Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br />_____________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br /> <br />5. Review of Commission Roles and Responsibilities. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson stated during the last meeting questions were raised <br />regarding the Commission’s responsibilities. He added Scott Riggs, City Attorney, is present <br />tonight to clarify responsibilities and answer any questions. Mr. Riggs handed out a few <br />different pieces of pertinent information. He reviewed the handouts and memorandum indicating <br />the Commission is an advisory body to City Council and reviews items such as zoning and plats <br />and recommends final approval to Council; these items do not include fiscal issues such as TIF. <br />The single exception to this is the requirement for the Planning Commission to determine <br />whether new TIF plans or modifications to existing TIF plans would be consistent with the <br />City’s adopted Comp Plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland stated that about a month ago the Planning Commission had to make a <br />decision regarding a tax increment financing plan. He asked Attorney Riggs whether this was <br />the one exception to which he was referring. Attorney Riggs stated that was correct. <br /> <br />Commission Hegland continued, stating that when the plan was before the Commission, he was <br />unsure as to what the Commission’s responsibility was, in that the Commission was simply <br />presented the TIF plan and they had no idea if it satisfied the criteria or not, or what the criteria <br />were by which it should be judged. <br /> <br />Attorney Riggs responded by suggesting that the only question that Commission had to answer <br />when presented with the TIF plan, or any TIF plan modification, is whether the project as <br />proposed and the TIF plan that goes with that project fit within the confines of the Comp Plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Scotch stated she disagrees and read some language from Minnesota Statutes. <br />She added if a plan involves economic development why wouldn’t the Commission want to <br />know about dollars. Mr. Riggs replied the comp plan has been adopted and now the Commission <br />is applying it. He added fiscal implications are not there for the Commission to analyze. <br /> <br />Commissioner Scotch referenced a book she received at the beginning of her term on the <br />Commission. She added she feels up to this point she has made good decisions, has the right to <br />her own opinion, and in making decisions the whole picture needs to be looked at. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn stated sometimes the Commission is not given all the facts. <br /> <br />Commissioner Scotch asked why a contract is being signed without a PUD in place. Mr. Riggs <br />replied the developer is going through the development process at this time. He added the City is <br />following the process it has used in the past; there has been no deviation from policy or process. <br />Commissioner Scotch questioned Mr. Riggs’ information. She added she would take the <br />provided information into consideration for the agenda item tonight. Mr. Riggs replied he is