Laserfiche WebLink
<br />@ <br /> <br />Lukerman (cont): the Consulting Engineers Diversified to do for you. Essentially, <br />, detail out how you were going to provide your public services. However, all of the <br />work done by your Consulting Engineers is based upon the premises of that plan up <br />there. Density of development, the scale of Commercial development. Now by rezoning <br />e 93 acreas, and considering, well, I guess, by rezoning, you have more than considered, <br />you have committed the community to a scale of commercial development that in my <br />judgement, is not implementing the plan, it is changing the plan. Therefore, there <br />is need to file an amended plan, make the necessary changes that go with that and in <br />my judgement, then, alot of the work that you have done, the sewer study, the work <br />that the Anoka County Board has authorized, and the thorough-fare plan. All of these <br />have been based upon your plan. I do not now see that plan being implemented in the <br />scale of commercial development. <br /> <br />Oliphant: During your preparation for this hearing, did you in your office discover <br />a letter to Mr. James Peterson dated Nov. 9. 1973, signed by John Bohen (?) the chair- <br />man of the Metropolitan Council at that time? <br /> <br />Lukerman: Yes. <br /> <br />Oliphant: Mr. James Peterson was the former clerk of the township of Ramsey. <br /> <br />Albert: What is~:,the date of the letter? <br /> <br />Oliphant: November 9, 1973. This letter should be a part of the official record of <br />the City of Ramsey. Would you care to read the letter, body of the letter, for the <br />Board. please. <br /> <br />Eukerman: It reads: <br />Ramsey Township submitted its proposed Comprehensive Plan to the Council, that is the <br />e Metropolitan Council, on Sept. 20, 1973. During the review, it has come to the Council's <br />attention that boundry status of the township as shown in the plan documented was <br />extremely uncertain as a result of incorporation and annexation petitions presently <br />before the Minnesota Municipal Commission. The proposed annexation would constitute <br />a major alteration in the to,vuship boundries and planned proposals would, without <br />doubt, would affect it. Such changes make a comprehensive plan review inappropriate <br />at this time. Therefore, the Council will take no further action on this plan until <br />such time as pending annexation procedures are resolved. After the pending annexation <br />proposals are resolved, the plan should be resubmitted for Council review. <br />Sincerely yours, Signed: John Bohen (?) <br /> <br />Oliphant: We offer that letter as evidence and it also should be a part of the official <br />record of the committee. Did you undertake to discover whether or not after the <br />annexation, that the comprehensive plan for this community was ever resubmitted to the <br />Metropolitan Council? <br /> <br />Lukerman: I was informed that it had not. <br /> <br />Oliphant: It had not been resubmitted? <br /> <br />Lukerman: No. <br /> <br />Oliphant: One of the statments made by the rezoner was in essence that this would <br />possibly become the "hub" for all activity in northern Anoka County. Do you recall <br />that statement or something to that affect? <br /> <br />eLukerman: <br />Oliphant: <br /> <br />Yes. <br /> <br />Do you have any basis upon which you can disagree with that conclusion? <br /> <br />Lukerman: The word can become a "hub" of all northern Anoka County certainly runs <br />counter to any of the overall Metropolitan development proposals I have seen. At the <br />present time, the population within 5 miles of this location does not constitute a <br />