Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-10 Zoning Commission Minutes JOINT MEETING PLANNING BOARD/ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Henyon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and ordered the Recording Secretary to take attendance. Zoning Commission Members Present: Nathan Minnick Nick Lieb Ed Sypinski JP Pomnichowski Zoning Commission City Commission Liaison Chris Mehl Zoning Commission Members Absent: Planning Board Members Present: Trever McSpadden Ed Sypinski Chris Budeski Bill Quinn Eugene Graf, Erik Henyon, President Brian Caldwell, Vice President Planning Board Members Absent: Jodi Leone Jeff Krauss Staff Present: Tim McHarg, Planning Director Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Jeff Rupp Tracy Menuez Brian LaMeres David Magistrelli 1 Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010 ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing there was no general public comment forthcoming, President Henyon closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. A. ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2010 MOTION: Vice Chairperson Minnick moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to approve the Zoning The motion carried 4-0. Commission minutes of October 19, 2010 as presented. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Sypinski, Vice Chairperson Minnick, and Mr. Lieb. Those voting nay being none. B. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2010 MOTION: Vice President Caldwell moved, Mr. Graf seconded, to approve the Planning Board The motion carried 6-0 minutes of November 3, 2010 as presented. . Those voting aye being Vice President Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Budeski, Mr. Sypinski, and Mr. Graf with President Henyon abstaining. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-10304 – ( Engineering Standards) A Zone Code Amendment requested by the applicant/representative, City of amend Chapter Bozeman, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT, 59715, requesting to 18.42 Development Standards, Section 18.42.070 including, but not limited to: Municipal Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Systems, to clarify extensions of municipal infrastructure; Section 18.42.150 Lighting, to remove certain standards and relocate them to the City’s design and specifications manual; add a new Section 18.42.180 Water Rights, clarifying and documenting the process for payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights. Chapter 18.44, Transportation Facilities and Access, Section 18.44.060 Street Improvement Standards to revise level of service standards for vehicles; Section 18.44.110 Transportation Pathways to modify procedures for bike lane designation; and Section 18.50.110 Recreation Pathways. Modify various sections throughout Title 18 to update references by name to external documents. Additional sections may be amended which are relevant to the same topics if a need to do so is identified during the public review process. (Saunders) Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the public hearing was to consider potential changes to Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, the Unified Development Ordinance. He stated there had been substantive changes brought forward and tidying modifications had also been proposed. He stated eight sections were proposed to be amended with this application, all hinging around engineering provisions. 2 Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010 Describing the amendments, Assistant Director Saunders stated the code is now worded to require a subdivision variance to allow a lesser standard of performance and the proposed would allow the Director of Public Service to approve infrastructure design. He stated the relocation of lighting standards would move the requirement from one City document, the UDO, to another; the Design Specifications Manual. Regarding water rights, he stated he had provided a copy of the current Resolution #4095 to the Board. He noted Staff needed to apply the policy to zoning and subdivision as well as annexation. He stated an update to a reference to the Transportation Plan had also been included. He stated the revised wording for arterial and collector street level of service standards had been included at City Commission direction and allows for exceptions to the requirement. He noted the exceptions would be if an intersection had been fully developed, the improvement would not be required and if there was another project within two years of the first to which a variance had been granted and the circumstances were fundamentally the same the property would be assessed. Vice President Caldwell asked how slight changes in the degree and scale of an application would be accounted for. Assistant Planning Director Saunders responded there were caveats in the exemption; a two year approval timeframe or obviously small incremental changes. President Caldwell stated he had noticed that in many of the proposed amendments the City Commission had been replaced with the Director of Public Service and asked the reason behind the proposed edits. Assistant Director Saunders responded there may be projects that it made no sense to make the applicant wait to be heard by the Commission for approval when there was a reasonable site constraint. Assistant Director Saunders stated the transportation pathways had been proposed for amendment to include updates to references as well as revisions to applicable chapters. He stated language had been modified in the area for the traffic study from a one mile radius to a half mile radius and to allow inclusion of a two way stop controlled intersection. He stated Staff had worked closely with the Director of Public Service as well as the Engineering Department and they were supportive of the amendments as presented. He stated the noticing had been formally done and coordination with other advisory boards had been done. He stated the City Commission would be the final review authority. He asked the Advisory Boards to make findings per the review criteria for each of the Boards as set forth in the UDO. President Henyon asked if PB and ZC motions should be separated. Assistant Director Saunders responded the motions should be separated though the item could be discussed mutually. Mr. Budeski suggested each Board’s motion be included after discussion. President Henyon opened the item for public comment. Mr. Budeski stated the amendments referenced the developer and there was no definition included in the UDO. Assistant Planner Saunders responded the definition was the common English definition of the word based on the UDO definition of “development”. Mr. Budeski asked if that could include a single homeowner. Planner Saunders responded it could mean a single homeowner, but thresholds had been included to differentiate those that fell into the requirement. 3 Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010 Mr. Budeski asked how the half mile traffic study requirement had come to be. Assistant Director Saunders responded the grid system for the City had been established over long term development; as the number of connections had increased, they were occurring on a half mile spacing with more alternate routes included. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if on page 3-13, #3, she did not see it specified that connections from the City to adjacent land and asked if there was an agreement between the City and the County. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was a Facility Plan in place. The County had the opportunity for input and an Interlocal Agreement was being worked on. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she was uncomfortable requiring things of lands outside of City jurisdiction. Assistant Director Saunders responded the County had adopted policies and practices with regard to the Facility Plan and had been a prudent way of caring for the public well being and Staff had been working on relations and agreements with the County. Vice President Caldwell added that municipal water and sewer services were subject to annexation and those requirements. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated the water rights language included how amounts would be calculated and asked where uses were identified. Assistant Director Saunders responded the district uses were dictated by calculation through the Engineering Department and were based on zoning and size. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated water rights were appurtenant to the land. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff followed State law to either transfer ownership from themselves to the City or could make a payment in lieu; the process for subdivision specifically says the rights had to be transferred to the landowner or severed. He stated that in the event someone annexed a larger parcel, in excess of ten aces, transfer of water rights is deferred until the property was developed. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated a transfer of water right did not change the particular use of the water right; she was concerned the proposed language indicated a change in the use of the right for the water right from, for example, agricultural to municipal use. She added there was no reference to municipal use or change in use; if there was no change application to municipal use the right could be used only in its current use. Assistant Director Saunders responded the analysis would need to include whether the right would be usable before the City agreed to accept it; that’s why they accepted water rights or payment in lieu if the water right was not usable. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked why the requirements were not referenced in that section and suggested the language be included in the amendment. Vice President Caldwell responded the next section included a determination of whether or not the water right would be adequate for the intended purposes. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked for clarification of the process to grant the City water rights from a developer. Assistant Director Saunders clarified the process for changing the use of the water rights granted by a developer and added the DNRC would be the ultimate approval authority for changes to amount of a right, point of diversion, or change in the use of the water. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated that the proposed exceptions included for level of service of intersections did not account for full construction of maximum turning lane capacity. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Transportation Plan was the primary process for evaluation of the level of service and funding would come from different sources, such as a developer or impact fees. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if there was a requirement to meet the maximum turning movement. Assistant Director Saunders responded if the level of service was found to be inadequate, the next step was to define the problem and fix it if possible. If it was not possible to 4 Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010 fix the problem, monies were sought to provide for an improved level of service but the City was not in the habit of making a single developer pay for those improvements. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated the level of service standards as proposed seemed to apply to a development instead of the entire City. Assistant Director Saunders responded the requirement applies City wide but it evaluated as a development is reviewed. President Henyon asked what would happen to a project if an intersection failed the study. Assistant Director Saunders responded the project would move forward if there was nothing that could be done to improve the intersection. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if there was still a policy in the City to require additional capacity improvements at an intersection. Assistant Director Saunders directed Chairperson Pomnichowski to Section 18.44 of the UDO which addresses transportation. He added the City had made it a policy to not connect total responsibility for infrastructure to one project though if there were existing issues the site would need to be improved to the necessary infrastructure specifications before proceeding. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked why the half mile distance had been decided upon with regard to the traffic study and asked if the amendment would still comply with the Growth Policy. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff did not think the proposed amendment would be in disagreement with the Growth Policy as it was a larger view; the spacing for major commercial nodes facilitated longer range travel, but the Growth Policy did not attempt to predict which intersections would be serviced by traffic improvements. Mr. Sypinski stated there were applicable projects that were the jurisdictions of both the PB and ZC and suggested both entities should discuss the item. Mr. Mehl stated the City Commission would benefit from the discussion of both boards. Mr. Sypinski stated the “center” location indicated in the Growth Policy was more to service those specific locations, not traffic impacts. President Henyon stated he was concerned with the level of service language because it did not address failing intersections as it indicated significant infrastructure improvement costs would be incurred by the next developer; he suggested the City should not burden the developer on existing failing intersections. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City did not think a single developer should have to pay for the improvements either; the City had paid for the intersection th improvements as Kagy & 11 with the use of impact fees. President Henyon asked if specific language had been included regarding impact fee credits. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language had been included in Title 3 of the Municipal Code. President Henyon called again for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, he closed the public comment portion of the hearing and brought the discussion back to the Board and Commission for a motion. Mr. Sypinski stated he found the proposal to meet the review criteria as set forth in the UDO. MOTION : Vice President Minnick moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to adopt Staff findings and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-10304. 5 Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010 Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she found the application to be in general compliance with the Growth Policy, motorized transportation was compliant, and secured safety. She stated she did not find the proposal promoted public health/safety/welfare due to the proposed water rights language and added she also had concerns that facilitating provisions for schools etc. had not been met due to the water right language (she added criteria K was affected by the water rights as well). She stated she found the application not to meet the review criteria as set forth. She suggested the language could be improved. The motion carried 3-1 . Those voting aye being Mr. Sypinski, Vice Chairperson Minnick, and Mr. Lieb. Those voting nay being Chairperson Pomnichowski. The Zoning Commission Meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. MOTION: Mr. Budeski moved, Vice President Caldwell seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the city Commission for Zone Code Amendment Application #Z- 10304 with Staff conditions. Mr. Budeski stated he had reviewed the criteria from the UDO and had found the proposal to be in general conformance with the review criteria as set forth in the UDO. Mr. McSpadden stated he found the proposal also met the nine review criteria from Section 76-3-501 M.C.A. President Henyon stated Chairperson Pomnichowski had good points regarding the water right language though he was comfortable with the language as presented. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Henyon, Vice President Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Budeski, Mr. Sypinski, and Mr. Graf. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. AFFORDABLE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS (Menuez) Mr. Budeski stated the discussion could have an impact on a project he was submitting in the future and asked if the Board was comfortable with him being part of the discussion. President Caldwell suggested Mr. Budeski speak specifically to the conflict of interest. Mr. Quinn suggested that for purposes of discussion, it would be valuable to have Mr. Budeski’s perspective though he would expect him to excuse himself if any final decisions were made. The Board agreed that there was no conflict. Planning Director Tim McHarg stated there were three representatives from the CAHAB present and asked how the Board would like to proceed. Mr. Sypinski suggested other boards had been invited to join the meeting and encouraged those in attendance to approach the dais. Director McHarg directed the Board to the ordinance overview. He stated there were two applicable projects subject to the provisions of the ordinance; subdivision including residential lots and site plans including residential condos with gross project areas greater than 5 acres. He stated there were five options for compliance if a waiver was included and stated provision of on-site lots was 6 Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010 the preferred method. He stated the developer could also choose to provide off-site lots or units; existing units could be deed restricted and sold based on the requirements of the ordinance as well. He stated an individualized program could also be proposed to be approved by the City Commission and could be based on a particular pro-forma. He stated the fee in lieu option was the least preferred for compliance and would require 300% of the cost of a lot. He stated the ordinance outlined the pricing and unit mix and the pricing was based upon unit sizes. He directed the Board to how the units broke down into the number of bedrooms, the type of unit, and whether the unit is attached or detached. He stated the maximum lot pricing is stipulated in the ordinance at $12.50 per square foot for 2010. He stated the units would need to functionally equivalent and could be clustered, but could not be located all in one section of the development. He stated that in the order of fairness, incentives had been provided such as parkland reduction, reduced lot sizes, density bonuses, impact fee deferrals or waivers, low interest construction loans through the City Revolving Loan Fund, etc. Director McHarg noted the requirements for the delivery of the lots by the developer. He stated the Building Permit would have to be drawn within a three year period of the purchase of the lot. He stated the deed restriction would be removed after 10 years of single ownership. He stated he had requested some sales data from the Gallatin Association of Realtors and they had broken down the sales comparables for him and aggregated them; he added the data would be useful for comparison purposes and if it was skewed, it would likely be to the high side. He stated he had requested data regarding market trends and the current market condition for all six categories of units in the ordinance. He stated that the key was the difference between the cost of a median sales price for a housing unit and the maximum sales price as determined by the ordinance. He stated it became increasingly difficult for buyers to accept the deed restriction and limitations on their appreciation when the discount is less than 25% of the cost. He asked if people would accept the deed restricted unit or would they leverage themselves for a market priced unit. He stated there was a more dramatic affect seen on the attached units. President Henyon asked if there was any indication on how salaries had changed. Director McHarg responded he did not have the specific AMI data. Ms. Menuez added the AMI had gone up only minutely since 2008. Director McHarg stated the ordinance had been intended to address things from the supply side and the demand had decreased because of the recession; he suggested an increase in demand could reverse and stabilize if money was employed in existing programs to take advantage of existing affordable units. He stated his primary concern was that Staff would have a long way to go to implement the ordinance; Staff was not available to push out a program of this nature. He stated he did not think the discounts were sufficient to provide the incentive for people to accept deed restrictions. He stated the offsets the City is providing will not be recaptured; if the City was offering offsets, there should be a recapture system in place. Director McHarg suggested two options; adjusting the way fee in lieu payments were calculated nd to fund 2 mortgage and down payment assistance programs already up and running or donation of the lots to Habitat for Humanity or similar local groups. He asked the Board if the ordinance should be put on hiatus until there is updated data could be obtained; he suggested any hiatus be evaluated by a working group to achieve greater flexibility, responsiveness to market conditions, and to improve the efficiency of administration of the program. 7 Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010 Mr. LaMeres asked if the fee in lieu had been successful in Colorado. Director McHarg responded the fee in lieu had been successful and clarified how those calculations had been made. Mr. LaMeres asked if the same trend had been evident in Durango; was there an abundance of supply. Director McHarg responded there had been a similar trend and an abundant supply of attached product; he added they had anticipated the market would slow down so flexibility had been designed into the ordinance. He stated the fee in lieu was fair because it was instantaneously reactive to the market. Mr. Budeski stated the difference here was that the developer only had to provide the lots; the cost of market rate lots was lower than the ordinance price for lots in the City. Mr. LaMeres asked if the City could limp along with the current ordinance. Director McHarg responded the lots would not sell and would require the developer to hold the lots until the 12 month time frame had lapsed. Mr. LaMeres stated he was supportive of cash in lieu as proposed by Staff. Mr. LaMeres stated it would be harder to bring back the ordinance if it was placed on hiatus. Mr. Budeski stated he would like to hear input on the three options proposed. Vice President Caldwell asked how Durango had addressed mixed use developments. Director McHarg stated that the 16% inclusionary requirement applied to all projects with more than four residential units. He stated he did not see how the Workforce Housing ordinance would have worked and suggested a simple calculation that was tied to the unit could be implemented. Mr. Budeski stated the intent of the ordinance was to provide affordable housing and the free market had provided it. Director McHarg responded the intent was to get people into the affordable housing units. Mr. Magistrelli stated affordable housing could be viewed differently by different people and the costs as existed were not affordable for those that Habitat for Humanity helped. He stated he had researched the ordinance and had been excited that there would be land for Habitat, but was discouraged when the lots cost so much. He suggested keeping in mind that 80 or 90 percent of AMI would be possible, but 30-40 percent AMI was not conceivable. Mr. Quinn stated Habitat had been unable to build in Bozeman when he had served on the board; if someone couldn’t qualify before, they couldn’t qualify now. He stated he liked the idea of tying it into a fee and suggested stimulating demand for those lots would help the City. Ms. Menuez stated the ordinance had been instituted during a time when there were no subdivisions coming into the City. She stated the contribution would be significant to the City of Bozeman; the ordinance would have to have a direct tie to the community and the missing link was the financing. She stated it was tough for people to get financing and they would be able to use the money to meet the financing requirements. President Caldwell stated that if the 80% AMI, and regardless of the market, the desire was to have the affordable housing always below the median by 25% below the average price. Director McHarg responded his concern was a deed restriction and price cap that would deter potential buyers; the buyer would wait and avoid the deed restriction. 8 Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010 Mr. Graf stated he thought people of all levels of ability to pay needed housing. He stated he thought the ordinance had been acceptable to the development industry and to the Commission for the aspect of reduced parkland. He stated he did not think it appropriate for the City to be a private developer. Director McHarg stated the ordinance did not specifically address land donation or price points significantly less than those included in the current ordinance. He suggested more flexibility in the ordinance. Ms. Menuez stated there had been no discussion of removing the current incentives as Mr. Graf had suggested. She stated CAHAB had not written the current ordinance and the Board had felt the ordinance fell short in the rental housing aspect as well as the flexibility of the ordinance. Mr. Budeski asked for solutions on how to move forward. Director McHarg stated he would prefer that, in lieu of dealing with individual developments, the language be included on a policy basis and be retooled; he suggested a hiatus on the ordinance until such a time as the language could be modified. He encouraged the refocusing of the ordinance based on the current market conditions and the removal of the disincentives for cash in lieu. Mr. Budeski asked what could be done in the time it would take for the ordinance to be reworked. Vice President Caldwell suggested the ordinance be left in place while amendments were made. Mr. Budeski stated it would be nice to be able to give the developer a clear idea of what would happen while the ordinance was being revised. Ms. Menuez responded a working group from CAHAB would be put together with a goal of January 31, 2011 and she thought it would be realistic. She stated the Board would recommend that until the revisions were adopted, the ordinance remain in effect. Mr. Graf stated if the City wanted the program to work effectively and quickly, 12 months was not a long time frame in the current market. Mr. Budeski asked CAHAB’s thoughts on the revisions. Ms. Menuez responded she thought CAHAB’s suggestions would be similar to Director McHarg’s recommendations. Mr. Budeski responded developers did not have a lot of available money for cash in lieu. Ms. Menuez stated she thought the City of Bozeman could do just as well as the City of Durango had done in implementation of their affordable housing program. Director McHarg responded that the program was no good if it couldn’t be implemented and suggested the revisions would address some of the outstanding issues; his perspective was that the deed restriction option should be removed from the language to allow for both sides of the equation to be compliant. President Henyon stated he thought it would be important for the Board to review the proposed revisions to the inclusionary ordinance; he stated he thought it was up to the buyers and not the City to engineer changes in the market. Mr. Graf stated he would like to see the new ordinance put on hiatus until the revisions were made. President Henyon stated he had indicated to the City Commission that the ordinance would not 9 Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010 produce one unit of housing and he had been accurate; higher wages and better education would better serve the community. Vice President Caldwell stated he was concerned with the proposed timeline for the revisions and asked if there was an estimate of how much the fee in lieu amount would be. Director McHarg stated he could potentially accept the challenge of providing draft revisions by January 31, 2011; he added this was one of six or seven things the Board was working on currently and if it was the highest priority item he would prioritize as such. Mr. Budeski stated he did not think the affordable housing was a high priority as there were not many subdivisions being submitted for review. Mr. Sypinski stated he concurred with Mr. Budeski that this was not a top priority. Mr. Graf stated the current Commission’s priority to make Bozeman a more business friendly community called for the hiatus of the ordinance until such a time as the recommendations from CAHAB became incorporated into a revised ordinance. MOTION : Mr. Graf moved, Mr. Budeski seconded, to forward a recommendation to the City Commission to place the ordinance on hiatus until revisions to the ordinance are adopted by the City Commission. Mr. Sypinski stated there was no development at this time so he did not see the need to put the ordinance on hiatus. Mr. Budeski stated the deed restricted lots would not sell and an applicant could come in with an individual plan for CAHAB to review; to put the ordinance on hold to allow CAHAB, the Planning Board, and City Commission to review the language should be considered. Vice President Caldwell stated a hiatus would need to be proposed in a way to revert back to the existing language if no revisions were forthcoming so the City wouldn’t be without the ordinance entirely. Vice President Caldwell suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to require the hiatus for 12 months. Mr. Graf accepted the friendly amendment. AMENDED MOTION : Mr. Graf moved, Mr. Budeski seconded, to include the language “for a period of 12 months or” in the original motion. FINAL MOTION : Mr. Graf moved, Mr. Budeski seconded, to forward a recommendation to the City Commission to place the ordinance on hiatus for a period of 12 months or until revisions to the ordinance are adopted by the City Commission Mr. Quinn stated he thought it was not so much social engineering as social awareness that there 10 Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010 were people who were not at the top of the food chain and suggested allowances be made for those people’s inclusion. He stated he did not think the ordinance did not need a hiatus, but did need revised. Mr. Budeski stated the City would lose the parkland and write a deed restriction to manage the program; if the ordinance was put on hold for 12 months, the City would get full parkland and an unused deed restriction would not have to be written. Mr. McSpadden stated he was supportive of the motion but not for the same reasons as had been expressed. He stated there was an incentive for the developer to leave the ordinance as is; he stated the policy did not seem to be appropriate for the market conditions. President Henyon stated that as a business owner, if something wasn’t working he was charged with removing or correcting the problem. He stated he agreed with the suggested hiatus. Director McHarg added there was a subdivision that had proposed full compliance with the provision of the ordinance had been submitted within the last two months. The motion carried 4-2 . Those voting aye being President Henyon, Vice President Caldwell, Mr. McSpadden, and Mr. Graf with Mr. Budeski abstaining. Those voting nay being Mr. Sypinski, and Mr. Quinn. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS No items were forthcoming. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT The joint meeting of the Zoning Commission and Planning Board was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. _______________________________________ _______________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson Tim McHarg, Planning Director Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman __________________________________ Erik Henyon, President Planning Board City of Bozeman 11 Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010