HomeMy Public PortalAboutORD11007 1
BILL NO. 82-187
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMAN BARNICLE
ORDINANCE NO. 110017
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI , CHANGING,
AMENDING, AND MODIFYING THE ZONING MAP OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE
CITY OF JEFFERSON, BY REZONING A TRACT OF LAND AT 2203 EAST
MCCARTY STREET FROM C-4 ( PLANNED COMMERCIAL) TO M-1 ( LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL) .
WHEREAS, IT APPEARS THAT THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE ZONING
CODE RELATING TO ZONING HAVE IN ALL MATTERS BEEN COMPLIED WITH.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The following described real estate is rezoned
from C-4 ( Planned Commercial ) to M-1 ( Light Industrial) :
A part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 16 , Township 44 North, Range 11
West , in the City of Jefferson, County of Cole,
® Missouri, more particularly described as follows :
From the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16; thence S 04°
20' 00" E along the Section Line, 1085. 96 feet to a
point that is 150 feet north, as measured at right
angles thereto, of the northerly line of East McCarty
Street ( formerly U.S. Highway No. 50 ) ; thence leaving
the said Section Line on a bearing of N 710 37 ' 00" W
and parallel to the said North Line of East McCarty
Street , 216.82 feet to a point that is 200 feet west ,
as measured at right angles thereto, of said Section
Line , the POINT OF BEGINNING for this description;
thence continuing N 710 37 ' 00" W and parallel to the
northerly line of said East McCarty Street, 169. 99 feet
to the West Line of a tract as described in Book 120,
Page 408, of the Cole County Recorder' s Office; thence
N 040 35' 44" W along said West Line, 310.91 feet to a
point that is 200 feet south, as measured at right
angles thereto, of the northerly line of said described
tract; thence leaving said West Line on a bearing of S
890 45' 00" E and parallel to the northerly line of
said tract, 35 .38 feet to a point that is 200 feet
south, as measured at right angles thereto, of the
North Line of a tract as described in Book 181 , Page
184 , of the Cole County Recorder' s Office; thence S 77°
e
-2-
26' 33" E and parallel to the No h Line of said tract,
128.50 feet to a point that is 200 feet west of the
aforementioned Section Line; th ce S 040 20' 00" E and
parallel to the said Section Li e, 336.39 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing in all 51,426.40 square
feet ( 1. 18 acres ) .
SECTION Th's ordinany6 sh 1 be in full force and effect
from and afte its p ssage a d -oval.
Passed: A proved:
Presiding Officer Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
C1,6ty
ei rson Louise Gardner
ff MAYOR
320 E.McCarty St. 3144634-6M
Jefferson City,Missouri 65101
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Louise Gardner, Mayor
DATE: March 30, 1988
RE: Veto of Bill 87-187 sponsored by Councilman Barnicle
The Charter of the City of Jefferson, Section 3.11 (g) requires
the Mayor to approve or disapprove of all ordinances passed by
the Council. If the Mayor chooses to disapprove any of the
ordinances, then the Mayor is required to return it to the
Council with a written statement of the reasons for the
disapproval. This statement is my compliance with that provision
of the Charter indicating my disapproval of Bill 87-187 entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, CHANGING,
AMENDING AND MODIFYING THE ZONING MAP OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE
CITY OF JEFFERSON, BY REZONING A TRACT OF LAND AT 2203 EAST
MCCARTY STREET FROM C-4 (PLANNED COMMERCIAL ) TO M-1 (LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL) .
The Law Department has requested that this bill be vetoed. The
reasons cited by the Legal Department were that there is no need
for the ordinances to have two identical bills passed at the same
meeting on the books. The short range considerations are very
minor. A more serious matter will be when future reference is
made to these two bills and it is noted they are identical. It
is entirely possible that someone will reach the conclusion that
the Council would not pass two identical bills at the same
meeting and that there must have been some clerical error in one
of the two bills. It is also a matter of good legislative
practice not to pass bills which do not advance the cause. I
concur with the Legal Department's recommendation.
While I appreciate the purpose behind Councilman Barnicle
requiring a second vote, his purpose was accomplished the moment
the vote was taken and leaving this bill on the books as an
ordinance would not advance any purpose of the City. I have
spoken with Councilman Barnicle about my intent to veto this bill
so he would be aware of the reasons for vetoing it and give him
. an opportunity to express any concerns he might have with the
veto.