Full Text
i GREELEY NEIGHBORHOOD AREA PLAN DRAFT Draft prepared November 2010 For the Greeley Planning Area Steering Committee Cossitt Consulting - 503 Fifth Avenue NW - Park City, MT 59063 – [EMAIL REDACTED] ---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 (list members here) Butte‐Silver Bow Planning Board (list members here) Greeley 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- iv 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 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--- v TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1: PLAN BACKGROUND PART 2: GREELEY PROFILE PART 3: PLAN FOR THE FUTURE Appendices 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 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. 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 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 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 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 Area Plan as well. Planning Area Boundaries The Greeley 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 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 area. Relationship to Other Neighborhood Plans At the time work on the Greeley Area Plan was initiated, there were no other neighborhood plans adopted into the Growth Policy. The Greeley 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 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 Area planning as well. In 2010, Butte‐Silver Bow contracted with the Cossitt Consulting team to provide technical support for the Greeley 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. 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 residents in August 2010. A total of 235 surveys were completed and returned. The survey results are referred to often in this plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 The Butte‐Silver Bow Planning Board reviewed the Greeley Area Plan submitted to them by the Greeley 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 Area Plan into the Growth Policy, following procedures outlined in state law. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 PART TWO: GREELEY PROFILE This section provides a summary of the existing characteristics and projected future trends of Greeley. Overview The Greeley Planning Area is about 120 acres situated across from the active mining area. 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. The Greeley 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 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 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 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 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Physical Setting The existing topography of the Greeley 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Looking toward the future, Greeley 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 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 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 west 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 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 Area and from there one can access several other bus routes. Most of the public services in the Greeley Planning Area have adequate capacity for increased population. Public Facilities (Public Infrastructure) 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 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 Plan Area. Streets are deteriorating and so are sidewalks, where they exist. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Natural Resources Greeley 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, 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 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 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 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 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Another site of concern is the Parrott Tailings, located just to the west of Greeley. 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 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 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 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 Neighborhood Plan. This plan is an attempt to solidify a strategic approach to positive change. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 PART THREE: PLAN FOR THE FUTURE This Part introduces the Town’s vision statement and planning goals, which describe what Greeley 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. 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’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 vision statement is the result of discussions at steering committee meetings and town hall meetings regarding what people value most about Greeley, what they would most like to retain for the future, and what most needs to be changed. Greeley Vision Statement: 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. 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 in a way that does ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 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 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 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 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 Neighborhood. GOAL F: TRANSPORTATION Encourage pedestrian‐friendly neighborhoods, with good access to public transportation. GOAL G: HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS Involve the Greeley 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 Area Plan and access to information and assistance from Butte‐Silver Bow government. ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 GOAL I: ACTIVE MINING OPERATIONS Greeley residents and Continental Pit mining operations acknowledge their proximity to each other and work to understand and address issues of concern. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 PLANNING STRATEGIES The Greeley Area Plan is a comprehensive, long‐range plan intended to guide growth and development in Greeley. The Vision Statement is a short declaration of what Greeley 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 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 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. ---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 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 Plan Area as a case study for pedestrian scale alternative lighting. Strategy A‐5: Encourage Butte‐Silver Bow to develop an infrastructure extension policy that promotes infill in Greeley before extending city water, sewer, and city‐maintained streets to currently un‐served areas, such as new subdivisions on the urban fringe. ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Strategy A‐6: Expand use of CDBG and CTEP funding for infrastructure funding in Greeley. 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 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 HOUSING GOAL B: Improve the overall desirability of Greeley Plan Area as a place to live with affordable, quality homes. CONTEXT The Greeley 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 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 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Strategy B‐5: Adopt zoning changes (identified in the future land use section) that encourage the easternmost area of the Greeley Plan Area to transition from high density mobile home parks to affordable town homes or multi‐family units. ---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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ---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 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 consistent with surrounding residential property. 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 ECONOMY GOAL D: Revitalize the Greeley 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 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. 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 and as a by‐ product create positive awareness of the neighborhood. 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 Neighborhood. CONTEXT In response to a question about the most negative features of the Greeley 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. 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 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 is cleaner, with fewer vacant/abandoned houses, properties and junk vehicles Greeley 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: Work with the mine to identify issues and possible mitigation for noise, odor, dust, etc. Strategy E‐6: 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Strategy E‐7: Provide for community clean‐up days with large item pick‐up and other activities to clean up the neighborhood. Strategy E‐8: Work with juvenile probation and youth court to involve youth offenders in area clean‐up. Strategy E‐9: Street upgrades and new commercial development includes design for trees and vegetation. Strategy E‐10: Encourage private landowners to plant trees, maintain yards, clean up weeds and junk. Strategy E‐11: Create and distribute a short brochure or flier that explains the most common code violations for weeds, junk, etc. and how to address. ---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 Neighborhood. OBJECTIVES Greeley 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 schools that serve Greeley and for the middle school. 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 vision is obscured by fences. Strategy F‐4: Conduct an analysis of existing use and a feasibility study for public bus transportation in Greeley, focusing on whether service should be increased here. ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS GOAL G: Involve the Greeley Neighborhood as part of the interpretive story of and tourism related to Butte’s history and current mining activities. CONTEXT Greeley is the neighborhood closest to the current mining activities. The Greeley 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 Plan area’s northeast corner. Participants at the town hall in October were interested in actions that could highlight Greeley’s part of Butte’s history. OBJECTIVES Greeley is enhanced with more interpretation and public displays that attract visitors More people see Greeley as a positive area to live and visit PLANNING STRATEGIES Strategy G‐1: Develop a “View‐Point” park that overlooks the area of active mining operations and former location of Columbia Gardens and provide interpretive signage about the area and Greeley neighborhood. Strategy G‐2: Extend the trolley loop to a turn‐around or stop at “View Point” park. Strategy G‐3: Consider use of the Greeley School property as a location for a Heritage Center. Strategy G‐4: Develop the proposed Butte‐Silver Bow Scenic Drive, which includes Continental and Farrell. ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT GOAL H: Encourage citizen involvement in the implementation of the Greeley 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 Area Plan will sit on the shelf rather than be implemented. Greeley 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. OBJECTIVES Greeley has an active neighborhood group, formally recognized and supported by Butte‐Silver Bow Government and consulted with on Greeley 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, organized with bylaws, and officially recognized by Butte‐Silver Bow government. Neighborhood group meets regularly to discuss issues affecting Greeley, to coordinate ideas, and to monitor progress on the Greeley 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 to hear neighborhood concerns. Strategy H‐4: Community Development Department develops and distributes information on the various funding sources available through the local government URA, RRA, 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 ACTIVE MINING OPERATIONS GOAL I: Greeley 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 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 quarterly with Montana Resources to discuss concerns and work toward solutions on a quarterly basis. 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--- 26 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 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 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 consistent 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 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 residents. The intent of neighborhood commercial would be to have businesses that serve Greeley 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 streets on the interior of the Greeley 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 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 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 ten 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. Begin work sessions with Neighborhood Task Force and Montana Resources. 6. Develop a capital improvements program for public infrastructure. 7. Revise zoning regulations. 8. Multi‐block focus for multi‐faceted approach to community enhancement. 9. Commissioner listening session. 10. Annually review the Greeley 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 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. 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. 6. 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 which extends out five years. In the first year of the Greeley 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) and establishing limits for extensions to currently un‐served areas. 7. Revise zoning regulations. 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. 8. 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 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. 9. Commissioner listening session. Council of Commissioners would hold first listening session in Greeley Neighborhood within the first year of implementation. 10. Annually review the Greeley Area Plan and update as needed. The Planning Department would be the lead agency and work with the Greeley 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. ---PAGE BREAK---