HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/06/2001 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 154, 2001, AMENDIN AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 8
DATE: November 6,2001
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
STAFF: Brain Woodruff
SUBJECT:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2001, Amending Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code
Regarding Noise.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As part of an effort to improve noise enforcement, the City Manager initiated review of the
City's noise control ordinance (codified in Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code), which was
originally implemented in 1981. A staff team reviewed the ordinance and proposed modest
amendments to bring it up-to-date. The Council Health and Safety Committee reviewed the
proposed amendments and made some changes. Ordinance No. 154, 2001, was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2001.
r
i
i
i
i
I
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 12
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 16, 2001
STAFF:
Brain Woodruff
SUBJECT:
First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2001, Amending Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code
Regarding Noise.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
••r..
4L,
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Amending the noise control ordinance would not itself incur financial impact. Enforcement
resources are limited, however, and in the future, budget,resources may be requested to increase
them.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As part of an effort to improve noise enforcement, the City Manager initiated review of the
City's.noise control ordinance (codified in Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code), which was
onguiolly implemented in 1981.- A staff team reviewed the ordinance and proposed modest
amel t ents to bring it up-to-date. The Council Health and Safety Committee reviewed the
propo ' amendments and mane some changes. Following are highlights of the draft
amendgaeats:_
UNCHANGED PROVISIONS
• Numerical decibel limits based on zoning districts and/or vehicle speed limits would not be
changed. These standards are vvidely used in local noise ordinances.
• Police Officers would continue to judge noise disturbances without a meter reading. This
has been the most effective and most used defense against noise disturbances — it's simple
and flexible, and it keeps the need for meter readings to a minimum.
DATE: October 16, 2001 2 ITEM NUMBER: 12
NEW PROVISIONS
• A Code Compliance Inspector would be defined as a City employee with noise measurement
training and authority to issue summonses and to grant variances. This makes it clear who is
responsible for meter-based enforcement, correcting an omission of the original ordinance.
• Noise disturbances originating in Latimer County would be covered under certain conditions.
Although the County and City have similar noise ordinances, this would fill a gap in
enforcement coverage that now occurs when noise originating in the County causes a
nuisance within the City. "
• Impulse noises would be covered. This would specifically recognize nuisance sounds that
have sudden onset and rapid decay, such as clanging pipes.
• Pure tones would be covered and would have a five-decibel stricter noise limit. This would
specif cally recognize nuisance sounds such as the whining or,humming of heavy machinery.
x• Sound originating and received in different parts of a an p.�'le-use,:building would be
covered. This would cover occupants of buildings that have"'mixed uses such as retail,
commercial, and residential.
• Lawn/garden equipment and snow handling equi uld have a limited ex ,An
exception is needed for these common, necessary bme a business activities
• Golf course mowing would have a limited exception. Although mowing may be louder than
residential standards, people who live adjacent to golf courses tacitly accept, by their choice
of residence, the noise from necessary golf course mowing.
MODIFIED PROVISIONS
• A Code Compliance Inspector would approve variances;''with appeal to the City Manager
(currently, the Manager approves variance requests, with appeal to Council). This would
simplify the variance procedure for both applicants and City staff.
• Day-time noise limits would be allowed for an extra hour in the evening (currently: 7 a.m. to
7 p.m. — proposed: 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.). This would provide added evening time for common
activities such as lawn mowing.
DELETED PROVISIONS
• Council authority to designate certain areas as quiet zones would be deleted. This authority
never been used since it was created in 1981.
• S&nding a vehicle horn fo purposes other than danger warning would no longer be a
vton. This would recognize reality: only Police Officers can stop a vehicle, and they
h " ch more important priorities than vehicle horn enforcement.
BACKGROUNtD ,.
Noise hurts. Exposure to noise in community settings can result is physiological, biochemical,
and psychological impacts which can be roughly termed stress. Residents of Fort Collins are
entitled to the peaceable enjoyment of their private property and should be able to conduct
conversations uninterrupted and to sleep undisturbed.
City Council addressed these issues in 1981 by adopting an ordinance establishing noise control
The ordinance allowed City staff to respond to noise disturbances in a flexible manner:
DATE: October 16, 2001 3 ITEM NUMBER: 12
• Nuisance approach. Police officers were empowered to make a prima facie
determination as to whether a noise is unreasonable. Although subjective, this
approach continues to be the most frequent and effective enforcement method for
sounds associated with inconsiderate behavior. For example, an officer has the
flexibility to break up a loud party at midnight and to allow an identical party at noon
to continue.
• Performance standard approach. Maximum permissible noise levels were set for each
zoning district. Rarely used, this approach is useful for mechanical noises, where a
more objective standard is required. It allows staff to take readings with a sound
level meter to determine whether a sound source is in compliance.
Meter-Based Noise Enforcement
By the 1990s, the City's ability to enforce the performance standards had nearly lapsed.
Residents sometimes got a run-around when they asked for meter readings. While%_6'-�rdinance
, A
makes clear that Police Officers can make a prima fac:C w0sement that noise is unrea4ble, it
does not say who should take meter readings. Recet noise`investigations discovered certam
technical gaps in the current ordinance: it fails to cover impulsive sounds such as clanging pipes
and pure tones such as an exhaust fan. As in many other communities, the City's noise ordinance
fell into disuse partly because it was unwieldy to enforce.
In 1997, the City Manager directed that noise ordinance enforcement be updated in two steps:
• Identify who would be responsible for enforcement of the meter-based noise
ordinance, and to give them proper equipment and training.
• Convene a staff team to update the noise ordinance.
The first step was completed in Spring 1998, when the City Manager assigned meter-based noise
enforcement to the Health and Safety Division. Division staff members have been equipped
with industry-standard noise meters and have received training in community noise enforcement.
Ordinance Review
A staff team was formed with representation from several affected departments. A consultant
anal}? the current ordinance and offered suggestions. In addition, the team used the Model
Munich I�Ioise Ordinance published in the handbook of Envirotunental Acoustics as a pattern
for its d amendments. The team completed its review in Spring 1999 and presented its
recommendation to the Council Uealth and Safety Committee.
In performing its review, the team kept several principles in mind:
• Bring the ordinance in line with modern community noise enforcement (e.g., using
the model noise code as a guide)
• Make it easy for citizens to understand and comply (e.g., prefer time-of-day
restrictions over DBA restrictions)
• Make it easy to enforce in the field (e.g., restrictions based on standard meter
readings...no need to average readings over several minutes)
DATE: October 16, 2001 4 ITEM NUMBER: 12
• Keep meter-based enforcement to a minimum (e.g., continue to rely on Police Officer
judgement as the first line of defense against noise disturbances)
• Make it reasonable — avoid interference with necessary home and business activity
(e.g., exceptions for mowing and snow-blowing)
• Make it workable — avoid specifying technical procedures in the ordinance (e.g., rely
on trained Code Compliance Officers to apply good professional practice when
evaluating noise complaints)
The Health and Safety Committee considered the draft amendments between Fall 1999 and
Spring 2001. The Committee recommended going forward with the draft—ordinance with the
following amendments:
• Larimer County. The amendments address a gap that was created with the adoption
of Larimer County's noise ordinance. Although the County ordinance has the same
decibel limits for residential areas, the ordinance specifies that it is applicable only
within the unincorporated area of the county. This means the County , not
enforce against a noise source in the County causing a problem w'
'
city—a gap that the City noise ordinance needs to`filj "`'
Committee members were concerned that-this provision could stress the City-County
relationship. They agreed that the City should fill the gap by taking jurisdiction over
cross-boundary noise nuisances, however, the County should be given an opportunity
to enforce its regulation first. These provisions are contained in Section 20-26
(Extraterritorial noise source).
• "Coming to the nuisance". Sometimes noise complaints arise when someone builds
or buys a home adjacent to an established business. The Bredero-Price Company, for
example, found itself the target of complaints from its residential neighbors over the
midnight clanging of steel pipes. Although they violated the City noise ordinance,
Bredero-Price argued that the company had been in business at that site since the
mid-1960's— long before,the housing was built nearby— and was entitled to continue
their noise level as before.
Committee members were concerned that such noise complaints could be unfair and
wanted to provide some protection for long-established businesses. The staff Land
11;Use Code Team and the Council Growth Management Committee also considered the
matter. All encountered; the difficulty that any exception for pre-existing noise
Jounces would have to be„Mated in the ordinance itself, i.e., it could not be handled in
s- ,flexible guideline document. A GIS map was prepared that showed that the
si'fuattoq that.Commitiee members were concerned about would not occur very often.
After considering a number of alternatives, Committee members decided not to create
an exception for long-established business, because it is not appropriate to adopt
special laws for such a rare situation.
• Multi-dwelling-unit buildings. Staff had proposed a new provision that would
employ meter readings for sound originating and received in different parts of a
multi-dwelling-unit building. Committee members decided to delete this provision
because it would be inappropriate to use inflexible, meter-based enforcement in such
DATE: October 16, 2001 5 ITEM NUMBER: 12
cases. Rather, they argued, the affected neighbors should first address noise
problems using common sense and courtesy. Landlords also have a role, and, finally,
Police officers can be called upon to determine whether a noise is unreasonable.
Outreach
Because of the modest nature of the amendments, the staff team proposed to limit citizen
outreach only to those affected by amendments, and the Council Health and Safety Committee
concurred. Groups contacted by staff included:
• Motorcycle riders (vehicle noise limits would not change)
• Rental property managers (proposed coverage of multi-dwelling-unit buildings)
• County businesses adjacent to the City boundary (pro osed coverage of cross-
boundary nuisances) *-
Recommendation
These amendments would bring the noise ordinance up-to-date, while retaining most "af its
features. Of course staff or citizens could propose many new ideas. Rather than add new
material at this point, however, staff recommends that Council adopt this package of
amendments and give staff and citizens a couple of years to gain some experience with them. At
that point in time any problems with the ordinance would become evident, and new issues may
arise, which could be addressed by City Council in future amendments to the noise ordinance.
I