My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_840905
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1984
>
pm_840905
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:34 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/5/1984
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />-5- <br /> <br />Johnson suggested the applicant should be present because there are always <br />questions for the applicant. <br /> <br />Dressler indicated the Commission used to continue the item to the next meet- <br />ing if the applicant was not present. <br /> <br />Dahlgren indicated most commissions table the item if the applicant lS not <br />present. <br /> <br />Wiski indicated that if the applicant is not present, the staff has the burden <br />of providing all of the information and may seem to be in an advocacy position. <br />Wiski suggested the Commission may want to take each case as it comes. <br /> <br />Wiski indicated a second issue is the order of the Commission's procedure. He <br />asked whether the applicant should be given the opportunity for a summary or <br />rebuttal at the end of the Public Hearing. <br /> <br />Matson suggested a rebuttal should be an option at the discretion of the Chair. <br /> <br />DeBenedet suggested it could be useful for the developer to have an opportunity <br />to respond to questions and comments because the developer may offer solutions <br />to concerns raised. <br /> <br />Dahlgren indicated it is proper to ask questions of the applicant or audience <br />after the hearing is closed. <br /> <br />The Commissioners agreed that the Planner's report should remain ln its current <br />place in the hearing process. <br /> <br />Wiski indicated another issue is where the Council Liaison should sit during the <br />Commission Meeting. <br /> <br />Moeller indicated when the Liaison sits in the back, he is available to people <br />who have questions during the meeting. This can be disruptive and can take him <br />away from his liaison duties. <br /> <br />Matson indicated the liaison can explain the Commission's actions to applicants <br />and answer other questions more easily if he sits in the back. There have been <br />no instances where the Commission has needed the liaison and he was not there. <br /> <br />Dressler suggested the Commission should give some form of recognition to the <br />developments that turn out especially well. <br /> <br />Adjournment <br /> <br />Matson moved and Berry seconded that the meeting be adjourned at 9:20 PM. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Matson, Johnson, Moeller, Berry, DeBenedet, Dressler & Wiski. <br />Nays: None <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.