Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/08/2005 Adjourned Meeting 3.9.0 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 8, 2005 - 7:30 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - YAKIMA CITY HALL 1. Roll CaII Present: Council: Mayor Paul George, presiding, Council Members Ron Bonlender (after s a.m.), Dave Edler, Neil McClure, Mary Place, and Bernard Sims Absent: Council Member Susan Whitman (excused) Staff: Dick Zais, City Manager; and City Clerk Roberts 2. Study Session to review critical areas / shorelines permit legislation Council Member Place commented that this legislation has to be completed by the end of 2006. When we first passed critical areas and shorelines we were told we had to have a 200 -foot buffer. Since then we've learned that is not always true. This is an opportunity to fix that and to do a better job of establishing critical areas and shorelines. Doug Maples, Code Administration and Planning Manager, said that they tried to put together the foundation these two ordinances would be based upon but there are some lingering elements that are problematic and they are looking for policy -type direction. There will probably be a need for a buffer table for everyone to go to when determining how buffer requirements affect them. Most documents identify the buffer as a distance of land from the high water mark of a stream or wetland. But in an urbanized setting there are parcels of land that may only be 100 -125 feet deep. If they are on a Type 1 stream, currently the buffer is 200 foot. Therein lies a problem. We have three Type 1 streams within the city's urban growth boundary, Naches, Yakima, and Ahtanum shorelines. The state is the only entity that can identify Type 1 streams. There are also Type 2 through 5, plus wetlands, all of which we have within our jurisdiction. Mr. Maples shared a success from an idea Councilman McClure brought up last year where there were wetlands identified and we were able to mitigate them using a banking process. It allows you to take a critical area and if it's deteriorated beyond restoration so that it doesn't make sense to restore it, you allow the developer to eliminate the wetland but they have to contribute to another wetland. That concept should be included in this ordinance. 3 9 -1: DECEMBER 8, 2005 — ADJOURNED MEETING Discussion then covered how the buffer size gets established. One method is tree height because the trees and other vegetation provide needed shade to the wetland so the water isn't heated to a level that affects fish and wildlife. On the west side of the state there are trees that rise to 250 feet. They take 80% of that height to get the 200 -foot baseline. The east side of the mountains doesn't have 250 -foot trees, so it doesn't seem appropriate to use the same 200 foot buffer standard. If we use the ordinary tree height found in Yakima, 100 to150 feet, our ultimate buffer would be 120 feet. Mr. Maples said it was his belief that if we have established parcels already platted, there needs to be an additional reduction for those parcels, a two- layer concept within the urban area. Within our current code we have the ability to reduce our buffers by 50 %. He gave an example of a buffer requirement of 100 foot being allowed to be reduced to 50 foot. The same quantity of vegetation would be required in that 50 foot that was required in the 100 foot; it becomes denser, improving the function and quality of the existing buffer and still mitigating the impacts on the wetland or critical area. Discussion then covered the need for consistency, review of other jurisdictions, the elimination of setbacks and the ability to intensify the buffer during planning. The County, for the most part, is using buffers of 100 feet for Type 1, 75 feet for Type 2 and 50 foot for Type 3, with flexibility of being reduced. With regard to wetlands, it's Type 1 -200 foot, Type 2 -150 foot, Type 3 -100 foot and Type 4 -50 foot. The discussion covered the need for overlay maps that identify what the critical area boundary would be for those critical areas and the wetland area. This becomes another policy issue; it is important to note on the map whether it is regulatory or reference. Ken Harper, legal counsel for the City, said that FEMA mapping is largely governed by federal FEMA standards and local jurisdictions have to go through a revision process to change that. He clarified that kind of federal flood plain mapping doesn't have any authority over this jurisdiction's wetlands or critical areas mapping. The FEMA regulatory mapping process does not restrict what we want to do as far as our own critical areas. Council Member Sims asked what kind of outreach is planned before we adopt critical areas and shorelines. Mr. Maples advised that we have participated in an outreach that has encompassed the entire county. About 30 individual organizations have participated for three years. The County established a discussion panel with about six state agencies. So when it comes to the City taking the CAD /SMP from the County and putting it into our own ordinance the same individuals will be invited. It was the consensus of Council to eliminate the setback requirement. It was also the consensus of Council to select Option 3, to have a separate chapter within Critical Areas for Shorelines, rather than merging the two. It was noted that the legislation intends that critical areas within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act shall be governed by the Shoreline Management Act, and critical areas outside the shorelines shall be governed by the Growth Management Act. The legislation further intends the quality of the Shoreline Act 2 3 9 2'. DECEMBER 8, 2005 — ADJOURNED MEETING shall not be limited or changed by the Growth Management Act. This clearly indicates it is important to keep the two separate and for us to not co- mingle shoreline critical areas with GMA critical areas The appeal process was discussed. Unlike Growth Management Hearing Boards (three in the state), there is only one Shorelines Hearings Board there and it's on the west side of state and you have to appear. Council Member Place brought up the issue of existing non - conforming uses of properties. Are we going to continue to allow uses that are already there and too close to the stream? We will get complaints when they have an existing structure and want to add on or change the use. It says you can allow non - conforming uses, but what if they want to enlarge or change the use. Mr. Maples said we have latitude to put something in the ordinance to address this, but we are not that far along yet. Mr. Maples asked for direction on the mitigation measures that are identified in establishing the buffer. Do we want to also take into consideration the parcel size, zoning, intensity (antenna farm versus oil tank farm), the idea of whether or not to include the amount of rural versus urbanized standards, and whether or not we ought to look at other considerations. Council Member McClure said the idea of buffering by intensity was a great concept and wondered if we could develop clear language to make it work. Mr. Maples pointed out that the County considers residential development as high intensity similar to a tank farm. He asked what the Council's ideas were. Discussion was no for R -1, and that it would be dependent on what was built for R2 and R3. The County considers R -1 as higher intensity than an R -3. All Council members agreed it should be reversed. The development of goals and policies was discussed. Council Member Place said they should be very broad like the RCWs and WAC. It was her opinion that they be limited and broad, not all inclusive. Currently we are proposing 40 goals and policies compared to 200 for the County. Council Member Sims questioned how differences between the City and the County would be handled if we consolidated the Codes function. Council Member Place commented that is why we have always asked for different rural and urban standards. The Planning Commission will have to be changed to have both rural and urban representatives. There was further discussion on the impact of the regionalization goal. Mr. Maples commented again on the appeal process noting that the direction we would take is similar to what has been done with SEPA where the appeal would go to the hearing examiner and then to Superior Court, not this Council. It is projected that this ordinance will come to Council some time during late fall of 2006. 3 DECEMBER 8, 2005 — ADJOURNED MEETING 3. Audience Comments No one came forward to speak. 4. Executive Session PLACE MOVED AND McCLURE SECONDED TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION WITH ADJOURNMENT THEREAFTER. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 5. Adjournment Following the Executive Session, the meeting adjourned at 9:07 a.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY A , _�: _ _ i /OU�=� M / :ER / i DATE Ar aim; COUNCIL MEMBER DATE ATTEST: "Kethe- 2 /eb-6-€ V /e/z CITY CLERK PAUL P. GEORGE, MAYOR Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 4