HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/1987 Business Meeting 9S
FEBRUARY 10, 1987
BUSINESS MEETING
1. ROLL CALL
The City Council met in session on this date at 2:00 P.M. in the
Council Chambers of _City Hall, Yakima, Washington. Mayor Henry
Beauchamp, presiding, Council members Clarence Barnett, Pat Berndt,
Lynn Buchanan, Lynn Carmichael, Jerry Foy and Bernard Sims present
on roll call. City Manager Zais, Assistant City Attorney Vanek,
City Clerk Roberts and Deputy City Clerk Toney also present.
2. INVOCATION . - .- _
The Invocation was given by Mayor Beauchamp.
3. OPEN DISCUSSION FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
Council member Foy reported that he, Council member Carmichael,
the County Commissioners, and Mayor John Hodgkinson of Union Gap
met to discuss proposed changes to the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance.
He stated a motion passed that the proposed changes in the Urban
Area Zoning Ordinance be presented to both legislative bodies for
review in about two weeks. Council member Carmichael commented
that the agreement was made to continue to hear these proposed .
changes jointly.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Beauchamp referred to the items placed on the Consent Agenda, .
questioning whether there were any additions or deletions from
either Council members or citizens present. Item No. 9 was added
at the request of Council member Sims and Item No. 11 was removed
at the request of Council member Barnett. The City Clerk then read
the Consent Agenda items, including resolutions and ordinances by
title. It was MOVED by Carmichael, seconded by Buchanan, that the
Consent Agenda, as read, be passed. Unanimously carried by roll
call vote. (Subsequent paragraphs preceded by an asterisk ( *)
indicate items on the Consent Agenda handled under one motion
without further discussion.)
*5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JANUARY 6 & 13,
1987
The Council minutes of January 6 and 13, 1987 were approved, having
been duly certified accurate by two Council members and no one
present wishing to have said minutes read publicly.
6. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
None
7. HEARING ON THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR POPLAR VIEW SEWER LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1041 (SEE ORDINANCE CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT
ROLL)
This being the time set for the hearing on the final assessment
roll for Poplar View Sewer Local Improvement District No. 1041,
Office Engineer Rita Germunson reviewed the staff report and
responded to Council's inquiries pertaining to the final assessment
roll for Poplar View Sewer L.I.D. No. 1041. She stated the L.I.D.
consists of 13 parcels with approximately 2,970 lineal feet of 8
inch sewer pipe at a cost of $62,846.52 to the City of Yakima. It
was stated that each of the property owners were properly notified
of the final assessment roll. Mayor Beauchamp opened the hearing
for proponents and opponents of the L.I.D. to came forward and
address the Council. There being none, the public hearing was
closed. Ordinance No. 3004 having been read by title, it was MOVED
by Buchanan, seconded by Foy, that the ordinance be adopted.
Unanimously carried by roll call vote.
GR.A &M /1
496
FEBRUARY" {10, 1987
ORDINANCE NO. 3004, AN ORDINANCE confirming the assessment roll
covering Local Improvement District No. 1041 as . created and
established by Ordinance No. 2949 of the Ordinances of the City of
Yakima.
8. PUBLIC MEETING, CONSIDERING AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
DECISON TO DENY A DUPLEX (CLASS 2 USE) IN AN R-1 DISTRICT, AS
REQUESTED BY PAUL AND BARBARA HARRIS
This being the time set for the public meeting to consider an
appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny construction of a
duplex (Class 2 Use) in a R -1 District, as requested by Paul and
Barbara Harris, at 1911 West Yakima Avenue, in a R -1, Single Family
Zone. Mayor Beauchamp opened the public meeting. He stated
Council members were provided copies of the materials reviewed by
the Hearing Examiner prior to rendering his decision. Each Council
member was asked to state for the record whether they had reviewed
this material prior to today's Council meeting. Council member Foy
stated he reviewed the written text, however, did not .listen to
the taped recordings of the. Hearing Examiner's public hearing. Mr.
Foy also commented that Exhibits 15, 17 and 19 were not included in
the material submitted for Council's review, and he'has not .seen "
them. Council member Barnett stated he did not listen to the taped
recordings of the public meeting before the Hearing Examiner,
however, he did read the transcripts • of that hearing. Mr. Barnett .-
stated he reviewed Exhibits 15, 17 and 19 which were available in
the City Clerk's office. Council member Carmichael stated she
reviewed the written text and had seen Exhibits 15, 17 and 19 which
were on file in the City Clerk's office, but did not listen to
the taped recordings of the hearing. Council member Berndt stated
she reviewed the text, had not listened to the taped recordings,
nor seen Exhibits 15, 17 and 19. Council member Sims stated he had
not listened to the taped recordings, nor seen Exhibits 15, 17 and
19, however, had read the written text. Council member Buchanan
stated he listened to the tapes and read part of the tables.
Council member, Foy stated he would like the record to show he
received a phone call from Barbara Harris" sometime during the
second week of November regarding the rescheduling, of their public
meeting, at which time he informed her he did not wish to discuss
the issue. Mr. Foy stated a written statement. regarding this call
is also on file in the City Attorney's office. Council member
Barnett stated the first phone call he received fran Barbara Harris
was during the first week of November, 1986 regarding the Hearing
Examiner changing the date of their public hearing without
notifying them. Mr. Barnett stated he recommended she put this in
writing. He further commented sometime after November 10th, he
received a zerox copy of the letter from Paul and Barbara Harris
and a second phone call on November 10th about 10:00 p.m..from
Barbara Harris to discuss sane procedures she believed to be
improper. Mr. Barnett commented to her that he could not discuss
this matter. Council member Carmichael stated . she received contact
as outlined by Council member Foy. Council member Berndt indicated
she had received the same phone call and the conversation was the
same. Assistant City Attorney Vanek interjected that the statute
allows the party making the contact an opportunity to rebut the
statements made by Council members. Barbara Harris indicated the
testimony given by the various Council members is accurate and the
phone call made to Mr. Barnett was reported accurately. Ron
Whitaker,. 305 North 3rd Street, • attorney for Paul and Barbara
Harris, reviewed his Memorandum of Authorities in support of the
appeal to the City Council. He stated the Hearing Examiner's
decision is flawed in three basic respects. 1) He erroneously
concluded that Section 1.5.04.020.2, . which deals with Class (2)
uses, and Section 15.03.030.2, which deals with the intent
statement for R -1 (Single Family) districts, are in conflict, and
that the former section must yield in favor of the latter as the
latter is more specific. 2) He gave weight to the testimony of the
opponents of the duplex even though he found the proposed duplex
physically canpatible, and , He failed to consider the self-
imposed conditions of approval. Mr. Whitaker, stated the proposed
duplex is compatible and in harmony with the surrounding
" &M /2
497
FEBRUARY 10, 1987
neighborhood and under the guidelines of the Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance is permissible. He encouraged Council members to take
the opportunity to view the property in question prior to making
their decision. He explained that the duplex would be a $120,00Q
unit and would be constructed in such a manner as to blend with the
surrounding homes. Mr. Whitaker responded to Council's inquiries
regarding the compatibility and harmony of the proposed duplex in
the R -1 neighborhood, stating it is ' his opinion that the structure
is physically compatible and in harmony with the neighborhood. He
requested the City Clerk circulate photographs of the property
labled Exhibits 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11 and 12. He explained that
these photographs illustrate how the lot is partly surrounded by
trees and foliage. Mr. Whitaker commented for the sake of the
record that Mr. & Mrs. Harris have stated they will sitescreen the
lot and sign covenants agreeing to maintain the foliage on that
lot. Barbara Harris, proponent of the duplex,. addressed Council
stating the structure is to be a 3,000 square foot total living
unit which encompasses 4,000 square feet the garage. She stated
they plan to live in one unit and sell the other. The duplex will
be valued at $120,000- 150,000 including landscaping. Mrs. Harris
informed Council they have the option to build two houses on this
particular property with no restrictions, as the property under
consideration consists of three lots. Paul Harris, proponent of
the duplex, reiterated the fact that this property consists of
three lots, one of which is 60x150 feet. He stated the proposal is
to build the duplex on the back portion of that lot.
At 3:33 p.m. Mayor Beauchamp called a brief recess. Following a
ten minute recess the opponents were given the opportunity to
address the issue. Bill Almon, 4112 Sungnitview, addressed Council
regarding this issue, stating he is representing approximately 25
have owners from the surrounding area who are opposing
construction of the duplex. Mr. Almon pointed out that the
neighbors are within their rights as set forth in the Urban Area
Zoning Ordinance to voice their objections to the proposal at this
time. He quoted from the Comprehensive Plan which states, "Citizen
input is an important consideration when determining the
compatibility of a proposed development with neighboring
pre - existing uses. Area residents are able to identify potential
problems or conflicts created by a proposed development and may
offer positive suggestions for modifying the project or site design
to mitigate those conflicts. Neighborhood attitude may be
determined from the citizen report or obtained at the time the
development is proposed. Citizen preference is one of the major
criteria that must be considered when determining the compatibility
of a proposed use with its neighbors." Mr. Alvan suggested that
only if this provision is held by Council to be totally meaningless
can you ignore the stated observations and opinions of my clients.
He characterized the differing opinions of his clients as one of
concern for preservation of their way of life. Mr. Almon referred
to Exhibit 17 containing pictures of existing duplexes in other -
areas, stating it is his understanding that this exhibit was used
in the hearing before the Hearing Examiner to illustrate duplexes
in the neighborhood comprised of the Harris property and that of
those opposing the Harris duplex plan. He stated the Urban Area
Zoning Ordinance does not define "neighborhood" and suggested that
those persons most capable of defining "neighborhood" and it's
boundaries are those in this roan today who are expressing a heart
felt interest in the future impact on them, their families and
their land. Mr. Almon referred to Section 15.02.048 which defines
compatibility as "the characteristics of different uses or
development that permit than -to be located near each other in
harmony." He stated the appellants would have you believe the term"
campatibile means strictly physical compatibility which is not
defined in the ordinance. Mr. Almon reminded Council that the Code
Administrator and the Hearing Examiner have already made
determinations that the duplex will not be compatible. Mr. Almon
then responded to questions from various Council members and
concluded that there is no conflict between the provisions of
Section 15.03.020.2, which deals with preservation of the R -1
neighborhood, and Section 15.03.020.2, which permits Class (2) use
in an R-1 district, except when that use may be incompatible at a
GR.A&M /3
49E?
FEBRUARY0.0, 1987
,
,
particular location. Mayor Beauchamp asked if there were other
opponents wishing to speak to the issue. There being none, Mr.
Whitaker was given the , opportunity, for rebuttal. Mr. Whitaker .
stated he is sure Council will agree that the duplex is physically
compatible. He mentioned that Mr. Almon stated the sole objection
to the duplex is that it is a R -1 neighborhood and that the
r building of a duplex might cause a transformation of the
neighborhood and contended that makes no sense. He urged Council
to take the time to view the property prior to making a decision on
the matter. The public meeting was closed at this time by Mayor
Beauchamp. It was MOVED by Barnett, seconded by Foy, to move into
Executive Session for deliberation purposes for an unspecified
amount of time in order to bring back a determination today.
Larry Mathews, 805 South 17th Ave, representing Common Cause,
questioned Council's authority to go into Executive Session on this
issue as it is not a personnel matter. Assistant City Attorney
Vanek explained that the Open Meetings Act does not apply to
matters of a.quasi- judicial nature. The question was called for a
vote on the motion. Unanimously carried by voice vote.
Following the conclusion of the Executive Session, Mayor Beauchamp
reconvened the meeting at 5:02 p.m. to relate the Council's
decision. It was MOVED by Carmichael, seconded by Berndt, to
reaffirm the Hearing Examiner's decision with the exception that
' the part concluding that Section 15.04.020.3 and 15.03.030.2 of the
` City of Yakima Municipal Code are in conflict and to direct the
staff to prepare appropriate findings and conclusions for the„
Council. 'The question was called for a vote on the motion.
Carried by 6 -1 voice vote. Barnett voting nay. Council member
Barnett stated he feels this should have been .remanded to the
Hearing Examiner for consideration of the proposed covenants and
conditions of approval.
* 9. REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPENSATION FOR
REPLACEMENT OF MECHANICS' BROKEN TOOLS (CONTINUED FROM 1/13/87)
The report and recommendation from the Director of Public Works,
dated February 10, 1987, regarding compensation for theft or damage
to tools furnished by Equipment Rental employees of the Public
Works Department, was accepted and approved.
* 10. PRESENTATION OF POLICE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1986
The Police Annual Report for 1986 was accepted.
11. REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECONSIDERING FEASIBILITY OF
EQUIPMENT POOLING FOR CITY DEPARTMENTS (CONTINTUED FROM 10/28/86)
Council member Barnett referred to the last page of the report, . .. ....
stating under funding, the two asterisked items total $84,000,
the Flail Head mower and the trailer mount sprayer total $6,000 and .
staff is only requesting $5,000. Mr. Barnett pointed out staff is
only requesting $5,000 as an unbudgeted amount, and he interprets
the report to indicate actually $6,000 is unbudgeted. Fleet
Manager Don Toney explained he anticipates using $1,000 of
unobligated funds in the Equipnental Rental budget and using in-
house personnel to do the trailer mounting of the sprayer, thus
accounting for the budget amendment in the amount of $5,000 rather
than $6,000. (Mayor Beauchamp absent after 5:05 p.m. and Assistant
• Mayor Barnett presiding.) It was MOVED by Foy, seconded by Berndt,
to accept the report. Unanimously carried by voice vote. .
Beauchamp absent. (The report regarding equipment pooling for City
Departments included the following staff recommendations: to
accept equipment pooling recommendations as detailed in the report,
authorize . equipment purchases budgeted, in the 1987 Equipment
Replacement budget, and authorize funding as proposed for the Flail
. Head Mower.) ,
*12. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT TO
THE CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR THE SCENIC DRIVE L.I.D. 1040 PROJECT
RESOLUTICt1 NO. D-5330, A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager
and City Clerk of the City of Yakima to execute Amendment No. `2 to
GR.A &M /4
4 VT
FEBRUARY 10, 1987
an agreement with Gray and Osborne, Inc., P.S. for professional
engineering services.
*13. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 1986 TREASURY REPORT (STANDARD MOTION V -A,
ACCEPT AND APPROVE REPORT)
The report from the Director of Finance and Budget dated
February 10, 1987, regarding the investments of the City of Yakima,
was accepted and approved.
*14. APPROVAL OF FINAL CONTRACT PAYMENT FOR 1986 STREET LIGHT PROJECT
(STANDARD MOTION V -B -- ACCEPT PROJECT AND APPROVE FINAL PAYMENT)
The report from the Director of Engineering and Utilities dated
February 2, 1987, with respect to the completion of the work on the
1986 Street Light Project, performed by Power City Electric, was
approved, the work accepted and payment of the final estimates as
therein set forth was authorized.
15. RECONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REFUSE FEE SCHEDULE
FOR RESIDENTIAL AND BIN ACCOUNTS AND REFUSE BIN CONTAINERS
(CONTINUED FROM 1/27/87)
It was MOVED by Carmichael, seconded by Berndt, that Ordinance No.
3005, as read, be passed. Assistant Mayor Barnett stated he would
like the record to indicate the basis for compliance with the
Uniform Fire Code as contrasted to two weeks ago, is that the City .
would not have been in compliance with the Uniform Fire Code. Mr.
Barnett informed Council that prior to today's meeting he alerted
Mr. Copeland to the specific questions he would be asking
regarding this issue. Mr. Copeland reported that after the meeting
two weeks ago, he met with City Attorney Fred Andrews, Code Manager
Bob Shampine to discuss the interpretation of the ordinance. It .
was agreed upon that Mr. Shampine would call the home office of
the International Conference of Building Officials for their
intrepretation. Mr. Copeland read a section of the National Fire
Code which states all combustible rubbish, oily rags, or waste
material, when kept within a building or adjacent to a building,
shall be securely stored in metal or metal lined receptacles ,
equiped with tight fitting covers, etc." Mr. Copeland stated the
key word in this code is "adjacent," which is interpreted as
"anything less than five feet separated from the building." He
stated in that light, our local ordinance, as amended, would not be
in conflict with the Uniform Fire Code. He added that City
Attorney Andrews is in agreement with this. Discussion followed
regarding placement of containers in relationship to buildings, and
the size of the containers. Mr. Copeland further explained that
statement "B" of the Uniform Fire Code which deals with metal
containers was eliminated frcan the City Ordinance, however, it is
still addressed in the Uniform Fire Code. Council member Barnett
commented the fees are correct if the incremental system is used
for computation, althought he does not agree with the use of this
method. He added he does not remember a time and motion study
being conducted on bin service. Mr. Copeland interjected there was
none. The question was called for a vote on the motion.
Unanimously carried by roll call vote. Beauchamp absent.
ORDINANCE NO. 3005, AN ORDINANCE relating to garbage storage,
collection and disposal; classifying premises and adopting rates
for garbage collection; enacting rules and regulations; and
amending Subsection 4.16.140A, Subsection 4.16.140C, Section
4.16.150, Subsection 4.16.170(c), Subsection 4.16.170(f),
Subsection 4.16.170(k), Subsection 4.16.180 E.4, and repealing
Section 4.16.220, all of the City of Yakima Municipal Code.
*16. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CITY CODE PROVISION$
RELATING TO THE CRIMINAL CODE
ORDINANCE NO. 3006, AN ORDINANCE relating to public safety and
morals; and repealing Sections 6.04.010, 6.04.015, 6.04.025,
6.04.045, 6.04.050, 6.04.060, 6.04.120, 6.04.125, 6.04.130,
6.04.135, 6.04.150, 6.04.175, 6.04.190, 6.04.195, 6.04.200,
GR.A &M/5
SOO'
FEBRUARY lb, 1987
6.04.205, 6.04.210, 6.04.265, 6.04.270, 6.04.285, 6.04.300,
6.04.312, 6.04.340, 6.04.345, 6.04.350, 6.04.360, 6.04.365,
6.04.366, 6.04.400, 6.04.405, 6.04.410, 6.04.415, 6.04.420,
6.04.445, 6.04.475, 6.04.485, 6.04.490, 6.04.495, 6.04.500,
6.04.505, 6.04.510, 6.04.535, 6.04.540, 6.04.550, 6.04.555,
6.0 and Chapters 6.24, 6.28, 6.44, 6.52 and 6.64, all of the
-, City of Yakima Municipal Code.
17. OTHER BUSINESS
City Manager Zais stated staff is attempting to schedule a meeting
with the County Commissioners for the purpose of reviewing proposed
changes to the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. Following a . brief
°" discussion, the evening of Thursday, March 19th at 7:00 p.m. was
set aside for the joint meeting with the County Commissioners and
City Council for this purpose.
Information Items
1 Items of Information supplied to Council were: Correspondence
fran Yakima Valley Museum and Historical Association regarding
capital funds campaign to enlarge and improve museum facility.
2/4/87; Memo from Wastewater Superintendent regarding Odor
Situation at Treatment Facility. 1/31/87; 1987 Community
Development Block Grant Monthly Report for January 1987;
Memo from Community Development Block Grant Manager regarding
January 1987 Minority Business Enterprise Report. 2/5/87; and
Monthly Permit Report for January 1987.
18. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to Dame before the Council, it was
MOVED by Berndt, seconded by Foy, that this meeting be adjourned at '
the hour of 5:22 p.m. Unanimously carried by voice vote.
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE B Bide _ / 4 / .,
CO ''ICIL Di 1 R --"") DAT'
ATTEST: -
s ( tn ; .,---,--4,,-.7-e-e, CC#IL MEMBER DATE
-4 ...
r\ .1- �..,.._ A ►C� ; i� ,
CITY CLERK ' MAYOR
1
MINUTES PREPARED BY f ; . , .,, , . ` •
DEPUTY CI CLERK /
GR.A &M /6 . ,