Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/1985 Special Meeting • 113 JULY 17, 1985 SPECIAL MEETING . • URBAN AREA PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council and, County Commissioners met in session on this date at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the Proposed Yakima Urban Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance. County Commissioners present were Chuck Klarich, Graham Tollefson and Jim Whiteside. Director. Dick Anderwald and Mark Hinthorne, Assistant Director of the County Planning Department were in attendance representing county staff. City Council members present were Mayor Clarence Barnett,. Henry Beauchamp, Pat Berndt, Lynn Carmichael, and Jerry Foy. City Manager Zais, Assistant City .Manager Stouder, Director of Community & Economic Development Glenn Rice, Associate Planners Don Skone and Judd Black, .alid Deputy City Clerk Toney were also present. Mayor Barnett called the meeting to order, introduced staff, and reviewed - the hearing procedure and agenda. Staff summarized the map changes made to 1''' - date, specifically Report No. 28 containing approved City map changes and Report No. 29 containing approved County map changes. Done Skone indicated Larry Mathews submitted correspondence regarding the Hearings Examiner Concept and noted that copies have been given to the .Council and Commissioners. He read into the record a letter from Dr. Melvin Carlson regarding the rezone request of parcel 181329. Mayor Barnett request- ed the record indicate Council members have received a copy of the document submitted by Larry Mathews regarding the Hearings Examiner Concept, and indicated a study session will be held at a later date regarding this issue.. Don Skone stated correspondence will be submitted by the Business Advertising Council of Washington today for consideration. Mr. Skone referred to Report Nos. 28 and 29 stating this is a summary of changes to the zoning map to date, and do not require any additional action. He also presented Report No. 27 stating action has yet to be taken on CC -27, a request by Mr. Ernest Falk for property located on Hilltop Way and Scenic Drive. The proposed zoning is SR (Suburban Residential) and Mr. Falk is requesting the property remain R -3 (Multifamily Residential). The staff report recommends this request not be granted. Mr. Skone pointed out that the. 'R -3 zoning was granted in 1965 in consideration for Mr. Falk's participa- tion in an annexation at that time. It was MOVED by Foy, seconded by Berndt, to honor the previous agreement made with Mr. Falk to zone the property R -3. Unanimously carried by voice vote. Buchanan and Sparling absent. Judd Black reviewed Report No. 30 which recom ends three amendments to the zoning map. The recommended changes are for CC -98, at 208 North 16th Avenue to be rezoned to B -2; CC-99, 56th and Chestnut, to be rezoned to R -3; and CC -100, North Front Street between Yakima and "B" Street, to be rezoned to CBD'. It was MOVED by Beauchamp, seconded by Foy, to adopt the report as recom ended by staff. Unanimously .carried by .voice vote. Buchanan and Sparling absent. Mark Hinthorne reviewed Report No. 31 dealing with errors and omissions in the proposed zoning map from the Regional Planning Commission and changes reflecting recent rezones approved by the County. Following a review of these choices, it was MOVED by Whiteside, seconded by Klarich, to adopt Report No. 31, excluding E -4 on the northeast corner of 51st Avenue and Nob Hill Boulevard, allowing the entire property to be zoned R -1. Tollefson concurred, and motion carried. Mark Hinthorne reviewed the recommendation of the Regional Planning Commis- . sion to change the southern portion of parcel number 181329 -11447 from R -1 to B -2. He stated public testimony was heard in January and February opposing the change. He stated the Commissioners had denied a request to change the zoning to.B -2 in 1979, and reviewed changes which have occurred since that time supporting the recommendation of the Regional Planning Commission to rezone the property to B -2. Commissioners Klarich and Whiteside expressed concern as to whether or not the residents adjacent to the • property would have an opportunity to voice their opinions on any change of use of parcel number 11447 under the new ordinance. Mr. Hinthorne stated the new ordinance gives greater opportunity to the adjoining property owners to voice opinions-due to the fact that some of the uses in the B-2 zone require a Class 2 or 3 Review. He added that if the parcel (11447) is.developed conuuercially, Class 2 Review will be required because it is on an arterial. 114 JULY 17, 1985 Commissioner Klarich expressed concern that adjoining property owners were not allowed the opportunity to voice their objections when the property was changed from R -1 to B -2. Director Anderwald stated they have since made • their objections known in the form of a petition filed in January. Commis- sioner Whiteside indicated the fact that plans are proceeding for the property to be zoned B -2 in spite of opposition by the neighbors indicates to him that the adjoining neighbors aren't going to have much input. Commissioner Tollefson stated the property in question is not practical for R -1 purposes. The hearing was then opened for public comment. Larry Evans, 6612 Tieton Drive, indicated no neighborhood conflict exists with regard to the property being zoned B -2. The only letter received in opposition to the B -2 zoning • was from Mr. Melvin Carlson. Mr. Evans stated the other neighbors have indicated they are in favor of the B -2 zoning. Mark Hinthorne stated Melvin Carlson and Norma King have submitted letters opposing the choice to B-2, and Bill Eakin submitted a petition signed by a number of property owners in the area who are also opposed to the B -2 zoning. Commissioner Whiteside indicated. on the basis of this information he does not understand how Mr. Evans can make the statement that Mr. Carlson is the only one opposing the B -2 zoning. County Planning Director Anderwald reminded Commissioner Whiteside that this is .a "legislative action" rather than a "site specific action ", therefore, the law does not require individual notice to property owners on such matters. It was MOVED by Klarich to concur with the Regional Commission's recoiiuitendation to zone the half acre parcel that is landlocked the same as the large parcel that is B-2. Commissioner Whiteside stated a great deal of credence.. has been given to the fact that the neighbors will have the opportunity to express themselves under our new zoning ordinance. He indicated in this particular'instance, with the neighbors having expressed opposition, he does not feel we should concur with the Regional Planning Commission's reconuuendation. Commissioner Tollefson seconded and concurred with the motion. Motion carried.2 -1. Commissioner Whiteside voting nay. Mark Hinthorne reviewed the map change.request submitted by Mr. Bonholzer for CBDS zoning on the southwest comer of 20th and "J" Street. It was MOVED by Whiteside, seconded by Klarich, to change.the proposed designation of this property to CBDS and with it the properties outlined on the map in yellow. Commissioner Tollefson concurred, and. motion carried. The map change requests before the County Commissioners having been complet- ed, the gavel was relinquished to Mayor Barnett who recessed the meeting briefly.. Upon reconvening, Mayor Barnett requested Don Skone review Report No. 32. Mr. Skone indicated staff had revised Section 23.070 which is now Section 24.020, so that the minimum 10 days in jail.penalty has been eliminated and the court will be . allowed to set a jail time up to 90. days at the discretion of the court, with the sentence being suspended or deferred, and provide for a minimum monetary fine of $250, and the maximum fine consistent with our statutory authorities. Commissioner Klarich and Mayor Barnett commented.that they are still bothered with the language in the ordinance which says the building official shall have the powers of a law enforcement officer. Mayor Barnett opened the hearing for public testimony. There being none, it was MOVED by Foy, seconded by Carmichael, to.adopt the text amendment recommended by staff. Frank Glaspey„ 1200 W. Ahtanum, referred to an article in the Yakima Herald- Republic wherein a person had been fined $2500 because he had not cut his lawn. Mr. Glaspey indicated this type of situation is what will result from the passage of this portion of the ordinance. He. encouraged Council and Commissioners to leave the judicial matters in the hands of those best qualified to resolve them. It was MOVED by Whiteside, seconded by Berndt, to amend Section 24.060.1 by deleting the following sentence: "for such purposes and subject to the provisions of this Chapter he shall have the powers of a law enforcement officer ". Unanimously carried by voice vote. Buchanan and Sparling absent. The vote was called for on the original motion to adopt text amendments as now amended and recommended for adoption by staff. Carried by 3 -1 voice vote. Barnett voting nay. Buchanan and Sparling absent. It was MOVED by Klarich, seconded by Whiteside, to concur with the City Council's action. Tollefson concurred, and motion carried. Mark Hinthorne reviewed changes in Chapter 8 regarding "Signs" stating some of these changes have been made as a result of conversations with the'sign industry. He also reviewed set back requirements contained in the report. JULY 17,' 1985 115 Mayor Barnett questioned the method of 'notification for unlawful. signs. Don Skone stated 'no provisions have been made at this time to notify the individuals that their signs are unlawful and ?.iri violation of the-sign code. Mark Hinthorne indicated provisions for notification by the building official will have to:be added to the ordinance. Commissioner Klarich conuuented the chart on pages 81, .82 and 83 addresses directional" signs, however, the chapter does not contain a definition of a directional sign. He also questioned If 8.050 means there will be no more flashing, moving or portable signs in the Urban Area. Mayor Barnett questioned if individuals would not be allowed to place signs on private property, such as a for sale sign on a vehicle situated on private property. Mark Hinthorne indicated directional signs are defined in .12' and .14 of the ordinance, but are defined as "9ff- premise "_and "on- premise" directional signs. He stated the eliminatiom of flashing and moving - 'signs is a recommendation of the Planning Departments • and Regional Planning Commission, and whether or not this is adopted as a part of the ordinance is dependent upon City Council and County Commis- ' Ill sioners. Commissioner Klarich also questioned if the signs identifying multifamily units would no longer be allowed, such as IStariighter ". Mark Hinthorne indicated the text could be changed to make allowance for this. Public testimony having been called for, Daryl Paulsen, President of the Advertising Council of Washington, addressed Section BA170.1, stating this section should be deleted due to its attempt at controlling the design element of the sign. He stated the square footage restrictions on Table 8.2 would enco rag vertisers to use the maximum allowable area possible to control the background sign copy ratio. Mr. Paulson stated the second area of concern is Section 8.130.2, (subsection d) regarding multibuilding com- plexes and multiple tenant buildings. He stated if multiple tenant complexes do'not elect to put.up a common free standing sign, then one of the'tenants should be allowed to put up a sign. Mr. Paulson stated based on these two considerations, the Advertising Council of Washington is in support of the proposed sign code. BIll Hambelton, 615 South 32nd Avenue, referred to 8.040 regarding political signs, stated there appears.to be some inconsistency on how long political signs may remain after placement. He stated this needs clarification. Mr. Hambelton also commented on signs placed on utility poles, asking how this is going to be enforced. Jim Siegel; 407 Wickersham Road, questioned the reasoning for the text saying that a person has to take a sign down after six months if a building or structure is vacant or abandoned. He also questioned the reason for the statement that a sign is unlawful if damaged or destroyed beyond 50% of its value, and "why the City should care about the worth of the sign." Commissioner Tollefson responed that it is essential to focus on the intent of the ordinance. He stated if - Yakima is to become desireable as a convention and tourist attraction, it is important not to allow abandoned or deteriorated signs to remain. Council member Foy requested - Report No. 33 be referred back to staff for revisions. Mayor Barnett added he would like to have a position letter from Heath Sign Company indicating whether or not their position has changed regarding the matter addressed in their January 30, 1985 letter. Commissioners Klarich and Whiteside requested staff review the portable sign section and the moving sign section once more..Conunissioner Klarich requested staff review the state highway sign code also. Commissioner Whiteside indicated he has no objection to allowing flashing signs within the Urban Area. Don Skone questioned if allowing for flashing signs is a consensus of the Council and Commissioners, and they indicated affirmatively. Commissioner Tollefson stated "it seems the original intent of the ordinance has been lost, and that it contains a good deal of prescriptive type material, and it could be strengthened by cutting it in half ". Jim Siegel, 407 Wickersham Road, distributed a report requesting that the ordinance be amended to allow grocery stores and gas: stations to remain open all night as Class (2) or (3) uses in'the commercial districts. He stated the purpose for distributing the report today is to allow the Council and Commissioners the opportunity for review prior to the meeting on August 5, 1985. There being no further discussion to come before the Council, it was MOVED by Carmichael, seconded by Beachamp, to adjourn this meeting to 2:00,p.m. on August 5, 1985 in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Unanimously carried by voice vote. Buchanan and Sparling absent. There being no further business to come before the County Comissioners, it was MOVED by Klarich, seconded by Whiteside, to adjourn.this meeting to 2:00 116 JULY 17, 1985 p.m. on August 5, 1985, in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Tollefson concurred, motion carried. READ: AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: 0 /o Council Memr Date A1'1'EST: � — g -- ES - Q p 1)6 ncil ein r Ili a e c n g City Tr Mayor "