Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission split over left-turn-lane waiver for Wrights Mill Road subdivision; motion to uphold staff denial fails 3–6
Summary
Developers sought a waiver of a required left-turn lane for a 19-home subdivision; applicant cited low peak-hour left-turn volumes, while staff pointed to design-manual requirements for collectors; commissioners voted 3–6 against a motion to uphold staff’s denial of the waiver.
A contested appeal over a traffic-waiver request for a small development on Wrights Mill Road exposed a split among Auburn planning commissioners over whether engineering standards or warrant analyses should determine turn-lane requirements.
The applicant, represented by Brett Basquin of the Foresight Group, told the commission the development would generate about four left-turn movements in the AM and PM peak hours and that neither a left nor right turn lane is warranted under typical trip-generation thresholds. “We feel like, 1, it's 4 cars in the peak hour, very few,” Basquin said.
Staff and engineering representatives countered that the city’s engineering design manual treats collector and arterial streets differently than a pure warrant analysis: if a new driveway or development intersects a collector, the manual generally requires turn-lane improvements regardless of a small number of peak turns. Staff cited posted speeds (45 mph) and an 80th-percentile speed near 50–52 mph as factors in the safety analysis.
Commissioners debated the tradeoffs between strict warrant numbers and broader corridor-capacity protections. One commissioner argued that turn-lane requirements were intended to protect the future capacity of major streets and not simply be waived for small developments.
A motion to "approve the waiver denial"—that is, to uphold staff's denial of a waiver request—went to recorded roll call. The vote in the transcript shows Nannette Reese, Jennifer Lovern and Joseph Astra voting yes, with six commissioners voting no; the motion to uphold staff's denial failed 3–6.
What this means The transcript records the failed motion to uphold staff’s denial (3–6). The commission’s debate makes clear the question turns on interpretation of the engineering manual’s collector/arterial rules versus traditional warrant thresholds. Any final determination, permit conditions or further appeal would appear in subsequent staff paperwork or council action.
