Laserfiche WebLink
�_.._�_.�. _ -_ i. --. . � . .. � �«:�. .. � ���. z.. � r -� �` _ _ <br />. _ `et — -- .. E ..� --...�_y _ ___ �. �:�. ___�.�_. _ .. _ . _ _ � _ --- --' --=i. <br />Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />January 5, 2000 <br />Page 18 <br />policy at that time. He explained that the Agenda Session meetings no <br />necessary; therefore, this could be clarified in the Bylaws. <br />Chairperson Peterson commented that this policy could confli� <br />not held within the normal schedule. He explained that �� <br />Chambers for regular meetings, however, they are some��€; <br />which may not have access to the cable equipment. �"]�:�a�ak� <br />these situations would have to be resolved in advance. <br />l�Sia�er ap�e�r to be <br />:, <br />���'r,kf�f;�r +��4-iich are <br />utt�t �c�<,' � {�c; a`;�iancil <br />UY.Ill2ca q�+�"a�,�� �:� �3ii1S�. <br />Ericso��. �,+��ra.,,�r� �b���; <br />_. <br />__ _ <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not think the Plannir��; ��a��a����.��ir�r�'� informal discussion <br />of the Comprehensive Plan should be televised, and sugges�ec� �la�f'r ���c;6;tiir�gs be held in a <br />different room. Planning Associate Ericson explaine� that tk�as wo�?1c7 ±�t�� �;������� the requirement <br />that these meetings be televised. <br />Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that m�riutes ae r r���: Ix�� <br />the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner K,�den addeci �ha'c 'c <br />f ;s� <br />Commissioner Miller stated this would ca�se much c,p'�fusion. <br />Planning Associate Ericson explai�l� t�'at �l��y ���uld <br />;,> <br />clear in terms of the discussion and ��s purposc.. <br />Chairpersc��� �eterson <br />most lik�i�l � �;re�,� io stii <br />television, arlc� �&a�` <br />comments r��aK �"�kx�° <br />that the�;�t�minissz� <br />the bili�t�ards. alth <br />�ver, there was <br />all of the infor. <br />y facts. <br />not <br />�'orrmal discussion of <br />in misinterpretation. <br />utilize disclaimers, and be very <br />ing the meetings, however, it would <br />oy� ���.tratk ���, ,�6�c� ��en the December 13 meeting of the City Council on <br />�.�����;il'y ac����;��ta�'��''{�)rdinance 644, pertaining to billboards. He noted <br />�; ����x�z_r�� �;c���-��x��ssion recommendation, and that the Council appreciated <br />�f� _�,�?s����i��c� �n�'only decision they could have, and unanimously opposed <br />��.��,z,1 ;, ;:��h�;d against the Commission's recommendation. He pointed out <br />��1���� �~h��k�rnent that suggested that the Commission had not been provided <br />ip�;; �rF�ri. ��� interpreted this to imply the Commission was slightly ignorant <br />�:g��'��mi��ioner Ste�e�son stated he was not ignorant to the facts, and the Planning Commission <br />°����. ����,j��-� c��t��; x�ationale behind the billboards, as relates to the golf course, and the bond issues <br />y<. f���r,;..:��. 1��e�stated this was fairly well represented, and the Commission was aware of the <br />�_��'7����� ��"`;�;. ���:��ons for voting in favor for the billboards. He advised that his decision was not <br />iruluenced by these factors, and in his clear conscience, he could not vote in favor of billboards for <br />the purpose of generating revenue, and then have to look at them, and know that he had any part <br />in allowing them to be constructed. <br />Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning Commission was not ignorant of the monetary factors, <br />however, he believed the Commission's decision was based upon non-monetary issues. He added <br />