Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/09/1985 Special Meeting 43 APRIL 9, 1985 SPECIAL MEETING URBAN AREA PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council and County Commissioners met in study session on this date at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Yakima, Washington, for the purpose of discussing proposed amendments to the Yakima Urban Area Plan and proposed joint zoning ordinance. County Commissioners present were Chuck Klarich and Jim Whiteside. Commissioner Graham Tollefson absent. County staff present were Dick Anderwald, Director of Planning, and Assistant Director, Mark Hinthorne. City Council members present were Mayor Clarence Barnett, Pat Berndt, Lynn Buchanan, Lynn Carmichael, Jerry Foy and Jack Sperling. Council member Henry Beauchamp present after 3:20 p.m. City staff members present were Assistant City Manager Stouder, City Attorney Andrews, Glenn Rice, Director of Community & Economic Development, Associate Planners Judd Black and Don Skone, and City Clerk Roberts. Mark Hinthorne reviewed Report No. 5 concerning proposed zoning option for East Nob Hill Boulevard to recognize East Nob Hill Boulevard as a commercial arterial street, as was considered for West Nob Hill Boulevard. He stated the staff recommendation is to extend the policy set for West Nob Hill Boulevard to Fast Nob Hill Boulevard and extend the Central Business District Support (CBDS) District bordering Nob Hill Boulevard to include existing R -2 areas along the arterial, as indicated : in.. Figure 2 in the report. Mayor Barnett expressed concern that the citizens this change would impact are not aware of this proposed change. Mr. Hinthorne commented that the media will probably carry a news account of this proposal and that staff is considering the publication of another map prior to final adoption by the legislative bodies. It was MOVED by Klar' ich', seconded by Buchanan, to put this as a recommendation from this group at the "next public hearing for consideration. Unanimously carried by voice vote of the Commissioners and Council ' members. Tollefson absent. Mark Hinthorne reviewed Report No. 6 regarding proposed text amendments to implement policy changes regarding the replacement of damaged or destroyed nonconforming uses or structures. He stated that text changes will be needed in Sections 19.050.2 and 19.060.3 to implement the changes that any nonconforming use and structure damaged less than 75% of its adjusted assessed valuation could be rebuilt as it was before. Sections 19.050.2b, 19.060.4b, 19.080 and 19.080.4 require text changes so that nonconforming uses and structures damaged or destroyed beyond 75% of adjusted assessed valuation would be evaluated on a case -by -case basis during a public hearing by the Hearings Examiner. A nonconforming use that is compatible with its neighbors would be allowed to rebuild while a nonconforming use that is not compatible could not. The Hearings Examiner's decision would be supported by findings of fact. He further stated that Section 18.020.2 would require new language in order to implement the policy that any existing use, including an existing class (2) or (3) use, that is damaged or destroyed may be replaced as it was immediately prior to the damage after review by the building official. And, lastly, he stated that new language is required in Section 19.060.4a to implement the policy that when a nonconforming structure used by an existing use is damaged beyond 75% of its assessed valuation that any restoration shall occur in accordance with the development standards of the district. He stated that staff is recommending that the existing chapter be divided in half to become Chapter 18, Existing Uses and Development, and Chapter 19, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, to eliminate confusion. He stated the following chapters would be renumbered accordingly. Discussion followed regarding the business uses in the CBD Support District. Council member Foy suggested that instead of making a new zone, that possibly the permitted uses should be expanded, under a class (2) or (3) review. Assistant City Manager Stouder stated that map change requests have been received from Pepsi and Coke and staff will be reporting back to Council on these requests. It was MOVED by Foy, seconded by Carmichael, for a show 44 APRIL 9, 1985 of consensus in that Report No. 6 be added to the next public hearing agenda, as. recommended. Commissioner Whiteside commented that it is his understanding that the lending institutions are objecting to part of this. Dick Anderwald stated he had a chance to talk to Larry Marvin from Yakima Federal and learned that Mr. Marvin was unaware of our existing nonconforming section and he did not understand the proposed nonconforming uses. Mr. Marvin indicated he would be sending another letter. The question was called for a vote on the motion. Carried by 7 -2 voice vote of the,Canmissioners and Council members. Klarich temporarily absent. Whiteside not voting. Tollefson absent. Council member Sparling stated he had some concerns about the insurance coverage for damaged structures that are a nonconforming use, however, he stated he learned that the insured is not required to rebuild his business on the same premise, nor, does the insured have to necessarily repair or rebuild his business for the same use. He stated that with this information, he is not concerned about this as he was. Don Skone reviewed Report No. 7, on the Southeast neighborhood map change requests and zoning policy. He stated the neighborhood is presently zoned R -3 and the new map shows it as a combination of R -3, R -2 and - R -1. He stated the City has received three map change requests in this area, which are shown on the map attached to this report. He stated the current zoning reflects the correlation between the land use, density and the range of land uses and dwell- ing unit densities in that area. The zoning, as proposed, would maintain the character in that neighborhood. He stated there was a similar zoning proposal for R -1 zoning in 1979 that was approved by the City Council, however, due to,procedural errors, it failed in Court. He stated that staff is 'recommending that the proposed zoning of the neighborhood not change and that the map change requests CC -76, 79 & 83 not be granted. Mayor Barnett questioned if CC -76, 79 & 83 are in the southeast area. Don Skone stated that only one of then, CC -83, is in the R -1 zoning. Following discussion, Council member Buchanan stated he would like to see CC -83 changed by moving the boundary to the other side of the lot, leave it in R -3 and then adopt the rest. It was MOVED by Foy, seconded by Buchanan, for consensus to show that Report No. 7 be adopted, with the exclusion of CC -83 and that CC -83 be changed on the map to show that it remains in the R -3 zone rather than R -1. Unanimously carried by voice vote of the Council members. Mark Hinthorne explained Report No. 9 pertaining to requested changes to the proposed Urban Area Zoning Map. He stated the County has received two map change requests; one from Mr. Horrall for Burlington Northern Railroad for 190 acres south of Terrace Heights Drive and west of the Union Gap Canal; and one from Verna Beggs for 200 acres known as the Fairview -Sumac area. He stated that the Yakima County Planning Department is recommending concurrence with the request from Mr. Horrall. He stated that staff will be bringing a report and recommendation on the Beggs request in the future. It was MOVED by Klarich, seconded by Whiteside, to put this on the next public hearing for a recommendation for approval for the Horrall /Burlington Northern Railroad map change request. Unanimously carried by voice vote of the County Commissioners. Tollefson absent. Judd Black commented there were same concerns expressed at the last public hearing regarding residential density and minimum lot sizes. He stated that staff prepared a fact sheet on the West Valley Sewer and was provided for Council members' and Commissioners' information. Assistant City Manager Stouder stated the balance of the information provided to Council on the agenda for future hearings and a status report on questions and answers was provided for informational purposes only. There was discussion regarding the agenda for future hearings. Commissioner Klarich indicated he felt the process should be accelerated. It was MOVED by Whiteside, seconded by Carmichael, to accept no more map changes, effective May 1, 1985. Unanimously " 45 APRIL 9, 1985 carried by voice vote of the Commissioners and Council members. Tollefson absent. There was discussion on whether the issues of solar access and swimming pools should be considered in June. Mr. Skone commented that the regulations for swimming pools are covered by the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Hinthorne reported there is language in the existing County ordinance and staff can compare it with the Uniform Building Code. Discussion ensued on the proposed evaluation of the Historic Business District scheduled to be discussed in June. It was MOVED by Klarich, seconded by Carmichael, to consider solar access after the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Carried by 8 -1 voice vote of the Commissioners and the Council members. Barnett voting nay. Tollefson absent. It was MOVED. by Foy, seconded by Berndt, that the Historic Business District be left as it is from the other public hearing. Unanimously carried by voice vote of the Commissioners and the Council members. Tollefson absent. It was the general consensus to bring back the swimming pool issue in May. Discussion followed regarding the agenda for future hearings. Commissioner Klarich stated he would like to see the ordinance adopted in July in time for the summer construction period and review this after a six month _trial period,. It was the general consensus to . schedule a study session for May 6, 1985`. from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and hold a public hearingon May 13, 1985 at 3:00 p.m. at the County Courthouse. (Council member Buchanan absent after 4:30 p.m. and Council ,member Beauchamp absent .after 4:35 p.m.) It was MOVED by Sparling, seconded'by Carmichael, that this meeting be adjourned at the hour of 4:40 p.m. Unanimously carried by voice vote of the Commissioners and Council members. Beauchamp, Buchanan, and Tollefson absent. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY E, '' cet Co ber !I. / Date /0 -2- �'S ' o'c Mem, Attest: om K O } _ ,r /psi _ !� City Clerk Mayor