HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.28.09 EDA Packet
AGENDA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
September 28, 2009 - 7: 15 p.m.
City Council Chambers, City Hall
Authority Members
Terry Donnelly
1. Call Meeting to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
4. Citizens Comments/Presentations
(7:15 p.m.)
Chair, Christy Jo Fogarty
Vice-Chair, Steve Wilson
Mayor Todd Larson
Julie May
5. Consent Agenda (see attached)
a. Meeting Minutes: August 24, 2009
b. Bills: August 23, 2009 - September
c. Budget Details: August 2009
City Staff Representatives
Executive Director,
Peter Herlofsky
City Administrator
6. Public Hearings (None)
7. Continued Business
Cindy Muller
Executive Assistant
8. New Business
a. Design Standards
i. Downtown Commercial District
ii. Industrial Park
b. Draft Strategic Plan
c. The 3/50 Project
Tina Hansmeier
Economic Development
Specialist
430 Third Street
Farmington, MN 55024
9. City Staff Reports, see attached
a. Economic Update/ volume 26 - To be distributed at the
meeting.
Phone: 651.280.6800
http://www.ci.farminoton.mn.us
10.Adjourn
The Farmington EDA 's mission is to improve the economic vitality of the city of Farmington and to enhance the overall quality of life
by creating partnerships, fostering employment opportunities, promoting workforce housing and by expanding the tax base through
development and redevelopment.
Sc::z...
MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Regular Meeting
August 24, 2009
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Fogarty at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Fogarty, Donnelly, Larson, May, Wilson
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Tina Hansmeier, Economic
Development Specialist
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVE AGENDA
Chair Fogarty added 8c) Dew Days and CEEF for discussion.
MOTION by Larson, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
4. CITIZEN COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
5. CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Wilson, second by Larson to approve the Consent Agenda as follows,
pulling 5e) for separate vote:
a) Meeting Minutes June 22,2009
b) Bills: June 22 - August 23,2009
c) Budget Details: June & July 2009
d) Industrial Park Project Expenditures Update
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
e) Business Development Grant Extension Requests
i. Installed Building Solutions
ii. Farmington Truck Center
Chair Fogarty noted they have had problems in the past with extensions and she
will not approve any more extensions. She understood the economic times and
was willing to give both parties 90 days and have it done. Staff noted only one
extension is allowed under the program. The EDA was in agreement to give both
parties 90 days.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
EDA Minutes (Regular)
August 24, 2009
Page 2
7. CONTINUED BUSINESS
a) Proposed Industrial Park Expansion Update
Staff provided an update on the second set of land owner meetings, the wetland
delineation, and the soil borings. During July the four property owners met with
the consultant team. They are amenable to the project, some had concerns with
tax implications, some are ready to sell as soon as possible, and some are
interested in a 1031 exchange. Staff explained a 1031 exchange is a land swap.
The EDA would have to purchase property somewhere so the farming operations
could continue on the other property. Member Donnelly clarified the EDA would
not have to buy the land, the owner has a certain length of time to buy the land.
This is to avoid capital gains tax.
The second item is the wetland delineation scope and cost estimate prepared by
Bonestroo. This involves five different tasks from the farm service agency slide
review, field work, GPS wetland boundary, a delineation boundary review
meeting and a report. The cost for Bonestroo to do this is $6,000.
The third item is related to soil boring work. One fee quote was received and
staff is waiting for another one. The cost for two 41 ft. borings would be $4200,
and the fee for two 41 ft. borings and six 21 ft. borings would be $7,616. Staff is
also working on obtaining property appraisal information and fiber options.
Information on low impact development will be forwarded to EDA members.
Member Wilson clarified we have exhausted the authorized expenditures given to
date. Staff noted there are some funds remaining in phase 1 and phase 2. There
has been $8,000 spent on phase 1 and there is $12,000 total available. Member
Wilson stated based on the comments from the land owners, he felt the EDA
needs to determine how much involvement they want to have and suggested
slowing down.
Member May agreed as it seemed the area needed to be shovel ready to be
attractive. There are not a lot of industrial type inquiries. She was concerned
with spending any more money at this time and with the land owners' comments.
Member Larson felt the remaining items in the process would need to be done by
the land owner or the developer. Member Donnelly agreed as there is no one
offering to buy the land. Chair Fogarty noted there was less resistance from the
land owners for industrial development. She would like to continue to consider
what we can do as the opportunities arise, such as installing fiber. It was agreed
to not move forward with the industrial park expansion at this time and for staff to
continue to be aware of what is happening in the market.
8. NEW BUSINESS
a) Proposals for Purchase of 308 Elm Street
Two proposals have been received. The first one is from Pellicci Inc. which also
includes an offer to purchase the two parcels on the McVicker lot. They propose
to use the area for a retail store, storage and a shop for Pellicci Ace Hardware.
EDA Minutes (Regular)
August 24, 2009
Page 3
Their proposal amount is $1,325,000 which includes a consideration from the
City for $425,000 in tax abatement. Staff contacted Ehlers regarding tax
abatement and for a 20-year abatement with no county or ISD 192 participation,
the City abatement would be $6,700 per year, or $100,200 over 20 years.
The second proposal was received after the deadline from AK Performance
Graphics which is a graphics sign company and they would also have a retail
component.
Member Larson read the Pellicci proposal as they are willing to negotiate more.
City Administrator Herlofsky noted there is very little room to negotiate for an
abatement if they are looking for additional cash to complete the project. There is
no way the City can provide $425,000. If the Pellicci's take $325,000 from the
cash they want from the City, we can work something out. That is if the EDA is
willing to forego for the next 20 years the additional value that is brought to the
City by them moving to the other location. There is a policy issue as well as a
business decision. Chair Fogarty noted it would not be on the City tax roles for
20 years, and that is also $13 7 ,000 in subsidy just on the purchase of the lot.
They are asking for over $500,000 in subsidies total. City Administrator
Herlofsky stated this proposal cannot work based on the economics they have
provided.
Member May did not have an issue with the purchase price. She liked the idea of
the hardware store on the main street. She asked if we can negotiate with them
more. City Administrator Herlofsky stated staff has had numerable discussions
with the Pellicci's. Their current site is available to them to purchase. There is
only so much the City can do. Member Larson noted in the meeting he attended it
sounded like the door was open. Chair Fogarty did not have a problem with the
purchase price, but that is the business subsidy and that is where she is willing to
give. They will create more jobs, they will be an asset to the downtown and she
would like to seem them stay downtown and in Farmington. In addition, she was
not willing to abate the property and wanted it back on the tax roles. Is the
building and having that business downtown worth $137 ,OOO? It is not a good
deal for the taxpayer.
Member Donnelly asked what they are willing to pay for the lots. Staff noted it
has to be sold at fair market value which was $54,000. Member Larson stated he
has spoken with the Pellicci' s and they do know what they are getting into and
they would like to build downtown. Member Donnelly stated if we are willing to
offer a $400,000 abatement, there may be a different type of business that would
be interested.
The EDA discussed the proposal from AK Performance. Member Wilson did not
see a reason to turn this proposal down. They are not looking for money from the
City, they will provide jobs and will enhance the downtown.
EDA Minutes (Regular)
August 24, 2009
Page 4
Mr. Adam Kurth, AK Performance Graphics CEO, stated they are currently
located in Lakeville. If the cost of the move is over $180,000 they would be
better to stay where they are. The proposed renovations to the current parks
garage would amount to $169,900. Member Wilson noted this proposal meets our
expectations. Member Donnelly stated this is a new business in town and not
moving a business from one building to another. Member May noted it is a
competing business with some current businesses. Her only concern is because it
did come in late, if there is any responsibility the EDA has to visit with Pellicci's
since they did meet the deadline. The Pellicci deal would be done without the 308
Elm Street building. Member May did not feel convinced we have had all the
conversations we can with Pellicci's. The AK offer is a little low. Mr. Kurth
noted this is in addition to the upgrades on the building; putting arched windows
back in, arched doors, decorative rock finish, etc. They would like to start
construction as soon as possible.
Chair Fogarty was very comfortable with this proposal. She also would like to
see the hardware store in that location. She felt it was worth a phone call to them
and let them know we are not interested in abatement. If they took that off the
table and asked for no business subsidy other than the cost, there is a conversation
to be had. As a long standing business in the community they should be offered
an extension and make sure they understand. AK has good intentions for the
property and it gets it back on the tax roles. Member Wilson believed the
northwest corner of that block might be for sale and could be reviewed by the
hardware store. He agreed with Chair Fogarty as 32% of their proposal would be
encumbered by the City. Member Larson appreciated the AK proposal and felt
they would be a good business for Farmington. He felt it was worth another
phone call to the Pellicci' s and felt we would be missing out on a boost to the
downtown.
Chair Fogarty directed staff to have City Attorney Jamnik look at the AK
proposal and determine if it meets the business subsidy policy. Staff should reach
out to the hardware store and discuss if they are willing to drop the $425,000 City
contribution. If so, the EDA would be willing to consider that proposal. Without
that, there is nothing more the City can do. This should be on the next EDA
agenda. If something has been worked out, then both proposals should be brought
back. Members are open to having a special EDA meeting if necessary.
b) Exchange Bank Building Lawsuit
Any further information would be discussed in a closed session in the future.
c) Dew Days and CEEF
Members received the minutes from the last CEEF meeting. These events are
very beneficial for the community and are seen as economic development. Chair
Fogarty felt the discussion should occur with the EDA and not the City Council.
Member Donnelly noted the EDA funding is different from City funding. If the
EDA were working with CEEF, the funding would not come out of the general
EDA Minutes (Regular)
August 24, 2009
Page 5
fund. Chair Fogarty felt it was more appropriate for this event to be with the
EDA as a marketing tool. Member Wilson stated if the purpose was for the EDA
to payoff the debt, he would not support it. This is a non-profit that is providing
beneficial services to the community, but there are other organizations also in the
community. Chair Fogarty would like to go to CEEF and ask them to withdraw
the request from the City Council and put that request to the EDA so the
conversation happens here. Member May asked if Chair Fogarty was separating
the future of the involvement of the City with Dew Days versus the current
situation with Dew Days. That still needs to be addressed at the Council level if
they are asking for money. Chair Fogarty noted that can also be addressed to the
EDA as there are separate budgets. If there is a future, Chair Fogarty believes the
relationship should be with the EDA and not the City Council. Member Wilson
stated knowing we have municipal services, the police and fire departments
involved with Dew Days, are those functions something the EDA can direct for
assistance. Chair Fogarty felt that direction would still have to come from the
Council. Member May felt there does need to be more discussion whether at the
EDA or the Council level. She felt all members should refrain from giving public
opinions as to what we think about who should be running Dew Days. It puts us
in an awkward position before we have had a chance to discuss how this would
work, is staff able to do this, how much more it will cost the City, etc. The CEEF
board members are called representatives. It is misleading if Julie McKnight is
the representative for the school, and Mayor Larson is the representative for the
City, it gives the perception they are representing how the Council, staff and the
school feel.
If the EDA agrees, Chair Fogarty would like to invite Julie McKnight to the next
EDA meeting and present what she did at the Council meeting. City
Administrator Herlofsky noted Empire has agreed to 10%, Eureka and Castle
Rock have given a less favorable response. They are still working on the numbers
and it is still $25,000 - $26,000. If CEEF is done, there is a real issue because
someone would be responsible for this amount of money. IfCEEF continues,
then some coordination of activities could be worked out. If there is a shortfall,
each of the organizations represented have some liability. Continued activities
through CEEF could repay a loan over 3-5 years through fundraising. Member
May asked about a dollar amount the City has already spent on Dew Days. Staff
has tracked this and it is between $10,000 - $15,000 of staff time. Member May
suggested it be kept at the Council level for now and then move it to the EDA
once the current issue is resolved. Member Wilson felt given the spotlight on this
issue, it should stay with the Council. It was determined to leave the discussion at
the Council level and move it to the EDA for the future.
9. CITY STAFF REPORTS
a) Economic Update
Staff will provide this at a later date.
EDA Minutes (Regular)
August 24, 2009
Page 6
b) The Bridge, Community Development Section
This was given to the board for information.
10. ADJOURN
MOTION by Wilson, second by Larson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ ?vJ~
~thia Muller
Executive Assistant
51:;
o
'"
in
...
o
~
0>
o
o
'"
~
~
0>
dl
0>
..
a.
_10> 0> ... 0> '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD 0 0 0> 0> ~ 0 0 '" '" 0
<= '" '" CD '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... .... .... .... '" '" 0 0 0> 0> 0> 0> CD CD 0 0 CD
" . .,; N ~ ,...: .,; .,; W W .,; .,; N N c:i c:i <Xi <Xi .,; .,; m en <Xi <Xi W W .,; .,; .,;
o '"
E 0> 0> '" '" '" ... ... N N ~ ~ 0> 0> '" '" '" '" ... ... .... .... ... ... ....
... '" CD CD "'. "'. '" '" '" '" CD
<( N N N N ,...:
III
]i
I- 0
en en w en I-
W W W <..) W W W W Z W W 1::
0> en en en en w en en
z ~ 0 Z <..) <..) en z z z z <..) ::;; Z Z 0
I- a.
0 .. 0 w 5 5 z ;:!: w w w 5 w w W dl
E '"
I- ;::: a. 0:: 0:: W a. a. a. 0:: en a. a. 0::
Cl E >< w w ::;; en >< >< >< W 0:: >< ><
'" Cii
z " en w en en >- w w w en ::> w w
:!ii en Cl ...J ...J <( a:l Cl Cl Cl ...J a:l Cl Cl
0:: "'" Z <( <( a. ::> z z z <( ::;; z z
u Z z en z
i'i': dl :!ii 0:: :!ii :!ii :!ii iii :!ii :!ii
.<: '" 0 0 UJ '" 0 c::
u. t) 0 :;; Cii Cii a. 0 :;; :;; ::;; Cii :;; :;; t)
0 0 <( en en 0 z <( <( <( en UJ <( <( it:
.0 ~ 0:: UJ UJ ...J ...J Z 0:: 0:: 0:: W Cl 0:: 0:: I-
>- <= ... 1310 u. u. 0 0 0 u. i1i 0 0
I- " UJ <( t)
0 '" .!!!, 0 0 0 > Cl ::i: 0 0 0 0 0 0 w
t5 m ...J
<..) .0 0:: 0:: 0:: W W 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: :!ii 0:: 0:: ...J
o a. a. a. 0 ...J I- a. a. a. a. a. a. w
l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I-
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
W W 0 W W W W W W 0 W W W W
::;; ::;; Cii ::;; ::;; ::;; ::;; ::;; ::;; Cii ::;; ::;; ::;; ::;;
a. a. Z a. a. a. a. a. a. z a. a. a. a.
0 0 <( 0 0 0 0 0 0 <( 0 0 0 0
...J ...J a. ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J a. ...J ...J ...J ...J
W W ~ W W W W W W ~ W W W W
> (ij > > (ij > > > > (ij (ij (ij
w UJ w w w w w
0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0
t) <..) 0:: <..) t) <..) <..) t) t) 0:: <..) <..) <..) <..)
<( <(
~ ~ a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a. ~ ~ ~ ~
.c 0 0 ...J 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...J 0 0 0 0
::> z z <( z z z z z z <( z z z Z
III 0 0 it: 0 0 0 0 0 0 it: 0 0 0 0
III t) <..) I- <..) t) <..) t) t) t) l- t) <..) <..) <..)
dl W W en w w w w w w en w w w w
<= 4: 4: ::> 4: 4: ~ 4: 4: 4: ::> 4: ~ ~ ~
"iii 0 0
" 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0::
a:l J: J: i!: J: J: J: J: J: J: i!: J: J: J: J:
<..)
i!: a.
>- ::>
z 0
<..) en 0 <( 0::
i!: z a. 0
0 en Cl <..) ::;;
w Cl J: 0::
> Cii 0 w
0 <..) t) <..) Z I- <..) a.
0 i!: z 5 i!: i= ::;; 0:: <(
0 0 0 0
'" en en 0:: z 0 z z ~
'" UJ en it: I- 0:(
0 W I- en 0:: en z is
0 I- ::> w a. ::> en i= <( w
>- z 0:: J: <..) ::::; z >-
...J 0 ~ w z ci 0:: Cl
IX! en 0 ...J I- Z
::;; <..) 0 ...J IX! ::::; I- en w w :s: c::
0:: 0 ...J ::;; >- ...J W
::> i!: I- Z W W a:l Cl W '" iii ;:!: 0 z
en en <( a:l ::;; ::> z 0:: a:l ::;; I- W
~ 51 en w en a. 0 a. :!ii u. a:l en z 0:: ...J
<..) -g u.. z 0 ::;; 0:: ::;; 0:: 0 ::> z w w w
'" it: >
'" dl !:!: 0 ::> <( <( t) <( 0 0:: <( <..)
c:: > IX! a:l a:l <..) t) w u. 0 0 J: 0 it: ><
5G
'0 i5Qi5i5i5i5~~i5i5~ il ~~~~~~~~-~~~~--~ ~~~~~ ~
" !ig8~8 III j
> '0 ~~~~~~~~S~~~~~~~
~'il 2~2222~M22~ ~ ~ t::~ci-.id t:i
ClClCClCcocnClClT'" (l)~~O~o~oaf2I"-IOooa~
" *=1:1::***_..... =It:*v .. ....
'" .ll
"' ~'" ~;::- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ c!;~8~0 ~
1l '" "'... ,C!;I:; 1l C'l"fltC'\lN8
'" !:!.'" '"
c: M S!!,..: c: -~re~ ~ ~~ ~~e~ ~~ ~. as
'" !:!. '" :!:
n; :!. n;
'" '"
.. ..
'" ~... ,~~ C\IQ)C')" '" ,~ ~~~~~~~~ lllllJ ~ ~
,~ "'''' ~~ill1O ~
! "'... ! ...'" ...
M '9!t- aj "';:( Irfai - iaS.,; M as
'" '" '"
..
.. ..
Pl ~ I
'"
M " ,..: " ~
III ~ '" "
'" 0
.. ..
~ I
~ ,..: ~ ~
'"
z '" z
..
~ I
tj ,..: g ~
0 Pl
..
~ I
"2 ,..: "2 ~
" Pl 8l
CIl
..
~ ~ iil~ ~... 0 0; l2 ~ ;:! "'~ 0 '" I
r--
",r-- ;b$ <;J ~
'" "'0_ ...... "'-
g ",- '!i ~ g N as ~
<( ;;; <(
..
'" ~~- 0'" "'''' <;J '" "'''' '" ~
;J; M~ "'~ '" ;blX; '"
~ ~ ...'" '"
N N .." ~
'"l Pl '"l '"
..
~ ... 0 ...'" iil8 !<I"''''''' ;;: '" "'''' r--'" '" i
'" r-- '" oor-- "'~'" 00 ;b;J; iillll <;J
E 0 '" "'0_ "'''' ('I') ..... en. (I') '"
E " M ~ ~ " as ~
" c: ;;; c:
CIl '"l '"l
m
'"
'0
" ~'"
'" r-- "'''' '" '" '" "''''''' ~ '" ~
~ oor-- :8_ r-- 00 ;b;;: ~~ '"
ili U)~ '" '"
g ili sf c<f
:::;; :::;; ~
..
i '" 0'" :e~ III '" '" '" CD :g ... ~
;b ",r-- '" ... ;b ~ ~ ;;:
"'0_ "''''
9 as M 9 .,; as ~
<( Pl <(
..
... "'''' o~ ~~ '" ~ ~~ "''''0 '" I:; ;
... "'~ ~C!; 00 ;b '" ~
... '" 0_ '" '"
lii i N lii NM as
:::;; '" :::;;
..
~ '" "'''' "'''' gC!; '" gg "'''' '" '" !O=
;b "'~ ~~ '" ;b ~ '"
... "'0_ ~o ... i
.c ,..: N .c ~N 0 .,;
" III " '" '"
Ll. Ll.
.. ..
Pl '" "'''' 0'" ~ '" ~~~~ '" '" '" ,
;b "'~ 0'" '" ~ r-- I:;
'" "'0_ 0'" ~N"'" "':.
c: M ",,..: c: M !i
'" III 11l
..,
.. ..
00 8 8~8~~88~ gggg 0 ~~~~8 '"
1l 88 8 '" I
0 (")(1')(\10 '"
"'~ ~ c: "fIt- ai ~ "'~ .,;i'!i - - N~ Ll'i sf ~~ ;:! as
'" '"
8'0 ii 8'0 '" -Il
'" " ii! ED '" " .:
'" 0 '0 '" J ~
j: c:
" .. z .. '"
~ Ll. ~
8lDi ~ 0 ~ ~
.... ;;;
z ~gj~5 co ~ "
w .... " .. .... ~
::E c:o ~ c:
II. ,,- " o 1l c: 1l 1ii.. 1l w
> .. " '" ~
c: 9 ~!! " c: s: U) ~~C~2:~~U) ~,~ j
0 ~i~ ~ 0
i ~ " 011 ~ en :gB!~~i8.!
J!ii 2: .~
c: iLl. tV-CD 210:: il ",CD ~ ~a.~~~=[~:e o.~3~.g ~
.e " 0 E l~~~m~ I- !i!i en ~fI.QciJi~~~~ >i
'" 0 0 r ,- ~ 1:: 8 ill " 'l!: ;i a; .- '2 rn ~o
c: ii ~s2:a; ~~a~~~O::O::~E~ ~,~~II.: o B
'~ 0 ~~ ~.~~~~~ "gi ell CJ)'m 51 Q.(J- C~Zc6 gt8,g>>g.E ~ c
~ z 5 'E Xl ~.9! ~ ! G; lUlii,2tj e e'-a; cI)'c: m:cGi e lii ~~a;~'E~ o~
'0 0 ~s a. :52 fl5.!!i a.s ~~.i!~3~~:5 CeCD~.-! yjlr
ld &.5 8~.5~8J:i ,llril is ~a.~o~o ~~
1:- oa.~~wZ.50~c~~m 0.0 ~~
i:3 i O~f5~~f5 Of5_M_~M~O~!O~~OOO N_MOOO
'0 8 ;~~~iil~ ~~~~~;b~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
c:
" 0
Ll. N
'?{Q
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591
www.ci.fannington.mn.us
TO: Economic Development Authority
FROM: Lee Smick, City Planner
AICP, CNU-Accredited
SUBJECT: Design Standards - Downtown Commercial District Overlay and Industrial Park
DATE: September 28, 2009
INTRODUCTIONillISCUSSION
Staff has been preparing commercial and industrial design standards since the joint meeting of
the City Council, Planning Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and the Heritage
Preservation Commission met on May 11,2009. As was stated at the joint meeting, the Planning
Commission has been acting as the lead group in the development of the design standards and
has met on May 26th, June 9th, and August 11 ih to discuss proposals for the ordinances (Ex. A).
Additionally, the Downtown Business Authority has been invited to all of these meetings to give
their comments for the standards. On September 14th, staff met at the DBA's meeting to discuss
the most current version of the standards. Most of the members were in favor of the proposed
downtown ordinance.
Downtown Commercial District Overlay Design Standards
The following information pertains to the Downtown Commercial District Overlay Design
Standards. The attached ordinance (Ex. B) defines proposed requirements for the Downtown
Commercial Overlay District's (DC) design standards as mapped on Exhibit C. The design
standards affect any commercial buildings that are new, renovated, or added on to in the DC
overlay district. The DC Overlay District is the property located south of the Vermillion River,
west of 4th Street, north of Walnut Street and east of 1 st Street. The underlying zones of B-2, B-3
and R- T are still applicable when reviewing permitted and conditional uses, bulk requirements,
and setbacks. This design ordinance will address any existing or proposed commercial buildings
in these underlying zones.
Industrial Park District Design Standards
Staff is also proposing the attached ordinance (Ex. D) defining the requirements for the Industrial
Park (IP) District's design standards. The ordinance has been revised to include a Purpose,
Process, and Applicability section and a minor change to the maintenance section excluding
maintenance requirements to buildings since the City does not have a building maintenance code.
Another revision pertains to the exterior surface of the building. Currently the code reads that
pre-engineered metal shall not exceed 6% of an exterior surface. The proposed revision allows
for pre-engineered metal not to exceed 50% on the exterior surface of a building and the metal
may only be applied to the upper half portion of the building. If this change is approved, it
would also be in effect for the existing Industrial Park.
Additionally, the outdoor storage section of the existing code has been revised to read as follows:
(F) Screening:
I.Storage Areas: Outdoor storage within the IP district shall be an allowed accessory use
under the following conditions:
a. Outside storage areas shall not be viewed from CSAH 50 or CSAH 31, nor shall any
articles, goods, materials, incinerators, storage tanks, refuse containers or like
equipment be kept in the open or exposed to CSAH 50 or CSAH 31.
b. Required screening shall include:
(1) a six (6) to eight foot (8') tall opaque maintenance free fence and landscaping. The
grade for determining height shall be the grade elevation of the building or use for
which the screening is providing protection. The design and materials used in
constructing a required landscape screen with fence shall be subject to the approval of
the Planning Division, and shall include the following:
Plant material centers shall not be located closer than five feet (5') from the
fence line or property line. Landscape screen plant material shall be in two (2)
or more rows and staggered. Shrubs shall be arranged to lessen the visual gaps
between trees. Deciduous shrubs shall not be planted more than four feet (4') on
center, and/or evergreen shrubs shall not be planted more than three feet (3') on
center. Deciduous trees intended for screening shall be planted not more than
forty feet (40') apart. Evergreen trees intended for screening shall be planted not
more than fifteen feet (15') apart or;
(2) landscaping and minimum six (6) foot tall berms. Landscaping shall follow the
requirements in 10-6-20(F)lb(I). The slope of the earth berm shall not exceed a three
to one (3: 1) slope unless approved by the city engineer. The earth berm shall contain no
less than four inches (4 ") of topsoil. The outdoor storage area shall be grassed or
surfaced to control dust.
c. The outdoor storage area shall not encroach into a required front yard setback or side
yard setback area on a corner lot.
d. Outside storage does not require screening within any interior lot that is not exposed to
CSAH 50 or CSAH 31.
And finally, a lighting section has been included that reads as follows:
(H) Lighting: All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible
from the public right of way or towards neighboring residences and shall be in compliance
with section 10-6-8 of this title.
ACTION REOUESTED
Provide any comments that the EDA may have concerning the proposed design standards.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lee Smick, City Planner
AICP, CNU-Accredited
~.A
City Council
Planning Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
Heritage Preservation Commission
Workshop Minutes May 11,2009
Mayor Larson called the workshop to order at 6:30 p.m.
Present: Larson, Donnelly, Fogarty, May, Wilson
Also Present: Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services
Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Smick, City Planner;
Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner; Tina Hansmeier, Economic Development
Specialist
Commission Members: Charlie Weber, Edgar Samuelson, Robert Vogel, Dirk Rotty, Doug
Bonar, Joe Vanderbeck, Jeff Stokes
MOTION by Wilson, second by May to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
The purpose of the workshop was to discuss design standards for the downtown business district
and the industrial park. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan lists three primary areas of focus.
I. Downtown development and redevelopment
2. Industrial development
3. Commercial development outside of the downtown area
Downtown Commercial District Desien Standards
The downtown commercial district includes the river on the north, down 4th Street on the east,
down to Walnut Street on the south, and up to First Street on the west. The Planning
Commission will be the lead group on the process for creating a design standard for the
downtown. The commercial district design standards pertain to the following uses:
I. New commercial
2. Existing commercial upon upgrade of building structure
3. Redevelopment project for commercial use.
It does not pertain to any existing or new residential or any redevelopment to residential
properties.
Regarding setbacks, there are homes included in this area. The zoning in the area is B-2, so if a
home is demolished, staff would want the lot to become a commercial development. A
discussion followed regarding the different types of exterior surfaces and the architecture. Types
of signs were discussed and members were curious as to why the projecting signs were not
allowed as they liked the look of this type of signage. Awnings are nice and upkeep is addressed
un__ I
....
.
.. 'f
Council Workshop Minutes
May 11, 2009
Page 2
in the code. Two to three-story buildings on the comers would be attractive. Murals are used to
offset blank walls. Design standards force developers to think about what they are going to build
and what they will leave behind when they move out of the building. In a pedestrian downtown,
you want the look of the buildings to slow people down.
Industrial Park Desi2n Standards
Design standards to look at include building materials, whether to allow pole buildings,
screening, outdoor storage, curb versus LID (no curbing). The new industrial acreage cannot be
re-zoned until the design standards are determined. The area includes Pilot Knob on the east,
CSAH 50 on the south, Flagstaff to the west. Staff will bring to the Planning Commission and
Council the re-guiding for the comprehensive plan of this area for commercial and industrial.
City Planner Smick showed examples of designs in other industrial parks. Members had a
concern with allowing metal for exterior surfaces, but also did not want to be too restrictive.
There has to be a compromise so the materials allowed are not too expensive for developers to
build here. There has to be some control so if someone builds a nice looking building there will
not be a tin building next to them.
Pole buildings are a wood structure that have poles that sit in the ground. As far as screening for
outdoor storage the criteria is it has to be screened with fence material. Business owners want to
have outdoor storage. Members did not have a problem with outdoor storage as long as it is
screened properly. Some communities require 360 degree screening which becomes expensive
and may limit the opportunity to bring in businesses. It was agreed outdoor storage should not
face CSAH 50, but could face interior roads. There was also a concern with the types of
businesses that may want outdoor storage such as auto salvage.
Curb versus LID was discussed. LID is low impact development. Currently City standards call
for curb and gutter, but this industrial park could be different with an IP-2 zoning.
Members should think about the proposals and let staff know their comments. Members asked
how this fits into the study being done by Bonestroo. Bonestroo is having discussions with
property owners and parceling the land. They are working on a draft concept plan. There still
needs to be design standards to go with the plan. Staff will work further with the Planning
Commission on design standards.
MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adjourn at 7:59 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
~P'7~
~thia Muller
Executive Assistant
2-
Planning Commission
Minutes
Workshop
May 27, 2009
1. Call to Order
Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Vanderbeck, Bonar, Rotty, Stokes
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Tony Wippler - Assistant City Planner, Lee Smick - City Planner, Jeff
Thelen, Doug Heikkila, Nick Schultz, Aaron Steele-Heartland Brick
Council
2. Discussion
a) Downtown Commercial District Design Standards
Staff is looking for feedback regarding the development of design standards for the
downtown area. They would like to determine if participants believe that standards
are necessary and to what extent they feel they should be developed. They would
like to determine if the standards would only apply to new construction or to
existing structures as well. Several examples of downtown buildings were shown
for discussion purposes.
Mr. Doug Heikkila stated that when the City becomes involved and sets standards it
generally costs the property owner more. Mr. Nick Shultz stated that he feels that
there should be design standards for new construction to prevent buildings from
being constructed that are not consistent with the existing structures. Doug Heikkila
stated that buildings are usually constructed for functional purposes and it increases
the cost to have to meet aesthetic standards. Chair Rotty stated that he is wondering
how the building owners feel about standard for remodeling. Doug Heikkila stated
that it would be nice to have consistency but it is the building owner's right to
choose how they want their building to look as well. He stated that for new
construction he would not have an issue with standards in place and a review of the
plans for consistency.
Mr. Aaron Steele from the Heartland Brick Council gave a presentation about the
creation of design standards policies for communities. He showed examples of
desirable and undesirable aesthetics from other communities and examples of other
ordinances.
Staffwill send the participants a list of questions to solicit feedback and schedule
another meeting for June to discuss the results. Mr. Jeff Thelen stated that he is
more in favor of minimum standards than guidelines. He would prefer that
whatever the outcome, there be consistency of how the standards are applied. Nick
Schultz agreed that minimum standards would be beneficial to improve the look of
the downtown. Chair Rotty stated that he would prefer standards over guidelines as
well. He stated that the level of detail of the standards is what still needs to be
determined. Commissioner Stokes stated that he prefers the standards approach too.
He stated that standards can allow choices and flexibility as well. Commissioner
Bonar stated that his goal is to create standards that encourage and investment but
~
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2009
Page 2
also increase profitability. He does not want the standards to discourage businesses
from investing in the downtown. He stated that absentee landlords need to make the
necessary investments in their buildings as well. Nick Schultz asked if there were
standards, would there be any way to use tax incentives to encourage
improvements? Commissioner Vanderbeck stated that for building owners who
have owned their properties for a long time, and may have their own plans for
modifications in the future, the standards can conflict with their plans. He stated
that it has to be affordable for the businesses to locate here. Aaron Steele stated that
there can be different levels of compliance based upon incentives and the end user
desired. Jeff Thelen stated that there has been use ofCDBG funding as business
incentives recently that could perhaps be used for building improvements. Nick
Schultz asked about the screening of mechanical equipment as it relates to the New
City Hall building. Staff stated that the equipment was not intended to be screened
due to the placement of the equipment on the roof. MR. Schultz also asked about
the damage to the front of the Larson Building. Staff will look into the status of the
repairs.
b) Industrial Park Design Standards
Staff primarily wanted to begin discussion regarding the development of design
standards for the potential expansion of the industrial park. There was discussion
regarding exterior building materials such as brick, block, and metal. Screening,
outdoor storage, and curbing were also discussed. Chair Rotty stated that it is
important to keep the standards "affordable" so that they do not discourage
development. He stated that he would prefer not to see all metal buildings, but he
would be alright with alternate materials on the back and sides of the buildings. He
stated that there should be outdoor storage allowed but there will need to be
discussion as to how that is laid out. Aaron Steele stated that some cities require a
mix of materials to maintain some variety for large structures. Jeff Stokes stated
that curbing is expensive and he would be a proponent of swales when appropriate.
Jeff Thelen stated that the Lakeville Industrial park has very little or no curbing
throughout their park. He also stated that there were very strict standards when the
original industrial park was developed. When the second phase of the industrial
park started, the design standards changed and some of the newer buildings in the
park like R & L Trucking don't conform to those standards. He said that six years
ago when the daycare center was built in the park the standards were not followed.
The HRA, Planning Commission and City Council all approved an alternate
material (hardy plank) and did not follow the requirements of the ordinance. He
stated that the structure of the building as well as the outer materials should be
discussed.
c) Discussion of Ordinance Amendment - Zoning Definitions
This item will be discussed on June 9th.
d) Discussion of Ordinance Amendments - Recreational Vehicle Parking and
Parking in Residential Areas
Staff spoke with the City Engineer and he does not have an issue with recreational
vehicle parking in the drainage and utility easements. Staff is discussing options
1- -
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2009
Page 3
like requiring a permit for recreational vehicle parking so that staff can review plans
prior to implementation. This item will be discussed further on June 9th.
e) Discussion of Ordinance Amendments - Detached Garages, Storage Sheds, and
Accessory Structures
This item will be discussed on June 9th.
t) Discussion of Wind Turbines in Residential Areas (verbal)
Staff received a phone call from a resident who would like to install a wind turbine
on a residential lot. The turbine would be approximately 80 feet high. The current
City Code does not address wind turbines in residential areas so they are therefore
prohibited. Staff would like the Planning Commissioners to review the materials
and discuss this item further on June 9th,
5. Adjourn
Approved
Re~
&/ ,
r ./ . ..-.-. "."
r - ._.C.:~_.~~. '\
",---~-,/ "
-_.. \ \.
Lisa Dargis '-'.., '\ . .
Administrative Assistant . j
'S',-
Planning Commission
Minutes
Worksbop
June 09, 2009
1. Call to Order
Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Vanderbeck, Bonar, Rotty, Stokes
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Tony Wippler - Assistant City Planner, Lee Smick - City Planner
Jeff Thelen - EGC
2. Discussion
a) Downtown Commercial District Design Standards
At a previous work session, discussion was had regarding applying the design
standards for the Downtown Commercial District (DCD) only to new construction.
There was also discussion regarding building additions and major renovations. It
was the consensus at the last meeting that the group would work to develop
standards rather than guidelines. Staff will be researching how other communities
address the issue of absentee landlords. Staff reviewed some of the details of the
design standards that will need to be determined. Staff will check with other
communities to see if awning colors are restricted. Signage on awnings was
discussed. The question was asked, how the commission wanted to see the
downtown look, and what end result is desired. Chair Rotty stated that he does not
wish to over-regulate. The commission agreed that two or three story buildings
would be acceptable. The current maximum height is 45 feet. Regarding roof
styles, the commissioners stated that they would be open to the types of roof lines
that are currently in the district. Staff will look further into this item. The current
building width limit is 45 feet. There was discussion regarding requiring that wide
buildings be broken into varying facades to make them appear to be more than one
building front. Staff stated that detailing allowable building materials will be
important. The participants stated that some of the decisions regarding materials are
dependent upon where they are used. Staff will do more research on available
materials. Jeff Thelen suggested requiring that more than one material be used on
the fa9ade. Staff did not recommend restricting color choices as part of the design
standards. Streetscaping and lighting have already been established in the OeD.
There was discussion regarding requiring a maintenance code for the rear entrances
of businesses in the downtown.
b) Industrial Park Design Standards
Staffwould like to determine if the Commissioners are in favor of the low impact
development (LID) type of development, or if they would like to have curb and
gutter as was the case in the existing industrial park. This item will also need to be
discussed with the City Engineer. Commissioner Vanderbeck asked if there are
maintenance issues with the LID curbing. Commissioner Bonar stated that he
would like to look into surmountable curbs as an option. The other Commissioners
seemed to be in favor of that option as well. Exterior materials were also discussed
with regard to industrial park buildings. Jeff Thelen stated that it is important to
follow whatever standards are created or there is no point to having them.
~
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2009
Page 2
Commissioners Bonar and Vanderbeck agreed that they would be in favor of
allowing 50% of the upper portion of the building to be metal. Staff is working with
solid waste regarding standards for trash enclosures. There was discussion
regarding not having loading docks facing Pilot Knob Road or Highway 50. There
are currently some rear parking areas that are lime rock. Jeff Thelen stated that the
lime rock creates runoff issues in the existing park. Screening of storage areas was
discussed previously, and the consensus was to require screening of storage areas
that face Pilot Knob Road or Highway 50. There are currently inconsistencies to
screening throughout the current industrial park. The group decided that they would
like to look at requirements for screening in the interior lots as well.
c) Discussion of Ordinance Amendments - Recreational Vehicle Parking and
Parking in Residential Areas
Staff would like recommendations regarding modifications to the ordinance
governing recreational vehicle parking and parking in residential areas. Chair Rotty
stated that he is fine with the ordinance as is and possibly adding the allowance for
"Easy Roll". Staff will be removing the requirement for a paved driveway to
detached garages from that ordinance.
5. Adjourn
Approved
~/;f /
Lisa Dargis
Administrative Ass'
-~7
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11,2009
Page 2
b) Variance request to split property into 1 acre sites.
Applicant: Doug Malszycki
19585 Flagstaff Avenue
Farmington, MN 55024
The applicant is seeking a variance from the minimum lot size requirement in the A-I zoning
district to subdivide and exiting 10 acre parcel to create 2 buildable lots of 1 acre each. The
remaining 8 acres would contain the existing home. The applicant would like to subdivide the
lot to enable his two sons to each construct new homes. The Planning Commission denied this
request when it was previously proposed in 2004. At that time there was a very different
building climate and this property has been guided in the Comprehensive Plan to remain
agricultural until 2030. The approval would be contingent upon the following:
1. A combined driveway access is required from the two 1 acre properties in order to reduce the
number of accesses on Flagstaff Ave.
Doug Malszycki stated that the configuration of the lots could be rearranged as well if necessary.
Staffhas received two comments from neighbors indicating that they do not have an issue with
the proposal. Commissioner Bonar asked if the majority of the similar variances that have been
approved previously did not result in a decrease in tillable acres. Staff stated that that was
correct. He also asked if this is currently a Dakota County roadway so the accesses would have
to be per their approval. Staff stated that there would need to be replatting of the parcel as well.
Chair Rotty stated that have only one additional access is a good idea and may help with the
County approval process. MOTION by , second by to close the public hearing. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Vanderbeck, second by Kuyper to approve the variance
request with the recommended contingency. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
c) Ordinance establishing Downtown Commercial District Overlay District (DC) Design
Standards.
Applicant: City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Staffhas requested that this item be continued to the September 9, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting so that they can obtain further feedback from downtown business owners. MOTION
by Bonar, second by Kuyper to table this item until September 9, 2009. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
,
d) Ordinance Amendment to Section 10-6-3 (B) 1 sub. (t) of the City Code concerning A-
Frame Signs.
Applicant: City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Staff has requested that this item be continued to the September 9,2009 Planning Commission
meeting so that they can obtain further feedback from downtown business owners. MOTION
by Kuyper, second by Vanderbeck to table this item until September 9, 2009. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
q;
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2009
Page 3
e) Ordinance amending Section 10-6-20 of the City Code concerning Industrial Park
Design Standards.
Applicant: City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Staff is proposing to revise the existing design standards that will be used for the proposed future
industrial park expansion area and the current industrial park. The ordinance has been revised to
include a Purpose, Process, and Applicability section, and a minor change to the maintenance
section excluding maintenance requirements to buildings since the City does not have a building
maintenance code. Another revision pertains to the exterior surface of the building. The
proposed revision allows for pre-engineered metal not to exceed 50% of the exterior surface of a
building and it may only be applied on the upper half of the building. If approved, this change
would also pertain to the existing industrial park. Screening on interior lots would no longer be
required. The outdoor storage of the Code has also been revised regarding screening
requirements, and the exterior lighting section has been modified to address impact on
neighboring properties and public right of way. Commissioner Bonar stated that he agrees with
the lack of interior screening with the exception of daycares. Commissioner Vanderbeck asked
if there was a life expectancy for the metal as compared to block for example. Staff stated that
they would have to research that more. There is currently no maintenance code in the City.
Commissioner Vanderbeck stated that he was in favor of the reduced screening requirements.
Commissioner Kuyper stated that from a public safety standpoint, he likes the reduced screening
requirements. Chair Rotty stated that the goal of the standards is to create quality development
that is still affordable. He stated that he would like to see this item reviewed by all appropriate
parties including commercial developers and business owners. Staff stated that they would like
to get more feedback as well. MOTION by Bonar, second by Kuyper to table this item until
September 9, 2009. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
f) Ordinance Amendment to Title 6, Chapter 7, Section 1 of the City Code regarding
weeds.
Applicant: City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Staff is proposing to amend the City Code as it pertains to weeds on undeveloped, platted lots.
The current code requires that these lots not have weeds in excess of 12 inches in height. Staff is
proposing to change this requirement to add an additional exception to the requirement. Lots
that do not share a common property line with any developed lot(s) which contain a principal
structure may be left in a natural state. This does not include noxious weeds. Staff stated there
are over 600 platted, undeveloped lots throughout the City with a myriad of ownership situations.
Natural Resources stafIhas also reviewed the proposed exception and sees no issues.
Commissioner Vanderbeck stated that he would like to know if the lots in front of developed
lots. Staff stated that using a requirement for contiguous lots is more clearly defined. Chair
Rotty stated that he would be in favor of trying the proposed changes. Commissioner Bonar
asked if there were any grant funds available to aesthetically improve the lots. MOTION by
Bonar, second by Vanderbeck to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Bonar, second by Kuyper to recommend approval of the amendment to the City
Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
q
E1.6
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 6 OF THE
FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE FARMINGTON ZONING
ORDINANCE, CONCERNING DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL
OVERLAY DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Title 10, chapter 6 ofthe Farmington City Code, is hereby amended by
adding a new section 28 to read as follows:
10-6-28: Downtown Commercial Overlay District Design Standards
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish design standards pertaining to
the commercial buildings in the downtown commercial district. The design standards are
intended to do the following:
1. Encourage integrated site planning to create a cohesive. sustainable built
environment.
2. Maintain and reinforce "small town" and "Main Street" architectural traditions.
3. Control vehicular access and parking to encourage an active pedestrian
environment.
4. Maintain the character of historic buildings.
5. Unify and articulate building facades.
6. Place a strong visual emphasis on streetscapes.
7. Require new construction to be compatible with existing buildings.
8. Provide for the compatible integration of commercial and residential uses located
on the edge of the downtown commercial district.
9. Encourage replacement or remodeling of architecturally incompatible buildings.
10. Adaptively reuse older buildings that contribute to the district's sense of time and
place.
11. Encourage the development of pocket parks. gardens. plazas. and courtyards for
public use.
12. Establish well-defined transitions between the downtown and adiacent
neighborhoods.
(B) Overlay District Boundary. The Downtown Commercial Overlay District (DC) is
described as the property located south of the Vermillion River. west of 4th Street. north
of Walnut Street and east of 18t Street.
1
10
.
.~
..
'" Ii!' .,
(C) Process. The Downtown Commercial Overlay District Design Standards will be
administered through the Site Plan Process in Section 10-6-23 and. if required under Title
2. Chapter 11. the Design Review Process in Section 2-11-5 of the City Code.
(D) Applicability. 1. All new construction and renovations or additions of existing
commercial structures in the DC district will be required to meet the standards in this
chapter. unless otherwise provided. Proiects exempt from meeting the standards are
those commercial buildings that are comprised of any of the following proiect types:
1. Interior remodels. and
2. Buildings used solely for residential purposes:
3. Normal or routine maintenance and repair of existing structures:
4. Construction that does not require a building permit.
(E) Building Material and Design
1. In the case of new construction. renovations. or additions. 70% or more of the total
surface area of exterior walls exposed to public view shall consist of a mixture of two
or more of the predominant downtown finish materials (clay. brick. stucco. natural
stone. ornamental concrete: except for portions of exterior walls not visible from the
public viewshed). Extruded metal storefront framing may be used only on window or
door frames.
2. Transparent glass must comprise a minimum of 50% (but shall not exceed 75%) of
the total wall area of the first floor elevation on the primary facade: transparent glass
or facade openings shall comprise a minimum of 20% (but shall not exceed 50%) of
the total wall area on the upper floor elevation of any street facade: upper-story
windows will be vertically proportioned and have the visual appearance of traditional
double-hung sash.
3. Blank. windowless walls shall be avoided wherever possible.
4. Exterior walls shall not be covered with metal panels. EIFS (exterior insulation &
finish system). vinyl siding. faux half-timbering. logs. shakes. shingles. exposed
aggregate. or poured-in-place concrete.
5. Pre-assembled clay brick panels. artificial stucco. decorative pre-cast units
resembling stone. and other modern materials may be used that similarly match the
appearance of historic materials.
6. Standardized corporate or "trademark" commercial building types shall be
constructed to meet the architectural style of the downtown. which includes building
materials. glass. color. and signage.
2
H
7. The ground or street level of a building shall be visually distinguished from the
upper level(s) through the use of colors and/or building materials.
8. Imitation of historical styles shall be discouraged in new construction and
renovation of existing buildings: references to historic architectural styles and periods
will be interpreted in a contemporary manner: new and renovated buildings shall
reinforce and not compete with heritage landmark properties.
9. New commercial buildings shall solidify the relationship between old and new
buildings and support a human-scaled. street-oriented downtown environment. Infill
construction on side streets shall be designed with architectural features such as brick
facades.
10. Large. monolithic "big box" type buildings shall not be allowed. The massing and
bulk of new buildings shall be mitigated by varied massing and proper articulation of
street facades. Large commercial buildings shall be designed to appear as multiple
storefronts by breaking the facade into smaller bays of 20 feet in width in order to
maintain a pattern integrate similar to surrounding buildings.
11. The size. scale. massing. and facade materials of new construction will
complement the architectural character of existing historic buildings identified as
heritage landmarks.
12. Corner buildings shall be designed with two street facades and a main entrance
on both sides.
13. The maximum height of new construction shall be 45 feet.
14. Roof lines shall be flat or gently sloping.
(F) Awnings/Canopy
1. Awnings/canopies shall be allowed over the first floor windows and along the
frontage of all building entrances.
2. Awnings and canopies shall not proiect more than five feet (5') into the public
right of way. except where located above an entrance. in which case the maximum
proiection shall not exceed eight feet (8'). Awnings and canopies may not be
supported by poles or other structural elements located in the public right of way.
3. Length: Awnings and canopies should emphasize the rhythm of the facade bays.
windows and entrances. and shall not continue uninterrupted along the building
facade.
4. Height: The bottom of awnings and canopies should be at least eight feet (8')
above sidewalk grade.
3
,t.
5. Illumination: Backlit awnings and canopies are not permitted.
6. Inscription: Lettering on awnings and canopies shall comply with subsection 10-6-
3(B)I(k) of this chapter. (k) Awning Signs: Signs consisting of one line ofletters not
exceeding nine inches (9") in height may be painted or placed upon the hanging
border only of an awning. An identification emblem. insignia. initial or other similar
design. not exceeding eight (8) square feet in area may be painted or placed elsewhere
on an awnmg.
7. Materials: Awning and canopy materials should be limited to cotton. acrylic or
vinyl coated cotton. copper or bronze coated metal. or clear glass. Awnings shall be
designed with a slope. No horizontal awnings are allowed. Structural supports shall
be constructed of steel and/or aluminum and shall (if or where visible) incorporate
ornamental features.
8. Signs on historic landmark buildings must (1) not cause damage to historic
architectural features or building materials as a result of installation: and (2) should
be designed and installed in such a manner that when they are removed or replaced
there is no physical evidence of their former presence. In other words. holes may not
be drilled in historic masonry. alterations may not be made of historic character-
defining windows or doors. and no fasteners may be attached to any historic trim.
(G) Parking Areas
1. Required off-street parking shall be provided by spaces at the rear or sides of a
building and provided with architecturally compatible security lighting. and screened
with landscape buffers or low walls.
2. Underground and structured parking shall be encouraged and new parking
structures shall be compatible with (but not indistinguishable from) adiacent buildings
in terms of height. scale. massing. and materials.
(H) Landscaping
1. Landscaping within the Downtown Commercial Overlay District shall comply
with Section 10-6-10 of the City Code.
(I) Screening
1. Screening of service yards. refuse. and waste removal areas. loading docks. truck
parking areas and other areas which tend to be unsightly shall be accomplished by use
of walls. fencing. dense planting. or any combination of these elements. Screening
shall block views from public rights of way. private street and off street parking areas.
and shall be equally effective in winter and summer. Chainlink and slatted fencing are
prohibited.
4
13
2. Mechanical equipment. satellite dishes. and other utility hardware. whether located
on the roof or exterior of the building or on the ground adiacent to it. shall be
screened from the public view with materials identical to or strongly similar to
building materials. or by landscaping that will be effective in winter. or they shall be
located so as not to be visible from any public right of way. private street or off street
parking area. In no case shall wooden fencing be used as a rooftop equipment screen.
(1) Signs
1. Not withstanding contrary provisions in the city code the following provisions are
allowed in the DC district
Proiecting signs perpendicular to the building. Proiecting signs shall comply with
subsection 10-6-3 (B )5 (e) of this chapter.
2. Wall signs flat along building frontage as required in Section 10-6-3(B)3(a).
3. Monument signs are allowed where existing building is set back from front
property line as required in Section 10-6-3(B)3(b).
4. Painted Wall Signs shall be permitted through a conditional use permit per Section
10-6-3 (B)1(1).
5. A-Frame signs are allowed per Section 10-6-3(B)1(t).
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication according to law.
ADOPTED this _day of
Farmington.
, 2009, by the City Council of the City of
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Todd Larson, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Peter Herlofsky, Jr., City Administrator
5
'1
SEAL
By:
City Attorney
Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of
,2009.
6
15
~.(;
Draft - City of Farmington
Aerial imagery as of April, 2006
I~
6.0
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE FARMINGTON
CITY CODE, THE FARMINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE
CONCERNING INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGN STANDARDS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 10-6-20 of the Farmington City Code is amended to read as
follows:
10-6-20: Industrial Park Design Standards:
(A) Purpose: The Industrial Park Design Standards establish design criteria and
minimum standards for industrial development within the City of Farmington. The
purpose of the design standards is to:
1. Enhance and protect Farmington's quality oflife and community image through
clearly articulated industrial development design standards.
2. Protect and promote Farmington's long term economic vitality through industrial
design standards which encourage high quality development. while discouraging
less attractive and less enduring alternatives.
3. Minimize adverse impacts of vehicular circulation to existing neighborhoods and
to the surrounding physical environment.
4. Enhance and protect the security and health. safety and welfare of all residents of
the City of Farmington.
5. Facilitate an understanding of Farmington's expectations and to assist developers
in compiling a complete and efficient application.
(B) Process:
Farmington's Industrial Park Design Standards will be administered through the Site
Plan Process in Section 10-6-23.
1
/7
."
.
,t,. '",
.41
.1.>
.
(C) Applicability:
1. All new construction and renovations or additions of existing commercial
structures within the Industrial Park District (IP) will be required to meet the
standards in this chapter. Proiects exempt from meeting the standards are those
industrial buildings that fall outside the Industrial Park District. or are comprised of
any ofthe following proiect types:
(a) Interior remodels;
(b) Buildings being entirely used as residential;
(c) Normal or routine maintenance and repair of existing structures;
(d) Any type of construction that does not require a building permit.
(D) Building Material And Design:
1. Exterior Walls: Exterior walls of buildings to be constructed shall consist of one or
more of the following materials and shall receive prior approval of the city:
(a) Brick: Size, type, texture, color and placement shall be approved.
(b) Stone: Stone shall have a weathered face or shall be polished, fluted or broken
face.
(c) Concrete Masonry Block: Concrete masonry block shall be those generally
described as "customized architectural concrete masonry units" or shall be
broken faced brick type units with marble aggregate. All concrete masonry
units shall be coated with a city approved coating. There shall be no exposed
concrete block on the exterior of any building unless approved by the city.
(d) Concrete: Concrete may be poured in place, tilt up or precast; and shall be
finished in stone, textured or coated, with a minimum life expectancy of ten
(10) years.
2. Alternate Materials: Alternate exterior surface materials of pre-engineered metal
may be substituted in an amount not to exceed sflf: fifty percent (6 50%) of the
exterior wall surface area of each building and the pre-engineered metal shall only be
installed on the upper half portion of the building. if the f{)llov.'ing conditions apply
Other conditions are as follows:
(a) Used for housing or screening equipment necessary to the manufacturing
operations;
(b) Architecturally compatible with the building as a whole as determined by the
city planning division;
2
I~
(c) Compliance with any additional screening and/or landscaping requirements of
the city; and
(d) Modifications are made with prior written approval of the city planning
division.
3. Alterations To Buildings: Any alterations to buildings shall meet all requirements
of this chapter.
4. Canopies: Canopies with visible wall hangers shall not be permitted. Design of
canopies shall be in keeping with the design of the building and shall be approved by
the city prior to construction or alteration.
5. Roof Mounted Equipment: All rooftop equipment shall be set back a minimum of
twenty feet (20') from the edge of the roof and shall be screened. Screening shall
consist of either a parapet wall along the roof edge or an opaque screen constructed of
the same material as the building's primary vertical exposed exterior finish.
Equipment shall be painted a neutral color. The site plan shall indicate all mechanical
rooftop equipment and shall include elevations.
6. Loading Docks: The design of the loading docks shall be incorporated into the
overall design theme of the building and constructed of materials equal to or the same
as the principal building. The loading dock areas shall be landscaped and/or screened
so that the visual and acoustic impacts of their function is fully contained and out of
view of adjacent properties and public streets. The required width for a landscaped
yard along a local collector/industrial or local street is ten feet (10'). The architectural
design shall be continuous and uninterrupted by ladders, towers, fences, and
equipment. Businesses that abut County Highway 50 and/or County Highway 31 shall
not construct loading docks that front these roadways.
7. Trash Containers: Trash containers or trash compactors shall not be located within
twenty feet (20') of any street, sidewalk or internal pedestrianway and shall be
screened by a six foot (6') masonry wall on three (3) sides of the trash unit.
8. Coverage: Unless otherwise approved by the city, the ratio of building square
footage and parking area shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total square
footage of any building site within the affected property.
(E) Utilities: All buildings and structures shall be served by underground utility
distribution facilities. The installation of such utilities shall not change the grade or
contour of the city approved grading plan for the site.
(F) Building Setbacks: No building or other structure shall be erected within fifty feet
(50') of the front property line; or twenty five feet (25') of the side and rear property
lines. If two (2) or more lots are developed as one site, the interior common lot line
shall be ignored.
3
/1
(G) Parking Areas:
1. Surfacing: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all parking areas,
driveways and loading areas shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete pavement
following the city's engineering standard plates. In the event said surfacing cannot be
completed due to weather or seasonal restrictions, a temporary certificate of
occupancy may be issued contingent upon the extension of the security or letter of
credit required under this chapter. All parking lots located in the front of buildings or
adjacent to street rights of way shall be curbed.
2. Off Street Parking Spaces Required: Off street parking shall be provided to serve
each site. The minimum number of parking spaces shall be the greater of:
(a) One space for every six hundred (600) square feet of industrial space; and
One space for every two hundred (200) square feet of office space; and
One space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of storage area
or
(b) One space per proj ected employee per shift.
3. Screening: All parking areas shall be screened as required in subsection (F) of this
section.
4. Location: Parking shall not be permitted within ten feet (10') ofthe front property
line (those facing any dedicated street), or within ten feet (10') of any side or rear
property line unless otherwise approved by the city. (Ord. 002-469,2-19-2002; amd.
Ord. 002-477, 7-15-2002)
(E) Landscaping: All open spaces shall be dustproofed, surfaced, landscaped, rockscaped
or devoted to lawns. Not less than two-thirds eh) of the required building setback
area from any dedicated street shall be landscaped with lawns, trees, shrubs and
walkways of a design approved by the city planning division. Landscaping shall be
installed within ninety (90) days of occupancy or substantial completion of building,
whichever occurs first, weather permitting.
The following landscape standards shall apply to all proposed projects within the
overlay zones:
1. Lot Frontage Trees: Lot frontage trees shall be planted at one canopy tree per forty
feet (40') of street frontage.
4
~
2. Perimeter Parking Lots: One tree and three (3) shrubs per forty feet (40') of parking
lot perimeter frontage. Plants are to be installed within ten feet (10') of the parking lot
frontage area.
3. Interior Parking Lots: One planting island per twenty (20) parking spaces. One tree
and three (3) shrubs are required within each planting island. The planting island shall
be curbed with concrete.
4. Buffer Area: When the industrial district is adjacent to a residential district, a
twenty five foot (25') buffer is required and shall include a six foot (6') high wooden
fence and landscaping to screen the adjacent property. (Ord. 008-590, 10-20-2008)
(F) Screening:
I.Storage Areas: Outdoor storage within the IP district shall be an allowed accessory
use under the following conditions:
a. Without prior approyal of the eity, 00 eOutside storage areas shall not be
viewed from CSAH 50 or CSAH 31. allov.'Cd nor shall any articles, goods,
materials, incinerators, storage tanks, refuse containers or like equipment be
kept in the open or exposed to public vie'.v CSAH 50 or CSAH 31 or vie\-... from
adjacent buildings. If ou-tside storage is gi'/en city approyal, all materials and/or
containers and equipment shall be screened from vie'.v.
b. Required screening shall include:
(1) a six (6) to eight foot (8') high tall opaque \-vooden maintenance free fence
and landscaping. The grade for determining height shall be the grade elevation
of the building or use for which the screening is providing protection. The
design and materials used in constructing a required landscape screen with fence
shall be subiect to the approval of the Planning Division. and shall include the
following:
Plant material centers shall not be located closer than five feet (5') from
the fence line or property line. Landscape screen plant material shall be
in two (2) or more rows and staggered. Shrubs shall be arranged to
lessen the visual gaps between trees. Deciduous shrubs shall not be
planted more than four feet (4') on center. and/or evergreen shrubs shall
not be planted more than three feet (3 ') on center. Deciduous trees
intended for screening shall be planted not more than forty feet (40')
apart. Evergreen trees intended for screening shall be planted not more
than fifteen feet (15') apart or;
(2) landscaping and minimum six (6) foot tall berms. Landscaping shall follow
the requirements in 10-6-20(F)lb(1). The slope of the earth berm shall not
exceed a three to one (3:1) slope unless approved by the city engineer. The earth
berm shall contain no less than four inches (4") of topsoil. or a combination of
both to fully screen the outdoor storage.
5
1-(
c. The outdoor storage area shall be grassed or surfaced to control dust.
d. The outdoor storage area shall not encroach into a required front yard setback or
side yard setback area on a comer lot.
e. Outside storage does not require screening within any interior lot that is not
exposed to CSAH 50 or CSAH 31.
2. Structure: No accessory structures (including, but not limited to, water towers,
storage tanks, processing equipment, cooling towers) or outside equipment shall be
constructed, erected or placed on the affected property without prior approval of the
city. If such approval is granted, such structures shall be sereened from publie vie';j
and the '{ie'll of adjacent buildings in a manner approved by the city planning
diYision.
(G) Signs: All signs shall be of a design and material approved by the city planning
division. Unless otherwise approved, wall signs must be attached to the building, and
be parallel to and contiguous with its walls and not projecting above its roofline. No
sign of a flashing or moving character shall be installed and no sign shall be painted
on any building wall. Pole signs will not be allowed. Advertising billboards are not
allowed within the overlay zone. (General guidelines standards for signage available
through the city planner).
(H) Maintenance:
1. Ov.ners and oeeupants of any or all of a site haye the duty and responsibility, at
their sole cost and expense, to keep the site, including buildings, impro';ements and
grooods, 'll011 maintained, saf-e, dean and aesthetically pleasing. Sueh maintenance
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Prompt remoyal of all litter, trash, refuse and wast-es.
(b) Proyide such care as required to maintain all vegetation in a healthy and
aesthetically pleasing appearance.
( c) Maintain exterior lighting and mechanical facilities in good working order.
(d) Maintain parking W"eas, drive':lays and roads in good repair.
(e) Prompt repair of any exterior damage to any buildings and improvements.
(H) Lighting: All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be
visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in
compliance with section 10-6-8 of this title.
6
z2-
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication according to law.
ADOPTED this _day of
Farmington.
, 2009, by the City Council of the City of
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Todd Larson, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator
SEAL
By:
City Attorney
Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of
,2009.
7
~
cgb
City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.280.6800 . Fax 651.280.6899
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
EDA Members
FROM:
Tina Hansmeier, Economic Development Specialist
SUBJECT:
Draft Economic Development Strategic Plan
DATE:
September 28,2009
INTRODUCTION
Strategic planning is not about making grand plans, but about the focus on key issues and desires
of a community and charting a feasible path to address those issues and desires.
Planning for economic development is an on-going process that helps communities steer their
projects to realize their longer-range economic development goals. It does so by concentrating on
what is feasible rather than determining what ought to be.
DISCUSSION
A variety of planning activities have taken place that have assisted in the creation of the Economic
Development element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, approved by a previous EDA and adopted
by the City Council earlier this year. The priorities identified in the chapter became the basis for the
creation of strategies and action plans to work toward the overall goal of more balanced
commercial and industrial growth.
The priorities identified, have been the areas of focus with regard to the concentration of time,
energy, and resources and the foundation for economic development initiatives that staff has
focused on for the last several years. The priorities identified are as follows:
1. Downtown Development and Redevelopment
2. Industrial Development
3. Commercial Development Outside of the Downtown Area
Enclosed, for your review, are the beginning elements of a draft economic development strategic
plan that includes the following information:
· Introduction and history of the EDA's strategic planning efforts
· Historical timeline and achievement of the EDA, 2006-present
· EDA's Vision
· EDA's Mission
. Accomplishments of the strategies outlined in the Economic Development Chapter of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Just as it is important for the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan to be revisited on an
ongoing basis, it is equally important that the priorities identified in the Economic Development
Chapter be reviewed by the current EDA.
This information has been compiled because certain EDA members have stressed their interest in
having a strategic economic development plan in addition to the Economic Development Chapter
incorporated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It also is for the purpose of illustrating the many
changes that have occurred in relation to the members of the EDA and to assist staff in
understanding the goals and objectives of the current EDA.
ACTION REQUESTED
Hold a discussion regarding the contents of this memorandum and enclosed draft strategic
economic development plan for the purposes of identifying whether the members of the EDA are in
agreement of the established priorities.
Respectfully submitted,
<.
'-
Tina Hansmeier,
Economic Development Specialist
STRATEGIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2009-2010
CITY OF FARMINGTON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
1
Introduction and History of the EDA's Strategic Planning Efforts
The Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority transitioned into a seven-member Economic
Development Authority in February 2006. Later that year, the Farmington City Council and
Economic Development Authority (EDA) hired the International City-County Management
Association (ICMA) to develop an economic development strategy and to identify best practices in
economic development.
The project was undertaken using a "peer assistance" approach, with ICMA providing overall project
management, but enlisting the voluntary services of a "peer" group of experienced current and
former city managers with extensive backgrounds in economic development. Responding to the
scope of services outlined by the city, the project team established the following methodology for the
project:
· assessment of current conditions,
· review of competitive environment/common practices,
· identification of internal capacity,
· review of best practice,
· facilitated strategic planning process.
The project was initiated in October, 2006 and culminated in a joint meeting of the City Council,
EDA and key staff on January 22, 2007. By February 2007, an Economic Development Strategy
was developed which included six strategic issues confronting the city. Once those issues were
identified, a series of action steps to address them were developed, and responsiblities for follow-
through and initial timetables were set forth. See Attachement A for a copy of the Economic
Development Strategy developed by the ICMA Peer Team.
Parties involved - Consultants: Craig Rapp, Craig Waldron, Mark Nagel and Richard Fursman,
City Council: Kevan Soderberg, Mayor,' CounCl'lmember, David Prilzlaff-' Councilmember, Steve Wilson, Economic
Development Authority: Todd Arey, Chair,' Paul Hardt, Vice-Chair,' Yvonne Flaherty, Erik Starkman, Chad Collignon,
Council members Christy Jo Fogarty, and David McKnight, City Staff: Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator,' Lee Smick, City
Planner,' Tina Hansmeier, Economic Development Specialist,. Others: Ruthe Batulis, NDC Chamber,' Brooke Walsh
ThisWeek News
In June 2007, the City of Farmington hired Community Development Consultants: Richard Fursman
and Jim Norman to aid the City Council, EDA, and key staff with the creation of a vision and
Economic Development Plan. The following top areas for the concentration of time, energy, and
resources were agreed upon by all parties and are specified in order as follows:
1. Downtown Development and Redevelopment
2. Industrial Development
3. Commercial Development outside of the Downtown area
Please see Attachment B for additional information that assisted in the identification of the EDA's top
priorities.
2
Parties involved - Consultants: Richard Fursman and Jim Norman, Economic Development Authority: Todd Arey, Chair;
Paul Hardt, Vice-Chair, Yvonne Flaherty, Erik Starkman, Chad Collignon, Council member Christy Jo Fogarty, City Staff:
Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tina Hansmeier, Economic Development Specialist; Others:
Ruthe Batu/is, NDC Chamber of Commerce; ladonna Boyd, Dakota Electric Association; Doug Bonar, /SD 192
In January 2008 the City Council members decided to dissolve the seven-member EDA board. The
City Council members also served as the representatives on the Economic Development Authority
Board and became responsible for all economic development initiatives. The new members of the
EDA continued to focus their efforts on the priorities listed above.
Parties involved - City Council: Kevan Soderberg, Mayor,' Christy Jo Fogarty, David McKnight, David Pritzlaff, Steve
Wilson, Economic Development Authority: David Pritzlaff; EDA Chair; Christy Jo Fogarty, Vice-Chair,' David McKnight,
Kevan Soderberg, Steve Wi/son
In January 2009 the composition of the EDA changed again as the Board received three newly
elected officials (City Councilmembers) that also serve as representatives of the EDA.
Parties involved - Economic Development Authority: Christy Jo Fogarty, Chair; Steve WIlson, Vice-Chair, Terry Donnelly,
Todd larson, Mayor,' Julie May
3
....t!i~!9~i~9..L!i.~~U!!~g~q'~E!?~~~~!??i?'~!.~..s>.f.!b~..~~s>.~g~i..~p.~y'~.lgp.~.~.~.t~.~.!h.9~.i.!y(~.p~1!.~Q.9i.>.....=..~.~.~.~.~.~.!:_.
Jan /06 i Farmington HRA transitions to an EDA.
l
/06 City/EDA hired consultants to develop an Economic Development Strategy and identify
best practices in Economic Development. Budaet Impact: $26,780
Nov /06 EDA adopted Mission Statement
Nov /06 i ICMA Bus Tour with City Council, EDA, and key staff. Cities toured included:
I Rosemount, Oakdale, Anoka, and Elk River.
Nov /06 i SWOT Analysis Conducted
Jan /07 I A joint meeting of the City Council was held. Building on the information generated by
I the SWOT analysis, interviews and research process, the group identified the six most
i important strategic issues confronting the City. Once those issues were identified, a
i series of action steps to address them were developed, and responsibities for follow-
I through and initial timetables were set forth.
Feb /07 Economic Development Strategy developed.
June /07 . Community Development Consultants hired to assist with development of a vision and
Economic Development Plan. Budget Impact: $9,517
July /07 Visioning Process Began: Visioning Session focused on the structure of the EDA and
organization of City Staff as it pertained to the EDA.
July /07 McComb Group L TD hired to conduct a Market Study to assist the city in understanding
the future demand for commercial and industrial development.
Budget Impact: $67,739.50
Aug /07 Second Visioning Session: group participated in exercises to develop the vision for the
EDA.
Aug /07 First economic development newsletter was created and distributed to EDA members.
Sept /07 Final Visioning Session: EDA's top three priorities identified. The information compiled
was used to begin forming the economic development chapter for the 2030
Comprehensive Plan - 2008 Update and to create strategies and work plans for staff.
Sept /07 Last remaining HRA-owned industrial park lot sold.
Oct /07 Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan was developed.
Oct /07 j General Marketing Folder created.
4
Oct /07 C/I Market Study completed, results assist City Planners with identifying future acreages
needed to support additional commercial and industrial development/growth for 2030
Comprehensive Plan
Nov /07 The EDA acquired and approved the demolition of a blighted building locally known as
the "Riste" Building to make way for future redevelopment efforts.
/07 Business Reinvestment Loan Created
Jan /08 Transisition of EDA
/08 Industrial Park expansion research began, consultants hired, supportable acreage
identified, development of preliminary cost estimates. Budqet Impact: $32,000
/08 Business Outreach Program developed
/08 Aesthetic Improvements to EDA-owned properties (McVicker and Riste) and renovation to
EDA owned building (305 3rd Street) completed. Budqet Impact: ~
/08 Business Development Grant Program Created
(Include number of grants awarded and amounts)
/08 Business Guide Created
/09 New EDA Members: Todd Larson; Mayor, Terry Donnelly, Julie May
5
Vision
A vision allows the planning group to see the community in the future, provides a foundation for all
economic development activities, and should be creative but based on reality. Every organization
needs a vision of how it will operate. The vision statement, "where do you want to go?" The vision
statement is your inspiration, the framework for all your strategic planning.
The City Council, EDA, and key staff participated in several visioning sessions during the summer of
2007. The idea of what the EDA's dreams were for the city, the existing strengths that would result
in the achievement of those dreams, and the weaknesses that may stand in the way were all key
discussion points that assisted with the creation of a vision for the City of Farmington EDA. The
vision is intended to guide the work of the EDA.
Farmington is a vibrant City that combines natural resources and
sense of community with an established downtown. The City
offers a diverse, growing, economically sustained community with
excellent schools, quality jobs, and unique shopping and housing
options.
6
Mission
A mission statement conveys the purpose of the economic development organization.
The Farmington EDA's mission is to improve the economic vitality of
the city of Farmington and to enhance the overall quality of life by
creating partnerships, fostering employment opportunities,
promoting workforce housing and by expanding the tax base
through development and redevelopment.
7
Accomplishments of the strategies outlined in the Economic Development Chapter of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan - 2010 Update:
Met Goal / Progress No
OngoinQ Made Progress
Downtown Development and Redevelopment
Establish a Clear Downtown Boundary X
. SWOT Analysis of existing & potential communication links within
the community
. Design and Implement a Public Informational Campaign
. Joint Meetings
. Public Meetings
. Create map to show boundary of Downtown Commercial District
Design Standards X
. Identify primary group to lead creation of design standards
. Joint Meetings
. Develop preliminary design standards
. Review with public and receive input
. Develop final draft and adopt supporting ordinance
Promote Infill Development X
. Downtown Outreach Program
. Promotion of infill includes: business activities complimentary to
downtown, identifying types of businesses to be targeted and
outreach to developers
. Parks and Public Spaces: identify opportunities for park and green
spaces
. Identify Incentives: investigate possible incentive programsloptions
to develop, research available grant and loan funding
. Land Assembly Strategy: ongoing attention will be paid to the
possibility of land assembly
Industrial Development
Business Retention Program X
. Visits (identify questions and discussion topics for visits, data
review, follow-up)
Promotion of Available Industrial Property and Buildings X
. Inventory
. Identify desired businesses
. Determine if land assembly is appropriate
. Rezone.. .
. Promo materials...
. Marketing packet for inquiries
Advocate with Stakeholders X
Enforce Building Standards X
Establishment of Incubator buildings and/or inventory of X
vacant buildings for start-ups
Extend Light-Industrial Areas of the City X
Commercial Development Outside of Downtown Area
Promotion of Available Commercial Property and Buildings X
Build, execute, and maintain a business retention program X
8
A+-f~~h. A
Economic Development Strategy
City of Farmington, Minnesota
February 2007
10
Introduction
In the summer of 2006, the Farmington City Council and Economic
Development Commission hired the International City-County
Management Association (ICMA) to develop an economic development
strategy and to identify best practices in economic development.
The project was undertaken using a "peer assistance" approach, with
ICMA providing overall project management, but enlisting the
voluntary services of a "peer" group of experienced current and former
city managers with extensive backgrounds in economic development.
The project was initiated in October, 2006 and culminated in a joint
meeting of the City Council, Economic Development Authority and key
staff on January 22, 2007.
Project Methodology
Responding to the scope of services outlined by the City, the project
team established the following methodology for the project:
I. Peer Assistance
Fundamental to the process was the engagement of a team of
current and former city managers who had a depth of experience
in economic development. The group included:
Craig Waldron, City Manager in Oakdale, MN. In addition to his
experience in Oakdale, Dr. Waldron has been a Community
Development Director and worked for the Department of
Economic Development at the State of Minnesota; Mark Nagel,
former City Manager in Anoka, MN. Mr. Nagel, in addition to his
experience as a City Manager, has also served as an Executive
Director of a County Housing and Redevelopment Authority;
Richard Fursman, former City Manager in a number of
communities, most recently Maplewood, MN. In addition to his
City Manager experiences, Mr. Fursman also served as an
Economic Development Director.
II. Assessment of current conditions
To establish a baseline and determine the current state of
economic development in the City of Farmington, the project
team conducted an extensive series of interviews. The interviews
included all current City Council, EDA members, key City staff,
major business and property owners, and developers in and
around the city.
In addtion, the team made an assessment of the current
environment based upon their own knowledge of the area and
through discussions with industry professionals.
III. Review of competitive environment/common practices
Understanding the competitive environment was a key
component of developing a new economic development strategy.
To do this, the project team organized a bus tour of communities
that had similar characteristics to Farmington, but had been
successful in their economic development efforts.
On Saturday, November 18, 2006, the City Council, EDA staff
and project team toured the cities of Rosemount, Oakdale,
Roseville, New Brighton, Anoka and Elk River. In each city, an
overview of issues and project "lessons learned" was presented,
including questions and answers for the officials from
Farmington.
IV. Identification of Internal Capacity
Once City officials began to understand the competitive
environment and the common practices used by other
communities, the project team led City officials on an
examination of the City's capacity to respond to the challenges
of economic development.
On November 27, 2006, the City Council and EDA met in joint
session and participated in a facilitated process focused on
identifying Farmington's internal strenths and weaknesses, and
the external opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis) in
connection with acheiving economic development success. A
summary of that session is attached as Appendix_.
V. Review of Best Practice
The City of Farmington requested that the project team provide
information on best practice in economic development as an
ongoing source of information and guidance. A review and
summary of best practice in economic development was
prepared, identifying a list of most common elements and
approaches used by successful communities, as well as common
mistakes made by economic development authorities.
In additon, the team provided a separate, but related
examination of downtown development practice. Given
Farmington's unique circumstance as a outer tier community in
the metropolitan area with a distinct downtown, it was
determined that a focus on downtown redevelopment practices
was merited. The best practice documentation is attached to this
report in Appendix _'
VI. Facilitated Strategic Planning Process
The project team strongly recommended that the City of
Farmington generate its own strategic direction and work plan,
not merely choose a set of actions based upon the research and
interviews conducted by the project team.
To that end, a facilitated joint meeting of the City Council, EDA
and key staff was held on January 22, 2007. Building on the
information generated by the SWOT analysis, interviews and
research process, the group identified the six most important
strategic issues confronting the City, Once those issues were
identified, a series of action steps to address them were
developed, and both responsibities for follow-through and initial
timetables were set forth.
These efforts for the Economic Development Strategy for the
City of Farmington and are described at the end of this report.
General Findings
The project team found that Farmington has a solid foundation from
which to build a successful economic development program. The
existence of a core downtown area, expanding residential base, good
schools and low crime are all assets that will serve the City well and
can be leveraged to attract economic development.
The primary concerns expressed regarding the future of economic
development were: lack of focus and consistency amongst public
officials, lack of good industrial land, technical capabilities of economic
development staff and the absence of an economic development plan.
Nearly all parties connected to this process agreed, however, that the
City's effort to undertake this study and commit to a focused strategy
was worthwhile.
Best Practice Recommendations
A detailed review of best practice for both general economic
development as well as downtown revitalization is contained in
Appendix _' All of the information contained within that document
should be carefully considered as implementation of the Economic
Development Strategy moves forward.
Our most specific recommendation is to make sure to link the
approach to the circumstances in Farmington. One of the greatest
mistakes in economic development is to embark on a program simply
because it was successful in another community. There is no substitute
for understanding the local economy, and the unique strengths and
weaknesses of the community.
With that in mind, the project team recommends serious consideration
of these best practices:
. Establishing a plan and sticking to it (patience)
. A Shared Community Vision (part of a strategic plan)
. Focused Leadership- all members of the process aligned and
committed
. Cooperation among the chamber/ government, etc. (no turf wars)
. Effective governance - consistent, clear processing of development
applications and decision-making
. A supportive regulatory environment - creating policies and
approaches that support private investment
· Understanding the regulatory environment -particularly how it affects
businesses operating within the city, while also contributing to the
physical and social environment.
· Clear approach to coordinating land use and economic development -
understanding how these relate, and clearly articulating this
philosophy to the citizens and development community.
· For downtown development/ adopt the "Main Street Approach'/ and its
four principles:
1 organization of downtown interests,
2 design and historic preservation to enhance the built environment,
3 economic restructuring to diversify the downtown economy,
4 marketing and promotion of the downtown
Additional Observations
In order to effectively implement the actions identified in the Economic
Development Strategy, the city will have to address two key issues
addressed in this report (1) staffing, or staff capacity; and (2)
cooperation and alignment of policy makers.
With respect to the issue of staffing, the project team recommends
expanding the City's capacity to analyze and conduct economic
development negotiations and finalize "deals". This should be done as
soon as practical. This can be accomplished by either contracting for
this service, or hiring a qualified economic development professional.
As City officials learned during this process, even the most
sophisticated cities use economic development consultants. For that
reason, the project team suggests initiating the process to engage the
services of qualified consultants for that purpose. In addition, serious
consideration should be given to hiring a full-time economic
development professional.
Although no recommendation is being made as to title and internal
responsibilities, based upon the City's current needs, a professional
with broad oversight of all development activities, with the strongest
experience in economic development would seem to be the best
course of action.
In terms of cooperation and alignment of policy makers, this issue
appeared to the project team to be the single issue most likely to
affect success or failure of the City's effort. As a result, the team
recommends that the City Council, EDA and key staff spend additional
time focused on team building, developing a plan for communicating
and coordinating effort, roles and responsibilities, and how conflict will
be handled. Extra effort in these specific areas will help to strengthen
the implementation of this plan.
APPENDIX A
Economic Development Strategy
I. Create an Economic Development Framework
What are we going to do and how are we going to manage
this project
Action Steps:
1. Make a decision for managing this process by
March/April' 07
a. Administrator makes a recommendation to EDA; EDA
recommends to City Council by end of February/ next
City Council Meeting.
b. Have project management in place by April 2nd, 2007
II. Understand Farmington's Market
Determining our niche
Action Steps:
1. Evaluate relevance of McComb Study for supporting an ED
Plan
2. Make recommendation for evaluating industrial and
downtown segments
a. City Planner to do by February 26, 2007 (next EDA
meeting)
3. Identify "downtown" Farmington
b. Develop a process to define a downtown district
1. City Planner to do by April 15, 2007
2. Develop marketing plan for market segments of highest
interest/capacity based upon market study results
III. Coordinate Comprehensive Plan with Economic
Development Strategy
Action Steps:
1. Administrator and City Planner will create a joint
meeting/communication process for coordinated
development of Comp Plan and Economic Development
Plans.
a. Specify purpose
b. Identify outcomes
IV. Create adequate staffing and technical capacity to
support economic development activities
Action Steps:
1. Administrator will make a resource/capacity
recommendation to the EDA by March' 07 with
recommendation to go to CC by April' 07.
Recommendation to include the following factors:
a. Technical
b. Staffing (hours)
c. Training
V. Unification of all groups behind the Economic
Development Strategy
Action Steps:
1. Decide on Economic Growth Committee role
a. EDA recommends to City Council in April' 07
2. Establish a schedule for CC/EDA/PC to meet and discuss
issues and direction by February 8, 2007
a. Include "old" warriors as revered guests
3. City Planner will prepare a communication plan/process
for community information/updates
a. Coordinate w/ comp plan update process
b. Public relations and success dissemination
VI. Ensure necessary financial resources to support
economic development activities
Action Steps:
1. Prepare a summary of funding sources for supporting
operations and management by February 2007
2. Summarize/create budget to implement planning and
evaluation activities by March 2007
3. Recommend a process to analyze funding sources by June
2007
4. Analyze all sources of funds for underwriting development
deals by October 2007
APPENDIX B
10
Springsted
Economic Development and Downtown Revitalization:
A Review of Trends and Best Practice
City of Farmington
January 2007
Introduction
The City of Farmington is undertaking a concerted and focused effort to create a plan to
guide economic development. To assist the City in this effort, a review of research,
current trends and best practice has been conducted. The following is summary of our
findings.
Is development of an economic development strategy worth the effort?
This question was the starting point for our research. Because the City of Farmington will
be investing time and resources on economic development it will be important to
understand how important a city plan will be to a successful outcome.
Many of the factors that influence city economic development success relate to national
economic trends. As a result, there is little that the individual city can do to affect those
variables. There are, however, many policies that a city can control which can have a
direct bearing on its competitiveness (Kresl, 1995). Research also indicates that although
there are critical influences on competitiveness beyond the control of city policy-makers
they need not be passive actors. 'Good' policy can equip cities to adapt and to foster a
dynamic economic environment Fisher (1998).
Development of good policy was a common theme amongst those who have achieved
economic development success. Of all of the lessons learned, the primary
recommendation from successful communities was:
Focus your attention on issues within your control and create strategies to maximize
your impact.
While this may seem self-evident, it is often difficult to adequately articulate the range of
issues that a local jurisdiction can, or should address when contemplating a local
economic development effort. The following is a list of policies and positions that
successful cities identified that contribute to economic development success:
· A Shared Community Vision, including:
o Public outreach campaign, targeted at informing citizens about their future
options and alerting them to the opportunity to help mold the future
o Focused communications (newspapers, etc...)
o Fostering a core group of people to help begin the implementation process
through collaboration and cooperation.
· Cooperation among the chamber, government, etc. (no turf wars)
· Having a plan and sticking to it (patience)
· Articulation of a well-thought-out and clearly expressed strategic plan
· Focused Leadership- all members of the process aligned and committed
· Effective governance - consistent, clear processing and decision-making
· A supportive regulatory environment - creating policies and approaches that
support private investment
· Understanding the regulatory environment -particularly how it affects the ease
with which business can operate, while also contributing to the physical and
social environment.
· Attitudes toward land-use planning - understanding how this will bear on the
types of economic activity that are able to flourish.
· Public support of cultural activities - and for developing the civic amenities as
key 'assets' of the city - such as city festivals.
· The taxes and charges levied by the authorities - these along with some of the
cost-alleviating services cities provide contribute to the relative attractiveness of
locations.
· Investment in reliable, accessible infrastructure and services
· Inclusiveness of all social groups
· Promotion of smaller firms
· Ensuring an adequate complement of business and financial service
providers
· Social and environmental factors, such as
o The quality of residential accommodation
o The crime rate
o Schools
Beyond these local policies and approaches, there was one additional notion that was
cited that was important, but pushed local government leaders from their comfort zones:
"Get Comfortable with Concept of Failure". While this seems almost impossible in a
government setting-economic development, more than any other municipal endeavor
contains the element of risk. The concepts of venture capital, creative risk taking and
entrepreneurial leadership are the stock in trade of new business development, and
government is challenged to understand, if not embrace these notions. The following
excerpt illustrates the point:
Howard Bell, executive director for TechTown, the Wayne State University-affiliated high-tech
incubator that opened two years ago in Michigan, told a session at the Detroit Regional
Chamber's Mackinac Policy Conference that political leaders "need to get comfortable with the
concept of failure."
Speaking as part of a panel on defining Michigan's leadership agenda, Bell said that leaders can't
get bogged down worrying about failure or trying to play it safe.
They need, he said, to emulate the entrepreneurs he deals with - people who know that failure is
an inevitable part of being creative and trying to improve the world.
"As we move forward with new technologies, we don't really know where we're going. A lot of
the entrepreneurs in the new technologies are going to fail as part of the process," he said.
"You need to be a marathon-oriented group of leaders. You can't worry about being chastised for
failure."
Fellow panelist Edsel Ford II, civic leader and president ofWaterford Township-based Pentastar
Aviation, said first and foremost leaders need integrity. "If you don't have integrity, you don't
have any leadership skills."
From: Henderson, Tom. "Panelists: Leaders shouldn't try to play it safe." Crain's Detroit
Business 22.23 (June 5, 2006): 25.
A Measured Approach to Chasing Development
As Farmington considers strategies for economic development, it is important to
understand the reality of chasing huge boxes of retail or production space. Economic
development programs continually focused on attracting industry as the most effective
strategy for job creation have often failed. For many communities, and in particular rural
areas, this strategy often "lines the pockets" of the real estate development community
while creating less than living wage jobs in big box stores that undermine local retail and
service enterprises.
In contrast, those communities able to retain retail and service sector local businesses
may see profits invested locally and contributed to local causes. The result, according to
Rupasingha and Goetz (2003) is that "self-employment is associated with lower poverty
rates, while the presence of Big-box retailers is associated with higher poverty rates."
Community leaders often assume that incentives offered for relocations will be returned
many times over in new tax revenue and support for schools and local infrastructure. The
reality, however, is much different. Relocations often create new costs in the future when
infrastructure ages, the workforce needs change, or the incentives run out and the
operation moves again (Humphrey, 1988; Flora & Flora 2004).
An aggressive strategy to "chase" development also requires significant staffing and
operating funds to support the necessary travel and public relations costs. Small
communities such as Farmington generally do not have the resources to do this. The
reality however, is that industrial recruitment, while generating jobs in some
communities, accounts for only a small portion of overall new job creation. Indeed,
research indicates that this strategy has limited effectiveness for most cities (Kauffman,
2002).
"Grow Your Own" as a Strategy
The most effective approach may be to adopt an "enterprise development" strategy,
which simply means supporting the development of small to medium sized business in
the community through a variety of proactive measures. According to Thomas S. Lyons
(2002), "Enterprise development is increasingly recognized as a relatively low-cost,
'bottom up' strategy for economic development that is particularly well-suited for a
variety of rural and urban communities" (p.l). The following is put forth as a rationale for
focusing on a "growing your own" strategy for economic development:
1. The majority of businesses are small or medium sized, and they employ the majority of
people in the United States.
2. Entrepreneurial growth companies account for "at least two-thirds of net new jobs in
the American economy" (Kauffman, 2002, p. 3).
3. Small businesses incubate innovation leading to new businesses opportunity. They are
responsible for more than 50 percent of all innovations, 67 percent of inventions, and 95
percent of all radical innovations (Kauffman, 2002, p. 5).
4. We are living in a "new 'Entrepreneurial Age' in which entrepreneurs and their
companies are transforming the economic landscape." (Kauffman, 2002, p. 4).
5. Entrepreneurs, those focused on innovation and fast growth, comprise 5 to 15 percent
of all U.S. businesses (Kauffman, 2002), and there are some in every location.
6. Entrepreneurs and the companies they lead playa critical role in fostering economic
prosperity and are vital to our ability to compete internationally.
7. Fast growth companies occupy a variety of business sectors, but they often start at the
kitchen table or in the garage with less than $50,000 (Kauffman, 2002, p. 7).
8. Both our defense capability and homeland security require a robust small business
sector.
9. Once established, a strong entrepreneurial environment in distressed or remote
communities can lead to success in regional relocations of related businesses.
If the first element in a proactive approach to entrepreneurship is well-organized and
effective business support services, then the second essential element is community
leadership. Case studies collected at the Heartland Center indicate that service providers
alone cannot make a successful "grow your own" approach. In the Heartland Center
study (2003), leaders play key roles in businesses success by:
o Creating a compelling vision;
o Communicating the vision to others;
o Developing a plan to support business success;
o Demonstrating commitment (Wall & Luther, 2003, p. 5).
Communities that are successful in growing their own indicate that "nearly all ofthe
citizens become cheerleaders to promote the successes of new enterprises. They
understand the importance of operation between businesses and all other parts of a total
community. Where communities focus on creating their own jobs, leaders build a culture
to nurture entrepreneurship in all three arenas: civic, social, and business. They also
develop a support infrastructure, or system as Lyons described, that addresses the need
for services, space, networking, and capital" (Wall & Luther, 2003, page 5).
Research on entrepreneur/community relationships reveals the following:
1. Access: Entrepreneurs need help accessing talent, capital, networks, and
infrastructure (Kauffman, 2002, p. 12) as well as an eco-system "mix of good
programs, good quality of life, and a culture that encourages people to take risks
and start new ventures" (Kauffman, 2002, p. 20.)
2. Community: In today's world, it often takes a community to grow an
entrepreneur (Heartland Center for Leadership Development, 2003).
3. Local Resources: A focus on "growing your own" can be sustainable as it draws
on local resources, focuses on mobilizing human rather than financial or built
capital, and fosters businesses with personal ties to the community and subsequent
commitment to that community (Lyons, 2002).
4. Vision & Culture: Developing entrepreneurial economies in urban and rural
regions requires a vision for entrepreneurship among the leadership and a culture
that supports and nurtures entrepreneurs, coupled with specific elements including
a proactive educational system; access to spaces, services, and information;
resources for financing; access to networks and mentoring; and a supportive
environment that provides public recognition of business achievement and values
and supports people starting out in business (Heartland Center, 2003).
5. Positive Environment: An Aspen Institute report focused on the need to create a
positive environment, provides an educational system that stimulates and prepares
entrepreneurs, and maintain a culture that values and celebrates entrepreneurship
(Aspen Institute, 1996).
A Concentration on the Central Business District or "Downtown"
Farmington has evolved from its early days as a free-standing small city to its current
position as a growing outer tier suburb. To identify Farmington as a typical suburb
however, would be to misstate its unique characteristics, in particular, the downtown
area. Given this unique circumstance, and the role downtown will have in Farmington's
future, special attention has been given to the challenges of developing and redeveloping
a "downtown" district.
The specific literature on the revitalization of downtown areas in small secondary cities
within metropolitan areas like Farmington is sparse. The research does reveal however,
(Robertson, 2001) some of the differences between large and small cities that impact the
development strategies and possibilities of each.
The downtowns of small cities like Farmington are more "human scale," meaning that the
buildings are smaller and distances between destinations are shorter and thereby
walkable. Traffic congestion and crime are usually minor problems in small cities. Local
independent businesses dominate the retail sector. Residential neighborhoods are close
enough to walk downtown. Historic structures are likely to remain in the downtown,
unlike in many larger cities where urban renewal, the interstate highway system, and
other development pressures resulted in the removal of entire blocks of historic structures
and even entire neighborhoods in many cities.
Results from a national survey (Robertson, 1999) on downtown revitalization strategies
for 54 non-suburban cities (population 25,000 to 50,000) identify the major problems
confronting the downtown areas of such cities:
· attracting new development
· attracting people on evenings and weekends
· competition from discount stores and malls
· vacant space
Case studies were also available (Burayidi, 2001) on downtown development in non-
suburban (free-standing), small cities with populations under 100,000. The results of
these case studies provide guidance for implementing programs and policies (which are
applicable to Farmington):
(1) Emphasize local funding for downtown programs so that the community feels
ownership of the process;
(2) promote both physical and economic renewal by creating a sense of place in the
downtown; monitor downtown revitalization programs and progress so that the
effectiveness of these programs can be evaluated;
(3) involve many constituencies-business owners, tenants and landlords,
government officials, workers and residents in revitalization efforts;
(4) establish a long-term visionfor downtown; and,
(5) find out about programs in other communities.
Like the recommendations on general economic development cited earlier, the best
practices in downtown development and redevelopment relate to what the local
government can control and how it should participate in the process. The following are
the suggestions most often cited. Many of them overlap or relate to those previously
mentioned as best practice for general economic development:
Role of Local Government
. Recruiting businesses and developers into the downtown area
. Shaping the zoning ordinance to require landscaping and appropriate signage in
the downtown area.
. Revolving loan funds at below market interest rates to help finance rehabilitation
projects.
. Take the lead in developing vacant property on the riverfront into a cluster of
restaurants.
. Acquire Property (assemble pieces)
. Taming White Elephants (large vacant or underutilized buildings)
. Historic Preservation
o Incentives
· Historic structures located in National Historic Districts are
eligible for federal rehabilitation tax credits.
· Low-interest loan program for developers to refurbish downtown
buildings.
. Downtown Plans and Historic Review: Having a plan and a review board sends a
signal that a city is serious about historic preservation
Getting People to Come Downtown
. Waterfront development is often used to spur economic development in
downtown areas that have this natural advantage. The city of Farmington appears
to have this untapped potential. Riverfronts offer ideal places for:
o Restaurants
o A public
o Parks with a play area for children
. Festivals throughout the year
. Farmer's markets during the summer and early fall.
Housing
· The development of housing is essential to a healthy downtown - residents
provide demand for retail, services and entertainment
Review of Key Findings for Downtown Development
· Having an organization whose sole function is to advocate the interests of
downtown is critical.
· Invigorating downtown areas by building on its strengths (density and
infrastructure) and enhancing amenities through clustering of restaurants and
entertainment options is important.
· The purchase and rehabilitation of large vacant buildings or the identification of
potential projects for those buildings by each city's Main Street Association will
help spur development of smaller buildings nearby.
· The revitalization process is different for each city. The goal of these strategies
should be to develop a distinctive downtown in which people enjoy spending time
and money. Projects should be tailored to the needs of the community.
o For additional descriptive information on Downtown redevelopment, see
Appendix A
This survey of approaches is meant to be part of the foundation upon which the City of
Farmington can build its own economic development strategy. As the research indicates,
each community is different, and it is important to understand the strengths and
weaknesses ofthe community in order to create a plan that will be viable for the long-
term. The ideas presented in this document are intended as a collection of good ideas and
starting points for Farmington's journey.
Appendix A: Narrative on Downtown Development
The literature on urban economic development is dominated by analysis of the
decentralization of population and employment, the resulting decline of the traditional
central business district (CBD) referred to hereafter as downtown--and the consequences
of both. There is a direct relationship between sprawl (excessive decentralization) and
downtown vitality that should be reflected in Farmington's plan. Brueckner (2000) points
out that excessive suburbanization reduces "the incentive to redevelop land near the
center" contributing to the decline of downtown areas. Numerous policies and projects
have been implemented to lure people and businesses back downtown. The movement to
revitalize once vibrant urban centers that have gone through a protracted period of
decline has gained momentum over the last few decades.
KEY POINT: The organization of downtown interests is critical to
revitalization efforts.
Downtown areas often lack large tracts of developable land and have a variety of aging
historical buildings that are not compatible with the type of development, such as big box
retailers, that is occurring in outlying areas. Historic buildings and existing infrastructure
within downtown areas offer an opportunity to create a new and unusual combination of
activities in stark contrast to what Kunstler (1993) termed the "nowhere syndrome,"
referring to the anonymity of many newer built environments with the same stores,
architecture, and large parking lots. The ability to establish a "sense of place" is one of
the strengths of traditional downtown areas.
Review of the Literature on Downtown Revitalization
The literature on downtown revitalization in the United States is primarily descriptive and
prescriptive--describing policies and projects that have worked or not worked in
particular cities and prescriptions for how to approach the revitalization process. One
result of this approach is that specific policies (or projects) that have been successful in
one city are often adopted with little modification in other cities. Many times such
projects are not successful and fail to establish a "sense of place" that makes downtown
areas attractive.
Policies and Projects
Several types of policies and resulting projects have been implemented to revitalize
downtown areas. Robertson (1995) provides an overview and assessment of seven
approaches that have been commonly pursued:
(1) pedestrianization,
(2) indoor shopping centers,
(3) historic preservation,
(4) waterfront development,
(5) office development,
(6) special activity generators, and
(7) Transportation enhancements.
1. Housing development is an additional strategy.
Pedestrianization:. Pedestrian malls did not meet the original goal of bringing people
downtown and reversing the decline of downtown retail.
Indoor Shopping Centers: The development of indoor shopping centers was another
effort to retain retail sales and compete with the suburbs. Gratz and Minz (1998) makes
the point that rather than large projects such as downtown malls, the focus should be on
incremental changes that "add to the long-evolving, existing strengths, instead of
replacing them" (p. 61). West and Orr (2003) argue that such developments have positive
spillover effects: increasing community pride and encouraging shoppers to visit other
stores and restaurants in the downtown area. Recent trends however toward "lifestyle
centers" and "demalling" have contributed to the reality that indoor shopping centers
have a limited appeal and effectiveness, leading to a renewed interest in historic
downtowns.
Historic Preservation: This focus is on "adaptive reuse" of historic structures where
buildings that were initially constructed for one purpose are converted to a different use.
Over 48,800 buildings have been rehabilitated in cities with Main Street Programs since
1980 in addition to substantial numbers of new businesses and jobs (p. 455). While some
of these buildings may have been rehabilitated even in the absence of the program, Main
Street has undoubtedly had a positive impact in communities in terms of being a catalyst
for historic preservation and rehabilitation of downtown properties.
Waterfront Development: Farmington does have a unique water feature that could be an
untapped economic development opportunity. Research does not provide the relatively
small scale that is represented in Farmington, rather the studies are focused on larger
urban areas.
Office Sector: The office sector in the Farmington economy is significant, especially
downtown. Research shows that this feature has remained a large component of
downtown employment and can serve as "feeders" to stores, restaurants, and hotels in the
downtown.
Special Activity Generators: Special activity generators such as the planned hockey
arena with proposed tournaments have become common components of economic
development strategies. The bulk of research and data are on a much larger scale,
however the principle of capturing visiting dollars is a typical economic development
strategy.
Transportation Enhancements: Transportation appears to be low on the list of concerns
for those visiting downtown Farmington. However, planners should keep in mind
enhancements that deal with issues surrounding travel time, congestion, safety, and
parking. Downtown businesses often complain that potential customers are unwilling to
walk more than a few blocks to a store and that adequate parking is crucial to bringing
people downtown. The possibility of not finding parking close to the targeted destination
is a deterrent to visiting downtown areas. While parking can be a problem in cities of any
size, congestion and safety concerns are more prevalent in large cities than in small cities
such as Farmington.
Housing and Downtown Revitalization: The connection between housing and
downtown revitalization has become a common component of downtown revitalization in
recent years. Downtown advocates realize that a residential population adds to the
quantity and variety of goods and services demanded in a downtown. While activity 24
hours a day, 7 days a week may not be a necessary condition for a vibrant and healthy
downtown, a residential base increases the level of activity after normal business hours as
provided by Birch (2002).
White Elephants
Often the rehabilitation of white elephants--large vacant or underutilized buildings--is the
impetus for downtown revitalization efforts (Moe & Wilke, 1999; Weiler, 2000). Movie
theaters, department stores, and warehouses are some common types of white elephants.
While vacant properties, in general, signal a lack of economic activity, large vacant
buildings are particularly troublesome due to the externalities associated with them.
Because white elephants are large and visible, they may have a substantial negative
impact of surrounding property values and lead to a cycle of deterioration, a negative
externality. Often these types of buildings have historic or architectural elements that
provide the unique sense of place that distinguish traditional downtown areas from newer
developments, an unrealized positive externality.
The rehabilitation of white elephants is one of the core issues in downtown revitalization.
These buildings are located in areas with existing infrastructure--roads, sewers, and so
on--unIike new developments on the fringe or urban areas, yet these buildings are
underutilized.
These buildings may be underutilized or vacant for a variety of reasons linked to the
landlord's return on investment (or lack thereof). The interior systems, such as electricity
and air conditioning, may need to be updated. The costs of these updates or the cost of
converting the building to another use (converting a movie theater, for example) may be
greater than the accumulated rent or the sales price the landlord would receive. The
landlord may continue to hold the vacant property because he or she believes that the
value of the property will increase over time.
There may be no market for the property: no one is willing to buy it. If property taxes are
higher than the value ofthe property, the landlord may simply abandon the property.
Finally, white elephants and smaller rundown properties may result from absentee
landlords--building owners that live in another city and do not take care of their property.
Revitalization: A Slow Process:
One ofthe challenges of downtown revitalization is identifying viable uses and financing
for vacant or underutilized space. It is usually obvious which buildings and spaces need
to be rehabilitated-what is less obvious are the potential uses. Revitalization is a slow
process most often occurring in increments--one building at a time. It took decades
for downtown areas to become "rundown," and even with advocacy it will take time for
them to evolve into something different. In downtown areas that have begun the
revitalization process, public-private-nonprofit partnerships, intervention of local
government, proactive policies at the state and local levels, and continued leadership are
needed.
The restoration of a few prominent buildings often serves as a catalyst for the restoration
of others. Revolving loan funds, tax abatement, and streamlining permit systems are ways
that government has encouraged private investment. Cavanaugh (2002) provides case
studies of several downtown revitalization projects focusing on the partnerships between
public and private entities.
Downtown Revitalization: A Brief Look at One Formula:
Organizing Downtown Interests - The Main Street Development Approach
A key factor in many successful downtown revitalization strategies has been the Main
Street Approach. Results from the National Study of Development Issues and Strategies
detailed in Robertson (1999) show that the Main Street Approach was the most effective
approach out of 16 development strategies listed in the study.
The Main Street Approach consists of four principles:
5 organization of downtown interests,
6 design and historic preservation to enhance the built environment,
7 economic restructuring to diversifY the downtown economy,
8 marketing and promotion of the downtown (I'yler, 2000).
The two most common problems with most Main Street Associations and ones that are
likely for Farmington are limited funding and limited volunteer involvement. Perhaps the
biggest challenge for this form of downtown organization is that as membership
organizations, they typically do not have a dedicated source of funding.
References
AMIN, A. and TOMANEY, J. (Eds) (1995) Behind the Myth of the European Union: Prospects
for Cohesion. London: Routledge.
Anas, A., Arnott, R., & Small, K. A. (1998, September). Urban spatial structure. Journal of
Economic Literature, 36(3), 1426-1464.
Aspen Institute. 1996. Developing entrepreneurial economies in rural regions: lessons from
Kentucky and Appalachia.
Baerwald, T. J. (1978). The emergence ofa new downtown. The Geographical Review, 68(3),
308-318.
Begg, lain. "Cities and Competitiveness." Urban Studies (May 1999): 795.
BEGG,1. (1998) Introduction: the reform of the Structural Funds, European Planning Studies, 6,
pp.629-633.
BEGG,1. and MAYES, D. (1993) Cohesion in the European Community: a key imperative for
the 1990s, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 23, pp. 427-48.
Birch, E. L. (2002). Having a longer view on downtown living. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 68(1), 5-21.
BOLTHO, A. (1996) The Assessment, Oxford Review of Economic Policy (Special Issue on
Competitiveness), 12(3), pp. 1-16.
Brueckner, J. K. (2000, April). Urban sprawl: Diagnosis and remedies. International Regional
Science Review, 23(2), 160-171.
Burayidi, M. A. (Ed.). (2001). Downtowns: Revitalizing the centers of small urban communities.
New York: Routledge.
CASELLA, A. and FREY, B. (1992) Federalism and clubs: towards an economic theory of
overlapping political jurisdictions, European Economic Review, 36, pp. 639-646.
Cavanaugh, T. E. (2002). Corporate community development meeting the measurement
challenge. Report No. R-131O-02-RR. New York: The Conference Board.
CHAMPION, A. G. and GREEN, A. E. (1992) Local economic performance in Britain during the
late 1980s: the results of the third Booming Towns study, Environment and Planning A, 24, pp.
243-272.
CHESHIRE, P. C. and GORDON, 1. R. (Eds) (1995) Territorial Competition in an Integrating
Europe. Aldershot: Avebury.
CHESHIRE, P. C. and HAY, D. G. (1989) Urban Problems in Western Europe: An Economic
Analysis. London: Unwin Hyman.
CIAMPI, C. A. (1996) Enhancing European competitiveness, Banca Nazionale di Lavoro
Quarterly Review, 197, pp. 143-164.
Coates, Breena E. "Public-private entrepreneurism at the local level: a small town--Holtville,
California--achieves fame and fortune through entrepreneurial innovation.(Holtville Grand Prix
Motorcycle Race)." The Public Manager 35.1 (Spring 2006).
COASE, R. (1960) The problem of social cost, Journal of Law and Economics, 3, pp. 1-44.
COOKE, P. and MORGAN, K. (1994) The creative milieu: a regional perspective on innovation,
in: M. DODOSON and R. ROTHWELL (Eds) The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, pp. 25-32.
Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Corporation for Enterprise Development & the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. 2004. Correspondence
to authors.
CUADRADO-ROURA, J. R. and RUBALCABA-BERMEJO, L. (1998) Specialization and
competition amongst European cities: a new approach through fair and exhibition activities,
Regional Studies, 32, pp. 133-147.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE and INDUSTRY (1995) Competitiveness: Forging Ahead. Cmnd
2867. London: HMSO. 17(2), 193-204.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE and INDUSTRY (1998) Our Competitive Future: Building the
Knowledge Driven Economy. CM4l76. London: The Stationery Office.
Doyle, Z. 2002. Making rural life appealing to young people. National Association of
Development Organizations Economic Development Digest. http://www.nado.org//
cubs/nov021.html
DRAKE, K. (1997) Industrial competitiveness in the knowledge-based economy: the new role of
government, in: OECD (Ed.) Industrial Competitiveness in the Knowledge-based Economy: The
New Role of Governments, pp. 1-48. Paris: OECD.
DUFFY, H. (1995) Competitive Cities: Succeeding in the Global Economy. London: Spon.
Duguid, P 2003. Incentivising practice. Paper presented at the ICT's and social capital in the
knowledge society workshop, Seville, November. http://www.theisociety.net/archives/
Duguid%20fmal. pdf
DUNNING, J. (1996), The geographical sources of the competitiveness offtrms: some results of
a new survey. Discussion Papers in International Investment and Business Studies No. 218,
Department of Economics, University of Reading.
Emery, M, M. Wall & D. Macke. 2004. Forthcoming, Energizing entrepreneurship: strategies to
help communities grow their own. Lincoln, NE: Heartland Center for Leadership Development.
Emery, Mary, Milan Wall, and Don Macke. "From theory to action: energizing entrepreneurship
(E2), strategies to aid distressed communities grow their own." Journal of the Community
Development Society 35.1 (Oct 2004).
Erickson, R. A. (1983). The evolution ofthe suburban space economy. Urban Geography, 4(2),
95-121.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1997) Report on the competitiveness of the EU. DGIII.
(mimeograph).
FAGERBERG, J. (1996) Technology and competitiveness, Oxford Review of Economic Policy
(Special issue on Competitiveness), 12(3), pp. 39-51.
Faulk, Dagney. "The process and practice of downtown revitalization." The Review of Policy
Research 23.2 (March 2006): 625(21).
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's Center for the Study of Rural America. "Main streets of
tomorrow: growing and financing rural entrepreneurs-a conference summary." Kansas City, MO.
http://www.kc.frb.org/Publicat/econrev/ermain.htm.
Fisher, Peter S.; Peters, Alan H. Industrial incentives: Competition among American states and
cities. Kalamazoo, MI, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1998. xiii + 307 pp.
Flora, C.B., J. Flora, G.P. Green, and F.E. Schmidt. Summer, 1991. "Rural Economic
Development Through Local Self-Development Strategies." Agriculture and Human Values 8(3):
19-24.
Flora, C. B., & J. L. Flora 1993. Entrepreneurial social infrastructure: A necessary ingredient. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 529:48-58.
Flora, C. B., & J. L. Flora, with S. Fey. 2004. Rural communities: legacy and change, 2nd edition.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Flora, J. L. 1998. Social capital and communities of place. Rural Sociology 63 (4) 481-506.
Flora, J. L. & G. Green. 1991. Self-development Strategies in Rural Areas Rural Economic
Analysis Program (REAP), Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics and College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Frieden, B. J., & Sagalyn, L. B. (1989). Downtown, Inc.: How America rebuilds cities.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
FRANCIS, A. (1989) The concept of competitiveness, in: A. FRANCIS and P. THARAKAN
(Eds), The Competitiveness of European Industry, pp. 5-20. London: Routledge.
FROST, M. and SPENCE, N. (1993) Global city characteristics and central London employment,
Urban Studies, 30, pp. 547-558.
Gordon, D. L. A. (1997). Managing the changing political environment in urban waterfront
development. Urban Studies, 34(1), 61-83.
GORDON, I. R. and CHESHIRE, P. C. (1998) Locational advantage and the lessons of territorial
competition in Europe. Paper prepared for the International Workshop on 'Theories of Regional
Development: Lessons for Policies of Regional Economic Renewal and Growth', Uddevalla,
Sweden, 14-16 June.
Gratz, R. B., & Mintz, N. (1998). Cities back from the edge new life for downtown. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Green. G., J. L. Flora, C. B. Flora & F. Schmidt. 1990. Local self-development strategies:
National survey results. Journal of the Community Development Society, 21: 3-15.
Green. G., J. L. Flora, C. B. Flora & F. Schmidt. 1993. From the Grassroots: Results ofa National
Study of Rural Self-Development Projects. Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Staff Report No. AGES9325. November.
Green, G. P. and A. Haines. 2002. Asset Building and Community Development. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Hanham, A.C., S. Loverage, & B. Richardson. 1999. A national school-based entrepreneurship
program offers promise. Journal of the Community Development Society, 30 (2).
Hartshorn, T. A., & Muller, P. O. (1992). The suburban downtown and urban economic
development today. In E. S. Mills & J. F. McDonald (Eds.), Sources of metropolitan growth (pp.
147-160). New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Henderson, Tom. "Panelists: Leaders shouldn't try to play it safe." Crain's Detroit
Business 22.23 (June 5, 2006): 25.
Humphrey, C., R. Erickson, & E. Osttemsmeyer. 1988. Industrial development groups,
organizational resources and the prospects for effecting growth in local economies. Growth and
Change 19:1-21
JACQUEMIN, A. and PENCH, L. (1997) Europe Competing in the Global Economy: Reports of
the Competitiveness Advisory Group. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
JENSEN-BUTLER, C. (1997) Competition between cities, urban performance and the role of
urban policy: a theoretical framework, in: C. JENSEN-BUTLER, A. SCHACHAR and J. VAN
WEESEP (Eds) European Cities in Competition, pp. 3-42. Aldershot: Avebury.
JENSEN-BUTLER, C., SCHACHER, A. and WEESEP, J. VAN (Eds) (1997) European Cities in
Competition. Aldershot: A vebury
Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. 2002. Entrepreneurship: a candidates guide:
creating good jobs in your community, August.
Kourilsky, M. L. 1995. Entrepreneurship education: opportunity in search of curriculum.
Business Education Forum, October. http://www.entreworld.org!BookstoreIPDFs/RE-008.12df.
Kourilsky, M. L., & S. R. Carlson. 1996. "Mini-society and yess! Learning theory in action.
Children's social and economics education 1(2). http://www.entreworld.oraIBookstore/PDFs/RE-
009. pdf.
KRESL, P. (1995) The determinants of urban competitiveness, in: P. KRESL and G. GAPPERT
(Eds) North American Cities and the Global Economy: Challenges and Opportunities, pp. 45-68.
London: Sage Publications.
Kretzman, J., & J. McKnight, 1993. Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path to
Finding and Mobilizing the Community's Assets. Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research.
KRUGMAN, P. (1996a), Making Sense of the Competitiveness Debate, Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 12, pp. 17-25.
KRUGMAN, P. (1996b) Pop Internationalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kunstler, J. H. (1993). The geography of nowhere: The rise and decline of America's man-made
landscape. New York: Simon and Schuster.
LEVER, W. (1993) Competition within the European urban system, Urban Studies, 30, pp. 935-
948.
Levy, P. R. (2001). Paying for the public litig. Economic Development Quarterly, 15(2), 124-131.
Listokin, D., Listokin, B., & Lahi, M. (1998). The contributions of historic preservation to
housing and economic development. Housing Policy Debate, 9(3), 431-478.
Littrell, D. W., & D. Hobbs. 1989. The self-help approach. Pp. 48-68 in J. A. Christianson and J.
W. Robinson, Jr. (Eds.), Community Development in Perspective. Ames, IA: Iowa State
University Press,
Loveridge, S. 1996. On the continuing popularity of industrial recruitment. Economic
Development Quarterly 10(2) 151-158.
Lyons, T. S. 2002. The entrepreneurial league system: Transforming your community's economy
through enterprise development. Louisville, KY: The Appalachian Regional Commission, March.
http://www . wvec2003 .cOIn/downloads/ entrepreneurial-league-system. pdf
MARKUSEN, A. (1996) Interaction between regional and industrial policies: evidence from four
countries, International Regional Science Review, 19, pp. 49-78.
MIER, R. (1993) Social Justice and Local Economic Development. London: Sage.
Mitchell, J. (2001). Business improvement districts and the new revitalization of Downtown.
Economics Development Quarterly 15(2), 115-123.
Moe, R., & Wilke, C. (1999). Changing places rebuilding community in the age of sprawl. New
York: Henry Holt.
National Main Street Center. (2001). Reinvestment statistics. Retrieved January 10, 2003, from
http://www.mainst.org/AboutMainStreet/numbers.htm
Norquist, J. O. (1998). The wealth of cities: Revitalizing the centers of American life. Reading,
MA: Perseus Books.
OECD (1996) Industrial Competitiveness. Paris: OECD.
OECD (1997a) Industrial Competitiveness in the Knowledge-based Economy: The New Role of
Governments. Paris: OECD.
OECD (1997b) Industrial Competitiveness: Benchmarking Business Environments. Paris: OECD.
O'Sullivan, A. (2003). Urban economics. Boston: McGraw Hill Irwin.
PETRELLA, R. (1995) I limiti della competitivita. Roma: Manifestolibri.
PORTER, M. E. (1996) Competitive advantage, agglomeration economies and regional policy,
International Regional Science Review, 19, pp. 85-90.
PORTER, M. E. (1998) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmillan.
Pred, A. R. (1966). The spatial dynamics of U.S. urban-industrial growth, 1800-1914: Interpretive
and theoretical essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
PYKE, F. and SENGENBERGER, W. (1992) Industrial Districts and Local Economic
Regeneration. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
Rasheed, H. S. The effects of entrepreneurship training and venture creation on youth
entrepreneurial attitudes and academic performance. www.coba.usf.edu/ department
s/management/faculty/rasheedlyouth _ entrepreneurship.htm
Rasheed, H. S. Developing entrepreneurial characteristics in youth: the effects of education and
enterprise experience. www.coba.usf.edu/departments/management/faculty/rasheedl
youthentrepreneurship. pdf
Reynolds, P. D., W. Bygrave, I Autio, & M. Hay. 2002. Global Entrpreneurship Monitor 2002
Executive Report. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffinan Foundation.
Robertson, K. A. (1995, Autumn). Downtown redevelopment strategies in the United States an
end-of-the-century assessment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(4), 429-437.
Robertson, K. A. (1999, Summer). Can small-city downtowns remain viable? A national study of
development issues and strategies. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), 270-283.
Robertson, K. A. (2001). Downtown development principles for small cities. In M. A. Burayidi
(Ed.), Downtowns revitializaing the centers of small urban communities (pp. 9-22). New York:
Routledge.
Rupasingha, A., & S. J. Goetz. 2003. The causes of enduring poverty: an expanded spatial
analysis of the determinants of poverty in the US. Pennsylvania: The Northeast Center for Rural
Development, December.
SASSEN, S. (1991) Global Cities, London, New York, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Unversity Press.
SAXENIAN, A. (1996), Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition. in: Silicon Valley and
Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Seigfried, J., & Zimbalist, A. (2000, Summer). The economics of sports facilities and their
communities. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3),95-114.
Sharp, K., & J. Flora. 1999. Entrepreneurial social infrastructure and growth machine
characteristics association with industrial-recruitment and self-development strategies in non-
metropolitan communities. Journal of the Community Development Society 30(2) 131-152.
Skelcher, B. (1992, August). What are the lessons learned from the Main Street pilot project,
1977-1980? Small Town, 23(1), 15-19.
Sohmer, R. (1999). Downtown housing as an urban redevelopment tool: Hype or hope? Housing
Policy Debate, 10(2),477-505.
STEWART, M. (1996) Competition and competitiveness in urban policy, Public Money and
Management, 16, pp. 21-26.
Swindell, D., & Rosenstraub, M. S. (1998, January, February). Who benefits from the presence of
professional sports teams? The implications for public funding of stadiums and arenas. Public
Administration Review, 58(1), 11-20.
Technology Alliance. 2002. Benchmarking Washington's performance. http://www.technology-
alliance.com/resources/benchmarking.htm
Tyler, N. (2000). Historic preservation: An introduction to its history, principles, and practice.
New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
United States Census Bureau. (1990, 2000). Census of population and housing, Floyd and Clark
Counties, Indiana. Washington, DC: Author.
Walstad, W. B., & M. L. Kourilsky. 1999. Seeds of Success. Entrepreneurship and Youth.
Dubuque, IA. KendalllHunt Publishing Co. http://www.entreworld.orulBookstore.
Walzer, N., & Kline, S. (2001). Does size matter? Successful economic development strategies of
small cities. In Michael A. Burayidi (Eds.), Downtowns: Revitalizing the centers of small urban
communities (pp. 249-274). New York: Routledge.
Weiler, S. (2000). Pioneers and settlers in lo-do Denver: Private risk and public benefits in urban
redevelopment. Urban Studies, 37(1), 167-179.
West, D. M., & Orr, M. (2003, May). Downtown malls as engines of economic development,
community spirit, and political capital. Economic Development Quarterly,
APPENDIX C
10
Springsted
To: Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator
From: Craig R. Rapp
RE: Interview Summary - Farmington Economic Development Strategy
Date: January 16,2007
The following is a summary ofthe interviews conducted by our project team regarding
economic development in the city of Farmington.
The information presented has been aggregated in order to maintain the anonymity ofthe
persons interviewed. However, specific comments, and the issues raised are sufficiently
detailed to enable the City Council, EDA and staff to understand the concerns raised and
the suggestions offered.
The following process was used to gather information:
~ A standard questionnaire was developed
~ One-on-one interviews were conducted with the following:
o Mayor and City Council
o Economic Development Authority members
o Selected City staff
o Selected business and property owners
~ The interview team (Craig Rapp and Peer Team) discussed and summarized the
findings
Although the questions developed were used by all interviewers, each interview was
tailored to elicit the maximum value from each participant. Specifically, our goal was to
allow each participant to give us their unique perspective.
In some cases this meant deviating from the standard questions and simply pursuing
issues raised in the interview, in others it was a combination of set questions and
additional discussion. In all cases, we were successful in engaging the interview subjects
in a wide ranging discussion about economic development in Farmington.
The answers listed are those answers that were given by a majority of the respondents. In
that way, we are representing the strongest opinions of the entire group, not just the
opinions of an individual or small number of those interviewed. At the end of the
summary, we have included a few opinions that were not widely held, but we believed
represented important perspectives that should be shared with the City.
ResDonses
1. Interest in Economic Development
Everyone interviewed expressed a strong, professional or personal interest in
economic development and most wanted to help the City move forward and
thrive. For the most part, participants indicated that this economic development
strategy formulation approach is a good one, as long as Council gets behind it and
stays behind it.
2. How would you describe Farmington's business climate?
The themes that emerged confirmed that the City is primarily a service oriented
economy with its future potential related to the pace of residential growth. The
business climate is viewed more regionally than as a micro, or local economy.
· Many thought that the commercial/office sector is the strongest with banking,
legal, and insurance businesses.
· They noted that Farmington is a "little off the beaten track" for commercial
development, because 1-35 is so far away.
· The industrial sector is viewed as being in a holding pattern with little
available land to grow. The respondents believed that the City must be ready
to act when land in the western part of the city opens and the agriculture
designation drops in 2012.
. Given land prices in surrounding communities, it was observed that
Farmington may have a competitive advantage
· The retail sector has little to offer the residents with so much competition
close by. There are three Super-Targets in close proximity that are keeping
investors out of Farmington for now.
. The Burnsville model that was examined was mentioned by several people -
noting that follow-through should be happening.
. Many felt that there is pent up demand and potential, but that for whatever
reason, entrepreneurs aren't taking advantage of it.
3. City efforts in attracting, retaining, and expanding business
Nearly all participants indicated that the City is unorganized, limited, and haphazard
in its economic development efforts. It was generally felt that the City is not
proactive.
What does it do well?
o Now moving in the right direction
o Incentives on land
o Changing approach to development fees
How could it improve?
o Get well qualified economic development professional on staff
o Need to get consensus and consistent support for economic
development efforts
o Stick with whatever goals you choose. . . the Council changes
their minds too frequently
o Need stable City Hall
o More communication with developers is needed, for example,
some cities have quarterly updates for developers on projects and
progress, plus take input
o Public relations (ambassador type)
o Be much more aggressive
4. Greatest challenges facing the City as it attempts to create a successful
economic development strategy:
This question seemed to have the widest range of responses. The themes most
frequently mentioned were:
. Getting everyone on the same page
· Especially businesses working together
· Need to speak with one voice (EDA, Chamber, Planning
Commission, City Council, County)
. Creating a plan
. Overcoming poor decisions of the past
. Not actually ready for development challenges
. Getting a qualified economic development professional
. Overcoming resistance to change/growth
. Having the outside world view Farmington as ready for development
· Growing, yet keeping a small town
· Not being risk averse
· Confused electorate
· Getting townships to cooperate
· Very costly to do comprehensive economic development
· Coordination with Comprehensive Plan
5. Farmington's Best Assets:
Nearly everyone indicated that the downtown was the city's best asset. The
interviewees liked the:
· Historic nature of the downtown
· Small town feel
· Quaintness of the space
· Stronger service sector
· Some active restaurants
Conversely, they also thought some things about downtown could be improved:
· Businesses need to work together more with some common goals.
· Need more events to attract and keep people in the area
· Restaurants need to get more with the times.
Other city assets frequently mentioned were:
. Vermillion River
. We have time to plan this thoughtfully
· Great residents (educated, thoughtful, interested in the City)
. Good governance
· High Growth potential
· Nice place to live: trials, parks, neighborhoods
· Still has open-space
6. Why invest in Farmington?
This was a difficult question for many people; however, there were a number of
common responses:
· Great place to live (Small-town atmosphere)
· High growth potential
· When housing market rebounds, it will explode with numerous
lots - leading to increased demand for goods and services
. Good investment (medium term)
. Red Carpet for new investors (Council is open to new business)
. Staff tries to be helpful and easy to work with.
. Good environment for small to medium sized businesses
. Good schools
Other Comments/Suggestions:
1. The school will be adding facilities (hockey) that will be attracting tournaments to
the City. The City could use a good hotel and restaurant to capture the dollars
from these kinds of events. Also, when people visit the industry in town, there is
nowhere for them to stay.
2. Be mindful of development along Hwy 50. It could lead to more problems for the
downtown.
3. Highway 3 needs widening - inattention will slowly stifle progress.
4. Figure out how to work with the townships
5. Residential market is good.. .land prices between buyers and sellers show some
differential - people asking "way too much" for undeveloped land. Again, what
is the "mix" of housing that the city is looking for?
6. Has there ever been a survey of the businesses located there to see why they chose
Farmington and is there a business retention program?
7. Let the private sector do what it does best - keep the city focused on public sector
duties
APPENDIX D
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
1. Professional Staff
2. Traditional downtown
3. Involved City Council
4. In-place functioning and involved EDA
5. Land available for development and redevelopment
6. Vermillion River - quality trout stream in middle of city
7. City supports growth
8. Active business community
9. Located in the 'path' of metropolitan development
10. Educated population
11. Quality school district
12. Low crime
13. Quality public services
Opportunities
1. Good fiber optic cable availability- potential for fiber-to-the-premises
2. Because Farmington is largely unknown- chance to create or define an image
3. Learn and leverage the knowledge of other cities
4. City has time to get organized and focused - with lots of people currently engaged
5. Economy is getting better
6. Opportunity to compete globally
7. Recruitment - going from zero to something focused
8. Marketing the city's "small town" feel
9. Ability to coordinate the Comprehensive Plan with an Economic Development Plan
a. Comprehensive Plan first, Economic Development Plan second
10. Rail service - marketing opportunity to users that need rail
11. Trout stream - market the image and potential to draw people
12. Improve relationships with the townships
13. Opportunities to "network" - develop and improve relationships with County, State
and developers
14. Location - market the fact that Farmington is close, but a little off the beaten path
15. Pull three groups together - City Council, EDA, Economic Growth Committee
16. Engagement of the business community
17. High School- infrastructure extensions
18. Follow models of other successful cities - Naperville example - riverwalk
Strengths/Opportunities - Possible connections
1. Strengths - Involved City Council; in-place functioning EDA
Opportunities:
. Learn and leverage knowledge from other cities
. Ability to coordinate Comprehensive Plan with Economic Development
Plan
. Improve relationships with townships
. Opportunities to "network" - develop and improve relationships with
County, State and developers
. Pull three groups together - City Council, EDA, Economic Growth
Committee
. Engagement of the business community
2. Strengths - Traditional downtown; land available for development and
redevelopment
Opportunities:
. Marketing the city's "small town" feel
. Location - the fact that Farmington is close, but a little off the beaten path
3. Strengths - City supports growth; active business community; located in the "path"
of metropolitan development
Opportunities:
. City has time to get organized and focused- with lots of people currently
engaged
. Because Farmington is unknown- chance to create or define an image
. Recruitment - going from zero to something focused
. Rail service - marketing opportunity to users that need rail
4. Strengths - Vermillion River - quality trout stream in the middle of the city
Opportunity:
. Trout stream - market the image and potential to draw people
Weaknesses
1. Location - not on 1-35
2. City has image of bedroom community
3. Population currently too small for 'big box' retail interest
4. Limited land available for industrial development
5. "Fragmented" downtown business community - lack of direction
6. Lack of common vision
7. Transportation
a. Railroad
b. Intra-city options are poor
c. Lack of good access to 1-35
8. Lack of expertise making development deals
9. Three separate groups working on economic development
10. The community at large is disengaged
11. Poor image or lack of image with business community
12. Poor relationship with townships
13. School District fragmentation
Threats
1. Developable land closer to the Twin Cities
a. Retail
b. Other
2. Lakeville annexation encroachment
a. Possibility of surrounding Farmington
3. Gravel mines blocking economic development
4. Long-term holding of agricultural land -limiting land for development
5. Opening up of Elko-New Market due to sewer extension
6. Future push back against development
7. Slow down in the housing market
8. High gasoline prices
9. State of Minnesota actions are unpredictable
a. LGA cuts
b. TIF limitations
10. Desirable development is close to Farmington, but outside our city
a. Example: Flagstaff Ave.
11. Highway 3 congestion
12. Acting alone on economic development resulting in being land-locked
Weaknesses/Threats - Possible Connections
1. Weaknesses - "Fragmented" downtown business community - lack of direction; lack
of common vision; three separate groups working on economic development; the
community at large is disengaged
Threats:
. Developable land closer to the Twin Cities
. Opening up of Elko- New Market due to sewer extension
. Desirable development is close to Farmington, but outside our city
2. Weaknesses -limited land available for industrial development
Threats:
. Long-term holding of agricultural land -limiting land for development
. Lakeville annexation encroachment- possible surrounding of Farmington
. Acting alone on economic development resulting in being land-locked
Other Issues I Connections
1. Transportation- enhancing connections to serve new development
2. Deal making capabilities - staff development
3. Interesting and unique city - creative and unique approaches - fiber optics, etc.
EDA Structure Meeting: July 23, 2007
EDA Member Strengths
. Commercial lending officer: Understands
world of economics
. Project Manager
. Farm Background
. Former City Council Member
. Live & Work in the City
. Experience on the HRA
. Public Finance Background
. Independent Contractor
. Attorney
. Public Administrator
TOP 2 PRIORITIES
1. Create Commercial & Industrial Tax
Base
2. Job Creation
3. Encourage Further ED in City
4. Maintain Current Development
5. Economic Development
6. Facilitate Business Growth
7. Put Economic Development Plan in place
8. More Downtown Businesses
9. Promote Business Growth
10. Get Blighted land back on Tax Base
11. Facilitate Redevelopment
12. Preservation
A-f-f~(!., h. !3
"Things we've done well"
. City Center
o "Facilitators & go-between"
o Helped assemble land
. I-Park
o Land Acquisition
o Staff fields inquiry
. Negotiate Development agreements
. City Hall
o Acquire Land
. Town Homes
o Redevelopment
o Elimination of
contamination/blight
. Contract Compliance
. Becoming EDA
. Spruce Street Bridge
o Grant
August 27,2007
It is 2018 and everything you realistically could want for Farmington is
now here. What is it? What does it look like?
~ Northfield is a Farmington Bedroom community
~ There is a $500,000 balance in the Public Private
Development Corporation
~ There is office and retail development up and down Highway 50
~ Township Annexation is Complete
~ The school boundary matches the City
~ There'is a destination down-town with specialty retail
~ There is a hospitality/convention center with two hotels
~ There are higher paying jobs
~ Green Corridor Remains
~ Big Box Stores giving more options
~ VRC Completed - Life Style Center
~ More Head-of-Household Jobs
~ Areas linked with trails and walkways
~ In-fill development has occurred down town
~ Events are coordinated between organizations
~ There is a community center
~ The river is used as an asset
~ Economic development is focused on all areas
~ There are mass transit options
~ There are college classes offered and a 2 or 4 year college
~ Golf Course
~ There is a designated Industrial Park
~ Highway 3 is developed
~ Farmington mall is redeveloped into offices
~ More mixed housing
~ The development process at City Hall is fast-tracked
~ History is reflected in new development
~ Some roads now pass over the rails
~ Residents are working in town
~ There are offices located at Highway 3 & 50
Economic Development
Vision of
Farmington
VISION
ST A TEMENT(S)
Farmington is a vibrant community comprised of an
integrated network of commercial, industrial, educational
and hospitality opportunities surrounded by natural
esthetics.
Farmington is a community that combines abundant natural
resources with an established down - town and a sense of
community. The City offers a wide variety of
commercial/industrial opportunities with a strong
employment base and housing options. Residents enjoy a
high quality of life with a strong transportation system,
diverse services and unique shopping opportunities.
Farmington is a vibrant, diverse, growing, economically
sustained community.
Farmington is a vibrant City that combines natural resources
and sense of community with an established Down Town.
The City offers a diverse, growing, economically sustained
community with excellent schools, quality jobs, and unique
shopping and housing options.
City of Farmington EDA Economic Development Plan
High Level Strategic Approach to Community Economic Vitality
The following programming for Farmington's economic development is placed and
described in order of priority. The top areas for the concentration of time, energy, and
resources are specified in order as follows:
1. Downtown Development and Redevelopment
2. Industrial Development
3. Commercial Development outside of the Downtown area.
Other areas to be continued by deemphasized include:
~ Tourism development
~ Blight control and beautification
11. Downtown Development and Redevelopment
Establish A Clear Downtown Boundary: The boundary of the downtown area has
been discussed many times and remains in a point of confusion. A clear delineation of
downtown is an essential first step in defining and planning the next steps of
development.
Development Standards: The development and redevelopment of downtown will have
development standards. It is the desire of the City to have standards in place to guide the
look and feel of the area. Standard will include:
~ Lighting
~ Landscaping
~ Green Space:
o Green space in the downtown area is considered an essential amenity. The
green space designs will be tied to the other development standards and
the City's park plan.
~ Architecture
o Historic feel
o Human scale buildings (height and massing)
o Walk-able and pedestrian oriented
Promote Infill Development (8)
~ Commercial Mix
o Professional offices
o Entertainment and arts
o Craft and antique
o Boutiques
o Specialty shops
Expand Downtown Commercial Core: (6)
12. Industrial Development
1. Promote the availability, use, and sale of industrial property
2. Build, execute, and maintain a business retention program
3. Coordinate the assembly of property for the purposes of industrial
development (Land Assembly)
Other areas of industrial development efforts will also involve:
~ Advocating with stakeholders
~ Enforcing building standards
~ Establishment of incubator buildings and/or inventory of vacant buildings for
start-ups
~ Recruit industry
~ Extend Light-Industrial Areas of the City
13. Commercial Development outside of the Downtown Area
Other economic activities that will be pursued but not emphasized as priorities are as
follows:
~ River Focus: The Vermillion River is recognized as an underutilized asset of the
community. New restrictions on building near the river have created challenges
that require the City to scale back expectations and resources economic
development efforts. There are areas of continued interest in economic
development applications:
o Expand third street plan to Vermillion River
o Tie River theme into downtown streetscape plan
o Pedestrian and bike trails linked to picnic areas
o Encourage cultural events that tie downtown to the river
~ Provide Linkage between the Third Street entrance into Dakota Village and the
Downtown's Third Street Business District.
?c-
City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.280.6800. Fax 651.280.6899
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
EDA Members
FROM:
Tina Hansmeier, Economic Development Specialist
SUBJECT:
The 3/50 Project
DATE:
September 28, 2009
INTRODUCTION
The 3/50 Project is a grassroots campaign designed to "save" independent businesses.
DISCUSSION
Participation is simple and the plan is to get people to spend a total of $50 at three local businesses each
month.
The way that this works, is by choosing three locally owned businesses, and at those three shops combined,
commit to spending $50 a month. According to the information compiled on the website
www.the350project.net. "if half the employed population spent $50 each month in locally-owned
independent businesses, it would generate more than $42.6 billion in revenue." The employment statistics
are courtesy of the U.S. Department of Labor.
Furthermore, for every $100 spent in locally owned independent stores, $68 returns to the community
through taxes, payroll and other expenditures. If you spend that at a national chain, only $43 stays local. If
you spend it online, nothing comes here.
The 3/50 Project is being launched allover as a way to save the brick and mortars our nation is built on.
According to their website, the Project has received some terrific visibility from various media outlets and has
a long list of supporters from across the United States and internationally.
Flyers, marketing materials, press releases are available on the website and there is no cost to becoming a
supporter of this campaign.
ACTION REQUESTED
Direct staff to communicate information on the subject of 'The 3/50 Project' to the community and to sign the
City up as a supporter of this campaign.
Respectfully submitted,
~~'~
Tina Hansmeier,
Economic Development Specialist
The 3/50 Project ::: Home
HOt"1E
Page 1 of 1
QUR
SUPPORTERS
lNTHE::
MEDi/\
RESOURCES
STOf::(E
FAO
CONT/'>..CT
JUMP H>J
50
68
SAVING THE BRICK & MORTARS OUR NATION IS BUILT ON
3
What three independently owned businesses would you miss if they
disappeared? Stop in. Say hello. Pick up something that brings a
smile. Your purchases are what keeps those businesses around.
Ifhalf the employed population spent $50 each month in locally
owned independent businesses, it would generate more than
$42.6 billion in revenue. * Imagine the positive impact if 3/4 the
employed population did that.
For every $100 spent in locally owned independent stores, $68
returns to the community through taxes, payroll, and other
expenditures. If you spend that in a national chain, only $43
stays here. Spend it online and nothing comes home.
11
1
The number of people it takes to start the trend...you.
Pick 3. Spend 50. Save your local economy.
Where did
this all begin?
click here
What is an
I ndependen t?
click here
To download
the free flyer
click here
To be listed as a
3/50 Supporter
click here
spread [he word
Need graphics for your blog or website? Your Facebook page?
How about an ad for running on a local theater's movie screen?
No problem. Just click on the link to be listed as a supporter.
After registering, you'll be whisked to a library of free options.
@(i!l Cinda Baxter, 2009. All rights reserved. Proud supporter of RetailSpea~s and independent businesses everywhere.
. Employment statistics courtesy U.S. Department of Labor 216/09
~aR
Website design: Cinda Baxter
http://www.the350project.net/home.html
9/25/2009