EDA_Minutes_2016_08_29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RHRA Meeting Minutes – Monday, August 29, 2016 Page 27 very, very cautious about getting in too deep in the acquisition of this parcel. Member Willmus also stated his worry with the timeframe under which the city would need to work. However, Member Willmus expressed his strong interest in taking immediate steps to protect the neighborhood if the city did not move forward to acquire the parcel. Member Willmus opined there was a need for the City Council to have the discussion on that process as soon as possible, specifically rezoning the parcel from Institutional to LDR to avoid another government entity impacting that neighborhood with a potential use from the city’s Table of Uses for Institutional zoned designations. Member McGehee stated she would not be in favor of rezoning at this point, even though another government entity has first right of refusal after the city, opining it would be inappropriate for the city to do so underneath that second right of refusal, particularly when that party was a multi-city project partner. Member McGehee opined this was an important site and potentially important to SE Roseville; and therefore, she found no benefit for Options 2 or 3 until more was known about the condition of the building. Member McGehee opined that the Department of Military Affairs seemed willing to work with the city, and may be amenable to another extension if they found the city was actively pursuing the details at this point. Member McGehee spoke in support of Option 1, noting the city already approved remodeling of a number of apartments without a sprinkler system, already having set a precedent. Once more information was known about the building, Member McGehee stated the city would be in a better position and have an opportunity to engage the community at the front end, outlining all the problems, expenses, and opportunities. Once that information is made available to the public, Member McGehee suggested the community may have other ideas to bring forward or at least be involved in the decision-making. Given the cost of the property and building, and list of concerning items from staff’s inspection, Member Laliberte stated she also had concerns about expending all available funds even though it is a priority area. Member Laliberte noted the estimate of the hazardous materials and fire code inspection costs, estimated by staff at $5,000 to $10,000 for environmental review of this almost 60,000 square foot building for a commercial versus residential level for that review. Until that other information is available, Member Laliberte stated the options were moot, and if the city expended those funds the next government entity wouldn’t need to do so. Therefore, Member Laliberte stated that the only way she’d consider expending funds to receive that additional information was if that government entity partnered with the city to do so, providing a benefit to both parties.