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 �Ieeting <br />iV'Iinutes — NIonday, August 29, 2016 <br />Page 24 <br />revenue for the broader community without a clear purpose in mind, or if <br />simply for open space and access to a county park. <br />President Roe noted siinilarities with this parcel to that property purchased by <br />the city across from City Hall for future consideration. While it took the <br />property off the tax rolls, President Roe noted it wasn't generating much now; <br />and while access may be the goal, the existing structure would need to be torn <br />down at city expense to avoid any adverse activities occurring in the structure. <br />Given the reasonable price of the parcel, President Roe opined the parcel had <br />potential to get into the developinent process if the 210 parcel or parcels south <br />or west of parcel 196 develop and therefore he considered its purchase a <br />potential benefit for the city. <br />At the request of Metnber Willmus, Ms. Kelsey clarified that the city had not <br />yet fonnally retracted its offer for the 210 parcel; but suggested doing so if that <br />was their intent to provide a clear understanding to the current property owner. <br />Member Willinus stated he'd be in favor of not retracting the offer now and <br />leaving it on the table, based on his understanding the family was still trying to <br />detei-rnine what direction to go. <br />Member Etten stated he was fine leaving the offer on the table for the 210 <br />parcel for now; but �vas concerned with�the 196 parcel if used simply to <br />provide a crossing to the park at this point with no striped or si�ned crossing, <br />and at a significant and dan�erous curve in the road at that site, he ���ouldn't <br />encoura�e that idea. Member Etten noted an existin� crossinj �vas available <br />one-half block a�vay to the west and much more visible. <br />Member McGehee stated she was happy to change her position based on this <br />discussion. Ho�vever, Member McGehee stated she'd also be happy to turn it <br />back and let it go on the market for a new house there, opining it was a nice lot <br />and location. <br />Public Comment <br />Sherry Sanders, S 1VTcCarrons Boulevard <br />Ms. Sanders stated her agreeinent with Member Etten, especially with the <br />location of the 196 lot in proYilnity to the existing marked crosswalk providing <br />better vision. Ms. Sanders opined it didn't make sense to remove this parcel <br />from ta�c rolls. <br />Discussion ensued regarding past experience and the process for the city in <br />acquiring the �rHamline Avenue parcel for the REDA single-family home <br />program and deinolishing the existing home and preparing the site for new <br />construction, with some funds still available to do so; and typical loss to the <br />city related to demolishing existing structures and preparing the lot, while <br />realizing a tax increase on the property �vith a home valued substantially more <br />than an existing obsolete structure. <br />