Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/1998 Adjourned Meeting / Study Session 139 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON MAY 12, 1998 ADJOURNED MEETING - STUDY SESSION• The City Council met in session on this date at 7:30 a.m., in the 2 11d Floor Training Room, at the Police Station /Legal Center, 200 South 3rd Street, Yakima, Washington. Mayor Pro Tem Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, Lynn Buchanan, John Klingele, and Bernard Sims present on roll call. Mayor Puccinelli absent and excused. City Manager Zais, Assistant City Manager Rice, City Attorney Paolella, Assistant City Attorney Larry Peterson; Don Skone, Planning Manager; Joan Davenport, Supervising Associate Planner; and Deputy City Clerk Skovald also present. Continuation of Review of Growth Management Plan Assistant Mayor Place welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order. Don Skone, Planning Manager, distributed additional material to the Council concerning GMA consistency requirements. Then he directed attention to the redraft of proposed changes to Chapter 15.19 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO). This draft reflects changes as directed by the Council during study sessions held in March and April of this year. The changes reflect previous public hearing testimony requesting a grandfather clause for existing uses to protect property rights. The redraft eliminates the 75% threshold for damages and allows nonconforming structures to be rebuilt and 'nonconforming uses to continue with an extended time period of three years for resolution of litigation or insurance settlement. Mr. Skone reported that Yakima County submitted some recommendations that would substantially change the City Council's rewritten provision, but those have not been incorporated into this redraft. The reasoning behind the City's revision, as explained by Council Member Barnett, is to reflect extensive public testimony to include a grandfather clause as an implementation detail for the Comp Plan. The distinction between the City's provision and the County's version is that the County's only applies to nonconforming structures, and not to nonconforming uses. Theirs will require a Class 2 Review, a determination by the Hearing Examiner, or perhaps some other form of a limited public hearing for a nonconforming use to continue. Also, the 75 percent damage threshold would remain in the County's version. Council Member Barnett referred to a recent Regional Planning Commission meeting where the RPC decided to let the legislative bodies determine which proposed changes to make. Assistant Mayor Place pointed out that the two legislative bodies, the City of Yakima Yakima County, could have two different sections within the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO) to reflect each entity's version of the Nonconforming Uses and Structures provisions. To conclude discussion 140 MAY 12, 1998 about this issue, City Manager Zais suggested these issues be discussed further during a Joint Meeting with the Yakima County Commissioners. Don Skone directed Council's attention to the handout provided in the packet entitled Proposed Definitions and Zoning Classifications for Airport Related Uses. There will be three new Class I uses in the M -1 zone, including Airport Operations, Airport Industrial, and Airport Commercial. These uses would be exempt from Class 2 Project Review in the Airport Overlay District. However, outside the Airport Zone certain authority will be maintained. Bob Clem, Airport Manager, reported that Yakima County also agrees with this proposed change. He also commented that there are airport- related issues, i.e., hanger requests, that do not need review. He indicated that these new zoning classifications would enable the Airport to proceed. with commercial and industrial uses. Mr. Skone mentioned that along Washington Avenue, the Central Business District Support (CBDS) zoning district would be included on the Zoning Map. Mr. Clem indicated that the Airport Board is not aware of that change and needs to review it. Council Member Sims referred to the Class 1 Review in an M -1 Zone and questioned how will other people feel about this exemption. He feels the City and County are treating themselves better than other property owners of M -1 property. Council Member Buchanan feels that since there is a special purpose within an airport specific zone, tougher restrictions will apply than in other areas of development. City Manager Zais pointed out that Commercial and Industrial uses have been permitted around the Airport, but not residential uses. Mr. Skone reported that outside the approach zones to the runway is where Yakima County's perspective is different than the City's for residential uses. There was a considerable amount of discussion among Council Members about the noise level, the possibility of airplane crashes., and the litigation history of residential development by airport property. Mr. Clem explained the Airport has opposed development in the approach zones. Then there was additional discussion about the planned development anticipated west of the Airport. Assistant City Manager Rice suggested the use of the property surrounding the Airport should be added to the tentative topics of discussion when a joint adjourned meeting is scheduled with the County Commissioners. Joan Davenport provided an additional handout explaining new terms used within Comp Plan implementation regulations. She explained that the term Planned Development is a new zoning ordinance provision allowing flexibility of design and mixed uses within the same development. The term Development Agreement is a legal instrument tying a proposed development to specific conditions of approval. The term Binding Site Plan is a legal instrument only used in land subdivision for commercial and industrial developments to create development pads. They are similar to what Short Plats are for residential subdivisions. Development Standards will be included in a proposed new chapter of the Yakima Municipal Code to consolidate the public improvement requirements for new developments in one section of the City Code. Currently the public improvement standards are • 2 • 141 • MAY 12, 1998 scattered throughout the City Code with some standards that have never been formally adopted. Standards for sidewalks would be included in this section. The Council raised some questions and requested clarification about several issues including Planned Development proposals, Common Open Space and the Open Space Management Plan within the draft Planned Development Ordinance, as well as the proposed institutional zone designation as it is proposed to be incorporated into the class review process. The Council discussed the issue of consistency between the Future Land Use Map and the Urban Area Zoning Map, and clarification was requested about who is responsible for cleaning up graffiti on the wall built on 24 Avenue. There was discussion about scheduling future GMA study sessions; there will be about a month before any more study sessions will be held on GMA. Also, all of the draft documents that have been discussed during the GMA study sessions will be included in the final joint public ' hearing, which will be an opportunity to discuss Yakima County's suggestions. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) For the sake of clarity, Joan Davenport explained the difference in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA compliance applies when there are federal funds involved or if a federal agency has approval of the project. Council Member Barnett directed attention to the May 9, 1998 SEPA rules revision deadline to have the City's regulations in compliance. Joan Davenport reported that Ecology has not written the category rules yet. Don Skone explained the rule revisions integrate landuse; decision processes with the SEPA rules; they will run concurrently. There was an update presented on the Mercy Mall project as it relates to the traffic mitigation portion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). City Manager Zais reported more funds would be needed for consultant expertise before the end of the public hearings process is completed. Riverview Mobile Home Manor Glenn Rice provided an update on the progress with respect to the mobile home park. A handout was provided to the Council pertaining to the Stop Work Order on the project. City Manager Zais reported that the City of Yakima has not adopted the National Fire Code Standards of 10 feet. There was discussion about establishing development standards to regulate mobile home parks that is currently being undertaken. 3 142 MAY 12, 1998 Railroad Issues Ray Paolella, City Attorney, outlined his recent trip to Washington, D.C. to testify to the Railroad Transportation Sub - Committee during oversight hearings on the Surface Transportation Board's Reauthorization. The issues Mr. Paolella elaborated about during his testimony included the preemption of public health and safety laws; the Surface Transportation Board (STB) approval process of railroad operations, and the lack of accountability of the STB. Mr. Paolella also directed the Railroad Transportation Su attention to defects in the public hearing process as it relates to testimony from affected cities and conflicting compliance requirements between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Surface Transportation Board (STB). He indicated complete federal power was the essence of the hearing; however, identifying and mitigating the impacts was also recognized, as well as who should be allocated the costs of the mitigation. Council Member Buchanan shared a historic perspective of the railroad as it relates to other areas of the country that has rail service and where impacts are being mitigated. Council Member Buchanan also pointed out that the Railroad fuel tax is not as much as the fuel tax for trucks. The fuel tax for trucks was raised to help pay for road improvements. It seems that the railroad fuel tax could help pay for mitigation improvements. City Manager Zais pointed out that the National League of Cities sponsored the issues. Adj ournment It was MOVED BY BUCHANAN, SECONDED BY KLINGELE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:10 A.M. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Puccinelli absent. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: , OUNCIL p MBER � DATE R OUNC 1 DA E ATTEST: SA "AAA.% 1 DEPUTY 41Y CLERK MARY ACE, ASSISTANT MAYOR Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audiotape of this meeting is available in the City Clerk's Office 4