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

Home

would place the separation distance for a single family residence in the rural area on a County road with an existing 66-foot right-of-way to be ten feet greater than it could be placed on residential roadway. He explained that in cases where the existing right-of-way is 120 feet or greater, which is the situation over County Road #5 and the majority of C.R. #116 and #83, there would be no effective differences between the two policies. However, in those instances where only an existing 66-foot right-of-way is available, setback differences between the two policies could be as much as 17 feet. He noted an illustration in the agenda packet entitled Comparison of County and Planning Commission Recommended Setback Policy Along County Roads", and explained that the set back could be as much as 17 feet shorter than standard policy once the County purchases the fight-of- way of 60 feet. If the City adopts the Planning Commission's recommended policy, we could end up in a situation where the County Road would be closer to a structure than the City allows. This could increase opposition to County projects and make acquisition of the 60-foot right-of-way more costly because people would point out the fact that after the County project is completed, their front door would be closer to the road than the City allows. He recommended adopting the County's policy. Benjamin Deemer, Planning Commission member, stated that the Planning Commission has been dealing with this issue more than three years. The Commission directed staff to draft an ordinance to change this. Mr. Jankowski is defending the County's policy instead of what the residents want. Mr. Jankowski said that Minor Arterial B and Collector Streets have the same right of ways and that's incorrect. He quoted some of the setback numbers of the different roads in Ramsey. The Planning Commission is only trying to change this one sentence in Chapter 9 of the City Code, wherever it occurs. We are not trying to change any zone-specific setbacks. We are trying to roll this back to what it used to be. The Planning Commission voted to change the 50 feet from the fight-of-way or 100 feet from the center line to 83 feet from the right-of-way. Mr. Deemer stated that the majority of the variance requests in the City are due to front yard setbacks. This has not been adhered to in the business community. "How this got changed is unknown to me. It was not done by the Planning Commission. He stated this is a source of frustration when staff goes contrary to the Planning Commission. Mr. Jankowski replied that the City relies on the County to provide a great deal of our transportation trunk system. In his opinion, the City is benefitting from the County transportation system. If we have a road that changes from 120 feet to 66 feet, and we allow someone to build 120 feet from the center line and the house is built 83 feet from the center line, we will be looking at compensating someone because he will point out that he's closer to the right-of-way than we allow on City streets. It will bring the highway closer to his front door. Even though Mr. Jankowski pointed out instances where this could happen, Mr. Deemer felt that Mr. #ankowski was arguing for a case that cannot happen. He felt that Mr. Jankowski is resisting this direction from the Planning Commission and that he has been doing so on this issue for three years. Mayor Hardin stated that he is opposed to restricting the setback any further. Councilmember Zimmerman commented that the City has to work with the County and if we do now follow specifications, we will not receive our fair share of available aid. Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to table action on the setbacks until further discussion at the next Planning Commission/City Council workshop on November 9, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carded. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmember Peterson, Zimmerman and Beahen. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmember Beyer. City Council/October 10, 1995 Page 6 of 8