Laserfiche WebLink
<br />01/29/01 14:13 FAX 612 337 5601 <br /> <br />DSU, INC. <br /> <br />(, () t\ ~OO? " <br />i~-), C>v'c CA;) \ \:~T,\.r\_ (i tn. i<.~ <br />~,(./ <br />.. I ( ;;A '1/ D) CD-U..Nu<C.c -! V>'ll:<y <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />DAHLGREN <br />SHARDLOW <br />AND.UBAN <br /> <br />January 29, 2001 <br /> <br />Terry Post, City Administrator <br />City of Arden Hills <br />4364 W. Round Lake Road <br />Arden Hills, MN 55112-3923 <br />651-633-5676 (office) <br />651-633-7839 (fax) <br /> <br />RE: Summary of Applicant's Responses to Comments Section of the Planning Report <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />As we discussed briefly on the phone, all ofthe items listed as "Planning Commission <br />Comments" in the staff report are actually the same comments that were in the staff <br />report that went to the Planning Commission. Many, ifnot all of these items were <br />discussed with the Planning Commission and we offer the following summary in hopes <br />that you might address the key items in your introductory remarks. <br /> <br />Responses to Comments 1-14: <br /> <br />I. We are not presenting concepts A and B as either or alternatives. Rather, these <br />two sketches are intended to assist us in establishing an acceptable range of <br />development intensities and characteristics through the PUD process. We fully <br />understand that Alternate A represents the most literal accomplishment of the <br />City's vision for the Gateway District. We also intend to work very hard with the <br />City to attempt to accomplish this level of development. However, we also know <br />that we may not be able to attract a single tenant for the entire property and will, <br />therefore need to work together to start the development with a high quality, <br />lower intensity multi-tenant office building. <br /> <br />To say this in simple terms, we expect the PUD process and approval to establish <br />the acceptable range of development for the subject property, as well as all of the <br />design standards needed to ensure its quality. <br /> <br />2. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission and has been clear from the <br />beginning of our involvement with the City on this site, that it is your desire to <br />attract a development on this site that would exceed this height limitation. The <br />PUD certainly provides the flexibility to approve this change. <br /> <br />- <br />