Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-15 YPC PacketCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENI'DEPARTMENT loan.Davenport, AICP, Director [11anning D,ivisii on 1,29 Pliforlit Second Sfreet_�',,Ilnd Hoor YaAftna, 98901 f1hone 6J 11111, a"t L�t)�)) 0 105 icsvtc.ya k hre a7va.g4 uvl�"ery a ces�"p lann inlg City of Yakima Planning Commission PUBLIC MEETING City Hall Council Chambers Wednesday February 11, 2015 3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. YPC Members: Chairman Dave Fonfara, Vice -Chair Scott Clark, Al Rose, Paul Stelzer, Bill Cook, Patricia Byers, Ron Anderson FOR I'lq, R E 00 RD / F 11 i E City Planning Staff: Joan Davenport (Community Development Director/Planning Manager); Jeff Peters (Supervising Planner); Valerie Smith (Senior Planner); Robbie Aaron and Trevor Martin (Assistant Planners); and Rosalinda lbarra (Administrative Assistant) Agenda I. Call to Order 11. Roll Call III. Staff Announcements IV. Audience Participation V. Opening of 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process VI. Report of Previous Interpretations Issued VII. Status Update - Moratorium Issues in the SCC Zones VIII. Other Business IX Adjourn Next Meeting- February 25, 2015 YaWma Dag SIGN-INSHEET City of Yakima Planning Commission City Hall Council Chambers Wednesday February 11, 2015 Beginning at 3:30 p.m. Meeting Page 1 02/11/2015 YPC Meeting IIS`-)fIIIII CITY OF YAKIMA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTRPRETATION ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REPORT INTRODUCTION: From approximately 1986 thru 2010, the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner conducted twenty- one hearings for zoning interpretations of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC) Title 15 Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO). Interpretations which were granted by the Examiner, were then supposed to be annually or semi-annually reviewed by the City of Yakima Planning Division and Yakima Planning Commission for incorporation into the City's UAZO as authorized by YMC 1.42.030 duties of the city Planning Commission. While many of these interpretations were adopted/incorporated into the City's code, there are a handful of interpretations that were approved by the Examiner, but for unknown reasons were not incorporated into the UAZO. Therefore, it is the purpose of this report to identify and bring forward any interpretation issued by the Examiner from 1986 to present for the Yakima Planning Commission's consideration and adoption into the City of Yakima UAZO. DESCRIPTION OF ZONING INTERPRETATIONS & STAFF RECOMENDATION 1. Interpretation: Allow modeling schools to be permitted as a home occupation in the Single -Family Residential (R-1) zoning district in Table 4-2. a. File Number(s): UAZO-INTER#1-87. b. Determination and Conditions of Hearing Examiner: Allowed in R-1, but limited to no more than 10 students. c. Staff Recommendation: Do not incorporate into UAZO as use is provided for under Home Instruction*' in Table 4-2. 2. Interpretation: Classify Adult Daycare in YMC 15.02 and 15.04 Table 4-1. a. File Number(s): UAZO-INTER#1-89. b. Determination and Conditions of Hearing Examiner: The Examiner defined an adult daycare as "a facility providing part-time, supervised medical and personal care for ambulatory and semi -ambulatory adults." Adult Daycares were allowed in the residential zoning districts as a Type (3) Use/Review. c, Staff Recommendation: Do not incorporate into UAZO as use is already provided for under the definition of a Daycare Center, and provided for in Table 4-1 as a Type (2) Review in the residential zoning districts. ' * Denotes definition in YMC § 15.02. Interpretation: Definition of and allowance of Mission Use in YMC 15.02 & 15.04 Table 4-1. a. File Number(s): UAZO-INTER# 1-92 & 2-95. b. Determination and Conditions of Hearing Examiner: The Examiner defined a Mission as a "facility typically owned or operated by a public agency or non- profit corporation, providing a variety of services for the disadvantaged, typically including by not limited to temporary housing for the homeless, dining facilities, health and counseling activities, whether or not of a spiritual nature, with such services being generally provided to the community at large". Zoning Districts Allowed: The Mission use was thence allowed in the Central Business District (CBD), Central Business District Support (CBDS), now General Commercial (GC), and Light Industrial (M-1) zoning districts as a Type (2) Use/Review. d. Staff Recommendation: Incorporate the new definition into YMC 15.02, and the proposed use in Table 4-1 as recommended by the Examiner. 4. Interpretation: Definition of, and allowance of, a "Dog Daycare Facility" use in YMC 15.02 & 15.04 Table 4-1. a. Determination and Conditions of Hearing Examiner: The Examiner a defined a Dog Daycare Facility as a "building or structure in which one or more persons regularly provide supervised care during daytime hours for periods of less than 24 hours a day for one or more dogs which they do not own". b. Zoning Districts Allowed: The Dog Daycare Facility use was allowed as a Type (2) Use/Review in the Local Business (B-2), Large Convenience Center (LCC), Central Business District (CBD), Central Business District Support (CBDS) now General Commercial (GC), and Light Industrial (M-1). c. Staff Recommendation: Incorporate the new definition into YMC 15.02, and the proposed use in Table 4-1 as recommended by the Examiner. 5. Interpretation: Definition of and allowance of a "Children's Outdoor Recreation Center" use in YMC 15.02 & 15.04 Table 4-1. a. Determination and Conditions of Hearing Examiner: The Examiner defined a Children's Outdoor Recreation Center as a "an outdoor facility which offers children's rides and/or games such as go-carts, bumper boats, batting cages, miniature golf and/or similar activities for children not older than 16 years of age and which does not operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.". b. Zoning Districts Allowed: The Children's Outdoor Recreation Center use was allowed as a Type (3) Use/Review in the Central Business District Support (CBDS) now General Commercial (GC) zoning district as a Type (2) Use/Review unless it was less than 500 ft. from abutting residential and contained a go-cart track, and then would be classified as an Type (3) Use/Review. c. Staff Recommendation: Incorporate the new definition into YMC 15.02, and the proposed use in Table 4-1 as recommended by the Examiner. CONCLUSIONS 1. Staff has reviewed the proposed zoning text amendments/zoning interpretation decisions and recommends denial of text amendments #1 and #2 as described above as both amendments are already incorporated into the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. Staff concludes that the proposed amendments #3 - 5 are minor in nature and should be incorporated as recommended by the Examiner; 3. No adverse impacts would be created by approval of the amendments. 4. The Planning Commission should review the proposed amendments and other zoning districts of the City, and determine if the proposed use should be allowed in any additional zoning districts. 5. Similarly, the Planning Commission should also review the level of review of each new land use classification and determine what level of review should be assigned to the new use in the designated zoning district. RECOMMENDATIONS Therefore, the Department of Community Development recommends DENIAL of text amendments #1 and #2, and APPROVAL of amendments #3 - 5, or as otherwise revised by the City of Yakima Planning Commission. Cable TV ......... r . , . , ... 575-6092 Code Administration . , „ „ „ , „ 575-6121 Housing .............. . „ . , 575-6101 Planning .......... ........575-6121 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (509) 575-6113 SCAN 278-6113 CITY HALL, YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 April 8, 1987 his. Penny J. Welch 18 North 59th Avenue Yakima, WA 95908 Dear Ms. Welch: Enclosed is a copy of the Hearing Examiner 's Interpretation on your request that rmdeling school be permitted as a horse occupation in single family residential districts. The request for modeling schools as a permitted home occupation in single family residential districts is granted subject to a maxim= of ten (10) students per class and compliance with applicable criteria for home occupations. An application is enclosed which should be completed and returned to this office with payment of $25.00. A business license wo-olication is also enclosed which should be completed and returned with payment of $28.60. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 575-6184. Very truly yours, d14Q� A . HADDIX Associate Planner Encl . OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA PHILIPA. LAMB 311 NORTH THIRD STREET, P.O. BOX4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 April 6, 1987 Glenn Rice, Director City of Yakima Department of Community & Economic Development 129 North 2nd Yakima, Washington 989o1 RE: Penny J. Welch Interpretation No. 1-87 Dear Glenn: i�f1�EYiv .,e�;iii�,#.i1�'i4in..;►',�i APR b 1987 RECEIVED (509) 248-0706 Enclosed you will find my Examiner's Interpretation for the above-named applicant. Sincerely, Philip A. Lamb PAL/bf Enc. cc w/enc: Mr. Richard Anderwald Mr. Graham Tollefson Request for Interpretation by PENNY J. WELCH, for Approval of a Modeling School as a Home Occupation in R-1. APR 6 .1987 1Fd�I�:D EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION City No. 1-87 Parcel No. n/a Examiner No. 87-9 BackQrounndd. Mrs. Penny J. Welch has submitted an application requesting that modeling schools be permitted as a home occupation in Single -Family Residential Districts (R-1). Jurisdiction. YMC Chapter 15.22 governs requests for interpretations from the Hearing Examiner. Section 15.22.050 identifies conditions which govern the Hearing Examiner in issuing use interpretations. Section 15.04.090, entitled Home Occupations, together with Table 4-2, set forth additional criteria for identification of uses as home occupations. Decision. This request for classification of modeling schools as a permitted home occupation in Single -Family Residential Districts (R-1 ) is granted, subject to a maximum of ten. (10) students per class and compliance with applicable criteria for home occupations, including YMC 15.04.090. Analis. This request for interpretation arises because modeling schools are not listed as a permitted home occupation on Table 4-2, p. 38, of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. The applicant indicates that modeling classes are conducted once or twice a week, generally between the hours of 7 p.m. and 9 p.m., with no more than ten nor less than three students per class. The average age of the students is 15 years. A modeling school of this nature is similar in use to the activities of a music teacher, which is a permitted home occupation, and will have less adverse impact upon the neighborhood than a day care, which is also a permitted home occupation. There is no evidence that this use has been previously considered and rejected by the legislative body during a text or a map amendment. Information supplied by the applicant indicates that the necessary conditions for home occupations, as set forth in YMC 15.04.090, will be met. EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 1 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 The findings of the Staff Report are adopted and incorporated herein by reference. DATED this 6th day of April, 1987. PHILIP �AL—AVB Hearing Examiner EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 2 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA PHILIPA. LAMB 311 NORTH THIRD STREET, P.O. BOX YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 March 10, 1989.. Glenn Rice, Director City of Yakima Community & Economic Development 129 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 RE: KAREN STEVENS/USE INTERPRETATION FOR ADULT DAY CARE FACILITIES City No. UAZO INTER #1-89 Examiner No. 89-5-4 Dear Glenn: (509) 248-0706 Enclosed is my Examiner's Interpretation requested by Karen Stevens. Sincerely, "- �( (Ij a Philip A. Lamb Hearing Examiner PAL/ b f Enc. cc w/enc: Mr. Richard Anderwald Mr. Graham Tollefson Request for Use Interpretation by KAREN STEVENS Re: Adult Day Care Facilities. EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION City No. UAZO INTER #1-89 Examiner No. 89-5-4 Background. The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance does not contain a use classification for adult day care, a less intensive use than nursing homes and convalescent homes. Jurisdiction. YMC 15.22 governs requests for interpretations from the Hearing Examiner. Section 15.22.050 identifies conditions which govern the Hearing Examiner in issuing use interpretations. Decision. Adult day care shall be permitted as a Class 3 use in all residential zoning districts, and be defined as a facility providing part-time, supervised medical and personal care for ambulatory and semi -ambulatory adults. Analysis. The findings and conclusions of the Staff Report are adopted and incorporated herein by reference. The Staff Report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." DATED this (0 day of March, 1989. PHILIP A. LAMB Hearing Examiner EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 1 HEARFOREHEINER CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 FEB 13 1989 PHILIP A. LAMB City of Yakima Department Of Community & Economic Development February 13,1989 Staff Report Subject: Request for Use Interpertation Proponent: Karen Stevens File: UAZO INTER *1-89 Staff Contact: Joan Davenport, Associate Planner (575-6164) Reqal�st The applicant requests zoning classification for a proposed Adult Day Care Center to be developed in the R-1, Single Pantily Residential Zoning District., The proposed facility as described by the applicant would accomodate approximately 50 clients whom are either dependent adults over the age of 18 or elderly persons who are ambulatory or semi -ambulatory (as defined by WAC 248-16- 001). Hearing Examiner Jurisdiction Section 15-04.9 of the YMC provides the Hearin authority to review and Classify any use not sPecifical] Examiner y Jistp in Tables 4-3. and 4-2. Chapter 15.22 of the Urban Are a Zoning Ordinance (UAZO) establishes the procedure for requests Pertation. Of inter - Background The applicant Proposes to locate this service in an existing church buildirIg complex, in order to make use of parking, kitchen and other facilities. The use is proposed as a commercial opera- tion rather than a non-profit facility. Findings The City of Yakima Division of Environmental Planning has reviewed this request and offers the following findings. 1. Adult Day Care Facilities are not listed in Table 4-1 or 4-2 Of the UAZO. Further, a definition for the use is not included in Chapter 15.02, Definitions of the UAZO. 2. The definitions provided in the UAZO (Chapter 15-02) for Day tiCare Center, Family or Mini specifically describe client Popula- ons of less than twelve years of age. Exhibit Pageof -3 3. Day Care Facilities (for children) are permitted in all Residential Zones as either Class 1,2, or 3 uses. 4. The proposed use is similiar in nature, but less intensive in terms of medical attention, to nursing homes or convelescent homes which are permitted as class 2 or 3 uses in the residen- tial zones. The proposed use does not include 24- hour- care associated with residential facilities. Rather,it is assumed that the service would operate during normal daytime business hours. 5. The UAZO contains definitions and provisions for group homes and halfway houses, neither of which adequately addresses the client population or activities proposed to be conducted in the adult day care center. Doth group homes and halfway houses imply some measures of behavioral rehabilitation which is not com- templated with this proposed use. 6.The UAZO provides for virtually all Community Services to be allowed as Class(2) or Class (3) uses in the residential zones. 7. The applicant has indicated a desire to place this use within an existing church facility, currently zoned R-1, Residential. However, this interpertation does not contemplate a specific location and therefore, other potential arrangements for estab- lishing Adult Day Care facilities should also be considered. Conclusion 1. The use interpertation process is designed to provide flexibility to the zoning code for the purpose of permitting com- patible uses in appropriate zoning districts. 2. The proposed use is simili_ar in nature to other Community Services uses currently permitted with Class (2) or (3) review in the residential zoning districts. The proposed use would be a valuable community asset in the Yakima community with its large elderly population. 3. The applicant has adequately documented the proposed ac- tivities of the center and possesses the qualifications necessary to design and implement the proposed service. Recommendation F hike . page of ' C The City of Yakima Division of Environmental Planning recommends that Adult Day Care Facilities be permitted all residential zoning districts as a Class (3) use and be defined as a facility which provides part-time, supervised medical and personal care for ambulatory and semi -ambulatory adults. Cable TV .............................. 575-6092 Code Administration--- 575-6121 Housing .............................. . 575-610I Planning .............................. 575-6113 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEI'ELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET CITY HALL, YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 (509) 575-6113 SCAN 278-6113 FAX 575-6105 NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION On February 27, 1992, the Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered his decision on the use interpretation concerning the Union Gospel Mission, UAZO Interp. #1-92. The request was reviewed at a public hearing held by the Hearing Examiner on February 13, 1992. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's Findings and decision is enclosed. Any part of the Hearing Examiner's decision may be appealed. Such appeal shall be filed within fourteen (14) days following the date of mailing of this notice and shall be in writing on forms provided by the Planning Division. For further information or assistance you may contact Joan Davenport, Supervising Associate Planner, City of Yakima Planning Division located on the 2nd floor of Yakima City Hall, (129 North Second Street), 575-6164. Don S. Skone Planning Manager Date of mailing: 2/28/92 Request for Interpretation ) Re UNION GOSPEL MISSION ) EXAXINERIS INTERPRETATION ) as a Use iz the Central ) City No. UAZO-INTERP. #1-92 Business District and Central Examiner No. 192-5-2 Business District Support ) Zones. ) Back nun+. Mr. John Puccinelli, owner of a downtown restaurant, through his attorney has requested a use interpretation concerning the Union Gospel Mission. The City of Yakima referred the request for an interpretation to this Examiner. qugrisdiction. YMC 15.22 governs interpretations by the Hearing Examiner. Section 15.22.030 permits the Examiner at his discretion to conduct a public hearing. Due to a request for public input and to present arguments directly to the Examiner, a public hearing was conducted February 13, 1992. Decision. The combination of uses typified by the Yakima Union Gospel Mission shall be characterized as a "Mission," subject to Class 2 review in the Central Business District (CBD) and Central Business District Support (CBDS) zones. Mission means a facility typically owned or operated by a public agency or non-profit corporation, providing a variety of services for the disadvantaged, typically including but not limited to temporary housing for the homeless, dining facilities, health and counseling activities, whether or not of a spiritual nature, with such services being generally provided to the community at large. Analysis. 1. factualBackground. The Union Gospel Mission, (Mission herein) is interested in relocating, which has generated concern by potentially affected landowners as to the appropriate EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 1 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CrTY AND COUNTY OFTAKIMA POST OFFICE SM 4 YAKIMA. WASHNGTO% 98907 (509) 248-070E standard of legal review and the level of public comment required by the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this interpretation is to review the nature of the activities conducted by the Mission, and determine whether those activities fit within any- existing use classifications of the zoning ordinance. If not, then a new use will be established and defined, with a specified level of review. The Mission is a non-profit corporation providing a range of services. It has served the Yakima area for 56 years and has always been located in downtown Yakima. The Mission's primary purpose is the provision of spiritual and material support for those in need. In the past year it has served over 140,000 meals in-house; provided nearly 2,000 boxes of food to the community; provided clothing and other staples; as well as operating two dental clinics, a foot clinic, and providing showers and similar facilities. These services are all provided on a non-residential basis and constitute a substantial portion of the services provided by the Mission. The Mission also provides residential facilities. Within the existing facility typically 20 to 30 men and women are provided shelter in times of need. The Mission also provides spiritually oriented assistance to those having difficulty in coping with difficult situations, such as divorce, alcohol, drugs, etc. The Mission also operates a youth center consisting of a 17,000 square foot building located at 4th and Spruce. The center provides programs for 50 to 70 children each day, including Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, boxing, crafts, and basketball. Information in other applications for relocation submitted by the Mission describe the proposed use as providing food and lodging facilities for homeless men and families; drug and alcohol rehabilitation; ministry, and related services. Proposed facilities have included a dormitory and family shelter, dining and EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 2 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKWWASHINGTON 99907 ("I 7dA-n70Y kitchen facilities, auditorium, gymnasium, and maintenance/repair shops. It is the residential aspect of the facility, providing temporary housing to the homeless, those in need, and those displaced by personal or natural disasters, which generates the most concern by potential adjacent property owners. The Mission provides a flexible response to community needs. Depending upon its prospective location, the residential aspect of the program could be significantly increased, as reflected in the evidence concerning the proposed Terrace Heights location, in which temporary residential facilities for perhaps 200 individuals were contemplated. As in any business, the current facilities obviously constrain the scope and extent of services which can be provided. One of the Mission's primary objectives is to provide spiritually oriented assistance to help others help themselves. Accordingly, those receiving the benefit of temporary housing at the Mission are not allowed to stay in the Mission during the day, and are expected to use that time to seek employment and other assistance. 2. zoning ordinance. In prior applications the Mission has been treated by both City and County Planning staff as a "community center." Under this recognized use category in the zoning ordinance, the Mission received approval in 1986 to relocate in the Holtzinger Building, near its present location. At that time the zoning ordinance treated a community center as a Class 2 use in the CBD zone. In 1991 the County processed an application by the Mission to relocate in Terrace Heights as a community center, which is a Class 2 use in that Light Industrial zone due to the floodplain. The zoning ordinance designates certain uses in UAZO Table 4- 1. The table also specifies which of three levels of review apply to a given use. Class 1 uses are permitted in a zone, provided that the EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 3 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKYA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 standards for that zoning district are met. Class 2 uses are generally permitted in a given zone, but compatibility between a Class 2 use in the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance and occasionally a Class 2 use may be incompatible at a particular location. Class 2 uses are reviewed by an Administrative Official, with an opportunity for comment by4 landowners within 300 feet. Class 2 uses can be forwarded for Class 3 review at the discretion of the Administrative Official, or his or her decision can be appealed to the Examiner for Class 3 review (YMC 15.04.020), which results in a public hearing. Class 3 uses are generally not permitted in a particular zone, but may be allowed by the Hearing Examiner after Class 3 review and public hearing. The Examiner may approve, deny, or conditionally approve the proposed use in order to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the zoning district and the objectives and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (YMC 15.04.020). Any use which is not listed in Table 4-1 is an unclassified use and shall be permitted only in those zoning districts so designated by the Hearing Examiner, in which case it shall be allowed only as a Class 2 or Class 3 use (YMC 15.04.040). The Interpretations chapter of the zoning ordinance governs this determination by the Hearing Examiner. The following conditions concerning use interpretations are imposed by YMC 15.22.050: No use interpretation shall vary the location or review requirements of any use listed in Table 4-1. Furthermore, no use interpretation shall permit any use in any zoning district unless evidence is presented which demonstrates that it will comply with the intent and development standards established for that particular zone. The Examiner's interpretation may be appealed, in this instance to the City Council, pursuant to YMC 15.22.070 and YMC Ch.15.16. Both of the prior Mission applications afforded a chance for EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 4 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKNNA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKNNA_ WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 public participation and review, so the issue of the applicable standard of review was not squarely met. After approving the Holtzinger Building as a Class 2 use in the CBD under the community center classification, the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance was amended by the City and the County to designate community centers as a Class 1 use in the downtown zones (CBD and CBDS). - Documentary evidence of the reason for the amendment is not part of this record, nor is there any oral evidence in the record from any of the elected officials involved. Any conclusions concerning legislative intent based upon recollections of this Examiner or Planning staff are too speculative to base an imputation of legislative intent by others. The Terrace Heights application in 1991 was also treated as a community center; because a floodplain in an industrial zone was involved, it was subject to Class 2 review. By stipulation the Mission agreed to a public hearing in order to expedite processing of the application, given the likelihood of appeal in any event. As reflected in this Examiner's decision denying the application, it was recognized at that time that there was room for argument as to whether it was a "community center" or a "halfway house," which is a Class 3 use in the M-1 zone at issue there. See Examiner No. 091-1-40, pg. 10. After noting that it could be treated as a community center, a Class 2 use in that zone, or as a halfway house, a Class 3 use in that zone, this Examiner at page 11 stated: For purposes of analysis under the zoning ordinance this will be treated as a Class 3 land use, meaning that it is subject to the highest level of review under the ordinance. . . . Whether categorized as a Class 2 or a Class 3 use, the Examiner is obligated to determine that the use is consistent not only with the intent of the zone but also that it complies both with the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and the comprehensive plan. (See YCC 15A.04.020(2) and (3).) Id. at p.11. The application was denied because it did not comply with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan, regardless of whether it was a Class 2 or Class 3 use. It was unnecessary to EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 5 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKDA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 989C7 (509) 248-0706 decide the class of use. Presumably for a variety of reasons that decision was not appealed to the Yakima Board of County Commissioners. It does not have much precedential value, because it does not have even the stature of a trial court decision, but it does reflect that there has been some ongoing confusion as to the type of use involved and the appropriate level of review. Because it was at least a Class 2 use in that zone the application did receive public review. This zoning ordinance, and specifically its Table of Uses with related definitions, is the best guide to resolution of this problem. There are zoning cases on the books dealing with categorization of missions, halfway houses, and community centers, but they are all unique to the specific zoning ordinance involved. As an example, a Pennsylvania case determined that a land use defined as a "community center" also included a "halfway house," which apparently was not otherwise dealt with in the zoning ordinance. The court ruled that a halfway house, used to educate young people and their parents to the dangers of drug use and abuse, counseling and advising drug users and former addicts, and for referring such people to outside sources of medical, legal, and spiritual aid and to employment and recreational communities was a "'community center or similar use" as set forth in the local zoning ordinance. Swift v. Zoning,earin. Board of -Abington Township, 328 A.2d 901, 16 PA. CMWLTH. 356 (1974). That case is distinguishable from our situation in that our zoning ordinance defines both halfway house and community center. In a New Jersey will contest case the definition of mission came up. That court cited with approval an old Connecticut case in which the court stated: By universal acceptance the word "missionary," whether as a noun or adjective, embraces, not only the conception of a religious, charitable, or educational work or worker, but also such a work done through philanthropic motives, for the welfare of others too poor, too unappreciative, or too indifferent to do it themselves, and by persons EXAMINER IS INTERPRETATION - 6 HEARNG EXAMNER FOR THE CRIT AND COUNTY OF YAKMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKNA_ WASHMTON 98907 (5,09)248-0706 supported or means furnished in part at -least by some agency of which those for whom the work is done do not form a sustaining part. Fidelity nion T st Co. v Job Haines Home for Aged eo t al., 14 A.2d 490, 127 N.J. EQ. 518 (1940). That definition, _however stilted, clearly describes this Mission's activities. That definition, and a description of this Mission's activities, also describe a use different from either a community center or a halfway house. This ordinance defines community center as meaning: A facility owned and operated by a public agency or non- profit corporation, provided that the principal use of the facility is for public assistance, community improvement, or public assembly. YMC 15.02.020, p.9. That definition, without reference to other provisions of the ordinance, would include all government facilities, including juvenile detention facilities, jails, office buildings, schools, and hospitals, all of which nevertheless have their own listing in Table 4-1. Halfway house is defined as meaning: A home for juvenile delinquents and adult offenders leaving correctional and/or mental institutions; or a rehabilitation center for alcohol _and/or drug users; which provides residentially oriented facilities for the rehabilitation or social adjustment of persons who need supervision or assistance in becoming socially reoriented but who do not need institutional care. YMC 15.02.020, p.11. This Mission does some of that. It does some of the community center activity also. But it is not just a community center, it is not just a halfway house. It is a combination of uses, for which this ordinance does not provide much guidance in evaluating. Reviewing the various uses listed in Table 4-1 is helpful. Community centers are lumped with meeting halls and fraternal organizations, and treated as a Class 1 use in this zone, as compared to halfway houses which are treated as a Class 3 use. EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 7 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 Detention centers are a Class 3 use in CBD and CBDS, as are hospitals. The Mission's activities do not rise to the level of a detention center or hospital, but they are more intensive than a group home, which is a Class 1 use. Group homes are defined as: A place for handicapped, physically or developmentally disabled adults, or dependent or predelinquent children, providing special care in a homelike environment. YMC 15.02.020, p.11. High density multi -family dwelling units are typically a Class 1 use in the CBD, and a Class 3 use in the CBDS, whereas the same density of dwelling units in a planned residential development are treated as Class 2 uses in both zones. Boarding houses are a Class 1 use in CBD, and a Class 2 in CBDS, as are retirement homes. Boarding houses are defined as: An establishment providing both lodging and meals for not more than 10 persons residing in the facility on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. YMC 15.02.020, p.6. The Mission's level of activity is clearly more than a boarding house with 10 or fewer people. By comparison, nearly all retail uses are Class 1 in both zones. Hotels, for instance, have almost identical activities to the Mission, and are treated as a Class 1 use. This is consistent with the definition of Central Business District, which: is to preserve the Central Business District of the City of Yakima as the region's center of commerce, industry, recreation and culture. This District is characterized by very intensive development and a variety of land uses including retail sales and service establishments, high density residential development, financial institutions, professional buildings and government offices. YMC 15.03.030.10. The definition of the CBD Support District is expanded to accommodate both wholesale and retail activities, with some high density residential development (YMC 15.03.020.11). Given the focus of the zones, it is appropriate that retail uses be Class 1. Although similar, the Mission's activities are not typically EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 8 HEARNG EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAK MA. WASHINGTON 98907 c5O9a 248-0706 thought of as a traditional retail use. It has been suggested that it is the type of user of the Mission, rather than the type of activities, which is at the root of the problem and that this has been treated not as a question of the appropriate land use but as to who uses the land. Stereotypes, prejudices, and public perceptions as to the type of clientele utilizing the Mission's services are in fact a central part of the controversy. This city has a legitimate public interest in fostering a downtown environment in which retail uses can co -exist, peacefully and prosperously, with necessary public and social services. No retail area can long survive, regardless of the opinions of store owners, if the public has a perception that an area is unsafe or for some reason undesirable. It is government's obligation to develop rational regulations which recognize and balance the legitimate constitutional and legal expectations of the whole community. Determining that the Mission is a specific type of use subject to public input prior to its approval simply creates a process by which the public can help government recognize and balance various viewpoints. Class 2 review means, in the terms of this ordinance, that the use is generally permitted but on occasion may be incompatible. That can be said for practically any use in any area. Table 4-1 indicates that many activities are subject to some level of public review before being located in the downtown business zones. This includes higher density planned residential developments, which under the explicit definition of the downtown zones is encouraged to be downtown. The point of public review is not to discriminate or to provide a means to discriminate. In any subsequent review of the Mission, the burden on both the public and the government will be to review the application in a principled manner, without succumbing to bias or prejudice, with the decision based upon objective reasoning and logical conclusions. As recognized by the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, public preference is to be considered, but public preference alone can EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 9 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0708 rarely, if ever, be the sole determinant for locating unpopular or locally undesirable land uses. An argument has been raised that substantial deference should be paid to the staff determination, by both the City and the County, that the Mission should be treated as a community center. This of course is the typical rule of administrative law. FMall. Inc. v., Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 369, 739 P.2d 668 (1987), was cited at the hearing as illustrative. In that case an administrative determination had been appealed to the Hearing Examiner, who upheld the administrative determination. On appeal to the trial court, that court upheld the Hearing Examiner. The Washington Supreme Court in upholding the lower decision ruled that considerable judicial deference should be given to the construction of an ordinance by those officials charged with its enforcement, meaning in that instance the administrative official and the Hearing Examiner. While this Examiner will certainly appreciate any deference he -may ever receive in the future from any judge, this Examiner is so low on the totem pole that there is no one else to defer to. As reflected above, the issue has been in controversy for some time, has never been clearly resolved, and accordingly the City Planning Department when they received a request for interpretation forwarded it directly to the Examiner. Staff has never had to deal with the issue head-on before, simply because the ordinance provisions applicable at the time always accorded public review. In the first instance, Holtzinger, the Mission got what they requested, with no public outcry. In the second, Terrace Heights, they failed after stipulating to a public hearing, and did not appeal. For all practical purposes the issue is a matter of first impression now, and the staff is following the method set forth in the ordinance to obtain an interpretation. The activities encompassed by the Mission are consistent with the intent and development standards of both the Central Business EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 10 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAK/MA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHfVGTON 98907 15091248-0706 District and Central Business District Support zones. Class 2 review is appropriate in order to determine, based upon a specific factual circumstance, if there are any issues which present compatibility concerns. Defining the Mission as a Class 2 use has the effect of creating a presumption that the use is permitted, but permits some public review. DATED this 27th day of February, 1992. EXAMINER'S INTERPRETATION - 11 �7'" a lts� PHILIP A. LAMB Hearing Examiner HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKFAA. WASHINGTON 99907 (509) 249-0706 0 TICE OF HEARING EXAMINER 4 i;�IDPA.LAMB 311 NORTH THIRD STREET, P.O. BOX 4 609) 248-0706 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 FAX: (509) 248-070'r June 9, 1995 Chris wilson City of Yakima Planning Division 129 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: UAZO INTERPRET #2-95 - UNION GOSPEL MISSION EXAMINER NO. I95-5-27 Dear Chris: My Examiner's decision is enclosed. The hearing was held on June 8, 1995. Best personal regards, Philip A. Lamb PAL/pj1 Enclosure cc Mr. Steven Erickson w/encl. Board of County Commissioners w/encl. Y ISS flee OK .; �' w � � . n- erpretta,tion, Class 2 EXANIXER99 DECISION evieva and Modification of ) Prior Class 2 Decision, )INTERPRETATION #2-95 Requested by Union Gospel MissionEXAMINER NO. 195*5-27 ) The Examiner conducted a public hearing on June 8, 1995. In addition to Mission representatives, Calvin Clark, owner of R & R Construction, and Clarence Marshall, neighborhood property owner, attended. The staff report presented by Joan Davenport recommended approval of this three pronged application. The Examiner inspected the property prior to the hearing and again after the hearing with respect to the curb cut on North 1st Street. RY4wA... +CPI'4ww Oro . (1) "Mission" is def ined as a Class 2 use in the Light Industrial (M-1) zone; (2) This current proposal for extension of mission activities into the M-1 zone is approved, subject to several conditions; (3) This Examiner's prior decision authorizing location of the Mission on North 1st Street is modified, deleting the bus stop requirement and modifying the fencing requirement, which previously required that mission activities be confined to CBDS with the M-1 land owned by the applicant fenced from mission activities. From the view of the site, the matters contained in the official record including the staff report, a review of both the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and from evidence received at the hearing, the Examiner makes the following: EXAMINER'S DECISION - 1 H EAR ING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF `AKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 36907 (509) 248-0706 P � rZi 1.AMLI a Wit. Union Cospel Mission. 2. omion- 1300 N. 1st Street. 3. gRpXication. Interpretation, Class 2 Review, and modification of prior Class 2 decision. - 4. pX„o osed ILSO. Mission. 5. x en o iman U ge. The subject property at 1300 North First Street is zoned CBDS, with M-1 located both west and south of the existing facility. The site is presently improved with a building which was constructed as a motel and has been remodeled to accommodate the Mission. Adjoining lands owned by the Mission include a large parcel to the west, near the railroad tracks, as well as a parcel south of the Mission on which a warehouse has recently been constructed. Adjoining properties have the following characteristics: location tonin Existing Use North (across Oak St.) CBDS Restaurant South CBDS Contractor office/warehouse East M-1 Vacant tract, RR right of way, light industrial West of N. First St. CBDS Restaurant, various retail 6. 1"ro ect soli turn. The staff report from the planning division provides a good historical perspective. "Mission" was established by interpretation as a Class 2 use in the CBD and CBDS zones. After that original interpretation request was submitted, it became apparent that some of the property involved was bisected by a zoning boundary with part of at least one parcel lying in the light industrial (M-1) zone. If that had been realized early on, the original interpretation request would have undoubtedly asked for similar treatment of the M-1 property. The current interpretation request is an effort to correct that original apparent oversight. If the interpretation requested is granted, the Mission has submitted a Class 2 application for expansion of their EXAMINER'S DECISION - 2 HEARNG EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 a_tivities in the. 14-1 zone. Although :Pass applications typicalli do not generate a public hearing, the planning division has forwarded it to the Examiner, as permitted under the ordinance, for a public hearing. The proceedings have been consolidated in order to provide an expedited and economical review process. A third factor deals with the original Class 2 decision authorizing mission activity at this site. The Yakima Gateway .Organization appealed the Examiner's decision to the City Council. Prior to Council action, the appeal was withdrawn as a result of a settlement agreement entered into privately between the Mission and the various members of the Gateway organization. The Class 2 decision required the Mission to install a transit stop on North First Street. This was an item of concern to the opposition group. In their agreement the Mission and the Gateway organization agreed to delete the requirement for a bus stop. Their mutual concern was that such a stop not become a gathering place for loiterers. Furthermore, the city transit service already has a bus stop on Oak Street, adjacent this property, which provides safe and effective transit access. Since the City of Yakima is not a party to the private settlement agreement, but through its Examiner has imposed this requirement of a bus stop, both the Mission and Yakima Gateway jointly request deletion of the bus stop requirement. On a further housekeeping matter, if the Mission is allowed to expand into M-1 property, the fence required in the original decision between the CBDS and M-1 property should be deleted. 7. Interoretation, "Mission" is hereby classified as a Class 2 use in the M-1 zone. The definition of Mission is as set forth in the prior Interpretation, City No. UAZO Interp #1-92, Examiner No. I91-5-2, dated February 27, 1992. A review of Table 4-1 of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance indicates that a variety of nontraditional industrial land uses are permitted in the M-1 zone with either Class 2 or Class 2 review. This includes facilities such as churches, community centers, day care centers, half -way houses, hospitals, correction facilities, EXAMINER'S DECISION - 3 HEAR94G EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 libraries, and schools. k mission is consistent with these types of use'C.. In addition, the February V, , x 992 interpretation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. 8.la s 2 Review. 8.1 OSO4- Site -'la . This proposal includes _. relocation of 25 parking spaces from the area south of the main building complex to the M-1 zone west of the complex, approval of a loading dock and automotive shop west of the main complex; installation of six parking spaces for other oversized vehicles, with water and sewer connections; and approval of future basketball court, open space and other play field areas in the M-1 portion of the property. A warehouse has recently been constructed in part of the M-1 property. To the extent that that facility needs Class 2 review and approval, it is clearly consistent with Mission activities, compatible with the area, and is hereby approved. It was built pursuant to a simple building permit because warehouse activities are permitted as a matter of right in the M-1 zone, regardless of the characterization of the warehouse's owner. For instance, a hotel or retail facility could build a warehouse in the M-1 zone. The warehouse will be serviced by a loading dock, and will be adjacent to a shop which is planned to be used for maintenance and repair of Mission equipment and vehicles. No client vehicle repair is requested, and none is authorized by this decision. The shop and loading dock meet all zoning ordinance standards for building height and setback. Six recreational vehicle parking spaces are proposed west of the southwest corner of the existing complex. These will be immediately west of the new paved parking spaces relocated from the south side of the alley. These spaces are requested in order to accommodate volunteers who volunteer their services at the Mission. Limited recreational vehicle parking, for Mission volunteers, is consistent with the scope of activities typically experienced by a mission. The Mission is not requesting, and will EXAMINER'S DECISION - 4 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA.WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 riot receive, approval for a large or commercial recreational vehicle park. These parking facilities are ancillary to the Mission and its activities. They will be provided with water and sewer connections, installed prior to paving the new parking lot immediately east of -these six spaces. The city has recommended that the RV spaces be paved. The applicant requests gravel. The zoning ordinance requires .pavement or other approved surfacing. In this instance, the volume of vehicle movement is expected to be very low. Gravel, and perhaps seal coating as necessary, is expected to be sufficient to control dust, and provides better accommodation for on-site storm drainage control. The RV parking area will be fenced, but need not be view obscuring. A related issue is treatment of the alley terminus, which currently ends at the west property line of R & R Construction. City recommendations suggest extension of the alley and creation of a hammerhead turnaround to accommodate emergency vehicle movements. A practical alternative is to require a turnaround area at the end of the alley to be included in the fenced area, and gravel consistent with the RV spaces. This is an industrial area. Turning movements of heavy vehicles, including fire trucks, need to be accommodated, but graveled surfaces, seal coated as necessary, should be adequate to accommodate the relatively low volume of traffic expected at this alley terminus. Resurfacing of the alley is already required pursuant to the original Class 2 decision. The other alley, on the west side of the property, running north to Oak Street, is not intended to be utilized by the Mission and therefore need not be improved by the Mission. 8.2 yInging. Mission activities on their M-1 property will be fenced as the property is developed to accommodate those activities. At some point a basketball court may be developed adjacent to the west alley. At that time, that portion of the Mission property will be fenced with six foot high non -view obscuring fencing. At that time also the existing masonry block EXAMINER'S DECISION - 5 HEARWG EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX d YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 99907 -, I o� va il. parallel, to Oak Street 'will -be.,, extended to, the alley. Similarly, when IV -lay fields are developed on the M-1 property, they will be appropriately fenced. Until such development occurs there is no fencing requirement. The previously required fence to be looted on the M-1/CBDS zoning boundary at the rear (west side) of the existing complex is no longer required. The existing masonry wall on the west side is sufficient. 8.3 Bis St ..9p. The bus stop, Condition 3(D) of the original Class 2 decision, is hereby deleted. The existing curb cut and approach apron, located between the curb and the existing sidewalk, shall be removed and replaced with standard barrier curbing consistent with the rest of the street. 9. Environmental Review. This project is exempt from SEPA review under the flexible threshold for categorical exemptions established in YMC §6.88.070. Previous SEPA review was conducted on the structure and parking areas approved under the prior 1992 site plan. 10. gliblic Motice. Public notice of the hearing was provided in accordance with the ordinance. From the foregoing Findings, the Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Examiner has jurisdiction. 2. Mission, as defined by previous interpretation, is classified as a Class 2 use in the Light Industrial (M-1) zoning district. 3. The Class 2 application is approved subject to the following conditions: A. A total of 82 parking spaces are required, some of which may be located within the M-1 zoning district as reflected on the site plan. All 82 spaces shall be hard surfaced, with appropriate storm drainage designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EXAMINER'S DECISION - 6 HEARING EXAMNER FOR THE CTY AND COUNTY OF YAK IMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA. WASHINGTON 99907 (509) 248-0706 1. Six oversized parking spaces: as reelected on the �t play, uhall by created for temporary recreational vehicle parking. All six spaces shall be serviced with water, sewer, and electrical connections. The spaces may be graveled, and seal coated as necessary. These spaces shall= be fenced, with the fencing designed to include a turnaround at the west tersinus of the east/west alley. This terminus area shall also be graveled and serve in lieu of a formal cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround. C. The perimeter of the Mission site under actual use shall be fenced. Future development of play fields or basketball courts will be permitted without subsequent review, all as indicated on the site plan, provided the areas are fenced with appropriate gates. D. The shop, loading dock, and warehouse are approved as shown on the site plan subject to the condition that no client vehicle maintenance or repair shall be permitted, except on an emergency basis. E. The prior Class 2 decision, dated October 19, 1992, is hereby amended to delete Condition 3(D), page 32 of that decision. The existing curb cut and approach apron between the curb and existing sidewalk shall be replaced with standard barrier curb consistent with existing curbing. F. The fencing condition contained in the original Class 2 decision, Condition 3(E), is also deleted. This condition prohibited Mission use of M-1 property, and required all M-1 property to be fenced, prohibiting access from the CBDS property. Class 2 approval of proposed Mission activities on M-1 property negates the need for this prior condition. 4. A final site plan, which includes the items shown on the original site plan, the additions or modifications required by this decision, and demonstrating compliance with the Urban Area zoning Ordinance, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning review or building permit, pursuant to YMC 15.12.050. EXAMINER'S DECISION - 7 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAK3MA. WASHINGTON 99907 (509) 248-0706 .. This decision entitles the applicant to a Certificate of Zoning Review, which is valid for one year from the date of issuance of the Certificate. The Certificate may be extended one time only for up to one additional year by application prior to the termination date, all as set forth in YMC 15.12.060. - DATED this day of June, 1995. PHILIP A. EAMB Hearing Examiner EXAMINER'S DECISION - 8 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAK]MA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKMA, WASHINGTON 98907 The following terms and conditions were negotiated between representatives of the Union Gospel Mission (UGM) and Yakima Gateway Organization (YGO) with regard to relocation of UGM on North First. Street, Yakima, Washington. This document sets forth the agreement of the parties. These terms are in addition to those required by the City of Yakima staff and Phil Lamb, the City Hearing Examiner. 1. Withdrawal of A eal. YGO will withdraw its appeal of the Fearing Examiner's decision allowing UGM to relocate on North First Street.. The notice of withdrawal will be transmitted to City of Yakima Planning Department and City Attorney, and shall include a specific recitation that the subject appeal is withdrawn and YGO does not authorize anyone else to pursue such appeal on its behalf. 2. Future Development. With.respect to future development, UGM and YGO agree as follows: (a) Schematic Plan. A schematic plan for future development of UGM is attached hereto as Exhibit A. YGO agrees that the new Mission .location and future development of such property in substantial accord with the attached. schematic plan and designated uses is approved and acceptable to YGO. Any such future development shall be further subject to such modifications as required by City of Yakima. (b) Reguest for Class (31 Review. UGM and YGO shall jointly request the City of Yakima (and any other necessary governmental entities) to designate "Mission" as a Class (3) use within the M-1 zoning district. YGO and UGM agree that ;such classification and review process shall not be applicable to future development in accordance with the attached schematic plan. Class (3) review shall be applicable only to uses or developments above and beyond those contemplated on the schematic plan. 3. Nestrooams . UGM agrees to provide a restroom to the general public, 24 hours per day, seven days a week, subject to SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1 jo~a:\data\zoning \mission .sa .reasonable restrictions to insure safety and security, such restrictions shall not include locking either restrooms or access to restrooms. 4. Access. Client access Fo the property, current and future, - shall be restricted to the southside alley entrance designated by Hearing Examiner. The First Street entrance will be for administrative and staff purposes only. There shall be no access from Oak Street except for delivery or services to the subject property. 5. Board of Director. The UGM Board of Directors will provide a half-hour time slot at the beginning of each monthly board meeting for a YGO liaison/representative of their choosing (or additional members) to attend in order to facilitate communication 'between the two organizations and allow them to work closer together on future development needs of the area. YGO shall notify UGM three () days in advance of their interest in attending a board meeting. 6. Break Room. UGM will provide a reading/day room between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Clients will be allowed to stay on the UGM property as long as they adhere to UGM rules. 7, R R Construction 5i n. As a good neighbor effort, UGM will provide a sign easement, for a sign of not more than nine (9) square feet, on North First Street for R 6 R Construction, subject to approval as to design by UGM. . 8. gjgn . UGM will place only one major sign on North First Street. The existing sign will be removed and replaced with a smaller sign mounted lower to the ground on a landscaped mound with lighting. The sign will be designed to have an instituticnal appearance and will be approximately three feet high and twelve feet wide. "verbiage on the sign will display "UGM Ministries in large letters and "Union Gospel Mission" in smaller (approximately 4") letters along the bottom. The UGM will allow YGO to review the sign design prior to sign installation. 9. Wall. UGM will repair and maintain the six-foot fence indicated on its schematic plan, as well as construct and maintain the 100' wall required by Hearing Examiner in a manner architecturally consistent with facility design. Security booths and fences as indicated on said schematic plan will be constructed and maintained. All clients (except SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 2 jcrc:\data\zoning\s:ssion.sa "program" participants) will be prohibited from occupying the facility until said walls are constructea and/or repaired. All future expansion (see schematic plan) will be enclosed by a six-foot chain-Unk or 'superior fenc. The fencing shall be e applicable to areas marked in blue on the attached schematic plan. Any fencing adjoining commercial or residential areas as marked on the attached schematic plan in yellow) will be site -screened chain-link or superior fence. Fencing marked in pink will be erected at the time the contiguous UGM property is used ,and developed. All other fencing with respect to future expansion shall be required at the time of such future use and expansion. Existing fencing which may be utilized is marked in green. 10. Shute. Two scheduled shuttles per day offering transporta- tion for clients to designated spots in Yakima will be provided by UGM. Said shuttle will also be available for individual trips as determined by UGM staff and will be pro- active in offering rides to clients observed along its route. Said shuttle will operate for a minimum of one year. 11. Transit. UGM will join YGO in a request to the Hearing Examiner and Yakima City Council that the proposed bus turn- out and bus stop planned for the First Street side of the facility be eliminated. 12-. Suit. A minimum of one uniformed night security guard will be provided by UGM to make hourly patrols of the exterior of UGM property and will stay in radio communication with the Yakima Police Department and neighboring properties (with property owner approval). 13. Landsca, ing. The exterior of the property along North First and Oak will be beautified and maintained by UGM. 14. Alarms. All exterior exits will be alarmed. UGM will investigate feasibility of alarming individual rooms within facility. 15. OccRpan. No more than 260 residents may occupy the facility at any given time, unless otherwise reduced by City of Yakima Fire Code provisions, or in the event of public crises or emergency. SE TIEMENT AGREEMENT 3 jcc-cc\data\UminONLission.sa 16 . Zg.Lice. UGM will join YGO in requesting City of Yakima Police to increase car and bicycle patrolling of the North First Street area. 17,.. Procl-amation. UGM will join YGO in requesting the Yakima City Council and Mayor of Yakima proclaim North First Street area as a Gateway to Yakima. 18. Si nators to A reement. This Agreement represents a contrac- tu l relationship between* Union Gospel Mission and member signators of Yakima Gateway Organization. YGO signators shall execute this Agreement and the original shall be maintained in the offices of their counsel, Jerome R. Aiken of Meyer, Fluegge & Tenney, P. S. , 230 South 2nd Street, Yakima, Washing- ton, 98901. The signators shall be disclosed only to James C. Carmody of Velikanje, Moore & Shore, Inc., P.S., 405 East Lincoln Avenue, Yakima, Washington, 98901 (counsel for UGM), and to UGM officers and the Executive Committee of the UGM Board. It is agreed that James C. Carmody and UGM shall not disclose the names of such signators to third parties except as necessary to proceed with legal enforcement actions hereunder. 19. Attorne °s Fees. Should it be necessary for either party to invoke the aid of a court to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party therein, in addition. to costs allowed by law, shall recover a reasonable sum as attorney's fees, all of which the other party agrees to pay. 10. Mutual Coo erati n. All signators to this Agreement, for both YGO and UGM covenant and agree to implement and comply with the spirit and intent of this Settlement Agreement in good faith. YAKIMA GATEWAY By SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT jec-c:\data\zoning \mi9aion. as IZATION UNION GOSPEL MISSION Ae M 5z1 k7 . lll» 6S A) s uC349 sETn,EMENT AGREEMENT 5 L . r C IL DEPARTMENT OF (70AIMUNITYAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPA1171VT Planning Division Poing leN, CBO, Code Aplin, and Planning Manager N www.ci.yakii"a,wm0-s 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 9890.1 Phone (509) 575-6183 o a a,%- (509) 575-0 05 NOTICE OF INTERPRETATION February 14, 2005 On January 4, 2005 the City of Yakima, Washington received an application requesting an interpretation of zoning requirements for a dog day care facility. This application was submitted by Debra Sattler, dba Little Paws Playhouse, Inc. located at 4813 Tieton Dr, Yakima, Washington. Parcel Number: 181321-44508 City File Numbers: UAZO INTERP#1-05 Following the consideration of all related facts, the Hearing Examiner for the City of Yakima has issued the enclosed interpretation. This decision may be appealed within 14 days from the date of mailing. Appeals must be in writing and on forms available from the City of Yakima Planning Division, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. The filing fee of $295.00 must accompany the Appeal application. For further information or assistance, you may wish to contact Bruce Benson, Supervising Planner at (509) 575-6042 at the City Planning Division. ti DougMa es Zoning Administrator Notice of Interpretation Mailing Date: February 14, 2005 Enclosures: Hearing Examiners Interpretation City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Decision February 10, 2005 In the Matter of an Application For the Classification of an Unclassified Use Submitted by: Debra Sattler, dba Little Paws Playhouse, Inc. To Allow Dog Day Care Facilities As Either Class (2) or Class (3) Uses In Certain Zoning Districts FEB I 1 2005 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. UAZO UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP #1-05 Introduction. On January 11, 2005, the City's Supervising Planner, Mr. Bruce Benson, referred this application to the hearing examiner for an interpretation as to whether a dog day care facility should be classified as either a Class (2) or Class (3) use in any zoning district under Section 15.04.040 of the City of Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO) and, if so, to formulate a definition of a dog day care facility and to determine in which zoning district(s) under which class(es) of review that use should be classified. The hearing examiner has reviewed the application and information provided, and has issued this decision within 30 days from the date of his receipt of the application in accordance with Sections 15.04.040 and 15.22.040 of the UAZO. Letters from 20 customers of the Little Paws Playhouse facility were submitted in favor of allowing this type of use on some basis at least in the Local Business (B-2) zoning district where this Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 1 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 facility is located. Those customers emphasized the benefits that their dogs receive by way of training and socializing with other dogs rather than being left home alone all day, the need for a convenient location where their dogs can be left before work and picked up after work without going too far out of their way, the advantage of having conscientious people provide the supervision and care of their dogs during the day, and the convenience of being able to buy quality pet supplies for their dogs at the facility. A letter from the applicant's landlord indicated that he checked with the City before leasing the property for a dog day care facility and was informed by the code enforcement department that the dog day care use would be acceptable so long as it would not be a kennel where the dogs would be kept overnight. Summary of Decision. The hearing examiner defines a dog day care facility as a building or structure in which one or more persons regularly provide supervised care during daytime hours for periods of less than 24 hours a day for one or more dogs which they do not own; classifies a dog day care facility as a use requiring the least amount of review allowed for a newly classified use, which is a Class (2) use; and classifies it as that type of use in the same zoning districts where Table 4- 1 of the UAZO allows a pet store, pet supplies and dog grooming as a Class (1) use, which is in the Local Business (B-2), Large Convenience Center (LCC), Central Business District (CBD), Central Business District Support (CBDS) and Light Industrial (M-1) zoning districts. Basis for Decision. Based upon the hearing examiner's views of the site without anyone else present on February 3 and February 8, 2005; his consideration of the application, letters and other information presented with the application; and his Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 2 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 review of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance; the hearing examiner makes the following: FINDINGS pli:an. The applicant is Debra Sattler, 408 South 69`h Avenue, Yakima, Washington 98908. Proper!Wn r. The property owner is Bainter Enterprises, LLC, 9004 Tieton Drive, Yakima, Washington 98908. Location. The location of the dog day care facility is 4813 Tieton Drive, Yakima, Washington; parcel number 181321-44508,. Application. This application requests classification of a dog day care facility at least within the Local Business (B-2) zoning district where applicant's dog day care facility has been operated Monday through Friday from 7:15 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. with a City business license for the past two years. Dogs are not kept overnight or on weekends. The dogs are trained and closely supervised. Pet supplies such as dog food, snacks, leashes, collars and shampoos are sold. The application requests an interpretation of the zoning ordinance that would allow the continued usage of the property for its existing use based upon the wording of applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance and the strong support of the business as shown by the 20 letters submitted by satisfied customers of the facility. Zoning and Land Uses. The subject property is in the Local Business (B-2) Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 3 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 zoning district and is also utilized for a dog grooming business in the same building north of the existing dog day care use. Adjacent properties have the following characteristics: Location North West East South Jurisdiction. Existing Zoning R-2 Two -Family Residential R-2 Two -Family Residential B-2 Local Business B-2 Local Business Existing Land Use Residences Residences Beauty salon/Barber shop Restaurants/Retail businesses The hearing examiner has jurisdiction to classify uses not specifically mentioned in Table 4-1 or Table 4-2 of the UAZO as either a Class (2) or Class (3) use in one or more zoning districts by following the provisions of Chapter 15.22 of the UAZO. The hearing examiner does not have the discretion to classify such a use as a Class (1) use that would be permitted outright. Specifically, Section 15.04.040 of the UAZO provides: "15.04.040 Unclassified Uses. Any use not listed in Table 4-1 is an unclassified use and shall be permitted only in those districts so designated by the hearing examiner. Any unclassified use permitted in a particular zoning district shall be allowed only as a Class (2) or (3) use. The hearing examiner shall follow the provisions of Chapter 15.22 when determining which zoning districts are appropriate for a particular classified use." A Class (2) use is defined by Section 15.02.020 of the UAZO as follows: "C1asM 2' Uses are those uses set forth and defined in the text and tables of Chapter 15.04 of this title and are generally permitted throughout the district. However, site plan review by the administrative official is required in order to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objectives of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan." Subsection 15.04.020(2) describes the administrative review procedure for a Class (2) use application as follows: Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 4 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 "2. Class (2). Class (2) uses are generally permitted in the district. However, the compatibility between a Class (2) use and the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance and occasionally a Class (2) use may be incompatible at a particular location. Therefore, Class (2) review by the administrative official is required in order to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objectives and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The administrative official may approve, deny, or impose conditions on the proposed use and site improvements. The procedures in Chapter 15.14 shall be used to review and evaluate Class (2) uses." A Class (3) use is defined by Section 15.02.020 of the UAZO as follows: "C lass C3'1 Wises are those uses set forth and defined in the text and tables of Chapter 15.04 of this title and are generally incompatible with their neighbors because of their size, emissions, traffic generation or other reasons. However, they may be compatible with other uses in the district if they are properly sited and designed. Class (3) uses may be permitted by the hearings examiner when he determines, after holding a public hearing, that difficulties related to compatibility, the provisions of public services, and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan objectives have been adequately resolved." Subsection 15.04.020(3) describes the public hearing review procedure for a Class (3) use application as follows: "I Class 3). Class (3) uses are generally not permitted in a particular district, but may be allowed by the hearing examiner after Class (3) review and public hearing. The hearing examiner may approve, deny, or impose conditions on, the proposed use and site improvements to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objectives and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The procedures in Chapter 15.15 shall be used to review and evaluate Class (3) uses." The procedure for use interpretations set forth in Section 15.22.030 of the UAZO provides that the hearing examiner "may refer any application or request for interpretation to any interested, affected, or concerned agencies or persons for Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 5 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 review and comment" and "may, at his sole discretion, schedule and hold a public hearing on any proposed interpretation issue" with prior notice to the person requesting the interpretation and prior publication of notice in the newspaper at least 10 days before the hearing. Section 15.22.040 of the UAZO provides that the hearing examiner must mail a written copy of his interpretation to the applicant, the Yakima County planning department, the City of Yakima department of community and economic development, and their respective administrative officials, within 30 days from his receipt of an application for interpretation or such longer period of time as may be agreed to by the applicant. That section further provides that the hearing examiner must clearly state the analysis and reasons upon which any interpretation is based and if the interpretation is a use interpretation, how the interpretation is consistent with the following conditions established in Section 15.22.050 of the UAZO: "15.22.050 Use Interpretations. The following conditions shall govern the hearing examiner in issuing use interpretations (also see Section 15.04.040, Unclassified uses): 1. No use interpretation shall vary the location or review requirements of any use listed in Table 4-1 or home occupation listed in Table 4-2. 2. No use interpretation shall permit any use in any zoning district unless evidence is presented which demonstrates that it will comply with the intent and development standards established for the particular district." UsejnteLpretafion Procedure. Since Section 15.04.040 of the UAZO requires that this decision must require at least Class (2) administrative review of the applicant's use before it can be approved, the hearing examiner concludes that sufficient information has been provided to formulate a workable definition of a dog day care facility and to prescribe in which zoning district(s) under which class(es) of review that use should be classified. In view of the limitations upon Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 6 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 the examiner's discretion and the determinations that have already been made in the zoning ordinance regarding the zoning districts and class of review for a similar dog grooming use, the hearing examiner does not need to refer this request for a use interpretation to any agencies or persons, or to hold a public hearing in order to perform the tasks requested by this use interpretation application. Use Interpretation Conditions. Section 15.22.040 of the UAZO requires that this decision must clearly state the analysis and reasons upon which this interpretation is based and how this interpretation satisfies the following specific conditions set forth in Subsections 15.22.050(1) and (2) of the UAZO: 1. That this use interpretation in no way varies the location or review requirements of any use listed in Table 4-1 or any home occupation use listed in Table 4-2: In this regard, there are no uses listed in Table 4-2 of the UAZO that would potentially include the dog day care use conducted in the applicant's facility. However, it must be determined whether the dog day care aspect of the applicant's business constitutes a "kennel" or a "pet store" which are already classified and designated for certain zoning districts in Table 4-1 of the UAZO. First, it must first be determined whether a dog day care use constitutes a "kennel" which is not permitted in a B-2 zoning district. Kennels are only allowed in the CBDS, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts as Class (3), (2) and (1) uses respectively. Section 15.02.020 of the UAZO defines a "kennel" as follows: "Kennel means a building, enclosure or portion of any premises in or at which dogs, cats or other domesticated animals are boarded or kept for hire, or in or at which dogs, cats or other domesticated animals are kept or maintained by any person other than the owner thereof, or in or at which six or more cats or four or more dogs over the age of four months are kept or maintained. This definition shall include boarding kennels, but not pet shops, animal hospitals, or zoos." Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 7 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 The conjunctive clause in the definition "or in or at which dogs, cats or other domesticated animals are kept or maintained by any person other than the owner thereof' is troublesome because it would include dog day care, dog grooming and any number of other uses or situations where someone cares for another's animals. The applicant's dictionary definitions from the 2001 edition of the Merriam -Webster Dictionary indicate that day care is, not surprisingly, provided during the day, while a kennel is for breeding or boarding animals which involves lodging overnight. Similarly, Section 15.02.020 of the UAZO defines a "day care facility" as "a building or structure in which an agency, person, or persons regularly provide care for a group of non -related individuals (children or adults) for periods of less than 24 hours a day." Therefore, despite the breadth of the "kennel" definition in the zoning ordinance, the hearing examiner will adopt a definition for a dog day care facility along the lines suggested by the applicant which is consistent with the zoning a dog day care facility located outdoors or a kennel where dogs are kept overnight for 24 hours a day. A dog day care facility will be a specialized manner of keeping an animal like a pet shop, animal hospital or zoo that will be excluded from the broad general definition of a kennel. The definition will be: Dog day care facility means a building or structure in which one or more persons regularly provide supervised care during daytime hours for periods of less than 24 hours a day for one or more dogs which they do not own. To the extent that one of the letters submitted by a customer of the applicant indicates that her dog stayed overnight at the applicant's facility in the past for varying lengths of time from one to five days, that type of use would not be a day care use, but rather would be a kennel use where dogs are boarded overnight which is not allowed in the B-2 zoning district. Even if the dog is ill, an "animal clinic/hospital" is defined as a facility Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 8 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 for veterinary care and requires Class (2) use approval in a B-2 zoning district. Second, in this regard, it must be determined whether the dog day care use in the applicant's facility constitutes a "pet store" which is allowed outright as a Class (1) use in the Local Business (B-2) zoning district. Although there is no definition of a pet store in the zoning ordinance, there are definitions of other types of stores. For example, Section 15.02.020 of the UAZO defines "specialty food stores" as "retail food stores selling ready to eat food products"; defines "drugstore" as "a store where the primary business is the filling of medical prescriptions and the sale of drugs, medical devices and supplies"; and defines "second hand store" as "a retail business selling used goods." Similarly, the 1997 edition of the Merriam -Webster Dictionary defines a "store" in this context as a "retail business establishment." The dog day care aspect of the applicant's business does not involve the retail sale of pets, but is a service of caring for them. In conclusion, therefore, it is apparent that this use interpretation will in no way vary the location or review requirements of any use listed in Table 4-1 or of any home occupation use listed in Table 4-2 because a dog day care facility use is not a "kennel," a "pet store" or other use currently defined in Section 15.02.020 of the UAZO or listed in Table 4-1 or Table 4-2 of the UAZO. It is a use that has arisen and become popular after the definitions and use tables of the UAZO were drafted. 2. That evidence is presented which demonstrates that the dog day care facility use will comply with the intent of the particular district where it would be allowed as a Class (2) or (3) use: In this regard, it should first be noted that the applicant's retail sales of dog food, snacks, leashes, collars, shampoos and other items normally sold by pet stores or pet supply stores clearly comply with the intent of the B-2 zoning district where her facility is located because such a use Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 9 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 is permitted outright as a Class (1) use in the B-2 zoning district, as well as also in the LCC, CBD, CBDS and M-1 zoning districts, under the heading of "pet supplies" in Table 4-1 of the UAZO. It should next be noted that some of the characteristics of the applicant's particular type of dog day care facility use are similar to a dog grooming use. Similarities include the caring for dogs belonging to others in a building or structure during daytime hours, the need for a convenient location and the related retail sales of dog supplies. There are also functional differences, primarily related to the type of service provided for the dogs, which may or may not have a bearing on potential issues of compatibility with the neighborhood in certain cases. For example, the time required to groom a dog may limit the number of dogs that can be accepted by a dog grooming facility each day and the close one-on-one contact required to groom a dog may limit the amount of barking that can be allowed, depending of course upon the way the business is conducted. Although the hearing examiner could hear one or more rinuc hnrlrina frnm .gnnth doth Avrmir when viewing the site, it was not known whether the barking originated from the grooming business or the dog day care business, and the volume of the noise was muffled by the walls of the building. In any event, compatibility issues have not been deemed significant for dog grooming facilities in the B-2 zoning district because they have already been allowed outright as Class (1) uses in that zoning district, as well as in the LCC, CBD, CBDS and M-1 zoning districts. They have therefore already been found to be in compliance with the intent of those zoning districts. The similarities between dog grooming facilities and dog day care facilities would in and of themselves suggest that dog day care facilities would also comply with the intent of those same zoning districts. Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 10 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERNI -05 Additionally, looking specifically at the intent of those zoning districts, it would appear that indeed dog day care facilities would comply with the intent of the B-2 zoning district which is to "provide areas for commercial activities outside the Central Business District that meet the retail shopping and service needs of the community" and to "accommodate small scale commercial uses requiring high visibility and easy access to major arterials"; the intent of the LCC zoning district which is also in part to "provide areas for commercial activities outside the central business district that meet the retail shopping and service needs of the community"; the intent of the CBD zoning district which is in part to "preserve the central business district of the City of Yakima as the region's center of commerce" with a "variety of land uses including retail sales and service establishments"; the intent of the CBDS zoning district which is in part to "accommodate wholesale and retail activities" with "a variety of land uses"; and the intent of the M-1 zoning district which is in part to "minimize conflicts between land uses in the light industrial district and surrounding land uses." In regard to potential compatibility issues, Section 15.04.040 does not allow the hearing examiner to prescribe less than Class (2) review for newly classified uses. Compatibility issues regarding potential noise, traffic or other concerns can be adequately addressed through Class (2) review which allows the imposition of conditions to assure compatibility of dog day care facilities with neighboring residences or businesses. This is especially true where similar dog grooming uses are permitted outright as Class (1) uses and where the administrative official has authority under Subsection 15.14.040(3)(e) of the UAZO to refer Class (2) use applications to the hearing examiner for Class (3) review if deemed appropriate. For all of these reasons, the hearing examiner finds that classifying a dog day care facility use as a Class (2) use in the B-2, LCC, CBD, CBDS and M-1 Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 11 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 zoning districts will comply with the intent of those zoning districts. 3. That evidence is presented which demonstrates that the dog day care facility use will comply with the development standards established for the particular district where it would be allowed as a Class (2) or (3) use: The application states without contradiction that "our business complies with all business development standards applicable to the zoning district." Compliance with all the development standards of the Local Business (B-2) zoning district where the applicant's use is located will be necessary for approval of the applicant's use as a Class (2) use unless an adjustment or variance is allowed. Consistency of the Newly Classified Use with Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan under the Criteria Re uired by Section 16.06.020P of the Yakima Municipal, Code is determined by consideration of flip a) The types of land uses permitted at the site would include the proposed dog day care facility use in the zoning districts where allowed as a Class (2) use so long as it is determined through the Class (2) administrative review process that all the criteria for approval of said use are satisfied. b) The density of residential development and the level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density will have to be consistent with limitations of the zoning ordinance relative to the applicable zoning district where the dog day care facility use is approved as a Class (2) use, including the terms of any adjustment(s) or variance(s) that may be allowed. c) The availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities cannot be an issue in order for a dog day care facility to be approved as a Class (2) Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 12 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 use. d) The characteristics of the development will have to be found to be consistent with applicable City development regulations and comprehensive plan considerations before the dog day care facility can be approved as a Class (2) use. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to define unclassified uses that should be classified; to classify said uses as either Class (2) or Class (3) uses; and to designate the zoning district(s) in which such uses will be either Class (2) or Class (3) uses. 2. There is no need, under the circumstances presented here, for a public hearing to make the determinations required by the applicant's use interpretation request. 3. There are no public notice requirements for an interpretation that does not involve a public hearing. 4. SEPA review will be conducted as required for applications for approval of dog day care facilities as Class (2) uses and as otherwise determined to be appropriate by the SEPA Responsible Official. 5. The evidence presented with the request and applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance indicate that a dog day care facility should be defined as a building or structure in which one or more persons regularly provide supervised care during daytime hours for periods of less than 24 hours for one or more dogs which they do not own. 6. The evidence presented with the request indicates that a dog day care facility should be classified as a Class (2) use in the same zoning districts where Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 13 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 Table 4-1 of the UAZO allows a pet store, pet supplies and dog grooming as a Class (1) use: i.e., in the Local Business (B-2), Large Convenience Center (LCC), Central Business District (CBD), Central Business District Support (CBDS) and Light Industrial (M-1) zoning districts. 7. The evidence presented with the request indicates that the applicant should be allowed to apply for approval of her dog day care facility as a Class (2) use. 8. This Decision may be appealed to the Yakima City Council within the time and in the manner required by applicable City ordinances. DECISION The hearing examiner's decisions relative to the applicant's use classification request described in the documents submitted with UAZO UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP #1-05 are as follows: 1. The hearing examiner defines a dog day care facility use as follows: Dog day care facility means a building or structure in which one or more persons regularly provide supervised care during daytime hours for periods of less than 24 hours a day for one or more dogs which they do not own. 2. The hearing examiner classifies a dog day care facility as a Class (2) use in the same zoning districts where Table 4-1 of the UAZO allows a pet store, pet supplies and dog grooming as a Class (1) use: i.e., in the Local Business (B-2), Large Convenience Center (LCC), Central Business District (CBD), Central Business District Support (CBDS) and Light Industrial (M-1) zoning districts. Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 14 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 FEB 1 1 2005 CITY OF YAKIM I The applicant may therefore apply for approval of her dog day careLAN N I N G D I V facility use to be considered administratively pursuant to the administrative review procedures and criteria applicable to a Class (2) use in the Local Business (B-2) zoning district where her facility is located. DATED this 10th day of February, 2005. Gary M. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner Debra Sattler, Little Paws Playhouse 15 Dog Day Care Facility Classification 4813 Tieton Drive; 181321-44508 UNCLASSIFIED USE INTERP#1-05 DEPARTMENT ENT OF COWAIUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Doug Maples, Z:; B0, Code Admin. and Planning Hanagen ® www.ei.yakerna.wa.us 129 North. Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509) 575-6183 @ Fax (509) 575-6105 Binder' -ice NOTICE OF DECISION Yakima Urban Area Hearing Examiner Decision June 1, 2005 On May 12, 2005 and continued to May 16, 2005 the Yakima Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing to consider a Land Use application submitted by Del Matthews. The applicant is requesting use interpretation to define a childrens outdoor recreational center and the level of review required in the Central Business District Support (CBDS) zoning district. The subject property is located at 1408 South First Street, Yakima, Washington. On May 31, 2005 the Hearing Examiner rendered a decision to approve this application subject to conditions. Enclosed is a copy of the Hearing Examiner's findings and decision. Any part of the Hearing Examiner's decision may be appealed. Such appeal shall be filed within fourteen (14) days following the date of mailing of this notice and shall be in writing on fornns provided by the Planning Division. The appeal fee of $295.00 must accompany the application. For further information or assistance you may contact Vaughn McBride, Associate Planner, City of Yakima Planning Division, located on the 2nd floor of Yakima City Hall, (129 North Second Street), 575-6315. Doug:M�ples Planning and Code Administration Manager encl. Date of mailing: 6/1/05 Yakima Ax -k dPoGIIr� cft II a 11994 City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Decision May 31, 2005 In the Matter of an Application ) For the Classification of an ) Unclassified Use Submitted by: ) Del Matthews ) To Allow a Children's Outdoor ) Recreational Center in the CBDS ) Zoning District and to Establish ) The Classification for Said Use ) JUN 0 1 2m CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. UAZO MERP #2-05 Introduction. Mr. Del Matthews requested a use interpretation that would allow him to establish a children's outdoor recreational center offering kiddy rides and games for children not more than 16 years of age at the "Open Air" Public Market site at 1408 South First Street without the need to apply for approval of a Class (3) "amusement park" use. The main purpose of the children's recreational center would be to occupy the time of children who may accompany their parents and others to the Open Air Market. The recreational center would offer children's rides and/or games such as go-carts, bumper cars, bumper boats, batting cages, miniature golf and/or similar activities for children not older than 16 years of age and would not operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Associate Planner Vaughn McBride presented a staff report which explained the background of the request and the ordinance provisions applicable to the request. A public hearing was commenced on May 12, 2005 which was concluded on May 16, 2005. Despite publication of a notice of the hearing on May 4, 2005 in the Yakima Del Matthews, 1408 So. V Street 1 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAW INTERP #2-05 + as.vwoo • ��.n JUN 0 1 2005 CITY GF YAKIMA Herald -Republic, no one other than Mr. McBride, Mr. Matthews and GeorgPLANNING DI" Zimmer appeared on either hearing date to offer suggestions relative to the interpretation request. Neither Mr. McBride nor Mr. Matthews wished to continue the hearing beyond May 16 for additional public notice and input. Mr. McBride conducted considerable research relative to noise issues and provided a summary of his findings and recommendations. Mr. Matthews offered factual testimony, arguments and a packet of information to support his request for an additional use that requires less than the Class (3) use review required to establish an "amusement park" in the CBDS zoning district. Mr. Zimmer testified as to noise issues SummaLy of decision. The hearing examiner designates and classifies an additional use to be known as a "children's outdoor recreational center" as either a Class (2) or a Class (3) use in the CBDS zoning district depending upon its distance from residential zoning districts and depending upon whether go-carts are included as part of the recreational center. Basis for Decision. Based upon the hearing examiner's views of the site without anyone else present on May 11, 2005; his consideration of the staff report,. the testimony and the written materials presented at the hearing on May 12 and May 16, 2005; and his review of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO); the hearing examiner makes the following: INRLYNGS Applicant. The applicant is Del Matthews, 1408 South First Street, Yakima, Del Matthews, 1408 So. 1" Street 2 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05 Washington 98902. JUN 0 1 2005 v, i Y OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Location. The location of the proposed children's outdoor recreational center is 1408 South 1St Street, Yakima, Washington. Application. This application requests classification of a children's outdoor recreational center within the Central Business District Support (CBDS) zoning district. The application requests an interpretation of the zoning ordinance that would allow usage of a portion of the property at 1408 South 1St Street for that use without having to procure approval of a Class (3) "amusement park" use. Zoning and Land Use. The subject property is in the Central Business District Support (CBDS) zoning district and is utilized for the "Open Air" Public Market which is primarily devoted to the sale of new and used merchandise. Background ;issues. The applicant wishes to devote a portion of the "Open Air" Public Market to children's rides and games such as go-carts, bumper cars, bumper boats, batting cages and miniature golf for children not older than -16 years of age. He would prefer to have a determination that such a use was already approved as a part of the rezone of the property in 2002 because of a brochure he submitted with the rezone application entitled "The Mercado America (A Public Market). However, the anticipated uses listed in the brochure did not include the uses now planned for the site. The brochure states: "The site would be comprised of approximately 38 inside vendors and could accommodate up to 1500 outside vendor spaces with room for food service vendors; a small children's carnival arcade room; outside concert stage, day space car lot, and monthly retail shops." Del Matthews,1408 So. 1" Street 3 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05 JUN 0 1 2005 CITY Of YAKIMA Moreover, even if the brochure did list the uses now planned for the site, thePLANNING DIV, rezone of the site was not accompanied by application for any Class (1), Class (2) or Class (3) uses such as for a second hand store or an amusement park. Despite the submission of the brochure, the second page of the hearing examiner's recommendation for the rezone specifically referred to it as a "non -project, rezone" and as a "straight rezone" where the specific uses would be reviewed later when they materialized: "Mr. Matthews has outlined in a brochure entitled Mercado America Public Market (Exhibit 1) an outline of his proposed project. The project is not under review at this time. This is a straight rezone. Normal review will be conducted by staff with respect to building permits, SEPA, etc. when the project actually materializes." It is common for applicants to request approval of non -project rezones without also applying for specific uses until later. If their intended uses will be Class (1) uses, they will never have a need to apply for uses that Table 4-1 entitled "Permitted Land Uses" lists as Class (2) or Class- (3) uses in the particular zoning district. The 2002 rezone of the applicant's property allowed him to apply for approval of any Class (1), Class (2) and Class (3) uses in that zoning district which he wishes to later establish. The procedures for review are different depending upon the type of use that will be applied for after the rezone is granted. The applicant correctly applied for a Class (3) use approval in 2003 to conduct a second hand store on the property when it became apparent that a significant portion of the retail sales on the property would be used rather than new merchandise. That permit was granted. Now the applicant wishes to establish a use on the property that either is an unclassified use not presently listed in Table 4-1 that the hearing examiner can establish as a new use or is an "amusement park" use which is already listed as a Del Matthews, 1408 So. 1' Street 4 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP 42-05 JUN 0 1 2005 ITY Of YAK MA Class (3) use in the CBDS zoning district. Depending upon a Person�ANNING DIV. perspective, the proposed use could be considered either a new use or a use within the "amusement park" definition. The UAZO contains the following definition for an "amusement park": "Amusement. Park means a permanent outdoor facility, which may include structures and buildings, where there are various devices for entertainment, including rides, booths for the conduct of games or the sale of items, and buildings for shows and entertainment." The proposed use could constitute one limited area in an amusement park, but it would not constitute an entire amusement park as it is defined. The definition of an amusement park includes different types of activities for adults as well as children. The applicant's contention that an amusement park would have adult rides which would require a larger area of land and which would produce more noise than a children's outdoor recreational center was uncontradicted at the hearing and is well -taken. His argument is somewhat supported by the definition of an amusement park in Merriam -Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition (1993) as "a commercially operated park having various devices for entertainment (as a merry-go-round and roller coaster) and usu[ally] booths for the sale of food and drink." The Planning Division has had no alternative except to consider the applicant's current proposal to be within the "amusement park" definition in the UAZO because only the hearing examiner can add a use that is presently unclassified. No one at the hearing opposed the exercise of authority which is granted to the hearing examiner by Section 15.04.040 of the UAZO to carve out of the "amusement park" definition a more limited and specialized type of outdoor recreational center for the use of children only. The zoning ordinance itself lists special uses that could otherwise be part of an amusement park such as miniature Del Matthews, 1408 So. 15` Street 5 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05 JUN 0 1 2005 CITY Of YAKIMIA golf courses, bowling alleys and roller skating rinks which are all listed as separNNING DIV Class (1) uses in the CBDS zoning district. As long as the proposed children's outdoor recreational center is classified as either a Class (2) or Class (3) use as required by Section 15.04.040 of the UAZO, there would be no harm to the public interest in adding that use in the CBDS zoning district as a specialized type of recreational use that is different from the broad "amusement park" use that is presently classified and defined by the UAZO. The Planning Division raises the issues as to whether a children's outdoor recreational center. would have to be subject to Class (3) use review in this situation, because of Sections 15.04.020 and/or 15.17.050 of the UAZO, even if it were otherwise designated as a Class (2) use. First, Mr. McBride's staff report appropriately points out that Section 15.04.020 of the UAZO stipulates that when two or more uses are proposed in the same project, the entire project shall be subject to the level of review required by the highest classified use. Here one of the uses for the applicant's adjacent parcels of property being developed over time as the "Open Air" Public Market -- the second hand store use approved in 2003 -- is classified as a Class (3) use. The language of Section 15.04.020 of the UAZO could therefore be interpreted to require any future proposed use in the applicant's Open Air Market to undergo Class (3) review because there is no definition of the term "project" and no guidance for the meaning of the phrase "same project" in the UAZO. But interpreting the language in that manner would, in this and other situations, trump and negate the detailed classifications of uses that are set forth in Table 4-1 of the UAZO. Another difficulty of even entertaining that interpretation for a moment is that there are many possible definitions of the term "project" or the phrase "same project" that could be formulated. In the absence of legislative guidance, the most obvious interpretation of the language would be to limit the applicability of that Del Matthews, 1408 So. 1" Street 6 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05 JUN 0 1 2005 CITY 4f YAKIMA language in Section 15.04.020 of the UAZO to each individual application thEkANNING DIV. proposes more than one use. It is clear that two or more "proposed" uses only exist in the context of an application. Possible future uses mentioned in a brochure or business plan are not proposed in a land use sense until they are included within an application. Therefore, absent evidence otherwise, it would seem most reasonable that the references in Section 15.04.020 to uses "proposed in the same project" and "the entire project" are references to the entire project that consists of two or more uses described in a single application. Surely the reference to the "entire project" was not intended to require additional approvals for those portions of an ongoing project being developed over time that have already been approved in years past. Instead the language appears to refer to the entire project described in any application that includes two or more proposed uses. The language appears to address the difficulty that would be encountered by having to simultaneously and separately process an application proposing more than one use under different types of review even though the approval or denial of some uses could affect the decision as to others in the same application. The provision therefore would not require an application that proposes only one use such as a children's outdoor recreational center to be processed as a Class (3) use if it is classified as a Class (2) use for the property in question. Secondly, Mr. McBride's staff report appropriately points out that Section 15.17.050 of the UAZO provides in part that any proposed modification of Class (3) uses shall be subject to the review procedures of Chapter 15.15 for modification of Class (3) uses. That section also says that any proposed modification of Class (1) or Class (2) uses shall be subject to the review procedures of Chapter 15.14 for modifications of Class (1) and (2) uses. Here the applicant would be applying to add a new use to a portion of his property without modifying the Class (3) second hand store use of a different portion of his property Del Matthews, 1408 So. 1st Street 7 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05 JUN 0 1 2005 CITY Of YAKIMA that has been approved in the P� ANNING DIV. pp past and without modifying any of his othe approved uses for other portions of his property. Although the applicant will be applying to modify the project described in his brochure by adding a children's outdoor recreational center use on a portion of the property, he will not be modifying any Class (3) use that has been approved for the property. Thus, in view of the application -based process described above, Section 15.17.050 of the UAZO would not require an application that proposes an additional use for the applicant's property such as a children's outdoor recreational center to be processed as a Class (3) use if it is classified as a Class (2) use for the property in question. Jurisdiction. The hearing examiner has jurisdiction to classify uses not specifically mentioned in Table 4-1 or Table 4-2 of the UAZO as either a Class (2) or Class (3) use in one or more zoning districts by following the provisions of Chapter 15.22 of the UAZO. The hearing examiner does not have the discretion to classify such a use as a Class (1) use that would be permitted with the least amount of review. Specifically, Section 15.04.040 of the UAZO provides: "1.5,?34«040 l.aciassiltted Uses. Any use not listed in Table 4-1 is an unclassified use and shall be permitted only in those districts so designated by the hearing examiner. Any unclassified use permitted in a particular zoning district shall be allowed only as a Class (2) or (3) use. The hearing examiner shall follow the provisions of Chapter 15.22 when determining which zoning districts are appropriate for a particular classified use." A Class (2) use is defined by Section 15.02.020 of the UAZO as follows: "Class _) I ses are those uses set forth and defined in the text and tables of Chapter 15.04 of this title and are generally permitted throughout the district. However, site plan review by the administrative official is required in order to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objectives of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan." Del Matthews, 1408 So. V Street 8 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05 JUN 0 1 2005 CITE" OF YAKII A PLANNING DIS". Subsection 15.04.020(2) describes the administrative review procedure for a Class (2) use application as follows: "2. Class U2. Class (2) uses are ,generally permitted in the district, However, the compatibility between a Class (2) use and the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance and occasionally a Class (2) use may be incompatible at a particular location, Therefore, Class (2) review by the administrative official is required in order to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objectives and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The administrative official may approve, deny, or impose conditions on the proposed use and site improvements. The procedures in Chapter 15.14 shall be used to review and evaluate Class (2) uses." A Class (3) use is defined by Section 15.02.020 of the UAZO as follows: "Class 3 Uses are those uses set forth and defined in the text and tables of Chapter 15.04 of this title and are generally incompatible with their neighbors because of their size, emissions, traffic generation or other reasons. However, they maybe compatible with other uses in the district if they are properly sited and designed„ Class (3) uses may be permitted by the hearings examiner when he determines, after holding a public hearing, that difficulties related to compatibility, the provisions of public services, and the Yakima 'Urban Area Comprehensive Plan objectives have been adequately resolved." Subsection 15.04.020(3) describes the public hearing review procedure for a Class (3) use application as follows: �G3 Classes Class (3) uses are generally not permitted in a particular district, but may be allowed by the hearing examiner after Class (3) review and public hearing. The hearing examiner may approve, deny, or impose conditions on, the proposed use and site improvements to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objectives and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The procedures in. Chapter 15.15 shall be used to review and evaluate Class (3) uses." Del Matthews, 1408 So. l" Street 9 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP 42-05 n Q1fy U3 YAKINIm PLANNING DIV. Section 15.22.040 of the UAZO provides that the hearing examiner must mail a written copy of his interpretation to the applicant, the Yakima County planning department, the City of Yakima department of community and economic development, and their respective administrative officials, within 30 days from his receipt of an application for interpretation or such longer period of time as may be agreed to by the applicant. That section further provides that the hearing examiner must clearly state the analysis and reasons upon which any interpretation is based and if the interpretation is a use interpretation, how the interpretation is consistent with the following conditions established in Section 15.22.050 of the UAZO: "15.22.050 Use lnte retafi%ons. The following conditions shall govern the hearing examiner in issuing use interpretations (also see Section 15.04.040, Unclassified uses): 1. No use interpretation shall vary the location or review requirements of any use listed in Table 4-1 or home occupation listed in Table 4-2. 2. No use interpretation shall permit any use in any zoning district unless evidence is presented which demonstrates that it will comply with the intent and development standards established for the particular district." Use Interpretation Procedure., Since Section 15.04.040 of the UAZO requires that this decision must require at least Class (2) administrative review of the applicant's use before it can be approved, the hearing examiner concludes that sufficient information has been provided to formulate a workable definition of a children's outdoor recreational center in the CBDS zoning district in spite of the limited public interest or input regarding the issue at the hearing. Use .In ver retation Conditions. Section 15.22.040 of the UAZO requires that this decision must clearly state the analysis and reasons upon which this interpretation is based and how this interpretation satisfies the following specific Del Matthews, 1408 So. 1St Street 10 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05 JUN 0 1 2005 CITY 01= YAKIMii conditions set forth in Subsections 15.22.050(1) and (2) of the UAZO: PLANNING DIV 1. That this use interpretation in no way varies the location or review requirements of any use listed in Table 4-1 or any home occupation use listed in Table 4-2: In this regard, there are no uses listed in Table 4-2 of the UAZO that would potentially include a children's 'outdoor recreational center use conducted in the applicant's facility. The only possible use listed in Table 4-1 that could include such a use would be an amusement center. The evidence at the hearing to the effect that a children's outdoor recreational center would be different than an amusement center was uncontradicted. A children's outdoor recreational center would be limited to an outdoor facility which offers children's rides and/or games such as go-carts, bumper cars, bumper boats, batting cages, miniature golf and/or similar activities for children not older than 16 years of age and which does not operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Under the evidence presented, this use interpretation will not vary the location or review requirements of any use listed in Table 4-1. 2. That evidence is presented which demonstrates that a children's outdoor recreational center use will comply with the intent of the particular district where it would be allowed as a Class (2) or (3) use: In this regard, it should first be noted that the applicant's proposed miniature golf use is already classified as a Class (1) use in the CBDS zoning district. Subsection 15.03.030(l 1) of the UAZO indicates that the purpose of the CBDS zoning district is to permit a variety of land uses near the central business district along the major arterials leading to the central business district. Mr. McBride conducted considerable research to provide a recommendation as to whether the new use should be a Class (2) or a Class (3) use in the CBDS zoning district. Noise was Del Matthews, 1408 So. 1" Street 11 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05 JUN 0 1 2005 CITY Of YAKIMA the main focus of his research. Testimony from Mr. Zimmer indicated that all ggLANNING DIV. carts would have mufflers and that the tires would make more noise than the engines. Under the evidence submitted, a children's outdoor recreational center in the CBDS zoning district should be classified as a Class (2) use unless it is within 500 feet of a Residential (R-1, R-2 or R-3) zoning district and includes a go-cart track, in which case it should be classified as a Class (3) use. Sight screening at least as described in Standard "C" should be required as a noise buffer for such a use within 200 feet of property located in one of the three residential zoning districts if the use does not include a go-cart track. A 10 -foot -high brick wall or other approved sight screening should be required as a noise buffer for such a use within 500 feet of property located in one of the three residential districts if the use does include a go-cart track. The applicant's property is neither within 200 feet nor 500 feet of property located in a residential zoning district. In regard to additional potential compatibility issues, Section 15.04.040 of the UAZO does not allow the hearing examiner to prescribe less than Class (2) review for newly classified uses. Compatibility issues regarding potential noise, traffic or other concerns can be adequately addressed even through Class (2) review which allows the imposition of conditions to assure compatibility of children's outdoor recreational centers with neighboring residences or businesses. This is especially true where the administrative official has authority under Subsection 15.14.040(3)(e) of the UAZO to refer Class (2) use applications to the hearing examiner for Class (3) review if deemed appropriate. For all of these reasons, the hearing examiner finds that classifying a children's outdoor recreational center as a Class (2) use in the CBDS zoning district will comply with the intent of that zoning district unless it is within 500 feet of a Residential (R-1, R-2 or R-3) zoning district and includes a go-cart track, in which case it will be classified as a Class (3) use in the CBDS zoning district. Del Matthews, 1408 So. 1" Street 12 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05 JUN 0 1 2000 CITY OF YAKIMA 3. That evidence is presented which demonstrates that a children PsLA 'NINC DIS_ outdoor recreational center use will comply with the development standards established for the particular district where it would be allowed as a Class (2) or (3) use: Compliance with all the development standards of the Central Business District Support (CBDS) zoning district where the applicant's property is located will be necessary for approval of the applicant's use unless an adjustment or variance is allowed. Consistency of the Newly Classified Use with Develolpinent Regulations and the Coin rehensiv Plan unaier he Criteria �e aired Section 16.06.020B of the Dakin Munici al Code is determined by consideration of the following factors: a) The types of land uses permitted at the site would include a children's outdoor recreational center use in the CBDS zoning district so long as it is determined through the applicable Class (2) or Class (3) review process that all the criteria for approval of said use are satisfied. b) The density of residential development and the level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density will have to be consistent with limitations of the zoning ordinance relative to the CBDS zoning district, including the terms of any adjustment(s) or variance(s) that may be allowed. c) The availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities cannot be an issue in order for a children's outdoor recreational center to be approved as a Class (2) use. d) The characteristics of the development will have to be found to be consistent with applicable City development regulations and comprehensive plan considerations before a children's outdoor recreational center use can be approved as a Class (2) or Class (3) use. Del Matthews, 1408 So. 1" Street 13 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05 Mr -t fMI V r_ L10 JUN 0 1 2005 CONCLUSIONS CITY Of YAKIMA PLANNING DIV 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to define unclassified uses that should be classified; to classify said uses as either Class (2) or Class (3) uses; and to designate the zoning district(s) in which such uses will be either Class (2) or Class (3) uses. 2. SEPA review will be conducted as required for applications for approval of children's outdoor recreational center uses as Class (2) or Class (3) uses and as determined to be appropriate by the SEPA Responsible Official. 3. The evidence presented with the request and applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance indicate that a children's outdoor recreational center should be defined as an outdoor facility which offers children's rides and/or games such as go-carts, bumper cars, bumper boats, batting cages, miniature golf and/or similar activities for children not older than 16 years of age and which does not operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 4. The evidence presented with the request indicates that a children's outdoor recreational center should be classified as a Class (2) use in the CBDS zoning district unless it is within 500 feet of a Residential (R-1, R-2 or R-3) zoning district and includes a go-cart track, in which case it should be classified as a Class (3) use in the CBDS zoning district. 5. Under the evidence presented, the applicant should be allowed to apply for approval of a children's outdoor recreational center as a Class (2) use. Del Matthews, 1408 So. 1" Street 14 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05 JUN 0 1 2005 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV, 6. This Decision may be appealed to the Yakima City Council within the time and in the manner required by applicable City ordinances. DECISION The hearing examiner's decisions relative to the applicant's interpretation request described in the documents submitted with UAZO INTERP 42-05 are as follows: 1. The hearing examiner defines a children's outdoor recreational center use as an outdoor facility which offers children's rides and/or games such as go- carts, bumper cars, bumper boats, batting cages, miniature golf and/or similar activities for children not older than 16 years of age and which does not operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 2. The hearing examiner classifies a children's outdoor recreational center as a Class (2) use in the CBDS zoning district unless it is within 500 feet of a Residential (R-1, R-2 or R=3) zoning district and contains a go-cart track, in which case it is classified as a Class (3) use in the CBDS zoning district. 3. The applicant may therefore apply for approval of a children's outdoor recreational center use to be considered administratively pursuant to the administrative review procedures and criteria applicable to a Class (2) use in the Central Business District Support (CBDS) zoning district since his property is located more than 500 feet from a Residential (R-1, R-2 or R-3) zoning district. DATED this 31St day of May, 2005. -- -," Gary M. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner Del Matthews, 1408 So. I' Street 15 Children's Outdoor Recreational Center UAZO INTERP #2-05