HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/1985 Adjourned Meeting 467
JANUARY 9, 1985
ADJOURNED MEETING - URBAN AREA PLAN
The City Council met in session on this date at 1:00 p.m. in Room 421
at the Yakima County Courthouse, Yakima, Washington, in a joint
meeting with the Yakima County Commissioners to review the Urban
Area Plan and zoning ordinance. Council members present were Mayor
Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, Pat Berndt, Lynn Buchanan, Lynn
Carmichael, and Jerry Foy. Council member Jack Sparling present
after 2:05 p.m. County Commissioners present were Chuck Klarich and
Jim Whiteside. 'County Commissioner Graham Tollefson absent. City
11/ staff members present were City Manager Zais, Assistant City Manager
Stouder, Associate Planners Don Skone and Judd Black, and Karen
Roberts, City Clerk. County staff present was Mark Hinthorne,
Assistant Director of County Planning Department.
Assistant City Manager Stouder gave information on the purpose of
the urban area zoning ordinance; to obtain flexibility, reduce
processing time and obtain consistency in land use decisions. He
comented that three levels of changes are expected as a result of
these joint study sessions and hearings: 1) policy direction and
decisions: 2) important language changes and clarifications; and 3)
technical and grammatical changes. He acknowledged the many, many
people who have been involved in the preparation of this draft
ordinance, Don Skone reviewed several flip charts on the following
subjects: 1) History of Urban Area Plan 1974-1984; 2) Urban Area
Zoning Ordinance and Objectives: 3) Flexibility; 4) Reduced
Processing Time 5) Consistency in Land Use Decisions; 6) Class I
Review Process (Building Official Review): and 7) Class II Review
Process (Administrative Official Review). County Commissioner Klarich
commented that it should be stressed at the public hearings that a
Class I review is simply the means to obtain a building permit.
Conulissioner Klarich requested clarification on the administrative
official and hearings examiner, inquiring if there will be an
administrative official and hearings examiner in both the City and
County. Mark Hinthorne responded that the City will adopt a zoning
ordinance, as will the County, and the City will be responsible for
administering the ordinance in the City and the County will be
responsible for administering the ordinance in the County and each
will have its own administrative official to do so. However, he
stated, the hearings examiner will be common to both the City and
County. He further stated that an agreement will have to be reached
on the hiring procedure and funding of the hearings examiner. Mayor
Barnett questioned the validity of the official map if it is not
signed by all three County Commissioners and all seven Council
members. City Manager Zais stated that for the City, the Mayor is
the only one required to sign for City ordinances. City Attorney
Andrews further stated that the statutory provision describing the
adoption of official maps, which can be researched, will be complied
with. In response to Commissioner Whiteside's question regarding the
II/ time line for these study sessions, Mark Hinthorne reviewed the
tentative schedule and stated it is hoped that the hearings will
conclude in early March and the ordinance be adopted the first part
of April. He stated staff would like to have 60 days after the
adoption of this ordinance to hire the hearings examiner, print new
maps, and get new forms printed prior to the ordinance becoming
effective. Mayor Barnett gave an example and asked if there is a
need for additional cross referencing to other sections in the
ordinance for better clarification. Mr. Hinthorne stated that staff
has considered an index, which would not be a part of the ordinance,
but would serve as a reference only. Discussion followed regarding
the timing of the adoption of the ordinance, Commissioner Klarich
and Council member Carmichael indicating a desire to accelerate the
hearings and adoption process. (Council member Sparling present at
2:05 p.m.) Mr. Stolider stated he is not sure we could get all the
administrative processes done prior to the construction season. Mark
468
Hinthorne began the review of the draft ordinance with Chapter 1.
Commissioner Whiteside commented he thought the time frame for
processing applications should be included under Section 1.030.
Council member Foy suggested referencing it to another section in
the ordinance where that information is given. Mr. Stouder commented
that that information will also be included in the handouts and
other literature that will be available to the public. Referring to
Chapter 2, Mr. Hinthorne commented that twice as many words are
defined in this ordinance than in the current City and County
ordinances. He stated staff tried to use definitions already existing
in the City and County ordinances, however, some definitions are
new. Mayor Barnett stated there are different sections in the
ordinance where the titles are not consistent, i.e. zoning
administrator, and Board (16.040.1 (B & C). Commissioner Whiteside
suggested that staff contact the Department of Social and Health
Services to get a list of convalescent care facilities and to take
care not to create problems in the definition of boardinghouse.
Discussion followed regarding the definition of modular homes and
II/
manufactured homes. Mr. Stouder stated that staff can obtain the
latest industry definitions and bring them back for consideration.
City Manager Zais commented that the HUD definition and UBC standards
should be considered. The definition for feedlot was discussed and
Mark Hinthorne commented that the definition is the same as contained
in the County ordinance although the sentences read differently,
with the exception that the words "dairy confinement" were removed.
It was the general consensus to change this definition to the exact
wording used in the County ordinance. Commissioner Whiteside
requested staff to go into more detail on the definition of hazardous
material, defining nuclear or radioactive materials. It was the
general consensus to cross reference the definition of hearings
examiner in the list of definitions in Chapter 2. Discussion followed
regarding the definition for home occupation, business administration
(82), Council member Foy suggesting using the phrase "where the home
is used as the administrative office of the business." City Attorney
Andrews expressed concern about giving examples in some of the
definitions, stating that a phrase should be included in the
definition that indicates these are examples, and application of the
definition is not limited to these examples. Mark Hinthorne suggested
including that type of statement at the beginning of the chapter.
Mark Hinthorne briefly described the purpose of Chapter 3 and began
the discussion of Chapter 4. On page 38, on Table 5-2, the words
"per unit" should be crossed out in the definition of two family
dwelling (duplex). Referring to Chapter 3, Section 3.030.1,
Commissioner Whiteside expressed his concern about asking people to
develop to urban standards when it won't be possible to provide them
with sewer service, which resulted in a discussion about the urban
area service boundary and the problem that the West Valley sewer
interceptor won't be capable of serving the west side at an R-1
density development. Don Skone commented that this is one proposed
method of allocating the sewer service to that area. Commissioner
Whiteside reminded staff that Congdon Orchard has an agreement with
the City that in order for the City to bring its sewer line across
their property, they will be allowed to connect to that line. It was
II/
the general consensus that Section 3.030.1 be modified to exclude
the sentence "Generally development in this district will not be
served by the regional sewer system." Reverting to the discussion on
Chapter 4, Mark Hinthorne commented on the importance of this
chapter because it defines land use classifications, includes the
permitted uses table, home occupation provisions and mobile home
placement positions. Discussion followed regarding the Class 1 uses
and the criteria and guidelines the administrative official has to
follow when making decisions, particularly in increasing the minimum
requirements specified in the ordinance. (Mayor Barnett absent after
4:00 p.m.) It was the general consensus to direct staff to
restructure the sentence regarding the authority of the reviewing
official to increase minimum requirements so that the language is
similar to the language giving this authority to the Zoning Adjustor
in the County's ordinance. Council member Sparling requested that a
comment be included in the intent clause to the effect that this
469
ordinance will be monitored for six months and then any adjustments
that might need to be made will be considered at that time. It was
the general consensus to review the sections on mobile homes and
manufactured homes after staff brings back a new definition.
It was MOVED by Foy, seconded by Beauchamp, to adjourn the meeting
at the hour of 4:20 p.m., to then meet on Monday, January 14, 1985,
at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Unanimously carried
by voice vote. Barnett absent.
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE DATE (7&(75
COUNCIL MEMBER
/
■r / DATE ->Vreler„I
ATTEST:
19
f i
CITY CLERK A v 5 / 5 fr-l'OR