CC WORKSESSION 12062001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DAHLGREN SHARDLDW ANDUBAN INCORPORATBD Memo To: Jim Prosser Date: December 3, 2001 Re: Summary Comments Related to Prospective Development Teams GENERAL COMMENTS, OVERVIEW First, I think that it important to note that there was some intended informality in the nature of the process that we took these folks through. There were also some significant differences in the amount of time available to some participants,to pull their proposals together. Therefore, I don't think that we are in a position(based solely upon this step in the process)to make a true"apples to apples"comparison between these developers. Second,there were some obvious style differences in the response that the various teams demonstrated. It is important to look beyond some of that to the extent possible. Generally speaking, I am very pleased by the number of very strong candidate teams. Since they were instructed not to spend a great deal of time and money,on design at this point, I will limit my comments to the information presented and my knowledge and experience with these groups. SUMMARY OF LAND USE/PLANNING ISSUES BY DEVELOPMENT TEAM 1. A Plus Real Estate This group presented an alternative approach to the approved concept plan. They had not really studied the site, nor were they prepared to address any of the site design issues, or relationships with surrounding properties. From a land use planning and urban design perspective,this group is a complete unknown at this point. 2. Centex Multi-Family Communities This group endorsed the plan completely and said that they would follow it if the money was available to address the gap issues. They also offered ideas of ways in which deal From the Desk of.... John W. Shardlow • President • 300 1"Ave.N. ° Suite 210 • Minneapolis.,MN 55401 612-339-3300 0 fax-612-337-5601