HomeMy WebLinkAboutSimmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment, Application Z13255Page 1 of 10
Z-13255, Staff Report for the Simmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment
Public Hearing Date: City Commission, January 13, 2014
Subject: Simmental Annexation zone map amendment (ZMA) to designate the property as
the Residential-Office zoning district in association with annexation of 4.309 acres.
Application No. Z13255
Location: The property is located southeast of the intersection of Springhill Road and
Campbell Road. It is legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Walker Property
Subdivision Planned Unit Development.
Recommendation: Approval of the zone map amendment application Simmental
Annexation ZMA Z13255, as recommended by the Zoning Commission, and to
direct preparation of the implementing ordinance.
Recommended Motion: Having reviewed the application materials, considered public
comment, and considered all of the information presented, I hereby adopt the
findings presented in the staff report for application Z-13255 and direct the
preparation of an implementing ordinance upon completion of the identified
contingencies.
Report Date: Wednesday, January 08, 2014
Staff Contact: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
Agenda Item Type: Action
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The property owner made application for a Zone Map Amendment to amend the City of
Bozeman Zone Map for approximately 4.309 acres as R-O (Residential-Office District). This
request is being processed in conjunction with annexation of the same property. The site is
presently vacant but is within the previously approved Walker Property Planned Unit
Development (PUD). The proposed Residential Office zoning is consistent with the zoning
and allowed uses on the parcel previously established through the Walker Property PUD. A
history of the Walker Property PUD and its relationship to this application is provided under
Appendix B on page 9.
The Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Zone Map Amendment at
their December 17, 2013 meeting to formally receive public testimony on the proposal. No
public comment was received. The Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the requested zoning designations.
135
Z-13255, Staff Report for the Simmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment Page 2 of 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
UNRESOLVED ISSUES ......................................................................................................... 2
ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................................... 2
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 2- RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF APPROVAL ................................ 5
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ........................................ 5
SECTION 4 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................................. 6
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ......................................................................... 6
APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS ............... 8
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND................ 9
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ..................................................... 9
APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF............................ 10
FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 10
UNRESOLVED ISSUES
There are no unresolved issues with this application.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Approve the zone map amendment as recommended by the DRC and Zoning
Commission.
2) Deny the zone amendment request and consider a zoning designation different than what
has been requested by the applicant and continue the item for a minimum of one week to
allow the applicant to consider their options and whether to protest the possible action (as
required under 38.37.030.D.2, BMC).
136
Z-13255, Staff Report for the Simmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment Page 3 of 10
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
North: Unannexed, vacant: zoned AS,
Agricultural Suburban
South: N. 19th Avenue : zoned B-1,
Neighborhood Commercial
East: Unannexed, open space: zoned AS,
Agricultural Suburban
West: Unannexed, Retail: zoned B-1,
Neighborhood Commercial
Vicinity Maps showing adjacent zoning
137
Z-13255, Staff Report for the Simmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment Page 4 of 10
Vicinity Map from Growth Policy Figure 3-1
138
Z-13255, Staff Report for the Simmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment Page 5 of 10
SECTION 2- RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF APPROVAL
Please note that these contingencies are necessary for the City to complete the process of the
proposed amendment.
Recommended Contingencies of Approval:
1. That all documents and exhibits necessary to establish an initial municipal zoning
designation shall be identified as the “Simmental Zone Map Amendment”.
2. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be approved until the Annexation
Agreement is signed by the applicant and formally approved by the City Commission. If the
annexation agreement is not approved, the Zone Map Amendment application shall be null
and void.
3. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled “Simmental Zone Map
Amendment”, on a 24” by 36” mylar, 8 ½” by 11”, or 8 ½” by 14” paper exhibit, and a
digital copy of the area to be zoned, acceptable to the Director of Public Service, which will
be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman
Zoning Map. Said map shall contain a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter
of the subject property and zoning districts, and total acreage of the property.
4. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant
provides a metes and bounds legal description prepared by a licensed Montana surveyor and
map of the area to be rezoned, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to
officially amend the zone map.
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Project Name: Simmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment
File: Z-13255
Having considered the criteria established for a zone map amendment, the Staff recommends
approval with contingencies to enable completion of the required implementing ordinance.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) held two meetings on November 20 and 27,
2013 to consider the annexation and zone map amendment. The DRC found that the
application was sufficient for review and recommended approval with contingencies.
The Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 17, 2013 and recommended to
the City Commission approval of the application.
The City Commission is scheduled to consider the application on January 13, 2014.
139
Z-13255, Staff Report for the Simmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment Page 6 of 10
SECTION 4 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the advisory boards and City
Commission shall consider the following:
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Yes. The property is planned for residential uses. R-O, Residential Office is one of the
implementing districts for the residential land use designation as shown in Appendix G. The
property is within the City’s municipal service area and otherwise complies with the goals
and objectives of the growth policy. No conflicts between the proposed zoning and the
growth policy have been identified.
B. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Neutral. The proposed amendment does not dedicate land or otherwise modify the
transportation system. There are existing roads on three sides of the property. A portion of
Campbell Road will be annexed along with the property. Any future development will be
required to conform to the City’s development standards.
C. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers.
Yes. The proposed map amendment does not modify standards applicable to this criterion.
Future site development will comply with the zoning, building code, and other standards
which do address this criterion. The property does have access to municipal sanitation and
public safety services. Access to municipal water supply will assist in the suppression of fire.
The site is outside of floodplains or other non-general hazards.
D. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Yes. The proposal is consistent with the growth policy. Development of a reasonably
compact community will provide benefits to the general welfare of the community by
reducing air pollution and constraining public expenses. The site can be served after
annexation with all municipal sanitation and public safety services.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Neutral. The adoption of the R-O district on this site will not modify any of the provisions
relating to this topic. The R-O district itself has previously been found to meet this
requirement. The minimum setbacks, required landscaping areas, and compliance with
building code requirements will provide adequate light and air to the users of this site.
F. Prevention of overcrowding of land.
Neutral. The standards of the R-O district contain minimum amounts of landscaping area,
required setbacks, required use of municipal sanitation, and other standards which will
prevent the overcrowding of the site. The proposed amendment does not modify those
140
Z-13255, Staff Report for the Simmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment Page 7 of 10
standards. The unusual shape of the lot will act to constrain the intensity to which it can be
developed.
G. Avoiding undue concentration of population.
Yes. Undue concentration occurs when the population exceeds the ability of the site to safely
meet needs of the site users. As described in Criterion F, the site will be prevented from
being overcrowded. The City has not identified infrastructure constraints for the site. During
the site plan review process prior to any development approval the applicants must
demonstrate that adequate services are in place to serve the future user population.
H. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, and other public requirements.
Neutral. See items A, D and F.
I. Conserving the value of buildings.
Yes. The site is currently vacant. The two adjacent areas to the east and north are vacant or
are designated as continual open space. The area to the west is developed as retail.
Development of this site as offices or other R-O uses will not cause injury to value of
buildings.
J. Character of the district.
Yes. The R-O district is the same designation as presently is applied to the property under the
Gallatin County zoning regulations for the area. The site is part of the Walker Property
planned unit development (PUD). The PUD established an integrated design and plan for the
surrounding property. Maintaining consistency of zoning with annexation will preserve the
established character of the district.
K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Neutral. See discussion under items J and L.
L. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional
area.
Yes. The proposed amendment is consistent with the growth policy, the approved PUD, and
the character of the district and neighborhood.
M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth.
Yes. The proposed amendment establishes uses consistent with the growth policy including
the future land use map. The development of the site will meet City standards for
infrastructure. The proposal is consistent with the previously approved planned unit
development for the site.
141
Z-13255, Staff Report for the Simmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment Page 8 of 10
APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
PROVISIONS
Zoning Designation and Land Uses:
The intent of the R-O residential-office district is to provide for and encourage the
development of multi-household and apartment development and compatible professional
offices and businesses that would blend well with adjacent land uses. The primary use of a
lot, as measured by building area, permitted in the R-O district is determined by the
underlying growth policy land use designation. Where the district lies over a residential
growth policy designation the primary use shall be non-office uses; where the district lies
over a nonresidential designation the primary use shall be office and other nonresidential
uses. Primary use shall be measured by percentage of building floor area.
Adopted Growth Policy Designation:
The property is designated as “Residential” in the Bozeman Community Plan. The Plan
indicates that, “This category designates places where the primary activity is urban density
dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low
intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High density
residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate
the provision of services and employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use
of an automobile. Implementation of this category by residential zoning should provide for
and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers. The residential
designation indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal
boundaries, which may require annexation prior to development.
The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32
dwellings per net acre. A higher density may be considered in some locations and
circumstances. A variety of housing types can be blended to achieve the desired density.
Large areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances the strong presence
of constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for
development at a lower density than normally expected within this category. All residential
housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent development,
natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances the
overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential designation is intended to
provide the primary locations for additional housing within the planning area.
142
Z-13255, Staff Report for the Simmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment Page 9 of 10
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND
BACKGROUND
The Simmental annexation and zone map amendment were submitted on October 30, 2013.
The site is approximately 4.309 acres located southeast of the intersection of Springhill Road
and Campbell Road. The initial application also included a growth policy amendment (GPA).
After researching past zoning actions on the property, staff determined that the GPA was not
required. The history outlined below provides the explanation as to why the GPA is not
required.
The Walker Property PUD was approved in the early 1990’s by the Bozeman City
Commission and was subject to the municipal zoning code. Although the property at that
time was outside of the City, and is only now being annexed, the City had extraterritorial
zoning authority in place. Developments outside of the official City limits but within
approximately 3 miles of town were reviewed by the Bozeman City-County Planning Office
and municipal zoning applied.
The project site was, at that time, zoned as Residential-Office. When the extraterritorial
zoning was terminated in July 1999, the County reestablished the same Residential-Office
designation on that site through their zoning authority. The present project now seeks to
designate the property within the City as Residential-Office.
The site is planned for residential uses and the Residential-Office zoning district is an
implementing district for the future land use designation. See Appendix G of the growth
policy. The applicants wish to construct an office building on the site. The Residential-Office
zoning district requires that a residential component be included. However, the Walker
Property PUD specifically lists the allowed uses for the subject lot, including offices without
residences. The City respects entitlements which have been established for specific lots. It is
an unusual situation for the property to have obtained a development entitlement from the
City, left the City’s jurisdiction, and then come back into the City’s jurisdiction.
Due to the pre-existing entitlement granted by the City prior to the current annexation the site
will be allowed to develop as a purely office development.
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Notice was published in the legal section of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on September 29th,
December 1st and December 15, 2013. The site was posted on November 27, 2013. Notice
was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of the outer boundary of the site on
November 27, 2013. Notice was provided at least 15 and not more than 45 days prior to the
Zoning Commission public hearing on December 17, 2013 and the City Commission public
hearing on January 13, 2014.
143
Z-13255, Staff Report for the Simmental Annexation Zone Map Amendment Page 10 of 10
As of the writing of this report no public comment has been received. Any comments
received will be provided to review agencies prior to or at the public hearings. No public
comment was received at the public hearing held by the Zoning Commission.
APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Owner: First Montana Bank, 1336 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman MT 59718
Applicant: American Simmental Association, 1 Simmental Way, Bozeman MT 59715
Representative: Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Blvd, Ste 203, Bozeman, MT 59718
Report By: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
FISCAL EFFECTS
No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed
by this zone map amendment.
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
Page 1 of 5 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 17, 2013
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2013
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Garberg called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. and took attendance.
Members Present:
Erik Garberg, Chairperson Trever McSpadden
George Thompson
Julien Morice
City Commission Liaison: Carson Taylor
Members Absent:
Guests Present:
Chris Budeski Linda Kesler Lloyd Mandeville
Staff Present:
Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None forthcoming
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF December 03, 2013
Approved unanimously with updates to minutes of 11/19/2013 ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Simmental ZMA #Z-13255-Zone Map Amendment application as requested by the property
owner, First Montana Bank Inc, 1336 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman MT 59718, applicant
American Simmental Association, 1 Simmental Way, Bozeman MT 59715, and
representative Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Blvd, Ste 203, Bozeman MT 59718 to
zone 4.309 acres as R-O (Residential Office District) in conjunction with annexation. The
property located is located southeast of the intersection of Campbell Road and Springhill
Road. The property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 2 of the Walker Property
Subdivision Planned Unit Development. (Saunders)
Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: This is an unusual property in that it was originally
approved with residential Office zoning back before 1997 when the city and county divided the
planning jurisdiction. Prior to that from 1972-1999 the city exercised zoning authority outside city
limits. In 1999 this property remained in county and the county took over responsibility and
175
Page 2 of 5 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 17, 2013
oversight for it and also zoned it residential office which was consistent with the PUD. Now
however, the property is being annexed so we have to put a city zoning back on it. So it will be
rezoned three times for same thing under the same project. Hence, it is a little strange. On the other
hand it is a fairly straight forward project. Saunders described location and typography of property.
Project seeking to be zoned Residential Office, the one piece that is unusual, when they went
through original Walker PUD they specifically designated the property for exclusively office use.
Normally, in the city’s regulations as you see them today, in a residential planned area we would
normally see a blend of residential and commercial uses. Staff looked into this original question.
Staff concluded that there is not a requirement for Planned Unit Development for this property to be
zoned R-O and to be solely developed as offices within the city. So that is a little different but the
intendment that was attained through PUD persists since city originally approved it in the first place.
This property is located in an area of planned mixed uses, industrial property, residentially planned
area, open space, Public Lands and Institutions (Sewer Plant), golf course, railroad and interstate go
through here and commercial development to the south. So we believe that the purposed zoning is
reasonable for the character of the district, that if you look at the Staff Report pages 5-6 shows staff
findings as it applies to this particular application with an explanation of the history of this project,
we feel that is consistent with the Growth Policy, we believe that it satisfactorily complies with the
13 required criteria and staff is necessarily favorably on this application before you this evening. At
this we have not received any public comment. We did go through and look at this with the
Development Review Committee and have found no impediments to this project and therefore,
we’ve indentified appropriate contingency of approval and those contingencies are the necessary
steps of approval to execute the administrative and legislative work to complete this application and
city commissioner desires. So at this point, I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have. The applicant and representative are here and will be happy to speak to you as well.
Chairperson Garberg: Is there any other question for staff?
Mr. Thompson: What driving the trapezoidal shape of this property?
Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: It is an interesting shape, that was developed with the
original Walker PUD, not sure why they ended up with this particular shape.
Mr. Thompson: Ok, thank you.
Chairperson Garberg: At this time I would like to hear the applicant, please state your name and
address for the record.
Chris Budeski: I am representing Simmental application for ZMA, Chris Saunders did a nice job of
summarizing project. We are not purposing a change in zoning, but city R-O zoning be
implemented as we go into the city. Do you have any questions?
176
Page 3 of 5 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 17, 2013
Chairperson Garberg: Are there any questions? No questions, at this point I would like to open up
the public hearing for comment. Would any one of the public wish to speak to this issue? No, we
will close public hearing and bring it back up here for a motion.
Motion: Mr. McSpadden moved to hereby adopt the findings in the staff report for application #Z-
13255 and move to approve of The Zone Map Amendment with identified contingencies. Mr.
Morice seconded the motion.
Chairperson Garberg: Do you want to speak to your motion?
Mr. McSpadden: It seems pretty simple to me. I actually had some questions about the PUD and
the need for ZMA but after reviewing materials and hearing Chris Saunders summary of project
those have been pretty well cleared up. Just to clarify, the thought would be the PUD will override
that 50% requirement of the underlined Growth Policy designation?
Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: That’s correct. Typically, what happens is in a Planned
Unit Development if someone identifies a relaxation or standard to be adopted with a PUD then it
perseveres through time. If the PUD is silent then their subject to whatever modifications to the
code, whatever that may be. In this case an office designation was specifically called out in that lot with original Walker PUD.
Chairperson Garberg: I will call for the question, all those in favor of the motion as stated please indicate by saying aye. Motion carries unanimously.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Garberg: I believe there was some discussion on the ZMA and GPA that came before the commission last night.
Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: I will review project as the commission would like me to.
Mr. Saunders reviewed application for Laurel Glen Subdivision Phase 1. The commission heard
both the GPA and ZMA for the Laurel Glen Subdivision Phase 1.
Mr. Taylor: The Growth Map Amendment was passed by the city commission and approved with
R-2 zoning.
Chairperson Garberg: I received 2-3 comments how and why we came to the decision we made.
Mr. Taylor: One resident came and stayed until after 10pm to support the project. As did all the
party’s that were involved in it. There was some discussion on how we got to this point. Wasn’t it in
2002?
Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: Yes, right about that time.
177
Page 4 of 5 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 17, 2013
Mr. McSpadden: Not to linger that whole minute thing. In that discussion portion of that item
before this board, I wrestled with that one on the planning board level on the growth policy because
there was that one..the growth policy criteria is subjective, there is no two ways about it. It is just
really hard to work with at times. And there is that last one criteria, that’s all about harming thy neighbor. So the whole time I keep going back to that, and I see where they are coming from and I
don’t think this is a bad move, these guys threw out the sixplex option and the people came up and
said that it’s just not good. So it would be difficult to work around that, because if there is one
specific criteria, there is a list of criteria that lacks specificity, but there is one that kind of has it.
People came up and said I expected something different, and this is bad for me so there you have it. That was the sentiment that I was try to convey at the zoning hearing. That change was simple, from
commercial to residential that zoning element gave everybody a comfort level that was ok, but at
that point it was that simple and the Planning Board unanimously said no keep it commercial.
Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: and one of the things that were unusual was how the applicant approach it the way that they did. Where they came in just with the growth policy
amendment and not with the companion Zone Map Amendment, so it got a little out of whack. The
discussion with the commission revolved around how did we get there, did we really follow our plan
originally, you may recall some discussion on where to these kind of nodes normally go? This is an
unusual position and so there was a lot of discussion around that. Are we really losing anything by making this change? Is it a matter of timing? More so than substance, we are still having this funny
guy to the south what is going on with that? So there were questions asked and ultimately they did
decide that to make the change and did approve the R-2. They will either subdivide it or go through a
site plan. And either way will continue to involve the neighbors through the review process.
Mr. Taylor: to the extent that there are consequences to your actions. So if you look at it in a grand
philosophical way forgetting the law, someone talked the commission in 2002, a plan that was not
going to work, and to the extent that there are consequences to putting out a plan that will not work,
the error in the first place took away some of their rights to change it the way they wanted to and it
was much more of a give and take.
Mr. McSpadden: That was what was so difficult about that one, fundamentally I thought that was
tough to vote against, because from a planning perspective, I agree that it was a PUD by zone, it is
bizarre. They were trying to create this mosaic of uses and cool stuff was going to happen, but how
often do we see that, and the rooftops necessary to support even a small portion of commercial. It was hard form a planning perspective to go through that hearing and at the end of day there is that
criteria.
Mr. Morice: Given that criteria, couldn’t you not argue that any new zoning, planning, annexation,
somehow adversely affect somebody else and in their own opinion or what they dreamt or wanted for that area. The reality of it is it is dead without a rezoning and it is not exactly lawn, its weed grass
hilly area with utility steps sticking out of it, I don’t think it would change in the next five years. I
think you have to do it, but it obviously wasn’t the best of ideas, given the fact that you just need so
many rooftops for these nodes, and most of those nodes are vacant or partially vacant and those that
are not vacant, they are not services so much as they are offices they had multiple change of hands, so its tough.
178
Page 5 of 5 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 17, 2013
Chairperson Garberg: What’s most interesting to me is you take this project and look at Oak where
we add before and we are looking at adding commercial and how much we are going to add and its
probably somewhat subjective . it’s obvious that the density and ADT is there for commercial so will
it also at some point in future make sense to have the residential there to create that nexus. I don’t have the answer.
Mr. McSpadden: I thought on this both uses were appropriate, you got the facilities and
infrastructure to handle high density commercial or residential. But at the end of the day they are asking us to pick one and those two works just fine.
Mr. Taylor: In my mind it is inevitable that the change was going to happen. The neighbors did
have voice in it and I think that’s right. If they bought something there and they moved in that this
gives them some power. The other thing that is interesting is that there is a lot of good faith reliance on one another and I am always curious as how that plays itself out. There was conversation between developer and neighbors about what would happen and the promises and the developer
obviously wants good will and it will be interesting to see how that plays itself out.
Mr. McSpadden: I think if one can get past the zoning and look at this cool site plan. It is about
those guys will develop it to the extents that are to will bear. And that’s it. The commission has to
be ok with it, we’re ok with it.
There was conversation about them (developers) coming back and getting that pink out of there at a later date.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
Happy 2013, The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:34p.m.
Erik Garberg, Chairperson City of Bozeman Zoning Commission Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager City of Bozeman DCD
179