Laserfiche WebLink
recommendation, the basis for it and staffs viewpoint. <br /> <br />Commissi(iner Shumway stated that the Commission represents the people of Ramsey and <br />it was out 4f line for staff to submit a recommendation to Council that differed from that of <br />the Commfasion. <br /> <br />Mark Ban~art stated that it is very appropriate for staff and commission's to vary in <br />recommendations from a planning context. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartle~ stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission receives applications and <br />requests a~d,from time to time, staff may make a recommendation that differs from the <br />Commissi~in s. Mr. Hartley also noted that his staff has been instructed to not be an <br />advocate far staff's position but to fairly represent the two points of view before Council. <br />Every effoj't is made to make sure the Planning and Zoning Commission's advice to City <br />Council is ~hell articulated in the verbal presentation as well as in written form. City Staff <br />should not, be promoting one option over another when it is a matter of preference; if the <br />issue is ofia technical nature, Staff's point of view needs to be communicated to City <br />Council. <br /> <br />Mr. HartleJg stated that in the case of the road right-of-way issue, Council was presented <br />with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, City Staff's report and a <br />report of v~hat other communities require. There was not an excessive amount of debate <br />and there Has definitely not an advocate position taken by City Staff. <br /> <br />Chairman IZimmerman inquired as to what the City Charter states regarding the planning <br />authority i9 the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartl~.y replied that the City Charter does not reference the Planning and Zoning <br />CommissiOn as the planning authority. The City Code establishes the Planning and Zoning <br />Commissi.~n as a planning body. State law recognizes that in the absence of a Planning <br />and Zonin~g Commission, the City Council is the planning authority, but the Planning and <br />Zoning C(~mission is not a planning authority but rather an advisory planning body. <br /> <br />Chairman iZimmerman recalled that this past fall there were 4 plats brought before the <br />CommissiOn proposed to be developed as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) with one <br />acre lots a!3d swamp land being dedicated for parks. This format conflicts with the City <br />Council position that the City will not accept swamp land for parks. Chairman Zimmerman <br />stated tha~ the situation leads him to believe that City Staff is promoting planned unit <br />developm~.nts. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartle~ stated that City Staff does not stand in the way of the applicant by withholding <br />informatio,g; City Staff provides the applicant with all options available. In the case of the 4 <br />PUDs rec~tly approved, wetlands have not been accepted as park land; the wetlands have <br />been acce~ted as additional open space above and beyond the park requirements. <br /> <br />Chairman Zimmerman stated that he feels the PUD option was overly encouraged. <br /> <br />Mark Bamyart stated that a PUD allocates the same amount of development in pro-rated lot <br />sizes for i~entifying more open space for public purposes and surface water management. <br />The City Ct)uld face horrendous easement acquisition costs in the future if it tries to develop <br />a surface V~ater management plan without having the space in place. <br /> <br /> Planning & Zoning Commission/February 6, 1990 <br /> Page 4 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />