09-09-1974 Minutes240
City of Salina, Kansas
Regular Meeting of the
Board of Commissioners
September 9, 1974
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the
Commissioners' Room, City -County Building, on Monday, September 9, 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 Los i k, 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
printed. The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 26, 1974 were approved as
THE MAYOR PROCLAIMED the week of September 17 through 23, 1974 -
"CONSTITUTION WEEK". The proclamation was read by Anna Lora Miller, Associate
Chairman of the Mary Wade Strother Chapter of the Daughters of the American
Revolution.
STAFF AGENDA
BIDS WERE RECEIVED for Engineering Project 74-579, for Slurry Seal
Street Improvements:
Ballou Construction Company, Inc. $34,048.00
Engineer's Estimate 34,970.00
BIDS WERE RECEIVED for Engineering Project 74-580, for Machine Laid
Seal Street improvements:
Brown and Brown, Inc. $64,422.00
George M. Myers, Inc., EI Dorado, Ks. 68,590.00
Engineer's Estimate 64,990.00
A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner
Losik to award the contract to Ballou Construction Company, Inc., as the low
bidder, in the amount of $34,048.00, for the Slurry Seal Street Improvements;
and to Brown and Brown, Inc., as the low bidder, in the amount of $64,422.00
for the Machine Laid Seal Street Improvements, providing the bids meet the
Engineer's specifications. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
2 4.1
AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE
ratifying and confirming a contract with R & D Construction Company for the
construction of certain improvements in the City of Salina, Kansas, and providing
for the issuance of temporary notes to pay the cost thereof, pending the issuance
and sale of bonds." (For sidewalk improvements in Engineering Project 74-573)
A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to
adopt the ordinance as read and the following vote was had: Ayes: Caldwell,
Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber, Usher (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved
the ordinance and it is numbered 8365. The ordinance was introduced for first
reading August 26, 1974.
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 certai
property within the City and prescribing the proper uses thereof." (Rezoning of
the South z of Lot 6, Fifth Street, Holland's Addition from District "C" (Apartme
District) to District "D" (Local Business District) as requested by Frank C.
Norton in Petition Number 3440.) 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 8366. The ordinanc
was introduced for first reading August 26, 1974.
A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission, "On
September 3, 1974 the Salina City Planning Commission reconsidered Petition
Number 3436 at your request and took into consideration the three factors include
in your motion of August 26, 1974.
"A motion was made and unanimously approved that the Planning Commissio
stand upon its previous recommendation to the City Commission. That previous
recommendation was for approval of Petition Number 3436."
Mayor Usher commented, "I don't really know where to start on this. I
see we have interested people in the audience, and it has always been the policy
of the Commissioners to let anyone who is interested in a particular item on the
agenda to speak to it. We would hope, while you are speaking on it that you try
and confine it to something reasonably new. Is there anyone that wants to make
any statement right now, or comment?"
Mrs. Holmquist, 2021 Mission Road, said, "I am Mrs. Holmquist and
Mr. Hill appointed me as spokeschairman for the group, and so I am speaking on
their behalf. If Mr. Hill's petition is granted, it would appear that the City
of Salina would be part of promoting the devaluation of property in and near the
Shalimar Addition. Is it the intent of the City of Salina to put the burden of
proof on us that our property values will not depreciate if rezoning is approved?
If Mr. Hill's proposed project is as desirable as he plans why did he find it
necessary to obtain the services of an attorney to convince the City Planning
Commission and the City Commission? Is the City of Salina bent on serving the
needs of the residents of the area involved or to serve the desires of a profit
minded developer? Why does it take mass demonstrations and expensive legal couns
to protect our property? Mr. Hill announced for the benefit of the planning
board and the news media that he had sent a letter to me offering to sell the
lots for a reasonable sum. Now I consider this tactical maneuver to border on
blackmail since he stated that the lots must never be used for anything but
donated to the City for a park. First of all, I have received a letter from
Mr. Hill, I was able to pick it up at the post office just this morning. The
neighborhood will be shocked to learn that the price Mr. Hill is willing to sell
the lots for is $14,175.00, a profit to Mr. Hill of nearly $10,000.00. We have
no duty to buy the land if it is not rezoned or otherwise. The letter is arrogan
stating that the lots would cost the property owners nothing since our anticipate
increase in property value due to the influence of the park would off -set the
pro rata share of the cost of the proposed land. We have never said the park
would increase our property values, but it would not devalue the land as his
proposed town houses would. Secondly, the area is primarily made up of young
couples with families to support and large house payments to make. Was it
242
Mr. Hill's intent to influence the Planning Commission? Perhaps more to the poin
may I suggest the City might acquire the land from Mr. Hill for his cost and put
in a park. You see for any individual to purchase the lots and establish a park
area, he takes on a terrible responsibility in regard to the safety of those
using the playground equipment, plus the danger of the river. I would like to
point out at this time that there is a need for recreational facilities in South
Salina, and this need would only be increased if apartments were put there. The
entire decision leads to the question of whether the rights of one land owner
superceeds the rights of many individual land and home owners. We don't want
more multiple dwelling in the area. Isn't it enough for you to know that it is
our homes and property and our way of living that will be adversely effected by
Mr. Hill's proposed townhouses, and can it in any way convey to you the feeling
of desperation that we are feeling? I repeat, why should people have to form
mass demonstrations and hire expensive legal counsel to protect their property
values. We know that had we bid on the land at public auction, Mr. Hill could
have out bid us. Had we attended the first planning board meeting he would have
won the decision anyway because he had the legal knowledge to have his way. We
know the Planning Commission ruled in favor of Mr. Hill's petition, but the
final decision does rest with this governing body. Has the City for many years
honored illegal petitions and now finds our petition unacceptable? Isn't this
discriminatory? It is legal technicalities that brings to mind that it is this
type of legal technicalities that force the court to turn dangerous criminals
loose every day. Historically the City Commission has recognized petitions as
being legal with the signatures not being notarized and we believe that the City
can elect to recognize our petition as a valid one."
Douglas G. Hill commented, "Gentlemen of the Commission and Mrs. Cooper
I think the only new information that I could bring out is that I did make the
offer in a letter to Mrs. Holmquist as the chairperson of the group, but I would
observe that the total number of the protestors based on those who signed the
petition represents a relatively small percentage of the total owners in the
Shalimar Sub -division lying East of Ohio. If my calculations are correct I
believe there are 108 lots in that Sub -division lying East of Ohio, excluding
the subject land. There are 85 which are zoned A, B, and C. There are 74 zoned
A, and I find 19 families actively protesting as evidenced by the petition so
that that is a percentage of between 25 and 26% of the land zoned A. A much
lesser percentage of the total lots, and I think that is the only meaningful
statistic I have at this time."
Mayor Usher asked if there are any other comments?
There was no response.
Mayor Usher asked if there are any comments from the Commission?
There was no response.
Mr. Norman Johnson, 2055 Corsaut Court, said, "I would like to find
out just what recourse we have to get these restrictions in the area. Do we
have to take it to court? Or could we come to you with these restrictions? For
instance this area is for single family dwellings, and also not more than one and
one half stories high in any of the buildings, and also no more than two car
garage per family. I don't know whether this comes into it or not, but I hope
it does."
Mayor Usher commented, "Of course that is the purpose of the request
for the change in the zone. I guess we are back to an ordinance for second
reading and we are right back where we were two weeks ago. Does anyone of the
Commissioners care to make a comment or motion?"
Commissioner Weisgerber said, "I am afraid I won't be very popular
with the group out here, but I feel that a great deal of carefully checking this
out is up to the Planning Commission. If they had a small group there with a
split vote it would be one thing, but with a 7 - 0 vote, so far as I am
concerned I feel, I sympothize with the people here, I feel that I should follow
the Planning Commission, so we willsee how it comes out, so I move we adopt
243
an ordinance 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 prescribin
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 by Douglas G. Hill
in Petition Number 3436.)
Commissioner Caldwell, said, "I am going to second the motion, with
the intention that Mr. Johnson mentioned, that if they feel like the decision
of the Commission isn't right, it could be taken to court."
Mayor Usher called for a vote on the motion to adopt the ordinance as
read: Ayes: Caldwell, Weisgerber, Usher (3). Nays: Cooper, Losik (2). Carried.
The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is numbered 8267. The ordinance was
introduced for first reading August 12, 1974.
Commissioner Cooper commented, "I would like to explain, if I may, why
I voted the way I voted. Had all the parties concerned with this petition had
access to the same information it is possible the outcome may have been different
Because they did not and because the changes in the rules was brought to our
attention, after anyone could do anything about it, I think it is unfair. The
only way that you can seek zoning changes and have people entitled to their views
being known as well as when everyone starts off on an equal footing, where they
know what the ground rules are, and I believe in the future the city is
responsible because I think the results of this zoning petition is certainly a
city responsibility. We were the ones that reached the conclusion. So in the
future I think the City is responsible to see that petition forms are provided
to people that are proper, in other words, if they have to be notarized there
should be a line on that petition someplace that says they have to be notarized.
I think we are at fault, and because I do believe that parties concerned - all
parties concerned with any issue should be entitled to the same information, and
the same opportunities is the reason I could not support the petition change."
Mr. Douglas Hill said, "Mr. Mayor, Gentlemen of the Commission and
particularly Mrs. Cooper. I feel compelled to respond there because unquestionab y
what you have said has a great deal of wisdom for all of us. I would like to
again point out that had either myself or Mr. Wasserman had this information
prior to the time we did have it, that we would have immediately called it to the
attention of the proper authorities in the city administration and that would
have been without regard to the impact on this petition or any other we might
have had; but we learned of this on that particular Friday afternoon and we did
take action to notify those city people in whose area of responsibility it did
lie, so I am anxious that it be general knowledge that we did not attempt when
we learned of it to use it only to our advantage, and it just was coincidental
that the time period for the validity of the petition had by then passed. It
came about quite by chance that we learned of it and I hope that whatever other
good may come of this experience it may serve to be useful in future cases for
the petitioners and thereby be advised. Certainly had we known about it we
would have given them the benefit."
Commissioner Cooper replied, "Well, I was not trying to imply that this
was your responsibility, Mr. Hill. I feel that it is the City's responsibility
and since we represent the City, I think it is as much our responsibility as
anyone else's to notify people when they become involved in these things of the
procedures that are open to them, and we failed to do this, so for this
reason, like I said, I don't think on this particular zoning petition that it
would be fair, under these circumstances, to support your request, sir."
Mayor Usher said, "I could talk on this subject till dooms day and I
am sure a couple of other Commissioners could too, but it would add nothing to
what has just transpired, as far as I am concerned the legislation requiring the
notarization of a petitioner is lousy legislation in my mind. The Constitution
was founded on the fact that you have the right to petition your Government, and
I think it is our responsibility now, if we don't like that legislation to do
something about it, and perhaps something will come from it. I don't know how
long that has been on the books, but I think this city has been operating on the
premise that the citizens have the right to petition their government, whatever
the case may be, unfortunately we missed one part of the law."
�'l 4
A LETTER was received from the City Planning Commission recommending
the approval of the Jeffway Redevelopment Plan in the Northeast Industrial Park.
A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconded by Commissioner Losik, to
accept the recommendation of the City Planning Commission and approve the
redevelopment plan for Jeffway. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A RESOLUTION was introduced and passed entitled: "A RESOLUTION
determining the advisability of sanitary sewer improvements, estimating the cost
thereof, defining the boundaries of the improvement district, method of assessmen
and apportioning the cost between the improvement district and the City -at -large.'
(Engineering Project 74-576 for APCO and National Bank of America). 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 (4). Nays: (0). Mayor Usher abstained. Carried. The Mayor
approved the Resolution and it is numbered 3200.
THE COMMISSIONERS considered an agreement with the UPRR Company for a
drainage ditch and flood control levee on the right-of-way of the railroad
company's Plainville Branch near Salina. (UPRR C.D.# 43132-7 located where the
railroad track crosses Mulberry Creek west of Thomas Park.)
A RESOLUTION was introduced and passed entitled: "WHEREAS, UNION PACIFI
RAILROAD COMPANY has tendered to City of Salina, State of Kansas, an agreement
extending to and including October 19, 1979, the term of contract dated
October 20, 1959, covering a drainage ditch and a flood control levee on right -of
way of the Railroad Company's Plainville Branch, near Salina, Kansas, said
agreement being identified as Railroad Company's C.D. No. 43132-7-C" A motion
was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to adopt the
Resolution as read and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Ayes: Caldwell
Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber, Usher (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved
the Resolution and it is numbered 3201.
THE COMMISSIONERS considered an agreement with the First State Bank and
Trust Company for the exchange of Lots 154 and 148 on Fifth Street, Original
Townsite.
A RESOLUTION was introduced and passed entitled: "A RESOLUTION approvin
an agreement with the First State Bank and Trust Company for the exchange of
certain real estate." A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by
Commissioner Cooper to adopt the Resolution as read and authorize the Mayor to
sign the agreement. Ayes: Caldwell, Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber, Usher (5). Nays:
(0). Carried. The Mayor approved the Resolution and it is numbered 3202.
THE CITY ENGINEER filed a feasibility report for street and utility
improvements in Country Club Estates Addition Number 2. (Engineering Project
74-575 - requested by Presley Builders, in Petition Number 3429). A motion was
made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to accept the
feasibility report as filed by the City Engineer. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion
carried.
None
COMMISSION AGENDA
PUBLIC AGENDA
PETITION NUMBER 3448 was filed by L. F. Eaton for the vacation of the
utility easement running east and west between Lots 13 and 14, Block 3, Westport
Exchange Addition. A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by
Commissioner Weisgerber to refer the petition to the City Engineer for a
recommendation. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
PETITION NUMBER 3449 was filed by Michael J. Maloney and Victor D. Goeri ig
for the rezoning of a tract of land in the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 35, Township 13 South, Range 3 West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian from District "A" (Second Dwelling House District) to District "D"
(Local Business District). A motion was made by Commissioner Weisgerber, seconde
by Commissioner Losik to refer the petition to the City Planning Commission.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
245
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner
Weisgerber that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
1�
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
1