Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Resolution 9505 annexes Skyline Park Addition, Phases 15 and 16, which consists of 31 single-family residential lots and segments of 2nd and 3rd Streets Northeast and 39th and 40th Avenues Northeast. Ordinance 2922 assigns a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District. The Annexation Agreement contains terms and conditions associated with annexation.

On March 26, 2002, the Planning Board held a public hearing and at its conclusion recommended the City Commission assign a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District, to Skyline Park Addition, Phases 15 & 16, upon annexation. The Planning Board held a meeting on June 14, 2005, and passed a motion recommending that the governing bodies approve the final plat, and approve the annexation of the property contained therein subject to the following conditions: entering into an annexation agreement, paying all fees, any errors or omissions be corrected and the final engineering documents are subject to approval by the Public Works Department.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9505 or Ordinance 2922. Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9505 and approve the final plat and annexation agreement all related to Skyline Park Addition, Phases 15 and 16.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2922.

Motion carried 5-0.

Acting Fiscal Services Director, Melissa Kinzler, reported that on July 5, 2005, the City Commission set an August 2, 2005, public hearing date to hear anyone wishing to speak for or against the Boulevard Maintenance Assessment.

The General Boulevard Area assessment for fiscal year 05/06 would be $289,725, the same amount assessed in FY 04/05. This would result in an assessment of $61.71 for an average lot of 7,500 square feet.

In order to legally provide for the necessary assessment support, State laws require City Commission hearings and passage of authorizing resolutions. MCA 7-12-4401 and 7-12-4428, authorize the City Commission to create and assess the costs of work, improvements, and maintenance to the owners of property within the boundaries of such districts.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. There being no one to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9485, Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher, Hinz and Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9485.

Motion carried 5-0.

Acting Fiscal Services Director, Melissa Kinzler, reported that on July 5, 2005, the City Commission set an August 2, 2005, public hearing date to hear anyone wishing to speak for or against the Portage Meadows Maintenance Assessment.

The Portage Meadows Area assessment for fiscal year 05/06 would remain at $19,786, the same amount assessed in FY 04/05. This would result in an assessment of $105.81 for an average lot of 4,503 square feet.

In order to legally provide for the necessary assessment support, State laws require City Commission hearings and passage of authorizing resolutions. MCA 7-12-4401 and 7-12-4428, authorize the City Commission to create and assess the costs of work, improvements, and maintenance to the owners of property within the boundaries of such districts.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. There being no one to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9486, Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher, Hinz and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9486.

Motion carried 5-0.

Acting Fiscal Services Director, Melissa Kinzler, reported that on July 5, 2005, the City Commission set an August 2, 2005, public hearing date to hear anyone wishing to speak for or against the Street Maintenance District Assessment.

The Street Maintenance assessment for fiscal year 05/06 would increase by 10 percent, which was recommended to finance street reconstruction projects; anticipated collections would total $2,170,435. This would result in an assessment of $60.99 for an average lot of 7,500 square feet.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. There being no one to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9487, Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9487.

Motion carried 5-0.

Acting Fiscal Director Melissa Kinzler reported that OCCGF 8.32.350 requires the Commission to adopt a resolution establishing rates to defray the costs of sanitation services for the fiscal year. All sanitation rates would increase by approximately 3 percent. These rates would go into effect August 3, 2005.

Staff proposes adjusting the sanitation rates to adequately provide sanitation service while covering the expenses largely due to the increase in fuel costs. The residential sanitation rates were increased $.25 per month for FY 03/04. The commercial sanitation rates were increased by 3 percent for FY 04/05. The proposed rates were included in the FY 05/06 budget.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. There being no one to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9507, Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9507, establishing sanitation service rates for FY 05/06.

Commissioner Hinz asked if Montana Waste Systems had raised their rates. Public Works Director Jim Rearden stated that Montana Waste Systems was $.40 per month lower than the City. They also are in the process of reviewing their rates.

Motion carried 5-0.

City Manager John Lawton, reported that in May 2003 the City hired the consulting firm Vierbicher Associates, Inc. to work with members of the community and City staff to develop the Land Development Code.

Numerous reasons drove the need and interest to conduct a thorough and comprehensive update of the City's existing land development codes which included:

1. The 1930 zoning code, with its multiple revisions, no longer met current development expectations and standards;
2. Related land development provisions were scattered throughout the city code book;
3. Ambiguous language within the current code needed to be clarified;
4. Repetitive provisions needed to be combined;
5. Errors in the zoning map needed to be addressed; and,
6. Additional tools needed to be created to help implement the planning goals, strategies and actions identified in the newly adopted Growth Policy, Transportation Plan, and Missouri River Urban Corridor Plan.

The proposed Code would combine all land development provisions into one portion of OCCGF and would be titled, "Title 17 - Land Development Code." In general, this effort would result in the following:

1. Updated definitions;
2. Updated administrative and enforcement procedures;
3. Updated zoning districts, uses, and standards;
4. Updated sign standards;
5. Updated subdivision and platting standards;
6. Updated parking and landscaping standards;
7. Updated floodplain and storm water management standards, and,
8. New provisions for transportation facilities, outdoor lighting, hillside development, and erosion control during site development.

Community involvement was a key component in the development of this proposed Code. The City Commission appointed two groups to work closely and directly with the consultant. These groups were:

1. The "Advisory Committee," consisting of a broad section of community leaders, special purpose groups and City staff; and,
2. The "Focus Group," consisting of land development code users, including realtors, architects, engineers, and land developers.

Vierbicher Associates also conducted stakeholder interviews and meetings with Neighborhood Councils, in addition to using the results of a public visual preference survey conducted for the Growth Policy. A public open house was held in October 2004 to unveil the proposed Code and to provide opportunity for individual discussion. Several presentations were also provided by staff to Neighborhood Councils, the Great Falls Homebuilder's Association, the Great Falls Realtor's Association, and the Great Falls Conservation Council. Numerous comments were received during the public comment period, including the Planning Board's public hearing.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Ordinance 2923 would amend the Official Code of the City of Great Falls (OCCGF) to create "Title 17 - Land Development Code" which would include a new and updated set of guidelines, requirements and standards to help govern zoning and physical growth and development within the City.

The draft Code has been available for public review and comments since the October 2004 open house, on the City's web site, at the Great Falls Public Library and at the City-County Planning Office.

On June 14, 2005, the Great Falls City-County Planning Board conducted a public hearing and unanimously passed a motion recommending that the Official Code of the City of Great Falls be amended to incorporate updated land development procedures, guidelines, standards and provisions to be titled as, "Title 17 - Land Development Code" and further recommended that the City Commission adopt Chapters 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32, 46, 54, 58, and 64, as presented or as amended per testimony received during the Planning Board public hearing.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open asking for any comments.

Melody Brown, 1019 9th Street South, Government Affairs Director for the Great Falls Association of Realtors, (GFAR) stated that they had concerns for private property rights of local property owners. She added the first concern were families that suffer a tragedy by losing their homes and everything in it. Once these families received help from the community and settled with their insurance company and go to rebuild they find out they have to fill out an application, attend several meetings and follow procedures of multiple items only to find out it could take up to two years to rebuild. As a result of the process, one family decided not to rebuild and move into another home. Ms. Brown stated the family now has to take care of the half lot, pay taxes and mow the property if they fail to the City would mow the property and charge the property owner $200 per hour. The property has devalued and the owners would get next to nothing for this property. Second issue: homeowners with half lots wishing to sell their homes would need to tell the buyer the property was on a non-conforming lot. This proposed zoning code devalues their property. Third issue: If homeowners had been out of town during the process of the new zoning code they may not know the rules have changed. She added the buyers suffer the loss of their home and find out they can not rebuild with out jumping through hoops so they sue the seller and the city. Ms. Brown stated that all the issues listed were possible and the families and the community would be losing.

Ms. Brown stated in June of 2005, she and GFAR attorney, Steve Potts, met with staff regarding comments provided by GFAR. She added that staff had revised the code since she sent her original letter regarding the Realtors' position on the zoning code. The language clarifying a "vacant or occupied nonconforming lot of record could be developed, redeveloped or expanded upon, provided the lot complies with all regulations and development standards" was added addressing the concern about half lots. She added the language appeared to change the absolute prohibition of redevelopment of half lots. Other applicable regulation and development standards were not definitively set out or defined and staff explained the reason for it was too many "what ifs" would not cover every potential situation. She added that other applicable regulations and development standards do pose some problems for property owners.

Ms. Brown stated the realtors had four issues with the proposed code. First, they have asked for identification of all lots, structures and uses that would become nonconforming with passage of the new zoning code. She added the realtors had asked for a map, overlaying the current zoning map which would identify parcels of property that were proposed to be zoned differently than the current zoning. She stated that the city responded it was too big of a project. Second, the GFAR thought the half lot issue had been worked out, the language referred to "applicable regulations and development standards" could trigger the 51 percent rule with regard to uses and structures. Third, the realtors are opposed to the 51 percent rule regarding structures and uses saying if a structure or use was 51 percent destroyed it could not be rebuilt or re-established. Ms. Brown added that the loss of value that would be suffered by property owners the realtors view this as an encroachment on private property rights. She also asked who determines what percent is destroyed. She added that the GFAR talked to an insurance agent who stated their company does not define losses by percents and where would the value be taken from; market value, insured value, or appraisal value?

Ms. Brown stated that the final concern was regarding conditional uses. The realtors were concerned about what the "right circumstances" might be and the average property owners might find this process difficult and time consuming requiring a minimum of two public hearings.

In conclusion, Ms. Brown stated the realtors would like to be part of the solution and propose a grandfather clause be crafted that would exempt existing properties with nonconforming uses and structures at the time of the passage of the proposed zoning code. She suggested that an advisory committee of community members be appointed to have input to solutions to the impact the current proposed zoning code would have on private property ownership rights. Ms. Brown asked the Commission to view the proposed zoning code that would impact the private property rights of a landowner and urged property owners to research how the changes would affect them. She added that as the proposed zoning codes stands the realtor stand in opposition to it.

Mayor Gray asked the Commission if they would like a response from staff regarding Melody Brown's questions or how they would like to handle the public hearing. Commissioner Beecher stated to have the input from the public first, and give a list of issues that would need to be addressed to staff.

John Martin, 1101 Durango Drive, representing Easter Seals/Goodwill, stated that they had occupied the property at 44th Street and Central Avenue for fifty years and that it was zoned for residential use. He stated the proposed zoning is for R-3, single family residential. He requested changing the proposed zoning classification from R-3 to M-1 zoning for the lightest option of mixed use.

Robert Mehlhoff, 407 9th Street Northwest, stated that he has a half acre lot with three trailers and was not sure where he stood with the proposed zoning code. He added that he could subdivide the area into three and a half lots with the current code, but, with the proposed zoning code, he would not be able to have the half lot. He asked if there would be an opportunity to meet with Planning Director Ben Rangel and the Commission to see how this new code would affect him. Mayor Gray stated that proposed zoning code was opened for suggestions and staff was available to meet with him to review his concerns.

Phyllis Hemstad, 106 6th Street NW, member of Neighborhood Council 2, questioned the map coloring on Parks and Opened Spaces and suggested the parks could be a different color to separate them out from the open spaces on the proposed zoning map. She added that the zoning planning group has been good to work with.

John Harding, 2709 Clover Drive, representing the Great Falls Home Builders, thanked staff for the effort they had put into the new zoning code. He stated they had concerns for the hillside development and opposed that chapter of the proposed zoning code. In Chapter 46, Mr. Harding recommended keeping covenants instead of housing code requirements. He stated he would like to work with staff and try to work the issues out.

Dave Campbell, 1034 17th Avenue Southwest, stated there needed to be more work toward improving the issues that were mentioned and to work with staff to solve them. He added there needed to be more community involvement and a balance of power needed to be in place between the community and staff.

Lorin Keller, 25 Comanche Trail, representing CasiNo, stated he found staff available when needed and thanked them for their time. He added the individual property rights needed to give way to the welfare of the community. This primary concern was the Great Falls International Airport zoning with type 1 and 2 zoning that allowed casino usage. Mr. Keller thought it had been agreed upon that type 1 and 2 zoning would not be allowed in the airport area, only accessory gaming. The other area of concern was to establish distance requirements between each casino and between residents and casinos. This requirement was in the interim code but not in the proposed code.

Debbie Dennis, 2033 32nd Street South, disagreed with Mr. Harding's comments regarding hillside developments. She added that the current residents with view property have the right to maintain their property value and be protected from new development by height restrictions. Without height restrictions, the property owner with the view is no longer considered a view property which depreciates the value of the current home. She supported the hillside standards.

John Hayes, 619 Carol Drive, representing the Cascade County Tavern Association, concurred with Mr. Keller on the zoning of type 1 and 2 casinos for the Great Falls International Airport. Also, he asked staff to consider changing the accessory use limits to 1000 square feet from 500 square feet and that the casino be allowed to occupy 30 percent of building rather then the 15 percent as in the proposed zoning code.

Mr. Hayes commented that state code addresses the casino issues in regard to the distances from schools and playgrounds. He added he was not sure how the residential issue could be addressed the way 10th Avenue South was structured.

Mr. Hayes also raised concern about how non-conforming taverns that were not located in a commercial zone of at least 50,000 square feet. He added that there were several bars that would be affected if 51 percent of their businesses were to be damaged by fire they would not be allowed to rebuild their businesses.

Mr. Hayes encouraged the Commission to pass the zoning code and that it might not be a perfect thing, but a work in progress. Time was important and urged the Commission to move ahead.

Robert Alfred, 2401 7th Avenue South, complimented staff for working together with the parties that were involved even though they did not always agree on issues. He added the concerns of health issues related to the sexually oriented businesses and also that the City needed to be more restrictive on the casino signage.

Cynthia Schulz, 2800 Terminal Drive, Airport Manager, stated the Great Falls International Airport needed zoning protections to be able to qualify for funding. She added in regards to the casinos, there was already one located in the airport and it was discreet.

Stuart Lewin, 615 3rd Avenue North, Attorney, candidate for Commissioner, stated the Missouri River Corridor zoning was inadequate due to limited conservation interest. He added the efforts toward the planning of the Missouri River Corridor could have been stronger with representation to fill the objectives for the Corridor. He stated that the City needed to protect the river and that the farther away the development from the river the better to be able to protect it. In conclusion, Mr. Lewin stated that the City had the beginning of the tools for the zoning code, but further discussion needed to be done and a committee needed to be set up to work on the zoning for the Missouri River Corridor.

Gloria Smith, 8 Cheyenne Drive, stated she objects to the fact that every time the City tries to do something the City has to pay someone for out-of-state advice. She added that the City needed to make sure not to leave any loop holes in the zoning codes. She also stated that the entrances to the City needed to be cleanup and protected. She added that the language on the reader board entering of the City was inappropriate and needed to be removed.

There being no one further to speak in support of or opposition to Ordinance 2923, Mayor Gray asked what the pleasure of the Commission was.

Commissioner Beecher asked for clarification that the August 16, 2005, meeting would not necessarily be the final public hearing that it could be continued. Mayor Gray stated that was correct.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioners Hinz and Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission continue the public hearing for Ordinance 2923 to the August 16, 2005, City Commission meeting.

Commissioner Beecher stated that there were several comments and ideas that were presented that needed to addressed and looked into. He added he had other questions that he would need to address to staff. Mayor Gray concurred with Commissioner Beecher and supported the motion.

Motion carried 5-0.

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

Motion carried 5-0.

Sharon Gerhart, 401 52nd Street South, asked for clarification on item 11 from the consent agenda, regarding property being sold, asking if it was real estate property. City Manager John Lawton stated that the item was equipment that was being prepared for auction, not real estate property. He added items that were no longer needed by the City, such as computer and other equipment that the estimated value of $1,000 or more, must be declared by the Commission to be surplus to allow the item to be auctioned. The money that is collected for the items would go back into the City budget.