Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-2022 YPC Agenda Packet DEPARTMENTOF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Joan Davenport, AICP, Director Planning Division Joseph Calhoun, Manager nd 129 North Second Street, 2Floor, Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.govwww.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/ypc/ CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION Yakima City Hall Council Chambers nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 129 N 2 October 12, 2022 3:00 p.m. –5:00 p.m. YPC MEMBERS: Chair Jacob Liddicoat, Vice-Chair Lisa Wallace, Leanne Hughes-Mickel, Robert McCormick, Mary Place, Colleda Monick, and Frieda Stephens City Council Liaison: Soneya Lund CITY PLANNING STAFF: Joan Davenport (Community Development Director),Rosalinda Ibarra (Admin Assistant) Joseph Calhoun (Planning Manager), Eric Crowell (Senior Planner), Albert Miller (Assistant Planner), and Eva Rivera (Planning Technician), Irene Linos (Temp. Department- Assistant I) AGENDA I.Call to Order II.Roll Call III.Staff Announcements IV.Approval of Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2022 V.HAP Implementation – Phase 2: Improve Permitting and Environmental Review VI.Public Comment VII.Other Business VIII.Adjourn Next Meeting: October 26, 2022 The meeting will also be recorded and posted on the Y-PAC website. Visit the Yakima Planning Commission webpage for more information, including agenda packets and minutes. City of Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) Meeting Minutes September 28, 2022 Call to Order Chair Liddicoatcalled the meeting to order at 3:02p.m. Roll Call YPC Members Present:Chair Jacob Liddicoat, Lisa Wallace, Mary Place, Leanne Hughes- Mickel,Colleda Monick YPC Members Absent:Robert McCormick (excused), Frieda Stephens (excused) Staff Present:Joseph Calhoun, Planning Manager; Sara Watkins, City Attorney; Eric Crowell, Senior Planner, Eva Rivera, Planning Technician Staff Announcements–Planning Manager, Calhoun announced the following: CPA#001-22 will be presented to Council on 10/04/2022. PLP#005-22 is going to Council 11/04/2022. August 24, 2022 Meeting Minutes–It was motioned by Vice-Chair Wallaceand seconded by Commissioner Monickto approve the meeting minutes of August 24, 2022 as presented. The motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing –Plat of Golden Ridge Phase 2–Before the hearing started Commissioner Monick recused herself due toconflict of interest.Chair Liddicoat gave an outline of the Public Hearing procedure. Eric Crowell went over the staff report, which recommended approval subject to several conditions. Commissioner Place asked if the county had approved the part of the development that is in their jurisdiction and if they would follow the same development standards for sidewalks. Calhoun answered that it is still in process with the county but the plat was designed to follow the city standards and is under review to be annexed.Eric Herzog, representing the applicant, agreed with the staff report.He let the commission know the development will be gated, designed to city standards, and should be annexed to the city before the final plat is completed. He mentioned theyare currentlyworking with the county to improve the county portion of the plat andthey are waiting for the hearing. Chair Liddicoat opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Dave Fonfara(9207 Harvest Lane)provided testimony he elaborated on the comment he had submitted to the city. He explained his concernabout the hazardous road conditionson the .7 miles of Apple Tree th Transportation Connector. Commissioner Place asked Mr. Fonfara about the access on 96 Avenue. He replied about the 2040 Transportation Plan and the West Valley Transportation plan th to connect 96avenue toAhtanum and Summitview. He also said he spoke to Bill Preston and was told that would probably not happen but the hazardous conditions will only get worse. Commissioner Place let him know there was no future movement for the North South Connector project.Chair Liddicoat closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Vice-Chair Wallace had a question on the transportation response to the increase of 6 trips on the road for eight single family homes. Calhoun answered it was based on the Traffic Concurrency Ordinance and it only looked at the impact of traffic during the PM peak hour.Commissioner Place nd asked about the roundabout that will be built in 2023 on Washington and 72Ave. or the nd possibility ofadding a roundabout on 72and Coolidge. Calhoun answered that the roundabout ndnd on Washington and 72would be placed in 2023 but the roundabout on 72andCoolidge was not in future plans.Calhoun let the commission know the City of Yakima does not have impact fees if there was a transportation plan and it could show the impact,then a pro rata share can be accessed. Based on the Traffic Concurrency for this project a pro rata share was not necessary. -1- Vice Chair Wallace asked if the council authorizes the process. Calhoun answered that was a review done through an engineering process tied to the six year TIP. Commissioner Place raised a concern that the road used to be a farm to market road and it had taken its toll on the road, how can that section be changed. Calhoun answered it would take some funding through a TIBor some grant process, the city could not require this project to fix an offsite problem.Commissioner Place asked if in the recommendation they explain about their concerns about transportation. Calhoun let her know they can include those comments and council can direct the city engineer to look at the corridor. Commissioner Hughes-Mickel asked what the six-year TIP was. Calhoun answered that was the six year Transportation Improvement Program, a document the engineering division updates with a list of funded or planned projects annually that goes to council to get approved. Calhoun went over some of the possibilities of grant funding the more development happens. Chair Liddicoat asked about the impactfees. Calhoun answered they were usually accessed for big commercial projects.He explained the requirements for some funding. Mr. Fonfara mentioned that Coolidge was classified as a collector and asked the commission to please look into that. Motion –Commissioner Placemoved to forward the recommendation of approval to council. Commissioner Hughes-Mickelseconded. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Place mentioned it would be nice to let council know about the transportation issues. Calhoun noted that the findings document includes a summary of public comment and discussion. He also said for future hearings they could invite the city engineer to explain the transportation process. HAP Implementation -Ph. 2: Mixed Use-Calhoun gave an overview of the packet and changes made so far.Chair Liddicoat suggested having some design standards for long façades. Commissioner Hughes-Mickelasked about Enumclaw. Calhoun answered he sent some mixed used chapter from Puyallup. Commissioner Monick asked about landscaping or green spaces it would be great to require to create community. Calhoun answered those were in the incentives. Chair Liddicoat wants to improve on the definition of open space.He mentioned future study sessions would include: improved permitting, environmental review, reducing the comment period from 20 days to 14 days, and modifying permit expiration dates.Chair Liddicoat asked about the process to extend the permit. Calhoun answered it has to be done before the expiration date and show the project is ongoing. HAP Quarterly Update -Calhoun gave the commission an update on the 2040 plan.He let the commission he would be working with the county to get a better population projection. Public Comment–None Other Business–Chair Liddicoat asked about the ADU contest. Calhoun answered he had no and would reach out to our purchasing department. Adjourn–A motion to adjourn to October 12, 2022was passed with unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:20p.m. Chair Liddicoat Date This meeting was filmed by YPAC. Minutes for this meeting submitted by: Eva Rivera -2- City of Yakima Planning Commission Housing Action Plan Implementation October 12, 2022 1.HAP Implementation –Round 2 8–Improve permitting and environmental review process 8. Improve permitting and environmental review process. LEADTIMELINEINVESTMENTEFFORTOBJECTIVES AffordabilityHousing SupplyHomeownership CityPartner$$$$ Older Adult OptionsStabilityAnti-Displacement Description. Providing an efficient, predictable, and user-friendly permitting process can encourage new housing construction by reducing potential confusion or perception of risk among developers as well as lowering their administrative carrying costs. Many City practices facilitate permit processing and provide clarity and speed for applicants, such as the free of charge pre-application meeting, and an on-line permit building permit portal. The City did extensive work on the permit process in 2019 by simplifying permit levels for housing unit types, creating an infill exemption under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and raising maximum exemption thresholds under SEPA. The City provides monthly and annual permit summaries to track progress. There are potentially other ways in which the City can improve the clarity, speed, and 1 consistency of the permit review process, consistent with legal requirements. Gaps Addressed. Improved permitting and reviewadd clarity and certainty to the development process. This can translate to higher interest in development in Yakima and improvements in affordability. Considerations. Adaptive management through permit procedure audits or studies and refinementscan help ensure that permitting improvements are continuous and effective.This could identify additional policy and process changes to improve permit review timelines and communication. Increased electronic capabilities should be introduced. The City recently incorporated Bluebeam electronic plan review software. Additional process or programmatic efficiencies should be looked at as technology continues to advance. Comment Period: 16.05.030Public comment on the notice of application. All public comments on the notice of application must be received in the department of community development not later than five p.m. on the twentieth dayafter the notice of application is issued. If the twenty-day public comment period ends on a weekend or holiday, it shall be automatically extended to the end of the next business day. Comments may be mailed, personally delivered or sent by facsimile. Comments should be as specific as possible. Any public comment received by the city of Yakima planning division requesting to become a party of record shall be added to the record and shall be entitled to receive any future notices and/or decisions associatedwith the application. Note: This is not the only YMC section where the comment period is listed–if there is a desire to move forward with a change from 20 to 14 days, allapplicablesections would be changed. Examples WAC: 197-11-340 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS). (1) If the responsible official determines there will be no probable significant adverse environmental impacts from a proposal, the lead agency shall prepare and issue a determination of nonsignificance(DNS) substantially in the form provided in WAC. If 197-11-970 an agency adopts another environmental document in support of a threshold determination (Part Six), the notice of adoption (WAC) and the DNS shall be combined or 197-11-965 attached to each other. (2) When a DNS is issued for any of the proposals listed in (2)(a), the requirements in this subsection shall be met. The requirements of this subsection do not apply to a DNS issued when the optional DNS process in WAC197-11-355is used. (a) An agency shall not act upon a proposal for fourteendays after the date of issuance of a DNS if the proposal involves: (i) Another agency with jurisdiction; (ii) Demolition of any structure or facility not exempted by WAC(2)(f) or 197-11-800197- 11-880; (iii) Issuance of clearing or grading permits notexempted in Part Nine of these rules; (iv) A DNS under WAC197-11-350(2), (3) or197-11-360(4); or (v) A GMA action. (b) The responsible official shall send the DNS and environmental checklist to agencies with jurisdiction, the department of ecology, and affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal, and shall give notice under WAC197-11-510. (c) Any person, affected tribe, or agency may submit comments to the lead agency within fourteen days of the date of issuance of the DNS. (d) The date of issue for the DNS is the date the DNS is sent to the department of ecology and agencies with jurisdiction and is made publicly available. (e) An agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status only within this fourteen- day period (WAC). 197-11-948 (f) The responsible official shall reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain or modify the DNS or, if the responsible official determines that significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS or supporting documents. When a DNS is modified, the lead agency shall send the modified DNS to agencies with jurisdiction. Yakima County: 16B.05.020Contents of Notice of Application and Other Notices. The Notice of Application and other notices required in this Chapter shall include the items required by RCW36.70B.110(2) and the following: (1) For projects subject to SEPA review, the Notice of Application may include a preliminary SEPA determination if one has been made at the time pursuant to RCW36.70B.060and WAC197-11-355; (2) A statement of the limits of the public comment period, which shall be fourteencalendar days following the date of the Notice of Application, unless a greater comment period is required by state law, except that a 30-day comment period shall be provided in the event of any project permit or action located within 500 feet of the perimeter of the Yakima Training Center. Nothing in this Section shall preclude the County from accepting public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit; (3) If the County as lead agency has a reasonable basis for determining that significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely at the outset of project permit application review, the optional process under RCW36.70B.060and WAC197-11-355may be used to combine the comment periods on the Notice of Application and SEPA. In such instances, a second comment period under SEPA will typically not be required when the threshold determination is issued. Where the optional process is used, the contents of the notice of application shall include the items required by WAC197-11-355(2)(a) and (b). The Notice of Application and environmental checklist shall be circulated as required under Title16of this Code and shall be subject to the notice requirements of this Title. City of Selah: 10.06.040Application review procedures. Applications shall be submitted and considered in the manner established in Title21as follows: (1)Applications.Applications shall include a completed application form, required fees and other attachments necessary to review the proposal for conformance with this title. (2)Completeness Review.The administrative official will review Class 1, 2, and 3 applications for completeness as provided in Title21. The administrative official may refuse to process any application that is incomplete or found to be inaccurate and may return it with the filing fee. Processing times established by this title or by statute shall not apply to an application until the date of official acceptance, as provided in Title21. A pre-application conference with the applicant and/or agent may be scheduled where appropriate to discuss the deficiencies prior to re-submittal of the application. (3)Violations.An application may be rejected by the administrative official where a violation of this title or other city ordinances or state law is found to exist on the property until such time as the violation is remedied or the application itself is intended to remedy the violation. Such violations may also be considered sufficient grounds for denial of an application if the proposed application cannot and does not remedy the violation. (4)Additional Information.The reviewing official may request additional or more detailed information as provided in Title21. (5)Public Notice. (A)Notice shall be given for Class 2 and 3 applications as provided for in Title21with a notice of application being mailed to property owners within a six-hundred-foot radius of the subject site and providing for a fourteen-daypublic comment period prior to issuance of the reviewing body's decision or recommendation. (B)The reviewing official may also solicit comments from any other person or public agency he feels may be affected by the proposal. Permit Expiration: 15.12.060Expiration and cancellation of development permits and zoning decisions. A.Zoning Decision—Expiration. A zoning review decision in which the appeal period has lapsed without appeal shall automatically expire and terminate when: 1.A new or modified zoning decision has been issued for the same parcel or parcels; or 2.A development permit based on the zoning decision has not been issued within one year from the date of issuance of the decision; or a time period of not less than one year specified by the administrative official; or 3.The development permit issued on said decision terminates or is canceled under the provisions of this title. B.Development Permit and Building Permit Expiration. A development permit shall automatically expire and be terminated when: 1.A new or modified development permit is issued for the parcel or parcels affected; or 2.The work or action authorized in the development permit has not begun within one hundred eighty days from the date of issuance thereof, unless a longer time is specified in the approval itself; or 3.The work or action authorized in the development permit has not been completed within two years from the date of issuance thereof, unless a longer time is specified in the approval itself; C.Extension of Any Approved Development Permit and/or Zoning Decision. A valid zoning decision and/or a valid development permit may be extended one time only for up to one additional yearby action of the administrative official. Requests for extensions shall be in writing to the division and shall be accompanied by the previously approved final general or detailed site plan showing the location and size of any development or work already completed on the project. The administrative official shall review the application without public notice or hearing and issue the decision within ten days from the receipt of the completed application. The administrative official may: 1.Approve the extension; 2.Approve the extension with conditions to assure the work will be timely completed; or 3.Disapprove the extension. An extension shall be issued for good cause only and the burden of showing cause shall be upon the applicant. The administrative official shall mail his or her decision to the applicant and shall specify his or her decision as final unless appealed under the provisions of YMC Chapter15.16. Examples Yakima County: 19.30.100Conditions for Approval of Type 2, 3 and 4 Applications. (4)The Reviewing Official shall prescribe a time limit within which the action authorized shall be commenced, completed, or both. The time frame shall not exceed three yearsfrom the date of final action. (a)The Reviewing Official may approve a longer time frame to cover subsequent phases of the project permit or action where a specific detailed development schedule and sufficient information has been provided by the applicant to allow evaluation of thefull scope of the proposal including all phases at the time of review. (b)Such time frame shall be consistent with state statute where specifically provided or such longer time as allowed by State law or by other requirements of this or other County Titles (c)As provided in YCC Section16B.07.050, failure to meet the time limit set shall void the approval; except that the Administrative Official may authorize a onetime extension of either or both dates upon request, provided such extension request is filed in writing prior to the required commencement or completion date as authorized in YCC Section16B.07.050. Such extension request shall define the circumstances that prohibited the commencement or completion, or both, of the use authorized. The length of such time extension, if authorized, shall not exceed 12 additional months from the date the extension decision becomes final.