and is consistent with the approved preliminary master plan and if any conditions of approval required at that time are incorporated into the proposal. The Commission should then make a recommendation to the City Council that the proposal should be either approved, approved with conditions, or denied. Case No. 08 00023 Page 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 1,559,012 square foot (35.79 -acre) parcel located (and accessed) from 2nd East. Phase I is 15.22 -acres with 47 lots proposed. Once the extension of Sunrise Drive is developed as part of this proposal, the site will access Sunrise Drive, which then connects to 2"a east. Sunrise will then continue to the east and north through future development. The site will also have access to Poleline Road to the south through the Sky Meadows neighborhood. The surrounding area consists of agricultural land with some platted single-family lots. There are also some existing communications towers immediately to the east and west of the site. III�303%1W101WA pte'kilt�I7/1 The following is a review of the relevant minimum requirements of a PUD. 1. Variations to Underlying Zoning- The applicant was approved for variations to the underlying LDRI zoning. It should be noted that only the specific requests to vary from the underlying zoning requirements was granted, all other standards found in the LDRI or future zoning category that may be applied to this property will prevail. The specific variations from the underlying zoning requirements are as follows: i. Setbacks- The proposal has been granted several exceptions to setback requirements, which need to be modified (see proposed conditions of approval) in the proposed Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), they are as follows: a. Front yard setbacks- Along the boulevard/entrance to the project, a 15 -foot setback to the front of home has been granted, except that garages or carports must observe the full setback as required by the underlying zoning which is 20 -feet along a street that has a landscape strip at the front of the property; 25 -feet is no strip is present. Within this setback it should be noted and reinforced through a condition of approval that any structure over 30 -inches from grade shall meet the required setback, this would include front porch steps, covered or uncovered. Currently the CC&Rs state that 36 -inches. A 30 -inch limit will be consistent with the currently adopted building code. b. Front yard setbacks- On all other interior lots, the proposal was granted 10 - foot setbacks except that garages/carports must observe the full setback as required by the underlying zoning which is 20 -feet along a street that has a boulevard strip along the front of the property; 25 -Feet if no strip is present. c. Side yard setbacks- The proposal was approved for a 5 -foot side yard setbacks. It should be noted that corner lots are determined to have two front yards and two side yards. During the original public hearing, it was determined that the setbacks would be measured to the building wall, or foundation. It should be clarified that, "architectural features, such as eaves, cornices, and chimneys may extend in to the required setback a maximum of 18 -inches." (see proposed conditions of approval). ii. Building height- Height of building was not granted approval for the request to exceed the 30 -foot height limit. iii. Lot size and dimensions- the proposal was approved for variations to the minimum lot sizes and dimensions. These variations are approved as shown on the approved _ preliminary master plan. 2. Street Standards- The proposal incorporates current City street and right-of-way standards. No variations were approved. Case No. 08 00023 Page 2 3. Density Determination- The proposal is was approved for 111 lots. This yielded amount of lots was below what the proposal qualified for under the density bonus section of the PUD ordinance. 4. Minimum Performance Standards - i. Single Ownership or Control- The development will remain under single control by the developer until such time as a homeowner's association is established which will enforce the standards of this PUD and the material found in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). ii. Scope of Plan- The entire parcel under ownership of the applicant is included in the proposal. iii. Design Team- A design team has been formed and has material submitted for this final master plan review. iv. Natural Features- The development intended to incorporate the hillsides as undeveloped areas. A condition of approval was, should be that hillsides include a conservation easement that precludes any development of these areas, other than identified park areas. This easement would need to be shown on the final master plan, and ultimately on the recorded plat. See proposed conditions of approval. v. Utilities- All new utilities will be placed underground. vi. Phasing- The project is now proposed to be platted into three separate phases. This deviates from the preliminary master plan proposal and approval, which only granted approval for a phase one of one approach, as this is how it was proposed. It is now required of the Commission to make a finding that Section X(1) of the PUD ordinance is satisfied. Essentially, can each phase meet the approved density standards as were approved in the preliminary master plan? This would require the applicant to provide a description of each phase and provide a breakdown of density per phase. This information has not been provided. The only concern the Planning Department has is that the road extending to the south connecting to the Sky Meadows subdivision is not being proposed to go through until a latter phase. This road should be extended to provide connectivity through neighborhoods (see proposed conditions of approval) and more important, the public, during the public hearing for this PUD understood this to be a one phase subdivision. The public has not been notified of this significant change to the plan. The Commission should consider this matter and decide if phasing is acceptable, and if so, should the road connectivity for the subdivision extend and connect to the south, or Sky Meadows subdivision. vii. Water Conservation- Per the requirements of the PUD ordinance as restated in the conditions of approval for the preliminary master plan, the final master plan needs to show how, in detail, the proposal will incorporate low volume irrigation systems throughout the landscaped areas of the development. In addition, individual lot owners are to be required to do the same. These requirements are supposed to shown in the landscape plan and the CC&Rs. Within the CC&Rs the applicant has encouraged the use of a drip system, but the language is not present that requires homeowners to utilize low volume irrigation systems, unless it is deemed that sprinkler systems in general are a lower volume method of irrigation than traditional sprinkling. In the CC&Rs it could be recommended or required that no lawn sprinklers should/shall be used during the hottest hours of day with a hour range affixed. viii. Refuse Bins- Individual trash bins are required to be screened form the public right-of- way on days of no trash service in the neighborhood. Any future trash receptacles intended for trash service pick-up placed in the common areas such as the proposed park areas must be screened in a manner that is similar in material and character of the Case No. 08 00023 Page 3 neighborhood. These requirements should be incorporated into the CC&Rs, but nevertheless are conditions of approval for the preliminary master plan. ix. Glare Reduction- The proposal must conform to the City's lighting ordinance. 5. Common Open Space i. Required Common Open Space- This standard requires that each PUD provide at least 10% of the gross area as open space and recreational area. The applicant has met this requirement with 3.6 -acres of proposed open space. ii. Dedication of Land for Public Use- No portion of the open space is proposed to be dedicated at this time. iii. Maintenance- As the common areas are proposed to be private rather than public, the homeowners association is responsible for common space maintenance, as stated in the proposed CC&Rs. Until such time as a homeowners association is established, the developer is responsible for all maintenance of common areas and all unsold lots. iv. Clustering- The ability to provide open space elements to this development is provided through the clustering of lots. As feasible, the lots have been oriented towards common space elements. The open space areas are focal points for the neighborhood and are interconnected with the neighborhood's internal sidewalk network. v. Hardscaoe- Staff was unable to determine hardscape percentages, as the final landscape plans show this information. However, it appears this standard is likely met. vi. Common Activity Areas- The original conditions of approval require playground equipment, pathways with benches, and tables through natural or landscaped areas to be shown on the final landscape plan to be submitted with the final master plan application. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which has greater detail; the Commission should determine if the material is in sufficient detail to determine if the intent of the parks and open space concept presented in the preliminary master plan approval is met. vii. Landscaping Per Unit- The proposed CC&Rs do require landscaping per unit. In accordance with the PUD ordinance, the proposed CC&Rs have included this language. viii. Water Conservation- The final landscape plan is required to identify what drought tolerant species are being used and where zones are located within the common space areas that can maximize water conservation by incorporating plants that have similar water usage demands. At the writing of this staff this condition was not verified. This should be verified prior to the signing of a final plat (see proposed conditions of approval). 6. Density Bonuses- By achieving 55 density points from density bonus design requirements, this PUD is approved for 4.84 Units/NDA. 7. Density Bonus Calculations- The proposal meets the approved density of 4.3 units/NDA. Following the formula outlined in the PUD ordinance', the proposal needed to incorporate 55 density bonus points from the required density bonus design requirements; this was accomplished. 8. Density Bonus Design Requirements- In order for the proposal to achieve 4.3 units/NDA, 55 density bonus points must be achieved through the list described in the PUD ordinance. The following describes how the applicant proposes to achieve the desired density: L Energy efficiency the proposal will use R-19 wall insulation and r-38 ceiling insulation, and was therefore granted 10 bonus points. This requirement should be listed in the CC&Rs (see proposed conditions of approval). he project is in an LDRI zone and the design is awarded 55 bonus points. 55 x.0121 =0.6655 additional units per acre. 0.6655 + 3.63 (base density) = 4.3 maximum units per acre for the development. Case No. 08 00023 Page 4 ii. Building Design- The CC&Rs include language that satisfies the requirements of this bonus and was therefore granted 20 bonus points. iii. Design Theme- The proposal included a themed landscape design throughout the development, this included themed lighting. Also, the plaza area was to incorporate a colonial theme through the use of colonial designed benches as well as a central monument in the plaza. The proposal was granted 45 points for this bonus. The Commission should determine if enough detail is present in the application material to verify that this bonus is being adhered to. Staff did not find detail regarding lighting, bench styles, and details on monuments in the plaza area. Staff could not determine if a unified theme was being proposed. iv. Parking Area- The proposal was granted 5 bonus points for incorporating street landscape strips and medians that have trees that exceed out standard. v. Recreational Amenities- The proposal was granted 25 points for providing recreation ('1 areas. The proposal shows only locations amenities but no detail regarding product, i.e. ;ti bench styles, lighting, playground equipment, etc. This is important in that this bonus may QST l\� be determined by the cost of the amenity, its benefit to the residents of the development, its size and number in the development. The Commission determine iq, of amenities should if enough detail is present with the application material to determine if the granted density t i bonus points are warranted. Staff could not provide a recommendation as it was id determined that not enough detail was submitted. �' vi. Landscaping- The proposal was granted 10 bonus points for exceeding the size standard as required by the PUD ordinance. The PUD ordinance requires 324 trees and the applicant will provide over 600 trees. vii. Open Green Space- The applicant is proposing three areas of open space. These areas, as required and conditioned, are to incorporate native and drought tolerant plantings. This information needs to be verified prior to the signing of a final plat. The applicant was awarded 25 points for this bonus. viii. Public Streets- not applicable or required to address ix. Housing- optional, not required to address The proposal needed 55 bonus points to obtain the needed density bonus points. In fact, the proposal was awarded 140 points. By obtaining more density bonus points than needed, through good planning and design, the Commission may not require additional detail on density bonus criteria. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN For final master plan approval, the proposal must be consistent with the preliminary master plan approval and any conditions of approval that may have been applied. The Founders Square did have many conditions of approval that were tied to its preliminary approval (see Exhibit B). Most of those condtions of approval brought up in the above Section V of this document. The Planning Commission should review the preliminary approval and its conditions of approval and make a determination as to whether or not this final master plan is consistent with it. Below is staff s comments on the issue of compliance with the preliminary master plan. Preliminary Master Plan 1. Open Space Area. A PUD is required to provide at least 10% of the total land area to open space and recreation areas. During the preliminary approval of Founders Square it was determined that they were Case No. 08 00023 Page 5 Staff is interested in the completion of a north -south road that would connect Founders Square from the Sky Meadows subdivision on the south via Stone Drive to the future Sunrise Drive on the north of Founders Square. This was anticipated in the preliminary approval and would have allowed full connectivity through the neighborhoods. This connectivity would aid in emergency responses. The Commission should make a determination as to whether or not the new phased approach is appropriate for a final master plan application. If it is determined appropriate, staff would recommend that the Commission explore the road connectivity would recommend that Phase I include a fully constructed road from the north of the property to the south to allow for full connectivity, enhancing public safety. This would require the applicant to come back to the Commissionat a continued meeting and provide a proposed plat showing the road connections as part of the Phase I plat and also state the timing of construction. Case No. 08 00023 deficient in the amount allotted. This current proposal has met the standard. As a result, some modifications were made to location and arrangement of the open space elements. Now there are three areas of open space rather than two as a result of the requirement to provide almost 1 -acre eJ more of open space. The Commission should make a determination as to whether these modifications to the open space elements are consistent with the preliminary master plan n , approval. 6J( 2. Lot Size and arrangement. Lot sizes in some areas have been modified, some were made larger and some were made smaller. Minor modifications to lot sizes are generally viewed as acceptable and are considered consistent with the preliminary approval if overall densities have not changed. This PUD has 'E,/ Melded an additional lot, but that lot is to be used for open space. The current proposal has created a lot directly adjacent to an existing cell tower. This tower is an approximately 130 -foot lattice tower and antenna. The antenna and tower are owned by the developer so there are no potential conflicts between property owners over this issue. The Commission should make a determination as to whether or not creating a lot adjacent to an existing cell tower creates a compatibility issue from a land use perspective. 3. Phasing of Subdivision. The original approval for Founders Square was for a single phase plat. The proposal did state that construction would occur in two phases; however those phases were not defined. The construction dates were to be complete within three years. The current proposal has modified this development approach. The proposal now calls for three phases of platting to occur. Specifically, the applicant is asking for approval of the area defined 1 as "Phase I." This would allow the applicant to plat Phase I and later plat phases two and three through this same process. The applicant will need to address to Commission a statement k� regarding phasing as is required in the preliminary master plan process. The applicant is required e1 to provide, "A statement whether the applicant proposes to submit the final master plan for �1 review as a single master plan or in phases; a statement of the date or dates by which the applicant to submit the final master of final master for review; and a proposes plan plan phases statement of the date or dates by which the applicant anticipates that the development and related improvements of each phase thereof will be substantially completed." Staff is interested in the completion of a north -south road that would connect Founders Square from the Sky Meadows subdivision on the south via Stone Drive to the future Sunrise Drive on the north of Founders Square. This was anticipated in the preliminary approval and would have allowed full connectivity through the neighborhoods. This connectivity would aid in emergency responses. The Commission should make a determination as to whether or not the new phased approach is appropriate for a final master plan application. If it is determined appropriate, staff would recommend that the Commission explore the road connectivity would recommend that Phase I include a fully constructed road from the north of the property to the south to allow for full connectivity, enhancing public safety. This would require the applicant to come back to the Commissionat a continued meeting and provide a proposed plat showing the road connections as part of the Phase I plat and also state the timing of construction. Case No. 08 00023 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission consider the application material submitted and determine if the proposed planned unit development final master plan can be approved, denied, or approved with conditions. Following this determination, the Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council accompanied with findings that support such a recommendation. Should the Commission choose to recommend approval with conditions, staff has provided conditions of approval for consideration. VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. The final master plan for Phase I of the Founders Square Master 2. The City attorney will review the final CC&Rs prior to the signing of a final plat to determine if they are in conformance with the preliminary master plan approval and applicable City of Rexburg ordinances. All and approved by the City Engineer. Actual to end� approvals.atiT" lty,-standards are omitted landscape plan is consistent with the preliminary master plan approval. 4. As conditioned, the final master plan for phase one is consistent with requirements for phasing found in the PUD ordinance, in that each phase will maintain a balance of approved densities and adequate open space elements. Proposed Conditions of Approval General 1. All conditions of approval below and those approved in the Preliminary Master Plan (file #07 00292) shall apply to this project. 2. Language shall be clear in the CC&Rs that no approval granted by the HOA or Architectural Committee can violate City Code (e.g. accessory structures, building heights, fencing, location of building on lot, etc.). 3. The final CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior the recordation of a plat. 4. Requirement of the underlying zoning prevails where no specific requested variation has been considered and granted. 5. Final CC&Rs shall be reworded to include the following setback language: a. Front yard setbacks- Along the boulevard/entrance to the project, 15 -foot setbacks to the front of home are allowable, except that garages or carports must observe the full setback as required by the underlying zoning which is 20 -feet along a street that has a landscape strip at the front of the property; 25 -feet is no strip is present. Within this setback any structure over 30 -inches from grade shall meet the required setback, this would include structures such as front porch steps, covered or uncovered. b. Front yard setbacks- On all other interior lots, 10 -foot setbacks are allowable except that garages/carports must observe the full setback as required by the underlying zoning which is 20 -feet along a street that has a boulevard strip along the front of the property; 25 -feet if no strip is present. c. Side yard setbacks- Allowable are 5 -foot side yard setbacks. Corner lots are determined to have two front yards and two side yards. Case No. 08 00023 Page 7 6. Final CC&Rs shall be reworded to include the following setback language: a. Setbacks will be measured to the building wall, or foundation. b. Architectural features, such as eaves, cornices, and chimneys may extend in to the required setback a maximum of 18 -inches. 7. Final CC&Rs shall be reworded to include the following language: Homes will use, as a minimum, R- 19 wall insulation and r-38 ceiling insulation. 8. In order to increase safety for emergency vehicles and to increase the connectivity of neighborhoods, Founders square shall, for Phase I, include the platting and construction of a road that will provide road connectivity from the north on Sunrise Drive through to the south to connect Stone Drive with the Sky Meadows subdivision. 9. To supplement the submitted landscape plan, the applicant shall identify what drought tolerant plant species are being used and where zones are located within the common space areas that can maximize water conservation by incorporating plants that have similar water usage demands. This it to be submitted and verified prior to the signing of a final plat 10. Other department's notes found in the "staff review" section of the packets given to the planning commission shall be incorporated in to the development and addressed prior to the signing of a final plat for any and all proposed phases. 11. If land is annexed in to the Founders Square subdivision, as allowed in the proposed CC&Rs, only the City's zoning regulations shall apply. No variances to setbacks, lot sizes, etc. shall be granted without obtaining a variance to that specific regulation, or the Founders Square PUD is amended to include those new areas through an amendment to the Preliminary master plan. This language, or similar, shall be included in the final CC&Rs to be recorded. 12. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall provide to the city an improvement agreement and financial security instrument as described in the City of Rexburg subdivision ordinance and shall obtain a development permit. Performance Standards 13. Natural Features- The development intends to incorporate the hillsides as undeveloped areas. Hillsides shall include a conservation easement that precludes any development of these areas, other than identified park areas. This easement was required to be shown on the final master plan, but shall be provided on the final plat that is to be signed for recordation. PUD Approval Time Limitations 14. The preliminary master plan/plat for unbuilt and unapproved portions of this PUD shall expire within two years of the previous approval of a final master plan for each phase. u 1A,. Case No. 08 00023 Page 8