BOOK 20_1945-05-21 to 1946-09-03

Browse Search

C� Planning Commission recommendation No. 2: Disapproved rezoning, of Middlefield • Road from Bradford to Bayahore Highway.. City Attorney McCarthy advised this petition had been presented by Mr. J. A. Banta and signed by fourteen opt• of k, fifteen property owners in that area to provide for rezoning from second residential district to business district. He stated that both sides of the �j petition had been heard and that the Planning Commission had voted to reocm- ®) mend against any change in zoning. Councilman Armstrong stated he had been present at the meeting of the Planning Commission at which time this matter had been presented and that it was his understanding that the Planning com- mission was reluctant to make any change in zoning at this time when it was felt that when the master plan was adopted it would be rezoned from business to industrial it the petition was favorably acted upon at this time. Mr. _i Larroury, attorney for Mr. Banta, appeared in his behalf so that Mr. Banta would be allowed to continue to operate his upholstery -business which he was now conducting in violation of the zoning ordinance. Councilman Anderson believed the Banta abatement proceedings should be carried on the agenda until such time as a final determination is made as to the zone this property Is to be in. Councilman Fletcher moved, seconded by Councilman Anderson, that the Banta abatement proceedings be carried on the agenda until the first meeting in June. Councilman Armstrong advised he was going to vote in the negative due to the fact that he disapproved of knowingly permitting a will- ful violation of the ordinance and at the same time engage a master planner to plan the city. He said the very existence of a zoning ordinance required that the Council observe it and that it was fundamental to a zoning ordinance that it would hurt someone. As a matter of principle, he was going to vote against continuing the abatement proceedings. The motion passed with Council- man Armstrong voting in the negative. Counoilman Fletcher moved that the abatement proceedings against the Rice property on Mdgewood Road be continued to the first meeting in June due to the scar- city of homes. The motion was seconded by Councilman McNulty. Councilman Armstrong again stated he was going to.vote in the negative for the same 4 i reason as he advanced in the Banta abatement proceedings. The motion passed Mwith Councilman Armstrong voting in.the negative. Planning Commission recommendation No. 3: Recommended denial of petition of L. W. r Trambley to raise chickens commercially on a portion of Lot 6 in Block D of U, Woodside Acres No. 1 (1442 Gordon Street). Councilman Armstrong moved, second- ed by Councilman Britsohgi, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be accepted. Under the question, Councilman Granger asked if this fte not the W Kentfield area.and was under the impression that the Council had some years € ; ago voted to allow commercial chicken raising in this area even though it was in the second residential district. City Attorney McCarthy advised that a 1 short time ago another application had been received by the Planning Commis- sion to raise chickens commercially in this district and that protests had i been received by residents. Due to the protests, the first application had been denied.and, by the same token, this application had received like action. Motion passed unanimously. 273