Loading...
Public Hearing Staff ReportPlanning Department 201 V Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Sean Conrad, Senior Planner Jane Howington, City Manager SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Amendment to the West Side Urban Renewal Plan MEETING DATE: October 17, 2011 BACKGROUND: At the council's October 3rd meeting, the council approved a resolution calling for a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the West Side Urban Renewal Plan. This public hearing will be in addition to the public meeting held by the planning board on September 27 h. On September 27, 2011 the planning board held a meeting to consider a request by the City of Kalispell to amend the West Side Urban Renewal Plan. During the meeting Kalispell Planning Department staff presented staff report #KRD-11-lA providing details of the proposal and the recommended goals to be included in the West Side Urban Renewal Plan Following staffs presentation and questions to staff by the planning board the chairman allowed persons in the audience to speak to the plan amendment. Several people spoke on the proposed amendments to the plan including Mark Campbell, Manager of the Flathead County Fairgrounds, and Mark Lalum, Manager of Cenex Harvest States in Kalispell. After hearing from those persons present, the planning board discussed the proposed plan amendment presented by planning department staff. A motion was made to adopt staff report #KRD 11-1 A and forward the proposed amendment to the West Side Urban Renewal Plan to the Kalispell City Council for review and approval. The motion was approved unanimously. Since the October 3rd council meeting the city has received comment letters regarding the amendment to the West Side Urban Renewal Plan. The letters received to date are attached to this memo. RECOMMENDATION: Hold the public hearing and consider a date to act on the proposed amendment to the West Side Urban Renewal Plan. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, xz--) Sean Conrad Senior Planner Report compiled: October 11, 2011 c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk Attachments Jane Howington City Manager Shirley Anderson 51 Three Mile Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 406 752-8879 Planning Department 201 lst Ave East October 10/2011 Kalispell, Mt 59901 RE: West Side Urban Renewal Plan amending Thank you for sending me your notice of public hearing letter regarding modification to the West Side Urban Renewal District Plan. I have lived at the same address since 1972. (51 Three Mile Drive). For numerous years my residence was out of city limits. It was eventually annexed into the city even though I and several other land owners protested. My taxes doubled because of being in city limits. I feel that after all these years being in the city I should have city sewer going by my house. I think the closest it has come to me is to the Veterans building on Three Mile Drive. It seems everyone around my area has it. There have been new sub divisions going in all over my area and the City still has not run sewer line by my house and several others that were annexed in also. Please address this at your next meeting. I would greatly appreciate a reply back as to the possiblity of the sewer line going by my house as it is inside city limits and sewer should be a service of the city. Thanks so much for your consideration. Shirley M. Anderson 51 Three Mile Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 406 752-8879 Planning Department MI I0 Avenue East Kell, -Mw 59'" 1 Pbone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispetLcom/planning October 5, 2011 Dear Property Occ-ner: The city council, at its October 3rd meeting, set a public hearing date (notice attached) of October 171h to gather input and opinions for the council's consideration as to whether the West Side Urban Renewal Plan should be amended. The proposed amendments to the plan include expanding the plan's boundaries, "identifying blighting issues within the expanded boundary and setting goals to address these issues. As.you can see on the attached map, there has been a West Side Urban Renewal Plan in existence since 1994. This plan was intended to give broad direction to redevelopment efforts in the mapped area and at the time included improving vehicle and pedestrian mobility (North Meridian Road), installing and improving public infrastructure (sewer and water mains) in certain areas and encouraging new development on the west side of Kalispell. Being within an urban renewal plan does not increase your property taxes - it is merely a planning tool that can be used to help improve neighborhoods, redevelop properties and address identified issues within the plan area. The proposed amendments to the plan focus on expanding the boundary to include additional lands along the railroad easterly to Woodland Park to address: • Impact of the railroad tracks • Improving street and pedestrian connections closed by the tracks • Lack of sidewalks \ • Aged condition of existing water and sewer lines - f w et (pptcr P a-f- -n� - N -- -- e Developm-ent-redevelopment of vacant"lots -and -l�u= dings - to a.11_ • Brownfield sites within the proposed expansion area k0es i-Deyxe-PS • Redevelopment issues at the county fairgrounds A detailed discussion of the issues listed above with recommendations and goals can be found in staff report #KRD11-lA found on the city's website, wu-w.kalispell.com, under the link for Mayor and City Council/Agenda - under West Side Urban Renewal Plan on the agenda. The information can also be viewed at the planning department's office located at 201 First Avenue East Monday through Friday during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or you may call the planning office at (406) 758-7940 so that other arrangements can be made. October 5, 2011 Honorable Mayor Tammi Fisher and City Council City of Kalispell 2011st Avenue East Kalispell MT 59901 Dear Mayor Fisher, I am writing with regards to the proposed changes to the West Side Urban Renewal Plan. As you know, we are the developers and owners of the Spring Creek Apartments in Kalispell. While that propertywill not be directly included in the expanded Urban Renewal area, it will be affected. Organized and orderly development is always a benefit to. the local economy and thus a benefit to our existing project. It is my belief that Urban Renewal Plans, and the associated tools that come along with them, give the cities, land owners, and developers access to tools that facilitate access to national, state, local and private resources necessary for orderly development. As an example, Sparrow is currently pursing a Senior Housing project in the Option 2 - Expansion Area that will benefit from the expansion. Just the simple fact that they city is making an effort to focus on an area for development would give it a leg up in the fierce competition at the state level. Additionally, there are great benefits of developing and/or redeveloping parcels located close to the urban core. Unfortunately, often the development costs near the core is greater than on the outskirts of town. As a result of this cost difference, new development will gravitate towards the edges of the city. This however, creates a long term cost to the city by expanding the service area for policy, fire, and other city services. An Urban Renewal District bringtools to the table that make it possible to work towards creative solutions to offsetting the urban development costs that will, in the long term result in lower cost and most effective use of ground. As developers and land owners in Kalispell, we support the expansion of the Westside Urban Renewal Plan, specifically Option 2. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Kindest Regards, Alex Burkhalter VP Development - Sparrow Group Sparrow 6 0 0 U P 619 S.W. HIGGINS AVE. STE E M[SSOULA, MT 59803 (406) 251-5076 1 FAX (406) 541-4944 SPARROWGROUPLLC.COM SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 CALL TO ORDER AND The special meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and ROLL CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: John Hinchey, Chad Graham, Bryan Schutt, Rory Young, Phillip Guiffrida, Richard Griffin and Blake Sherman. Tom Jentz and Sean Conrad represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were 12 members of the public in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Guiffrida moved to amend the minutes of August 9, 2011 to reflect the first show of hands vote for President of the Kalispell Planning Board and Zoning Commission and subsequent abstention of Blake Sherman. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The minutes, as amended, were approved unanimously on a vote by acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT None. PUBLIC HEARINGS No public hearings were scheduled. NEW BUSINESS: Sean Conrad representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff report KRD-11-1 A. ISCUSSION AN RECOMMENDATION OF Conrad said before the planning board is consideration of the THE WEST SIDE URBAN possible expansion of the West Side Urban Renewal Plan that would RENEWAL DISTRICT also add recommendations and goals to the current plan. EXPANSION Conrad reviewed a map of the current West Side Urban Renewal Plan and provided information on how the plan was adopted in 1994 and amended in 1997. At that same time they also created a tax increment finance district (TIF) that covered the same area. Conrad explained a TIF district is a tool to implement the plan's goals which he reviewed for the board as follows: Redevelop the Gateway West Mall; facilitate the reconstruction of Meridian Road; general upgrading of roadways, drainage systems and buildings in the area; and create a compatible land use pattern for the area. To date the projects that have been completed as part of the West Side Urban Renewal Plan and TIF district include: Acquisition and development of the Tele-Tech building; Meridian Road reconstruction; engineering and redesign for a portion of Three Mile Drive; improvements to the Glenwood Drive drainage system; and improvements to Greenbriar and Hawthorne parks. Conrad continued earlier this month the city council adopted a Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 2011 Page 1 of 11 Resolution of Necessity and found that in the plan area more than one blighted area exists and rehabilitation/redevelopment in the plan area is necessary in the interest of public health, safety, morals or welfare of the residents of the city. He added if the city council wants to consider an amendment to the plan Section 7.15.4213 of the Montana Code Annotated requires the planning board review the proposed amendments and make recommendations for the city council to consider. Conrad said in addition to reviewing the plan and its conformity with the city's growth policy the board is also tasked with reviewing and providing comments on the identified issues of blight and the recommendations and goals provided to alleviate those blighting conditions. Conrad reviewed Option 2 which is the potential plan area boundary expansion that was recommended to the council by the Urban Renewal Agency (URA). This option would take in the fairgrounds property and expand the West Side Urban Renewal Plan boundary east to the eastern city limits, the north boundary would be West Washington Street and the south boundary would be First Street West. The city council is recommending Option 2 because the area included in this option provides a wide range of potential projects to be funded as part of the Urban Renewal Plan and also the planning department has completed a significant amount of field work, collected data and met with more than 80 property and business owners in this specific area and have a good idea what the issues are and have identified reasons why developers don't want to redevelop in this area. Conrad said Option 1 includes the fairgrounds but is a much smaller expansion area. It would include the Cenex grain elevators and properties north and south of that location. Option 3 also includes the fairgrounds but it narrows the focus area to 1 or 2 blocks north or south of the railroad tracks. In the staff report a number of blighting issues were identified that are represented in this neighborhood which includes street connectivity; lack of sidewalks and pedestrian connections; site deterioration and incompatible land use — county fairgrounds and the railroad tracks; aged city water and sewer lines; vacant lots/buildings; and Brownfield sites. Conrad read a list of goals that were included in the staff report and were based on all the issues discussed above and reviewed the city's Brownfield and Revolving Loan Fund grants. Conrad noted in the current plan some of the goals were to create a greater circulation pattern throughout this area and to set a land use pattern that incorporates sensitivity to neighboring uses. In looking at the expanded plan boundary area one of the ways you can actually Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 2011 Page 2 of 11 achieve some of the current goals is to take a more holistic view of the blighting issues. One example is to look at the entire length of railroad track from just west of Meridian Road all the way to the eastern city limits, which includes the proposed expansion area. Only by looking at the larger plan area will you get incentives for redevelopment that will actually help achieve a lot of the goals in the current plan. Staff recommends that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report KRD-11-IA and forward the proposed amendment to the West Side Urban Renewal Plan to the Kalispell City Council for review and approval. BOARDISCUSSI lip Griffin asked if the term TIF district and the term urban renewal plan are not synonymous and Conrad said they are not synonymous. The West Side Urban Renewal Plan identifies issues in an area and sets out goals and recommendations to alleviate or address those issues. The Tax Increment Finance district is a funding tool to achieve those goals in the urban renewal plan. The taxes collected are put in a separate fund so that the URA can look at projects within that plan area and make recommendations to city council for the use of those funds. The board is looking at expansion of the urban renewal plan and not an expansion of the TIF district boundary. Schutt said it was mentioned that the general transition of this area is from industrial uses toward commercial and asked how many businesses in that area currently need the railroad tracks. Conrad said two, Northwest Drywall just south of Kalispell Lumber and the Cenex grain elevators at the corner of 5t' Avenue WN and West Center Street. Schutt asked, are any of the street connectivity problems addressed in the Kalispell Transportation Plan, specifically Woodland Avenue to Whitefish Stage Road and Conrad said that connection would be a pedestrian/bike connection in the urban renewal plan not a vehicle connection. This connection is also in the city's growth policy. Conrad continued as far as the other connections he is not aware if the transportation plan mentions any of them specifically but it does mention the fact that as we grow, or within the urban fabric you need to create multiple routes for people to use so you don't overburden one street or another. Jentz said the transportation plan deals with collector and arterial major roads and what staff is talking about is a series of local streets to provide intermediate access to specific properties. Jentz added the 4 existing crossings immediately north of the Kalispell Center Mall were active but have now been closed by the railroad as part of their policy that limits the number of crossings anywhere along their system. Kalispell could not get another crossing along the tracks unless the city gave up another crossing somewhere else. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 2011 Page 3 of 11 Schutt asked why there were certain properties that were not part of the district and Conrad said those properties are still in the county and have not yet been annexed into the city. Guffrida asked if there are cost estimates for the relocation of the two businesses that are served by the railroad tracks and Conrad said no, not yet. There was discussion regarding the capital improvement projects slated through 2016 and the fact that none of the infrastructure within the proposed expansion area is included in that plan. Conrad said and Jentz agreed that the capital improvement plan addresses new and re -development in the city. In this area water and sewer is already available and the pipes are 80 years old, which is a blighting issue and could be a counter -incentive to redevelop downtown. Jentz added staff is not recommending going in and replacing all of these lines but as projects occur they need to look at the age of the infrastructure. Griffin said one of the reasons this work is being done and the process is being put in place is to build a foundation for potential proposals for funding from state and federal agencies to address these issues. Conrad said an EPA grant was received by the city to study this area. EPA has met with staff and said they want to help communities like Kalispell and could piggyback on other types of state and federal grants to help this area and the West Side Urban Renewal Plan and possible expansion would be laying that foundation. Graham asked for clarification on whether they are not voting on the TIF district and Conrad said no, the board is voting on the TIF but looking at the current West Side Urban Renewal Plan and if it's boundary should be expanded to include more properties. They are also looking at amending the plan to include the blighting issues and recommendations and goals listed in the staff report to address those issues. Graham asked if the expansion of the plan area would expand the TIF and Conrad said no the board's vote tonight will not expand the TIF district at all, just the urban renewal plan. Conrad added the plan needs to be in place if a tax increment finance district is expanded and whether the TIF district is expanded or not is up to the city council. Hinchey complimented staff on a very comprehensive staff report. Hinchey said he looked at the need for the water/sewer connectivity, the sidewalks, and the storage tanks but noted they were not Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 2011 Page 4 of 11 provided in the original plan boundary. Hinchey asked does that mean all those items were addressed in the original plan boundary and Conrad said no because the focus is on amending the plan and adding the blighting issues. Jentz explained further. Griffin asked if council wants the board to only focus on Option 2 and Conrad said that is their recommendation to the board but if board members think another option has more merit they can recommend alternatives. Guffrida asked if the board recommends and council approves the expansion of the plan area and later on council wants to create a TIF to overlay the plan does it come back to the planning board and Jentz said no, that would be a function of the council alone. Sherman asked what the relationship will be with the fairgrounds and Jentz said the fairgrounds are a county facility and it will continue to be a county facility. This urban renewal plan doesn't affect that but it would bring the property into the plan and would possibly offer help for redevelopment. Sherman said the sewer pipes are old and 19 acres of vacancy is a lot of land which to him represents a major opportunity for the City of Kalispell. He asked if there are any major negative effects to residential or commercial property owners and Conrad said financially no, this amendment won't affect their taxes but what it will do is spotlight issues in this area. The planning department's whole intent is how do we create redevelopment/reinvestment in this area. What staff has heard from their meetings with property owners is most would like to see reinvestment and so would most of the banks. Sherman asked if the two businesses that use the railroad have been contacted about possible removal of the tracks and Jentz said staff has been in constant dialogue with both of these property owners for a number of years. The intent is not to put them out of business but to work together. PUBLIC COMMENT Eloise Hill, 467 6' Avenue WN stated she lives next to the fairgrounds and is concerned about the goal to transform the fairgrounds. She said consideration for the neighborhood is a very important. Yes they live by the fairgrounds, they know there is going to be noise, lights, and events going on but it is really quite limited at this time. She is concerned if it is transformed into a new Las Vegas there will be additional noise, lights and lots of increased traffic. Hill said there are sidewalks along Meridian Road and the north side of Wyoming Street so this area is not completely without a place for people to walk or bicycle. She feels the amendment to the urban renewal plan is just a first step to expansion of the TIF district. Hill Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 2011 Page 5 of 11 doesn't feel that county property should receive city tax revenue. Gina Nelson stated she owns rental property in the area one of which is behind A & E Electronics which they would like to develop with a focus on low income rental housing being built with sustainable techniques. They have discussed whether or not the property would qualify as a Brownfield and there could be assistance for development of the property however it could be difficult to get financing. If there is going to be an algorithm that would be used to assess the property and hopefully help her finance new construction that would be very good. If this analysis was endorsed by the planning board it would be very helpful for people like her to move forward and have nice properties there. Mark Campbell stated he is the Manager of the Flathead County Fairgrounds located at 265 North Meridian Road, and he is also a resident of the City of Kalispell. Campbell welcomed Ms. Hill, their neighbor and noted there are no plans to build an extravagant facility at the fairgrounds. Their long-term plans are to become a better and more solid neighbor and have facilities that provide better public access and create a better business environment for all the events and activities that come through their grounds. It is not their long-term plan to seek city funds to reconstruct or improve their properties but it is their plan to become a neighbor/partner to create the urban plan which he thinks the fairgrounds fits into. Campbell said they have had discussion on relocation of the fairgrounds and discussion about working within the product that they have. Their buildings are 60 — 100 years old and need to be updated. Included in the short term plans is working on the fencing and the exterior of the buildings and providing a pedestrian trail inside their fence that will benefit not only to the neighborhood but the community as a whole. Their focus is to make the grounds busier and make it better. Mark Lalum, General Manager of Cenex Harvest States stated their property is classified in the "blight" category. He said he has been at the table with the city for eleven years and he is always happy to be part of any discussion to help improve that part of Kalispell. He recognizes that having a grain elevator and fertilizer plant in the center of Kalispell is probably not the best place but 100 years ago when it was built that wasn't thought about. Lalum emphasized the importance of the board giving direction to the city council on whether or not the tracks should be removed. It is confusing for a business looking to come into the city — are the tracks in or out, is it industrial or commercial, what is it? This indecision has stopped development in this area and he has stopped investing in the elevator property because why would he put money Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 2011 Page 6 of 11 into it when they continue talking about moving the elevator out. Lalum noted 95% of the grain in this valley goes out through that elevator. They ship over 1.5 million bushels in more than 300 railroad cars and it is a vital link to the agricultural community in this valley which is important. If the tracks are to stay then it should become an industrial park that will utilize the tracks if not make the decision to remove them. He doesn't want these discussions to continue for 50 years like the bypass. MOTION Schutt moved and Sherman seconded a motion to adopt staff report KRD-11-IA and forward the proposed amendment to the West Side Urban Renewal Plan to the Kalispell City Council for review and approval. BOARDDISCUSSION Graham said keeping or removing the tracks is very important so that businesses can decide what type of business can be located in the central core of Kalispell but a roadblock is the cost of relocating current users of the track and track removal. The tracks are a large part of the entire West Side Urban Renewal Plan discussions. Hinchey said the tracks are a portion of it, certainly, but there is a lot more that staff identified as blight besides the tracks. Hinchey reminded the board that this discussion is about expanding the plan area, not focusing on the financing part of it. Graham said the expansion of the plan will lead to discussion of the West Side TIF by city council and they will discuss whether to remove or keep the tracks and financing is a part of that. Schutt noted that removing the railroad tracks is item #1 in the West Side Urban Renewal Plan goals. He added item IA indicates there will be a program developed to assist existing businesses however, he doesn't think that language obligates the city to any wholesale removal or relocation; it just states the city will work with them. Schutt said it would be helpful to know the long-term plan and provide that guidance. Schutt said the board could also consider striking item #1 from the list of goals. Guiffrida said to backup Mr. Lalum the indecisiveness is the problem — it is completely stifling growth You have businesses who perhaps want to utilize the tracks and the existing businesses who are using the tracks and no one is willing to put more equity into their businesses or willing to put the money forth to create jobs because they don't know if the tracks will be there. Guiffrida said through this plan they need to set clear goals. Hinchey said he agrees and that is why the tracks need to be included in the plan. Graham said removing references to the tracks from the plan wasn't his intention. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 2011 Page 7 of 11 Sherman thanked Mr. Campbell and Mr. Lalum for offering their perspective. He said this board needs to decide whether Kalispell wants to go back and be a railroad town or if they want to attract different businesses. If the railroad tracks were removed yes it would cost some money but the result could be dozens of new businesses in that area. Young said his focus would revolve around which option should the board consider. The discussion that the railroad tracks need to be included would pretty much exclude Option #1. He would like to see some discussion about the other two options. Guffrida said his understanding is that the motion on the table is for Option #2. Guffrida said Cenex is utilizing the tracks and it is important that his business doesn't get hurt in any way. He asked Mr. Lalum what it would cost to move Cenex and Lalum said more than $4 million and he also has a fertilizer plant that uses the rail. Lalum added the struggle is you can't put an elevator at just any location. Schutt asked what are the factors to consider and Lalum said he won't relocate to Columbia Falls because it is too far, it has to be very close to track and more crucial is the grade of the track because it is expensive to bring the track down to grade. Jentz said the bypass was brought up and if they would have gotten bogged down on the cost of the alternative route they would still be sitting today deciding where or if it should be. So instead they went ahead and half of it is built and another piece of it will be built this spring. Jentz said the question before the board is do we go ahead in earnest, make it a city policy and try to make it work, do nothing, or take a stand and decide this should be an industrial site. Lalum agreed. Hinchey said by keeping the tracks issue in the plan it is there for the council to address. Guffrida agreed and asked if Lalum has looked at options to relocate both inside and outside of the city and Lalum said yes. Hinchey said Option #2 was recommended by the URA and the city council and the staff report was prepared based on Option #2. If the board wanted to look at Option #3 they could recommend that to council. Young noted nearly all the blighting issues that were raised are specifically focused along the rail line and more suited to Option #3. Young said it just seems the board would be providing them with a narrower — more focused area which seems to be the area that is of concern. He doesn't see the benefit of expanding the area one block north or south. Schutt said the board has worked on keeping our major commercial Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 2011 Page 8 of 11 arterials in a similar district and under similar zoning guidelines otherwise you could end up with the south side of the street being under totally different guidelines than the north half and conflict results. Jentz explained the area in black on the maps is a larger neighborhood planning area called the Core Area Revitalization that staff has currently been working on. There is a significant amount of Brownfield planning monies that the city was able to attract. The expansion of the urban renewal plan has moved that process ahead and as we go through this process if the board chooses not to adopt the urban renewal plan amendment staff will continue to plan and refine those issues in that boundary, continue meeting with the neighborhoods and plan to come up with some design charrette on what this area would look like if it were to be redeveloped, if a certain facility was built there, if the tracks were removed, if the center mall was expanded, etc. The URA looked at that area and said it made logical sense to follow that boundary when deciding to expand the urban renewal plan area and it would allow more options. Hinchey said that seems reasonable. Schutt asked if there was any discussion about the Appleway/Meridian Court areas and Jentz said no those both are fairly new and redevelopment has already occurred so there was no reason to bring it in. Guffrida said when you look north of Idaho and south of Center Street there are still a lot of businesses in that area — it is not all residences so that is probably why it is a good thing to include them in the plan. Guffrida asked Mr. Campbell if the commissioners have endorsed the expansion of the West Side Urban Renewal Plan to include the fairgrounds and Campbell said the commissioners are aware of the discussions with not only the URA but also the council and a commissioner has attended some of the meetings. Campbell said the fair board has not presented the commissioners with any specific plans for fairground improvements. Guffrida asked why hasn't the fairgrounds been maintained and Campbell said he didn't know. They have two full-time maintenance staff that are not only in charge of maintenance but also event coordination, set-up, take- down, and cleanup. A lot of the buildings are wooden structures and 60 — 100 years old. They are working toward continuing to increase attendance at the fair and lowering prices to attract more community events so they can invest in the capital improvements and extend maintenance. Schutt said Goal #4 talks about several goals for the fairgrounds which Schutt reviewed and asked Campbell if those are generally Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 2011 Page 9 of 11 plans that are in coordination with the fairgrounds long-term vision and Campbell said absolutely. Campbell added he completely agrees with the goals that have been set forward in the plan. Their timing is a bit behind but they are moving ahead. Guffrida said the fairgrounds are located at an entrance into our community and from that perspective the exterior is important. Numerous local businesses see the benefits of the fairgrounds and therefore the City of Kalispell sees the benefits and Guffrida doesn't see an issue with including the fairgrounds into the urban renewal plan. Hinchey agreed and said the fairgrounds are a key part to the western entrance into the city and as such including it in the plan gives the city another tool to work with the county. Hinchey said he doesn't see the city redoing the fairgrounds but we might be able to partner with them on some aspects to beautify the entrance corridor because the city has an interest in that too. ROLL CALL. The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS: Jentz reported the board had asked staff to talk to the county about a joint meeting with the Flathead County Planning Board to discuss general issues and the response was unless anything specific needs to be addressed in the next 30 days they would prefer meeting in January or February. Hinchey asked staff to arrange a meeting at their convenience. Conrad reported the October 1 Ith meeting has an annexation of the Annory property on Highway 93 North and a conditional use permit for a contractor storage yard on West Center Street. Sherman said there is a current law that in the City of Kalispell a bar cannot be within 300 feet of another bar. Sherman said this about getting a better entertainment district in downtown Kalispell. Places like Whitefish and Missoula that have solid downtowns do not have this restriction and he asked if the board could discuss this regulation at a future work session. Hinchey agreed and Staff will set up a work session to discuss this issue and how it could affect Kalispell. Sherman said by eliminating the 300 foot restriction it would create a more pedestrian friendly entertainment district. ADJOURNMENT T The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:35 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next work session of the Kalispell City Planning Board has not been scheduled Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 2011 Page 10 of 11 The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board is scheduled for October 11, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the city council chambers located at 201 1"Avenue East. John Hinchey President APPROVED as submitted/Corrected: / /11 Michelle Anderson Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 27, 2011 Page 11 of 11