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 />RHRA Meeting <br />Minutes — Monday, August 29, 2016 <br />Page 23 <br />GIS Technician Joel Koepp reviewed the LocationOne partnership and free <br />access for the City of Roseville through the Minnesota Department of <br />Employinent and Economic Development of this web-based service. <br />REDA members asked questions during this interactive presentation and <br />available site amenities and limitations. Mr. Koepp noted interfacing <br />capabilities in map data, area descriptions and hyperlinking that data to zoning <br />code information. <br />f. Review and Receive Update on SE Roseville Prope�ties <br />As part of this discussion, a bench handout was':provided as part of the staff <br />report, consisting of a letter dated January, 2�, 2Q16 from the Department of <br />Military Affairs to the Roseville City Colir�cil, offering the city the first right of <br />refusal to purchase the former Armory located at 2 T1 McCarron's Boulevard N <br />in Roseville for the sum of $2,190,OOb: ` <br />Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins arid ` Jeanne Kelsey, <br />Community Development Department _,_were available for` " discussion of <br />properties outlined in the staff report; and b,ased on direction to staffi provided <br />in April of 2016, and det;ailed i� lines 6— 10 of the staff report. <br />210 and 1 <br />Member <br />parcel co� <br />simply to <br />However, <br />parcel mi <br />' Meinber Mc.Ge <br />no other reaso <br />future or simply <br />✓1cC;arrons 13oulevard'. <br />us stated his iriterest m the 196 parcel was as part of the 210 <br />�tior�; and stated he had no interest in pursuing the 196 parcel <br />� up �lo�, lines to facilitate how a`tlier parcels may redevelop. <br />ber Willmus stated he was somewhat interested in how that <br />;rve to. provide access to Ramsey County's McCarrons Parlc <br />� trail fro'm the adjacent apartments. <br />k�ee state�d she was in�erested in pursuing the 196 parcel if far <br />n that aceess; whether the city thought of another use in the <br />held onto it for future access. <br />Without the availability of the 210 parcel, Member Etten questioned whether <br />he was interested in;purchasing the 196 parcel. While recognizing interest in <br />the access, 1Vlernber Etten used the displayed map to show an existing access <br />point to the left ofthis parcel, from the parking lot at the apartment complex on <br />the side street leading to the path and p�,rk. Member Etten opined he couldn't <br />see purchasing an unusually shaped piece of land and then expending money to <br />demolish the existing home without having some idea of how that connected <br />too the neighborhood and long-term picture. <br />Meinber Laliberte agreed the motive for purchase is less clear to her than <br />originally. If just for access, Member Laliberte questioned if it made much <br />sense to remove a parcel froin city tax rolls and no longer generating tax <br />