05/12/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. (II-A-l) tit e Clarification of status of the issue was requested by Councilwoman Beal. Councilman Williams explained that the Council action at the April 28 meeting was to reverse action taken in committee, i.e., committee motion to instruct staff to draft ordinance revisions was defeated, but when brought to the Council was approved (to prepare re- vision for 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.). However, he said, that action was to ask for preparation of an ordinance revision only, no policy change was made at that point. The Mayor agreed with that interpretation. Councilman Murray said he would vote against the motion to reconsider. He said his "no" vote was not with the intent of being impolite to Councilman Hamel who was requesting reconsideration because of his vote at the April 28 Council meeting (see committee minutes above). Instead, Mr. Murray said, his negative vote would be because he felt the 8:00 p.m. hour was a reasonable re- striction. Mayor Anderson declared the discussion out of order until after vote on the motion to reconsider. Vote on the motion to reconsider was taken. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, and Haws voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, and Shire~ voting no. Mr. Murray moved second by Mrs. Beal to reaffirm action instructing staff to prepare amendment to the city code that would change the time limit on construction noise from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and set up a permit system allowing construction under certain conditions beyond that time. Councilman Haws wondered if a public hearing was necessary. He thought the 8:00 p.m. restriction was a reasonable request, that major construction projects would be covered. It was pointed out that public hearing had already been held, that additional testimony was not deemed necessary. Councilman Murray took exception to a comment that construction noise was peculiar to the University area. He thought it was a citywide problem and called the Council's attention to recent community development questionnaire which identified areas in other parts of the city where control was needed. He thought the proposed change was reasonable, that it would make no drastic revision in construction practices necessary. Councilman Williams said he had no strong feelings about this issue but he noted staff's strong reservations about modifications and thought it might be worthwhile to have those reviewed. Assistant M~nager explained that staff concerns included suppliers, contractors, homebuilders, who sometimes were geared to later working hours. He said this restriction would have an adverse ffect on housing costs, and there was the po- tential of complaints requiring enforcement action coming after normal working hours. Mr. Allen thought the issue should go to public hearing because of interest expressed by homebuilders and contractors organizations because they had been contacted by staff with the word that no change would be made until an ordinance was prepared (according to previous Council action). Councilwoman Beal said that representatives of the West University Neighbors were present and should have an opportunity to be heard. Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Murry to reopen public hearing on the issue. Motion defeated - Council members Murray, Beal, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, and Mayor Anderson voting no. Mayor Anderson in breaking the tie said he voted against the motion because he felt if public hearing was reopened and additional testimony taken, the homebuilders and con- tractors associations and others having an interest should also have the opportunity to be heard. 5/12/75 - 7 2SZ.