Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

, Lukerman (cont): major concentration, and I believe by 1990 projections call for approximately 45 thousand people that will live within 5 miles of the proposed location. The Anoka County plan and the major develope~s such as the Dayton - Hudson Corp. say that they "TOuld not consider any major regional commercial center without a population . of between 200 and 300 thousand within a five mile distance of that location. In my judgement, this location does not come anywhere near that criteria and has very limited opportunity to become the hub for a distance of between 15 and 20 miles. Northtovm is approximately 14 miles away from this location and in the Anoka County plan, the Northtown location is generally acknowledged to be the major diversified center for Anoka County despite its non-central position. The plan acknowledges that Northtown is not central geographically to Anoka County but it does say that the access to that location has, the population that is in its immediate trade area is such that its location does offer the potential to be one of the 16 diversified centers. I would very seriously question the capacity of this location to become the hub of a 20 mile radius. I have not seen a~ evidence that would convince me that this can be so. @ Oliphant: Do you care to add anything else to this in regard to the studies and plans that you have made regarding the impact of this new development and rezoning? Lukerman; I guess there is one thing that bothered me in the memorandum. In as much as the petitioners themselves made a statement, and I believe, that it was on page 9. He saidttin any event, there is no forseeable economic feasibility for this type of shopping center to develop". And he was referring to the Maplewood Mall in Rosedale as a basis for comparison. Seems to me everything in the petition has been talking about a major center - 93 acreas is a very substancial amount of commercial property. Yest, we have the petitioners, himself, questioning, or in my judgement saying, it is not feasible. This gives me confusion. I don't know whether it confused the Council. That I feel the committment that you have made with 93 acre as and all their other statements end documentation, leaves it to me very questionable, that it will ever . proceed to be a successful, pliable, major commercial center. With the necessary population to support it. I would hate to see the community left with such a piece of zoned property without the necessary protection for the existing development around it. I drove by the site this evening prior to attending this hearing. It was simply my visual judgement that the area is a committed residential area at the present time. It isn't just the character of the school, it is the location of the neighborhoods, the types of the roadways serving it, and all the other aminities that go with it. In other words, I commend you on your original plan. To me, it made a lot of sense. I would like to think that the City of Ramsey could continue to proceed to implement and carry out the details of its original committment. Oliphant: I have no further direct questions. Do the members of the Board have questions? Albert: You and I will, of course, agree that ma~ planners disagree to what is good and bad planning. Do you not? Lukerman: Good and bad planning? Albert: In other words, there are planners who disagree with the conclusions which you reached tonight. Are there not? --------- Who have all of these qualifications? Lukerman: I don't know if any planner.....INTERRUPTION Albert: Well, you have told us that people like Daytons of Ridgedale had local opposition there. Was there not? . Lukerman: There was a great deal of concern for the periferal development to the south of the shopping center, persay. Albert: Right. But you felt that was a good location for Day tons, of course, you were employed by Daytons?