My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
03/30/88
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Economic Development Commission
>
Minutes
>
1988
>
03/30/88
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2025 3:53:09 PM
Creation date
11/16/2006 2:24:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Document Title
Economic Development Commission - Special
Document Date
03/30/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />February 25, 1988 <br /> <br />Economic Development Commission <br />March .30, 1988 <br />.Attachment I <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />COMMENTS ON THE "TRUNK HIGHWAY *10 CORRIDOR STUDY" <br />By James M Martin, Owner of 101.0 Acres in the <br />Southwest Quadrant of T.H. #10 and Traprock street N.W. <br /> <br />My comments should not be understood as saying that I am plan- <br />ning near-term development or sale; lam not, because the land <br />is not ripe for sale. My concern is that the zoning and road <br />system be decided in a way to maximize the long-term value of <br />my property, and in this, Ramsey's interest and mine are the <br />same. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />Figure #8 of the "Corridor Study" shows +65.0 percent of my <br />farm designated as park. I will not sell my land to the <br />county for a park. The county will have to condemn it. <br />Whether or not the county will ever have the money to condemn <br />my property is questionable, since I understand funds must <br />come from the Metro Council. <br /> <br />I cannot believe that Ramsey is interested in having my land <br />as a park. Parks do not generate other business. Look at the <br />Hennepin County parks on Medicine Lake and Lake Independence. <br />They have not generated businesses of any sort. My farm <br />should be eventually developed with housing and business. <br />People generate business and businesses provide jobs, and they <br />both add to assessed valuation. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />Presently, the river frontage on my land is zoned residential, <br />while possibly 75.0 percent is zoned industrial. I recognize <br />that some adjustment is desirable in the depth and location of <br />the industrial zoning. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />It is obvious from reading the "Corridor Study", however, that <br />the primary thrust is in areas other than arriving at a feas- <br />ible and reasonable zoning for my farm.. The thrust of the <br />planning for my farm has been to accomodate the county's <br />desire for park land and to designate other uses that the <br />planner thinks may be compatible with that. <br /> <br />This disturbs me greatly, because I do not want the "Corridor <br />Study" plan of my farm to find its way into a comprehensive <br />plan or the zoning map for three reasons. <br /> <br />a. The conclusions of the plan for my farm are not sup- <br />ported in the "Corridor Study" with the proper foun- <br />dation facts and feasibility, and are inappropriate, <br />in my opinion. <br /> <br />b. This would prejudice any condemnation case against <br />me. In other words, instead of the county being re- <br />quired to pay fair value for my land, Ramsey would <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.