2004-10-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Responding to a question from Mr. Lynch, Ms. Lisa Kelley, Deputy City Attorney, said State legislation would allow a cap. Mr. Caravati asked how many applications for the program are in the process now, and Mr. Tolbert said he will have to find out that information. Mr. Caravati said he would be interested in exploring a cap, allowing accessory units, and maintaining the 2006 sunset. Mr. Lynch said he would agree with allowing accessory apartments. Dr. Brown asked about the implications of allowing accessory apartments, and Mr. Tolbert said it is hard to tell as only two or three people have inquired about allowing them. Mr. Lynch said the key is whether the program incentivizes people to make the investment in their homes. He said he thinks the tax benefit should go to less expensive houses and thinks a cap makes sense. He said he would like to hear from people who have used the program about how successful it is as an incentive. Mr. Tolbert said that a large number of people who come in for a building permit are surprised to find out about the program. Mr. Schilling said there is a question on the form asking if renovations would have been done without the program. He said that he would not have been able to do his renovations without the program. He said that when he asked why extending the program to accessory apartment was being recommended he was told that a citizen asked for it. He said he thinks we need more solid data and more information on a cap. He noted that in his recent trip to Tacoma and Portland he was told they have an abatement program for multi-million dollar buildings. He said he thinks the issue bears further investigation. Mr. Caravati said he would like to see an economic study of how this program has improved the City's real estate. Dr. Brown said he thinks the question is what was the program originally intended to do and is it doing that. He agreed with Mr. Schilling that more data is needed and whether people would have done the renovations anyway. It was agreed that Council will revisit the issue after receiving more information. REPORT: NOISE ORDINANCE UPDATE Ms. Kelley explained that staff was asked to look at the issue of noise from commercial districts and motor vehicles, especially mopeds. She provided statistical information about noise complaints made to the Police Department. She said that if Council wants to expand the noise ordinance, there needs to be a determination about what the problems are, where they are located, and what are the ambient conditions. She said the ordinance needs to be tailored to the problems that are occurring. She said State legislation is proposed to clarify the issue of noise from mopeds. She noted that most noise complaints are coming from residential neighborhoods. Mr. Lynch said that one thing that could be done right away is to identify those noise offenders in commercial districts and sent them a letter indicating that Council is looking at expanding the noise ordinance, though it would prefer not to, and asking that they give consideration to how the noise is affecting the adjacent neighborhoods. He said Council can then act depending on the responses to these letters. Regarding noise from car stereos, he said he thinks that 10:00 p.m. is too late and should be started at 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. He said he supports the legislative package to clarify the issue of moped so we can enforce noise coming from mufflers that have been tampered with. Ms. Hamilton said she understands there have been few complaints regarding noise from commercial districts, but said it has a dampening effect when you are told the