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