Loading...
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.