HomeMy WebLinkAbout4620 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDINANCE NO. 4 6 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AFFIRMING THE
HEARING EXAMINERtS RECOMMENDATION TO GRA/~T AN APPEAL AND
THEREBY DENY THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT
FOR A VEHICLE EMISSION INSPECTION FACILITY PROPOSED TO BE
LOCATED AT 4122 "B" PLACE N.W., AUBURN, WASHINGTON.
WHEREAS, Application No. MIS0002-93 dated January 19,
1993 has been submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington, by
WELLS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION requesting the issuance of an
Administrative Use Permit to allow construction of a vehicle
emission testing facility proposed to be located at 4122 "B"
Place N.W., within the City of Auburn, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said request above referred to, was referred to
the Hearing Examiner for study and public hearing thereon
pursuant to an appeal filed by neighboring business owners;
and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to
consider the appeal of the issuance of the Administrative Use
Permit in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall, on
February 17, 1993, at the conclusion of which the Hearing
Examiner upheld the appeal and recommended the Administrative
Use Permit be denied based upon the following Findings of Fact
and Conclusions, to-wit:
Ordinance No. 4620
April 14, 1993
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
FINDINGS OF FACT
8o
On January 4, 1993, the City of Auburn Planning Director
issued an Administrative Use Permit to allow the
construction of a vehicle emission inspection facility.
The subject proposal is located at 4122 "B" Place N.W. in
Auburn.
The proponent of the proposal, Wells Development Corp.,
proposes to conduct a vehicle emission inspection station
in an M-1 light industrial zone.
The Planning Director considered the application for the
Administrative Use Permit pursuant to Auburn Zoning
Ordinance Section 18.64.020(b). The Planning Director
concluded upon his review of the application that the
Administrative Use Permit should be granted and
accordingly issued the Administrative Use Permit on
January 4, 1993.
Any affected party may appeal the Planning Director,s
decision to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Auburn
Zoning Ordinance Section 18.64.020(b)(3).
The City of Auburn received an appeal on January 19, 1993
signed by a number of property owners and/or business
owners located near the proposal. In the appeal of the
Administrative Use Permit, they argue that the permit
should not be approved because the facility would
constitute a safety hazard and would be unacceptable to
the safety and well-being of the property owners, their
tenants, and employees. They list in their appeal five
items which they believe support their safety concerns.
The primary issue has to do with traffic.
An environmental review has been completed for this
project. A Final Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance was issued on January 4, 1993. As part of
the environmental review, a traffic study prepared by the
consulting engineer was submitted by the applicant.
The traffic study indicated that an average of 510
vehicle trips would occur per day. Since a trip
represents both the car coming and going from the site,
this means a projected average of 255 cars will visit the
facility each day. However, the traffic engineer's
report was based upon traffic counts at similar
Ordinance No. 4620
April 14, 1993
Page 2
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10.
ll.
12.
13.
facilities occurring in March of 1992. The evidence
indicates that toward the end of the month, which is the
peak time when persons use a vehicle emission facility,
there could be as many as 920 trips, or 460 in and 460
out, on a maximum day.
The traffic survey projects 70 peak hour trips if the 255
in and 255 out figure were used. The traffic survey
contains no projection as to the number of peak hour
trips on a maximum day which could include as many as 920
trips, 460 in and 460 out. Assuming that the same
percentage of trips would occur during the P.M. peak
hour, one could conclude that there would be as many as
129 peak hour trips on the maximum day where the facility
would generate approximately 920 trips.
It should be noted that the site plan was not available
to the undersigned until at the time of the public
hearing. A review of the site plan suggests that there
is no place for vehicle drivers who may change their mind
about the wait associated with the facility to turn
around and get out of line.
The proposed facility would contain four testing bays
with each vehicle taking approximately five minutes to
test. Previously, it took approximately three minutes
for the vehicle emission test to be oompleted per
vehicle. However, recent changes in the Federal Clean
Air Act have resulted in more extensive testing
requirements. Therefore, it appears that the vehicle
emission station could handle a maximum of 48 vehicles
per hour assuming that all four lanes were open.
The site plan reflects that there are four lanes
approximately 150 feet in length for cars to wait for the
testing process. Therefore, each waiting lane can
accommodate approximately seven cars.
The average P.M. peak hour traffic generated by a 20,000
square foot light industrial building is approximately 20
trips. Therefore, the existing zoning which would permit
light industrial uses would generate significantly fewer
daily trips and P.M. peak hour trips than with the
subject proposal.
14. The subject proposal is located on a dead-end cul-de-sac.
Ordinance No. 4620
April 14, 1993
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
15.
16.
17.
The city,s Traffic Engineer reviewed the traffic study
and concluded that the only impacts that need to be
mitigated had to do with the intersection of South 277th
and SR167.
At the time of the public hearing, in light of the very
substantial opposition to the proposal by surrounding
property owners in the vicinity, the Planning Department
indicated that had it been aware of the substantial
opposition, it is possible that the Administrative Use
Permit may not have been granted.
At the time of the public hearing, the applicant
submitted testimony and a letter from their attorney.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Zoning Ordinance provides at Section 18.64.040 that
Administrative Use Permits may only be approved upon the
establishment of certain conditions.
The first condition is that the use will have no more of
an adverse affect on the health, safety, or comfort of
persons living or working in the area, and will be no
more injurious, economically or otherwise, to property
improvements in the surrounding area than would any use
generally permitted in the district. Among matters to be
considered are traffic flow and control, access to and
circulation within the property, off-street parking and
loading, and a number of other considerations. The
undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that this use
would generate considerably more traffic than would other
uses permitted outright in an M-1 zone. There appears to
be no way to mitigate the significant traffic impact
which the proposal would have. So long as the Washington
State Department of Licensing continues to have citizen's
vehicle licenses expire on the last day of the month, it
can almost be guaranteed that people wait until the last
day of the month to have their vehicle emission tested to
obtain their license tabs. Therefore, the 960 vehicle
trip per day figure would appear to be a relatively
probable impact which would occur at least 1, 2 and
possibly more days per month. In addition, access to and
circulation within the property appears to be inadequate.
The property is located within a dead-end street. If the
emission station can only handle 48 vehicles per hour, it
is probable that there will be significant lines. People
Ordinance No. 4620
April 14, 1993
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3e
4e
do not want to wait in line and it is probable that they
will be attempting to turn around either within the
property (something which is not adequately provided for
within the site plan) and/or on the cul-de-sac. This
traffic will have an injurious affect on the surrounding
area.
The proposals must be in accordance with the goals,
policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. In
this instance, the goals, policies, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan are contained in the purpose statement
of the M-1 zone at Section 18.32.010 which states, "The
purpose of the M-1 zone is to accommodate a variety of
industrial uses in an industrial park environment, to
preserve land for light industrial uses, to implement the
economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan and to provide a
greater flexibility within the zoning regulations for
those uses which are non-nuisance in terms of air and
water pollution, noise, vibration, glare or odor." The
intent statement continues, "An essential aspect of this
zone is the need toma'lntaln' a quality' of d~velopment
that attracts rather than discourages further investment
in light industrial development. Consequently, site
activities which could distract from the visual quality
of development of these areas, such as outdoor storage,
should be strictly regulated within this zone." As the
City previously acknowledged, the Planning Department
staff was quite unaware of the strong objection to the
siting of the vehicle emission station in the vicinity
from adjacent property owners and business owners. The
vehicle emission station in an M-1 zone does not appear
to promote the intention of the M-1 light industrial
district.
The proposal appears to comply with the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposal does not appear to be able to be constructed
and maintained so that it is harmonious and appropriate
in design, character and appearance with the existing or
intended character of the general vicinity. Although
there is nothing wrong with the proposed design of the
facility, its character would be such that it would
generate far more traffic than other light industrial
uses. The proposal may adversely affect the public
infrastructure in that it would generate considerable
traffic on a dead-end street so that there may be
interference with emergency responses in the vicinity by
either police or firefighters.
Ordinance No. 4620
April 14, 1993
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
For each of the above referenced reasons, the
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to the Auburn City
Council to grant an appeal and thereby deny the application
for an Administrative Use Permit for a vehicle emission
inspection facility proposed to be located at 4122 "B" Place
NW, is approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
section 1. The above cited Hearing Examiner's Findings
of Fact and Conclusions, are herewith incorporated in this
Ordinance.
8eotion 2. The city Council hereby affirms the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation to grant an appeal and thereby deny
the application for an Administrative Use Permit for a vehicle
emission inspection facility proposed to be located at 4122
"B" Place NW, Auburn, Washington.
Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry
out the directions of this legislation.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five days from and after its passage, approval and
publication as provided by law.
Ordinance No. 4620
April 14, 1993
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26:
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Robin Wohlhueter,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stel6hen R. Shelton,
City Attorney
Ordinance No. 4620
April 14, 1993
Page 7