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