1_Northfield Project Reference Document_Meeting Notes

Project Reference Document

Business & Industrial Park Master Plan

Meeting Notes :

123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838

Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMO Date: July 27, 2009 From: Jeff McMenimen To: Mark Koegler CC: File Re: Northfield Business Park – July 27, 2009 Meeting Notes Attendees: Jody Gunderson City of Northfield, EDA Brian O’Connell City of Northfield, CD Mark Koegler HKGi Jeff McMenimen HKGi The following are notes taken during the course of discussion on July 27, 2009 at the Northfield City Hall:

1. The City Council includes 4 new members voted in the fall of 2008. It now consists of 4 women and 3 men.

2. The City Administrator, Joel ______, has experience with Brooklyn Park and 3 Rivers Park District.

3. The current comp plan (2006) builds on the HKGi comp plan (2001). 4. The Council is in support of the comp plan recommendations. 5. The City is working with a consultant to prepare development regulations. It is currently

in draft form for review and can be downloaded from the City’s website. 6. The outcome of the business park project is intended to influence the development

regs/codes. 7. The City Council will eventually approve the business park plan as an amendment to the

comp plan. 8. The development regulations represent a hybrid type, including form-based regulations

and architectural standards. It is expected the business park plan and guidelines will supplement this information.

9. The City is interested in moving towards a greater level of accountability and predictability with regards to development regulations.

10. The City leadership is recognizing that growth will occur and should be managed properly.

11. There is a fear that Northfield may become a typical suburb. This has lead to a desire for Northfield to be distinguished from the pack – high expectations.

12. The EDA will lead the business park project on the City’s side. 13. HKGi will lead the consultant team. 14. The EDA consists of 7 members – 2 council members and 5 appointees 15. The members include the following:

Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design

Meeting Notes – Northfield July 27, 2009 Page 2

Jim Pokorney - Business owner/engineer - Medical device company

Rhonda _______

- Home school teacher - Newly elected (fall 2008) - Represents newbies (south side of town)

Rick Estenson

- EDA Chair – until end of year - EDA member for 4 years (3 as president) - Son of banking president - Micro-manager

Steve Engler

- New to Board - Will be next Board President - Former state legislator - Farmer/local guy - Talkative

Marty Benson

- Community banker - Passive/solid

Dave Wyland

- Biological sciences professor at St. Olaf - Quiet/productive - Intelligent

Victor Suma

- Appointed by the former mayor - Tends to drag things out - Stirs the pot - Works best with a clear agenda and well managed tasks

16. The EDA includes several sub-committees (Business Development,

Infill/Redevelopment, Marketing/Policy and Process, etc.) 17. We will most likely be working with members of the Business Development sub-

committee – Rhonda, Rick, Steve. 18. The sub-committees accelerate the process. Report to the full board for decision making. 19. The EDA Board is behind this project. 20. The annexation of the property (north site) influenced the decision to move forward with

this project.

Meeting Notes – Northfield July 27, 2009 Page 3

21. The loss of College City Beverage (Beer Distribution) to Dundas influenced the movement to initiate this project.

22. Riteway has moved its operations to Lakeville, MN 23. Malt-o-Meal uses the Riteway Bldg for storage uses. 24. Project Steering Committee member discussion:

- Business Development Comm. (EDA) – Rhonda, Steve, Rick - Technical Comm. (Staff) – Jody, Brian, Katie (?), Dan Olsen (PD) - Planning Commission? - EQC? - Chamber of Commerce? - Try to keep the group to a workable size limit (13 max.)

25. Discussion regarding the south site (both sites): - Break out into separate phases of work scope for each site. - Develop a work scope and schedule that can phase in the south site later in the

process (early 2010) - We may need to gather enough information to develop a developable land

summary, and prepare a preliminary investigation to understand potential ROI for the south site – this will assist the City with determining whether or not to annex the south site and include in the planning process. This work would need to occur before a decision has been made re: the south site.

26. The south site may be less expensive to develop infrastructure than the north site. 27. Our (HKGi) scope of work will be attached to the City’s contract agreement form

(Framework Agreement). 28. Our scope should be specific regarding deliverables and meetings. Anything beyond that

should be included as additional services. 29. The City will get HKGi a copy of the Framework Agreement for legal review. 30. HKGi will begin to draft the scope of work, working toward a draft for review with the

full EDA at the Aug. 13th meeting. HKGi should plan to attend that meeting. 31. Budget: We should assume a not to exceed budget of $250K for this project. Our scope

and deliverables should reflect this budget. 32. Video conferencing ability? St. Olaf? Hospital? Could save on travel costs. 33. HKGi will develop a “Project Manual” for the project team members, including the

Steering Committee members. It will include project information including schedules, deadlines, planning process, etc.

34. Could we combine the EDA and Planning Commission in joint meeting sessions? Possibility. Maybe evening meetings would work best?

35. Lets plan to conduct an early project kickoff meeting with the EDA, CC, PC (others?) 36. Brian Welsh is the City’s GIS guy. His number is 645-3027.

Northfield 3 rd Business and Industrial Park Steering Committee Meeting

Thursday, September 24, 2009

6:00p.m. – 7:30p.m.

City Council Chambers, City Hall City of Northfield

AGENDA

I. Introductions

- Steering Committee

- Planning Team

II. Scope of Work and the Planning Process

- Work plan - Project schedule

III. Project Goals and Objectives

- Discuss and confirm project goals and objectives IV. Next Steps V. Adjourn


Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. NORTHFIELD 3RD BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL PARK Steering Committee Expectations 9/24/09

1. Steering Committee represents various interests and values of the community and the

organizations they represent.

2. Communication link between the planning process and the stakeholders within the community.

3. Provide direction to staff and consultant team on the process and scheduling of the

planning effort.

4. Advisory on plan content. Broader public input is essential to informing the master plan and guidelines, however, the steering committee may be asked to offer preliminary input on plan alternatives in preparation for broader public meetings.

5. Where appropriate, participation and involvement in workshops and charrettes

throughout the planning process. Committee members may be asked to work with community organizations and businesses in getting the word out about public events related to the planning process.


Northfield 3rd Business and Industrial Park Steering Committee/EDA Meeting

Thursday, November 12, 2009

6:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.


AGENDA

I. Market Analysis – Preliminary Findings Review II. Site Analysis Review

III. Project Inventory Review

- Summary of Related Planning Documents - Summary of Related Infrastructure/Transportation Documents

IV. Next Steps

- Complete Market Analysis - Design Charrette - Conceptual Design

V. Next Meeting – December 17th


Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. NORTHFIELD 3RD BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL PARK Northfield Economic Development Authority/ Joint Steering Committee Meeting Meeting Minutes – November 12, 2009 City Hall Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Estenson, Jenelle Teppen, Steve Engler, Victor Summa,

Rhonda Pownell, Jim Pokorney, Marty Benson, Tracy Davis, Pete Sandberg, Erica Zweifel, Neil Lutsky, Jay Jasnoch, Scott Richardson, Christopher Sawyer, Tim Geary and Steve Engler

ALSO PRESENT: Mark Koegler, Jeff McMenimen-Hoisington Koegler, Elliot Hoyt-

Design Workshop, Keith Covey, Northfield News, Community Development Director Brian O’Connell, Economic Development Manager Jody Gunderson, Recording Secretary Barb Thompson

1) Market Analysis Elliot Hoyt with Design Workshop reported on the preliminary findings of the market

analysis. The market analysis will be used to provide market information that will inform decision making on the master plan. Eliot reviewed the following materials with the EDA/Steering Committee:

A. Recent Activity

- Design Workshop, Prologis and HKGi visited the site in mid-October - A market tour was conducted in the metro area – visiting business and

industrial parks to gain insight on local competition, quality and types of developments in the metro area.

- Interviews with local (Northfield) business operators were conducted to gain insight on what attracts and retains businesses in Northfield.

- Conducted broker meetings with CBRE and Colliers to gain information on the state of the office and industrial markets in the metro area.

B. Definition of the Market Area

- There are 8 submarkets in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Northfield lies just outside the southwest and south central areas.

- Current vacancy rates for office and industrial space are in the 10-11% range, the highest in five years.


Northfield 3rd Business and Industrial Park Work Plan Meeting Minutes November 12, 2009 Page 2

- The current vacancy rates for the greater MSP region are below national vacancy rates.

- Average absorption rates for industrial space in the greater MSP area are 1,881,885 sf.

- 2009 YTD absorption rates are -2,446,982 sf. - Property prices are 30% lower than the 2007 peak. - Speculative industrial development for the near term (18-24 months) is

expected to remain on hold, until current vacancy of industrial space is absorbed.

- Build to suit is the only development activity expected in the next 18-24 months.

- Strongest growth area is considered to be in the northwest metro area due to affordable housing, population growth, transportation infrastructure and transit.

- South metro is growing too. - Estimate for recovery – 18-24 months.

C. Identification of Competition

- Competitive market area includes Shakopee, Eagan, Lakeville, Farmington, Faribault and Owatonna

- Rochester may be a player in the competitive market area. - Design Workshop has been looking at businesses located in these

communities - Talking with these communities regarding incentives, level of infrastructure,

amenities, property tax relief programs, abatements, infrastructure grants, training credits, TIF, economic development bonds, enterprise zone programs, free trade zones, etc.

- The following developments were visited and analyzed within the competitive market area: Dean Lakes, Shakopee, MN The Waters Business Park, Eagan, MN Lakeville Industrial Park, Lakeville, MN Faribault Industrial Park, Faribault, MN Owatonna Industrial Park, Owatonna, MN

D. Demand and Absorption

- Methodology GDP as a leading industrial demand and absorption indicator Federal Reserve Boards Index of manufacturing output (IMO, monthly) Monthly traffic flows Manufacturing ISM Report on Business (Institute for Supply Management, monthly)


E. Comparables Analysis

- Investigation of business parks in communities with similar profiles (college towns in Midwest primarily, but not exclusively)

- Investigation of business parks integrating amenities and features appealing to quality of life

- Investigation of business parks worldwide that integrate a fuller range of uses (office, residential, hospitality, retail)

- Specific comparables reviewed and discussed:

Heal Creek, Rhinelander, WI Glory Bee Foods Business Park, Eugene, OR Mountain Ranch Business Park, Fayetteville, AR

F. Trends in Industrial Development

- Splinter/Consolidate – will depend in large part on the price of oil - Medical technology and office, food service support, and professional service

are likely growth areas. - High bulk buildings – 35 feet and over for warehouse – provides flexibility for

expansion and contraction depending on market conditions. - Sustainability focus is growing fast – big players are committing to LEED

certified projects - Prologis – all new buildings are LEED - Uponor in Lakeville is seeking LEED certification - Northmarq won a 2009 Xcel energy efficiency award (same as St. Olafs) - Models for generating renewable energy on-site, with a return, are being

tested. - Prologis solar program – leasing out rooftop space to solar energy companies. - Potential for Geothermal in MN

G. Thoughts on the Northfield Business and Industrial Park

- Qualities that have attracted businesses to Northfield (from interviews): Strong sense of place and community Workforce is well educated, loyal and reliable Access to both Mpls and St. Paul Access to the airport without having to go through the city

- Qualities that may have hindered growth and retention:

Not right on I-35 Lakeville, Shakopee and Eagan are closer to city and airport Need to pay same rates as Twin Cities because close enough that people can commute


In the past, the city did not always actively help businesses to locate and grow here Almost impossible to attract businesses from out of state because of the tax structure (true for entire market)

- How to differentiate from the competitive market area?

Need to offer more than raw land with potential for infrastructure Complete the master plan for an amenitized park with good infrastructure and access Strong design guidelines Seek opportunities to integrate various land uses Potential for co-generated power, heating and cooling Capitalize on synergies with existing companies (Malt-o-Meal, Cardinal Glass, Hospital) Look for businesses interested in co-branding with the city and the colleges Aggressive use of state programs

Comments included: Possible to look outside US for business, European business use sustainability

more frequently Looking at co-branding with businesses in area Sell area by it’s amenities including trails, parks… Work development in phases How to differentiate this property

2) Site Analysis

Jeff McMenimen reported on the analysis of site conditions for both sites (north and south). Site analysis included:

Transportation systems Utilities – storm water, sanitary sewer, gas, electric, fiber optic, etc. Habitat quality Hydric soils

Hydrology/wetlands Urban growth and expansion areas mapping

Parks, trails and open space mapping Existing and future land uses Zoning

The site analysis is layered together to create an opportunities and constraints plan for each site. These plans will serve as the base maps for physical planning efforts which will begin during the strategic visioning charrette, scheduled for Dec 1-2.

3) Project Inventory Review


The planning team has been reviewing adopted and accepted policy documents, planning studies and other background materials to become more familiar with the project sites and city regulations and guidelines for future industrial and business park development on these sites. Several summary memos have been prepared and distributed to the members of the EDA and Technical/Steering Committee. The summary of each of these memos was reviewed to develop a list of common themes that may influence planning efforts. The following is a list of those common themes: 1. Promote economic development by supporting existing businesses, retaining and

attracting talent, aggressive business recruitment and by increasing the availability of commercial and industrial land.

2. Promoting expansion of new commercial and industrial sites should not detract from

the vitality of downtown Northfield.

3. Future development should be considerate of elements that have historically defined Northfield’s small town character, agricultural heritage, local architecture, and traditional development patterns.

4. Engage St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges better by attracting and retaining alumni and

recent grads with jobs in Northfield and finding industries that align with the colleges.

5. Protect and preserve significant natural resources and environmentally significant areas, particularly along the Spring Brook and Heath Creek waterways.

6. Promote sustainable development practices – conserve energy, reduce waste, reduce

reliance on the automobile, promote healthier lifestyles and encourage green building techniques.

7. Improve the entry points (gateways) into the community, particularly along Highway

19, by creating architectural and site design standards.

8. Provide diverse and affordable housing choices for those who choose to live and work in the community.

9. Target the retention and recruitment of those industries that have the highest potential

for success in Northfield:

Logistics Specialty Manufacturing Healthcare and Medical Professional and Technical Services Information Technology


10. Work with stakeholders to ensure that any new industrial park be powered by renewable

energy, be developed using best environmental practices, and attract “green” businesses of many types.

11. The greenway corridor is one of the most important aspects of the park system.

Maximizing access to the greenway is especially important. 12. Minimize vehicle traffic by providing a mixture of land uses, pedestrian-oriented

development, compact community form, safe and effective multi-modal circulation systems and adequate on- and off-street parking facilities.

6) Next Steps

The Charrette was discussed. The Charrette will be held on Dec 1-2, 2009 in Northfield and will include site visits, creative workshops and public viewing of concepts. To prepare for the Charrette, members were invited to think about business parks now and what they like and dislike about the current structure.

7) Comments Are any of the requirements considered a deal breaker? Could the housing topic become inflammatory? Create a sustainability project with employees having the opportunity to walk to work The proposed schedule was discussed. The schedule is subject to change 8) Next Meetings

EDA/Steering Committee Meetings: December 1-2, 2009 – Master Plan Design Charrette December 17, 2009- Joint meeting

Northfield 3rd Business and Industrial Park Steering Committee Meeting

Thursday, December 17, 2009

6:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.


AGENDA

I. Market Analysis – Updates II. Charrette Update and Review III. Planning Discussion

- Concerns - Direction to the planning team

IV. Next Steps

- Prepare Concept Alternatives - Conduct Preliminary Feasibility Studies for Each Concept - Conduct Industry Roundtable

V. Next Meeting – February 18, 2010 (Steering Committee)

of 2

Northfield Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Summary – December 17, 2009 City Hall Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Estenson, Rhonda Pownell, Jim Pokorney, Tim Geary, Mike Berthelsen,

Pete Sandberg, Scott Richardson, Jay Jasnoch, Christopher Sawyer, and Neil Lutsky

MEMBERS ABSENT: Erica Zweifel and Tracy Davis ALSO PRESENT: EDA Board Member’s Steve Engler, Victor Summa, and Marty Benson, Mark

Koegler, Jim McMenimen, Economic Development Manager Jody Gunderson, Community Development Director Brian O’Connell and other interested persons

The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. I) Introduction Jeff McMenimen provided an introduction to the meeting and reviewed the agenda. He briefly

discussed a number of handouts including information on design trends prepared by ProLogis, the PowerPoint prepared by Design Workshop summarizing the market analysis activities to date and accompanying memorandums prepared by Design Workshop. Jeff mentioned that the starting point for the initial project charrette activities was the list of target uses prepared by Design Workshop. The full market analysis is expected to be complete in early to mid January.

Per the initial market findings, Northfield can expect to absorb approximately 2 million square feet of industrial land in the next 20 years. This equates to a total of approximately 200 acres of land. Mike Berthelsen asked what assumptions went into the absorption rate. Jeff McMenimen responded that absorption assumptions will be clearly documented in the final market analysis report. Jay Jasnoch commented that it would be interesting to see what Northfield’s absorption has been over the past 10 years. The group had a brief discussion of floor area ratios (FAR) and Northfield’s growth projections. Brian O’Connell then provided a brief commentary on Northfield’s Development Code and the floating zone and mentioned that the maser planning process is expected to help inform future land use regulations.

II) Charrette Update and Review/Discussion

McMenimen reviewed the charrette format including the project sites tour, the post tour meeting, the afternoon work session and an overview of the concepts that prepared during day one and presented at the late afternoon pin-up session. Two concepts were prepared for each site. He then provided an overview of day two of the charrette including the morning steering committee discussion, and the concepts that were prepared and discussed at the late afternoon pin-up session. The session featured three concepts for the north site and one for the south site. Jeff then reviewed a meeting handout that included common themes that were recorded from comments by the steering committee and general public. The group then had a brief discussion about agriculture as a holding use or long-term use on the north site.

Based upon comments by several of the steering committee members, the group discussed phasing – specifically, how to allow for flexibility by individual phases of the project while retaining flexibility for the mix of uses on the entire north parcel. The relationship between phasing and infrastructure was noted. The group wondered if zones would have well defined uses or if they would be flexible. It was

of 2

noted that some of the initial concepts have more of a center and might lend themselves to a more radial implementation pattern rather than blocks of land. The committee also commented on how the north site would be integrated into the Northfield community. Members wondered if people working in the industrial park would go downtown and whether or not people from other areas of the community would go to the new industrial park area. It was agreed that HKGi would prepare graphics for the next meeting that would show the industrial park site in the context of the larger community in order to examine connections throughout Northfield. In a continuation of the phasing discussion, it was suggested that consideration be given to using “units” rather than “phases”. Phases may have too close of a connotation to actual periods of time and a sequential progression pattern. It was generally agreed that it is important to tie down the Cedar Avenue extension through the north site as early in the process as possible. It was noted that Concept “C” lends itself to a potential phasing scenario that starts with the mixed use node and spirals out into other land uses. The concept depicts a pattern of “fingers” of uses rather than “blocks” of uses. Regarding potential future users, it was suggested that the project team collaborate with Jody to examine all of the companies that have contacted Northfield in the past 5 to 10 years and determine where they might hypothetically locate in the new north industrial area in accordance with each of the concepts. Jeff McMenimen reminded the group that the concepts at this point are very preliminary and that the task for the project team over the next two or three months is to refine the concepts, add appropriate detail to each and prepare them for subsequent steering committee review and review by the public at an open house.

III) Ideas Mark Koegler suggested that the remaining minutes of the meeting be used to generate a list of reactions and ideas that resulted from the charrette. Steering committee members noted the following:

Consideration should be given to establishing an eco-industrial park – something with a “wow factor”.

What will make the new industrial park part of Northfield? How will the new industrial park be different from parks in other communities? Can Northfield’s unique community qualities be used to create a unique industrial park? Northfield doesn’t want or need a “cookie cutter” pattern of industrial uses. How does Northfield compete? Northfield should emphasize its unique attributes including two noted college campuses –

can the industrial park have a campus organization – quads? – carry the campus idea to the industrial setting.

Are there examples of cities that have implemented their eco-industrial visions? Can Northfield develop a self conscious, healthy workplace campus? Can this be a goal

that is reflected in the infrastructure of the place?

After a review of the schedule, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

of 4 M:\Northfield\009-PRO#-Northfield 3rd. Business Industrial Park\3 Meetings\Steering Committee Meetings\Meeting #1\9-24-09 KICKOFF MEETING.doc

Northfield Economic Development Authority and Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Minutes – September 24, 2009 City Hall Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Estenson, Steve Engler, Victor Summa, Rhonda Pownell, Jim Pokorney,

Erica Zweifel, Tim Geary, Mike Berthelsen, Pete Sandberg, Scott Richardson, Jay Jasnoch

MEMBERS ABSENT: Marty Benson, Vacant Seat, Tracy Davis, Christopher Sawyer, Neil Lutsky ALSO PRESENT: Mark Koegler, Jim McMenimen, Larry Larson, Kathryn Summa, Stephanie

Hendricksen, Economic Development Manager Jody Gunderson, Community Development Director Brian O’Connell, Recording Secretary Sandra Bremer and other interested persons

I) Introduction Chair Estenson called the joint meeting to order with a quorum present at 6:00 p.m. All members

introduced themselves.

Koegler explained the purpose of the Steering Committee. The Committee members will be the sounding board for the ideas that HGKI staff will bring forward. They will be looking for feedback and ideas from the Committee on how to make the process and plan work. He described the team they have working with them on this project. He described the expectations of the Steering Committee.

II) Scope of Work and the Planning Process

McMenimen presented the schedule for the master planning process. He reviewed the information that was available to the members in the binder and noted that the binders will be used to collect the data given to them for review prior to each meeting. He noted they have already started doing project area inventory and reviewing current plan studies that may influence the planning process. He noted that market and site analysis will include both Sites A (NW area) and B (South of Hwy 19). They will then focus on only Site A until the City makes the decision on whether to include Site B in the planning process. They are in the process of setting up a web site that will be available to the public. The public will be able to access project progress and provide input on the process on this site. He described the 2-day strategic visioning charrette that is planned potentially for November. They will work on developing preliminary concepts for Site A and Site B while they have the design team together. They will only work on Site A to refine it until they are told to begin working on Site B (possibly in February 2010). Once they have a concept plan that is acceptable to the Committee, they will hold a public open house to gather input. All the information they gather during this process will be reviewed with the Committee. Concepts and draft master plan will also be reviewed with the City Council and Planning Commission. The Master Plan will be finalized in a report document. The Committee will be meeting on a regular basis. The next meeting will be in early to mid November. There will be some joint meetings with the Planning Commission, City Council, property owners, stakeholder meetings and the two public open houses.

Summa asked for more information on the charrette. He felt it was being planned a little too early in the process and questioned if enough data would be ready by November.


Koegler noted they plan for late November or early December. They will have enough background information by that time. This process will get the initial ideas on the table and then the ideas will be refined as time goes on. O’Connell questioned the process of interaction with the land owners. Koegler noted it will be done early and often because the land is privately owned. It is very important that the land owners are involved early on. Jasnoch noted that when additional value is added to private properties through this planning process, this increases the value to the property owners. Estenson noted that this has been discussed among the EDA a lot and Land Vista has been working with the property owners to get it to this point and will continue to work with them through this process. Gunderson noted that part of this process is to analyze what industrial land is priced at in the areas around Northfield so they can keep an eye on the costs and value being added to the land. Geary questioned if at some point would there be some contractual arrangement with the property owners. Koegler noted there are many different mechanisms that can be pursued to accomplish the best end result for both the City and the property owners. He noted that after the planning process has been complete, there will be added value to the land. This plan will cover phases over many years. The question has been raised “Is this the best time to do this?” In many ways this is a very good time to do this process. Pownell noted her concern is that when asked for input some people attend and supply input but the majority of the citizens in town do not participate. Koegler noted they will use as many tools as they have available to attempt to get the most people to participate. They are trying to use social networking to reach more people. They will be trying live twitter to allow them to have a live chat during the public open houses. Engler questioned how detailed the information would be on the costs for water and sewer, etc. What can be expected from this planning process? How much money would the City have to put into this project? McMenimen noted they will be doing preliminary cost estimates for each alternative to determine feasibility of each alternative. They will have a very good sense of the costs involved. They will have a snapshot of how long it might take for this area to develop. This will provide the City with an understanding of what the return on investment will be for the City when they have to decide what money to invest. Engler wanted to be sure that all the members have access to the necessary plans and studies done by the City such as the EDA’s TIP plan, Comprehensive Plan, etc. McMenimen noted they are going through these documents and will be presenting a summary of them to the members. At the next meeting they will go through the site analysis and the summary of the planning studies and reports that will have an influence on the planning effort.


Engler questioned if there would be minutes kept of all the meetings. He questioned how everyone would be informed of the meetings being held and would they be open to the public. Koegler noted that someone will be taking notes of each meeting and they will be made available. He noted that all the meetings will be public meetings; however, the Steering Committee meetings will be work sessions and they will not be opening the discussions up to the public at these work sessions. There will be opportunity for input at the public open houses that are being planned. Summa questioned if the master plan would recommend when the City makes their decision to invest in this project. He sees this as a great marketing tool to bring people to Northfield to develop. McMenimen noted they will be putting together a phasing plan as part of the implementation strategy for the City. Koegler noted that at the end of this process, they will recommend whether the City should go ahead with this development and will note the method and timing to do it. At the end they will have a model of what they feel works best at this site. Summa questioned the feasibility of the City acquiring the land that is not developable on the site. Koegler noted that when this develops, there will be dedication requirements that will be part of the development process. He noted there might be times that they will have to come forward with some bad news as part of this process. While that news may not be what people want to hear, it will be as realistic as can be presented given market conditions. They intend to present as much information so that the end result works best for Northfield. He asked the members to think about what they want to see on Site A and what types of uses they see going on this site. Sandberg noted there are a lot of things going on in other areas that are competing with Northfield that will impact what happens here. Koegler noted Northfield has some very distinctive advantages, one being the two colleges and the intellectual capital invested here. Pokorney noted it is important to figure out how Northfield makes themselves different from other communities. They have to draw on on the history of the City. The key is to understand who we are and what makes Northfield different from other cities in the area. They do not want a cookie cutter business park but they want one that will work just for Northfield. O’Connell noted part of this process will be to evaluate other industrial parks and use what has worked. They have to look at precedent models that may not be standard to see what makes them work. McMenimen noted there are only a few fully developed sustainable and eco-friendly business and industrial parks in the United States and there are many more in Europe that they will be looking at. It was noted that after a preliminary review of Eco-Industrial Parks in the Unites States, most are much smaller in size (50-60 acres). He noted they will need assistance from the Committee and the public to understand the unique sense and character of Northfield. O’Connell noted that once the master plan is complete it will be tied to the standards from the LDC. Zweifel raised the issue of the geographical location of Northfield with a pedestrian scale that is very important to Northfield and the issue of connectivity within the City.


Berthelsen noted the City is residential heavy in terms of the tax base. It is necessary to diversify the City and this issue needs to be considered by expanding the business and industrial base. Jasnoch noted they have to get back in line to what is expected of this project. It is important to understand the terms and challenges necessary to make this work and recognize what will work and what will not work for Northfield – it must be a feasible plan. There is also the challenge of bringing in new businesses to the City and maintaining the businesses that have been in town for many years and that have grown with the community. Geary noted that the businesses that may fill up this park may have a root in Northfield. The business people that are here are not just out of college. They are the professionals that have many years of experience. Summa noted that he sees research facilities such as agricultural research, college research, medical research, etc. desirable for this park. Berthelsen noted that it is very difficult to successfully develop research parks and that even the University of Minnesota (more of a research based university than the two colleges in Northfield) has had it’s challenges doing so.

III) Project Goals and Objectives

There was a review of the goals and objectives. Koegler noted that at the next meeting they will be presenting a set of “rules of engagement” for the Steering Committee. They want to be able to leave the meetings open for creative discussion.

IV) Next Steps

McMenimen noted they will be conducting site analysis and preparing “white papers” (summaries) of the studies and plans that are in place already. Koegler noted they intend to provide information for the next meeting in advance of the meeting to allow members time to review it. The members agreed that Thursday evening was the best night and they would meet from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. November 12 was the next meeting date discussed for the Steering Committee. It was discussed that the charrette may be held on November 16 and 17.

V) Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m.


Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMO Date: February 12, 2010 From: Hoisington Koegler Group To: City of Northfield Re: Northfield Business Park - Concept Narratives The following narratives describe the big ideas, site organization and land use program for three distinct concept alternatives prepared for the north business and industrial park project site. These concepts are in progress and will be presented for review and comment to the Steering Committee on Thursday, Feb 18th. At the Steering Committee Meeting, these narratives will be supplemented with plan graphics, footprints studies and systems diagrams. 1: Campus Plan Concept A. Big Idea The Campus Plan Concept builds on the history of Northfield’s two renowned colleges and proposes the business and industrial park in a campus setting in which buildings are organized around public open spaces – parks, plazas and greenways, similar to the campus quadrangles found on the academic campuses of Carleton and St. Olaf Colleges. The design of an attractive public realm for employees, residents and visitors to enjoy is critical to the success of the Campus Plan Concept. The internal roads should provide adequate circulation to businesses within the park but should also be designed so that the pedestrian and bicyclist can move safely and feel comfortable with the environment around them. As much of the movement within campuses will be on foot, direct, safe and attractive pedestrian routes must be provided. There must be large open spaces within the campus. The public environment therefore becomes the basis for the Campus Plan Concept. This not only includes roads, bicycle trails and pedestrian routes; but also includes parks, open spaces, plazas and the general environment. This is fundamental to establishing the ambiance of the business park and attracting businesses to the campus. B. Site Organization Development Parcels

• The 530-acre project site is broken into three mini campuses, each with a different set of land uses surrounding a campus quad.

• The west campus incorporates a 38-acre corporate campus facility (potential office, research and development uses), a 20-acre conference center, office and light industrial


uses. The corporate campus facility anchors the south end of the west campus quad and establishes an attractive project identity near the entrance to the business park. Industrial uses (manufacturing, warehousing, office showroom) are located in the north and northwest areas of the project site.

• The east campus, located adjacent to the Northfield Hospital (on the St. Olaf property) incorporates health and wellness uses (medical office, clinic, healthcare, hospice, assisted living), alumni housing, a fitness center and public skating rink.

• The central campus is centrally located with convenient access to Hwy 19 and CR 23. This campus includes a greater mix of land uses to support the larger business park environment. Land uses proposed on this campus include retail, office, conference facility, hotel, community support and workforce housing. Industrial uses (manufacturing, warehousing, office showroom) are located in the north portions of the central campus.

Circulation

• Proposed County Road 23 bisects the project site, running northeast to southwest and intersects with Hwy 19 in a proposed roundabout and continues south to Decker Ave.

• North Ave. is proposed to intersect with the same roundabout at Hwy 19 and provide direct access from Hwy 19 to the Northfield Hospital.

• A future major collector roadway runs east/west (paralleling North Ave.) along the north boundary of the St. Olaf site.

• Roadways are minimized to reduce conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle movement and reduce infrastructure costs.

• Parking, service and loading areas are located behind primary building faces to screen from public view and encourage stronger building to public space relationships.

• Pedestrian sidewalks are located along roadways. • Multi-use trails are located with parks and greenways. • Transit is encouraged and the roadway system allows for a circulator shuttle system

within the business park. Open Space

• The 530-acre site is organized around east, west, and central campus quads (outdoor green spaces). Each quad would be designed with a distinct character and relationship to surrounding uses.

• A major north/south public greenway is provided along the western border of the project site and connects the business park to the regional greenway system.

• Another major north/south public greenway is provided between the St. Olaf property and the rest of the project site. This greenway provides the focus for alumni housing and workforce housing.

• An east/west public greenway is located central to the site and connects the east campus (located on the St. Olaf property) to the public greens of the central and west campuses and eventually to the major north/south greenway along the western border of the project site.

C. Land Use Summary Land Use Acres Manufacturing 63 ac Office Warehouse and Showroom 62 ac Health and Wellness Campus 53.5 ac Corporate Campus 38.5 ac Mixed Office 24.5 ac Conference Facility 20 ac Hotel 6 ac Fitness Center/Skating Rink 12 ac Community Services 8.5 ac Retail 12.5 ac Alumni Housing 13.5 ac Workforce Housing 26.5 ac Subtotal – Development Sites 340.5 ac (64%) Open Space 139.5 ac (27%) Right of Way 50 ac (9%) Total 530 ac 2: Village Center Concept A. Big Idea The Village Center Concept proposes a more sustainable alternative to typical business park developments by promoting a greater mix of land uses intended to support the needs of businesses, employees, residents and visitors. The concept proposes a business park organized around a more urban and dense mixed-use center including places of employment, shops and services, places to live and recreate. The concept is to create a “place” within the business park that is distinct, identifiable and pedestrian-scaled. It is intended to fit within the context of Northfield in a way that recalls traditional patterns of development with smaller blocks, narrower streets, public gathering spaces and buildings designed to support a vibrant streetscape. Further from the village center, the patterns of development are planned to be more flexible and suitable for larger-scaled, industrial and corporate office uses. B. Site Organization Development Parcels

• The 530-acre project site is anchored by a mixed use village center near the intersection of realigned County Road 23 and North Avenue with the primary pedestrian center to the east of County Road 23.

• To the west of the mixed use village center, a collection of commercial, retail and education uses surround a primary open space element with a corporate campus site providing the gateway use along Hwy 19.

• The primary components of the industrial park (manufacturing, warehousing and office showroom uses are along the northern and western portion of the property from County Road 23 west to the western boundary of the site.

• The Health Services Village, located adjacent to the Northfield Hospital (on the St. Olaf property) incorporates health and wellness uses including medical office, clinic, wellness center, hospice, and senior housing along the northern boundary.

• Along the eastern greenway a community center and park areas provide the primary focus for the surrounding housing, the mixed use housing in the core and lining the open space and the alumni housing on the St. Olaf property on the eastern edge of the open space.

Circulation

• Proposed County Road 23 again bisects the project site, running northeast to southwest and intersects with Hwy 19 at the mid-point of the existing radius on Hwy 19.

• North Ave. is proposed to intersect with County Road 23 at the first full intersection from Hwy 19.

• A future major collector roadway runs east/west (paralleling North Ave.) along the north boundary of the St. Olaf site.

• Roadways are minimized in the industrial area with an anticipated shared site circulation pattern for the warehouse uses.

• Roadways, more pedestrian in scale, are more prevalent in the mixed use and residential area to provide access to retail and residential uses.

• Parking, service and loading areas are located behind primary building faces to screen from public view and encourage stronger building to public space relationships.

• Pedestrian sidewalks are located along roadways, with more pronounced pedestrian sidewalk circulation in the mixed use center along both sides of the street.

• Multi-use trails are located within the parks and greenways and along the major roadway corridors.

• Transit is encouraged and the roadway system allows for a circulator shuttle system within the business park and mixed use center.

Open Space

• The 530-acre site is organized around two greenways on the east & west sides of the project. The greenways provide the organizing features for surrounding development, on the west side, commercial, office and education uses surround the open space. The greenway on the east side provides the focus for the mixed use, residential and civic uses.

• A major north/south public greenway is provided primarily off-site along the western border of the project site and extends south through the corporate campus site connecting the regional greenway system.

• A small village green organizes the development pattern for the Health Services Village and senior housing development area.

C. Land Use Summary Land Use Acres Manufacturing 72.5 ac Bulk Warehouse 29 ac Office Warehouse 19 ac Office Showroom 14 ac Professional Office 12.8 ac Research & Development 8 ac Data Center 8 ac Corporate Campus 25 ac Energy Park 30 ac Conference Facility 14 ac Community College / Training Center 9 ac Civic / Community Services 10 ac Health Services Village 31 ac Senior Housing 12.7 ac Alumni Housing 14.8 ac Workforce Housing 20.5 ac Live / Work Housing 3.6 ac Mixed Use 9 ac Hotel 3.5 ac Support Retail 26.5 ac Subtotal – Development Sites 352 ac (66%) Open Space 85 ac (16%) Right of Way 93 ac (18%) Total 530 ac 3: Ag-Eco Industrial Park Concept A. Big Idea The Ag-Eco Concept is rooted in the function and form of the rural landscape, specifically the farmstead; and it is guided by the conservation of natural resources and improvement in environmental function. The Ag-Eco Industrial Park proposes a unique concept built around the

idea of combining research and innovation for agricultural related industries and energy efficiency. The concept builds on the regions history of agriculture and food production and the city’s desire for intellectual curiosity and environmental awareness. It is a visionary concept that sees a future of sustainable and innovative agricultural practices being researched and developed within the business park. It incorporates a renewable energy park that utilizes waste from the agriculture and food industries from the business park and surrounding region. Conceptually, the Ag-Eco Industrial Park learns from the natural ecosystem and seeks a closed cycle of materials flow among industries themselves. Practically, the Ag-Eco Industrial Park is trying to find ways to minimize and reprocess the waste rather than discard it. B. Site Organization Development Parcels

• The 530-acre project site is organized around a central hub where the exchange of goods, services, and ideas is conducted. Based on the organization of the farmstead, the relationship of uses (both symbiotic and incompatible) are located around the hub appropriately.

• The central hub incorporates an Innovation/Training Center that occupies a 20 acre site that is bordered by the site’s main roadways. The parcel is intended to be flexible and serve as a multi-use community facility that fosters collaboration and shared facility use among such users as the Community College.

• The roadways are laid out on two shifted grids that converge at the central hub. To the West of the central hub the roadways line up with the East-West grid; the land use is larger in scale and more car/truck friendly. Land uses proposed to the west and north of the Central Hub include the Energy Park, Data Center, and Ag Research/Production. Office showroom and office warehouse uses are located north of the Central Hub.

• At the main gateway into the Ag-Eco Industrial Park, south of the Central Hub, is an Ag Eco Education Center on the Sorem Farmstead. Across CR 23 is the location for Retail related to the site’s agriculture uses – potentially a market, nursery, and some convenience stores (gas, etc.)

• To the East of the Central Hub the roadways are organized on the shifted grid, are closer together, and are pedestrian friendly. The parcels are organized around natural amenities. Land uses proposed on the parcel immediately across CR23 from the Central Hub include professional office, a small amount of supporting retail, and live work. Across the greenway to the east Alumni Housing is proposed and building intensity is scaled up as you move up the hill, away from the greenway.

• The east portion of the site proposes a land use that bridges the agriculture-based land uses to the west and the medical/hospital uses to the east – potentially a food science/food health user (either research or corporate focused). North of the campus, because of the proximity to the hospital and attractive rural setting, senior housing is proposed.

Circulation

• Proposed County Road 23 bisects the project site, running northeast to southwest and intersects with Hwy 19 in a proposed roundabout and continues south to Decker Ave.

• North Avenue is proposed to run southeast to northwest through the site, ultimately intersecting 320th Street West on the north edge of the project site.

• A future major collector roadway runs west to east through the site, eventually running south into North Avenue on the east end of the project site.

• Truck traffic is primarily kept to the west end of the project site, with most of the traffic staying to the west side of the Central Hub.

• Pedestrian sidewalks are located along roadways between the Central Hub and the east end of the project site.

• Multi-use trails are located within greenways and within orchard/community garden plots – serving as both an important pedestrian connection across the west end of the site and as a means to connect the users with nature and agriculture more directly.

Open Space

• The 530-acre site is organized around three greenways that bisect the site north to south. These greenways are designed to handle water infiltration and to serve as primary pedestrian and wildlife connections – both locally and regionally.

• An explicit intent to maintain a natural-agricultural frame along the southern edge of the project site is also critical to the concept of the Ag-Eco Industrial Park. The intent is to create a gateway experience into the site, through public and private fields and orchards, which is aesthetically aligned with the character of Northfield, yet functions productively.

C. Land Use Summary Land Use Acres Manufacturing 156.5 ac Office Warehouse and Showroom 36 ac Food Science and Health Campus 35 ac Alumni Housing 32 ac Innovation/Training Center 20 ac Energy Park 20 ac Senior Housing 20 ac Data Center 13 ac Live Work 10 ac Agro-Eco Education Center 8 ac Retail 8 ac Mixed Office/Professional Office/Retail 6 ac Subtotal – Development Sites 364.5 ac (69%)

Open Space 95.5 ac (27%) Right of Way 70 ac (9%) Total 530 ac


Thursday, February 18, 2009

6:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.

First National Bank 2nd Floor Conference Room 1611 Honey Locust Drive

Northfield, MN

AGENDA

I. Market Analysis Report – Comments/Discussion (20 minutes) II. Concept Development Worksession – North Site (1 hour, 30 minutes)

- HKGi will present progress on concept alternatives - Steering Committee review comments on concept alternatives

III. Next Steps (10 minutes)

- Prepare Concept Alternatives for South Site - Conduct Preliminary Feasibility Studies for Each Concept

IV. Next Meeting – March 18, 2010 (Steering Committee)

of 5

Northfield Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Summary – February 18, 2010 First National Bank MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Estenson, Rhonda Pownell, Jim Pokorney, Tim Geary, Mike Berthelsen,

Scott Richardson, Jay Jasnoch, Christopher Sawyer, Neil Lutsky, Erica Zweifel, Tracy Davis, John Klockeman, Glen Castore

MEMBERS ABSENT: Pete Sandberg ALSO PRESENT: EDA Board Member’s Steve Engler and Victor Summa, Jeff McMenimen,

Anna Claussen, Economic Development Manager Jody Gunderson, Community Development Director Brian O’Connell and other interested persons

The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m.

I) Introduction

New members of the Steering Committee – John Klockeman and Glen Castore (Bridgewater Township representatives) were introduced to the group. Jeff McMenimen provided an introduction to the meeting and reviewed the agenda. The primary purpose of this evenings meeting is to briefly take comments on the Draft Market Analysis Report and to present and review progress on Concept Plan Alternatives for the North Site Business and Industrial Park.

II) Draft Market Analysis Review Comments

McMenimen asked members of the Steering Committee/EDA if there were comments on the Draft Market Analysis Report. The following comments/suggestions were received: - What is the significance of the City of Newburg (Oregon) South Industrial Master Plan as a

comparable project related to the Northfield 3rd Industrial Business Park? McMenimen explained that the similarities were that Newburg, like Northfield, is located just outside a major metropolitan area and is the home of a college campus (George Fox University). It was noted that George Fox University is a conservative, Christian college. Other similarities include the planning for a business park with sustainable development standards. McMenimen distributed a copy of the Newburg Business Park Master Plan for the group to review during the meeting. Additional clarification on the significance of the Newberg project will be addressed and followed up on by the consultant team.

- The Steering Committee would like to see historical data regarding business and industrial development patterns in Northfield going back 10 years.

- The report reveals how surrounding communities that compete with Northfield for business and industrial development (Owatonna, Faribault, Eagan, etc.) utilize different strategies to attract and retain business development. Each of these communities utilizes strategies unique and tailored to their various assets. How can Northfield capitalize on its unique assets and market those assets to potential businesses?

- The issue of co-branding was raised again – a marketing strategy that sells the City and the Business Park together. The City has a responsibility in this effort if such a strategy is employed.

- What is required to make an Eco-Industrial Park (EIP) happen and succeed? McMenimen explained that there are few examples of successful EIP’s in the United States, as pointed out in the market analysis report, because they require tremendous stewardship and coordination. Businesses that have symbiotic relationships must be attracted to the park and management of operations is critical. This doesn’t rule out the potential for an Eco-Industrial Park in

of 5

Northfield. It points out that there is a significant commitment required to achieve a successful EIP.

- What is required to make this business park economically successful? What are the costs associated with the development of the park and what are the potential financials gains? McMenimen explained that it is too early in the process to know what is required at this time, but that the consultant team will address these issues further into the process by preparing a preliminary feasibility study for each concept that will shed more light on the financial feasibility question.

III) Concept Alternative Review – North Site

McMenimen reviewed the progress on three concept plan alternatives. The concept alternatives represent further study of the concepts developed during the Visioning Charrette. The alternatives illustrate different approaches to site organization including development parcel layout and land use distribution, open space, road networks and circulation (auto, bike and ped). Each alternative includes a building site test on parcels to study building program, orientation, service and loading access. The plans generally address the office and industrial target programs outlined in the market analysis, but they also include a variety of additional land uses to support the big idea behind each concept. The additional land uses were discussed during the charrette and in previous Steering Committee meetings. The office/industrial program: 1. Industrial/Office (for 2030 – based on potential market absorption for Northfield)

= approx. 2,000,000 sf (*150 – 200 ac) consisting of the following: • Bulk warehouse (15%) = 300,000 sf (22 – 30 ac) • Office warehouse (15%) = 300,000 sf (22 – 30 ac) • Office showroom (10%) = 200,000 sf (15 – 20 ac) • Manufacturing (40%) = 800,000 sf (60 – 80 ac) • Other (20%) = 400,000 sf (30 – 40 ac) (R&D, Data, Medical, Corporate, Training)

*acreage requirements based on FAR assumptions of .30 - .25

Additional potential land uses:

2. Energy Park = 20 – 30 ac 3. Conference Facility = 10 – 20 ac 4. Community College = 5 – 10 ac 5. Hotel/Lodging = 5 – 10 ac 6. Support Retail = 5 – 10 ac 7. Residential = 20 – 40 ac (live/work, workforce, alumni, senior housing) 8. Civic/Community Services = 5 – 15 ac ( daycare, community center, recreation)

The three concept alternatives presented include the following: 1. Ag-Eco Plan

The Ag-Eco concept is rooted in the function and form of the rural landscape, specifically the farmstead; and it is guided by the conservation of natural resources and improvement in environmental function. The Ag-Eco Industrial Park proposes a unique concept built around the idea of combining research and innovation for agricultural related industries and energy efficiency. The concept builds on the regions history of agriculture and food production and the city’s desire for intellectual curiosity and environmental awareness. It

of 5

is a visionary concept that sees a future of sustainable and innovative agricultural practices being researched and developed within the business park. It incorporates a renewable energy park that utilizes waste from the agriculture and food industries from the business park and surrounding region. Conceptually, the Ag-Eco Industrial Park learns from the natural ecosystem and seeks a closed cycle of materials flow among industries themselves. Practically, the Ag-Eco Industrial Park is trying to find ways to minimize and reprocess the waste rather than discard it.

2. Campus Plan

The Campus Plan concept builds on the history of Northfield’s two renowned colleges and proposes the business and industrial park in a campus setting in which buildings are organized around public open spaces – parks, plazas and greenways, similar to the campus quadrangles found on the academic campuses of Carleton and St. Olaf Colleges. The design of an attractive public realm for employees, residents and visitors to enjoy is critical to the success of the Campus Plan concept. The internal roads should provide adequate circulation to businesses within the park but should also be designed so that the pedestrian and bicyclist can move safely and feel comfortable with the environment around them. As much of the movement within campuses will be on foot, direct, safe and attractive pedestrian routes must be provided. There must be large open spaces within the campus. The public environment therefore becomes the basis for the Campus Plan concept. This not only includes roads, bicycle trails and pedestrian routes; but also includes parks, open spaces, plazas and the general environment. This is fundamental to establishing the ambiance of the business park and attracting businesses to the campus.

3. Mixed-Use Plan

The Mixed-Use concept proposes a more sustainable alternative to typical business park developments by promoting a greater mix of land uses intended to support the needs of businesses, employees, residents and visitors. The concept proposes a business park organized around a more dense, mixed-use center including places of employment, services, places to live and recreate. The concept is to create a “place” within the business park that is distinct, identifiable and pedestrian-scaled. It is intended to fit within the context of Northfield in a way that recalls traditional patterns of development with smaller blocks, narrower streets, public gathering spaces and buildings designed to support a vibrant streetscape. Further from the mixed-use center, the patterns of development are planned to be more flexible and suitable for larger-scaled, industrial and corporate office uses.

McMenimen and Claussen presented the three alternatives, discussing the various framework strategies and land uses associated with each. They explained that these alternatives represent land planning to support the big idea behind each concept. Each concept prescribes specific land uses and locates those uses based on relationships between uses and infrastructure. Each concept also indicates the layout of roads and open spaces. Following the presentation of the concept plans, the group discussed the issue of flexibility vs. prescribing specific uses on the plan, noting the following: 1. Prescriptive Plan

- Must be patient to get what you want developed

of 5

- Requires stewardship – marketing, patience, negotiation - Longer absorption period - May be more costly – infrastructure phasing - May miss out on potential financial opportunities - If all goes well, you may get what you want.

2. Flexible Plan - Market conditions dictate development - Plan is able to adapt to market opportunities - Shorter absorption period - May experience greater financial returns - Requires less stewardship - You may not get exactly what you want

We then discussed a strategy to develop the plan with enough flexibility on some sites to adapt to market demand, yet protect valuable sites for more prescribed land uses and potential tenants. The concept is to identify high value sites and protect those sites by controlling the types of permitted uses, marketing those sites more actively, and negotiating those sites more carefully. The other sites could be more flexible. They would allow a greater range of uses and would not require quite as much stewardship. We discussed some of the following measures to ensure a quality development: 1. Framework (Master Plan)

- Road layout - Parcel layout - Open space plan

2. Development Standards - Site orientation - Building layout, massing and design - Sustainability requirements

3. High Value Sites - Identify and prioritize - Protect - Steward the type and quality of development on these sites

IV) Comments

1. Do we know the status of MnDOT’s plans for the Hwy 19/CR 23 interchange? MnDOT plans to conduct a study of Hwy 19 within the next 18 months, however, we don’t know how the interchange will be resolved. Our engineering team provided two scenarios for the interchange – one with a roundabout and one without roundabout. Both were utilized in the concepts. 2. The road systems have implications on the parcel layout and overall site organization. How do they fit in the context of the surrounding roadway systems? Connections to Highway 3? What is the timing for CR 23? 3. The organization of the site is important to get figured out – roads, development parcels and open space plan. Specific land uses should support the community goals but can be negotiated during development. 4. Is there an interchangeable quality of land uses? For instance, can the plan be flexible enough to allow different placement of uses within either framework plan?

of 5

5. Identifying high value sites may be tricky – for instance, a specific (highly valued) user that locates within the park may influence where the high value sites would be located. Attracting a desirable tenant changes the makeup of the business park. Likewise, if residential uses were a part of the development, the highly valued sites would be different than those for commercial uses. 6. There may be research and development opportunities with some of the current biological science programs being taught at Carleton and St. Olaf. These may be attractive to a specific user. These opportunities should be looked at more. 7. If the City could attract a major tenant like a Hormel Foods (which has ties to the community), it could catalyze the interest of other potential users in the park. How can the City attract a user like a Hormel? McMenimen explained that the consultant team will be developing a market strategy later in the process and include recommendations in the master plan.

Next Steps The consultant team will begin concept development for the south site and refine the concept alternatives for the north site. The team will begin preliminary feasibility studies for the north site. Next Meeting: After discussion regarding potentially moving the meeting to Mondays the scheduled meeting for March 18, 2010 was left as is unless otherwise notified.

After a review of the schedule, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.


Thursday, March 18, 2009

6:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.


Northfield, MN

AGENDA

I. Review and discuss South Site Concept Alternative Plans

II. Discuss Concept Alternatives Review Meetings:

- Stakeholder Meeting (April 15th - afternoon) - Steering Committee/EDA/Planning Commission Meeting (April 15th) - City Council Worksession (April 20th) - Public Open House (April 29th)

III. Public Open House Discussion

- Location - Format - Purpose - Public Announcement Strategies

IV. Next Meeting – April 15, 2010 (Steering Committee/EDA/Planning Commission)

of 4

Northfield Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Summary – March 18, 2010 First National Bank MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Estenson, Rhonda Pownell, Jim Pokorney, Tim Geary, Mike Berthelsen,

Scott Richardson, Jay Jasnoch, Christopher Sawyer, Neil Lutsky, Erica Zweifel, Tracy Davis, John Klockeman, Glen Castore

MEMBERS ABSENT: Pete Sandberg ALSO PRESENT: EDA Board Member’s Steve Engler and Victor Summa, Jeff McMenimen,

Mark Koegler, Economic Development Manager Jody Gunderson, Community Development Director Brian O’Connell and other interested persons

The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. Northfield Steering Committee Introduction General comment from steering committee members regarding the sensitivity of the south site and

public apprehension about its development. Important to communicate to the public at the April Open House that we understand the south site annexation discussions are occurring but no decisions have been made yet. Planning for the south site is being conducted along with the north site in a comprehensive and coordinated manner.

Jeff mentioned that the public meeting date might change due to conflict with Chamber of Commerce

Meeting on April 29th. Discuss later in meeting. Concept Review Jeff reviewed the concepts:

o General Comments

Each of the three concepts presented tonight illustrate a sensitive approach to the significant environmental systems (Rice Creek, Heath Creek) inherent to the south site – providing significant open space (over 40%) and buffer setbacks from each creek.

Each concept builds on the concept developed in December during the visioning charette.

Each concept explores various ways to plan for roads, open space and development parcels.

o Plan A

Cluster of uses – creates entry/exit challenges. Minimize industrial uses (light industrial) and locate along Decker Ave. Office and employment uses are organized in a business park setting, maximizing

views to open space. Continuous system of open space – uninterrupted by roadways.

of 4

Nature center, arboretum or conference center located at the confluence of the two creek systems to minimize impacts of development on hydrological systems

Medium density residential (townhomes) located to transition between existing residential uses along 90th St. East and located along 100th Street East.

Significant open space and connections Extensive pedestrian and bicycle circulation system Wildlife corridor connecting the two creek corridors Infrastructure challenge to be efficient – minimizes roadway cost Uses funnel out to Armstrong and Decker Central uses could be flipped but as shown, east side is more sensitive land area and

it relates to St. Olaf corridor that extends to the north. 700 residential units 207 acres of open space ROW 20 acres Could this site contain an environmental education center

Development Summary – Plan A Office/Employment 84.25 ac (19%) 918,000 sf Light Industrial 16 ac. (3.5%) 175,000 sf Residential (townhomes) 58.2 ac (13%) 700 units Nature Center/Arboretum 65 ac (14.5%) or Conf Center Open Space 207 ac (46%) Right of Way 20 ac (4.5%)

o Plan B

Focus on corporate office park uses Balance of office and light industrial uses Light industrial use located along Decker Ave. and off 90the St. East. Office and employment uses are organized in a business park setting, maximizing

views to open space. Signature corporate campus located at the confluence of the two creek systems Civic use located along Armstrong at east entry to site. Minimal amount of medium density residential (townhomes) located along 100th

Street East. Parkway extends through the site. Parkway runs east west from Armstrong to

Decker. Planted median area in parkway road. Keep roadways to minimum while providing access to all parcels. New connection north to Hwy 19 – crosses Heath Creek. Extensive pedestrian and bicycle circulation system Not sure how the road extension to the north would intersect highway 19 given the

future Hwy 19 and Hwy 23 intersection changes. Significant open space and connections Narrower wildlife corridor connecting the two creek corridors Civic use at entrance – environmental education center? South residential site could be commercial but feels more like a residential site due

to proximity to open space Narrowed down wildlife crossing

of 4

Why is north/south road needed? (Tracy) May not be needed, transportation planning can be considered. Remove for now and confirm whether this road connection to Hwy 19 is necessary based on traffic counts. (Look at transportation plan)

Development Summary Office/Employment 104.5 ac (23%) 1,138,000 sf Light Industrial 90 ac. (20%) 980,000 sf Residential (townhomes) 29.5 ac (6.5%) 350 units Civic 4.5 ac (1%) Open Space 195 ac (43%) Right of Way 26 ac (5.7%)

o Plan C

Parkway runs through site Balanced mix of uses – leaning toward employment Light industrial use located along Decker Ave. Office and employment uses are organized to maximize views to open space. Residential also north of office area – existing neighborhood abuts residential Residential uses provide positive transition between existing residential uses Small lot single family use against existing single family residential Medium density residential (townhomes) located along 100th Street East. Small support retail at entry off of Armstrong (5 acre site) Entry site is important – could set the tone for the whole site. Another example – Castle Rock residential community center Parking issues need to be addressed – needs to be addressed in public presentation –

open house Significant open space and connections Narrower wildlife corridor connecting the two creek corridors Parkway runs east west from Armstrong to Decker. Loop roads provide access to all parcels. New connection north to Hwy 19 – crosses Heath Creek. Extensive pedestrian and bicycle circulation system

Development Summary Office/Employment 82 ac (18%) 890,000 sf Light Industrial 52 ac. (11.5%) 560,000 sf Residential (townhomes) 53 ac (11.5%) 630 units Single Family Residential 15 ac (3%) 80 lots Retail 5 ac (1%) 40,000 sf Open Space 198 ac (44%) Right of Way 45 ac (10%)

General Comments

High value site will command high amenity users – users won’t want to see a sea of parking outside of

their window. Consider parking ramps to condense parking on site. Market forces may determine whether parking can be structured at this site.

Open house presentation should differentiate characteristics between sites. Keep in mind that the south site is not the only industrial development site in Northfield. (Tracy).

Maybe the south site can host a special set of users/tenants due to it’s high amenity base.

of 4

Should one of the concepts show a different type of use on the south? Committee has interest in showing something different – could be small office uses. (Brian will get us a copy of the Dundas comp plan – probably shows residential)

Residential needs to be integral to the whole concept. Residential should be supportive of the business park.

B and C are similar --- A is different due to open space and lack of connections. Mesh B and C for purposes of open house. On A, consider connection of roads to islands of development or put in larger road loops and keep separation.

Have site analysis maps and opportunities and constraints maps at open house to help people understand the topography, hydrology, vegetation and other controlling factors on each site.

A – put office on south, rework road to add loops B – loop in lieu of cul-de-sac, eliminate north connection to TH 19, civic use at entry. Add a graphic scale and north arrow to each plan for open house Prepare some site sections for each scheme.

Discussion of April Meetings Next steering committee is on April 15th at City Hall. Also meeting with property owners the same

day. Meeting with City Council on April 20th Public Open House planned from 6 to 8:30 on April 29th at Community Resource Bank (same site as

Charette) Open house purpose/methods:

o Present concepts to attendees o Comment forms to collect input o Interactive ways – dot exercises or post-it notes o Survey to go on web site

Next open house in August can be problematic. Consider the date after labor day – earliest 15th or 22nd.

Publish open house on web sites (Northfield.org) Adjourned at 8:05

view of the schedule, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

Northfield 3rd Business and Industrial Park Steering Committee/EDA/Planning Commission

Meeting

Thursday, April 15, 2010 6:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.

City Council Chambers, City Hall

City of Northfield

AGENDA

I. Market Analysis – Very brief update for new meeting attendees II. Concept Planning – Review and discuss concept plans prepared for north

and south sites III. Public Open House – Discuss preparations and format for April 29th

Open House

IV. Next Steps

- Prepare open house graphics - Meet with City Council – April 20th - Conduct public open house – April 29th - Prepare preliminary site improvement cost estimates - Conduct industry roundtable – mid May

V. Next Meeting – May 20, 2010 (Steering Committee)

of 4 M:\Northfield\009-PRO#-Northfield 3rd. Business Industrial Park\3 Meetings\Steering Committee Meetings\Meeting #6\A Joint EDA-Planning-Steering Minutes 041510.HK.doc

APPROVED: Draft Northfield 3rd Business and Industrial Park Steering Committee/EDA/Planning Commission Meeting Meeting Minutes –April 15, 2010 City Hall Council Chambers EDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Estenson, Jim Pokorney, Rhonda Pownell PLANNING MEMBERS PRESENT: Alice Thomas, Tracy Davis, Suzie Nakasian, James Herreid, Richard

Shulte, Steve Rholl STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Neil Lutsky, Glen Castore and John Klockeman,

Bridgewater Township member , Erica Zweifel. ALSO PRESENT: Council Member Betsey Buckheit, Economic Development Director Jody

Gunderson, Community Development Director Brian O’Connell, HKGi Project Manager Jeff McMenimem, Dan Olson City Planner, Randy Jennings, Occasional Press, Recording Secretary Barb Thompson

Call to Order Meeting was called to order at 6:00PM with introductions of all present. Market Analysis Jeff McMenimen presented the group with an overview of the results of the market analysis including

trends in industrial properties and the need to differentiate Northfield from other communities within Northfield’s competitive market area – Owattona, Faribault, Lakeville, Farmington, Eagan, Shakopee. The market analysis indicates that Northfield must do more than just offer raw land for commercial development due to competition with other communities in its competitive market area. Land prices, distance from I-35, competing wages, and other market factors related to commercial development in Northfield make it difficult for Northfield to compete with these other communities on a raw land basis. Business and industrial park development in Northfield must be distinguished from its competitors. Ways to achieve this include an integrated set of land uses, plenty of open space and trails, good infrastructure, development standards and plenty of amenities to support the businesses, employees and potential residents within the development.

The market analysis suggests that Northfield can expect approximately 100,000 square feet of new

development per year over the next 20 years, leading to an additional 2,000,000 square feet of commercial development by 2030.

Project Inventory The planning team conducted a review of City policy documents and plans that would have an

influence over the master plan concepts. Additionally, the planning team conducted a thorough site analysis of the physical conditions for each site and context yielding an opportunities and constraints plan.

In review of the plans and policies affecting the master planning effort, several common themes were found, including:

• Promote economic development by supporting existing businesses, retaining and attracting talent, aggressive business recruitment,


• Promoting expansion of new commercial and industrial sites without detracting from the downtown

• Engaging the colleges by attracting and recruiting alumni • Promoting sustainable development practices • The North property site should be developed differently than the South property site. • Explore non-conventional business and industrial park development • Protect and preserve significant natural resources and environmental significant areas.

Targeted Land Use Program The market analysis reviewed historic absorption rates in the Twin Cities and the competitive market areas. The absorption projections indicate that Northfield can expect to absorb an additional 2,000,000 square feet of commercial development within the next 20 years. Additionally, the market study team reviewed historic patterns of office and industrial development in the market area to determine a breakdown on various types of office and industrial development that the planning team should be considering in the development of a master plan for these two sites. The targeted land use program is a result of that study and the basis for land use planning for office and industrial uses. The development program also included several other potential land uses based on discussions with the Northfield business community, the Steering Committee, City staff and comments received during the Visioning Charrette conducted in December, 2009. Mr. McMenimen presented a breakdown of the targeted development program for the properties for Northfield’s 3rd Business and Industrial Park as a result of the market study and those comments:

Land Use Percentage (by SF) Building Program Acres

Industrial/Business Uses

Bulk Warehouse 15% 300,000 sf 30 acres Office Warehouse 15% 300,000 sf 30 acres Office Showroom 10% 200,000 sf 20 acres Manufacturing 40% 800,000 sf 75 acres Other 20% 400,000 sf 38 acres (Data Center, Professional Office, R & D)

Other Potential Land Uses (based on input from market analysis, steering committee, city staff, community)

Energy Park 20-30 acres Conference Center 20-30 acres Corporate Campus 20-40 acres Community/Technical College 5-10 acres Hotel Accomodations 5-10 acres Civic Uses (daycare, recreational, community center, other support uses) 10-25 acres Residential (alumni housing, senior housing, townhomes, live/work) 20-50 acres Retail (support retail) 5-10 acres

Open Space 20-25% 100-125 acres

Right of Way 10-20% 50-100 acres


Presentation of Concept Plans Mr. McMenimem began the presentation with a distinction made between the North Property and the South Property. The North site is more suitable than the south site for large scale industrial, warehouse development due to the flat land conditions, visibility and access to State Hwy 19 and Interstate 35. The South site is a higher amenity site more appropriate to corporate office, some civic and residential uses. These sites may attract different end users. He reminded the members that the more prescriptive the site, the longer time to fill the development, where as the more flexible in the planning and development, the shorter the infill – and this is an issue that the group will have to reconcile during the planning process. Concept A North Site: Campus-like setting with buildings organized around central greens or quads. East campus is proposed as a health and wellness related development being adjacent to the existing hospital. A central campus organized around a green area with a greater mix of uses intended to support the office and industrial base. This area of the plan includes a small amount of retail, professional office, workforce housing, hotel and civic uses. The southwest campus is proposed as a corporate office setting. Larger scale industrial uses are located in the north and west portions of the site. Roadways are kept to a minimum to promote pedestrian, bicycle and public transit. This alternative includes the possibility of a roundabout solution at Hwy 19 and CR 23. Discussion Points: Concern from Planning Commission members about the inclusion of residential uses in the concept plan. The type of housing proposed would not be single family detached homes, but would include townhomes and live/work housing intended to support future employees and alumni of the area to promote the use of walk to work plan. The anticipated employees generated by the development would support over 1,500 future households. Housing a share of those employees is recommended by the market team to help distinguish this development from others in the region. The roundabout was also seen as a concern for truck traffic. This was included in the plan to show that there are options in the traffic routing available. There was also discussion of the fear of competing with downtown businesses by locating retail in the area. Mr. McMenimen explained the actual percentage of retail development was very small (1-2% of total area) and only to support those who live and work in the area with places for lunch, drycleaning, etc. Members urged Mr. McMenimen to have this information prominently displayed at the public hearings as this could become a hot button issue. Concept B North Site: Greater mix of land uses proposed. Development is organized around an open space system made up of public greens and greenways, and a smaller block pattern – more consistent with historical block patterns of old Northfield. The roadways are more extensive in this scenario but may lead to a highly walkable development due to good access, connectivity and mix of uses. This concept may generate the greatest amount of tax revenue of the three for this site and absorb more quickly in the marketplace due to its mix of uses, but it is also the most costly in terms of infrastructure costs due to its extensive road system. Discussion Points: Again, there is concern regarding housing shown in this proposal. The connection of CR 23 to Hwy 19 was also seen as a concern. The actual layout of the roads through the project is not determined at this point, but the team has anticipated a couple of options that MnDOT may choose to employ when determining the future of that interchange. The MnDOT study for the improvements of Hwy 19 will be conducted sometime within the next 18 months.


Concept C North Site: The land use of this concept supports research and innovation in the agricultural related industries. A central hub incorporates a mix of uses including innovation/training center, office, retail, and residential uses. Development is organized around an open space system made up of three greenways designed to handle storm water flows. Roadways are kept to a minimum to promote bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit. This plan is grounded in the idea of a closed loop/no waste development, or Eco-Industrial Park. This option may require more heavy lifting than the others due to its prescriptive nature requiring specific sets of users in certain locations and the need for coordinated management and operations between users. Discussion Points: The concern with this plan would be the most challenging to fill to capacity as it so specific to the type of development. This concept would require great stewardship and patience on the part of the city/developer(s) including marketing efforts, incentives, coordinated development, etc. Concept A South Site: This plan proposes clusters of development, organizing in a business park setting maximizing the views of open space. This space plans for a Nature Center or Environmental Education and/or Conference Center at the confluence of the two creeks. No additional creek crossings. Minimum loop roadways in order not to interrupt the wildlife corridor. Residential use is proposed located adjacent to existing residential uses along the north side of the property. A significant amount of the total site is proposed on both concepts for the south site, in particular, along Rice and Heath Creek corridors. The open space accounts for almost 50% of the total site on each of these concepts. Discussion Points: The planning commission recommended including dimensions on the plans so people can see the proposed buffer zone widths protecting the streams. The residential development would be located near existing residential tracts as a transitional use from existing residential to business related uses. Concept B South Side: The focus of this concept is a corporate office park balancing office and light industrial uses for the area. The development keeps roadways to a minimum while still providing access to all parcels. It offers a narrower wildlife corridor connecting the two creek corridors. Discussion Points: The stream buffers were discussed as well as placing the residential near existing residential for a tie-in. Public Open House: The Open House will be held on April 29, 2010 at the Community National Bank. The presentation will be offered to City Council on Tuesday April 20th. Additional Items Suggested for Public Open House:

• Showing the history of development/annexations of the area. • Showing the tax base correlations of each of the concept plans. • Showing size correlations of the retail developments in the concept plans.


Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMORANDUM NORTHFIELD 3RD BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL PARK Date: May 11, 2010 To: Jody Gunderson From: Jeff McMenimen Re: April 29th Open House Public Comment Summary CC: Mark Koegler The following is a summary of public comments received concerning the concept master plan alternatives presented at the April 29th Public Open House conducted in Northfield: SOUTH SITE Concept A Please list the things you like about this scenario

1. Excellent corridors/open space adjacent to streams 2. Land use concepts work well with site 3. Good link of industrial along/near Decker Ave. 4. Pedestrian trail connectivity between areas 5. Clustered development 6. Well done plan for this ag/rural area 7. Although ROW acres are only 7 ac. less than (alt.) “B”, it appears, and I think it will feel

like much less paved. 8. Greenway and wildlife corridors are preserved w/o roads 9. Low amount of ROW 10. Road plan is better than (alt.) B. 11. I like the education/research center on the east. Why not keep this theme throughout and

do industrial in Greenvale? 12. Overall superior use of green space 13. The nature center is good. 14. Wildlife corridors are wide enough to actually work. 15. This development is would be very attractive for a corporate client. 16. The use of higher density housing in this scheme is appropriate, because it builds on

existing residential neighborhoods. Are there other things that should be considered in this scenario?


Northfield 3rd Business and Industrial Park Open House #1Comment Summary May 11, 2010 Page 2

1. NW corner takes overland stream water flow from rural residences across Old Dutch Road

2. This site needs to set an idea, a standard, a dream of a well planned community for the future.

3. Further cut the business uses, emphasizing research, education, and low impact housing 4. Less density overall – business uses not important here. 5. Pond overflows into stream. 6. Holding pond will run over to Rice Creek in heavy rain. 7. Office park below trout stream looks crammed in. 8. Keep purple development blocks further back from trout stream. 9. Need to move stormwater basin away from Rice Creek trout stream. Move up into office

park. 10. Pervious pavers for all of Rice Creek watershed. 11. Consider moving office park on 100th Street up to nature center area. 12. This scheme does not adequately describe how industrial uses would be accommodated

in this development. That might not be a problem if both sites are developed, and this one is dedicated to corporate tenants while the north site is primarily for industrial uses.

13. Protection of (and access to?) the creek habitat is paramount for this site, and this scheme creates opportunities for preservation.

Concept B Please list the things you like about this scenario

1. Good access via roadways that do not involve stream crossings Are there other things that should be considered in this scenario?

1. Road bisects center N-S wildlife corridor – doesn’t really meet corridor connectivity criteria.

2. What is rationale for retail location between the streams? It is rather distracting from features of the site.

3. Don’t like road going through whole area. 4. Townhomes should not be necessary in an industrial park 5. Too much building in the Rice Creek watershed.

NORTH SITE Concept A Please list the things you like about this scenario

1. Love this plan. 2. Like the housing and retail mix. 3. Very well done. 4. North Ave. continues straight through 5. Low amount of ROW 6. Good that you included workforce housing and small markets/diners.

Northfield 3rd Business and Industrial Park Open House #1Comment Summary May 11, 2010 Page 3

7. This scheme nicely compliments proposed Mayo clinic development to the east. Site zoning is nice, in that office uses are positioned closest to the medical uses, and as a buffer to the more industrial uses to the west.

Are there other things that should be considered in this scenario?

1. Alumni housing was already tried east of the hospital and never came to be. 2. A hotel is also questionable in this location, becasue it is isolated from restaurants and

retail that guests would likely utilize. Hotel development could be better sited to support the project goals of supporting downtown. It would be better to position a hotel on a site where hotel guests could walk to the downtown commercial area without crossing Highway 3, or walking mroe than a few blocks.

Concept B Please list the things you like about this scenario

1. Don’t like the ag-land idea. Plenty of other spaces in the area for this. 2. Not much.

Are there other things that should be considered in this scenario? 1. This scheme presents a second downtown for Northfield that would be in direct

competition with the historic downtown we are trying to maintain. Creating a retail/live/work hub with smaller blocks might make sense in a larger community. In Northfield, this is an unecessary duplication and poor imitation of a real downtown.

2. I don't believe live/work development will succeed in a suburban or rural industrial park. Live/work space is exactly what is needed in the downtown arts corridor developments, not so much in a business park.

3. I'm also concerned about developing housing so far away from existing housing developments. This increases sprawl and costs for infrastrcture. Based on the Comp Plan principles, new housing should first be focused on infill sites, then grow increcmental outward. This scheme creates too much new housing that is not adequately connected to existing development by contiguous housing, streets, and sidewalks.

4. Concept C Please list the things you like about this scenario

1. Don’t like the ag-land idea unless we have a definite ag company willing to commit. 2. Although intuitively one would say most intense manufacturing uses should be closest to

I-35, I like the open feel on the west as a transition. 3. Energy park may also serve development to the west should it occur 50 years from now. 4. Also like southern edge being natural & agri – ie. no crappy retail popping up an highway

entrance to Northfield. 5. This is very unique and could be an excellent fit for Northfield 6. Low amount of ROW 7. I like this one best – with ag fields/research area.

Are there other things that should be considered in this scenario? 1. No residential

Northfield 3rd Business and Industrial Park Open House #1Comment Summary May 11, 2010 Page 4 General Comments

1. Would have liked to see more pictorial/graphic updates on the project website (esp Feb and March drawings). I hope this is remedied in the future, especially when minutes refer to figures and charts.

2. Well done. 3. Good process, although it should have been done 20 years ago. 4. Let’s get on with the implementation. 5. Bringing the creeks/rivers into city management will insure better attention to the

environment than the current townships do. 6. Like the wellness/medical/senior housing clustered near the hospital. 7. Northfield is becoming a retirement destination/mecca. Maybe we should be playing up

the retirement angle. 8. How about complete streets and low impact development practices for roads and parking

lots (rain gardens/swales) 9. I live on Edgebrook Drive, the existing residential area off 90th Street East. The concerns

of the citizens there are: - The money it will take to do infrastructure when the City is publicly talking about

the difficulty they have. - Concern about big bonding bill, increase of taxes to City of Northfield residents. - Short term concern about sale of our properties – 2 homeowners have homes for

sale – one has lost 3 potential buyers because of the unsettled nature of this project. In other words – don’t drag this out.

10. Keep the southern site for education and research – no conventional industrial/business park. Leave that to the northern site please. Northfield is grabbing so much land there is plenty to make this difference between north and south (sites).

11. Northfield evidently did not realize how much needed to be cut ($750,000) from the budget when they hired HK to do these plans. We cannot afford them. I pay taxes on a house in town. Need the infrastructure costs by now. Why are these figures not available?

12. With the economy the way it is why not slow down and use the land that you already have annexed in? You want industrial, put it in the north side that you already have. You seem to spend money without having it. You seem to plan on property taxes to help bail you out. Let’s wait until the annexation with Bridgewater runs out then try again. Maybe you want to buy our houses from us then we won’t give a _____ what you do with it. Put this industrial park behind your own houses. Think about it, you wouldn’t want it either.


Thursday, May 20, 2010

6:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.


Northfield, MN

AGENDA

I. Review and Discuss Public Comments Received from Open House

II. Review and Discuss Preliminary Infrastructure Cost Estimate III. Discuss Direction for Preferred Master Plan IV. Next Meeting – June 17, 2010

of 3

Northfield Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Summary – May 20, 2010 First National Bank MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Estenson, Rhonda Pownell, Jim Pokorney, Tim Geary, Mike Berthelsen,

Jay Jasnoch, Neil Lutsky, Erica Zweifel, Tracy Davis, Glen Castore, Pete Sandberg, Steve Engler

MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Richardson, Chris Sawyer, John Klockeman ALSO PRESENT: Jeff McMenimen (HKGi), Economic Development Director Jody Gunderson

and Community Development Director Brian O’Connell The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. Northfield Steering Committee Review Open House Community Input Mr. McMenimen reviewed the comments received on the preliminary concept master plans from members of the community who attended the April 29th Public Open House, those who have submitted comments via the project website, and additional comments received via email (see attached comment summary memo). Approximately 50 people signed the attendance sheet for the open house. 8 comment sheets were completed and submitted. Additionally, a few people submitted comments via website and email. The discussion regarding each site included the following: South Site A large share of the comments received focused on the south site and environmental concerns regarding stormwater management within the Rice Creek watershed. Several comments suggested greater setbacks for development along the Rice Creek stream and increasing permeability within the Rice Creek watershed – with the goal to achieve 85-90% permeability within the watershed. Others suggested low impact stormwater management strategies be utilized on the south site to mitigate the potential impacts to the trout stream. Mr. McMenimen explained that these may include infiltration and bioretention ponds, constructed wetlands, raingardens, permeable paving systems, green roofs, and stormwater diversion techniques. Many people on the Rice Creek Concerned Citizens Group attended the open house and commented on the plan options. They expressed concern regarding the past use of the adjacent lands to Rice Creek (Agriculture) and felt that if developed correctly and sensitively (utilizing best management practices), development on the south site could enhance the stream and trout habitat, but that measures must be taken to increase permeability, provide proper buffer space between development and the stream. Mr. McMenimen handed out the Rice Creek Concerned Citizens Group Report and Recommendations (Nov. 13, 2009) to members of the Steering Committee along with additional informational materials regarding development near trout streams prepared by the Minnesota DNR. Members of the steering committee questioned what the cost differential would be between standard stormwater management techniques and low impact techniques. Mr. McMenimen explained that low

of 3

impact stormwater management techniques may cost approximately 20% more than conventional techniques but that the long term benefits of these techniques may outweigh their initial capital costs. Mr. O’Connell explained that an engineering consultant team has been preparing a stormwater ordinance on behalf of the City that would affect development on the south site. The draft report is due next week. HKGi will receive a draft report for review and compliance with the plan for the south site. It was stated that core drilling should be done to determine groundwater depths and flows to inform the planning for the south site. Glen stated the township is proposing this measure occur within the next several months. The Steering Committee feels the nature of the south site development and the land use mix may require the team to rethink the terms used to describe potential development on the south site. Rather than a “Business and Industrial Park”, maybe it should be more appropriately termed “Business and Protection Plan” North Site On the north site people expressed a preference for the campus setting of open space and building organization, the health and wellness campus near the existing hospital, a small amount of workforce housing and support retail. There is a concern that the retail uses proposed here may compete with downtown retail. Also concern expressed regarding housing in a business park setting. While some preferred the ag-related industrial uses proposed in Concept C, others expressed concern about the ability to attract those businesses to the business park. Some concern regarding the type of land use along Hwy 19 as one enters Northfield – particularly retail uses. Many of the members of the Steering Committee felt concept B better represented the language in the Northfield Comprehensive Plan – smaller block sizes, sustainable development, affordable workforce housing. Review Preliminary Cost Estimates Mr. McMenimen handed out preliminary infrastructure cost estimates prepared for concepts A and B on both sites. The cost estimates project costs associated with street paving and utilities (water, sanitary and storm sewer), trails and sidewalks, lighting and signage, and landscaping. All of these items within the proposed rights of way. They include a 10% contingency due to the preliminary status of design and 25% soft costs (legal, engineering, design and administrative). They do not include off-site costs to bring utilities to the sites, small utilities (gas, telephone, electric, broadband communications, etc.), greywater collection or distribution systems, stormwater ponding, irrigation, grading beyond the road right of way, or wetland construction. Many of the items not included in the cost estimates are (typically) future developer costs. The unit costs are 2010 numbers. The infrastructure costs estimated range from $8,000,000 to $11,500,000 on the south site and from $19,500,000 to $42,000,000 on the north site, depending on how much roadway is included in the estimate.

of 3

Many of the development costs would be born by the developer and occur in phases over 20 plus years. The Steering Committee is interested in being able to see what the financial impact of each alternative might be to offset those costs. Maximizing economic return is of critical concern. Mr. McMenimen explained that Rusty Fifield (Northland Securities) will attend the June Steering Committee meeting to review potential strategies for funding and phasing these costs. Discussion and Direction Concerning the Preferred Master Plan Steering Committee members discussed and provided direction to HKGi for moving forward with preferred plans for each site. The recommendations for proceeding include elements from the various concepts, blending ideas into a preferred plan. The committee feels strongly that the plans must be unique, support the comprehensive plan, be economically responsible and address the sensitivity of Rice Creek. The following recommendations were discussed regarding each site master plan: North Site

- Utilize Concept B for site organization - Include a roundabout intersection at Hwy 19 and CR 23. - Provide as direct a connection as possible to Hwy 19 from North Ave. - Incorporate campus greens/quads into the plan. - Require parking behind the buildings – not along the streets. - Scale the housing back some from what Concept B proposes. - Illustrate how trails connect to off-site trail systems. - Provide a higher set of standards for development along Hwy 19 due to it’s high visibility as a

gateway into town. South Site

- Utilize Concept B for site organization – the roadway connection between Decker and Armstrong is an important element to the plan for traffic distribution.

- Include Concept A land uses and locations. - Provide options to the nature/education center land use (ie. corporate office park or conference

center) - Relocate the support retail uses to Decker Ave. - Provide gateway concepts for both ends of the east/west parkway.

Next Meeting June 17, 2010 Meeting adjourned at 8:30PM


Thursday, June 17, 2010

6:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.


Northfield, MN

AGENDA

1. Review Progress on Preferred Master Plans (Mark Koegler) - Review stormwater ordinance as it affects south site (staff) - Briefly review preferred master plan concepts for each site

2. Implementation Discussion (Rusty Fifield) - Inform Committee re: issues associated with undertaking and financing

public investments needed to implement the plans: - How do public improvements coordinate with private development? - How will costs be split between the City and property owners? - What financial commitments are required from the City? - How do improvement costs affect the price of the land?

3. Next Steps - Conduct Developers Roundtable - Prepare Draft Preferred Master Plans - Prepare Draft Development Standards - Prepare Draft Implementation Strategies

4. Next Meeting

- July 15, 2010 - Important: Confirm date for next Public Open House

of 3

Northfield Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Summary – June 17, 2010 First National Bank MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Estenson, Rhonda Pownell, Jim Pokorney, John Klockeman, Mike

Berthelsen, Erica Zweifel, Tracy Davis, Glen Castore, Pete Sandberg, Steve Engler

MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Richardson, Chris Sawyer, Tim Geary, Jay Jasnoch, Neil Lutsky ALSO PRESENT: Mark Koegler (HKGi), Rusty Fifield (Northland Securities), Economic

Development Director Jody Gunderson, Community Development Director Brian O’Connell and City Administrator Joel Walinski

The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. Brian O’Connell provided an overview of the stormwater ordinance process. The City is making progress on the ordinance – an update will be presented to the City Council next Tuesday night. The Ordinance uses a performance based approach. It is looking beyond detention basins to a more holistic approach which will be particularly important for Rice Creek. The ordinance will include regulations pertaining to water temperature. The ordinance has flexibility, property owners can use a variety of approaches including green roofs, infiltration basins, etc. The regulations are triggered by the development of property. Steering Committee members noted that the ordinance is less relevant for the north site than on the south site and that along Rice Creek, the riparian margins are important for stormwater treatment. Mark Koegler provided an update on the continuing modifications of the North and South site plans. He noted changes to the north plan including:

- The plan incorporates a roundabout interchange with Hwy 19 and CR 23. - North Avenue has a direct connection to the roundabout. - Concept “B” continues to be used as the base. - New green space added to mixed-use core area. - Added connectivity – trail and open space easements. - Less housing. - Less public/institutional. - More office and industrial.

The Steering Committee suggested looking at making a direct connection between Decker Avenue and the roundabout. Decker Avenue will be a very important link in the future connecting the two industrial areas. Changes noted to the south plan included:

- The plan incorporates a through site parkway, connecting Armstrong Road and Decker Avenue. - The Parkway serves an important stormwater retention and infiltration role. - The stream buffers recommended by the draft stormwater ordinance have been respected. - Concept “B” continues to be used as a base. - Housing has been located north, where it plays a transition role between existing housing and

business uses. - Retail has been moved to Decker Avenue. - Public/education uses are located at the east entry, where the 2 creeks converge. - The site incorporates more infiltration zones, less ponding.

of 3

The Steering Committee offered the following comments/questions:

1. Costs for improvements for both Decker Avenue and 100th are not included in the project cost estimates at this time.

2. Will the right-of-way for Decker Avenue be in Northfield or split with Bridgewater Township? 3. How will Decker Avenue north of the annexation area be constructed? Under whose jurisdiction

will it be placed? Bridgewater does not own/maintain major roads and the County has stated that they have no interest in including it as a County Road.

4. Remove the single-family lots on the north side of the site. Rusty Fifield presented information about implementation of the master plan. He said that the work completed on the implementation aspect of the plan so far has consisted of a fairly broad based analysis. A more detailed analysis will be completed on the preferred master plans. One of the primary implementation keys will be financing the public improvements to support development. Key questions include who builds and who pays? Both of the “whos” will need to be worked out as we proceed with the master plan. The plan will also likely include enhancements that help define the character of the area but are not the “meat and potatoes” of the development itself. The financing mechanism will need to figure out how to cover all of the costs. Northfield has an existing policy that developers pay the cost of development and the city pays overage costs and other community costs. A key challenge for development of these sites is the expectation that the developer pays for infrastructure – this policy is not unusual. Without a master developer, it is difficult if not practically impossible to have a developer pay all of the costs. Infrastructure influences implementation. Additional questions that need to be addressed include: What initial infrastructure will be need for development? Critical question from the City’s side is can you extend utilities to both sites? If not, which one is favored? As a part of the policy, are improvements likely to be built by the city? Will the city provide the catalyst for the development – are you willing to make investments prior to development? It is also important to understand the spatial issues. Where you put infrastructure determines where development will occur. Phasing of development needs to be in synch with the funding. From a financing perspective, there is an economic advantage to having Northfield build the infrastructure. The City can borrow to finance public infrastructure today at very low rates of interest. The challenge is addressing where the money comes from to pay it back. Revenue is tied to when development occurs. Traditional public sources include two big pots – property taxes and utility revenues. Sewer, water, storm sewer revenues can be used for cost of infrastructure. Everything else is a private source generated by the development. An important tool that can be used for the development of these sites is special assessments. The City will also be updating its SAC and WAC charges in the near future. SAC and WAC charges are sometimes termed, “buy ins”. Developers pay this buy in as they develop. Northfield is considering changing its policies to make the payment of SAC/WAC charges due at the time of a building permit issuance. TIF also is a tool and special taxing districts can also play a role in balancing investments vs. revenue. Other important issues are carrying cost and affordability. Carry cost is the cost of capital until development occurs and revenue is received. Some investment will be needed prior to the time that development occurs. Who will pay that and where will the money come from? It is important to understand the implications of various approaches. Assessments can encourage development. Steering Committee members asked if assessments can be deferred? Some assessments can be deferred under the

of 3

law but the question is how is that done? Ultimately, the City will need to get over a number of hurdles to implement this plan including assessments. The City will be challenged to determine how to move this project forward while managing carrying costs and other issues. The end product of carrying cost is affordability. From the public perspective, what are you paying for, what are those costs that are purely public, and how much of that can you afford? From the private side, what can you reasonably expect property owners to pay for and how much cost can you add to the land to pay for the fair share of the investment without making it too expensive to make something happen? Following Rusty’s presentation, the group briefly discussed implementation ideas and challenges. Committee members stated that in general, increasing the City’s industrial tax base is one of the goals of the master plan. In order to get an increased tax base, some level of community investment will be needed. Rusty reminded the group that the north site is in Dakota County and is therefore, subject to fiscal disparities. Brian O’Connell noted that the city’s fiscal policy may change some with varying phases of the project. In general, it was noted that the city will need a clearly defined fiscal policy that will govern future participation in the development of both sites. Mark Koegler briefly reviewed the upcoming industry roundtable and the next EDA/Steering Committee meeting scheduled for July 15th. Mark will forward details for the roundtable meeting to Jody Gunderson for distribution to the EDA/Committee. If available, it would be advisable to have 3 or 4 of the EDA/Committee members attend the roundtable meeting. The group discussed identifying a date for the September public open house and determined that it could be held on September16th, 23rd or 30th. The EDA will select a final date at their meeting next week. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.


Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMO Date: June 29, 2010 From: Jeff McMenimen To: Jody Gunderson, Northfield EDA Director Re: Northfield Business Park – Developers Roundtable (6/23/10) CC: Steering Committee Members EDA members Technical Committee Members The following notes summarize the discussion with representatives from the local (Twin Cities) development community regarding the master planning effort for the two sites being studied in Northfield and Bridgewater Twp. Meeting Attendees: Eric Anderson, Ryan Companies Mark Fabel, McGough Construction Gary Dreher, Told Development Company Ross Feffercorn, RMF Group Derick Dahlen, Avant Energy Jody Gunderson, Northfield EDA Steve Engler, Northfield EDA Brian O’Connell, Northfield Community Development Randy Jennings, Occasional Press, LLC Eliot Hoyt, Design Workshop Anna Claussen, HKGi Jeff McMenimen, HKGi Meeting Notes: Introduction

1. Jeff McMenimen, Jody Gunderson, Brian O’Connell and Eliot Hoyt lead a brief presentation on the background of the Northfield Business and Industrial Park master planning projects, including project purpose, prior planning studies, site analysis and the market analysis.

2. Jeff presented the fundamental elements of the preliminary master plan alternatives (plans presented during the April public open house), including the land use program, open space and circulation concepts, building program, and public comments received from the open house.


3. Jeff presented the draft preferred master plans for each site, noting revisions made to each plan based on Steering Committee direction. The introduction to each draft master plan provided the basis for open discussion during the Developers Roundtable.

Developer Comments

1. Derick Dahlen, Avant Energy began the discussion concerning the potential inclusion of energy production facilities and energy related issues. The following comments were made:

- Wind turbine siting is difficult in an area like this. There is growing resistance from local neighbors regarding visual and noise concerns.

- Wind turbines could potentially be located at the edges of the project, however, approx. 80 acres of land is required to service each turbine, making it an unlikely energy solution in this project.

- Can do turbine in air space above a one-story building. - The topography on the north site is suitable for wind energy. - A more likely scenario for energy production here is a biomass anaerobic

digestion facility. - With a biomass facility, access and circulation issues are a concern. Expect up to

50 trucks/day to service the facility. - The roundabout at CR 23 and SH 19 is a concern for large trucks. It would have

to be designed large enough to accommodate the largest trucks. - Back door (alternative) access points would be desirable. - There may be an opportunity to recover waste heat at this plant, depending on the

other users within the business park. - A district energy production facility is possible depending on project densities.

High density is required to make this option feasible. - Ground source heat pumps may be a feasible solution for heating and cooling

buildings. - There is a possibility that a mini-district concept (utilizing ground source heat

pumps) could be employed. The key factors are critical mass in phasing and density.

- Any alternative/renewable energy sources used should become part of the marketing effort to attract future tenants to the business park.

- Setting up infrastructure – power and fiber optics – will pay dividends down the road. St. Olaf’s has been developing a strong fiber network and has told the City they can provide access to outside development.

2. The multi-tenant market is dead today. Build to suit are the only projects moving forward in today’s economic climate.

3. The City must be a willing partner with the landowners and any developer. 4. It is a tough market for office and industrial today. For instance, Dean Lakes, a Ryan

Companies project, located in Shakopee, is a 150 acre, mixed-use project. 100 acres of the project are identified for industrial development. Of the 100 acres, only 15 acres have been sold. They have been unsuccessful selling the other 85 acres.

5. The City must provide economic incentives to attract industrial tenants.

6. Expecting industrial tenants to participate in land assessments for a higher quality project is a tough sell.

7. The City must tap into federal, state, regional and local sources of funding to provide infrastructure financing and developer incentive packages.

8. The City must facilitate financing opportunities. 9. Who is naturally going to want to go here (Northfield)? Assess Northfield’s assets and

don’t waste time on those that are not a good fit. 10. It’s never going to be a distribution center. It’s either too far off the freeway or not a

good “fit” with the goals for the project. 11. It could be a high technology/intellectual set of businesses that may want to locate here.

Those businesses will want a good communication infrastructure (i.e. fiber optics) and will be attracted to the intellectual character of the town.

12. Marketing to international companies may be a good idea for Northfield. They may more readily see the value in a Northfield location, depending on the type of business, and they may be used to a higher standard of sustainable development (e.g. Scandinavian companies).

13. As an example of successfully attracting international companies – the State of Iowa has been successful at attracting international wind producers. Key to that success has been the commitment by the state to attract these businesses.

14. At Northfield, some form of infrastructure will be necessary to attract development at these sites.

15. How much should the City expect to get involved in infrastructure investments? The days of the developer funding infrastructure for projects like this are over. The City must actively seek creative ways to play a role in infrastructure investments.

16. One way to reduce costs and increase density would be to have district stormwater management so it didn’t have to be done on each parcel.

17. Another way to encourage development would be to have a central parking area so developers could only build the parking they need.

18. It was suggested the city consider “civic stormwater” management strategies and “civic parking” supplies as incentives to attract developers.

19. Investigate the bus service to the Twin Cities – could a park and ride be located at the north site to bring people and front end some infrastructure?

20. Maintain flexibility in a tighter space. Allow a variety of uses to land on certain sites, be more restrictive on other sites.

21. Both sites are compelling for development. 22. Improvement to County Road 23/Decker Ave. is critical. It provides a north/south route

to each site, connects each site and provides the quickest access to Hwy 19. It is the link to improved accessibility and visibility for each site.

23. Ross Feffercorn felt the program and master plan concept for the south site is very appropriate: residential to the north, small amount of retail on Decker, civic use where the two creeks converge, etc.

24. He suggested considering a performing arts facility somewhere on the south site. Facilities like these can provide residual economic benefits. An example is the Aspen Music Festival, Design Center, etc. in Aspen Colorado. This program runs all summer long and attracts visitors from all over the world. There might be a partnership

opportunity for St. Olaf’s music program. Improvements to CR 23 are critical to make this work however.

25. Retail on these two sites should be limited to support uses only. Do not compete with the downtown retailers. Instead, provide convenience uses – gas, coffee, lunch, etc.

26. The development community is extremely sensitive to project costs. Imposing severe LEED requirements on the development may limit the feasibility of development here, given all of the other cost considerations. Instead, provide incentives for LEED certified development and/or allow development to LEED standards without requiring certification – in many cases LEED standards are “best practices” and would be done by a responsible developer anyway.

27. Multi-story development here is highly unlikely (industrial and office) in today’s market. 28. Everything is broken in today’s development world – we are not going to see industrial

development here soon. Space available on the market today must be filled first. 29. Gary Dreher spoke of the project his company developed in St. Louis Park – Excelsior

and Grand – a 16 acre mixed-use development. 30. Told was the 3rd developer involved in the project. 31. There were 2 TIF districts formed to provide financing incentive. 32. The City of St. Louis Park was heavily involved in the financing of infrastructure,

including a $10 million public parking facility. 33. The days of partnerships between developer, city and landowner are going to return and

be necessary for development to occur. It is no longer possible for a developer to come into an area and take down a large area of land all at once and bear carrying costs through the various phases of a projects life.

34. It was suggested that the city implement a development approval system that allows a property owner to supply parking based on a "proof of parking" standard where the property presents information to substantiate a supply of parking that is different (presumably less) than the parking standard in a city regulation. The project is then approved with the amount of parking as demonstrated by the property owner but the site also must includes a site plan that allows for future parking to be constructed if the demand for additional future parking exists. In the intermediate time the area not constructed for parking remains green.

35. Everyone on the panel agreed, the City should use existing infrastructure wherever possible to make this development plan work financially. For example, on the north site, development along North Ave. adjacent to the hospital (St. Olaf property) makes the best sense to begin development. Little investment is required to start here.

36. Due to the expense of infrastructure related costs for each site, the south site may be more attractive to begin development since it’s infrastructure costs are estimated to be approx. 1/3 the costs related to the north site.

37. Developing the south site first may also provide an earlier opportunity to establish environmental protection measures for the two creek systems.

38. A land swap with St. Olaf may be a good strategy for the City to pursue in order to free up the 90 acre site they own on the north site, enabling first phases of development to occur from east to west. The college may be interested in the south site because it already has land adjacent to the site and has an interest in stewardship (related to the high value streams at the south site).

39. Is there an opportunity to develop senior housing and build a relationship with the two college campuses? There is a trend of alumni wanting to retire close to their alma maters. The colleges would need to make classes available to the residents (alumni).

40. Senior and affordable housing are two market areas fairly strong today and ready to go. 41. Dakota County has one of the best CDA’s in the country for affordable workforce and

senior housing. Can the city tap into that program? 42. A Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) is a residential community for the

remainder of one's life, with a choice of services and living situations. Seniors can move between Independent Living, Assisted Living, and Nursing Home Care based on changing needs at each point in time. These offer many opportunities near the hospital.

43. “Friendship Village” is a local example of a CCRC that offers age restricted, lifestyle housing options.

44. The City should talk with a consultant like Mary Bujold (Maxfield) to see if there is a market for CCRC’s in Northfield.

45. Ties to St. Olaf with the CCRCs. 46. It is not safe in today’s market to build owner occupied condo housing. This may be the

case for several more years. 47. The rental market, however, is strong and should continue to be strong for some time. 48. Housing considerations in these projects should be primarily rental driven. 49. Transportation setup is not very good for industrial development today.

Final Comments

1. Build flexibility into the plan and development standards. 2. Reduce the cost of infrastructure. 3. Seek out willing partners – City, landowners, development community – and build on

those relationships. 4. Multi-story development (office/industrial) is not likely to occur here. 5. Build to suit is the only thing happening in today’s market. 6. The City must play and active role in courting developers to these sites. 7. The City should work to aggressively seek state funding to assist with infrastructure

costs. 8. The League of MN Cities may be an option. 9. Create an economic advantage for developers to come here. 10. Must plan for a mixed set of land uses. 11. The projects will need workforce housing. 12. Keep it simple. 13. The current economic down cycle has not affected comments today. In a healthy

economy, Northfield has these same challenges. 14. Produce a checklist – what are we? 15. Focus on strengths of the Northfield community. Be confident in who you are and use

this to court clients who will be a natural fit in the community. 16. This must be at least a 20 year plan. 17. If housing is a sensitive land use with the community right now, then restrict when

housing can occur, but it must be a part of the plan.

18. Reduce development costs where feasible. Look for opportunities that will extend infrastructure.

19. Closely look at the phasing of infrastructure. Don’t overbuild too early in the life of the development.

20. Leverage Northfields attributes: - Authentic and charming downtown - Two world class colleges - Intellectual capital - Successful alumni

21. Nibble away at the north and south sites simultaneously. 22. Leverage the qualities of the south site – special site characteristics and social attraction

for environmental stewardship. 23. Landowners must be part of the equation. 24. The development market will not be the same when the economy rebounds, but that will

be a good thing. There may be more trust in the marketplace for developers, landowners and cities to partner and cooperate.

25. The downtown is strong – don’t compete with it – strengthen it. 26. Create incentives to attract development.


Thursday, July 15, 2010

6:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.


Northfield, MN

AGENDA

1. Review Progress on Preferred Master Plans (15 minutes) - Parcel Plans (with development program) - Landscape Plans - Circulation Plans - Utility Plans

2. Review Progress on Development Standards (30 minutes) - Outline of topics to be covered in the standards - Intent and purpose of the standards - How the standards are to be used - Examples of key topic areas in text and graphic format

3. Review and Discuss the Results of the Developers Roundtable (1+ Hour) - Review developer comments - Discuss recommendations for master plan, implementation, phasing

4. Next Steps (5 minutes)

- Prepare Draft Master Plan Report - Prepare Draft Development Standards - Prepare Draft Implementation Strategies

5. Next Meeting (5 minutes)

- August 19, 2010 - Important: Confirm date for next Public Open House

of 4

Northfield Master Plan Steering Committee /EDA Meeting Summary – July 15, 2010 First National Bank MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Estenson, Rhonda Pownell, Jim Pokorney, John Klockeman, Mike

Berthelsen, Erica Zweifel, Tracy Davis, , Pete Sandberg, Steve Engler, Tim Geary, Jay Jasnoch, Victor Summa

MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Richardson, Chris Sawyer, Neil Lutsky, Glen Castore ALSO PRESENT: Jeff McMenimen (HKGi), Economic Development Director Jody Gunderson,

Community Development Director Brian O’Connell, John Fink, Edric Lysne, Larry Larson, Tom Sorem

The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. Preferred Master Plans Jeff McMenimen began the meeting with a review of the progress on the master plans being developed for each of the two sites. He presented updated parcel plans with associated development summaries, landscape plans, circulation plans (vehicular, bike and pedestrian), and street cross sections. The plans reflect revisions based on comments provided by Steering Committee/EDA members at the June meeting, including the following: North Site:

- Added the extension of CR 23 from the proposed roundabout at CR 23 and SH 19 south to Decker Ave. on the plan graphics.

South Site:

- Changed the small lot single family residential land use to medium density residential. A question was raised regarding the total number of housing units included in the current building program on the north site. The direction from the Steering Committee was to reduce the total number of dwelling units on the north site. Jeff McMenimen stated that the amount of land dedicated to housing in the plan was reduced and that therefore the total number of housing units was also reduced, with density factors remaining the same for both medium density housing (12 du/ac) and high density housing (20 du/ac). Note: Subsequently, Jeff reviewed the housing counts on the north site plan presented in April versus the plan presented tonight. The housing numbers on the current plan are 36% fewer than on the plan presented in April. The April plan would have a total of approximately 888 housing units. The revised plan would have a total of approximately 570 housing units. Development Guidelines Following discussion of the current master plans, Jeff presented the beginning work being prepared on the development guidelines. The materials presented included the draft outline of the guidelines, the purpose and intent of the guidelines, how the guidelines are to be used, the relationship of the guidelines to other planning policies and documents in the City, examples of how the guidelines will address specific issues and the graphic format of the guidelines. A draft of the development guidelines will be presented to the Steering Committee at the August 19th meeting.

of 4

A request was made to provide a copy of the draft guidelines to the Planning Commission prior to the August 19th Steering Committee meeting. Mr. McMenimen said they would try to have something to deliver prior to that meeting but could not promise a full draft before then. At any rate, the Planning Commission would receive a copy of the draft guidelines by August 19th, a month before the next scheduled joint meeting with the Planning Commission/Steering Committee/EDA (Sept.) A question was asked regarding the coordination between the development guidelines for the business parks and the Land Development Code (LDC) being prepared by the City. Which would have priority, the LDC or the development guidelines? Typically, the document that has the more stringent requirement has priority. Brian O’Connell stated that the LDC and the City’s Zoning Ordinances may incorporate specific requirements outlined in the development guidelines once they have been adopted. Also, the City’s Zoning ordinance could reference the development guidelines, making them enforceable. The question was asked if the guidelines would address building height (multi-story) issues. Mr. McMenimen stated that building height, massing and articulation would be addressed among other building related issues. The question was asked if the master plan document would address parking issues, specifically on-street parking. Mr. McMenimen stated the guidelines would address parking issues related to private development sites and that the master plan document would also address on-street parking issues as these would be within the public R.O.W. It was noted that the draft street cross sections include on-street parking in some instances. It was noted that the on-street parking should be seen as a developer incentive if those spaces count toward meeting the parking requirements. The question was asked if the diagram included in the draft guidelines for site planning (which illustrates the concept of street-fronted buildings with parking located behind the buildings) would be relevant towards all of the development parcels. Mr. McMenimen stated that in certain land use situations that it would (mixed-use, housing, office, office-showroom), but that in other situations (large industrial/warehouse sites) other solutions may be required. The question was asked if the guidelines would address the issue of heat island effect. Mr. McMenimen stated that the guidelines would address this issue. Developer’s Roundtable Following the discussion regarding the development guidelines, Jeff led the discussion regarding the comments received during the Developers Roundtable conducted on June 23rd. Jeff began with a brief discussion of the experiences of the participants of the developers roundtable, which included Eric Anderson (Ryan Companies), Mark Fabel (McGough), Gary Dreher (Told Development Company), Ross Feffercorn (RMF Group), and Derick Dahlen (Avant Energy). Then Jeff walked through a summary of the comments received from the developer’s roundtable participants. Those comments included the following: 1. Build flexibility into the plan and development guidelines 2. Seek ways to reduce development costs - Phasing of infrastructure - Utilize existing infrastructure where feasible - Nibble away at both sites if possible

of 4

3. City must tap into federal, state, regional and local sources of funding to provide infrastructure financing and developer incentive packages 4. Trunk infrastructure is critical to attract development - State Highway 19 improvements - CR 23 improvements - Interchange at CR 23 and SH 19 5. Partnerships between developer, city and landowners are going to return and will be necessary for development to occur 6. Must plan for a mixed set of uses - Industrial - Office - Housing - Civic - Support retail 7. Housing must be a part of the plan - Senior housing - Workforce housing - Rental driven 8. Leverage Northfield’s attributes - Authentic, charming downtown - Two world class colleges - Intellectual capital - Successful alumni Mr. McMenimen noted that the discussion regarding phasing of infrastructure was important and that the developers all suggested the development should begin where infrastructure was already in place. This seemed to point toward the 90 acre parcel of land owned by St. Olaf located along North Avenue. The road is already in place and water and sewer utilities are currently being designed to extend them to the Sorem property to the west. The notion of a land swap with St. Olaf was raised to open up that land for development in early phases of the project. It was suggested that it might not be necessary - that St. Olaf might be open to discussions about developing that property without the need for a land swap. Mr. McMenimen discussed the developer’s suggestion that the City be aggressive in trying to seek federal, state and local funding sources for financial assistance for infrastructure improvements and developer incentives. The idea is to provide an economic advantage for developers to work in Northfield over the other competing communities in the region. Additionally, the idea of partnerships between City, developers and landowners was discussed. Regarding land uses, the question was raised about the civic land use located on the south site. Suggested uses for that site by the developers included an arts and culture and/or performance facility, which might have residual economic benefits to the community. An example of this is the Aspen Institute and Music Center in Aspen, Colorado, which attracts dignitaries, scholars, artists, musicians and visitors to Aspen each summer for events and seminars. Other potentially important public uses discussed related to the developments included public parking facilities and civic stormwater management practices. These could contribute to greater development densities and provide incentives to attract development. The question of housing was discussed. The developers all felt housing should be a component to the plan for the following reasons:

of 4

- create a unique business park with uses to support the workforce - provide a development that will absorb more quickly in the market place - enhanced economic benefits - part of the amenity package offered in the development

It was suggested (by developers) that the City consider senior housing, assisted care housing facilities (CCRC’s), workforce housing and rental housing. It was noted that these may be the only housing types in the current economic circumstances that are prospering. It was noted that housing and other sets of uses would contribute to a more vibrant and safe development by providing land uses that would create life in the community at various hours of the day and days of the week. The developers suggested the City be more aggressive in marketing the unique attributes of Northfield. This was further discussed with the Steering Committee and noted that once the master plan has been adopted, there must be an aggressive effort made to position these projects for success. Next Steps/Meetings Next meeting: August 19, 2010 September meetings: September 16, 2010 (Steering Committee/EDA/Planning Commission) (tentative – to be confirmed by Jody Gunderson) September 23, 2010 (Public Open House) (tentative – to be confirmed by Jody Gunderson) The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.


Thursday, August 19, 2010

6:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.


Northfield, MN

AGENDA

1. Review Progress on Development Standards (20 + minutes)

- Review draft of development standards - Discuss key areas of concern in the standards - Hand out draft development standard documents

2. Review Proposed Utility Plans and Stormwater Recommendations (15 minutes) 3. Review and Discuss Proposed Phasing Strategies for each site (1+ Hour)

- Review proposed phasing of site improvements (streets and utilities) - Review costs associated with each phase of site improvements - Review key implementation strategies related to phasing

4. Next Steps (10 minutes)

- Prepare Draft Master Plan Report (including Development Guidelines and Implementation Plan)

- Prepare for Sept. 23rd Open House

5. Next Meeting (5 minutes) - September 16, 2010

of 2

Northfield Master Plan Steering Committee /EDA Meeting Summary – August 19, 2010 First National Bank MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Estenson, Rhonda Pownell, Jim Pokorney, John Klockeman, Glen Castore,

Chris Sawyer , Steve Engler, Tim Geary, Jay Jasnoch, Victor Summa MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Richardson, Neil Lutsky, Mike Berthelsen, Erica Zweifel, Tracy Davis,

Pete Sandberg ALSO PRESENT: Jeff McMenimen (HKGi), Economic Development Director Jody Gunderson,

Community Development Director Brian O’Connell, City Engineer Katy Gehler-Hess, John Fink, Bob Gill, Larry Larson

The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. Development Guidelines Jeff McMenimen began the meeting with a review of the progress on the development guidelines being developed in partnership with the master plans. The materials presented included the draft outline of the guidelines, the purpose and intent of the guidelines, how the guidelines are to be used, the relationship of the guidelines to other planning policies and documents in the City, examples of how the guidelines will address specific issues and the graphic format of the guidelines. A draft of the development guidelines was distributed to the Steering Committee for review. The draft guidelines did not include the final chapter – construction management or the introduction statements. The Steering Committee was asked to have all comments prepared and submitted to Jody Gunderson and Jeff McMenimen before the Sept. 16th Meeting. There was some discussion regarding how prescriptive the guidelines should be. Jeff told the group the guidelines are currently written to control the quality of development and address the spirit of the goals and objectives for the business and industrial parks, but not overly prescriptive. Too prescriptive and the guidelines can become an obstacle to development. Too flexible and the guidelines become too difficult to enforce. A balance is required. The design team will look toward the Steering Committee to provide a desired level of flexibility vs. prescription. Draft Phasing Strategies Following a brief discussion of the development guidelines, Jeff presented the draft phasing strategies and cost estimates for each phase. Each plan was broken into four phases. Each phase moves roughly from east to west, due to where utilities and infrastructure exist today. As site improvements (roads, utilities and stormwater facilities) are constructed (moving east to west) to serve development, parcels may open up for development. Jeff also reviewed some implementation recommendations associated with each component of the site improvements including streets, utilities, storm sewer, open space, etc. Comments received regarding the phasing plans include:

- Provide further break down of phase 1 (north site) into sub-phases. - Provide potential tax revenue generation per phase. - Provide potential employee generation per phase. - What other costs may be associated with development? Schools? Water treatment facility

upgrades? Note: these are comprehensive plan issues which will have to be addressed at some future time.

of 2

- Can tax revenue support incremental site improvement costs? - Can the design team look at what would be the most economical solution to provide access to

industrial sites? - Highlight existing roads for graphic clarity on the drawings.

Next Steps/Meetings Next meeting: September 16, 2010 September meetings: September 16, 2010 (Steering Committee/EDA/Planning Commission) September 23, 2010 (Public Open House)

Note: Discussion regarding the open house – it was decided that there would be a forum for questions and answers during the open house, shortly after each presentation. Staff and Steering Committee members are encouraged to assist.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

Northfield Business and Industrial Parks Steering Committee/Planning Commission Meeting

Thursday, September 16, 2010

5:30p.m. – 7:00p.m.

City Hall

AGENDA

1. Review Comments on Draft Development Guidelines (45 + minutes)

- Review draft of development guidelines - Discuss key areas of concern in the guidelines and recommended changes

to the guidelines

2. Review and Discuss Potential Phasing Strategies (30 + minutes) - Review potential tax revenue and job creation associated with each phase

for both sites. - Review potential breakdown of North Site Phase One – subphases - Review potential costs, tax revenue generation and job creation of each

subphase. 3. Next Steps (10 minutes)

- Prepare Draft Master Plan Report (including Master Plan recommendations, Graphics, Development Guideline updates and Implementation Strategies)

- Prepare for Sept. 23rd Open House

4. Next Meeting (5 minutes) - September 23 – Public Open House


Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMORANDUM NORTHFIELD 3RD BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL PARK Date: September 29, 2010 To: Jody Gunderson, EDA From: Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Re: September 23rd Open House Public Comment Summary The following is a summary of written public comments received concerning the draft master plans presented at the September 23rd Public Open House conducted in Northfield: SOUTH SITE Please include any comments, concerns, or considerations about the South Site Parcel Plan

1. Are the townhomes and corporate offices in any kind of walking distance or are they only designed for cars?

Please include any comments, concerns, or considerations about the South Site Open Space Plan

1. Need to infiltrate all or almost all stormwater to protect trout stream. 2. Parcels along north side of stream slope to stream – all infiltration needs to be on the

parcels 3. Will the restoration along Heath and Spring Brook include trees and native grasses?

Please include any comments, concerns, or considerations about the South Site Circulation Plan

1. Will the yellow lines be paved trails or grassways? Not clear.

NORTH SITE Please include any comments, concerns, or considerations about the North Site Parcel Plan

1. The initial concept sold to the community was “workforce housing”. Now we’re hearing “alumni housing” and “senior housing” – both on the far edge of Northfield! Seems more like bait and switch – not planning to put in industrial for many years, so no real workforce housing is in the plan.


Northfield 3rd Business and Industrial Park Open House #2Comment Summary September 23, 2010 Page 2

2. Can’t see seniors opting to live out there unless they really have medical problems. Please include any comments, concerns, or considerations about the North Site Open Space Plan Please include any comments, concerns, or considerations about the North Site Circulation Plan In addition to the written comments received from the open house, the following is a summary of oral public comments and/or questions received concerning the draft master plans presented at the September 23rd Public Open House:

1. Concerns regarding the phasing strategies (North Site) including any form of housing in the early phases of development.

2. Concerns regarding the medium density housing being identified as either senior of

alumni housing.

3. Workforce housing is preferred.

4. Concerns regarding retail in the plan - Early phases of development – not desired in early phases - Amount and type of retail – it shouldn’t compete with downtown - Location near Hwy 19 – some don’t like it so close to the highway

5. Question regarding stormwater management. Is it included in the master plan? 6. Question regarding the development program and absorption assumptions. Where did the

assumptions come from? Were they part of the market report?

7. Comments on the nature of development. Why can’t Northfield be more like the State of Vermont?


Thursday, October 14, 2010

6:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.


Northfield, MN

AGENDA 1. Distribute draft copies of the master plan document. 2. Review storm water management diagrams 3. Review final edits to master plans and development programs 4. Review open house comments/discussion 5. Receive comments on master plan/development guidelines to incorporate into plan 6. Next steps

- Planning Commission Oct. 21st - EDA – Oct. 28th - City Council – November 23rd

of 4

Northfield Master Plan Steering Committee /EDA Meeting Summary – October 14, 2010 First National Bank MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Estenson, Rhonda Pownell, Jim Pokorney, Steve Engler, Tim Geary,

Victor Summa, Neil Lutsky, Mike Berthelsen, Erica Zweifel, Tracy Davis, Pete Sandberg

MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Richardson, John Klockeman, Glen Castore, Jay Jasnoch, Chris Sawyer ALSO PRESENT: Jeff McMenimen (HKGi), Economic Development Director Jody Gunderson

and other interested persons The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. Master Plan Document Distribution Jeff McMenimen distributed drafts of the master plan document. The document is incomplete at this time, but represents progress on various sections of the document. A more complete draft will be distributed to Steering Committee, Planning Commission, EDA and City Council on October 29th. At this time, a draft of the document will also be placed onto the project website for public review. Review Storm Water Management Diagrams Jeff briefly reviewed the draft storm water management diagrams prepared for each site by MSA Professional Services. The diagrams indicate necessary infiltration and detention pond locations and sizes based upon detailed analysis of each site and the proposed development program and patterns. The storm water management study and plan were completed in compliance with the City’s recently adopted Storm Water Ordinance and reviewed with the City Engineer. Review Final Edits to Master Plans and Development Programs Due to recommendations in the storm water management plan, edits were required for each of the draft master plans to bring them into compliance with the storm water management plan. On the South Site, this meant a loss of potential office (approx. 13 acres) and residential sites (approx. 1.5 acres) to incorporate infiltration zones and additional detention ponds. Other ponds were located onto a couple of the office parcels, but had been anticipated as part of the storm water management needs. On the North Site, additional landscape easements were incorporated to accommodate the need for more infiltration areas, however, this addition would not affect the potential development program. The 100 year floodplain areas shown along North Avenue would actually be smaller than that shown on the map due to existing culverts releasing storm water under North Ave. This diagram will be revised in the final document. Review Open House Comments/Discussion Jeff reviewed the written and oral public comments received during the September 23rd Open House, and asked if the Steering Committee had additional comments to add that they may have heard form others in the community. The following is a list of written comments received at the Public Open House: SOUTH SITE

of 4

Please include any comments, concerns, or considerations about the South Site Parcel Plan

1. Are the townhomes and corporate offices in any kind of walking distance or are they only designed for cars?

Please include any comments, concerns, or considerations about the South Site Open Space Plan

1. Need to infiltrate all or almost all stormwater to protect trout stream. 2. Parcels along north side of stream slope to stream – all infiltration needs to be on the parcels 3. Will the restoration along Heath and Spring Brook include trees and native grasses?

Please include any comments, concerns, or considerations about the South Site Circulation Plan

1. Will the yellow lines be paved trails or grassways? Not clear. NORTH SITE Please include any comments, concerns, or considerations about the North Site Parcel Plan

1. The initial concept sold to the community was “workforce housing”. Now we’re hearing “alumni housing” and “senior housing” – both on the far edge of Northfield! Seems more like bait and switch – not planning to put in industrial for many years, so no real workforce housing is in the plan.

2. Can’t see seniors opting to live out there unless they really have medical problems. In addition to the written comments received from the open house, the following is a summary of oral public comments and/or questions received concerning the draft master plans presented at the September 23rd Public Open House:

1. Concerns regarding the phasing strategies (North Site) including any form of housing in the early phases of development.

Open House Discussion: this issue was discussed in the Q and A portion of the Open House. The phasing plans illustrate potential phasing of the project infrastructure. On the north site, the first phases of infrastructure include an improved intersection at County Road 23 and State Hwy 19 to provide better access to future development off the highway. A portion of CR 23 is included going northeast to provide access to a variety of land uses, including industrial uses located to the north. The phasing plan (Phase 1 )is illustrated to provide utilities and roads to approach from the east to the west, which is where the existing utilities reside. Phase 1 also provides the most amount of flexibility for a variety of land uses early in the development of the north site. Whether or not housing is developed early in the process will depend on a couple of important factors, including market conditions and the will of the community. If the community does not desire housing developed early in the process, there are checks and balances in the site review and approval process to prevent this from happening.

2. Concerns regarding the medium density housing being identified as either senior of alumni

housing. Open House Discussion: this issue was discussed in the Q and A portion of the Open House. The type of housing planned for on the north site includes a range of housing density, from medium (avg. 12 dwelling units/acre) to higher densities (avg. 24 dwelling units/acre). The housing

of 4

products envisioned might include townhomes, rowhouses, apartments and condominiums. Whether the housing is specifically developed to house seniors will depend on market conditions. The plan identifies it as potential senior housing due to the nearby hospital, potential health and wellness campus and potential mixed use center – all desirable land uses near senior housing.

3. Workforce housing is preferred.

Open House Discussion: this issue was discussed in the Q and A portion of the Open House. The bulk of housing included in the plan is anticipated to house the workforce created by future commercial uses included in the plan.

4. Concerns regarding retail in the plan

- Early phases of development – not desired in early phases - Amount and type of retail – it shouldn’t compete with downtown - Location near Hwy 19 – some don’t like it so close to the highway

Open House Discussion: this issue was discussed in the Q and A portion of the Open House. The amount and type of retail anticipated in the plan is to provide support services and goods for those who will work and live in the area. Whether retail is included in early phases of the project will depend on market conditions and public will. The amount of retail that could be built on the sites identified for retail on the north site might total the equivalent of a grocery store, but due to the small parcel sizes and configuration of the parcels, we do not anticipate a large format store, rather, a collection of smaller retailers including convenience stores, coffee shops, cleaners, small restaurants/cafes, flower shops, etc. The amount of retail in comparison to the retail downtown would be much smaller and it is not anticipated it would or could compete with the authentic, small town, boutique ambiance of downtown Northfield. The plan discourages any competition with downtown Northfield and, in fact, seeks to support a healthy downtown retail environment. The reason the retail and lodging land uses are located near Hwy 19 are due to the understanding that these types of uses are dependant on good access and visibility. Locating them deep into the site might result in these parcels never being developed.

5. Question regarding stormwater management. Is it included in the master plan?

Open House Discussion: this issue was discussed in the Q and A portion of the Open House. Strom water management is and will be included in the master plan. A storm water management plan has been drafted based upon site conditions and projected development programs for each site. The management plan has been informed by and is in compliance with the newly adopted storm water ordinance.

6. Question regarding the development program and absorption assumptions. Where did the assumptions come from? Were they part of the market report?

Open House Discussion: this issue was discussed in the Q and A portion of the Open House. The development program and absorption assumptions were derived from the market analysis. Historic absorption rates were analyzed for the Twin Cities market and applied to the Northfield competitive market corridor (I-35) to develop anticipated absorption of office and industrial uses in Northfield, projected out to 2030. The anticipated absorption of office and industrial uses (based on historic numbers) in Northfield by 2030 is just over 2 million square feet. This provided the planning team with a target development program to plan for. Additional land uses were added to the mix as a result of the market analysis (differentiators) and discussion with the Steering

of 4

Committee and EDA. Many of these additional land uses would help absorb the project more quickly in the market place and help to differentiate it from the competition.

7. Comments on the nature of development. Why can’t Northfield be more like the State of Vermont?

Comments on Master Plan/Development Guidelines to Incorporate into Plan The Steering Committee discussed whether or not they each support the master plan and provided the following thoughts to be considered in the master plan document: In general, all Steering Committee members support the master plan. Specific topics discussed included the following:

1. Getting County Road 23 on Dakota County’s radar seems important to the success of the early phases of the north site project. Who does this? Jody and Brian O’Connell have already met with County officials and discussed the plan. It is now on the County’s radar which will help to gain future County participation in the funding of CR 23 improvements.

2. Should phasing cost estimates (infrastructure funding and potential tax generation dollars) be added to the document? Historically these numbers are not included into a master plan document which could guide development for many years, even decades. The numbers represent current values and may be misleading 10 or 20 years from now. We will include the phasing numbers in separate documents.

3. The plan should include an executive summary. The executive summary should narrate what the master plan is, and what it isn’t.

4. The City will need to determine what recommendations from the master plan are included in the LDC and the Comp Plan. Each policy document will have to be amended based upon an adopted master plan.

5. Land ownership is an important issue. How is the plan realized over time? 6. Concerns regarding how the plan gets implemented were raised.

Next Steps/Meetings Draft Master Plan Document: October 29, 2010 Deliver to City – distribute to EDA, PC, CC, Steering Comm Place on project website for public review November meetings: November 18, 2010 (EDA Meeting – AM) November 18, 2010 (Planning Commission Meeting – PM) Draft EDA and PC Comments – deliver to CC November 23, 2010 (City Council Worksession – PM) Make final edits to plan based on input December Meetings December 14, 2010 (Public Hearing/City Council Meeting) The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

1_Northfield Project Reference Document_Meeting Notes

Documents

Transcript of 1_Northfield Project Reference Document_Meeting Notes