HomeMy WebLinkAbout96- MSU Local Government Center - Final Report of Survey Results, Evaluating the Planning, Development and Design Review Process of the City of Bozeman z
.
FINAL REPORT OF SURVEY RESULTS
EVLUAING THE PLANNING,oil
DEVELOPVENT;AND
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
. :. : �
OF THE
A CITY OF BOZEMAN
once
+i-
5
1
Prepared by the
Local Government Center
Montana State University
Aug
x:
men Iant
::..
lot vh.mh
..
f
i
E
i`
j
FINAL REPORT OF SURVEY RESULTS
EVALUATING THE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND
is
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN
Prepared by the
Local Government Center
Montana State University
August, 1996
is
r
4
Local Government Center
Local Government Policy Council
Local Government Policy Center
MSU•Bozeman
Bozeman,MT 59717
Telephone(406)994-6694
B O Z E M A N Fax (406)994-1905
Internet UP0KW@MSU.0SC5.M0NTANA.EDU
FINAL REPORT OF SURVEY RESULTS
EVALUATING THE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN
August 16, 1996
In March, 1996 the Bozeman City Commission requested that the Local Government
Center conduct a written survey evaluation of the planning, development, and design review
process used by the City to process applications for various land use and building permits.
The subjects of the evaluation were to be all agencies of the City involved in any
substantial way with processing applications for land use or building permits during the period
July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1996,
The survey respondents were to include all applicants for any of the following types of
permits:
Major or Minor Site Plan
Certificate of Appropriateness
Zone Change
Conditional Use Permit
Certificate of Survey
Minor or Major Subdivision
Building Permit
Relying upon the computerized register maintained by the Planning Department of all
applications for these permits, the names and addresses of all applicants were collected by
Center staff and converted to digitized mailing labels. This list was then purged of duplicate
names such that, irrespective of how many different and separate permits an applicant may
have submitted to the City, he or she would receive only one survey instrument. Each
applicant was then assigned a discrete control number which was imprinted on a pre-stamped
and pre-addressed envelope included with the survey instrument for mail control purposes.
Only the Director and Associate Director of the Local Government Center were ever able to
associate the number on any response with the name of any applicant. All mail control records
have since been destroyed and all references within the tabulated data and comments reported
1
Funded in part by the Northwest Area Foundation
below which might reasonably enable the association of a response with an applicant's name,
address or business have been deleted and the source documents have been destroyed.
A total of 368 survey instruments were mailed in early June, 1996. By August 15,
1996 137 responses had been returned resulting in a response rate of approximately 38%. This
response rate is acceptable in assessing the potential for response bias in the reported results.
In developing the evaluation instrument (a copy of the final survey instrument is
included as an addendum) Center staff first reviewed, with the assistance of the Planning
Department, the entire application process and identified the participating City agencies.
Critical steps in the process were then observed first hand and, finally, we met with a group of
nine experienced users of the City's application process who represented all elements of
Bozeman's development community. The proceedings from this meeting are included at
Addendum 3. From this comprehensive review of the application process there emerged two
overarching evaluative questions:
1. Is the application process fair? and
2. Is the City response timely ?
The survey instrument asks the respondents to apply these two questions to the overall
process and to each step in the application/review process to identify problem areas. We then
ask the respondents to apply a three point evaluative scale (Good, Adequate, or Poor) to
measure the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each step of the process. The
respondents were also asked to comment, as appropriate, on each step of the process and, at
the end of the survey, to comment on any aspect of the process or on any City agency.
The evaluative data are reported both as frequency distributions with corresponding
percentages on the evaluative measures and as a compilation of all written comments of the
respondents which are tabulated at a numbered appendix corresponding to the question
associated with the comments.
Also included as addenda are two separate letters passed on to Center staff as part of
the evaluation process.
In reviewing the survey results, I note the following:
1. Well over half of the respondents (58%) believe that the process treated their
application fairly (Q3). Of the those who identified a problem with fairness, 62%
identified a City staff agency (including the Development Review Committee) as the
problem whereas 36% identified a process problem with a board or commission (Q4)
2. Somewhat more than half of the respondents (55%) believe that their applications
2
were not processed in a reasonably timely manner (Q5). Of those who identified a
problem with timely response, approximately 52% identified a problem with a City
staff agency (including the Design Review Committee) and 45% identified a problem
with a board or commission (Q6).
3. In evaluating each step and agency involved in the application process, 62% of the
respondents evaluated the application process, in aggregate, as either Good or
Adequate. The Design Review Board and the Building Permit Review process were
evaluated significantly below this average response (beyond minus one standard
deviation). However, in both cases more than half of the respondents rated each of
these steps in the process as either Good or Adequate.
4. In general, about one third of the respondents rated each step of the process as
Good, one third as Adequate and one third as Poor. Thus, where there is significant
departure from this trend one might wish to look to the written comments for irritants
and areas of possible improvements.
5. Even without the benefit of quantitative content analysis, my clear overall
impression from the written comments is that those who did comment and who are
most likely to be those acutely dissatisfied with the application process, identified
customer relations, delay in application processing, and unanticipated changes in
approval requirements as the three principle irritants.
Finally, in interpreting these data it should be recalled that the respondents are all
persons who were subjected to a fairly rigorous governmental regulatory process that is
inherently inconvenient. Thus, one might wish to bear in mind that those in the community
who were not included in the survey because they were not applicants, also have opinions
about the adequacy of the application process and the extent to which the process does or does
not protect their public health and safety interests. In short, these data are not descriptive of
the community's assessment of the application process or of the City agencies involved in the
process but, rather, is descriptive only of the assessment provided by those who have been
subjected to it.
Re pectWil submitted,
Dr. enneth L. Weaver
Dire or
- 3
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN PROCESS OPINION SURVEY
May - June 1996
I prefer not to respond in detail at this time but, in general I would evaluate the City's
overall planning, development and design review process as:
Number Percent
1, Good 6 10
2. Adequate 14 23
3. Poor 30 50
4. Don't know/No Opinion 10 17
60 100
See Appendix 1 for Comments
1. Which type of land use or building permit did you request from the City? (Check all that
apply.)
Number Percent
I. Major site plan 18 7
2. Minor site plan 33 13
3. Certificate of Appropriateness CoA) 47 19
4. Zone change 18 7
5. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) including PUD 28 11
6. Certificate of Survey (CoS) 4 2
7. Minor Subdivision 18 7
8. Major Subdivision 13 5
9. Building permit 59 24
10. Other: 10 5
248 100
Sign authorization
Business signs.
Setback deviation.
Annexation. - 2
Certificate of occupancy
Electrical
4
2. When did you apply?
Number Percent
1. Earlier that July 1, 1994 25 15
2. July 1994 - June 1995 45 28
3. July 1995 - Dec. 1995 48 30
4. Jan. 1996 -Present 41 25
5. Don't recall 3 2
162 100
See Appendix 2 for Comments
3. Do you believe that your application was treated fairly during the application process?
Number Percent
1. Yes 59 58
2. No 42 41
3. Don't know/no opinion 1 1
102 100
See Appendix 3 for Comments
4. If you believe your application was,not treated fairly, which step in the review process
seemed to present the greatest problem?
Number Percent
1. Concept Plan or Pre-Application 12 13
2. Preliminary Planing Staff Review of Plat or Plan 21 22
3. Development Review Committee(City Staff) 16 17
4. Design Review Board 11 12
5. Planning Board 14 15
6. City Commission 9 9
7. Building Permit Review 10 11
8. Other: 2 1
95 100
Planning department review
See Appendix 4 for Comments
5
t
I
i
5. Do you believe that your application was processed in a reasonably timely manner by the
city?
Number Percent
1. Yes 46 44
2. No 55 53
3. Don't know/No opinion 3 3
104 100
See Appendix 5 far Comments
6. If you believe your application was not processed in a reasonably timely manner which step
in the review process seemed to represent the greatest problem?
Number Percent
1. Concept Plan or Pre-Application 7 7
2. Preliminary Planning Staff Review of Plat or Plan 22 22
3. Development Review Committee (City Staff) 15 14
s.
4. Design Review Board 20 19
5. Planning Board 14 13
4 6. City Commission 13 12
7. Building Permit Review 11 10
8. Other: 3 3
105 100
Appropriateness committee.
All of it
See Appendix 6 for Comments
7. Concept Plan or Preapplication
is
Number Percent
1. Good 28 29
i.
2. Adequate 37 38
3. Poor 24 25
4. Don't know/No Opinion 8 8
94 100
f
See Appendix 7 for Comments
6
3
P
f
8. Preliminary Planning Staff Review of Plat or Plan
Number Percent
1. Good 33 34
2. Adequate 27 28
3. Poor 31 32
4. Don't know/No Opinion 5 6
96 100
t: See Appendix 8 for Comments
9. Development Review Committee (City Staff)
i
Number Percent
1. Good 30 32
2. Adequate 31 33
3. Poor 29 30
4. Don't know/No Opinion 5 5
95 100
See Appendix 9 for Comments
I'
i
10. Design Review Board
N m er Percent
1. Good 27 28
i.
2. Adequate 28 29
3. Poor 30 31
4. Don't I now/No Opinion 11 12
96 100
See Appendix 10 for Comments
f;
is
` k
4
i
11. Planning Board
Number Percent
1. Good 26 28
2. Adequate 31 34
3. Poor 20 22
4. Don't know/No Opinion 15 16
92 100
P
See Appendix 11 for Comments
12. City Commission
F
Number Percent
1. Good 32 34
2. Adequate 30 32
3. Poor 18 20
4. Don't know/No Opinion 13 14
93 100
See Appendix 12 for Comments
13. Building Permit Review
Number Percent
1. Good 17 20
2. Adequate 31 36
3. Poor 21 24
4. Don't know/No Opinion 18 20
87 100
See Appendix 13 far Comments
14. Do you have any other comments or recommendations you would like the City
Commission, its advisory boards or the city staff to consider?
See Appendix 14 far Comments
i
8
5
p
APPENDIX I
I prefer not to respond in detail at this time but, in general, I would evaluate the
City's overall planning, development and design review process as:
Comments:
I am in litigation with the city regarding several issues involving due process. Therefore I
can not respond at this time.
On the surface, steps I and 2 (major and minor site plans) appear to represent an aid to the
public, but in reality they serve as fee collection points. Fee overkill.
Contractor handled all paper work and small project was delayed well over a month!
Poor - earlier years, but has improved markedly.
The planning director tends to use the process to push his personal and political goals.
Overreaching and overly restrictive; adversarial.
° r
S
k
I
is
li
s
I
i
I.
i
Y 9
APPENDIX 2
2. When did you apply?
From 1994 to September or October 1995, is a long time to get a permit. We got started
in sub zero weather and snow. Why isn't the manager of the planners accountable on a rating
system? By mayor and commissioners where the public informed of the results. Judgements on
appropriateness, adequacy, effective, efficiency (cost to benefit produced) and also side effects,
Some side effects (bad that I've have had to help bale out). The city with more taxes are the
valley's subdivision fiasco, and now the ground pollution problem. Where were our
planners?
t
3
i
I`
S,
r. 10
I
j .
I
APPENDIX 3
3. Do you believe that your application was treated fairly during the application process?
But way too much time and too many uncoordinated hearings.
I had two submittals: 1. minor subdivision, 2. building permit for hotel. On (1) city
processing and handling in 1995 was terrible. On (2) process was okay, but way too slow.
Most were yes, one was no.
I don't feel the planning department was in any way helpful, understanding or concerned
about my needs.
I believe the planning director uses his position to delay my project as it is nearby where
he lives, and he very much is addicted to control.
Not a question of"fairly" - the process is way out of sequence.
We received a number of conflicting opinions about our application and feel that there
were times when we were not treated fairly because of that.
We were forced to deal with a California engineering firm to obtain a building permit. The
California firm is unreasonable.
Lot setbacks, first and alternate leach line fields preset by city. Area of fields too large for
size of house. All restrictions on large lot (20,000 sq. ft.) so restrictive that home not situated
where owner desires. (Who paid for lot?)
The property was annexed and zoned for R-2 development since 1972. The proposed
subdivision was less dense than permitted by the zoning district. A city collector street terminates
on the north end of the property and it was serviced by a 24" water main and 8" sewer trunk line.
In several cases staff report to DRC/DRB and planning supported the application, then
recommend denial in an amendment, then at the staff presentation recommended conditional
approval. Applicant never had adequate time to respond.
Worked with She is excellent!
You bureaucrats forgot that the main purpose(?) in dealing with people is cooperation and
education. I was forced to change plans in a way that was neither advantageous to the city,
neighbors, renters or us or the integrity of the house.
The planner assigned to our project did not like what we were proposing. This was a
consistent attitude throughout all of the city agencies.
The process does not reflect the goals, objectives and policies or the master plan. It
frustrates creativity in favor of mediocrity.
When I first inquired about a variance or COA I spoke to , who met me at our
property and said "That he saw no problems for us". When we were going through the
application process we got a different response from , then another from Then we
got three different COAs with a different fee on each one.
DRB's attitudes and decisions appear to be totally driven by the input of the "professional
staff' (city planners). Process is incredibly slow; citizen's testimony seems almost irrelevant, as if
their minds are already made up, Citizen treated in very condescending manner. Extremely
frustrating!
11
For the most part, the process was too complicated and involved. I felt I was asked to do
many unnecessary tasks, in short, the process was more difficult and lengthy than need be.
Conflict of philosophies within the planning department prevented the proper timely
evaluation of the project.
The planner that reviewed our application decided to recommend rejection. Even after the
council determined that her arguments were specious, our application was denied.
Changed rules after I had started.
Personal agendas on the part of planning staff assigned to our application hindered a fair
process.
{
r
12
is
, r:
APPENDIX 4
4. If you believe your application was not treated fairly, which step in the review process
seemed to present the greatest problem?
The net result was a poorly designed parking lot. It was totally unnecessary for this to
happen.
Concept plans seem to be too detached from process. Staff input during process was
positive, while the final staff report was opposite. Planning is in its own world.
You are totally lost and spend time justifying your positions.
Other - Planning department review, especially the requirements (of the planning director).
They seem to come up with stuff that is totally uncalled for. The street department doesn't want
to work with anyone either.
Everything would have been understood if wouldn't lie when the truth fits better.
"Staff' is the problem. The planning director has too much power.
Sanitarian not cooperative. Too many unnecessary steps just to create government jobs.
Staff stated property would be better utilized as a park. By who? Wet land issue was
easily resolved. It almost did not qualify to begin with, but political pressure caused it. Wildlife
issue was the result of a city commissioner wanting to save two fox she saw in the field. In short,
the owner was denied a right that has been planned since 1972 for political vote getting. I have
no faith in system due to the influence commissioners place on commissioners for personal and
political reasons.
Staff was confused - probably trying to support local opinion rather than an objective
review of regulations. DRC - members tend to get off track and into areas that are not in their
jurisdiction.
The attitude when you go in with a simple plan should be " How can we make this work."
However, it was, as an apprentice girl said, "If you keep asking 'why' on these things, we may not
be able to work with you. Education as to how to do it and helping people is your main job. You
people are badge happy.
# 2 & 3 (preliminary planning staff review of plat or plan&DRB) -various staff members
have different mind sets - some in the 1960's, others in the 70's & 80's, fed in the 90's and only
occasionally in the 2000's. # 5 - limit on presentation and discussion time caused the review to be
a ..........
When I questioned the different forms in as many months no one gave us a straight
answer. We initially (in July) were to pay $75, then all of a sudden in November the fee went up
to $300 and the answer I received to this was that they were only salaried employees who were
just following the rules that they did not make.
My application went no further than the DRB, having been disingenuously "tabled" rather
than formally rejected (thus making it more difficult to appeal or file suit). Commission then
ignored my requests for a hearing. Again, this was totally an "insider", staff driven process. I
never got a fair hearing or "my day in court".
13
l
k
I,
Planning board got into areas of discussion that were not part of their evaluation due to
lack of direction from planning staff.
City made arbitrary requirements which amounted to blackmail.
Again the commission seemed inclined to accept the planner's views without question and
totally disregarded our views.
They try to find a reason or a way to deny or delay the requested permit.
D.R.B. needs improved. Building permit review- I think this is where my real problems
were.
All the permits were very slow. Not one time did anyone from the city come to us with
help or advise. What tax credits might be available? What problems could be avoided. The city
was absolutely no help in any way. It's a shame. It's also the reason a lot of downtown
businesses don't want to remodel and make downtown stronger. They won't put up with the
crap.
Once staff recommendation is made, there is no flexibility or consideration that said
recommendation might be unfair/unwarranted. I also feel other steps were unfair in that staff
manipulated the decisions (I feel) at each step.
z.
F
4
k
3
S.
I
t
14
F
T.
fi
APPENDIX 5
5. Do you believe that your application was processed in a reasonably timely manner by the
city?
They seem to make everything difficult and time consuming.
The planning department utilizes everything in its power to delay the process and to funnel
it (your project) in a direction that wastes time and money.
A very simple improvement to an existing building took 4 months and three times the cost
that was needed!
Some simple projects take up to six weeks for approval.
It could be faster.
Personnel at each stage were efficient and timely, but the process should not have required
so many steps. It could have been done in a fraction of the time and for much less money.
Yes, though previous ones were not. There seems to be in improvement.
Delay was required to resolve wet land issue. I could not obtain a written report from
Fish, Wildlife& Parks. Four people from the Corps of Engineers showed up to review wet lands.
Only one got out of the truck. He said there "may" be an issue, but only for an area that was
about 12,000 sq. ft. That was to be in a park to begin with.
The process takes far longer than necessary due to a lack of qualified personnel, plus the
lack of clear, understandable policies governing the process.
Several applications were timely. Several applications were not.
First told would take 3-5 days. Three weeks later went in and found application under
counter. Then took another 2-3 weeks to get done.
However, I received a letter stating that the COA would be on the agenda of a public
meeting after the meeting had occurred already.
Does 15 or 16 months indicate a timely manner? I had the plans and contract ready to go
the year before, but gave up on the red tape and As slow as your process is it's hard to get
a contractor to agree on when he can be free when you have a variable date for approval.
It appears that the intent by all city agencies was to "derail" the project. Our plan was first
submitted in December, 1994, city commission approved July, 1995, and we are still waiting for
planning staff to give "final approval".
The PUD section of the ordinance is hopelessly complex. The application forms don't
match the ordinance and the staff does not understand the basis for PUDs, let alone how a PUD
ordinance should be administered to achieve community as well'as developer benefit.
We received our permit finally in January after over six months of arguing with the
planning office.
Still in process.
Very slow; staff projected a very arrogant, uncaring attitude, as if I was just another
irritating citizen who was interrupting their day. No sense of the importance of this matter to me
as a businessperson.
It seemed to have lengthy delays in review from board to board etc., and being placed on
15
is
i
the agenda for approval.
Minor building alteration should have been reviewed by staff as per recent review changes,
but due to lack of staff entire DRB/notification process.
With the appropriateness committee meeting once a month I had to wait 30 days for an
obvious 30 second decision.
I believe they are more interested in the refinement of the process/application/approval
than they are the end result. I believe that the more of the process they put you through the better
they feel about doing their job.
It took forever. I know they're understaffed, but part of their problem is the amount of
time wasted on minor changes and applications.
{
16
APPENDIX 6
6. If you believe your application was not processed in a reasonably timely manner which
step in the review process seemed to represent the greatest problem?
The reason for the delay is that there were too many hearings before too many boards.
You would finish with one board and then you would have to wait a couple of weeks to get on
the schedule with another board.
No problem except process was too slow. we started hotel process in September '95, and
still don't have a building permit. We will probably have it in September of'96.
Planning staff unwillingness to be understanding and helpful. They seem to hold a grudge
and I don't feel they really take an interest in the customer. They seem to have a goal and they
will carry out their (personal) goal with no concern of the applicant,
tells you what you would like to hear and from that point does nothing. He needs
to understand how to deal with people fairly.
When the planning director delays your project and when so many people involved in the
process report directly to the planning director it is economic suicide to complain.
All of the above.
It's taken too long for final site approval.
It took very long to get on their agendas.
The DRB has a maximum number of applications that they will look at each session (2
week intervals). You can turn in an application "early" and still get bumped...resulting in big
delays before the process even begins.
Eliminate the concept plan or preapplication for small projects. Eliminate the preliminary
planning staff review or plat or plan. Abbreviate the DRC. Use the DRB only if requested by
neighbors or the public hearing. Involve the city commission only if it's big enough to be an issue.
The commissioners voted to approve each and every condition of approval. Then, they
voted to deny the subdivision. One due to wanting property to be a park, one due to the effect on
the wildlife, and one due to transportation. All more specifically due to political and personal
reasons.
I felt that the improvements plan review took too long, and that some city staff, city water
and sewer dept., treated us unfairly. (They could not agree between departments what our
requirements should be.)
The city's engineering staff did not communicate effectively with me about what aspects of
the plans were deficient.
Some planners have a habit of not processing submittal information in a timely manner.
Not sure, but it took 5 weeks. Contractor filled all papers.
Process sucks.
DRB had some rather strange ideas which city commission threw out.
They were even demanding a topographical plan on a flat city lot that's been developed for
a hundred years and no drainage problems (as an example). Planner refused to leave office and
visit premise four or five blocks away.
17
Any time I needed something done I would have to keep calling. Of course whomever I
wanted to talk to was busy and would not call me back. This just went on and on. I guess it was
a minor subdivision they set me on the back burner all the time. I tried being Mr. Nice Guy and
that got me no where. It seems like the only time any action was gotten was when I would spend
the money and have a lawyer call. I started these projects in November 1995 and finally finished
May of 1996 costing me the sale of one business. I have no idea how to correct this problem.
One person that bent over backwards to help me was We need more people with his
view.
The planning board's "review" was, and amounts to, zip. The -"out by 10 pm" policy and
extremely poor meeting chairmanship, together with the screwball "6 vote policy" rendered the
planning board's review meaningless. Note: Not one member had a copy of the master plan, nor
was there a single reference to the plan during the review.
Our sign was destroyed in late July or August, then we couldn't get a permit till late
January because every time I went to the city planner I got a different item that had to be
addressed.
Very slow, staff projected a very arrogant, uncaring attitude, as if I was just another
irritating citizen who was interrupting their day. No sense of the importance of this matter to me
as a businessperson. Throughout the application process, nothing was ever easy and I never felt
that I was being dealt with professionally or with respect. It was a real chore to ferret out the
information to know what to do.
DRB seemed unnecessary - small property, not visible from public streets - etc. (window
addition to rear yard),
Design review is not necessary, waste of time. Development Review Committee is not
necessary, waste of time. I truly believe the whole process should be streamlined and results in a
more timely manner.
Total start to finish too long.
As I remember, there was not one thing that ran smoothly. The delays in processing cost
us thousands of dollars in construction time and rent, not to mention lost business.
18
Appendix 7
7. Concept Plan or Preapplication
Provide information on the process.
Just too long.
Both applicant and Bozeman commission need to get to the crucial concerns up front.
Staff needs to "tell it like it is" and not try to be the good guy and appease the applicant.
If the application stinks or staff cannot support portions of it, they need to say so.
Take power from the planning department and planning director. Give power back to
owner of property. Give more flexibility to planning board/DRB.
It appeared as though it was not consistent with other projects in the city (equity). I felt I
was at the mercy of staff by being ruled by individual whims vs. a code application.
Needs to be much speedier.
The problem with your planning department is . He cannot make decisions . He
is a typical bureaucrat that won't make decisions. Over one half of the applications that are
submitted should be handled in house review and not go to all committees. This wastes
everyone's time.
Provide written feedback. Verbal comments are often "forgotten".
There needs to be a more consistent application of policies in the planning office and more
communication with staff members.
More consistency between staff people, especially new staff people. New staff people
don't seem to know the code book.
Leave me alone! I paid for the lot and within the ccr's should be able to place and build
the home my way.
Eliminate.
Staff needs to stick to what the basics are of master plan, zoning and subdivision
regulations. Political statements or their philosophy should not enter into the picture. If area
should be park land they should have changed the master plan in 1983, 1990, 1993, etc.
There were a lot of surprises along the route—things we had to do, such as bringing the
floor load from 40 lbs. per foot to 75 lbs. per foot, and having to bring the bathroom up to
handicap access as well as all the interior doors, that we never found out about until late in the
process. We didn't find out about the bathroom until we applied for our building permit, after the
whole design.process was signed off. Since I have a child with a physical disability, I am very
aware of access issues and how few businesses in Bozeman are accessible. So before I bought the
property I asked the building'department to send someone over to specify to me what I was going
to have to do to change the usage from a residence to commercial. I was told only about the
parking space and the front door being handicap accessible. Unfortunately I didn't get it in
writing. I think the process could be improved if the person who reviews the plans for the
building permit could do so at the time when the minor site plan is submitted with 12 sets of
blueprints. That could cut down on unpleasant surprises for the submitter.
The DRC meetings are too formal, final and limiting. The City of Helena has an excellent
"pre application system" which I think works wonderfully.
19
Staff appears to be so overworked that any project not requiring a formal approval does
not get proper review.
If DRB is ok, why go to the city commission?
More individual help. was helpful, but generally I had the feeling of frustration
when they just had a lot of papers often that don't make sense and said, "Fill them out before we
can help you."
Need more planners who are qualified.
Why bother with this step if the DRB and DRC are left in place. No decisions are made at
this level that are binding so the process jest gets longer.
I had , thus the answers (good). She is great. The rest of the department needs
help.
Clear, written guidance, that would be followed by staff as well as applicant, should be
provided.
I feel that as used this step only serves as a fee assessment step beneficial to city. Should
be combined with step 2 with no fee increase.
New planning staff required excessive information not required by codes.
The procedure was established to coincide with architectural plans, but the staff has
changed the rules to more and more information in the concept and preliminary plan steps.
The city refused to act flexibly, even when it is in their best interests.
They need to give you a better idea of all permits required for a job when you start the
process, e.g. they let you apply for building permit, then 60 days later you find out you also need
C of A! Your project is delayed.
Have specific answers for questions as to what will or won't be allowed, more helpful than
"I don't know". (But then they have to research and do preliminary review in which they make
recommendations that are taken as gospel - by then it's too late to modify the proposal.
Notification of neighboring/adjacent property owners is quite time consuming. Can this
process be computerized via a database?
20
APPENDIX 8
8. Preliminary Planning Staff Review of Plat or Plan
Too slow.
Use of common sense regarding preservation of historical districts and neighboring
districts. We live in a neighboring district. The staff did not want to enclose a porch because it
would alter the character of the house, but it would be ok to put an addition on jutting out the
side of the house.
Certain individuals do not prepare their reports in a timely manner to allow the applicant
sufficient review time prior to the scheduled public hearings.
Take power from planning department and planning director. Staff should be utilized as a
resource for information only. The planning department should not make laws.
Needs to be much, much speedier, especially engineering department. They are s0000000
slow to respond it's a joke.
Staff could keep in close communication with applicant. Once items go into report, it is
almost impossible to backup or protest a finding without delays.
Eliminate.
Staff allowed city commissioners to sway review. They work for planning board, not the
city. Specific regulations and policies should be addressed, nothing else.
Force other departments, parks, sever/water, engineering, public works, to respond to
planning's requests in a timely manner.
1. More staff. 2. Better communication with applicant.
Submit staff report earlier to applicant so that an adequate response can be developed.
Many times staff reports are received same day as scheduled meeting.
I would think their job would be to help you through and make it easier by telling what
you could do to facilitate the project, but it seemed they thought their job was to present stupid
road blocks with no obligation to answer "whys",
Several planners either need to learn the code or stop manipulating it. Most times
tells you to take the wrong course of action. Later changes his mind costing much time and
money.
Give the planning staff the authority to make decisions in consultation with the DRC at
this stage so projects can move ahead.
Planning staff should evaluate applications based on zone code requirements and keep
personal opinions to themselves. It should not be a biased review.
(In order of importance) 1. Properly trained and managed staff. 2. Thorough knowledge
and comprehension of the master plan. 3. Some zoning ordinance change.
If I were to go into detail about how we were treated by this city's planning department it
would take too much of my time and yours. Basically we got different answers from different
people. It seemed like the planning office did not want to assist this business because, and I quote
, They were forced to approve this COA regardless of their personal opinion. First of all,
none of this should be based on a personal opinion, A COA or variance should be a equitable and
21
I
legal process and should be handled as such.
Have a genuine attitude of helping and advisin during the application process and
`. afterwards. Planner was very adversarial, a professional nay sayer.
Staff often not looking for the best planning solution,just enforcing archaic codes.
Seemingly not wanting to "rock the boat". Also little or no response given to public concerns or
needs. Staff should be answering to city commission (voted position) not city manager. Staff
ideals seem to be a reflection of that position, not public needs or wants.
New planning staff required excessive information not required by codes.
If the planning staff has a question or problem with the application, the applicant should be
contacted for clarification before the recommendation is made to the commission.
Inadequate thought and research - sloppy, last minute B.S. that, as I said above, is treated
as gospel.
i
E:
E
s
z
22
is
i
'APPENDIX 9
9. Development Review Committee (City Staff)
Too slow.
More direction from a chairman, Keep them focussed on their job and how it relates to
the project.
They don't seem to care about the businessman's or persons needs. They even told me
they didn't care if I made it in business as long as I got my improvements in i.e., landscaping etc.
This area is much improved; they appear to be accountable and willing to work on
projects. The DRC should not be in a position to dictate so much concern in a project in order to
utilize the project as a means of solving long standing problems that the city has and will continue
to have when the DRC makes it economically unfeasible for a project to go on.
Disagreement as to the direction of siding was ridiculous. Where to plant trees, etc., you
are left with little personal preference.
This committee is the most important to me, and I think they do a great job.
Still need responses faster.
Committee members seem unprepared and default to personal boilerplate issues without
considering the overall project. Can be very intimidating.
Zoning staff needs to be prompt with meeting times. After setting up an appointment a
staff person let me wait 25 minutes. I have to bill my client for hourly rate of just sitting there
waiting at $50 per hour. I do this as a living not a hobby.
Leave out this process. Lower the cost of government and my taxes.
History of the neighborhood was interesting, but costly in terms of my money and time.
Committee acted confused and did not understand purpose.
Be like Helena's system.
Inform DRC staff of their role and areas of expertise and tell them not to go outside of
these areas.
This helped hold up a simple project. Should have been eliminated.
Make it a more friendly process. Now, it's like being on trial.
Better preparation by the DRC in reviewing projects. Make decisions that don't keep
changing.
I feel the city staff should help to solve or help to create solutions to development issues
that they are involved in and not create obstacles to solutions.
(In order of importance) 1. Properly trained and managed staff. 2. Thorough knowledge
and comprehension of the master plan. 3. Some zoning ordinance change. Same three comments
with special emphasis on comments 1 and 2 with respect to the public works engineering staff.
The DRC did an excellent job clarifying their requirements and communicating them to all
involved.
Speed up the process, Two to three months in Montana's very short building season is
firustrating!!
In process.
23
Not sure what their role was, but the entire process was very unsatisfactory.
Poor attitude of staff. Current staff is poorly versed in current planning ideals. They're
stuck in the 1960's, 1970's values of planning. This is disastrous - auto driven designs. In other
projects small items kept coming up after conditions, each item required a new plan, why not just
require a yes, no, or attachment response to conditions such as is done in the State of Montana
building permit review.
Eliminate the submittal of eight bound application packs. Eliminate the committee. Make
appropriateness decisions in house within 7 days.
Put requirements on applicant over which he had no control and that were in the process
of or completed, but they hadn't bothered to check.
Some staff members are of a different philosophy than expressed in the adopted master
plan. Lack of planning for future expansion is also a very large problem.
Some staff(engineering) have no concept of the "real world". Months of minor delays for
trivial details - lots of bad feeling.
I believe this drug on due to out-of-towns, etc.
Get out of the office once in awhile. Walk over to the job site. Be friendly, be
knowledgeable and get it done without drawn out processes. Do your job taste police! I was a
designer in New York City, graduated in design, Masters degree in design! I don't want to dump
the family nest egg to build a pest hole, yet the trivial niggling suggestions cost us nothing but
time and money. The whole process is cumbersome, slow and left up to the discretion of too
many people. No one is helpful. They're surly in their attitudes. We pay their wages, yet they
walk in with an attitude.
24
APPENDIX 10
10. Design Review Board
Too slow.
It has improved over time.
The DRB appears to have reached the point where they believe their purpose is to
evaluate the merit of a project based on individual taste in design with no guidance as to what is
expected. This places an undo burden on the designer/developer to submit whatever number of
designs is required to meet their personal tastes.
They did a great job, saved us grief in a poor plan we submitted and they overruled some
"bad" suggestions given by the city staff.
Take most of the self serving egotistical architects off the board. Increase board
membership with business owners and home owners.
This did not feel like I was a customer. They vs. we (staff) was a constant input into what
staff wanted.
Concentrate on the major elements of the design, not the small irrelevant elements, that
can take hours to discuss. Also, have the ORB review more than seven projects per meeting to
help move the process along.
Good -in past experience, haven't appeared before them in the last 6 months.
Fairly responsive.
Eliminate this board. You have a professional staff that can make better decisions.
Very difficult because it's so subjective.
Excellent.
Get lost.
Add more meetings during the busy season.
They met once without us before the hearing was scheduled.
Some neighbors apparently reviewed the plan for the first time at the meeting..... Misstep
is probably unnecessary if a public hearing is required. Let the neighbors determine what's
appropriate,
Owner and architect were given erroneous time for meeting and missed meeting! Only
one vote against project. Other board members applauded the project.
Develop better consistency with decisions. This is very lacking between projects and
meeting to meeting.
Adequate - now that they seem to understand their function.
Opinion rather than objectivity prevailed.
Need less micro management of process, and less arbitrary judgements rendered by more
professionals.
We need better description of recommendations. Many times several suggestions are
presented which conflict. The leader needs to better at refining comments from DRB.
Just took time and tax.money. This project was simple and at the back of the house. It
shouldn't have needed to go through this process as it was our house and our design. We
25
approved.
Eliminate the DRB review of subdivisions, duplication of effort. The planning board does
the same thing.
Remove it from the process for small development projects such as simple additions and
remodeling. Let staff make an investigation into the project and if they approve it send it directly
to the city commission for review.
It should be disbanded. It is an insult to me and my team of design professionals to have
people with little or no practical experience in the design or development field to pass judgement
on what is good architecture for a project. This should be a city planning staff function.
The DRB suffers from poor staff assistance and general misunderstanding. The members
were helpful, but their value has been undercut by staff.
These people were absolutely horrible. Their entire attitude must change - need to show
some respect and concern. Proceedings need to be much more judicious, not arbitrary and
predetermined. Need to show common sense, flexibility, and really listen.
At times the DRB tries to design a project for people instead of determining
appropriateness or adherence to design objections.
Eliminate the submittal of eight bound application packs. Eliminate the committee. Make
appropriateness decisions in house within 7 days.
It should not take 1-2 months to get a small project on the agenda. The DRB should be
instructed in how to conduct a meeting. They should be provided a check list of items to cover
and information to provide for each application.
Too arbitrary; Let city staff handle.
Way too inconsistent and biased by personal contacts, Makes me wonder who's getting $
under the table!
26
APPENDIX 11
It. Planning Board
Too slow.
Get a board that is in tune with the commissions so there is some consistency.
Commission should just have to review what the board has done, not redo it.
We don't use them very much. But they should be aware, or show more interest in what
the other boards (DRB, DRC) are doing as far as what they are requiring of the applicants.
Recent additions to the planning board have increased their "technical" proficiency.
Stronger willed staff really necessary for board to be effective.
Take most of the architects off this board as well.
This group took what the city did and added untrained opinions full of each persons'
individual agenda of life and voted accordingly. I called it 100% before we started because I
know the people on the board. This group would do well to be less orientated to agenda or
personal beliefs and find good, safety and equity in each situation.
Educate the planners more and more. Look at the big picture and stop the bureaucracy!
Have not recently been before them yet. They seem to be expressing a very helpful
attitude since January especially.
Needs to improve in speed/time.
There is a need for more education of the planning board so that there is more consistency
between projects and that the planning board more accurately reflects the choices for the city
under the master plan and zoning in conjunction with the city commission. Some of the board
members did not have a good understanding of the real issues.
This board is incompetent and is trying to catch up to the rest of the U.S.
Continued education for the board.
This is the ultimate "taste" committee.
Better time management and administration in dealing with project. Lots of time is being
wasted. Projects should be dealt with regardless of assistant planner's absence; i.e. vacations, etc.
We need more qualified people on this board, people with building and/or development
experience.
is very good.
They forced us to cut off two feet at the sides and two feet off the back simply to get out
of the time and money needed to jump through so many hoops. There was plenty of room (100
feet to back), but we ended up with a dinky apartment that costs as much as the original plan - for
no good reason except city government interference!
These people need training and a lesson in realistic expectations about development costs
and benefits.
There has not been enough balance in view points on the board. Too many anti growth
individuals. Developers don't create the demand, the public does.
If the city commission is not going to rely on the planning board's opinion and vote, it
should be combined with the city commission responsibility.
27
1:
n
1. Proper training and direction by other than current staff. 2. Read and understand the
master plan. 3. Read/study - 1990's planning and development concepts. 4. Visit sites, analyze
% proposals and be prepared to devote sufficient time to task.
In process.
Poor leadership from planning staff- What is in the master plan? A pretty picture sells
better than complying with the philosophy and intent of master plan.
They try to do the right thing.
They need to think more realistically sometimes, but overall, ok.
P.
1
I:
i
is
. i
1.
I
ti
I
I
28
I,
P
APPENDIX 12
12. City Commission
Too slow,
Commission has to look at the big picture, not micro manage.
Great to work with for the most part, 3 out,of 5.
I would rate them good if they had better controls over the way their people deal with the
public.
Commission needs to let staff and planning board do their job or else delete
DRC/DRB/planning board steps and take projects direct to commission..
Remember why and who elected you. Do not be so political. Make decisions based on
logic and what you feel is right. Do not let yourselves be consensus makers. Stick to your ideals.
Do not depend so much on staff.
This group comes with a set of ideals, but we elect them. They could be more proactive.
This was the only bright spot in the whole process.
Allow the commission to make decisions at any time instead of waiting for the.two week
meeting.
Are getting better. Make stern directives to planning staff and especially the engineering
department to dramatically streamline their review processes. Engineering is pathetic. They are
so slow and cumbersome.
1 Stop the liberal process of thinking and acting for me. The commission is trying to lay
guilt on me and reduce me to a have not.
They should follow staff/board recommendations better rather than their own "criteria".
They changed the requirements after the public hearing was closed without giving us a
chance to object.
It's a waste of the commission's time to require them to pass on every deviation request.
Staff and DRB gave enthusiastic positive recommendation. One city commissioner held
off vote for two weeks and voted against it apparently for one neighbor who has existing house
which has much larger volume than the project. City commission inserted planter in project to
appease neighbor. There was a discussion of planter by DRC or DRB or staff. Planter serves no
purpose and only is an annoyance to owner. (Neighbor sticking his finger in owner's eye.)
I have lost all respect for three of the commissioners. They were caught doing several
things that could have been used to the owners advantage in a law suit. They need to be educated
by both the public and private sectors about what it takes to create a subdivision. They must
allow staff to do their job. They must stick with the facts and not try to gather votes.
Allow for only one public hearing without any continuations. Simply hold the public
hearing once.
Too many development requirements. Slack off some.
I couldn't really see the need for this to go through the city commission. We were just
improving a small dumpy apartment into a nice new one. We remodeled the apartment to
improve it rather than just patch a leaky roof. We lost a year's rent on this deal and water leaked
29
APPENDIX 13
13. Building Permit Review
Too slow.
Have not gotten there yet!
Get some people who know the codes. Far too inflexible and arrogant.
It has to go through others (DRB, DRC), before you can get a permit - that's the problem.
This process required the plans that we had submitted to the above groups. Why don't
they "share" or pass these plans along the various steps or inform us that we need to supply more
copies.
Again, here is a defined process and it works well.
Time delays too long.
There is a real lack of coordination between building department and planning department.
Can be very inconsistent at times. There is very little flexibility by building officials,
especially in renovations or remodels.
New more restrictive codes should be enforced slowly with new applications. The newer
codes should not be applied to projects with building permits granted and under construction.
This forces the client to pay architects and engineers to design structures twice.
Do not give my name out to every salesman in the state. I have 3-5 unsolicited letters and
folders every day. Just like ambulance chasers. How about privacy.
Speed. The standard response at the front desk is one month minimum. Whether you
have a garage project or a $5,000,000 building. The first come, first serve should be fixed to
accommodate the numerous little projects.
This project is just being finished.
Teacher marked up my plan with red pencil and didn't even give me a final grade!
Still waiting on June 6, 1996. Been only two weeks. Should be approved next week. I
assume it would take three weeks.
It's just fine, but input should be more thorough at an earlier point in the design process.
Too much time.
Review process needs to be more consistent, in time of process, and requirements.
After staff stamped plans "approved", numerous changes were dictated "after the fact" at
considerable time and expense to me.
Develop a grievance board consisting of structural engineer, architect and builders to
review decisions by building department. This process is already set up in this UBC code.
Let the time be less. We didn't realize when we finally jumped through the "planning
hoops" and had the contractors lined up, that we still had to wait weeks for the permits! .
expenses!!
I'm in the process of obtaining a building permit.
Get some people with private sector experience on staff.
City Design Board could be more cooperative when asking for a zone change and look at
the highest and best use, rather than immediately saying no!
Have someone working to watch the code is enforced..
31
x
t
Cannot answer until building permit review is done. After almost a year and a half we are
not to this point!
Has not been inspected.
There was too much time spent - and lost as we were anxious to proceed.
f.
The California review is not consistent with local review expectations. Do one or the
other.
Very slow, no apparent prioritizing, maybe understaffed, but office staff are not helpful,
some are on a power trip, some don't seem to understand the permit procedures.
They could make a 5 minute comprehensive preliminary review with the builder to let
him/her know if additional work will be needed or changed rather than waiting two weeks.
This could be performed in a timely manner and the staff could be a lot more polite and
understanding.
Slow, petty, left up to someone who gets paid no matter how their day goes. Too
. arbitrary. Get Mr. back.
This is probably the most straight forward department.
i
C
i
P,
F
i
32
APPENDIX 14
14. Do you have any other comments or recommendations you would like the City
Commission, its advisory boards or the city staff to consider?
There are too many boards, reviews and inefficiencies. Time is money and it costs way
too much for small businesses. The process doesn't provide an environment for growth. A lot of
people in Bozeman complain about having to move out of state to find adequate employment.
Small business is the largest provider of jobs and without the environment for growth people will
keep moving elsewhere for employment and government will shrink!
Somehow the time lag between hearings with each board needs to be reduced or some of
the steps eliminated or combined.
1. I think the planning process is very important, but they have approved some very poor
projects. Car Wash is a good example. There is not room for it on that site; it's an ugly
building and blocks the Inn; and it will cause big traffic problem in future on Oak St. 2.
Also the city dumped on me to make a traffic study at Baxter at 7th Ave. before approving my
project. That problem has been there for years and it shouldn't be my responsibility to study and
recommend how to cure it.
The overall design and review committee is too complicated. Needs to be streamlined by
combining the process, or by combining boards. A lot of misinterpretation by members based on
individual needs of individual applicants at each level. Needs to be consistence in decision
making. Laws or regulation can vary, or must vary based on situation. Get people who know
how to do their jobs, tell them their responsibilities, and get the politics out. This means staff and
appointments.
Gut out your system and start over.
I think the planning staff, DRC, DRB, need to run things like a business where we are
treated as customers. If I treated my customers like the city staff treats people I'd be out of
business!
Educate city commission to allow staff and boards to do their job.
We do not need more staff. The opposite is the direction we should go. We also have a
city manager who says "we do not need 700 new jobs in Bozeman," in response to inquiry from
No, we would rather have minimum wage class jobs for professionals that a
would provide. We are becoming a new Jackson Hole due to our policies. Allow people
to have more control over their own property. Affordable housing, good jobs are not possible
with the direction Bozeman's leaders are continuing to pursue.
In our case we did not suffer any undo hardship. Most of our frustration came from our
own ignorance of what was required. Once involved we found everyone to be positive and
helpful.
Why would the city tell me where to plant trees, direct the direction of my siding and let a
casino with florescent spires go in on Main Street? How appropriate is this? It appears to be a
cross between Disney World's Magic Kingdom and Circus-Circus.
It takes far too long to get even a simple remodel approved. September 1995 - May 1996.
33
That is a ridiculous amount of time. I lost a tenant due to the long time. The Bozeman
collectivists
can put the Russian and Chinese collectivists to shame.
I think the staff is well meaning and truly there to help, but the process that is required is
totally out of order and a mess. One department had no idea what the other was doing.
It would take too long.
I think the planning department should have greater ability to make "in house" reviews.
The attitude in the engineering department is at times rigid and not very friendly.
Sometimes they seem very slow at responding to details. However, in the last 30 days they have
been showing a much improved attitude.
Yes, eliminate DRB/DRC and all reviews for buildings which meet zoning, use codes and
setbacks, parking codes.
The building department is a joke. There is no consistency, no practicality, and no
common sense: There is a lack of professional ability and knowledge with this group. You ask
three different inspectors and you'll get three different answers. A lot of their interpretation of
regulations are not consistent with good engineering standards and practices. If you got rid of all
building department and started over it would be best.
The plan reviewers in San Diego and are out of touch. If I still practiced in
California, I'd be used to it. Here it hinders the process. Hire some staff, keep the money local!
I still think the sign code should be modified to allow for more than b" of space between
the ground and a free standing sign,
It should be more clear, within the confines of the process, what requirements need to be
met by applicants to receive project approval. At this time, there is no way to have any
expectation of what will be required and whether it is worth an effort to pursue any given project.
If an applicant had more advance information on the goals or requirements, that were objective
instead of subjective, then a better decision could be made if a project should be submitted.
Our city planner was I can't say enough about communication skills, both
with me from early on in the process and also in expressing our ideas to other members of his
staff. If I had any suggestion it would be to hire the best people possible for the job of planner
with good communication skills as a top priority so they can act as an effective go between for
both the applicants and city.
New zoning staff should be better trained about the process. Zoning staff should not be
inputting "design" or "style" concepts on projects because they do not have the historical
background or design background to do so. The DRB should be the input the applicant needs for
design. Zoning staff should also not sit on projects for weeks after the city Commission's
approval without signing off on it. Zoning staff should also not impose further conditions after
the city commissioners have granted the project approval based on conditions previously
reviewed.
Too many bureaucrats!
My wife and I retired to Bozeman in 1990. I do not take up any other person's job, but
contribute to the economy. After 50 years working and paying taxes and my own way I have
established a good standard of living. The schools, county an city are slowly raising my taxes for
things I don't want to the point that I have to sell out an move to a cheaper place. Case in point is
34
two water departments toxic waste clean up that was paid for by U.S. government and now again
by us taxpayers. Special school elections attended by only 9% of voters for more school taxes
upping cost of M.S.U. and local schools, etc. You will drive me out of my home that I earned in
50 years work and make me a non taxpayer have not. I am retired and have no more ways to earn
money. Please leave me alone.
I often mention to people that one of the reasons that I stayed in Bozeman after
graduation is the planning/design review process, The process is an extraordinary asset for our
community, especially for it's size. The process does need fine tuning, but I would rather work
things out than scrap the process. The staff/boards need to do more to educate the public. I
recently bought a home in a historic district. Upon telling people/Realtors about it, most rolled
their eyes and warned about how difficult it was to do anything to the house. Many of these
people have never filled out a C.O.A. or been through the process; it is all fear and hearsay.
These same people complain when an old home gets ripped down for a fourplex. Someone
should spread the word on rising property values, improvements on viewshed when signs come
down ( _, etc.). The staff can continue to educate itself. There is no bigger threat to the
codes than staff that misrepresents it.
The process could be streamlined considerably if small projects, minor deviation requests
etc., were fast tracked bypassing three or four of these steps. Once notice to neighbors is sent,
they should determine if a public hearing is necessary. The city commission must have more
pressing issues to deal with than unopposed deviations. The expense of these unneeded layers of
bureaucracy both in time and money should be minimized—while still protecting the neighborhood
from "inappropriate" uses. To sum up the process, it was pay money and jump through hoops.
For what? Something which should have been processed by the assistant clerk in the building
department office.
Slow and costly for what is done.
The building permitting process won't or, but during construction an occasional question
would come up and it often took several days to get an answer or even a call returned. It's very
difficult to follow all the rules when you don't know what the rules are (in some part because a
rule is really just an interpretation by the specific building official you happened to talk to) and
can't get an answer in a timely manner. It's not practical to stop construction and sit around
awaiting an interpretation. On a different topic, we also applied for the city to vacate an alley that
hadn't been used for 50 years. There is a procedure for such a vacation and we were told it would
take about six weeks. Granted this is not a common procedure and could be expected to take
some extra time, but it wound up taking 11 months. I don't know where the holdup or holdups
were, but it seemed to take much longer than necessary.
My comment is that my reputation was hurt, my clients suffered monetary damage, and
they knew they could get away with it. I can only hope they will some day realize their purpose
(to plan) and understand that regulation is only one small piece of implementing a plan. Largely
because of their action was the law changed to allow developers to sue for damages. There are
some people out in the real world that are waiting for the chance, and they can afford it. As for
me, I will do everything in my power to not have to deal with them again. They lost the most
"pro Bozeman" person in town, me. I can only wish them well.
Be consistent. What's good for one must be good for all. Inspectors must be checked on.
35
We had inspectors that didn't leave their vehicles when they came to the job site.
1. I feel the city manager should take a more active role both in coordinating the various
departments and in the review process, or at least the more important ones. 2. I am disgusted
with the way our city commission, or at least some of them, use their podium to bash city staff. If
they do have a problem with staff, it seems it could more often than not be handled out of the
newspaper. I also feel the commission at times is almost "cowardly" attacking city staff, mainly
planning, for enforcing policies which they themselves are in charge of I know it is easier to go
along with upset applicants who each have a vote than it is backing up staff and policies, but it's
not right. They need to get a backbone!
Process is unnecessarily adversarial, with procedures and policies vague and overly
complicated. Simplify.
The planning process in Bozeman has become too subjective with personal views and
agendas getting in the way of objective reviews. Review of submittals should be done strictly
according to codes and regulations keeping personal wants and desires completely out of any staff
report. Better direction needs to be given by the director of planning to the staff so that staff
reports are clear and comments are well explained. More lead time is needed by the applicant in
response to staff comments which are given to applicant just prior to scheduled meeting.
Streamline the whole process. Bozeman has more advisory boards and steps in their
process than New York City.
My application for a residential building permit was very "typical". There was absolutely
nothing in my plans that challenged any zone regulations or codes. Therefore, my application
went smoothly as possible, given the work overload of the planning/building department at the
time. If I had any suggestions, it would pertain not to the building permit application process, but
to all city/county government workers. All staff should be hired, trained and prepared to give
fast, attentive and friendly customer service. City workers should have a customer service
evaluation by random members of the public on a regular basis. Bottom line: treat the public like
valuable customers, or find a different job.
Simplify! Realize that as property owners we have the greatest desire to improve and
upgrade our investments. It's true the city receives more profit (through high taxes) than we do
(with no investment), but that doesn't bestow the automatic privilege of making decisions that
hamstring owners to get it. Government should be there to do what we can't do as individuals
(i.e. health, safety, streets, and public property). The fifth amendment states we don't have to
testify against ourselves, yet through our taxes we pay to have people work against us. anyone.
City manager and planners should enjoy a 7 year tenure at most. I was a student at MSU in 1972
for three two quarter credit planning courses. What you people and did (city planners, MSU
professors, architects, sociologists, etc.) sounded good. We did a lengthy road plan for the future
so we would be ready for heavy traffic. Well, it's here, and the only major routes developed in 24
years were Kagy and funneling everything to South 19th, and connecting it to the Interstate. In
my opinion it stinks. We need to start over with new planners that live in the city limits.
A balance of viewpoints on the boards always critical, irrespective of what the make up of
the city commission is. Without a balanced view the community gets lopsided input that is either
gung ho growth or anti growth. Either is bad in the long run.
After going through this process I believe there should be some correlation between the
36
number of hoops a property owner is required to jump through and the type or size of the project.
I also believe that if I am requesting a deviation to replace a roof on a small garage I should not
be required to pay the same fee as an individual building townhouses or a new building, Simply
said, the amount of process should relate to the size of the project.
We completely renovated a small house at We're in the historical "overlay"
section I think and I commend your group for having our neighborhood in the same tradition it
was built. I do have one suggestion. In order to keep the original setbacks we had to move
house off foundation and then completely redo foundation and then put house back. It would
have been more reasonable to knock house down and start from scratch. I think people should be
allowed to do that if are basically redoing structure as before, I appreciate being asked my
opinion. Why doesn't the city do something about the horrible structure on which is
behind the house just north of us?
The planning staff/department should plan. They should tighten up the planning/zoning
documents and then make consistent decisions with the plan. At the moment, as in the past, they
have seen a disorganized group that lacks a clear vision of the future of Bozeman. They should
devote time to planning that future and not reacting to the present. The DRB is laughable at best.
The decision to approve the design of in our entryway corridor is appalling. This is an
example of their inconsistent decision making ability.
Yes, but we'd need several volumes to write it all. We have all heard the comments
before, same people, same things. Thanks for trying!
Come to grips with the fundamental problem - lack of professional competence - and quit
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
The city staff was very helpful and considerate through the application process of the
project. Thank you for this chance to comment on their efficiency.
I also feel that it is the staff position to go in and sell some projects if they are warranted
and keep the DRC/DRB/planning board focussed on the issue. Seems that this position of giving
direction to planning commission is tough because this is the boss you're speaking to. Job
security becomes more of an issue than the merit of the projects. Again, saying what I think they
want to hear attitude.
There is a need for less expensive home sites in Bozeman. However, without basic land
cost, plus the many requirements of Bozeman's development review people there cannot be any
low priced sites. Do we need beautification strips - park set asides - unused sidewalk
requirements - up-front agreements required of developers even as waivers or right to protest
unnecessary future costs and now impact fees!
I think it would be beneficial for the planning office to take a customer service class in
how to deal with their public. was rude, patronizing and seemed to get a lot of joy by
making this business jump through the bureaucratic hoops and made this entire process entirely
more difficult than it should have been, was misinformed. would not take any
responsibility for his position. We are fortunate that we do not have to deal with this city
planning office and we certainly do not want to go through this process ever again.
Linkage between city planning office and other county and state offices is very vague.
Public really isn't given a chain of command or protocol to follow. Creates lots of confusion for
users. Often given only one half of required direction leaving user often frustrated and confused.
37
All people I have contacted have been friendly and courteous.
Too many to list here! I'll mention just one or two. It appears to me that your "review
boards", etc., are entirely too dominated by so-called "professionals" who have a pre-disposition
for restricting and limiting projects and private initiatives before the process even starts. This is
their philosophy and their agenda. Thus, the citizen feels the process is biased from the start, and
that he never really has a chance - that they're just going through the motions, These boards must
have more of a "mainstream citizen" make up to ensure fairness and common sense. At this point,
citizens feel locked out of the process. I also feel it is wrong to have city "compliance officers"
initiating actions against citizens (as with so-called "non-conforming" signs, etc.). If no local
citizen initiates a complaint, the sign, home improvement or whatever should be left along.
Enforcement should not be mandatory and prompted by city staff. If there isn't a problem, don't
make one up.
There were too many concessions that we had to agree to - for the plan to be approved
and accepted - especially concerning H.R.D.C.
In regards to the Building Department/Fire Marshall office - in order to get what they
wanted, we were used as a pawn, Rather than the fire office being direct about the work they
wanted our building owners to do, a demolition permit was issued to us, demolition was
completed and when it came time to issue the building permit, our job was shut down until the
building owners agreed to meet their demands. In summary, the city allowed us to start a major
renovation job that we couldn't complete because the matters were out of our hands. The job
shouldn't have been started until all issues were resolved, The building/fire office put us in an
extremely vulnerable position that also put us in a what could have been preventable financial and
stressful position. Hopefully others don't have to suffer the way we did,
Become more aware of current planning trends back to a more pedestrian city. Wider
streets are not safer, current meandering subdivision road designs don't offer short direct walking
routes. Multiple lanes and traffic light heading out of town encourage sprawl on and on and on.
Encourage creative solutions, provide incentives to small lots, small homes, we cannot have a
county of 300 million people in 3000 square feet homes. If staff and commission were aware of
recent "successes" around the county they would be more open minded. Also make staffs
commission answerable, it seems as if the city manager runs planning (and knows nothing about
it.)
Eliminate applying to apply- i.e. pre-application.
The codes and zoning are needed and to enforce those requires the process of approval.
On our latest building plan we found the planners and boards both receptive and helpful. The
wish will be for a speedier process, but I don't know how that can be done and maintain
standards.
Train planning staff adequately, Be straight about what you require. City commission -
make decisions that are consistent and fair so you don't look like someone else is lining your
pockets.
There are major portions of the zone code that need to be changed. For example, the
PUD section is cumbersome and illogically stated. It has been tampered with by the staff and is
nearly useless. As one stair member stated, "I try to have applicants avoid the use of the PUD
because it is impossible for them to understand and the staff to evaluate." This is very critical
38
because the master plan stresses flexibility of design and this removes the main tool. There needs
to be a consensus of philosophy from the community - commission - staff If the staff does not
choose to follow the direction of the commission (?) they should be removed. Caution - don't
throw the "baby out with the bath water". The plan is there. Straighten out the system of
implementing the plan..
We were required to prepare, at considerable expense, packets that outlined our project
including plot plans, floor plans, numerous forms and photographs. These were provided as
required. However, the questions and statements of the commissioners at the meeting, made it
clear that they had not even looked at those folders. Some had not even brought them to the
meeting. At the meeting, considerable dialogue passed between the city planner and the
commission, but we were not allowed any further input. Our application was denied because of
the planner's strict enforcement of a completely arbitrary rule - that, for a preschool, one parking
space is required for each 200 square feet in the school. This rule has absolutely no relationship
with the number of parents, teachers, or children, or traffic at the school, but was apparently
deemed important enough to destroy this project. The subsequent inaccurate and unfair editorial
by the made it clear to us that we had played into a local clique and had no chance from
the start.
The design review board meeting at which our application was presented: (a) was poorly
organized. My architect and I had no idea what happened, what was the decision, what right of
appeal we had, or when we could next do something. (b) was insulting. The DRB listened to a
staff recommendation and then began to speculate about facts related to the property and the
proposal and about the owner's (my) rationale and intention, The architect and I were not invited
to answer the questions. Finally, we stood up and said: Why speculate, we can answer the
questions. They didn't seem interested in us and continued their private discussion. Finally, they
required a change. (We didn't understand the decision until a staff person explained it the next
day.) That we made even though it made the building look worse. I did not have the time and
money to protest. Note: My wife and I believe the goals of the review process are appropriate
and we do not object to the steps involved. The time required, however, is too long and the DBR
and building permit review steps need great improvement.
There is no consistency in the process. We had to stub the sewer in, but couldn't touch
the water service. Every time we turned around we were paying a fee for something else. Also,
we were required to put in extensive and costly landscaping in an already developed M-1 zone
where hardly any landscaping exists, and the City of Bozeman has the gall to put in that debacle
along the median on North 7th.!
For small, non-controversial building additions in the historic district, too many materials
are required. I recommend having a person immediately approve or reject a plan with just a few
rough sketches to show the general idea. In controversial cases, make the person go through the
entire process. P.S. The people I dealt with were courteous and efficient though. Good job!
I would certainly like to see them speed up the process somewhat. Four to five weeks
was eight weeks. Cost me time and money.
Get people on staff that know something.
It looks to me like all big projects are approved with variances which little guys like me
get hassled over very small projects.
39
When you apply for building permit you shouldn't have to wait for every department to
look it over if the subdivision is approved they on building department would be the only one to
deal with. I repeat that the whole building department and planning staff should be more helpful
and polite.
This is our city, let's make it strong, Get rid of the egos and those that have little
,knowledge of what it takes to complete a project on time, on budget and workable. Sit down
with people that are spending their money on a major project before construction. Try to be
helpful and work together. This should not be an adversarial relationship. You people did
absolutely nothing to help us, yet we were making a life long commitment to downtown. You get
paid, yet you don't pay wages out of your pocket. You've never built anything for the city on
your own budget. Do you know how devastating time delays and cost overruns are to a family
business? I think not! There is no reason that you should have the right to take as long as you
do, we pay you guys. Learn what it is to become a professional.
Please, NO MORE CASINOS!! Any liquor licenses (or beer/wine) should be limited to
bona fide restaurants like who don't have a bar scene or any gambling machines. We
already have more than enough gambling and slimy bars in town - this from someone who likes to
go out! Also please them to think things through logically and not decide things for friendships or
money's sake (or whatever in the world they have in mind sometimes).
40
ADDENDUM 1
Supplementary Letter
I am writing this supplement to the questionnaire because I can't put a definitive date and
time and with who, and what board from a year or so ago. I also write this knowing that my
project is behind me, but other projects are out there that maybe my input can help. I have some
date in my files, but will talk primarily of my feelings during the process. I have been involved
with 25 plus or minus construction projects of similar structures as mine in six or 7 states. As a
matter of fact, I built a building in Kalispell at the same time I was working on the one in
Bozeman. Kalispell was four months from land purchase to opening of the building. Bozeman
was well over a year.
. The process began with the fact that no one really cared you were doing the building. We
were relocating from a small building on North 7th with inadequate parking and one of the"bad"
signs, to a new location that had previously housed a redi-mix and concrete plant. This by itself I
thought would generate some excitement from the city. I was going to be a partner with them in
cleaning up part of the north entryway corridor. I had been told by Realtors, builders, and
architects that the process would be like walking on glass and couldn't imagine that being the
case. They were right. With one exception, no one from the city called or stopped in to express
support. In other towns, new construction and progress were perceived as good. Apparently not
here. The encounters I had with the city said loud and clear"You are the enemy". One example
was the very end of the process as late summer was upon us and I was awaiting the last piece of
paper to allow the construction to begin. I had a full construction crew ready to go and the
possibility of an early winter adding to my concerns as I would have to pay extra for winter
caused delays. On a Thursday, I believe, I went to the planning building on North Bozeman
which borders Dearborn and inquired of a gentleman with the water or sewer department when
this final test could be done so I could have the final permit and get started. His response was (1)
we are far too busy to just run off and do that inspection. (2) 1 have to have three different people
and I don't even hlknow when they will all be in town. (3) 1 have no idea when we can do it, but
it won't be tomorrow and maybe not next week. I said this is really a problem for me as I have
everyone on hold waiting for this last inspection and could I at least have a tentative date. He said
not my problem" and turned around and walked back to his office at the rear of the building.
This person is supposed to be on my side,
My greatest single event frustration during the process had to do with requirements with
my roof. An informal planning meeting the first part of 1995 went over the roof structural design
and what was designed was what was in effect at that time. When we got to the final building .
permit process we were told the roof would have to be changed to accommodate more wind and
snow. The levels required were in conformance with a property designated as "heavily treed" by
the building official who was new in the position and apparently flexing his muscle. I don't think
there are ten trees within a half mile circle other than the ones I planted to meet my landscaping
requirements. This change involved an upward revision of$50,000 to $75,000 in the price of the
building and delays in reengineering. In other words, the rules were changed in the middle of our
project and the rules that were created had no merit. It was.preposterous. We wrote a letter to
41
at the suggestion of and turned us down in support of the building official's
position. I was never asked to sit down and explain my position as building owner. I then had to
retain an attorney because this was so expensive to change and so unfair to have to change it. We
met with from the city and they stonewalled the city's position telling us that we were
being asked to follow the rules in effect at the time of our request for permit. They acknowledged
that they had not notified anyone of the changes they had made, but the rules were the rules. I
pointed out that if the roof I was after was good enough for the new Wilson School and for
wasn't it OK for . The thought of fencing materials needing more protection than,
our children was crazy. We advise the city we would be filing suit for damages if they were not
able to agree with our position or offer some type of compromise. The meeting closed with
asking that we resubmit our original documents for review by , the new building
official. On the following day wrote in a letter".....many professionals have been involved
in the assessment of this project and that the necessary level of protection to the public has been
addressed, I will authorize your request for design reductions...". In my opinion was
supporting the arrogance of one of his employees rather than protecting the rights of the citizenry.
This kind of blinders on approach helps me to understand the litigiousness of the citizens in
dealing with the city. The building went on with the original roof approved after all this hassle.
Midway through the process I had a city employee apologize to me for all the red tape I
was going through. Their impression was that we had gotten a lot of out of staters trying to
protect us from ourselves. They had seen chaos and congestion and wanted to make sure we
didn't have the same problems here in Bozeman.
Three minor issues, but still goofy in my mind involved the city's decision that there was
no one in town capable of determining the adequacy of the big bolts that were installed. I had to
have an engineer drive in from Billings to test the torque on the nut attachment to the bolt and to
determine if they had been installed properly. My plans were sent to a firm in California for
review as to compliance-with code. My architect had to answer some questions for them simply
because the pages were separated for review by different technicians and the pages they had didn't
cover the question they had. Why ship this review process out of state? One rule I faced was that
you couldn't go over 150' or so on the perimeter of your building without a 90 degree change in
the flow of the building. My cost in doing this on my building was over $10,000 and fouled up
the inside wall flow for my fixtures, Having a panel of a different color or something could have
accomplished the same thing. This is a nuisance rule that is of no value. I had no problem with
the truly enhancing requirements. I love Bozeman and I wanted my store to be something I was
proud of, but there is a limit.
It is easy to gritch, but do I have any suggestions for the process. Most of my thoughts
have to do with attitude rather than process.
1. Give employees who deal with the public additional training in dealing with the public.
Improve your hiring procedures so that public visibility jobs are filled with employees who
enjoy the public and meeting their needs. Jobs interacting with he public are basically
retail positions. If you have someone who interviews very somberly, seldom smiles, and is
shy, don't hire them for a role like this even if they have a 4.0 GPA from Harvard because
they will not be successful.
2. Don't assume supervisors don't have to take part in suggestion 1.
42
ADDENDUM 2
Letter Addressed to Building Inspection Department.
Over the past 20 years I have had the opportunity to build five or six commercial buildings
in Bozeman, and have found the experience(s)to be, on the whole, pleasant and rewarding. I
have heard some say they felt there are more "hoops" and regulations in the building process than
should be necessary, but very honestly I have usually seen the reasoning behind the regulations
and permitting format, and as in virtually any/every business activity, have found the system is
workable and accommodating if the people involved conduct themselves to that end.
In my experiences I have found the vast majority of the city employees to be cooperative,
considerate, and helpful. When I have had a question or did not understand a rule or regulation,
they have taken the time and been courteous in getting me on "the right path". Last year I had my
first occasion to file a verbal complaint of a city employee, and now this is my first written
complaint. Both complaints are in regard to of your department.
Last year when constructing a building the contractor failed to put the street address on
the structure, and he had not adequately marked the site for the utilities entrance. The first notice
he received was a "cease and desist" order Mr. nailed to the building. I felt a telephone
call to the contractor or to me, or inasmuch as Mr. was on site to find the infractions, --a
verbal reminder from him to someone on site might have been in order as a "first notice"? In a
more serious matter during the same construction project, a previous city building department
official had made a determination of a particular building code regarding the building, which after
he subsequently left employment with the city, Mr. countermanded at a sizable expense
and impact to my project which by then was well underway. The code section referenced the
handling of the condition was "in the discretion of the official". Officials in the Planning Dept.
and this previous Building dept. official had interpreted the ruling one way which I was following,
and Mr. Albrecht subsequently decided to resurrect the question and retroactively rule another
way. Quite frankly I felt I could have taken legal issue with the city and won the case, but in the
interests of time and goodwill elected not to do so.
Today I am in the process of obtaining a building permit. Inasmuch as I had received
conditional site approval and would be receiving the final site plans from the engineer who has
been somewhat behind due to his workload, we started the earth work which I had always been
told was permissible. I had previously been told, and had on the earlier buildings followed the
directive that site work including excavation could be done as long as no pouring of concrete or
installation of permanent improvements was ever involved. I am certain I need not explain how
difficult it is to schedule subcontractors, and thus how helpful and accommodating it can be to
have a condition such as this ability to do limited work prior to having the building permit in hand.
Apparently this regulation has been changed, as this week Mr. posted another "cease and
desist" order at my site where we were doing earth work.
43
ADDENDUM 2
Letter Addressed to Building Inspection Department.
Over the past 20 years I have had the opportunity to build five or six commercial buildings
in Bozeman, and have found the experience(s) to be, on the whole, pleasant and rewarding. I
have heard some say they felt there are more "hoops" and regulations in the building process than
should'be necessary, but very honestly I have usually seen the reasoning behind the regulations
and permitting format, and as in virtually any/every business activity, have found the system is
workable and accommodating if the people involved conduct themselves to that end.
In my experiences I have found the vast majority of the city employees to be cooperative,
considerate, and helpful. When I have had a question or did not understand a rule or regulation.,
they have taken the time and been courteous in getting me on "the right path". Last year I had my
first occasion to file a verbal complaint of a city employee, and now this is my first written
complaint. Both complaints are in regard to of your department.
Last year when constructing a building the contractor failed to put the street address on
the structure, and he had not adequately marked the site for the utilities entrance. The first notice
he received was a "cease and desist" order Mr. nailed to the building. I felt a telephone
call to the contractor or to me, or inasmuch as Mr. was on site to find the infractions, --a
verbal reminder from him to someone on site might have been in order as a "first notice"? In a
more serious matter during the same construction project, a previous city building department
official had made a determination of a particular building code regarding the building, which after
he subsequently left employment with the city, Mr. countermanded at a sizable expense
and impact to my project which by then was well underway. The code section referenced the
handling of the condition was "in the discretion of the official". Officials in the Planning Dept.
and this previous Building dept. official had interpreted the ruling one way which I was following,
and Mr. subsequently decided to resurrect the question and retroactively rule another
way. Quite frankly I felt I could have taken legal issue with the city and won the case, but in the
interests of time and goodwill elected not to do so.
Today I am in the process of obtaining a building permit. Inasmuch as I had received
conditional site approval and would be receiving the final site plans from the engineer who has
been somewhat behind due to his workload, we started the earth work which I had always been
told was permissible. I had previously been told, and had on the earlier buildings followed the
directive that site work including excavation could be done as long as no pouring of concrete or
installation of permanent improvements was ever involved. I am certain I need not explain how
difficult it is to schedule subcontractors, and thus how helpful and accommodating it can be to
have a condition such as this ability to do limited work prior to having the building permit in hand.
Apparently this regulation has been changed, as this week Mr. posted another "cease and
desist" order at my site where we were doing earth work.
43
My complaint is not to do with the regulations, but rather with the attitude and demeanor
Mr, apparently feels is necessary in order to convey them. I am extremely pleased to find
some city employees conduct their side of the business relationship in such a manner that they "go
out of their way" to be as helpful and accommodating as possible to the applicant, and have been
most thankful for the many times employees have taken the time and effort to educate me
regarding the regulations and procedures. At a minimum, I expect the person to conduct the
business with the same courtesy and consideration which I endeavor to give them. To be direct, I
am extremely dissatisfied with the way in which Mr. conducts the business of your
department and I think you should know it.
The number of complaint letters I have written during my lifetime to anyone regarding
anything can be counted on the fingers of one hand. I feel very strongly about this situation and
as I am quite certain Mr. would not respond to my expressing this matter directly with
him, feel I must address it to you. I feel Mr. needs to take a course in human relations
and practice it, or he should not be representing your department and the City of Bozeman.
Thank your for your courtesy and consideration.
44
ADDENDUM 3
Summary of Comments of a Focus Group Selected From the Professional Development
Community in the City of Bozeman
April 20, 1996
Meeting of Developers, Architects, Builders, and Engineers to discuss and develop questions to
be used on the survey of planning and development review process by the City of Bozeman
Nine participants plus the Director of the Local Government Center and a staff research assistant
were present.
Director briefs those present on purpose of the meeting. LGC would be providing services for the
City of Bozeman to develop an instrument to survey and evacuate the City's planning review
process. Survey would measure what, if anything, needs to be changed in the process and. City
agencies involved. The City Commission wants to know what, if anything, needs to be fixed.
Agenda:
1 .What doesn't need fixing, what is running well in the Department?
2. What does need to be fixed, what things are causing you problems?
1. What doesn't need to be fixed?
Pendulum swinging back and forth is working, good balance of citizen concerns.
Change toward a Development Review Committee (DRC), was a positive move. All Departments
are sitting down together instead of going to all the different departments, good individuals
working in Department.
Development Review Process, which has been around for two years is a good process.
Like the DRC one stop shop, good staff in Planning Dept.
Happy with separation between the Building and Planning Dept.
Good people in planning Dept.
45
DRC is good, most of the staff are positive. The ordinance itself is basically good, needs some
clarification or"tweaking".
Hearing process is working.
Document itself is good, minor adjustments will be helpful. The ordinance itself reflects citizens
wants.
Changes in the past couple of years in staff has have helped.
Up front, you know where you stand compared to how it used to be, preliminary reviews are
better.
Impact Fees?
Historically Bozeman is a nice place and has built a nice community, and now people want to
build a wall around it. Individuals taking responsibility for their own properties. Community
consciousness keeps the zoning positive. Community pride.
City has done a good job of giving this industry ample time to give input on zoning issues.
Positive side of public input, well motivated public concern, that later supports a better project.
Government is responsive to desires of public input and in working relationships.
Compared to other states and communities we've got a good and easy process.
If you use the system properly , the door is always open, the Engineering staff is pretty receptive
and collaborates.
Impact Fees at the present level.
H. What needs to be Fixed?
They need to hire the very best staff they can and allow them to do their job, uninfluenced by the
City Commission, have confidence in their staff's professionalism. All the commissioners need to
be aware of this, you don't undermine the staffs ability to do their job. Staff should feel free and
be responsible to perform their jobs, respecting professionals. Engineering staff may not be
prepared to make important decisions, and they are being set up for second guessing. Applies to
Planning Staff also, a lot of second guessing of consultants. Consultants are stamping the job
with their professional approval; we shouldn't be second guessed.
Direct influence by Commissioners, presently in office. Indirect influence by Commissioners,
low-income example in which the staff may suggest if low income housing was a part of this
46
project the Commission would "go for it". Professional staff appears to be influenced by political
agenda.
Inclusionary zoning, forces developers into affordable housing. 3 8% of the cost of a house is
from regulatory cost. Trying to shoe horn affordable housing into inappropriate plans.
Affordable housing is favored over other projects.
Undue influence early in the process. Inclusionary zoning and mixed use projects. Imposition of
political agenda of Commissioners interfering with process of planning and zoning. Planning staff
is "gun shy". Planning staff appears to have a good plan but when it goes to City Commission.
the plan gets shot down. Probably better than it used to be, less direct.
Commissioners should take their concerns and modify regulations instead of trying to influence
the staff with their political agenda.
Performance zoning opened the door for the Commissioners.
The Commissioners think they are the planners.
There are three or four separate review processes. Three to four separate reviews.
The City Commissioners are micro-managing. The decision is made at the Commission level and
it shouldn't be. The Commission should provide the stamp of approval or for special issues.
Commissioners should respect the professional judgement of the staff.
Never get the wrinkles ironed out of the project, conditions always have to be worked out. Every
time you go before another board its another work session. Staff isn't doing their job. Staff can't
do their jab because of political agendas. Concerning accountability at public hearings , we're the
only ones that have to prove and tell the truth. Public can just stand up and blow a project based
on conjecture.
Meeting procedures, hearing process, once internal dialog has started you can't defend yourself
30 minute presentation of experts, endless time for public response, five minute rebuttal and then
commission closes. Not enough time to rebut and prepare for rebuttals.
Balance is not good in the hearing process.
Role of Commission itself, effects on staff and procedures the Commission follows, trying to play
expert, should listen to own staff,.
Allow more time for builders, developers, to rebut public input. Time limits put on both sides.
47
f
I:.
Put more weight on the conceptual review. Don't make it just another process by staff and DRC .
It undermines the confidence of the staff. Staff has said the decision is made at the Commission.
Look at the County Commission model it works well.
The cost of regulation.
Did delays or the review process cost your project money? The book is O.K. It's the efficiency
and time line of the project that costs. Efficiency, clarity, changes of rules. Zoning ordinance
needs to be cleaned up to affect efficiency. Inconsistency. DRB is subjective volunteer board;
not enough training on complicated matters.
What costs money is when the project just sits. Uncertain as to why time lag occurs, motivation
or understaffed.
Engineering is where you get bogged down, perhaps the office sets different priorities. Time is
money.
Timeliness of the process.
z
i
i
it
i'
j
r
I
48
OPINION SURVEY OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN'S
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
MAY, 1996
As a recent applicant for some type of land use permit, your opinion and evaluation of the
City's planning, development and design review process is important to the City Commission.
The purpose of this evaluation is to assure that the present method of reviewing citizen
applications for various land use purposes is as efficient and as responsive as possible to the needs
of the applicant and the protection of the community.
All responses will remain absolutely confidential and no individual response will be
reported to the City or to the public. The control number on the return envelope is solely for
the purpose of preventing an unnecessary and costly second mailing to you.
If you prefer not to respond at this time, please check the box immediately below and
return this form in the enclosed stamped envelope to help us avoid the cost and inconvenience of
a second mailing to you.
I prefer not to respond in detail at this time but, in general, I
would evaluate the City's overall planning, development and design
review process as:
1. Good
2. Adequate
3. Poor
4. Don't know/No opinion
Thank you for your participation. (All others please continue to the next question).
1. Which type of land use or building permit
did you request from the City. (Check all that apply) 2. When did you apply?
1. Major site plan 1. Earlier than I July 94
2. Minor site plan 2. July 1994 - June 1995
3. Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) 3. July 1995 - Dec 1995
4. Zone Change 4. Jan 96 - Present
5. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) including PUD 5. Don't Recall
6. Certificate of Survey (CoS)
7. Minor Subdivision
8. Major Subdivision
9. Building permit
10. Other (please list):
49
To aid your response to the questions below, the following model
includes the typical steps in the City's land use decision process:
1. Concept Plan or 2. Preliminary Planning 3. Development Review
Pre-Application Staff Review of Plat or Committee and/or
Plan Design Review Board
6. Building Permit 5. City Commission 4. Planning Board
Review
3. Do you believe that your application was treated FAIRLY during the application process?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't know/No opinion
Comment:
4. (Only for those who checked "No" at question 3, above)
If you believe your application was NOT treated fairly, which step in the review process seemed
to present the greatest problem?
1. Concept Plan or Pre-Application
2. Preliminary Planning Staff Review of Plat or Plan
3. Development Review Committee (City Staff)
4. Design Review Board
5. Planning Board
6. City Commission
6. Building Permit Review
7. Other (Please list):
Comment:
5. Do you believe that your application was processed in a reasonably TIMELY manner by the
City?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't know/No opinion
Comment:
6. (Only for those who checked "No" at question 5, above)
If you believe your application was NOT processed in a reasonably timely manner which step in
the review process seemed to present the greatest problem?
is
1. Concept Plan or Pre-Application
2. Preliminary Planning Staff Review of Plat or Plan
3. Development Review Committee (City Staff)
4. Design Review Board
5. Planning Board
y° 6. City Commission
6. Building Permit Review
7. Other (Please list):
Comment:
Now, 1 would like you to evaluate each step in the City's decision process by rating each step as
GOOD, ADEQUATE or POOR. Then add any recommendations you wish for improvement.
7. Concept Plan or Preapplication:
1. Good
2. Adequate
3. Poor
4. Don't know/No opinion
How could this step in the process be improved?
8. Preliminary Planning Staff Review of Plat or Plan:
is 1. Good
2. Adequate
3. Poor
4. Don't know/No Opinion
' How could this step in the process be improved?
r 9. Development Review Committee (City Staff):
1. Good
2. Adequate
3. Poor
4. Don't know/No Opinion
How could this step in the process be improved?
51
s.
10. Design Review Board:
1. Good
2. Adequate
3. Poor
4. Don't know/No Opinion
How could this step in the process be improved?
11. Planning Board:
1. Good
2. Adequate
3. Poor
4. Don't know/No Opinion
How could this step in the process be improved?
i.
12. City Commission:
1. Good
2. Adequate
3. Poor
4. Don't know/No opinion
How could this step in the process be improved?
13. Building Permit Review:
1. Good
2. Adequate
{ 3. Poor
4. Don't know/No opinion
How could this step in the process be improved?
I "
14. Do you have any other comments or recommendations you would like the City Commission,
its advisory boards or the City staff to consider?
Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this review and evaluation of the City's
planning, development and design review process.
i
I
Please return this completed survey in the enclosed envelope at your earliest convenience
to:
Local Government Center, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 59717
52