01-10-1977 Minutes1
C
1
Room,
153
City of Salina, Kansas
Regular Meeting of the Board
of Commissioners
January 10, 1977
I
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners'
City -County Building, on Monday, January 10, 1977, at four o'clock p.m.
The Mayor asked everyone to stand for the pledge of allegiance to the
Flag and a moment of silent prayer.
THE CITY CLERK administered the Oath of Office to Karen M. Graves as a
City Commissioner to fill the unexpired term of Robert C. Caldwell, to April 18,
1977, and having the proper bond on file, she took her place on the Board of
Commissioners.
There were present:
Mayor Gerald F. Simpson, Chairman presiding
Commissioner Keith G. Duckers
Commissioner Karen M. Graves
Commissioner W. M. Usher
Commissioner Jack Weisgerber
comprising a quorum of the Board, also:
L. O. Bengtson,
Norris D. Olson,
D. L. Harrison,
Absent:
None
City Attorney
City Manager
City Clerk
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting January 3, 1977, were approved as
printed.
THE MAYOR PROCLAIMED January 15, 1977 - "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Commemoration Day." The proclamation was read by Rev. J. E. Jones.
THE MAYOR WELCOMED Cadet Girl Scout Troop #182, and its leaders.
STAFF AGENDA
A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending
the approval of a request by Mr. E. A. Atherton to amend his approved Community
Unit Plan on Lot 12, Upper Mill Heights Addition Number 2. This request proposes
to increase the number of units permitted from 24, as originally approved,
to 54 in accordance with the site plan submitted to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission set out these findings of fact: 1. The plan can be
substantially completed in the time specified. 2. The development of the plan
will have no adverse effect on the public roads in the area. 3. The public
facilities existing in the area are adequate. 4. The development will not
substantially injure or damage the use, value, and enjoyment of the surrounding
property. A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner
Usher to accept the recommendation of the City Planning Commission and approve
the amendment of the Community Unit Plan on Lot 12, Upper Mill Heights Addition
Number 2. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
,54
A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission informing the
City Commission it has reconsidered Petition Number 3570 which was filed by Jack
and Gary Gebhart for the rezoning of a tract of land in the SA of Section 25,
Township 14 South, Range 3 West, and now recommends approval of the rezoning of
all of Lot 18, Block 15, of the approved Preliminary Plat of Meadowlark Acres
Addition # 3, with the exception of 50 feet along the east and southeast boundary
and with the exception of all of the property lying south and southeast of a
line extending from a point on the east right-of-way line of Century Plaza Drive
which is approximately 193 feet north and northwesterly from the southeast
corner of Meadowlark Acres Addition # 2 northeasterly to the southwest corner of
Lot 9, Block 15, of the same Preliminary Plat, to District "D" (Local Business
District) "C-3" (Shopping Center District), subject to platting within one year.
Mr. Clancy King, attorney said, "I would like to state the position of
the protestors, the area residents, around this particular area with reference
to the change. Our position is, basically, that there has been no change. The
deletion was made of a small area, 198 feet on the south end that adjoins or is
adjacent to Magnolia going over to the boundary line between Lots 9 and 10 of
the plat. The other deletion is on the other end of that portion of the property,
as I recall, north of the street that goes through there. I am not sure what
that is on that side. At any rate, there was not much of a controversy about
that land north of that particular street to begin with, and at no time has
that been the real problem area. That is Haymaker Street. The problem, of
course, as the Commissioners well know, is that area that is adjoining Magnolia
Road. One of the comments made by one of the Commissioners at the zoning hearing
was, 'we would rather put it all in one package and approve it as we did, and
get the Commissioners to approve it, but if they want to do it piecemeal, we can
lop off both ends and send it through, that will give less acreage.' I talked
to a number of the residents in that area, and I believe, as you well know,
they originally were talking in the area of approximately 250 feet off of 9th
Street, which we felt was in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Realizing that
that may not be a realistic amount of land available to the petitioners in this
case, I believe most of the residents would agree to a line that extends north,
directly north from the east edge of Century Drive where it ties into Magnolia
Road. In other words, go to the east side of Century Drive where it comes off
Magnolia Road and go straight north, and I don't believe the petitioners would
have a great deal of objection to the rezoning of that area. That would give
the petitioners approximately 550 feet from 9th Street in depth. The area there
would be approximately 4 times the area in the present Kraft Manor Shopping
Center, so you can get some idea of approximately how much area we are talking
about. That would also remove the objection to having zoned commercially or
anything else, along Magnolia. By going the piecemeal route in the way that it
is at the present time, we feel there is little doubt, and I talked with the
petitioners, and they say there is no way they can assure me they would not ask
for rezoning of the area along Magnolia at some later date, and as a matter of
fact told the planning and zoning board that they would ask for rezoning to
office buildings in that area, and we just don't think that is going to solve
any problem if the Commission passes the present petition.because we are going
to be back in here in a short time with the same problem again, which would be
too bad for both sides. It is our feeling the petition should be denied and it
should go back for more in line with an area running straight north from the
east edge of Century Drive where it ties into Magnolia. That would keep the
commercial off of Magnolia where it would not effect the homeowners in that area
looking across the street and seeing a big area such as the Mid State Mall type
of area across the street from their homes or from the church that is located
right there in that vicinity."
Tom Hampton, attorney representing the petitioner, said, "I would like
to give the City Commissioners a letter that briefly outlines the petitioners
position on this. There should be enough copies for all. We have been through
this thing quite a number of times, most of us have been, at least one of the
commissioners has not been. It seems to me that one of the things that we needed
L1
1
1
155
to give some thought to was the purpose of these zoning ordinances. I think
every land owner is entitled to use his property for its highest and best use,
so long as that use does not interfere with the reasonable use by his neighbor.
I think to the extent we use zoning ordinances to accomplish other purposes,
that we are using the zoning ordinances improperly. We concur with the objectors
who are concerned with the traffic in this area. It is your responsibility to
do something about this traffic. This should not be a reason for denying zoning
or rezoning applications. We are concerned with the buffer zone. We put in a
considerable amount of area there so that the commercial area will not come
within 1 block of any residential development that is there. Many of the objector
live � mile from this property, can hardly see it with the naked eye. Hopefully,
within a reasonable length of time, the area in between will be filled with very
nice residential development. The land is owned by the petitioner, that is j
adjacent to this property. The petitioner is extremely interested in having a
commercial development in a manner that will not, in any manner, interfere with
or detract from the value of the residential development that is to take place
immediately east of this property. The Metropolitan (City) Planning Commission
has repeatedly determined that this application, the original application and
now this reduced area of 16 acres, is in conformity with the Land Use Plan,
There is a statutory presumption that that is a reasonable use. It is almost I
inevitable in an application of this sort that you are going to have one petitione$
one applicant. There may be a number of objectors. The material factor is this
consistent with appropriate land use, is it consistent with the Land Use Plan?
It is not simply a matter of counting noses. The traffic and the drainage
problems in the area have been beat to death before the Metropolitan (City)
Planning Commission and before this Commission. The only thing that we can say
is that we concur with the concerns, we are not individually able to resolve
those problems, we hope that you can. We think that you will be in a better
position to resolve those problems if this property is properly developed. We
feel that land owners that are similarly situated should be treated in similar
manners. Substantially greater acreage than the acreage that we are now talking
about is rezoned for commercial development located immediately across the
highway from this property. The buffer areas and the zoning, as Mr. King indicate
there is no way in the world that we can promise to anyone that somebody will
not come down and apply for rezoning of any part of this tract in the future.
There is no way we can legally preclude them from doing so if that is what they
want to do, and so the area along the south side of this property, which is
excluded from our amended application, whoever owns that land in the future, may
of course, come in and file an application to rezone that property; and if that
is the highest and best use, then that is a matter that can be considered at
that time; but at this time it is excluded from our request. I respectfully
urge you to go along with the detailed analysis and findings of your Metropolitan
(City) Planning Commission. You appointed them to provide you with technical
assistance in an area that is extremely difficult and I urge you to follow their
recommendations in this matter."
Mr. Larry Marshall, was present and commented, "I own property at 2250
South 9th, which is directly across the street from the property in question. I
would oppose any strip rezoning. I think that this bulk rezoning would be very
good. I think strip rezoning would be very detrimental to the value of the
piece of property, and also very detrimental to overall commercial development
of the community, where it is properly developed and I urge that you favorably
consider the petition."
Mr. Norman St. John, 2406 Drake Place said, "At the last meeting of
the City Planning Commission last week, someone on the city staff told us there
wasn't any problem with the drainage or traffic. We still think there is.
Shortly, someone in our group can show the City Commission again, and especially
for the benefit of the new member of the City Commission, the time when Magnolia
was flooded in October, 1974. Now some people may say that that water came from
south of there, but I would like to point out something else, which I think is
only common sense to suppose, is going to happen only a few years down the road,
as this property is developed. First of all, any commercial development is
going to be almost entirely covered with asphalt, and there is going to be 100%
runoff from all the asphalt covered area, and the percentage of commercial area
� 5fi
covered with asphalt is probably going to be somewhere close to 90%, perhaps a
little more; so that right there is going to add to the drainage problem. Then
while we have never objected, and still don't object to residential development
of this area, at the same time we recognize that as residences are built in this
area probably on each lot that a home is built, the house will probably cover
somewhere around 50% of that lot, so even the homes are going to contribute to
the drainage problem down the road, when the area is all built up, so that is
why some of us have said, right in the City Commission, that we feel that these
things should be fully considered and the problem nailed down before a decision
is reached on zoning."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "The city has obligated approximately
$35,000.00 for the first step in a review of the water problem in that entire
area in order to take aerial photos of the area and begin the basic planning for
what needs to be done, so the program has already been started. That will take
some time to work along, but that will be followed through hopefully."
Commissioner Weisgerber asked the City Planner what the thinking is of
the City Planning Commission and the Planning Department in the method of
reduction of the total acreage of commercial development of this area.
Mr. Rawlings replied, "The City Planning Commission seems to be more
concerned with width that is presently being recommended, plus or minus 50 feet
off the east end, and is more concerned about reducing it lengthwise than widthwis
The staff did, at one point, indicate if the area is going to be reduced, more
would be gained by a reduction of width down to a certain point, but the question
is at what point, so there are both lines of thought."
Mr. St. John commented, "I checked records and the area under blacktop
at the Mid State Mall is a little better than 30 acres, the amount which the
City Planning Commission's latest recommendation of 16 acres, is still more than
z the size of Mid State Mall. While we don't object to some commercial developmen
in the area, we think that still is more than is really necessary."
Mr. Tom Darnell, Planner representing the Petitioner, commented, "Only
to clarify an item, taking our position and try to make it quite clear on the
issue of drainage, I think if this should become an item of concern to the
Commission I think we need to realize that we need to be thinking in terms of
the drainage of the total area in terms of limited rezoning for industrial,
residential, whatever purposes, for any area that would dump water into this
drainage area. We either have to solve the problem, face it head on, or basically
stop development in that whole area because anybody that developes in the drainage
area south of us is throwing water on our property which has been a major issue
in this rezoning case and in essence does substantially damage our property
rights, and we want to make that clear, this is a real concern of ours. We have
been one entity, without any cost to the City, has given substantial land to the
City to try to resolve that drainage, within our power, with your assistance, by
the dedication of the land, at no charge to the city, where the box culvert goes
in and where the drainage ditch goes in."
The Commissioners and staff discussed the adequacy of the flood control
easement and street right-of-way to widen Magnolia, traffic at Magnolia and 9th,
the traffic control on South 9th Street north of Magnolia, the Belmont and
Magnolia intersection.
Commissioner Graves asked Mr. Darnell, "If the area north Saturn were
reinstated and 100 feet were taken off the east, taking it down to 550 feet,
what that would do to the development? The net gain would be greater than the
loss. It would be a trade out."
Mr. Darnell replied, "We have had the experience in Salina the depth
of development has more dictation on the quality of commercial you can build in,
than the front footage or the square footage. Realizing that depth is important
because just to put in two lanes of vehicles like is out here, with a driving
lane between takes 65 feet as of itself plus any imbelishment you might have
with sidewalks between the cars will add additional footage. When you start
pulling off your buildings from the back of the property for reasons of buffering,
before long you end up with a long narrow building that is not the type of
thing, the type of merchandising, strip type merchandising that we want to get
involved in... From a designers point of view it pretty much dictates one type
of design. Looking at that property and realizing it is about an 8 sided piece
Df property and none of the lines are parallel, has caused us some problems,
3esignwise..."
1
1_5
Mr. King said the property owners would like some assurances the
excluded land from the original request will be residential and that it will not
be requested for rezoning at a later time.
The Mayor explained there is no way to encumber this commission or any
future commission on a zoning matter, or future land owners.
Commissioner Duckers commented that it is the Commission's responsibility
to do something about the traffic and work has been started to solve the water
problem. He moved to introduce an ordinance for second reading entitled: "AN
ORDINANCE providing for the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance 6613 and the
Zoning District Map therein and thereby adopted and providing for the rezoning
of certain property within the City and prescribing the proper uses thereof",
and amending the area to include only the property delineated in the January 6,
1977 City Planning Commission recommendation, subject to platting within one
year. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Usher, and the following vote was
had: Ayes: Usher, Weisgerber, Duckers, Graves, Simpson (5). Nays: (0). Carried.
The Mayor approved the Ordinance and it is numbered 8536. The ordinance was
introduced for first reading August 30, 1976. j
Dr. Charles Olson was present and commented, "I didn't want to sound
like I am interfering with just this thing, but I would like to bring a few things)
into perspective in the long run, which I think are important. They are broader i
than just this section of land. As far back as '51 we had drainage problems.
In the '51 flood. A year before Leland Srack died it was brought to his attention)
and the attention of the City Planners that we were going to run into trouble
with a 4 lane entry going onto Magnolia Road. This was long before, it was
wire bridge road at that time. They were thinking at that time possibly of
running a highway clear through to (K) 15 over by Abilene. We knew that sooner
or later we would run into trouble with 4 lane traffic on that road as far back
then. We knew we were going to run into trouble with the intersection of Magnolia
and 9th, after we had somebody killed out there, eventually, it took at least 6
months to get a traffic light out there. We know we have the same situation at
Otto. There isn't a week goes by, but what somebody almost gets clobbered out
there. They did get clobbered last weekend I understand, so far as cars are
concerned. We are going to run into the same situation that will be a little
more adequately controlled to put the intersection there where the streets are j
coming out 1i way between those two. Now my point is this, as far as I am concerned,
and this whole thing brought it into perspective I think, we have a planning group)
that is not planning and a zoning group that is not zoning, and I think it is
atrocious! And I think so far as the City Commission is concerned, you have
put yourself in a position where everything has to come to this Commission, and
i
I think it is real bad. I think this should be remedied. I think people should
be directed to do what they are supposed to do and get it done so we don't end
up with having somebody killed. Time after time I have set out there on the
south end of town and watched things like the intersection of Belmont Boulevard
and Magnolia was put together by KP&L and one individual developing that land.
It was put together with no reference at all to city planning, but having to do j
with highline wires and the best way to develop that land at the least cost.
Time after time I have seen this happen and I am sick of it, and I had hoped that
the City Commission would take this opportunity to get something done so far as
planning is concerned, so far as engineering is done so that when the decisions
are made further on the south end of this property, which I am sure it will be,
they will have the information necessary to do an adequate job for the City of
Salina."
A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending
the annexation of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17,
Township 14 South, Range 2 West, as requested in Petition Number 3598 which was
filed by the Salina Presbyterian Manor Committee. A motion was made by Commissioner
Duckers, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to accept the recommendation of the
City Planning Commission and approve the petition and to introduce the annexation
ordinance for first reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: Number:
1158S
A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending
the annexation of that portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
of Section 36, Township 13 South, Range 3 West, which lies north of the right-
of-way of I-70. (Approximately 5.1 acres), as requested in Petition Number 3602
which was filed by James R. Ward. A motion was made by Commissioner Usher,
seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to accept the recommendation of the City
Planning Commission and approve the petition and to introduce the annexation
ordinance for first reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed:
Number:
A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending
the approval of the rezoning of the North 50 feet of Lot 1 and all of Lot 2,
Block 1, Waters Subdivision to District "D" (Local Business District) "C-5"
(Service Commercial District); and the rezoning of Lots 3 through 5, Block 1,
Waters Subdivision to District "C" (Apartment House District) "R-2" (Multiple
Family Residential District) as requested in Petition Number 3605 which was
filed by Waters Realty.
Mr. Tom Darnell, representing the petitioner, asked that the petition
be returned to the City Planning Commission for its reconsideration as the
petitioner requested "C" (Apartment House District) and the City Planning Commiss
is recommending "R-2" (Multiple Family Residential District). A motion was made
by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Usher to refer the petition
back to the City Planning Commission for its reconsideration, at the request of
the petitioner. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER reported on Petition Number 3611 which was filed by
George Etherington for paving, water service and sanitary sewers to serve the
Lots 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, Block 1, Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Country Hills
Addition Number 2, that the petitioner owns 52% of the property within the
benefit district and it is therefore a valid petition. A motion was made by
Commissioner Usher, seconded by Commissioner Duckers to accept the City Engineer'
report and approve the petition. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
PUBLIC AGENDA
CEREAL MALT Beverage License Applications for 1977 were filed by:
Long John Silver's Seafood Shoppe, 1019 East Crawford. (Renewal)
Walgreen Company, 2450 South Ninth. (Renewal)
LAL, Inc., d/b/a Soup'er Sandwich Shoppe, 202 East Iron. (Renewal)
The City Clerk reported the applicants have paid the required fee and the applica
have been approved by the Zoning Officer, Health Department and the Police
Department. A motion was made by Commissioner Usher, seconded by Commissioner
Weisgerber to approve the license applications and authorize the City Clerk to
issue the licenses. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
SURETY ON BAIL BONDS license application for 1977 was filed by E. P.
Nichols, d/b/a Nichols Bail Bond, West State Street Road. (Renewal). The City
Clerk reported the applicant has paid the required fee and has been checked by
the Police Department and has the required documents on file the City Clerk's
Office. A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner
Duckers to approve the license application and authorize the City Clerk to issue
the license. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
TREE TRIMMING License applications for 1977 were filed by:
Dennis Brake, d/b/a Dennis M. Brake, 511 North 13th. (Renewal)
J. L. Mooney, d/b/a Gem Barber and Tree Trimming Business, 232 A South
Santa Fe. (Renewal)
Cecil F. Heart, d/b/a Hearts Tree Service, 1001 West Crawford.
(Renewal).
Kenneth E. Baker, d/b/a Ken Baker Landscaping, Route 3, (Renewal).
Raymond Kline, d/b/a Kline's Landscaping and Turf, Route 1, (Renewal).
The City Clerk reported the applicants have paid the required fee and have the
required surety bond and certificate of public liability insurance on file. A
motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Duckers
to approve the license application and authorize the City Clerk to issue the
licenses. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A TREE TRIMMING AND TREATING License application for 1977 was filed by
Darrell J. Prater, d/b/a D. J. Prater Tree Service, Route 3, Box 171 A. (Renewal)'.
The City Clerk reported the applicant has paid the required fee and has the
required surety bond and certificate of public liability insurance on file and
has a state license number for pest control. A motion was made by Commissioner
Graves, seconded by Commissioner Usher to approve the license application and
authorize the City Clerk to issue the licenses. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion
carried.
ISI
COMMISSION AGENDA
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Duckers, seconded by Commissioner
Usher, to add appointments to the Boards and Commissions to the agenda for
consideration. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE MAYOR, with the approval of the City Commissioners, appointed
Commissioner Graves to the Cultural Arts Commission, Salina -Saline County Board
of Health, and to be the United Way Representative, to succeed Commissioner
Caldwell.
THE COMMISSIONERS brought the following items to the floor for discussion:
1
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
1
Commissioner
Usher asked about the progress of issuing
General Obligation
Bonds for the construction of the Bicentennial Community Center.
,i
Mr. Bengtson
replied he has been trying to contact the
bond attorney
in Kansas City, and will push them along this week.
A MOTION was
made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded
by Commissioner
Usher that the Regular
Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be
adjourned.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
1
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
1