My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_891206
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1989
>
pm_891206
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:09 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
12/6/1989
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.
/
17
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 />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page#13 <br /> <br />Wednesday, December 6, 1989 <br /> <br />stokes stated that the Rosedale area is not a depressed area and <br />therefore, tax increment financing should not be used. Waldron <br />replied that the tax increment financing does not go to Rosedale <br />but is used to help alleviate the traffic problems in the area. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that the improvements will help the traffic <br />problems for that area and help the community. <br /> <br />stokes stated that some other source of funds should be used. <br /> <br />Johnson read a suggested resolution finding that the proposed <br />Capital Improvement Program for the period 1990-1994 would have <br />no conflicts with the City's Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved and Berry seconded to approve the proposed <br />resolution. <br /> <br />stoke questioned what the definition of a capital Improvement <br />project was. Burrell highlighted the definition pointing out <br />that there is one definition used for staff preparation and one <br />for the Planning Commission review. <br /> <br />stokes asked if there was a dollar value used to determine <br />capi tal improvement proj ects. Burrell replied that in general <br />there was a $5,000 figure used for equipment but that if a <br />project effected land use, it should be reviewed by the Planning <br />Commission regardless of the dollar value. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Wietecki, DeBenedet, <br />Stokes, Johnson <br /> <br />Berry, Goedeket <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Discussion concerning contractor's doing work without permits. <br /> <br />Berry questioned why contractor's are allowed to do work without <br />permits. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned what the penalties were. <br /> <br />Waldron stated that he hoped they were errors of omission and not <br />errors of commission. Waldron said that the best that staff <br />could do is bring it UPt red tag and prosecute as a civil suit to <br />get required action. <br /> <br />Johnson asked what can the City do now, short of prosecution. <br />Waldron replied that there were two options: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.