Category: City Commission

The City Commission’s response to HUD findings of conflicts of interest in Jenn Rowell’s February 21 article on The Electric are a bit perplexing.

https://theelectricgf.com/2018/02/21/mayor-issues-apology-on-cdbg-process-staff-addresses-recent-hud-letter/

Here’s a quote from Rowell’s story: “The city is not fighting the HUD findings related to the CDBG process, but is following up in regards to HUD’s interpretation of City Attorney Sara Sexe’s comments during a June meeting.”

I found the following in HUD’s letter to the city, which contains the HUD interpretation that the city apparently took issue with:

“Finally, we are concerned with an exchange between the City Commission and the City Attorney as it relates to the 2017 allocation. The minutes for Great Falls’ June 20, 2017  Regular City commission Meeting, contain a statement by City Attorney Sara Sexe that “a representative from the Department of Housing and Urban Development had reported that there was not a conflict of interest.” That statement is false. While we do not need a response to this issue, we do want to make it clear that this office did not previously review and excuse the city of any Conflicts of Interest. We are currently engaged in that process.”  (emphasis added)

The city and Sexe assert that Sexe’s comment from the meeting minutes (bolded above) is a summary and taken out of context. It is suggested that one should reference the video/audio of her comments at the meeting for the full picture.

I remember I had watched that video last year but ever curious, I just watched again. The video of the June 20, 2017 commission meeting is here:

https://media.avcaptureall.com/session.html?sessionid=1a503083-ed7d-414a-82f3-1c761b960794&prefilter=146%2C563 

First some background on that meeting’s CDBG funding vote. On June 6, the city commission passed the CDBG funding for public facilities projects. However, it was later determined that was an invalid vote because it passed with a simple majority of 2-1-1 (Commissioner Burow dissenting, Commissioner Houck abstaining, Commissioner Bronson was absent).

So on Jun 20, the CDBG funding for public facilities had to be put to a revote before the commission.

At that meeting, Commissioner Bronson was present. He spoke of a May 25 memo in which he detailed his family members’ involvement with organizations requesting CDBG funding and his assessment that there is no conflict of interest.

Bronson begins this discussion at @ 2:07:05. He further states @ 2:08:02 that the memo is on the city’s website. At @ 2:11:00, Bronson claims that the memo along with City Attorney Sexe’s concurrence letter, was provided to HUD. Sexe agrees with that in the meeting.

At @ 2:11:2, Sexe states, “Your letter and mine, indicating agreement to there being no conflict under the regulation that we evaluated as to your son (Commissioner Bronson’s son) were provided to the representative of Housing and Urban Development who spoke to our CDBG administrator and verbally indicated agreement that there was no conflict.”

I’m left scratching my head over why the city and Sexe feel it necessary to dispute HUD’s “interpretation” of Sexe’s statement. I don’t see a major difference in meaning between the meeting minutes summary of what Sexe said versus her verbatim statement. The semantics in this case seem negligible.

So to paraphrase, according to Sexe, the agreement that there was no conflict of interest (regarding Bronson family members) came from a HUD representative to the city’s CDBG administrator before the commission vote in June. HUD claims that their agency did not review and offered no such report to city staff regarding any conflicts of interest—until now. The term “any” in HUD’s response would include the Bronson matter.

Seems to me this isn’t a matter of “interpretation”—either HUD verbally advised the CDBG administrator that there was no conflict of interest or they didn’t. However, it doesn’t seem likely that HUD would do that; it’s just not their standard procedure. HUD requires a written request for a conflict of interest exception; that regulation is found in the Code of Federal Regulations 24 CFR 570.611(d).

‘Seems to me this isn’t a matter of “interpretation”—either HUD verbally advised the CDBG administrator that there was no conflict of interest or they didn’t. However, it doesn’t seem likely that HUD would do that; it’s just not their standard procedure. HUD requires a written request for a conflict of interest exception; that regulation is found in the Code of Federal Regulations 24 CFR 570.611(d).’

I don’t think HUD would state there’s no conflict without that written request. I believe the agency would keep things legitimate and legal by responding in writing and not verbally (to be more precise, orally). Further, if the city provided HUD with Bronson’s memo and Sexe’s concurrence back in May, let’s see the proof that someone with the city mailed or emailed those documents.

Ultimately the city is responsible for knowing the rules and playing by them. It’s troubling that we now find a history of the city commission ignoring federal regulations. Instead of making HUD the enemy for taking away money from the self-described deserving organizations, perhaps we should consider all the organizations that sought funding through the years, but didn’t stand a chance because the skewed process and actions of the city commission.

By the way, an extensive search of the city’s website did not produce Bronson’s memo even though he claimed it was posted there. Normal city procedure would put it in the meeting agenda packet for the date CDBG funds are voted on, but it’s not there.

The city did provide Commissioner Bronson’s memo upon request and it is available here.

Below are links to CDBG items in the agenda packets for June 6 and June 20.

https://greatfallsmt.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/CoverSheet.aspx?ItemID=449&MeetingID=34

https://greatfallsmt.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/CoverSheet.aspx?ItemID=495&MeetingID=36

Other than Jenn Rowell, do you know who else deserves some credit? City Commissioner Mary Moe!

At last night’s City Commission meeting, Moe voted against a measure that would have raised usage fees for the City’s swimming pools.

From the original reporting in the aforementioned Rowell’s The Electric:

Commissioner Mary Moe, who had asked that the pool fee proposal be pushed from the originally planned Feb. 6 meeting, said she opposed the 50 cent increase.

She said that if families made one trip to the pool, 50 cents wouldn’t be an issue, but if they go more often, the additional cost adds up.

She said she was having trouble getting used to the idea of an enterprise fund, which is how pools is currently set up. Parking, water, sewer, golf and other city funds are also enterprise funds.

Moe said she wanted to see more effort to increase usage at city pools and collaborate with other community groups to promote physical activity for all ages, but especially children.

“I’m unwilling to go down this road of hiking a free [sic] for a pool that nobody is using,” Moe said.

This is well stated. Perhaps Moe grasps the concept of inelastic demand and that, if you continue to raise fees, a great number of folks will feel priced out and will stop utilizing the City’s pools. I hope she considers this the next time the City inevitably moves to raise golf fees.

Even more consequentially, Moe took a righteous stand at the previous City Commission meeting on the City’s shameless foray into the opioid litigation “let’s hope something sticks” money-grab attempt. As the lone “nay” vote, Moe sensibly argued that pursuing litigation against the opioid manufacturers would unnecessary divert staff time and resources. It was a principled dissent, and I was impressed by her independence.

While Moe and I will have to agree to disagree on Columbus Day (and probably more than just Columbus Day), since I have been critical of her, I only thought it would be fair to give her kudos where it’s deserved, because while we may criticize our elected officials, that doesn’t mean it’s personal.

Well done, Mary!

This spring, voters will decide whether to support or defeat another tax burden for the already strapped taxpayers of Great Falls.

The park district resolution passed at the February 6 commission meeting. Voters will be asked on May 8 whether they’re willing to create and fund a Great Falls park district. The discussion at the commission meeting took an interesting turn when Commissioner Bronson chose to comment on park lands.

Speaking about the parks, Commissioner Bronson mentioned our city’s founder Paris Gibson was a strong proponent of park lands. “Gibson realized that when you construct a city you have to have those open spaces…I would certainly hope that anybody who has concerns about the fees that are being requested keeps Mr. Gibson’s vision in mind when they go forward…”

To that I would reply that open spaces are quite a bit different from highly developed and maintained parks. The city of Great Falls has 57 parks. Some are merely open spaces but most have some degree of development requiring maintenance. Seems like the commissioner is comparing apples to oranges. Not as much maintenance cost with the open spaces Gibson envisioned versus developed parks.

Also, times have changed and some parks are underutilized. Video games, organized sports and the internet seem to rule the youth of our society. Whereas I spent most of my childhood outdoors nearly every waking hour that I wasn’t in school, I really don’t see that happening as much now with our youth.

Next, Bronson spent a little time blasting the state legislature for forcing municipalities to put questions like park district creation on the same ballot as school district elections. The way he spoke about the legislature, he made it sound like their whole purpose was to put a monkey wrench into everything Montana municipalities try to do.

“This is another example of how the legislature, for reasons totally unknown, always manages to make it difficult for us, in the cities and towns, to govern our own affairs, even to the point of whether we can ask the question or put the question before our voters; do you want to do something like this?”

Commissioner Bronson added, “It’s unfortunate we have to be put in a position of competition with our friends in the public school system.”

“Yes, I guess since the Great Falls Public School District is considering asking for money this May for operating expenses, people are less likely to want to vote for two tax increases on the May ballot.”

Yes, I guess since the Great Falls Public School District is considering asking for money this May for operating expenses, people are less likely to want to vote for two tax increases on the May ballot.

Bronson went on to bring up a recent letter to the editor that questioned why the city can’t just sell unused park lands. He went on to explain why that wasn’t feasible.

“Trust me, if our staff, which supervises our resources, honestly believed that was a workable option, they would have come to us and made that suggestion,” he said. “The reason they have not is that they know, as the commission does, that it will not work…

Nothing probably brings out more opposition from the neighborhood councils, the neighbors in those areas, the parents of school children, than to even have a discussion about that concept….

They know as well as we do, sure you could put a piece of parkland on the market, but we have to have it appraised, the buyer has to pay at least the appraised value, and then what are they going to put…what use are they going to put it to. It’s in a residential area, if the suggestion is that it’s going to become commercial or something else, imagine the war whoops from the neighbors, again that you’re taking a piece of open space and converting it to some kind of commercial or business use in their backyard….

Staff has already considered that in the past and it’s been rejected because it’s not a viable option….”

So then why did the city commission just sell off a small portion of Lions Park recently to an adjacent landowner for business purposes?

The city commission voted unanimously to pass Ordinance 3184, which rezoned a 12 feet wide by 132.5 feet long strip of Lions Park from POS Parks and Open Space to C-2 General Commercial, and sell that land to PBA Properties, LLC.

Okay, so it’s a seemingly inconsequential little piece of land—but it’s still parkland, isn’t it? It appears the line in the sand that Bronson claims the commission and city staff won’t cross to sell parkland isn’t a line after all. It’s also not the first time parklands have been considered for sale.

Previous park master plans have identified certain parklands as surplus and the city subsequently sold some of them. For example, the city commission voted to sell a little over two acres to Meadowlark Country Club back in June 1999. In 2003, city staff recommended sale of the park land Block 1 and 2, Park Place Addition to Plains Grains Limited Partnership and the city commission approved the sale in May 2003.

There weren’t any “war whoops” on those properties, so indeed some parklands are sold without protest from the public.

In 2013, the city commission, including Commission Bronson looked at possible sales of city parkland during a presentation about the Great Falls park system at the commission work session on February 19, 2013.

From the meeting minutes:

“Park and Recreation Director Marty Basta provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Great Falls park system. He noted that many parks were acquired as an obligation by a developer to provide park land as part of the development….

Commissioner Jones would like to pursue the possible sale of the Clara property and Boston Heights Park, and either enforcement of encroachments or the possible sale of the West Hill property….

In addition to the recommendations made by Commissioner Jones, Commissioner Bronson believes the possible sale of the Skyline Addition property should also be pursued…” (emphasis added)

https://greatfallsmt.net/sites/default/files/archives/records/minutes/yr2010/m02022010.php

As is obvious from all of the above, the city has entertained selling underutilized parks and surplus park land in the past—so why not in conjunction with the latest park master plan? I haven’t even seen any parkland identified as surplus or underutilized in the latest plan. Why not?

For many of us squeezed by an ever-increasing tax burden, it comes down to this—would we rather see another tax increase or the sale of underutilized/surplus parkland?

The city of Great Falls has also leased out parkland to other entities, including the pasta plant and Great Falls Public Schools. Perhaps the park director and his staff should take a look at those leases to determine whether they are really at market value.

In a brutal rebuke to the City of Great Falls, and to Commissioner Bill Bronson in particular, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development suspended funding related to the City’s CDBG program. In a letter addressed to the City (originally published by The Electric), HUD declared the following with respect to Bronson:

“Carol Bronson’s relationship to Bill Bronson and her position with NeighborWorks Great Falls creates a conflict of interest, because of the exposure to “inside information” and potential for financial benefit for herself and the organization.”

For years, loathsome “naysayers” who had the audacity to ask questions citizens have crowed that Bronson should step aside from these matters, and not participate in Commission business that awarded money to NWGF, where his wife, Carol, is employed.

Each time, Bronson would shoot back at his critics in defiant fashion and vote to approve funding for NWGF. Why not just recuse yourself?

Now that HUD has heard the “case,” it turns out that Bronson, always “the smartest guy in the room,” probably should have listened to his hoi polloi constituents.

NWGF was slated to receive $82,903 “for the construction of high school homes with Great Falls High and C.M. Russell High School,” according to The Electric. But no, Bronson just had to participate, didn’t he?

Now, NeighborWorks Great Falls will get nothing.

And that’s not the half of it.

Stay tuned.

Did you know that the Great Falls City Manager, all of the City of Great Falls department heads and the City Commission conducted a “State of the City” special City Commission work session meeting this past Friday morning, February 9th?

Well, if you weren’t aware of the meeting or able to attend in person here’s the link to the video – https://greatfallsmt.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/VODPreview.aspx?meetingVideoID=c7a7e5a9-18aa-41e0-be85-cff2f847bd2b&index=176

A little long but pretty interesting in parts. We will be providing more specific information on the meeting and the State of the City as soon as the meeting minutes become available and we’re able to distill some of the information into more digestible pieces.

Stay tuned.

On February 6, the Great Falls City Commission will vote on Ordinance 3170, a piece of municipal law that I feel could interfere with our Constitutional right to peaceful assembly within city limits.

The ordinance seems innocuous until one delves further into it and finds a whole new section entitled: “Chapter 14.5 PARADES, PROCESSIONS, FUN RUNS AND STREET CLOSURES”

In this chapter, city plans to redefine virtually all events on city streets and sidewalks as “processions” and place further restrictions on those events.

For simplicity of explanation, I’ve only included the text from the ordinance which show the changes I feel could have grave consequences for residents of and visitors to Great Falls. Text in quotations is taken from the ordinance—the strike-through text is eliminated by the ordinance and the bolded text is added. The full text of the ordinance can be found here.

Here is the city’s new, very inclusive definition of “procession.” Note that the city includes “assembly to support a cause” in their definition of a “procession.” Remember that for later.

Here is the city’s new, very inclusive definition of “procession.” Note that the city includes “assembly to support a cause” in their definition of a “procession.” Remember that for later.

“12.145.010 Definitions.

The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings respectively ascribed to them.:

A. ”Parade” “Procession” means any march, parade, motorcade, fun run, assembly to support a cause, or procession other event consisting of people, animals, or vehicles, or combination thereof, except funeral processions, upon any public street, sidewalk or alley, which does not comply with normal and usual traffic regulations and controls and is expressly designed for the enjoyment safety and involvement of the public as well as the participants, which is approved by the City under the provisions of this chapter.

The following section of the ordinance sets forth the application process for the all inclusive “procession.”

“12.145.050 Application – contents.

A. Any person, firm, corporation, or other entity desiring who wants to conduct a parade, procession, band practice, or fun run, as defined in OCCGF 12.5.010, shall apply to the Park and Recreation Department for a permit at least one (1) month forty-five (45) calendar days in advance of the event date.and comply with the provisions set forth in such permit….”

What exactly is “an assembly to support a cause?” Could it be a spur-of-the-moment peaceful protest, folks with signs and such? That sounds plausible.

So under this ordinance, would such protests become illegal unless the group applied for the permit 45 days in advance and received city approval? It certainly seems to take away the people’s ability take quick action to peacefully assemble and speak in public for or against an issue. It just feels wrong for the city to do this.

Perhaps more troubling is what follows the above paragraph in the ordinance:

“B. Park and Recreation Department may approve, revise, or deny the application in consideration of the following factors:

1. Promotion of the community as a whole;
2. Provision of positive civic and economic benefit;
3. Impact on neighboring business and properties;
4. Impact on public uses, safety, and services;
5. Consideration of frequency of closures;
6. Consideration of the event’s financial impact; and
7. The applicant’s performance under prior issued permits.”

With “promotion of the community as a whole” and “provision of positive civic and economic benefit” the city is making itself judge and jury on whether your cause, your protest, your event is appropriate and consequently, whether it will be allowed.

This is a slippery slope that the city shouldn’t be trying to scale.

Like many others, I disagree with the City Commission’s decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit for M&D Construction.

Since the issue caught my interest, I wanted to see our elected officials in action. So I watched the video, which anyone else can, too, here.

There is much to say about it all, but I found myself transfixed by the public remarks made by Mayor Bob Kelly. Here’s what he said before calling for the eventual 5-0 vote that buried a local business:

“I’d just like to jump in here a little bit and come at this a different way as well as some of the technical aspects that have been mentioned here. And Bill [Bronson], I appreciate your thoroughness in what you described here, I really do. One of the other things to think about here is we have a responsibility to the citizen who launched the complaint and to the process that’s involved here. They saw something, they did the formal process, found out that what’d been going on for years was in fact not right. That has to be weighed.

Certainly all of the aspects about what is going to happen to that lot if the current tenant moves away from it, certainly the construction shops and the things that are there are fine. We are really just talking about a massive parking lot for large equipment, but in essence the property was not supposed to be used for that. We had a citizen register a complaint, we’re following up and saying, we’ll just change the game here midstream and kind of make it legal. I’m a little uneasy with that, frankly. It’s not gonna come to bare on my decision, but I think it needs to be mentioned.

When we find a situation that a citizen has registered a complaint against, you find it’s been illegal for years, I don’t think necessarily the correct remedy is oh, let’s change the rules and make it legal. The rules existed at one point for a reason and hopefully they continue. As everybody else has said here, this is not a statement on business or owners, etc. It is about best and highest uses, as Mr. Blewett had said earlier here. In a sense, we can be shooting ourself in the foot. We have an opportunity to put lipstick on this thing. If we don’t allow that to happen then there’d be no need for the owner to make any changes there and you can just have an incredibly unappealing lot there which is what it is. [emphasis added]

I share the concerns about traffic. I live in that neighborhood, and the amount of heavy traffic that is coming down to go into those smaller access points is not only in my opinion dangerous, but it is also incredibly unappealing for people who come down to the park to enjoy it there as well. [emphasis added] Those are all my comments here. In respect to Commissioner Houck, I don’t see anyone here who wants to table this and proceed on. OK on this. The motion has been made to deny the Conditional Use Permit. All those in favor of that motion say, aye. [All ayes]. Opposed? [None]. Okay, so that motion will pass.”

The sight of industry really seems to get the mayor’s goat, doesn’t it? So Kelly finds the lot, a place of business that employs 30 of the citizens he represents, to be “incredibly unappealing”? It might be one thing for him to hold this view privately, but I was surprised that the mayor delivered his harangue from the commission chambers (while using it as partial justification to vote against a local business no less). But don’t worry, this isn’t “a statement on business or owners.” Oh no, of course not. It’s about “best and highest uses.” OK, then. What exactly does the mayor think should exist on this particular parcel of land? You know, the one with the railroad right nearby? In Kelly’s mind, what would be the best use? And what would he find appealing enough to warrant existing there?

But it isn’t just the lot that is an affront to Kelly’s sense of taste. Why, it’s the mere sight of work vehicles, from Kelly’s vantage point in Gibson Park. Really? I’ll admit that, until now, I haven’t given much consideration to what I think when I see a dump truck or a bulldozer roll along the road. Inasmuch as I do have an opinion, though, I suppose I view construction vehicles more positivity than the mayor does — things are being fixed or built, people are working, money is moving around in our economy, etc. You know, all the things politicians like Bob Kelly claim to support.

The problem with Kelly’s comments, beyond the inherent absurdity of them, is that they are instructive of a government official who thinks he knows best and wants to impose his vision of aesthetics upon the rest of us. It’s the same strain of silly thinking that gave Great Falls its disastrous, anti-business Sign Code. We saw enough self-righteous posturing a decade ago over casinos. Now construction companies are a blight? Isn’t Great Falls a blue collar town? Shouldn’t we be championing, rather than impeding, our local businesses?

Now you might be thinking, “Hey, wait a minute! The mayor raised concerns about traffic. This is about public safety!”

Puh-lease.

As one Facebook commenter pointed out, the traffic on 8th Ave N from M&D pales in comparison to that from United Materials:

If Kelly and the other commissioners were truly concerned about traffic on this corridor, they would weaponize the city’s bureaucracy against United, who, you guessed it, also appears to operate in a way that is perhaps not congruent with the city’s own zoning code. Their business is “light industrial”?

But they won’t, and that’s a good thing. United (who I have zero issue with, by the way) does far too much business with the city for the commission to go after them, and let’s face it, this was never a public safety issue, not really. This was a classic example of government picking and choosing winners and losers in business, and this time, M&D — who has been in business for 30 years — gets to be the big loser.

Having said all that, one of the most frustrating parts of the meeting was something that didn’t happen. Our mayor, the face and ostensible leader of our city, who has positioned himself as a pro-growth collaborator, didn’t mention that this Conditional Use Permit was strongly recommended by city staff, unanimously approved by the Neighborhood Council, and then also unanimously approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. It’s beyond disappointing that Kelly refused to put the breaks on the opposition (initiated by Commissioner Bronson) and say something to the effect of, “Hold on, this thing clearly has support, and 30 jobs are on the line. Shouldn’t we at least discuss that?” But he didn’t. Kelly was 100% committed to delivering the kill-shot to M&D. I wonder if the prospect of putting up even a token fight in favor of a Great Falls business was just as “unappealing” to Kelly as those unsightly excavators?

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I find the mayor’s comments to be remarkably out of touch. Frankly, the only thing I find “incredibly unappealing” is Kelly’s increasing tendency (remember Calumet?) to cast votes against, not for, local businesses.

Kudos to Craig Raymond and his staff in the City of Great Falls Planning and Community Development Department for working to find solutions to help keep a local private sector employer, M&D Construction, in the heart of Great Falls. This is the attitude we need from our city employees across the board; not “You can’t do that.” but rather “How can we help you do that.”

M&D employs 30 folks here so not only does the owner pay significant property tax but  those employees spend money downtown for lunch, coffee breaks and stopping for items or having a cold one after work.

After working together, M&D and city planning staff came up with a solution which would mitigate the zoning problems associated with the property. You can find the detailed staff recommendations and other pertinent information here, starting on page 111 of the packet document.

I’ve also included the Basis of Decision to recommend approval by the Planning and Community Development Department below, I bolded and italicized the points which stood out to me.

So it’s a no-brainer right? Especially since the citizens Neighborhood Council #7 and the city planning/zoning board both also unanimously recommended approval.

What do you suppose our City Commission did in light of the unanimous recommendations by citizens and experts alike? And why?

Oh, and take a look at the very short clip below of our own Mayor Kelly – “Since there’s a lot of questions about what this will actually result in…” Since this was the one and only public hearing before the City Commission on this matter shouldn’t the Mayor reveal to us what “questions about what this will actually result in” he’s referring to and from whom?

Stay tuned, stay tuned.

—————————————————————————————————-

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – BASIS OF DECISION The applicant is requesting the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Contractor Yard, Type II in the M-2 district.

1. The zoning and conditional use is consistent with the City’s Growth Policy and applicable neighborhood plans, if any. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the overall intent and purpose of the 2013 City Growth Policy Update. Allowing for the relocation of a local business in an area of the City designated for a mix of uses will help stabilize the neighborhood and fulfill the following objectives from the City’s Growth Policy: Phy 4.1 – Encourage a balanced mix of land uses through-out the City. Phy 4.1.5 –Encourage and incentivize the redevelopment or adaptive reuse of vacant or underutilized properties so as to maximize the City’s existing infrastructure. Phy 4.3 – Optimize the efficiency and use of the City’s Public facilities and utilities. Eco 3.5 – Continue efforts to support and develop small businesses in Great Falls.

2. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the zoning and conditional use will not be detrimental to, or endanger the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. The CUP would have no detrimental impact upon the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. Specifically, the safety of the area will be improved by reconstruction of the sidewalk along 8th Avenue North.

3. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The conditional use will not be injurious to the adjacent properties due to the fact that it is an existing facility, and is currently working cohesively with the surrounding properties. The land use designation of Mixed-Use Transitional supports the transition over time from a once-thriving industrial, railroad corridor with large tracts of land and large warehouse type structures to a blend of light-industrial businesses, professional services, and other compatible uses. Site improvements, which include decorative fencing along the southern property line and landscaping including a berm, behind the fencing, will help beautify the streetscape and support property values in the neighborhood. Furthermore, this conditional use would not adversely impact the use, enjoyment or property value of any property in the immediate vicinity.

4. The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The proposed project will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. Adjacent property owners have been notified regarding the project. City Staff did receive a call from a citizen regarding displeasure about how the development might affect additional improvements to nearby properties.

5. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The facility is existing and currently has services and infrastructure that meet all City standards.

6. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The current facilities have existing functioning ingress and egress. Existing driveway accesses are located on 8th Avenue North and 7th Street North. Service vehicles and trailers will be coming and going from 8th Avenue North, primarily.

7. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified by the City Commission. The proposed project will conform to all the applicable regulations of the Land Development Code