Document Butte_doc_1840ff3396

i GREELEY-RACETRACK AREA PLAN DRAFT Prepared for amendment into the Butte-Silver Bow Growth Policy As a Neighborhood Plan Draft prepared December 8, 2010 For the Greeley-Racetrack Planning Area Steering Committee Cossitt Consulting - 503 Fifth Avenue NW - Park City, MT 59063 – [EMAIL REDACTED] Deleted: GREELEY Deleted: NEIGHBORHOOD Deleted: November 2010 Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- ii (Insert Council of Commissioners adoption into Butte‐Silver Bow Growth Policy here) ---PAGE BREAK--- iii PLAN PARTICIPANTS Butte‐Silver Bow Council of Commissioners ( Glen Granger Sheryl Ralph John Morgan Terry Schultz Dennis Henderson Wally Frasz David Walker Ristene Hall Dan Foley William Andersen Cindi Shaw Dave Palmer Butte‐Silver Bow Planning Board (list members here) Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area Steering Committee This plan would not have been possible without the dedicated participation of volunteer steering committee members who attended meetings for six months between June and December of 2010 and who also attended and facilitated small group discussion at town hall meetings: Doug Conway Tad Dale Craig Dessing Sandy Garrett John Habeger Jed Hoopes Dan McClafferty Edie McClafferty Christy McGrath Ed Randall Terry Schultz Gary Shea Jim Shive Town Hall Participants Thanks to all of those persons who attended town hall meetings in August and October and shared their thoughts and ideas with others. Butte‐Silver Bow Planning Department John Sesso, Steve Hess, Jim Jarvis Planning Consultants Cossitt Consulting Planning Team: Anne Cossitt, Cossitt Consulting Ken Market, MMI Planning Kim Olsen, O2Architects Jolene Rieck, Peaks to Plains Design Formatted: Number of columns: 2, Col #1 width: 2.75", Col #1 spacing: 0.5", Col #2 width: 2.75", Not Force equal column width Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: First line: 0.13" Formatted: Section start: Continuous Deleted: list members here) Deleted: Greeley Deleted: ¶ ¶ ¶ ---PAGE BREAK--- ii VISION A vision statement is a concise description of what a community desires for its future. It is the long‐term foundation for actions to be taken as part of the 20‐year plan The Greeley‐Racetrack Planning Area is primarily a residential neighborhood, a good safe and stable place for young families and older persons. The Greeley‐Racetrack Area is the eastern gateway to Uptown Butte, to current mining operations, the trailhead to Silver Bow Creek and was the historic to Columbia Gardens. Greeley‐ Racetrack residents and Continental Pit mining operations acknowledge their proximity to each other and work to understand and address issues of concern. There is pride of ownership in the neighborhood, a strong sense of community with a good system of well‐maintained infrastructure including streets, lighting, storm drainage, and sidewalks to serve the neighborhood for the long‐ term. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1: PLAN BACKGROUND PART 2: GREELEY‐RACETRACK PROFILE PART 3: PLAN FOR THE FUTURE Appendices A Additional Materials List of Acronyms Potential Funding Sources Imagine Butte Collaborative Standards for FHA Home Financing B Central Butte Survey Results C Technical Reports Population Land Use Housing Economy Parks Public Infrastructure Public Services Land Use Regulations D Steering Committee Meetings and Town Hall Meetings E Maps Deleted: GREELEY Deleted: Greeley Survey Results¶ Technical Reports (prepared for Profile)¶ Steering Committee Meetings¶ Town Hall Meetings¶ ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 PART ONE: PLAN BACKGROUND This part describes the overall purpose of the plan. It also describes the process by which the plan was created and how it is intended to be amended into the Butte‐Silver Bow Growth Policy. Purpose of this Plan This is a plan for the Greeley‐Racetrack Area, intended to be adopted by the Butte‐Silver Bow Council of Commissioners as a “Neighborhood Plan” amendment to the Butte‐Silver Bow Growth Policy, updated in 2008. This plan sets out the vision and goals for Greeley‐Racetrack. It also addresses desired future land use, intended to be a guide to future zoning changes. Authority for the Plan State laws (76‐1‐601 through 76‐1‐606, MCA) specify what should be included in a growth policy and the process for adopting and revising growth policies. State laws indicate neighborhood plans are an optional element of a growth policy, provided the plan is consistent with the growth policy. Specific requirements for what must be included in a neighborhood plan are not discussed in state law. The Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan conforms to state law. It is intended as a policy guide to the future. The plan is not regulatory and does not have the force and effect of law. However, zoning in Greeley‐Racetrack must be consistent with the plan as required by the Montana Planning and Zoning Act (76‐2‐304, MCA) Timeline for the Plan The Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan is intended as framework for growth and infill development over the next 20 years, through 2030. While it is expected that the plan will remain valid for the next 20 years, as conditions change periodic review of the plan will be necessary. Reviewing the growth policy every five years, as required by state law, should also trigger a review of the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan as well. Planning Area Boundaries The Greeley‐Racetrack planning area was defined by the Butte‐Silver Bow Planning Department in 2009. The planning area is bounded by Farrell Street, Continental Drive, Grand Avenue, and Texas Avenue. Just before finalizing their recommendation on the plan, the Steering Committee members agreed that the area should be called “Greeley‐Racetrack.” One member noted that calling it the Greeley Plan Area was confusing – and made it appear to some that the Plan Area was just the blocks adjacent to the old Greeley School. Long‐time residents agreed that there Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 were certainly racetrack associations in the Plan Area. Christina’s Cocina Café is in the former “Racetrack Restaurant” location (just a block off Continental at the corner of Howard Avenue and Silver Bow Boulevard). Relationship of this Plan to the Butte‐Silver Bow Growth Policy This plan is proposed to be adopted as an amendment to the Butte‐Silver Bow Growth Policy – 2008 Update. The Growth Policy is an extensive and well documented plan, with considerable detail on existing conditions and background information. This plan is intended to complement the Growth Policy by providing information specific to Greeley and to avoid repetition of material already in the Growth Policy. Neighborhood plans are required by state law to be consistent with the adopted Growth Policy. Adopting this plan into the Growth Policy will automatically make it consistent, however, there are no major inconsistencies between what is proposed in this plan and what is already in the Growth Policy. This plan does, however, provide more specific goals and objectives targeted for the Greeley‐Racetrack area. Relationship to Other Neighborhood Plans At the time work on the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan was initiated, there were no other neighborhood plans adopted into the Growth Policy. The Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan was developed as a neighborhood plan at the same time as the Central Butte Area Plan. The rest of urban Butte had not been mapped with neighborhood planning areas (for purpose of growth policy level planning) at the time this plan was developed. Planning Process The process for the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan was started in part by the Human Resources Council when they began working with Butte‐Silver Bow Community Development Department to develop a neighborhood plan for the area around Emma Park. In late 2009, the Butte‐Silver Bow Planning Department expanded the planning area around Emma Park to include a much larger area, described as “Central Butte,” and also initiated the Greeley‐Racetrack Area planning as well. In 2010, Butte‐Silver Bow contracted with the Cossitt Consulting team to provide technical support for the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan. Butte‐Silver Bow specified that the plan was to be completed within six months (June to December 2010). The Butte‐Silver Bow Council of Commissioners appointed members to a steering committee to guide plan development. The steering committee met once a month with the Cossitt Consulting team and Planning Department staff from June 2010 through November 2010. The steering committee’s recommended plan was submitted to the Butte‐Silver Bow Planning Board in December 2010. Deleted: ¶ Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 The steering committee hosted two public town hall meetings to gather public comments and ideas. The first town hall was held in August and the second was held in October. The steering committee developed a public opinion survey with guidance from Ken Markert of the consulting team. The survey was distributed to a random sample of 525 Greeley‐Racetrack residents in August 2010. A total of 235 surveys were completed and returned. The survey results are referred to often in this plan. The Butte‐Silver Bow Planning Board reviewed the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan submitted to them by the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area steering committee. The Planning Board held a public hearing before forwarding their recommendation to the Council of Commissioners. The Butte‐Silver Bow Council of Commissioners considered the recommendations from the steering committee, the planning board, as well as comments from the public, and adopted the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan into the Growth Policy, following procedures outlined in state law. Deleted: ¶ Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 PART TWO: GREELEY‐RACETRACK PROFILE This section provides a summary of the existing characteristics and projected future trends of Greeley‐Racetrack. Overview The Greeley‐Racetrack Planning Area is about 120 acres situated across from the active mining area. The Greeley‐Racetrack Neighborhood Area was and remains the northeastern edge of Butte’s contiguous southern expansion. It is a strong residential neighborhood located in the tree streets along the flats at the foot of the hill. It was bounded on the east by the Northern Pacific Rail line and on the west by the Silver Bow Creek. Mining activities now form its north and east edges. The Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area is a relatively new neighborhood at least compared to other areas of Butte that can trace roots back to the late 19th century. Neighborhood residents enjoy this as a quiet part of Butte, with a much lower crime rate than most of Silver Bow County. Greeley‐Racetrack is minutes from Uptown Butte, at the gateway of the non‐motorized trail system, and with easy access to the Interstate. Generally, the neighborhood has been stable in terms of population numbers for several decades. The area is transitioning as older residents vacate homes and new residents move in. Historical Background By 1916, the Greeley‐Racetrack area was a sparsely populated residential area with modest family homes. The core of the neighborhood was the Greeley school, constructed before the turn of the century. The area was relatively stable until 1955 when the Berkeley Pit opened. The opening of the Berkeley Pit resulted in the elimination of entire neighborhoods, including Meaderville, McQueens, and Dublin Gulch. Other neighborhoods on the Hill, such as Finn Town in East Butte, witnessed the loss of a majority of its buildings in anticipation of the expansion of the Berkeley Pit to the west. Many of the persons from these neighborhoods moved their families (and sometimes their houses) to the Greeley‐Racetrack area. The neighborhood experienced continual growth from the 1950s with infill of temporary housing in the form of mobile homes. A trailer court was established along the eastern edge and manufactured housing joined the mix at some point. Residents of the Greeley‐Racetrack neighborhood were within walking distance to Columbia Gardens, the super‐sized community park treasured by Butte for its accessibility by streetcar, huge playgrounds, large shady picnic areas, baseball fields, lake, and an amusement park with no admission charge. The Columbia Gardens also was lost to the surface mining of the Berkeley Pit in the 1970s. Deleted: GREELEY Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Physical Setting The existing topography of the Greeley‐Racetrack Planning Area is quite flat, at the foot of Butte Hill. The topography to the north and east is shaped by past and current mining operations. Land Use Land uses in the Greeley‐Racetrack Planning Area are predominantly residential with commercial along Continental and Farrell and in scattered pockets in the interior. The existing mining operation is just across Continental Drive from the Planning Area. The Greeley‐Racetrack Planning Area includes 727 land parcels totaling 120 acres (excluding streets and alleys). As defined for property taxation purposes in February 2010, 69% of the total area is residential, 15% is commercial, 9% is vacant and 6% is tax‐exempt. Greeley School functioned as a neighborhood center for activities relating to school children, but since its closure in 2004 the building has remained vacant. The playground equipment is used, but in the past year, residents have become concerned about negative influences. When a cat was hung and killed in 2009, residents actively petitioned for change and a new functional use for the school area. The School District is working to find a purchaser for the building. Other neighborhood centers within the Planning Area basically consist of bars and restaurants. The Race Track Fire Hall and the Middle School, which are on the other side of Grand Avenue are also identified by residents as centers and meeting places. Vacant or abandoned property is not a major issue in this neighborhood. Vacant land can be found along the north edge of this neighborhood along the transportation corridor but within the neighborhood there are only a few minor vacant lots. Greeley‐Racetrack is zoned into four different districts under existing zoning. There is one commercial district and three different types of residential districts – single family, multi‐family and mobile home. Population Total population in the Greeley‐Racetrack Neighborhood was 1,429 persons in the year 2000. Population had been declining in Butte and throughout the county since 1920, when county population peaked at 60,313. By 2000, total county population had declined by more than one‐third. By comparison, the population in the Greeley‐Racetrack area has been fairly stable. Although population in the county began to rise in 1990, most of the growth has been outside of the Butte urban area. Generally, household income in the Greeley‐Racetrack area is less than that of the county and the state of Montana. The area is mostly working class individuals. The poverty rate is about half that of Silver Bow County and the state of Montana. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Looking toward the future, Greeley‐Racetrack faces challenges for attracting new residents and serving the existing population. Housing Trends Housing in the area is mixed with remnants of the original modest Queen Anne, Victorian and Bungalow style site‐built homes next to simple ranch style homes, trailer homes and manufactured housing units. There is a high concentration of mobile homes in the Greeley‐Racetrack neighborhood and many of these are quire old. County‐wide, sixty percent of the mobile homes where constructed prior to 1976 when the National Manufactured Housing and Safety Standards took effect. These earlier units offered affordable alternatives to conventional stick built housing but they can be the most substandard, unsafe and energy consumptive housing choice. The current stock of manufactured housing now ranges from older unsafe energy consumptive units that have exceeded their useful life to durable, energy efficient homes constructed of similar quality to site‐built homes. Economic Conditions Businesses in the Greeley‐Racetrack area are primarily along the edges of Continental and Farrell, but there are a few other businesses scattered within the interior. There are two restaurants, a few bars, a couple of storage facilities, and Beyond Homes senior housing. The current mining operations at the Continental Pit to the north and east are the dominant industry in the area. Local Services Local public services include law enforcement, fire and emergency services, medical, education‐ schools, transportation services, library, solid waste collection, and senior and other services. Generally, residents in the Greeley‐Racetrack Planning Area are within one‐half to one mile of most of these services. The bus system loops on Texas Street and Grand Avenue, with a stop also at the Beyond Homes assisted living facility. The Transfer Center is located a few blocks west of the Greeley‐Racetrack Area and from there one can access several other bus routes. Most of the public services in the Greeley‐Racetrack Planning Area have adequate capacity for increased population. Public Facilities (Public Infrastructure) Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: west Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Public facilities include water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, sidewalks, and street lighting. Although Grand Avenue and the western portion are generally better served than the rest of the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area, overall, public facilities are in poor condition or inadequate. Most of the area does not have a storm drainage system, and flooding is an issue. There is inadequate water pressure on the eastern edge of the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area. Streets are deteriorating and so are sidewalks, where they exist. Natural Resources Greeley‐Racetrack is urbanized. Natural resources typically addressed in a plan include topics such as wildlife, wildlife habitat, streams and lakes, etc. that are not applicable here. Sand and gravel is another topic required by state law to be addressed in a growth policy (an addition to state law since the Butte‐Silver Bow Growth Policy – 2008 Update). Sand and gravel operations would typically be excluded under the zoning code, so even if such deposits exist in Greeley‐ Racetrack, they would not likely be excavated. Of course, the natural resources overshadowing all of Butte are the silver, gold, copper, molybdenum and other metals that have been at the heart of Butte’s title as “the richest hill on earth.” Mining and ore processing (including mills, concentrators, and smelters) produced tremendous volumes of mining‐related waste, including waste rock, mill tailings, slag, and aerial smelter emissions. Mining wastes impacted water quality on the entire length of Silver Bow Creek. The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site, established in1987 includes the Butte Hill, underground mines beneath Butte Hill, Berkeley Pit, Berkeley Pit mining area, active Continental Pit operation, entire reach of Silver Bow Creek between Butte and Warm Springs and the Warm Springs treatment ponds. Within this large area of 85 square miles, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified13 Operating Units (OUs) or focus areas for remediation. Many of these areas are outside of the Greeley‐Racetrack Planning Area, but the following have some relevance for the Planning Area: The Active Mining and Milling Area OU, the West Side Soils OU, the Butte Mine Flooding OU, and the Priority Soils OU. The Active Mining and Milling Area OU consists of the permitted mine area operated by Montana Resources. The West Side Soils OU includes much of Silver Bow County including the Greeley‐Racetrack neighborhood but unlike the Butte Priority soils OU, which covers most of the Butte Hill in the area, the West Side Soils OU has not been funded for several years. The Butte Mine Flooding OU consists of waters within the Berkeley Pit, the underground mine workings hydraulically connected to the Pit, the associated alluvial and bedrock aquifers, and other contributing sources of inflow to the Berkeley Pit. The Berkeley Pit covers approximately 675 acres, is 1,780 feet deep, with a volume of 35 billion gallons of contaminated water. The U.S. EPA, Montana DEQ, and Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) agreed to a critical water level of 5,420 feet in the Berkeley Pit (water not to exceed that level). The Butte Priority Soils OU consists of a five square mile area that includes Butte and a small portion of the Greeley‐Racetrack Planning Area in the northwest corner. The focus of this OU is contamination from mining and ore‐processing wastes in the form of mill tailings, waste rock, slag, and smelter fallout. Considerable progress has been made toward clean‐up. Contaminated soils on properties with large quantities of exposed contaminants have for the Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 most part been addressed. Now, a major focus is to identify properties where contaminants may be recently exposed (such as excavations, or renovation of buildings), where individuals may particularly at risk, and to begin the work of sampling all residential properties for contaminants, per the Residential Metals Abatement Program. Another site of concern is the Parrott Tailings, located just to the west of Greeley‐Racetrack. This is the subject of the Consent Decree negotiations, which will determine how to address contaminated groundwater in the area of the Civic Center and Albertson’s grocery complex. Parks and Open Space Within the boundary of the Greeley‐Racetrack Neighborhood planning area, no park land exists. However, within one block of the boundary, two parks are within walking distance of some parts of the neighborhood. Racetrack Park is classified as a neighborhood park and consists of 1.24 acres of land, the largest park in that classification. The park contains amenities such as a half basket‐ball court, an ice skating rink, picnic area and playground. Clark Park is considered a community park, with 15.66 acres and consists of a full basketball court, volleyball court, group picnic area and restrooms. Clark Park is the site of a new aquatic splash park in 2010. Elementary schools often provide similar needs as neighborhood parks. The former Greeley School contains outdated equipment and continues to decline in its use as a neighborhood park. This public site was not identified as a facility in the comprehensive park plan. SUMMARY Greeley‐Racetrack faces unique challenges for the future. Although housing prices are affordable and the area is close to many amenities, proximity to the current mining operations makes it a tough sell for attracting new residents. The Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area has seen almost no public infrastructure improvements for decades and repair and upgrades are becoming increasing critical. Residents were encouraged to see local government initiate the Greeley‐Racetrack Neighborhood Plan. This plan is an attempt to solidify a strategic approach to positive change. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 PART THREE: PLAN FOR THE FUTURE This Part introduces the Town’s vision statement and planning goals, which describe what Greeley‐ Racetrack should strive to be in the future. Supplementing these goals are detailed “planning strategies” that outline specific policies to adopt and actions to undertake to accomplish the goals. In addition, a future land use plan provides a geographic perspective of the desired future of Greeley‐Racetrack. This part concludes with a priority action plan that lists specific actions to begin in the first year of the plan. VISION AND PRIMARY GOALS Vision for Greeley‐Racetrack’s Future A vision statement is a concise description of what a community desires for its future. It is the long‐term foundation for actions to be taken as part of the 20‐year plan. The Greeley‐Racetrack vision statement is the result of discussions at steering committee meetings and town hall meetings regarding what people value most about Greeley‐Racetrack, what they would most like to retain for the future, and what most needs to be changed. Greeley‐Racetrack Vision Statement: The Greeley‐Racetrack Planning Area is primarily a residential neighborhood, a good safe and stable place for young families and older persons. The Greeley‐Racetrack Area is the eastern gateway to Uptown Butte, to current mining operations, the trailhead to Silver Bow Creek and was the historic to Columbia Gardens. Greeley‐ Racetrack residents and Continental Pit mining operations acknowledge their proximity to each other and work to understand and address issues of concern. There is pride of ownership in the neighborhood, a strong sense of community with a good system of well‐maintained infrastructure including streets, lighting, storm drainage, and sidewalks to serve the neighborhood for the long‐term. Primary Goals The primary goals are short statements clarifying direction and addressing key issues needed to achieve the vision. The overarching theme of the goals is to revitalize Greeley‐Racetrack in a Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 way that does not compromise quality of life for residents and that retains the integrity of the national historic district. The goals and overarching themes are consistent with the Butte‐Silver Bow Growth Policy – 2008 Update. The Greeley‐Racetrack Plan is based on the following primary goals, Goals A through . The goals interrelate and overlap with each other. It is important to consider each goal within the overall context of the Vision Statement and the other goals. Because the goals are so connected, they have not been assigned any priority order in the following list. GOAL A: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE Bring water supply system, storm water sewer system, streets, sidewalks, alleys, and public lighting up to acceptable urban standards and maintain and upgrade as needed. GOAL B: HOUSING Improve the overall desirability of Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area as a place to live with affordable, quality homes. GOAL C: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Encourage a neighborhood that is buffered from mining operations, that is predominantly single family residential with neighborhood commercial along Continental and Farrell. GOAL D: ECONOMY Revitalize the Greeley‐Racetrack economy with more commercial retail activity compatible with residential uses. GOAL E: COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELL‐BEING Foster a positive community character, promote public safety, reduce crime and nuisances, and improve overall appearance of the Greeley‐Racetrack Neighborhood. GOAL F: TRANSPORTATION Encourage pedestrian‐friendly neighborhoods, with good access to public transportation. GOAL G: HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS Involve the Greeley‐Racetrack Neighborhood as part of the interpretive story of and tourism related to Butte’s history and current mining activities. GOAL H: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT Encourage citizen involvement in the implementation of the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan and access to information and assistance from Butte‐Silver Bow government. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 GOAL I: ACTIVE MINING OPERATIONS Greeley‐Racetrack residents and Continental Pit mining operations acknowledge their proximity to each other and work to understand and address issues of concern. Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 PLANNING STRATEGIES The Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan is a comprehensive, long‐range plan intended to guide growth and development in Greeley‐Racetrack. The Vision Statement is a short declaration of what Greeley‐Racetrack will strive to be. The Primary Goals further define how to achieve the vision, but are still fairly general. More detail is needed to explain how to achieve the goals and vision. The Planning Strategies of this section provide that detail. The Planning Strategies and the Future Land Use Plan (in the next section) are the main action steps and policies for the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan. The Future Land Use Plan provides specific guidance for future zoning and incorporates elements of the goals and planning strategies. This section on Planning Strategies provides a re‐statement of each goal. Following each goal, a context is provided in the form of a brief discussion of the rationale or background for the goal and identification of issues leading to the specific planning strategies. The context reflects comments from the Greeley‐Racetrack Steering Committee and from town hall participants, resident opinion survey results, and the inventory analysis conducted by the Cossitt Consulting team. Following the discussion of context, are the objectives (desired results for each goal), and the specific Planning Strategies. Implementation of goals and objectives is predicated on the following guiding policies: Guiding Policies: Policy Identify all grant and existing funding sources possible and use these first. Policy Consider new or additional taxing only as needed, and tied to specific objectives and outcomes. Policy Projects will be managed openly, with information available to the public and public involvement encouraged. Policy Encourage a can‐do and positive attitude about the community. Policy Efforts that focus on a specific area, such as a block or group of blocks, will be the priority rather than addressing single efforts scattered across the Planning Area. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE GOAL A: Bring water supply system, storm water sewer system, streets, sidewalks, alleys, and public lighting up to acceptable urban standards and maintain and upgrade as needed. CONTEXT The streets in the neighborhood are very wide and are built to a rural standard. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are generally non‐existent and create havoc with storm water runoff in much of the Plan Area. The road network is well‐connected with easy access to Continental, Farrell, and Grand. Grand is in good condition but most other streets and alleys are not. The storm sewer system is undersized, silted in, or no longer at the low points to collect water. Improvements to streets, alleys, or sidewalks are potentially subject to storm damage or have potential to block storm water and create problems elsewhere. It makes little sense to provide long‐term improvements to streets, alleys, and sidewalks until the storm sewer system has been engineered with grades and elevations. The potable water system supply has low pressure in some areas. Intersection lighting is inadequate for transportation and general neighborhood safety. One‐quarter of all survey respondents listed poor condition of streets and sidewalks as the most negative feature of the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area. Town hall participants indicated that they would be willing to consider Special Improvement Districts for taxation to fund improvements. OBJECTIVES  Streets are designed to minimize storm water runoff  Storm sewer system is in place and functions well Streets, sidewalks, and alleys are in good repair and well‐maintained  Infrastructure facilitates a pedestrian‐friendly environment PLANNING STRATEGIES Strategy A‐1: Initiate a capital improvements program that inventories condition of streets, sidewalks, alleys, street lighting, curb, and gutter, stormwater facilities, water distribution, and sewage collection systems and prioritizes projects in a five year implementation plan with annual budget review and status report. Strategy A‐2: Develop a storm water master plan, setting elevations for improvements such as gutters, drains, storm water retention areas, and sidewalks. Strategy A‐3: Inventory areas with inadequate water pressure and develop plan to address issues. Strategy A‐4: Use the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area as a case study for pedestrian scale alternative lighting. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Strategy A‐5: Encourage Butte‐Silver Bow to develop an infrastructure policy that promotes infill in Greeley when extending city water, sewer, and city‐maintained streets to currently un‐ served areas, such as new subdivisions on the urban fringe. Strategy A‐6: Expand use of CDBG and CTEP and other available funding for infrastructure in Greeley‐Racetrack. Strategy A‐7: Encourage residents to provide information and priorities for the Butte‐Silver Bow Transportation Plan Updates and presentations to the Transportation Committee. Strategy A‐8: Use Greeley‐Racetrack as a case study for alternative approaches for reducing amounts of storm water runoff with options such as reducing width of paved streets, vegetated areas for storm water detention, etc. Strategy A‐9: Research potential funding sources for infrastructure and if funding is insufficient, conduct a feasibility study for a Special Improvement District. Strategy A10: Stuart Street and Howard Avenue are priority streets for infrastructure improvements because they function as arterials in the Greeley‐Racetrack area. Deleted: extension Deleted: before Deleted: funding Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 HOUSING GOAL B: Improve the overall desirability of Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area as a place to live with affordable, quality homes. CONTEXT The Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area contains mostly single‐family homes and mobile homes with a few multi‐family complexes. Many mobile homes were constructed prior to 1976 and do not meet today’s safety requirements. Most participants who commented on mobile homes indicated that the trailer parks were a detriment to the neighborhood. Many of the existing site‐built homes are several decades old and could use repair or upgrades. In order to attract families to the neighborhood, modern construction details are desirable. Nearly two‐thirds of all survey respondents wanted to encourage traditional (site‐built) one‐ family homes as a preferred housing type. One‐quarter of the respondents said that apartment buildings and town houses or condominiums should be encouraged, while only twelve percent wanted to encourage mobile homes. Survey respondents also saw improving older housing as a needed improvement; 38% listed it as a high priority. Overall, participants would like to see Greeley‐Racetrack as a more desirable housing market (to buy and to sell) and many also indicated that there should be fewer mobile homes. Some participants would like to see mobile homes excluded from the area, while others agree that fewer would work, as long as they were on lots of similar size to site‐built homes and the mobiles were of better quality. OBJECTIVES  Overall condition of residential properties is improved  Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area is predominantly single‐family homes  Residences are safe and affordable PLANNING STRATEGIES Strategy B‐1: Identify programs and resources for residents to repair, upgrade, and maintain existing homes. Strategy B‐2: Create incentives for owners of older mobile homes to replace units with housing that meets HUD safety standards. Strategy B‐3: Work with Habitat for Humanity and others to lower the cost of new site‐built homes on vacant lots. Strategy B‐4: Adopt zoning changes (identified in the future land use section) that promote more single family housing. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Strategy B‐5: Adopt zoning changes (identified in the future land use section) that encourage the easternmost area of the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area to transition from high density mobile home parks to affordable town homes or multi‐family units. Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS GOAL C: Encourage a neighborhood that is buffered from mining operations, that is predominantly single family residential with neighborhood commercial along Continental and Farrell. CONTEXT The Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area is predominantly residential, with some commercial development along the northern and eastern fringes (Continental and Farrell) and some scattered within the interior as well. Existing housing consists of a mix of site‐built homes and mobiles, many of which are older and do not meet HUD safety standards. The northern and eastern portion of the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area is zoned for mobile homes and includes the greatest numbers and densities of mobile homes. Mobile homes are also scattered in other locations as well. Residents generally would like to see more traditional family homes in the area instead of mobiles. Having nearly half the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan area zoned for mobile homes is counter‐productive to that end. Regardless of any potential zoning changes, existing uses would be allowed or “grandfathered.” Eventually, older mobiles are likely to be abandoned at some point. Nationally, there is a movement to allow manufactured housing (mobiles that meet HUD standards) and modular homes (pre‐built homes assembled on‐site) in residential areas as long as they meet requirements for zoning and design requirements. Zoning districts that exclude manufactured and modular homes as well as zoning districts specifically for mobile homes and trailer parks can create and sustain barriers to social equity. Manufactured homes are a major source of housing for young families, first time homebuyers, older adults, and others with limited income. In 1999 one‐third of all new single‐family homes sold in the U.S. were factory built. In 2001, the American Planning Association adopted a policy guide on manufactured housing and specifically recommended “use of manufactured homes where residential uses are permitted consistent with locally adopted plans, ordinances, and design requirements and the HUD Code….” Design requirements could address roof types pitched), type of siding, foundation, square footage, lot requirements, etc. that would allow for manufactured or modular housing that would be consistent with existing traditional site‐built housing in the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area. Most of the area is already developed with few vacant lots except along Continental and Farrell. Continental and Farrell have scattered commercial and pockets of residential. Immediately to the north and east on the other side of Continental and Farrell are the current mining operations. These operations have a big visual impact on the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area and are also the subject of dust, odor, and noise. Participants in the planning process who live in the area support a greenbelt of trees on both sides of Continental and Farrell. The greenbelt would mitigate the visual effects of the mining operations and create a buffer between the mine and the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area. The vacant Greeley School is deteriorating . Fifty‐nine percent of the survey respondents listed the Greeley School property as a priority issue. Residents are concerned that the vacant Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 building promotes blight, vandalism, and crime. Generally it is agreed that doing something with the property will be better than just allowing the building to remain vacant. OBJECTIVES  The Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area is seen as a desirable residential location, with affordable homes in a quiet area.  Greenbelt buffer visually separates the neighborhood from the mining operations  Vacant properties along Continental and Farrell are developed with attractive commercial enterprises that serve the neighborhood  Greeley School property is actively used in some way that is compatible with surrounding residential properties PLANNING STRATEGIES Strategy C‐1: Revise zoning as identified in the Future Land Use Plan. Strategy C‐2: Encourage re‐use of the Greeley School property so it does not become a detriment to surrounding properties. Strategy C‐3: Implement housing design guidelines to apply to all new construction and to new installation of modular and manufactured housing. Strategy C‐4: Develop and implement a landscape enhancement plan with treed greenbelts for both sides of Continental and Farrell. Strategy C‐5: Greeley School property is actively used in some way that is compatible with surrounding residential properties and residents input to any decision regarding the school is to be encouraged and sought after. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: consistent Deleted: ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 ECONOMY GOAL D: Revitalize the Greeley‐Racetrack economy with more commercial retail activity compatible with residential uses. CONTEXT When asked about the most positive features of the neighborhood, one‐quarter of all respondents indicated the proximity to both uptown and downtown. The Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area is bounded on two sides by Continental and Farrell, one of the main access points to/from Uptown Butte. This is a strong feature that can be used to attract new businesses to the area that can serve both the neighborhood and others as well. The area has only a few scattered businesses now, some that are in the interior and others along Continental and Farrell. There is already a dedicated following of persons who do not live in the neighborhood to some of these establishments, such as Christina’s Cocina Café that draws crowds from around the area. OBJECTIVES  Vacant areas along Continental and Farrell have been developed with neighborhood commercial that focuses “inward” to the neighborhood rather than strip‐type development that detracts from the residential neighborhood  Entry points into the neighborhood have attractive consistent signage indicating commercial locations PLANNING STRATEGIES Strategy D‐1: Identify and market incentives for neighborhood commercial development adjacent to Continental and Farrell Strategy D‐2: Develop a distinctive consistent look for signage on Continental‐Farrell that advertises location of businesses and other features trailhead) and is easily recognized without detracting from the greenbelt buffer. Signage could be unique to Greeley‐Racetrack and as a by‐product create positive awareness of the neighborhood. Formatted: Font: Not Bold Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: . Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Strategy D‐3: Utilize a youth apprentice program to involve youth in local businesses.¶ ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELL‐BEING GOAL E: Foster a positive community character, promote public safety, reduce crime and nuisances, and improve overall appearance of the Greeley‐Racetrack Neighborhood. CONTEXT In response to a question about the most negative features of the Greeley‐Racetrack neighborhood, one‐fifth of the responses listed properties and fourteen percent listed proximity to the mine. Issues with the mine include dust, noise, odor, and visual impacts. Town hall participants indicated issues with abandoned vehicles, junk vehicles, and vacant homes. Steering committee participants noted that some improvements had been made recently regarding junk vehicles. When asked to identify priority of needed improvements, 57% of survey respondents identified eliminating junk vehicles as a high priority, ranking it 3rd in the list of high priority items. More police patrols ranked fourth on the list. Although Greeley‐ Racetrack has one of the lower crime rates in Silver Bow County, the county overall has a high crime rate compared to other Montana counties. Participants at the town hall meetings and write‐in comments pointed out problems with barking and loose dogs. OBJECTIVES  Greeley‐Racetrack is cleaner, with fewer vacant/abandoned houses, properties and junk vehicles  Greeley‐Racetrack is safer, with less crime  The area is quieter and dogs are leashed or in fenced yards  Greely is an attractive, inviting location for residents and visitors  Youth better understand the neighborhood and are a part of community improvements PLANNING STRATEGIES Strategy E‐1: Raise awareness for citizens on what to watch for and report to law enforcement. Notify police of criminal activity. Strategy E‐2: Review Community Decay Ordinance (and any other ordinances related to junk and weeds) and recommend changes as needed to have an ordinance that will both meet its intended purpose and be enforced. Strategy E‐3: Review ordinances regarding barking and loose dogs for effectiveness, revise as needed and enforce. Strategy E‐4: Encourage beautification through landscaping with involvement from master gardeners, MSU‐Extension, and recognition of successes annual contest or awards program) Strategy E‐5: Develop a youth apprentice program that employs youth to assist with landscaping and beautification projects, such as yard work for seniors or those with disabilities. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Strategy E‐5: Work with the mine to identify issues and possible mitigation for noise, odor, dust, etc.¶ ¶ Deleted: 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Strategy E‐6: Provide for community clean‐up days with large item pick‐up and other activities to clean up the neighborhood. Build on existing events such as Beautify Butte, Earth Day, and Alley Rally. Strategy E‐7: Involve youth and youth organizations in area clean‐up and beautification projects Strategy E‐8: Street upgrades and new commercial development includes design for trees and vegetation. Strategy E‐9: Encourage private landowners to plant trees, maintain yards, clean up weeds and junk. Strategy E‐10: Create and distribute a short brochure or flier that explains the most common code violations for weeds, junk, etc. and how to address. Utilize Butte‐Silver Bow website as an information access point. Strategy E‐11: More city street‐sweeping and street‐washing to clean up dust and dirt. Deleted: 7 Deleted: 8 Deleted: Work with juvenile probation and youth court to involve youth offenders Deleted: . Deleted: 9 Deleted: 10 Deleted: 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 TRANSPORTATION GOAL F: Encourage pedestrian‐friendly neighborhoods, with good access to public transportation. CONTEXT Participants in the planning process indicated several transportation‐related issues. Several persons indicated need for better bus service in the neighborhood. Many were interested in utilizing the federal funding for “Safe Routes to School” to identify priority routes for walkers and bicyclists. (Note that federal fund is limited to elementary school routes only.) Sidewalks and cross walks were also identified as needs. Fencing that obscures vision for drivers at intersections was identified as a problem. Stop signs may be needed at some location. There are few traffic signs (speed limit signs, stop signs, etc.) in the Greeley‐Racetrack Neighborhood. City streets are an important part of the livability of our communities. They ought to be for everyone, whether young or old, motorist or bicyclist, walker or wheelchair user, bus rider or shopkeeper. But too many streets are designed only for speeding cars. Instituting a complete streets policy ensures that transportation planners and engineers consistently design and operate the entire roadway with all users in mind ‐ including bicyclists, public transportation vehicles and riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. More information on complete streets is available at http://www.completestreets.org . OBJECTIVES  Greeley‐Racetrack is safe for pedestrians and bicyclists  Walking and biking are encouraged as alternative modes of transportation for individual health  Those who must rely on public transportation are adequately served PLANNING STRATEGIES Strategy F‐1: Initiate a safe routes to school program with school travel plan for the elementary and middle schools that serve Greeley‐Racetrack. Strategy F‐2: Create safe route connections for children to access Clark Park and Race Track Park. Strategy F‐3: Identify and prioritize locations where traffic signage is needed to stop or slow traffic, where cross‐walks are necessary, and where actions are needed because vision is obscured by fences and other obstructions. Strategy F‐4: Conduct an analysis of existing use and a feasibility study for public bus transportation in Greeley‐Racetrack, focusing on whether service should be increased here. Strategy F‐5: Street upgrades and repair should conform to a complete street policy that addresses use of streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, bus‐riders, shopkeepers, as well as cars and motorized vehicles. Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Not Bold Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: “S Deleted: R Deleted: S Deleted: ” Deleted: Greeley Deleted: and for the middle school Deleted: Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS GOAL G: Involve the Greeley‐Racetrack Neighborhood as part of the interpretive story of and tourism related to Butte’s history and current mining activities. CONTEXT Greeley‐Racetrack is the neighborhood closest to the current mining activities. The Greeley‐ Racetrack neighborhood also exists in large part because of relocation of residents as the Berkeley Pit expanded. Up until the 1970s, the Columbia Gardens outdoor recreation facilities and amusement park was the focal outdoor park of Butte. It was located just beyond the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan area’s northeast corner. Participants at the town hall in October were interested in actions that could highlight Greeley‐Racetrack’s part of Butte’s history. OBJECTIVES  Greeley‐Racetrack is enhanced with more interpretation and public displays that attract visitors  More people see Greeley‐Racetrack as a positive area to live and visit PLANNING STRATEGIES Strategy G‐1: Develop a “View‐Point” park, the remnant of Farrell Street that extends beyond Continental, as a place to view active mining operations and former location of Columbia Gardens. Provide interpretive signage about the area and Greeley‐Racetrack neighborhood. Strategy G‐2: Extend the trolley loop to a turn‐around or stop at “View Point” park. Strategy G‐3: Develop the proposed Butte‐Silver Bow Scenic Drive, which includes Continental and Farrell. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: that overlooks the area of Deleted: and p Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Strategy G‐3: Consider use of the Greeley School property as a location for a Heritage Center.¶ ¶ Deleted: 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT GOAL H: Encourage citizen involvement in the implementation of the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan and access to information and assistance from Butte‐Silver Bow government. CONTEXT Butte‐Silver Bow does not have an active network of neighborhood organizations. Such groups can be an extremely effective tool in promoting positive change in the neighborhood. Without strong support and follow‐up from local residents, it is more likely that the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan will sit on the shelf rather than be implemented. Greeley‐Racetrack area residents feel that their part of Butte has been neglected or forgotten by local government for decades. The processes and criteria for allocating public funds is not clear to local residents, thus making it more difficult for them to access resources needed to address the issues in this plan. Neighbors who attended town hall and steering committee meetings became active in planning efforts. Ed Banderob came to many steering committee meetings and began to hold neighborhood meetings as well. Mr. Banderob referred to this group as a neighborhood Manifestry cluster. This group appeared quite interested in moving forward with a number of ideas. The steering committee considered Mr. Banderob’s request that the citizen group or neighborhood task force be labeled as an Alliance or Manifestry. Steering committee members agreed to retain the terminology as neighborhood group or task force in this Plan, recognizing that once established the group will establish its own identity and name. OBJECTIVES  Greeley‐Racetrack has an active neighborhood group, formally recognized and supported by Butte‐Silver Bow Government and consulted with on Greeley‐Racetrack issues  Local government funding sources and criteria are understandable and accessible to qualifying entities PLANNING STRATEGIES Strategy H‐1: Develop a neighborhood task force or group representing Greeley‐Racetrack, organized with bylaws, and officially recognized by Butte‐Silver Bow government with a Memorandum of Understanding. Neighborhood group meets regularly to discuss issues affecting Greeley‐Racetrack, to coordinate ideas, and to monitor progress on the Greeley‐ Racetrack Area Plan. Neighborhood group shares meeting results with Council of Commissioners. Strategy H‐2: Butte‐Silver Bow supports Neighborhood Task Force as needed with a Community Organizer staff position. Strategy H‐3: Council of Commissioners holds a listening session at least once a year in the Greeley‐Racetrack Neighborhood to hear neighborhood concerns. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: ¶ Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 Strategy H‐4: Community Development Department develops and distributes information on the various funding sources available through the local government CTEP, CDBG, NRD, etc. – see list elsewhere in this plan), including information on application deadlines, criteria for selection, and accountability and performance standards for fund recipients. Deleted: URA, RRA, ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 ACTIVE MINING OPERATIONS GOAL I: Greeley‐Racetrack residents and Continental Pit mining operations acknowledge their proximity to each other and work to understand and address issues of concern. CONTEXT The Continental Pit operations have a direct influence on the Greeley‐Racetrack neighborhood. It creates some issues for residents, including complaints about odor, dust, noise, and visual effects. OBJECTIVES  Open lines of communication between residents and Montana Resources to inform and educate about needs of both parties  Identify where improvements can be made to address concerns PLANNING STRATEGIES Strategy I‐1: Neighborhood Task Force meets as needed with Montana Resources to discuss concerns and work toward solutions. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: quarterly Deleted: on a quarterly basis Deleted: Strategy I‐2: Model the exchange of ideas and process similar to a successful ongoing effort, such as the Conoco Phillips‐South Side Neighborhood Task Force in Billings, Montana. ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN The Future Land Use Plan section is a visual guide and narrative of desired future land use consistent with the Greeley‐Racetrack Planning Area vision statement and goals. It indicates how the area should be redeveloped over the next 20 years by showing locations and characteristics of the preferred land forms and uses. The Future Land Use Plan consists of the Future Land Use map and the Future Land Use Designations. This section contains the Future Land Use Designations which describes the future land use areas depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Each area depicted on the map is individually discussed and development specifications for each area are also presented. The Future Land Use Plan is intentionally fairly general. Boundaries are not meant to be distinct. It is a guide for future changes to zoning, but it is not as precise as a zoning ordinance. Because the proposal is to differentiate commercial from residential, the future land use plan could be implemented with traditional zoning districts (rather than form‐based code that provide for mixed uses). Design guidelines for residential are suggested below as a means to include modular and/or manufactured housing that would be consistent with traditional single family design. Details about the exact types and forms of uses minimum lot sizes, setbacks, etc.), as well as the exact boundaries of areas, will be worked out in the zoning revision process. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Residential Residential areas on the Future Land Use Map are areas that are predominantly residential now. The area currently consists of a mix of multi‐family, single family, and mobile home zoning districts. There are a very few units of multi‐family in the approximate four‐block area zoned for multi‐family. The rest of the development in the multi‐family district is a mix of commercial uses (facing outward toward Farrell Street), a church, and the majority is single family residential. The area zoned for mobile homes includes a mix of traditional single family homes and mobile homes, interspersed with a few businesses. The area zoned for single family includes site‐built single family homes, with some mobiles and businesses interspersed. The future land use designation of “Residential” would include primarily traditional single family homes with front, back, and side yards. Duplexes can be successfully interspersed, provided the placement and design are compatible with the traditional single family appearance. HUD‐approved manufactured housing and modular housing can be allowed in the residential especially if it complies with basic design standards. Design standards would address such items as roof pitch, siding materials, foundation, etc. By creating guidelines that apply to all new residential construction, the standards will not be unfairly discriminatory to manufactured or modular housing only. The vacant Greeley School building is within the area proposed for residential land use. Typical uses acceptable within a residential district include parks and schools. How the Greeley school Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 will be used is not certain at this time, but zoning should be developed that considers uses for the school that are compatible with surrounding residential. Uses: Residential (with accommodation for other uses specific to Greeley School re‐use compatible with surrounding residential) Housing: Single family with some duplexes interspersed Setbacks: Setbacks to provide for front, side, and rear yards comparable to what is present now for most of the site‐built homes in the area Height: Residential‐style building heights up to two stories Parking: On‐site parking (driveways and garages) Pedestrians: High level of pedestrian accommodation ‐ sidewalks and pedestrian level lighting Multi‐Family Residential The area proposed for “Multi‐Family Residential” is in a mobile home zoning district at present. This area has some of the highest density of older mobile homes in the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area. The intent of the future land designation as multi‐family would be to facilitate transition into a location with affordable housing alternatives to high density mobile homes. Uses: Residential Housing: Higher density housing, such as row houses, town houses, and multi‐ family units Setbacks: Similar to setbacks for front and rear yards for “Residential,” sideyards on corners Height: Up to two stories Parking: Off‐street parking to be at rear of buildings screened from neighboring properties Pedestrians: High level of pedestrian accommodation ‐ sidewalks and pedestrian level lighting Neighborhood Commercial The neighborhood commercial is proposed for the areas along Continental and Farrell. Much of this area is vacant or with existing scattered commercial development. There is, however, an existing area of residential that lies roughly between Stuart and Adams, and another between Pine and Silver Bow that would most likely remain within the proposed “Residential” designation. These could be transitioned to commercial use in the long‐term if that was considered desirable by Greeley‐Racetrack residents. The intent of neighborhood commercial would be to have businesses that serve Greeley‐ Racetrack area residents and would include enterprises such as coffee shop, bakery, day care, hardware store, small market, beauty salon, accountant, attorney, etc. Others driving along Continental and Farrell to/from Uptown Butte may find these convenient as well. Street frontage along Continental and Farrell would be planted with trees to provide a visual barrier from current mining operations. Access to neighborhood commercial would be via Deleted: consistent Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 streets on the interior of the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area, to give an inward focus to the neighborhood. Allowing two story buildings in Neighborhood Commercial would augment the green buffer barrier of trees as separation from mining activities. If two stories are acceptable, possible second floor uses could include residential. Uses: Neighborhood level commercial Housing: None with possible exception of some residential on upper floors Setbacks: Buildings set close to sidewalks, shallow or no side yards Height: Up to two stories Parking: Off‐street parking to be at rear or side of buildings Pedestrians: High level of pedestrian accommodation ‐ sidewalks and pedestrian level lighting Entrances Entrances into the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan area would be enhanced with landscaping to highlight major access points into the neighborhood. Signage could also be incorporated into these entry points to identify key features, such as trailhead, commercial businesses, etc. Sign standards are encouraged to provide a consistent and appropriately sized appearance that passersby and visitors recognize. Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 PRIORITY ACTION PLAN The Priority Action Plan is the list of the highest priority action items to start working on in the first year after plan adoption. Some of the items on the list are simple tasks and can easily be completed in a year or less. Other action items are more complex and may take years to reach the intended objective. For those items, the Priority Action Plan identifies the first tasks to get the ball rolling in the first year. Each action item lists what agency will take the lead and primary responsibility for action. Partner agencies or organizations are listed as well. It also includes an approximate time‐table for completing the projects that will extend beyond a year, and identifies if an action requires ongoing activity. The most important ongoing activity for any plan is monitoring progress. If no one is watching the pot, the stew will almost certainly fail. For this reason, Butte‐Silver Bow government, neighborhood task force(s), and other participating partners should meet together to annually review accomplishments, celebrate successes, and set the workplan for the following year. The first year includes work on nine action items: 1. Initiate and enable neighborhood task forces. 2. Encourage use or re‐use of the Greeley School property. 3. Initiate storm water master plan. 4. Develop matrix of local funding sources. 5. Develop a capital improvements program for public infrastructure. 6. Revise zoning regulations. 7. Multi‐block focus for multi‐faceted approach to community enhancement. 8. Commissioner listening session. 9. Annually review the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan and update as needed. 1. Initiate and enable neighborhood task forces. This is a critical first step to ensuring that the plan is implemented as residents and local businesses are most likely to champion the efforts of this plan. In the last few months that this Neighborhood Plan was being prepared in 2010, neighbors were already beginning to meet on future projects. Butte‐Silver Bow Community Development and Planning Department should work together to identify a staff person to work with the neighborhood group, with the long‐term goal of creating a part‐ or full‐time position to provide assistance to neighborhood groups throughout all of Butte. Initial tasks will be to assiste with written structure and bylaws that will be formally recognized by Butte‐Silver Bow Council of Commissioners. Within the first year, the goal would be to develop a memorandum of understanding by the Council of Commissioners of how Butte‐Silver Bow government and neighborhood groups will coordinate. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: ten Deleted: <#>Begin work sessions with Neighborhood Task Force and Montana Resources.¶ Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 2. Encourage use or re‐use of the Greeley School property. This is an immediate need, as deterioration worsens with each day the building is not occupied or actively maintained. The lead agencies are the School District (who own the building) and the Council of Commissioners (who have responsibility for the portion of the property that is part of the city street system). The Neighborhood Task Force and individual citizen can be active about requesting information on status. 3. Initiate storm water master plan. Getting a storm water master plan is fundamental and other improvements such as streets and sidewalks cannot move forward until the storm water is addressed. The City Administrator will be the lead on this, working with the public works department. It could take a year or more to find the funding and finalize the plan, but CDBG funding would likely apply. Target should be to apply for and receive funding in year one, and to complete plan in no less than two years. 4. Develop matrix of local funding sources. If projects are going to be initiated from the ground‐up with involvement from residents and businesses within the area, people need to understand what funds are available through local government, such as TIFD funds (URA and RRA), CTEP, CDBG, and others. The Community Development Department will be the lead agency for developing and posting on the Butte‐Silver website a matrix of funding sources, timelines for applications, criteria for selection, and performance standards that apply once funds are awarded. Getting information out on funding sources and criteria will facilitate action on a variety of other action steps in this plan that frankly need resources to move forward. Once developed, the matrix will need to be reviewed at least annually and updated accordingly to reflect changes. 5. Develop a capital improvements program for public infrastructure. Developing a systematic approach to public infrastructure improvements is fundamental. Until there is a clearly written document that identifies improvements needed, and prioritizes them in five year increments, with annual budgets and work plans readily available to the public, addressing overall blight will be hampered because it will be impossible to plan ahead for other changes. In the first year of this plan, the City Administrator will be the lead agency for starting work on a capital improvements program, coordinating with department heads. Target is for a complete written program to be finalized within three years. Ongoing work after that will include annual work plans, each of which extends out five years. In the first year of the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan, Council of Commissioners will be the lead agency for developing a policy that would emphasize new developments in areas already served by infrastructure (such as Greeley‐Racetrack) and establishing limits for extensions to currently un‐served areas. 6. Revise zoning regulations. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: <#>Begin work sessions with Neighborhood Task Force and Montana Resources.¶ ¶ To start, the groups should set the framework for how meetings will be conducted, process for decisions, etc. Other existing similar programs, such as the Conoco Phillips – South Side group in Billings, can provide useful prototypes. Meet quarterly, identify projects, and encourage progress towards resolving conflicts.¶ Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 Work on this should begin in the first year and should include honing the parameters of each designation. It should also address residential design criteria (for new construction and for manufactured housing, modular housing if so desired to be consistent with traditional single family neighborhood Lead agency would be the Planning Department. Finalizing zoning changes could take two years. 7. Multi‐block focus for multi‐faceted approach to community enhancement. One of the guiding policies of this plan is that efforts focused on a specific area, such as a group of blocks, will be the priority rather than addressing individual isolated problems scattered across the Greeley‐Racetrack Plan Area. The concept is that if neighbors can rally together to work on most or all of the issues facing their small area that results will be more visible and more areas will want to do the same. At the town hall meeting in October 2010, participants identified an approximate 12‐block area as the priority. This area can be described as starting at the intersection of Farrell and Howard, south on Howard to Locust, east on Locust to Stuart, north on Stuart to Walnut, west from Walnut to Adams, north to Farrell, and then west on Farrell to Howard. This area includes the Greeley School. The task will be to mobilize citizens, identify needed changes, and begin specific actions to improve the area. Lead agency will be the Planning Department to identify grants or funding for a community organizer to assist the Neighborhood Task Force on this project. Initial work can begin in the first year, and can be as simple as a community clean‐up day. It will take several years to accomplish changes such as sidewalks, streets, etc, because the storm sewer master plan needs to be finished first. 8. Commissioner listening session. Council of Commissioners would hold first listening session in Greeley‐Racetrack Neighborhood within the first year of implementation. 9. Annually review the Greeley‐Racetrack Area Plan and update as needed. The Planning Department would be the lead agency and work with the Greeley‐Racetrack Citizen Task Force to prepare a written annual report and workplan for the following year. The report and workplan would be submitted to the Council of Commissioners for their approval. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley Deleted: Greeley ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Formatted: Left: Right: 0.5", Top: 0.5", Bottom: 0.5", Width: 11", Height: 8.5" Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Additional Materials 1 APPENDIX A: Additional Materials List of Acronyms Potential Funding Sources Property Standards for FHA Home Financing ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Additional Materials 2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act CDBG – Community Development Block Grant (see potential funding sources in Appendix A) CTEC‐ Citizens Technical Environmental Committee, a local committee in Butte CTEP – Community Transportation Enhancement Program (see potential funding sources in Appendix A) EPA‐ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HPC‐ Historic Preservation Commission, the local commission in Butte as authorized in municipal code HRC‐ Human Resources Council, agency that serves a multi‐county area including Silver Bow County NHLD‐ National Historic Landmark District NRD‐ Natural Resource Damages program OUs‐Operating Units of the Superfund Site PRPs‐ Potentially Responsible Parties, used in the context of environmental damages and the Superfund Site RRA‐ Renovation and Rehabilitation Agency, a TIFD in Butte TIFD‐ Tax‐Increment Finance District (refer to discussion in “Potential Funding Sources”) URA – Urban Revitalization Agency, a TIFD in Butte ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Additional Materials 3 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES The following is a review of some of the funding sources discussed by participants in the Central Butte Area planning process. It is not meant to be an exhaustive list. It does not, for example, include a variety of funding sources available for housing projects, most of which are well known to the entities that work on housing projects in Butte, such as National Affordable Housing Network. Big Sky Economic Development Trust Fund (BSTF). This is a state‐funded program created by the 2005 Legislature. It is designed to aid in the development of good paying jobs for Montana residents and promote long‐term stable economic growth in Montana. The BSTF program is designed to provide financial assistance for economic development job creation projects and planning grants for activities such as business plans, feasibility studies, preliminary architectural reports, and preliminary engineering reports. http://businessresources.mt.gov/bstf/default.mcpx Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). This is a federally funded grant program designed to help communities with their greatest community development needs. All projects must be designed to principally benefit low and moderate‐income families. In Montana the Montana Department of Commerce administers the portion of CDBG funding for communities with population of less than 50,000. The funds can be used for a wide variety of projects including planning and feasibility studies, capital improvements plans, housing and neighborhood renewal, economic development, and infrastructure and community buildings. http://comdev.mt.gov/cdbg/default.mcpx Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP). This is a Montana program that funds transportation related projects designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of Montana's intermodal transportation system. The CTEP allows for the implementation of a variety of non‐traditional projects. Eligible projects include such items as pedestrian and bicycle facilities (sidewalks, pathways, etc.), landscaping and beautification along transportation right‐of‐ways, preservation of historic sites linked to transportation, and others. http://www.mdt.mt.gov/business/ctep/ Metalliferous Mines License Tax (also referred to as Hard Rock‐ Metal Mines funds). Operators of metal mines in Montana pay a license fee to the state of Montana. License fee revenues are split between many recipients (see schematic this section). One‐quarter of the license fee revenues go directly to the county where it is split as follows: 1) at least 37.5% to the county hard‐rock mine trust reserve account, and the remainder split one‐third to the county, one‐third to the high school district, and one‐third to elementary school districts. The hard‐rock mine trust reserve account may only be used in the event of mine closure or 50% or greater reduction of workforce. The county’s one‐third remaining portion can be spent on qualifying planning and economic development activities. Natural Resource Damage Program (NRD Program). The Montana NRD Program manages funds from the settlements with ARCO for damages caused by mining and mineral processing operations in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin. In general, restoration funds can be used on projects that will improve water, fish and wildlife resources; public drinking water supplies; and ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Additional Materials 4 natural resource‐based recreational opportunities. http://www.doj.mt.gov/lands/naturalresource/ Parrot Tailings – Consent Decree. This is a potential funding source, currently under negotations at the time this plan was prepared. Participants in the planning process indicated that perhaps some of these funds could be used for renovation and revitalization projects. The source of the consent decree negotiations is the contaminated water from the Parrot smelter tailings. The Parrot ball field, county shops, and civic center are located in the tailings area. Initially it was determined that the tailings could remain in place and contaminated water could be captured but a Bureau of Mines and Geology study completed in 2010 indicates that some contamination is being carried BP‐ARCO has offered $28 million to Butte‐Silver Bow to clean up the area however they choose to do it. The Butte Natural Resource Damage Council, a citizen board, is charged with recommending what to do with the money. The Council Chairperson has indicated that there could be little left for infrastructure repair after the tailings are cleaned up. Safe Routes to School Program. This is a Federal‐Aid program of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Program provides funds to the States to substantially improve the ability of primary and middle school students to walk and bicycle to school safely. Each State administers its own program and develops its own procedures to solicit and select projects for funding. The program establishes two distinct types of funding opportunities: infrastructure projects (engineering improvements) and non‐ infrastructure related activities (such as education, enforcement and encouragement programs). http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferoutes Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP). The Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) awards matching grants to local governments for the construction of local infrastructure projects. TSEP is a state‐funded program that provides grants to lower the cost of constructing public facilities projects. The program was authorized by Montana’s voters with the passage of Legislative Referendum 110 on June 2, 1992. The law has been codified as Sections 90‐6‐701 through 90‐6‐710, MCA. At the time this plan was prepared, the governor had proposed using TSEP funds to balance the upcoming biennial budget. http://comdev.mt.gov/TSEP/default.mcpx ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Additional Materials 5 ALLOCATION OF METAL MINES LICENSE TAX REVENUES AMONG LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS HARD ROCK MINING IMPACT TRUST ACCOUNT $100,000 reserve account for adjudication expenses. By October 31, the Hard Rock Mining Impact Board transfers the fiscal year-end balance of the administrative monies in the Hard- Rock Mining Impact Trust Account proportionally to the affected Counties. Annual THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS allocates at least 37.5% and distributes the balance County’s HARD-ROCK MINE TRUST RESERVE ACCOUNT Following mine closure or a 50% reduction in mine workforce, the COMMISSIONERS allocate Up to 2/3 to the COUNTY County may expend $ to: * Retire capital debts, * Stabilize mill levies * Promote economic diversification and development, * Attract new industry, or * Provide cash incentives for expanding the employments base; OR County may make grants or loans to other local government units to assist with the impacts caused by the workforce reduction or mine closure. at least 1/3 proportionally among affected SCHOOL DISTRISTS in the county. Districts may expend $ for any purpose authorized by law. 1/3 to COUNTY County holds principal and interest in METAL MINES TAX RESERVE ACCOUNT until expended for planning and economic development activities 1/3 to affected HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS District holds principal and interest in METAL MINES TAX RESERVE ACCOUNT until expended for any purpose authorized by law. 1/3 to affected ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS District holds principal and interest in METAL MINES TAX RESERVE ACCOUNT until expended for any purpose authorized by law. Department of Revenue distributes METAL MINES LICENSE TAX: 25% to Impacted Counties. 57% to General Fund 8.5% to Reclamation and Development Grants Account 7% Hard Rock Mining Reclamation Account 2.5% to Hard Rock Mining Impact Trust Account to fund the Hard Rock Mining Impact Board. Annual ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Additional Materials 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Additional Materials 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Additional Materials 8 PROPERTY STANDARDS FOR FHA/HUD HOME FINANCING Key terms in this document: FHA – Federal Housing Authority, part of HUD HUD – Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Some participants in the Central Butte Area Plan process wanted more information on what is needed for a property to qualify for FHA home financing. FHA provides low interest loans. HUD also has some financing programs for “fixer‐uppers”. Information is available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/203k/203kabou.cfm FHA‐insured loans are available for manufactured housing. http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/title/repair.cfm FHA Loan ‐ Property Standards/Criteria With an FHA mortgage, there are several property conditions that must be met in order to have loan approval. Properties chosen by borrowers seeking an FHA loan undergo an inspection to determine the condition of the property and make sure it meets the health and safety standards set forth by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA). It ensures that the home is habitable and safe to be occupied. The inspection is paid for by the borrower and must be performed by a licensed FHA inspector. The complete standards are available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/handbooks/hsgh/4910.1/index.cfm The following information was provided by Gary Shea, of Shea Realty in Butte: Each property must comprise a single, readily marketable real estate entity. The property must be free of health and safety hazards. Utilities and other facilities should be independent for each unit and must include:  A continuing and sufficient supply of safe, potable water under adequate  pressure and of adequate quality for all household uses;  Sanitary facilities and a safe method of sewage disposal;  Heating adequate for health and comfort (even wood stoves are allowed)  Domestic hot water; and  Electricity for lighting and equipment – can be older system as long as it is safely functioning  Roof with remaining physical life of two years  Radon testing is not required (but is recommended) ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Survey Results i APPENDIX B: Greeley Survey Results ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Survey Results 1 GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Prepared for: The Greeley Neighborhood Plan Steering Committee and The Butte‐Silver Bow Planning Department Prepared by: Ken Markert, AICP MMI Planning Cody, WY ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010  1  INTRODUCTION The Greeley Neighborhood Plan Survey is part of a larger effort to create a neighborhood plan for the Greeley neighborhood. The survey was conducted to gather opinions of citizens residing in the area about community development concerns and about specific issues in the neighborhood. The results of the survey can be used to develop goals and policies for the neighborhood plan. SURVEY METHODS The survey was a sample survey. A sample consisting of 525 registered voters was randomly drawn from the Butte/Silver Bow voter rolls for residents of the neighborhood. The sample constituted about 63% of all voters residing in the planning area. To begin the survey process, the 525 voters were each sent a postcard advising of their inclusion in the survey and requesting participation. Next, the survey questionnaire was sent to the sample voters on August 3, 2010. Along with the questionnaire, voters were sent a cover letter explaining the survey and a response postcard that tracked who responded and served to enter the voter's name in the pool for prize drawings. All mailing items were included pre‐paid postage. Publicity about the survey was generated via local newspapers and radio. Finally, on August 16, 2010, a reminder postcard was sent to every voter who had not mailed in the response postcard that was included with the questionnaire. SURVEY ACCURACY The purpose of a sample survey is to make generalization about a population based on a scientifically selected subset of that population. This means a sample survey allows us to understand the views of the entire neighborhood by communicating with only a sample of the people in the neighborhood. The survey results are accurate within a calculated margin of error. In other words, the results of the sample survey with a margin of error will be representative of the views of all people in the neighborhood. At the close of this survey, a total of 235 surveys were completed and returned. This equates to a response rate of 45%. The survey was designed to achieve an accuracy level of This level of accuracy is dependent on receiving a response rate of at least 50%. Because of the actual response rate was lower, the survey accuracy level is 5.5%, less than expected. This means that the results from the sample of voters have a 95% probability of being within 5.5% of the answers that all voters would give. For example, if 65% of the sample voters said "yes" as the answer to a question then it is highly probable (95% chance) that between 59.5% and 70.5% or ‐ 5.5%) of all voters would have also answered "yes". In addition, the 45% response rate means that the survey sample has a small risk of being not representative of the whole population. The problem of "self‐selection bias" is generally ruled out when the response rate reaches 50%. Because of the lower response rate of this survey, there is a small possibility of self‐selection bias. This should be kept in mind when using the survey results. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Survey Results 2 SURVEY QUESTIONS The question asked in the survey were developed by the consultants with input from the Steering Committee and BSB Planning staff. The questions were multiple choice questions with most having "other" as an open‐ended answer choice. This allowed survey respondents to write‐in their own answer choice. The full text of the questions appears on pages 21‐22 of this report. SURVEY RESULTS Survey results are presented beginning on the next page (page Results are given in percentages. The percentages represent the percent of 235 surveys that were returned. For example, 10% equal 24 survey responses. In questions where more than one answer could have been selected, the percentage represents the percent of all responses. The survey questionnaire form contained space for written comments. One‐quarter of the survey respondents (61 respondents) added written comments which are included beginning on page 11. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Survey Results 3 Question #1 ‐ Positive Features: This question asked what are the most positive features of the neighborhood. The answer most often chosen was "close to Uptown and Downtown", with 24% of survey respondents giving this answer. "Good neighbors" and "affordability of housing" were the next most common answers with 17% and 14% respectively giving these answers. Five answers were given by 5% to 10% of the respondents. These were "close to city parks", "stable neighborhood", "close to work", and no response (the question was unanswered). Several of the answer choices were selected by 2% or less of the respondents. These included "quality schools", "there are no positive features", "historic houses", and "other" where the respondent could write‐in their own answer. Close to Uptown & Downtown 24% Good neighbors 17% Affordability of housing 14% Close to city parks 10% Stable neighborhood 8% No response 8% Close to work 8% Safe for residents 5% Quality schools 2% There are no positive features 2% Other 1% Historic houses 1% Most Positive Features of Greeley Neighborhood ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Survey Results 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Survey Results 5 Question #2 ‐ Negative Features: This question asked what are the most negative features of the neighborhood. The most frequent answer was "poor condition of streets and sidewalks", which was the answer given by 24% of the respondents. properties" was close behind at 20%. "Deterioration of the old Greeley School property" and "proximity to mine operations" were the third and fourth most frequent answers, each given by 14% of the respondents. All other possible answers were each given by less than 10% of the respondents. Of the 21 people who wrote‐in an answer, five were concerned about speeding cars. Poor condition of streets & sidewalks 24% properties 20% Deterioration of old Greeley School property 14% Proximity to mine operations 14% No response 8% Dilapidated buildings 6% Other 5% Not enough neighbor interaction 3% Lack of green space 2% Not safe for residents 2% Lack of nearby shopping 1% There are no negative features 1% Most Negative Features of Greeley Neighborhood ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Survey Results 6 Question #3 ‐ Housing Types: This question asked which housing types should be encouraged in the Greeley neighborhood. By far, the most common answer was "traditional one‐family homes (not mobile homes)" with 62% of respondents selecting this answer. "Townhouses and condominiums" were the second choice at 15% while "apartments" and "mobile homes on single lots" were favored by 9% of respondents. The answer, "mobile home parks" was given by only 3% of the respondents. Traditional one‐ family homes (not mobiles) 62% Townhouses and condominiums 15% Apartment buildings 9% Mobile homes on single lots 9% Mobile home parks 3% Other 2% Housing Types to Encourage in Greeley Neighborhood ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Survey Results 7 Question #4 ‐ Involvement in the Improving the Neighborhood: This question asked in what ways would people become involved in changing the neighborhood. The most popular answer was "by improving my own property", the answer given by 33% of respondents. Other answers included "as a member of a neighborhood watch or safety group" "by helping with neighborhood clean‐up days" and "I prefer not to become involved" By improving my own property 33% As a member of a neighborhood watch or safety group 20% By helping with neighborhood clean‐ up days 17% I prefer not to become involved 12% By helping neighbors with home improvement projects 8% As a member of a neighborhood association 8% Other 1% My neighborhood does not need to be changed 1% How to be Involved in Changing the Greeley Neighborhood ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Survey Results 8 Question #5 ‐ Future of Uses of Greeley School Property: This question was a two‐part question, asking what uses of the school land or building would be appropriate if the building was torn down and if the building remains. The most frequent answer for if the building is torn down was "public park" with 31% of respondents giving this answer. The next most frequent answers were "new community center" at 21%, "new church, day care center, or private school" at 18%, and "housing development" at 16%. "New business offices" and "other" (the write‐in answer) were the least favored at 9% and 5% respectively. Of the 20 write‐in answers, the a "youth or community center" was mentioned by 8 respondents. Public park 31% New community center 21% New church, day care center, or private school 18% Housing development 16% New business offices 9% Other 5% Appropriate future uses for Greeley School property if building is torn down ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Survey Results 9 The second part of Question #5 asked about uses if the school building is not torn down and remains. The most frequently given answer was "community center", which 28% of respondents selected. This answer was closely followed by "public park of part of the land", which was the answer of 26% of respondents. The answer, "church, day care center, or private school" was the next most common answer at 21%. "Housing (apartments, nursing home)" and "business offices" were significantly less favored, both at 11%. Community center 28% Public park on part of the land 26% Church, day care center, or private school 21% Housing (apartments, nursing home) 11% Business offices 11% Other 3% Appropriate future uses of Greeley School property if building remains ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Survey Results 10 Question #6 ‐ Priority of Central Butte Improvements: This question asked respondents to assign a priority rating to a variety of possible improvements that could be made to the Greeley neighborhood. Four potential improvements stand out as being preferred by the survey respondents: "improve streets", "reuse Greeley School property", "eliminate junk vehicles and weeds", and "improve sidewalks". For each of these four improvements, significantly more people rated these as high‐priority than any other category (medium‐priority, low‐priority, etc.). In addition, the percentage of people rating these as high‐priority ranged from 66% for "improve streets" to 47% or just under half of all respondents for "improve sidewalks". The possible improvements "more police patrols", "improve older housing", "improve alleys", and "improve water and sewer systems" constitute a second grouping where high‐priority and medium‐ priority was assigned by roughly equal numbers of people. All other possible improvements were given lesser priority by survey respondents. "Better public transportation" and "more new housing" are at the bottom in terms of priority. 42 survey respondents wrote‐in answers. Among these, nine respondents wanted more animal control (barking and loose dogs), seven complained about mobile homes, five want properties cleaned up, and four complained about mine dust. (See Priority Improvements chart on next page.) ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 11 High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority Not a Priority No Response 66% 26% 5% 0% 3% Improve streets 59% 29% 8% 0% 4% Reuse Greeley School property 57% 27% 10% 2% 5% Eliminate junk vehicles & weeds 47% 26% 16% 3% 9% Improve sidewalks 40% 37% 13% 6% 4% More police patrols 38% 43% 13% 2% 5% Improve older housing 37% 34% 19% 5% 5% Improve alleys 32% 32% 23% 5% 7% Improve water/sewer 30% 24% 32% 6% 8% Install more street lights 28% 36% 24% 3% 9% Improve stormwater drainage 26% 36% 25% 7% 5% New park in neighborhood 21% 30% 29% 10% 10% Safer crosswalks at Grand Ave. 17% 28% 36% 13% 6% More trees along streets 17% 31% 35% 9% 8% More street sweeping 15% 30% 40% 9% 6% More new housing 12% 29% 41% 10% 7% Better public transportation 11% 2% 0% 0% 87% Other improvement Priority of Greeley Neighborhood Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 12 Written Comments Below are the comments from the 60 surveys that contained written comments. (Note: each survey was individually numbered when it was received. The number appearing before each written comment is that survey number.) 15. The weeds on the whole block of Elm St. Also the dogs and cats make a mess on the grass and in the city parks and don’t clean up after them. They just let them run loose in the neighborhood. Dogs should not be at ballgames and left to run loose. The fireworks are still going on after 10:00 to 1:00 in the morning. I feel the fines for dogs and other things are not put into force enough. There should be more fines and it would stop if people had to pay high fines. The walking trail, not enough bathrooms and lights. 20. People need to pay closer attention to their children. They always seem to be running wild and unsupervised. The people who drive in this neighborhood mostly are responsible and seem to watch. But I would hate to see or hear of a child getting run over because their parents were not watching them as it is their responsibility. 21. Every major city in Montana has at least one dog park. Some cities have 2 or 3. There is nowhere in the city to take a pet for a run or to socialize. Responsible dog owners are penalized for the deeds of the irresponsible pet owners. 22. There are laws restricting the parking of unlicensed vehicles, campers, motor homes and such on the public right‐of‐way, yet a major offender is Terry Schultz. Maybe he feels because he is a commissioner that he is exempt. Perhaps he should pay attention to some of these other problems rather than concentrate on dog problems only. 26. Our streets have no sidewalks, therefore entrance to houses are very muddy. With blacktop, it will make the streets more attractive. 27. Locust has not been swept in two years. Stink from mining is very bad especially after rain or snowfall. Garbage collection is messy. No pride! Barking and roaming dogs are a problem. ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 13 30. I rent the lot from Louie Hettick. I’m not sure how many other lots he owns, but why can’t they fix up some of these lots? The fences between the trailers are old, rotting and falling over. The weeds are out of control. Yeah, they’ll want to raise the lot rent, but what are they spending the money on now? The block that they own is a mess. I ask them to help and they make excuses or ignore me. I also feel more effort is put in on Grant and not the rest of the streets. However, for the most part, this is a nice, quiet, basically crime free neighborhood. It needs upgrading and a lot of TLC. Thank you for wanting to help and asking for suggestions. 37. 1. Street improvement/repair: improve storm drainage at Pine and Thornton. Fix bump everybody scrapes over. Fill huge holes from water line repair. 2. Housing has been slowly improving on its own. Do nothing. New modular and older homes being torn down. Old bad trailers were removed. 3. Find a use for Greeley. Other towns use old schools. Butte seems to tear down everything. Kids are bored. No summer programs. Haven’t seen vandalism this year at school. I can’t find any volunteer program to help them. 4. The bus does service my neighborhood but several people can’t drive and need to get to work. Cabs are expensive for minimum wage employees. Suggest a stop on Ferris. 5. I don’t expect fancy cornerstones on sidewalks, just minimum service when the streets are really torn up. 38. I have lived in the Greeley Area my whole life. My alley is horrible. Once a year after several calls they will grade it which lasts about a week. I think the neighbors should not be allowed to park unlicensed vehicles on the street and should be mandatory that garbage not be placed outside until day of garbage pickup. Weed laws should be enforced. I don’t believe that in 44 years I have lived here my street has been paved. That’s a long time. Neighbor’s yard floods every time it rains hard. 41. I believe something has to be done to mobile homes and Pine Street. The people who rent these are on drugs and most of their children are responsible for the crime. Also, the pit and Mr. I make this neighborhood almost unlivable. I have never had so much dust tin a home I have lived in. It has to be bad for the health of people who are breathing the air. The dust has ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 14 little pieces of grit in it. If I wasn’t on social security and could afford it, I would move from this neighborhood. But then I know the house would not sell, then I would have to become another slum lord like the rest of the houses in this area. I grew up in this neighborhood and it was nothing like it is now. I believe this area has become like the cabbage patch on the east side. It is shameful. Why can't put something back into it after all the money made from the pit. Only D. Washington profits from it. Shame on him! Dennis Washington should be made to put in sidewalks and fix the streets, and buy up all the mobile homes and rundown houses. We the taxpayers should not. W. A. Clark put money back in this town. Why shouldn’t he? After all, he is one of the modern day Copper Kings. He puts the money he makes here and spends it in Missoula, his hometown. Shame, shame on him! 52. When entering Butte compared to other cities, you have a very dirty feeling town! Lack of colored trees, flowers and activities that encourage families, kids and pets. Butte is still trying to live as the old miner town and not encouraging change or new coming businesses or families. Make Butte a place of pride with its history but become more updated in jobs, opportunities and ways to make events for children 0‐18 a weekly happening so families won’t go to another city for these activities. Don’t believe property values need to be set so high as most are out of date with electric, windows, paint, foundations, etc. 62. Stop four‐wheelers and dirt bike form tearing up and down the streets and alleys. Clean up a lot of the properties or make the owners do it. Have the dogcatcher patrol the streets more often. 64. The mine should try to cut down on dust and noise. I would prefer no mobile homes or mobile home parks. The mobile homes lose value and deteriorate. Houses and modulars on decent sized lots would encourage people to stay in the neighborhood, while trailers lead to people moving in and out and they tend to be trashy and less cared for. 65. Greeley Neighborhood could be nice if there were some zoning criteria: getting rid of the slums, trailers, and dilapidated buildings. Right now looks like the meth‐head capital of Butte. 67. My main concern is a little more traffic control. A lot of people don’t think that the laws apply in this area. Most of us live in this area because it is what we can afford. We all would ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 15 like to live in the country club, but we can’t. We do still pay taxes so we should be entitled to the same county services as the country club, but we don’t get them. Even school bus routes don’t get sanded in our area. Aren’t our kids equal to others? One of the biggest problems are a lot of the rental properties. Those are problem properties. A lot of the older trailers and houses that are eyesores belong to people that live in other areas and they just plain don’t care. They don’t live here. 68. Mine operations negatively affect the quality of life in my neighborhood, especially air quality. 76. This is a great idea. 79. The one positive we had is the view of the mountains, but now that is disappearing with the mounds of dirt that continue to rise from the mining. (I realize how important mining is to Butte; but I feel something should be done with the tailings, both for the view and perhaps health concerns.) 83. Butte has an image of being a dirty town. When you come to Butte, lack of curbed streets or curbed streets in disrepair makes Butte look dirty. Lack of green areas and trees doesn’t look good. Too many mobile homes in bad shape all around Butte. Would be nice to find state or federal or local programs that would help residents with rundown properties to be able to fix them up when the resident can’t come up with the finances to get them down. Also, less uncontrolled intersections. They should have a stop sign or yield sign to eliminate too many chances of bad judgment calls at intersection. 88. Thanks for asking. 90. I think this effort is very good, and I hope to get a chance to support it. I am not sure what businesses could come to a residential area nor make use of Greeley. Renovating the building could cost as much as tearing it down. Maybe we could tear it down and reuse the brick to build a structure for a park or something. Perhaps a park with “unique” tire (rubber) art or…? ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 16 94. It is important to check the dust and pollution created by MRI. Cars, windows, everything is covered with dust daily. They need to be responsible for cleaning up. 106. Develop land on and along Continental Ave. for new residential homes or new businesses! 107. I am very sorry I no longer live at Silver Bow Blvd. I went to Greeley School and also my two sons. I lived in that neighborhood all my life. I just sold my home. 110. The alleys are in terrible condition with potholes from one end to the other. 113. There was a leak in the water under the street between our home and the house across the street. That was fixed but the street dips where the ground settled. The settling exposed and plugged our draining page on the 2800 block of Locust. 120. Some people do not cut their grass. This really brings down the neighborhood. We do need gutters and sidewalks. I will be out of town for the meeting so I wanted to express my wishes. We are so glad the planning board is looking into our neighborhood. Thank you. 121. Please take a look at the alley behind 2325, 2321 and 2319 Pine. Any kind of fix would be nice. 123. Streets need to be paved. Our alley at 2321 Pine St. needs to be paved. The holes fill up with water making mud and large pools of water. 126. I think more street repairs and alleys, and junk vehicles being removed. Neighbors need to be accountable for their property. Abandoned houses need to be torn down. Dogs need to be maintained. ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 17 129. The Greeley School is a landmark and should be saved!!! My god, you people want to all our landmarks. 131. Need more things for kids and families. 132. We need more stop signs and children at play signs. 135. Stop sign placement and traffic law enforcement is highly needed. Drivers go down our street without any regard for the safety of others. There a lot of children in the neighborhood and with the traffic driving the way it does, it is only a matter of time before something bad happens. 136. I have lived on Locust for 35 years. Not once has a stop sign or a sidewalk been thought of. It is a very dangerous corner. The dogs run loose and are a problem for all. There aren’t any schools but Greeley. It should not have been closed. I now bus my child to a school that does not meet standards. It is a shame. 137. City enforced yard maintenance by owner or current tenant, as well as junk vehicles. 1st ticket, $15, 2nd ticket $25, etc. 141. Street and sidewalk replacement along with improved lighting should be the highest priority. These improvements would encourage new property development and improvement to existing properties. The first two blocks of Walnut off of Texas Ave. have only one streetlight for the two blocks. Drainage also seems to be an issue on several streets. ‐ Possible tax credits and grants should be used to encourage improvements and developments. ‐ Enforcement of current city ordinances regarding junk, abandoned vehicles, and property would also greatly enhance the area. ‐ Getting people involved and excited about improving the area. ‐ Find a way to shield the mine from the neighborhood. How about requiring MRI to plant mature trees along Shields Ave. ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 18 142. Need something done with people from neighborhood and others racing up and down the alley where our back door enters the house to the garage. Little kids playing in alley also someday will get hit. 143. Remove all old cars from yards and streets. Good luck. P.S. Junk City. 153. This neighborhood has been in my family for generations. Watching it deteriorate saddens me. It has become unsafe for my children due to the drugs. Walnut Street is a drug strip. I am fearful the children are going to get hit as there are no sidewalks. The barking dogs are out of control. The property values have decreased due to all of this so we are stuck here. I really would like to see this neighborhood change for the positive. 156. Thank you. 164. Grand Ave. does not have any adequate speed signs. I believe speed limits should be painted on streets such as Grant, Dewey & Harrison Ave. because speed limit statewide in urban areas is 25 MPH, 15 MPH in school zones. 165. The city needs to rezone for mobile homes (single‐wide) like in other cities and put them all together in one location, not everywhere in a neighborhood. Also, people should be required to cut down brush around their houses or be fined. The mobile homes are usually rentals. The landlords should be made to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. 168. I wish I could be more involved but because I am 85 years old with some serious health issues (liver cancer, recovering from a broken hip socket, and others) I am not able to do much more than keep up with my taxes. 172. I’d like to be involved. FYI—there was no postcard. 173. All intersections should have a stop sign going one way or the other. People don’t slow down when they don’t see stop signs and figure they have the right‐of‐way. It is amazing that ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 19 there hasn’t been a major wreck at the intersection between the 2400 block and 2500 block of Locust. This would also help reduce the speeding in the area. 174. In my opinion whatever is done, it won’t last. The young people in this town only know destruction and violence and drinking. It will be destroyed or the vagrants will sleep everywhere, get drunk and break up everything and nothing will be there for those who would really enjoy something new. Our kids always get the short end of the stick. 175. There needs to be more stop signs especially near Greeley School. 181. There are very few sidewalks, a lot of dust from mine. 189. Paint stripes on Silverbow Blvd. People consider it a wide racetrack, no boundaries for walking! Post and enforce a 25 MPH or less speed limit, “Silverbow”. Get people between Walnut and Silverbow Blvd. to use garbage containment that animals cannot access. (No more bags just tossed into the alley.) Landowners to maintain grass/bushes/weeds/etc. in the alley and quit using it as a dump. 196. There needs to be discussions with MRI to do something about the dust constantly coming from the haul roads and dumping at concentrator. The dust is abrasive and saturates carpeting, lawns, flowerbeds, and vehicles. 198. So much money has been spent on low income housing around Butte. It is time to concentrate on more family friendly and proud home ownership areas. It is very frustrating to see so much money being spent where there is no pride or respect for the neighbors who are working hard to maintain their properties. People should be held accountable for their property. People who are taking advantage of the low income housing need to be held accountable. They should have to work around their property and help with the upkeep‐‐‐ wouldn’t we all like to have maintenance on our properties provided by the government entities!!! 200. Our young people need a place to have fun in. A gym for basketball, volleyball, table tennis, roller rink, outside basketball court, baseball diamond, football field (area to pass ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 20 touch football, music room, study room, all organized sports, just a place to go have some fun with neighborhood kids. we called them Our kids need to get away from video games, TV, etc. They need a place to have fun! 201. More precise zoning between residential and commercial, high priority. 214. We moved into our home 12 years ago. I used to be crazy about dusting. It didn’t take me long to “give up” on it. This is a very dusty area. I have lived in a lot of places and nothing I like this. I think the pit should cover more of the dirt areas with grass or whatever to improve this. Sometimes I worry about what we are breathing in. 215. We work out of town this year, 2010. Sorry we are late. 221. Continued improvements to Clark Park have helped the neighborhood. Something must be done about the bad air quality due to the mine. A fine gray dust collects on everything. The yard furniture is covered with a new deposit each day. The air quality must be unhealthy. 224. Drainage on most side streets seems to be a problem. I know we’ll never see most streets milled and filled due to cost, but drainage issues and lack of sidewalks and/or curbs present a problem. As for the school, I believe it would be too costly for the district to keep. Bad location for businesses. I feel they would just disappear in time, then what? A park would be okay but then the city is stuck building and maintaining it. Seems to have trouble maintaining what we have now. 226. Rocky Mtn. Traffic Control—their storm water retention pond with trees to improve looks of this area is a joke. The lot to the west of the retention pond is storing concrete barriers and other junk and is not an asset to the neighborhood. It is a bunch of mud holes, weeds, and dead trees/shrubs! 228. More should be done so MRI would clean up or reclaim their area. ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 21 229. I believe a street sign should be installed on Walnut East and West of Hayes. The signs on Hayes North and South of Walnut should be removed. The trucks and SUVs that park at Crazy Carol’s are out too far in the road. When you stop on Hayes, you can’t see traffic heading west on Walnut. Dangerous corner. I have seen a lot of people slamming on their brakes because of poor vision. ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 22 SURVEY QUESTIONS 1. What do you believe are the TWO most positive features of your neighborhood? (Please check only TWO answers)  Close to work  Close to Uptown and Downtown  Close to city parks  Affordability of housing  Historic houses  Good neighbors  Stable neighborhood  Safe for residents  Quality schools  Other:  There are no positive features 2. What do you believe are the TWO most negative features of your neighborhood? (Please check only TWO answers)  Dilapidated buildings  Poor condition of sidewalks and streets  Lack of green spaces  Lack of a nearby shopping  Not safe for residents  Not enough neighbor interaction  Deterioration of old Greeley School property  Proximity to mine operations  properties  Other:  There are no negative features 3. Which of the following housing types should be encouraged in the neighborhood? (Please check all that apply and leave the others blank)  Apartment buildings  Mobile home parks  Mobile homes on single lots  Traditional one‐family homes (not mobiles)  Townhouses and condominiums  Other: 4. In what ways are you most likely to become involved in changing your neighborhood? (Please check all that apply to you and leave the others blank) ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 23  As a member of a neighborhood association  As a member of a neighborhood watch or safety group  By helping with neighborhood clean‐up days  By improving my own property  By helping neighbors with home improvement projects  Other:  I prefer not to become involved  My neighborhood does not need to be changed 5. After School District No. 1 sells the Greeley School building, with the approval of School Trustees, the purchaser will then have the option to reuse the building or demolish all or part of the building. Which of the following uses would you consider appropriate as future uses of the land or building . . . If the building is torn down? If the building remains?  New community center  Community center  Public park  Public park on part of the land  Housing development  Housing (apartments, nursing home)  New business offices  Business offices  New church, day care center, or private school  Church, day care center, or private school  Other:  Other: 6. Which of the following neighborhood improvements should be the highest priority? (Please indicate whether you feel that each item should NOT be a priority, should be a LOW priority, MEDIUM priority, or HIGH priority) (Please CIRCLE one answer for each item)  Improve streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Improve alleys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Install more street lights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Plant more trees along streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  More frequent street sweeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Improve stormwater drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Install, improve, and repair sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Safer crosswalks on Grand Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Improve sewer and water systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Eliminate weeds and junk vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Reuse or redevelop the old Greeley School property . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  A new park in the neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Better public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High ---PAGE BREAK--- GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SURVEY September 2010 Appendix B: Survey Results 24  More new housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Improve or restore older housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  More police patrols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Low Medium High  Other: Not Low Medium High ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports APPENDIX C: Technical Reports Page 1 Population Page 6 Land Use Page 10 Housing Page 15 Economy Page 20 Parks Page 22 Public Infrastructure Page 25 Public Services Page 29 Land Use Regulations ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 1 GREELEY-RACETRACK AREA POPULATION The following utilizes U.S. Census data which is organized by different geographic units. Ranging from smallest to largest, these include blocks, block groups, census tracts, incorporated areas, counties, state, and nation. The census 2000 is the most recent data available for geographic units smaller than the county level. The Greeley Neighborhood is located in approximately the northern half of Block Groups 1, 4, and 5 in Census Tract 4. Although some information, such as total population, can be acquired by blocks and totaled within the Greeley Neighborhood Boundary, some data are suppressed at this level for privacy purposes. It is possible that information for the larger units may not accurately reflect the exact conditions within the neighborhood. POPULATION – EXISTING CONDITIONS Total population in the Greeley Neighborhood was 1,429 persons in 2000 (BSB GIS). The area appears to be in a continued trend of declining population. Population had been declining in Butte and throughout the county since 1920, when county population peaked at 60,313. By 2000, total population of the county had declined by nearly 26,000 persons. The historic core of Butte north of the Interstate continued to lose population from 1990 to 2000, but the decade marked the first since 1920 to reverse the trend of overall population loss county-wide. County population increased by 665 persons between 1990 and 2000, mostly in areas north, east and south on the periphery or outside Butte urban limits (in census tracts 6, 7 and (BSB Growth Policy, pgs 3-2, 3-4) Table 1. Population Change 1990-2000 Numeric POPULATION 2000 1990 Change % CHANGE CENSUS CENSUS 1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000 Greeley Neighborhood 1,429 NA NA NA Census Tract 4 4,100 4,141 -41 -1.0% Butte-Silver Bow 34,606 33,941 665 2.0% Montana 902,195 799,065 103,130 12.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, accessed via American Fact Finder The Greeley Neighborhood includes portions of block groups 1, 4, and 5 in Census Tract 4. The median age of block group 1 is younger than most of Montana and mirrors the national median age. Block group 4 is the oldest area of the neighborhood, with a median age of 39.6, higher than the median age for the county, the state, or the nation. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 2 Table 2. Median Age - 2000 Census Tract 4 Block Group 1 35.3 Block Group 4 39.6 Block Group 5 37.3 Butte-Silver Bow 38.9 Montana 37.5 Nation 35.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, accessed via American Fact Finder Table 3 shows the change in age cohorts between 1990 and 2000. The proportion of the population less than 18 years of age in the Greeley neighborhood (25.2%) is higher than the county’s The “less than 18 years” age group increased as a percentage of overall population between 1990 and 2000 in Census Tract 4 but declined in the county and the state. The proportion of persons age 65 and older was 17% in the Greeley Neighborhood in 2000, and data from Census Tract 4 suggest that population in this age group is declining This will likely change, however, with the aging of the “baby boom” generation. Projections for 2030 indicate that the 65+ age cohort will comprise over 26% of Butte-Silver Bow population. (BSB Growth Policy, pg 3-6) Table 3. Greeley Neighborhood Population by Age, 1990 and 2000 Total Population Less than 18 years 18-64 years 65 years and over Greeley 1990 NA NA NA NA 2000 1,429 25.2% 57.9% 16.9% Census Tract 4 1990 4,141 24.6% 57.5% 17.9% 2000 4,100 24.8% 58.6% 16.7% Butte-Silver Bow 1990 33,941 24.9% 58.1% 17.1% 2000 34,606 23.7% 60.3% 16.0% Montana 1990 799,065 27.8% 58.9% 13.3% 2000 902,195 25.5% 61.1% 13.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, accessed via American Fact Finder ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 3 There were 608 households in the Greeley Neighborhood in 2000, of which 54% (371) were family households. The neighborhood has a considerably smaller proportion of family households compared to Montana (66%) or the nation Non-family households consist of individuals living alone or with other non-related persons. Average household size in the Greeley Neighborhood was 2.11 persons. (U.S. Census 2000) Table 4. Household Type - 2000 Total Households Family Households Non-Family Households # % % Greeley Neighborhood 691 53.7 46.3 Butte-Silver Bow 14,432 61.9 38.1 Montana 66.2 33.8 Nation 68.1 31.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, accessed via American Fact Finder The Greeley Neighborhood Area, as evidenced by Census Tract 4, has a higher percentage of high school graduates and a lower percentage of persons with a bachelor’s degree or higher when compared to Montana and the nation. Table 5. Educational Attainment - 2000 % High School Graduate % Bachelor's Degree or Higher Census Tract 4 41.7 11.4 Montana 31.3 17.2 Nation 28.6 15.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Table DP-2, accessed via American Fact Finder In 2000, the area of the Greeley Neighborhood was predominately one race and white (96.5% of total population), with American Indians and persons of two or more races comprising the next largest population sectors. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 4 Table 6. Racial Characteristics - 2000 One race; White; Percent One race; American Indian and Alaska Native; Percent Two or more races; Percent Census Tract 4 96.5 1.5 0.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, accessed via American Fact Finder Census Tract 4 had a higher median household income ($31,730) in 1999 than Butte-Silver Bow overall, but median family income fell below county, state, and national figures. Table 7. Personal Income -1999 Median Household Income Median Family Income Census Tract 4 $ 31,730 $ 37,708 Butte Silver Bow $ 30,402 $ 40,018 Montana $ 33,024 $ 40,487 Nation $ 41,994 $ 50,046 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Table DP-3, accessed via American Fact Finder The poverty rate in Census Tract 4 was less than the state and the nation. Table 8. Families and Individuals Below Poverty Level - 1999 Families, % below Poverty Individuals, % below poverty level Census Tract 4 6.1 7.4 Butte Silver Bow 10.7 14.9 Montana 10.5 14.6 Nation 9.2 12.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Table DP-3, accessed via American Fact Finder POPULATION PROJECTIONS Population projections from NPA Data Services, released in 2008, indicate that Butte- Silver Bow will see continued population declines through 2020 and then a gradual rebound. The population of Census Tract 4 remained nearly constant (a one percent ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 5 loss) between 1990 and 2000. If and how the neighborhood will grow will depend on how competitive it is in retaining current residents and attracting new residents. Figure 1: Butte-Silver Bow Population Projection 2000-2030 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 2000 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source: “Montana Population Projections” prepared by CEIC, using data from NPA Data Services Inc. issued 2008 Sources BSB GIS: See Butte Silver Bow GIS Department. BSB Growth Policy: see Butte Silver Bow Growth Policy. Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy – 2008 Update. Accessed from Butte-Silver Bow website, May 2010. http://co.silverbow.mt.us/departments/documents/Butte- SilverBowGrowthPolicy2008Update-Final.pdf Butte-Silver Bow GIS Department – compilation of 2000 U.S. census data Montana Department of Health and Human Services. Homeless Survey web page. Site accessed May 22, 2010. http://www.mthomeless.org/ U.S. Census 2000. FactFinder Website. Accessed in May 2010. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en Population numbers and age cohorts for the neighborhoods derived from census block numbers within the neighborhood boundaries. Block numbers identified by Butte-Silver Bow GIS Department. Data derived from Summary File 1 Data and Tables DP-1, DP-2, and DP-3. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 6 GREELEY-RACETRACK AREA LAND USE 1. OVERVIEW The existing land uses, both in Butte overall and in the Greeley Planning Area specifically, are inextricably linked to how the land was used for mining and the associated housing of miners and others who came to live in Butte, as well as the commercial and industrial operations that grew with the city. The following examines the physical setting, the mining history, settlement patterns, historic neighborhoods, and current land uses in the Greeley Planning Area. This area covers approximately 120 acres (excluding streets and public right of ways). The predominant land use in the Planning Area is residential with scattered areas of commercial, primarily along the fringes. The proximity of current mining activities to the Planning Area is a dominant visual feature of existing land use. 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1. Physical Setting Butte is the site of globally significant quantities of copper, lead, zinc, molybdenum, gold, and silver. The Greeley Planning Area is a flat area at the foot of Butte Hill, separated from current mining operations by Continental Drive. Historically, the natural terrain was altered by mining operations that produced tremendous quantities of mining-related waste. Historically, Silver Bow Creek began at the Continental Divide and flowed through the area that is now the Berkeley Pit. The creek now originates at the confluence of Blacktail Creek and the Metro Storm Drain, south of the Greeley Planning Area. (CDM) 2.2. Mining History and Related Environmental Issues The Greeley Planning Area is south-southeast of the Butte Hill and the historical alignment of Silver Bow Creek. The Butte Hill became known as “the richest hill on earth” for its valuable mineral deposits. Mining in Butte began with the discovery of gold along Silver Bow Creek in 1864. As placer mining played out, miners staked claims on Butte Hill north of Silver Bow Creek. By the 1870s silver was the primary mining objective and by 1878 several small silver mills were operating. Silver production boomed in the 1880s, spurred by high silver prices and facilitated by completion of railroads to Butte in 1881. At least six major mills were built along Silver Bow Creek between 1879 and 1885 and operated continuously until 1910. Other smaller mills also operated during portions of that time but silver mining decreased significantly with repeal of the Sherman silver Act in 1893. (CDM) By the late 1880s copper mining had become more important. Many of the silver mills were used for copper production and new mills and smelters built. The major smelters in Butte operated until about 1910, after which most of the ore mined in Butte was shipped by rail to the Anaconda Copper Mining Company’s (AMC) smelter in Anaconda. By 1917, approximately 150 mines were located in and near Butte. AMC began surface mining in the Berkeley Pit in 1955 and built the Weed Concentrator in 1963 to process the ore. In 1977, The Atlantic Richfield Company purchased AMC. Atlantic Richfield ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 7 closed all underground mines in 1980 and continued active mining until it shut down operations in the Berkeley Pit in 1982 and East Berkeley Pit in 1983. Mining operations resumed again in 1986 when Montana Resources started open-pit mining in the Continental Pit. Montana Resources continues to mine copper and molybdenum in the Continental Pit. (CDM) Mining and ore processing (including mills, concentrators, and smelters) produced tremendous volumes of mining-related waste, including waste rock, mill tailings, slag, and aerial smelter emissions. Mining wastes impacted water quality on the entire length of Silver Bow Creek. The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site, established in1987 includes the Butte Hill, underground mines beneath Butte Hill, Berkeley Pit, Berkeley Pit mining area, active Continental Pit operation, entire reach of Silver Bow Creek between Butte and Warm Springs and the Warm Springs treatment ponds. Within this large area of 85 square miles, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified13 Operating Units (OUs) or focus areas for remediation. Many of these areas are outside of the Greeley Planning Area, but the following have some relevance for the Planning Area: The Active Mining and Milling Area OU, the West Side Soils OU, the Butte Mine Flooding OU, and the Priority Soils OU. The Active Mining and Milling Area OU consists of the permitted mine area operated by Montana Resources. The West Side Soils OU includes much of Silver Bow County including the Greeley neighborhood (Malloy) but unlike the Butte Priority soils OU, which covers most of the Butte Hill in the area, the West Side Soils OU has not been funded for several years. (CDM) The Butte Mine Flooding OU consists of waters within the Berkeley Pit, the underground mine workings hydraulically connected to the Pit, the associated alluvial and bedrock aquifers, and other contributing sources of inflow to the Berkeley Pit. The Butte Mine Flooding OU is approximately 23 square miles, of which the Berkeley Pit is the main feature. The Berkeley Pit covers approximately 675 acres, is 1,780 feet deep, with a volume of 35 billion gallons of contaminated water. Approximately 3,000 miles of underground mine workings are hydraulically connected to the Pit. The U.S. EPA, Montana DEQ, and Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) agreed to a critical water level of 5,420 feet in the Berkeley Pit (water not to exceed that level). (CDM) The Butte Priority Soils OU consists of a five square mile area that includes Butte and a small portion of the Greeley Planning Area in the northwest corner (Refer to Map The focus of this OU is contamination from mining and ore-processing wastes in the form of mill tailings, waste rock, slag, and smelter fallout. Considerable progress has been made toward clean-up. Response efforts have removed, capped, or reclaimed over 8 million cubic yards of waste; over 400 acres of mine-impacted land has been reclaimed, and approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of tailings previous in contract with ground and surface water have been removed from Silver Bow Creek floodplain. In addition storm water controls (conveyance channels, diversions, and detention basins) have been constructed to reduce contaminant loading from Butte Hill storm water runoff. (CBD) Contaminated soils on properties with large quantities of exposed contaminants have for the most part been addressed. Now, a major focus is to identify properties where contaminants may be recently exposed (such as excavations, or renovation of buildings), where individuals may particularly at risk, and to begin the work of sampling all residential properties for contaminants, per the Residential Metals Abatement Program. (Malloy) ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 8 The “Final Multi-Pathway Residential Metals Abatement Program Plan” was released in April 2010 with the purpose of ensuring “public and environmental health of the residents of the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit and the adjacent areas by effectively identifying and mitigating potentially harmful exposures to sources of lead, arsenic, and mercury. To that end, the program requires sampling residential yard soil, interior living space dust, attic dust, and lead-based paint and remediating those that exceed action levels. The program will utilize a prioritized approach for affected and sensitive populations and also requires that every property with the Priority Soils Operating Unit and Adjacent Area be systematically sampled within 10 years following the effective date of the Consent Decree. (Butte Silver Bow County) 2.3. Neighborhood History of Settlement and Development The Greeley area did not become developed until the 1950s when surface mining began. The opening of the Berkeley Pit resulted in the elimination of entire neighborhoods, including Meaderville, McQueens, and Dublin Gulch. Other neighborhoods on the Hill, such as Finn Town in East Butte, witnessed the loss of a majority of its buildings in anticipation of the expansion of the Berkeley Pit to the west. Many of the persons from these neighborhoods moved their families (and sometimes their houses) to the Greeley area. (Whitney) Residents of the Greeley neighborhood were in walking distance to Columbia Gardens, the super-sized community park treasured by Butte for its accessibility by streetcar, huge playgrounds, large shady picnic areas, baseball fields, lake, and an amusement park with no admission charge. The Columbia Gardens also was lost to the surface mining of the Berkeley Pit. 2.4. Existing Land Use - Overview and Property Type Detail Land uses in the Greeley Planning Area are predominantly residential with commercial along Continental and in scattered pockets throughout the area, but particularly clustered in the eastern portion. The existing mining operation is just across Continental Drive from the Planning Area, and there are no visual barriers (other than fencing). Greeley School functioned as a neighborhood center for activities relating to school children, but since its closure the building has remained vacant. The playground equipment is used, but in the past year, residents have become concerned about negative influences. When a cat was hung and killed in 2009, residents actively petitioned for change and a new functional use for the school area. The School District is working to find a purchaser for the building. Other neighborhood centers within the Planning Area basically consist of bars and restaurants. The Race Track Fire Hall and the Middle School, which are on the other side of Grand Avenue are also identified by residents as centers and meeting places. The Greeley Planning Area includes 727 land parcels totaling 120 acres (excluding streets and alleys). As defined for property taxation purposes in February 2010, 69% of the total area is residential, 15% is commercial, 9% is vacant and 6% is tax-exempt. (Refer to Map 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 9 Table: Land use by Tax Classification LAND USE # PARCELS ACRES % OF AREA Commercial 41 17.9 15% Exempt Property 10 7.4 6% Mining Claim 1 0.1 0% Residential 597 83.0 69% Vacant Land 73 11.2 9% Blank Record 5 0.9 1% Total 727 120.4 100% Source: BSB GIS, using MT Dept of Revenue Data Exempt properties include government (federal, state, or local) property, and other properties which have been granted an exemption by the Department of Revenue for religious, charitable, or educational uses. 2.5. Existing Land Use – Regulatory Overview (See separate report) 3. CONCLUSIONS AND PROJECTED TRENDS The Greeley Planning Area is a relatively new neighborhood at least compared to other areas of Butte that can trace roots back to the late 19th century. By contrast, development in the Greeley area did not take off until the mid-1950s. As discussed in other sections of this report, the public infrastructure of streets, sidewalks, water supply and waste water collection systems, and storm water drainage are inadequate for existing needs. Future land use will in large part be determined by the capacity of those systems. Sources Butte Silver Bow County and Atlantic Richfield Company. Final Multi-Pathway Residential Metals Abatement Program Plan - Priority Soils Operable Unit Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area National Priorities List Site Butte, Montana. April 19, 2010. CDM. Second Five-Year Review Report for Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 2005. Malloy, Tom. Reclamation Specialist, Butte-Silver Bow. Personal communication in June 2010. Whitney, Lee. Administrative Assistant, Butte-Silver Bow Archives. Personal communication in August 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 10 GREELEY-RACETRACK AREA HOUSING OVERVIEW The Greeley Neighborhood area was and remains the northeastern edge of Butte’s contiguous southern expansion. It is a strong residential neighborhood located in the tree streets along the flats at the foot of the hill. It was bounded on the east by the Northern Pacific Rail line and on the west by the Silver Bow Creek. Mining activities now form its north and east edges. By 1916, it was a sparsely populated residential area with modest family homes sitting on one, one and a half or two lots. The core of the neighborhood was the Greeley school, constructed before the turn of the century. The area remained relatively stable until the Berkley Pit opened in 1955. Pit operations and expansion removed neighborhoods to the north (Meaderville) and the west (East Side) of this area. The neighborhood experienced continual growth with infill of temporary housing in the form of mobile homes. A trailer court was established along the eastern edge and manufactured housing joined the mix at some point. Housing in the area is mixed with remnants of the original modest Queen Anne, Victorian and Bungalow style stick built homes next to simple ranch style homes, trailer homes and manufactured housing units. Homes in this area are generally without basements. AGE According to the latest census data (2000 census) 41% of all housing units in Butte- Silver Bow County were constructed before 1939. Other periods of growth included the 1950’s and again in the 1970’s but none that matched the pre- 1940’s period. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 11 The largest number (37%) of housing units in the Greeley Area was also constructed before 1939. Since then the growth in the neighborhood has been fairly constant over the last 60 years except for a growth spurt in the 1950’s and a slow down in the recent years. HOME OWNERSHIP The home ownership rate of Butte-Silver Bow County over the last 30 years is very steady at 70.5%. The home ownership rate of the Greeley neighborhood is higher at 77.82% and has remained fairly constant over the last 20 years (The Housing Landscape). VACANCY Vacancy rates in the Greeley neighborhood are very low in comparison with other neighborhoods in the Butte-Silver Bow area. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 12 CONDITION (See map included at the end of this section) The Greeley neighborhood is primarily residential in use. Single family homes comprised 76% of the actual land use in the Greeley Neighborhood and multi-family housing and trailer courts comprise much of the rest. Census Tract 4, in which this neighborhood is located, has the most populated area of the County with a population density of 4,063.8 people per square mile and 1869.3 houses per square mile as compared with 7.4 people and 3.1 housing units in the least populated area located in Census Tract 8. Population in Census Tract 4 remained stable between the 1990 and 2000 census indicating favorable neighborhood conditions. The predominant condition of the homes in the Greeley neighborhood is good to very good. Not included in the analysis are 178 mobile homes located in the areas designated as non-residential on the map included at the end of this section. HOUSING STOCK There is a high concentration of mobile homes in the Greeley neighborhood. Sixty percent of the counties mobile homes where constructed prior to 1976 when the National Manufactured Housing and Safety Standards took effect. These earlier units offered affordable alternatives to conventional stick built housing but they can be the most substandard, unsafe and energy consumptive housing choice. Mobile homes were first manufactured in the 1920’s as homes for migrant workers and travelers to be “trailed” behind cars. Their use grew during World War II as temporary housing for the defense industry workers. In the 1960’s and 1970’s they became a huge industry providing low cost housing for the baby boomer population and mobile parks became part of the housing fabric. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 13 Prior to 1974 there were no standards or building codes applied to the manufactured housing industry and they were often constructed of cheap, flimsy nondurable materials that were often highly flammable and toxic. The homes were poorly insulated and ventilated. By 1976, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed quality standards designed to regulate the construction quality of manufactured housing in an attempt to maintain this affordable housing option while improving safety and performance. The current stock of manufactured housing now ranges from older, unsafe energy consumptive units that have exceeded their useful life to durable, energy efficient homes constructed of similar quality to stick built homes. Strategies are being developed in some areas to develop ways to remove the sub-standard housing units and replace them with affordable options. REDEVELOPMENT The Greeley zoning supports housing development. The area is primarily zoned for residential uses including single family (R-1) to the south, multifamily (R-3) to the west and mobile home (R-4) to the north and east. 53% of the land area is zoned R-4 followed by 36.6% of the land area zoned R-1. Vacant or abandoned property is not an issue in this neighborhood. Vacant land can be found along the north edge of this neighborhood along the transportation corridor but within the neighborhood there are only a few minor vacant lots. Historic preservation issues do not affect redevelopment in this neighborhood. Although the neighborhood was developed prior to 1900 and there are some historic homes in the area constructed prior to 1939, it is not part of the Butte-Silver Bow National Historic Landmark District. Historic preservation tax credits are one incentive for the renovation or restoration of a historic structure but they apply to commercial structures only, not to single family residences or tax exempt properties. Redevelopment issues that may affect this area are however the future of the Greeley School and the decommissioning of mobile homes and mobile home parks. SOURCES Butte-Silver Bow Growth Policy 2008 Update; Community Development Services of Montana. Date of update. Medium of publication. Community Needs Assessment 2004 Butte Montana by the Imagine Butte Collaborative. 2004. Medium of publication. Julie and Rand Kennedy. “Mobile Home Decommissioning and Replacement and Mobile Home Park Acquisitions.” Strategies for Montana Preliminary Analysis and Report. Community Development and Management Services. Date of Publication. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 14 The Housing Landscape Butte-Silver Bow Housing Plan 2015. Community, Culture and Heritage, Inc. Date of publication. Medium of publication. U.S. Census Bureau 1990 and 2000. What was used. Date of access: website. (need two source listings for this depending on what was used) ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 15 GREELEY-RACETRACK AREA ECONOMY OVERVIEW What makes the Greeley Neighborhood, an area with a population base larger than many Montana municipalities, tick economically? How does it fit in the context of the larger economies of Butte, Silver Bow County, and the State of Montana? Understanding the current economic conditions of the neighborhood is one of the key elements to consider in planning for the future of the neighborhood. 1. ECONOMY OF BUTTE URBAN AREA AND SILVER BOW COUNTY The economies of Butte and Silver Bow County are in transition. Butte and Silver Bow County are well-known in the State of Montana as the copper mining capital. However, the role of mining has significantly declined over the past decades. In 1970, mining accounted for 21%of all jobs in the county; by 2000 that number had shrunk to Jobs in services (including health care) and retail grew during this time. (BSB Growth Policy) The number of jobs (including full-time and part-time jobs) has increased, but the rate of the increase trailed Montana and the nation over much of the last four decades. The number of full-time and part-time jobs rose from 15,574 in 1969 to 20,969 in 2008, for a net gain of 5,395, or 34.6% over the 40-year period. During the same 40-year period employment in Montana grew by 118.6 % percent and in the nation by 99.6%. (MT REAP – Employment 1969-2008) Figure 1: Employment Growth as Percent Increase from 1969 The job ratio for Silver Bow County trailed both the state and the nation until 2003 when it climbed above the national job ratio. The job ratio is the number of full-time and part- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 16 time jobs by place of work, divided by population. Nationally, the job ratio rose from 0.45 to 0.60 between 1969 and 2008. Silver Bow County's job ratio registered 0.37 in 1969, and 0.64 in 2008. (MT REAP – Employment 1969-2008) An increase in job ratio could result from an increase in labor force participation, more part-time jobs (as often seen in retail employment), and a net inflow of workers commuting to work inside the county (such as might be the case with government and contract workers who live elsewhere but who come to the county to work on Super-Fund site and other projects). The high job ratio reflects a high proportion of working residents in Silver-Bow County. It is not surprising then that proportion of personal income from labor sources is also high in Silver Bow County. In fact Silver Bow County is markedly different from the state overall in percentage of personal income from labor sources. In 2005, income from labor accounted for 65% of total personal income in Silver Bow County and 59% of total personal income in the State of Montana. Unemployment rates were the same for Silver Bow County and the state that year – (Headwaters) Silver Bow County has also significantly higher rates than the state overall for average wage per job, knowledge-based jobs, and services and professional jobs. Knowledge- based jobs are defined as jobs requiring college degrees. Services and professional jobs are defined as Transportation and Public Utilities; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Finance, Insurance and Real Estate; and Services (Health, Legal, Business and others). (Headwaters) Table 1. Jobs and Earnings in Silver Bow County and Montana Silver Bow County Montana Standard Deviations from the Mean* Knowledge Based Jobs Share of Total (2000) Share 46.0% 35.3% 1.5 Services & Profess. Jobs Share (2000) Share 81.0% 61.3% 1.7 Average Earnings in 2005 Dollars 37,922 26,511 1.9 Source: Headwaters Economics * Any deviation greater than .75 is considered unusual, per Headwaters Economics Transportation is a key factor for shipping goods in and out of the area and Silver Bow County is well-positioned geographically and within the national transportation system. Butte is a regional transportation center, serving most of south-central Montana and at the cross-roads of I-15 and I-90. Butte has an airport. Butte is also the center for county, state, and federal government offices, including regional facilities for BLM and the Forest Service. Within the municipal area of Butte, a shift is occurring in location of businesses. The uptown area has less retail and commercial than in previous decades and has become more of an employment center, particularly for government and professional businesses. Commercial retail is closer to the Interstate and growing along Harrison Avenue and west and south of I-90. Other commercial growth areas over the past decade include Farrell Street, south of the Concentrator, East Park Street, and intersection of ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 17 Continental Drive and Mt. Highland Drive. The area north of Front Street and South of Mercury Street is shifting from industrial operations that historically supported mining operations to other uses including the Maroon Activity Center and Skate Park, new credit union, CCCS and WET office buildings. (BSB Growth Policy) The area around St. James Health Care is growing as the medical cluster in Butte. 2. GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD The Greeley Neighborhood is predominantly residential with a handful of commercial businesses, primarily bars and restaurants (refer to Appendix The residential is primarily single-family homes, much of which is mobile homes. Commercial uses are primarily along Continental Drive and Farrell Street. Directly to the north and west of the neighborhood are the active mining and ore concentrating activities associated with the Continental Pit. The neighborhood’s historic largest employer, the Greeley School, has been vacated for many years. The neighborhood is strongly working class, evidenced by the high proportion of labor income to total personal income. In the Greeley Neighborhood in 2000, 73% of all personal income was from wage and salary and another 2% was self-employment income (based on Block Groups 1, 4, and 5 in Census Tract (U.S. Census Bureau) The neighborhood lacks a commercial retail core with businesses designed primarily to serve neighborhood residents. Restaurants, such as Christy’s Cocina Café, are popular dining spots for all of Butte, but most of the bars are mostly frequented by neighbors. There is no grocery store or pharmacy in the neighborhood. The closest grocery stores are the Albertson’s at 1301 Harrison (west of the neighborhood) and Eastgate IGA at 2005 Farragut. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Greeley Neighborhood is a residential neighborhood with some commercial scattered throughout and along the fringe. The Continental Pit operations to the north and west are the dominant industry in the area, a fact well-known to residents, but which may not be readily apparent to visitors and newcomers because the extent of operations is not clearly visible from the roadways. Odors and noise from the ore concentrator are cited by residents as detractors to the neighborhood, particularly for those living closest to north and northeast corner of the neighborhood. Neighborhood residents enjoy the quiet life and networks of neighbors who know and care about neighbors, which is a hallmark of their part of Butte. They are close to Uptown Butte, non-motorized trail system, and easy access to the Interstate. There is an apparent pride of ownership overall in the neighborhood, with tended lawns and yards. There are a few scattered pockets of properties that are not so well tended. Lack of sidewalks, curb, gutter, density of older mobile homes, and older homes in need of repair indicate that this area of Butte is less well-off than some of the newer neighborhoods such as those south of the Interstate. One of the questions at hand for the Greeley Neighborhood is how to maintain the long- term social fabric of the neighborhood into the future. To do that, the neighborhood will need to be seen as desirable by a continuum of new families who move into the neighborhood as homes are vacated. Retaining and building on the neighborhood’s ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 18 residential core will facilitate an economic structure that can support the neighborhood overall. Residents need to consider what is the right mix of commercial and residential and what will make their neighborhood “tick” economically. Sources BSB Growth Policy: See Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy 2008 Update Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy 2008 Update. http://co.silverbow.mt.us/departments/documents/Butte- SilverBowGrowthPolicy2008Update-Final.pdf Headwaters Economics. “The Three Wests.” Website accessed in July 2010: Jarvis, Jim. Silver Bow County Historic Preservation Officer. Phone conversation with Anne Cossitt, July 9, 2010. Montana Regional Economic Analysis Project. “Graphic Trend Analysis: Silver Bow County Employment, 1969 – 2008.” Website accessed July 2010: http://montana.reaproject.org/analysis/comparative-trends-analysis/employment/ MT-REAP: See Montana Regional Economic Analysis Project. Montana Regional Economic Analysis Project. “Graphic Trend Analysis: Silver Bow County Employment, 1969 – 2008.” Website accessed July 2010: http://montana.reaproject.org/analysis/comparative-trends-analysis/employment/ U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, Table DP-3. Data accessed in July, 2010 through American FactFinder website: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_s ubmenuId=&_lang=en&_ts= ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 19 GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESSES BY CATEGORY As identified in the Polk City Directory 2009 Mini Storage Facilities Continental Drive Toy Storage Attn: Dan Strizic 1021 Continental Drive Butte, MT 59701 A to Z Mini Storage 2825 Elm Street Butte, MT 59701 Bars/Casinos Alpine Bar Attn: Valerie Hartwick 2806 Pine Street Butte, MT 59701 Crazy Carol’s Casino Attn: Carol Heim 2702 Walnut Street Butte, MT 59701 Thor’s Port of Call Attn: Carol Vouley 1203 Howard Street Butte, MT 59701 Jim’s Bar Attn: Richard McLeod 2720 Elm Street Butte, MT 59701 Savings and Loan Butte Public Employees Federal Credit Union 2901 Grand Avenue Butte, MT 59701 Offices Gilman Construction Attn: Jim Gilman 3099 Grand Avenue Butte, MT 59701 Tax Shop Attn: Mary Walsh 2035 Grand Avenue Butte, MT 59701 Office and Traffic Control Devices Storage Yard Rocky Mountain Traffic Control Attn: Keith Johnston 1107 Howard Street Butte, MT 59701 Restaurants Four Season Restaurant Attn: Lung Wong 3030 Elm Street Butte, MT 59701 Christina’s Cocina Café Attn: Mike McGrath 2201 Silver Bow Boulevard Butte, MT 59701 Nancy McLaughlin’s Pastry 2810 Pine Street Butte, MT 59701 Church First Christian Church 1200 Texas Avenue Butte, MT 59701 Private School Capstone Christian Academy Attn: Healey Apted 1485 Continental Drive Butte, MT 59701 Elderly Housing Beyond Homes, Inc. P.O. Box 3492 Butte, MT 59702 Bus/Van Washing Facility on Continental Drive AWARE Attn: Tom Richards 227 E. Mercury Street Butte, MT 59701 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 20 GREELEY-RACETRACK AREA PARKS PARKS – EXISTING CONDITIONS The Butte Silver Bow Comprehensive Park, Trails and Open Space Plan was adopted in 2009 and outlines the existing conditions, community needs and recommendations for the development of park lands, natural areas, heritage sites, recreation facilities and operations and management. This document serves as the source of the data for this report. Parks are generally classified into several different categories: mini parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, special use areas, natural areas and undeveloped areas. The Greeley Neighborhood area is serviced by two types of parks. Neighborhood parks are located within walking and bicycling distance of most users. These parks are generally three to five acres in size and also serve residents within a ¼- mile walking distance. Neighborhood parks provide access to basic recreation opportunities for nearby residents, enhance neighborhood identity and preserve neighborhood open space. Neighborhood parks often include amenities such as playgrounds, basketball courts, turf areas, picnic tables, and benches. Community parks are planned to provide opportunities for structured or active, and passive or informal recreation. Community parks generally include facilities that attract people from the entire community, such as pools, lighted fields and recreation centers. As destinations, these sites require support facilities, such as parking and restrooms. These parks may also include significant open space areas and trails. The minimum size of community parks is generally 15 to 20 acres. Community parks with large facilities, such as golf courses, or extensive open space areas may be considerably larger. Within the boundary of the Greeley Neighborhood planning area, no park land exists. However, within one block of the boundary, two parks are within walking distance of some parts of the neighborhood. Racetrack Park is classified as a neighborhood park and consists of 1.24 acres of land, the largest park in that classification. The park contains amenities such as a half basket- ball court, an ice skating rink, picnic area and playground. Clark Park is considered a community park, with 15.66 acres and consists of a full basketball court, volleyball court, group picnic area and restrooms. Clark Park is the site of a new aquatic splash park in 2010. Elementary schools often provide similar needs as neighborhood parks. The former Greeley School contains outdated equipment and continues to decline in its use as a neighborhood park. This public site was not identified as a facility in the comprehensive park plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 21 COMMUNITY VISION AND GOALS The Community vision for parks was developed through the planning process for the comprehensive plan. “The Butte-Silver Bow park system is well designed and maintained, with a variety of recreational opportunities provided throughout the year. Parks and open spaces celebrate the area’s unique history. Neighborhood residents are able to walk or bike to nearby parks on safe trails and pathways and all residents of the County enjoy convenient access to the open space areas surrounding them.” To support that vision, the plan identifies five major goals:  Goal 1: Create a fun, well designed and well maintained park and recreation system.  Goal 2: Provide an efficient system of well-connected parks and open spaces, with access to open space areas throughout Silver Bow County.  Goal 3: Offer a variety of recreational opportunities that allow enjoyment of the park system throughout the year.  Goal 4: Strengthen Butte-Silver Bow’s identity as a major recreational, environmental and historical attraction by preserving and enhancing unique historical, open space and cultural elements of the area.  Goal 5: Establish a management structure that can implement the vision of the park, trails and open space plan in collaboration with the community. FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS The Greeley Neighborhood and surrounding area is identified as underserved park area. Although the adjacent parks do provide some opportunities near the neighborhood, the level of service in this area is low. According to the Comprehensive Plan, this underserved area should identify a site for a neighborhood park. The exact location of this park has not been determined. Executing this recommendation would contribute to goals one, two and three listed in the plan. The plan also recommends for updates to the nearby Clark Park, including an upgrade to the ice rink, a restroom and warming hut and water feature. These updates would reflect efforts for goals one and three. Sources Butte-Silver Bow County Comprehensive Park, Trails and Open Space Plan – 2009. Accessed from Butte-Silver Bow website, July 2010. http://www.co.silverbow.mt.us/departments/additional/documents/BSB_PTOS_01 2609_web.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 22 GREELEY-RACETRACK AREA PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE – EXISTING CONDITIONS The Greeley neighborhood, also known as the “Flats” was initially populated in the 1915- 1930’s with most of the growth occurring in the 1920’s. Another burst of growth occurred in the mid 1940’s and again in the 1960’s as mining expansion drove housing growth east. The infrastructure is in poor repair. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM The water distribution system in this neighborhood is substandard, undersized and in poor condition. Water lines are available throughout the neighborhood except in the south east corner. Older, 2” lines still serve over half of the area causing pressure problems throughout even with replacement lines. There is no demand from new development and no funded replacement program in place, so replacement occurs on an “as needed” basis leaving inconsistent pipe sizes along distribution lines. The lines in Grand Avenue and Carolina are new along their full length but in other area the new lines are discontinuous. The current lines do not have excess capacity and could not support new development. Fire flow is adequate, but not by DEQ standards. An operational 18” line exists along Elm and up Haynes that used to feed neighborhoods to the north before mine expansion could be tapped to support new development or replace existing. Possible funds: Matching funds from BSB may be available if other grants or loans are found. The clean up boundary for the Natural Resource Damage program does not currently include this area. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM In Greely the sanitary sewer lines run in the alleys. The lines are old, constructed in the 1920’s, ‘30’s and ‘40’s but because they are not pressurized, they are in adequate shape. The east side of this neighborhood in the area of Lafayette, Gladstone by Continental, Elm and Grand is underserved and does not support development in the area. The rest of the neighborhood is pretty well served. The lines are concrete sanitary sewer mains and there is a very good maintenance program of regularly foaming and jetting the lines as well as monitoring the conditions through cameras. Upgrades in this area will be through slip lines rather than replacement due to the restricted work area of the alleys. This area is edged on the north and east with mining operations and therefore is the northeastern end of the service area for Butte. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 23 STORM SEWER SYSTEM Greeley area lacks adequate storm water collection system. The streets are paved but do not have curb and gutter throughout most of this neighborhood. There are random sections of curb but not enough to effectively collect or distribute storm water. The area is predominantly flat and the undirected storm water ponds in the graveled boulevards until it is absorbed in the gravels or evaporates. The lack of storm water collection causes damage to the road system. Storm lines in this area are designated as secondary priority with pipe sizes of 8, 10 and 12” diameter. They are primarily of concrete with a few sections of PVC. The piping is adequately sized and in pretty good shape. There are currently no funding programs in place for improvements in this area. There is much better storm water collection in the neighborhood to the south (Racetrack) as a result of the curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. STREETS, CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALKS The streets are generally in fair to poor condition with broken edges throughout and lack curb and gutter. Streets along Walnut and Silver Bow Boulevard are in the worst condition. Many intersections are damaged. Street edges are damaged by residents parking randomly along the streets. Over half of the Greely neighborhood does not have curb and gutter. In many areas the curb and gutter is damaged and discontinuous. Because of this, snow removal, street cleaning and sanding operations are very limited in this area. Rainwater is undirected and ends up ponding in low areas until it is absorbed or evaporates. Ponding water in areas of poor drainage cause damage from freeze/thaw cycles. This is evident along Silver Bow Boulevard, Pine, Walnut and at most intersections. Sidewalks occur in barely a third of the neighborhood and are located generally along the west edge and south edge. Grand Ave is in the best condition with curb, gutter, sidewalks and street lighting. Sanding the streets causes additional deterioration to the limited storm water collection system. Streets are narrow. PUBLIC LIGHTING Street lights in this neighborhood are single fixture pole mounted and located at street intersections. UTILITIES – ELECTRIC AND GAS Northwestern Energy provides natural gas and electricity to this area ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 24 Power is distributed through overhead power lines running primarily east/west down the alleys. Overhead power also runs north/south at Carolina Ave where they run down the street. Sources Findings determined through GIS mapping products, visual observations, review of public works records and conversations with public works staff. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 25 GREELEY-RACETRACK AREA PUBLIC SERVICES 4. OVERVIEW This section includes information about services that are typically provided by public entities. It includes law enforcement, fire and emergency services, medical, education- schools, transportation services, library, solid waste collection, and senior and other services. Generally, residents in the Greeley Planning Area are within one-half to one mile of most of these services. 5. EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1. Law Enforcement The Butte Silver Bow Law Enforcement Department is located at 225 Alaska in Uptown Butte. The department has 48 employees, lower than the statewide ratio of law enforcement staff to population. (Conway and BSB) Approximately four to six officers are on shift serving the entire county at any one time (Conway). The average number of dispatched calls per patrol officer per year is 956. The Department receives approximately 29,000 calls for service per year. (BSB) The Department recognizes it is understaffed and has been working to get funding for more officers for the past eight years (Conway). According to the Montana Board of Crime Control, Butte-Silver Bow has ranked in the four or five Montana counties with highest crime rate for several years. The crime rate is the annual number of the seven index crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft) per 100,000 persons. The Greeley Planning Area is not one of the areas in the county known for higher rates of crime (Conway). In 2009, property crimes in the Greeley Planning Area included 8 burglaries, 10 cases of vandalism, 82 thefts, and 13 stolen vehicles. (BSB Law Enforcement) Burglaries in the Greeley Planning Area accounted for approximately 4% of the total 181 burglaries in the county in 2009. (Montana Board of Crime Control) 5.2. Fire and Emergency Services The municipal area of Butte has a paid fire department with two stations, one located at Mercury and Montana Streets and the other at 1901 Harrison, southwest of the Planning Area. The Racetrack Volunteer Fire Department, just across Grand Avenue, is the closest fire department to the Greeley Planning Area. The fire department’s work includes fighting and suppressing fires, building inspections, and emergency response. All ambulance services are provided by A-1 Ambulance. Rescue and transport services are coordinated through the County’s E-911 Service. In 2009, the fire department responded to 519 calls in the Greeley Planning Area. Of these, 72% were emergency medical service calls, 11% were fire or fire-related calls smoke), and the remaining calls included assisting invalids, gas leaks, unintentional calls, cancelled calls, and calls where no incident was found on arrival. (BSB Fire Department) The volume of EMS calls mirrors that of the fire response county ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 26 wide (reported at 70% in the Butte Silver Bow Growth Policy Update). Emergency response time is approximately five minutes in the Planning Area. Water supply is ample from hydrants. (Miller) Fire department resources are more than adequate to cover infill and redevelopment in the urban corridor that includes the Greeley Planning Area. (BSB Growth Policy) 5.3. Medical and Health Care Services Health care services are generally located west of the Greeley Planning Area. St. James Healthcare, located at 400 South Clark Street, provides hospital services to a seven-county region in Southwest Montana. Butte Mental Health Center is located at 106 W. Broadway. Aware, Inc. provides community-based services to persons with challenging mental, emotional, and in some cases, physical needs. Their main office in Butte is at 227 E. Mercury, with adult mental health group home on the same block. The Butte-Silver Bow Health Department is located at 25 W. Front Street. The Health Department covers a wide variety of programs including environmental health (air quality, lead abatement programs, water quality, food and consumer safety, etc.) and human services (chemical dependency, health promotion and prevention, family services, home health and public heath immunizations, etc.). The Butte Community Health Center is located south of the Interstate at 445 Centennial. As reported in the Butte-Silver Bow Growth Policy Update, the county could benefit from greater diversity in medical services. There are physician shortages for certain specialties and shortages of dentists as well. In addition, there is inadequate capacity to meet mental health service needs. 5.4. Education The only school in the Planning Area closed in 2004 (BSB Growth Policy). Elementary school students now fall within either the Whittier Elementary School District or the Emerson Elementary School District. (Refer to Map 1) Whittier Elementary is located at 2500 Sherman Avenue, approximately one-half mile or more south of Grand Avenue. Emerson Elementary at 1924 Phillips Avenue, approximately one-quarter mile from the southwest corner of the Planning Area. The Head Start pre-school program is west of the Planning Area. East Middle School is the only public middle school in Butte and it is located just on the other side of Grand Avenue from the Planning Area. The Butte Public High School is at 401 South Wyoming Street on the Butte Hill to the west. An alternative public school is located on Front Street near Montana Street. The Capstone Christian Academy at 1485 Continental Drive is a private school a few blocks south east of the Planning Area. The Butte Silver Bow Growth Policy Update indicated that school infrastructure is adequate to meet existing need. 5.5. Transportation Butte-Silver Bow Transit, an agency of the Butte-Silver Public Works Department, operates “the Bus” on several routes Monday through Friday between 6:45 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., and a separate route on Saturdays with shorter service hours. The Racetrack-Englewood Loop and the Service Route-South Loop run along the edges of the Planning Area on Texas St. and Grand Avenue. (Refer to Map 2) The Service Route also runs on Elm near Continental, with a stop at the Beyond Homes assisted living facility. The Transfer Center is located on Harrison Avenue next to the Civic ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 27 Center, just a few blocks west of the Planning Area. There riders can access all of the Bus routes. (BSB Transit) Butte School District Number One provides transportation to high school students living more than three miles from the high school. Middle school students must live more than two miles from the school. Elementary school bus service varies. There are also a variety of specialized transportation services available throughout the Butte urban area. These include paratransit services contracted by Butte-Silver Bow Transit from AWARE, Inc., private transportation services for developmentally disabled individuals through BSW, Inc., Head Start program transportation, and senior transportation provided by the Belmont Senior Center. Other transportation services include A-1 Ambulance and A-1 Wheelchair Transport. Private transportation companies include Mining City Taxi, the only taxi company operating in Butte, and four different companies (including Greyhound Bus Line) providing inter-city transportation to other locations in Montana and the nation. The Butte-Silver Bow Transfer Facility provides connections to inter-city private carriers. The Butte-Silver Bow Growth Policy Update indicates that busses are adequate to serve existing and could accommodated additional passengers for the foreseeable future. 5.6. Solid Waste Collection Butte-Silver Bow government contracts a private company to provide garbage collection in the urban area. Garbage collection fees are included in annual property tax bills. The solid waste facility is located approximately one mile north of Rocker and is estimated to have a 50-year life span. (BSB Growth Policy) 5.7. Library The public library is located in Uptown Butte at 227 W. Broadway. It is open six days a week, with extended hours Tuesday through Thursday. 5.8. Senior Services and Other Social Services The Belmont Senior Center is located approximately at 615 E. Mercury, approximately one mile west of the Planning Area’s northwest corner. It is on “the Bus” routes and the Center also provides some additional transportation (as noted above). Area V Agency on Agency is located at 1015 S. Montana Street, west of the Planning Area. District XII Human Resources Council (HRC) provides assistance to low-income individuals, with offices located at 700 Casey Street, approximately three-fourths of a mile from the southwest corner of the Planning Area. The Food Bank is located at 1019 East Second Street, west of the Planning Area. 5.9. Community Activities and Events Major community events in Butte include St. Patrick’s Day, Evel Knieval Days and An Ri Ra Irish Festival. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 28 6. Conclusions and Projected Trends Most of the public services in the Greeley Planning Area have adequate capacity for increased population. Noticeable exceptions are medical care and law enforcement— there is a shortage of physician specialties and dentists, and the Law Enforcement Department is struggling to meet existing needs. Across the nation, local agencies that provide services to low income populations face a constant struggle for funding and resources. That said, the Greeley Planning Area is no worse off than the rest of Silver- Bow County in terms of the services that are available, and has much closer access to services compared to rural residents in the county. Sources BSB: See Butte-Silver Bow Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy 2008 Update. http://co.silverbow.mt.us/departments/documents/Butte- SilverBowGrowthPolicy2008Update-Final.pdf Butte-Silver Bow Fire Department. Incident List for 2009, data generated on April 4, 2010. Butte-Silver Bow Law Enforcement Department. Case Report Supersearch (submitted by Doug Conway). March 22, 2010. Butte-Silver Bow Transit. Webiste accessed in July 2010: http://co.silverbow.mt.us/transit/ Conway, Doug. Captain, Butte-Silver Bow Law Enforcement Department. Personal communication in July-August 2010. Miller, Jeff. Coordinator, Butte-Silver Bow Fire Services. Personal communication in August 2010. Montana Board of Crime Control. Interactive Montana Crime Prevention and Data Map. Website accessed in July 2010: http://www.mbcc.mt.gov/PublicSafety/assessment/map.asp ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 29 GREELEY-RACETRACK AREA LAND USE REGULATIONS OVERVIEW This section discusses the land use regulations in the Greeley Neighborhood and also looks at provisions for changes to the regulations in the Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy - 2008 Update. Zoning districts and subdivision regulations are the two most commonly used legal mechanisms to carry out comprehensive plans (Hoch) In Montana law, comprehensive plans are referred to as “Growth Policies.” A zoning ordinance typically divides a community into districts and regulates land use in each district, specifying which uses are permitted, the density of uses, and size of buildings. Subdivision regulations govern the division of land. Because much of Greeley is already laid out into blocks and lots, and the lots are typically smaller than residential development in other areas of the county, subdivision regulations do not come into action as frequently in the Greeley Neighborhood as they would in more rural areas. The Community “Decay” Ordinance (also referred to as the Community “Enrichment” Ordinance) and Butte’s Historic Preservation ordinance are other regulatory measures that may affect land uses in the Greeley Neighborhood. 1. ZONING Montana state law stipulates that zoning regulations must be in accordance with a growth policy. The Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy – 2008 Update identifies a general proposed land use classification system and map as the basis for changes to existing zoning. The 2008 Growth Policy Update also recommended neighborhood specific plans, which would (or could) identify specific land use objectives that would further refine the general objectives of the overall plan. Traditional zoning ordinances separate land uses into categories. In the urban area of Butte, these basic categories are “Residential,” “Commercial,” and “Industrial.” The complete Butte-Silver Bow zoning ordinance is found on the local government web site at the link for municipal code: http://co.silverbow.mt.us/municipal_code.asp. The Butte urban zoning code is basically pyramidal or hierarchical in that it generally allows “higher,” less intensive uses (such as residences) in the “lower” zones that allow more intensive uses (such as commercial). In the Butte urban zoning code for example, the “lower” R-2 zone (Two-Family Residential Zone) states that it allows all uses in the “higher” R-1 zone (One-Family Residential Zone) and then clarifies which additional uses are allowed within the R-2 zone. In the zoning code, Permitted uses are those that are specifically allowed – if the use meets the standards, approval is automatic. Conditional and Special uses are discretionary uses that are not automatically approved and which must go through separate review to determine compatibility and acceptability within the zoning code. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 30 In addition to the requirements for each zone, there are also general requirements for signage, parking, home occupations, manufactured homes, and planned unit developments. The code also addresses Nonconforming uses, which are those uses which were lawful before the current zoning code, but which do not conform to the current zone requirements. It is the intent of the zoning code to allow nonconforming uses to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. In Greeley, there are only two basic zone categories – Residential and Commercial, but residential has several sub-categories: Residential R-1 Single Family Residence R-3 Multi-Family Residence Zone R-4 Mobile Home Commercial C-1 Local Commercial Zone A summary of purpose and key aspects of each zone in the Greeley Neighborhood is shown in Table 1. Figure 1 is a map of zoning in the Greeley Neighborhood. Due to the age of the neighborhood, there are nonconforming uses scattered throughout. In addition there have been new businesses (particularly along Farrell Street) that have been permitted as variances. (Hess) Many residential lots do not likely have the required minimum lot area now required for a single family home (6,000 square feet). Butte’s commercial zones do not allow single- family or two-family residences. Residential apartments on the second floor of commercial businesses are allowed within the C-1 zone. 2. COMMUNITY DECAY ORDINANCE The Community Decay Ordinance is found in Chapter 8.06 of the Butte Municipal Code. Its purpose is to “is to provide for an ordinance to control public nuisances referred to as "community decay" caused by accumulation of rubble, debris, junk or refuse (including buildings which have become dilapidated through neglect or inattention) and establish procedures for its enforcement.” The regulations include an exhaustive list of possible violations from weeds to firewood storage to exterior maintenance of structures. The Butte-Silver Bow health officer and the Butte-Silver Bow sheriff or their designees are the community decay coordinator. Enforcement powers include the right to abate the nuisance, after procedures have been taken to provide notification to the landowner of the problem. 3. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 31 The Historic Preservation Ordinance is set out in Chapter 2.64 of the Butte-Silver Bow (BSB) Municipal Code. It addresses several key topics potentially contributing to Historic Preservation in the Greeley-Racetrack area. These include:  as BSB public policy, to preserve, enhance and perpetuate those aspects of the city-county that have cultural, architectural and/or archeological merit;  develop local preservation tax incentives, in cooperation with the authorities and the Montana Department of Revenue, Appraisal/Assessment Office or other pertinent agencies;  provide technical information and guidance on historic preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, landscaping and maintenance of historic properties and potentially historic districts, buildings, sites, objects and structures;  considerations for Historic Preservation in the development of the Butte- Silver Bow comprehensive growth plans;  evaluation and listing of properties for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Local Register of historic properties (Local Register);  review and comment on proposed land uses which could affect historic properties;  review and comment on environmental assessments and impact statements and similar documents (such as those for projects subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act);  requests to demolish historic buildings and structures, and  design reviews for properties listed on the Local Register. The guidelines to implement Ordinance are under development by the Butte- Silver Bow Historic Preservation Commission (established per Chapter 2.64.050 of the code and hereinafter as “HPC”). Only Local Register properties are subject to the design reviews. "Local register property" means any property that has been found eligible for the the Local Register by the HPC. Properties are listed with the consent of the owner, unless the owner is accepting local government tax relief, funds or other incentives. As of July 2010, there are two properties listed on the Local Register. No Historic Property may be demolished without approval of the HPC. An Historic Property is defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, landscape, building, structure, object or traditional cultural property included in, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.. Before a property may be demolished, there must first be a determination of whether it meets the definition of historic. If not, it may be demolished without further review. If it is determined historic, it must qualify for demolition under the guidelines. Decisions on ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 32 demolitions of Historic Properties by the HPC may be appealed to the Butte- Silver Bow Council of Commissioners. (Jarvis) Other BSB programs also offer support for Historic Preservation. For example, The Urban Revitalization Agency (URA) sets aside a portion of its annual revenues for various programs including façade, building conservation and interior renovation programs, as well as sidewalk replacement. This Redevelopment Program consists of both matching grants and loans to eligible applicants. The goal of the Program is to encourage voluntary repair to existing commercial property (income producing) within the URA District. The HPC is also working on other programs to enhance and provide assistance for Historic Preservation. These include several funding proposals to be developed from out of the ARCO/BSB Redevelopment Trust. These include several funding proposals to be developed from out of the ARCO/BSB Redevelopment Trust. They include a Historic Preservation Endowment Fund, which would provide historic preservation grants and revolving loans for preservation of historic buildings and structures. The Mothball or Abatement Fund, a program to assist with temporary, emergency measures identified as needed to stabilize historic buildings and structures from deterioration. The Rehabilitation Feasibility Study Fund would assist in independent professional assessment of the condition, cost of repairs, and fair market value of buildings. Also, there are local, state and federal tax incentive programs for Historic Preservation. A local Historic Preservation Tax Abatement Program is also available for both commercial and residential properties within historic districts. Butte-Silver Bow has a Historic Preservation Tax Abatement Program, offering a five year phased abatement of increased property taxes resulting from rehabilitation of residential and commercial properties listed on the Local Register. The State of Montana has created a separate income tax credit program, modeled from the Federal program. The State program is limited to a 5% credit on the amount expended on the rehabilitation of income producing properties listed on the National Register. The federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives (FHTI) program offers a 20% tax credit for the rehabilitation of income- producing (commercial) historic properties. 4. BUTTE-SILVER BOW COUNTY GROWTH POLICY 2008 UPDATE – CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy Update) includes a number of recommendations related to land use regulation. It includes a map with conceptual layouts of broad zoning classifications for commercial and residential. Within the Greeley Neighborhood, the conceptual land use includes commercial, residential, and institution old Greeley School property). There is also more commercial land area designation and extends the length of Contintental Drive-Farrell Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 33 Sources Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy 2008 Update. http://co.silverbow.mt.us/departments/documents/Butte- SilverBowGrowthPolicy2008Update-Final.pdf Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code. http://co.silverbow.mt.us/departments/documents/Butte- SilverBowGrowthPolicy2008Update-Final.pdf Hoch, Charles J. Editor. The Practice of Local Government Planning, Third Edition. 2000. International Cit/County Management Association. Washington, DC. Jarvis, Jim. Silver Bow County Historic Preservation Officer. Phone conversation with Anne Cossitt, July 9, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C – Technical Reports 34 GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES – SUMMARY Zone Title Primary Intended Use Permitted Uses Excluded uses Conditional Uses Building Height Limits Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width R-1 One-Family Residence Zone One-family residences Single-Family, Manufactured Homes (Class A and Modular), Rooms/Board for not more than 2 adult persons, Accessory Uses, Day Care Homes, Special Uses (a long list ranging from art galleries to electric power plants, sewerage treatment plants, public and private schools) Class B manufactured homes, Temporary uses,Home Occupations, keeping fow and similar animals 35 feet 6,000 sq ft 60 ft R-3 Multi-Family Residence Zone Multi-family residences Same as R-2 AND ALSO Multi-family, Boarding homes for not more than 8 persons, Day care homes, family or group Same as R-2 AND ALSO Medical, dental, hotels, motels, private clubs and lodges 80 ft 7500 sq ft for 2-8 units 80 ft R-4 Mobile Home Zone Mobile home residence special zone where mobile homes may be placed without change in the character of the neighborhood Single-family, Manufactured Homes (Class A, B, C and Modular), mobile homes on individual lots, mobile home parks, Accessory uses, Day care homes (family or group); Special Uses same as R-1 and additional special uses Hotels, motels, private clubs and lodges, medical and dental offices, any non- residential use permitted conditionally in R-3 zone Same as R- 1 6,000 sq ft 60 feet C-1 Local Commercial Zone Neighborhood shopping facilities serving the residents within one- half mile; preferred is locations within a business island rather than on several sites scattered through the neighborhood or in ribbons along arterials Any non-residential use permitted in R- 1 zone AND ALSO Any retail use as long as within a building not larger than 5,000 ft gross floor area, long list of specific additional uses including Residential apartments on the second floor of commercial businesses, and Special Uses same as R-2 no business serving alcoholic beverages Drive-in restaurants, mini-storage warehouses, satellite banks, public housing, correctional housing Same as R- 2 8,000 sq ft 75 feet ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings APPENDIX D: Steering Committee Meetings and Town Hall Meetings Steering Committee Meeting Agenda, June 8 Steering Committee Meeting Notes, June 8 Steering Committee Meeting Agenda, July 20 Steering Committee Meeting Notes, July 20 Steering Committee Meeting Agenda, August 10 Steering Committee Meeting Notes, August 10 Town Hall Meeting Agenda, August 10 Town Hall Meeting Notes, August 10 Steering Committee Meeting Agenda, September 14 Steering Committee Meeting Notes, September 14 Steering Committee Meeting Agenda, October 26 Steering Committee Meeting Notes, October 26 Town Hall Meeting Agenda, October 26 Town Hall Meeting Notes, October 26 Steering Committee Meeting Agenda, November 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 1 GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Steering Committee Meeting Christina’s Cocina Café 2201 Silver Bow Boulevard Tuesday, June 8, 2010 6:30‐8:30 p.m. Purpose To launch the Greeley Neighborhood planning process. Outcomes  Accept the charter of the Steering Committee  Recognize common ground regarding what members most care about the Neighborhood  Clarify member expectations, roles and responsibilities  Generate ideas on how to best solicit feedback from interested groups and the general public  Provide feedback on survey questions  Get to know one another better Agenda NOTE: Please plan on eating dinner on your own before or after the meeting. Time Activity 6:00 p.m. (30) Check‐in Welcome/Why We’re Here/Introductions Appreciative Planning  Purpose, Outcomes, Agenda, Meeting Guidelines Introduce Neighborhood Background & Charter & Planning Process  What we as consultants know about the neighborhood  Clarifying member expectations, roles & responsibilities  BSB parameters as the policy implementers  Purpose of plan & overall planning process  Purpose & approval of the steering committee charter Appreciative Stories about the Greeley Neighborhood & Visioning  Think back over stories you’ve heard about or experiences you’ve personally had related to the Greeley Neighborhood that were very meaningful or inspiring to you. Select one to share with the others in the group.  What gives life to this neighborhood?  What is at its core that if it were lost it would never be the same? Draft Survey Questions Moving Forward  Schedule and Participation 8:30 p.m. Closing ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 2 Greeley Neighborhood Steering Committee #1 June 8, 2010 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM MEETING NOTES Steering Committee Attendees: John Habeger Christina McGrath Sandy Garrett Jim Shive Edith McClafferty Dan McClafferty Captain Doug Conway Margie Seccomb Gary Shea Ed Randall Craig Dessing Tad Dale Terry Schultz Members not in attendance: Jed Hoopes Gary Jones Staff/Consultant Attendees: Steve Hess (staff) Anne Cossitt Kim Olsen Ken Markert Jolene Rieck Guests: Douglas Schidler II Donna Bacon Ben Nagel Pam Flower Debra Schultz Steve Hess opened the meeting by introducing the attendees. Jolene Rieck discussed the appreciative planning process. Anne Cossitt discussed the charter for the steering committee and its responsibilities. The attendees accepted the charter as presented at the meeting. Anne Cossitt discussed the consultant’s team role and information collected to date. Group exercise: Appreciative stories regarding the Greeley Neighborhood ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 3 Theme Paraphrased Comments from Participants of mentions) Consultant Observations The neighborhood “trailhead”  Trailhead to the Chamber, malls and Silver Bow Creek  Columbia Gardens created many fond memories at the ‘trailhead.’  Skating rink was a popular kid gathering area  Convenience  Neighborhood proximity to past and current features created an asset for living there. Sense of community  Neighborhood watch  People are neighborly  Care about people & property (4x)  Respectful  Volunteerism  Sense of community  Neighborhood pride  Quiet  What advantages does this neighborhood’s sense of community and pride provide to the action items that will be proposed in the plan? Greeley School  Focal point in the neighborhood (3x)  Neighborhood schools/parks, etc. are an asset  Need for opportunities to engage all ages, teenager need positive activities  The vacant Greeley School will be a priority discussion point in the plan.  Activities/facilities targeted towards teenagers may need to be a focus item. Housing Inventory  Well‐built older homes  Architectural homes  Older, smaller homes  Opportunities for infill  Heterogeneous  As homes age what are the consequences of upkeep? Social Fabric  Neighborhood traditions  Generational families  Cultural & social cohesiveness at risk for loss  Infrastructure supports the cohesiveness  Crime rate is low, security  How will we integrate newcomers into the neighborhood?  What will make them feel welcomed? Mining Influence  Better or worse? (2x)  Proximity to mining operations has an impact on the quality of life in this neighborhood. Open spaces  Pedestrian‐based activity  Green buffers are missing  Green buffers may assist in the mining influence with air, noise and visual disturbance. Individual exercise: Appreciative stories about the Greeley Neighborhood Theme Paraphrased comments from participants of mentions) Consultant Observations Families, Generational Families, Neighbors  Families spending time together (7x)  Neighbors helping neighbors (5x)  Cultural‐social cohesiveness  Changing demographic  What facilities/activities may help contribute to the continuation of these strong ties?  How do we make newcomers feel welcomed? Greeley School  Loss of the school has changed the neighborhood’s way of life (3x)  School produced good athletes (2x)  Through the school everyone knew everyone  The school contributed to a tight social network. What other facilities/activities may provide the same opportunities? ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 4 Places for kids to play  Fond memories of Columbia Gardens, could walk from my home  Skating rink (3x)  Silver Bow trail is an asset (2x)  Clarks Park  Race Track Fire Hall  Need to develop a plan for infrastructure that targets the 16 and under demographic Proximity  Convenient to work (2x)  Mining operations, don’t mind the noise  Mining is an important identity of this neighborhood  Connections in/out of the neighborhood appear to be adequate Housing  Well‐built older homes (3x)  Home maintenance, encourage upkeep  Assist the older & disabled population  Infill opportunities exist  Will pride be enough? Jolene Rieck will evaluate the results of this exercise and present a draft vision statement at the next steering committee meeting. Ken Markert presented the preliminary survey results from the steering committee members. He discussed the parameters of the neighborhood survey. Ken will continue to develop the survey questionnaire for the next committee review. The steering committee suggested that Commissioner Terry Schultz be added as a formal member of the committee. Anne Cossitt discussed the future meeting dates and locations. The committee generally agreed to the time, location, schedule and agenda for the next meeting but clarified that they prefer all Greeley meetings to be held on Tuesdays. The committee suggested that the town hall meetings be moved from July to August due to the numerous events held in July. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 5 GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Steering Committee Meeting Disciples Christian Church, 1200 Texas Avenue July 20, 2010 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Purpose To continue work on the Greeley Neighborhood Plan – moving forward with vision, existing conditions inventory, and upcoming town hall meeting Outcomes  Provide a solid base to understand the current conditions of the neighborhood  Commit to a final draft of the citizen survey  Modify the draft vision statement for presentation at the town hall meeting Agenda Time Activity 6:15 Check‐in 6:30 Neighborhood Inventory Report & Discussion  Demographics  Economics  Land Use Regulations  Infrastructure  Parks 7:30 Citizen Survey  Review the draft citizen survey 7:55 Neighborhood Vision  Review and modify the draft vision for the neighborhood 8:10 Town Hall Approach  Generating effective and successful ways to get input from interested groups and the general public  Expectations 8:20 Homework  Next meeting agenda  Evaluation 8:25 Public comment period 8:30 p.m. Closing ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 6 Greeley Neighborhood Steering Committee #2 July 20, 2010 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM MEETING NOTES Steering Committee Attendees: Doug Conway Tad Dale Craig Dessing John Habeger Jed Hoopes Dan McClafferty Edith McClafferty Christina McGrath Terry Schultz Gary Shea Jim Shive Members not in attendance: Ed Randall Gary Jones Sandy Garrett Margie Seccomb Staff/Consultant Attendees: Steve Hess (staff) Anne Cossitt Kim Olsen Ken Markert Jolene Rieck Guests: Debra Schultz Linda Reksten Ben Nagel Anne Cossitt opened the meeting by reviewing the agenda and discussing the procedures for guest participation. The consultant team presented the inventory report on the following items: Demographics, economics, land use regulations, zoning, infrastructure and parks. The reports are posted on the website. The group was asked to indicate their reactions individually on a written comment sheet. The results of that effort are posted separately from these notes. Members of the committee highlighted some of their initial reactions. Terry Schultz indicated that Howard Street was initially the City/County border. Once can see a visible difference in development standards between this line because at the time, the County had lesser regulations than the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 7 The group discussed the lighting in the neighborhood, attendees indicated that only having lights at intersections created a dark neighborhood. They asked clarifying questions regarding storm water and utility improvements. The group discussed the safety aspects of the neighborhood. Some attendees cited concerns over safe routes to park lands and felt that crossing Grand Avenue is a challenge. Doug Conway indicated that in general, the Greeley area has a relatively low crime rate; most crime is vandalism and vehicle break‐ins. Most people indicated that they felt safe in this neighborhood. Edie McClafferty indicated that the School District Superintendent was in attendance and wanted to address the future of the Greeley School building and land. Some members of the committee feel that this is a very significant issue in the planning effort. Both Linda Reksten and Terry Schultz discussed their respective entity’s current status and committed to continuing the discussion about the future of this item. Ken Markert handed out the latest draft version of the citizen survey. The committee members suggested revisions and alternate questions. Jim Shive suggested adding a question to the survey specifically regarding the future of the school, considering the discussion that occurred at this meeting. Ken indicated that he will revise the draft and future changes will be communicated to the committee via email. Jolene Rieck reviewed the key findings from the first meeting. She formulated them into a draft vision statement. Some members felt that the initial statement did not reflect the values of the neighborhood. Some felt that it was overly optimistic. Jolene indicated that due to time constraints, committee members will have to forward their ideas and it will be reviewed again in a future steering committee meeting. Anne Cossitt quickly reviewed the town hall meeting agenda. She indicated that three locations are proposed: Race Track Fire Hall, East Junior High or the Disciples Christian Church. The team will follow up with logistics. Attendees filled out meeting evaluations, and the results will be posted on the project website. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 8 GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Steering Committee Meeting First Disciples Church, 1200 Texas Ave. August 10, 2010 5:30 – 7:00 p.m. Purpose To continue work on the Neighborhood Plan – concluding the existing conditions inventory, and start focus on broad goals and future action items Outcomes  Provide a solid base to understand the current conditions of the neighborhood  Begin forward, positive thinking on how to take advantage of the opportunities this neighborhood provides Agenda Time Activity 5:15 p.m. Check‐in 5:30 p.m. Welcome members and guests  Review agenda, guest participation 5:35 p.m. Neighborhood Inventory Report & Discussion  Public Services: Fire, Police, Garbage, Transit  Land Use  Property Assessment  Reactions & group discussion 6:10 p.m. Initial Broad Goals  Review the framework of the plan  Discussion of priorities  Present initial “Issue/Goal” summary 6:55 p.m. Homework & Public Comment Period  Next meeting agenda  Meeting evaluation  Public comment 7:00 p.m. Closing ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 9 Greeley Neighborhood Steering Committee #3 August 10, 2010 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM MEETING NOTES Steering Committee Attendees: Doug Conway Tad Dale Craig Dessing John Habeger Jed Hoopes Dan McClafferty Edith McClafferty Christina McGrath Terry Schultz Gary Shea Members not in attendance: Ed Randall Gary Jones Sandy Garrett Margie Seccomb Jim Shive Staff/Consultant Attendees: Steve Hess (staff) Anne Cossitt Kim Olsen Jolene Rieck Guests: None Anne Cossitt began the steering committee meeting by reviewing the agenda and discussing the procedures for guest participation. The steering committee suggested that on the website list the date and time of the document posting, so that if a revised document is posted, they know to access it. They also suggested posting the names of the steering committee members on the website. Anne Cossitt presented the inventory report on public services which includes:  Law Enforcement  Fire and Emergency  Medical and Health Care  Education  Transportation  Solid Waste  Senior and Other Social Services  Community Events The next report was on land use which included  Mining History ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 10  Development History  Existing Land Use Kim Olsen presented her report on housing, which included a series of Sanborn maps, building conditions and zoning. She indicated that the area was sparsely populated in 1916 and contains larger lots. Most of the buildings were built prior to 1940. Eighty‐one percent of the housing stock is in good to very good conditions. However older homes are in need of updating. Many of the homes don’t have “real” basements. Many are dirt basements or are placed on granite blocks. Kim indicated that mobile homes built prior to 1976 are of substandard quality due to changes in building codes. Post 1976 fabrication follows stricter guidelines for mobile homes. The decommissioning of mobile homes may affect this neighborhood. The neighborhood use supports housing. There are no National Historic Landmark or National Historic Register listings in the Greeley Neighborhood. The group responded to the inventory report with written responses. 1. Are there any specific changes or items that need to be addressed to make the reports more accurate? Is there anything you would add or delete?  Dates posted on web and on reports!  I should have gone online and made a copy of your presentation material. I would have like to be able to read or see the information presented. Good information though!  Address where the need is most needed for improvements.  No  No!! 2. What do you believe are the most significant key findings or observations from the data presented?  I thought it was interesting that so many homes were deemed in good repair. I see a lot of neglected homes.  Neighborhood park within walking distance  Lack of vacant land available  That our area is a mess!! 3. What topics should the steering committee focus on first in moving forward?  Infrastructure: water lines, sewer, storm sewer, curb & gutter, lighting, new pavement  How we can be directed to make the greatest effect on the community by what we do here.  What type of grants or other programs are available to the people to improve their homes?  Prioritize goals  Greeley School – now & future  Street improvement. Greeley issue (park)  Zoning for mobile homes, lighting, infrastructure (sewer, storm drains, roads, sidewalks) ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 11 Jolene Rieck presented the outline for the goals and objectives. The group brainstormed potential goals for the Greeley Neighborhood. Danny McClafferty indicated that he would like to see storm water not go into people’s yards. He also would like to see streets with curb and gutter as well as lighting. Terry Schultz discussed the traffic on Continental Drive. He suggested to start road improvements with the arterials and work towards the local streets. He indicated that a green buffer on Continental Drive would lend towards solving multiple issues. Christy McGrath indicated that she would like to see better lighting at the intersections, that the neighborhood is too dark now. She would also like to see the roads get sanded better in the winter. The group discussed parks and open space and indicated that they would like to see some improvements to Race Track Park. Danny indicated to add more amenities and improve the cross walks. John Habeger discussed the lure of new businesses and echoed the ideas for open space/green buffer along Continental Drive. The group discussed the incentives to upgrade their homes. Jolene Rieck asked if an engineering study for a storm water system for the neighborhood is desired. The group responded as yes. She also asked if the citizens/residents needs are met in terms of businesses in this neighborhood. The general indication is that businesses are adequate, and Christy McGrath felt that existing businesses have their needs met as well. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 12 GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING I Disciples Christian Church 1200 Texas Avenue August 10, 2010 Purpose Citizens identify what they want their neighborhood to be in the future Outcomes  Inform the public about the purpose and current status of the Greeley Neighborhood planning process.  Participants identify the opportunities, trends and challenges facing the future of the Greeley Neighborhood.  Identify the next steps of the planning process. Agenda Time Activity 7:00 p.m. Check in: Randomly assigned seating requested 7:30 p.m. Welcome 7:40 p.m. Meeting Agenda & Desired Outcomes 7:45 p.m. Why We’re Here: Purpose and Current Status of Planning Process 8:00 p.m. Citizen Discussion – Opportunities and Challenges for the Neighborhood 8:50 p.m. Next Steps of the Study 8:55 p.m. Meeting Evaluation 9:00 p.m. Close ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 13 Greeley Neighborhood Plan Town Hall Meeting Notes August 10, 2010 The purpose of the meeting was to engage the citizens in the development of a plan for the Greeley Neighborhood. Three desired outcomes of the meeting were intended. Participants became informed about the purpose and the current status of the planning process; they provided feedback on what they saw as opportunities, trends and challenges facing the future of the neighborhood; and to learn about the next steps of the planning process. Sixteen people signed in as participants in the meeting. Attendees sat in 4 separate small groups and responded to five pre‐determined questions. Answers were recorded onto flip charts and transcribed here. Each group was advised to write down individual responses, no group consensus was requested. Each row in the table represents one group’s responses. Note that (2x) indicates that multiple people in the group agreed with the response. 1. What is most important to you about the neighborhood? What do you want to make sure continues into the future?  Nothing  Economic value (property value)  Most do not want to live here (we’re captive because we can’t afford to move out)  Like the character of the neighborhood (like a suburb)  Like the people  Single family dwellings (2x)  Diversity of population (2x)  Central location (2x)  Pride of ownership  Neighbors  Quiet  Nothing  Like it  Neighbors  Development of trust between neighbors  Neighbors who take care of yards  Good location  Trees  Maintain single family housing  Good proximity to schools & parks ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 14 2. If you could change one thing about your neighborhood what would it be?  Implement breed specific dog laws  Remove junk cars  Remove growing piles of dirt at mine  Improve storm drainage  Improve safe pathways to schools  Curbs and sidewalks  Dust – terrible full of grit  Bad activity at school  Air smells like sulfur once a week  Paved streets  Curbs & gutters  Further north – more problems  Smooth pot holes in alleys  Juvenile vagrants  Improve storm drain system  Do something with school  Clean streets  Lighting – improved  Air Quality‐dust (6x)  Improved pavement  Storm drains  Sidewalks, curbs & gutters  Infrastructure (water drainage)  Building code enforcement  Law enforcement  Parking on Hayes Ave. by Crazy Carol’s – Need better streets  Proposal as to what to do with Greeley School  Lighting 3. Should the housing in Greeley Neighborhood continue to be mixed‐types or more homogenous?  Address zoning issues. Trailers are deteriorating  Prefer mixed housing  Phasing out trailers  No more use along Continental except housing  More suburban  More homogeneous  Two separate areas: Locust to Grand; Walnut to Continental  Less mobile homes or at least better mobile homes  Existing [homes] are old & not cared for ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 15  No large project housing  Less mobile home  One mobile home per two lots  Mixed‐types 4. What topic areas should the steering committee focus on first? (Transportation, Utilities, Economic Development, Housing, Parks, Services, Land Use, School)  Storm sewers  Re‐engineer traffic flow  Parks  Do something with the Greeley – a display museum  View‐Point Park on the remnant of Farrell Street, East of Continental Drive  An apprentice‐youth job program  Do something with Greeley School (1st priority)  Housing (land use)  Improve streets and lighting (not lighting up whole sky – low level)  Parks  Do something positive with Greeley School  Paved streets  Pot holes in alleys fixed  Improve storm sewer  Improve dilapidated houses  Curb/sidewalks  Deal with Greeley School  Transportation  Parks  Utilities  Dust in air from crusher  Services 5. What other wishes do you want to convey to BSB as they continue through this planning process?  Allocate funding to us  Street lighting  Fostering & building community spirit  More police monitoring of Greeley School  Don’t forget about us after reports  Ban fire works  Facilitate the implementation manifest method of community transformation  Block grants available?  Clean‐up properties ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 16  Remove old cars  Enforce pet ordinance  Permit code and enforcement  Solar lighting  Repair obscuring of stop sign  Prioritize needs i.e. sidewalks, curbs, etc.  No neglect shown to certain areas  Complete this process in a timely manner  Make a decision about the Greeley - finalize Participants had the opportunity to provide additional feedback by writing their comments on blank cards. Two cards were returned. 1. Please fix the alleys! 2400 Locust (map was provided). 2. I think that putting more solar energy in the neighborhood might help with lighting. This might start a wave. One person provided their written comments and delivered them to the Consultants at the meeting. The following is the transcript of this person’s comments. 1. [General] a. Start with the correct description of the area. Either change the street sign or correct your description [regarding] Farrell Street on the North. Please fix on the web site. 2. Land/Building Use a. Affordable private housing b. Zones for individual mobile homes that meet codes c. Greeley School Building converted to a Copper‐way of Life Museum (as part of Governor’s plan) 3. Streets, Roads & Sidewalks a. Start by declaring Garfield, Stuart, Adams, Howard and Texas as pathways to school and using safe routes to school monies to put in sidewalks and curbing. 4. Utilities a. Improve to standard. 5. Economic Development a. Encourage cooperative advertising by businesses already in the area. b. Encourage small business independent contractor development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 17 c. Encourage development of Government‐private joint venture. Apprentice Independent Contractor work programs where youth can do minimal/medial labor for less than minimum wage. (At Chinese wages) d. Return jobs to us Americans. Request Council fo Commissioners to pass a Fair‐ Free Trade Resolution – requiring all goods/services border to border in BSB shall meet all USA standards (including wages) to be implemented when ¾ of countries in the country pass resolution. 6. Housing a. Mobile homes need to meet code b. Have develop a cheap whole house are filtrating system that can be retrofitted to existing homes. 7. Parks and Open Space a. Create a trolley stop type view point park at remnant of Farrell Street on east side of Continental Drive. b. Restore natural landscaping c. Signing telling the stories of: i. Lady of the Rockies ii. Columbia Gardens iii. Active Continental Pit iv. Lost neighborhoods v. Railroading over the Continental Divide vi. Modern mine ____[illegible] vii. Inactive Berkley Pit viii. Concentration 8. Police‐Fire‐Code Enforcement a. Enforcement of codes b. Volunteer vigilance vigilante patrols (neighbors expecting neighbors to obey the law, control your animals) c. Start by distributing an “expected conduct” warning flier d. Support dog breed specific law 9. Neighborhood Character a. Building, fostering and reinforcing by applying the manifest method of community transformation. b. Facilitate the formation of Neighborhood Beautification Clusters i. One flower box at a time ii. One property at a time c. Manifest Method of Community Transformation i. Primary factious; the ministry; the manifest; the missionary ii. In neighborhood groups ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 18 iii. Gathering together in homes with those next door neighbors you are willing to invite into your home iv. Coalescing the will spirit of the people by and from the bottom up; together. ‐Seeking. ‐Trusting. ‐Caring. ‐Sharing. ‐Communicating v. Relative to common concerns ‐Personal ‐Familial ‐Communal/Social/Service ‐Educational ‐Spiritual ‐Economical ‐Governmental ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 19 GREELEY AREA PLAN Steering Committee Meeting First Disciples Church, 1200 Texas Ave. September 14, 2010 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Purpose To continue work on the Neighborhood Plan – review results of citizen survey and future land use concepts, refine goal statements and begin prioritization of goals, prepare for next town hall meeting Outcomes  Goals in draft format, ready for public review  Future land uses considered and recommendations on next steps Agenda Time Activity 6:00 pm Check‐in 6:30 pm Welcome members and guests  Review agenda, guest participation  Overview of project schedule 6:35 pm Citizen Survey  Review results 7:00 pm August Town Hall Meeting  Summary 7:10 pm Future Land Use  Draft conceptual map – overview and discussion  Decision on if/how to use the map? Next steps 7:35 pm Goals  Refine goal statements  Initial priority setting  Implementation strategies 8:15 pm October Town Hall Meeting  Overview and discussion 8:20 pm Homework & Public Comment Period  Next meeting agenda  Homework  Public comment 8:30 p.m. Closing ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 20 Greeley Neighborhood Steering Committee #4 September 14, 2010 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM MEETING NOTES Steering Committee Attendees: Tad Dale Jed Hoopes Gary Shea Craig Dessing Edie McClafferty Dan McClafferty Christy McGrath Terry Shultz Sandy Garrett Members not in attendance: Doug Conway Ed Randall Gary Jones Margie Seccomb Jim Shive John Habeger Staff/Consultant Attendees: Steve Hess (staff) Anne Cossitt Ken Markert Jolene Rieck Guests: Stauna Mandic R. Edward Banderob Jolene Rieck began the meeting by reviewing the agenda. Anne Cossitt reviewed the project schedule. The steering committee suggested contacting past participants of the meetings and surveys to update them on the process. Ken Markert presented the results of the citizen mail survey. He indicated that the sample group was just over 60 percent of the registered voters in the Greeley area. He indicated that 525 surveys were mailed out and 235 surveys were returned. This corresponds to a 45 percent response rate. Some steering committee members indicated that single households received multiple surveys. Ken indicated that the list was based on individual voters, not households, so it is possible that multiple households may have received multiple surveys. Ken indicated that the most positive features of the neighborhood were proximity to uptown and downtown, good neighbors and affordability of housing. The most common negative features were the conditions of the streets and sidewalks, properties, and a tie between the vacant Greeley School and the adjacent mine. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 21 The survey asked about the types of housing preferred in the Greeley Neighborhood. The majority of respondents indicated that traditional single‐family homes were most preferred. Survey respondents indicated that the best ways to get involved changing the Greeley Neighborhood is to improve their own properties, form a neighborhood watch, and implement neighborhood clean‐up days. One of the steering committee members pointed out that one answer pertained to the creation of a “neighborhood association,” which may have been interpreted as a due‐paying home owner association, so that answer may have a less favorable response. The survey asked two questions regarding the Greeley School. The first question asked respondents what they wanted to do if the building was torn down. Over 31 percent indicated to make the land into a public park. The answers of constructing a community center, new church, day care and/or private school, and housing were a statistical tie. The steering committee noted that any recommendations about the Greeley School need to be well‐ evaluated for its feasibility and long‐term impacts. The second question regarding the Greeley School was if the building remains. Respondents indicated in a statistical tie a community center, public park, church, school or day care. The steering committee noted that of these three options, none of them are exclusive to each other and can be integrated into the overall site. The survey asked respondents to prioritize improvements. Among the top priorities were to improve the streets, find a reuse for the Greeley School, eliminate junk and weeds, and improve the sidewalks. Medium priorities included an increase in police patrols, improving older homes, improving alleys and sewer, water improvements. Low priorities were landscape enhancements, street sweeping, new housing and public transportation. The steering committee noted that street improvements encompass curb and gutter, storm water, sidewalks, lighting, etc. Ken noted that 61 people submitted written comments with their survey. He said many good ideas were included in the written comments and should be considered. Ken indicated a good take‐away regarding the Greeley School is that the respondents said, “do something,” although they did not have a good consensus on what should be done. Jolene Rieck presented the results of the town hall meeting. She indicated that there are key themes emerging between the concerns of the steering committee members, town hall participants and the survey results. The town hall participants most often cited the people and the location and proximity of the neighborhood to Uptown and other areas as important elements of the neighborhood. Participants cited the street improvements and the dust issues as the most common things they would like to change. However, when asked about housing preferences, there was not a clear theme on whether or not they prefer homogeneous housing or mixed types. The most ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 22 common priorities to focus on first were the neighborhood’s storm water issues and the Greeley School. Other requests included comments regarding code enforcement. Anne Cossitt presented the proposed land use map. She indicated that several input variables were considered to delineate particular items on the map. The map shows a proposed greenway around Continental Drive and Farrell Street. The steering committee mentioned that the greenway would be a positive aspect and may help with some of the noise [and dust] problems that have been indicated in the neighborhood. The map also reflects the desire for more single‐family housing, over mobile homes. The steering committee mentioned that mobile, manufactured and modular homes are similar in construction and are built to better standards than their pre‐1976 counter parts. The steering committee discussed the need for code enforcement on current properties. The committee debated the merits of individual code enforcement over neighborhood code enforcement. Steve Hess indicated that Butte, in general, has the norm of many legal, non‐ conforming uses. Anne discussed the framework for the planning goals and overarching policy guidelines. Jolene Rieck explained the goals, the rationale, and the objectives. The steering committee focused on the housing market and perception that houses in the Greeley Neighborhood are not good investments. In terms of financing, one member indicated that the ability to get financing has not really changed for qualified buyers. She indicated that she has never had a home turned down because of surrounding environmental conditions. The bigger issue for HUD or other federal financing is maintenance. Homes with chipped paint are the target of lead issues, which do affect sale‐ability. Homes in poor condition, due to lack of ownership pride and maintenance, do not qualify well. Another steering committee member indicated that the Greeley Neighborhood is an area where one can sell a home. Many thing affect resale that are larger than neighborhood issues. However, the current zoning may affect sales. Potential buyers are indicating that single‐family homes and mobile homes are not as desirable. Proximity to the mine is an issue with noise and dust. This does affect values for the appreciable resale of a home. However, the bigger issue is things that neighborhoods can control. Junk cars, tidiness and cleanliness (i.e. curb appeal) is the number one thing that affects a potential buyer’s decision to buy a home. People also pick up on the lack of infrastructure. The flip side is that a handful of neighborhoods also have the same issues. The steering committee noted the junk vehicles throughout the neighborhood and a general request to enforce the ordinances. It was also noted that although it has gotten better in the past couple of years, some feel that more could be done. One member indicated his desire to see Stuart Avenue, Howard Avenue, and Texas Avenue improved as priority streets. It was suggested that these three streets provide continuity and ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 23 can be examples. Members were asked to possibly consider Stuart a trail head as it ties with East Middle School. The steering committee mentioned that older, smaller homes may be good options for starter or downsizing homes. One member suggested that planting new trees may be perceived as a symbol of a growing neighborhood, rather than a decaying neighborhood. Anne Cossitt discussed the format for the October town hall meeting. She reminded the members that the steering committee will meet at 5:30 PM, and then are requested to stay for the town hall meeting. Public comments: R. Ed Banderob requested that BSB should publish the number of junk vehicles complaints and also present these numbers at the town hall meeting. He is also urging the placement in the classified ads of the phone number to report code violations as he feels that it is difficult to find. Mr. Banderob suggested that the plan be renamed to the “Greeley Community Development.” He indicated that he does not agree with the congregated land use proposal. Mr. Banderob had eight requests that the steering committee should consider. 1. Use the 2010 transit [transportation] enhancement funds to augment sidewalks around the schools. 2. Did the school district follow up on the Greeley School roof with hail damage? There may be insurance money to fix the roof. 3. Advocate for and assist with the creation of the View Point Park. 4. Multi‐purpose the usage of the Greeley School building. In the summer use it as a display museum that tells the history by decade and mining. Then through the school year use it as a private school. It must be a joint‐venture to be feasible. 5. Develop a youth apprentice work program. It would be a mix of government, private and commercial collaboration. 6. Create neighborhood community beautification clusters. 7. Design and develop a whole‐house air purification system [to mitigate dust]. Suggest to the mining industry some research and development funds to seed the project. 8. Enact a more stringent and active animal control ordinance. Stauna Mandic thanked the steering committee for their efforts. She is interested in attending, and likes to be a part of the solution. She appreciated the discussion by Tad Dale regarding the needs of Montana Resources and the mining process. She wanted to know how she can get involved, and urged the steering committee to get assertive when asking citizens for participation. She committed to talking the efforts up and getting involved. She indicated that the more members talk it up, the more they will get back. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 24 GREELEY AREA PLAN Steering Committee Meeting Race Track Hall October 26, 2010 5:30 – 7:00 p.m. Purpose To continue work on the Neighborhood Plan – review key items and identify steps to finalizing plan Outcomes  Vision – receive comments, changes identified  Better understanding of how future land use schematic might be used  Identify conceptual key priorities  Process and schedule for finalizing neighborhood plan Agenda Time Activity 5:00 pm Check‐in 5:30 pm Welcome members and guests  Review agenda, guest participation  Overview of project schedule  Review comments to date 5:35 pm  Vision Statement 5:55 pm  Future Land Use Map ‐ concepts and potential use; discussion by committee members 6:20 pm Broad Priorities  What else needs to be addressed in this plan?  What are the most important things to focus on? – the key items  Priorities? 6:50 Next Steps  Plan Document finalization  Agenda for next meeting 6:55 Public Comment  Overview and discussion 7:00 Closing 7:30 Town Hall begins ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 25 Greeley Neighborhood Steering Committee #5 October 26, 2010 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM MEETING NOTES Steering Committee Attendees: Ed Randall Jed Hoopes Gary Shea Craig Dessing Christy McGrath Terry Schultz Sandy Garrett Jim Shive Members not in attendance: Doug Conway Gary Jones John Habeger Tad Dale Edie McClafferty Dan McClafferty Staff/Consultant Attendees: Anne Cossitt Jolene Rieck Guests: Jeff Williams (sub for Doug Conway) R. Ed Banderol Anne Cossitt began the steering committee meeting by discussing the project schedule. The meeting in November will be the final meeting of the steering committee. That meeting, the committee will need to provide comments on the draft plan. The group reviewed the revised vision statement. The following is the vision statement that the committee verbally committed to for the neighborhood plan: The Greeley Planning Area is primarily a residential neighborhood, a good safe and stable place for young families and older persons. The Greeley Area is the eastern gateway to Uptown Butte, to current mining operations, the trailhead to Silver Bow Creek and was the historic to Columbia Gardens. Greeley residents and Continental Pit mining operations acknowledge their proximity to each other and work to understand and address issues of concern. There is pride of ownership in the neighborhood, a strong sense of community with a good system of well‐maintained infrastructure including streets, lighting, storm drainage, and sidewalks to serve the neighborhood for the long‐term. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 26 Anne reviewed the future land use map that was presented at least month’s meeting. Most of the committee’s discussion focused on how the plan (in general) gets handled after the consultant’s contract is completed. They suggested that it may be helpful to have Anne present the plan to the Council of Commissioner’s to give it more weight in their consideration for adoption. Jed Hoops discussed that at one time the Chamber of Commerce has a program called “Beautify Butte.” Anne reviewed the proposed goals and objectives. The steering committee provided the additional feedback. Any goals that say “study or develop a plan” should also say “and implement.” The goals should be easily affordable steps, consider the options and alternatives. The group discussed the strategy to bring the goals to the forefront of BSB’s overall needs. One strategy is that the commission may prioritize projects by safety. Terry Schultz discussed how community momentum will roll with small successes, and discussed his ideas for Howard, Stewart and Texas. One suggestion is to focus on Farrell and Continental because that corridor affects more than the Greeley Neighborhood, and may be easier to convince the rest of BSB’s citizens to spend funds there. The committee indicated a desire to prioritize goals. Some suggested arranging them in short, mid and long‐term goals. Some suggested that transportation be a separate category from infrastructure. A goal should be considered regarding transit routes to/from Greeley. Jim Shive suggested that interpretative signs around the neighborhood should also interpret the Greeley neighborhood itself. Gary Shea voiced concerns about the Greeley School. The committee suggested getting the development package put together for the use as a community center. Anne Cossitt asked the group to raise their hand to indicate the top two priorities by category. Infrastructure ‐ 9 Parks & Open Space – 1 Public Services – 3 Housing – 3 Land Use (includes Continental & Ferrell greenway) – 4 Economic Development – 0 Transportation ‐ 2 Public comments: R. Ed Banderob reminded people to get the constituents to the Council meetings. The success of this plan will rely on getting the community involved. He indicated that the map goes past Greeley; there is a need to get businesses into Greeley, and not just bypass the neighborhood. His priorities are the use of the school grounds – the Council is waiting for this plan’s use. The ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 27 community needs to work with the mine who is investing $20M into a heritage center – recommend investing this into the Greeley School building. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 PM ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 28 GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING II Race Track Fire Hall 2344 Grand Avenue October 26, 2010 Purpose Citizens participate in setting goals for the Plan area and are briefed on work‐to‐date, including survey results. Outcomes  Inform the participants about the results of the last town hall meeting and citizen mail survey results  Citizens identify changes and additions to goals  Discuss how interested citizens can engage in ensuring that the plan is implemented. Agenda Time Activity 7:00 p.m. Setup & Check In 7:30 p.m. Welcome 7:40 Town Hall and Citizen Survey Results 8:00 Overview of Goals and Overall Plan Context 8:20 Small Group Discussion of Goals 8:55 Moving Forward – Next Steps in Process 9:00 p.m. Close ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 29 Greeley Neighborhood Plan Town Hall Meeting Notes October 26, 2010 The purpose of the meeting was to engage citizens in setting the goals for the plan area and to brief them on the work completed to date, including the mail survey results. Three desired outcomes of the meeting were intended. Participants became informed about the results of the last town hall meeting and the results of the mail survey. Attendees had an opportunity to provide changes and additions to the proposed goals, and citizens were interested in how they can ensure that the objectives are implemented. Seventeen people signed in as participants in the meeting; however, twenty‐two people were counted. Anne Cossitt of Cossitt Consulting began the meeting by discussing the mail survey results. She noted that the results have an error of margin of plus or minus 5.5 percent. The results are posted on the project website, and will be included in the final report. Anne announced that Robert E. Condon and Kevin S. Parvinen were the two winners of the gift baskets and certificates from Christina’s Cocina Cafe. Special “thank you” to Christina McGrath for providing those incentives. Jolene Rieck generally reported on the findings from the first town hall meeting. Anne reviewed the proposed goals and objectives. She reviewed the topic areas and broad goal topics. Each attendee was provided a handout of the proposed goals and objectives and a comment sheet for written responses. Attendees circled on maps potential block groups in which they felt should be given the highest priority to begin improvements. The results are posted on the project website and are included in the draft report. Attendees sat in 5 separate self‐selected small groups. Each group discussed a particular topic area: land use, housing, parks & open space, public services, transportation and infrastructure. Answers were recorded onto flip charts and transcribed here. Each group was advised to write down individual responses, no group consensus was requested. Land Use  Buffer area on Continental & Farrell Street with landscaping (mainly trees) on both sides of Farrell Street and Continental Drive with permission from Burlington Northern & Grants for funding  Greeley School – should be tore down and a park built ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 30 Housing  Existing 5 types of zoning  Mixed zoning go to simpler zoning with fewer types  Traditional single residential  More than (unlegible) needs  Zoning not established since 1960’s  Going forward  Omit new mobile/manufactured homes  Enforce existing regulations, e.g. fence heights, set backs Parks and Open Space  Goal #1 – Landscape on both sides of street  Viewpoint Park o Reminent of Farrell Street o Trolley stop  Display Heritage Center at Greeley School o Partner with MRI (Montana Resources)  Prefer Community Transportation Enhancement money used for infrastructure  Goal #3 – ADD: o East Middle School  Do community survey unsafe routes to parks and schools in area Transportation & Infrastructure  Storm drains  SIDS (Special Improvement District) o Lighting, curbs, sidewalks o Worth investigating  Grants/funding  Information about “junk” vehicles  Fencing heights  Safety o Stop signs o Cross walks Public Services  Goal 3: Enforce existing codes for clean up. o Create plan focused on small square block areas where enforcement would take place involving all agencies  Abandoned vehicles, junk vehicles, vacant homes o Work with juvenile probation/youth court to institute community service clean up days ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 31  New goal 5: Improve citizen safety within neighborhood o Objective 1: Raise awareness for citizens on what to watch for and report to law enforcement. o Objective 2: Notify police of criminal activity. The small groups reported out the highlights of their discussions. One person returned comments on a written sheet. Participants had the option to return these sheets to Anne Cossitt by November 4, 2010. The following are the comments received at the meeting. For a specific goal topic: What changes need to be made? Do you have any additional ideas on strategies or ways to implement the goal? 1. Foster community character 2. Usage of the Greeley School building For the entire set of goals: Is anything missing? Do you have any other changes or particular concerns? 1. Community enrichment 2. Mediating impact of active mine In addition, participants had the opportunity to provide additional feedback by writing their comments on blank cards. Zero cards were returned. Meeting notes transcribed by: Jolene Rieck, ASLA Peaks to Plains Design PC ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Meetings 32 GREELEY AREA PLAN Steering Committee Meeting First Disciples Church, 1200 Texas Ave. November 30, 2010 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Purpose To review draft document, discuss changes Outcomes  Changes to draft clarified – next step is to finalize document into recommendation to planning board Agenda Time Activity 6:00 pm Check‐in 6:30 pm Welcome members and guests  Review agenda, guest participation  Overview of project schedule 6:35 pm October Town Hall Meeting – Summary 6:50 pm Draft Plan  Discussion and identify changes needed 8:20 pm Next Steps & Public Comment Period  Next steps to finalizing document  Public comment 8:30 p.m. Closing ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX E: Maps Greeley School Neighborhood and Census Units Butte Area Operable Units Greeley School Property Types Greeley Neighborhood Parks Greeley Neighborhood Road Conditions Greeley Neighborhood Storm Sewer System Greeley Neighborhood Sanitary System Greeley Neighborhood Water System Greeley Area School Districts Greeley School Bus Routes Central School Zoning Greeley School Growth Policy Greeley Proposed Land Use ---PAGE BREAK--- Census Tract Four Census Tract Eight 5 4 1 ELM ST GRAND AVE LOCUST ST PINE ST GEORGE ST WALNUT ST FARRELL ST TEXAS AVE STUART AVE WILSON AVE CONTINENTAL DR CAROLINA AVE LAFAYETTE AVE HAYES AVE GLADSTONE AVE ADAMS AVE SILVER BOW BLVD THOMAS AVE WALL ST MARCIA ST DEXTER ST FLORENCE AVE GARFIELD AVE FARRAGUT AVE THORNTON AVE SHIELDS AVE N PARK PL FAIRMONT ST HARRISON AVE CIVIC CENTER RD ARGYLE ST S PARK PL HOWARD AVE ABERDEEN ST WALL ST GARFIELD AVE 800 0 800 400 Feet Greeley School Neighborhood & Census Units Block Group Boundary Greeley School Project Area ---PAGE BREAK--- W y n n e A v e H o l m e s A v e E l i z a b e t h W a r r e n H a H a r r i s o n A v e I - 9 0 W e s t I - 9 0 E a s t D e w e y B l v d K a w A v e F a r r a g u t A v e A r i z o n a St T e x a s A v e F r o n t S t M e a d o w l a r k L n H a r r i s o n A v e C e n t e n n i a l A v e B r o a d w a y S t E m p i r e S t I r o n S t P a r k S t G r a n i t e S t G a l e n a S t A m h e r s t S t Y a l e S t F l o r a l S t P l a t i n u m S t L i t t l e B G r a n d A v e M i s s o u l a A v e D a l y S t C o p p e r S t G o l d S t E x c e l s i o r A v e A r i z o n a St C a s e y S t R o w e R d M e r c u r y S t M a i n S t M o n t a n a S t C o R y a n R d u l l R u n G u l c h R d Mo u l ton R ese r v o i r R F a r r e l l S t S h i e l d s A v e Clark Tailings Montana Pole NPL Site Alice Pit Anselmo Mine Yard Berkeley Pit Blacktail Creek Silver Bow C r eek Lower Area One Walkerville Butte Area Operable Units Priority Soils Boundary Butte Priority Soils 0.5 0 0.5 0.25 Miles ---PAGE BREAK--- ELM ST GRAND AVE LOCUST ST PINE ST WALNUT ST FARRELL ST WALL ST TEXAS AVE STUART AVE HOWARD AVE WILSON AVE MONROE AVE HAYES AVE CAROLINA AVE CONTINENTAL DR ABERDEEN ST SILVER BOW BLVD LAFAYETTE AVE GLADSTONE AVE N PARK PL ADAMS AVE THOMAS AVE FARRAGUT AVE GARFIELD AVE THORNTON AVE ARGYLE ST S PARK PL E PARK PL WALNUT ALY THORNTON AVE ADAMS AVE GARFIELD AVE THORNTON AVE SILVER BOW BLVD ARGYLE ST ARGYLE ST 400 0 400 200 Feet Greeley School Property Types Road or Street Greeley School Project Area Montana Dept. of Revenue Classification Agricultural Rural Agricultural Urban Centrally Assessed or Unknown Commercial Rural Commercial Urban Exempt Property Farmstead Rural Industrial Rural Industrial Urban Condominium Urban Mining Claim Non-valued Property Residential Rural Residential Urban Vacant Land Rural Vacant Land Urban ---PAGE BREAK--- Clark Park County Shops Parrot Park Civic Center Ball Field Racetrack Park Clark Park Skating Rink Elm St Grand Ave Locust St George St Pine St Walnut St Farrell St Texas Ave Wilson Ave Howard Ave Monroe Ave Carolina Ave Lafayette Ave Hayes Ave Shields Ave Silver Bow Blvd I- 15 Bus Wall St Gladstone Ave Dexter St Argyle St Adams Ave Stuart Ave Continental Dr Garfield St Thomas Ave Farragut Ave S Park Pl N Park Pl Thornton Ave Civic Center Rd Georgia Ave Eagle St Phillips Ave Aberdeen St Home Ave E 2nd St Dundee St E Park Pl Bluebird St Hancock Ave Garrison Ave Florida Ave Aberdeen St Adams Ave Thornton Ave Stuart Ave Georgia Ave Garfield St Argyle St Wall St Argyle St Continental Dr Silver Bow Blvd Argyle St Thornton Ave Eagle St Greeley Neighborhood Parks Legend Parks Greeley Neighborhood Roads All Parcels 1/4 mile walking radius ± 0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Miles Data Source: Montana NRIS Montana Department of Revenue ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- EAST MIDDLE SCHOOL ELM ST GRAND AVE LOCUST ST PINE ST MARCIA ST GEORGE ST WALNUT ST FARRELL ST TEXAS AVE STUART AVE WILSON AVE CAROLINA AVE WALL ST LAFAYETTE AVE ADAMS AVE HAYES AVE GLADSTONE AVE THOMAS AVE CONTINENTAL DR GARFIELD AVE SILVER BOW BLVD FARRAGUT AVE THORNTON AVE EAGLE ST DEXTER ST N PARK PL GREGSON ST FAIRMONT ST HANCOCK AVE FLORIDA AVE MONROE AVE BANKS AVE HOWARD AVE PORTER AVE REYNOLDS AVE SHERMAN AVE ARGYLE ST S PARK PL ABERDEEN ST MASSACHUSETTS AVE E PARK PL SHIELDS AVE WALNUT ALY THORNTON AVE WALL ST ABERDEEN ST THORNTON AVE HOWARD AVE GARFIELD AVE MONROE AVE ADAMS AVE SILVER BOW BLVD ARGYLE ST ARGYLE ST 300 0 300 150 Feet Greeley Area School Districts Road or Street Greeley School Project Area Building or Structure Former Greeley Elementary School Location School District Boundary Emerson Elementary School Hillcrest Elementary School John F. Kennedy Elementary School Margaret A. Leary Elementary School West Elementary School Whittier Elementary School ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ELM ST GRAND AVE LOCUST ST PINE ST MARCIA ST WALNUT ST GEORGE ST FARRELL ST TEXAS AVE STUART AVE WILSON AVE CAROLINA AVE WALL ST LAFAYETTE AVE ADAMS AVE HAYES AVE GLADSTONE AVE CONTINENTAL DR THOMAS AVE SILVER BOW BLVD GARFIELD AVE FARRAGUT AVE THORNTON AVE EAGLE ST DEXTER ST N PARK PL GREGSON ST FAIRMONT ST HANCOCK AVE FLORIDA AVE MONROE AVE BANKS AVE HOWARD AVE PORTER AVE REYNOLDS AVE ARGYLE ST SHERMAN AVE S PARK PL ABERDEEN ST MASSACHUSETTS AVE E PARK PL WALNUT ALY THORNTON AVE WALL ST ABERDEEN ST THORNTON AVE HOWARD AVE SILVER BOW BLVD GARFIELD AVE MONROE AVE ADAMS AVE ARGYLE ST ARGYLE ST 300 0 300 150 Feet Greeley School Bus Routes ! ! Bus Route Greeley School Project Areas Road or Street ---PAGE BREAK--- R1 NZ R4 R2 R3 M1 C2 R1 C1 R3 C1 M2L ELM ST GRAND AVE MARCIA ST LOCUST ST GEORGE ST PINE ST WALNUT ST FARRELL ST TEXAS AVE STUART AVE WILSON AVE CAROLINA AVE LAFAYETTE AVE ADAMS AVE GLADSTONE AVE CONTINENTAL DR THOMAS AVE HAYES AVE FLORENCE AVE GARFIELD AVE FARRAGUT AVE THORNTON AVE HECLA ST SILVER BOW BLVD WALL ST DEXTER ST HARRISON AVE SHIELDS AVE EAGLE ST GREGSON ST N PARK PL HANCOCK AVE FLORIDA AVE BANKS AVE MONROE AVE HOWARD AVE PORTER AVE GARRISON AVE FAIRMONT ST REYNOLDS AVE SHERMAN AVE COBBAN ST CIVIC CENTER RD ARGYLE ST MASSACHUSETTS AVE S PARK PL ABERDEEN ST GEORGIA AVE WALNUT ALY WALL ST ARGYLE ST ADAMS AVE ABERDEEN ST SILVER BOW BLVD HOWARD AVE THORNTON AVE SILVER BOW BLVD MONROE AVE GARFIELD AVE ARGYLE ST 700 0 700 350 Feet Greeley School Zoning Road or Street Greeley School Project Area Local Commercial (C1) Community Commercial (C2) Transitional Community Commercial (C2T) Central Commercial (C3) Commercial and Light Industrial (CM) Light Industrial (M1) Limited Light Industrial (M1L) Limited Heavy Industrial (M2L) Not Zoned (NZ) One-Family Residential (R1) Two-Family Residential (R2) Multi-Family Residential (R3) Mobile Homes (R4) ---PAGE BREAK--- ELM ST GRAND AVE LOCUST ST PINE ST MARCIA ST WALNUT ST GEORGE ST FARRELL ST TEXAS AVE STUART AVE WILSON AVE CAROLINA AVE WALL ST LAFAYETTE AVE ADAMS AVE GLADSTONE AVE HAYES AVE THOMAS AVE CONTINENTAL DR GARFIELD AVE FARRAGUT AVE THORNTON AVE SILVER BOW BLVD HECLA ST DEXTER ST EAGLE ST N PARK PL GREGSON ST HANCOCK AVE FAIRMONT ST FLORIDA AVE BANKS AVE MONROE AVE HOWARD AVE PORTER AVE REYNOLDS AVE SHERMAN AVE ARGYLE ST S PARK PL MASSACHUSETTS AVE ABERDEEN ST WALNUT ALY SILVER BOW BLVD ABERDEEN ST SILVER BOW BLVD HOWARD AVE GARFIELD AVE THORNTON AVE MONROE AVE ADAMS AVE THORNTON AVE ARGYLE ST ARGYLE ST 600 0 600 300 Feet Greeley School Growth Policy Road or Street Greeley School Urban Limit Boundary Building or Structure Growth Policy Land Uses COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTION PUBLIC/OPEN SPACE RC RD10 RD3 RD40 RESIDENTIAL ---PAGE BREAK---