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 -