Loading...
12-22-1975 Minutes?16 City of Salina, Kansas Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners December 22, 1975 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners' Room, City -County Building, on Monday, December 22, 1975, 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. There were present: Mayor Robert C. Caldwell, Chairman presiding Commissioner Keith G. Duckers Commissioner Gerald F. Simpson Commissioner W. M. Usher Commissioner Jack Weisgerber comprising a quorum of the Board, also: L. 0. Bengtson, City Attorney Norris D. Olson, City Manager D. L. Harrison, City Clerk Absent: None The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 15, 1975, were approved as printed. STAFF AGENDA AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled.. "AN ORDINANCE appropriating money from the various funds to pay payrolls and claims against the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas, for the calendar year of 1976, as provided in Kansas Statutes Annotated 13-2601". A motion was made by Commissioner Usher, seconded by Commissioner Simpson to adopt the ordinance as read and the following vote was.had: Ayes: Duckers, Simpson, Usher, Weisgerber, Caldwell (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved the Ordinance and it is numbered 8465. The ordinance was introduced for first reading December 15, 1975. AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE providing for the examination, licensing and regulation of all persons engaged in the installation, repairing, alteration, renewal and use of all electrical wiring for light, heat or power and all other electrical equipment, appliances and devices, air conditioning, heating equipment or plumbing in or on a mobile home; establishing Mobile Home Contractors, Master Mobile Home Craftsman, Journeyman Mobile Home Craftsman, and Apprentice Mobile Home Craftsman; amending Article XIV of Chapter 9 of the Salina Code and repealing said original Article XIV of Chapter 9". A letter was received from the Building Code Advisory Board informing the City Commission it had reviewed the proposed Mobile Home Craftsman ordinance, and recommends the ordinance be adopted with the insurance requirements raised to a minimum of $300,000 per occurrence and $100,000 property damage for all Mobile Home Craftsmen. A motion was made by Commissioner Usher, seconded by Commissioner Duckers that the ordinance be adopted, with Section 9-429 amended to read '...bodily injury and liability insurance for the minimum amount of $300,000 limit per accident, as well as property damage liability insurance in'the minimum amount of $100,000 per accident...' The following vote was had: Ayes: Duckers, Simpson, Usher, Weisgerber, Caldwell (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is numbered 8466. The ordinance was introduced for first reading December 15, 1975. THE COMMISSIONERS considered a contract with Woods and Durham for the audit for the year ending December 31, 1975. Commissioner Duckers suggested the Commission consider the possibility of receiving bids from several auditing firms in Salina, for the city audit, in keeping with the policy as far as the Engineering bids and equipment. "I can't see why we can't at least have the City Manager interview and receive some sort of an estimated cost from the auditors rather than do it the way it is being done, where it is has been given to one firm for four, five, or six years in a row. I think we should consider this each year on its own, a bid from the accounting firm ." Commissioner Weisgerber said, "Auditing firms will not bid, as such, they are not like a regular contractor. They will make a proposal, but they expect you to either accept or reject their proposal, and if you reject it move on to someone else. Architect fees, auditing fees, and some engineering fees, and this sort of thing are not to be bid from a professional point of view." Commissioner Duckers said, "Perhaps the term bid is not what I should be using, but I feel that we could receive a proposal from them similar to the one we have received and have before us. I think that all eligible firms, or all accredited firms, whatever the criteria is that we use in determining whether they can do the audit for Salina should be asked to make a proposal to the city each year and then we can accept or reject the one that we wish." Mr. Olson commented, "I was merely going to comment to this end and that is, auditors in the past have told us that they would prefer a commitment that would extend beyond the one or two years. Now the City Commission, a number of years ago, 10 or 11 years ago, went with the idea of making an award to the auditing firm for a five year period. That is, not award the contract to a firm for five years, but, as long as the proposals were considered to be within reason to give that firm five consecutive years of business, in that the first year, and we can understand why, they do not stand to make probably any profit the first year. The second year there is possibly some profit in the activity, and thereafter there should be a reasonable profit, or at least an acceptable level of profit for the firm. I would hesitate to see us go on an annual reshuffling of the auditing firms, Keith, in that this could then require an expenditure larger than is really necessary. As to your point of bidding, I think auditors in the past have said this is a violation of ethics. I am told however, and I do not know precisely what communities are following this practice today, I am told there are some communities who do receive proposals and the auditing firms in those towns do submit proposals." Commissioner Duckers said, "But if an auditing firm wanted to propose, that if they were given some assurance over a given period of years, two or three years, they would do it for a certain amount, that would be a factor to be considered; but just because they got it five years ago and say we are going to go for five in a row doesn't seem to me to make sense particularly in view again of our policy that one Commission cannot bind another, and if this decision were reached five years ago there weren't too many around. I guess 2/5 of us were here then." Commissioner Usher commented, "Kennedy and Coe had it for five years in a row, this will make the fifth year for Woods and Durham, perhaps with the idea in mind, and they are under the gun right now. I don't think you could get a proposal if you had to between now and the end of the year, circulate a letter to the accounting firms and tell them this is the time we are going to review new auditing firms and what are your fees for next year." Commissioner Weisgerber said, "I think we should probably go with the way we have it and then next year would be a normal time to make the change anywa ." anyway." Mr. Olson explained, "We have to this year go real fast because cash has to be counted for at the close of business December 31st." Commissioner Duckers asked, "You don't feel that there would be time for any of the other accounting firms in town, other than the one who has submit a proposal, to make a proposal before the end of the year'" `? 18 Mr. Harrison commented, "In the past, the firm which had the audit contract has worked on this during the month of December, of course they have to count the cash on hand the last day of the year...." Commissioner Duckers said, "We are going to have another meeting before the end of the year." Commissioner Usher said, "I don't think the fee is out of line." Commissioner Duckers said, "No, I am not questioning that, I am just questioning the procedure. I think their fee is completely within reason, reviewing what has happened over the past ten years." A motion was made by Commissioner Usher, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to grant the audit for 1975 to Woods and Durham and instruct the staff to secure the proposals for 1976. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission regarding Petition Number 3501 which was filed by the City Planning Commission for the repeal of Zoning Ordinance Number 6613, as amended, and the adoption, in its place, of the Proposed Zoning Regulations and Zoning District Map. C. L. Clark, Attorney, was present and read a prepared statement: "I appear here on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Salina, a semi- public body, myself and other concerned and interested citizens. "Section 12-708 Kansas Statutes Annotated, requires that any general zoning ordinance must: (i) describe the boundaries of all zones defined in the ordinance or (ii) be accompanied by an official map (that is one instrument) upon which such boundaries are fixed and depicted. I, and I am informed others, have asked for such a map - none has been made available. "Additionally, the suggested ordinance purports to establish flood plains districts. It is the plain legal import and requirement of Sections 12-707 and 12-734, et seq, Kansas Statutes Annotated, that the boundaries of these districts be precisely defined or depicted upon a map. (One map) "The suggested ordinance does not comply with applicable law as presented and it is not in a condition conducive to developing a competent judgement with regard thereto. Zoning, if not imposed by careful legislative consideration, is considered confiscatory in law and in fact. "We respectfully suggest, in the public interest, that this Honorable Body require the preparation of the demonstrative map so that they are available for public use after notice to the Manager of the Chamber of Commerce. We will want a minimum of twelve (copies) of each of the flood plains and the zoning map. "We also want twelve copies of the present zoning map (ordinance). "Subsequent thereto, we will want, and we are sure you will want, three weeks to evaluate the affect of the zoning districts on existing land and establishments. (We are certain that we want such time.) "When the maps are available for said time, we suggest, in the interest of concentrated time utilization, that first the Commission, after due public hearing, determine whether (or not) it is to be the legislative policy of this City to depart from the 50 years of history of perpendicular (or pyramid) zoning and adopt a mixture of horizontal and (pyramid) zoning. If, after due time and public hearing, the Commission, in its deliberations, concludes to give further consideration to a mixed horizontal and pyramid zoning concept hearingsshmuld be had for considerating of the many, many amendments to be proposed that must be considered by this Body and the general. public. "We make these requests because on the state of the record we are unable to intelligently and competently fully evaluate the detrimental impact of the change in zoning concepts and to communicate in demonstrable fashion, the resulting problems confronting you, the City and its inhabitants." 219 Sherry Denton, Land Use Chairman for the League of Women Voters of Salina, was present. She said, "The League is concerned about the time table for consideration of the proposed zoning ordinance. We feel that substantial changes have been made in this plan following the ,public hearings held by the Planning Commission. The public workshop at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon was the first opportunity for many citizens to hear a discussion of the revised plan in its entirety. Because of the impact on all citizens, the League feels that it is essential that a reasonable period of time be allowed for citizens to evaluate these revisions, formulate an opinion and to express their views to this Commissio We urge the City Commission to insure that adequate time is allowed for constructi informed comment from the community." Bill Scholl said he was present at the 2:00 p.m. meeting and he said he is under the impression that part of the new zoning law is that if a person owns a home and they rezone it as industrial, he is embarred from ever causing any improvements. Commissioner Simpson replied it was covered this afternoon in Section 9.4-10, page 88. We were talking about if you have a house and it is some other zone and you... Mr. Rawlings said, "In the ordinance, and it has been in the ordinance since May, 1973, when this was first proposed, there is a section immediately preceeding the one Mr. Simpson referred to which says, 'non -conforming residential uses, and from the very beginning that statement has been in there which indicates that any structure which is devoted to residential uses and which is located in a commercial or industrial district, may be remodeled, extended, expanded and enlarged; providing that after such remodeling, extension, expansion or enlargemen such structure shall not be used to accommodate a greater number of dwelling units than it accommodated prior to any such work'; and if that didn't cover it, then the section that you quoted would." Commissioner Usher asked if Mr. Rawlings cared to respond to the Chamber's request for 12 copies of the present zoning map. He said the proposal refers to the flood plain information as what we are going to use as far as the flood plain is concerned, so it is available. Mr. Clark replied, "That is not correct. There are two zones in the flood plains and they are not defined as I understand it. If they are defined they are undecipherable. The law requires they be defined. It has to be on a single map. Under the law, the zoning map you must be able to look at and see what the affect is on the community." Commissioner Usher asked if we have a map? Mr. Rawlings replied they do. "We have a map which shows the location of all the zones that are proposed, as well as the flood plain district. The reference that you made is to a particular section in the flood plain portion of this ordinance, which does say the Engineering criteria in those two reports supersedes the actual location on the maps, in the need of any clarification and interpretation with it, but they are identified on the set of maps." Commissioner Usher asked about the maps and if they are big or if there several of them? Mr. Clark said, "Every zoning ordinance is supported by an official map depicting the districts defined. Every ordinance. We have not been able to get one. And I don't know how you can evaluate the system with fragments of maps. You need a map so that you can demonstrate the volume of spot zoning being instituted and a lot of other deficiencies in selecting uses. Many, many of them. Mayor Caldwell asked if these map will be made available to the Chamber upon request. Mr. Rawlings replied they would not. He explained there are 80 or 90 pages in each set of maps. "The quotation that Mr. Clark gave you out of the Sta Statutes goes on to say that 'or may provide for the incorporation by a reference in such ordinance to an official map upon which such boundaries shall be fixed'; and this is what we have done with the set that we had available from the time of the very inception of this hearing process." 220 Commissioner Usher said, "We don't have anything that you can haul downtown and study, C. L." Mr. Clark replied, "It is required by law, as to both the zoning and the flood plain. There is no way legislatively you can determine the propriety of a system of zones without knowing what they are, it would be an arbitrary decision on your part to adopt an ordinance specifying zones that you don't even know where they are or we can't see. Frankly the maps that they have are full of erasures, interlineations, comments, and there is no way of telling where part of them are located. It is deficient as a matter of law. I think Mr. Bengtson will verify that, the law is as clear as it can be. This official should be presented to the Commission and to the public." Mayor Caldwell asked Mr. Rawlings if these would be made available if they came to his office. Mr. Rawlings replied, "They have been made available, and Mr. Clark has viewed them on several occasions. They have been made available from the very beginning, the changes that he mentions were made as a result of requests from generally the business men at the hearings." Commissioner Usher said, "What I am trying to get at here, we want to be fair and we want everybody to have the opportunity that hasn't had the opportunity to know what is in this proposed zoning regulations, but what you are asking us to do is impossible. We have got 90 pages of maps and we can't give you 12 copies of them." Mr. Clark repeated, "Mr. Commissioner, the law requires a map to be a part of the ordinance. The portion he read requires a map. State Law requires a map on districts, flood zones. Now there isn't any way for you to evaluate the effect of that requirement without seeing it. How are you going to go through 90 pages of maps when you can't tell where they are. There is no way you can do it." Mr. Bengtson said, "I would state this, and I am not familiar with what maps we have because Mr. Barta has been working with the Planning Commission so I am not familiar with what maps or what descriptions they have of the boundaries of this. I would agree with Mr. Clark 100% that we must in our zoning ordinance have either a map or a metes and bounds description of the property to be effected, and we must have them on file here where they are available for inspection. We are not obligated to furnish anybody with copies of them, but they must be available where they can be inspected. I would think, again here you get into a matter of legal semantics as to whether a map, or maps; however I am sure that legally the map must be sufficiently clear so that if I, as a property owner, come down here and ask what is my property going to be in what type of a zone, that I can be shown exactly what zone I am in. If it is so indefinite as to not inform me as to what zone I am going to be placed in, I would say it would be legally deficient. I am not here to make a judgement whether they are or they aren't because Mr. Barta has been working with the Planning Commission, but we do have to have either a map or a metes and bounds description clearly defining these areas and be available for inspection by the general public. We are not obligated to furnish anyone with copies but they must be available for inspection." Mr. George Etherington was present and said, "My nervousness is not from getting ready to speak, it is I find that I am the only one back here that is for this ordinance. My neighbors, friends and my banker and everybody, but nevertheless for 25 years I have called them like I have seen them and I am not going to hesitate to do it this time. I feel that Salina needs this ordinance, it has needed it for a long time. Even the little town of Abilene over here with 7,000 population has got a more up to date zoning ordinance than we have here. If everyone would keep in mind that zoning is only a tool of planning, there are many other tools we use along with zoning, I think that this would help everyone understand, that we are at least 25 years behind in our zoning applications. We had that little change here in '62, and some amendments which is the same thing that we had in '51; but actually I have studied the entire zoning ordinance. At one time I was chairman of a group to study and make recommendations, and we did make some 20 recommendations which were adopted. Most of them were adopted. I do want to make it plain that I represent no group today, only myself, and I do urge you to adopt the procedure in this ordinance." 221 Mr. Virgil Lundberg, representing Salina Incorporated, was present and said, "We second wholeheartedly what Attorney Clark said. We have attempted to several times obtain the same things and we are told there is one copy available, or two copies. We are all composed of businessmen who need to be at our businesses when we would like to have got together in the evening of being able to take something back to our director's meetings. This has not been done. We have some correspondance from the City that I won't go into. I think the best compliment we had was they called us had private interests, and I say that is right. Our private interest is a fullfillment of the future of Salina, and anoth time we were told we were a private group and a few things like that. We respectfully request that Salina, Inc. directors be furnished at least enough copies so we can study them at a director's meeting as other than some certain room here in the Courthouse at a designated time." Mayor Caldwell asked Mr. Lundberg if he had been down to the City to ask for those maps? Mr. Lundberg replied, "Yes, I have looked at them there, yes." Mr. John Hoover, with Hedges Neon, was present and said, "When I start to speak everyone thinks I have a selfish motive, but I really don't because I really think as a business man in this city what maybe this sign ordinance might do to us. For years you have allowed signs to project over city property now with this new ordinance you don't want them to project over city property. This makes it awfully bad for a new man coming into business and he can't put his sign out like the others. You permit awnings to project from buildings but you don't want a sign to project from the building under this new ordinance. You have stop flashing signs in C-4 District and animated signs, and this is wrong you have a sign right now that will become nonconforming, it says bulbs running. Anybody else in that district or C-3 district they cannot do that. This ordinanc prevents that. You changed your ordinance to read from figuring square feet from one side to both sides of a sign. In Industrial 1 and 2 districts you have no limitation on the height of a building but you say the sign should only be 30 fee high. I think there is a lot of inconsistency in this ordinance and it ought to be straightened out before anything is passed at this point, and I will go along with C. L. Clark, I would like to have a few Commissioners go in there and start looking at those maps, it will refer to another page to abut to this page and tha page, and it is just darn hard. I was down there for an hour or better this morning trying to figure out. It is hard, you can't see it all on one board. Yoi don't know what is adjoining a C-5 or nothing else. These people work with these maps all the time and they can find them. I would like to have you Commissioners go in there and try to look at those maps. You look at the one they have got in there with the zones marked on it as of today and you can understand that, but you can't those in that book." Commissioner Usher asked if he had seen the new corrected version? Mr. Hoover replied he hasn't. Commissioner Usher asked if there weren't some corrections made under his advice? Mr. Hoover replied, "There were a few. There were a lot of them denied with no action taken." Mr. Harry Steele was present and said, "My point in this is a lot of nonconforming buildings. I have some and nonconforming ground. Now I don't know if it is 12 months or 24 months, but it seems to me like for to be able to deny those to continue to operate or be able to remodel or change or enlarge it seems to me like that is just like taking money from you without due process of law, and I just don't think it is right. The others domain that you can do it, but I don't think you should do it under this law. It is my understanding I don't know if it is 12 months, my book says 12 months, I heard one of the boys say it is 24 months now, I don't know, but the book they sent me was 12 months, and I have one building at 528 North 9th, Social Security Building, we want to enlarge on it, well we possibly can and possibly can't, we don't know where we are right now, but it seems to me like there is a lot of people being hurt and going to be hurt that are really not aware of it, but I can name several places. We have got some land up on North 81 that has had mobile home sales on it, well now they are zoning it so it won't have. I have no objection to new land that I might acquire being zoned however they might see fit, but the land I have already zoned to do certain things I hate for them to take it away from me the right to do those things without paying me for it." 222 Mayor Caldwell asked Mr. Rawlings if he wanted to answer anyone's questions. Mr. Rawlings replied, "Mr. Engleman is correct in one respect in that the change was made on the Salina Journal property from the original proposal. The change was made at the Journal's request, the change was effected that provic them a permitted use as long as they operate a newspaper publishing plant, there would be no problem whatsoever, it is a permitted under the zone they were given. We chose not to go with a central business district zone because they are not in any sense of the word in the central business district. One of the main objectic to the present zoning application is the use of the "E" zone indescriminately around the city when it was designed primarily for central business district and we were trying to get that off of some of the properties including the Journal's property. As far as Mr. Steele is concerned, I think it probably fairly obvious that he has not read the final copy also, because there is nothing in the ordinar that would restrict anyone who is made nonconforming by this ordinance from expanding, rebuilding, enlarging, in any way." Mr. Steele asked how long a time if we should be shut down? Mr. Rawlings said, "If the use is discontinued for a period of two year , you loose that under the present ordinance." Mr. Steele asked, "If you loose it from a tornado or something, 75% or 50%, whatever?" Mr. Rawlings explained, "If the damage is caused by a tornado, 50% or more, or if you are completely destroyed, you can rebuild it." Mr. Steele replied, "That is not what my book says." Mr. Rawlings explained he does not have a copy with the revisions. "You requested one in the early stages, you did not ask for one after the changes were made, and I don't think you were in attendance at any of the meetings where we went over all of these (unintelligible). You were sent, however, a letter." Mr. Engleman asked Mr. Rawlings, "If a tornado or fire should strike the Journal Building they could rebuild, remodel exactly as they are now?" Mr. Rawlings replied, "That is exactly correct. We have been trying to say that for the last month or 6 weeks." Mr. Engleman said, "I know you have been trying to say that, but doesn't the set backs requirements for the category you are attempting to put the Journal in, the C-3 district, doesn't it require minimum setback from the sidewalks for example?" Mr. Howard Engleman, Attorney, was present and said, "I don't know if you want to get into each particular protest of each particular land owner that has had his day before the Commission or not. I represent the Salina Journal, we were invited to present our views to you on proposed rezoning of the Journal building. It would take perhaps 5 or 10 minutes to do so, but I know there are many others in the same boat. Ours revolves around the fact that before an able Commission 15 years ago and before an able City Manager at that time a rezoning was effected giving us an "E" zoning, and the old conversion tables promulgated by the experts say that a zoning district of "E" should be now rezoned in order to conform to a C-4, the Zoning Commission originally said that the rezoning should be a residential, after they heard our arguments at_that time they apparently agreed that we must have some merit in our arguments but instead of recommending it conversion to C-4 they gave it C-3 which is a shopping center district and there are many, many arguments that we would like to present to you showing that would be inadequate under the circumstances, so whatever your wishes are, if you want to hear each individual complaint piecemeal or whether you want to wait until the proper maps are promulgated we certainly would want to comply with your wishes." Mayor Caldwell asked Mr. Rawlings if he wanted to answer anyone's questions. Mr. Rawlings replied, "Mr. Engleman is correct in one respect in that the change was made on the Salina Journal property from the original proposal. The change was made at the Journal's request, the change was effected that provic them a permitted use as long as they operate a newspaper publishing plant, there would be no problem whatsoever, it is a permitted under the zone they were given. We chose not to go with a central business district zone because they are not in any sense of the word in the central business district. One of the main objectic to the present zoning application is the use of the "E" zone indescriminately around the city when it was designed primarily for central business district and we were trying to get that off of some of the properties including the Journal's property. As far as Mr. Steele is concerned, I think it probably fairly obvious that he has not read the final copy also, because there is nothing in the ordinar that would restrict anyone who is made nonconforming by this ordinance from expanding, rebuilding, enlarging, in any way." Mr. Steele asked how long a time if we should be shut down? Mr. Rawlings said, "If the use is discontinued for a period of two year , you loose that under the present ordinance." Mr. Steele asked, "If you loose it from a tornado or something, 75% or 50%, whatever?" Mr. Rawlings explained, "If the damage is caused by a tornado, 50% or more, or if you are completely destroyed, you can rebuild it." Mr. Steele replied, "That is not what my book says." Mr. Rawlings explained he does not have a copy with the revisions. "You requested one in the early stages, you did not ask for one after the changes were made, and I don't think you were in attendance at any of the meetings where we went over all of these (unintelligible). You were sent, however, a letter." Mr. Engleman asked Mr. Rawlings, "If a tornado or fire should strike the Journal Building they could rebuild, remodel exactly as they are now?" Mr. Rawlings replied, "That is exactly correct. We have been trying to say that for the last month or 6 weeks." Mr. Engleman said, "I know you have been trying to say that, but doesn't the set backs requirements for the category you are attempting to put the Journal in, the C-3 district, doesn't it require minimum setback from the sidewalks for example?" 22J Mr. Rawlings explained, "You may be required some setbacks if you completely rebuild up against the residential district. Right now you would have no restriction whatsoever. You can build right up to every house next to you, I mean the existing one and the possibility that if you rebuild that property you may have to observe some setbacks that you are not observing now, but only if you are up against these properties." Mr. Engleman asked, "What about the bulk? In the district you are attempting to put us in there we could only use 65% of our area, which would mean we would have a deminished size of our building if we rebuild." Mr. Rawlings said, "That is a possibility, yes." Mr. Engleman said, "That is the thing, your Honor. It is the possibilities when you have got an investment of $1,000,500 and when one City Commission told you 15 years ago that this is perfect for "E" zoning, which would allow us to build just as we have done, a railroad siding coming down there. We know there is objections to spot zoning, but in this case, your own Commission has said that the main objections to spot zoning is the traffic problem it creates. The Journal built parking places across from its building just to alleviate the parking and there is no traffic problem on Fourth Street. You have got a railroad track down the middle, you have got a power plant to the south of us, City property, and it has got other buildings to the north of us, so we don't think that it is any eyesore or that it constitutes spot zoning and certainly the Commission when they made their huge investment decided that "E" was the proper zoning and their own conversion tables show that C-4 should be proper, and if we had a fire or tornado or something we don't want to be restricted by your laws that require the set back or use of only 65% of the area. It just doesn't make sense." Mr. Engleman said, "I would like for the Commissioners to look at their yellow zoning comparison. You have got C-4 with an asterisk there saying to refe to conversion (unintelligible). Under C-4 it says newspaper publishing plant, which is exactly what we had under "E" when we got our rezoning to start with, and those houses, at the time the property owners were more than ready, willing and able to sell the houses at a fair price, and the parking lot the houses were acquired they too were more than willing to sell them so we aren't hurting the neighbors, there wasn't a single protest of any kind by any neighbor when we got that zoned "E" for a newspaper publishing plant. I see no reason to give us any other different than the present zoning. We want C-4 instead of C-3." Mr. Clark asked, "Are you going to proceed with the hearings today? I have a written statement that I would like to give in regard to this, but I don't think it is the proper time because I want the maps that I can show you what I am talking about, and you can understand what I am talking about up here where we can see. You gentlemen are entitled to see how you are zoning the town. You go down and look at those fragmented ones. I spent hours down there and I don't know yet where 1/3 of the nonconforming uses are in this town." Mayor Caldwell said, "This was your first suggestion for the number of maps, wasn't it?" Mr. Clark said, "We want a map we can see. We would prefer as citizens and taxpayers of this town to be given the privilege of examining these maps and you gentlemen having these maps in your possession so you know what we are talking about and you have the information to arrive at a proper judgement. There is no way you can abstractly zone property in districts we don't comprehend Legally the law requires a zoning map, period. It requires a flood map, period. Not maps. Every zoning ordinance in this town has a map attached to it. Every one that has ever been adopted in this town has a map incorporated in it that you can look at and see what it is, because the law requires it." Mr. Rawlings explained, "The chart is an intended conversion, where ever possible district, but if an "E" zone is in existence we it does not guarantee that every will attempt to give it a C-4 "E" zone will get a C-4 district, because North Santa Fe at Pacific is not the central business district any more than the Salina Journal property is the central business district, but that was a guide and not a guarantee." Mr. Engleman said, "I would like for the Commissioners to look at their yellow zoning comparison. You have got C-4 with an asterisk there saying to refe to conversion (unintelligible). Under C-4 it says newspaper publishing plant, which is exactly what we had under "E" when we got our rezoning to start with, and those houses, at the time the property owners were more than ready, willing and able to sell the houses at a fair price, and the parking lot the houses were acquired they too were more than willing to sell them so we aren't hurting the neighbors, there wasn't a single protest of any kind by any neighbor when we got that zoned "E" for a newspaper publishing plant. I see no reason to give us any other different than the present zoning. We want C-4 instead of C-3." Mr. Clark asked, "Are you going to proceed with the hearings today? I have a written statement that I would like to give in regard to this, but I don't think it is the proper time because I want the maps that I can show you what I am talking about, and you can understand what I am talking about up here where we can see. You gentlemen are entitled to see how you are zoning the town. You go down and look at those fragmented ones. I spent hours down there and I don't know yet where 1/3 of the nonconforming uses are in this town." Mayor Caldwell said, "This was your first suggestion for the number of maps, wasn't it?" Mr. Clark said, "We want a map we can see. We would prefer as citizens and taxpayers of this town to be given the privilege of examining these maps and you gentlemen having these maps in your possession so you know what we are talking about and you have the information to arrive at a proper judgement. There is no way you can abstractly zone property in districts we don't comprehend Legally the law requires a zoning map, period. It requires a flood map, period. Not maps. Every zoning ordinance in this town has a map attached to it. Every one that has ever been adopted in this town has a map incorporated in it that you can look at and see what it is, because the law requires it." 224 Commissioner Duckers said, "My feeling is that we should take no action on this today, but we should hear from those who wish to be heard from today, but that at some future time, when there is more time, we set aside an entire day whe we not necessarily conduct hearings, but we conduct a meeting at which time those others in the community who are not here were not aware of the meeting today can come and express themselves and that we can address some of these issues that hav been brought to light today. I just feel this is too difficult a decision to tak any action at all, and will vote that way at some time later in the meeting." Mayor Caldwell said, "In so doing, you know we have a moratorium that w have to be responsible for also." Commissioner Duckers said, "The moratorium can be extended." Mayor Caldwell said, "I believe that should be taken under consideratiod." Mr. Robert Frobenius was present and said, "I think we have got knapsac and forks and rattlesnakes and rats all in the same hole, and in trying to delineate one from the other and you just can't pick them out. One point I have in mind, people have talked to me about investment in town, buying business property; so as I understand this a man buys a particular piece of business property and he can build a building on it so high, 30, 45 feet in a particular zone, in this new zoning, then it is cut down to 30 feet. Well now, what he has in mind to build at 45 feet high, I have no idea, but when you take something awa from him that is already zoned on that particular piece of property, you are denying him rights without recourse, and I can't see that you can take away something that has already been granted by this Commission and zoning in this cit and arbitrarily say you can't have that in this zoning now in the new. So zoning of particular types, especially business property where there is a huge investmen should be equal as the attorney for the Salina Journal said it should be equal to what zoning he had prior to the new zoning ordinance." Commissioner Usher asked Mr. Frobenius if he has read the new zoning proposal?. Mr. Frobenius replied he has read it. Mayor Caldwell commented he is finding a number of people haven't read the revised edition of the ordinance. Commissioner Duckers asked Mr. Rawlings if anyone had been denied getting copies of the revised ordinance. Mr. Rawlings said some have been postponed getting copies of the ordinance because they have been temporarily out of print, but there have been and there still are copies available in his office. Mr. Etherington commented, "Everyone has been talking about what they have been losing, what has been taken away from them, but under the new ordinance we don't know how much business we have lost because of the fact that we haven't had planned unit development, particularly planned unit development in commercial or planned unit development in industrial. We don't have it, it is in the new ordinance. This is just one example. This is why I feel that everybody is making so many objections should take and read this ordinance page by page becaus I don't think they have done it." Mayor Caldwell asked if there are any further comments. There was no response. Commissioner Simpson said, "I would comment that, express appreciation to the Planning Commission for the hours and days and months of work they have put in on this. I am appreciative of that. I candidly say I am not very appreciative, at this point in time, of the consulting firm that we have been paying. This is the third public meeting I think we have had on this in some form or another. They had a representative at one who, as I recall made little or no comment, and has not been available for the other two. Many situations or problems are caused by a lack of communications or misunderstanding, and perhaps this is becoming very evident here. I think we are all concerned and vitally interested in the economic and social growth of Salina. It is apparent that I think we don't have the information to proceed at this time. I think we should have, I would like personally to see an overlay map of our existing zoning laws in a map, a single document, and an overlay explaining the proposed changes. I think this would be vitally important. I think we do need to give this more time for public input. I would therefore move that we receive the report of the Planning Commission at this time and extend the moratorium on zoning requests for 30 days beyond the present expiration date." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Duckers. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A RESOLUTION was introduced and passed entitled: "WHEREAS, the Salina City Planning Commission has caused to be prepared Proposed Zoning Regulations for Salina, Kansas," (extending the moratorium to January 31, 1976) A motion was made by Commissioner Simpson, seconded by Commissioner Duckers that the Resolution be adopted as read and the following vote was had: Ayes: Duckers, Simpson, Usher, Weisgerber, Caldwell (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved the Resolution and it is numbered 3256. PUBLIC AGENDA A REQUEST was received from Dr. C. L. Olson, representative for the Salina Veterinarians, to appear to discuss the ordinance on taxation of kennels. Dr. Olson was present and said, "I got a bill for something like $100.00 the other day on the basis that we were a kennel, and we sort of objected to this. I was in the group that put the ordinance together and I didn't feel that this was the intent of the commission, so I volunteered to appear before you. We were under the impression that for services rendered a fee would be charged and I understand that there is quite a bit of guidance given to someone who wants to start a kennel on the atmospheric conditions of it, the best way to keep it and this type of thing, there is also an inspection from time to time to see that this is being done. They do not fall outside of the city on any other type of inspections; whereas the veterinary hospitals fall in the State set a group of standards that we qualify for a veterinary hospital and have to maintain these in order to maintain a license to practice, so we thought this was mentioned enough, and not feeling that this was the intent of the board I thought it would be best just to ask that the intent be clarified and that veterinary hospitals be exempt from this." Mr. Bengtson said, "I don't think there is much question on the intent of the ordinance. I think the ordinance provides that everyone that operates a commercial kennel within the city has to have a license, and they define a commercial kennel as a place or a tract of land where three or more dogs are for the purpose of profit kept, bred, raised, fed, displayed, exhibited or sold. And certainly that includes a veterinary clinic that houses dogs. You board dogs it doesn't exclude you, and as far as the staff here is concerned, we have no alternative but to enforce the ordinance that is on the books, and I think the veterinarians were the ones that actually were instrumental in drafting this, and I think you were chairman of the committee. There is no where that says it excludes you and I would say that definition." Commissioner Usher asked if the ordinance can be amended to exclude veterinary hospitals? Mr. Bengtson replied. "If you desire, you could amend the ordinance to exclude any veterinary hospital that has been licensed by the State. I think you need to bear this in mind, because we don't exclude everybody from license fees within the city that are licensed by the State. I am sure the restaurant operators in Salina must have a State license and yet we license them or require them to be licensed. The pesticide operators are required to secure a State license and yet we license them, so you can't say anyone that has a State license should automatically be excluded. Possibly you could do this and not be discriminatory in nature in this in that any fee or license which you charge must be based on the service which we render. Now possibly if the State does provide some of the supervision and some of the inspections that we might normally be required to make, possibly you could have a lesser fee. I think you could say they would still be licensed but if they are licensed by the State that the fee shall be only $25.00 where the others are $50.00 or some grounds for it and I think you could justify this, otherwise if you can't justify the discrimination, I would say the ordinance would be unconstitutional." 226 Commissioner Weisgerber asked why they couldn't just eliminate veterina hospitals? Mr. Bengtson explained, "They are operating a kennel according to this definition, if they board dogs. They are doing the same function as a kennel when they are boarding dogs. A veterinary hospital certainly does one thing it is for surgery, for treatment, but they do fall within the definition we have now as a commercial kennel because they do board dogs for profit." Commissioner Simpson asked if all veterinary hospitals board dogs. Dr. Olson replied they do. A motion was made by Commissioner Usher, seconded by Commissioner Simpson to instruct the City Attorney and the City Manager to get together with Dr. Olson and see if they can re -work that ordinance and still not be discriminitory. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A LIST OF TWENTY-FIVE cereal malt beverage license applications for 1976 were considered by the Board of Commissioners. There were 24 renewals and 1 new application, all of which have been approved by the Zoning Officer, Health Department and the Police Department. A motion was made by Commissioner Usher, seconded by Commissioner Simpson to approve the Cereal Malt Beverage License applications for 1976, and authorize the City Clerk to issue the licenses. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. COMMISSION AGENDA The Commissioners did not bring anything to the floor for discussion. A MOTION was made by Commissioner Duckers, seconded by Commissioner Usher that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. D. L. Harrison, City Clerk 1 1 1976 CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR December 22, 1975 City Commission Meeting 1. Ramada Inn Restaurant 222 Diamond Drive 2. Coronado Club 222 Diamond Drive 3. The Inn 100-102 N. 5th 4. The Hilton Inn 100-102 N. 5th 5. Gi Gi's Lounge 122 N. Santa Fe 6. Salina Country Club 2101 Country Club Road 7. The Blue Lounge (Carole Gunder) 249 N. Santa Fe 8. Hide Away 540 Willis 9. Interstate House Service Station 120 E. Diamond Drive 10. The Body Shop Restaurant 1014 E. Prescott 11. Mr. D's IGA 605 E. Crawford 12. Warehouse Market 1740 W. Crawford 13. Moose Lodge 1700 W. Beverly Drive 14. Triplett Standard Service 2218 N. 9th 15. E & J Restaurant 816 N. Santa Fe 16. Knights of Columbus 115 N. 10th 17. Landes Oil Co., Inc. 802 W. Crawford 18. Landes Oil Co., Inc. 1118 N. 9th 19. Landes Oil Co., Inc. 547 W. Cloud 20. Landes Oil Co., Inc. 418 E. Iron 21. Landes Oil Co., Inc. 1019 E. Prescott 22. Lamer's Market 145 N. Phillips 23. A & J Road Runner 616 N. Broadway * 24. Sandy's (Bill E. Phillips) 1012 N. Broadway 25. Labor Building Social Club, Inc. 2055 S. Ohio * Indicates New Application