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 -