Loading...
09-17-40 Special 15<12 COUOC I L CHIM3ER SEPTEMB ER 17, 1940 J THE COUNCIL MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT 2:00 P.M., ON CALL OF THE MAYOR, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING UP RE~UESTS FOR SPECIAL BUILDING PERMITS AND FOR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY OTHER BUSINESS DEEMED NECESSARY AT TH IS TIME. ? THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE MR. CREGO, MR. JACOBS, AND MR. MILLER. ATTORNEY WERE ABSENT. COUNCIL WERE PRESENT: MR. BRADSHAW, COUNCILMAN HILL AND THE CITY \ C. Y. BYRD, ATTORNEY FOR SAMUEL OGREN, APPEARED AT THE MEETING, TO EN~UIRE WHY CONSTRUCTION ON LOT I SEABREEZE PARK HAD BEEN STOPPED, AND WAS I NFORMED THAT WORK HAD BEEN HALTED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, PENDING DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AS TO WHETHER SPECIAL PERMIT SHOULD BE ISSUED ALLOWING ONLY A FIVE-FOOT SET-BACK ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT. MR. SINKS STATED THE BUILDING PERMIT HAD BEEN ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF THE FULL RE~UIRED 10-FOOT ALLOWANCE BUT LATER MR. OGREN HAD PETITIONED THE COUNCIL FOR A SPECIAL CONCESSION ALLOWING HIM TO PLACE THE WUILDING WITHIN ~IVE FEET OF THE LOT LINE, AT WHICH TIME HE HAD BEEN ASKED TO STOP WORK UNTIL DECISION AS TO SPECIAL PERMIT HAD BEEN REACHED BY THE COUNCIL. , , A ~UESTION ALSO AROSE AS TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF BUILDING RESTRIC- TIONS IMPOSED BY SUBDIVIDERS OF PROPERTY, COU'NCILMAN BRADSHAW BE ING OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN SUCH RESTRICTIONS ARE EMBODIED IN DEEDS AND FILED WITH THE CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR, THE INSPECTOR SHOULD THEN ENFORQE THEM JUST AS MUCH AS THE ZONING AND BUILDING RE~UI~EMENTS OF THE CITY. OTHER 'MEMBERS CONTENDED THAT THESE RESTRICT IONS WERE ENFORCEABLE BY RECOURSE -TO LAW BY THE AGGRIEVED INDIVIDUAL, BUT THAT IT WAS NO CONCERN OF THE CITY AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR COULD NOT ENFORCE SUCH SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS. MR. BYRD ALSO SAID It WAS NOT WITHIN THE CITY'S JLR ISDICTION TO ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS AHTHOUGH IT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A COURTEOUS GESTURE ON THE 'PART OF THE INSPECTOR, IF HE WOULD NOTIFY THOSE CONCERNED OF SUCH VIOLATIONS WHEN HE IS AWARE OF THEM. t IN REFERENCE TO THE GRANTING OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT ~O MR. OGREN FOR A ~IVE-FOOT SETBACK, THE CLERK STATED THE ZONING COMMI~SION WAS IN DOUBT AS TO THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE REGARDING SIDEYARD RE~UIREMENTS FOR APARTMENT HOUSES, AND SINCE THE COMMISSION WAS UNDECIDED AS TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, RECOMMEND~TION ON THE OGREN PERMIT HAD BEEN MADE AS FOLLOWS: IF THE INTENT OF PARAGRAPH {C} ITEM E "SIDEYARD AND SETBACK RE~UIREMENTS" PAGE B OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IS THAT IN ALL CASES A MINIMUM SIDE ~ YARD SETBACK OF 10 FEET BE MAINTAiNED, THE COMMISSION ~~ RECOMMEND THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. 1.543 COUNCIL CHAMBER - SEPTEMBER 17, 1940 J IF HOWEVER, THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION IS TO MAINT~IN A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET BETWEEN BUILDINGS, THEN THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS GRANTING SAID SPECIAL PERMIT, SINCE THE SETBACK RE~UESTED IN THIS C~SE WOULD. ST ILL LEAVE 29 FEET BETWEEN BUILD- I NGS. I MR. OGREN SAID HE WOULD LIKE A PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED IN 'THIS REGARD, so THAT THERE WOULD BE NO POSSIBILITY OF THE COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE, GIVING SPECIAL PERMITS ON ~IGHBORING LOTS FOR A LESSER S IDEYARD. HE FELT HE WOULD BE PROTECTED IN THIS WAY. MR. OGREN WAS ASSURED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO PROBABILITY OF SUCH A THING BI[ING DONE SO LONG AS THERE WAS NO RE-CLASSIFICATlON IN THE ZONING OF THAT PARTI CULAR D,ISTRICT. " IT WAS MOVED BY MR. BRADSHAW THAT THE COUNCIL GO ON RECORD AS INTERPRETING THE SECTION REFERRED TO, TO MEAN THAT AT ALL TIMES NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST BE LOCATEO TEN FEET FROM THE LOT LI NE, AND IN CASES WHERE THIS WOULD PLACE SUCH NEW CONSTRUCTION LESS THAN 15 FEET FROM AN EXISTING ADJOINING BUILDING THEN IN THAT'CASE THE NEW CONSTR- UCTION MUST BE PLACED SUFFICIENTLY FAR FROM THE LOT LINE TO ALLOW A CLEAR SP'ICE OF FIFTEEN FEET BETWEEN BUILDINGS. BASED ON THIS .INTER- PRETATION, HE FURTHER MOVED THAT THE RECOMMENDjTIONS OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE, ON THE OGREN APPLICAT ION, BE ACCEPTED AND THE SPECIAL PERMIT BE NOT GRANTED. MR. MILLER SECONDED THE MOTION AND ON ROLL CALL THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS: MR. BRADSHAW YES, MR. CREGO YES, MR. HILL YES, MR. JACOBS YES. THE MOTION .CARRIED. , THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THEN SUBMITTED A RE~UEST FROM MR. GEO. BOUGHTON ASKING FOR A CHANGE IN THE PERMIT ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCT- ION OF AN OVERHEAD PASSAGE CONNECT I NG THE CO'lONYHOrEL TO THE ~NEl\, STATING HE NOW DESIRED TO CONSTRUCT SAME STRAIGHT ACROSS THE ALLEY INSTEAD OF DN AN ANGLE AND TO ALLOW ONLY 12.4 FEET CLEARANCE INSTEAD DF 16 FEET AS ORIG INALLY APPLIED FOR. THERE WAS SOME DOUBT AS TO WHETH ER TH I S ,WAS SUFF I C I EN TL Y HIGH FOR PASSAGE OF ALL TYPE S OF TRUCKS, BUT IT WAS FINALLY MOVED BY MR. MILLER THAT PERMIT BE GRANTED FOR A 12.4 FEET CLEARANCE, THE CITY RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OROER SUCH CONSTRUCTION REMOVED OR ALTERED AT ANY TIME IT MAY BECOME OBJEClIONABLE. MR. BRADSHAW SECONDED THE MOTION AND ON ROLL CALL THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS: MR. BRADSHAW YES, MR. CREGO YES, MR. JACOBS YES, MR. MILLER YES, THE MOTION CARRIED. THIS ARRANGEMENT MR. BOUGHTON DECLARED TO BE PERFECTLY AGREEABLE TO HIM. . t THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE ON THE SPECIAL PERMIT RE~UESTED FOR THE HOUSE MOVED TO BLOCK 35 BY A. E. CASON WAS THEN SUBMITTED TO THE COUNC IL, SAID RECOMMENDATION BEING THAT THE ZONING COMMITTEE SAW NO REASON FOR CHANGING ITS PREVIOUS RECOMMENDA- TION, VIZ. THAT THE PERMIT BE NOT GRANTED. COUNCILMAN MILLER STATED HE HAD BEEN OUT AND LOOKED AT THE BUILDING IN ~UESTION AND SINCE THE HOUSES ALREADY THERE HAD BEEN HAPHAZARDLY PLACED, WITH LITTLE REGARD TO LOT LINES, 'HE FELT IT WOULD 1.544 COUNCIL CHAMBER - SEPTEMBER 17, 1940 BE UNJI1ST AND WOULD WORK A HARDSHIP ON THE OWNER TO RE~UIRE HIM TO QUT OFF A PORTION OF HIS BUILDING TO MEET THE DEMANOEO LOT LINE RE~U I REMENT. " MR. BRADSHAW SAID HE WAS BASING HIS ACTION ON THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE HAD VOTED FOR THE ORDINANCE, AND EVEN THOUGH HE BELIEVED THIS WOULD BE AN INJUSTICE HE SAW NOTHING ELSE TO 00 BUT CARRY OUT THE COMMISS ION'S RECOMMENDATION ALTHOUGH IN HIS OPINION THEIR JUDGEMENT WAS WRONG IN THIS INSTANCE. f THE BUILDING INSPECTOR MADE A PLEA FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING REGULATIONS IN COLORED TOWN STATING THERE HAD BEEN A WONDERFUL IMPROVEMENT DURING RECENT MONTHS ALONG THESE LINES, AND HE FELT BUILDING SHOULD BE REGULATED OUT THERE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. IT WAS FINALLY DEC.IDED TO TAKE NO ACTION AT TH IS MEETING, MR. CREGO STATING THAT HE WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF PASSING UPON IT UNLESS COUNC ILMAN HILL WAS PRESENT. \ I THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR A RE-CLASSIFICATION OF ZONE ON LOTS 15, 16 ANO 17 V I STA DEL MAR THEN CAME UP, THE CLERK REPORTI NG THAT SHE HAD BEEN IN ERROR I N SUBMITTING SUCH APPLICATIONS TO THE COUNCIL AS THEY HAO BEEN IMPROPERLY SUBMITTED, INASMUCH AS THE ORDIN- ANCE SPECIFIES THAT THE ACTUAL ,OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IT IS SOUGHT TO RE-ZONE MUST MAKE THE APPLICATION AND THE SUBMITTED APPliCA- TIONS ON SAID VISTA DEL MAR LOTS HAD BEEN MADE BY SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND NOT BY MR. McNEIL WHO IS THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED. :, . IT WAS THEREFORE MOVED BY MR. CREGO THAT THE APPLICATIONS BE DEEMED OUT OF ORDER AND THE $15.00 ZON I NG FEE RETURNED TO MRS. MONROE, ONE OF THE APPLICANTS. MR. BRADSHAW SECONDED THE MOTION, WH ICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ON ROLL CALL. , r MR. SINKS REPORTED THAT A GREAT DEAL OF OELRAY TERRITORY WAS NEITHER ZONED BY ORDINANCE NOR BY THE ORIGINAL ZONING MAP AND ASKED IF A MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OR ZONING COMMISSION COULD NOT BE ARRANGED TO GO INTO THIS MATTER WITH HIM AND WORK IT OUT SO THAT AN ORDINANCE MIGHT BE DRAWN COVERING SUCH TERRITORY WHICH IS ONLY PRESUMED TO BE ZONED BUT WH I C H HAS NOT ACTUALLY BE EN ZONED BY o ROIl N- ANCE OR OTHER RECORDED AUTHORITY. THE COUNCIL AGREED TO WORK WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, AS RE~UESTED, AND THE MAYOR STATED HE WOULD CALL A MEETING FOR .HIS PURPOSE WHENEVER CONVENIENT TO MR. SINKS AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. ~ ADJOU RN. IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED, SECONDED AND CARRIED THAT COUNCIL APPROVED: ~ ::z,) 7/hAo~.~r~r CITY CLERK