Laserfiche WebLink
Gerald H. Kaufhold, Case No. 1857 ag 2 <br />of park dedication is in accordance with current subdivision regulations <br />requiring such dedications if land is to be platted consisting of more <br />than 5 acres. <br />5. There would seei-n to be two p, incipal concerns with respect to the <br />redevelopment of the old Lexington Schoo. site: <br />a) First, there is a question of the retention of a portion of the <br />site for park purposes. As you all know, the initial park plan for <br />the City designed in 1960 included the use of a portion of this <br />site for neighborhood park purposes. The use of the open space <br />portions of public sites as a part of the overall community park <br />system is a common practice. Thus, the loss of such a public <br />school facility (as is proposed here) constitutes a serious <br />deleterious impact on the quality of the system and the service <br />to the immediate area. Though proposals for dedication and <br />possible sale on the part of the applicant to the City for park <br />purposes have been included in previous proposals, they were in <br />conjunction with business rezonings which the City found <br />unacceptable. There still remains the lack of a reasonable <br />proposal on the part of the applicant for the City to consider for <br />the use and purchase of some of the land for park purposes. <br />This is a serious concerr , and all reasonable alternatives of <br />securing and maintaining the park function should be explored. <br />The problem here is that the single-family lots are proposed to <br />be located where the park should be. Therefore, the approval of <br />the preliminary plat as proposed is forever closing the door to <br />having an appropriately placed and property scaled park at this <br />location. <br />b) The second matter of great concern is the ultimate use of the <br />school building and its immediate environs. At a recent meeting <br />with Mr. Kaufhold, he indicated that he has a two year lease <br />with District 916 and anticipates that the lease may be extended <br />indefinately for a number of years. If this is true, the continued <br />use of the site for school purposes may be a reasonable land use <br />designation and could go on in perpetuity. <br />However, we are informed from Mr. Bierscheid who has spoken <br />with officials from District 916 that the use of this school will <br />likely be terminated at the end of the current lease <br />(approximately two years) and that funding for the development of <br />new facilities has been approved in a recent bond issue. These <br />officials inform Mr. Bierscheid that they do not intend to extend <br />this lease, with the result that the proposed continued school use <br />is by no means a reasonable, permanent solution. <br />Under these circumstances it appears to be unwise on the part of the <br />land owner and the City of Roseville to commit a portion of the site <br />for single-family residential purposes without there being a proposed, <br />reasonable, and approvable solution for the remainder of the site. This <br />simply is not wise city planning, development strategy, nor is it in the <br />PY Y P <br />public interest. Therefore, we suggest to the Planning Commission and <br />Council the consideration of not amending the Comprehensive Plan in <br />accordance with the pl-` as proposed, but recommend to the a 3plicant <br />