Laserfiche WebLink
106 <br /> <br /> Mrs. Gleason stated that She feared applying the <br />ordinance to commercial zones might create more problems <br />than it would solve and recommended that the City try <br />and persuade people to be reasonable in their noise <br />levels. <br /> <br /> Dr. Gunter questioned what sort of persuasive <br />powers the City would have and who would be responsible. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix recommended that a member of the City's <br />administrative staff talk to parties involved in areas <br />where there are a significant number of complaints. <br /> <br /> Ms. Sheila Haughey, Assistant City Attorney, noted <br />that noise impact can be a consideration when granting <br />special permits which can be used by the City to control <br />future problems. <br /> <br /> On a question from Mr. Buck concerning noises that <br />would exceed the noise level, Mr. Hengrix listed the <br />following: garbage trucks, chain saws, lawn mowers, etc. <br /> <br /> Dr. Gunter suggested that perhaps the noise ordinance <br />could be applied to commercial zones during evening hours <br />only. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix recommended trying voluntary cooperation <br />before the ordinance is changed. <br /> <br /> A majority of Council agreed to have the noise ordinance <br />apply to residential zones only. <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT: ART OBJECTS <br /> <br /> Mr. Satyendra Huja, Director of Community Development, <br />outlined a report submitted to Council and the recommended <br />procedures which had been pzepared in response to Council's <br />request. Mr. Huja stated that the procedures included <br />establishment of a review board which would make recommenda- <br />tions to Council regarding permanent art on City property. <br />Mr. Huja added that temporary art (less than 60 days) was <br />recommended to be subject only to staff review. <br /> <br /> Mr. Alexander Gilliam, Chairman of the Jefferson- <br />Madison Regional Library Board, stated that the Library <br />Board felt strongly that it be allowed to display any art <br />in furtherance of Library projects without being subject <br />to a review. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck asked Mr. Gilliam if he opposed temporary <br />art displays being subject to a staff review only. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gilliam responded that the Library Board felt they <br />should be able to approve a temporary display and felt the <br />review process raised questions of censorship. Mr. Gilliam <br />questioned what areas of the Library grounds would be affected. <br /> <br /> Mrs. Gleason questioned whether an exception could be <br />made for the Library. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja, responding to Mr. Gilliam's question, <br />stated that technically any area that can be viewed from. <br />the street would be subject to review, and adged that he <br />felt procedures should apply to all public buildings. <br />Mr. Huja stressed that the Board of Architectural Review <br />and the Downtown Board of Architectural Review are interested <br />in encouraging art. <br /> <br /> Mr. Barnes noted that there are differences in opinion <br />concerning art as had been the case when the Library <br />displayed a sculpture that the DBAR did not feel was <br />appropriate. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck recommended that the time period for temporary <br />art displays be reduced to 30 days and not be subject to a <br /> <br /> <br />