Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/1985 Adjourned Meeting 480 JANUARY 22, 1985 URBAN AREA PLAN - ADJOURNED MEETING The City Council met in session on this date at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Yakima, Washington. Council members present were Assistant Mayor Henry Beaudhamp, Pat Berndt, Lynn Buchanan, Lynn Carmichael, Jerry Foy and Jack Sparling. Also in attendance were County Commissioners Chuck Klarich, Graham Tollefson and Jim Whiteside, and City Manager Zais, City Attorney Andrews, and Assistant City Manager Stouder. Other City staff present were Associate Planners Don Skone and Judd Black and Deputy City Clerk Toney as recorder. Mark Hinthorne, Assistant Director of County Planning, was also in attendance. Mark Hinthorne directed attention to page 84 to review Chapter 17, Administrative Modifications to Development. With regard to the definition of "Minor and Major Modifications," Commissioner Tollefson asked who would be making the decision as to Whether the modifications were "minor" or "major" and what if the applicant did not agree with the decision made? Mark Hinthorne indicated in most cases the Planning staff would be able to determine whether the modifications were minor or major in character. Mr. Hinthorne cited the Goose Prairie project as an example stating the staff did not feel this was a major modification, however, the residents in the area felt that it was. Commissioner Tollefson stated if the issue is controversial, he did not feel the decision should be made by the Administrative Official. Council member Sparling stated if the residential density is increased, he would have . difficulty with the staff terming this a minor modification. He indicated this should go through the review process prior to a decision being made. Mt. Hinthorne stated he feels this is what Commissioner Tollefson was alluding to when he suggested things of a controversial nature should go through the review process. Don Skone indicated this chapter deals with summary approval of minor modifications and neighbors within 300,feet will be notified of the project. Mr. Skone stated if there are any additional restrictions desired or if it is felt the ordinance is too strict in this area, staff should be made aware so that adjustments can be made. Council member Foy asked what the response to this chapter had been. Mr. Skone stated that the chapter is a direct response to the users themselves. They had indicated they do not wish to go through a lengthy process. Commissioner Klarich asked what the process would be to obtain a remodeling permit. Mr. Hinthorne stated this would involve a Class 1 Review taking one to three days to complete. During the review and discussion of Chapter 18, Nonconforming and Existing Uses and Development, Council member Foy questioned what would happen if a structure which was nonconfirming, or had been constructed illegally, burned with 75% (or more) damage occurring? He questioned whether or not this structure could be rebuilt at the same location. Mr. Skone indicated if it was a nonconforming use, or illegally constructed it could not be rebuilt on the same site. Staff was requested to review the existing Planned Developments to insure that they are currently compatible in their present locations. Commissioner Klarich asked if this information would be available for review before the public hearing on January 28th. Mr. Skone responded that this information, plus other information requested in the previous study sessions, will be presented to the Council members and County Commissioners for review prior to the January 28th meeting. Mark Hinthorne reviewed the public hearing process, stating he envisioned possibly as many as six public hearings. Commissioner Klarich asked why sane of the changes could not be made prior to the public hearing on January 28th. Mr. Hinthorne indicated if the changes are made prior to the meeting the public would not be allowed the opportunity to address some of the issues about which they have concerns. Mr. Hinthorne briefly reviewed Chapter 19, Administration, and stated the purpose of this chapter is to define the responsibilities, and requirements for the administration, enforcement, and interpretation of this ordinance. In Skone pointed out that the hearings examiner will prepare an annual report to be reivewed by the Regional Planning Commission. Council member Carmichael stated she would not like to see the hearings examiner spend two or three months of his time compiling annual reports to be reviewed by the Regional Planning Commission. It was the consensus of the Commissioners and Council members that the ordinance be changed to read that the Regional Planning Commission would evaluate, and continually re-evaluate the decisions made by the hearings examiner. JANUARY 22, 1985 481 Mr. Hinthorne stated Chapter 20, Variances, is very similar to the existing variance procedures in the City and County ordinances. He stated the only change is that the hearings examiner rather than the Board of Adjuslmant or Zoning Adjuster will review the requests for variances. In reviewing Chapter 21, Interpretations, Mr. Hinthorne indicated this is a fairly standard chapter. He stated the hearings examiner will be the contact person for clarification on the ordinance, and if the applicant is unsatisifed with this decision, they will have the option of requesting an appeal. Council member Carmichael questioned what type of background the hearings examiner would possess. Mr. Hinthorne indicated Attorney Dan Fessler is also working on this, however, they are looking for someone with a varying background in Planning, Law, etc. Mt. Hinthorne reviewed Chapter 22, Amendments and Rezones, stating the process is the same with the exception that the hearings examiner will replace the Planning Commission in terms of holding the hearing and making the decisions. He indicated this chapter points out that there will still be a need to make sane text and map amendments in the future even after the public hearings are concluded. Referring to the map on the wall, he explained the changes that have been made and the proposed changes. Mr. Hinthorne also indicated citizens are currently applying for additional map changes and these will read into the record at the first public hearing Which will be held on January 28, 1985. These requests will be voted upon by the Commissioners and Council members according to jurisdiction. Mark Hinthorne reviewed the draft agenda for the January 28th hearing. He stated he-anticipates approximately 200 citizens at the first Meeting, possibly 140 at the second hearing, 60 at the third hearing, and after that, the process should move along more rapidly. There being no further business to discuss, it was MOVED by Cammidhael, seconded by Klarich, to adjourn this meeting at the hour of 1:35 p.m. Unanimously carried by voice vote. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY-*)PCQ_A DATE 3/4 _'CIL MEMBER ,A MI DAT / 7 CO CIL MEMB ATTEST: ;my ,// CITY CLERK MAYOR 1