Full Text
www.mmiplanning.com/butte/g1.htm 1 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. 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- www.mmiplanning.com/butte/g1.htm 2 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 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- www.mmiplanning.com/butte/g1.htm 3 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 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- www.mmiplanning.com/butte/g1.htm 4 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.