Laserfiche WebLink
<br />development on Lot 4. He stated it would need to be removed from the funding plan component <br />also because the potential revenue stream from the condos that would be lost. He stated there <br />was also a potential cost associated with the parking structure that will not be part of the Plan. <br />in more detail. Mr. Breihan added that one more point relative to the adoption process that <br />would need to be discussed more with staff, is that they [the consultants] would work with staff <br />to develop a memo that outlined the revisions to the Plan language in a little more detail and that <br />would be made available to the Plan Commission in August for review. He stated he assumed <br />that voting on the actual revised Plan document itself would probably not occur until September, <br />given the overall timeframe. <br /> <br />Mr. Halpert asked Mr. Breihan, with the current version of the Plan and ultimately the changes, <br />if it was in a format that would be able to be in a red-lined format between the new version vs. <br />the old version to see changes, if feasible. <br /> <br />Mr. Breihan stated it could and what he assumed is they would provide an updated graphic, <br />changes. He stated it was a bit more difficult to do in the full format of the document and would <br />be selected paragraphs. He stated he assumed it would be similar to what was presented in <br />March or April after the first draft. <br /> <br />Mr. Halpert asked if there were any more questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Senturia stated that the Commission had talked about all options being on the table and <br />asked if those words need to be stated, unless it was sufficiently covered. <br /> <br />Ms. Locke stated there needed to be strong language that send a message to the community that <br />would be <br />forewarned. <br /> <br />The Plan Commission reviewed the language on the screen as typed by Ms. Riganti (see Page <br />14). <br /> <br />ght want to add language that there is unmet <br />development potential related to the condo development. He stated the reason being was that the <br />210 condo units were identified in an independent market study completed as part of the process <br />and it was identified as development market potential in the area. He stated that would also have <br />to be acknowledged in revisions to the Plan document and the 210 condo units were tied to <br />particular locations along Delmar, they cannot just be located anywhere as they were geared <br />toward a highly urban product. He stated they would have to revise other language in the <br />document that there is an acknowledged capacity and limited locations along Delmar for this <br />product. <br /> <br />in the Plan. <br /> <br />tm; <br /> šE <br /> <br /> <br />