Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2010-06-28 Item 4D.2 - Ordinance - Zoning Code for New Noise RegulationsCAS NUMBER. 10-048 AGENDA ITEM TITLE An Ordinance to update the Noise Code. RI-iVIEWED BY Fund Source: Comments. 1 MTG. DATE 1 04/26/10 05/03/10 MTG. DATE 06/28/10 COW Mtg. Utilities Cmte EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $0 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meetznn Date Prepared by 1 Mayprkieviezv 1 kuncz review 04/26/10 KAS 1 QV 1 kJ 05/03/10 KAS 1_ 06/28/10 SM a)/ I Q Lf 07/06/10 SM 1 1 ITEM _INFORMATION CA &P Cmte Arts Comm. AMOUNT BUDGETED so n F &S Cmte Parks Comm. 1 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE. APRIL 26, 2010 DATE: 04/12/10 06/14/10 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Department of Community Development Police Department COMMITTEE Forward to Committee of the Whole for discussion COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing; Recommended to Full Council for adoption Recommend return to CAP w /map options to address citizen's concerns ATTACHMENTS Informational Memorandum dated 6/28/10 Ordinance updating Noise Regulations in draft form Ordinance amending the Zoning Code in draft form Informational Memorandum with attachments from CAP dated 6/14/10 Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 06/14/10 ITEM No. CATEGORY Discussion Motion n Resolution Ordinance BzdAward Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 06/28/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 7/06/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date 04/26/10 Mtg Date SPONSOR n Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD n Finance n Fire Legal P&R Police n PW" SPONSOR'S A Public Hearing on an ordinance updating regulations related to noise was conducted on SUMMARY 4/26/10. The Council is being asked to consider and forward to Full Council for adoption a revised draft ordinance updating regulations related to noise and an ordinance amending the Zoning Code to reflect changes based on new noise regulations. Transportation Cmte n Planning Comm. APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $0 116 TO: DISCUSSION City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Committee of the Whole Jim Haggerton, Mayor FROM: David Haynes, Chief of Police Jack Pace, Director of Department of Community Development DATE: June 28, 2010 (Revised after June 14, 2010 Community Affairs and Parks Committee Meeting) SUBJECT: Draft Noise Ordinance ISSUE Should the City's Noise Code be updated? BACKGROUND The City Council reviewed the proposed Noise Code on May 3, 2010 and asked the Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP) to review it again. The Council also asked staff to provide a map of residential uses in non- residential zones and to address nighttime noise incompatibilities between commercial, industrial and residential uses. At the CAP meeting on June 14, 2010, committee members reviewed the map and staff's recommended changes addressing incompatibility issues. Also, testimony was received from Vanessa Zaputil and Mike Hansen. Ms. Zaputil explained that commercial construction and maintenance noises are and will continue to be disruptive at night at her residence located in a commercial zone and she would like to be notified if any events are planned that will generate noise; Mr. Hansen of Sabey Corporation expressed concerns about prohibiting nighttime property maintenance and allowing emergency maintenance. Staff recommended at CAP to add a noticing provision at the onset of a noise generating event and to eliminate the nighttime exemption for property maintenance. Staff spoke further with neighboring jurisdictions, Ms. Zaputil and Mr. Hansen and recommends the following language changes to the proposed ordinance: 1. For all highway projects and for all noise variances, require noticing at the onset of the noise event. 2. Include weather related property maintenance as an emergency exemption. 3. Require a variance for property maintenance and property construction at night in all zones. The proposed ordinance reduces staff time for processing variances, allows the status quo to continue regarding construction noise at night, is simple to enforce and allows the Director to require noise abatement for all sounds. Following the Council and Committee meetings on the noise ordinance, staff recommends language changes to the proposed ordinance to balance concerns raised by the residential and commercial community 1. As a condition of any variance and for any nighttime highway maintenance noise, require noticing at the onset of the actual noise generating event. Noticing for variance requests is to alert residents of the request but may not provide timely notice when the actual construction occurs. Staff has amended the proposed ordinance to require noticing at the onset of a noise event as a condition of any variances and for all highway construction, even when a variance is not required. This language change will provide timely notice of noise events to all residents, preserves the variance requirements and exemptions, and cuts some expense and staff time by not processing some variances that will likely always be granted. 117 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 Noticing would only occur for residential uses and can be provided by mail or by door hangers; it would be similar to the noticing requirements added to residential parties at the CAP meeting on April 12, 2010. Noticing at the onset of events will also be required of City- sponsored projects which will increase staff time and City expense. 2. Amend the definition of "Emergency Work" Staff has amended the proposed ordinance to include a revised definition for "emergency work Changing the definition of "Emergency Work" will insure that property maintenance can occur at night in instances of weather calamites. 3. Not exempt construction and property maintenance during night time hours The new code proposed an exemption for nighttime property maintenance that does not exist in the current code and proposed removing the exemption for construction noises. Following the public hearing process, staff has amended the proposed ordinance to not exempt construction at night and revert to the current code daytime -only exemption of property maintenance. Construction is a known event and could be authorized and mitigated through the variance process. Property maintenance noise known to occur at night could be generated by a wide variety of actions such as sweeping and leaf blowing, maintaining Link light rail track, and commercial carpet shampooing, etc. These noises are exempt during daytime hours and could occur after 1 Opm with mitigation as part of an approved variance. While there is no complaint history with the Police department for nighttime construction or property maintenance, additional conversations with residents and neighboring jurisdictions indicates that maintenance and construction at night is a problem for residents. Allowing nighttime construction and property maintenance noise could potentially disturb 88 residential units and all future residential uses in non residential zones. Nighttime construction and maintenance noises would become subject to the "plainly audible" standard of the new code and would be de facto exempt if not in the range of a noise sensitive unit. RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to approve the revised draft ordinance and consider this item at the July 6 2010 Regular Meeting. ATTACHMENTS Revised Draft Noise Ordinance (underline /strikeout of version presented to CAP on April 12, 2010.) June 14, 2010 CAP Informational Memorandum with Attachments 118 C:ltemo\XPGroWise\Noise COW staff reoort (6- 28- 101.docZ \Noiso Code\ 28 10 after -erl `ed'.�d -bT t: D do Type 1 Decisions TYPE OF PERMIT Administrative Variance for Noise 30 days or less (TMC 8.22.120) Any land use permit or approval issued by the City, unless specifically categorized as a Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this Chapter Boundary Line Adjustment, including Lot Consolidation (TMC Chapter 17.08) Development Permit Minor modification to design review approval (TMC Section 18.60.030) Minor Modification to PRD (TMC Section 18.46.130) W.\ Word Processing \Ordinances \Title 18 Zoning Code Noise.doc KS:ksn 06/22/2010 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Cu Y OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 2119, 2135, 2235 AND 2251, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18, "ZONING CODE," TO CLARIFY AND UPDATE THE ZONING CODE AND ITS PROVISIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES TO TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.22, "NOISE PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the noise code of the City of Tukwila establishes permit application types pursuant to the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code of the City of Tukwila lists perrnit application types and procedures and the City wishes to update these permit types to include noise variance applications; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2010, the Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning amending the noise code and adopted a motion recommending the proposed changes; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinances Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2119 §1, 2135 §19, 2235 §19 and 2251 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.104.010, are amended to read as follows: 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section. Procedures for the five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether public notice is required, whether a public meeting and /or a public hearing is required before a decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided. 1. Type 1 decisions are made by City administrators who have technical expertise, as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the information presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not required for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions. DECISION MAKER Community Development Director As specified by ordinance Community Development Director Building Official Community Development Director Community Development Director Page 1 of 4 129 130 TYPE OF PERMIT Sign Permit, except for those sign permits specifically requiring approval of the Planning Commission, or denials of sign permits that are appealable 1 Tree Permit (TMC Chapter 18.54) Wireless Communication Facility, Minor (TMC Chapter 18.58) 1 DECISION MAKER Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director 2. Type 2 decisions are decisions which are initially made by the Director or, in certain cases, other City administrators or committees, but which are subject to an open record appeal to the Hearing Examiner, Board of Architectural Review, or, in the case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. Type 2 Decisions TYPE OF PERMIT Administrative Design Review (TMC Section 18.60.030) Administrative Planned Residential Development (TMC Section 18.46.110) Administrative Variance for Noise 31 -60 days (TMC Section 8.22.120) Binding Site Improvement Plan (TMC Chapter 17.16) Cargo Container Placement (TMC Section 18.50.060) Code Interpretation (TMC Section 18.90.010) Exception from Single Family Design Standard (TMC Section 18.50.050) Modification to Development Standards (TMC Section 18.41.100) Parking standard for use not specified (TMC Section 18.56.100) Sensitive Areas (except Reasonable Use Exception) (TMC Chapter 18.45) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (TMC Chapter 18.44) Short Plat (TMC Chapter 1712) Sign Area Increase (TMC Section 19.32.140) Sign Permit Denial (TMC Chapter 19.12) Special Permission Parking, and Modifications to Certain Parking Standards (TMC Sections 18.56.065 and .070) Special Permission Sign, except "unique sign" (various sections of TMC Title 19) W Word Processing Ordinances \Tide 18 Zoning Code Noise.doc KS:ksn 06/22/2010 INITIAL DECISION MAKER Community Development Director Short Plat Committee Community Development Hearing Examiner Director Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Community Development Hearing Examiner Director Community Development Hearing Examiner Director Community Development Hearing Examiner Director Community Development Hearing Examiner Director Community Development Hearing Examiner Director Community Development Hearing Examiner Director Community Development State Shorelines Director Hearings Board Short Plat Committee Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director APPEAL BODY (open record appeal) Board of Architectural Review Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Community Development Hearing Examiner Director Page 2 of 4 INITIAL DECISION APPEAL BODY TYPE OF PERMIT MAKER (open record appeal) Wireless Communication Community Development Hearing Examiner Facility, Minor (TMC Chapter Director 18.58) 3 Type 3 decisions are quasi judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing. Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court, except for shoreline variances and shoreline conditional uses that may be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. Type 3 Decisions TYPE OF PERMIT 1 Conditional Use Permit Modifications to Certain Parking Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56) Reasonable Use Exceptions under Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC Section 18.45.180) 1 Resolve uncertain zone district boundary Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (TMC Section 18.44.050) Subdivision Preliminary Plat with no associated Design Review application (TMC Section 17.14.020) TSD Special Permission Use (TMC Section 18.41.060) Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, sign) Variance from Parking Standards over 10% (TMC Section 18.56.140) Variance for Noise in excess of 60 days (TMC Section 8.22.120) Wireless Communication Facility, Major or Waiver Request (TMC Chapter 18.58) 4. Type 4 decisions are quasi judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except Shoreline Conditional Use Pennits, that are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. Type 4 Decisions TYPE OF PERMIT Public Hearing Design Review (TMC Chapter 18.60) Subdivision Preliminary Plat with an associated Design Review application (TMC Section 17.14.020) Unique Signs (TMC Section 19.28.010) W \Word Processing \Ordinances \Title 18 Zoning Code Noise.doc KS:ksn 06/22/2010 1 DECISION MAKER 1 APPEAL BODY 1 Hearing Examiner 1 Superior Court Hearing Examiner Superior Court Hearing Examiner Superior Court 1 Hearing Examiner Planning Commission Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner INITIAL DECISION MAKER Board of Architectural Review Planning Commission Planning Commission 1 Superior Court State Shorelines Hearings Board Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court APPEAL BODY (closed record appeal) Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner 5 Type 5 decisions are quasi judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner or City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court. Page 3 of 4 131 132 Type 5 Decisions TYPE OF PERMIT Planned Residential Development (PRD), including Major Modifications (TMC Chapter 18.46) Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84) Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC Section 18.45.160) Shoreline Environment Re- designation (Shoreline Master Program) 1 Subdivision Final Plat (TMC Section 17.12.0301 1 Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66) Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY Office of the City Attorney W \Word Processing Ordinances \Title 18 Zoning Code Noise.doc KS:ksn 06/22/2010 DECISION APPEAL MAKER BODY City Council Superior Court 1 City Council City Council City Council 1 City Council 1 City Council Jim Haggerton, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council. Published. Effective Date: Ordinance Number: 1 Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court 1 Superior Court 1 Superior Court Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force following review and approval by the Department of Ecology, pursuant to RCW 70 107.060 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2010 ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED Page 4of4 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Jack Pace, Director, Department of Community Development David Haynes, Chief of Police DATE: June 14, 2010 SUBJECT: Noise Ordinance Update ISSUE BACKGROUND DISCUSSION City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Should we treat noise received by residential uses in commercial and industrial districts differently that we treat noise received by residential uses in residential districts? Should we limit some noises created in commercial and industrial districts when a residential use occurs in that district? The proposed noise ordinance went to Community Affairs and Parks on April 12, 2010. During the public hearing, Council heard testimony from several citizens. At the May 3, 2010 Regular Meeting, Vanessa Zaputil reiterated her testimony and requested Council consider more stringent requirements to protect residential uses in commercial or industrial zones throughout the city, particularly from construction equipment, maintenance noises and other routine noises. She also requested noticing for noise events. The Council requested to see a map that highlights areas where residential uses exist in non residential zones. Council further requested that staff return to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee to review available options for addressing these concerns. State law sets standards that residents in residential districts are to be protected from unreasonable noises, particularly during nighttime hours when most are sleeping and when the ambient noise level is naturally reduced. State law and the current noise code also specifically exempt construction noise from nighttime limits in non residential districts. The proposed ordinance follows the WAC by allowing commercial and industrial activity to continue at night provided that noise from such activity does not spill over into residential districts. The proposed ordinance also exempts property maintenance noise within non residential districts while prohibiting those same noises from being received at night in residential districts. See Attachment A for a comparison between the proposed ordinance, the current code and the WAC. Non residential zones are principally for commercial and industrial uses which are noisier than residential uses. The map, provided as Attachment B, shows identifiable residential uses located in commercial or industrial zones. Tukwila's zoning code allows some form of residential use in every zone in the City. These residential uses range from single family dwellings to mixed -use buildings in commercial zones to caretaker homes on industrial properties. While the data is very limited, there are 88 identified residential units in non residential zones. Of these 88 units, 48 are non conforming residential uses. In the 12 months ending April 10, 2010, the City received 517 noise complaints through the police department. None of these complaints were for construction, highway construction or property maintenance noise that would be exempt under the new code. The new code adds an allowance for the Director to require noise abatement even for exempt sounds 133 134 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 Per the WAC, the proposed ordinance does not require a variance for highway construction noise in non residential zones and allows any noise variance up to 30 days in residential zones to be granted without notice. If variances and noticing of variance requests were to be required in all zones and for all time frames, applicant expense and staff time for variance requests would increase and the noticing provided for highway construction variance requests often occurs weeks or months before the actual noise generating event. Staff suggests an option to provide applicable notice at the onset of highway construction noise while not increasing the need for variances and a condition that variances granted more than 30 days before the noise event occurs include residential notice at the onset of the noise event. The proposed ordinance reduces staff time for processing variances, allows the status quo to continue regarding construction noise at night, is simple to enforce and allows the Director to require noise abatement for all sounds. However, the proposed ordinance could be amended to remove the exemptions for property construction noises, highway construction noises, noticing requirements, and /or property maintenance noises (see Attachment C for possible ordinance changes). The pros and cons of these options are detailed below. Issue 1: Remove property construction exemption The current code, the proposed ordinance, and the WAC all exempt nighttime construction noises in commercial and industrial districts. If the ordinance were to remove this exemption and apply the "plainly audible" standard to noise sensitive units in all zones for construction- related noises, then it would be possible for the residence located next to Boeing in the MIC /H zone to cause Boeing to have to cease building construction during nighttime hours. The Segale property could violate the noise ordinance if nighttime construction noise is received by the security residence on that property. In Option 1, existing nighttime construction practices may become violations unless a variance is granted. Variances would increase staff time and applicant expense and would be granted without notice when noise events are less than 30 days. Noise is not a vested right so the introduction of new residential uses could cause existing commercial and industrial -zoned properties to become noise violators. Residential uses in non residential zones could still experience nighttime property construction noise if a variance is granted. The City of Kirkland and City of Tacoma prohibit all property construction noise during nighttime hours. The WAC and Tukwila's current code exempt property construction noise in commercial and industrial districts but prohibit it where it impacts residential -zoned districts. Issue 2: Remove hiahwav construction exemption One of the principal goals of rewriting the noise code was to eliminate the need for variances and noticing for highway work conducted during nighttime hours in non residential zones Highway maintenance variances involve significant staff time and will cost the applicant fees while the variances granted in the last 3 years have not generated any complaints in Tukwila Due to the life safety issues regarding highway construction, nighttime highway construction variances will continue to be granted. (The requirement for highway maintenance variances in the existing code was due to a phrasing error and not likely the intent of the code.) Frequently, WSDOT construction noise is no louder than the ambient noise from the freeway. The WAC exempts highway maintenance noise at night in commercial and industrial districts. Issue 3: As a condition of anv variance and for anv niahttime hiahwav maintenance noise. require noticina at the onset of the actual noise- aeneratina event Noticing of noise variance requests often occur well before a project begins. The noticing is provided to alert citizens of the variance request and may or may not provide timely notice of when the actual construction will occur. Further, the proposed ordinance provides relief from noticing requirements for variances less than 30 days and does not require a variance for highway W 12010 InfoMemos\Noise CAP staff report2(06- 14- 10).doc INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 construction noise in non residential zones. Adding a requirement for noticing at the onset of highway construction and as a condition of all variance requests provides residences an awareness of impending activity and an opportunity to plan accordingly. Noticing would only occur for residential uses and can be provided by mail or by door hangers; it would be similar to the noticing requirements added to residential parties at the CAP meeting on April 12, 2010. Noticing at the onset of events will also be required of City- sponsored projects which will increase staff time. Noise generating events are often weather dependant and span a significant length of time; noticing at the onset may not sufficiently prepare residents for the entirety of the actual noise occurrences. Issue 4: Remove property maintenance exemption The new code introduces an exemption for nighttime property maintenance. It is reasonable to expect commercial and industrial uses to use maintenance equipment during nighttime hours to prepare for daytime operations but no complaints for nighttime property maintenance have been received. Removing this exemption would mirror the existing noise code by maintaining a violation if citizens located in non residential zones are exposed to nighttime property maintenance noise from commercial and industrial properties. Variances could still be sought. Removing this exemption would make nighttime property maintenance noises subject to the "plainly audible" standard of the new code. The City of Kirkland prohibits property maintenance noise during nighttime hours. The City of Bellevue exempts property maintenance at night. The WAC only exempts property maintenance during the day and only from residential properties. RECOMMENDATION To balance the concerns of the residential community with the needs of commercial and industrial uses, staff recommends the following: Issue 1: Staff recommends no changes to the proposed ordinance and maintaining the construction exemption; Issue 2: Staff recommends no changes to the proposed ordinance and maintaining the highway construction exemption; Issue 3: Staff recommends requiring noticing at the onset of a noise generating event; and Issue 4: Staff recommends removing the exemption for nighttime property maintenance from the proposed ordinance. Staff recommends forwarding the draft ordinance with the recommended amendments to include Issues 3 and 4 for consideration to the Committee of the Whole meeting June 28, 2010. Proposed ordinance changes are included as Attachment C. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Table and summary of new code versus old code noise exemptions. Attachment B: Map Attachment C• Possible Ordinance Changes W InfoMemos\Noise CAP staff report2(06- 14- 10).doc 135 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 4 ATTACHMENT A Time when Noise is Exempt Aircraft maintenance Utility repair Bells Aircraft in flight Safety equipment Emergency equipment Warning devices Railroad Natural phenomenon Parades Substations Generator testing Construction Power equipment/ maintenance Highway maintenance NEW CODE Days Days Days Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days Days Days Days 13 6 W InfoMemos \Noise CAP staff report2(06- 14- 10).doc Receiving District Residential OLD CODE WAC 173 -60 Days Days Days Days Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Variance required and always granted Days Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Not exempt Days Days Days Days Days (WAC 173- 62 -040) Receiving District Commercial /Industrial NEW CODE OLD CODE WAC 173 -60 Days Days Days Days Days Days /nights Days /nights Days/n ights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days Days Days /nights Days /nights Days /n ights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Not exempt Days /nights Days Variance required and always granted New code versus old codes: Specify Maximum Permissible Sound levels and give options for determining violations. It is a violation to exceed certain decibel levels based on time of day and district designations. Both codes exempt construction noise from temporary construction sites in commercial and industrial districts at all times. Both codes exempt highway maintenance noise in commercial and industrial districts. The old code also exempts highway maintenance noise in residential districts but because of a language error variances are required for highway maintenance. Both codes exempt property maintenance noise in all districts during the day. The new code also exempts property maintenance noise in commercial and industrial districts during the night. Additionally, in the new code, It is a violation to produce non exempt plainly audible sound that can be heard from within a noise sensitive unit during the nighttime hours. "Noise Sensitive Unit" includes residential use in any district. It is a violation to produce plainly audible commercial music at a distance of 50 feet from the property line of the commercial establishment. Days Days /nights Days/n ights Days /nights Days /nights Days /n ights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights Days /nights The WAC is silent on non- residential property maintenance Days /nights (WAC 173- 62 -040) ORMF'' MEMO e eting) IN p m Page 5 r provided at the GA large-scale map will be p cNME 6 pTT A yJyvitL� WQ.t legend gi Ct: y :::::::g7:::::7 "1 .10 a o d Zones onRs st a swe�.;e; peK; k______.i Cattow:RI dsmd d manxam o;evld_ staff rePo� (p6-A4-A0).dac ��toMemOS\No�se CAP GIS ,zoo 0 City of Ordnan N °Review Map 0 S. ppp Fed 138 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 6 ATTACHMENT C: Code Changes if Issue 1 is selected removing property construction exemption Code changes: 8.22.100 Sounds Exempt at all Time. C. Sounds created by construction or the movement of construction related materials, including but not limited to, c iking-e g sounds from hammers, caws or equipment with electrical-or internal combustion engines emanating from temporary construction sites, provided the receiving property is located in a commercial or industrial district of the City. 8.22.110 Sounds Exempt During Daytime Hours. 3. Sounds created by construction or the movement of construction related materials, including but not limited to, striking or cutting sounds from hammers, saws or equipment with electrical or internal combustion engines emanating from temporary construction sites, provided thc receiving property is located in a residential district of thc City. Code Changes if Issue 2 is selected removing highway construction exemption Code change: 8.22.100 Sounds Exempt at all Time. S thc receiving property is located in a commercial or industrial district of the City. No Change: 8.22.110 Sounds Exempt During Daytime Hours 6. Sounds created by equipment used for public highway maintenance and construction. Code Changes if Issue 3 is selected requiring time specific noticing of highway construction Code change: 8.22.100 Sounds Exempt at all Time. 11. Sounds created by equipment used for public highway maintenance and construction, provided the receiving property is located in a commercial or industrial district of the City and provided that the applicant shall provide written notice to all residences within 500 feet of the oroiect includina all residents of multi family complexes. Notice shall be provided between ten and thirty days of the onset of construction activity and shall enumerate the anticipated construction schedule for the length of the project. An affidavit of distribution shall be provided to the City. Code change: 8.22.120 Variances. F. In authorizing a variance, the administrator may attach thereto such conditions regarding noise level, duration, type and other considerations as the administrator may deem necessary to carry out the policy and purpose of this chapter. The variance permit shall enumerate the conditions of the variance, including but not limited to: 3. If the notice of application for sound aeneratinq events does not include the noise event starting within thirty days of the notice, the applicant shall provide written notice to all residences within 500 feet of the project includina all residents of multi family complexes. Notice shall be Provided between ten and thirty days of the onset of construction activity and shall enumerate the anticipated construction schedule for the lenath of the proiect. An affidavit of distribution shall be provided to the City. Code Changes if Issue 4 is selected removing property maintenance exemption Code changes: 8.22.100 Sounds Exempt at all Time. 10. Sounds cr na-i ten -er.ce e;„epair -of property, uses or structures, 1 e!c, snow removal equipment, and compostcrs, provided the receiving property is located in a commercial or industrial district of thc City. W12010 InfoMemos\Noise CAP staff report2(06- 14- 10).doc 139 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 7 8.22.110 Sounds Exempt During Daytime Hours. 4.Sounds created by hand or powered equipment used in temporary or periodic maintenance or repair of property, uses or structures, including but not limited to, lawnmowers, powered hand tools, snow removal equipment, and composters, provided the receiving property is located in a residential district eft y 14 0 W InfoMemos\Noise CAP staff report2(06- 14- 10).doc COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes June 14, 2010 5.00 p.m.,- Conference Room #3 City of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee PRESENT Councilmembers: Joe Duffle, Chair; Joan Hernandez and Verna Seal Staff: Rick Still, Robert Eaton, Jack Pace, Nora Gierloff, Brandon Miles, Stacey MacGregor, Gail Labanara, Rebecca Fox, Ryan Larson, Derek Speck, Steve Lancaster and Kimberly Matej Guests: Mike Hansen, Sabey Corporation; Bob Schofield, Property Owner; Karlyne Iwata, Property Owner; Jordan Blue, Boy Scout Troop 448; Julie Blue, Resident; Vanessa Zaputil, Resident; and Nicholas Lee, Westifield CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Duffle called the meeting to order at 5.00 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. H. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Proiect Closeout for Duwamish Riverbend Hill Phase 1— Irrigation and Landscaoinn Staff is seeking Council approval for project closeout, acceptance and release of retainage to Terra Dynamics Inc. for the Duwamish Riverbend Hill Phase I irrigation and landscaping. No change orders were issued during this project. The project was completed ahead of schedule and came in under budget. Irrigation work and hydro seeding onsite are now complete. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JUNE 21 REGULAR MEETING CONSENT AGENDA. B. Grant Applications: Duwamish Gardens Site 2 Phase Staff is seeking Committee approval to submit grant applications to the State Salmon Recovery Board (SRFB) and King Conservation District (KCD) for funding for the design portion of the Duwamish Gardens Site. It is anticipated that if received, grant funding will total approximately $180,000. The design phase is budgeted at $240,000, needing $60,000 of City funding. This project is budgeted in the current CIP (see CIP page 68). COMMITTEE APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS. C. Noise Ordinance The draft Noise Ordinance is returning to Committee per the direction of City Council (see May 3, 2010, Regular meeting minutes). Based on testimony given at a public hearing on May 3, Council was specifically interested in further research on options of addressing noise concerns in non residential zones that have residential uses. DCD staff has conducted further research and made changes to the draft ordinance, as appropriate. Consideration was given to potential future issues that may surface as the City sees more mixed use areas and zoning. City staff recognizes the importance of balancing the needs of both residential and commercial zones. In consideration of this balance, staff recommends two changes to the draft ordinance' Require notice at the onset of a noise generating event Require a variance for nighttime property maintenance 141 142 Community Affairs Parks Committee Minutes June 14. 2010 Pape 2 Staff also recommends leaving the construction and highway construction exemptions in the draft ordinance, as is, with no changes. A noise complaint history survey conducted on noise complaints received from April 2009 to April 2010 showed no history of noise complaints regarding property maintenance and construction. Committee members were complimentary of the additional research that staff conducted regarding the ordinance. They identified the comparison table on page 8 of the Committee agenda packet as well as information on ordinances of other cities as very useful. Committee Member Seal mentioned the importance of identifying and recognizing the unintended consequences that may surface as a result this ordinance. She believes that there is great benefit of a full Council discussion on the staff recommendations. Several members of the public were in attendance at the Committee meeting. The following concerns were expressed: Snow Removal Under the draft ordinance, snow removal (on private property compared to public), is considered property maintenance, and could not begin until daytime hours, as defined by the ordinance. Maintenance /Construction Clarification An attendee inquired about the difference between maintenance and construction in regards to work currently being conducted by Sound Transit. Staff responded that the work falls under property maintenance in the draft ordinance and would require a variance for nighttime work. Specific Zoning Exceptions In response to concerns over unintended consequences, a suggestion was made to consider specific zoning exceptions rather than imposing a blanket rule on an entire zoning area. The Committee thanked the citizens for their input and interest in the draft ordinance, and reminded them of the importance of attending Council meetings to express their concerns during the citizen comment opportunity. Due to the magnitude of this issue and the importance of a full Council discussion on the item, the Committee deferred making a recommendation. NO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. FORWARD TO JUNE 28 COW FOR DISCUSSION. D. Sign Code Ordinance Staff is seeking Council approval of a draft ordinance establishing a new Sign Code for the City, replacing the current Sign Code which was written in 1982. The draft Code, presented in draft ordinance format has been reviewed and is recommended by the Planning Commission. A brief overview of the public participation and outreach process for the creation of this draft ordinance was given (documented in detail on page 14 of the Committee agenda packet). The process began in 2007 with the formulation of a Sign Code Advisory Committee. The Sign Code Advisory Committee was concerned specifically with identifying the vision of Tukwila in regards to signage. The Committee did not become involved with the details of the draft ordinance. Other milestone dates include: a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting held in January 2009, and the Fall of 2009 when the Planning Commission began review of the new Code. The following list highlights differences between the existing and new Sign Code: Due to basing signage regulations on the size of property, the new Code will increase the number of signs allowed for many of Tukwila's businesses. e In order to be consistent with new development patterns, the type of building mounted signs is being amended.