Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lennar outlines 'Blackberry Point' concept for 114-acre Montgomery site, proposes 310 homes and larger parks
Summary
Lennar presented a concept plan for a 114-acre site north of Galena and east of Dixon Road proposing roughly 310 single-family homes across three neighborhoods, larger park acreage (from 0.6 to 3.4 acres), and price points roughly $400,000–$500,000; the commission provided advisory feedback and did not take formal action.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lennar Corporation representatives presented a concept plan to the Montgomery Planning & Zoning Commission on a 114-acre parcel north of Galena and east of Dixon Road, proposing roughly 310 single-family homes across three distinct neighborhoods and increasing park acreage from 0.6 acres to 3.4 acres.
The presentation was led by Eric Prechtel, who introduced himself as representing the petitioner through law firm Rosanova and Whitaker. Prechtel said Lennar is the contract purchaser of the property and that the development would rework earlier approvals from 2007. "We are going from the 0.6 acres you see here to 3.4 acres, and this is going to be spread out between 2 park sites," Prechtel said, describing a north park with age-targeted amenities and a south park oriented toward families.
Dave Waller of Winar Corporation, part of the Lennar team, described three product lines and lot layouts intended to serve first-time buyers, step-up buyers and an age-targeted market. The company said product sizes range from about 1,400 to 2,600 square feet with two- to four-bedroom plans. Prechtel summarized the proposed density as "slightly less dense" than the earlier 2007 approval: about 310 homes versus the previously approved 319.
The team discussed design standards and potential zoning changes. Staff and Lennar said the property is currently zoned R1 following a comprehensive rezoning but that Lennar would likely pursue rezoning to and/or a PUD with R2/R3-type setbacks to accommodate varied lot sizes and planned deviations from new UDO design standards. Planning staff emphasized the concept review is advisory under the UDO and not binding.
On architectural standards, the presenters acknowledged some relief from façade-transparency and corner-articulation requirements will likely be requested for certain models, particularly ranch plans with forward-facing garages. The team said they plan to add architectural treatments such as garage windows and corner windows to satisfy the UDO intent where possible.
Affordability was a primary topic. One commissioner said he was "baffled that the least expensive home is $400,000 and that's affordable." Lennar responded that the community's price points would "range from approximately about $400,000 to a little over $500,000," with a median near $450,000, and characterized the Core product line as the more affordable option. The developer said it builds inventory (not primarily lot sales) and intends to include standard features and energy performance measures to reduce long-term homeowner costs. "We're gonna make it energy efficient, so your bills are gonna be lower than they ever were," a Lennar presenter said.
Commissioners and staff also asked about stormwater detention, maintenance responsibility, lot depths and basements; Lennar said engineering and grading details remain at the later, post-concept stage. Planning staff noted village-maintained stormwater areas are anticipated and recommended creating a special service area (SSA) to back up HOA maintenance for detention and landscape buffer areas if needed.
The commission gave generally positive advisory feedback on the concept presentation but took no binding action. Staff noted the project will later appear before the Village Board and return for formal reviews if Lennar files a rezoning or PUD application.
Next steps: Lennar indicated it will refine plans (architecture, floor plans, engineering details and UDO relief requests) and provide additional materials at future reviews; no formal approvals or votes occurred at the concept review.

