Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />November 10, 1992 <br /> <br />pagel <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Issues discussed included concern with <br />Centennial, the need for more creative site <br />process was being used, density, amount of <br />details. <br /> <br />having duplexes on <br />planning, why the PUD <br />greenspace and design <br /> <br />Review of capital improvement plan. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Ensrude highlighted the purpose of the CIP and the approval <br />process. <br /> <br />Gibson summarized the CIP changes in uses and sources. <br /> <br />Shardlow discussed the role of the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Issues discussed included TIF expenditures, Planning Commission <br />role, methodology for arriving at numbers, and need for information <br />concerning prior year investments. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Roberts moved and wietecki seconded a motion that Planning <br />commission has reviewed five year capital improvement plan and are <br />comfortable that nothing is inconsistent with the comprehensive <br />plan. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />wietecki, Thomas, Harms, Roberts, <br />DeBenedet <br /> <br />Nayes: None <br /> <br />Abstain: Stokes <br /> <br />Adiournment <br /> <br />There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m. <br />