Planning Commission - 06/14/1982 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, June 14, 1982
7:30 PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Hakon Torjesen, Dennis Marhula, Grant
Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Hilgers, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MAY 19, 1982 MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MAY 24, 1982 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP, by Undestad Investment Company.
Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept approval
for industrial uses on 32 acres (27 acres of which is
zoned I-2) , rezoning from Rural to I-2 for approximately
5 acres, preliminary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots,
0 possible variances from the I-2 District, and approval of
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of Co. Rd. 67 and
the Chicago Northwestern Railway. A continued public hearing.
B. RIDGEWOOD WEST TWO PUD & DEVELOPMENT, by Centex Homes
Midwest, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan change
from low to medium density residential for 63.5 acres ,
Planned Unit Development approval for 168 detached cluster
single family and 168 condominium units, first phase dev-
elopment of 17 acres for 57 single family detached units ,
preliminary plat approval , variances from the R1-13.5
District, and approval of an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet. Located north and south of Cumberland Road,
east of Sycamore Court. A public hearing.
C. BRYANT LAKE CENTER 2ND ADDITION, by Ryan Development, Inc.
Request to amend PUD 80-12 and replat Bryant Lake Center
from 14 building lots to 13 lots, vacation of easements,
variances from the Office District for setback and parking
ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 GFA. Located west of Market
Place Drive. A public hearing.
D. GUSTAFSON REZONING, by Paul R. Gustafson. Request to rezone
.385 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for construction of 1 single
family home. Located across from 9635 and 9629 Bennett Place.
A public meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VTTT An,1n1RNMFNT
As y
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
.approved
Monday, June 14, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Liz Retterath, Hakon
Torjesen, Virginia Garnter, Grant Sutliff,
Robert Hallett
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman and Dennis Marhula
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Hilgers, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Planner stated that he had received a request from the proponents
for Eden Prairie Partnership (item A) to appear later in the meeting.
So therefore, switch item A with item B.
Torjesen moved to approve the agenda as amended. Gartner seconded,
motion carried 5-0.
II. APPROVAL OF MAY 19, 1982 MINUTES
Sutliff moved to approve the May 19, 1982 minutes -changing John to
Tom on page 2, paragraph 12. Gartner seconded, motion carried 4-0-1.
Retterath abstained.
APPROVAL OF MAY 24, 1982 MINUTES
Sutliff moved to approve the May 24, 1982 minutes with the following
corrections:
P. 1, item II, P. 7 asked if should be 'stated that' and could should
be 'should' .
P. 3, 12th para. , last line, end sentence at the word open.
Gartner seconded, motion carried 4-0-1. Retterath abstained.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
Torjesen asked if the road for City West has been given a permit. The
Planner replied yes, for the grading. He stated that there are some
changes in the site plan which will be brought before the Planning Com-
mission.
Torjesen asked if.the City will issue any more permits prior to their
return. The Planner replied no.
y !approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 14, 1982
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. RIDGEWOOD WEST TWO PUD & DEVELOPMENT, by Centex Homes
Midwest, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
change from low to medium density residential for 63.5
acres, Planned Unit Development approval for 168 detached
cluster single family and 168 condominium units, first
phase development of 17 acres for 57 single family
detached units, preliminary plat approval , variances
from the R1-13.5 District, and approval of an Environ-
mental Assessment Worksheet. Located north and south
of Cumberland Road, east of Sycamore Court. A public
hearing.
The Planner stated that Tim Eller representing Centex Homes Midwest, Inc. , Dick
Krier, Westwood Planning and Engineering, and Tom Boise were present.
Eller, President of Centex, stated that in 1978 they received approval for 176
single family homes at 2 units/acre on a 13,500 sq. ft. lot size. Forty-five
of the lots were sold. There are nine existing houses. The balance of the site
has been graded. They want to provide housing in the $60,000 and $70,000 ranges.
He stated that they had contemplated quadraminiums and duplexes, but felt that
manor homes would be the best use. They divided the single family lots into
two lots and reduced the house size to 900 sq. ft. to 1300 sq. ft. The -
house would then fit onto the lot. He stated that they held three meetings
• with the homeowners of Ridgewood West and tried to work out as many of the details
as possible. He reviewed the location and gave a slide presentation. He in-
troduced Dick Krier.
Krier stated that this is a four phase project. The first phase single family
is to be developed as originally planned. Phase two consists of two basic
designs; the original single family lots and the small homes now being proposed.
The third phase will be the cluster housing. Phase four is to be condominiums
which will be located in the northeast quarter of the site. Phase one consists
of 16 single family homes (originally proposed) and 41 cluster homes; phase two
consists of 30 single family homes and 52 cluster homes; phase three consists of
17 single family homes and 12 cluster homes; phase four consists of 168 condo-
minium units. The total site area is 63.7 acres. Total density is 5.39 units/
acre. Phase one is at 3.37 units/acre. Street access is from Mitchell Road.
Anderson Lakes Parkway will provide a primary access to the east. A secondary
access will be off of Shilo Court. The condominiums will be served with a private
road system. The utilities go down Hawthorne and meet the interceptor system.
Storm water will run to the lake and to Purgatory Creek. The driveway for the
cluster homes will be 16' long and will be owned and maintained by the homeowner's
association. There will be double car parking and 20' stacking area. There is
adequate room for adding on to the single car garages to make them double car
garages if desired. A private sidewalk would be put in and privacy fences will
be put in before the homes are sold.
Eller showed site lines and examples of homes for the site. The condominium
buildings will be eight, twelve, and sixteen unit buildings.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 6/10/82.
x
= approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 14, 1982
•
Gartner asked if there is any project existing in the City where there is the same
amount of snow removal needed in the Winter months, and asked if the homeowner's
association will clear the entire driveways. The Planner replied The Preserve.
Eller replied that driveway snow removal has not been decided yet and stated that
they will have to get together with an attorney.
Sutliff asked if there will be one homeowner's association for each phase. Eller
replied there will be one for the cluster homes and single family, one for
the condominiums, and one for a general umbrella association.
Torjesen asked where Cumberland Road ends. The Planner replied at Mitchell Road.
Torjesen asked the amount of development that could occur before Cumberland Road
would connect to Anderson Lakes Parkway. Eller replied that he sees no problems
with phases one through three, and expects Anderson Lakes Parkway to be needed
for phase four.
Torjesen expressed his concern that once the interest rate drops, the construction
will be done all at once, and Anderson Lakes Parkway will not be completed. He
felt it necessary to have Anderson Lakes Parkway constructed.
Retterath stated she felt that Anderson Lakes Parkway is needed.
Torjesen asked if the developer and the City can make a committment for construction
of Anderson Lakes Parkway. The Planner replied that the developer has no control
over the Parkway, but stated that they are proceeding with a petition to get con-
struction underway.
Sutliff stated that he would like to see an overall location map to see all sur-
rounding uses.
Torjesen asked if this is manufactured housing. Eller replied no.
Torjesen asked the average size for the clustered lots. Krier replied 6,300 so, ft-.
Torjesen stated he had concerns regarding the necessary variances.
Sutliff asked if the proponent is requesting rezoning. The Planner replied no,
they are asking for variances from the R1-13.5 District for first phase construction.
Arthur Weaks, 8789 Sycamore Court, stated he had talked with Mr. Eller and felt
that this plan is as close to the originally approved plan as the proponent can
get and stated he likes it. He submitted minutes of 4/29 and 4/15 and asked that
they be made part of the minutes.
Torjesen stated he felt it was a good plan, however, expressed concern regarding
access.
MOTION 1
Torjesen moved to close the public hearing. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 14, 11982
MOTION 2
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive
Guide Plan change from low to medium density residential for 63.5 acres as per
the plans dated May 1982 concurrent that Anderson Lakes Parkway be completed.
Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
The Planner stated that he felt that conditioning approval of the project upon
completion of Anderson Lakes Parkway is too strict because the developer has no
control over Anderson Lakes Parkway. Torjesen stated he felt that the need for
completion of Anderson Lakes Parkway could be handled in a separate motion. It
is the City's responsibility to complete Anderson Lakes Parkway.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION 2
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Guide
Plan change from low to medium density residential for 63.5 acres as per the plans
dated May 1982 contingent upon Anderson Lakes Parkway being built at this time.
Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
The Planner suggested the City plan to construct Anderson Lakes Parkway within the
next two (2) years.
Torjesen stated that the Guide Plan change can be approved but he felt that the
two year time limit should not be placed in the motion.
Sutliff stated he felt that this is the wrong place for placing Anderson Lakes
Parkway contingencies on the project. Torjesen agredd and withdrew his motion.
VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION 2
Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 3
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Dev-
elopment for 168 detached cluster single family and 168 condominium units as per
the plans dated May 1982 and the staff report dated 6/10/82 and contingent upon
the City being able to assure that Anderson Lakes Parkway will be built within
two (2) years. Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
Hallett asked if Torjesen meant that if the City does not have Anderson Lakes
Parkway built in the next two years this project could end. Torjesen replied
no, then the City would have to delay the project.
The Planner stated that a strong recommendation made to the City Council
regarding construction of Anderson Lakes Parkway would be good. He asked if
the developer could develop one, two, three, or four phases without the City's
construction of Anderson Lakes Parkway. Hallett stated that he would like
phase one to be built without the restriction and stated he would like to urge
the City to construct Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Krier stated that the existing approval allows for construction of 131 single family
lots without Anderson Lakes Parkway.
h
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 14, 1982
Eller stated that he felt that if the urgency is not apparent, Anderson Lakes Parkway
will not be built.
Sutliff asked if phase one and phase two can be placed in the motion so that the
City does not have to go to spot zoning.
Torjesen stated he liked Krier's suggestion.
The Planner stated that phase one and phase two added together come to a total of 139.
AMENDMENT
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Develop-
ment provided that only phase one and phase two will be approved prior. to Anderson
Lakes Parkway being available or some other exit be available for Cumberland Road on
the east side as per the staff report;;dated 6/10/82 and the plans dated May 1982.
Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 4
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated
May 26, 1982 for first phase development of 17 acres for 57 single family units as
per the plans and the staff report dated 6/10/82. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 5
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the variances from
the R1-13.5 District as per the plans dated May 26, 1982 and the staff report
dated 6/10/82. Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
Sutliff stated he felt that 5' , 5' , and 5' is too close between two living
spaces.
Motion carried 4-1. Sutliff voted no.
MOTION 6
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council Finding of No Significant Impact
on the EAW. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-1 _ Gartner 'abs tai_tTed because
she did not have an EAW in her packet.
B. EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP, by Undestad Investment Company.
Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept approval
for industrial uses on 32 acres (27 acres of wihch is
zoned I-2) , rezoning from Rural to I-2 for approximately
5 acres, preliminary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots,
possible variances from the I-2 District, and approval of
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of Co. Rd. 67 and
the Chicago Northwestern Railway. A continued public hearing.
The Planner stated that this item had been continued from the May 19, 1982 meeting.
Revised plans have been submitted. He stated it is questionable if residential
will work as a transition. Staff has looked at accommodating a residential
through street in the site and stated it can be done with medians. The amount"of peak hour traffic will not be high, even if Edenvale develops, to 1200 units.
Birch Island Road will someday be upgraded. The street will be similar to a resid-
ential through street. He stated that John Shardlow and Geoff Martin were present.
He reviewed the staff report dated 6/11/82.
;approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 14, 1982
0 Shardlow felt that the most important issue to discuss would be whether Eden
Prairie wants the collector road going through the site or not. He stated that
no extension of Canterbury Lane is Proposed. He reviewed the site lines and
the berms. He stated that if the Planning Commission did not feel they could
take action tonight, the proponent requests that the item be tabled at least
two weeks.
Hallett asked if there is a planned use for Outlot C. Shardlow replied no.
Sutliff felt that the proposed use of the land south of the collector road would
be spot zoning.
Retterath asked the. zoning-of Outlot C. Shardlow replied that everything that is
being requested _for_ development
Hallett stated he was concerned with the 50' setback on the side of the site.
Retterath asked if the proponent could build now with the exception of the southern
5 acres. The Planner replied that they would need platting.
Hallett asked if trees are being removed to construct the building. The Planner
replied that approximately 50' wide! of trees are being removed.
Woodrow Bjork, 14302 Stratford Road, stated he did not want the collector road
to go through.
it Dick -Sather, 6511 Manchester Lane, stated he did not want the collector road
to go through and that he did not want Manchester Lane made into a through road.
Roger Sandvick, 14280 Stratford Road, stated he was uncomfortable looking at the
building.
Robert Hoel , 6510 Manchester Lane, was also opposed to the collector road.
Wayne Gilbertson, 6580 Leesborough Avenue, was also opposed to the collector road.
Hallett stated he felt that there would be advantages to have the collector road
and felt that Canterbury Lane should not go through. He was pleased with the 250'
buffering zone for the homes on Stratford. '
Ciecyll--Wyman, 6560 Leesborough Avenue, stated he wanted more buffer area added.
Sandvick stated he would like to see a different use on the southern five acres
such as office. Shardlow stated that from a planning standpoint, office will
have windows looking back at Sandvick's property. The wall towards the resid-
ential is planned to be landscaped very extensively and will be built specially
for transition with the homes.
Sandvick stated he was concerned with the traffic noise. The Planner replied
that the site will generate approximately 200 average daily trips.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing. Hallett seconded, motion carried 4-1.
'miff voted no. �-'"
� T
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 14, 1982
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD as per the
Proposed Development Plan dated 5/13/82 and modifications as listed in the 6/11/82
staff report without the collector road and eliminating numbers 4 and 6 of the
staff report. Torjesen seconded, motion failed, 1-4. Gartner voted aye.
MOTION 3
Gartner moved to reopen the public hearing. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 4
Gartner moved to return the plan to the developer for modifications to be made
prior to returning the proposal at the July 19, 1982 meeting. Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
Torjesen stated that the developer should be given direction as to what changes to
make.
Shardlow asked that the Commission be polled to find out reasons for the failing
vote on Motion 2.
Hallett stated he supported staff recommendation on the collector road and would
like to see a 75' setback of the industrial to the west of the residential area.
Sutliff stated he felt that the collector road should go through because Eden
Prairie should not develop in isolated pieces. He stated the road would serve as
an east/west road from Baker Road to Valley View Road.
Gartner stated she 'did not feel the collector road was necessary.
Torjesen stated that he was not pursuaded that, the collector road was necessary.
Retterath felt collector roads are necessary. Public Safety needs access and
felt that there are too many unanswered questions for this project.
Sutliff stated that if a road connection was made, the land to the south of the
road should be residential .
Hallett asked if The Planner could have other information regarding railroad
crossings, collector roads, etc. ready for the Commission at the July 12, 1982
meeting. The Planner replied yes.
MOTION 5
Torjesen moved to return the project to the developer with direction to modify
the plans without the collector road going east. Hallett seconded.
DISCUSSION
Hallett asked that a 75' setback be provided between the two residences and the
developer's to work with the neighborhood be added. Torjesen replied ok.
Gartner stated that if agreeable, why not approve the plan with the 75' setback.
tonight. Torjesen withdrew his motion.
MOTION 6
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD as per the
Proposed Development Plan dated 5/13/82 and modifications as listed without the
collector road, deleting numbers 4 and 6 of the staff report, and adding the 75'
setback. Gartner seconded, motion carried 3-2. Sutliff. and Retterath voted no.
approved
Planning Commission -Minutes -8- June 14, 1982
MOTION 7
Gartner moved to return the preliminary plat to the developer for modification
prior to zoning as per the staff report dated 6/11/82 as amended by motion 6, and
continue the item to the July 12, 1982 meeting. Hallett seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 8
Gartner moved to return the zoning request to the developer for modification as
per the staff report dated 6/11/82 as amended by-motion 6, and continue the item
to the July 12, 1982 meeting. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
C. BRYANT LAKE CENTER 2ND ADDITION, by Ryan Development, Inc.
Request to amend PUD 80-12 and replat Bryant Lake Center
from 14 building lots to 13 lots, vacation of easements ,
variances from the Office District for setback and parking
ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 GFA. Located west of Market
Place Drive. A public hearing.
The Planner stated that Bob Ryan was present to give the presentation. He
stated the request is to consolidate 14 buildings to 13 buildings with less
parking; 4 spaces/1000 GFA.
Sutliff asked if the buildings would be owner-occupied under a covenant. Ryan
replied yes, it is an office/townhouse type of building.
Hallett asked if there is adequate room for expansion of parking if needed.
The Planner replied yes.
Hallett asked who decides if more parking is needed. The Planner replied the City.
4
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Bryant Lake Center
replat as per the plans dated 5/20/82, letters dated 5/24/82 and the 6/9/82 staff
report. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
D. GUSTAFSON REZONING, by Paul R. Gustafson. Request to
rezone .385 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for construction
of 1 single family home. Located across from 9635 and
9629 Bennett Place. A public meeting.
The Planner stated that Paul Gustafson was present for any questions. He also
stated that Gustafson wants to built his own home on the property. Staff finds
that the proposal will be consistent with all City Ordinances and regulations.
MOTION
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from
Rural to R1-13.5 as per the survey dated 5/12/82 and the staff report dated
6/7/82. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 5-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
t
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 14, 1982
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
The Planner reviewed upcoming items.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Gartner moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:25 AM. Torjesen seconded, motion
carried 5-0.
i
t
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1982__
Participants: Tim Eller, Tom Boyce of Centex Homes Midwest; Dick Krier of
Westwood Planning and Engineering; Residents of Ridgewood West.
1 . Mr. Eller opened the discussion by stating that Centex would build models at
the West Parcel sometime in the spring of 1983 even if interest rates stayed
at their current level. Centex would develop the West Parcel with homes of
the same market value as originally planned. He indicated that a location
for models or number of models has not been determined.
2. No corrections or additions were offered by representatives of Centex or the
residents of Rigewood West to the minutes of the April 15 meeting.
3. Mr. Krier presented two schemes of the East Parcel replatted. Scheme I made
use of roads and utilities as orginally planned and showed a combination of
Twin Homes and Centex Manor Homes. Scheme II also made use of roads and
utilities as originally planned and showed a combination of Cluster Homes
and Centex Manor Homes.
4. Mr. Eller expressed preferance for the Cluster Home Scheme, although final
market costs have yet to be determined. Cluster Homes would have a base
price in the mid 60's to high 70's and would vary from single story struc-
tures to two story "Colonials." Homes would be constructed on slabs with
basements as optional features. Single car garages would be standard with
an option available for a double garage. Site placement of Cluster Homes
having single care garages would allow future garage additions by individual
owners.
5. Mr. Eller stated that the base price of the Cluster Homes would include some
landscaping and sod around each unit.
6. Mr. Eller stated that each unit of Cluster Homes would be individually
platted.
7. Mr. Krier stated that the tree line at the eastern side of the intermittent
ponds at Block 1 would be extended southward across the area south of
Cumberland road. Details as to the extent of tree planting and types of
trees would be discussed at the next meeting.
8. The residents expressed a preference for Scheme II (Cluster Homes) and the
balance of the discussion focused on Scheme II.
9. Mr. Eller presented various floor plans and elevation schemes of proposed
Cluster Homes. He also presented elevations of eight-plex Manor Homes as
well as a fourteen plex Manor Homes as possible alternatives for use on the
East Parcel. Mr. Eller did not indicate which type of Manor Home would be
preposed before the planning commission for preliminary approval.
is
{
After opening comments by Mr. Eller and Mr. Krier, the meeting was opened for
• questions and discussion. The following points were made:
1 . The Ridgewood West residents expressed their concern over the proximity of
the Manor Homes to existing homes on the West Parcel. The residents felt
that the Manor Homes as multi-family units were out of character to the
development as originally planned and should be placed further east to mini-
mize the sightlines from the West Parcel.
2. Concern was expressed as to the storage capabilities of Cluster Homes
without two car garages or basements. It was felt that Cluster Home resi-
dents would have a tendancy to clutter properties unless measures could be
taken by a Homeowner Association to preclude this.
3. The questions was asked if the park could be moved to a different location
on the East Parcel. It was thought by the residents that grouping Manor
Homes around the park was inappropriate and that the Park was more suited
to be adjacent to Cluster Homes.
4. In addition it was felt that the open area of the Park with the grouping
of Manor Homes around the west, north and east sides would further increase
the visibility of Manor Homes to the Ridgewood West residents.
5. The transition from single family housing as originally planned on the West
Parcel to the Manor Homes as shown on Scheme II was accomplished in only
three lots. Concern was expressed by the Ridgewood West residents that with
the availability of eighty-eight acres more space could have been utilized
to accomplish the transition in a more gradual fashion.
•
t
Minutes of meeting held Thursday, April 15, 1982
Participants: Tim Eller of Centex Homes Midwest, Dick Krier of Westwood
Planning, residents of Ridgewood West
Comment: For the purpose of these minutes, the two areas of discussion will be
referred to as the east and west parcels of Ridgewood West. See
attached copy of original Ridgewood West plat to determine dividing
line as it was tentatively set at the meeting.
1 . Mr. Eller opened the discussion by stating that Centex desires to apply to
the planning commission for replatting and rezoning of the east par-
cel. He indicated that he had called the meeting with the residents
of Ridgewood West in order to ascertain our feelings about such a
move, and to inquire as to what things could be done to make it more
agreeable to the current residents. He indicated that Centex is
thinking in terms of two separate projects in the east parcel; one to
be either twin homes or cluster homes, and the other to be Manor Homes
as are being built by Centex in West Bloomington. He indicated that
Centex wishes to build homes in the range of the low 60's to high 70's
in the east parcel.
2. Mr. Eller said that Centex does not intend to replat or rezone the west par-
cel at this time; nor do they have any intention of doing so at any
time in the future. He also said that Centex does not intend to sell
any of the lots in the west parcel to other builders in the forseeable
future.
3. Mr. Eller expressed doubt as to Centex's ability or willingness to hold the
parcels if replatting and rezoning of the east parcel could not be
accomplished. He indicated that this feeling was based on the un-
favorable market conditions for single family homes in the price range
of $85,000 to $120,000 as originally planned.
4. Mr. Eller indicated that he feels that home building on the east parcel
would generate activity to increase the interest level on the west
parcel. He indicated that Centex would probably build models for the
single family homes in the west parcel, possibly as early as this
summer, probably not before next spring. However, he offered no firm
commitment to ever build models if market conditions continue to be
unfavorable. He indicated that Centex would develop the west parcel
with the same homes (i.e., floor plans, etc.) as originally planned.
5. Mr. Eller indicated that the units in the east parcel would have home owner
associations. Exactly how much maintainance would be handled by these
associations is not yet determined, but there would be some degree of
central control over exterior building maintainence and lawn care.
F
0
After Mr. Eller's opening comments, the meeting was opened for questions and
• discussion. The following points were made:
1 . The Ridgewood West residents expressed their concern over the prospect of
having the east parcel changed from the original plan which was com-
municated to them at the time they bought their houses.
2. The residents expressed concern over the lack of marketing on the part of
Centex for the original plan (i.e. , lack of signs, models, office,
landscaping at entrance). Mr. Eller indicated that Centex had placed
responsibility for the sales with a realty firm in the hopes of
broadening exposure, and had stopped advertising because they felt the
money spent was not worth the results gained. Mr. Eller indicated he
would consider putting up a sign so people driving through the areas
would be able to tell who the builder is and where their offices are
located.
3. Concern was expressed as to the access to the east parcel and increased
traffic due to higher density. Mr. Eller indicated that the initial
access would be via Cumberland with an outlot access to the north.
Additional access would be from Anderson Lakes Parkway after it is
completed. Cumberland is defined as a collector street by the city
and cannot be changed, according to Mr. Eller.
4. Desire was expressed for a buffer between the east and west parcels. Some
possibilities mentioned were a landscaped buffer and an additional row
of single family lots running just east of the line now dividing the
two parcels. Mr. Krier indicated that soil and slope conditions are
such in that area that it is not ideal for dense housing, which might
make a buffer an attractive alternative. He also indicated that there
are other areas in the east plat where such conditions will probably
lead to some relatively open areas.
5. The question was asked whether there was any possibility that units in the
east parcel would be rental units. Mr. Eller indicated that they
would be sold with the intention of owner occupancy although this can
never be guaranteed, and stated absolutely that they will not be built
as rental units.
6. The subject of marketing and sales offices for the entire area was brought
up. Mr. Eller indicated that ultimately there would be three separate
model sites and sales offices, but that prospective buyers would see a
map showing all three projects.
7. The question of the park was raised. Mr. Eller indicated that the land for
the park has already been deeded to the city. He indicated that the
location of the park is firm and cannot be changed.
8. Mr. Eller indicated that the Manor Homes would be developed after the twin
or cluster homes and would be located toward the southeastern corner
of the area.
i
t .
t
s A
9. The residents expressed great concern over the future development of the
west parcel; the main fears being that the land either will not be
developed, or at some future date will be sold to another builder for
development. Mr. Eller was asked to address himself to the question
of what specific commitments he can offer to reassure the residents.
One suggestion centered around the possiblity of protective convenants
being placed on the lots in the west parcel. Mr. Eller indicated that
he might be willing to do this.
It was agreed in closing that we will meet again in two weeks (Thursday,
April 29) to continue our discussion. At this time Mr. Krier will have a pre-
liminary drawing of the east parcel replatted' as per our discussions. He and
Mr. Eller were asked to ,be ready to address themselves to the questions of the
buffer and a firm commitment to the development of the west parcel.
a-_ �O:a� t�zDi' .ti� .1M0't'` �.i.13zA'•n .E ke r IMA'iF,.« .I i - ie •.MOA' .r ^► : } {3
{r•' t ,.y:i� S .vf:??' �?. .• Lr ,'4 •3 �frill�,f'r- IWO, .� -i. •1NA' - 20.0
1''•":' ,� +"t t�.' q" ,�ir,:.4 1�r.*Y•,'v .�'R. i.,:. r.'•- �N,•.• q .,.• ..�'E,+•a,y. WAY 'amol 0. .i
T •} . "3•A'•, ''r':1' ' I`.crni ~' ��rti. '�Y,. ,"'•cn...' r{ •{ 'is'�.'„�'� :•f.•_ .jar�k>i,,• 1:,'.l s.� ij,• ^y,:
. �,4-� •t?l y .t! i'"r• �s.♦".. +�,,�•- •' +a } u" .'.:•••� .: r.47. .T•t.' } i ` '• y
x't'Yt" 55
' 'TX%
w w :1 X E x ,iEy 1 f3Y :v h Y
•t•.� .' ,F .�t,, ��'�` _{_. ,a s.; E �p ` ��"•',..,. ? � .a `?.(+.:�t,�n .�;*�,�f"R'Ny -�r Cf"%i �.
4 F ��y� k ,1•t: c�;
�I � `"',�.�• '°�,.. ��, y� ti '•e '� " a +'�, � yT}.46X1 i• �'i�l.�`ir, 14..<•�,+• i=
DRIVE
M,� `�t�r µr', • ` y,+ri>,� ,•�r ,G���,:f ...:`''? ,
•b�1tf�Y• �• • .r'1�y}�.-°'��,� .y' rp'' � ,5.�.,f. �,Z'+�"• �tii: � ~�j•f..�.:'.i�� 'F�� } -, �
� ,0 s *rf¢ ca+!.'t .�;•j%�n'S� •� •.�. .• /� w ,:r,�... '�''ll�`';`,.,a:•'jwj�f�.; _,.1x'� _�',:Y�•; 3.
p�� wy "4 '+�°,S,•rt `11' ` :i'%'y �.'A' s'" lrrl,`fY .41 .� ,�;.,,,.., :Y r`W:',;°;,.;...; .�`:., •!' r
'/' ;3+i � ' �!'1' ��:y. Y'�:'/,t�;',�� ..,� ! (,t I �Wq��"to..• '-�.rr•'+ • .�,'Y• "4',i.�.', f
32
In
' .. '%.py4>ar I•�Y•"I~'✓.. `•..�`.' 7,•7a .4a .. �, 'IOD. }ti yw'n'!SA•.f,'` s;1pt
IW v.. •-,` �," �• - �,[,l" P' Yt,'..:; r��,r�� J.• :'"r.:'
21 F-u. •.r "'x. 1'� 't ^.+r %"t ,,„ ,yt,__ ,+;k.,,, ,
,b s r.r'f�,M ,�• i
'p � t; _ "•.. _w u J 32 J y1.� �4 �"-,. .�' ''�,�7+`�': �r�«'i: it
`�'�' .��.r £i. '*,5= 922
: _ .� rsf�•',"�,
,, -y�`�?� .�,,, : �r� r' +?%,.+,� i!: :."Teti :yt.t! ����+'.Xr11•• '-w'~••�``'#�,; .1► '.,+� �1
Al
TV
30
Jr
,: E .Et-as na W i''•f*'w r °'45. 4 14' ?"'S�: .. ;ti, .°j.,,;,.°
12
46- .•
♦. M . s � .i.r Y »_+ .��n>llr 1 Ib." V�.i$'! '�.f,�,E��"t�.
'.�� *#.��•E}� %�{ •k-ate � i eli.•< � ;<�,. S t.n:�vt
3f .tom• .` �:��,� uc � 27-' , � t'�.r^ I • '� _ �\`••f, .2
'. .
se
Ow
?_�',.H y`•i' N? � i' t'�sR•��•,t' ...b s 'r'_I7--:':� � p:. ��i4.
Off
ti,'r°'`,11'. �?-7'a�•,'3�,.'{.A?•N�'ai ':�;°i 1�f•• �r.;f,"i.y � .;:� �.� �.;Mz;} ��i ,1�:� �',•u`' � � /
etlrs• w_. •�..f�u_Y, r -p ( •:,. �� •.t' t�t �+.'�yx''~ M1,i••�+fery- 'ty I •fy�, :;�_ `1yt ...'i •b'•.`;�.
t +`k j(;t'<iaf' 0� bi •' �;3:•. yS 1 =:. ". I s;±`.' 4"a c:k%.rr k- rb r t:f'"16
r`e:s�. -:.e��,"�71,� £ .rTri '':,'r.X' ,.t.� .,r' �' ��•:a '2t •x'.a, rr•;�,
4E a„ t
'� Wit' N • 7 j+tir. 'E Y ..i Cr[,:.'.i•r I � 5^ ;.•a.� 4
�icy
ii `fir'' .iS:,t.i .` �: ti�;::`".��a_ _ ,,ti i4•,
it 14
13 V
.ct,T irp �� ,..3:%,.,•' J.r.� may,• 1Dp• F
o
!.I7"'c i {, ,. ,,�+-r` bo )V fir•/
0.4
1 .. tO 1l7iC F- ` ;yic.vi 7 „}h•P,
0 ''}td°�f1; -('•. �i,r °}?"• , .''}'•..�„'' fir•' ",w
13
7Blh 5T ffi�' S' r;' .v «>< ; yt Y Y 12 �"
w w
)23
U.
ER /yANDERSON 11„ r., i •E�>•. ,, �z.�' "� ,.
'4: M LAKE ,.•^•.+'�+'�` k �'j ;,.,..• •t.�.•.� rY,° IE.w:.� ;,.�• ., '.-,S}, ..>< �`
ti 1 t n p, v _
��� .. � �[ih - .,��;k'r"�..�,.y ''fie •13 L1Y r:.'"� �T;;�'� �v WA
is •�;17 i v � •�N
� '�ft M M• �f' ru��f7,/J/