Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1994 Adjourned Meeting 46 4 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 1, 1994 ADJOURNED MEETING The City Council met in session on this date at 10:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Council members present were Mayor Pat Berndt, Clarence Barnett, Ernie Berger, Bill Brado, Lynn Buchanan, and Bernard Sims. Council Member Henry Beauchamp was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Zais, Assistant City Attorney Peterson, and City Clerk Roberts. County Commissioners Charles Klarich and Jim Lewis were also present. 1. CONTINUED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE (CONTINUED FROM 10/11/94) This being the time set for the continuation of the Joint City /County Public Hearing, County Commissioner Klarich called the meeting to order at 10:45 a.m. The purpose of this Public Hearing is to receive additional public testimony concerning the proposed 1994 Text Amendments to the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Klarich asked if either the Commissioners or the Council members had any further questions or comments. There being none, he opened the public hearing for additional public testimony. Bill Hays, Executive Officer of the Central Washington Home Builders Association, spoke generally about Amendments 1 - 6. He presented his organization's viewpoint, which is based on their desire to provide affordable housing opportunities for citizens in the community and their concern for private property rights. Mr. Hays concluded that implementation of Amendments 1 - 6 would result in increased rental rates, reduced marketability of property, and elimination of multi- family housing opportunities, all of which are contrary to the Vision 2010 Plan, the CHAS document, and the Growth Management Act. He reported the Construction Development Industry has met with members of the Neighborhood Associations and have discussed all the proposed amendments and have come to agreement on Amendments 1 and 3. On Amendment 3, both sides have agreed it can be stricken and eliminated from consideration. ADJOURNED MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 1994 AD nd Jerry Sturgill, Local, Government Affairs Chairman of Central Washington Home Builders Associatidn, spoke about Amendments 1 and 4. Referring to Amendment 1, which has to do with the sidewalk requirement, Mr. Sturgill stated their opposition to any change in the current regulations since the current I/ regulations already speak to this issue. If a building is constructed in an area where there is no sidewalk and a sidewalk is required to be put in, eventually that street is probably going to be replaced or rebuilt and that sidewalk would be torn out. Amendment 1 would cause extra expense to the development and would impact the affordability of housing. Mayor Berndt asked whether the Home Builders concurred with the revision that Phil Hoge has submitted (Exhibit 3) because Mr. Hoge has indicated that it was in support and consultation with the Home Builders. To answer Mayor Berndt's question, Mr. Sturgill indicated a sidewalk would add to the cost of development and there is no value in putting a sidewalk in when it wouldn't connect to anything. However, Mr. Sturgill did indicate that in the event something must be added, then the proposal which was agreed upon would be all new development, except single family homes, shall construct a sidewalk if an existing sidewalk already exists on the same side of the street and in the same block and within 200 feet of the development. He further explained that if there is a sidewalk within 200 feet on the same side of the street to where eventually it could all be tied together, then they could probably agree to that type of statement if it must be put in there. Going on to Amendment 4, which refers to class of reviews, Mr. Sturgill explained his organization's objection to any new rules requiring the Class 2 Review of conversions in the R -2 and R -3 zones because current rules and regulations need to be enforced when a conversion is made. Council Member Barnett asked Mr. Sturgill what his position is on the Class 2 Review for the SR and R -1 zones. Mr. Sturgill stated it was probably OK if a duplex is to be built in an R -1 area, I/ but conversions for R -2 and R -3 should be Class 1 reviews. There was brief discussion about whether this issue was covered in the Building Code. Commissioner Klarich asked if anyone else wished to speak. Lou Alderman, Central Washington Home Builders Association, provided general comments against the proposed playground requirements, the setback requirements, and the parking 2 466 ADJOURNED MEETING - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 requirements. He also related how his 16 years of experience as an apartment owner relates to the proposed amendments if they are implemented. If the units were reproduced today under these proposed zoning restrictions, there would only be 10 or 11 units instead of 19. The problems that are being recognized are, in most cases, social problems; these zoning requirements will not solve those problems. These restrictions on multi - bedroom units will encourage development of only single bedroom units because more units could be built on each lot, thereby affecting the creation of new housing where it is needed the most. Dennis Kelly, Central Washington Home Builders Association, spoke against Amendment 6, which pertains to the amount of parking spaces required. He feels the current standard is working in areas where he owns rental property. He cited the number of families living in each unit as the problem, not the number of units. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Kelly if he supported Phil Hoge's wording for Amendment 6, pertaining to a declining parking standard for larger developments. Mr. Kelly .felt it would still be excessive in a lot of cases. He supports current standards. At this time suggestions were briefly discussed about a parking permit system or assigned parking spaces at buildings where there is inadequate parking. Council Member Barnett requested testimony on the combined impact of all three issues, parking, setbacks, and play spaces. There was also a considerable amount of discussion about the parking problem that is exacerbated when residents have visitors, or when street parking is removed because of new driveways. Commissioner Klarich asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Neil Foot, Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce, read his organization's position statement against the proposed play space, set back, and additional parking requirements. He submitted it as Exhibit No. 4 to the City Clerk. Mr. Foot suggested proper enforcement of the current zoning ordinance, I/ which would also require adequate resources to implement more inspections in the areas where these infractions are occurring. Discussion began about plans to address the code violation problem. Lee Arnett, Yakima Valley Rental Association, spoke against the play area and parking amendments, even though existing housing would more than likely increase in value, along with 3 4 6 7 ADJOURNED MEETING = ; NOVEMBER 1, 1994 t the rents landlords, charge; he feels it is more important to keep housing costs affordable. He predicted a $30 per square foot increase to build a fourplex if the proposed requirements are implemented. Also, Mr. Arnett reported that builders would probably develop housing designed specifically I/ for seniors and questioned whether play areas would be required in this instance, or even necessary. Jim Kurbitz, Yakima Association of Realtors, spoke against the amendments because they are contrary to the Growth Management Act by stifling urban infill, discouraging the use of mass transit, and eventually reducing the amount of affordable housing. He is also opposed to the amount of time and money being spent on these issues. Bill Hays, Central Washington Home Builders Association, submitted a petition against the amendments (Exhibit No. 5) to the City Clerk. Bev Luby Bartz, 114 North 7th Street, stated she understood that Amendment 3 and Amendment 4 would be tabled for a year pending review. She further stated that she agreed with the wording about the sidewalk amendment, but she could only speak for herself because she hadn't had a chance to speak with other members of the Northeast Neighborhood Association. The parking, play area, and setback amendments were not discussed because of the lack of time; their organization feels very strong about standing firm. Ms. Bartz questioned the legality of senior housing due to age discrimination and alleged contradiction and lack of coherence in other areas of rule-enforcement relating to phone booths on City right -of- way, mailboxes out at the street, and garbage cans in front yards. Mayor Berndt interjected that the telephone issue is already being addressed. Rosemary Small, 1006 South 25th Avenue, spoke in favor of the amendments and pointed out that enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance will not provide play areas for families whose children play in the street or between parked cars because their multi - family dwelling provides literally no place at I/ all to play. She described safety and livability as being equally important as affordability of housing. Ms. Small called attention to the lack of R -3 Zoning in Yakima. What is available is in already developed areas. The density from multi - family housing strains private property rights when on street parking is lost to driveways and children wander into neighbors yards. She suggested large tracts of land on the west side be Zoned R -3, developed, and bus service provided because that area has enough space to develop infrastructure to accommodate that density. Discussion began concerning 4 466 ADJOURNED MEETING - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 density impacts to neighborhoods and the suggestion to develop some sort of an overlay district concept to selectively infill established neighborhoods. There was also continued discussion about the conversion and play area amendments. Commissioner Klarich passed the gavel to Mayor Berndt and left the meeting at 11:50 a.m. I/ Dan Arnett, Rental Service of Yakima, was glad to hear that the Home Builders and the Neighborhood Associations had met to discuss the issues, even though there were a couple of items that they didn't work out agreements on. He emphasized the need for stricter code enforcement, and the need to address problems relating to boarding houses. -Mr. Arnett also suggested a cap be included in both the proposed play area and parking lot amendments. Referring to the two amendments the Home Builders and the Neighborhood Associations have agreed to table, Mr. Arnett concurred with their conclusion. He also agreed that consideration of some sort of an overlay zone should be considered since the Neighborhood Groups and the Home Builders were able to reach consensus on about three or four of the six amendments that are contested. He suggested perhaps tabling all of the issues for a year to see if an overlay zone is really needed. That would solve the problem where there is a problem and not create a problem where no problem exists. Mayor Berndt reported an overlay zone test area concept is being considered to try to find some ways to make the community healthier. There was continued discussion about the concept of overlay zones. Maud Scott, 309 Union, stated that although she appreciated Dan Arnett's comments, she stated the same issues have been brought before Council for many years and the issues should not be tabled because efforts to crack down on code violations have been tried before. She suggested some of the proposed regulations, particularly the play area requirement, be implemented in problem areas until an across - the -board solution can be developed. I/ Mayor Berndt asked if anyone else wished to speak. Phil Hoge, 1512 Folsom, who had just arrived at the meeting, verified that Exhibit 3 had been received by the City Clerk. Speaking in favor of the amendments and referencing the Vision 2010 Document, he then outlined various liability 5 469 ADJOURNED MEETING „ NOVEMBER 1, 1994 elements, such as play,. areas,. sidewalks, and owner occupied housing, that would positively impact community integrity besides the goal of affordable housing. He also explained the proposed amendments would also prevent adverse negative impacts on adjacent property rights from development of I/ apartments and encourage private investment into maintaining and rehabilitating the existing single family homes in the neighborhoods, which would help maintain property values. Referencing Amendment 1 pertaining to sidewalks, Mr. Hoge asked if there was general agreement that the language, worked out with the Home Builders is acceptable. Mayor Berndt stated she understood .there was consensus from the Home Builders that the wording was OK. Amendment 2: There has been quite a bit of discussion, but no agreement. Amendment 3: It was agreed that it would be removed at this time. Amendment 4: Some suggestion, at least that it would be tabled at this time. Amendments 5 and 6: There is still, from the people who were here, no agreement. Referring to play areas, parking, and side setbacks, Mr. Hoge again explained he doesn't think the existing ordinance is adequate, or that even perfect code enforcement would be adequate. New standards are needed to protect the neighborhoods. With respect to tabling the conversion amendment, this was one amendment that the Home Builders and the Neighborhood Associations had talked about. One of the requirements of the Neighborhood Associations, if it were to be tabled, is to revisit it in a year; although there wasn't universal acceptance of the idea to table on the part of the Neighborhood Associations. Council Member Barnett asked Mr. Hoge that when he _refers to we, does he mean the meeting with the Neighborhoods and the Home Builders that took place and those who attended. Mr. Hoge indicated they met with the Home Builders and that we means all the Neighborhood people that have been involved in this amendment process; however, there are a lot of ideas out there. Mr. Hoge stated he wouldn't totally take on the role of spokesman for the Neighborhood Associations. There was a lot of interest in the conversion issue, specifically coming from the Northeast Neighborhood Association, and there hasn't been any opportunity to contact them since the meeting with the Home Builders Association. Mr. Hoge indicated that the idea of overlay districts is worth considering, but he doesn't want to unduly delay these requirements. He suggested the parking spaces at Glenmoor Green be counted and the play area 1/ measured to see what is realistic because that is a development that seems to work. He expressed concern about older neighborhoods that are already divided into small lots where dense developments are going in. With respect to parking, the problem comes when developments go in, because all street parking is removed. He stressed the importance that these developments take care of all their own parking needs. Another reason why parking is so important, especially in the older neighborhoods, is because the roadside mailboxes are being put up in various locations, 6 470 ADJOURNED MEETING - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 thereby further eliminating parking. With respect to parking, the Neighborhood Associations are willing to consider reducing the standard by two per dwelling unit. Mr. Hoge indicated he believed there was consensus from the Neighborhood Associations on that issue. Also, the Neighborhood Associations specifically want to make sure the smaller developments, up to 6, 8, or 10 units, maintain the 2 spaces per unit standard. Mayor Berndt asked if anyone else wished to speak. There being no one, she closed the public hearing. She directed staff to find a mutually agreeable time for the Commissioners and the Council members to meet to decide each amendment. Before that meeting is set, however, she requested information on the overlay type concept. The meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: CO IL MEMB DATE C . CIL MEMBER TE ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYO Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An Audio or video tape of this meeting is available in the City Clerk's office. 1 7