Loading...
07-27-2020 Minutes CITY OF SALINA,KANSAS REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS July 27,2020 4:00 p.m. N The City Commission convened at 3:45 p.m. for Citizens Forum at City-County Building, Room 107. Mayor Hoppock asked the Clerk for verification that notice had been sent for today's City Commission meeting. The Clerk replied yes. The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners was called to order at 4:00 p.m. in Room 107, City-County Building. Roll call was taken followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Those present and comprising a quorum: Mayor Michael L. Hoppock (presiding), Commissioners Trent W. Davis, M.D., Rod Franz, Melissa Rose Hodges, and Karl Ryan. Also present: Michael Schrage, City Manager; Greg Bengtson, City Attorney; and Cheryl Mermis, Deputy City Clerk. AWARDS AND PROCLAMATIONS (3.1) A proclamation honoring the life and legacy of John R. Lewis. Sandy Beverly read the proclamation. Mayor Hoppock asked if there were any events planned. Ms. Beverly stated not at this time. CITIZENS FORUM Joan Ratzlaff, Salina, stated her thoughts on board members and the citizen volunteer's mandatory attendance at ethics training and familiarization of the City's Board Member Training Manual. Mayor Hoppock state that staff will look in to those protocols. Jacqueline Cairo, Salina, made a request for the removal of the M60 Army Tank from the front of the Memorial Hall property. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR A CERTAIN TIME None. CONSENT AGENDA (6.1) Approve the minutes of July 20,2020. 20-0235 Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to approve the consent agenda as presented. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. ADMINISTRATION Mayor Hoppock made a suggestion to rearrange agenda items as follows; move 7.5 to follow 7.3 and move 7.4 down. (7.1) Second reading Ordinance No. 20-11024 amending Chapter 35 of the City Code by adding a new Article XIV to Chapter 35, establishing standards for the construction, maintenance and modification of small cell wireless facilities in the public right-of- way and repealing Section 42-70 of the Salina Code. Page 1 Mayor Hoppock noted that Ordinance No. 20-11024 was passed on first reading on July 20, 2020 and since that time no comments have been received. Michael Schrage, City Manager, explained the two modifications made to the ordinance after first reading. W Commission Hodges asked if they had previously discussed the reduction in photo simulations. Mr. Schrage referenced Section 35-296 of the ordinance discussing the initial request of one photo simulation but additional photo simulations may be requested by the City Manager or their designee. Commissioner Hodges stated that she would request that staff make those requests for additional photo simulations from a company that wanted to install wireless equipment in our community so staff was able to see the potential impact. A conversation ensued between the City Commission and City Manager regarding the number of photo simulations to require. Commissioner Davis questioned if the locations were advertised similar to a zoning change. Mr. Schrage stated he did not believe that occurred and the State and Federal level have taken away authority on the part of municipalities. Commissioner Franz stated that his recollection was that due to the timetable imposed by the State and FCC there wasn't enough time available. Commissioner Hodges asked what the process was when a company wished to install equipment. Mr. Schrage stated that in part that was why placement was on property lines but understandably that was an issue. A conversation ensued between the City Commission regarding the placement of equipment. Dean Andrew, Director of Planning, stated the equipment placement was largely driven by staff review and that local discretion was limited to objective criteria and not things that were subjective. He continued to state the ordinance revisions were intended to have as much objective criteria in there as possible. He further stated that because of the compressed timelines there was no opportunity for a public notice. Commissioner Ryan asked if the property owner received notification prior to placement. Mr. Andrew replied that the public needed to be educated on the public right of way. He continued to state this was the reason we were recommending an appeal of Section 42-70 of the zoning code was because if we tried to utilize,it would likely be legally challenged. Commissioner Hodges asked if there was anything in Federal guidelines or State law that would prohibit staff from obtaining additional photo simulations. Mr. Andrew stated there was nothing preventing staff from requiring three photos but the compromise was that there would be a single photo required and if staff felt it was necessary to request additional photos they would do that. Commissioner Davis asked if staff would go out and look at each site before a final decision was made. Mr. Andrew stated that Google Earth had been used in the past. Commissioner Franz asked if a site drawing was provided to staff. Mr. Andrew replied yes and that the photo simulation included the superimposed equipment. A conversation ensued between the City Commission and Mr. Andrew regarding the number of photos required and additional views being requested. Commissioner Davis asked how often Google Earth was updated. Mr. Andrew stated every Page 2 three years and he believed they were last updated in 2017. There was also a recent flyover with all photos up to date as of 2020. Mayor Hoppock stated he was okay with the changes made and that no matter the number of photos requested, additional sources may be needed and that staff had the ability to approve with conditions or deny the application. Mr. Andrew stated that some of the providers have been frustrated with various local requirements and their solution had been to lobby the FCC or go to state legislators to remove the barriers to implement deployment. Commissioner Davis asked if staff felt comfortable that they were adequately protected. Mr. Andrew stated that they were not happy with height restrictions they preferred 50 foot height. Mr. Schrage responded that staff felt it was compliant but staff will have limited discretion and authority. He continued by stating that it had been deemed an essential service and had been persuasive at the Federal level. Mr. Andrew stated that the state legislature signed an agreement that prohibited cities from requiring franchise agreements from cellular providers; that mechanisms were taken away from communities. Mr. Andrew continued to state that staff was constrained with what they were able to do; staff took the time to review neighboring communities protocols, most had to rewrite their codes to make them less restrictive and remove public comment and notification. Mayor Hoppock wanted to know if the changes would have to be approved by anyone. Mr. Andrews replied no, the language was completely discretionary, the Governing Body set the minimum submittal requirements. 20-0236 Moved by Commissioner Hodges, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to adopt Ordinance No. 20- 11024 on second reading with amendments as follows: Section 35-296 (b) Photo Simulations. For additions to existing infrastructure the applicant shall submit a photo simulation from a reasonable line-of-sight location near the proposed small cell facility site. For new infrastructure installations, the applicant shall submit photo simulations from at least three reasonable line-of-sight locations near the proposed small cell facility site. All photo simulations must be taken from the viewpoint of nearby pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The angle of photo simulation separation must be at least 90 degrees or greater and provide a full profile depiction. For both existing and new infrastructure installations,the City Manager may request additional photo simulations from other line-of-sight locations if the City Manager determines that additional information about the conditions in the vicinity of the proposed small cell facility site is needed in order to evaluate an application. A roll call vote was taken. Aye: (4) Davis, Franz, Hodges, Hoppock. Nay: Ryan (1). Motion carried. (7.2) Authorize publication of the Notice of Budget Hearing for the 2021 budget which sets August 10th as the date of public hearing on the 2021 budget, and establishes the maximum limits of the 2021 budget. Tara Sauber, Deputy Director of Finance & Administration, explained the process, public hearing dates,mill levy and maximum limits of the 2021 budget. Commissioner Hodges stated it was her hope that Commissioner Franz's spreadsheet that depicts Salina's rank in terms of property taxes, sales taxes, and combined taxes makes it in the on-line packet and further commented that Commissioner Franz proposed an idea to reduce the health insurance fund balance to two million, the target balance. Page 3 Michael Schrage, City Manager stated that staff could conduct a review of historical month- to-month data; balances and claims history. He further stated that his intention between now and renewal time, staff could formalize an annual plan to assess renewal rates and project cost increases. Commissioner Hodges asked if that task could be completed before adoption of the budget or the public hearing occurs. Mr. Schrage stated that cost analysis will not happen before but the budget included an assumption of 4% increase, to allow for fee increases if rates crl would go up. 20-0ZZ37 Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Ryan, to authorize publication of the Notice of Budget Hearing for the 2021 budget which sets August 10th as the date of public hearing on the 2021 budget, and establishes the maximum limits of the 2021 budget. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. (7.3) Resolution No. 20-7851 declaring the East Crawford Recreation Area to be considered a qualified facility under the City of Salina Municipal Facilities Naming Guidelines with proceeds from the naming being dedicated to the refurbishment of Dean Evans Stadium. Chris Cotten, Director of Parks & Recreation, explained the naming guidelines, the request, fiscal impact and action options. Commissioner Davis wanted clarification. Mr. Cotten stated Baseball Enterprises' original intent was to seek multiple donors for the entire area but the focus is now just one facility- the Dean Evans Stadium within the East Crawford Recreational Complex. Commissioner Davis asked if the earlier consensus was for the entire area or limit the scope of financing. Michael Schrage, City Manager stated Baseball Enterprises [B.E.] reserved their ability to rename East Crawford Recreation Area as part of a revised project renaming policy and staff wanted to revisit the resolution for the Commissioners' awareness and provide details on the steps in the process. He continued to state the alteration in terms of the scope of the project and the fundraising effort was a change. He further stated there was never a dollar amount discussed in that earlier decision but it was important in their fundraising efforts and have since been able to report that $650,000.00 has been raised for the East Crawford name rather than a single facility. Commissioner Davis questioned whether it should be a separate step. Michael Schrage, City Manager confirmed there were more steps in the process. Commissioner Hodges stated her understanding as a naming initiative that encompasses all of the fields and proposed championship field, that this step linked it to having the one field renovation. Mayor Hoppock asked if naming rights were still available for the remaining fields. Mr. Schrage stated yes. Commissioner Franz questioned why the issue was presented again since the earlier consensus that East Crawford area was eligible for naming rights and noted that the project had taken a different form, we haven't said we weren't going to do the rest of the project. Commissioner Franz stated his understanding that the earlier agreement was not to rename the Dean Evan Stadium but the East Crawford Recreation Area. Byron Tomlins, representative Salina Baseball Enterprises [SBE] provided an overview on Page 4 the history of the East Crawford Recreational Complex, the naming of the individual stadiums,fundraising concept, the naming plan for SBE and the hope to honor Salinari s for their philanthropic or notable service to the community. Michael Schrage, City Manager stated the next item on the agenda was an agreement with Salina Athletic Partners to proceed with the project and was predicated on a large donation W that SBE had secured. Jacqueline Cairo,Salina,provided her comments about renaming rights of public property. Commissioner Hodges stated that there would be opportunity throughout the process for 751 public input. 20-0238 Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to adopt Resolution No. 20- 7851 declaring the East Crawford Recreation Area to be considered a qualified facility under the City of Salina Municipal Facilities Naming Guidelines with proceeds from the naming being dedicated to the refurbishment of Dean Evans Stadium. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. (7.5) Resolution No. 20-7855 authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with"Salina Athletic Partners" including Salina Baseball Enterprises, Inc; Unified School District No. 305 and Kansas Wesleyan University relating to Dean Evans Stadium. Michael Schrage, City Manager, explained the previous proposal, the agreement, fiscal impact and action options. A conversation ensued between the City Commission and Mr. Schrage regarding establishing a dedicated City fund, to accumulate funds for maintenance repair and replacing the turf surfaces at Dean Evans Stadium, and an agreement between "Salina Athletic Partners" and the City of Salina, with an annual matching contribution from the City. Commissioner Franz asked from where the City's $50,000.00 initial contribution originated from. Mr. Schrage stated that he expected it would come from the $500,000.00 Parks and Recreation allocation to deal with deferred maintenance. Commissioner Davis asked whether the graduated fee schedule applied to just Dean Evans Stadium or if it included the entire complex. Mr. Schrage stated the opportunity to reset fees comes from SBE donations they had raised and the creation of an advisory group. He continued to state a review of all fees could occur and incorporate a graduated fee schedule in return for the donations. Commissioner Davis asked if the agreement could be realized without the renaming agreement. Mr. Schrage stated that it was in SBE's interest of confirming the donation, the agreements would need to run together. Commissioner Davis asked what happened to the agreement if the naming process was not successful. Mr. Schrage stated SBE would have the opportunity to say that funds weren't available based on the preceding condition was not met, the agreement would not move forward,no penalty to SBE and the project would be unsuccessful. Commissioner Hodges asked what typical user fees that were generated from field rental were. Chris Cotten, Director of Parks & Recreation stated that they don't break the fees out between Bill Burke and East Crawford Recreational Area, user fees were around $130,000.00 a year. Page 5 Commissioner Hodges asked what Parks and Recreation staffs' role in setting user fees and oversight and approving fees with the new agreement. Mr. Cotton stated consultation with the advisory group will occur but final determination will be left to the City. Commissioner Hodges inquired about the management of proceeds received and if any part of those monies received could be applied to the City's annual$50,000.00 contribution. Mr. Schrage stated the agreement provided for the City to have considerable discretion on how to manage the revenue received, with the dedicated turf maintenance replacement fund,fee increases realized could be applied to the City's$50,000.00 contribution. Commissioner Hodges asked how much money was invested in the drainage project. Mr. Cotten stated he thought it was around$50,000.00. Commissioner Franz asked if in a hypothetical scenario, neither party doesn't contribute the initial$50,000.00,if the City would still be responsible for the annual contribution in the succeeding years. Mr. Schrage stated it was the presumption that each party would contribute $50,000.00 and provided for an annual contribution. He continued to state if the City failed to appropriate the funds for the initial $50,000.00, the SBE would be relieved of their obligation of the$50,000.00 contribution. Greg Bengtson, City Attorney stated that the agreements were timed together; SBE wanted assurance the City would be make the initial contribution with the expectation that SBE would make the initial contribution, if the City did not then SBE were relieved of their responsibility but there was anticipation that the agreement would go forward. Commissioner Franz wanted to suggest a change to language in the agreement: Section 4.5.3, sub item C; to say, 'An annual contribution of not to exceed $25,000.00 by the City, payable from transient guest tax proceeds,to match one-for-one with fee revenues from use of the facilities and private contributions, commencing on or before December 31, 2022 and each year after.' Commissioner Franz stated that the language would clarify a formal tie pertaining to the fee revenues and the funds that were committed, that it was part of the City's contribution along with whatever might come from private entities/individuals, to contribute to replacement of turf when it expires. He continued to state the idea was to preserve the sales tax proceeds, to continue to allocate the full $500,000.00 to park maintenance and to make it clear that the $50,000.00 includes fee revenues and any private contributions. Commissioner Hodges stated she liked that idea and asked if a review the transient gas tax structure would be required. Mr. Schrage stated that revenue was allocated by percentage, not a fixed dollar amount, between Visit Salina and two other marketing funds and if unable to amend an agreement with Chamber of Commerce, we would need to take that out of the City's share of the transit gas tax that goes to the Tony's Pizza Event Center. Mr. Schrage asked for clarification of the expectation on the total amount of the fees and private donations, on an annual basis then determine how much to be matched. Commissioner Franz stated yes, the idea would be the City would contribute up to $25,000.00 and if the fees came in at$25,000.00 there would be $50,000.00; if the fees came in at$10,000.00,there would be $20,000.00. Commissioner Davis stated the fields would need replacement whether those fees had been collected or not. Mr. Schrage stated that if payments were less on the front end, it was maintenance that is deferred. Commissioner Franz stated his concern that there was a commitment for the full $50,000.00 Page 6 every year without some formal tie to other fee income that should be included as part of the agreement; after 10 or 12 years, the bulk of the money should be there and then the governing body could decide how to proceed. Commissioner Davis asked about the $130,000.00 estimated to be received, if that would be a loss for the City operating those fields. Mr. Schrage stated that it wasn't known if it would break even or whether a profit would be realized. He continued to state the thought was if there was a new increment to be generated, it would be captured and earmarked to come off the top. Mayor Hoppock asked if there would be a mechanism in place when fees were increased, to identify those monies and place into a fund that could be transferred at the end of the year. Mr. Cotten stated that currently all fees for use of all athletic complexes goes to the general fund, a tracking mechanism could be established if that was needed but the facilities were part of the park system and part of that was the economic impact when people come to town, the City did not recover all expenses running the either facility. Mr. Schrage stated the easiest way to identify the baseline on the current fee structure and review what comes in; it was not just a function of the fee rental it may include increased rentals. Mr. Schrage stated that an increment of every single rental would be more difficult to track. Mr. Cotton stated that if fees were increased too much, the City would lose business, not necessarily from local groups but it could impact those groups from outside of Salina. Commissioner Franz stated it was his understanding the main use at Dean Evans Stadium is high school, college, and legion ball and that they have scheduling priority, paying a fee for using the faculty, further stating the concept, that the user fees for those groups would be increased to help cover the maintenance and replacement of the turf, recognizing the graduated rate schedule. Commissioner Hodges asked where Kansas Wesleyan fell with the priority group. Steve Wilson, Director of Athletics at Kansas Wesleyan University, stated that they have $125,000.00 marked for the baseball project. Mayor Hoppock stated it was his understanding that additional turf would be purchased to help replace the high usage areas of the pitcher's mound and batting boxes over the first 10- 12 year period. Kenny Hancock responded yes;the request for three replacement panels for first, second, and third base in addition to the first laying of turf; there would be six replacement panels for the batter's box, catcher's area, and pitcher's mound. Mayor Hoppock wanted clarification on the full replacement cost at the end of the 10-12 years. Mr. Hancock stated in the original estimate the replacement cost would be approximately 60% of the initial cost of the turf, currently budgeted is $975,000.00;factor in inflation ten years down the road, it was anticipated a replacement cost would be about $600,000.00. Mayor Hoppock stated that Salina was fortunate to have private donors, donating to a$1.8 million dollar project and no monies were requested from the City,he further stated that he did not agree to Commissioner Franz's request. Commissioner Ryan stated his concurrence with Mayor Hoppock's statement, further stated that $50,000.00 was not too much of a commitment from the City, as it pertained to the partnership. Page 7 Commissioner Franz stated that he wanted documentation to depict how the allocation was going to occur,when there was a contribution. Commissioner Hodges stated in defense of Commissioner Franz's suggestion, that she wasn't excited about taking funds away from the $500,000.00 that has been allocated out of sales tax to address some of the other six million dollars' worth of deferred maintenance throughout the park system. Commissioner Franz stated that his intention was to make it clear the City would kick in one-for-one, up to whatever it was and after a period of time, conduct a review to see how it was working, make appropriate modifications, as needed. Commissioner Franz further stated his wish for tying fees, private contributions, and City contributions together on some sort of match agreement. Mr. Schrage stated the language he drafted,based on the discussion reversing the reference to the matching funds, an annual contribution of$50,000.00,by the City, commencing on or before December 31, 2022 and each year thereafter, to be funded with user fees and private donations with City funds in an amount matching user fees and donations not to exceed $25,000.00 per year. Mayor Hoppock asked Mr. Cotten if he thought the revision would be feasible. Mr. Cotton stated he thought that would work. Mr. Tomlins stated that was agreeable. Mr. Bengtson stated for point of clarification with regards to the Commission's action on the previous matter on naming rights; in Section 2.1.3. that referenced naming rights, referred to Resolution 19-7733 that was enacted when addressing the naming right for the original plan. He continued to state staff anticipated the Governing Body's approval on the resolution in the action immediately preceding this one, Staff would substitute today's date and the new resolution number as the basis for going forward on naming rights; it would read on July 27, 2020 the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 28-7851 in completion of the first step under the naming guidelines by identifying ECRA (page 3;Section 2.1.3) Joan Raztlaff,Salina, stated her objection to establishing plastic turf on the site. Mayor Hoppock asked Mr. Schrage to read the amended language that the Commissioners reached a consensus to modify; as follows: Section 4.5.3.(c) would read an annual contribution of $50,000.00 by the City, commencing on or before December 31, 2022 and each year thereafter, to be funded with user fees and private donations and City funds and amount matching user fees and private donations, not exceeding $25,000.00 per year. And Section 2.1.3 on July 27, 2020 the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-7851 in completion of the first step under the naming guidelines by identifying ECRA in its entirety as a qualified facility for naming rights under the naming guidelines. 20-0240 Moved by Commissioner Franz, seconded by Commissioner Hodges, to adopt Resolution No. 20- 7855 with amendment to change 4.5.3.(c) as suggested by City Manager, Michael Schrage, authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with "Salina Athletic Partners" including Salina Baseball Enterprises, Inc; Unified School District No. 305 and Kansas Wesleyan University relating to Dean Evans Stadium. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. (7.4) Resolution No. 20-7856 authorizing the Mayor to execute a Lease Agreement with Saline County,Kansas for the Saline County Expo Center. Michael Schrage, City Manager, explained the ownership of Oakdale and Kenwood Parks, the history of the ownership, the lease agreement,fiscal impact and action options. Page 8 20-0239 Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to adopt Resolution No. 20- 7856 authorizing the Mayor to execute a Lease Agreement with Saline County, Kansas for the Saline County Expo Center. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS (8.1) Application #Z20-2, (filed by Joe Hill on behalf of the Joe Hill Trust), requesting a change in zoning district classification from R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) to I-2 (Light Industrial) on a vacant lot facing Reynolds Street addressed as 535 Reynolds Street. (8.1a) First reading Ordinance No. 20-11025. Dean Andrew, Director of Planning, explained the request, intent and purpose of I-2 District, public utilities and services, conformance with Comprehensive Plan, Planning Commission recommendation and action options. 20-0241 Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Hodges, to pass Ordinance No. 20- 11025 changing the zoning district classification from R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) to I-2 (Light Industrial) on a vacant lot facing Reynolds Street addressed as 535 Reynolds Street on first reading. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. (8.2) Application #Z20-3, (filed by St. Francis Ministries), requesting a change in zoning district classification from R (Single-Family Residential) to U (University) district for eight(8) lots located on the north side of Euclid Avenue east of North 9th Street. (8.2a) First reading Ordinance No. 20-11026. Dean Andrew, Director of Planning, explained the request, intent and purpose of University District, public utilities and services, conformance with Comprehensive Plan, Planning Commission recommendation and action options. A conversation ensued between the City Commission and Mr. Andrew regarding the property ownership surrounding the St. Francis Ministries. Commissioner Ryan asked for information on a parking lot in a specific area and if surfacing was allowed. Mr. Andrew stated that it would be allowed, the individual applied for a permit to improve the parking lot and staff denied that request because the zoning in place did not allow for a parking lot to serve the campus which resulted in the application for zoning change that would allow for a proper parking lot, to accommodate buses and fleet vehicles. Mr. Andrew further stated that the current condition of the lot would not meet standards for a parking lot. A conversation ensued on the need for buffers if a parking lot was constructed adjacent to an occupied house. Mr. Andrew stated that a zoning certificate would need to be obtained and installation of a screen along the lot line and a buffer. He continued to state staff would work with an individual to install the proper access, proper surfacing, appropriate surfacing, and buffer for the parking lot. Commissioner Hodges asked what the implications for a single family residence would be if there was a change in zoning. Mr. Andrew provided an overview of the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2010 when the City Commission looked at this area based on the ownership and the plan that St. John's had at that time. He continued to state the whole area ceased to be shown as future residential and was depicted as public/semi-public. He Page 9 further stated an initiated change to make the proposed property University instead of residential, it could impact some in terms of obtaining mortgages or make those houses non-conforming. He lastly stated if a lender learns that a residence had a non-conforming use as far as zoning, the house burnt down, it could not be rebuilt and suppresses the willingness of lenders to lend money. Commissioner Davis asked if owners expressed any opinions on the proposal. Mr. Andrew stated that proper notification has been posted on the property and letters were sent to all the owners but there has been no comments received. Lauren Driscoll, Director of Community & Development Services, explained that a large portion of the area surrounding the campus had been used by St. John's for many years including a large area for football field and another space was a parking lot. Commissioner Franz expressed his concern as to whether residents that received notification of the proposal,understood the content of the notice and ed Commissioner Davis asked if notices were sent certified return receipt. Mr. Andrew responded that letters were sent regular first class mail and a sign is posted on the property. The City Commission recessed at 6:37 p.m. for an 8 minute break. The meeting resumed at 6:45 p.m. 20-0242 Moved by Commissioner Hodges, seconded by Commissioner Ryan, to pass Ordinance No. 20- 11026 changing the zoning district classification from R (Single-Family Residential) to U (University) district for eight (8) lots located on the north side of Euclid Avenue east of North 9th Street on first reading. Aye: (4). Nay: (1) Davis. Motion carried. (8.3) Consider recommendations from the Salina City Planning Commission to amend the Future Land Use Map designation of the former Lowell Elementary School site to Urban Residential and to rezone the school site from R-1 to PDD(R-2). (8.3a) First reading Ordinance No. 20-11027. (8.3b) First reading Ordinance No. 20-11030. Dean Andrew, Director of Planning, explained the history of the location, the amended request, intent and purpose of the R-1 and R-2 District, Zoning Ordinance requirements, public utilities and services, conformance with Comprehensive Plan, Planning Commission recommendation,protest petition and action options. Mayor Hoppock raised concerns that he would like staff and legal counsel to address regarding ex-parte communication and notices on a conflict of interest. Michael Schrage, City Manager, stated that one way to resolve the ex-parte communication was to disclose it and make the other commissioners aware of it. He also read an email from LaNay Meier into the record (printed version of email is attached to these minutes). Mr. Schrage encouraged the Commissioners to disclose whether they had any ex-parte communication. The Commissioners did not disclose any ex-parte communication. Greg Bengtson, legal counsel, addressed the concern related to a potential conflict of interest for Planning Commissioner John Olsen on the initial hearing on June 2nd and the concern related to whether there was a conflict of interest by virtue of the relationship between Mr. Olsen and Mr. Brian Richardson. Mr. Bengtson provided information on Page 10 conflicts of interest and discussed the relationship between Mr. Olsen and Mr. Richardson in detail. Mr. Bengtson stated he communicated the bylaws of the Planning Commission to Mr. Olsen discussing whether the Planning Commissioner had a recognizable financial interest in the outcome and advised that through their common employer in which they are both listed as owners in the separate entity there is a financial interest. w Mr. Bengtson also discussed the need for a rehearing by the Planning Commission due to technical difficulties at the June 2nd meeting. He stated that the conversation he had with Mr. Olsen was after the June 2nd meeting, but prior to the rescheduled public hearing that occurred on July 7th and that Mr. Olsen did not participate and was not present in the rescheduled public hearing. Commissioner Hodges asked Mr. Schrage and Mr. Bengtson if they had watched the Planning Commission meeting from June 2nd. Mr. Schrage replied that he had. Commissioner Hodges continued to state that she felt that Mr. Olsen led the discussion and motions on this topic in the affirmative. She raised concerns about his advocacy in the meeting on June 2nd and whether in the second hearing the Planning Commission was referencing the prior conversation. Mr. Bengtson replied that whether at the discretion of the City Commission or if it were before a Kansas Court he believed the direction would be to rehear the item without Mr. Olsen's participation. Commissioner Hodges questioned if the reason for Mr. Olsen's non-participation was made clear at the subsequent meeting and asked if instructions were given to communicate that to the Planning Commission prior to the July meeting. Mr. Bengtson replied no. A conversation ensued between Commissioner Hodges, Mr. Schrage and Mr. Bengston regarding the communication to the Planning Commission. Mr. Andrew stated that at the Planning Commission meeting he announced that Mr. Olsen was recusing himself due to the fact that he had a recognized conflict of interest. Mr. Schrage stated that due to technical difficulties another item was also reconsidered and they ultimately did reach another conclusion on the other item. Commissioner Hodges stated that this board's point of emphasis was on board orientation as well as reviewing our ethics policy. She asked when the last board orientation and presentation on the ethics policy was held and if Mr. Olsen had the benefit of that. Mr. Andrew replied that in September 2019 the Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Heritage Commission and the Downtown Design Review Board all had their annual business meeting,orientation and ethics training. Commissioner Hodges asked if it would be possible to confirm Mr. Olsen's attendance at that meeting. Mr. Andrew replied yes, it would be possible. Commissioner Hodges asked how City staff was made aware of Mr. Olsen's potential conflict of interest. Mr. Andrew responded that he was made aware by Jacqueline Cairo over a phone conversation. A conversation ensued between Mr. Andrew and Commissioner Hodges. Mr. Andrew then stated that he communicated the concern to Mr. Bengtson. Commissioner Hodges asked to confirm that Mr. Olsen did not readily provide this information and that it was reported to the City. Mr. Andrew confirmed and stated that it was brought to his attention by Ms. Cairo. Page 11 Commissioner Davis asked if Mr. Olsen has been scheduled to retake that part of the orientation. Mr. Andrew responded that it was planned for September of this year. Mr. Schrage stated that the last annual meeting occurred on September 17, 2019 and that Commissioner Olsen was absent. Commissioner Hodges asked if a sanction were necessary based on the ethics policy would W it be within the Planning Commissions or the City Commissions purview to pursue a reprimand. Mr. Bengtson replied that under the policy it would be under the Governing Body's discretion. A conversation ensued between Mr. Schrage, Mr. Bengtson and Mr. Andrew regarding the ethics policy. Commissioner Hodges stated that by virtue of Mr. Olsen s actions she felt that any decision made today would be suspect and stated her disappointment in the failure of Mr. Olsen to realize the appearance of a conflict of interest. Mr. Schrage stated that given there was a second hearing without him participating we were in the best position we can be and that this governing body is independent and staff provided information so an independent and objective decision may be made. Commissioner Franz stated that he was also very disappointed to see this occurred and stated his thoughts on the matter. He stated that he was planning to disregard the recommendation from the Planning Commission and base his decision on the information provided and what was heard tonight. Commissioner Davis stated his thoughts on the matter and asked staff for the age of different sections of the building. Mr. Andrew replied there was an original 1915 school and a 1965 addition to the school. A conversation ensued between Commissioner Davis and Mr. Andrew regarding which part of the school is considered historic and if any of the building may be torn down or if future use may be changed. Mr. Schrage explained that he was appreciative of Commissioner Franz's description of intending to make his decision independently based on the information this evening and stated that if any of the Commissioners weren't able to do that or if they intend to factor into their decision the conflict and dissatisfaction that may rise to the need to have an executive session. Mayor Hoppock stated that usually our job as a Commission was to ratify the Planning Commission's recommendation and asked if the Commission wanted to go into more detail and asked for direction from his fellow Commissioners. 20-0243 Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Ryan, to recess into executive session for 10 minutes to discuss the subject of legal considerations relating to the Planning Commission decision regarding the former Lowell Elementary School site rezoning application with legal counsel based upon the need for consultation with an attorney for the public body which would be deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship, pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4319(b)(2), The open meeting will resume in this room at 8:01 p.m. Aye: (4). Nay: (1) Hodges. Motion carried. The City Commission recessed into executive session at 7:49 p.m. and reconvened at 8:02 p.m. No action was taken. Page 12 Also present in executive session: Mike Schrage, City Manager; Jacob Wood, Deputy City Manager, and Greg Bengtson, Legal Counsel. Mr. Bengtson explained the reasoning for the executive session being the concerns relating to the potential impact of the conflict of interest in terms of the Planning Commission's consideration, recommendation of the Planning Commission and ultimately the decision of the Commission. Mr. Andrew summarized the two ordinances for consideration and asked if there were further questions. Commissioner Davis asked if we were covering each topic separately or combined as one. Mr. Schrage replied we may treat them separately. A conversation ensued between the Commission regarding whether to treat the items separately or together. Mayor Hoppock stated that voting would be done separately, but we will consider them together. Commissioner Davis asked to what extent the City was obligated to change zoning to help someone sell their property. Mr. Andrew replied that they were under no obligation whatsoever to change the zoning of the property. He continued to state the justification was that the current zoning of the property limited its use. He discussed the uses of other schools that were converted to other uses. A conversation ensued between the Commission, Mr. Andrew and Mr. Schrage regarding rezoning of schools and other properties in the past as well as the potential uses based on zoning. Commissioner Davis asked about the traffic counts of a school being actively used compared to multi-family housing. Mr. Andrew replied that schools typically have a peak traffic associated with the opening and closing of school and traffic depends on the number of students,whereas,in a residential setting you may have rush hour related traffic but you do not have peak traffic that you would with a school. Commissioner Franz asked how many students were attending Lowell when it was a public school. Mr. Andrew replied that between Franklin and Lowell there were 333 students and 25 faculty. A conversation ensued between the Commission, Mr. Andrew and Mr. Schrage regarding traffic counts. Commissioner Davis asked if there were any neighborhood parks in this immediate area and if any part of this property had been used as a neighborhood park even though it was private property. Mr. Andrew stated that he would let Mr. Reynolds speak to that and that the property had been private since it changed hands 2004. He also stated that the designated park for this area was considered to be Sunset Park. Commissioner Davis stated that he liked old buildings to be reused but he was concerned that 184 neighbors signed the petition saying they didn't like this project. He asked to what extent restrictions could be placed on future development. Mr. Andrew stated that the Planning Commission did put restrictions on it and the only difference was that if it stayed zoned R1 someone could come in and build houses on each lot but under the Planning Commission's recommendation the developer would have to submit their plans for what they would like to build and approve or disapprove the plan and the neighbors would Page 13 have an opportunity to see what was built. Commissioner Davis stated that the neighborhood was characterized as a mixture of multi- family and single family dwellings. Mr. Andrew stated that much of that dates back to the time of Schilling Air Force Base when many homes on Santa Fe were converted from single family to having multiple units. a A conversation ensued between Commissioner Davis and Mr. Andrew regarding the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Hodges asked to confirm that the Planning Commission opted to do a PDD (R-2) for the future development area as opposed to an R1 zoning because it would then require a plan to be brought back for consideration and comment. Mr. Andrew replied discussing the options the Planning Commission considered in detail. He stated the thinking of the Planning Commission was to give an opportunity to review the plans before development occurred as opposed to an administrative building permit. Commissioner Hodges asked if there was a PDD (R-1) zoning. Mr. Andrew replied that there could be and that was a potential option and that the Planning Commission determined that limiting the future development to single family only would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Hodges asked if even though the underlying zoning is R2 and down the road someone wanted to build duplexes would that be allowed with the PDD recommendation. Mr. Andrew replied no, the single family dwelling limitation remains. A conversation ensued between the Commission and Mr. Andrew regarding the zoning classification. Commissioner Hodges asked if parking would still be available on the north side of Republic. Mr. Andrew replied that there wasn't a reason to change that. Commissioner Hodges replied that those living in that area were accustomed to that on-street parking and she wanted to verify. Commissioner Hodges asked about the present plan for entrances and exits. Mr. Andrew responded that there will likely be construction of an entire new parking lot with connections to Beloit and Republic which will allow for better access. Mayor Hoppock asked if the plans were originally like that or were there modifications made. Mr. Andrew stated that it was not proposed by the applicant but that it was recommended by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ryan stated that we know most of the area was multi-family housing but how many were rentals. Mr. Andrew replied that the highlighted areas on the map are rentals and stated that Mr. Maes could reply to that. A conversation ensued between the Commission and Mr. Andrew regarding the current occupancy of the homes. Commissioner Ryan asked about the presentation of the petition to those that signed. Mr. Andrew stated that the people that circulated the petition were in attendance and they could explain and that staff met with them and provided technical assistance for them and meeting the legal requirements. Commissioner Ryan asked if the current Planning Commission used the comprehensive plan as a guide in their decisions. Mr. Andrews stated there were comments from the Page 14 Planning Commission about opportunities for infill development and adaptive reuse, however, there was concern about having a building that sits empty that will deteriorate over time. A conversation ensued between Commissioner Ryan and Mr. Andrew regarding adaptive reuse of this and other properties. Commissioner Franz stated his concerns about the narrow roadway of Republic and was glad to see the access modified to add Beloit and he was reconsidering his initial thoughts to close the access on Republic due to fire access. Mr. Andrew replied that was within their discretion. U Commissioner Franz asked if it was possible for the future development area to designate those with access up the center to prevent the three additional driveways through the narrow section on Republic. Mr. Andrew stated that there is an alley that is public right-of- way that could potentially be used for access and access is all fair game as part of the development plan. A conversation ensued between the Commission and Mr. Andrew regarding plans for access to the area. Commissioner Franz asked if this was approved for six residences, would it come back again for detail review. Mr. Andrew responded that a final development plan of Phase II should be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of any building permits based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and if the Commission would like the opportunity to review that as well, that can be modified so the City Commission may have the final say. Commissioner Franz provided his thoughts on the feedback received and the neighborhood of potential impact being larger as well as the condition of the homes in the neighboring area, the potential impact on the area of an unused school and the distance to Sunset Park. Mr. Andrew replied stating that staff had included excerpts from the Parks Master Plan and discussed how this area fit into that plan and provided a brief overview of the service areas identified in the Parks Master Plan. Mr. Schrage responded to Commissioner Ryan's earlier question regarding what the signatories may have known about the petition, stating that the signature page leads off with: To the Salina Planning Commission, we oppose rezoning the Salina Christian Academy, formerly Lowell School, that would allow apartments on the entire two acre property. Commissioner Franz stated that something he didn't see in the material references to the housing study done years ago which stated that townhouses and apartments were needed and in particular market rate apartments were needed in the community, as well as a majority of respondents stating they need a playground, though all stated they were happy with their access to parks. Commissioner Hodges stated that it's difficult to know when those questions were asked and the situation at that time. Dan Peterson, 948 Highland, Salina, provided his thoughts on the zoning of the former Lowell School, stated he opposed the rezoning and asked the Commission to find a more suitable compromise as this did not match the character of Highland. He also asked to show a short video showing some safety concerns with the parking lot. Page 15 Joan Ratzlaff, Salina, asked for clarification on traffic counts, provided her thoughts on what may be considered a neighborhood park, and use and zoning of the area. She also stated that she felt some of the findings by the Planning Commission were not accurate. Ms. Ratzlaff shared her concerns with the proposed parking lot entrance and stated they had requested a traffic study and had other possible solutions such as applying for grants to turn part of the area into a park. TT, Tammy Barnes, 955 Highland, Salina, provided her thoughts on the character of the neighborhood,that apartments will change the atmosphere, and that apartments may cause rd residents to sell their homes and further deteriorate the neighborhood. C Jacqueline Cairo, 700 block of Highland, Salina, provided her thoughts on the school becoming an apartment building and parking lot. Ms. Cairo addressed the conflict of interest discovered by the citizens. Derek Moline, 945 Highland, Salina, provided his thoughts on the matter stating that he had lived in this area and attended school there and that the park was needed for the area with young families. Mr. Moline stated that he saw apartments as a good fit for the building,but there was compromise needed such as the parking lot. Jeff Maes with CompPro Realty, 157 S. 7th, Salina, provided his thoughts on the neighborhood density of rentals. Mr. Maes stated relative to the conflict of interest that Salina Christian Academy was the applicant, not Mr. Richardson and Salina Christian Academy had no affiliation with Mr. Olsen. He stated that other calls received on the property were multi-family developers. Finally, he discussed regulatory taking as a situation in which a government regulation limits the use of private property. Mayor Hoppock asked what condition the building was currently in. Mr. Maes stated that Mr. Reynolds, from the Board of Salina Christian Academy would be more qualified to provide an answer. Commissioner Franz asked if any thought had been given as to what sort of apartments might go in the building. Jeff Maes responded market rate apartments using historic tax credits. Commissioner Davis asked for clarification from the City Attorney on the term regulatory taking if the zoning of the building is remaining the same. Mr. Bengtson provided detail on regulatory taking and the case involving Penn Central Factors including the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, the extent by which the regulation had interfered with distinct investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action. In this case, the most important factor being the investment backed expectations. Mr. Bengtson continued by sharing prior case history and their conclusions. In short, there was no rule that prohibits an owner from asserting a takings claim based on the denial of a rezoning request but the investment backed expectations factor of the Penn Central balancing test almost always results in a denial of the takings claim on the basis that there were no distinct investment backed expectations of a particular alternative use since the owner should have known that any alternative use is contingent upon a rezoning being approved. Mr. Schrage stated that he believed one of those factors was the character of the government's action and Mr. Maes was saying if the decision were to turn this area into a park, now the regulatory decision had been implicated by your intent to use that property for City purposes and that the intention to use this area as a park could be a legal concern. Page 16 Mr. Bengtson agreed and stated that it was more difficult for someone to assert a takings claim when they were basing that claim on a denial of a rezoning in order to fill their economic interests. He continued by stating that you wouldn't want to deny a rezoning if you were motivated by repurposing it as a park. A conversation ensued between the Commission, Mr. Schrage and Mr. Bengtson concerning a possible denial of a rezoning and a regulatory taking. Jim Reynolds, 5261 W Stimmel Rd, Salina, stated he was one of the original founders of ro Salina Christian Academy. Mr. Reynolds provided detail on the condition of the school upon purchase. He stated that though they did purchase the building for $10,000 they put $250,000 in repairs in the first summer and through the course of the next few years another $100,000 into repairs. Mr. Reynolds stated that the first few years the park was open to the public but was later closed due to unattended children. He continued to state that the building was in very good condition now, but in need of major upgrading. Mr. Reynolds stated that he felt Mr. Richardson would do a great job with this building as he had with others and that the offer made to the school would cover the mortgage and any remaining funds will be used as a scholarship fund to help kids attend another Christian school. Mayor Hoppock stated he was glad to have the map showing the number of rental properties. He stated that he believed for the future development the PDD protects the City, that the building being left unoccupied was of concern and that the building being refurbished could help the City. Lastly, stating he was glad to hear market rate apartments were planned. Commissioner Davis stated his thoughts on renters compared to homeowners and that we shouldn't look down on those that were renting. He stated that we need to do something with the building whether that was to tear it down or repurpose and if it was in a PDD there can be pressure put to adjust so that it fits in with the residential area. He continued by stating that his preference for Phase II would be a PDD (R-1) and that the traffic be studied on Republic and that a compromise for him would be on the Phase II area. Commissioner Hodges explained that the difference with many of the other schools converted was that they were located on a major arterial street while Lowell was located in R-1 development. She thanked Mr. Richardson for his work on revitalizing old buildings. She continued by stating that her hope with using a PDD was that it would help us end up with a product that was more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and that a PDD (R-1) seems more forthright as opposed to a PDD (R-2). Commissioner Hodges asked staff if they had done an engineering evaluation of that intersection. Commissioner Davis asked if there was an estimate as to the number of people in the 15 apartments. Mr. Andrew replied that the applicant would need to address the number of people. He stated staff had conferred with KDOT on traffic counts, staff measured all pertinent areas as well as traffic counts and accident reports from the police department. Mr. Andrew further stated, in terms of an engineering standpoint, part of the reason Republic was narrower between Santa Fe and Highland; the strip between Santa Fe and Highland had a much narrower right of way than a typical street, a product of different subdivisions pieced together. Mr. Andrew further stated that staff went out and made sure that we knew all pertinent dimensions and separations,confirming all that information. Commissioner Hodges asked whether any consideration for moving the driveway to the East, an alternative location for the parking lot that would provide more screening. Mr. Page 17 Andrew stated that they were linked in the report because any action that might approve a change of zoning to plan development district, the preliminary development plan was part and parcel of that action. He continued to state anything related to the site plan such as the action that the Planning Commission took to recommend that there be two connection point is fair game. Mr. Andrew further stated that if the parking lot was pushed too far to the East, then you don't have Phase Two. He continued to state any changes would have to be reworked and within the Commissioners' discretion to specifying the conditions to those revisions; this was conceptual,just because there was a curb cut there doesn't mean it can't be there. He lastly stated anything regulating access point is within your jurisdiction as a Governing Body. Joan Raztlaff, Salina, offered a document to help answer Commissioners' questions from the Kansas Traffic Engineering Assistance Program for KDOT. Commissioner Franz stated he liked the idea of shifting access to the parking lot and questioned whether that could be a requirement now or at the next step of the process. Mr. Andrews stated an option for the Commissioner's to postpone consideration of the application and allow staff or the applicant to provide additional information or change specifications to the site plan. Commissioner Davis asked if future development, a PDD R-1,would be considered Option 2 and disagreeing with the recommendation. Mr. Andrew stated he didn't think it would be disagreeing with the Planning Commission because there was a consensus to agreeing it should be limited to single family that was would just entail drafting whether the underlying zoning is PDD R-1 for the future development of the area and modifying the ordinance to reflect that. He continued to state the Planning Commission did not make that specific of a recommendation but they did recommend single family only in the Phase 2 future development of the area. Mr. Schrage stated if that was the only change, he thought that could be prepare that between first and second reading, anything further than that would require more clarification from the Governing Body. A conversation ensued pertained to parking, where paving starts and the minimum landscape buffer of five feet. Mr. Richardson provided specific details to Commissioners' questions. Brian Richardson, member of the Salina Planning Commission provided the proposed plan in a PowerPoint presentation and provided answers to specific questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Davis stated his request to specify Phase Two as PPD/R1 so it wasn't revisited in five years. 20-0244 Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Ryan, to concur with the recommendation in the Planning Commission, to approve to pass Ordinance No. 20-11027 amending the future land use designation of this 2.04 acre tract of land from Public/Semi-Public to Urban Residential on first reading. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. Michael Schrage, City Manager stated that the Commissioners' could approve the ordinance on first reading provided that the legal description was amended as such that the Eastern six lots were described separately to be R1-PDD and adding a condition that parking shall be installed in the configuration in the attached exhibit which would have to be prepared and attached by second reading if that were the main concerns; a way to address them between first and second reading. Page 18 Commissioner Ryan asked for a reread of his statement; Mr. Schrage stated, "instruct staff to prepare an amended description separating out the East half or East six lots to be designated R1-PDD and adding a condition that the parking shall be configured as depicted in the attached exhibit; the exhibit work to be prepared and attached by second reading. Discussion ensued about limiting the driveway access for future development in terms of adding more driveway egress. There was discussions about distinctions between single family and duplexes. 20-045 Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Hodges, to concur with the findings 0 and recommendations of the Planning Commission, to pass Ordinance No. 20-11030, rezoning 2.0 acre tract of land to PDD-R2 on the proposed first phase and PDD-R1 on the future development being the East portion of the plat along with an updated parking exhibit to be attached in a ten foot buffer along the parking lot facing Republic Avenue on first reading. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Davis stated the necessity to repeat conflict of interest policy. Commissioner Hodges stated she would be interested in making that a requirement of active participation. Lauren Driscoll, Director of Community & Development Services, explained that annually in September,training is encouraged but cannot mandate commissioners' attendance. A conversation ensued that related to a board members' need to review the ethics policy and the Planning Commission Policy before further participation in future Planning Commission Meetings. Michael Schrage, City Manager stated that the model he had been trying to build was not an in-person instruction but to put the burden on each member to review policies and confirm to staff that they have reviewed. Mr. Schrage stated he would convey the Commissioner's concern and the conversation at the staff level. (9.1) Request for executive session (legal). (9.1a) Possible action to follow. 20-0246 Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Hodges, to recess into executive session for 15 minutes to discuss the subject of the City's claim arising from the detection,isolation, and cleanup of asbestos materials in the basement and basement stairwell of Fire Station No. 2 with the City's legal counsel,based upon the need for consultation with an attorney for the public body which would be deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship pursuant to K.S.A. 75- 7319(b)(2). The open meeting will resume in this room at 10:45 p.m. The City Commission recessed into executive session at 10:28 p.m. and reconvened at 10:44p.m. No action was taken. Also present in executive session: Mike Schrage, City Manager; Greg Bengtson, City Attorney. Page 19 ADJOURNMENT L 20-0247 Moved by Commissioner Franz, seconded by Commissioner Davis, that the regular meeting of the Board of City Commissioners be adjourned. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:45p.m. t,W77; [SEAL] Mich el L. Hoppoc ayor 79- ATTEST: U 40 Cheryl fermis, 'o eputy City Clerk Page 20 McKain, Holly From: LaNay Meier<lanaym@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 1:33 PM To: CityCommission Subject: Fwd: Lowell School rezone issue. Get Outlook for iOS From:LaNay Meier Sent:Monday,July 27,2020 1:17:43 PM To:citvcommision@salina.org<citvcommision@salina.org> Subject: Lowell School rezone issue. Please, I ask you to take a look at a very big picture as you consider the rezoning of the Lowell School area. I don't know all the details about needing more housing. There may be a need. I am hearing that many of the people in the neighborhood have concerns. Please do not take the park away! This has been a special place in the neighborhood. Also, I hear concern about the making a parking lot which can be a not so attractive setting. Please use the space in such a way that it doesn't create a unattractive view. I don't live in the area but have talked to those who do. Their thoughts and feelings deserve consideration. Please do not allow any personal connection with the developer influence your decision. I don't know if that is an issue but if so it shouldn't interfere with your vote. The decision needs to come from a very deep ethical place that will include a decision that effects all in our community. I can not make the meeting today so please pay attention to my concerns. Respectfully, LaNay Meier Salina, Ks. Get Outlook for iOS i