5.1 De-Annex & Vac CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
~/18/~ 4:oo P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings and ~tems ORIGINATING DEPARI~ENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. 5 Scheduled for a Certain Time AGENDA:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ITEM Planning Division
NO. 1 Roy Dudark
BY: BY:
Item
Petition filed by David and Homer Wells requesting the exclusion (de-
annexation) of the following described property from the boundaries of
the city:
Lots 1, 3,. 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 & 19 West of the present Dry Creek
Channel in Block I of the North Park Addition to the City of Salina
and the vacation of 20' of right-of-way along the West Grand frontage of
the above described property.
Site Data
This property is located on the south side of Grand Avenue immediately west
of the Dry Creek Channel (1000 Block of West Grand). The tract of land is
approximately 13, 500 sq. ft. in size and has 120' of frontage on Grand
Avenue. The property is zoned I-2 Light Industrial and is presently vacant.
The land to the north and west is located within unincorporated Saline
County and is presently being used for industrial and agricultural purposes,
respectively.
Public Facilities and Services
1. Streets - West Grand is maintained by the City as far West as the flood
control dike in accordance with a maintenance agreement with the
county. Street pavement ends at this property.
2. Sanitary Sewer - The property is not served by city sewer lines.
3. Water - The property does not have city water service.
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACT ION DATE TIME
AGENDA SECT I ON: OR I G I NAT I NG DEPARTMENT: APPROV ED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ITEM Planning Division
NO. Roy Dudark
BY: BY:
Page 2
4. Drainage - This proPerty is shown to be in the 100 year flood plain on
the flood boundary map prepared for the city by FEMA. Also the old
Dry Creek Channel is part of the City's stormwater storage and
detention system and the City has a 90' drainage right-of-way along
this stretch of the channel.
Background
The North Park Addition was platted and came into the city in 1887. In
1931, the original Dry Creek channel was straightened and realigned. The
result was that the subject property, which was on the east side of original
Dry Creek, ended up on the west side of the realigned channel. In addition,
the realigned channel and the City's 90' drainage right-of-way run through a
portion of the original platted lots~ thus reducing the size of this parcel
by half. The resolution describing the city limits, which the City adopts
every year, calls out the center of Dry Creek Channel as the west city
limits, however, the resolution does not indicate whether this refers to the
original channel or the realigned channel. The Official Zoning Map of the
city adopted in 1962 still showed this parcel in the city and zoned Light
Industrial. City and county staff have been unable to find evidence of any
action by the City to exclude this portion of the North Park Addition from
the city and therefore, have concluded that it is still within the city
limits. Based on this conclusion, the owner filed a petition requesting
that this portion of the North Park Addition be de-annexed. The applicant
wishes to erect an agricultural building on this site which would not be
permitted under the City's I-2 zoning regulations.
The request for vacation of right-of-way arises from the fact that Grand
was originally platted with 100' of right-of-way. County tax parcel maps
show a 60' road reservation for Grand in the county. Vacation of the 20'
strip adjacent to Lot I would give clear title of that land to the
petitioner.
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ITEM Planning Division
NO. Roy Dudark
BY: BY:
Page 3
Applicable State Statute
K.S.A. 12-504 is the statute governing the vacation of streets and also the
exclusion of land from the boundaries of a city. The statute requires that
petitions to vacate right-of-way and/or exclude land from the city limits
be presented to the City Commission. To grant this request, the Commission
must make a determination that:
1. Due and legal notice has been provided by publication;
2. No private rights will be injured or endangered by such exclusion
and/or vacation;
2. The public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby; and
4. In justice the prayer of the petitioner ought to be granted.
P.lannin~ Commission Action on De-annexation Request
The petitioner's request to have this property excluded from the city has
been referred to both the County and City Planning Commissions. The Saline
County Planning Commission met on February 19, 1991, and determined that
they had no objection to this property coming back into the county and noted
that it would be zoned Heavy Industrial according to the county's
comprehensive plan. The Salina City Planning Commission met and considered
this request at its March 5 meeting. The City Planning Commission voted 8-0
to recommend approval of this de-annexation request due to the uniqueness of
this particular site, especially the fact that it lies outside the natural
boundary of the city and is not served by city utilities.
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ITEM Planning Division
NO. Roy Dudark
BY: BY:
Page 4
£ngineerin9 Department. Report on Rig.hr-of-was Vacation
It appears that no utilities exist in the proposed 20 feet of right-of-way
nor will the proposed vacation have any adverse affect on the existing
pavement or traffic. A 60' right-of-way will remain and be adequate for
this local street. It is therefore recommended that the request for
vacation be granted.
Recommended Action
1. Open the public hearing on this item and receive comments from the
applicant and other interested members of the public.
2. Close the public hearing and, if the statutory requirements are found
to be met, adopt a motion granting the petitioner's request to: a)
vacate the South 20' of street right-of-way of Grand Avenue adjacent to
Lot 1, Block 1, North Park Addition; and b) to exclude the described
property in North Park Addition from the city limits.
Encl: Petition #4004
Original Plat
Map of Current Situation
Excerpt of PC Minutes 3/5/91
Ordinance #91-9430
Ordinance #91-9431
cc: David Wells
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
,~ : ~ DO NOT ~RITE IN THIS SPACE
: PETITION NUMBER ~/o~ ~ Item
:
_.
FILED
: '91 iH PM 2
:
TO: THE COVERN~NO BODY : 0)T'l' OP' SAL~NA. KS
City of sa~i,a. Kansa, : OITY 0LERK'S 0FF)0E
:
We, the undersigne(t, being residents and property owners in the :
City of Salina: Kansas, to hereby petition your honorable body for: : ...........................................
exclusion of the following described property from the boundaries of the city:
Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 & 19, West of the present Dry Creek Channel in
Block 1 of the North Park Addition to the City of Salina and further oetition for
the vacation of 20' of right-of-way alonq the West Grand frontaqe of the above
described property.
Respectfully submitted by: David Wells AND HOtq, ER V~ELLS
Telephone Number: 827-7241
NAME ADDRESS
.j ~
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Salina City Planning Commission
March 5, 1991
Page 3
Chairman Brungardt asked if there were any interested persons who would care
to make a comment regarding this application? There being none, would the
commission care to take action?
MOTION: Mrs. Seaton moved that Application #CU91-3 be approved in that the proposed
conditional use complies with all applicable regulations and will not
dominate the neighborhood and will not cause substantial injury to the
value of other properties in the neighborhood.
SECOND: Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous (8-0) in favor of the motion. Motion carried.
#4. Petition filed by David and Homer Wells for de-annexation.
Mr. Dudark stated that this is a petition that was filed by the owners of a
small piece of land (1/4 acre) that lies west of Dry Creek Channel and south
of Grand Avenue. This area was annexed into the city limits in 1887 when
the North Park Addition was platted. The configuration of Dry Creek came
around to the west of this block and these lots and back along Grand and
then on to the north. In 1931 the city realigned Dry Creek into a straight
alignment going northeast and severed the block into two pieces. Since that
time we have been calling the city limits the centerline of Dry Creek.
Which Dry Creek is the question. This was annexed as an addition so they
are platted lots and legally part of the city. The applicant and owner
of this property wants to construct a barn that would house some horses. In
the city, the property is zoned Light Industrial and that is not permitted.
You have to have an agricultural zone which requires 4 acres. But in the
county, you can do that. His request is to take the property out of the
city and put it in the county. The applicant is saying that the property
has not been in the city for years, although the property is technically in
and is being referred to as that. This is a unique situation. We have
kicked this around in-house a little bit frankly because we are concerned
about the precedent for the future of de-annexing property. Is the motive
only to be excluded from paying city property taxes? In this case we do not
think so. We think there is a genuine and valid motive to pursue a plan
that only would be permitted if it were zoned appropriately. Agricultural
zoning would not be an appropriate zoning for this property. To the north
is Hixson-Lehenbauer, an industrial subdivision and is in the county. The
city limit line goes on the east side of it. This is the only tract in the
city west of the creek. The applicant is not proposing a development plan
that would require services. We do not feel that there is any real
substantial reason to deny this request. This is not a growing area of the
city. If we wanted to annex it in the future we could. It is a platted
area and it is legal to annex platted areas. We are not precluded from
bringing it back in if there were some need to do that or if the surrounding
area came into the city,
Chairman Brungardt stated that there is no one in attendance so he will not
ask for public input.
Mr. Kline asked if the applicant owns the land to the west of this property?
Mr. Dudark stated that he is not sure. If the property goes into the
county, it will be zoned heavy induEtrial like the surrounding zoning. The
County Planning Commission also considered this application and they had no
objection to the property coming back into the sounty.
Mrs. Denton stated that she does not see any problem with this setting a
precedent as it appears that this is definitely a unique situation.
Mr. Dudark stated that if we were growing in that direction and had utility
lines in the area and there were no physical barriers such as the creek,
that might be a possibility. These conditions exist here and the same
circumstances are not found in very many places.
Mr. Hardman asked if Mr. Dudark is looking for a motion for a recommendation
of approval or denial?
Salina City Planning Commission
March 5, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Dudark stated that the commission does not need to make any findings
but perhaps a motion that the commission does not see any reason to object
to the de-annexation of the tract for~ planning or development reasons.
MOTION: Mr. Morris moved that after reviewing the presentation of staff on the
petition for de-annexation that the Planning Commission does agree with the
staff's recommendation of approval based on the unique conditions in that
this parcel lies beyond the natural boundary of the city, its development
potential is limited by its size and shape and it is not served by city
utilities.
SECOND: Mrs. Denton seconded the motion.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous (8-0) in favor of the motion. Motion carried.
#5. Application #Z91-1, filed by the Salina City Planning Commission.
Mr. Dudark stated that the Heritage Commission has been working on achieving
Certified Local Government Status. This is in order to get the state to
recognize local efforts in historic preservation in the area. One of the
requirements is that the board be structured so that it has 3 professionals
out of the 7 members that meet their criteria. Presently, we do not. That
seems to be the only real problem area for obtainin§ the certification.
The Heritage Commission talked about changing the ordinance and
restructuring the membership and makeup as providing a means to become
qualified. Certain members would have qualifications. One way to get that
is to add a second professional, a historian. In historic preservation, the
two primary credentials are architectural or historical background. Those
would be the two most important members of the commission. The third one
you could chose from among the four different professions. It may be
difficult to try to find someone with those credentials and interest them
into serving. The other members would be left like it is. Sherry Denton is
the planning commissioner on the herita§e commission. Then one member of
the real estate or legal profession and two other unspecified members.
Chairman Brungardt asked if a historian is defined?
Mr. Dudark stated that it is at the state level. Our definition is non-
existent. Whatever we say is a historian is a historian but we have to
send a resume to the state.
Chairman 8rungardt asked if it would be better to make this more flexible?
Mr. Dudark stated that the state requires 3 professionals. My thought in
drafting this is that it would be easier to get a architect or a historian
than it would be to get some of the others. That is why they are listed
singularly.
Mrs. Denton stated that the Heritage Commission's main thought was that we
are really kinda scratching just to try to meet the certified local
government requirements regarding membership and we thought this was our
best shot.
MOTION: Mr. Hardman moved that Application #Z91-1 be approved in that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance
and the proposed amendment will no~ adversely affect the orderly development
of the city of Salina and the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to
or endanger the public health, safety or g~neral welfare of the city of
Salina.
SECOND: Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous (8-0) in favor of the motion. Motion carried.
#6. Other Matters.
Mr. Dudark stated that we have received a revised planning and zoning bill
that has been amended by the Senate Committee. We sent a letter to local
legislators. In that letter we said that the governing body should adopt a
plan or have the option of adopting it. Now the language is no compre-
hensive plan shall be effective unless approved by the governing body. That