Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Deemer inquired if Mr. Dom had objections to making the common wall a fire wall, <br />and Mr. Dom stated he had no problem with that and would do whatever code requires. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Holland to recommend that City <br />Council approve the preliminary plat for Townhouses of Rum River Hills contingent upon the <br />developer complying with City Staff review letter dated October 27, 1994, and the Commission's <br />recommendations for fire proofing between any attached units. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Deemer, Holland, <br />Hendriksen, LaDue, and Thorud. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Terry. <br /> <br />Case //'2: Arterial Thoroughfare Setbacks <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski outlined the City's current arterial thoroughfare setback requirements and <br />Anoka County's new policy regarding this matter. He then outlined Staff's proposed changes, yet <br />advised that there would need to be some revising to accommodate certain areas in the City where <br />special circumstance would prove this policy to be a hardship, noting the area on Ramsey <br />Boulevard south of County Road #5 wherein homes which are located 50-60 feet from the <br />centerline would be rendered unbuildable if fire or other damage required the home to be replaced. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer felt that this proposed policy still does not address the original need for the <br />change. He advised that he has been contacted by more than 10 property owners who have <br />received letters from the county threatening them that they will have to move their driveway. He <br />also submitted documentation of proposed changes to the state trunk highway system, the county <br />highway system, and the local street system (attached to these minutes as Exhibit A), which he <br />feels should be addressed before making any final recommendation on this matter. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding side yard setbacks being applied as opposed to front yard setbacks. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hendriksen stated that, under the current policy which measures setbacks from the <br />centerline of the roadway, the county gains effective use of additional property when they purchase <br />the right-of-way and then skew the road within the right-of-way. He explained that this restricts <br />the property owner from fairly using their property when the county made a conscious decision not <br />to purchase additional fight-of-way. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer agreed that the restriction is in our code book, explaining that the specific <br />setback needs to be defined and the language "whichever is greater" needs to be deleted. <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik inquired whether the county's new policy mitigates Commissioner <br />Hendriksen's situation, since the setback is from the right-of-way line and not the centerline of the <br />roadway. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Holland and seconded by Commissioner Hendriksen for Staff to work <br />with Commissioner Deemer to draft an arterial thoroughfare setback ordinance for the Planning <br />Commission's review. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Holland, Hendriksen, <br />Deemer, LaDue, and Thorud. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Terry. <br /> <br />Case #3: Comprehensive Parks and Trails Plan <br /> <br />This information was noted by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/November 1, 1994 <br /> Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />