HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-21 Planning Board Agenda & Packet MaterialsA.Call Meeting to Order
B.Disclosures
C.Changes to the Agenda
D.Approval of Minutes
D.1 Minutes Approval for 11-16-20 and 03-15-21(Rogers)
E.Public Comment
THE PLANNING BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
PB AGENDA
Monday, April 5, 2021
WebEx Meeting Information
Via Webex:
https://cityofbozeman.webex.com/cityofbozeman/onstage/g.php?
MTID=ed8a208ccfd74c14d5e594352fdc2029a
Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit.
Click Join Now to enter the meeting
Via Phone:
This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream or channel 190
• Call-in toll number (US/Canada ): 1-650-479-3208
• Access code: 182 318 5307
Public Comment:
If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda, please send an email to
agenda@ bozeman.net prior to 12:00pm on Monday, March 5th, 2021. You may also comment by
visiting the City's public comment page.
You can also comment by joining the Webex meeting. If you do join the Webex meeting, we ask you
please be patient in helping us work through this online meeting. If you are not able to join the Webex
meeting and would like to provide oral comment you may send a request to agenda@bozeman.net
with your phone number, the item(s) you wish to comment on, and someone will call you during the
meeting to provide an opportunity to comment. You may also send the above information via text to
406-224-3967.
As always, the meeting will be streamed through the City's video page (click the Streaming Live in the
drop down menu), and available in the City on cable channel 190.
1
Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record.This is the time for
individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee.There will also be
an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item.Please
limit your comments to three minutes.
F.Special Presentations
G.Action Items
G.1 Third work session to define and refine Planning Board goals for 2020 and implementation
of the Bozeman Community Plan 2021. The initial discussion took place on December 21,
2020 and the second work session took place on March 1, 2021.(Happel)
H.FYI/Discussion
I.Adjournment
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at trogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
2
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Planning Board
SUBJECT:Minutes Approval for 11-16-20 and 03-15-21
MEETING DATE:April 5, 2021
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:Suggested Motion:
I move to approve the meeting minutes for November 16th, 2020
I move to approve the meeting minutes for March 15th, 2021
STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the
community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from
the community and stakeholders.
BACKGROUND:None
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None
ALTERNATIVES:1. Approve meeting minutes with corrections.
2. Do not approve meeting minutes.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None
Attachments:
11-16-20 Planning Board Minutes DRAFT.pdf
03-15-21 Planning Board Minutes DRAFT.pdf
Report compiled on: March 15, 2021
3
City Planning Board
Monday, November 16, 2020 | 6:00 PM | Virtual Meeting
This meeting will be held using Webex, an online videoconferencing system. You can join this meeting:
Via Webex:
https://cityofbozeman.webex.com/cityofbozeman/onstage/g.php?MTID=e18fba537fbd06d2bb0e58e59d3228367
Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit.
Click Join Now to enter the meeting
Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream or channel 190
United States Toll (US/Canada): +1-650-479-3208
Access code: 126 541 5416
Public Comment:
If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda, please send an email to agenda@ bozeman.net
prior to 12:00pm on Monday, November 16th, 2020. You may also comment by visiting the City's public comment page.
You can also comment by joining the Webex meeting. If you do join the Webex meeting, we ask you please be patient in
helping us work through this online meeting.
If you are not able to join the Webex meeting and would like to provide oral comment you may send a request to
agenda@bozeman.net with your phone number, the item(s) you wish to comment on, and someone will call you during
the meeting to provide an opportunity to comment. You may also send the above information via text to 406-224-3967.
As always, the meeting will be streamed through the City's video page (click the Streaming Live in the drop down menu),
and available in the City on cable channel 190.
A. 06:04:54 PM (00:08:39) Call Meeting to Order & Roll Call
Present Were:
Henry Happel (Chairman)
Jennifer Madgic
Cathy Costakis
Mark Egge
Richard Rudnicki
George Thompson
Sarah Rosenberg (City Staff)
B. 06:06:01 PM (00:09:45) Changes to the Agenda
C. 06:06:50 PM (00:10:35) Public Comment
Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for
individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an
4
opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your
comments to three minutes.
D. 06:06:10 PM (00:09:55) Minutes for Approval
10-5-20 Minutes (PDF)
10-5-20 Video
06:06:10 PM (00:09:55) MOTION to approve meeting minutes: Mark Egge
06:06:14 PM (00:09:59) MOTION SECONDED: Richard Rudnicki
06:06:23 PM (00:10:08) VOTE: Motion Carried Unanimously
E. 06:10:56 PM (00:14:41) Disclosures
F. Action Items
1. 06:10:41 PM (00:14:26) Public Hearing and Recommendation on the Norton Ranch Phase 5
Subdivision (#18-278) (Rosenberg)
A Preliminary Plat application for a proposed 79.3 acres to create 148 lots: 124 residential single household,
14 affordable single household detached lots, 5 common open space lots 5 city park lots, 4 restricted lots and
dedicated right of way. The subject property is zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4. The subject parcel is located north
and west of the intersection of West Babcock Street and Laurel Parkway.
a) 18278 Staff Report
b) 18278 Staff Memo – Affordable Housing Plan
c) 18278 Application
06:11:11 PM (00:14:56) City Planner, Sarah Rosenberg presented on behalf of The City of Bozeman for the proposed
Major Subdivision, Preliminary Plat. Ms. Rosenberg provided an overview of the surrounding area, the affordable
housing plan, as well as parkland and open space.
06:20:26 PM (00:24:11) Ms. Rosenberg reviewed the unresolved issue of developing the street Laurel Parkway in two
phases rather than one. The Engineering Department is requiring that the street be built in one phase to serve the
surrounding areas.
06:23:06 PM (00:26:51) Board members directed questions toward Planner, Sarah Rosenberg.
06:25:24 PM (00:29:09) Community Development Director Marty Matsen answered a question regarding the Bridger
View Redevelopment and what incentives they requested in their Affordable Housing Plan. Director Matsen explained
that the Bridger View project is a Planned Unit Development, rather than straight zoning, which is why they have
requested other incentives.
06:28:41 PM (00:32:26) Board member Richard Rudnicki asked about Wetland mitigation surrounding the project, and
why affordable housing was clustered in one area of the development. Director Matsen answered that they split
horizontal lots to maximize the smaller lot allowance for affordable housing units. The units also face the street, and
Matsen commented that they felt this was a good design element. Mr. Rudnicki also asked about the large parking lot
adjacent to the park.
5
06:35:26 PM (00:39:10) Board member and City Commissioner, Jennifer Madgic, asked about integration of different
housing types. Commissioner Madgic also asked about the high ground water negatively impacting homes within the
subdivision.
06:38:33 PM (00:42:17) Board member Mark Egge asked about the acreage of the subdivision phase as well as the size
of the affordable housing lots, and the housing types being developed. Ms. Rosenberg explained that there would be
more dense housing types in the next phases, in the area zoned R-4; the phase under discussion is phased R-2.
Following, Mr. Egge asked about the possibility of ADUs and whether HOA covenants would prevent those from being
constructed.
06:43:27 PM (00:47:12) Builder Greg Stratton described the current plan for housing types and future development
within the subdivision.
06:45:11 PM (00:48:55) Board member, Cathy Costakis asked about a trail on the west side of the development. The
group discussed the requirement of gravel, or permeable pavers within the watercourse setback. Other parts of the trail
are planned to be paved. Following, Ms. Costakis asked about trail maintenance and connectivity.
06:50:58 PM (00:54:42) Board member George Thompson echoed Mark Egge’s concerns regarding the development
density and the HOA covenants restricting that possibility. Mr. Thompson also voiced concern over the Engineering
Department’s recommendation that the road, Laurel Parkway be developed in one phase because of it cutting through
agricultural land. Ms. Rosenberg responded that the road also continues through another part of the development
which they’d like to be connected.
06:54:34 PM (00:58:19) Board member and City Commissioner Jen Madgic provided clarification that this project must
comply with the current Growth Policy, not the proposed Growth Policy (Community Plan) referenced earlier by Mark
Egge.
06:55:40 PM (00:59:25) Chairman Henry Happel asked about the six revised iterations of the development submitted
since the Subdivision’s first inception two years prior. Ms. Rosenberg explained that there were some gaps between city
staff comments and response from the applicant.
06:58:19 PM (01:02:04) Greg Stratton of Kilday Stratton presented on behalf of the applicant. 138 residential lots,
including 13 or 14 affordable housing lots. Mr. Stratton explained that there is a wide variety of housing types within the
single-family category. Mr. Stratton also addressed the size of the parking lot, which acts as a replacement to some of
the homes adjacent to the park in order to meet code. Additionally, Mr. Stratton spoke regarding the high ground
water, explaining that they use grade on slab rather than crawl spaces. He continued to explain that they build the road
to be higher than ground water, and raise the foundation of the homes to mitigate the issues.
07:03:54 PM (01:07:39) Mr. Stratton addressed some of the stormwater drainage issues and shared that they would
modify their wetland mitigation plan to address those issues. Mr. Stratton also explained the reasoning behind phasing
the construction of Laurel Parkway. He explained that the cost of more than $800,000 would need to be spread across
the lots in the current phase, and that by splitting construction into two phases, it allows them to spread the cost
further, and make the lots and homes more affordable. Mr. Stratton also explained that the traffic study they
conducted showed no issues with the delay in construction of Laurel Parkway.
07:11:41 PM (01:15:26) Commissioner Madgic asked about high ground water, and about the condition Stratton
requested to be removed regarding the construction of Laurel Parkway (Condition of Approval #29.)
6
07:14:06 PM (01:17:51) Chairman Happel asked about the interest costs of the street construction and why the
Developer doesn’t factor those costs into the overall subdivision. Mr. Stratton explained that it would be a huge risk to
the Developer, and that they planned on a one year loan for the development, rather than a five year loan, which would
be required for the construction of Laurel Parkway.
07:21:01 PM (01:24:46) Board member George Thompson asked about the two year timeline, and how the Laurel
Parkway issue has impacted the timeline of the project. Mr. Stratton explained that they have reduced the number of
comments, working to address them.
07:28:07 PM (01:31:52) Public Comment Opportunity (none)
07:33:51 PM (01:37:36) MOTION: to approve with all conditions of approval except for condition #4: Richard Rudnicki.
07:34:11 PM (01:37:56) MOTION SECONDED: Mark Egge
07:34:15 PM (01:38:00) MOTION DISCUSSION
Mr. Rudnicki spoke to his motion and explained his reasoning for supporting the development with the phasing of Laurel
Parkway.
07:36:36 PM (01:40:20) Chairman Happel asked to amend the motion to add: “Having reviewed and considered the
application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the
staff report for application 18278 and move to recommend approval of the subdivision with conditions and subject to all
applicable code provisions, except…”
07:37:25 PM (01:41:10) Mr. Rudnicki accepted the motion amendment.
07:37:23 PM (01:41:08) Chairman Happel generally supported Mr. Rudnicki’s motion, sharing that he wasn’t sure if it
was just about money with the developer. Following, Mr. Rudnicki shared that this was an opportunity to streamline the
city’s process and reduce costs, which is a commonly discussed goal.
07:40:12 PM (01:43:57) Commissioner Madgic supported Mr. Rudnicki’s comments and stated that she was concerned
that they were over-stepping City Engineering’s recommendation and shared that she’d like input from an Engineer first.
07:41:00 PM (01:44:45) Board member Egge commented on the currently adopted growth policy, and shared that he
was compelled on the Applicant’s interpretation of the code in that it is not a requirement to construct the road in one
phase.
07:43:20 PM (01:47:05) Ms. Costakis voiced support of housing diversity within the neighborhood and advocated for the
trails on the west side of the development to be completed at one time.
07:46:04 PM (01:49:48) Commissioner Madgic shared that she will be supporting this motion tonight and will ask for
input from City Engineers at the City Commission hearing for the project.
07:46:52 PM (01:50:36) Mr. Thompson supported the previous comments regarding adding diversity in housing types
and the motion.
07:48:51 PM (01:52:36) VOTE: Motion Carried Unanimously 6-0.
7
G. 07:49:17 PM (01:53:02) FYI / Discussion
H. 07:51:20 PM (01:55:05) Adjournment
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Monday of the month at 6:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA
coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
8
Bozeman Planning Board Meeting Minutes, 03-15-21
Page 1 of 6
THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
MINUTES
Monday, March 15, 2021
00:00:00 WebEx Meeting Information
A) 00:03:33 Call Meeting to Order
Present: Henry Happel, Cathy Costakis, Richard Rudnicki, Gerald Pape, Mark Egge, George Thompson,
Jennifer Madgic, Matthew Hausauer
B) 00:04:18 Disclosures
C) 00:04:19 Changes to the Agenda
D) 00:04:24 Approval of Minutes
D.1 Minutes Approval for 01-07-20 and 03-01-21
Cover Page
01-07-20 Planning Board Minutes DRAFT.pdf
03-01-21 Planning Board Minutes DRAFT.pdf
00:04:44 Motion D) Approval of Minutes
Gerald Pape: Motion
Richard Rudnicki: 2nd
00:05:45 Vote on the Motion to approve D) Approval of Minutes. The Motion carried 8 - 0
Approve:
Henry Happel
Cathy Costakis
Richard Rudnicki
Gerald Pape
Mark Egge
George Thompson
9
Bozeman Planning Board Meeting Minutes, 03-15-21
Page 2 of 6
Jennifer Madgic
Matthew Hausauer
Disapprove:
None
Board member Egge would like the January 2020 minutes amended to reflect the motion language.
E) 00:05:53 Public Comment
No public comment at this time
F) 00:09:53 Action Items
F.1 00:09:57 Introduction and welcome new and reappointed Planning Board
members.
Cover Page
Staff liaison Tom Rogers gave an overview of the City Commission meeting where four of the board
members were reappointed and Board member Hausauer was appointed to the Planning Board.
Board Member Hausauer introduced himself and gave a brief overview of his background and
professional qualifications.
F.2 00:13:10 Planning Board Rules and Procedures.
Cover Page
Rules of Procedure-1601-Final.pdf
Chairman Happel asked that the board members familiarize themselves with the board rules and
procedures.
F.3 00:14:21 Election of Planning Board officers. Pursuant to model rules of
procedure (Resolution No. 4377) the Planning Board must elect a president and vice
president annually.
Cover Page
00:15:46 Motion To nominate Henry Happel as President
Gerald Pape: Motion
Jennifer Madgic: 2nd
00:15:49 Vote on the Motion to approve Nominate Henry Happel as President. The Motion carried 8 - 0
Approve:
Henry Happel
Cathy Costakis
Richard Rudnicki
Gerald Pape
Mark Egge
10
Bozeman Planning Board Meeting Minutes, 03-15-21
Page 3 of 6
George Thompson
Jennifer Madgic
Matthew Hausauer
Disapprove:
None
00:16:29 Motion Nominate Ruchard Rudnicki as Vice President
Mark Egge: Motion
George Thompson: 2nd
Board member Pape mentioned that he would like to be the vice chair and outlined his qualifications.
Board member Egge spoke to his motion of Board member Rudnicki as vice chair.
00:17:57 Vote on the Motion to approve Nominate Richard Rudnicki as Vice President. The Motion carried
7 - 1
Approve:
Henry Happel
Cathy Costakis
Richard Rudnicki
Mark Egge
George Thompson
Jennifer Madgic
Matthew Hausauer
Disapprove:
Gerald Pape
F.4 00:18:37 Discussion of effective meetings suggestions document.
Cover Page
Efficient Meetings Suggestions-210301.docx
Chairman Happel gave an overview of the effective meeting document
Board member Thompson commented on point 3 in the document stating that with all the discussion
that happens and all the motions and amendments that occur, it gets confusing to follow what is going
on and what exactly is being voted on.
F.5 00:27:28 Third work session to define and refine Planning Board goals and
Community Plan Implementation. The initial discussion took place on December 21,
2020. The second work session took place on March 1, 2021.
Cover Page
Hap Memo to PB-210224.pdf
Happel Goals Memo to PB-121215.pdf
Saunders memo to PB 12-16-2020.pdf
11
Bozeman Planning Board Meeting Minutes, 03-15-21
Page 4 of 6
Resolution 5257 Adopting the City Commission Priorities 2021.pdf
2021 Budget Request - concepts.pdf
Memo to PB-210309.pdf
2021 Budget Request - concepts.pdf
Chairman Happel mentioned the memo from community development that discusses budget issues and
asked staff members to comment on it.
00:32:24 Staff Discussion
Staff liaison Rogers commented on board budget.
Board member Pape commented that the by-laws had been revised two times since he has been on the
board and that the board should create new by-laws instead of new rules and procedures and that the
same thing is true about the budget.
Chairman Happel replied that this is part of a larger discussion of what kind of money the board wants
the city to provide to them and he would prefer to have the budget conversation at a later time, as they
are going to have to present it to the city commission.
Commissioner Madgic interjected that she would work on gathering information on how money is being
spent and she will report back to chairman Happel.
Board member Rudnicki commented that if there is being money spent that the board doesn't know
about, then the board needs to know immediately and needs to deal with it immediately.
Board member Egge commented that levees have to be authorized by state law and that the
commission does levy 2 mills from taxes. He agrees with Board member Pape that the board needs to
know their budget so that they can know what is within the realm of possibility.
Board member Pape commented that the budget belongs to the planning board, not the planning
department and if the board has money that they have never been told about, they need to know what
is being done with that money.
Staff Planner Chris Saunders commented that they are very transparent to the public about budgets and
that the city is not hiding money from the board.
Board member Thompson commented that it would be nice to know if there is funding available in
order to know if they are able to bring in outside sources to assist the board in making decisions.
Chairman Happel commented that himself and Commissioner Madgic will do some research and get
back to the board at the next meeting.
00:51:49 Staff presentation
Melody Mileuer and Dani Hess provided an overview of the city's emerging community engagement
initiative.
12
Bozeman Planning Board Meeting Minutes, 03-15-21
Page 5 of 6
Chairman Happel commented that the board should support community outreach through
communication and engagement.
01:10:06 Board questions
Board members directed questions at staff regarding communication with the public.
Chairman Happel commented that in order to make progress in dealing with their dissatisfaction with
community outreach, a good way to deal with it is for Dani and Melody to have a zoom conference with
planning board members and put together a memo and bring it back to the entire board.
Board members Pape and Costakis volunteered to have the meeting with Dani and Melody.
01:33:08 Better Communication of Beliefs and Intentions.
Chairman Happel mentioned that if the board would have been able to weigh in earlier on Norton Ranch
that there would have possibly been a different outcome and inquired if the board should the board be
able to weigh in earlier on major changes such as this and recommended that the board should put
together a memo on their views of the plans that are going to be put before the board at a later date in
the effort to make the board less of a rubber stamp and more of a voice on the side in the development
process.
Vice Chair Rudnicki commented that he had seen this idea work with other commissions and that he
would be in favor of something that would get the projects in front of the board at an earlier date.
Commissioner Madgic dismissed Dani and Melody and mentioned that they could leave the meeting if
they wanted to and thanked them for their time.
Board member Egge commented that he supports the suggestion that there should be opportunity for
the planning board to give more input in development processes.
Board member Pape commented that he believes that the development committee may like this idea in
some aspects, but may not like it in others.
Board member Thompson commented that he believes that developers aren't going to want to request
extensions in order to allow this process to go through because it already takes long enough to get
through the planning/development process.
Vice Chair Rudnicki commented that he agrees that developers will be hesitant to extend their already
long process.
Commissioner Madgic suggested that she and Vice Chair Rudnicki be the ones to meet with city staff. as
they are former staffers, to convey the wishes of the board in having the opportunity to give earlier
feedback of development projects.
02:00:56 Coordination with other Boards.
13
Bozeman Planning Board Meeting Minutes, 03-15-21
Page 6 of 6
Chairman Happel commented that this is a task he can take on to communicate with other advisory
boards to keep the Planning Board up to date.
G) 02:05:16 FYI/Discussion
H) 02:05:26 Adjournment
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at trogers@bozeman.net. This board generally meets
the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
14
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Planning Board
FROM:Tom Rogers, Senior Planner
Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT:Third work session to define and refine Planning Board goals for 2020 and
implementation of the Bozeman Community Plan 2021. The initial discussion
took place on December 21, 2020 and the second work session took place
on March 1, 2021.
MEETING DATE:April 5, 2021
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission
RECOMMENDATION:As determined by the Board.
STRATEGIC PLAN:4.1 Informed Conversation on Growth: Continue developing an in-depth
understanding of how Bozeman is growing and changing and proactively
address change in a balanced and coordinated manner.
BACKGROUND:On December 21, 2020 the Planning Board initiated discussion on the Board
priorities and goals for the coming year including implementation of the
Community Plan 2020. A follow up discussions occurred on March 1 and
March 15, 2021. Chairman Happel prepared summary memorandums based
on each discussion and are attached to the report dated March 30, 2021.
Planning Board priorities must be in harmony with other City and regional
goals and objectives. These are established in adopted plans of the City and
specifically for 2021 in Resolution 5257. The Bozeman Community Plan
explicitly acknowledges 26 other adopted plans; each of which integrate and
function in relation with one another. In addition, the City’s success is
dependent on our regional aspirations some of which are detailed in the
Gallatin County Triangle Community Plan. The Triangle Plan includes
additional goals and objectives any Planning Board goals ought to connect
with to bolster their effectiveness and efficiency. Staff provided a link to the
Plan and highlighted pertinent content in an email dated February 26, 2021.
Goals and objectives of the Triangle Plan are listed in section 4.
At the March 15, 2021 the Planning Board meeting a discussion of the
Board’s role in Development Review and the Board’s desire for additional
input earlier in the process to ensure consistency with the Growth Policy.
The Board agreed to meet with staff to help further our understanding of
the current review process and to ascertain how the Board might improve
our review processes. The attached memo summarizes a meeting between
15
the Comr. Madgic and Richard Rudnicki with Tom Rogers and Chris Saunders
on March 24.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None
ALTERNATIVES:As determined by the Board
FISCAL EFFECTS:Not identified at this time.
Attachments:
Memo to PB-210330.pdf
Planning board - development review.pdf
Report compiled on: March 30, 2021
16
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bozeman Planning Board Members
FROM: Henry Happel
SUBJECT: Fourth Working Session on Goals and Objectives
DATE: March 30, 2021
This memorandum is in two parts. The first part sets forth the results of our
second and third work sessions on Planning Board goals and objectives held on March 1
and March 15, 2021.
The second part sets forth all of the major proposals, organized by topic, made
during our first work session on December 21. I intend that this second part of the
Memorandum, as before, serve as the agenda for our continuing discussion on goals and
objectives. We will continue our discussion of Better Community Outreach, Better
Communication of Beliefs and Intentions, and Coordination with Other Advisory Boards.
I expect that Ms. Madgic and I will provide a very short report on Coordination with
Other Advisory Boards to be followed be a substantive discussion of Better
Communication of Beliefs and Intentions. Part of the package of materials for this Board
meeting is a March 25 Memorandum from Mr. Rudnicki and Ms. Madgic entitled
“Planning Board Role within Development Review” which addresses this issue. Please
review this Memorandum prior to our meeting. If time allows, we will then turn to Better
Communication of Beliefs and Intentions.
PART I- RESULTS OF PRIOR WORK SESSIONS:
DISCUSSIONS AT MARCH 1 MEETING:
Concerning A Better Educated Board:
The following two resolutions were passed:
RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board seeks a properly educated board. In furtherance of this,
the City should:
1. Select diverse board members with experience and training relevant to the Board’s
overall duties.
2. Provide appropriate initial training to new Board members.
17
2
3. Provide on-going training and educational opportunities to all Board members through
memberships in the American Planning Association and occasional informal work
sessions with senior members of the Community Development Department.
Provide reasonable financial resources so that the Board may from time to time have
outside speakers present to it on topics of particular interest.
RESOLVED:
1.That the Planning Board should take reasonable actions to help ensure that all Board
appointees meet the experience standards required by MCA 76.1.224(a).
2. The City Commission representative on the Planning Board should remind Board
members of Board openings. Board members are encouraged to make citizens aware of
these openings.
3. The City should promptly inform all Planning Board members of citizen applications
for open positions as received, and of the content of these applications. Board members
are encouraged to make their views on the various applicants known to the City
Commission representative on the Planning Board.
4. The Director of Community Development and the Chairman of the Planning Board
should be consulted by the City Commission representative on the Planning Board
concerning their views on all applicants.
Concerning Improved Mechanics for Board Meetings:
The Board agreed that it would experiment with a revised procedure whereby a matter
before the Board would be discussed first, to be followed by a motion concerning the
matter, rather than, as has been the case, a motion followed by discussion.
DISCUSSIONS AT MARCH 15 MEETING:
Concerning Improved Mechanics for Board Meetings:
Mr. Happel presented a short document entitled Some Suggestions for the Conduct of
Efficient Meetings. The suggestions contained therein were informally but unanimously
approved by the Board. Among these (suggestion #5 for Board Members) is a suggestion
implementing the revised order for the discussion and motioning of a matter under
consideration.
Concerning Better Community Outreach:
Ms. Costakis and Mr. Pape agreed to set up a Zoom conference with Melody Mileur and
Dani Hess to discuss and recommend specific proposals for better communication to the
public and better engagement with the public concerning the Growth Policy and the
ongoing the activities of the Planning Board and the City concerning planning related
issues. The results will be reduced to writing and incorporated in a Memo to the Planning
Board.
18
3
Concerning Better Communication of Beliefs and Intentions:
In furtherance of the Board’s discussion between 1:33 and 2:01 of the meeting, Ms.
Madgic and Mr. Rudnicki agreed to meet with Community Development and undertake
to provide the Planning Board with a short, written analysis and a proposal or proposals
on earlier communication of the Board’s views on development projects.
Concerning Coordination with Other Advisory Boards:
Ms. Madgic agreed to make arrangements for a joint Planning Board/Zoning Commission
meeting to discuss the Growth Policy and related matters.
Mr. Happel agreed to set up a Zoom conference with the chairpersons of other Boards
whose activities are relevant to the activities of this Board. He has prepared a draft of an
email and a list of chairpersons in furtherance of this task, but has been asked by
Community Development not to send it pending feedback from the City.
PART II- FIRST WORK SESSION LIST OF IDEAS TO DISCUSS:
PROPOSALS CONCERNING PROCESS:
Better Educated Board:
Select Board members with training and experience relevant to planning.
Provide planning-related training to all Board members.
Have experts with relevant knowledge speak to the Board on topics of interest
(example: form-based codes vs. alternatives). Make an effort to invite the public and
inform them as to the relevance and timing of these presentations.
Arrange for more meetings with and input from the Director of Community
Development.
Ensure that every Board member that wants one has an APA membership.
Pursue the possibility of the Board having their own pot of funding.
Improved Mechanics for Board Meetings:
The City should provide technological means for Board motions to be reduced to
text and made available to all Board members and other participants as they are made.
Board meetings should proceed with a discussion of the matter under
consideration followed by a motion, rather than a motion followed by a discussion.
Board meetings should proceed with better control over the time allocated to
speakers.
Better Community Outreach:
The Board should undertake or at least support community outreach on the new
Growth Policy.
The Board should determine ways to obtain more and better public opinion on
planning issues, including soliciting the views of different interest groups, different
neighborhoods, and different demographics.
19
4
Better Communication of Beliefs and Intentions:
The Board should proactively advise the City and interested private parties,
particularly developers, in advance concerning its views on relevant topics such as
housing mix, density, and multi-modal transportation. Maybe we consider a preliminary
meeting where developers show us their project early in the process and we can let them
know if we see concerns? If we do this I would suggest a strict time limit so we don’t
overload meetings or push real business for preliminary business.
Coordination with Other Advisory Boards:
The Board should be better informed concerning the goals being pursued by other
citizen advisory boards that affect our work and we should seek better coordination
among us.
Community Plan:
After receiving the required annual report from Community Development on
actions taken to achieve the goals and objectives of the Community Plan, the Board each
year should have a public meeting to review the Plan and determine whether to suggest
any amendments to it.
The Board should periodically review metrics, both those described in the
Community Plan and others as available, to track progress under the Plan and assess if
each metric is providing the right data for informed decision making or should be revised.
Regional Coordination:
We should be looking at how our Board will evolve/change once we become a
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Should we be more thoughtful about how
our decisions affect the region as a whole? Should we coordinate more with other
jurisdictions? What are the most strategic areas where we can make the most progress
especially in light of the new County Commission?
Subdivision Review:
Staff Reports on proposed subdivisions should address how the development will
fit in with existing and anticipated future developments in the City and describe why it is
believed that the development will serve the community well over the long term. The
Board should always address this issue in subdivision reviews.
Staff Reports should describe the context surrounding the proposed development
application. They should also describe the major matters of contention, including major
resolved matters, between the Department and the developer and within the Department
concerning the proposed development.
To the extent permitted by the City Attorney’s office, Community Development
should shorten Staff Reports by eliminating or at least reducing boilerplate and pro forma
provisions.
20
5
PROPOSALS CONCERNING SUBSTANCE:
Unified Development Code:
The UDC should be further revised if not re-written.
The City’s tentative plan to hire a consultant to do an audit of the current Code
should be dropped in favor of hiring professional assistance to do a full re-write of the
Code.
The Board’s role should be limited to determining if the proposed revised Code is
consistent with the Community Plan.
The Board should participate in the UDC Community Platform discussions.
The Board should promote changes to the existing Code that could be agreed to
now since the timeline for a total rewrite will be years.
Density:
The Board should push for increased housing density.
Housing Mix:
The Board should push for an integrated mix of housing in new and established
developments wherever possible.
Housing Affordability:
The Board should promote policies that will help deal with the affordable housing
problem afflicting the City.
Equity:
We should have an “equity lens” when we look at various projects to ensure that
disparities (health, income, environmental, social, etc.) are not being exacerbated but
ameliorated.
Transportation:
The Board should be vigilant about transportation decisions made by the City.
The Board should coordinate with the Transportation Coordinating Committee on
transportation issues.
The Board should push for increased funding for multi-modal transportation
projects and increased connectivity within projects.
The Board should push for a rewrite of our Complete Streets Policy.
Parking:
The Board should weigh in on the parking issues facing the City.
Fiscal Impacts:
The Board should encourage the City to evaluate developments based on
balancing the long-term fiscal impacts of infrastructure maintenance and other services
such as police and fire with the citizens’ ability to absorb property and other tax
increases. There is a fiscal impact of various development patterns (sprawl vs. compact)
21
6
and this should be considered when we approve subdivisions, large transportation
projects, and our codes.
City Resources:
The Board should encourage the City to find and devote more financial resources
to the City’s Department of Community Development, its Building Division, and the
Engineering Department.
Existing Neighborhood Plans:
As explained in Chris Saunder’s Memo to the Planning Board of December 16,
2020, neighborhood plans must be consistent with the Growth Policy. The Board should
therefor review the existing neighborhood plans for consistency, and if inconsistent,
either update or rescind these. We should agree on a mechanism for accomplishing this
task.
22
To: Bozeman Planning Board
From: Richard Rudnicki, AICP and Jennifer Madgic
Date: March 25, 2021
Re: Planning Board Role within Development Review
At the March 15, 2021 Planning Board meeting, we discussed the Board’s role in Development
Review and the Board’s desire for additional input earlier in the process to ensure consistency
with the Growth Policy. We agreed to meet with staff to help further our understanding of the
current review process and to ascertain how the Board might improve our review processes.
This memo summarizes our March 24 meeting with Tom Rogers and Chris Saunders, reviewing
items we discussed at our last Board meeting, as well as other discussion points which came
up.
Pre-application Meeting Involvement – The Board suggested that having representation
in the City pre-application meeting would allow the opportunity to see projects earlier in
the process when they have more opportunity for revision. After discussion with Staff we
do not believe this idea is a good solution.
• Attending these meetings would place a significant burden on members
of the Board.
• We believe this action reflects negatively on the Board’s value of staff
both internally and to the larger community.
• This may actually slow the application process due to the scheduling
requirements of Board members.
Pre-application Information for Board Review – The Board suggested that information
from the pre-application meeting could be offered to the Board for comment with the
Developer’s consent. The exact format for that review was not identified. We do not
believe a full review during our regular Board meetings would be the best use of our time
because it could impact the ability to properly review current applications. Creating a
board sub-committee that would conduct a review outside of the regular Board meeting
is a potential solution. Further specifics of this scenario would need to be determined.
Memo to Developers – The Board suggested that a memo to developers be drafted
which outlines a variety of situations seen by the Board on previous projects. This memo
could be provided by Staff to the developer at the pre-application meeting or a similar
early stage in the process for their information. We have concerns that noting these
items will not result in their inclusion in projects. Because these items are not codified,
developers would not be obligated to follow our suggestions.
Key Ordinance Amendments – Key points that were raised in our discussion included
the desire to create consistency with the Growth Policy earlier in the process and ensure
enforceability of those items. A possible approach could be identification of a few key
items which warrant immediate amendment in the zoning ordinance and unified
development code. Some initial example items include:
23
• Improved Density Bonuses for the inclusion of affordable housing.
• A requirement that affordable housing be dispersed throughout the
development, such as no more than 25 percent of affordable lot shall be
contiguous.
• Refined language on bike/ped connections particularly an emphasis on
more east-west connections.
• Requirement of smaller more affordable housing when lots are below a
certain square footage.
• Revision of the existing requirements to make alternative housing options
such as Pocket Neighborhoods and Cohousing easier to implement.
• Requirement of developments to maximize density according to what is
allowed by underlying zoning.
• Requirement of developments to provide a mix of integrated housing
types within a given subdivision.
• Requirement for providing accessory dwelling unit (ADU) when lots
exceed a certain square footage.
Staff Report Information Shift – Staff suggested that the Board could focus its review on
Growth Policy compliance as opposed to technical development details. This follows 76-
1-106 Role of planning board. (1) To ensure the promotion of public health, safety,
morals, convenience, or order or the general welfare and for the sake of efficiency and
economy in the process of community development, if requested by the governing body,
the planning board shall prepare a growth policy and shall serve in an advisory capacity
to the local governing bodies establishing the planning board.
(2) The planning board may propose policies for:
a. Subdivision plats.
Process Review – In better understanding the process of review prior to an item
reaching the Board, we believe that overview would be useful to all members. We
believe Staff should be asked to provide a process overview to the Board at an
upcoming meeting.
24