HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-18 City Commission Packet Materials - A3. Growth Policy Update Planning Board Recommendations1
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Commission FROM: Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager Martin Matsen, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Discussion and direction to the Planning Board regarding contents and focus for the growth policy (Bozeman Community Plan) update. MEETING DATE: July 16, 2018
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission consider the existing growth policy, required materials, and Planning Board request for direction and provide guidance on subject matter to be
included in the updated growth policy.
BACKGROUND: The City Commission funded an update to the city’s growth policy, the Bozeman Community Plan. The Planning Board has spent several months reviewing and evaluating the existing growth policy. They request City Commission direction regarding the contents to be included in the new
document. A letter from the Planning Board is attached which outlines their review and suggestions.
State law requires several items to be included and authorizes a local government to include additional materials. A copy of the required and allowed contents is attached. As noted in the state law, the local governing body has substantial discretion in determining the scope of the content of the growth policy.
The intended document structure for the update is a simplified main document with attached appendices
and reports to take care of supporting information and analysis. Demographic and economic background data and future needs analysis are completed. The material is available through the City’s website. The existing growth policy is available on the City’s website
at https://www.bozeman.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=1074.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None determined at this time. ALTERNATIVES: Direction to the Planning Board as determined by the Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: Contract for preparation of the growth policy has been funded in fiscal years 2018 and 2019. No change to contract amounts is expected from this item.
Commission Memorandum
473
2
Attachment: Planning Board Letter
76-1-601 MCA Compilation of Planning Board minutes and materials leading to the memo Report compiled on July 2, 2018
474
475
MCA Contents / TITLE 76 / CHAPTER 1 / Part 6 / 76-1-601 Growth policy…
Montana Code Annotated 2017
TITLE 76. LAND RESOURCES AND USE
CHAPTER 1. PLANNING BOARDS
Part 6. Growth Policy
Growth Policy -- Contents
76-1-601. Growth policy -- contents.(1) A growth policy may cover all or part of the
jurisdictional area.
(2) The extent to which a growth policy addresses the elements listed in subsection (3) is at the
full discretion of the governing body.
(3) A growth policy must include:
(a) community goals and objectives;
(b) maps and text describing an inventory of the existing characteristics and features of the
jurisdictional area, including:
(i) land uses;
(ii) population;
(iii) housing needs;
(iv) economic conditions;
(v) local services;
(vi) public facilities;
(vii) natural resources;
(viii) sand and gravel resources; and
(ix) other characteristics and features proposed by the planning board and adopted by the
governing bodies;
(c) projected trends for the life of the growth policy for each of the following elements:
(i) land use;
(ii) population;
(iii) housing needs;
(iv) economic conditions;
(v) local services;
Page 1 of 476-1-601. Growth policy -- contents, MCA
7/2/2018https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0760/chapter_0010/part_0060/section_0010/0760-0010-00...
476
(vi) natural resources; and
(vii) other elements proposed by the planning board and adopted by the governing bodies;
(d) a description of policies, regulations, and other measures to be implemented in order to
achieve the goals and objectives established pursuant to subsection (3)(a);
(e) a strategy for development, maintenance, and replacement of public infrastructure, including
drinking water systems, wastewater treatment facilities, sewer systems, solid waste facilities, fire
protection facilities, roads, and bridges;
(f) an implementation strategy that includes:
(i) a timetable for implementing the growth policy;
(ii) a list of conditions that will lead to a revision of the growth policy; and
(iii) a timetable for reviewing the growth policy at least once every 5 years and revising the policy if
necessary;
(g) a statement of how the governing bodies will coordinate and cooperate with other jurisdictions
that explains:
(i) if a governing body is a city or town, how the governing body will coordinate and cooperate
with the county in which the city or town is located on matters related to the growth policy;
(ii) if a governing body is a county, how the governing body will coordinate and cooperate with
cities and towns located within the county's boundaries on matters related to the growth policy;
(h) a statement explaining how the governing bodies will:
(i) define the criteria in 76-3-608(3)(a); and
(ii) evaluate and make decisions regarding proposed subdivisions with respect to the criteria in 76-
3-608(3)(a);
(i) a statement explaining how public hearings regarding proposed subdivisions will be
conducted; and
(j) an evaluation of the potential for fire and wildland fire in the jurisdictional area, including
whether or not there is a need to:
(i) delineate the wildland-urban interface; and
(ii) adopt regulations requiring:
(A) defensible space around structures;
(B) adequate ingress and egress to and from structures and developments to facilitate fire
suppression activities; and
(C) adequate water supply for fire protection.
(4) A growth policy may:
(a) include one or more neighborhood plans. A neighborhood plan must be consistent with the
Page 2 of 476-1-601. Growth policy -- contents, MCA
7/2/2018https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0760/chapter_0010/part_0060/section_0010/0760-0010-00...
477
growth policy.
(b) establish minimum criteria defining the jurisdictional area for a neighborhood plan;
(c) establish an infrastructure plan that, at a minimum, includes:
(i) projections, in maps and text, of the jurisdiction's growth in population and number of
residential, commercial, and industrial units over the next 20 years;
(ii) for a city, a determination regarding if and how much of the city's growth is likely to take place
outside of the city's existing jurisdictional area over the next 20 years and a plan of how the city will
coordinate infrastructure planning with the county or counties where growth is likely to take place;
(iii) for a county, a plan of how the county will coordinate infrastructure planning with each of the
cities that project growth outside of city boundaries and into the county's jurisdictional area over the
next 20 years;
(iv) for cities, a land use map showing where projected growth will be guided and at what densities
within city boundaries;
(v) for cities and counties, a land use map that designates infrastructure planning areas adjacent
to cities showing where projected growth will be guided and at what densities;
(vi) using maps and text, a description of existing and future public facilities necessary to efficiently
serve projected development and densities within infrastructure planning areas, including, whenever
feasible, extending interconnected municipal street networks, sidewalks, trail systems, public transit
facilities, and other municipal public facilities throughout the infrastructure planning area. For the
purposes of this subsection (4)(c)(vi), public facilities include but are not limited to drinking water
treatment and distribution facilities, sewer systems, wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste
disposal facilities, parks and open space, schools, public access areas, roads, highways, bridges, and
facilities for fire protection, law enforcement, and emergency services;
(vii) a description of proposed land use management techniques and incentives that will be
adopted to promote development within cities and in an infrastructure planning area, including land
use management techniques and incentives that address issues of housing affordability;
(viii) a description of how and where projected development inside municipal boundaries for cities
and inside designated joint infrastructure planning areas for cities and counties could adversely
impact:
(A) threatened or endangered wildlife and critical wildlife habitat and corridors;
(B) water available to agricultural water users and facilities;
(C) the ability of public facilities, including schools, to safely and efficiently service current
residents and future growth;
(D) a local government's ability to provide adequate local services, including but not limited to
emergency, fire, and police protection;
(E) the safety of people and property due to threats to public health and safety, including but not
limited to wildfire, flooding, erosion, water pollution, hazardous wildlife interactions, and traffic
hazards;
Page 3 of 476-1-601. Growth policy -- contents, MCA
7/2/2018https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0760/chapter_0010/part_0060/section_0010/0760-0010-00...
478
(F) natural resources, including but not limited to forest lands, mineral resources, sand and gravel
resources, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and ground water; and
(G) agricultural lands and agricultural production; and
(ix) a description of measures, including land use management techniques and incentives, that will
be adopted to avoid, significantly reduce, or mitigate the adverse impacts identified under subsection
(4)(c)(viii).
(d) include any elements required by a federal land management agency in order for the
governing body to establish coordination or cooperating agency status as provided in 76-1-607.
(5) The planning board may propose and the governing bodies may adopt additional elements of
a growth policy in order to fulfill the purpose of this chapter.
History: Ap. p. Sec. 31, Ch. 246, L. 1957; amd. Sec. 12, Ch. 247, L. 1963; amd. Sec. 1, Ch.
156, L. 1973; Sec. 11-3831, R.C.M. 1947; Ap. p. Sec. 3, Ch. 246, L. 1957; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 247, L.
1963; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 349, L. 1973; Sec. 11-3803, R.C.M. 1947; R.C.M. 1947, 11-3803(part), 11-
3831; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 582, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 599, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 443, L. 2007;
amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 455, L. 2007; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 446, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 65, L. 2013.
Created by
Page 4 of 476-1-601. Growth policy -- contents, MCA
7/2/2018https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0760/chapter_0010/part_0060/section_0010/0760-0010-00...
479
TO: PLANNING BOARD
FROM: CHRIS SAUNDERS
RE: GROWTH POLICY UPDATE – Revised memo
DATE: MARCH 21, 2017 At the Planning Board meeting on March 7th, we discussed key questions for consideration by Board members as they review the existing growth policy, review existing neighborhood plans, and that can shape the future update. The Board agreed to review and provide feedback on the questions to continue to shape additional discussion. The questions and Board responses to date are below. The memo has been revised to incorporate additional comments from the Board received as of today. As you continue your document review and consider the responses to date, think about what specific changes to the document you would propose for the City Commission to consider. For example, should some elements be left out or expanded. The growth policy and neighborhood plans are on the City’s website at http://www.bozeman.net/Departments-(1)/Community-Develop/Plans-and-Planning.
Existing growth policy review Questions:
1) Identify three things in the growth policy that you find supportive of resiliency. 2) What barriers do you see in the growth policy to being a resilient community? 3) What things do you see as missing in the growth policy? 4) What things do you see in the growth policy as having been completed and do not need to carry forward.
- The current policy is, in my opinion, a something-for-everyone document. It is supportive of resiliency in the sense of being in favor of all things good. It's fairly worthless however in terms of prioritization. It is also exceptionally verbose, to the point that I suspect no one ever reads this document unless they are, for example, foolish enough to have volunteered to be on the Planning Board.
- I would be in favor of a much shorter, much crisper document that tried to provide some real guidance with regard to some of the more difficult issues facing the City.
-Relative to resiliency: In theory the whole document is supportive of resiliency, but that may be its shortfall. There are really no trade-offs within it. I feel it should be a document that identifies a dozen or so main goals to prioritize. When there are too many goals to pursue, it just makes for a
bunch of competing interests, and the document fails to bring clarity or guidance.
480
Neighborhood Plan Review Questions: 1) Does the neighborhood plan still accurately describe the neighborhood for which it was prepared? 2) Have any action steps been completed or are still outstanding?
3) Should the plan be updated or removed? Future growth policy Questions: 1) What are the three most critical issues you see as facing Bozeman, and how can the growth policy
address those issues?
-Managing growth in the city;
-Engaging the county in county-wide growth planning;
-Figuring out how to pay for such necessities as new schools, new roads, infrastructure maintenance, and other needs such as the Law and Justice center
- Managing Growth (including better interface with Gallatin County) - Economic Development / taxes vs infrastructure costs
- Smaller / Dispersed Commercial centers (one near the new HS site) accessible via COMPLETE multi-modal networks (eventually to Four Corners and Belgrade - As far as how the GP can address these issues: I think the city's goal of investing in "alternative" and demand driven education is good, as is using infrastructure investment to incentivize development (and business recruitment) in the areas we want it. - It seems like Bozeman will need to use this carrot to instigate momentum to create another strong commercial node or three? Four? (Four Corners grocery store), another in the NW corner of town by the new HS, MINIMUM. Its the only way to address commuter / driver bottleneck, as well as to create more livable neighborhoods. - Sustainability - especially water resources - Economic development - Growth management/sprawl reduction/coordination with County. - How fast we grow: do we want to be a fast growing or a slow growing city (and do we have any control over this)? What tools are at our disposal to limit the pace of growth within the city? What are the consequences of limiting growth within the city?
481
- Where and how we grow: do we want growth focused on developed areas, downtown, or on the city periphery? What tools are at our disposal to direct growth? What are the consequences of each choice? - How do we deal with the issues surrounding growth, such as parking, transportation, infrastructure, etc? How do we maintain the quality of life that Bozemanites have come to expect and appreciate? - Annexation: A) Determine and set guidelines for annexation time frame. Properties surrounded by City are not agricultural, and county properties need to be assessed same tax rate as adjacent parcels. Will need to structure time line for water and sewer connections with SID, but use of City roads requires such landowners to pay similar tax rates for their daily use of City infrastructure. All properties immediately adjacent to City roads, and which depend on city roads to leave or enter their neighborhoods should be annexed. Set an annexation schedule so people have adequate time, 1-2 years to make an informed decision to stay or move. This will also allow city staff to develop appropriate service routes. B) Layout future annexation plans on undeveloped county land, delineating (approximate locations of) arterial roads (N/S, E/W), utility locations, pumping stations, sub stations, fire etc. C) Show proposed connectivity of parks and bike/pedestrian trails D) Trailer Park annexations will require adjustment to existing codes so that trailers can be replaced with permanent structures of similar size thus increasing tax base. These tiny homes (trailers) are acceptable housing options but regulatory guidelines prohibit the use of such small affordable options. Change the guidelines. - Economic Analysis is integral to Growth Policy. We need to look at impediments creating subdivisions which result in little diversity of housing types, both lot size and home size. For example, economic impacts would include stream side setbacks which are part of total land cost, but do not contribute to park/open space requirements. Result being that much larger homes must be built to recover “non-usable” land cost. What are the specific barriers and cost implications to developers which create monotonous neighborhoods or commercial work places? Not acknowledging economic impacts of growth policy reduces ability to provide lower cost/smaller sized housing options. Use Bozeman’s Economic development staff to analyze impacts of growth policy to incentivize appropriate residential and commercial development. Current planning policies do not acknowledge cost impacts, but only set criteria to meet permitting obligations.
482
- Address MSU growth and cost to the community. Continued student growth with no MSU obligation to provide housing or address local traffic impacts is simply irresponsible. Students (subsidized with loans, scholarships and parent funding) compete with local labor for same housing stock. Our community simply does not have the resources to address a continual demand for housing which can meet increasing student populations. Available student labor drives down wages while demanding “affordable” housing. MSU needs to provide housing for both its students and staff. MSU must contribute its fair share of costs for increased traffic volume on all roads adjacent to Campus with appropriate upgrades to address vehicle, bike and pedestrian traffic volume. Suggest that city parking stickers be required to park on all city streets, separate sticker to use public parks.
2) Based on your personal experience and in conversation with others offer three ways to engage the public in the update process.
-I am not a big fan of surveys because they never seem to ask quite the right questions. I think that is in part because they tend to be too mushy about the necessary trade-offs involved in various policy
alternatives. Nonetheless, a carefully crafted survey could probably generate some useful information.
-I feel, similarly, that public meetings often deemphasize trade-offs to the point that the information they generate is rather meaningless. However, if you had a public meeting in which you told the participants to pretend that they all sat on the City Commission and they had to support or oppose some specific issues, you might generate some useful information. (Example: Would you rather spend
$125 million on high schools I would you rather reduce that to $90 million and spend $35 million on open space bond issues?)
-As with the City’s Strategic Planning document, I think it would be useful to publish outlines of the new draft Growth Policy and give the public the opportunity to comment.
As far as engaging the public...first of all people need to feel that their feedback matters. But also that
what they are working on ACTUALLY HAS TEETH.
- I think tools like the Envision Tomorrow software are powerful. Challenging people to locate those quantities of housing units was very eye opening, and I think most people would be moved by the scale of that. It highlights the issues well.
- Process also needs "buy-in" from the top down in order for engagement to reach the broadest
audience.
- By user group (bikers, walkers, commuters, etc.)
- By age - youth/MSU, millenials, paretns, seniors, etc.
- Access them through organizations they trust, like their neighborhood association meetings, nonprofits, etc.
483
TO: PLANNING BOARD
FROM: CHRIS SAUNDERS
RE: GROWTH POLICY UPDATE – Revised memo
DATE: MARCH 21, 2017 At the Planning Board meeting on March 7th, we discussed key questions for consideration by Board members as they review the existing growth policy, review existing neighborhood plans, and that can shape the future update. The Board agreed to review and provide feedback on the questions to continue to shape additional discussion. The questions and Board responses to date are below. The memo has been revised to incorporate additional comments from the Board received as of today. As you continue your document review and consider the responses to date, think about what specific changes to the document you would propose for the City Commission to consider. For example, should some elements be left out or expanded. The growth policy and neighborhood plans are on the City’s website at http://www.bozeman.net/Departments-(1)/Community-Develop/Plans-and-Planning.
Existing growth policy review Questions:
1) Identify three things in the growth policy that you find supportive of resiliency. 2) What barriers do you see in the growth policy to being a resilient community? 3) What things do you see as missing in the growth policy? 4) What things do you see in the growth policy as having been completed and do not need to carry forward.
- The current policy is, in my opinion, a something-for-everyone document. It is supportive of resiliency in the sense of being in favor of all things good. It's fairly worthless however in terms of prioritization. It is also exceptionally verbose, to the point that I suspect no one ever reads this document unless they are, for example, foolish enough to have volunteered to be on the Planning Board.
- I would be in favor of a much shorter, much crisper document that tried to provide some real guidance with regard to some of the more difficult issues facing the City.
-Relative to resiliency: In theory the whole document is supportive of resiliency, but that may be its shortfall. There are really no trade-offs within it. I feel it should be a document that identifies a dozen or so main goals to prioritize. When there are too many goals to pursue, it just makes for a
bunch of competing interests, and the document fails to bring clarity or guidance.
484
Neighborhood Plan Review Questions: 1) Does the neighborhood plan still accurately describe the neighborhood for which it was prepared? 2) Have any action steps been completed or are still outstanding?
3) Should the plan be updated or removed? Future growth policy Questions: 1) What are the three most critical issues you see as facing Bozeman, and how can the growth policy
address those issues?
-Managing growth in the city;
-Engaging the county in county-wide growth planning;
-Figuring out how to pay for such necessities as new schools, new roads, infrastructure maintenance, and other needs such as the Law and Justice center
- Managing Growth (including better interface with Gallatin County) - Economic Development / taxes vs infrastructure costs
- Smaller / Dispersed Commercial centers (one near the new HS site) accessible via COMPLETE multi-modal networks (eventually to Four Corners and Belgrade - As far as how the GP can address these issues: I think the city's goal of investing in "alternative" and demand driven education is good, as is using infrastructure investment to incentivize development (and business recruitment) in the areas we want it. - It seems like Bozeman will need to use this carrot to instigate momentum to create another strong commercial node or three? Four? (Four Corners grocery store), another in the NW corner of town by the new HS, MINIMUM. Its the only way to address commuter / driver bottleneck, as well as to create more livable neighborhoods. - Sustainability - especially water resources - Economic development - Growth management/sprawl reduction/coordination with County. - How fast we grow: do we want to be a fast growing or a slow growing city (and do we have any control over this)? What tools are at our disposal to limit the pace of growth within the city? What are the consequences of limiting growth within the city?
485
- Where and how we grow: do we want growth focused on developed areas, downtown, or on the city periphery? What tools are at our disposal to direct growth? What are the consequences of each choice? - How do we deal with the issues surrounding growth, such as parking, transportation, infrastructure, etc? How do we maintain the quality of life that Bozemanites have come to expect and appreciate? - Annexation: A) Determine and set guidelines for annexation time frame. Properties surrounded by City are not agricultural, and county properties need to be assessed same tax rate as adjacent parcels. Will need to structure time line for water and sewer connections with SID, but use of City roads requires such landowners to pay similar tax rates for their daily use of City infrastructure. All properties immediately adjacent to City roads, and which depend on city roads to leave or enter their neighborhoods should be annexed. Set an annexation schedule so people have adequate time, 1-2 years to make an informed decision to stay or move. This will also allow city staff to develop appropriate service routes. B) Layout future annexation plans on undeveloped county land, delineating (approximate locations of) arterial roads (N/S, E/W), utility locations, pumping stations, sub stations, fire etc. C) Show proposed connectivity of parks and bike/pedestrian trails D) Trailer Park annexations will require adjustment to existing codes so that trailers can be replaced with permanent structures of similar size thus increasing tax base. These tiny homes (trailers) are acceptable housing options but regulatory guidelines prohibit the use of such small affordable options. Change the guidelines. - Economic Analysis is integral to Growth Policy. We need to look at impediments creating subdivisions which result in little diversity of housing types, both lot size and home size. For example, economic impacts would include stream side setbacks which are part of total land cost, but do not contribute to park/open space requirements. Result being that much larger homes must be built to recover “non-usable” land cost. What are the specific barriers and cost implications to developers which create monotonous neighborhoods or commercial work places? Not acknowledging economic impacts of growth policy reduces ability to provide lower cost/smaller sized housing options. Use Bozeman’s Economic development staff to analyze impacts of growth policy to incentivize appropriate residential and commercial development. Current planning policies do not acknowledge cost impacts, but only set criteria to meet permitting obligations.
486
- Address MSU growth and cost to the community. Continued student growth with no MSU obligation to provide housing or address local traffic impacts is simply irresponsible. Students (subsidized with loans, scholarships and parent funding) compete with local labor for same housing stock. Our community simply does not have the resources to address a continual demand for housing which can meet increasing student populations. Available student labor drives down wages while demanding “affordable” housing. MSU needs to provide housing for both its students and staff. MSU must contribute its fair share of costs for increased traffic volume on all roads adjacent to Campus with appropriate upgrades to address vehicle, bike and pedestrian traffic volume. Suggest that city parking stickers be required to park on all city streets, separate sticker to use public parks.
2) Based on your personal experience and in conversation with others offer three ways to engage the public in the update process.
-I am not a big fan of surveys because they never seem to ask quite the right questions. I think that is in part because they tend to be too mushy about the necessary trade-offs involved in various policy
alternatives. Nonetheless, a carefully crafted survey could probably generate some useful information.
-I feel, similarly, that public meetings often deemphasize trade-offs to the point that the information they generate is rather meaningless. However, if you had a public meeting in which you told the participants to pretend that they all sat on the City Commission and they had to support or oppose some specific issues, you might generate some useful information. (Example: Would you rather spend
$125 million on high schools I would you rather reduce that to $90 million and spend $35 million on open space bond issues?)
-As with the City’s Strategic Planning document, I think it would be useful to publish outlines of the new draft Growth Policy and give the public the opportunity to comment.
As far as engaging the public...first of all people need to feel that their feedback matters. But also that
what they are working on ACTUALLY HAS TEETH.
- I think tools like the Envision Tomorrow software are powerful. Challenging people to locate those quantities of housing units was very eye opening, and I think most people would be moved by the scale of that. It highlights the issues well.
- Process also needs "buy-in" from the top down in order for engagement to reach the broadest
audience.
- By user group (bikers, walkers, commuters, etc.)
- By age - youth/MSU, millenials, paretns, seniors, etc.
- Access them through organizations they trust, like their neighborhood association meetings, nonprofits, etc.
487
City Planning Board
Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 6:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue
A. 06:00:23 PM (00:00:45) Call meeting to order (Neubauer)
Present Were:
• Jerry Pape
• George Thompson
• Lauren Waterton
• Paul Neubauer
• Brianne Dugan
• Paul Spitler
• Commissioner Chris Mehl
B. 06:01:25 PM (00:01:47) Changes to the Agenda (None)
C. Minutes (None)
D. 06:01:19 PM (00:01:41) Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an audible
tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the
purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for
comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes.
E. 06:01:41 PM (00:02:03) Action Items
1. Growth Policy (Saunders)
• Growth Policy Update Memo
• 76-1-601 Montana Codes Annotated
06:04:13 PM (00:04:35)
Saunders identified 4 questions to consider when reviewing the Growth Policy document:
1. What items help the community to be resilient?
2. Are there barriers that make it difficult to ensure resiliency?
3. Is there anything missing?
4. Are there items that are simply completed? (Has the issue been resolved and does it
need to be carried forward?)
488
06:05:19 PM (00:05:41) Saunders discussed Neighborhood Plans and asked the Planning Board
to consider whether content is still relevant when updating the Growth Policy. The most recent
Growth Policy update was in 2009.
06:11:25 PM (00:11:47) Saunders asked the board to do two things: 1) identify three of the
most critical issues that are reaching Bozeman that the city will be dealing with. 2) What are
three ways to reach the public.
F. FYI/Discussion
06:18:24 PM (00:18:46) Board Member Spitler asked Saunders to explain the relationship between the
existing neighborhood plans and the new community plan. Saunders answered that the neighborhood
plans were created as a way of looking at a smaller portion of the community in greater detail than the
growth policy.
The neighborhood plans are adopted as a sub component to the Growth Policy. Amending or appealing
the neighborhood plans would require the same process as the Growth Policy.
06:19:56 PM (00:20:18) Spitler asked if the Community Plan needs to be in accordance with previous
plans or if the updated Growth Policy will override the previous Neighborhood Plans. Saunders
answered that the Neighborhood Plans must be in conformance with the Growth Policy. If the policies
move in a very different direction, the previous plans would need to be amended or appealed to be in
accordance with updated policy.
06:21:37 PM (00:21:59) Board Member Neubauer requested that anything within the Neighborhood
Plans that is not enforced or has been disregarded be removed. Saunders responded that the goal is
consistency and clarity in the documents.
06:22:48 PM (00:23:10) Board Member Thompson brought up Montana State University’s growth and
asked what role they will play in accommodating this growth, noting that they have not done their fair
share. Thompson asked that they hold a public outreach session on campus so that the students can
weigh in on the issues they’re facing in the community.
06:25:00 PM (00:25:22) Neubauer requested that they be allowed to spend more time with the
document to allow a more informed discussion and asked that they continue the discussion in a future
meeting.
06:27:44 PM (00:28:06) Spitler asked Saunders about his request to identify the three most critical
issues facing Bozeman. Saunders replied that there are many critical factors affecting the city. He
clarified that the critical items to consider should be something that the city has control over and can
take action against.
489
06:29:42 PM (00:30:04) Board Member Pape commented that there are many things the city can do
when they don’t have control over an issue. He noted that there are things that can be done to prepare
for these issues. He used an increase in interest rate as an example and pointed out that the cost of
land was the underlying issue.
06:33:17 PM (00:33:39) Commissioner Mehl summarized that Pape’s comment was a call for a broad
view of the community plan to make it germane for the discussion.
06:33:54 PM (00:34:16) Spitler asked Saunders if the city decided that they wanted to work toward a
goal to advance density and infill in the downtown and surrounding areas, and wanted to discourage
lower density development, what kind of policy tools are available in the community plan to achieve
those goals.
06:34:25 PM (00:34:47) Saunders responded that what is most immediately under the city’s control are
things like infrastructure. He continued to explain incentives and other policies and factors that could
be considered.
06:38:07 PM (00:38:29) Thompson asked a follow up question concerning development and density.
Saunders replied that the city has control over some aspects, but that there may be covenants in
existence that the city has no jurisdiction over.
06:41:19 PM (00:41:41) Waterton asked about how updating the Growth Policy coincides with the UDC
and about situations where policy change required code change and how that would be handled.
Saunders replied that the UDC is a living document and that it frequently changes.
06:45:40 PM (00:46:02) Pape discussed the importance of economic development and that this is
something that should be considered in the updated Growth Policy and commented that there are
practices in place that are not sustainable.
06:50:35 PM (00:50:57) Thompson addressed the annexation issue and land that is taxed as agricultural
within city limits.
06:52:43 PM (00:53:05) Waterton followed up by stating that the Growth Policy document should be
relevant to the everyday user and project and how the public input can be relevant to everyone.
06:55:28 PM (00:55:50) Saunders updated the status on the City Commission bid for contract to look at
demographics and economics in national trends such as e-commerce.
490
07:03:13 PM (01:03:35) Waterton provided an update on the Planning Coordinating Committee, which
is a joint effort between Gallatin County, Belgrade and the City of Bozeman. Some issues reviewed are
water/sewer issues, police, fire districts (response times), etc.
G. 07:14:45 PM (01:15:07) Adjournment (Neubauer)
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
491
City Planning Board
Tuesday, March 21, 2017 7:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue
A. 07:01:32 PM (00:00:19) Call meeting to order (Neubauer)
Present Were:
• Brianne Dugan
• Lauren Waterton
• Jordan Zignego
• George Thompson
• Chair Paul Neubauer
• Commissioner Chris Mehl
• Henry Happel
• Paul Spitler
B. Changes to the Agenda
C. Minutes (None)
D. Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This
is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also
be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your
comments to three minutes.
E. Action Items
1. 07:02:15 PM (00:01:02) Election of Officers (Board)
• MOTION to elect Paul Neubauer as Chair of Planning Board: Chris Mehl
• MOTION SECONDED: Jordan Zignego
• All in Favor: Motion Passes
• MOTION to elect George Thompson as Vice President of Planning Board: Brianne Dugan
• MOTION SECONDED: Commissioner Chris Mehl
• All in Favor: Motion Passes
492
2. 07:04:24 PM (00:03:11) Continued discussion of the update to the growth policy and
Board suggestions (Saunders)
07:05:11 PM (00:03:58) Brianne Dugan asked Chris Saunders why we’re revising the growth policy and how
it can be revised in a way that is helpful to the community.
07:05:39 PM (00:04:26) Chris Saunders explained who utilizes the Growth Policy document and summarizes
some of the purposes for which it is used.
07:09:10 PM (00:07:57) Brianne Dugan continued by asking Saunders where he’s seen the Growth Policy
work well and where he has seen it fail. Saunders explained that it helps to have a broader document that
can be applied by each commission as they change.
07:12:59 PM (00:11:46) Brianne Dugan asked if preparing the Unified Development Code (UDC) prior to
updating the Growth Policy makes sense if the UDC prompts changes that may affect the Growth Policy.
Saunders replied that it will not have a negative impact because: 1) The UDC is an implementation of the
Growth Policy, so the timing is appropriate; 2) By the time the UDC rewrite is complete, we will find that 85-
90% of the document has the same content, just rearranged.
07:15:00 PM (00:13:47) Commissioner Mehl discussed the three documents that are currently being
updated, including the UDC, Growth Policy and The Community Strategic Plan. The Commission made it a
priority to finish updating these documents last February.
07:18:55 PM (00:17:42) Henry Happel asked Chris Saunders about the 2009 Community Plan and asked what
he felt worked well and doesn’t work well. Saunders replied that the Community Plan has been a good
integration between land use, utilities and transportation planning. He noted that some improvements
could include pulling a tighter tie between the future land use map and capital improvements planning.
He continued to explain that the City’s Public Works department has been evolving with the city’s approach
over the last few years and is changing from reactive to a more public driven, proactive stance.
07:23:19 PM (00:22:06) Chris Saunders discussed where the city wants growth to occur, referring to the
future land use map. He stated that the city has been fairly reactive when it comes to the annexation
process – that the city will not force itself on private owners – so there is an opportunity to take a more
proactive stance in the city’s growth.
07:25:43 PM (00:24:30) Chris Saunders explained how Missoula and Billings have approached annexation.
07:29:36 PM (00:28:23) Chair Neubauer asked if the large brown area on the east side of the Future Land
Use Map is due to topography/geography. Saunders confirmed this. The group continued to discuss
annexation and what that means in relation to city utilities.
07:33:13 PM (00:32:00) Henry Happel asked what Saunders thought the appropriate planning horizon
should be for a new growth policy. Saunders responded that ten years is an absolute minimum, but that for
a land use plan, 10-20 years is reasonable.
07:38:37 PM (00:37:24) George Thompson speaks to an email regarding Gallatin County residents within the
City of Bozeman and the benefits received through city services while paying lower taxes. The group
discussed how this ties into annexation and if other procedures should be considered.
493
07:47:18 PM (00:46:05) Chair Neubauer stated that he would like to see more commercial nodes
incorporated into the growth plan near future arterial streets such as Gooch Hill and Baxter.
07:48:18 PM (00:47:05) Chris Saunders stated that they will be tasking the Growth Policy consultant with
giving the City a sense of what our needs will be, given a certain population base to support it.
07:53:04 PM (00:51:51) Henry Happel asked about the data that goes into creating a growth policy, noting
that there was a significant amount in the 2009 Growth Policy Update. He asked what the new Growth
Policy data needs will be. Saunders responded that there will be a need for quite a bit more, but stated that
it could be packaged differently. They continued to discuss the role the Growth Policy consultants will play
and what information they’re hoping to gain.
07:58:22 PM (00:57:09) George Thompson stressed the importance of nodes in our community and to plan
for the long run, leaving zoning options and land use patterns that can adapt for future use.
08:00:55 PM (00:59:42) Henry Happel asked Chris Saunders what other cities may be role models for
Bozeman going forward. Saunders used Bend, OR and Fort Collins, CO as common comparisons.
08:02:33 PM (01:01:20) Chair Neubauer and the board discussed future Growth Policy meetings and
recommended determining some specific discussion items to create structure going forward.
08:05:43 PM (01:04:30) Chris Saunders discussed the process for creating the 2009 Growth Policy to help
determine next steps for the current update. The group continued to discuss next steps for the current
Growth Policy update.
08:21:11 PM (01:19:58) The board members discussed the different materials that will be helpful in
researching for Growth Policy and ways to streamline that material for easy access and digestion.
08:24:54 PM (01:23:41) Commissioner Mehl recommended choosing three items that are missing from the
current plan and three items that should be priority for the Community Plan.
F. FYI/Discussion
G. 08:28:24 PM (01:27:11) Adjournment (Neubauer)
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance,
please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
494
City Planning Board
Tuesday, April 18th, 2017 7:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue
A. 07:03:32 PM (00:00:08) Call meeting to order
Present Were:
• Paul Spitler
• Commissioner Chris Mehl
• Lauren Waterton
• Jordan Zignego
• George Thompson
• Chair Paul Neubauer
• Brianne Dugan
• Henry Happel
• Jerry Pape
B. 07:03:58 PM (00:00:34) Changes to the Agenda
C. Minutes for Approval (continued to future meeting)
• 3/7/2017
D. 07:04:11 PM (00:00:47) Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an
audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on
matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in
conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit
your comments to three minutes.
E. 07:04:28 PM (00:01:04) Action Items
1. Continue Discussion of Bozeman Growth Policy Update
07:07:44 PM (00:04:20) Board member Henry Happel asked where the City Management was in
developing the Strategic Plan so that the board could ensure that the Growth Policy and
Strategic Plan align with each other.
07:08:49 PM (00:05:25) Commissioner Mehl summarized the strategic plan and how it would
work in accordance with the Growth Policy. He stated that the community plan could be shorter
to move back to a land use document and to prevent overlap with the Strategic Plan.
495
07:13:30 PM (00:10:06) Board member Paul Spitler commented on the existing growth policy,
stating that it is too long, too vague and too broad, covering too many issues. He argued that it
relegates many decisions to future plans. He continued that it lacked specificity in regards to
Planning and recommended that it include specific, measurable objectives. Spitler added that he
felt it would be helpful to do some scenario planning to map out some if / then situations to see
how decisions on projects will affect surrounding areas.
07:20:02 PM (00:16:38) Board member Lauren Waterton agreed with Spitler’s comments and
added that she felt the growth policy should include a plan that focused on the future in regards
to transportation, technology, climate change, etc. – other things that affect growth rather than
focusing on population growth.
07:24:50 PM (00:21:26) Board member Jordan Zignego agreed that the document needed to be
quantified to be more specific. He recommended adding some focus to walkability in addition to
preventing re-zoning areas meant to be commercial to residential in order to encourage
neighborhood nodes.
07:27:14 PM (00:23:50) Board member George Thompson brought up MSU’s expansion and the
need for them to assist in providing affordable housing for the student population. He pointed
out that other universities play a larger role. He also brought up annexation, pointing out that
the agricultural land within the city is no longer agricultural. In regard to re-zoning to convert to
residential, he recommended sticking to original zoning to send a consistent message to
developers and builders. Thompson also addressed density, pointing out that it can be spread
outside of the Downtown district, and the need for an in-depth economic study to assist in long
term planning.
07:37:00 PM (00:33:36) Chair Paul Neubauer commented that the land north of Baxter and west
of S. Cottonwood is considered rural and does not have a land use designation, but should.
Neubauer recommended that the Gooch Hill area be identified as a node for commercial use.
Neubauer also stated that he felt that nodes would be strengthened by creating another layer
on land use maps that identified future annexation areas so that developers can see what the
City’s vision is for that area. He also addressed preventing changing commercial zones to
residential zones in order to promote nodes that would reduce commuter traffic. He
recommended incentives such as reducing impact fees, completing road buildouts through
those areas, etc.
07:47:11 PM (00:43:47) Board member Brianne Dugan supported making the growth policy
more focused with an overarching vision. She recommended addressing annexation,
commercial nodes, sustainability and economic development in the new growth policy.
07:48:11 PM (00:44:47) Board Member Henry Happel addressed some items he thought needed
to be changed in the discussion so far. He felt the language in the existing plan to be too vague
496
and said he hoped the new document would be more specific in order to provide guidance
where they’d like to provide guidance. He’d like to narrow the issues to develop a plan that
interested the members of the community.
07:51:59 PM (00:48:35) Board member Jerry Pape discussed economic development and its
importance in the growth policy. Pape argued that the city’s current plan for economic
development is at odds with the current growth policy. Pape stated that he felt infrastructure,
land use and annexation will make the biggest impact. He recommended that the commercial
nodes should be encouraged through incentives such as no impact fees, and assistance with
foundations, etc. Pape pointed out that the rules set forth should have some provisions that
allow an exit if an economic situation changes.
08:01:23 PM (00:57:59) Commissioner Mehl thanked the board and stated that he agreed with
most of the comments made. He thought the growth policy could set a tone and direction that
is important.
F. FYI/Discussion
07:06:08 PM (00:02:44) Paul Neubauer announced his withdrawal from the Growth Policy sub-
group. George Thompson, Paul Spitler, Brianne Dugan and Henry Happel will be stepping in to
assist. Henry Happel will spearhead that group.
07:37:13 PM (00:33:49) If there is no Zoning Commission meeting held, Planning Board will meet
at 6 pm rather than 7 pm.
08:03:04 PM (00:59:40) Tom Rogers reviewed the UDC adoption plan and announced that there
will be some joint planning and zoning meetings so that the boards are able to make a
recommendation to the Commission. In addition to the PB/ZC meetings, he announced that
there would be 5 additional workshops as well as going in front of various other boards prior to
any formal adoption steps.
08:06:34 PM (01:03:10) Board member Pape asked if it would be possible to look into a Planning
Board calendar to keep track of meetings, etc. Board member Thompson seconded this
suggestion. Commissioner Mehl stated that he would look into it in addition to ensuring that all
members received board emails. Chair Neubauer formally asked Tom for an agenda item to
address the idea of a joint calendar.
08:09:54 PM (01:06:30) Chair Neubauer provided an update on the RFP for the consultant for
the Community Plan. The consultant will be looking at how Bozeman’s commerce will be
changing. This will be primarily for land use forecasting. Board member Lauren Waterton will be
a sub-consultant on this project and will not be attending the Planning Board meeting while the
consultant is presenting.
497
08:16:14 PM (01:12:50) Board member George Thompson provided the board members with a
list comparing the cost of living across different cities. Thompson argued that where you live is
an economic choice.
G. 08:19:35 PM (01:16:11) Adjournment
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
498
City Planning Board
Tuesday, May 2nd, 2017 7:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue
A. 07:07:03 PM (00:00:17) Call meeting to order
Present Were:
• Brianne Dugan
• Lauren Waterton
• Paul Neubauer
• Commissioner Chris Mehl
• Henry Happel
• Paul Spitler
B. 07:07:59 PM (00:01:13) Changes to the Agenda
C. 07:08:47 PM (00:02:01) Minutes for approval
• 3.07.17 (corrected)
• 3.21.17
MOTION to approve minutes for 3.7.17 & 3.21.17 with correction: Commissioner Mehl
MOTION SECONDED: Lauren Waterton
VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
D. Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the
record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview
of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item
for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes.
E. Action Items
1. 07:10:42 PM (00:03:56) Discussion and direction on Planning Board calendar to manage
ongoing and current development projects.
07:11:09 PM (00:04:23) Commissioner Mehl informed the board that if they were willing to
create a calendar for Planning Board, they would need to speak to all of the boards and that
it would probably not be probable with the request coming from one board member.
07:13:17 PM (00:06:31) Planning Staff member Chris Saunders announced that part of the
City of Bozeman’s new website may offer new features that would allow more specific
calendar items.
499
2. 07:14:18 PM (00:07:32) Final edits to memo outlining Planning Board direction on Growth
Policy revisions. (Saunders/Rogers)
a. Memo – Planning Board Comments
b. Memo – Jerry Pape Comments
07:15:09 PM (00:08:23) Board member Spitler raised the point that there were two issues
he thought should be included in the growth policy, including parking and incentives for
infill development.
07:16:12 PM (00:09:26) Board member Waterton stated that she thought the growth
policy should include measureable and actionable goals. She provided an example from
the current growth policy to show how it could be more specific and attainable.
07:19:08 PM (00:12:22) Commissioner Mehl discussed the city’s Strategic Plan and how it
could inform some of the themes and goals of the growth policy update.
07:23:30 PM (00:17:16) The board members discussed whether items should be included if
they are not measurable and which items should be included as they tie to growth if they
are addressed in other reports, such as parking. Planner Saunders suggested broadening
the scope using ‘access’ as an alternative to ‘parking’ as an example to look at different
dynamics and tradeoffs when discussing larger picture items.
07:30:15 PM (00:23:29) Commissioner Mehl recommended including topics such as parking
in the growth policy because the community document will guide and inform the Unified
Development code for the next 7-8 years.
07:33:36 PM (00:26:50) Regarding the growth policy trending toward a more narrow focus,
Chair Neubauer felt that the new community plan should identify the larger issues the
community is facing. Board member Happel wanted to clarify that he interpreted the
memo’s purpose as giving the City Commissioners a preliminary idea of what topics should
be included in the growth policy.
07:38:29 PM (00:31:43) Commissioner Mehl brought up Board member Pape’s memo
addressing annexation. He agreed that this is a topic worth including. The board members
continued to deliberate on the topics that should be addressed and how they could
incentivize people to work toward the objectives laid out in the growth policy document.
07:45:52 PM (00:39:06) Board member Happel asked about the extent to which the
community plan should articulate how incentives would be deployed, including commercial
nodes as an example. He asked whether the document should discuss how incentives
500
should be deployed, or identify the objective and let the City decide how that should take
place.
07:48:14 PM (00:41:28) Planner Saunders responded with some ideas on how the
incentives could be presented to the Commission.
07:55:39 PM (00:48:53) Chair Neubauer brought up water conservation and how it ties into
the growth policy. He used medians and the wells they would require as an example. The
board discussed listing sustainability as an item to include in the growth policy. The
Planning Board decided to continue working on the memo prior to sending it to the
Commission for recommendation. The board continued to discuss the schedule to finalize
the memo of recommendation and when to present it to the Commission.
F. 08:13:40 PM (01:06:54) FYI/Discussion
The board members discussed their upcoming meeting and completing the memo to the
Commission regarding the growth policy.
08:17:19 PM (01:10:33) Lauren Waterton informed the Planning Board that she is a sub-
contractor to Economic Planning Systems (EPS) as an employee of Sanderson Stewart and
that her role has yet to be determined.
G. 08:17:44 PM (01:10:58) Adjournment
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
501
City Planning Board
Tuesday, January 2nd, 2018; 6:00 PM | City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue
A. 06:03:21 PM (00:02:17) Call Meeting to Order & Roll Call
Board Members:
• Commissioner Chris Mehl
• Lauren Waterton
• Paul Spitler
• Henry Happel (Chair)
• Brianne Dugan
• Jordan Zignego
• John Lavey
• Jerry Pape
Others Present (staff/applicants):
• Chris Saunders (Planner)
• Martin Matsen (Community Development Director)
• Tom Rogers (Planner)
B. 06:04:05 PM (00:03:01) Changes to the Agenda (none)
C. 06:04:17 PM (00:03:13) Minutes (none)
D. 06:04:23 PM (00:03:19) Public Comment (none)
E. 06:04:39 PM (00:03:35) Action Items
1. Discussion and action on Growth Policy framework, questions, outreach and
time line (Rogers, Saunders, Matsen)
Framework
Growth Policy Questions
Outreach Timeline
Next Steps Memo
November Memo to City Commission
Comments Saunders & Comments Lavey
Presentation by Director Matsen and Planner Saunders regarding a request for proposal (RFP)
for a consultant to provide assistance in developing the growth policy and timeline in
connection with the same. A General discussion followed concerning these matters.
502
06:25:41 PM (00:24:37) MOTION by Mr. Pape to dissolve the Planning Board Growth Policy
subcommittee. The motion failed for lack of a second.
06:26:41 PM (00:25:37) A continuation of general discussion of the action item.
06:30:36 PM (00:29:32) MOTION by Mr. Happel to amend the composition of the Planning
Board Growth Policy Subcommittee (the “Subcommittee”) to include: Mr. Lavey, Ms. Waterton,
Commissioner Mehl and Mr. Spitler.
MOTION SECONDED
VOTE: Motion Passes: 7 for; 1 against
06:34:17 PM (00:33:13) Planning Board continued discussion regarding the Growth Policy.
06:38:48 PM (00:37:44) MOTION by Mr. Spitler to provide direction to the City staff develop an
RFP utilizing, as appropriate, the growth policy questions and the growth policy overview
document (Framework) that the Subcommittee has developed.
MOTION SECONDED followed by a general discussion.
06:41:24 PM (00:40:20) VOTE: Motion Passes; 7 for; 1 against
06:41:39 PM (00:40:35) MOTION by Mr. Spitler to direct City staff to incorporate scenario
planning as appropriate in the growth policy process including as needed, the RFP.
MOTION SECONDED followed by a general discussion.
06:48:25 PM (00:47:21) VOTE: Motion Passes; 7 for; 1 against
06:48:46 PM (00:47:42) MOTION by Mr. Spitler that the chairman (Mr. Happel) be involved in
the RFP process to the extent necessary including signing off on the RFP itself and also the
review and selection process
MOTION SECONDED followed by general discussion.
07:04:56 PM (01:03:52) VOTE: Motion Passes; 7 for; 1 against
07:05:50 PM (01:04:46) MOTION by Mr. Mehl that the Planning Board urges staff to ensure that
the consultant coordinate with the other existing City plans in the development of the
Community Plan.
MOTION SECONDED followed by a general discussion.
07:06:46 PM (01:05:42) VOTE: Motion Passes; 7 for; 1 against
503
07:07:18 PM (01:06:14) MOTION by Commissioner Mehl that once a consultant is selected that
they meet with the Planning Board.
MOTION SECONDED followed by a general discussion.
07:09:01 PM (01:07:57) VOTE: Motion carries unanimously
A discussion followed focusing primarily on the comments submitted (link above) by Mr. Lavey.
07:12:35 PM (01:11:31) MOTION: by Mr. Pape to engage in Mr. Lavey’s offer of further
refinement of his appendix C (of the Lavey Comments) prior to its contribution to the rest of the
Subcommittee and the staff for the purpose of producing the RFP.
MOTION SECONDED followed by a general discussion.
VOTE: Motion carries unanimously
07:17:22 PM (01:16:18) A discussion continued on the action item by Planner Rogers and the
Planning Board.
F. 07:23:50 PM (01:22:46) FYI/Discussion
Future Agenda Items
G. 07:28:23 PM (01:27:19) Adjournment
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
504
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bozeman Planning Board
FROM: Growth Policy Subgroup
SUBJECT: Next Steps on Growth Policy
DATE: November 14, 2017
_______________________________________________________________________
The Planning Board has previously approved and sent to the City Commission a
Memorandum concerning its preliminary thoughts with regard to a new growth policy for
the City. A copy of this Memo is enclosed.
To advance work on the growth policy, the Planning Board needs to provide direction on
policy update goals, outreach strategy, and timelines. To assist this process, the growth
policy subgroup has developed the following draft documents, copies of which are also
enclosed:
A framework document which contains background information and provides
some general directional guidelines;
A preliminary set of major questions to ask the community during the outreach
process; and
A timeline for the project that describes an outreach approach.
These three draft proposals contain our recommendations regarding the goals, timeline,
and outreach strategy for the growth policy. We present these proposals to the Planning
Board for its review and ratification.
505
GROWTH POLICY UPDATE – OVERVIEW
An important task before the Planning Board is to create and implement the elements of a growth
policy update that will result in a successful project. It will be helpful to focus on the outcomes that
we would like to achieve. The following information and questions are intended to begin the process
of identifying preferred outcomes. Once we have this understanding, it will be easier to build a
process for public engagement and plan development.
Why are we updating the Growth Policy now?
The Community Plan was updated in 2009. State law requires a community to review its growth
policy at least every five years.1
In addition, Chapter 17 of the current Community Plan identifies review triggers, goals and
objectives related to a growth policy update and/or amendment. Review triggers include:
• Are the community’s goals current and valid?
• Have the community conditions or legal framework materially changed?
• Where have problems appeared since the last review?
• Does the plan meet the current needs of the community?
• Can this plan be modified to better serve the needs and desires of the community?
With tremendous growth and development, Bozeman has changed considerably since 2009. State
law and the existing growth policy triggers require an update to our Growth Policy.
Further, the City Commission is finalizing a Strategic Plan that calls for a new Growth Policy and
provides direction on maintaining Bozeman as a livable and well-planned city. To fulfill the strategic
plan directives, an updated Growth Policy is required.
What direction has the City Commission given with regards to the Growth Policy?
The Strategic Plan contains the following regarding ensuring that Bozeman remains a well-planned
city. A complete list of planning-related proposals is contained in Attachment A. Major points are
below. These points will provide direction to the growth policy update.
4. A Well-Planned City
We consistently improve our community’s quality of life as it grows and changes, honoring our
sense of place and the ‘Bozeman feel’ as we plan for a livable, affordable, more connected city.
4.1 Informed Conversation on Growth - Continue developing an in-depth understanding of how
Bozeman is growing and changing and proactively address change in a balanced and coordinated
manner.
4.2 High Quality Urban Approach - Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as
multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable neighborhoods.
1 76-1-601 (3) (f) MCA
506
GROWTH POLICY FRAMEWORK QUESTIONS
PAGE 2
4.3 Strategic Infrastructure Choices - Prioritize long-term investment and maintenance for existing
and new infrastructure.
4.4 Vibrant Downtown, Districts & Centers - Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and
other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including higher densities and intensification of use in these key areas.
What can the Growth Policy do for Bozeman and how will we know if it is
successful?
Establishing and clearly articulating a vision as to what Bozeman will look like in the future is critical
to the success of a new Growth Policy.
The plan should provide a direction for development that builds a sustainable community. The plan
should guide land use decisions, provide context and understanding for annexation policy, and guide
the development of the community. There should be clear understandings of future growth areas,
infill potential, downtown and commercial areas, historic preservation, and clear connections that tie
future growth to future infrastructure.
It is essential that the Growth Policy demonstrates a commitment to outcomes. It must be more
than just a set of goals and objectives. It should also have actions and timelines that work towards
achieving the goals that are identified in the plan. Identifying measurable outcomes will assist in the
implementation of the plan – including a commitment to provide the staff and financial resources
needed to carry out the plan.
If the plan does these things, it will be a success.
What are the main challenges we will face and how will we overcome them?
Like any public process, engaging with the community to gain meaningful comments, suggestions
and input will be critical to the success of the process and the growth policy. Challenges will be
related to hearing all points of view, engaging different segments of the population, and using those
to craft a plan that reflects community input.
In addition, any growth policy requires a community to make informed decisions about future
developments. The current rate of change in population, in technologies affecting our community,
and in economics all make the task of predicted the future more difficult. The best answer to this
challenge is probably to recognize the limitations of our powers of prognostication and to focus on
promoting growth policies that result in adaptable policies, neighborhoods, commercial centers,
transportation infrastructures, etc.
Finally, governments are resource constrained and will always be so. Any growth policy needs to
recognize this and be realistic about the availability and use of scarce financial resources.
507
GROWTH POLICY FRAMEWORK QUESTIONS
PAGE 3
Attachment A
Bozeman Strategic Plan – Well-Planned City
4. A Well-Planned City
We consistently improve our community’s quality of life as it grows and changes, honoring our
sense of place and the ‘Bozeman feel’ as we plan for a livable, affordable, more connected city.
4.1 Informed Conversation on Growth - Continue developing an in-depth understanding of how
Bozeman is growing and changing and proactively address change in a balanced and coordinated
manner.
a) Adopt a New Growth Policy Based on Sustainable Growth Principles. Direct and guide
sustainable growth through appropriate planning, annexation, land use, and a streamlined
development review process.
b) Develop and Align Infill Policies. Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and
redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure.
c) GIS Land Use & Infrastructure Development Tracking. Provide easy-to-use, accurate and
informative tracking of land-use and infrastructure development trends and project-specific
progress for use across the organization to inform strategic infrastructure investments.
4.2 High Quality Urban Approach - Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from
building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as
multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable
neighborhoods.
a) Advance the Triangle Growth Plan. Commit City resources and actively partner with the
County and other local jurisdictions to advance the Triangle Plan, to include facility planning,
economic development, land use, water and sewer use.
b) Complete Unified Development Code, Phase 2. Once the updated Unified Development
Code (UDC) for growth and infrastructure is adopted by City Commission, begin Phase 2 of UDC
to address parking standards and affordable housing and sign code.
c) Parking Management by District. Develop a comprehensive, integrated approach to parking
management for the downtown, midtown, university, and other districts. Consider a range of
solutions including both on-street parking and parking garages.
d) Prepare for Metropolitan Planning Organization Designation. Begin advance planning and
preparation for Bozeman’s anticipated designation as a Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO). Coordinate with other regional governments on inter-local agreements, transportation
planning functions, and required development for the City as an MPO.
508
GROWTH POLICY FRAMEWORK QUESTIONS
PAGE 4
e) Update Historic Preservation Guidelines. Update the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District (NCOD) guidelines for historic preservation in downtown, midtown, and other
commercial districts and neighborhood centers. Promote continued investment in the city's
inventory of historic structures relative to ongoing infill and redevelopment.
f) Create a Standard Boards and Commission Onboarding and Education Process. Increase
education for boards, advisory boards and the zoning commission regarding the importance of
supporting high quality urban standards.
g) Identify Trail Connection Gaps. Further trail connectivity, particularly E/W trail connections
to facilitate active transportation.
4.3 Strategic Infrastructure Choices - Prioritize long-term investment and maintenance for
existing and new infrastructure.
a) Manage Growth Adjacent to City (Donut). Prioritize continuing to allocate resources to
address growth in the Greater Bozeman Metro Area by establishing a joint city/county planning
board and implementing urban infrastructure standards for new development in the county.
b) Use Tourism Improvement Dollars for Infrastructure. Seek legislative authority to allocate
Tourism Business Improvement dollars to local infrastructure projects.
c) Develop a Comprehensive Parks Maintenance and Facilities Funding Program.
d) Implement the Water Resources Plan. Including: Groundwater well field, Sourdough canyon
natural storage, Sourdough Canyon water transmission, Lyman water tank and transmission
main, Hyalite Dam Reservoir improvements.
e) Increase Capacity of Sewer Pipes to Accommodate Development Projects. Projects include:
North Frontage Road sewer project, Front Street sewer project and Davis Lane.
f) Stormwater Control. Pilot, construct, and maintain green and low impact stormwater control
measures that soak up, filter, and infiltrate stormwater and its pollutants, while adding a
natural and accessible look to the city’s built environment.
g) Complete a Downtown Infrastructure Plan. Complete a plan for downtown infrastructure
and prioritize improvements in the various Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs).
h) Annexation of Islands and Critical Adjacent Lands. Investigate the development of new
annexation policies to address long term tax fairness for public services, locations of
infrastructure, and locations for future infill and growth.
509
GROWTH POLICY FRAMEWORK QUESTIONS
PAGE 5
i) Explore Sustainable Technology. Explore technologies to advance environmental
sustainability. Examples include Advanced Metering Infrastructure, performance management
systems also known as community “dashboards,” indoor and outdoor lighting controls, Electric
Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, and data analytics.
j) Encourage a County-wide Local Gas Tax. Suggest Gallatin County propose a local gas tax to
be approved by voters to help fund local infrastructure projects. This is another way to share
the City’s funding burden of providing urban services with other county residents as well as
tourists.
4.4 Vibrant Downtown, Districts & Centers - Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown,
and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including higher densities and
intensification of use in these key areas.
a) Enhance Livability of Neighborhoods Through City Services and Code Enforcement.
Maintain and enhance attractive neighborhoods through improved city services, innovative
enforcement techniques and voluntary compliance with city codes and regulations.
b) Sub-Area and Node Planning. Ensure adequate resources exist to develop future planning
for targeted subareas of the city such as downtown, midtown, and neighborhoods.
c) Reevaluate City Zone Map. Make considerations for high density zoning, transitional zoning
and live/work zoning.
d) Adopt a Strategic Parking Plan. Implement adopted strategic parking plan to provide
adequate parking to support vibrant commercial activity.
510
GROWTH POLICY OUTREACH STRATEGY & TIMELINE
2017
December
• Planning Board approves community outreach strategies, priorities, and questions.
• Planning Board approves growth policy framework.
2018
January
• Planning Board approves timeline. March-May
• Staff creates web page (or creates new page in City Projects url)
o To post notice of public meetings, gather input, etc.
• Staff manages webpage and adds content
o To post notice of public meetings, documents, gather input, etc.
Input form should have a combination of structured/multiple-choice responses and free-form comment areas in addition to email option
• Staff creates/utilizes email listserv
o Potentially from existing outreach lists utilized for Strategic Plan outreach, UDC
update, other Planning Department functions
• Staff initiates public outreach
o Content TBD
Must include opportunities for stakeholder input (i.e. ranking priorities,
word clouds, etc. so that the output is data that can be quantified and
analyzed). Scenario analysis is important.
o Public Forums
Advertise in the paper, on Facebook, webpage, through listserv, and during Commission Meetings
• In order to make these compelling, we may consider utilizing marketing specialists
Number of meetings TBD based on staff input, some should be webinars
Mailable comment cards and sign-in sheet to gather email addresses
o One-on-one sessions with key constituencies/stakeholders
Staff and Planning Board identify constituencies and stakeholders
Rely on stakeholder groups to contact and encourage attendance of their members
Number of meetings and targeted groups TBD based on staff input
Mailable comment cards and sign-in sheet to gather email addresses
o Engaging Vulnerable and Underrepresented Populations
511
Consider innovative approaches like polling on Streamline Bus, at the
Library, Food Bank, etc. to engage and gather feedback from populations
who are unlikely to attend other sessions. May-June
• Staff and Planning Board reviews public comments.
• Planning Board refines recommended policy guidance based on public comment.
June-August
• Consultants draft new growth policy, with direction from staff and Planning Board. September-December
• Staff conducts second round of public outreach.
o Combination of public meetings and revisiting key constituencies/stakeholders
• Planning Board review and recommended revisions.
• Staff revises growth policy based on public input and Planning Board review.
512
12/13/17 - DRAFT
GROWTH POLICY – PUBLIC OUTREACH QUESTIONS
Land Use Designations
• Describe current zoning and ask what, if any changes, are needed
• Develop scenarios (current policy, maximum infill, minimum infill, etc.) and ask which elements of each people support
• What about zoning on the outskirts of town?
• What do you like/dislike about your Bozeman?
• Would you prefer that residential neighborhoods be separated from retail sites, or would
you prefer mixing commercial and residential?
Density, Sprawl, Affordability, and Neighborhood Preservation
• Show what does density looks like. Provide detailed scenarios for downtown area and, if possible, specific neighborhoods: which scenarios are preferable?
• Ranking preferences: density v historic preservation v affordability, etc.
• Highlight the environmental and economic impacts of various scenarios (infill v sprawl) and inquire about preferences
• Lay out infill options: where do you prefer to grow?
• Name three things you love about your neighborhood. Three things you would change Parking (Downtown Plan and Parking Plan)
• Education: economic, social, and environmental impacts of excess parking
• Required parking minimums v letting economics dictate
Transportation/Infrastructure
• How important is walkability? Walkable retail? Public transport?
• Options to pay for infrastructure.
• Do you walk, bike, or take public transit to school/work/retail? If not, why not?
Commercial Nodes
• Where would you like to see a commercial center?
• How important is it to maintain land zoned commercial?
• Can you walk to commercial centers? Is this important to you?
• Would you support higher density if it led to more walkable retail sites?
Annexation
• Should the City consider an active annexation policy in order to include more vacant land for future development?
• Should the City identify areas for future annexation based on the ability to provide
adequate and cost-effective infrastructure?
513
12/13/17 - DRAFT
Intergovernmental Coordination
• In which areas should the City actively work to coordinate with the County? Annexation, road and street connections, future water and sewer needs, open space, environmental quality, housing.
• How can the City coordinate future school and facility expansion with the School District
and MSU?
514
Page 1 of 2
MEMO
To: Bozeman City Planning Board
From: John Lavey
Date: December 22, 2017
Subject: Growth Policy Framework
I appreciate the opportunity to present my thinking about the City’s upcoming Growth Policy project and I
appreciate your willingness to provide me extra time and your consideration. This board has the capacity to
do wonderful things and I’m hopeful this memo provides a bit of a roadmap as we think critically together
about the responsibilities before us.
Following our December 19, 2017 meeting, I spent time reflecting on our conversation—the clear desire to
move forward with specifics and to do so with a sense of urgency. My one and only goal—indeed, the
principal reason I joined the Planning Board—is to share my professional land-use and community planning
experiences to help produce an innovative and effective Growth Policy for the city. Many of the concepts
contained in the Planning Board’s subcommittee memo package are useful and needed. I also strongly believe
that we can and should expand our approach in a few key areas, which I had started to outline in my
(overdue) memo I referred to at our December 19 meeting. My objective here is to merge the good thinking
started by the subgroup with additional specifics I believe the Planning Board ought to consider as we move
forward.
Specifics
1) We should discuss and agree to the principles about what a successful Growth Policy product and
process look like. The “Growth Policy Update – Overview” document prepared by the subcommittee
offers a strong outline on this topic already. I share my contributions and edits to that memo in
Attachment A.
2) The subcommittee has already invested effort at identifying critical questions to offer the public in
their “Growth Policy – Public Outreach Questions” document. That document amounts to the
formulation of a planning approach for this project, which is simply a way to organize topics to be
included in a Growth Policy, and asserts sideboards on the type of input the public will be invited to
comment on. There are other ways to approach this, as I share in Attachment B, and talk more about
in Next Steps below.
3) An integrated communications and engagement plan will help us clearly articulate the tools,
leadership structures and engagement strategies we will employ as we are updating the Growth
Policy. I believe it is in our best interest to include the elements of this plan in our project,
customizing them to our needs. I share deeper thinking on this in Attachment C.
4) Given the complex and involved nature of a Growth Policy, we need to move forward in a more
coordinated way with Planning Staff and, ideally, elected leadership. It is my understanding that the
Planning Board’s project timeline differs significantly from that of Planning Staff. We need to align
timelines. We also need to understand staff’s capacity for this project, especially because they should
take more of a leadership role.
5) A good consultant will be able to help us think through the public and technical processes that a
project like this entails. I suggest our forthcoming efforts be directed at outlining the aspects of this
project we would like consulting assistance with. We might think of that effort as the beginning of a
scope of work. This is an area that staff involvement will be imperative.
515
Page 2 of 2
Recommended Next Steps
Given the few thoughts I share above, I propose that we move forward in the following way:
1) Invite Planning Staff to share their current thinking regarding project timeline, project plan, and staff
capacity at an upcoming Planning Board meeting. It is my understanding that there is intent to do
this.
2) Discuss, perhaps as a subgroup but ideally as a full planning board, the elements of the integrated
communications and engagement document, Attachment C. I believe it is important to address each
of these in some way, but we can look at this as an “a la carte” menu—we can pick and choose the
items we think make sense for us. There are tradeoffs involved in this, which we can discuss if there
is interest among the board. Working through many of the items in this attachment can help us avoid
public pitfalls as the project progresses, and so I think are worth incorporating. I think discussion of
the items in this document should occur within the next two Planning Board meetings.
3) The Planning Board subcommittee’s “Growth Policy Outreach Strategy & Timeline” contains useful
thinking on the types of public outreach channels (i.e. website) and activities (i.e. public forums) we
could employ during this project. We should consider stripping the Timeline document of the
specifics of those channels and tools (leaving them to be resolved in more specificity through point
2, above). That would leave us with a big picture timeline, which we will need to merge with staff’s
timeline and ultimately wrap into an RFP. See comments and edits in Attachment A.
4) The Planning Board should outline a draft scope of work for consulting services to be included
within an RFP. I can envision a few provisions we would want to include:
a. Interviews with planning staff, city commission and planning board
b. Response to how they would incorporate our existing desires for public outreach and
engagement into their planning model
c. A discussion and recommendation of how they would approach the planning process
d. Detail of their timeline, benchmarks and deliverables
Thanks again for your time and consideration of all of this. I am glad that we are working together to shape a
more livable future for this wonderful place we call home.
Respectfully,
John Lavey
516
Attachment A
GROWTH POLICY UPDATE – OVERVIEW
An important task before the Planning Board is to create and implement the elements of a growth
policy update that will result in a successful project. It will be helpful to focus on the outcomes that
we would like to achieve. The following information and questions are intended to begin the process
of identifying preferred outcomes. Once we have this understanding, it will be easier to build a
process for public engagement and plan development.
Why are we updating the Growth Policy now?
The Community Plan was updated in 2009. State law requires a community to review its growth
policy at least every five years.1
In addition, Chapter 17 of the current Community Plan identifies review triggers, goals and
objectives related to a growth policy update and/or amendment. Review triggers include:
• Are the community’s goals current and valid?
• Have the community conditions or legal framework materially changed?
• Where have problems appeared since the last review?
• Does the plan meet the current needs of the community?
• Can this plan be modified to better serve the needs and desires of the community?
With tremendous growth and development, Bozeman has changed considerably since 2009. State
law and the existing growth policy triggers require an update to our Growth Policy.
Further, the City Commission is finalizing a Strategic Plan that calls for a new Growth Policy and
provides direction on maintaining Bozeman as a livable and well-planned city. To fulfill the strategic
plan directives, an updated Growth Policy is required.
What direction has the City Commission given with regards to the Growth Policy?
The Strategic Plan contains the following regarding ensuring that Bozeman remains a well-planned
city. A complete list of planning-related proposals is contained in Attachment A. Major points are below. These points will provide direction to the growth policy update.
4. A Well-Planned City We consistently improve our community’s quality of life as it grows and changes, honoring our sense of place and the ‘Bozeman feel’ as we plan for a livable, affordable, more connected city.
4.1 Informed Conversation on Growth - Continue developing an in-depth understanding of how Bozeman is growing and changing and proactively address change in a balanced and coordinated manner.
4.2 High Quality Urban Approach - Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable neighborhoods.
1 76-1-601 (3) (f) MCA
Commented [JPL1]: Inside baseball. Good for us to know but not compelling or engaging to your average citizen. Developing a project purpose statement, together, would better address this. Attachment C.
Commented [JPL2]: These are important aspects of the overall project frame.
517
GROWTH POLICY FRAMEWORK QUESTIONS
PAGE 2
Attachment A | Page 2 of 4
4.3 Strategic Infrastructure Choices - Prioritize long-term investment and maintenance for existing
and new infrastructure. 4.4 Vibrant Downtown, Districts & Centers - Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including higher densities and intensification
of use in these key areas.
What can the Growth Policy do for Bozeman and how will we know if it is
successful?
Establishing and clearly articulating a vision as to what Bozeman will look like in the future is critical
to the success of a new Growth Policy.
The plan should provide a direction for development that builds a sustainable community. The plan
should guide land use decisions, provide context and understanding for annexation policy, and guide
the development of the community. There should be clear understandings of future growth areas,
infill potential, downtown and commercial areas, historic preservation, and clear connections that tie future growth to future infrastructure.
It is essential that the Growth Policy demonstrates a commitment to outcomes. It must be more
than just a set of goals and objectives. It should also have actions and timelines that work towards
achieving the goals that are identified in the plan. Identifying measurable outcomes will assist in the
implementation of the plan – including a commitment to provide the staff and financial resources
needed to carry out the plan.
If the plan does these things, it will be a success.
What are the main challenges we will face and how will we overcome them?
Like any public process, engaging with the community to gain meaningful comments, suggestions
and input will be critical to the success of the process and the growth policy. Challenges will be
related to hearing all points of view, engaging different segments of the population, and using those
to craft a plan that reflects community input.
In addition, any growth policy requires a community to make informed decisions about future
developments. The current rate of change in population, in technologies affecting our community,
and in economics all make the task of predicted the future more difficult. The best answer to this
challenge is probably to recognize the limitations of our powers of prognostication and to focus on
promoting growth policies that result in adaptable policies, neighborhoods, commercial centers,
transportation infrastructures, etc.
Finally, governments are resource constrained and will always be so. Any growth policy needs to
recognize this and be realistic about the availability and use of scarce financial resources. Other potential challenges:
- Constituencies interested in shaping the growth policy to frustrate or inhibit growth.
- Having an informed conversation about growth and its tradeoffs
Commented [JPL3]: Shouldn’t a part of developing measurable outcomes also be a system used to make the measurements?
Commented [JPL4]: These are focused on the Growth Policy as a product. Are there process-oriented markers of success? For example, a successful plan is one that has broad-based public participation and buy in. It offers genuine and accessible opportunities for people to contribute their perspective in a way in which they feel their contributions are valued.
Commented [JPL5]: I don’t think we want to give people the impression that this planning effort is about predicting the future in any way. The focus is rightly on adaptable [fill in the blank] and how this document can help shape our future in that direction.
518
GROWTH POLICY FRAMEWORK QUESTIONS
PAGE 3
Attachment A | Page 3 of 4
- Using the few values-oriented statements from the strategic plan (or something else) to justify
the contents of the document. Will people see themselves, by and large, reflected in the growth
policy?
- Staff support, leadership and guidance.
- Timeline, and our ability to adjust to on the ground circumstances within a timeline.
GROWTH POLICY OUTREACH STRATEGY & TIMELINE
2017
DecemberMonth 1
• Planning Board approves community outreach strategies, priorities, and questions.
• Planning Board approves growth policy framework. 2018 Month 2January
• Planning Board discusses and approves consultant RFP contents timeline. Month 3 - 5March-May
• Somebody develops an RFP
• RFP internally reviewed
• RFP released to qualified consultants
• Consultants reviewed
• Final consultant selected
• Staff creates web page (or creates new page in City Projects url)
o To post notice of public meetings, gather input, etc.
• Staff manages webpage and adds content
o To post notice of public meetings, documents, gather input, etc.
Input form should have a combination of structured/multiple-choice responses
and free-form comment areas in addition to email option
• Staff creates/utilizes email listserv
o Potentially from existing outreach lists utilized for Strategic Plan outreach, UDC update,
other Planning Department functions
• Staff initiates public outreach
o Content TBD
Must include opportunities for stakeholder input (i.e. ranking priorities, word clouds, etc. so that the output is data that can be quantified and analyzed). Scenario analysis is important.
o Public Forums
Commented [JPL6]: This is a HUGE TBD! We could figure it out, and will definielty want to be involved in shaping it, but this is the crux of the public involvement equation. What is the purpose of the outreach? To gather feedback? To educate? Just an FYI? Let’s figure out, with the consultant, WHAT we want to outreach to the public for, then we can figure out HOW.
Commented [JPL7]: I would love to talk more with you about with this entails. Having worked with Envision Tomorrow personally, and in a couple different communities, I can testify to its power and complications. MSU is an obvious partner here, but that should come with an understanding of how it will affect our timeline and the quality of the product we receive. If we want to incorporate scenario analysis, the sooner we get started on it the better.
519
GROWTH POLICY FRAMEWORK QUESTIONS
PAGE 4
Attachment A | Page 4 of 4
Advertise in the paper, on Facebook, webpage, through listserv, and during Commission
Meetings
• In order to make these compelling, we may consider utilizing marketing
specialists
Number of meetings TBD based on staff input, some should be webinars
Mailable comment cards and sign-in sheet to gather email addresses
o One-on-one sessions with key constituencies/stakeholders
Staff and Planning Board identify constituencies and stakeholders
Rely on stakeholder groups to contact and encourage attendance of their
members
Number of meetings and targeted groups TBD based on staff input
Mailable comment cards and sign-in sheet to gather email addresses
o Engaging Vulnerable and Underrepresented Populations
Consider innovative approaches like polling on Streamline Bus, at the Library,
Food Bank, etc. to engage and gather feedback from populations who are unlikely to attend other sessions. Month 4 or 5
• Project Kick-off meeting? May-JuneMonths 5 - 7
• Engagement and drafting
• Staff and Planning Board reviews public comments.
• Planning Board refines recommended policy guidance based on public comment.
June-AugustMOnths 8 and 9
• Consultants draft new growth policy, with direction from staff and Planning Board.
• Assess where we are, what needs remain; adjust project plan—esp public engagement
components—accordingly. September-December Months 10 - 12
• Staff conducts second round of public outreach.
o Combination of public meetings and revisiting key constituencies/stakeholders
• Planning Board review and recommended revisions.
• Staff revises growth policy based on public input and Planning Board review.
OVERALL THIS IS A VERY AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE.
Commented [JPL8]: This is all good stuff that I am recommending we signal as important to us in an RFP, and ask for consultants to respond to—how will you address our desires to include these types of activities and channels into a broad-based public engagement component of this project? Or along those lines. I also think we can figure some of this stuff out on our own through some work via Attachment C.
Commented [JPL9]: I like these. Perhaps we get some bigwig speaker to come in and spiel their inspiration. It can be fun.
Commented [JPL10]: At this stage in the game, being too prescriptive with what this looks like will really test our powers of prognostication!
520
Attachment B | Page 1 of 1
Attachment B - Planning Approach
Montana code provides broad flexibility to local jurisdictions in terms of how they organize themselves to
develop a Growth Policy and in stipulating the issues a Growth Policy should cover. Montana code describes
what “must” be contained in a Growth Policy (MCA § 76-1-601(3)), but also states that the extent to which a
local government actually addresses those issues is discretionary.
The result of this is that there are many ways to approach the development of the contents of a Growth
Policy. A “planning approach” in this context is simply a way of organizing the topics that will be included in
the document and asserts sideboards on the type of input the public will be invited to comment on. Thought
must be given to this because it informs how we will conduct public outreach and influences the way that
citizens will interact with the project. Without taking a side as to the merits of any possible approach, here are
a few ways we could organize information in a Growth Policy update:
Approach Type Characteristics Notes
“Growth Policy” Uses the structure and contents of MCA 76-1-
601(3) as the organizing instrument of the Growth Policy.
This structure, in addition to
addressing the contents of 601(4), is important if the local governing body wishes to exempt
subdivisions from certain requirements of the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act. Scope is well defined. Forsyth, MT Growth Policy is a good
example.
“Local Policy” Focused on specific policy issues, some of which
may be covered by MCA 76-1-601(3), though that is not required.
Essentially the approach outlined
in the Planning Board’s November 7, 2017 memo to the
City Commission.
“Thematic” Focused around certain organizing themes; for
example: transportation and mobility, open space and parks, housing, our downtown, economics,
etc.
Missoula’s 2015 growth policy is a
well-known example of this, and Kalispell’s recently adopted policy
takes a similar approach.
“Strategic Plan” Based around the implementing strategies for Bozeman’s “A Well-Planned City” vision statement. (i.e Informed conversations, high
quality urban approach, strategic infrastructure, downtowns and districts, housing and
transportation, planning coordination).
Similar to the “Thematic” approach, but has a direct link to a stated Citywide strategic action.
Uncertainty as to when or whether Strategic Plan will be
adopted.
521
Attachment C – Integrated communications and engagement example
Attachment C | Page 1 of 10
Overview: This document is a compilation of principles and tools I have found to be useful in
other projects and that I believe could benefit our effort to update the Growth Policy if we
employed them in some way in our effort. I present each element with a brief narrative to
understand the general principle behind it, then provide an example from a previous project I’ve
worked on that I thought worked particularly well. To be clear, what follows is not a proposal for
exact language for Bozeman’s Growth Policy update, although much of what is shared herein
could very well be appropriate for Bozeman—that is not for me, but for us, to say.
Public Engagement Rationale
Intent: State our rationale for engaging the public in this project.
Example:
• Build trust between local government and community members to enable better collaboration.
• Build trust and bridges that foster understanding and respect between different community
stakeholders.
• Enhance our ability to make collaborative decisions.
• Broaden stakeholder involvement that will be more representative of the community as a whole.
• Build the capacity of Town staff to be able to facilitate more effective public engagement long-
term, and in future projects.
Public Engagement Principles
Intent: Describe the principles we agree to adhere to in engaging the public throughout the Growth Policy
update. Not dissimilar from the engagement document shared by Randy Carpenter at a Planning Board meeting
not too long ago.
Example: We are committed to providing robust opportunities for public participation in local decision
making. For this project, the Town is embracing an inclusive and participatory planning approach that will
apply the following guiding principles:
• Be Authentic: The purpose of this project is to generate grassroots community ideas and opinions
about the future of our town.
• Be Inclusive: Public engagement opportunities are open to all and are designed to reflect the
demographics and diversity of the Town’s entire population.
• Be Transparent: We will provide full transparency about the project’s sponsorship, purpose, design,
and how decision makers will use the community’s input.
• Be Committed to Openness & Learning: We do not have a predetermined outcome. Town
leadership, as well as community participants, commit to being respectful of the diversity of
opinions that exist in the community, listen to each other, and open to and willing to explore all
ideas.
• Support Informed Participation: Participants will have access to information and/or expertise that
will support their ability to successfully participate.
522
Attachment C – Integrated communications and engagement example
Attachment C | Page 2 of 10
Engagement Goals
Intent: Describe the aspects of the project that we expect public outreach to influence
Example: The purpose of our public outreach opportunities is to:
• Inform community members about the project—it’s purpose, background and direction.
• Gather input about what community members love and value in our community.
• Identify and discuss important issues that need to be addressed in order to support a vibrant
downtown consistent with the community’s values and vision for the future.
• Provide information about potential solutions and strategies for action.
• Gather input from the community about community priorities for action.
• Provide opportunities for the community to shape the downtown vision.
Outreach Channels
Intent: Describe the types of communications channels we intend to use during the project. The examples
contained below is NOT a comprehensive list.
Example: To reach out and inform the community about the project, the following communication tools
could be used:
• Project Website will include information about the project, online interactive platforms, a project
calendar, and project documents.
• Email Distribution Lists will use existing lists, meeting sign-in sheets, and the project website sign-
up.
• E-Notices will be sent to notify of upcoming opportunities to be involved and provide project
updates.
• Flyers and Posters will be distributed around the Town to notify residents of events and activities
and direct them to the project website.
• Community Outreach Events to reach out to residents at popular locations in Town.
• Media Announcements on Facebook, Instagram, radio, and the newspaper will provide
announcements of progress and upcoming events.
• Community Presentations to civic groups, organizations, community groups, and other boards.
• Mobile phones through the use of a tool like Textizen or CoUrbanize to engage people remotely on
key community questions.
Engagement Types
Intent: Describe the types of public engagement we intend to deploy during the project. The examples contained
below is NOT a comprehensive list.
Example: The following types of engagement methods will be used to get Town residents involved that
utilize creative and informal activities in addition to more traditional engagement events.
• Stakeholder Interviews and Focus Groups to understand the values, issues, concerns, and
approaches from targeted stakeholders groups.
• Storytelling Events to gather personal stories from community members in order to understand
the values, interest, concerns, and hopes of the community for the future.
523
Attachment C – Integrated communications and engagement example
Attachment C | Page 3 of 10
• Creative Submissions that will include opportunities for the community to submit photos, stories,
and videos via social media, cellphone and online platforms.
• Community Forums, both on-line and in person, that will promote dialogue and discussion
intended to promote community member interaction and shared learning and decision making.
• Community Questionnaires to solicit community opinion on community values and the quality of
the recommendations and priorities for action.
• Learning Forums to learn about community development best practices and provide for informed
decision making.
• Feedback Forms and Pop-Ups to solicit written input in the form of postcards, stickers,
chalkboards, and more from residents in specific locations around Town.
• Community Presentations led by the project leadership team to share learning and project
progress.
• Mobile Workshops, including bikeshops and walkshops, to gain an understanding of the strengths,
opportunities, and challenges of enhancing the downtown pedestrian and bicycle safety and
walkability.
• Design Charrettes led by design and planning specialists to develop a shared vision for what
residents want the town to be like 20 years from now.
• E-tools like “Stake” or “Envision Tomorrow” that help people understand tradeoffs of policy
decisions in an interactive or gamified environment.
Stakeholder Identification
Intent: Describe the types of stakeholder groups we would like to reach out to. Connected to the Network
Analysis, below.
Example:
We will reach out to stakeholders and sectors within the community including, but not limited to:
• Civic groups
• Arts & cultural organizations
• Youth & education
• Business community
• Recreation groups
• Pedestrian & cycling advocates
• Neighborhoods
• Homeowners Associations
• Real estate & developers
• Regional governments
• Tourism sector
• Downtown business & property owners
• Faith community
• Nonprofit sector
• Other underrepresented stakeholders who
do not typically participate.
In conducting this outreach, we could be extremely strategic and conduct a stakeholder network analysis. An
example of such an analysis conducted for another project is contained at the end of this document.
524
Attachment C – Integrated communications and engagement example
Attachment C | Page 4 of 10
Leadership – Project Management Team
Intent: A Project Management Team are the individuals responsible for all aspects of managing a project.
Describes the roles and responsibilities of the group of people managing the overall project.
Example:
The Project Management Team (PMT) is responsible for the day-to-day management of the project, which
includes leadership and oversight of project logistics, timelines, and task execution. The PMT includes
individuals from the City, Consultant and Planning Board. The PMT meets regularly to stay on top of task
management. The project team is comprised of the following individuals:
• Person 1
• etc
Leadership – Citizen Steering Committee
Intent: Invite broader-base participation and buy-in to the project by involving citizens in an active leadership
role.
Example:
The role of the Citizen Steering Committee (CSC) is to: (1) provide guidance and oversight to
the public engagement process, (2) ensure the community understands and is effectively
engaged in the project, and (3) work to build the capacity of the community for public
engagement and collaborative problem solving.
In this role, CSC members support the project by providing feedback and input on the design
and implementation of the public engagement process, assisting with specific community
outreach and engagement activities, and assisting with outreach to their networks in the
community to ensure all residents are engaged. The members on the CSC were selected to
represent the diversity of the Town and for their willingness to work to foster more
constructive community dialogue and collaboration.
CSC members include:
• Person 1
• etc
Project Branding
Intent: Common for comprehensive planning efforts, project branding gives identity and consistency to a
project.
Example:
Brand Element
Project Name
Logo
525
Attachment C – Integrated communications and engagement example
Attachment C | Page 5 of 10
Project Tag Line
Project Colors *Develop branding slate*
Project Hashtag #
Website
Boilerplate A Strong Future is a project of the Town that seeks meaningful community
input on how to build a thriving community for everyone, and honors our
rich heritage. The goal of the project is to spark constructive dialogue that
will identify shared values and build a vision for the town that includes an
action-plan on how to get things done.
Project Purpose Statement
Intent: Articulates the reasons why we are conducting this project. Written to be “outward facing”, the project
purpose statement frames the background and intent of the project and gives rationale to our activities.
Example:
We love our town. We have a rich cultural heritage that dates back centuries, a spectacular location perched
on a dramatic high-desert landscape, and friendly, creative (and sometimes outright kooky) residents who
give this place a distinct personality.
Our community has worked hard to maintain a strong connection to our past. But we also face significant
challenges for the future. The economy has sputtered in the wake of the Great Recession. Blows to the
construction industry and the closure of the local mine left a lot of locals with few employment options.
About 21% of our neighbors are living at or below the poverty line, and our young people are leaving at an
alarming rate, largely due to a lack of opportunities.
Most of us have concerns about the impacts of growth on our town’s tradition and small-town feel.
Unfortunately, we have yet to build consensus about what steps we can take to address our economic
challenges while paying reverence to our history. Too often, our discussions about development erupt into
polarizing, unproductive debates that divide us rather than unite us.
We can, and should, do better.
How can we manage development in a way that protects our historic character, supports local businesses
and grows the local economy, and contributes to the quality of life of those who live here? We have tried to
address these questions in the past with varying degrees of success. We think now is a great time to revisit
this conversation, in a productive and inclusive community discussion and with the clear intention of turning
our ideas into actions.
The Town Council has directed the Planning, Community and Economic Development Department to work
on a highly participatory and community-driven strategy to update the Growth Policy. The Mayor and
Council are committed to improving how the Town interacts with its residents. The Town has partnered with
a consultant to provide the Town with additional expertise in public engagement and community
526
Attachment C – Integrated communications and engagement example
Attachment C | Page 6 of 10
development. The purpose of this community dialogue is to provide an opportunity for us to come together
to think strategically about how we can build a great town for everyone. This is an exciting opportunity to
both do things better than we have in the past, and create an action-oriented vision for the downtown. The
outcome of this community dialogue will be an updated growth policy which will:
• Identify what we love about their community and why that matters.
• Develop a shared vision for our town and the role we want the town to play in our prosperity and
quality of life.
• Identify solutions for ongoing community challenges of pedestrian and cyclist safety, declining
downtown economic vitality, transportation and parking congestion, and protection of the historic
district’s character.
• Define what type of development is appropriate for downtown, where that development should
happen, and how it should occur in a way that is consistent with our community’s values.
Ultimately, this project is about taking action. The result of the project will be an updated Growth Policy that
summarizes:
• Our shared community values.
• Guiding principles, goals, and recommended strategies for the downtown.
• An implementation action plan.
Following the completion of the Growth Policy update, the Town will work to incorporate the results into a
formal plan or policy that can be used by decision makers to make development and capital investment
decisions in the downtown that are consistent with the community’s values and vision.
Key Messages
Intent: Provide key messages for each step, phase or task of a project. Helps key messengers “speak from the
same page” to reduce confusion, enhance project clarity and create widespread understanding.
Example:
Phase 1: Where Are We?
Message Themes
• We love our Town. But we know there are some things that need to change. We have challenging
economic conditions where not everyone is thriving, our businesses struggle, and our infrastructure
does not always work for us.
• We have had these challenges a long time, but we have not been successful in working together and
having the dialogues we need to have. With new leadership in town, we have an opportunity to do
things better than we have in the past.
• But we cannot do it alone. We need you to come to the table and help us recreate how we work
together to solve problems.
Phase 2: Where Do We Want To Go?
Message Themes
• Our downtown district is the heart of our community.
527
Attachment C – Integrated communications and engagement example
Attachment C | Page 7 of 10
• How do we better integrate our southern gateway and our historic district so they feel like one
community? These are key questions we will address as we create a vision for a safe, virbrant, and
thriving place for all of us.
Phase 3: How Will We Get There?
Message Themes
• We have worked together to establish a vision and goals for keeping a heart and soul to our
community focused around building a great place.
• Now it is time to put our ideas into action. We will work together to identify strategies that will have
the support of the community and best achieve our community's goals.
Implementation
Celebrate our successes, reflect on what we achieved, tell stories of how people's perception of collaboration
and participation changed.
Public Engagement Summary
Intent: A visual representation of the tasks, phases or important steps involved in the project. Helps people
understand “at a glance” what the project looks like and what to expect.
Example:
528
Attachment C – Integrated communications and engagement example
Attachment C | Page 8 of 10
Communication Channels: Non-Traditional
Intent: Identify specific local channels of non-traditional media we could use to share project information.
Ideally done well before project launch. The City already likely has something like this available.
Example:
Channel Manager Link Phone Email Submission
Deadlines
Facebook Pages
Community
Calendars
Twitter
Community
Forums
Community
Newsletters
Bulletin Boards
Instagram
Local Blogs
Vimeo
Communication Channels: Traditional
Intent: Identify specific local channels of traditional media we could use to share project information. Ideally
done well before project launch. The City already likely has something like this available.
Example:
Channel Manager Contact Phone Email Submission
Deadlines
Television
Radio
Newspaper
529
Attachment C – Integrated communications and engagement example
Attachment C | Page 9 of 10
Local-Focus
Magazines
Network Analysis
Intent: Deep-dive into the stakeholder groups to figure out who key messengers are, what motivates them to
support, and who they listen to. Crucial for developing broad-based support.
Example:
STAKEHOLDER
GROUP
NETWORKS CONTACTS COMMUNICATION
CHANNELS
CONNECTORS INTEREST
Who do we want to
engage? (groups, age groups, geographies,
etc.)
What groups
do they belong to?
Who is the
group contact?
How do they share
information? Where can we reach them?
(newsletters, list
serves, FB, coffee
shop, meetings, etc..)
Are there
individuals that can are part of
this group
and/or others
who can help
with outreach?
What might be
the groups interest in this
project?
e.g. Recreation Users COPMOBA Jim Smith Facebook page
Colorado Plateau
Mountain Bike
Association, Tues
morning ride from
bakery
Trail access and
expansion for
recreation use.
Valley
Horseman
Allie Wyss newsletter, annual
meeting
Cory Rice is in
horseman and
copmoba. Owns
Valley
Outfitters. Paul
knows her.
Trail access and
expansion for
recreation use.
Closures
effecting
outfitters
business.
Recreation Users
Business Owners
Part time Residents
Retired residents
Non-Profits
Special Event
Organizers
Ranchers
Land
Trusts/Conservation
530
Attachment C – Integrated communications and engagement example
Attachment C | Page 10 of 10
Sanitation Districts
Resource Extraction
Healthcare
Realtors
Developers
MSU Students
Seasonal employees
Major employers
Arts and Culture
Environmental
Activists
Federal Agencies
Kids K-12
Minorities
Streamline
Housing Authority
School District
USFS
BLM
Park Service
Gunnison Chamber
Water
Faith-based groups
Media
Seniors
More…
531
From:Chris Saunders csaunders@BOZEMAN.NET
Subject:RE: Planning Board Draft Documents for Review
Date:December 27, 2017 at 4:26 PM
To:Henry H Happel henryhhappel@gmail.com
Cc:Martin Matsen MMatsen@BOZEMAN.NET,Tom Rogers TRogers@BOZEMAN.NET
Hap,
Technical,tweak,on,the,1meline.,Schedule,needs,to,bump,to,address,ac1on,beginning,in,January,rather
than,December.
,
Ques1ons,on,the,1meline.
It,shows,the,consultant,first,doing,any,work,beginning,in,June.,Is,the,intent,that,the,Consultant,only,act
as,a,typist/page,layout,service?,If,not,,what,are,they,contribu1ng,earlier?
,
The,1meline,looks,like,it,ends,with,produc1on,of,a,public,hearing,type,draF.,Is,the,inten1on,that,the
public,review,and,adop1on,process,occur,in,an,open,ended,manner,beginning,in,January,2019?
However,,that,occurs,there,should,be,some,men1on,of,the,adop1on,process.
,
Comment,on,the,outreach,ques1ons.
The,subject,maMer,in,general,appears,relevant,to,a,growth,policy.,However,,there,is,some,really,deep
development,and,analysis,implied,in,the,ques1ons.,I,ques1on,the,ability,to,prepare,,present,,and
digest,meaningful,public,comment,on,all,of,these,on,the,suggested,1me,line.,For,example,,the
ques1on,of,paying,for,infrastructure,is,very,broad,and,covers,many,topics,from,overall,tax,policy,at
federal,,state,,and,local,levels,,to,how,good,of,service,the,City,should,provide,,to,City/County
rela1onships.
,
Chris,S
,
From:,Henry,H,Happel,[mailto:henryhhappel@gmail.com],
Sent:,Wednesday,,December,20,,2017,2:16,PM
To:,Brianne,Dugan,<briannedugan@gmail.com>;,John,Lavey,<john@communitybuilders.org>;,Chris
Mehl,<CMehl@BOZEMAN.NET>;,Jerry,Pape,<jerry@triplecreek.com>;,Paul,Spitler
<paul_spitler@tws.org>;,George,Thompson,<gthompson.bozmt@gmail.com>;,Lauren,Waterton
<lauren.waterton@gmail.com>;,Jordan,Zignego,<JZignego@gmail.com>
Cc:,Mar1n,Matsen,<MMatsen@BOZEMAN.NET>;,Tom,Rogers,<TRogers@BOZEMAN.NET>;,Chris
Saunders,<csaunders@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject:,Planning,Board,DraF,Documents,for,Review
We agreed at yesterday evening’s Planning Board meeting that I would circulate clean copies of
each of the three documents we discussed in order that each of you could have the opportunity
to make comments or propose specific wording changes. Here are the documents:
We agreed that we would hold a public Planning Board meeting on January 2 to finalize these
documents.
We further agreed that any of you wishing to comment on the documents would do so via email to
me no later than December 27. I will compile these changes and send you an email setting forth
532
me no later than December 27. I will compile these changes and send you an email setting forth
all of them and identifying the author of each. I will also provide these comments to the
Community Development Department for incorporation into the public notice of the January 2nd
meeting.
Best,
Hap
City,of,Bozeman,emails,are,subject,to,the,Right,to,Know,provisions,of,Montana’s,Cons1tu1on,(Art.,II,
Sect.,9),and,may,be,considered,a,“public,record”,pursuant,to,Title,2,,Chpt.,6,,Montana,Code
Annotated.,As,such,,this,email,,its,sender,and,receiver,,and,the,contents,may,be,available,for,public
disclosure,and,will,be,retained,pursuant,to,the,City’s,record,reten1on,policies.,Emails,that,contain
confiden1al,informa1on,such,as,informa1on,related,to,individual,privacy,may,be,protected,from
disclosure,under,law.
533