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 Meeting <br />Minutes — Monday, August 29, 2016 <br />Page 27 <br />unknowns (e.g. sprinlcler system, ADA access, additional roof areas not done <br />in this significantly segmented building). Member Willmus stated he'd be <br />very, very cautious about getting in too deep in the acquisition of this parcel. <br />Member Willmus also stated his worry with the timeframe under which the <br />city would need to work. <br />However, Member Willmus expressed his strong interest in taking immediate <br />steps to protect the neighborhood if the city did not move forward to acquire <br />the parcel. Member Willmus opined there was a need for the City Council to <br />have the discussion on that process as soon as possible, specifically rezoning <br />the parcel from Institutional to LDR to auoid another government entity <br />impacting that neighborhood with a potential use from the city's Table of Uses <br />for Institutional zoned designations. <br />Member McGehee stated she woU <br />even though another governmeni E <br />opining it would be inappropriate' <br />right of refus�l, particularly when <br />ot be in favor of rezoning at this point, <br />y has first right of refi�sal after the city, <br />:he city to do so unde�neath that second <br />Member McGehee opined this was an irr�por� <br />to SE Roseville; and therefore,: she found no. k <br />more was known abouti the condition of t� <br />opined that the Departinent of Military.Affair <br />city, and m�y be..amenable �to ;another "ext�� <br />actively pur�uing �he details at this point: •` <br />Member <br />approved <br />building; 1Vlember' T <br />have an opportunity <br />` problems, expense� <br />�'��� available to the pub] <br />otlier-ideas to bring ; <br />c, <br />as'a multi-cityproject partner. <br />t s'ite and potentially' important <br />�efit for Options �2 or �3 until <br />building. Member McGehee <br />eeined willing to work with the <br />on� if they found the city was <br />in suppoi`t of Option 1, noting the city already <br />nuinber of apartments without a sprinkler system, <br />ent. Once rnore information was lcnown about the <br />e stated the city would be in a better position and <br />ge the community at the front end, outlining all the <br />opportunities. Once that information is made <br />nber McGehee suggested the community may have <br />or at least be involved in the decision-making. <br />Given tfie cost of the property and building, and list of concerning items from <br />staff's inspectio�, Member Laliberte stated she also had concerns about <br />expending a1L available funds even though it is a priority area. Member <br />Laliberte noted the estimate of the hazardous materials and fire code inspection <br />costs, estimated by staff at $5,000 to $10,000 for environmental review of this <br />alinost 60,000 square foot building for a commercial versus residential level <br />for that review. Until that other information is available, Member Laliberte <br />stated the options were moot, and if the city expended those fiulds the next <br />government entity wouldn't need to do so. Therefore, Member Laliberte stated <br />that the only way she'd consider expending funcls to receive that additional <br />infonnation was if that government entity partnered with the city to do so, <br />providing a benefit to both parties. <br />