Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Bhwden called the regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting back to order at <br />7:45 p.m. <br /> <br />COMMISSION BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: .Consider Ordinance to Reduce Thoroughfare Setbacks <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowsld explained that a case from the October meeting concerning Commissioner <br />Deemer's suggestion to reduce the setback distance for structures from the centerline of arterial <br />streets from I1~0 foet to 83 feet was tabled until the County Highway Department's response could <br />be addressed. [He advised that the County's proposed policy, to be finalized by December of this <br />year, would allow the City flexibility to reduce the setback to 95 feet for the majority of roads in <br />Ramsey. He ~lded that it is anticipated the final policy will contain financial responsibilities for <br />land acquisition for agencies which do not comply with the final recommended guidelines. <br />Therefore, it Was Mr. Jankowsld's recommendation that the Commission take no action on <br />amending th(~xtetial thoroughfare setback ordinance until the County finalizes their amended <br />policy to avoid poasible serious financial obligations. <br /> <br />Commissioneg Deemer stated that the only road affected by this ordinance is County Road #63 <br />(Green Valley Road). <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowsld stated that County Roads #56 and #83 have places where there is not 120 feet <br />right-of-way.. <br /> <br />Commissione~ De~mer stated that the reduction in the thoroughfare setback will not supersede <br />other setback 0/rdiriances, but the Commission is making this an absolute minimum. He cited two <br />cases in the Zo~ ' g Bulletin which apply to this case. <br />Chairperson B~wden and Commissioner Thorud stated there was no urgency to reduce the setback <br />before the County finalizes their policy. <br /> <br />Commissioner l)eemer noted that the roads belong to the City and that the County only administers <br />them. <br /> <br />Motion by commissioner Holland and seconded by Commissioner LaDue to take no action on <br />reducing the thoroughfare setbacks until the County finalizes their aetaon. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Holland, LaDue, Deemer, <br />Hendriksen, T,6r~y, and Thorud. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case 02: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of Chestnut Ridge; Case of <br /> ~Jolm Peterson, Good Value Homes <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the Commission to table discussion of this case until Mr. Peterson or a <br />representative 6f Good Value Homes is in attendance. <br /> <br />Case #3: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (MUSA Expansion) <br /> <br />Project Mana~r C-~romberg stated that the City has submitted a proposal to the Metropolitan <br />Council for an Sxpansion of the MUSA area which includes a total of 4,365 acres. He noted that <br />over 52 pereerit of the proposed expansion is not developable due to wetlands or to previously <br />developed pro~. _e?ty. He stated that the proposal extends the MUSA line out to 153rd/155th <br />crosstown arterial. <br /> <br />Planning and Zoning Commission/November 4, 1993 <br /> Page 2 of $ <br /> <br /> <br />