01-05-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 Planning Associate Ericson advised that since the Planning Commission is required to review the Bylaws during their first meeting in February, they could amend the Bylaws to reflect this new policy at that time. He explained that the Agenda Session meetings no longer appear to be necessary; therefore, this could be clarified in the Bylaws. Chairperson Peterson commented that this policy could conflict with special meetings, which are not held within the normal schedule. He explained that the Commission utilizes the Council Chambers for regular meetings, however, they are sometimes required to utilize other rooms, which may not have access to the cable equipment. Planning Associate Ericson advised that these situations would have to be resolved in advance. Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not think the Planning Commission’s informal discussion of the Comprehensive Plan should be televised, and suggested these meetings be held in a different room. Planning Associate Ericson explained that this would not change the requirement that these meetings be televised. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that minutes are not kept during the informal discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Kaden added that this might result in misinterpretation. Commissioner Miller stated this would cause much confusion. Planning Associate Ericson explained that they would have to utilize disclaimers, and be very clear in terms of the discussion and its purpose. Chairperson Peterson stated he was not opposed to televising the meetings, however, it would most likely tend to stifle the free discussion. Commissioner Stevenson stated he had seen the December 13 meeting of the City Council on television, and the Council’s adoption of Ordinance 644, pertaining to billboards. He noted comments regarding the Planning Commission recommendation, and that the Council appreciated that the Commission had rendered the only decision they could have, and unanimously opposed the billboards, although they voted against the Commission’s recommendation. He pointed out however, there was another comment that suggested that the Commission had not been provided with all of the information, and he interpreted this to imply the Commission was slightly ignorant to the facts. Commissioner Stevenson stated he was not ignorant of the facts, and the Planning Commission was aware of the rationale behind the billboards, as relates to the golf course, and the bond issues it is facing. He stated this was fairly well represented, and the Commission was aware of the Council’s reasons for voting in favor for the billboards. He advised that his decision was not influenced by these factors, and in his clear conscience, he could not vote in favor of billboards for the purpose of generating revenue, and then have to look at them, and know that he had any part in allowing them to be constructed.