BOOK 19_1942-09-08 to 1945-05-07

Browse Search

1 1 a hold a special meeting at which time the general public might be heard. He. stated that no such meeting had been held inkregardto the ordinance now, before' the Council and he believed both ordinances should be given the same publicity. He felt this ordinance' ti3hould be held over until the Planning Comdtission had reached a decision on the amendment to the zoning ordinance,and made `their recom- mendation ecommendation to the Council, at which time both ordinances could be passed. Councilman Armstrong stated that this matter had been2before the Council for almost four months. and that the Council has had three recommendations from the Planning Commission approving the rezoning of this particular ptece.of property. He had objected to the ordinance and if ordinance were passed At this meeting he was going to immediately move that the Council instruct the Building Inspector not to grant any building permits without referring the applications` to the Council for the iraction. In this way, the residents of that area would be protected. Councilman. Hilton stated he mas in gccord with Councilman Armstrong and would e0cond such a motion. On roll call the reconsideration and. adoption ,of -the ordinance passed, Councilman Anderson being absent. Councilman Armstrong moved that the Building Inspector be instructed not.to"grdnt building permits of any'nati3re on the property rezoned without re- f erring matter to th.e Council. Motion seconded by Councilman Hinton., Under the question, Councilman Britschgi asked if the council couldn't limit the Building Inspector to issuing permits up to $109000 and anything over $10,000 to be re- ferred to the Council. He believed this would eliminate the construction of. many objectionable buildings. Councilman Armstrong disagreed with Councilman. 1. ..Britschgi's suggestion, inasmuch as many undesirable structures could be built under $10,.000 and the Council would have no•recourse. Mayor Granger asked the City Attorney if the Building Inspector could refuse to issue permits and refer ,them to the Council. City Attorney McCarthy said he believed it would be legal inasmuch as an amendment is before the Council. He stated that the Wouncil..can r useitsdiscretion a s long as the amendment is under consideration, and cited a case in Burlingame under similar conditions. Councilman Britschgi asked if.that case hadnft been contested to which the City Attorney replied that it had but the amendment to the ordinance had been passed by the time the Court rendered a decision. Mayor Granger commented on the fact that the amendment the Planning Is considering seems favorable to the residents of Vera Avenue Villas. City Attorney McCarthy said the amendment intends to overcome an objectionable use of property by restricting multiple buildings. He also stated that the Amendment, �., when approved by the Planning Commission, will be covered by an ordinance to carry,it into .effect. Attorney Nuckolls again addressed the Council stating that he appreciated the motive of the motion before the Council but believed that the procedure of the Council would make the City and the Council liable for a.suit. Me contended this could be avoided by reconsidering the passage of the ordinance until.the amendment to the zoning ordinance is passed. City Attorney McCarthy stated 'that the ordinance would not become effpcti.ve for thirty days and, also, under the building restrictions imposed by the Federal Government, it wasvveyy unlikely that anyone could be given a permit to build at this time as the property was not included in the Title 6 program. I