Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 12, 1992 <br />PRIVATE The City Attorney noted that he was asked to comment on <br />IMPROVEMENTS the issue of private improvements on public property. <br />ON PUBLIC The Attorney indicated that the public does not lose <br />PROPERTY the right to use public property because someone has <br />constructed an improvement on it. However, if these <br />improvements are used by the public, the City should <br />ensure that they are adequately constructed since there <br />are liability concerns that need to be addressed. If <br />the improvements do not meet City standards, than they <br />should be removed. <br />Scalze noted that the question arose since there has <br />been private development on a piece of property that <br />the City is in the process of obtaining for park. <br />Scalze suggested that perhaps the City's design <br />consultant should look at this development to determine <br />whether or not it meets City standards. <br />The City Attorney suqgested it was not a good precedent <br />to allow public property to be used for private <br />endeavors. The Attorney stated that the City incurs <br />liability for these improvements, therefore, must make <br />sure they are safe. <br />Scalze asked the status of the property in question. <br />Administrative Assistant reported that according to <br />Ramsey County Land Records Department, the parcel is a <br />part of the property being platted as Jackson Heights. <br />Blesener noted that the developer has indicated that he <br />would work towards the dedication of the trapezoid <br />parcel to the City as park land to whatever extent he <br />could. Blesener indicated that this dedication should <br />be addressed in the development agreement. <br />Scalze agreed that the City should pursue the <br />dedication, and that the Park Consultant should check <br />the appropriateness of the development that has <br />occurred. <br />CLOSED The City Attorney requested that the Council discuss <br />SESSION two additional items in the closed session following <br />this meeting. Those items are the Boosalis property <br />and code enforcement efforts for this development, as <br />well as a status report on Little Canada versus Klein. <br />Both of these items are currently in the court system. <br />Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />Page 4 <br />