Loading...
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