Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/1981 Adjourned Meeting 367 ADJOURNED MEETING - URBAN AREA PLAN May 28, 1981 The City Council met in session on this date at 2:00 p.m. in Roan 104 at the Yakima County Courthouse, Yakima, WAshington. Council members present were Assistant Mayor Don Hinman, Lynn Buchanan, Lynn Carmichael, Bruce Crest and Shirley Doty. Mayor Betty L. Edmondson and Council member Henry Beauchamp absent. County Commissioners present were Chuck Klarich and Jim Whiteside. Union Gap Mayor John Hodkinson was also present. Canmissioner Klarich suggested changing the meeting date and time. It was the general consensus to meet on Tuesday at 11:30 a.m. at the same location. Commissioner Klarich reported that he spent four hours driving along the planning boundary and only managed to drive one quarter of the boundary. He commented that it verified his position about the Urban Area Planning Boundary. He stated that the Planning Boundary encompasses a tremendous area and if the population increased 20% a year for 20 years, you still would not fill it with urban standard construction. He stated that the planning boundary should coincide with the service boundary. If there are some areas that are adjacent to the service boundary that has the possibility of being developed, then that can be included in the service boundary. Commissioner Whiteside stated that he thinks the dikes on the east side of the river would be a logical boundary and the freeway on the north side or the river would be a good boundary. Council member Carmichael stated that she has a different concept of the planning boundary. She doesn't necessarily see the planning boundary as being a potential service area, but as a buffer zone for some development that may occur between the service and planning boundary that may have an adverse effect on the City. Canmissioner Klarich commented that one of the criteria he bases his decision on when reviewing a development is Whether or not it falls within the urban service boundary. He stated that if it falls within the urban service boundary, then the zoning was Changed and the development was generally approved. He commented that the County's philosophy has changed and the City should trust the County. Council member Hinman expressed concern about the growth in the vicinity of the airport which would effect the City's Fire Department, and if that is the case, then the City should be able to require :City standards. He cemented that perhaps the County should look at the area south of the airport and the City should look at the area to the west. Council member Crest requested a caucus at 2:48 p.m. The meeting re- sumed at 3:00 p.m. Council member Hinman stated that the City agrees that the east bank of the dike of the river is a good eastern boundary. Canmissioner Whiteside stated that the dike is on private property so if you say the river instead of the dike, it is better. Council member Hinman stated that the river is a good boundary. He stated that the City's proposal for the planning area is to cone down to the brown line, then go along the Tieton Canal and go down 96th Avenue. He commented that the City would be expected to provide other services than sewer. Mayor Hodkinson stated that Union Gap already has sewer lines on 18th Avenue so that line should be moved. Council member Hinman stated that Cowiche Canyon can be excluded from the planning boundary. Canmissioner Klarich pointed out on the map the areas which he felt should be ex- cluded. He stated that those areas could be included in the Rural Land Use Plan and that if any area adjacent to, or near the boundary would cane in with a request for urban type development, then the process would be addressed by the Urban Planning Commission for inclusion in the service area. It was MOVED by Whiteside, seconded by Hodkinson to develop a single boundary at this time and that boundary be the urban service boundary with the proviso discussed, if we develop that. Cdrri missioner Whiteside stated that with this compromise position and with subsequent talks, if the County doesn't reassure the City about this, then we can go back and discuss this again. He gave Marion Estates and Colony Parks as an example of developments in the County. He stated that we are getting very close here and this should not be held up for that one posture. Council member Carmichael stated that we need a proposal to draw the planning boundary area back. She felt that there is quite a difference between the urban service concepts/urban planning concept. She comnented that we should be able to provide most of an area within the service area with utilities. The planning boundary is that area the City doesn't expect to provide with sewer, but has a concern Where other City services could be involved. She stated that she doesn't want to have people misconstrue what the urban service boundary designates because they will have the attitude that the City 3 8 ADJOURNED MEETING - URBAN AREA PLAN May 28, 1981 should be able to provide services to than in all forms. Commissioner Vtliteside commented that those areas will he developed to City stand- ards, but the City won't be able to give them sewer and so why should they go into the City. He stated that the County will demonstrate that we would require those standards in the area that Council member Hinman defined. Commissioner Klarich drew in a line for the boundary the City proposed, commenting that it would be better to add the additional requirement to the rural land use plan. He stated that a lot of this area is not capable of being developed to rural development and if you ever develop sewer out there, we are saying that we would be willing to include that in the boundary. Discussion continued on the motion, Commissioner 1411iteside commenting that he is suggesting a semi -surburban area in the vicinity of the service boundary line. Commissioner Klarich stated that if there is a change in status outside the rural position, then we would address that as a change in the line and it could then be revised. It was MOVED by Buchanan, seconded by Hinman to table this for II/ a couple of weeks and go on to the other items. Commissioner Klarich suggested that instead of a motion it would be better to just discuss the next item. It was the general consensus that the minimum area that we might agree upon is the County's position and the maximum area we might agree upon is the City's position and come back to this. There was a brief discussion regarding the composition of the Regional Plan- ning Commission and it was the general consensus that the discussion on this item be continued until next week. The fleeting was adjourned at the hour of 4:03 p.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY -/ - If - DATE00/g/ COUNCIL i i:ER . DATE23(;)A-_,7 COUNCIL MEMBER ATTEST: e • r ERK MAYOR -