Agenda - Council Work Session - 09/15/2009

Home

PACT Charter School Dan Debruyn, Administrator Wednesday, July 29, 2009 Dan's input was fairly detailed and extensive. We had a good conversation about the school's role in the project, and what amenities they would like to see in the project and how they could collaborate on those efforts. They have roughly 540 kids and 100 staff members daily that equate to considerable trips within the project area. While their role would be categorized as civic, they are a driver for small retail in the area. ~ Dan would like to make sure the ball field is preserved. ~ They would like to see some more biotech or medical office uses. They have a relationship with the ME office for some classroom interface and have enjoyed that opportunity. ~ They would like to see expansion in the theatre and music areas (potentially a community theatre). ~ PACT has had conversations with potential community center/fitness users and would like that to remain a component in the plan. ~ Dan would like to see a greater investment by the City in the maintenance and upkeep of the project both now and as the project develops (in particular, the ponds and boulevards adjacent to the school). ~ They feel there could be better communication with existing tenants. ~ They would like to see "destination amenities" like plazas for gathering and firework displays. ~ Dan also expressed a concern for potential crime associated with the rail but felt if it was addressed early it was manageable. ~ PACT would like to playa role in the success of the project and look forward to it's re-start. PSD Jim Deal and Curt Martinson Wednesday, July 29, 2009 Jim and Curt had substantial input in the previous project and how it should move forward. Their concerns were generally associated with the success of the overall project, but they did express concern as to how they, as substantial property owners in the development, work with the City to move forward. Their basis in the land and associate impact fees put them at a distinct disadvantage in the marketplace, and they would like to address that issue early in this process. We also discussed the impact of regional politics in getting assistance from the federal government on the major cost items on the project. ~ PSD expressed a clear priority for the project should be the rail stop and the Armstrong interchange. ~ They feel the project needs a retail anchor (Target, etc.). ~ They feel the City should spin the property as fast as possible and exit the process. ~ There was concern expressed for the architectural standards, sustainability goals, and other cost items the project undertook previously and questioning of their viability in today's market. ~ They specifically questioned the viability of the required two-story structures along Sunwood. ~ There was discussion about the viability and timing for apartments and senior housing, both seem necessary in the project and may be able to start sooner than retail. MEMORANDUM 2