Laserfiche WebLink
<br />worked on further. He stated often the project is built to the largest size the market can bear, and <br />some of that cost could be put into things like the architecture. If they can make this a better fit it <br />will likely satisfy some of the neighborhood's concern, and it wilI still fill the buffering they are <br />looking for. He suggested the possibility of a variance or an impervious surface that will still <br />work as a driveway, and the use of color and architectural amenities with nicer fronts, possibly <br />with a reduction in the square footage. <br /> <br />Mr. Murphy replied as far as the maximum square footage, a certain amount of square footage is <br />needed to accommodate the single level living; the main floor needs to be about 1,175 feet, <br />which is not extremely large. Regarding the mass of the buildings, there is an additional story <br />that will add mass. This project was designed for empty nesters with main floor living, with <br />additional areas for visitors on the second level with two more bedrooms and a bath. Design is <br />very important. Regarding the exterior, he has talked with an architect about setting one building <br />up a little higher than the other; that would add separation and would create some architecture. <br />The price point right now is about $285,000; about $275,000 for bare bones, and close to <br />$300,000 for a unit decked out with amenities. He does not think there is much more that could <br />be done to add to this, but he would be willing to look at something like this. He would like to <br />find something that would make the Council happy. Mr. Murphy stated he is representing the <br />owner, Mr. Holmes, and they have had many talks about how to do this. He is interested in <br />finding a way that the Council would be happy and finding the right mix to get this done. His <br />major concern is that the number of units economically is likely the most important thing to <br />being able to make this work financially. This project is not a windfall for anyone; they are just <br />trying to find the best use for a small mismatched parcel in Ramsey. He is willing to do what he <br />can, and will go back to the drawing board if he has to. He would like a strong feeling from the <br />Council to know that what he comes up with will hopefully meet what the Council is looking for. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson stated she would like to see this project move forward; it is the best use of <br />this parcel she has seen. However, she also agrees that this is massive, and she would like to see <br />variation. She suggested the use of stone instead of brick on one or two of the buildings, with <br />some variation in the columns that lead to the font door. There should be something that gives <br />architectural interest to separate the buildings. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated he can support the project with a few odds and ends. He <br />suggested the possibility of a variance or a more environmentally friendly paver in order to <br />stagger the buildings. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler indicated the Council's suggestions can be looked at. If the Council is <br />in general agreement with the twinhome concept and is comfortable proceeding they will see this <br />again at final site plan and final plat. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated she appreciates the challenges of this site and the <br />accommodations and changes the applicant has made thus far. She believes single level living is <br />a product they need in the City. However, she is concerned about the massing of the building. <br />She suggested something to make the landscaping a focal point so there is not the overwhelming <br />wall of building. She expressed hesitance in moving forward much further before she feels <br />comfortable that the suggestions will resolve the concerns. <br /> <br />City Council / January 9, 2007 <br />Page 16 of24 <br />