Loading...
09-26-1974 Minutes229 City of Salina, Kansas Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners August 26, 1974 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners' Room, City -County Building, on Monday, August 26, 1974, 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 W. M. Usher, Chairman presiding Commissioner Robert C. Caldwell 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: None Mayor Usher called for the approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 19, 1974. Commissioner Cooper asked to make a couple of additions: "Following the East Crawford Street discussion by the general public, I inquired of the City Engineer if Crawford east of Marymount Road met city specs for residential streets and he stated it did not; also I asked if Crawford Street west of Marymount to the bridge will be designed to insure 2 lane traffic only and he said that it would. I would like to have that conversation with those comments of the City Engineer's included in the minutes." The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 19, 1974 were approved as amended. THE MAYOR PROCLAIMED - September, 1974 - "FAMILY UNITY MONTH". The proclamation was read by Gary McCausland. MAYOR USHER welcomed members of the Civitan Club who were visiting the meeting. BIDS WERE RECEIVED for Engineering Project 74-573 for sidewalk improvements: R & D Construction Company $14,643.25 Smoky Hill, Inc. 15,802.25 Wilson Constructors, Inc. 16,430.00 Engineer's Estimate 18,474.25 A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to accept the proposal of R & D Construction Company, in the amount of $14,643.2 , providing it meets the engineer's specifications, and to introduce the contract ordinance for first reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. Ordinance Passed: Number: 1 1 230 AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE providing for the amendment of Zoning Ordinance Number 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." (Rezoning of Lots 1 - 6, Block 9, and Lots 2 and 3, Block 13, Shalimar Plaza Addition from District "A" (Second Dwelling House District) to District "C" (Apartment District), as requested in Petition Number 3436, which was filed by Douglas G. Hill.) PETITION NUMBER 3446 was filed August 19, 1974 by 0. L. Davis, Jr. for the denial of Petition Number 3436 for the rezoning of Lots 1 - 6, Block 9, and Lots 2 and 3,Block 13, Shalimar Plaza Addition. Mayor Usher asked if the petition has been checked to see if it is a valid petition. The City Attorney explained that there is a legal question involved on the protest petition, "and that is whether or not we do have a valid protest petition. In checking the area involved if it complies with the 200, and it probably does; however the protest petition has been questioned due to the fact that the protest petition was not acknowledged. The State Statute does provide a protest petition must be signed and acknowledged by a certain required percentage of property owners. I have spent considerable time since Friday when I learned there was a question as to the validity of this protest petition and I have been in contact with the League of Municipalities in Topeka to try to secure their thought on this matter as to whether an unacknowledged protest petition is valid. Apparently this question has not been raised previously; however I have been unable to find anything that is directly on point, I mean a similar type of situation with the Court's ruling or any statutory law on it; however, I do find under the general law acknowledgements there are three reasons for this, one reason you have something acknowledged is so it can be recorded in the Register of Deeds Office, and another time is so it would be admissible in evidence; and the third time is to prove the validity of siguatures on petition or on any instrument. From what I am able to find in the general law on this it provides that where you do have a statutory requirement that an instrument be acknowledged that unless it does meet the statutory requirement, it has no force and effect. In view of this, I think that legally you are going to have to consider that even though the signatures on this petition probably represent more than 200 of the land within the area, I do not think you can legally conside it as a valid legal protest petition. This would be my opinion on this. You are faced with this proposition. If this ordinance is passed by 4 to 1 or 5 to 0 there is no question involved; however if you do have a 3 to 2 vote I assume ther would always be the question that if the petition is invalid, as I am in the opinion it is, the property would be rezoned. I am judging from the research I have if the courts were to hold that it was a valid protest petition of course th property would not be rezoned because of the fact that it requires 750 vote of this commission which would require 4 votes to pass it.11 Commissioner Cooper asked, "By acknowledged, do you mean notarized?" The City Attorney replied, "Yes. He would have to appear before a notary public and acknowledge that he actually signed, that is what acknowledgeme t means. You have a deed. You acknowledge a deed when you do appear before a notary public and you acknowledge that you actually signed that, and the reason, the only reason for that I can find for it in this thing would be proof of signatures. I would assume this would be the purpose behind this statute because it is not for recording or it is not to make it admissible in evidence, but it would be for proof of signatures, and if it is challenged certainly it does not comply." Commissioner Caldwell asked if they were late in getting the petition. 231 The City Attorney said, "It was filed after you put it on first reading. You see the petition must be filed at any time within 15 days after the public hearing before the Planning Commission, and of course, this is why you did not put it on first reading and second reading the first two times thereafter, because the protest period would not have passed. You must have 15 days." The City Clerk reported the petition was filed August 19th. Commissioner Cooper asked, "It was filed within the time period that they were entitled to?" The City Attorney said, "This is correct." Commissioner Losik said, "Well I have one question here. According to the minutes of the Planning Commission of August 6th, it states here that Mr. Rawlings also read a list of names from a protest petition presented to the Planning Commission in reference to Petition 3436, and it lists the names. Now this petition obviously then is a different one. Is this correct Keith?" Keith Rawlings replied, "Yes." Commissioner Cooper said, "Well, I don't know, but I would guess that the reason that this petition - you are saying that from surface appearances it appears to be a valid petition other than the fact that it was not notarized." The City Attorney replied, "I think that it has been checked and that it does meet all the qualifications. More than 20% of the people in the area did sign this, if their signatures are correct, so it would meet the criteria other than being acknowledged." Commissioner Cooper said, "Well, I think from a practical point of view the people in that area have a petition that is not valid because they probably were not aware that it should have been notarized, so I was only going to suggest since we have allowed, permitted, time on different ordinances between the readings, that we should allow or extend the time on this second reading to see if either side can come up with the legal documents representing their point of view. Would this be proper?" Mayor Usher said, "It is too late, as I understand it. It has gone beyond the 15 days." Commissioner Cooper said, "Well I am not talking about that. I am talking about a different thing. I know it has passed the 15 days statutory time What I am saying is we have, this Commission, has in the past, Larry, postponed placing ordinances on second reading permitting the individuals involved to do whatever may remain undone. Okay now, would this be a proper procedure at this point?" The City Attorney replied, "Well, again, and here is another point that I have done some research on, and my question was this, the petition there is no question was filed within the statutory period, 15 days, now we know we cannot extend the 15 days for anyone to add signatures onto it, because this would certainly be wrong. Now I kept asking myself this question, could we extend the period of time? I mean it is ineffective because of a technicality, could we allow this petition after the filing time to be acknowledged and thereby make it a valid petition? I did some research on this question too and at this point I could not come up with anything in point and neither could the League of Municipalities come up with anything in point; however in general case law it states this, and I suppose this would be the only thing I would have to base my opinion on, they indicate that if a certificate of acknowledgement is defective, so you would have a defective acknowledgement, they say that it may be corrected by making a new acknowledgement; however such an instrument becomes effective from the date of the re -acknowledgement then; so if this were applied to this situation here, if we would allow them to go out and have this acknowledged according to this case law, then the instrument would be effective as of the date they had it acknowledged which would be after the protest period, so I am of the opinion that this could not be done." 232 Commissioner Losik said, "Now Larry, one more. Now does - when this petition was filed with the City Clerk and it was filed with you was it not Don? Alright now, doesn't the City have an obligation to inform these people as to whether this thing is in the proper form or not to be considered even?" The City Attorney replied, "I think we would be completely out of line to attempt to advise anybody on the legal process involved, because I think we would be laying ourselves wide open then and we would be in the unauthorized practice of law for the City Clerk to advise someone this is legally right or this is legally wrong. I don't think that is our job to. Now we do furnish this form; however we furnish the form to everybody. We have one set form for sidewalks or protests or anything else. We are under no legal obligation to do this and I think that for us, or for the City Clerk, or the City Attorney to be advising any citizen as to whether the things meet legal criteria would be wrong. Commissioner Weisgerber said, "Well, the question I had or maybe it isn't a question it perhaps doesn't enter into this case, but again it applies to this blank and petition in general. These folks have signed for a lot number and a block number and some of these if I understand correctly are in error, they have got their block number and lot number twisted up, but for a petition to be valid it must be notarized or acknowledged, but for a petition to be valid, of this type anyway, it really isn't necessary for them to fill in lot number, or block number or addition at all is it because that is the obligation of the Clerk to check this." The City Attorney replied, "This is correct. The only reason we ask for this isit is probably of some assistance to the City but as far as I am concerned,and I think my interpretation would be that anybody signs a protest petition and has his signature acknowledged that it would apply to all land that he owns within the protest area regardless of whether he put it on here or not." Commissioner Weisgerber said, "So the errors that have been made in this particular petition in that regard would not be a cause for voiding the petition." The City Attorney replied, "No, absolutely not." Commissioner Cooper said, "Only because it was not notarized." The City Attorney replied, "This is correct, and whereas this probably does not constitute a legal protest;.however you may give it any weight you want to as a Commission; however it does come down to this that it makes a difference between a 3 to 2 vote or a 4 to 1 vote to pass it." Commissioner Losik said, "Now Larry, then are you saying that this petition was checked?" The City Attorney replied, "Yes." Commissioner Losik said, 11And that it was. Now this is the point and let's go back to that original deal even though maybe we do not have a legal obligation to inform these people if we knew this petition then was worthless, is what it actually is, in this form because it wasn't acknowledged, then why, as we as a City even bother to go ahead and check the signatures. This is the thing that bugs me. The spirit and intent of what was attempted here by the citizens of this community is being thrown aside because of a mere technicality, and I think somewhere along the way that somehow we might have advised these people that there is no use submitting it because unless it is a - been acknowledged or notarized there is no use of us even accepting it, and technically this is true, is it not?" The City Attorney said, "This is true." 233 Commissioner Losik said, "So what we are saying here then, is because of a quirk of the law we have a bunch of citizens who normally would have a valid petition are just hung up. Someplace I think we are derelict." The City Attorney said, "Well, as I said, you may give this petition any weight you wish other than you cannot consider it a legal protest." Mayor Usher said, "We have 2 alternatives, either pass it for second reading and have it become valid or return it to the City Planning Commission for reconsideration." The City Attorney added, "If you disagree with their findings." Mayor Usher said, "So I think the Commission has those two alternatives " Commissioner Losik asked, "If it goes on a 3 to 2 vote, do they have any recourse?" The City Attorney said, "If this would be passed 3 to 2, from what I have indicated to you it would be my opinion that the property has been rezoned, certainly the protestors in the area have the right to challenge this ordinance in the District Court, and if they do prove to the court that my opinion as to the validity of this protest is wrong the property would not have been rezoned. Now then, if my opinion would be the other way and you would vote 3 - 2 to rezone it and my opinion was that this was a valid protest, certainly the petitioner would have the same recourse in District Court to challenge it that it is a valid protest. If the vote was 3 to 1, if it is 4 to 1, or 5 to 0 it is a mute questio whether it is a valid protest petition or not." Commissioner Losik moved that this petition be denied being placed on second reading. Mayor Usher said, "What you want to do is make a motion to send it back to the ..." Commissioner Cooper said, "No." Commissioner Losik said, "Just deny placing it on for second reading." Mayor Usher said, "You have to refer it back, why don't you move that we refer it back?" Commissioner Cooper said, "Yes, but we have to have a reason again for doing it; and when it comes back around then we are going to be faced with the same thing." The City Attorney said, "This is the first time you are acting on it, and the State Law says if you are going to disagree with the Planning Commission' recommendation you cannot disagree without sending it back for reconsideration, and so I suppose probably what your action would be, if you are inclined to do it to see if the ordinance passes, if not then you would send it back, because then you are disagreeing with their recommendation." Mr. Douglas G. Hill, the petitioner, said, "I have Ken Wasserman with me who is our attorney and will take our part as far as the legal end of the discussion; but I think in the discussion so far that the one element that has been missing is the validity of the petition for the reason for the rezoning petition in the first place, in other words the merits of whether or not the highest and best use of that land is what it is presently zoned for or what the petition asked that it be rezoned to, and I think that I would like to observe that with respect to the merits of the petition the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Commission rezone the land it seems to me that the utliziation of that land, if it is ever destined to be utilized, cannot be for single family residences. If you gentlemen and Mrs. Cooper have gone by the land you will know that it is less than platted depth and would be very difficult for any builder to build into an attractive neighborhood with single family residences so the entire impelling reason for a rezoning petition was to unify the 6 lots, especially, so that land planning and structure planning could be accomplished with a unified piece of land, and the other reason for the reques initially is that the use to which the petition would put this land already exist in that area in a number of instances, and it certainly wasn't my intent to alienate some of my good friends who are I am sure on the opposite side nor was 234 it my intent to propel) the Commission into a sticky legal question but I did observe that the merit of the petition was not being discussed and I think this might be a proper area for discussion as to whether or not the real heart of this matter is the use of that land in a manner that will create an attractive neighbo - hood. I wanted to make that observation. I would like to introduce Ken Was serma , if he has any comments on the legality of our petition." Mr. Wasserman said, "Gentlemen and Mrs. Cooper I really don't have anything at all further to add to what Mr. Bengtson has already brought up. He and I have discussed this in the last couple of days and both of us have done a considerable amount of research on the situation and other than to say that the research that I have done basically concurs with what Mr. Bengtson has said here. I have nothing further to add." Mayor Usher asked if anyone else wanted to make a comment. Dr. D. Wayne Montgomery asked if this is open to debate from both sides" Mayor Usher said, "We would be willing to listen if you have something new." Dr. Montgomery said, 11Something new? I don't know what would be new to you. You mean new since this meeting started?" Mayor Usher said, "No, we have had copies of the minutes of the City Planning Commission so we know pretty well what transpired during that Commission meeting." Dr. Montgomery said, "Well, if I limit this only to the legality of this petition then I would ask 2 questions, one which Commissioner Losik has already asked and I think it has been unfair to those who are 'natives' of the area that they were not apprised of this illegality of that petition; and secondly especially if it was under advisement by the attorney for the petitioner for the change in zoning plus the attorney for the City and if this was being discussed between them and this was known in their confidence of why whoever was responsible for heading up the petition in that area was not apprised of this. I think it is a bad state in regards to public relations." Mayor Usher commented, "It is a very unfortunate mistake." Mr. Wasserman said, "I have a comment with respect to that. This mistake was not even discovered until last Friday." Mayor Usher said, "Which is after the 15 days." Mr. Wasserman said, "As of last Friday, we could not have done a single thing about it." Mayor Usher said, "So we have to keep that in mind too." Commissioner Weisgerber asked, "Mr. Montgomery are you the gentleman that is building houses? You don't live there, but you are building houses there am I correct in this?" Dr. Montgomery replied, "Correct sir. If we were speaking to the issues in total, I would be speaking not as a resident but as a land owner who is building two speculative houses plus some other issued respective to Mr. Hill and the Planning Commission." Commissioner Weisgerber said, "Well, looking that area over you have got apartment houses behind you, to the north of you, the labor temple behind you, Shalimar Rest Home to the south of you, the area in general is not all residential by any means." 235 Commissioner Weisgerber asked, "Why do you feel that a residential - that an apartment would necessarily hurt the value of the other residential area, maybe your houses might sell better actually." Dr. Montgomery said, "Well, I will give you - I would give you some illustrations. I have spoken to the City Commission, Planning Commission that two people have seen the rezoning notice sign across the street that were interested in living in that area, when they inquired as to what that sign meant, immediately were finished. Just this last Friday there was a young lady wanting to buy the home through a local realtor in the area, she was making arrangements for the processing of loan and she stood and looked out the back patio door and she said the only thing I don't like about this place are those apartments over there, which are on the next street and would be supposedly residences built in between. I said well Ma'am in all honesty to you I have got to tell you that it has been tentatively approved by the Planning Commission for town houses to be across the street. She just was through with the deal totally at that time. Now I can supply her name and the realtor through whom she was working. It is just a fact that most people have a psychological image that they don't want to be located across the street from a multiple family dwelling if at all possible." The City Attorney said, "I did not rule that his petition was illegal, it may not be valid, but it is certainly not illegal. The second point, there was intimation that maybe there was come collusion between myself and the attorne for the petitioner. I would state this that Mr. Wasserman called me at approximately 2:30 Friday afternoon as a courtesy to me and saying we are questioning the validity of that petition and the reason why. He said you might want to research it, which certainly I think was a courtesy to me and to everyone else. I had to leave the office at that point for another appointment I had prior to being gone the rest of the afternoon. The City Manager had called me at 4:30 because he had received word of it, and I think in his memo to the Commissioners indicated to you that a legal problem had arisen and we didn't have time to research it. The City Manager called me, or I had a note to call him when I got home about a quarter to 5 and visited with him. After 2 this afternoon I again conferenced with the Attorney for the League of Municipalities, so there wasn't any time to get back with anyone else and advise them of our opinion at that time." Mr. Wasserman said, "Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a point there too, rather than collusion I think that probably we could have waited until tonight and just sprung this thing on someone, but we had a feeling it was a question, a legal question which ought to be resolved, and just not having come to the attention any sooner, I thought the most ethical method of conduct to follow woul be to advise everyone that we had a problem." Dr. Montgomery said, "Sir, that is exactly the problem to which we address ourselves. Of course, Mr. Hill and his attorney would argue the case that the precedent has been set, and I would question the precedent always being the rule of thumb by which other development is to take place. Presently the development that is taking place in that area is single family residential homes, 6 of them, in fact, have been built or are in the process of being built on Mission Road and turning south there are 2 basements that were excavated today in preparation for 2 more homes, so therefore it would seem to me that an area that has been sluggish that has been developed in many other capacities other than residential is being resurrected for single family living and there are thos people who are present tonight who have bought homes within the past month in tha area on the basis that it would be a neighborhood development and that all of the other development was bounded by the Ohio Street over to the one street the Midwest Carpets, and that Presley's development came in as a whole development plan for an entire area, and not spot zoning or taking one segmented area and rezoning it for the purpose of apartment houses; so you see the ressurection of the area is toward residential family, single family." Commissioner Weisgerber asked, "Why do you feel that a residential - that an apartment would necessarily hurt the value of the other residential area, maybe your houses might sell better actually." Dr. Montgomery said, "Well, I will give you - I would give you some illustrations. I have spoken to the City Commission, Planning Commission that two people have seen the rezoning notice sign across the street that were interested in living in that area, when they inquired as to what that sign meant, immediately were finished. Just this last Friday there was a young lady wanting to buy the home through a local realtor in the area, she was making arrangements for the processing of loan and she stood and looked out the back patio door and she said the only thing I don't like about this place are those apartments over there, which are on the next street and would be supposedly residences built in between. I said well Ma'am in all honesty to you I have got to tell you that it has been tentatively approved by the Planning Commission for town houses to be across the street. She just was through with the deal totally at that time. Now I can supply her name and the realtor through whom she was working. It is just a fact that most people have a psychological image that they don't want to be located across the street from a multiple family dwelling if at all possible." The City Attorney said, "I did not rule that his petition was illegal, it may not be valid, but it is certainly not illegal. The second point, there was intimation that maybe there was come collusion between myself and the attorne for the petitioner. I would state this that Mr. Wasserman called me at approximately 2:30 Friday afternoon as a courtesy to me and saying we are questioning the validity of that petition and the reason why. He said you might want to research it, which certainly I think was a courtesy to me and to everyone else. I had to leave the office at that point for another appointment I had prior to being gone the rest of the afternoon. The City Manager had called me at 4:30 because he had received word of it, and I think in his memo to the Commissioners indicated to you that a legal problem had arisen and we didn't have time to research it. The City Manager called me, or I had a note to call him when I got home about a quarter to 5 and visited with him. After 2 this afternoon I again conferenced with the Attorney for the League of Municipalities, so there wasn't any time to get back with anyone else and advise them of our opinion at that time." Mr. Wasserman said, "Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a point there too, rather than collusion I think that probably we could have waited until tonight and just sprung this thing on someone, but we had a feeling it was a question, a legal question which ought to be resolved, and just not having come to the attention any sooner, I thought the most ethical method of conduct to follow woul be to advise everyone that we had a problem." 236 Mr. Hill said, "Mr. Mayor could I make a quick summary? I will make it very brief. I think one important point and perhaps it could be included for these folks here in opposition, I am aware that the density of the petition if approved, would be for a far greater number of units than our company had proposed to put on that land. We think that the total planned area could support perhaps 15 to 25 dwelling units, multiple units, with adequate parking, and that is considerably less than could be put there under the City's density requirement I think that the idea is to give parking and a green belt area on the narrower portion of the lots. A greater number of people make a difference of high density development, which we certainly do not have in mind, and informally agree with the City Planner that we would not exceed that number, so I think perhaps that is an important consideration." Mayor Usher asked if there are any more comments before they try to resolve this: An unidentified resident commented, "I live in the area there also, and there are two different things, two things that I would like to bring up. One is the drainage in the area. I have some photos showing how close it came to my garage door last year, and any further restructions in that area out there is going to bring it up inside the garage next time. Another thing is when these trees along this river bank are pulled out and pilings driven into this river then this is going to restrict the flow of this river. It is going to take away the beauty of these trees because they would be destroyed. I would rather have some good green trees there than all those buildings." Mayor Usher commented, "Well as far as driving any pilings or piles in the river, he would have to conform with a building permit, and depending on what the situation is, why he would have to, you know, if he is going to restrict the flow of the river I don't suppose they are going to issue a building permit. He is going to have to disclose before he gets his permit exactly what he is going to build and how he is going to build it, as far as that channel goes." Commissioner Weisgerber commented, "I don't mean to borrow trouble for Mr. Hill, but I think there is a possibility there may be with that whole area in the river and all in that bend may be considered ponding area. There may be some restrictions that may cause some problems so far as touching the river is concerned. I am not certain of this but they ought to research again on that.' Commissioner Losik said, "I'd move we refer it to Planning for their review of the traffic flow, the drainage problem and the flooding. I think that is a valid reason to return it." Mayor Usher said, "Okay, we have had a motion to return to City Plannin for reconsideration, 3 items, traffic, ponding, flooding, is there a second to the motion?" Commissioner Caldwell asked, "Is there anything about the petition? Should they consider the petition?" Commissioner Los ik replied, "There isn't much we can do legally, Bob, because that is - it is one of those unfortunate legal technicalities where some people just got left out in the cold on it." Commissioner Cooper said, "I think they did and rules require that the Commission, if they are not going to go with the recommendation that it has to be returned back to Planning before we reach a conclusion on it. I think this is just another example though where they have deviated from the guidelines, because the guidelines suggest single family dwellings, so the petitioner is seeking to do something other than that, or he wouldn't seek the zoning change, and apparently most of the people in the area are in opposition to it. The multi -family dwelling that are presently there are there through the consent of the people who are in the area because it was originally zoned in this manner for this purpose, but I'll second your motion that this go back to planning." 237 Mayor Usher called for a vote on the motion to return the petition to Planning. Ayes: Caldwell, Cooper, Losik. (3) Nays: Weisgerber, Usher (2) Commissioner Weisgerber commented, "I am opposed because I think we just as well settle it tonight. I think it will come back from Planning just the way it is, and I think we just as well have made our decision this evening." Commissioner Cooper said, "Well, I am willing to make it this evening, but I was thinking ..." Mayor Usher said, "The motion was carried 3 to 2. 1 am going to vote with Jack, because I know exactly what is going to happen. We get the same problem two weeks from now; but that is the majority vote of the Commission. It will go back to Planning for reconsideration and you people have another opportunity if you have some new information to discuss it with the City Planning to see if you can convince them differently." Commissioner Losik said, "And they have time to seek legal advice regarding this petition to what they can do with it too." Commissioner Caldwell - I don't want to continue talking about the ordinance, but I would like to say one or two things about it. I realize we are going against what our attorney has informed us about, but my only reason for voting that to go back is to give ample time, and if this doesn't prove out right, then I will vote another way." AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE prohibiting discrimination in employment by any employer, labor organization, employment agency or school; establishing procedure by which the intent of the ordinance shall be implemented." A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to adopt the ordinance as read and the followin vote was had: Ayes: Caldwell, Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber, Usher (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is numbered 8364. The ordinanc was introduced for first reading August 19, 1974. A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending the approval of the final plat of Blocks 2 and 3, Northeast Industrial Park Addition, as requested by the Salina Urban Renewal Agency in Petition Number 3414-C. A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to accept the recommendation of the City Planning Commission to approve the final plat and authorize the Mayor to sign. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. 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) requested by Ben J. Frick in Petition Number 3428. (Petition was referred back to the City Planning Commission on June 24, 1974 for reconsideration) A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to accept the recommendation of the City Planning Commission and deny the petition for rezoning Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending the approval of the rezoning of a tract of land in the Southeast Quarter (SE0 of Section 35-13-3 from District "A" (Second Dwelling House District) to District "F" (Light Industrial District), subject to planning and subject to flood plain review requirements, as requested by M. R. Windham, Robert Sexton, John Wilborn, C. E. Hill, and Russell J. Fraser, d/b/a Diamond Investment Company in Petition Number 3439. A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to accept the recommendation of the City Planning Commission and approve the rezoning, subject to platting and flood plain review requirements, and to introduce the rezoning ordinance for first reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. Ordinance Passed: Number: 238 A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending the approval of the rezoning of the South half of Lot 6, on Fifth Street, Holland's Addition from District "C" (Apartment District) to District "D" (Local Business District), as requested by Frank C. Norton in Petition Number 3440. A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Losik to accept the recommendation of the City Planning Commission and approve the rezoning, and to introduce the rezoning 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 final plat of Twin Oaks Subdivision, as requested by Lee Haworth Construction Company, Inc., in Petition Number 3366. A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to accept the recommendation of the City Planning Commission and approve the final plat, and authorize the Mayor to sign. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending that the east -west numbering system presently being used on the existing Bret Avenue in the Replat of Bonnie Ridge Addition be changed to a north -south numbering system in order to maintain clear and uniform addressing along the Avenue. A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to accept the recommendation of the City Planning Commission. Ayes: (5) Nays: (0). Motion carried. COMMISSIONER COPPER asked the City Engineer what method is used to determine what streets will receive the asphalt overlay and what streets will receive the slurry seal? The City Engineer replied, "We are putting the overlay on those streets which were constructed to light type construction. At one time they allowed rock base and a 2" hot mix matte over it as a residential street. This was quite some years back. This is a street that will break up. It is inferior to our normal residential streets and some of them have started to go bad with this type of construction. Now if we wait until it goes bad, we will not be faced with an overlay, we will be faced with tearing down and completely rebuilding. What we are trying to do is get some added strength into it before it goes bad." A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to set the date of September 9, 1974 to receive bids for slurry seal and machine laid asphalt on certain streets, and to instruct the City Clerk to advertise for bids. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A REPORT was received from the City Engineer on Petition Number 3445 which was filed by James D. Nelson for Parklawn Carpets for the construction of recessed parking at 1805 South Ohio. The City Engineer reported this building is served by a frontage road in Parkwood Village Addition and does not abut Ohio Street right-of-way. "We would not object to recessed parking along this frontag service road, providing the vehicles are on private property and providing no vehicles are parked within the clear sight zone." A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to accept the City Engineer's recommendation and approve recessed parking for 1805 South Ohio. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A RESOLUTION was introduced and passed entitled: "AN ORDINANCE approvin an agreement between the City of Salina, Kansas, and the United States Government relating to Fire Protection for the Schilling Manor Sub -post." Commissioner Cooper asked if the rates had increased. Mr. Olson replied, "From 55,200 to $62,400." A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Weisgerber to adopt the Resolution as read and the following vote was had: Ayes: Caldwell, Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber, Usher (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved the Resolution and it is numbered 3199. None COMMISSION AGENDA PUBLIC AGENDA 239 A LETTER was received from R. H. Zimmerman, President of the First State Bank and Trust Company stating, "First State Bank and Trust Company has purchased Lot 148 formerly Quinley Dry Cleaning Shop on South Fifth Street. We have removed the building and before we run the concrete and curbing for parking, would like to enter into an agreement with the City to trade for Lot 154. If the City is agreeable to trade, please furnish our contractor with survey and specifications to meet your city requirements and we will complete the lot for city parking and place the meter posts with the city furnishing said posts. "We are not asking the City to be out any expense other than moving and setting the meters." A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Losik to approve the request and instruct the City Attorney to draw an agreement for the exchange. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE License Application was filed by Lenore Garcia, d/b/a EI Rancho Restaurant, 601 North Broadway. (Transfer of location only from 1601 North Ninth Street) The City Clerk reported the application has been approved by the Zoning Officer, and the applicant requests approval of the transfer of license subject to the final approval of the Health Department. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to approve the transfer of location on the cereal malt beverage license subject to the final approval of the Health Department. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A MOTION was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. JI _PLG D. L. Ha`r son, City Clerk City of Salina, Kansas Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners September 2, 1974 There was no meeting today because a quorum was not present - Legal Holiday - Labor Day. D. L. Harrison, City Clerk PETITION NUMBER 3447 was streets, sanitary sewer, water and filed by Doyle E. Yockers for storm drainage to serve Lots improvements of 30, 31, 32, Block 32; Lots 7 through 13, Block 34; Lot 1 and Lots 12 through 22, Block 35; Lots 1 through 25, Block 36; Lots 1 through 14, Block 37; Lots 2 through 11, Block 38, Key Acres Second Addition. A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Losik to refer the petition to the City Engineer for a report. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A LETTER was received from R. H. Zimmerman, President of the First State Bank and Trust Company stating, "First State Bank and Trust Company has purchased Lot 148 formerly Quinley Dry Cleaning Shop on South Fifth Street. We have removed the building and before we run the concrete and curbing for parking, would like to enter into an agreement with the City to trade for Lot 154. If the City is agreeable to trade, please furnish our contractor with survey and specifications to meet your city requirements and we will complete the lot for city parking and place the meter posts with the city furnishing said posts. "We are not asking the City to be out any expense other than moving and setting the meters." A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Losik to approve the request and instruct the City Attorney to draw an agreement for the exchange. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE License Application was filed by Lenore Garcia, d/b/a EI Rancho Restaurant, 601 North Broadway. (Transfer of location only from 1601 North Ninth Street) The City Clerk reported the application has been approved by the Zoning Officer, and the applicant requests approval of the transfer of license subject to the final approval of the Health Department. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to approve the transfer of location on the cereal malt beverage license subject to the final approval of the Health Department. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. A MOTION was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. JI _PLG D. L. Ha`r son, City Clerk City of Salina, Kansas Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners September 2, 1974 There was no meeting today because a quorum was not present - Legal Holiday - Labor Day. D. L. Harrison, City Clerk