Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/1998 Adjourned Meeting / Study Session 126 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON APRIL 28, 1998 ADJOURNED MEETING - STUDY SESSION The City Council met in session on this date at 7:30 a.m., in the Second Floor Training Room, at the Police Department /Legal Center, 200 South 3rd Street, Yakima, Washington, Mayor John Puccinelli presiding. Council Members Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, John Klingele, Mary Place, and Bernard Sims present. Council Member Lynn Buchanan was absent and excused. City Manager Zais, Assistant City Manager Rice, Al Chronister, Fire Chief; Ray Paolella, City Attorney; Leonard Hall, Code Administration Manager; Don Skone, Planning Manager; Larry Peterson, Assistant City Attorney; Gene Martin, Deputy Fire Chief; Joan Davenport, Supervising Associate Planner; John Elsden, Senior. Project Planner; Marketa Oliver, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager; and Deputy City Clerk Skovald also present. Continuation of Review of Growth Management Plan and Draft Legislation Draft Subdivision Ordinance Mayor Puccinelli called the meeting to order and Development Standards were discussed first. Council Member Barnett requested a list of specific sections in the Yakima Municipal Code that would be deleted to avoid conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The list should also include those sections that would be transferred to Title 12, Development Standards. Regulatory Reform - 1724 Joan Davenport, Supervising Associate Planner, explained the latest version of the draft Regulatory Reform Ordinance reflects revisions, per Council's request, to remove any discretionary language. The essence of Regulatory Reform is to provide additional time limits for processing development permits, to provide public notice of a 15 -day comment period for permit applications, and to consolidate permit review procedures for project applications. Ms. Davenport pointed out that the new time frame is not restrictive, and Yakima already complies with many of those requirements; however, it could change how the findings are drafted. She explained for any permit application the new regulations will allow only one open- record hearing, which usually is held by the Hearing Examiner, and then one closed record appeal hearing, which usually is held by the City Council. Permit review has to conclude within 120 days from the time that an application is complete. 127 ADJOURNED MEETING =APRIL 28, 1998 Council Member Barnett asked why regulatory reform doesn't apply to the Urban Area. Don Skone, Planning Manager, explained that 'Yakima County already has a regulatory ordinance in place. Council Member Barnett asked if the 300 - foot criterion is still being used to notify property owners. There was discussion about the City's property posting requirements, which recently changed to larger sized signs with an interchangeable pocket. Staff was directed to make sure the development community is aware of the new policy. Responding to an inquiry from Council Member Place, it was noted that the SEPA responsible official for the City, who issues the threshold determination for State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) compliance, is the Director of Community and Economic Development. Assistant City Manager Rice is currently Acting Director of that department. Larry Peterson, Assistant City Attorney, explained* that the basic premise of open record hearings is when evidence can be submitted and when the record is established. Instead of allowing the record to be reopened, the City Council will make its decision based on evidence previously submitted during the open record hearing. The type of review determines when the open record hearing will occur. There was also quite a lengthy discussion about what evidence is allowed on the record during appeals. In response to an inquiry from Council Member Place, discussion ensued concerning who determines what evidence is admissible. Staff was directed to provide assistance on a case -by- case basis as to what is new evidence and what is old evidence as it relates to issues raised during each appeal. Since the new state law restricts admitting new evidence or taking new testimony during a closed record meeting, it will be challenging to make the distinction between adding new evidence or reviewing admissible evidence. City Attorney Paolella pointed out that the Council could hold the open record hearing rather than delegating that authority to the Hearing Examiner, which is something the Council may want to consider. Council Member Place suggested that an informational brochure about regulatory reform for open- record hearings be created and made available during hearings. This would inform applicants, parties of record, and neighbors about presenting all evidence during the open - record hearing. Staff was also requested to provide an explanation of when a record can be reopened during a closed record proceeding. Council Member Place directed attention to page .8 of the draft Regulatory Reform Ordinance pertaining to notification for the open record hearing. She feels the timeframe is too short, and the Notice of Application, which will include the date of public hearing, should be at least 15 -days before the hearing with an extension of five days available if requested. The 120 -day timeframe incorporates various steps in the application notification process. Referring to page 8, Joan Davenport noted the intent of this section is to include mailing the notices of application. Council Member Barnett pointed out that regulatory reform is being prepared as a separate title, just like Title' 12, Development Standards. He reiterated his request that a list be 2 128 ADJOURNED MEETING -APRIL 28, 1998 prepared of specific sections in the Yakima Municipal Code that would be deleted to avoid conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The list should also include those sections that would be transferred to Title 16, Administration of Development Permit Regulations. Larry Peterson indicated that every effort would be made to identify inconsistent provisions; however, Title 16 would prevail if there were any contrary provisions overlooked. Those provisions will be subordinate to Title 16. Joan Davenport noted that the subdivision ordinance is consistent with Regulatory Reform requirements. There was discussion about the process to eliminate contradictory language from the Yakima Municipal Code as it relates to Council Member Barnett's request. Council Member Place pointed out that for clarification the word "day" needs to be added as the second word on line 40 of page 8 of the draft Regulatory Reform Ordinance, to read "fifteenth day after the notice." Joan Davenport responded to a question from Council Member Klingele concerning the Notice of Application. She explained the notice for major project application would not be sent until a complete application has been received, but minor applications will be allowed the flexibility to be mailed before they are complete to notify the public. This would include the SEPA Checklist. Larry Peterson briefly explained the right of vesting for property development application completeness. Planned Development Council Member Barnett referred to page 8 of the draft Planned Development Ordinance concerning the Open Space Management Plan. He questioned whether the City wants to maintain somebody else's open space if they fail to perform maintenance in the planned development. John Elsden, Senior Project Planner, explained that provisions for open space management is a common requirement in most cities. Mayor Puccinelli described a scenario where a developer agrees to maintain a park as part of a planned development agreement and asked how would that be enforced. There was discussion about the City's ability to enforce maintenance of a common open space by paying a contractor to do the work, then billing the property owner, and then placing a lien if not pa -id. There was discussion about planned development agreements for rental property, as well as weedy lot abatement and similarly related situations. Other Items City Manager Zais directed attention to the status of the Riverview Mobile Home Park, the object of recent complaints from residents of that park. Glenn Rice outlined the latest developments and described the conditions established after recent meetings with staff and the developer. The City has sent a letter to the developer and residents, stating that no work or additional mobile homes would be put in until 3 129 ADJOURNED MEETING -APRIL 28, 1998 a final site plan is submitted. It seems progress is being made, and it is hopeful that there will be an acceptable resolution to the situation after a meeting takes place this afternoon. A handout was provided which shows existing structures and the layout of the park. There was a PSLA water and sewer site plan submitted. This property • is considered as one lot and is not considered a subdivision. There are specific conditions set out on the final site plan, i.e., • clubhouse and swimming pool. A complete report will be prepared after • the meeting today takes place. • Leonard Hall, Code Administration Manager, presented a video on the Riverside Mobile Home Park showing the size of the lot and the distance'between the homes. There. was a brief discussion about the 80 percent coverage and the 20 percent open space requirement for this R- 3 project. Dick Zais indicated the density as it relates to the recreational portion of the project represented in their presentation at the City Council. There was a brief discussion about the new Mobile Home Park Development Standards that are currently being drafted and under review. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:10 a.m. to May 5, 1998 at 7:30 a.m. to discuss Annexation Planning. Another 'study session will be scheduled for May 12, 1,998 to continue the review of the Growth Management Plan and draft legislation. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: j /L � l/' 3�� . /COUNCIL Mr BER'' DATE y or j • L 11!' v. DATE ATTEST: CITY CLERK JOHN PUCCINELLI, MAYOR Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audiotape of this meeting is available in the City Clerk's Office 4