The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/14/1985 Adjourned Meeting 470 JANUARY 14, 1985 ADJOURNED MEETING - URBAN AREA PLAN The City Council met in session on this date at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Yakima, Washington in a joint meeting with the Yakima County Commissioners to review the Urban Area Plan and zoning ordinance. Council members present were Assistant Mayor Henry Beauchamp, Pat Berndt, Lynn Buchanan, Jerry Foy and Jack Sparling. Mayor Clarence Barnett and Council member Lynn Carmichael absent and excused. Yakima County Commis- sioners present were Chuck Klarich, Graham Tollefson and Jim Whiteside. City staff members present were Assistant City Manager Stouder, Associate Planners Judd Black and Don Skone, and Karen Roberts, City Clerk. County staff member II/ present was Mark Hinthorne, Assistant Director of County Planning Department. Don, Skone reported that seven maps are available today which shows the existing zoning with an overlay of the proposed zoning. He commented that additional maps will be -available tomorrow. Also available is a map showing dwellings per net residential acre. He stated he also has available a corrected map for the south east neighborhood area and staff is currently working on an inventory of planned developments and their status. Assistant City Manager Stouder distributed a letter of comments from C. A. Enright, dated January 10, 1985. Mark Hinthorne briefly reviewed and explained Chapter 5, Section 5.020.2 on page 35 regarding new development on existing lots or parcels. Single family dwellings can be developed in residential zoning as long as it meets the building standards, set backs, etc., even if it does not meet the minimum lot size, which is the same as in the existing ordinance-, however, multi-family developments must meet minimum lot size standards. There was a change made by the Regional Planning Commission so that multi-family development can occur on existing lots of record even if it doesn't meet minimum lot size, if it is located in an R-2 or R-3 zone. Council member Foy gave a scenario of two houses built on one lot and the back house has a zero set back and the back house burned down, and asked if the owner would be able to rebuild that house. Mark Hinthorne commented that it could be handled through a Class 3 review. Don Skone commented that the ordinance can be changed to provide for this type of circumstance. Commis- sioner Whiteside asked what would happen if their insurance only covered the structure if it were rebuilt. Don Skone stated that staff is working on obtaining an answer to that question. Discussion continued on existing zero lot line dwellings in the south east area and how many lots would be impacted by this section. Don Skone commented that one way to handle this situation is through a Planned Residential classification (Table 4-1) which would be a Class 2 review in an R-1 zone, with density 0-6 DU/NIA. The higher density is not shown to be permitted at all, and he suggested that the 6-12 density could be shown as a Planned Residential classification as a Class 3 use. Commissioner Klarich requested that this situation be resolved in a a manner that would not create a hardship on these people. The Class 3 review would make them go through a longer, more costly, process in order to rebuild. Fred Stouder suggested that staff come back with a couple of alternatives. Mark Hinthorne reviewed and explained the use of Table 5-2 relating to subdivision requirements. He stated that a typing error needs to be corrected and requested that the "per unit" be marked out under two family dwelling: it should be 8,000 sq. ft. per duplex. He distributed a couple of handouts which he used as examples to explain how properties can be subdivided. Discussion followed on the maximum percentage allowed for lot coverage, Council member Foy questioned if that percentage is really the norm for today. Mark Hinthorne commented that the standards can be adjusted by the Administrative Official, however, the intent of the zoning requirement must be met. He further commented that the coverage has been increased from 357 to 407 in the single family zone. Referring to Chapter 6, Mark Hinthorne commented that the parking. standards are shown on one table and the uses in that table are related to Table 4-1. Discussion occurred on the formula used for calculating required parking, by gross sq. ft. floor area. Mark Hinthorne stated that Chapter 7 on landscaping or site screening is a new chapter. He stated these standards can be adjusted by the Administrative Official. Referring to that authority to adjust the requirements, Commissioner Klarich suggested that the wording be rephrased in a more positive posture, i.e., the Administrative Official may modify the standards, instead of increase the standards requirements. Don Skone stated that one of the reasons the 471 Administrative Official was given the ability to increase standards is because he was given the ability to decrease some standards and he may need to increase other standards in order to offset minor impacts to the development or neighborhood when those standards are decreased. Council members discussed the City's power and authority to enforce the requirements and conditions of plamed developments. Mark Hinthorne introduced Chapter 8 relating to sign standards, stating staff worked with the Sign Association and several local businessmen in drafting this chapter. He informed the Commissioners and Council members there are three areas that the Association will recommend changes; the table at the end of the chapter relating to sign size (pg. 55), multiple business or multiple tenant signs, and freeway signs. There was discussion regarding sign requirements and enforcement procedures of illegally installed signs. Discussion progressed to Chapter 9, relating to development in the overlay district. Concern was expressed regarding the airport overlay district and Council members and Commissioners questioned whether or not the Airport Board should be responsible for development within the "airport 'proper", due-.to the existing review and restrictions already placed on development in that area. Judd Black commented the overlay map will be a result of the Comprehensive Plan prepared by the Airport Board. Mark Hinthorne stated that Chapter 10 relates to the guideline and criteria for administrative adjustments in development standards. He stated there will have to be some language changes to give this a more positive approach. Referring back to the previous discussion regarding maximum lot coverage, :Mark Hinthorne stated that the Administrative Official cannot change the lot coverage standards. Mr. Black interjected that the ordinance can be amended to, exempt recreational facilities. (Assistant Mayor Beauchamp absent after 11:30 a.m., after relinquishing the gavel to Council member Buchanan). Mark Hinthorne described the purpose of Chapter 11 regarding permits. giving detailed information on Section .060, Expiration and Cancellation of Development Permits and Certificates of Zoning Review, and Section 11.080 Performance Assurance. It was MOVED by Foy, seconded by Sparling, that this meeting be adjourned at the hour of 12:06 p.m., to then meet on Tuesday, January 22, 1985 at 12:00 noon in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Unanimously carried by voice vote, Barnett, Beauchamp and Carmichael absent. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY / COUN 7 L MEMBER DAIE ..41/ CO PICILe :ER ir ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR k upc— Q—d r j e . r _ 6 k AN - • - 19\LLIAri .PtscOt\P •