Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/1985 Business Meeting 482 JANUARY 28, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING - URBAN AREA PLAN The City Council and the County Commissioners met on this date at 7:30 p.m. in the Convention Center, Yakima, Washington. Commissioner Tollefson called the meeting to order and introduced Commissioners Klarich and Whiteside, County Planning Director, Dick Anderwald and Assistant Planning Director Mark Hinthorne. Assistant Mayor Beauchamp called the meeting to order for the Council members and introduced fellow Council members Pat Berndt, Lynn Carmichael, Jerry Foy and Jack Sparling. Mayor Clarence Barnett and Council member Lynn Buchanan absent. City Manager Zais, City Attorney Andrews, Assistant City Manager Stouder, Associate Planner Judd Black, City. Clerk Roberts and Deputy City Clerk Toney were also in attendance. - Commissioner Tollefson stated the purpose of this hearing is to consider adoption of a common zoning ordinance for the Yakima Urban Area and an amendment to the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan which would increase the density in the low density residential category from 5 to 6 units per net residential acre. He stated this hearing is an opportunity for citizens to make catunents regarding the 1) zoning ordinance; 2) zoning map; 3) the comprehensive plan amendment; and 4) the environmental impact statement that was prepared for the ordinance. Mark Hinthorne reviewed the Urban Area Planning process from 1978 to 1984. He stated the three main objectives of the proposed zoning ordinance are to 1) provide flexibility; 2) reduce the time for processing development applications; and 3) to ensure consistency in land use decision - making within the Urban Area. He explained that one way flexibility is accomplished is by permitted administrative adjustment of certain site design standards. Under the new ordinance, the Zoning Administrator can adjust the standards for setbacks, parking, landscaping, etc. Under the existing codes a formal variance must be considered at a public hearing by the Board of Adjustment. Flexibility is also achieved by permitting a variety of uses in each zoning district. For example, under the proposed ordinance duplexes and multi - family dwellings may be permitted in the R -1 District after site plan review. Mr. Hinthorne explained that three levels of review are proposed to reduce the time required for processing development applications. Class (1) uses, those uses consistent with the intent and character of the zoning district, go through Class (1) review. Class (1) review is done by the building official and can generally be completed in 1 -3 days. The building official makes sure the project is consistent with the standards of the ordinance but no public notice or hearing is required. This is the same process used for permitted uses under the present zoning cases. Class (2) uses are usually permitted in a particular zoning district. Class (2) uses are reviewed by the administrative official. Under Class (2) review, all property owners within 300 feet receive notice of the project and a copy of the proposed site plan. Neighbors then have 12 days to provide written comment on the project to the Administrative Official. At the end of the 12 -day comment period the Administrative Official will decide whether to approve, modify, or deny the project. Class (2) review generally takes between 14 and 25 days. Class (3) review requires a public hearing by the Hearings Examiner. All property owners within 300 feet will be mailed notice of the public hearing. A legal notice will also be published in the newspaper. Class (3) review will generally take between 90 to 120 days. Mr. Hinthorne reviewed the three ways in which the consistency in land use decision - making is accomplished. First, all decisions will be based on written findings of fact. Second, the Hearings Examiner provides a common thread between the City and County since he will decide all Class (3) applications and appeals from the Building Official and Administrative Official. The appeals process will also encourage consistency by providing a system of checks and balances. The decisions of the building official and zoning administrator may be appealed to the hearings examiner. The decisions of the hearings examiner may be appealed to the County Commissioners or to the City Council and decisions by the elected officials may be appealed to Superior Court. 483 JANUARY 28, 1985 Mr. Hinthorne said the proposed zoning map is based on a combination of four factors: 1) existing land use; 2) existing zoning; 3) residential density; and 4) the availability of public water and sewer service. He added that the Regional Planning Commission made 58 changes in the proposed zoning map during their public hearings last summer. He said additional changes in the zoning map are anticipated and he encouraged citizens to submit a zone change request form for consideration prior to adoption of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. He indicated the hearing to consider these requests has tentatively been scheduled for Wednesday, February 20, 1985. Commissioner Tollefson asked for public testimony and asked the staff to read the correspondence into the record. He stated that the next public hearing regarding the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance is scheduled for February 6, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Hinthorne read into the record the requests for zone changes in the unincorporated urban area which have been received to date. These zone change requests include the following: Edith Pease, 657 Keys Road, Surburban Residential (SR) to Light Industrial (LI); Mrs. Richard Walker, northwest corner of 16th and Lincoln, TWD -family Residential District. (R-2) to Local Business District (B-2); Carl Homberger, 1217 Fruitvale, Two-Family Residential District (R-2) to Multi-Family Residential District (R-3); W. David Cook, S.E. corner of 72nd and Nob Hill Blvd., Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Local Business District (B-2); Jim Siegel, N.E. corner of 72nd and Tieton Drive, Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Local Business Distirct (B-2); Dwain Schrank, N.W. corner of "J" St. and 20th Ave., Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Light Industrial (LI); John Filliol, between Fruitvale Blvd. and Castlevale, Local Business District (B-2) to Central Business District Support (CBDS). Associate Planner Judd Black read into the record the following requests the City has received for zone changes: Silvers Oil of Zillah, 5th Avenue & Popular, Professional Business District (B-1) to Historical Business District (HB); Leonard Dufault, 5th _Avenue & Popular, Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Historical Business District (HB); Frances Gamache, North 4th Avenue and Poplar, Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Local Business District (B-2); Churchill Silvers, Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Local Business District (B-2.) or Historical Business District (HB); Paul LaChance, North 5th Avenue & Poplar, MO-Family Residential (R-2) to Local Business District (B-2); Dr. Cornelius Brandt, 51st Avenue & Summitview, Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Professional Business District (B-1); Shields Bag and Printing, vicinity of Nob Hill Boulevard Overpass, Light Industrial (M-1) to Heavy Industrial (M2); David Buchanan, 44th Avenue and Tieton, Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Professional Business District (B-1); Mid State Monument, 16th Avenue & Tahcma, Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Light Industrial (M-1); H.L. Davis, 8th & Walnut, Historical Business (BB) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3); Jim Walker, South 8th Avenue & Nob Hill BlVd., Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Small Convenience Center (SCC); Don Sublett, 21st and 22nd Avenue & Nob Hill Blvd., Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Local Business District (B-2); Roy Van Gorkom, Mead & Landon, Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Light Industrial (M-1); Kathleen McGuire, Sbuth 1st Avenue & Nob Hill Blvd., Single-Family Residential to Small Convenience Center (SCC); Richard C. Wilson, Vicinity of 9th Avenue & Fruitvale, Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Central Business District Support (CBDS); Isodore & Sarah Lizzott, North 4th Street & "I" Street, Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Historical Business District (HB); Everett Christen, vicinity of Spruce & Union, Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Multi-Family Residential District (R-3); H.L. Hildreth, vicinity of 28th - Avenue & Bonnie Done, Single-Family Residential (R to Two-Family Residential (R-1); Ron Zaremba, vicinity of 700 Block of West Walnut, Multi-Family Residential District (R-3) to Professional Business District (B-1); Marlene Beihl, North 20th Avenue & West "I" St., Single-Family Residential (R71) to Light Industrial (LI); Clara Voelker, 807 West Nob Hill Blvd., Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Local Business District (B-2); Clara Volker, 712 West Nob Hill Blvd., Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Local Business (B-2); Orville Voelker, 809 West Nob Hill Blvd., Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Local Business (B-2); Delores Mullett, Cook & 40th Avenue, Two-Family Residential (R-2) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3); Barbara Edwards, 115 South 9th Street, Single-gamily Residential (R-1) 484 JANUARY 28, 1985 to Multi-Family Residential (R-3); and Joy Emmerson, West Prasch and South 39th Avenue, Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Two-Family Residential (R-2). Letters were also received from C.A. Enright, Max Vincent, Patricia Mallula, Everett "Skip" Christen and Joy Emerson regarding the proposed zoning ordinance. Commissioner Tollefson opened the hearing for public testimony and requested that the citizens indicated Whether their comments are addressed to the Council, Commissioners, or both. Mary Hersey, 1107 So. 31st Avenue, spoke with regard to property located in the 100 block of North 8th Street and the 100 block of North 7th Street. She owns the property located at 113 North 8th Street which has been zoned R-3. She said the traffic pattern makes it impossible to develop this property for Multi-Family Residential, and requested that II/ these two blocks be rezoned to Central Business District Support. She indicated since 8th Street has become a truck route, there are over 1,000 cars and trucks traveling on this street a daily. Ms. Hersey said this makes the property very unattractive for multi-family development. She indicated blight is not yet a serious problem, but it does show signs of increasing. She submitted her letter and pictures of the area Which were marked as exhibits by staff. Mrs. Hersey indicated two other property owners were present to speak regarding this sane request. Earl Derry, 1008 S. 50th Avenue, President of the Yakima Valley Apartment Association, said the proposed ordinance and map did not accomplish the goal adapted in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan to provide decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing to all segments of the community at a price people can afford. He said the Association is puzzled by the fact that areas of Yakima Which are now zoned R-3 and R-2 are being downzoned to R-2 and R-1. He asked the Council and Commissioners to reconsider the downzoning of areas currently zoned R-2 and R73. Albert Landtrip, Pioneer Lane, addressed the Commissioners stating he is in support of the B-1 zoning for the southeast corner of the freeway and North 16 Ave. He addressed the Council members stating he is in support of the R-1 zoning proposed for southeast Yakima. He added he does not feel this is a "downzone" but rather an "upzone" as he feels this area can best be served by being single-family residential. Dr. Melvin Carlson, 701 Pickens Road, addressed his comments regarding the Ranchette Subdivison to the County Commissioners. He said that 22 of the 23 lots in this Subdvision are zoned R-1, and one lot is zoned B-2. He stated the owner of the lot which is zoned B-2 (Larry Evans) is attempting to expand the area zoned B-2 (Mt. Evans' map change request was recommended for approval by the Regional Planning Commission). Twenty-two owners of lots in the Ranchette Subdivision Object to this rezone because they feel that nibbling away the residential area to secure the caMmercial zone is not necessary. He stated they are content to live in a quiet, orderly neighborhood and wish to continue the quality of life and the quality of the canmunity. Jean Allard, 504 East Lincoln, stated he has difficulty with the fact II/ that the verbage has been Changed in the ordinance. He indicated the City and County should direct staff to return to the old nomanclature rather than the new ncmanclature. Doing so would make it easier for people to adapt to the new ordinance. He also objected to Chapter 24, Violations and Enforcement. He suggested that this chapter be removed from the ordinance. He stated this chapter will not only cause great legal difficulties for the City and County, but also a great furor in the community when this is implemented. Mr. Allard also stated he has a real problem with how the downzoning came about in the City, and indicated he would address this at a later time. He stated he does not feel that the legislative authorities are fully aware of what is going to happen with property values and the cost of low income rentals in the comMunity. Ormund Fluegge, 412 S. 23rd Avenue, stated there are several changes in the new zoning ordinance with which he disagrees. He is particularly concerned with the southWest intersection of 5th and Nob Hill Boulevard which is proposed to be rezoned to Small Convenience Center (SCC). He would like to have it remain B-3, since he has planned to sell this 485 JANUARY 28, 1985 ' property for his retirement. Since attending this evening's meeting, he stated he has learned that he can request a zoning change and he would like the opportunity to do so in the form of a letter at a later date. John Klingele, 1313 W. Walnut, addressed the Commissioners and the Council members stating Chapter 1 indicates the purpose of the ordinance is to encourage development in the areas where adequate water and sewer, police and fire protection, roads and schools can be provided. He commented he hopes this is not an indication that the -Sheriff's Department does not provide police protection, or the rural fire departments fire protection. He indicated he knows of_no location that is not provided with these services within the Urban Area. He requested these words be stricken as they are not needed due to the services already being provided. Barbara Edwards, 1210 W. Washington, stated she owns property at 115 South 9th Street, off Union Street at the end of Walnut and intends to build additional rental units on this land in the future as income property. She said the proposed zoning is Single - Family Residential (R -1) and requested the zoning be changed back to Multi - Family Residential (R -3). Gordon Wonder, 718 North 56th Avenue, addressed his comments to the Council and Commissioners regarding some of the phraseology in the proposed ordinance stating it is contradictory and misleading. He specifically identified Table 4 -1, the table of permitted land uses. He also stated the Administrative Official is a decision - raker, not necessarily a site plan reviewer, and encouraged careful examination of the ordinance before it is adopted. - William Eakin, 622 Pickens Road, presented a petition to the County Commissioners and County Board objecting to the proposed rezone in the Ranchette Subdivision from Single - Family Residential (R -1) to Local Business (B-2). Mr. Eakin read the petition which stated the same request had been made in 1979 and was denied. He added nothing has changed since that time, and requested that the Single - Family Residential (R -1) zoning be reinstated. ' Rosemary St. George, 734 South 10th Street, spoke in support of the Single - Family Residential (R -1) zoning for the area. She stated she' believes this is an "upgrade" rather than a "downgrade" in the current zoning. Jerry Sturgill, representing United Builders, 2112 W. Nob Hill Blvd., said he is concerned about the property on West Nob Hill Boulevard between 23rd and 24th Avenue. He indicated the original -zoning map showed this property as B -1, but the Regional Planning Commission changed -it to R -2. He stated with the widening of Nob Hill Boulevard it will not be possible to use this property for residential development. He is also concerned about the proposed zoning for the area 'between 5th & 16th Avenue on North and South Nob Hill Boulevard. Most of the area south of Nob Hill Boulevard has been changed from R -2 to R -1, while the north side was changed from R -1 to R -2. He indicated the north side of Nob Hill Boulevard around Kumler Field is very congested and the lots are not conducive to R -2 zoning. However, the lots South of Nob Hill Boulevard are larger with wider streets and are better suited for Two - Family Residenital (R -2 ) use. He suggested this area be looked at more closely before the adoption of the ordinance. Joyce Ware, 807 South 7th Street, owns a single family dwelling in southeast Yakima. She stated the multi- family units being built in this area are threatening their way of life. She stated children are being bussed to schools outside their own neighborhood due to overcrowding in the schools. She is opposed to additional multi- family development in 'the area and believes the neigborhood has reached its saturation point. Mrs. Ware indicated she would like to see the zoning returned to Single - Family Residential (R -1) rather than :Two - Family Residential Michael Fluegge, 111 North 7th Street, addressed his comments to City Council members stating he has mixed emotions'after listening to the testimony presented this evening. He indicated he owns property at the above address and concurs with Mrs. Hersey that 8th Street traffic is 486 JANUARY 28, 1985 extremely congested. He feels it is important to retain the historical value and character upon which the Valley was built. He is interested in anything that will improve the value of his property. Harold Gordon, 1616 S. 15th Avenue, indicated he has two concerns regarding the Single-Family (R-1), Two-Family) (R-2) and Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zones. He stated there is no place for multi-family units in an R-1 single-family neighborhocd. He stated a residential core must be established, and that single family dwellings, duplexes, and multi-family dwellings should not be mixed. He indicated the crime rate increases when the residential zoning becomes mixed. He cited the apartment complex on 16th & Mead as an example, and listed sane of the problems that have been experienced by the neighborhood since the apartment complex was built there. He stated he is also concerned about the airport and surrounding property. He indicated the City and County should restrict building in the area fran Mead to 72nd Avenue in order to protect the airport. II/ Joe Kreiger, 38th Avenue & Nob Hill Blvd., stated he is in general agreement with the proposed ordinance, however, feels there are some areas which need to be given more consideration. He stated he and his son are builders of duplexes, and feel it is ridiculous to think you have to have 8,000 square feet tO build a duplex. He indicated 7,000 square feet is ample for a duplex and asked that a smaller lot size for duplexes in the R-1 zone be considered. Frank Glaspy, 1200 Ahtanum, addressed both the County Commissioners and City Council members. He will submit written comments and documents for their consideration at a later date. He indicated the proposed ordinance is the most canprenhensive zoning that has been undertaken in the fourteen years since the Yakima County Zoning Ordinance was passed. He stated the greatest error in the proposed ordinance is that it effectively insulates elected officials fran the citizens they are sworn to serve. He also indicated he would submit a study made by an engineering firm comparing construction criteria for manufactured/modular housing and the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.) The report concludes there is basically little difference between manufactured/modular housing and housing constructed to U.B.C. He said the proposed ordinance will basically eliminate manufactured housing in most of the urban area. He pointed out that currently only mobile homes in mobile have parks or developments are allowed inside the City Limits. Mr. Glaspy stated he thinks the mandatory ten days in jail is a little severe for someone who continues to violate the ordinance after his permit has been revoked. He also asked who hires and fires the hearings examiner, who pays the cost of administering the ordinance if it takes a majority of the City Council members and the County Commissioners to make a decision, and who sets the salary for the hearing examiner? He stated the current planning expenditures for the City and County of Yakima is approximately $550,000 a year. He questioned what is the anticipated cost for this experiment in socialism? Mr. Glaspy stated these are some of the questions and concerns regarding the proposed Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. Keith Daniels, representing the Yakima Board of Realtors, indicated they II/ have concerns regarding changes in zoning that will have an econanic impact on citizens in the future. He stated the Board of Realtors is primarily interested in protecting the rights of the private property owners. Mr. Daniels indicated he disagrees with the arbitrary decision which has been made regarding the density of Two-Family Residential (R-2) lots. He Emphasized that we must look past what is happening today and consider the econanic impact we are going to be faced with in the future. Gaylord Newby, 413 North 30th Avenue, expressed concern regarding property bounded on the south by Lincoln, on the west by 16th Avenue, on the east by 5th Avenue and on the north by Jerome or Fruitvale Blvd. He owns seven rental properties in the area proposed to be changed to R-2. He stated he had planned on building multi-family units on his property this coming year. Mr. Newby felt that adopting this zoning ordinance will reduce the value of the property in this area and restrict the use of his property. He requested the area remain zoned Multi-Family Residential (R-3). 487 JANUARY 28, 1985 Lawrence Madey asked what Class (2) review will cost. Council member Foy responded stating the purpose of the hearing this evening is to ask for citizen input regarding the proposed zoning ordinance and Council is not prepared to address questions regarding cost or fees schedules at this time. Mr. Madey also asked if manufactured housing would be allowed within the City limits. Don Sublett, 406 North 61st Avenue, stated he owns property on the north and south side of Nob Hill Boulevard between 16th and 40th Avenue. He said his requests for B-2 zoning along Nob Hill were denied by the Regional Planning Commission. He indicated the City currently is attempting to widen Nob Hill Boulevard and he will continue to oppose this action until appropriate steps have been taken to change the zoning on Nob Hill between 16th and 40th Avenue to Local Business (B-2). Council member Foy asked if Mr. Sublett is proposing that the zoning be changed to B-2 on Nob Hill, to which Mr. Sublett replied yes. Lois Bnmons, 1016 South 49th Avenue, stated she is concerned about the zoning on the corner of 51st Avenue & Nob Hill Boulevard. She indicated the zoning map shows the whole area being zoned B-2 rather than just the area that had been rezoned by the County Commissioners last year. She requested the zoning be changed back to Residential. Maud Scott, 309 S. 8th Street, indicated she is in support of the proposed zoning ordinance. She stated she is concerned with Mr. Gordon's comments regarding the problems presented with the blending of R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning. She also indicated she has concerns with Barbara Edwards' intent to build additional Multi-Family units at 115 South 9th Street. She stated this would be met with opposition from neighbors with adjoining property. She said an extensive property search through records at the courthouse show that the housing in Southeast Yakima (not the land) carries 3/4 of the value of their property. She would like to see the area upgraded, and supports the proposed R-1 zoning for southeast Yakima. Barbara Harris, 1911 W. Yakima Avenue, stated she is sympathetic with the southeast area residents desiring to protect single family homes. She indicated she also thinks it is important to keep the historical buildings which are located in the southeast area. Commissioner Tollefson reminded those attending that copies of the -zoning map and ordinance, and requests for zoning map changes are available in the lobby. There being no further testimony, it was MOVED by Commissioner VAliteside, seconded by Klarich, that the County portion of the hearing be continued to Wednesday, February 6, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Yakima Convention Center. Unanimously carried by voice vote. It was MOVED by Sparling, seconded by Foy, that the City Council portion of the hearing be adjourned at the hour of 9:40 p.m. and that the hearing be continued to Wednesday, February 6, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Yakima Convention Center. Unanimously carried by voice vote. Barnett and Buchanan absent. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY=z; DATE3// e4UNCIL MEMBER DATES/16 7 1 C0 -1A UNCIL MEMBEi / ATTEST: /0 , OUP CITY CLERK MAYOR-