HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/30/1986 Adjourned Meeting 246
JANUARY 30, 1986
URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council met in session on this date at 2:00 P.M. at the
Yakima Center, 10 North 8th Street, Yakima, Washington, in a joint
public hearing with the Yakima County Commissioners to review the
proposed joint Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, Hearings Examiner
Ordinances, and Proposed Amendments to the Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan. County Commissioners present were Chuck Klarich,
Graham Tollefson and Jim Whiteside. County staff present were Dick
Anderwald, Director of Planning, and Mark Hinthorne, Assistant
Director of Planning. City Council members present were Mayor Henry
.Beauchamp, Clarence _Barnett,._Lyrm Buchanan, Lynn Carmichael and Jerry •
Foy. - Council members Pat Berndt and Jack Sparling absent and excused.
City staff members present were City Manager Zais, Assistant City
Manager Stouder, Glenn Rice, Director of Community and Economic
Development, City Attorney - Andrews, Associate Planners Judd Black and
Don Skone, and City Clerk Roberts. Also present was Dan Fessler,
consultant attorney.
The meeting was called to. ,order by Mayor Beauchamp, who then
introduced the Council" and City staff members present. Commissioner
Tollefson' introduced the - Commissioners and County staff members
present. Mayor Beauchamp stated the purpose of this hearing is to
consider adoption of a common zoning ordinance for the Yakima.Urban
Area Plan, the proposed Hearings Examiner ordinances and the proposed
amendments to the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan."
Dor. Skone read into the record correspondence signed by 43 individuals
opposed to the "rezoning" of lot one of West Valley Acres from R -1 to
B -2 (Exhibit No. 119).
Mark Hinthorne reviewed Staff Report No. 41, explaining the amendments
to the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan would change the density
in the low density residential category from 5 to 7 dwelling units
per net residential acre and update the plan maps to reflect recent
amendments to the urban boundary established in the Wastewater and
Planning Agreements. He summarized Part II of the report, which
listed the more significant text changes recomiended by the City and
County Planning Departments in Draft 3 of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance. Referring to page 6 of this report, he stated that under
Chapter 1, page 1, Section 1.020.3, not all of the last sentence
should be deleted, only the last part of the sentence. The last
sentence should read, "The provisions of this ordinance shall and are
hereby declared to supercede and replace the existing provisions of
Yakima City Code, Title 12." He commented the fee schedule proposed
is consistent with the fees currently being charged by the County. He
stated updated zoning maps have been displayed on the front and back
walls, which reflect changes which were tentatively approved during
earlier hearings and the annexation of the property by Union Gap.
This map has also been updated to show the airport overlay district
which is based on the airport impact area developed as part of the
Airport Master Plan.
• Don Skone reviewed a memo dated January 30, 1986, from Council member
Barnett, submitting changes to Draft 3 of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance. He stated Item No. 10 has been deleted from this memo. He
also stated there is one map change staff is reconu which was
an error in the map. Staff is recommending that the northeast corner
of South 16th Avenue and Tieton Drive be amended from R -2, as shown
on the map, to Historic Business District. He commented that currently
a florist shop is at that location.
Mayor Beauchamp opened the public hearing, calling for public
testimony.
Roger Bell, 1109 South 72nd Avenue, addressed the County
Commissioners, regarding the proposed rezone of lot one of West
Valley Acres, which is at the southeast corner of 72nd and Nob Hill
Boulevard. He stated that 88.6% of the property owners are opposed to
247
JANUARY 30, 1986
URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
the change in zoning for any lot in that subdivision and requested
the current R -1 zoiir..g' be retained. It was MOVED by Whiteside,
seconded by Klarich, to rescind the past decision to change the
proposed zoning of that property to B -2, and reinstitute R -1 zoning.
Tollefson concurred and the motion carried.
Keith Daniels, 211 So. 37th Avenue, addressed his remarks to both the
City Council members and County Commissioners. He referred to page 5,
sub - paragraph C, in Draft 3 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance,
definition of adjusted assessed valuation, and stated . the only
reference to this definition is found on page 108&. He stated he would
like to delete the reference to assessed valuation and insert in its
place, "replacement cost ", using the Marshall /Swift valuation manual
and submitted a proposed definition of "replacement cost" (Exhibit
No. 121). He stated he felt this is a more equitable manner to arrive
at the value of a non - conforming structure if it has been partially
destroyed. It was MOVED by Foy, seconded by Barnett, that request
be submitted for final adoption in the ordinance, including the
change on page 108. Council member Carmichael expressed concern about
voting on this issue at this time without having had the opportunity
to properly evaluate it. It was the consensus to hear all the
testimony and then consider any changes.
Referring to page 43, Robert Lewis, 5306 Bitterroot Way, asked why
the height restriction of a house should be changed from 35° . feet to
28 feet in the R -1 and R -2 district's=. He' stated there doesn't 'seem to
be any problem with the current height regulation and asked that it
remain 35 feet. Mr. Daniels supported this request and referred to
Table 5 -1 which indicates a 35' height for houses in the suburban
residential areas.
Mr. Lewis referred to page 57, and expressed disagreement with the
proposed language regarding the planting width requirement. He stated
this should indicate a planting strip which is capable of creating a
living screen, and delete the word "fence ". He stated the living
screen height should not be limited to 6' of growth. Referring to
page 43, pertaining to setback to center line of right -of- -way, he
commented that no one is measuring the setback by that method. The
City and County require the dwelling to be to scale on the plans
submitted, and, the center line of right -of -way is difficult to find.
He also cemented that everytime he gets a new draft zoning ordinance,
the fee schedule has been increased. Commissioner Whiteside stated
the County has not changed its fee schedule.
Mr. Daniels referred to page 101, Section 16.080, the last sentence.
Council member Barnett interjected that since he last spoke with
Mr. Daniels, he visited with the city attorney . about this section and
was told it should be rewritten and subdivided because there were
several concepts involved.
Mr. Daniels then referred to page ,123 regarding the criminal - aspects
of violations, suggesting this is unnecessary because the City and
County could refuse to issue an occupancy permit until any violation
is corrected.
Lou Alderman, representing the Central Washington Home Builders
Association, reported the Association members strongly support the
amendments requested by Mr. Daniels and Mr. Lewis, particularly the
height requirement of the fence. He also expressed concern about the
new fee schedule and suggested it be considered in a separate
ordinance. He referred to page 18, definition 168, front setback,
measuring the setback to the nearest wall of the dwelling, and stated
they have always measured from the foundation. He stated the most it
could vary would be 2' because that is the most it can overhang.
Larry Mathews, 805 So. 17th Avenue, having previously submitted
i it o. 0, referred to the Interlocal Agreement. He stated the
Urban Area Plan has goals and objectives for density, compatibility
and availability of . specific services. Indicating there are some
inconsistencies relating to review of day care facilities, he stated
those facilities located in residential areas should not be :subjected
to a Class 3 review.
248
JANUARY 30, 1986
URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Council member Barnett reviewed his January 30, 1986 memo, explaining
his basis for his proposed amendments to the Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance (Exhibit No. 116).
Mr. Alderman also questioned the definition used for duplex, on page
6, suggesting the definition be changed to "connected by a common
roof line ". There was consensus on Commissioner Klarich's suggestion
that the definition be changed to "common wall or roof line ".
Phil Hoge, 1007 Summitview, referred to page 43 (.7) in Draft 3 of
the proposed Zoning Ordinance, and expressed concerns about the fence
height requirements and location on the property. Council member Foy
stated the purpose of this requirement is to give proper clearview
for safety.
Ines Rice, 4409 Arlington, questioned why RCW 36 is being referenced
throughout this document, rather than RCW 35, which relates to
cities. She questioned if this puts the city residents under the
jurisdiction of the County. Don Skone stated the City proceeded under
the provisions of RCW 36.70, but can also operate under RCW 35. The
City decided to operate under the county enabling statute because it
is a little more specific; it does not put the citizens of the City
under the County jurisdiction. Mrs. Rice stated that under the City
Charter, the citizens have the right to do something about an
ordinance if they don't like it. She inquired if something can be
done if the citizens don't like this ordinance. Mr. Skone replied
that the Charter provision would still be applicable.
There being no other citizen present wishing to speak, Mayor Beauchamp
asked for discussion by the Council and Commissioners on the issues
that had been raised.
Council member Carmichael reminded th, chairman there is a motion on
the floor, whereupon, the motion was withdrawn by Council members Foy
and Barnett. Discussion followed regarding the height restriction for
houses and it was the consensus to go back to the 35', as long as the
criteria of solar access protection will be considered.
The next item discussed was the suggested amendment regarding the
change from fence to living screen in Section 7.040. It was the
consensus to accept the wording of "a three foot wide planting strip
that will create a living evergreen screen to reach at least 6 foot
in height within three years ".
The amendment regarding the measurement from center line of street
right -of -way was then discussed, Gordon Wonder, Lou Alderman, Bob
Lewis, and Keith Daniels giving additional testimony. It was the
consensus to use the wording, "design centerline ", however, staff was
asked to report back on this issue at the next public
It was the consensus to accept the fee schedule 'proposed in Report
No. 41. (Council member Foy suggested the fees be increased in a
graduated schedule. City, Attorney Andrews stated that could be
accommodated by putting the fee schedule in separate resolutions for
City and :ounty adoption.)
It was the consensus to. -leave the criminal penalty section as it is
written in the proposed ordinance.
The Commissioners and Council members next considered the amendments
suggested in Council member Ba'..ett's memo (Exhibit. No. 116).
Consensus was reached on Item No. 3 to restructure page 101. There
was discussion regarding Item No. 4 in the memo, referring to an
amndment to Section 19.060.2, page 108. It was the consensus to drop
Item No. 4. Council member Foy stated this means that Mr. Daniels'
request for definition change to replacment value is no longer valid.
Mr. Daniels then spoke again in support of this request to change the
definition to replacement cost. Mark Hinthorne commented the owner
can seek a Class 3 review if the non - conforming structure is destroyed
beyond 757. of its assessed valuation. It was the consensus to discuss
this at the next hearing, scheduled for February 6, 1986. Referring
24 9
JANUARY 30, 1986
URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
to Item No. 5 in Council member Barnett's memo, Mr. Anderwald stated
Mr. Fessler suggested the word "all" be stricken from the sentence.
It was the consensus to accept this amendment, with the word "all"
stricken. Referring to Item No. 6 in the memo, Mr. Fessler stated
there may be a slight problem with this wording, stating the word
"structures" refers to "proposed structures ". Council member Barnett
stated if there is a legal problem, he would withdraw Item No. 6=
Mr. Fessler stated that as a suggestion, instead of making referee - :�
to parcel of land, just make it "land ". It was the consensus to
accept this suggestion. It was the consensus to accept Item No. 7 in
the . memo regarding lot coverage. Item no. 8 was discussed;
Mr. Anderwald suggesting the sentence be ended after "homes ", so it
would read,. '!Roofing materials shall be compatible in appearance with
surrounding built homes." It was the consensus to. accept Item No. 8,
with Mr. Anderwald's suggestion. Referring to Item No. 11,
Mr. Anderwald stated if this is accepted, general contractors would
no longer be able to obtain .a building permit without showing a
signed contract or a document from the owner . authorizing the
contractor to sign the building permit. Council member Barnett
withdrew Item No. 11.
It was the general consensus to accept Staff Report. No 41 (Exhibit
No. 118). It was the general consensus' to accept. Staff Report; No. 43
(Exhibit No. 117), with the map change for the property at 16th
Avenue and Tieton Drive and the correction in the footnote on page 48.
(Council member Buchanan absent after 5:00 P.M.)
It was MOVED by Carmichael, seconded by Barnett, to continue this
meeting to February 6, 1986 at. 1:30 P.M. in. the Council Chambers at
Yakima City Hall. Unanimously carried by voice vote. Berndt, Buchanan,
and Sparling absent.
It was MOVED by Klarich, seconded by Whiteside, to continue this
meeting to 1:30 P.M. on February 6, 1986, in the Council Chambers of
Yakima City Hall. Tollefson,concurred, and the motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at the hour of 5:04 P.M.
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY DATE // ,
•'� CI ICI Li
/
6NCIL MEMBER
ATTEST:
'
CITY CLERK r/4.0• I ./ YAO