drake farmstead the charter township of oshtemo, …...4) design the master plan so the project is...

FinalReport

Drake Farmstead

The Charter Township of

Oshtemo, Michigan

Market Feasibility Study

September 09, 2015

Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan

Oshtemo Twp. Historical Society

Prepared by:

ProjectTeam


Acknowledgements

Oshtemo Township Historical Society

Libby Heiny-Cogswell | Township Supervisor

Deb Everett | Township Clerk

Karen High | Zoning Administrator

Consultant Team

Sharon M. Woods, MA, CRE, NCI, MCP

TMA Team Leader, Project Manager

LandUse|USA, LLC

Planning and Design Advisors

Ken Perregon, ASLA

President, Consulting Principal

Sandy Bliesener, ASLA

Design Leader

O'Boyle, Cowell, Blalock & Associates, Inc.

Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan

Oshtemo Township

Historical Society

Prepared by:

Drake Farmstead – Oshtemo Township, MI Table of Contents

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents Page

Introduction 1

Work Objectives 2

Executive Summary 3

Site, Location Advantages 7

Site, Location Challenges 9

Target Market Analysis 10

National Retail Trends 11

Economic Census Data 12

Assessment of Comparables 14

Farm-to-Table Trends 16

Related Considerations 18

Potential Partners 20

Contact Information 25

Drake Farmstead – Oshtemo Township, MI 09/09/15 Final

1 | P a g e

Introduction

LandUse|USA has prepared and finalized this Feasibility Study to support the Master

Planning process that was recently completed for the Drake Farmstead property. On

September 08, 2015, O’Boyle, Cowell, Blalock & Associates, Inc. (OCBA) presented

their final plan to the Oshtemo Township Board; and LandUse|USA presented the

results of this Feasibility Study. OCBA’s work was also supported by Nelson Breech

Nave Architect AIA (Nave AIA), and both firms are based in the Kalamazoo Market.

For reference, the subject property includes about 26 acres located near the

intersection of Highway 43 and North Drake Road in Oshtemo Township, Kalamazoo

County, Michigan. The final plan is provided in the attached Exhibit A.7; and the site

analysis is shown in Exhibit A.8. Photos of the site are also provided in that same

Section A.

This narrative report provides an executive summary of top-level recommendations

regarding the future of farmstead, and an outline of attached exhibits organized in

Section A through Section J is listed below:

Section Name Section General Topics

Market Strategy / Master Plans A structures, strategies, plans

Supply and Cluster Analysis B regional restaurant clusters

Target Markets / Lifestyles C food-related venues, activities

National Retail Trends D food as an entertainment venue

Economic Census Data E retail, entertainment focus

Demographic Maps F entertainment expenditures

Market Parameters / Demand G aerials, population and income

Farm-to-Table Resources H magazine, newletter excerpts

Michigan Examples I cutsheets, website addresses

Township Master Plan 2011 J West Main Street Subarea


2 | P a g e

Work Objectives

This Feasibility Study was prepared while following several primary objectives. The

Master Plan reflects the findings of this study, but also considers additional work

objectives. The Master Plan appropriately reflects adjustments based on stakeholder

input and consideration for the historical significance of the building.

Work Objectives – Feasibility Study (LandUse|USA)

1) Maximize the revenue-generating venues so the project is as financially viable

and self-sustaining as possible.

2) Identify uses that would best meet the wants, needs, and preferences of the

market, including consumers and families inclined to spend on site venues.

3) Identify potential partners (and partner programming) that could be leveraged

for financial support, and anticipate revenue generators that they would value.

4) Make some adjustments to the recommendations with consideration for the

site’s unique and intrinsic value, and preservation of this historical asset.

5) Review records summarizing the project’s history, and consider the economic

benefits of ideas that support the primary objective of maximizing revenues.

Work Objectives – The Master Plan (OCBA)

1) Design a plan that reflects the assets and limitations of the parcel and site,

including its configuration, size, elevation, existing use, terrain, etc.

2) Consider the recommendations of the Feasibility Study, and acknowledge that

low-impact uses will generate relatively low revenues.

3) Meet the needs, wants, and preferences key stakeholders, and particularly

participants of workshops and members of the Oshtemo Historical Society.

4) Design the Master Plan so the project is as historically accurate and give

historic preservation a priority.


3 | P a g e

Executive Summary

Recommendations in this report are based on a combination of observations from

data analysis; an assessment of site and locational attributes; an assessment of local

demographics; careful review of project files provided by the Oshtemo Historical

Society (OHS); and our retail experience and knowledge of current retail trends.

Based on our assessment of the project and this market analysis, it’s success will

depend on a variety of factors, including: a) types of facility amenities, and

specifically a kitchen, meeting rooms, and multi-purpose event space;

b) project scale, mix of venues, and critical mass; c) seasonality of leasing the space;

d) placemaking and programming for special events; e) contributions to the plan by

collaborating partners; and f) the effectiveness of marketing and advertising.

We also recommend that the project be planned with a combination of community

gardens, educational gardens, walking paths, event and meeting space (indoor and

outdoor), and kitchen be designed into the project plan. This approach should take

precedence over creating stages for historical reenactments, or funding a museum.

Revenues from indoor and year-round rental space will be needed to help fund the

museum; and it is doubtful that the museum and outdoor spaces alone can fund the

entire project.

Additional observations are provided below, with exhibit numbers that correspond

to Sections A – J in the attachments.

Exhibit Key Observations

A.4 The Critical Kitchen - This feasibility study and our preliminary

recommendations are sharply focused on revenue-generating venues.

To this end, we recommend that the design and plan include a culinary

art center that includes a commercial kitchen and classrooms in an

open-air floor plan, so the space can be combined and programmed as

event space to accommodate up to 400 persons.


4 | P a g e

A commercial kitchen and culinary art center will be a game-changer for

the project’s financial future, and is essential for the overall project to

be economically sustainable.

Without a commercial kitchen, revenue-generating prospects would be

limited to a museum and gift shop, various exhibitions and/or re-

enactments, and rental income from meeting spaces and venues. These

are all valuable, but would not be sufficient for the project to even

approach self-sustainability. Rental income for meeting and event space

would be limited by the absence of a commercial kitchen.

A.5 Venue Size – OCBA and Nave AIA have drafted preliminary site plans

that includes 3 new barns over 2 phases of development. An overview of

these facilities is provided below.

1. In the first phase of the project, addition of a rebuilt carriage house

with about 1,200 square feet on the main level. This facility may also

be referred to as “the 1st barn”, and could have a caretaker’s

apartment on the second level.

2. Also with the first phase, development of a new facility that is

attached to the carriage house. This new facility would have about

2,400 square feet, which may also be referred to as “the 2nd barn.”

3. In some future phase, development of a new facility that is either

attached or detached to the carriage house and that has at least 3,200

square feet (“the 3rd barn”).

Assuming that the 1st and 2nd barns total 3,600 square feet, and

assuming an average allocation of 18 square feet per person, this

implies a total capacity of up to 200 persons. The 3rd barn would double

the total capacity.


5 | P a g e

We anticipate that there will be market demand for a facility that can

accommodate at least 200 and up to 400 attendees. Larger venues could

be sought for trade shows, vendor exhibits, conferences, artisan

markets, and larger celebrations like weddings. The first phase of the

project (3,600 square feet) and capacity of 200 persons should be

sufficient initially. The venue should then gain popularity, and market

pressures over time should compel an expansion, leading to addition of

a facility that can handle larger groups.

A.7 – A.10 Final Master Plans – The OCBA materials show the configuration of the

farmstead property, placement of existing and proposed facilities, and

linkages with nearby streets. The plans appropriately preserve green

space near the original homestead building; and include buffers

between parking fields and the homestead.

The 1st barn is located to optimize views of the nearby pond, and also

honors the original location of the carriage house. There is plenty of

space for development of a 2nd and larger barn when that need becomes

evident.

A.11-A.12 Again, we are recommending that the new facilities include a fully

functioning commercial kitchen, which enhances choices among the

other rental venues. Ideally, the kitchen will be designed to adapt to

shifting trends over time. The kitchen and adjoining meeting space must

be designed in a way that is as flexible and adaptable as possible, and in

a way that can accommodate a wide range of functions.

The kitchen should be designed as a venue in and of itself, and in a way

that it can be staged as part of the entertainment. Specifically, this

means that the kitchen should be centrally located in the facility, and

should be designed with an open floor plan. The design should

accommodate a variety of venues, such as exhibition cooking, culinary

classes, and catered events.


6 | P a g e

A.3 When event facilities and kitchens are discussed among stakeholders,

they seem to be in the context of the former carriage house, which was

recently destroyed but has left behind a cement slab overlooking a

nearby pond. Restoring the carriage house is essential for historic

authenticity, but it could serve a range of functions other than event

space.

A.2 The Back Kitchen – In addition to an event center with a commercial

kitchen and/or culinary art center, the original or back kitchen in the

existing Drake Homestead could also be restored and adapted into a

small gift shop, part of the museum, and/or general store.

A.2 The Front Kitchen – We also recommend that the newer or front kitchen

be retained to support basic catering and refreshment services for small

gatherings. The kitchen probably wouldn’t need an oven to provide

basic services for events like high or low tea. Electrical appliances

(stovetop, microwave oven) would probably suffice.

A.6 Marketing Disclaimer – There are numerous marketing strategies that

could be integrated into program to help achieve and optimize sales and

revenues. However, successful marketing alone will not compensate for

the absence of revenue-generators like rental space with a commercial

kitchen, ticketed events, and effective retail venues like a gift shop,

artisans’ market, farmers’ market, etc.


7 | P a g e

Site, Locational Advantages

This narrative report is written to be succinct and to-the-point, and is also written for

a diverse audience and group of stakeholders. Our work has included a site

assessment, with advantages listed below, and followed by a much shorter list of

challenges.

1. The site is located inboard from nearby Highway 131, and is just 10 minutes

west of downtown Kalamazoo and the epicenter of local resident and

daytime populations (see Exhibit F.4).

2. Near the site, north-south average daily traffic counts (ADT) along Highway

131 range between 30,000 and 50,000 vehicles. East-west traffic along

Highway 43 rivals this with an ADT of 36,000 at N. Drake Road (Exhibit F.5).

3. Population and income are the fundamental parameters for forecasting the

sales potential of new venues. There are nearly 300,000 residents living

within 15 miles of the project site (Exhibit G.7), and they should be expected

to generate at least 70% of revenues, with the balance being import from

beyond. The market overall is experiencing moderate population growth (see

Section G).

4. Per capita income levels within Oshtemo Township are slightly higher than

averages for Kalamazoo County ($27,566 v. $26,329 in 2015, respectively).

Per capita incomes within 15 miles of the farmstead are on-par with county

averages. Income is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of about

1.5% over the next five years, and future revenues for the farmstead should

be able to keep pace.

5. The Drake Farmstead site is large enough to accommodate imaginative

programming and site design. The property includes 26 acres in a generally

square configuration and a range of terrain and natural features (including a

nearby pond). It is large enough to accommodate 3 barns with 1,000 square

feet, 2,600 square feet, and 6,000 square feet; plus parking.


8 | P a g e

6. The site is within 1 mile total driving distance from the nearest highway

interchange. Highway 131 provides easy access for most households living

throughout the Greater Kalamazoo area and larger region.

7. The property abuts the township’s commercial districts (see Exhibit J.1) and

is planned for transitional mixed use (Exhibit J.2). Restaurants and eating and

drinking establishments are clustered nearby along Highway 43, and have

collectively established this node as a destination for dining and eating out

(Section B).

8. Local restaurants are leveraging the traffic drawn by big-box, national chain

retailers, including Walmart, Meijer, Kohl’s, Target, Lowe’s, Menards, Value

City Furniture, and Hobby Lobby (Exhibit B.5). As long as this node remains a

major retail destination for the region, restaurants and other types of

eateries should continue to thrive.

9. Although nearby Highway 43 is a busy commercial corridor, other uses

surrounding the farmstead help create a calmer sense of community. Nearby

uses include senior housing complexes and services (hospice, tender care,

etc.); student apartments; several churches, a cemetery; and a public high

school.

10. The site has frontage along both North Drake Road and Croyden Drive.

Although the homestead building is not visible from North Drake Road, it can

be glimpsed from Croyden Drive.

11. A connection to Croyden Drive could ease traffic during peak events, but

could also impact the relatively quiet senior neighborhood to the west. A

traffic impact study would probably be necessary if road configurations

change.


9 | P a g e

Site, Locational Challenges

Compared to the advantages, the Drake Farmstead project has far fewer site and

locational challenges. Limited visibility to nearby highways cannot be resolved, but

most other obstacles can probably be overcome with some creative problem-solving.

1. There has been some speculation that alcohol might not be allowed on the

premises, which could hamper demand for the rental facilities. This is an

important factor and should be resolved in collaboration with any project

partners. Allowing temporary liquor licenses for special events would expand

the venue’s appeal and attract a wider range (and higher paying) programs

and events.

2. It is not practical to create a full kitchen in the existing homestead building,

so it is not practical to use it as a restaurant. However, limited service (high

and low tea, concessions, etc.) could be feasible.

3. The existing building and entrance into the property are not visible to east-

west traffic along Highway 43, which is an important commercial corridor.

4. The existing building and entrance into the property are not visible to north-

south traffic along Highway 131, which is an important regional highway.


10 | P a g e

Target Market Analysis

This feasibility study include a Preliminary Target Market Analysis, or study of

resident lifestyle clusters and preferences for different categories of retail,

entertainment, and recreation. We have identified 10 primary target markets for the

Drake Farmstead project, and they represent a small subset of 71 possible lifestyle

clusters living across the nation. They are selected primary based on their propensity

to live in the local market.


C.1 Among the 10 primary target markets, at least 50% of the households

regularly participate in dining out at restaurants (excluding fast food). In

addition, at least 40% participate in gardening activities, and at least

35% participate in cooking for fun.

C.2 About 20% to 40% of the primary targets participate in museum-related

venues. A relatively small share also participates in theme parts, live

theater, and educational courses. These are all trumped by dining out,

gardening, and cooking for fun. (Other activities are listed on Exhibit C.3

and Exhibit C.4.)

Results of the target market propensity to participate in lifestyle

activities generally support our observation that a commercial kitchen,

small event facility, culinary arts center, and outdoor farm-to-table

educational programming would match with the preferences of resident

households. Farm reenactments, museum, and homestead tours may

supplement revenues, but should not relied on as the sole source of

income.


11 | P a g e

National Retail Trends

We have also includes a few exhibits demonstrating current trends in national

retailing, which includes restaurant tenants, mall entertainment, specialty food (ice

cream, sweets, etc.), food courts, and related venues.


D.1 Nation-wide, sales productivity among brick-and-mortar retailers have

fully recovered from the Great Recession, and sales are now hovering

around $450 per square foot. Non-conventional retailers, such as gift

shop or artisans’ market at Drake Farmstead, should expect to achieve a

fraction of this volume, but similar growth trends over time.

D.2 In the Great Lakes Region, which includes Michigan, productivity is

highest for food courts and specialty food stores, and average for fast

food and restaurant establishments. Mall entertainment venues achieve

relatively low sales, averaging $46 per square foot. Venues at the Drake

Farmstead should expect to achieve sales at the lower end of the range

($100 or less per square foot).

D.3 Nation-wide, restaurants are leading the pack in net gains among new

store openings when compared to store closings. Compared to prior

decades, dining out and food-related venues have become a source of

affordable family entertainment. Themed venues like the proposed

Drake Farmstead can thrive by appealing to families who are seeking

unique dining options in combination with entertainment.

Unique dining themes and entertainment can come in many forms, and

can include culinary classes for students, families, and special groups.

They can also include special dine-in cooking demonstrations, or themed

dinners like Mystery Theater.


12 | P a g e

Economic Census Data

This section of our report focuses on retail sales data provided by the U.S. Census for

three discrete categories: Retail Trade (NAICS 44 and 45); Traveler Accommodations

(NAICS 72); and Arts, Entertainment, and Recreational (NAICS 71) venues. NAICS

refers to the North American Industrial Classification System as established by the

census.

We completed an analysis for Oshtemo Township wherever the data was available,

and for Kalamazoo County for comparative purposes, and a summary of key

observations is provided below:


E.1 Utilizing the census data for the number of establishments and

transacted sales, we calculated the a) average sales per establishment,

b) sales per capita, and c) market share capture. We used the results to

estimate the magnitude of gap by general retail category, within 20

miles of the Drake Farmstead.

The model implies a general gap of up to 19 grocery stores; 6

restaurants; and 7 arts, entertainment, and recreational venues. These

are favorable indicators that the market is not yet saturated, and that

there is room for other food-related venues. Unique niches like a

commercial demonstration kitchen or culinary center the Drake

Farmstead would probably perform well in the market.

E.4 A similar analysis reveals that Kalamazoo currently has a net export of

-16% in the arts, entertainment, and recreation categories. However, it

is actually performing better than most other markets in the Michigan.

Wayne County is the only market that has a net import – attributed to

international traffic (bridge traffic to Canada and international flights),

national conferences (Cobo Hall, etc.), several established casinos, etc.


13 | P a g e

E.4 Although data is not shown for Grand Traverse County, we know from

prior experience that it has a net import of arts / entertainment /

recreation, and rivals Wayne County. Grand Traverse is a regional

vacation destination that draws considerable import from vacationing

families throughout the Upper Midwest. In comparison, nearly every

other county in Michigan has a net export in this category.

E.9 Compared to other selected counties in Michigan, Kalamazoo has a net

import of +15% within the hotel accommodations and food services

category. It is shadowed only by Wayne and Saginaw Counties, and is

excelling relative to Ingham County (Lansing), Kent County (Grand

Rapids), and Calhoun County (Battle Creek).

E.15 Compared to 27 other counties throughout Michigan, Kalamazoo

County is a strong performer in the food service and restaurant

subcategory, and on the basis of market share (sales per capita as a

share of income). The county is out-performing every other county

within similar income profiles.

Only four counties have higher market shares, but those measures are

inflated by the relatively low incomes. Lower-income households tend

to spend a higher share of their income on restaurants. Inversely,

higher-income households spend more in total, but those expenditures

represent a lower share of their total income.

E.16 Compared to other selected counties, Kalamazoo County has a favorable

net import of +5% in total retail sales. However, this is shadowed by

better performance in Saginaw, Kent, Calhoun, and Genesee Counties.

Results indicate that Kalamazoo County should be doing a better job of

drawing shoppers from the larger region, and should be doing a better

job of competing with Grand Rapids and Battle Creek for shopper

import.


14 | P a g e

E.20 Relative to its income, Kalamazoo has an average and moderate market

share among food and beverage stores (i.e., grocery and liquor stores,

including convenience). There is an upside opportunity and need to

improve upon its current market share of 4% (which represents sales as

a share of per capita income), lifting it to 5% or even 6%. An exacerbated

gap is evident for specialty food stores (see Exhibit E.21).

All other categories in Section E are provided for additional perspective only, and to

ensure that we can answer any questions that stakeholders might have about other

related categories. For example, it’s conceivable that some stakeholders might ask

about using the homestead for college alumni space (Exhibit E.2); wellness center

(Exhibit E.3); or a bed and breakfast (Exhibit E.10 – E.14).

Assessment of Comparables

Section I attached to this report provides an assessment of various centers

throughout the State of Michigan. We prepared an inventory of nature centers,

preserves, conservancies, institutes and educational centers, and parks. We also

focused on venues that offer a mix of educational programs, and then gave them

points for having event space, and commercial kitchens. Other amenities like

heritage buildings, on-site restaurants, gift shops, arboretums, and museums were

also scored.

I.1 – I.8 Michigan Examples – We researched 51 different venues across the

state (we probably captured about half of them), of which 53% include

event space; and 18% have a commercial kitchen. About 27% also have

either a museum or arboretum; 20% have heritage buildings on-site; and

20% have a museum. These observations reinforce our conclusion that

event centers are commercial kitchens are important components. A

summary of these results are provided on the following page.


15 | P a g e

51 Surveyed Venues No. of Share of

Summary of Amenities Venues Total

Educational Programs 51 100%

Agriculture, Food-Related 15 29%

Event Space 27 53%

Commercial Kitchen 9 18%

On-Site Restaurant 2 4%

Museum or Arboretum 14 27%

Gift Shop 10 20%

Heritage Buildings 10 20%

I.9 National Survey of Kitchen Incubators – In 2013, Econsult Solutions

conducted a survey of 44 kitchen incubators among a total 135

establishments across the United States. Based on the survey, 51% of

the kitchens range in size from 1,000 to 3,000 square feet, with an

average of 1,673 square feet. About 25% of the facilities include

classrooms with an average room size of 764 square feet.

The complete report is available online at the following URL:

www.econsultsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ESI-

SharedKitchenReport_2013.pdf


16 | P a g e

Farm-to-Table Trends

Farm-to-Table (or Farm-to-Fork) is a term refers to the process of food production

(harvesting, storage, processing, packaging, sales, and consumption), and is also

generally used to describe the movement around the local production of food and its

delivery to local consumers. The concept of Farm-to-Table has grown significantly

over the last five years in the Kalamazoo area, and the Drake Farmstead site could

leverage many of the initiatives catalyzed by this trend.

Many factors have fueled interest in Farm-to-Table (or Farm-to-Fork) education and

awareness, both nation-wide and in Michigan. As the following list shows, factors

contributing to this trend are diverse and intertwined:

Farm-to-Table Trends – Contributing Factors

Perceptions about global warming and climate change, and the contribution

that livestock have to greenhouse gases and the depleting ozone layer.

Declining consumer confidence in GMO, non-organic foods harvested in the

United States, South America, Canada, India, and China.

Concerns about the environmental sustainability of practices among large crop

growers and farms.

Declining consumer confidence in processed foods and fast food restaurants.

Improved education on the nutritional value of whole foods, and risks of

unhealthy eating practices.

Apparent trends in food sensitivities, particularly gluten and dairy products.

Related concerns that GMO’s and pesticides may even be a cause of Autism.

Growing trends among some consumers in following meat-free, Vegan or

Paleo diets.


17 | P a g e

Farm-to-Table Trends – Contributing Factors (continued)

Increasing rates of obesity among adults and youths over recent decades, and

concerns about their impact on the health care system and costs of insurance.

Efforts among public schools to revamp and improve student lunch programs.

Growing empathy for animals as sentient beings that should be treated

humanely. More protections on the rights of farm, zoo, and circus animals;

animals used for scientific tests; and household pets.

New and growing trends in home delivery systems of organic, fresh, and whole

foods.

Growing popularity of Farmers’ Markets, urban gardens, community gardens,

educational gardens, and culinary centers.

State-by-state laws being enacted to require that all convenience stores to

offer fresh foods.

Similar laws being lobbied to force disclosure of ingredients at restaurants, and

disclosure on GMO practices among all foods.

The rising costs of groceries and gasoline prices, which compel workers to be

entrepreneurial; work from home; choose urban locations close to public

transit – and be more creative in sourcing their food.

Again, the Drake Farmstead presents an ideal setting for leveraging and supporting

these trends. The following sections of this report provide additional perspective on

Food System Networks; Food Innovation Districts; and Food Hubs. This is followed by

a discussion of institutions and stakeholder groups that are supporting these types of

initiatives.


18 | P a g e

Related Considerations

The following narrative provides a few definitions of terms commonly used in the

farm-to-table, or farm-to-institution community:

1. Food System Network – A community food system is one in which "food

production, processing, distribution and consumption are integrated to

enhance the environmental, economic, social and nutritional health of a

particular place." (Cornell University).

2. Food Innovation Districts – To quote a special publication of Michigan Planner

(see Exhibit H.2), a food innovation district is a geographic concentration of

food-oriented businesses, services, and community activities.

3. Regional Food Hub – By USDA’s definition, a food hub is a centrally located

facility with a business management structure facilitating the aggregation,

storage, processing, distribution, and/or marketing of locally/regionally

produced food products. (USDA.gov).

4. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) consists of a community of individuals

who pledge support to a farm operation so that the farmland becomes, either

legally or spiritually, the community’s farm, with the growers and consumers

providing mutual support and sharing the risks and benefits of food

production. (USDA.gov).


19 | P a g e

The CSA model has also been gaining momentum in Michigan and a few examples

are listed below:

Community Supported Agriculture – Michigan Examples

Long Valley Farm, Pavilion Twp. Koelbel Farm, Vicksburg

Avalon Farms, Climax Earthsmith Farm, Dowling

Green Gardens, Battle Creek Eater's Guild, Bangor

Blue Dog Family Farm, Bangor DeLano Farms CSA, Kalamazoo Nature Ctr.

Scobey's Produce, Wayland Harvest of Joy, Shelbyville

Bonamego Farms, Lawrence Molter Family Orchards, Benton Harbor

The various “Farm to Institution” initiatives described above have collectively

generated need for regional food hub in the Kalamazoo market. The Michigan Farm

to Institution Network, Michigan Food Hub Network, and Cultivate Michigan are

good resources for learning more about this initiative (see the announcement below

about an upcoming meeting in Flint).


20 | P a g e

Potential Partners

This section of our report for the Drake Farmstead provides descriptions of related or

“Farm to Institution” connections that are underway throughout the Greater

Kalamazoo market. A number of institutions are riding the trend, with the following

summary and descriptions. This list has been enhanced by stakeholder input during a

public workshop facilitated by OCBA and Nave AIA in late May 2015.

Institutions / Partners “Farm to Institution” connections

Kalamazoo Valley Comm. College New Healthy Living Campus

Bronson Methodist Hospital KVCC Partner – local food sourcing

Western Michigan University KVCC Partner – educational programs

Western Michigan University Office for Sustainability – Gibbs House

Kalamazoo College Just, Local, Sustainable guidelines

Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems

MSU Extension 4-H Youth Development Program

People’s Food Co-op Incubator kitchen, farmers’ market

Rustica, Food Dance, etc. Local restaurants; food-sourcing

Bell’s, Tibbs, Arcadia, etc. Local breweries; hops-sourcing

Purely on speculation, perhaps one or more of could be become future partners for

Oshtemo Township, in support of the Drake Farmstead project.


21 | P a g e

Kalamazoo Valley Community College – The KVCC has a Healthy Living Campus,

which is currently under construction in downtown Kalamazoo. When completed it

will have three facilities, including a 1) Culinary/Health Careers building; 2) Food

Innovation Center; 3) Mental Health clinic. Highlights of the program include culinary

training for chefs that will be working in social institutions (schools, nursing homes,

hospitals). These chefs will be trained in food cultivation and will hone their skills on

healthy living and smart food choices.

Bronson Methodist Hospital – Bronson has been a major supporter in the Kalamazoo

Valley Community College’s Healthy living campus, and donated the 13-acre parcel

where the campus will be developed (construction began this year). One of the

Hospital’s goals is to purchase 50 percent of all food from local farmers and

producers by 2020.

Kalamazoo College – Kalamazoo College has placed much emphasis on local foods

over the past several years with the completion of their “Just, Local, and Sustainable”

food policy guidelines. They’ve also switched food services on campus from a

national distributor to a local distributor.

Michigan State University – MSU includes a Center for Regional Food Systems, and is

engaged in supporting food system initiatives underway in neighboring Battle Creek.

The center has also completed a number of studies with reports available online:

www.foodsystems.msu.edu/resources/report.

Federal and State Agencies – A number of state and federal level agencies might also

be able to help with funding, including the Michigan Economic Development

Corporation; Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Michigan Food Policy

Council; Michigan Agri-Tourism Association; Michigan Farm to Institution Network;

Michigan Food Hub Network; Cultivate Michigan; and Michigan Farmers Market

Association. Some of these are also listed in Exhibit H.1 attached to this report.


22 | P a g e

Western Michigan University – In 2012, 32% of the food served on WMU’s campus

was processed or grown within a 250 mile-radius. In addition, the university is

engaging in a partnership with KVCC to create the nation's first higher education

programs in sustainable brewing.

Western Michigan University also has an Office for Sustainability with an emerging

program (the Gibbs House), that is undergoing a renovation (see Exhibit I.10,

attached), and when completed will include a Food Forest and Hoop House. Here is

its online description:

“The Gibbs House is an emerging program run by the Office for Sustainability that

serves as a living laboratory for students to implement their sustainable design

solutions and projects. The historic 150 year old house serves as a home for our

Gibbs Fellowship Program, borders the expansive Asylum Lake Preserve, and

features a developing permaculture landscape full of resources and projects.”

Western Michigan University – The Gibbs House


23 | P a g e

People’s Food Co-op, Kalamazoo – Sales of local products more than doubled

between 2008 and 2012 (from just over $110,000 to nearly $382,000), which

demonstrates growing demand of locally produced products. The Co-op includes a

new 1,400 sq. ft. commercial kitchen, which is used as a business incubator for food

preparation and the development of local food entrepreneurs.

Kalamazoo Farmers’ Market – The Food Co-op also manages the Kalamazoo Farmers

Market, which has a long history of connecting its vendors with local families and

businesses. Nearly 6,000 patrons visited the market each Saturday during the

summer of 2013. An expansion and renovation of the market is anticipated

sometime over the next few years.

Local Eating and Drinking Establishments – Many restaurants and micro-breweries

are now striving to buy produce and other supplies from local farmers. For example,

upscale restaurants like Rustica in Kalamazoo are sourcing 90% of their food locally

and in season. Others like Old Dog Tavern, Food Dance, and some of the breweries

are also sourcing what they can from local farmers.

Other Local Supporters – We have not researched farm-to-table initiatives that might

be underway among other stakeholders, but they might also warrant consideration

as potential partners. Some of the farmstead’s neighbors might be candidates, plus

other organizations and interest groups throughout the region.

A list of local stakeholders and potential supporters is provided on the following

page, and includes input during a public workshop that was facilitated in late May

2015 by OCBA and Nave AIA.


24 | P a g e

Stakeholders / Potential Supporters Local Reference

Hospice Care of Southwest Michigan Rose Arbor Hospice Care

Extendicare Foundation Tendercare of Westwood

Watermark Retirement Communities Fountains at Bronson Place

Friendship Village Senior Living Friendship Village Kalamazoo

Local Golf Courses Prairies Golf Club

United Way UW of Battle Creek & Kalamazoo

Foundations, Non-Profits Kalamazoo & Kresge Foundations

Area churches and places of worship Church of Jesus Christ LDS

Boys and Girls Clubs Greater Kalamazoo

YMCA / YWCA Sherman Lake Camp

Arts Council of Greater Kalamazoo Art Hop Stop

Kalamazoo Public School System K. Central, Linden Grove Middle

Kalamazoo Public Library Oshtemo, Kalamazoo branches

Kalamazoo Climate Coalition Kalamazoo Nature Center

Kalamazoo Garden Council Markin Glen Park

Neighborhood Associations Beech Ave. Association

Academies and Private Schools Edison Environ. Science Academy

CHS Inc. Farmer-Owned Agribusiness (Kalamazoo office may be closed)

Commercial / Wholesale Distributors Oikos Tree Crops

Retail Garden Centers Flowerland, Tom’s, Tuinier, Wenke

Regional Educational Service Agencies Kalamazoo RESA


25 | P a g e

Contact Information

This concludes the preliminary report for the Drake Farmstead Feasibility Study.

Again, this narrative and report may be revised and updated to reflect progress

underway on the plan and design. Until then, questions regarding this report, the

methodology, or strategy recommendations may be addressed to Sharon Woods of

LandUse|USA. Questions for Oshtemo Township may be addressed to Karen High

and questions regarding the plan may be addressed to Ken Peregon of OCBA.

Steering Committee Chair

Karen High

Zoning Administrator

Oshtemo Township

7275 W. Main Street

Kalamazoo, MI 49009

[email protected]

(269) 216-5223

Market Strategy, Project Manager Farm-to-Table Assessments

Sharon M. Woods, CRE Ryan E. Griffith, CFPM

LandUse|USA, LLC Growing Home Design

[email protected] [email protected]

(517) 290-5531 (717) 215-7541

Project Planning and Design Facility Architecture

Ken Peregon, ASLA Nelson Breech Nave

O'Boyle, Cowell, Blalock & Assoc. Nave AIA

[email protected] [email protected]

(269) 381-3357 2693430040

Sections A ‐ J

Drake Farmstead


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared by:

Table ofContents


Table of Contents

Executive Summary --

Market Strategy / Draft Plans A

Supply and Cluster Analysis B

Target Markets / Lifestyles C

National Retail Trends D

Economic Census Data E

Demographic Maps F

Market Parameters / Demand G

Farm-to-Table Trends H

Michigan Examples I

Township Master Plan 2011 J

Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan

Oshtemo Township

Historical Society

Prepared by:

Section

A

Drake Farmstead


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared by:

The Drake Farmstead - Existing Homestead Exterior and Interior

Oshtemo Township, Kalamazoo County, Michigan - 2015

Source: Original photos by LandUse|USA; 2015.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.1

The Drake Farmstead - Existing Kitchens


Top: Original historic "back kitchen" (stove not original). Bottom: Second "current kitchen."


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.2

The Drake Farmstead - Small slab from Carriage House, Potential New Kitchen



Shows Rose Harbor Hospice and small pond in background, natural vegetation, and perspective from the homestead.

New facility is speculated to be 40' x 60', or gross 2,400 square feet; and 2,000 square feet of of programmable space.

The cost of anew facility is estimated in the range of $300,000 - $500,000 (per stakeholder input); max capacity = 400 persons.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.3

Revenue-Generating Venues and Strategies

The 26-Acre Drake Farmstead

Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015

Rental Space - Connected to Carriage House Kitchen Formats / Function

$$$$ Restaurant $$$$ Full-Service Restaurant only

$$$$ Multi-purpose Event Ctr. $$$ Rental for Caterers

$$$ Non-Denominational Chapel $$ Ticketed Cooking Demos, Classes

$$$ Kitchen (see list to the right) $ Incubator Space, Entrepreneurs

$$ Meeting Space / Classroom Format

$$ Library, Parlour Meeting Space Other Brick-and-Mortar Venues

$$ Gazebo Rental Space $$$ Local Artisan's Gallery

$$ Amphitheater rental $$$ Gift Shop / Library Bookstore

$$ Picnic Pavilion Rental $$$ Farmers' Market Pavilion

$$ General Parking, Entrance Fees $$ Livestock Barn, Chicken Coop, Corncrib

$ Grounds, Outdoor Classrooms $$ Relocated Red Arrow Schoolhouse

$$ Historic House from 9th & Stadium

Ticketed Events Operational Support Only

$$$ Donations, Memberships -- Storage, Equipment Sheds

$$$ Farmstead Re-Enactments -- In-House Storage Rooms, Archives

$$ Enclosed Farm Equipment Museum -- Back Office, Breakroom

$$ Historical Village (relo. bldgs.) -- Hallways, Attic, Basement Storage

$ Horse-Drawn Carriage Rides -- Heating, Venting, Air Conditioning

$ Barnyard Tours, Pastures -- Pump House

$ Museum / Library / Reading Room

$ Indoor / Outdoor Gardening Classes

Source: Based on the market analysis prepared by LandUse|USA, with qualitative assessments of ideas discussed among stakeholders and steering committee members.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.4

Estimated Square Feet per Person by Facility Function

Prepared for Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015

Project Phase I Project Phase II

Low High 3,600 sf 3,600 sf 4,000 sf 4,000 sf

Sq. Ft. / Sq. Ft. / High Low High Low

Type of Facility Person Person Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity

Kitchens 50 150 72 24 80 27

Retail Stores 15 75 240 48 267 53

Cafeterias 15 50 240 72 267 80

Dining Halls 15 50 240 72 267 80

Restaurant 15 50 240 72 267 80

Bars 10 50 360 72 400 80

Taverns 10 50 360 72 400 80

Nightclubs 10 50 360 72 400 80

Cocktail Lounges 10 50 360 72 400 80

Lunch Rooms 15 50 240 72 267 80

Luncheonettes 15 50 240 72 267 80

Churches 7 50 514 72 571 80

Clubhouses 15 50 240 72 267 80

Library 15 50 240 72 267 80

Computer Rooms 50 150 72 24 80 27

Libraries 30 100 120 36 133 40

Museums 30 100 120 36 133 40

Offices - Single 32 100 113 36 125 40

Offices - Meeting Room 7 15 514 240 571 267

Schools - Lecture Rooms 7 15 514 240 571 267

Schools - Class Rooms 7 15 514 240 571 267

Schools - Laboratory 15 50 240 72 267 80

Town Halls 50 150 72 24 80 27

Source: Square footage requirements based on internet research with contribution from

Nelson Breech Nave Architect AIA and O'Boyle, Cowell, Blalock & Associates, Inc.

Phase I assumes 3,600 square feet of gross area with a 1st barn or rebuilt carriage house

with 1,000 sq. ft. on the ground level; plus a 2nd barn with 2,600 sq. ft. on the ground level.

Phase II assumes that a 3rd barn would be added at a later date and if the need supports it.

The third barn should have at least 4,000 square feet, but no more than 6,000 square feet.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.5

Marketing Strategies to Bolster Revenue-Generating Venues

The 26-Acre Drake Farmstead


Gardening, Farm-to-Table Education Private Events

$$ Classes on food preservation $$$$ Weddings, reunions, graduations

$ Community gardens; heirloom plants $$$$ National holidays, Mother's Day

$ Outdoor classrooms $$$$ Corporate retreats

$ Restored flower gardens $$$ Club and association gatherings

$ Boys / girls club gardens $$ Boys / Girls Scouts day camps

$ Oshtemo Historical Society meetings

Public Recreational Resources Public Events and Venues

$$ Native wild animal reserve / bird sanctuary $$$$ Artisan art fair

$$ Outdoor tours of historic farm equipment $$$$ Farmers' market

$$ Horse pastures $$$$ Classic car shows

$ Walking Trails (foot traffic only) $$$$ Antique Shows

$ Scenic, vista views of pond / barn deck $$$ Culinary art classes

$ Replanted native tree stands & wild flowers $$$ Art Hop gallery exhibits

$ Walking tours of native vegetation, prairie $$ High / Low Tea, Luncheons

$$ Farm demonstrations, re-enactments

Placemaking $ Guided, narrated tours

$$ Gateway entrances, wayfinding $ Historical library

$$ Croyden Drive Access / Egress $ Geneology research center

$$ Public restrooms $ Educational programming

$$ Wi-Fi $ Youth outreach programs

$ Barrier-Free Access, stair lift, elevator $ Volunteer programming

$ Fences, lamp lights

$ Authenic fences

$ Gravel driveways and parking areas

$ Integrate historic cupola from carriage house

$ indicates a subjective assessment of the item's ability to generate revenues.

Inventory and assessment prepared by LandUse|USA; 2015.

Source: Based on the market analysis prepared by LandUse|USA, with qualitative assessments of ideas discussed among stakeholders and steering committee members.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.6

Sharon

Text Box

Site Analysis Plan for the Drake Farmstead - Preliminary Exhibit A.7 Oshtemo Township, Kalamazoo County, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.6

Sharon

Text Box

Site Analysis Plan for the Drake Farmstead - Preliminary Exhibit A.8 Oshtemo Township, Kalamazoo County, Michigan - 2015

Examples of Outdoor Farm-to-Fork (Farm-to-Table) Classrooms

Prepared for the Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.11

Sharon

Text Box

Examples of Outdoor Farm-to-Fork (Farm-to-Table) Classrooms Prepared for the Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015

Examples of Barn-style Classrooms

Prepared for the Drake Farmstead - Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.12

Sharon

Text Box

Examples of Barn-Style Classrooms Prepared for the Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015

Examples of Open Kitchens with Classrooms / Event Space


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.13

Sharon

Text Box

Examples of Open Kitechens with Classrooms / Event Space Prepared for the Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015

Examples of Educational Kitchens for Culinary Arts


Sharon

Text Box

Examples of Educational Kitchens for Culinary Arts Prepared for the Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.14

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit A.1

Sharon

Text Box

Examples of Authentic Outdoor Play Areas and Obstacle Courses Prepared for the Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015

Section

B

Drake Farmstead


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared by:

Sharon

Text Box

Clustering of Restaurants in the Market Oshtemo Township, Michigan and West Kalamazoo - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit B.1

Sharon

Text Box

Source: Underlying Google map and aerial licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA; 2015. Restaurants based on field observations.

Sharon

Oval

Sharon

Text Box

Clustering of Restaurants in the Market Near the Drake Farmstead in Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit B.2

Sharon

Text Box


Sharon

Oval

Sharon

Oval

Sharon

Text Box

Drake Farmstead

Sharon

Text Box

Source: Underlying Google map licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA; 2015. Restaurants based on field observations.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit B.3

Sharon

Text Box


Sharon

Text Box

Source: Underlying Google map licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA; 2015. Restaurants based on field observations.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit B.4

Selected Shopping and Entertainment Venues

Highway 131 and Highway 43 in Oshtemo Township - 2015

Grocery Store Options National Chain Stores, Shopping Destinations

1 Meijer Supercenter 1 Kohl’s Dept. Store, Kay’s Jewelers

2 Walmart Supercenter 2 DSW Shoes, Marshall’s

3 Aldi Foods 3 Target Discount

4 Gordon Food Service 4 Lowe’s, Menards

5 Harding’s Friendly Market 5 Value City, Ethan Allen, Pier 1

6 Ethan Allen Furniture

Selected Attractions (not all-inclusive) 7 Hobby Lobby, Hobby Town USA

1 Oshtemo Public Library 8 Volvo, Subaru-Hyundai Dealers

2 Kalamazoo Goodrich 10 Cinema 9 Office Depot

3 The Prairies Golf Club 10 Dunham’s Sports, Petsmart

4 Oshtemo Township Park 11 Five Below, Dollar Tree, Goodwill

5 Western Michigan University

6 Kalamazoo Central High – Rec Facilities

7 Linden Grove Middle School – Soccer Fields

8 Judson Church, Bible Baptist, CoC LDS

Source: Field observations and internet research completed by LandUse|USA; 2015.

List is not intended to be all-inclusive and any omissions are unintential and unlikely to have a

direct bearing on recommendations or optimal strategies.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit B.5

Section

C

Drake Farmstead


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared by:

PicturePerfectFamilies

Babies andBliss

Aging ofAquarius

Sports UtilityFamilies

UnspoiledSplendor

Stockcars andState Parks

Settled andSensible

HomemadeHappines

DigitalDepents

Striving SingleScene

42% 40%47%

39% 47% 38%45%

56%

29%

68% 69% 74% 70% 64% 65%54% 55% 57% 52%

41% 38%

40%

43% 35%36% 37%

32%

40%

41%

Share

of

SelectedLifestyle

Clu

sters

Share of Households by Selected Lifestyle ClustersParticipation in Activities that Are Food-Related

The Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015 Cooking for Fun

Gardening

Restaurants (not fast food)

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and licensed to LandUse|USA through SItes|USA.Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA © 2015 with all rights reserved. Due to the varitey of methods that Experian uses togather and report this data, the categories might not be exclusive and might include some overlap.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit C.1

PicturePerfectFamilies

Babies andBliss

Aging ofAquarius

Sports UtilityFamilies

UnspoiledSplendor

Stockcars andState Parks

Settled andSensible

HomemadeHappines

DigitalDepents

Striving SingleScene

40%

25%

42% 21%

23%16%

19%

8%

21%14%

27%

45%

16% 38%

11% 24%14%

11%

25%

15%

36% 37% 39%29% 24% 19% 18%

7%19%

37%

17%17%

17%

16%

11% 14%

8%

7%

20% 22%

Share

of

SelectedLifestyle

Clu

sters

Share of Households by Selected Lifestyle ClustersParticipation in Activities that could Have Food-Related Themes

The Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2015

All Educ. Courses

Live Theater

Theme Parks

Museums

Source: Underlying Mosaic|USA data provided by Experian Decision Analytics and licensed to LandUse|USA through SItes|USA.Analysis and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA © 2015 with all rights reserved. Due to the varitey of methods that Experian uses togather and report this data, the categories might not be exclusive and might include some overlap.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit C.2

Annual Household Participation in Cultural Arts and Entertainment Venues

Weighted for Households Currently Living within 20 Miles of the Drake Farmstead


20-Mile Radius, Drake Farmstead Number of Share of

Oshtemo Township, Michigan Households Households

Eating and Drinking Establishments

Restaurants (not fast food) 57,908 58.9%

Bars, Nightclubs, Dancing 15,410 15.7%

Comedy Clubs 7,452 7.6%

Attended Cultural Arts Venues

Movie Theaters 62,195 63.2%

Live Theater 21,380 21.7%

Concerts 27,137 27.6%

Dance Performances 7,981 8.1%

Museums 21,508 21.9%

Attended Entertainment Venues

Spectator Sport Events 19,100 19.4%

Theme Parks 18,616 18.9%

Zoos 17,637 17.9%

Aquariums 11,404 11.6%

Participation in Hobbies

Cooking for fun 35,945 36.6%

Gardening 34,533 35.1%

Photography 19,885 20.2%

Educational Courses 12,565 12.8%

Playing musical instrument 9,339 9.5%

Needlework/quilting 9,317 9.5%

Painting, drawing, sculpting 7,254 7.4%

Source: Underlying data represents Mosaic|USA data as provided by

Experian Decision Analytics; licensed by Sites|USA. Analysis and

exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA © 2015 with all rights reserved.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit C.3

Annual Household Participation in Fitness and Sports Activities





Participation in Fitness Activities

Fitness Walking 41,034 41.7%

Swimming (pools and lakes) 31,619 32.2%

Jogging/Running 13,292 13.5%

Participation in Outdoor Activities

Visiting Beach / Lake 35,363 36.0%

Bird Watching 13,833 14.1%

Overnight Camping 13,011 13.2%

Bicycling, Mntn. or Road 10,933 11.1%

Backpacking/Hiking 9,554 9.7%

Horseback Riding 4,412 4.5%

Downhill / CC Skiing 3,034 3.1%

Participation in Team Sports

Golf (courses) 12,997 13.2%

Basketball (courts) 10,073 10.2%

Baseball (ball fields) 7,585 7.7%

Football (ball fields) 6,690 6.8%

Tennis (courts) 5,110 5.2%




Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit C.4

Annual Household Participation in Retail Sales





Total Households 138,488 --

Households with Vehicles 98,337 100.0%

Bought Sporting Goods Equipment 8,502 8.6%

Bought Games and Toys

Games and Toys 49,893 50.7%

Electronic Educational Toys 6,934 7.1%

Video Games 22,789 23.2%

Bought Childrens Books, Toys

Children's Books 21,196 21.6%

Infant Toys 12,385 12.6%

Pre-School Toys 11,803 12.0%

Collectibles, Memorabilia

Collectibles, Memorabilia 44,156 44.9%

Coins 12,477 12.7%

Ornaments 11,195 11.4%

Sports Memorabilia 4,946 5.0%

Other Retail Expenditures

Antique Shopping, Shows 14,267 14.5%




Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit C.5

Section

D

Drake Farmstead


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared by:

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

$500

$550

$600

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

Salesp

erSq

uare

Foo

t

Month-to-Month Sales Productivity (Sales per Square Foot)

All Retail Tenants Excluding Anchors; 1996 - 2014

The Great Lakes Region, Including Michigan

United States (Seasonally Adjusted)

Great Lakes Region (Seasonally Adjusted)

Source: Sales tracking by the International Council of Shopping Centers Research Department.Analysis by LandUse|USA; 2015.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit D.1

$1

,19

2

$9

03

$7

53 $6

66 $

54

2

$5

38

$5

29

$5

17

$4

84

$4

80 $

36

7

$3

34

$3

07

$2

80

$2

76

$2

59

$2

58

$2

22

$2

14

$1

75 $

84 $4

6

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

$1,100

$1,200

$1,300

$1,400

$1,500

Ho

me

Entert.,Electro

nics

Jewelry

Foo

dC

ou

rt

Perso

nalC

are

Ph

armacy,H

ealth,B

eau

ty

Toys,Ed

ucatio

nal,H

ob

by

Wo

men

'sA

ccessories

Specialty

Foo

dSto

res

FastFo

od

Restau

rants

Sho

eSto

res

Furn

iture

&Fu

rnish

ings

Perso

nalServices

Family

Ap

parel

Gifts,N

ovelty,Statio

nary

Ch

ildren

'sA

pp

arel

Spo

rting

Go

od

s,Bicycles

Wo

men

'sR

eady

toW

ear

Men

'sA

pp

arel

Bo

oks

Theaters

MallEn

tertainm

ent

Average

Salesp

erSq

uare

Foo

t

Average Sales per Square Foot by Retail Category

Non-Anchor Retail Tenants

Great Lakes Region, Including Michigan - 2014

Source: Sales tracking by the International Council of Shopping Centers Research Department; analysis by LandUse|USA; 2015.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit D.2

Sharon

Text Box

Sharon

Text Box

Sharon

Text Box

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

)'(+!0WWX^WLNM%C]X[N!?YNWRWP\!!!!!!!!!!!Kb!DNWJW]!DbYN!

)'(+!0WWX^WLNM%C]X[N!2UX\RWP\!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Kb!DNWJW]!DbYN!

"

#""

$""

%""

&""

'("""

'(#""

'($""

'(%""

'(&""

!"#

$%&'()'*+(&%

,

"

#""

$""

%""

&""

'("""

'(#""

'($""

'(%""

'(&""

!"#

$%&'()'*+(

&%,

Sharon

Text Box

Source: Data and charts provided by the Research Department at the International Council of Shopping Centers, and PNC Research (c) 2015. Intended for educational purposes only. Retail and Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC) includes brands like Aaron's, Petsmart, dollar stores, and others.

Sharon

Text Box

Announced Store Closings and Openings by Non-Anchor Tenants As an Indicator of Nation-Wide Industry Trends - 2014

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit D.3

Sharon

Text Box

Section

E

Drake Farmstead


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared by:

Analysis of Transacted Sales, Market Share, and Market Gaps20-Mile Radius for Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Twp., MI - CONSERVATIVE SCENARIO

NAICSCode Type of Store

Numberof

Estab.

TransactedSales($000)

AverageSales/Estab.

AverageSales per

Capita

Stores/1,000Capita

MarketShare

MaximumGap

(# Estab.)

ModerateGap

(# Estab.)

445 Food and beverage stores 124 $246,235 $1,986,000 $975 0.5 3.9% 19 9446 Health, personal care 84 $203,621 $2,424,000 $825 0.3 3.2% 4 2448 Clothing, accessories 121 $146,346 $1,209,000 $575 0.5 2.3% 4 2451 Sptg. goods, hobby, music 49 $94,732 $1,933,000 $375 0.2 1.5% 3 2

721 Hotels, motels, etc. 37 $53,940 $1,458,000 $225 0.1 0.9% 4 2722 Restaurants, drinking estab. 470 $360,708 $767,000 $1,450 1.9 5.7% 6 3

71 Arts, entertain., recreat. 106 $97,771 $922,000 $400 0.4 1.6% 7 3713 Amusement, gaming, recreat. 68 $63,380 $932,000 $250 0.3 1.0% 6 3

71391 Golf courses, country clubs 14 $26,328 $1,881,000 $100 0.1 0.4% 3 1

Source: Underyling data provided by the 2007 and 2012 Economic Census, 2010 U.S. Population Census,and 2008 - 2013 American Community Survey; analysis based on Kalamazoo County under a conservativescenario. Analysis, model, and exhibit prepared by LandUse|USA; © 2015 with all rights reserved.nc indicates not comparable. NAICS indicates the North American Industrial Classification System.Estab. Indicates establishments, including a mix of retail stores, hotels, and other brick-and-mortar venues.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Emp

loyees

per

1,0

00

Pop

ulatio

n

Per Capita Income

Counties in MichiganEmployees per 1,000 Population v. Per Capita IncomeEducational Services, Colleges, and Universities (61)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County

Source: Underlying data provided by the 2007 Economic Census, 2000 and 2010 Population Census, and PopStats.Analysis and exhibits prepared by LandUse|USA; November 2013. Market Share indicates sales per capita as a shareof income, unadjusted for import and export. High results imply high net import; low results imply high net export.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Emp

loyees

per

1,0

00

Pop

ulatio

n

Per Capita Income

Counties in MichiganEmployees per 1,000 Population v. Per Capita Income

Health Care and Social Assistance (NAICS 62)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.3

61%

-8% -16% -19% -45% -50% -55% -58% -59% -60%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Wayn

e

Ingh

am

Kalam

azoo

Ken

t

Wash

tenaw

Calh

ou

n

Saginaw

Maco

mb

Gen

esee

Jackson

Net

Imp

ort

(po

sitivevalu

es)an

dExp

ort

(negative

values)

Kalamazoo County, Michigan (with Comparisons)Net Import-Export of Expenditure Potential

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation

Source: Underlying data by the 2000 and 2010 Population Census, and the 2007 Economic Census;

analysis by LandUse|USA; December 2013. Results are based on average expenditures for Michigan.

Negative values indicate net export, and could be interpreted as a market gaps and opportunities.

Positive values indicate net import, and represent market strengths to be leveraged for growth.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.4

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income

Counties in MichiganMarket Share v. Per Capita Income

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreational Establishments (NAICS 71)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.5

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Emp

loyees

per

1,0

00

Pop

ulatio

n

Per Capita Income



Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.6

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income

Townships in MichiganMarket Share v. Per Capita Income


Michigan Townships

Oshtemo Township


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.7

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income


Amusement, Gambling, and Recreational Establishments (NAICS 713)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.8

23% 21%

15%9%

7% 6%

-3% -11% -15% -23%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Saginaw

Wayn

e

Kalam

azoo

Ingh

am

Ken

t

Calh

ou

n

Wash

tenaw

Maco

mb

Jackson

Gen

esee

Net

Imp

ort

(po

sitivevalu

es)an

dExp

ort

(negative

values)

Kalamazoo County, Michigan (with Comparisons)Net Import-Export of Expenditure PotentialHotel Accommodations and Food Services



Negative values indicate net export, and could be interpreted as a market gap and opportunities.


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.9

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income


Hotel/Motel Accommodations, Food Service Establishments (NAICS 72)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.10

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Emp

loyees

per

1,0

00

Pop

ulatio

n

Per Capita Income



Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.11

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income



Michigan Townships

Oshtemo Township


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.12

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Emp

loyees

per

1,0

00

Pop

ulatio

n

Per Capita Income

Townships in MichiganEmployees per 1,000 Populaton v. Per Capita Income


Michigan Townships

Oshtemo Township


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.13

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income


Hotel/Motel Accommodations (NAICS 721)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.14

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income


Food Service/Restaurants, Drinking Establishments (NAICS 722)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.15

23%20% 18%

11%

5% 5% 4% 3%-6% -9% -22%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Saginaw

Ken

t

Calh

ou

n

Gen

esee

Kalam

azoo

Maco

mb

Ingh

am

Jackson

Wayn

e

Shiaw

assee

Wash

tenaw

Net

Imp

ort

(po

sitivevalu

es)an

dExp

ort

(negative

values)

Kalamazoo County, Michigan (with Comparisons)Net Import-Export of Expenditure Potential

Retail Trade



Negative values indicate net export, and could be interpreted as a market gaps and opportunities.


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.16

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income


All Retail Establishments (NAICS 44-45)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.17

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income

Cities in MichiganMarket Share v. Per Capita Income


Michigan Cities

The City of Kalamazoo


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.18

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income



Michigan Townships

Oshtemo Township


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.19

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income


Food and Beverage Stores (NAICS 445)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.20

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.9%

1.0%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income

Counties in MichiganMarket Share v. Per Capita IncomeSpecialty Food Stores (NAICS 4452)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.21

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income


Health and Personal Care Stores (NAICS 446)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.22

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income


Clothing, Shoes, Jewelry, Accessories Stores (NAICS 448)(excludes Discount and Department Stores)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.23

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Market

Share

Per Capita Income


Sporting Good, Hobby, Musical Instrument, Book Stores (NAICS 451)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.24

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Emp

loyees

per

1,0

00

Pop

ulatio

n

Per Capita Income


General Mercandise, Discount, Department Stores (NAICS 452)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.25

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Emp

loyees

per

1,0

00

Pop

ulatio

n

Per Capita Income

Counties in Michigan

Employees per 1,000 Population v. Per Capita Income

Florists, Office Supply, Gift, Thrift and Antique Stores (NAICS 453)

Michigan Counties

Kalamazoo County


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit E.26

Section

F

Drake Farmstead


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared by:

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit F.1

Sharon

Text Box

Annual Entertainment Expenditures per Household Southeast Michigan Region - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Annual Entertainment Expenditures per Household Kalamazoo - Battle Creek Region, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit F.2

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit F.3

Sharon

Text Box

Annual Entertainment Expenditures per Household Kalamazoo Region, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit F.4

Sharon

Text Box

Estimated Daytime Population (Ages 16+) Kalamazoo Region, Michigan - 2014

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit F.5

Sharon

Text Box

Geographic Setting with Average Daily Traffic County Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2014

Section

G

Drake Farmstead


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared by:

Sharon

Text Box

Geographic Setting and Township Boundary Oshtemo Township, Michigan Relative to Kalamazoo County, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit G.1

Estimated Population (2015) 255,223Projected Population (2020) 257,875Census Population (2010) 250,331Census Population (2000) 238,601

2,6524,892

11,730

Estimated Households (2015) 104,920Projected Households (2020) 107,675Census Households (2010) 100,610Census Households (2000) 93,479

2,7554,3107,131

Estimated Average Household Income (2015) $63,388Projected Average Household Income (2020) $67,040Census Average Household Income (2010) $57,484Census Average Household Income (2000) $54,405

$3,652$5,904$3,079

Estimated Median Household Income (2015) $45,594Projected Median Household Income (2020) $47,289Census Median Household Income (2010) $42,477Census Median Household Income (2000) $42,315

$1,695$3,117

$162

Estimated Per Capita Income (2015) $26,329Projected Per Capita Income (2020) $28,261Census Per Capita Income (2010) $23,103Census Per Capita Income (2000) $21,319

$1,932$3,226$1,784

Estimated Families (2015) 61,468Estimated Average Family Income (2015) $85,733Estimated Median Family Income (2015) $63,818

Estimated Average Household Net Worth (2015) $398,508

KalamazooCounty

Number %

Sharon

Text Box

Market Parameters - Population and Income Kalamazoo County, Michigan - 2000 - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Source: Underlying data provided by American Geographic Solutions (AGS) and licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA; 2015.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit G.2

Drake Farmstead

Sharon

Text Box

Source: Underlying Google map licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA; 2015.

Sharon

Text Box

Geographic Setting and Township Boundary The Drake Farmstead and Oshtemo Township Relative to the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit G.3

Estimated Population (2015) 22,278Projected Population (2020) 22,361Census Population (2010) 21,702Census Population (2000) 17,003

83576

4,699

Estimated Households (2015) 10,245Projected Households (2020) 10,450Census Households (2010) 9,706Census Households (2000) 7,551

205539

2,155

Estimated Average Household Income (2015) $59,777Projected Average Household Income (2020) $63,233Census Average Household Income (2010) $51,844Census Average Household Income (2000) $54,008

$3,456$7,932

-$2,164

Estimated Median Household Income (2015) $45,581Projected Median Household Income (2020) $47,604Census Median Household Income (2010) $41,441Census Median Household Income (2000) $43,473

$2,023$4,140

-$2,032

Estimated Per Capita Income (2015) $27,566Projected Per Capita Income (2020) $29,627Census Per Capita Income (2010) $23,186Census Per Capita Income (2000) $23,872

$2,061$4,380-$686

Estimated Families (2015) 4,868Estimated Average Family Income (2015) $93,584Estimated Median Family Income (2015) $71,744Estimated Average Household Net Worth (2015) $371,414

OshtemoTownship

Number %

Sharon

Text Box

Market Parameters - Population and Income Oshtemo Township, Michigan - 2000 - 2015

Sharon

Text Box


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit G.4

Sharon

Text Box

Source: Underlying Google map and aerial licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA; 2015.

Sharon

Text Box

Geographic Setting with 5, 10, 15, 20-Mile Rings Drake Farmstead in Oshtemo County Relative to Southwest Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit G.5

Sharon

Text Box

Source: Underlying Google map licensed to LandUse|USA through Sites|USA; 2015.

Sharon

Text Box

Geographic Setting for 5, 10, 15, and 20-Mile Rings Drake Farmstead in Oshtemo County, Michigan Relative to the Cities of Kalamazoo and Battle Creek, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit G.6

Estimated Population (2015) 109,522 227,217 297,444 342,472Projected Population (2020) 110,937 229,768 300,211 345,839Census Population (2010) 106,039 222,717 293,648 338,746Census Population (2000) 103,278 212,371 278,711 323,263

1,415 2,551 2,767 3,3673,483 4,500 3,796 3,7262,761 10,346 14,937 15,483

Estimated Households (2015) 45,624 93,807 121,575 139,412Projected Households (2020) 46,948 96,306 124,527 142,814Census Households (2010) 43,149 89,834 117,178 134,522Census Households (2000) 40,664 83,541 108,350 124,759

1,323 2,499 2,952 3,4022,475 3,973 4,397 4,8902,484 6,293 8,828 9,763

Estimated Average Household Income (2015) $52,143 $60,799 $63,158 $62,958Projected Average Household Income (2020) $55,133 $64,290 $66,809 $66,605Census Average Household Income (2010) $47,128 $55,378 $57,174 $57,137Census Average Household Income (2000) $47,123 $52,578 $54,122 $53,965

$2,990 $3,491 $3,652 $3,648$5,014 $5,421 $5,984 $5,820

$6 $2,800 $3,052 $3,172

Estimated Median Household Income (2015) $40,782 $48,807 $50,746 $50,853Projected Median Household Income (2020) $42,028 $50,439 $52,475 $52,586Census Median Household Income (2010) $36,576 $44,073 $45,816 $45,939Census Median Household Income (2000) $37,853 $43,105 $44,761 $44,864

$1,246 $1,632 $1,729 $1,732$4,206 $4,734 $4,930 $4,914

-$1,277 $968 $1,055 $1,076

Estimated Per Capita Income (2015) $22,245 $25,403 $26,070 $25,881Projected Per Capita Income (2020) $23,849 $27,245 $27,965 $27,754Census Per Capita Income (2010) $19,177 $22,337 $22,815 $22,690Census Per Capita Income (2000) $18,506 $20,569 $20,970 $20,766

$1,604 $1,842 $1,895 $1,874$3,068 $3,066 $3,255 $3,191

$672 $1,768 $1,845 $1,925

Estimated Families (2015) 21,668 53,157 73,117 85,614Estimated Average Family Income (2015) $76,993 $83,377 $83,580 $81,629Estimated Median Family Income (2015) $59,851 $65,957 $66,820 $65,925

Estimated Average Household Net Worth (2015) $329,579 $381,437 $396,177 $396,978

5 MilesNumber %

10 MilesNumber %

15 MilesNumber %

20 MilesNumber %

Sharon

Text Box

Market Parameters - Population and Income 5, 10, 15, 20-Mile Rings around the Drake Farmstead Oshtemo Township,Kalamazoo County, Michigan - 2000 - 2015

Sharon

Text Box


Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit G.7

Section

H

Drake Farmstead


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared by:

Grow ing M ich igan’ s Fu ture 11

A Guide to Marketing

Your Michigan Food and

Agriculture Products

Growing Michigan’s

Future

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.1.a

Michigan State University Resources

MSU College of Agriculture & Natural

Resources

517-355-0232

www.canr.msu.edu

MSU AgBio Research

517-355-0123

www.agbioresearch.msu.edu

MSU Extension

517-355-2308 or 888-678-3464

msue.anr.msu.edu

MSU Institute for Food Laws and Regulation

www.iflr.msu.edu

MSU Product Center for Agriculture and

Natural Resources

517-432-8750

www.productcenter.msu.edu

MSU Center for Regional Food Systems

517-432-1612

www.foodsystems.msu.edu

Other Industry ResourcesAssociated Food and Petroleum Dealers

800-666-6233 or 248-671-9600;

Fax: 866-601-9610; [email protected];

www.afpdonline.org/index.php

Food Bank Council of Michigan

517-485-1202

www.fbcmich.org

Food System Economic Partnership

734-222-6859

www.fsepmichigan.org

Greenstone Farm Credit Services

517-318-2290

www.greenstonefcs.com

Huntington Bank Lending Program/

Economic Gardening

www.huntington.com/mipartnership

Michigan Ag Council

www.miagcouncil.org

Michigan Agri-business Association

517-336-0223

www.miagbiz.org

Michigan Association of Counties

800-258-1152 or 517-372-5374

www.micounties.org

Michigan Association of Fairs & Exhibitions

517-278-5367

www.michiganfairs.org

Michigan Business and Professional

Association

586-393-8800

www.michbusiness.org

Michigan Farm Bureau

517-323-7000

www.michiganfarmbureau.com

Michigan Agricultural Cooperative

Marketing Association, Inc.

517-323-7000

www.michiganfarmbureau.com

Michigan Agri-tourism Association

866-964-3628

www.michiganfarmfun.com

Michigan Farmers Market Association

517-432-3381

www.mifma.org

Michigan Festivals & Events Association

989-845-2080

www.michiganfun.us

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.1.b

Michigan FFA

517-353-9221

www.michiganffa.com

Michigan Food & Farming Systems

517-432-0712

www.miffs.org

Michigan Food Processors Association

231-271-5752

www.michfpa.org

Michigan Grocers Association

517-372-6800 or 800-947-6237;

Fax: 517-372-3002

www.michigangrocers.org

Michigan Horticulture Society

269-424-3990

www.mihortsociety.org and www.glexpo.com

Michigan Land Use Institute

231-941-6584

www.mlui.org

Michigan MarketMaker

http://mi.marketmaker.uiuc.edu

Michigan Organic Food and Farming Alliance

248-262-6826

www.moffa.org

Michigan Restaurant Association

517-482-5244 or 800-968-9668

www.michiganrestaurant.org

Michigan Small Business and Technology

Development Center

616-331-7485

www.misbtdc.org

Michigan Township Association

517-321-6467

www.michigantownships.org

Michigan Vegetable Council

734-848-8899

www.michiganvegetablecouncil.org

Northern Lakes Economic Alliance

231-582-6482

www.northernlakes.net

Putting Michigan Produce On Your Menu –

How to Buy and Use Michigan Produce In

Your Institution

www.mifarmtoschool.msu.edu/assets/files/

Michigan_Produce_Booklet_May%202010%20

low%20res.pdf

Michigan State University Resources

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.1.c

General Michigan Industry Resources

Federal Resources

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

www.ams.usda.gov

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

www.aphis.usda.gov

Farm Services Agency (FSA)

Michigan Office

517-324-5110

www.fsa.usda.gov

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

www.fns.usda.gov/fns

Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

Office of Field Operations

District Office, Wisconsin

608-240-4080

www.fsis.usda.gov

Office of Program Evaluation,

Enforcement and Review (OPEER)

Regional Compliance & Investigations

Division Offices

Midwest Region - Illinois

630-620-9822

Office of International Affairs (OIA)

Northern Import Field Office - Detroit

248-968-0722

National Agriculture Statistics Service

Michigan Office

517-324-5300

www.nass.usda.gov

Risk Management Agency

www.rma.usda.gov

Rural Development (RD)

Michigan Office

517-324-5157

www.rurdev.usda.gov

U.S. Food and Drug Administrationwww.fda.gov

Small Business AdministrationMichigan District Office

313-226-6075

www.sba.gov

State of Michigan ResourcesMichigan Department of Agriculture &

Rural Development

800-292-3939

www.michigan.gov/mdard

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

517-373-2329

www.michigan.gov/dnr

Michigan Economic Development Corporation

888-522-0103

www.michiganadvantage.org

Travel Michigan

517-335-4590

Pure Michigan Travel

888-784-7328

www.michigan.org

www.travelmichigannews.org

Michigan Department of Licensing and

Regulatory Affairs

517-373-1820

www.michigan.gov/lara

Michigan Business One Stop

877-766-1779

www.michigan.gov/business

Michigan Food Policy Council

517-335-4184

www.michigan.gov/mfpc

Michigan Department of Enviromental Quality

800-662-9278

www.michigan.gov/deq

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.1.d

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 3 | Vo l . 1 7 , N o. 3

F o o d i s a n i n c r e a s i n g ly i m p o rta n t a r e a o F wo r k for communit y p lanners and economic developers. the bus iness oppor tunit ies, publ ic heal th benef i ts, and qual i t y of l i fe assets involved in the emerging local and regional food sec tor are dr iv ing s igni f icant interest, innovat ion and investment across the countr y.

The New York Times, Cooperative Grocer and Crain’s Detroit Business newspapers, for example, recently highlighted local food-oriented business districts now forming in Grand Rapids, Marquette, and Traverse City. These articles illustrate the power of local and regional food to simultaneously stimulate entrepreneurship, strengthen neighborhoods, and promote community health and wellness.

Now a new guide, “Food Innovation Districts: An Economic Gardening Tool,” provides information, definitions, resources, and tools for communities interested in growing similar clusters of local and regional food and farm entrepreneurs and related activities through planning and economic development initiatives.

WhAt is A Food iNNoVAtioN district?A food innovation district is a geographic concentration of food-oriented businesses, services, and community activities. These districts can be large or small, urban or rural; they range from single multi-tenant facilities to several blocks in a village or city center. Uses can include a number of activities, in one or more of three primary categories:

P L A N N E r i N s i d E F o o d i N N o VAt i o N d i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PA g E s 1 , 3 - 8c o N N E c t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PA g E s 2 , 1 5r i g h t to FA r M A c t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PA g E s 9 - 1 1o F F i c i A L LY Y o U r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PA g E 1 22 0 1 3 - 2 0 1 4 M E M b E r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PA g E s 1 3 - 1 4

Continued on page 3

F o o d i N N oVAt i o N d i s t r i c ts: A N E co N o M i c g A r d E N i N g to o L

With funding from USDA Rural Development, the Northwest Michigan Council of Governments and the MSU Center for Regional Food Systems worked together with project partners Regional Food Solutions, Inc, MSU practicum students, and stakeholders throughout Michigan to prepare a guidebook that communities nationwide can use to establish and support food innovation districts. These districts, which feature clusters of related food businesses and industries, can help communities create jobs, support businesses, and grow their local or regional food system.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.2.a

M i c h i g A N P L A N N E r M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 3 | M i c h i g A N c h A P t E r o F t h E A M E r i c A N P L A N N i N g A s s o c i At i o N

3

• Producer-oriented elements like storage, distribution, processing, and other services needed to move produce from farms to consumers.

• Community-oriented elements, which link food activities with the public, such as education and local food purchasing programs.

• Place-oriented elements, including supportive local policies, festivals, events, farm-to-table restaurants and other activities contributing to a local food identity.

The unifying element is proximity: the district’s businesses, services, and related community and placemaking activity are close enough for peer-to-peer networking and business-to-business opportunities to grow. Clusters of complementary businesses support entrepreneurship and new business development by facilitating cooperation, fostering new business formation, reducing business costs through shared infrastructure and common expenses, promoting healthy competition, and increasing access to suppliers and other resources. Businesses and community activities clustered together in food innovation districts can be mutually supportive, providing the reliable customer base, product outlets, and resources that strengthen all involved.

WhY sUPPort thEsE districts?Regional food systems and food innovation districts offer numerous e c o n o m i c a n d c o m m u n i t y development opportunities:

• A 2006 report from the Michigan State University Product Center indicated that a committed, comprehensive support system for mostly smaller-scale food and agriculture entrepreneurs

such as those involved in local and regional food markets could generate 69,000 jobs statewide1.

• Districts generate jobs. A national survey of food hubs, natural anchors for food innovation districts, found they average seven full-time direct jobs and five part-time. Economic studies for a planned food innovation district in Traverse City show that a shared-use kitchen, year-round market, cold storage, and office space could generate nearly 90 jobs over five years. The Grand Rapids Downtown Market, opening in 2013, is projected to employ 270 directly and stimulate 1,271 jobs in the region.

• Predominant national and global supply chains, operating on high-volume, long-distance distribution models, present challenges to small and medium-scale producers wishing to market their products regionally. Strategic

Food Innovation Districts | Continued from page 1

development of regional food system infrastructure, including storage, packaging, processing and distribution facilities, can encourage connections between local producers and regional markets.

• Lack of fresh produce in many urban neighborhoods and rural communities contributes to high personal, community, and economic costs associated with diet-related chronic diseases. Food innovation districts enhance access to fresh, local food, contributing to public health goals.

• Food innovation districts can provide opportunities for communities to redevelop historic industrial or commercial areas, which offer new food and farm entrepreneurs loading docks, smaller-scale storage areas, and other needed infrastructure.

• Food and farming are essential in building a sense of place and

Figure 1: Food Hubs and Food Innovation DistrictsFood hubs and food innovation districts might both aggregate and distribute products from nearby farms. Districts, however, are defined by a specific spatial area and include networked businesses of different types. Districts are likely to form around food hubs. Or, where food hubs do not exist, the community of food entrepreneurs and healthy living initiatives that cluster in districts will likely incubate or attract food hubs.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.2.b


4

Detroit Eastern Market is a 240-acre district in central detroit, home to restaurants, shops, dozens of independent food processors and distributors, twice-weekly retail farmers’ markets, and a weekday seasonal wholesale produce market. the non-profit detroit Eastern Market corporation (EMc) manages Eastern Market’s retail and wholesale markets and is responsible for the larger district’s development. the city of detroit owns Eastern Market’s assets, and city leaders serve on the EMc board, which represents vendors, merchants, government and community interests. the EMc convenes the detroit Ag and Food business cluster Network, which facilitates peer-to-peer networking and new opportunities such as matchmaking with large institutional buyers. With the city’s planning department, Eastern Market is updating its zoning and developing design guidelines that will help it prioritize space for smaller, startup food production amid the influx of arts and other non-food activity. the EMc works actively to build the regional food system’s capacity, linking farmers with detroit Public schools and with markets in city neighborhoods. other plans include an incubator kitchen, commissary facilities, greenways, and a commercial urban agriculture demonstration project.

D E T R O I T E A S T E R N M A R K E T

The Village at Grand Traverse Commons is a 63-acre campus of a former state hospital in traverse city that features housing, shops, and offices, along with food innovation district elements such as a cluster of food/beverage businesses, community food events, and a year-round farmers market. A planned addition to the larger mixed-use grand traverse commons development will provide facilities for local food storage, processing, and marketing, including lease space for value-added food product makers. the grand traverse regional Market will repurpose an abandoned commissary building at the commons - an adaptive re-use of land and buildings that made up the historic campus.

the Northwest Michigan Food and Farming Network incubated the grand traverse regional Market idea over several years, culminating in formation of the grand traverse regional Market initiative. state and local funding sources supported a 2012 feasibility study that proposes developing producer-oriented elements, such as cold storage, and incubator kitchen, year-round farmers market, office space, and education, at the commissary building.

g r A N d t r AV E r s E r E g i o N A L M A r k E t: g r A N d t r AV E r s E c o U N t Y

quality of life, key ingredients for community success in the 21st century economy. Food innovation districts often include recreation, entertainment, retail, and other community-oriented activities that can enhance a community’s sense of place and quality of life.

While projects with a broad mix of uses in close proximity to each other have great potential for success, thinking about food innovation districts in a regional context can leverage many types of food innovation activity. For instance, a district in a rural livestock production area may include business services for farm entrepreneurs, such as a local meat company’s distribution hub and startup space for makers of specialty meat products. A nearby urban district might be retail and restaurant focused, with space and targeted programs to help specialty meat companies and others advance into their own storefronts. The two districts benefit from each other: the rural district is supply-oriented, while the urban district provides a market outlet and opportunities for business growth.

Examples of food innovation districts, in principle or in the making, exist nationwide. No existing legislation designates such districts or provides specific funding for them. But there are many steps planners, economic developers, and other stakeholders can take, and resources they can apply, to establish or support such districts.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.2.c


5

hoW: PLANNiNg thE districtStakeholders, business needs, community interest, or other motivational factors can drive the development of a food innovation district. But, regardless of the motivation or leadership, district development begins with an assessment and visioning, and then moves into implementation via planning, zoning and economic development activities.

As with all planning processes, assessment of needs and assets is essential in developing a clear vision for what a food innovation district should do and where it fits in. An assessment should include a review of community information, such as demographics and market information like basic food consumption and production statistics. It’s also important to understand the needs and interests of the community’s food systems

and businesses; and to identify the food innovation uses, activities, and opportunities currently available in the community.

The assessment process should also identify gaps and areas of opportunity that could point to short- and long-term business or redevelopment targets.

The findings of the assessment will point the community and stakeholders toward a vision, which will help define the scope, intent, and goals of the food innovation district, and will help the community prioritize activities and steer decisions around district location and features.

district boUNdAriEsLocation of a district will depend on many unique community factors, including the size, scale, and intended activities. Where food innovation activities are already thriving, the boundaries of a district may be immediately apparent; or, where the concept or uses are new or emerging, boundaries may emerge

Figure 2: Food Innovation District Development Process

Producer-oriented• Production, gardening• retail • Farmers’ markets• Wholesale commerce• Loading docks, truck access• Post harvest storage, processing• business incubation facilities

Community-oriented• restaurants• community kitchens• Education/nutrition outreach• harvest gleaning, food pantries

Place-oriented• Festivals, fairs, events• Pedestrian facilities• Plazas• Public art

d i s t r i c t A c t i V i t i E s : E x A M P L E U s E s

from the vision and the findings of the assessment process. Regardless of the situation, the district must balance its uses and activities with neighboring properties and businesses, considering issues such as: • Sewer and water access • Air, rail, and highway

transportation access • Connections to nearby farms • Presence of complementary

food production or innovation activities

• Market development opportunities with complementary uses like schools, institutions, commercial areas

• Redevelopment/adaptive re-use opportunities

• Proximity to shopping or entertainment districts

• Desired district character

In some communities, historic c o m m e r c i a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l neighborhoods may be a good fit for food innovation districts. These

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.2.d


6

districts generally offer access to sewer, water, and other infrastructure along with opportunities for adaptive reuse in areas that have experienced d is investment . For ex ample , Wisconsin’s Vernon County Economic Development Association (VEDA) renovated an abandoned industrial building into a food enterprise center using tax increment financing.

In other communities, where a food innovation focus is geared more toward retail or community-oriented activities, downtowns or other commercial areas may be most appropriate.

hoW: iMPLEMENtAtioNPlanning and Zoning

With uses in food innovation districts ranging from restaurants and retail to wholesale activities and urban agriculture, communities may need to consider planning or zoning

initiatives to ensure that these diverse uses are permitted in the targeted area.

As with any planning process, local government and community members undertaking planning initiatives for a district must focus on their vision for the area, how the district could help accomplish the vision, and whether the proposed type and scale of uses work with surrounding areas. It’s essential to have all stakeholders at the table to ensure that the district develops in a way that works for the farmers, food businesses, community organizations and others that it is intended to connect and support.

Planning approaches

For communities working to establish a food innovation district, it’s important to identify this goal in the master plan. Master plans have important legal connections

with local zoning, and strong master plan support can also help build momentum, attract support from funders, and link ongoing initiatives. Master plan language may address food systems in general, or it may identify specific goals around food innovation. One community that has addressed food innovation from a planning standpoint is the city of Lansing, which calls for a variety of food innovation elements in its master plan.

In food innovation planning, some communities may develop a sub-area plan, to provide a greater focus on a specific area or aspect of the community. These plans may be especially useful for food innovation districts because they provide an opportunity to detail the district’s vision, goals, boundaries, uses, and other features. Marquette County is taking a similar approach in the development of its master plan.

If certain desired food-related uses are not included in the food innovation district focus area, the community may consider amending existing zoning to allow these uses in applicable zoning districts. “Food Innovation Districts: An Economic Gardening Tool” includes zoning guidance and language intended to address some baseline considerations.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.2.e


7

Work on the plan began in 2012, and the process will include a local food element that will discuss ideas for coordinated development of the region’s food system, such as a proposed regional food hub in the city of Marquette.

In some communities, underlying zoning may already be flexible enough to accommodate the broad scope of food innovation district uses. In Grand Rapids, for example, existing zoning provides the flexibility needed for light food processing to develop alongside residences, retail, and activities like community gardens in an area next to the new Grand Rapids Downtown Market. This underlying zoning flexibility is opportune for broadening the food innovation district from the new Downtown Market to include vacant commercial and industrial property around it.

In other cases, where zoning conflicts exist, planning and zoning may need to be updated, amended, or reworked in order to integrate food-related uses into the community’s plans and ordinances. Potential zoning approaches that many be used to address food innovation districts include:

• New Zones. Communities may consider an entirely new zoning classification to focus their planning approach to food innovation districts. A new zoning district can provide a clean and clear start to the district, allowing the community to address potential needs and uses in a cohesive manner.

• Overlay Zones. An overlay zone can add flexibility, restrictions, or incentives to underlying land uses within a specified district or across several districts. It can add food innovation district uses and standards without creating the need to change each underlying

zone or rezone properties. Once a community has identified the boundaries of a food innovation district, for example, an overlay zone could add more uses to those portions of the industrial, commercial, and residential areas that the proposed district spans. Where only industrial uses may have been permitted in the past, the new overlay zone could make way for retail, services and restaurants that can take advantage of a food distribution center.

• Form-Based Zoning. Form-based zoning regulates the physical design of a building or site to a greater extent than its use. Because they focus more on the form or design of development, form-based zoning codes often allow for more of a mixture of uses such as residential and commercial. As such, form-based zoning could provide important flexibility for food innovation districts, which can encompass a broad variety of uses and activities.

• PUDs. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) allow for flexibility in development, with approval tied to a specific proposal. This flexibility is an important advantage for communities and developers that are working to develop or redevelop larger-scale, mixed-use neighborhoods. The PUD process has often been used in the development of new business, office, or industrial clusters, and may be an appropriate option for a food innovation district planned as a cohesive development.

Planning approaches will depend on the specific circumstances of the community and needs of the

district; and as with any planning process, it’s vital to ensure a strong element of public participation, with opportunities for all stakeholders to contribute to the process.

EcoNoMic dEVELoPMENtFinally, communities can support emerging food innovation districts with resources available from a number of existing programs.

Grants, loans, and tax incentives all play a role in development of real estate for food innovation districts, supporting property acquisition o r b u i l d i n g i m p r o v e m e n t s . Federal and state grant and loan oppor tunit ies , tax increment financing, business improvement districts, and renaissance zones can all help communities prepare for food innovation districts. They provide funding, incentives, and other resources for infrastructure, building rehabilitation, and public improvements such as sidewalks, streetscapes, or parking. One community that has taken advantage of these programs is the city of M a rq u e t t e , M i c h i g a n , w h e re components of a food innovation district are emerging, with help from a Commercial Rehabilitation District (CRD) the city set up to support a natural food store’s expansion. The CRD freezes tax increases on property improvements for five years, a financial boost that has helped the Marquette Food Cooperative leverage other financing.

Placemaking – a multi-faceted approach to the planning, design, and management of communities and neighborhoods - uses and improves existing community assets to make a place more usable, vibrant, and attractive. Placemaking is a powerful strategy that helps communities retain and attract business investment, by becoming places where people

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.2.f


coNcLUsioNFrom jobs to community development to health and quality of life, food innovation districts offer many important community benefits. While many initiatives, businesses, and programs can spur and support these districts, planning and economic development activities are important first steps for communities working to implement local or regional food system goals. To help communities plan for food innovation districts, “Food Innovation Districts: An Economic Gardening Tool,” offers step-by-step guidance on assessing, initiating, and implementing a district. The guide is online at www.nwm.org/food-innovation-districts.

rEFErENcEPeterson HC, Knudson WA, Abate G. The Economic Impact and Potential of Michigan’s Agri-Food System: Michigan State University Product Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources; 2006

AboUt thE AUthors

S a r a H Lu C a S is a regional planner at the Northwest Michigan Council of Governments, where works closely with local governments, nonprofits, and other community stakeholders in the 10-county Northwest Michigan region on a variety of community issues, with a focus on community development. She is certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners and holds a Bachelor’s degree in Urban and Regional Planning from Eastern Michigan University.

L au r a G o D D E E r I S is a specialist with the Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems, where she coordinates outreach engaging national organizations in improving food systems and community environments. Her recent work has focused on opportunities for local governments to support regional food systems. She received her Master’s in Urban Planning and Policy from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

PaT T y C a n T r E L L of Regional Food Solutions, LLC is a journalist and community organizer focused on new business models and public policy directions for developing local food economies. Recently returned to her home territory of Missouri, she now directs the Healthy Living Alliance in Springfield, MO, uniting the work of more than 40 organizations to increase healthy eating and active living there. She has been a leader of local food initiatives in Michigan and worked at the national level as a Food and Society Policy Fellow and a consultant with the National Good Food Network.

8

want to be. It’s particularly relevant for business-focused areas like food innovation districts that benefit from connections between people and place. For instance, in 2012, the Michigan Main Street organization in the city of Niles celebrated the opening of a food business incubator in its downtown district. Businesses that will sell products in Niles and help build its reputation as a “foodie” place are of particular interest to the program.

Other business and workforce development programs provide support that can help a regional food cluster grow. These programs promote the growth of farms and other enterprises in local and regional food markets. One example is the Ag and Food System Sector Alliance of northwest lower Michigan, a group made up of regional economic and workforce development agencies. The Alliance cultivates face-to-face business networking and events that address particular issues, such as the need to build bankers’ familiarity and engagement with local agriculture. The Alliance is among those involved in food innovation district development at the Grand Traverse Commons in Traverse City.

• Us department of housing and Urban development: community development block grants; sustainable communities Program

• Us department of Agriculture rural development: rural business Enterprise or opportunity grants, community Facilities Program

• Us department of commerce: Economic development Administration assistance programs

• Michigan department of Agriculture and rural development: Value Added/regional Food system grant Program

• Michigan Economic development corporation: Farm to Food Program

i N i t i At i N g , E x PA N d i N g , o r s U P P o r t i N g A F o o d i N N o VAt i o N d i s t r i c t: s A M P L E F U N d i N g P r o g r A M s

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.2.g


1 2 | o F F i c i a l ly yo u r s

o F F i c i A L LY Yo U r sth e O f f i c i a l l y Yo u r s f e at u re provides local appointed and elected officials with both basic and advanced topics address ing issues unique to the role as a local government representative. In this issue of the Michigan Planner magazine, there are plenty of words and phrases that are used when referencing food systems. Below is a list of commonly used definitions that can help you when updating your community’s planning policies, plans, and regulations regarding food-related topics.

co M M U N i t Y s U P P o r t E d Ag r i c U Lt U r E c o n s i s t s o f a c o m m u n i t y o f individuals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the farmland becomes, either legally or spiritually, the community’s farm, with the growers and consumers providing mutual support and sharing the risks and benefits of food production. (USDA.gov)

cottAgE Food oPErAtioN means a person who produces or packages cottage food products only in a kitchen of that person’s primary domestic residence within this state. (Michigan Food Law, PA 92 of 2000, legislature.mi.gov)

cottAgE Food ProdUct means a food that is not potentially hazardous food as that term is defined in the food code. Cottage food product does not include any potentially hazardous food. (Michigan Food Law, PA 92 of 2000, legislature.mi.gov)

FArMErs MArkEt means a public and recurring assembly of farmers or their representatives selling directly to consumers food and products that the farmers have produced themselves. In addition, the market

may include a variety of other vendors as determined by market management. (Michigan Food Law, PA 92 of 2000, legislature.mi.gov)

A pre-designated non-municipally owned or operated area, with or without temporary structures, where vendors and individuals who have raised the vegetables or produce or have taken the same on consignment for retail sale, sell vegetables or produce, flowers, orchard products, locally-produced packaged food products and/or animal agricultural products. (City of Detroit Urban Agriculture Ordinance)

FArM stANd A temporary structure, accessory to an urban garden or urban farm for the display and sale of vegetables or produce, flowers, orchard products, locally-produced packaged food products and similar non-animal products grown or produced on the general property of the urban garden or urban farm upon which the stand is located. (City of Detroit Urban Agriculture Ordinance)

Food hUb a centrally located facility with a business management structure facilitating the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and/or marketing of locally/regionally produced food products. (USDA.gov)

grEENhoUsE A building or structure whose roof and sides are made largely of glass or other transparent or translucent material and in which the temperature and humidity can be regulated for the cultivation of plants for personal use and/or for subsequent sale. A greenhouse may or may not be a permanent structure. (City of Detroit Urban Agriculture Ordinance)

hooPhoUsE or high tUNNEL An unheated structure whose roof and sides are made largely of transparent or translucent material (not glass) for the purpose of the cultivation of plants for personal use and/or for subsequent sale. (City of Detroit Urban Agriculture Ordinance)

hYdroPoNics A method of growing plants without soil, using mineral nutrient solutions or water, or in an inert medium such as perlite, gravel, or mineral wool. (City of Detroit Urban Agriculture Ordinance)

MobiLE Food EstAbLishMENt means a food establishment operating from a vehicle, including a watercraft, that returns to a mobile food establishment commissary for servicing and maintenance at least once every 24 hours. (Michigan Food Law, PA 92 of 2000, legislature.mi.gov)

UrbAN FArM A zoning lot, over one acre, used to grow and harvest food crops and/or non-food crops for personal or group use. An urban farm may be divided into plots for cultivation by one or more individuals and/or groups or may be cultivated by individuals and/or groups collectively. The products of an urban farm may or may not be for commercial purposes. (City of Detroit Urban Agriculture Ordinance)

UrbAN gArdEN A zoning lot, up to one acre of land, used to grow and harvest food or non-food crops for personal or group use. The products of an urban garden may or may not be for commercial purposes. (City of Detroit Urban Agriculture Ordinance)

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit H.2.h

Section

I

Drake Farmstead


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared by:

Educational Programs, Event Space, and Commercial Kitchens

Success Stories in the State of Michigan - 2015

Count Name Location

Educ.

Program

Educ.

Agric.

Event

Space

Commerc.

Kitchen Website

1 Kalamazoo Nature Center Kalamazoo x x x x naturecenter.org/Home.aspx

2 Fernwood Botanical Nature Preserve Niles x . . x x fernwoodbotanical.org

3 Woldumar Nature Center Lansing x x x . . woldumar.org

4 Blandford Nature Center Gd Rapids x x x . . blandfordnaturecenter.org

5 Hartley Outdoor Education Center St. Charles x x x x sisd.cc/hartley/about-us

6 Pine River Nature Center Goodells x x x . . sccresa.org/countyeducation

7 Pierce Cedar Creek Institute Hastings x x x x cedarcreekinstitute.org/index.html

8 Boardman River Nature Center Traverse City x . . x x natureiscalling.org/explore/nature-center

9 Dahlem Environmental Education Ctr. Jackson x x . . . . dahlemcenter.org

10 Howell Conference and Nature Center Howell x . . x x howellnaturecenter.org

11 Chippewa Nature Center Midland x x x . . chippewanaturecenter.org

12 DeVries Nature Conservancy Owosso x x x . . sites.google.com/a/devriesnature.org

13 U of M Enviromental Interpretive Ctr. Dearborn x x x . . umdearborn.edu/eic

14 The Maple Grille Hemlock . . x . . x themaplegrille.net

15 For-Mar Nature Preserve, Arboretum Burton x . . x . . geneseecountyparks.org

16 Fenner Nature Center Lansing x . . x . . mynaturecenter.org

17 Howard Christensen Nature Ctr. Kent City x . . x x lilysfrogpad.com

18 Wint Nature Center Clarkston x . . x . . destinationoakland.com

19 Red Oaks Nature Center Madison Hts x . . x . . destinationoakland.com

20 Dinosaur Hill Nature Preserve Rochester x x x . . dinosaurhill.org

21 Drayton Plains Nature Center Waterford x . . . . . . dpnaturecenter.org

22 Nature Educ. Ctr., Hemlock Cross. Park West Olive x . . x x https://www.miottawa.org

23 Nichols Arboretum Ann Arbor x . . x . . lsa.umich.edu/mbg

24 Nankin Mills Nature Center Westland x . . . . . . waynecounty.com/dps/2021.htm

Inventory prepared by Growing Home Design in collaboration with LandUse|USA; 2015.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit I.1

Heritage Buildings, Restaurants, Gift Shops, and Arboretums or Museums

Success Stories in the State of Michigan - 2015

Count Name Location

Heritage

Bldgs

Restaur.

on Site

Gift

Shop

Arboretum

Museum Website

1 Kalamazoo Nature Center Kalamazoo x . . x x naturecenter.org/Home.aspx

2 Fernwood Botanical Nature Preserve Niles . . x x x fernwoodbotanical.org

3 Woldumar Nature Center Lansing x . . x . . woldumar.org

4 Blandford Nature Center Gd Rapids x . . x . . blandfordnaturecenter.org

5 Hartley Outdoor Education Center St. Charles x . . . . . . sisd.cc/hartley/about-us

6 Pine River Nature Center Goodells x . . . . x sccresa.org/countyeducation

7 Pierce Cedar Creek Institute Hastings . . . . . . . . cedarcreekinstitute.org/index.html

8 Boardman River Nature Center Traverse City . . . . . . x natureiscalling.org/explore/nature-center

9 Dahlem Environmental Education Ctr. Jackson . . . . x x dahlemcenter.org

10 Howell Conference and Nature Center Howell . . . . x . . howellnaturecenter.org

11 Chippewa Nature Center Midland x . . . . . . chippewanaturecenter.org

12 DeVries Nature Conservancy Owosso . . . . . . x sites.google.com/a/devriesnature.org

13 U of M Enviromental Interpretive Ctr. Dearborn . . . . . . x umdearborn.edu/eic

14 The Maple Grille Hemlock . . x . . . . themaplegrille.net

15 For-Mar Nature Preserve, Arboretum Burton . . . . . . x geneseecountyparks.org

16 Fenner Nature Center Lansing . . . . x . . mynaturecenter.org

17 Howard Christensen Nature Ctr. Kent City . . . . . . . . lilysfrogpad.com

18 Wint Nature Center Clarkston x . . . . . . destinationoakland.com

19 Red Oaks Nature Center Madison Hts . . . . . . x destinationoakland.com

20 Dinosaur Hill Nature Preserve Rochester . . . . . . . . dinosaurhill.org

21 Drayton Plains Nature Center Waterford x . . x . . dpnaturecenter.org

22 Nature Educ. Ctr., Hemlock Cross. Park West Olive . . . . . . . . https://www.miottawa.org

23 Nichols Arboretum Ann Arbor . . . . . . x lsa.umich.edu/mbg

24 Nankin Mills Nature Center Westland x . . . . x waynecounty.com/dps/2021.htm

Inventory prepared by Growing Home Design in collaboration with LandUse|USA; 2015.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit I.2

Michigan Success StoriesPrepared for the Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Twp. - 2015

There are many examples in the region of successful business models that include therevenue-generating components being considered by the Drake Farmstead. As shown inSection I, these examples were inventoried; the inclusion of educational programs, theexistence of heritage buildings on site, an event space that can be rented out, acommercial kitchen and a restaurant on site, a farm, garden or other agriculturaleducation, a gift shop, and an arboretum or museum, were noted for each business.

In addition, five examples were selected as particularly interesting as each one containsmany combinations of the noted revenue-generating components that are beingdiscussed as options for the Drake Farmstead. An image of the businesses’ websites isincluded below.

Kalamazoo Nature Center

The Kalamazoo Nature Center is theclosest example in proximity to the DrakeHomestead site. What sets it apart frommany other examples is that it has acommercial kitchen on site as well ashistorical buildings, and a museum.

Fernwood Nature Preserve

Located in Niles, the FernwoodBotanical Garden and Nature Preserveis a good example of a business modelthat includes a restaurant on site. Itincludes a gift shop and a rentableevent space for revenue generation.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit I.3

Michigan Success StoriesPrepared for the Drake Farmstead, Oshtemo Twp. - 2015

Woldumar Nature Center

Woldumar Nature Center in Lansing is home to 178acres, over 5 miles of trails, outreach and on-siteEnvironmental Education programs for children as wellas adults. They also have a strong connection to localagricultural roots.

Blandford Nature Center

Blandford Nature Center leases its 143acres from the City of Grand Rapids.While they do not have a museum or acommercial kitchen on site, they do haveheritage buildings available for-lease andfor special events.

Hartley Outdoor Education Ctr.

In addition to hosting a slate ofenvironmental education programs, anevent space that is complete with acommercial kitchen, the HartleyOutdoor Education Center in St. Charlesis also a historical site and has amuseum, several heritage buildings,and a farm learning center.

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit I.4

Success Stories - Woldumar Nature Center

The City of Lansing, Michigan - 2015

Success Stories - Kalamazoo Nature Center

The City of Kalamazoo, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit I.5

Success Stories - Blandford Nature Center

Grand Rapids, Michigan - 2015

Success Stories - Fernwood Botanical Garden and Nature Preserve

The City of Niles, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit I.6

Success Stories - Hartley Outdoor Education Center

The City of St. Charles, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit I.7

Sharon

Text Box

Success Stories - Hartley Outdoor Education Center The City of Niles, Michigan - 2015

Sharon

Text Box

Location: 9123 Q Avenue Mattawan, Michigan 49071

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit I.8

Sharon

Text Box

Success Stories - Pretty Lake Camp and Farm The City of Mattawan,Michigan - 2015

CWIWUV!6-!3124

TGRQTV!RTQFWEGF!D[<!

Econsult Solutions, Inc.1435 Walnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19102

W/U/!MKVEJGP!KPEWDCVQTU<!

CP!KPFWUVT[!UPCRUJQV!

Geqpuwnv!Uqnwvkqpu!!~!!2546!Ycnpwv!Uvtggv-!Uvg/!411!~!Rjkncfgnrjkc-!RC!2;213!!

326.828.3888!!~!!geqpuwnvuqnwvkqpu/eqo!

!

! !

10

Geqpuwnv!Uqnwvkqpu!!!~!!!2546!Ycnpwv!Uvtggv-!Uvg/!411!!!~!!!Rjkncfgnrjkc-!RC!2;213!!!~!!!326.828.3888!!!~!!!geqpuwnvUqnwvkqpu/eqo!

W/U/!MKVEJGP!KPEWDCVQTU<!CP!KPFWUVT[!UPCRUJQV!~!HKPCN!TGRQTV!

>!2111!Us/!Hv/!

6&!

2111.3;;;!!Us/!

Hv/!62&!

4111.7;;;!Us/!

Hv/!29&!

8111.21111!Us/!Hv/!24&!

@!21111!Us/!Hv/!24&!

Vqvcn!Uswctg!Hqqvcig!qh!4;!tgurqpfgpvu!

1

1/2

1/3

1/4

1/5

1/6

1/7

1/8

1/9

1/;

Hceknkvkgu!Cxckncdng!)d{!&*+!qwv!qh!55!tgurqpfgpvu!

Rctmkpi!Nqv!39&!

Kpvgtkqt!Tgegkxkpi!

;&!Nqcfkpi!Ctgc!38&!

Rcnngv!Lcem0Hqtm

nkhv!29&!

Pqpg!29&!

Hceknkvkgu!hqt!Ujkrrkpi0Tgegkxkpi+!

qh!55!tgurqpfgpvu!

QXGTCNN!HCEKNKVKGU!

The most common size for an incubator is between 1,000 and 2,999 square feet (51% ofrespondents). Most facilities include rental kitchens, dry storage, refrigerated storage, and freezerstorage, as well as a variety of other facilities. On average, rental kitchen areas are 1,673 squarefeet, dry storage is 1,450 square feet, cold storage is 472 square feet, and freezer storage is 164square feet. To assist with loading and receiving, 27% of incubators have a loading area, and18% provide access to a pallet jack or forklift.

Cxgtcig!Urceg!Cxckncdng!hqt!Gcej!Ctgc+!qwv!qh!46!tgurqpfgpvu

Kpewdcvqt!Ctgc! Cxgtcig!Urceg!)us!hv*!

Tgpvcn!Mkvejgpu! 2-784!

Ft{!Uvqtcig! 2-561!

Qhhkeg! 898!

Encuutqqo!Urceg! 875!

Nqcfkpi!Ctgcu! 711!

Eqnf!Uvqtcig! 583!

Htgg|gt!Uvqtcig! 275!

Qvjgt! 2-856!

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit I.9

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit I.10

Section

J

Drake Farmstead


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared for:


Oshtemo, Michigan


Prepared by:

CHAR TER TOWNSHIP OF OSHTEMO MASTER PLAN

Existing Land Use By Category

LEGEND

Residential Commercial/Industrial Public/Semi-Public Infrastructure Undeveloped Not in Oshtemo

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit J.1


Future Land Use Oshtemo Charter Township, Kalamazoo County, Michigan

LEGEND

Rural Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Manufactured Residential Transitional Mixed Use Local Commercial General Commercial Village Commercial Research Office General Industrial Sub Area

Neighborhood Commercial Nodes

Sub-Areas Genesee Prairie West Main Street Maple Hill Drive South Century Highfield 9th Street

Base map Source: MiGCl v6b & v7b Data Source: Oshtemo Township, 2008; McKenna Associates, 2012

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit J.2


West Main Street Sub-Area Plan Oshtemo Charter Township, Kalamazoo County, Michigan

LEGEND

Low Density Residential Transitional Residential West main Commercial Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Transitional Mixed Use General Commercial Sub Area

New Intersection Proposed Service Road Proposed Local Road Proposed Local Collector Interconnected Parking Lots

Base map Source: MiGCl v6b & v7b Data Source: Oshtemo Township, 2008; McKenna Associates, 2010

Sharon

Text Box

Exhibit J.3

drake farmstead the charter township of oshtemo, …...4) design the master plan so the project is...

Documents