10-20-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 IIIthere would be ample opportunity to gain public input. Community Development Director Jopke reported he and Planning Associate Ericson had attended the State Planning Conference the previous Thursday and Friday in Bloomington. He commented that one of the sessions he had attended was a panel of Planning Commission members from a variety of different communities, and during that session, a questio ':was raised regarding how staff could assist the Commissions in performing their yeiffrcult o , and what could be done better. He noted that the Chair of the Eagan Planning C et"� 3, si an attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities, had indicated that sta' ` ld ort ` �_ . de factual information, and that recommendations by staff are unnec;, . Chair Peterson commented over the past several years t° '„lannin more complete and useful information than ever before, a g g_>•n o 'perspective, sta"< ' ; tine a great job for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Miller stated the information staff proviis vex ::`` fi.articularly in terms of �..,. .., the references to the Code, which provides the Co ' 'oners do <: spend their valuable time researching these matters. She remarked it very time . ng process to gather this information, however, it is very helpful w�: `h :'"`, .< . -renes `p:areas in the Code that are . ,i, pertinent to the issues. • Chair Peterson noted the Commission:=is ubject tt.'deadlinet:.rid timetables set by the Legislature, and generally have only one meetinghich etermine�'ach case. He explained for the more clear cut cases, not having a sta':;:j . •mmen�`a;. on., and., °'erefore a resolution to consider, would substantially slow down the • .o s"s. Commission , son t. "' ! i where weft- hies when staff requested the Commission's recommend :` .: :- state.,,='g`g :. _ 's!,.4,no problem with staff recommending one direction or another, and _:)itt; �ie mass' , ' :" > recommendation. He noted the Commission always �:; adds their stipu .: • �;. t ff-<: tafF s f endation of approval does not indicate that a case is approved <. -en )101411 Chair• terson stated alt w ; as been implied that if staff gives a recommendation for a ot,cS. spe ` issue, the Planni -mmission will simply"rubber stamp" it, this is simply is not true. ,ted, in many case nitial information pointed in one direction, however, further review •d the necessity go in another direction. He stated he treated the staff recommendation g er item o aVrmation, and did not consider it in any way mandated. b > :s. aube stated that staff's recommendation provides the Commission with staff's thoug s, and how they are researching their information, which assist in directing the Commission. He explained that the Commission does not deal with many of these issues on a daily basis, and without staff's recommendation the Commission would be required to spend much time attempting to find the direction in which to proceed. He explained he has not always • agreed with staff's recommendations, and there have been some very serious discussions while