Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />April 26, 1988 <br /> <br />Locke summarized that the scheme could be done; the $200,000 is <br />probably the amount of assistance necessary if the building were <br />just removed from the site. If the decision was made to proceed <br />with the project and find some place to which to relocate the <br />building, the cost would be somewhat less; however, there would be <br />more assistance and more risk for the city. <br /> <br />In response to Benke1s question, Locke stated the developer is on <br />line to purchase the building and would collect the rent; if the <br />building remains in place it would reduce the city's cost of <br />removing it because the cost of capitalized interest, etc. would <br />be reduced. There are some practical limits as to how long the <br />building should remain there; however, any period of time that it <br />remains standing would be a modest cost saving. Once the building <br />is removed, though, the new building would not be situated as it <br />could if the seven units were removed prior to construction of the <br />new building. <br /> <br />Benke indicated some of the tenants are too young to live in the <br />new building. <br /> <br />Williams stated one reason he is interested in seeing the building <br />built further north is to get it away from the park as it will be <br />very imposing between the building and the park. <br /> <br />Anderson racalled the original plan was \~ithout the seven-unit <br />building; does not know how the Park Board would respond to having <br />it remain on the site. <br /> <br />Williams believes there were a number of members <br />cerned about the south end of the building on the <br />like that this project will detract from the new <br />park; believes people will believe this building is <br /> <br />that were con- <br />park; does not <br />city hall and <br />in the park. <br /> <br />Hefner indicated there would be an additional 23 feet without the <br />seven units; and Locke stated the two paths would not be required. <br /> <br />A discussion was held regarding the <br />involved. <br /> <br />varying property line <br /> <br />Mattila pointed out that Park Place senior housing's final <br />approval had the building situated 15-16 feet from the park. <br /> <br />Benke shares the concern about proximity and would ask that the <br />seven-unit building be removed as a condition; believes the intent <br />has been that Veterans Park would relate to both the Olde Town <br />area and to the people who live and work in this area; this is <br />intended to be an urban park with mixed use rather than a IInorth <br />woods" park, but seven feet from a property line is too close. <br /> <br />Gunderman asked, if the new building <br />existing seven-units, if there could be <br />stated that could be studied. <br /> <br />were located closer to the <br />a commons area; Sorenson <br /> <br />Page 11 <br />