Laserfiche WebLink
<br />owners, and she seemed willing to accept an extension to 10:00 p.m. if the work <br />was being done by an owner living in his own home. She felt the ordinance as <br />drafted was difficult to interpret. She que?tioned whether the term "loss of <br />rest and peace" would be equated with profit losses of builders, or whether it <br />would mean the health and rest of people in a neighborhood. Who would determine e <br />what "loss" would mean, she asked, and to whom would the "loss" be more important. <br />Ms. Lorwin suggested also that the restriction be changed to 7:00 p.m. as requested <br />when the amendment was first suggested. She said the extra hour of continuous <br />noise - to 8:00 p.m. _ was bad for neighbors but not fatal to the builders. <br />John Boyer, speaking for Associated General Contractors, said that members of that <br />organization did not engage in home construction and very rarely apartments, theirs <br />was mostly industrial or commercial construction. And they normally didn't work <br />after 5:00 p.m. because of added overtime costs. However, after hours work was <br />sometimes necessary - arterial construction to avoid peak traffic hours; comm~rcial <br />buildings at night when the general public is not in the building; during holiday <br />periods, especially mill closures, to avoid laying workers off during a renovation <br />project. In some emergency situations, he said, it was necessary to work around <br />the clock to avoid higher costs and to provide safety precautions. He added that <br />most people understood those problems and as a general rule were patient, recog- <br />nizing that type of work was temporary. The contractors, he said, were looking <br />at the proposed ordinance trying to determine how it would apply to the way they <br />worked. He said they had just received a copy and had not the opportunity to <br />compare its terms with ordinances in other cities, nor had they the opportunity <br />to discuss it and prepare testimony for a June 23 hearing. He asked delay to try <br />to work out suggestions that would lead to a solution for all concerned. <br />Councilwoman Shirey referred to newly annexed areas where open land was being de- <br />veloped with addition of sewers and utilities. In those instances, she said, <br />several temporary construction projects, one after the other, could lead to summer . <br />long noise. She had received complaints, she said, because of the publicity given <br />this proposed amendment, and she thought something should be done. She noted that <br />the ordinance as drafted didn't specify "owner" in allowing construction on single- <br />family dwellings after 8:00 p.m. and she thought that should be specified. <br />Councilwoman Beal saw no reason for that entire section to be included [4.084(4)]. <br />She thought a home owner wanting to do building work after hours would probably ask <br />permission of his neighbors, and most of the do-it-yourself work is done inside <br />buildings anyway. <br /> Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to consider striking <br /> section 4.084, Subsection (4) . <br />Assistant Manager explained that language was in the proposed ordinance to provide <br />some recourse to neighbors disturbed by do-it-yourself noise, at the same time pro- <br />viding the home owner an opportunity to work after 8:00 p.m. if no complaints were <br />received. Staff's concern was that without that language the provisions would be <br />running counter to proposed housing rehabilitation programs where the city con- <br />ceivably would be encouraging owners to do their own work. Mrs. Beal wondered <br />why other cities surveyed didn't have that provision in their codes. She thought <br />the do-it-yourselfers had plenty of daylight hours to accomplish that type of <br />work, plus Saturdays and Sundays. <br />Councilman Bradley thought it would be more prudent that the motion be brought to <br />the Council at the time of public hearing on the ordinance to have the advantage <br />of input from others. <br /> Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated, Council- . <br /> woman Beal voting aye, all other Council members present voting no. <br />With regard~to Councilwoman Shirey's suggestion to include the word "owner" in <br />Section 4.084(4) specifying persons doing their own building work, Assistant Manager <br />6/23/75 - 22 <br /> '352 <br />