Minutes - Council - 10/10/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #3: Amend Snowmobile Ordinance 6.04 Police Chief Auspos reported that there were two meetings held to discuss the snowmobile ordinance and problems with snowmobiles in the City. One of the items discussed was an ordinance in Ham Lake that provides for sanctions against the owner of a snowmobile by presuming that owners have given permission, and will be held responsible for any violations committed by the operators of the machines. Chief Auspos drafted an amendment for Ramsey's ordinance using a portion of Ham Lake's ordinance. He stated that during the snowmobile committee meetings, interest was expressed in using this concept. City Attorney Goodrich stated that he is concerned about a couple of provisions such as taking certain fights away but he suggested that Council schedule the public hearing as proposed. Motion by Councilmember Zimmerman and seconded by Councilmember Beahen to introduce the snowmobile ordinance amendment and schedule a public hearing for adoption of same for 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 24, 1995. Further discussion: Discussion ensued pertaining to trail systems and signage, etc. With regard to trail access to the Rum River, City Administrator Schroeder expressed concern about sanctioning fiver trails and suggested "treading cautiously". Mayor Hardin stated that the resident's concerns relating to snowmobiling must be addressed. This amendment is a step in the right direction but it will not solve some of the problems. We need to continue discussing answers to the problems. Councilmember Zimmerman felt that the City is in need of a long term plan for a snowmobile trail. This is needed for the safety of youth and would aid against damage to property. He felt that Council should definitely support a trail system. A1 Pearson, 14821 Bowers Drive N.W., reported that he had talked to a couple of farmers in the Big Lake and the Zimmerman area. The land owners and the snowmobile clubs there have established areas where snowmobilers can ride. The riders have been real responsive to the marked areas. Mr. Pearson stated he would be open to the local snowmobile clubs meeting with him and marking areas on his property where snowmobiles can and cannot fide. Chief Auspos informed Mr. Pearson that Bob Peterson of the Snow Rams will be contacting him (Pearson). Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Zimmerman, Beahen, and Peterson. Voting No: None. Absent: CouncilmemberBeyer. Case /t4: Consider Amending Thoroughfare Setback City Engineer Jankowski stated that in the fall of 1993, the Planning Commission suggested that the City revise the thoroughfare setback requirements. At approximately the same time, Anoka County was revising its advisory setback policy and eventually adopted such a policy in May 1994. He explained that for purposes of the County policy, which he presented to Council, the following classifications are given to roadways in Ramsey: Principal Arterial is Highway #10, Minor Arterial A is Trunk Highway #47, Minor Arterial B are County Road #116 and County Road #56 and Collectors are all other County Roads. Mr. Jankowski continued that our existing policy for thoroughfares calls for a setback of 50 feet from the right-of-way line or 100 feet from the center line, whichever is greater. In cases where the County has acquired its desired 60-foot right-of-way each side of the center line, this means a structure setback needs to be 50 feet regardless of the zoning of whether the structure must meet a front, rear or side yard setback. The revised County policy would result in a reduced setback in many cases, as it would allow the setback to meet the standard zoning setback with a range from 20 feet for a side yard residential structure to a 40-foot front yard setback. In June of this year, the Planning Commission reviewed this issue and voted to reduce setback requirements even further than the advisory County policy. The Planning Commission recommended that the policy be modified to require the setback to be a minimum of 83 feet from the center line of the fight-of-way. The rationale for this setback is that it City Council/October 10, 1995 Page 5 of 8