11-20-1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORD. NS-1148 Prior to consideration of this DANGEROUS BUILDINGS ordinance, Mr. Billy Hall, of the City Center Association, stated that some of their members had become fearful of the ordinance and because they felt there was a lack of information on the proposed ordinance, they were requesting a two-week delay and possibly a public hearing. Com~cilman Herrin' s motion to set the consideration of the ordinance for public hearing on December 4, 1972, was seconded by Councilman Markel, and unanimously carried. Prior to voting, Mr. Joseph Gllmacher, 308 W. 4th St., stated that if the ordinance were adopted, it would affect 90~0 of the property owners; that the citizens should know what the ordinance will do to them before it is adopted; and that he is against adoption of the ordinance. The Director of Building Safety and Housing stated that if a building was not safe under the old code, then it would not be safe under the new code; and that an unsafe building has become unsafe due to deterioration, obsoleteness, or lack of maintenance. Councilman Evans stated that he would like to have a survey made of the downtown area and a report as to which buildings the ordinance would be applied. AGENDA Oi~DER Items 35- 46, 48 and 56 - 60 were deferred to the evening session and Items 47, 55 and 61 were considered nex~ on the unanimously carried motion of Councilman I-Ierrin, seconded by Councilman Patterson. BUILDING CODE VIOLATION Council considered the report 2005 NORTH FLOWER STREET from the Director of Building Safety dated November 15, 1972, as requested at its November 6 meeting, regarding a carport structure at Z005 North Flower Street in violation of the Uniform Building Code. Mr. John McDonald, Attorney, 1212 North Broadway, representing Mr. and Mrs. Rufus R. Kirby, owners of the property at 2005 North Flower Street, stated that the Kirbys have been requested by the City to do certain things to their property that are improper and probably unconstitutional; that the approved 1951 Building Permit record indicates the purpose was to "add a garage"; that the City cannot prove whether or not the carport was approved at that time. The City Manager stated that there are only two things a citizen can do in a situation of this kind; he can ask the Council to change the Code provision which applies or he can take the matter to court to see if the City' s interpreta- tlon is legally correct, but there is no appeal provision to the Council. The City Attorney suggested that Council consider the adoption of an ordinance that would provide for a uniform appeals board to handle situations where the applicant is dissatisfied with the staff decision. The applicant was referred to staff to find out what he should do and the staff was referred to the applicant to properly advise him, on the unanimously approved motion of Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Herrin. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 429 NOVEMBEt{ Z0, 1972