Planning Commission - 03/22/1982 F �
AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, March 22, 1982
7:30 PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath
Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Dennis
Marhula, Robert Hallett, Grant Sutliff
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MARCH 8, 1982 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BRYANT LAKE _CONDOMINIUMS, by Metram Properties Co. Request
for PUD Concept approval on 65 acres for residential attached
units with variances and approval of an Environmental Assess-
ment Worksheet. Located east of I-494 and Beach Road and
south of proposed Crosstown 62. A continued public hearing.
• B. BAYPOINT MANOR APARTMENTS, by G & D Enterprises. Request
for approval of rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 and prelim-
inary plat the property which is part of The Preserve
Planned Unit Development. Included in the public hearing
-on the proposed preliminary plat will be the consideration
of the granting of variances, pursuant to Sec. 11, Ord. 135
from the provisions of said Ordinance applicable to the
RM 2.5 District. Located south of The Preserve tennis courts
and pool , and north of Neill Lake. A continued public hearing.
C. PAX CHRISTI ADDITION, by Pax Christi Catholic Community.
Request for Planned Unit Development approval of multiple
residential , open space, and a church site upon a total .area
of 40 acres, and preliminary plat approval to divide the 40
acres into 3 lots. Located north of Co. Rd. 1, south of
Purgatory Creek, and east of Creekwood and Pleasant Hills
Cemetery. A public hearing.
D. DEER CREEK PUD & 1ST ADDITION REZONING, by Ruscon Homes, Inc.
Request for Planned Unit Development approval of residential
on 26 acres, rezoning of 19 of the 26 acres from Rural to
R1-13.5 for first phase development, construction of 64 single
family detached homes, and preliminary plat approval upon the
entire 26 acres. Included in the public hearing will be the
consideration of the granting of variances pursuant to Sec. 11,
Ord. 135 from the provisions of said ordinance applicable, to
the R1-13.5 District for: lot size, density, lot width, lot
depth, and sideyard setbacks. Located south of Morgan Lane
and Sorrel Way, and east of Mitchell Road. A public hearing.
Agenda-3/22/82 page 2
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
x
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Monday, March 22, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall
MEMBERS-PRESENT:F._ . Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Virginia Gartner, Dennis Marhula, Grant
Sutliff
MEMBERS ABSENT: Hakon Torjesen and Robert Hallett
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Sutliff moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Retterath seconded, motion
carried 5-0.
II. APPROVAL OF MARCH 8, 1982 MINUTES
Retterath moved to approve the March 8, 1982 minutes with the following
additions and/or corrections. Sutliff seconded.
P. 2 2nd para. , last word should be 'replaced caliper per caliper' .
P. 3 2nd para. , '60-70' should be '30-35' .
3rd para. , ddd: The Planner stated that it should be no greater than
25' with cut-off luminars.
P. 4 Disc. , 5th para. , 2nd line, after the word 'final ' add: development
plans, i.e. , site plan and construction plans prior to final plat
approval.
P. 6 2nd para. , Motoin should be Motion.
P. 8, VII B. , 2nd para. , add 'including continued items' .
Motion carried 5-0.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, by Metram Properties Co. Request for
PUD Concept approval on 65 acres for residential attached
units with variances and approval of an Environmental Assess-
ment Worksheet. Located east of I-494 and Beach Road and
south of proposed Crosstown 62. A continued public hearing.
Bearman stated that Mr. Torjesen commented at the last meeting on closing the project
and that the proponent could then resubmit.
Gartner asked if there are any consequences for closing the hearing. The Planner stated
that the project may change to include a Guide Plan change request and then would be
republished.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 22, 1982
Mark Omlee, 6661 Beach Road asked if the residents will be renotified. The Planner
stated that a significant change is expected at the next meeting and that the
Commission would probably continue the item. At that point residents would be re-
notified and it would be republished.
MOTION
Marhula moved to continue Bryant Lake Condominiums to April 26, 1982. Gartner seconded,
motion carried 4-1. Retterath voted no.
B. BAYPOINT MANOR APARTMENTS, by G & D Enterprises. Request
for approval of rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 and prelim-
inary plat the property which is part of The Preserve Planned
Unit Development. Included in the public hearing on the
proposed preliminary plat will be the consideration of the
granting of variances, pursuant to Sec. 11, Ord. 135 from the
provisions of said ordinance applicable to the RM 2.5 District.
Located south of The Preserve tennis courts and pool , and
north of Neill Lake. A continued public hearing.
The Planner stated that there is a revised plan, Larry Peterson submitted a letter
dated 3/22/82 and Steve Ludwig also submitted a letter dated 3/17/82 which they
reviewed: A staff report is also included.
Ludwig, Miller Construction, stated that the smaller building has been eliminated
and one story has been added to the large building to have 152 units. The parking
garage under the building has been extended 5' on either side of the building.
There are 16 detached garages and two-way traffic has been provided under the
building. " Another fire separation wall has been added in the building. The exterior
will be of non-combustible siding. The project is within all City requirements and
the eastern portion of the site where the small building was will remian zoned Rural .
Peterson reviewed his letter dated 3/22/82 and stated that the total number of living
units originally anticipated in The Preserve was 4400 and now it is less than 1900
units. Bearman asked that it be made part of the minutes.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 3/18/82 and gave a brief slide presenta-
tion. He stated the building will be similar to Castle Ridge. The eastern portion
should be retained as Rural and designated as permanent open space. He reviewed
the surrounding uses and stated a 7,000 population is expected throughout the entire
Preserve. The section of Anderson Lakes Parkway where it is only 24' wide will be
improved and stated it will be able to handle the traffic well.
Sutliff asked the overall height of the building, and what the ordinance allows.
The Planner replied the building will be 45' which the ordinance allows.
Bearman was concerned that the landscaping plan did not have trees depicted in the
parking lots. Ludwig stated that there are no existing trees but trees will be
planted. Bearman also expressed concern for the screening of the parking lot from
the lake and stated he would like to see a detailed landscaping plan depicting the
entire site. He also asked where the dumpsters will be located. Ludwig replied
they are depicted on the grading plan and they will be located within the parking
lots and will be screened.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 22, 1982
Bearman asked how close the closest point of the building is to the lake and what
the Shoreland Management Ordinance allows. Ludwig replied 250' . The Planner replied
the Shoreland Management Ordinance allows 150' .
Gartner asked what could be done to stop the developer from coming back and requesting
construction on the eastern portion which will remain Rural . The Planner stated that
the land could be dedicated to the City or the Homeowner's Association and if it would
be permanent open space, it would be stated in the Developer's Agreement.
Marhula asked who would own the eastern portion. Peterson replied the Developer.
Ludwig stated that they would like to decrease the density on that portion of the
site and return in the future for development.
Gartner asked who owns parcel A. Ludwig stated it does not belong to Miller Con-
struction.
Marhula asked if the short road access between parcel A and the development will be
made longer. Peterson stated that it will be an access to another site. The Planner
replied it will end in a cul-de-sac with two private drives entering into it.
Jack Higgins, 8940 Neill Lake Road, was concerned about his views of Neill Lake,
the traffic, and stated that when he purchased his unit he was told by the Preserve
that that area would be a recreational area and submitted a pl.an depicting it.
Bearman asked that it be made part of the minutes.
Alex Banks, 8843 Basswood Road was opposed to multiple in that area.
Pete Beucher, 8982A Neill Lake Road was concerned for the upkeep of the recreation
facilities after renters move in.
Bruce Carlson, 8948 Neill Lake Road felt that placing this project around the rec-
reation area would be too congested, concerned with the site lines, and the Ridgewood
views which will be obstructed. He also asked what will be done with the office and
garage presently used for the office. Ludwig replied that is undetermined at this
point but could be used as an office.
Bearman asked if the house has an interim use permitted on it. The Planner replied
no.
Jim Sager, 8988A Neill Lake Road asked for the location of the recreation facilities
Ludwig pointed the pool , tennis courts, etc. out.
Mr. Dushergan, 8982 Neill Lake Road asked how people will be kept from taking the
recreational facilities over. Bearman replied the Homeowner's Association would
handle that.
Diana Pauling, 10805 Northmark Drive was concerned that the views of Neill Lake
from the recreational facilities will be destroyed.
Wayne Miller, 8982 Neill Lake Road was concerned for the safety of children and
asked why this site was chosen for this type of development. Peterson replied
The Preserve thought it was a good site for it,and it is the last site available
in The Preserve for multiple.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 22, 1982
•
Mrs. Fundingsland, 10765 Northmark Drive was concerned that the back parking lot
for the recreation area will be lost and felt that this parking was needed. She
asked the color of the buildings. Ludwig replied brown.
Karen Morris, 8948 Neill Lake Road felt more parking is needed and felt that cars
will end up parking on Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Bearman asked how many cars can be parked at the recreation area after the site
is developed. Peterson replied 30-35 cars.
Jim Horn, 8940 ;Neill Lake Road asked what the_Planning Commission does. Bearman
explained the Planning Commission's responsibilities.
Horn asked if this plan is consistent with the overall Eden Prairie Guide Plan.
The Planner replied yes.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public haring on Baypoint Manor Apartments. Retterath
seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the Baypoint Manor Apartments
request. Retterath seconded and stated she felt that there is too much density in this
area of The Preserve and that there should not be a large apartment building between
the recreation center and Neill Lake. Gartner said that information presented by
residents showed that there had been misrepresentation of the use of this parcel to
many buyers, by The Preserve, and that this revised plan contemplated even more
units than the first plan seen by the Commission. Motion carried 3-2. Marhula and
Bearman voted no. Bearman asked that the Miller Const. letter dated 3/17/82 and the
Preserve letter dated 3/22/82 and the Preserve Street Address plan be made part of
the minutes.
C. PAX CHRISTI ADDITION, by Pax Christi Catholic Community.
Request for Planned Unit Development approval of multiple
residential , open space, and a church site upon a total
area of 40 acres, and preliminary plat approval to divide
the 40 acres into 3 lots. Located north of Co. Rd. 1,
south of Purgatory Creek, and east of Creekwood and
Pleasant Hills Cemetery. A public hearing.
The Planner introduced Mr. Jim Hill representing Pax Christi Catholic Community.
Hill introduced Pastor Jim Power, Bill Huber and Dick Feerick. He reviewed the
location of the site, there will be 126 condominium units they are asking for a
density transfer and stated that since the proponent is donating park land, they
felt that cash park fee is unreasonable. A rough plan for the condominiums has been
worked out and they will fit on the site.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 3/18/82 and gave a brief slide presen-
tation. Oaks locatdd in the ravine should be retained, a considerable amount of
grading is needed on the knoll , it-is hard to envision 126 condominium units in the
center of the site, and the southern 12.6 acres pare needed for the church. He
stated that a limit could be placed on the condominium parcel . Number 2 of the
staff report 2nd line, after the word 'and' , should read 'remain as permanent open
space. Pax Christi wants to petition for the Homeward Hills Road improvements
needed.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5 March 22, 1982
S Bearman stated that the Guide Plan shows single family residential for this site and
stated that he felt it should be published for a Guide Plan Change. The Planner
stated that the Guide Plan shows low density residential of 2 acres or less and stated
a church can be placed anywhere as long as it is Rural zoned. If the Planning Commis-
sion approved the 126 condominiums, the project would have been published incorrectly.
Sutliff pointed out that if the density transfer of the western portion of lot 2 being
classified as part of Lot 3_, or Out-lot A, the lot line would be changed. The Planner
stated that the maximum change is up to 80 units -and the open space would remain open
space.
Marhula asked if the proponent has been in touch with the Department of Natural Re-
sources. Hill replied no. Marhula stated that there are restrictions as to what
can be done with the wetland.
Gartner stated she felt the church site should not be included in the density transfer.
Bearman expressed concern regarding access, and the lot lines.
Gartner asked if the church would pay taxes on the condominiums. Feerick replied
that the church will sell the central portion of the site to someone who would dev-
elop it and pay the taxes.
Donna Hill , 9559 Woodridge Circle, was concerned with the traffic and stated that
her lot overlooks the wetlands and felt that the widlife would be destroyed that
already exists there. She stated she would rather see single family developed in the
central portion.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to deny the request on Pax Christi Addition. Motion died for lack of
a second.
MOTION 2
Marhula moved to close the public hearing on Pax Christi Addition. Retterath seconded.
DISCUSSION
Sutliff asked if the Church site needs 12 acres or can get by with 8. Paster Power
replied they need the 12 for future expansion.
Bearman asked if the acreage is negotiable because of the grading for the roads.
Hill replied the 12 is needed.
Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 3
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Pax Christi Addition
PUD dated 2/25/82 as per the staff report dated 3/18/82 and the Hennepin County
Transportation letter dated 3/12/82 with the following additions: PUD Concept approval
for the church site with residential uses on the balance of the site; combine Outlot A
and lot 1 so it will be available.for residential in the future according to the Guide
Plan and allowing the density transfer from the Church site onto the residential to
allow up to 78 units. Sutliff seconded and stated that he was concerned with placing
a lot line between lots 1 and 2. Marhula stated that the motion will stand. Motion
carried 3-2. Gartner and Sutliff voted no. Gartner explained her reason was because
she felt the Church site should not be included in the density transfer. Sutliff
stated he voted no because he felt the lot lines should not be drawn at this time.
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 22, 1982
. MOTION 3
Marhula moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat dated 2/25/82 as per
the staff report dated 3/18/82 and the Hennepin County Transportation letter dated
3/12/82 with the same additions as in motion 2. Retterath seconded. Motion failed,
2-3. Sutliff, Gartner and Bearman voted no. Bearman voted no because he did .not
believe lot lines should be drawn prior to detailed site plans.
D. DEER CREEK PUD & 1ST ADDITION REZONING, by Ruscon Homes, Inc.
Request for Planned Unit Development approval of residential
on 26 acres, rezoning of 19 of the 26 acres from Rural to
R1-13.5 for first phase development, construction of 64 single
family detached homes, and preliminary plat approval upon the
entire 26 acres. Included in the public hearing will be the
consideration of the granting of variances pursuant to Sec. 11,
Ord. 135 from the provisions of said ordinance applicable to
the R1-13.5 District for: lot size, density, lot width, lot -
depth, and sideyard setbacks. Located south of Morgan Lane
and Sorrel Way, and east of Mitchell Road. A public hearing.
The Planner stated that he has been working with the Engineering Department and they
came up with a site line problem at the point of access onto Mitchell Road. Na
staff report has been done at this point. Bill Dolan is present to review the
proposal but no action is expected at this point.
Dolan, Koehnlein, Lightowler, Johnson, Ltd. , reviewed the proposal . The-original-
site plan' was approved for four-plexes to be constructed by Orrin-Thompson Homes.
iFirst reading was also given. However, Orrin-Thompson pulled out and now the
property is vacant. The new developer will be Ruscon Homes. The smallest lot
will be 7000 sq. ft. and the Targest will be 26,300 sq. ft. The average width would
be from 55' to 70' . He introduced Marshall Oakes of Ruscon Homes. Grading is needed
for the street which will ultimately end up connecting Old Farm with this development.
The large trees and-some pine trees will remain. There are two ponds on the site
and storm drainage will go to them.
Oakes stated that Ruscon Homes is dealing with the future of single family homes.
He stated that 95% of people cannot afford single family homes these days. These
homes will be standard homes. There are 21 different variations of homes with no
two colors next to eachother. No colors will be beyond 11 shades of earthtones.
The price is no more than townhouses or condominiums.
Bearman stated that with 64 units designated in Deer Creek 1st, an additional 35
units in phase two, and an exception on 26 acres, which would be 3.9 units/acre,
if the exception is added in for housing, the density could end up being close to
5 units/acre. The Planner stated that the Guide Plan designates this property as
medium density residential. It will be small homes on small lots ranging from
the upper 50's to the upper 60's. The price per square foot is the same as a larger
house. The price'is lower because there will be small homes on small lots.
Bearman stated that medium density residential allows clustering and stated that no
totlots are shown. The Planner stated that a sidewalk will run through the site to
the park across the road and stated he felt the plan would work well .
Bearman stated he would rather see clustered housing on this site.
Gartner stated she felt that small homes on small lots_would work well .
Sutliff asked if there are minimums for snow plowing on cul-de-sacs. The Planner
replied yes and stated that that will be worked out with the Engineering Department.
;approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 22, 1982
• Marhula stated he felt that small houses on small lots would work well and asked the
sideyard setbacks. The Planner replied 5 and 10' . Marhula expressed concern regarding
the minimum lot size along the southern boundary along Ridgewood West which are
13,500 and 14,000 sq. ft. lots.
Sutliff asked the number of approved four-plex units in the original plan. The Planner
replied 152 units and stated that the density of this proposal is similar.
Fred Karp, 14192 Westridge Drive stated he was concerned with the lot depth and stated
he would like screening between the homes on the southern boundary and Ridgewood West.
He stated he liked the single family rather than clustered.
Tom Ryan, 8948 Neill Lake Road, felt that the plan was good.
Eric Weeks, 8789 Sycamore Court, stated he was concerned about the number of trees
and asked where the road terminates. Dolan replied Anderson Lakes Parkway. Weeks
stated he likes the small lots and had concerns regarding the small lots on the
Ridgewood West boundary.
Oakes stated that at the next meeting slides will be presented showing the homes.
MOTION
Gartner moved to continue Deer Creek to April 12, 1982 for a staff report. Sutliff
seconded, motion carried 5-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
The Planner reviewed upcoming items.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Street Addresses
orthmark Z
Northmark ,n s"
n22o
g
10750 V
p WAO
11345 Lw[w000 ct�CC■■ � E l�s g -
nb
1 �'A 1) ^ ^wwoRow
945O 7 Not o a yO
�� 1 ,y�ti twind + •b E655 4 Anderson
M
C O
I1 t��ira. a Lakes
3 ` a<7s �� o •' 3� School- Park Site = ± §%
4
>0 A ,°s ,a
a v�I�ybiJ +y � `�c#+fin�'�~.5 +
?.t ` �?i� Oiq^ �11•y asVw : E721 ww ° 9161
� �1 �q
1 • ��' $ Church Fares : �$130
eb+ Site -
1 VAndsiope f o Basswoods boo°
1 Aparfinertts &Cluster is 1�s Condom 1^I s S Basswoods tL +'so a43
o• HHomes ■ +EMTWo°fir N
1 PI 0 d
1
East
West
park Basswoods
1 T_." �a�y o Townhouses 9
e.u.0
TM Ir
EN Pu_
1
1 O tiM E
I � � Anders)
1 nfa
1 ■s�10 r.�u. ,,,., c Lakes
ONdoar Rirg
Ridgewood• IOEE�o �, 1oeo9 if'
1
lyl.+F1.Y CorKiorrli
Neill Lake —
�< -
o�
9011
sp
IV 10 ,
902
goSk
t �n
9w'o ti� o 9Wt •�y o
Highpoi t1 ° ems,
A $ a
9117
9101 911
0
a, 90" City Pa
St
Q 9111 N i 9115
911E 11 xx
9113 z 9125 o�0 E.
'�
e
The Preserve The Trails Townhouses •.
8920 Franlo Road
Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55343 o
MILLER COMPANIES,INC.
3335 WEST ST.GERMAIN
P.O.BOX 1228
• ST.CLOUD,MINNESOTA 56301
612 251-4109
March 17,, 1982
Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie ■
Eden Prairie, NN 55343 ,
.RE: Baypoint Manor
Dear Planning Commission:
This letter is a response to several of the items presented
as concerns at the public hearing for the above referenced
project.
1. In regard to the adequacy of parking for our structures
the site plan provided for a total of 2.1 stalls per
• unit exceeding the ordinances 2/unit requirement.
2. Some parking used by the community center is being
removed. This was discussed with the executive
board of the Preserve Homeowner Association. They
have options of providing additional parking should
it be required. However parking requirements should
decrease with the completion of our project because
with the income from these additional units to the
association it will not be required to sell member-
ships to individuals outside the Preserve as the
association does now.
3. The Physical Plan of the Preserve including sewer,
water, roads, tennis courts, and pool were designed
for a planned 4400 living units. The ultimate
quantity will be 2200 units.
4. The plan for the Preserve has the highest density
housing near the community center and adjacent to
Andersen Lakes Parkway in order to limit congestion
and vehicle travel within the Preserve. Our plan is
consistent with this original concept.
5. Provisions for Tot lots was discussed with the executive
board of the Preserve Homeowners Association and they
recommended against them. We would be happy to install
them if the city so desires.
6. All roads within our development are 241 wide to provide
for safe travel. The entry road on the eastern part of
our site is so configured to protect existing trees.
• Planning Commission
March 17, 1982
Page 2
Due to the difference in elevation between the road
and the adjacent condominiums and our planned landscape
the impact should be minimal to the condominiums.
7. Trash dumpsters are intended to be screened. This
in conjunction with their isolation by the hill
from toe Ridgewood Condominiums should make them
quite unobtrusive.
8. The parking garage will be ventilated at several
points along the south side of the building.
9. Our buildings exceed; code requirements for handicapped
design, in fact, other living units and motel facilities
we have constructed receive_ positive coments. from
handicapped occupants.
10. Elevators are to be provided.
11. We are maintaining as many of the existing mature trees
as we can. A list of large trees saved and removed
is attached. We have been successful in the past in
preserving existing trees on our construction projects.
12. The baked enamel siding on the end walls of the
building is durable and attractive material. It
is more expensive than wood and was selected for it's
architectural contract with the other materials
on the building and durability.
Sincerely,
MILLER COMPANIES INC.
Steven Ludwig
Architect
• The reserve
March 22, 1982
Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Baypoint Manor
Dear Planning Commission Members:
The other day I received a copy of a letter dated March 17, 1982 from Miller
Construction Co. to yourselves, regarding questions raised by residents and
planning commission members at. your meeting on March 15, 1982. The purpose
of this letter is to add my thoughts and respond to some of the concerns as
best I can.
1. A question about traffic on Anderson Lakes Parkway is certainly
justified. but as the developer we feel that potential problem
will be resolved by the city and its residents when they decide if
the Parkway should be expanded to 4 lanais on land that has already
been dedicated to the city.
2. One of the planning commission members wanted to see the original
Preserve Concept that was approved. I will have that with me for
the meeting on March 22.
3. Another question had to do with the original Ridgewood plan and
Preserve Condo phase 3 plan. Those I will also bring to the
meeting on March 22.
4. Questions regarding the recreational facilities being able to
handle the increased number of residents is certainly very valid
and I will attempt here to satisfy those concerns. First of all,
as mentioned before, The Preserve community was planned to have
up to 4,400 living units when completed. It will instead have
less than 2,000 units. The recreational facilities built and paid
for by the developer were intended to be supplemented by city park
facilities built on land dedicated to the city. This has been
accomplished in the Nesbitt Park area to the north. A very im-
portant concern not brought up at the meeting has to be the cost
of supporting The Preserve Homeowners Association facilities once
the developer is out of the picture. For the past 8 - 10 years
the developer has had to subsidize those expenses because the H.O.A.
dues could not cover them. This we have done willingly because we
had agreed to that in the beginning. In meeting with the H.O.A.
•
11111 Anderson Lakes Parkway, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 • (612) 941-2001
tiH
City of Eden Prairie Planning Commssion Page two
executive committee, and reviewing the budget for 1982, it appears
as though their income will cover their expenses. Included in
their income forecast however is $5,000.00 from selling outside
memberships. In addition to that revenue, they of course get-Ithe
traffic that goes with it. To sum this up, before this letter
gets any longer, we the developer, and the executive committee
of the H.O.A. feel the addition of more living units in The Preserve
area will not overload the facilities, but is in fact necessary to
produce the -revenue necessary to support the facilities now and in
the future when the relatively new equipment will need major repairs
or replacement.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and having the interest to
help us in completing The Preserve Development.
Sincerely,
THE PRESERVE OF EDEN PRAIRIE, INC.
I �zG
Lawrence R. Peterson
Vice President and General Manager
• LRP/jb
cc: Chris Enger, City Planner
Mike Wilwerding, President H.O.A.