Loading...
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