PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Community Development Department received inquiries about placing wind powered electric generators in the City. The City had no standards for wind generators, nor for any other structure of this nature. Also, there was no definition of the term "wind powered generator" in the municipal code book.

Staff conducted basic research on wind powered generators as to what operating requirements and potential hazards were associated with them so that appropriate regulations could be drafted. Generally, the mounting height of the turbine must be 30 feet above any obstruction within 280 feet to prevent turbulence. The two main hazards associated with the generators are blade failure (the blade can actually separate from the turbine assembly and become a projectile) and tower failure (falling tower). In addition to Internet and literature research, staff consulted with a local dealer/installer who recommended some guidelines based on experience. Also, staff received comments from a leading supplier of residential turbines immediately prior to the scheduled public hearing back on Sept. 2. As a result of these latest comments, staff revised the draft regulations to be more permissive in allowing wind-powered generators within the City. Generally, setbacks were reduced, height is measured differently, and the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit in residential zones has been dropped. The prior draft of the ordinance was presented as Exhibit B, and the proposed revised language was presented as Exhibit A.

Staff concluded that generators could be effectively regulated as accessory uses in all City zoning districts with standards such as those set forth in the proposed code revision. Generally, setbacks should relate directly to mounting height, and generator rating should relate to lot size. City noise standards must be met, and it is the responsibility of the property owner to demonstrate compliance. This was because different turbines from different manufacturers operate and "brake" at different noise levels.

Anyone proposing to erect a wind powered electrical generator within the city limits will be required to obtain a building permit and an electrical permit. Most manufactured towers are sold as kits that must then be assembled and installed by the home or business owner, or by a licensed contractor. Manufactured tower kits (such as those for ham radio) usually have a manufacturer’s certification as to their structural integrity, at least for wind loading and seismic activity. That certification will be accepted by the City. In the event a manufactured tower does not have such a certification, the Building Official will require an engineer to provide certification. The City will require an engineered foundation upon which to mount any tower. The electrical permit and inspection will be required to ensure that the inter-tie is properly installed and that shorting danger is avoided.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to Ordinance 2807. There being no one further to address the Commission, Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2807.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

OLD BUSINESS

On December 27, 2000, EPA issued a Complaint and Compliance Order alleging certain violations of the Clean Water Act by the City. Pursuant to subsequent mediation procedures conducted by the Federal Administrative Law Judge, the parties reached a settlement in the amount of $8,500, civil penalty, together with a "Supplemental environmental project" in the amount of $33,375 to stabilize the stream bank in West Bank Park. The complaint by EPA issued specified a civil penalty of $134,000. The complaint contained 161 allegations of the City's failure to issue permits, failure to inspect facilities, failure to receive and analyze significant industrial users self-monitoring reports, failure to investigate and enforce non-compliance, failure to implement an enforcement response plan and a failure to comply with public participation requirements. Subsequently, Water Plant Supervisor Mike Jacobson was able to totally rebut more than 80 percent of the alleged violations. Thereafter, pursuant to Federal Court mediation supervision, a settlement of all claims was reached reducing the civil penalty to $8,500 dollars with a supplemental environmental project to restore and replace riparian habitat which has been lost due to stream bank erosion in West Bank Park for which a total expenditure shall not be less than $33,375 dollars.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission the consent agreement in settlement of the EPA Claim and authorize the City Manager to execute the same.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Montana Air and Congestion Initiative (MACI) Program funds were available from the Montana Department of Transportation to conduct a feasibility study of the South Arterial project. These Federal/State funds would finance 86.58% of the cost to hire a consultant to do the study. The remaining 13.42% must be matched with local funds, which have been budgeted from the City Street Maintenance Fund. As such, the City’s match of $26,840 would leverage $173,160 for the $200,000 study.

The South Arterial was recommended as an addition to the Great Falls street network for over 30 years. A route location study/environmental impact statement was completed for the Arterial in 1980. The study recommended an alignment that generally followed along the south edge of the City. Efforts were taken at that time to secure right-of- way, even though it would be several years before actual construction. However, community leaders chose to no longer seriously pursue the Arterial. The reasons included the lack of funds; declining interest in the Arterial; an economic downturn in the community due to theclosure of the Anaconda Refining Company and personnel reductions at Malmstrom Air Force Base; and, the conclusion that adding six lanes to a portion of 10th Avenue South could adequately address congestion issues and could further postpone the need for the Arterial to well beyond 2010. This remained the status of the Arterial for the following six to seven years.

With passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, there was significant local, state and national discussion and interest to accommodate and promote regional and international trade opportunities. Locally, there was renewed interest to seriously pursue the South Arterial and to expand the purpose and function of the facility. Initially, the Arterial was proposed for relieving congestion on 10th Avenue South and Fox Farm Road. Although this may still be a reason, the purpose is now much broader. The Arterial is now viewed as a direct link between two highways of national significance, I-15 and U. S. Highway 87/89, which are segments of the national Camino Real High Priority Trade Corridor. The Arterial would help to better serve, promote, and accommodate regional and international trade on this corridor. Others view the Arterial as providing alternative community access and circulation; as a physical demarcation for growth and development in the area south of Great Falls; as a means to promote economic development opportunities; and, as providing an additional river crossing south of Great Falls for emergency services.

In 1994, the City and County Commissions approved resolutions in support of generating commitments and securing funds to develop and build the South Arterial, including the Great Falls to Billings Highway. As such, a "South Arterial Working Group" representing the City, County, Great Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, City-County Planning Board and High Plains Development Authority was created. Additionally, in 1997, the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors approved a "resolution in support of exploring options for funding and implementation of the South Arterial . . ." The resolution further stated that the Chamber was in full support and joined the efforts of the City, County and Planning Board.

Following a series of Working Group meetings and discussions with the Montana Department of Transportation and the Montana Transportation Commission, the Working Group developed a "Strategy Plan". It contained specific steps on how to pursue the development of the Arterial. The steps included: 1) Formally include the South Arterial into the Great Falls Area Transportation Plan (This was completed in December 2000); 2) Conduct an update of the 1980route location study/environmental impact statement (This was later specified to be a feasibility study which is the scope of this funding agreement); 3) Work with the State to place the Arterial on a Federal-aid system and on its construction priority program; 4) Work with the State, the Montana Congressional Delegation and others to secure right of way via purchase, donations, dedications, etc.; and, 5) Continue long term efforts toward phased project construction.

There was also a need to update the Great Falls Area Transportation Plan, primarily to satisfy Federal air quality conformity requirements, at this same time. As such, it was an appropriate time to analyze the South Arterial for possible inclusion. The Great Falls Policy Coordinating Committee for Transportation Planning authorized the update in late 1998. The Arterial was formally incorporated into the Transportation Plan in December 2000 and Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI) Program funds were set-aside for the preparation of a feasibility study.

It was proposed that a consultant be hired to conduct the study, which would generally include data evaluation, environmental/social considerations, traffic analysis, financial feasibility, and economic analysis. The study would not include a detailed location study, final design plans, and environmental impact documentation or right of way acquisition. If, through the study, a bypass is proven feasible, then these additional steps will be conducted.

The study effort will be conducted cooperatively by and between the selected consultant and the various local, State and Federal participants of the Great Fall Area Transportation Planning Process. The Great Falls City-County Planning Board will contract with the selected consultant and will perform contract administration. A Steering Committee of the Great Falls Technical Advisory Committee, and others, will provide oversight of the consultant and study effort.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approve the funding agreement with the Montana Department of Transportation for receipt of Montana Air and Congestion Initiative (MACI) Program Funds and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.

Susan Humble and Ted Horras spoke in support of the study.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

NEW BUSINESS

ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS

The property owner was renovating existing space for the U.S. Forest Service. The building permit was issued June 13, 2001, and the project was projected to be completed in October 2001 at an estimated cost of $350,000. The applicants were requesting approval of the tax benefits and Resolution 9192 was prepared to comply with the requirement that all applications be approved by resolution. Approval of the application would allow for the taxes generated from the expansion to be added to the existing taxes over a five-year period in increments of 20 percent each year.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9192.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Adoption of Resolution 9193 would set a public hearing for November 6, 2001, to consider annexation of 17,112 square feet of land area to be combined with a presently incorporated area occupied by a single family dwelling addressed as 2614 14th Street Southwest.

Property owner Jack Russell submitted applications regarding the following: 1) Annexation of approximately 17,112 square feet of land in the SW ¼ of Section 15, T20N, R3E, Cascade County, Montana to the City of Great Falls; and 2) Rezoning the approximate 17,112 square feet from the current County "R-1" Suburban Residential District to the City "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District.

Said approximate 17,112 square feet requested to be annexed to the City is located immediately north of the house owned and occupied by the applicant and addressed as 2614 14th Street Southwest. The 236.29 feet x 72.42 feet area requested to be annexed will be combined with an adjoining incorporated area occupied by the applicant’s home to make a saleable parcel totaling 45,828 square feet or 1.05 acres.

Jack Russell presently owns Parcel No. E2, which is 2 acres in areaand is within the City Limits and Parcel No. E which is 3.718 acres in area and is outside the City. Mr. Russell desires to take the westerly 236.29 feet of both parcels and combine them into a single tract of land. The Russell home, driveway, and yard space presently occupy this area. To create a saleable parcel not split by the City Limits, it was necessary to annex subject 17,112 square feet. The remainder of Parcel No. E2 as well as Parcel No. E will remain vacant until plans for further development of the area are defined.

A City water main is located along the west boundary of subject property and a City sanitary sewer main is located along the south boundary. The existing home owned by the applicant and abutting the south boundary of the area requested to be annexed is presently served by City water and a private individual sewage disposal system. Access to proposed Parcel No. 1 and the Russell home is provided through a 30 foot easement connected to 14th Street Southwest.

Mr. Russell was also providing a 30 foot utility easement along the north side of the area being annexed to accommodate a possible future water main.

A resurvey of the applicant’s property will be completed and filed in conjunction with the annexation. The resurvey will combine the 17,112 square feet area being annexed with the westerly 236.29 feet of Parcel No. E2 and show the remainder incorporated portion of Parcel No. E2 and the unincorporated Parcel No. E less its westerly 236.29 feet.

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the annexation on September 11, 2001. No proponents or opponents spoke during the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Board unanimously passed a motion recommending the City Commission annex the 17,112 square feet area owned and apply a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District, subject to the following conditions being fulfilled by the applicant: payment of all applicable fees owed as a condition of annexation approval including resolution of annexation fee of $100.00, a Storm Sewer Fee of $123.75, and recording fees of $30.00; filing a resurvey of applicant’s property to combine the 17,112 square feet area being annexed with the westerly 236.29 feet of Parcel No. E2; and provide updated descriptions of unincorporated Parcel E and the remainder incorporated portion of Parcel No. E2 accompanied by a statement that no structures shall be permitted until adequate City water service is made available to subject property.

It was understood the terms and conditions in the Annexation Agreement entered into in 1984 for the existing Parcel No. E2 remain in full force and effect.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9193, expressing intent to annex 17,112 square feet of land area in Section 15, T20N, R3E, and setting a public hearing on the annexation for November 6, 2001.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Ordinance 2809 assigns a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District, to a 17,112 sq. ft. area of land in Section 15, T20N, R3E, upon annexation of same to City.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2809 on first reading and set a hearing for 7 pm, November 6, 2001, to consider adoption of Ordinance 2809.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CONSENT AGENDA

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission accept the Consent Agenda as printed.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CITY COMMISSION

PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURNMENT