Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/2010 14 Policy for Evaluation of Requests for Wastewater Service Outside City Limits e BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 1 `7"" For meeting of: March 23, 2010 ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Resolution Adopting City of Yakima Wastewater Service Policy for the Evaluation of Requests for Wastewater Service outside the City Limits SUBMIT BY: William R. Cook, Director Community and Economic Development Jeff Cutter, City Attorney CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Joan Davenport, Planning Manager (576 -6417) SUMMARY EXPLANATION: At a Study Session on November 17, 2009, Council discussed regional planning and growth issues including City policy for providing wastewater services outside city limits. At this study session, Council directed staff to pursue a shift in City policy to 1.) Refocus City wastewater planning and capital investment back into underserved areas of the city, and 2.) • Restore City authority to determine when and under what circumstances City wastewater services would be provided to new development outside of the City limits. The City of Yakima sent a letter to Yakima County in December 2009, explaining this intended change in City policy. In response, the County has notified the City that such a letter, by itself, provides insufficient authority for the County to require new development anticipating City wastewater service, to secure preapproval prior to preliminary plat review. (Continued on page 2) Ordinance Resolution: Administrative Policy for Evaluation of Sewer Requests Outside City Limits Funding Source APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL - - ____ Cit Mana•er �_ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution for City of Yakima Wastewater Service Policy, or provide additional guidance to staff BOARD /COMMISSION /COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: City Council Economic Development Committee recommends the entire Council discuss this item COUNCIL ACTION: III Page 2 The attached Resolution, if approved by Council, will serve to clarify the Council's policy for wastewater connections outside the City limits and provide the authority needed by County Planning staff to require pre - approval from the City for provision of wastewater services to development outside the City limits. This policy will be subject to amendment later as negotiations and discussions take place between the City and County on this subject and related growth issues. However, it is intended that this policy give clear guidance and direction . to deal with this issue as it stands today. Currently a number of individual requests for wastewater services outside the . city limits have been submitted to the Engineering Division, pending review and policy clarification by the City. ' Further delay of an Administrative Policy regarding wastewater services outside the city limits may create hardship for private development. 110 RESOLUTION NO. R -2010- A RESOLUTION establishing the policy of the Yakima City Council for evaluating and responding to requests for extension of the City of Yakima's wastewater lines to properties within the unincorporated portions of the City's Urban Growth Area; identifying conditions applicable to the City's provision of wastewater service and sewer line extensions to meet public health emergencies and to serve new development. WHEREAS, the City of Yakima has historically provided wastewater service to properties located outside of the incorporated portions of the City under the terms and conditions set forth in the 1976 "Agreement for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Service ", as amended from time to time (hereafter the "4 -Party Agreement "); and WHEREAS, the Yakima City Council passed Resolution 2004 -30 adopting a City policy for annexation and the associated elements necessary for consideration of and response to requests for wastewater sewer extensions to properties Tying outside of the incorporated City boundaries; and WHEREAS, through Yakima County Resolution 401 -2009 and Yakima County Ordinance No. 11 -2009, Yakima County withdrew from the 1977 Urban Area Regional Planning •Agreement effective January 1, 2010 and transferred the responsibility for planning for unincorporated portions of the Yakima Urban Area from the Regional Planning • Commission to the Yakima County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the 4 -Party Agreement requires that the Regional Planning Commission serve as the long -range planning body for the Yakima Urban Area and requires use of a single long range comprehensive plan and common zoning and subdivision law; and WHEREAS, as a result of the County's actions, the Regional Planning Commission will no longer be planning for unincorporated portions of the Yakima Urban Area; and WHEREAS, the Yakima Urban Area may no longer be governed by a single long range comprehensive plan and common zoning and subdivision law; and WHEREAS, the City of Yakima's duty to serve unincorporated areas under the 4- Party Agreement is predicated on the City's participation in planning and land use decisions, through the Regional Planning Agreement and otherwise as set forth in the 4 -Party Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Yakima is not an exclusive supplier of wastewater service to unincorporated portions of the Urban Area; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the City's fiscal responsibility to assure that the necessary capacity is available to provide urban levels of service, including wastewater treatment and conveyance, to meet the present demands and the inevitable increases resulting from growth within the City limits, the City of Yakima must exercise active participation and discretion in the decision - making process concerning the extension of City • wastewater services to proposed development outside the City limits; and City Wastewater 1 Service Policy WHEREAS, the City of Yakima has determined that the previous policies established for sewer extension into the unincorporated areas require updating and revision, and that future connections of new customers to the City's wastewater utilities in the unincorporated County will be at the City's sole discretion after careful review and analysis; and WHEREAS, the preamble to Resolution 2004 -30 set forth the City's historic policies on growth and annexation; and WHEREAS, the Yakima Urban Area is the established growth area for the City's future expansion, as determined by the County Commissioners to reflect anticipated City growth over the next twenty years; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to provide greater specificity in the considerations that the City will utilize when determining the extension of wastewater service and sewer : lines into the unincorporated portions of the Yakima Urban Area adjacent to the City's boundaries, Now, Therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The City . of Yakima Wastewater Service Policy for the provision of wastewater service and extension of sewer lines into the unincorporated portions of the Yakima Urban Area shall be as set forth below: I. Public Health /Safety and Emergency Service Cases The City of Yakima will consider allowing the extension of wastewater service to developed properties within the unincorporated portions of the Yakima Urban Area on a case -by -case basis where the following public health, safety and emergency conditions exist: A. An existing septic system serving the property is in failure and no reasonable cost- effective alternative exists, as determined by the Department of Health; and B. The applicant or owner has assumed responsibility for the cost of sewer extensions including applicable fees and charges; of the owner has executed an Outside Utility Agreement in a form provided by the City; and the applicant or owner has satisfied any further specific conditions deemed reasonable and necessary by the City. I1. Wastewater Service to New Development; Review Required The City of Yakima will consider allowing the extension of wastewater service to new development within the unincorporated portions of the Yakima Urban Area on a case -by- case basis in light of the following factors. A. If the development is contiguous to the then - existing City limits, annexation of the area must be initiated prior to development through submittal of a valid petition for annexation into the City, B. If a proposed development within the unincorporated Yakima Urban Area is not contiguous to the then - existing City limits, the City in its discretion may approve the extension of wastewater lines under the following conditions: 1. The property owner(s) requesting said service executes Outside Utility Agreements for each property for which City sewer service has been requested. Said commitment shall be a covenant running with the land and the property owner must ensure that it City Wastewater 2 Service Policy • • appears on the face of any plat of said development as a condition attached to each parcel of the development; and 2. The property owner shall secure from the County written comments regarding future annexation of the subject area; and 3. Land use densities of the proposed development shall be consistent with those provided for in the "Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan "; and 4. The applicant or owner has satisfied any further specific conditions deemed reasonable and necessary by the City. In addition to the above, the following shall apply to all extensions of wastewater service to new development within the unincorporated portions of the Yakima Urban Area: The City shall review each proposed annexation of property to consider the City's ability to serve the development with all City - provided urban services, including, but not limited to fire, police, refuse, transportation and wastewater services, and shall prepare a written finding of said review. Requests for wastewater service extension may be denied if it is determined that the City does not have the ability to serve the area with the full complement of urban services. II. The design of sewer lines within a proposed development and from the existing Public Sewer line shall be approved by a City Engineer in writing prior to the City providing authorization for wastewater service to the • development. A development shall not connect to the City's off- development public wastewater collection systems unless and until said connection satisfies applicable City sewer service policies and is approved by the City Engineer. III. Costs and fees associated with wastewater service and sewer extension, together with all other infrastructure necessary to support the development, shall be paid for by the property developer. Nothing in this Resolution is intended to limit the City's obligation to serve local improvement districts (LIDs) formed prior to March 1, 2010 or the City's obligations to property owners under agreements existing as of the date of approval of this Resolution. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 23` day of March, 2010. ATTEST: Micah Cawley, Mayor City Clerk • • City Wastewater 3 Service Policy Sewer Extension Outside City Limits • Jurisdiction Policy • Pasco Annexation required prior to sewer extension • ✓ Uses an OUA type process for extension in the UGA. Extension, done at Kennewick developers expense. New development constructed to current City codes. (Res passed Dec 2009) ✓ Wenatchee In process of updating plans. Have a study showing areas within UGA where sewer will be extended. r Enter in agreement supporting and providing for annexation when the City Bremerton deems appropriate, consistent with comp plan, and consistent with adopted City street and subdivision standards. h Spokane Enter in agreement requiring all fees paid by property owner, no additional connections, lien against the property, recorded with Auditor. L No new sewer connections allowed outside of city limits. Annexation is Bellingham required, except under certain circumstances extension can be allowed by City Council. • • • • • T SERVICE Publ S G 0 0 ® `t. 44�' ,'- • 128 North Second Street • Fourth Floor Courthouse • Yakima, Washington 98901 (509) 574 -2300 • 1- 800 - 572 -7354 • FAX (509)574 -2301 • www.co.ycikirno.wa.ii,s i. f r�0<1]RR.41,, VERNM. REUIFER, Y.E. Direcior C O43NTY January 27, 2010. Bruce Benson RF C,lVFt) City of Yakima Thomas Upton, PLS 4 � r Thomas Upton Land Surveying 8A.,\2/1).°1./11,7 ,l P.O. Box 2514 X17 °( Qp = Y Yakima, WA 98907 • PLANNING DIt; Re: Second Notice of Incompleteness File Number: SUB09 -075, CUP 09 -090 & SEP 09 -042 — Cottonwood Grove Phase 8 & 9 . Dea IVY, Upton: . Thank you for the additional information that you submitted on January 13, 2010. The revised 4111) information that you submitted for the Preliminary Long Plat Application, Class 3 Administrative Review and Environmental Checklist,. has been reviewed and prior to proceeding with processing 'we would like to give you the opportunity to clarify your.response on two matters that will more fully respond to the . county's earlier request. - In our previous notice of incompleteness we sent you on December 15, 2009, we asked that you address the following matters prior to proceeding with the processing of your application. The purpose of this request was to insure that.you received appropriate consideration of your application. (l) Written approval from the City of Yakima for the provision of sewer service. . (2) Building setback lines on the preliminary plat. (3) Nonstandard block lengths. • (4) Nonstandard street right -of -way widths. (5) . Provisions for drainage ways and flood control measures. -. . You provided sufficient information for items #1, #2, and #3 of this list, but your response was • not responsive to our request for information as to item (4), Nonstandard street right -of -way widths, and to item (5), Provisions for drainage ways and flood control measures. The County's understanding of your responses to items (1) —(3) is contained in the following discussion. • Regarding.item #1, your attorney, Mr. Andreotti, stated in his letter dated January 5, 2010, which was submitted with the information received on January 13, 2010, that the Public Services Department -is without authority to require the written approval from the City of Yakima for ' sewer service prior to processing the preliminary plat application. . The City of Yakima, which has jurisdiction over the north 60 feet of this plat, advised the Board - of Yakima County Commissioners by letter dated November 24, 2009 from the Mayor that • written approval for sewer service is required prior to SEPA or subdivision review on any proposed plats that would use City sewer service within the Yakima urban growth area but outside the Yakima city limits. The County is responsible for coordinating with other agencies as • • ® appropriate in multi - jurisdictional planning activities, as identified on page F -7 of the Urban Area •Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to the interlocal agreement between the City and the County, sewer service in the Yakima urban growth area is governed by the •four -party agreement for wastewater treatment and disposal requiring the County to encourage annexation where feasible of properties who propose to use City sewer services. Annexation to the City appears to be an available option for this property and is therefore encouraged. Therefore, the County has determined that review of' your plat application may proceed without written approval for sewer service. However, without City approvals you may limit your options for future development. Annexation and review of the plat through the City remains the preferred option. Regarding item 42, the requirement to show minimum building setback lines was met with the revised preliminary plat received January 13, 2010. • Regarding item #3, we are not aware what standard the City used when it approved the nonstandard block immediately east of Phase 8. However, a request is shown on the face of the revised preliminary plat that describes the reasons for the design of two blocks in the development which would exceed the standard maximum length of 1,000 feet. The statement shown on the resubmitted preliminary plat received January 13, 2010 is acceptable and satisfies the required identification of a request to allow an adjustment to the standard. We would offer the following explanation as to the two items we identified earlier as having not been answered adequately. Regarding item #4, the face of the revised preliminary plat shows a roadway section, including a rolled curb design, and acknowledgement of similar right -of -way reductions in plats in the vicinity. The rolled curb design is consistent with the standard for the interior streets, however it • would not meet the standard of YCC 14.52.100 for the extension of Nob Hill, a through street. The accompanying January 5, 2010 letter notes that Yakima County had previously approved identical road layouts with reduced right -of -way in Cottonwood Grove Phases 6 and 7, however as a technical point, those phases were part of a 2005 plat that was reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima. The City may find that the proposed rolled curb and sidewalk design will be inconsistent with the required standards for Midvale Road as well, which is within the city limits. The request bn the resubmitted preliminary plat received January 13, 2010 presumes the Board of • Yakima County Commissioners will not have any problem granting these adjustments. However, further justification is required to accept this request•as complete. Please provide us with details as to the topography of the site that will permit the reduced right -of -way and accommodate the necessary space needed for stormwater improvements for street runoff and will insure that runoff is kept separate from the stormwater generated by individual lots. These improvements may alternately be located within easements adjacent to the right -of -way, however the justification for • the reduced standard must be provided. Regarding item #5, areas of this plat are determined to be within the FEMA floodplain and floodway on the draft FEMA Flood Insurance Maps for Shaw Creek previously provided to you. The study utilized the FEMA approved hydrology, current hydraulic methods, high resolution • ground data and historical data, particularly from local landowners. FEMA Bulletin 1 -98 deals with community usage of draft and preliminary FEMA Flood Insurance maps. It states in AE zones that "in .cases where BFEs increase in the restudied • area, communities have the responsibility to ensure that new or substantially improved structures are protected, particularly if • the increases in the BFEs are significant...FEMA encourages 'communities to reasonably utilize • • • this information in •instances where BFEs increase and floodways are revised to ensure that the health, safety and property of their citizens are protected. ".. The flohdplain and floodway must be shown on both the preliminary and •final plats, and accommodation must be made for the environmental constraints (e,g., one -acre lot sizes within areas subject to flooding. or other provisions for drainage ways added to the preliminary plat design). • Extensive discussion of the flooding issues related to the Shaw Creek drainage on the subject property go back to the original phases (1 and 2) of Cottonwood Grove, documented through • historical data and testimony, including references to overland flow and volumes in excess of • capacity of the perched creek (or ditch) design in relation to the landscape. These data were gathered for the decision on Cottonwood Grove Phases 1 and 2 FEMA maps issued in 1985 did not show the Shaw Creek flows or associated flooding concerns that were addressed in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for Cottonwood Grove Phases 1 and 2. A copy of that decision is attached for your convenience. Section 10.6 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on Cottonwood Grove Phases 1 and 2, • Phased Review, issued on March 7, 2001, informed the developer at that time that flooding issues would need to be dealt with, presumably prior to accepting future preliminary plats as complete for processing (p. 10). The recommendation also wamed in Section 10,3, Flooding and Storm Drainage, on page 9 that interposing Phases l and 2 would divert flooding problems to the west and south of that plat, Historical flooding events in this area were identified in photos and statements from the residents in past floods, • The County must find that the l h' plat makes appropriate provisions for drainage ways and will not exacerbate the flooding potential in the neighborhoods to the east, as provided in YCC 14.20.060. The National Flood Insurance Program 44 CFR 60,3 states that for flood -prone areas we have to take the FEMA draft maps into account. State Statute and County Ordinances require floodplains • to be shown on preliminary plats. YCC Title 13, adopting the International Building Code, • Appendix G, Section 301, as adopted by Yakima County, requires floodplain, floodway, and base flood elevations to be shown on the preliminary plat and the final plat. The subdivision ordinance in Subsection 14.28.040(2) requires showing easements on the plat for proposed drainage, none • of which are shown on either the origins] or the revised preliminary plat received to date. Therefore, the plat layout will be significantly changed either by lot size changes or addition to the preliminary plat of some kind of drainage right -of -way pursuant to YCC 14.20.010(3)(b) and 14.28.040(2) to mitigate for flooding, Preliminary plats are by definition in YCC 14.08.170 the neat and approximate drawing showing the general layout which will serve as the basis for the approval or disapproval of the general layout of the subdivision, and pursuant to YCC 14.20.1 10 . serve as a guide to the preparation of the final plat., In consideration of the natural flooding constraints related to the Shaw Creek drainage, and no • accommodation for.drainage indicated, your preliminary plat application will still be considered incomplete. A complete preliminary plat would resemble the general layout of a plat capable of • being processed and would serve as a guide for preparing the final plat. Yakima County makes the information regarding the flood hazards available to the developer as it is obtained. The FEMA.draft Flood Insurance Maps for Shaw Creek have been provided to the applicant for this subject parcel showing that it and parcels developed to east are within the 100 -year floodplain and floodway, and subject to associated regulations, as agreed in the early assistance meeting. • The current plat does not meet those restrictions. It is the responsibility of the developer rather • than the County to propose measures that will mitigate the impacts that the development will cause. • ® Over the course of the last year Yakima County has engaged in conversations with the Cottonwood Partners, the West Valley School District and the City of Yakima concerning the flooding situation on this property. Flooding issues,' including that the development of the previous Cottonwood Grove phases diverted flooding problems to the west and south, have been most recently confirmed by the study prepared by West Consultants, Inc, on behalf of Yakima County and FEMA. (West Study). A copy of that study was provided to the Cottonwood Partners on January 15, 2010, as soon as it was made available to Yakima County. All. parties must make a responsible decision on how this property can develop within the flooding constraints. - Subsection 15A.05.030(c) of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, as well as YCC 1 6C.03.27(3)(b)(iv) provide that the minimum lot size within floodplains shall be one acre. This minimum parcel size need not be the end of the discussion because the West Study presents an • opportunity for substantial and effective mitigation that not only benefits the Cottonwood .Partners' interests in Phases 8 and 9 of this plat, but also previously approved phases and other properties downstream all the way to Wal -Mart on Nob Hill and S. 64th Ave. However, - implementation of the West Study recommendations needs to be further coordinated with the school district and the owners of the property to the south. A specific channel proposal need not be implemented as part of this plat design, but it may inform the developers in proposing • adequate provisions for drainage ways across or around this property. This could be accomplished through SEPA mitigation provided that all parties choose to responsibly participate in a solution that involves this plat. The above information is part of the record in possession of the county. We acknowledge that the hydraulic model forecast of water on the road ways of Phases 3 through 7 and that there was flooding on Midvale Road during platting of Phases 1 and 2. We can either resolve these issues through adequate provisions for drainage informed by the West Study or conclude that in the absence of a collaborative approach to this, your application for development of phases 8 and 9 is premature. If not using the specific alternatives proposed by the West Study, new alternatives need to be' proposed. Additionally, the floodplain and floodway boundaries need to be shown on the preliminary plat. • Comments for SEP 09 -042: • The site plan is still considered incomplete. In order for Yakima County to review and assess the potential environmental impacts of your project, the site plan needs to show the proposed location . of all stormwater /drainage way facilities. • The SEPA checklist acknowledges flooding but the preliminary site map needs to address the floodplain and floodway issues which have been previously discussed. The FEMAIWest Study maps will • be used during the environmental review process. In the SEPA documents, please address potential impacts that may occur as a result of locating a residential development within an area known to be flood prone, Additionally, it would be beneficial•to propose mitigation for . these environmental impacts. Otherwise, the Yakima •County SEPA Official may determine that your proposal will result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Please sign and return to the Yakima County Public Services Department: Planning Division the attached Agreement to Pay Fees. • We are required to notify you that, because the application is still incomplete, processing has been kept on hold until we receive the described required information. You still have until March 15, 2010 to return the required submittals after which the file will lapse and become null and void. Once we receive the information, we have 14 days to review it and determine if the application is complete. If you would like • • A. • • • • to. meet to discuss these items we can set up a meeting on site in order to go over your proposal. If you _ have any questions concerning this letter please feel free to contact me 574 -2300. • Sincerely, . ell. , . 2r . Steve Erickson Planning Official /SEPA Responsible Official Attachments: Hearing Examiner March 7, 2001 Decision for Cottonwood Grove Phase 1 & 2 • Shaw Creek Flood Bypass Channel Report, prepared by West Consultants LLC . Agreement To Pay Fees Floodplain Management Bulletin I -98 cc: File • Cottonwood Partners What The Hay • West Valley School.Dist #208 Patrick Andreotti Vern Redifer Steven Erickson • Don Gatchalian 10 Terry Keenhan Terry Austin • Paul Mcllrath Dave Saunders Bruce Benson MDT Members • . • 1 G:\Dcvelopmcnt Services 'SUBDIVIS[ON /NOTICES\2009 \Second INCOMPLETE SUB 09.075 • CUP 09.090 • SEP 09 -042 (Cottonwood Panncrsl.dor '" • • • • • • Yndinn County ca.nrres fill compliance stir Tide VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 br prohibiting discrimination ngninsr inn person on the basis of tnec, color, nmion origin, or se.c in provision of benefits Uric/ se/Tient resulting f om its federally assisted programs and nrriyirics. For questons regarding 1'nkunn County s Title I'1 progrnm ran arm ronmrr the 1 / Coordinnror nl 509 -574- 2300. /f ibis letter pertains to n meeting nndro/, need sperinl nrCounmodn /ions please call us nt 309.574.2300 by /0 ;00 a.m. thee' dma pior ro the meeting. Fon TDD uses. picnic use die S tI,e Stites toll free rclnv scrnire 1- 800.831 -6J88 null ask the oprrntar to dint 509-514 -1J00. • • • • November 24, 2009 Board of Yakima County Commissioners 128 N. 2 Street Yakima, WA 98901 Dear Commissioners: On August 25, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners adopted County Resolution 401- 2009 which signified the intent of Yakima County to withdraw from the Yakima Urban Area Planning Agreement, effective. January 1, 2010. The City Council respects this decision by Yakima County. Subsequent policy discussions by the Yakima City Council identified a concern that sewer • line expansion outside the city limits and unplanned growth have contributed to residential sprawl. Continued investment outside the city limits has diverted limited public infrastructure resources from areas of need within the city and created demands on Public Works, Fire, Police and emergency resources which may not be sustainable under current economic conditions. In the past few weeks, the Council has endeavored to reassess City growth policies to reflect changing situations, as well as current and future needs of the citizens of the City of Yakima. This letter will summarize the policy direction of the Yakima City Council with respect to regional planning issues. 1. With the goal of reducing sprawl and refocusing City resources to complete infrastructure needs within the City of Yakima future expansions of the City's wastewater utilities into the unincorporated County will be limited and at the City's discretion. Yakima County should no longer assume that new development within the Yakima UGA will be served by the City wastewater service. Requests for such service should be submitted to the City's Planning Division for review and written approval prior to any SEPA, subdivision or building permit review. 2. The City Council at their study session on November 17, 2009, acknowledged the existing City annexation policy outlined in City Resolution 2004 -30. The main points are summarized as follows: • a. When (sewer) service is sought for property that is contiguous to the existing city limits, and the size of the property is sufficiently large to merit its annexation, in the opinion of the Director of Planning and Community Development, the • annexation of that property to the City shall be a condition of its receiving such service; b. An application for (sewer) service to any other property outside the corporate limits of the City of Yakima but within the Yakima urban area may be granted only after it has been determined that it is impractical or not feasible to annex that property to the City in the near future, and only under circumstances which will allow the development of that property to be controlled by city codes, regulations and policies, all as if such property were within the City. 3. The Yakima City Council will begin the process to establish a City of Yakima Planning Commission, under the authority of RCW 35.63. A new planning commission should be in place in early 2010. As noted previously, all new applications for public sewer outside the City of Yakima will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Nothing in these conditions will prevent the City from providing sewer service to replace a failing septic system, as determined by the Washington State Department of Health. Sincerely, 2 David Edler Mayor C: Yakima City Council Union Gap City Council • • f MEMORANDUM DATE: February 25, 2010 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Dick Zais, City Manager FROM: William Cook, Director of Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: Draft policy for evaluating requests for sewer extensions outside city limits Following Council's November 2009 study session, staff developed a draft implementation policy for evaluating requests to extend City sewer to development outside the city limits. You may remember that Council's direction to staff included: 1. refocusing city wastewater investment and planning into meeting the needs of unserved areas within the existing city limits; and • 2. restoring city control of deciding when and under what conditions wastewater service would be provided to new development proposed outside of the city limits. Attached is a draft of proposed evaluation criteria that would be used to respond to developer requests. The draft was reviewed by the Council Economic Development committee at their February 3, 2010 meeting. The Committee recommended this draft be forwarded for full Council discussion after it has been discussed with area homebuilders. The Council's Intergovernmental Committee, at their meeting on February 23,. 2010, discussed these criteria briefly with County Commissioner Mike Leita. Commissioner Leita asked that the criteria be carried forward for future discussion. Staff has been invited to attend the Central Washington Home Builder's Association meeting today, February 25th, to discuss the proposal further. Several councilmembers will also attend the lunchtime meeting. We will keep you posted as this draft moves forward. A final decision to implement these or an amended version of these criteria will ultimately be a decision of the full council. III • • • IIIC 11 "i ll III � mo ► i imakilEll ■1M —� I !;4 4 Wt .... `i•i!!...m.. ji SCENIC DR ! 1 ; & I . - � �= � milpsem m ov i inn N i1ik ) ti lido 411 O OD � 112.114 i i i ii lim m' ppr - � tai Kiwi i 1 > w w � �� � � _wise" 1 IitP Q > .r�� � ■■ - ■ ... i :4 I. UP IPPE1191. :I a - _ � , IA n NEN/iirg I III II. F �' � Jr-ii o N k ' 1 1 ry-ct. .,,, -- . - 11.- Ermitilmoi■..;-m1„,.. ` i i 1 iifigraiiiti i Emil* milm Emig u.1 i E. _ ,.„,,,_. _I RINVILMT itilm r ■ III 111 ILI a w •riir '� so 1 " 1 ; IS i1uI U11 ■11111 ■ M TI ETON D j UW j I1 - tal mull r wiTiormintrolo rionimailmirvamoRporabw---Iiiiic - 6■■■t .app �w Z Hi ■■ ■■■ , _ ■ -y ■ Sri... _.. ii. , .�.: ■ _ ■ !I!W z X 1 ■ '-� , !TM ._ 1 1 Ii .: 1 1 01 - is , „,„,•; .r.j �.r � �' _ � ► n : , BLVD W ■ ■i dratillkalig 1111. � Qi�, ■ :,,e) I L BORLE I ---,_- 1110011alr III - m i ■.�� rr1 1 ?, ■'■m E AD E w " fa . . ■ 1 111 ► . � ..� _ ■. ,. 11111x p1u! �, � .6,0,.....(0111 ♦���r� I�■ ~. ■ ■ .1 ■■ 1 RD 1 �' � lor prEmirwmpimm l � --� -in rr11 ■r I 111111 4 . ._ ,, 41 1 010 . , , . - 111.111E Ira MINN la ' III jprtir 1 l i I • i SL.,`, ' ■i iip ` � GK _ �� lialde11111MIN i� 1�` � � pN, G O B " �l G os 11 I: � r1 ■ pccZETA ■I d a , .N� a :111 ^ .■� I ■� mil i [NmintraA111111111111fitrat a MI APPLE TREE PWy r , I �• © • ili i RN _ ANI um [�� im ..sA. � 1 11 Foam = irjr. • - ION s T - - - -- ■ ■iL i n di i iiiii . r ......, wplrail lom — ■�1■ 1 ■ ■►i■■■ .11/1 = ' �/ :11111 1 �. e. • -•1 - ' anal fs.�Y..rarr ■�ii.f�a ir- r�rm-� — � �������� �1 ■ I II I111 � � — """ �i1 "' '1 ritior — � s R - a PLAT HISTORY 711 � ■� Started as County Preliminary Plats LO' Nom° } M� " MB Started as City Preliminary Plats • RI w w [� —. ■ . A total of 5,245 lots were identified west of 64th — !• - M :i� City Limits ■Nuo !♦� A ��� Avenue that were created by Plats. Of that total, 794 "~' '" ' lots (15 %) started as Preliminary Plats approved by U! I1I Yakima Urban Area the Yakima City Council and the remainding 4451 lots (85 %) started as Preliminary Plats approved by MN the Yakima County Commissioners. RUT ERFORD RD I f l 1 f T I I I