EDA_Minutes_2016_08_29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RHRA Meeting Minutes – Monday, August 29, 2016 Page 34 discussion with the community on what uses could be used for those sites going forward, whether meeting the December deadline or with an extension. Member McGehee stated she agreed with that timing, and understood that to be a condition. However, Member McGehee stated she didn’t disagree that this was a huge sum of money with no identified use, and only vetted to date for potential park use. But Member McGehee noted the community may have other ideas; and if the city would agree to facilitate such a community meeting as soon as possible, and then reconsider whether to further evaluate the building, she would agree with that, even though she preferred more information. Member McGehee noted the city had paid for other appraisals on properties that didn’t prove of any benefit to the city, she considered this evaluation could be done as well. However, if no one was interested in pursuing anything, Member McGehee questioned why they wanted to do anything. Member Laliberte clarified that her comment was that it was the city’s responsibility for community engagement and to hear ideas for potential use, and what the community did or did not want on this site that the city didn’t generally provide. Member Laliberte noted perhaps one of those uses would be a community center, and questioned how such a public engagement process would start and the timing for such a process. REDA Executive Director Trudgeon advised that his sense of tonight’s discussion was for direct outreach to the neighborhood as the first step and a critical component of whether the city wants to take ownership of the site; and if only one use to be considered, then there was only that one conversation as to whether or not the city was involved. Mr. Trudgeon noted it was important to know what form was sought to identify what type of conversation is held with the public. If the conversation is simply limited to future land use and the city has no interest in buying the property, Mr. Trudgeon noted that was the extent of the conversation. However, if the city is interested in re-using the property, and whether the land and existing structure are usable, or how it could be adapted, then Mr. Trudgeon noted that was a land use issue involving the city versus a private developer. Ms. Collins noted that, if the community conversation is about rezoning, staff would consider this as one of those highly-interested properties with greater notification beyond the neighborhood, as part of its pilot zoning notification task force recommendation process, allowing greater opportunities for public feedback if and when it went before the Planning Commission for a formal public hearing. Member Laliberte asked if it was possible to do something prior to a public hearing at the Planning Commission.