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.