THE NIMBY STUDY A Critical Look Back at Very Controversial Development Projects Minnesota District Council of the Urban Land Institute ULI -and- Sensible Land Use Coalition SLUC October 27, 2004
Moderator John Shardlow, AICP President/Director of Planning, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Vice Chair, ULI Minnesota
Introduction The idea for this study occurred to me driving home from a very, very, very long, uncomfortable public hearing. Lengthy testimony A lot of misinformation Fear, apprehension
Introduction (continued) I wondered if anyone has ever gone back a couple of years after controversial projects are actually built, to see if the negative impacts predicted by the opponents actually came to pass
Candidate Project Criteria Project must have been very controversial when proposed Organized opposition Beyond general concerns to specific predictions of negative results: increased crime, traffic accidents, decline in property values, etc.
Project Identification Contacted the League of Minnesota Cities, Kevin Frazell, Member Services Director Broadcast E-mail to All Member Cities, Return Response to me
Project Selection Only screening that occurred was to eliminate projects that did not fit the criteria Projects denied Projects that were withdrawn and substantially changed
Minnesota State University Mankato Role Two graduate students at the Urban and Regional Studies Institute each agreed to research two case studies Satisfied the research paper requirement for Master s Degree Program
Faculty Advisors: Minnesota State University, Urban and Regional Studies Institute Anthony J. (Tony) Filipovich, Ph.D., Professor and Chair David Laverny-Rafter AICP, Professor
Presenters Michael Strodtman Planner, City of Park Rapids Kristi Wibben Graduate Assistant, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Minnesota State University, Mankato Thomas G. O Neil Director of Market Research, DSU
Reactor Panel Bruce Malkerson Attorney, Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Craig Ebeling City Manager, City of Burnsville Tom Goodman Attorney, Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, PA
NIMBY Case Study Locations
Case Study 1: Minnetonka Mills Townhomes Minnetonka
Minnetonka Mills Regional Location
Minnetonka Mills Project Overview 30 affordable rental townhomes on site between commercial and single-family uses 2-, 3- and 4-bedroom units for low-income families 4 Hollman units Developed by The Cornerstone Group First proposed in April 1996 Opened in late October 1997 3.75-acre site Required demolition of three single-family homes
Minnetonka Mills Opposition to Project 1 st Neighborhood Meeting, May 1996 3 issues arose: Increase in traffic (problems for neighborhood residents) Increase in crime in the neighborhood Safety for children in proposed development (traffic; possibility of drowning in stormwater pond) 2 nd Neighborhood Meeting, June 1996 59 area residents attended Additional concerns voiced: Property values will decline The level of noise will increase for surrounding homes Drainage problems will cause flooding
Minnetonka Mills Opposition to Project (continued) Concerns discussed in a variety of meetings including: EDA and planning commission meetings, September 1996 Public hearings (Planning Commission meetings) in August and September 1996 Opposition letters submitted to City in October just prior to vote on approval City council approved in October 1996
Minnetonka Mills Investigative Process Follow-up interviews with residents who opposed the project Review of traffic counts Interviews with City staff including the City s Crime Specialist Review of detailed property value impact study funded by the Family Housing Fund
Minnetonka Mills Research Findings Some former resident opponents are now happy with the development The developer reported many positive comments at the open house from residents who expressed opposition. Resident comment: I was concerned that people from the innercity would move in and destroy our peaceful neighborhood. I have since found our new neighbors to be respectful and caring. Crime did not increase City s Crime Specialist: The development has not increased crime or other problems. City attitudes are positive about the project A City staff member indicated that the city is pleased with the project and the city has not had any problems with crime, noise or other disruption.
Minnetonka Mills Research Findings (continued) Minnetonka Mills did not create traffic problems City staff member: The increase in traffic has been from retail development and improvements to the intersection on Hopkins Crossroad, not from Minnetonka Mills. Property values did not decline; sellers had no trouble selling homes in adjacent area after Minnetonka Mills was built (according to a Family Housing Fund study)
Case Study 2: Cub Foods at Har Mar Mall Roseville
Cub Foods Regional Location
Cub Foods Project Overview Developed by Bradley Operating Limited Partnership, owner of Har Mar Mall 13,500 square foot addition to the mall 75,000 s.f. + store in existing space Single-family homes bordering parking lot March 1999 first approval request from city.
Cub Foods Opposition to Project Everything But the Kitchen Sink Hours of operation 24 hours Traffic/Parking Noise pollution Lights Long term desirability to live in Roseville Size of building Trash Pedestrian safety Crime Flooding
Cub Foods Investigative Process Extensive follow-up calls to residents Interviews with City staff
Cub Foods Research Findings Increase in truck traffic, but not a big problem nearby resident Others feel truck traffic has been a nuisance Cub is a good addition to the mall Lights are not an issue due to 14-foot fence With the new stormwater pond we have not had any problems with flooding
Case Study 3: Cliff Lake Centre
Cliff Lake Centre Regional Location
Cliff Lake Centre Project Overview 288,000 square foot retail center anchored by Target and Cub Foods Directly adjacent to a residential area and school Opposition started in 1985; built in 1987 Highly wooded area with many oak trees