Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
CORRECTED AND APPROVED – APRIL 14, 2005 <br /> <br />Stan Martin, 337 Lincoln Ct., stated that the Commission needs additional information to make <br />decisions about the Plan. <br /> <br />Lipton asked for additional comments. None heard. He then requested that John Leary come <br />forward and present the information he had prepared for the meeting this evening. <br /> <br />John Leary, 1116 Lafarge, used overhead slides with the following slide titles in his presentation: <br /> <br />1)Operating Expenses <br /> <br />2)Key Assumptions in Analysis <br /> <br />3)Relationship Problems with Housing to Retail Development <br /> <br />4)Financial effect of Housing / Retail Distortion <br /> <br />5)Assumption changes for sensitivity analysis purposes <br /> <br />6)Technical assumptions and values <br /> <br />7)Impact on operating balance at build out <br /> <br />8)CTC retail unrealistic <br /> <br />9)STK sales tax leakage <br />His recommendation included the following points: <br /> <br />1)A sensitivity analysis needs to be performed <br /> <br />2)Assumptions need to be looked at very carefully <br /> <br />3)The objective of the Plan can be met without Centennial Valley and STK <br /> <br />4)Consider commercial at STK <br /> <br />Lipton inquired if commercial implied retail. <br />Leary replied yes, retail at STK. <br /> <br />Action by the Planning Commission <br />Lipton addressed the Commission regarding how to proceed with the review of the Draft Comp <br />Plan. He suggested that at the next meeting the Commission review the Introduction Chapter, the <br />Existing Conditions, the specific Opportunity Areas and public comments. <br /> <br />McDermott asked to spend more time with the financial section. He also stated that the <br />Commission needed to address the concern expressed by several that the public was not listened <br />to during the workshops. <br /> <br />Lipton suggested the following format for the next Comp Plan hearing: <br /> <br />1)review Sections 1 -3 <br /> <br />2)Financial discussion <br /> <br />3)Review Chapter 3 and 4 as time allows <br /> <br />Lipton requested input from the Commissioners and Staff regarding the agenda for the next <br />scheduled meeting dates. Staff reported that the March 10 public hearing would have 2 cases to <br />be heard and suggested that the Commission devote the March 24 meeting date to the Comp <br />Plan. The Commission agreed to that suggestion. Lipton stated that he would not be able to <br />attend the March 10 meeting. <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />