The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/23/2003 Joint Business Meeting 482 JOINT BUSINESS MEETING OF THE YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL 1. RoII CaII Present: Council: Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett, Paul George, and Bernard Sims County: Ron Gamache and Jesse Palacios, Commissioners Staff: Assistant City Attorney McMurray and City Clerk Roberts Absent: Council Member Puccinelli and Commissioner Lewis 2. Joint closed record public hearing with Yakima County regarding 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments (excluding Congdon application) Mayor Place received permission to modify the agenda to discuss items E and F out of sequence to accommodate the County applications first. A. File Number: CPA #1 -03 Applicant: Michael & Francine Dubrule Site Address: 4001 Englewood Avenue Request: Reclassify one parcel from Medium Density Residential to Professional Office Recommendation: Approve Reid Shockey, President, Shockey /Brent, Inc., 2716 Colby Avenue in Everett, is a consultant hired by the City to assist with the amendment requests for the 2003 docket. He explained that the Debrule's request is for property located on the northwest corner of North 40 Avenue and Englewood Avenue. It is a small piece of property with a small house on it. They want to either convert the house into an office or submit a site plan to build a new professional office. The Regional Planning Commission (RPC) concurred because of the professional office designations on the other corners. In order to conform all corners with the comprehensive plan, the RPC saw no difficulty in recommending approval of changing the classification to Professional Office. He clarified there was a caveat to the owners. This is a small site bordered by two commercial arterials and, as such, the City has indicated by memo that they will want dedication of right -of -way when there are improvements to North 40 and Englewood Avenues. The applicants were also reminded that they have to get site plan approval and it is their responsibility to show they can design the site to get everything necessary in place. In 483 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 — JOINT BUSINESS MEETING light of that, the staff recommended, and the RPC concurred, that the property can be designated as Professional Office. BARNETT MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE RPC'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Puccinelli absent, County Commissioners not voting. B. File Number: CPA #2 -03 Applicant: Tiger, LLC Site Address: 406 No. 23rd Ave. Request: Reclassify one parcel from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial Recommendation: Approve Reid Shockey said this request is to add this one parcel to the same classification as the rest of the owner's property. Bill Hordan, 410 North 2nd Street, said there will probably be a medical office put there and access will come from 23 Avenue. BARNETT MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE RPC'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Puccinelli absent, County Commissioners not voting. C. File Number: CPA #5 -03 Applicant: Marchal lrwin Site Address: South 24 Avenue and Racquet Lane Request: Reclassify one parcel from Industrial to Arterial Commercial. Recommendation: Approve Mr. Shockey explained that this request is for one parcel, currently designated Industrial, to be re- designated Arterial Commercial. Originally, Ms. Irwin submitted a request for three parcels, but she determined that the R -3 designation did not prevent her from pursuing the plans she had so she withdrew the other parcels from the request. BARNETT MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE RPC'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Puccinelli absent, County Commissioners not voting. • D. File Number: CPA #6 -03 • • Applicant: Lancaster Company Site Address: 5105 W. Nob Hill Blvd Request: Reclassify one parcel from Low Density Residential to Industrial Recommendation: Deny Mr. Shockey explained that the RPC recommended denying this request because it is protected by being grandfathered in the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan that allows this non - conforming use to continue in operation, to expand, and even to change use. It had been Mr. Lancaster's wish to bring the Comprehensive Plan in line with the current 2 484 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 — JOINT BUSINESS MEETING use of the property. The conclusion that the staff came up with and conveyed to the RPC is there is no need to change the Comprehensive Plan to provide the protection Mr. Lancaster is looking for. It had also been noted that if it was re- designated for industrial and, if an M -1 Manufacturing zoning was put on the property, the Class 3 review would be lost and it reduces the amount of review authority the City and neighbors have. It was felt the non - conforming use approach is the best for all concerned. Mayor Place brought up the right -of -way issue alongside the railroad line that is currently fenced. Bruce Benson, Senior Planner, said that Mr. Lancaster understands that at some point in time the City may ask him to move his fence. Mayor Place passed the gavel to Mayor Pro Tem George. PLACE MOVED AND BARNETT SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE RPC'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE REQUEST. The motion carried by a 3 -1 voice vote; Sims voting nay, Puccinelli absent, Commissioners not voting. Mayor Place expressed the findings in support of their determination to be agreement with the Regional Planning Commission that the property has plenty of protection for its legally non - conforming use. Also that there is a considerable amount of housing around it and, therefore, a manufacturing re- designation would not be appropriate. • Mayor Pro Tem George returned the gavel to Mayor Place. E. File Number: City: CO -CPA #1 -03; County: ZONO3 -011 & PRJ2003 -00397 Applicant: TWM Rentals, LLC (Stanley Smith) Site Address: 8104 W. Nob Hill Blvd Request: Reclassify one parcel (0.49 acres) from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial; and Rezone from R -1 (Single - Family Residential) to B -2 (Local Business) Recommendation: Approve requested amendment and deny requested concurrent rezone Phil Hoge, Senior Planner, Yakima County, described the location of the property and advised that the owner also owns the property to the east. He is requesting the amendment to include this parcel with the other property. Access is recommended to be across the front lot located,on 80 and not on the property that doesn't belong to him. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment subject to access being from a public street. The request from the applicant also requested concurrent rezone from R -1 to B -2. The Planning Commission did not recommend that occur. Commissioner Palacios advised that, based on recommendations from their Legal Department, they cannot approve the rezone. It will have to come back through the Hearing Examiner process. Stanley Smith, PO Box 69 in Manchester, Washington, said he is the owner of the subject property and asked for further information about the rezone process. Paul McMurray, Assistant City Attorney explained that RCW 15.23.030 indicates that the jurisdiction of the Regional Planning 3 485 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 — JOINT BUSINESS MEETING Commission is fairly limited with regard to rezones. Most rezones are handled by the Hearing Examiner and the RPC only handles them when they are broad and general in nature or have been initiated by the City or County. That is not the case with this property. Larry Peterson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Corporate Counsel, gave a brief history of the Growth Management Act and its impact on the Comprehensive Plan. He, also pointed out that the City has established a pattern of separating the Comprehensive Plan amendments from the rezones. Because this rezone request does not fit the guidelines of area -wide or site specific initiated by the legislative body, the proposed rezone should be handled by the Hearing Examiner. Discussion continued on the duplication of effort and costs because of this denial. Staff was directed to look into a way to streamline the process and potentially waive some of the costs due to the direction change mid - stream. Tom Durant, 513 North Front Street, Suite Q , representing the following item's applicants wanted to address the concurrent rezone issue. He said for his client the rezone fee, including SEPA, is over $1,000. He also addressed a timing problem regarding notice of violation and how the delay in zoning puts him in an awkward position. He suggested the Commissioners consider "initiating this rezone" in order to allow it to happen concurrently. Another suggestion was the potential of waiving the SEPA or considering other streamlining. Commissioner Palacios requested that Mr. Durant meet with Phil Hoge to review those suggestions. PALACIOS MOVED AND GAMACHE SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE RPC'S RECOMMENDATION. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. F. File Number: City: CO -CPA #2 -03; County: ZONO3 -013 & PRJ2003 -00412 Applicant: Greg & Adele Bainter, et. al. (Thomas R. Durant, AICP) Site Address: 8910 - 9010 Tieton Drive Request: Reclassify four parcels (19.11 acres) from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial; and Rezone from R -1 (Single - Family Residential) to B -2 (Local Business) Recommendation: Approve requested amendment north of Shaw Creek, deny requested amendment south of Shaw Creek, and deny requested concurrent rezone l ' Phil Hoge described the application noting that it was for a little over 19 acres of property. The RPC's recommendation to approve only the property north of Shaw Creek reduces it to 14 acres. He noted that it was part of the Regional Planning Commission's recommendation that the items in Exhibit A be considered as part of any rezone to commercial uses. Tom Durant, 513 North Front Street, Suite 0, clarified that it is about 16 acres when you exclude the 2 �h acres south of the creek. He said his client is in favor of the recommendation but has an issue with Exhibit A. He referenced item 4 under Access noting it had been changed from what they submitted. He requested the Commissioners reconsider that decision. Discussion continued on the access issue. Mr. Durant also noted that Item 4 486 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 — JOINT BUSINESS MEETING 12, under Sitescreening, had also been changed and he would like it reconsidered. Mr. Hoge advised that this was a recommendation and it can be reexamined and considered when it comes up for the rezone. PALACIOS MOVED AND GAMACHE SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE RPC'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, NOT INCLUDING EXHIBIT A. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mayor Place asked whether the Joint Board meetings should be continued, saying they had asked both City and County staffs to look at whether they think the Joint Board should continue and come back with a recommendation. Council Member Barnett said he wouldn't rush into the elimination of the Joint Board without the staffs of the two bodies very carefully studying all the contingencies that might arise. Commissioner Palacios said Terry Austin from the County had said the very same thing, although both sides can be argued. Council Member Barnett also requested that both City and County staff explore concurrent rezones. He said it might not be legally possible but it is frustrating to see a developer or someone who's trying to make a living having to go through all these hurdles and numerous regulations. 3. Adjournment SIMS MOVED AND PALACIOS SECONDED TO ADJOURN. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY lei 3 COUNCIL MEMBER *ATE 1/ NCIL MEM CO(' l 3 D TE ATTEST: CITY CLERK PLACE, MAR Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins. Audio and video tapes o this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 1 5