Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-2026 YPC Packet The meeting will also be recorded and posted on the Y-PAC website. Visit the Yakima Planning Commission webpage for more information, including agenda packets and minutes. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Bill Preston, P.E., Director Trevor Martin, AICP, Manager Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509) 575-6183 • Fax (509) 575-6105 • Email: ask.planning@yakimawa.gov CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION Yakima City Hall Council Chambers 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 March 25, 2026 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. YPC MEMBERS: Chair Mary Place, Vice-Chair Charles Hitchcock, Jeff Baker, Roy Gondo, Leanne Hughes-Mickel, Anne Knapp, Colleda Monick, Philip Ostriem, Kevin Rangel, Frieda Stephens, and Shelley White City Council Liaison: Matt Brown, Felisa Gonzalez CITY PLANNING STAFF: Bill Preston (Community Development Director), Lisa Maxey (Admin. Assistant), Trevor Martin (Planning Manager), Eric Crowell (Senior Planner), Jason Radtke (Senior Planner), Connor Kennedy (Associate Planner), Eva Rivera (Planning Technician) AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Staff Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes – March 11, 2026, Meeting V. Public Comment VI. Begin to Discuss Adequate Provisions VII. Other Business VIII. Meeting Recap IX. Adjourn Next Meeting: April 8, 2026 1 of 19 - 1 - 03/11/2026 YPC Minutes City of Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) Meeting Minutes March 11, 2026 Call to Order Chair Place called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Roll Call YPC Members Present: Chair Mary Place, Vice-Chair Charles Hitchcock, Jeff Baker, Roy Gondo, Leanne Hughes-Mickel, Anne Knapp, Colleda Monick, Kevin Rangel, Frieda Stephens, Shelley White YPC Members Absent: Philip Ostriem (excused) Staff Present: Trevor Martin; Planning Manager, Eva Rivera; Planning Technician City Council Liaison: Matt Brown, Felisa Gonzalez Staff Announcements – The next Codes and Coffee March 25, 2026, from 8-10 AM at Starbucks on 5906 Summitview Ave. Approval of Minutes from February 25, 2026- Commissioner Gondo moved to approve the meeting minutes from February 25, 2026, Commissioner Stephens seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Place asked to post a link to the meeting videos on the meeting minutes. Public Comment – None Review of Critical Areas Ordinance – Oneza, consultant from BERK, Jennifer Gross and Andra Bachman from Perteet joined virtually A PowerPoint handout was emailed to the Commissioners prior to the meeting and printed copies were provided at the meeting. The document has been added to the meeting record. The consultants went over the PowerPoint and their recommendations. The Commissioners discussed the recommendations and suggested changes to the Critical Areas Ordinance. January & February 2026 Building Permit Reports- There was no discussion regarding this item. Other Business – The following outstanding action items were removed: • Transit ridership information will be provided. • Elements of the Comp Plan rough drafts will be reviewed in January or February. • Alphabetize Table 4.1 by category. • Establish a method for capturing and tracking action items. • An EV charging station policy will be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan. • Pg. 23 parking space extends to 9 feet. • The commission will go through the comprehensive plan page by page. • The Land Capacity Analysis currently under review by the Transpo group will be provided. Commissioner White requested that BERK include in the Land Capacity Analysis a distinction between vacant parcels and backyards for the R‑1 and R‑2 zoning district. 2 of 19 - 2 - 03/11/2026 YPC Minutes Meeting Recap – Action Items & Decisions: None Outstanding Action Items • Study session on road standards will be held. • Capacity analysis and setbacks will be reviewed without BERK’s participation. • A new section for congregant living will be added to the code and reviewed by the Commission. Future Items • Right of way assessments for vacant buildings will be explored. • Staff will notify and update the Commission when the countywide policies are completed. • Downtown Action Plan - staff will determine if the Planning Commission will be involved. • Staff will coordinate a future roundtable with experts to discuss design standards. A motion to adjourn to March 25, 2026, was passed with a unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:48 p.m. Chair Place Date This meeting was filmed by YPAC. The meeting video is available at the following link:https://videos.yakimawa.gov/internetchannel/search?channel=2&query=planning%20commission Minutes for this meeting submitted by: Eva Rivera, Planning Technician. 3 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists City of Yakima: Adequate provisions checklists This appendix provides checklists to use in documenting barriers and programs and actions to achieve housing availability (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d)). These checklists include the following: Exhibit B1: Moderate density housing barrier review checklist Exhibit B2: Low-Rise or mid-Rise multifamily housing barrier review checklist Exhibit B3: Supplemental barrier review checklist for PSH and emergency housing Exhibit B4: Accessory dwelling unit barrier review checklist Exhibit B5: Checklist for local option tools for addressing affordable housing funding gaps Documentation of the barriers to housing availability and the programs or actions needed to overcome these barriers must be in a public document and typically should be included as an appendix to the comprehensive plan housing element. Additionally, Exhibit 1: Proposed Changes by Zone summarizes BERK's recommended modifications for each zone based on the findings this adequate provisions analysis and new state requirements. Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element Updating your housing element to address new requirements 4 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier review checklists Exhibit B1: Moderate density housing barrier review checklist Barrier Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Unclear development regulations No This has not come up as a concern. housing types, such as: Duplexes Triplexes Four/five/six-plexes Townhomes Cottage housing Live-work units Yes No clear mention of triplex, or multiplex. All Zones: Manufactured/mobile home parks found under YMC 15.04.150 . Permit process for Manufacturing Home Parks is not clearly defined in the code. Consider adding triplex or multiplexes in the code. Add middle housing standards per HB 1110. Clarify a permit process for manufactured/mobile homes parks in the code. High minimum lot sizes Yes For single-family the minimum lot size is 6,000 sf and duplexes the minimum lot size is 7,000 sf. The minimum lot size requirement for duplexes is too high. GMA allows all single family residentials to include duplexes. Therefore, a different lot size is not needed. Minimum lot size for SF, duplex and zero lot line in zones other than R zones is too high and will prohibit moderate density housing. Mixed use and multi-family housing is allowed in B-1, B-2, SCC, LCC, GC, CBD, and RD under Table 4-1. Zero lot line is defined as one common wall only: “Zero lot line” means the location of a dwelling on a lot in such a manner that one of the sides of the dwelling rests directly on a side lot line. This limits development to two units only. Townhomes and rowhouses should allow zero lot line on both sides for middle units. duplexes to match the detached SF dwelling size of 6000 sf. in SR, R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones. Consider reducing lot size from 6000 sq-ft in B-1, B-2, SCC, LCC, GC, CBD, and RD zones to support various housing types with moderate density (e.g. duplex, multifamily) that are allowed in Table 4-1. Consider updating the zero lot line definition to allow zero lot line (townhomes) on both sides. Add townhome as a permitted use under attached single family home. 5 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. Cottage housing Cottage housing requires minimum 400 sf of common open space per dwelling, and 200 sf for private open space. This makes the lot (development) size requirements too high. The code requires 10,000 sf development size. Cottage housing The city can consider reducing the development size from 10,000 sf to smaller to fit a minimum of four units under cottage housing. Also add this requirement under YMC 15.05 Table 5-2. Low maximum densities or low maximum FAR Yes 15.04.030) and YMC 15.03.020 C.2: YMC 15.04.030 - Table 4-1 Same densities in R-2 and R-3 Zones • 8-12 DU/NRA • 13+ DU/NRA Reads that lower density (0-7 DU/NRA) is allowed in R2, R3, B-1 and B-2. YMC 15.03.020 - C2 and D2 R-2 Zone • Density "up to twelve dwelling units per net residential acre R-3 zone • Requires "more than twelve dwelling units per net residential acre" in R-3 Lot coverage • R1, R2 - 60% in Table 5-1 (YMC 15.05.030). This is low for duplex, attached SF, cottage housing and other middle housing types in R-2 Update code to match density between sections. Update code as follows: • R-3 - 13 units of more for R3. • R-2 - 8-12 DU/NRA • Remove 0-7 density references from R-2 and R-3 zones • Allocate minimum density for each zone or regulate thought lot coverage under non-residential zones Increase lot coverage for R2 zone for developments that is consistent with 12 units per acre max density. Low maximum building heights Partially zones, which is typically the tallest max height for such moderate density zones. Consider increasing height limits for R-3 and commercial zones Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic 6 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. 50 ft height limit for R-3 zone can be limiting for higher and moderate density structures. Large setback requirements Yes - 20 ft from the front property line - 5 ft in general, or 10 ft from the side property line abutting right-of-way - 20 ft for rear setbacks A front and rear setback combination that takes up 40 feet is high and prohibitive of developments. Consider reducing the front and/or rear setbacks to keep the total within 25 - 30 ft. High off-street parking requirements Yes residential uses, with multifamily development 10 of more units at 1.5 space per DU, and less than 10 units at 2 space per DU. Two parking spaces per unit is a developments. It is likely not a barrier for single family lots in SR ad R-1 zones. Overall, this is non-compliance with SB 5184 parking requirements. Yakima will need to update its development regulations to comply with this new law SB 5184 by January 2027. Update parking standards for compliance with the following requirements: ADU - 0 if under 1200 sq-ft Detached SF - 1 Duplex - 0.5 Studio - 0.5 3 bedroom apartment - 0.5 High impervious coverage limits No 60% lot coverage for SR, R-1 and R-2, 80% for R-3. Lack of alignment between building codes and development codes Yes Building code: The City has adopted 2021 Washington State Building Code. Triplexes and Fourplexes are moderate density housing. Code is silent about permit fee for this type of housing. Multifamily under six units, single-family homes, duplexes, and townhomes fall under the Master Building code: HB 2071 (2024) has the State Building Council looking to update and include middle housing under the Washington State Residential Code, which would better align building codes and allowed residential uses. The City can adopt state building code changes or make changes themselves. 7 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. density housing that is of similar size and only has one or two more units than a duplex under the residential code. Reference to townhouses is only found in the building code, but not in the zoning code. Add townhouses in the allowed use category in the zoning code. Other (for example: complex design standards, tree retention regulations, historic preservation requirements) Partially properties except for shoreline areas under YMC 17.05.030. Yakima does not have separate design standards in addition to existing development standards. Conditional use permit process No 1 and the permit type under YMC 15.04.020. The decision type table does not differentiate between specific residential uses; it appears to apply equally to all residential uses except for single family uses in B-1 and B-2 zones where type 3 permit is required for compatibility. Design review No information about process and 1 No 1 For example: guidance resources are unclear or difficult to find, no digital permit tracking system, staff do not provide fee estimates or permitting time estimates are unavailable or inaccurate. 8 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. Permit fees, impact fees and utility connection fees Yes Anecdotally, fees are a challenge for private landowners. Not sure about larger developers. Utility connection fees may be challenging for properties that are far from services in the UGA and also in of SR zone. or multifamily housing. Continue long-range utility planning in UGAs Seek infrastructure investments for underserved areas. Seek water/sewer investments. Processing times and staffing challenges Yes lesser capacity and can take longer to process permit applications. Online building application forms are available. Can consider full online application submittal. SEPA process Yes may not be necessary with other strong development regulations in place. YMC 6.88 adopts State SEPA rules. consistent with WAC 197-11-800 (1)(c) to encourage development (up to 30/60 units in the UGA and up to 20/25 units elsewhere for single family/multifamily). Lack of large parcels for infill development No Not a barrier. Environmental constraints Yes adjustments, RUEs are timely and expensive). TBD 9 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Exhibit B2: Low-Rise or mid-Rise multifamily housing barrier review checklist Barrier Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Unclear development regulations No Not a concern from permit application perspective. High minimum lot sizes No dwellings. They are regulated by density, 0-7 DU/NRA in R1, R2, R3 and B1 zones. These zones also allow 8-12 and 13+ DU/NRA. Not a barrier for lot size. Low maximum densities or low maximum FAR Low maximum building heights Yes which is typically the tallest max height for low-rise buildings. R-3 zone with 50 ft height limit can be limiting for mid-rise buildings. B-1 and B-2 zones with 35 ft height limit is not consistent with mixed-use mid-rise building types. Mixed use buildings are only allowed in these two zones. Increase building height for R-3, B-1 and B-2 zones. Large setback requirements Yes See discussion in Table B1 See recommendations in Table B1 High off-street parking requirements Yes The code currently requires 1.5 to 2 parking spaces per unit for low-rise and mid-rise multifamily housing. It requires 1.5 space per DU for multifamily development 10 of more units; and 2 space per DU for less than multifamily development with less than 10 units. regulations to comply with this new law SB 5184 by January 2027. Update parking standards for compliance with the following requirements: Studio - 0.5 10 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. Two parking spaces per unit is a barrier for low to mid- rise housing. High impervious coverage limits No 60% lot coverage for R-1 and R-2, 80% for R-3. Lack of alignment between building and development codes No code and if height is increased to four stories, that still matches stick wood construction type allowance. Other (for example: ground floor retail requirements, open space requirements, complex design standards, tree retention regulations, historic preservation No Conditional use permit process No 1 and the permit type under YMC 15.04.020. The decision type table does not differentiate between specific residential uses; it appears to apply equally to all residential uses except for single family uses in B-1 and B-2 zones where type 3 permit is required for compatibility. Design review No No Permit fees, impact fees and utility connection fees Possibly. has separate rates for single family vs multi family units. Yakima doesn't have impact fee. If impact fee is instated, ensure they meet SB 5258 requirements. 11 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. SB 5258 requires jurisdictions to have proportional impact fee schedules. Process times and staffing challenges Yes lesser capacity and can take longer to process permit applications. Online building application forms are available. Can consider full online application submittal. SEPA process No SEPA review processes can add time and expense that may not be necessary with other strong development regulations in place. consistent with WAC 197-11-800 (1)(c) to encourage development (up to 30/60 units in the UGA and up to 20/25 units elsewhere for single family/multifamily). Lack of large parcels for infill development Environmental constraints Yes CAO Permitting challenges (setbacks and buffer adjustments, RUEs are timely and expensive). Exhibit 1: Proposed Changes by Zone SR R-1 R-2 R-3 HB B-1 B-2 SCC LCC GC CBD RD Code Lot size (minimum) SF detached 6,000 sq- ft 6,000 sq-ft 6000 5,000 sq-ft 6000 4,000 sq- ft 6000 sq-ft where permitte 6000 sq-ft where permitted (Do not allow single family residential) Table 5-2 (YMC 15.05.030) 12 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists SR R-1 R-2 R-3 HB B-1 B-2 SCC LCC GC CBD RD Code SF attached/ zero lot line/ townhomes/ common wall 4,000 sq- ft 4,000 sq-ft 3,500 sq-ft 3,500 3,000 sq- ft change of existing use Two-Family Dwelling/ duplex 8,000 6,000 sq-6,000 6,0005,000 sq-ft 6,0004,00 0 sq-ft Multifamily Dwelling/ PD Density May Not Exceed Maximum Number of Dwelling Units Permitted per Net Residential Acre. Density (minimum) 1 DU/5 acres 4 lots/NR 78 DUlots/NRA DUlots/N 13 lots/NRA 13 lots/NRA 13 lots/NRA lots/NR lots/N lots/NR lots/N YMC 15.03.020; Table 4-1 (YMC 15.04.030) Density (Maximum) 7 DU/NRA DU/NRA (no 12 DU/NRA No Max Lot Coverage 60% 60% 60% 70% 80% 85% 90% 100% (YMC Building Height 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 50 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft NA 50 ft Setback (front) 2015 ft 20 15 ft 20 15 ft 20 15 ft Setback (rear) 15 ft 15 ft 15 10 ft 15 10 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft Parking Apply SB 5184 (YMC Commented [FO1]: Commented [FO2]: Commented [FO3]: Consider more height from 50 ft to 13 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists SR R-1 R-2 R-3 HB B-1 B-2 SCC LCC GC CBD RD Code Cottage Housing 10,000 sq-ft 10,000 sq-ft 10,000 sq-ft 15.09.035 and Table 5- 2, (YMC Commented [FO4]: Reduce lot size? 14 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Exhibit B3: Supplementary barrier review checklist for PSH and emergency housing Barrier Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barriers. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Spacing requirements (for example, minimum distance from parks, schools or other 2 Unlikely None mentioned in the code. No code on EH; need to add PSH in code. Parking requirements Possibly 6.92.060 includes residents living in parking. No separate parking requirement is identified. On-site recreation and open space requirements No None in YMC 6.92 Restrictions on support spaces, such as office space, within a transitional or PSH building in a No None mentioned in the code. accessory spaces. Arbitrary limits on number of occupants (in conflict with RCW 35A.21.314) No None mentioned in the code. Requirements for PSH or emergency housing that are different than the requirements imposed on housing developments generally (in conflict with No Site plan requirement under YMC 6.92. No site development is required. Other restrictions specific to emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing Yes PSH Temporary small houses are allowed under YMC 6.92.070 supportive housing as separate use types in the code for clarity. 2 Note that RCW 35A.21.430 expressly states requirements on occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use may not prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing or indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each code city's projected need for such housing and shelter under RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a)(ii). The restrictions on these uses must be to protect public health and safety. 15 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists 16 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Exhibit B4: Accessory dwelling unit barrier review checklist Barrier DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Consistent with HB 1337 (2023) Must allow two ADUs on each lot in urban growth areas; May not require the owner to occupy the property, and may not prohibit sale as independent units, but may restrict the use of ADUs as short term rentals; Must allow an ADU of at least 1,000 square feet; Must set parking requirements based on distance from transit and lot size; May not charge more than 50% of the impact fees charged for the principal unit; Must permit ADUs in structures detached from the principal unit; May not restrict roof heights of ADUs to less than 24 feet, unless that limitation applies to the principal unit; May not impose setback requirements, yard coverage limits, tree retention mandates, restrictions on entry door locations, aesthetic requirements, or requirements for design review for ADUs that are more restrictive than those for principal units; Must allow an ADUs on any lot that meets the minimum lot size required for the principal unit; Must allow detached ADUs to be sited at a lot line if the lot line abuts a public alley, unless the city or county routinely plows snow on the public alley; Must allow conversions from existing structures, even if they violate current code requirements for setbacks or lot coverage; and May not require public street improvements as a condition of permitting Yes YMC 15.09.045 includes ADU regulations. The Code is not consistent as follows: - Only one ADU is allowed per single family; lot size is not specified - Silent on not requiring owner's occupancy - Silent on parking based on transit proximity - Does not seem to have owner occupancy requirements Update code: - Allow two ADUs - Add lot size standards - Add parking near transit standards - Clarify non-owner occupancy Unclear development regulations No Large setback requirements No Off-street parking requirements Yes Standards are not in compliance with HB 5184 for 0 parking under 1200 sq- ft Update the code 17 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier regulations, historic preservation requirements, open space No Not a barrier Lack of clear and accessible information about process and fees Yes HB 1337 Update the code Permit fees, impact fees and utility connection fees that are not proportionate to impact Yes, potentially impact fees in Yakima Processing times and staffing challenges Yes Identified as an on-going challenge. Work on-going to address. administrative review - reduces processing time and staff power. 18 of 19 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Exhibit B5: Checklist for local option tools for addressing affordable housing funding gaps Housing and related services sales tax (RCW 82.14.530) Implemented YMC 3.78.065 Affordable housing property tax levy (RCW 84.52.105) Not applied REET 2 (RCW 82.46.035) – GMA jurisdictions only and only available through 2025 Not applied Affordable Housing Sales Tax Credit (RCW 82.14.540) – was only available to jurisdictions through July 2020 Not applied Lodging Tax (RCW 67.28.150 and RCW 67.28.160) to repay general obligation bonds or revenue bonds Not applied Flexibility on lodging tax to short term rentals? (i.e., Air BNB?) Mental Illness and Drug Dependency Tax (RCW 82.14.460) – jurisdictions with a population over 30,000 Not applied Donating surplus public lands for affordable housing projects ( 39.33.015) Not applied Impact fee waivers for affordable housing projects (RCW 82.02.060) No impact fee in Yakima Application fee waivers or other benefits for affordable housing projects (RCW 36.70A.540) Not applied Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) with affordable housing requirement (RCW 84.14) Not applied General funds (including levy lid lifts to increase funds available) Not applied * Some tools may be unavailable for certain jurisdictions. For example, only GMA jurisdictions can use REET 2, or the surrounding county may have already implemented the housing and related services sales tax. See MRSC’s summary of Affordable Housing Funding Sources for more details and the Association of Washington Cities (AWC)/MRSC booklet on Homelessness & housing toolkit for cities (2022). Commented [FO5]: 19 of 19