Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/1980 � � CTTY OF APPLE VALLEY URBAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING DEC�B� 4, 198a Pt�tESENT : Deters , Schwartz , Hein, Metry, Doering, Kelley and Pressnall. ABSENT : Chairman Meyers l. Mr. Kelley opened the meeting at 7 :40 p.m. 2. Approval of November 20, 1980 Minutes. MOTION : by 5chwartz, seconded by Deters, ta approve the Minu-�es of November 20, 1g80 with a correction made on page 2, paragraph_� 1, to read "Unfair to address air- conditioners and not the bug zappers". Yes - 5. No - 0. Motion carried. 3. Fur�her Discussion of Noise Ordinance. Discussion was again initiated on the technicalities of what belonged in the noise ordinance and what should be in the nuisance ordinance. Mr. Kelley stated that �rehicul�:r noises and noises by industry and commercial activi�y have to be measured, while other noises at certain times of the day were of the nuis- ance nature. Ms. Schwartz stated she had mentioned a';.meeting with the Planning Commission at the last meeting, and had since talked wi�h a mem- ber of that Commission who felt they were not really up on noise. Mr. Kelley replied they weren•t on the technical side� �erhaps , but they do realize there is going to be noise impaet. He stated a special meeting was held last spring on noise impact. He stated he felt most of the question was noise generation and land use, and that once the Comprehensive Plan was approved�� �2���e would be a review in the zoning ordinance with distance specified. Com- mittee felt after a draft ordinance was written it could be sent to the Planning Commission for review. l�r. Metry s-�ated the ordinance had to be written so it was reason- able to enforce and understand. He questioned if the City was at the point of having a significant noise problem. Discussion then went to what was enforceable, with Advisory Nfember Pressnall stating that anything was enforceable if you could get the backing of �he court. He stated he had �alked with I�athy Callah����about the possibility of getting a decibal meter. He added that anything the police department would be involved in would be covered by state law, other than problems with bug zappers and he felt that a speeified time limit could be stip�ulated in an ordi�.ance for a certain amount of success. Noi�es from steros and like equipment w��e mentioned as well as at what point they would be considered a nuisance. Mr. Kelley then read a definition of nuisance as "that which disturbs the peace, quiet, and comfort of neighbors". Ms . Schwaxtz stated she would like to see the ordinance contain a Urban Affairs Cv tee Meeting December 4, 1980� � Page 2 Section 4, Page 9, of the model ordinance; "Receiving Land Use Standards", "Sub. l , Maximum Noise Levels by Receiving Land Use Distriets". Noise of motor vehicles was then discussed. Mr. Kelley stated the motor vehicular noises were covered in the model ordinance by a graph. It was questioned if there was any purpose of re- peating state l�,w in the ordinance, and if the ticketing process was enforced by local ordinance rather than state law. Pressnall stated he could only enforce state law, but with the adoption of an ordinance it would signify to the courts that a problem exists and the City would like their attention. He sta�ed through docu- mentation and then enforcement they can get results. He sited nuisance type calls and stated they were documented for a few times, then they give a warning, and with the next call they can be fined. He said something specific writ�en in the or- dinance might make their job easier, adding that with the la�ud stero situation a time of limitation would give them something to work with even though they can't get into the deeibal levels. Mr. Kelley said that if such equipment can be heard outside the house after 10:00 p.m. it is probably too loud, and if the Com- mittee intended to use this they should be objective about it. Mr. Pressnall stated they eould probably draw some examples from the disorderly conduet ordinances such as squeeling tires, and others listed there. Truek noises were mention ' ed. Mr. Kelle stated he didn t now ' y k if ther e wa s an adv y anta e to re eatin the state ordinance. It g P � was felt however that if the ordi nance contained certain sti u- P lations there might be a possibility of revenue from fines being returned to the city from those charged. Mr. Pressnall was asked if he felt the monitoring equipment could be borrowed. He replied that Ms. Callahan had at first been hesitant about this st�:ting their target cities are those with population of 25,000, however on learrYing that App1e Valley was between 20 and 30,000 and the continuing growth rate had stated she would defini�ely be interested in putting in some equipment. The model nuisance ordinance was then reviewed which seemed to list many things the Committee did not feel applicable to the city. It was felt a good definition of what would be considered a nuisance must first be established. N�r. Kelley st�ted it was something that occurs at a particular time of the day. John MeKay attended the meeting. The Committee felt they would pref�r to go over the nuisance ardinance separately in order to develop a better list of what might be eonsidered nuisance noises. It was felt the loud stero would be justified, however the model ordinance did not include a time limit. Urban Affairs Co tee Meeting December 4, 1980� � Page � � � � Mr. Pressnall ques�ioned if this would be eo�ring commercial areas or just residential. mr. Metry stated it seemed to differentiate between disturbing the pea�e, quiet and comfort of a neighbor, and in addition something being plainly au�ible between the hours of 10 :00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Mr. Pressnall was asked if he felt problems exist in the commercial area and he replied that following payday they have problems, but the other weekends they don't. He added that they have had problems in one or two areas with the bug zappers whi�� he felt could be handled by setting a 10 :00 p.m. shut-off time. It was pointed out that directions for the bug zappers state� they should be left on at night for good results. Motion by Metry seconded by MeKay to adopt the s�tate vehicul�r ordinance by referenee and adaption of the Receiving Land Use Standards with Mr. Kelley pr�paring a draft. Yes - 6. NO - 0. Motion carried. Mr. Ke11ey sta�ed he would like to draw up the ordinance and send it to the City Attorney for review and comrnent. The Committee decided to elimina�e the fir�t meeting in January in order to give the City Attorney time to respond. �text meeting is scheduled for January 15 , 19$1 . Motion by Metry, seconded by MeKa�r to adjourn. Motian carried. Adjourned at 8:30 p.m.