Tom Leighton recently (10/15) raised the issue/question of how neighborhoods can have meaningful input and participation in project/development-specific city decision making. He also made reference to the fact that any such input and/or recommendation (from neighborhood associations) on particular projects is advisory in nature; said neighborhood advice could be directed toward city agencies (CPED), boards, commissions, or even the City Council. His stated interest was in the 'balance between having overall city policies that make sense, and allowing the community to have meaningful participation' in city decision making. A basis of Tom's concern/interest was a recent SWJ article on the Tangletown Neighborhood Association's voiced opposition to a new business wanting to locate in the neighborhood. In spite of the formal local opposition, the City Planning Commission approved the project, as did the City Council. TNA members were stunned.
Tom continued, saying he'd be > interested to hear other stories about neighborhood input on > development projects, and what people learned about the kinds of > input that was appropriate/inappropriate or > effective/ineffective. After we trade some illustrative stories, > I was thinking we could try a Issues List conversation on whether > and how neighborhood input can still be meaningful, even where it > must be balanced against overall city policies, and limited by > the particular context of the decision at hand? ~~~~~~~~~~~~ [MH] This could get interesting, Tom. I'll start off with a reference to what I consider a near-perfect case study of a neighborhood-directed development project in Linden Hills several years ago. I'll follow-up with some general comments. Specific Project-- The Linden Hills NRP was pursuing a commercial district development project as a part of their larger Phase I Plan. The NRP established a Project Management Team (PMT), made up of small business owners, commercial property owners, NRP delegates and a City/Urban Planner from the Minneapolis Planning Department. An RFP was developed and issued, seeking a professional planning and design team to help the neighborhood develop and define a plan to improve the commercial business district-- in a manner consistent with overall neighborhood interests as well as all city codes and ordinances, including the City Comprehensive Plan. Not a small task, given the many diverse interests being represented at the table (via the PMT). Proposals were received and evaluated and a contract awarded. Long story short-- We ended up with streetscape designs for commercial corridors, and detailed plans for some roadway improvements, curb and gutter, street lamps, and much more in the 43rd and Upton area. We worked closely with Public Works (facilitated by the City Planner) and got agreement from all parties as to compliance with the Comp. Plan, etc. We kept our City Council person informed and worked with all pertinent city agencies. We even had the State Highway Dept. involved on one section of roadway and ended up getting a third of overall project funding from the State to do some of the needed roadway improvements. Business owners and commercial property owners negotiated what could be done from their financial perspective, then agreed to form a Special Assessment District for taxation purposes to get the job done. In the end, the NRP leveraged their funds 3:1 and got nearly a $500,000 project completed that satisfied the interests of all parties, including the City Planning Department. Inclusion of a city planner (as member of the PMT) from the start saved much time and effort. We got the business district included in a Pedestrian Overlay District, and were thus formally recognized in the Comp. Plan and city ordinances, which influences current as well as future development activity in that part of Linden Hills. However, a couple of years later another similar project didn't go as smoothly and there were cost over runs and much dissatisfaction experienced by those involved. I wasn't directly involved, so can't speak to the details of that project. I guess some neighborhood-based projects work better than others. General Comments-- I think it's important to realize that, while neighborhoods pursue their various development projects through the NRP, etc., the City is also pursuing it's current and longer-term development agenda, consistent with current codes, ordinances and the City Comprehensive Plan. Thus there are, at minimum, at least two 'planning and development-oriented' funding streams coming out of City Hall-- both funded with property tax dollars. Given all the neighborhoods involved with planning activities, it is important that these MANY potentially competing development strategies are in synch-- to avoid spending money on competing strategies and to avoid neighborhood dissatisfaction, political turmoil and waste. I think a good way to avoid such costly waste is to include city planners in the development of neighborhood planning strategies early on. Granted, this is much more difficult given current budget realities. But, those budget realities now make it more important than ever to coordinate planning and development activities, in an effort to streamline the process and reduce waste. This is an area needing attention as the new Dept. of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) comes online and the Planning Department awaits a new Director. The Planning Department, like many areas of local government, has experienced severe cutbacks. The professional planning staff has been devastated, and the comprehensive planning capability of the Department (and the City) compromised. Much of city planning is based on regulating land-use and facilitating long-term development of city infrastructure consistent with established city goals (as detailed in the Comp. Plan); much is based on legal concerns involving codes and ordinances, applications for conditional use permits, site plan reviews, expansion of nonconforming uses, variances, travel demand management plans, compliance with established planning documents, findings of fact, private property rights, procedural due process, notice of public hearings, etc.; some is based on political decision making. Add to the formal development planning process, the fact that businesses and individuals are constantly making private sector decisions to do this and that, given the public process constraints placed upon them, and the complexity becomes more apparent. Development demands continue, and will only grow as the economy improves, resulting in growing workloads and slowed processing for the Planning Department. Much has been said on this list about development and location of public-supported affordable housing, the need for such housing, locating of supportive services, and geographic concentration of minority and poverty population issues. These issues too, are worthy of consideration and discussion per Tom's original query, regarding the 'balance between having overall city policies that make sense, and allowing the community to have meaningful participation' in city decision making. What of the right's and responsibilities of various parties in such discussions and decisions? What role does 'reasonable accommodation' play in the discussions? How are findings of fact balanced against political expediency. While these issues get glossed over in list discussions, they are very complicated in fact. Thanks to Tom for raising this particular issue. I hope others on the list will contribute to the discussion, given their knowledge and experience. Hopefully we will get some feedback from CPED folks involved with planning, housing and economic development, as well as neighborhood folks involved with NRP. It would also be nice to hear from private sector folks; business owners, commercial property owners, public & private developers, home owners, renters and owners of private rental property-- the landlords. All these parties have varied perspectives on the issues-- most of which go unexpressed on this list. If some parties don't want to go on record, perhaps reference to pertinent source documents could add to the discussion. So, let the discussion begin. Michael Hohmann Linden Hills > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Leighton, Thomas J > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Mpls] Community input on projects > > > I'm pretty interested in the balance between having overall city > policies that make sense, and allowing the community to have > meaningful participation in project-specific city decision > making. In that context, I found this article in the Southwest > Journal fascinating. snip > The story underscores the following facts: A) neighborhood input > is advisory. B) neighborhood (or other) input is most relevant > to the degree that it bears on the findings that must be made for > different types of development applications. (For example: > whether the neighborhood wants a check cashing business is not > particularly relevant to the consideration of a conditional use > permit. Whether and how such a business can be made compatible > in design, traffic impacts, noise generation, etc with > surrounding properties is the subject at hand. And approval can > be conditioned on such factors.) snip > Tom Leighton > City Planner > Seward snip REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
