PUBLIC HEARINGS

The owner of property legally described as the North 30 of the South 92' of Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block 134, Great Falls Original Addition, Great Falls, Cascade County, Montana, was issued a "Notice of Hearing" before the City Commission of Great Falls to appear at 7:00 p.m., February 3, 2004. The hearing was to show cause why the owner of the property should not be liable for the costs incurred in razing the structure known as 604 7 Street North. The following expenses were incurred:

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. There being no one to speak in support or opposition, Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that City Commission adopt Resolution 9359.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Public Works Director Jim Rearden reported that in order to accommodate the reconstruction of the Northeast Bypass project, MDT had requested that the City approve four Right-of-Way Agreements and Deeds for four parcels of City-owned land for various purposes which included permanent right-of-way acquisition, permanent access control, and temporary construction permits. The permanent right-of-way acquisition involved two parcels with a total area of 3.185 acres, while the temporary construction permitting encompasses 0.9 acres in the other two parcels. All four parcels would have access control imposed upon them. One of the parcels (Parcel 44) was the land upon which the proposed soccer park would be located. A provision within the Right-of-Way Agreement for this parcel provided for one driveway access to the Northeast Bypass.

The City would be compensated a total of $31,500 for the right-of-way acquisitions, access control and temporary construction permitting.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. There being no one to speak in support or opposition, Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approve the deeding of City owned land adjacent to the Northeast Bypass to the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) for public right-of-way and access control.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Andrew Finch, Planning staff, stated that to guide the public and private development of lands along the Missouri River in Great Falls, the Great Falls City-County Planning Board prepared a document entitled, "Missouri River Corridor Master Plan." On January 13, 2004, the Great Falls City-County Planning Board approved the Missouri River Corridor Master Plan and recommended approval by the City and Cascade County Commissions. The 1999 City-County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent 2003 City-County Growth Policy recommended the community "Prepare a detailed master plan for the Missouri River corridor", which would include lands adjoining the Missouri River in the City of Great Falls and nearby rural areas. In support of this recommendation, the City Commission set development of this Master Plan as one of its top goals. The City-County Planning Board hired a consultant, CTA LandWorks of Billings, at the end of 2001 to prepare such a Plan.

A "Work Group" that consisted of local government staff members, interested individuals from the community, corridor stakeholders and property owners was formed to aid in the preparation of the Plan. A community workshop was held in 2002 to gather and evaluate comments from the Group and the general public. Through the efforts of the consultant, Work Group and the Planning staff, a draft Plan was completed and presented to the City Commission at a Work Session in March 2003. At that time, the draft Plan was opened for public comment and remained in that status until December 2003, when staff completed a review of and revisions to the draft Plan, including new illustrations and some revised text. This revised draft was again provided to the Work Group in mid-December 2003 for final comment.

The Missouri River Corridor Master Plan was a vision for the Missouri River and adjoining lands through the urban area of Great Falls. In addition to an overview of existing conditions, the Plan provided possible development scenarios for what were referred to as "pulse developments" in key areas of the Corridor, along with recommendations for appropriate land uses, aesthetic improvements to the transportation system.

The main intent of the Master Plan was to stimulate positive, quality growth and redevelopment of underutilized public and private lands along the corridor. A few of the anticipated benefits of such growth were:

• Economic development;
• A more active, vital riverfront, more central to community activity; and,
• Preservation and restoration of river banks and lands adjoining the river.

A companion study and report, the Missouri River Urban Corridor Inventory & Assessment, was prepared by a consultant for the Cascade County Conservation District to document existing conditions, potential restoration and enhancement opportunities of the riverbanks in the Great Falls area. This study, funded in part by the City-County Planning Board, complemented the Missouri River Corridor Master Plan and was included by reference in the Master Plan.

The Master Plan also included an Implementation Strategy that, if followed, would lead to a more vital riverfront with healthier, more sustainable and more economically viable land uses. It was a highly visual plan, with maps, photographs, and concept development plans and diagrams. The Plan could and should be used as a promotional item to attract potential developments to invest in riverfront properties.

The Master Plan was also intended to guide redevelopment in a responsible, sustainable manner. Environmental remediation increased public access to the River and enhanced facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists are among the recommendations included in the Plan.

The Plan was not intended to be used as a regulatory document but, again, as a guide for development in the Corridor. As both public and private investment occurred in the Corridor, this document should be used as a reference. It should also serve as a guide for revision and update of City and County codes, regulations, and development policies. Finally, specific recommendations for implementation of the vision in the Master Plan should be followed and promoted by the City-County Planning Board, City of Great Falls, Cascade County and other interested public and private organizations and individuals.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. Speaking in favor of the Missouri River Corridor Master Plan was Aart Dolman, 3016 Central Avenue, stated that the reason he was for the plan was that it was a plan and that it's opened for change. The Missouri River was a resource and that the plan reflected the importance of the River. The river was a gold mine to the City. It was an attraction to tourist. He also addressed the Commission that when they make their decisions pertaining to the development of the river to take into consideration that the river belongs to the community and not individuals.

Gerry Jennings, 317 Fox Drive, stated that the plan had not been given to the public for comment and that it should have been taken to the Neighborhood Councils for people to discuss, communicate and respond to.

Ron Metson, Treasure State Drive, stated that he considers the river a treasure and that the plan could be modified as the commission sees fit. It was an attraction to economic development, citizens and visitors. He considers the plan as step one. He also stated that the City should consider trading park land that was unused/undeveloped.

Diane Stinger, 1400 4th Avenue Northwest, President and member of Missouri River Citizens, stated that they were very much in favor of the plan and urge protection and enhancement of the river. The plan was a beginning. She stated that they want everyone to have a part in this plan. She also thanked everyone for the work that went into developing this plan.

Speaking against the Missouri River Corridor Plan was Sue Strickland, 609 2nd Avenue Southwest, Acting Chair Neighborhood Council 2, who stated that the Neighborhood Council was not involved in this plan and that the plan sounded like it was written in concrete. The Neighborhood Council was very much against the Bay Drive area development the way Broadwater Bay area had been built up. She also stated that she was against selling or trading parkland and moving Bay Drive away from the river's edge. She did not want to see Bay Drive area turned into another Broadwater Bay with nothing but high-rise hotels and a pizza place. She said you can't even see the river from the road anymore. She told the Commission that if the City were to ever move or sell any parkland that she would be a thorn in their side. She also stated this "speed of essence", was trying to cram this plan down citizen's throats to get the plan passed.

George Gallagher, 4701 Willowdale Lane, serves on City County Planning Board, stated that he did not recommend adopting the plan. The plan must contain goals and that the plan had no inclusions of goals. The City would be better off with no plan than a deficient one. He stated that the plan was an attractive promotional document, but there was more work to be done.

Steve White, 1308 5th Avenue Northwest, stated that he heard the City was going to allow condo's on the Westside Park. He stated that he was against this. The plan looks nice but he asked the Commission to deny until all neighborhood council had time to review.

Clayton Braden, 2708 4th Avenue Northwest, stated that he did not want to see anything put up along the river that would damage or pollute the water. The plan itself had not gone far enough. He stated that the people that designed the plan did it to please the people that gave them the instructions. He also suggested that before the Commission goes any further with this plan that they look in some other area.

Jo Shauer, 2209 Central Avenue West, Neighborhood Council 2, stated that there was work to be done on the plan. She stated that she was not anti-development. The river was a gem because it was not overly developed. The City did not need to look at senior housing. She also stated that the Commission needed to table the plan.

Ron Staley, 801 3rd Avenue Southwest, Neighborhood Council 2, stated that there had been good ideas brought forth to the Commission and that the City needed to be careful about choices they were making. He also stated that being able to drive along the river and see the river and wildlife was a neat thing to be able to do in Great Falls. He stated that what has happened to Broadwater Bay has limited the ability to do that.

Elva Pilling, 173 Dune Drive, stated that seeing the river was very soothing to the soul, and she did not want to see the river developed. She also stated to the Commission that she hoped that they thoroughly examine the plan before making decisions to approve it.

Phyllis Hemstad, 931 1st Avenue Northwest, Neighborhood Council 2, stated that she believed that the master plan was pretty well set up. She did not think it was a guide and that it was a definite plan. She also stated that Neighborhood Council 2 would firmly stand behind their Neighborhood Council and residents who do not like the development along the river. The Westside would strongly stand to keep the Westside bank from being developed. She also stated that there was an abundance of land on outskirts of the City and downtown vacant buildings. Those should be areas that should be filled.

Bill Bronson, Chairman of City/County Planning Board, 722 32nd Avenue Northeast, stated that the plan had been considered for about two years. He also stated that the community had ample opportunities to give their input on the plan. The planning board had a public hearing a few months ago. He also stated that the plan does not commit the City to do anything. Maybe the plan should be called The Missouri River Corridor Vision instead of a master plan.

Against was Stuart Lewin, 615 3rd Avenue North, who stated that he served on the committee that helped develop the plan. He stated that he supports the principles to protect the river, but not the talk of riverfront development. The plan started out talking about preserving the Missouri River and moving traffic away from the river, and then ended talking about commercial development. He agreed with the Neighborhood Council and supported their comments.

Michael Witsoe, 510 11th Street South, stated that he wished to apologize for last Commission meeting. He asked what would happen to the present businesses on the old brewery property if the Commission accepted the plan? Also, if there would be condemnations on the businesses that did not want to leave.

Mayor Gray stated that there was no condemnation going on and that this was just a proposal.

Mayor Gray asked if anyone else had any comments. Gloria Smith, Great Falls, recommended that the City take steps into the plan. She asked the Commission who decided whether the land be sold or not? The river was extremely important to Great Falls. She stated that it was great that the City was trying to do something to Great Falls.

Jack Beck, 301 Skyline Drive Northeast, stated that the Commission needed to reconsider taking action on the plan. This decision would affect everyone for a long time.

There being no one further to speak in support or opposition, Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission table the Missouri River Corridor Master Plan.

Commissioner Hinz stated that the Commission should table the motion until it was presented to all of the Neighborhood councils. She also stated that the plan was not etched in stone, and that it was ideas, and ideas encourage other ideas.

Commissioner Rosenbaum stated that the public needed more education and that the City needed to meet with Neighborhood Councils.

Mayor Gray asked Bill Bronson what the vote was in favor of the planning board. Bill Bronson responded, all but one in favor.

Commissioner Beecher stated that it was not true that the public was not notified of the plan.

Mayor Gray clarified the Commission directed staff to get this plan developed. He also stated that he supported the motion to table this item.

Planning Director Ben Rangel suggested that the City pool two or three neighborhood council meetings together for sessions and to meet as quickly as possible.

Motion 5-0.
 

OLD BUSINESS

City Attorney David Gliko reported that Ordinance 2859 was approved as an interim ordinance August 19, 2004 for a period of six months. This ordinance would expire February 19, 2004 unless it was extended by the City Commission for up to one year to allow for the finalization and adoption of the Unified Land Development Code now being drafted by a consulting firm, Vierbicher and Associates of Madison, Wisconsin. This extension would take a 2/3 vote of the City Commission to approve. M.C.A. 76-2-306 (3).

The regulations in Ordinance 2859 are meant as interim regulations governing gambling establishments and casinos and they replaced a prior moratorium on casinos/gambling establishments. The interim ordinance specifies zoning districts allowable for gambling/casino establishments during the interim, and the required distances to be met from schools and places of worship. Casinos that are expanded, remodeled or relocated would also need approval of the Design Review Board and would need to comply with current codes for signage, landscaping and parking.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2859 on first reading and set a public hearing for February 17, 2004, at 7:00 PM to consider extending interim Ordinance 2859 for up to one year.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

City Attorney David Gliko reported that Interim Ordinance 2860 was approved by the City Commission on August 19, 2003 as an interim ordinance for a period of six months. This ordinance would expire February 19, 2004 unless it was extended by the City Commission for up to one year to allow for the finalization and adoption of a new unified Land Development Code now being drafted by the Vierbicher firm. This extension would need a 2/3 vote of the City Commission to approve (M.C.A. 76-2-306 (3).

The regulations in the Interim Ordinance prohibit sexually oriented businesses in all zoning districts except general commercial, first and second industrial districts; provided a distance limitation of 600 feet from similar businesses, public parks, day cares, churches and residentially zoned property; prohibited the distribution or consumption of alcohol on such premises; and required Design Review Board approval before building or occupancy permits could be granted.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2860 on first reading and set a public hearing for February 17, 2004, to consider extending Ordinance 2860 for up to one year.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Planning Director Ben Rangel stated that Resolution No. 9363 sets a public hearing for March 2, 2004, to consider the annexation of 13.1 acres located east of 29th Street South and south of 15th Avenue South upon which a 100,000 square foot specialty medical building was planned to be constructed.

Great Falls Clinic, LLP had submitted applications regarding the following:

1. Amended Plat of Blocks 1 and 3, First Addition to the Great Falls Clinic Addition, located in the NW1/4 of Section 17, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, Cascade County, Montana.
2. Annexation of the unincorporated portion of said Amended Plat to the City of Great Falls.

The applicant was preparing plans to construct a 100,000 square foot specialty medical building upon subject property presently partially occupied by the Clinic Surgery Center at 15th Avenue South and 29th Street South.

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the subdivision and annexation requests on November 25, 2003. Other than Mr. Steve L'Heureux of L'Heureux, Page & Werner Architects, who spoke on behalf of the applicant, there was no public testimony provided at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Board passed a motion recommending the governing bodies approve the Amended Plat of Blocks 1 and 3, First Addition to Great Falls Clinic Addition, and the accompanying Findings of Fact, and that the City Commission annex the unincorporated portion of the Amended Plat subject to the following conditions:

1. payment of all applicable fees owed as a condition of subdivision or annexation;
2. correction of any errors or omissions on the amended plat noted by staff;
3. recording a certificate of title in conjunction with the amended plat;
4. Public Works Department approving the final engineering documents for immediately planned public infrastructure; and,
5. applicant executing an agreement containing applicable terms and conditions for amended plat and annexation approval.

It was anticipated the above conditions, except 3, would be completed prior to the annexation hearing on March 2, wherein the Commission would be provided a copy of the Planning Staff Report and Recommendation on the project and the Annexation Agreement.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz asked why zoning the area a "C" zone? Planning Director Ben Rangel stated that it allows for medical facility use.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9363.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Adoption of Ordinance 2869 on final reading would establish a City zoning classification upon annexation of the unincorporated portion of the Amended Plat of Blocks 1 and 3, First Addition to Great Falls Clinic Addition, of "C" Residence Use, "C" Area District, inclusive of a conditional use allowing a medical clinic and accessory uses.

Great Falls Clinic, LLP, had requested 13.1 acres in First Addition to Great Falls Clinic Addition, be rezoned from the current County "R-2" Low Density Residential District to the City "C" Residence Use, "C" Area District, with a conditional use for a medical facility, upon annexation to the City.

OCCGF 76-2-305 listed criteria and guidelines which must be considered in conjunction with establishing municipal zoning on land:

1. was designed in accordance with the growth policy (comprehensive plan);
2. was designed to lessen congestion in the streets;
3. would secure safety from fire, panic or other dangers;
4. would promote health and the general welfare;
5. would provide adequate light and air;
6. would prevent overcrowding of land;
7. would avoid undue concentration of population;
8. would facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements;
9. gave reasonable consideration to the character of the district;
10. gave reasonable consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses;
11. would conserve the value of buildings; and
12. would encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality.

The developed portion of the extended neighborhood consisted entirely of medical related facilities and medium to higher density residential uses. The incorporated portion of the Amended Plat was presently zoned "C" Residential, as was the abutting properties to the east and west of the area requested to be annexed.

The proposed project, bordering the City Limits, represented a natural progression of the urban area served by extension of City services and infrastructure.

Annexation of subject property would enhance health, safety and welfare through application of city codes and provision of municipal services.

Property zoned "C" Residential allows hospitals and clinics as a conditional use. The procedure for processing a conditional use was identical to that for a City zone change. Following a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Board, the City Commission shall conduct a public hearing and arrive at a final decision regarding the conditional use application. The City Commission may, through a written agreement with the applicant, establish such conditions and restrictions upon the construction, maintenance and operation of the conditional use as it deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with standards and requirements.

The City Zoning Code listed the seven following criteria to be applied to a request for a conditional use for evaluation purposes.

1. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use would not be detrimental to, or endanger the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare;
2. That the conditional use would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood;
3. That the establishment of the conditional use would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district;
4. That the exterior architectural appeal, landscape treatment and functional plan of any proposed structure would not be so at variance with either the exterior architectural appeal, landscape treatment and functional plan of the structures already constructed or in course of construction in the immediate neighborhood or the character of the applicable district, as to cause a substantial depreciation in the property values within the neighborhood;
5. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided;
6. That adequate measures have been or would be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets;
7. That the conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified by the City Commission pursuant to the recommendations of the Planning Board.

Permitting a building for a specialty clinic within the Amended Plat is not out of character with existing neighboring uses which included an outpatient surgery center and a retirement home.

Infrastructure existed to adequately provide service and access to the proposed clinic. The planned architectural features of the large building would make it an attractive and inviting facility.

Adequate off-street parking and maneuvering area for vendor and service vehicles would be provided together with landscaping to buffer vehicle use areas from neighboring residences.

As the anticipated development should have minimal impact on surrounding properties other than an increase in neighborhood traffic, the Planning Staff and Planning Board concluded the criteria referenced in Statute to be considered in conjunction with a rezoning are substantially met as are the criteria in Municipal Code to be considered in conjunction with issuance of a conditional use.

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the rezoning request on November 25, 2003. Other than Steve L'Heureux of L'Heureux, Page & Werner Architects, who spoke on behalf of the applicant, there was no public testimony provided at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Board passed a motion recommending the City Commission assign a zoning classification of "C" Residence Use, "C" Area District, with a conditional use for a medical facility to the portion of the Amended Plat of Blocks 1 and 3, First Addition to Great Falls Addition, that is being annexed to the City.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2869 on first reading and set a hearing for 7:00 p.m., March 2, 2004, to consider adoption of Ordinance 2869.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CONSENT AGENDA

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

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Planning Director Ben Rangel stated that the preliminary plat of Whispering Ridge Addition, Phases 4-6, consists of 43 proposed single-family residential lots located on the upper portions of the coulee immediately east of Mountain View Terrace Addition. LAMMS Corporation has submitted applications regarding the following:

1. Preliminary Plat of Whispering Ridge Addition, Phases 4-6, located in the E ½ of Section 17, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, Cascade County, Montana.
2. Rezoning each Phase of the Preliminary Plat as it is annexed to the City from the current County "R-1" Suburban Residential District to the City "A" Residence Use, "B" Area District.

The Planning Board on a 5 to 1 vote recommended the governing bodies approve the preliminary plat for Whispering Ridge Addition, Phases 4-6, and the accompanying Findings of Fact subject to meeting the conditions in the staff report.

Dwight Smith, 2040 32nd Street South, stated that as tax payers they were hoping that the Commission would be sensitive of protecting their property values so they were not changed reduced. He also requested formulated height restrictions. He stated that they looked to the City Government for protective measurements. That would make it a win-win for everyone involved.

Robert Haffner, 1916 Mountain View Drive, stated that other Montana cities already have height restrictions on hillside developments. He stated that restricting to two floors maximum structures and or thirty feet seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission approve the preliminary plat of Whispering Ridge Addition, Phases 4-6, and the accompanying Findings of Fact subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated by the Planning Board.

Commissioner Beecher stated that he did not see a need for height restrictions. He was satisfied with the easement structural set back requirements. The view loss posed by the new housing development for residents of Mountain View Drive is fairly remote.

Commissioner Rosenbaum stated that he had reviewed this and consulted topographical maps to aid his decision. Structures built at street level the natural grade would accommodate sixteen feet, a story and a half. There were only three lots threatened the view of existing neighborhood homes. He stated that there was not a lot of impact on views.

Commissioner Hinz stated that there was a fairness factor on both sides. The new zoning laws to be written in the next few months would include restrictions for hillside subdivisions.

Mayor Gray stated that the City should not get involved with the height restriction and that he supported the passage of plat.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Alan Frohberg's term expired December 31, 2003, and he was not eligible for reappointment. Therefore, it was necessary to appoint one new member.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission appoint Lyle Meeks as a new member of the City-County Health Board for a three-year term through December 31, 2006.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Jack King resigned from the Business Improvement District; therefore, it was necessary to appoint one new member to the board.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission appoint Phil Kizer as a member of the Business Improvement District to fill the remainder of a term through June 30, 2004; and serve a four-year term through June 30, 2008.

Mike Witsoe 510 11th Street South, asked if the downtown parking lot issue on First Avenue South was a dead issue and if it could be placed back in and approved without further public knowledge.

Mayor Gray stated yes, the sale of the downtown lot was dead issue and no, it could not be brought back up without public knowledge.

Mike Witsoe also asked if the local business people and employees could now rent the remaining parking spaces.

Community Director Mike Rattray stated that the parking spaces went back on the market.

ADJOURNMENT