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