Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/1998 Adjourned Study Session 28 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON JANUARY 13, 1998 ADJOURNED STUDY SESSION WITH YAKIMA COUNTY AND THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION The City Council met in session on this date at 7:30 a.m., in the Second Floor Training Room, Police Department /Legal Center, Yakima, Washington, Mayor Lynn Buchanan, presiding. Council Members Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, John Klingele, John Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims present on roll call. Council Member Elect Mary Place also present. City Manager Zais, Assistant City Manager Rice, Director of Community .& Economic Development Valenzuela, Planning Manager Skone, Assistant City Attorney Peterson, and Acting City Clerk Skovald also present. Jim Lewis, Yakima County Commissioner and Richard Anderwald from Yakima County Planning were also in attendance. Regional Planning Commissioner members in attendance include Curtis King, Deborah Patterson, Dennis Kelly, and Kara Kondo. REVIEW OF GMA SCHEDULE, ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS /STANDARDS Mayor Buchanan opened the meeting and invited staff to make their presentation. Zoning Map Amendments Don Skone, Planning Manager, outlined implementation elements of the City's Growth Management Plan which still need revision-. He reported the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) has meetings scheduled in January and February to continue the process of reviewing comments from the December 1997 public hearings. Upon completion of that review process, the RPC will make their recommendations to the Yakima Urban Area Joint Board concerning the Future Zoning Map and potential text amendments to the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. They will also consider proposed changes to Table 4 -1 on permitted land uses, and will continue the process to establish and define two new zoning districts, one for parks and one for institutions. Regulatory Reform Next, Mr. Skone referred to the draft ordinance that would reflect new Regulatory Reform - 1724 requirements for subdivisions established by state law. This proposed legislation would add a new title to the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC) to implement changes to the current land 29 ADJOURNED MEETING - January 13, 1998 use development application and environmental permit application processes. Some of the provisions will concern notice of public hearings, description of property, open record public hearings on land use proposals, and appeal provisions for preliminary plat decisions. Mr. Skone pointed out that originally requirements were going to be included as part of each document for zoning, subdivisions, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), shoreline permits, and other categories; however, since time is of the essence, one draft ordinance will encompass all those processes. He urged the Council to consider the draft ordinance presented last fall. Council Member Barnett expressed concern about several issues in the draft Regulatory Reform ordinance. He asked staff questions concerning the determination of who is considered a party of record and who will make those determinations. Another area of concern is the potential confusion that could evolve between the land use designation (Class 1, Class 2, Class 3) and the application type or category (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, and Type 4). In general Council Member Barnett feels more specific wording is needed to replace the vague terminology used in the draft ordinance because it isn't specific enough for the public at large. Another issue Council Member Barnett directed attention to is the lack of an appeal process for situations involving permitted land uses, the level of development, and the availability and the adequacy of infrastructure. He directed attention to a particular section of the draft ordinance where it indicates the City of Yakima, or any ,subsequent reviewing body, shall not hear appeals. Council Member Barnett also questioned whether the ordinance would apply outside the city limits. Mr. Skone explained the requirements for regulatory reform were going to be included in each ordinance to avoid such confusion, rather than . do what is now being proposed. How to deal with that will need to be worked out and those concerns will be addressed. Joan Davenport indicated the verbiage Council Member Barnett referred to is more characteristic rather than definitive. She explained the tables in the draft ordinance are very specific to indicate which application type. She briefly delineated the differences among the four types of applications. The administratively approved Type 1 applications, such as building permits and minor subdivision and zoning applications, don't require public notice at all. The Type 2 applications require administrative review and notice to property owners within 300 feet and are similar to Class 2 Reviews; they are a cross -over between zoning applications and subdivision applications. The Type 3 applications are also similar to Class 3 Reviews in that they require a hearing by the hearing examiner; Type 4 applications are those that require legislative action by the City Council. Staff will work on clarifying the concerns expressed by Council Member Barnett. 2 ADJOURNED MEETING - January 13, 1998 City Manager Zais suggested another study session be scheduled to continue the discussion on Regulatory Reform, since there is considerable interest in this issue. Council Member Barnett asked how much new material has been included in the legislation and how much has been changed. Nonconforming Uses For the record, Commissioner Lewis expressed concern about down zoning property without an existing structure. He referred to the proposed down zoning of Linda Holmes' property at 1117 and 1119 South 3 rd Avenue and submitted a letter from Tad Moody, a concerned property owner on South 6th Avenue, who suggested a grandfather clause be considered for current residents. Commissioner Lewis also submitted a letter from Bob Clem, Airport Manager, which was accompanied by a letter from Bill Elkins, Chairman of the Airport Board, opposing the potential Airport Institutional zoning district. Commissioner Lewis asked if the grandfather clause would apply if the zoning is changed, and can it still be developed without an existing structure. Discussion followed concerning the grandfather clause issue as it relates to nonconforming use language. Council Member Puccinelli requested that agricultural land use be included. He asked if an .orchardist can continue to run his wind machine with houses right next to it and can a dairy farm stay a farm with all the flies next to houses. There was discussion about extended time limitations issue and that those issues will be included when the details are developed for the Policy Issue written for this section. Development Standards Don Skone noted that development standards would be reviewed and then included in the YMC under Chapter 12. Council Member Puccinelli directed attention to the issue of development standards for sidewalks in rural areas. He questioned the necessity of sidewalks in developments where there is one house every one or two acres on steep hillsides where the streets are wide enough to accommodate pedestrians like up on Carriage Hill; the cost would be prohibitive to construct sidewalks there. Council Member Sims feels sidewalks should be required because children need sidewalks, and when there is a demand for sidewalks, the City will end up doing it with a bond issue. Don Skone explained the standards for sidewalks were discussed with the Community & Economic Development Review Committee. There was discussion about whether it would be an appropriate time to bring the sidewalk issue back now to that committee to review along with other development standards for cul de sacs and rolled curbs and gutters. A meeting of the committee will be scheduled in the very near future to discuss these issues. 3 3.1 ADJOURNED MEETING - January 13, 1998 Council Member Barnett commented that the RPC is still using terminology, i.e., R -1, R -2, R -3 and M -1, and M -2. He thought that when Figure III -2, the Land Use Compatibility Chart, was included in the Plan, that that terminology would be dropped and the terminology Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential would be used. He is a little confused as to what the proper terminology is. Don Skone explained it was never their intent to change the basic zoning designations. That does raise the question what does low density equate to, an R -1 Zone or a Suburban Residential Zone. He indicated his preference is to not drop the existing zoning designations. Council Member Sims directed attention to the Future Land Use Map III - 3, and asked how proposed zoning changes will take effect and be reflected as zoning map amendments. He also asked when the Future Land Use designation will become zoning designations to reflect the blanket zoning that will take place in Yakima with individual petitions, down zoning some, up zoning some, based on public testimony. He explained that he thought areas would be blanketly rezoned by request of the people who testified at the hearings. Don Skone explained there are two ways to change the zoning map, either through the petition application process or through the legislative process by City Council policy - it would be a broad legislative action. Council Member Sims asked when would the down zoning be enacted if zoning is a separate legislative action. Don Skone explained the RPC needs to finish its review, then it goes to the Joint Board, and then to the City Council /Yakima County Commissioners. This process would occur before development standards are finalized. Dick Anderwald commented that the land use map and the zoning to follow needs to achieve the Comprehensive Plan designation. Controversies between the Future Land Use Map and the current zoning would need to be resolved in the annual Comprehensive Plan update process, instead of on an individual basis as was the case before the Growth Management Act was passed. Council Member Barnett asked when will the ordinances be changed to implement the new policies. Additionally, Council Member Barnett referred to the G -2 Objective: Balancing of Property Rights on Page III -3, and explained he feels this goal should be given more emphasis; it should include specific ways property rights will be protected. He also mentioned the policy on the development of incentives for retail business and offices that locate within the city limits. Marketing incentives need to be developed in order to implement the goals which are found in C2.1 and C2.2. This would attract collective industries and other commercial development. 4 32 ADJOURNED MEETING - January 13, 1998 Glenn Valenzuela responded to Council Member Barnett's concern. He explained the policy is there from the standpoint of what to do to attract business and commercial development. The Council Economic Development Committee has looked at Section 108 financing and the potential of supporting the Urban Stabilization Act. Programs could be developed with different types of incentives. Industrial development incentives would be looked at separately. Mr. Valenzuela provided a number of examples, such as the Home Ownership Zone which will have incentives available for the construction industry for those who wish to reinvest in the poorer areas of this community; incentives will be based on that application. Council Member Barnett reiterated Mr. Valenzuela's comments that every policy in the Comprehensive Plan does not necessarily have to be implemented at one time. Incrementally it will be done over a period of time based on some changes that will be presented to the Council. There was continued discussion about balancing affordable housing needs and property rights as they related to zoning changes and the ongoing efforts for implementation. Planned Development Ordinance Mayor Buchanan directed attention to several rezones where the property owner told the Council that the rezone was for a specific project, and then it was changed to another use. That is the reason why planned unit development was added. The property owners need to be held to a standard if the property is going to be rezoned. Don Skone explained specific design flexibility needs to be defined. Guidelines need to be developed so the Hearing Examiner can go by them during the Open Record Hearing before he makes his recommendation to the City Council. There was discussion about the usefulness of development agreements and the planned unit development process. Phil Lamb, Hearing Examiner, described the concomitant agreement, which is what is used now; he also suggested standards be developed for planned unit development and binding site plans for the industrial sector. There was continued discussion about the purpose of the development agreement and the process to implement them. Staff will bring back another proposal on planned unit development at a later date. City Manager Zais outlined the remaining issues that the Council needs to review, including the draft Regulatory Reform ordinance reflecting HB1724 requirements; proposed Development Standards, the draft Transportation Concurrency ordinance, Development Agreements and the draft Planned Development ordinance. SEPA rule amendments and the draft ordinance revisions also need further review. Due to the time limitation of this meeting, it was the consensus of the Council to continue discussion of these issues to the next study session to be scheduled next week. It was MOVED BY KLINGELE, SECONDED BY PUCCINELLI, TO ADJOURN AT 9:00 A.M. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 5 33 ADJOURNED MEETING - January 13, 1998 READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: ' UNCIL MEMBE1 DATE CO CI EMBER DATE• ATTEST: n Ads.die „7/ DEPU CITY CLERK YNN BUCHNAN, MAYOR Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audiotape of this meeting is available in the City Clerk's Office • i 6