Laserfiche WebLink
(1) Stone Brook Feedback <br />A. Why can't Stone Brook be located on Site #2? <br />1. Look/ feel/ vision are very important to Stone Brook. These sites don't meet their vision —and <br />they don't believe having their facility located here meets the vision of The COR. Please see "Site <br />1 Log" for more information on their vision. <br />2. The McDonald's sites on the west end of The COR (Site #2) are pure traditional retail sites. Stone <br />Brook's use does not mix well for many reasons (perception of safety, traffic congestion, and <br />perception of fit with other users). <br />■ Likely will be sandwiched between convenience retail users like a McDonald's and gas <br />station —that doesn't fit their model well. <br />■ This node will create significant traffic volume with large parking lots, and lots of cross <br />traffic inside the site —which is ideal for a traditional convenience based retail user —not <br />a safe and secure childcare center/ academy. <br />■ The large concrete retaining wall for Armstrong reduces visibility, and doesn't provide a <br />sense of security/ safety. <br />3. The McDonald's sites are fixed/ pre -determined sizes. They are 25%-35% bigger than what Stone <br />Brook needs, and will result in wasted space, or more remnant city -owned lots (worse than Site <br />#1). <br />4. Placing Stone Brook on Site #1 (not this McDonald's site) is a good transition of uses. Site #1 is <br />the in-between point, from COR-1 to COR-2 zoning districts. Re the McDonald's site (Site #2), <br />there is no transition. It would be awkward to place a classy childcare center/ academy in- <br />between a gas station and McDonald's and up against a massive retaining wall. <br />5. They believe this site pulls them too far west —away from Ramsey Boulevard, too far away from <br />a "walkable location", and too far away from Northstar commuters. . <br />6. Stone Brook agrees these sites could potentially work for their development, from a physical site <br />layout perspective, and are willing to discuss only if Site #1 is denied by the City. Site #1 is their <br />most desired site, regardless of price. <br />7. In order to make the McDonald's sites work, the price would need to come down to $3.30 psf <br />(similar to what they want to pay for Site #1). This will result in a $335,000-$531,000 subsidy by <br />the City. Based on preliminary feedback, it doesn't appear the City would be willing to provide <br />that level of subsidy. <br />McDonald's Pads <br />• 1.23 acres, $12.00 psf, $642,945 <br />• 1.35 acres, $12.00 psf, $705,672 <br />Page 3of6 <br />