Planning commission backs Vista Ridge PUD despite neighbor objections over setbacks and density

The Andover Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Vista Ridge preliminary planned-unit development and approved the final PUD and plat for the subdivision, after hearing more than an hour of public comment from neighboring Crescent Lakes residents concerned about lot size, side-yard reductions and landscaping buffers.

The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the governing body for consideration at its March 11, 2025, meeting. Staff and the applicants were directed to provide written materials in the record; property owners who were notified have until 4:30 p.m. on March 4, 2025, to file protest petitions to place the matter before the city council under protest rules.

The PUD covers a newly annexed parcel north of Central Avenue adjacent to Crescent Lakes. City staff and the subdivision committee told the commission public utilities and streets are available or can be extended and that stormwater adjustments tied to the Yorktown Parkway project resolve earlier drainage questions. Brian Lindaback, MKEC Engineering, the applicant’s agent, said the developer intends to build the subdivision in a single phase and that drainage will convey to an existing south channel rather than detaining on the site.

Neighbors pressed several issues at the public hearing. Lisa Land, a Crescent Lakes resident, said the PUD calls for “patio home” development while promising compatibility with adjoining residential uses, but that the lots shown in the PUD are materially smaller than many Crescent Lakes parcels and that proposed 65 percent lot-coverage allowances are far greater than the 35 percent standard in the subdivision regulations. “We have many lots a third of an acre; this would be two-thirds the size of our lots,” Land said.

Another neighbor, Lyle Beatty, asked about a reduction in side setbacks to 6 feet where the typical setback is 8 feet. “Personally I’d object to the reduction,” Beatty said, listing privacy, noise and emergency access among his concerns. Brian Lindaback said the PUD calls for minimum lots of about 9,700 square feet (the PUD language lists 9,750 as the smallest permitted lot) and that patio homes in other local developments are not the same product as small-lot patio homes elsewhere — these are single-family homes with shared maintenance covenants in some units and with minimums set in developer covenants.

Lindaback and staff said Reserve D in the plat is shown for open space and neighborhood amenities, including possible swimming pool, pool house, playgrounds, sport courts and gardens, and that Reserve A and C will provide landscaping buffers; he said the intention is not to remove the existing hedgerow that forms the boundary with Crescent Lakes except where utilities require limited clearing.

City staff told the commission that engineers and the city engineer reviewed the revised drainage study and approved it. Staff also said the PUD conforms generally to the city’s comprehensive plan calling for a “traditional neighborhood” place type and that increased housing options are consistent with local demand. The subdivision committee recommended approval after the applicant addressed drainage and other minor changes.

After public comment the commission deliberated the required 14 findings. Commissioner Gary Israel moved to recommend approval of Z‑PUD25‑0003 citing findings related to changed area conditions (the Yorktown Parkway project), compatibility with adjacent SF‑2 zoning, and comprehensive-plan consistency; Commissioner Dave Foley seconded. The motion passed with all present voting aye.

Commissioners later considered and approved the final PUD and plat (Vista Ridge First Edition final PUD) by separate motions; those approvals also were unanimous. The final plat includes the lot-and-block configuration, dedications of rights-of-way and the reserve descriptions that list potential amenities.

Residents were repeatedly told that land-use approvals set zoning and platting but do not prescribe house elevations, materials or covenant specifics; those details typically are set by the developer’s covenants and building permits. Several residents asked whether the developer must return with covenant language or house plans; staff clarified the commission’s authority is limited to land use and final plat approvals, and building design and covenants would be private documents enforced through homeowners associations and the building-permit process.

The cases will be forwarded to the governing body for final action on March 11, 2025. Any properly signed protest petition submitted by owners of record representing 20% or more of property owners in the area of notification would require a three-fourths council vote for passage.