HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - PB Commens 4.24.17DRAFT-April 24, 2017
This memorandum summarizes the results of Planning Board meetings held in April and
early May to discuss the members’ preliminary thoughts with regard to a new Growth
Policy for the City.
The 2009 Community Plan: There is general agreement concerning deficiencies of the
2009 Community Plan. The members find the plan too long, too vague, too broad, too
concerned with the present, and insufficiently concerned with future changes and desired
outcomes. The Growth Policy’s length and support of all things positive neglects the
necessity to make trade-offs between competing interests, and makes it easy to ignore. It
covers subject matter widely removed from growth issues.
Focus: Flowing out of these criticisms, there was also general agreement that a new
growth policy should be more narrowly focused on growth issues, should address the
biggest issues facing the City in connection with growth, and should clearly articulate
directions that the City seeks to take with regard to these big issues. The Planning Board
recognizes it will need some guidance from the Commission regarding the extent to
which the Commission is comfortable with the document taking clear positions on big,
and sometimes controversial, issues.
Measurable Objectives: A new growth policy should, to the extent possible, articulate
measurable and specific objectives and outcomes so that one can tell to what extent the
City is being successful in implementing desired policies.
Economics: We need to recognize the importance of economic issues in affecting future
growth. We also need to be realistic about aspirations in light of available resources.
Several members pointed to the importance of including economic analyses in the growth
policy.
The Big Issues: Members expressed some preliminary ideas as to what the major issues
are that should be addressed in the growth policy. The ones identified were:
1. land-use designations, both inside the City and in the larger planning area;
2. interplay of density, sprawl, affordability, and neighborhood preservation;
3. infrastructure;
4. annexation policy;
5. creation of viable commercial nodes;
6. coordination with, and assistance from, MSU;
7. policy coordination with the county; and
8. water resources / sustainability.
We appreciated your consideration and guidance as we begin undertaking this important
project.