Agenda - Council - 11/09/1995 - Joint with Planning Commission

Home

CASE CONSIDER AMENDING THOROUGHFARE SETBACK By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer Background: In the fall of 1993, the Planning Commission suggested that the City revise the thoroughfare sietback requirements. At approximately the same time, Anoka County was revising its adv~isory setback policy and eventually adopted such a policy in May 1994. A copy of that policy is attached to this case. For purposes of the County policy, it should be noted that the following roadways within the City of Ramsey fall into the following classifications:' Minor Arterial A Minor Anerisl B CollectOrs U.S. Highway #10 Trunk Highway 4/47 County Road #116 and County Road #56 All other County Roads On U.S. Highway gl0, existing zoning setbacks control since fight-of-way widths are so large. On TrUnk Highway #47, setback requirements shall be specified as a part of the current corrid6r study. This case deals with setbacks on County roadways. Our existing ~1~. licy for thoroughfares calls for a setback of 50 feet from the fight-of-way line or 110 feat from the centerline, whichever is greater. In cases where the County has acquired its d&ired 60-foot fight-of-way each side of the centerline, 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 magy 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. The Planning Commission reviewed this issue on June 21, 1995, and voted to reduce setback requirements even further than the advisory County policy. The Planning Commission geeommended that the policy be modified to require the setback to be a minimum of 8B feet from the centerline of the right-of-way. The rationale for this setback is that it would place the separation distance for a single family residence in the rural area on a County road with an existing 66-foot fight-of-way to be ten feet greater than it could be placed on residential roadway. In cases where the existing fight-of-way is 120 feet or greater, which is the situation over County Road ~#5 and the majority of C.R. gl 16 and #83, there would be no effective differences between the two policies. However, in those instances where only an existing 66-foot right-df-way is available, setback differences between the two policies could be as much as 17 fe~t. Recommendation: As the City expands and grows, traffic will continue to increase on our County roads which provide a significant portion of the City's transportation trunk system. The Count's oalli y g - s to prepare for future highway expansion by limiting development which occurs too close to the highway since such development can effect fight-of-way costs. It would be my Prediction that when the County acquires additional fight-of-way to construct a future project, property owners will argue that they are entitled to additional compensation