Loading...
H-5 Auto Plaza PetitionREALTO~ GEORGE C. ETHERINGTON, P~es. 4t2 N.W. 2ND ABILENE, KANSAS 67410 (913) 263-1250 2041 SO. OD*IlO SAL. INA, KANSAS 67401 (913) 827-9338 '25 June 1974 Mr. Norris D. Olson City Manager City of Salina P. O. Box 746 Salina, Kansas 67401 Dear Norris: I am having a very difficult time in obtaining a hearing before the Saline County Planning Commission on my Auto Plaza Petition filed with them on May 7, 1974. A copy of this petition, County Planning Commission Minutes of their May 7 and May 29 meetings, your letter to me dated May 13, 1974, and my letter to Mr. Winslow dated May 15, 1974, are enclosed to illustrate my case. A copy of the May 29 minutes were received only last week. You will note on page 5 of t~ese minutes that they are now requiring that your letter of May 13, 1974, "be concurred in by the City Government:". I assume the only choice I have is to r~quest an appear- ance before the City Commission to obtain this concurrence. It will be impossible for me to attend either the July 1 or July 8 City Commission Meetings. I therefore ask that you place this request on your agenda for the July 15 City Commission Agenda. Sincerely yours ~./(~eorge 'C. Ett~erington NAT. ASSOC. OF R. E. BOARDS NAT. INST. OF R. E. BROKERS NAT, ASSOC. OF R, E, APPRAISERS URBAN LAND INST. NAT. AUCTIONEERS ASSOC. SALINA t]OARD OF REALTOIRS KANSAS ASSOC, OF RE. ALTORS NAT. FARM & LAND [1ROKERS INST. COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL. DIV. R. E. SECURITIE.~{ & SYNDICATION INST, 412 N.W. 2ND A ltl LE:NIr , KANSAS //~ ,,! ,,,/! GEORGE C.;ETHERINGTON, Pres. 2041 SO, OHIO SALINA. KANSAS 6"/40l 15 Ma~r 1974 'Mr. D. E. Winslow, Chairman Saline County Planning Commission City-County Building _5OO ~,'est Ash Salina, Kansas 67401 Re: Auto Plaza Petition to Saline County Dear Sir: I have pe~'sonally delivered to the Executive Secretary o'f the Saline County Planning Commission a letter written by Norris Olson, City Manager, ~nswering the questions which were raised .at the Saline County Planning Commission Heeting of M~ 7, 1974. I mm additionally enclosing a copy of the letter so there will be 'no question that you have receiv[ed this information. Since it is app~ent that the Saline County Pl~nimg Co~ission smd the Saline County Commissioners havo .assmmed responsibility [or p].~mning and zoning outside Salina city limits, I therefore feel tnat you ~e in a position to call for a formal he~ing and meeting of the S~ine County Planing Commission, ~d be in a position to render a decision. I therefore respectfully request that you pursue with ~l due haste ~d appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, / ~eo~ge C, 'Etheri~gton -' GCEam May 13, 1974 Mr. George Etherington Realtor and Developer · 2041S. Ohio Salina; Kansas 67401 Dear George: This will confirm our conversation of last week concerning the three questions raised at the Saline County Planning Commission ~leeting o.f Iqay 7, 1974, Pelating $o the Auto Plaza Petition you have filed with them. ' -. . "Your Use of the existing p~blic streets before, during, or after any construction on the'site is a mute question. Republic Street already has a return on the east side of Ohio. Curb cuts and returns for Minneapolis and Jewell Streets can be cor:structed upon filing for same with tile Ci, ty Engineer. , At the present time, th~'city would have no alternative than to extend water and sewer services to the'site in tP~e same .manner as previously done for other petitioners located immediately .- adjacent to existing service lines. To our knowledge, neither the Corp of Engineers nor the City of Salina has any prohibitions for tile development of this area so long as such development does not adversely effect the irterior drainage of the city. Sincerely yours, Norris D. Olson City Manager NDO:mk MEMBER . . . KANSAS LL~AGUE OF MUNICIPAl. Il'lES - NATIONAL LEAGL.I'E OF CITIES TO THE HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SALINE COUNTY, KANSAS GENTLEMEN: Sal ina, Kansas Date F~led: M~¥ We, the undersigned, residents and property owners in Saline County, Kansas, do hereby petition your honorable body for the~ ZONINO OF THE ¥IE$~ FORT~ FIV~ (~) ACt~ES 0[,' THE NORTH iIALF (N~.-) OF TIIE SOUTftWEST QU~H~TE~ (SW~) OF SECTIO~ NINL~I~EEN (19), TOWNSHIP FOURT~;EN SOUTH (14S), RANGE TWO WEST (2W) OF THE 6t~ P.M., IN SALINE COUNTY, KANSAS, EXGEPT THE WEST TWO HUNDRE~ FEL~ (W2OO~ ) THEREOF, FROM ITS P~ESi']~T ZONING TO "D"~ LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Trusting that the prayers of the petitioners will be granted, we are respectfully, FILED BY: ..... NAME AODRESS MI:MCI~-~HDI)M FO}i rile M I N U T E S SALINE COUI(I¥ t>i~!ZNING and ZONING cor, b'.!.T. SSI,. N Tuesda,/, May 7, 1974 · Assembly Meetin9 t~oom 300 City-County Building Salina, Kansas 67401 ~I,,',BE,xS PRESENT: Chairman WII,iSLOW, FORSBL:RG and HOCKING STAFF: OTHERS: HOYi, E, Executive .Secretary, Saline County Plannin~ and Zonin~ Commission. R. N. L,qv,PE, Saline County Engineer; R. L. A!~iv'~I'E~:;L'G, Sa.l. ine County Clerk; Everett BISHOP, Salina/Saline County Deferment of Health; Keiih R;~,"ILZfJSS, t~lary BONIL~ and Pete OLSC, N~ Salina Plannin9 Department; Georoe C. EY.~;~I~G]O;., and Joyce Reality As.:ociax'.~s Inc. LeSlie V. APFLEBY, /~rchitect.Engineer, Salina; James SULLIV.M'4, Jim Sullivan Chevrolet Company, Inc.; Ilex L'lc,d(DFJ[{~ 'LonD-l,,]c~rthor, Inc.; John }t. JXSH~u_L,' Salina Journal;. Charley .... -' ~' K I N ,~., J'.-J TOREY, and others (Yolal: 32 ) (*) b',r. Dale BLOO/.,i,,4UIST, Bridgeport, signed l:",onday, 29 ~pr].i 1974 from tile Saline County Planning and Zoning Com- mission. I~e County Commiss~cn, rs4p-' poin~['ed Gordon Wal~&, Culvdz, Kansas to fill the vacancy on Tuesday, 7 Ma,,, 1974. The meetin9 was called to order by Chairman ;'/II'..SL~.:q at 2010. Minutes of ti~e ~pril 1'1, 1974 laee-tin9 were ~ ~' ap,~rovea without chan~e. Item 1~1 on the :~GL;,DA was next considered ~y the Commission. b'.r. Georce C. Et. her.lnqton~s r,:,(:uest for Fey.~ missio,~ 't_~o ¢.Ayjd;,,~it. a. ~2Ftition. Hoyne explained to the Commis,c:ion tha'r in Item ill, tills Com- mission is primarily cc, ncerncd w~th a pc,.~.sons right to petition. In this instance, 'ti~o l:)rol-~OSO(i pol. iti:n is said to c,'r~ce.[~ a t)arccl cf ].,~i ti~a't is i',z-'~:~ser:tl'/ identi['iod upon the ZonJ. n!~ Mai, f~r Gr,~c,.ley 'I'ownr~,~i) o~ ~:~].'i.~u:~ Cut,hi.y, ICar~sas a's "~d' .(Fi;'s't [)',velli~t:; Jlousc, Dis't,:~'ict). ' St~LINE CGUN'F( Pl...'d NI?,iG and ZONING CO ,;,'..[o..I. b' Pane 2 - May 7, . . The proposed cha~%~e il~ "land use" would permit tim develop- ment of an "i~U'fC, PLA2b~" uFon apl;roximat(~ly 40-45 acres located east of South Ohio Street, adjacent to, and outside of, the Salins city limits between the east extensions of Republic and Jewell streets. .. The plan for development is said to be the "AUTO PL,~ZA PL,~N". Hoyne then said - "it apFears that t4r. Etherington can sub- mit a petition". However, after the subn',issicn of the petition, and prior to any further action by this commission, ..all differences between the city of Salins and the petitioners, should be first satisfactorily resolved. These differences are said %0 concern: -- (1) The use of existin9 nea:by public streets, after the construction, by the users cn the site. (2) The necessary use of utility services located on the site or adjacent thereto. (3) The matter of land fill on the develop- ment site in-so-far as the'so-called impounding surface water areD may be effected. The above conditions all effect .the "land use" when rezoned for "local business" and should be favorably resolved by the developer prior to a public hearing. Mr. Etherington was the next t'o speak about the proposed development. He said we are (joing to show where we propose to locate the buildincs. Also', explai~ the economic impact this development migt~t have on the community through the ex- penditure of approximately S1,000,O00 and job opportunities for ¥oun9 people through the creation of 60-~5 new jobs, etc. Mr. Jim Sullivan spoke for several minutes.~bout his business and the need for more room. He said "we need more room .~. we can't continue to opera e the way we az:e now. The onl site we have been able to find after approximately a year and a half is this site on South Ohio. It would give us room' to expand . all '.:e want to do is continue to maintain a businesg ~nd we have to expand ..." leto. Appleby ~,.as next to speak. He presented a detailed lay- out plan for the proposed constructior~. Upon the plan was marked in red the location of the existj_no~ san.itayy_ line i'~at cro~oed south to r~orth midway through the p~oposed ~e~'e"l opment site. ~/m. Ethcrincton pointed out that the development would be9in mo.,.e than 2~'.., feet east from the conter lire of Ohio Street and ii,at on the west of 0}~io Street the ~ousesdue west from the site did i~ot front un Ohio, but all faced ~orth or south, etc. O~e member in the audience s~ar'ted an arguernen't, with Ett~:~-~nO~ton. 'f!~e Ci~air~nan cal.tod fo'u o.c~hrr a~d /d:r. }iockJ..n9 remindert those ;>~(.~,~,,~t: b'/ s,~'tinu ~ "1 i}~i~k 'th~~ ~r.,i;t;e J~ - ~;]'Tt':~:i.'i-:]l~..:,=.:_=.: .................. 't.',~o (;.:ul~l ~? 'l'l/:i.(, o't.l~o.r ,.ii~,(:~ist;i~i"~-'~'a[['-~o~'::'-~i:[['t:.::]:''· Tile Chairman tl~en asked - "is tJ~;~r;!'. al~yone 'thor has any more (tue,:.ti~ ns?" ~ women (f.n. Li.) said - "D,) you. Lll~nk they wi. ii open Ellsv~ortt~ 2Ii blocks wc::,t of Ohio?" '[lie Chairman asked Hoyne to reply. Heyne pointed out tl~at that was a city matter and if ,leu'(thc, woman) would give hi,, t~er rc, queut.~or in- formation in writti~g, then he would seek to get a zeply. (No%q: No req-u~s'~:.t for i~forma/ion ha%. b~:en presentecl _~n wri'tting, oonscquer:tiy the matter has not been cont:Lnued - ). , k':r. Torey, from +.t~e audie~ce, asked p.rmission {rom tho Chairman to' speak. He was advised tl~.e he could speak, but this was not ti~e req,.:ired public hearing for rezoni,~g of the proposed construction site. Torey then spoke in generalities about what he thou9ht how such a development would be undersireable for the area. Wit}~ Torey were nine. or ten', o'ther persons. Of these only two women were vocal to lhe extent the7 appeared to support Torey's rati~er hazy point of view. A motion was made by. Forsberg, seconded by Hockin9 that this' commission 9© into an ex- ecutive session and be back in this roma in about 10 minutes.. VOTE: The vote was unanimous. Upon return, the meeting was acain called to order by the Chairman and the following motion made --- F,.OTtt.N: 'Motion made by Forsber9, seconded by Hocking - "~r. Chairman I move' this Commission recognizes Mr. Etherington's right to submit a petition to this Commission and that as t}~e 'Petitioner', ~,'k'. Etherington be advised by this Com- mission that this Commission will ~ take no further action on the ~etitiou~ when submi..ted, until after st~ch ~ime thai all probable differences between the City of Salina and the Petitioner have been resolved. We ~ould ask that all confirmation ~f all agreements on controversial matters between the City of Salina and the 'Petitione.c and Developers' to be forwarded to this Commission for the official record and any future use t}~is Commission may require". VOTE; The vote was unanimous. ][ 2. _T?._q federal F].ood In!;u.rance _P~a_m_. }-lOylh(-? 'pz'.sSOd to ~'.. t(-: mOm}be:lT._'~ of ''~.[lo Col:',misn[ol~. copies of tv..,o (2~ artiClr,~, put:~li~'~'''~ J-~' li"~; '~ ' ,~oth of tl~e aT'ti(:i,:'S arc 'Lc, orion /~(:k r)f ].5,7':~.~ ,'.L. $;,L..!I'. and Z£,'i,~It.;G Cc:~; more inferlnati~,r~ to bosh any decision .r~:,la[ed to Saline County enterin9 ~.~e~ i:lood In~,uraocu Program. . Pre~en%ly there is just a lot of guessing going on." No oti~er act. ion b~ ,?e Commission will be r,~ired ,'-:t this time. However, the same item will be en ti~e June .,{genda. Legal Council will cemn,ent then upol~ selected portions ef the Flood Disaster Protection Act. We should begin to firm our position with reference to whether tills Commission reqommends .Saline Gounty should, or should not, enter 'the program. (Hoyne) ¢~ 3. Up-datis_q the Zoninc~ ancL Master Plan Resolution of Saline Goun~cy'~--~al~-a-~- Hoyne' explained to the Commission that a~nually the. Zoning and Z,%ster Plan Resolution of Saline County is to be examined for appropriate op-oa-~zn~ of ve~6us articles in the solution, as the situation may require. He said - "Kansas olre Planning Laws " ct The planning board. 'shall annually re- ~g~,,, such plan for the p~rpose o-f deter- mining if any portion ~of tt~e plan has be- · come obsolete and sh~ll make a report on or before the first day cf June of each year to the Board of County Commissioners regardin9 the same. ,~.5.,a. Supp. 19-2916a." ~he Plan was then examined' and it was determined that parts of some of the various "Articles" within the plan were obsolete and up-dnlin9 of the contents of the document will be re- qu ire d. Furthermore, the rec,uired report is to he orepared by the Hx- eCutive Secretary, signed by the Chairman and sent to the Board of County Commissioners, as the law requires. ~, ,Oblinger-SmPth Corporation" Also, ii was noted that shou!6 do most, of the up-dating as o~,tlined An their con- tract with Saline County - dtd. 1~ November, 1972. The agree- ment is identified as --- ''Al'( ,.~GR;~E4iENI fCT~ FLAH~ING bEBVICES FOR SALIKF, CCUNTY, Final?'y, a progress report to the Plar~ning Commission on the up-dating .,':f t:~.e Flan should be made at the June meeting of this Commission. ~ftar some discussi, n the follov,'ing ,notion was made- i~O'ZIC'N: i~4otion made by Forsberg, soco'nded by Flecking - Tim Executlvo Seer tar)', :in coopc'ra~:ion with the C~8irrnan meet t.h~: :.eq,~irements for noti- f,/in~ the )~o:,z'd of Coun'ty Curt,missioners; Obl~ng,~r-gm!th CorporaL. ion do %it,L, necessary .... 'n . outl: i~ r, heir contrac" eoree- merit v,,i'ti~ o,:,.Line Co~n't-y ,-~d ~1 ~)-FO~jTF(-'c'fl :lTD- pot% be made 't,o 'Lbo ~'~at) liQ~j Comr:lissioFl Jgno . VOTE: ];lie vot. 6 Lo at)prove was the commission. Notice w,,,$ laken of 'Ll~e E:~ct t.t,~t part of the platted area is inside t~O City li,;;its of Salir, a and western portio~ of the a~eo J.s outside the city' limits and in the planning area of County Planni. e9 Co,,¢~ission. The For- pose of this review is to ~nform this Com~,ission so who,', the final plat is pres,:nted the necessary recommen{¢ed ch~npes on tl~e plat will be made and the plat co~ be a?proved, and sipned by our Chairman and aecretary. (Note. The)pul~lic hearin~ is to be held by the City Plal{ning C~sion. .. The Final Plat. will probal'ly 1,e reacty for..approval in .about two (2) weeks. No oti;er action taken at this time. BUC;IE;-; & JILLI$ L~T, CFi}iMJ~[,"'I' on "Final Billinp" related to professional p].a~ming services [or the Saline Cgunty Water and S~wer Study, as pe} contract dated December 4, 1972. Amount Due - $1,625.00~ After an examinati,.n of -the study, and the contract it was de- term%ned the requirements outlined in the con'tract have been accomplished. MOIICN: ;~toti. n made by Forsberg, seconded by Hoc.kinp, The sum shown ~;n the "Final Billing`r- $1,625.00, be. paid. (.*x-) VOTE: The vote to approve was unanimous. (*~) The Executive Secretary to send the recommendation for' approval to the Board of County Commissioners who will authorize the payment from the'appropriat, e County funds. Item added to the AGENDA - # 6. Te~.:porary Building Permits authorizin9 temporary structures to be erected from which fireworks could be sold. Hoyne explained to the Commission that he had contacted the State Fire Marshall's Office in Topeko auc! 'asked for in- formation about the authorized sale of firecrackers du:rin9 July 1974. The Fire Marshall's office advised that ti~e situation was not clear at this time and that Hoyne could expect a postr~r and regua!tions on thc st:b jeer. Hoyne said he would advise the Commission on tt~e subject at our next mee'ting. Meeting adjournec! at 2130 hours. Lt. C',')]. U. S. ,-~:,,y (Ret.) }ix~cuti.vr:. L¢:cr',~t.;-~;.¥ to tho o~.l. ia~ C}o~l.y PJa~Jn[~ and MEMO[~ANI)UM FOt~ TIlE HEGOHD 109 - H MINUTES SALINE COUNTY PLANNING and ZONING CO,~,U~.ISSICN WEDNESDAY, May 29, 1974 Assembly Meeting Room 300 City-County Building Salina, Kansas 67401 ~MBER$ PRESENT: Chairman WINSLOW, FORSBERG, HOCKING, WALL and WALLE. MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: OTHERS: None. HO~qE, Executive Secretary, Saline County Planning and Zoning Commission. R. N. L~E, Saline County Engineer: Everette BISHOP, Salina/Saline County Department of Health; Keith RAWLING$ and Pete OL~ON, Salina Planning Depart- ment; George C. ETHE~INGTON, and Joyce WINN~-Reality Associates Inc.; Darrell E. POi~RS and 3ohn GIST, Oblinger-Smith Oorporationl Kenneth W. attorney for Dorman and Bowen Cattle Company; Mike OVERTON, KSAL, and others. The meeting was called to order by ~hairman ~¥INSLOW at 2015. Minutes of the May 7~ 1974 meeting were app?oved without change. Item #1 on the AGENDA ~as next considered by the Commissicn. #1. Review for approval of the Final PIAT of the SUBDIVISION named KESSLER /~DDITIC~. The chairman asked Hoyne to present the situation concerning Item #1. Using a copy of the subject Plat~ Hoyne first described the 9eorgraphical location of the site. Then he explained that after an examination of the survey information on the Plat~ and after having wallced over the surveyed ground with the County Engineer, they were in agreement tl~e Plat could be considered acceptable as drawn except for one incorrect measuremont ma:rkcd t~heroon. The incorrect measurement is the inco:crect total width~ feet r~lus 40 f(~:.t,'-c, for the proposed righ't-of.-way, of ,EUCLID Prior to ton!obis me~;,t.:i~n9 llo'/~m b,roufitl-g !:}~J.s error to tt~c. SAI. IN[:'. COUNTY I-~.aNNING and ZONING COHMISSION Page 2 - ~,[~¥ 29, 1974 Then after a short discussion the following motion was made - MO/ION: Motion maae Dy HOCKING. seconded by FORESBERG that - - - ~]e Chairman and the Executive ~ecre%ary' of this Gommission are authorized to place their signatures upon the subject FIKF%L PLAT after the necessary correction concerning the right- of-way width has been made. VOTE: ]]%e vote to approve w. as unanimous. CO~.~NT: (1) When both the Chairn:an .and the Executive Secretary have placed their signatures upon the FINAL PLA/, the two (2) signatures then represent this Commissions final approval of the Plat for the Subdivision, (Hoyne)o (2) There exists an agreement between the City and the County dated Friday~ November 14, 1958, in which the City assumes all maintenance of %hat portion of EUCLID AVENUE that lies in Saline County from west city limits to the fl'god control dyke. (Lampe)o #2° The situation concerninq the Pre- liminarv Plat for the SHADY GROVE SUBDIVISION to 'be discussed. Hoyne began the discussion by referring the Commission to a copy of the Preliminary Plat. The Subdivision site was identified as being located on the east side of Highway 81, approximately 2 miles north of Salina City limits, located in 'the west half of the North- west Quarter of Section 13-13-3~ consisting of 12 Lots with a combined total of 58.66 acres; on each lot only one single- family dwelling shall be permitted, and currently the owners DORN~'~N and BO~'~N CATTLE COMPANY and others. ~e others are owners %o whom plots in the subject area have recently been sold. (Note - K~S~A. Suop,~ 12-705 b does not. prohibit con- ~q lan~b~l-ne-(:e~, and bound description in areas sub~c~ After the above brief orientation HOYNE requested to describe to the Commission some of the history related to %he so-called b~e-t~zopolitan Planning Commission ac%ions re- lated to the SIIJ%DY GEOVE ACRtlS SUBDIVISIQH. Mr,'-WASSI~EMAN said - "to beg]-n witl], the petition with the plat v;hs filed with tho h%t?C pursuant to the var.].ous . ~,eq% e ntly ~ struction that we had Sub~- , ~ I think there were 3 publJ, c I~ea~inos ho!d, nonc. of w)~ich accomp]i~,hed' verv,much, SALINE COUN'FY PLAi'NING and ZONING CO;J%MISSION Page 3 - l~lay 29, 1974 would not take any further action until the County had re- viewed'it. Subsequently, I'd been in contact with Col. Hoyne, and he and I had an occasion to walk over this area. We had had occasi°n to meet with some of the opposing parties ~o this (Petition). ~e hay& had occasion to meet with the County Commissioners and Mr. Lampe concerning the construction of the road out there. I believe that ~. Lampe has met with '%he developer and also the contractor building the road,and %hey have arrived at some figures which Mr. Lampe feels would be a minimum requirement as far as road construction~ gravel needs for 't:~e surfacing o'f the road~ size of the bridge ~ith the bar ditches, and this kind of thing. Right now we are at the point where we need the approval of the County Planning Commission before the City.9~ill take any further action, I have discussed with Gel. Hoyne some basic ... requirements that he has and would like to see (marked) on ". the FINAL PLNT~ which we certainly have no objection to in- serting thereon -- but -- it has been on dead center since the October date when the thing was ltl. ed, and until the with recommendations~ or without recom- County approves ~. · mendations~ as t case may be ..." HO~E expanded on ?~,~SSE~NS statement bY saying - "we wanted %o have on the FIlL P~T certain measured distances and ele- vations essential for development and mainienance in %he area. For example, we want 'the measurements identifying where the center line of'the road ~ill intersect each property 'line so in %he future the true position of the road can be relocated if the need may develop". Continuing, HOYNE said - ... the width of the road has been agreed upon as being 70 feet, (~ASSER~N at this point confirmed HOYNE'S statement), and that width is to be marked upon the FI~'%'~L P~T. In addition~ elevations to which the road surface will be built are %o be ' marked upon the Plat at designated places. ~]ese elevaiions .- are to be professionally determined by the V4IL6ON and COMPANY ENGINEERS, and in %he future may be referred to should the . necessity for rebuilding the roadway re-occur~ The other roadway elevation will be for building of the deck surface . .'. on the bridge which provides the crossing over the stream ". in Lot 2 of the Subdivision. Other elevations that will be . required is one for each of: the twelve (12) Lo-ts. /hose ele- vaiions will apply %o first floor levels of houses being built. ('fhe elevation should be 36~bches or more above %he existing ground level for Lots 1~ 2, 3, 4, 5~ 6, 10, 11, and 12). I~ILSON and COMP,~'~Y ENGINEERS are to provide ~his data. The use of the data will be optional, but should provide some flood proofing should the situation require." ~ t,.c 'e:c problems that had 'In summary then--- I b~iie~e '-}~' earll %o do with sanitation and water f.pr household use have been resolved, ("'"~'" "' ated in the a.ffir'aa~c). There fore~ the basic information still required is the engineering data concerning road location~ elevations for the ]road a~d bridge and first floor elevatior~ suggested for hour;.es, built on each !ot~ This information to be properly marked upon the FII'DiL PLAY," }{OYNE said -- "there ~till i5 the t-3Eo}.~!om con- Continuing, t cerv~inC t','~:~ Pe trion. ]2 }~v,: dif, cuoaed i~his ~vil;h the A.t~;is rant County A'ttorney and l~ave bee~ advised we can c,,,nsider this prob].em i:omot-:['ow' FO~,,I.~:~xG %l~en a - ' '~ ....' ted out that the SALINF C(.)tJN'FY l:'I.At NING and ZONING OOt,ll~t]i'..c;ION Pa9e 4 - biay 29~ .I. 9'i'4 become ensnared in a technical situation when we proceed with the public hearing. We can talk about this in more. do, tail in the executive session: After the executive session the following motion was made -- MOTION: Motion made by FORSBEI{G, seconded by W,'~,I.L -- I move the Executive Secretary and Assistant Gounty Attorney check the legal 1-equirements necessary to expedite the approval of the Petition for the dIq:~DY (.;i~OVd ,~,C~-{~S SUBDIVISION. In addition, that the deeds of sale of each Lot in the Subdivision shall have written thereon the Engineers (~VILSCN and CC~'-',PANY ENGIN}~SRS) recommended elevation for the first floor .level for each family dwelling. VOTE: The vote to approve was unanimous. COYA~ENT: When all the stipulations outlined for platting have been acco~aplished al~d the Plat has been approved by the a~i.',ropriate 9ove~'nin9 bodies~ then Saline County will take over the maintenance of the road ].ocated within the Subdivision, ....... % ......... #3. The OHIO STREET AU'FO PLA?g\ PETITION and the differences be%ween the C]]-I'Y OF S~d. iNA and the APPLICANT. · Hoyne explained the 3rd Item on the AGENDA ha~ to do with a situation that involves this Commissions need to know certain information relative to those matters involving differences' between the developers of the proposed OHIO STREET AUTO P~ and the City. ~. Etherington was asked by Hoyne to tell the Commission just what has been accomplished in-so-far as resolving the differences. M~. Etherington replied -- "It's pretty basic -- Gentlemen~ to bring you up to date - on ~,'~ay 7th, I filed a petition in the County for rezonin9 of this land and at that time you asked three questions. On tire 13th~ I received the answers to those and mailed them to you on the 15th, which you have there in your file. Now if you have any additional questions to those answers, I~d be happy to try and answer them for you~ Hoyne explained to the Commi~,sion, the three ~3) ques'Lions are .stated in the ~,4~nut(:s of our last meeting (May 7, 1974). Etheringtor~ cont%nuo(] - "I feel with ti~e an~;wer[i of thcs6 three que{:tions that 'the board (Ceramist;ion) sh()~]ld now accept our i)et:i, tJ(~:r~ for .a fei:real t~earJ, r~g aft~.,r due I,oLj. fJcatior, and SALINE COUNTY PI./,NNING and ZOH]iNG (:C)~,'&~LooIL, N Page 5 - May 29~ 1974 · .d~/ . . .' - e ~ ~--!~ -- '~ ?:?After the executive session the following motion wa~ . ~..u ~'MOTION: Mo%ion made by FORSBERG, seconded by WAL . - ~% The letter from the City Manager - Norris:, ~ D. Olson date'd May 13, 1974~ concerning the ~ Auto Plaza development area has been noted. ~is commission desires the 'agreement signed by Norris D. O~ON, the City }.~a~ager - be concurred in by the City Government. When this concurrence has been made, this Commission will proceed with the required public hearing. VOTE: The vote in favor was unanimous. At this point a woman (fnu) from the audience asked the Chair- man a general question about the public hearing. Ye clarify the situation, FOIiSBERG asked Hoyne - Q. How much time must proceed a public hearing7 A. When the developer meets the stated re- " quirements of this Go~ission, then we shall have published in the Salina Journal the official notice announcing %he time and piace for the hearing with seven (7) ~,::~, days between %he two (2) identical public- ~4'~C:~. ations, followed by at least 20 days which '"6~%> will be ~he announced day when the hearing ',~<~. will be held. ~14. The current status of the ~BLINGER and SMITH AGREEMENT for Planning Service~' for Saline County, ~nsas. Background information: Mr. Darrel E. PO:I~RS will soon sever ~nnections with the ~blingez--Smith Corporation and Mr. John GIST will be the firms replacement. However, at this time ~. Powers has been, and currently is, the Corporations planner in charge for this Contract. The contract was ap- proved on November 17, 1972. On /~ugust 6, 1973~ the sum of $5,200.00 was paid for services. The agreement state~ that compensation for total services shall ... not exceed SIXTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($16,000~00). Mr. P0WEI'{S tool< over the orientation at this time and out- lined that portion of the aUr(--.ement which has bcen accomplished. Powers indicated l~is 5e.~wic:,?s did include all of the Part A and Part B (1) (a) and (b). At the closing poz:tion of the orientation ~,tr. Fov,,ers introduced Mr. John After the abov~, d:Lncussior~ 'tl~e C(')mmi~sJ. on~, and y~r. powers agreed -Lo meet aE~nJ.n to dj_~:,c:~ss Par't l} (c) in tile. agree~- men% on /:~<.~nday, Jun,:., ].O, ]_~)'F4~ i~ the Gity-~CountY Buildin bc~ginl'~ilit3 at 1()00- i~our[,. '}.'}t<~ meatinq wi].J bo SALINE COUN1-Y PLANNING and ZONING £,t~.MglooI~ Iq Page 6 - May 29, 197,1 4~5. ~Ten!l?p_ra__ry ButldSnq Perm!ts for erection of stands from which fireworks may be sold. In the discussion of Item ~tS, there were seven (7) ques'tions ~o be resolveo in arr~v~9 at a aeiermination concerning the issue. In the following are tile questions and the Co~ission decissions - - (A) - Determine: - Will %e~rary. pert,,~%5 De issueo~ MOTION: ~,otion mace by HOCKING, seconCeO by FOKbBEnG - Ye_~: to aoults onlya VOTE': The vote to concur was unanimous. (B) - Will land owners name be requireo qgo__n tne permit? mOTION: r4otion made by WALL, seconded by HOCKING - ? Yes. VOTE: The vote to concur was unanimous. (C) ?~en can temDoralty_bui]-din~s be erected? And when must -the tempor~.~_Ly_buildinq be removed from the site? MOTION: ~otion made by FORSBERG, seconmem Dy ~ALL - Building shall not bc erected prior to June 25, 1974, and must be removed from the site on or before July 7, 1974. VOTE: (D) (1) (2) (3) t¢,OTIOr,,: The vote to concur was unanimous. ¥lho will be on distribution em co ~e~ u~ -~rmits issued? Will knsurance tot operation of the ~ctivities as- sociated with tge sale on site be require.---~w~ What will be the tee tOt beinq issued the temgm or___a ry bu.~ loincL_permi t? l~o'tion mace by FOB~SBEEG, seconded by WALL - (1) Copies et the permits to be maae available to the baline ~ounty baTe%y Ol~ice, Sa].in~ Fire b~.arsnal ano the ~ire District within whose District the temporary builuing maybe. Proof et property and liability insurance to meet legal requirements will be requireo. (3) Thc Permit will cost $5.00o 14eeting adjourned at 2245 flours. Lt, Col, U, S. A~.my (t(et..) Itxecut, i. ve :'Secret,~ry t:o t'he ZOni. ng (,;ommi. 5 5 ~ on