HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/1981 �ITY OF APPLE VALI,EY �
UKBAN AFFAIRS COMMTTTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 15, 1981
P��ESENT : MeKay, Myers , Deters , Sch.wartz , Metry, Hein, and
Staff Member Kelley.
ABSENT : Doering.
l. Call to Order.
Chairperson Myers called meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m.
2. Approval of December 4, 1980 Minutes.
MOTION : by Metry, seconded by Deters , for approval .
YES - 6. NO - 0. Motian carried.
3 . Further Discussion of Noise Ordinance.
i�r. Kelley prepared a draft ordinance for further review which
was mailed to all members.
Section l ; Subdivision 2. (Air circulation device� .
N1r. �tetry questioned the necessity of this subdivision.
Decision : Deleted from ordinance .
Section 2; Subdivision 3. (Horns , audible signaling devices , etc. )
Mr. MeKay mentioned that the sounding of horns for a wed�.ing party
would be against the ordinance. Ms. Schwartz questioned how this
would affect emergency vehicles , �.nd . Mr. Kelley replied emergency
vehicles were covered under state statutes.
Section 2; Subdivision l . (General Prohibition) .
Ms . Deters questioned the inclusion of this subdivision in that
it was the intent to get away from general things and being very
specific in drafting the ordinance for noise generation and land
use standards . She felt this could include a lot of other charges
under the law that was not intended, and she hated to get too
specific as long as it wasn't needed.
Mr. Kelley stated this was in the sample ordinance, and reconfirms
the general nuisance characteristics so the police wauld have two
ordinances on which they could site nuisances.
Decision: Leave it in on a wait and. see basis ; at a later date
if there are too many complaints it could then be stricken from
the ordinance.
Section �; Subdivision l. (Pawers and Duties of Noise Control
Officer) .
i�Zs . Deters asked who the Building Official would be. Mr. Kelley
replied that it was John Gretz . He stated it had been found to
be best to put it under the Department Head, who can then delegate
the responsibility. Police Department would enforce the vehicular
noise.
Urban affairs Com ttee Minutes
January 15, 1981 � .
Page 2
Mr. McKay referred to last months minutes and the statement
regarding the Planning Commission's assessment of noise
generation at time of zoning approval. Mr. Kelley explained
that the Planning Commission doesn't go into as much detail
as the Committee has in talking about this ordinance. He
stated there are differences in keeping heavier commercial
uses , and heavier vehicles out as far as setbacks are con-
cerned. He said a part of the Comprehensive Plan was to review
the zoning ordinances and some will be changed and readopted this
spring, and that noise would be addressed.
Mr. I�etry stated state statutes , as a part of the model ordin-
ance, were included and he would hope they would take it into
consideration for a monitoring system. Mr. Kelley replied
that Bloomington, who has a Comprehensive E�forcement Program,
have a full time process with a deputy spending 15 hours a week,
an interin spending 100 hours in a three month period , and the
police time that varies on how their schedule is set up. He
said their complaints are running more than 10 a week, however
Bloomington is quite a bit bigger, with most of the complaints
coming from the commercial areas rather than adjacent outlying
areas . He said the deputy spends a lot of time monitoring with
the meter, and also works directly with the police when they
are doing their monitoring.
Ms . Schwartz asked how much time our police would be spending on
noise, and Mr. Kelley replied that it would depend on how much
the City Council wanted done. He stated loud parties, etc. �
would be handled by the police, and the Building Inspector would
be on the long term noise caused by industry or commercial uses
that take several hours to monitor.
Section 2; Subdivision 5. (Testing Procedures) .
Ms . Deters asked if the noise eontrol officer would have the
guidelines ready. Mr. Kelley stated he would go by the opera-
tional manual on noises; he has to be so many feet away, and
the device has to be tested. Ms. Schwartz asked if they would
be monitoring all over the city by going around to the different
areas. Mr. Kelley stated monitoring is usually done on a com-
plain� basis , someone complains that an area is producing an
over abundance type noise.
Section 4; Subdivision 3. (Action on Application) .
F�s . Deters asked who the Board of Appeals and Adjustments were,
and Mr. Kelley replied it �as the Planning Cornmission, explaining
whenever they act for a variance they are then meeting as the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Ms. Schwartz questioned if
the Planning Commission would be determining how much noise a
new business coming to town would be making. Mr. Kelley replied
that they always look at a proposal in terms of how the building
is going to loak, what uses are going to be going on there, and
if it will impose on others in terms of noise generation inside
and out. �Ts . Schwartz asked if they consider traffic going
through the City to Burnsville. Mr. Kelley stated not as far
Urban Affairs Co ttee Minutes
January 15, 1981� �
Page 3
as noise generation of the traffic, but they do look at it
in terms of volume of traffic and if the roads are there to
handle the traffic. In zoning, he said � they look at com-
patible type uses with existing uses.
MOTION : by Metry, seconded by McKay, to adopt ordinance with the
exclusion of Section l , Subdivision 2, "Air circulation device".
�s . Schwartz stated she would like the Planning Commission to
look at the ordinance before adoption, and if it is adop�ed by
the City �ouncil she would like included that there would be
some type of scheduled noise monitoring by the police department.
Mr. Kelley suggested they might want to handle these items by
a recommendation. Motion amended by Metry.
MOTION : by Metry, seconded by McKay, to adopt ordinance with the
exclusion of Section l , Subdivision 2, "Air circulation
device" , and the recommendation that City Council make
the Planning Commission aware of this ordinance so they
can use it for technical background when they are up-
grading and amending their zoning ordinance this spring.
YES - 6. NO - 0. Motion carried.
Discussion of Noise Monitoring:
MOTION : by Schwartz , seconded by Deters , Committee recommended
to City Council that they establish some kind of sched-
uling for periodic monitoring program.
I��. I�etry stated he thought the monitoring went with the state
statutes for vehicles . Mr. Kelley reported it covered all
but 10 or ls�. T�r. Metry stated he felt this somewhat frivolus
because they had no choice but to treat this on an exception
type basis . NZs. Sch�artz stated this didn't address the problem
and she would feel better if there was monitoring for even one
hour a week. She said the citizens who asked us to look into
the noise factor would know something was being done. She
suggested signs could be put up that the area was being monitored .
Mr. Kelley stated that Bloomington's experience was basically
that by having the regular enforcement period people have been
more inclined to have auto repai�s, and that a part of their
program is to get people to comply. He said the City would have
to have that.
Mr. Myers stated it wouldn't help with the noise on C. R. �2;
that the overall noise wouldn't go down mueh. He said if �signs
were erected it would eause truck drivers to avoid it.
I��r. McKay suggested the ordinance be published in the Countryside
if adopted by the Council . T�en, he said, i� someone really��..wants
s��ething taken care of they will look into it. Mr. Kelley stated
it w ould be published routinely if adopted.
�s . Deters stated in terms of monitoring they would probably be
looking at four hours a week, and questioned if they would be
Urban Affairs Com ttee �inutes
January 15, 1g81 � •
Page 4
hiring someone. Mr. Kelley stated that right now the police
have so many hours of speed monitoring and so many cruising
hours , and if they were aware of it it would just be an
additional task. ��r. �etry stated that vehicular noises would
only be available if the City had some kind of ongoing equipment.
Mr. Kelley stated theequipment could be borrowed at no cast.
He stated with that kind of equipment the police could be
monitoring for noise and speed at the same time. �s . Schwartz
stated she would like this because there are people going 50
on their way to Burnsville before they should be.
Don and Diane Zarson, 161 Spruce Drive, were asked to comment .
P�r. Larson stated their main concern was a loud general n�isance
that was happening in their neighborhood. He stated the kids
across the street and friends actually bring out a band and play
hard rock music. He said there were perhaps 50 kids that gather,
and that they were smoking, drinking, and partying, every weekend
last summer. He said they had called the police, who came at
least 20 times , but �he kids swear at them and tell them they
know their rights. The police said there was nothing they could
do about it . He said it got so bad they had to leave. He said
they play right up t� 9:45 at night and quit , but start again
at 14 :00 the next morning. He said all the neighbors were in
agreement with them that it wa� really loud.
mr. Metry stated this would be in a residential district , and
that if the ordinance is passed and the monitoring equipment is
available they could stop it. He explained that without this
equipment the police now have no way of monitoring it .
Mrs . Larson s�ated they have a new baby, and there are a lot of
other children on the block . She said even with the air conditioner
running it was loud in the house. She said the last time she called
the switchboard the lady said that she was so sorry about it, that
they had had 25 calls , but the police wouldn't come out anymore
because they can•t do anything. She said just �wo days ago she
couldn't even pu� the baby in the nursery and had to put her in
their bedroom because they were playing a car radio very loud .
Ms . Schwartz questianed if i� would be loud enough to be monitored.
lt�r. Kelley reported that they would stand at the property line.
�r. MeKay ask ed if they thought a fine of $500 for each person
and a jail term not to exceed 90 days would be enough. Mr, Larson
stated that when it is loud enough to be damaging to the ear he
felt it would be plenty loud enough.
MOTION : by Schwartz , seconded by Deters , that Committee recomm�nd
ta the City Council they establish some kind of schedul-
ing for periodic monitoring program.
YES - 6. NO - 0. Motion carried.
Urban Affairs Com ttee Minutes
January 15, 1981 � �
Page 5
Signs Discussion.
1�7r. It2etry stated that as far as signs we were at the point now where
we have a CB sign and a parking ordinance sign, and he thought
they lost the effectiveness . 1vlr• Kelley stated the usual kind
of sign that would be used was a regulatory sign which was
white with black letters, and would be different from the s
other signs . He stated that Mrs . Callahan had indicated that
it usually works pretty �r�ell . l�Zr. Metry stated the only place
he felt a sign would be effective would be on C. R. 42 because
of the inter-city traffic from Burnsville and Rosemount , but
he was not advocating signs.
I��r. Kelley was asked w�ien this would be on the Council Agenda,
and he replied it wpuld be on next week, January 22nd . He stated
the City Attorney had looked at it but hasn't finished his review.
Mr. McKay told Mr. & P�Irs. Larson that it was important that they
be at this meeting. Mrs . I,arson stated they would and they could
also bring some of their neighbors.
Mr. T�etry stated his suggestion was that someone volun.teer to
make the presentation to the City Council. He stated this
Committee has worked long and hard on this ordinance, and he
didn't feel by reading the minutes one could get -the full effect
of the Committee's efforts. He stated he would be willing to
present the ordinance. Committee was in agreement.
T�IOTION : by Schwartz , seconded by Deters , that upon adoption of
this ordinance that City Council would consider noise
ordinance signs to be placed on the city boundary of
County Road �2.
YES - 6. NO - 0. Motion carried.
P�fOTIONs by Metry, seconded by Hein, meeting adjourn.
YES - 6. NO - 0. l�otion carried.
ivTeeting adjourned at 8 :20 p.m.
wb