|
Review the Final PUD Plan
for the Cornerstone Addition- First Phase of the Decker/Kiser PUD.
Clark Nelson asked Les Mangus for an explanation of this plan. Les said this is the first final from the 505 acre
Decker/Kiser PUD. All of the zoning is in place as well as the conceptual
street layouts. The owner wants to change some of the zoning on a portion of 2
of the parcels.
Greg Allison said he
represents the owner of the easterly portion of the PUD. Greg said the name
of the Plat needs to remain Decker/Kiser from the original PUD. There was
general discussion about ownership of the areas of the PUD.
Greg said 2 of the parcels
were previously zoned B-2 and B-3and that the new land plan is in substantial
conformance with the approved Preliminary PUD. Parcels 3, 4, & 14
boundaries will change some. The application submitted for the next Planning
Commission meeting is for residential zoning to be extended down into the
commercial parcels.
Les said this Final PUD
encompasses all of 1 parcel which is proposed to be amended and part of
another which is already properly zoned. Greg said that at the Planning
Commission meeting they will ask to amend the PUD and approve the Final Plat.
Greg said the streets in the
Final PUD will match up to the original PUD streets alignments at the
half-mile line.
Clark asked if there are any
existing houses on this property. Greg said this is vacant land. There was
further discussion about the exact location of this Final PUD. Les said when
the Planning Commission reviews this zoning change, they will be amending the
entire original PUD.
Clark
Nelson referred to the memo from Les Mangus to the Subdivision Committee “This
Final PUD is linked with public hearing on the amendment of the Decker/Kiser
PUD scheduled for the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. The
proposed amendment changes the zoning of portions of two commercial parcels
to R-2 Single Family Residential District and changes the residential layout
of all of the residential parcels east of the half section line. The net
affect of the proposed change is slightly more developed land with a slightly
lower density through the elimination of some of the multi-family uses. The
final PUD reflects the development of a portion of the existing R-2 Parcel
14, and a portion of Parcel 4, which is proposed to be rezoned from B-1
Office Business District to R-2 Single Family Residential District. This 1st
phase of development is a little different from the Preliminary PUD, which
conceptually routed a collector street through the residential neighborhoods
without lots which front on the collector street, although the net densities
are similar. There are a few items to be addressed from the checklist, but
nothing of great consequence, mostly format issues.” Les said these owners
don’t intend to make full use of the parcel that is zoned R-3 Multi-Family.
Les said that when this plan was originally presented and approved, the
collector streets did not have houses that fronted onto them. On the Decker
side, they are proposing houses fronted to the street along all collector
streets.
Jeff
Bridges asked if there would be 8’
sidewalks in this Final PUD. Greg said he understands Andover has an 8’
sidewalk policy for collector streets and it will be complied to. Les said
they intentionally have some very deep lots along the collector streets to
allow for the wider sidewalks.
There
was general discussion about street names.
Jeff
asked where the 8’ sidewalks would be run. Les said the general provisions
state “Sidewalks are proposed along the collector streets and the loop roads
within each parcel. The width of the sidewalk on the collector streets shall
be 8 feet and the width on local loop streets shall be 5 feet. The exact location
will be determined at the time of the Final PUD plan submitted for each
parcel”.
Jeff
asked if Parcel 3 of 5.7 acres of B-3 zoning is still in the plan. Greg said
yes it is part of the zoning amendment request for next week. Les said they
will be platting portions of 3 parcels, and the stub of Cornerstone Parkway
that intersects with 21st Street.
Jan
Cox asked for information about the right-of-way dimensions along the
collector streets. She said the regulations require a 66’ right-of-way for a collector
street in a residential area, and 70’ for commercial area. Greg said if there
are lots that front onto the collector street, it must be wider. Les said
that on the Preliminary PUD, there was no driveway access onto the
collectors, they were allowed to narrow the right-of-way down to 60’. There
was further discussion about the width of the streets on the final vs.
preliminary PUDs.
Les
said the street is 100’ wide on Cornerstone Parkway from 21st
Street through the commercial area, then narrows to 64’ when it enters the
residential area at Cantera. PUD’s do allow for the standards to be varied. Les
said 60’ was allowed when there are no houses adjacent to it and there are
parallel reserves.
Jan
asked if there is a 66’ right-of-way, how wide the street would be. Les said
it would be 37’. Clark asked if the street right-of-way width was increased,
would it be taken from Reserve A. Jeff asked if parking would be allowed
along the street. There was discussion about “No Parking” signage and
enforcement.
There
was discussion about switching the street widths of Cantera Drive and Cornerstone Parkway on the Final PUD. Clark suggested widening Cornerstone from 64’ to 66’
and allow the reduction of Cantera Drive north of Amberly from 66’ to 64’
because it is by definition a through residential.
Les
said that “No Parking” signage is typically only used on arterial streets.
Clark asked Les if all the comments have been addressed.
Les said there is still some text revisions needed. Greg said this project is
difficult because the parcel boundaries do not match lot line layouts.
There
was discussion about the number of parcels and the proposed plan for development.
Clark
Nelson asked if a drainage plan has been submitted. Greg said it was
submitted today, but Les said he has not seen it yet.
Jan
Cox asked if this property is in a flood plain. Greg said none of the area in
the Final PUD submitted tonight is, but the parcel adjacent to the east is.
This area has localized drainage on the southwest corner of this PUD. Les
said measures would be taken to bring the grade to accommodate a 25 year
storm and that regulations state there will be no increase in the rate of
flow which typically means that at a 100 year storm there will be a similar
benefit.
There
was discussion about drainage and flood plains. Greg said this PUD will be
designed to the 100 year storm event. Les said the 100 year storm is 6.7” per
hour and a 25 year storm is 1” per hour. Les referred to the Street Policy
and said projects need to be designed around the 100 year storm because all
the water has to stay within the street right-of-way, and on the arterial
streets the water cannot over top the street, it must leave 2 moving lanes in
the center.
Jan
Cox asked if comment C.15 minimum building elevations proposed has been
addressed. Les said he has not received the drainage plan yet to review.
Clark said the question remains about the street widths
of Cantera Drive and Cornerstone Parkway. Jan and Ron said they prefer the
streets be 66’ wide. Les said he agrees because of the amount of traffic
generated by the surrounding parcels.
Ron Roberts made a motion
to recommend approval to the Planning Commission for the Final PUD Plan for
the Cornerstone Addition First Phase with Cornerstone Parkway north of Parcel
3 would be 66’ wide, Cantera Drive north of Amberly Street would be reduced
to 64’right-of-way.The balance of Cantera Drive from Amberly to Cornerstone
Parkway would be 66’right-of-way. This motion is subject to staff comments,
specifically the drainage plan, hydrology, and minimum pad elevations,
subject to the approval of the zoning change. Jan Cox seconded the motion.
Motion carried 3/0.
|