Laserfiche WebLink
2. The site plan that was proposed in the letter is not marketable. In our <br />meetings, both public and private, we have discussed the type of uses that are <br />attracted to the site and vdiether or not they will be successful. Concern was <br />expressed about vacancy. With this new proposed site plan, vacancy is almost <br />assured. <br />3. The building orientation that is now proposed by city staff is dramatically <br />different titan what has been on the table for some time. The specific <br />feedback we received at the last Planning Commission meeting was rhfft our <br />proposed building orienUtion was fine. In addition, Terry Dahlstrom, who is <br />constructing the Stonebay housing development has sent a letter to the city <br />requesting that the commercial buildings not be oriented toward the residential <br />neighborhood to keep the light levels down, among other things. <br />4. The letter suggests a desire for more food oriented uses, particularly in the fast <br />casual category. I couldn't agree more. Not only are the project economics <br />improved, food uses add vitality to a retail development. The problem is that <br />the demognq)hics don't support such a u.«e. The letter requests “valid market <br />information" which I am happy to provide. <br />We are hopeftil we can continue with our development of the Stonebay commercial <br />area. To do so will require that marketplace conditions be considered as well as <br />providing a pleasing shoppi^ environment. We would like to meet with you at your <br />earliest convenience to continue with our discussions. <br />Sincerely, <br />C. Frank Dunbar <br />Steve Johnston <br />Yield Van DeU <br />J