Loading...
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