Laserfiche WebLink
recommendation, the basis for it and staffs viewpoint. <br /> <br />Commissioner Shumwav stated that the Commission represents the people of Ramsey and <br />it was out of line for sta(f to submit a recommendation to Council that differed from that of <br />the Commission. <br /> <br />Mark Banwart stated that it is very appropriate for staff and commission's to var), in <br />recommendations from a planning context. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that thc Planning and Zoning Commission receives applications and <br />requests and from time to time, staff may make a recommendation that differs from the <br />Commission's. Mr. Hartley also noted that his staff has been instructed to not be an <br />advocate for staff's position but to fairly represent the two points of view before Council. <br />Ever), effort is made to make sure the Planning and Zoning Commission's advice to City <br />Council is well 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 of a technical nature, Staff's point of view needs to be communicated to City <br />Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley 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 what other communities require. There was not an excessive amount of debate <br />and there was definitely not an advocate position taken by City Staff. <br /> <br />Chairman Zimmerman inquired as to what the City Charter states regarding the planning <br />authority in the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley 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 />Commission as a planning body. State law recognizes that in the absence of a Planning <br />and Zoning Commission, the City Council is the planning authority, but the Planning and <br />Zoning Commission is not a planning authority but rather an advisory planning body. <br /> <br />Chairman Zimmerman 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 and 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 that the situation leads him to believe that City Staff is promoting planned unit <br />developments. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that City Staff does not stand in the way of the applicant by withholding <br />information; City Staff provides the applicant with all options ava/lable. In the case of the 4 <br />PUDs recently approved, wetlands have not been accepted as park land; the wetlands have <br />been accepted 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 Banwart stated that a PUD allocates the same amount of development in pro-rated lot <br />sizes for identifying more open space for public purposes and surface water management. <br />The City could face horrendous easement acquisition costs in the furore if it tries to develop <br />a surface water management plan without having the space in place. <br /> <br />Planning & Zoning Commission/February 6, 1990 <br /> Page 4 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />