PL PACKET 10181983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- Commissioner Jones then indicated he had been very sorry not to have • been in town the night of the last Commission meeting where he could have expressed his opposition to. the revised plans for the Phase 1 structure proposed for the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project which '. the Council took up next. He said he perceives that building would a be viewed by the public as the "centerpiece" for what is coming in the next two phases and therefore,. should be aesthetically pleasing and should fit into the existing neighborhood. He found neither criteria met with. the new drawings for the proposed condominiums which proposed to provide -enclosures for the additional parking spaces which he believed would make the building unattractive and the garages worthless because both wind and snow would blow through the open gridwork all winter long. Mr. Jones was not convinced the additional parking levels could not be economically built four . feet. further into the ground so the upper garage could be completely enclosed and not exposed to Minnesota winters . He believed more specific figures should have been '. provided by the redevelopers to support. their contention that building the garages underground would raise the unit cost from $7,500 to $9 ,000 . The Commissioner said he saw no sense in trying to save a few dollars .; and ending up with a product -which would be hard to sell and suggested a poll of prospective buyers be made to determine whether they might not be willing to pay a little more for- garages which are heated and similar to those they had become accustomed to in the homes they were leaving. Steve Yurick of Arkell was present and indicated he was certainly in agreement with Commissioner Jones assumption that this building should abe the figurehead and landmark for -the, rest of the project"arid '"said it is certainly the desire of his company to satisfy the desires of the people who would live there . He said just such a poll had been taken of prospective buyers who attended the focus meetings with the re- developers who had indicated that, of course they would have preferred heated garages , if they could have it for the same price , but, they. would not be willing to pay more for those amenities . He indicated the elevation drawings had not done justice to what is actually planned with the revisions because the enclosures would be built with ornate iron work which would be pleasing to the eye at the same time- they would provide security those persons indicated would be essential . Their concerns about the security which could be provided for patio areas would also be solved when those areas become balconies with the revised proposal, Mr. Yurick said, and he indicated he perceived Mr. Jones-' . .concerns with the exterior appearance of the building would probably be satisfactorily addressed with the berming and landscaping which had not been shown on those elevation plans . In reference to the raise in unit cost for enclosing the parking areas , the developer said Kraus Anderson had based them on the difference between the costs of going up with two levels or constructing them underground. Mr. Yurick indicated• he. wasn' t denying that snow and rain might blow into the upper level of parking , but it had been the .architect's_ .contention that this would not be detrimental enough to justify raising the unit price above the ,market for this area., He also pointed out that, if the parking were -constructed underground and • the building erected closer to the trailer. park because of the boundary uncertainties, the first floor residents :on the west would be looking directly, into the trailer homes , just- as they would if the project were