Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />� 3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />�15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />RHRA lIeeting <br />1�Iinutes — �Ionday, August 29, 2016 <br />Page 26 <br />rendei•ed in 2014. Ms. Kelsey advised that if the city chose to purchase the <br />building and demolish it for new construction, the estimated cost to do so was <br />�600,000, making the net eas�e��value of the site without the building <br />approximately � 1.5 million. <br />At the further request of Member Willmus, Ms. Kelsey reviewed the ctu-rent <br />code updates or additions needed, includin� sprinklering, ADA access, and <br />reopening of an entire area for einergency access for classrooins for an <br />addition from the 2000's allowing for full fire access assumptions and to make <br />the entire building usable based on fire inspections. Regarding hazardous <br />inaterials in the building, Ms. Kelsey advised that the city would need to hire a <br />professional to inake that analysis as to asbestos and lead paint in the building. <br />Of the three choices provided in the RCA, Member McGehee stated she would <br />be in favor of Option 1 providing the best information available about e�-the <br />building. Member McGehee noted she had heard many ideas brought forward <br />to-date, but opined there �vas no use moving forward unless the building was <br />deemed usable. Member McGehee recognized that many Roseville residents <br />were fond of the building and its history in the coinmunity. If the building � <br />was well-built, Member McGehee opined the city may not be able to build one <br />of equal quality for a comparable cost. <br />Member Etten sou�ht additional infonnation on Option 2 and the types of <br />infonnation this report �vould provide. <br />Ms. Collins advised the city could work with the ULI on �vho could be on the <br />panel and to explore if the site was reusable or e�plore its highest and best use. <br />Ms. Collins advised this would be a% day workshop, and not include <br />community input processes at that point, but would consist of a panel of <br />eYperts, with staff's subsequent recominendation based on that report. Ms. <br />Collins advised that discussions could then be held with the community on the <br />results of that report, which may ultimately recommend a full-scale <br />architectural review versus their initial periphery review of the site and their <br />conceptual ideas minus potential costs. Ms. Collins noted this panel was a <br />group of volunteers considered leading experts in their field in suppoi�t of <br />communities; �vith the �5,000 cost for the report going to ULI, and not to any <br />of those volunteers. <br />At the request of Member Etten, Ms. Kelsey reviewed where funds would be <br />transferred from for the report if that was the direction of the REDA. Ms. <br />Kelsey also reviewed potential funding for the purchase of the fonner armory, <br />with staff anticipating the 52.1 million may not be a firtn nuinber, opining the <br />Departinent of Military Affairs may be willing to work with the city. <br />Member Willmus eYpressed his concern in signiticantly spending down <br />balances and other program funds for this parcel, especially the many <br />