CC MIN 1956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i 1-91 Mr. Currie feels that an agreement as such can be drafted and the building can be abated, however, he feels that the agreement is needed most. The Council should not do both at the same time. Councilman Britschgi moved that the City Attorney draw up the agreement and carry this on the agenda to October 15th, seconded by Councilman Weiss and carried. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT REGARDING HOUSE MOVING ORDINANCE. The Clerk read the following report: At the last regular meeting of the Council you requested information with regard to the house moving ordinance of the City of Redwood City. ern+ "Section 2. All applications for permit to move any building . shall contain the following information: ... (d) Route over which said building is to be moved, method to , be used in moving said building. Fw" "Section 5• In granting any permit the Council may, in its discretion, require applicant to give a bond to the City of Redwood City 6w in an amount to be fixed by said Council to insure payment for any damage which applicant may cause to any public property, streets, sidewalks, trees, or shrubs in the moving of any building." Therefore, the ordinance now provides for a bond to protect damage to public property and also,specifies that the route must be set forth in the application for the permit to move the building* The City Attorney stated that if the Council wishes to they can require the bond under the present ordinance. Councilman Stout wanted to know if this ordinance would protect any other property owner other then the City. Mr. Currie stated that there is no way that the City can take care of anything else other than the City property. He is not certain if the City can legally require what Councilman Stout wants required. This was followed by discussion. Councilman Weiss raised the question of the City being held liable to property damage charges since the City would be issuing the permit. The City Attorney said that the City would not be held responsible. Councilman Granger stated that if this ordinance is good enough form the standpoint of the City Attorney then from now on the Building Inspector should enforce the ordinance in full. This was followed by dis- cussion in regard to whether or not this ordinance is good enough as is and also different methods in giving notice. Councilman Granger moved, the based on on the City Attorney's approval that this ordinance is good enough and can not be im.)roved, that the Building Inspector be given authority to enforee the ordinance in full. This motion lost for lack of a second. This was again followed by discussion. Council- man Weiss was of the opinion that the people asking for the moving permit should first get permission form the Police and Engineering Department before the permit is issued. The Building Inspector stated that he was of the opinion that the ordinance is best left as is and allow the flexibility of an emergency change of route. Councilman Weiss moved that the matter stand as recommended by the City Attorney, seconded by Councilman Herkner. This was followed by further discussion. Councilman Britschgi was of the opinion that there is no hurry for action on this ordinance and he suggested that since the City has granted a permit for moving of the largest building that has ever been moved in Redwood City that the Council withhold any action until after the building is moved. He is sure that the Council is going to have some reprecussion when the build- ing is placed in its new location. Councilman Stout offered a substitute motion to carry this on the agenda for two weeks and a copy of the ordinance to be sent to each council member, seconded by Councilman Britschgi. This motion lost on roll call with Councilmen Herkner and Weiss and Mayor Royer oyer voting No and 6.. Councilman Spillers being noted absent. Councilman Granger moved that this be carried on the agenda for one week for further report, seconded by Councilman Britschgi and carried. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT REGARDING VALIDITY OF REFUNDING BUILDING PERMIT FEE. The Attorney's office was asked to give an opinion with regard to the validity of refunding a building permit fee where the person paying the f ee decided, after issuance of the permit, not to proceed w ith the building. The Attorney's office advised