Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-2006 ''1 ~ CITY OF -.... / '" ~ASHINGTON MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 7, 2006 The regular meeting of the Auburn Planning Commission was held on March 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Judi Roland, Kevin Chapman, Dave Peace, Ronald Douglass, Renee Larsen, Joan Mason and Darci Bidman. STAFF: Development Services Coordinator Steve Pilcher, Community Development Administrator David Osaki, Planner Stacey Borland, Assistant Planning Secretary Laura Pierce REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order by Chair Roland at 7:02 p.m. Ms. Roland introduced the new Planning Commissioner, Darci Bidman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was agreed by concensus that the minutes of the February 7,2006 meeting be approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT None PUBLIC HEARINGS · ZOAOS-0002 Amendments to the City of Auburn Zoning Code (Title 18) adopting new regulations related to Off-Street Parking of Commercial Vehicles in Residential Zones. Ms. Borland provided a brief overview of last month's public hearing on this topic. The hearing was continued to tonight's meeting. Since the last hearing, notices have been posted in the paper, on the City's website, and in local public places. In addition, a mass mailing was sent out to all those that were previously contacted prior to the February 7, 2006 public hearing (which included the Washington State Trucking Association) as well as the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), the Washington State legislative liaison for transportation systems, and America's Independent Truckers' Association, Inc. (AITA). In addition, an article was published in the Auburn Reporter. Additional research was also conducted on the City of Kent's methods for public notice on this issue. After all of this, only one additional written comment was received (an e-mail from Debra Rexroat, a copy of which was provided to Commission members). t' MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 7, 2006 4 Planner Borland indicated that the key concerns that the proposed amendment addresses are: noise, exhaust, aesthetics, hours of operation and safety. Some of the methods of addressing impacts that have previously been discussed are: screening of the vehicles and land use permits. No solutions have been developed to deal with the safety or emission issues. PLANNING COMMISSION I STAFF DISCUSSION: In response to various planning commission questions, staff noted that: · there is no data currently available to determine how the exhaust and fumes of commercial vehicles compares to the exhaust and fumes of other large non-commercial vehicles. · the City of Kent has not yet made a decision on its commercial vehicle code amendment. · according to City Code ,Enforcement Officers, the City of Auburn receives an average of one complaint per month regarding commercial vehicles that are parked in residential zones. PUBLIC COMMENT: David Joestan - 32206 157th Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092. Mr Joestan indicated that he is a diesel technician and recommended that the Planning Commission look into the different classes of semi trucks. He noted that there are a variety of classes of commercial semi-trucks that are based on weight and tonnage. The standard semi truck is a class 8 vehicle. Class 8 means that the vehicle is over 20,000 pounds (empty) and nearly 80,000 pounds (loaded). A dump truck is also a class 8 vehicle. Some companies operate class 5 through class 8 vehicles. A class 5 vehicle is also very large (10,000 - 12,000 pounds) and produces the same amount of emissions, but it weighs less and hauls less. If the City uses class 8 vehicles as its definition of commercial vehicles, this could lead to false complaints because a semi could be defined as other class vehicles aside from class 8. In 2007, all diesel fuel will be low sulfur burning and odors should no longer be an issue. Currently, diesel fuel burns 5% sulfur and in 2007, it will burn .05% sulfur. The various classes of commercial vehicles (class 5 through class 8) typically produce similar levels of noise. There is however a large decibel difference in noise levels between commercial and non-commercial vehicles. Neil Taylor - 519 F St SE Auburn, WA 98002. Mr Taylor indicated that he is a truck driver who owns a semi truck and transports short-haul loads. He leaves at odd hours such as 2:00 am or midnight. Over the years, he has changed some of his practices to be more considerate of his neighbors. He is always careful and drives very slow when leaving the neighborhood to help with the noise levels. In his particular situation, the ordinance will not affect hini because he stated his home is located in a commercial zone. If this ordinance goes into effect, other truck drivers in similar situations would be forced to buy a second vehicle to drive to their trucks. He has witnessed other neighbors that have personal vehicles that are louder than his semi truck. Every year, he is required to put his truck through annual inspections and emission tests that ensure his vehicle is not producing an inordinate amount of noise. Visually, he has a neighbor that has two motor homes parked in front of the house and this is just as unappealing as a semi truck. He does not believe that the closure of the truck stop will cause an increase in the number of commercial vehicles that are parked in residential zones. It is not safe or convenient to bring semi trucks into most neighborhoods. -2- .! MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 7. 2006 Other options that the drivers have include parking at: Wal-Mart, or at the movie area of the Super Mall. It is sometimes difficult to find parking even in these areas. Mr. Taylor suggested that it should continue to be permissible to park commercial vehicles in residential zones and we should strive to instill a sense of common courtesy in the operators. Kelly Haggett - 929 23rd PI SE Auburn, WA 98002 Ms. Haggett stated that she is dealing with one neighbor in particular who is not considerate with the operation of his semi truck. Ms. Haggett presented a photo that was taken from inside her home. The streets and homes are configured in a circle, the neighbor located at the center parks semi trucks in his yard and driveway. The clanking and banging of the vehicles reverberates among the homes. The noise is excruciating. Regardless of the odor issue that may go away with the new fuel in 2007, she doesn't want the fumes in her home. It is impossible to vent her home while the trucks are running. She complains to the City regularly and to various departments within the City. The trucks are a visual nuisance when they are parked and a nuisance in other ways when they are running. The trucks are either parked against her backyard or up between two other houses. She has spoken this neighbor, but there was no willingness to adjust his behavior. He simply told her that he was exercising his rights and that he bought that house for the long driveway for his trucks. Currently, Auburn's Code Enforcement and Auburn's City Attorney are working together and looking into the situation. Ms. Haggett is in full support of the ordinance being passed. Janel Britten - 2231 K St SE Auburn, WA 98002 Ms. Britten, a neighbor of Ms. Haggett's, also came to speak about the individual discussed by Ms. Haggett. She appreciates what was said about respectfulness of your neighbors. Unfortunately, her experience has not worked that way. She believes that the passing of this ordinance is the only way to fix this problem. The trucks that her neighbor operates are running within a few feet of her house. There are no warnings when the trucks are backing up and they are located across the street from an elementary school. This neighborhood is not an area where semi trucks fit properly. These trucks ruin being at home for her and her family. When the trucks are running, she is unable to speak on the phone, open her windows, or barbeque, and her 4-yr old son chokes on the fumes when he plays in the backyard. She believes that it would be impossible to sell her home due to the view and the noise. She has approached this neighbor several times about the noise and the hours of operation. He has been unwilling to cooperate. She does not believe it is an issue if truck drivers are forced to drive to their trucks to work as most of us have to drive to work. She believes that this neighbor is running a business and he does have multiple trucks, but even one truck has a great impact in the-neighborhood. The noise of one truck in the middle of the night is intolerable. As there were no further public comments, Ms. Roland closed the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION I STAFF DISCUSSION: Mr. Peace said that it seems to be an oversight that commercial vehicles were not previously prohibited from parking in residential zones. Ms. Larsen suggested that we should consider limiting the number of commercial vehicles that are allowed to park on residential property - 3 - ~ MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 7, 2006 rather than prohibiting them from parking all together. Mr. Douglass stated that he believes something needs to be done when the neighbors are being affected. Ms. Roland brought up the issue of a noise ordinance in Auburn that might be beneficial in assisting the neighbors that are having troubles with this issue. Mr. Osaki stated that there is a noise ordinance in Auburn and it relies on the definition of public nuisances. Semi trucks are not specifically addressed in Auburn's noise ordinance. It would be difficult to enforce the noise ordinance in relation to semi trucks, as when the trucks aren't running there is no violation. Some Planning Commission members did not feel comfortable going forward on this issue without knowing exactly how commercial vehicles would be defined. Ms. Borland noted that the definitions have been discussed at length at previous meetings. The proposed definition has been modified based on requests made by the Planning Commission. It was decided that any vehicles other than standard semi truck cabs and semi truck trailers would not be addressed at this time. Mr. Peace made a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance to City Council. The motion was seconded. Further discussion ensued regarding the definition of commercial vehicles in this ordinance. Mr. Douglass noted that the commission members were requesting more information, but that no one was providing parameters for what information they would like. Suggestions were made to bring in an expert to educate the commission on semi truck classes and also to look into the class definitions used by the Department of Licensing. The motion failed 2-4. one abstention. The Planning Commission requested additional information from staff with respect to types of semi-trucks and asked that that information be brought back to the next meeting. · ZOA06-0002 Amendment to Auburn City Code (ACC) Title 18 repealing Chapter 18.69 entitled Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. Mr. Pilcher explained that the proposal is to repeal the existing PUD ordinance from the zoning code and replace it with the development agreement process. This proposal was generated by the desire of City Council to have a better way to address these developments. The development agreement code amendment will not go before the Planning Commission, as it will be part of Title 14 of the City Code. The Planning Commission is only being a~ked to make its recommendation on whether or not to repeal the PUD chapter from the Zoning Code. Notice was published in the newspaper. Mailings were sent to the permit stakeholders group and recent PUD applicants. No comments were received. PUBLIC COMMENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION I STAFF DISCUSSION: - 4 - -. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 7, 2006 Staff noted that zone districts have specific standards and a PUD is a mechanism to deviate from the standards in exchange for higher quality development. The City has some development agreements currently in place, but they do not address zoning issues or deviations from zoning. The benefit of the development agreement process is that it allows City Council to get involved in developments earlier in the process. Because a PUD is a quasi-judicial process, Council is not permitted to have any involvement at the early stages of the process. The development agreement process is not yet defined, but would be bound by the City's comprehensive plan. The language used in this proposal is almost verbatim the state law on this issue. If this proposal is passed, it is envisioned that the repeal of the PUD process and the implementation of the development agreement process would go into effect at the same time. There was a brief discussion about the Kersey III issues and the reasons that this proposal was generated. Council's late involvement in the PUD process instilled a six month delay in Kersey III proposal. Ms. Roland closed the public hearing. Ms. Larsen made a motion to keep the PUD process. The motion was seconded. Motion failed: Aye = 2; Nay = 4 Mr. Peace made a motion to remove the PUD process from the Zoning Code. The motion was seconded. Motion passed: Aye = 4, Nay = 2 OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. - 5 -