Loading...
10-06-1997 MinutesAction 97-1226 CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS REGULAR MEETING OF THE OCTOBER 6, 1997 4:00 p.m. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS The City Commission convened at 2:30 p.m. in a Study Session to discuss Part II of the Drainage Feasibility Report (West Salina, Broadway, Ninth and Claflin.) The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners was called to order at 4:00 p.m. in Room 107, City -County Building. A roll call was taken followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. There were present: Mayor Kristin M. Seaton, Chairman presiding Commissioner Peter F. Brungardt Commissioner Don Heath Commissioner Alan Jilka Commissioner Monte Shadwick comprising a quorum of the Board, also present: Absent: Greg Bengtson, City Attorney Dennis M. Kissinger, City Manager Judy D. Long, City Clerk None. None. CITIZEN FORUM AWARDS - PROCLAMATIONS (4.1) Resolution Number 97-5201 expressing gratitude and appreciation to Fire Lieutenant Gary L. Willard for his employment with the City from May 1, 1971 to October 1, 1997. Mayor Seaton presented a plaque of appreciation to Gary L. Willard. Moved by Commissioner Brungardt, seconded by Commissioner Jilka, to adopt Resolution Number 97-5201. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. (4.2) The Week of October 7th - 11th, 1997 as FIRE PREVENTION WEEK in the City of Salina. The proclamation was read by Carol Vineyard, Public Education Specialist, Salina Fire Department. (4.3) The Month of October, 1997 as NATIONAL FAMILY SEXUALITY EDUCATION MONTH in the City of Salina. The proclamation was read by Amber Hurn, YWCA Project Assistant, "Let's Talk" Campaign for Responsible Sexuality. (4.4) The Month of October, 1997 as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH in the City of Salina. The proclamation was read by Sandra Dilling, Executive Director of DVACK. (4.5) The Month of October, 1997 as BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH, the Day of October 17, 1997 as MAMMOGRAPHY DAY, and the Day of October 22, 1997 as BREAST CANCER AWARENESS DAY in the City of Salina. The proclamation was read by Linda Smith, Service Chairman for Altrusa. (4.6) The Month of October, 1997 as the MONTH OF THE YOUNG ADOLESCENT in the City of Salina. The proclamation was read by Jane Haney, TCI of Kansas, Inc., Salina Educational Coordinator PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR A CERTAIN TIME None. CONSENT AGENDA (6.1) Approve the minutes of September 22, 1997. Action 97-1227 (6.2) Accept donation from Morrison Building Supply of property described as portions of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Hutchinson's Addition. (6.3) Authorize staff to request proposals for the purchase and relocation of a city -owned house located at 437 S. Fifth Street. (6.4) Approve the plans and specifications for the construction of a new wastewater pumping station, Pump Station No. 58, Project No. 97-1073, to serve properties along South Ninth Street, and set a date to receive bids. Moved by Commissioner Shadwick, seconded by Commissioner Heath, to approve all items on the consent agenda. Aye: (5) . Nay: (0) . Motion carried. DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS (7.1) Application #Z97-7, filed by the Salina City Planning Commission, requesting an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations by adding Section 36-81 requiring the dedication of land for public park purposes or payment of a fee in lieu of dedication within residential subdivisions. (7.1a) First reading Ordinance Number 97-9832. Roy Dudark, Planning and Community Development Director, explained that the idea for this proposal came from the Neighborhood Park Plan as a way to produce new parks. The plan has roughly 80% City funding with 20% from new developments by way of land dedication or fee on each new home built in those areas. He advised the Commission that the focus of the plan is to collect fees from the areas where the new parks will be developed, not city wide. He also informed the Commissioners that the City Planning Commission has held three public hearings, a meeting with the Board of Realtors and a meeting with the Homebuilders Association, noting that a number of ideas came from those meetings. He added that out of this proposal also came an initiative to look at the cost of residential construction. Dennis Kissinger, City Manager, explained that this is a new initiative for the City as an extension of the user fee concept. He advised the Commission that there are two thresholds to be crossed. There is a strong policy issue as parks have always been done by the city -at -large and that this is legitimate opposition to this proposal. Other objections regarding the taking of land and constitutionality are not seen as valid objections. He clarified that if the Commission saw the parks system as a purely city -at -large system they do not have to get into the administration of it. However, if they cross the threshold for a user based park system then they will need go into the administration of it the way the City Planning Commission did. In closing, Mr. Kissinger informed the Commission that if this system is not approved it does not mean that the City won't build parks in the future, but if it is approved, there will be seed money to begin. To Commissioner Jilka's question as to why the City has not been very successful developing parks in new parts of town, Mr. Kissinger responded that in the past ten years the focus has been on rebuilding the existing internal park system with the dollars going into the larger community parks and smaller vest pocket parks within developed areas. He indicated that it was not a priority to reach out into newly developed areas noting an exception being Oxbow Park, the only new park venture in the past ten years. When Commissioner Shadwick asked if any subdivision, no matter what size, would have to pay, Mr. Dudark explained that 20 acres or less would have to pay the fees but would not have to dedicate land. The Commissioner then asked if that applied anywhere in the City and Mr. Dudark clarified that it was only in the area that is shown on the map. Mr. Kissinger added that when this plan was envisioned it was as a new platting requirement. A one time impact fee on a new plat. Based on input received, the Planning Commission asked staff for an alternate plan that would impose the fee at the time of building. If done at the time building permits are issued on newly platted areas, home owners whose lots back up to each other may ask why they have to pay $200 when their neighbor doesn't. It is more logical to begin fresh at some period in time and say all new homes within these areas, whether previously platted or not, impact the need for a park and would be subject to paying this impact fee or user fee for parks. Action Mr. Dudark identified the new park locations, advising the Commission that those areas were set in prioritys by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The Mayor clarified that she wanted people to realize that this concept had come before the City Commission when the Neighborhood Park Plan was presented by the park board. Mr. Dudark confirmed that the developer pretty much has the option of land dedication or fee payment. The Planning Commission looks at the Park Plan, and other options, to see what would be in the best interest of the City. If they do not agree, they would try to negotiate with the developer. Mr. Dudark explained that a developer can say that he doesn't want to make the dedication and then the City Planning Commission would decide if it really wants the land. It will be up to the City Commission to decide the issue. Commissioner Heath asked if the developer would receive compensation for the land that was jointly decided will be a Neighborhood Park. Mr. Dudark informed him that there are two options for the developer, 1) to give 5% of the raw land for the park, or 2) to pay the fee and keep the land. He again confirmed that if the City Commission, Park and Recreation Advisory Board and the City Planning Commission all want the park in this subdivision then will it be a mandatory land dedication of up to 5% of their total holdings with no compensation to the developer as the developer's obligation. Mr. Kissinger expanded on that issue by stating that the theory is that the park located within their subdivision adds value to their lots. The lots are then more desirable being close to a park and are not subject to the $200 building fee. He clarified that the City Commission could not require a dedication of land that was disproportionate to the benefit gained by the developer. The 5% is the general framework but, if the City wanted more land there may well be discussion. Mr. Dudark gave an example of what might be seen regarding the type of land that would most likely be dedicated. Mr. Dudark thought each developer would see it differently as some land may be in a flood plain, a flooding area, oxbow or otherwise be costly to develop with streets and utilities. Land without problems will probably be retained for lot development so we will have to talk with each developer individually. Mr. Kissinger gave an example of an area containing a pond noting that a developer may not want a Homeowners Association to maintain it and may want to give it to the City to maintain as a park. Commissioner Heath felt the developer may make up for the loss of land by charging more for the remaining lots and asked if that wouldn't put the developer at a disadvantage. Mr. Dudark noted that that may be a developer's analysis, but that others may see the asset to charge more for the lots. Mr. Kissinger stated that it will be up to the elected officials to decide an argument by listening to the developers' objections and making the decision. He clarified that a forced dedication was always the Commission's option. Commissioner Heath stated that he is against a forced dedication but has no problem with the fee. Mayor Seaton spoke regarding voluntary dedication of land and asked how quickly the City would be obligated to develop a Neighborhood Park and how that fit into the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Dudark explained the two year schedule to have five parks in ten years which will depend on the rapidness of development. Mr. Kissinger gave options on modifying this ordinance pertaining to involuntary dedication: 1) requiring an extra ordinary majority in order to do an involuntary dedication, 2) to modify it so that it will not allow an involuntary dedication. Bob Haworth, 913 Twin Oaks Drive, noted that the Salina Homebuilders Association is opposed to this change. He advised the Commission that the Homebuilders Association asked past and present members about the parks issue to find out that no one from the City has talked to any of them about developing parks. He suggested that the City pay a nominal fee to the developers for Neighborhood Parks and noted that 20 years ago he was involved in the dedication of land to be included as a park that the City has Action never developed . He noted that the City is already 80 acres short and that this action will do nothing to solve the problem that exists today. He suggested that the City continue to work with the schools as they have in the past and asked if we were only going to concentrate Neighborhood Parks in new areas and not in established areas. He also commented that the 5% of land dedication referred to in these discussions is actually up to 10% in the ordinance. He further pointed out that this issue hasn't been looked at until a few months ago and that the land dedication requirement excludes drainage easements, flood control areas, street, drainage and utility easements which are to be dedicated separately from the park land. Mr. Kissinger clarified that natural drainage areas could coincide with the park land, adding that a developer could not call the constructed drainage pond a park, nor could the detention pond acreage be included in the dedication though the City would not disallow the use of an oxbow. Mr. Haworth restated that the City has not tried to work with developers regarding parks and that the City should pay developers for their land, to which Mr. Kissinger stated that the land dedication will be infrequent and decided by the elected officials. Mr. Dudark explained that, with the dedication of land for a private open space, the fee would be reduced up to 50% because the park area would be restricted from the public. He also clarified that fees would be returned, for land that is not developed within the plan period of 10 years, to whomever had paid it. Mr. Kissinger confirmed this by noting that the language in the ordinance would be corrected. Commission Jilka asked Mr. Kissinger why this new system would be better than the one the City has and was told there are no cases of the City asking for land from developers. Mr. Kissinger further clarified that this method is forward looking to expand parks into newly developed areas. Mr. Haworth closed with the comment that the City should try to work with the developers first, before implementing this ordinance. Daryl Bixby, 2227 Linden drive, President of the Salina Homebuilders Association, reiterated that the members of this association are opposed to this action. He thinks there are too many unanswered questions and asked if we could try to work together first, questioning the need to jump right in. He noted that the building permit already costs enough. In closing, he repeated his suggestion that the staff try to work with the developers first and take this action later if it becomes necessary. Henry Hoeffner, 2319 Applewood, Salina Board of Realtors, referred to the two thresholds Mr. Kissinger spoke of noting inequitabilities in both. The first being that all other parks in town are provided for by the general fund but, in the future the new areas will pay the mill levy based on the value of their home for all parks plus pay a user fee for new parks. He asked if this is right for parks, what about fire stations and schools? Asking where do you stop once you've gone to impact or user fees? The second threshold contains inequitabilities in administration giving the example of the Chapel Ridge Apartment Complex that is not in this development area. He reminded the Commission that there are 144 units not paying anything for new parks, though they're putting a demand on the system, and there is talk of putting in another 144 units. He noted there are a lot of other inequities and asked the Commission to be careful crossing the first threshold. Commissioner Jilka noted that the City as a whole has always provided new parks and asked for the rationale of the change. Commissioner Brungardt explained that they are talking about adding one more criteria to the list of things the City tells a developer they must do to create a development, and gave the examples of streets, set backs and drainage. He continued saying that the developer will now have to provide for a Neighborhood Park for the residents, and the developers can do that along with all their other variables by contributing money and/or land, and helping plan where the park will go. He feels that is working with the developer, and that unless needs are defined in black and white we won't get progress. New residents will be contributing 20% of the value of their Neighborhood Park which he thinks is a good idea and will move as such when that time arrives. Mayor Seaton said it this is a response by the City to unprecedented residential growth, perhaps at a rate that the City has not been able to be as Action 97-1228 97-1229 97-12301 97-12311 97-12321 97-12331 responsive as it should be. She believes homeowners of the areas will have value accrued to them. Commission Shadwick agreed with the two previous comments having no problem with the impact fees because it will only be 20% of the cost. He stated that he does have a problem with the dedication of land and thinks it should be returned to the Planning Commission to look at a fee only schedule and perhaps expand to other areas. Mr. Dudark added that the City only needs five parks and has twenty-five subdivisions. He stated that the reason the City hasn't really done much is because there was never really a place to start before. There wasn't a concept to present to developers and say here is a chance to make a park in your area. He feels that nine times out of ten the developer is going to choose the fees, and that the City wants that, as we don't want that much land. Commissioner Heath stated he has no problem with the impact fee but is against the forced dedication of land. He indicated he would like to restrict the 3 to 2 majority by the Commission to force the dedication, strike it completely, or require a 4 to 1 vote. Moved by Commissioner Brungardt, seconded by Commissioner Jilka, to approve Ordinance Number 97-9832 for first reading. Aye: (3). Nay: (2), Heath, Shadwick. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATION (8.1) Second reading Ordinance Number 97-9828 amending Chapter 42 of the Salina Code pertaining to the zoning of Adult Oriented Businesses. Moved by Commissioner Shadwick, seconded by Commissioner Heath, to adopt Ordinance Number 97-9828 on second reading. A roll call vote was taken. Aye: (5), Jilka, Brungardt, Shadwick, Heath, Seaton. Nay: (0). Motion carried. (8.2) Second reading Ordinance Number 97-9829 amending Chapter 6 of the Salina Code pertaining to the licensing and regulation of Adult Oriented Businesses. Moved by Commissioner Jilka, seconded by Commissioner Brungardt, to adopt Ordinance Number 97-9829 on second reading. A roll call vote was taken. Aye: (5), Heath, Shadwick, Brungardt, Jilka, Seaton. Nay: (0). Motion carried. (8.3) Second reading Ordinance Number 97-9831 providing for the vacation of portions of Orange Street and Ash Street in Elm Grove Addition. Moved by Commissioner Heath, seconded by Commissioner Brungardt, to adopt Ordinance Number 97-9831 on second reading. A roll call vote was taken. Aye: (5), Jilka, Brungardt, Shadwick, Heath, Seaton. Nay: (0). Motion carried. (8.4) Resolution Number 97-5202 establishing various fees for services in the City. Moved by Commissioner Brungardt, seconded by Commissioner Heath, to adopt Resolution Number 97-5202. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. (8.5) Resolution Number 97-5203 authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Kansas Department of Transportation for the Walnut Street Bridge Replacement, Project No. 97-1069. Shawn O'Leary, Director of Engineering, explained the project. Moved by Commissioner Shadwick, seconded by Commissioner Heath, to adopt Resolution Number 97-5203. Aye: (5) . Nay: (0) . Motion carried. (8.6) Approval of the plans and specifications for the 1997 Subdivision Improvements, Phase Il, Project No. 97-1072. Action 97-1234 — 97-1235 97-1236 97-1237 97-1238 Shawn O'Leary, Director of Engineering, explained the project. Moved by Commissioner Heath, seconded by Commissioner Shadwick, to approve Project No. 97-1072 and allow staff to establish a bid date. Aye: (5) . Nay: (0) . Motion carried. (8.7) Final action on the 1997 Downtown Traffic System Improvements, Project No. 97-997. Shawn O'Leary, Director of Engineering, explained the project. Dennis Kissinger, City Manager, advised the Commission that on the matter of Seventh and Iron the position to confirm the removal of the traffic signal is defendable and that there is enough support to put that signal back in. Commissioner Shadwick spoke regarding Fifth and Ash noting a bad feeling at that intersection with a lot of people gunning to get across it. Commissioner Jilka spoke concerning the use of sensored traffic signals at Fifth and Ash. He was advised that there would be substantial cost to do that improvement. The Commissioner also expressed his concerns regarding Fifth and Ash and at Seventh and Iron. He noted that the counts done show the traffic signals aren't needed but at certain times of the day they are. Commissioner Brungardt explained that the signals aren't needed but that he has also received a lot of feedback on Seventh and Iron. Even though the signals are not warranted by counts and video tapes, people have the opinion that that they are. Moved by Commissioner Brungardt, seconded by Commissioner Heath, to approve the retention of the traffic signals at Santa Fe and Mulberry, and Santa Fe and South and confirm the removal of the traffic signals at Fifth and Ash, and Fifth and Walnut, and to reverse the previous action by approving the retention of the traffic signal at Seventh and Iron. Moved by Commissioner Jilka, seconded by Commissioner Shadwick, to amend the motion to include retaining Fifth and Ash. Aye: (2). Nay: (3), Seaton, Heath, Brungardt. Motion failed. A vote was called on the original motion. Aye: (4) . Nay: (1) , Shadwick. Motion carried. (8.8) Setting of public hearing date and authorization of published notice regarding issuance of industrial revenue bonds for the construction of a manufacturing/office complex for Coronado Engineering, Inc. Greg Bengtson, City Attorney, explained the matter. Moved by Commissioner Heath, seconded by Commissioner Shadwick, to adopt a motion setting a public hearing on October 20, 1997, and authorizing published notice of the hearing and the issuance of industrial revenue bonds for Coronado Engineering, Inc. Aye: (5) . Nay: (0) . Motion carried. (8.9) Change Order No. 3 for the 1995 Concrete Curb and Gutter/Pavement Improvements, Project No. 95-959, in the amount of $43,698.05. Shawn O'Leary, Director of Engineering, explained the increase in cost for the project. Moved by Commissioner Shadwick, seconded by Commissioner Heath, to approve Change Order No. 3 for the 1995 Concrete Curb and Gutter/Pavement Improvements, Project No. 95-959, in the amount of $43,698.05. Aye: (5) . Nay: (0) . Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS (9.1) Mayor Seaton announced there will be no meeting next week and urged citizens to participate in the free yard waste day Sunday at ECRA. Action ADMINISTRATION (8.10) Request for Executive Session to discuss a legal matter. 97-1239 Moved by Commissioner Brungardt, seconded by Commissioner Heath, to recess into executive session for the purpose of discussing with the City Attorney a matter which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, for the reason that public discussion would waive the privilege and that the City Commission reconvene in this room in 20 minutes or at 6:20 p.m. Aye: (5). Nay: (0) . Motion carried. The Board of City Commissioners recessed into executive session at 6:01 p.m. and reconvened at 6:18 p.m. 97-1240 Moved by Commissioner Shadwick, seconded by Commissioner Heath, that the City Manager and City Attorney be authorized to present information in opposition to the specific petition before the Saline County Board of Commissioners for the paving of Waterwell Road between Burma Road and Lightville Road at the Board's public hearing regarding the petition on Monday, October 13, 1997, and to offer to work directly with Saline County staff and the property owners to find alternate methods to accomplish the project, for the reasons: 1. That K.S.A. 68-706 , adopted in 1909 and last amended in 1951, in providing that 50% of the cost of such a road project alongside the city limits will be paid by the city, did not anticipate the paving of a road alongside a separate non -boundary tract of real estate owned and annexed by the city for the limited purpose of operation of a landfill. 2. That the proposed benefit district and assessment of costs leaves unresolved questions as to whether the boundaries of the proposed benefit district have been properly drawn and whether similarly situated properties are being treated similarly. 3. That the city believes the project itself has merit and would not oppose the city being included in a benefit district and paying its proportionate share under a petition for what is found to be a properly defined district and a fairly apportioned plan of assessing the cost of the project. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT 97-1241 Moved by Commissioner Brungardt, seconded by Commissioner Jilka, that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned. Aye: (5) . Nay: (0) . Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. ristin M. eaton, Mayor [ SEAL] ATTEST: ",,/ & D . Lo CMC Cit Clerk g> Y