EDA_Minutes_2016_08_29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RHRA Meeting Minutes – Monday, August 29, 2016 Page 23 e.Receive Location One Demonstration GIS Technician Joel Koepp reviewed the LocationOne partnership and free access for the City of Roseville through the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development of this web-based service. REDA members asked questions during this interactive presentation and available site amenities and limitations. Mr. Koepp noted interfacing capabilities in map data, area descriptions and hyperlinking that data to zoning code information. f.Review and Receive Update on SE Roseville Properties As part of this discussion, a bench handout was provided as part of the staff report, consisting of a letter dated January 21, 2016 from the Department of Military Affairs to the Roseville City Council, offering the city the first right of refusal to purchase the former Armory located at 211 McCarron’s Boulevard N in Roseville for the sum of $2,190,000. Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins and Jeanne Kelsey, Community Development Department were available for discussion of properties outlined in the staff report; and based on direction to staff provided in April of 2016, and detailed in lines 6 – 10 of the staff report. 210 and 196 S McCarrons Boulevard Member Willmus stated his interest in the 196 parcel was as part of the 210 parcel consideration, and stated he had no interest in pursuing the 196 parcel simply to clean up lot lines to facilitate how other parcels may redevelop. However, Member Willmus stated he was somewhat interested in how that parcel might serve to provide access to Ramsey County’s McCarrons Park directly from the trail from the adjacent apartments. Member McGehee stated she was interested in pursuing the 196 parcel if for no other reason that access; whether the city thought of another use in the future or simply held onto it for future access. Without the availability of the 210 parcel, Member Etten questioned whether he was interested in purchasing the 196 parcel. While recognizing interest in the access, Member Etten used the displayed map to show an existing access point to the left of this parcel, from the parking lot at the apartment complex on the side street leading to the path and park. Member Etten opined he couldn’t see purchasing an unusually shaped piece of land and then expending money to demolish the existing home without having some idea of how that connected too the neighborhood and long-term picture. Member Laliberte agreed the motive for purchase is less clear to her than originally. If just for access, Member Laliberte questioned if it made much