HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-16 YPC MinutesCity of Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) City Hall Council Chambers
Meeting Minutes of August 10, 2016
Call to Order
Chairman Scott Clark called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
Roll Call
YPC Members Present: Chairman Scott Clark, Vice -Chair Patricia Byers, Al Rose,
Bill Cook, Gavin Keefe,
YPC Members Absent: Peter Marinace (unexcused), Tom Trepanier (excused)
Staff Present: Jeff Peters, Supervising Planner; Sara Watkins, Senior
Assistant City Attorney; Trevor Martin, Associate Planner;
Lisa Maxey, Department Assistant
Others: Sign -in sheet in file
Staff Announcements
Supervising Planner Jeff Peters provided a brief overview of the items on the meeting
agenda. He informed the Commission that Joan Davenport, Planning Manager, has
requested the Commission to hold a special meeting on August 31St for a continued study
session related to the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update process. Commissioner Byers
made it known that she likely cannot attend that meeting. Commissioner Rose, Clark,
Cook, and Keefe indicated that they expect to be present.
Audience Participation
Bob West alerted the Commission of inappropriate advertisement on the northeast corner
of 91h Street and Yakima Avenue, where a baby crib and handmade sign have been placed
on the grass area between the strip mall and Yakima Ave. West then moved on to talking
about food trucks, explaining that some are being used as a semi-permanent structure
and have indoor seating, siting an example at 7th Street and Nob Hill Boulevard. Lastly,
he mentioned that there are bright yellow signs placed high up on power poles that are
creating distractions at busy intersections such as Nob Hill Boulevard and 181h Street.
Approval of Meeting Minutes of July 27th 2016
Commissioner Cook made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of July 27th, 2016.
The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
Discussion on Outdoor Displays of Merchandise
Peters explained City CounciYs request to the Planning Commission to consider the issue
of outdoor displays of merchandise. Sara Watkins, Senior Assistant City Attorney,
detailed how the current Municipal Code addresses outdoor displays, falling under the
term "outside promotional sales". She went over the various options the Planning
Commission could consider if they decide it is appropriate for them to regulate this issue.
Watkins explained the results of her research of how other municipalities are regulating
outdoor display of merchandise. Discussion ensued relating to right of way use permits,
access issues for stores that are close in proximity, emergency access concerns, and
aesthetic matters.
Audience member Shannon Bird voiced her concerns as a business owner and resident
of Yakima, highlighting the specific issue of explicitly indoor items being displayed
ME
outside. She also expressed her frustrations with nude or inappropriately dressed
mannequins next to one of her businesses, as these displays make customers and other
pedestrians uncomfortable. Bird emphasized that this could become a growing trend. She
also shared some of her research of ordinances from other cities regarding this dilemma.
Audience member Shirley Puryear talked about mannequins on 1St Street as well as on
9th Street and Nob Hill Boulevard and how these could have a negative effect on Yakima's
wine tourism industry.
Audience member Bob West talked about how damaging these outdoor displays are to
the image of the city. He listed some areas of the city where mannequins are a problem.
The Commissioners discussed their apprehension with regulating outdoor displays and
the effect it will have on the freedom of business owners. Commissioner Rose highlighted
that the number of mannequins and other outdoor displays is overpowering. Discussion
took place pertaining to the difficulty of regulating amount or size of display, displays in
parking areas, the necessity of the code being clear so that it can be enforced, transactions
occurring inside the building of the business, and the concepts of "incidental use" and
"accessory use". Sara Watkins reminded the Commission that the definition of "sign"
will be reviewed and likely be modified. Chairman Clark suggested considering the
distance of these displays from the travelled public right of way. General discussion was
held on the possibility of nuisance cases associated with adverse effects of outdoor
displays on business owners. The Commission directed Watkins to research examples of
other city ordinances regulating the number of square footage of allowed outdoor
displays, ways to reduce the negative impact these displays can have on surrounding
property owners, incidental uses, the definition of sign and temporary sign, and uses
permitted via right of way use permits.
Discussion on Land Use Sign Removal Amendments
Peters explained that this item of land use sign removal amendments was discussed
earlier in the year and then tabled. Commissioner Rose, Cook, and Byers voiced their
agreement with option 5, which is to have the City be responsible for removal of the sign
with the cost of the production and removal added to the application fee. Peters added
that a fee increase to land use application which was done in the 1990s included the cost
of making the sign but not removing them. He also informed the Commission that
Planning is conducting a fee study on the current land use application fees. Chairman
Clark stated that sending a letter quarterly, as Planning has done once already this year,
to the property owners who have gone through a process requiring posting a land use
action sign would be the least intrusive solution. Commissioner Cook articulated
language can be added to the land use posting certificate stating that the applicant may
be charged with the city's cost of removing the sign if not removed within 30 days after
a decision has been rendered on the project. Commissioner Cook made a motion to draft
findings that would revise the Planning Division's procedures and language on the land
use action certificate of posting form to indicate that land use action signs must be
removed within 30 days after the decision has been rendered or the applicant may be
charged with the city's cost to remove the sign from the property. The motion was
seconded and carried unanimously.
-2-
Introduction to Codifying Ri ht-of-Wa Vacation Standards
Trevor Martin explained that there is not a section in the Municipal Code specific to right-
of-way vacation procedures, so the city currently bases their procedures solely on a
resolution that was passed and provisions in the Revised Code of Washington.
Consequently, there have been issues and confusion during two recent right-of-way
vacation application processes. He went over his draft of the new code section. Discussion
ensued regarding placement of this section within the Yakima Municipal Code,
compensation exemptions, application submittal requirements, council initiated right-of-
way vacations, and land value. The Commission had consensus to include a 5 year time
frame in section 14.21.050(4) of the draft ordinance.
Other Business
Peters informed the Commission that he will bringing back some of the issues from this
meeting at the next meeting on August 241h.
Adjourn
A motion to adjourn to August 24, 2016 was passed with unanimous vote. This meeting
adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
131116
Chairman Scott Clark Date
This meeting was filmed by YPAC. Minutes for this meeting submitted by: Lisa Maxey, Department Assistant II
-3-