06-24-1974 Minutes168
City of Salina, Kansas
Regular Meeting of the Board
of Commissioners
June 24, 1974
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the
Commissioners' Room, City -County Building, on Monday, June 24, 1974, at seven
o'clock P.M.
The Acting Mayor asked everyone to stand for the pledge of
allegiance to the Flag and a moment of silent prayer.
There were present:
Acting Mayor Robert C. Caldwell, Chairman presiding
Commissioner Norma G. Cooper
Commissioner Mike Losik, Jr.
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:
Mayor W. M. Usher
Acting Mayor Caldwell called for the approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting June 17, 1974.
Commissioner Losik asked that his question to the City Engineer
concerning Petition Number 3420 and whether the proposed improvements will be
put in under the provisions of Resolution 3113, and his reply that they would,
be added to the minutes.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 17, 1974 were approved
as corrected.
A RESOLUTION was introduced and passed entitled: "A RESOLUTION
determining the advisability of curbing, guttering, paving, grading, water
main, sanitary sewer, service lines and storm sewer improvements, estimating
the cost thereof, defining the boundaries of the improvement district, method
of assessment, and apportioning the cost between the improvement district and
the City -at -large." (Improvements in Key Acres Addition Number 2 and Lot 12,
Upper Mill Heights Addition Number 2- Engineering Project 74-571). A motion
was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to adopt the
Resolution as read.
Commissioner Losik asked the City Engineer if the specifications for
this project are set so that each and every construction company or contractor
could bid on these, based on the type of materials that the city designates.
The City Engineer replied they are.
The following vote was had on the motion to adopt the Resolution as
read: Ayes: Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber, Caldwell (4). Nays: (0). Mayor Usher
absent. Carried. The Acting Mayor approved the Resolution and it is numbered
3188.
1.69
A LETTER was received from the City Engineer concerning a letter dated
April 25, 1974, from Kenneth Nordboe requesting permission to connect to city
sewer and water lines to serve the Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 14
South, Range 3 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Saline County, Kansas.
"We have searched the available records in regard to the above subject
letter. We can find no record of permits having been issued for this installatio
in the Engineering or Inspection Departments. In searching the City Commission
minutes, we found that on May 29, 1962, the City Commission gave Kenneth and Merl
Nordboe permission to connect to and extend a municipal water line and a municipal
sewer line outside the corporate limits of the City of Salina, Kansas and to enter
into an equitable agreement with the City of Salina to pay for said water and sew r
services received.
"Based on the above action, taken by a prior City Commission, which
resulted in an investment of funds by the Nordboe's to install pipelines under
Interstate Highway 1-35-W; I would recommend that the City offer the Nordboe's
our standard contract for water and sewer services outside the City Limits."
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner
Weisgerber to accept the City Engineer's recommendation. Ayes: (4). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
Commissioner Cooper asked, "In the future if others do this, will we
have to apply the same kind of practice or policy to them?"
The City Engineer replied, "This is no deviation from the present
policy."
A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending
the approval of the Final Plat of Kessler Addition, as requested by Bill Chaffee
in Petition Number 3405.
Commissioner Weisgerber commented that he is concerned about this
recommendation. He said, "The minutes of the last City Planning Commission
meeting reflect that they recommended its approval, but they pointed out the
fact that part of this land is within the City and part of it lies within the
County. It seems to me like a little bit of an awkward situation to have a
piece of ground zoned in a business manner which doesn't lie entirely within
either the County of the City."
The City Manager said, 11I would concur that this could create some
awkward problems and situations; to clarify a previous action, this past January
an ordinance was placed on first reading to rezone this particular property
subject to platting. I think we are holding that ordinance for second reading
subject to the platting. Mr. Chaffee is in the audience, I don't know if he
would have any objections to petition for annexation of the farm ground or the
bare ground to the west."
Mr. Chaffee said, "This was my first request and I was advised by your
people not to. The back part of that ground carries a heavier grade of zoning
than we asked for in the front. The back ground, the part that is in the County
is zoned light industrial. I went to the City Planner and asked him what we
should do. We put it before the Metropolitan Planning Commission and we have
been on this since last October or November, and if you will bear with us,
whatever has to be done to make it a normal procedure; but we have been held off
now in moving and starting our operation out there for three months."
Mr. Olson and Mr. Chaffee went to the City Commission bench where they
discussed the issue with the City Commissioners.
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner
Cooper to approve the final plat based on the letter submitted by the City Planni g
Commission and if there are any variances or any conflicts it would have to be
resolved later, because their recommendation states simply that it is based on
a prerequisite to the zoning change on the east portion of this property. Ayes:
Cooper, Losik, Caldwell (3). Nays: (0). Commissioner Weisgerber abstained.
Motion carried.
1'-'o
A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending
the approval of the rezoning of Lots 2, 4, 6, Block 16, Pacific Addition from
District "B" (Two -Family Dwelling House District) to District "D" (Local
Business District). Rezoning to District "E" (General Business District) was
requested by Francis J. Gorrell in Petition Number 3419. A motion was made by
Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to accept the recommendat
of the City Planning Commission and approve the petition for rezoning, and to
introduce the rezoning ordinance for first reading. Ayes: (4). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: Number:
A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending
the denial of the rezoning of Lot 5, Block 1, Hazelwood Addition from District
"DD" (Office District) to District "D" (Local Business District) as requested by
Ben J. Frick in Petition Number 3428.
Mrs. B. J. Frick was present and asked the City Commissioners to refer
the petition back to the City Planning Commission for further investigation of
some facts involved.
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner
Cooper to refer the petition back to the City Planning Commission at the request
of the petitioner.
Commissioner Weisgerber commented, "Would you want to refer it back
unless the petitioner intends to make some change in their request?"
Commissioner Losik replied, "We have in the past, Jack. Anytime the
petitioner asks for a referral back we have done it."
Commissioner Weisgerber said; "I don't think we have had a request to
refer back unless there was a change."
Commissioner Losik said, "Mr. Gorrell's came in the same way and we
referred it back."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "He told us he was changing his request
to a lesser zone."
Commissioner Losik said, "Well, we don't know what this is. There is
some additional investigation, so this is valid."
Acting Mayor Caldwell said, "I don't know whether they have asked it
to be returned to Planning, but they have asked for a denial of the request at
this particular time."
Commissioner Losik said, "I think last week we did the same thing, Bob;
though before when we referred Mr. Gorrell's petition back to planning, the
individual representing him happened to be a little more explicit in saying what
it was specifically he wanted. We did that. It came to us with a denial."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "What do you intend to change in your
request to the Planning Commission?"
Mrs. Frick answered, "Well, they denied it on traffic problems and
things like that. We would like to give additional information."
Acting Mayor Caldwell asked the City Attorney, "Do you have any comment
on this before we return it to Planning?"
The City Attorney said, "Normally you have a recommendation from
Planning and you can either accept their recommendation and if you don't accept
their recommendation, then you can refer it back with the reason for the referral
back. Now whether you have or haven't in the past referred it back at the
request of the petitioner, I don't know. Normally you probably disagree with the
recommendation and refer it back for some reason for them to check, and this
is what it is supposed to be."
1=1
Commissioner Cooper asked, "Can we refer it back to Planning on the
basis that the petitioner has other information they would like to present to
Planning regarding the zoning change."
The City Attorney replied, "I don't recall Mr. Gorrell's request."
Commissioner Losik said, "Well, this is the one where he requested a
change in the zoning from the original request, and it was referred back so he
could ask for this rather than to have us deny it."
Commissioner Cooper said, "We didn't take any action."
The City Attorney said, "He was changing, actually what he was doing
was changing from a different zone classification."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "From 'E' to V.11
Commissioner Losik said, "But the point is it came to us with a
recommendation for denial and we referred it back at the request of the
petitioner..."
Commissioner Cooper said, "Without taking any action on it."
Commissioner Losik said, "... and that is the point that we are asking
about here. What is the difference. The petitioner is asking for it to be
referred."
The City Attorney replied, "You probably shouldn't have referred that
one back.
Commissioner Losik said, "We have, and I believe we have done it in the
past."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "That in effect was almost like referring
a new petition to them really, because it wasn't requiring action on the same
petition, but actually acting on a different request, so we could have denied the
one and simply have referred the other to them for the "D" zone and cancelled out
the "E" zone. It amounted technically to the same thing as referring to them a
request for a "D" rather than an "E" zone, which I think is quite different. I
really don't believe that we have operated in this particular way before."
Commissioner Losik said, "These people have a right to ask for
reconsideration from the initial people who have made the recommendation to us,
and I think they are entitled to have it, and I made my motion and I would like
to have it repeated."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "The only thing would be, Mike, I think
we do need to consider if we do this under this particular way, everyone who has
a denial will wish it referred back and they will have to reprocess all of these
things."
Commissioner Losik commented, "That is what we are all here for, Jack.
If there is additional information for reconsideration, it should be given to 'em
The City Attorney replied, "I
don't think, under State Law,
that is
one of the reasons for sending it back.
I think if you
disagree with
their
recommendation you can send it back and
it."
state your reasons why you disagree with
Commissioner Cooper said, "We
didn't take any
action at all
on
Mr. Gorrell's and his petition was denied and he wanted
to go back to
Planning
to seek a different zone. So what is the
difference?"
The City Attorney replied, "I don't recall Mr. Gorrell's request."
Commissioner Losik said, "Well, this is the one where he requested a
change in the zoning from the original request, and it was referred back so he
could ask for this rather than to have us deny it."
Commissioner Cooper said, "We didn't take any action."
The City Attorney said, "He was changing, actually what he was doing
was changing from a different zone classification."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "From 'E' to V.11
Commissioner Losik said, "But the point is it came to us with a
recommendation for denial and we referred it back at the request of the
petitioner..."
Commissioner Cooper said, "Without taking any action on it."
Commissioner Losik said, "... and that is the point that we are asking
about here. What is the difference. The petitioner is asking for it to be
referred."
The City Attorney replied, "You probably shouldn't have referred that
one back.
Commissioner Losik said, "We have, and I believe we have done it in the
past."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "That in effect was almost like referring
a new petition to them really, because it wasn't requiring action on the same
petition, but actually acting on a different request, so we could have denied the
one and simply have referred the other to them for the "D" zone and cancelled out
the "E" zone. It amounted technically to the same thing as referring to them a
request for a "D" rather than an "E" zone, which I think is quite different. I
really don't believe that we have operated in this particular way before."
Commissioner Losik said, "These people have a right to ask for
reconsideration from the initial people who have made the recommendation to us,
and I think they are entitled to have it, and I made my motion and I would like
to have it repeated."
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "The only thing would be, Mike, I think
we do need to consider if we do this under this particular way, everyone who has
a denial will wish it referred back and they will have to reprocess all of these
things."
Commissioner Losik commented, "That is what we are all here for, Jack.
If there is additional information for reconsideration, it should be given to 'em
11
1
1
1-72
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "Yes, but she didn't say anything about
additional information, or a change in zoning. I don't see that there is any
change in this. That is the part that bothers me. It is different than if she
had asked say, well, alright can we instead of "D" can we have some other zone.
It is technically then exactly the same request I think."
Commissioner Losik said, "I think you will find where we have had
petitioners request their petitions be referred back to Planning for various
reasons, now I don't think we ever set up a policy on what those specific reasons
would be. When the petitioner has asked for something we acted in a courtesy and
extended that courtesy to 'em. Now I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same
thing here. I believe I have a motion. I don't know if I had a second to it."
Commissioner Cooper said, "Yes, you did."
Acting Mayor Caldwell called for a vote on the motion. Ayes: Cooper,
Losik, Caldwell. (3). Nays: (0). Commissioner Weisgerber abstained. Motion
carried.
A RESOLUTION was introduced and passed entitled: "A RESOLUTION granting
permission to lay pipeline in public right-of-way within the City Limits of the
City of Salina, Kansas."
Mr. Robert Frobenius was present and explained his plans. He was
presented a copy of the Resolution and he said it is acceptable with him.
A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner
Losik to adopt the Resolution as read and authorize the laying of the pipeline
as outlined in the Resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Losik.
Ayes: Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber, Caldwell (4). Nays: (0). Mayor Usher absent.
The Acting Mayor approved the Resolution and it is numbered 3189.
None
COMMISSION AGENDA
PUBLIC AGENDA
A REQUEST was received from J. S. Frank Construction Company, Inc. for
extra width for a driveway for the First State Bank Detached Facility at 1333 Wes -
Crawford Avenue.
Mr. Frank was present and explained the bank plans to have 4 drive -up
units, and in order to have all lines clear, they want an additional 10 foot of
driveway width, which they feel would solve the problem. They plan to place
curb bumpers between the islands. He said if permission for the additional
10 feet of driveway is not permitted, they will have to eliminate one of the
druve-up units.
The City Engineer explained that with a possible four lanes of traffic
coming from the bank area onto a high traffic count arterial street, such as
Crawford Avenue, would create both congestion and confusion for traffic on
Crawford Avenue and greatly increase the possibility for accidents at this
location. He said the Engineering Department feels it would be much safer to
have a minor amount of merging traffic leaving the bank facility prior to the
point of entering onto Crawford Avenue, and recommended the extra width driveway
not be granted.
Commissioner Weisgerber commented, "I don't really think it is going to
make too much difference one way or the other when you come up to a dead stop
like you do at a drive-in facility, as you move on out from a standing stop and
no faster than you can possibly move cars through a situation like that, I don't
think it makes really too much difference whether they have got 30 or 40. 1 thin
they could operate as well with 30 as they can with 40, and I think as far as the
City is concerned they aren't going to have any more problems with 40 than they
are with 30. 1 think you could toss a coin in the air and it really wouldn't
make a lot of difference; but I still don't get the use of those curbs to keep
those cars in line, why not let them merge after they come out of there. I don't
see the point of that."
173
The Commissioners, Mr. Frank, Mr. Jerry Simpson, First State Bank Vice
president, and Mr. Boyer discussed the request at length.
Commissioner Losik said, "In view of the fact that Jack doesn't feel it
would make too much difference either way, I agree with him on it, and I think it
would be helpful because if 30 feet is dangerous so is 40; but if it will serve
for a better useful purpose in far range, I move that we approve the 40 foot
driveway."
The motion died for the lack of a second.
No action was taken on the request for a 40 foot driveway.
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner
Weisgerber that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned.
Ayes: (4). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
I
�
�I CUL ---,r
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
1
1