PUBLIC HEARINGS

City/County Planning staff reported that upon adoption Resolution 9290 would annex Skyline Park Addition, Phase 10, consisting of 14 single family lots along the extension of 4th Street Northeast and a segment of 38th Avenue Northeast.

In April 2002, the City and County Commissions conditionally approved the preliminary plat of Skyline Park Addition, Phases 8-16, a 127 lot single family residential subdivision located north of Skyline Education Center.

Jim Workman Construction wants to final plat and complete the annexation process for Phase 10, consisting of 14 lots along the extension of 4th Street Northeast and a segment of 38th Avenue Northeast.

Water and sanitary sewer mains, paving, curb and gutter will be installed in the segments of 4th Street Northeast and the segment of 38th Avenue Northeast. A storm sewer main is planned to be installed from the west boundary of the City's Northeast Regional Storm Water Retention Facility, which will serve Phase 10.

The Planning Board, during a meeting held January 14, 2003, recommended approval of the final plat of Skyline Park Addition, Phase 10, and annexation subject to the following conditions:

• The applicant execute an Annexation Agreement acceptable to the City of Great Falls and shall submit the appropriate supporting documents referenced in the Agreement.
• All applicable fees and charges due as a consequence of either plat or annexation approval shall be paid by the applicant.
• Any errors or omissions on the final plat noted by staff shall be corrected.
• Final engineering documents for required public improvements to serve the subdivision are subject to approval by the Public Works Department.

Ordinance 2842 assigns a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District, to Skyline Park Addition, Phase 10.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support or in opposition to Resolution 9290 or Ordinance 2842. Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9290 and approve the final plat, annexation agreement and two easements fro Skyline Park Addition, Phase 10.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2842.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

The City/County Planning Department reported that if adopted, Ordinance 2841 would delete the prohibition on bars from the current General Commercial zoning on Sun River Park Addition, Block 18, Lot 4B. The subject vacant property is located along the south side of Central Avenue West and west of 22nd Street Southwest.

The City Council on October 28, 1963, adopted Ordinance 1451 rezoning the North 300-ft. of Lot 4, Block 18, Sun River Park Addition, from Suburban Residential District to "GC" General Commercial District with the following uses specifically prohibited: bars, warehouses, and junk yards.

Recently, Evelyn Kelman purchased the lot. The zoning on the north 300 feet of subject Lot 4B is dictated by Ordinance 1451. The owner petitioned to delete a prohibition on "bars" from the portion of subject Lot 4B zoned General Commercial District in order to allow a casino to be placed on the property. (As the restrictions were established as part of the rezoning process, any modifications to the stipulated condition must follow the zone change process.)

The Municipal Zoning Code does not define bars or casinos. In 1963 when the zone change to GC was granted, "casinos" as a land use term was not an issue. In today's parlance, however, the term "casinos" is inclusive of "bars," because an on-premise beverage license is required to have gaming. Therefore, the City interprets the condition of record which does not permit "bars" on the subject property as also not permitting "casinos."

On January 14, 2003, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the request to delete a prohibition on bars from subject Lot 4B. Attorney Steve Potts represented the Kelman's and spoke in support of the zoning amendment.

Sixteen individuals, most of whom reside in close proximity to subject Lot 4B, spoke in opposition to the zoning amendment. In addition, petitions signed by nearly 150 individuals opposing the zoning amendment were submitted to the Planning Board.

The Planning Board could not make findings in acceptance with the twelve criteria and guidelines cited in Section 76-2-304 MCA which must be considered in zoning amendments. Specific criteria not being met or fulfilled in conjunction with the zoning amendment are:

• As there was no clear community benefit associated with allowing a virtually unrestricted GC zoning district to be located on subject Lot 4B, the request does not promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Great Falls.
• The request would allow a land use detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the request did not give reasonable consideration to the character of the predominant suburban residential neighborhood.
• Locating a casino on subject Lot 4B could adversely affect the value of residential property in the neighborhood. Therefore, a finding that granting this request would conserve the value of buildings and public investments could not be made.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Board voted 4-1 on a motion to recommend to the City Commission that the request to delete the prohibition on "bars" from Lot 4B, Block 18, Sun River Park Addition, not be approved.

Section 76-2-305, MCA, stipulates a zoning amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the city council if a protest against such amendment is signed by the owners of 25 percent or more of those lots 150 feet from the lot included in the proposed amendment. Protest to the zoning amendment has been provided by the owners of 47 percent of the lots within 150 feet of subject Lot 4B.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open on Ordinance 2841. Steve Potts, legal counsel for the petitioning party, spoke in support of the Ordinance. Mr. Potts explained that the reason the Kelman's wanted to purchase that property was to open a casino on it and when Joe Laforest, City Zoning, was asked if the property was properly zoned, he replied that it was. Mr. Potts added that within hours of the closing on the property, Mr. LaForest called and explained that while the property was zoned "General Commercial" there was a prohibition of bars, warehouses, and junk yards. Further, Mr. Potts explained that Mr. LaForest recommended that the Kelman's petition to have the prohibition of bars deleted which brought this action before the Commission. Mr. Potts added that the Ordinance 1451 did not prohibit casinos.

Following Mr. Potts testimony, Commissioner Rosenbaum asked if the former owner disclosed this prohibition. Mr. Potts replied that the former owner did not. In fact, he added, that two adjacent properties were zoned General Commercial and did not have any restrictions placed on them.

Mayor Gray asked Mr. Potts if a casino required a liquor license. Mr. Potts replied that it did.

Those speaking in opposition to the Ordinance were:

Don Alford, 6 22nd Street NW, who expressed concern that a casino on this property would lower the property values in the area and increase the crime rate. He added that he was offended by Mr. Potts comments as quoted in the Tribune article which implied that regardless of the Commission action, the Kelman's intended on proceeding with the casino on the property.

Sue Ann Strickland, Neighborhood Council 2, stated that everyone she has talked to in the area wanted the restriction to remain in tact. She added that the neighbors wanted to preserve the integrity of the area. Ms. Strickland suggested that this issue revolved around the definition of "bars."

Pat Horton, 15 22nd Street SW, stated that if the Ordinance was adopted then this time next year he would look out his front window and see a bar. He, too, was concerned about the decrease in property values due to the addition of a bar on this property.

City/County Planning Director Bob Horne indicated at this point that his office had received 22 letters of opposition and a petition with over 100 signatures opposing the Ordinance.

Nicky Putnam, 2312 Central Avenue West, concurred with the previous speakers.

Steve Thurston, 2115 Central Avenue West, stated that it was unfortunate the Kelman's bought the property using incorrect information. However, the neighbors wanted to keep the neighborhood good. He added that everyone agreed that every abandoned Circle K should not be converted to a casino.

Dave Bennyhoff, 112 24th Street SW, wanted to keep the neighborhood safe for children. He said that it would be a shame for the children to have to wait for their school buses in front of a casino.

Fred Shauer, 2209 Central Avenue W, stated that according to the Gaming Control Division, 23-5-171, "an incorporated city or town may enact an ordinance or resolution zoning certain areas within its incorporated limits in which gambling is prohibited."

Leo Mader, 2226 4th Avenue NW, stated he did not want a casino and a bar in the area.

Clayton M. Braden, 2708 4th Avenue NW, stated that the deletion of the bar was only a part of the issue at hand. He added that someone could not operate a gaming business if they had been convicted of a crime and he believed one of the parties involved with this casino had a criminal record.

Jo Shauer, NC 2, stated she lived directly across from the subject property and had spent a long time and money improving their home. She stated that she lived in a residential area and that this area was not place for a casino. She expressed concern about the increase in traffic and that the speed of the vehicles could also increase. She added that a City employee made a mistake and asked that the Commission not make another one by granting the request.

Ben Forsyth, 900 9th Street South, stated he owned a business near the Kelman's former casino - the Plum Crazy and had constant problems with vandalism, theft and burglary. He added that since that casino closed, the problems went away. He said that he would hate to see Commission action move that type of crime into a residential area. He stated that according to his research, the spirit of Ordinance 1451 was that no alcohol be served on the property.

Joyce McDonald, 313 26th Street SW, asked what the Commission would do if they lived near the property.

Jim Budeski, 2127 1st Avenue SW, explained that in 1963 the property was zoned General Commercial which was when a small convenience store was built. He stated that this was a residential area and he wanted to keep it that way.

Ron Staley, NC 2, 801 3rd Avenue SW, stated that everyone he has talked with regarding this issue opposes it.

Lynn Graham, 2321 Central Avenue West, stated that she hoped her grandchildren did not have to board their school bus in front of a casino.

George Gallagher, City/County Planning Board, stated that zoning should prohibit inappropriate uses of property within town. He said he has not seen a master plan that would encourage a casino in this area - although City staff and the City Commission have stated the importance of using master plans. He added that the Commission must look at the issues versus what testimony was said and concluded that this issue focused on the definition of a "bar."

Gloria Smith, 8 Cheyenne Drive, supported the opportunity for the people to have a say in what their neighborhoods should be like. She suggested that the Kelman's had recourse through real estate laws such as the use of a Disclosure Statement.

There being no further testimony, Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission deny Ordinance 2841.

Commissioner Beecher stated that a key point for him was that the neighbors directly adjacent to the property opposed this Ordinance and its impact on their quality of life.

Commissioner Hinz stated she wanted to vote in tandem and the spirit of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Rosenbaum concurred. He added that this issue was not similar to the Town Pump issue because those in the legal protest area for this requested did submit letters of protest.

Mayor Gray stated that MCA 26-2-305 required a super-majority vote of the City Commission to approve this request due to the 25 percent protest and that he did not see similarity to the Town Pump issue.

There being no further discussion, Mayor Gray called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0.
 

OLD BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

The property owner completed expansion of their building at 2103 Vaughn Road. The building permit was issued March 12, 2002, and the project was completed in November 2002, at an estimated cost of $135,000. The applicants requested approval of the tax benefits and Resolution 9294 was prepared to comply with the requirement that all applications be approved by resolution. Approval of the application will 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.

MCA 5-24-1501 provides the local government the option of giving Tax Benefits for the Remodeling, Reconstruction or Expansion of Existing Buildings or Structures. The law governing this incentive was amended in 1985 requiring that each local governing body (City and County) approve the Tax Benefit on a project by project basis. If one local government body approves the tax benefit and the other does not, the benefit would apply only to the mills levied by the approving governing body. In addition, tax benefits do not include any relief from state-wide levies and local government approval of the application must be by resolution.

The City Commission's policy regarding the approval of remodeling tax benefits was established in the late 1980's and requires that all property taxes on all property owned by the applicant be current and that the applicant be allowed to take advantage of only one City program available to provide local development assistance. This policy came about as a result of concern that certain projects were taking advantage of extremely low interest rate, City sponsored new construction or rehabilitation loan programs designed to improve building conditions, improve blighted areas and expand the tax base. After receiving the low interest loans, some developers were then applying for the reduction in property taxes, which had the net effect of canceling some of the benefits the City was supposed to derive from making the original loan.

In applying this policy to the application received from the current owners, we find that all property taxes are current and that the applicants have not received City financial assistance from other programs.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9294.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

The City Commission adopted Resolution 9160 on June 5, 2001 establishing insurance and bond requirements required by contractors. Staff reevaluated these limits and proposed revising them to better meet the needs of customers.

Research has been done on the various licenses and the type of work associated with these licenses. It was determined that the General Aggregate, Products Completed Operations and Automobile limits were too high and staff proposed an adjustment to better meet the work areas associated with the licenses and permits.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9295.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CONSENT AGENDA

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioners Jovick-Kuntz and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approve the Consent Agenda as printed.

Jon Rens, 2220 Cherry Drive, stated that he was not opposed to item 17. However, he wanted to ask the City Commission that related to Item 17, a rezoning request would be forthcoming. He explained that a local businessman was in the process of purchasing one of the lots to build an office and discovered that the lot was zoned B Residential rather than Industrial. He said that everyone, including City staff, thought the lot was zoned Industrial and discovered the zoning error after the businessman had retained an architect and financing for the construction project. Mr. Rens asked if the City could expedite the rezoning process. He added that he was told the process would take over 3 months which could delay the project substantially costing the businessman money.

City Manager John Lawton explained that Staff would review the issue and do what they could to expedite the process.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

The Preliminary Plat of Whispering Ridge Addition, Phase 3, consists of 15 residential lots near the south end of 38th Street South. LAMMS Corporation has submitted applications regarding the following: Preliminary Plat of Whispering Ridge Addition, Phase 3-6, located in the E ½ of Section 17, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, Cascade County, Montana; and Rezoning each Phase of the Preliminary Plat as it was annexed to the City from the current County "R-1" Suburban Residential District to the City "A" Residence Use, "B" Area District. Subsequent to this submittal, the applicant's representative provided a communication withdrawing Phases 4-6 from consideration.

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the preliminary plat for Phase 3 on February 11, 2003. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Board unanimously passed a motion recommending the City and County Commissions approve the preliminary plat for Whispering Ridge Addition, Phase 3, the accompanying Findings of Fact and a variance allowing Lots 3 and 4 not to front on a public street, subject to the following conditions being fulfilled by the applicant:

1. The final plat shall incorporate correction of any errors or omissions noted by staff including provision of all required on-site utility easements.
2. The final engineering drawings and specifications for the required public improvements to serve Phase 3 and the private driveway to serve Lots 3 and 4 shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to consideration of the final plat for Phase 3.
3. An Annexation Agreement be prepared containing terms and conditions for annexation of Phase 3 including agreement by applicant to install, within two years of the date of annexation of Phase 3, the public improvements referenced in Paragraph 2) above.
4. All applicable fees owed as a condition of plat or annexation approval shall be paid.
5. Until the open space related to the subdivision is established, owner shall escrow the following amount: (11% x net acres x current fair market value per acre). Said escrow shall be released upon establishment of said open space. Should said open space not be established in a reasonable time, the funds in said escrow shall be deposited in the City Park Trust Fund.
6. Provision of off-site easements including the force main across School District property and sanitary sewer lift station and mains and drainage facilities and maintenance access road above the City Storm Water Detention Facility.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approve the Preliminary Plat of Whispering Ridge Addition, Phase 3, a variance allowing two lots not to front upon a public street and the accompanying Findings of Fact, subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated by the Planning Board.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

ADJOURNMENT