PCAgenda_91Aug26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

22 JULY 1991 i SUMMARY OF PLANNER'S COMMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE JULY MEETING 1. The addition of a policy under parks and/or economic development that would require the University or future developer to dedicate the Community Park to the city as part of any development proposal for the University land on Cleveland and Larpenteur. Such a phrase might read: In the event that the University of Minnesota lands north of Larpenteur along Cleveland Avenue become available for development over the life of the plan, require that the University or developer, that the University sells property to, dedicate the Community Park property to the city for continued park space as a condition for approving any development of the adjacent land. Although I'm not terribly familiar with land use law regarding public park use, I believe that the historic use of the land as public park lends credibility to the city's claim that it should remain park land. The University has rented it to the city since 1958. The current lease was renewed in 1990 until 2,008. This fifty year history of park use suggests that the landowner and city acknowledge this is park area for the community. 2. The elimination of Garden Park and the Lindig Corridor Park from reference in the Park and Recreation Plan (see attachment 1). • When the City's Park and Recreation Plan was designed in 1989 it included some future areas for park development that may no longer be reasonable to include in the city's park planning due to the land availability and/or "reasonableness" of the projects. Unlike the Park and Recreation Plan, the city's comprehensive plan has some statutory authority, and therefore, its elements must be carefully reviewed to make sure they are reasonable, or their inclusion may result in controversy at a later date. Therefore, it may be useful to eliminate a general reference to the park and recreation plan and to include the items in it that the city continues to pursue such as the existing parks and the trail system as modified by the park and recreation commission. Although the comprehensive plan should not take away creative park and open space opportunities, there area some items that might not be desirable to include: * Garden Park, which was leased from the University until 1990, was never developed, and the lease was revoked in 1990. * Lindig Corridor or Lindig Linear Park, is a creative use of the rear of some long lots on Tatum and Fairview. This project would require purchasing the property outright or public easements from the property owners. It would require substantial upgrading and security so property owners wouldn't experience vandalism or break-ins. It may be unlikely that property owners would be willing to part with this property for this purpose. controversy might arise if a small development was proposed for this area rather than a park since this would be •