Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTAFF REPORT - 08-00064 - Preliminary Master Plan for PUD - SummerfieldPlanning and Zoning Department STAFF REPORT 12 North Center Rexburg, ID 83440 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: PURPOSE: PROPERTY LOCATION _ i20PERTY ID: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: ZONING DISTRICT APPLICABLE CRITERIA: AUTHORITY garyl@rexburg.org Phone: 208.359.3020 x314 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3024 CITY OF REXBURG (14 Americas Family Community Planned Unit Development, file #08 00064 and #08 00316 Summerfield Preliminary Master Plan and Preliminary Plat Troy Kartchner 601 West 1700 South Logan, Utah Same as Above Establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) through the approval of a Preliminary Master Plan and a Preliminary Plat. 2540 West 1000 South (near 12th West and 7th South) Rexburg, ID 83440 RPRXBCA0264803 City of Rexburg Development Code City of Rexburg Development Code (Ordinance Code 926) § 4.15 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance 658 and 708, Subdivision Ordinance § 4.15(S)(1) The Commission shall recommend to the City Council that the proposed PUD be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. I. BACKGROUND The applicant has requested approval of a Planned Unit Development for purposes of creating a neighborhood of 502 total dwelling units: 38 twinhomes, 126 townhomes, and 338 single-family lots. The applicant has utilized the PUD ordinance to allow for clustering and variations from the standards of the underlying zoning. This PUD would potentially allow for 1862 people based on Rexburg's average household size of 3.71 people'. ' City of Rexburg DRAFT Comprehensive Plan 2020, pg 21 Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 1 The PUD ordinance can be applied to any residential zone and is a permitted land use if it can be found that all applicable criteria for granting PUDs is met. Therefore, the City, upon receipt of a PUD request should review the proposal and either approve, deny, or approve with conditions. II. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is 182.76 acres, but the applicant is suggesting that Block 11, Lot 27 is not to be calculated as part of this PUD. Therefore, only 139.23 -acres are included in the calculated area of this PUD. Block 11, Lot 27 should be allowed to be a created lot in this subdivision of land, but should not be considered part of this PUD master plan approval. This would require the owner of Block 11, Lot 27 to apply for a separate PUD in the future if he should wish to develop it as a PUD. All requirements of the LDR2 zone or current zone shall apply to lot 27, and no part of the PUD overlay should created by this current request shall apply to that lotsee proposed conditions of approval). The site is located north of W 7th South and West of S 12' West. As proposed, the site will be accessed from 12th West and from 7th South III. SUBSTANTIVE CRITERIA The following is a review of the minimum requirements of a PUD as well as determination of density and any related bonuses. Please refer to the PUD ordinance to view the entire description of each criteria, staff has only provided the headings followed with a review of each criteria. a. Uses Permitter- The applicant is requesting only residential uses, therefore this criterion does not apply. b. Minimum Area- The proposal is for 139 acres (not including Block 11, Lot 27). which exceeds the minimum of 3 -acres for a residential PUD. This criterion is met. c. Variations to Underlying Zoning- The applicant is requesting the following variations to the underlying LDRI zoning: i. Front yard setbacks- The LDR2 zone requires a 25 -foot setback from property line to front of building. Where a boulevard (landscape strip) is provided along the street, a 20 - foot setback can be observed. The applicant is proposing that all front yards be reduced to a 15 -foot setback. Staff recommends that this PUD approval not allow garages or car ports to be located within 20 feet of a front property line in order to ensure adequate space for off-street parking (15 -feet is not deep enough for the City's parking standards) and to allow for streetscape not dominated by garage doors, which is in harmony with PUDs that seek a more traditional neighborhood ambiance. In addition, this reduced setback should only be granted to allow for well defined porch areas, not just the fronts of buildings. This would apply to all types of residential uses. Other land uses such as churches, parking lots, etc should still maintain the setback as required under the LDR2 zone. See proposed conditions of approval. The Commission may even look at allowing front yards to be reduced to 15 -feet in exchange for requiring garages and carports to be set back 25 -feet regardless of a boulevard provision in Ordinance 926. ii. Side yard setbacks- The LDR2 zone requires a setback that is based on height (half the building height with a 6 -foot minimum). The applicant is requesting a reduced setback of 5 feet for all lots. There appears to be no justification for this request in the application material. Therefore, staff recommends not granting this reduced setback and recommends that the LDR2 side yard setbacks continue to apply (see proposed conditions of approval). Should the request be granted then it should not apply to any structure other than a single family detached home. iii. Rear yard setbacks- The LDR2 zone requires a 20 -foot rear yard setback. The applicant is requesting a 15 -foot setback. There appears to be no justification for this request in the Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 2 application material. Therefore, staff recommends not granting this reduced setback and recommends that the LDR2 rear yard setbacks continue to apply (see proposed conditions of approval). iv. Lot size and dimensions- the applicant is requesting that the lot sizes be reduced in both area and dimensional standards. Such a request is what allows a PUD to create a clustered development that allows greater diversification between buildings and open space. Staff supports this variation only as shown on the preliminary plat. If the final platting requires adjustments to lot dimensions, then those changes should be substantially the same as those found on this preliminary plat. If changes are substantially different than what is found in the preliminary plat, then the applicant should re-submit a preliminary master plan/preliminary plat (see proposed conditions of approval). d. Street Standards- The proposal incorporates current City street and right-of-way standards. No variations have been requested. The City Engineer may determine that any of the roads may function are collector roads and may need greater right-of-way. The applicant should be prepared to have this discussion with the City Engineer and should show revised rights-of-way on the final plat (see proposed conditions of approval). e. Density Determination- The site, before any density bonuses are applied, has the potential to yield a density of 526 residential units, or lots. The applicant has requested only 502 units in the current PUD proposal. E 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 with the exception of Lot 27 of Block 11. iii. Desian Team- A design team must be formed and will be identified on all material submitted for the final master plan. iv. Natural Features- The land involved in the proposal does not include natural features that should be considered for preservation. v. Utilities- All new utilities will be placed underground. vi. Phasing- The project is proposed to be completed in four (4) phases, with multiple construction phases within each of the four phases. The only remnant parcel is Block 11, Lot 27. According to the PUD ordinance, this parcel, as a remnant parcel should be identified as "open space." However, rather than labeling this as "open space" this parcel should be treated as staff has listing in the above section II, Site Description. vii. Water Conservation- The final master plan should show how, in detail, the proposal will incorporate low volume irrigation systems throughout the landscaped areas of the development (see proposed conditions of approval). Individual lot owners should be required to do the same; this should be stated in the CC&Rs (see proposed conditions of approval). viii. Refuse Bins- Individual trash bins should be screened from 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 neighborhood. This should be incorporated in the CC&Rs (see proposed conditions of approval). ix. Glare Reduction- The proposal must adhere to the City's lighting standards which require glare reduction and respect the safety aspect of lighting as well as recognition of the valuable night sky (see proposed conditions of approval). Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 3 g. 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 is proposing collectively 15.91 -acres. As the gross area is 139.23 -acres, this only requires the developer to incorporate 13.9 acres for open space/recreation area. The Planning Commission should determine if what is being proposed meets the intent of the PUD ordinance. The proposal may need to consolidate some of the areas designated as open space areas at the ends of blocks and behind buildings into a significantly sized area of open space/park area. Admittedly, the applicant needs to be creative with regards to providing areas for drainage as this is very flat site. However, it appears that what is being proposed may be so divided up that a significant open space/recreation element is lost. This area could very well benefit from a park the size of Porter or Smith park (10 acres). Indeed, these park sizes accommodate well the active sports programs that many children and adults in the community are involved in. By providing a larger and consolidated open space area, this likely would reduce the need for citizens in this area to travel to parks such as Smith or Porter for activity practices and competitions. The applicant should consider not only proposing an open space/park at 10 acres in size, but should also work with the City in determining if this area should be a City park. The City's subdivision ordinance requires this consideration for subdivisions involving over 100 units (Ordinance 658, Section 3.5 Public Site, Open Space and Natural Features). See proposed condition of approval. It appears that the townhome open space areas may be for the exclusive use of the townhomes and not for the overall development (see Article II, Section 2.07(iv)(a)). This would suggest private ownership and would be more of a yard, rather than open space/recreation area for the benefit of the neighborhood. ii. Dedication of Land for Public Use- No portion of the open space is proposed to be dedicated for public use at this time. However, the City's subdivision regulation requires that for developments of over 100 units, 10% of the open space and park lands are required to be offered to the City at fair market price at time of development. iii. Maintenance- As the common areas are proposed to be private rather than public, the homeowners association will be responsible for common space maintenance, as stated in the proposed CC&Rs. Until such time as a homeowners association is established, the applicant shall be responsible for all maintenance of common areas and all unsold lots (see proposed conditions of approval). iv. Clusterine- The ability to provide open space elements to this development is provided through the clustering of lots. The Commission should determine if the lots in general have been oriented towards the common space elements. The open space areas need to be focal points for the neighborhood and should be interconnected with the neighborhood's internal sidewalk/trail network. The Commission should also decide whether the open space elements are interconnected and are focal points for the neighborhood. v. Hardscane- Staff was unable to determine hardscape percentages, as the final landscape plans are not yet submitted. Only preliminary plans are required at this time; the final landscape plan should be submitted for review and approval with the final master plan application (see proposed condition of approval). Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 4 vi. Common Activity Areas- Details of open space elements including the central park area have been provided and includes common activity area. The PUD ordinance requires that common activity areas are provided at a ratio of 1000 square feet per single family lot. As all lots in this PUD area considered single family lots, the applicant needs to provide 11.5 acres of common activity area. These area need to include playground equipment or pathways with benches and tables through natural or landscaped areas. This criterion further suggests the need for a larger consolidated open space/park area and possibly trail system that would satisfy this requirement. The Commission should determine if this requirement is met. This requirement should be shown on the final landscape plan to be submitted with the final master plan/final plat application for each phase (see proposed conditions of approval). vii. Landscaping Per Unit- The applicant has not addressed this requirement. The final master plan for phase I should reflect this on the landscape plans. In addition, the final CC&Rs should have the ordinance requirement written into the CC&Rs (see proposed conditions of approval). The final landscape plan needs to consider solar access as required by the PUD ordinance in the placement of deciduous and evergreen trees. viii. Water Conservation- The final landscape plan should incorporate this requirement by identifying 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 (see proposed conditions of approval). h. Density Bonuses- In the LDR2 zone, the range of housing density is set between 5.45 units per net developable area (Units/NDA), and 7.62 Units/NDA. The density of a PUD without density bonuses is 7.62 units/NDA. The applicant is not proposing to utilize density bonuses, therefore this section of the PUD ordinance is met. i. Density Bonus Calculations- This section does not apply to this proposal as no density bonus is being requested.. j. Density Bonus Design Requirements- This section does not apply as no density bonus is being requested. IV. ANALYSIS To approve a planned unit development certain criteria must be addressed and met. Below are those established criteria followed by staff s analysis. a. The proposed planned unit development is in compliance with the City's comprehensive plan and will be substantially compatible with existing development in the surrounding area; and undeveloped land in the surrounding area can be developer) in a manner substantially compatible with the proposed planned unit development. i. Comprehensive plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as residential, therefore the proposal is in compliance with that component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission might make additional findings for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan should it be necessary. ii. Safe routes to school The proposal will be directly north of the new Burton Elementary school and the new High School. There will be the potential for a large number of children to walk or ride bicycles to school. Therefore the applicant should explore safe routes to the schools. This should include ways to cross 1000 South (70' South), which may include off-site improvements. The school district in obtaining a conditional use permit recently was required to commit to partnering with such a developer on helping to pay for costs of such Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 5 improvements. Improvements may include flashing crosswalk lights, striping, ADA ramps, etc. Proposed improvements should receive support by the Madison School District, the Traffic Safety Committee, and the City Engineer, prior to submitting for final plat approval for any phase. The proposed improvement should include improvement details, costs of improvements, agreements between parties for funding, and a timeline for installation of improvements. Bonding for improvements should be required as part of the development agreement the developer will make with the City of Rexburg. The above language has been proposed as a condition of approval. The applicant, in promoting pedestrian connectivity and safety, has provided an easement, or access way in the south east portion of the PUD which is intended to provide a pedestrian connection from the PUD to 1000 South (7'h South). Unfortunately, when overlaying the proposed PUD on an aerial photo this connection appears to interfere with the property to the east and therefore, the applicant should provide more information as to the connection's feasibility during the final master plan/final platting for this phase, which is Phase 1 (see proposed conditions of approval). iii. Smaller lots next to existing larger lots The proposal is surrounded by farm land and single family homes. As a residential use, the proposal will be compatible with existing and developing land uses. However, farm land and residential land does have some inherent incompatibilities generally related to hours of farming and dust. These future homeowners are "coming to the nuisance" and therefore should understand the potential nuisances and are willing to cope with them until such time as adjacent farmland is converted to residential. Most homeowners enjoy the open space feeling that farms provide, so it is a balance. There are large lot homes to the north of this project. With lots being proposed that are around 8000 square feet in size, the Commission should determine if these proposed lots are compatible with the existing large lot single-family homes to the north. There is a canal which currently acts as a buffer between the lots. It is anticipated that as this proposed PUD develops, many of the larger lots in the area may seek to be further subdivided which will ultimately increase compatibility. iv. Road alignments Road alignments should allow for vehicles to easily navigate north to south and east to west without too much meandering or roads. This proposal does not closely adhere to the City's grid system which has been identified as being a critical component to new development. This proposal must adhere to the currently adopted comprehensive plan which does not stress the importance of grid to the same degree. Nevertheless, the proposal does minimize meandering streets and adheres somewhat to an internal grid. If the road identified as 1500 West connects through to the north and neighboring properties cooperate through annexation, subdivision, and development, a north south connection could continue to Highway 33. v. Road connections, "stub -outs" It is apparent that the applicant has been working to establish appropriate road "stub - outs", or connections to adjacent parcels of land to provide maximum interconnectivy of roads and neighborhoods as the City grows and develops. Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 6 As future subdivision of land adjacent to this property will be required to adhere to the City's street grid, it would be wise for the developer to adjust road connections to the west and north to closely adhere to the street grid in this area as identified on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map, if it is adopted. This would be appropriate because this involves later phases of the PUD. This would likely require additional "stub -outs" to the west and to the north (see proposed conditions of approval). Staff recommends a "stub - out" to be established to connect to the west side of Lot 27 of Block 11 (see proposed conditions of approval). Staff also recommends that an additional two "stub -outs" be provided for the west side of the parcel identified as being owned by Mary Ann Beck. One of which should intend to line up with Arctic Willow Drive to the east as Mary Ann's property is developed (see proposed conditions of approval). Staff also recommends an additional "stub -out" be provided to the north side of the parcel that is located generally in the southwestern portion of the PUD (see proposed conditions of approval). Figure 1 below provides a graphic depiction of these potential road connections. Figure 1. Potential Additional Road Connections vi. Traffic impacts A development of this size when completed will have impacts on the existing road infrastructure. As a result of these foreseeable impacts the City has required the applicant to produce a traffic impact study prepared by a transportation engineer. The study has identified potential impacts on surrounding roads and intersections. The study has proposed recommendations for mitigation of these potential impacts. Staff would Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 7 recommend a condition of approval that requires the developer to adhere to all recommendations the traffic impact study has identified. In addition, the development should adhere to all onsite and offsite improvements to streets and roads that the City Engineer may identify as being necessary to mitigate impacts of the proposed development. See proposed conditions of approval. vii. Street lights and exterior lights The applicant has provided information suggesting that decorative lights will be used throughout the PUD which will enhance the ambiance of the development. These lights will need to be Dark Sky Compliant and adhere to the City's lighting ordinance. Therefore, a condition of approval should be that as part of the final master plan/final platting of any phase, proposed lighting, whether they are street lights, park lights, or other, should be shown how they comply with the City's lighting ordinance and are Dark Sky compliant (see proposed conditions of approval). b. The number of years proposed for completion of the development or each phase of the development is reasonable, taking into consideration the possibility of changing land use patterns in or requirements of the city over time. In order to ensure that the development will be compatible with land use patterns in and requirements of the city at the time of approval of a final master plan, the planning commission shall recommend and the Council shall establish an expiration date for the preliminary master plan approval, not sooner than two years after �'PJ approval of the preliminary master plan; may impose conditions requiring that a final master plan or phases thereof be submitted for commission review within a specified period or periods of time, not sooner than one year after approval of the preliminary master plan; or may impose conditions requiring commission and Council re-evaluation of as yet unbuilt portions of the development, for conformity with then -existing city zoning ordinance requirements in relation to then -existing conditions, not sooner than five years after approval of the preliminary master plan, and at such periodic intervals of not less than five years thereafter as the commission and Council deems appropriate to ensure conformity. The applicant proposes that the PUD approval to be in four (4) phases. The applicant has further broken down each phase into construction phases. The applicant has not stated when the phases will be completed. Staff recommends that this proposed preliminary master plan/preliminary plat expire within two years of approval if a final master plan/final plat has not been reviewed and approved by the City within that time. This will require that a complete final master/final plat for phase 1 must be submitted to the City for review and approval within 1.5 years of approval of this preliminary master plan/preliminary plat or the preliminary master plan/preliminary plat will expire. Each additional phase (or remainder of unplatted portions of the proposed preliminary master plan/preliminary plat) should expire within two (2) years of the approval of a previous phase in the order as shown on the proposed preliminary master plan, unless a final master plan/final plat is reviewed and approved by the City. An extension of up to one year per phase may be requested by the applicant. A request for extension must be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to any expiration date. In addition, once a final plat has been approved by the City, it must be recorded with the County within 6 months or it becomes null and void. See proposed conditions of approval. c. Construction of the development can be accomplished in a manner that does not create unreasonable negative impacts on the area surrounding the development or in the city. In order to assure the avoidance or mitigation of negative construction impacts on the area Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 8 surrounding the development or in the city, the planning commission and Council may impose conditions including but not limited to: L Requirements that removal of existing landscaping during construction be limited to areas of the planned unit development to be constructed shortly following removal and to portions of those areas on which construction will occur, ii. Prohibitions of open burning on the site during construction; iii. Restrictions on construction noise, and iv. Restrictions on construction traffic. It is not anticipated that construction of the development will create any unreasonable negative impacts on the surrounding area as the area is generally undeveloped. In addition, most truck traffic will not be required to go through local streets, rather trucks will use 12`h West and 1000 South, both collector streets. The Commission should explore this criterion after pubic testimony and determine if any conditions of approval should be applied. d. The development will not create unreasonable negative impacts on file area surrounding the development or in the city. In order to assure the avoidance or mitigation of negative impacts, the planning commission may require the filing of restrictions in the county deed records including but not limited to restrictions: I. Prohibiting the removal of specified landscaping, and ii. Prohibiting open burning during construction. It is not anticipated that the development itself will create unreasonable impacts on the area surrounding the PUD, therefore this criterion is met. e. Street, water, sewer, drainage and drainage pre-treatment, storm water detention, and other similar facilities in the area surrounding the development and in the city are or will be adequate to provide for the health, safety and welfare for the development's population densities and the type of development proposed, taking into consideration existing and projectedfuture demands on thosefacilities. Street, water, sewer, drainage and drainage pre-treatment, storm water detention, and other facilities are either located in the immediate area or will be extended for use of the site by the applicant. The applicant is intending to connect to all City services. Greater detail regarding all utilities will be required for the submission of a final master plan, and should be sufficient in detail for the city Engineer to determine adequacy and feasibility. The City Engineer will determine if proposed infrastructure is adequate for the proposed PUD as well as future development in the surrounding area. Based on the availability and installation of infrastructure in the vicinity this criterion is met. f. Street, water, sewer, drainage and drainage pre-treatment, storm water detention, and other similar facilities proposed to be constructed as a part of the development are adequate to provide for the health, safety and welfare for the population densities and the type of development proposed. The applicant has submitted preliminary details regarding the above mentioned facilities. Following established City standards for the installation of required infrastructure, the development, internally, will provide all utilities enjoyed by citizens of Rexburg; therefore this criterion is met. A thorough review of proposed utility infrastructure prepared by the applicant's engineers and be reviewed by the City Engineer to determine if they meet minimum City standards. This review will be completed by the City engineer prior to the signing of any final plats for this proposal. Therefore, this criterion is met. Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 9 g. The proposed number of residential units does not exceed the maximum permitted number of residential units; and at least twenty percent of the gross area is dedicated to landscaping. For purposes of computing area dedicated to landscaping, dedicated open space and protected resource areas may be treated as area dedicated to landscaping, but parking areas may not. As was previously determined, the applicant has requested a density 502 dwelling units, which is below the 527 dwelling units that could have been requested; therefore this criterion is met. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission take public testimony and determine if the proposed planned unit development 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 (see below). Also, the Commission may determine that a revised preliminary master plan/preliminary plat needs to be submitted if major/substantive modifications are needed before a determination approval status can be made. Proposed Conditions of Approval General 1. The final master plan/final plat application for each phase shall include all required submittal standards and incorporate all conditions of approval. 2. All recommendations and requirements from the City Engineer shall be adhered to and incorporated in the submittal of each phase's final master plan/final plat. 3. Language shall be clear in the CC&Rs that no approval granted by the HOA or Architectural Committee shall violate City Code (e.g. accessory structures, building heights, fencing, location of building on lot, etc.). 4. The final CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior the recordation of a plat. 5. Requirement of the underlying zoning prevails where no specific requested variation has been considered and granted in this PUD request. 6. The City's clear vision area of 30 -feet shall be observed. These areas shall be clear of all permanent and temporary obstructions. Driveways shall not be included in the clear vision areas as parked vehicles constitute a temporary obstruction. Vegetation and fencing in these areas shall follow City standards. 7. Block 11, Lot 27 shall be allowed to be a created lot in this subdivision of land, but shall not be considered part of this PUD master plan approval. This will require the owner of Block 11, Lot 27 to apply for a separate PUD in the future if he should wish to develop it as a PUD. All requirements of the LDR2 zone or current zone shall apply to lot 27, and no part of this PUD overlay shall apply to this lot. 8. No garages or car ports shall be located within 20 feet of a front property line in order to ensure adequate space for off-street parking (15 -feet is not deep enough for the City's parking standards) and to allow for a streetscape not dominated by garage doors, which is in harmony with planned unit development that seek a more traditional neighborhood ambiance. In addition, this reduced setback shall only be granted to allow for well defined porch areas, not just the fronts of buildings. This would apply to all types of residential uses. Other land uses such as churches, parking lots, etc shall maintain the setbacks as required under the LDR2 zone. Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 10 9. All side yard setbacks shall follow those as defined in the LDR2 zone, rather than the 5 -foot fixed setback as requested. 10. All rear yard setbacks shall follow those as defined in the LDR2 zone, rather the 15 -foot fixed setback as requested. 11. If final platting requires adjustments to lot dimensions, then those changes shall be substantially the same as those found on this preliminary plat. If changes are substantially different than what is found in the preliminary plat proposal then the applicant shall re -submit a preliminary master plan/preliminary plat. 12. The City Engineer may determine that any of the roads may function as collector roads which may need greater right-of-way. The applicant shall discuss this with the City Engineer and any required modifications shall be shown on the final plat. 13. The developer shall explore safe routes to school, specifically the new elementary school and the new high school. Proposed improvements should receive support by the Madison School District, the City's Traffic Safety Committee, and the City Engineer, prior to submitting for final plat approval for any phase. The proposed improvement should include improvement details, costs of improvements, agreements between parties for funding, and a timeline for installation of improvements. Bonding for improvements may be required as part of the development agreement the developer will make with the City of Rexburg, as determined by the City Engineer. 14. The applicant, in promoting pedestrian connectivity and safety, has provided an easement, or access way in the south east portion of the PUD which is intended to provide a pedestrian connection from the PUD to 1000 South (7th South). Unfortunately, when overlaying the proposed PUD on an aerial photo this connection appears to interfere with the property to the east and therefore, the applicant shall provide more information as to the connection's feasibility during the final master plan/final platting for this phase, which is Phase 1. 15. In order for the City to maintain an efficient transportation network in and around the proposed PUD, the applicant shall provide additional road connections to adjacent property and roads consistent with Figure I of this staff report, or as modified by the City Engineer. 16. Traffic Impacts- the development shall incorporate all recommendations found in the provided traffic impact study. In addition, the development shall incorporate to all onsite and offsite improvements to streets and roads that the City Engineer may identify as being necessary to mitigate impacts of the proposed development. Performance Standards 17. Utilities- All new utilities must be placed underground. 18. Water Conservation- The final master plan for each phase shall show, in sufficient detail, how the proposal will incorporate low volume irrigation systems throughout the landscaped areas of the development. 19. Individual lot owners shall be required to incorporate low volume irrigation systems throughout their landscaped areas; this requirement shall be stated in the CC&Rs under Section 4.13. 20. Refuse Bins- Individual trash bins shall be screened form the public right-of-way on days of no trash service in the neighborhood. 21. Future trash receptacles intended for trash service pick-up and that are placed in the common areas such as proposed parks must be screened in a manner that is similar in material and character of the neighborhood. This shall be incorporated in the final CC&Rs. 22. Glare Reduction- The proposal must adhere to the City's lighting standards , details shall be provided with the final master plan/final plat for each phase. Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 11 Common Open Space 23. Required Common Open Space- The applicant shall consider not only proposing an open space/park at 10 acres in size, but shall also work with the City in determining if this area should be a City park. 24. Maintenance- As the common areas are proposed to be private rather than public, the homeowners association shall be responsible for common space maintenance. Until such time as a homeowners association is established, the applicant or owner of record shall be responsible for all maintenance of common areas and all unsold lots. 25. Hardscape- In order to determine hardscape percentages the final landscape plan, submitted with the final master plan, shall provide detailed information on hardscape percentages. 26. Common Activity Areas- areas need to be provided at a ratio of 1000 square feet per single family lot, which amounts to 11.5 acres of common activity area for this PUD. These area need to include playground equipment or pathways with benches and tables through natural or landscaped areas. This requirement shall be shown on the final landscape plan to be submitted with the final master plan/final plat application for each phase. 27. Landscaping Per Unit- The applicant has not addressed this requirement during the preliminary master plan/preliminary plat phase, therefore the final master plans for each phase shall reflect this on landscape plans. In addition, the final CC&Rs shall have the PUD ordinance requirement written into the CC&Rs. The final landscape plan shall to consider solar access as required by the PUD ordinance in the placement of deciduous and evergreen trees. 28. Water Conservation- The final landscape plan shall identify drought tolerant species 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. Master Plan Approval Time Limitations 29. The proposed preliminary master plan/preliminary plat shall expire within two years of approval if a final master plan/final plat has not been reviewed and approved by the City within that time. This requires that a complete final master/final plat for phase 1 be submitted to the City for review and approval within 1.5 years of approval of this preliminary master plan/preliminary plat or the preliminary master plan/preliminary plat will expire. 30. Each additional phase (or remainder of unplatted portions of the proposed preliminary master plan/preliminary plat) shall expire within two (2) years of the approval of a previous phase in the order as shown on the proposed preliminary master plan, unless a final master plan/final plat is reviewed and approved by the City within that time. This will also require the complete application for a final master plan/final plat be submitted to the City within 1.5 years of the previous approval. 31. An extension of up to one year per phase may be requested by the applicant. A request for extension must be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to any expiration date. In addition, once a final plat has been approved by the City, it must be recorded with the County within 6 months or it becomes null and void. Case No. 08 00064 & 08 00316 Page 12